shaft or stock was octagonal in section,

and since it was found that a shorter

stock transmitted a better blow several
lengths were used in drilling one hole,
each new length having a slightly
reduced bit size, (as in all rock drills).
The striking face was flat and had a
similar cross section to the stock.

DRILL AND BLAST

Underground excavation dates right
back to the Cave Men where they
excavated for there homes and
developed underground flint mines.
This has advanced through history with
mans need for protection and hiding,
aswell as mining metal and precious
stones. From picks made of horn and
flint techniques moved onto metal
picks. Then came fire setting, where
fires heated up the rock which was
then dowsed in cold water, the
artificial expansion and contraction
causing the rock to shatter. Then with
invention of gunpowder, the necessity
of boring holes arrived and the first
inception of drill&blast was born.
1 HISTORY OF THE ROCK
DRILL
Beating the bore or drilling by hand
uses the same method of penetration as
all rock drills. When a chisel bit hits a
rock surface the induced stress causes
a shatter zone around the bit, if the bit
is then rotated through 360 degrees and
hit after each few degrees of rotation a
circle of crushed rock will result.
When this is continued, a round hole is
formed.

Figure 2 Beating the bore in a Cornish tin mine

Figure 1 Rock failure mechanism for a

percussive drill bit

The Drill or Jumper as it was called,

consisted of a bit or chisel edge which
was usually flat since it cut more freely
than the curved edge and was therefore
used on deep holes. The curved edge
was much stronger at the corners and
hence more suitable for hard rock. The
David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

Figure 3 Examples of the drills and sledges (

after G.G. Andre 1887 )

-1 -

The drill or jumper was hit by a

sledge or hammer. The sledges were
carefully designed as well, those used
for drilling blast holes had a flat face to
deliver a direct blow with a
chamferring of the head to ensure that
the sledge would fly off when a false
blow was struck, and hence miss a
mans hands holding the drill. A
hammer was smaller than a sledge,
about 3lbs with a 10 inch handle to be
used with one hand. The sledge was
between 5lbs. and l0lbs with a handle
designed for two hands between 20
incites and 30 inches long.

Figure 4 Holmans Rock Drill

The Schram rock drill, a Swedish and

German design, was the start in an era
of simplification. It had just four
moving parts; a working piston which
drove the borer; a slide valve; a slide
rod and a small piston which drove the
working piston and all these were
worked directly by the motor fluid.
Mr. Schram was a mining engineer and
like his compatriots realised an
automatic feed was impractical and
therefore did not include it in his
design. The advantages of this design
were quite obvious, the piston is
perfectly free, the full fluid pressure is
kept during the whole stroke, the
friction loss is small and it has fewer
moving parts all of which are readily
accessible. The whole construction of
the machine is simple and strong.

In 1870 Ingersoll and Rand rock drills

were produced using compressed air.
These drills were of American origin
and were a great achievement since
they were designed with very few
moving parts. The design consisted of
two tappet levers, therefore the
vibration of the shock is much less and
wear on the parts is less also. Then to
ensure durability, the valve gear
consists in making the spindles
separate from the valves and tappet
levers and in the case of the piston
striking the cover an elastic cushion is
provided.
Mokean designed a rock drill for the
St. Gothard Tunnel with a very
ingenious mechanism for automatic
feed, but this feature was not possible
to include in the lighter machines for
ordinary mining and quarrying.
The Sachs rock drill, designed by the
German Carl Sachs had less durable
moving parts but, with its screw feed
as compared to the conventional winch
handle or a wheel as used firstly on the
Dubois/Francois drill, it was much
favoured on the Continent.

Figure 4 Holmans Rock Drill

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

-2 -

Then came John Darlington with an

even simpler idea. He realised the
main problems of most drill designs
was in the very fragile gears, that the
destructive piston blows meant that
high velocities were impractical. He
therefore based his design on just two
parts, the cylinder and the piston. As
well as this, he made the possibility of
quick drill changes and held the tool
firmly to reduce the strain on it, all this
meant faster drilling.

Figure 5 Leyners patent

An historical method to solve the dust

problem but which could not compete
with Leyners design, was the dust
allayer. Experiments were started in
1935 by Major A. Hibbert and Mr.
Charles Wetherhill to try to prevent the
dust by projecting a fog against the
face. Water was found to be useless on
its own since it held the particles until
it evaporated, so they tried to reduce
the surface tension of the water and
found Castor Oil was the answer, but
the miners did not like it so did not
use it. The complaint was that it
produced dampness which tends to
rheumatism, and also since the water
underground was not very clean,
damage to health might be done by
inhaling a spray of disease laden water.

Machine drilling spread quickly due to

the much higher progress rates that
were possible . With hand drilling
typical progress of eighteen inches a
day was achieved (about 46cm), whilst
in 1948 at the Marie Vale Consolidated
Mine in South Africa, 1,227 feet
(about 374m) was achieved in 26 days
with six 31/2 inch Holmans drifters,
(thats a rate of over 47 feet or 14.3m
a day!).
These increases in penetration also
meant more dust which meant an
increase in Silicosis or Miners
Complaint which killed many miners
every year at a young age. The first
place to tackle this problem was South
Africa, where water was thrown from a
puddle by a small tin. Then, in 1902, it
became official that water should be
used to dowse the dust and at this time
Leyner designed a drill on which
todays drills are still based. The steel
was held loosely in a chuck attached to
the cylinder itself and the piston
reciprocated and struck the blunt end
of the drill steel. The most important
improvement was his method of
introducing air down through the drill
steel to keep the drill holes clear of
rock. This raised a lot of dust, so he
introduced water along the drill with
the air; this innovation soon dominated
the world market.

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

1.1 ROCKDRILL DEVELOPMENT

AUSTRALIA

IN

The first rockdrill to be used in

Australia is believed to be a Low
machine imported in 1867 by the
Mount
Tarrengower
Tunnelling
Company to be used in a goldmine in
Maldon, Victoria. The drill was
selected by the Mine Manager, Mr
Gardner, after a visit to the Paris
Exhibition. The drill, designed by
English inventor George Low, was
mounted on an iron frame and ran on
wheels and rails with a small steam
engine which was worked by

-3 -

compressed air at 90 psi delivered

from the surface. The drill arm could
be directed in any direction through a
twisting socket.

New South Wales and Queensland

from about 1876.
The Ingersoll Drill Company exhibited
their Eclipse drill at the 1879-80
Expo in Sydney, which was being used
at Pyrmont Quarry. At the 1888
exhibition in Melbourne a number of
other drills are mentioned including
Teagues patent produced by Harvey
and Co from Hayle, Cornwall, a rock
borer manufactured by Robinson and
Co,, and a diamond drill by McBullock
Manufacturing Co. of Chicago, and the
Slugger and Little Giant by the
Rand Drill Company of New York.

Figure 6 The Low Rockdrill

This was in essence a single boom, rail

mounted
jumbo,
with
remote
controlled pneumatic boom positioning
and a powered hose reel. The drilling
rate in granite was about 50mm/minute
for a 50mm diameter hole.

The Rand drill machines were

advertised with an improved air
compressor. The air compressor was
direct acting from a 12 inch diameter
steam engine. The compressor had
sufficient air to supply four or five
Little Giant drills at pressures of 65 to
70 psi. The Little Giants were
described as strong and light, easily
handled by two men and well adapted
to work underground in stopes. The
Slugger was a heavier drill and more
adapted for development work
underground and is reported to have
achieved 102 feet advance in one week
with three machines in 1887 in hard
quartzite gneiss.

Unfortunately due to problems with

spare parts, the drill had major
maintenance problems and due to lack
of ore the mine folded in 1870. The
fate of the machine is not known.
In 1868 a local rock drill known as
Fords patent was manufactured and
tested in Castlemaine, Victoria.
Unfortunately this machine was
complicated and difficult to repair.
In 1879 a great exhibition of
machinery was held in Sydney. At this
exhibition percussive machines took
second place to exploration diamond
drills for the coal mining industry.
Hence it was in Victoria where the
percussive drills were developed for
underground mining.
In the late 1880s the RD Oswald
machine was manufactured at the
North British Mine at Maldon. After a
visit by George Thureau to California
in 1877, the American rock drills
started to appear on the Australian
scene and Ingersoll Rand were
operating in Victoria, South Australia,

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

Figure 7 The Slugger

-4 -

communication.
Much later on, the Asians developed a
very crude projectile weapon using
their explosive technology. The Arabs
stole the Asian's knowledge and
brought the knowledge westward. The
era of explosives had begun.

With influence from the mechanisation

at Broken Hill, the Australian mining
industry turned more to American
machines in favour of British and
particularly Cornish influences.
In 1893 Gold was discovered at
Kalgoorlie and the Ingersoll Sergeant
Drill Company was established in
Kalgoorlie in 1897. In 1905 a merger
to form the Ingersoll Rand Company
marked a new generation in the story
of the development of the rock drill in
Australia including down-the-hole
hammers and tungsten carbide tips.

In the 13th century Roger Bacon, a

European, was interested in the new
knowledge. He studied it and tested it
over and over again. After many
months he found the perfect ratio of
saltpeter, sulfur, and a new ingredient,
charcoal. After he found out the perfect
ratio he wrote the ingredients and the
amounts in code in his diary. Roger
Bacon had made, and recorded, the
first black powder (the early form of
gunpowder).

2 HISTORY OF EXPLOSIVES
An explosive can be a substance or a
device that produces a volume of
rapidly expanding gas that exerts
sudden pressure on its surroundings.
There are three common types of
explosives: chemical, mechanical, and
nuclear. Mechanical explosions are
physical reactions, for example the
effects of compressed air.

Bacon did not get credit for the making

of black powder because he didn't use
his invention. Berthold Schwarts saw
this and exploited it. He experimented
with many devices and finally thought
of a great idea. Schwarts used the
black powder to launch a pebble at
high speed out of a metal tube.
Schwarts had invented guns.
The invention soon progressed to
cannons which were capable of
launching boulders through stone
castle walls. Gunpowder also sped up
the very slow process of digging up
stones. With gunpowder they could
blow the stones out of the ground.
Before, only the rich people could have
stone houses because it took so long.
Now even some poor people could
have a house of stone. This was a great
technological advance.

Explosives have been around for a

very long time. The very first
explosives were accidentally made by
ancient Asian alchemists in the 10th
Century. They added the ingredients of
saltpetre and sulphur, two common
materials, and found that the mixture
actually detonated. The Asians did not
use their new creation for war. They
made the first fireworks out of the
substance, which they used for

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

Five hundred years after, in 1846 an

Italian scientist named Ascano
Sobrero, thought of a new idea. He
mixed nitric acid and glycerin together
to see what would happen. The new
substance nearly exploded in his face!
Sobrero had discovered nitroglycerine.

-5 -

After testing he saw that the highly

unstable mixture was very powerful. It
was so unstable that it could be
detonated by a touch of a feather.

inventions of the safety fuse and the

blasting cap. In 1831 William Bickford
of England devised the safety fuse,
originally a textile-wrapped cord with
a black powder core, which for the first
time enabled safe, accurately timed
detonations.

Figure 9 Alfred Nobel

In 1852 Alfred Nobel took up the task

of making nitroglycerine more stable
so it could be used as a commercially
and technically useful explosive. This
proved to be very dangerous and
resulted in the death of many people
including his brother Emil. He soon
found that mixing nitroglycerine with
silica would turn the liquid into a paste
which could be shaped into rods of a
size and form suitable for insertion into
drilling holes. In 1867 he patented this
material under the name of dynamite.
This was one of the first high
explosives. People used the new
explosive for excavating and tunneling.
Nobel got the credit for not only
nitroglycerin but dynamite, too. Nobel
became very rich and famous. He
knew the amount of destruction his
invention would cause and he did not
want to be associated with thousands
of deaths, so he left a large amount of
money to the awarding of prizes every
year. The prizes were given to the best
in Chemistry, Medicine, Physics,
Literature, and the promotion of peace.
The prizes are still given out every
year.

In 1865 Nobel invented the blasting

cap, providing the first safe and
dependable means for detonating
nitroglycerin and thereby considerably
expanding its use for industrial
purposes. Electrical firing, first used
successfully in the late 19th century,
allows greater control over timing.
The year 1955, marked the beginning
of the most revolutionary change in the
explosives industry since the invention
of dynamite, with the development of
ammonium nitratefuel oil mixtures
(ANFO) and ammonium nitrate-base
water gels, which together now
account for at least 70 percent of the
high explosives consumption.

3 URBAN DRILL AND BLAST

Whilst drill and blast has been
successfully utilized for major
construction projects its application in
urban development is restricted due to
environmental
constraints in
particular dust, noise, and vibration. In
fact in many urban centres where rock
excavation is carried out, blasting is
not allowed.
In Hong Kong for

Two important developments in the

history of explosives were the

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

-6 -

example there are many strict rules for

limiting blasting activities. In the city
centre, adjacent to existing metro
tunnels and other services and beneath
water culverts, blasting is either
specified as not permissible or requires
an extensive application process for
permission from the Hong Kong Mines
Department.
Rock breaking is
therefore limited to mechanical means
and for small excavtions expanding
grouts and hydraulic hammers are used
and progress is generally slow.

Ground vibrations
Blasting essentially causes three
different types of vibration; namely P
waves or compression waves and S
waves or sheer waves that travel
through the rock, and R waves or
Rayleigh waves which travel along the
surface.
The intensity of these
vibrations is generally controlled by
the limiting criteria PPV, or Peak
Particle Velocity.
A large amount of research has been
done in this area and a number of
relationships have been developed
between the explosive charge and the
value of PPV at a certain distance from
the blast.

In Sydney CBD deep basement

excavations have been developed for
many large buildings to create parking
and shopping facilities underground
but blasting is generally not
permissible and the excavations in the
Hawkesbury Sandstone are made by
hydraulic hammers. Recent tunnel
developments such as the Eastern
Distributor, M5 East and Northside
Storage Tunnel have been carried out
by roadheader and TBM, but cross
passages, ventilation shafts and other
small excavations require alternative
techniques.
Controlled blasting
usually imposses constraints on
progress
and
production,
and
alternatives such as hydraulic hammers
may often cause more environmental
impact for residents, due to the
continuous nature of the noise and
vibration and the prolonged period of
its operation. The RTA (2000) has
stated for the new Cross City Tunnel
that excavation will be by rock boring
techniques and blasting will be
restricted.

A common representation of this is:

PPV = K ( R/W )
Where:

PPV is the peak particle

velocity (mm/s)
R is the distance from
the blast (m)
W is the maximum
instantaneous charge (kg)
K, and
are site
constants.

The relationship is either a square law

or cube law where = 0.5 or 0.3.
Work carried out in many different
rock types by the US Bureau of Mines
(Siskin et al 1980) has suggested a
square law is appropriate in most cases
with the following values for the site
constants:

3.1 RESTRICTING CRITERIA

K = 1244 and = - 1.45

Rockbreaking by blasting creates

ground vibrations, air blast, noise and
flyrock. Control of these impactss in
an urban environment is critical to
minimise damage to structures as well
as annoyance to neighbours.

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

(1)

(2)

In some parts of the world other local

site constraints have been developed
such as:

-7 -

Hong Kong Mines and Quarries

Division
K = 644 and

= - 1.22

(3)

= - 1.6

(4)

Air blast
In every blast a portion of the total
blast energy escapes into the
atmosphere.
The
temporary
overpressure
(pressure
above
atmosphere) produced by the explosion
is emitted as a wave which travels at
the speed of sound. The arrival of this
wave at any point may be sensed as
noise, or shaking or rattling of loose
objects.

Sydney Water

K = 1143 and

The effect of vibrations on structures

has also undergone a large amount of
study and a number of restricting
values have been presented. Proposals
for limiting criteria are given by many
authorities including the Australian
and British Standards, The UK
Transport Research Laboratory, The
Hong Kong Mines Department and
Mass Transit Rail Corporation
(MTRC) specifications. A summary of
these criteria presented is given in
Table 1.

The airblast overpressure from an

unconfined explosive charge can be
estimated from:
P = 185 (D/W 1/3)- 1.2
(after Ssiskin et al 1980)
Where:

Limiting initial charges within the

requirements of the local blasting laws
ensures maximum PPV limits are not
achieved. Monitoring these initial blasts
in a series of trials enables actual site
constraints to be determined so that real
site specific blasting criteria can be
developed.

P is the air over

pressure (kPa)
D is the distance from
the blast (m)
W is the maximum
instantaneous charge (kg)

and sound pressure on the decibel scale

is determined from:
dB = 20 log10 (P/Po)
Where:

Table 1. Vibration limits from blasting (after

New 1986)

Structures
Commercial and Industrial Buildings
Houses and low rise residential buildings
Historic Buildings
Utility Services
Slopes and retaining walls
Water retaining Structures
Computer installations
Human comfort
Fresh Concrete (less than 2 days old)
Concrete between 2 and 8 days old
Concrete more than 8 days old

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

(4)

Po is the reference
pressure of 2x10 8 kPa.
Max. ppv
25 mm/s
10 mm/s
2 mm/s
35 mm/s
35 mm/s
13 mm/s
5 mm/s
2-5 mm/s
5 mm/s
25 mm/s
50 mm/s

-8 -

(5)

Table 2. Airblast limits from blasting (after

Siskin et al 1980)

Air blast overpressure

20 kPa (180db)
14 kPa (175db)
5 kPa (168db)
1 kPa (155db)
0.2 kPa (140db)
<0.05 kPa (128db)

Effect
Structural damage
Windows fail
Some failure of poorly fitted window
panes
Some prestressed window panes fail
Windows and small objects shake
Avoid disturbance to people

A summary of levels of damage sustained

from air blast overpressures (after Nicholls
et al 1971) are given in Table 2. Routine
blasting operations in which explosives
are confined in blastholes and which are
designed to limit PPV to less than 50mm/s
typically do not generate airblast
overpressures that cause significant
damage to residential structures.

Work presented by Lundberg (1973)

states that for a specific charge less
than 0.2kg/m3 there is no throw but for
other values the maximum throw is
expressed as:
L = 143 d (q- 0.2)
Where

Noise
Noise is a nuisance factor rather than a
damaging influence and the US Bureau
of Mines has specified safe standards
as presented in Table 3 (after Siskin et
al 1980).
Problems can occur from blasting in built
up or enclosed areas where the air blast
may be magnified and reflected. This is
overcome by correct stemming and use of
sand bags blasting mats over the blast
holes.

(6)

d is the hole diameter

(mm)
q is the specific charge
(kg/m3).

For values of q greater than 0.2 kg/m3

flyrock is generally overcome by
providing
blasting
covers
and
barricades to control the flyrock.
3.2 NON EXPLOSIVE ROCKBREAKING

Safe level

An answer to the problems of rock

breaking using conventional explosives
has been provided by going back to the
properties of Blackpowder. PCF or
Penetrating Cone Fracture, is an
example of this and consists of a faster
burning propellant that generates highpressure gas at the lower point of a
drill hole. This gas, when held in a
hole by stemming, is forced into micro
fractures formed in the rock by the
percussive drilling process and initiates
and propagates natural and drilling
fractures to break the rock.
128dB (0.048 kPa)

Allowable impulsive noise limit

136 dB (0.134 kPa)

Flyrock
Flyrock can be a very dangerous side
effect of blasting. The very nature of
the rock blasting mechanism of an
explosive where the expanding gas
propagates fractures and moved the
broken rock creates the opportunity for
small fragments to travel at high speed
and for considerable distances.
Table 3. Noise limits from blasting (after
Siskin et al 1980)

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

-9 -

The product is classified as a non

explosive means of rock breaking. The
system has been developed by
RockBreaking Solutions, a subsidiary
of Brandrill Limited.

The following equations were derived

by independent tests of PCF explosives
in granite rock.

As it is not an explosive and does not

produce the initial seismic pulse of an
explosive, the vibrations due to rock
breaking with PCF are less than
conventional explosives. As the rock
is broken through the propagation of
fractures rather than pulverisation of
the rock there is little or no flyrock and
the airblast is minimal as the energy is
used in fracturing the rock.

PCF
PPV = 1090(D/W0.5)-1.39

(7)

Explosives
PPV = 1483 (D/W0.5)-1.25

(8)

Typical comparative values of PCF

compared to conventional explosives
for a 60g charge weight for PCF and
equivalent 360g of explosives in
granite rock are presented in tables 4, 5
6, and 7.
7

Table 5 Comparison of airblast from PCF to

conventional explosives

Charge
(g)
60

PCF Overpressure Levels (dBL)

Weight Distance (m) Unattenuated Attenuated

10
20
30

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

(No Canopy)
107
100
96

- 10 -

(Canopy, barrier & shroud)

55
48
39

Table 4 Comparison of vibrations from PCF

to conventional explosives

EXAMPLES
PCF has carried out a number of
successful projects recently which
include:
1. Underground plant rooms at
North Point Station on part
of the Kowloon Line for the
MTRC in Hong Kong.

Distance (m) Vibration (mm/s)

PCF
Explosives
5
16
105
10
6
44
15
4
27
20
2
19
30
1
11
50
1
6
100
0.3
2

Table 6 Noise
operations

values

Range
Mean

from

2. Mass excavation of the top

4 metres of dam wall and
13 spillway recesses at
Canning Dam in WA and
excavation of a 5m adit into
the lower gallery.

PCF

3. Excavation of cross adits

for M5 East Tunnel in
Sydney

dBA
(@ 50m)
50 - 68
59

4. Breaking
of
boulders
adjacent to highways at
Tandys Lane in NSW and
Gunalda
Bypass
in
Queensland.

PCF also has good fume

characteristics enabling it to be
used in closed confined conditions:

5. Tunnel development for the

LTA beneath Clarke Quay
Table 7 Typical fume characteristics from PCF
in Singapore.
Gas
Concentration Concentration Concentration Emission (L)
(mol/kg)
(L/kg) @ STP (%w/w)
(per 100g PCF
charge)
Carbon
18.23
408
51.2
40.8
Monoxide
(CO)
Water
8.79
197
15.8
19.7
vapour
(H2O)
Hydrogen
5.13
115
1.1
11.5
(H2)
Nitrogen
4.6
103
12.9
10.3
(N2)
Carbon
4.22
95
18.6
9.5
Dioxide
(CO2)
6. It is currently being used
for excavation of a large

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

- 11 -

basement to form
underground carpark
Bondi Junction.
4

an
at
12.

CONCLUSION

Drill and blast has developed a long way

since its early inception but even with the
development of hard rock mechanized
excavation technologies such as TBM and
roadheader, drill and blast is finding an
increasing application in modern hard rock
underground excavation.

13.

14.

REFERENECES
1. Andre G.G. (l887) A Treatise on
Mining Machinery
2. Australian Standards (1983) SAA
Explosives Code. AS2187 part 2
3. British Standards Institution 1984.
Guide to evaluation of human
exposure to vibration in buildings
(1Hz 80 Hz). BS 6472
4. Brown G I. The Big Bang: A
History of Explosives
5. Crozier Ronald D.
Guns,
Gunpowder
&
Saltpetre.
Faversham Society
6. Hong Kong Mines Department.
Assessment of stability of slopes
subject to blasting vibration. GEO
Report No 15
7. Lowe, P.T. and McQueen L.B.
1990. Construction of the North
Head Ocean Outfall Tunnel.
Seventh Australian Tunnelling
Conference, Sydney, September
1990. Inst Engineers, Australia,
Canberra, Australia
8. Lees DJ (2000) Constraints for
tunnel construction in the urban
environment and how to overcome
them. AUCTA Workshop
Planning for Tunnelling in the
Urban
Environment.
Preconference Symposium of
Geoeng 2000
9. Lees DJ(2001) History of the
Rock Drill. AUCTApril 2001
10. Lees
DJ(2001)
Rockdrill
Develoment in Australia. AUCT
Nov 2001
11. Lundberg,
N.
1973
The

David Lees - History of Drill and Blast

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.
22.

- 12 -

calculation of maximum throw

during blasting. SveDeFo Report
DS 1973:4
McCarthy PL (1985) Rockdrill
Develoment
in
Australia.
AusIMM Bulletin Vol 290 No 2
March 1985
New, B.M. 1986. Ground
vibration
caused
by
civil
engineering works. Transport and
Road
Research
Laboratory
Research
Report 53. TRRL
Berkshire UK.
Nicholls, H.R., Johnson, C.F., and
Duvall
W
1971.
Blasting
vibrations and their effect on
structures. USBM Bulletin 656
RTA 2000. Environmental Impact
Statement for the Cross City
Tunnel, Roads Traffic Authority
of NSW. Sydney
Siskin, D.E., Stagg, M.S., Kopp,
J.W., and Dowding, C.H. 1980a.
Structure response and damage
produced by ground vibrations
from surface mine blasting. USBM
Report RI 8507
Siskin, D.E., Stachura, V.J.,
Stagg, M.S., and Kopp, J.W.
1980b. Structure response and
damage produced by airblast from
surface mining. USBM Report RI
88485.
Treve Holman(1946) Historical
Relationship of Mining, Silicosis,
& Rock Removal.
Weston (1923) Rock Drills
Jim Whitehead
The
Development of Ingersoll Rand in
Australia
www.inventors.about.com/library
www.sis.ac.uk/~dj9006/explosive
s/homepage