ROCK

 EXCAVATION  CHALLENGES  AND  SOLUTIONS  IN  DRAGLINE  MINING,  

PORT  CONSTRUCTION  AND  TUNNELLING  

V.M.S.R. Murthy
Professor
Department of Mining Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad  
1  
 CONTENTS

Coal  Mining  –  Dragline  Blas1ng  

•  Lower  dragline  produc1vity  
•  Stemming  ejec1on,  fragmenta1on  and  backbreak    
•  Geo-­‐engineering  inves1ga1ons  and  advanced  blas1ng  technology  

Underwater  Drilling  and  Blas1ng      

•  Site  constraints  
•  Ground  Vibra1on  and  Water  Shock  Monitoring  
•  Controlled  blast  design  

Op1mizing  blast  pulls  and  overbreak    in  tunneling  

•  Rock  Mass  Characteriza1on  Vis-­‐À-­‐Vis  Blast  Planning  
•  Blast  Pulls  Vis  a  vis  Rock  Class  
•  Controlled  Blas1ng  Techniques  for  minimising  Rock  Mass  Damage  
•  Blast  Design  for  Overbreak  Control   2  
 Coal  Mining  –  Dragline  Blas1ng  –  Issues    

•  Coal  based  power  genera1on    con1nues  to  dominate  

•  Efficient  coal  mining  methods  with  lesser  emissions      

Table – India’s projected installed capacity, Electricity use 1  

3  
 Coal  Mining  –  Dragline  Blas1ng  –  Issues    

WeUng  of  stemming  material   Stemming  ejec1on  

Fragmenta1on   Backbreak  
4  
Inves1ga1ons  carried  out  to  enhance  produc1vity  of  dragline  

Pre  blast   •  Face  mapping/Borehole  scanning  

inves-ga-ons   •  Seismic  refrac1on  tomography  

During  blast   •  Near  field  vibra1on  monitoring  

•  In-­‐hole  VOD  measurement  
inves-ga-ons   •  High  speed  video  recording  

Post  blast   •  Fragmenta1on  analysis  

inves-ga-ons  
5  
 Pre  blast  inves1ga1ons  

Borehole  scanning                          Face  mapping  (structural  disposi1on)  

6  
 Pre  blast  inves1ga1ons  (contd.)  

•  Seismic  refrac1on  tomography  (competence  mapping)  

7  
 During  blast  inves1ga1ons  

•  Near  field  vibra1on  monitoring  (backbreak)  

Last  row Front  row

Geophone  2:  254  mm/s Geophone  1:2540  mm/s

Free  Face

10  m 30  m

8  
 During  blast  inves1ga1ons  (contd.)  

•  In-­‐hole  con1nuous  VOD  measurement  (impedance  matching)  

9  
 Blast  simula1on  

•  Simula1on   using   JKSimblast   was   carried   out   to   determine   the   delays  

(inter  row  and  inter  hole)-­‐Progress  of  free  face  

10  
 During  blast  inves1ga1ons  (contd.)  

•  High  speed  video  recording  (flowing  face)  

•  11th  sept.  Nigahi.MOV  

11  
 Post  blast  inves1ga1on  
•  Fragmenta1on  analysis  

12  
 Modifica1ons  based  on  inves1ga1ons  

 Modifica1ons  suggested  and  implemented  :  

•  Burden:  9-­‐11m  
•  Spacing:10-­‐11  m  
•  Effec1ve  delay:  14-­‐20  ms/m  of  effec1ve  burden  
•  Ini1a1on  system:  Electronic  

13  
 Improvements  

Parameters   Before  modificaCons   AEer  modificaCons  

Peak  vibraCon,  mm/s     1026   257  

Mean  fragment  size,  mm   951   393  

Backbreak,  m     10.6   5.5  

ProducCvity,  lakh  m3/month     1.01   1.22  

14  
Half  cast  impressions  achieved  in  dragline  bench  

15  
 Underwater  Drilling  and  BlasCng    
•  Transport  of  goods  through  sea  ports  has  increased  phenomenally  
•  Numerous  port  development  projects  (renova1on  of  old  and  new  construc1on)  under  Sagarmala  

Table – Projects under Sagarmala, Govt. of India   16  

 Underwater  Drilling  and  BlasCng    

DemoliCon  of  the  submerged  marine  structures  to  widen  and  deepen  
harbour  channels  and  facilitate  sea-­‐vessels  up  to  14  m  draE.  

Diamond  wire  cuWng  method  can  be  used  for  dismantling  of  structure  
but  is  highly  cost  intensive  and  Cme  consuming.    

Being  the  most  economic  method,  Underwater  drilling  and  controlled  

blasCng  is  generally  the  choice.    

17  
 Site  Constraints  

Undesirable  outcomes  :  

Ø  Ground  VibraCon  –  distress  to  nearby  marine  structures  

Ø  Air-­‐over  Pressure  –  annoyance  to  people  

Ø  Fly  rock  –  dangerous  when  blasCng  in  low  Cde  Cmes  

Ø  Water-­‐shock   –   distress   to   nearby   berthed   vessels,   divers   and   other   submerged  
bodies    

18  
Site  Condi-ons  

1.  Saffron  coloured  zone  –  New  berths  to  be  protected  during  demoli1on  blast  
2.  Red  Coloured  zone  –  Target  berth  
3.  Circled  zone  –  Closest  to  protec1ve  structures  with  maximum  distance  of  2  mtr  and  1.5  mtr  in  EQ5-­‐EQ6  
interface  and  Anchor  wall  &  Diaphragm  wall.  
19  
 Blast  Methodology  

 A  detailed  study  of  the  following  blast  design  parameters  such  as    
•  quality  and  quanCty  of  explosives    
•  hole  diameter  and  it’s  length  
•  burden  and  spacing  
•  stemming  length  
•  column  length  
•  decking  length    
•  sub-­‐grade  drilling    
•  maximum  charge  per  delay    
•  iniCaCon  system  

20  
  
 
Pre-­‐split  +  Line  drill  technique(EQ5-­‐EQ6  Interface)   Drilling  in  progress(@EQ5-­‐EQ6  Interface)  

 
Bottom  decking  Concept  (for  A/W  &  D/W)   Drilling  in  progress  (@  1st  Anchor  wall)  
 
Fig.  Controlled  blast  methodology  adopted  at  cri-cal  closest  loca-ons  
21  
  
 
Ground  Vibration  Monitoring  by  Seismograph     Water  shock  monitoring  by  Hydrophone  
(Unit  –mm/s  ;  Installed  at  Ground  surface)   (Unit  –KPa  ;  Installed  in  water)  
 
Fig.  Ground  Vibra-on  and  Water  shock  monitoring  
22  
      
Drilling  in  Progress   Charging  of  Hole   Muffling  

     
Shock  tube  c onnections   Initiation  of  hole   Initial  Water  Plume  
  Fig.  Complete  Blas-ng  Process    (LeB  to  Right)   23  
 During  blast  inves1ga1ons  (contd.)  

•  High  speed  video  recording  (flowing  face)  

•  1DSCN2448.MOV  
•  2  roundsDSCN6417.MOV  

24  
 Modified  Blast  Design  

  Based   on   the   invesCgaCons   carried   out   the   following  

modificaCons  were  suggested  and  implemented  
•  Hole  Diameter  -­‐115  mm  
•  Burden:  1.05m  (ParCal  width  of  wall)  
•  Spacing:1-­‐1.3  m  
•  IniCaCon  system:  Nonel  

Fig.  Firing  PaGern  adopted  

25  
 Op1mizing  blast  pulls  and  overbreak    in  tunneling  

•  Next   to   China,   India   is   one   of   the   fastest   growing   markets   for   tunnel  
construc1on  over  the  coming  years  
•  As   per   India   Infrastructure   Research,   over   1,610   tunnels   spanning   2,779  
km   are   under   various   stages   of   development   –   completed,   under  
construc1on  and  awarded.    
•  Drill-­‐and-­‐blast  method  is  the  most  flexible  system,  rela1vely  insensi1ve  
to   changing   rock   condi1ons   and   hence   becomes   a   general   choice   for  
tunneling  engineers  

26  
 Op1mizing  blast  pulls  and  overbreak    in  tunneling  

§  Performance  of  drilling  and  blas1ng  method  is  mainly  influenced  by  
•  Rock  mass  features  
•  Explosives  characteris1cs  and  their  distribu1on,    
•  Blast  design  and  execu1on  
§  The  blast  efficiency  is  generally  evaluated  in  terms  
•  Pull  obtained  (hole  u1liza1on  factor)  
•  Powder  factor  (t  of  yield  per  kg  of  explosive)  
•  Specific  drilling  (t  of  yield  per  metre  of  drilling)  
•  Detonator  factor  (t  of  yield  per  detonator)  
•  Overbreak  or  Underbreak    

27  
 Rock  Mass  Characteriza1on  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  Blast  Planning    

Intact  Rock  
Rock  Proper1es   Proper1es  
 Dynamic  ProperCes  
   
§  Dynamic  tensile  strength  (σtd),    
§  P-­‐wave  velocity  (Cp)    
§  S-­‐wave  velocity  (Cs)    
Discon1nuity   §  Rock  mass  features    
Blast  Planning  
Structure   •  Orienta1on  of  discon1nui1es,    
•  Aperture  of  discon1nui1es,  
•  Frequency  of  discon1nui1es  
•  Filling  in  the  joints  
§  Rock  Quality  Designa1on  (RQD)  
Physico-­‐mechanical  
proper1es    

28  
 Integra1on  –  The  Key  &  Challange  

To  achieve  longer  pull  with  minimum  rock  damage:  

•  thorough  rock  mass  characteriza1on  
•  choosing   the   right   type,   quan1ty   and   distribu1on   of  
explosive  for  controlling  the  overbreak/underbreak.    
•  develop   a   proper   blast   design   in   terms   of   blast   geometry,  
pull,  powder  factor  and    

29  
 Rela1onship  between  NATM,  Q-­‐system  and  RMR  system    
Class   NATM System Term   Q- System   RMR   Remarks  
I   Stable   > 70   >80   The rock mass is permanently stable without
support.  
II   Slightly Overbreaking   10 – 70   65-80   A slight tendency of shallow overbreak in the
tunnel roof and in the upper portions of the
sidewalls  
III   Friable   4 – 10   58-65   Overbreaks and loosening of the rock strata in
Generally,  normal  blas1ng  
tunnel roof and upper sidewalls if no support is
can  be  used  in  class  I  and  II  
installed in time.   with  fairly  good  results.  
IV   Very Friable   1-4   47-58   Stand-up time and unsupported span are short.   But  rocks  belonging  to  
V   Rolling   0.11 – 1   29-47   Class  III  through  V  require  
VI   Rock Bursting   0.03 – 0.11   20-29   Failure mechanisms such as spalling, buckling, cau1ous  blas1ng.  Class  VI  
VII   Squeezing   0.015-0.03   15-20   shearing and rupture of the rock structure.   and  VII  require  pre-­‐
VIII   Heavily Squeezing   0.008-0.01 10-15   Rapid and significant movement of the rock support  like  fore  poling,  
baby  arch  and  use  of  low  
5   mass into the cavity.  
strength  explosives.  
IX   Flowing   0.002-0.00 5-10   Limit the unsupported spans at arch and face.   Excava1on  of  rocks  
8   belonging  to  Class  VIII  and  
X   Swelling   <0.002   <5   Prior installation of forepoling or forepiling below,  make  use  of  very  
and shotcrete sealing of faces. The low light  blas1ng  or  
cohesion requires a number of subdivisions.   mechanical  excava1on    
 (modified  aper  Geo-­‐Consult  1993  and  ONORM  B  2203,1994)  [7].    

30  
 Designing  for  Longer  Blast  Pulls  –  Rock    Class    
S.No.   EXCAVATION CLASSES  
NATM CLASS   I   II   III   IV   V   VI   VII   VIII  
Q system   >70   10 – 70   4.0 – 10   1.0 – 4.0   0.11 – 1.0   0.03 – 0.015-0.03   0.008-0.01
0.11   5  
RMR   >80   65-80   58-65   47-58   29-47   20-29   15-20   10-15  
1   Round length top heading (m)   4.2   3   2.85   2.3   -   1.15   1.1    

Round length of bench (m)   -   4.5   3.8   3.25   -   1.5   1.1    

2   Round length top heading (m)   < 4   < 3   < 2.5   1.5 - 2   1 – 1.5   0.8 -1.2   -    

3   Round length top heading (m)       2 -3   1.5 - 2.5   1.5 - 2         It  may  be  observed  that  
the  blast  pull  has  been  
Round length of Bench height     4   3.5   2.5         of  restric1ve  in  nature  in  
(m)   poor  rockmass  classes  
4   Round length top heading (m)       2 - 3   1.5 - 2   1.25 – 1.5     0.75- 1.25     over  stronger  rockmass.  

Round length of Bench height     4   3 - 3.5   <3     <2    

(m)  
5   Round length for top heading 4, 4.3,
(m)   5   3.2, 3   3   3   2.5        
Round length for top heading 2 . 3 ,
(m)   3.5   2,1.5   1.5, 2.5   1.5   1.7, 2, 2.3        

31  
 Role  of  Dynamic  Proper1es  of  Rock/Rock  Mass    

S-wave velocity
P-wave velocity
Determination of S-wave velocity along with P-wave velocity
•  P-­‐wave   velocity   (compressional   wave  
has been done to compute Poisson’s ratio. This is particularly
velocity)  increases  with  the  compactness,  
used in designing smooth blasting patterns in tunnelling
lack   of   discon1nuity   and   depends   on   the  
type  of  material.    
•  It   is   true   that   a   fractured   rock   mass  
invariably  has  a  lower  P-­‐wave  velocity  due  
to   the   longer   1me   taken   for   traveling   Peak  Blast  VibraCon  PredicCon  
•  Hustrulid   et   al.,   (1992)   developed   a   model   for   arriving   at   the   peak  
across  the  fractures  and  thus  is  indica1ve   vibra1on   level   considering   rock,   explosive   and   geometrical  
of  reduced  strength  of  rock  mass  quality.     component.    
•  The  approach  was  built  on  the  use  of  the  expression  for  the  par1cle  
•  Higher the P-wave velocity lesser
velocity   arising   from   the   detona1on   of   a   charge   in   an   infinite,  
susceptible is the rock to blast-induced isotropic   and   homogeneous   medium   for   both   spherical   and  
damage cylindrical  charges.  

32  
 Role  of  Dynamic  Proper1es  of  Rock/Rock  Mass    

AcousCc  impedance  
Blast  Damage  PredicCon  
 
 
•  Acous1c   impedance   is   the   product   of   the  
•  Yu   and   Vongpaisal   (1996)   proposed   a   new  
P-­‐wave   velocity   and   the   density   of   a  
blast  damage  criteria  based  on  dynamic  tensile  
material.    
strength,   compressional   wave   velocity   (P-­‐
•  It   characterizes   a   material   as   to   its   energy  
wave),  density  of  rock  mass  and  peak  par1cle  
transfer   proper1es   when   subjected   to  
velocity  of  the  blast.    
impact.  
 
•  Atchison   et   al.,   (1964)   expressed   that   the  
•  On  the  basis  of  this  blast  damage  index  (BDI),  
ra1o   of   impedance   of   explosive   to   rock  
the   rock   has   been   categorized   in   the   range  
(impedance   matching)   is   important   in   the  
from  ≤  0.125    to  ≥  2    with  no  damage  to  major  
assessment  of  transfer  of  explosive  energy  
caving  respec1vely.  
to  the  surrounding  rock.    

33  
 Controlled  BlasCng  Techniques  

Line  drilling   Pre  –  spliUng  

Line  drilling  is  applied  to  a  site  where  even  a  light  load  of  explosive  in  the  perimeter   The  purpose  is  to  create  a  crack  or  shear  line  along  the  line  of  
holes   would   cause   unacceptable   damage.     It   is   best   suited   to   homogenous   contour.    The  break  created  thus  screens  off  the  surroundings  
forma1ons  where  bedding  planes,  joints,  and  seams  are  minimum.    Applica1on  of   from  over-­‐breaks  and  significantly  reduces  ground  vibra1on  
the  technique  is  limited  because  of  its  unpredictability  and  higher  cost  involved.   from  the  main  round  of  produc1on  blast.  

34  
 Blast  VibraCons  and  Rock  Mass  Damage  

CondiCons   EquaCon  
   ε  =  PPV/Cp    
The  peak  strain  in  the  rock  mass  can  also  be  related  to    
the  PPV  and  compressional  elas1c  wave  velocity  Cp  as  
given  by  :  

Assuming  brivle  failure  mode  of  the  rock,  a  threshold  of   PPVcrit=  (σt  *  Cp)  /  E    
cri1cal  peak  par1cle  velocity  PPVcrit  which  can  be    
withstood  by  the  rock  before  tensile  failure  can  be   (σt  is  the  tensile  strength)  
computed  by  :  
 
  PPVmax  =1.2  [σt  /  (Cp*  ρr)]    
In  addi1on,  the  vibra1on  level  above  which  some  damage    
may  be  expected  PPVmax  can  be  es1mated  from   (ρr  is  the  density  of  rock  in  
  kg/m3)  

35  
 Blast  VibraCons  and  Rock  Mass  Damage  
Damage criteria  

Model (Year)   PPV (mm/s)   Damage description   Application  

Edwards and Northwood (1960), < 50   Low probability of structural damage to residential Tunnelling  
Langefors et al. (1973), Nicholls et al. buildings  
(1971)  
Bauer and Calder (1970)   < 254   No fracturing of intact rock   Mining  
254 – 635   Minor tensile slabbing  
    635 – 2540   Strong tensile slabbing and radial cracking      

> 2540   Break up of rock mass  

Langefors and Kihlstrom (1973)   305   Results in fall of rocks   Tunnelling  
610   Results in formation of new cracks  

Holmberg and Persson (1979)   700 - 1000   Rock mass damage      

Oriard (1982)   > 635   Rock mass damage   Tunnelling  

Rustan (1985)   300 – 900   Smooth blasting   Tunnelling  

1000 - 3000   Rock damage threshold  

Meyer and Dunn (1995)   300   Minor damage   Mining  

600   Damage threshold  
Bogdanhoff (1996)   2000 - 2500   Damage threshold   Tunnelling  

Murthy and Dey (2002)   2050   Threshold for overbreak in compact basalt   Tunnelling  

Dey (2004)   700 - 1300   Threshold for overbreak   Metal mines  

36  
Suggested  damage  threshold  for  rock  mass  damage    
 Seismic  Characteriza1on  of  Rockmass  in  Tunnelling  

§  Seismic  imaging  in  coal  mining  

tunnels  was  done  to  assess  the  
rockmass  quality  and  develop  an  
understanding  of  competence  of  
beds  and  damage  zones.    

§  Weak  zones/cracks  do  exist  

around  an  underground  structure  
owing  to  excava1on  by  blas1ng    Instrumenta1on  for  seismic  imaging  technique  
and  stress  concentra1ons  aper  
excava1on.   Strata  
P-
§  Accordingly,  the  permissible   wave
explosive  charges,  drilling  
Mine  Roof    
loca1ons  and  bolt  lengths  were  
designed   Layers  
G3                        G2                      G1                              S            

Face Galler
y

Seismic  imaging  conducted  in  a  coal  mine  heading  near  blas1ng  face   37  
 Controlled  BlasCng  Techniques  

Smooth  blas1ng  
Cushion  Blas1ng  

Cushion  blas1ng  technique  involves  decoupling  of  holes  

  It   is   also   known   as   ‘Contour’   blas1ng,  
by  reducing  the  diameter  or  using  stemming  material  of  
‘Perimeter’   blas1ng   or   ‘Sculpture’   blas1ng.    
crushed  stone  or  sand  to  provide  cushioning  effect.  The  
Unlike   pre   spliUng   a   row   of   holes   at   the  
holes   are   blasted   using   the   last   delay   number   in   the  
perimeter   are   blasted   either   at   the   end   of   the  
same   blas1ng   round   preferably   with   jumping   delay   of  
produc1on  round  or  aper  the  main  excava1on  is  
50ms   and   is   not   common   today   due   to   varied   dia   of  
removed.    
explosives  available.     38  
 Overbreak  Control  in  Tunnelling  
 

Author(s)   Parameters   Techniques  

Kim  et  al  (2003)  [21]   Rock  mass  quality  (classifica1on),   Drawing  contour  holes  
Devia1on  from  designed  contour,   Drilling  contour  holes  
Contour  hole  spacing  and  burden,   Charging  
Look  out  angle,      
Contour  holes  charging.  

Pusch   and   Stanfors   (1992)   Fracture  characteriza1on   Normal  blas1ng  

[22]   Careful  blas1ng  
Very  careful  blas1ng  

Ibarra  (1996)  [23]   Q  –  value,   Rock  classifica1on  

Perimeter  powder  factor.   Proper  charging  

Dey  and  Murthy  (2004)  [18]   Maximum  charge  per  delay,   Controlled  blas1ng  in  tunneling.  
PPV.  

 Suggested  models  to  control  overbreak  in  tunnel  blas1ng    

39  
 Blast  Design  for  Overbreak  Control  
 

Blast  pavern  of  perimeter  holes  for  different  rock  types  is  presented    
Type of holes   RMR   < 20   20 - 40   41 - 60   61 - 80   81 - 100   Referen
ce  
Perimeter holes   Spacing (m)   0.5 – 0.55   0.55 – 0.60   0.60 – 0.65   0.65 – 0.70   Max 0.75   [20]  
  Burden (m)   0.65   0.70   0.75   0.85   Max 0.90    
  Rock type   Soft   Medium   Hard   [3]  
Spacing (m)   14Øh   15Øh   16Øh   Øh =
Burden (m)   1.2* Spacing   1.2* Spacing   1.2* Spacing   blast
h o l e
diamete
r (m)  

Q- value Pull  
RMR class   Charge (Kg)   Overbreak (cm)  
(used)   (m)  
It  may  be  observed  that  the  
70   81 - 100   3   0.875   14.4   overbreak  and  explosive  
54   61 - 80   3.5   0.975   14.0   charges  both  depend  on  the  
5.9   41 - 60   2   0.675   14.5   rock  classes  
0.6   21 - 40   1.5   0.425   17.3  
0.07   <20   1.2   0.325   21.3  
Average  overbreak  and  the  perimeter  holes  charging  data  were  collected  from  four  
different  tunnels  driven  in  grani1c  rock  masses  of  different  rock  classes  and  are  
shown   40  
 Analysis  of  Pull    

6  
y  =  0.04x  +  2  
R²  =  0.60   §  It   may   be   observed   that   pull   is  
closely   related   to   the   rock   mass  
5  
quality.   Higher   Q   values   yield  
higher  pulls  in  general.    
4  
§  It   is   also   observed   that   the   rock  
Round  length,  m  

breakage   is   more   effec1ve   in  

3   hard   and   stable   rocks   due   to  
bever  reflec1on  of  waves.  
2   §    The   percentage   pull   reduces  
due  to  rock  collapse  in  weak  rock  
1  
(Q<0.1)   in   comparison   to   hard  
rocks  (Q>0.1).    
0  
12.0  
16.0  
20.0  
24.0  
28.0  
32.0  
36.0  
40.0  
44.0  
48.0  
52.0  
56.0  
60.0  
64.0  
68.0  
72.0  
76.0  
80.0  
0.0  
4.0  
8.0  

Q-­‐  value  

Analysis  of  tunnel  blast  performance  from  varied  tunneling  cases  

41  
 Op1mum  charge    
Rock class   Q <0.1   0.1 < Q < 10   Q> 10  
§  It  may  be  observed  
H o l e 1.2   1.7   2.3   1.5   1.6   2   1.5   2   3   3.5   4   that  op1mum  pull  
length(m)  
(for  minimum  
C h a r g e 0.33   0.65   0.77   0.43 – 0.63   0.68   0.6   0.75   0.88   0.98   1.1   overbreak)  lies  in  the  
quantity (kg)   0.5  
range  of  2.5  to  3m  
Charging  scheme  for  perimeter  holes  in  varied  rock  classes     and  thus,  allowable  
charge  for  minimum  
25.0   2  
overbreak  =  2.9x2  -­‐  16x  +  36  
overbreak  can  be  
1.8  
R²  =  0.92   obtained  as  0.8kg  for  
20.0   1.6  
that  pull.  
1.4  
§   The  developed  
Overbreak,  cm  

15.0   1.2  
rela1onships  could  be  

Charge,  Kg  
1  
of  use  as  a  star1ng  
10.0   Charge  =  0.28x  +  0.03   0.8  
R²  =  0.96   point.  
0.6  
§  The  class  of  rock  
5.0   0.4  
needs  to  be  kept  in  
0.2  
view  while  fixing  the  
0.0   0  
0   0.5   1   1.5   2   2.5   3   3.5   4   blas1ng  parameters.    
Pull,  m   42  
 Choosing  delay  1me  in  burn  cuts  

•  Studies  conducted  by  Jimeno  et  al,  1995  showed  that  the  delay  
to  be  provided  in  cut  holes  must  commensurate  with  the  pull  
being  avempted.  A  typical  value  of  25ms  per  m  pull  was  
suggested.  
•  This  was  done  to  counter  the  increasing  confinement  as  well  as  
facilitate  release  of  broken  material.    

43  
 Effect  of  in-­‐situ  stress  on  crack  propaga1on  

•  The  in  situ  stress  of  surrounding  rock  mass  is  one  of  the  main  
factors   affec1ng   the   crack   propaga1on   for   contour   blas1ng,  
and   when   the   in   situ   stress   is   higher   than   10–12MPa,   it   is  
improper   to   adopt   an   excava1on   sequence   of   pre-­‐split   first  
followed  by  the  main  rock  mass  excava1on.    
•  Alterna1vely,  the  excava1on  sequence  with  middle  cut  blas1ng  
carried   out   first,   followed   by   pre-­‐split   or   smooth   blas1ng   is  
recommended.  (Wenbo  Lu  et  al,  2012,  TUST)  

44  
 Rate  of  Advance-­‐  Reduc1on  in  the  cycle  1me    

•  Mul1-­‐Boom   electro-­‐hydraullic   drill   jumbos   can   be   used   to  

reduce  the  drilling  1me.  
•  Mechanized   charging   can   be   done   to   reduce   the   charging  
1me.  
•  Rock  bol1ng  rigs  can  be  used  to  reduce  the  bol1ng  1me.  
•  Proper   selec1on   of   excava1on   equipment   needs   to   be   done  
for  reduce  mucking  1me.  
•  Proper   ven1la1on   design   can   help   to   reduce   the   ven1la1on  
1me.  
  45  
Suggested  Approach  for  Higher  Blas1ng  Efficiency  

use  of  dynamic  proper1es  of  rocks  for  understanding  the  crack  
genera1on  

characteriza1on  of  rockmass  using  seismic  imaging    

selec1on  of  op1mum  blast  design  parameters  &  blas1ng  cuts  

selec1ng  suitable  perimeter  control  blas1ng  techniques  

use  of  suitable  explosive  and  ini1a1ng  systems  alongwith  proper  delay  
sequencing  

 controlling  blast-­‐induced  ground  vibra1ons  through  perimeter  charge  

control    

46  
 Summary  

•  Dragline  bench  blas1ng  requires  special  aven1on  

•  Controlled  demoli1on  underwater  seeks  tailored  systems  
•  Pull  and  overbreak  op1misa1on  in  tunnels  is  cri1cal  
•  Advanced   rockmass   characteriza1on,   right   materials/systems  
and   op1mising   design   concepts/methodologies   must   go   hand  
in  hand  for  reaping  the  benefits.    
•  Industry-­‐Academia  engagement  is  the  key-­‐Are  we  upto  it?  

47  
 Thank  You  
for  your  kind  
aven1on  

48