TUNNELLING RESEARCH

Blast Performance in Small T u n n e l s - - A Critical

Evaluation in Underground Metal Mines
A. K. Chakraborty, P. Pal Roy, J. L. Jethwa, and R. N. Gupta

Abstract--Tunnels can be classified by size as small, medium or large. Blast design parameters and blast
performance are considerably influenced by tunnel size. Though parallel cut is more suitable for a higher
advance in small drivages, wedge cut proved to be more productive than parallel cut in the small drivages
of a manganese mine (no. 1) because of the need for greater charge and more holes per unit of cut area. A double
wedge cut pattern is suggested ~for improved blast results in these d~vages. Analyses of blast results in
around 600m of small rectangular tunnels driven in the host rock and the ore body of two metal mines led
to development of an empirical relation for precise prediction of powder factor and specific drilling with
wedge cut and parallel cut considering rock strength parameter, Q and hole depth.
© 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
KEY WORDS: Small,tunnel, blast performance, cut, strength rating, tunnel blasting index

1.0 Introduction iii) Specific drilling, measured by meterage drilled/m 3

1.1 Drivages in Meta~IMines of broken rock;
iv) Profile, measured by the amount of overbreak/
"orizontal or nearly horizontal tunnels, which m a y

H be called driwlges, are constructed in the host rock

=of metal mines for the construction of haulage
roads and cross-cuts to reach the ore body. Similarly,
tunnels through the ore body, called ore drives and cross
drifts, are constructed for development of stopes. Vertical
or steeply inclined drivages through the host rock are
called shafts, raises and winzes, and are used mainly for
material transportatiLon.
1.2 Classification of Drivages by Size
Drivages can be c:[assified into different categories on
the basis of their cross-sectional area (Table 1).
1.3 Tunnel Blast Performance
Conventional dril]Lingand blasting is most often used
for excavation of tunnels in India and elsewhere. Rapid
and cost-effective excavation, which depends to a great
extent on the blast performance, is essential to avoid time
and cost overruns on underground projects. The blast
performance in the drivages are measured in terms of:
i) Percentage pull-measured as a ratio of pull and the
drilled depth, expressed as a percent;
ii) Powder factor,measured by explosive consumption
(kg)/m 3 of broken rock;
smoothness underbreak expressed as a percent of
the total excavation, or in terms of the "half-cast
factor~, which is the ratio of the total length of half
drillhole marks obtained along the periphery to the
total length of peripheral holes, expressed as a
percent; and
v) Damage to the surrounding rock mass by blast
vibration.
The above parameters jointly contribute to the drivage
rate and the economics of a project.
1.4 Blast Performance in Small Tunnels
1.4.1 Powder factor and specific drilling
According to Langefors and Kihlstrom (1973) and
Olofsson (1990), the powder factor and the specificdrilling
in a tunnel are inversely proportional to the cross-sectional
area (Figs. I and 2). It can be seen in Figures I and 2 that
the powder factor and the specific drillingare very high in
tunnels of cross-sectional area up to 10 m s where the
reduction rate in these parameters is also very great. The
reduction rate is negligibly small in tunnels exceeding a
Table 1. Size-wise classification o f drivages.
i $
S l No. Cross-sectional area Type
of the drivage (m 2)

1 < 10 Small
Present address:A. K. Chakraborty, P. Pal Roy, and J. L. Jethwa, 2 10-35 Medium
Central Mining Research Institute,54 B, Sb~nkar Nagar, Nagpur
440 010,India;R. N. Gupta, Indian SchoolofMines, Dhanbad -826
-

004, India. 3 > 35 Large

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 331-339, 1998
0886.7798/98/S--see front matter c 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Pergamon
All rights reserved.
PII:80886-7798(98)00059-5
35m ~ cross-sectional area. As per Pokrovsky (1980), pow- discussed here, as the hole size remains constant in all the
der factor is dependent not only on the tunnel size but also cases.
on the rock strength (Protodyakonov Index), as well as on
the structure, explosive type and tunnel diameter. Based 1.4.2 Advance per round
on the findings of Whittaker and Frith (1990), an interest-
ing conclusion can be drawn that the rate of reduction in Langefors and Kihlstrom (1973) concluded that the
maximum advance per round with V-cut or fan cut is
specific drilling and powder factor with an increase in
directly dependent on the tunnel size. But in larger tun-
tunnel size is higher in stronger rock than in weaker rock.
nels, if longer advance per round is designed considering
Although the powder factor and specific drilling are also
the tunnel width, the desired percentage pull may not be
influenced by blast hole diameter, this factor will not be

4
°

I=.
o d = diameter of blast hole
c-
o
2
._u
14--
°~
(J

03 d = 5 1 mm
f
d • 38mm

0 ! I _ I .... I . t I | . _ _I.. I . . . . I

0 I0 20 50 4G 50 60 70 80 90 I00
7~lrme! a r e a s m z

Figure 1. Powder factor versus tunnel area.

E6
E
o~
.c: 4
.m
k. d = diameter of blast hole
"O

tj
,',2
03
d = 38 mm
'~d=51mm

0 I I J ... I I ..... I . . . . ! __ I . . . . I . . I

0 10 20 50 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Tunnet area s m 2

F~gure 2. Specific drillLng versus tunnel area (after Olofsson 1990).

332 TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY Volume 13, Number 3, 1998

obtained because of the increased deviation in longer blast
holes. However, the advance per round with parallel cut is
indei)endent of the tunnel size and is estimated, by the
relief hole diameter (Holmberg 1982).
It is evident from the above discussions t h a t blast
results like powder fac,tor and specific drilling are signifi-
cantly higher in small drivages compared to those in
m e d i u m and l a r g e ones. This e s s e n t i a l l y calls for
optimisation of blast design p a r a m e t e r s for cost-effective
blasting in small tunnels. Furthermore, a higher advance
per round in small tunnels required the application of the
parallel cut technique.
Small rectangular horizontal drivages of 2.4 m x 2.1 m
were driven through the footwall rock mass for construc-
tion of haulage road and cross-cuts. Similar drivages were
driven through the ore body for stope preparation. Conven-
tional drill-and-blast with wedge cut and parallel cut was
used for excavation. The blast design parameters and the
blast performances in the drivages through various rock
masses were monitored for a length of about 600 m for a
period of about one year. Experimental blasts were con-
ducted to improve the blast performance in the drivages.
Critical analyses of the blast results are reported below.
2.0 Geology
2.1 Mine 1
The dip of the ore body, called braunite, is 75-85 ° due
south. The ore body is :[2-25 m thick with a 180 ° recumbent
fold, which causes large variations in its thickness. The ore
body is flanked by a low-grade manganiferous quartz
called gondite. It consists of two joint sets, the more
prominent and consistent of which is the one parallel to the
schistocity (80/180). ~I%ejoints are rough to smooth, with
planar surfaces and without any filling material. Barton's
rock mass quality (Q) (Barton et al. 1974) of ore body varies
from 17.41 to 32.05.
The major discontinuities in the footwall are schistocity
planes and two distinct joint sets. Several other random
joints are also present, with wide variation in dip amount
and dip direction. Schistose planes are generally smooth
and planar, but the other joints are rough and planar. The
majority of the joint planes are filled with soft materials
like clay or hard silica. The Q value of the footwaU ranges
from 0.62 to 7.5. These joint sets, when intersecting with
the schistocity planes with a close spacing, form a wedge
which causes overbreak.
The UCS value of the ore and the F/W rock mass varies
from 60 to 180 and from 18 to 46, respectively, in the
investigated 460 m length of the drivage.
2.2 Mine 2
The ore body here i~s also braunite. The joints in the ore
body are smooth and filled with clay. The joints in the F/W
rock mass are planar to undulating, with rough to smooth
surfaces. Clay deposition is observed in these joints. The Q
value of the ore body varies from 0.96 to 1.85, and that in
the F/W rock mass ~raries from 0.15 to 0.91. Thus, the
ground condition can be considered poor to very poor. The
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) value for ore and the
F/W rock mass varie,,; from 60 to 162 and from 50 to 142,
respectively.
3.0 Blasting
3.1 Mine 1
3.1.1 Blasting Practice
Both wedge cut and parallel cut were used in the
drivages. The mine m a n a g e m e n t preferred the wedge cut
(Fig. 3), but the contractor mostly used the four-section
parallel cut (Fig. 4).
Volume 13, Number :3, 1998
3.1.2 Blast Performance
Blast results like pull, powder factor and overbreak
were monitored in the blasts with wedge cut and parallel
cut. The excavated volume (V) in each round was obtained
by measuring the width and height of the opening after the
blast round. In the case of ore drives, the volume of the
broken rock per round was calculated by obtaining the
number of tubs raised. These values were verified from the
ore stock pile. The powder factor and specific drilling were
calculated by dividing the excavated volume by the quan-
tity of explosives consumed and the total metrage drilled,
respectively.
The comparisons between the parallel cut and the wedge
cut with respect to blast design and average blast perfor-
mance are summarised in Table 2. The maximum hole
depth was 1.5 m in both the cases. The explosive used was
Gelatine 80%. It can be seen (Table 2, Part B) that in spite
of a higher advance per round, the parallel cut is less
productive than the wedge cut with respect to powder
factor and specific drilling. This is explained by the fact
that a large number of shot holes and a heavy charge were
required in the cut portion of a parallel cut (Table 2, Part
A), which covered 37.9 percent of the total drivage area. In
contrast, a smaller charge and fewer blast holes were
required in the wedge cut, which covered about 44 per cent
of the opening area.
It can be concluded from the above analyses that:
(i) The parallel cut is less productive than the wedge
cut, the tunnel size is small, and the ratio of cut to
opening area tends to one. The parallel cut should
be more feasible in medium or large tunnels, where
the higher charge quantity and number of blast
holes per unit area in the cut section can be
neutralised by the lower values used in the rest of
the tunnel section.
(ii) For a higher advance per round, a parallel cut is
preferred over a wedge cut in a small tunnel
because the m a x i m u m advance per round with the
wedge cut is limited to the tunnel size.
3.1.3 Trial blast
Because the drivage was small, the angle in the wedge
cut apex was as small as 36 degrees with a 1.5-m blast hole,
which is 0.625 times the width of the opening (Fig. 3).
Consequently, the confinement was high at the cut section,
resulting in poor breakage of the cut. This ultimately
resulted in a low pull of the order of 60 percent of the blast
hole length. Furthermore, implementation of the parallel
cut was a problem because large-diameter drill bits were
less available.
Considering all these factors, a double wedge cut blast
pattern (Fig. 3) was developed to improve the drivage rate
using easily available resources. The double wedge cut
consisted of an additional wedge in the vertical plane that
was fired prior to the main wedge in the horizontal plane
in order to reduce the confinement in the main wedge. This
resulted in (i) better breaking of the cut hole rock mass in
spite of the small apex angle, and, consequently, (ii) higher
pull.
Results of the blast performance comparing the single
wedge cut and double wedge cut pattern are given in Table
3. With a minor increase in powder factor, the double
wedge cut could produce a very high percentage pull and
reduce the specific drilling; hence, it was preferred over the
single wedge cut.
3.2 Mine 2
The blast performance with regard to pull, powder
factor and overbreak was monitored in the drivages through
the 130-m length of F/W rock and 40-m length of the ore
drives. The wedge cut blast pattern used in the drivages is
TUm~LLn~OANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY333
shown in Figure 5. The m a x i m u m hole depth here was reflected as large roof overbreak and deterioration in the
0.75m. Gelatine 80% was used as the explosive. tunnel shape. The overall blast results in those zones
where the roofoverbreak exceeded 10 percent of the width
3.2.3 E f f e c t o f r o c k m a s s p r o p e r t i e s o n p o w d e r f a c t o r were not considered for further analyses. The values rejected
thus represent about 20 percent of the total population.
Generally, the blasting engineers broadly classify the The p f a n d spd values, along with the UCS values of the
rock mass of the underground and surface excavations in sample representing each of the remaining zones, are
various zones based on the overall rock mass nature and shown against the Q values in Table 5.
then design a blast pattern for each zone. Accordingly, the The variations in powder factor and specific drilling
drivages in the F/W and in the ore were divided into various (Table 5) in the drivages of same cross-sectional area with
zones based on the Q values. the same type and size of explosives cannot be explained by
The average powder factor (pf) and specific drilling the approach provided by Langefors and Khilstrom (1973)
(spd) were obtained for each zone. It was revealed t h a t the or by Olofsson (1990).
blast performances in some of the zones were extremely It is also difficult to estimate powder factor by the
erratic. The roof overbreak in these zones was also very Pokrovsky's (1980) approach because of frequent and wide
high, probably because: variation in Q values. Pokrovsky (1980) considered only
(i) Blast patterns in the initial portions of the drivage three types of rock to account for the effect of structure and
were standardised. Moreover, the rock mass here texture: (1) resilient, elastic and porous rock; (2) dislocated
was inconsistently weathered. and irregular rock; and (3) shale and bedding planes
(ii) Drilling was done manually and by different sets of normal to blast holes. Furthermore, he considered that the
drilling crews. Operational error in drilling may effect of hole depth need not be considered, because the
have contributed to erroneous results. increased confinement due to higher depth is neutralised
(iii) No contour blasting practice was adopted. by the reduced bending strength of the rock beam (to be
broken against free face) due to the higher ratio of length
Because the roof rock mass is subjected to minimum (hole depth) to diameter (burden). But the influence of
confinement, any erratic blast result in tunnels is generally increased deviation due to longer holes probably cannot be

Holes in vertical wedge

S-- (missing in single wedge cut )
--,r 0.15m
•,.%.,x~,,, \ , , % v / / / / / / / / x x xx,, \ \ %\ x v /

T °~[I VT °
o-15m

1.5m
s~
I J
E |--

A
. . .
l
~_
.
og

. /
°iiI

I -1" to
m

0 . 4 m -1t'

:
o

0-2m
go

~ . . . . . . 1
/ "-
\o.s= /I I]Zj~_ 0 " 3 m
-#
!i 'ey ~'~ ', ~ I," no ye

!
i
,.6m O~.
b-o-3 m -,t
ye

i errr m° ~--- Re,~toncjular

I j oosninq
:oy2" !I~r v'l o f. ,
!
~.r
. " ~ /. .,~,\ -, , , \ \ \ - < / / / / / , , - f / / ~ - % - , -, \ \ \ \ , ~v//////./-~-,,\ ~\ - , ~ , \ ~ - / / / / F / / , A , - x • •

]4. - - g.42m --~J~ 2.4 m

Section along B-B' Front view

O-15:n
Explo,.ive deloils- ~" O'3m .-.r

V/
Charge /hole = 4 Cartridge of Noblegel 80%
( 125 gin, 25ram x 200ram)
Total charge : 108 Cartridge : 13"5 kg.

Expected pall = 1.4m.

Powder factor : t'91 kg/m 3

Detonators used - 0 to 171" ( 1/2 sac. delay detonator)

/ Section along A*A'
/
V42m

I
i
l
Figure 3. Wedge cut and double wedge cut blast pattern used in mine 1.

334 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY Volume 13, Number 3, 1998

 llellel hole I~I~ '~ Ill m i n i

I /
N,\ / "l/' )
.............. "i " / ....\/
.... ' /
I
0 o I o / 0 1
> 7 6 I "/ 7
/ "i, "" "/--'- T
, o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,L- . . . . . . . /- ....... ,,,
I / / :! " \ / /

I / I "./

0
I
J / "
/
'
'
I" . ' " " /I,' "- %
{$0 /i
5 i / o ..... ~1,'" "/"" "
I / I \ ,%

\ / I III~ ~ . ~ i f ,ill I ",

I / #fO"',.,. I %1) 3 2. ! m
3 (~ I! ol ,'
\ \ I \, ~)4,) / / I
" \ I ,....7,,• ll / / I
\ o .......... o .1.7/ I
0 \2 \ ~': ~" 2 4" .-r II
S

I
• I
"- -" • )m
/ I
\ i I
t"
~/ J_ I ..-
40 4
/
J
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . m ..o. ..- - -- . . . . . 0

7 6 6 It
I,|m /to (1 :
\
l,
].4m it
't-
I
L . _ _ Blest hole I ~ " $1 mini

Delay d e t o n a t o r s : I. II. III - Milll-second delay

1 . 2 .... . Half second delay
Charge ( N o b l e g e l 80%) details:
Delay no Number ol holes Number o! eerirldgeslhole
I 2 4
II 2 4
lU 2 4
t 4 4
2 4 4
3 4 3
4 4 3
5 4 3
6 4 3
y 4 3

Cartridge : Length: 200ram

specifications Dlemeler: 2Smm
'WIIuhI: 12.5 gins

Figure 4. Parallel c,,:t blast pattern used in mine 1.

Volume 13, N u m b e r 3, 1998 TUNNmLLrNGAND UNDEP,GROUNDSPACBTECHNOLOGY385

Table 2. Comparison between the wedge cut and the:parallel .cut.

Sl. Parameter Parallel Wedge Percent reduction

no. cut cut in w e d g e cut

A. Blast D e s i g n

1. Area of cut, m 2 1.91 2.21 (-) 15.7

2. Maximum depth of hole, m 1.5 1.5 Nil

3. Number of holes per round 34+ 24 33.3

2 relief holes

4. Number of holes in cut portion 22+ 14" 41.6

2 (relief holes)

5. Charge per round, kg 14-16 8-10 23.5

6. Charge in cut portion, kg 10 4.2 58

7. Cut area in per cent of opening 37.9 44 (-) 16

8. Drilling convenience and accuracy High Low

B. Blast P e r f o r m a n c e

8. Percentage pull 75 60 20

9. Average powder factor, kg/m 3 Rock: 2.12 1.76 16.98

Ore: 2.733 2.38 13

10. Specific drilling, I ~ m 3 8.99 7.93 11.8

11. Degree of fragmentation Finer Coarser

* Including the easers

Table 3. Comparison of average blast performance between single and double wedge cut pattern.

S1. Parameter Single Double I m p r o v e m e n t (%)

no. wedge cut wedge cut in d o u b l e w e d g e cut

Blast D e s i g n

1. Number of holes/round 24 27 (-) 12.5

2. Charge/round (kg) 9 13.5 (-) 5O

Blast R e s u l t s

3. Percentage pull 60 90 (+) 30

4. Powder factor (kg/m3) 1.76 1.98 (-) 12.5

5. Specific drilling (m/m3) 7.93 5.95 (+) 25

336 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY Volume 13, Number 3, 1998

Table 4. Strength rating (SR). ignored. Langefors and Kihlstrom (1973) considered the
effect of deviation for design of advance per round, as
U n i a x i a l c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (MPa) discussed in section 1.4.2.
Initially, Chakraborty et al. (1994) related the tunnel
From Te, Sit powder factor to Barton's Rock Mass Quality (Q), consider-
ing t h a t tunnel blast performance is maximally influenced
1 10 1 by the structure and texture of the rock mass. The effect of
10 20 5 strength was not considered in this approach. Jurgenson
and Chung (1987), Singh (1991) and others found t h a t the
20 t;0 10 blast performance is influenced directly by the overall
30 40 20 formational strength of the host rock. The concept of a
Tunnel Blasting Index (TBI) to indicate the blast-induced
40 50 40
tunnel rock mass failure strength was developed subse-
50 100 60 quently, considering both Q and strength criteria. Accord-
100 200 80 ingly, the concept of TBI was suggested by Chakraborty et
al. (1997) for a precise prediction of powder factor in
tunnels.

Table 5. Rock mass and blast performance details in various zones

Zone Q UCS Sit TBI pf spd Remarks

No. (MPa) (kg/m s) ( m / m s)

1 "6.875 41 40 46.875 1.95 7.8 Mine 1,

wedge cut,
2 2.73 45 40 42.73 1.7 6.8 F/W

3 0.75 42 40 40.75 1.8 7.2 Same as

above
4 2.55 18 5 7.55 1.6 7.4

5 2.11 46 40 42.11 1.9 7.6

6 17.41 110 80 97.41 2.1 8.4 Ore body

7 17.41 110 80 97.4 2.65 9.01 Mine 1,

parallel
8 22.86 60 60 82.86 2.5 8.5 cut, o r e
body
9 28 150 80 108 2.7 9.78
Same as
l0 32.05 180 80 112.05 3.15 10.71 above

11. 6.875 41 40 46.875 2.3 7.82 F/W

12 0.31 110 80 80.31 1.44 5.28 Mine 2,

wedge cut,
12; 0.91 120 80 80.91 1.57 5.756 F/W

14, 0.69 110 80 80.69 1.46 5.353

Same as
15 0.42 90 60 60.42 1.33 4.876 above

16 0.91 120 80 80.91 1.48 5.426

17 0.31 100 60 60.31 1.38 5.06

18 0.21 142 80 80.21 1.3 4.766

lC~ 0.69 120 80 80.69 1.45 5.31

20 0.96 90 60 60.96 1.396 5.124 Mine 2,

wedge cut,
21. 1.32 162 80 81.32 1.7 6.25 ore body

22', 1.44 60 60 61.44 1.43 5.254 Same as

above
2~', 1.85 110 80 81.85 1.423 5.22

Volume 13, Number 3, 1998 TUNSZLLn~GANDUNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY837

Figure 5. Blast pattern practised in mine 2. (Figure not to scale)

I_ 2.4m , I
V [ I'L l.Om

I
I
I
I 0.75m
I
I
I

, - 1.2m - ,-

Section along A-A 0.45m

Blast hole

III

Front View

Other details:
Type of explosive: Gelatine 80% Depth of hole: 0.9 m, cut holes; 0.75 m, other holes
Charge per hole = 300 gin in cut holes; 150 gm in other holes Total charge per round: 4.5 kg
Number of holes per round: 20 z, I = Long delay detonators

338 ~ L L m G AND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY Volume 13, Number 3, 1998

 TBI is the addition of two indices such as Rock Mass
Quality (Q), which indicates the texture and structure of
tunnel rock mass, and Strength Rating (SR), which was
developed by the authors for U C S values ranging .between
1 and 100 MPa. TBI actually indicates the blast-induced
tunnel rock mass failurestrength that can be applied to the
anisotropic rock masJs condition as well. The U C S values
were not directlyapplied for predictivemodel development
because ofinsufficientknowledge ofthe degree ofinfluence
of various strength parameters (e.g.tensile, shear, com-
pressive,dynamic tensile,dynamic compressive) on tunnel
blasting. However, the U C S values were considered for
assigning strength ratings because its laboratory evalua-
tion is very convenient. The strength ratings (SR) indicate
the formations resistance to blast-induced failure.
Chakraborty et al. (1997) found that this index could be
very precisely correlated with the tunnel powder factor
even in complex geologicalconditions such as mixed strata.
The S R values proposed earlierfor U C S ranges of 1-100
M P a (Chakraborty et al. 1997) n o w could be further modi-
fied and extended for U C S values up to 200 MPa, based on
the above case studies (Table 4).
The TBI values can be well correlated with powder
factor and specificdrilling obtained from the parallel as
well as the wedge cut, as shown below:
p~w) = 2.137 + 0.0054 TBI - (0.82/HD) ...... (1)
(r2= 0.854)
pf(p) = 1.753 + 0.1 TBI ...... (2)
(r 2 = 0.717)
spd(w) = 9.03 + 0.0212 T B I - (4.155/HD) ...... (3)
(r 2 = 0.91)
spd(p) = 5.96 + 0.344 TBI ...... (4)
(r 2 = 0.717)
where
pf(w) -- p o w d e r factor w i t h wedge cut, k g / m 3
pf(p) = p o w d e r factor w i t h p a r a l l e l cut, kg/m 3
spd(w) = specific d r i l l i n g w i t h w e d g e cut, m / m 3
spd(p) = specific d r i l l i n g w i t h p a r a l l e l cut, m/m 3
HD = d e p t h of r o u n d (m), a n d
r2= i n d e x of d e t e r m i n a t i o n .
Because p a r a l l e l cut w a s u s e d only in m i n e 1, t h e
influence of hole d e p t h on e i t h e r p o w d e r factor or specific
d r i l l i n g could not be assessed. The i n d e x of d e t e r m i n a t i o n
in p o w d e r factor a n d specific d r i l l i n g p r e d i c t o r e q u a t i o n s
(see eq. (3) a n d (5)) w a s t h e s a m e b e c a u s e of such l i m i t a -
tion. However, b a s e d on t h e r e s u l t s u s i n g wedge cut, i t can
be well p r e d i c t e d tlhat t h e p o w d e r factor a n d specific
d r i l l i n g should v a r y d i r e c t l y w i t h hole d e p t h in t h e case of
p a r a l l e l cut as well.
4.0 Conclusions
T u n n e l size influences b l a s t p e r f o r m a n c e factors such as
t h e powder factor a n d specific drilling, a n d t h e degree of
i n f l u e n c e is v e r y h i g h in t h e c a s e of s m a l l t u n n e l s .
O p t i m i s a t i o n of b l a s t p a r a m e t e r s in such t u n n e l s is t h e r e -
fore e s s e n t i a l for cost-effective tunnelling. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s in
r e c t a n g u l a r drivages of 5.04 m 2cross-section driven t h r o u g h
footwall (F/W) rock m a s s a n d ore drives in two m a n g a n e s e
mines r e v e a l some i m p o r t a n t inferences. L i m i t a t i o n s iden-
tified in wedge cut v~ad p a r a l l e l cut in s m a l l t u n n e l s led to
the d e v e l o p m e n t of a double wedge cut p a t t e r n to achieve a
h i g h e r pull w i t h i m p r o v e d productivity.
The t o t a l d r i v a g e l e n g t h u n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .was di-
vided into v a r i o u s zones b a s e d on t h e Q values. S t r e n g t h
Volume 13, N u m b e r 3, 1998
R a t i n g s (SR) w e r e p r o v i d e d for different U C S values,
o b t a i n e d from t h e s a m p l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e zones, to
i n d i c a t e t h e r e s i s t a n c e to b l a s t - i n d u c e d failure. TBI (Tun-
nel B l a s t i n g Index) v a l u e s w e r e o b t a i n e d b y a d d i t i o n of Q
a n d S R v a l u e s . A v e r a g e p o w d e r factor a n d specific d r i l l i n g
from 23 zones could be well r e l a t e d w i t h TBI a n d hole
depth.
F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d to include more
v a r i a b l e s , such a s t u n n e l size, b l a s t hole d i a m e t e r , r e l i e f
hole d i a m e t e r , a n d explosive type, in t h e e m p i r i c a l model
to m a k e it more precise a n d v e r s a t i l e .
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Director, Central Min-
ing Research Institute for permission to publish this pa-
per. The authors are thank the management and staffof
Manganese Ore (1)Ltd. for help in conducting this study.
Help receivedfrom Dr. A.K. Raina, Scientist,CMRI, Nagpur
is gratefully acknowledged. The study is a part of the
grant-in-aid project sponsored by the Ministry of Water
Resources, Government of India.
References
Barton, N., Lien, L. and Lunde, J. 1974. Analysis of rock mass
quality and support practice in tunnelling, and a guide for
estimating support requirements. Internal Report of the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Oslo, Norway), 6-9.
Chakraborty, A. K,, Jethwa, J.L. and Dhar, B. B. 1997. Predicting
powder factor in mixed-face condition: development of a
correlation based on investigations in a tunnel through basaltic
flows. Engineering Geology 47, 31--41.
Chakraborty, A. K., Neogy, M.B. and Jethwa, J. L. 1996. Blasting
in small drivages--criticalevaluation in an underground metal
mine. Proc. National Seminar on Drilling and Blasting,
Bhubaneswar, Sept. 20-21, 1996, 47-53.
Chakraborty, A. K. et al. 1996. "Improving the drivage rate of
development headings in Balaghat and Chikla mines, MOIL."
CMRI Project Report No. GC/N/1/96, submitted to Manganese
Ore (I) Ltd.
Chakraborty, A. K.; Jethwa, J. L.; and Paithankar, A. G. 1994.
Assessing the effects ofjoint orientation and rock mass quality
on fragmentation and overbreak in tunnel blasting. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 9:4, 471-482.
Hagan, T. N. 1992. "Safe and cost-efficient drilling and blasting
for tunnels, caverns, shafts and raises in India." Manual
prepared by Golder Associates Pty. Ltd., Australia and Central
Soil and Material Research Station, India, (September 1992),
7.1-7.3.
Holmberg, R. 1982. Charge calculations for tunnelling.
Underground Mining Methods Handbook, 1580-1589. New
York: Society of Mining Engineers, American Inst. of Mining
Met. & Pet. Eng.
Jurgenson, G. K. and Chung, S. H. 1987. Blast simulation surface
and underground with the SABREX Model. CIM Bulletin 80:
904 (August), 37-41.
Langefors, U. and Kihlstrom, B. 1973. The Modern Technique of
Rock Blasting, 180-256. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
National I n s t i t u t e of Rock Mechanics. 1995. Report on
geomechanical and geotechnical properties of wall rocks and
ore body at deeper levels of MOIL underground mines, Kolar
Gold Fields, 10-14.
Olofsson, S. O. 1990. Applied explosives technology for construction
and mining, 131-135. Sweden: Applex.
Pokrovsky, N. M. 1980. Driving Horizontal Workings and Tunnels,
38--41. Moscow: Mir Publishers.
Singh, D. P. 1991. Effect of physico-mechanical properties of
rocks on drilling and blasting operations in underground
drivage. Presented at a Workshop on Tunnels, Mine Roadways
and Caverns, Ooty, India, September, 1991, IV-63-IV-68.
Whittaker, B. N. and Frith, R. C. (1990). Tunnelling Design,
Stability and Construction, 460. London: Inst. of Mining and
Metallurgy.
TUNNSLLINa AND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY339