A.K.

Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

Application of Factor of Safety concept for evaluation of flyrock risk in some

limestone mines
A.K. Raina**, A.K. Chakraborty*, P.B. Choudhury*, M. Ramulu*

Abstract
Flyrock is the unwanted throw of rock fragments to excessive distances in opencast
blasting. The incidence is relative in nature incorporating the distance of objects of
concern like structures within and outside the mine, equipment within the mine & near
the blast and persons within and off the mine. Several attempts to predict and define
flyrock made worldwide could not address the problem since the phenomenon is not a
regular feature in blasting. This probabilistic nature of flyrock allows for risk calculation.
CIMFR, India developed a Factor of Safety based risk criterion [10, 14] for evaluation of
throw/ flyrock in opencast mines that incorporates all the above in terms of distance and
allowable limit of throw – which in turn determines the risk. The criterion provides the
blaster a tool for mathematical evaluation of flyrock risk in terms of a Factor of Safety
and threat ratio (defined for the 1st time), thereby enhancing confidence when blasting.
The method is easy to use and has been applied to several mines in India and the results
are significant. This paper details the evolution of the concept and its application in three
limestone mines of India and the results obtained. The application of the method for
defining a flexible danger zone is also discussed.

Key Words: Flyrock, Factor of Safety, Risk Application, Opencast Mines

1. Introduction
Despite significant developments in the blasting technology, flyrock has been an
intriguing problem for a blasting engineer for quite some time.
The incidence of flyrock is relative in nature as it incorporates – damage to: -
1. Structures
a. In the proximity of a mine which do not belong to the owner of the
mine– distance specific,
b. In the proximity of mine which belong to the owner of mine – distance
specific
2. Equipment
a. That belong to the owner – at a close distance from the mine,
b. That do not belong to the owner – relatively far from the mine,
3. Personnel
a. Within the mine – very close to the blast site
b. Away from the mine – in the far field of the mine
There have been several attempts to predict the throw of flyrock but these efforts have
been of academic interest only and their further application is not documented. The
classic work(s) [1-4] and [5] dwelled on prediction, / probabilities of flyrock throw.
There are several independent case studies in the ISEE-CDROM database [6] that
deliberate on occurrence and control measures of flyrock. The causes and prevention
of flyrock [7-8, 20] have been detailed out.
* - Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CIMFR - Earlier CMRI), Regional
Centre, 3rd Floor MECL Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440 006,
cmrirc@dataone.in
** - Corresponding author rainaji@gmail.com

1
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

A comprehensive and critical appraisal of the published literature can be found in [9]
and [10] along with details of the conditions responsible for the occurrence of flyrock.
Other efforts, however, focussed on risk associated with flyrock [11-12]. The risk
criterion developed by [12] is a combination of several probability parameters, which
are difficult to evaluate from a practical standpoint.
Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (Earlier CMRI), India devised a flyrock
Factor of Safety model [10, 13-14] for horizontal (FSH) and vertical (FSV) flyrock/
throw in opencast mines. The parameters needed to work out the Factor of Safety are
very simple as these are related to the rock mass and blast design parameters. This
factor defines a range of flyrock depending on the value of flyrock rather than
predicting an absolute value of distance of throw. This paper elucidates the concept
and application of the flyrock risk evaluation.

2. Conceptual evolution
A blasting plan with respect to safety is dependent on parameters like that of the blast
design and rock mass and can be evaluated as described in Figure 1.
Major blast design parameters Lithology – Rock mass parameters

Drill diameter Density

Burden Strength
Spacing Interaction Joint spacing
Stemming Joint condition
Explosive - properties
• Fragmentation
• Vibration/ Air overpressure
• Throw
• Flyrock

Distance of objects of concern from blast site Probability of

exceeding limit
distance
(Safety rule)
Mine Area Area around the mine
• Personnel • People Cost of hitting
• Buildings • Houses an object of
• Mine Machinery • Equipment concern
• Equipment • Animals (collective / X
individual)

Figure 1: Basis for risk analysis of flyrock RISK

It is however, essential to understand the underlying complexities in predicting and
devising mathematical solutions to such issues. In this context an empirical solution is
deemed fit since it provides an insight and real time data for analysis for different
aspects of the blasting. This procedure has been adopted here also.
Before the risk associated with flyrock is ascertained, it is essential to understand the
generalised blasting parameters and their interactions that culminate in a safety rule
and an alternate to the costs associated. As is known to all blasting engineers the basic

2
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

tenets of a blast design are the drill diameter, rock mass that is to be broken and
explosive that is to be used. The blast design parameters are directly dependent on
drill diameters. The formulation of blast design with respect to drill diameter is
described in Figures 2 to 7 with the following assumptions.
1. The hole depth (hd), burden (B), spacing (S) and stemming (ls) are determined
by the drill diameter
2. The rock mass can take a range of rating from 25 to 40 times the drill
diameter.
3. The minimum and maximum values of hd, B, S & ls can be defined as
described in Figures 2 to 6.
4. The specific charge (q) is possible to evaluate over the above parameters
Figure 7.
5. The explosive is assumed to have a constant density of 1000 kg/m3 with
weight strength of 100.
6.
7.

Figures 2 & 3: Relationship of Bench height and burden with drill diameter

Figure 4 & 5: Relationship of Spacing and Stemming with drill diameter

Figure 6& 7: Relationship of Charge Length with drill diameter and Specific Charge
range

3
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

The mean fragment size K50 [19] can also be evaluated over the above parameters as
shown in Figure 8 for a constant rating of rock mass.

Figure 8: K50 vs. Drill diameter based for Rock Factor “A”= 7, 10, 13

Several workers have adopted different methodologies for calculating blast design
parameters. A description of most of these techniques of evaluating blast design
parameters can be found in [15 & cf. 15, which gives a detailed list of authors of
different schemes for evaluating burden and other parameters] and [17, 18]. There are
several other references in [6]. In tune with the cited literature, the Figures (2 to 7)
represent limits of different parameters for corresponding drill diameter. With the help
of such exploratory figures it is possible to visualise the blasting practice of a mine
vis-à-vis its production or blast design parameters. Plots in such figures can well
provide an understanding of the variations in applied blast patterns while drilling. It is
possible with such diagrams to identify the parameters that display significant
deviations, ascertain their impact on the performance of a blast and simultaneously
rectify them in further blasts.
Since the parameters take a wide range as demonstrated above there is a possibility of
variation from optimum values. Also, owing to local conditions and blast practice,
there may be significant errors in applying the blast design to practice. These manifest
in variation in the performance of blast depending upon the degree of variation from
an optimum value which in turn may be reflected in form of abnormalities like
flyrock, ground vibrations, least or excessive throw, loose or tight muck profile.
Hence, such plots can be used to ascertain deviations and to arrive at optimum values
for a mine-mill fragmentation system [16] by correlating these with post blast results.
Despite of meticulous planning unwanted output as cited above are common in
blasting. These may not be definitive but may have a fuzzy association or may vary
over a range. Such occurrences particularly flyrock is one of the least reported
phenomenon [12] owing to many factors which results in little data on the subject that
could be put to analysis for prediction and control. Thus, in order to account for the
variations Factor(s) of Safety for horizontal (FSH) and vertical flyrock (FSV) was
conceived [13] and defined as explained in Table 1.

4
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

Details Relationship Notation

Factor of Safety for  Bd  Bd – Burden, (dc) – Charge
horizontal flyrock /  × Jf r  diameter or drill diameter (dd),
d
throw - FSH FS H = C f ×  c 
Jfr –Joint / Rock Factor Rating,
 rc 
  Stemming Height (ls): Linear
  Charge concentration (rc)=
Factor of Safety for  ls
0.8
 (ql/hd), where ql is the length of
vertical flyrock /  × Jf r  the explosive charge and hd is
throw – FSV  dc  the hole depth
FS H = C f ×  
rc For Cf the rating are provided
  below
 
Correction for rock Correction type Rating
properties and 1. Favourable special methods applied to 1.1-1.2
blasting conditions control flyrock
(Cf) 2. Unfavourable rock conditions extreme 0.5 to 0.8
blast design conditions
Table 1: Factor of Safety for horizontal and vertical flyrock - explained

These Factor(s) of Safety are dimensionless and therefore do not have constraints of
dimension of individual parameters. The concept designed for the first time, presents
a safety rule for flyrock, and may thus be taken as an index, also.

The Factor of Safety as defined above can be seen to present a common value (Figure
9) for extreme conditions based on drill diameter for idealised blast design parameters
as also demonstrated above.

Figure 9: Values of Factor of Safety for generalised values of blast parameters

The classification of (FSH) and (FSV) is explained as is shown in Table 2 The

classification is based on theory, experimentation, and field validation using a huge
database and is explained by [10].

FSH Flyrock safety Flyrock distance (m)

<0.5 Unsafe >40
0.5-1.0 Likely Unsafe 40 -15
1.0-2.0 Safe 15 - 5
>2 Very Safe <= 5
Table 2: Classification of Factor of Safety

5
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

3. Risk analysis
Raina et al [10, 14] devised a method to evaluate risk related to flyrock and throw of
the rock fragments in bench blasting that is explained here. Risk is the product of
probability of failure of a certain safety rule and the cost involved due to failure.
Risk is the practical evaluation of cost of failure of a safety rule (Marked ‘X’ in
Figure 1). It is however, difficult to evaluate the cost involved in a flyrock occurrence
in a mine owing to multitude of parameters and relative nature of the flyrock
occurrence. Therefore, concept of ‘Threat’ is deemed to be plausible, that is an
indirect measure of one of the parameters of risk.
Hence, in the case of flyrock risk is redefined with the following rules.
1. The rock and blast design parameters can be resolved into dimensionless
parameter(s) viz. (FSH) or (FSV) that in turn can be put to statistical analysis
and probabilities can be worked out.
2. The probability of Factor of Safety < 1 (PSF<1 - which indicates excessive
throw – beyond a particular distance) can be calculated (Safety Rule).
3. The Threat Ratio (Tr) – defined as ratio of permissible distance - dperm (can
be varied) of throw of flyrock to the distance of the object of concern - dobj (is
fixed), i.e. Tr= dperm/ dobj.
Different classes of Risk have been described by [14] as given in Table 3 and
explained in Figure 10.
Class Risk Category
A No Risk Controlled blasts
B Negligible Risk Desirable
C Calculated Risk Acceptable with trials
D Moderate Risk Extreme Caution
E High Risk Not Acceptable
Table 3: Classification of Risk

Figure 10: Flyrock risk classification

6
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

Based on the above flyrock is redefined [14] as: -

A probabilistic phenomenon with definable risk in terms of Factor of Safety and

distance of object of concern, flyrock is a rock fragment projected in different
directions beyond expected or desired distances from the blast face, owing to
improper blast design and/or its application and/or presence of adverse rock
conditions that favour venting of pressurised blast-hole gases.

The methodology of evaluating risk associated with the flyrock has been extended to
some case studies as demonstrated below.

4. Application Case Studies

Studies were conducted in three different limestone mines for flyrock Factor of Safety
and risk associated thereof. Initially blast data of the said mines with general practice
was collected and analysed. The average blast and rock condition data of major
parameters before modification for the three mines is given in Table 4. Some
modifications were done to the blast design and the data of modified results was again
analysed for change in factor of safety for flyrock (Table 5).

Mine No. M-1 M2 M3

Parameter Info
Vertical Joint Spacing (m) 0.5 0.5 0.3
Specific Charge (Kg/m3) 0.4 0.3 0.4
No of Rows 2 2 2
Total No of Holes 34 11.0 21.0
Blast Hole Diameter (mm) 100-150 150 115
Burden (m) 3.8 3.7 3.0
Spacing (m) 5.5 6.6 4.0
Stemming (m) 2.6 3.8 2.3
Bench Height (m) 5.7 9.6 5.5
Sub Drill (m) 0.6 0.3 0.0
Total Hole Depth 6.7 9.8 5.5
Mode of Initiation (DF/Nonel) Nonel Nonel Nonel
Decking Type Solid/Air Air None
Decking Length (Total) 0.6 1.0 0.0
Explosive Type ANFO ANFO ANFO
Density of Explosive (g/cm3) 0.9 0.9 1.0
Charge Diameter (mm) 100-150 150.0 115.0
Total Charge length (m) 3.5 5.0 3.2
Throw/Flyrock 24.8 26.0 7.6
Number of observations 6.0 8.0 10.0
Table 4: Average blast design and relevant data for case studies of 3 mines in India
Figures 11, 12 & 13 represent variation in basic parameters considered for evaluation
of Factor of Safety for the three mines under investigation. BM indicates values
before and AM represents values after modifications in blast patterns. Since no
overhead structures are present in the mines, only horizontal Factor of Safety has been
considered for analysis.

7
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

Figure 11: Variation in Burden for mines under study

Figure 12: Variation in Stemming for mines under study

Figure 13: Variation in Charge length for mines under study

8
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

It is evident from the figures above that despite efforts to maintain the effective blast
design parameters, a variation occurs in the field while applying the same due to local
factors or constraints or errors. In addition, some of the parameters are not optimised
for the production pattern. A comparative analysis of the data thus generated before
and after modification is summarised in Table 5.
Change after
Mine & Before After
Units modification
parameters Modification (BM) Modification (AM)
(AM-BM)
Mine M-1 µ σ µ σ µ σ
Burden (m) 3.79 0.75 3.80 0.73 0.01 -0.02
Hole depth (m) (m) 6.71 1.90 7.02 1.10 0.31 -0.80
Joint spacing (m) 0.47 0.07 0.27 0.07 -0.20 0.00
Stemming (m) 2.58 0.56 2.88 0.50 0.30 -0.06
Charge length (m) 3.54 1.23 3.71 0.72 0.17 -0.51
FSH - 1.18 0.24 2.36 0.61 1.18 0.36
FSv - 0.71 0.08 1.45 0.31 0.75 0.23
Mine M-2
Burden (m) 3.72 0.28 3.87 0.06 0.15 -0.22
Hole depth (m) (m) 9.73 0.38 9.97 0.06 0.24 -0.32
Joint spacing (m) 0.48 0.06 0.37 0.03 -0.11 -0.02
Stemming (m) 3.84 0.27 3.91 0.16 0.07 -0.10
Charge length (m) 5.00 0.45 4.90 0.32 -0.10 -0.13
FSH - 1.05 0.13 1.32 0.04 0.27 -0.09
FSv - 0.91 0.12 1.13 0.21 0.22 0.09
Mine M-3
Burden (m) 2.96 0.35 2.81 0.18 -0.15 -0.17
Hole depth (m) (m) 5.52 0.68 5.15 0.47 -0.37 -0.21
Joint spacing (m) 0.30 0.01 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00
Stemming (m) 2.28 0.34 2.32 0.12 0.04 -0.22
Charge length (m) 3.24 0.79 2.39 0.52 -0.85 -0.27
FSH - 1.58 0.21 2.46 0.10 0.88 -0.11
FSv - 1.12 0.18 1.53 0.06 0.41 -0.11
Table 5: Average (µ) and Standard Deviations (σ) of design parameters before
and after modifications and results thereof for 3 limestone mines (India).

As is evident from Table 5, modifications in burden, charge length, stemming and

hole depths were made. However, while applying the modifications, it was ensured
that the design is followed meticulously in the field. It is imperative from the above
observations that the standard deviations of the important design parameters were
reduced, which in turn resulted in significant increase in the Factor of Safety for
horizontal flyrock significantly in all the cases (Figure 14).
The modifications and application of the pattern is also used here to elucidate the
change in Factor of Safety. This is plotted for the three mines under investigation as
shown in Figure 14 where, BM indicates before and AM indicates after modification
in the blast design parameters. Despite of significant increase in the Factor of Safety
in all the three cases, the probabilities are of more importance particularly for flyrock
occurrence. This is demonstrated further while evaluating the risk.

9
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

Figure 17: Change in Factor of Safety with change in blast design or rock parameters

Software (FlyRisk) developed by CIMFR was used to assess the Factor of Safety and
risk for different mines based on the blast and rock mass data and other specific
parameters. The threat distance and Factor of Safety for the cases has been worked out
for a constant distance of 250 m for the objects of concern. An initial value of 60 m
has been taken as permissible distance of flyrock in all the cases. The Factor(s) of
Safety, their probability distributions, confidence level of the Factor(s) of Safety and
‘Risk’ category after modification of the three mines in question are represented by
the figures 15, 16 and 17, respectively.

Figure 15: Flyrock FSH & Risk classification for Mine M-1

10
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

Figure 16: Flyrock FSH & Risk classification for Mine M-2

Figure 17: Flyrock FSH & Risk classification for Mine M-3

11
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

A summary of the flyrock ‘Risk’ results and possible interpretation is given in Table
6.
Mine FSH dobj dperm Tr Risk category for Remarks for danger zone
(m) (m) Horizontal flyrock
60 0.24 Calculated Risk There is further scope of
M-1 2.36 250 40 0.16 Calculated Risk improvement to fix danger
20 0.08 Negligible Risk zone
60 0.24 Calculated Risk Danger zone can be fixed at
M-2 1.32 250
40 0.16 No Risk 40 m
60 0.24 Calculated Risk Danger zone can be fixed at
M-3 2.46 250
40 0.16 No Risk 40 m
Table 6: Risk classification (Horizontal Flyrock) and danger zone definition for
the 3 mines (Dobj=Distance of object of concern, dperm=Permissible flyrock
distance, Tr=Threat Ratio)
As is evident from Table 6, the danger zones can now be defined based on risk results.
The permissible limits of flyrock can be fixed with the help of further reducing the
threat ratio to 0.08, 0.16, 0.16 in the three mines, respectively. Despite of high Factor
of Safety, there is scope of further improvement in blast practice of the mine 1. While
as, Mine-2 and Mine-3 can continue with the modified practice. The above process
thus reflects a scientific decision making for defining a variable flyrock danger zone
in contrast to a fixed one.

5. Redefining the danger zone

Danger zone is an area around a blast beyond which no rock should be cast during
blasting. These have been either rigid – fixed distance irrespective of blasting, geo-
mining conditions or other practices or too conservative which affects the productivity
of the mine. Since productivity and safety go hand in hand a realistic criterion is
deemed fit as is evident with the type of study demonstrated above.
Out of the two factors of the risk criterion discussed above (See Figures 15, 16 & 17
and Table 6), the safety rule (PSF<1) may be somewhat fixed for a particular mine
owing to geo-mining conditions. However, the threat ratio may vary, owing to
distance of the object. The overall risk category will therefore, vary depending upon
value of PSF<1. This provides for a flexible zone of safety or Danger Zone that will be
mine dependent and not a universal rule of thumb. The concept provides for the
blasters a method to carry on blasting with an improved degree of confidence by
scientifically evaluating the production patterns and defining the danger zone on a
dynamic scale. This should make it possible to decide danger zone based on
requirements like placement of mine machinery and mine personnel while blasting,
which may vary in a mine or from mine to mine.
6. Summary and conclusion
The conceptual and evolution of concept of the Factor(s) of Safety for throw/ flyrock
devised for a realistic and empirical approach to the problem defined earlier by the
authors has been applied to ascertain the risk associated with blasting in three
limestone mines in India. The application of the new criterion with a definite method
for risk assessment with respect to flyrock has been elucidated. The criterion needs to
be tested for deep-hole (>15m) blasting. The criterion, once established shall give a
practical mathematical tool to blaster that will determine the risk of flyrock and in
turn shall enhance their confidence while blasting. The application of the method to

12
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

define a flexible flyrock danger zone is also envisaged relative to the objects of
concern that may be of interest to planners or regulatory agencies.
Acknowledgements
Permission of D’CIMFR to publish the results is acknowledged. Thanks are due to 1.
Ministry of Mines – Govt. of India for funding the research program (the findings are
part of the report), 2. GACL 3. L&T 4. A Haldar, P. Sahu, S.Bhowmik & P. Srinivas.
References
[1] Ladegaard- Pedersen .A and Holmberg, R. The dependence of charge geometry
on flyrock caused by crater effects in bench blasting. Swedish Detonic research
Foundation, Report DS1973:38. 1973.
[2] Ladegard – Pedersen, A and Persson. AFlyrock in blasting II, Experimental
investigation, Swedish Detonic Research Foundation Report DS1973:13. 1973.
[3] Lundborg ,N. The hazards of fly rock in rock blasting. Swedish Detonic
Research Foundation, Report DS1974, pp.12. 1974.
[4] Lundborg, N., Persson, N., Ladegaard –Pedersen, A. and Holmberg, R.
“Keeping the lid on flyrock in open pit blasting”, Eng. Min. Journal, Swedish
Detonic Research foundation, pp.95-100. 1975.
[5] Roth.J, A. A Model for the determination of flyrock range as a function of shot
condition, US Dept of Commerce NTIS Report No PB81222358, 61p. 1979.
[6] ISEE Reference Database on CDRom. Intl. Soc. Expl. Engg. 2006.
[7] Schneider, L. “Back to basics: Flyrock (Part 1 – Safety and Causes)”, J. Explo.
Engg., 13(9):18-20. 1996.
[8] Schneider, L. “Back to basics: Flyrock (Part 2 – Prevention)”, J. Explo. Engg.,
14(1):32-36. 1997.
[9] Bhowmik, S., Raina, A.K., Chakraborty, A.K., Ramulu, M., Sahu, P.B., Haldar,
A., Choudury, P.B., Srinivas P., and Bandopadhyay, C. “Flyrock prediction and
control in opencast mines: A critical appraisal”, Mining Engineers Journal, 6(5),
10-16. 2004.
[10] Raina, A.K., Chakraborty A.K. More, R., Choudhury, P.B. Flyrock prediction
and control in opencast metal mines in india for safe deep-hole blasting near
habitats - a futuristic approach, CMRI India, Internal Report
GAP/003/MT/NRC/DOM/02-03, 100p. 2006.
[11] Lundborg, N. “Risk for flyrock when blasting”, Swedish Detonic Research
Foundation. Cf. ISEE CD ROM Database 2006. 1981.
[12] Davies P.A. “Risk based approach to setting of flyrock ‘ Danger zones for
blasting sites”, Trans . Inst. Min and Met., May – August 1995. pp.96-100. 1995.
[13] Raina, A.K., Chakraborty A.K. More, R., Choudhury, P.B. “Design of Factor of
Safety based criterion for control of flyrock/ throw and optimum fragmentation”,
Journ. Inst. Engg. India, 87(Feb, 2007), 13-17. 2006.
[14] Raina, A.K., Chakraborty A.K. More, R., Choudhury, P.B. “Flyrock prediction
and control in opencast mine blasting: A risk based approach”. Communicated
2007.
[15] Jimeno.C.L, Jimeno.E.L, Carcedo.F.J.A and De'ramiro. Drilling and Blasting of
rocks, A.A Balkema, 391p. 1995.

13
 A.K. Raina et al, Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2(2);147-166; 2008, ISEE Publication

[16] Hustrulid, W. Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining, Vol. 1, General design
concepts, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 382p. 1999.
[17] Konya, C. J. Blast design, Intercontinental Development Corporation, USA,
230p, 1995.
[18] Gupta, R.N. 1990. Surface Blasting and its Impact on Environment (Ed.), In:
Impact of Mining on Environment, Trivedy and Singh (Eds.), Ashish Publishing
House, New Delhi, pp.23-24.
[19] Cunningham, C. “The Kuz-Ram Model for Prediction of Fragmentation from
Blasting”. 1st International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea,
Sweden, pp. 439-454. 1983
[20] Bajpayee, T.S., Rehak, T.R., Mowrey, G.L. and Ingram, D.K. Blasting injuries
in surface mining with special emphasis on flyrock and blast area security. J.
Safety Research, 35(2004): 47-57, 2004.

14