See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268811923

The influence of rock mass quality in controlled

blasting

Conference Paper July 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 155

2 authors, including:

Sp Singh
Laurentian University
91 PUBLICATIONS 256 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Factors governing the configration of a muck pile View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sp Singh on 22 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining

The Influence of Rock Mass Quality in Controlled Blasting

Paul Singh, Professor

Ravindra Narendrula, Graduate Student
Laurentian University
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT Implications of Blast Induced Damage

Blasting is an integral part of mining activity and is an inherently Damage is a change in the rock mass properties which degrades
destructive process. The quality of the rock mass in which an its performance and behavior (4). From the mining point of view, it
excavation is being driven has a strong influence on the level of is the structural performance of the rock, which is of importance
dynamic forces to which the rock can be subjected and sustain because the remaining rock has to support load in the form of back,
damage. Though each specific rock mass occurrence is unique, yet wall or a pillar. That is why blast damage determines an important
there are common rock mass features which influence the outcome link between the excavation process and the structural stability of
of controlled blasting in a similar way. A field study was conducted the rock mass. The typical occurrence of blast damage around an
which involved assessment of blast damage at several operating opening is shown in Figure 1.
mines and blasting of small scale models. The effects of block size
and strength, joint parameters, ground water, weathering of rocks
and rock mass rating on the results of controlled blasting have been
investigated and discussed in this study. The influence of number
and thickness of weak layers on overbreak control has been
discussed in the light of practical data. Critical particle velocity
ranges for damage to rock masses with different qualities have been
outlined. An approach for the judicious design of perimeter hole
pattern and charge concentration has been proposed.

INTRODUCTION

Rock mass is a heterogeneous and anisotropic medium, a fact

often ignored during blast design. Perimeter blasting techniques are
generally most successful in massive rocks. Most of the rocks
contain a variety of visible discontinuities and flaws such as joints,
bedding planes, faults, etc. The use of standard blast designs,
without any consideration to the variation in the geological features
of the rock mass result in blast damage and poor fragmentation. If
the optimum blasting results are to be achieved over a range of rock
mass conditions, it is critical to understand the importance of the
rock mass quality in producing the blast damage.
Figure 1. Typical blast damage zones around an opening.
It is evident from the literature review that rock mass properties
largely control the blast damage and the blasting performance During the excavation process, the redistribution of in situ
(1,2,3). But there is no proven practical approach to the definition stresses and release of seismic energy also induce rock mass
of blasting requirements based on rock mass characteristics. This is damage which can sometimes overshadow that caused by blasting.
a testimony to the complexity of rock mass as a material and The distinct difference between the two is that blast-induced
blasting as a process. The challenge is to identify the rock mass damage is highly localized around the immediate perimeter of the
properties having controlling influence on blast damage and to blasting area. The impact of blast induced rock mass damage on
understand the role played by them in causing blast damage. mining includes:

314
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
i) Dilution of ore Strength and density of rocks
ii) Ground control problems
iii) Poor fragmentation The strength of rock mass depends upon the geological features
iv) Restricted access to damaged ground for drilling and and the strength of the intact rock. The densities and strengths of
charging operations rocks are generally correlated (5). The strength and density of the
v) Reduction in the moduli and strengths of rocks rock mass determines the level of ground vibrations required to
vi) Reduction in the maximum unsupported span and stand cause fresh cracking and spalling. High strength rocks require high
up time level of dynamic stress to induce spalling and cracking. The critical
vii) Breakdown of the inherent interlocking of the weakness particle velocity ranges for damage in the case of rocks with
planes different strengths and densities have been given in Table 1 (6).
viii) Increased cost in the installation and maintenance of
supports. Table 1: Critical peak particle velocity (PPV) for different rock
masses.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
ROCK TYPE CRITICAL PPV for
The experimental work involved the following: DAMAGE
(mm/sec)
a) Documentation of rock mass quality and assessment of Hard Rock: Specific Gravity 1200 - 2000
blast damage at several operating mines. (S.G.) > 2.7
b) Blasting of small scale concrete models with joints Uniaxial Compressive Strength
simulated at different orientations (Figure 2). > 240 Mpa
Medium Hard Rock: S.G. > 2.5 700 - 1000
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
> 100 - 150 Mpa
Soft Rock : S.G. > 2.3 <400
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
< 50 Mpa

Block Size

In situ block size depends upon the intensity of jointing in a rock

mass. Rock masses with small blocks tend to have low cohesion
and block failure may initiate with low levels of explosive energy.
On the other hand, the large in situ blocks interlock and are often
kinematically stable because of their size. The importance of block
strength diminishes at lower vibration levels as block failure will
generally occur along existing discontinuities.

Joint Parameters

It is very rare to find rock formations which are not jointed or

bedded. The role played by the discontinuities (mainly joints) in
causing blast damage depends upon the following properties.

Orientation of discontinuities: Joint orientation can have a

Figure 2. Concrete model with joints simulated between the
holes.
Assessment of blast damage
Blast damage was assessed by Half Cast Factor (HCF), which is
defined by the length of half barrels after the blast expressed as a
percentage of the initial length of the blast holes.
ROCK MASS QUALITY
The blast damage experienced by a rock mass depends upon the
magnitude of the explosive energy and the quality of rock mass
prior to blasting. Several factors affect the quality of a rock mass.
significant effect on the excavation perimeter. The presence of
joints affects the attenuation of the induced stress wave. The
attenuation of the wave transmitted through the joint depends upon
the angle of incidence of the wave on to the joint surface. The
attenuation is minimal, when the angle of incidence is parallel or
perpendicular to the face and increases to a maximum when the
angle is between 15 and 45 degrees (7). This leads to the suggestion
that the crack proceeds with minimum attenuation when the relative
angle of jointing with respect to the perimeter line is parallel,
nearly parallel or normal. For other orientations, wave attenuation
is significantly increased and hence the perimeter control is more
difficult.
In order to investigate the effect of joint orientation on perimeter
control, physical models were prepared using high strength
concrete. The joints at different orientations were simulated
between the blastholes. As shown in Figure 3, the largest overbreak
was observed in the case of samples with 45 degrees joint
orientations. When the joints are at an angle of 90 degrees to the
blast holes the damage is insignificant (Figure 4).

315
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Figure 3. Overbreak for 45 degrees orientation of joints.
Worsey et al (8) have concluded from the similar tests and field
observations that the presence of discontinuities at an angle less
than 60 degrees to the designed perimeter line have an adverse
effect on controlled blasting outcome. If the discontinuity
orientation is less than 15 degrees, controlled blasting produces no
improvement over normal blasting.
Figure 4. Insignificant damage in case of a vertical joint.
Aperture of Discontinuities: Worsey and Qu (9) reported that
increasing joint surface separation severely decreases the quality of
final excavation profile as a result of increased cratering of joints.
Open joints can also arrest or cause branching of cracks being
316
propagated between two perimeter holes. When the joints are tight
and cemented, they have no significant effect on the overbreak.
Tarique and Worsey (10) observed during small scale blasting
experiments that joint aperture of 3mm acts like a free face, thereby
reflecting back the explosive energy without producing a split plane.
It was further revealed that as the joint opening was increased, the
angle of cratering was also increased.
Frequency of Discontinuities: Close spacing of joints is an indicator
of highly fractured rock mass. During blasting in loosely jointed
rock the critical factor is whether or not the drilling pattern is wider
than joint spacing. If it is, then contour problem can be expected.
The frequency of joints in the range of 2-3 joint planes per spacing
may produce adverse effects on perimeter control.
Joint Filling: The filling material within a joint, changes its wave
transmission characteristics. The smaller the width of the filling
material and closer, the impedance of the filling material to that of
medium, better would be the strain energy transmission through the
joint. With the increase in the joint width, the energy loss into the
joint will be considerable, particularly when the joint is closer to
face. The presence of clay material in joints, its swelling potential
and thickness contribute to poor rock mass quality thus resulting in
excessive overbreak and underbreak. If the aperture of the joint is
small with strong and stable filling material, the overbreak will
depend upon the orientation of the joint with respect to the line of
blastholes.
Joint Conditions: The condition of joints also influences the
perimeter control. A better perimeter control was observed in the
case of discontinued joints and with rock mass having higher joint
roughness values.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
This is defined as the total length of cores greater than 100mm
expressed as a percentage of the total length cored. This is an
indicator of the quality of the rock mass. An RQD of less than 70%
indicates that the rock mass will be considerably susceptible to
damage. RQD values less than 50% would require close spacing,
very light loading in combination with unloaded guide holes.
Watery Conditions
Hydrological conditions have the following effects on the rocks
and rock masses:
a) Reduction in the compressive and tensile strengths of the
rocks (11), as the friction between the particles is lower.
b) Reduction in the shock wave attenuation and
consequently the breakage effects are enhanced.
c) Lowers the cohesion and the frictional properties of the
joints.
d) Joints filled with water allow the passage of shock waves
without internal spalling. But when the rock mass is in
tension, the water is mobilized, forming a wedge which
may produce overbreak.
e) Water present in drill holes takes over the air as
decoupling agent. This increases the degree of coupling
and results in higher levels of ground vibrations.
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Weathering of Rocks 90

Rock weathering generally occurs at or near the rock surface. It is

Half Cast Factor, %

85
alteration of rocks caused by processes such as:
80
a) The chemical action of air and water.
b) The mechanical action of temperature variations. 75
c) Physical forces producing a physical deterioration of the
rock. 70

Weathering needs attention because it lowers the strength of rock. 65

The presence of highly weathered material leads to poor blasting
results and overbreak. In a weathered rock mass small hole spacing 60
and lower charge concentration is suggested. 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Adjusted Layer Thickness, Dm

Layers or Foliation

Rock masses generally contain layers of different rocks with
varying strengths and characteristics. The presence of such layers,
interferes with the transmission and effectiveness of explosive
energy and is responsible for the underbreak and overbreak. At the
test site, each blasting round contained several layers (almost
vertical) of varying thicknesses located in a direction perpendicular
to the drift axis. The effect of the adjusted thickness of layers on
the half cast factor has been displayed in Figure 5. The presence of
the vertical layers of softer material had a significant effect of the
depth of pull. The depth of pull for majority of the rounds was
higher than 100%. This was due to the reason that whenever a
round ended in a layer of softer material, it blasted up to the next
junction between the layer and the quartzite.
60
Figure 6. Rock mass rating vs average half cast factor
Tunstall (14) noted minor damage in poor quality phyllite (RMR
= 42) at PPV in excess of 52 mm/sec. Tunstall (14), Diehl and
Sariola (15) observed rock falls at PPVs of 60 to 80 mm/sec. It is a
general observation, that the blast damage is cumulative in nature
and where the rock mass is already loosened by previous blasting,
it may require very little vibration energy to suffer damage. Blast
damage criteria for underground excavations have been given in
Table 2 (6).
Table 2: Blast damage criteria for underground excavations.
CRITICAL
TYPE OF NATURE OF DAMAGE PPV,
DAMAGE (mm/sec)

50 Minor - Loosening of 50 - 400

Half Cast Factor

Damage open joints and

40 joints with
weak fillings
30 - Reduction in
the frictional
20 properties of
joints
10 Medium - Opening and 200 - 700
damage extension of pre
0 existing
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 cracks, tight
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) joints, joints
filled with hard
materials
Figure 5. Adjusted thickness of layers vs half cast factor - Minor rock falls
Severe - Fracturing of 600 - 2000
Rock Mass Rating damage intact rock
- Major rock falls
Various rock mass classification systems have been proposed and
they are widely used in the design of rock support systems. Rock
mass rating (RMR) developed by Bieniawski (12) was used in this BLAST DESIGN
study. The blast damage experienced by a rock mass depends upon
the RMR value. The RMR values for different sites were plotted Characterization of Rock Mass
against the average HCF (Figure 6). This indicates that for rock
masses with RMR values less than 47, it is difficult to retain half The strength and geological features of a rock mass cannot be
barrels. changed but their knowledge can facilitate the judicious selection
of blast design factors. One can characterize the rock mass and
Peak particle velocity (PPV) of blast vibrations is commonly used adopt different strategies to excavate it with minimum damage. The
as predictor of blast damage. Clover (13) noted that the lowest rock mass rating system (RMR) developed by Bieniawski (12) was
measured PPV at which damage occurred was 125 mm/sec.

317
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
used in this study. Based upon the review of case histories and the Spacing and burden for the perimeter holes can be determined
work done by the author in different sites, the criterion for blast using equations 2 and 3 respectively.
damage is proposed in Figure 7. The magnitudes of blast vibrations
required for the initiation of minor and major damage in rocks with
different RMR values have been displayed. S = Sf X d (2)
1400 B = Bf X S (3)
Peak Particle Velocity, mm/s

1200 S = Spacing between perimeter holes in meters

Major Damage Sf = Spacing factor
1000
B = Burden for perimeter holes in meters
800 Bf = Burden factor

600 Table 3. Rock type and perimeter hole pattern design factors.
Minor Damage
400 Initiatioin of
Major Damage Rock Type Class Explosive Spacing Burden
200 Charge Factor factor
Initiation of
Minor Damage No Damage Factor (Qf) (Sf) (Bf)
0 Hard Rock: I 100 16 1.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Strong Joints;
Roak Mass Rating S.G > 2.7;
Comp. Strength
Figure 7. Magnitude of blast vibrations for initiation of damage. > 220 Mpa
Medium Hard II 90 15 1.2
Based upon the quality of rock mass, the blast design can be Rock; No Weak
modified to keep the blast vibrations below the desired level. This Joints; S.G >
paper covers only the design of perimeter holes which is critical 2.5; Comp.
from the point of view of blast damage. Strength: 95
135 Mpa
Perimeter Hole Pattern and Charge Concentration Soft Rock: III 80 14 1.2
Weak Joints;
The spacing and burden of perimeter holes have a significant S.G. > 2.3:
influence on the shape and precision of an excavation. Higher Comp Strength
spacing results in underbreak between the blastholes whereas too < 70 Mpa
close spacing cause overbreak. It was observed that burden to
spacing ratio of 1.20 for perimeter holes facilitates the timely
jointing of the cracks between the holes along the arch of an
CONCLUSIONS
opening and minimizes damage due to the explosive load in the
first-row-in holes. The optimum spacing between perimeter holes
Rock mass characterization has a major influence on blast
depends upon the rock type and the drill hole diameter. Based upon
inflicted damage and must be given adequate weight in blast design.
the field tests and observations in operating mines, the following
The frequency, orientation and aperture of discontinuities have a
approach involving two steps is proposed:
major influence on the initiation and propagation of blast damage
in a rock mass. A shattered and irregular profile is obtained when
(A) Classification of rock type
the joints are at an angle of 45 degrees approximately to the line of
(B) Determination of
blast holes. The tight and cemented joints may have an insignificant
effect but the open joints containing softer filling material can pose
(1) Explosive charge per meter of charge length
difficulties in perimeter control. The orientation of discontinuities
(2) Spacing of perimeter holes
can have a significant effect on the perimeter of an excavation. The
(3) Burden of perimeter holes
presence of foliation of weaker material and the watery conditions
also affect the outcome of perimeter control blasting. Lower RQD
The rock type for the site can be classified according to Table 3.
values require caution in blast design if overbreak is to be
Explosive charge (Q) can be determined as follows:
minimized. It was observed that the major effects of blasting is not
a dramatic increase in joint intensity as might be expected from the
destructive nature of blasting but of increasing dilation of pre-
Q = Qf X d2 (1) existing discontinuities.

Qf = Explosive charge factor ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Q = Explosive charge, Kg/meter
D= Diameter of the hole in meters The authors wish to thank NSERC for the funding and the
Canadian Mining Industry for the assistance and co-operation
during the study.

318
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
REFERENCES
1. Chiappetta, F., 1991, Pre-splitting and controlled
blasting techniques, Proc. Blast Tech. Instrumentation
and explosives application seminar, San Diego, USA, pp.
171-186.
2. Holmberg, R., 1993, Recent developments to control
rock damage Proc. 4th International symposium on rock
fragmentation by blasting, Vienna, Austria, pp. 197-198.
3. Scoble, M., Lizotte, Y. and Paventi, M., 1996, Rock
mass damage from blasting: characterization and impact
Proc. Workshop on measurement of blast fragmentation,
Montreal, Canada, pp. 225-235.
4 Singh, S.P. 1992, Mining Industry and blast damage,
Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 40th Anniversary
Number, December, pp. 465 472.
5. Jimeno, C., Jimeno, E. and Carcedo, F., 1995, Drilling
and blasting of rocks, A.A. Balkema, Netherlands,
391pp.
6. Singh, S.P., 2001, The influence of geology on blast
damage CIM Bulletin, vol. 94, No. 1048, pp. 121-127.
7. Lewandoski, T., V.K.Luan Mai. & R.Danell 1966,
Influence of discontinuities on presplitting 14.
effectiveness Proc. 5th International sump. On Rock
Fragmentation by blasting, Montreal, Canada, August, pp.
217 225.
319
View publication stats
8. Worsey, P., I.W.Farmer and G.D.Matheson 1981, The
mechanics of presplitting in discontinuous rock, Proc.
22nd US Rock Mechanics Symp. U.O.Missouri, Rolla
USA, pp. 205 210.
9. Worsey P. & S.Qu 1987, Effect of joint separation and
filling on presplit blasting, Proc. 3rd mini Symp. On
explosives and blasting research Miami, USA, pp. 26
40.
10. Tariq, S.M. and P.N.Worsey 1996, An investigation into
the effect of varying joint aperture and nature of surface
on presplitting, Proc. 12th Symp. on explosives and
blasting research. Orlando, USA, pp. 186 195.
11. Obert L. and W.I.Duvall 1967, Rock Mechanics and the
design of structures, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York,
USA, 650pp.
12. Bieniawski, Z.T., 1984, Rock mechanics design in
mining and tunneling, A.A.Balkema, Netherlands, 272pp.
13. Clover, A.W., 1986. Appraisal of potential effects of
surface blasting on a rock tunnel, with particular
reference to the Tai Lam Chung water tunnel, Hong
Kong. Proc. Rock Engineering and Excavation in an
urban environment, IMM, pp. 109 120.
Tunstall,A.M., 1997, Damage to underground
excavations from open pit blasting, Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, IMM, Sec. A, Vol.
106, pp. 19-24.
15. Diehl, G.W. and Sariola, P.J., 1977. The small hole
drilling method in rock store excavations. Proc., Ist
International symposium on strorage in excavated rock
caverns, 3, pp. 1155 1167.