Vibrations in Coal Mine

Optimization of Blasting Pattern in an Underground Coal Mine for
Maximum Production with Minimum Roof Disturbance
P. K. Singh, M. P. Roy, R. K. Singh

Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad 826 001, India
&
D. P. Singh
UP Rajarshi Tandon Open University, Allahabad 211 001, India
Abstract
Success of a blasting pattern in Blasting-off-the-solid (BOS) in Bord (Room) & Pillar method of coal
mining is judged by the percentage of pull achieved vis-à-vis the yield of coal produced in a blasted
round. Improper blast design and distribution of explosives in shot holes normally causes poor breakage
i.e. a major portion of shot holes left unbroken resulting into reduced yield per blast. Over and above the
disturbance to the roof is also due to excessive vibration caused by explosive energy not properly
utilized in fragmentation.
Keeping in view the problems often encountered in the blasting-off-solid in Bord & Pillar mining
method, a study was carried out at Orient Mine No. 2 of Coal India Limited in India for optimizing the
blasting pattern in order to get maximum yield with minimum disturbance to the roof. Eighteen
experimental blasts were carried out with varying patterns. The blast induced vibration was measured at
various points in the roof and the pillars. The experimental area was whitewashed for easy identification
of deterioration in the roof. The maximum vibration, 67.1 mm/s, was recorded at 9.1 m from the blasting
face. The dominant frequency was 101 Hz. The prevailing practice in the mine resulted into 30-40%
unbroken shot holes i.e. with pull per round of 60-70%. With the optimized blast patterns, the pull per
round increased to 90%. Wooden spacers and plastic spacers were used to create air gaps in blastholes.
Based on the analyses of data, blast patterns were recommended to get maximum production with
minimum roof disturbance. Monitoring of underground strata behaviour indicated that some amount of
divergence occurred between the roof and the floor, just after the blast. Later on it was followed by
convergence. In pillars also, the monitoring done 5 to 10 minutes after the blast indicated that tension
occurred in vertical direction but restored, later on, as compression occurred in the pillar. A critical zone
of disturbance due to blasting-off-solid was also recommended.
Introduction
Production from underground coal mining in India has been decreasing since the last decade. Presently,
around 81% of the total coal production come from opencast mining. The cost of production from
underground mining in India works out to be $ 5.47 per billion Calories, whereas the global cost of
production from underground is $ 2.42-3.5 per billion Calories.
Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2003G Volume 2 - Optimization of Blasting Pattern in an Underground Coal Mine for Maximum Production with Minimum Roof Disturbance 1 of 13
The mineable reserves of the country is around 220 Bt. Out of which 45 Bt (upto a stripping ratio of 1:6)
are amenable to opencast mining and remaining 175 Bt to underground mining. It is obvious that
opencast production will reach a plateau within next 20-22 years and there will be no option except to go
for underground mining with mass production technology to sustain production and productivity levels
for coping with the demand (Mishra, 1998). The coal demand is 363 Mt in 2002. The targeted coal
demand in 2007 is 448 Mt whereas it is 620 Mt in 2012 (Sharma, 2002). To meet the enhanced
requirement of coal in future, the Indian mining industry has to adopt, in a big way, the underground
mining methods with high production rate such as Blasting Gallery and Longwall mining methods. Side
by side, the manual job elements in Blasting-off-the-solid method is to be phased out through
introduction of mechanization in the system.
Blasting off-the-solid, in Indian underground mines, has been a widely practised method of winning coal
while developing mine galleries in the Bord & Pillar system. During such blasting, P5 type of explosives
are used with permitted delay detonators as per conditions imposed by the mine regulatory agency.
Keeping in view the dangers associated in such blasting operations, the mine regulatory agency has also
limited the charge weight in a shot hole in accordance with the degree of gassiness of the mine. While a
maximum charge of 1000 g in a shot hole is allowed in degree I mines, only 565 g is allowed for solid
blasting in higher degree of gassiness. A P5 explosive is the safest but the weakest of all the permitted
explosives, causing insufficient pull per round.
Thus, necessity has been felt by the coal mining industry either to develop a strong explosive or to
optimize the blast design for achieving greater pull in BOS system without impairing safety in
underground coal mines. To meet the need of industry, a study was conducted at Orient Mine No.2 for
maximum production with minimum disturbance to the roof.
Description of the experimental site
Experimental blasts were carried out in HR seam III of Orient Mine No. 2. The thickness of the seam is
3.05 m and the immediate roof rock is shale. Bord (Room) & Pillar method of mining is being practised
to extract the coal. The seam is dipping at the gradient of 1 in 13. The gallery size is 2.3 m x 4.2 m and
pillar size is 25 m x 25 m centre to centre. The section of the underground workings of Hingir Rampur
seam III and IV is shown in Figure 1.
Crab Shale
HR Seam IV
2.3 m Coal 3.05 m
Grey Shale
Crab Shale
4.19 m 3.30 m Shaley Coal
Parting Coal
Crab Shale
3.19 m HR Seam III

2.3 m Coal
Crab Shale
Figure 1. Section of the underground workings of Hingir Rampur Seam III and IV.

Instrumentation in experimental area
Arrangements were made in the underground panel to monitor the blast induced ground vibration in the
roof of the gallery as well as in the pillars. Necessary attachments were inserted in the roof, by the
blasting face, to mount the transducers of seismographs therein. The monitoring points, in the roof, were
at the junction as well as in-between the two junctions of the galleries. Notches were made in coal pillars
to mount the transducers. These notches were 1.0-1.2 m below the roof having depth 0.5-0.6 m inside
the pillar. Blast induced vibration was monitored simultaneously in the roof and pillars.
Strata monitoring instruments such as load cell, strain bar and a convergence indicator were installed in
the underground working panel to monitor the response of strata to blast vibration. The surroundings of
underground experimental site was cleaned and whitewashed to enable easy identification of new
spalling. Inspection of the area was carried out after each of the blast. A plan showing the positions of
vibration and strata monitoring instruments is depicted in Figure 2.
12R
29 SL Load Cell –
Convergence Indicator –
13 R
Strain Bar –
30 SL
Vibration measuring point in roof –
14 R
Vibration measuring point in pillar -
31 SL
Figure 2. Plan showing the vibration and strata monitoring points in HR Seam No. III.
Blast design practised in the mine
Six experiments with the existing blast design, in different faces, were studied and monitored. The
vibration in the roof and pillars by the blasting face were monitored. Strata behaviour due to dynamic
loading was also recorded. The blast design followed is depicted in Figure 3. There were 3 rows of shot
holes. The number of holes varied between 12-14. The bottom row contained 6 holes. The depth of hole
was 1.38 m. The amount of explosive per hole was 370 g with maximum explosive weight per delay of
1.48 kg. The total explosive weight varied between 4.44 to 5.18 kg. The average pull per blast was 60-
70%. The left out sockets were of 0.4-0.6 m. The reason for left out sockets resulting in less production
might be the less amount of explosive in the bottom row holes thereby resulting in creation of
insufficient free face for the successive delays. Improper dressing was also observed causing irregular
shape of the face front. It was responsible for the varying depth of shot holes. All these reasons may
have accounted for the poor pull.
In one experiment with the existing blast design, vibration (peak particle velocity) recorded in the roof,
at 20.6 m by the blasting face, was 41.8 mm/s and the associated dominant peak frequency, 173 Hz.
Vibration recorded in the pillar was 19.53 mm/s and dominant peak frequency, 130 Hz for the same
blast and at the same distance. In this blast, 14 holes were detonated with total explosives of 5.18 kg.

The maximum explosive weight per delay was 1.48 kg and the explosive in each hole was 370 g. Strata
monitoring instruments did not indicate any change in the strata behaviour.
Roof 1.3 m
0.3 m
V IV IV V
0.95 m
2.3 m
IV III III IV
0.9 m
III II I I II III
0.15 m
4.2 m 1.38 m
Floor
1.15 m .8 m .3 m 0.8 m 1.15 m
1.38 m
.15m .7m .6m 1.3m .6m .7m .15m
Figure 3. Existing blast pattern practised in the mine.
Modified blast designs
Initially, the necessary dressing of the pre-blast face was done before commencing the drilling operation
of experimental trial blasts. Emphasis was given to maintain the proper direction and depth of shot holes
in each row. The spacing between the holes were also changed. In the modified blast designs, the
explosive per hole in the bottom row was increased from 370 g to 555 g. This was done to ensure that all
the holes in the bottom row perform well to create a free face for the rest of the holes fired in successive
rows/delays. Twelve experiments with modified blast designs were conducted. The modified blast
designs resulted into improved pull per blast.
Wooden/plastic spacers were introduced to create air gap between cartridges of explosives in blastholes.
Based on data generated in the laboratory and in the field on air-gap sensitivity of explosives, it has been
observed that explosives passing a gap of 2 cm under open unconfined condition pass more than 50 cm
gap in a shot hole in a coal seam and more than 80 cm in cannon confinement. Wooden/plastic spacers
were used to take advantage of this enhanced air-gap sensitivity of P5 explosives. The air gap in
blastholes enhances effective distribution of the shock wave of explosive energy. The spacers of 15 cm
were inserted between the two cartridges. Depth of the holes was also increased from 1.38 to 1.52 m
(Figure 4). The explosive column in a blasthole increased by 30 cm, which resulted in increased pull per
blast of up to 90%. The yield of coal per round was 14-16 t and the left out sockets were practically nil.
The face was vertical with no under or overhangs.

The modified blast designs also resulted in less vibration. In one blast, vibration recorded in the roof, at
19.1 m away from the blasting face, was 34.3 mm/s with the dominant peak frequency of 76 Hz. In this
blast, 14 holes were detonated with total explosives of 5.735 kg. The explosive weight per delay was
1.85 kg. The shot holes in the bottom row contained 555 g explosives and upper rows 370 g each. The
deformation in strata was also monitored before and after blast with the help of strata monitoring
instruments. The existing and modified blast patterns and production of coal are given in Table 1.
Roof 1.45 m
0.3 m
V IV IV V
0.95 m
2.3 m
IV III III IV
0.9 m
III II I I II III
0.15 m
4.2 m 1.52 m
Floor
1.05 m .9 m .3 m 0.9 m 1.05 m
1.52 m
.15m .65m .6m 1.4m .6m .65m .15m
Figure 4. Modified blast pattern followed during the experimental trials.
The delay numbers I, II & III have less room to move coal than later delays. It might be expected that
proportionately more vibration energy is transmitted to the unbroken rock from bottom row delays. The
maximum explosive weight per delay is in delay III and is anticipated that maximum vibration will be
from the delay III. The study also confirmed that the maximum vibration amplitudes were produced by
the delay III. The time history of blast vibration recorded in the pillar is depicted in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Vibration time history monitored in the pillar.

Table 1. Details of existing and modified blast patterns.
Blast Pattern No. Hole Maxm Maxm Total Pull Socket Production Remarks
No. of depth explosive explosive explosive length, per blast
holes in a hole weight fired in a if any
per delay round
[m] [kg] [kg] [kg] [m] [m] [t]
1 Prevailing 13 1.38 0.37 1.48 4.81 0.9 0.42 10.5 Face was not
dressed properly
2 Prevailing 14 1.38 0.37 1.48 5.18 0.7 0.60 9 Face was not
dressed properly
3 Prevailing 14 1.38 0.37 1.48 5.18 0.9 0.45 11 Hole inclinations
were not proper
dressed properly
5 Prevailing 12 1.38 0.37 1.48 4.44 0.8 0.48 10.5 Hole inclinations
were not proper
dressed properly
7 Modified 14 1.38 0.555 1.85 5.18 1.1 0.15 14 Face was dressed
properly
8 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 5.735 1.25 0.1 14.5 Holes were
drilled properly
9 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 5.735 1.22 0.1 15 Face was dressed
properly
10 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 6.29 1.35 nil 16 Wooden spacers
were used
11 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 6.29 1.3 nil 15.5 Wooden spacers
were used
12 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 5.735 1.3 nil 15 Plastic spacers
were used
13 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 6.29 1.35 nil 16 Plastic spacers
were used
14 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 5.735 1.36 nil 16 Wooden spacers
were used
15 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 6.29 1.32 nil 15.5 Plastic spacers
were used
16 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 5.735 1.3 nil 15.5 Uniformly
inclined holes
17 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 6.29 1.25 0.1 14.5 Face was dressed
properly
18 Modified 14 1.52 0.555 1.85 6.29 1.38 nil 16 Uniformly
inclined holes

Monitoring of vibration and analyses there of
Vibrations were monitored in the bord (roof) as well as in pillars simultaneously for all the experimental
blasts with existing and modified designs. The transducers of seismographs were mounted at varying
distances ranging from 7 m to 55 m. Vibrations were measured in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV)
which varied from 6.54 mm/s to 67.1 mm/s at different locale depending on the distance and the
explosive detonated in a delay. The dominant peak frequencies ranged between 48-200 Hz.
The value of explosive weight as a scaling factor for vibration lies in the ability to predict maximum
amplitudes from a wide range of charge weight. Cube root scaling is supported by dimensional analysis
if a spherical charge of constant density and increasing radius is assumed, resulting in weight (volume)
change that is proportional to the cube of the radius. Justification for square root scaling for most
blasting situations arises from the procedures used to vary charge weights. Since charges are generally
cylindrical and have fixed length, an increase in hole diameter results in a weight (volume) increase
proportional to the square of the radius. This indicates square root scaling may be more appropriate.
Vibration in roof
Ground vibration data recorded in the roof were grouped together for statistical analysis. An empirical
relationship has been established correlating the maximum explosive weight per delay (Qmax in kg),
distance of measuring transducers from the blasting face (R in m) and peak particle velocity (v in mm/s).
The established equation at 95% confidence envelope for prediction of vibration in the roof due to
blasting-off-the solid is given below. Plots of recorded peak particle velocity with their respective scaled
distance are illustrated in Figure 6.
− 1. 09
 R 
V = 1198 ⋅ 
 Q


(1)
 max 
−1 .09
 R 
V = 1287 ⋅ 
3 Q


(2 )
 max 
Coefficient of determination = 0.828
Where,
V= Peak particle velocity (mm/s)
R = Distance from blasting face to point of measurement (m)
Qmax = Maximum explosive weight per delay (kg)

Figure 6. Regression plot of vibration data recorded in roof.
Vibration in pillar
The same process of analysis of vibration data recorded in pillar was carried out. The best-fit equation at
95% confidence envelope is given as Equation 2. Plots of recorded peak particle velocity at their
respective scaled distances are illustrated in Figure 7.
−0 .904
 R 
V = 324 ⋅ 
 Q


(3)
 max 
− 0. 904
 R 
V = 343 ⋅ 
3 Q


(4 )
 max 
Coefficient of determination = 0.874
The empirical equations established for square root and cube root scaling were taken for prediction of
vibration for various distances. The predicted magnitude of vibrations from square root and cube root
scaling are almost identical at nearby distances. The attenuation factors are also identical. Justification
for square root scaling for most blasting situations arises from the procedures used to vary charge
weights. As the range of charge weight in BOS is not changing too much so the capabilities of square
root scaling factors do not seem to be perfect. The applicability of cube root scaling was checked and
was also not found suitable. Correlation coefficients of the least square regression lines through the
scaled velocity data for both the scaling laws (Equations 1-4) have been found in good agreement. But,
the observed data and the predicted are not in agreement with each other at nearby distances. The
predicted vibration at nearby distances for charge weight per delay i.e. 4 holes in a delay (1.48 kg/1.85
kg) or one hole in a delay (370 g/555 g) are more or less identical. In the near field, the standard scaling
law is ineffective as it assumes that all elements of the charge contribute collectively and equally. In

order to compensate for the near field effects, the standard scaling law can be integrated over the length
of the charge. This allows elemental charges to contribute varying amounts of vibration according to
their distance from the point of interest.
The analyses of data at far off distances indicate that square root scaling is best fit to predict the level of
vibration for the mine concerned. The comparative analysis of vibration data recorded in roof and pillars
indicated that roof vibrated with about 2 times higher amplitude than the pillars. The Equations 1 & 3
also predict the similar trend of amplification.
Figure 7. Regression plot of vibration data recorded in pillars.
Strata monitoring results and analysis
The strata behavior due to blasting was investigated. The convergence indicator installed at the junction
of 14R between 30SL-31SL indicated a divergence of 5.6 mm (Figure 8) when monitored 5 to 10
minutes after blasting. Subsequently for the next blast, convergence varying between 1.3 to 1.8 mm was
recorded.
The strain bar installed in 31SL between 13R-14R in the pillar indicated tension in the pillar causing
deformation upto 3.86 mm between roof and floor (Figure 9). On the subsequent monitoring of blasting
effect, the instrument recorded relaxation in the pillar just after blasting with deformation varying
between 0.66 to 1.11 mm.
The convergence indicator showed a different trend of strata movement. Generally, in underground
roadways convergence occurs between the roof and the floor. But, here divergence has been observed
while studying the effect of blasting. The strata behaviour carried out 5 to 10 minutes after blasting
indicates that some amount of divergence occurred between roof and floor. Such divergence was
followed by convergence and most of the divergence occurred was restored. Similarly, in the pillars, the
amount of deformation was also restored as compression occurred in the pillar after 5 to 10 minutes of

blasts. The occurrence of divergence between roof and floor and vertical deformation of pillar due to
tension may be due to vibration caused in rock mass in the roadways.
6
AB
Tension (+ve) or Compression (-ve) in mm
5 AB AB
AB
4 AB
BB BB
3
BB BB
2
BB BB - Before Blast
AB - After Blast
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Days of measurement
Figure 8. Plot of compression or tension recorded by Strain Bar.
7
AB AB
Convergence (-ve) or Divergence (+ve) in mm
AB AB AB
6
BB
5 BB
BB BB
1 BB
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Days of measurement
Figure 9. Plot of convergence or divergence recorded by Convergence Indicator.

Damage criteria
Damage criteria for surface structures due to blast vibrations are reported by many researchers but for
underground roof rock or pillar particularly for underground coal mines are scarce. Kidybinski (1986)
reported that damage to underground coal mine openings in the form of small roof falls or floor heave
may occur when the PPV lies in the range of 50-100 mm/s and large roof falls at PPV of 100-200 mm/s.
Fourie and Green (1993) concluded that the PPV of 110 mm/s produced only minor damage and
extensive damage resulted when PPV was 390 mm/s. Singh et al. (1999) observed that cracks in the coal
roof occurred at peak particle velocity of 296.69 mm/s but spalling of coal chips from pillars and roof
started at a vibration level of 125.3 mm/s. Lewandowski et al. (1999) set a conservative criteria of
targeted maximum PPV of 50 mm/s for the safety of coal underground heading. They further clarified
that this conservative value of PPV was based on the damage observed at 250 mm/s. Singh et al. (2000)
categorized the damage to the underground coal mine workings caused by surface blasting in three
groups (Figure 10).
Blast damage categorisation in terms of PPV vs RMR

400
350
300
Major damage Zone
PPV (mm/s)
250
200
Minor damage Zone
150
100
No damage Zone
50
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
RMR of roof rock
Figure 10. Different damage levels based on PPV and RMR.
Determination of zone of disturbance
There were cracks and detachment of coal chips from the roof and pillar sides at 4-5 m from the blasting
face. But at far off distances there was no deterioration in the roof or pillars. The analysis of vibration
data indicates that roof vibrated with higher PPVs (about 2 times) compared to the pillars. The
amplification of vibration in the roof was even higher when measured at the junctions. The strata
monitoring instruments did not show any major deformation in the strata behaviour. The possible reason
could be extremely transient phenomena of blast vibration that produces a dynamic pulse only for a
fraction of a moment and the mechanism of such instruments could encounter only slowly varying static
load of roof strata.

The zone of disturbance was determined based on the RMR of the roof rock. The value of peak particle
velocity in no damage zone (Figure 10) was considered as threshold value of vibration. The RMR of
roof rock of the experimental panel was 50.8. Hence, the threshold value of vibration for the safety and
stability of underground roof comes to 101 mm/s. Considering 100 mm/s as threshold value of vibration
for the safety and stability of roof and pillars, a zone of disturbance was established.
Thus, with 1.85 kg charge per delay, the zone of disturbance form the blasting face computed from
Equations 1 & 2, comes to 13.1 m and 12.7 m respectively. The zone of disturbance with charge per
delay of 1.48 kg comes to 11.8 m from both the equations. If the charge per delay is considered as one
hole i.e. 0.555 g, the zone of disturbance comes to 7.2 m and 8.48 m respectively. The above predictions
are not in agreement with the data observed in the mine. However, the square root scaling is applicable
at far off distances. The zone of disturbance from the blasting face may be considered as 13.1 m for
greater safety to the men and machinery. The area away from 13.1 m is safe even if it is not supported.
The Canmet (1977) criteria for determination of damage zone, delineating the maximum extent of blast
induced damage (including crack extension and dilation) was also used to predict the minimum level of
vibration causing extension of cracks or damage to the roof and pillars. The minimum level of vibration
causing extension or dilation of existing cracks can be calculated from the following equation.
0.021 ⋅ σ C
PPVMinimum = (5)
VP ⋅ ρ R
Where
PPVMinimum = Lowest level of vibration causing extension or dilation of existing cracks (mm/s)
VP = P-wave velocity (m/s)
σC = uniaxial compressive strength of the intact specimen (Pa)
ρR = density of the rock (Kg/cm3 )
The following parameters were determined from the experimental site.
σc = 34.6 MPa
VP = 2.602 km/s
ρR = 2.13 kg/cm3
Hence, putting the values of the above parameters in Equation 5, the lowest level of vibration causing
extension or dilation of existing cracks comes to 131.1 mm/s. Thus, there will be extension of existing
cracks in the panel up to 10 m.
Conclusions
v The increase in explosive weight in the bottom row of holes and designing the drill holes properly
helped in improving fragmentation by creating a free face for successive holes. The air gap created
by the spacers improved the distribution of explosives in the blastholes resulting into better yield.
The pull was increased to 90%.

v The regression analysis of vibration data for deriving propagation equation indicated that none of the
scaling law holds good to predict the vibration in near field monitoring. However, square root
scaling is applicable at far off distances.
v Monitoring of underground strata behaviour indicated that some amount of divergence occurred
between the roof and the floor, just after the blast. But, later on it was followed by convergence and
most of the divergence occurred was restored. In pillars also, the monitoring done 5 to 10 minutes
after the blast indicated that tension occurred in vertical direction but restored, later on, as
compression occurred in the pillar.
v The roof of underground workings vibrated with higher PPV compared to the pillars. The
amplification of vibration in the roof was even higher at junctions. Amplification of vibration in the
roof away from a junction was about 2 times.
v The zone of disturbance caused by blasting-off-the solid may be considered as 13.1 m by the face.
This indicates that checking and dressing of roof is essential upto 13.1 m from the blasting face prior
to commencing any post blast operation in the face.
Acknowledgment
The authors express their gratitude to the mine officials of Orient Mine No.2 for providing necessary
facilities and help during field investigations. The permission of Director, Central Mining Research
Institute, Dhanbad, India to publish the paper is also thankfully acknowledged.
References
Calder, P. and Larocque, G., 1977, Chapter 7: Perimeter Blasting, Pit Slope Manual, Canada Center for
Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET), Ottawa.
Fourie, A. B. and Green, R. W., 1993, “Damage to underground coal mines caused by surface blasting”,
International Journal of Surface Mining and Reclamation, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 11-16.
Kidybinski, A., 1986, “Design criteria for roadway supports to resist dynamic loads”, International
Journal of Mining Engineers, Vol. 4, pp. 91-109.
Lewandowski, T., Keith, G., Croucher, M. and Richards, A., “The impact of surface blasting on
underground opening-Geotechnical Measurement”, 6th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, Fragblast - 6, August 8 – August 12, 1999, South African Institute of Mining and
metallurgy, pp. 131.
Mishra, M. P., 1998, “Longwall extraction in India why and how to go about”, The Indian Mining and
Engineering Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 13-16.
Sharma, N. K., 2002, personal communication.
Singh, P. K., Singh, R. B., Singh, T. N. and Singh, D. P., “Impact of surface blasting on the stability of
underground workings”, 6th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Fragblast - 6,
August 8 – August 12, 1999, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 139 - 144.
Singh, P. K. et al., 2000, “Evaluation of damages to underground coal mines caused by surface blasting
vis-à-vis establishment of blast vibration threshold”, unpublished S&T report.


Vibrations in Coal Mine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vibrations in Coal Mine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimization of Blasting Pattern in an Underground Coal Mine for

Maximum Production with Minimum Roof Disturbance

P. K. Singh, M. P. Roy, R. K. Singh

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Description of the experimental site

3.19 m HR Seam III

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Blast design practised in the mine

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

.15m .7m .6m 1.3m .6m .7m .15m

Figure 3. Existing blast pattern practised in the mine.

Modified blast designs

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

.15m .65m .6m 1.4m .6m .65m .15m

Figure 4. Modified blast pattern followed during the experimental trials.

Figure 5. Vibration time history monitored in the pillar.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Coefficient of determination = 0.828

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Coefficient of determination = 0.874

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 7. Regression plot of vibration data recorded in pillars.

Strata monitoring results and analysis

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 8. Plot of compression or tension recorded by Strain Bar.

Figure 9. Plot of convergence or divergence recorded by Convergence Indicator.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Blast damage categorisation in terms of PPV vs RMR

Figure 10. Different damage levels based on PPV and RMR.

Determination of zone of disturbance

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

The following parameters were determined from the experimental site.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

You might also like