Technical note for RocNews - February 2, 2012

Winter 2012 Issue

Technical note for Rocscience by Evert Hoek, 2 February 2012.

Blast Damage Factor D

Introduction

The selection of the blast damage factor D is a technical support question that arises frequently in
relation to the use of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. This note sets out the origin and
background of this factor and provides some guidance on its selection and application.

The blast damage factor was first introduced in the 2002 version of the Hoek-Brown criterion
(Hoek et al, 2002) and it is used in the estimation of the mb, s and a parameters:

 GSI  100 
mb  mi exp   (1)
 28  14 D 

 GSI  100 
s  exp   (2)
 9  3D 

a 
2 6
e 
1 1 GSI /15 20 / 3
e  (3)

These parameters are incorporated into the Generalized Hoek-Brown criterion:

a
 ' 
 1'   3'   ci  mb 3  s  (4)
  ci 
 

The global rock mass strength  cm' is given by:

(mb  4s  a(mb  8s))mb 4  s a 1

 'cm   ci  (5)
2(1  a)( 2  a)

The blast damage factor is also incorporated into the equation for the estimation of rock mass
modulus from GSI and the intact rock modulus Ei, published by Hoek and Diederichs (2006):

 1 D / 2 
Erm  Ei  0.02  (( 6015D GSI ) / 11) 
(6)
 1 e 

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the influence of the blast damage factor D on the rock mass strength
and deformation modulus. The factor D can range between 0 and 1 (D = 0 for undisturbed rock,
D = 1 for highly disturbed rock mass).

1
Figure 1: Influence of the blast damage factor D on the rock mass strength (Assuming mi = 20)

Figure 2: Influence of the blast damage factor D on the rock mass deformation modulus.

2
Origin of blast damage factor D

In 1988 an updated version of the Hoek-Brown criterion was published and this introduced the
concept of a disturbed rock mass in which the original interlocking mass is disturbed by blasting,
excavation or stress relaxation (Hoek and Brown, 1988). Figure 3 gives plots of the undisturbed
and disturbed rock mass strength which can be compared with the plots in Figure 1 for the
influence of the blast damage factor D. The slight difference between these plots, at the lower
end of the GSI scale, is due to a difference in the method for calculating the parameter a in
equation 5.

Figure 3: 1988 Hoek-Brown criterion with undisturbed and disturbed rock masses.

In about 2000 I had discussions on slope stability analysis and blasting damage with the
geotechnical engineer on the Ok Tedi open pit mine in Papua New Guinea. He told me that the
only way that he could get the Hoek Brown criterion to give reasonable predictions of the
behavior of blast damaged rock slopes in the mine was to use the disturbed rock conditions given
in the 1988 version described above. This formed the basis for the development of a variable
blast reduction factor D which was introduced in the 2002 version of the Hoek Brown criterion
(Hoek et al, 2002). Note that the 1988 version of the criterion is no longer used since it does not
allow for a gradation in blast damage as does the 2002 version, which allows a user-defined
value between 0 and 1.

3
Estimating the value of D and extent of blast damage

There are two main issues when applying the blast damage factor D:

 Choosing a suitable value

 Defining the extent of the damaged zone

Table 1 outlines the selection of D value for some typical excavation scenarios.

The most important point in relation to the estimation of the extent of blast damage is that the
blast damage factor D should NOT be applied to the entire rock mass surrounding the
excavation. This is a common modeling mistake which can greatly underestimate the strength
and stability of the overall rock mass. The damage factor D should only be applied to the actual
zone of damaged rock as discussed below.

In the case of bench blasting in open pit mines and civil engineering slopes the blast is designed
to create a muckpile which can be dug quickly and efficiently by a shovel, front end loader or
similar equipment. The generation of the muckpile, shown in Figure 4, will inflict a certain
amount of damage on the rock that lies between the digging limit and the in situ undisturbed rock
mass. The properties of this blast damaged rock mass will control the stability of the slope that
remains after digging of the muckpile has been completed.

Figure 4: Diagrammatic representation of the transition between the in situ rock mass and blasted
rock that is suitable for digging.

The thickness T of the blast damaged zone will depend upon the design of the blast. Based upon
experience, Hoek and Karzulovic (2000) suggested that the following approximate relationships
can be used as a starting point in judging the extent of the blast damaged zone resulting from
production blasting:

4
  Large production blast, confined and with little or no control T = 2 to 2.5 H
 Production blast with no control but blasting to a free face T = 1 to 1.5 H
 Production blast, confined but with some control, e.g. one
or more buffer rows T = 1 to 1.2 H
 Production blast with some control, e.g. one or more buffer
rows, and blasting to a free face T = 0.5 to 1 H
 Carefully controlled production blast with a free face T = 0.3 to 0.5 H

The damage in the rock between the digging limit and the undisturbed rock mass is probably
graded from severe damage at the digging limit to minor damage at the transition to the
undisturbed rock mass. Ideally, numerical modeling should include a number of layers, parallel
to the slope face, with a decreasing blast damage factor D assigned to each layer with increasing
distance from the face. However, in typical numerical modeling, particularly where a large
number of slopes are being investigated, this level of sophistication is not justified and a single
value of D is generally assigned to the blast damaged zone.

The excavation of a tunnel or underground cavern by drill and blast methods is somewhat
different from bench blasting. In this case the blast is designed to eject the broken material from
the tunnel face and to leave the remaining rock walls as undamaged as possible. In a typical
tunnel of up 10 m diameter, driven full face or by top heading and bench, the depth of the blast
damaged zone varies from almost zero to about 3 m depending upon the quality of the blasting.
For very high quality controlled blasting such as that illustrated in the upper photograph in Table
1, the damage to the tunnel wall is negligible due to a well-designed blasting pattern and
detonation sequence and accurate drilling control. In contrast, the lack of a good blast design and
absence of any control on the drilling can result in the significant damage illustrated in the third
photograph in Table 1. This damage may extend as much as 3 m into the rock for a 10 m
diameter tunnel.

5
Table 1: Guidelines for estimating disturbance factor D (from Hoek et al, 2002)
Appearance of rock Description of rock mass Suggested
mass value of D

Excellent quality controlled blasting or excavation

by Tunnel Boring Machine results in minimal
disturbance to the confined rock mass surrounding a D=0
tunnel.

Mechanical or hand excavation in poor quality rock

masses (no blasting) results in minimal disturbance D=0
to the surrounding rock mass.
Where squeezing problems result in significant floor
D = 0.5
heave, disturbance can be severe unless a temporary
No invert
invert, as shown in the photograph, is placed.

Very poor quality blasting in a hard rock tunnel

results in severe local damage, extending 2 or 3 m, in D = 0.8
the surrounding rock mass.

Small scale blasting in civil engineering slopes D = 0.7

results in modest rock mass damage, particularly if Good blasting
controlled blasting is used as shown on the left hand
side of the photograph. However, stress relief results D = 1.0
in some disturbance. Poor blasting

Very large open pit mine slopes suffer significant D = 1.0

disturbance due to heavy production blasting and Production
also due to stress relief from overburden removal. blasting
D = 0.7
In some softer rocks excavation can be carried out Mechanical
by ripping and dozing and the degree of damage to excavation
the slopes is less.

6
References

Abdullatif, O.M. and Cruden, D.M. 1983. The relationship between rock mass quality and ease
of excavation. Bull. Intnl. Assoc. Eng. Geol. No. 28. 183-187.
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. In:
Proceedings of the fifth North American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada,
vol. 1, 2002. p. 267–73.
Hoek, E and Diederichs, M.S. 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43, 203–215.
Hoek E and Brown E.T. 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion - a 1988 update. Proc. 15th
Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. (ed. J.H. Curran), pp. 31-38. Toronto: Civil Engineering
Dept., University of Toronto.
Hoek, E and Karzulovic, A. 2000. Rock mass properties for surface mines, in Slope Stability in
Surface Mining, (Edited by W.A. Hustralid, M.K. McCarter and D.J.A. van Zyl),
Littleton, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgical and Exploration (SME), 2000,
pages 59-70.