Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Blast induced rock mass damage around tunnels MARK

a,⁎ b b a a
H.K. Verma , N.K. Samadhiya , M. Singh , R.K. Goel , P.K. Singh
a
CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Barwa Road, Dhanbad 826015, India
b
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drilling and blasting is a preferred method of rock excavation world-wide due to low initial investment, cheap
Rock mass damage explosive energy, easy acceptability among the blasting engineers and, possibility to deal with different shapes
Blasting and sizes of openings. Although, drill and blast method has witnessed significant technological advancements, it
Maximum charge per delay has inherent disadvantage of deteriorating surrounding rock mass due to development of network of fine cracks
Vibration
in it leading to safety and stability problems. The damage in the peripheral rock mass culminates in the form of
Attenuation characteristics
overbreak and damaged zone beyond overbreak. In some cases the projects cost has increased more than 15%
Perimeter charge factor
because of overbreak. Although significant efforts have been made to assess damage to the surrounding rock
mass using different methods, the solution based on easily available site parameters is still lacking. Authors have
carried out field investigations at five different tunnels located in Himalaya, India to study blast induced damage
for wide range of rock mass quality Q values (0.03–17.8). In addition to Q, specific charge, perimeter charge
factor, maximum charge per delay, advancement and confinement factors have also been used. Data sets of 113
experimental blasts are collected from the five tunnel sites. All the parameters, easily available to the site en-
gineers, have been used for developing an empirical correlation to estimate the rock mass damage around the
tunnel, which is discussed in the paper. The proposed empirical correlation has been validated using ultrasonic
tests on rock core samples obtained from one of the experimental location.

1. Introduction
Rock excavation using drill and blast method (DBM) is commonly
used in mining, quarrying and tunnelling world-wide. The drill and
blast method is economical as compared to other mechanical methods
utilizing rock breakers, tunnel boring machines and road headers
especially with regards to tunnels excavation in varying geological
conditions. Low initial investment, cheap explosive energy, easy ac-
ceptability among the blasting engineers, possibility to deal with dif-
ferent shapes and sizes of openings and reasonably faster advance rate
in a suitable geotechnical mining condition collectively make DBM
preferred method of rock excavation (Innaurato et al., 1998; Murthy
and Dey, 2003 and Verma et al., 2015).
The drill and blast method has witnessed considerable technological
advancements particularly in the area of explosives, initiating devices,
automation in drilling techniques and blast designs (Dey and Murthy,
2011). Despite the technological advancement, DBM has the inherent
disadvantage of damaging the surrounding rock mass resulting in the
development of network of blast-induced cracks in the surrounding
rock masses leading to safety and stability problems.
Blasting for underground excavation and tunnelling are difficult
operations compared to open pit excavation due to lack of free face
(Gupta et al., 1988; Adhikari and Babu, 1994 and Murthy and Dey,
2002). Practicing engineers attempt to achieve faster advancement in
tunnel and underground excavation by employing drill jumbos. Such
drill machine significantly reduces drilling time with improved accu-
racy. Faster advancement rate using higher amount of explosives leads
to greater extent of blast induced rock mass damage (Murthy and Dey,
2003). Perimeter blasting techniques, such as smooth blasting
(Holmberg and Persson, 1980) are commonly used to minimize damage
to surrounding rock mass beyond the designed profile of tunnel. Despite
the improvement in blasting techniques, rock mass damage is still in-
evitable and is evident in the form of increased support cost, slow
tunnel advancement, unstable rock mass, prolonged incubation period
of the projects and enhanced post-construction tunnel maintenance
cost.
Various researchers have studied and given emphasis on de-
termining the extent of unwanted damage induced by blasting beyond
the desired perimeter of the tunnel. The significance and importance of
this damage have been deliberated by various researchers (Langefors
and Kihlstrom, 1963; Bauer and Calder, 1978; Oriad, 1982; MacKown,
1986; Singh, 1993; Scoble et al., 1997; Backblom and Martin, 1999;

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: drharsh77@gmail.com (H.K. Verma).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.08.019
Received 9 March 2017; Received in revised form 27 July 2017; Accepted 16 August 2017
Available online 19 September 2017
0886-7798/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.K. Verma et al.
Raina et al., 2000; Ouchterlony et al., 2002; Singh and Xavier, 2005;
Warneke et al., 2007; Ramulu et al., 2009 and Fu et al., 2014). Damage
around an opening in underground has been described by using ter-
minology such as blast induced rock mass damage (BIRD), blast induced
damage (BID), excavation damage zone (EDZ), rock mass damage zone
(RMD) etc. Blast induced rock mass damage zone surrounding an un-
derground opening consists of overbreak zone (failed zone), damaged
zone and a disturbed zone. In the present research work, the definition
and significance of the three zones are as discussed below and shown in
Fig. 1.
The overbreak zone represents the zone beyond the minimum ex-
cavation line of the designed periphery from where rock blocks/slabs
detach completely from the rock mass. It is a measure of difference in
excavation between ‘as designed profile’ and ‘as excavated profile’.
Overbreak zone is undesirable and leads to cost over-run due to extra
excavation and backfilling, shotcrete, concrete or other material as per
designed support system. Overbreak varies from 5% to 30% which in-
curs significant cost and increases cycle time of the tunnelling operation
(Ramulu et al., 2009).
The damaged zone is a zone around tunnel beyond overbreak zone.
The irreversible changes in the rock mass properties take place in this
zone due to presence of network of micro-cracks and fractures induced
by the blasting excavation process. This zone is characterized by dete-
rioration in mechanical and physical properties and increase in trans-
missivity properties (Saiang and Nordlund, 2009).
The disturbed zone is a zone in the rock mass immediately beyond
the damaged zone where changes in the rock mass properties are in-
significant and reversible. This zone is dominated by changes in stresses
and hydraulic permeability (Palmström and Singh, 2001).
Overbreak as well as damaged zone has significant impact on the
project cost, construction time, safety and performance of the under-
ground structures. During construction of tunnels and caverns, da-
maged zone can adversely affect the stability of underground openings
Enlarged extent of the damaged zone endangers safety of the front line
workers as it may considerably reduce stand-up time of the rock mass.
Functionality and post-construction performance of the structure will
also be affected with enlarged extent of the damaged zone.
The acceptable limit of damage to the rock mass varies with the
importance and requirement of the excavation in different industries
(Olsson and Ouchterlony, 2003; Mandal et al., 2005). During con-
struction of a high level nuclear waste disposal system, even the
150
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158
Fig. 1. Blast induced Rock Mass Damage Zone Tunnels
(Adapted from Singh and Xavier, 2005).
smallest disturbance to the rock mass may have significant implications
due to possible percolation of contaminants along the fine cracks. Rock
mass damage in mining and dimensional stone industries causes ore
dilution. In tunnels too, rock mass damage has significant influence on
cost and safety aspects. Extent and characterization of damaged zone
pertaining to design and development of high level nuclear waste dis-
posal repositories have been extensively studied (Martino and
Chandler, 2004 and Hudson et al., 2009; Waltona et al., 2015). Daemen
(2011) have emphasized on the importance of excavation damage zone
(EDZ) assessment in design of nuclear waste repositories, especially at
locations where permanent seals are to be installed. Importance to the
blast induced rock mass damage in underground mining and tunnelling
has, however, received relatively less attention (Scoble et al., 1997).
In rock mass damage studies pertaining to tunnels, overbreak zone
alone has been considered invariably as damage zone, whereas it has
been found that the damage by blast extends beyond overbreak zone
and plays vital role in the stability of underground structures in the
long-term sometimes. Mandal and Singh (2009) suggested that the
damaged zone beyond overbreak zone should be considered in the
design of the tunnel support systems.
Although significant efforts have been made to assess damage to the
surrounding rock mass using different methods, the solution based on
easily available site parameters is still missing. Review of available
literature reveals that the results obtained from various blast induced
damage estimation methods are inconsistent (Raina et al., 2000). Most
of the methods are based on few cases and applicable to limited range
of rock types (Raina et al., 2000).
The evaluation of rock mass damage from the surface geometry of
the tunnel can be done by various methods such as manual measure-
ments, standard surveying, laser surveying with reflectors, photo-
graphic sectioning and light sectioning methods. The limitations of
these methods are that they are too subjective, manually intensive,
time-consuming and often provide information only for a limited sec-
tions (Warneke et al., 2007). Moreover, in some cases this will provide
the information about the overbreak and not the extent of damage in
peripheral rock mass.
Some of the damage prediction models are based on laboratory
investigations only wherein a single hole blast is considered. In actual
field conditions because of number of holes, the quantity of explosive
and interaction of different parameters make the problem complex and
hence the simplistic laboratory scale study may not be able to
H.K. Verma et al.
adequately address the in-situ conditions (Reference).
Maerz et al. (1996) and Scoble et al. (1997) have emphasized that
damage assessment method should be accurate, simple in procedure
and should have a possibility to function under a large range of con-
ditions. This will help the site personnel in making damage assessment
a routine practice and timely implementing the control measures for
reducing damage.
Damage in the rock mass is influenced by several factors such as
blasting practices, rock mass properties, geological conditions and also
by stress environment around an opening. The blast induced damage
happens with the blast, whereas the stress induced damagetakes place
with some time with the interaction of rock mass and stresses in the
process of attaining a fresh equilibrium state. Thus, the impacts of
blasting parameters seem to be significant in the immediate rock mass
damage around an underground opening. The stress induced damage
may be spread to a greater extent depending upon ground conditions
(Hoek and Karzulovic, 2000; Singh and Xavier, 2005). The combined
effect of blast and stresses has not been evaluated in this work sepa-
rately.
Stress environment and rock mass properties cannot be altered after
finalization of the project parameters but the blasting practices can be
suitably refined to reduce damage (Backstrom, 2008). Therefore, it is
important to study the inter-relationship between extent of damage and
parameters of blast design in order to evaluate and limit the damage.
Researchers have emphasized on the need of quick, simple, inexpensive
and robust system for blast damage assessment (Mandal et al., 2008). In
the light of above observations, efforts have been made in this study to
develop empirical relations for estimation of extent of damaged zone
based on the data obtained from the field investigations at five under
construction hydropower project tunnels in Himalayan region of north
India. It is appropriate to mention here that the commonly used ex-
plosives in these tunnels are small diameter cartridge slurry and
emulsion explosives. The field-oriented research work is planned to
develop simpler empirical approach to predict blast induced damage.
Therefore, it was important to select parameters which are easily
available to practicing site engineers without any laboratory tests. This
empirical correlation will also help to integrate support design process
with routine blasting operation with due consideration to blast induced
damage.
2. Field investigations and selection of parameters
2.1. Field investigations
Field experiments have been carried out to gain insight of these
influencing parameters at five tunnel construction sites. The sites are
integral parts of three major hydro power projects located in Himalya,
Uttarakhand state, India. These sites are as follows:
• Access tunnels AA10R and AA7 from pump storage plant (PSP)
project of THDC India Limited at Tehri,
• Head race tunnel (HRT) of Singoli-Bhatwari hydroelectric power
project (SBHEP) at Rudraprayag,
• Head race tunnel (HRT) and bypass tunnel (BPT) of Tapovan-
Visnhnugaad hydroelectric power project (TVHEP) at Tapovan.
The data was collected from 113 different test blasts undertaken at
five tunnel construction sites as shown in Fig. 2.
The test sites have been selected based on suitability of rock mass
conditions for blasting experiments, relatively lesser overburden so that
stress environment around an opening has negligible influence on the
damage distance and the damage is predominantly governed by the
blasting operation. The minimum and maximum overburden in the
experimnetal tunnels were 56 m and 318 m respectively. There was
lesser variation in the topography of the experimental sites and there-
fore influence of topography was not considered in the study.
151
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158
Predominant rock mass encountered, and range of the data and Q va-
lues used in the study has been givenin Table 1. The tensile strength, P-
wave velocity and Young’s modulus of rock mass encountered at the
experimental sites have been presented in Table 2.
Two types of rock masses namely thinly bedded phyllitic quartzite
(PQT) and massive phyllitic quartzite (PQM) have been encountered in
PSP project sites. Q-values of these two types of rock masses varied
between 0.03 and 1.68 (Table 1) showing extremely poor and fair
qualities of rock masses. However, at Singoli-Bhatwari project site, and
Tapovan-Vishnugaad project site rock mass encountered represented
fair to good rock mass having Q-values in the range of 2.7–17.8
(Table 1). The P-wave velocities of the rock mass have been found to
vary in the range of 3.0 km/s to more than 6.0 km/s (Table 2).
Rock mass characterisation, blast vibration monitoring, overbreak
assessment and estimation of damaged zone (as discussed in Section 3)
was carried out during each blast operation. All the experimental blasts
under observation were closely monitored. Efforts were made to carry
out experimental investigation encompassing large range of Q values
which are generally encountered in tunnelling. Thus, range of Q values
covered in the present study varied from 0.03 (extremely poor rock
mass) to 17.4 (good rock mass). The cross-sectional area of tunnel
varied from 25.9 sq. m. to 67.8 sq. m.
2.2. Selection of parameters
In underground construction using drill and blast method, rock mass
damage around an underground opening primarily depends upon rock
mass conditions, stresses and blasting parameters. In this study, efforts
have been made to include all the influencing parameters to develop
empirical correlation.
Parameters related to blast design such as hole depth, spacing and
burden of each hole, delay timing and firing sequence are collected
from each experimental blasting operation. The data for drilling pat-
terns including spacing and burden, (with emphasis on holes in peri-
meter and penultimate row and hole depth) was collected during dril-
ling operations. Parameters related to explosive consumption in a hole
as well as in total round, initiation system and firing sequence, max-
imum charge per delay were recorded during charging of holes in a
blast round.
Record of pull in each round was obtained after surveying of tunnel
profile and advancement. Parameters such as total charge used in a
blast round (T), maximum charge per delay (W), Pull (l), hole depth (d)
were directly available. Other parameters such as advancement factor,
confinement factor and perimeter charge factor were calculated from
the recorded observation for each round of blast.
In the proposed empirical correlation, specific charge (q), maximum
charge per delay (W), perimeter charge factor (qp), advancement factor
(Af) and confinement factor (Cf) have been used to represent the
blasting operation in underground excavation. The parameters used are
described below.
• Specific Charge (q) (kg/m ): Specific charge is defined as ratio of
3
total quantity of explosive used and rock volume broken. It is ex-
pressed in kg/m3.
• Maximum Charge per Delay (W) (kg): It is maximum quantity of
explosive fired in a delay series. This is obtained from record of
delay distribution in a blast round and charging pattern in each
hole.
• Perimeter Charge Factor (qp) (kg/m3): Similar to specific charge,
perimeter powder factor is the quantity of explosive used in peri-
meter holes and the volume of rock corresponding to burden of the
contour holes.
• Advancement Factor (Af): It is ratio of pull (l) and hole depth (d) in a
blast round.
• Confinement Factor (Cf): It is ratio of hole depth (d) and cross-sec-
tional area of tunnel (a).
H.K. Verma et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158

Singoli-Bhatwari HEP (99 MW)

Range of Q Rating: 3 to 10

TVHEP, Joshimath, (520 MW)

Range of Q Rating: 2.6 to 17.8

THDC PSP (1000 MW)

Range of Q Rating: 0.03 to 1.67

Fig. 2. Location of Field Experimentation Sites.

Table 1
Details of experimental project sites and range of data.
Source: detailed project report of respective projects (L & T- SBHEP, 2007; NTPC Ltd, 2006, 2010; THDC Pump Storage Plant Project Report, 2012).

Sl. No Project Site Tunnel Rock Type Number of Test Data Set Range of Q

1 Pump Storage Plant Project (PSP), Tehri AA7R Thinly bedded Phyllitic Quartzite (PQT) 27 0.8–1.1
2 AA10R Massive Phyllitic Quartzite (PQM) 30 0.03–1.68
3 Singoli- Bhatwari Hydro Power Project (SBHEP), Rudraprayag HRT Quartz Biotite Schist 20 2.7–11.1
4 Tapovan Vishnugaad Hydro Power Project (TVHEP), Tapovan HRT Augen Gneiss 24 3.6–4.3
5 BPT Quartzite 12 6.8–17.8

Table 2
Geotechnical properties of rock in experimental tunnels.
Source: detailed project report of respective projects (L & T- SBHEP, 2007; NTPC Ltd, 2006, 2010; THDC Pump Storage Plant Project Report, 2012)

Sl. No Experimental Tunnel Site Vibration Attenuation Equations σt MPa Vp m/s E MPa Vcr mm/s

1 HRT SBHEP −1.20 6.71 3267 12600 1739.8

Vppv = 1825.1 ( ) R
W 0.33
2 HRT TVHEP −1.598 8.7 5400 27900 1683.8
= 1390.5 ( ) R
Vppv
W 0.33
3 BPT TVHEP −1.334 12.4 6200 55500 1754.5
= 2079.1 ( ) R
Vppv
W 0.33
4 AA7 PSP −1.16 4.3 5400 10500 221.65
= 441.9 ( )
R
Vppv
W 0.33
5 AA10R PSP −1.03 7.2 6000 12700 340.15
= 576.2 ( )
R
Vppv
W 0.33

Notations: σt: Tensile strength, Vp: P-wave velocity, E: Young Modulus; Vcr: Critical peak particle velocity; SBHEP: Singoli-Bhatwari Hydroelectric Project; TVHEP: Tapovan Vishnugaad
Hydroelectric Project, Tapovan; PSP: Pump Storage Plant Project, Tehri.

The above parameters are recorded in all the blasting operations as
routine practice and are easily available to the site engineers. In the
proposed empirical correlation, hole depth, confinement factor and
advancement factor represent blast design parameters whereas max-
imum charge per delay, specific charge and perimeter charge factor
represent explosive parameters. Effect of perimeter charge factor on
overbreak and underbreak in underground excavation is significant
(Maerz et al., 1996; Ibarra et al., 1996). The perimeter charge factor
depends upon advancement & confinement factors and maximum
charge per delay. Therefore, perimeter charge factor along with max-
imum charge per delay, advancement and confinement factors has been
included in the proposed empirical correlation.
Underground blasting operation is rela7tively difficult blasting op-
eration as compared to surface blasting due to lack of free face. The

152
H.K. Verma et al.
relative ease of blasting operation increase with tunnel size (a). The
specific charge in a blast round is also function of tunnel size. Specific
charge reduces with increase in tunnel size (Olofsson, 1988;
Chakraborty et al., 1994). The extent of rock mass damage is sig-
nificantly influenced by specific charge and confinement factor. Both
the terms measure efficiency of blasting operation. A well utilized ex-
plosive energy in blasting round will produces lesser damage which is
measured by advancement factor. The parameters such as specific
charge, perimeter charge factor and maximum charge per delay are
mutually exclusive and hence all the three parameters incorporated in
the empirical correlation.
Rock mass characterisation has been carried out using rock mass
quality system, Q, developed by Barton et al. (1974). Parameters of Q-
systems are rock quality designation (RQD), joint set number (Jn), joint
roughness number (Jr), joint alteration number (Ja), joint water con-
dition (Jw), and stress reduction factor (SRF). All these six parameters of
Q system are given individual rating and the numerical value of Q is
obtained using Eq. (1). In Eq. (1), the term (RQD/ Jn) is a measure of
block size, (Jr/Ja) represents inter block shear strength and the term
(Jw/ SRF) is a measure of active stresses in the rock mass. SRF is also a
measure of rock burst, squeezing or swelling conditions Therefore, SRF
is regarded as total stress factor (Singh and Goel, 2011). The value of Q
varies from 0.001 to 1000.
RQD ⎞ ⎛ Jr ⎞ Jw
Q=⎛ ⎜ ⎟⎜⎛ ⎟ ⎞
⎝ Jn ⎠ ⎝ Ja ⎠ ⎝ SRF ⎠ (1)
Q-system of rock mass characterisation has been recommended speci-
fically for tunnels and caverns with an arched roof (Singh and Goel,
2011). It is observed that Q-system is preferred method of rock mass
classification for tunnels and caverns and it has been used to design
more than 1200 structures world-wide (Kumar, 2002). A large number
of field and design engineers as well as geologists are using Q-system for
support design and engineering analysis of rock mass structures. Pre-
vailing stress environment influences damage to the surrounding rock
mass. In Q-system, stress reduction factor (SRF) is one of the parameters
which accounts for active stresses during construction of an under-
ground opening. Therefore, Q-system has been selected for rock mass
characterisation in the present study. Moreover, number of correlations
using Q parameter are available which can be used for obtaining other
engineering rock mass properties used in analysis of underground ex-
cavation and design of supports.
3. Estimation of damage distance (Dd)
During field investigation in each tunnel, vibration monitoring has
been carried out at all the sites for determination of attenuation char-
acteristics of blast induced ground vibration. Blast induced ground vi-
brations were measured using three different engineering seismographs
namely MinimatePlus (MMP), Minimate Blaster (MMB) and Minimate
(MM), (manufactured by Instantel Canada). Monitoring of the blast
induced ground vibration was carried out as per the guidelines given in
IS: 14881 (2001), ISRM suggested method (ISRM, 1992) and standard
operating pProcedures recommended in Instantel Minimate User
Manual (Instantel, 2009). Langefors and Kihlstrom (1963) proposed
square root scaled distance. Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) further
modified and suggested a model for prediction of blast induced ground
vibration attenuation for spherical charge geometry using cube root
scaled distance. Recently, Liang et al. (2011) conducted a comparative
study of different scaled distances and recommended use of “cube root
scaled distance law” for vibration study in tunnels as suggested by
Ambraseys and Hendron (1968). The suggested blast vibration predic-
tion model is as given in Eq. (2).
−β
R ⎞
Vppv = K ⎛ 3
⎜ ⎟
⎝ W⎠ (2)
153
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158
Where,
Vppv = Peak particle velocity, mm/s,
K , β = Site constant (function of characteristics of propagating
media),
R = Distance of measurement, md andW = Maximum charge per
delay, kg.
The constant K and β have been determined using least square re-
gression analysis for all the sites.
Pal Roy (2005) suggested that in order to improve the confidence
level in vibration prediction model, the regression line is moved up
parallel. If the line is moved up by one standard error, then 84% of the
actual values would be below the line. Similarly, moving up the line
1.65 times the standard error, the confidence level would enhance to
95%. In the present study, the attenuation characteristic is derived at
95% confidence interval and same is used for prediction of the blast
vibration in all the five sites. In this study, attenuation characteristic is
derived at 95% confidence interval and same is used for prediction of
the blast vibration at all the five sites. The attenuation characteristics of
the vibration obtained at five sites are presented in Table 2.
Blast induced rock mass damage is a result of the induced dynamic
stress during detonation. For an elastic medium, induced dynamic
strain can be calculated as a function of peak particle velocity (Vppv) and
longitudinal wave velocity (????). Therefore, blast induced damage
arising in the rock mass is widely correlated with peak particle velocity
of blast induced vibration. In this study, extent of damage to the sur-
rounding rock mass is calculated using critical peak particle velocity
(vcr) (Holmberg and Persson, 1978; Singh, 1993; Kwon et al., 2009).
Critical peak particle velocity for each of experimental predominant
rock mass is obtained using Eq. (3).
VP σt
Vcr =
E (3)
Where,
Vcr=Critical peak particle velocity, mm/s
VP = P-wave velocity of rock, m/sσt = Tensile strength of rock,
MPa, andE = Young’s modulus of rock, MPa.
Geotechnical properties of the predominant rock mass encountered
at experimental tunnel site are presented in Table 1. The critical peak
particle velocity (Vcr) value was obtained using Eq. (3) for each ex-
perimental sites. The damage distance from a blast round can be back
calculated using Eq. (2). Although the damage distance can be calcu-
lated using Eqs. (2) and (3), efforts have been made in this study to
develop an empirical correlation based on readily available site para-
meters to directly estimate the damaged distance/zone. Following this
method, damage distance for all the observed blasts has been obtained.
4. Analysis of the data
The data obtained was analysed to gain insight into the influence of
the major blast design parameters to the damage induced by the
blasting operation. Analysis of data reveals that maximum charge per
delay, perimeter charge factor, rock mass quality and advancement and
conferment factors significantly influence damage to the rock mass
around an opening. The contributions of the major parameters are
discussed in the following sections.
4.1. Influence of rock mass quality (Q)
Fig. 3 shows the variation of average damage distance with rock
mass quality, Q. In general, the damage distance decreases with the
increase in Q-values. The average damage distance for rock mass having
Q-value less than 1 is greater than 5.0 m. It sharply reduces to ap-
proximately 3.0 m for rock mass with Q-value greater than 4. The im-
pact of rock mass quality is significant in lower classes of the rock mass
having Q-value less than 4. In higher classes of rock mass, impact of the
rock mass quality remains fairly uniform and possibly other parameter
H.K. Verma et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158

6 sequential firing of the holes using adequate delay series. As the number
of delay series reduces, maximum charge per delay increases and thus
5 the blast induced damaged zone increases.
Avergae Damage Distance, (Dd ), m

Differential response of the rock mass for increasing values of the W

4 mage. In case of poor rock mass, such as observed in phyllite rock in
3 500 mm/s of peak particle velocity. Whereas in case of gneiss and
2 1500 mm/s. Thus in lower class of rock mass, damaged zone is much
1 of W.
0 tunnel section and hence maximum stoping can be done in favour of
<1 1-4 4 - 10 > 10
Rock Mass Quality Index, Q
Fig. 3. Variation of Damage Distance (Dd) with Rock Mass Quality Index, Q.
of blast design plays pivotal role in defining damaged zone around an
opening.
4.2. Influence of maximum charge per delay (W)
In any underground blasting operation, progressive enlargement of
the free face shall be achieved by designing the firing sequence of holes
using different delay series. Proper distribution of the delay series en-
sures free face to each hole. The holes are fired in the direction of free
face thus utilising the explosive energy in breaking and displacing the
rock. The maximum charge per delay, W depends on the number of
delay series used in a blast round. Improper delay distribution gives
excessive burden and spacing to the holes which leads to generation of
the blast induced ground vibration resulting into greater extent of da-
maged zone. Thus, maximum charge per delay, W, influences sig-
nificantly the damage distance among other parameters.
The variation of observed average damage distance with maximum
charge per delay is shown in Fig. 4. In experimental blast rounds, range
of W varied between 15 kg to 40 kg. Therefore, a range of 15–40 kg
maximum charge per delay, W has been considered in the analysis. It
may be noted from Fig. 4 that the damage distance, as expected, in-
creases with increase in maximum charge per delay.
In tunnel blasting, it is important to achieve progressive enlarge-
ment of tunnel (Chakraborty et al., 2004). This can be achieved by
is governed by the significant difference in the threshold values of da-
AA10R and AA7 tunnels of PSP project, the threshold value is less than
quartzite rock mass encountered in other tunnels, the critical peak
particle velocity of the rock which causes damage is greater than
larger as compared to the higher classes of rock mass for a given range
In tunnel blasting operation, firing sequence of the holes should be
such that the maximum free face is created towards the bottom of
gravity (Chakraborty et al., 1994). Generally, maximum charge per
delay is contributed by the bottom floor holes. Improper firing sequence
increase confinement of blasting operation and maximum charge per
delay which in turn increases extent of blast induced damage to the
surrounding rock mass.
In general, maximum stoping should be completed before firing the
contour holes in tunnel blasting. This enables contour holes to create
fracture using minimum explosive and hence least possible damage is
inflicted to the remaining rock mass. All the holes at the perimeter of
tunnel are blasted in same delay. Higher charge concentration in
perimeter holes may also contribute to maximum charge per delay.
Such blasting operation will have compounding impact on the blast
damage zone and the resultant damage to the rock mass may be more
than 4.0 m.
4.3. Influence of blast design parameters
Fig. 5 is a plot of damage distance with parameters related to blast
design which include hole depth, advancement and confinement factors
and maximum charge per delay. The parameters are normalized with
rock mass quality index to make data comparable for different rock
mass conditions and tunnel sizes. In this study, experimental in-
vestigations have been carried in a wide range of rock mass quality
(0.03–17.8) and tunnel size (25.9–67.8 sq. m.). The blast design para-
meters such as hole depth, advancement rate, confinement factor de-
pend primarily upon rock mass quality, tunnel size, etc. Therefore blast
design parameters and rock mass quality are grouped together as they
are mutually inclusive parameters. The exponent to blast design and

4.5
Damage Distance, (Dd ), m

3.5

2.5

2
< 15 25 30 35 40
Maximum Charge per Delay (W ), kg
Fig. 4. Variation of damage distance (Dd) with maximum charge per delay (W). Fig. 5. Variation of Damage Distance with Blast Design Parameters.

154
H.K. Verma et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158

rock mass parameters used in the expression for predicting damage

distance is obtained by multiple linear regression analysis technique to
get best fit curve.
In general, damage distance increases with increase in advancement
factor due to increase in confinement factor, total charge and maximum
charge per delay. This can be attributed to the fact that in experimental
blasts, higher advancement has been achieved in most cases due to
increase in either hole depth or total charge used in blast round. Higher
value of total charge in a blast round will increase advancement but will
also cause more damage to the rock mass.
It is equally important to achieve optimum pull in every blast round
to utilise the explosive energy in useful productive work such as rock
breakage and throw. Under-utilised explosive energy will increase da-
mage to the rock mass due to increase vibration intensity (Berta, 1990).
An optimum advancement rate achieved through optimized blast de-
sign parameters will reduce damage in the surrounding rock mass. The
reason behind the decrease in damage may be due to the fact that the
increase in advancement factor also leads to optimum utilization of the
explosive energy which otherwise would have converted in blast in-
duced ground vibration.

4.4. Influence of explosive parameters Fig. 6. Damage Distance versus Explosive Energy Parameters for Q < 1.67.

In blasting operation, explosive energy appears in three forms,

maximum charge per delay (W), specific charge (q) and perimeter
charge factor (qp). Whereas maximum charge per delay is influenced by
the initiation and firing sequence of the blast round, perimeter charge
factor and specific charge are dependent on advancement of a blast
round. Maximum charge per delay and specific charge are measures of
explosive energy in the blast round whereas the perimeter charge factor
is parameter introduced to measure the damage created by the ex-
plosive energy in the contour hole. For a fixed amount of explosive
energy, greater advancement rate reduces perimeter charge factor as
well as specific charge.
All the three explosive energy parameters W, qp and q are grouped
as factor Z as given in Eq. (4). The vibration intensity in terms of peak
particle velocity is proportional to maximum charge per delay
(Langefors and Kihlstrom, 1963; Devine, 1966 and Dowding, 1985).
The basis of such formulation is commonly used square root scaled
distance concept incorporating all the collaborating parameters of blast
design

Z = qp0.15 W + q (4)

Where,
qp = Perimeter charge factor, kg/m3,
W = Maximum charge per delay, kg, and
Q = Specific charge, kg/m3.
In case of tunnels AA10 R and AA7, rock mass was of lower quality
(Q < 1.67) whereas in other three experimental tunnels Q values were
higher than 1.67. Data for these two cases are plotted separately due to
difference in rock mass classes and also in blasting practices. In ex-
perimental tunnels AA7 and AA10 R rock masses are of very poor ca-
tegory (0.03–1.67), cross-sectional area are higher (55.7–67.8 m2) and
hole depth is less than 2.5 m. In other tunnels, rock masses are of better
quality, tunnel cross-sectional area is less than 40 m2 and hole depth
were greater than 3.0 m.
As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, factor Z (Eq. (4)) is directly proportional
to the damage distance. In both the cases a correlation coefficient of
0.83 is obtained.
In a blasting operation in underground excavation, contour holes
are fired in the last delay series. All the holes are assigned same delay
and spacing in these holes are lesser than the burden of the contour
holes. Such firing arrangement creates a fracture line along the final
excavation line. Such arrangements of delay for periphery holes, al-
though these holes are lightly charged, contribute as maximum charge
Fig. 7. Damage Distance versus Explosive Energy Parameters for Q > 1.67.
per delay due to large number of holes fired in same delay time on
several instances. These conditions compound the effect of maximum
charge per delay with perimeter powder factor.
Conventionally, contour holes are given last delay series so that the
maximum rock breaking is done in favor of gravity. Even in smooth
wall blasting technique, contour holes are fired in same delay. Due to
large number of holes in periphery, although lightly charged, their
contribution is comparable to that delay series, having maximum
charge per delay. In such circumstances, the effect of the perimeter
charge factor increases and resultant damage distance is significantly
higher. Although the periphery holes provide a line of fracture along
final line of excavation, due to it initiation in the last delay series, the
effect of W is not restricted by the lightly charged contour holes.
Therefore, the damage distance is enhanced by the perimeter charge
factor.
Differential response of the rock mass for increasing values of the W
is governed by the significant difference in the threshold values of da-
mage. In case of poor rock mass, such as observed in phyllite rock in
AA10R and AA7 tunnels of PSP project, the threshold value is less than

155
H.K. Verma et al.
Fig. 8. Plot of Factor D and observed damage distance, Dd.
500 mm/s of peak particle velocity. Whereas in case of gneiss and
quartzite rock mass encountered in other tunnels, the critical peak
particle velocity of the rock which causes damage is greater than
1500 mm/s. Thus in lower class of rock mass, damaged zone is much
larger as compared to the higher classes of rock mass for a given range
of W.
5. Empirical correlation for prediction of damage distance (Dd)
As discussed in the preceding section, damage distance is influenced
by the blast design parameters and rock mass quality. Analysis of var-
ious parameters considering the general trend of the field data and also
the damage mechanics was performed to develop an empirical corre-
lation for prediction of Damage distance Dd using all the parameters.
Exponent of blast design parameter in the expression are obtained by
sensitivity test and using multiple linear regression analysis technique
to represent the best fit curve. Fig. 8 shows plot of a factor D (Eq. (5))
and damage distance (Dd) obtained as discussed in Section 3. In Fig. 3
all the observed Dd values obtained using field investigation at five
tunnel construction sites have been plotted and the equation of best fit
line is obtained as Eq. (6).
qp0.15 W + q 2 0.15
D= ⎛d ⎞
⎜ ⎟
Q 0.33
⎝ al ⎠
0.15
⎡ qp W + q d 2 0.15⎤
Dd = 0.96 ⎢ ⎛ ⎞ −1.28R2 = 0.88
Q 0.33 al ⎠ ⎥
⎜ ⎟
⎣ ⎝ ⎦ (6)
Dd ⩾ 0
Where,
Dd = Damage distance, m, qp = Perimeter charge factor, kg/m3,
W = Maximum charge per delay, kg,
q = Specific charge, kg/m3,
Q = Rock mass quality index (Barton’ Q-system)
d = Hole depth, m,
l = Pull, m, and
a = Tunnel cross-sectional area, m2.
The factor D (Eq. (5)) have been formulated on the basis of corre-
lation as discussed in the preceding section and principle of the con-
struction blasting operations. It may be noted that that the explosive
energy parameters (W, q and qp) are proportional directly to damage
distance. The rock mass quality index bears inverse relationship with
extent of the blast induced rock mass damage as good quality rock mass
can sustain higher level of the vibration. The blast design parameters
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158
are incorporated in the form of advancement factor and confinement
factors. Optimum advancement rate reduces damages, whereas, higher
confinement factor reduces ease of blasting operation and requires
additional explosive energy to achieve equivalent advancement rate as
compared to blast with less confinement rate.
Eq. (6) can be further simplified as Eqs. (7) and (8)
0.15
⎡ qp0.15 W + q ⎛ da ⎞ ⎤
Dd = 0.96 ⎢ ⎜l⎟ ⎥−1.28
⎢ Q 0.33 ⎥
⎣ ⎝d⎠ ⎦ (7)
0.15
⎡ qp W + q Cf 0.15⎤
Dd = 0.96 ⎢ ⎛ ⎞
Q 0.33 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥−1.28
⎣ ⎝ Af ⎠ ⎦ (8)
Dd ⩾ 0
d
Confinement factor, Cf = a
l
Advancement factor, Af = d
Where,
d = Depth of drill hole, m,
a = Tunnel cross-sectional area, m2, and
Equation (8) can be used for prediction of the damage distance in-
duced by blasting in underground excavation. The proposed empirical
correlation, as given in Eq. (8), encompasses parameters related to rock
mass quality (Q), explosives energy (W, qp and q), blast design (d and
Cf), tunnel size (a) and also results of the blasting operation (Af) which
all influences damage to the rock mass in a tunnel blasting operation.
The proposed correlations are based on readily available site para-
meters which may be helpful to the practicing engineers and geologists
in the optimization of the support design of rock mass.
Eq. (8) gives impression that energy parameters are used repeti-
tively in the recommend correlation. It may be noted that all these three
parameters are mutually exclusive. In a same blast design, values of W,
qp and q can be altered without changing other parameters. In blast
round, having same drill hole depth and total charge, arrangement of
firing sequence will change the values of W. Pull of the blast from such
changed configuration will alter values of qp as well as q. Inclusion of
these three parameters will therefore be able to assess their effect on
blast induced damage distance.
Endeavour of an excavation engineer is to achieve maximum ad-
vancement in each round of blasting operation so that the production is
maximum and progress is faster. It is suggested that the blast design
parameter shall be optimized for achieving progress in each round ra-
ther than merely increasing explosive quantity. Achieving advancement
through optimized blast pattern is also advantageous in reducing blast
(5)
induced damage to the surrounding rock mass.
6. Validation of empirical correlation
Fattahi et al. (2014) carried out a study for selection of a suitable
method for the assessment of excavation damage zone using fuzzy AHP
in Aba Saleh Almahdi tunnel in Iran. They compared various methods
of assessment of excavation damage zone for a tunnel in Iran using
fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. They found the geophysical method
and borehole core drilling and logging as reliable one amongst other
techniques.
The proposed empirical correlation has been validated using geo-
physical test on rock core samples obtained from ten locations from
HRT of SBHEP project. Ultrasonic tests have been performed on the
rock core samples following guidelines as per ISRM suggested method
(ISRM, 1981). Percentage reduction of P-wave velocity with depth was
computed from the ultrasonic test data. As per Liu et al. (2009) and Fu
et al. (2014), the threshold of damage is defined as a 10% reduction in
the P-wave velocity as compared to the P-wave velocity of the un-
disturbed rock mass and computed at each coring locations. It has been
assumed that rock mass at maximum drill depth represents undisturbed
156
H.K. Verma et al.
4 this study. The combined effect of blast and stresses has not been
Predictd Damage Distance
Observed Damage Distance
3
Damage Distance, m
2
1 Thermal Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi, THDC India Ltd.,
0 contribution is also thankfully acknowledged.
424.8 22.0 25.0 350.4 353.3 359.0 431.4 472.1 474.7 478.0
Blast Location (RD, m)
Fig. 9. Predicted damage distance versus observed damage distance.
rock mass. The corresponding average P-wave velocity, therefore, is
said to be the velocity of the rock mass before blasting operation. The
distance up to which there is 10% reduction in the P-wave velocity is
designated as observed damage distance. Similar approach has been
adopted for estimation of the observed damage distance for all the ten
locations. The damage distance obtained from the ultrasonic test data
were in close agreement with the predicted damage distance obtained
using Eq. (7).
A bar chart to evaluate the relative difference between predicted
using proposed correlation (Eq. (7)) and observed damage distance
have been presented in Fig. 9. It can be seen in Fig. 9 that the values of
the predicted damage distance and observed damage distance are in
close agreement.
7. Conclusions
A comprehensive field investigation have been carried out at five
tunnel construction sites to evolve empirical correlation for estimation
of damage distance using readily available site parameter. Observations
of 113 blasting experiment have been taken in different rock mass from
extremely poor to good rock mass class. An empirical correlation has
been suggested using Specific Charge (q), Maximum Charge per Delay
(W), Perimeter Charge Factor (qp), Advancement Factor (Af) and
Confinement Factor (Cf) and rock mass quality index Q.
Proposed correlations will also enable practicing engineers in car-
rying out damage audit on the regular basis with optimal in-
strumentation which in turn can be integrated with the support design
process. Moreover, the rock mass having same intact rock constituents
but different fracture configuration and stress state will develop dif-
ferent extent of damage subjected to given vibration intensity. The
present study attempts to include the effect of pre-existing fractures
pattern and stress state by imbibing the rock mass quality index Q in the
analysis.
Using proposed correlation, the extent of damaged zone may be
computed for known values of Q and blast design parameters. The
blasting operation reduces the rock mass quality which is reflected in
reduction in Q -rating. The reduction in Q-rating and estimated extent
of the damaged zone shall be integrated during support design.
Therefore, support design engineers shall consider deterioration in rock
mass quality with respect to type of blasting, for an effective control of
overbreak and enhance safety and stability of underground structures.
In the present study, a wide range of Q values (0.03 to 17.8) has
been considered. The impact of stresses on extent of damage around an
opening may be significant in deeep seated tunnel. The stress is ac-
counted for during rock mass characterisation as SRF as a part of Q in
157
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158
evaluated in this work separately. Many researchers have re-
commended to neglect SRF during rock mass characterisation and to
assess the effect of stress separately. Tolerance limit of the damage
depends upon the purpose and service life of the underground struc-
tures. Therefore, further research is recommended to incorporate such
aspect in the studies pertaining to damage assessment.
Acknowledgements
Authors express their gratitude to the project authorities of National
Rishikesh, M/s L & T, Tapovan-Vishnugaad Hydropower Project. Team
of engineers and geologists from L & T Singoli-Bhatwari Hydropower
Project have also provided great help in field investigations. Their
References
Adhikari, G.R., Babu, R., 1994. Controlled blasting in tunnel - some issues. Tras. Inst. f
Engineers (I) - MN 75, 56–60.
Ambraseys, N.R., Hendron, A.J., 1968. Dynamic behaviour of rock masses. In: Stagg, K.G.,
Zienkiewiez, A.C. (Eds.), Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practices. John Willey and
Sons, London, pp. 203–207.
Backblom, G., Martin, CD., 1999. Recent experiments in hard rock to study the excavation
response Implication of the performance of a nuclear waste geological repository.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 14, 377–394.
Backstrom, A., 2008. Rock damage caused by underground excavation and meteorite
impact, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden,
September 2008, 58 p.
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lund, J., 1974. Engineering classifications of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 6, 189–236.
Bauer, A., Calder P.N. 1978. Open Pit and Blasting Seminar Mining Engg. Dept. pub-
lication, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.
Berta, G., 1990. Explosives: An Engineering Tool, ltalesplosivi, Milano.
Chakraborty, A.K., Jethwa, J.L., Paithankar, A.G., 1994. Effects of joint orientation and
rock mass quality on tunnel blasting, engineering geology, Elsevier Science B.V.
Netherlands 37, 247–262.
Chakraborty, A.K., Raina, A.K., Ramulu, M., Choudhury, P.B., Haldar, A., Sahoo, P.B.,
2004. Parametric study to develop guidelines for blast fragmentation improvement in
jointed and massive formation. Eng. Geol. 73 (1–2), 105–116.
Daemen, J.J.K., 2011. Nuclear waste disposal in underground mined space, promises –
problems/ challenges- solution. J. Eng. Geol. (India) 37 (1–4), 37–63.
Devine, J.R., 1966. Avoiding damage to residence from blasting vibration, highway re-
search record 135. Highway Research Board, National Research Council, National
Academy of Sciencespp. 35–42.
Dey, K., Murthy, V.M.S.R., 2011. Determining blast damage envelope through vibration
model and validation using seismic imaging. Min. Technol. 120 (2), 90–94.
Dowding, C.H., 1985. Blast vibration monitoring and control. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 297.
Fattahi, H., Farsangi, M.A.E., Shojaee, S., Mansouri, H., 2014. Selection of a suitable
method for the assessment of excavation damage zone using fuzzy AHP in Aba Saleh
Almahdi tunnel, Iran. Arab J. Geosci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-
1280-7.
Fu, H., Wong, L.N.Y., Zhao, Y., Shen, Z., Zhang, C., Li, Y., 2014. Comparison of excavation
damage zones resulting from blasting with NONEL detonators and blasting with
electronic detonators. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 47, 809–816.
Gupta, R.N., Singh, R.B., Adhikari, G.R., Singh, B., 1988. Controlled blasting for under-
ground excavations. In: Singh B., (Ed.), International Symposium on Underground
Engineering, 14–17 April, New Delhi, India, pp. 449–458.
Hoek, E., Karzulovic, A., 2000. Rock mass properties for surface mines. In: Hustralid,
W.A., McCarter, M.K., Van Zyl, D.J.A. (Eds.), Slope Stability in Surface Mining.
Society for Mining, Metallurgical and Exploration (SME), Littleton, pp. 59–70.
Holmberg, R., Persson, P.A., 1980. Design of tunnel perimeter blast hole patterns to
prevent rock damage. Transc. Inst. Min. Metall. A37–A40.
Holmberg, R., Persson, P.A., 1978. The Swedish approach to contour blasting. In:
Proceedings of 4th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Research,
Explosives Reference Database on CD-ROM, International Society of Explosives
Engineers, Ohio, USA, 1997, pp. 113–127.
Hudson, John A., Backstrom, A., Rutqvist, J., Jing, L., Backers, T., Chijimatsu, M., et al.,
2009. Characterising and modelling the excavation damaged zone in crystalline rock
in the context of radioactive waste disposal. Environ. Geol. 57, 1275–1297.
Ibarra, J.A., Maerz, N.H., Franklin, J.A., 1996. Overbreak and underbreak in underground
openings Part 2: causes and implications. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 14 (3), 325–340.
Innaurato, N., Mancini, R., Cardu, M., 1998. On the influence of rock mass quality on the
quality of blasting work in tunnel driving. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 13 (1),
81–89.
Instantel, 2009. Canada. MiniMate Plus Operator Manual. Software version 7, 1.
IS: 14881–2001. Method for blast vibration monitoring – Guidelines, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
H.K. Verma et al.
ISRM 1981. Rock characterisation testing and monitoring. In: Brown, E.T. (Ed.) Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 211 p.
ISRM, 1992. Suggested methods for blast vibration monitoring. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. Geomech. Abstract 29 (2), 143–156.
Kumar, N., 2002. Rock mass characterisation and evaluation of support for tunnel in
Himalaya, PhD Thesis, WRDM, IIT Roorkee, Uttarakhand, 289 p.
Kwon, S., Lee, C.S., Cho, S.J., Jeon, S.W., Cho, W.J., 2009. An investigation of the ex-
cavation damaged zone at the KAERI underground research tunnel. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 24, 1–13.
L & T- SBHEP, 2007. Singoli-Bhatwari Hydroelectric Power Project, Detailed Project
Report, L & T- Uttaranchal Hydropower Limited, vol. 4, 306 p.
Langefors, U., Kihlstrom, B., 1963. The modern techniques of rock blasting. John Wiley
and Sons Inc., New York, pp. 405.
Liang, Q., Yafang, A., Zhao, L., Li, Dewu., Yan, L., 2011. Comparative study on calculation
methods of blasting vibration velocity. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 44, 93–101.
Liu, M.G., Zhang, G.H., Liu, S.B., 2009. Research on accumulative damage effect of in-
terlaid rock in DAMAOSHAN tunnel group with small clear distance. Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 28 (7), 1363–1370.
MacKown, A.F., 1986. Perimeter controlled blasting for underground excavations in
fractured and weathered rocks. Bull. Assoc. Engg. Geol. 23 (4), 461–478.
Maerz, N.H., Ibarra, J.A., Franklin, J.A., 1996. Overbreak and undergbreak in under-
ground opening Part 1: measurement using light sectioning methods and digital
image processing. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 14, 307–323.
Mandal, S.K., Singh, M.M., 2009. Evaluating extent and causes of overbreak in tunnels.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 24, 22–36.
Mandal, S.K., Singh, M.M., Dasgupta, S., 2008. Theoretical concept to understand plan
and design smooth blasting pattern. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 26, 399–416.
Mandal, S.K., Singh, M.M., Bhagat, N.K., Dasgupta, S., 2005. Causes of overbreak and
influence of blast parameters for smooth undamaged wall. In: Proc. Intl. Sym. on
Advances in Mining Technology and Management, November 30–December, 2, IIT,
Kharagpur, pp. 49–58.
Martino, J.B., Chandler, N.A., 2004. Excavation induced damage studies at the under-
ground research laboratory. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (8), 1413–1426.
Murthy, V.M.S.R., Dey, K., 2002. Development of predictive models for blast-induced
rock damage assessment (BIRD) in tunnels, MHRD Project No: MHRD (27)/99-00/
111/ME, pp. 12–43.
Murthy, V.M.S.R., Dey, Kaushik., 2003. Predicting overbreak from blast vibration mon-
itoring in a Lake Tap Tunnel – a success story'. Fragblast 7 (3), 149–166.
NTPC Ltd. 2006. Detailed Project Report, Tapovan Vishnugaad Hydro-electric Power
Project vol. 4, Part-II, NTPC, New Delhi, India, 262 p.
NTPC Ltd. 2010. Detailed Project Report (By-pass Tunnel), Tapovan Vishnugaad
Hydroelectric power project NTPC, New Delhi, India, 132 p.
Olofsson, S.O., 1988. Applied explosives technology for construction and mining. Applex,
Arla, Sweden, pp. 303.
Olsson, M., Ouchterlony, F., 2003. New formula for blast induced damage in the
158
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 149–158
remaining rock, SveBeFo Report No. 65, Swedish Rock Engineering Research,
Stockholm.
Oriad, L.L., 1982. Blasting effect and their control. In: Hustrulid, W. (Ed.), Underground
Mining Methods Handbook. Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, New York, pp.
1590–1603.
Ouchterlony, F., Olsson, M., Bergqvist, I., 2002. Towards new swedish recommendations
for cautious perimeter blasting. Fragblast: Int. J. Blasting and Fragmentation 6 (2),
235–261.
Pal Roy, P., 2005. Rock blasting: effects and operations. Oxbord & IBH, New Delhi, pp.
345.
Palmström, A., Singh, R., 2001. The deformation modulus of rock masses - comparisons
between in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 16 (3),
115–131.
Raina, A.K., Chakraborty, A.K., Ramulu, M., Jethwa, J.L., 2000. Rock mass damage from
underground blasting, a literature review, and lab- and full scale tests to estimate
crack depth by ultrasonic method. FRAGBLAST-Int. J. Blasting and Fragmentation 4,
103–125.
Ramulu, M., Chakraborty, A.K., Sitharam, T.G., 2009. Damage assessment of basaltic rock
mass due to repeated blasting. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 24, 208–221.
Saiang, D., Nordlund, E., 2009. Numerical analyses of the influence of blast-induced rock
around shallow tunnels in brittle rock. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 42, 421–448. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00603-008-0013-1.
Scoble, M., Lizotte, Y., Paventi, M., Mohanty, B.B., 1997. Measurement of blast. Min. Eng.
J. 103–108 June, 1997.
Singh, B., Goel, R.K., 2011. Engineering rock mass classifications: tunneling. Foundations
and Landslides, BH Elsevier, USA, pp. 365.
Singh, S.P., 1993. Prediction and determination of explosive induced damage. 4th Int
Symp on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST, pp. 183–192.
Singh, S.P., Xavier, P., 2005. Cause, impact and control of overbreak in underground
excavation. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 20, 63–71.
THDC Pump Storage Plant Project Report 2012. The Final Report on Phase II of In-
Situ & Lab Rock Mechanic Testing at Powerhouse Location of Tehri PSP (4 x 250
MW), HCC Report no.: ATES/THPSP/HCC/2012/FR_01, 87 p.
Verma, H.K., Samadhiya, N.K., Singh, M., Prasad, V.V.R., Goel, R.K., 2015. Investigations
of rock mass damage induced by blasting in tunnelling. J. Rock Mech. Tunnelling
Technol. (JRMTT) 22 (1), 49–61.
Waltona, G., Latob, M., Anschützc, H., Perrasd, M.A., Diederichse, M.S., 2015. Non-in-
vasive detection of fractures, fracture zones, and rock damage in a hard rock ex-
cavation – Experience from the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory in Sweden, Eng. Geol. 28
Sep vol. 196, pp. 210–221.
Warneke, J., Dwyer, J.G., Orr, T., 2007. Use of a 3-D scanning laser to quantify drift
geometry and overbreak due to blast damage in underground manned entries. In:
Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., Morrison, T. (Eds.), Rock Mechanics: Meeting Society's
Challenges and Demands, Taylor & Francis Group. London, Vancouver, Canada, pp.
93–100.