Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Controlled blasting in underground construction: A case study of a tunnel T

plug demolition in the Neelum Jhelum hydroelectric project
Abubakar Sharafata,c, Waqas Arshad Tanolia,d, Georgios Raptisb,c, Jong Won Seoa,
⁎

a
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea
b
Independent Geological Engineering Services, Akyaka Mah., Kadirler Sok. No: 7/2, 48640 Ula, Mugla, Turkey
c
Former Employee of Neelum Jhelum Consultants, Malik House, Lower Chatter Rd., Muzaffarabad, AJK, Pakistan
d
Communication &Works Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Blasting is a popular method of excavation in underground construction. Blast-induced vibrations, however, if
Controlled blasting not properly controlled, can negatively affect the rock mass surrounding the tunnel. During the drill-and-blast (D
Critical particle velocity &B) excavation of twin headrace tunnels through a major fault zone below the Jhelum River, a 180-m3/h
Vibration attenuation model groundwater inflow occurred from the tunnel invert. A 610-m3 concrete plug and high-pressure grouting around
Permissible instantaneous charge weight
the tunnel periphery were formed to stabilize the tunnel and control inflow. To complete the tunnel, the tem-
Blasting damage
Tunneling through major fault
porary tunnel plug was ultimately demolished using controlled blasting. Ground vibration monitoring data from
the regular D&B operations were used to develop a site-specific vibration attenuation model. Using geotechnical
data from the feasibility stage and tunnel mappings during construction, a critical particle velocity above which
tensile cracking could be initiated was determined for the rock mass surrounding the plug. The critical particle
velocity was incorporated into the vibration attenuation model to obtain permissible charge weights to limit
blast damage to within a short distance from the charge. Using this approach, an innovative blasting pattern was
adopted in which the tunnel plug was sequentially demolished by detonating a burn cut and separate contour
blast rows. During blasting, rigorous supervision and data collection helped to record, evaluate, and when
needed, adjust the blasting program. Overall, the tunnel plug demolition was completed in a safe and cost-
effective manner.

1. Introduction by the explosive detonation and propagate through the medium as

Blasting is used in tunnel construction as a common and cost-ef-
fective excavation method. Moreover, blasting can be used to demolish
temporary or out-of-service structures. However, when uncontrolled,
blasting can lead to negative effects such as excessive flyrock or over-
break, rock mass loosening, damaged rock support, and tunnel failures.
The likelihood of such potential adverse effects can be reduced if con-
trolled blasting techniques are properly implemented.
Several predictive blast damage models rely on parameters such as
the borehole radius; relative weight strength, detonation velocity, and
gas internal energy of explosives; loading density; coupling factor; and
rock specific charge (Bastante et al., 2012). However, a single equation
that describes ground vibration attenuation as a predictive damage
model has acquired significant popularity because of ease of application
in the field (Nateghi et al., 2009, Yilmaz and Unlu, 2014, Trigueros
et al., 2017). Blast damage is induced by stress waves that are generated
ground vibrations. When vibrations (and stresses) exceed a certain
limit, they can damage the rock mass or structures (Dey and Murthy,
2012). Therefore, predicting ground vibrations is important for pre-
venting excess damage.
Contour blasting techniques have been widely used since the mid-
twentieth century (Oriard, 1982a, Olofsson, 1990) to control overbreak.
These techniques involve small-diameter and decoupled charges in a
closely spaced and lightly weighted blasting pattern. Consequently,
contour blasting produces less intense ground vibrations and sub-
stantially less blast damage (Van Eeckhout, 1987). Among several
contour blasting techniques, smooth-wall blasting has shown un-
disputed success in producing very stable rock surfaces in tunnels and
large caverns.
Line drilling is another contour blasting method in which holes are
drilled and left empty in the perimeter of the excavation. Therefore, in
line drilling, “pre-treatment” of the excavation is attempted with empty

⁎
Corresponding author at: Jaesung Civil Eng. Bldg. 510, Hanyang University, Hangdang1-Dong, Seongdong-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: jseo@hanyang.ac.kr (J.W. Seo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103098
Received 28 August 2018; Received in revised form 10 June 2019; Accepted 20 August 2019
Available online 06 September 2019
0886-7798/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Sharafat, et al.
Nomenclature
List of abbreviations and symbols
B burden, distance from an explosive charge in a blast hole
to the nearest free or open face (m)
BBF Balakot–Bagh fault
CP longitudinal wave (or P-wave) propagation velocity (km/
s)
D&B drill-and-blast tunneling method
E Young’s modulus of the transmitting medium (GPa)
f frequency of ground vibration at PPV (Hz)
FRS fiber-reinforced sprayed concrete (shotcrete)
JRCF Jhelum River Crossing fault
K ground transmission factor, a site-specific coefficient in
empirical ground attenuation laws.
L length of blast hole (m)
LHTT left branch of headrace twin tunnel
M longitudinal (or P-wave) modulus of the transmitting
medium (MPa)
n a site-specific coefficient in empirical ground vibration
attenuation laws. It is assumed to be associated with the
symmetry of the explosives (Oriard, 1982a)
N number of blast holes in a blast
NJHEP Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project
PF powder factor expressed in terms of charge weight per
cubic meter of blasting material (kg/m3)
PPV maximum peak particle velocity, the highest between the
peak particle velocities of the three components of motion
in a blasting event (mm/s)
PPVL, T, or V peak particle velocity of the longitudinal, transverse,
or vertical component of motion, respectively (mm/s)
holes to dissipate the explosive gases and attenuate vibrations. Line
drilling is a costly method because it requires extensive and accurate
drilling along the excavation perimeter, and as such, is not used ex-
tensively. Nonetheless, it is an attractive solution to reduce the poten-
tial for even minor unwanted damage.
In this study, we describe the demolition of an unreinforced mass
concrete tunnel plug using controlled blasting. The temporary plug was
erected to stabilize, and perform high pressure remedial grouting in, a
section of the headrace tunnel of the Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric
Project (NJHEP) following a major groundwater inflow while crossing a
fault zone below the Jhelum River. To develop site-specific metho-
dology to demolish the plug using controlled blasting, a theoretical
background on ground vibrations, attenuation models, the relationship
Fig. 1. Example of velocity time histories recorded during a blasting event. PPVL, PPVT, and PPVV denote the peak particle velocities of longitudinal, transverse, and
vertical component of motion, respectively. PPV is the maximum value between the PPVL, PPVT, and PPVV.
2
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
Q rock mass quality rating value (Barton, 2002)
R distance of the blasting source to the point of particle
velocity measurement (m)
R/(Wmax)n = SD scaled distance
R/√Wmax square-root scaled distance (m/√kg)
RRS reinforced ribs of sprayed concrete (shotcrete)
S spacing, distance between blast holes in a row (m)
STA tunnel station, location
V particle velocity at any point in a transmitting medium
during propagation of wave (mm/s)
Vcr the critical value of particle velocity above which tensile
failure is assumed to occur (mm/s)
W instantaneous explosive charge weight (kg)
Wact actual instantaneous charge weight applied during the
blast design implementation in the field (kg)
Wmax maximum instantaneous charge weight in a blast round
(kg)
Wperm permissible instantaneous charge weight in blasting that
produces only minor damage in the form of fine (up to a
couple of millimeters wide) tensile cracking and loosening
(small inelastic displacement) of unhealed joints in the
rock mass (kg)
β a site-specific constant in empirical attenuation laws,
which represents the effect of attenuation with distance
εd dynamic strain
ν Poisson’s ratio of the transmitting medium
ρ density of the transmitting medium (kg/m3)
σd dynamic stress (MPa)
σc uniaxial compression strength of intact rock (MPa)
σtd dynamic tensile strength of the transmitting medium
(MPa)
between particle velocity and blasting damage, and the use of the
powder factor (PF) in blasting designs are reviewed. Geological and
geotechnical details of the NJHEP are subsequently discussed including
details of the groundwater inflow remediation measures. Next, we de-
scribe how permissible instantaneous charge weights based on a site-
specific ground vibration attenuation model and a critical particle ve-
locity value are developed to mitigate blast damage to the rock mass
during plug demolition. An innovative blasting pattern is described
based on contour blasting concepts. Finally, implementation, inspec-
tion, vibration data collection, and tunnel and rock mass evaluation to
validate the approach are described.
A. Sharafat, et al.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Ground vibration and attenuation models
When an explosive charge is detonated in a blast hole, the released
energy generates a shock wave that radiates away from the blast hole in
all directions. The energy, in the form of body and surface waves,
causes ground particles to oscillate in three directions (Stiehr, 2011).
Assuming blast holes are drilled in a horizontal plane perpendicular to
the tunnel face, particle motions can be resolved into three mutually
orthogonal components—a longitudinal component where movement is
horizontal along the axis of the hole, a transverse component also in the
horizontal plane, and a vertical component.
Vibrations are usually recorded and reported as particle velocities
over time for each component of motion in plots called velocity time
histories (Fig. 1). The absolute maximum zero-to-peak value of each
component (longitudinal, transverse, and vertical) is the peak particle
velocity for the particular component of motion, called PPVL, PPVT, and
PPVV, respectively. Each component has a peak particle velocity that
generally occurs at a different time, and the maximum value of all three
components is called the maximum peak particle velocity (PPV).
The amplitude, frequency, and duration of ground vibrations at a
given location depend on the energy of the blast (expressed by the
blasting design and the explosive parameters), the pathways of ground
motion through the rock mass, and local site characteristics (Stiehr,
2011). The two most important factors influencing ground vibration
attenuation are explosive charge weight and distance from the charge.
In general, particle velocity increases as the charge weight increases
and distance from charge decreases.
A predictive model of the PPV can be developed with relative ease
in the field using the charge weight and distance from the charge by
statistically analyzing recorded blast data. Many empirical vibration
attenuation laws have been developed, and they generally follow the
form indicated in Eq. (1) (Tripathy and Gupta, 2002):
PPV = K·(R (Wmax ) n) (1)
where R is the distance from the blast source to the point of measure-
ment, Wmax is the maximum instantaneous charge weight in the blast,
and K, n, and β are site-specific constants.
Eq. (1) indicates a negative exponential relation that represents a
linear relationship in a log–log coordinate system with R/(Wmax)n on
the x-axis and PPV on the y-axis.
log(PPV) = log(K) ·log(R (Wmax ) n) (2)
The constant K is the ground transmission factor (Olofsson, 1990)
and depends not only on the confinement of the charge but also on the
immediate geology and the presence of faults and fractures in the
ground. Higher values of K indicate either well-coupled explosives or a
relatively homogeneous and massive rock mass with few fractures. The
constant β represents the effect of attenuation with distance and de-
pends on rock mass quality. Higher values of β indicate poorer quality
rock mass that attenuates vibration energy more quickly and within a
shorter distance from the charge, whereas lower values of β indicate
more competent rock mass with less fracturing that transmits the vi-
bration energy for a longer time and over a greater distance from the
charge (Yilmaz and Unlu, 2014).
The ratio R/(Wmax)n is called the scaled distance (SD) and is nor-
malized to compare blasts of different intensity at different distances.
Experience has shown that the constant n is associated with the sym-
metry of the explosives (Oriard, 1982a). The most commonly used
values are 0.5, 0.33, and 0.67 (Tripathy and Gupta, 2002), and R/
(Wmax)n is referred to as square- root, cube-root, or two-thirds SD, de-
pending on the respective selected exponent.
The square-root SD typically matches results from row charges, line
charges, or near-surface charges that generate surface waves. The cube-
root SD mostly matches results from deeply buried point charges
3
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
(Charlie, 1985). The two-thirds SD has been recommended by the
Bureau of Indian Standards (1973). According to Tripathy and Gupta
(2002), however, field data suggest that two-thirds scaling is not sui-
table for accurately predicting ground vibrations both at long and short
distances. In this case study, the square-root SD is used because the
explosives were arranged in row and line charges.
2.2. Blasting damage and PPV
Singh and Lamond (1993) refer to the blast damage in a rock mass
as “…the visible alteration to the appearance of the rock structure in
the form of cracking, slabbing, and overbreak…” adding, however, that
“…significant reduction in the strength of the rock mass can take place
well before the appearance of these obvious signs of damage.”
Apart from visual inspection surveys and methods such as the half
cast factor, various investigative methods exist to identify blast damage.
Borehole core logging, borehole imaging, ground penetrating radar,
cross-hole seismic surveying, permeability testing, acoustic emission
and ultrasonic surveying, electric resistivity and seismic refraction
surveying, as well as borehole jacking and plate load testing have been
used to study blast damage (Van Eeckhout, 1987, Singh and Lamond,
1993, Raina et al., 2000).
Over the years, many researchers have measured PPV values using
observations of damage in the field to estimate the type and onset of
blast damage caused by vibrations. Table 1 summarizes the studies on a
range of rock types and conditions. Despite the differences in testing
conditions, including different blasting techniques and charge con-
finements, and different approaches for classifying damage, some
general trends of damage and PPV limits can be deduced from Table 1.
No fracturing of intact rock or visible damage is observed for PPV
values less than approximately 250 mm/s. When PPV values are in the
range of 250–600 mm/s, minor damage occurs in the form of fine
tensile cracks (i.e. as much as a couple of millimeters in aperture),
loosening of unhealed joints, or falling of rock from unlined tunnels.
Moderate blast damage is manifested in the PPV range of
600–1000 mm/s when wider tensile cracks, possibly along weakness
planes, are formed or existing unhealed joints are enlarged and further
weakened. We define major blast damage as damage occurring in the
PPV range of 1000–2000 mm/s in which intense tensile and some radial
fracturing occur, affecting healed joints with hard infills as well.
Finally, PPV values greater than 2000 mm/s may fracture intact rock,
result in complete disintegration of rock masses, or cause overbreak in
massive rock masses.
Based on rock properties, the onset of blasting damage can be ap-
proximated by defining a PPV value above which fracture is initiated.
This, however, requires the assumption that the shock wave is trans-
mitted as a longitudinal wave (P-wave) in a simplified one-dimensional
homogeneous, isotropic, elastic medium similar to a thin elastic bar
(Brady and Brown, 1993).
The P-wave generates a dynamic longitudinal stress in the rock mass
along the direction of propagation, which induces dynamic uniaxial
strain at all points along that line of motion and about the equilibrium
position of the point. The particle velocity, V, at any point relates to the
dynamic uniaxial strain, εd, as follows:
V= d·CP (3)
where CP is the P-wave propagation velocity and is defined by Eq. (4)
CP = (M ) (4)
where ρ is the density of the elastic medium and M is the elastic
longitudinal (or P-wave) modulus, which defines the stiffness of the
medium in a uniaxial strain state (Mavko et al., 2003). The P-wave
modulus can be further related to Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s
ratio (ν) as in Eq. (5).
M= E·(1 ) ((1 + )·(1 2 )) (5)
A. Sharafat, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

Table 1 Table 2
Suggested PPV levels for blasting damage in hard rocks and rock masses. Typical powder factor values for bench blasting (Stiehr, 2011).
Reference, supplementary information, and PPV limit (mm/s) Breakage difficulty (Blastability) Powder factor (kg/m3)
blasting effect
Very high 0.57–1.14
Bauer and Calder (1970) High 0.34–0.57
No fracturing of intact rock < 254 Medium 0.18–0.34
Minor tensile slabbing 254–635 Low 0.10–0.18
Strong tensile and some radial cracking 635–2540
Complete breakup of rock mass > 2540

Langefors and Kihlström (1973) per blast hole, B is the distance from an explosive charge in a blast hole
Fall of rock in unlined tunnels > 305 to the nearest free or open face (burden), S is the distance between blast
Formation of new cracks > 610 holes in a row (spacing), and L is the length of blast holes.
Tunstall et al. (1977); observations from typical smooth blasting Because most commercially used explosives have somewhat similar
Minor damage: loosening of unhealed joints > 500 energy values and thus similar rock breaking capabilities, PF is mostly a
Significant damage: opening and extension of > 900
function of the mechanical properties of the blasted rock (e.g., density
calcite filled joints
Major damage: fracturing of intact rock > 2000 and compressive and tensile strength) and the geological structure (e.g.,
frequency, distribution, and condition of joints). Weak, low density
Holmberg (1982); observations in granite
Rock mass damage: cracks are induced or 700–1000 rock requires less explosive per cubic meter than strong, dense rock.
enlarged Similarly, massive rocks with few joints or weakness planes require
Oriard (1982b)
greater PF than a rock mass that has numerous closely spaced joints.
Rock mass damage > 635 Table 2 presents typical PF values for bench blasting. Shale is an
Rustan et al. (1985); observations from contour blasting using low-detonation-velocity
example of a typical intact rock with medium PF. Rock types such as
charges in hard intensely jointed rock masses sandstone and limestone generally require high to very high PF values
Rock mass damage 1000–3000 for efficient rock fragmentation. Massive granites require very high PF.
Yu and Croxal (1985); observations in meta-volcanic rocks at Kidd base metal mine in Plain concrete also requires high to very high PF values for suitable
Canada breakage. In this case study, mostly plain concrete was blasted.
No visible damage < 250 The more number of free faces a blast has, the lower is the PF value.
Minor slabbing failure 250–500 In tunneling, however, only the rock face is free, which means the rock
Possible formation of cracks along weakness 500–1000
planes
is more constricted. Additionally, greater PF values are caused by
Moderate slabbing failure 1000–1200 greater blast hole deviation, the need to overcharge floor holes to en-
Major slabbing failure 1200–1800 sure swelling (i.e. to compensate for less space available for fragmented
Meyer and Dunn (1996); observations in metamorphosed volcaniclastic rocks and lavas rock to move because of its increased blasted volume), and the lack of
at Perseverance nickel mine in Australia greater number of instantaneous detonations between adjacent holes.
Minor damage > 300 Thus in tunnel blasting, PF is 3–10 times greater than that used for
Rock mass damage > 600
bench blasting (Olofsson, 1990). Generally, explosive consumption is
Bogdanoff (1996); near-field (≤1 m) measurements using conventional smooth greater in smaller tunnel sections than that for larger tunnel sections.
blasting explosives in perimeter and perimeter helper holes in hard rock conditions Similarly, the explosive charge is greater in the blast cut area and de-
Rock damage 2000–3000
creases toward the tunnel periphery.
Murthy and Dey (2003); observations in compact basalt
Overbreak > 2050

McKenzie and Holley (2004); observations from production blasting and (not more than 3. Case study project overview
4 rows at a time) trim blasting in large open-pit mine operations
Fine cracking > 300
Open cracking > 350
The NJHEP is a recently constructed hydroelectric project in
Significant damage > 400 northeastern Pakistan and the Muzaffarabad district of Kashmir. The
Intense damage > 700 project generates 969 MW of electric power by diverting water from the
Neelum River into the lower branch of the Jhelum River taking ad-
vantage of a gross hydraulic head of approximately 430 m.
Using Hooke’s law for the dynamic uniaxial stresses and strains The main features of the project (Fig. 2) include a diversion dam
(σd = M·εd) in combination with Eqs. (3) and (4) and assuming brittle and intake system; a 28.6-km-long headrace tunnel designed to carry
failure for the elastic medium, a critical particle velocity (Vcr), which if 283 m3/s of water; an underground powerhouse complex with a
exceeded will result in tensile failure, is defined by Eq. (6) 25 × 57 × 137 m3 (span × height × length) cavern, a surge chamber
Vcr = ( td·CP ) M = td ( ·CP) (6) and tunnel system, and four 100-m-long penstock tunnels; and a 3.6-
km-long tailrace tunnel. All these features required the setup of three
where σtd is the dynamic tensile strength of the medium. different construction lots (Fig. 3).
The headrace tunnel comprises single (31%) and twin (69%)
2.3. Powder factor horseshoe-shaped tunnel sections, whereas the tailrace tunnel is an
entire single horseshoe section. Tunnel spans range from 10.7 to 11.8 m
PF or specific charge provides a measure of the breakage difficulty for single tunnel sections and from 7.75 to 8.55 m for twin tunnel
and the anticipated fragmentation of the blasted material. Using PF as a sections. The tunnels were excavated using D&B methods, with the
basis for blasting calculations, we can calculate the necessary explosive exception of 10.5 km of twin tunnel sections mined using two main-
charge for a blasting operation (Olofsson, 1990). beam-gripper tunnel boring machines driving upstream.
PF is usually expressed as the weight of explosives needed to break Depending on rock mass quality, the typical tunnel support in D&B
1 m3 of rock (Olofsson, 1990) and can be calculated using Eq. (7): tunnels comprises an initial lining of 40- to 150-mm-thick fiber-re-
inforced shotcrete (FRS) with 4- to 5-m-long, radially installed, fully
PF = (N·W) (N·B·S·L) (7)
grouted rock bolts, followed by an additional 300- to 1350-mm-thick
where N is the number of detonated blast holes, W is the charge weight reinforced concrete lining. Below the Jhelum River, in an 800-m-long

4
A. Sharafat, et al.
Fig. 2. 3D representation of NJHEP main features in the dam and powerhouse complex.
twin tunnel section called the Jhelum crossing, the final lining, which
followed the initial support, consists of a 30-mm-thick, 6.6 m in nom-
inal diameter, steel lining to provide hydraulic confinement due to in-
sufficient overburden height (180 to 230 m) and insufficient confining
stress compared to the gross internal water pressure head of 430 m.
Located at the foothills of the northwestern Himalayas, the geolo-
gical setting of the NJHEP is characterized by intense tectonic de-
formation and the presence of extensive regional faults (Fig. 3). The
entire tunnel system is located in the Murree formation, which is a
sequence of continental clastic sedimentary rocks of the early Miocene
age (Hussain et al., 2009).
The Murree formation appears mainly as alternating beds of sand-
stone, siltstone, and mudstone. Table 3 presents intact rock properties
of the Murree formation. Numerical values were determined by la-
boratory tests undertaken during the feasibility and design stages of
NJHEP.
In the Lot C2 D&B headrace tunnels, the Murree formation exibits a
high degree of compression in the form of tight folding often with
steeply inclined to upright (80° to 90°) or even overturned rock strata
approximately normal to the tunnel alignment. Minor faulting, which
was easy to handle, was common, particularly along the bedding con-
tacts between competent sandstone and weaker siltstone or mudstone
layers. However, two major fault zones posed significant challenges
during the excavation of the tunnels near and at the Jhelum crossing.
The larger fault zone is located at the tunnel intersection with the
Balakot–Bagh fault (BBF, see Fig. 3), also called the Muzaffarabad
Thrust or Tanda fault (Kaneda et al., 2008, Hussain et al., 2009, Turab,
2012). The BBF was responsible for the catastrophic 2005 Mw 7.6
Kashmir earthquake, which has a recurrence interval of approximately
625 ± 125 years (Jadoon et al., 2015).
During the design stage of the NJHEP, the surface trace of the BBF
was identified by pronounced fault scarps as well as tilted and dissected
old river terraces approximately 1.4 km away from the northern bank of
the Jhelum River. Inside the headrace twin tunnels, BBF is a 190-m-
wide zone of moderately to intensely fractured rock, fault breccia, and
5
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
fault gouge of various proportions and predominantly dry. The Q-value
of the rock mass within the BBF zone ranged from 1.0 to 0.1, which
describes very poor ground conditions.
The second fault zone, which was previously unknown, was en-
countered when the tunnel headings reached approximately 150 m
from the northern bank of the Jhelum River and was therefore named
the Jhelum River Crossing Fault (JRCF) (Fig. 4a). The JRCF zone was
not identified during site investigations because the surface trace is
concealed by fluvial deposits and young river terraces. In addition, site
investigations along the Jhelum River were limited because of access
restrictions imposed by local landowners. Within the twin tunnels, the
JRCF is a 50-m-wide zone, encompassing all three rock types of the
Murree formation and oriented 071°/51° (dip direction/dip) with an
apparent dip of 31° relative to the headrace tunnel alignment, which is
oriented N042°–222°.
The BBF and JRCF zones have a geotechnical nature of a block-in-
matrix rock or bimrock, that is, a chaotic heterogeneous geological
mixture of blocks of different types and sizes surrounded by weaker,
often sheared, fine-grained matrix (Medley, 1994). Tunneling through
these major fault zones resulted in several complications including
occurence of mixed-ground conditions with strong rock mass quality
variation (even in a single excavation round); frequent stress redis-
tribution (particularly in sharp transitions from soft to stiff rock mass or
vice versa); several different failure mechanisms including excessive
overbreak that was frequently of a chimney type (Marinos, 2012),
collapse of the face and crown, squeezing ground and long term creep;
and heterogeneous distribution of groundwater.
Although the BBF zone is practically dry, the JRCF is located di-
rectly below and hydraulically connected to the permeable fluvial de-
posits. Hence, the JRCF directly linked the river with the tunnel ex-
cavation resulting in an abundance of groundwater under a hydrostatic
pressure of approximately 1.8 to 2.3 MPa (Kizilbash et al., 2017). Be-
cause of this unlimited supply of groundwater under pressure, the rock
mass Q-value of the JRCF zone ranged from 0.06 to 0.001, demon-
strating extremely poor to exceptionally poor ground conditions.
A. Sharafat, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

Fig. 3. NJHEP layout and regional (NW Himalayan) faults (modified after Turab, 2012).

Table 4 summarizes the typical rock mass characteristics en-
countered in the Lot C2 D&B tunnel excavations and the JRCF zone. The
rock mass parameters were assessed from the geological tunnel map-
pings using the suggested methods for the quantitative description of
discontinuities in rock masses (ISRM, 1978) and the Q-system (Barton,
2002). The P-wave velocity was measured during the feasibility stage of
the project using seismic reflection and refraction methods near the
Jhelum river crossing. The seismic velocity for each rock type is at the
depth of the headrace tunnel. The velocity applied for the JRCF zone is
based on measurements of decomposed rock mass directly beneath the
Jhelum river bed.
Each blasting round in the Lot C2 tunnels was typically 3 to 4 m and
involved a wedge-cut pattern and smooth-wall blasting at the perimeter
of the excavation (Fig. 5). Waxed paper cartridges, 25 mm in diameter
and 200 mm in length, consisting of WABOX, a gelatinous 80% ni-
troglycerin-based dynamite (Wah Noble, 2015), was the typical blasting
agent used in 42-mm-diameter drill holes. Non-electric (shock tube)
millisecond and half-second delay detonators, detonation cord, safety
fuses, and plain detonators No. 8 were used to initiate the blast.
During D&B tunneling, ground vibrations were monitored as part of
quality control procedures. Vibration measurements were collected
from a total of 37 blasting operations using a data logger with three
geophones measuring velocity, frequency, and acceleration in the
longitudinal, transverse, and vertical direction, respectively. To avoid
decoupling, the geophones were fixed with cement on the tunnel invert
according to international specifications (ISEE, 2015). In addition,

Table 3
Intact rock parameters of the main rock types.
Parameter Sandstone Siltstone Mudstone

Color Gray Brown–Reddish brown Reddish brown

Grain size Fine–Medium Very fine–Medium Very fine
Bedding Thick–Massive Thin Very thin–Thin
Bulk density, kg/m3 2730 2771 2722
Uniaxial compressive strength, MPa (Mean and data range) 86.0 (20.0–114.6) 56.5 (20.0–86.5) 33.0 (12.0–54.1)
Brazilian tensile strength, MPa (Mean and data range) 8.1 (3.9–11.0) 6.8 (4.7–6.8) 5.3 (5.2–8.2)
Young’s modulus, GPa 32.0 21.0 12.6
Poisson’s ratio 0.27 0.22 0.26

6
A. Sharafat, et al.
Fig. 4. (a) Cross section of the Jhelum River valley (looking upstream) at the location of the headrace tunnels. (b) Close up of LHTT section at the location of the
major groundwater inflow.
instruments were protected from flyrock using concrete blocks. The
vibration data are tabulated in the Appendix Table A1. For every re-
corded blast, the data include the maximum instantaneous charge
weight, the distance from the blast to the geophone, the recorded peak
particle velocities of each ground motion component, and the PPV and
its respective frequency.
4. Tunneling in the Jhelum crossing
The headrace tunnel was excavated by advancing multiple headings
simultaneously in the upstream and downstream directions from mul-
tiple access adits. The excavations in the Jhelum River Crossing were
undertaken from opposite sides of the river in both tunnels and four
headings working toward each other were employed.
Probing and pre-excavation grouting was implemented under the
Jhelum River as a general precaution against groundwater inflows.
Probing typically involved drilling three or more 15-m-long holes at the
tunnel face. Probe holes were drilled ahead of the excavation to assess
the geology and degree of fracturing and to identify zones of potential
high groundwater inflow. When the cumulative inflow from the probe
holes exceeded 50 L/min (3 m3/h) and a hydrostatic pressure greater
7
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
than 0.1 MPa, a pre-excavation grouting fan was constructed around
the tunnel perimeter and in some cases at the tunnel face. The grouting
aimed to reduce inflows in post-grouting check holes to 2 to 3 L/min
(0.1–0.2 m3/h) per linear meter of hole and the hydrostatic pressure to
less than 0.1 MPa (Kizilbash et al., 2017). The pre-excavation grouting
fans typically extended to 15 m with a look-out angle of 5° to 10°. Type
II ordinary Portland cement was mixed in a water-cement ratio of 0.5
(by weight) and injected at pressures up to 10 MPa. Successive fans
overlapped 3 to 5 m.
The JRCF zone was encountered by the headings advancing up-
stream after the downstream tunnel headings had already been con-
nected to the powerhouse. Tunneling through the unanticipated JRCF
meant the excavations proceeded through extremely to exceptionally
poor ground conditions subjected to significant groundwater inflows
and pressures and an unlimited source of water. The JRCF posed serious
challenges and risks, ranging from potential tunnel instabilities to
flooding the tunnel system downstream. One of the most significant
risks was that excessive seepage from JRCF could overwhelm the
pumping system and flood the powerhouse where electro-mechanical
work was being performed.
To avoid flooding, large amounts of seepage water had to be
A. Sharafat, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

efficiently pumped from the excavation out to the surface, which in-
volved a vertical lift of up to 230 m. The tunnel dewatering system had

Zones of disintegrated or crushed rock with various proportions of angular rock

decay under ~2.0 MPa hydrostatic pressure with considerable washout of joint
Large (180 m3/h) to exceptionally high (720 m3/h) inflows without noticeable
to be upgraded with multiple pumping stations over a distance of 5 km.

fragments, gravel, sand, silty–sandy clay (non-softening), or hard–soft clay

One prolonged breakdown of one pumping station or a power outage
could overwhelm the system and begin flooding the powerhouse.

fillings or collapse of rock mass structure leading to tunnel failures

To secure tunnel stability in the fault zone and reduce water inflow,
a number of additional pre- and post-excavation measures were taken.
Jhelum River Crossing Fault (comprising all main rock units)

Pre-excavation grouting increased in significance and occurrence with

the overlap of successive fans reaching up to 8 m in some cases. The
Irregular, Tabular due to fracture cleavage, Crushed

tunnel profile was enlarged to accommodate heavier support, and its

roof was pre-supported using spiling or forepole umbrella arches.
Finally, excavation round lengths were reduced to less than 2 m.
Smooth–Slickensided, Undulating–Planar

Post-excavation measures in the JRCF zone included installation of

4+ to Earthlike (fault breccia/gouge)

stiffer initial support. Single or double layers of reinforced ribs of

shotcrete (RRS), typically anchored with 5-m-long fully grouted rock
bolts, or 3-rod lattice girder sets embedded in 250-mm-thick FRS were
installed while taking care to complete the rock support one round
behind the tunnel face. To mitigate floor heave and improve overall
tunnel stability by forming a ring closure, the tunnel invert was also
0.03 [0.001–0.06]
Slightly–Highly

Extremely poor

reinforced with RRS or lattice girder sets that tied in with the structural
elements of the tunnel walls.
1.8–2.5
30–60

5–150

4.1. Major groundwater inflow in the JRCF

Dry or minor inflow, often medium

The measures for support and watertightness were not employed all
at once during the excavations in the JRCF; some were implemented
inflow near bedding contacts

after an incident prompted further action. For example, invert closures

Tabular, Blocky, Irregular

were introduced in the construction after a major groundwater inflow

Silty or clayey coatings,
occasionally soft clay

from the tunnel floor occurred in the JRCF at station (STA) D4L + 418
of the left branch of the headrace twin tunnel (LHTT).
3 to 3+ random
Smooth, Planar
Fresh–Slightly

2.2 [0.7–3.7]

The inflow occurred approximately 4 m behind the face in a tunnel

Mudstone

section that had a pre-excavation grouting fan, was under a 12-m-long

0.25–5

forepole umbrella arch, and its initial tunnel support was completed.
3–25

Poor

The tunnel face had been blasted and sealed with a layer of 60-mm-
thick FRS 24 h prior to the sudden water ingress event during in-
stallation of RRS and rock bolts. Within the first twelve hours of the
Dry or minor inflow, often medium
Blocky, Tabular, Locally Irregular

event, the observed inflow measured was 100 m3/h, and the water was
Clean, sandy or silty coatings

inflow near bedding contacts

contained, channeled away, and pumped out.

The ground conditions at the location of the inflow comprised an
Rough–Smooth, Planar

intensely fractured and water-bearing siltstone overlying a highly

3.0–3.6

sheared 5-m-thick siltstone/mudstone layer (Fig. 4b). The sheared

3 to 3+ random
Fresh–Slightly

layer, which marked the downstream end of the JRCF zone, was not
8.9 [0.7–17]
Lot C2 D&B tunnel rock mass characterization of Murree formation and JRCF.

exposed in the particular tunnel location. Instead, the layer was located
Siltstone

0.1–10

approximately 2 to 3 m beneath the invert dipping with a high angle

3–25

Fair

toward the upstream and forming a low permeability water barrier for
groundwater. Although this area had been pre-grouted, the subsequent
blasting led to rock mass relaxation around the tunnel. Since the invert
Clean, sandy particles, or hard calcite

Dry or minor inflow, often medium

was unsupported, the joints in the siltstone dilated, creating ground-

Massive, Blocky Locally Irregular

water flow paths. Additionally, because of high substantial ground-

inflow near bedding contacts

water pressures of 1.8 MPa, grout was likely eroded from some joints by
2+ random to 3+ random
Rough, Planar–Undulating

the flows.
Early remediation measures involved construction of an approxi-
mately 8-m-long, particularly thick (1.5 m), heavily reinforced, con-
Fresh–Slightly

crete invert tied in with the tunnel walls and with embedded flow
17 [1.1–33]
Sandstone

< 0.1–10

through drainage pipes equipped with valves. Vertical and sub-vertical

grouting holes, 3 to 8 m long, were drilled through the invert and grout
Good
1–22

was injected under gradually increasing pressure to reach 10 MPa re-

fusal pressure to grout the rock mass to a depth of 8 m below the invert.
Average Q-value [min–max

Results at pressures less than 5 MPa were initially promising; however,

Joint aperture or thickness
Joint roughness, waviness

P-wave velocity (km/s)

the concrete invert cracked when 5 MPa was reached, allowing the
Volumetric joint count

Number of joints sets

Average rock quality

grout to escape to the invert. Furthermore, the water discharge rate

classification

increased to 180 m3/h.

(joints/m3)

The deteriorating conditions and greater seepage necessitated a

Joint filling
Weathering

range]
Parameter

(mm)
Structure

more robust solution. Thus, a tunnel plug was constructed above the
Seepage
Table 4

invert, as shown in Fig. 6, to provide invert confinement pressure up to

10 MPa to complete remedial grouting. The plug was placed in six 1.5-

8
A. Sharafat, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

Fig. 5. (a) Typical wedge-cut blasting pattern used in the C2 D&B tunnels. (b) Plan view of the wedge-cut showing geometry of blast holes with #1 to #4 delay
detonators. (c) Charging of tunnel face on site. (d) Installation of geophones of vibration data logger UBOX-501(TDEC, 2008) shown in window.

m-high lifts of mass concrete totaling 610 m3. At every lift, 0.5-m-wide
benches were made at the downstream side of the plug to facilitate
work for the successive lifts and for remedial grouting. The plug was
unreinforced, with the exception of the wire mesh between the concrete
lifts to improve bonding and some shear reinforcement bars placed
along the tunnel perimeter to provide better resistance against uplift at
the interface between the plug and the tunnel walls.
Following the construction of the tunnel plug, grouting with pres-
sures up to 10 MPa to depths of 8 to 10 m below the invert successfully
reduced groundwater inflow from the JRCF to approximately less than
0.3 m3/h per linear meter of grout hole. Despite this success of the plug
and grouting, the tunnel plug (Fig. 7) needed to be demolished for the
heading to continue.

Fig. 6. Longitudinal and perpendicular cross sections of concrete tunnel plug from STA D4L + 423 to STA D4L + 414.

9
A. Sharafat, et al.
Fig. 7. View of the downstream end of tunnel plug near STA D4L + 423.
5. Controlled blasting design
To avoid damaging the tunnel periphery and the grouted rock mass,
four methods were considered to demolish the plug, including drilling
and blasting, expansive chemical agents, machine-mounted diamond
sawing, and mechanically using hydraulic breakers, hand-held rock
splitters, and jackhammers. Drilling and blasting would be the most
efficient method, but it posed the greatest risk of damage to the tunnel
support and rock mass, while the other methods were less invasive.
However, chemicals, sawing, and breakers were considered to be time
consuming. Extra delays would have incurred also from procurement
Fig. 8. Controlled blasting design approach.
10
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
and delivery on site of expansive agents or a diamond saw.
Furthermore, diamond sawing would have required specialized per-
sonnel to safely operate the equipment near the tunnel support.
Consequently, to minimize delays and use the most cost-effective
and well-known local construction practices, drilling and blasting was
preferred to demolish the tunnel plug. A blasting design that would lay
out drilling, charging, and firing patterns to break the mass concrete in
an efficient manner without causing a new tunnel breach and water
inflow became immediately crucial.
Poorly designed and executed tunnel plug demolition involved the
risk of reactivating the groundwater inflow. This had occurred in the
opposite tunnel branch within the JRCF where another plug had been
installed, and during its removal, a poorly executed blast had damaged
part of the initial support. After the face had advanced approximately
20 m, groundwater inflow was reactivated through a breach in the re-
stored tunnel support.
According to Hoek and Brown (2019), very poor blasting, in terms
of control of drilling, charging, and firing sequence design, can lead to
severe damage 2 or 3 m into the surrounding mass in hard rock tunnels.
However, this did not apply to the JRCF because the rock mass in the
fault zone was not hard rock but a heterogeneous ground as mentioned
in Section 3. Furthermore, although pre-excavation grouting was gen-
erally efficient in sealing the rock mass in the JRCF, locations existed,
particularly in zones of clayey fault gouge, in which groundwater was
lurking as close as 5 m behind the tunnel periphery. The drilling of rock
bolts revealed this during typical support installations in the twin
tunnels.
Considering the adverse ground conditions, extensive blasting da-
mage in the tunnel periphery around the concrete plug, such as major
cracking of the rock mass and loosening or widening of grout-healed
joints, could have developed favorable conditions for the groundwater
A. Sharafat, et al.
to force its way closer, and combined with rock mass relaxation, breach
the tunnel support. Given that hardened reinforced shotcrete requires
vibration levels as high as 1500–2000 mm/s from nearby blasts (Ahmed
and Ansell, 2014), the primary goal of controlled blasting was to pre-
vent either new large cracks to develop or existing healed joints to
reopen within 3 m of the tunnel periphery; in other words, induce only
minor damage.
Fig. 8 demonstrates the adopted control blasting design approach.
To determine the maximum explosive charge that would cause only
minor damage to the rock mass, the critical particle velocity described
by Eq. (6) was used. Additionally, a predictive site-specific vibration
attenuation model, similar to Eq. (1), was developed using the vibration
monitoring program data from elsewhere in the D&B tunnels. By in-
corporating the critical particle velocity into the vibration attenuation
model, a permissible instantaneous charge weight (Wperm) was defined
in relation to the distance from the charge to the tunnel periphery. In
this way, firing blast holes having a charge weight of Wperm would re-
sult in only minor damage to the critical rock mass zone.
Having defined Wperm, the geometric characteristics and the firing
sequence of blasts were deduced by selecting a PF for concrete and
applying Eq. (7). The selection of an appropriate PF for concrete was
based on technical literature and experience from previous small con-
crete demolitions elsewhere in the project. By defining a relative small
shot length, Eq. (7) provided an estimate of the burden, the spacing,
and the number of allowable instantaneous detonations.
Successful controlled blasting also requires effective site im-
plementation via robust quality control procedures. This was achieved
by strict oversight of the drilling, charging, and firing operations and
application of an improved vibration monitoring program for plug de-
molition. Vibration data collected during the plug demolition blasts was
fed back into the design, enabling blasting design refinements.
5.1. Critical particle velocity
Laboratory data for the intact rock parameters of the main rock
types (Table 3) were used to derive a critical particle velocity value.
Furthermore, geological tunnel mappings and the Q-values of an ap-
proximately 20-m-long tunnel section in the LHTT (from STA
D4L + 433.9 to STA D4L + 414.7), including the location of the major
water inflow, were also considered.
Inherent in Eq. (6) is that the rock mass is homogeneous, isotropic,
and elastic. Thus, the values for density, compressive strength, and
tensile strength of the intact rock were selected as weighted averages
based on the percentage of each rock type encountered within the 20-m
tunnel section. Furthermore, instead of an intact rock dynamic tensile
strength, the laboratory values of static tensile strength were used as a
more conservative approach. Similarly, the density of intact rock was
assumed to be the density of the rock mass.
Although the P-wave velocity for the in situ condition of the rock
mass had been estimated during the feasibility stage (Table 4), a more
representative value for the condition of the rock mass following the
remedial measures was calculated according to Barton (2002), who
correlated rock mass P-wave velocity (in km/s) to the Q-value.
CP 3.5 + log10 (Q·( 100)) (8)
c
where σc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock in MPa.
Table 5
Results of critical particle velocity (Vcr) based on sensitivity analysis. SST, SLT, and MST represent sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone, respectively.
Case Participation of rock unit in the study section Q [min–max]
SST (%) SLT (%) MST (%)
0 13 54 33 0.01 [0.003–0.02]
1 0.1 [0.04–0.4]
2 – 94 6 8.3 [6.3–9.8]
11
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
The P-wave velocity was further corrected, as suggested by Barton
(2002), for the effect of in situ stress or tunnel depth and the rock mass
porosity by considering a depth of 200 m and a porosity of 10%. Al-
though the major water inflow was at a depth of 180 m, a 200-m depth
was conservatively selected as more representative of the in situ stress,
particularly of the major horizontal stress induced by the compressional
tectonic environment (Ma et al., 2018).
The recorded Q-values from the geological tunnel mappings of the
20-m-long tunnel section represent the ground conditions after ex-
cavation but prior to the major water inflow. However, to estimate the
actual rock mass quality of the section, particularly in the invert, after
the erection of the tunnel plug and the remedial grouting, Barton’s
(2002) recommendations regarding the effect of high-pressure grouting
on the Q-parameters were considered.
Barton (2002) noted that a successful high-pressure grouting pro-
gram would result, beyond direct permeability reduction, in the con-
solidation or stiffening of the rock mass which could be reflected po-
sitively in the individual Q-parameters. Barton suggested an assessment
of this effect on each of the Q-parameters. His recommendations were
used to extrapolate rock mass quality to the pre-tunneling as well as the
post-remediation conditions from the Q-values derived during tun-
neling.
Thus, three cases were defined for the studied tunnel section. Case 0
represents the original ground conditions prior to any tunneling. Case 1
represents the ground conditions following tunnel excavation, as re-
corded in the actual tunnel mappings, and Case 2 represents the ground
conditions following tunnel plug construction and remedial grouting.
For Case 2, the estimated Q-values refer to the 8-m-long tunnel section
where the tunnel plug was erected.
To capture the effect of variations in compressive and tensile
strength, sensitivity analyses were performed for the three cases. The
compressive strength influences the calculated particle velocity by af-
fecting the P-wave velocity of rock mass in Eq. (8), while the tensile
strength has a direct effect on the velocity through Eq. (6). The
minimum, maximum, and mean values of compressive and tensile
strength (Table 3) of the three rock types were used to develop
weighted averages for each recorded mapping for input into Eq. (6) and
Eq. (8).
Table 5 indicates that the average Q-value increased more than an
order of magnitude from Case 0 through Case 2. The P-wave velocity of
the in situ rock mass (Case 0) is somewhat less than what the seismic
surveying estimated during the feasibility stage (Table 4). The differ-
ence might be attributed to limitations with seismic testing, such as
interference of seismic waves along steeply dipping strata and velocity
inversion cases whereby higher velocity layers overlie lower velocity
layers. These limitations and the lack of calibration boreholes in the
feasibility stage caused the authors to believe that the estimation of the
P-wave velocity of the JRCF zone based on the extrapolation of the
recorded Q-values during tunneling represents better the original
ground conditions.
The critical particle velocity appeared to decrease from Case 0 to
Case 2, which is expected since remedial grouting consolidated and
strengthened the rock mass. In Case 2, which reflects the ground con-
ditions following the restoration of watertightness in the invert, the
mean, minimum, and maximum velocity values (516, 415, and
584 mm/s, respectively) were in general accordance with the PPV-
Q·(σc/100) [min–max] CP (km/s) [min–max] Vcr (mm/s) [min–max]
0.005 [0.0005–0.01] 1.5 [0.9–2.0] 1567 [1191–2572]
0.06 [0.008–0.3] 2.4 [1.8–3.2] 949 [628–1313]
4.4 [1.3–8.4] 4.3 [3.8–4.6] 516 [415–584]
A. Sharafat, et al.
based damage criteria of Table 1 for developing minor blast damage.
The minimum and maximum values of critical particle velocity for Case
2 were used to develop the controlled blast design to demolish the plug.
5.2. Vibration attenuation model
Vibration monitoring data collected from the typical rock tunnel
blasting (see Appendix Table A1) were employed to develop the ground
vibration attenuation model for the rock mass conditions in Lot C2. The
recorded data were plotted in log-log space, similar to Eq. (2), and a
linear regression analysis was performed using a square-root SD. The
constants, K and β, were determined with a coefficient of determination
R2 = 0.743. Reverting to the exponential form, as in Eq. (1), the vi-
bration attenuation law was found to be
PPV = 647·(R Wmax) 1.90
(9)
where R/√Wmax is the square-root SD in m/√kg, and PPV is the max-
imum peak particle velocity in mm/s.
The regression statistics are summarized in a tabulated format in the
Appendix Table A2. Fig. 9 presents the PPV data versus the square-root
SD and the vibration attenuation law with a 95% confidence band. The
confidence band was constructed by considering the combined dis-
tribution of K and β of individual predicted values for 95% confidence
(see also the Appendix).
5.3. Permissible instantaneous charge weight
Rearranging the terms of the vibration attenuation law and solving
for the maximum instantaneous charge weight, Eq. (9) becomes Eq.
(10)
Wmax = (647 PPV) 1.05 ·R2.00
(10)
Substituting PPV with the maximum and minimum values of the
critical particle velocity from Case 2, (Vcr = 584 mm/s and 415 mm/s,
respectively), a range of permissible instantaneous charge weights
(Wperm) that would limit damage to “minor” is defined by Eq. (11).
Wperm = 0.63·R2to 0.90·R2 (11)
According to Eq. (11), a permissible charge weight, detonated at the
center of the nearly 9-m diameter tunnel plug, of up to 12.6 to 18.0 kg
would produce only minor blast damage to the rock mass. A blast hole
detonated just 1 m from the rock mass would be limited to 630 to 900 g
of charge weight to produce only minor damage. Fig. 10 represents Eq.
(11) and was developed for use in the field to quickly evaluate Wperm
limits with respect to the distance from the blast source to the rock
mass.
5.4. Drilling charging and firing patterns
The blasting pattern adopted for the controlled demolition of the
tunnel plug drew advantages mainly from contour blasting techniques
in which a small number of independent charges were fired each time
using half-second delay detonators. The independent (hole-by-hole)
detonation of charges was dictated from the permissible instantaneous
charge weights calculated particularly for blast holes near the tunnel
perimeter. Additionally, the independent detonations were performed
to avoid constructive interference of seismic waves from the detonation
of more than one blast holes in the same delay interval (cooperating
charges).
The downstream stepped profile of the plug could negatively in-
terfere with horizontal blasting. Therefore, we decided to initially re-
move the benches up to the mid-height of the plug by vertical blasting
to develop a vertical face for working unobstructively with horizontal
blasting. Fig. 11 shows the stepped profile of the tunnel plug and the
three successive vertical blasting operations that were designed to
12
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
remove the first four benches (that is, the first 2 m) of the plug. In each
bench blasting, eleven 42-mm-diameter blast holes were to be spaced
evenly along a single row with their ends at least 1 m away from the
tunnel walls. Blast holes ranged in depth between 1.9 and 2.4 m ac-
cording to the height of the bench. Line drilling was also performed in
all vertical blasts by drilling two empty relief holes at each side, posi-
tioned 0.3 m from the tunnel walls and drilled to the same depth as the
blast holes.
All bench blast holes were charged to the minimum Wperm con-
sidering their distance from the tunnel walls. The design required in-
dependent detonation of the blast holes via a different half-second delay
detonator per hole. Based on the blast hole patterns, PF values for the
bench blasts were in the range of 0.61–0.73 kg/m3 for the lower (wide)
one-third of the blast holes, which was deemed to be satisfactory ac-
cording to the typical breakage criteria for plain concrete.
Following vertical bench blasting, horizontal line drilling was per-
formed along the perimeter of the remaining 6-m-long plug for addi-
tional damage control. The line drilling comprised 42-mm-diameter
relief holes, 200 mm off the tunnel walls and at 300 to 600 mm center-
to-center spacing.
An innovative solution was devised to remove the remaining plug
by horizontal contour blasting in three 2-m-long rounds. This design
included a 1 × 1 × 2 m3 (width × height × length) burn cut to form an
opening at the center and near the lower one-fourth of the plug. The
burn cut incorporated three uncharged drilled holes 127 mm in dia-
meter surrounded by eleven blast holes (42 mm in diameter) arranged
in two squares and detonated by millisecond delays. The concrete
around the burn cut was demolished in layers by firing of 42-mm-dia-
meter horizontal contour blast holes with hole-by-hole detonations
(Fig. 12).
Five blasting contours were developed around the cut with a burden
of 1 m each. Based on the hole diameter and length, the 1-m burden was
considered adequate to achieve good fragmentation. Contour blast hole
spacing was designed at 1.0 to 1.25 m with the exception of the lateral
holes in contours 3, 4, and 5. Due to their closer proximity to the tunnel
periphery, the hole spacing for contour 3, 4, and 5 was 0.6 to 0.8 m to
reduce possible overbreak.
Eq. (11) was used to evaluate permissible charge weights for the
burn cut and the blasting contour holes with respect to their distance
from the nearest rock mass behind the tunnel walls and roof. Particular
care was taken for the contour holes nearest to the tunnel walls. Using
ten different numbers of half-second delay detonators plus an in-
stantaneous detonator, up to eleven holes were allowed to be charged
and were detonated at a time in each blast.
It should be noted that the burden and spacing of the contour holes
could have been determined by Eq. (7) using a single PF suitable for
concrete. This, however, would have complicated the drilling of con-
tour holes because it would require different burden and spacing di-
mensions according to the location of the blasting contours and the
Fig. 9. Vibration attenuation model for Lot C2 D&B tunnels. PPV data versus
square-root scaled distance, regression line, and 95% confidence band in a log-
log graph.
A. Sharafat, et al.
Fig. 10. Permissible instantaneous charge weight (Wperm) curves for minor
blasting damage with respect to distance (R) from blasting source.
respective permissible charge weight relative to the tunnel perimeter.
To ease the field implementation of the blasting design, the simplified
burden and spacing dimensions mentioned above were followed. Thus,
average PF was allowed to vary between 0.42 kg/m3 for contour holes
near the tunnel perimeter and 1.60 kg/m3 for holes in blasting contours
1 and 2. These values were deemed acceptable for the breakage of the
concrete, albeit the latter value caused high fragmentation and ex-
cessive flyrock.
Since both burn cut and contour holes had a drilling length of 2 m,
the sequence of a burn cut and blasting contours was repeated in three
rounds for the demolition of the remaining 6-m-long tunnel plug. The
bottom of the tunnel plug, approximately 1 m in height, was to be re-
moved after blasting demolition of the upper part by using a hydraulic
breaker.
6. Blasting design implementation on site
Implementing the controlled blasting design on site required a
quality control program that included rigorous supervision and collec-
tion of blasting data. These data served as a basis for a back analysis of
the blasting procedures, and when needed allowed, operational changes
to be quickly applied to maintain the permanent structure.
Fig. 11. General layout of vertical blasting for the first four benches of tunnel plug. Plan view (i) shows the blasting pattern for the 1st and 2nd blasting, whereas plan
view (ii) details the 3rd blasting.
13
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
Field supervision and data collection focused on implementing the
following:
• Drilling patterns: recording the number, diameter, burden, spacing,
and length of blast holes.
• Charging pattern: recording the explosive weight (number of car-
tridges) per hole, placement of cartridges within the hole, deto-
nating cord connections, and stemming.
• Delay sequencing; associating proper delay numbers with each hole;
controlling the instantaneous charge weight per delay interval.
• Ground vibration monitoring: installing a vibration data logger with
three geophones set 15 to 20 m behind the tunnel plug.
Wabox 80% cartridges, decoupled, evenly distributed, and con-
nected with detonating cord, were used for charging the holes.
Stemming consisted of 1 m of drill cuttings. Although the blasting im-
plementation attempted to maintain the location of blasting contours
according to the design, small variations in the size and shape of the
openings formed by the burn cut or the preceding contour blasts dic-
tated subsequent alterations to the contour geometry. Nonetheless, the
burden, spacing, and depth of contour holes were generally in ac-
cordance with the design. After each blast, loose or hanging concrete
was scaled manually or using a hydraulic breaker.
Table 6 summarizes the plug demolition details. The nearest con-
tour holes to the rock mass had a distance of 0.7 m in the field and were
placed in contours 4 and 5. The actual instantaneous charge weights
applied in the field (Wact) were kept lower than the permissible ones
calculated by Eq. (11) based on the early results of the vibration
monitoring program and observations regarding the effectiveness of
blasts with lighter charges. Exception to this were one burn cut, where
the actual charge weight was near the lower limit of the permissible
range, and holes in contours 4 and 5, where the actual charge weights
were at the upper limit of the permissible range. The average PF for
contour blasting of plain concrete was kept around 0.4 kg/m3.
Ground vibrations were recorded for thirteen of the twenty blasts
during plug demolition (refer to the Appendix Table A3). The recorded
vibrations are presented in Fig. 13 as PPV versus SD (green triangles)
plotted over the vibration attenuation model in a log-log graph.
As can be seen from Fig. 13, PPV values during the plug demolition
are located around the upper 95% confidence limit. One explanation for
A. Sharafat, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

Fig. 12. (a) General layout of burn cut and contour blasting. The delay numbers in contour blast holes are for half-second delays, whereas the numbers of the burn cut
holes represent millisecond delays. (b) Marking of the blasting layout on the tunnel plug.

Table 6
Tunnel Plug Blasting Details.
Blasting details 1st bench 2nd bench 3rd bench Burn cut Contour blasting
blasting blasting blasting
Contour 1 Contour 2 Contour 3 Contour 4 Contour 5

No. of blast holes1 11 11 11 11 14–8 11–10 11 11 6–5

No. of relief holes1 2 at each side of tunnel walls 72 along tunnel periphery
2
Burden, B (m) 0.25–0.75 0.25–0.752 0.70 N/A 3
1.0 1.0 0.8–1.1 0.6–0.9 0.8–0.9
Spacing, S (m) 0.62 0.58 0.56 N/A3 1.0 1.0 1.1–1.5 0.8–1.1 0.6–1.1
Height/Depth, L (m) 2.4 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Distance, R4 (m) 1.2 0.9 1.3 3.6 2.6 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.7
Wperm5, (kg) 0.95–1.4 0.55–0.79 1.0–1.5 8.1–11.6 4.2–6.0 1.6–2.3 0.63–0.90 0.31–0.44 0.31–0.44
Wact6 (kg) 0.34 0.29 0.37 1.8/9.07 0.86 0.86 0.58 0.44 0.44 (0.30–0.44)
(0.65–2.6) (0.65–1.0) (0.30–0.72) (0.30–0.44)
Fired holes/delay8 1 1 1 1/57 1 1 1 1 1
Powder Factor9 (kg/ 0.91–0.302 1.05–0.352 0.50 N/A 3
0.43 0.43 0.18–0.33 0.22–0.46 0.22–0.46
m3)

Notes:
1
All holes were 42 mm in diameter.
2
In the upper two-thirds and lower one-third of the hole height, respectively.
3
Non-applicable.
4
Distance of blast holes closest to rock mass.
5
Permissible instantaneous charge weight, as calculated by Eq. (11), for blast holes closest to rock mass.
6
Mean values of actual instantaneous charge weight (Wact) recorded for blast holes closest to rock mass. Minimum and maximum values are in parentheses.
7
The typical maximum Wact for the burn cuts was 1.8 kg, and the typical firing was 1 hole per delay. Because of a mismanagement of delay sequencing in a burn
cut, however, 5 holes detonated instantaneously.
8
#0–#10 half-second delay detonators were used for bench and contour blasting. #1–#11 ms delay detonators were used for the burn cuts.
9
Mean values of powder factor for blast holes closest to rock mass.

this may be the greater transmission factor for blasted concrete than the
fractured rock mass. Another explanation is that the 1.5-m-thick re-
inforced invert and the extensive remedial grouting around the tunnel
plug consolidated the rock mass, which increased the transmission
factor and the PPV values. Nonetheless, since the recorded vibrations
were near the 95% confidence limit, the vibration attenuation model
was considered representative. Therefore, the permissible charge
weights are also valid.
As mentioned before, the overall blasting design was conservative to
minimize the risk of damage to the rock and reactivating the ground-
water inflow. The extensive remedial grouting also improved the water
tightness and further strengthened the rock mass in the invert.
Moreover, line drilling helped to reduce damage by scattering shock
waves and dissipating the explosives gases. The authors believe that the
vibrations caused by blasting did not damage the surrounding rock
mass, as groundwater inflow was not reactivated and no overbreak was
observed behind the line drilling. A hydraulic breaker had to be em-
ployed to remove the remaining strip of concrete behind the last
blasting contour and re-profile the tunnel periphery. The lower 1-m
part of the tunnel plug were additionally demolished using a hydraulic
breaker. Judging by the final outcome, it was considered that line
drilling could have been avoided if the design was a bit less con-
servative.
To expedite tunneling construction and to make up for the time lost

14
A. Sharafat, et al.
Fig. 13. Plot of the vibration data from the blasting demolition of the tunnel
plug (green triangles) on the Lot C2 D&B vibration attenuation model. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is re-
ferred to the web version of this article.)
during the mitigation of the water inflow, no testing was performed to
directly assess or quantify blasting damage imparted to the rock mass.
Following plug demolition, the tunnel surfaces were carefully in-
spected, and no notable surface cracks were observed. Furthermore,
delamination tests were performed on the tunnel shotcrete to assess for
drummy, de-bonded areas; no problems were revealed. After resuming
regular tunnel construction, no further instabilities or water inflows
were observed in this tunnel section.
The plug was successfully and entirely demolished in eight days
working two 10-hour shifts per day. Satisfactory results were achieved
using controlled blasting methods more economically and efficiently
than any of the other proposed methods considered.
7. Conclusions
The controlled demolition of a temporary tunnel plug in the NJHEP
headrace tunnels by blasting was discussed in this study. The 610-m3
unreinforced concrete plug was constructed to restore watertightness
after a major groundwater inflow occurred while excavating through
difficult fault zone ground conditions.
To remove the plug efficiently while managing the risk of re-
activating groundwater inflow, it was necessary to control blast vibra-
tions. A preliminary review of published literature on blasting damage
and ground vibrations revealed general associations regarding degree of
damage to the rock mass and peak particle velocities.
A blasting methodology was developed to demolish the plug using
contour blasting techniques, and a small number of light charges were
fired independently each time to remove the concrete in layers. The
Appendix
In Fig. 9, the 95% confidence band around the regression line was plotted using the following equation:
C.I. (individual predicted value) = Yi ± t (n 2)· (MSres ·(1 + (1 n) + ((Xi
where
• C.I. is the confidence interval of an individual predicted value
• Y is the predicted value of log(K) + β·log(R/√W ) using the K and β coefficients predicted by the regression analysis
max i
• t is the (1 ± 0.025)-th quantile of the Student’s t-distribution with n − 2 degrees of freedom
i
(n−2)
• n is the number of observations in the sample
• MS is the mean square of the residuals (observed Y – predicted Y)
res
• XX == log(R/√W
log(R/√W ) is a given value of log(R/√W ) in the sample
•
i max i max
) is the mean value of log (R/√W ) in the sample
max mean max
• SS is the sum of squared deviations of log(R/√W ) in the sample
X max
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
principle aspect of the methodology was to determine the permissible
instantaneous charge weight that would maintain PPV below the pre-
scribed range near the tunnel periphery to limit any damage to rock
mass and tunnel support, from none to “minor” characterized as a
couple of millimeters of tensile fracturing. A site-specific vibration at-
tenuation model was developed to incorporate the critical particle ve-
locity above which tensile cracking initiates. The critical particle ve-
locity was based on the material properties of the main rock types
around the tunnel plug, as determined by laboratory tests and rock
mass classification methods during tunnel mappings. The vibration at-
tenuation model was obtained from statistical analysis of vibration data
collected during previous blasting operations in the headrace tunnel D&
B excavations.
Vibration monitoring data collected during the plug demolition in-
dicated that the predictive attenuation model was sufficiently accurate,
aligning along the upper 95 percent confidence limit, which might be
attributed to the higher seismic velocities of massive concrete.
Similarly, high-pressure rock grouting around the plug likely increased
the seismic velocities. Therefore, the authors believe that a correction of
up to +2 standards deviations of the attenuation model should be
considered in future similar works to better represent the ground
transmission factor due to the strengthening of the surrounding rock
mass or the presence of massive concrete.
The controlled blast methods were successfully employed to de-
molish the plug in a safe, efficient, and economic manner, thus showing
that blasting with selective use of mechanical means is an attractive
solution when compared to less invasive methods such as expansive
chemical agents or strictly mechanical methods. The methodology
could have been improved by using a geophysical method such as the
tunnel seismic prediction to estimate the P-wave velocities of the rock
mass that surrounded the tunnel plug more accurately.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Water and Power Development
Authority (WAPDA) of Pakistan for allowing the publication of project
data. The authors are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers
whose comments greatly improved the quality of the paper. This work
was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
grant funded by Ministry of Science and ICT (MIST) of Republic of
Korea (No. NRF-2018R1A5A1025137). The authors Abubakar Sharafat
and Waqas Arshad Tanoli are extremely thankful to the Higher
Education Commission of Pakistan for Human Resource Development
Initiative-Universities of Engineering Science and Technology scholar-
ship.
X)2 SS X )))
15
A. Sharafat, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

Table A1
NJHEP Lot C2 vibration monitoring data during standard blasting operations.
Blast No. Wmax (kg) R (m) PPVL PPVT PPVV PPV f (Hz)
(mm/s) (mm/s) (mm/s) (mm/s)

1 31.8 25.1 43.20 39.78 29.88 43.20 129.242

2 23.1 28.4 38.01 28.79 18.94 38.01 152.283
3 24.0 80.7 2.27 0.19 1.20 2.27 57.220
4 24.2 30.4 21.57 17.08 10.49 21.57 117.798
5 28.4 32.1 10.86 22.28 9.19 22.28 192.566
6 21.5 34.2 26.57 13.35 9.62 26.57 86.060
7 32.0 86.0 1.89 1.15 0.47 1.89 117.190
8 20.5 49.8 15.83 7.50 7.59 15.83 125.580
9 18.4 68.0 4.91 0.80 2.73 4.91 63.324
10 32.0 16.0 15.45 51.19 27.10 51.19 93.384
11 32.0 48.0 2.95 2.63 3.74 3.74 92.010
12 21.0 44.6 6.87 18.59 22.36 22.36 91.705
13 27.6 44.8 7.55 11.15 6.75 11.15 42.458
14 32.1 47.5 10.75 9.89 9.16 10.75 80.610
15 32.5 50.9 12.94 6.85 5.78 12.94 120.153
16 18.9 63.8 2.99 1.32 1.30 2.99 104.065
17 18.9 41.5 6.34 25.23 13.27 25.23 90.332
18 18.4 42.3 3.17 11.71 5.79 11.71 89.111
19 16.8 44.7 3.20 2.35 5.92 5.92 83.618
20 18.4 97.8 0.76 1.15 0.91 1.15 93.994
21 12.4 18.6 2.79 13.85 4.05 13.85 110.931
22 18.9 29.1 1.56 27.88 12.64 27.88 54.474
23 21.0 28.4 17.73 36.88 8.31 36.88 48.676
24 18.9 27.3 11.05 27.99 7.67 27.99 138.397
25 21.2 26.2 10.80 26.00 10.02 26.00 135.498
26 18.9 25.6 3.52 18.61 14.31 18.61 79.193
27 14.7 25.1 1.66 2.91 8.84 8.84 77.972
28 21.2 25.0 13.46 29.01 1.90 29.01 134.430
29 15.1 25.2 20.09 31.55 11.20 31.55 132.904
30 18.9 25.7 11.51 6.43 9.97 11.51 78.278
31 18.8 78.6 2.17 1.52 0.16 2.17 57.678
32 18.4 90.2 2.19 0.95 0.17 2.19 142.719
33 29.4 64.5 2.33 1.31 0.16 2.33 141.032
34 29.4 50.4 3.64 0.33 0.17 3.64 57.678
35 27.3 65.8 3.70 1.05 0.16 3.70 6.561
36 28.0 75.4 2.25 7.79 0.29 7.79 75.684
37 18.0 97.5 2.27 0.27 0.33 2.27 2.441

Table A2
Linear regression output of the standard vibration monitoring program.
Model summary (NJHEP vibration monitoring data in log-log space)

R R square Standard error of estimate Count of independent variables Observations Adjusted R square

0.862 0.743 0.557 1 37 0.735

Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean square F Significance F

Regression 31.347 1 31.347 101.093 0.000

Residual 10.853 35 0.310
Total 42.199 36

Coefficients and 95% confidence intervals

Coefficient Standard error t-Statistic P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

K (Intercept) 6.472 0.424 15.266 0.000 5.612 7.333

R/√Wmax (Slope) −1.897 0.189 −10.055 0.000 −2.280 −1.514

16
A. Sharafat, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098

Table A3
Vibration monitoring data during blasting demolition of tunnel plug in Lot C2 LHTT.
Blast No. Wmax (kg) R (m) PPVL PPVT PPVV PPV f (Hz)
(mm/s) (mm/s) (mm/s) (mm/s)

1 0.37 15 4.00 2.82 4.46 4.46 169.373

2 0.63 16 6.17 9.83 4.17 9.83 40.153
3 1.80 17 13.98 6.70 11.42 13.98 129.842
4 3.20 17 26.79 12.81 20.21 26.79 98.877
5 1.07 17 11.18 10.56 6.56 11.18 67.340
6 9.00 19 39.38 25.48 73.22 73.22 91.858
7 1.20 19 7.46 9.23 3.45 9.23 62.478
8 1.77 19 11.03 15.82 5.18 15.82 80.534
9 1.77 19 10.60 5.75 5.85 10.60 92.673
10 1.77 20 4.31 10.24 5.70 10.24 86.517
11 2.13 20 4.60 10.12 7.56 10.12 93.689
12 1.23 20 3.20 5.89 4.32 5.89 92.468
13 0.90 20 9.51 5.09 3.26 9.51 52.458

References
Ahmed, L., Ansell, A., 2014. Vibration vulnerability of shotcrete on tunnel walls during
construction blasting. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 42, 105–111. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tust.2014.02.008.
Barton, N., 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterization and
tunnel design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1365-1609(02)00011-4.
Bastante, F.G., Alejano, L., González-Cao, J., 2012. Predicting the extent of blast-induced
damage in rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 56, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.023.
Bauer, A., Calder, P.N., 1970. Open Pit and Blasting, Seminar Mining Engineering.
Department Publication, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.
Bogdanoff, I., 1996. Vibrations measurements in the damage zone in tunnel blasting. In:
Mohanty, B. (Ed.), Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Fragblast-5. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, pp. 177–185.
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 1993. Rock Mechanics For Underground Mining, second ed.
Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Bureau of Indian Standards, 1973. IS 6922–1973 (Reaffirmed 2003): Criteria for Safety
and Design of Structures Subject to Underground Blasts. BIS Earthquake Engineering
Sectional Committee, New Delhi, India.
Charlie, W.A., 1985. Review of Present Practices Used in Predicting the Effects of Blasting
on Pore Pressure. Geotechnical Branch, Division of Research and Laboratory Services,
Engineering and Research Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, CO (accessed June 10, 2018).
Dey, K., Murthy, V.M.S.R., 2012. Prediction of blast-induced overbreak from uncontrolled
burn-cut blasting in tunnels driven through medium rock class. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 28, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.09.004.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 2019. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion and GSI – 2018 edition. J.
Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.001.
Holmberg, R., 1982. Charge calculation for tunnelling. In: Hustrulid, W.A. (Ed.),
Underground Mining Methods Handbook. Soc. of Mining Engineers of the American
Inst. of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New York, NY, pp.
1580–1589.
Hussain, A., Yeats, R.S., MonaLisa, 2009. Geological setting of the 8 October 2005
Kashmir eartquake. J. Seismolog. 13 (3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-
008-9101-7.
International Society for Rock Mechanics Commission on Standardization of Laboratory
and Field Tests, 1978. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of dis-
continuities in rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15 (6),
319–368.
International Society of Explosives Engineers Standards Committee, 2015. ISEE Field
Practice Guidelines for Blasting Seismographs. International Society of Explosives
Engineers, Cleveland, OH (accessed June 14, 2018).
Jadoon, I.A.K., Hinderer, M., Kausar, A.B., Qureshi, A.A., Baig, M.S., Basharat, M., Frisch,
W., 2015. Structural interpretation and geo-hazard assessment of a locking line: 2005
Kashmir earthquake, western Himalayas. Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (11), 7587–7602.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3929-7.
Kaneda, H., Nakata, T., Tsutsumi, H., Kondo, H., Sugito, N., Awata, Y., Akhtar, S.S.,
Majid, A., Khattal, W., Awan, A.A., Yeats, R.S., Hussain, A., Ashraf, M., Wesnousky,
S.G., Kausar, A.B., 2008. Surface Rupture of the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake
and its active tectonic implications. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98 (2), 521–577. https://
doi.org/10.1785/0120070073.
Kizilbash, M.H., Dickson, P.A., Jaffery, N.A., 2017. Neelum Jhelum hydroelectric project:
pre-excavation grouting in twin headrace tunnels. Geotech. Special Publ. 287,
238–248. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480786.024.
Langefors, U., Kihlström, B., 1973. The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Ma, C.S., Chen, W.Z., Tan, X.J., Tian, H.M., Yang, J.P., Yu, J.X., 2018. Novel rockburst
criterion based on the TBM tunnel construction of the Neelum-Jhelum (NJ) hydro-
electric project in Pakistan. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 81, 391–402. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.032.
Marinos, V., 2012. Assessing rock mass behaviour for tunnelling. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 18
(4), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.18.4.327.
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J., 2003. The Rock Physics Handbook. Tools for Seismic
Analysis in Porous Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
McKenzie, C., Holley, K., 2004. A study of damage profiles behind blasts. In: Proceedings
of the Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, vol. 2. International
Society of Explosives Engineers, pp. 203–214.
Medley, E.W., 1994. The Engineering Characterization of Melanges and Similar Block-in-
Matrix Rocks (Bimrocks). Department of Civil Engineering, University of California at
Berkley (Doctoral dissertation) (accessed July 05, 2018).
Meyer, T., Dunn, P.G., 1996. Fragmentation and rock mass damage assessment – Sunburst
excavator and drill and blast. In: In: Aubertin, Hassani, Mitri (Eds.), Rock Mechanics
Tools and Techniques, vol. 1. Balkema, pp. 609–617.
Murthy, V.M.S.R., Dey, K., 2003. Predicting overbreak from blast vibration monitoring in
a Lake Tap Tunnel – a success story. Fragblast: Int. J. Blast. Fragment. 7 (3), 149–166.
https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.7.3.149.16787.
Nateghi, R., Kiany, M., Gholipouri, O., 2009. Control negative effects of blasting waves on
concrete of the structures by analyzing of parameters of ground vibration. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 24 (6), 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2009.04.
004.
Olofsson, S.O., 1990. Applied Explosives Technology for Construction and Mining, second
ed. APPLEX AB, Arla, Sweden.
Oriard, L.L., 1982a. Influence of blasting on slope stability: state-of-the-art. In: Brawner,
C.O. (Ed.), Third International Conference on Stability in Surface Mining, June 1, 2,
3, 1981, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: [proceedings]. Society of Mining
Engineers of AIME, New York, NY (accessed July 09, 2018).
Oriard, L.L., 1982b. Blasting effect and their control. In: Hustrulid, W.A. (Ed.),
Underground Mining Methods Handbook. Soc. of Mining Engineers of the American
Inst. of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New York, NY, pp.
1590–1603.
Raina, A.K., Chakraborty, A.K., Ramulu, M., Jethwa, J.L., 2000. Rock mass damage from
underground blasting, a literature review, and lab- and full scale tests to estimate
crack depth by ultrasonic method. Fragblast: Int. J. Blast. Fragment. 4 (2), 103–125.
https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.4.2.103.7449.
Rustan, A., Naarttijarvi, T., Ludvig, B., 1985. Controlled blasting in hard intense jointed
rocks in tunnels. CIM Bull. 78 (884), 63–68.
Singh, S.P., Lamond, R.D., 1993. Investigation of blast damage and underground stability.
In: Peng, S.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Ground Control
in Mining, August 3-5, 1993. Department of Mining Engineering, College of Mineral
and Energy Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV (accessed July 14,
2018).
J.F. Stiehr (Ed.), 2011. ISEE Blasters’ Handbook. 18th ed. International Society of
Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, OH.
Trigueros, E., Cánovas, M., Muñoz, J.M., Cospedal, J., 2017. A methodology based on
geomechanical and geophysical techniques to avoid ornamental stone damage caused
by blast-induced ground vibrations. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 93, 196–200. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.12.013.
Tripathy, G.R., Gupta, I.D., 2002. Prediction of ground vibrations due to construction
blasts in different types of rock. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 35 (3), 195–204. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00603-001-0022-9.
Tunstall, A.M., Djordjevic, N., Villalobos, H.A., 1977. Assessment of rock mass damage
from smooth wall blasting at El Soldado mine, Chile. Trans. Institut. Min. Metall. 106
(A1–50), A42–A46.
Turab, S.A., 2012. Structural Geology of the Surroundings of Muzaffarabad with

17
A. Sharafat, et al.
Emphasis on Neotectonics (MPhil dissertation). University of Peshawar, Pakistan.
Yilmaz, O., Unlu, T., 2014. An application of the modified Holmberg-Persson approach
for tunnel blasting design. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 44, 113–122. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.04.009.
Yu, T., Croxal, J., 1985. Kidd Creek blasthole stopping. In: Proceedings from the
International Symposium on large scale underground mining. Lulea, Sweden, pp.
18
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 93 (2019) 103098
97–106.
Van Eeckhout, E.M., 1987. Controlled Blasting and Its Implications for the NNWSI Project
Exploratory Shaft. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM (accessed July
28, 2018).
Wah Nobel (PVT) Ltd. (2015). Wabox – 80%. Nitroglycerin Based Dynamites. Product
Specifications. Wah Nobel Group of Companies, Wah Cantt, Pakistan.