CONTROLLED BLASTING TECHNIQUES TO

REDUCE IN-SITU ROCK MASS DAMAGE

AND OVERBREAK IN CIVIL &
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Dr. More Ramulu
Principal Scientist
Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research
Regional Centre
3rd Floor, MECL Complex, Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan,
SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR - 440 006, India
Tel (0712) 2510604, Fax (0712) 2510311
Mobile: 09423686796; e-mail : more.ramulu@gmail.com

CONTROLLED BLASTING
Blasting should not be a 'bombing'
exercise.
Controlled blasting nothing but
Taming of Tiger in a scientific
approach.

BLASTING
Conventional Blasting
Production & productivity

Controlled blasting
Damage & over breaks.
Ground vibration, air overpressure & fly rock
Objective: To control the stress and fracturing
beyond the line of excavation

EXPLOSIVES
ENERGY
IN ROCK MASS
Crushing in hole
vicinity DISTRIBUTION
2%
Compressive stress
Fracturing
<1%
Breakage
15% Tensile stress
Displacement
4%
Fly rock
<1% Gas stress
Deformation in the
<1%
remaining rock mass
Ground vibration
40% Remaining tensile stress
Air over-pressure
38%
Remaining gas stress

Explosive energy distribution

MAIN REASONS OF OVERBREAK

Excessive
burden

Geology
Excessive burden
Long stemming column
Too short delay timing

Overbre
ak

MECHANISMS FOR OVERBREAK

Breakage by crushing and
cracking
Breakage by spalling
Opening of cracks by gases

CMRI

Production Blast

Crest
break

Optimum burden

Contour Blast

CMRI

CONTROLLED BLASTING TECHNIQUE

1. PRE-SPLITTING
2. SMOOTH WALL BLASTING
3. CUSHION BLASTING
4. LINE DRILLING
5. FRACTURE CONTROL BLASTING

PRESPLIT BLASTING

CMRI

Principle of Pre-split blasting:

CMRI

When two closely spaced charged holes are fired simultaneously

the shock waves generated from the two holes collide at a plane in
between the holes and create a secondary tensile stress front
perpendicular to the hole axis and facilitates extension cracks
along the line joining the holes.
It is essential,to contain the gas pressure by adequate stemming till
the cracks from both ends meet.

PRESPLIT BLASTING
CMRI

Parameters influencing presplit performance:

Borehole detonation pressure (Density of explosive & VOD)
Tensile strength of rock

Diameter of blast hole

1. Borehole pressure,

Pb = 1.69 x 10-3 pVd2 psi

for coupled charges

=1.69 x 10-3 pVd2 (rc/rh)2.4 psi

for decoupled charges

2. Hole spacing,

Pb D
S=
T

where,

D=Diameter of borehole,

T= Tensile strength of rock

3. Charge factor (Explosive weight per unit length)

Q = 0.5 kg/m2

PRESPLIT BLASTING- Guidelines

CMRI

Charge factor guidelines for jointed rock types:

0.30 kg/m2 for hard rock
0.22 kg/m2 for Medium hard rock and
0.18 kg/m2 for soft rock
Diameter vs Spacing & loading density for presplitting:
Hole Dia
(mm)

Spacing,
m

Loading
density,
kg/m

38-44

0.30-0.45

0.12-0.38

51-64

0.45-0.60

0.12-0.38

76-89

0.45-0.60

0.20-0.75

102

0.60-1.20

0.38-1.33

Pre-splitting design- Guidelines

S = (8-15)D
S- presplit hole spacing
D- hole diameter
B= 0.5(S)
B- Distance from the production holes
S- production hole spacing
PF = Face Height x Hole Spacing 2

, (kg)

Face Height and Hole Spacing in m

To achieve the best results a short or no delay should be used
between each hole.
Suspended charges is a more effective technique which
provides better explosive energy distribution

AIRDEK pre-splitting design

Hole spacing in feet =1.5 to 2 times the borehole
diameter in inches.
Stemming deck in feet =1 to 1.2 times the
borehole diameter in inches.
Distance to the nearest production hole in feet
should be equivalent to the hole diameter in inches.

BENEFITS OF AIRDEK PRE-SPLITTING

Reduction of toe on highwalls yet to be shot
Reduce the need for wet hole explosives.
Economic by reducing cost 25%
Reduce vibration and air-overpessure intensity
Industry feels:
"Even if it cost more instead of less, we would still use the
AIRDEK because we are getting better, safer highwalls
It may have taken forty odd years for the concept to
become a reality, but it seems apparent that
AIRDEK pre-splitting is inevitable for safety and
productivity of controlled blasting

CMRI

PRESPLIT BLASTING

PRE-SPLIT BLASTING- Advantages

Easier to coordinate drilling and loading and blasting
of pre-splitting with production shots
Simultaneous execution of pre-splitting & production
shots reduces cycle time cost & increase production
Deep cuts for 2-3 benches can be blasted in one shot
Reduces vibrations up to 50% in the vicinity of
splitting
Greater stability of high walls slopes and stability
Effective explosive energy utilization for fragmentation
Excellent control of rock mass damage and over-break
in homogeneous/competent rock

PRE-SPLIT BLASTING- Disadvantages

More drilling than in smooth blasting
Ground vibration and air overpressure problems
Practice requires technical skills

PRE-SPLITTING- at Dolomite rockmass

Presplit blast design for shallow depths/smaller benches at TRC:
Depth of hole
:
1.5m
Diameter of hole
:
32mm
Spacing
:
0.5m
Charge per hole
:
0.125kg
Stemming length :
1m
Split Specific Charge
:
0.17 kg/m2
(split area/charge)
0.5m

1.0m

1.5m
0.625kg

0.625kg

PRE-SPLITTING- at Dolomite rockmass

Presplit blast design
Depth of hole
Diameter of hole
Spacing
Charge per hole
Stemming length
Split Specific Charge
(split area/charge)

for deep holes at Koldam TRC:

:
7.0m
:
80 mm
:
0.75m
:
1.25kg
:
2.5m
:
0.24 kg/m2
0.75
m

2.5
m

7.0
m
0.12
5kg

0.5kg

PRE-SPLITTING- at Dolomite rockmass

PRE-SPLITTING- at Dolomite rockmass

CMRI

PRE-SPLITTING- at Granitic Rockmass

CMRI

PRE-SPLITTING- at Granitic Rockmass

SMOOTH WALL BLASTING

CMRI

Smooth blasting, also called contour blasting, perimeter

blasting, or sculpture blasting, is the most widely used
method of controlling overbreak in underground openings like
headings and stopes
It is similar to presplitting in that it involves a row of holes at
the perimeter of the excavation that is more lightly loaded and
more closely spaced than the other holes in the blast round.
The light powder load is usually accomplished by "string
loading" slender cartridges.
Unlike presplitting, the smooth blast holes are fired after the
main blast

SMOOTH WALL BLASTING - Advantages

Increased spacing reduces drilling cost
Better results in incompetent rock
Simultaneous blasting with main round
Perimeter in achieved with light and distributed
charges

SMOOTH BLASTING - disadvantages

No real disadvantage

SMOOTH WALL BLAST DESIGN

Holmberg (1982) suggested by following design
for contour hole spacing, burden to spacing ratio
of contour holes and linear charge
concentration:

Sdc = 16 db m
mdc = 1.25
qlcc = 90 (db)2 kg/m
where,
Sdc = spacing of contour holes while drilling, m,
mdc = burden to spacing ratio of contour holes
while drilling,
qlcc = linear charge concentration in the contour
holes, kg/m and
db = diameter of blast holes, m.

CMRI

SMOOTH WALL BLAST DESIGN

Controlled blast design for both
presplitting and smooth blasting
(Olofsson, 1988):

CMRI

SMOOTH WALL BLASTING

SMOOTH BLASTING

SMOOTH BLASTING

SMOOTH BLASTING

CUSHION BLAST DESIGN

CMRI

ALSO TERMED
TRIM BLAST IF
DIA OF HOLES
IS SAME AS
THAT OF
PRODUCTION
HOLES

CUSHION BLASTING

CMRI

Also termed trim blast if diameter of holes is same

as that of production holes
It involves a row of closely spaced, lightly loaded
holes at the perimeter of the excavation
Holes up to 6 in in diameter have been used in
cushion blasting.
After the explosive has been loaded, stemming is
usually placed in the void space around the charges.
The holes are fired with a minimum delay after the
main excavation is removed.
The same loading techniques that apply to
presplitting are used with cushion blasting, except
that the later often involves larger holes.
The burden on the cushion holes should always be
larger than the spacing between holes.

CUSHION BLASTING-Disadvantages
More drilling than in smooth blasting
Ground vibration and air overpressure problems
Practice requires technical skills

CUSHION BLASTING-Advantages
Increased spacing reduces drilling cost
Functions reasonably well in incompetent rock

CUSHION BLASTING- disadvantages

Necessary to excavate the main blast muck before
firing of cushion holes
Difficult to cut 900 corners without combining
other methods

CUSHION BLAST DESIGN

Controlled blast design for both cushion
blasting (Dick et al 1983)
Average specifications for cushion blasting
Sl
No.

Hole
diameter,
in

Spacin
g, ft

Burden,
ft

Explosive
charge,
lb/ft

2.00-2.50

3.00

4.00

0.08-0.25

3.00-3.50

4.00

5.00

0.13- 0.50

4.00-4.50

5.00

6.00

0.25-0.75

5.00-5.50

6.00

7.00

0.75-1.00

6.00-6.50

7.00

9.00

1.00-1.50

CMRI

CUSHION BLAST DESIGN

CMRI

LINE DRILLING

CMRI

Drilling of a row of closely spaced holes along the final excavation line
Provide a plane of weakness to which the final row of blastholes can
break and also reflect a portion of the blast indued stress waves
Line drilling is used mostly in small blasting Jobs and involves small
holes in the range of 2- to 3-in diameter.
Line drilling holes are spaced 2 to 4 diameters apart (center to center)
The distance of the row of empty holes from the final row of charged
holes is kept as 0.50.75 times the normal burden
The blastholes adjacent to the line drill are often more closely spaced
and are loaded more lightly than the rest of the blast, using deck
charges
Best results are obtained in a homogeneous rock with little jointing or
bedding, or when the holes are aligned with a major joint plane
The empty holes are joined during the main blasting round and a
separation is created along the contour

LINE DRILLING -Advantages

Applicable where even light charges may cause
damage
Applicable where blasting is not permitted

LINE DRILLING- disadvantages

Unpredictable results in heterogeneous/incompetent rock
High drilling cost
Time consuming due to excessive drilling
Deviation in drilling causes poor results

LINE DRILLING - Design

CMRI

Average specifications for line

drilling
Sl No.

Hole diameter,
in

Spacing, ft

2.00

0.33-0.67

3.00

0.50-1.00

FRACTURE CONTROL BLASTING

CMRI

Developed by Fourney et al (1984) at the University of Maryland as

an attempt to overcome disadvantages with normal blasting practices
& as an aternative to pre- and post-splitting or smooth wall blasting.
Results in creation of crack in desired direction better than the
conventional presplitting.
Utilizes a notched or grooved borehole to initiate fractures at desired
locations and employs a very carefully selected charge so as to
provide control over borehole pressure
The charge required for fracture control can be as little as 1/40th that
required for normal smooth wall blasting
The reliable and cost effective notching method is important for
application of fracture-control blasting to have an edge over the
conventional controlled blasting techniques.
This technique can develop presplit fractures in orientations with
respect to joints, bedding and in-situ stress that cannot be achieved
with un-notched holes.

FRACTURE CONTROL BLASTING

CMRI

Notching of holes

Borehole Notching tool

Notching tools

Notching tool Dimensions

CMRI

CMRI CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CONTROLLED BLASTING TECHNIQUES
Bottom hole decking technique

Bottom hole decking technique

The inner most portion (bottom) of the

blast holes is kept uncharged
No spacer is needed as the holes for
undergrpoud blastings are horizantal

Principle:

Explosive
column

Reduced shock energy around the

blast hole due to cushioning effect of
air decking, which otherwise would
be resulted in crushing
Explosive energy-rock interaction is
more at the bottom due to relative
relief zone at the bottom

Bottom
Air decking

Air decking length at the bottom of the

hole is about 13-15% of blast hole depth
Charging and stemming are similar to
conventional one

Stemming
column

Features:

Bottom hole decking technique

Advantages:
Making use of the advantage of the air decking for underground
production blasts
Reduced blast hole sockets, less overbreak & good fragmentation
Decrease of ground vibrations, which is going to reduce the blast
induced damage
Reduction in specific charge
Experiments in Plexiglas models:
Blast with bottom hole charging

Crushed
zone=10D
SSA=0.093 cm-1

Blast with bottom air-decking

Crushed zone=5D
SSA=0.11 cm-1

Reduction in crushed zone=50%; Increase of SSA=18%

Bottom hole decking technique-a Case study

The technique was applied at Koldam hydel power project,
Koldam (H.P. )to reduce blast vibrations and overbreak in
Class-C Dolamite Basic rock (Poor)
Ground vibration reduction was observed as 20-25%
Overbreak control was in the range of 12-16%
Specific charge was reduced by 25%
Reduced rock mass damage by 20%
Overall productivity improvement -15%

Bottom hole decking technique in

granite and basaltic rock -a Case study
The technique was applied at Opencut excavations of
basalt at Central Railway projects and Granite rock mass at
Jurala hydel power project (A.P. ) to reduce blast vibrations
and overbreak near sensitive structures
25-30% improvement of fragmentation and better
uniformity index
15-20% reduction in specific charge.
35% reduction in peak particle velocity and flyrock
Reduced rock mass damage by 20%
Overall productivity improvement-14%

Next
Hole
Relay/NT
D
DCord
Stemming
Column
Charge
Primer
charge

Air decking

Representative images of blast fragmentation from

conventional blast pattern

Representative images of blast fragmentation from bottom

deck blast pattern

Fragment size distribution of muckpiles of conventional

trial blasts

Fragment size distribution of muckpiles of the

bottom deck trial blasts

Plots of peak particle velocity versus scaled distance for both

conventional and bottom deck trail blasts

ASSESSMENT OF BLAST DAMAGE

Blast vibration monitoring
Half cast factor
Overbreak measurement
Borehole Camera
Borehole extensometer
Strain gauges
Visual inspection

CMRI

Instrumentation:

Rod Extensometer

Seismograph
(Minimate, Instantel Inc.)

Borehole
extensome
ter

Bore hole camera

Assessment of blast damage:

Blast vibration monitoring

Vmax

Vp

Vcr

CMRI

TVp
E

where, T = dynamic tensile strength (Pa)

Vp = compressional wave velocity (mm/s)
= density of the rock ; E-Elasticity modulus

Seismograph
(Minimate,
Instantel Inc.)
Nearfield
Geophone

Assessment of blast damage:

Half Cast Factor - HCF

CMRI

HCF=(Total Length of visible Half Holes/ Total Drill Lengt

Assessment of blast damage:

Half Cast Factor - HCF

CMRI

Assessment of blast damage:

Overbreak measurement
CMRI

1. Conventional survey
2. Total station survey
3. Laser profiler survey
X-SECTION OF PENSTOCK#1 RD=216
ROCK CLASS-A
X-SECTION OF PENSTOCK#1, RD=327.86,
ROCK CLASS-B

Actual Area = 47.25

m2

AREA=10.43M

Area of overbreak of heading=10.43 m2

Area of overbreak of heading=17.58 m2

Assessment of blast damage:

Overbreak Prediction:
CMRI

Assessment of blast damage:

BOREHOLE CAMERA

CMRI

Cracks initiations and crack extensions in side the rock

mass can be monitored by using Borehole camera

Damage assessment is carried out by recording borehole

images before and after blasting

Before blasting

Minor cracks and no damage

After blasting

Extension of cracks and

damage

Assessment of blast damage:

Borehole Extensometer
a)
b)
c)
d)

Mouth piece
Extension rod
Anchor rod
Measuring device

Cross section of tunnel

Position of
extensometers

Anchor rod

Bore hole perpendicular to joint surface

Extension rod

Flexible pipe

Measuring point

Mouth piece

Case Studies

Removal of concrete plugs in the draft tube vents, unit-IV,

Srisailam left bank power project of APPGENCO

Sponsor & Site

Objectives
Work done

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION

(APPGENCO), HYDRABAD
Blasting of concrete plugs near extremely sensitive
structures within a fixed time frame
1. Experience based design for removal of concrete plugs
2. Continuous monitoring of the ground vibration (near & far
field)
3. Continuous monitoring of the drilling and blasting
operations

Start / End

November, 2002 October, 2003

Inferences/
conclusion

1. Safe & productive blast design

2. Development of predictor equation for vibration
prediction
3. Establishment of methodology for blasting near sensitive
structures and minimum flexibility of operation within
fixed time

PLAN

SECTION

TRIAL BLASTS AND RESULTS

Summary of P-wave velocity data

Connections for presplit

Split lines exposed HCF~95%

TRIAL BLASTS AND RESULTS

BLASTING & EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY AT PRIYADARSINI JURALA
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, APPGENCO, ANDHRA PRADESH

6 x 39 MW Power Plant
Excavation: Vents; TRP &
TRC

TRIAL BLASTS AND RESULTS

Da
m
Ledge
s
Vent
s

TRP

Inspection
Galleries

TRIAL BLASTS AND RESULTS

TESTIMONY TO SPLIT BLASTS

LEDGE
TOP
Half Holes of split
blasts

Drainage
Gallery

Inspection
Gallery

Half Casts

Half
Casts

KOLDAM HYDROELECTRIC
POWER PROJECT

CONTROLLED BLASTING AT JURALA

HEPP

SIDE EFFECTS OF BLASTINGENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

PARAMETERS AFFECTING GROUND VIBRATION

A. MOST SIGNIFICANT
1) Charge weight per delay
2) Distance from the blast site
3) Type of strata
B. MODERATELY SIGNIFICANT
4) Powder factor - Optimum between 0.5-1 kg/m3
> 1 kg/m3 - fly rock
5) Type of explosive - Low and high VOD
6) Delay period
7) Blast design
Hole size;
H/B >2 should be maintained
Burden; increases with excessive burden
1/Air-deck length
Sub-grade drilling
Charge per round

EMPIRICAL CONSTANTS FOR VARIOUS ROCK MASSES

USBM formula:

v = k(D/Q)- , mm/s
where,
v = peak particle velocity, mm/s
D= distance, m
Q= maximum charge/delay, kg

Rock mass

Lime stone
Granite
Iron ore
Coal
Dolomite
Basalt
Sandstone
S.St+Alluvium

3352
574
303
266
174
895
50
1483

1.95
1.53
1.8
1.4
1.5
2.5
0.8
1.98

THRESHOLD LIMITS OF GROUND VIBRATION TO PREVENT

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

1) Langefors et al.

* No damage at 50 mm/s
* Probable fine cracking at 100 mm/s
* Cracks at 150 mm/s
* Major cracks at 225 mm/s

2) Edwards and Northwood

* Safe zone at 50 mm/s

* Damage zone at 100-125 mm/s

3) Duval

* Major damage at 50 mm/s

4) Nichols et al.

* Safe zone < 50 mm/s

* Danger zone > 50 mm/s

5) BIS

* Soil and weathered rock

* Hard rock

6) Siskind et al.

: 70 mm/s
: 100 mm/s

Overall safe 50 mm/s at 20-400 Hz

Modern houses 18.75 mm/s at < 40 Hz
Interior 50 mm/s at 40 Hz
Old houses 12.5 mm/s at 40 Hz
Historical monuments 5 mm/s at 4 Hz

7) German DIN Standard

Structure
10
20

Frequency range (Hz)

10-50
20-40

50-100
40-50

Domestic house with

associated construction
of plaster

5-15

15-20

3-8

8-10

Very sensitive
building

8) Australian Standard

Type of structure

Permissible ppv (mm/s)

Historical building
Residential buildings
Industrial reinforced concrete

2
10
25

Used building/
industrial structure

9) USSR Standards
Type of structure

1. Hospital
2. Residential building
& Childrens institution
3. Public building
4. Reinforced building
5. Single storied metal
structure
6. Mine openings
(>3 yrs old)

Permissible PPV (mm/s)

One time
Repeated
30
8
30
15
60
120
240

30
60
120

480

240

10) UK Standards

Type of structure
(mm/s)

Permissible PPV

1) Welded steel pipes &

engineering structure
2) Good residential buildings
3) Houses in poor condition
4) Historic monuments

50

25
12
7.5

11) Swiss Standards

Type of structure

Permissible PPV (mm/s) at

frequency level (Hz)

1) Steel reinforced structure

90Hz)
2) Building with concrete
90Hz)
foundation
3) Masonry building
Hz)
4) Building with historic interest
(60-90 Hz)
5) Concrete bunker
6) High rise apartment
7) Underground cavern
8) Light concrete building

30 (10-60 Hz)/ 30-40(6018(10-60 Hz)/ 18-25 (60-

12 (10-60Hz)/12-18 (60-90
8 (10-60 Hz)/ 8-12
200
100
70-100
35

12) DGMS (INDIA) STANDARDS

Type of structure

Dominant frequency (Hz)

<8 Hz
8-25 Hz
>25 Hz

A) Structure not belonging to owner

1) Domestic house
5
2) Industrial building
10
3) Monuments
2
B) Structure belonging to owner
1) Domestic house
10
2) Industrial building
15
Domestic House: Kuchha, Brick & Cement
Industrial Building: RCC & steel structures

10
20
5

15
25
10

15
25

25
50

HUMAN RESPONSE ON GROUND VIBRATION AND AIR BLAST

* Vibration on permanent basis

> 0.8 noticeable
>8.1 Annoyance
>17.8 Severe
>50.8 Risk
> 101.8 Danger
* Temporary vibration
>1.8 noticeable
>10.2 Annoyance
>30.5 Severe
>50.8 Risk
>101.8 Danger
* Vibration accompanied with noise
> 0.5 noticeable
>5.1 Severe
>50.8 Danger

AIR BLAST

Low frequency air vibration (<20 Hz) : Air blast

High frequency air vibration (20 Hz-20 KHz): Noise
Occurs because of gas escaping at high pressure

Effects of air over pressure (KPa)

20 >6.3 6.3 0.63 0.13 0.02 0.0112 -

Damage to conventional structure

Cracks appear in plaster
Many window panes break
Occasional breaking of window panes poorly fitted
Limit proposed by USBM
Complaints by local people
Large window panes may break

FACTORS INFLUENCING AIR BLAST

A. SIGNIFICANT
* Charge weight per delay
* Delay interval
* Burden and Spacing
* Stemming
* Direction of initiation
* Bare or covered detonating fuse
* Charge depth and confinement
* Type of strata
* Wind direction and velocity
B. MODERATELY SIGNIFICANT
* Charge length and diameter
* Angle of hole
* Charge weight per blast

FLY ROCK

Occurs mainly because of low stemming

and low burden geological factors

1.75 Bh
BLAST AREA

Bh

AREA OF NORMAL FLYROCK

SAFE AREA OF BLAST
2 Bh
4 Bh

NORMAL FLYROCK AND SAFE AREAS

Stemming column

Free face side

Burden too small

Fly of rock

Explosive c olumn

Blast hole

Fly of rock fragments due to small burden

Fly of rock

Stemming column

Free face side

Burden is too high

in comparison to
stemming

Explosive column

Blast hole

Fly rock distance = 143 d (q-0.2), m

where, d = hole depth, inch
q = specific charge, kg/m3

SOME REFERENCES

1) Blast Design - C. J. Konya, Intercontinental Development

Corporation, Montville, Ohio 440 64,USA

2) Applied Explosives Technology for Construction and Mining - S. O.

Olofsson, ISEE

3) Lopez Jimeno, C., Lopez Jimeno, E., Carcedo, F. J. A. and

De Ramiro, Y. V. (1995). Drilling and Blasting of Rocks,
Balkema A. A., Rotterdam.

Thank you