i

Principles and Practices of

Rock Blasting

This book enriches the readers with the advances in rock blasting techniques for
mining and civil construction rock excavation projects, including the need for and
importance of rock blasting, related theories, challenges in rock blasting operations
and rock blasting methodology for excavation of coal and overburden benches of
opencast coal mines. It also discusses methods to estimate charge factors and dimen-
sional parameters for different rock types of iron ore mines, blasting methodology for
rock strata and the blasting technologies for civil construction projects.

The book:

• Provides a comprehensive review of the prediction methodologies of blasting

results.
• Reviews insights into advanced blasting methodologies for rock excavation
near sensitive structures.
• Includes case studies of coal mining, iron ore mining, limestone mining and
civil construction projects.
• Explores the detailed theoretical background of rock blasting.
• Discusses methodologies of secondary blasting.

This book is aimed at graduate students and researchers in mining, geotechnical

and rock engineering.
ii
iii

Principles and Practices of

Rock Blasting

Vivek Kumar Himanshu, Narayan Kumar Bhagat,

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma and
Arvind Kumar Mishra
iv

Designed cover image: Vivek Kumar Himanshu

First edition published 2025
by CRC Press
2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 320, Boca Raton FL 33431
and by CRC Press
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
© 2025 Vivek Kumar Himanshu, Narayan Kumar Bhagat, Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma and Arvind
Kumar Mishra
Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors
and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication
and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future
reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access www.copyri​ght.com or
contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-​750-​
8400. For works that are not available on CCC please contact [email protected]
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 9781032555935 (hbk)
ISBN: 9781032610245 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781003461616 (ebk)
DOI: 10.1201/​9781003461616
Typeset in Times
by Newgen Publishing UK
v

Contents
Foreword....................................................................................................................xi
Preface......................................................................................................................xiii
Acknowledgements................................................................................................... xv
About the Authors...................................................................................................xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Preamble..................................................................................... 1
1.2 Need for and Importance of Rock Blasting................................ 2
1.3 Recent Advances in Blasting Technology................................... 4
1.4 Summary..................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2 Theory of Rock Blasting....................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction................................................................................. 8
2.2 Explosives for Rock Blasting.................................................... 10
2.2.1 Type of Commercial Explosives.................................11
2.2.2 Initiation System......................................................... 14
2.3 Explosive Parameters and Their Role on Blasting Output........ 20
2.3.1 Density........................................................................ 20
2.3.2 Velocity of Detonation (VoD)...................................... 20
2.3.3 Detonation Pressure..................................................... 23
2.3.4 Water Resistivity......................................................... 24
2.3.5 Sensitivity.................................................................... 25
2.3.6 Smoke and Fumes....................................................... 25
2.4 Influence of Design Parameters on Blasting Results................ 26
2.4.1 Burden......................................................................... 26
2.4.2 Spacing........................................................................ 26
2.4.3 Subgrade Drilling........................................................ 29
2.4.4 Stemming Length (T).................................................. 30
2.4.5 Blasthole Inclination................................................... 31
2.4.6 Maximum Charge per Delay (MCPD)........................ 32
2.4.7 Total Quantity of Explosive in a Blast Round............. 32
2.4.8 Charge Factor.............................................................. 33
2.4.9 Delay Pattern............................................................... 34
2.5 Blast-​induced Hazards.............................................................. 36
2.5.1 Blast-​induced Ground Vibration.................................. 36
2.5.2 Flyrocks....................................................................... 40
2.5.3 Air Overpressure (AOp).............................................. 41
2.5.4 Dust............................................................................. 43
2.6 Summary................................................................................... 44

v
vi

vi Contents

Chapter 3 Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting............................................ 53

3.1 Introduction............................................................................... 53
3.2 Operational Challenges............................................................. 55
3.2.1 Drilling and Blasting in Hard Rock Formations......... 55
3.2.2 Maintaining Drilling Accuracy in Varying Depths
of Blasthole................................................................. 55
3.2.3 Blasting in Watery Strata............................................. 56
3.2.4 Presence of Cavities in the Rock Mass....................... 56
3.3 Safety-​related Challenges......................................................... 57
3.3.1 Handling of Explosives and Their Initiation
System......................................................................... 57
3.3.2 Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)............. 58
3.3.3 Natural Factors............................................................ 58
3.4 Challenges with Production Blasting........................................ 59
3.4.1 Backbreak.................................................................... 59
3.4.2 Fragmentation.............................................................. 61
3.4.3 Throw of Muckpile...................................................... 67
3.5 Summary................................................................................... 68

Chapter 4 Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines............................... 72

4.1 Introduction............................................................................... 72
4.2 Overview of Mines.................................................................... 73
4.2.1 Lithology..................................................................... 74
4.2.2 Overburden (OB) and Coal Benches........................... 75
4.2.3 Excavators and Bench Size......................................... 75
4.3 Drilling Pattern for Different Bench Sizes................................ 76
4.4 Explosive Charging................................................................... 78
4.4.1 Charging Pattern for Shovel Benches.......................... 79
4.4.2 Explosive Charging in Dragline Benches.................... 79
4.5 Initiation System and Delay Timings........................................ 79
4.5.1 Nonel, DF and Electronic Initiation in Shovel
Benches....................................................................... 80
4.5.2 DF and Electronic Initiation in Dragline Benches...... 83
4.6 Special Blasting Techniques for Dragline Benches.................. 84
4.6.1 Line Drilling................................................................ 85
4.6.2 Pre-​split Blasting......................................................... 86
4.7 Advanced Monitoring and Assessment of Blasting Outputs.... 88
4.7.1 Measurement and Prediction of Ground
Vibration...................................................................... 88
4.7.2 High-​speed Videography............................................. 91
4.8 Summary................................................................................... 91

Chapter 5 Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for

Excavation in Open Pit Iron Ore Mines.............................................. 96
5.1 Introduction............................................................................... 96
5.2 Lithology of Iron Ore Mines..................................................... 97
vii

Contents vii

5.3 Blasting-​related Challenges in Iron Ore Mines........................ 97

5.4 Literature Review on Charge Factors for Blasting in
Different Rock Strata................................................................ 98
5.5 Algorithms for Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameter
Determination........................................................................... 99
5.6 Case Study: Determination of Charge Factor for
Different Rock Types of an Iron Ore Mine............................. 104
5.6.1 Estimation of Charge Factors Using the Developed
Algorithm and Comparison with Other Methods....... 106
5.6.2 Computation of Dimensional Parameters for
Different Rock Strata of the Mine............................. 109
5.6.3 Experimental Trials and Validation of the
Designed Charge Factor and Dimensional
Parameters................................................................. 110
5.7 Summary................................................................................. 114

Chapter 6 Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries....... 116

6.1 Introduction............................................................................. 116
6.2 Blasting Practices at Indian Limestone Mines........................ 116
6.3 Rock Fragmentation while Blasting in Jointed
Limestone Strata..................................................................... 118
6.4 Ground Vibration Propagation Characteristic in
Limestone Blasting................................................................. 118
6.5 Case Study: Rock Excavation Using Drilling and
Blasting at a Highly Fractured Limestone Mine..................... 119
6.5.1 Geology of the Study Site......................................... 120
6.5.2 Blasting Details......................................................... 121
6.5.3 Vibration Propagation Characteristics of Case
Study Mine................................................................ 122
6.5.4 Fragmentation Results from the
Experimental Blasts................................................... 129
6.5.5 Control of In-​situ Dust Generation due to Blasting.... 129
6.6 Summary................................................................................. 131

Chapter 7 Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of an Industrial

Establishment.................................................................................... 135
7.1 Introduction............................................................................. 135
7.2 Elements of Industrial Thermal Power Plant.......................... 136
7.3 Sensitivity to the Structures and Planning of Foundation
Blasting Work.........................................................................137
7.3.1 Ground Vibration Limit for Nearby Structures
during Civil Construction Work................................ 137
7.3.2 Prediction of Ground Vibration................................. 139
7.3.3 Control of Air Overpressure...................................... 140
7.3.4 Control of Flyrock..................................................... 140
viii

viii Contents

7.4 Case Study on Drilling and Blasting for Establishment

of a Thermal Power Plant........................................................ 141
7.4.1 Numerical Simulation and Planning for Initial
Excavation................................................................. 143
7.4.2 Experimental Trials and Assessment of Safe
Values of Maximum Charge per Delay..................... 143
7.5 Designing of Controlled Blasting Pattern for Safety
of Different Structures at Case Study Site.............................. 144
7.5.1 Controlled Blast Design Pattern for Wagon
Tippler and Track Hopper Area................................. 144
7.5.2 Controlled Blast Design Pattern for Blasting with
Larger Diameter Blastholes....................................... 146
7.5.3 Control on Flyrock during Rock Excavation at
Case Study Site.......................................................... 146
7.6 Summary................................................................................. 147

Chapter 8 Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures......................................... 151

8.1 Introduction............................................................................. 151
8.2 Classification of Structures..................................................... 152
8.3 Alternatives to Blasting Operation.......................................... 154
8.4 Statutory Regulations and Danger Zones from
Blasting Sites.......................................................................... 157
8.5 Method of Blasting within 50 metres of Structures................ 157
8.6 Planning and Execution of Blasting near Sensitive
Structures................................................................................ 160
8.6.1 Planning and Execution of Blasting near
Sensitive Structures of Thermal Power Plant............ 161
8.6.2 Planning and Execution of Blasting near
Residential and Commercial Establishments............ 162
8.6.3 Planning and Execution of Blasting near
Railway Structures.................................................... 164
8.6.4 Planning and Execution of Blasting near
Petrol Pumps.................................................................. 167
8.6.5 Planning and Execution of Foundation Blasting
near Railway Bridge.................................................. 171
8.7 Preventive Measures to Safeguard Structures from
Blasting Hazards..................................................................... 177
8.7.1 Pre-​blast Surveys....................................................... 177
8.7.2 Blast Design Optimisation........................................ 177
8.7.3 Taking Shelter............................................................ 178
8.7.4 Protective Measures................................................... 178
8.7.5 Vibration and Air Overpressure Monitoring
and Control................................................................ 181
8.7.6 Blast Warning Systems.............................................. 181
8.7.7 Post-​blast Assessments.............................................. 181
8.8 Summary................................................................................. 182
ix

Contents ix

Chapter 9 Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain............ 185

9.1 Introduction............................................................................. 185
9.2 Understanding Geological and Geotechnical Challenges....... 188
9.2.1 Geological and Geotechnical Factors........................ 188
9.2.2 Landslide................................................................... 188
9.2.3 Hill Slope................................................................... 188
9.2.4 Hydro-​meteorological Disasters................................ 189
9.3 Planning for Hilly Road Construction and Constraints.......... 191
9.3.1 Road Alignment and Design Specifications.............. 192
9.3.2 Determination of Safe Slope Angle........................... 196
9.4 Drilling Machinery.................................................................. 196
9.5 Selection of Explosives and Accessories................................ 199
9.5.1 Initiation System....................................................... 199
9.6 Selection of Methodology for Road Construction.................. 200
9.6.1 Topsoil and Soft Rock Removal................................ 200
9.6.2 Occasional Blasting................................................... 200
9.6.3 Formation Cutting for Hilly Roads........................... 201
9.6.4 Widening by Benching Method................................. 207
9.6.5 Slope Trimming......................................................... 210
9.6.6 Semi-​tunnels.............................................................. 211
9.7 Preventive Measures to Control Throw of Blast
towards Valley Side................................................................. 212
9.8 Summary................................................................................. 212

Chapter 10 Secondary Rock Breakage................................................................215

10.1 Introduction............................................................................. 215
10.2 Purposes of Secondary Blasting.............................................. 216
10.3 Theoretical Concepts of Secondary Rock Breakage............... 219
10.4 Methods of Secondary Rock Breakage................................... 220
10.5 Blast Design Parameters for Secondary Blasting................... 221
10.5.1 Pop Shooting.............................................................221
10.5.2 Plaster Shooting......................................................... 225
10.6 Optimisation of Blast Design Using Artificial
Intelligence (AI) Techniques................................................... 225
10.7 Delineation of Flyrock Zones................................................. 228
10.7.1 Methods for Delineating Flyrock Zones................... 229
10.8 Alternative Practices of Secondary Rock Breakage...............232
10.8.1 Plasma Blasting......................................................... 232
10.9 Economic Benefits of Secondary Blasting.............................. 235
10.10 Summary................................................................................. 236

Index....................................................................................................................... 241
x
xi

Foreword
Consumption of minerals and energy are two key drivers of a nation’s economic
development. By boosting the production of raw materials, the increasing demand
for energy and minerals can be met. The most prevalent and cost-​effective method of
rock excavation is still drilling and blasting. Furthermore, power plants, metro rail,
airport construction, underground rock caverns for strategic crude oil storage, tunnel
excavation, etc. all heavily rely on this technique. With the use of explosive energy,
rock is fractured using this technique. The main difficulty for engineers and blast
designers is to maximise the use of explosive energy for ideal rock breakage. Also,
rock blasting-​induced hazards can affect nearby habitats. Optimisation of blast design
parameters through scientific research may decrease these risks.
Blasting in sensitive areas can be optimised, thanks to recent developments in pre-
diction methodologies combining statistical analysis, numerical modelling, machine
learning and soft computing tools. With the development of precise delay detonators
and blasting accessories, it is now possible to complete excavation faster, even when
it is in close proximity to a structure. This book’s objective is to inform readers about
new developments in rock blasting methods for use in mining and civil engineering
rock excavation operations.
I congratulate the CSIR-​CIMFR and the authors for bringing up this book entitled
Principle and Practices of Rock Blasting. The authors, particularly Professor A.K.
Mishra, Dr Vivek Kumar Himanshu and Dr Narayan Kumar Bhagat, have valuable
experience in successfully conducting challenging projects of rock blasting in mining
and civil construction projects. The book’s ten chapters provide an in-​depth treatment
of the topic, covering everything from theories of rock blasting to recent developments
in blasting technology, the impact of rock parameters, explosive parameters and
blast design parameters on blasting outcomes, blasting-​induced hazards, safety and
production-​related challenges in rock blasting operations and rock blasting method-
ology for excavation of coal and overburden benches of opencast coal mines and
iron ore mines, blasting techniques for jointed rock mass, civil construction projects,
rock excavation close to structures, road construction in Himalayan geology and sec-
ondary blasting methodologies.
This book would be beneficial for professionals, students and researchers in
understanding and adopting safer blasting practices.

Prabhat Kumar
Director General of Mines Safety
Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS), Dhanbad
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India

xi
xii
xiii

Preface
Mineral and energy consumption are the major precursors for the economic growth
of a country. The rising consumption demand for minerals and energy can be fulfilled
by accelerating raw material production. Drilling and blasting is still the dominant
and most economic method of rock excavation for mineral and coal exploitation. This
method is also used predominantly in various civil construction projects –​viz. power
plant construction, metro rail construction, airport construction, tunnel excavation,
etc. In this method, rock is broken with the help of explosive energy. The maximisa-
tion of explosive energy utility for optimal rock breakage is a prime challenge for
engineers and blast designers. The rock blasting operation also induces associated
blasting hazards. The nearby inhabitants and structures get affected by these hazards.
Such hazards can be minimised by scientific investigations and optimisation of blast
design parameters. The recent advances in prediction methodologies using statistical
analysis, numerical simulation, machine learning and soft computing tools are cap-
able of optimising blasts in sensitive zones. With the advances of blasting accessories
and the advent of accurate delay detonators, it is possible to achieve faster excavation
even in the close proximity of structures. The aim of this book is to enrich the readers
with the advances in rock blasting techniques for mining and civil construction rock
excavation projects.
This book consists of ten chapters. The first chapter introduces the readers to the
need and importance of rock blasting. The recent advances in blasting technology are
also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 2 deals with the theories of rock blasting. The
influence of rock parameters, explosive parameters and blast design parameters on
the blasting outcomes are discussed in this chapter. An overview of blasting-​induced
hazards is also presented in this chapter. Different challenges in rock blasting oper-
ation are discussed in Chapter 3. This chapter encompasses discussions on oper-
ational challenges, safety-​related challenges and challenges of production blasting.
The rock blasting methodology for the excavation of coal and overburden benches of
opencast coal mines are discussed in Chapter 4. Indian iron ore mines have variability
in rock types. The required charge factors and dimensional parameters for blasting
in different rock types vary. The methods to estimate charge factors and dimensional
parameters for different rock types of iron ore mines are discussed in Chapter 5.
The blasting under jointed rock mass conditions would be different from that under
massive rock strata formations. Indian limestone mines have severity of joints. The
blasting methodology for such rock strata are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7,
Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 deal with the blasting technologies for civil construction
projects. The blasting methods for rock excavation in close proximity to structures
are discussed in detail in these chapters. Specific techniques for rock excavation using
blasting for road constructions in Himalayan geology are discussed in Chapter 9.
The oversize boulders generated from blasting need secondary breakage. Sometimes
secondary breakage is also accomplished using drilling and blasting. Challenges
of secondary blasting are different from primary blasting. The methodologies of
secondary blasting are discussed in Chapter 10 of this book.

xiii
xiv

xiv Preface

This book is a knowledge base for mining professionals. The methodology used
in the book can be replicated at new mines and construction sites with similar site
conditions. The analytical part of the book will give research professionals an outlook
to deal with similar problems with a scientific approach. Academics and students of
the related discipline will also benefit from the diverse content of this book.

A.K. Mishra
xv

Acknowledgements
The authors have received immense help and support from many kind persons while
writing this book, to only some of whom is it possible to give a particular mention
here. The necessary support has also been provided by various industries in carrying
out studies at the sites mentioned in this book.
The authors would like to thank the Director, CSIR-​CIMFR, Dhanbad for giving
permission to publish this book. The authors would like to express their sincere
thanks and gratitude to Dr C. Sawmliana and Dr Murari Prasad Roy, Chief Scientists
of Rock Excavation Engineering Research Group of CSIR-​CIMFR, Dhanbad for
helpful guidance and facilitation during studies at various experimental sites. We are
also grateful to the other members of this research group for their help and support.
Our heartfelt thanks go to Dr P. Pal Roy, Former Outstanding Scientist, Dr M.M.
Singh, Former Chief Scientist and Dr B.M.P. Pingua, Former Chief Scientist, Mr
Rakesh Kumar Singh, Senior Technical Officer of CSIR-​CIMFR, Dhanbad and others
for their support and encouragement. The helpful support extended by Mr Maneesh
Vishwakarma, Mr Saket Kumar, Mr Sujit Kumar Rajak and other project fellows of
REE Research Group is also gratefully acknowledged.
The authors would like to express their special thanks to Shri Prabhat Kumar,
Director General of Mines Safety for writing the Foreword for this book. The help and
cooperation of Shri N. Balasubramanyam, Shri Mithlesh Kumar and other officials
of the Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS), Dhanbad are also gratefully
acknowledged.
The authors are also grateful to the mine management of M/​s Sasan Power Limited
(Reliance), M/​s Northern Coalfields Limited, M/​s National Mineral Development
Corporation Limited, M/​s Tata Steel Limited, M/​s Ambuja Cements Limited, M/​s
Nuvoco Vistas Pvt. Limited, M/​s Vasvadatta Cement Limited, M/​s Prism Cement, M/​s
Satna Cement, M/​s Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, M/​s Doosan
Power Systems India Pvt. Limited, M/​s Baghel Infrastructures Pvt. Limited, M/​s
Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, M/​s ACC Limited, M/​s Jaiprakash Associates
Limited, M/​s Enkebe infrastructure Limited, M/​s Nagarjun Construction Company
Limited and others for their support and cooperation during the field investigations.
The authors are also thankful to their family members for their constant support,
encouragement and care. It would not have been possible to extend the practical work
presented in this book without the motivation of the family members.

Vivek Kumar Himanshu

xv
xvi
xvi

About the Authors

Vivek Kumar Himanshu is Senior Scientist at CSIR-​Central Institute of Mining
and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India. He completed his PhD in Mining Engineering at
the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad. He graduated
in Mining Engineering from B.I.T Sindri and M. Tech. in Mine Safety Engineering
from the Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, CSIR-​CIMFR, Dhanbad.
He joined Hindustan Copper Limited as a Graduate Engineer Trainee (Mining) and
served for one year in various capacities of underground mine supervision, mine
planning, EIA/​EMP study, etc. He served as a Trainee Scientist at CSIR-​CIMFR,
Dhanbad, during his period of post-​graduation and worked for various research
projects of metalliferous mining and its simulation design. He joined the National
Institute of Technology Rourkela after his M. Tech. and worked there as Assistant
Professor for 8 months. He gathered teaching, research and academic experi-
ence during this period. Currently, he is working at Rock Excavation Engineering
Research Group of CSIR-​CIMFR, Dhanbad. He received the Young Engineers Award
2022 from The Institution of Engineers (India) and the Abheraj Baldota Memorial
Gold Medal Award (Young Mining Engineer of the Year 2022) for his contribution to
mining engineering. His areas of research include rock excavation by blasting, con-
trolled blasting, blast vibration prediction and blast simulation, etc. He has published
more than 40 papers in different journals and seminar proceedings.

Narayan Kumar Bhagat is a mining engineer with 22 years of expertise in con-

trolled blasting for mining and civil construction projects. Currently, he serves as
Senior Technical Officer at CSIR-​Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
Dhanbad, alongside his role as an Assistant Professor at the Academy of Scientific
and Innovative Research (AcSIR). He earned his PhD in Mining Engineering from
the Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. He has successfully executed over
200 industry-​sponsored projects as leader and member and has authored 40 research
papers published in SCI journals and symposia. His work mainly facilitates the use of
the directional controlled blasting technique for the stabilisation of rock slopes near
the railway track of Konkan Railway for the safety of trains and commuters as well as
faster excavation of rock for the doubling of railway track for the Indian Railways. He
has worked to improve safety, production and productivity at underground and open-
cast coal and non-​coal mines. He has also worked on many hydroelectric projects
(Tala (Bhutan), Pakal Dul, Baglihar, Sawra Kuddu, Karchham-​Wangtoo, Shongtong-​
Karchham, Rampur, Tehri, Vishnuprayag, Gati, etc.) and civil construction projects
(viz. Udhampur-​Srinagar-​Baramulla Rail Link Project (USBRL), Rail Vikas Nigam
Limited (RVNL), flattening of hills for land development work for Navi Mumbai
International Airport, Ghat-​ki Guni twin transportation tunnels project of Jaipur
Development Authority and Kaniha and Khargone Super Thermal Power Projects,
etc.) for safe and faster progress of rock excavation work using blasting.

xvii
newgenprepdf

xvi

xviii About the Authors

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma is a Technical Officer at CSIR-​Central Institute of

Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India. He graduated in Mining Engineering
from Government Engineering College Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. He has a master’s
degree in Mining Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian
School of Mines), Dhanbad. He has worked in various aspects of mining and allied
operations. His research areas include rock excavation, rock blasting, mechanical
excavation of hard rock, numerical simulation under dynamic loading, statistical ana-
lysis, blast vibration control and measurements. He was involved in river diversion,
control blasting near high tension line and demolition of different cliffs during the
construction of Navi Mumbai International Airport. He has provided scientific ser-
vices at more than 30 opencast mining, underground mining and civil construction
sites. He has published more than 15 research papers in international and national
journals and conferences.

Arvind Kumar Mishra is a Mining Engineer with M. Tech. and PhD in Mining
Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines),
Dhanbad, having teaching, industrial and administrative experience of 31 years.
Presently, he is the Director at CSIR-​Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research,
Dhanbad. He is also Professor on-​lien in the Department of Mining Engineering,
IIT(ISM) Dhanbad. After graduation he joined Coal India Limited as Mining
Engineer and served for three years. He then joined the IIT(ISM) Dhanbad as a fac-
ulty member in 1992. He has also served as Technical Services Manager in Orica
Mining Services, Australia and headed the technical services function of Indian
Business from 2005 to 2009. He worked as Chair Professor (Uranium) sponsored by
the Department of Atomic Energy, GoI. His areas of specialisation include opencast
and underground mining technology, drilling and blasting technology, rock excava-
tion engineering, tunnelling, geo-​mechanics, ground control and strata management.
Professor Mishra has to his credit 193 research publications in peer-​reviewed reputed
journals, international/​national conferences and symposia. He is actively involved in
solving real-​life problems of mining and allied industries by undertaking R&D and
industry-​sponsored projects in mining and allied areas and has completed more than
139 such projects. He has guided 17 PhD dissertations. He has completed 29 man-
agement and executive development programmes for various mining, IT and other
allied industries. He was awarded the prestigious National Geoscience Award from
the Ministry of Mines, GoI by the Hon. President of India in 2016. He is also the
recipient of the Abheraj Baldota Memorial Gold Medal Award –​2012 (Young Mining
Engineer of the year 2012) from the Mining Engineers’ Association of India.
1

1 Introduction

1.1 PREAMBLE
Scientific innovations aim to improve the quality of life of humankind. Energy, min-
eral and infrastructure are key prerequisites which influence the quality of life. The
comfort of human beings is largely dependent on energy consumption. Energy fulfils
the needs by providing easy ways of cooking, faster production from industries, ease
in studies for students, etc. The major sources of energy are thermal, hydro or nuclear.
In India, the contribution of the thermal process in electricity generation is about 49.9
per cent. Power generation from solar, wind and hydro comprises 15.2 per cent, 10.2
per cent and 11.4 per cent respectively (powermin.gov.in; groundreport.in). The need
for coal has increased in line with the enhanced demand for electricity. Accordingly,
there is a need for large-​scale excavation of coal. The production of coal from open-
cast mines in India was 504,195 MT in year 2012–​13, which increased to 633,569
MT in 2017–​18. Furthermore, it has increased to about 745,007 MT in year 2021–​22.
This shows that there has been an increase of coal production from open cast mines
by 8.94 per cent in the last ten years. This has been possible with enhanced coal exca-
vation using mass blasting techniques.
Mineral is another important prerequisite, which works as the raw material for
different industries. The availability of these raw materials in abundant quantities is
essential for the economy of a country. According to the World Mining Data Report
2022, the total global production of minerals was 9.6 billion metric tons in 1985s,
which increased to 11.3 billion metric tons in year 2000. Mineral production came
to 17.2 billion metric tons in the year 2020 and 17.9 billion metric tons in 2021. The
major mineral producing nations include China, the USA, Russia, Australia and India
(worldminingdata.info).
The major minerals produced by the leading mineral producing nations include
mineral fuels, ferro alloys, non-​ferrous metals, precious metals and industrial metals.
The mineral fuels include coal, natural gas, petroleum, oil sands, uranium, etc. In
the year 2020, the production of mineral fuels was 3,906.9 million metric tons in
China and 805 million metric tons in India. The ferro alloys comprise iron, chro-
mium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, tungsten, etc. Australia, Brazil and China were the
top producers of iron in 2020 with 37.33, 16.21 and 14.80 per cent share respectively.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-1 1
2

2 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

The production of ferro alloys in China and India was 229 million metric tons and
130 million metric tons respectively.
The non-​ferrous metals include aluminium, antimony, arsenic, bauxite, copper,
lead, lithium and zinc. China, Russia and India were the top producers of aluminium
during 2020.
With these statistics, it is evident that, over the years, mineral consumption has
increased to fulfil the demands of steel production, cement production, copper pro-
duction, etc., and thereby to enhance the quality of life of the civilisation. To decrease
the gap between the demand and supply of minerals, it is needful to accelerate
mineral production. This has been achieved during recent decades using advanced
blasting techniques. Moreover, these techniques have also been used for various land
development works in civil construction projects. The dominance and relevance of
these techniques can be felt by analysing the global consumption of commercial
explosives. According to the Explosives Global Market Report 2023, the consump-
tion of explosives is about to grow by 8.6 per cent from $ 44.09 billion to $ 47.88
billion during the year 2022 to 2023. It is also expected to reach around $ 61.83 billion
in the year 2027. The consumption of explosives was around 16.58 million metric
tons worldwide in the year 2022. This is about to increase by 5.2 per cent by the
year 2028 (expertmarketresearch.com). Explosives are extensively used in all corners
of the world for various purposes. The maximum consumption of explosives during
2022 was in the Asia–​Pacific region. The major consumer countries of explosives
are Brazil, Australia, France, China, Germany, Indonesia, India, Russia, Japan and
the USA. The major constituent of explosive is ammonium nitrate. It is prepared by
the reaction of ammonia and nitric acid. The major consumers of ammonium nitrate
are Western Europe, the USA, CIS and the Baltic states. These regions accounted for
around 53 per cent of the total consumption of ammonium nitrate worldwide in 2022
(spglobal.com).
Although the process of rock blasting is very simple, it needs periodic techno-
logical advances to overcome various operational and safety-​related challenges.
Despite the significant advances in this technique, around 20–​30 per cent of the total
explosive energy is only utilised for the efficient breakage of rock mass (Himanshu
et al., 2023). The remaining energy gets wasted and also gives rise to various hazards.
Hazards associated with the rock blasting process are flyrock, overbreak, ground
vibration, noise, air overpressure, etc. (Gorai et al., 2021). Over the years, advances
have been made to identify the parameters influencing blast outcomes in terms of
productivity and hazards. These advances, along with the principles of rock blasting,
are discussed in this book. Some of the innovative practices used to deal with the
various problems are also highlighted in various chapters. Various subsections of this
chapter comprise an outline of the discussions in subsequent chapters.

1.2 NEED FOR AND IMPORTANCE OF ROCK BLASTING

The excavation of coal and minerals in the primitive era was carried out with
the help of chisels, hammers or the hand-​picking method. The need for coal and
minerals during those ages was limited and hence only shallow-​depth deposits
3

Introduction 3

were exploited. Most of the shallow-​depth deposits were soft. So, excavation
using these methods was possible. However, these are laborious and time-​
consuming methods. The extraction of thin coal seams (2 m thickness) in the
Meghalaya state of India is still carried out using the manual method. The local
terminology for this mining method is rat-​hole mining. This method involves the
digging of tunnels of around 2–​5 feet with the help of chisels or hammers for the
extraction of coal (Environicsindia.in).
Rock excavation is also carried out using some mechanised methods. Continuous
miners, shearers, road headers, surface miners and bucket wheel excavators, etc. are
deployed for the excavation, although the excavation is limited to the softer rock for-
mation only (uniaxial compressive strength of less than 40 MPa). Additionally, rock
excavation using mechanical means is also costly. So, blasting is a prominent need to
achieve faster and cost-​effective rock excavation (Kramadibrata et al., 2015). Blasting
is used for various rock excavation works in coal mining, metalliferous mining,
demolition, projects, civil infrastructure developments, land developments, etc.
The importance of rock blasting can be felt by the important projects accomplished
recently using this technique. The highlights of some of the important excavation
works carried out using drilling and blasting are as follows:

• The Crazy Horse project is one of the largest sculpture projects which was
accomplished with the help of the drilling and blasting technique. This is
situated in the Black Hills of South Dakota. A controlled blasting technique
was adopted to re-​form a mountain in the shape of a ‘Crazy Horse’ (Cardu
et al., 2021; Hermanson, 1996).
• The flattening of Ulwe hill for the development of Navi Mumbai International
Airport, India is one of the major infrastructure projects being developed using
drilling and blasting. The project involves flattening a hill from 92 mRL to 8
mRL (Paswan et al., 2017). An efficient and controlled blasting technique has
been adopted to carry out this work.
• M/​s Sasan Power Limited have been able to provide electricity at a cheaper rate
by increasing the cost efficiency of their coal mine. Moher and Moher Amlohri
opencast mine has deployed draglines and carried out large-​scale blasting to
enhance the cost efficiency. The mine has conducted one of the biggest blasts
by firing 982 tons of explosives in a blasting round. This required charging
of about 600 holes of 311 mm diameter (Himanshu et al., 2022; Himanshu
et al., 2018).
• The largest blast in an open cast mine was carried out in Caval Ridge mine
in the Bowen basin in Australia. Altogether 2,194 tonnes of explosives were
consumed in 3,899 blastholes in this blast. A total 4.7 MT of overburden was
removed using this blast. The charging of explosives in the blastholes took
14 days (bhp.com).
• Underground metal mines also use explosive energy to control the seismic event
using a destress blasting technique. According to Vennes et al. (2020), destress
blasting was carried out at Copper Cliff mine in Sudbury, Canada. Altogether,
4

4 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

23,484 kg of explosives were blasted in a single round. This helped in an influ-

ential decrease in stress in the stopes of the underground copper mine.
• The demolition of the twin towers of the Supertech Emerald Court housing
society in India was carried out using drilling and blasting. This was carried out
as per the order of the Supreme Court of India. The demolition took place on 28
August 2022 at Noida, India with the use of around 3,700 kg of explosives. The
height of the building was about 103 m (deccanherald.com).
• Chenab River railway bridge was developed in 2022 in the Reasi area of
Jammu state, India. This is a part of the Udhampur–​Srinagar–​Baramulla Rail
Link (USBRL) project. The development of the foundation of the bridge and
the nearby Salal railway station was carried out with the help of rock blasting
techniques. This bridge will help in boosting tourism and faster connectivity
(USBRL.com).
• AXA Tower, Singapore, is one of the longest buildings demolished so far. The
height of the building was around 234 m. It was demolished to develop a new
skyscraper of 305 m height. This will help to accommodate restaurants and
hotels with sky terraces, balconies, rooftop with enhanced accommodation cap-
acity (wikiwand.com).
• The Atal Tunnel is one of the longest tunnels developed using the drilling and
blasting technique in India. The length and carriageway width of the tunnel are
around 9.02 km and 10.0 m, respectively. It has been constructed across the
Rohtang Pass on the Leh–​Manali highway, in the Kullu district of Himachal
Pradesh state, India. This has reduced the travelling distance between Kullu and
Lahaul Spiti valley by 46 km or 4–​5 hours’ journey time (Bro.gov.in ).
• The Gotthard Base Tunnel (GBT) in Switzerland is one of the longest
railway tunnels in the world. It was constructed using drilling and blasting.
The length of this tunnel is 57.09 km. The main objective of this tunnel
is to speed up local transport by reducing the numbers of fatal accidents.
However, it will also reduce the environmental issues caused by heavy
trucks (Britannica.com).

1.3 RECENT ADVANCES IN BLASTING TECHNOLOGY

Over the years, various challenges of rock blasting –​viz. fragmentation control,
boulder reduction, vibration control, overbreak/​backbreak control, flyrock control,
etc. –​have been dealt with by advances in blast designs. Need-​based blast designs
have been implemented by blasting and mining practitioners. Various empirical,
numerical and analytical models have been developed to devise specific blasting
patterns. The developments have led to devising controlled blasting patterns in close
proximity to structures. With the help of technological advances, various projects
of national importance –​viz. construction of airports, metro, railway lines, thermal
power plants, etc. –​are being implemented with due regard for the safety of nearby
inhabitants. This could not have been possible without the latest instrumentation and
computer-​aided design. The developments in blast designing have been outlined in
Figure 1.1.
5

Introduction 5

FIGURE 1.1 Outline of developments in blast designing process.

The conventional way of designing a blast is based on experiences of practitioners

and technicians. The transfer of knowledge to a larger domain in this method was a
big issue. Later, generalised guidelines were developed. Now blast designing was
practised to restrict the inputs and outputs within the generalised guidelines. Scientific
instruments helped the practitioners in optimising the parameters. In further steps
of development, designing has been done using empirical relationships. Researchers
have developed various empirical ground vibration predictors, air overpressure
predictors and fragmentation prediction models, which helped the blast designers in
optimising the design parameters.
With the advent of machine-​learning algorithms, computer-​aided blast design is
possible. Prediction models can be trained with experimental data, and the trained
model can suggest the blast design to achieve a desired outcome. Future trends in this
field will be based on big data analytics and data dynamisation. Data can be feed to
the model on a day-​to-​day basis and accordingly the future design pattern for opti-
misation can be predicted. Drone-​based data capture can help to get day-​to-​day inputs
of fragmentation, backbreak and muckpile distribution (Merma, 2023).
Monitoring the outcomes of blasting is also very important from the perspec-
tive of improvements. Safety-​related issues need to be monitored for day-​to-​day
safe working. Advanced instrumentation is used to monitor the outcomes of a blast.
Most of these instruments are electrically based. The instruments are used to monitor
ground vibration, explosive quality, scattering in delay detonators, structural response
to vibration, etc. The ground vibration monitoring system has gone through various
developments. The conventional seismographs consisted of a paper-​based output
system. Later, it was made capable of analysing data on a computer. The complete
waveform could be analysed using this technique. With further advances, users could
see the data in the form of waveform on seismograph control unit itself. The latest
6

6 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

development in seismic sensors consists of the remote access of data from the seismo-
graph. The future trends look towards the IoT-​based seismic sensors for continuous
vibration monitoring and access from a remote place.
The analysis of rock fragments also achieved a new height. Earlier, the rock frag-
mentation analysis was carried out with the help of an image-​capturing process and
its analysis using different software. The marking of the periphery of all the boulders
is itself a tedious and time-​consuming process. However, in recent days, the use of
drones has started taking much attention. Initially the GPS-​enabled drone has to be
installed at the blast location with the GPS coordinates of four different corners of
the blasting site. This helps the software embedded in the drone to directly scale the
blasting location. Furthermore, after the blast, the capturing of rock fragments will
take place with the help of drones and fragmentation analysis will take place instantly.
This real-​time analysis of rock fragments will help to quickly analyse the perform-
ance of blasts with varying blast design parameters and explosive parameters.
There are other advances in the explosives and accessories for blasting. Detailed
discussions on the developments in explosives, accessories and blasting patterns,
along with some of the case studies of the best practices, have been made in various
chapters.

1.4 SUMMARY
The summary of the important discussions made in this chapter is as follows:

• Rock blasting operation helps the mining, mineral and civil infrastructural
sectors in safer, efficient, productive and cost-​effective rock excavation. It is
predominantly used all around the world for hard rock excavation. The efficacy
of this technique can be felt from the statistical data of explosives consump-
tion, which shows that explosives consumption increased by about 8.6 per cent
during 2022–​23.
• Blasting techniques have been used in various important projects worldwide.
With the aid of these techniques it has been possible to generate electricity
at a cheaper rate, develop an airport in a hilly zone, construct roads in hilly
terrain, achieve destressing in underground mines, tunnelling and demolition
of buildings/​structures.
• Recent developments in blasting technology encompass advanced explosives
with variable energy, initiation systems with accurate delay timings, innovative
blast design patterns, etc. The future trends of this technique will consist of
designing blasting patterns using big data analytics.

REFERENCES
Bhp.com, www.bhp.com/​news/​media-​cen​tre/​relea​ses/​2020/​02/​caval-​ridge-​sets-​world-​rec​ord-​
for-​larg​est-​ele​ctro​nic-​blast, accessed on 05.09.2023.
Britannica.com, www.bri​tann​ica.com/​topic/​Gotth​ard-​Base-​Tun​nel, accessed on 11.09.2023.
Bro.gov.in, https://​bro.gov.in/​pri​ntco​nt3.asp?lid=​6178&subsu​blin​kid=​861, accessed on
21.09.2023.
7

Introduction 7

Cardu, M., Saltarin, S., Todaro, C., Deangeli, C., 2021. Precision rock excavation: beyond con-
trolled blasting and line drilling. Mining, 1(2), 192–​210.
Deccanherald.com, www.decca​nher​ald.com/​india/​explai​ned-​the-​supert​ech-​twin-​tow​ers-​case-​
and-​how-​it-​was-​dem​olis​hed-​1140​053.html, accessed on 05.09.2023.
Environicsindia.in, https://​envi​roni​csin​dia.in/​2019/​02/​20/​an-​intro​duct​ion-​to-​rat-​hole-​min​ing/​,
accessed on 22.09.2023.
Expertmarketresearch.com, www.exper​tmar​ketr​esea​rch.com/​repo​rts/​exp​losi​ves-​mar​ket,
accessed on 23.08.2023.
Gorai, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Santi, C., 2021. Development of ANN-​based universal predictor
for prediction of blast-​induced vibration indicators and its performance comparison with
existing empirical models. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38, 2021–​2036. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​021-​00449-​0.
Groundreport.in, https://​groun​drep​ort.in/​elec​tric​ity-​gen​erat​ion-​in-​india-​2023-​share-​of-​differ​
ent-​sour​ces/​, accessed on 28.08.2023.
Hermanson, J., 1996. Rock Drilling on a Vertical Wall Problem Solving at Crazy Horse
Memorial. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Explosive and Blasting
Technique, International Society of Explosives Engineers, 254–​259.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2023. Blast-​ Induced Hazards.
In: Blasting Technology for Underground Hard Rock Mining. Springer, Singapore.
https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​981-​99-​2645-​9_​7.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Vishwakarma, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2022. Prediction of
blast-​induced ground vibration using principal component analysis–​based classification
and logarithmic regression technique. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 39(5), 2065–​
2074. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​022-​00659-​0.
Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Mishra, A.K., Paswan, R.K., Panda, D., Singh, P.K., 2018.
Multivariate statistical analysis approach for prediction of blast-​induced ground vibration.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11, 1–​11. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​517-​018-​3796-​8.
Kramadibrata, S., Simangunsong, G. M., Widodo, N. P., Wattimena, R. K., Tanjung, R.
A., Wicaksana, Y., 2015. Rock excavation by continuous surface miner in lime-
stone quarry. Geosystem Engineering, 18(3), 127–​139. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​12269​
328.2015.1006​736.
Merma, Y. P. C., 2023. Mining 4.0: A Digital Transformation Approach to Mining
Sector: A Peruvian Case Study. In 2023 Portland International Conference on
Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 1–​4. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
B978-​0-​323-​95984-​1.00001-​9.
Paswan, R.K., Roy, M.P., Sawmliana, C., 2017. Flattening of hill by blasting in densely
populated area for construction of an international Airport at Navi Mumbai, India.
International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 11(2), 107–​118.
Powermin.gov.in, https://​power​min.gov.in/​en/​cont​ent/​power-​sec​tor-​gla​nce-​all-​india, accessed
on 23.08.2023.
Spglobal.com, www.spglo​bal.com/​commod​ityi​nsig​hts/​en/​ci/​produ​cts/​ammon​ium-​nitr​ate-​
chemi​cal-​econom​ics-​handb​ook.html, accessed on 23.08.2023.
USBRL.com, https://​usbrl.org/​Him-​XII.pdf, accessed on 21.09.2023.
Vennes, I., Mitri, H., Chinnasane, D.R., Yao, M., 2020. Large-​scale destress blasting for seis-
micity control in hard rock mines: a case study. International Journal of Mining Science
and Technology, 30(2), 141–​149.
Wikiwand.com, www.wikiw​and.com/​en/​AXA_​To​wer, accessed on 11.09.2023.
Worldminingdata.info, www.world-​min​ing-​data.info/​wmd/​downlo​ads/​PDF/​WMD2​022.pdf,
accessed on 19.09.2023.
8

2 Theory of Rock Blasting

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The drilling and blasting process involves drilling blastholes inside the rock and
pouring explosive inside it (charging). Although this technique seems very simple, it
has a vast history. The first blasting took place in 1627 with the help of gun powder
(Konya & Walter, 1991). However, the explosive was initiated just by placing it over
the rock. This was the only feasible solution at the time due to the unavailability of
drill machines for the drilling of blastholes.
The invention of the first mechanical drill machine took place in the 1870s in con-
jugation with compressed air (mastermac2000.com). Due to the use of such drilling
machines, there was generation of dust which eventually caused various environ-
mental problems. To mitigate this problem, steam was introduced. However, it did not
work well. Further, water has been used in drilling machines. Further development
includes the evolvement of drill bits with hollow drill string. This provided a path
for the passage of water inside the drill string for efficient rock-​drill bit interaction.
However, the drill bits used in these drilling machines faced high wear and tear during
large diameter drilling. This issue was addressed by the evolution of the tungsten car-
bide drill bit. The recent advance in drilling encompasses the use of a hydraulic-​fluid-​
based drill machine for the drilling of blastholes.
With the development of drilling mechanisms, confined blasting methods have
evolved. Such methods include drilling inside the rock mass. The explosive is put
inside the drilled holes, and is blasted to fragment the rock. This system proved advan-
tageous, as the explosive energy utility in this case has been enhanced. The require-
ment of the energy and other parameters of explosive to break different natures of
rock varies (Vishwakarma et al., 2020). Accordingly, there have been developments
in explosives and their initiating systems. Despite these developments and scope for
further developments in this field, the theory behind rock breakage is based on the
utilisation of shock energy and gaseous energy.
In the rock blasting process, the explosive mass upon detonation changes its state
from solid to gaseous product. During this process two types of energy are liberated.
These energies are shock/​stress energy and gas energy. Low explosives produce
gas energy whereas high explosives produce gas as well as shock energy (Konya &
Walter, 1991). The shock energy generally has a higher pressure than gas energy. As

8 DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-2
9

Theory of Rock Blasting 9

soon as the shock energy moves, the generation of gas energy takes place (Kutter &
Fairhurst, 1971). The shock energy is a pressure that passes at a rate of velocity of det­
onation. Different researchers have found that around 10–​15 per cent of total energy
is used as shock energy (Langefors & Kihlström, 1963; Fogelson et al., 1959). In the
homogeneous rock, shock energy moves out of the blasthole. This movement leads
to the attenuation of shock waves proportional to the square of the distance between
them and the blast location. The shock energy is fully responsible for the generation
of new cracks. After the formation of cracks, the gas energy comes into play. Rock
undergoes four different stages while blasting –​namely, blasthole expansion zone,
fine crushed zone, crushed zone and radial cracking zone (Shadabfar et al., 2020).
The blasthole expansion zone is defined as the region which is present immediately
around the blasthole. This zone is under a high compressive stress generated during
blasting (Olofsson, 1990). The magnitude of this compressive stress is much higher
than the compressive strength of the rock (Bhandari, 1997). The initial compressive
stress wave generated due to the blast diminishes very quickly with the increase in
distance away from the blasthole wall. This is because of losses of energy in different
forms (Vishwakarma, 2023). The speed of compressive stress wave becomes equiva­
lent to the speed of sonic wave velocity in that medium/​rock after some distance. This
changes the behaviour of rock with these waves in terms of fracture and deformation
(Silva et al., 2019). This causes fine crushed zone after blasthole expansion zone due
to the formation of fine cracks with high density of cracks. It is around four times
of blasthole diameter. Around 30 per cent of the total energy gets consumed in this
zone (Lu et al., 2016). The remaining energy with lesser magnitude proceeds fur­
ther. It gives rise to the formation of the next zone that is termed the crushed zone
(Shadabfar et al., 2020). It contains a lesser density of cracks as compared to the
fine crushed zone. It is around eight times of blasthole diameter. After the formation
of crushed zone, the major role of gaseous pressure comes into play. These gases
penetrate inside the cracks formed in the crushed zone. This penetration extends the
existing cracks and forms a new zone termed the radial crack zone (Saharan et al.,
2006). A view of the radial crack zone is shown in Figure 2.1. It is around 40 times of
diameter depending upon geological and geotechnical condition (Zhang, 2016). Very
few radial cracks extend to a greater length, most of the radial cracks having lesser
length. This is because a huge stress wave gets relaxed by larger radial cracks.
There is another school of thought that infers other theories related to rock
breakage due to blasting. Researchers found that stress and gas energy is not the
sole parameter responsible for the breakage of rock using explosives (Persson et al.,
1993). The presence of free face or discontinuity (open) also plays a major role in
rock breakage due to blasting (Ash, 1973). This is known as reflection theory. It states
that, during detonation, the compressive shock wave gets generated (Hino, 1956).
This wave travels in a radial outward direction away from the blasthole wall. When
this wave encounters any free face its nature changes to tensile wave (Hagan, 1980;
Duvall & Atchison, 1957). When the intensity of this reflected wave is higher than the
rock dynamic tensile strength, the formation of the tensile spalling zone takes place.
As the tensile strength of the rock is around 10 per cent of the compressive strength,
it is very easy to break the rock in tension instead of compression (Zou & Zou, 2017).
10

10 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 2.1 View of radial crack zone formed after blasting in rock.

Using the above stated theories, the detailed processes of rock blasting are discussed
in this chapter. The details of the advantages and disadvantages of various explosives
and accessories, design parameters for a blast and different blasting-​induced hazards
are also discussed in this chapter.

2.2 EXPLOSIVES FOR ROCK BLASTING

Explosives are a mixture of solid or liquid substances which decompose instantan-
eously and release enormous energy with high temperature and pressure. The instant-
aneous conversion of explosive takes place under the influence of a stimulus. Such
stimului include friction and temperature higher than 3,500 K (Valluri et al., 2023;
Fujihara et al., 1992). The release of this much energy in the form of pressure and
temperature causes disturbances in the stability of rock mass which further causes
rock breakage.
Initial explosive was introduced by the philosopher Roger Bacon in 1242 in the
form of black powder or gunpowder. The major constituents of black powder are
potassium nitrate (75 per cent), sulphur (10 per cent) and charcoal (15 per cent). This
was initially used for the purpose of fireworks in China during festivals. However, this
explosive is more susceptible to water and also produces a lot of smoke. It is sensi-
tive to different actions like friction, impact and heat. Despite these problems, it was
used in mining industries till 1659 (Andrade, 2017). As this explosive is less water
resistant and has the capability of producing lesser amounts of explosive energy upon
detonation, the search for high explosives started. In 1846, nitroglycerine explosive
11

Theory of Rock Blasting 11

(NG) was discovered by Ascario Sobrero, an Italian researcher. But the sensitivity of
nitroglycerine was very high. It can explode even by being dropped from the height
of a table top (Bowden & Yoffe, 1985). Furthermore, researchers tried to develop
explosives similar to nitroglycerine, but having lesser sensitivity. In 1863 and 1867,
two different NG-​based explosives were developed –​namely, trinitrotoluene (TNT)
and dynamite (Wisniak, 2008; Kury et al., 1999). TNT is almost water resistant in
nature, a little soluble in alcohol and fully soluble in benzene. It is formed with the
help of nitration of toluene with sulphuric and nitric acid. Dynamite is a NG-​based
explosive dipped in kieselguhr (Yinon & Zitrin, 1996). In 1955 the development
of ammonium nitrate fuel oil explosive (ANFO) took place. ANFO is a mixture
of ammonium nitrate (94–​95 per cent) and fuel oil (5–​6 per cent) (Fabin & Jarosz,
2021). This is a very cheap explosive and mostly used in opencast mining. Further,
the development of emulsion explosive took place in 1964 (Ayat & Allen, 1988).
These explosives are detonated as per the requirement and will of users.

2.2.1 Type of Commercial Explosives

Different types of explosives are used in mining and civil infrastructure projects for
rock blasting. From the perspective of the initiation of explosives, they have been
categorised into two types as cap sensitive and non-​cap sensitive. Cap sensitive are
those explosives which can be easily initiated with the help of a cap or detonator.
These explosives require around 17–​22 GPa pressure for the initiation, which may be
generated by a detonator. However, non-​cap sensitive explosives require 3–​40 GPa
pressure and cannot be initiated using a detonator (Ioannou & Nikiforakis, 2021).
Usually, these explosives are initiated with the help of a cast boost/​booster or prime
charge which is itself a cap sensitive explosive. The details of different types of
explosives are discussed in detail in this section.

2.2.1.1 Ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) explosive

Ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) explosive is one of the efficient explosives used
in the mining industries. It is comprised of ammonium nitrate (AN) and fuel oil. The
composition of AN and fuel oil is around 94.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent respectively
by weight. A view of ANFO explosive is shown in Figure 2.2. As this is a non-​cap
sensitive explosive, it requires a cast boost/​booster or prime charge (cap sensitive
explosive) for initiation. The major limitation of this explosive is its hydrophilic
nature. Because of this, it cannot be used in watery blastholes. Another limitation is
the larger critical diameter of the ANFO explosives. The critical diameter is the min-
imum charge diameter for an explosive to ensure its detonation. The critical diameter
of ANFO is larger (around 40 mm), and hence it should be used in blasting using large
diameter blastholes only. The velocity of detonation (VoD) of ANFO explosive is
around 3500–​4000 m/​s. This explosive has higher gaseous energy than shock energy.
Hence it is not preferred for blasting in massive rock strata. However, it is best suited
to charging in jointed rock strata (Himanshu et al., 2023a; Himanshu et al., 2021).
With the advances in technology, different variants of ANFO have evolved which
mainly include water resistant ammonium nitrate fuel oil (WRANFO) and heavy
12

12 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 2.1
Measured VoD and density of HANFO having different compositions

Quantity of Quantity of Quantity of Other VoD Density

S.No. ANFO (%) fuel oil (%) emulsion (%) components (m/​s) (kg/​m3)
01 94.5 5.5 0.0 -​ 3523 0.85
02 84.6 5.4 10.0 -​ 3720 -​
03 79.9 5.1 15.0 -​ 3853 -​
04 75.2 4.8 20.0 -​ 3956 1.13
05 28.3 1.7 69.3 0.7 % micro 4955 -​
droplets

Source: Mesec et al. (2015).

ANFO (HANFO). The WRANFO explosive has been developed for effective rock
breakage in jointed strata filled with water. WRANFO preparation comprises hydro-
philic thickener and hydrophobic water-​repelling additive in addition to ANFO. The
common hydrophilic thickener is guar gum and hydrophobic water-​repelling additives
are palmitic acid, aluminium stearate, stearic acid and fatty acid (Feustel et al., 2019).
The thickener helps to prevent penetration of water inside ANFO and hydrophobic
additive. Furthermore, to increase the density and VoD of ANFO, it is blended with
emulsion. This blending of emulsion with ANFO results in a new variant termed
HANFO. The proportion of mixing of emulsion with ANFO influences the resulting
density and VoD. The VoD and density of HANFO with different composition of
emulsion measured by Mesec et al. (2015) is given in Table 2.1.

2.2.1.2 Slurry Explosive
Slurry explosives consist of saturated aqueous solution of AN and other nitrates with
cross-​linking agents, thickeners, sensitising agent and fuel. The use of guar gum
is most common as a gelling agent or thickener in slurry. The cross-​linking agents
are used to prevent the separation or segregation of solid and liquid components.
A sensitising agent such as aluminium microballoons is used for the development
of slurry (Midkiff et al., 1993). The slurry explosives provide ease in coupling with
the blasthole wall. It comes either in cartridge form or as site mixed slurry (SMS).
The cartridge form explosive may be cap sensitive as well. A view of slurry explo-
sive is shown in Figure 2.2. The site mixed slurry is non-​cap sensitive in nature and
needs a cast booster/​prime charge for the initiation. It is discharged in the blasthole
from a pump truck. The pump truck is comprised of different chambers for various
ingredients of slurry explosives. A separate mixing chamber is used to mix different
components of slurry explosives.

2.2.1.3 Emulsion Explosive
The emulsion explosives can be used efficiently in smaller diameter and watery
blastholes. This explosive is made up of small droplets of AN solution, oxygen-​
supplying components, emulsifying agent, water and oil/​ wax. The composition
13

Theory of Rock Blasting 13

FIGURE 2.2 View of different types of explosives used for rock blasting.

of emulsion explosive is similar to that of slurry explosive but it differs in term of

characteristics. The detonation velocity of emulsion explosive is higher than that
of slurry explosive. This is because emulsion explosive contains air in the form of
microspheres of plastic or glass of 0.1 mm diameter. When the initiation of explosive
takes place these microspheres collide with each other. This collision gives rise to the
formation of hot spots. The temperature of these hot spots is much higher than deton-
ation temperature. This hot spot helps to enhance the reaction rate and thereby the
detonation pressure (Midkiff et al., 1993). The density of emulsion explosive is also
higher than all other types of explosive discussed herein. The emulsion explosives
come in cartridge form or as site mixed emulsion (SME). A view of small diameter
cartridge emulsion is shown in Figure 2.2. SME explosives are loaded in the
blastholes using a pump truck. A view of site mix emulsion explosive is shown in
Figure 2.2.

2.2.1.4 Booster
Booster is a cap sensitive explosive, which is used to initiate non-​cap sensitive
explosives. It also helps to accelerate the rate of reaction in the charge column. It
comes in cartridge form or as a cast booster. The cast booster is prepared with the help
of a mixture of explosives which are pre-​cast and have a tendency to initiate non-​cap
sensitive explosive. The cast boosters may be pentaerythritoltetranitrate (PETN)-​or
emulsion-​based. The emulsion booster is made by the casting of emulsion explosives.
The PETN-​cast booster contains a mixture of PETN and TNT. The detonation
14

14 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 2.3 View of cast booster.

velocity of PETN-​cast booster is highest among all the discussed explosives. A view
of cast booster is shown in Figure 2.3. PETN-​based boosters are preferred while
rock blasting using large diameter and deeper blastholes. The preference is made
because of their high detonation velocity. It is also sometimes used in between explo-
sive columns to enhance the reaction rate. This is specifically done in hard rock strata.
Cast boosters have a long shelf life as they are in cast form and do not contain any
component in a liquid state. They are also less sensitive to friction and impact because
of the absence of any niroglycerine compound in their composition. Cast boosters are
safe to be used up to a temperature of 65°C (Specialblasts.com).

2.2.2 Initiation System
Unlike firecrackers, the advanced mining explosives cannot be initiated directly with
flame. This is important from the perspective of ensuring safety in the undesired firing
of explosives. Hence to initiate the explosive, an initiation system has been developed.
An initiation system provides the initial energy to the explosives for their detonation.
Developments in various initiation systems –​viz. safety fuse, plain detonator, electric
delay detonators, electric detonators –​were made between 1831 and 1980 (Agrawal
& Mishra, 2017). Recent advances in initiation systems include electronic detonators
and wireless electronic initiation systems. An outline of different types of initiation
systems is shown in Figure 2.4. Details of these initiation systems are discussed in
this section.

2.2.2.1 Safety Fuse
The safety fuse was introduced in 1883 by William Blackford. It is an initiating
system which contains low explosive such as black powder or gunpowder. These low
explosives are put as fine-​grained trapped in a fabric tube. It can be ignited with the
help of an open flame. A view of a safety fuse is shown in Figure 2.5(a). The burning
rate of a safety fuse is 100–​120 sec/​m. It alone cannot initiate any explosion as the
output explosive energy could not meet the minimum energy required for the det-
onation of explosive. Hence it should always be used along with a plain detonator
(Persson et al., 1993).
15

Theory of Rock Blasting 15

FIGURE 2.4 Initiation systems for mining explosives.

FIGURE 2.5 Different types of explosive initiation systems.

16

16 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 2.5 (Continued)

17

Theory of Rock Blasting 17

FIGURE 2.5 (Continued)

2.2.2.2 Plain Detonator
A plain detonator acts as an initiator for the explosive charge. It consists of a small
diameter shell made of copper or aluminium. A view of plain detonator is shown in
Figure 2.5(b). It has explosive in the forms of prime charge and base charge. Prime
charges are stimuli to shock and impact. They consist of a mixture of lead azide, lead
styphnate and aluminium, known as azide styphnate aluminium (ASA) (Liu et al.,
2016). Lead azide came into existence in 1920. It is a cheap element which has high
thermal stability and can rapidly detonate the explosive. The different types of lead
azide (LA) developed so far are service LA, colloidal LA, dextrinated LA, special
purpose LA and on-​demand LA. The major drawback of LA is that it has a ten-
dency to slowly decompose under ambient environmental conditions. The reaction
rate of LA degrades in the presence of carbon dioxide and water; hence the perform-
ance of LA degrades over time. It may react with other metals, including copper, to
release hydrazoic acid which may give rise to premature detonation of explosive.
Lead styphnate (LS) is less powerful than LA in terms of explosive energy but upon
detonation it releases more heat. This is the advantage of using LS in most of the
detonators as compared to LA (Oyler et al., 2015). The ASA is present just above
the base charge. The base charge usually contains PETN or TNT. It is a powerful and
stable explosive used in various mining industries. The plain detonator cannot det-
onate alone so it is used in conjugation with a safety fuse or detonating cord.
18

18 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

2.2.2.3 Electric Detonator
The electric detonator is a similar kind of detonator as a plain detonator but the initi-
ation system of prime charge and base charge in this detonator is different. It initiates
them with the help of electric cable and bridge wire. Current is provided to the elec-
tric detonator with the help of two electric/​leg wires. These wires are connected inside
the detonator with the help of bridge wire (high-​resistance wire). The bridge wire
is placed in between pyrotechnic charges. Furthermore, electric detonators can pro-
vide a delay to the initiation of the associated explosive. This delay arrangement is
provided with the help of a delay element present in between the igniter and the prime
charge. The delay timing of an electric detonator is dependent on the length of delay
powder and its composition. The mechanism of bridge wire is similar to the filament
of a bulb. It starts heating upon getting a sufficient amount of current. The heat ignites
the heat sensitive flash compound which further ignites the prime charge followed
by the base charge. A view of different components of an electric detonator is shown
in Figure 2.6(1). The resistance of bridge wire is around 1.4 Ω. The resistance of leg
wire is around 0.8 Ω/​m. The minimum current required for the initiation of an electric
detonator is 1.2 amp (Fousson et al., 2016).
Electric detonators come as short-​delay detonators and long-​delay detonators.
Usually, the long-​delay detonators (half-​second) have delay timings of 500 ms. The
short-​delay detonators (millisecond) have 25 ms in delay timings. A view of an elec-
tric detonator is shown in Figure 2.5(c). These detonators are generally connected in
series, parallel and series-​parallel circuit. The working of electric detonators connected
in series can be ensured using circuit testing. There are some disadvantages of electric
detonators which include premature initiation due to lightning, stray current or stray
electricity, etc. (Hall & Howel, 1913).

FIGURE 2.6 Layout showing components of different detonators.

19

Theory of Rock Blasting 19

2.2.2.4 Detonating Fuse and MS Connector

The detonating fuse (DF) looks similar to the safety fuse. The outer covering of the
DF is made of jute or plastic coating which is very flexible and water resistant. The
inner portion called the core consisting of high explosive, mostly PETN. The VoD of
PETN present inside the DF is around 6500–​7000 m/​s. It is less sensitive to friction
and shock. A view of a DF is shown in Figure 2.5(g). The major drawback with
the use of DF is unavailability of a delay element. It produces a huge noise during
blasting as well (Tete et al., 2013).
For delayed blasting purposes, the DF is used in combination with MS connectors.
The MS connector is a non-​electric delay device which contains a delay element
inside it. It has to be initiated and connected within the DF. A view of an MS con-
nector is shown in Figure 2.5(h). It is in the shape of a dog bone with delay elements
entrapped inside the plastic case. Both the ends have a hole for the connection of DF.
It is mostly used in surface mining activities.

2.2.2.5 Non-​electric (nonel) Detonator

Non-​electric (nonel) detonators were developed in the 1960s. The initiating system
of non-​electric detonators is a shock tube in place of the electric/​leg wire of elec-
tric detonators. This shock tube is a tube of about 3mm outer diameter and 1.5 mm
inner diameter. The inner portion of the shock tube is coated with PETN. The VoD
of the PETN-​filled shock tube is around 2,100 m/​s. A view of a non-​electric det-
onator is shown in Figure 2.5(d). The tube is coupled with a detonator at one end,
and the other end has a clipping arrangement. In the detonator, the shock tube is
directly connected with the delay element followed by the prime charge and base
charge. A view of different components of nonel is shown in Figure 2.6(b). As soon
as the delay element receives a shock, it starts the reaction and after the designated
delay timing, it passes the shock to the prime charge and initiates it. Further, the
prime charge initiates the base charge, and after that the base charge initiates the main
explosive (Wu et al., 2021).
Initially, the shock tube is initiated with the help of an electric detonator, deton-
ating fuse or plain detonators. Recently, a specifically designed shock tube initiator
device has been developed. This device has the capability of initiating the shock tube.
Nonel is safe in usage nearby electrical equipment. It cannot be initiated by lightning
or stray current (Huang et al., 2023).
The system of nonel for opencast blasting is comprised of down-​the-​hole detonator
(DTH) and trunkline delay (TLD). This system is used to avoid the chances of misfire
due to flyrocks under the circumstances of scattering in TLDs. For this purpose, the
delay timings for DTHs of a blasting patch are the same. It usually has longer delay
timing in the range of 250–​450 ms. TLDs have smaller delay timings, and are used
to provide delays between the holes. If the total blasting time for a blasting patch is
below the timing of DTH, then it can be ensured that the whole patch will be initiated
before any possible chances of connection cutting. Sometimes these systems of DTH
and TLD are coupled along two ends of a shock tube. This is termed twin-​det. A view
of twin-​det is shown in Figure 2.5(e).
20

20 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

2.2.2.6 Electronic Detonator
The electronic detonator was developed in the 1990s. The mechanism of this deton-
ator is different from nonel and electric detonators. For the purpose of delay timing,
a computer chip has been introduced instead of a delay element. The chip works in
conjugation with a capacitor which stores the energy for designed delay timing before
igniting the prime charge. A view of different components of an electronic detonator
is shown in Figure 2.6(c) (Cardu et al., 2013).
Electronic detonators are advantageous as they provide the flexibility to the users
to assign the delay timings in the range of 0–​30 s (Wang, 2021; Cardu et al., 2013).
A view of an electronic detonator is shown in Figure 2.5(f). The electronic initiation
system for rock blasting consists of a data logger and exploder along with the deton-
ator. The desired delay timing to the detonators is provided using the data logger. The
exploder is used to finally provide the current to the electronic circuit for blasting.
The higher accuracy and higher precision are the main advantages of this detonator.

2.3 EXPLOSIVE PARAMETERS AND THEIR ROLE ON

BLASTING OUTPUT
Various physical properties of explosives influence the blasting outputs. These proper-
ties include strength, velocity of detonation (VoD), detonation pressure, water resist-
ivity, sensitivity, fume characteristics and input energy required to start initiation.
These properties define the behaviour of the explosive after detonation. Moreover,
the behaviour of the explosive also changes with the change in geometry and condi-
tion of the blasthole, such as blasthole diameter, presence of water and confinement
to the explosive. The details of effect of explosive parameters in their behaviour are
discussed in this section.

2.3.1 Density
Density is defined as the mass of explosive per unit volume. It is measured in terms
of kg/​m3 or grams per cubic centimetre. The density is used to determine the weight
of explosive that can be loaded into a specific blasthole. High density explosives are
generally required for mining and tunnelling operations in hard rock as they provides
greater energy than lesser density explosives. The density of explosive generally
lies in the range of 0.6–​1.4 g/​cc (Reaugh et al., 2018; Mishra et al., 2017). ANFO
explosives have density in the range of 0.8–​0.9 gg/​cc. In practical conditions, the
density measurement is a very basic way to assess explosive quality. It is done using
a weighing machine and a container with a defined volume.

2.3.2 Velocity of Detonation (VoD)

Velocity of detonation (VoD) is defined as the speed by which a shock wave front
travels through explosive. The shock energy of the detonation of an explosive
increases with its velocity. VoD is used to determine the explosive reaction efficiency
during blasting. It is dependent on various factors including the quality of explosives
and their interaction with rock mass. It depends on explosive diameter, explosive
type, confinement, density, temperature, sleeping time, critical diameter, shelf life
21

Theory of Rock Blasting 21

and explosive column length (Chiappetta, 1998). The VoD of explosive in larger
diameter blastholes will be comparatively higher than the smaller diameter (Kubota
et al., 2011; Apin et al., 1969).
The VoD of ANFO explosives is less than that of emulsion explosives. Furthermore,
after certain explosive charge diameters, the VoD of an explosive becomes constant
or stable. The mixing of oxidiser and fuel also affects the VoD of an explosive. The
intimate contact of oxidiser and fuel increases the VoD of an explosive.
The VoD of an explosive can be measured by different methods. It is clear from
the above discussions that the explosive performance, specifically VoD, is affected
by the degree of confinement. Hence, the VoD of explosives under confined and
unconfined conditions would be significantly different. When the VoD of explosive is
measured by detonating explosive inside the blasthole or any confined space, this is
termed the confined velocity of detonation (CVoD). The main methods for the meas-
urement of CVoD are electrical and optical method. The confined VoD of ANFO,
slurry and emulsion explosive lies in the range of 3,500 –​4,000 m/​s, 4,000–​4,500 m/​
s and 4,500–​5,000 m/​s respectively. When the measurement of VoD takes place by
detonating explosive in the open, it is known as unconfined velocity of detonation
(UVoD). The Dautriche method is most popular for the measurement of UVoD. Other
techniques of UVoD measurement include the photographic method and the optical
method. Studies suggest that confined VoD is always greater than unconfined VoD.
The principles and process of different VoD measurement methods are described in
different subsections of this section.

2.3.2.1 Dautriche Method
This method records the VoD of explosive with respect to the VoD of detonating cord
in an unconfined condition. In this method, a piece of detonating cord is inserted at
two points of an explosive cartridge. The length between these two points should be
known. Let the known distance be P (Figure 2.7). After that, the centre point of the
piece of detonating cord (C in Figure 2.7) is marked. Now, the detonating cord is

FIGURE 2.7 Schematic showing arrangement of VoD measurement using Dautriche method.
22

22 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

wrapped on an aluminium or lead plate such that the centre marking on detonating
cord should come on the plate. The point where C coincided on the plate is further
marked. With this method, a loop arrangement is formed. A view of a loop formed
in the Dautriche method is shown in Figure 2.7. Now, the explosive cartridge is
initiated from one end. After initiation, the shock waves will travel in two directions.
One direction of propagation would be along ​B–​G–​F path and the other would be
along B–​D–​F–​G path. Since the VoD of DF is more than that of the explosive, the
centre of the detonating cord (C) will be passed earlier by the waves propagating
through B–​G–​F path. The wave which is passing through B–​D–​F–​G path will not
reach point C due to comparatively lower VoD of explosive than detonating cord.
In this way, the passing wave from both directions would meet at some point K on
the plate. The collision point will give a mark on the plate. The distance of collision
point (K) from the centre of detonating cord (C) in the plate has to be measured. Let
this distance be Q.
When the collision of wave occurs at point K, the time required for the movement
of waves from both the paths will be same. Therefore, it can be said that the time
required to reach the wave at point K through paths BGK and BDFK will be equal.

So, Time BGK =​ Time BDFK

 Distance   Distance 
 speed  = ,
 speed  BDFK
, BGK

BC + CK BD DK
= + ,
VODdf VODexp VODdf
,

BC + Q P DC − CK
=
VODdf VODexp
+
VODdf
[ As CK = Q, BD = P ],

BC + Q P BC − Q
= + ng cord ) ,
 As DC = BC ( centre of detonatin
VODdf VODexp VODdf
,

2Q P
=
VODdf VODexp
, ,

P ×VODdf
VODexp = , (Equation 2.1)
2Q

Where,
VODexp=​VoD of explosive (m/​s),
VODdf =​VoD of detonating cord (m/​s),
P =​Distance between the detonating cord in the explosive cartridge (cm),
23

Theory of Rock Blasting 23

Q =​Length of marking of notch in the plate from the centre of detonating cord (cm).
The relationship given in Equation 2.1 is used for the calculation of unconfined
VoD of explosive using the Dautriche method (Tete et al., 2013).

2.3.2.2 Photographic Method
This method involves the use of high-​speed cameras for the measurement of velocity
of detonation. The passage of shock waves is recorded as images/​videos with high
frame rate video recording system. The recorded video can be further processed to
analyse the movement time of shock waves through a known length of the explo-
sive cartridge. The ratio of this known length and analysed movement time gives the
UVoD of the explosive (Spear & Wolfson, 1990).

2.3.2.3 Electrical Method
This is one of the efficient methods for the measurement of confined VoD (Roy
et al., 2016). This method comprises a high resistance coaxial cable of known
resistance and a data acquisition system. To measure the VoD of an explosive, the
high resistance coaxial cable is inserted inside the blasthole. The cable is shorted
(joining +​ve and –​ve ends of coaxial cable) before being put inside the blasthole.
The other end of this cable is attached to a data acquisition system. This completes
the circuit of high-​resistance cable with the data acquisition system in a close
loop. In this close loop, a fixed current is provided (2 mA) with the help of the data
acquisition system. The initial voltage of the close loop would be the product of
the resistance of the wire and input current by the data acquisition system. When
the detonation takes place in the explosive column, the high resistance coaxial
cable burns, which opens the shorted +​ve and –​ve ends of the cable. This opening
leads to a drop in the resistance and thereby the voltage of the overall circuit.
This drop in voltage is recorded in high frame rates. The frame numbers are fur-
ther correlated with time. Accordingly, a plot between voltage drop and time is
obtained. The voltage drop is digitally converted into the length in the data acqui-
sition system. The slope of the length vs time graph will give the CVoD of the
explosive.

2.3.2.4 Optical Method
In this method confined or unconfined VoD is determined using optical fibre cable.
The measurement is done either for two points or continuous VoD recording. This
method has been adopted by Quaresma et al. (2020), Pachmáň et al. (2017) and Tete
et al. (2013). This method has the advantage of giving accurate measurements, as
optical waves create less noise in data measurement as compared to the electrical
system. The method, however, is costly, so it is not very popular.

2.3.3 Detonation Pressure
The explosion of an explosive exhibit pressures out of the reaction zone. The pressure
which is associated with the reaction zone is termed detonation pressure. The pressure
24

24 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 2.2
Empirical relationships for computation of detonation pressure

S. No. Researcher Empirical formula Abbreviation

01. Darling (2011) Pd = 2.32 × SG × V × 10
2
e
−7 Pd =​Detonation pressure (KBar)
SG =​Specific gravity
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (ft/​s)
02. Hustrulid (1999) Pd = 0.25 × ρe × Ve2 Pd =​Detonation pressure (MPa)
ρe =​Density of explosive (g/​cm3)
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (km/​s)
03. Jimeno et al. ρe × Ve2 Pd =​Detonation pressure (MPa)
Pd = 432 × 10 −6 ×
(1995) 1 + 0.8ρe ρe =​Density of explosive (g/​cm3)
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (m/​s)
04. Persson et al. P × Ve2 Pd =​Detonation pressure (GPa)
Pd =
(1993) 4 ρe =​Density of explosive (kg/​m3)
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (m/​s)
05. Pradhan (1996) Pd = 2.325 × ρe × Ve2 × 10 −7 Pd =​Detonation pressure (MPa)
ρe =​Density of explosive (g/​cm3)
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (m/​s)
06. Palroy (2005) Pd = 0.25 × ρe × Ve2 × 10 −3 Pd =​Detonation pressure (MPa)
ρe =​Density of explosive (g/​cm3)
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (m/​s)
07. Stiehr & Dean Pd = 0.25 × ρe × Ve2 × 10 −6 Pd =​Detonation pressure (GPa)
(2011) ρe =​Density of explosive (g/​cm3)
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (m/​s)
08. Tatiya (2005) Pd = 2.5 × ρe × Ve2 × 10 −6 Pd =​Detonation pressure (KBar)
ρe =​Density of explosive (g/​cm3)
Ve =​Velocity of detonation (m/​s)

exerted on the blasthole wall is termed borehole pressure. The detonation pressure in
the reaction zone is directly proportional to the square of its VoD and measured in
the C–​J plane, behind the detonation front, during propagation of shock through the
explosive column. Researchers have given empirical relationships to compute deton-
ation pressure using VoD and density of the explosive. Some of these empirical
relations are listed in Table 2.2.
The optimum detonation pressure of an explosive is selected for the rock breakage.
Rock having higher strength requires high detonation pressure and vice versa. The
detonation pressure of explosives varies from 20 to 140 kbar. ANFO explosives have
low detonation pressure but produce high amounts of gaseous pressure during deton-
ation. Emulsion explosives have higher detonation pressure.

2.3.4 Water Resistivity
Water resistivity of an explosive is its ability to be detonated safely in watery
conditions without deteriorating the performance. This is an important parameter of
25

Theory of Rock Blasting 25

the explosive which helps in deciding the explosive to be used in watery blastholes.
The explosives including slurry and emulsion have good water resistance. They can
be directly poured into the blasthole having water, without affecting their perform-
ance. However, ANFO explosives are non-​water resistant in nature. When AN comes
into contact with water it starts dissolving in it. Good water-​resistive explosives are
required for use in watery blastholes. Hence ANFO explosives should be avoided to
be used in watery holes (Meyer et al., 2016).

2.3.5 Sensitivity
Sensitivity is defined as the amount of energy required for the detonation of explo-
sive. Explosives can be detonated by different initiating actions like impact, heat,
fire and shock. However, good explosives are those explosives which are initiated as
per the wish or requirement of the user at the appropriate time. The major initiation
method used so far is with the help of shock wave. However, the shock wave may also
be imparted during transporting and handling of the explosive. Hence, the sensitivity
of explosive to shock waves should be sufficiently high which cannot be imparted to
explosive during handling or transporting (Meyer et al., 2016).

2.3.6 Smoke and Fumes

Blasting produces hazards in terms of smoke and fumes. The smoke is made up of
solid carbon particles, steam and gaseous particles. The fumes are made up of gases
like carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide and nitrous oxides. The gener-
ation of fumes and smokes needs to be kept within safe limits. This is possible with
the help of optimising the explosive compositions. Theory states that the generation
of fumes and smoke takes place due to oxygen disbalance in the explosive (Akhavan,
2022). If the explosive mixture is not fully balanced then the chances of generation
of fumes will be high. An explosive is a combination of fuel and oxidiser. The most
common oxidisers are ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate and sodium nitrate. When
these oxidisers undergo decomposition after detonation, the oxygen molecules react
with the nitrogen molecules. This reaction yields nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide and
nitrous oxides. So, it is important to mix both the compounds in appropriate propor-
tion (94.5 per cent oxidiser and 5.5 per cent fuel). The proper oxidiser (ammonium
nitrate –​NH4NO3) and fuel (methylene radical –​CH2) composition would react as
per the chemical reaction shown in Equation 2.2. It can be seen that this reaction
does not yield any toxic compound. However, if the fuel content increases (92 per
cent oxidiser and 8 per cent fuel), then the reaction (Equation 2.3) will yield carbon
monoxide as a toxic compound. Furthermore, if the content of fuel decreases (96.6
per cent oxidiser and 3.4 per cent fuel), then various nitrous fumes will be generated
(Equation 2.4).

3NH 4 NO3 + CH 2 → 7H 2 O + CO2 + 3N 2 (Equation 2.2)

2 NH 4 NO3 + CH 2 → 5H 2 O + CO + 2 N 2 (Equation 2.3)

5NH 4 NO3 + CH 2 → 11H 2 O + CO2 + 4 N 2 + 2 NO (Equation 2.4)

26

26 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

2.4 INFLUENCE OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ON BLASTING RESULTS

Various controllable and uncontrollable parameters affect the blasting outputs. The
uncontrollable parameters include geological discontinuities (joints/​fractures), geo-
technical parameters (uniaxial compressive strength, density, Young’s modulus of
elasticity) and site conditions –​viz. water seepage. The controllable parameters
include geometrical parameters, charging parameters and delay pattern. Categorically,
the controllable parameters consist of the explosive properties and blast design
parameters. The basic details of various blast design parameters are discussed in this
section.

2.4.1 Burden
Burden (B) is defined as the distance of a blasthole from the free face. It may also be
the distance of a blasthole of consecutive row from the adjacent row. It is measured
manually or with the help of survey instruments. Allsman (1960) and Langefors
and Kihlstrom (1963) considered burden as one of the most critical parameters in
designing any blast. When the burden is too large, the explosive energy generated
during the blasting may not be sufficient to break the rock effectively. In such cases,
the energy that fails to break the rock produces backbreaks and induces more vibra-
tion. Also lower burden leads to excessive throw of the blasted rock. Hagan and
Kennedy (1977) found that insufficient burden leads to excessive airblast and flyrock.
The selection of optimal burden would be based on the assessment of rock proper-
ties. In the case of jointed strata, Hagan (1983) suggested to prefer a smaller burden
if the distance between discontinuities is larger. Researchers have proposed various
empirical relationships for the estimation of optimal burden. These relations consist
of charging parameters, blast geometry and rock parameters. Some of these empirical
relations are listed in Table 2.3.

2.4.2 Spacing
Spacing is defined as the distance between holes in any row of a blasting face. The
burden and spacing are defined in pictorial view in Figure 2.8. Smaller spacing leads
to excessive crushing between charges and spherical crater breakage. This increases
the toe problems and also produces finer fragments of rock upon detonation. Whereas
excessive spacing causes inadequate fracturing between blasthole charges and causes
boulders of bigger size.
Bhandari (1975) demonstrated a hypothetical model and recommended that a
small burden with large spacing preferably 3–​4 times will give good blasting output.
Furthermore, the author also explained that better utilisation of explosive energy can
be achieved by reducing the burden. The burden should be increased for the rock mass
having joints and fractures. Ash (1977) found that spacing which is twice the burden
produces better fragmentation with adequate delay timings. However, optimum spa-
cing should be 1.15 times the burden for good blasting output. Further, the general
 newgenrtpdf
27
Theory of Rock Blasting
TABLE 2.3
Empirical relations for the assessment of optimal burden

S.No Researcher Relationship Abbreviations

1. Fraenkel (1954) 1
Bmax =​Maximum burden for good
K  D8  3.3
fragmentation (m)
Bmax =   × 
 50   3 × h c × H b 
D =​Blasthole diameter (m)
hc =​Charge height (m)
Hb =​Depth of blasthole (m)
2. Andersen (1952) B = K × D′ × L B =​Burden (ft)
D´ =​Diameter of hole (ft)
L =​Length of blasthole (ft)
K =​Empirical constant
3. Pearse (1955) Ps B =​Maximum burden (m)
B= K×d×
σt K =​Constant value varies from 0.7–​1.0
Ps =​Detonation pressure of the
explosive (kg/​cm2)
σt =​Tensile strength (kg/​cm2)
d =​Diameter of borehole(m)
4. Allsman (1960) PD =​Mean adverse detonating pressure (N/​m2)
Bmax Impulse × g
= t =​Duration of average detonation (sec)
π×u×ρ
ρ =​Specific rock weight (N/​m2)
PD × t × D × g u =​minimum velocity which must be imparted to the rock (m/​s)
=
u×ρ g =​acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/​s2)
D =​Diameter of blasthole (m)
(continued)

27
 newgenrtpdf
28
28
TABLE 2.3 (Continued)
Empirical relations for the assessment of optimal burden

S.No Researcher Relationship Abbreviations

5. Langefors and Kihlström D ρe × PRP Bmax =​Maximum burden for good
Bmax = ​ ×
(1963) 3.3  S fragmentation (m)
C0 × f ×  
 B D =​Diameter of hole (m)
ρe =​Density of explosive in borehole (kg/​m3)
PRP =​Relative weight strength of explosive
f =​Degree of confinement of blasthole
S/​B =​Spacing to burden ratio
Co =​Correlated blastability factor
(kg/​m3)
=​C +​0.75 for Bmax =​1.4 –​1.5 m
=​C +​0.07 for Bmax < 1.4 m

Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

When C =​Rock constant
6. Ash (1963) B = Kb × D B =​Burden (in m)
D =​Blasthole diameter (in m)
Kb=​Geological constant
(lies between 20 and 40)
7. Bhagat et al. (2020) g ρ RQD (rock quality designation)
B= × db0.7 × e
RQD γ g: Acceleration due to gravity =​981 mm/​s2
db: Hole diameter in metres
ρe: Density of explosive material
γ: Density of rock
29

Theory of Rock Blasting 29

FIGURE 2.8 Layout showing different blast design parameters.

conclusions can be drawn from the literature that the spacing should be more than the
burden for bench blasting. For the cases of cast blasting, the ratio of spacing to burden
should be increased. However, for the purpose of creating dimensional stones from
the blasting, the burden should be more than the spacing.

2.4.3 Subgrade Drilling
In order to achieve adequate fragmentation at the bottom level of the bench and to
ensure excavation of full-​face height, it is necessary to extend the blasthole drilling
underneath the bottom level. This not only ensures the desired fragmentation at
the bottom level but also displaces the rock to some extent. A view of subgrade
drilling is shown in Figure 2.9. The optimum length of subgrade drilling depends
upon the condition of geological structure of rock at the bottom level. It is prefer-
able to keep the length of subgrade as 10 per cent of the blasthole length or 8–​12
times of blasthole diameter in order to get lower ground vibration (Roy, 2005).
The subgrade length should be optimum as a smaller length will give rise to the
formation of toe due to incomplete shearing of rock at the bottom level. Whereas
excessive subgrade drilling will increase the mining cost and blast-​induced ground
vibration.
The length of subgrade drilling should be selected such that it produces an inter-
section among the cone-​shaped face at the bottom, as shown in Figure 2.9. The
30

30 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 2.9 Layout showing subgrade drilling.

subgrade length can be calculated from the relationship as given in Equation 2.5
(Kaijuka, 2016).

 S
J = tanα ×   (Equation 2.5)
 2

Where,
S is spacing between holes, J is subgrade drilling length and α is the angle between
blasthole and centre of two blastsholes from horizontal, as shown in Figure 2.9.

2.4.4 Stemming Length (T)

Stemming length is the column length of the blasthole which has been filled with
incombustible inert material above the explosive charge. The main aim of the stemming
column is to provide confinement to the explosive energy. An insufficient stemming
length causes the premature escape of the explosive energy to the atmosphere. This
phenomenon gives rise to airblast or flyrock. However, an excessive stemming length
will lead to the formation of large-​size boulders in the cap rock. Mishra (2009) stated
that a suitable length of stemming column with suitable stemming material enhances
rock fragmentation. Paswan et al. (2022) stated that if the stemming length is not
appropriate then the chances of poor rock fragmentation will increase. Linehan and
Wiss (1982) found in their study that the proper stemming length could reduce the
chances of airblast. Jimeno et al. (1995) stated that the optimum length of stemming
should lie between 20 and 60 D. The authors also emphasised that the stemming
length should be kept more than 25 D in order to reduce the problems of cutoffs,
flyrocks, airblast and overbreak.
Along with the stemming length, the selection of stemming material is also
important. It is a common practice to use drill cuttings present beside the collar
of the blasthole as a stemming material. Konya and Davis (1978) found the use of
angular material of coarse grain to be a more effective stemming material. The size of
31

Theory of Rock Blasting 31

FIGURE 2.10 View of different stemming materials for better blasting output.

stemming material should be between 8 and 10 per cent of blasthole diameter for the
efficient utilisation of explosive energy (Choudhary et al., 2021). A view of different
stemming materials is shown in Figure 2.10.

2.4.5 Blasthole Inclination
The benches of opencast mines have some slope or inclination from the vertical for
its better stability. The drilling of blastholes parallel to the slope of bench should be
preferred to maintain the designated slope angle. However, drilling blastholes parallel
to slope is not possible in most scenarios. This increases the chances of non-​uniform
burden along the bench height. A view of non-​uniform burden in the inclined blasthole
is given in Figure 2.11. The non-​uniformity in the burden causes different problems in
crest or toe. The problems include boulder formation, blast-​induced ground vibration
and flyrock. Hence, the blastholes should be drilled in such a way that the burden at
any point is uniform.
32

32 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 2.11 Non-​uniform burden due to inclination of blasthole/​bench.

2.4.6 Maximum Charge per Delay (MCPD)

The maximum charge per delay (MCPD) is defined as the maximum amount of explo-
sive which is detonated at any delay timing. If more than one blasthole is detonated
at any delay timing, the MCPD will be the sum of the explosives of each blasthole.
Furthermore, in 1971 a study was conducted to find out the window of detonation
timing of two blastholes which should be considered as MCPD. Nicholls et al. (1971)
carried out the study by considering four different types of delay connectors having
different delay timings as 0, 9, 17 and 34 ms. Two different blastholes were fired
in combination with 9 and 17 ms or the same delay timing. All other blast design
parameters including burden, spacing, blasthole diameter and depth were kept con-
stant. The burden and spacing were 10 and 15 feet respectively. Blasthole of 36 feet
depth having 6 inches diameter was used for the study. The tracing of peak particle
velocity was carried out for all the experimental blasts. It was found from the peak
particle velocity wave characteristic that the amplification in the magnitude of wave
took place in the experimental trial having two blastholes with 0 ms connector. Apart
from the 0 ms connector, none of the connectors showed any sign of amplification of
blast-​induced ground vibration. The minimum delay timing which showed no ampli-
fication in magnitude of wave was 9 ms with an accuracy of ± 1 ms (8 ms or 10 ms).
So they have found that if any two blastholes are detonated at a delay interval of less
than 8 ms then the amplification of blast-​induced ground velocity will take place.
Hence it is being practised to separate the detonation of two or more blastholes with
a delay interval greater than 8ms.

2.4.7 Total Quantity of Explosive in a Blast Round

Various field studies revealed that the total charge per round (TC) also affects the
blast-​induced ground vibration (Rajabi & Vafaee, 2020; Monjezi et al., 2013).
33

Theory of Rock Blasting 33

Researchers observed that the magnitude of vibration increases when a higher

number of holes are detonated in a single round. According to Blair (1990), the
distinct waveform of peak particle velocity for different delays can be seen when
measured in a field near to the blast. In this region the MCPD acts as a most influen-
cing parameter for the generation of blast-​induced ground vibration. Furthermore,
when the distance of monitoring location increases from the blasting location, total
charge also influences the induced ground vibration due to superposition of waves
of different holes (Roy et al., 2022; Himanshu et al., 2023b; Himanshu et al., 2018).
Mandal et al. (2008) suggested that the magnitude of blast-​induced ground vibra­
tion is also influenced by the ratio between TC and charge per delay. Roy et al.
(2020) found in their study that the TC has direct influence in the peak particle
velocity (PPV) up to a scaled distance of 9.35 m/​kg0.5 for blastholes having depths
of 7.5 to 18.5 m.

2.4.8 Charge Factor
The amount of explosive required for the breakage of 1 m3 rock is known as the
charge factor. It can be computed from the relationship given in Equation 2.6. The
selection of optimum charge factor is important from the perspective of optimising
blasting outputs and cost economics.

π 2
× d × l × ρe
(Equation 2.6)
CF = 4
B × S × HD

Where,
CF =​Charge factor (in kg/​m3),
d =​Diameter of blasthole (in m),
l =​Length of charge column (in m),
ρe =​Density of explosive (in kg/​m3),
B =​Burden between the rows (in m),
S =​Spacing between the holes (in m),
HD =​Hole depth (in m).

The charge factor for surface blasting varies from 0.15 to 1.2 kg/​m3. It gener-
ally lies from 0.3 to 0.4 kg/​m3 for soft rock. Hard rock mostly needs 0.7–​0.9 kg/​m3
charge factor (Adhikari, 2000). Broadbent (1974) correlated charge factor with P-​
wave velocity. The charge factor of 0.7 kg/​m3 should be preferred for the rock having
P-​wave velocity of 3,000 m/​s or above, whereas it should be 0.3 kg/​m3 for the rock
having 1,200 m/​s P-​wave velocity. The optimum value of charge factor should be
selected when deciding blast design parameters. A lower charge factor may lead to
poor rock fragmentation. On the other hand, a higher value of charge factor may give
finer fragmentation, flyrock, increased throw and increase in the mining cost. Hence
the optimal charge factor must be selected after due assessment of the geotechnical
parameters.
34

34 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

2.4.9 Delay Pattern
The delay timings and pattern also influence the blasting outcomes. The pattern of
initiation of blastholes is termed the delay pattern. Different delay patterns are used
based on the availability of free face and drilling condition at the site. Basically,
blastholes may be drilled in a square or staggered pattern. In the square drilling
pattern, the blasthole of the second row will be placed exactly behind the blastholes
of the first row. The holes of all the rows will be drilled parallel to each other in this
pattern. The square drilling pattern provides ease to the drilling machines in their
movement. In the staggered pattern, the blastholes of the second row will be drilled
exactly in the centre of two holes of the previous row. The staggered drilling pattern
is advantageous in obtaining a finer fragment size and maximising the utility of the
explosive energy.
Various firing patterns are used in bench blasting. The in-​line pattern, V-​cut and
diagonal pattern are the most preferred patterns. The in-​line and V-​cut patterns are
preferred while blasting in a face having single free face, whereas the diagonal pattern
is preferred while blasting in a face with two free faces. The modified version of V-​cut

FIGURE 2.12 View of V-​cut firing pattern.

FIGURE 2.13 View of diagonal firing pattern.

35

Theory of Rock Blasting 35

is also preferred sometimes which is known as the extended V-​cut pattern. Views of
V-​cut and diagonal patterns are shown in Figures 2.12 and 2.13 respectively.
Delayed blasting is mainly conducted to control the outcomes of the blasting. The
delay timing is optimised to increase the utility of the explosive energy. The burden
relief time is mainly computed to determine the optimal delay timing. The optimal
delay timing results in the proper fragmentation, good movement, reduced flyrock
ejections, no backbreak, etc. The burden movement depends upon the response of
explosive energy to the rock mass. As per Konya and Walter (1991), the low, medium
and high strength rock mass requires movement time of 6–​7 ms/​m, 4–​5 ms/​m and 3–​4
ms/​m burden respectively. The delay timing also depends on the selection of blast
geometry and ratio between burden and blasthole diameter. For blastholes having
diameter 38–​311 mm, the delay timing should be between 5 and 7 ms/​m (Onederra
& Esen, 2003). Chi et al. (2019) found that the burden velocity for granite rock is
around 5.0 to 7.6 ms/​m burden. Choudhary et al. (2021) suggested that it should
be ranged from 8 to 14 ms/​m of burden in limestone rock type. Zhang et al. (2021)
found that the burden velocity increases with the decrease in burden. The delay
timing can vary from a few milliseconds to hundreds of milliseconds according to
the rock explosive interface (Chiappetta, 1998). The overall response time, blast
geometry and rock explosive interaction have to be considered when selecting the
delay timing between the blastholes and between the rows. A scientific computa-
tion of delay timing considering various parameters has been proposed by Bergmann
(1983) and Chiappetta (1998). The relation proposed by researchers consisted of
various parameters such as rock mass stiffness, burden, blasthole diameter, P-​wave
velocity, VoD, etc. The empirical relation correlating these parameters with minimum
response time is given in Equations 2.7 and 2.8 (Onederra & Esen, 2003). The authors
proposed that the delay time between the holes of a row should be less than or equal to
the minimum response time. This helps in the positive interaction of explosive energy
for the breakage of rock mass. Furthermore, it was suggested to keep the delay timing
between the rows in the range of about 1.5–​3.0 times of minimum response time to
enhance the movement or displacement of burden.

B 1 
Tmin = RStiff × ERI [ a × (  ))b  (Equation 2.7)
D  ERI × Rstiff 

VOD 2  VOD 
( )
ERI = 0.36 + ρe × [ ]
 VOD 2 VOD   VODCJ  e
ρ (Equation 2.8)
 1 + Vp2 − Vp 

Where,
Tmin =​The minimum response time at explosive charge centre (ms),
R Stiff =​Rock mass stiffness (GPa),
ERI =​Rock explosive interaction constant (determined through Equation 2.8
relationship),
36

36 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

B=​Burden (m),
a, b =​Fitting constants,
D =​Blasthole diameter (m),
ρe =​Density of explosive (g/​cm3),
VOD =​Actual velocity of detonation (non-​ideal) (km/​s),
Vp=​P-​wave velocity of intact rock (km/​s),
VODCJ =​CJ detonation velocity (km/​s).

2.5 BLAST-​INDUCED HAZARDS
The rock blasting process induces hazards. In this process, the explosive energy is
utilised for the breakage of rock mass. Study tells us that only about 20–​30 per cent
of the explosive energy is used for the breakage of rock mass. The remaining explo-
sive energy is wasted in terms of ground vibration, fumes, dust and air overpressure
(Murmu et al., 2018). These hazards may lead to structural instability and envir­
onmental nuisance. Various statutory guidelines have been framed which give the
threshold values of the hazards. These hazards may be minimised by the optimisation
of blast design patterns. Prediction of these hazards is also possible using various
statistical and scientific tools. Accurate predictions help blast designers in designing
blasting patterns which lead to controlled hazards near a structure. The details
regarding these hazards, their threshold limits and prediction methods are discussed
in different subsections of this section.

2.5.1 Blast-​induced Ground Vibration

The to and fro motion of ground particles around their mean position is known as
ground vibration. Ground vibration is best described by frequency and amplitude.
The frequency is defined as the number of times or cycles completed by a particle in
one second. The amplitude of ground vibration is defined as the maximum distance
travelled by a particle from its initial position. The amplitude of ground vibration is
better described in three different ways which are as follows.

Particle displacement –​defined as the distance travelled by the ground particles

from their initial position. It is measured in millimetres (mm) or inches (in).
Particle velocity –​defined as the rate of change of displacement of ground particles.
The measuring units are mm/​sec or in/​sec.
Particle acceleration –​defined as the rate of change of ground particle velocity. The
measuring units are mm/​sec2, in/​sec2 or g-​force (g=​acceleration due to gravity
which is 9.81 m/​s2).

There are several sources which cause ground vibration. These sources may include
natural or manmade phenomena. Natural phenomena are comprised of earthquakes,
landslides, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, etc. Manmade causes are comprised of
37

Theory of Rock Blasting 37

vibration generated by blasting activity, machinery movement, pile driving, train

movement, demolition activity and heavy roadways movement.
Blast-​induced ground vibration is sinusoidal in nature, and is predominantly
measured in terms of particle velocity and associated dominant frequency (Kumar
et al., 2016). The maximum velocity of a ground particle in any event is termed peak
particle velocity (PPV).
The PPV measurement is carried out using a seismograph comprising a geophone.
Generally, ground vibration is measured using three geophone sensors placed in lon-
gitudinal, transverse and vertical directions. In the measurement using three sensors,
the maximum velocity of each direction is compared. The maximum velocity among
longitudinal, vertical and transverse directions is termed PPV. The digital reading on
the seismograph also shows the peak vector sum (PVS), which is defined as the peak
value of the square root of the sum of the squares of the velocities. The PVS can be
calculated by the relationship given in Equation 2.9.

PVS = L2 + V 2 + T 2 (Equation 2.9)

Where,
PVS=​Peak vector sum (mm/​s),
L =​PPV in longitudinal direction sensor (mm/​s),
V =​PPV in vertical direction sensor (mm/​s),
T =​PPV in transverse direction sensor (mm/​s).

It is a major task for blasting practitioners to control the ground vibration near
structures within safe limits. The safe limits of vibration have been fixed under various

TABLE 2.4
PPV standards of different countries

1 –​Standards of India (DGMS circular 7 of 1997)

Dominant frequency
Type of structure <8Hz 8–​25 Hz >25Hz
(A) Buildings/​structures not belonging to owner
Domestic houses/​structures (brick, 5 10 15
kutcha & cement)
Industrial buildings 10 20 25
Objects of sensitive structures and 2 5 10
historical importance
(B) Buildings belonging to owner with limited span of life
Domestic houses/​structures 10 15 25
Industrial buildings 15 25 50
(continued)
38

38 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 2.4 (Continued)

PPV standards of different countries

2 –​Standards of Australia (As A-​2183)

Type of structure Peak particle velocity (mm/​s)
Historical buildings and monuments and buildings of 2
special value
Houses and low-​rise residential buildings, commercial 10
buildings not included below
Commercial buildings and industrial buildings or 25
structures of reinforced concrete or steel construction

3 –​After Swiss Standard

Type of structure Frequency Blast-​induced Traffic/​

band width PPV (mm/​s) machine-​
(Hz) induced PPV
(mm/​s)
Steel or reinforced structures, such as 10–​60 30 -​
factories, retaining walls, bridges, 60–​90 30–​40 -​
steel towers, open channels, 10–​30 -​ 12
underground tunnels and chambers 30–​60 -​ 12–​18
Buildings with foundation walls and 10–​60 18 -​
floor in concrete, wells in concrete or 60–​90 18–​25 -​
masonry, underground chambers and 10–​30 -​ 8
tunnels with masonry linings 30–​60 -​ 8–​12
Buildings with masonry walls and 10–​60 12 -​
wooden ceilings 60–​90 12–​18 -​
10–​30 -​ 5
30–​60 -​ 5–​8
Objects of historical interest or other 10–​60 8 -​
sensitive structures 60–​90 8–​12 -​
10–​30 -​ 3
4 –​After German DIN Standard 4150 (1986)
Type of structure Peak particle velocity (mm/​s) at foundation
<10 Hz 10–​50 Hz 50–​100 Hz
Offices and industrial premises 20 20–​40 40–​50
Domestic houses and similar 5 5–​15 15–​20
constructions
Buildings that do not come under the 3 3–​8 8–​10
above because of their sensitivity
 newgenrtpdf
39
Theory of Rock Blasting
TABLE 2.5
Empirical PPV predictor equations
S.No Researchers Equation S.No Researchers Equation
01 Aloui et al. (2016) RD 09 Kahriman et al. (2006) RD
PPV = 0.828( 1
)−1.32 PPV = 0.561( 1
)−1.432
QE 2 QE 2

02 Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) RD 10 Langefors and Khilstrom QE b

PPV = k ( )− b PPV = k ( )2
QE
1
3 (1963) RD
2
3

03 Badal (2010) RD 11 Mesec et al. (2010) RD

PPV = 0.29( 1
)−1.296 PPV = 0.508( 1
)−1.37
QE 2 QE 2

04 Duvall and Petkof (1959) RD 12 Rai and Singh (2004) PPV = kRD − b QE A e −±D
PPV = k ( 1
)− b
QE 2

05 Ghosh and Daemen (1983) RD 13 Palroy (1991)  RD 

−1
PPV = k ( )− b e − ±D
QE
1
3 PPV = k  1 
+n
 QE 2 

06 Ghosh and Daemen (1983) RD

PPV = k ( 1
)− b e − ±D
QE 2

07 Indian Standard (1973) 2

QE 3 1.25 14 Siskind (1980) RD
PPV = k ( ) PPV = 0.828( 1
)−1.32
RD QE 2

08 Kahriman (2004) RD QE, maximum charge detonated per delay; A, k, b, n, α, site constant;
PPV = 0.34( )−1.79
QE
1
2 RD, distance of instrument location from blasting face.

39
40

40 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

regulatory standards across the world. Some of the regulatory standards, including
the Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) standard practised in India, are
given in Table 2.4. The controlled blasting patterns are devised to restrict the vibration
near structures according to these standards. Various case studies related to designing
such controlled blasting patterns are discussed in subsequent chapters.
For devising the controlled blasting pattern, the prior prediction of PPV is
important. Various empirical relations have been developed over the years to pre-
dict PPV. Some of these empirical predictor equations are given in Table 2.5. These
empirical predictors are mostly based on MCPD and distance. However, with the
evolution of advanced statistical analysis and machine-​learning tools, the influence
of multiple parameters on induced vibration has also been investigated. Some of the
researchers have used burden, spacing, subgrade drilling, bench height, orientation of
free face and condition of free face also as the parameters to predict PPV (Himanshu
et al., 2022; Gorai et al., 2021; Himanshu et al., 2018).

2.5.2 Flyrocks
The blasting process results in the throw of the blasted rock. The uncontrolled movement
of these blasted fragments beyond a desired or expected distance is termed flyrocks.
According to Nayak et al. (2022), any unwanted throw of rock mass beyond 10 m is
termed flyrock. It may be a safety threat to structures, machinery, workers and nearby
inhabitants. Trivedi et al. (2014) stated that about 40 per cent of the total fatal accidents of
opencast mines occurs due to flyrocks. Major parameters which cause flyrock are blast
design parameters, explosive parameters and geological condition. It is necessary that
the specific charge, burden, stemming height and material and other parameters must be
decided properly to avoid the chances of flyrocks. The shotfirer should have knowledge
about the actual charge factor required to break the rock to prevent ejections. The rock
parameters also need to be examined carefully to avoid flyrocks. Sometimes flyrocks
are observed due to overcharging in a blasthole. Such overcharging may take place due
to higher explosive consumptions in the cavity of a blasthole. Excess scattering in delay
detonators also leads to flyrocks. In such cases, there is uneven firing of the blastholes,
which may result in the flyrocks. Flyrocks from blasting can be defined using three
mechanisms. These are face bursting, rifling and cratering.
Face bursting occurs mainly when the intersection of geological structures takes
place with explosive charge. As these geological structures act as a lesser resist-
ance path, the ejection of high pressure gases takes place through these structures.
Sometimes uneven burden also gives rise to the ejection of boulders or rocks present
in the front of the free face in the form of face bursting.
Rifling occurs in the scenario when the stemming length is inadequate or absent.
The stemming portion provides the confinement to restrict the movement of gaseous
energy out of the blasthole. As this portion provides the least resistance path, it should
be of sufficient length to restrict the ejection of explosive gases.
Cratering occurs at a blasting site having a much lower ratio between stemming
height and blasthole diameter. In this scenario the flyrock takes place from the collar
region (Jamei et al., 2021; Hasanipanah & Bakhshandeh 2020; Ghasemi et al.,
2012). A diagrammatic layout showing the comparison of these three mechanisms of
flyrocks is presented in Figure 2.14.
41

Theory of Rock Blasting 41

FIGURE 2.14 Diagram showing mechanism of flyrock during blasting. (Bhatawdekar

et al., 2023.)

2.5.3 Air Overpressure (AOp)

Air overpressure (AOp) is defined as the pressure wave formed due to variation in the
density of refraction energy in the atmosphere after blasting (Richmond et al., 1966;
Reed, 1964). These waves are formed for a combination of reasons encompassing rock
displacement, gas release through cracks or openings, energy release from stemming
portion and ground vibration. The intensity of AOp is influenced by various con-
trollable and uncontrollable parameters. The major controllable parameters include
direction of blast initiation, blasthole depth, stemming length and maximum charge
detonated per round. The size of stemming material, its type and burden, also have a
major influence on the AOp. Sawmliana et al. (2007) identified depth of burial as one
of the major reasons behind AOp. The uncontrollable parameters include different
geological, geotechnical and metrological parameters. Metrological parameters
include relative humidity, speed and direction of wind flow (He et al., 2021; Mahdiyar
et al., 2018).
During blasting, the AOp value is usually higher than the atmospheric pressure.
A threshold AOp limit has been defined for the safety of structures by different
researchers (Kuzu et al., 2009). The most commonly used AOp standard is the United
States Bureau of Mines (USBM) Standard. The USBM standard has correlated the
damage due to AOp in different scenarios. The recommended limit of AOp from
USBM is given in Table 2.6. The recommended values of AOp by Oriard (2002) is
given in Table 2.7. In the case of India, there has been a restriction on the number
of impulsive noises to be generated per day (Table 2.8). The restrictions have been
imposed by the Ministry of labour, Government of India. The generated AOp as
impulsive noise should be within limits.

A. McKenzie formula

 D 
AOp = 165 − 24 log   (Equation 2.10)
 3 Q
42

42 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 2.6
Air overpressure limits recommended by USBM for
surface mining

AOp value Frequency

105 dB C-​slow weighting scale on a sound level meter
129 dB 6.0 Hz high pass measuring system
133 dB 2.0 Hz high pass measuring system
134 dB 0.1 Hz high pass measuring system
(Events less than or equal to 2 sec duration)

Source: Siskind et al. (1980).

TABLE 2.7
Typical air overpressure criteria

AOp value Effect of AOp

134 dB Bureau of Mines recommendation following a study of large-​scale surface
mine blasting
140 dB Long-​term history of application as a safe project specification
151 dB Occasional window breakage
171 dB General window breakage

Source: After Oriard (2002).

TABLE 2.8
Permissible levels for impulsive noise for work zone area

Peak sound pressure in dB Permitted number of impulses or impacts/​day

140 100
135 315
130 1000
125 3160
120 10000

Source: dgfasli.gov.in

Note:
1. No exposure in excess of 140 dB peak sound pressure level is permitted.
2. For any peak sound pressure level falling in between any figure and the next higher or lower figure as
indicated in column 1, the permitted number of impulses or impacts per day is to be determined by
extrapolation on a proportionate basis.

To safeguard the nearby structures from the AOp, it is desired to predict it. The prediction of AOp can be
carried out with the help of empirical or machine-​learning based models. The basic empirical prediction
model consists of maximum charge per delay and distance. The empirical relation developed for the pre-
diction of AOp is given in Equation 2.10 (McKenzie). Similarly, a general predictor equation has also been
developed using cube root of explosive charge. The developed relation is given in Equation 2.11.
43

Theory of Rock Blasting 43

B. Generalise predictor equation

AOp = α(D / 3 Q )−β (Equation 2.11)

Where,
AOp is air overpressure (dB),
D is the distance of AOp measuring location from blast location (m),
Q is the maximum charge per delay (kg)
and α, β are geological site constant.

The site constant can be obtained by carrying out experimental trial blasts. The
value of the geological site constant depends on different geomining conditions of
the working site.
Scholars found that the magnitude of AOp is influenced by other factors as well –​
viz. vegetation, metrological data, blast geometry and atmospheric condition. Hence,
various machine-​learning models and multivariate statistical analysis-​based predictive
models have been developed to accurately predict AOp. Such models may include
blast design parameters, meteorological conditions, vegetation and other parameters
as inputs. The machine-​learning models used so far are fuzzy logic, support vector
machine, particle swarm optimisation and adaptive neuro-​fuzzy inference systems
(Hasanipanah et al., 2016; Hajihassani et al., 2014; Khandelwal & Kankar, 2011;
Mohamed et al., 2011).
In various literature, it has been suggested that nonel is preferable to detonating
cord to reduce AOp. It can also be reduced by reducing the maximum charge per
delay and total explosive charge in a firing round. If AOp is a major concern, then
the blasting face may be shifted to a larger distance from the point of concern. This
is because the distance between the source of blasting and AOp recording point is
a major factor influencing it. According to Stachura et al. (1984), the magnitude of
AOp is reduced by up to 6 dB by doubling the radial distance between monitoring
and blast location. Further use of a heavy muffling system is also practised to reduce
AOp. The proper stemming material and proper confinement should be maintained to
control AOp. The depth of the burial of explosive from the top may also be increased
to reduce AOp.

2.5.4 Dust
Large-​scale blasting operations produce a huge amount of dust. The long-​distance
propagation of dust may lead to health hazards for nearby inhabitants. So, dust
suppression techniques need to be implemented to suppress the blasting-​induced dust
at the source. Based on the size of dust particles, it has been classified as respirable
and non-​respirable dust. Respirable dust usually causes major lung disease in mine
workers –​viz. pneumoconiosis and silicosis. Human exposure to these pollutants
can lead to various chronic and acute health conditions (Eslami Doost et al., 2024;
Khaniabadi et al., 2017). Cardiovascular and respiratory diseases are the most crit­
ical health problems caused by dust emissions (Khazini et al., 2021; Patra et al.,
2016). Dust particles having a size less than 100 micron are inhalable. Hence it enters
44

44 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

the human body through the nose and causes these diseases. Hence in order to pre-
vent workers from contracting these diseases, the prediction and suppression of dust
particles are crucial.
The in-​situ dust from a blasting operation may be suppressed using some of the
special techniques discussed in Chapter 6 of this book.

2.6 SUMMARY
This chapter has discussed the rock breakage mechanism due to detonation
of explosive, different types of commercial explosives, initiation systems of
explosives, different parameters of explosives and blast design parameters with
their role in rock breakage. The summary of the discussions made in this chapter
is as follows.

• During blasting, detonation of explosive takes place inside the blasthole. This
produces two different types of energy which are shock/​stress energy and gas
energy. The initial cracks in the rock are generated by shock energy during
blasting. However, these cracks or existing cracks are elongated by gaseous
energy.
• The most dominant theory of rock breakage tells us that the compressive
shock wave generated by blasting travels in a radial outward direction away
from the blasthole wall. The nature of this wave changes to tensile when
it comes into contact with free face. The tensile wave helps in the tensile
slabbing of rock.
• The blasting operation is carried out using various types of commercial
explosives. The use of different variants of explosive is dependent on site
requirement, productivity, environmental and safety-​related sensitivity and cost
effectiveness. The available commercial explosives are ammonium nitrate fuel
oil (ANFO), slurry and emulsion. These explosives require an initiating system
for the detonation. Various explosive initiating systems, such as safety fuse,
plain detonator, electric detonator, non-​electric detonator, delay connector with
detonating fuse and electronic detonator, are used for the initiation of these
explosives.
• Various explosive parameters also influence the blasting output. These
parameters comprise density, velocity of detonation, detonation pressure,
sensitivity, water resistance and smoke/​ fumes. High density and VoD
explosives are required for the breakage of hard rock. However, explosives
such as ANFO are suitable for jointed rock mass due to the presence of high
gaseous energy.
• The output of blasting depends not only on explosive parameters but also
on the blast design parameters. These parameters include burden, spacing,
subgrade drilling, hole inclination, maximum charge per delay, total explo-
sive blasted in a round, charge factor and delay pattern. These parameters
affect the blasting output in terms of fragmentation, backbreak, muckpile
movement and associated hazards like ground vibration, flyrocks, air
overpressure and dust.
45

Theory of Rock Blasting 45

REFERENCES
Adhikari, G.R., 2000. Empirical methods for the calculation of the specific charge for surface
blast design. Fragblast, 4(1), 19–​33. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​138551​4000​9408​061.
Agrawal, H., Mishra, A. K., 2017. Evolution of digital detonators as an intelligent tool for con-
trol blasting in Indian mines. Annales de Chimie Science des Matériaux, 41, 157–​171.
Akhavan, J., 2022. The chemistry of explosives 4E. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Allsman, P.L., 1960. Analysis of explosive action in breaking rock. Transactions, Australian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 217, 468–​478.
Aloui, M., Bleuzen, Y., Essefi, E., Abbes, C., 2016. Ground vibrations and air blast effects
induced by blasting in open pit mines: Case of Metlaoui Mining Basin, South western
Tunisia. Journal of Geology and Geophysics 5(3), 1–​8. https://​doi.org/​10.4172/​2381-​
8719.1000​247.
Ambraseys, N.R., Hendron, A.J., 1968. Dynamic behaviour of rock masses. Rock Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 203–​227.
Anderson, O., 1952. Blast hole burden design-​introducing a new formula. Australian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, 166–​167, 115–​130.
Andrade, T., 2017. The gunpowder age: China, military innovation, and the rise of the West in
world history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Apin, A., Parfenov, A.K., Volkoboinikov, I.M., 1969. Detonation of coarsegrained explosives.
LA-​04199-​TR, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, NM, USA.
Ash, R.L., 1963. Mechanics of rock breakage; material properties, powder factor, blasting
costs. Pit Quarr, 56, 109–​111.
Ash, R.L., 1973. The influence of geological discontinuities on rock blasting. University of
Minnesota.
Ash, R.L., 1977. Blasting characteristics of large diameter boreholes. In 6th Annual Drilling
and Blasting Technology, Houston, TX.
Ayat, M. G., Allen, S. G., 1988. Emulsions: The cutting edge of development in blasting agent
technology—​a method for economic comparison. Mining Science and Technology, 6(3),
285–​289. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​S0167-​9031(88)90272-​1.
Badal, K.K., 2010. Blast vibration studies in surface mines, Doctoral dissertation. Department
of Mining Engineering, National Institute of Technology of Rourkela.
Bergmann, O.R., 1983. Effect of explosive properties, rock type and delays on fragmenta-
tion in large model blasts. In First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting. Lulea, Sweden, 71–​78.
Bhagat, N.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh, M.M., Rana, A., Singh, P.K., 2020. Innovative directional
controlled blasting technique for excavation of unstable slopes along a busy transporta-
tion route: a case study of Konkan Railway in India. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration,
37(3), 833–​850. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​020-​00212-​x.
Bhandari, S., 1975. Burden and spacing relationships in the design of blasting patterns. In
ARMA US Rock Mechanics/​Geomechanics Symposium.
Bhandari, S., 1997. Engineering rock blasting operations. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Bhatawdekar, R.M., Kumar, R., Sabri Sabri, M.M., Roy, B., Mohamad, E.T., Kumar, D., Kwon,
S., 2023. Estimating flyrock distance induced due to mine blasting by extreme learning
machine coupled with an equilibrium optimizer. Sustainability, 15(4), 3265. https://​doi.
org/​10.3390/​su1​5043​265.
Blair, D.P., 1990. Some problems associated with standard charge weight vibration scaling
laws. In Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on fragmentation by blasting,
Brisbane, 149–​158.
46

46 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Bowden, F. P., Yoffe, A. D., 1985. Initiation and growth of explosion in liquids and solids. CUP
Archive. New York: Cambridge-​Hitachi.
Broadbent, C.D., 1974. Predictable blasting with in situ seismic surveys. The American Institute
of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, 26, 37–​41.
Cardu, M., Giraudi, A., Oreste, P., 2013. A review of the benefits of electronic detonators.
Rem: Revista Escola de Minas, 66, 375–​382.
Chi, L.Y., Zhang, Z.X., Aalberg, A., Yang, J., Li, C.C., 2019. Fracture processes in granite
blocks under blast loading. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 52, 853–​868. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​603-​018-​1620-​0.
Chiappetta, R.F., 1998. Blast monitoring instrumentation and analysis techniques, with an
emphasis on field applications. Fragblast, 2(1), 79–​122.
Choudhary, B.S., Agrawal, A., Arora, R., 2021. Stemming material and Inter-​row delay timing
effect on blast results in limestone mines. Sādhanā, 46, 1–​12. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​
s12​046-​020-​01552-​6.
Darling, P. (Ed.)., 2011. SME mining engineering handbook, (1). Englewood, CO: Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
Dgfasli.gov.in, https://​dgfa​sli.gov.in/​index.php/​en/​model-​rules-​part-​ii/​ope​rati​ons-​involv​ing-​
high-​noise-​and-​vibrat​ion-​lev​els, accessed on 26.09.2023.
Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS), DGMS (Tech.) S&T Circular No. 7, 1997.
Damage to the structures due to blast induced ground vibration in the mining areas.
Dhanbad, India, 9–​12.
Duvall, W.I., 1959. Spherical propagation of explosion-​generated strain pulses in rock (No.
5481–​5485). US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Duvall, W. I., Atchison, T.C., 1957. Rock breakage by explosives. US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines (5356).
Eslami Doost, Z., Dehghani, S., Samaei, M.R., Arabzadeh, M., Baghapour, M.A., Hashemi,
H. De Marcoc, A., 2024. Dispersion of SO2 emissions in a gas refinery by AERMOD
modeling and human health risk: a case study in the Middle East. International Journal
of Environmental Health Research, 34(2), 1227–​1240. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09603​
123.2023.2165​044.
Fabin, M., Jarosz, T., 2021. Improving ANFO: effect of additives and ammonium nitrate
morphology on detonation parameters. Materials, 14(19), 5745. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​
ma1​4195​745.
Feustel, M., Krull, M., Tolliday, I. J., Collins, C. R., Franjic, M., Roy, T., 2019. U.S. Patent
Application No. 16/​093,609.
Fogelson, D.E., Duvall, W.I., Atchison, T.C., 1959. Strain energy in explosion-​generated strain
pulses (5514). US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Fousson, E., Ritter, A., Arnold, T., 2016. High safety and reliability electric detonator.
Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 41(5), 870–​ 874. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​
prep.201500​310.
Fraenkel, K.H., 1954. Handbook in rock blasting technique. Part-​1, Esselte AB, Stockholm, 378.
Fujihara, S., Narita, K., Saito, Y., Tatsumoto, K., Fujiwara, S., Yoshida, M., Aoki, K., Kakudate,
Y., Usuba, S., Yamawaki, H., 1992. Explosive shock synthesis of polycrystalline dia-
mond powders. In Shock Waves: Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on
Shock Waves, Japan, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 367–​372.
Ghasemi, E., Sari, M., Ataei, M., 2012. Development of an empirical model for predicting
the effects of controllable blasting parameters on flyrock distance in surface mines.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 52, 163–​170. https://​doi.
org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2012.03.011.
47

Theory of Rock Blasting 47

Ghosh, A., Daemen, J.J., 1983. A simple new blast vibration predictor (based on wave propa-
gation laws). In The 24th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock
Mechanics Association.
Gorai, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Santi, C., 2021. Development of ANN-​based universal predictor
for prediction of blast-​induced vibration indicators and its performance comparison with
existing empirical models. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38, 2021–​2036. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​021-​00449-​0.
Hagan, T.N., 1980. Rock breakage by explosives. In Gasdynamics of Explosions and Reactive
System, Proceedings of the 6th Colloquium held in Stockholm, Sweden, 329–​340.
https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​B978-​0-​08-​025​442-​5.50034-​2.
Hagan, T.N., Kennedy, B.J., 1977. A practical approach to the reduction of blasting nuisances
from surface operations. Australian Mining, 69(11).
Hagan, T.N., Reid, I.W., 1983. Performance monitoring of production blasthole drills –​a
means of increasing blasting efficiency. In International Surface Mining and Quarrying
Symposium, 2, 245–​254.
Hajihassani, M., Armaghani, D.J., Sohaei, H., Mohamad, E.T., Marto, A., 2014. Prediction of
airblast-​overpressure induced by blasting using a hybrid artificial neural network and
particle swarm optimization. Applied Acoustics, 80, 57–​ 67. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.apaco​ust.2014.01.005.
Hall, C., Howell, S.P., 1913. Investigation of Detonators and Electric Detonators (No. 59).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Hasanipanah, M., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., 2020. A fuzzy rule-​based approach to address
uncertainty in risk assessment and prediction of blast-​induced Flyrock in a quarry.
Natural Resources Research, 29, 669–​689. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​053-​020-​09616-​4.
Hasanipanah, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Khamesi, H., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., Ghoraba,
S., 2016. Several non-​ linear models in estimating air-​ overpressure resulting from
mine blasting. Engineering with Computers, 32, 441–​455. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​
366-​015-​0425-​y.
He, Z., Armaghani, D. J., Masoumnezhad, M., Khandelwal, M., Zhou, J., Murlidhar, B. R.,
2021. A combination of expert-​based system and advanced decision-​tree algorithms to
predict air-​overpressure resulting from Quarry blasting. Natural Resources Research,
30(2), 1889–​1903. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​053-​020-​09773-​6.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2023a. Rock–​Explosive Interaction
During Underground Blasting. In Blasting Technology for Underground Hard Rock
Mining. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 25–​48.
Himanshu, V. K., Mishra, A. K., Roy, M. P., Singh, P. K., 2023b. Blast-​induced hazards. In
Blasting Technology for Underground Hard Rock Mining. Springer Nature Singapore,
Singapore, 93–​105.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Vishwakarma, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2022. Prediction of
blast-​induced ground vibration using principal component analysis-​based classification
and logarithmic regression technique. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 39(5), 2065–​
2074. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​022-​00659-​0.
Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Mishra, A.K., Paswan, R.K., Panda, D., Singh, P. K., 2018.
Multivariate statistical analysis approach for prediction of blast-​induced ground vibration.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11, 1–​11. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​517-​018-​3796-​8.
Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Shankar, R., Mishra, A.K., Singh, P.K., 2021. Empirical approach
based estimation of charge factor and dimensional parameters in underground blasting.
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38, 1059–​ 1069. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​
461-​020-​00374-​8.
48

48 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Hino, K., 1956. Fragmentation of rock through blasting and shock wave theory of blasting. In
ARMA US Rock Mechanics/​Geomechanics Symposium ARMA-​56.
Huang, L.F., Xu, X. M., Tao, Y., Wang, R.X., Zhou, Y.L., Xiao, F.G., 2023. Controllable
acoustic deterrent based on the warning signals generated by nonel detonators. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 188, 114646. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.marpol​bul.2023.114​646.
Hustrulid, W.A., 1999. Blasting principles for open pit mining: general design concepts.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ioannou, E., Nikiforakis, N., 2021. Multiphysics modeling of the initiating capability of
detonators. II. The underwater test. Journal of Applied Physics, 129(2), 025903. https://​
doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0031​260.
Jamei, M., Hasanipanah, M., Karbasi, M., Ahmadianfar, I., Taherifar, S., 2021. Prediction of
flyrock induced by mine blasting using a novel kernel-​based extreme learning machine.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(6), 1438–​1451. https://​
doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jrmge.2021.07.007.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L., Carcedo, F.J.A., De Ramiro, Y.V., 1995. Drilling and blasting of
rocks. CRS Press, 41, 35947.
Kahriman A., 2004. Analysis of parameters of ground vibration produced from bench blasting
at a limestone quarry. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24(11), 887–​892.
https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.soil​dyn.2004.06.018.
Kahriman A, Ozer U, Aksoy M, Karadogan A, Tuncer G., 2006. Environmental impacts of
bench blasting at Hisarcik Boron open pit mine in Turkey. Environmental Geology, 50,
1015–​1023. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​254-​006-​0274-​5.
Kaijuka, B., 2016. Assessment of drilling and blasting parameters to minimize ore dilution and
ore loss at Kilembe mines, Doctoral dissertation. Busitema University.
Khandelwal, M., Kankar, P.K., 2011. Prediction of blast-​induced air overpressure using support
vector machine. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 4(3), 427. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​
517-​009-​0092-​7.
Khaniabadi, Y.O., Daryanoosh, S.M., Hopke, P.K., Ferrante, M., De Marco, A., Sicard, P.
Keishams, F., 2017. Acute myocardial infarction and COPD attributed to ambient
SO2 in Iran. Environmental Research, 156, 683–​ 687. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.env​
res.2017.04.028.
Khazini, L., Dehkharghanian, M. E., Vaezihir, A., 2021. Dispersion and modeling discus-
sion of aerosol air pollution caused during mining and processing of open-​cast mines.
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19, 913–​924. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s13​762-​021-​03225-​1.
Konya, C.J., Davis, J., 1978. The effects of stemming consist on retention in blastholes. In
Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, 102–​112.
Cleveland, OH: Society of Explosives Engineers.
Konya, C.J., Walter, E.J., 1991. Rock blasting and overbreak control (No. FHWA-​HI-​92-​001;
NHI-​13211). Federal Highway Administration, United States.
Kubota, S., Saburi, T., Homae, T., Wada, Y., Ogata, Y., Iida, M., Hamashima, H., Katoh, K.,
2011. Development of a structure for blast wave mitigation. Propellants, Explosives,
Pyrotechnics, 36(2), 110–​118.
Kumar, R., Choudhury, D., Bhargava, K., 2016. Determination of blast-​induced ground vibra-
tion equations for rocks using mechanical and geological properties. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 8(3), 341–​ 349. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.jrmge.2015.10.009.
Kury, J.W., Breithaupt, R.D., Tarver, C. M., 1999. Detonation waves in trinitrotoluene. Shock
Waves, 9, 227–​237.
49

Theory of Rock Blasting 49

Kutter, H.K., Fairhurst, C., 1971. On the fracture process in blasting. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 8(3), 181–​202.
Kuzu, C., Fisne, A., Ercelebi, S. G., 2009. Operational and geological parameters in the
assessing blast induced airblast-​overpressure in quarries. Applied Acoustics, 70(3), 404–​
411. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.apaco​ust.2008.06.004.
Langefors, U., Kihlström, B., 1963. The modern technique of rock blasting. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Linehan, P., Wiss, J.F., 1982. Vibration, air blast and noise from surface coal mining blasting.
Mining Engineering, 34(4), 391–​395.
Liu, J., Jiang, Y., Tong, W., Zhang, T., Yang, L., 2016. Thermal kinetic parameters of lead
azide and lead styphnate with antistatic additives. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics,
41(2), 267–​272. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​prep.201500​138.
Lu, W., Leng, Z., Chen, M., Yan, P., Hu, Y., 2016. A modified model to calculate the size
of the crushed zone around a blast-​hole. Journal of the Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, 116(5), 412–​422. https://​doi.org/​10.17159/​2411-​9717/​2016/​
v116n​5a7.
Mahdiyar, A., Marto, A., Mirhosseinei, S. A., 2018. Probabilistic air-​overpressure simulation
resulting from blasting operations. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(4), 1–​11. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​665-​018-​7293-​x.
Mandal, S.K., Singh, M.M., Bhagat, N.K., 2008. Impact of single-​hole and multi-​hole blasting
on vibration parameters. Journal of Mines, Metals & Fuels, 56(7&8), 122–​128.
Mastermac2000.com, https://​master​mac2​000.com.au/​hist​ory-​of-​pneuma​tic-​tools/​, accessed on
04.09.2023.
Mesec, J., Kovač, I., Soldo, B., 2010. Estimation of particle velocity based on blast event
measurements at different rock units. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
30(10), 1004–​1009. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.soil​dyn.2010.04.011.
Mesec, J., Žganec, S., Kovač, I., 2015. In-​hole velocity of detonation (VOD) measurements as
a framework for the selection type of explosive. International Journal of Mining Science
and Technology, 25(4), 675–​680. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijmst.2015.05.024.
Meyer, R., Köhler, J., Homburg, A., 2016. Explosives. Weinheim: John Wiley & Sons.
Midkiff Jr, C.R., Walters, A. N., 1993. Slurry and emulsion explosives: new tools for terrorists,
new challenges for detection and identification. In Advances in Analysis and Detection of
Explosives: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Analysis and Detection
of Explosives, Jerusalem, Israel, 77–​90. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Mishra, A., 2009. Designing of surface blasts –​A computational approach, Doctoral disserta-
tion. NIT Rourkela, India.
Mishra, A., Rout, M., Singh, D.R., Jana, S., 2017. Influence of density of emulsion explosives
on its velocity of detonation and fragmentation of blasted muckpile. Current Science,
112(3), 602–​608. https://​doi.org/​10.18520/​cs/​v112/​i03/​602-​608.
Mohamed, M.T., 2011. Performance of fuzzy logic and artificial neural network in prediction
of ground and air vibrations. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 39(2), 425–​440. https://​
doi.org/​10.21608/​jes​aun.2011.127​550.
Monjezi, M., Hasanipanah, M., Khandelwal, M., 2013. Evaluation and prediction of blast-​
induced ground vibration at Shur River Dam, Iran, by artificial neural network.
Neural Computing and Applications, 22, 1637–​ 1643. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​
521-​012-​0856-​y.
Murmu, S., Maheshwari, P., Verma, H.K., 2018. Empirical and probabilistic analysis of
blast-​induced ground vibrations. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 103, 267–​274. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2018.01.038.
50

50 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Nayak, N.P., Jain, A., Mahapatra, S.R., 2022. Application of Mine Excellence software in
flyrock prediction & mitigation. Materials Today: Proceedings, 48, 1271–​1276. https://​
doi.org/​10.1016/​j.matpr.2021.08.282.
Nicholls, H.R., Johnson, C.F., Duvall, W.I., 1971. Blasting vibrations and their effects on
structures, 656. US Department of Interior.
Olofsson, S.O., 1990. Applied explosives technology for construction and mining. Applex.
Onederra, I., Esen, S., 2003.Selection of inter-​hole and inter-​row timing for surface blasting –​
an approach based on burden relief analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference
on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Prague, 6, 269–​275. https://​doi.org/​10.1201/​
978143​9833​476.ch33.
Oriard, L.L., 2002. Explosives engineering, construction vibrations and geotechnology.
Pennsylvania State University: International Society of Explosives Engineers.
Oyler, K.D., Mehta, N., Cheng, G., 2015. Overview of explosive initiators. Army Armament
Research Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, 24.
Pachmáň, J., Künzel, M., Kubát, K., Šelešovský, J., Maršálek, R., Pospíšil, M., Prokeš, A.,
2017. OPTIMEX: measurement of detonation velocity with a passive optical fibre
system. Central European Journal of Energetic Materials, 14(1), 233–​250. https://​doi.
org/​10.22211/​cejem/​64901.
Paswan, R.K., Priyadarshi, V., Kushwaha, S., Rana, V.S., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2022.
Uncontrollable and controllable parameters of rock blasting –​A review. Indian Mining
& Engineering Journal, 12, 12–​23.
Patra, A.K., Gautam, S., Kumar, P., 2016. Emissions and human health impact of particu-
late matter from surface mining operation—​A review. Environmental Technology &
Innovation, 5, 233–​249. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.eti.2016.04.002.
Pearse, G.E., 1955. Rock blasting—​some aspects on the theory and practice. Mining Quarry
Engineering, 21, 25–​30.
Persson, P.A., Holmberg, R., Lee, J., 1993. Rock blasting and explosives engineering. Boca
Raton: CRC Press.
Pradhan, G.K., 1996. Explosives and Blasting techniques. Bhubaneswar: Mintech
Publications, 53–​80.
Quaresma, J., Deimling, L., Campos, J., Mendes, R., 2020. Active and passive optical fiber
metrology for detonation velocity measurements. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics,
45(6), 921–​931. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​prep.201900​197.
Rai, R, Singh T.N., 2004. A new predictor for ground vibration prediction and its comparison
with other predictors. Indian Journal of Engineering and Materials Sciences, 11,
178–​184.
Rajabi, A.M., Vafaee, A., 2020. Prediction of blast-​induced ground vibration using empirical
models and artificial neural network (Bakhtiari Dam access tunnel, as a case study).
Journal of Vibration and Control, 26(7–​8), 520–​531. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​107​7546​
3198​898.
Reaugh, J.E., Curtis, J.P., Maheswaran, M.A., 2018. Modelling of deflagration to deton-
ation transition in porous PETN of density 1.4 g/​cc with HERMES. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 1979(1), 100032. https://​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.5044​904.
Reed, J. W., 1964. Air blast from cratering explosions. Engineering with Nuclear Explosives –​
US At. Energy Comm., Rept, 169–​180.
Richmond, D.R., Damon, E. G., Fletcher, E. R., Bowen, I. G., White, C. S., 1966. The relation-
ship between selected blast-​wave parameters and the response of mammals exposed to
air blast. Albuquerque, NM: Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
51

Theory of Rock Blasting 51

Roy, M.P., Himanshu, V.K., Kaushik, A.P., Singh, P.K., 2022. Influence of ring blasting pattern
on the safety of nearby underground structures. Sādhanā, 47(4), 192. https://​doi.org/​
10.1007/​s12​046-​022-​01968-​2.
Roy, M.P., Mishra, A.K., Agrawal, H., Singh, P.K., 2020. Blast vibration dependence on total
explosives weight in open-​pit blasting. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13(13), 531.
Roy, M.P., Paswan, R.K., Sarim, M.D., Kumar, S., Jha, R., Singh, P.K., 2016. Rock fragmenta-
tion by blasting –​A review. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 64(9), 424–​431.
Palroy, P. 1991. Vibration control in an opencast mine based on improved blast vibration
predictors. Mining Science and Technology, 12(2), 157–​165. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
0167-​9031(91)91642-​U.
Palroy, P. 2005. Rock blasting: effects and operations. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Saharan, M.R., Mitri, H. S., Jethwa, J.L., 2006. Rock fracturing by explosive energy: review
of state-​of-​the-​art. Fragblast, 10(1–​2), 61–​81. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​138551​4060​
0858​792.
Sawmliana, C., Roy, P.P., Singh, R.K., Singh, T.N., 2007. Blast induced air overpressure and
its prediction using artificial neural network. Mining Technology, 116(2), 41–​48. https://​
doi.org/​10.1179/​17432​8607​X191​065.
Shadabfar, M., Gokdemir, C., Zhou, M., Kordestani, H., Muho, E.V., 2020. Estimation of
damage induced by single-​hole rock blasting: A review on analytical, numerical, and
experimental solutions. Energies, 14(1), 29. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​en1​4010​029.
Silva, J., Worsey, T., Lusk, B., 2019. Practical assessment of rock damage due to blasting.
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 29(3), 379–​385. https://​doi.
org/​10.1016/​j.ijmst.2018.11.003.
Siskind, D.E., 1980. Structure response and damage produced by ground vibration from sur-
face mine blasting. Report of Investigations 8507. US Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines.
Siskind, D.E., Stachura, V.J., Stagg, M.S., Kopp, J.W., 1980. Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Airblast From Surface Mining. Report of Investigations 8485. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Spear, R.J., Wolfson, M.G., 1990. Determination of detonation parameters of booster explosives
at small charge diameters. DSTO Materials Research Laboratory, Maribyrnong, Victoria,
Australia.
Specialblasts.com, www.specia​lbla​sts.com/​cast-​boos​ter, accessed on 04.09.2023.
Stachura, V.J., Siskind, D.E., Kopp, J. W., 1984. Airblast and ground vibration generation and
propagation from contour mine blasting. Report of Investigations 8892. US Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Standard Indian, 1973. Criteria for safety and design of structures subjected to under ground
blast. ISI. (IS-​6922).
Stiehr, J.F., Dean, J.L., 2011. ISEE blasters’ handbook. International Society Explosive,
Cleveland, OH, 346(1).
Sun, C., Later, D.W., Chen, G., 2001. Analysis of the effect of borehole size on explo-
sive energy loss in rock blasting. Fragblast, 5(4), 235–​246. https://​doi.org/​10.1076/​
frag.5.4.235.3618.
Tete, A.D., Deshmukh, A.Y., Yerpude, R.R., 2013. Velocity of detonation (VOD) measurement
techniques practical approach. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 2(3),
259. https://​doi.org/​10.14419/​ijet.v2i3.1023.
Trivedi, R., Singh, T.N., Raina, A.K., 2014. Prediction of blast-​induced flyrock in Indian
limestone mines using neural networks. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 6(5), 447–​454. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jrmge.2014.07.003.
52

52 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Valluri, S.K., Salvati, L., Dreizin, E.L., Dlott, D.D., 2023. Fast reactions of shocked energetic
microporous metallic composites. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 48, e20230003.
https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​prep.202300​031.
Vishwakarma, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Kumar, S., Roy, M. P., 2020. Overbreak control in
development face blasting of underground metal mine—​a case study. In Proceedings
of National Conference on Advances in Mining (AIM-​2020), CSIR-​CIMFR Dhanbad,
India, 473–​482.
Vishwakarma, A.K., Murthy, V.M.S.R., Himanshu, V.K., Prakash, A., Mehrotra, S., 2023.
Investigations on the influence of applied thrust on rock penetration rate by a raise
boring machine using numerical simulation and experimental trials. Mining, Metallurgy
& Exploration, 40,1187–​1197. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​023-​00779-​1.
Wang, J., 2021. Experimental research on reasonable time difference of electronic detonators
based on MATLAB. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1952(3), 032008. https://​doi.
org/​10.1088/​1742-​6596/​1952/​3/​032​008.
Wisniak, J., 2008. The development of dynamite: from Braconnot to Nobel. Educación
Química, 19(1), 71–​81. https://​doi.org/​10.22201/​fq.187084​04e.2008.1.25765.
Wu, X., Gong, M., Wu, H., Liu, X., 2021. Parameter calculation of the initiating circuit
with mixed use of nonel detonators and electronic detonators in tunnel controlled-​
blasting. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 113, 103975. DOI:10.1016/​
J.TUST.2021.103975.
Yinon, J., Zitrin, S., 1996. Modern methods and applications in analysis of explosives.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Zhang, Z.X., 2016. Rock fracture and blasting: theory and applications.
Oxford: Butterworth-​Heinemann.
Zhang, Z.X., Chi, L.Y., Yi, C., 2021. An empirical approach for predicting burden velocities
in rock blasting. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(4), 767–​
773. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jrmge.2021.04.004.
Zou, D., 2017. Mechanisms of rock breakage by blasting. In Theory and Technology of
Rock Excavation for Civil Engineering, 205–​233. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​981-​10-​
1989-​0_​5.
53

3 Practical Challenges
with Rock Blasting

3.1 INTRODUCTION
There are various operational challenges associated with rock blasting, which are
predominantly comprised of rock fragmentation and hole deviation. The aim of any
ideal blast is to produce optimum rock fragment size as per the requirement of mining
or mineral processing unit. The size of rock fragments decreases with the increase
in specific charge. This affects the cost of mill operation also. According to Kojovic
et al. (1995), the crushing energy decreased by 11 per cent when the specific charge
increased from 0.26 to 0.47 kg/​t. Dance et al. (2007) found that when the specific
charge increases from 1.15 to 1.62 kg/​t then the mill throughput increases in the range
of 25–​40 per cent. Apart from specific charge, optimum stemming length should also
be selected for desired rock fragment size. According to Brinkmann (1990), around
50 per cent of the explosive energy escapes from the blasthole due to absence of suf-
ficient stemming column. This insufficient column length has major impacts on the
rock fragmentation.
The deviation of the blastholes is another important operational challenge. The
hole drilled in the rock should be aligned parallel to the slope direction of vertical
for better blasting output. The deviation of hole not only affects the outcome of any
blasting operation but also reduces the productivity of the mine. Inaccuracy in drilling
changes the blast design parameters unintentionally. The spacing and burden change
(increase or decrease) with the deviation in drilling of the blasthole. This change in
parameters alters the uniform distribution of rock fragments. Most of the time, devi-
ation in the blasthole increases the size of fragments. This increase in fragment size
affects the other associated operations such as hauling, loading and crushing. Ozdemir
and Kumral (2019) found that the cost of mining shows a deviation of 16.8 per cent
with the change in blast design parameters. Apart from rock fragmentation, some
other major drawback of hole deviation are ore dilution, loss of explosive energy and
loss of productivity. According to Oppong and Agyei (2020), the 3.2 per cent devi­
ation in the drilling affects the production by 23 per cent from the planned output.
Neale (2010) found that if the blasthole gets misplaced by 0.5 m then the power of
explosive gets reduced by 35 per cent. Moreover when it gets misplaced by 0.4 m
then the power of explosive reduces by 28 per cent (Adebayo & Mutandwa, 2015).

DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-3 53
54

54 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Different operational challenges increase the amplitude of various mining-​induced

hazards or accidents as well.
It is important to examine the different accidents which have taken place in the
rock blasting process, to take care in future. On 29 August 2011, a premature blast
took place at the Karuna limestone mine at Nimbahera, in the Chittorgarh district
of Rajasthan. Altogether eight holes were charged with slurry and ANFO explosive.
The initiation system was detonating cord and MSD. During the connection of holes,
lightning occurred and fell over the two holes of the second row where detonator
no. 7 was tied with the seventh charged hole and the MS connector was tied between
the seventh and eighth holes. This resulted in huge flying fragments. This resulted in
forehead, leg and chest injuries to one of the shovel maintenance helpers (Palroy &
Sinha, 2022). A similar incident took place at Golden Grove underground operation
in Australia. During the charging of holes, lightning struck the surface and charged it.
No casualties occurred but it pre-​initiated the firing circuit.
A similar accident took place in a blasting site due to a nonel detonator. The
charging at the blasting site was in progress. Suddenly the nonel was struck in the
blasthole. In an attempt to remove the shock tube by pulling it from the blasthole,
the shock tube broke. As the shock tube broke, a spark was observed at the collar of
the blasthole. This spark initiated the detonator present inside the blasthole. Fortunately,
it was not a charged hole; hence no mishap or accident occurred. The pulling of nonel
caused tension in the shock tube which caused its breakage and initiated the same
(DGMS Circular 14 of 2020). Accordingly, the statutory regulations in India were
modified to use the initiating devices on a ‘first in first out’ basis. The accessories
which are older should be used sooner.
Various other challenges like flyrock due to blasting projectiles, secondary
blasting, blown-​ out holes and misfire dealing may also cause accidents during
blasting. Sawmliana et al. (2020) carried out an investigation to find out the reason
for an accident in Bhurkunda mine, India, due to flyrock. The blasting was carried
out in the overburden strata which consisted of shale and sandstone. The predicted
distance of throw of flyrock was 227 m. However, a fatal accident took place at a
distance of around 280 m from the blasting site due to flyrock. The possible reason
for the occurrence of this accident was the presence of rock strata of a weak zone.
According to Mishra and Mallick (2013), altogether 16 accidents occurred in India
from 1996 to 2011 due to flyrock in opencast mines. A total of 17 fatalities were
recorded from these accidents. Of these, seven accidents were at coal mines and ten
at metal mines. Similarly, one fatal accident occurred at Blanket mine in Zimbabwe
due to secondary blasting on 16 February 2023. According to Mishra and Mallick
(2013), altogether 3 per cent of the total accidents occurred due to secondary blasting
between 1996 and 2011.
Accidents while handling misfire are also common in mining industries. On 16
October 2008 and 14 October 2009 two different accidents occurred in the coal mine
of Ningxia, China. These accidents occurred due to improper handling of misfire.
Altogether 30 fatalities and 55 injuries were reported in these accidents (Liu et al.,
2019; Yi, 2008). Researchers found that 5.64 per cent of the total accidents that
occurred due to blasting in the United States from 1978 to 2001 were while handling
55

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 55

misfires (Kecojevic & Radomsky, 2005; Verakis & Lobb, 2003). A blasting site where
a misfire has occurred should be handled very carefully by accurately identifying the
quantity and location of misfires.
To mitigate these challenges, different regulatory bodies have provided
restrictions or limitations in rock blasting, depending on the condition of the
blasting face. However, there are some challenges which are unavoidable and
proper care should be used to reduce the occurrence of any mishap. Different
challenges associated with the rock blasting process are discussed in detail in this
chapter.

3.2 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES
The rock blasting process comes with different associated operational challenges.
These challenges include accuracy in drilling of blastholes, problems of drilling in
hard rock formation, blasting in watery strata and presence of a cavity inside the
rock mass. Such challenges reduce the flexibility in the selection of explosive and
blast design parameters. Detailed discussion on the different operational challenges
encountered during the rock blasting process is made in various subsections of this
section.

3.2.1 Drilling and Blasting in Hard Rock Formations

The hard rock formations of iron ore, bauxite and other rocks have challenges
associated with drilling using small diameter drill bits. Accordingly, a larger diameter
of blasthole is drilled in such cases. Sometimes the blasthole diameter used in a hard
rock formation is more than 250 mm. The benches at these mines are even below
20 m. This makes it compulsory to increase the blasting geometry. The increased
geometry for smaller depths of blasthole surpasses the conventional rule of thumb
of blasting. Accordingly, these challenges are dealt with by blast designers with spe-
cific techniques. The techniques to deal with such challenges are discussed in detail
in Chapter 5.

3.2.2 Maintaining Drilling Accuracy in Varying Depths of Blasthole

The drilling of blastholes should be accurate and precise for the optimum rock
breakage. This not only increases the productivity of a mine but also reduces the
overall mining cost. The selection of drill diameter depends on the depth of blasthole
to be drilled. The smaller blasthole diameters (32–​102 mm) are preferred to drill
blastholes of smaller depth (Zong et al., 2017). The deviation of drilled blasthole from
the planned geometry is the prominent issue which mining industries are facing with
smaller blasthole diameter for greater blasthole depth. Blasthole deviation increases
the mining cost in different ways –​viz. increased consumption of explosives, loss of
machine working hours, drilling cost, loss of drill rods, etc.
Blasthole deviations are of three types: collar deviation, alignment deviation (both
vertical and horizontal) and trajectory deviations.
56

56 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Collar deviation –​takes place when the lateral displacement of blasthole location
takes place.
Alignment deviation –​occurs when the drill machine is not properly aligned to the
drilling angle. It also takes place when the base of the drill machine is not fixed
perfectly at the drilling location.
Trajectory deviations –​when the actual blasthole path gets deviated from the
designed path this is termed a trajectory deviation. According to Vishwakarma
et al. (2023), the hard strata require a higher thrust as compared to soft strata.
When the change in strata takes place, the applied thrust also has to be changed.
However, when the strata change from hard to soft, the applied thrust does not
change immediately. This high value of applied thrust in the soft rock deviates
the path of drilling from the designed path.

The nature of blasthole deviations has been discussed in various scientific studies.
Medda (1983) found in his study that inclined blastholes have a higher deviation than
vertical blastholes. Deshpande (2021) found that the length of drill strings has a direct
influence on blasthole deviation. Researchers have found bending stiffness of drill
rod and clearance space between drill rod and blasthole wall to be the major blasthole
deviation-​influencing parameters.
There are some key points which should be kept in mind while selecting the drill
machine to reduce blasthole deviation. A lower bending stiffness of the drill rod
reduces the deviation of the blasthole. The clearance space between the blasthole wall
and the drill rod should also be minimised. For the drilling of greater depth blasthole,
the larger diameter drill machine should be preferred in order to reduce deviation.

3.2.3 Blasting in Watery Strata

The nature and condition of blastholes also influence the output of rock blasting.
The presence of water in the rock mass creates an obstacle in the smooth and ideal
rock blasting process. According to Jang et al. (2018), the presence of water in the
blasthole causes misfire, blown out of blasthole, backbreak, incomplete combustion
of explosive, generation of toxic fumes, poor rock fragmentation and sympathetic
detonation. The major reason is the poor performance of explosives in water. Its per-
formance depends upon the exposure time of explosive with the water. The presence
of water during the rock blasting process might not be fully eliminated. However, it
should be practised to reduce the exposure time of water and explosive by removing
maximum water from the blasthole.

3.2.4 Presence of Cavities in the Rock Mass

The presence of cavities inside the rock mass is also an unfavourable condition which
occurs occasionally during the rock blasting process. These cavities are formed by
the dissolution of soluble rock (dolomite, gypsum, limestone) (Huang et al., 2017;
Cui et al., 2015). Proper identification of these cavities in the rock mass is not pos­
sible. Whenever the blasthole encounters any cavity, the consumption of explosive in
57

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 57

a single blasthole increases tremendously. The blasting of these blastholes gives rise
to different associated hazards –​viz. flyrock, ground vibration. Proper care should be
taken when charging blastholes in these areas.

3.3 SAFETY-​RELATED CHALLENGES
The process of rock excavation using explosives requires the utmost attention and
care. The premature initiation of detonators, static charge supply through reflecting
jackets, mishandling of detonators and mishandling of explosives are some of the
safety-​related concerns. A detailed discussion on different safety-​related challenges
associated with rock blasting has been made in this section.

3.3.1 Handling of Explosives and Their Initiation System

Explosive injuries are one of the safety threats in the mining industries. The sensi-
tivity of explosives is designed in such a way that they are not susceptible to initiation
actions other than detonation. However, in some scenarios the handling of explosives
also gives rise to accidents or mishaps. Some preventive measures should be strictly
followed while handling explosives to reduce occurrence of any kind of injuries.

• The cartridge of explosive should not be thrown from height.

• Smoking or any kind of fire should not be exposed to the explosive.
• The cutting of explosive cartridges should be avoided.

Apart from explosives, the mishandling of initiation systems also requires careful
attention. The shock tube-​based detonator (nonel) is one of the common initiator
systems used in the blasting operation. However, the shock tube of nonel requires
extra precautionary measures while handling. Some of the precautionary measures
for the handling of shock tubes are given below:

• Each shock tube has a tensile strength which defines the weight of load it can
bear. The weight of primer attached to the detonator should be such that it is
under the prescribed limit.
• Bending, torsion and tensile action should be avoided with the shock tube.
• The shock tube lowered into the blasthole should be tied properly near the
blasthole collar to decrease the chances of the falling of the shock tube inside
the blasthole.

Nonel detonators are mostly initiated with electric detonators. Sometimes blasts are
also initiated completely with the help of electric detonators. The electric detonators
also give rise to different accidents if not handled with care. The different preventive
measures which should be taken when handling electric detonators are as follows:

• Electric detonators should be kept away from any direct source of heat or tem-
perature like sunlight.
58

58 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

• They should have less exposure to friction, shock or impact.

• Both ends of electric detonators should be jointed (shorted) when not in use.
• They should not be kept in the same van where explosives have been placed.
A separate van should be used to store detonators.
• Proper taping of detonator ends with the short firing cable should be carried out
to prevent the leakage of current through the ground.
• The use of electric detonators near power lines should be prohibited.
• Before the connection of shotfiring cable with electric detonator to the exploder,
the continuity of the circuit should be checked. This can be carried out by ohm-
meter or circuit tester.

The explosive may be directly initiated with safety fuse or detonating cord. The use of
safety fuse for the initiation of explosives is not possible in the rainy season. This is
because the rainwater will stop the burning of the safety fuse. However, the initiation
of detonating cord produces lots of noise. It is therefore important to avoid the use of
detonating cord in densely populated areas.

3.3.2 Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Various items of personal protective equipment (PPE) are used at the blasting site.
This mainly includes helmet, safety shoes, gloves, reflecting jacket, glasses and
ear plugs. This helps to safeguard working personnel from flyrock, dust, noise and
other associated hazards. However, reflecting jackets made of synthetic materials
should be avoided at the blasting site when explosive handling is in process. This
is because synthetic clothes develop static charge, which may lead to the detonator
being initiated.

3.3.3 Natural Factors
Several natural factors–​viz. high temperature of ground (hot hole strata), thunderstorms
and ground reactivity with different compositions of explosive –​are also safety
threats to the blasting operation. Hot strata are a prominent problem associated with
blasting in the coal mining industries. According to Mpofu et al. (2022), strata having
temperature of more than 40° C are known as hot strata. In the case of India, the
DGMS has restricted the charging of blastholes with a temperature of more than 80°
C (DGMS Circular 4 of 2006). The blasting process in such cases would be unsafe.
The premature initiation of detonator may take place if it is subjected to high tem-
perature. Therefore, water should be used continuously to decrease the temperature
of blastholes in such cases.
Lightning is one of the physical phenomena which may also lead to the premature
initiation of electric detonators. Lightning produces a loud cracking sound along with
light of the brightest intensity. This phenomenon may provide a reasonable amount of
current to the electric detonator which may cause initiation of the blast face prior to
the need of blasting crews. This phenomenon may also occur while using electronic
detonators.
59

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 59

Some rock types undergo an exothermic reaction when they come into contact
with nitrates. The source of nitrate can be explosive also, as the composition of explo-
sive infers the presence of a good amount of nitrate. When the nitrate of explosive
comes into direct contact with rock surface (specifically in the case of pyrite/​sulphide
rock) then there would be chances of spontaneous exothermic reaction. Such a reac-
tion would increase the temperature inside the blasthole. The increased temperature
may be a reason for premature initiation, and thereby would be a safety threat. To
avoid such situations, the ground reactivity test of the rock strata is carried out. If it is
confirmed that the strata are reactive in nature, then the charging and ignition should
be carried out to complete the blasting within a short time. Sometimes a special type
of explosive is also used in such cases to avoid the exothermic reactions.

3.4 CHALLENGES WITH PRODUCTION BLASTING

Major challenges related to production blasting include reducing boulder generation,
optimising the throw and distribution of the muckpile and minimising the backbreaks.
These challenges lead to an overall productivity loss in terms of cost. The proper
designing and implementation of blasting patterns may lead to these challenges being
overcome. Blast designers, practitioners and researchers have used various scientific
methods and empirical relations to design a blast to overcome these challenges. The
overview of these challenges and the techniques to address them are discussed in
detail in this section.

3.4.1 Backbreak
The breakage or fractured zone in the rock mass beyond the desired excavation
boundary or limit is termed backbreak in opencast mining (Jimeno et al., 1995). In
other words, it is defined as the extent of rock broken beyond the limit of holes of the
rear row during bench blasting (Carcedo et al., 1995). A view of backbreak of a coal
mine is shown in Figure 3.1.
Backbreaks have several associated production and safety-​related issues. They
create a safety threat for the next round of drilling. The effective burden also increases
due to the presence of backbreaks, and thereby the blasting results of the subsequent
round of blasting are affected. It may also affect the final contour of slope or bench. In
some cases, it decreases the overall pit-​slope angle by excavating extra rock which has
been loosened due to backbreak from the face. This eventually increases the stripping
ratio (Bauer, 1982). Sometimes the backbreak also excavates the rock present with
the berm. This decreases the safety of berms. Eventually, it increases the total mining
and production cost (Scoble et al., 1997).
Backbreak is due to the wastage or loss of explosive energy which was supposed to
be utilised for the breakage of rock mass. It is very important to find out the parameters
which give rise to the generation of backbreak. These parameters mainly include
blasting geometry, explosive and design parameters. The geometrical parameters
include spacing, burden, blasthole diameter, stemming length, charge length and
blasthole inclination. The burden is one of the major parameters which influence
60

60 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 3.1 View of backbreak in opencast bench blasting.

backbreak in the bench blasting. There would be restricted movement of the blast
face when the burden is higher. In such cases, the explosive energy will work equally
behind the blasthole, and it will lead to the backbreak. Furthermore, the stemming
column length should also be adequate (Konya, 2003). The lower stemming height
usually causes ejection of explosive energy from this portion. Monjezi and Dehghani
(2008) found in their study that, with the reduction of ratio between stemming length
and burden from 1.2 to 0.8, backbreak has been reduced to 4m from 20 m. The explo-
sive and blast design parameters, including maximum charge per delay and total
charge detonated in a round, powder factor, delay interval between the holes of a
row and delay timing between the rows, also influence the generation of backbreak.
The freezing of movement of the front row or the chocking of free face is a major
reason for the formation of backbreak. The greater number of blasting rows along
with inadequate delay sequences can lead to higher magnitude of backbreak (Monjezi
& Dehghani, 2008; Gate et al., 2005). The selection of appropriate delay timing
between the rows to ensure the movement of the front row before the blasting of sub-
sequent rows can reduce backbreak.
Uncontrollable parameters influencing backbreak include the geotechnical prop-
erties of rock and the geological discontinuity of rock mass (Himanshu et al., 2022;
Vishwakarma et al., 2020; Thornton et al., 2002). The presence of pre-​existing cracks
or discontinuities may increase the chances of formation of backbreak.
The accurate prediction of backbreak with respective blast design parameters is
of prime importance. This will not only help to prevent backbreak but also enhances
working conditions in terms of safety. Various empirical equations have been
61

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 61

developed for the prediction of backbreak. Researchers have also developed multi-
variate regression analysis models and machine-​learning techniques –​viz. genetic
algorithm (GA), artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM) and
technique for order preference similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) –​for the predic-
tion of backbreak (Mohammadnejad et al., 2013; Sayadi et al., 2013).

3.4.2 Fragmentation
It is expected from the rock blasting process that the fragments of the blasted muck
would be handled by an excavator. The size of fragments should not be greater than
the desired fragments size (boulder). The boulders hamper productivity by increasing
the cost of handling, transportation of rock fragments, crusher output, energy con-
sumption and mucking productivity (Kansake et al., 2016; Sanchidrián et al., 2014).
Sometimes boulders require additional blasting due to the limitation of processing
plant for smooth crushing and grinding. According to Oraee and Asi (2006), the cost
of mining increases by up to 50 per cent due to boulders. On the other hand, the rock
fragments of smaller size (fine fragments) will consume higher explosives and will
increase the cost of explosive consumption. The productivity of all the subsystems
is dependent on rock fragmentation. Such subsystems include milling, crushing,
screening, movement through conveyor belt and grinding (Wills & Finch, 2015;
King, 2001; Napier-​Munn & Lynch, 1992). Hence the generation of rock fragments
of desired size due to blasting is a key requirement.
The presence of discontinuity and other geological conditions affects the rock
fragmentation size (Kansake et al., 2016). This is because the explosive energy gets
released from the discontinuity and thereby decreases the utilisation of explosive
energy in the breakage of rock mass. The impact of these geological conditions cannot
be eliminated completely but it can be reduced. This can be achieved by the selection
of optimum blast design and explosive parameters. The selection of optimum burden,
spacing, stemming length and type of explosive will help in achieving rock fragments
of the desired size. According to Kuznetsov (1973), the powder factor is the most
important parameter.
The analysis of rock fragmentation can be carried out by mainly two methods
–​namely, direct and indirect methods. A schematic of different methods used for
fragmentation analysis is shown in Figure 3.2. The direct method comprises sieve
analysis. It provides the most accurate size of rock fragments. But it is a very lengthy
and costly method. So, some indirect methods –​viz. observational and image ana-
lysis methods –​are also used for the analysis of rock fragments. The observational
method is also known as the experience-​based method. The estimation of pieces and
particles of rock fragments takes place on the basis of the experience of engineers.
The accuracy of this method is much less as it is an unscientific method.
The other indirect method is image analysis method. This method is one of the
most reliable methods for the analysis of rock fragments. This is because it involves
the drawing of the perimeter of the fragments in a high-​quality photograph of rock
fragments. This process is mainly comprised of two requirements –​namely, soft-
ware packages and high-​quality post-​blast photographs of rock fragments. Various
62

62 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 3.2 Different methods for analysis of rock fragmentation. (Modified after Babaeian
et al., 2019.)

software packages for fragmentation analysis are Split-​Online, WipFrag, Fragalyst

and Split-​Desktop. In this method, the post-​blast photograph of the blasting site
has to be captured using some reference scale of known length/​diameter. A view of
the captured image of post-​blast rock fragmentation of a quartz and feldspar mine
is shown in Figure 3.3. After this, the photograph has to be imported into the soft­
ware for analysis. The scaling of the photograph has to be carried out with the help
of a reference scale. The next step involves the netting of rock fragments up to the
limit of the study area. In this step, any unwanted or very fine rock fragments can
be eliminated from the analysis. The final step is to draw the perimeter of each rock
fragment to calculate the mean fragment size. This step is known as contouring.
The profile of rock fragments after netting and contouring using WipFrag software
for rock fragments of Figure 3.3 is shown in Figure 3.4. Finally, the output of the
software will help to calculate the fragments’ size from the size distribution curve
which is obtained after the analysis. A view of a size distribution curve is shown in
Figure 3.5. This method requires less time for the analysis of rock fragments. The
process is also economical.
The prediction of rock fragment size prior to blasting is also equally important.
This helps to change the blast design parameters according to the need of size of
rock fragments. The prediction of rock fragments can be carried out by an empir-
ical or machine-​learning-​based approach. The empirical method involves the use of
different empirical equations for the prediction of mean/​median/​mode/​percentage
passing fragment sizes. The predicted fragment size is based on the input blast
design and explosive parameters. The selection and assignment of adequate value
of different parameters in the empirical equation is necessary to get the accurate
predicted fragment size. In the empirical method, the sizes of rock fragmentation
are represented by different functions such as Rosin-​Rammler, Swebrec, bimodal
Weibull, rescaled Weibull, Grady, lognormal, log-​logistic, Gilvarry and rescaled
Gilvarry (Sanchidrián et al., 2009; Rosin, 1933). The Rosin-​Rammler distribution
is based on the Weibull distribution for the estimation of rock fragment size. The
63

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 63

FIGURE 3.3 View of rock fragmentation due to blast conducted at quartz and feldspar
mine, India.

FIGURE 3.4 View of netting and contouring of rock fragments of blasted fragment shown
in Figure 3.3.

Swebrec function has been found better for the prediction of rock fragments for both
finer as well as coarse size (Ouchterlony, 2005). Djordjevic (1999) and Blair (2004)
have used bimodal Weibull and log-​logistic bimodals for the distribution of rock
fragment size. Different empirical models –​viz. Kuz-​Ram model, modified Kuz-​Ram
model, Swedish Detonic Research Foundation (SveDeFO) model, Bond-​Ram, energy
block transition model (EBT), Larson model, Kuznetsov-​Cunningham-​Ouchterlony
(KCO) model, two-​component model (TCM) and crushed zone model (CZM) –​have
been used over the years for the prediction of rock fragment size (Hudaverdi et al.,
 newgenrtpdf
64
64
Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting
FIGURE 3.5 Output from WipFrag software in terms of histogram and cumulative size curve view for rock fragments shown in
Figure 3.3.
65

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 65

2012; Cunningham, 1983; Kuznetsov, 1973; Rosin, 1933). Some of the dominant
rock fragmentation models are discussed below.

3.4.2.1 Kuz-​Ram Model

This model consists of three different equations for the prediction of size of frag-
mentation. The equations are Rosin-​Rammler equation, Kuznetsov’s equation and
uniformity equation. The Rosin-​Rammler equation is used for the prediction of frag-
mentation distribution from a blast. The calculation of mass fraction on the opening of
screen is carried using the relation (Rosin-​Rammler equation) shown in Equation 3.1.

  X  
n

Rmf = exp  − 0.693 × X   (Equation 3.1)

  m 
 

Where,
Rmf is the retained mass fraction on the opening of screen,
X is the screen opening,
Xm is the mean particle size,
n is the uniformity index.

The value of mean particle size can be calculated from the relation given in
Equation 3.2. This is termed Kuznetsov’s equation which was developed and modi-
fied by Kuznetsov (1973) and Cunningham (1983).

19
1  115  20
Xm = RF × PF −0.8
× QH ×
 RW 
6
(Equation 3.2)

Where,
RF is rock factor (lies between 0.8 and 0.22 as per the nature and type of rock),
PF is the powder factor (kg/​m3),
QH is the amount of explosive charged per hole (kg),
RW is relative weight strength of explosive,

The uniformity index generally lies between 0.7 and 2.0. It depends upon various
blast design parameters. The parameters include burden (B), spacing (S), blasthole
diameter (D), bottom charge length (BL), column charge length (CL), bench height
(H) and standard deviation of drilling precision (W). The uniformity index can be
calculated from the relation given in Equation 3.3.

1+ S  0.1

n =  2.2 −
14 B 
×  B  ×  1 − W  ×  abs  BL − CL  + 0.1 × L
    

 D   2   B   L  H

(Equation 3.3)
66

66 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Where,

burden, spacing, column charge length, bottom charge length, standard devi-
ation of drilling precision, column charge length and bench height are in metres. The
blasthole diameter is in millimetres.

3.4.2.1.1 Modified Kuz-​Ram model

Kuznetsov’s equation and the uniformity index equation have been modified in
further studies. The modification in Kuznetsov’s equation has been carried out by
introducing the blastability index (BI). The same has also been introduced in the
uniformity index equation of the Kuz-​Ram model. The modifications in these basic
equations changed the characteristics of the Rosin-​Rammler equation of the Kuz-​
Ram model. The updated or modified basic equations have been grouped together
as the modified Kuz-​Ram model. The modified Kuznetsov equation and BI is given
in Equations 3.4 and 3.5 respectively. The modified uniformity index equation (n')
is given in Equation 3.6.
0.8 −19
 V  1  SANFO  30
Xm = 0.0736 × BI ×  × QH × (Equation 3.4)
 115 
6
 QH 

BI = 0.5 ( RMD + JPA + HF + RDI + JPS ) (Equation 3.5)

n ′ = 1.88 × n × BI −0.12 (Equation 3.6)

Where,
V is volume of rock blasted from single hole (m3),
SANFO is strength of ANFO,
RMD is rock mass description,
RDI is density influence,
HF is hardness factor,
JPS is joint plane spacing rating,
JPA is joint plane angle/​orientation rating.

3.4.2.2 KCO model

The mean size prediction for the rock fragments given in the Kuz-​Ram model is
not suitable for finer rock fragments. It also does not provide satisfactory results
for the blocky or very coarse rock fragments (Ouchterlony, 2005). To overcome
this, the KCO model has been developed. It has incorporated modifications in the
Kuz-​Ram model. The Rosin-​Rammler equation has been replaced with the Swebrec
function in this model. The calculation of mass fraction on the opening of screen
using Swebrec function is given in Equation 3.7. The uniformity index has been
exchanged by curve undulation factor (b). The curve undulation factor depends
upon mean fragment size. It can be calculated from the relation given in Equation
3.8. The final relation for the computation of mean fragment size of a blast is given
in Equation 3.9.
67

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 67

1
P (X) = ]
   X  b 
  ln  max   
   X   (Equation 3.7)
1 +   
  ln  X max   
   X   
 

  Xmax  
b = 2 × ln2 × ln  .n
 X 50  
(Equation 3.8)

0.8 19
 1  1  115  30
(Equation 3.9)
X 50 = A. ×  × QH ×
 PF   SANFO 
6

Where,
P(X) is the amount of material passing sieve size X (per cent),
Xmax is the maximum size of in-​situ block (cm),
n is uniformity index,
PF is powder factor (kg/​m3),
QH is the quantity of explosives blasted in a single hole (kg),
SANFO is the relative weight strength of the explosive with respect to ANFO
explosive,
A is the rock factor,
X50 is the mean fragment size of the blast (cm).

3.4.3 Throw of Muckpile
The pile of muck obtained after the blasting process is termed the muckpile. The dis-
tance travelled by the muckpile from the blasting face is known as throw of muckpile.
This should not be too high or too low. The expected throw of muckpile depends on
the kind of loading equipment being used. Shovels require muckpiles of better frag-
mentation with limited throw, whereas loaders require maximum throw of muckpile
with optimum fragmentation and sufficient swelling. The higher throw specially
beyond the blasting zone would be a safety threat to people and machinery. The lower
throw will lead to the inadequate breakage of rock mass, as well as being a safety
concern for loaders.
The characteristics of throw of muckpile depends upon blast design parameters.
The most influential blast design parameters are burden and stemming length. The
increase in burden decreases the throw of muckpile. Similarly, it also decreases
with the inadequate stemming length (Sharma, 2019). Furthermore, blasting with a
staggered drilling pattern will have more throw of muckpile as compared to a square
or rectangular drilling pattern (Paul & David, 2017).
The delay pattern also affects the characteristics of throw of muckpile. The delay
between blastholes should be less, such that the explosive energy among the hole
68

68 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

works together for the movement of burden. Johansson and Ouchterlony (2013) found
that the throw of muckpile increases with the increase in number of holes of a row
blasted simultaneously. This principle will not work when assigning delay between
the rows. Optimum delay timing should be preferred when assigning delay between
the rows. With the lesser delay timing between the rows, the chances of chocking
or freezing of free face increases. The firing of the second row requires proper free
face for their movement. This could be achieved by larger delay timing which will
provide sufficient time for the settlement of burden for subsequent rows. However,
researchers found that poor rock fragmentation occurs with very high delay timing
between the rows (Gao et al., 2023). So the optimal delay timings between the rows
should be selected to enhance throw of the muckpile by maintaining the optimum
fragmentation.

3.5 SUMMARY
The rock blasting process comes with different operational and safety-​ related
challenges. Proper precautionary measures taken while dealing with explosive and
rock blasting can reduce the impact of these challenges. Different kinds of oper-
ational, safety or production blast-​related challenges have been discussed in this
chapter. The summary of the discussions made in this chapter are as follows:

• Different types of operational challenges are associated with the rock blasting
process. The challenges due to blasting geometry, condition of blastholes, types
of explosive and their initiation systems are the operational challenges. The
optimal selection of blasthole diameter, drilling geometry, explosive type and
properties is the first step towards mitigating these challenges.
• The presence of water and cavities inside the blasthole should be detected ini-
tially. These holes should be charged cautiously as it may give rise to flyrock or
blown out of blasthole.
• There are different safety-​related challenges associated with rock blasting. The
mishandling of explosives and their initiation system, hot hole strata, ground
reactivity and lightning are among them. Proper care and caution are required
when charging is being carried out in hot hole strata or reactive ground.
• Different problems including fragmentation, throw of muckpile and backbreak
are also associated with rock blasting. However, judicious selection of blast
design parameters may improve the rock blasting output. Use of various pre-
dictive models can help blast designers to optimise the blast design pattern
to get the desired blasting outcomes in terms of fragmentation, throw and
associated hazards.

REFERENCES
Adebayo, B., Mutandwa, B., 2015. Correlation of blast-​hole deviation and area of block with
fragment size and fragmentation cost. International Research Journal of Engineering
and Technology (IRJET), 2(7), 402–​406.
69

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 69

Babaeian, M., Ataei, M., Sereshki, F., Sotoudeh, F., Mohammadi, S., 2019. A new framework
for evaluation of rock fragmentation in open pit mines. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 11(2), 325–​336.
Bauer, A., 1982. Wall control blasting in open pits. In Proceedings of the 14th Canadian Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 3–​10.
Blair, D.P., 2004. Curve-​fitting schemes for fragmentation data. Fragblast, 8(3), 137–​150.
Brinkmann, J.R., 1990. An experimental study of the effects of shock and gas penetration in
blasting. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting. Brisbane, Australia, 55–​66.
Carcedo, F.A., Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L., 1995. Drilling and blasting of rocks. Rotterdam:
AA Balkema.
Cui, Q.L., Wu, H.N., Shen, S.L., Xu, Y.S., Ye, G.L., 2015. Chinese karst geology and measures
to prevent geohazards during shield tunnelling in karst region with caves. Natural
Hazards, 77, 129–​152.
Cunningham, C., 1983. The Kuz-​Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting.
In Proceeding of First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
439–​453.
Dance, A., Valery, W., Jankovic, A., La Rosa, D., Colacioppo, J., 2007. Process Integration and
Optimisation—​A Case Study in Productivity Improvement. In AUSIMM 6th Large Open
Pit Mining Conference. Melbourne, 47–​54.
Deshpande, K.D., 2021. Identifying Important Features to Minimize Hole Deviation in
Percussive Drilling. (Dissertation)
Djordjevic, N., 1999). A two-​component model of blast fragmentation. In Proceedings of
6th international symposium rock fragmentation by blasting, South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, 213–​219.
Gao, W., Zhang, J., Li, C., Cheng, L., Liu, P., 2023. Study on muck pile shape of open-​pit bench
blasting based on PFC. Shock and Vibration, 2023(1), 2859668.
Gate, W.C., Ortiz, B.L.T., Florez, R.M., 2005. Analysis of rockfall and blasting backbreak
problems. In Paper ARMA/​ USRMS, Proceedings of the American Rock Mechanics
Conference, Vol. 5, 671–​680.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Vishwakarma, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2022. Explicit
dynamics based numerical simulation approach for assessment of impact of relief hole
on blast induced deformation pattern in an underground face blast. Geomechanics and
Geophysics for Geo-​Energy and Geo-​Resources, 8, 1–​18.
Huang, F., Zhao, L., Ling, T., Yang, X., 2017. Rock mass collapse mechanism of concealed
karst cave beneath deep tunnel. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 91, 133–​138.
Hudaverdi, T., Kuzu, C., Fisne, A., 2012. Investigation of the blast fragmentation using the
mean fragment size and fragmentation index. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 56, 136–​145.
Jang, H., Handel, D., Ko, Y., Yang, H.S., Miedecke, J., 2018. Effects of water deck on rock
blasting performance. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
112, 77–​83.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L., Carcedo, F.J.A., de Ramiro, Y.V., 1995. Drilling and blasting of
rocks, Vol. 41. USA: CRS Press, 35947.
Johansson, D., Ouchterlony, F., 2013. Shock wave interactions in rock blasting: the use of short
delays to improve fragmentation in model-​scale. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
46, 1–​18.
70

70 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Kansake, B.A., Temeng, V.A., Afum, B.O., 2016. Comparative analysis of rock fragmenta-
tion models–​a case study. In 4th UMaT Biennial International Mining and Mineral
Conference, 1–​11.
Kecojevic, V., Radomsky, M., 2005. Flyrock phenomena and area security in blasting-​related
accidents. Safety Science, 43(9), 739–​750.
King, R.P., 2001. Modeling and simulation of mineral processing systems. Oxford: Elsevier.
Kojovic, T., Michaux, S., McKenzie, C., 1995. Impact of blast fragmentation on crushing
and screening operations in quarrying. In Proceedings of the EXPLO 1995 Conference,
Brisbane, QLD. 427–​435.
Konya, C.J., 2003. Rock Blasting and overbreak control, National Highway Institute, USA.
FHWA-​HI-​92-​001.
Kuznetsov, V.M., 1973. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Soviet
Mining Science, 9, 144–​148.
Liu, L., Yan, L., Dong, B., Liu, W., Yi, W., Zhao, K., 2019. Detection and recognition
method of misfire for chamber (Deep-​Hole) blasting based on RFID. IEEE Access, 7,
170144–​170156.
Medda, A., Musso, L., Rossi, G., trois, P., Fioravanti, E., LAI, F., 1983. The precision of long
hole drilling with modern machines in mining operations. In Proceedings of the First
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå, Sweden, 665–​684.
Mishra, A.K., Mallick, D.K., 2013. Analysis of blasting related accidents with emphasis on
flyrock and its mitigation in surface mines. In Rock Fragmentation by Blasting: The
10th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 2012, 555–​561.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Mohammadnejad, M., Gholami, R., Sereshki, F., Jamshidi, A., 2013. A new methodology to
predict backbreak in blasting operation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 60, 75–​81.
Monjezi, M., Dehghani, H., 2008. Evaluation of effect of blasting pattern parameters on back
break using neural networks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 45(8), 1446–​1453.
Mpofu, M., Sereme, B., Kgarume, T., Magweregwede, F., 2022. Best practice guidelines for
the management of hot holes in Opencast coal mines. Coaltech report.
Napier-​Munn, T.J., Lynch, A.J., 1992. The modelling and computer simulation of mineral
treatment processes –​current status and future trends. Minerals Engineering, 5(2),
143–​167.
Neale, A.M., 2010. Blast optimization at Kriel Colliery. Journal of the Southern African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 110(4), 161–​168.
Oppong, M.N., Agyei, G., 2020. An analysis of hole deviation and its effect on production.
Journal of Science and Technology Research, 2(2), 1–​10.
Oraee, K., Asi, B., 2006. Prediction of rock fragmentation in open pit mines, using neural net-
work analysis. In Fifteenth International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment
Selection (MPES 2006), Turin.
Ouchterlony, F., 2005. The Swebrec© function: linking fragmentation by blasting and crushing.
Mining Technology, 114(1), 29–​44.
Ozdemir, B., Kumral, M., 2019. A system-​wide approach to minimize the operational cost of
bench production in open-​cast mining operations. International Journal of Coal Science
& Technology, 6(1), 84–​94.
Rosin, P., 1933. The laws governing the fineness of powdered coal. Journal of the Institute
Fuel, 7(31), 29–​36.
71

Practical Challenges with Rock Blasting 71

Palroy, P., Sinha, A., 2022. Precautions against premature blasting during lightning and
thunderstorm-​suggestive guidelines. In Proceedings of 9th Asian Mining Congress, 415–​
424. Kolkata, India.
Sanchidrián, J.A., Ouchterlony, F., Segarra, P., Moser, P., 2014. Size distribution functions
for rock fragments. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 71,
381–​394.
Sanchidrián, J.A., Segarra, P., López, L.M., Ouchterlony, F., Moser, P., 2009. Evaluation of
some distribution functions for describing rock fragmentation data. In Proc Fragblast 9,
Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting.
CRC Press, London, 239–​248.
Sawmliana, C., Hembram, P., Singh, R.K., Banerjee, S., Singh, P.K., Roy, P.P., 2020. An inves-
tigation to assess the cause of accident due to Flyrock in an Opencast coal mine: a case
study. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, 101, 15–​26.
Sayadi, A., Monjezi, M., Talebi, N., Khandelwal, M., 2013. A comparative study on the appli-
cation of various artificial neural networks to simultaneous prediction of rock fragmen-
tation and backbreak. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 5(4),
318–​324.
Scoble, M.J., Lizotte, Y.C., Paventi, M., Mohanty, B.B., 1997. Measurement of blast damage.
Mining Engineering, 49(6), 103–​108.
Sharma, A., Mishra, A.K., Choudhary, B.S., 2019. Impact of blast design parameters on blasted
Muckpile profile in building stone quarries. Annales de Chimie Science des Materiaux,
43(1), 29–​36.
Singh, S.P., Cheung, D., 2017. Factors governing the muck pile characteristics. In 43rd Annual
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Orlando, FL.
Thornton, D., Kanchibotla, S.S., Brunton, I., 2002. Modelling the impact of rockmass and blast
design variation on blast fragmentation. Fragblast, 6(2), 169–​188.
Verakis, H.C., Lobb, T.E., 2003. An analysis of surface coal mine blasting accidents. In Preprint
for SME 2003 Annual Meeting, Littleton, Colorado, USA.
Vishwakarma, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Kumar, S., Roy, M.P., 2020. Overbreak control in
development face blasting of underground metal mine—​a case study. In Proceedings
of National Conference on Advances in Mining (AIM-​2020), CSIR-​CIMFR Dhanbad,
India, 473–​482.
Vishwakarma, A.K., Murthy, V.M.S.R., Himanshu, V.K., Prakash, A., Mehrotra, S., 2023.
Investigations on the influence of applied thrust on rock penetration rate by a raise
boring machine using numerical simulation and experimental trials. Mining, Metallurgy
& Exploration, 40(4), 1187–​1197.
Wills, B.A., Finch, J., 2015. Wills’ mineral processing technology: an introduction to the prac-
tical aspects of ore treatment and mineral recovery. Butterworth-​Heinemann.
Yi, K., 2008. 16 fatal accidents were caused by major construction blasting accidents in Dafeng
mine. Safety Health, 23, 28.
Zong, Q., Ma, Y.D., Wang, H.B., 2017. Large diameter hole blasting experimental in hard rock
roadway of coalmine. Blasting, 34(1), 47–​51.
72

4 Blasting Practices
at Large Opencast
Coal Mines

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Coal is one of the major sources of power generation. According to the report of
Ministry of Coal (2020), Government of India (GoI), it accounts for around 75 per
cent of power generation in India (coal.nic.in). According to the report of the Central
Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, GoI, total energy had a deficit of 5,787 MU,
which is about 0.4 per cent. The energy deficit during 2010–​15 was in the range of
3.5–​10 per cent. The power demand in India is further expected to rise at a rate of
more than 6 per cent per annum (powermin.gov.in). According to the report of Niti
Aayog, GoI, 88.15 per cent of coal is consumed in the power sector. In 2020, the con-
tribution of domestic coal and imported coal to power generation was 632.6 million
tonnes and 69.2 million tonnes respectively. Accordingly, domestic coal was capable
of fulfilling the raw material demand for power generation, as more than 90 per cent
of electricity generation was accomplished with domestic coal. The rise in domestic
coal consumption for power during the previous decade was about 250 million tonnes
(niti.gov.in). The fulfilment of domestic raw material consumption demand and
self-​reliance in coal production for the power sector could have been achieved by
accelerated coal production from large opencast mines. Such large opencast mines
are equipped with heavy excavators –​viz. large shovels and draglines. To utilise the
full-​fledged capacity of this equipment, large-​scale blasting with greater depth of
hole, larger diameter of hole and larger number of holes is required.
The blasting practices at large opencast mines have a different nature of challenge.
The main challenges are to ensure casting of the muckpile, reduce boulder generation,
reduce backbreak and eliminate toe formation. Sometimes, the reduction of blast-​
induced ground vibration near domestic houses/​structures is also a major challenge.
Over the years, innovative practices have been developed to overcome the challenges
of these large opencast mines. Operational advances with the development of elec-
tronic delay detonators, site mixed emulsion explosives, etc. have enabled blasting
practitioners to overcome these challenges. Advanced monitoring and prediction
methodologies have also been evolved over the years, which have enabled the mine
management to improve blast design based on the outcomes of scientific analysis.

72 DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-4
73

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 73

4.2 OVERVIEW OF MINES
Large opencast coal mines equipped with draglines are mostly present in the Singrauli
coalfield of India. The Singrauli coalfield is spread over a total area of about 2,200
sq.km. The coal at this coalfield was discovered during the early 1840s. But it has
attracted little attention for a long time and remained undeveloped on account of a
lack of communication. Coal mining at this coalfield started in 1857. The coal was
then transported by bullock carts and camels to Mirzapur for use in steamers on the
Ganges.
The north-​ eastern part of this coalfield was selected for detailed geological
survey in 1958. Initially, the Geological Survey of India and the Indian Bureau of
Mines drilled bore holes to explore this region. The area comprises Gondwana rocks
covering about 312 sq. km, of which coal-​bearing Barakar formation occupies 225
sq. km. The currently operating opencast projects (OCPs) at the Singrauli coalfield
are Jayant OCP, Khadia OCP, Bina OCP, Dudhichua OCP, Moher & Moher Amlori
Extension OCP and Amlori OCP. Most of these mining leases are of M/​s Northern
Coalfields Limited (NCL). Moher & Moher Amlori Extension OCP belongs to M/​
s Sasan Power Limited of Reliance Group. A view of a satellite image of different
opencast mines of the Singrauli coalfield is depicted in Figure 4.1. An overview of
mining activities at an openpit mine of the Singrauli coalfield is shown in Figure 4.2.

FIGURE 4.1 View of satellite image of various opencast projects of the Singrauli coalfield.
(Source: Google Earth.)
74

74 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 4.2 Overview of mining activities at an opencast coal mine of the Singrauli coalfield.

FIGURE 4.3 View of exposure of multiple coal seams in an OCP of the Singrauli coalfield.

4.2.1 Lithology
The amount of dip in general of OCPs of the Singrauli coalfield is about 2–​3°. However,
a higher dip of about 8–​10° is also observed at some places. The area comprises five
major coal seams, i.e. Kota, Turra ‘A’, Turra, Purewa Bottom and Purewa Top. The
exposures of 2–​3 coal seams can be seen in a single mine of this coalfield. A view
of the exposure of three coal seams –​viz. Turra, Purewa Top and Purewa Bottom
at Khadia OCP –​is shown in Figure 4.3. The overburden at these opencast mines
(OCMs) is fine to coarse-​grained sandstone, sandy shale, carbonaceous shale, alter-
nate bands of shale and sandstone, etc.
75

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 75

FIGURE 4.4 Overview of coal and OB benches of an opencast mine.

4.2.2 Overburden (OB) and Coal Benches

The mining operation at larger opencast coal mines is accomplished by the develop-
ment of overburden (OB) and coal benches. The overburden benches are developed
to touch the coal seams. Two types of overburden benches are developed to maximise
productivity. If the coal seam can be exposed by the removal of OB of height less than
30 m, then OB benches of height 10–​20 m are developed. In the reverse case, benches
of 30–​55 m are developed. The height of the coal benches depends on the thickness
of the coal seam. Generally, it is 6–​15 m. However, it may go up to thicknesses of
25 m as well. Sometimes coal seams of less thickness of 4 m are also encountered.
An overview of OB and coal benches at one of the mines of the Singrauli coalfield is
shown in Figure 4.4.

4.2.3 Excavators and Bench Size

The overburden benches are developed to achieve faster exposure of coal. The
excavators are selected to suit the bench height. Subgrade drilling of 1–​2 m is also
done to avoid toe formation from blasting. Shovel and dragline excavators are used
to remove the blasted overburden. Shovels are used in combination with dumpers.
The blasted OB is excavated and loaded onto dumpers. A view of shovel–​dumper
combination is shown in Figure 4.5. The OB is transported to the dumping area in
these dumpers. Benches of 10–​20 m are developed as shovel benches. If the thickness
of OB for the exposure of a coal seam is 30 m, then two benches of 15 m each are
developed.
If the thickness of OB to be removed for exposure of coal is more than 30 m,
then dragline benches are developed. The dragline works to cast the blasted material
directly in the OB dumping area. The boom lengths of the dragline are quite high
–​of about 100 m. So, the excavator is capable of dumping the blasted material at a
76

76 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 4.5 Shovel-​dumper combination at an opencast mine.

distance of about 200 m from the face. Dragline benches are generally of 35–​50 m
height. The dimension of the face for dragline benches is decided to maximise its
utility from a single sitting point. A view of a dragline and dragline bench face is
shown in Figure 4.6.

4.3 DRILLING PATTERN FOR DIFFERENT BENCH SIZES

The blastholes of diameter 150 mm, 159 mm, 259 mm and 311 mm are used at
different benches of the Singrauli coalfield. The suitability of blasthole diameter
for a blasting bench depends on the strength of the rock, bench height, accuracy
of the drilling machine, cost of drilling and availability of explosive. The blast in
softer rock strata is preferred using smaller diameter blastholes, as such strata tend to
show overbreakage while increasing charge concentration at a point. The blasting at
shovel benches is preferred using diameter of 150–​259 mm. However, dragline bench
blasting is conducted using diameter of 259 mm and 311 mm. Smaller diameter
blastholes are not preferred for higher bench height, as smaller diameter holes have
a greater tendency for deviation. The deviation is even higher when the depth of the
blasthole is greater. Increased blasthole deviation will result in reduced or enhanced
burden or spacing, thereby impacting the blasting outputs. Sometimes the smaller
diameter blastholes with reduced drilling and blasting is preferred, to improve the
rock fragmentation while blasting in smaller benches. However, the drilling costs in
77

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 77

FIGURE 4.6 View of a dragline and dragline bench face of an opencast coal mine.

such cases are enhanced. So, the optimum blasthole diameter with suitable geometry
is chosen to optimise the blasting outputs and drilling costs. The drilling geometries
generally used at different shovel and dragline benches of the Singrauli coalfield are
given in Table 4.1.
78

78 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 4.1
Geometry of the blast faces for different benches of a large opencast mine

Bench type Hole diameter (mm) Burden (m) Spacing (m)

Coal bench 150 8–​9 10
159 8–​9 10–​11
259 9–​10 10–​11
Shovel bench 150 7–​8 10
159 8–​9 10
259 8–​9 10–​11
Dragline bench 259 8–​9 10–​12
311 10–​11 12–​13

FIGURE 4.7 ANFO charging at an opencast coal mine.

4.4 EXPLOSIVE CHARGING
The mechanised explosive charging system is used in larger OCMs. This system
provides ease for the miners as well as helps in faster charging of the blastholes.
Site mixed emulsion (SME) and ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) explosives are
charged in the blastholes using a pump discharge system. A view of ANFO charging
in blastholes using a truck system is shown in Figure 4.7. SME explosives are pre­
ferred for charging in watery blastholes. Cast boosters are used as cap sensitive explo-
sive, which initiates the column explosive charge.
79

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 79

4.4.1 Charging Pattern for Shovel Benches

Direct as well as deck charging patterns are used in shovel benches. The selection of
direct or deck charging is made on the basis of hole depth, and to match the required
charge factor for proper breakage of the rock. The charge factor for blasting in sand-
stone strata is normally kept at 0.45–​0.5 kg/​m3. The stemming portion in the blasthole
is kept at 0.7 to more than 1 times of the burden. In the case of deck charging, deck
lengths are kept at 8–​10 times of the drill diameter and not exceeding 15–​17 times
of the drill diameter. Concentrated boosters are placed inside the blastholes. Booster
concentration is 0.2–​0.25 per cent of explosive charge to maintain explosive energy.
Maximum explosive charge per delay (MCPD) is decided to reduce the induced
ground vibration near structures to within safe limits.

4.4.2 Explosive Charging in Dragline Benches

SME and ANFO explosives are used for charging in dragline benches. The depth of
the blastholes in dragline benches is quite high. It is necessary to use higher density
explosives in blastholes of greater depth. ANFO is low density explosive, so it is not
preferred for sole charging in dragline benches. Accordingly, a combination of SME
and ANFO is used for charging the blastholes. SME explosives are placed in the
toe portion, and ANFO is used in the deck portion. Sometimes the charging of the
blastholes of dragline benches is not possible in a single day. Accordingly, there is a
need to keep the explosive charge in sleeping mode. ANFO explosives cannot be used
in sleeping mode, as they deteriorate faster.
The column explosive charge is initiated with the help of cast boosters. The
concentrated as well as distributed booster charges are used in dragline benches. For
this purpose, booster charge is distributed after each 15 m of continuous explosive
charging. Since the dragline benches have a higher depth of cover, deck charging
is practised to maintain the required charge factor. A sample charging pattern of a
blasthole for dragline benches is shown in Figure 4.8. The selection of a suitable
quantity and quality of explosive for dragline benches is very important. Degradation
in suitability may lead to improper casting, toe formation or boulder generation. If
the blast has to be conducted in a dragline face having toe from a previous blast, then
special precautions are needed when drilling and explosive charging. Blastholes with
a reduced burden are drilled in such cases to handle toe. The explosive charge in these
blastholes is given only up to the collar of the intact toe in such cases.

4.5 INITIATION SYSTEM AND DELAY TIMINGS

Detonating fuse (DF), non-​electric (nonel) and electronic initiation systems are used
to initiate the cap sensitive cast boosters in shovel and dragline benches of opencast
coal mines. DF is used in combination with MS cord relay connectors to provide
delay timing between the holes. Initiation with DF and cord relays uses pyrotechnic-​
based detonators which create delay intervals by combustible or explosive material
employed for producing heat, light, smoke, gas or noise. While in the initiation
system using electronic detonators, the required delay is provided by a quartz clock
80

80 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 4.8 Sample charging pattern of blasthole for dragline bench blasting. (Himanshu
et al., 2019.)

contained within a central processing unit on a printed circuit board (PCB). Figure 2.6
illustrates the basic difference between a pyrotechnic-​based initiation system and ini-
tiation and electronic detonators (Silva et al., 2019; Wyllie et al., 2018).
The digital interface allows electronic detonators to fire as accurately as 0.01 per
cent of its nominated delay time. The relation of this time interval and the site-​specific
geology has the largest effect on amplitude and frequency compositions of the ground
vibration wave (Bartley & McClure, 2003).

4.5.1 Nonel, DF and Electronic Initiation in Shovel Benches

The blasting at shovel benches is accomplished using nonel, DF and electronic ini-
tiation systems. The electronic initiation system has the advantage of accuracy and
programming of delay timings. The need-​based delay timing between holes can be
programmed in this system. The connection system of electronic initiation includes a
detonator at the bottom of the blasthole and circuit wire along the length of the hole.
81

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 81

FIGURE 4.9 Sample charging and firing pattern for blasting at shovel benches.

These circuit wires are connected with each other before firing. However, the delay
timings of the holes are independent of this connection. The major issue with the
electronic initiation system is with its cost. A comparatively lower resistance to fire
against static charging and lightning are other disadvantages of this system.
The nonel initiation system using a combination of down-​the-​hole delay (DTH)
and trunkline delay (TLD) are also used at shovel benches. This initiation system has
the advantage of bottom initiation at a reasonable cost. Sometimes the firing holes are
also connected using detonating fuses.
Initiations of blasts are designed according to the direction of free face. Faces
are opened from the middle or side, based on the position of the optimum burden
or required direction of throw, for blast faces with free face available along a single
direction. It is initiated from the junction when free faces are in two perpendicular
directions. Delay intervals are optimised to reduce the superimposition of the blast
waveform. Signature hole blasts are conducted to determine the optimal delay timing
for a bench. In the analysis, the blast wave signatures recorded from signature hole
82

82 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 4.9 (Continued)

blasts are superimposed under varying delay conditions, and the optimum delay
between holes in a row and between rows is established. The designed optimum delay
between holes in a row for shovel benches of the Singrauli coalfield is in the range of
20–​55 ms. The optimised delay between rows is in the range of 65–​150 ms. The delay
jump of about 20 per cent is practised between the rows to provide burden relief for
the blastholes of the front rows.
Sample charging and firing patterns for blasting at shovel benches are shown in
Figure 4.9. For the blast design shown in Figure 4.9 (a), the explosive charge has
been distributed between decks using DF. There is the presence of two perpendicular
free faces in this design. So, the blast has been initiated from the junction of the free
faces. Diagonal firing patterns have been shown in this design. In the design shown
in Figure 4.9 (b), the decks have been initiated using a nonel initiation system. Such
a system is advantageous, when there is a need to reduce the MCPD of the blast. The
firing pattern is diagonal, and the blast has been initiated from the junction of two free
faces, in this case as well. In Figure 4.9 (c), the decks have been initiated using DF.
The delay timing in this pattern is provided using MS connectors. The diagonal firing
pattern with initiation of blast from the centre can be seen in this design.
83

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 83

FIGURE 4.9 (Continued)

4.5.2 DF and Electronic Initiation in Dragline Benches

The blasting at dragline benches is conducted using DF or an electronic initiation
system. Nonel of the length of more than 30 m is generally unavailable, and hence it
is not used for dragline benches. Ensuring accurate delay timing using nonel is also
an issue, which is of prime importance for a dragline blast. So, nonel is not preferred
for blasting in a dragline bench.
The delay timing between the holes and between rows when using a DF initiation
system is provided by MS cord relay connectors. Since the burden and spacing
in dragline benches are more, the required relief time for burden movement would
be higher. Accordingly, hole-​to-​hole delay of more than 50 ms is used in a dragline
bench blast. The delay timing between first to second row is such that it ensures firing
of at least 2–​3 holes of the first row. A subsequent jump in delay timing is given to
84

84 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 4.10 Sample blast design for a dragline bench. (Himanshu et al., 2018.)

ensure proper movement of burden and reduce backbreak. A sample firing pattern for
a dragline bench blast is given in Figure 4.10.
Electronic delay detonators are also used in dragline benches. These initi-
ation systems have the advantage of accuracy of delay timings. Singh et al. (2019)
conducted a study to compare the induced ground vibrations from the dragline bench
blasts using DF and electronic initiation systems. It was concluded in the study that
there is a reduction in peak particle velocity (PPV) when using an electronic initiation
system. The percentage reduction in PPV by using electronic detonators ranged from
33 to 9 per cent for distances ranging from 100 m to 1,500 m.
The main challenge during the dragline blast using this initiation system is with
the tying up of cast boosters. Since the explosive charge per hole is of the order of
more than 1,500 kg, the cast booster requirement at the bottom of the hole is about
3–​5 kg. Tying up this much amount of cast booster with DF is possible, but it is diffi-
cult if the initiation has to be done using electronic detonators. In such cases, 90 per
cent of the cast boosters are tied on a rope. The remaining 10 per cent are tied with
the wire of the electronic initiation system. The boosters tied with the wire of the elec-
tronic initiation system and rope are wrapped properly, and then the rope is lowered
to the bottom of the blastholes.

4.6 SPECIAL BLASTING TECHNIQUES FOR DRAGLINE BENCHES

Different controlled blasting techniques are used globally to get the proper outcomes
from a blast. These techniques work on the principle of arresting the hazards before
reaching structures (Ramulu, 2012; International Society of Explosives Engineers.
ISEE Blasters’ Handbook, 2011). These techniques are useful for reducing ground
vibration near structures as well as for producing stable highwalls and reducing
85

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 85

backbreaks. Among the common controlled blasting techniques are line drilling, pre-​
split blasting, smooth wall blasting, trim blasting and air decking.

4.6.1 Line Drilling
This technique is widely used in underground excavation but has limited applicability
in open pit excavations. The technique is found to be paramount for homogeneous
rock mass. In this technique, a few closely spaced holes are drilled along the excava-
tion line. The holes are drilled in a single line. The holes are kept uncharged. These
holes must be arranged in such a manner that they will act as a separation or plane of
weakness between the excavation line and production hole. This weakness plane will
not only arrest the propagation of rock damage but also help in the reflection of blast-​
induced shock waves. As it restricts the propagation of ground vibration, the original
strength of structures or rock mass is undisturbed. Eades and Perry (2019) suggested
that the diameter of holes of line drilling should vary between 38 and 76 mm, irre-
spective of blasthole diameter. The findings also suggest that the diameter of line
drilling and blasthole should be different. Along with the diameter, the burden and
spacing of holes also play a vital role. According to the ISEE Handbook (2011),
the spacing of holes should be 2–​4 times the hole diameter. The whole technique is
focused on the drilling and charging of periphery holes or the last row of produc-
tion holes too. The hole of periphery holes must be charged less than the production
hole. The good distribution of explosives along the column length is the priority.
Also, the spacing of these holes must be less than the production hole –​viz. 50–​75
per cent of the production hole (International Society of Explosives Engineers. ISEE
Blasters’ Handbook, 2011). In the line drilling controlled blasting technique, precise
and accurate direction drilling is the prime requirement as the deviations in the holes
may affect the final excavation profile. This method is applied in very sensitive areas
where even the light explosive associated with other controlled blasting techniques
may cause damage beyond the excavation line. Apart from that, it has been observed
that the line drilling system with closed spacing can arrest the ground vibration to be
propagated beyond the excavation limit to a great extent. Because of these advantages,
this technique is widely used for construction excavations such as foundation excava-
tion for high-​rise buildings. The high drilling cost and poor blasthole alignment are
among the major disadvantages of this technique.
This is generally practised in softer strata as the pre-​splitting method is dominant
over line drilling in hard rock. The diagrammatic layout of this method is shown in
Figure 4.11.
Singh et al. (2019) conducted experimentation using line drilling for dragline bench
blasting at Jayant Project. The line drilling at this site was done in the highwall of the
blast patch. In this study, the holes of line drilling were kept at a distance of 4 m from
the last row of dragline blastholes with spacing of 3–​4 m. The diameter of holes was
kept to 270 mm and hole depth was maintained within the range of 20–​27 m. Two rows
of line drills were used at the benches where soft to medium sandstone was present. It
was found that the results were reassuring as to highwall stability. Apart from arresting
seismic waves, the line drilling technique provided smooth highwall for workings in
dragline cuts and also provided safety against rocks falling from highwall.
86

86 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 4.11 Diagrammatic layout of line drilling controlled blasting method. (ISEE
Blasters’ Handbook, 2011.)

4.6.2 Pre-​split Blasting
To reduce the propagation and generation of vibration, it is better to cut out the
working face from the rock mass. This requires the formation of a discontinuity plane
or fracture plane between the blasting face and the rock mass. The blasting at the
interface must be sufficient for the partition of the working face and also for the
generation of blast-​induced ground vibration of lesser intensity. The pre-​split or pre-​
shearing control blasting technique uses this principle to exempt the whole working
face from the rock mass using a blasthole of lesser diameter having decoupled charge.
These holes are generally smaller in diameter than the holes drilled for primary pro-
duction. These pre-​split holes are lightly charged which in turn only makes separation
(Wang et al., 2022). The pre-​split holes are blasted before the initiation of production
holes. When these holes are fired simultaneously, the stress wave generated due to the
initiation of explosives moves radially outwards. The waves of the first hole collide
with the wave of the next hole and get converted into the tensile wave and hence the
formation of a discontinuity plane takes place along the line joining the holes. The
collision of waves continuously takes place among the pre-​split holes causing the
formation of the discontinuity plane (Verma et al., 2014). Along with the formation
of discontinuity surface, it helps to reduce backbreak in bench blasting. The pre-​split
holes are generally spaced at a distance of 8–​12 times blasthole diameter. The major
concern related to pre-​split blasting is the accuracy of the drilling of the blasthole.
The schematic diagram for the pre-​split blasting technique is shown in Figure 4.12.
The pre-​split blasting technique is practised at some of the mines of the Singrauli
coalfield. The technique is used for blasts in dragline benches of the mines. For this
purpose, a set of blastholes including production holes, buffer holes and pre-​split
holes is drilled. Burden-​spacing of 10 m × 13 m is used for the production and buffer
holes. The production holes are charged as per the standard practice of the mine.
The pre-​split holes are drilled in the last row of the blast face. Such holes have the
purpose of generating initial cracks only. So, a blasthole diameter of 159 mm or less
is used for such holes. Spacing between pre-​split holes is kept at 4–​6 m. These holes
are drilled in an inclined fashion, so the toe burden will be different at varying depths.
The collar burden for pre-​split holes is kept the same as of the production holes. The
explosive charging in the pre-​split holes is distributed in multiple decks. A very small
charge quantity of 25–​50 kg is used in each deck.
87

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 87

FIGURE 4.12 Layout of pre-​split controlled blasting technique.

FIGURE 4.13 Charging pattern for production, buffer and pre-​split holes of a pre-​split blast.

Buffer holes are drilled just in the previous row of the pre-​split holes. Since the
charge requirement at this point is less, the depth of the buffer holes is kept smaller.
The explosive charge quantity of 15–​20 per cent of the production holes is used in
buffer holes. Accordingly, hole depths are reduced. The charging pattern for produc-
tion holes, buffer holes and pre-​split holes of a sample pre-​split blast is shown in
Figure 4.13.
The delay timings between holes in the production holes of pre-​split blasts range
from 42 ms to 65 ms. The delay between rows is kept to ensure firing of 2–​3 holes
of the front row before the firing of any hole of the subsequent row. The subsequent
jump in delay timing is given to the different rows of the blast. Sometimes two pro-
duction holes are also fired together to ensure the casting of the blasted muckpile. The
88

88 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

delay timing between the buffer holes are kept similar to that of the production holes.
Generally, no delay timing is given between the pre-​split holes. However, a very small
delay timing of 17 ms may be provided after a gap of 5–​10 holes, if it is necessary to
distribute the charge per delay. The pre-​split holes are initiated before the production
holes. However, they may be initiated simultaneously along with the production holes
as well. A sample firing pattern for pre-​split blasting is shown in Figure 4.14.
A view of a pre-​split blast conducted at one of the mines of the Singrauli coalfield
is shown in Figure 4.15. The resultant cut and stable highwall from this blast are
shown in Figure 4.16.

4.7 ADVANCED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF

BLASTING OUTPUTS
Monitoring and assessment of blasting outputs are very important, especially for
large OCMs. The blasting results are assessed mainly in terms of productivity and
safety. The output rock fragmentation, muckpile throw, extent of backbreak, etc. are
the measures of productivity. Safety and environmental concerns are measured in
terms of blast-​induced hazards. These hazards mainly comprise ground vibration,
flyrocks, air overpressure, noise, dust, etc. Different instruments are used to measure
the blasting outcomes. Productivity-​related outcomes are measured using image
analysis or high-​speed videography. The measurements of ground vibration and air
overpressure are done using seismographs. The blasting outcomes are dependent
on the blast design parameters and the quality of explosives and accessories. The
monitoring and assessment of explosive and accessory qualities are also important
to achieve the desired output from the blast. Different advanced analysis and predic-
tion methodologies have also been evolved during recent years. These methodologies
include statistical analysis, machine learning and artificial intelligence-​based predic-
tion approaches.

4.7.1 Measurement and Prediction of Ground Vibration

Ground vibration is one of the major hazards induced by rock blasting. The measure-
ment of ground vibration is carried out using a tri-​axial seismograph. It is measured in
terms of PPV and associated frequency. The ground vibration measurements in large
OCMs are done at nearfield as well as farfield distances. The measurements at farfield
distances are done to assess the structural stability induced by ground vibration.
Various safety/​statutory regulations are followed to determine the threshold vibration
limits near a structure. The amplification of vibration from ground to structures is also
measured. It is done using an eight-​channel seismograph consisting of two geophones
and two microphones. One set of geophone and microphone is placed on the ground,
and another set is mounted on the structure. The amplification/​reduction of vibration
along different directions is evaluated. The resonant frequency for maximum transfer
of vibration from ground to structures is also determined in this process.
Nearfield ground vibrations are monitored to analyse the damage trend of the rock
mass. The data of nearfield ground vibrations are useful in developing prediction
models for backbreak.
 newgenrtpdf
89
Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines
FIGURE 4.14 Firing pattern for a pre-​split blast. (Himanshu et al., 2018b.)

89
90

90 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 4.15 Firing of holes in a pre-​split blast.

FIGURE 4.16 Resultant cut from a pre-​split blast.

91

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 91

Researchers have used various statistical and soft computing techniques for the
prediction of induced ground vibration from rock blasting (Jiang et al., 2017; Kumar
et al., 2016; Yugo & Shin, 2015; Deng et al., 2014). Most of the conventional empir­­­
ical predictors uses maximum charge weight per delay (MCPD) and distance of blast
face from monitoring point (D) as the parameters responsible for the generation
of ground vibration (Roy, 1993; Ghosh & Daemen, 1983;Ambraseys & Hendron,
1968; Duvall et al., 1963; Duvall & Fogelson, 1962). These predictors cannot be
used directly at a large opencast mine having varying bench heights and geomet-
rical parameters. Accordingly, Himanshu et al. (2018) developed a multivariate stat­
istical predictor for such mines. Further, the parameters responsible for PPV for such
mines were also classified using principal component analysis (PCA) by Himanshu
et al. (2022). Researchers have also used other machine-​learning algorithms such as
random forest, k-​nearest neighbor, decision tree, etc. for prediction of ground vibra-
tion in such cases. A summary of such predictive models used by different researchers
is given in Table 4.2.

4.7.2 High-​speed Videography
High-​speed videography is an important tool, which enables blasting practitioners to
assess the blasting outputs. It is also capable of doing post-​blast analysis of the oper-
ation. The high-​speed videography is done using a camera capable of recording videos
at higher frame rates. Using this camera, proper sequential firing of blastholes as per
the designed delay timing is verified. The throw of the blasted muckpile, stemming
ejection height and fragmentation outputs are also analysed using high-​speed videos.
It is also used to assess the scattering in delay detonators.

4.8 SUMMARY
A large opencast coal mine consists of big excavators –​viz. shovel and dragline. For
complete utilisation of these excavators, large-​scale drilling and blasting are required.
Such large-​scale blasting comes with many safety and operational challenges. The
methodology and challenges associated with such blasts have been discussed in this
chapter. The summary of discussions made in this chapter are as follows:

• Overburden benches are developed to achieve faster exposure of coal. The

excavators are selected to suit the bench height. Subgrade drilling of 1–​2 m is
also done to avoid toe formation from blasting. Shovel and dragline excavators
are used to remove the blasted overburden. Shovels are used in combination
with dumpers. Benches of 10–​20 m are developed as shovel benches.
• If the thickness of OB to be removed for exposure of coal is more than 30 m,
then dragline benches are developed. The draglines work to cast the blasted
material directly in the OB dumping area. The boom lengths of the draglines
are quite high, of about 100 m. So, the excavator is capable of dumping the
blasted material at a distance of about 200 m from the face. Dragline benches
are generally of 35–​50 m in height.
 newgenrtpdf
92
TABLE 4.2

92
Summary of algorithms for prediction of PPV and AOp
Study Technique Input Output Total data used R2
Amiri et al. (2016) ANN & KNN Q, D PPV, AOp 75 0.88 & 0.95
Armaghani et al. (2015) ANFIS, ANN Q, D PPV 109 0.97
Azimi et al. (2019) GA-​ANN Q, HD, RD, MRD PPV 70 0.98
Bayat et al. (2020) FA-​ANN B, S, Q, D PPV 154 0.938
Hajihassani et al. (2015) ICA-​ANN B, S,Q, D, SL, P, E PPV 95 0.97
Hajihassani et al. (2015) PSO-​based ANN Hole Depth, Q, B, S, SL, PPV and AOp 88 0.85
SGD, D, RQD, PF, N
Harandizadeh and Armaghani (2021) ANFIS-​PNN-​GA Q, PF,D, SL AOp 62 0.94
Khandelwal and Singh (2009) ANN Hole Depth, B, S, D, Q, PPV 154 0.98
BI, E, Pr, P, VoD
Khandelwal et al. (2011) ANN Q, D PPV 130 0.91
Mokfi et al. (2018) GMDH SL, PF, B, S, D, Q, Hole PPV 102 0.91

Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Depth,
Nguyen and Bui (2019) ANNs-​RF Q, D, PF,B,S, SL AOp 114 0.98
Nguyen et al. (2020) HKM-​ANN B, S, Q, D, PF PPV 149 0.98
Rezaeineshat et al. (2020) ICA-​ANN B, S, Q, D, RQD PPV 112 0.90
Taheri et al. (2017) ABC-​ANN Q, D PPV 89 0.92
Abbreviations:
ANN –​artificial neural network; KNN –​k-​nearest neighbor; ANFIS –​adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system; GA-​ANN –​genetic algorithm-​artificial neural network; FA-​
ANN –​firefly algorithm-​artificial neural network; ICA-​ANN –​imperialist competitive algorithm-​artificial neural network; PSO –​particle swarm optimisation; PNN –​prob-
abilistic neural network; GMDH –​group method of data handling; RF –​random forest; HKM –​hierarchical k-​means clustering; ABC –​artificial bee colony
PPV –​peak particle velocity; AOp –​air overpressure
Q –​Maximum explosive charge per delay; D –​Distance of blast face from monitoring point; HD –​Horizontal distance; RD –​Radial distance; MRD –​Modified radial dis-
tance; B –​Burden; S –​Spacing; SL –​Stemming length; P –​P-​wave velocity; E –​Young’s modulus of elasticity; SGD –​Subgrade drilling; RQD –​Rock quality designation;
PF –​Powder factor; N –​Number of holes; BI –​Blastability index; Pr –​Poisson’s ratio; VoD –​Velocity of detonation of explosive

Source: Himanshu et al. (2022).

93

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 93

• The blastholes of diameter 150 mm, 159 mm, 259 mm and 311 mm are used at
different benches of the Singrauli coalfields. Blasting at shovel benches is pre-
ferred using a diameter of 150–​259 mm. However, dragline bench blasting is
conducted using diameters of 259 mm and 311 mm.
• A mechanised explosive charging system is used in larger OCMs. This system
provides ease for the miners as well as helps in faster charging of the blastholes.
SME and ANFO explosives are charged in the blastholes using a pump dis-
charge system.
• The charge factor for blasting in sandstone strata is normally kept at 0.45 –​
0.5 kg/​m3. The stemming portion in the blasthole is kept at 0.7 to more than 1
times of the burden. In the case of deck charging, deck lengths are kept at 8–​10
times of the drill diameter and not exceeding 15–​17 times of the drill diameter.
Concentrated boosters are placed inside the blastholes. Booster concentration is
0.2–​0.25 per cent of explosive charge to maintain explosive energy.
• Blasting at shovel benches is accomplished using nonel, DF and electronic ini-
tiation systems. The electronic initiation system has the advantage of accuracy
and programming of delay timings.
• Blasting at dragline benches is conducted using DF or electronic initiation
system. Nonel of the length of more than 30 m is generally unavailable, and
hence it is not used for dragline benches. Ensuring accurate delay timing using
nonel is also an issue, which is of prime importance for a dragline blast. So,
nonel is not preferred for blasting in a dragline bench.
• Different controlled blasting techniques are used globally to get the proper
outcomes from a blast. These techniques work on the principle of arresting the
hazards before reaching the structures. These techniques are useful for redu-
cing ground vibrations near structures as well as producing stable highwalls
and reducing backbreaks. Among the common controlled blasting techniques
are line drilling, pre-​split blasting, smooth wall blasting, trim blasting and air
decking.

REFERENCES
Ambraseys, N.R., Hendron, A.J., 1968. Dynamic behaviour of rock masses. In Rock Mechanics
in Engineering Practices. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 203–​207.
Amiri, M., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., Hasanipanah, M., Mohammad Khanli, L., 2016. A new
combination of artificial neural network and K-​nearest neighbors models to predict blast-​
induced ground vibration and air-​overpressure. Engineering with Computers, 32(4),
631–​644. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​366-​016-​0442-​5.
Armaghani, D.J., Momeni, E., Abad, S.V.A.N.K., Khandelwal, M., 2015. Feasibility of
ANFIS model for prediction of ground vibrations resulting from quarry blasting.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 74(4), 2845–​ 2860. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​
665-​015-​4305-​y.
Azimi, Y., Khoshrou, S.H., Osanloo, M., 2019. Prediction of blast induced ground vibration
(BIGV) of quarry mining using hybrid genetic algorithm optimized artificial neural net-
work. Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 147,
106874. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.meas​urem​ent.2019.106​874.
Bartley, D.A., McClure, R., 2003. Further field applications of electronic detonator technology.
Fragblast, 7(1), 13–​22. https://​doi.org/​10.1076/​frag.7.1.13.14058.
94

94 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Bayat, P., Monjezi, M., Rezakhah, M., Armaghani, D.J., 2020. Artificial neural network and
firefly algorithm for estimation and minimization of ground vibration induced by blasting
in a mine. Natural Resources Research, 29(6), 4121–​4132. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​
053-​020-​09697-​1.
coal.nic.in, https://​coal.nic.in/​en/​major-​sta​tist​ics/​gen​erat​ion-​of-​ther​mal-​power-​from-​raw
coal#:, accessed on 09.05.2023
Deng, X.F., Zhu, J.B., Chen, S.G., Zhao, Z.Y., Zhou, Y.X., Zhao, J., 2014. Numerical study on
tunnel damage subject to blast-​induced shock wave in jointed rock masses. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 43(April 2020), 88–​100. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.tust.2014.04.004.
Duvall, W.I., Fogelson, D.E., 1962. Review of criteria for estimating damage to residences from
blasting vibrations. Report of Investigations /​United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, 5968, 19. //​catalog.hathitrust.org/​Record/​005981586%5Cnhttp://​hdl.
han​dle.net/​2027/​mdp.390​1507​8529​347
Duvall, W.I., Johnson, C.F., Meyer, A.V.C., 1963. Vibrations from blasting at Iowa limestone
quarries (Patent No. USBM RI 6270).
Eades, R.Q., Perry, K., 2019. Understanding the connection between blasting and highwall sta-
bility. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 29(1), 99–​103. https://​
doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijmst.2018.11.016.
Ghosh, A., Daemen, J.K., 1983. A simple new blast vibration predictor. In ARMA US Rock
Mechanics/​Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA-​83, 151–​161.
Harandizadeh, H., Armaghani, D.J., 2021. Prediction of air-​overpressure induced by blasting
using an ANFIS-​PNN model optimized by GA. Applied Soft Computing, 99(xxxx),
106904. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.asoc.2020.106​904.
Hajihassani, M., Armaghani, D.J., Monjezi, M., Mohamad, E.T., Marto, A., 2015. Blast-​
induced air and ground vibration prediction: a particle swarm optimization-​based artifi-
cial neural network approach. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74(4), 2799–​2817. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​665-​015-​4274-​1.
Hajihassani, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Marto, A., Tonnizam Mohamad, E., 2015. Vibrations
au sol prédiction dans quarry dynamitage à travers un réseau neural artificiel optimisé
par une concurrence impérialiste algorithme. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 74(3), 873–​886. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​064-​014-​0657-​x.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Vishwakarma, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2022. Prediction of
blast-​induced ground vibration using principal component analysis–​based classification
and logarithmic regression technique. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 39(5), 2065–​
2074. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​022-​00659-​0.
Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Mishra, A.K., Paswan, R.K., Panda, D., Singh, P.K., 2018a.
Multivariate statistical analysis approach for prediction of blast-​ induced ground
vibration. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11(16), 460. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​
517-​018-​3796-​8.
Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Mishra, A.K., Mishra, R., Singh, P.K., 2019. Dynamic simulation
approach to assess influence of charging parameters on blast induced vibration. Journal
of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 67(6), 299–​306.
International Society of Explosives Engineers. ISEE blasters’ handbook, 2011. International
Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, OH.
Jiang, N., Zhou, C., Lu, S., Zhang, Z., 2017. Propagation and prediction of blasting vibration
on slope in an open pit during underground mining. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 70, 409–​421. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tust.2017.09.005.
Khandelwal, M., Kumar, D.L., Yellishetty, M., 2011. Application of soft computing to predict
blast-​induced ground vibration. Engineering with Computers, 27(2), 117–​125. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​366-​009-​0157-​y.
95

Blasting Practices at Large Opencast Coal Mines 95

Khandelwal, M., Singh, T.N., 2009. Prediction of blast-​induced ground vibration using arti-
ficial neural network. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
46(7), 1214–​1222. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2009.03.004.
Kumar, R., Choudhury, D., Bhargava, K., 2016. Determination of blast-​induced ground vibra-
tion equations for rocks using mechanical and geological properties. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 8(3), 341–​ 349. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.jrmge.2015.10.009.
Mokfi, T., Shahnazar, A., Bakhshayeshi, I., Derakhsh, A.M., Tabrizi, O., 2018. Proposing of a
new soft computing-​based model to predict peak particle velocity induced by blasting.
Engineering with Computers, 34(4), 881–​888. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​366-​018-​0578-​6.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X.N., 2019. Predicting blast-​induced air overpressure: a robust artificial intel-
ligence system based on artificial neural networks and random forest. Natural Resources
Research, 28(3), 893–​907. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​053-​018-​9424-​1.
Nguyen, H., Drebenstedt, C., Bui, X. N., Bui, D.T., 2020. Prediction of blast-​induced ground
vibration in an open-​pit mine by a novel hybrid model based on clustering and artificial
neural network. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 691–​709. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​
s11​053-​019-​09470-​z.
niti.gov.in, www.niti.gov.in/​edm/​#coal​Cons​umpt​ion, accessed on 09.05.2023.
Pal Roy, P., 1993. Putting ground vibration predictors into practice. Colliery Guardian,
241(02), 63–​67.
powermin.gov.in, https://​power​min.gov.in/​en/​cont​ent/​power-​sec​tor-​gla​nce-​all-​india, accessed
on 09.05.2023
Ramulu, M., 2012. Special tunnel blasting techniques for railway projects. In Infrastructure
Design, Signalling and Security in Railway, 479. https://​doi.org/​10.5772/​37316.
Rezaeineshat, A., Monjezi, M., Mehrdanesh, A., Khandelwal, M., 2020. Optimization of
blasting design in open pit limestone mines with the aim of reducing ground vibra-
tion using robust techniques. Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-​Energy and Geo-​
Resources, 6(2), 1–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s40​948-​020-​00164-​y.
Silva, J., Worsey, T., Lusk, B., 2019. Practical assessment of rock damage due to blasting.
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 29(3), 379–​385. https://​doi.
org/​10.1016/​j.ijmst.2018.11.003.
Singh, C.P., Mishra, A.K., Mishra, R., Singh, P.K., 2019. Study on the influence of initiation
system on blast induced ground vibration in dragline operations. Journal of Mines,
Metals and Fuels, 67(01), 1–​6.
Taheri, K., Hasanipanah, M., Golzar, S.B., Majid, M.Z.A., 2017. A hybrid artificial bee colony
algorithm-​artificial neural network for forecasting the blast-​produced ground vibration.
Engineering with Computers, 33(3), 689–​700. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​366-​016-​0497-​3.
Verma, H.K., Samadhiya, N.K., Singh, M., Ramana, V.V., 2014. Blast induced damage to
surrounding rock mass in an underground excavation. Journal of Geological Resource
and Engineering, 2(1), 13–​19. https://​doi.org/​10.17265/​2328-​2193/​2014.01.002.
Wang, Z., Wu, G., Zhou, L., 2022. Optimization of pre-​splitting blasting hole network parameters
and engineering applications in open pit mine. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(10),
4930. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​app1​2104​930.
Wyllie, D.C., Mah, C.W., Silva, J., Worsey, T., Lusk, B., Gu, W., Wang, Z., Chen, J., Liu,
J., Lu, M., Langefors, U., Kihlstrom, B., Man, K., Liu, X., Müller, B., Hausmann, J.,
Niedzwiedz, H., Rustan, R.A., Konya, C.J., … Pain, C., 2018. Practical assessment of
rock damage due to blasting. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology,
29(3), 379–​385. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijmst.2018.11.003.
Yugo, N., Shin, W., 2015. Analysis of blasting damage in adjacent mining excavations. Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 7(3), 282–​290. https://​doi.org/​https://​
doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jrmge.2014.12.005.
96

5 Charge Factor and

Dimensional Parameters
for Excavation in Open
Pit Iron Ore Mines
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Iron ore is the main raw material for the iron and steel industries. India is one of
the leading iron ore producers. Australia, China, Brazil, Sweden are other leading
producers of iron ore. According to the United Nation Framework Classification
(UNFC), the estimated reserve of iron ore in India up to 2010 was 28.52 billion
tonnes (Mohan et al., 2011). Major iron ore producing states in India are Odisha,
Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Jharkhand and Goa (Mining technology website). Iron ore
is mainly found in the form of hematite and magnetite. Magnetite ore is not econom-
ically exploitable. So, only the mining of hematite ore is carried out in India (Roy
et al., 2020). Chemically, hematite is comprised of 69.94 per cent iron and 30.06 per
cent oxygen (Osama et al., 2020).
The specific gravity of iron ore is quite high, mostly above 4 (Roy et al., 2008).
The strata variations are also very high in some of the Indian iron ore mines, which
is a major challenge for blast designers. The dominant rules of thumb for designing
blasting patterns generally do not suit in such strata. Due to very high hardness,
drilling with small diameter holes is not feasible in iron ore mines. The deeper
benches are also avoided, as deep hole drilling in hard strata leads to hole deviations.
In the rock strata with mixed formations as well, drilling deeper holes is a problem.
In these cases, devising a blasting pattern for improving rock fragmentation, redu-
cing backbreak/​sidebreak, reducing blasting hazards, etc. is necessary. Scientific blast
design encompassing the assessment of rock parameters would help to overcome
these challenges. Himanshu et al. (2021a) developed an algorithm based on the empir­
ical Kuz-​Ram model for computing the charge factor and dimensional parameters for
blasting under different strata conditions. The empirical Kuz-​Ram model provides
the relation of output fragment size from a blast with the rock parameters, explosive
parameters and blasting geometry. The rock parameters in this model are represented
as rock factors. The rock factor is computed using Lilly’s blastability index (Lilly,
1986). Details about the designing of blasting patterns using the modified algorithm
are discussed in this chapter. The discussion has also been carried out using a case
study for the assessment of the charge factor and dimensional parameters for different
rock strata of an iron ore mine.

96 DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-5
97

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 97

5.2 LITHOLOGY OF IRON ORE MINES

Iron ore deposition in India is in the form of banded iron formation (BIF) of the
Precambrian age (Prasad et al., 2017). Hematite and magnetite are the major iron
ores. Magnetite deposits are present in the eco-​fragile areas of the Western Ghats, the
economic exploitation of which is not possible. The banded formation of hematite is
found as banded hematite jasper (BHJ), banded hematite quartzite (BHQ) or other
forms. The banded iron formations are volcano-​sedimentary in nature. Iron ore is also
found in the form of limonitic or lateritic deposits (Mukherjee, 2016; Bandyopadhyay
& Hishikar, 1977). The iron ore deposition in India can be classified into five
zones. These zones are Singhbhum-​ Cuttuck zone, Dantewara-​ Durg-​Chandrapur
zone, Bellary-​Hospet zone, Goa-​Ratnagiri-​Maharashtra-​North Karnataka zone and
metamorphosed BIF of the west coast in Karnataka and Kerala.

5.3 BLASTING-​RELATED CHALLENGES IN IRON ORE MINES

The challenges for blasting engineers of iron ore mines are different from those of
other sites. The rocks of iron ore mines have a very high specific gravity of more
than 4. Drilling in rocks with high specific gravity and hardness is challenging. Deep
hole drilling in such strata comes with the problems of deviation. Accordingly, most
of the benches in Indian iron ore mines have depths of 6–​12 m. However, deeper
hole drilling in softer rock strata of sandstone or shale is very common. Shallow
depth drilling in iron ore mines is a major hurdle for productivity, as large-​scale
blasting activity cannot be accomplished in such cases. Even in the cases of smaller
depth drilling, a bigger hole diameter is used in iron ore mining. The bigger diameter
surpasses the rules of thumb for rock blasting. According to the rules of thumb, the
blasthole diameter (in mm) should be less than or equal to 15 times the bench height
(in m) (Nobel, 2010). So, for blasting in a bench of 10 m, the blasthole diameter
should be less than or equal to 150 mm. However, most of the iron ore mines use
larger diameters of blastholes, in the range of 160–​265 mm. Such larger diameter
blastholes help in reducing deviations while drilling in harder rock formation. So, to
achieve higher productivity from iron ore mines in future, deeper benches with bigger
drill holes of diameters of 500 mm or more may be used.
Sometimes the blasting benches of an iron ore mine also present a huge vari-
ation in rock type. The variety of rock type in an Indian iron ore mine is shown in
Figure 5.1. The strength of these rock types varies, which is a major problem during
selection of charging parameters for a blasting engineer. The smaller charge factor in
hard rock strata would lead to boulder generation and restricted movement of the rock
mass. Similarly, an excessive charge in softer rock formation will cause excess throw
of the blasted material and backbreaks. Assessment of drill cuttings would be a bene-
ficial tool in such cases. The blasting engineer determines the charging parameters by
evaluating the drill cuttings at different depths of a hole. The cavity scanner or core
logging data would also be helpful for the blast designers in properly evaluating the
charging pattern at different depths of a blasthole. The measurement while drilling
method may also be used for optimising charge factors in such cases.
98

98 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 5.1 Variation in rock strata in an Indian iron ore mine. (Himanshu et al., 2021a, b.)

5.4 LITERATURE REVIEW ON CHARGE FACTORS FOR BLASTING

IN DIFFERENT ROCK STRATA
The charge factor can be defined as the amount of explosive required for the breakage
of one cubic metre volume of the rock mass (Himanshu et al., 2021b). The optimum
charge factor results in the proper breakage of rock strata with minimum nuisance and
maximum productivity. The charge factor is a function of rock mass characteristics
of blast face, geological condition of the rock strata and the excavation methodology.
The charge factor has been defined in different research articles based on scientific
or experimental outcomes. In this context, Nobel (2010) has classified the rocks into
four different types –​viz. hard, medium, soft and very soft rock types –​for defining
the charge factor (Table 5.1).
Jimeno et al. (1995) suggested the charge factor based on the rock mass properties
of the blast face. The charge factor classification under this literature has been done for
different distances between natural fractures of the rock mass, different uniaxial com-
pressive strength values and rock density values. The suggested charge factor, according
to Jimeno et al. (1995), is given in Table 5.2. Broadbent (1974) has correlated the in-​situ
P-​wave velocity with the charge factor for an open pit copper mine. Further, this relation
was also used by Muftuoglu et al. (1991). The correlation is shown in Equation 5.1.

K = 0.00017 × VP − 0.13 (Equation 5.1)

Where,
K=​Charge factor (in kg/​m3),
Vp =​P-​wave velocity of rock (in m/​s).
99

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 99

TABLE 5.1
Charge factor for different rock types as per Dyno
Nobel quick reference guide

Rock type Charge factor (kg/​m3)

Hard 0.7–​0.8
Medium 0.4–​0.5
Soft 0.25–​0.35
Very Soft 0.15–​0.25

Source: Nobel (2010); Himanshu et al. (2021b).

TABLE 5.2
Charge factor classification based on the geotechnical properties of the
rock strata

Charge factor Mean distance Uniaxial

between natural compressive Rock
Average value fractures in rock rock strength density
Class limit (kg/​m3) (kg/​m3) mass (m) (MPa) (t/​m3)
0.12–​0.18 0.150 <0.10 10–​30 1.40–​1.80
0.18–​0.27 0.225 0.10–​0.25 20–​45 1.75–​2.35
0.27–​0.38 0.320 0.20–​0.50 30–​65 2.25–​2.55
0.38–​0.52 0.450 0.45–​0.75 50–​90 2.50–​2.80
0.52–​0.68 0.600 0.70–​1.00 70–​120 2.75–​2.90
0.68–​0.88 0.780 0.95–​1.25 110–​160 2.85–​3.00
0.88–​1.10 0.990 1.20–​1.50 145–​205 2.95–​3.20
1.10–​1.37 1.235 1.45–​1.70 195–​250 3.15–​3.40
1.37–​1.68 1.525 1.65–​1.90 235–​300 3.35–​3.60
1.68–​2.03 1.855 >1.85 >285 >3.55

Source: Jimeno et al. (1995); Himanshu et al. (2021b).

5.5 ALGORITHMS FOR CHARGE FACTOR AND DIMENSIONAL

PARAMETER DETERMINATION
As discussed in the earlier sections, blasting in iron ore mines cannot be performed
using the existing rules of thumb. The charge factor requirement for the rocks of iron
ore deposits is also different. To overcome these issues, Himanshu et al. (2021a)
developed an algorithm for the computation of charge factor and optimal burden to
achieve the desired fragmentation output. The algorithm is based on the empirical
Kuz-​Ram model. The empirical equations under this model relate to rock parameters,
charging parameters and blast geometry to obtain the desired fragment size of the
blasted rock. The empirical model is a combination of three different equations –​
Kuznetsov’s equation, the Rosin-​Rammler equation and the uniformity index equation
100

100 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

(Adebola et al., 2016; Kansake et al., 2016; Cunningham, 1983; Kuznetsov, 1973).
Kuznetsov’s equation predicts the mean fragment size of the blasted rock based on
the rock mass conditions and quantity and quality of explosive. The uniformity index
equation consists of the blasting geometry. The Rosin-​Rammler equation predicts the
mass fraction of the blasted rock retained on a screen of a defined size.
The developed algorithm for estimation of charge factor and burden-​spacing by
back-​calculation from the Kuz-​Ram empirical model is shown in Figure 5.2. The

FIGURE 5.2 Procedure for estimation of charge factor and optimum burden using empirical
Kuz-​Ram model. (Modified after Himanshu et al., 2021a.)
101

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 101

TABLE 5.3
Modified blastability index

Parameters affecting rock

fragmentation Variants of parameters Rating
Rock mass description (RMD) Powdery/​Friable 10
Vertically jointed Joint factor (JF)
Massive 50
Vertical joint spacing < 0.1m 10
(VJS) 0.1–​1.0 m 20
1.0 m to drill pattern size 50
Joint plane angle (JPA) Dip out of the face 20
Strike perpendicular to face 30
Dip into face 40
Rock density index (RDI) 25 × RD-​50
RD –​Rock density (tonne/​
cu-​m)
Rock breakage factor (RBF) αt
50, 000 × , σt =​ Tensile strength of rock
Y
Y =​Young’s modulus of elasticity of rock
A =​0.06 × (RMD +​RDI +​RBF), A =​Rock factor
JF =​VJS +​JPA

Source: Modified after Lilly (1986).

algorithm includes the computation of the charge factor to get a defined mean
fragment size. The computation is done by back-​ calculation from Kuznetsov’s
equation (Equation 5.2). The rock factor input in Kuznetsov’s equation is taken from
Lilly’s blastability index or its modification (Table 5.3). Known blasting geometries
such as hole diameter, bench height and charging length are collected from the mining
site. The average explosive charge per hole is assumed based on the blasting geom-
etry of the site.

X m = AK −0.8 Q1/ 6 (115 / RWS)

19 / 20
(Equation 5.2)

Where,
Xm =​Mean particle size, cm,
A =​Rock factor,
K =​Charge factor, kg/​m3,
Q =​Quantity of explosive per hole, kg.

Once the charge factor to achieve mean fragment size is computed, then the dimen-
sional parameter of the blast is determined by following further steps of the algorithm.
The desired fragment size to pass through a screen is defined for this purpose. The
percentage of the allowable boulder (fragment which is not retained on the screen) is
102

102 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

also defined in the computation. Based on the assumed values of fragment size to pass
through a screen and the percentage of allowable boulder, the uniformity index (n) is
computed using back-​calculation from the Rosin-​Rammler equation (Equation 5.3).

RX = exp  − 0.693 ( X / X m )n  (Equation 5.3)

Where,
Rx =​mass fraction retained on-​screen opening X,
Xm =​ mean fragment size,
n =​uniformity index, normally lies between 0.8 and 2.2.

The computed value of ‘n’ from the Rosin-​Rammler equation is used in the uni-
formity index equation (Equation 5.4). After that, the uniformity index equation is
converted as a polynomial function of burden (B). The known blasthole diameter is
 14 B 
used in the ‘ 2.2 − ’ factor of the uniformity index equation to convert it as a
 φ  0.1
  BCL − CCL  
function of burden. The factor ‘ abs   + 0. 1 ’ is computed using
  L 
the considerations of direct charging or deck charging. It is assumed that there is
 W
no deviation in drill holes. Accordingly, ‘ 1 −  ’ factor becomes equal to zero.
 B ‘ S ’
1+
 B
Further, the relation between spacing and burden is used to express 
2 
 
 
parameter as a function of B. The used relation is shown in Equation 5.5. The
computed charge factor from Kuznetsov’s equation is used in Equation 5.5 to make
the relationship between burden and spacing. The column charge length in the uni-
formity index equation is replaced by ‘hole depth –​(stemming length +​deck length)’.
The stemming length is considered equal to the burden in the computation. The con-
sideration has been made to provide the least resistant path to the explosive energy
along the burden movement direction. After following these steps, the uniformity
index equation becomes a 6-​degree polynomial equation of burden. The optimum
burden and spacing are computed by solving this 6-​degree polynomial equation.

 S
 1+ 0.1
14 B   B   W  BCL − CCL   L
n =  2.2 − 1 − abs  + 0. 1 H
 φ   2   
B  

L
 
 
(Equation 5.4)

Where,
n =​uniformity index,
B =​Burden (m),
103

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 103

S =​Spacing (m),
⏀ =​Hole diameter (mm),
W =​Standard deviation of drilling precision (m),
L =​Charge length (m),
BCL =​Bottom charge length (m),
CCL =​Column charge length (m),
H =​Bench height (m).

Q
S ×B = (Equation 5.5)
K ×L

Where,
B =​Burden (m),
S =​Spacing (m),
Q =​Explosive charge per hole (kg),
K =​Charge factor (kg/​m3),
L =​Charge length (m).

To demonstrate the algorithm, suppose the charge factor and dimensional

parameters for a blast in the strata having rock factor 6 have to be computed. The
height of the benches of this mine is 10 m. Drilling equipment with 100 mm diam-
eter is available at the mine. The relative weight strength of the explosive used at
the mine is 100. So, the explosive charge per hole would be 63 kg, considering the
stemming length of 3 m. Based on these considerations, the optimum charge factor
for mean fragment size output of 200 mm would be computed as per Equation 5.2.
This equation takes the form of Equation 5.6 after putting in all the values. The value
of K after solving Equation 5.6 would be 0.62.

20 = 6 × K −0.8 (63) (115 / 100)19 / 20

1/ 6
(Equation 5.6)

Now, suppose it is expected that 90 per cent of the blasted rock fragment will pass
through a screen opening of size 500 mm. So, the uniformity index for this consider-
ation is computed using equations 5.3 and 5.7. The value of ‘n’ after solving Equation
5.7 would be 1.31.

0.1 = exp [ − 0.693 (50 / 20)n ] (Equation 5.7)

Now, this value of ‘n’ is put in the uniformity index equation. So, the uniformity
index equation changes as a polynomial of burden as per equations 5.8 and 5.9. The
optimum burden is computed by solving the expression of Equation 5.9. The value of
spacing is further computed from Equation 5.8.

63
S ×B =
0.62 ×7 (Equation 5.8)
104

104 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

  0.62  
  7 × 63 × B  
1+ 

1.31 =  2.2 −
14 B   B    7 − 0 
0.1
(10 − B)
 
100   2   abbs  7  + 0.1 10
 
 
 
(Equation 5.9)

5.6 CASE STUDY: DETERMINATION OF CHARGE FACTOR FOR

DIFFERENT ROCK TYPES OF AN IRON ORE MINE
The developed algorithm shown in Figure 5.2 was used for the determination of
charge factor and dimensional parameters for blasting in different strata of an Indian
iron ore mine. Based on physical characteristics and chemical compositions, the iron
ore deposition of this mine has been classified into five categories –​viz. Type 1: steel-​
grey hematite with Fe content of 69 per cent; Type 2: blue-​grey hematite having 67.5
per cent of Fe; Type 3: banded hematite quartzite (BHQ) constituting 64 per cent Fe
content; Type 4: lateritic/​limonitic ore comprising 61 per cent of Fe content; and Type
5: blue dust/​flaky ore having Fe content of around 67 per cent. An overview of the
different rock deposits of this mine is shown in Figure 5.3.
The physico-​mechanical properties of different rock types of the mine were
assessed for the determination of optimal charge factor and dimensional parameters.
The assessment was done at the rock mechanics laboratory of CSIR-​ CIMFR,
Dhanbad. The core samples of steel-​grey hematite, blue-​grey hematite, BHQ, lateritic
ore and shale were collected from the mine. The core samples were put in an electric
oven at a temperature of 110ºC for nearly 12 hours to eliminate all the moisture
content. After that, the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and Young’s modulus of
elasticity (Y) of the core samples were measured using a universal testing machine
(UTM). The tensile strengths of the core samples were measured using the Brazilian
test. Specimens were prepared from core samples as per Bureau of Indian Standard
(1979), IS:9179-​1979 norms. The length to diameter ratio of the specimen was 2 for
UCS and Young’s modulus testing and 0.5 for tensile strength testing. The ends of the
specimens were flattened and the sides of the specimen were smoothened. The diam-
eter of the specimen was measured to the nearest 0.01 mm and used for calculating
the cross-​section area. The height of the specimen was determined to the nearest
0.01mm. In the case of UCS testing, the load on the specimen was applied continu-
ously at a uniform loading rate, such that failure occurred within 5–​10 minutes
of loading. Alternatively, the loading rate was within the limit of 0.5–​1.0 MPa/​sec.
The tensile strength of rock samples was analysed by the indirect Brazilian Tensile
Strength investigation as per Bureau of Indian Standard, 1981 IS: 10082-​1981 norms.
The core samples for P-​wave velocity measurement were prepared as per IS norms:
9179-​1979. The ultrasonic pulse method (using the ULTRASONIC 4600 instrument)
was used to determine the P-​wave velocities of the rock samples. The instrument
105

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 105

FIGURE 5.3 Overview of different rock types of Bailadila Iron Ore Mine. (Himanshu et al.,
2021a.)

consists of a transmitter and receiver in combination, which can be moved separately

on the surface. The frequency range of the transducer is between 1 and 1,000
kHz. The instrument generates suitable pulses and measures the time of their trans-
mission through the rock specimen. The length of the rock specimen is taken as the
distance travelled by pulse in the medium. The ratio of distance travelled by the pulse
106

106 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 5.4 Diagrammatic layout for P-​wave velocity measurement of a rock specimen.
(Himanshu et al., 2021a.)

through the rock specimen and the transmission time is taken as P-​wave velocity.
The diagrammatic layout of P-​wave velocity measurement for a rock specimen is
shown in Fig 5.4. The S-​wave velocity of the core samples was measured using the
same method but with different sets of transmitter and receiver. The assessed physico-​
mechanical properties of different rock types are shown in Table 5.4.

5.6.1 Estimation of Charge Factors Using the Developed Algorithm and

Comparison with Other Methods
The charge factors for different rock types of the study site were computed using
the developed algorithm. The charge factors were also estimated using the other
approaches used by different researchers.
The computation of charge factors for different rock strata was done as per the steps
shown in Figure 5.2. Lilly’s blastability indices and modified blastability indices for
different rock types of the mine were computed on the basis of the assessed physico-​
mechanical properties of the rock. The computed rock factors using modified Lilly’s
blastability index is shown in Table 5.5.
After the computation of the rock factors, the charge factors for different rocks
were computed to achieve a defined mean fragment output. The rock factor computed
using the modified blastability index was used in the computation of the charge factor.
The computation was done by back-​calculation from Kuznetsov’s equation. The
charge factor was computed for the blasthole diameters of 100 mm, 150 mm and 250
 newgenrtpdf
107
Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation
TABLE 5.4
Physico-​mechanical properties of different rock types

Uniaxial Tensile Young’s

Bulk density compressive strength modulus Poisson’s P-​wave velocity S-​wave velocity
Rock type (tonne/​m3) strength (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) ratio (m/​s) (m/​s)
Blue-​grey hematite 4.62 146.98 25.6 34.29 0.34 4877 2630
Steel-​grey hematite 4.70 196.03 13.66 28.63 0.34 4638 2473
Lateritic ore 2.60 13.45 2.51 3.28 0.24 2858 1398
BHQ 3.39 94.02 25.92 28.54 0.32 4892 2582
Shale 3.34 48.03 5.11 15.04 0.33 4030 1805

107
 newgenrtpdf
108
108
TABLE 5.5
Computation of modified blastability index for different rock types of the study site

Parameters affecting Rating suggested for Rating suggested for Rating suggested for Rating suggested Rating suggested for
rock fragmentation steel-​grey hematite blue-​grey hematite BHQ for lateritic ore shale
Rock mass description Massive Massive Massive Massive Massive
(RMD) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50)
Rock density index 25 × 4.7 -​50 25 × 4.62 -​50 25 × 3.39 -​50 25 × 2.6 -​50 25 × 3.34 -​50 =​33.5
(RDI) =​ 67.5 =​ 65.5 =​ 34.75 =​ 15

Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Rock breakage factor Y=​28.63 GPA Y=​34.29 GPA Y=​28.54 GPA Y=​3.28 GPA Y=​15.04 GPA
(RBF) TS=​13.66 MPa TS=​25.6 MPa TS=​25.92 MPa TS=​2.51 MPa TS=​5.11 MPa
RBF RBF RBF RBF RBF
=​ 23.85 =​ 37.32 =​ 45.4 =​ 38.25 =​ 16.97
Calculated rock factor 8.48 9.17 7.81 6.19 6.03
109

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 109

TABLE 5.6
Computed charge factor for different rock strata of the mine under different
variations of blasthole diameter

Charge factor (kg/​m3)

Hole diameter Steel-​grey Blue-​grey Banded hematite
(mm) hematite hematite quartzite (BHQ) Lateritic ore Shale
100 1.11 1.01 0.91 0.68 0.66
150 1.30 1.18 1.06 0.79 0.77
250 1.46 1.33 1.20 0.89 0.87

mm. The average explosive per hole was determined for different blasthole diameters.
It was focused to utilise explosive energy for burden movement. Accordingly, the
least resistant path for blast-​induced stress wave propagation was provided along the
burden direction. For this, the stemming column length and spacing were considered
equal to or more than the burden. The relative weight strength of the explosive was
taken as 100 in the computation. The computed charge factor for different rock strata
is shown in Table 5.6.
The computed charge factor to achieve 200 mm mean fragment size using back-​
calculation from Kuznetsov’s equation has been compared with the charge factor
estimated from Jimeno et al. (1995) and Broadbent (1974). The comparison is shown
in Figure 5.5. The comparison shows that the estimated charge factor using the
density-​based approach is very high. The UCS-​based approach estimates the charge
factor as nearly similar to the approach proposed in this study for steel-​grey hematite,
blue-​grey hematite and BHQ. But the charge factor estimated for shale and lateritic
ore using the UCS-​based approach is very low.

5.6.2  Computation of Dimensional Parameters for Different Rock

Strata of the Mine
The optimum burden for different rock strata of the mine was computed using the
algorithm shown in Figure 5.2. The reduction of oversize boulders is the main
objective of a good blast. This can be achieved by optimisation of blast geometry.
For the purpose of optimisation, the mean fragment size of 200 mm was considered.
The uniformity index ‘n’ was computed considering that the 10 per cent of the
rock fragments having the size of more than 500 mm are retained on the screen.
The selection of screen fragment size was made considering the requirements of
excavators and to reduce power consumption during the crushing operation. The
computed value of ‘n’ considering these values of rock fragmentation output comes
to 1.31.
After the computation of ‘n’, the uniformity index equation was made as a
function of burden (B). Two different blasthole diameters (250 mm and 150 mm)
available at the mine site were considered during burden computation. The direct
110

110 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 5.5 Comparison of estimated charge factor using different approaches.

explosive charge was considered for the blasthole diameter of 150 mm. However, one
deck of 1 m was considered for the blasthole with diameter of 250 mm. Accordingly,
0.1
  BCL − CCL  
‘  abs   + 0.1 ’ parameters of uniformity index equation for blasthole
  L  
of diameter 150 mm and 250 mm were taken as (1.1)0.1 and [(3/​7)+​0.1]0.1 respect-

 W
ively. It was assumed that there is no deviation in drill holes. Accordingly, ‘  1 −  ’
 B
parameter was taken as equal to zero. Further, the relation shown in Equation 5.5 was

 S
1+
 B  ’ parameter as a function of B. The computed charge factor
used to express ‘ 
2 
 
 
from Table 5.6 was used in Equation 5.5. The optimum burden was computed by
solving the polynomial equation of burden. The computed optimum burden and spa-
cing for different rock strata of the case study mine is shown in Table 5.7.

5.6.3 Experimental Trials and Validation of the Designed Charge Factor

and Dimensional Parameters

The experimental trials were taken at different benches of the case study mine to
validate the designed charge factor and dimensional parameters. The blast faces
111

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 111

TABLE 5.7
Computed burden-​spacing using empirical Kuz-​Ram model for different rock
strata of the mine

Rock type Hole diameter (mm) Burden (m) Spacing (m)

Steel-​grey hematite 250 3.9 4.4
150 3.1 3.5
Blue-​grey hematite 250 4.0 4.7
150 3.4 3.5
BHQ 250 4.1 5.1
150 3.5 3.8
Lateritic ore 250 4.4 6.4
150 3.9 4.6
Shale 250 4.4 6.5
150 3.9 4.7

had variations in rock strata. The blasting outputs from the faces with the strata of
almost single rock type were segregated. Accordingly, the blasting outputs from 15
blasts were analysed. The blast design parameters, along with the respective rock
types, were gathered for these blasts. The rock fragmentation outputs from these
blasts were analysed. The analysis was made using image processing. The images
of blasted rocks were taken after each round of removal of muck from a blasted
face. The fragmentation analysis of these images was carried out in WipFrag
software. The output mean fragment size and 90 per cent passing fragment size
were gathered for each blast. The output mean fragment size was also predicted
using Kuznetsov’s equation of the empirical Kuz-​Ram model. The rock factor
from the modified Lilly’s blastability index was used in Kuznetsov’s equation
while predicting mean fragment size. 90 per cent passing fragment size was also
predicted using the empirical Kuz-​Ram model. The predicted mean fragment size
and 90 per cent passing fragment size using two approaches were compared with
the actual fragmentation output from the trial blasts. The summary of predicted
and actual fragmentation from the trial blasts conducted at the mine is shown in
Table 5.8. The comparison of predicted and actual mean fragment size shows that
the predicted mean fragment size is more than the output mean fragment size in
most of the cases. The predicted mean fragment size using modified rock factor is
much higher than the output mean fragment size. This means that the prediction
is over prediction.
The main purpose of bench blasting is to reduce oversize boulders. Accordingly,
the accurate prediction of 90 per cent passing fragment size was the main aim. So,
the actual 90 per cent passing fragment size was compared with the predicted 90 per
cent passing fragment size. The predicted 90 per cent passing fragment size shows
variations within 200 mm in most of the cases. The root mean square error (RMSE)
value of predicted 90 per cent fragmentation is 267.
 newgenrtpdf
112
112
TABLE 5.8
Actual and predicted rock fragmentation for trial blasts conducted at the case study mine
Output
Output 90 % Predicted Predicted
Average mean passing mean 90%
Hole Hole Decking charge Charge fragment fragment fragment passing
Blast diameter Burden Spacing depth length per hole factor size size size fragment
no. Rock type (mm) (m) (m) (m) (m) (kg) (kg/​m3) (mm) (mm) (mm) size (mm)
01 SGH 250 5.0 5.5 8.5 0.0 215 0.92 118 1000 274 858
02 Lat. 150 3.5 4.5 12.0 0.0 172 0.91 105 625 180 538
03 SGH & BGH 250 4.5 5.0 13.0 1.5 374 1.28 104 850 231 631
04 SGH & BGH 250 5.0 6.0 13.5 0.0 420 1.03 149 1200 280 715

Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

05 BHQ 250 5.0 6.0 13.0 0.0 383 0.98 136 900 244 637
06 Shale & Lat. 250 5.0 6.0 13.5 0.0 325 0.80 125 770 216 674
07 Shale & Lat. 250 4.7 6.1 11.5 0.0 360 1.09 100 540 171 439
08 BGH 250 4.7 6.1 15.5 1.5 456 1.03 147 800 262 602
09 Lat. 250 4.7 6.1 13.5 0.0 426 1.10 105 472 180 446
10 Lat. 150 2.5 3.0 6.0 0.0 43 0.95 156 924 138 1383
11 Lat. 150 3.5 4.0 6.5 0.0 68 0.74 155 1327 182 895
12 SGH 250 4.5 5.0 14 1.5 384 1.22 140 793 241 595
13 SGH 250 4.5 5.5 12.0 0.0 162 0.54 154 2850 400 2916
14 SGH 250 4.5 5.5 14.0 1.5 311 0.90 149 1200 297 853
15 BGH 250 4.5 5.5 14.0 1.5 370 1.07 136 900 246 625
113

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 113

Since the modified rock factor consisted of the parameters influencing nearfield
damage (tensile strength and elastic modulus), it has helped in improving the blast
face movement. The blast design, with the help of the algorithm shown in Figure 5.2
and the modified rock factor, has shown a higher magnitude of blast face movement.
A comparison of blast face movement with the modified and existing dimensional
parameters practised at the mine is shown in Figure 5.6. The better movement of
the blast face has also helped in the reduction of the magnitude of backbreak. The
comparison of the backbreak resulting from the blast with the modified and existing
dimensional parameters is shown in Figure 5.7.

FIGURE 5.6 Comparison of face movement for trial blasts with existing and modified
dimensional parameters. (Himanshu et al., 2021a.)

FIGURE 5.7 Comparison of backbreak magnitude from trial blasts with existing and
modified dimensional parameters. (Himanshu et al., 2021a.)
114

114 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

5.7 SUMMARY
The optimum utilisation of explosive energy during rock blasting is a challenge for
blast designers. This challenge is even greater in the case of iron ore mining, as Indian
iron ore mines show huge variation in rock types. Optimal explosive energy utilisa-
tion in such cases is possible with the selection of suitable charge factors and dimen-
sional parameters for the respective rock strata. Researchers have proposed different
methods for the estimation of suitable charge factors for a rock stratum. However,
these methods do not correlate the charge factor with the dimensional parameters for
a blasting face. Accordingly, there was a need to devise a method to compute charge
factor and dimensional parameters for blasting in a rock stratum.
This need has been dealt with in this chapter by developing an algorithm for
the computation of charge factor and dimensional parameters. The computation
is based on back-​calculation from the empirical Kuz-​Ram model. This model is a
rock fragmentation predictor. It consists of a rock factor, which is computed using
Lilly’s blastability index or its modification. The modified blastability index has been
proposed based on the theory of rock breakage under tension. Further, the charge
factor and dimensional parameter computation were performed using the developed
algorithm and modified blastability index for the different rock strata of an Indian
iron ore mine. The mine consisted of different rock types such as steel-​grey hematite,
blue-​grey hematite, BHQ, lateritic ore and shale.
Trial blasts were also conducted at this mine. The trial blasts with the charge
factor and dimensional parameters computed using modified rock factor in combin-
ation with the empirical Kuz-​Ram model improved the blasting output in terms of
backbreak reduction and improvement of muckpile movement. Hence, the developed
algorithm along with the modified rock factor may be used in mining applications.

REFERENCES
Adebola, J.M., Ajayi, O.D., Elijah O.P., 2016. Rock fragmentation prediction using Kuz-​Ram
model. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 06(05), 110–​115.
Bandyopadhyay, D., Hishikar, A.K., 1977. Stratigraphic sequence in the Southern Part of
Bailadila Range, Dist. Bastar (Mp). Journal of the Geological Society of India, 18(5),
240–​245.
Broadbent, C.D., 1974. Predictable blasting with in-​situ seismic surveys. Mining Engineering,
26, 37–​41.
Bureau of Indian Standard, 1979. Method for preparation of rock specimen for laboratory
testing. IS: 10082-​1981. New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standard, 1981. Method of test for the determination of tensile strength by
indirect tests on rock specimens. IS: 10082–​1981. New Delhi, India.
Cunningham, C.V.B., 1983. The Kuz–​ Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from
blasting. In 1st International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 439–​453.
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Priyadarshi, V., Shankar, R., Yadav, R.S., Singh, P.K., 2021a.
Estimation of optimum burden for blasting of different rock strata in an Indian Iron Ore
Mine. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 97, 760–​766.
115

Charge Factor and Dimensional Parameters for Excavation 115

Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Shankar, R., Mishra, A.K., Singh, P.K., 2021b. Empirical approach
based estimation of charge factor and dimensional parameters in underground blasting.
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38(2), 1059–​ 1069. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​
461-​020-​00374-​8.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L. and Carcedo, F.J.A., 1995. Drilling and blasting of rocks. Geo-​
Mining Technological Institute of Spain, 345–​351.
Kansake, B.A., Temeng V.A., Afum, B.O., 2016. Comparative analysis of rock fragmenta-
tion models –​a case study. In 4th UMT Biennial International Mining and Mineral
Conference, 1–​11.
Kuznetsov, V.M., 1973. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Soviet
Mining Science, 9(2), 144–​148. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF0​2506​177.
Lilly, P., 1986. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In Proceedings of the
Large Open Pit Mining Conference, Newman, WA. Melbourne, Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, 89–​92.
Mining technology website, www.min​ing-​tec​hnol​ogy.com/​, accessed on 16.06.2023
Mohan, Ram, Sutaone, A.T., Rao, M.S., Sengupta, A.K., 2011. Iron & Steel Vision 2020. In
Iron & Steel Vision 2020, 13–​25.
Muftuoglu, Y.V., Pagamehmetoglu, A.G., Karpuz, C., 1991. Correlation of powder factor
with physical rock properties and rotary drill performance in Turkish surface coal
mines. In 7th ISRM Congress, September 1991, 1049–​1051. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
0148-​9062(93)92005-​b.
Mukherjee, A., 2016. Disposition of Banded Iron Formation of Bailadila Range South Bastar
District, Chhattisgarh: Its implications on exploration. Journal of Applied Geochemistry,
12(3), 469–​477.
Nobel, D., 2010. Blasting and explosives quick reference guide. Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Pty
Limited, Kalgoorlie, 32. www.leg.state.mn.us/​docs/​2015/​other/​150​681/​PFE​ISre​f_​1/​
DynoNo​bel2​010.pdf
Prasad, J., Venkatesh, A., Sahoo, P., Singh, S., Sylvestre Kanouo, N., 2017. Geological controls
on high-​grade iron ores from Kiriburu-​Meghahatuburu Iron Ore Deposit, Singhbhum-​
Orissa Craton, Eastern India. Minerals, 7(10), 197. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​min​7100​197.
Roy, S., Das, A., Venkatesh, A.S., 2008. A comparative mineralogical and geochemical char-
acterisation of iron ores from two Indian Precambrian deposits and Krivoy rog deposit,
Ukraine: implications for the upgrading of lean grade ore. Applied Earth Science, 117(3),
125–​147. https://​doi.org/​10.1179/​17432​7508​X375​602.
Roy, S.K., Nayak, D., Rath, S.S., 2020. A review on the enrichment of iron values of low-​grade
iron ore resources using reduction roasting-​magnetic separation. Powder Technology,
367, 796–​808. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pow​tec.2020.04.047.
116

6 Excavation Using
Drilling and Blasting
in Limestone Quarries

6.1 INTRODUCTION
Limestone is a sedimentary rock, primarily used as raw material for cement produc-
tion. The chemical composition of limestone is calcium carbonate. India is the second-​
largest producer of cement with 7 per cent of the global installed capacity (ibm.gov.
in). Total cement production in India during FY 2022 was 356 million tonnes. The
consumption of cement was about the same as production during this financial year.
It is projected that cement consumption during FY 2027 will be 450.78 million tonnes
(businesswire.com). Accordingly, the demand for limestone production will also be
high. Limestone is produced in India from more than 650 limestone mines, 30 of
which produce more than 3 million tonnes per annum. The contribution from these 30
mines is about 40 per cent of total limestone production (ibm.gov.in).
In India, all limestone mines are opencast. Underground mining of limestone was
started in the Himalayan region during 2000, but was stopped due to environmental sen-
sitivity (Soni & Nema, 2021a). Opencast mining of limestone is preferred because of
its occurrence at shallow depth. However, underground limestone mining is practised in
the United States, Canada, Australia and South Africa (Soni & Nema, 2021b). Most of
the underground mines of the United States pose problems of roof instability, because
of the higher frequency of joints (Newman et al., 2020). In the Indian condition also the
limestone deposits have a high concentration of rock joints. The compressive strength
of the limestone rocks in India lies in the range of 60–​120 MPa (Paurush & Rai, 2022;
Mishra et al., 2017; Trivedi et al., 2014). The density of limestone rock is in the range
of 2700–​2750 kg/​m3. The major challenge for the blasting practitioners of Indian lime-
stone mines is to achieve good fragmentation. The decision on optimum charge factor
specifically in the jointed rock strata is very important. Several Indian limestone mines
are also in close proximity to residential structures. Devising a controlled blasting
pattern in such cases to contain vibration within safe limits is also a challenge. Details
of limestone mining practices in some of the Indian mines are discussed in this chapter.

6.2 BLASTING PRACTICES AT INDIAN LIMESTONE MINES

Limestone deposits in India are excavated using drilling and blasting as well as
mechanical excavators. Continuous miners, rippers and bulldozers are deployed as

116 DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-6

117

Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 117

TABLE 6.1
Summary of blasting parameters practised at different Indian limestone mines

Hole diameter Hole depth Burden Spacing

Name of mine (mm) (m) (m) (m)
Hinauti 115 4.0–​6.0 3.0 3.5
Mendhi 115 6.0 3.0 4.0
Rawan 110 8.0–​9.5 3.5 4.0
Injepalli 152 10.0 5.0 10.5
Sonadih 115 8.0 3.0 3.5
Chenpura 100 6.0–​8.0 2.5 3.0

FIGURE 6.1 Blast face of an Indian limestone mine.

mechanical excavators. In the case of drilling and blasting, deep hole blasting with a
hole depth of 6–​10 m is generally used. The most common blasthole diameter is 100–​
115 mm. However, a larger blasthole diameter is also practised in some of the mines.
Sheopura-​Keshpura limestone mine uses a blasthole diameter of 165 mm. The drilling
geometry mostly comprises Burden × Spacing of 3.0–​3.5 m × 3.5–​4.0 m. Larger
blast geometry is also practised in a few mines. Injapalli limestone mine uses bigger
drilling geometry with Burden × Spacing of 5.0 m × 10.5 m. This mine has closely
spaced concentrated joints, which supports fragmentation even with higher drilling
geometry. Charge factors for blasting in limestone quarries are generally 0.5–​0.55 kg/​
m3. A lower charge factor is used when blasting in strata with closer joint spacing.
A summary of hole depth, burden-​spacing and hole diameter practised at some of
the Indian limestone mines is given in Table 6.1. The overview of a blast face of an
Indian limestone mine is shown in Figure 6.1. The blastholes at the limestone mines
118

118 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

are charged with packaged slurry/​emulsion cartridge explosives or ammonium nitrate

fuel oil (ANFO) explosives. The cartridge explosives are of 83 mm diameter and
2.78 kg weight. Site mixed emulsion (SME) explosives are also used in some of the
harder rock formations. ANFO explosives give better fragmentation in most of the
limestone mines, because of the presence of joints. The gaseous pressure of ANFO is
higher, which supports an extension of the joints. The charged blastholes are initiated
with the help of a nonel initiation system. An electronic initiation system is also used
in a few mines, which are located in close proximity to domestic structures.

6.3 ROCK FRAGMENTATION WHILE BLASTING IN JOINTED

LIMESTONE STRATA
Indian limestone mines have severity of joints. Investigations into the influence of
nature and orientation of joints on blast-​induced rock mass damage were carried out
in a study at CSIR-​CIMFR, Dhanbad. The study was done using numerical simulation
and by comparison of experimental results. The nature of the joint was identified as fric-
tional and bonded in this study. The orientation was classified into four types –​dipping
out of the face, dipping inside the face, horizontal dipping and strike of the joint normal
to the face. The outcomes of the study revealed that the rock mass shows maximum
damage when the joint orientation is horizontal. The order of damage to support burden
movement and rock fragmentation in four cases of joint orientation is as follows:
Horizontal joint > Strike of the joint normal to the face > Joint dipping out of the
face > Joint dipping inside the face.
Further, it was found that the presence of multiple numbers of joints leads to max-
imum damage in the region lying between the two joints. The numerical simulation
output was validated by comparing blasting output from three different limestone mines
of India. The rock fragmentation output of the Injepalli limestone mine was better with
a smaller charge factor than the other two limestone mines. The better results were
due to the closely spaced joints having orientations which were horizontal and strike
normal to the face. The burden and spacing practised at this mine were also larger than
at the other two mines. Despite large burden-​spacing, the rock fragmentation result was
excellent as the closely spaced joints had supported the stress concentration and thereby
increased the explosive energy utilisation. Further, the charge factor was predicted for
each mine using Kuznetsov’s equation. The predicted charge factor comes to 0.47 kg/​
m3, 0.44 kg/​m3 and 0.44 kg/​m3 for Sagmania & Birhauli limestone mine, Injepalli lime-
stone mine and Rawan limestone mine, respectively. The predicted charge factor for
Injepalli limestone mine is higher than the charge factor used during the experimental
blasts. The smaller charge factor for this mine was sufficient for the blast because of the
closely spaced four sets of joints. Based on this study, it has been proposed to reduce
by half the rock factor computed using a modified blastability index (Salmi & Sellers,
2021) in the cases when there is the presence of closely spaced horizontal joints.

6.4 GROUND VIBRATION PROPAGATION CHARACTERISTIC IN

LIMESTONE BLASTING
The ground vibration wave recorded at six limestone quarries shows fast attenuation
with distance from the source of blasting. However, the sustaining of vibration was
119

Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 119

TABLE 6.2
Summary of MCPD and total charge used at different limestone quarries

Distance of blast
face from vibration
monitoring point (m) MCPD (kg) Total charge (kg)
Name of
mine Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean
Hinauti 50 250 112 2.8 95 33 30 2678 453
Mendhi 30 250 110 2.8 69 45 25 920 491
Sagmania & 50 500 143 40 105 68 82 2106 923
Birhauli
Sonadih 175 1075 570 50 540 204 675 4848 2124
Injepalli 50 1500 423 78 375 196 78 3708 2104
Rawan 85 873 359 28 100 60 1000 3195 1724

observed up to larger distances. In all the cases of the experiment, the ground vibra-
tion attenuated below the safe peak particle velocity (PPV) limit of 10 mm/​s beyond
500 m from the blasting faces. In most of the cases, ground vibration attenuated
below 5 mm/​s beyond 600 m from the blasting sources. The variation of maximum
explosive charge per delay (MCPD) during experimentation at these mines was in the
range of 2.8–​540 kg. The total explosive charge in a firing round varied in the range
of 25–​4,848 kg. A summary of MCPD and total charge used during the experiment at
different limestone quarries is given in Table 6.2. The summary of recorded PPV, air
overpressure and frequency of ground vibration at these limestone quarries is given
in Table 6.3. The recorded PPV at different distances from the blast faces is shown in
Figure 6.2. It can be seen from the figure that the maximum vibration was observed
in Sagmania & Birhauli and Injepalli limestone mines. The sustaining of vibration
up to larger distances was observed at Sonadih and Injapalli limestone mines. When
comparing the plot of PPV with the charging parameters shown in Table 6.2, it can be
observed that MCPD and total charge used at Sonadih and Injepalli limestone mines
were maximum, which is the main reason behind the sustaining of vibration up to
larger distances. The frequency component of vibration recorded at Hinauti, Mendhi
and Sagmania & Birhauli mines (Figure 6.3) is higher, which reflects the comparative
homogeneity in the rock strata. Due to this homogeneity, the values of PPV at these
mines are comparatively higher.

6.5 CASE STUDY: ROCK EXCAVATION USING DRILLING AND

BLASTING AT A HIGHLY FRACTURED LIMESTONE MINE
The blasting pattern to achieve optimum fragmentation for highly fractured rock strata
would be different from that for massive strata. The optimal charge factor requirement
would also be different in this case. Good fragmentation output can be achieved
even with lower charge factor and increased blast geometry. The experimental blasts
were conducted at one such mine. The experimental data were collected in the form
120

120 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 6.3
Summary of PPV and AOp recorded at different Indian limestone quarries

PPV (mm/​s) Frequency (Hz) Air overpressure (dBL)

Name of
mine Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean
Hinauti 0.73 33.9 7.45 11.4 129 27.5 110.2 137.8 124.5
Mendhi 2.13 26.2 9.48 15.3 124 48.1 107.5 129.1 118.7
Sagmania & 1.03 36.2 12.7 13.5 98.3 36.5 101.3 139 120.8
Birhauli
Sonadih 0.54 22.6 5.8 22 85 39 111.8 140.4 125.9
Injepalli 0.58 39.5 12.4 11.9 68.3 27.5 94 123.9 114.5
Rawan 0.86 25.2 7.97 14.9 82.9 38.3 113.3 139 124.9

FIGURE 6.2 PPV recorded at different distances from blast faces in limestone quarries.

of fragmentation, muckpile throw, ground vibration, structural response, etc. Details

of the experiment and results are discussed in this section.

6.5.1 Geology of the Study Site

The mine geology of the study site pertains to the sedimentary rock formation of the
Bhima series. The entire area is absolutely flat terrain with a capping of black cotton
soil, while at some places outcrops of siliceous limestone are seen. The sequence of
rock types (lithology) observed from borehole cores at the study site is as follows:

i. overburden –​clay with occasional kankar

ii. buff to light siliceous limestone
121

Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 121

FIGURE 6.3 Frequency component of recorded PPV at different Indian limestone quarries.

iii. grey to dark-​grey limestone

iv. purple to dark-​purple limestone
v. purple shale.

6.5.2 Blasting Details
Thirteen blasts, comprising ten production blasts and three signature blasts, were
conducted at different benches of the study site mine during experimentation. The
number of blastholes detonated in a blasting round for a production blast varied
between 26 and 38. The blasts were conducted for blastholes of diameter 152 mm and
hole depth 10 m. The most common burden and spacing used at this mine were 5 m
and 10 m respectively. The average explosive charge loaded in a hole varied between
78 and 125 kg. Total explosive weight blasted in a blasting round was in the range of
78 to 3,858 kg, with explosives weight per delay of 78 to 375 kg. Charge factor was
in the range of 0.18–​0.25 kg/​m3. Holes were charged with slurry cartridge explosive
and ANFO explosives. ANFO explosive was charged in dry holes and slurry explo-
sive cartridges in wet holes. Wet holes were dewatered with a manual dewatering
arrangement. The charge per hole varied as per strata conditions for controlling
vibration and better fragmentation. Limestone deposits in this mine possess dominant
fractured rock mass with severe joints. Accordingly, larger burden-​spacing also
resulted in better fragmentation. The top bench (425RL) of this mine had weaker rock
deposits than the lower-​level benches. Figure 6.4 presents a view of strata conditions
122

122 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 6.4 A view of strata condition at different benches of case study mine.

in different benches of this mine. During experimentation, blasts were conducted

with non-​electric delay detonators (nonel), comprising trunkline delays (TLDs) of
25 ms and 67 ms and down-​the-​hole delay (DTH) of 200 ms. An electronic initiation
system was also used in some of the blasts. Blast holes were drilled in 2–​3 rows.

6.5.3 Vibration Propagation Characteristics of Case Study Mine

Seismographs were deployed to record the vibrations at different locations in and
around the case study mine. Vibrations were monitored in terms of PPV that varied
from 0.254 mm/​s to 39.5 mm/​s, depending on the distance of measuring transducers
of seismographs from the blasting face and the amount of explosives detonated in a
particular delay of the blast. The ground vibration waveform of the maximum level of
vibration is shown in Figure 6.5. This vibration data was recorded at a distance of 150
m in the back side of the blast face. The blast was conducted with a total explosive
charge of 3,858 kg and maximum charge per delay of 190 kg. It can be seen from this
waveform that the vibration waves dampen completely within 900 ms. Since small
delay timings were used between the holes, the superposition of the waves from the
detonation of different delays can also be seen in this waveform.

6.5.3.1 Structural Response to Ground Vibration

The induced ground vibration gets transferred to the structures. The transfer is max-
imum when there is resonance between the frequency of ground vibration and natural
frequency of structure. The transfer of vibration may lead to amplification or attenu-
ation of ground vibration. The outcomes from the experimental results show that
there would be amplification of ground vibration to the structures, if the associated
frequency of ground vibration is less than the natural frequency of the structures. In
the other case there would be attenuation of vibration from ground to structures.
Assessment of structural response from induced ground vibration was carried out
at the case study site. It was done by placement of a six-​channel seismograph for
the measurement of induced ground vibration. The first three channels were used
for measuring ground vibration in three directions (longitudinal, vertical and trans-
verse) and the other three channels were used for measuring structural vibration in
three directions. One geophone was placed on the ground and another on the roof of
newgenrtpdf
123
Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 123
FIGURE 6.5 Blast wave signature recorded at an opencast limestone mine.
124

124 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 6.6 Placement of seismographs for monitoring of structural response to blast-​

induced ground vibration.

the structure for this purpose. A view of the placement of geophones for structural
response monitoring is shown in Figure 6.6.
The recorded vibration waveforms from structural response monitoring were
analysed. The recorded waveform of structural response monitoring is shown in
Figure 6.7. In this waveform, Tran, Vert and Long represents channels placed on
ground surface, while Tran2, Vert2 and Long2 represent channels placed on the struc-
ture. The analysis revealed that there is amplification of vibration from ground to
structure. The amplification was in the range of 1.3–​3.1 times. It can also be observed
from the waveform that the sustenance of vibration at the structure is for a longer
period than the ground. The ground vibration wave dampened completely within 1 s,
whereas for structures the vibration persistence was up to 1.4 s.
Further, the transfer of vibration from ground to structure was analysed in different
directions. The transfer function plots reveal that the maximum transfer of vibration
took place in the frequency range of 16.5–​17.13 Hz. The maximum amplification of
vibration was observed at 16.5 Hz frequency. The plot of transfer function is shown
in Figure 6.8.

6.5.3.2 Optimisation of Delay Timing by Analysis of Signature Hole

Waveform
The literature suggests that the delay timing between holes should be 3–​8 ms/​m of
burden. The optimal delay timing is dependent on the geotechnical properties of the
rock strata. The delay optimisation may be done using analysis of signature hole
waveform. The signature hole waveform creates single trough and crest without
superposition. A sample signature hole waveform recorded at the case study mine
is shown in Figure 6.9. These waveforms are simulated to predict induced vibration
at different delay intervals. Agrawal and Mishra (2020) discussed in detail the com­
putation of the resulting PPV from the superposition of waveforms at different delay
 newgenrtpdf
125
Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries
FIGURE 6.7 Recorded waveform at ground and structure while blasting at a limestone mine.

125
126

126 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 6.8 Transfer function plot for maximum transfer of vibration from ground to
structure.

intervals. For the case study mine, the signature hole blast was conducted at hard rock
and soft rock formations. The resulting waveforms were analysed to get the optimal
delay between holes and between rows.
For soft rock formations, a signature hole blast of 10 m depth was conducted
with total explosive charge of 90 kg. Induced ground vibration was recorded for this
blast and waveform analysis was done. Simulation of waveform for delay between
hole and row was performed. The result of the waveform simulation is shown in
Figure 6.10. The analysis shows that hole-​to-​hole delay of 12ms and between-​row
delay of 70ms are optimum for the soft rock formations in order to reduce ground
newgenrtpdf
127
Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 127
FIGURE 6.9 Waveform of a signature hole blast conducted at limestone mine.
128

128 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 6.10 Simulated result of signature hole analysis for soft rock strata.

FIGURE 6.11 Simulated result of signature hole analysis for hard rock strata.
129

Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 129

vibration. Signature hole analysis gives PVS of 39.60 mm/​s at peak dominant fre-
quency of 84.4 Hz at a distance of 50m from face while keeping the stated delay
interval.
Further, the signature hole blast was also conducted in hard rock formations of
this mine. For this purpose, a signature hole of 10 m depth was blasted with total
explosive charge of 78 kg. Blast vibration was recorded for this blast and waveform
analysis was done. Simulation of waveform for delay between hole and row was
performed and is shown in Figure 6.11. For this stratum, hole-​to-​hole delay of 28
ms and between-​row delay of 130 ms were found optimal. The analysis gives PVS
of 92.5 mm/​s at peak dominant frequency of 37.4 Hz at a distance of 50m from face
while keeping the stated delay interval.

6.5.4 Fragmentation Results from the Experimental Blasts

During experimentation, blasts were conducted with a larger geometry comprising
burden and spacing of 4.5–​6.0 m and 10.0–​11.0 m respectively. The charge factor
used during blasts was in the range of 0.16–​0.2 kg/​m3. Despite using this smaller
charge factor, the fragmentations achieved from the trial blasts were excellent. In a
few blasts, backbreak was noticed which was further reduced by optimising delay
interval between the rows. The blasted muckpile was properly distributed for loading.
The fragmentation result was analysed using image analysis. Images of blasted
muck after different loading rounds were taken for this purpose. The outputs were
analysed in the form of number of exposed fragmented blocks, maximum, minimum
and mean size of the fragmented blocks and sieve analysis at different percentile sizes
such as D10, D25, D50, D75, D90. D10 represents the ten-​percentile, the value for which
10 per cent by weight of the sample is finer and 90 per cent is coarser. In terms of
sieving, D10 is the size of sieve opening through which 10 per cent by weight of the
sample would pass.
The detailed fragment size analysis for one of the experimental blasts is depicted in
Figures 6.12, 6.13 and 6.14. The average mean size of the block is 0.238 m (diameter
of an equivalent sphere) and the most common size of the block is 0.191 m. (diam-
eter of an equivalent sphere). D90 fragment size is 478 mm. The maximum size of
the boulder found in the analysis is 0.599 m (diameter of an equivalent sphere). The
reason for good fragmentation even at the smaller charge factor and higher drilling
geometry is the presence of closely spaced joints.

6.5.5 Control of In-​situ Dust Generation due to Blasting

It has been seen in the previous section that the blasting in fractured rock strata resulted
in the formation of fine fragments. There would be associated particulate dust matter
in these fine fragments. Dust is a source of environmental hazard and leads to health
issues for nearby inhabitants. Accordingly, it is necessary to control the propagation
of dust from the source to residential houses. Various techniques are used for dust
control in such cases. At the study site, a water-​spraying arrangement was used to
suppress the dust. The spraying was done on the blast faces before blasting. A view
130

130 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 6.12 Fragmentation resulting from blasting at a hard rock bench of case study mine.

FIGURE 6.13 Netting and countering of block sizes of photograph shown in Figure 6.12.

of the water-​spraying arrangement is shown in Figure 6.15. This arrangement was

capable of suppressing dust from the top ejections. However, it was incapable of
suppressing in-​situ dust generated from the fine fragments in the direction of throw
of the blasted muck. To address this issue, experimentation was carried out at this site
by placement of water bottles in the explosive column. Bottles were expected to be
broken after the blast, and would spray water to suppress the in-​situ dust. However,
it was thought that the water bottles would affect the performance of the explosive
energy, especially of ANFO. To confirm this, in-​the-​hole velocity of detonation (VoD)
of ANFO explosives was measured in two conditions. In the initiation hole, the explo-
sive was charged with water bottles. In the second hole, it was charged without water
bottles. The recorded VoD in the two conditions was 3581.69 m/​s and 3354.05 m/​s
respectively, which reveals that VoD drop is not observed due to placement of bottles.
The plot of recorded VoD for the two conditions along with the charging pattern of
blastholes is shown in Figure 6.16 (a) and (b) respectively. Even the VoD in the hole
with water bottles is higher, which is due to the decrease in VoD after the initiation
131

Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 131

FIGURE 6.14 Results of fragmentation analysis from blasting at a hard rock bench of case
study mine.

FIGURE 6.15 Water spraying at blast faces before blasting for dust suppression.

hole. The VoD decreases after the initiation hole because of confinement. Since the
water bottles do not affect explosive quality and help with in-​situ dust suppression,
this method has been adopted for regular practice at the mine. In a subsequent round
of blasting at the site, the quantity of water bottles was also increased, which addition-
ally worked to increase column length with reduced charge per delay.

6.6 SUMMARY
The challenges of limestone mining in India consist of fragmentation improvement,
vibration control, muckpile throw improvement, backbreak reduction, dust control,
etc. Techniques to overcome these challenges have been discussed in this chapter. The
summary of discussions made in this chapter are as follows:
132

132 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 6.16 Plot of recorded in-​the-​hole VoD of ANFO explosive with and without plastic
bottles in the charge column.
133

Excavation Using Drilling and Blasting in Limestone Quarries 133

• Indian limestone mines have severity of joints. Investigations on the influence

of nature and orientation of joints on blast-​induced rock mass damage was
carried out in a study at CSIR-​CIMFR, Dhanbad. The study concluded that the
order of damage to support burden movement and rock fragmentation in four
cases of joint orientation is as follows:
Horizontal joint > Strike of the joint normal to the face > Joint dipping out of
the face > Joint dipping inside the face.
• Further, it was found that the presence of multiple numbers of joints leads to
maximum damage in the region lying between the two joints. Based on this
study, it has been proposed to reduce the rock factor computed by half, using
a modified blastability index, in cases where there is the presence of closely
spaced horizontal joints.
• The vibration propagation characteristics of a highly fractured limestone
quarry were investigated. Large-​scale superposition of ground vibration waves
was observed because of fracturing in the rock mass and small delay timings
between the holes.
• The structural transfer of vibration was also analysed. The recorded wave-
form of structural response monitoring shows amplification of vibration from
ground to structure. The amplification was in the range of 1.3–​3.1 times. It was
observed from the waveform that the sustaining of vibration at structures is for
a longer period than on the ground.
• Further, the transfer of vibration from ground to structure was analysed
in different directions. The transfer function plots reveal that the maximum
transfer of vibration took place in the frequency range of 16.5–​17.13 Hz. The
maximum amplification of vibration was observed at 16.5 Hz frequency.
• The fragmentation result at this limestone quarry, even with a much smaller
charge factor, was excellent. The reason for good fragmentation, even with the
smaller charge factor and higher drilling geometry, is the presence of closely
spaced joints.
• It was found that the blasting in fractured rock strata resulted in the formation
of fine fragments. There would be associated particulate dust matter in these
fine fragments. Experimentation with water bottles in the blasthole column was
carried out to suppress the in-​situ dust. The technique was effective. It was
also observed that the placement of water bottles does not affect the explosive
quality.

REFERENCES
Agrawal, H., Mishra, A.K., 2020. An innovative technique of simplified signature hole
analysis for prediction of blast-​ induced ground vibration of multi-​ hole/​
production
blast: an empirical analysis. Natural Hazards, 100(1), 111–​132. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​
s11​069-​019-​03801-​2.
134

134 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

businesswire.com, www.busin​essw​ire.com/​news/​home/​202​3012​3005​601/​en/​India-​Cem​ent-​
Indus​try-​Rep​ort-​2022-​Cem​ent-​Cons​umpt​ion-​Reac​hed-​355.46-​Mill​ion-​Tons-​in-​FY-​
2022-​and-​is-​Expec​ted-​to-​Reach-​450.78-​Mill​ion-​Tons-​by-​the-​End-​of-​FY-​2027-​-​-​Res​
earc ​ h And ​ M ark​ e ts.com#:~:text= ​ I n%20FY%202 ​ 0 22%2C%20d ​ o mes ​ t ic%20pro ​ d uct​
ion,the%20end%20of%20FY%202​027, accessed on 23.06.2023
ibm.gov.in, https://​ibm.gov.in/​writer​eadd​ata/​files/​10072​0211​1452​3Lim​esto​ne_​2​020.pdf,
accessed on 23.06.2023.
Mishra, A.K., Nigam, Y.K., Singh, D.R., 2017. Controlled blasting in a limestone mine using
electronic detonators: a case study. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 89(1),
87–​90. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​594-​017-​0563-​5.
Newman, C., Newman, D., Dupuy, R., 2020. Development of a multiple level underground
limestone mine from geology through mine planning. International Journal of Mining
Science and Technology, 30(1), 63–​67. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijmst.2019.12.007.
Paurush, P., Rai, P., 2022. Evaluation of ground vibrations induced by blasting in a limestone
quarry. Current Science, 122(11), 1279–​ 1287. https://​doi.org/​10.18520/​cs/​v122/​i11/​
1279-​1287.
Salmi, E.F., Sellers, E.J., 2021. A review of the methods to incorporate the geological and
geotechnical characteristics of rock masses in blastability assessments for selective blast
design. Engineering Geology, 281, 105970.
Soni, A.K., Nema, P., 2021a. Existing Practices in India: Case Studies from Different
Geomining Setup. In: Limestone Mining in India. Materials Horizons: From Nature
to Nanomaterials. Springer, Singapore, 69–​ 108. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​981-​16-​
3560-​1_​4.
Soni, A.K., Nema, P., 2021b. Modern Technological Applications for Limestone Mining.
In: Limestone Mining in India. Materials Horizons: From Nature to Nanomaterials.
Springer, Singapore, 447–​454. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​981-​16-​3560-​1_​6.
Trivedi, R., Singh, T.N., Raina, A.K., 2014. Prediction of blast-​induced flyrock in Indian
limestone mines using neural networks. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 6(5), 447–​454. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jrmge.2014.07.003.
135

7 Rock Blasting for Laying

Foundation of an
Industrial Establishment

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The overall economic growth of a region is possible through industrialisation. It
opens new avenues for employment as well as self-​sustainability in the produc-
tion of needful products. The feasibility of establishing an industrial enterprise is
influenced by raw material availability, market demand for the product, etc. In add-
ition to these parameters, topography also plays an important role. The establishment
of an industrial enterprise in hilly terrain has many challenges. Sometimes even in
plain areas, land acquisition is a prime concern. It is chosen to flatten the rocky/​hilly
surface to address this issue. The foundation of industrial enterprises needs to be
smooth, for erecting stable structures. To smoothen the foundation, hard rock exca-
vation is needed, which may be accomplished by mechanical excavation, chiselling,
chemical-​based excavation or drilling and blasting. Drilling and blasting is the most
efficient and cheapest technique for rock excavation. However, this technique comes
with associated safety and environmental hazards. The establishment of industrial
enterprises may be carried out in a virgin area or populous land. Sometimes it is
also necessary to lay the foundation for erecting new structures for the expansion of
industrial enterprises. The challenges to control safety and environmental hazards
within limits increase in such cases. Sometimes simultaneous operations for erecting
one structure and laying the foundation for another structure nearby are also done.
The simultaneous operation is carried out to enhance the progress of establishing
an industrial enterprise. It is important here to ensure the safety and long-​term sta-
bility of the ongoing construction. Foundation blasting is also carried out in many
infrastructure projects. When roads, light rail, railways, tunnels, airports, etc. are
constructed on rocky foundations, similar techniques are used to ensure the safety
and stability of nearby structures.
The associated environmental and safety hazards which need to be controlled
while undertaking foundation blasts include ground vibration, air overpressure/​
noise, flyrock, etc. Different techniques have been adopted over the years to control
these hazards. Panda et al. (2013) discussed the controlled blasting practices adopted
at a metro rail project. The blasting was carried out near a civil court, college and
other public and private structures in this project. Decoupled charging was used
in this work for controlling the ground vibration. Rubber mat muffling was used

DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-7 135

136

136 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

to control the flyrock. Singh et al. (2020) used line drilling with larger hole diam-
eter to control ground vibration during the construction of the track hopper of a
thermal power plant. Roy et al. (2019) used different controlled blasting techniques
for laying the foundation for the construction of Navi Mumbai International Airport.
Bhagat et al. (2020) used directional controlled blasting techniques for the stabil-
isation of unstable slopes on the Konkan Railway route. Rock ledges were created
in this work to safeguard the railway tracks from the blasted boulders. Additionally,
the track was also covered with rubber tyres and sandbags. The Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR) has developed two special techniques for control-
ling vibration during the development of foundation for metro (csir.res.in, accessed
on 30 June 2023). Modified pre-​split blasting and shock relief blasting are these
two special techniques. In the modified pre-​split blasting technique, small diam-
eter blastholes using jackhammer drills are placed between large diameter holes
of 100 mm diameter. The large diameter holes are kept uncharged. This technique
helped in reducing vibration in the range of 40–​44 per cent compared with conven-
tional blasting. In the shock relief blasting technique, a reinforced concrete ball is
placed at the bottom of the drilled hole. When the explosive is set off, the shock
waves travel in all directions except the bottom. This results in minimum damage to
the bottom and maximum breakage to the rock mass. This is favourable in reducing
damage to the foundation and sides and maximising the blast fragmentation. It also
reduces the vibration intensity by 60 per cent and reduces damage to the foundation
by 80–​85 per cent.
In this chapter, the designing of a controlled blasting pattern for laying out
the foundation of an industrial thermal power plant is discussed. The outlined
objectives of the study were achieved using the assessment of the sensitivity of the
structures present at the study site, and thereby designing the controlled blasting
pattern.

7.2 ELEMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL THERMAL POWER PLANT

In India, 60 per cent of electricity generation is done using coal-​based thermal power
plants. A thermal power plant produces electrical energy from chemical energy.
The plant establishment consists of boilers to convert chemical energy into heat
energy. Heat energy is further converted into kinetic energy using turbines. Finally,
alternators are used to convert the kinetic energy into electrical energy. A flow chart
showing the operations of a thermal power plant is given in Figure 7.1. Coal and
water are given as input to the boilers in this process. Cooling towers are erected to
cool the circulating water. In the complete process, cooling tower, boiler, ash hand-
ling station, water treatment plant, coal storage and handling plant and chimney are
the important elements of the plant. The coal handling plant also includes a track
hopper, to store the coal unloaded by wagons. Wagon tipplers are also used to unload
the wagons in the coal storage area. Plant offices are other associated important
structure in the plant area.
137

Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of Industrial Establishment 137

FIGURE 7.1 Flowchart showing operations of a thermal power plant.

7.3 SENSITIVITY TO THE STRUCTURES AND PLANNING OF

FOUNDATION BLASTING WORK
The foundation for the construction of a thermal power plant needs to be levelled
properly, if it is located in a hilly/​mountainous area. Nearby structures to the founda-
tion blasting site have to be safeguarded from the induced hazards. The main safety
hazard to the structures is induced ground vibration. The amplitude of ground vibra-
tion is measured in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) and associated frequency.
In the planning stage, the nearby structures are surveyed. The risk to their structural
safety is assessed. Based on the assessment, a safe PPV limit is decided. Further,
the initial blast design patterns are determined based on numerical or mathematical
modelling. Thereafter, the actual blasting is carried out at the site. The monitoring
of ground vibration is carried out during the actual blasting. The devised blasting
pattern is validated based on the recorded actual ground vibration data. Refinement to
the devised blasting pattern is done, if necessary. A flow chart consisting of the steps
followed to safeguard nearby structures from induced ground vibration is shown in
Figure 7.2.

7.3.1 Ground Vibration Limit for Nearby Structures during Civil

Construction Work
A higher amplitude of PPV gives rise to damage to nearby structures. Researchers have
established a PPV threshold which causes damage to structures. Different standards
of PPV limits are provided by different countries, according to the structures’ type
138

138 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 7.2 Flowchart showing steps for devising controlled blasting pattern to safeguard
nearby structures.

and dominating frequency. Most of these standards include PPV and associated dom-
inant frequency. The threshold PPV will be higher if the associated frequency compo-
nent of vibration is high. This is based on the principle of resonance of vibration.
The amplification of ground vibration to the structural vibration will be maximum, if
the associated frequency of vibration matches the natural frequency of the structure.
Over the years many standards on ground vibration thresholds have been drawn
up. These standards are based on the sensitivity of the structures and associated fre-
quency. Some of the standards used in different countries based on dominating fre-
quency are given in Table 2.4 (Karadogan et al., 2014; Nateghi, 2011; Elevli & Arpaz,
2010; Basu & Sen, 2005). Some other standards are only based on the type of structure,
not on the frequency of ground vibration (AASHTO, 2004; Dowding, 1996). Some of
139

Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of Industrial Establishment 139

the ground vibration standards have been fixed considering the consistency of vibra-
tion imposed on the structures. Different ground vibration thresholds have been fixed
for the cases of transient and steady state sources of vibration (Konon & Scuring,
1983; Wiss, 1981; Chae, 1978). In Indian conditions, the ground vibration threshold
for mining operations has been fixed under the Directorate General of Mines Safety
Circular No. 7 of 1997 (DGMS, 1997). The standard is given in Table 2.4 (1). Another
standard has been framed under IS 6922-​273 (Bureau of Indian Standard, 1973). This
standard is mainly for underground blasting. As per this standard, the PPV threshold
near structures would be 50 mm/​s in the case of blasting in soil, weathered or soft
rock. The threshold PPV would be 70 mm/​s when blasting in hard rock condition. The
standard further declares that the stipulated threshold is valid when the concrete of the
structure has M150 quality.
From the foregoing discussion and as per different recommended PPV it can be
concluded that any ground vibration with intensity below 2.0 mm/​s does not possess
damage potential for any sensitive structures, irrespective of any frequency. Further,
the threshold vibration limit may be decided based on the sensitivity of the structures.
As the frequency of vibration increases, the threshold value for damage also increases.

7.3.2 Prediction of Ground Vibration

Researchers have outlined various parameters affecting blast-​induced ground vibra-
tion (BIGV). Maximum explosive detonated per delay, type of explosive, scaled dis-
tance, geological discontinuity, wave parameters at site, etc. are a few of them (Ak
et al., 2009). Maximum explosive detonated per delay (MCPD) has a significant role
in BIGV. It should be reduced to prevent the generation of BIGV of higher magni-
tude. Different techniques available for the reduction of MCPD are air decking, selec-
tion of different delay sequence, dividing and blasting of charge column of blasthole
in different delay, alteration in blast geometry, selection of blasthole diameter
according to charge requirement etc. (Himanshu et al., 2022a; Himanshu et al., 2021;
Vishwakarma et al., 2020). A lower blasthole diameter consumes fewer explosives
and hence can be adopted for the blast location having important structures in very
close proximity.
The prediction methodologies for induced ground vibration are comprised of the
development of empirical relations. The details regarding these empirical relations
have been discussed in Chapter 2. The multivariate statistical analysis approach is
used to assess the effect of multiple parameters on PPV (Himanshu et al., 2018).
Different machine-​learning techniques have also been used to predict the impacts
of multiple parameters influencing PPV (Himanshu et al., 2022b; Gorai et al., 2021;
Zhou et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2019; Hasanipanah et al., 2015;
Monjezi et al., 2011; Verma & Singh, 2011). The induced ground vibration for ini-
tial blasting operation at a site is predicted by numerical simulation or mathematical
modelling techniques. Berta (1985) developed a mathematical model comprising rock
parameters, explosive quantity and quality and the impedance factors (Jimeno et al.,
1987). The prediction of PPV for initial mining is possible using this mathematical
140

140 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

model. Mishra et al. (2021) used numerical simulation approach using Ansys Autodyn
for predicting PPV for initial mining at a greenfield coal mining project.

7.3.3 Control of Air Overpressure

Air overpressure is another important concern, which works as environmental
nuisance. The higher magnitude of air overpressure also affects the stability of
the glass structures. The detailed discussion on air overpressure has been made
in Chapter 2. In the planning stage of construction blasting, the prediction of air
overpressure is also important. Various prediction methodologies comprised of
blast design parameters have been developed over the years. However, the induced
air overpressure is also influenced by meteorological parameters. So, the accurate
prediction of air overpressure for initial blasting operation is a difficult task. But
some of the control measures highlighted in the literatures may be used to reduce
the air overpressure. The main control measures to reduce air overpressure are as
follows:

✓ Ensure adequate burden for blasting

✓ Ensure sufficient length of stemming
✓ Use muffling
✓ Avoid using detonating cord
✓ Avoid blasting during temperature inversion
✓ Avoid blasting on windy days.

7.3.4 Control of Flyrock
Along with BIGV, flyrock is also a major concern associated with blasting near any
structures. This may lead to fatal/​non-​fatal accidents, damage to the structures or
nearby machinery/​equipment. Mishra and Rout (2012) highlighted the mismatch
of the explosive energy with geo-​mechanical strength of rock, as the major reason
behind flyrock. Various methods have been developed for predicting the flyrock
distances using statistical analysis and machine learning algorithms (Balakrishnan
& Rai, 2021). However, the prediction of flyrock for blasting in a greenfield pro-
ject is difficult. But the flyrock may be controlled with the maximum safety factor
using the proper blast design pattern (Jamei et al., 2021; Raina et al., 2015; Ghasemi
et al., 2012; Rezaei et al., 2011). Raina et al. (2007) highlighted the methods for
determining the flyrock distances under different operational and geo-​mechanical
conditions. A muffling arrangement is one of the popular control measures for flyrock
(Bhagat et al., 2020; Sawmliana et al., 2018; Mishra et al., 2017; Gupta & Raina,
2012). The following major control measures may be adopted at a new civil construc-
tion site to avoid flyrock:

✓ Ensure adequate geometrical parameters (burden and spacing) for blasting

✓ Ensure sufficient length of stemming
✓ Use optimal charge factor
141

Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of Industrial Establishment 141

✓ Use proper delay timing

✓ Take care of joints/​fractures while charging
✓ Use accurate delay detonators
✓ Muffling arrangement using conveyor belt and sandbags or rubber mats.

7.4 CASE STUDY ON DRILLING AND BLASTING FOR

ESTABLISHMENT OF A THERMAL POWER PLANT
The extended Obra-​C thermal power plant was constructed by laying a foundation
using drilling and blasting. The study site was located in the Sonbhadra district of
Uttar Pradesh, India. The rock type at this site was dolomite. A view of rock depos-
ition at the case study site is shown in Figure 7.3. The blasting site was in the close
vicinity of the Obra market, Obra police station, Obra-​A thermal power plant, Obra
dam and other important structures. The wagon tippler construction area was in the
vicinity of the railway track of Indian Railways. The rock excavation in the track
hopper area was proposed to be done below the existing railway tracks. After ini-
tial excavation, the plant construction also started in parallel. This was required to
achieve the timely completion of plant construction. It was a challenge to safeguard
the ongoing foundation work while blasting in close proximity. A view of the sensi-
tive structures near the blasting site is shown in Figure 7.4.
The safety threat to these structures was from induced ground vibration and flyrocks.
The ground vibration limits were determined on the basis of Indian regulation framed

FIGURE 7.3 View of rock deposition at Obra-​C thermal power plant construction site.
142

142 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 7.4 Blasting sites near existing sensitive structures and ongoing foundation work.

by Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) circular 7 of 1997. The ground

vibration limits as per this circular is given in Table 2.4 (1).
The rock excavation work for this site was planned to achieve faster progress of
the excavation work with due safety to the structures. The numerical simulation was
143

Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of Industrial Establishment 143

carried out to assess the extent of breakage of the rock mass under different variations
of drilling geometry. Initially, the ground vibration was also predicted using numer-
ical simulation. Later, statistical predictors were developed for the site under different
blast geometrical conditions based on the gathered experimental data.

7.4.1 Numerical Simulation and Planning for Initial Excavation

It was planned to use two different blasthole diameters for excavation works. Large
diameter holes of 100–​115 mm were planned, if the structures were beyond 100 m
from the blasting site. However, the blasting site within 100 m of the structures was
planned to be excavated using small diameter blastholes of 34 mm. The numerical
simulation model was developed considering the blasthole diameter of 34 mm and
115 mm. The model was developed in explicit dynamics-​based finite element mod-
eller Ansys Autodyn. The model consisted of rock parameters, explosive parameters
and stemming material. The RHT concrete constitutive model was used for rock.
The explosive material was modelled using JWL equation of state (EOS). Sand was
used as the stemming material in the model. The property of sand was taken from the
material library of Ansys. Porous compaction constitutive model was used for sand
material.
The extent of damage was analysed as the model output. The damage extent was
measured in terms of damage index of the RHT concrete constitutive model. The
extent was analysed using isosurface plot of the model. The optimum burden-​spacing
for the blasts with these hole diameters were obtained using the analysis of model
output. The analysis suggested to use Burden × Spacing of 0.8 m × 0.9 m for small
diameter blastholes and 2.0 m × 2.5 m for larger diameter blastholes. However, fur-
ther reduced burden-​spacing were used in smaller depth of the blastholes of larger
diameter. This was done to ensure optimal use of explosive energy for rock breakage
under free face. The reduced burden-​spacing were suggested for blasting in the box-​
cut blasting faces as well.

7.4.2 Experimental Trials and Assessment of Safe Values of Maximum

Charge per Delay
The experimental trials were conducted at the excavation site using large and small
diameter blastholes. The ground vibration data was recorded at different distances
from the blast site using triaxial seismographs. The recorded vibration data were
grouped together for statistical analysis. An empirical relation was established correl-
ating the maximum explosive weight per delay (Qmax in kg), distance of vibration
measuring transducers from the blasting face (D in m) and recorded peak particle vel-
ocity (PPV in mm/​s). An equation was established for the blasts with smaller blasthole
diameter (Equation 7.1) and larger blasthole diameter (Equation 7.2) separately.

− 0.789
 D 
PPV = 18.173   (Equation 7.1)
 Q 
max
144

144 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Coefficient of determination =​0.89

− 0.83
 D 
PPV = 63.93   (Equation 7.2)
 Q 
max

Coefficient of determination =​0.622

7.5 DESIGNING OF CONTROLLED BLASTING PATTERN FOR

SAFETY OF DIFFERENT STRUCTURES AT CASE STUDY SITE
Based on the results of the analyses of ground vibrations recorded and observations
made during the experimental blasts, the blasting methodology was designed to con-
trol the ground vibration near structures within the safe limits.

7.5.1 Controlled Blast Design Pattern for Wagon Tippler and Track

Hopper Area
The wagon tippler area, track hopper area and the excavation areas in the proximity of
ongoing foundation works were very sensitive, as the distance of excavation site from
structures in such cases was below 100 m. The ground vibration limits in such cases
were decided based on the frequency component of the vibration. It was anticipated
that frequency of the blast vibration wave in nearfield would be higher considering
continuity of the rock strata. So, safe limit of blast vibration near existing railway
track considering its short-​term stability was taken as 25 mm/​s. The safe limit of
vibration near new track considering its long-​term stability was taken as 15 mm/​s.
The safe limit of vibration near railway tracks of Indian Railways was considered as
5 mm/​s, due to anticipated low frequency at far distances. The summary of safe vibra-
tion limits for different structures is given in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1
Threshold vibration limits, MCPD and total explosive charge for blasting near
railway lines and ongoing foundation work

Total explosive
Maximum charge in a
Sensitiveness of surface Ground vibration charge weight blasting round
structure limit (mm/​s) per delay (kg) (kg)
Railway line near proposed 25 1.66 100
tunnel (distance –​4 m)
New railway line near proposed 15 6.85 274
tunnel (distance –​15 m)
Railway line of Indian Railways 5 10.5 315
(distance –​70 m)
Ongoing foundation work 25 1.66 100
(distance –​below 10 m)
145

Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of Industrial Establishment 145

The following blasting patterns were designed for these areas in order to restrict
the ground vibration within the limits shown in Table 7.1.

• Hole diameter: Small diameter blastholes of 32–​34 mm were proposed to be

drilled using jackhammer drills.
• Hole depth: 1.5–​1.8 m (5–​6 ft) deep holes were proposed keeping burden and
spacing of 0.75–​0.8 m and 0.8–​0.9 m respectively.
• Explosive type and make: Small diameter and non-​permitted cartridge explo-
sive of 25 mm diameter, 125 gm weight per cartridge were proposed to be used
for charging blastholes.
• Initiation system: Non-​electric delay detonators (consisting of trunkline delay
(TLD) and down-​the-​hole delay (DTH)) of good quality were proposed to
be used.
• Stemming: Stemming of the charged blasthole provides confinement to the
explosive charge. The drill cuttings/​sand along with clay materials which are
available at the site was proposed to be used for stemming materials. It was
proposed that the stemming materials may be modified based on the availability
of materials at the site.
• Safety precautions: Proper muffling arrangements was proposed to prevent
any possible chances of flyrock occurrences. For the muffling arrangement,
either blasting mats or conveyor belts/​wire-​mesh with sufficient sandbags were
proposed to be used.

TABLE 7.2
Suggested controlled blast design parameters for blasting using large
diameter blastholes at the study site

For 2.0–​3.0 m For 3.0–​4.5 m For 4.5–​7.0 m

Parameters deep blastholes deep blastholes deep blastholes
Blast hole diameter 100–​115 mm 100–​115 mm 100–​115 mm
Blast hole depth 2.0–​3.0 m 3.0–​4.5 m 4.5–​7.0 m
No. of holes 08–​40 08–​40 15–​40
No. of rows 01–​04 01–​04 02–​04
Drilling pattern Staggered Staggered Staggered
Burden 1.75–​2.0 m 1.75–​2.0 m 1.75–​2.0 m
Spacing 2.0–​2.5 m 2.0–​2.5 m 2.0–​2.5 m
Top stemming 1.8–​2.5 m 2.5–​3.5 m 3.0–​4.8 m
Explosive charge per hole 1.4–​2.78 kg 2.78–​10 kg 10–​30 kg
Maximum charge per delay 2.78 kg 2.78–​4.2 kg 10–​30 kg
Total charge 56–​112 kg 100–​250 kg 200–​350 kg
Surface firing patterns Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal
Explosive type Cartridge Cartridge Cartridge
In-​the-​hole initiation DTH –​450ms DTH –​450ms DTH –​450ms
Surface initiation TLD –​17ms, TLD –​17ms, TLD –​17ms,
42ms, 65ms 42ms, 65ms 42ms, 65ms
146

146 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

• Statutory obligations: Blasts were proposed to be designed and implemented

to follow the statutory obligations framed under different Indian regulations.
• MCPD: The maximum explosive charge weight per delay was proposed to
be decided on the basis of the actual distance of the structure from the blast
face. The blast vibration predictor for blasting using small diameter cartridge
(Equation 7.1) was suggested to be used.
• Total explosive: The total explosive charge in a blasting round was decided on
the basis of multivariate statistical analysis.

7.5.2 Controlled Blast Design Pattern for Blasting with Larger

Diameter Blastholes
Some of the blasting sites were at a distance of more than 100 m from the structures.
The large diameter blastholes were used for blasting at these sites, to increase the
pace of excavation. However, the MCPD was maintained to contain the vibration near
the structures within safe limits. The suggested controlled blast design parameters for
blasting at such sites is given in Table 7.2.

7.5.3 Control on Flyrock during Rock Excavation at Case Study Site

Flyrocks are the undesirable ejection of rock particles projected beyond the normal
blast area. It is generated when there is insufficient stemming, too much explosive
energy for a fixed amount of burden or poor delay timing pattern or explosives
loaded in voids, mud seams.

FIGURE 7.5 Different muffling material arrangements to trap ejection and fly of fragmented
rock while blasting near sensitive areas.
147

Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of Industrial Establishment 147

The primary means of controlling flyrocks is through proper blast design and
optimum delay timing between two detonations. Any pattern which overconfines the
explosives or one with insufficient stemming tends to cause material to be thrown up
in the air rather than allowing any horizontal movement. The proper stemming using
sand and jute cuttings were used at blasting faces with small diameter blastholes.
Smaller stone chips were used with drill cuttings at the faces with large diameter
blastholes. Different muffling materials were arranged in the blast site to trap the
flying rock fragments. At the sensitive sites, where the structures were within 50 m
from the blasting faces, the double layer muffling arrangement were made. Such
muffling arrangements included a layer of sandbags just above the blast face. The
conveyor belt were laid down above this layer of sandbags, and further one more layer
of sandbags was put above the conveyor belts. The alternate layers of sandbags and
conveyor belts provided resistant to the flying rock fragments. A view of the muffling
arrangement used at the study site is shown in Figure 7.5.

7.6 SUMMARY
The rock excavation for laying foundation of different industrial establishments
comes with many safety and operational challenges. A controlled blasting pattern
is devised to overcome these challenges. The pattern comprises the techniques for
reducing ground vibration, flyrocks, air overpressure, etc. The controlled blasting
pattern was devised for laying foundation of the estblishments for construction of
Obra-​C thermal power plant. The summary of the devised pattern and outcomes are
as follows:

• The threshold vibration limit was set by an assessment of the sensitivity of

the structures. For the initial blast design, it was presumed that the frequency
of the ground vibration in nearfield would be higher. The vibration limit was
fixed considering the short-​term and long-​term stability requirements for the
structures.
• Optimal geometrical parameters were determined using numerical simulation.
For the study site, Burden × Spacing of 0.8 m × 0.9 m and 2.0 m × 2.5 m was
chosen for small diameter blastholes and larger diameter blastholes respect-
ively. However, further reduced burden-​spacing was used in smaller depth of
the blastholes of larger diameter. Reduced burden-​spacing was suggested for
blasting in the box-​cut blasting faces as well.
• Further, safe values of MCPD and total charge were determined using the stat-
istical predictor equations developed with the help of experimental data. The
final blast design patterns were devised for blasting using small and large diam-
eter blastholes. Smaller diameter of blastholes were used for blasting, when
the structures were within 100 m from the blasting face. The large diameter
blastholes were used at the blasting faces located beyond 100 m from the
structures.
• Muffling arrangements were used to restrict the ejection of flying fragments. At
the sensitive sites, where the structures were within 50 m from the blasting faces,
148

148 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

a double layer muffling arrangement were made. Such muffling arrangement

included a layer of sandbags just above the blast face. The conveyor belts were
laid down above this layer of sandbags, and a further layer of sandbags was
placed above the conveyor belts. The alternate layers of sandbags and conveyor
belts provided resistant to the flying rock fragments.

REFERENCES
AASHTO, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004.
Standard Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Transportation Related Earthborne
Vibrations (pp. R8–​96).
Ak, H., Iphar, M., Yavuz, M., Konuk, A., 2009. Evaluation of ground vibration effect of
blasting operations in a magnesite mine. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
29(4), 669–​676. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.soil​dyn.2008.07.003.
Balakrishnan, V., Rai, P., 2021. An overview of flyrock and its prediction in surface mine blasting
using soft computing techniques. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik
Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 105–​119. https://​doi.org/​10.53501/​rteufe​mud.986​903.
Basu, D., Sen, M., 2005. Blast induced ground vibration norms—​a critical review. National
Seminar on Policies. Statutes & Legislation in Mines.
Berta, G., 1985. Explosive, a working tool. Milan: Italesplosivi International Editions, 479–​482.
Bhagat, N.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh, M.M., Rana, A., Singh, P.K., 2020. Innovative directional
controlled blasting technique for excavation of unstable slopes along a busy transporta-
tion route: a case study of Konkan Railway in India. Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration,
37(3), 833–​850. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​020-​00212-​x.
Bureau of Indian Standard, 1973. Criteria for safety and design of structures subject to under-
ground blast. (IS-​6922). New Delhi, India.
Chae, Y.S., 1978. Design of excavation blasts to prevent damage. Civil Engineering,
48(4), 77–​79.
Directorate General of Mines Safety, 1997. DGMS circular No. 07. Damage to the structures
due to blast induced ground vibration in the mining areas. Dhanbad, India, 9–​12.
Dowding, C.H., 1996. Construction vibrations. Prentice Hall.
Elevli, B., Arpaz, E., 2010. Evaluation of parameters affected on the blast induced ground
vibration (BIGV) by using relation diagram method (RDM). Acta Montanistica Slovaca,
15(4), 261–​268.
Ghasemi, E., Sari, M., Ataei, M., 2012. Development of an empirical model for predicting
the effects of controllable blasting parameters on flyrock distance in surface mines.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 52, 163–​170. https://​doi.
org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2012.03.011.
Gorai, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Santi, C., 2021. Development of ANN-​based universal predictor
for prediction of blast-​induced vibration indicators and its performance comparison with
existing empirical models. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38, 2021–​2036. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​021-​00449-​0.
Gupta, R.N., Raina, A.K., 2012. Controlled blasting for a new tunnel near an existing railway
tunnel. In Tunneling in Rock by Drilling and Blasting, CRC Press, 37–​39.
Hasanipanah, M., Monjezi, M., Shahnazar, A., Jahed Armaghani, D., Farazmand, A., 2015.
Feasibility of indirect determination of blast induced ground vibration based on support
vector machine. Measurement, 75, 289–​ 297. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.meas​urem​
ent.2015.07.019.
149

Rock Blasting for Laying Foundation of Industrial Establishment 149

Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Priyadarshi, V., Shankar, R., Yadav, R.S., Singh, P.K., 2021.
Estimation of optimum burden for blasting of different rock strata in an Indian Iron Ore
Mine. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 97, 760–​766.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Vishwakarma, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2022a. Explicit
dynamics based numerical simulation approach for assessment of impact of relief hole
on blast induced deformation pattern in an underground face blast. Geomechanics and
Geophysics for Geo-​Energy and Geo-​Resources, 8(1), 19. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s40​
948-​021-​00327-​5.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Vishwakarma, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2022b. Prediction
of blast-​induced ground vibration using principal component analysis–​based classifi-
cation and logarithmic regression technique. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 39(5),
2065–​2074. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​022-​00659-​0.
Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Mishra, A.K., Paswan, R.K., Panda, D., Singh, P.K., 2018.
Multivariate statistical analysis approach for prediction of blast-​ induced ground
vibration. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11(16), 460. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​
517-​018-​3796-​8.
Jamei, M., Hasanipanah, M., Karbasi, M., Ahmadianfar, I., Taherifar, S., 2021. Prediction of
flyrock induced by mine blasting using a novel kernel-​based extreme learning machine.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(6), 1438–​1451. https://​
doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jrmge.2021.07.007.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L., Carcedo F.J.A., De Ramero, Y.V., 1987. Drilling and blasting of
rocks (1st ed.). CRC Press. https://​doi.org/​10.1201/​978131​5141​435.
Karadogan, A., Kahriman, A., Ozer, U., 2014. A new damage criteria norm for blast-​induced
ground vibrations in Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(4), 1617–​1626. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​517-​013-​0830-​8.
Konon, W., Scuring, R., 1983. Vibration criteria for historic and sensitive older buildings.
American Society of Explosives Engineers. Texas.
Mishra, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K., 2021. Prediction of blast induced
ground vibration for a greenfield coal mining project using numerical simulation and
mathematical modelling. MineTech, 42(04), 30–​39.
Mishra, A.K., Rout, M., 2012. Flyrocks –​detection and mitigation at construction site in
blasting operation. World Environment, 1(1), 1–​5. https://​doi.org/​10.5923/​j.env.20110​
101.01.
Mishra, Arvind K., Nigam, Y.K., Singh, D.R., 2017. Controlled blasting in a limestone mine
using electronic detonators: a case study. Journal of the Geological Society of India,
89(1), 87–​90. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​594-​017-​0563-​5.
Monjezi, M., Ghafurikalajahi, M., Bahrami, A., 2011. Prediction of blast-​induced ground vibra-
tion using artificial neural networks. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
26(1), 46–​50. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tust.2010.05.002.
Nateghi, R., 2011. Prediction of ground vibration level induced by blasting at different rock
units. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48(6), 899–​908.
https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2011.04.014.
Panda, M.K., Pingua, B.M.P, Saw, A.K., Akhtar, S., Mohanty, S.P., Mishra, A.K., 2013.
Study on control blasting at metro rail project –​a case study. The Indian Mining and
Engineering Journal, 52(08), 11–​15.
Raina, A.K., Chakraborty, A.K., More, R., Choudhary, P.B., 2007. Design of factor of safety
based criterion for control of flyrock/​ throw and optimum fragmentation. Mining
Engineering, 87, 13–​17.
Raina, A.K., Murthy, V.M.S.R., Soni, A.K., 2015. Flyrock in surface mine blasting: Understanding
the basics to develop a predictive regime. Current Science, 108(4), 660–​665.
150

150 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Rezaei, M., Monjezi, M., Yazdian Varjani, A., 2011. Development of a fuzzy model to pre-
dict flyrock in surface mining. Safety Science, 49(2), 298–​305. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.ssci.2010.09.004.
Roy, M.P., Sawmliana, C., Ghous, M.G., Kumar, S., Himanshu, V.K., Singh, P.K., 2019.
Challenges in flattening of hill by blasting for construction of International Airport at Navi
Mumbai, India. Indian Mining and Engineering Journal, Special issue, 63(12), 13–​18.
Sawmliana, C., Singh, P.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, R.K., Himanshu, V.K., 2018. Safe dismantling of
unstable boulder using controlled blasting which had threatened the life of several people
in historical Gaya town, India. Blasting and Fragmentation Journal, 11(02), 95–​105.
Singh, R.K., Sawmliana, C., Hembram, P., 2020. Damage threat to sensitive structures of a
thermal power plant from hard rock blasting operations in track hopper area: a case
study. International Journal of Protective Structures, 11(1), 3–​ 22. https://​doi.org/​
10.1177/​20414​1961​9843​633.
Tian, E., Zhang, J., Soltani Tehrani, M., Surendar, A., Ibatova, A.Z., 2019. Development of
GA-​based models for simulating the ground vibration in mine blasting. Engineering with
Computers, 35(3), 849–​855. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​366-​018-​0635-​1.
Verma, A.K., Singh, T.N., 2011. Intelligent systems for ground vibration measurement: a com-
parative study. Engineering with Computers, 27(3), 225–​233. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​
s00​366-​010-​0193-​7.
Vishwakarma, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Kumar, S., Roy, M.P., 2020. Overbreak control in
development face blasting of underground metal mine –​a case study. In Proceedings
of National Conference on Advances in Mining (AIM-​2020), CSIR-​CIMFR Dhanbad,
India, 473–​482.
Wiss, J.F., 1981. Construction vibrations: state-​ of-​
the-​
art. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, 107(2), 167–​181. https://​doi.org/​10.1061/​AJG​EB6.0001​095.
Zhang, Z., Gao, W., Li, K., Li, B., 2020. Numerical simulation of rock mass blasting using par-
ticle flow code and particle expansion loading algorithm. Simulation Modelling Practice
and Theory, 104, 102119. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sim​pat.2020.102​119.
Zhou, J., Li, C., Koopialipoor, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Thai Pham, B., 2021. Development of
a new methodology for estimating the amount of PPV in surface mines based on predic-
tion and probabilistic models (GEP-​MC). International Journal of Mining, Reclamation
and Environment, 35(1), 48–​68. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​17480​930.2020.1734​151.
151

8 Blasting in Close
Proximity to Structures

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Blasting in close proximity to structures is a challenging task. It is necessary to main-
tain a delicate balance between achieving efficient material fragmentation and miti-
gating the potential risks of structural damage while conducting blasts near structures.
Safety considerations hold a pivotal role when blasting near structures. Vibrations and
air overpressure generated during blasting have the capacity to propagate through
the ground and air, posing potential harm to nearby buildings. The characteristics
of these vibrations, such as intensity and frequency, significantly influence struc-
tural responses and human perception of the blast effects. Consequently, meticulous
selection and optimisation of blast design parameters are crucial to mitigate potential
structural damage and maintain safe levels of ground vibration and air overpressure.
Further, generation of flyrock during blasting is a major concern while blasting in
close proximity to structures. Therefore, the development of robust methodologies
that account for both excavation needs and safety concerns is imperative.
Accurately predicting and effectively mitigating blast-​induced ground vibrations
and air overpressure as well as flyrock is vital for ensuring structural safety. Numerous
analytical and statistical formulae and numerical modelling techniques are to hand to
estimate the potential effects of blasting on nearby structures (Gorai et al., 2021;
Himanshu et al., 2021; Himanshu et al., 2018). These models encompass factors like
explosive properties, blast geometry, rock properties and proximity to structures.
By simulating blast effects, engineers can assess potential risks and design blast
parameters that minimise adverse impacts on structures.
Optimising blast design parameters is critical to achieving both safety and effi-
ciency when blasting near structures. Adjustments can be made to various elem-
ents, including the blast pattern, explosive type, initiation system and timing, all
aimed at reducing the risk of structural damage while achieving the desired exca-
vation outcomes. The choice of appropriate explosives with specific energy and
rock-​breaking capabilities plays a pivotal role in minimising ground vibrations and
air overpressure. Incorporating advanced computational modelling and simulation
techniques further enables engineers to fine-​tune blast design parameters, thereby
reducing uncertainties associated with close proximity blasting (Himanshu et al.,
2023; Himanshu et al., 2022). To ensure alignment between predicted and actual

DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-8 151

152

152 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

ground vibrations and air overpressure levels, monitoring and control techniques are
essential during blasting operations. Real-​time monitoring systems enable precise
data collection on ground motion, air overpressure and videotaping of blasting events,
allowing engineers to evaluate the effectiveness of blast designs and make necessary
adjustments in real-​time. Monitoring also serves as a means of validating predictive
models, thereby enhancing their reliability and refining future blast design practices.
Regulatory measures and industry guidelines play a substantial role in ensuring
the safe execution of blasting operations near structures. Many countries have spe-
cific regulations governing such activities, outlining permissible vibration and air
overpressure levels, obstruction distances and other safety prerequisites. Adhering
to these regulations and guidelines is essential in minimising the risk of structural
damage and upholding public safety.
This chapter aims to analyse existing methodologies and techniques for the safe
and efficient excavation of ore or rock for blasting within 50 metres of structures.
Through a comprehensive examination of relevant studies, it offers insights into the
current state of knowledge in this field.

8.2 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES
Structures can be classified with respect to damages caused by blast-​ induced
vibrations, flyrock and air overpressure. These classifications help in understanding
the potential risks associated with different types of structures and enable the devel-
opment of appropriate mitigation measures. The classification can be residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional, infrastructures and critical facilities.
Further, residential structures consist of single-​ family homes, apartments
and residential buildings. These types of structures will be moderately to highly vul-
nerable to blast-​induced vibrations and air overpressure. Potential risk arising due to
vibrations and noise on structures would be damages to windows, doors, walls and
foundations as well as human discomfort and annoyance of people residing therein.
Commercial structures such as offices, shopping centres and commercial buildings
are considered moderately vulnerable to blast-​induced vibrations and air overpressure.
There is a risk of potential damage to windows, partitions, frontages and structural
elements. Additionally, this could lead to the disruption of business operations and
cause discomfort to customers.
Industrial structures, which include manufacturing facilities, warehouses and
industrial buildings, face a moderate to high vulnerability when it comes to blast-​
induced vibrations, flyrock and air overpressure. These risks pose a significant con-
cern for the structural integrity of the buildings, as well as the safety of equipment
and machinery. In the event of a blast, there is potential for production interruptions,
safety hazards and economic losses. Therefore, it is crucial to implement robust
safety measures to mitigate these potential risks and safeguard both structures and the
people working in them.
Institutional structures, which encompass schools, hospitals, government
buildings and religious institutions, exhibit a moderate vulnerability to blast-​induced
vibrations and air overpressure. This vulnerability poses a risk to windows, partitions,
153

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 153

and sensitive equipment within these buildings. In the unfortunate event of a blast,
there is potential for disruption of essential services, leading to patient discomfort
and causing public concern. Given the critical nature of these facilities and the ser-
vices they provide to the community, it is imperative to prioritise safety measures and
implement appropriate protective strategies to minimise the impact of any potential
blast-​related incidents. This will ensure the continuity of services and the wellbeing
of those utilising these institutional structures.
Infrastructure, including bridges, tunnels, dams and transportation systems,
faces a moderate to high vulnerability to blast-​induced vibrations, flyrock and air
overpressure. This susceptibility puts them at risk of structural damage, fatigue and
loss of functionality. In the unfortunate event of a blast, there is a potential for trans-
portation disruptions, safety hazards and expensive repairs, affecting the critical
infrastructure on which society relies.
Historic and heritage structures, which encompass architecturally significant
buildings, monuments and heritage sites, are particularly vulnerable to blast-​induced
vibrations and air overpressure. These delicate and aged structures are at risk of irre-
versible damage, leading to potential loss of cultural heritage and incurring signifi-
cant restoration costs. Preserving these precious assets is of the utmost importance to
maintaining our history and identity, and extra precautions should be taken to safe-
guard them from any potential blast-​related incidents.
Critical facilities, including power plants, communication centres and emergency
response facilities, are highly vulnerable to blast-​induced vibrations, flyrock and air
overpressure. The risk of structural damage to these critical facilities could lead to
equipment failure and service disruptions, affecting the smooth functioning of vital
services they offer. In the event of a blast, there is a potential for significant economic
losses and public safety implications, as the disruption of power, communication or
emergency response capabilities can have far-​reaching impacts on communities and
businesses.
The classification of structures in India is based on the Directorate General of
Mines Safety (DGMS) Technical Circular 7 of 1997. This classification is done to
assess the potential damages from blast-​induced ground vibrations in different types
of structures and to decide safe threshold of vibration considering the dominant exci-
tation frequency of the waves. The three main types of structures considered in this
classification are:

a. Domestic houses/​ structures made of kutcha brick and cement: Kutcha

structures are typically simple, less stable constructions made of materials
like mud, brick and cement. These types of structures are more vulnerable to
damage from ground vibrations induced by blasting.
b. Industrial buildings made of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and framed
structures: This category includes factories, warehouses and other industrial
buildings made of reinforced cement concrete or other framed structures.
RCC structures are more robust and can withstand higher levels of ground
vibration compared to kutcha structures, but they still require evaluation to
ensure their safety.
154

154 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

c. Objects of historical importance and sensitive structures: This category

encompasses structures of historical significance, heritage buildings,
monuments and other sensitive structures. These structures are often more
delicate and require special attention to prevent any damage from blast-​
induced ground vibrations.

The classification helps mining authorities and operators to determine the level
of precautions and mitigation measures needed to protect these different types of
structures from potential damage caused by blasting activities in the vicinity. Proper
assessment and adherence to safety guidelines can help in preventing accidents and
ensuring the protection of both human lives and important structures in the area
surrounding mining operations.
It is important to note that the vulnerability of structures to blast-​induced
vibrations, flyrock and air overpressure can vary depending on several factors,
including their distance from the blast source, structural design, construction
materials and existing condition. Each structure should be evaluated individually
to assess its specific vulnerability and develop appropriate protective measures.
The classification provided above serves as a general guideline to understand
the potential risks associated with different types of structures when exposed to
blasting activities.

8.3 ALTERNATIVES TO BLASTING OPERATION

In very close to structures, non-​explosive alternative method to blasting can be used
successfully. Al-​Bakri and Hefni (2021) have reviewed some non-​explosive alterna­
tive method to convention blasting. In their review, they have stated that hydraulic
splitters are a modern non-​explosive rock-​breaking technology that utilises hydraulic
pressure to crack and split hard rocks. Through the application of immense force,
these machines can generate pressures of up to 43 MPa, inducing stresses in rocks and
facilitating their fracture. The literature indicates that hydraulic splitters are both effi-
cient and safe, making them an attractive alternative to conventional blasting. Their
ease of use and environmental friendliness further contribute to their appeal. One
such type of hydraulic splitter is depicted in Figure 8.1.
Despite various advantages of the hydraulic splitters, some of the major limitations
of this system are as follows:

i. Hydraulic splitters are most effective in breaking hard and brittle rocks.
However, they may not be as efficient when dealing with softer or more com-
plex geological formations.
ii. Hydraulic splitters require specialised equipment, which can be costly to
acquire and maintain. Regular maintenance and repair are necessary to ensure
the equipment’s optimal performance and longevity.
iii. The process of hydraulic splitting can be relatively slow compared to con-
ventional blasting, especially when dealing with larger rock masses. This can
result in longer project timelines and potentially higher labour costs.
155

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 155

FIGURE 8.1 Hydraulic splitter suitable for rock excavation.

iv. For hydraulic splitters to work effectively, the presence of natural joints or
pre-​existing fractures in the rock is crucial. In the absence of such features, the
splitting process may be less efficient and require more force.

Another promising non-​explosive method discussed in their review is the use of

expansive chemical agents. These agents work by expanding inside drill holes in the
rock, exerting pressure and creating fissures to break the material. Studies have shown
that these agents can generate pressures ranging from 30 to 44 MPa, depending on
the specific agent used. Like hydraulic splitters, expansive chemical agents offer
advantages such as safety, ease of use and environmental compatibility. One such
example of rock breaking using expansive chemical is shown in Figure 8.2. Some of
the major limitations of this system are as follows:

i. Breakage by expansive chemical needs a closely spaced drilling of holes and

ultimately increasing the cost of excavation.
ii. The performance of expansive chemical agents can be affected by tempera-
ture and weather conditions. Extreme cold or hot temperatures may hinder or
delay the expansion process, impacting the overall efficiency of the method.
iii. Although expansive chemical agents are generally considered more envir-
onment friendly than conventional blasting, they still involve the use of
chemicals that need proper handling and disposal. There is a potential risk of
groundwater contamination if not managed carefully.
iv. Different rock types may require specific formulations of expansive chemical
agents for optimal performance. Identifying the right formulation for a par-
ticular rock formation can be a trial-​and-​error process, leading to increased
costs and time.
156

156 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 8.2 Use of expansive chemical for rock-​breaking process.

v. Unlike conventional blasting, which produces instantaneous results,

monitoring the effectiveness of expansive chemical agents can be challen-
ging. It may be difficult to determine the exact timing and extent of rock
fracturing.
vi. The expansive chemical agents typically take a considerable amount of
time to exert enough pressure to break the rock effectively. This slow
reaction time can prolong the excavation process, especially when dealing
with large volumes of rock.

The review emphasises that both hydraulic splitters and expansive chemical agents
have demonstrated their ability to effectively and safely break hard rock. These non-​
explosive methods provide viable alternatives to conventional blasting, reducing
the risks associated with flyrock, gas emissions and vibrations. The elimination of
explosions enhances safety for workers and nearby communities, while minimising
potential damage to the surrounding environment. Another important and recent
alternative to the conventional blasting method is plasma blasting. This method
is being used at some places for primary rock blasting, but its application is very
limited. The details regarding this technique have been discussed in Section 10.8.1
of this book.
157

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 157

8.4 STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND DANGER ZONES FROM

BLASTING SITES
Blasting operations involve the use of explosives and pose risks to human health,
safety and the environment. Statutory regulations serve as legal frameworks that pro-
vide guidance on various aspects of blasting activities, including handling, storage,
transportation and use of explosives. These regulations also define limits for ground
vibrations, air overpressure and measures to control flyrock to prevent damage to
structures and injuries. The specifics of these regulations vary across countries and
regions based on local factors.
Regulatory bodies such as mining departments, environmental agencies and occu-
pational health and safety organisations enforce compliance with these regulations.
They set criteria for personnel qualifications, procedures for obtaining permits, blast
design requirements and monitoring protocols. These regulations may address public
notification, record-​keeping and reporting as well.
Maximum allowable levels for ground vibrations, air overpressure and flyrock are
stipulated in these regulations, usually quantified in terms of peak particle velocity,
decibels and distance, respectively. Adherence to these limits minimises potential
risks to human and structural safety.
Danger zones are integral to safe blasting practices, encompassing areas around
the blasting site with heightened risks due to explosive detonation. The size of danger
zones depends on factors like explosive type, blast design and structural sensitivity.
Determining these zones involves assessing blast energy, ground conditions, struc-
tural vulnerabilities and human presence. Techniques like empirical formula, pre-
dictive models and measurements estimate danger zone extents, leading to safety
protocol implementation.
Danger zones consider ground vibrations, air overpressure and flyrock effects,
positioning workers and structures at safe distances. Measures within danger zones
may include blast warning systems, evacuation protocols and physical barriers.
The combination of statutory regulations and danger zone establishment is pivotal
for blasting safety. Regulatory compliance obliges operators to meet safety standards,
while danger zones identify and manage hazards, facilitating safety measures imple-
mentation. Regular updates to regulations and danger zone guidelines are crucial for
adapting to evolving technologies and safety requirements. In sum, these components
collectively ensure that blasting operations prioritise safety and minimise poten-
tial risks.

8.5 METHOD OF BLASTING WITHIN 50 METRES OF STRUCTURES

Open pit blasting operations can be broadly classified into two categories: production
blasting and controlled blasting. Production blasting is generally carried out in mines
for large-​scale excavation whereas controlled blasting is practised with the aim of
mitigating environmental nuisances and to control blast-​induced damages. With the
advent of technological innovations, controlled production blasting is also possible.
Another blasting category is cast or directional blasting, which involves directing the
blasted material directly into the desired area, thereby reducing the amount of muck
158

158 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 8.3 Schematic diagram showing various types of open pit blasting.

that needs to be mechanically handled. This minimises rehandling expenses and saves
time. For a comprehensive understanding, the various types of blasting are presented
in Figure 8.3. These distinctions in blasting techniques are essential for optimising
rock-​breaking efficiency and mitigating potential adverse effects on the environment.
Blast design is not a one-​size-​fits-​all approach; instead, it requires customisation
based on extensive research, past experiences and field trials. Mining experts and
engineers conduct a thorough literature survey to gather knowledge about successful
practices, study past cases and learn from others’ experiences. Additionally, on-​site
field trials provide valuable insights into the rock properties, explosive perform-
ance and environmental impacts. Integrating safety considerations and legislative
requirements, the final blast design is formulated to ensure operational efficiency and
safety.
Figure 8.4 illustrates a typical example of production blasting. In this scenario, a
series of blastholes is strategically drilled into the rock mass based on the optimised
blast design parameters. The explosive is then placed within the boreholes to facilitate
rock fragmentation. The detonation of the explosives initiates the breaking process,
producing a fragmented muck pile, which is later processed for rock recovery and
extraction.
Production blasting, while highly efficient for rock breaking, should be carried out
with a keen awareness of the potential environmental and safety implications. Though
it may not prioritise controlling certain undesirable effects like vibration, flyrock,
blast-​induced damage, air overpressure or noise, precautions must still be taken to
avoid any unnecessary harm to the environment or nearby structures. By adhering
to safety regulations, employing well-​established blast design practices and continu-
ally improving blasting techniques through research and field experience, production
blasting remains a crucial method for efficient rock extraction in various mining and
civil construction sites.
Controlled blasting plays a crucial role in mining and civil construction projects by
aiming to create stable and smooth slopes or faces, thereby preventing any potential
incidents or hazards. Additionally, controlled blasting serves as a means to excavate
159

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 159

FIGURE 8.4 Layout of typical production bench blasting.

ore or rock mass without causing damage to the nearby structures located in the
vicinity of the blast site. In the context of controlled blasting, a key approach involves
drilling blastholes at closer intervals and aligning them meticulously with the free face
of the rock. These boreholes are then charged with an optimal amount of explosive
material, either using a distributed pattern of explosive charging or decoupled char-
ging. The detonation sequence is carefully planned to release the explosive energy
in a controlled manner, resulting in minimal damage to the rock mass and achieving
a manageable degree of fragmentation. This approach is crucial for maintaining the
desired excavation profile while mitigating any potential negative effects on the rock
mass (Rustan, 1998).
Another significant aspect of controlled blasting is its application to regulate
ground vibration, muck throw, flyrock projection, air overpressure and noise levels.
These measures are implemented to safeguard nearby structures and inhabitants from
potential harm caused by the blasting activities.
To achieve the dual objectives of controlled blasting, limiting blast-​induced damage
while attaining the desired excavation profile, several widely practised techniques are
utilised. These techniques include:

a. Line drilling: Involves the placement of closely spaced blastholes along a

predetermined line. The line drilling technique helps in controlling the
160

160 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

propagation of cracks during blasting, resulting in better control over the

excavation process (Jimeno et al., 1995).
b. Pre-​splitting: This technique requires the creation of a continuous fracture
plane by drilling closely spaced blastholes parallel to the final excavation line.
The pre-​splitting method aids in preventing overbreak and enhancing slope
stability (Heinio, 1999).
c. Smooth blasting: Smooth blasting refers to a controlled detonation approach
that minimises shock waves and vibrations during blasting. It is particularly
useful when working near sensitive structures (Hagan & Bulow, 2000).

Furthermore, directional methodologies are employed in construction blasting to

achieve perimeter control by intensifying the directional expansion of blast-​induced
cracks (Dengfeng, 2019).

8.6 PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF BLASTING NEAR SENSITIVE

STRUCTURES
When planning and executing blasting operations near sensitive structures, a sci-
entific approach is essential to ensure the safety of the structures and minimise
potential damage. This scientific approach involves a systematic assessment of the
site conditions, analysis of potential risks and the implementation of appropriate
measures to mitigate those risks as described in previous sections.
Based on the risk analysis, the next step is to optimise the blast design to minimise
potential risks to sensitive structures. This involves selecting appropriate explosives,
designing the blast pattern and determining the timing and sequence of deton-
ation. The blast design should aim to reduce the levels of ground vibrations and air
overpressure, control the direction and distance of flyrock and ensure safe excavation
while achieving the desired results.
Utilising predictive modelling techniques can enhance the accuracy of risk
assessment and blast design optimisation. Computational modelling software and
well-​established empirical formulae can be used to predict blast-​induced vibrations,
air overpressure and extent of flyrock. The results of the predictive modelling can
guide the refinement of the blast design and assist in determining appropriate safety
measures.
Monitoring systems should be implemented to measure the actual ground
vibrations, air overpressure and flyrock during blasting operations. Real-​ time
monitoring allows for immediate adjustments to the blast design and provides feed-
back on the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Monitoring data can also be used
to validate and calibrate predictive models, improving their accuracy for future blast
planning.
Appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented to minimise potential
risks to sensitive structures. These measures may include the use of specialised blast
design techniques (e.g. line drilling, pre-​splitting or cushion blasting, directional
control blasting) and muffling entire area of blasting patch using mats or installing
barrier or buffers between blasting source and sensitive structures. The selection of
161

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 161

mitigation measures should be based on the specific site conditions, structural vul-
nerabilities and the results of the risk analysis. By following this approach, blasting
operations can be conducted in a manner that ensures the safety of nearby sensitive
structures, minimises potential damage and complies with regulatory requirements.

8.6.1 Planning and Execution of Blasting near Sensitive Structures of

Thermal Power Plant
Singh et al. (2020) devised controlled blast design patterns and methodologies for
safe excavation of hard rock in a running thermal power plant. The excavation work
was required for the foundation of a track hopper, located in close proximity to
numerous sensitive structures. The excavation of hard rock posed unique challenges
and to achieve safe excavation without endangering the integrity of these structures,
controlled blast design patterns and methodologies were developed through compre-
hensive testing and analysis.
Test blasts were conducted at selected locations, employing various blast geom-
etries and charge loading patterns. The main objective was to determine the safe
vibration threshold to protect nearby structures/​foundations. The resulting data from
the test blasts were carefully analysed to evolve safe controlled blast design patterns.
A vibration threshold of 25 mm/​s was established, based on the dominant frequency
(i.e. 10–​40 Hz) content of the ground vibration waves and guidelines provided by the
regulatory authority.
Controlled blast design parameters were framed to meet the established vibration
threshold and maintain the safety of nearby structures. The maximum explosive per
delay, size of the blasts and blast geometry were carefully determined based on a
well-​established ground vibration predictor equation and the proximity of concerned
structures from the blasting point. To ensure safe excavation, the blasting area was
divided into two distinct zones.
In the first zone, located between 5 to 20 m from the sensitive structures, con-
trolled blasting techniques involving 32 mm diameter blastholes with smaller blast
geometry was proposed. The controlled design parameters involved the drilling of
10 to 20 holes, each 1.5 m deep and with a diameter of 32 mm, using a jackhammer
drill machine. The blasthole arrangement was set at a burden and spacing of 0.7 to
0.8 m and 0.8 to 0.85 m, respectively. The charge quantity per hole was varied within
a range of 0.31 to 0.375 kg, resulting in a total charge of 3.1 to 7.5 kg per blast. To
minimise ground vibration and ensure the safety of nearby structures, line drilling
was employed along the excavation boundary. Line holes with a 100 mm drill hole
diameter were drilled to a depth of 6 to 8 m, effectively reducing the transmission of
ground vibration. Additionally, for all blasting operations, a vital safety measure was
implemented by complete muffling of holes using conveyor belts and sandbags. This
ensured that flying fragments resulting from the blasting were confined to the blasting
face, preventing any potential hazards or damages.
In contrast, for the second zone beyond 20 m, controlled blasting with 100 mm
diameter holes, lesser hole depth and a limited number of holes was recommended.
However, this approach was suggested only after carefully ensuring clear-​cut free
162

162 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

faces through cautious blasting practices. Within the blasting zone ranging from
20 to 50 m, the blasthole depth varied from 2.5 to 4.0 m. The burden and spacing
values were set at 1.0–​1.25 m and 1.25–​1.75 m, respectively. To achieve safe explo-
sive charge values, 100 mm diameter blastholes were loaded with small decks of
83 mm diameter cartridge explosive to comply with the desired safe charge values.
For initiating the blasts, the non-​electric (shock tube) initiation system was employed.
Muffling arrangements using conveyor belts and sandbags were also applied to pre-
vent flyrock, thereby ensuring a safe blasting environment. The study observed that
by reducing the burden and spacing values, the explosive charge per hole could be
significantly decreased, effectively containing ground vibrations within safe limits.

8.6.2 Planning and Execution of Blasting near Residential and

Commercial Establishments
Naveen et al. (2016) described a controlled blasting approach which was success­
fully employed to excavate hard rock in the proximity of populated residential and
commercial establishments in Bengaluru in India. In light of the expansion plans,
the management of construction company decided to construct two additional
towers adjacent to the two existing towers. These new towers were planned to be
approximately 60 m apart from each other. Moreover, there was a residential layout
located at a distance of around 10 m from the intended excavation boundary. The
proposed construction area covered an extensive 19,500 m2 and required excava-
tion to a depth of 10 m from the existing surface level. The blast design parameters
followed for the excavation of rock at this site are depicted in Table 8.1. Authors
also suggested remedial measures to control the blasting hazards as given in Table
8.2.
In this study, more than 500 blasts were conducted to excavate 80,000 m3 of hard
rock. The authors had also successfully increased the blast size from 45 to 250 m3
per blast. This case study demonstrated that while the ground vibrations during
blasting were limited below the permissible limit of 5 mm/​s near structures, human
perceptions and comfort levels varied significantly. Residents reported that vibrations
below 1.5 mm/​s were generally acceptable, but discomfort arose when vibrations
ranged between 1.5 mm/​ s and 2 mm/​ s, and complaints increased when
vibrations exceeded 2 mm/​s. The measured air overpressure levels were within the
suggested limit of 133 dB(L). It is also recognised that noise level of 133 dB and
below will likely not cause structural damage but numerous complaints from affected
parties were raised. It was felt that flyrock control and managing air overpressure
were crucial challenges in densely constructed areas near structures.
Overall, the research showcased the significance of proper planning, design and
communication to execute controlled blasting in densely populated urban environ-
ments. By taking into account the comfort levels of residents and adhering to strin-
gent safety measures, blasting can be effectively employed as an excavation technique
while safeguarding the wellbeing of the community and preserving the integrity of
nearby structures.
163

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 163

TABLE 8.1
Blast design parameters for regular bench blasting

Parameters Specification (jackhammer)

Hole diameter, mm 32 to 38
Burden, m 0.8
Spacing, m 0.8
Hole depth, m 1.5
Number of rows <3
Number of holes in a row <10
Total number of holes <30 (all vertical)
Charge diameter, mm 25
Charge length, mm 200
Charge weight 125g/​ cartridge
Charge per hole, kg 0.125–​0.5
Charge length, m 0.8
Stemming length, m 0.5–​1
Stemming material Wet clay sticks
Total charge, kg Varying
Maximum charge per delay, kg 0.125–​0.5
Initiation system Shock tube initiation system

Source: Naveen et al. (2016).

TABLE 8.2
Remedial measures to avoid blasting associated problems

Causes How to control?

Damage due to ground vibration Proper blast design, sufficient burden, distance
between blast location and structure, maximum
charge per delay
Damage due to air overpressure Proper blast design, sufficient burden, distance
between blast location and structure, maximum
charge per delay, blasting mats
Damage due to flyrock Proper blast design, sufficient burden, stemming,
muffling using sandbags, link mesh, blasting
mats
Damage to buildings Pre-​investigation, proper blast design, distance
between blast location and structure
Scared people Informing neighbours before each blast
Work or business disturbance Public education, blasting controls, monitoring
and scheduling blasting during non-​working
hours

Source: Naveen et al. (2016).

164

164 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

8.6.3 Planning and Execution of Blasting near Railway Structures

In their research work, Bhagat et al. (2020a) presented a case study focused on the sta­
bilisation of unstable cut slopes along the Konkan Railway route in India. The region
was prone to boulder falls, slope failures and landslides during the rainy season,
leading to severe train accidents, traffic disruptions and loss of lives and assets.
Despite various geotechnical measures such as wire-​netting, retaining walls, rock
bolting and shotcreting being implemented, the accidents persisted. Recognising the
urgency of the situation, the Konkan Railway Corporation made a critical decision to
redesign the cut slopes using a novel blasting technique that would not damage the
existing track and disrupt traffic flow. The challenge was to perform the blasting while
the track line was situated only 2–​3 m away from the slope bottom, requiring meticu-
lous planning to avoid prolonged route closures and further inconvenience.
The authors described in detail the geotechnical analysis conducted to assess the
safe slope angle, evaluate the factor of safety and identify potential failure modes.
This study provided valuable insights into the methodology used to redesign the
entire cutting, involving the formation of berms at specific intervals using con-
trolled blasting. The blasting technique employed smaller drill diameters (34 mm)
and matching explosive diameters (25 mm) to control vibrations, throw and flyrock
within safe limits (i.e. 2 to 5 m distances). This approach enabled to do effective exca-
vation while minimising risks to the existing track and avoiding disruptions to train
operations.
The controlled blasting was executed in a two-​part approach, dividing it into trench
and barrier (Figure 8.5). The trench was excavated leaving a barrier rock toward the
rail track to control the throw and spread of blasted material. The barrier was ini-
tially kept to act as a physical separation between the trench and the railway track. It
served as a guide for directing the blast parallel to the track and prevented materials
from slipping onto the railway. The sequence of blasts was directed perpendicular to
the track line to prevent debris from reaching the rail line. The details of blast design
implemented with reason are depicted in Table 8.3.
Later on, ‘barrier rock’ was removed, presumably to clear the area and make way
for further activities. The existing slope facet of barrier rock was found to be cracked
and fractured in many locations. As a result, it was removed using an excavator. In
cases where a competent barrier was present, controlled blasting was carried out. The
blast throw was directed towards the trench. For controlled blasting, up to three rows
of holes were drilled into the barrier. These holes had smaller blast geometry with
specific dimensions: depth of 1.5 m, burden of 0.5 to 0.6 m and spacing of 0.6 m.
The differential explosive charging technique of holes were implemented. The holes
in the rows were charged with different amounts of explosives. The trench end row
holes were charged with 0.25 kg of explosive, while the other holes were charged
with 0.125 kg in three decks. A system of ignition using detonating cord was used
within each hole and row to initiate the blast. The row firing technique was used with
a specific delay of 25 ms to direct the throw of the blast towards the trench. The goal
of the blasting process was to achieve fine fragmentation in this stage, which would
result in less impact and damages to the track if any rock fell due to gravity on the
165

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 165

FIGURE 8.5 Plan showing direction of advance and desired throw direction for a blasting
patch near railway line. (Bhagat et al., 2020a.)

track. Fine fragments could be easily removed from the track manually. In the case of
cracked barrier rock, it was easily removed using an excavator.
Bhagat et al. (2020b) in their other research work, developed two new empirical
equations to control the throw (distance travelled by debris) of the blast to ensure
safety and precision during blasting along railway infrastructures. Equation (8.1)
enabled the researchers to calculate the burden (B) and Equation (8.2) to estimate
throw (Tw) prior to blasting.

g ρ
B= × d 0b.7 × e Equation (8.1)
RQD γ
166

166 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 8.3
Blast design parameters for trench blasting

Parameter Range/​Value Reason

Depth of hole 0.75 to 1.5 m To control degree of throw over
bench and track.
Blast hole diameter 34 mm To reduce damage zone and to
generate fine fragmentation.
Explosive diameter 25 mm To reduce damage of rock mass,
throw, flyrock and rockfall.
Blast hole inclination 0 to 5° To maintain bench slope.
Burden (0.3 to 0.6) of depth of holes To minimise throw of blast and
flyrock.
Spacing 1 to 1.2 times the burden To maintain bench floor.
Powder factor 0.08 to 0.25 kg/​m³ To achieve efficient breakage with
minimal throw and flyrock.
Deck Two of 0.2 to 0.3 m Optimum distribution of
in corner holes explosive energy to minimise
overbreak, backbreak, throw
and rockfall.
Top stemming 0.7 to 1.0 times the burden To stop surface crater formation
and flyrock.
Initiation pattern Preferably U pattern To restrict muck pile length and
throw towards track.

Source: Bhagat et al. (2020a).

0.35
 RQD  Dh
Tw =  × PF × (Equation 8.2)
 g  B

Where,
RQD (rock quality designation): A parameter used to assess the quality of rock
formations,
g: The acceleration due to gravity (for Equation (8.1), g=​981 mm/​s2, Equation
(8.2) g=​9.81 m/​s2),
db: The hole diameter in metres,
ρe: The density of the explosive material,
γ: The density of the rock,
PF (powder factor): The amount of explosive used per unit volume (kg/​m3),
Dh: Depth of the hole in metres.

Overall, the above-​mentioned research work described and highlighted the integra-
tion of various factors in redesigning unstable cut slopes along the Konkan Railway
route to control the throw of blast to ensure safe and efficient operations within 2
to 5 m of railway structures. The innovative direction-​controlled blasting technique,
167

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 167

combined with geotechnical analysis and empirical equations, has shown prom-
ising results in stabilising railway infrastructures in hilly regions. However, further
research and monitoring are essential to address the limitations and ensure the long-​
term effectiveness and applicability of this technique in other geological conditions.
Further, Bhagat et al. (2022) in their research work developed models using three
machine learning (ML) techniques, namely logistic regression (LR), classification
and regression tree (CART) and random forest (RF), for predicting blast-​induced
slope failure (BISF) and rockfall during slope reconstruction on Konkan Railway
routes. This study utilised a substantial dataset comprising 490 records and 13
variables to develop predictive models. One of the strengths of this research lies in
the thorough data analysis and model development process. The authors addressed
multicollinearity concerns and employed LR to identify the six most influential input
parameters. Subsequently, these selected input datasets were subjected to a fivefold
cross-​validation process using LR, CART and RF models. This approach allowed for
a comprehensive evaluation of the predictive model’s performance.
The results presented in the study are promising, suggesting the applicability of all
three models in predicting BISF during drilling and blasting operations. The import-
ance of these findings cannot be overstated. Accurate prediction of BISF can signifi-
cantly enhance safety in infrastructure reconstruction projects. By implementing these
predictive models, professionals in the field can optimise blast design parameters,
thereby minimising the risk of BISF and associated hazards. The potential benefits
of this research extend beyond safety, encompassing savings in terms of commuter
lives, avoidance of traffic delays and mitigation of property damages, all of which are
paramount in similar situations. The promising performance of the predictive models,
particularly the RF and LR models, underscores their potential for practical applica-
tion, thereby paving the way for safer and more reliable infrastructure reconstruction
in railway and similar contexts.

8.6.4 Planning and Execution of Blasting near Petrol Pumps

When it comes to blasting operations near petrol pumps and other similar situations,
safety becomes a paramount concern due to the presence of highly flammable and
volatile substances. A scientific approach is crucial to plan and execute such operations
in a manner that ensures the safety of the petrol pump, nearby structures and individ-
uals. The first step is to conduct a thorough site assessment. It is important to gather
detailed information about the petrol pump’s location, proximity to the blasting site
and any potential underground infrastructure, such as fuel storage tanks or pipelines.
Understanding the layout and potential risks associated with the petrol pump is essen-
tial for the subsequent planning process. A case study is being discussed herein, where
a scientific study was conducted to set up a new wagon tippler complex (WTC) near
different sensitive structures including petrol pump, railway line, switch yard, etc.
Fuel tanks at petrol pumps are sensitive to vibrations, especially those caused
by blasting or other intense activities in close proximity. These tanks are typically
made of steel and are installed underground or aboveground, depending on the petrol
pump’s design. Vibrations and flyrock during blasting can have several adverse effects
168

168 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

on fuel tanks. The various type of risk associated with blasting near petrol pump are
mentioned below:

i. Vibrations from blasting can potentially compromise the structural integrity

of the fuel tank. Over time, repeated vibrations may cause fatigue and weaken
the tank’s materials, leading to leaks or even tank failure.
ii. If the fuel tank develops cracks or weak points due to vibrations, it can lead to
fuel leaks and spills. Spilled fuel poses significant environmental and safety
risks, including fire hazards and groundwater contamination.
iii. Vibrations can dislodge or damage important components of the fuel tank’s
system, such as vents, pipes or safety mechanisms. This may result in unsafe
conditions, making it more challenging to manage the tank’s pressure and
prevent potential accidents.
iv. Any leakage from the fuel tank can contaminate the soil and nearby water
sources, leading to severe environmental damage.
v. Flyrock may also cause damage to the different surface structures of
petrol pump.

The first step to plan a rock excavation work is to identify potential hazards and
evaluate the risks associated with blasting near the petrol pump. Factors to consider
include the distance between the blasting site and the petrol pump, the nature of the
explosive materials being used and the potential impact of blast-​induced vibrations,
air overpressure and flyrock on the petrol pump’s structural integrity. In view of the
above-​mentioned risks, it is important to control and limit the blast-​induced ground
vibration and flyrock within safe limits. In the studied case, the distances from the
sensitive structures with details of different structures of WTC to be excavated using
blasting is given in Table 8.4.

TABLE 8.4
Dimension of various WTC structures with their distances from the nearest
sensitive structures

Distance
Dimension of structures Nearest sensitive from WTC
to be excavated structures to be structures
WTC structures (Width × Length × Depth) protected (m)
Wagon tippler pit 22 m × 32.5 m × 20 m Railway track 28
34A/​B cut & cover tunnel 7.1 m × 73.6 m × (7.5 to Switchyard 40
17.3) m
Transfer point 29 12 m × 15.9 m × 17 m Weigh bridge 40
35A/​B cut & cover tunnel 7.1 m ×37 m × (10.8 to Petrol pump 40
15.6) m
Transfer point 30 13.6 m x 15.0 m x 22 m Petrol pump 20
36/​B cut & cover tunnel 7.1 m × 110 m × Petrol pump 30
(1.5 to 18) m
169

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 169

The methodical approach employed for controlled blasting to be executed for

excavation of rock for components of the WTC are as follows:

i. The initial step was to remove the topsoil layer using a mechanical excavator.
ii. Further rock breaker was used to remove soft rock sections and exposing the
hard rock formation.
iii. Hard rock excavation work was carried out systematically using a benching
approach in each structure. Benching varying between 2.5 to 5.0 m in thickness
were excavated from top to bottom.
iv. Test blasts were carried out to evolve the site-​specific blast design parameters
and blast-​induced ground vibration and air overpressure were measured.
v. Controlled blasting was employed using 100 mm diameter blastholes loaded
with 83 mm diameter explosive charges. A non-​electric initiation system was
used, including down the hole (DTH-​250 ms) and surface trunkline delay
(TLD-​17/​25/​42 ms) methods. Stone chips of 5–​10 mm were used as stemming
material to pack the remaining portion of blastholes to prevent flyrock.
vi. For prioritising safety and to mitigate the risk of flying splinters, the entire
blast area was comprehensively covered with old conveyor belts and two to
three sand-​filled bags, each weighing 25 kg.
vii. Videotaping of blasting events were also carried out to know the ejection and
extent of flyrock during blasting.
viii. In total, 99 rounds of blasts were conducted with a cumulative explosive
charge of 22.24 to 883.0 kg. The number of blastholes initiated per round
varied from 4 to 75, with charge quantities ranging from 2.78 to 19.76 kg
per hole. More than 50,000 m3 of rock was excavated using evolved blasting
techniques.
ix. Rock breakers and excavators were also used to remove significant rock
volumes in poor rock conditions and to maintain the slope profile (Figure 8.6).
x. Smaller diameter drill holes (34 mm dia.) with 25 mm diameter emulsion
explosives were used for precise foundation blasting in constrained areas.
xi. Real-​time ground vibrations and air overpressure resulting from blasting at
the WTC complex were monitored using digital seismographs at sensitive
locations, including the petrol pump (Figure 8.7) and rail alignment.
xii. The closest measurement point to the WTC pit near the rail track (20 m)
recorded a maximum vibration magnitude of 36.83 mm/​s with a dominant
frequency of 76.5 Hz. In the vicinity of the 34A/​B conveyor tunnel (at a dis-
tance of 30 m from the petrol pump boundary wall), vibrations reached a
peak magnitude of 20.34 mm/​s with a dominant frequency of 20.38 Hz. The
maximum magnitude of vibrations recorded at the petrol pump was 19.3 mm/​
s with a dominant frequency of 31.5 Hz. The distance of petrol pump from the
nearest blast location was 25 m.
xiii. Considering the industrial structures, the safety thresholds of vibration was
fixed as 25 mm/​s and this threshold exceeded only in three cases during this
study (Figure 8.8). This rigorous monitoring approach ensured the safety and
integrity of nearby structures.
170

170 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 8.6 Strata conditions and trimming of slope using rock breaker near petrol pump.

FIGURE 8.7 Vibration measurement near petrol pump.

xiv. Magnitude of air overpressure beyond 50 m distance was less than 128 dB(L)
and within safe limit. No cracking of glass or plaster of wall was noticed and
reported during the study.

In summary, this work presented a detailed and systematic approach to controlled

blasting at the WTC, emphasising safety, precise execution and environmental
considerations. It also emphasised the need for precise site analysis to decide blasting
methodologies and the prioritisation of safety through continuous monitoring.
171

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 171

FIGURE 8.8 Magnitude of vibration recorded at different points of interest at WTC.

Real-​ time monitoring with digital seismographs, muffling of blasting areas and
videotaping of blast events are essential to maintain safety thresholds. Environmental
considerations, effective communication, adaptability in changing conditions and
meticulous data recording are crucial elements for success.
In another case, Mishra et al. (2017) presented a case study of controlled blasting
near under constructed WTC situated just 2 m away the blasting location. The goal
was to double production while ensuring the safety of the structure. The research
investigated the details of blast design and implementation, emphasising parameters
such as burden, spacing, depth of drill holes and the number of rows. It also highlighted
the use of electronic detonators, and designing of blast using software. This paper
discussed the importance of trial blasts and how they were conducted to determine
site-​specific constants (‘k’ and ‘b’) for charge calculations using the USBM vibration
preditor formula. The study used these constants to calculate the maximum charge
per delay at varying distances from the blast site. At 2 m disatnces, the maximum
charge per delay, was 1 kg only. Fourteen rounds of blasts were conducted at the site.
Further, the research described the measures taken to prevent flyrock and ground
vibration. These measures included the deck charging, muffling drill holes and
sandbag coverings. Overall, Mishra et al.’s (2017) research work demonstrated how
a combination of advanced technology, meticulous planning and safety measures can
ensure efficient mining practices while minimising the risks associated with blasting.
The findings are particularly relevant to the mining industry, where safety and envir-
onmental concerns are paramount.

8.6.5 Planning and Execution of Foundation Blasting near

Railway Bridge
A case was undertaken to facilitate the construction of a third railway line connecting
the Bina and Jhansi railway junctions of North Central Railway. A critical component
of this project involved the construction of a railway bridge over the Betwa River,
172

172 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

situated in close proximity to the existing railway bridges with a pier-​to-​pier distance
of 15.2 m. This bridge project encompasses the setting up of a total of 19 piers and 2
abutments spanning the expansive width of the Betwa River, measuring 450 m. Each
individual pier’s foundation was expected to have dimensions of 14.5 m in length, 7
m in width and a height ranging from 3 to 4.5 m from the bottom of the foundation
level. The problem at hand entails the successful planning and execution of this com-
plex bridge construction project, taking into account the unique challenges presented
by the river’s width and the existing infrastructure.
The methodology adopted to accomplish the work is described below:

1. Prior to commencing the actual drilling and blasting operations, the hard rock
in the area were exposed using mechanical means.
2. The excavation process was begun with benching the pier foundation to a
depth of 1.5 to 2.4 m.
3. Before initiating controlled blasting, a fracture plane was created using line
drilling along the perimeter of the proposed foundation, particularly towards
the side adjacent to the existing bridge. The aim was to control and mitigate
vibration wave propagation.
4. Line drilling was carried out by drilling holes with a diameter of 34 mm,
with a depth 0.5 m greater than the depth of the blastholes. These holes were
spaced at 100 mm intervals (centre-​to-​centre).
5. Sequence of excavation was in following order:
i. The proposed excavation depth was divided into three layers.
ii. In the first benching sequence, the entire length of the excavation was
divided into three parts as indicated in Figure 8.9.
iii. To create a free face for controlled blasting, a box-​cut (IA) blast meas-
uring 7.7 m by 4.8 m was carried out. The drilling, firing and charging of
holes for the box-​cut blast are detailed in Figure 8.10, and the blast design
parameters are listed in Table 8.5.
iv. After creating the free face through the box-​cut, progressive blasts (IB
and IC) were conducted, utilising the free face established earlier. The
drilling, firing and charging procedures for progressive blasts IB and IC
are outlined in Figures 8.11 and 8.12, respectively. Design parameters for
these blasts are provided in Table 8.6 and Table 8.7.

FIGURE 8.9 Sequence of excavation followed for pier foundation excavation.

173

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 173

FIGURE 8.10 View of charging and firing pattern of box-​cut.

v. The above-​mentioned order of excavation was repeated in the second and

third sequences.
6. Ground vibrations and air overpressure resulting from the foundation blasting
were continuously monitored using digital seismographs near the foundation
of piers of existing bridge and over the bridge.
7. Complete muffling of blasting patch was practised to prevent the danger of
flyrock to the overhead railway structures.
174

174 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 8.5
Blast design parameters for box-​cut (4.8 m x 7.7 m) with jackhammer drills

Design parameters Value

Hole diameter (mm) 34
Burden (m) 0.7–​0.8
Spacing (m) 0.8–​0.9
Depth of hole (m) 1.5
No. of holes 70
Type of explosive Cartridge emulsion explosive (25 mm dia., 200 mm
length and 125 g weight)
Charge per hole (kg) 0.25–​0.375
Charge length (m) 0.4–​0.6
Maximum charge per delay (kg) 1.5
Total charge (kg) 21
Initiation system Nonel initiation system (DTH and TLD)
Stemming length (m) 0.7–​0.9
Deck length (m) 0.2–​0.3
Stemming material Drill cuttings or crushed dust
Blasted volume (m³) 55 (approx.)
Powder factor (kg/​m³) 0.38

FIGURE 8.11 Layout of blastholes and firing sequences for IB, IIB & IIIB steps.
175

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 175

FIGURE 8.11 (Continued)

FIGURE 8.12 Charging pattern of holes for IC, IIC & IIIC.
176

176 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 8.12 (Continued)

TABLE 8.6
Blast design parameters for progressive blast for IB, IIB & IIIB
Design parameters Value
Hole diameter (mm) 34
Burden (m) 0.7–​0.8
Spacing (m) 0.8–​0.9
Depth of hole (m) 1.5
No. of holes 101
Type of explosive Cartridge emulsion explosive (25 mm dia., 200 mm
length and 125 g weight)
Charge per hole (kg) 0.25–​0.375
Charge length (m) 0.4–​0.6
Maximum charge per delay (kg) 1.5
Total charge (kg) 31.75
Initiation system Nonel initiation system (DTH and TLD)
Stemming length (m) 0.7–​0.9
Deck length (m) 0.2–​0.3
Stemming material Drill cuttings or crushed dust
Blasted volume (m³) 91 (approx.)
Powder factor (kg/​m³) 0.35
177

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 177

TABLE 8.7
Blast design parameters for progressive blast IC, IIC & IIIC

Design parameters Value

Hole diameter (mm) 34
Burden (m) 0.7–​0.8
Spacing (m) 0.8–​0.9
Depth of hole (m) 1.5
No. of holes 30
Type of explosive Cartridge emulsion explosive (25 mm dia., 200 mm
length and 125 g weight)
Charge per hole (kg) 0.25–​0.375
Charge length (m) 0.4–​0.6
Maximum charge per delay (kg) 1.5
Total charge (kg) 9.5
Initiation system Nonel initiation system (DTH and TLD)
Stemming length (m) 0.7–​0.9
Deck length (m) 0.2–​0.3
Stemming material Drill cuttings or crushed dust
Blasted volume (m³) 26 (approx.)
Powder factor (kg/​m³) 0.37

8.7 PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO SAFEGUARD STRUCTURES FROM

BLASTING HAZARDS
When conducting blasting operations near structures, it is crucial to implement pre-
ventive measures to safeguard structures from potential hazards. By employing these
measures, the risk of damage or structural compromise can be significantly reduced.
The preventive measures to safeguard structures from blasting hazards are described
in different subsections of this section.

8.7.1 Pre-​blast Surveys
Pre-​blast surveys need to be conducted to assess the existing condition of structures
near the blasting site. This includes documenting the structural integrity, identifying
any pre-​existing cracks or weaknesses and documenting the precise condition of the
structure prior to the blasting operations. Pre-​blast surveys serve as a baseline for
evaluating any potential damages caused by the blasts.

8.7.2 Blast Design Optimisation

The blast design should be optimised to minimise the potential risks to structures. This
involves careful selection of explosive types and diameter, blast pattern, timing and
sequencing of detonations. The blast design should aim to reduce ground vibrations,
178

178 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

air overpressure and flyrock. By adjusting the design parameters, the intensity and
impact of the blasts on structures can be mitigated.

8.7.3 Taking Shelter
It is necessary to establish prohibiting zones around structures to ensure that no indi-
viduals are present within the vicinity during blasting operations. These prohibiting
zones should be clearly marked and effectively communicated to all personnel
involved in the blasting activities. Restricting access to these zones minimises the
risk of injuries and damage to structures.

8.7.4 Protective Measures
Appropriate protective measures need to be implemented to minimise the impact of
blasts on structures. This can include installing blast mats or buffers between the
blasting site and the structures. Blast mats absorb and disperse the energy generated
by the blasts, reducing the transmission of air vibrations and minimising potential
damage to the structures, whereas buffers may be used to prevent the access of flying
fragments to the structures or reducing the impact of collision of debris with the struc-
ture to be protected. Muffling of the entire blasting patch should be followed in each
blast to prevent any chances of flyrock during the blasting. The blasting area should
also be muffled fully and an additional 1.5 m distance on all the four sides. Various
types of blast mats and blast barriers are used to mitigate the risk of flyrock. Some
common types are as follows:

a. Rubber blast mats are constructed from heavy-​duty rubber materials. They are
highly effective in absorbing and containing the energy generated by a blast
and preventing flyrock from being thrown beyond the mat. Rubber mats are
durable and can withstand repeated use. Blast mats made of scraped tyres or
old belt conveyor are shown in Figure 8.13 (a to c).
b. Steel blast mats are made from steel plates or steel mesh. They are particularly
effective in preventing flyrock from escaping, but they are heavier and may
require more effort to install compared to other types of mats. Steel mats are
often used in high-​risk areas where maximum protection is necessary.
c. Wire-​mesh curtains or high-​strength boulder nets (Figure 8.13 (d)) can be
installed to contain flyrock. These curtains are typically made of metal wire
and are placed strategically around the blast area to prevent flyrock from
escaping beyond the designated safety zone.
d. Blast blankets are flexible, heavy-​duty blankets made of materials like Kevlar
or other high-​strength fabrics. They can be dropped over blastholes or be used
to cover vulnerable areas to contain flyrock and debris.
e. Bhagat et al. (2020a) reported that the scraped rubber tyres (Figure 8.13 (e))
were often used in railway slope stabilisation work. They have used these
tyres to cover rail structures like rail tracks and concrete slippers to prevent
damage from the inadvertent arrival of fragments of blasted material from
the upper-​level directional blasting. These tyres are lightweight, easy to carry
manually and can be quickly deployed.
179

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 179

FIGURE 8.13 Different types of muffling arrangement used in rock blasting operations.
180

180 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 8.13 (Continued)

f. Placing of a thick cover of sand/​clay layers over the blasting area is also used
sometimes to control the flyrock.

Further to prevent the damages of structures from the airblast, several types of curtains
and barriers may be used for mitigating the effects of airblast:

a. Blast curtains are specialised curtains designed to absorb and disperse

the energy from an explosion or airblast. They are typically made from
181

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 181

high-​strength materials and can be installed in buildings or other structures to

protect against shockwaves and flying debris.
b. Heavy-​duty barricades and blast walls made from reinforced concrete or steel
can be used to create a physical barrier against airblast. These structures are
often used to protect critical equipment and personnel.
c. The reinforced panels can be added to existing structures to increase their
resistance to airblast. Such panels are commonly used in retrofitting older
buildings to enhance their blast protection capabilities.
d. In some cases, earthen barriers like berms or mounds of soil can be used to
deflect the force of an explosion or airblast.
e. The transparent films can be used in windows to help prevent shattering
during an explosion or airblast. Such films hold the glass together, reducing
the risk of flying glass shards.
f. Similar to blast curtains, blast-​resistant fabrics can be used as curtains or
drapes to absorb and disperse energy from an explosion.

The choice of blast mat or barrier depends on various factors, including the type of
blasting operation, the size of the blast, the expected flyrock distance and budget con-
siderations. It is essential to consult with blasting experts and safety professionals to
determine the most suitable blast containment measures for a given situation.

8.7.5 Vibration and Air Overpressure Monitoring and Control

Vibration monitoring systems to measure and monitor ground vibrations during
blasting operations should be used. Also, air overpressure monitoring systems should
be used to measure and monitor the intensity of air pressure waves generated by the
blasts. Real-​time monitoring allows for immediate adjustments to the blast design
if vibrations exceed the predefined safety thresholds. The accurate predictions of
resulting ground vibrations and air overpressure can also help the blast designers in
optimising the parameters.

8.7.6 Blast Warning Systems

Blast warning systems should be implemented to alert nearby residents and per-
sonnel. Audible and visible warning signals should be used to indicate the imminent
detonation and the need to take necessary precautions. Effective warning systems
ensure that individuals are aware of the upcoming blasts, allowing them to vacate the
area or seek shelter within safe zones.
When blasting operations are conducted near residential zones, timely public
notifications are crucial. Informing residents about the timing and nature of blasts can
help to reduce anxiety and complaints related to air overpressure.

8.7.7 Post-​blast Assessments
The post-​blast assessments may be conducted to evaluate the effects of the blasts on
structures. This includes inspecting the structures for any signs of damage, assessing
182

182 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

the integrity of the foundations, and comparing the post-​blast conditions with the
pre-​blast surveys. Post-​blast assessments provide valuable data for improving future
blasting operations and identifying any necessary repairs or mitigation measures.

8.8 SUMMARY
This chapter discussed the various types of current controlled blasting practices in
close proximity to different kind of structures. Some available alternative methods
are also discussed with their merits and shortcomings. The method of blasting
within 50 metres of structures in mining and construction projects involves two
main approaches: production blasting, emphasising efficient rock breaking and con-
trolled blasting, which focuses on environmental and structural safety. A scientific
approach is vital for safety and damage prevention. This approach involves assessing
site conditions, analysing risks and implementing mitigation measures. Predictive
modelling, using software and empirical formula helps to predict vibrations, air
pressure and flyrock. Test blasts should be conducted to establish a safe vibration
technique for nearby structures. Controlled design parameters, including blasthole
diameter, depth, optimal burden, spacing, patterns, appropriate explosives type and
quantity, deck charging, timing and sequencing must be tailored to meet the object-
ives. Controlled blasting aims to create stable slopes, prevent damage and regulate
undesirable effects. Techniques like line drilling and pre-​ splitting are generally
used for these purposes. By carefully applying these methods, projects can ensure
safety, protect structures and optimise efficiency. Real-​time monitoring of vibration,
air overpressure and flyrock during blasts allows adjustments, validate models and
also ensures that the safety thresholds are not exceeded. Some of the important facts
discussed in this chapter are as follows:

• In the zone between 2 to 20 m from structures, a small geometry blast design

using 32 mm diameter blastholes with line drilling and in combination of
muffling arrangement should be practised. Beyond 20 m, 100 mm diameter
holes with reduced charge were found optimal in industrial settings or structurers
when safe threshold of vibration were 25 mm/​s. However, the study’s applic-
ability may be limited to similar industrial settings and geological conditions,
and results may vary for different projects.
• While ground vibrations remained within permissible limits i.e., 5 mm/​s or
10 mm/​s depending upon the dominant frequency of blast waves, human comfort
levels vary. It has been observed that nearby residents found vibrations below
1.5 mm/​s acceptable but complained above 2 mm/​s. Despite air overpressure
levels being within suggested limits, but noise complaints arose while under-
taking blasts near residential area.
• Various mitigation plans such as specialised blast techniques, complete muffling
of blasting area and installation of protective barriers are discussed in this
chapter and should be implemented based on site conditions and risk analysis.
This systematic approach, beginning with a thorough site assessment to under-
stand the nearby structure’s layout and potential risks, ensures safe blasting
operations while adhering to regulations and minimising damage potential.
183

Blasting in Close Proximity to Structures 183

REFERENCES
Al-​Bakri, A., Hefni, M., 2021. A review of some nonexplosive alternative methods to conven-
tional rock blasting. Open Geosciences, 13(1), 431–​44.
Bhagat, N.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh, M.M., Rana, A., Tewari, S., Singh, P.K., 2020a. Blasting
technique for stabilizing accident-​prone slope for sustainable railway route. Current
Science, 118(6), 901–​909.
Bhagat, N.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh, M.M., Rana, A., Singh, P.K., 2020b. Innovative directional
controlled blasting technique for excavation of unstable slopes along a busy transporta-
tion route: a case study of Konkan Railway in India. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration,
37(3), 833–​850. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​020-​00212-​x.
Bhagat, N.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh, R.K., Sawmliana, C., Singh, P.K., 2022. Application of
logistic regression, CART and random forest techniques in prediction of blast-​induced
slope failure during reconstruction of railway rock-​cut slopes. Engineering Failure
Analysis, 137, 106230.
Dengfeng, S.U., 2019. Analysis on the influence factors of directional controlled blasting
assisted by water jet. Journal of Geological Resource and Engineering, 7, 45–​56.
DGMS (Directorate General of Mines Safety), 1997. S&T Circular No. 7. Damage to the
structures due to blast induced ground vibration in the mining areas. Dhanbad, India, 9–​12.
Gorai, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Santi, C., 2021. Development of ANN-​based universal predictor
for prediction of blast-​induced vibration indicators and its performance comparison with
existing empirical models. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38, 2021–​2036. https://​
doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​461-​021-​00449-​0.
Hagan, T.N., Bulow, B., 2000. Blast designs to protect pit walls. Slope stability in surface
mining. Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc, Littleton, 125–​30.
Heinio, M., 1999. Rock excavation handbook for civil engineering. Sandvik, Tamrock.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Vishwakarma, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K. 2022. Explicit
dynamics based numerical simulation approach for assessment of impact of relief hole
on blast induced deformation pattern in an underground face blast. Geomechanics and
Geophysics for Geo-​ Energy and Geo-​ Resources, 8, 19. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s40​
948-​021-​00327-​5.
Himanshu, V.K., Mishra, A.K., Roy, M.P., Singh, P.K. 2023. Rock–​explosive interaction during
underground blasting. In: Blasting Technology for Underground Hard Rock Mining.
Springer, Singapore. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​981-​99-​2645-​9_​3.
Himanshu, Vivek K., Mishra, A.K., Roy, M.P., Vishwakarma, A.K., Singh, P.K. 2021. Numerical
simulation based approach for assessment of blast induced deformation pattern in slot
raise excavation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 144,
104816. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2021.104​816.
Himanshu, Vivek K., Roy, M.P., Mishra, A.K., Paswan, R.K., Panda, D., Singh, P.K. 2018.
Multivariate statistical analysis approach for prediction of blast-​ induced ground
vibration. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11(16), 460. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​
517-​018-​3796-​8.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L., Carcedo, F.J.A., 1995. Drilling and blasting of rocks Rotterdam,
Netherlands, CRC Press, A.A. Balkema, 391.
Mishra, A.K., Nigam, Y.K., Singh, D.R., 2017. Controlled blasting in a limestone mine using
electronic detonators: a case study. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 89, 87–​90.
Naveen, G.C., Balachander, R., Gopinath, G.P., Venkatesh, H.S., 2016. Controlled blasting
in proximity to urban residential structures. In Recent Advances in Rock Engineering
(RARE 2016), Bengaluru, India. Atlantis Press, 522–​ 529. https://​doi.org/​10.2991/​
rare-​16.2016.84.
184

184 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Rustan, A., 1998. Rock blasting terms and symbols. A dictionary of symbols and terms in rock
blasting and related areas like drilling, mining and rock mechanics. CRC Press, London.
https://​doi.org/​10.1201/​978146​6571​785.
Singh, R.K., Sawmliana, C., Hembram, P, 2020. Damage threat to sensitive structures of a
thermal power plant from hard rock blasting operations in track hopper area: a case
study. International Journal of Protective Structures, 11(1), 3–​22.
185

9 Blasting Techniques
for Road Construction
in Hilly Terrain

9.1 INTRODUCTION
Roads play a crucial role in the development of regions, serving as a reliable and cost-​
effective means of transportation. They connect remote and challenging terrains like
hilly and rural areas to urban areas, facilitating the movement of people and goods.
Hilly terrains, with their fragile ecosystems and delicate geological formations,
pose unique challenges for roadway construction. The need for road construction is
urgent, especially in remote hilly regions, as the nation undergoes significant devel-
opment. To shape these hilly terrains for road construction, controlled blasting is
often employed. Blasting in hilly terrain is accompanied by substantial challenges,
including the potential for rockfalls, landslides and other hazards, as well as concerns
about the long-​term sustainability of the constructed roads. Ross and Reeves (1995)
said that rock faces having disturbed rock mass are generally unstable and often
require extensive and expensive remedial maintenance. They felt a need not only to
design a slope to minimise the natural instability but also to use an excavation tech-
nique which does not damage the final face. Kumar et al. (2010) reported a significant
number of accidents and fatalities on the Mumbai–​Pune mountainous expressway
due to incidents of rockfall and landslides. Harber et al. (2011) described how the
final rock slope faces created by bulk blasting, even using the standard design tech-
nique, can become unstable due to the blast-​induced damage. They need remedial
measures and significant maintenance during their expected engineering life. Youssef
et al. (2012) reported that the Raidah escarpment road situated in the mountainous
area (9 km length) of Saudi Arabia is experiencing slides and rockfalls frequently and
needs stabilisation. In one of the scientific studies, Mignelli et al. (2014) reported that
the rock slopes situated alongside many kilometres of roads are prone to rockfalls and
need proper mitigation.
Similar rockfall problems are also frequently observed along hundreds of
kilometres of slopes alongside roadways and railways in India, which have caused
several accidents and traffic delays. Ansari et al. (2015) summarised 27 cases of
rockfall hazards that have occurred since 1970 alongside roadways, highways and
railways on hilly terrains in India, causing more than 500 deaths and thousands of
injuries with substantial monetary and time loss. Kainthola et al. (2015) also reported
that slope failures along hill-​cut road slopes are the major source of nuisance for

DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-9 185

186

186 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

commuters and highway planners as they put human lives at tremendous risk, coupled
with immense monetary losses. Graham et al. (2016) described that a well-​engineered
Glyn Bends Road cut slope (up to 31 m deep and up to 70° slopes angle) situated
in Wales created using pre-​splitting blasting with rock anchorage support became
unstable after just six years of commissioning. The road was closed on public safety
grounds in May 2006 for almost one year apprehending anchorage failures, stability
and semi-​quantitative risk. Ersoz and Topal (2018) have reported that cut slopes are
prone to fail due to the disturbance of original geometry and strength. Besides these
disturbances and stress relief, natural apertures which increase weathering effects
keep on increasing over time. Muceku and Jaupaj (2018) studied the landslide prob­
ability on the Milot–​Kukas mountainous motorway (having 78 per cent cut slopes) in
Albania and reported that, due to intensive excavations done during its construction,
many of the slopes have become unstable now. During and after rainfalls, on both
sides of the motorway, several rock falls and rock slides have occurred and increased
the risk of accidents.
Bhagat et al. (2020) reported cases of slope failure and landslide along the
important Konkan railway route in India. Many accidents, derailments and traffic
interruptions have occurred due to unstable rock slopes. In their study, they found
that traditional stability enhancement measures, such as wire netting, rock bolting and
shotcreting, were insufficient to mitigate the slope failures and rockfalls effectively.
However, changing the slope angle from 80–​82° to 45–​47° eliminated the probability
of wedge, planar and toppling failures. This indicated the importance of proper slope
design and engineering to prevent future incidents.
Controlled blasting in hilly terrain emerges as a vital practice, ensuring the safety
of workers, environmental protection, the preservation of existing structures and the
optimisation of construction operations. Blasting techniques for road construction
in hilly terrain involve the controlled use of explosives to break up and remove rock
masses, allowing for the creation of road alignments, embankments and cut slopes.
These techniques play a crucial role in overcoming the inherent difficulties associated
with the hard rock formations encountered in hilly terrains. Blasting techniques for
road construction in hilly terrain incorporate a range of methods tailored to the specific
geological conditions and project requirements. Pre-​splitting, line drilling, smooth
blasting, cushion blasting and trim blasting are among the commonly employed
techniques that enable controlled rock fragmentation, precise excavation and slope
stabilisation. In a scientific study, PalRoy et al. (2023) discussed the challenges and
strategies involved in rock blasting for road construction in hilly terrains, emphasising
the need for meticulous planning, task evaluation and impact assessment. Controlled
blasting is crucial to confine rock fragments and debris within a specified area and
to assess ground vibrations and air overpressure, particularly in landslide-​prone or
densely built regions. Their research presents four case studies from Mizoram and
Sikkim states in India, showcasing successful road construction projects that required
careful attention to minimise risks to personnel, property and structures. The key
techniques employed include smooth wall blasting, wooden spacers, controlled blast
sizes, systematic charge distribution, selective use of delay detonators, rigorous
monitoring and improving public awareness of blast impacts.
187

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 187

The various techniques discussed above are designed to optimise the excavation
process, minimise damage to the surrounding rock mass and ensure the long-​term
stability and functionality of the constructed road. The economic aspect also plays a
significant role. Properly executed controlled blasting minimises material wastage,
reduces the need for secondary drilling and blasting and prevents accidents or damage
that could lead to expensive repairs or legal liabilities. The key problems associated
with blasting in hilly regions for road construction are as follows:

a) Safety is paramount when conducting blasting operations in hilly areas. The

risk of rockfalls, landslides and accidents is significantly higher due to the
steep slopes and fragile geological formations. Ensuring the safety of workers
and nearby communities is a top concern.
b) Hilly terrains often host sensitive ecosystems, original watersheds and unique
geological features. Blasting can disrupt these ecosystems, lead to soil erosion
and contaminate water bodies if not carefully managed. Controlling the envir-
onmental impact is crucial.
c) Blasting generates ground vibrations and noise that can affect nearby
structures including homes, bridges and historical sites. Striking a balance
between construction progress and minimising these disturbances is a con-
tinual challenge.
d) Blasting can trigger landslides in hilly areas, leading to project delays,
increased costs and potential environmental damage. Understanding the
geological factors that contribute to landslides and implementing mitigation
measures is essential.
e) Proper resource management, including the efficient use of explosives and
controlled blasting techniques, is vital for reducing waste and controlling
costs. This requires expertise and precision in planning and execution.
f) Engaging with local communities and addressing their concerns regarding
blasting operations, noise and safety is essential for maintaining positive
public relations and minimising conflicts.
g) Ensuring the long-​term sustainability of road infrastructure in hilly regions is
a multifaceted challenge. This involves considering the impact of blasting on
the environment and the stability of constructed roads over time.

This chapter aims to explore and analyse the various blasting techniques utilised for
road construction in hilly terrain. It will investigate the geological considerations that
influence the choice of blasting methods, discuss the advantages and limitations of
each technique and highlight best practices for safe and efficient implementation.
By considering the geological conditions, employing appropriate blasting techniques
and adhering to safety protocols, road construction in hilly terrains can overcome
the geological obstacles and contribute to the development of efficient transportation
networks in mountainous regions. By understanding the details of blasting techniques
in hilly terrains, engineers and construction practitioners can enhance their know-
ledge and decision-​making processes, ultimately leading to improved road construc-
tion outcomes in challenging topographic conditions.
188

188 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

9.2 UNDERSTANDING GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL

CHALLENGES
In their scientific investigation, Pradhan and Siddique (2020) identified a recurring
issue of slope instability within hilly terrains, predominantly arising from unpremedi-
tated rock slope excavations associated with construction, infrastructure develop-
ment, road network expansion and frequently employing blasting techniques.
The undertaking of road construction in hilly regions presents a formidable
challenge due to the distinctive topographical characteristics, fluctuating hill slopes
and diverse rock strata conditions. This issue is most pronounced in the Himalayan
states of India, where the road network is primarily constrained to mountainous terrain,
rendering it particularly vulnerable to persistent slope instability. Various challenges
associated with the hilly road construction are described in various subsections of
this section.

9.2.1 Geological and Geotechnical Factors

In India, many road development projects are in the Himalayan region and Western
Ghat region. The Himalayas are a young and active mountain range, which means
they are still changing. This makes it quite challenging to build new roads and upgrade
existing ones to cater for the increasing demand of traffic.
Construction agencies face several natural obstacles like landslides, rocks falling,
the ground sinking, soil turning into liquid and the weather causing rocks to break
down due to frost. Additionally, geological features like faults, shear zones, bending
rocks (synclines) and arching rocks (anticlines) also impact road construction work.
Earthquake-​related factors, known as seismo-​tectonic factors, also have significant
influence in this complex situation (Pandey, 2018).

9.2.2 Landslide
Globally, landslides are a common occurrence along hilly roads and highways. Many
existing highways have experienced landslides in the past. These landslides are the
result of a combination of geological, geomorphological, meteorological and hydro-
logical factors. These factors include heavy rainfall, snowmelt, changes in pore water
pressure due to saturation during torrential rainfall and erosion of the road base by
waterbodies.
Rock falls typically happen in areas with closely spaced and steeply dipping joints
in the rock formations. Planar and wedge failures occur when joint planes intersect in
an adverse manner. Landslides can also occur in areas with thick colluvium deposits,
which consist of cobbles, boulders, silty sand and clay sand soil. These deposits
increase the risk of liquefaction when they become saturated with water.

9.2.3 Hill Slope
In hilly terrain, the slope angles can vary significantly, presenting a challenging land-
scape for road construction and infrastructure development. These slopes often range
189

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 189

FIGURE 9.1 Steep hill slope having unstable rock mass towards an existing road.

from 30° to 40° and can even approach near-​vertical angles (Figure 9.1). Such vari­
ability in hill slope angles can make it difficult to plan and design safe and stable
roads. Furthermore, these hill slopes are often characterised by their angular nature.
They may be covered with overburden colluvium, which consists of loose, unconsoli-
dated material that has accumulated over time due to gravity and weathering
processes (Figure 9.2). The presence of colluvium adds to the complexity of construc­
tion, as it may be prone to erosion and instability, especially during heavy rainfall or
snowmelt events.
One of the significant challenges faced in hilly terrains is the unpredictable orien-
tation of rock joints. Rock joints are natural fractures or cracks in the rock formations,
and their orientation plays a crucial role in determining the stability of slopes. In these
terrains, the orientation of rock joints can be highly irregular and unestablished, fur-
ther complicating the construction process. Engineers and geologists must carefully
assess and manage these geological complexities to ensure the safety and longevity
of road infrastructure in hilly regions.
In summary, the variability in hill slope angles, the presence of colluvium and
the unpredictable orientation of rock joints are all key geological factors that add to
the complexity and difficulty of road construction and infrastructure development in
hilly terrain.

9.2.4 Hydro-​meteorological Disasters
Hilly areas, particularly in India, experience a highly variable climate, which brings
about a range of challenges to infrastructure development. The monsoon season, for
190

190 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 9.2 Hill slopes of angular nature covered with overburden colluvium.

instance, is a period of heightened risk in these regions. Landslides, cloud bursts

and floods are common occurrences during this time, and the local population faces
these challenges year after year. These hydro-​meteorological disasters are primarily
triggered by heavy rainfall and, in some areas, heavy snowfall. The combination of
steep terrain and excessive precipitation can lead to the saturation of slopes, resulting
in landslides and flooding that can severely disrupt transportation networks and pose
significant threats to public safety.
In addition to the immediate impacts of these disasters, the climatic conditions
in hilly areas also exert a long-​term influence on the road infrastructure. Frost
weathering, a process in which freezing and thawing cycles cause rocks and soils
to break down, can have a detrimental effect on roads. When water trapped in rock
cracks or within the road surface freezes, it expands, putting pressure on surrounding
materials. Over time, this can lead to the cracking and disintegration of road surfaces,
posing a considerable maintenance challenge.
Moreover, when the ice melts, the soil beneath the roads may become saturated,
leading to thaw settlement. This process can result in the sinking of the road sur-
face, further compromising its integrity and creating hazardous driving conditions.
Repeated cycles of freezing and thawing can alter the structure of the soil, making
it less stable and reducing its bearing capacity. This makes road maintenance an
ongoing and demanding task in hilly areas with freezing winters.
In conclusion, the climatic conditions in hilly regions, characterised by monsoon-​
induced disasters, heavy snowfall and frost weathering, pose significant challenges
to road infrastructure. These challenges require innovative engineering solutions
like tunnels to ensure safe and efficient transportation, mitigate the risks of natural
disasters and enhance the connectivity of hilly areas.
191

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 191

9.3 PLANNING FOR HILLY ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND

CONSTRAINTS
To address challenges and ensure the continuity of transportation routes in hilly
regions, various infrastructure solutions are being considered. Different type of pro-
tection works is applied according to geological strata and joint orientation. Step-​
wise slope excavation, rock net, anchoring, shotcrete, retaining/​breast wall, cladding
wall, box-​type road cover, rock fall barrier and bio-​engineering procedures are some
important methods which may be used to protect the hill slope. One prominent
solution is the construction of tunnels. Tunnels provide a means to bypass some of
the most dangerous sections of hilly terrain, reducing the vulnerability of roads to
landslides and weather-​related damage. They also help in shortening travel distances
and improving connectivity, which is especially important in remote and mountainous
areas. A long-​span bridge is the second best solution if stable foundation rock is in
higher depth.
Effective road planning and design, especially in high-​slope instability areas, are
imperative to address these concerns. The task of constructing and widening existing
two-​lane highways to four lanes in hilly terrain, particularly in the lower Himalayas
with fragile geology, presents significant challenges. The key issues are:

1. Hilly terrain with delicate geology makes four-​lane road-​widening a risky

endeavour. Excavation in these areas frequently triggers slope instabilities,
endangering both the hillside and valley side. Without proper geological
and geotechnical investigations, this can lead to safety and cost-​ related
consequences.
2. Construction and widening in hilly areas are inherently more expensive than
in flat regions. Unfortunately, these cost estimates are often not adequately
considered in the initial project-​planning stages, leading to issues during
construction.
3. Detailed project reports (DPRs) are sometimes rushed, lacking thorough geo-
technical investigations. Additionally, cut slope protection measures are not
adequately detailed, causing problems during construction due to a lack of
professional guidance.
4. Detailed topographic, geological/​ geotechnical and hydrological
investigations are frequently overlooked. This omission can hinder the
achievement of project milestones, particularly concerning cut slope
stability.
5. Traditional excavation methods are often employed without considering crit-
ical factors like slope angle, strata strength and geological discontinuities.
This can result in instability during excavation and even man-​made landslides
on mountainous highways.
6. Land acquisition for a right-​of-​way (ROW) is challenging in hilly and gorge-​
ridden terrain. Inadequate ROW width can make it difficult to stabilise hill-​
cut slopes, leading to the need for additional protection measures. Forest
clearance issues within the ROW can also delay construction.
192

192 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

7. Planning horizontal and vertical alignments in mountainous terrain with steep

relief and rugged topography can be problematic. Acquiring an adequate
ROW to ensure proper curvature and cut slope angles while adhering to design
standards is challenging.
8. Incomplete geotechnical/​geological investigations and poor planning can lead
to hill-​cut slopes being destabilised or even highways being washed away.
Proper planning and documentation of cut slope sections based on geological
and geotechnical data are essential.
9. The development of four-​lane roads in the Himalayas requires skilled and
experienced professionals due to its complexity. Adequate expertise in hilly
project management is crucial for timely execution.
10. The Himalayan terrain is prone to natural calamities such as landslides
triggered by heavy rain, cloud bursts, snowfall and earthquakes. These pose
significant risks during construction and highway widening.
11. Often, drainage planning is neglected, leading to inadequate vertical and hori-
zontal drainage. Proper drainage is crucial for the long-​term sustainability of
highway projects.

In conclusion, the construction and widening of highways in hilly terrain present

numerous challenges, ranging from geological fragility to alignment issues and
inadequate planning. While road networks are vital for the economic and social
development of hilly regions, responsible construction practices and environmental
stewardship are imperative. Addressing these issues requires careful consideration,
professional expertise and comprehensive geological and geotechnical investigations
from the early stages of project planning to ensure the safety and success of these
endeavours.

9.3.1 Road Alignment and Design Specifications

The cross section of a road in a hilly terrain is determined by the original ground slope
of the site, the slope of the road formation, width of roadway, side drain size, shape
and so on. Primarily, hilly road alignment may follow a river route at the bottom of
a valley with a gentle gradient and a ridge route with a very steep gradient. A typical
road cross section is shown in Figure 9.3. Various types of hilly road cross section are
illustrated in Figures 9.4 and are discussed below:

a) Cut and fill roads involve the process of excavating into the sides of hills or
mountains to establish a level roadbed, with the excavated material subse-
quently repurposed to fill lower-​lying areas, thereby creating a relatively flat
road surface. The optimisation of the cut and fill section plays a pivotal role
and proves to be not only cost-​effective but also environmentally advanta-
geous. Typically, the volume of material cut is balanced by the volume of
material filled.
newgenrtpdf
193
Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 193
FIGURE 9.3 Typical cross sections of 2-​lane highway. (IRC:SP:73-​2015.)
194

194 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 9.4 Types of hilly road cross sections.

b) Switchback roads, also known as hairpin turns or zigzag roads, feature sharp
curves and steep gradients to climb or descend steep mountainsides. These
roads use a series of switchbacks to gradually ascend or descend the slope.
c) In cases when cutting through the mountain is more practical than navigating
its slopes, tunnels are constructed. Tunnel roads are carved through the rock,
allowing for a straighter route.
195

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 195

FIGURE 9.4 (Continued)

d) Viaducts are elevated sections of a road supported by pillars or piers. They are
used to span deep gorges, rivers or other challenging terrain features.
e) Bypass roads are constructed to avoid particularly difficult or hazardous
sections of the terrain. They provide a safer and less steep alternative route.
f) Spiral roads are similar to switchback roads but use a circular or spiral pattern
to gradually ascend or descend steep terrain.
g) Cantilever roads use structural supports to extend a roadbed beyond the edge
of a steep slope. This technique helps to widen the road or create an overhang
for better navigation.
196

196 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

These roads are designed to traverse high mountain passes, often at significant
altitudes. The choice of hilly road formation depends on factors such as the topog-
raphy, geological conditions, budget and the intended use of the road.

9.3.2 Determination of Safe Slope Angle

Various research work highlights the significance of considering both slope inclin-
ation and slope height when assessing slope stability, particularly in the context of
road cutting. A study suggests that guidelines for road cutting should encompass a
range of cutting heights, namely 5, 10, 20 and 30 metres, to adequately represent the
potential variability in the area (Robson et al., 2022). The research emphasises that
the required factor of safety (FoS) for road cuttings varies, depending on factors such
as traffic volume and the potential social and economic consequences of failure. In
areas of heavy traffic, where the repercussions of failure are more severe, it is advis-
able to design cuttings with higher FoS values. Conversely, in areas of less heavy
traffic with lower potential consequences, a lower FoS may be acceptable.
To accommodate these differing risk levels, the guidelines should include at least
two FoS values. One FoS value should be for roads where failure carries low social
and economic consequences, while the other should represent road cuttings with
greater consequences, such as those in areas of heavy traffic.
Various sources, including Lawrence and Hearn (1997), the US Army Corps
of Engineers (2003) and the WSDOT Geotechnical Office (2022), have provided
recommendations on FoS values. For high-​consequence situations, a FoS of 1.2–​
1.3 is considered appropriate. In cases with small uncertainty and consequences of
failure, a FoS of 1.3 may be acceptable, but larger uncertainties and consequences
demand a higher FoS. Additionally, Trenter (2001) presents a table outlining FoS
values for cut slopes, suggesting that the minimum FoS for a cutting with low envir-
onmental and economic risk should be 1.3, while the highest FoS for a cutting with
high environmental and economic risk should be 1.5. This approach allows for flexi-
bility in designing road cuttings that align with the level of risk associated with spe-
cific locations and traffic conditions.

9.4 DRILLING MACHINERY
Drilling is a critical phase of the process in the construction of hilly roads, as it involves
creating holes in the rock where explosives will be placed. In general, handheld jack-
hammer drill machines (Figure 9.5) are well-​suited for heavy-​duty applications such
as construction operations but require an air compressor to operate. This drill machine
is used due to ease in operation at higher elevation, and in remote and inaccessible
locations, for making ramps and spaces for operating other machinery. This machine
can drill a hole of 32 to 38 mm diameter of about 2.4 m depth easily.
Further, air push-​leg jackhammer drill machines capable of drilling horizontal
blastholes are commonly used in road construction work. This type of jackhammer
operates with the assistance of compressed air and a push-​leg mechanism, making it
particularly useful when horizontal drilling is demanded. The primary power source
for an air push-​leg jackhammer is compressed air. It relies on a separate air compressor
197

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 197

FIGURE 9.5 Different types of drilling machine.

unit to generate the necessary high-​pressure air supply for operation. The push-​leg is
typically a robust metal frame that the operator pushes down with their body weight
to assist in the drilling process. The push-​leg mechanism provides operators with
precise control over the drilling process, allowing them to apply the right amount
of force for the task at hand. This mechanism helps to reduce operator fatigue and
improve drilling efficiency.
The combination of compressed air and the push-​leg mechanism enhances drilling
speed and efficiency, reducing the time required to complete drilling and breaking
198

198 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 9.5 (Continued)

tasks. However, proper training and safety precautions are vital for safe and effective
operation.
Crawler-​mounted surface drilling rigs are also used for blasthole drilling in road
construction projects. The hole diameter ranges between 45–​115 mm (Figures 9.5).
These top hammers and down-​the-​hole drilling rig machines can handle steep slopes
and rough terrain efficiently and can drill a hole of 15 m depth or even more.
199

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 199

9.5 SELECTION OF EXPLOSIVES AND ACCESSORIES

The choice of explosives depends on various factors, including rock hardness, desired
fragmentation and environmental considerations. Common explosives used in road
construction work include emulsion explosives of 25/​40 mm diameter in cartridge
form. The specification of such 25 mm diameter cartridge emulsion explosive is given
in Table 9.1. In some cases, large diameter –​i.e. 83 mm –​slurry is used for 102/​
115 mm drill diameter holes. The specification of such 83 mm diameter cartridge
slurry explosive is given in Table 9.2.

9.5.1 Initiation System
In general, for initiating the explosive column a non-​electric (nonel) initiation system
consisting of down-​the-​hole (DTH) delay detonators of 200/​225/​250/​275/​400/​450 ms
timing and trunkline delay (TLD) connectors of 17, 25 and 42 ms timing is used to
provide true bottom initiation and noiseless surface initiation of holes. The specifica-
tion of the nonel system of initiation is given in Table 9.3. Further, in the absence of a
non-​electric system of initiation, detonating cord (PETN –​10 g/​m; VoD –​6500±500
m/​s) in combination with cord relay (25/​50 ms) is also used. Detonating cord is also
used to separate the different decks of explosives within blastholes to distribute the

TABLE 9.1
Technical specifications of emulsion explosive (25 mm diameter)

Parameters Range/​Value
Explosive type Emulsion
Length (mm) 200
Weight of one cartridge (g) 125
Density (g/​cc) 1.2±0.05
Velocity of detonation (m/​s) 4000±400
Sensitivity No. 6 strength electric detonator/​detonating cord (10 g/​m)
Water resistance Excellent

TABLE 9.2
Technical specifications of slurry explosive (83 mm diameter)

Parameters Range/​Value
Explosive type Slurry
Weight (kg) 2.78
Density (g/​cc) 1.15±0.1
Velocity of detonation (m/​s) 4200±500
Sensitivity No. 6 strength electric detonator/​detonating cord (10 g/​m)
Water resistance Excellent
200

200 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 9.3
Specification of Nonel initiation system (DTH and TLD)

Nominated delay (ms) Length (m) Acceptable limit (time in milliseconds)

200 to 450 3–​10 250/​275/​450 ± 10
17 3–​5 17 ± 5
25 3–​5 25 ± 5
42 3–​5 42 ± 5

explosive charge uniformly to minimise overbreak, especially in perimeter holes and

to control throw of blast.
To achieve good blast results, the quality of explosive should be consistent. It is
necessary to ensure that the performance and quality of an explosive system are the
same as those predicated or stated by the explosive supplier.

9.6 SELECTION OF METHODOLOGY FOR ROAD

CONSTRUCTION
Road construction in hilly areas primarily fall into two categories: (1) upgrading
existing narrow roads to meet higher capacity standards, and (2) constructing entirely
new roads. In the first category, which involves widening existing roads, engineers
employ various techniques to ensure road safety and functionality within hilly terrains.
Whereas, in the second category, constructing new roads in hilly terrain follows a sys-
tematic excavation process that prioritises safety and stability. The sequence of exca-
vation steps is discussed in subsections of this section.

9.6.1 Topsoil and Soft Rock Removal

Initially, the top layer of soils is removed using excavators. This layer typically
contains organic matter, vegetation and loose materials and its removal establishes
a clear foundation for subsequent construction activities. Mechanical excavators are
then employed to clear loose rocks from the construction site. This step is crucial for
eliminating potential hazards and creating a safer working environment for construc-
tion personnel.

9.6.2 Occasional Blasting
In cases where hard rock formations obstruct road construction, spot drilling and
blasting with explosives is employed. This operation entails the controlled utilisation
of explosives to eliminate isolated boulders and rock formations obstructing road
expansion. The blasting pattern is planned mostly using the 34 mm drill diameter with
25 mm explosive diameters and executed to break down hard rock into manageable
pieces, facilitating excavation and creating a suitable roadbed. The depth of holes
generally varies between 0.75 and 1.5 m, and explosive between 0.062 and 0.375 kg
201

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 201

per hole. The specific charge factor varies between 0.05 and 0.2 kg/​m3. Controlled use
of explosive charge ensures safety during the rock fragmentation process.

9.6.3 Formation Cutting for Hilly Roads

Formation cutting for the construction of new roads is a crucial process that relies
heavily on bench blasting techniques. These techniques serve a dual purpose: enhan-
cing road stability and ensuring the safety of both construction workers and future
road users. The first step in this process involves proper benching. Benching not only
lays the foundation for a stable road but also allows for the expansion of the road’s
width, smoothly transitioning from the upper to the lower slope. Safety remains para-
mount throughout the process. To achieve the desired level of safety, engineers care-
fully consider the hill slope angle and the number of benches, with berms added as
protective barriers depending upon the height of hill slope. This safety factor should
be more than 1.3, ensuring that the road’s stability is not compromised.

9.6.3.1 Trench or through Cut for Hilly Roads

In this method of road cutting, the process begins with the construction of ramps,
gradually ascending the hill’s face. Subsequently, vertical holes are drilled to reach
the desired excavation level. The success of formation cutting relies heavily on con-
trolled blasting techniques. These techniques include pre-​splitting or line drilling,
which helps to create clean fracture lines, smooth blasting to minimise vibrations and
instability and trimming of slopes to achieve desired angles. Delay detonators are
employed to break the rock effectively, preventing excessive damage and ensuring a
controlled detonation. Furthermore, for the perimeter holes, a method called decked
charging is employed. This technique aims to create a stable excavated slope by stra-
tegically distributing explosive charges. Typical bench blasting design parameters
and drilling and firing sequences using 34 mm drill diameters for creating trench for
road formation are illustrated in Figure 9.6 and Table 9.4.
Towards the slope’s end, a rock ledge or an embankment is strategically left or
constructed respectively. This natural or created safety wall, typically 2–​3 m wide and
1.5–​2.5 m high, serves as a protective barrier to prevent the rolling of boulders from
higher elevations (Figure 9.7). Later this barrier rock ledge is excavated, using either
excavators or spot blasting with a critical charge factor (<0.1 kg/​m3) to just crack the
rock mass without any displacement.
Larger hole diameters (preferably less than 115 mm) with 3 to 6 m depths can also
be used for faster progress. Typical blast design parameters and drilling, firing and
charging patterns are shown in Figure 9.8 and Table 9.4.

9.6.3.2 Blast-​induced Gravity Fall Excavation Method

In this method, horizontal holes are drilled from the existing or proposed road level
into the cutting slope. The lower portion of the slope is then blasted, causing the
top, unblasted portion to collapse. This technique can be used for both types of road
construction, i.e. driving new and widening the existing road. The most important
concern in this method is the height of slope to be excavated. The slope height
202

202 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 9.6 Drilling, firing and charging pattern using small diameter holes for benching
of road.

TABLE 9.4
Blast design parameters for benching in roads

Blast design parameters Values

Drill diameter (mm) 100–​115 45–​51 34 –​38
Explosive diameter (mm) 83 40 25
Hole depth (m) 3–​6 2.5–​4 0.75–​2.4
Burden (m) 1.75 to 2 1–​1.2 0.7 to 0.9
Spacing (m) 1.5 to 2.5 1.2–​1.5 0.8 to 1
Explosive charge/​hole (kg) 11–​20 kg 1.35–​2.5 0.062 to 0.75
Initiation system Option 1: DTH –​200 to 450 ms; TLD=​17/​25/​42 ms
Option 2: Non-​electric delay (NED) detonators (0 to 15 Nos.)
Option 3: Detonating cord & cord relays of 17/​25/​42/​50 ms
Option 4: Electronic detonators

should not exceed the maximum reach of the excavator being used, and thereby
blasted materials can be safely removed up to the required excavation height. It is
also important to carefully assess the risk of overhanging rock formation, as the
unexcavated portion may pose dangers. The effectiveness of blasting depends not
only on the chosen method but also on the nature of the rock deposit. Rock strata
dipping toward or parallel to the cutting slope facilitate easy collapse of the upper
portion of the rock mass, while strata dipping against it can result in poor breakage
203

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 203

FIGURE 9.7 Construction of new hilly road after leaving 2 to 3 m rock ledge and creating
gabion wall.

with overhanging rock. The strike direction of rock strata can also influence blasting
effectiveness.
Figure 9.9 presents a typical case of a shallow hill where the top portion, consisting
of soil and weathered rock mass, was planned to be removed using excavators (Stage
I), and the bottom portion of hard rock formation using horizontal drilling and blasting
(Stage II). Hole diameters of 34 mm (drilling with a jackhammer) or 45 to 51 mm
(drilling with a roll-​on crawler (ROC)) were proposed to be used for this purpose.
Depth of hole varied from 1.5 to 4 m, depending on the requirement and capability of
the drilling equipment. Figure 9.10 depicts the blasting pattern for new road forma­
tion in hilly terrain using this technique.
The blast-​induced gravity fall method is also used to widen an existing road
in hilly terrain. In this method, blastholes in a specific layout are drilled from the
existing level of road into the side hill slopes to induce the fall of the upper portion
of hill slope. A layout of blastholes is illustrated in Figure 9.11. The selection
of this technique depends on various factors, with a primary consideration being
the cutting slope’s height. Generally, it is advisable to limit the cutting slope’s
height to 10–​12 m or the maximum reach of the excavator deployed at the site.
This restriction ensures safe excavation and minimises the risk of overhanging
rock formations, while also reducing the chances of damaging unexcavated slopes.
However, slope stability issues may arise during and after road construction using
this method.
204

204 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 9.8 Drilling, firing and charging pattern of holes for trench creation using 115 mm
drill diameters.
205

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 205

FIGURE 9.9 Sequence of excavation of new hilly road being constructed using blast-​induced
gravity fall method.

FIGURE 9.10 Drilling, firing and charging pattern of holes for gravity fall method.
 newgenrtpdf
206
206
Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting
FIGURE 9.11 Layout of blastholes for widening of hill roads using blast-​induced gravity fall method.
207

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 207

9.6.4 Widening by Benching Method

Benching is considered the safest method for road widening. Initially, ramps are
made parallel to the existing road to reach the top of the hill, then lowered to the
desired excavation level by drilling vertical holes (Figure 9.12). The necessary hill
slope angle and number of benches with berms are created to have the desired level
of safety. This strategy involves the creation of horizontal terraces or steps within the
slope’s surface. These terraces serve to prevent soil erosion, mitigate landslide risks
and avert rockfall onto the road.
A case study of road widening at Durtlang-​Leitan in Mizoram State of India
has been reported by Sawmliana et al. (2008). Their work focused on the specific
controlled blasting operation which intersects a rock formation perpendicular to its
strike direction. This orientation provided stability advantages for the excavated wall.
However, due to limited space for widening, maintaining a smaller slope angle was
challenging, as it would reduce road width. A slope angle of 80° was chosen for con-
trol overbreak and a smooth wall. It was reduced to 70° in some portions of the road
having more joint sets.
The proximity of residential houses and important buildings restricted the use of
larger blasthole diameters, which would generate higher ground vibrations and make
flyrock control difficult. The study site had significant traffic movement, preventing
the use of drilling rig machines, leading to the use of handheld jackhammer drill
machines powered by air compressors. To achieve a smooth and stable wall, the
smooth blasting technique was chosen.

FIGURE 9.12 Creation of ramp for widening of road by benching method.

208

208 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

TABLE 9.5
Blast design parameters used for road widening at
Durtlang-​Leitan

S.no. Blast design parameters Value

01 Blasthole diameter 32 mm
02 Hole depth 1.524 m
03 Burden for production rows 0.85 m
04 Burden for perimeter rows 0.70 m
05 Spacing (production rows) 0.85–​0.90 m
06 Spacing (buffer rows) 0.75–​0.80 m
07 Spacing (perimeter rows) 0.35–​0.45 m
08 Top stemming 0.75–​0.90 m
09 Charge/​hole (production rows) 0.38–​0.44 kg
10 Charge/​hole (buffer rows) 0.31–​0.38 kg
11 Charge/​hole (perimeter rows) 0.073–​0.105 kg

Source: Sawmliana et al. (2008).

The main objectives of the controlled blasting operation were to control ground
vibration, flyrock, noise and overbreak. Various blast design parameters, drilling
patterns and charging sequences were employed to achieve these objectives.
Emulsion explosive of 25 mm diameter was used, and specific charges varied based
on row type and location in the widening blasts. Blast design parameters used are
shown in Table 9.5. The drilling, charging and firing pattern of holes are shown
in Figure 9.13. Light explosive charges were used in perimeter holes to prevent
overbreak, and top stemming lengths were also adjusted to prevent flyrock. Muffling
techniques, such as conveyor belts and sandbags, were employed to further reduce
the risk of flyrock.
In another study conducted in the Midumkham area in Mizoram State of India,
Sawmliana et al. (2012) addressed various challenges associated with the widening of
an existing road. The initial road had an average width of 3.5 m and weak foundations,
and utilised locally made retaining walls or steel girders for support in certain areas.
The desired final width for the road was 8.5 m on straight sections and 9.5–​10.0
m on curved portions. The project encountered obstacles, such as high walls, steep
gradients and geological disturbances.
The methodology adopted for widening the road involved creating a ramp from
lower-​lying slopes, advancing toward untouched areas and eventually lowering the
ramp to the existing road level. The goal was to achieve the desired road grade. To
excavate the final slope of the road, the researchers used the smooth wall blasting
technique. Controlled blasting was chosen over pre-​splitting, due to inherent joint
planes and complex geological formations. Handheld jackhammer drill machines
were used with 32 mm diameter blastholes. Short-​delay detonators and specific firing
patterns were employed to control ground vibrations and flyrock. Emulsion and slurry
explosives were used in cartridge form.
209

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 209

FIGURE 9.13 Drilling, charging and firing pattern for road widening at Durtlang-​Leitan.
(Sawmliana et al., 2008.)

In softer rock areas, where excessive overbreak occurred, bamboo spacers were
introduced in perimeter holes to create air-​decks and distribute explosion pressure
uniformly. This improved the quality of controlled blasting, resulting in over 85 per
cent half-​cast factors and faster progress.
The road-​widening project covered a total length of 1.95 km and was success-
fully completed using controlled blasting techniques. The average final road width
achieved was 8.5 m, a significant improvement from the initial 3.5 m. The road grade
210

210 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

also improved from 1 in 5 to 1 in 8 to an average of 1 in 10, enhancing the comfort

and safety of vehicles travelling in the area. The project took over a year to finish.
PalRoy et al. (2023) reported a research work conducted at the Toong–​Sanklang
Road construction site located in Sikkim State of India. The objective of this work
was to enhance the safety and efficiency of drilling operations for contour blasting,
ultimately improving the progress of construction. To ensure safer and more rapid
progress, the researchers proposed the utilisation of crawler-​mounted wagon drills.
These machines offered several advantages, including precise drilling patterns, faster
work pace and increased safety for the drilling operator. They suggested the use of
smaller diameter blastholes, particularly 42 mm. The rationale behind this choice was
the production of improved fragmentation. Smaller holes allowed for better distribu-
tion of explosive charge, resulting in lower vibration and air-​blast levels. Furthermore,
smaller blastholes caused less damage to the surrounding rock. The depth of these
blastholes ranged from 0.5 to 3.0 m, indicating flexibility in adapting to varying geo-
logical conditions. The research outlined three types of hole configurations, each
tailored to specific rock conditions and drilling positions:
Vertical holes (parallel or fan-​cut): vertical holes were suggested for use in certain
situations, but their drilling presented challenges with the chosen drilling equipment,
particularly the jumbo drill, due to placement constraints.
Both vertical and horizontal holes: this configuration allowed for a combination of
vertical and horizontal holes, providing flexibility in adapting to different geological
contexts.
Horizontal holes: horizontal holes were recommended as a viable option, likely
due to their versatility and ease of drilling with the chosen equipment.
It was suggested to vary the spacing between perimeter holes, ranging from 25
to 30 cm. For vertical holes, subdrilling with a depth of 0.3 times the burden was
employed to optimise the blasting process.
To charge the perimeter holes effectively, the researchers advocated the use of
detonating fuse (DF) in conjunction with 25 mm diameter cartridge explosives.
The placement of these explosives at the bottom of the holes or alternately was
suggested to achieve the desired results. Additionally, it was recommended that the
top stemming length should be equal to or greater than the burden value to control
flyrock effectively.

9.6.5 Slope Trimming
Hilly terrains often feature steep slopes that encroach upon the desired road
width. Trim blasting is employed to remove excess rock after initial excavation. It
involves drilling and loading holes at specific locations to break off irregularities
and achieve the desired final slope and grade. Engineers embark on the crucial task
of carefully trimming these slopes to create sufficient space for road expansion
(Figure 9.14). The process involves the methodical removal of soil and rock from
the slope, allowing for the attainment of the desired road width while preserving
slope stability.
211

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 211

FIGURE 9.14 Charging of holes for trimming of slope for widening of road.

FIGURE 9.15 Semi-​tunnel constructed in competent high hill at Pakaldul Hydroelectric

Project in the State of Jammu & Kashmir (India).

9.6.6 Semi-​tunnels
In scenarios where road widening necessitates extensive excavation into steep
hillsides, half tunnel or semi-​tunnel (Figure 9.15) are more realistic techniques.
This approach involves partial cutting into the hillside to create a stable roadbed.
The objective is to minimise the environmental impact and preserve the surrounding
212

212 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 9.16 Drilling and firing pattern of holes for semi-​tunnelling.

landscape while achieving road expansion goals. Small hole diameters (34 mm or
41 mm) and delay detonators are used for better control and safety in such cases.
Hole depth may be limited to 1.5–​1.8 m for less competent rock but can extend to
4 m for more competent rock. Inclined holes (not exceeding 45°) may be drilled on
the wall side of the road. Decked charging is preferred for holes in the roof portion
of overhanging rocks. The drilling and firing of holes for semi-​tunnel construction is
shown in Figure 9.16.

9.7 PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO CONTROL THROW OF BLAST

TOWARDS VALLEY SIDE
In sensitive areas or locations where there is a risk of fragments rolling down the
hillside after blasting, additional safety measures are implemented. This includes
covering exposed rock patches with wire nets to contain loose debris, installing
barricades along the hill slope using materials like MS/​GI sheets and strategically
placing sandbags to further stabilise the construction site. These precautions are cru-
cial for protecting both construction workers and the environment.

9.8 SUMMARY
Detailed discussion on the rock blasting methodologies for road construction has
been set out in this chapter. The summary of the discussions made in this chapter is
as follows:
213

Blasting Techniques for Road Construction in Hilly Terrain 213

• Road construction in hilly terrain consists of various challenges due to geo-

logical complications, sloping, proneness to landslide, hydrogeological hazards
and climatic conditions.
• Various types of roads constructed in hilly terrain include cut and fill, switch-
back, bypass, spiral and cantilever road.
• It is important to maintain proper safety factors while constructing a sloping
road. Findings of various research work suggest that a factor of safety (FoS) of
1.2 to 1.5 should be maintained in such roads.
• The small diameter explosive cartridge of 25 mm or large diameter cartridge of
83 mm are used under Indian conditions for blasting for road construction. The
blastholes are connected using non-​electric delay detonators or detonating fuse
in combination with cord relay connectors.
• The common methods of road construction comprise formation cutting, trench
or through cutting, gravity fall method, benching, slope trimming and semi-​
tunnelling. Any of these methods are suitably chosen to match the site condi-
tion. Various innovative blast designs are used for rock excavations using these
methods.

REFERENCES
Ansari, M.K., Ahmed, M., Singh, T.R., Ghalayani, I., 2015. Rainfall, a major cause for rockfall
hazard along the roadways, highways and railways on hilly terrains in India. Engineering
Geology for Society and Territory, 1, 457–​460.
Bhagat, N.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh, M.M., Rana, A., Tewari, S., Singh, P.K., 2020. Blasting
technique for stabilizing accident-​prone slope for sustainable railway route. Current
Science, 118(6), 901–​909. https://​doi:10.18520/​cs/​v118/​i6/​901-​909.
Ersöz, T., Topal, T., 2018. Assessment of rock slope stability with the effects of weathering and
excavation by comparing deterministic methods and slope stability probability classifi-
cation (SSPC). Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(14), 547.
Graham, J., Solera, S., Sanchez, C., 2016. Investigating rock anchorage failure at major road
cut in Wales. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-​Forensic Engineering,
169(3), 94–​102.
Harber, A.J., Nettleton, I.M., Matheson, G.D., McMillan, P., Butler, A.J., 2011. Rock engin-
eering guides to good practice: road rock slope excavation (No. PPR 556), 124. www.
world​cat.org/​isbn/​978184​6089​749.
IRC:SP:73-​2015, www.thee​ngin​eeri​ngco​mmun​ity.org/​prese​ntat​ion-​on-​des​ign-​of-​hill-​road-​
alignm​ent/​, accessed on 19.09.2023.
Kainthola, A., Singh, P.K., Singh, T.N., 2015. Stability investigation of road cut slope in bas-
altic rockmass, Mahabaleshwar, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 6(6), 837–​845.
Kumar, K., Prasad, P.S., Mathu, S. Kimothi, S., 2010. Rockfall and subsidence on Mumbai-​Pune
Expressway. ISSMGE International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories, 2(1), 24–​39.
Lawrence, C.J., Hearn, G.J., 1997. Overseas road note 16: principles of low cost road engin-
eering in mountainous regions, with special reference to the Nepal Himalaya. Transport
Research Laboratory (TRL), Berkshire.
Mignelli, C., Peila, D., Russo, S.L., Ratto, S.M., Broccolato, M., 2014. Analysis of rockfall risk
on mountainside roads: evaluation of the effect of protection devices. Natural Hazards,
73(1), 23–​35.
214

214 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Muceku, Y., Jaupaj, O., 2018. Landslide hazard zonation along Milot-​ Kukës Motorway,
Albania. Periodica polytechnica-​Civil Engineering, 62(4), 1083–​1095.
Pal Roy, P., Singh, R.K., Sawmliana, C., 2023. Controlled blasting in difficult hilly terrains,
World of mining. Surface & Underground, 75, 1.
Pandey, V.K., 2018. Geological and geotechnical challenges in road widening, national
highway 44: Jammu-​Udhampur Banihal-​Qazigund, J&K, India. International Research
Journal of Earth Sciences, 6(12), 22–​28.
Pradhan, S.P., Siddique, T., 2020. Stability assessment of landslide-​ prone road cut rock
slopes in Himalayan terrain: a finite element method based approach. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 12(1), 59–​73.
Robson, E., Agosti, A., Utili, S., Milledge, D., 2022. A methodology for road cutting design
guidelines based on field observations. Engineering Geology, 307, 106771.
Ross, D.G., Reeves, G.M., 1995. Study of the effect of excavation technique on rock slope
stability and slope maintenance costs at two locations in Scotland. Geological Society,
London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, 10(1), 369–​376.
Sawmliana, C., Pal Roy, P., Singh, R.K., 2012, Successful application of bamboo spacers
in smooth wall blasting for highway construction in hilly terrain –​a case study. In
Proceedings of 10th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, New
Delhi, 26-​29 November, Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press, 779–​786.
Sawmliana, C., Singh, R.K., Roy, P.P., Chawngthu, S., Khiangte, R., 2008, June. Controlled
blasting at Durtlang-​Leitan: a successful blasting operation in sensitive and hilly area. In
42nd ARMA US Rock Mechanics/​Geomechanics Symposium. San Francisco, CA.
Trenter, N.A., 2001. Factor of safety of cuts and embankments. Earthworks: a guide. Trenter
and Thomas Telford Ltd, London.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003. Slope Stability. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
Washington, DC.
WSDOT Geotechnical Office, 2022. Slope Stability Analysis. Washington State Department of
Transport, Olympia, WA.
Youssef, A.M., Maerz, N.H., Al-​Otaibi, A.A., 2012. Stability of rock slopes along Raidah
escarpment road, Asir Area, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Geography and
Geology, 70(2), 48–​70. https://​doi.org/​10.5539/​jgg.v4n2​p48.
215

10 Secondary Rock
Breakage

10.1 INTRODUCTION
In both open pit and underground mining domains, the primary methodology
employed for breaking down rocks and extracting essential minerals is blasting.
Despite the aspiration of mining operations to fragment rocks into sizes that are man-
ageable with the initial blast, achieving this is not always feasible, even when the blast
is methodically designed. Consequently, it is estimated that between 5 and 30 per cent
of the rock fragments produced by the primary blast, termed ‘oversize’, require add-
itional fragmentation. Oversized fragments are those that exceed the size manageable
by the machinery designated for loading, conveying and crushing. The definition of
‘oversize’ is contingent on the specifications of the equipment utilised. The presence
of oversize fragments can be attributed to a numerous factors including complex geo-
logical conditions, suboptimal blast designs or even human oversight. An excessive
quantity of oversize material can impede operational efficiency, contribute to the wear
and tear of equipment and escalate operational costs. Such oversize remnants can
have a pronounced effect on mining efficiency as they demand added handling, sep-
aration and secondary blasting and even pose a risk to transportation machinery.
In the dominion of civil construction, especially during rock excavation, it is com-
monplace to encounter boulders or overhangs necessitating removal via secondary
breaking. This is especially pivotal in proximity to pre-​existing infrastructure, such
as railways, roads, residences and bridges. Secondary blasting ensures not only safe
accessibility to hard-​to-​reach zones but also ground stability and the size envelopes
of the extracted rock, a requisite in projects like airport land development, riprap for
retaining walls in coastal areas or earthen dam-​filling work. In certain contexts, sec-
ondary blasting becomes indispensable for safety, as in preventing the inadvertent
descent of dislodged boulders in mountainous areas onto underlying structures or
in minimising environmental worries. Underground mining introduces its own set
of challenges, such as the occurrence of massive boulders leading to obstructions in
chutes and ore pathways, termed ‘hang-​ups’. Such obstructions introduce consider-
able hazards to mining personnel and can interrupt the continuous flow of ore.
A range of techniques, including mechanical breaking methods like rock breakers,
impact hammers, drop balls, high-​pressure water jets, chemical fragmentation and
blasting with explosives (e.g. pop shooting, plaster shooting) and plasma blasting

DOI: 10.1201/9781003461616-10 215

216

216 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

have been employed to fragment oversize boulders, as documented by various

studies (Bhagat et al., 2021; Gupta, 2016; Jimeno et al., 1995; Kristin & Maras,
1994; Murray et al., 1994; Dick et al., 1983). However, the mechanical technique has
limitations, such as the infeasibility of transporting rock breakers to remote locales
and the challenges of employing machinery in spaces with limited manoeuvrability,
which may result in the destabilisation of slopes. Chemical fragmentation also poses
various challenges, such as large-​scale application being cumbersome and there is
the potential risk of untimely fragment dislodgement endangering infrastructure and
causing accidents. Yet blasting with explosives remains a preferred method, espe-
cially in hilly terrains where alternative techniques might not be viable (Bhagat et al.,
2020; Sawmliana et al., 2018).
Recently, AI-​enabled techniques have also been used in secondary breaking for
deciding the input parameters and to predict the zone of flyrock distances (Wang
et al., 2023; Bhagat et al., 2021). This chapter provides the various facets of sec­­
ondary blasting practices and associated topics.

10.2 PURPOSES OF SECONDARY BLASTING

In mining operations, both open pit and underground, the production blasts may yield
oversize boulders that exceed the handling capacity of standard loading and crushing
equipment utilised in the operation. The term ‘oversize’ in this context is defined as
any boulder resulting from primary blasting that cannot be suitably managed by the
existing loading, conveying and crushing equipment. The specific size threshold for
defining oversize may vary between operations and depends on the equipment in use.
Primary blasting may break down a substantial amount of the rock or material, but it
often leaves behind larger chunks or boulders due to different geological conditions
(Figure 10.1), improper blast design and drilling patterns, face conditions leading to
large toe, hard rock layer in stemming portion, human error and carelessness.
Efforts are made to design production blasts that fragment hard rock into appro-
priate sizes, but achieving this goal is often elusive, regardless of the quality of blast
design. It is typically expected that from 5 to 30 per cent of the material produced
in a production blast will require secondary breaking. A large quantity of oversize

FIGURE 10.1 Geological conditions such as different joint sets, clay-​filled fissures, in-​situ
boulders in collar portions and within blasting faces, mixed soft and hard strata leading to
generation of higher percentage of oversize.
217

Secondary Rock Breakage 217

FIGURE 10.2 Oversize fragments segregated for secondary breakage.

material not only hampers productivity and raises the likelihood of equipment failure
but also poses substantial challenges to project continuity, often resulting in added
expenses (Figure 10.2). Wang et al. (2023) reported that oversize boulders may cause
a variety of effects on the efficiency of operational mining processes, including the
necessity for supplemental time required for separating chunks, inadequate loading
works, secondary blasting, the imposition of additional costs, additional wear on
transportation machines and their possible destruction and incrementing in the amort-
isation of trucks, shovels and crushes.
Furthermore, during rock excavation for civil construction purposes, especially
where isolated boulders or overhang are encountered, its safe removal is needed using
secondary breakage techniques only, considering the safety of existing structures
such as residential houses, railway tracks, bridges, overhead electric lines and
roadways (Figure 10.3). Secondary blasting is also conducted to create safe access to
remote inaccessible areas by removing large obstructions and ensuring stable ground
conditions. In certain construction applications such as land development works for
airports, dam construction work (Figure 10.4) and riprap for erosion control, sec­
ondary blasting is used to ensure that the material extracted meets specific quality or
size requirements, which is crucial for producing high-​quality construction works. In
some cases, secondary blasting is used to minimise the risk of falling of overhanging
displaced oversize boulders in hilly areas towards structures underneath and to limit
the environmental impact of mining or construction activities (Figure 10.5). By redu­
cing the size of fragments into more manageable pieces, it may be possible to limit
the disturbance to the surroundings.
218

218 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 10.3 Oversize overhang towards railway structures necessitating its safe removal.

FIGURE 10.4 Dam filling using different sizes of rock fragments and use of rock breaker
(circled) for reducing size of boulder.

In addition to the above-​mentioned problems, one well-​recognised issue in under-

ground mining operations is the occurrence of hang-​ups in chutes and ore passes
caused by large boulders. These hang-​ups pose substantial hazards to mine personnel
and disrupt the flow of ore through the chutes or passes.
Overall, secondary blasting plays a vital role in the efficient and safe extraction
and processing of materials in various industrial and construction contexts. It helps
to optimise the size and quality of fragmented materials, making them more suitable
219

Secondary Rock Breakage 219

FIGURE 10.5 Overhanging dislodged boulders situated at higher altitudes, endangering the
safety of structures lying underneath.

for subsequent handling, transportation, processing and removing the potential safety
threat to the surrounding inhabitants.

10.3 THEORETICAL CONCEPTS OF SECONDARY ROCK BREAKAGE

Understanding the theoretical concepts of secondary rock breakage is essential for
optimising its efficiency, safety and environmental impacts. Secondary breakage is
accomplished by blasting or using mechanical excavators.
The concept of blasting for secondary rock breakage is based on utilising com-
pressive stresses. The blasthole wall induces stresses on the rock mass spherically.
When the induced compressive stress exceeds the dynamic compressive strength of
the rock mass, rock breakage takes place. Confinement to the blastholes is provided
to maximise the utility of the explosive energy, and thereby to enhance fragmentation.
In the mechanical breaking mechanism, the bits/​rods of breakers are pressed
into the rock. Once the cutting rod is inserted inside the rock, a small zone of fine-​
grained crushed rock is created due to high stress concentration, which is known as
the pressure bulb or crushed zone. The region beyond the pressure bulb shows plastic
220

220 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

deformation under the applied thrust. Due to induced stresses in this region, radial
cracks are developed, which persist until the tensile stress of the cracks falls below
the tensile strength of the rock or the cracks meet free surface (Vishwakarma
et al., 2023).

10.4 METHODS OF SECONDARY ROCK BREAKAGE

Several techniques can be employed to reduce oversize rocks, depending on the
specific circumstances and the size and nature of the boulders. Commonly used
techniques for reducing oversize boulders are explosives method like pop, plaster
and snake shooting or non-​explosive methods like hydraulic hammers and expan-
sive chemicals, depending on the situation. The following are some of the specific
methods used for secondary rock breakage:

• Hydraulic hammers: Hydraulic hammers, also known as rock breakers, are

powerful tools that use hydraulic pressure to deliver repetitive blows to the sur-
face of boulders. They are effective for breaking down large rocks and boulders
in both mining and construction applications. Rock breakers can complete tasks
much faster than manual methods, saving time and labour costs. Operators can
control the force and direction of the blows, allowing for precise and selective
breakage. Rock breakers reduce the need for manual labour in hazardous envir-
onments, enhancing safety on job sites.
• Excavators and heavy machinery: Large excavators equipped with specialised
attachments, such as rock buckets or rippers, can be used to break apart and
remove oversize boulders. The excavator’s hydraulic power allows for precise
control over the breaking process.
• Drilling and splitting: For particularly massive boulders, a drilling and splitting
method can be employed. Holes are drilled into the boulder, and wedges or
expansive grout are inserted. As the grout expands or wedges are pounded, the
boulder cracks along the drilled holes.
• Expansive chemical agents: Expansive chemical agents, often referred to as
expansive grout or rock-​breaking agents, can be used to break down oversize
boulders. These agents are mixed with water and poured into drilled holes. As
they expand, they create internal pressure, causing the rock to fracture.
• Wire saws: Diamond wire saws are employed in situations where precision is
required. They consist of a wire with diamond segments that can cut through
hard rock. This method is often used in quarrying and dimensional stone
extraction.
• Flame jet cutting: In some cases, flame jet cutting techniques can be used to
heat and fracture rock. This method is suitable for extremely hard or abrasive
rock types.
• Vibration and impact compaction: Vibratory rollers or impact compactors can
be used to break down and compact oversize boulders or rocky surfaces in road
construction and compaction projects.
221

Secondary Rock Breakage 221

• Secondary blasting method: Secondary blasting is a controlled and strategic

process used in mining, quarrying and construction to further break down large
rocks or structures after the primary blasting operation. It is an important step
in extracting valuable minerals or creating suitable materials for construction
projects requiring careful planning, adherence to safety protocols and consid-
eration of environmental impacts. This method will be discussed in detail in
various sections.

The choice of technique is contingent upon several key factors, encompassing the
dimensions and positioning of the boulders, environmental considerations, safety
prerequisites and equipment availability. Frequently, an amalgamation of various
methods is implemented to optimise the reduction and management of oversize
boulders within mining and civil engineering projects. In certain mining operations,
the reduction of oversize material is achieved through the utilisation of hydraulic
impact hammers, with blasting serving as an alternative method, predominantly in
smaller-​scale operations. The selection of specific techniques, including popping and
plastering, necessitates strict adherence to established mine regulations and accepted
mining protocols. It is also imperative to consistently observe safety measures and
comply with environmental regulations throughout these operations.

10.5 BLAST DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SECONDARY BLASTING

Secondary blasting diverges significantly from conventional bench blasting processes,
primarily due to its unique characteristics –​i.e. 360° free face. A comprehensive
review of various factors influencing boulder blasting underlines the distinctiveness
of this process in comparison to bench blasting. Unlike bench blasting, where geo-
logical parameters, delay timing between holes, scattering in delays, undercutting
and misfires are pivotal considerations, secondary blasting exhibits a distinct set of
dynamics. In secondary blasting, there is no requirement for delay between boreholes
in most cases. Furthermore, geological parameters, apart from rock strength and
density, assume a relatively minor role in influencing the outcome. It is worth noting
that the density of the rock mass significantly affects the trajectory of flying fragments.
Lighter fragments, owing to the momentum they acquire during the blasting oper-
ation, can travel considerable distances (Lundborg, 1981). This divergence in con­
siderations between secondary blasting and bench blasting underscores the need for
tailored approaches in these distinct mining and civil construction works. Secondary
blasting can be divided into two types –​i.e. pop and plaster shooting.

10.5.1 Pop Shooting
Pop shooting is a secondary blasting technique used to break apart large rock masses
by creating closely spaced boreholes or cracks in the rock. Explosives are placed in
these boreholes and when detonated, they create controlled fractures within the rock
mass, effectively ‘popping’ it apart into smaller, more manageable pieces. A typical
layout of the pop shooting method reported by Bhagat et al. (2021) is illustrated
in Figure 10.6. Due to the occurrence of frequent accidents in Indian mines due to
222

222 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 10.6 Drilling and charging pattern of pop shooting method (HD –​hole depth, B –​
burden, CPH –​charge per hole, ST –​stemming length). (Bhagat et al., 2021.)

flyrock in secondary blasting, the Directorate General of Mine Safety (DGMS) have
prohibited the use of large hole diameters in boulder blasting to prevent the chances
of accidents. DGMS have recommended only a 32 mm hole diameter with a small
quantity of explosive (DGMS (Tech) Circular No. 14 of 2020).
Jimeno et al. (1995) have reported that, in pop shooting, the depth of holes should
be between one-​half and one-​third of the largest dimension of boulder, using small
borehole diameter. They also suggested that, for a boulder size of more than 2 m3,
two blastholes should be drilled and fired simultaneously. Further depending upon the
conditions of boulders, the specific charge may vary between 50–​100 g/​m3, 100–​150
g/​m3 and 150–​200 g/​m3 for uncovered, half-​buried and completely buried boulders
respectively. Later, Bhandari (1997) explicated the methodology of pop shooting,
providing crucial insights into the optimal approach for achieving efficient boulder
fragmentation. His research posited that the depth of the borehole, in relation to the
thickness of the boulder, should ideally fall within the range of 0.25 to 0.5 times
the boulder’s thickness. Moreover, the author emphasised the importance of proper
stemming and cautioned against excessively low burdens in any direction, as such
conditions would yield suboptimal fragmentation results. In the context of larger
boulders, the author recommended a specific approach wherein the spacing between
boreholes should range from 0.5 to 0.9 times the boulder’s thickness. Additionally,
he advocated a drilling density within the range of 0.2 to 1.0 m/​m3, accompanied by
a specific charge varying from 0.1 to 0.3 kg/​m3.
Bhagat et al. (2021) in their research work reported the latest practices of pop
shooting using a 34 mm drill diameter. They reported that boreholes should be drilled
in the centre of boulders and depths of borehole may be kept between one-​quarter and
three-​quarters of the height of boulder. The directions of blastholes should be kept
vertical or parallel to the existing free face with minimum 20 times the diameter of
223

Secondary Rock Breakage 223

blasthole for restricting the flyrock and extent of throw. Emulsion cartridge explosives
of 25 mm diameter may be used to charge 32–​38 mm diameter boreholes. Detonating
cord (D-​cord, 10 g/​m of PETN) or electric detonators may be used to initiate the
explosives within the borehole. Typical blast design parameters generally used for
popping by authors in Indian civil construction works are shown in Table 10.1.
In another study carried out by Wang et al. (2023), in which 65 blast datasets
were gathered, with each containing information on the hole diameter (2.95 and 5.9
inches), hole depth (0.71–​1.01 m), burden (0.57–​0.96 m), hole angle (22–​33°), charge
weight (2.7–​4.3 kg), stemming (0.31–​0.49 m) and powder factor (0.6–​1.01 kg/​m3).
Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) was charged as explosives in the blasting
rounds. The flyrock distances were observed to be between 157 m and 300 m.
Considering the above-​mentioned studies, the following points may serve as
guidelines for the quantities and applications related to secondary breaking using the
pop shooting method:

i. Drilling: A hole with a diameter of 32–​45 mm can be drilled into the centre
of the rock of about one-​quarter to three-​quarters of the height of boulder. For
larger rocks, multiple holes should be drilled in a regular pattern, considering
1 to 1.5 m2 surface area for one hole. Especially in Indian mining industries,
only a 32 mm drill diameter should be used, considering the DGMS (Tech)
Circular No. 14 of 2020.
ii. Priming: Explosive charges should be effectively primed either with non-​
electric initiation system, i.e. down-​the-​hole delay (DTH) or non-​electric
delay detonators (NED), or detonating cord (10 g/​m of PETN), to ensure
effective fragmentation.
iii. Explosive charge length: It is common practice in most mines to load
explosives to the collar of the hole. But this should be avoided and the actual
charge required for optimum fragmentation should be used. However, it is
important to remember that the primary aim of secondary breaking is to reduce
oversize rocks to a size that can be efficiently handled by the mine’s loading
and transport equipment. Deck charge can also be used in longer holes to
evenly distribute the explosive energy to obtain fine fragmentation as well as
minimum flyrock or throw.
iv. Specific charge factor: The specific charge factor, typically ranging from 0.02
to 0.17 kg/​m3 (Bhagat et al., 2021), may be used considering the density,
strength and structure of the rock as well as the desired evacuation zone. In
general, less than 0.05 kg/​m3 of specific charge distributed in multiple holes
depending upon the sizes of boulders would be sufficient to break the oversize
boulders into manageable sizes.
v. Initiation system: When multiple pops (secondary blasts) are to be fired sim-
ultaneously, they should be connected with detonating cord trunklines for
coordinated blasting. In sensitive and urban areas, a non-​electric system of
initiation may be used to restrict the air overpressure or noise within safe
limits. In general, delay timings are not used in secondary blasting; how-
ever, in some cases where the size of boulder is quite high and structures are
 newgenrtpdf
224
224
TABLE 10.1
A typical blast design parameter executed to conduct popping

Hole diameter No. of Hole depth Burden Spacing Charge /​hole Total charge Volume Specific charge
Rock type (mm) holes (m) (m) (m) (kg) (kg) (m3) (kg/​m3)
Basalt 32 2 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.62 0.125 4.5 0.027
Basalt 32 1 1.5 0.6 -​ 0.125 0.125 2 0.062
Basalt 32 3 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.062 0.187 10 0.019

Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Basalt 32 2 1.5 1 1.2 0.09 0.187 3 0.062
Basalt 32 1 1.5 0.7 -​ 0.92 0.092 1 0.09
Basalt 32 1 1.5 0.6 -​ 0.125 0.125 1.2 0.10
Granite 32 5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.062 0.3125 11 0.028
Granite 32 4 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.062 0.25 8 0.031
Granite 32 5 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.031 0.155 2.4 0.065
Granite 32 4 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.031 0.125 3.0 0.042
225

Secondary Rock Breakage 225

situated very close to the boulder, delays may be used to guide the throw and
achieve fine fragmentation for manual loading.
vi. Hole stemming: Holes should be tightly stemmed. Stone chips of less than
one tenth of hole diameter in size or drill cuttings or coarse sand wrapped in
cartridge form may be used as stemming material.
vii. Muffling: In sensitive areas where structures are situated in close proximity,
muffling should be done using heavy-​duty blasting mats.

Adhering to these guidelines is crucial to efficiently manage oversize material

generated by production blasts in mining operations and to ensure the safety of per-
sonnel and equipment.

10.5.2 Plaster Shooting
Plaster shooting is a secondary blasting method involving the placement of explosive
charges on the flat surface of large boulders. A layer of sand, clay or mud (10–​15 cm
thick or more) is then placed onto the surface of the explosive charges. This superfi-
cial layer plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of plaster shooting. The sand or mud
layer reduces the amount of explosive, air overpressure and noise. This method works
well in brittle rock formations. Plaster shooting is often used when it is important to
control the direction of the fracture. This method eliminates the need for drilling and
requires minimal resources to complete the task.
When the explosives are detonated using instantaneous detonators, the energy is
directed into the rock by providing necessary confinement and breaks it apart along
the plastered area. The specific charge in plaster shooting is generally higher than pop
shooting method and it may vary from 0.7 to 1 kg/​m3 or more. Despite higher spe-
cific charges, its adaptability to inaccessible areas makes it a valuable tool for rock
excavation.

10.6 OPTIMISATION OF BLAST DESIGN USING ARTIFICIAL

INTELLIGENCE (AI) TECHNIQUES
Efficient blast design significantly impacts productivity, safety and environmental
concerns. Recently artificial intelligence (AI) implementation in blasting has opened
up new possibilities for optimising blast design processes. Many researchers have
used these latest techniques in their research work for predicting flyrock distance in
primary blasting operations. But, in the case of secondary blasting, not many studies
have been conducted by researchers around the globe. Initially, Mohamad et al.
(2012) conducted a study of 16 boulder blastings in mines using a soft computing
tool. They developed an ANN model using eight input parameters (specific charge,
charge length, stemming, hole diameter, hole depth, burden, hole angle and explosive
per hole) and found that specific charge, charge length and stemming are the most
significant and relevant parameters. The coefficient of correlation in the ANN method
was 0.92. In the study, the diameter of drill holes was 89 mm while the distance of
predicted flyrock ranged between 160 m and 240 m.
226

226 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Later, Bhagat et al. (2021) developed a classification and regression tree (CART)
model using 61 datasets to predict flyrock distance in popping. Based on the litera-
ture and statistical and sensitivity analysis, they developed three models using CART
techniques incorporating the density of rock (kg/​m3), charge per hole (kg), specific
drilling density (m/​m3), stemming to burden ratio and specific charge factor (kg/​m3)
as input parameters. The best CART model for predicting the flyrock in popping is
shown in Figure 10.7.
Figure 10.7 shows the structure of the decision tree, with various nodes representing
decision points based on features and branches connecting these nodes based on
the outcome of each decision. Decision trees essentially work on a series of ‘if and
then’ rules. For each decision node in the tree, there is a condition (the ‘if’ part) that
checks a feature’s value. Depending on the outcome of that condition, the tree then
proceeds to a certain branch (the ‘then’ part). These ‘if and then’ rules are provided
in Table 10.2. The leaf nodes are the terminal nodes of the tree, where no further
decisions are made. These nodes provide the final predicted outcome. The leaf nodes
in this model are nodes 3, 8, 11, 20, 21 and 36–​39. Once a data point reaches a leaf
node, its predicted value is determined. The primary application of this particular
CART model is to predict the flyrock distance of a boulder when it is subjected to
a blast. The decision tree uses features such as ‘charge per hole’, ‘specific charge’,
‘stemming to burden ratio’ and ‘density of rock’ to make this prediction. The descrip-
tion provides an example using node 38 as the given condition: if a rock has a specific
charge between 0.030 and 0.056 kg/​m3, density of rock greater than 2,632.5 kg/​m3
and a charge per hole of 0.056 kg or less, then in about 35 per cent of such cases, the

FIGURE 10.7 CART model for predicting flyrock distance in popping. (Bhagat et al., 2021.)
 newgenrtpdf
227
Secondary Rock Breakage
TABLE 10.2
Constructed ‘if-​then rules’ for predicting flyrock distance in popping

Nodes FD (prediction) Rules

Node 1 4.00
Node 2 3.06 If SC <=​0.109 then FD =​0 in 93.9% of cases
Node 3 18.4 If SC > 0.109 then FD =​0 in 6.1% of cases
Node 4 2.18 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 then FD =​0 in 77.6% of cases
Node 5 7.23 If SC <=​0.109 and SC > 0.056 then FD =​0 in 16.3% of cases
Node 8 5.33 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D <=​2632.5 then FD =​0 in 6.1% of cases
Node 9 1.91 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D > 2632.5 then FD =​0 in 71.4% of cases
Node 10 7.88 If SC <=​0.109 and SC > 0.056 and D <=​2655 then FD =​0 in 12.2% of cases
Node 11 5.25 If SC <=​0.109 and SC > 0.056 and D > 2655 then FD =​0 in 4.1% of cases
Node 18 0.97 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D > 2632.5 and SC <=​0.030 then FD =​0 in 30.6% of cases
Node 19 2.61 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D > 2632.5 and SC > 0.030 then FD =​0 in 40.8% of cases
Node 20 6.50 If SC <=​0.109 and SC > 0.056 and D <=​2655 and CPH <=​0.0515 then FD =​0 in 6.1% of cases
Node 21 9.27 If SC <=​0.109 and SC > 0.056 and D <=​2655 and CPH > 0.051 then FD =​0 in 6.1% of cases
Node 36 0.78 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D > 2632.5 and SC <=​0.030 and ST/​B <=​1.13 then FD =​0 in 24.5% of cases
Node 37 1.73 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D > 2632.5 and SC <=​0.030 and ST/​B > 1.13 then FD =​0 in 6.1% of cases
Node 38 2.91 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D > 2632.5 and SC > 0.030 and CPH <=​0.056 then FD =​0 in 34.7% of cases
Node 39 0.90 If SC <=​0.109 and SC <=​0.056 and D > 2632.5 and SC > 0.030 and CPH > 0.056 then FD =​0 in 6.1% of cases

Source: Bhagat et al. (2021).

227
228

228 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

rock won’t fly very far (flyrock distance will be effectively zero against the predicted
value of 2.91 m).
In essence, this CART model provides a systematic way to predict flyrock distance
based on certain conditions or attributes of a boulder. By following the decision tree
from the root to a leaf node, while considering the attributes of a given boulder, one
can predict its flyrock distance when blasted.

10.7 DELINEATION OF FLYROCK ZONES

Bajpayee et al. (2003) in their research work nicely defined the term flyrock. They
stated that flyrock is commonly defined as rock material propelled beyond the
designated blast area as a result of explosive forces. According to the Institute of
Makers of Explosives (IME) in 1997, flyrock encompasses rocks that are forcefully
ejected from the blast area due to the explosive energy generated during a detonation.
Flyrock, the unintended and hazardous ejection of rocks or fragments during blasting
operations, poses a significant risk to personnel, equipment and nearby structures in
mining and construction environments.
In secondary blasting, the 360° free face has the potential to lead to excessive pro-
jection of rock fragments in a radial pattern, with some fragments travelling remark-
able distances of up to 900 m (Bhagat et al., 2021). Such uncontrolled fragment
projection poses a severe safety hazard and has been associated with accidents and
incidents in secondary blasting operations.
Schneider (1997) emphasised that factors contributing to flyrock include exces­
sive powder usage, insufficient burden, improper timing, inadequate stemming and
overloading of blastholes. The mechanics of flyrock generation are based on three
main theories (i.e. face burst, cratering and rifling) (Zhou et al., 2019; Ghasemi et al.,
2012; Bhandari, 1997). Inadequate burden and soft geological formation lead to face
burst (Armaghani et al., 2016; Little & Blair, 2010) while low stemming to burden or
hole diameter ratio and incompetent stemming material are responsible for cratering
and rifling, respectively (Hasanipanah et al., 2018; Lundborg et al., 1975). Further,
cratering and rifling can generate flyrock in any direction whereas face burst can gen-
erate in free-​face direction only (Armaghani et al., 2016). In the case of secondary
blasting, the direction of face burst is undefined due to uneven burden and multiple
free faces. Hence, more precautions and safety during secondary blasting are required.
Injuries resulting from flyrock occur when rock material is propelled beyond the
intended blast area and harms individuals. Injuries due to a lack of blast area security
happen when individuals fail to remain within a designated blast shelter or protected
area. These accidents typically occur when people neglect to evacuate the blast area
as instructed by employees or supervisors and/​or misunderstand safety guidelines,
access roads leading to the blast area are not adequately guarded, or individuals seek
shelter in unsafe locations or within structurally weak buildings (Raina et al., 2015;
Bajpayee et al., 2003). Therefore, the delineation of flyrock zones in blasting is cru­
cial for mitigating potential dangers and ensuring safety on worksites.
The United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 30 (Office of the
Federal Register, 2005), specifies that the ‘blast area’ pertains to the region where
229

Secondary Rock Breakage 229

an explosion’s shockwave, flying debris or gases may pose a risk of injury to indi-
viduals. The determination of the blast area involves consideration of several factors,
including geological conditions, blast pattern, hole characteristics (burden, depth,
diameter and angle), the expertise of mining personnel, timing systems, explosive
quantity and stemming materials.
Furthermore, the CFR defines the ‘blast site’ as the area where explosive materials
are handled during loading, encompassing the perimeter formed by loaded blastholes
and extending 15.2 m in all directions from these holes. This 15.2 m requirement
may be reduced to 9.1 m if a suitable barrier delineates the perimeter of loaded holes.
These distance requirements apply in all directions and across the full depth of the
blasthole.

10.7.1 Methods for Delineating Flyrock Zones

The delineation of flyrock zones involves predicting the potential reach and impact
of flyrock fragments during a blasting operation. Mathematical models, such as the
empirical formulae developed by various researchers to predict flyrock distance are
given in Table 10.2. Lundborg (1981) developed a formula (Table 10.2) based on
hole diameter and specific charge to predict flyrock and throw. This formula requires
a specific charge of more than 0.2 kg/​m3 for prediction, whereas in secondary
blasting the specific charge is normally lower than this threshold value. The formula
developed by Gupta et al. (1988) uses stemming to burden ratio only (Table 10.2).
Richard and Moore (2005) have developed formulae for the estimation of flyrock due
to the face burst, cratering and stemming ejection using a 102 mm borehole diam-
eter (Table 10.3). Recently, Bhagat et al. (2021) developed a model after analysis of
various input parameters utilising the multiple linear regression (MLR) technique,
and observed that the charge per hole, stemming to burden ratio and specific charge
of boulder blasting are the most relevant parameters that affect the generation of
flyrock in the pop shooting method of secondary blasting. The developed mathemat-
ical model can help in predicting the extent of flyrock dispersion within 5 m distances
by optimising input parameters. These models provide valuable insights into potential
flyrock hazards and the delineation of flyrock zones.
High-​speed cameras capture the entire blasting sequence at a high frame rate,
allowing for the precise tracking of individual flyrock fragments. This method
provides visual evidence of flyrock behaviour and should be used for delineating
flyrock zones.
Flyrock zone delineation is a crucial safety aspect in mining and construction
operations, involving the prediction of flyrock fragments’ reach during blasting to
establish safety perimeters and mitigate risks. Advanced technologies like math-
ematical, numerical modelling, use of AI techniques and blast monitoring systems
have improved accuracy in this area. However, ensuring flyrock safety necessitates a
holistic approach, combining technology, training, communication and monitoring.
Prioritising safety can reduce secondary blasting risks, protecting people and assets.
Continuous improvement and industry collaboration are vital for maintaining and
enhancing safety standards.
 newgenrtpdf
230
230
TABLE 10.3
Summary of selected studies carried out for prediction of flyrock distance

Researchers Input parameters used Empirical relation Limitations/​flyrock range

Lundborg et al. Blasthole diameter (Ø in inches), flyrock distance 2 For 34 mm Ø hole,
(1975) (FD in metres), FD = 260 x ∅ 3
FD=​317 m and FT=​0.135 m
2
fragment size thrown (FT in metres) FT = 0.1 x ∅ 3 For 89 mm Ø hole,
FD=​599 m and FT=​0.35 m
Lundborg et al. Blasthole diameter (Ø in inches), specific charge FD = 143 x Ø x (SC − 0.2 ) For bench blasting. Usually, SC <
(1981) (SC in kg/​m3) 0.2 kg/​m3 in boulder blasting
Gupta et al. Stemming length (ST in m), burden (B, in m) 1 For ST/​B ratio=​0.55, FD=​61 m
(1988) 155.2  1.37 For ST/​B ratio=​1.88, FD=​26 m
FD =   For bench blasting only
 ST 
 B

Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Richard and Rock constant (k, for hard rock it is 27), 2.6 Developed for large diameter
Moore (2005) gravitational constant (g=​9.8 m/​s2), linear charge k2  m holes (102 mm)
FD = x 
concentration (m, kg/​m), burden (B, in m), stemming g  B 
length (ST in m), drillhole angle (θ).

Richard and
2.6
Moore (2005) k2  m
FD = x 
g  ST 
Richard and
2.6
Moore (2005) k2  m
FD = x  x Sin2¸
g  ST 
 231
Secondary Rock Breakage
McKenzie Blasthole diameter (Ø in mm), shape factor (Fs =​1.1 0.667 Mainly suitable for crater blasting
 ∅
(2009) and 1.3), confinement state (SDBm, m). FD = 11 x SDBm −2.167 x  
 Fs 

Bhagat et al. Rock density (D in kg/​m3), burden (B in metres), FD = 47.31 + ( −0.019 × D ) For secondary blasting using
(2021) stemming length (ST in metres), specific drilling (SD + ( −4.154 × SD ) 34 mm drill diameter
in m/​m3), charge per hole (CPH in kg), specific charge
+ ( 2.149 × ST / B)
(SC in kg/​m3)
+ ( −40.899 × CPH )
+ (184.066 × SC)

Source: Modified from Bhagat et al. (2021).

231
232

232 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

10.8 ALTERNATIVE PRACTICES OF SECONDARY ROCK BREAKAGE

The exploration of alternative practices for secondary rock breakage represents a sig-
nificant step toward improving safety, sustainability and cost-​effectiveness in mining
and construction. While traditional methods involving explosives, hydraulic hammers
and heavy machinery remain widely used, non-​explosive agents and innovative
approaches like plasma blasting offer promising alternatives.
Non-​explosive demolition agents, also known as expansive grouts or cracking
agents, offer a safer and more controlled approach to secondary rock breakage. These
agents are typically composed of a mixture of chemicals that, when mixed with water
and poured into pre-​drilled holes, expand and exert pressure on the surrounding rock.
This pressure causes cracks to form and propagate, leading to controlled fragmenta-
tion. Non-​explosive agents eliminate the risks associated with traditional explosives,
such as flyrock hazards, ground vibrations and air overpressure/​noise, making them
environmentally friendly.
Details of various alternatives of rock blasting using mechanical and non-​explosive
chemicals are elaborated in Section 8.3. These techniques may also be used effi-
ciently for secondary rock breakage.

10.8.1 Plasma Blasting
New technologies offer many potential benefits to industry, and one such advanced
and innovative technique used for breaking rock is high-​voltage electro-​fracture or
plasma blasting (Riu et al., 1955). This involves creating a pulsed electrical discharge
in a water-​filled cavity drilled in the rock. This discharge generates an expanding
plasma ‘bubble’ that produces shock waves, fracturing the rock. A notable study by
Gupta (2016) highlighted the pioneering work of the Korea Accelerator and Plasma
Research Association (KAPRA), which introduced the ‘EPI pulse plasma’ system for
rock fragmentation (Hamelin et al., 1995). This state-​of-​the-​art system is divided into
two parts:

1) electro power impactor (EPI) method

2) reaction cell.

Within this framework, an electric pulse (electric energy) emanating from the
EPI, when applied to cells containing aluminium and copper oxide powders for
milliseconds, instigates a transformation of the cells’ electrolyte into a plasma state.
This transition produces an impact energy due to a thermal reaction, culminating in
the generation of substantial heat and an impact wave (pulse). Consequently, rock dis-
integration occurs with minimal noise and vibration. Post-​reaction, the residuals are
solely solid materials: aluminium oxide and copper. The process is marked by reduced
noise, vibration, dust and flyrock. Remarkably, the entire operation concludes within
milliseconds. The rapid energy dissipation results in a brief vibration duration, which
attenuates over a short span (Riu et al., 2019).
In contrast, traditional rock blasting involves the detonation of explosives, produ-
cing seismic waves and converting explosive chemicals into gases. This detonation
233

Secondary Rock Breakage 233

is relatively prolonged, spanning several milliseconds and induces multiple shock

waves due to inherent delays. This often leads to extensive noise, vibrations and
flyrock due to borehole pressure. By contrast, the ground frequencies achieved with
the EPI system are elevated (50–​120 Hz) when compared to explosive blasting (15–​30
Hz). This can cause resonance since most buildings have natural frequencies around
15–​20 Hz (Singh & Roy, 2010).
Remarkably, the EPI system does not produce toxic fumes, ensuring no disturb-
ance to adjacent operations. It can be used in weak to hard rock mass. Figure 10.8
illustrates the overall concept of the pulse plasma system of rock breakage. The hole
diameter is typically 51 mm, with hole depths up to 3.0 m, burden about 0.8 m and
holes spacing is maximum 0.9 to 1.3 m (Kuznetsova et al., 2022). The EPI process is
shown in Figure 10.9.
Reaction cell dynamics: This cell encompasses an electrolyte composed of a mix-
ture of aluminium and copper oxide powders. When subjected to a high-​power elec-
tric pulse, embedded electrodes facilitate the powder’s conversion into a plasma state.
The chemical equation governing this process is (Bogaerts & Neyts, 2018) as follows:

2Al +​3 CuO → Al2O3 +​3 Cu +​1197 kJ

Reaction cells’ dimensions vary between 600 and 1,000 mm in length, and weight
between 925 g and 1,542 g and discharge energy ranging from 3,784 kJ to 6,308 kJ.
Typically, a cell has a 34 mm diameter, suitable for a drill hole diameter of 51 mm.
Drill hole patterns vary from 1m x 1m x 2.4 m to 1.3 m x 1.3 m x 3.0 m, with a charge

FIGURE 10.8 Flowchart showing steps of rock breakage using plasma cartridges.
234

234 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

FIGURE 10.9 EPI process in plasma blasting.

factor of approximately 3 m³ per kg of cell weight. Experimental data suggests that

ground vibrations produced by plasma blasting range between 1/​12 to 1/​20 and sound
levels between 1/​6 to 1/​36 when compared to conventional explosive blasting at the
same scale distance. This method may be used for secondary blasting of boulders also
(Zhou et al., 2018).
Compared to chemical blasting, plasma blasting technology (PBT) is safe and has
minimal environmental impact, causing less vibration, less flyrock, noise and dust
and no harmful fumes. PBT also does not require any statutory permission unlike
explosive handling, transportation and use. However, the effectiveness of plasma
blasting can be influenced by factors such as the choice of transfer medium, electrode
configuration and electrical discharge parameters, all of which can be adjusted to suit
the specific application and rock being treated (Habib et al., 2022).
While PBT offers several advantages, such as safety and efficiency, it is not
without its disadvantages. The drawbacks associated with plasma blasting are as
follows (Agarwal & Kudapa, 2023; Pal Roy, 2021):

Equipment complexity: Plasma blasting systems are complex and require

specialised equipment, including high-​voltage generators and control systems.
Maintaining and operating this equipment can be challenging, and it may require
skilled technicians.
Initial cost: The upfront cost of setting up a plasma blasting system can be rela-
tively high. Acquiring the necessary equipment and ensuring it meets safety
standards can be a significant investment for companies.
235

Secondary Rock Breakage 235

Energy consumption: Generating and maintaining the high-​ voltage electrical

discharges required for plasma blasting can be energy-​intensive. This can result
in increased operational costs, particularly in applications with high usage.
Safety precautions: While PBT is considered safer than traditional blasting
methods, it still requires strict safety protocols and precautions. High-​voltage
electrical discharges can pose risks to personnel if not handled properly.
Environmental concerns: Although PBT is generally considered more environmen-
tally friendly than chemical blasting due to reduced dust, noise and fumes, it still
generates heat and may produce some localised emissions. The environmental
impact may vary depending on the specific application and the materials being
treated.
Limited applications: Plasma blasting may not be suitable for all types of rock or
applications. Its efficiency is often higher for hard rocks and materials with high
acoustic impedance. Further, its use in underground applications is limited.
Limited research: While PBT has shown promise, it does not have the exten-
sive research and development history that some other fragmentation methods
have. This means that there may be limitations or unknown factors in certain
applications.

10.9 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SECONDARY BLASTING

Secondary blasting, a crucial process in mining and construction, yields a wide range
of economic benefits by optimising the fragmentation of rocks and materials. While
primary blasting initiates the breakage, secondary blasting refines it, allowing for
more efficient handling, transportation and processing. These economic advantages
extend beyond cost savings and encompass increased productivity, resource util-
isation and even potential revenue generation. The economic benefits of secondary
blasting are given below:

a) Enhanced fragmentation efficiency: One of the primary economic benefits of

secondary blasting lies in the enhanced fragmentation of rocks and materials.
Secondary blasts focus on further breaking down large fragments left by pri-
mary blasting, ensuring that the resulting pieces are of a manageable size.
Smaller, uniform fragments are easier to transport and process, reducing
material handling costs and increasing overall efficiency.
b) Increased productivity: Secondary blasting contributes directly to increased
productivity on mining and construction sites by reducing downtime
associated with manual intervention, machinery blockages and material
handling delays. This enhanced productivity results in quicker project com-
pletion and reduced labour costs.
c) Cost savings: Secondary blasting leads to significant cost savings across
various aspects of mining and construction operations. Smaller fragments are
easier to load, transport and process, reducing costs associated with heavy
machinery, fuel and labour.
236

236 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Processing: Crushed or fragmented materials that meet quality standards

require less energy and time during processing, translating into cost savings.
Infrastructure maintenance: The reduction in oversize rocks minimises wear
and tear on equipment, leading to lower maintenance and repair expenses.
d) Extended equipment life: The efficient use of secondary blasting can extend
the lifespan of heavy machinery and equipment. By reducing the physical
stress and wear caused by oversize materials, it minimises maintenance costs
and delays associated with equipment breakdowns. This extended equipment
life contributes to long-​term cost savings.
e) Enhanced safety standards: In civil construction work, overhang, dislodged
or unstable boulders need safe removal; secondary blasting can eliminate the
potential risk of failure of this rock mass completely.

Secondary blasting in mining and construction operations offers a multitude of

economic benefits that extend far beyond immediate cost savings. Enhanced frag-
mentation efficiency, increased productivity, improved resource utilisation and
access to valuable resources all contribute to the economic advantages of this prac-
tice. Additionally, secondary blasting can mitigate environmental impact, extend
equipment life and even directly contribute to revenue generation in some cases.
As industries continue to seek ways to optimise their operations, secondary blasting
remains a critical strategy for achieving economic success while also addressing
safety and sustainability concerns.

10.10 SUMMARY
The summary of discussions made in this chapter is as follows:

• Rock breakers constitute a commonly used mechanical technique for secondary

rock breakage due to its versatility. However, this technique may not be feas-
ible when the boulders are located at a place where accessibility to machinery
is limited.
• Secondary blasting methods, such as pop shooting and plaster shooting, are
widely used for secondary rock breakage. However, proper designing and
thereby control of flyrocks from secondary blasting is important to ensure
safety.
• Alternative approaches include expansive chemical agents and other mech-
anical methods like dropping balls and wire saws. However, due to slower
production rates, extended time requirements and higher costs per unit volume
of rock excavated, these alternatives have not been widely adopted.
• Plasma blasting is also employed for secondary rock breakage. This technique
uses heat energy to break the rock mass.
• By combining traditional secondary breakage methods like popping with recent
technological advances, including AI, secondary blasting can achieve max-
imum safety and efficiency, even in sensitive areas.
237

Secondary Rock Breakage 237

REFERENCES
Agarwal, M., Kudapa, V.K., 2023. Plasma based fracking in unconventional
shale –​a review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 72, 2791–​2795. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.matpr.2022.06.420.
Armaghani, D.J., Mahdiyar, A., Hasanipanah, M., Faradonbeh, R.S., Khandelwal, M., Amnieh,
H.B., 2016. Risk assessment and prediction of flyrock distance by combined multiple
regression analysis and Monte Carlo simulation of quarry blasting. Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering, 49(9), 3631–​3641. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00​603-​016-​1015-​z.
Bajpayee, T.S., Bhatt, S.K., Rehak, T.R., Mowrey, G.L., Ingram, D.K., 2003. Fatal accidents
due to flyrock and lack of blast area security and working practices in mining. Journal of
Mines, Metal and Fuels, 51, 344–​350.
Bhagat, N.K., Mishra, A.K., Singh, M.M., Rana, A., Tewari, S., Singh, P.K., 2020. Blasting
technique for stabilizing accident-​prone slope for sustainable railway route. Current
Science, 118(6), 901–​909. https://​doi.org/​10.18520/​cs/​v118/​i6/​901-​909.
Bhagat, N.K., Rana, A., Mishra, A.K., Singh, M.M., Singh, A., Singh, P.K., 2021.
Prediction of fly-​rock during boulder blasting on infrastructure slopes using CART
technique. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 12(1), 1715–​ 1740. 10.1080/​
19475705.2021.1944917.
Bhandari, S., 1997. Engineering rock blasting operations. Rotterdam, Netherlands, A.A.
Balkema, 388.
Bogaerts, A., Neyts, E. C., 2018. Plasma technology: an emerging technology for energy
storage. ACS Energy Letters, 3(4), 1013–​ 1027. https://​doi.org/​10.1021/​acsene​rgyl​
ett.8b00​184.
DGMS (Tech), 2020. S&T Circular No. 14. Precautions against premature blast of site mixed
emulsion (SME). Site mixed slurry (SMS) explosive. Directorate General of Mines
Safety, Dhanbad, India, 1–​3.
Dick, R.A., Fletcher, L.R., D’Andrea, D.V., 1983. Explosives and blasting procedures manual.
Information Circulation 8925. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Ghasemi, E., Sari, M., Ataei, M., 2012. Development of an empirical model for predicting
the effects of controllable blasting parameters on flyrock distance in surface mines.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics Minerals Science, 52, 163–​170. https://​doi.
org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2012.03.011.
Gupta, R.N., 2016, Emerging explosives and initiation devices for increased safety, reliability,
and performance for excavation in weak rocks, mining and close to surface structures. In
Recent Advances in Rock Engineering (RARE 2016), 361–​369. https://​doi.org/​10.2991/​
rare-​16.2016.57.
Gupta, R.N., Bagchi, A., Singh, B., 1988. Optimising drilling and blasting parameters to
improve blasting efficiency. Rock Mechanics in India, Status Report, CBIP, New Delhi,
185–​206.
Habib, K. M., Shnorhokian, S., Mitri, H., 2022. Evaluating the application of rock breakage
without explosives in underground construction—​a critical review of chemical demoli-
tion agents. Minerals, 12(2), 220. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​min1​2020​220.
Hamelin, M., Menard, M., Vandamme, L., Wint, G., Pronko, S., McKELVEY, T., 1995.
Components development for plasma blasting technology. In Digest of Technical Papers.
Tenth IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference, 2, 1176–​ 1181. https://​doi.org/​
10.1109/​PPC.1995.600​578.
Hasanipanah, M., Armaghani, D.J., Amnieh, H.B., Koopialipoor, M., Arab, H., 2018. A
risk-​
based technique to analyze flyrock results through rock engineering system.
238

238 Principles and Practices of Rock Blasting

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 36(4), 2247–​2260. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​

s10​706-​018-​0459-​1.
IME, 1997. Glossary of commercial explosives industry terms. Institute of Makers of
Explosives, Safety Publication, Washington, DC, 12.
Jimeno, E.L., Jimino, C.L., Carcedo, F.J.A., 1995. Drilling and blasting of rocks. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Kristin, S., Maras, M., 1994. Secondary rock breaking by use of impactors. In Z. Rakowski
(Eds.), Geomechanics 93-​Strata Mechanics/​Numerical Methods/​Water Jet Cutting, CRC
Press, London, 441–​444.
Kuznetsova, N., Zhgun, D., Golovanevskiy, V., 2022. Plasma blasting of rocks and rocks-​like
materials: an analytical model. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 150, 104986. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2021.104​986.
Little, T.N., Blair, D.P., 2010. Mechanistic Monte Carlo models for analysis of flyrock risk.
Rock Fragm Blasting, 9, 641–​647.
Lundborg, N., 1981. The probability of flyrock. SveDeFo, Stockholm.
Lundborg, N., Persson, A., Ladegaard-​Pedersen, A., Holmberg, R., 1975. Keeping the lid on
flyrock in open-​pit blasting. Engineering and Mining Journal, 176, 95–​100.
McKenzie, C.K., 2009. Flyrock range and fragment size prediction. In Proceedings of
the 35th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, 2. Cleveland,
OH: International Society of Explosives Engineers.
Mohamad, E.T., Armaghani, D.J., Noorani, S.A., Saad, R., Alvi, S.V., Abad, N.K., 2012.
Prediction of flyrock in boulder blasting using artificial neural network. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17, 2585–​2595.
Murray, C., Courtley, S., Howlett, P.F., 1994. Developments in rock-​breaking techniques.
Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 9(2), 225–​ 231. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
0886-​7798(94)90034-​5.
Office of the Federal Register, 2005. Code of Federal Regulations. US General Services
Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Office of the Federal Register.
Pal Roy, P., 2021. Emerging trends in drilling and blasting technology: concerns and
commitments. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14(7), 652. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​
517-​021-​06949-​z.
Raina, A.K., Murthy, V.M.S.R., Soni, A.K., 2015. Flyrock in surface mine blasting: understanding
the basics to develop a predictive regime. Current Science, 108(4), 660–​665.
Richard, A.B., Moore, A.J., 2005. Golden pike cut back fly rock control and calibration of a
predictive model. Terrock Consulting Engineers Report, Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold
Mines, 37.
Riu, H., Jang, H.S., Lee, B.J., Wu, C., Jang, B.A., 2019. Laboratory-​scale fracturing of cement
and rock specimen by plasma blasting. Episodes Journal of International Geoscience,
42(3), 213-​223. https://​doi.org/​10.18814/​epii​ugs/​2019/​019​017.
Sawmliana, C., Singh, P.K., Roy, M.P, Singh, R.K., Himanshu, V.K., 2018. Safe dismantling
of unstable boulder using controlled blasting in the historical Town of Gaya, India. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
417–​427.
Schneider, L., 1997. Flyrock-​part 2: prevention. Journal of Explosives Engineering, 14(1), 1–​4.
Singh, P.K., Roy, M.P., 2010. Damage to surface structures due to blast vibration. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47(6), 949–​ 961. https://​doi.org/​
10.1016/​j.ijr​mms.2010.06.010.
Vishwakarma, A.K., Himanshu, V.K., Kumar, S., Roy, M.P., 2020. Overbreak control in devel-
opment face blasting of underground metal mine –​a case study. In Proceedings of
National Conference on Advances in Mining (AIM-​2020), 473–​482.
239

Secondary Rock Breakage 239

Wang, X., Hosseini, S., Armaghani, D.J., Tonnizam Mohamad, E., 2023. Data-​driven optimized
artificial neural network technique for prediction of flyrock induced by boulder blasting.
Mathematics, 11(10), 2358. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​math1​1102​358.
Zhou, H., Xie, X., Feng, Y., 2018. Rock breaking methods to replace blasting. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 322(2), 022014. https://​doi.org/​10.1088/​
1757-​899X/​322/​2/​022​014.
Zhou, J., Koopialipoor, M., Murlidhar, B.R., Fatemi, S.A., Tahir, M.M., Armaghani, D.J.,
Li, C., 2019. Use of intelligent methods to design effective pattern parameters of mine
blasting to minimize flyrock distance. Nature Resource Research, 29, 25–​639. 10.1007/​
s11053-​019-​09519-​z.
240
241

Index
A Charge weight, 91, 144, 146, 163
Charging pattern, 79, 88, 87, 97, 130, 175, 201,
Accident, 4, 40, 54, 57, 140, 164, 185, 186
204
Air overpressure, 41, 140, 181
Circuit wire, 80, 81
Alignment, 55, 56, 86, 192
C-​J plane, 24
Alignment deviation, 56
Coal, 72
Aluminium oxide, 232
Coal benches, 75
Ammonium nitrate fuel oil, 11
Coal handling plant, 136
Artificial intelligence, 225
Collar, 30, 40, 54–​57, 79, 86, 216, 223
Artificial neural network, 61
Collar deviation, 55
Attenuation, 9, 118, 122
Colluvium deposits, 188
Construction site, 140, 141, 160, 200, 210, 212,
B
235
Backbreak, 59–​61, 113 Controlled, 3, 4, 36, 40, 85, 94, 118, 137, 140,
Bamboo spacers, 209 144, 146, 157, 158, 169
Barrier, 164, 165, 178, 180, 181, 191, 201, 229 Controlled blasting techniques, 85, 86, 93, 136,
Base charge, 17–​19 161, 187, 201
Bench, 29, 75–​82, 85 Controlled fracture, 221
Bending stiffness, 56 Conventional blasting, 136, 154–​156
Berm, 59, 164, 181, 201, 207 Conveyor belt, 61, 141, 145, 147, 148, 161, 162,
Black powder, 10, 14 169
Blasthole, 9, 12, 25, 32, 40, 53, 55, 56, 76, 85, 97 Cooling towers, 136
Blasthole expansion, 9 Crater, 26, 40, 41, 166, 228, 231
Blast-​induced ground vibration, 36 Critical diameter, 11, 20
Blasting mats, 145, 163 Cross linking agents, 12
Blue grey hematite, 104, 107, 109, 111, 114 Crushed zone, 9, 63, 219
Booster, 11–​14, 78, 79, 84, 93 Cushion blasting, 158, 160, 186
Borehole, 158, 159, 221–​223
Borehole pressure, 23, 233 D
Boulder, 26, 30, 31, 40, 59, 61, 79, 101, 111, 129,
Damages, 152, 153, 157, 159, 161, 164, 167, 177,
164, 178, 200
180
Box-​cut, 147, 172
Danger zone, 157
Bridge wire, 18
Dautriche, 21, 23
Buffer, 86, 87, 88, 120, 160, 178, 208
Deck, 82, 86, 162, 164, 199, 209
Bulk blasting, 185
Deck charging, 79, 93, 102, 171, 182
Burden, 26
Decoupled, 86, 135
Burden movement, 35, 83, 102, 109, 118, 133
Deep hole drilling, 96, 97
Burden relief, 35, 82
Delay, 5, 6, 14, 18–​20, 26, 32, 34, 40, 79, 91, 119,
Bursting, 40, 41
124, 126
Density, 9, 12, 13, 20, 24, 26, 28, 98, 101, 107
C
Detonating cord, 17, 21, 22, 43, 54, 140, 164, 199
Cap sensitive, 11–​13, 78, 79 Detonating fuse, 19, 44, 79, 81, 210
Cartridge, 12, 13, 21–​23, 57, 118 Detonation, 8–​11, 13, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 32, 36
Cast, 29 Detonation pressure, 13, 20, 23, 24, 27, 44
Cast booster, 12–​14, 78, 84 Detonation velocity, 13, 14, 36
Cavities, 56, 68 Deviation, 53, 55, 56, 65, 76, 85, 96, 97, 102, 110
Charge factor, 13, 33, 44, 79, 93, 97–​100, 109, DGMS, 54, 58, 139, 142, 153, 222
188, 129 Directional, 136
Charge length, 59, 65, 102, 103, 163, 174, 176, Discontinuity, 9, 60, 86
177, 223 Discontinuity plane, 86

241
242

242 Index

Dominant frequency, 36, 37, 121, 129, 138, 161, Hematite, 96, 97, 104, 105, 111
169 High speed videography, 88, 91
Down the hole, 19, 81, 122, 145, 169, 198, 199 High wall, 208
Dragline, 73, 76, 79, 80, 83, 84, 92, 93 Hole angle, 223, 225
Drill cuttings, 30, 97, 145, 147, 174, 176, 177 Hot spots, 13
Dust, 8, 10, 36, 43, 44, 58, 104, 129, 130 Hot strata, 58
Dynamite, 11 Hydraulic hammer, 220, 232
Hydraulic splitter, 154–​156
E Hydrological, 188, 191
Electric detonator, 14, 18
I
Electric wires, 18
Electrolyte, 232, 233 Image analysis, 61, 88, 129
Electronic detonators, 14, 20 Impedance, 139, 235
Emulsifying agent, 12 Initiation system, 14, 57, 79, 200, 223
Emulsion, 12, 13, 23–​25 In-​situ, 44, 67, 98, 129–​131, 133
Excavator, 75, 91, 109, 116, 164, 169, 200–​203, Instantaneous, 10, 225
219, 220 Iron ore, 98, 99, 104
Excitation frequency, 153
Exothermic reaction, 59 J
Expansion, 9
Jackhammer, 136, 161, 191, 203, 207, 209
Explosion, 14, 23, 156, 180, 181
Joint spacing, 101, 117
Explosive parameter, 20
Extraction, 3, 158, 218
K
F Kinetic energy, 136
Face burst, 40, 41, 228 Konkan railway, 136, 164, 166, 167, 186
Factor of safety, 164, 196, 213 Kuz-​Ram model, 63–​66, 99, 111
Fine crushed zone, 9
Fine fragmentation, 164, 166, 221, 223 L
Firing sequence, 174, 201 Landslide, 162, 185–​188, 190, 191, 207
Flyrock, 40, 222, 223, 225, 226, 228 Large opencast mines, 72
Flying fragments, 54, 147, 161, 178, 221 Large-​scale, 42, 43, 72, 97, 157, 216
Foundation, 135, 171 Lateritic ore, 104, 107, 109, 111
Fracture, 59, 86, 99, 119, 123, 129, 133 Lead azide, 17
Fragmentation, 61, 62, 118, 129 Lead styphnate, 17
Free face, 9, 26, 34, 81, 159, 172, 221 Leaf nodes, 226
Frequency, 36, 37, 88, 105, 119, 122, 124, 129 Leg wires, 18
Fumes, 25, 233 Lightning, 18, 19, 54, 58
Lilly’s blastability index, 96, 101, 106, 111
G Limestone, 116
Gas energy, 8, 9 Line drilling, 86, 87, 159, 172, 201
Gas emission , 156 Liquefaction, 188
Genetic algorithm, 61 Logistic regression, 167
Ground reactivity, 58, 59 Low explosive, 8, 14
Ground vibration, 36, 88, 91, 118, 122, 124, 126,
139, 157, 160, 161, 171, 181 M
Groundwater, 155, 168
Machine learning, 5, 40, 61, 140
Gun powder, 8
Magnetite, 96, 97
Mats, 141, 145, 160, 163, 178, 225
H Mean fragment size, 62, 67, 100–​103, 109, 111
Hard rock, 33, 55, 97, 154, 235 Microphone, 88
Hardness, 66, 96, 97, 199 Misfire, 19, 54–​56, 221
Hazards, 36, 157, 168, 177 Mishandling, 57, 68
243

Index 243

Modelling, 137, 139, 151, 160, 229 Resonance, 122, 138, 233
Muck, 59, 67, 111, 129, 130 Resonant frequency, 88
Mud, 146, 225 Retaining wall, 38, 166, 208, 215
Muffling, 140, 145–​147, 160, 162, 171, 178, 179, Rifling, 40, 228
208, 225 Riprap, 215, 217
Rock-​breaking, 151, 154, 156, 158, 220
N Rock bolting, 164, 186
Rock factor, 65, 67, 96, 100, 101, 103, 106, 111,
Natural joints, 155
113, 114
Nitroglycerine, 10, 11
Rock joints, 116, 189
Noise, 40–​42, 162, 182, 187, 199, 209, 223, 226,
Rock properties, 26, 158
232
Rosin Rammler, 65–​66, 99, 100, 102
Nonel, 19, 43, 54, 57, 79–​82
Non-​electric, 19, 80, 122, 145
Non-​explosive, 154, 155, 220, 232 S
Novel blasting, 164 Safety fuse, 14, 17
Nuisance, 36, 98, 140, 157, 185 Safety hazard, 135, 137, 152
Numerical, 118, 139, 140, 142, 143, 229 Sandbags, 136, 141, 145, 147, 161, 162, 208, 212
Scraped rubber tyre, 178
O Secondary blasting, 215
Observational method, 61 Seismographs, 5, 88, 122, 143, 169, 171, 173
Occupational, 157 Seismo-​tectonic, 188
Optimum delay, 68, 82, 147 Semi-​tunnel, 211
Overbreak, 30, 166, 200, 207–​209 Sensitising agent, 12
Overburden, 74, 75, 91, 120, 189, 190 Sensitive, 12–​14, 18, 19, 78, 79, 85
Overhanging rock, 202, 203, 212 Shallow depth drilling, 97
Overhead, 173, 217 Shelter, 178
Oversize, 215–​217, 220, 221, 236 Shock energy, 8, 9, 11, 20, 44
Shock tube, 19, 54, 57, 162
P Shock waves, 9, 22, 23, 25, 85, 136, 160, 232, 233
Shotcreting, 164, 186
Peak particle velocity, 32, 33, 36, 38, 119, 143 Shovel, 75, 76, 79
Perimeter holes, 200, 201, 208–​210 Sieve analysis, 61, 129
Periphery holes, 85 Signature hole, 81, 124, 126–​129
Pit, 98, 118, 157, 158 Site mixed emulsion, 13, 72, 78, 118
Plain detonator, 14, 17–​19 Site mixed slurry, 12
Plasma blasting, 156, 232, 234, 235 Site-​specific, 80, 169, 171
Plaster shooting, 225 Size distribution, 62
Plastic deformation, 220 Sleeping, 20, 79
Popping, 221, 223, 226 Slope, 136, 158, 164, 185, 188, 189, 216
Pop shooting, 221 Slope angle, 31, 59, 166, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192,
Powder factor, 60, 61 196, 207
Premature initiation, 18, 57–​59 Slope bottom, 164
Pre-​split blasting, 88 Slope failure, 164, 185, 186
Pressure bulb, 219 Slope stability, 191, 196, 203, 210
Prime charge, 11, 12, 17–​20 Slurry explosive, 12, 13, 121, 199
Printed circuit board, 80 Smokes, 25
Production holes, 85–​88 Snake shooting, 220
Soluble rock, 56
R Spacing, 26
Radial cracking zone, 9 Specific energy, 151
Railway, 141, 145, 164, 167, 171 Specific gravity, 96
Reaction zone, 23, 24 Splinters, 169
Reinforced, 136, 153, 181 Stabilisation, 136, 164, 178, 185, 186, 216
Reliability, 152 Static charging, 81
244

244 Index

Steel, 104, 167, 178, 181, 208 Transducer, 105, 122, 143
Stemming, 30 Transportation, 61, 153, 157, 185, 189, 190, 215,
Stiffness, 35, 56 217, 219
Stone chips, 147, 169, 225 Trench, 164, 166, 201, 204, 213
Stress energy, 8, 44 Trial-​and-​error, 155
Structural response, 120, 122, 124, 133, 151 Trinitrotoluene, 11
Subgrade, 29 Trunkline delay, 19, 82, 122, 145, 169
Support vector machine, 43, 61 Tunnels, 3, 4, 38, 135, 153, 190, 191, 194, 211
Sustainability, 185, 187, 192, 232, 236
U
T
Uniformity index, 65–​67, 99–​103, 109, 110
Temperature, 10, 13, 14, 20, 57–​59, 155
Tensile action, 57 V
Thermal power plant, 136, 137, 141, 147
Velocity of detonation, 9, 11, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26,
Threshold, 36, 41, 88, 137, 139, 144, 161,
44, 92, 130, 199
171
Vibration, 2, 4–​6, 26, 29, 31–​33, 81, 84–​86, 88,
Throw, 67, 130, 164–​166, 200, 223, 229
91, 118, 119
Throw of muckpile, 67, 68
Videotaping, 152, 169
Thunderstorm, 58
Tippler, 136, 141, 144, 167, 168
W
Toe formation, 72, 75, 79, 91
Toppling failure, 186 Wagon, 136, 141, 144, 167, 168, 210
Topsoil, 169, 200 Wagon tippler, 141, 144, 167, 168
Torsion, 57 Water bottle, 130, 133
Toxic fume, 56, 233 Water resistant, 10, 11, 19, 25
Track, 136, 141, 144, 161, 164–​166, 168, 169, Water spraying, 130
178, 217, 229 Watery strata, 55, 56
Track hopper, 136, 141, 144, 161 Waves, 9, 22, 23, 33, 36, 41, 85, 122, 136, 153,
Track line, 164 160, 181, 182
Traffic, 38, 164, 167, 185, 186, 188, 196 Weather condition, 155
Train, 5, 36, 164, 169 Wedge failure, 188
Trajectory, 55, 56, 221 Wire-​mesh, 145, 178
Trajectory deviation, 55, 56 Wire-​netting, 164