International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

Blast design and vibration control at an underground metal mine for

the safety of surface structures
M.P. Roy a,n, P.K. Singh a, Md. Sarim a, L.S. Shekhawat b
a
CSIR - Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India
b
Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur 313004, India

art ic l e i nf o

Article history:
Received 24 June 2015
Received in revised form
28 November 2015
Accepted 1 January 2016

Keywords:
Underground blasting
Blast vibration
Surface structure
Blast design
Vibration control

1. Introduction mainly embodied by the damage or failure of rock masses caused

Vibrations as a result of blasting practices in mining engineer-
ing are complex phenomena controlled by many variables. Ground
vibrations from blasting have been a continuous problem for the
mining and construction industries, the public living near the
mining activities and the regulatory agencies responsible for set-
ting safety and environmental standards. Questions frequently
arise about blast vibration effects and specifically about whether
vibrations can or could have caused cracking and other damage in
homes and other structures. The answer depends primarily on
vibration levels and frequencies and to a lesser degree on site and
structure specific factors. All blast vibration complaints are due to
how much complainant’s houses shake, not how much the ground
shakes. The three factors of ground vibrations that determine the
degree of shaking are ground vibration amplitude (peak particle
velocity; PPV), its duration and its frequency.1 Apart from the PPV,
the frequency content and the relative amplitude of horizontal and
vertical components can also play important roles with regards to
the response of structures in the nearby areas. On the other hand,
various variables such as the charge loading density, site geology,
blast geometry, can also affect the ground shock at a given scaled
distance.2 Further, the influence of the blasting excavation dis-
turbance on the surrounding rocks of deep-buried tunnels is
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mproy14@yahoo.com (M.P. Roy).
by the stress redistribution of surrounding rocks, the blasting load
of the excavation blasting and the transient unloading of the ex-
cavation load.3 Li et al.4 tried to assess the tunnel safety by ana-
lyzing the PPV and stress distribution. Xia et al.5 observed that the
rock damage extent around the tunnels linearly increases with the
peak particle velocity (PPV). Human beings notice and react to
vibration at levels much lower than the levels established as
structural damage thresholds.6,7 Previous studies on human re-
sponse to transient vibrations have established that human toler-
ance to vibration decreases the longer the vibration continues.
Reidarman and Nyberg8 made an attempt to characterize the
vibrations that occur along tunnel walls during excavation blast-
ing. The effect of underground structures on above ground build-
ings has been studied in the past focusing mainly on the resulting
surface settlements.9 Recently, the effect of underground struc-
tures on the seismic response of ground surface has attracted the
attention of researchers, since it has been concluded that the
presence of these subsurface structures has also effects on the
seismic response of nearby ground.10 Smerzini et al.11 proposed an
analytical solution to describe the effect of underground cavities
on the ground motion generated by P, S or R seismic waves.
However, these methods consider some simple assumptions such
as elastic medium in the analyses. The other factors such as soil
nonlinearity were not considered in those methods.12 The mining
industry needs realistic blast design levels and also practical
techniques to safe guard the structures in their periphery. At the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.01.003
1365-1609/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
108 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115
same time, mines safety control agencies responsible for blasting
and explosives need reasonable, appropriate and technologically
established and supportable blast vibration damage criteria on
which to base their regulations.13–15 Finally, neighbours around
the mining operations require really protection of their property
and health. Last but not the least; the mining operations should
not be stopped only due to apprehension of the damage to the
structures/buildings.
This paper investigates the issue of ground vibration com-
plaints at Kayad village due to the blasting at Kayad underground
mine and its possible solutions. The study was conducted through
systematic steps by changing blast design viz. amount of ex-
plosives in a blast round or in a delay, number of holes, position
and timing of deck, firing sequence, hole diameter and length and
detonation of explosives by different initiating devices.
2. Geological details
The study has been carried out at a Kayad underground mine. It
is a lead-zinc mine of Hindustan Zinc Limited and is located at
Kayad village in Ajmer district of Rajasthan state in India. The mine
is located on the Eastern fringe of Kayad village. The deposit lies
between latitude N26°31′30″ and longitude E74°41′ and 74 °42′.
The Kayad village is 9 km NNE of Ajmer city and is well connected
by tar road.
There are three lenses – the Main lens, K1A lens and S1 lens.
The earlier three lenses viz. K1, K2 and K3 have been re-correlated
as one single lens on account of the positive intersections en-
countered in the drilling in the vacant spaces between these len-
ses. The main host rock is Quartz mica schist with some miner-
alization also occurring in calc silicate. Main lens has been dis-
sected at many places by pegmatite. The lenses lie parallel to the
axial plane foliation/cleavage/fracture of the fold system or shear
fractures governed by the lithological variations. The main lens has
been explored to variable depths and maximum upto 50 mRL
while K1A and S1 go upto 350 mRL. The main lens ranges in
average width from 5 m in steeper portions to about 40 m in the
flat lying portion. Maximum strike of the main lens is 900 m at the
depth of approximate 250 m from the surface. It shows a general
reducing trend in depth. This lens shows swelling and pinching
nature probably because of superimposition of different phases of
folding. The total reserves and resources of the mine are 11.4
Million tonnes with 10.61% Zn, 1.61% Pb and 33 ppm Ag.
3. Existing blast vibration standards
Different countries have set their own standards on the basis of
their extensive field investigations carried out in their mines for
several years. There is a plethora of standards available world-over
based on various aspects of ground vibrations e.g. amplitude, peak
particle velocity, frequency, acceleration, etc. These parameters are
used either as a single criterion or in combination; sometimes
frequency is combined with amplitude and velocity. Peak particle
velocity has been traditionally used in practice for the measure-
ment of blast damage to structures.
United States Bureau of Mine (USBM) published RI 850716 and
recommended blasting damage criteria which set a peak particle
limit (12.5 mm/s) based upon predominant frequency of the seis-
mic wave. A further review of limits imposed, raise question about
how relatively small limits, such as 0.25 in./s can be technically
justified. Several researchers stated that no engineering study or
research justified such limits. But when such restrictive levels are
imposed, they are more of a political limits intended to reduce or
eliminate public complaints. Australian and German standard
Table 1
Permissible peak particle velocity (PPV) in mm/s at the foundation level of struc-
tures in mining area (DGMS circular 7 of 1997).
Dominant excitation frequency, Hz
o 8 Hz 8–25 Hz 425 Hz
(A) Buildings/structures not belong to the owner
1. Domestic houses/structures (Mud/ 5 10 15
Kuchcha, brick and cement)
2. Industrial buildings 10 20 25
3. Objects of historical importance and 2 5 10
sensitive structures
(B) Buildings belonging to owner with limited span of life
1. Domestic houses/structures 10 15 25
2. Industrial buildings 15 25 50
recommended their minimum PPV level of 19 mm/s17 and 5 mm/
s18 respectively for domestic houses. Indian standard suggested by
Regulatory agency is presented in Table 1.19
4. Blasting details and monitoring of vibration
Blast vibration monitoring was carried out at three to four lo-
cations in Kayad village due to blasting at Kayad underground
mine. Development face blasts were performed at different loca-
tions in the mine. The number of holes detonated in a blast round
for development blasting, varied from 17 to 78. In case of slot raise
and ring blasting, the number of holes generally varied between
two and thirteen. The total explosives weight detonated in blast
around varied from 70 to 310 kg. The maximum explosives weight
per delay varied between 3.90 and 18.75 kg. The diameters of the
blast holes were 45 mm in case of development face blasting and
for slot raise and ring blasts the drill diameter was 76 mm.
The blast vibration generated due to development faces, slot
raise and ring blasts have been taken for analyses. In all the cases
the monitoring of blast vibration were performed for vertical
depth of 30–185 m and horizontal distance up to 300 m from the
vertically above point from the underground blasting face. Re-
corded blast vibration data were in the range of 2.34–14.6 mm/s.
The structural responses of various houses of the village were
determined and their natural frequencies were recorded which are
in the range of 14–16 Hz. The incoming higher dominant peak
frequency of vibration caused reduction of vibration in the struc-
tures at various floor levels as the natural frequencies of the
houses are in the lower range. Details of few houses/structures of
the village are depicted in Table 2 and blast wave signature for
determination of natural frequency is presented in Fig. 1.
The recorded frequencies of vibrations were in the range of
30.1–246 Hz. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analyses of vibra-
tion data obtained shows that the concentrations of vibration
energy were in the range of 50–150 Hz. Thus, the safe level of
vibration has been taken as 15 mm/s for the safety of houses/
structures as per DGMS standard (Table 1). The plot of recorded
dominant peak frequency of vibration in village at various radial
distances from the blasting sites is presented in Fig. 2.
Recorded blast vibration data were analyzed at a regular in-
terval. The vibration data recorded due to development face blasts
and production blasts (slot raise and ring) have been taken for
analyses and generalized prediction equation has been established
and it is given as
−1.314
(
v = 490.1 R/ Q max ) (1)
where, v is the peak particle velocity (mm/s), R is the distance
between vibration monitoring point and the blasting face, and
 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115 109

Table 2
Natural frequency of a few structures/houses at the Kayad village.

S. no. Location and type of Height of the struc- Natural frequency of the PPV recorded at PPV recorded in structure/ Reduction of vibration in the
structures ture/house structure/house ground level house (wall/roof) structure at different level
[m] [Hz] [mm/s] [mm/s] (%)

1. RCC structure – single 2.6 14 4.97 2.32 53.3

storey
2. RCC structure – single 3.0 15.9 1.73 1.27 26.6
storey
3. Brick wall and tiles 2.5 14.4 1.40 1.24 22.4
structure
4. RCC structure – single 2.6 16 1.52 0.973 36
storey

Fig. 1. Blast wave signature for determination of natural frequency of a typical house in the Kayad village.
110 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115
Fig. 2. Plot of recorded dominant peak frequency of vibration at Kayad village at
various radial distances from the underground blast faces.
Qmax is the maximum explosive weight per delay (kg). This equa-
tion has correlation coefficient of 82.3%.
5. Optimization of blast design parameters
5.1. Development blasting
Experimental blasts were conducted with different blast design
to optimise blast design parameters and to control ground vibra-
tion at lowest possible levels. The delay interval provided between
all the holes were modified in view of the recorded magnitude of
vibration in the village. Initially, the blast were conducted with
delay intervals of 15 ms, 20 ms and 25 ms between the holes for
detonation of five centre holes taking one by one and the recorded
vibration signatures with high sampling rate were analysed. It was
found that the delay interval of 25 ms resulted into generation of
lower level of ground vibration. The delay interval between sub-
sequent holes were provided with 50 ms with a jump delay of
200 ms and 100 ms at two sectional cut. But the overall pull of the
blast was in the range of 70–80%. The average blasthole depth was
of 3.5 m. The design discussed is presented in Fig. 3. To improve
the pull per blast round, experimental blasts were conducted by
taking two centre holes together by providing the delay interval of
Fig. 3. Initially practiced blast design and delay sequences for development face blast.
25 ms between rest of the two holes for initial cut and rest of
delays were same as mentioned in Fig. 3. The modified blast de-
sign resulted with average pull of 80–90%. The optimised blast
design yielded excellent results and it was continued for the most
of the cross-cut blasts. Further, the design was slightly modified
for decline and main faces blasts particularly in the drill design i.e.,
burden and spacing of the blast holes. The average pulls obtained
in this modified design were of 90–95%. The optimised blast de-
sign as discussed is presented in Fig. 4.
The optimised blast design for development face after mod-
ification of design in different stages at Kayad mine is presented in
Fig. 4 which controlled the ground vibrations at its lowest level.
The delay interval of 25 ms resulted into generation of lower level
of vibration. This 25 ms delay interval among the cut holes (initial
five holes) of the blast were optimised after conducting blasts with
20 ms, 25 ms, 30 ms and 50 ms between the five cut holes. Sub-
sequently, jump delays were provided. The use of delay interval of
200 ms to 300 ms between two successive cut detonations re-
sulted into excellent results. A typical blast wave signature re-
corded from development face blast is depicted in Fig. 5. Details of
charging pattern and blasthole parameters are given in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Initially, electronic delay detonators were extensively used to
control blast induced vibration and noise. But as the mine pro-
gressed deeper, the NONEL initiation system was used due to cost
advantages. The impact of two types of initiation system namely
shock tube (NONEL) and electronic delay initiation system on
generation of blast induced vibration has been analyzed. The vi-
bration data recorded on the surface in the village due to deto-
nation of 500 blasts which were conducted by electronic delay
detonators and similarly the recorded vibration data due to de-
tonation of 500 blasts due to Nonel initiation system have been
analysed. The recorded blast vibration data are plotted against
their scaled distances for both the detonation systems i.e. elec-
tronic delay detonators and NONEL initiation system and is pre-
sented in Fig. 6. It is evident that electronic initiation system
generated lower level of vibration i.e.in the range of 9.47–12.5%
than those of NONEL initiation system.
 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115 111

Fig. 4. Optimised blast design and delay sequences for development face blast.

Fig. 5. Blast wave signature recorded at Kayad village due to development face blast.

5.2. Slot raise blasting
The slot raise blasts commented after sufficient development
blasts were performed in North and South decline faces. The
numbers of holes and deck charging were modified to get desired
pull from the slot raise blast. The maximum pull of 2.7 m was
recorded in a few blasts. Although, the explosives loaded in slot
holes were 1.9–2.2 m. The number of blast holes varied between
three and fourteen, depending upon the condition of blastholes.
The total explosives in a blast round varied between 16 and 172 kg.
112 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115

Table 3

16–5900
Charging pattern of the holes for development blast faces at Kayad underground

5000
mine.

16
2
FACE (Width – 5.6 m and Height – 5.2 m)

15–5500
4400
Hole type No. of Cartridge Explosives per hole Explosives

15
4
holes per hole quantity

14–5100
11
0.395 g ¼ 4.34 kg 73.8 kg (187

3900
Cut holes 17 11

14
cartridges)

8
Reliever 30 10 10
0.395 g ¼3.95 kg 118.5 kg (300

13–4700
holes cartridges)

3400
Lifter holes 7 11 11
0.395 g ¼ 4.34 kg 30.4 kg (77

13
cartridges)

4
Perimeter 9 8 8
0.395 g¼ 3.16 kg 28.4 kg (56

12–4300
holes cartridges)

3000
12
10
Total explosive used in (kg) 251 kg (620

11–3900
cartridges)

2600
10
11

10–3500
The initial design of slot raise blasting is presented in Fig. 7.

2200
10
4
5.3. Ring blasting

9–3100
1800
The ring blasts were ultimately planned after sufficient opening

9
4
of the stope by slot raise blasting. Initially, the ring blasting started

8–2700
with emulsion cartridge explosives of 150 kg distributed in five

1400
blastholes and were detonated keeping the explosive weight per

8
4
delay of 25 kg. Subsequently, the blasts were optimized in suc-

7–2300
cessive trial blastsin order to improve productivity and also to

1100
maintain the vibration level within 15 mm/s. The number of blast

7
2
holes detonated in case of ring blasting varied from two to seven.

6–1900
The total explosives detonated in a blasting round were in the

900
range of 64 to 340 kg and explosives weight per delay was 10.92–

6
2
17.16 kg. The layout of the seven blast holes is depicted in Fig. 8. In

5–1500
Reamer holes (102 mm) Delay numbers used in the blast design
this case, a few blast holes were decked up to 4 places and were

700
5
2
detonated with the help of electronic delay detonators.

4–1200
The main parameter involved in the blast vibration phenomena
has been be summarized in20, and are the explosive rock inter-
500
4
2
Blasthole details and their firing times for development face blast at Kayad underground mine.

action, blast induced wave transmission property of a rock unit 3–900

(i.e. waves travelling along specific layers), distance between blast

300

location and measurement point, geology of the propagation

3
2
Hole diameter: 45 mm; Hole depth – 3.7 m

media such that fault bedding planes etc. and also the geology at
2–600
150

the measurement point.

2
2

Blast waveform analyses were carried out to get the optimal

1–300

interval between the blast holes and between the explosives decks
63
1
1

within the blast holes with the help of seed waveform and linear
superimposition of waves techniques. It has been found that the
delay interval of 20–80 ms, the increase at an interval of 20 ms is
found optimal in case of deck charging while the minimum delay
of 40 ms to maximum of 80 ms is to be provided between the two
successive blast holes. Fig. 9 depicts the typical blast wave sig-
nature recorded at S1 stope blasting conducted at 325 m RL by
optimised delay intervals between the blastholes and between the
4
–
–
4

decks in Kayad village.

NONEL delay no. and their timing (ms)

Furthermore, two methodologies were adopted for providing

decks and its detonations. The first one is by detonating hole one
No. of holes in respective delays

by one i.e. from bottom deck to top deck at an interval of 20 ms up

Hole firing sequence number

Electronic delay timing (ms)

to four decks for all the blast holes and the second methodology by
taking two explosives decks first (bottom slice) and later on two
explosives decks (top slice). The stem deck materials between the
slices were withheld by using drill cutting material anchored to
Total no. of holes

bolted wooden piece. This concept was used to eliminate the da-
mage of the top deck explosives column due to detonation of
bottom deck explosive column. These two methods of placement
Table 4

of decks were experimented in few blasts at Stope using electronic

delay detonators and the results were encouraging in both the
 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115 113

Fig. 6. Regression plot of recorded PPV at their respective scaled distance at Kayad village due to blasting in Kayad mine by electronic delay detonators and NONEL delay
detonators.

Fig. 7. Initially recommended blast design for slot raise at Kayad underground mine.

conditions but latter method showed much better results. These
concepts have been presented in Fig. 10. In a few blasts, sympa-
thetic detonation was also one of the reasons of excessive blast
vibration levels in the village. The sympathetic detonation was
documented with the help of VOD signature of explosive traces at
number of testing. Subsequently, the deck length was standardised
which was in the range of 15–20 times of drill hole diameter.
Thirty production blasts were conducted during the study period
at 325 m RL, 350 m RL and at 375 m RL for different stope.
The in-the-hole continuous velocity of detonation of emulsion ex-
plosives was also recorded for four holes of Ring (R-1) at 325mRL of S-1
Stope. Out of four holes, three were deck charged. The amount of ex-
plosives detonated in 1st hole was 26 kg (15.6 kgþ 10.5 kg) whereas in
2nd hole and 3rd hole it was 44 kg (15.6 kgþ10.5 kgþ 10.5 kgþ7.5 kg)
and 41 kg (15.6 kgþ 10.5 kgþ7.5 kgþ 7.5 kg) respectively. The delay
timing provided in 1st hole, 2nd hole and 3rd holes were 0/20 ms, 40/
60/100/120 ms and 80/100/140/160 ms. The recorded in-the-hole VOD
of explosives of 1st hole and 2nd hole were in the range of 4846–
5260 m/s and are presented in Fig. 11.
The fragmentation results of ring blast of S-2 Stope (Ring 5)
were photographed for its fragment size analysis. The detailed
fragment size analyses were carried out. The average mean size of
the block is 0.643 m and the most common size of the block is
0.532 m. The maximum size of the boulder is 1.2 m.
6. Conclusion
Kayad underground mine is successfully producing the miner-
als in close proximity to the inhabitant area by adopting state of
the art blasting practices as discussed in the text. The blast vi-
brations recorded in the village were well within the acceptable
limits and there is no complain from the residents. The develop-
ment face blast with delay intervals of 25 ms between the holes
for five centre holes resulted into generation of lower levels of
vibration. The use of delay intervals of 200–300 ms between two
successive cut holes gave excellent blast results. It was also re-
corded that the electronic initiation system generated lower level
of vibration than those produced by NONEL initiation system. The
recorded reduction in the vibration levels due to initiation of blast
114 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115

Fig. 10. Detonation of the ring blast holes by detonating holes one by one and by
taking bottom slice first and top slice afterwards.

increases. The recorded vibration data are of the high frequency

and caused reduction in the level of vibration in the structures.
Fig. 8. The typical layout of the seven blast holes implemented at Kayad under- The fragmentations achieved were optimum. The concept of tak-
ground mine.
ing bottom slice first and then the top slice gave desired results.
The results were very encouraging and recorded vibration data in
the village and achieved fragmentation was acceptable by the
holes byelectronic delay detonators was up to 12.5% than those
villagers as well as by the mine management. Accordingly, blasts
blast holes which were initiated with shock tube initiation system.
with 340 kg of emulsion explosives were performed and the re-
The delay interval between the holes of 40 ms and 80 ms at
corded vibration levels in the village were below 8 mm/s. The
ring hole blasts and detonated with delay interval between decks
concept of taking four explosives decks in a hole was successfully
of 20–80 ms resulted into reduced levels of vibration. The re-
implemented and it was also confirmed by the VOD trace of the
corded vibration data in the structures shows that there is re-
recorded data that all the decks were detonated independently.
duction in the level of vibration as the height of the structures

Fig. 9. A typical blast wave signature recorded at Kayad village due to production blast.
 M.P. Roy et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 83 (2016) 107–115
Fig. 11. In-the-hole VOD trace of super power 80 cartridge emulsion explosive.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the mine officials for providing
necessary facilities during field investigations. The permission of
Director, CSIR – Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research,
Dhanbad, India to publish this paper is thankfully acknowledged.
References
1. Singh PK, Mohanty B, Roy MP. Low frequency vibrations produced by coal mine
blasting and their impact on structures. Int J Blast Fragm. 2008;2(1):71–89.
2. Lu Y. Underground blast induced ground shock and its modelling using artifi-
cial neuralnetwork. Comp Geotech. 2005;32:164–178.
3. Chen M, Lu WB, Yan P, Hu YG. Blasting excavation induced damage of sur-
rounding rockmasses in deep-buried tunnels. KSCE J Civ Eng. 2015:1–10. Pub-
lished online May 7, 2015.
4. Li JC, Li HB, Mab GW, Zhou YX. Assessment of underground tunnel stability to
adjacent tunnel explosion. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2013;35:227–234.
5. Xia X, Li HB, Li JC, Liu B, Yu C. A case study on rock damage prediction and
control method for underground tunnels subjected to adjacent excavation
blasting. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2013;35:1–7.
6. Singh PK, Roy MP. Damage to surface structures due to blast vibration. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 2010;47(6):949–961.
7. Harries G, Beattie T. The Underwater Testing of Explosives and Blasting, Explosives
in Mining Workshop. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy;
1988:9.
8. Reidarman L, Nyberg U. Blast vibrations in the Southern Link tunnel – Importance
for Fresh Shotcrete? In: SveBeFo-Report 51. Stockholm, Sweden: Rock Engineer-
ing Research Foundation; 2000.
9. Migliazza M, Chiorboli M, Giani GP. Comparison of analytical method, 3D finite
elementmodel with experimental subsidence measurements resulting from the
115
extension of the Milan underground. Comput Geotech. 2009;36:113–124.
10. Mitra PY, Kouretzis G, Bouckovalas G, Sofianos A. Effect of underground
structures inearthquake resistant design of surface structures. ASCE GSP 160
Dynamic Response and SoilProperties, Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geo-
technics; 2007.
11. Smerzini JC, Aviles R, Paolucci FJ, Sesma S. Effect of underground cavities on
surface ground motion under SH wave propagation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn.
2009;398:1441–1460.
12. Sica S, Rotili F, Simonelli AL, Dello RA. The Role of Underground Cavities on
Ground Motion Amplification; 2012. In: 15WCEE, Lisbon.
13. Lal AK, Daripa M, Kumar A, Chittora V, Roy MP, Singh PK. Blast optimization at
Sindesar Khurd underground mine to improve productivity with reduced level
of vibration. In: Proceedings 10th Symposium Rock Fragmentation by Blast-
ing. New Delhi, India: Fragblast 10; November 26–29, 2012, pp. 231–240.
14. Singh PK, Vogt W. Ground vibration: Prediction for safe and efficient blasting.
Int J Erzmetall. 1988;51(10):677–684. ISNN: 16132394.
15. Little TN, Van Rooyen F. The Current State of the Art of Grade Control Blasting in
the EasternGoldfields. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Mining and Me-
tallurgy; 1988:87–95.
16. Siskind DE, Stagg MS, Kopp JW, Dowding CH. Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting. U.S. Bureau of Mines
1980; Report of Investigations 8507, p. 74.
17.
DIN. Structural Vibration – Effects of Vibration on Structures in Deutsche Norm.
1999; 4150-3, p 4.
18. Just GD, Chitombo GP. The Economic and Operational Implications of Blast Vi-
bration Limit Mining and Environmental. The Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy: Melbourne; 1987, pp 117–124.
19.
DGMS (Tech) S&T. Subject: Damage of the Structures due to Blast Induced Ground
Vibration in the Min Areas; 1997, Circular No. 7, pp. 317–322.
20. Aldas G, Bilgin HA. An interpretation of the effects of using different delay
intervals in blasting at an open-cast mine in Turkey. Rock Mech Rock Eng.
2002;36(5):409–421.