Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01822-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Influence of Joint Conditions and Blast Design on Pre‑split Blasting

Using Response Surface Analysis
A. K. Raina1 

Received: 20 August 2018 / Accepted: 20 April 2019

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Blasting is a major method of excavation in mining, civil construction and infrastructure projects. The integrity of the
rockmass of the final wall after excavation is important for the stability and economics of the operation. Perimeter blasting
achieves a planned surface of the rockmass. The pre-split is one such technique, deployed when there is no free face and, thus,
involving several interactions of rockmass properties, including strength, joint spacing and joint orientation, with respect
to blastholes, blast design, explosive configuration, blasthole deviations and other variables. The mechanism and models of
the pre-split are perfunctory, particularly in defining interactions of pre-splitting variables. The basis of pre-splitting vis-à-
vis dominant variables affecting performance is, accordingly, discussed here. Since the half cast factor, generally used for
damage assessment, has its limitations, the index of blast damage has been compared while modelling performance. Models
using response surface analysis for pre-splitting, for both blast damage index and half cast factor, were developed using
historical data. The angle of the blasthole with respect to the major joint orientation, spacing of the joints, blasthole spacing,
drill deviation, linear charge concentration and compressive strength has been used to compare the above-mentioned dam-
age criteria. Blast damage index has been found to be a better predictor for determining rockmass damage due to blasting.
The desirability of the variables deployed has been determined using optimization procedures. A fresh impetus to pre-split
studies is expected to provide a ground for future research, particularly studies using advanced computational and numeri-
cal algorithms.

Keywords  Blast damage · Perimeter blasting · Contour blasting · Rock properties · Joint orientation · Response surface
analysis

List of Symbols pb Estimated blasthole pressure

Sj/Sb Ratio of joint spacing to pre-split hole spacing
f(Sj/Sb) Resolved values of Sj/Sb
qlc Linear charge concentration (kg/m)
θ Angle of inclination of blasthole between
blasthole and major joint orientation in radians
δdd Drill deviation
σc Unconfined uniaxial compressive strength
(weighted average) also referred to as UCS or
uniaxial compressive strength of the rock
σt Tensile strength of intact rock
σtd Dynamic tensile strength estimated from com-
pressive strength
dh Blasthole diameter
* A. K. Raina
rainaji@cimfr.nic.in
1
CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Unit‑I,
Telangkhedi Area, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 006, India
pn Normal component of blasthole pressure
pt Tangential component of blasthole pressure
vmax Peak particle velocity
ρr Density of rock
vp p-Wave velocity of rock
k Rock constant
IBD @1m Blast damage index calculated at 1 m from
blasthole and HCF% is half cast factor
percentage
1 Introduction
Blasting is the preferred method of rock breakage in civil
and other rock engineering projects. There are several rea-
sons for the preference. One is the fact that blasting exploits
the tensile strength of the rock during breakage. In addi-
tion, ease of operation and cost-effectiveness, barring the

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A. K. Raina
handling of explosives, make blasting more popular. There
are, however, several side effects of blasting. Apart from
vibrations, air overpressure, flyrock and fumes, blasting also
results in damage to the parent rock that may extend to sev-
eral diameters of the blasthole. To avoid damage to the par-
ent rock, several methods have been devised that fall into the
category of perimeter blasting. These include pre-splitting,
contour blasting and buffer or trim blasting (Jimeno 1995;
Hustrulid 1999). The methods have been used in various
types of excavations, from underground to surface, to pro-
duce a smooth wall or to create slopes that are more stable
than those produced by production blasting. Pre-splitting is
a special blasting technique to achieve smooth rock surfaces.
Pre-split blastholes are drilled at predefined spaces, charged
with carefully planned amounts of explosive and fired before
the production holes are exploded.
Mainstream theories of blasting, as applied to pre-split
blasting, are based on the premise that there is an initial
shock loading that creates a fracture between pre-split holes
and that is further extended or widened by gas pressures.
The debate on the role of shock and gas from explosive deto-
nation in rock breakage is still ongoing as summarised by
Minchinton and Lynch (1996). Prima facie, the mechanism
appears to be simple but things are much more complex in
nature. There are inherent rock properties and blast-induced
effects that finally define the outcome of the pre-split.
As of today, there are around 200 references in the pub-
lic domain (e.g. Google Scholar) and 270 references in the
private domain (ISEE online Reference Database) where
pre-split or pre-splitting finds mention in the title or text of
published papers that pertain to different aspects and case
studies of pre-split blasting. A comprehensive literature
review, including the mechanics of blast damage, methods
of measurement, damage prediction methods, classification
systems and advantages of damage control, has been pro-
vided by Raina et al. (2000). Verma et al. (2018) reviewed
damage induced by blasting and developed new models for
predicting the same. Xiao et al. (2018) observed that the sta-
bility of rock structures depends on the method of excavation
and is time dependent.
Sun (2013) compiled details of at least 16 models of ana-
lytical nature that are currently used to determine the zone
of damage due to blasting. However, none of these models
involves travelling shear waves despite evidence that sug-
gests that damage to rockmass is primarily dependent on
these waves (Blair 2010).
Kutter and Fairhurst (1971) concluded that the spacing
and firing time of pre-split blastholes determine the per-
formance of the split along the centre line connecting such
holes. Konya (1980) observed that pre-split fractures were
formed as a result of gas pressure and stress waves contrib-
uted little to this process. In addition, he reported that instan-
taneous firing of blastholes was not necessary and a delay of
13
less than 25 ms between blastholes produced good results.
Worsey (1984) concluded that quasi-static gas pressure is
a major reason for pre-splitting and that fractures intersect
discontinuities in the rock approximately at right angles,
indicating that joint orientation results in a geometric effect
on final face profiles. Tariq and Worsey (1995) conclude that
an open joint behaves like a free face and, hence, the spac-
ing of the blastholes in jointed rocks has a major impact on
the formation of split lines. Szuladzinski and Saleh (1996)
stress the role of tensile strength, and favour a quasi-static
approach to the formation of a split line over the dynamic
approach. However, it may be pointed out that many theo-
ries of pre-split formation are based on two-dimensional
static models and, hence, arguments that use the quasi-static
mechanism to explain anything in blasting are questionable
(Blair 2015).
One of the main reasons for such assumptions may be the
simplification of analytical results as, in quasi-static theo-
ries, equations of equilibrium are used to replace equations
of motion to avoid complexity in modelling. Inertial forces,
rate-dependent material behaviour and reflected stress waves,
forming parts of the dynamic system, are, thus, ignored in
such quasi-static approaches (Anderson 1995). Blair (2003)
pointed out that the two-dimensional dynamic theory pre-
dicts that the tensile component of hoop stress is of lower
magnitude and is unlikely to produce pre-split formation.
The only way to achieve a tensile stress of the magnitude
to achieve a pre-split would be to introduce a nearby reflec-
tor, preferably parallel to the split line. Minchinton (2011)
used the two-dimensional, dynamic model of Minchinton
and Lynch (1996) which included gas flow, crack forma-
tion and growth, and verified that pre-splits cannot form in
an extended medium without nearby reflectors. Dyskin and
Galybin (2000), however, arrived at conclusions that are the
opposite of the findings of Minchinton (2011), and point to
the fact that quasi-static model predictions can be mislead-
ing as the method overestimates the tensile component of
hoop stress.
Damage to rockmass due to blasting is primarily deter-
mined by charge diameter and, hence, by peak particle
velocity owing to the strain generated, rock tensile strength,
rock impedance, blasthole spacing and rockmass being
blasted. The analysis of vibrations by Blair (2015) showed
that, despite scatter in the data, the vibration reduction fac-
tor across the pre-splits was around 40% pointing to the fact
that the pre-split was a thin damage zone rather than a plane
pre-split as conceived generally.
The spacing, aperture and orientation of joints in a rock-
mass in relation to the pre-split line have a significant impact
on the profile of the final wall obtained after the split (Singh
2001). Drilling error is one of the main factors in such cases.
However, owing to the complexity of the problem and model-
ling constraints, there are very few publications addressing
Influence of Joint Conditions and Blast Design on Pre‑split Blasting Using Response Surface…
the role of rock joints on the pre-split. Damage is more prom-
inent at the open surface due to lack of confinement. Lewan-
dowski et al. (1996) while studying coal mine overburden
concluded that, with pre-split, quality decreased, notably with
increased joint frequency and orientation of 5°–30° with pre-
split holes. The solid angle subtended by the pre-split holes
finds no mention in research as it complicates calculations.
This reduces the problem to a two-dimensional one.
Despite many case studies and a few empirical models for
blast-induced damage to rockmass, a comprehensive model
incorporating rock, explosive, joints and their disposition
vis-à-vis drill hole orientation, and drilling variables is lack-
ing. Moreover, most models for blast-induced damage to the
rockmass do not address the interactions of the variables
involved and their behaviour in space. This formed the basis
of this research with an intention to lay a foundation for
future investigations for evolving a comprehensive model
to predict and optimise procedures. With modern day com-
putational and instrumentation capabilities, it is incumbent
on the research fraternity to deploy more resources for the
exact understanding of the pre-split process. Accordingly,
this effort is practically an initiative for future research and
development to fully understand the interaction of variables
during the pre-split process.
2 Study Area, Variables and Data
Presentation
To ascertain the role of different rockmass and blast design
variables on pre-split blasting results, a rationale was devel-
oped for such analysis on the basis of existing literature and
historical data. The data for the study were generated at a
hydropower project in India where significant pre-splitting
was conducted. The selected site had four major areas of
excavation that are defined as under.
1. Power house area on the right bank of a river with a high
wall of 30–35 m height.
2. Shear key trench on the bedrock in the foundation area of
the dam, the walls of which were designed to be inclined
at an angle of 45° with a vertical depth of 3.5 m.
3. Key trenches connected with shear key but with vertical
walls and a depth of 3.5 m.
4. Tail race channel with mildly inclined walls.
The factors involved in the interactions presented here can
be broadly classified into rockmass, blast design and drilling.
These are regarded as independent variables and are taken as
input. Half cast factor and blast damage index are dependent
in nature. Such variables were determined at the above site
during the excavation and are detailed below.
2.1 Geology of the Dam Area
The rock formation seen in this area revealed composite for-
mation of limestone, quartzite and shale bands. The salient
details of the formations at various workings are as follows:
1. The rock formation in the power house area is hard com-
posite limestone and shale.
2. The dam foundation and stilling basin area expose alter-
nate layers of thinly bedded shale and quartzite with
moderate joint spacing.
3. The lower portions of the power house (50–33 level) are
composed of thinly layered shale, olive green shale and
quartzite with mild water seepage.
4. The joints are highly disturbed at the top 10–15 m as was
evident from an excavation done earlier. Solution cavi-
ties and worn-out joint faces were clearly visible during
the initial phases of excavation.
5. Three major joint sets are exposed in the area, out of
which the bedding joint is horizontal and the other two
joints are vertical and intersect each other at around 80°–
90°. The disposition of joints in the quartzite formation
as observed on the surface is provided in Fig. 1.
The three joints exposed in the area of study have simi-
lar attitude in all the litho-units visible in the study area.
Quartzite and limestone exposed in the area show moder-
ately spaced joints while shale is thinly laminated.
2.2 Engineering Properties of Intact Rocks
Different engineering properties of the rockmass were
observed in the field using standard methods. Data about
intact rock were acquired from an analysis of core samples
acquired from rocks in the area. The engineering properties
used in the analysis are provided in Table 1.
Fig. 1  Disposition of joints in quartzite observed in the area
13
13
Table 1  Engineering properties of the rocks
Serial no. Sample no. Rock type Direc- Uniaxial compres- Average uniaxial P-wave S-wave Density (g/cm3) Shear Young’s Poisson’s ratio
tion w.r.t sive strength compressive strength velocity velocity modulus modulus
sample (MPa) (MPa) (km/s) (km/s) (GPa) (GPa)

1 46 Black shale Across 6.6 1.4 2.14 4.1 12.1 0.5

2 46 Black shale Along 47.1 3.2 1.6 2.14 5.5 14.6 0.3
3 46 Black shale Along 69.1
4 46 Black shale Along 119.4
5 46 Black shale Along 161.8 99.4
6 250 Dark quartzite Across 104.7 6.6 2.1 0.4
7 262 Dark quartzite Across 22.3 5.1 2 0.4
8 2 Dark quartzite Across 66 64.3 5.1 1.3 2.53 4.5 13.0 0.5
9 250 Dark quartzite Along 96.7 5.2 1.2 1.98 2.7 8.1 0.5
10 262 Dark quartzite Along 27.4 4.5 2.2 2.32 11.5 30.8 0.3
11 2 Dark quartzite Along 30.6 2.89
12 262B Dark quartzite Along 42.4 49.3
13 11 Dark red limestone Across 16.3 5.3 2.2 0.4
14 8 Dark red limestone Across 40.9 28.6 7.2 2.5 0.4
15 11 Dark red limestone Along 59.4 6.8 2.1 2.79 12.5 36.2 0.4
16 8 Dark red limestone Along 70.3 7.3 1.7 2.39 7.3 21.3 0.5
17 8 Dark red limestone Along 131.8 87.2 1.9
18 89 Grey shale Across 10.4
19 90 Grey shale Across 12.8 4.2 2.2 0.3
20 88 Grey shale Across 31.9 18.4 5.2 2.1 0.4
21 89 Grey shale Along 152 2.3
22 90 Grey shale Along 28.1 2.8 1.2 2.61 3.5 9.8 0.4
23 88 Grey shale Along 85.7 88.6 2.9 1.4 1.96 4.1 10.8 0.3
24 OG shale Olive green shale Along 98.1 98.1 2.73 0.0
25 61 Yellow shale Across 8.5 8.5 3.4 0.9 0.5
26 61 Yellow shale Along 52.7 2.1 0.4 2.18 0.3 0.8 0.5
27 61B Yellow shale Along 92.1 72.4 2.24
A. K. Raina
Influence of Joint Conditions and Blast Design on Pre‑split Blasting Using Response Surface…

2.3 Definitions of Input, Output Variables the final wall during the pre-split. The proximity of the blast-
and Rationale hole to the joints defining wedges precludes the possibility
of achieving smooth surfaces after blasting. Even if only
The terminology used in the data and analysis is provided the major joint is considered, its orientation vis-à-vis the
below. blasthole orientation is no longer simple but presents a solid
Rock Strength Strength of rock primarily determines angle that is further complicates modelling. To simplify the
failure under dynamic loading conditions. Since the com- analysis, the angle between joint orientation and blasthole
pressive and tensile strengths of a material are related, new (θ) was resolved into a linear parameter by standardising the
fracturing is also determined by the property. Despite the angle in radians.
fact that the in situ strength of the rockmass has varying To understand the role of joints in pre-split and to lay
strengths owing to discontinuities and their conditions, we a foundation for future modelling, simple mechanisms of
rely on intact rock strength to predict pre-split performance. damage to rockmass are defined, keeping in view the main
Pre-split Hole Spacing The blasthole spacing used for focus of the paper. Two main conditions are presented here.
the pre-split line is defined in several texts and can be deter-
mined by the following method after Sanden (1974), Calder Condition 1  Major joint at right angles to pre-split blasthole.
(1977) and Chiappetta (1991):
[ ] In this condition, it is assumed that the major joint is
pb + 𝜎 t
Sb ≤ 2dh , (1) oriented perpendicular to the pre-split blasthole. Two com-
𝜎t ponents of the pressure generated in the blasthole are con-
where Sb is the spacing between the pre-split holes, dh is the sidered as acting at right angles to the blasthole and are
diameter of the blasthole, pb is blasthole pressure (approxi- called the normal (pn) and tangential pressures (pt) as shown
mated from velocity of detonation and density of explosive) in Fig. 2. All other faces are highly confined and the only
and σt is the tensile strength of the rock. unconfinement is on the top face that represents the open
Drill and Charge Diameter A drill with 115 mm diameter surface of the rock.
and charge diameter of 25 mm was used in all the pre-split As can be observed in Fig. 2, the orientation of the joints
blasts and can thus be treated as constant. Drill deviation favours damage and high-pressure gases can penetrate the
(δdd) from planned to actual was calculated from the meas- joints, resulting in unwanted breakage, particularly in near-
ured data and absolute values were used for the analysis. surface operations. Two real-time examples in support of
Joint Spacing Joint spacing (Sj) is a major factor influenc- the above assertion, obtained from the current study area,
ing pre-split. It is generally believed that larger joint spacing are given in Figs. 3 and 4.
yields better results while smaller spacing may not yield A series of interactions of the joints with incipient pres-
good results in pre-splitting. However, the case may be dif- sures can be observed in Figs. 3 and 4. These range from dam-
ferent with change in angle of inclination of blasthole with age to the top surface, mobilisation of primary and second-
respect to joint orientation. Joint spacing and hole spacing ary joints, wedging, block loosening and ploughing of rock
(Sb) data showed strong correlation and, to avoid aliasing
S
during modelling, a ratio of S j was used. In addition, the ratio
b
Sj
Sb
was further resolved into a linear form by deploying a
S S
simple spherical function, S j = 34 𝜋r3 , where S j is the volume
b b
of the equivalent sphere with radius r.
Linear Charge Concentration (qlc) The variable is very
important in the case of pre-splitting as the amount of explo-
sive used per linear metre defines the pressures that are
exerted on the walls of blastholes. A general practice is to
use fully decoupled charges and, hence, the decoupling ratio
plays a major role in defining the final output of blasts. In
the present case, explosive and drill diameters were uniform.
Hence, the decoupling ratio was also constant.
Joint Orientation Joint orientation is a complex issue in
blasting as explosive pressures interact on all planes and in
all dimensions. Thus, pre-splitting outcome can be strongly
influenced by their disposition in space. The orientation of Fig. 2  Normal and tangential pressures acting on joint planes (blast-
minor joints also plays a vital role in defining the shape of hole is oriented perpendicular to the major joint

13
 A. K. Raina

Fig. 3  Results of pre-splitting when a major joint is oriented perpen-

dicular to a blasthole (example 1)

Fig. 5  Normal and tangential pressures acting on joint planes (blast-

hole is oriented at 45° to the major joint

Fig. 4  Results of pre-splitting when a major joint is oriented perpen-

dicular to a blasthole (example 2)

fragments about joint intersections. One major observation in

this case is that despite high HCF% percentage, i.e. > 90%, the
damage zone in the rock is deep. This observation also sug-
gests that HCF% may not be a good index of pre-split blasting
Fig. 6  Results of the pre-split blast where blasthole is inclined at 45°
efficiency as is also proved later by the results of analysis.
to the major joint

Condition 2  Major joint at 45° to pre-split blasthole.

In this condition, it is assumed that the major joint is

oriented at 45° to the pre-split blasthole. Again, the two
components of the pressure generated in the blasthole are
considered to act at right angles to the blasthole and are
called the normal (pn) and tangential pressures (pt) as shown
in Fig. 5. All other faces are highly confined and the only
unconfinement is on the top face that represents an open
surface of the rock as shown in Fig. 5.
From Fig. 5, it is observed that tangential pressures are
acting in a compressive manner and the expanding gases
are not able to open up the joints, resulting in damage. The
damage zone in this case is significantly reduced or practi-
cally absent. The effect is also demonstrated and supported Fig. 7  Contrast in results when blasthole is oriented 45° and 90° to
by Figs. 6 and 7. the major joint

13
Influence of Joint Conditions and Blast Design on Pre‑split Blasting Using Response Surface…

A close examination of Figs. 6 and 7 reveals that, despite
the presence of closely spaced joints and deviation in drill-
ing, damage to the parent rock is minimal. Figure 7 provides
further insight into the role of the orientation of the joints on
pre-splitting by contrasting the performance of the pre-split
in 45°- and 90°-oriented blastholes, particularly when Sj/
Sb < 1. One of the observations from the figure is that joint
orientation has a major influence on pre-splitting perfor-
mance. This is established through the analysis in the fol-
lowing text, also.
Half Cast Factor Pre-split performance is generally
measured in terms of half cast factor (HCF%), the ratio of
visible half casts to total drill length. HCF% is very popu-
lar, simple and easy to calculate. However, HCF% does not
work below 40% and does not consider deeper damage to
rockmass leading to under- or over-estimation of the dam-
age. Even a 100% value of HCF% does not mean that the
rockmass is not damaged at all, as demonstrated above.
The observation thus presents a significant gap between
rockmass damage result assessment and interpretation, and
model development.
Index of Blast Damage (IBD; Yu and Vongpaisal 1996)
was used as a measure of damage assessment. Although the
index requires several variables for calculation, it is worth-
while, considering the importance of blasting near perma-
nent structures. Damage in terms of IBD was calculated at
a distance of 1 m from the blasthole from the following
equation:
Vmax × 𝜌r × vP
IBD = , (2)
k × 𝜎td
3 Pre‑split Blast Data
The pre-split design for the proposed final line of excavation
was made with the help of Eq. 1. The rest of the production
holes were designed with the standard blast design used in
open cut or wedge cut designs as per the requirements. Half
cast factor (HCF%) for blasted rock was calculated with the
help of digital image analysis software, Fragalyst 4.2©, in
which digital images of the blasted surface were acquired,
calibrated and the lengths of half casts were measured and
logged. Since HCF% is a ratio, scale effects arising from
image analysis are eliminated. The results of the tests in
limestone formation without pre-splitting are given in Fig. 8.
Figure 8 shows two major joints in limestone crossing
each other at around 90° that have led to the formation of
wedges and resulted in damage to the rockmass and the
production of irregular surfaces due to blasting as no pre-
splitting was designed in the area. The pre-split results of
the high wall (approx. 30 m high) in the powerhouse are
shown in Fig. 9.
As is seen in Figs. 9 and 10, the surface of the final wall is
quite smooth and cut along the desired line of interest. Some

where vmax is the peak vector sum of ground vibration

(mm/s) calculated from the vibration regression equation
obtained from field tests, ρr density of rock (g/cm3), vp
weighted p-wave velocity of rock in m/s, k the strength of
rock obtained from rockmass rating and σtd is the dynamic
Fig. 9  Final wall shape with pre-splitting in limestone formation
tensile strength of the rock calculated from uniaxial com-
pressive strength using the method of Mohanty (1987).

Fig. 10  Final wall shape with pre-splitting in limestone and shale for-

Fig. 8  Final wall shape without pre-splitting in limestone formation mations

13
 A. K. Raina
Fig. 11  The shape of shear key as excavated using pre-split blasting
Fig. 12  Overall picture of the dam foundation area showing shear key
and key trenches
damage to the rock can be seen in the collar region (top)
owing to least confinement and ploughing of rock across
the major joints.
Figure 10 also shows damage to the wall rock in the col-
lar regions of the bench that can be attributed to weathered
or disturbed formation at the top and ploughing due to the
placement of blastholes in the area where vertical joints
intersect.
The final shape of the pre-split blast and the formation of
a shear key in shale formation are shown in Fig. 11.
Figure 11 indicates that the pre-split was performed as
planned and was controlled particularly owing to favourable
blasting and joint conditions. The overall picture of blasting
in the area showing shear key and key trenches excavated
with the use of pre-splitting is depicted in Fig. 12.
Figure 12 shows that the performance of pre-split in the
shear key area was better than that in the key trenches despite
being in the same formation. The damage to the rockmass
was controlled by the disposition of the joints with respect
to the blasthole direction.
13
Measurements for the input variables of 265 pre-split
blastholes were made and data were compiled for further
analysis. An initial analysis was done with the help of artifi-
cial neural networking (ANN; Raina et al. communicated).
The importance and sensitivity of all the variables measured
in the field were worked out with the help of ANN. The
most important and sensitive variables determined by ANN
were selected for statistical analysis and modelling of blast-
induced damage to rockmass. Averages of the variables thus
selected for further analysis are given in Table 2.
4 Data Analysis
Response surface method or analysis (RSA) is a statistical
technique to trace the relationship(s) in space between sev-
eral explanatory variables and one or more response vari-
ables. The method, introduced by Box and Wilson (1951),
aims to use designed experiments to obtain a response that
is optimal. However, with RSA, it is also possible to ana-
lyse historical data from tests. DesignExpert is software that
uses the RSA technique to develop models. The software
helps find relationships between independent and dependent
variables in three-dimensional space through the advanced
analysis of variance method (ANOVA). The software allows
selection of different algorithms such as backward, forward,
stepwise or all hierarchical propagation for the elimination
of unwanted terms during model development.
Response surface analysis (RSA) of the historical data
of Table 2 was used to analyse, deduce the statistics and
develop the models. RSA was performed with the help of
DesignExpert© software using the data of columns 1–5
as independent and that of columns 6 and 7 in Table 2 as
dependent variables. The initial evaluation of the data sug-
gested a quadratic model. Backward propagation was used to
eliminate unwanted terms in the analysis as the technique is
considered more robust. The analyses of ANOVA for HCF%
and IBD were performed independently while evolving sepa-
rate models for both output(s). The ANOVAs of the model
for HCF% and IBD are presented in Table 3.
The regression statistic of the analysis thus conducted is
presented in Table 4.
From Table 4, it is evident that the predictability of blast-
induced damage to rockmass is better defined in terms of
IBD than in terms of the HCF% as the calculated, adjusted
and predicted correlation coefficients in case of IBD con-
form to the norms. The plot of distribution of externally
studentized residuals (Fig. 13) and the plot of predicted vs.
actual IBD (Fig. 14) confirm the results. Although the results
of calculated and adjusted R2 in case of HCF% are in good
agreement (Table 3), the predicted R2 is quite low as also
evident from Figs. 15 and 16. One of the reasons for the
above results is that IBD is a ratio of resisting and breaking
Influence of Joint Conditions and Blast Design on Pre‑split Blasting Using Response Surface…

Table 2  Data of the pre-split Sl. no. Sj/Sb f(Sj/Sb) qlc (kg/m) θ δdd σc (MPa) IBD at 1 m HCF%
blast and its outcome for
selected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 0.35 0.44 0.64 1.57 0.97 40.7 1.9 59

2 0.43 0.47 0.93 1.57 0.90 63.7 2.3 51
3 0.31 0.42 0.57 1.57 0.96 40.7 1.5 65
4 0.29 0.41 0.93 1.57 0.95 63.7 2.1 63
5 0.40 0.46 0.93 1.57 0.96 63.7 2.1 63
6 0.31 0.42 0.64 1.31 0.83 63.7 1.3 87
7 0.31 0.42 0.50 1.31 0.89 63.7 2.6 28
8 0.19 0.36 0.93 1.31 0.91 63.7 2.4 51
9 0.18 0.35 0.50 1.31 0.83 63.7 2.3 55
10 0.38 0.45 0.93 1.31 0.90 63.7 1.7 62
11 0.11 0.30 0.71 0.79 0.79 54.5 3.8 80
12 0.19 0.36 0.64 0.79 0.80 54.5 2.2 84
13 0.16 0.34 0.71 0.79 0.82 54.5 2.9 79
14 0.16 0.34 0.86 0.79 0.89 54.1 2.4 68
15 0.16 0.34 0.86 0.79 0.88 54.1 2.0 64
16 0.15 0.33 0.93 0.79 0.83 54.5 3.2 56
17 0.16 0.34 0.71 0.79 0.89 54.5 2.9 83
18 0.19 0.36 0.57 0.79 0.92 54.1 3.1 97
19 0.19 0.36 0.71 0.79 0.55 54.5 2.5 91
20 0.14 0.32 0.57 1.57 0.82 54.5 2.6 80
21 0.14 0.32 0.57 1.57 0.97 54.5 2.6 74
22 0.20 0.36 0.64 1.57 0.94 54.5 1.8 85
23 0.17 0.34 0.71 1.57 0.86 54.5 2.8 79
24 0.12 0.31 0.86 1.57 0.92 54.1 3.1 57
25 0.24 0.39 0.64 1.57 0.97 54.5 1.9 66
Min. 0.11 0.30 0.50 0.79 0.55 40.7 1.25 28.00
Max. 0.43 0.47 0.93 1.57 0.97 63.7 3.78 97.00
Std. dev. 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.35 0.09 6.27 0.57 15.29

Sj/Sb ratio of joint spacing to pre-split hole spacing, f(Sj/Sb) are the resolved values of Sj/Sb, qlc is linear
charge (kg/m), θ is angle between the pre-split hole and the major joint orientation, δdd is the drill devia-
tion, σc is the unconfined uniaxial compressive strength (weighted average), IBD @1  m is blast damage
index calculated at 1 m from blasthole and HCF% is half cast factor, Note joint angle has been normalised
to 0–1, σtd is the dynamic tensile strength estimated from the compressive strength, HCF 0–100% with
maximum value of 100 assumed to indicate best pre-split performance, IBD values ≤ 0.1 indicating least
damage and ≥ 2.0 indicating major failure

Table 3  ANOVA for reduced Source model Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value prob > F Comment
models of HCF% and IBD
IBD 8.02 15 0.53 18.39 < 0.0001 Significant
HCF% 5210.84 12 434.24 8.21 0.0005 Significant

Sj ( )
forces, in contrast to the superficial nature of the HCF%. In IBD = 37.9 − 48.5
Sb
+ 74qlc + 11.4(𝜃) − 79.9𝛿dd − 1.1 𝜎c
addition, IBD is based on the principles of induced strain and, Sj
hence, gives better results. − 1.7 𝜎c + 7.2qlc (𝜃) − 63.8qlc 𝛿dd − 0.5qlc 𝜎c
The final form of the models as obtained from the RSA Sb
]2
is given in the following equations for I BD and HCF%, Sj
[
− 11.1𝛿dd (𝜃) − 0.6𝜎c (𝜃) + 2.5𝛿dd 𝜎c − 183.9
respectively: Sb
+ 11.1(𝜃) + 2
0.01𝜎c2 , (3)

13
 A. K. Raina

Table 4  Regression statistic for the two different responses

Statistic IBD HCF% Comment

Standard deviation 0.17 7.27

Mean 2.42 69.08
C.V. % 7.05 10.53 The coefficient of variation for this model. It is the error expressed as a percentage of the mean
PRESS 1.51 4054.06 The predicted residual sum of squares for the model. A measure of how well a particular model fits
each point in the design
R2 0.97 0.89
Adjusted R2 0.92 0.78 R2 adjusted for the number of parameters in the model relative to the number of points in the design
Predicted R-squared 0.82 0.31 Predicted R-squared is a measure of how good the model predicts a response value
Adequate precision 18.06 12.06 Adequate precision (signal to noise ratio) to use model to navigate design space (> 4 is desirable)

Fig. 13  Residual vs. run number for IBD Fig. 15  Residual vs. run number for HCF%

Fig. 14  Predicted vs. actual values of IBD Fig. 16  Predicted vs. actual values of HCF%

13
Influence of Joint Conditions and Blast Design on Pre‑split Blasting Using Response Surface…

Sj The DesignExpert software allows visualisation of the

HCF% = −510.8 − 2145.7 + 956.5qlc − 589.9(𝜃)
Sb
Sj
( )
+ 1684𝛿dd + 10.7 𝜎c − 1399.3 (𝜃)
Sb
Sj
+ 4424 𝛿dd − 741.2qlc 𝛿dd + 12.3qlc 𝜎c
Sb
+ 19.5(𝜃)𝜎c − 50.1𝛿dd 𝜎c − 704.3q2lc .
(4)
Although there are 21 terms entering into the ANOVA,
the back-propagation method eliminated six insignificant
terms during the analysis while maintaining the hierarchy
of the model. The results of ANOVA and evaluation of
model terms are further explained with the help of Table 5
that indicates that the model and the terms entering into the
equation developed are statistically significant. The models
confirm the earlier assertion that blast-induced damage is
a complex phenomenon that cannot be resolved by simple
linear regression owing to complex interactions within the
independent variables.
change in response in three dimensions of the output with
change in input variables. Such simulations have been car-
ried out for average values of the input variables used in
Eqs. 3 and 4. The interactions of the variables incorporated
in the above models during such simulations for IBD are
HCF% are shown in Figs. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.
There is an optimal solution to Sj/Sb with respect to
IBD (Fig. 17) along with the prediction of higher damage
with higher qlc values but the response surface of a simi-
lar iteration with HCF% (Fig. 18) shows a reverse trend.
A perfect solution to Sj/Sb and θ is presented by the IBD
model (Fig. 19), while the HCF% model (Fig. 20) does not
offer such a solution. The results of IBD with qlc and Sj/Sb
(Fig. 21) indicate that, as qlc increases, the damage can be
of exponential nature even with higher values of σc. The
results in such cases of the HCF% model (Fig. 22) present
a linear trend of damage. This further confirms that HCF%
is not the best suited index for the determination of damage
to rockmass.

Table 5  ANOVA for response Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value Prob > F
surface model (partial sum of
squares) Model 8.02 15 0.53 18.39 < 0.0001
A—Sj/Sb 0.044 1 0.044 1.52 0.2482
B—qlc 1.37 1 1.37 46.94 < 0.0001
c—Theta 0.17 1 0.17 5.81 0.0393
D—drill deviation 1.46 1 1.46 50.25 < 0.0001
e—UCS (σi) 0.019 1 0.019 0.64 0.4456
A × e 0.49 1 0.49 16.68 0.0027
B × c 0.99 1 0.99 33.99 0.0002
B × D 1.37 1 1.37 47.04 < 0.0001
B × e 1.26 1 1.26 43.39 0.0001
c × D 0.74 1 0.74 25.45 0.0007
c × e 0.054 1 0.054 1.86 0.2054
D × e 1.89 1 1.89 65.08 < 0.0001
A2 1.19 1 1.19 40.80 0.0001
c2 0.053 1 0.053 1.84 0.2085
e2 0.31 1 0.31 10.71 0.0097
Residual 0.26 9 0.029
Cor. total 8.28 24

Where df is degrees of freedom attributed to the blocks, generally equal to one less than the number of
blocks, F value is test for comparing model variance with residual (error) variance. If the variances are
close to the same, the ratio will be close to one and it is less likely that any of the factors have a significant
effect on the response. Calculated by model mean square divided by residual mean square; p value is the
probability value, usually relating the risk of falsely rejecting a given hypothesis. Prob > F is probability of
seeing the observed F value if the null hypothesis is true. Small probability values call for rejection of the
null hypothesis. The probability equals the proportion of the area under the curve of the F-distribution that
lies beyond the observed F value
The Model F value of 18.39 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that an F value
this large could occur due to noise. Values of “Prob > F” less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are signifi-
cant. In this case, B, c, D, Ae, Bc, BD, Be, cD, De, A2, and e2 are significant model terms. Values greater
than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant

13
 A. K. Raina
Fig. 17  IBD response with Sj/Sb and qlc interaction
Fig. 18  HCF% response with Sj/Sb and qlc interaction
Fig. 19  IBD response with Sj/Sb and theta interaction
Based on the results from the RSA, an optimization rou-
tine was run for 20 solutions to ascertain the desirability of
various independent variables using the IBD model and is
presented in Table 6.
Table 6 also shows the constraints applied and the results
of desirability identified with the numerical optimization
13
Fig. 20  HCF% response with Sj/Sb and theta interaction
Fig. 21  IBD response with qlc and UCS interaction
Fig. 22  HCF% response with qlc and UCS interaction
process. Several solutions for different combinations of vari-
ables can be seen to give a desirability of 1.0. The table can
be used to optimise the results of pre-split blasting in similar
situations and thus provides a basis for the development of a
comprehensive model.
Influence of Joint Conditions and Blast Design on Pre‑split Blasting Using Response Surface…

Table 6  Desirability and IBD Solution Sj/Sb qlc θ δdd σc IBD Desirability

for different simulations based number
on Eq. 2
1 0.14 0.51 0.79 0.55 61.09 − 1.78 1.00
2 0.33 0.56 0.79 0.55 62.32 − 2.76 1.00
3 0.22 0.57 0.79 0.55 60.22 − 1.85 1.00
4 0.32 0.58 0.79 0.55 54.20 0.35 1.00
5 0.25 0.70 0.79 0.55 63.53 − 0.80 1.00
6 0.12 0.50 0.79 0.55 52.12 − 0.05 1.00
7 0.19 0.61 0.79 0.55 61.92 − 1.31 1.00
8 0.28 0.64 0.79 0.55 56.19 0.48 1.00
9 0.15 0.61 0.79 0.55 55.77 0.58 1.00
10 0.29 0.77 0.79 0.55 62.56 0.29 1.00
11 0.14 0.51 0.79 0.55 50.72 0.09 1.00
12 0.17 0.56 0.79 0.55 51.21 0.65 1.00
13 0.32 0.55 0.79 0.55 63.44 − 3.24 1.00
14 0.27 0.55 0.79 0.55 62.23 − 2.89 1.00
15 0.43 0.73 0.79 0.55 61.22 0.69 1.00
16 0.13 0.50 0.79 0.55 48.36 0.65 1.00
17 0.41 0.50 0.79 0.56 63.72 − 3.60 1.00
18 0.12 0.50 0.81 0.55 48.71 0.70 0.99
19 0.43 0.66 0.82 0.55 63.72 − 1.61 0.99
20 0.43 0.78 1.01 0.55 60.32 0.70 0.92

5 Conclusions Acknowledgements  The author is thankful to the Director CSIR-

Models for HCF% and IBD have been developed for pre-
dicting blast-induced damage to the rockmass using histori-
cal data from a hydropower project and response surface
analysis. The dimensions of the model were initially reduced
using artificial neural networks (not part of this paper) and
relationships were established using multivariate regres-
sion. The performance of HCF% and IBD models has been
evaluated through such analysis. The index of blast damage
proved to be a better predictor than the widely used half cast
factor. The interactions of various variables have been pro-
vided. The role of various variables on pre-split performance
is thus defined through comprehensive equations. There are,
however, shortcomings as the results are based on constant
drill diameter, explosive diameter and, hence, decoupling.
Nature of explosive and explosive diameter to drill diameter
ratio will need to be looked into. Moreover, it is observed
that, if Sj/Sb < 1, then Sj plays a major role in defining the
final condition of the wall and the angle of the blasthole with
respect to the major joint orientation assumes a greater role.
However, results for Sj/Sb > 1 will need evaluation. Since the
data presented used only values of 45° to 90° of inclination
of the blasthole to the orientation of the major joint of the
rockmass, there is further scope for defining the relation-
ships over a 180° angle. Resolution of the solid angle of the
pre-split blasthole also presents a complex task for future
investigations.
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, India, for his permis-
sion to publish the paper. The sponsorship of APGENCO is gratefully
acknowledged. Thanks to all my colleagues for their help and coop-
eration during data generation. My profound thanks to Sri Ramesh
for his critical views all along the study. Thanks to Suraj for help with
references and Geeta and KP Madhu for critically examining the text
for errors. Thanks to anonymous reviewers whose initial criticism has
helped in improving the paper significantly.
References
Anderson TL (1995) Fracture mechanics, fundamentals and applica-
tions, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Blair DP (2003) A fast and efficient solution for wave radiation from a
pressurized blasthole. Int J Blast Fragment 7:205–230
Blair DP (2010) Seismic radiation from an explosive column. Geophys-
ics 75(1):E55–E65
Blair DP (2015) Wall control blasting. In: Eleventh Int Symp Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, 24–26 Aug., Sydney, pp 13–26
Box GEP, Wilson KB (1951) On the experimental attainment of opti-
mum conditions (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc B 13(1):1–45
Calder P (1977) Pit slope manual, Chapter 7, Perimeter blasting. CAN-
MET, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, Report 77–14, p 82
Chiappetta RF (1991) Pre-splitting and controlled blasting techniques
including air decks and dimension stone criteria. In: Chiappetta
RF (ed) Proc blast technology instrumentation and explosives
applications seminar, San Diego
Dyskin AV, Galybin AN (2000) Crack interaction mechanism of
pre-split rock blasting. In ECF13, San Sebastian 2000. http://
www.grupp​ofrat​tura.it/ocs/index​.php/esis/ECF13​/paper​/downl​
oad/8426/4874. Accessed 17 Nov 2018

13
 A. K. Raina
Hustrulid W (1999) Blasting principles for open pit mining. Vol. 1
general design concepts. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 293–312
Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL et al (1995) Drilling and blasting of rocks. AA
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 252–270
Konya CJ (1980) Pre-split blasting, theory and practice. In: AIME
Annual Meeting Las Vegas, Nevada, Feb 24–28, pp 80–97
Kutter HK, Fairhurst C (1971) On the fracture process in blasting. Int
J Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abst 8(3):181–202
Lewandowski T, Luan Mai VK, Danell RE (1996) Influence of dis-
continuities on presplitting effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the
Fifth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blast-
ing, 25–29 August, Montreal, pp 217–225
Minchinton A (2011) The importance of understanding detonics and
rock response under explosive loading. In: First Int Blasting Geol-
ogy Workshop, Melbourne, Australia
Minchinton A, Lynch P (1996) Fragmentation and heave modelling
using a coupled discrete element gas flow code. In: Proceedings
of the Fifth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, 25–29 August, Montreal, pp 71–80
Mohanty B (1987) Strength of rock under high strain rate loading
conditions applicable to blasting. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
FRAGBLAST-2, Keystone, Colorado, August 23–26, pp 72–79
Raina AK, Chakraborty AK et al (2000) Rock mass damage from
underground blasting, a literature review, and lab-and full-scale
tests to estimate crack depth by ultrasonic method. Fragblast
4(2):103–125
13
Sanden BH (1974) Pre-split blasting. M.Sc. Dissertation. Queen’s
University
Singh SP (2001) The influence of geology on blast damage. CIM Bull
94(1048):121–127
Sun C (2013) Damage zone prediction for rock blasting. Ph.D. Thesis
University of Utah
Szuladzinski G, Saleh A (1996) Mechanism of smooth blasting and its
modelling. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 25-29 August, Montreal, pp
195–200  
Tariq SM, Worsey PN (1995) An investigation into the effect of varying
joint aperture and nature of surface on pre-splitting. In: 22nd Ann
Conf on Expl and Blasting Tech, Feb. 4–8, Orlando, pp 186–193
Verma HK, Samadhiya NK, Singh M et  al (2018) Blast induced
rockmass damage around tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
71:149–158
Worsey PN (1984) The effect of discontinuity orientation on the suc-
cess of pre-split blasting. In: Proc 10th Ann Conf on Expl and
Blasting Tech, Jan 29–Feb 2, Lake Buena, Vista, pp 197–213
Xiao XH, Xiao PW et al (2018) Large deformation characteristics and
reinforcement measures for a rock pillar in the Houziyan under-
ground powerhouse. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(2):561–578
Yu TR, Vongpaisal S (1996) New blast damage criteria for under-
ground blasting. CIM Bull 89(998):139–145
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.