See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320324935

GEOLOGICAL DISCONTINUITIES, BLAST VIBRATION AND FRAGMENTATION

CONTROL – A CASE STUDY

Conference Paper · November 2017

CITATION READS

1 1,850

4 authors, including:

M.P. Roy Ranjit Kumar Paswan

Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research CSIR - Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India
55 PUBLICATIONS   447 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   175 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Suraj Kumar
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
12 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Blast design and fragmentation control - a key to productivity View project

Jayant project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ranjit Kumar Paswan on 16 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GEOLOGICAL DISCONTINUITIES, BLAST VIBRATION AND
FRAGMENTATION CONTROL – A CASE STUDY
M P Roy1, Ranjit K Paswan2, Md Sarim3, Suraj Kumar4
1
Principal Scientist, CSIR- Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India,
Email: mproycimfr@gmail.com
2
Scientist, CSIR- Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India,
Email: ranjitkp.cimfr@yahoo.co.in
3Research Scholar, CSIR- Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India,
Email: shahsarim@gmail.com
4
Technical Officer, CSIR- Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India,
Email: suraj.9798mishra@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

Blasting performance is determined by the interaction of the detonation products of an

explosives and confining rock mass and the process is dominated by rock mass properties. The
blasting Engineer is, therefore, faced with the challenge of determining which rock mass
properties most influence blasting performance in each situation and thereof deciding how blast
designs should be changed to suit different geological conditions for better fragmentation and
muck pile with low level of vibration. This paper is based on the challenges faced during the
study conducted at Baghai and Ramasthan limestone mines to achieve desired fragmentation as
the rock formation of the area are dominated by joints and layered bedding keeping the blast
induced ground vibration well within safe limits as the dwelling were in close proximity of the
mines. Experimental practices viz. drilling of holes, drill pattern designs, delay intervals and
charging of explosives (with or without deck) have been performed to achieve desired
fragmentation. Twenty blasts have been conducted at different quarries of Baghai and
Ramasthan Limestone mines to determine the effect of both joint spacing and orientation on rock
fragmentation as well as the impact of ground vibration on nearby structures in the periphery of
the mine. Eighty six ground vibrations data have been recorded In-the-hole velocities of
detonation of explosives were recorded and the acoustic impedance were determined along with
the explosive impedance to optimize blast performance in terms of blast vibration and
fragmentation.

Keywords: Blast vibration, Geological discontinuities, Natural frequency, Rock fragmentation, Rock
impedance
influence the blasting operations in mining and civil
INTRODUCTION industries resulting in high excavation cost (Abu
Bakar, Tariq, Hayat, Zahoor and Khan, 2013]. In
Ground vibration is an inevitable, but undesirable
blasting operation the local geological conditions
by-product of blasting operations. The vibration
have to be considered first. Rock competency and
energy that travels beyond the zone of rock
fracture patterns have a significant impact on the
breakage is wasted and can cause damage to surface
success of a blasting operation (Singh et al., 2015).
structures and annoyance to the residents in the
Drilling and blasting continues to be an
vicinity of the mines (Siskind, Stagg, Kopp and
Dowding, 1980). Geological discontinuities are an important method for rock excavation and rock
breaking. Drill and blast technique has a
integral part of rock masses and significantly
315
disadvantage that sometimes it produces cracks in
an uncontrolled manner and generates micro cracks
within the post blast opening geometry (Singh et al,
2015). Although, in reality heterogeneity of rock
medium often ignored during blast design. All rocks
contain a variety of visible discontinuities and flaws,
including map-able features, such as joints, bedding
planes, layering, foliations, faults etc. The rock mass
properties have a controlling influence on the
outcome of a blast. Among these rock properties,
the influence of structural discontinuities often
overshadows the effect of physio-mechanical
properties. The majority of researchers derived from
their investigations a big difference in stress wave
propagation, crack appearance (orientation and
length) and size of the crushing zone around the
borehole for closed, open or filled joints (Rustan,
and Yang, 1983; Fourney, 1993; Paswan et al.,
2014). The attenuation of the stress wave through a
joint depends on the angle of incidence of the stress
wave with the joint face (Lewandowski et al., 1996).
Worsey et al., 1987 and Whittaker et al., 1992
derived from model tests that closed joints have a
diminishing influence whereas open joints affect the
stress wave transmission. The transmission
completely stops when the joint width is similar to
the critical joint width which leads to an increased
fragmentation on one side of the joint and boulders
on the other side respectively (Fourney et al., 1997).
Worsey and Qu (1987) reported that increasing joint
surface separation severely decreases the quality of
final excavation profile as a result of increased
cratering of joints. Open joints can also arrest or
cause branching of cracks being propagated between
two perimeter holes. When the joints are tight and
cemented, they have no significant effect on the
overbreak.
Bhandari (1996) concluded that hard joint filling
material creates more fine fragments than weak
filling materials. Fordyce et al. (1993) and Sen
(1992) carried that the friction properties and the
shear strength of the filling material have immense
effect on the blastability and fragmentation. It is rare
to find rock formations, which are free from joints
or bedding planes. Joints may be defined as the
316
divisional plane of weakness along which there has
been no observable displacement. Joint walls on
both sides have same lithology and properties. A
group of parallel joints is called a joint set and joint
sets intersect to form a joint system in the rock
mass.
The mining industry is seriously concerned
about the cost associated with the blast damage in
terms of safety and productivity of mines. In order
to achieve the optimum blasting results, it is of
paramount importance to understand the role played
by the rock joints in producing blast damage.
Holmberg (1993) concluded that damage was
inflicted mainly in the rock structural discontinuities
and joints, cracks and other weak planes in the rock
mass. If over break control techniques produce
excellent results in massive crystalline formations
but may give unacceptable results in weak highly
jointed formations. Jointed rocks often cause
problems associated with blast damage and the
stability of the back and/or walls of the excavation.
Apart from geological discontinuities, explosive
weight per delay, travel distance (depth) and
transmitting media properties (elastic modulus and
density) have significant impact on vibration
characteristics generated at the surrounding
structures due to nearby surface blasting (Singh
2002; Singh et al., 2015). The extensive field study
has been conducted at Baghai and Ramsthan
Limestone Mines in India. The paper deals with a
systematic study conducted to evaluate the impact
of geological discontinuities on fragmentation and
optimization of blast design to control blast induced
ground vibration within safe limits with improved
fragmentation.
EXPERIMENTAL SITE
The Baghai and Ramsthan Limestone mines are
situated at Satna in the state of Madhya Pradesh
(India). The mining lease area lies between
longitude 81°01'47'' to 81°04'20'' East and Latitude
24°33'14'' to 24°34'44'' North and longtitude
80°57'31'' to 80°58'28'' East and Latitude 24°36'47''
to 24°37'16'' North respectively (Geological Survey
of India topo sheet No. 63 H/2). Geologically, this
area forms part of the Rewa Plateau belonging to the
upper Vindhyan Supergroup and the limestone
deposit of the mine falls in the Bhander series of
Upper Vindhyan System and is Upper Vindhyan in
age. The general topography of the area is without
any remarkable relief and forms a more or less flat
terrain with a general dip of approximately 2˚- 6°
towards South between S10oW to S5oE. The area is
completely devoid of any forest and the topographic
elevation varies from 324 to 291.4 m above MSL. It
is widely jointed with two sets of joints along and
across strike. The overview of the Baghai and
Ramsthan Limestone Mines of Prism Cement is
presented in Photograph 1.
In engineering application joints are important
not only because they limit the strength of the rock
mass, but also because they control bulk
deformation and the flow of ground water. The
method of digital photoanalysis was used to
determine the fragment size distribution after
blasting and be back analyzed using data on joint
orientations and roughness measured by photo
analysis. Joints were analyzed with the help of
WipJoint software (Figure 2). WipJoint
characterizes the pattern of geological joints, faults,
and other lineation in rock mass. Structural mapping
and photo analysis of all the benches of
experimental sites were conducted, which is
essential for blast designs and desired
fragmentation. One of the view of the mine blast
face and working process is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 1. The overview of the Baghai and Ramsthan

Limestone Mines of Prism Cement.

ASSESSMENT OF JOINTS
Limestone forms the dominant rock type in the area.
The beds are mostly horizontal with dips seldom Figure 2. Joint and facture patterns apparent on in
exceeding 2° to 6° towards south. It is widely situ rock surfaces of benches of Ramasthan
jointed with two sets of joints along and across limestone Mine and their assessment with the help
strike. The limestone horizon is underlain as well as of Wipjoint Software.
overlain by shale. The lower as well as upper
contact of limestone is gradational. The limestone
horizon in the gradational part is impure and
siliceous. Geologically, this area is characterised by
multi directional joints vertical and horizontal both.
This area forms part of the rewa plateau belonging
to the Upper Vindhyan Supergroup of rock
formation in Indian stratigraphy. The Vindhyan
formation are broadly classified into lower
calcareous and an upper arenaceous facies. The
upper arenaceous rocks however, have a calcareous
horizon – the Bhander limestone varying in
thickness from about 5 to 15 meters. Figure 3. [1] View of Blast face of ‘Baghai’ Mines;
[2]. Explosive and deck material arrangements; [3].
Installation of seismographs for blast induced
317
 ground vibration monitoring; [4]. View of the
blasted face.
PRODUCTION BLAST DETAILS AND BLAST
OPTIMIZATION
The real issue related to production blast was the
adequate fragmentation. Rocks of the site are
bedded, severely jointed and fractured. To achieve
the desired result several experiments were
performed with production blasts and delay time,
deck length and deck type were postulated. A total
of 20 blasts comprising 18 production blasts and
two signature holes blasts were conducted and the
peak particle velocities (PPVs) were recorded
accordingly. The diameters of deep blast holes were
of 100 mm. The depth of production blast holes
varied from 5.0 to 7.0 m and the explosives loaded
in a hole varied from 25 to 38.9 kg. The explosives
weight per delay ranged between 25 and 77.8 kg.
Total explosive weight detonated in a blast round
varied between 33.4 and 1100 kg. Nonel initiation
system (pyrotechnic detonators), Electronic
initiation system and Detonating Cord were used to
conduct the blasts. Altogether, 86 ground vibration
data (PPVs) were recorded and it varies in between
0.873 to 18.5 mm/s. The vibration measuring
locations were in the range of 50 to 310 m. The
dominant peak frequencies recorded were 11.3 to
116 Hz. The typical blast design implemented is
shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Typical blasts design with modified delay
interval using non-electric delay detonators.
Signature blast
The optimum delay timing plays important role in
adequate rock fragmentation, swelling,
318
displacement, fly rocks, over breaks control and in
minimizing ground vibration & air over-pressure.
Complete avoidance of superposition and
amplification of the vibrations in a production blast
is impossible to achieve because the duration of the
vibration is always considerably larger than the
effective delays used between the charges in smaller
blasts (Valdivia et al., 2003; Wheeler, 2001).
The most effective way to minimize the effects
of poor blasting practices and to reveal the effects of
geology on the blasting induced ground vibration
propagation is to use a signature/single hole blast
[Aldas, and Bilgin, 2004; Duvall and Petkof, 1959].
Therefore, two signature blasts were conducted, one
at 1st bench south side of Baghai Limestone Mine
and another at Hole Peat (West) of Ramsthan
Limestone Mine. The blast hole of 1st bench south
side was loaded with 33.4 kg of explosives and
executed with Nonel initiation system whereas at
Hole Peat (west) bench, it was 33.4 kg and Nonel
initiation system was used for detonation. The blast
wave signatures were recorded at four locations
varying from 50 to 195 m. The attenuation
characteristics of blast wave were documented. The
typical time history of blast wave signature recorded
at 50 m and 100m from the blast hole is respectively
presented in Figure 5 and 6.
The frequency spectra of the signature blast was
analysed. Linear superposition of the waves were
carried out to simulate the waveform characteristics
for multi-hole blasting. The analyses revealed that
very short delay times between the holes and very
long delay intervals between the rows should be
avoided. Baghai mines analyses further concluded
that the mean time needed to start the movement of
rock face is 4.8-5.3 ms/m of effective burden. The
delay interval between the successive rows should
be 8.2-17.1 ms/m of effective burden and Ramstan
mines analyses further concluded that the mean time
needed to start the movement of rock face is 4.2-5.0
ms/m of effective burden. The delay interval
between the successive rows should be 7.8-16.2
ms/m of effective burden. The blast designs were
optimised considering the out put of linear
superimposition techniques.
 number of investigators, have since then, made
further contributions in developing predictor
equations. The scaled distance concept which is
generally used for blast vibration prediction is
defined as the actual distance (R) of the measuring
point from blasting face divided by some power of
the maximum explosives weight per delay (Qmax).
A comparative regression analysis was also carried
out and depicted in Figure 7 and 8.

Figure 5. Time history of the signature blast in

longitudinal direction of Baghai Limestone Mine.

Figure 7. Regression plot of recorded PPV with

their respective scaled distances of Baghai
Limestone Mines.

Figure 6. Time history of the signature blast in

longitudinal direction Ramstan Limestone Mine.

On the basis of the signature waveform shown in

Figure 3 and 4 its further analysis with the help of
Blastware software, the effective delay interval
between the holes will be 13 ms i.e. next available
17 ms may be used while in case of row-by-row
delay the time interval of 61ms (NONEL-65ms),
90ms (NONEL-65ms+NONEL- 25ms) and 122ms Figure 8. Regression plot of recorded PPV with
(NONEL-100ms+NONEL-25ms) may be used. their respective scaled distances of Ramsthan
Limestone Mines.
Analysis of recorded peak particle velocity (PPV)
data Presently, USBM predictor equation is most
Many investigators have studied ground vibrations commonly used in the mining industry. Duvall and
generated from blasting and they have developed co-workers [Noy, 2012; Onedera et al., 2015] of the
different relationships to predict the vibrations at US Bureau of Mines concluded that any linear
different distances from the source. The first dimension be scales with the square root of the
measurement of vibrations from a blast was made charge weight. The corresponding USBM predictor
by Rockwell in 1919 but it was reported in 1927. A equation assumes the form:
319

B
 R 
v  K   media and meagrely by delay arrangements. There
 Q 
 max  are geological forms and structures that are good for
Where,
v = peak particle velocity (mm/s)
K, B site constants to be determined by
regression analysis
R = distance of the measuring transducer from
the blasting face (m)
Qmax = maximum explosives weight per delay
(kg)
Currently, the most widely accepted single
measurement of blast induced ground vibration
considered potentially damaging to structures is the
peak particle velocity (PPV), defined as the highest
speed at which an individual earth particle moves or
vibrates as the waves pass a particular medium.
Frequency of blast vibration
The frequency content of ground vibration will
often vary over the time duration of the event and it
is of significant practical importance to be able to
estimate such vibrations in a realistic manner. As a
related problem, it is also very important to be able
to associate particular vibration levels in time with a
particular frequency content of the measured ground
vibration. For example, knowledge of such levels
and associated frequency content is needed to
estimate the vibration when blasting close to
resonant structures such as dwellings. It is also
required in cases for which environmental
regulations are stipulated in terms of allowable blast
vibration levels at particular frequencies. The first
step should be to determine the vibration frequency
as a function of time using Fourier Transform
Analysis. The second aim should be to analyse the
spectral amplitude as a function of time using time
frequency analysis. The third aim should be to
investigate a rational approach to calculating the
peak vibration levels as a function of frequency
content.
320
The frequency of blast induced waves is mainly
controlled by geological features of transmitting
formation of different types of frequency waves.
The frequencies of the recorded vibration data were
always higher than the resonant frequency of the
residential houses/structures. Blast vibration
frequencies were more than 12 Hz in all the cases
and sometimes it was up to 97 Hz. The most
common range of the recorded frequency in the
village is from 17 to 43 Hz. The plot of recorded
dominant peak frequency of vibrations at various
distance are presented in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Plot of dominant peak frequencies
recorded at various locations at ground surface due
to blasting.
ROCK FRAGMENTATION ANALYSIS
The fragmentations achieved from the blasts
were good. Negligible back-break was noticed. The
blasted muck pile was properly distributed for
loading in all the blasts. The fragmentation analysis
were carried out for all the blasts and the output of
the analyses are in the form of number of exposed
fragmented blocks, maximum, minimum and mean
size of the fragmented blocks, sieve analysis as per
the requirement i.e. at different percentile size viz.
D10, D25, D50, D75 & D90. (Percentile sizes: for
example D10 is the ten-percentile, the value for
which 10% by weight of the sample is finer and
90% coarser. In terms of sieving, D10 is the size of
sieve opening through which 10% by weight of the
sample would pass).
 Noy [24] suggested that fitting of the Figure 10. Fragmented view of the blast conducted
fragmentation measurement tool to digging at 1st bench on 09.01.2013 at Baghai limestone
equipment by means of positioning the camera mine.
system on digger, will optimises the viewing
parameters that improve the exposure of the
fragmentation for segmentation algorithms. Ondera
et al. [25] also suggested the mounting of
fragmentation imaging system on digging
equipment. In this study Rock fragmentation
analyses were carried out for each blast using
photoanalysis system. Photoanalysis system was
adopted and about 8-10 photographs of blasted
muck for each of the blasts were taken from the Figure 11. Netting and countering of block sizes of
digital camera with standard scale (1m square fragments at 1st bench at Baghai limestone mine.
wooden frame). The burden, spacing and inclination
of the blast holes were changed to optimize the
fragment size distribution and suitable blasted muck
profile for loading equipment.
The fragmentation view of blast conducted at
Baghai Limestone Mine is shown in Figure 10. The
process involved in analysis of rock fragmentation
(netting and contouring) is depicted in Figures 11.
The average mean size of the block is 0.380 m
(diameter of an equivalent sphere) and the most Figure 12. Histogram and cumulative size curve
common size of the block is 0.247 m. (diameter of view of fragmented block sizes shown in figure 10.
an equivalent sphere). The maximum size of the
boulder found in the analysis is of 0.774 m DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
(diameter of an equivalent sphere). The
fragmentation analyses result of the blast is depicted As the limestone deposit characteristically have
in Figure 12. The similar analyses were also carried multi directional joint and fractures, the biggest
out at different benches for the varying burden and challenge was to get the desired fragmentation so
spacing. The strata were of well jointed rock mass. that it can be efficiently excavated and handled by
The spacing to burden ratio were kept in the range the downstream process. To overcome this issue,
of 1.15-1.30 for different benches. joints orientation and spacing were mapped and
photoanalysed. The analysis ultimately helped in
designing the drill and blast pattern. Joint/fracture,
either open or filled with loose secondary materials,
leads to release of explosive energy easily yielding
poor fragmentation. The distribution of explosive in
blastholes needs proper attention for rocks of such
geological character. In such situation decking plays
a vital role. Initially, filled clay/loose weathered
material of about 20-40 cm in joints and bedding
planes causing generation of boulders from top

321
portion of the bench. Especially, the top stemming
part were critical in terms of boulder generation.
Blast induced ground vibrations were recorded
at both Ramasthan and Baghai Limestone Mines.
The USBM predictor equation was used for
regression analyses at 95% confidence level resulted
with 90% and 88% correlation coefficient
respectively.
On the basis of signature waveform analysis it is
concluded that the effective delay interval would be
nearer to 61ms. The delay interval between the
holes in a row should be 13ms whereas between the
rows, it should be 61ms to 122ms depending upon
the number of rows and effective burden in front of
the particular hole. The optimized delay timing
helped enabled in reducing the back breaks and
stable bench profiles were achieved after blasting
without having any hanging boulders.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to the mine
officials for providing necessary facilities and help
during field investigations. The permission of
Director, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel
Research, Dhanbad, India to publish the paper is
also thankfully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
 D.E. Siskind, M.S. Stagg, J.W. Kopp, and C.H.
Dowding, “ Structure Response and Damage
Produced by airblast from Surface Mine
Blasting”, U. S. Bureau of Mines, RI 8485, pp.
111, 1980
 M.Z. Abu Bakar, S.M. Tariq, M.B. Hayat, M.K.
Zahoor, and M.U. Khan, “Influence of
geological discontinuities upon fragmentation
by blasting”, Pakistan Journal of Science, Vol.
65, No. 3, pp 414-419, 2013.
 P.K. Singh, M.P. Roy, R.K. Paswan, R.K.,
Dubey, and C. Drebenstedt, “Blast vibration
effects in an underground mine caused by open-
pit mining”, International Journal of Rock
322
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 80, pp
79-88. 2015.
 Rustan, and Z.G. Yang, “The influence from
primarystructure on fragmentation”, 1st.
International Symposium on rock fragmentation
by blasting, Lulea, Sweden: Vol. 2, 581 - 604,
1983.
 W.L Fourney, “Mechanisms of rock
fragmentation in by blasting”, Hudson J.A,
editor. Compressive rock engineering,
principles, practice and projects. Oxford:
Pergamon Press; 1993.
 R.K. Paswan, Mohammad Sarim, P.K, Singh,
H.S Khare, B.K. Singh and R.J. Singh,
“Controlled blasting at Parsa East & Kanta
Basan opencast mines for safe and efficient
mining operations”, The Indian Mining &
Engineering Journal, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 7-17,
2014.
 T.H. Lewandowski, V.K. Luan Mai, and R.E.
Danell, “Influence of discontinuities on
presplitting effectiveness”, Rock fragmentation
by blasting - Fragblast5, ed. B. Mohanty,
Montreal, Canada: pp. 2 I 7 - 232. 1996.
 P.N. Worsey, and S. Qu, 1987, “Effect of joint
separation and filling on pre-split blasting” ,
The 3rd Mini Symposium on Explosives and
Blasting Research, pp. 26 – 40. 1987.
 B.S. Whittaker, R.N. Singh and Sun, G,
“Fracture Mechanics Applied to Rock
Fragmentation due to blasting. Rock Fracture
Mechanics - Principles, Design and
Applications” Development in Geotechnical
Engineering, 71, Chapter 13: pp. 443 - 479,
Elsevier Science Ltd. 1992.
 W.L. Fourney, R.D. Dick, XJ. Wang and T.A.
Weaver, Effects of weak layers on particle
velocity measurements. Rock. Mechanics and
Rock Engineering”, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 1¬18,
Springer Verlag, 1997.
 P.N Worsey, and S. QU, “Effect of joint
separation and filling on pre-splitting blasting”,
The 3rd symposium on explosives and blasting
research, ISEE, Mini - Symposium. February 5
 - 6, 1987, Miami, Florida, U.S.A. pp. 26 -40.  W.I Duvall, and B. Petkof, “Spherical
1987 propagation of Explosion of Generated strain
 S. Bhandari, “Changes in fragmentation Pulses in Rocks”, U. S. Bureau of Mines RI
processes with blasting conditions”. Rock 5483, 1959, pp 21-22.
fragmentation by blasting - Fragblast 5, ed. B.  W.J. Duvall, and D.E Fogleson, “Review of
Mohanty, Montreal, Canada. pp. 301 - 312. Criteria for Estimating Damage to Residences
 D.L Fordyce, W.L. Fourney, R.D. Dick and from Blasting vibration”, U. S. Bureau of Mines
X.J. Wang. Effect of joints on stress wave – I 5968. 1962.
transmission. Rock fragmentation by blasting -  M.J. Noy, “Automated rock fragmentation
Fragblast4, ed. H.P. Rossmanith, Vienna, measurement with close range digital
Austria: 211 - 220. 1993. photography, in Measurement and Analysis of
 Sen, G. 1992. Rock property influence on Blast Fragmentation” Workshop, held at
fragmentation at rock blasting - a literature Fragblast 10 – 10th international Symposium
review. Technical Report, Division of Mining on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 13-21
and Rock Excavation, ISSN 0349 - 3571, (CRC Press: Balkema). 2012.
1992:16T, Lulea University of Technology.  M. Onedera, M. Thurley, and A. Catalan,
 R. Holmberg, “Recent developments to control “Measuring blast fragmentation at Esperanza
rock damage”, The 4th International conference mine using high resolution 3D laser scanning”,
on Rock fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and
Austria, July 5-8, pp197-198. Rotterdam: metallurgy, mining Technology, Vol. 124, No. 1
Balkema.1993. pp. A34-A36. 2015.
 P.K. Singh, “Blast vibration damage to
underground coal mines from adjacent open-pit
blasting”, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 39, No.
8, pp. 959-973. 2002.
 Valdivia, M. Vega, V.R. Scherpenisse, and
W.R Adamson, “Vibration simulation method
to control stability in the Northeast corner of
Escondida Mine”, International Journal of
Rock fragmentation by blasting, FRAGBLAST,
Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 63-78. 2003.
 R.M Wheeler, “The analysis of signature
vibrations to help control vibration frequency”,
Proceedings of Tenth High-Tech Seminar on
State of the art, Blasting Technology,
Instrumentation and Explosives Application,
Nashville, Tennessee, USA, July 22-26, pp IX
3-21. 2001.
 G.U Aldas, and H.A. Bilgin, 2004, “Effect of
some rock mass properties on blasting-induced
ground vibration wave characteristics”, CIM
Bulletin, Vol. 97, No. 1079, pp. 52-59.

323

View publication stats