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

net/publication/223175923

Causes, impact and control of overbreak in underground excavations

Article  in  Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · January 2005

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2004.05.004

CITATIONS READS

84 17,508

2 authors, including:

Sp Singh
Laurentian University
92 PUBLICATIONS   786 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Blast damage control in geologically dominant rock masses View project

Factors governing the configration of a muck pile View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sp Singh on 12 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tunnelling and
Underground Space
Technology
incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Causes, impact and control of overbreak in underground excavations

a,* b
S. Paul Singh , Peter Xavier
a
School of Engineering, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont., Canada P3E 2C6
b
Falconbridge Ltd., Falconbridge, Ont., Canada

Received 24 October 2003; received in revised form 8 May 2004; accepted 8 May 2004
Available online 23 July 2004

Abstract

Drill and blast system is used in hard rock excavation due to its economics and adaptability to changing rock mass conditions.
Common question during mining and tunneling operations is Ôwhether overbreak has been caused by blasting practice or poor rock
mass qualityÕ. Critical evaluation of the factors influencing blast damage is required to address such questions.
In order to understand the mysterious nature of blast damage prediction and control, the field work involved the small scale
blasting of physical models and the assessment of blast damage during drifting operations. The damage was measured by the Half
cast factor, percentage overbreak and the Blast damage index. The influence of rock mass features, explosive characteristics and
blast design parameters on overbreak has been examined in this study. A new approach for the judicious design of perimeter hole
pattern and charge concentration has been proposed. Implications of blast damage have also been outlined in this paper.

2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Blast damage; Perimeter control; Controlled blasting; Underground excavations

1. Introduction involved the critical evaluation of the factors influencing

Blasting remains the most inexpensive method of
hard rock fragmentation, however, the cost associated
with the blast damage in terms of safety and productiv-
ity of mines is becoming increasingly important. Rock
damage due to blasting is directly related to the level
of stress experienced by the rock and its pre-blasting
condition. In high stress environments and under unfa-
vourable geological conditions, disturbances associated
with blasting may result in extensive ground control
and dilution problems. To minimize these undesirable
effects, perimeter control techniques are available, but
the results of their application are often less than opti-
mal. A study was conducted to better understand the na-
ture and extent of rock damage caused by blasting and
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-705-675-1151; fax: +1-705-675-
4862.
E-mail address: ssingh@nickel.laurentian.ca (S.P. Singh).
blast damage.
The factors influencing blast damage can be broadly
categorized in three areas:
1. Rock mass features.
2. Explosive characteristics and distribution.
3. Blast design and execution.
Rock mass features cannot be changed but their
knowledge facilitates the judicious selection of the ex-
plosive characteristics and the blast design parameters
to obtain optimum results.
1.1. Blast damage and mining operations
Damage is a change in the rock mass properties
which degrades its performance and behavior (Singh,
1992). From the mining point of view, it is the structural
performance of the rock, which is of importance because

0886-7798/$ - see front matter
2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.tust.2004.05.004
64 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71

the remaining rock has to support load in the form of

back, wall or a pillar. That is why blast damage deter-
mines an important link between the excavation process
and the structural stability of the rock mass.
During the excavation process, the redistribution of
in situ stresses and releases of seismic energy also induce
rock mass damage, which can sometimes overshadow
that caused by blasting. The distinct difference between
the two is that blast-induced damage is highly localized
around the immediate perimeter of the blasting area.
The impact of blast induced rock mass damage on min-
ing includes:

(i) Dilution of ore.

(ii) Ground control problems.
(iii) Poor fragmentation.
Fig. 1. Concrete model with joints simulated between the holes.
(iv) Restricted access to damaged ground for drilling
and charging operations.
(v) Reduction in the moduli and strengths of rocks. sive. In order to study the effect of geological features
(vi) Reduction in the maximum unsupported span and on blast damage, concrete models were prepared with
stand up time. joints simulated at different orientations (Fig. 1). The
(vii) Breakdown of the inherent interlocking of the properties of hydrostone and high strength concrete
weakness planes. are given in Table 1.
(viii) Increased cost in the installation and maintenance
of supports. 2.2. Experimental drift

The small-scale experiments provide a basic idea of

2. Field work
The Fieldwork involved small scale blasting experi-
ments on modeling material, drift blasting and assess-
ment of blast damage at several operating mines.
2.1. Small scale blasting experiments
During normal blasting operations, it becomes diffi-
cult to compute and predict the effects of individual fac-
tors and it is best to start with small scale blasting
experiments. These tests were conducted on blocks of
hydrostone modeling material. Additional tests were
conducted on concrete and granite blocks. The diameter
and length of holes were 8 and 150 mm, respectively.
The number of holes varied depending upon spacing
and they were fired simultaneously. Different lengths
of low-strength detonating cord were used as an explo-
the factors influencing blast damage but fall short of
predicting full scale blasting results. Therefore experi-
ments were also conducted in a drift setting. A 2.7
m · 2.4 m (9 0 · 8 0 ) experimental drift was driven through
a hard rock. The characteristics of the test site are given
in Table 2. Several blasting rounds were taken by vary-
ing the blast design parameters. Six different explosive
products were used in the perimeter holes and the dam-
age was assessed by different techniques. In addition,
blast damage was also monitored at several under-
ground mining operations.
2.3. Assessment of blast damage
The blast damage was assessed in different situations
by utilizing the following techniques:
Blast damage index. This index was determined by the
minimum value of the P-wave velocity in the damaged
material expressed as a percentage of the P-wave veloc-

Table 1
Properties of hydrostone and high strength concrete
Property Hydrostone High strength concrete
Number of tests Average value Number of tests Average value
Tensile strength (MPa) 15 3.61 10 6.1
Compressive strength (MPa) 10 29.0 10 76.9
P-wave velocity (km/s) 15 1.74 5 4.39
 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71 65

Table 2 est links in the rock mass (Scoble et al., 1996) In order to
Characteristics of the test site minimize the blast damage it is critical to understand the
Parameter Description role played by the rock mass features in producing the
Rock type Quartzite and quartz sandstone damage to the perimeter of an excavation.
Grain size Very fine grained (<0.2 mm)
to fine grained (0.2–0.6 mm)
Number of joint sets 4 3.1.1. Orientations of discontinuities
Joint spacing 0.6–2.0 m Joint orientation can have a significant effect on the
Joint aperture 0.2–0.6 mm excavation perimeter (Cunnigham and Goetzsche,
Compressive strength (MPa) 250 1996). The presence of joints affects the attenuation of
P-wave velocity (km/s) 4.8
the induced stress wave. The attenuation of the wave
transmitted through the joint depends upon the angle
ity in the intact material. The P-wave velocity at differ- of incidence of the wave on to the joint surface. The at-
ent distances from the line of blastholes was measured tenuation is minimal, when the angle of incidence is par-
after each small scale blast and the ÔBlast damage IndexÕ allel or perpendicular to the face and increases to a
was determined. maximum when the angle is between 15 and 45 (Le-
Half cast factor. This is length of the half barrels after wandowski et al., 1996). This leads to the suggestion
the blast expressed as a percentage of the initial length of that the crack proceeds with minimum attenuation when
the blast holes. The lengths of the half barrels after each the relative angle of jointing with respect to the perime-
drift round were measured and ÔHalf cast factorÕ was ter line is parallel, nearly parallel or normal. For other
computed. orientations, wave attenuation is significantly increased
Blast vibration monitoring. Each small scale blast as and hence the perimeter control is more difficult.
well as drift round was monitored with a seismograph. During small scale blasting experiments, the joints at
The blast monitoring set-up for small scale blasting different orientations were simulated between the blast-
has been shown in Fig. 1. holes. As shown in Fig. 2, the largest overbreak was ob-
Percentage overbreak. The percentage increase in vol- served in the case of samples with 45 joint orientation.
ume of the actual profile over the designed profile of Worsey et al. (1981) have concluded from similar
each round provided this parameter for blast damage as- tests and field observations that the presence of discon-
sessment. tinuities at an angle less than 60 to the designed perim-
eter line have an adverse effect on controlled blasting
outcome. If the discontinuity orientation is less than
3. Results and discussion 15, controlled blasting produces no improvement over
normal blasting.
3.1. Rock mass features
3.1.2. Aperture of discontinuities
Rock is a heterogeneous material, a fact rarely con- Worsey and Qu (1987) reported that increasing joint
sidered during blast design. In reality, the rock mass fea- surface separation severely decreases the quality of final
tures have a controlling influence on the outcome of a excavation profile as a result of increased cratering of
blast. Most of the rocks contain a variety of visible dis- joints. Open joints can also arrest or cause branching
continuities and flaws. The discontinuities are the weak- of cracks being propagated between two perimeter

25

20
% Overbreak

15

10

0
10 20 30 45 60 90
Joint Orienatation in Degrees

Fig. 2. Percentage overbreak for different orientation of joints.

66 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71
holes. When the joints are tight and cemented, they have
no significant effect on the overbreak.
Tariq and Worsey (1996) observed during small scale
blasting experiments that joint aperture of 3 mm acts
like a free face, thereby reflecting back the explosive en-
ergy without producing a split plane. It was further re-
vealed that as the joint opening was increased, the
angle of cratering was also increased.
3.1.3. Frequency of discontinuities
Close spacing of joints is an indicator of a highly frac-
tured rock mass. During blasting in loosely jointed rock
the critical factor is whether or not the drilling pattern is
wider than joint spacing. lf it is, then contour problems
can be expected. The frequency of joints in the range of
2–3 joint planes per spacing may produce adverse effects
on perimeter control.
3.1.4. Filling in the joints
The filling material within a joint, changes its wave
transmission characteristics. The smaller the width of
the filling material and closer the impedance of the filling
material to that of medium, better would be the strain
energy transmission through the joint. With the increase
in the joint width, the energy loss into the joint will be
considerable, particularly when the joint is closer to
face. The presence of clay material in joints, its swelling
potential and thickness contribute to poor rock mass
quality thus resulting in excessive overbreak and under-
break. If the aperture of the joint is small with strong
and stable filling material, the overbreak will depend
upon the orientation of the joint with respect to the line
of blastholes.
3.1.5. Rock quality designation
This is defined as the total length of cores greater
than 100 mm expressed as a percentage of the total
length cored. This is an indicator of the quality of the
rock mass. Rock quality designation (RQD) of less than
70% indicates that the rock mass will be more suscepti-
ble to blast damage (Singh, 1992). The RQD values less
than 50% would require close spacing, light loading and
relief holes to produce acceptable results.
3.1.6. Watery conditions
Hydrogeological conditions have the following effects
on the rocks and rock masses:
(a) Reduction in the compressive and tensile strengths
of the rocks (Obert and Duvall, 1967), as the fric-
tion between the particles is lower.
(b) Reduction in the shock wave attenuation and con-
sequently the breakage effects are enhanced.
(c) Lowers the cohesion and the frictional properties of
the joints.
(d) Joints filled with water allow the passage of shock
waves without internal spalling. But when the rock
mass is in tension, the water is mobilized, forming a
wedge, which may produce overbreak.
Water present in drill holes takes over the air as de-
coupling agent. This increases the degree of coupling
and results in higher levels of ground vibrations.
3.1.7. State of stress
The direction of the principal stress with respect the
line of contour holes influences the initiation and prop-
agation of cracks between the blastholes. The magnitude
of principal stress, influences overbreak particularly
when the stress approaches the strength of the rock. In
homogeneous massive rocks, the cracks which initiate
to propagate radially from the blast holes tend to follow
the direction of the principal stress (Brady and Brown,
1985).
3.2. Explosive characteristics and distribution
Explosive characteristics play a vital role in produc-
ing blast damage. Explosive products release their energy
and interact with rocks in different ways due to the dif-
ference in their constituents and reaction characteristics.
The properties of different explosives, except tracer
blasting, have been given in Table 3. Tracer blasting is
commonly used in Canadian underground mines for
overbreak control. This involves placing a detonating
cord along the wall of a blasthole before charging the
main column of ANFO (Fig. 3). Although, it is not a
panacea for overbreak control in all mining situations,
it produces good results if properly applied. The mech-
anism of tracer blasting has been described in Singh
(1996, 1997). The effect of explosive type on the blast
damage has been shown in Fig. 4.
3.2.1. Bore hole pressure
The magnitude of the bore hole pressure determines
the stress and fracturing experienced by the rock mass.
The effects of borehole pressure on blast damage index
and the maximum depth of damage have been dis-
played in Figs. 5 and 6. The small scale blasting of
Table 3
Properties of different explosives and coupling ratio
Explosive Density Velocity of Coupling
(kg/m3) detonation (m/s) ratio
High strength 1350 5500 0.34
detonating cord
Semi-gelatin dynamite 1320 2800 0.59
Emulsion (HS) 1170 4600 0.8
Diluted ANFO 700 2500 1.00
Emulsion (LS) 1140 5100 0.8
 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71
Fig. 3. ANFO traced with detonating cord in a blast hole.
Tracer Blasting
Low Strength Emulsion
High Strength Det. Cord
High Strength Emulsion
Semi-gelatin Dynamite
Diluted ANFO
0 20
Fig. 4. Half cast factor for different explosive types.
hydrostone models obtained these results. Considering
the manner in which these experiments were
conducted, this observation holds true only for perim-
eter holes. It cannot be generalized for all holes that
reduction in the explosive charge will result in less
damage. For holes other than perimeter holes, if the
charge concentration is less than optimum, the explo-
sive energy will have difficulty in fragmenting and dis-
placing the burden rock. As the gases at high pressure
are bottled up in the blasthole for a longer period and
a lesser percentage of the explosion energy is converted
into kinetic energy of rock movement, higher damage
will result (Hagan, 1982). An explosive charge concen-
tration higher than optimum will be manifested as
noise, airblast, flyrock and increase in ground vibra-
tions.
Maximum distance of blast damage increases with
borehole pressure up to a critical value, beyond which
the excessive explosive energy is used in fragmentation
67
40 60 80 100
Half Cast Factor
and throw of rock. The critical value of the borehole
pressure depends upon the rock characteristics, size
and shape of the opening and the direction and magni-
tude of the stress field.
3.2.2. Velocity of detonation
The borehole pressure generated by an explosive is di-
rectly proportional to its velocity of detonation (VOD).
But if we look through the blasting literature, it tells us
that higher bore hole pressure produces more damage
whereas high VOD explosives produce less damage
(Fig. 7). It looks unbelievable but it is true due to
the reason that generally the high VOD explosives are
decoupled and yield higher shock energy and less gas
energy.
It appears that due to the decoupling effect, shock en-
ergy is dissipated in a less harmful manner and the longer
acting gas energy is more important from the damage
point of view.
68 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71

70
60

Blast damage index

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Bore hole pressure in MPa

Fig. 5. Bore hole pressure vs. blast damage index.

14
Max. Distance of Damage in

12
10
8
cms

6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Bore Hole Pressure in MPa

Fig. 6. Bore hole pressure vs. maximum depth of damage.

0.3 3.3. Blast design and execution

Overbreak in meters

0.25
3.3.1. Blast hole parameters
0.2 Generally, the large diameter holes are responsible
for higher blast damage. The longer holes also produce
0.15
considerable damage because they contain larger quan-
0.1 tities of explosives. The optimum diameter and length
0.05 of the holes depends upon the rock mass characteristics
and the purpose of the hole. The typical diameter range
0 for drift blasting ranges from 38 to 52 mm.
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
In general, an increase in hole diameter results in
Velocity of detonation in meters/sec blast damage poor fragmentation and increased loading
Fig. 7. Velocity of detonation vs. overbreak. costs. Small diameter holes provide better drift profiles
but with higher costs for drilling and charging.

3.2.3. Powder factor 3.3.2. Cut design and blasting

The powder factor is the ratio of the explosive weight Blasting in a development heading starts from a cut
and the volume of rock blasted. Generally, higher pow- because it provides a free face to which the remainder
der factor will produce overbreak and lower powder fac- of the round may break. It is the most critical part of
tor may produce may produce overbreak or underbreak. the round because the rest of the holes to fire cannot pull
But from the blast damage point of view, the Ôperimeter to the desired depth unless the cut comes out as planned.
powder factorÕ is more critical than the Ôoverall powder The events associated with the pulling of the cut are
factorÕ.The effect of Ôperimeter powder factorÕ on the so remote from the perimeter of an opening that there
blast damage has been shown in Fig. 8. is a tendency to believe that cut holes have insignificant
 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71 69

14
12

% Overbreak
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Perimeter Powder factor, Kg/cub.meter

Fig. 8. Perimeter powder factor vs. percentage overbreak.

effect on blast damage. But that is not true. If progres-

sive relief is not achieved in the cut, then later firing
charges will be over confined thus resulting in higher
damage. Minimum blast damage requires that each hole
fragments and displaces its burden with reasonable ease
(Singh, 1995).

3.3.3. Drill hole deviation

The drilling error may be caused by collaring, align-
ment and trajectory deviation. The ultimate error may
be due to one ore more of these deviations (Singh,
1998). The blast hole deviation changes the burden,
spacing and plane of the holes, which is particularly crit-
ical for the contour holes. This results in overbreak and
underbreak at the perimeter of the opening.
Before drilling, the holes should be properly marked
as shown in Fig. 9. A driller should be commended for
the accuracy of drilling and not the footage per shift
(Koehler and Carey, 2002). During drift and tunnel
blasting, the intentional deviation (look out) of the
contour holes is needed to allow space for drilling. Fig. 9. Typical mark up of the face before drilling.

Fig. 10. The contour of the excavation by firing upto baby arch holes.
70 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71

Table 4 ing and minimizes damage due to the explosive load in

Recommended burdens for perimeter holes
Diameter of holes Explosive in baby Burden for
(mm) arch holes perimeter holes (m)
32 ANFO 0.55–0.65
38 ANFO 0.65–0.75
45 ANFO 0.75–0.90
Variations in the Ôlook out angleÕ also contribute to
overbreak and underbreak.
3.3.4. Baby arch holes
These holes are also called first-row-in holes and are
adjacent to the perimeter holes. The care in drilling and
charging of these holes is important but often over-
looked. Positioning them too close to the back and over-
charging results in damage to the perimeter of the
opening. Ideally the damage pattern from the baby arch
holes should not exceed the damage zone from the back
holes. These holes should be drilled parallel to the pe-
rimeter holes and their burden, spacing and charging
should be 0.6–0.75 times the stoping holes.
In one of the blasts, all holes except the back holes
were fired. As shown in Fig. 10, if the baby arch holes
are charged and spaced properly then the damage to
the back can be minimized. The contour of the top por-
tion of the excavation after blasting is pretty close to the
designed contour. The baby arch holes were charged
with ANFO but the spacing, alignment and their dis-
tance from the back was properly controlled.
On the basis of the blast vibration model developed
for the site and the blasting experience, the burden for
the perimeter holes is recommended in Table 4.
3.3.5. Perimeter hole pattern and charge concentration
The spacing and burden of perimeter holes have a sig-
nificant influence on the shape and precision of an exca-
vation. Higher spacing results in underbreak between
the blastholes whereas too close spacing cause over-
break. It was observed that burden to spacing ratio of
1.20 for perimeter holes facilitates the timely joining of
the cracks between the holes along the arch of an open-
the first-row-in holes. The optimum spacing between pe-
rimeter holes depends upon the rock type and the drill-
hole diameter. Based upon the field tests and
observations in operating mines, following approach in-
volving two steps is proposed:
(A) Classification of rock type
(B) Determination of
(1) Explosive charge per meter of charge length
(2) Spacing of perimeter holes
(3) Burden of perimeter holes
The rock type for the site can be classified according
to Table 5. Explosive charge (Q) can be determined as
follows:
Q ¼ Qf
d 2 ; ð1Þ
where Qf is the explosive charge factor; Q the explosive
charge (kg/m); d is the diameter of the hole (m).
Spacing and burden for the perimeter holes can be de-
termined, respectively, using the following equations:
S ¼ S f
d; ð2Þ
B ¼ Bf
S; ð3Þ
where S is the spacing between perimeter holes (m); Sf
the spacing factor; B the burden for perimeter holes
(m); Bf is the burden factor.
3.3.6. Delay time and sequencing of holes
It has been observed that the desirable formation of
the cracks along the row of back holes is obtained by
the simultaneous firing of these holes. To achieve this ef-
fect, the back holes during drift blasting were initiated
differently as follows:
(a) All back holes initiated simultaneously by a deto-
nating cord.
(b) Using delay caps of the same number for each hole.
(c) Back holes were blasted separately using instanta-
neous electric caps

Table 5
Rock type and perimeter hole pattern design factors
Rock type Class Exposive charge Spacing Burden
factor (Qf) factor (Sf) factor (Bf)
Hard rock; strong joints; specific I 100 16 1.20
gravity (SG) > 2.7; compressive
strength: >220 MPa
Medium hard rock; no weak II 90 15 1.20
joints; SG > 2.5; compressive
strength: 95–135 MPa
Soft rock; Weak joints; SG > 2.3; III 80 14 1.20
compressive strength: <70 MPa
 S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 63–71
In option (a), sometimes the fragments from the pre-
vious holes snapped the detonating cord and all the back
holes did not fire. In option (b), there was a timing scat-
ter in the delay caps of the higher number, which are
commonly used for the perimeter holes. This problem
can be avoided by using electronic caps. In option (c),
the results were good but it was more time consuming.
Initiation of back and side holes by detonating cord
gave the best results because only this method ensured
the simultaneous initiation of the group of perimeter
holes. Theoretically also, the objective of minimum
damage can be achieved only if the adjacent blast holes
are initiated at an interval not greater than the time re-
quired for a tensile crack to grow between these holes.
The longitudinal wave velocity (Cp) of the rock in this
study was 4800 m/s. If the crack propagation velocity
is 30% of the Cp and the holes are spaced at 0.6 m, then
the constructive interaction between the adjacent holes
can be achieved if they initiate within 0.21 ms of each
other. But the expected degree of scatter for a delay det-
onation with an initiation time of 5000 ms is around 500
ms. A cooperating effect between holes fired simulta-
neously directs the breaking effect of the blast along a
straight path between the holes and there is less damage
to the surrounding rock. The long delay between the ad-
jacent holes produced long cracks at the perimeter holes.
The problem of snapping of detonating cord by ear-
lier firing charges can be solved by
(i) Using more robust detonating cord.
(ii) Keeping the trunk line joining the perimeter holes
as close to the rock surface as possible.
(iii) Using safety lines.
4. Conclusions
Blasting is an inherently destructive process and in-
flicts damage to the surrounding rock, which is later
manifested as ground control and dilution problems.
Overbreak techniques are generally most successful
in massive rocks. Though each specific rock mass oc-
currence is unique yet there are common features in
rock masses, which can influence the outcome of con-
trolled blasting in a similar way. It is not possible to
change the rock mass features but their timely knowl-
edge can facilitate the judicious selection of the explo-
View publication stats
71
sive characteristics and blast design parameters.
Proper planning and drilling accuracy can significantly
contribute in achieving the objective of minimum
damage, optimum productivity and safer working en-
vironment.
References
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 1985. Rock Mechanics for Underground
Mining. George Allen & Unwin, Sydney 527p.
Cunnigham, C.V.B., Goetzsche, A.F., 1996. The specification of blast
damage limitations in tunneling contracts. Tunneling and Under-
ground Space Technology 5 (3), 23–27.
Hagan, T.N., 1982. Controlling blast induced cracking around large
caverns. In: Proceedings of the ISRM Symposium on Rock
Mechanics Related to Caverns and Pressure Shafts, Achen, West
Germany, pp. 1155–1167.
Koehler, M., Carey, J., 2002. Blasting techniques to control roof
failure in underground Limestone mine. In: Proceedings of the 28th
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, February, Las
Vegas, pp. 91–102.
Lewandowski, T., Luan Mai, V.K., Danell, R., 1996. Influence of
discontinuities on presplitting effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium on Rock fragmentation by Blasting,
Montreal, Canada, August, pp. 217–225.
Obert, L., Duvall, W.I., 1967. Rock Mechanics and the Design of
Structures. Wiley, New York 650p.
Scoble, M., Lizotte, Y., Paventi, M., 1996. Rock mass damage from
blasting: characterization and impact. In: Franklin, J., Katasbanis,
P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Measurement of Blast
Fragmentation, A.A. Balkema, pp. 225–235.
Singh, S.P., 1992. Mining industry and blast damage. Journal of Mines
Metals and Fuels (December), 465–472.
Singh, S.P., 1995. Mechanism of cut blasting. Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 104, September–
December, pp. A134–A138.
Singh, S.P., 1996. Mechanism of tracer blasting. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 14. Chapman & Hall, London pp. 41–50.
Singh, S.P., 1997. Cost effective blast damage control with tracer
blasting. Mineral Resources Engineering Journal 6 (2), 49–61.
Singh, S.P., 1998. The effects of rock mass characteristics on blasthole
deviation. CIM Bulletin 91 (1016), 90–95.
Tariq, S.M., Worsey, P.N., 1996. An investigation into the effect of
varying joint aperture and nature of surface on presplitting. In:
Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Explosives and Blasting
Research, Orlando, USA, pp. 186–195.
Worsey, P., Qu, S., 1987. Effect of joint separation and filling on
presplit blasting. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Mini Symposium on
Explosives and Blasting Research, Miami, USA, pp. 26–40.
Worsey, P., Farmer, I.W., Matheson, G.D., 1981. The mechanics of
presplitting in discontinuous rock. In: Proceedings of the 22nd US
Rock Mechanics Symposium U.O. Missouri, Rolla, USA, pp. 205–
210.