Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01705-2 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
Blast Vibration and Fragmentation Control at Heavily
Jointed Limestone Mine
Ranjit K. Paswan . M. P. Roy . Ravi Shankar . P. K. Singh
Received: 18 December 2019 / Accepted: 17 January 2021 / Published online: 9 February 2021
Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract The presence of structural inhomogeneity
in a rock mass in the form of joints, fractures, bedding
planes is a very common phenomenon. These discon-
tinuities have a great influence on rock fragmentation
as explosive energy is significantly affected by it. The
extent of these discontinuities also has a great
influence such as the thickness of the joint interfaces
which varies from very tight joints to open ones. The
amount of energy (or stress) generated by explosives,
transmitted through the joints and energy can be
passed over the interface resulting in poor fragmen-
tation. The paper is based on the challenges faced
during the study at Sangmania and Birhauli limestone
mines to achieve the desired fragmentation as the rock
formation of the area is dominated by joints and
layered bedding. 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.
Fifty blasts have been conducted at different quarries
of Sagmania and Birhauli mines to determine the
effect of both joint spacing and orientation on rock
fragmentation. Two hundred thirty-six ground vibra-
tions data have been recorded and compared for
different prediction equations for better control on
ground vibration. The in-hole velocities of detonation
R. K. Paswan (&)  M. P. Roy  R. Shankar  P. K. Singh
CSIR - Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research,
Dhanbad 826 015, India
e-mail: ranjitkp.cimfr@yahoo.co.in
of explosives were monitored and optimal deck length
and deck types were optimized to improve the
fragmentation. The in-situ block size and blasted
block size were determined to evaluate the efficiency
of blasting.
Keywords Rock mass  Geological discontinuities 
Ground vibration  Rock fragmentation  Signature
hole analysis
1 Introduction
The rock excavation practice incorporates proper
drilling and blasting as one of the most significant
aspects. However, the generation of uncontrolled
cracks and micro-cracks in post-blast opening geom-
etry are some of the major disadvantages of drilling
and blasting (Singh et al. 2014, 2015).
Geological discontinuities are an integral part of
rock masses and significantly influence the blasting
operations in mining and civil industries resulting in
high excavation costs (Burkle 1979, Abu Bakar et al.
2013). Altogether, a rock mass comprises a variety of
visible discontinuities in the form of joints, fractures,
foliations, faults, bedding planes, layering, etc. which
have a profound impact on a blast outcome. Among
these rock properties, the influence of structural
discontinuities is generally overlooked during blast
designing and often overshadows the impact of
123
3470
physio-mechanical properties. Therefore, for a suc-
cessful blasting operation, the local geological condi-
tions, rock competency and fracture patterns have to
be considered first as they significantly influence a
blasting operation (Burkle 1979, Sauvage 2012).
In this context, various researchers (e.g. Rustan
et al. 1983, Fourney et al. 1993, Hustrulid 1999) have
suggested a wide discrepancy in the propagation of
stress waves, the appearance of cracks in terms of
length and orientation and the extent of crushing zone
around the borehole for closed, open or filled joints.
The first radial blasting induced fracture is influenced
by the existing discontinuities (Lande 1983, Anon
1987, Singh and Sastry 1987) and tends to be dom-
inant for further fracturing. The angle of incidence of
stress wave on the joint face governs the extent of
attenuation of stress wave (Lewandowski et al.1996).
Worsey et al. (1987) and Whittaker et al. (1992)
derived from model tests that joint opening has a
profound influence on stress wave transmission as
stress wave transmission will enhance with an increase
in the joint opening. With the decrease in joint width,
at a particular point where the joint width becomes
similar to the critical joint width, the fragmentation
increases on one side of the joint, and boulder
formation take place on the other side of the joint
(Fourney et al. 1997). Aziznejad and Esmaeili (2015)
concluded based on impact simulation that the pres-
ence of pre-existing joints in rock can influence the
propagation of stress waves induced through stress and
impact energy dissipation in the rock mass. In
addition, the impact-induced stress waves when gets
reflected from the joint surface can lead to the
formation of tensile waves in the rock mass and
change the crack pattern within it.
The stiffness joint infilling material also controls
the fragmentation, as the harder the joint filling
material, the finer the fragment size (Bhandari 1996).
The shear strength, as well as the friction properties of
the infilling material, also influence the blastability
and fragmentation. (Fordyce et al. 1993; 1997; Sen
1992). The disposition of joints, when parallel to the
blast face causes minimal back-break nevertheless
more over-break from the side portion of the blasted
face and also results in maximum blasted mass along
with uneven floor conditions. Besides, the rockmass
with predominant horizontal joints gives huge elon-
gated cracks on blasting (Rustan and Yang, 1983;
Singh and Sastry, 1987). The interactions between the
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
explosive energy transmission and pre-existing cracks
while blasting have a significant role in fragmentation
quality and blast damage. The nonuniform distribution
of explosives in blast holes due to pre-existing
discontinuities results in poor fragmentation. Apart
from this, the pre-existing joints create a zone of
impedance mismatch in the shock wave transmitting
medium through several reflections and refractions of
shock waves along the joint planes.
It has been reported by Persson et al. (1994) that
blasting in a homogenous isotropic medium naturally
does not result in the same fragmentation pattern as
when the medium is permeated with discontinuities.
Holmberg (1993) concluded that damages are mainly
inflicted in the rock structural discontinuities and
joints, cracks, and other weak planes in the rock mass.
If discontinuities are present then the effective area of
influence of a hole reduces because the gaps of the
joints will not only hinder the propagation of radial
cracks but will also provide easy passage for the gases
to escape, thus reducing the borehole pressure. The
observations made by Tariq and Worsey (1996)
suggest that 3 mm of joint opening reflects the
explosive energy just like a free face, thus no spit
plane is produced. It was also found that the joint
opening and angle of the crater are directly
proportional.
Apart from geological discontinuities, geotechnical
properties of transmitting media (viz., elastic modulus
and density), the distance traveled by waves and other
blasting parameters such as explosive weight per delay
influences the characteristics of vibration generated
due to surface blasting (Singh 2002; Singh et al. 2015).
The present paper attempts the evaluation the
impact of geological discontinuities on fragmentation
and optimization of blast design to control blast-
induced ground vibration within safe limits. For this
purpose, an extensive field study had been carried out
in Sagmania and Birhauli Limestone Mines of Satna
district, Madhya Pradesh, India.
2 Experimental Site
The Sagmania and Birhauli Limestone deposits are
situated at a distance of around 10 km in the north-east
direction from Satna Railway station. The mining area
lies between longitude E 80° 510 5600 to E 80° 550 2800
and latitude N 24° 370 900 to N 24° 400 500 and forms a
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
part of Survey of India Toposheet no. 63 D/14 (Fig. 1).
The limestone deposit of the area belongs to the
Bhander Group of Upper Vindhyan System of the
Vindhyan Supergroup. The area is not characterized
by any broad physiographic features and is a flat
terrain. The main lithological formations are Bhander
limestone and Sirbu shale. The limestone bed of this
area is highly jointed and/or fractured and because of
that, it’s hard to get the desired blasting results.
2.1 Assessment of Joints
Limestone in this area is found to be in the form of
thick, massive horizontally to sub horizontally dipping
sedimentary bedded deposit having relatively uniform
low dip values ranging from 2° to 5° in the direction of
S 10° W to S 5° E. The deposit of the area is
characterized by multi-directional joints vertical and
horizontal both. An erosional channel filled with clay,
lateritic soil has formed along these joint planes which
were probably brought through tributaries and dis-
tributaries from the Simrawal River system situated in
the north-eastern part, outside the mining lease area.
Fig. 1 Location map of Sagmania and Birhauli Limestone Mines, Satna, M.P (Modified after Azmi, 1998)
3471
The spacing between these joints varies from few
centimeters to more than a meter at the top and the gap
decreases down the depth. The limestones of the area
having a bulk density in the range of 2.6–2.72 g/cm3.
The mechanical properties of the rock formation from
the area have been presented in Table 1.
The method of digital photo analysis 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. It
enables us to characterize and measure jointing
patterns that are apparent in in-situ rock surfaces
(Fig. 2). WipJoint characterizes the pattern of geolog-
ical joints, faults, and other lineation in the rock mass.
Structural mapping and photo analysis of all the
benches of experimental sites were conducted, which
is essential for blast designs to get the desired
fragmentation. One of the views of the mine blast
face and working process is depicted in Fig. 3.
123
3472 Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485

Table 1 Mechanical properties of rocks of Sangmania and Birhauli limestone mine, Satna Cement Works, Satna (M. P.)
Uniaxial Uniaxial tensile Young’s Bulk
compressive strength (kg/cm2) Modulus density
strength (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2) (g/cm3)

Sample—A 596 57 1.0 9 105 2.68

Babupur Main Face North Side (108,823)
Sample—B 1008 45 2.3 9 105 2.6
Babupur Main Face East Side (232,500)
Sample—C 1724 52 1.8 9 105 2.7
Babupur Main Face East Side (Bedded) (185,000)
Sample—D 458 75 1.0 9 105 2.65
Babupur Main Face East Side (YSL Contact) (105,769)
Sample—E 504 66 1.3 9 105 2.71
Babupur Second Bench East Side (Floor) (135,000)
Sample—F 1641 108 3.1 9 105 2.72
D-Cutting Main Face west Side (312,195)
Sample—G 1461 54 2.5 9 105 2.68
A Quarry Main Face (252,777)

Fig. 2 Joint and fracture patterns apparent on in situ rock surfaces of different benches of mine

3 Blast Details and Optimisation
The real issue related to the production blast was
adequate fragmentation. Rocks of the site are bedded,
severely jointed and fractured. To achieve the desired
result several experiments were performed with pro-
duction blasts and delay time, deck length and deck
type were postulated. A total of 50 blasts comprising
48 production blasts and 2 signature hole blasts were
conducted and the peak particle velocities (PPVs)
were recorded accordingly. The deep blast holes
having a diameter of 150 m and a variable depth
ranging from 4.0 to 9.5 m were charged with explo-
sives of around 20–116 kg. The calculated explosives

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485 3473

Fig. 3 [A] View of Blast face of ‘A’ quarry; [B]. Explosive and deck material arrangements; [C]. Installation of seismographs for blast-
induced ground vibration monitoring; [D]. View of the blasted face

weight per delay was found to vary between 22 and Table 3 Details of blast design parameters
726 kg whereas, the total quantity of detonated
Blast design parameters Data/Range
explosives per round was found to range between 88
and 3256 kg. The charge factors used during the No of holes 1–43
experimentation were 0.49–0.67 kg/m3. Nonel initia- Hole diameter (mm) 150
tion system (pyrotechnic detonators), Electronic ini- Hole depth (m) 4–9.5
tiation system, and Detonating Cord were used to Burden (m) 2.5–4.0
conduct the blasts. Altogether, 236 ground vibration Spacing (m) 4.0–6.0
data (PPVs) were recorded and it varies between 1.11 Top Stemming (m) 1.8–3.25
and 59.3 mm/s. The vibration measuring locations Deck Length (m) 0.5–2.5
were in the range of 50–750 m. The dominant peak
frequencies recorded were 11–125 Hz. The summa-
rized details of the experimental site are presented in
Table 2. The blast design parameters of the experi-
mental trials are given in Table 3.

Table 2 Summarized blast Details of experimental Blast parameters Details of data

details of experimental site
No. of blasts 50
No. of PPV data recorded 236
Range of total explosive weight detonated 88–3256
Range of explosive weight per delay detonated (Kg) 22–726
Range of distance (m) 50–750
Range of recorded PPV (mm/s) 1.11–59.3
Range of dominant peak frequency (Hz) 11–125

123
3474
3.1 Optimization of Blast Design Parameters
3.1.1 Signature Blast
To get adequate rock fragmentation, swelling, dis-
placement, fly rocks, over breaks control, and in
minimizing ground vibration and air over-pressure, it
is evident to optimize delay timing. The duration of
vibration in the case of production blast is always
larger than smaller blasts due to the use of relatively
larger effective delays between successive blast holes
in production blast. Therefore, it is nearly impossible
to achieve complete avoidance superposition/amplifi-
cation of blast vibration (Valdivia et. al 2003, Singh
et al. 2009).
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
(Wheeler 2001; Aldas and Bilgin 2004). Therefore,
two signature blasts were conducted, one at ‘A’ quarry
top bench and another at ‘D’ Cutting East bench of
Sangmania Limestone Mine. The blast hole of the ‘A’
quarry top bench was loaded with 112.5 kg of
explosives and executed with a Nonel initiation
system whereas at ‘D’ Cutting east bench, it was
87.5 kg and an Electronic Delay detonator was used
for detonation. The blast wave signatures were
recorded at four locations varying from 50 to 200 m.
The attenuation characteristics of blast waves were
documented. The typical time history of blast vibra-
tion signature documented at a distance of 50 m from
blast face is presented in Fig. 4.
The frequency spectra of the signature blast were
analyzed through the Linear superimposition of the
waveform to pertain to the waveform characteristics
for multi-hole blasting. The frequency spectral anal-
ysis also suggests that time delays between holes
should not be very short and very long delay timing in
between rows should be neglected. Furthermore, the
mean timing required to begin the rock face movement
had been found to range between 5.2 and 6.7 ms/m of
the effective burden. The delay interval between the
successive rows should be 8.5–21.6 ms/m of an
effective burden. The blast designs were optimized
considering the output of linear superimposition
techniques.
Based on the signature waveform shown in Fig. 4
and its further analysis with the help of Blastware
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
software, the effective delay interval between the
holes was found to be 13 ms i.e. next available 17 ms
may be used while in the case of row-by-row delay the
time interval of 61 ms (NONEL-65 ms), 90 ms
(NONEL-65 ms ? NONEL-25 ms) and 122 ms
(NONEL-100 ms ? NONEL-25 ms) may be used.
The extensive study with the help of a high-speed
video camera indicated that the mean time required for
the commencement of movement in the blast face is
5.5–7.0 ms/m of effective burden. Recording of the
profile of face movement and detonation sequence
with the help of a high-speed video camera at the mine
is depicted in Fig. 5.
The structure response of the houses near the mine
boundary encountered amplifications of vibration in
the structure up to 2–2.7 times. Such blast events will
not cause damage to the structures. To determine
absolute and differential responses, the peak structure
response and the incoming vibrations waveforms are
superimposed. The low differential responses were
noticed at maximum amplification that occurred at the
resonance frequency (Fig. 6). Below resonance fre-
quencies, there were no amplifications as there was no
relative displacement and hence, no substantial
strain (Richter 1958, Rockwell 1927). The typical
blast design implemented is shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
The blast design parameters for each blast were
analyzed to get optimal fragmentation suitable for
loading, hauling, and crushing machine.
3.2 Experiments with Decks and In-hole Velocity
of Detonation of Explosives
As rocks are highly jointed and layered, decking plays
a vital role in the proper explosive distribution in
blasthole and to yield desired fragmentation. Suffi-
cient detonation pressure on the blasthole walls is
essentially required throughout the blastholes to yield
uniform fragmentation. This can be achieved if the
explosive holds a uniform VOD throughout the entire
explosive column. The in-the-hole VOD of explosives
were determined for nine sets of experimental blasting
with different deck materials and deck length. Blast-
holes were charged with primer and column explo-
sives with varying combinations and stone chips and
paperboard of explosive cardboard boxes were used
for decking and proficient charge distribution. The
paperboard of explosive cartoons being used as a deck
material is represented in Fig. 9. The recorded in-hole
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
Fig. 4 Time history of the signature blast in a longitudinal, vertical, and transverse direction
[1]
[4]
Fig. 5 Recording of the profile of face movement and detonation sequence with the help of high-speed camera at Sagmania and
Birhauli Limestone Mines, M/s Satna Cement works (M.P.), India
VOD was found within the range of 3202 to 5472 m/
sec.
Experimental trials were executed with the delays
between the decks of 8 ms (0 ms in bottom explosives
column and 8 ms in the upper part of explosives
column) in a hole were provided and in the second set
of the experiment the delay interval of 12 ms (0 ms in
bottom explosives column and 12 ms in the upper part
of explosives column) were provided in a hole. The
Paperboard deck material of 2.5 m was provided in
both the holes. The fiber optic cable was used in both
the holes with the VOD sensing cable. The recorded
data of in-the-hole VOD shows that due to the
3475
[2] [3]
[5] [6]
pressurization of bottom explosives, the top portion
of the explosives column also detonated and the
recorded vibration data was not in agreement with the
planned charge per delay. The causes of pressurization
of the upper part of the explosives column were the
easy transmission of detonation from the paperboard
deck portion which caused the detonation of the upper
part of the explosives column. The recorded data is
shown in Fig. 10.
Experimental blasts were performed with a similar
practice of providing a delay interval of 8 ms (0 ms in
the bottom explosives column and 8 ms in the upper
part of the explosives column) in a hole. In this set of
123
3476 Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485

Fig. 6 Peak structure response and forcing ground vibration at mud house due to blasting

Fig. 7 Typical blasts design with modified delay interval using non-electric delay detonators

Fig. 8 Typical blast design with modified delay interval using electronic delay detonators

the experiment, the decking material was stone chips
in place of paperboard deck material. The recorded
data is shown in Fig. 11 which indicates that the upper
part of the explosives column detonated at the desired
delay interval of 8 ms and the recorded vibration data
was also in agreement with the predicted one. Some of
the experimented blast holes charging patterns to get
better fragmentation, proper explosive distribution,
and to prevent overcharging of holes were depicted in
Fig. 12[A] and [B].
3.3 Analysis of Recorded Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV) Data
Various researchers have investigated the blast-in-
duced ground vibrations and formulated different
relationships to predict the vibration range at different

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485 3477

Fig. 9 View of paperboard of explosive cartoon boxes being used as a deck material

DataTrapII VOD Data VOD Cable

Channel 2 2,500,000 Hz
EDD –208ms EDD-200ms

7
3.0 m Top Stemming
6 5229.2 m/s

5
Distance (m)

4 1.5 m Explosive – 31.25 Kg

3 5350.8 m/s

2 2.5 m Deck (Paperboard)

1

0
2.5 m Explosive – 43.75 Kg
19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0
Time (ms)

Fig. 10 The traces of recorded in-the-hole VOD of emulsion explosive detonated with an Electronic delay detonator

distance intervals from the blast location. The concept
of scaled distance which is commonly used to predict
the blast vibration is defined as the actual distance
(R) between the blast face and the measuring point
divided by some power of the weight of the maximum
explosive per delay (Qmax). Different workers have
suggested different values of exponent which is shown
in Table 4. A comparative regression analysis was also
carried out and depicted in Figs. 13 and 14.
Presently, the USBM predictor equation is most
commonly used in the mining industry. Duvall and
Petkof 1959, 1962) of the US Bureau of Mines
suggested that any linear dimension scales with the
square root of the charge weight. The corresponding
USBM predictor equation can be expressed as:
 B½unknowntemplate
R
v ¼ K  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
Qmax
where v = peak particle velocity (mm/sec), K and B
are the site constants determined through regression
analysis, R = distance between blasting face and
instrument location (m), Qmax = maximum explosives
weight per delay (kg).

123
3478 Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485

DataTrapII VOD Data VOD Cable

Channel 1 2,500,000 Hz
EDD –208ms EDD-200 ms
9

7
3.0 m Top Stemming
6 5329.7 m/s

5
Distance (m)

4 1.5 m Explosive – 31.25 Kg

3

2 5414.0 m/s 2.5 m Deck (stone chips)

1

-1 2.5 m Explosive – 43.75 Kg

-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5
Time (ms)

Fig. 11 The traces of recorded in-the-hole VOD of emulsion and slurry (cartridge) explosives detonated with the Nonel initiation
system

Fig. 12 Different charging patterns of blasthole. [A]. Blasthole with electronic initiation system; [B]. Blasthole with a Nonel initiation
system (Pyrotechnic detonator)

The USBM predictor was found most suitable as
the predicted vibrations were more close to the actual
vibration data. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is a
widely accepted parameter for the measurement of
blast-induced ground vibration. The PPV is defined as
the maximum speed at which an individual particle
vibrates as the waves pass through a particular
medium. The regression plot of the recorded peak
particle velocities at a 95% confidence level is
depicted in Fig. 15.

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485 3479

Table 4 Blast vibration Predictor equation

predictors
p
USBM predictor Eq. (1959, 1962) v ¼ KðR= Q maxÞB
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ambrasseys–Hendron equation (AMHEN), 1968 v ¼ KðR= 3 Q maxÞB
p
Langefors and Kihlstrom equation (LANKH), 1978 v ¼ Kð Q max =R3=2 ÞB
Indian Standard predictor equation, 1973 v ¼ KðQ max =R2=3 ÞB

USBM AMHEN
Power (USBM) Power (AMHEN)
100

v = 597.58[S/Qmax^1/3]-1.216
R² = 0.7472
ppv [MM/S]

10

v = 198.39[S/√Qmax]-1.169
R² = 0.7482

1
1 10 100 1000
Scales distance

Fig. 13 Comparative regression equation plot between USBM and Ambraseys-Hendron (AMHEN) predictor equation

4 Joint and Fragmentation Analysis
The WipJoint software of the M/s WipWare Inc was
used for the Joint pattern analysis. The software gives
information about the quantitative estimation of
exposed fragmented blocks, their maximum, mini-
mum, and mean size, sieve analysis at different
percentile size values viz. D10, D25, D50, D75 and
D90. The Xc denotes the typical size which is an
intercept of the Rosin–Rammler straight line fitted to
the WipFrag data in log–log coordinates. The rosette
orientations and spacing for joints of different benches
of mines were plotted. One such plot of ‘D’ cutting
bench from the mine is shown in Fig. 16. The detailed
in-situ and block size distribution of blasted benches
from Sangmania and Birhauli Limestone Mine is
given in Tables 5 and 6 respectively.
Noy (2012) suggested that fitting the fragmentation
measurement tool to digging equipment by means of
positioning the camera system on the digger, will
optimize the viewing parameters that improve the
exposure of the fragmentation for segmentation algo-
rithms. Ondera et al. (2015) also suggested the
mounting of a fragmentation imaging system on
digging equipment. The present study incorporates
the fragmentation analyses for each blast using a photo
analysis system. The photo analysis system was
adopted and about 8–10 photographs of blasted muck
for each of the blasts were taken from the digital
camera with a standard scale (1 m square 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 fragmented view of blast conducted at the 2nd
bench of ‘A’ Quarry of Sagmania and Birhauli
Limestone Mines, shows uniformly distributed muck
pile with excellent fragmentation (Fig. 17). The
average mean size of the block is found to be around

123
3480 Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485

Indian Standard LANKH

Power (Indian Standard) Power (LANKH)
100
v = 791.47[√Qmax/S^3/2]0.8108 v = 2.9106[Qmax/S^2/3]0.7267
R² = 0.7472 R² = 0.3851
PPV [mm/s]

10

1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Scaled distance

Fig. 14 Comparative regression equation plot between Indian standard and Langefors-Kihlstrom (LANHK) predictor equation

Fig. 15 Regression plot of recorded PPV with their respective scaled distances

0.235 m (diameter of an equivalent sphere) whereas, a well-jointed rock mass. The spacing to burden ratio
block having the most common size is around 0.191 m was kept in the range of 1.15–1.30 for different
and the maximum size is around 0.599 m (diameter of benches.
an equivalent sphere). The fragmentation analyses
result of the blast is depicted in Fig. 18. Similar
analyses were also carried out at different benches for
the varying burden and spacing. The strata were of the

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485 3481

Fig. 16 Netting and joint pattern analysis of the D-cutting East Bench, Sangmania and Birhauli Limestone Mine, Satna Cement Works,
Satna

Table 5 In situ block size S. No Blast Bench Name D10 D25 D50 D75 D90 Xmax Xc n
distribution of Sangmani
and Birhauli limestone mine 1 2nd bench ‘C’ Quarry 0.59 0.75 1.03 1.6 2.02 2.27 1.36 2.8
(m)
2 1st bench ‘A’ Quarry 0.54 0.82 1.33 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.6 2.9
3 Birhauli Hard OB Bench 0.83 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.7 1.96 3.42
4 ‘D’ cutting East bench 0.65 0.97 1.56 2.15 2.5 2.74 1.87 3.09

123
3482 Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485

Table 6 Blasted block size S. No Blast Bench Name D10 D25 D50 D75 D90 Xmax Xc n
distribution of Sangmania
and Birhauli limestone mine 1 2nd bench ‘C’ Quarry 0.09 0.12 0.18 0.26 0.36 0.26 0.22 2.37
(m)
2 1st bench ‘A’ Quarry 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.11 2.25
3 Birhauli Hard OB Bench 0.22 0.3o 0.42 0.64 0.97 0.63 0.51 2.19
4 ‘D’ cutting East bench 0.18 0.24 0.35 0.52 0.70 0.52 0.42 2.27

5 Results and Discussion

The limestone deposit of the experimental site char-

Fig. 17 Fragmented view of the blast conducted at the 2nd
bench of ‘A’ Quarry of Sagmania and Birhauli Limestone
Mines, M/s Satna Cement works (M.P.), India
acteristically has multi-directional joints and fractures.
The biggest challenge was to get the desired fragmen-
tation so that it can be efficiently excavated and
handled by the downstream process. To overcome this
issue, joints orientation and spacing were mapped and
photo-analyzed. The drill and blast patterns were
accordingly designed that ultimately resulted in the
desired fragmentation with a reduced vibration level.
Joint/fracture, either open or filled with loose

Fig. 18 The fragmentation analysis Process. [A] Netting of rock fragments; [B] Contours of fragmented rocks; [C] Histogram curve for
rock fragment size; [D] Cummuative curve for rock fragment size

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
secondary materials, leads to the release of explosive
energy easily yielding poor fragmentation. The distri-
bution of explosives in blastholes needs proper
attention for rocks of such geological character. In
such a 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 the top portion of the
bench. To mitigate this problem experimental blasts
were conducted with different deck types and lengths
to get proper explosive distribution and utilization of
explosive energy to get optimum fragmentation.
Explosive cartoons of paperboard were used as a
substitute for air deck along with the stone chips
(angular gravel/aggregate of 10–20 mm size) and
significant improvement in fragmentation was wit-
nessed. It was obvious that in the case of the
Paperboard deck, utilization of explosive energy is
more in rock fragmentation. This is due to the
instantaneous detonation of the explosive column
separated by the paperboard deck. The paperboard
deck was used to reduce the weight of explosives in the
blast holes. This ultimately resulted in a reduction in
ground vibration and improvement in rock
fragmentation.
Especially, the top stemming part was critical in
terms of boulder generation, the bottom part of the top
stemming up to 1 m was filled with paperboard
(Fig. 12) and this helped in minimizing the boulder
formations and finally resulted in excellent fragmen-
tation. The in-the-hole velocity of detonation was
recorded to examine the sustainability of the deck and
its optimum utilization to get more efficient blast
results. Blastholes with hole depth 8 m were charged
with a Paperboard deck of 1.5 m and blastholes with
hole depth 6 to 8 m were directly charged with
paperboard of 1 m length at the bottom of the top stem
portion to get the optimal result after experimental
trials.
The joint analysis performed before blasting sug-
gests that the average in-situ block size of jointed rock
mass at different benches of the experimental site was
between 1.03 m and 1.5 m. the maximum boulder
sizes were in the range of 2.27 m to 2.74 m. The
fragmentation analysis after the experimental trial was
performed for all the benches. It was found that the
average fragment size was in the range of 0.09 m to
0.42 m. The maximum size of boulders found in
between 0.15 m to 0.63 m. This reveals that the results
3483
of the experimental trials with optimized blast designs
improved the fragmentation as required.
Blast induced ground vibrations were recorded and
a comparative analysis was performed for different
predictor equations to see the best-suited predictor
equation. The USBM predictor equation was found
more suitable and regression analyses at a 95%
confidence level were performed and resulted in a
74.1% correlation coefficient.
The recorded high-speed video indicated that the
mean time required for the instigation of movement in
blast face is 5.5–7.0 ms/m of effective burden. The
signature hole was conducted and signature waveform
analysis was performed to determine effective delay
interval between the holes in a row and within the
rows. The optimized delay timing helped enabled in
reducing the back breaks and stable bench profiles
were achieved after blasting without having any
hanging boulders.
6 Conclusions
The mapping of discontinuities like joints, fractures,
etc. is very important to optimize the drilling param-
eters to get the maximum output. The use of the deck
in the heavily jointed rockmass resulted in very good
fragmentation with a significant decrease in blast-
induced ground vibrations.
For benches having blasthole depth more than 9 m,
Paperboard up to a length of 1 m along with the stone
chips (1.2 m) to prevent puncturing of the top
explosive column was found optimal to yield better
fragmentation with reduced ground vibration. In
highly fractured rocks paperboard decks of 2.2 m
length offered excellent results. It is concluded that the
Paperboard deck used helped to achieve better rock
fragmentation and to reduce the weight of explosives
in the blast holes. For the separation of explosives
charges in a blast hole, the decking material must be
stone chips or drill cuttings of 5 mm to 10 mm size.
The blasthole depth 6–8 m was directly charged with a
paperboard of 1 m length at the bottom of the top
stemming significantly reduced the boulder forma-
tions from the top stemming part.
Based on the signature waveform analysis, it is
concluded that the effective delay interval would be
nearer to 61 ms. The delay interval between the holes
in a row should be 13 ms whereas, between the rows, it
123
3484
should be 61–122 ms depending upon the number of
rows and effective burden in front of the particular
hole.
The comparative analysis was performed for
different predictor equations to see the best-suited
predictor equation and the USBM predictor equation
was found more suitable. This was used to predict the
ground vibration level for different maximum explo-
sive weights per delay to keep the induced ground
vibration within a safe limit.
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the mine
officials for providing necessary facilities during field
investigations. The permission of the Director, CSIR-Central
Institute of Mining & Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India to publish
this paper is thankfully acknowledged.
References
Abu Bakar MZ, Tariq SM, Hayat MB, Zahoor MK, Khan MU
(2013) Influence of geological discontinuities upon frag-
mentation by blasting. Pak J Sci 65(3):414–419
Aldas GGU, Bilgin HA (2004) Effect of some rock mass
properties on blasting-induced ground vibration wave
characteristics. CIM Bull 97(1079):52–59
Ambraseys NR, Hendron AJ (1968) Rocks mechanics in engi-
neering practices. In: Stagg KG, Zienkiewics OC (eds.),
Wiley, London, pp 203–207
Anon (1987) Explosive and rock blasting. Atlas Power Com-
pany, Dallas, p 662
Aziznejad S, Esmaeili K (2015) Effects of Joint Intensity on
Rock Fragmentation by Impact. In: Proceedings of 11th
international symposium on rock fragmentation by blast-
ing, Sydney, NSW, August 24–26, pp 377–384
Azmi RJ (1998) Discovery of Lower Cambrian small shelly
fossils and brachiopods from the Lower Vindhyan of Son
Valley, Central India. J Geol Soc India 52:381–389
Bhandari S (1996) Changes in fragmentation processes with
blasting conditions. In: Mohanty B (ed.), Rock fragmen-
tation by blasting—Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada,
pp 301–312
Burkle WC (1979) Geology and its effect on blasting. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 5th conference on explosives and blasting
techniques, SEE, pp 105–120
Duvall WI, Fogleson D (1962) Review of criteria for estimating
damage to residences from blasting vibration, USBM – I
5968
Duvall WI, Petkof B (1959) Spherical propagation of Explosion
of generated strain pulses in rocks, vol 5783. USBM, RI,
pp 21–22
Fordyce DL, Fourney WL, Dick RD, Wang XJ (1993) Effect of
joints on stress wave transmission. In: Rossmanith HP
(ed.), Rock fragmentation by blasting—Fragblast 4,
Vienna, Austria: pp 211–220
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
Fourney WL, Dick RD, Wang XJ, Weaver TA (1997) Effects of
weak layers on particle velocity measurements. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 30(I):118
Holmberg R (1993) Recent developments to control rock
damage. In: Rossmanith HP (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th
international conference on rock fragmentation by blasting,
Vienna, Austria, Rotterdam: Balkema, July 5–8,
pp 197–198
Hustrulid W (1999) Blasting principles for open-pit mining, vol
1. Balkema Pub, A. A, p 382
Indian Standard (1973) Criteria for safety and design of struc-
tures subjected to underground blast. ISI Bull., IS-6922.
Langfors U, Kihlstrom B (1978) The modern techniques of rock
blasting. Wiley, New York, p 438
Lewandowski TH, Luan Mai VK, Danell RE (1996) Influence of
discontinuities on presplitting effectiveness. In: Mohanty B
(ed.), Rock fragmentation by blasting—Fragblast 5, Mon-
treal, Canada: pp 217–232
Noy MJ (2012) Automated rock fragmentation measurement
with close-range digital photography. In: Measurement and
analysis of blast fragmentation workshop, held at Fragblast
10—10th international symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, CRC Press, Balkema, pp 13–21
Onedera M, Thurley M, Catalan A (2015) Measuring blast
fragmentation at Esperanza mine using high-resolution 3D
laser scanning. Trans Inst Min Metall Min Technol
124(1):A34–A36
Persson PA, Holmberg R, Lee J (1994) Rock blasting and
explosives engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
pp 259–264
Richter CF (1958) Elementary seismology. SanFrancisco, W.
H. Freeman and Co, p 768
Rockwell EH (1927) Vibration caused by quarry blasting and
their effect on structures. The Explosives Engineer, March,
pp. 93–96 and April, pp. 143–145
Rustan A, Yang ZG, (1983) The influence from a primary
structure on fragmentation. In: 1st international sympo-
sium on rock fragmentation by blasting. v. 2, Lulea, Swe-
den, pp 581–604
Sauvage AC (2012) Applied method integrating rock mass in
blast design. In: 10th international symposium on rock
fragmentation by blasting, FRAGBLAST 10, CRC Press,
Balkema, pp 77–83
Sen G (1992) Rock property influence on fragmentation at rock
blasting—a literature review. Technical Report, Division
of Mining and Rock Excavation, ISSN 0349 - 3571,
1992:16T, Lulea University of Technology.
Singh PK (2002) Blast vibration damage to underground coal
mines from adjacent open-pit blasting. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 39(8):959–973
Singh DP, Sastry VR (1987) Role of weakness planes in bench
blasting—a critical study. In: 2nd international symposium
on rock fragmentation by blasting, Keystone, Colorado,
U.S.A., August 23–26, pp 135–146
Singh PK, Roy MP, Joshi A, Joshi VP (2009) Controlled
blasting (pre-splitting) at an open-pit mine in India. In:
Proceeding of 9th international symposium on rock frag-
mentation by blasting, Granada, Spain, pp 481–489
Singh PK, Roy MP, Paswan RK (2014) Controlled blasting for
long term stability of pit-walls. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
70:388–399
Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:3469–3485
Singh PK, Roy MP, Paswan RK, Dubey RK, Drebenstedt C
(2015) Blast vibration effects in an underground mine
caused by open-pit mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
80:79–88
Tariq SM, Worsey PN (1996) An investigation into the effect of
varying joint aperture and nature of the surface on pre-
splitting. In: Proceedings, 12th symposium on explosives
and blasting research, pp 186–195
Valdivia C, Vega M, Scherpenisse CR, Adamson WR (2003)
Vibration simulation method to control stability in the
Northeast corner of Escondida Mine. Int J Rock Fragm
Blast FRAGBLAST 7(2):63–78
Wheeler RM (2001) The analysis of signature vibrations to help
control vibration frequency. In: 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
3485
Whittaker BS, Singhand RN, Sun G (1992) Fracture mechanics
applied to rock fragmentation due to blasting. In: Rock
Fracture Mechanics—Principles, Design and Applications,
Development in Geotechnical Engineering, 71, Chapter 13,
Elsevier Science Ltd., pp 443–479
Worsey PN, Qu S (1987) Effect of joint separation and filling on
pre-splitting blasting. In: Proceedings of the 3rd sympo-
sium on explosives and blasting research, ISEE, Mini—
Symposium. February 5–6, 1987, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
pp 26–40
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123