LA-11097-MS UC-70 Issued: September 1987

LA—11097-MS DE88 000173

Controlled Blasting and Its Implications for the NNWSI Project Exploratory Shaft

Edward M. Van Eeckhout

MASTER

h

Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos.New Mexico 87545

. /^

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS U N U M I T E W

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

CONTENTS Page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT I. II. INTRODUCTION SUMMARY ... vi viii 1 1 3 4 5 .... 8 14 26 30

III. RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED BLASTING IV. ROCK FRAGMENTATION FOR UNDERGROUND OPENINGS A. B. V. Charge Calculations and the Drilling Pattern Controlled Blasting Techniques

MONITORING TECHNIQUES

REFERENCES

p.7 ft. 14. 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 11. 298) Presplitting example (spacing =0. 8692) Idealized schematic of fracturing induced by explosive detonation in a borehole (from Hoek and Brown 1980. 2. showing Yucca Mountain and other sites (from Stock et al. 5 6.LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page 1. I. p. 368-369) A pyramid cut round in a circular shaft (from E. . I. 251) A burn cut blast round (from E. diameter = 1. Bentley 1984) Map of the Nevada Test Site and vicinity. 317) . duPont 1980. 1985. 182) Specific charge as a function of tunnel area (from Holmberg 1982. 249) Typical fan or V-cuts used in underground mining (from Hoek and Brown 1980. pp. . duPont 1980. 1582) Typical burn cuts used in underground mining (from E. I. p. 8.) (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. p.25 in. p. duPont 1980. 9. p. I. 7. 13. 374) Plexiglass model of presplitting (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. Presplitting example illustrating drilling accuracy required (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. 6 4. p. p. 10- Various sections of a drift separated according to blast design (from Holmberg 1982. p. 257) Theory of presplitting (from E. p. I. duPont 1980. duPont 1980. 12. p. 363) A typical drift round in medium-hard rock using a fourhole vertical V-cut with two-hole baby V-cut and millisecond-delay electric caps (from E. Stratigraphy of exploratory shaft (after Los Alamos National Laboratory 1984. 299) .. p.. 367) 2 3 3.

28 22. p. 29 . 22 20. p. p. 1134) 17 17 18 19 17. p. 1139) Example of acceleration registration and resulting particle velocity close to detonating charge (from Holmberg and Persson 1979. p. Peak particle velocities at various distances from a borehole charge with different densities (from Hoek and Brown 1980. . 16. Final contours formed by smooth blasting. Well-designed round where damage is limited by smooth blasting (from Holmberg 1982. 1586) Recommended charge concentration and hole diameters for smooth blasting using two Swedish explosives (from Holmberg 1982. 23 21. 321). 282) Seismic profile equation for determining depth of disturbance using seismic refraction (from Worsey 1985. p. Swedish power station(from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. . 319. 19. p.LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (cont) Page 15. 1586) Smooth blasting in Swedish power station (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. p. 372) Average disturbance depths for various controlled blasting techniques experienced in eight tests (from Worsey 1985. 18.

310) 20 20 VI. 1581. V. (from Oriard 1982 p. 374) SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRESPLIT BLASTING 7 8 19 III. CASE HISTORIES OF BLAST DAMAGE MEASURED IN TUNNELS (after Kelsali 1986) 23 24 vi 11 . p. and Holmberg 1983. p. II. 12) SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SMOOTH BLASTING (from Hoek and Brown 1980. <x. 379) VII. p. IV. 27) EXPLOSIVE ROCK CONSTANTS FOR VARIOUS ROCK TYPES ( f r o m Holmberg 1983. 1592) FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SMOOTH BLASTING AND PRESPLITTING ( f r o m Langefors and K i h i Strom 1978. SOME EXPLOSIVE WEIGHT STRENGTHS ( a f t e r Holmberg 1982.LIST OF TABLES Page I. p. TYPICAL PUBLISHED VALUES FOR THE CONSTANTS k. p. AND p (from Hoek and Brown 1980. p.

Smooth blasting is preferred for the Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations exploratory shaft.CONTROLLED BLASTING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NNWSI PROJECT EXPLORATORY SHAFT by Edward M. These studies are being coordinated under the Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations (NNWSI) Project managed by the Waste Management Project Office of the US Department of Energy. a potential repository for high-level nuclear waste. Presplitting and smooth blasting are the techniques of principal interest. I. Nevada. INTRODUCTION This report reviews controlled blasting techniques that are appropriate for shaft-sinking operations at Yucca Mountain. The principal concern is the extent of overbreak damage to the in-situ rock mass. Specific questions to be addressed are: 1. and ways of quantifying that damage. How extensive is the damage from various controlled blasting techniques—which is the best? 2. Damage into the rock should be limited to 3 ft. Van Eeckhout ABSTRACT This report reviews controlled blasting techniques for shaft sinking. How tight should the specifications be for damage control? . What monitoring techniques might be used for quality assurance? 3. particularly that affecting permeability surrounding the shaft. Shaft damage can be monitored visually or by peak velocity measurements and refractive techniques.

<480' Breakout tsoo /too 1300 EXPLORATORY SHAFT ( T i n facility dimtnrians not lo icon) CALICO HILLS TOFF Static >oicr ic>ci CRATER FLAT TOFF I100 STRATIGRAPHY OF TEST WELL 0SW G . The shaft will have a diameter of 12 ft and will be concrete lined. The strati graphic rock sequence is also shown in Fig.4 Fig. 1. .oj«eUo>0 •/too tSOO •1400 —«•- 1200' 8rcotouf Modtroif /dcnxiy atldcd. Bentley 1984). Stratigraphy of exploratory shaft (after Los Alamos National Laboratory 1984.The proposed depth of the NNWSI shaft is 1480 ft in Yucca Mountain in Nevada (see Fig. 1 for the conceptual drawing). ELEVATION (FEET) OEPTH (FEET) Alluvium TIVA CANTON MEMBER 4/OO- too 39OO 400 YUCCA MOUNTAIN MEMBER | PAH CANYON MEMBER I | Non-wildce kilric luff Wtidtd dcvitnfica mil 3TOO600 ""I 5 2 0 Br?ofcout 3500 BOO TOP0PAH SPRING MEMBER Wtldcd Ot»il'. vilric o-^C/er icoiiiiicd luff 2700 1*00 .(i lithophyftot luff 33OO1000 JIOO • Mom Drill ( p. Figure 2 is a map of the Nevada Test Site and shows Yucca Mountain. 1. rorfiollr «iiric tuff wtldcd mrophyric tutt Porliolly wtldcd.

p. 1985. Map of the Nevada Test Site and v i c i n i t y . Presplitting would require considerable time and coordination during a shaft-sinking operation. For this application smooth-wall blasting is preferred. However. 8692). SM AY U MR We review two common controlled blasting techniques used for driving underground openings. 2. clear quality control checks should be provided on peak particle velocity (maximum of 2./s or 700 mm/s) in rock and on depth of rock breakage (a value of 3 ft or 1 m is clearly achievable).75 in.YUCCA MTN t NEVADA TEST SITE 10 20 KM I I6°3O' I Fig. we recommend that certain leeway should be given to the blasting contractor in the shaftsinking specifications. showing Yucca Mountain and other sites (from Stock et a l . . but it does appear to yield less damage than smooth-wall blasting. smooth wall and presplitting. given the fact that two separate blasts are required for presplitting. Because there is no all-encompassing formula that can be used throughout an entire shaft-sinking operation for all rock types. II.

Seismic refraction appears to be a good way to monitor and measure the depth of rock breakage. and in vertical boreholes near the shaft if necessary. Actual rock breakage can be monitored by borescopes or seismic refraction techniques. Blasts should be monitored by means of particle velocity checks in the shaft as well as on the surface. whereas the latter can be done along the shaft perimeter./s) (Cottle 1985). The former requires extra boreholes./s or 700 mm/s has oftentimes been used to mark the onset of rock damage. . If 5 in.Peak particle velocity is the most monitored characteristic of a blast. Smooth-wall blasting is the preferred technique for shaft sinking. Because rock damage can be limited to less than 3 ft by controlled blasting techniques. III./s is used. a tolerance of 3 ft of damage is recommended (to be checked by refractive techniques). in the shaft. A threshold of 2.75 in. controlled blasting 2. Velocity monitors can be installed on the surface. 3. U^ situ rock damage should be minimized. RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED BLASTING The following is recommended: 1. This threshold is much larger than that cited in WIPP specifications for concrete damage (5 in.

Blind application of design formulas will result in optimal results in certain rock types. 8 blasting cap) with powder factors of 1.IV. ROCK FRAGMENTATION FOR UNDERGROUND OPENINGS Fragmenting of rock to minimize damage to underground openings is a well-developed art form and science. and the available equipment for drilling. One normally starts the design by first considering the drilling equipment (particularly hole diameters available) and then choosing the explosive diameters appropriate (if in cartridge form).4 to 2 Ib/yd3 (Hoek and Bray 1977. Figure 3 illustrates the basic principles of fragmentation surrounding a detonated hole. ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil). but not so in others. p. A review of that literature leads us to our ultimate goal in this report: guidelines for specifications to minimize damage around an exploratory shaft.5 to 12 Ib/yd (the powder factor is the weight of explosive per unit volume broken) as opposed to surface use explosives with powder factors of 0. 286). cause damage to the rock mass surrounding an opening. a low explosive. the hole will be lightly loaded or charged and the distance (spacing) between holes will be decreased. Those limits can be described using scientific and empirical guidelines that are well established in the blasting literature. Explosives for underground use are generally termed "high explosives" (sensitive to a No. the ultimate application for the opening. If controlled blasting (the term implies minimal rock damage) is used. . Thus. can be used underground if there is no water present (given its sensitivity to water). The explosive load or charge required (expressed in terms of explosive weight/hole length) varies depending upon whether the rock needs to be pulverized or rock damage needs to be minimized. the explosive used. The very nature of blasting will. Specific round designs (a round is simply one fragmentation or blast sequence) depend upon the rock mass encountered. of course. a blasting foreman must be allowed certain flexibility for changing a blast design within certain limits.

1983) is perhaps most u t i l i z e d . but the Swedish weight relationship is given as follows: 5 Q . Borehole 2. borehole pressure. . a Swedish dynamite). water resistance. p. Explosives can be compared by strength.1. pressure. 3. fume class. S= where S = weight strength relative to a reference explosive (LFB dynamite. 1983. cost and by other classifications (see Dick et a l . 367). strength This detonation velocity. 3. Qo = heat of explosion for 1 kg of LFB. Pulverized zone Radial cracks with preferential growth parallel to " . Chapter 1 . major principal stress Fig. sensitivity. for a detailed discussion). detonation density. Idealized schematic of fracturing induced by explosive detonation in a borehole (from Hoek and Brown 1980. 1V method described by Holmberg (1982.

. TABLE I. Hemphill 1981).85 1. p.425 0.85 0.98 1. 43-44). Some values for c from their scheme are given in Table II.9 4.973 0.73 4.00 3. Another factor used in many of the design formulas is a measure of rock blastability. Q = heat of explosion from 1 kg of the actual explosive.78 S ANFO 1. p.g.V = released gas volume from 1 kg of LFB at standard temperature and pressure.892 0.12 3.85 0.92 0. The factors 5/6 and 1/6 were experimentally determined by field tests.1 6. a constant c is introduced as a measure of explosives per cubic meter of rock to be broken.690 0. 1581. pp.93 The weight strength of the explosive chosen and the charge concentration (weight per unit hole length) can then be used to calculate burden and spacing (distance to free face and between holes. and Holmberg 1983.780 0. In Swedish formulas (see Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. are listed in Table I. 27] Q (MJ/kg) 5.02 0.00 0.65 3. and V = released gas volume from 1 kg of the actual explosive.2 3.850 0.7 EXPLOSIVE LFB dynamite ANFO TNT PETN GURIT NABIT Tovex 100 Tovex 210 Tovex 220 (m3/kg) 0.10 3. . and converted to compare with ANFO.19 1. Some explosive weight strengths so calculated. SOME EXPLOSIVE WEIGHT STRENGTHS (after Holmberg 1982.39 0. respectively) by various empirical formulas in the literature (e.90 0.

3-0. C. design calculations are different for each section. Chap. and E will be considered first. Mon-availability of American examples is primarily due to the free enterprise competitiveness between companies. we summarize some considerations. 9). 4 ) . pp. but many of the same principles apply to either situation. Section A of Fig. Hemphill 1981. duPont 1980. I. There are numerous examples given in Holmberg (1982). 4 (the cut). Most American examples tend to be even more general and empirical (see. Some American formulas for production burden and spacing use specific gravity of the rock mass (see Hemphill 1981. p. 16 and 20. Charge Calculations and the Drilling Pattern Rather than specifically going through charge calculations for typical headings. 7-8). A. 94-95). Chap. 12) c VALUE (kg/m3) 0. Also.2 0.4 0. but that does not need to be addressed at this point. and Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978.TABLE II. E. An underground drift is typically divided into five sections for design purposes (see Fig. along with sections B. Discussions of Section 0 will follow (in the controlled blasting portion of this report). 12). Chaps. EXPLOSIVE ROCK CONSTANTS FOR VARIOUS ROCK TYPES (from Hoimberg 1983. for example. Gustafsson (1981. Chaps. it might be pointed out that the specific charge (or overall powder factor) will vary .4 ROCK TYPE Brittle crystalline granite Most other rocks Most Swedish granite It is unclear how these values might extrapolate to the Nevada Test Site rocks. The outline of the opening will be circular instead of horseshoe shaped in our application. which are generally European examples. Production blasting is less sensitive to rock type than controlled blasting.

p. a 2 3 shaft (10. A Cut Lifters B Stoping Various sections of a d r i f t separated according to blast design (from Holmberg 1982.5 m ) might require on the order of a 3 kg/m (shaft) B Stoping E Fig. 5. 4. 5. For example. 50 75 100 Area m' Specific charge as a function of tunnel area (from Holmberg 1982. 1582). area as shown in F i g .w i t h the tunnel 12-ft-diameter powder factor. p. 1582) . Specific charge kg/m 3 25 Fig.

Typical burn cuts used in underground mining (from E. 10 . and an overall "pyramid" blast pattern is shown in Fig. rock will be broken into the empty holes or out to the drift face. Thus. Example fan and V-cut patterns are shown in Fig. O O O o o O O Unloaded Holes o o o • o • j-—8"—j o o Loaded Holes Fig. Example burn cut patterns are shown in Fig. 7. O O o 1 T• . 6. 6. 9. for each hole has to have a free surface to break to. 251). 8.The first and most important task in designing a successful blast round is the creation of a free face. a "free face" has to be introduced by drilling parallel empty holes (a "burn" cut) or angled holes (a "V." "fan. To accomplish that. I. duPont 1980. p. and an overall burn cut blast pattern is shown in Fig." or "wedge" cut).

O O Fig. duPont 1980. 7. pp.Llf(er Holes. Typical fan or V-cuts used in underground mining (from Hoek and Brown 1980. 249). p. 8. 11 . advance advance ///-<" l'£ ^\\sface N ! • Plan vieu of fan cut ^ it'."Raker" Holei. O O \O Unloaded "Rellef'Hole . A burn cut blast round (from E. I.' plough or V-cut Plan view of 0v\ \ \ <jS\ 4 3 2 1 • • • • 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 12 • 12 12 3 4 • • • 3 4 3 4 sequence 7 • 6 • 7 Face vieu) and initiation 1 3 57 • • • • 1 2 46 • • • • 1 3 57 Face view showing typical initiation sequence Fig. 368-369).

9. somewhat akin to that shown in Fig. p. A pyramid cut round in a circular shaft (from E. For a burn cut. a minimum of 15? of the area influenced by the f i r s t holes to f i r e must be left open for rock to expand into.Fig. I . The angle cut is also popular (epecially in i t s ability to "throw" the rock—although fragmentation is not as even) but more room is required for d r i l l i n g machine maneuverability. duPont 1980. Successive delayed holes are detonated later than the f i r s t i n i t i a l cut. 363). The burn cut is a popular method of creating volume to expand into. 12 . 10.

13 . 10.Fig. 257). A typical d r i f t round in medium-hard rock using a four-hole vertical V-cut with a two-hole baby V-cut and mi H i second-del ay electric caps (from E. duPont 1980. I . p.

13. I . 374). 12. The shock waves between holes interact and break the rock in tension as shown in Fig. Smooth blasting doesn't have such problems. and a specific field example is shown in Fig.B.I - ' 3HOCKRAYS RESULTANTS DUE TO COLLISION Of SHOCK RAYS NOTE If HOLES ABE OVERLOADED SHEAR ZONE Will EXTEND TO AND BEYOND INDICATED TENSION ZONE Fig. Presplitting is the method of lightly loading perimeter holes and setting off charges within them before the production blast. Results are generally very good but are a function of drilling accuracy (see Fig. Controlled Blasting Techniques In underground environments. p. 14 for a demonstration of accuracies sometimes required) and fracture density in the rock mass. Theory of p r e s p l i t t i n g (from E. One problem in using this specific method underground is that two separate blasts have to be set off. which is cumbersome for scheduling purposes. An example in a plexiglass model is shown in Fig. two controlled blasting techniques are common: presplitting and smooth blasting. 11. 14 . RESULTANTS DUE TO COLLISION Of SMOCK RAYS SHOCK RAYS . 11. duPont 1980.

) (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. and V (note E = spacing and V = burden in Table V). IV. while some results are shown in Figs. 13. "Buffer" holes (between the main production portion of the blast and the perimeter holes) are loaded so that damage doesn't extend farther than the perimeter holes (see Fig. Presplitting example (spacing = 0 . 15). Plexiglass model of presplitting (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978. some design parameters for smooth blasting and presplitting are shown in Tables III. 17 and 18.25 in. 15 .12. p. 299). 16. Fig. so sometimes damage is a bit more than presplitted. Damage can be limited by design. Smooth-blasting is a method whereby holes are loaded lighter and spaced closer around the perimeter and then shot as the last delay of the round. 278). 7 ft. No presplit face is left to reflect shock waves. Minimum charge requirements for two Swedish explosives are shown in Fig. diameter = 1. p.

14.Fig. 317). 16 . p. Presplitting example illustrating drilling accuracy required (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978.

kg/m ANFO equivalent 0.4 22 mm NABIT 0. 16.2 17mmGURIT 11 mm GURIT 20 40 60 Diameter mm Fig. 1586). Recommended charge concentration and hole diameters for smooth blasting using two Swedish explosives (from Holmberg 1982. 1586).Fig. 15. p. 17 . p. Well-designed round where damage is limited by smooth blasting (from Holmberg 1982.

Smooth blasting in Swedish power station (from Langefors and Kihistrom 1978. p. 17.Fig. 319). 18 .

20 0.90 19 . Final contours formed by smooth blasting in Swedish power s t a t i o n (from Langefors and Kihlstrom 1973. 374) Drill Hole Diameter (mm)) 25-32 25-48 51-64 Charge Di ameter (mm) 11 17 22 Charge Concentration (kg ANFO/m) 0.45 0.90 1.44 Burden (m) 0. TABLE I I I .25-0. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SMOOTH BLASTING (from Hoek and Brown 1980.50-0. 18. p.35 0.00-1.70-0. p.Fig.70 0. 321).30-0.08 0.10 Spacing (m) 0.08-0.

5-2.17) (0. 1592) Spacing (ft) (mm) Charge Concentration (Ib/ft) (kg/m) Hole Diameter (in.8 1.9 1.25-0.8 1.7-1.0 3.6 1.0 If no special charges are available.12 0.9-1.0 0.1 " (ft) " (1-1 1/2) (1-1 1/2) (1-1 1/2) (1 1/2-2) (2-2 1/2) (2-3) (2-3) (3-4) (3-5) (4-6) (5-7) 30 (1 1/2) 37 (1 1/2) 44 (1 3/4) 50 (2) 62 (2 1/2) 75 (3) 87 (3 1/2) 100 (4) 125 (5) 150 (6) 200 (8) mm 0.18-0.3) (2. p.0 mm mm 52 mm 2. Dril 1 Hole Diameter a FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONI FOR SMOOTH BLASTING.25 0.7 0.50 0. 310) Concentration of C:harge z A Smooth Blasting1 E Prespli tti ng E l '•in mm (in.0) Charge Units a Gurit Gurit Gurit Gurit Nabit 22 Nabit 25 Dynamite Dynamite Nabit 40 Nabit 50 Dynami te l V m l m 0.035) (0.8 1. 1978.2 1.2 1.08) (0.75 0.9 mm 25 mm 29 mm 1.6-1. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRESPLIT BLASTING (from Oriard 1982.0 0.5) (0.1 1.TABLE IV.fi-0.8-1.0 0.23) (0.8-2.30-0.) kg/m 0.35-0.5 0.03-0.7 0.6 2.30-0.55-0.7 3.35 0.45-0. AND bPLII 1 S ING (from Langefors and Kihi Strom.5 0.17 0.0 (Ib/ft) (0.11) (0.50) (0.4 0.70 0.10-020) TABLE V.9 2.4 2.1 0.) (mm) 1/2-3 4 6 8 64-76 102 152 203 2-3 1/2 3-4 4-6 6-8 0.50 (0.34) (0.4 3.05-0.6) (0.2 4.6 0.9 1.5 0.2-1.1 1.5 1.3 1. p. 20 .2-1. dynamite taped on detonating cord to a concentration 1 kg/m (Ib/ft) can be used.75-1.6 0.9) (1.25 0.80 O.5 0.25-0 0.0-1.02-0.10) (0.4 1.9 0.2 1.

= weight charge. = distance from detonation. Lower densities result in less damage. p. and B = 1. and B = the peak particle velocity.5 kg/m has a 1.Rock damage surrounding a blast hole is oftentimes 371) by an empirical equation: correlated with peak particle velocity (Holmberg 1982. (2) Holmberg (1982) suggests values of k = 700.7. 20. (2) with the velocity criteria overlaid are given in Fig. 2 1 . 19. Hoek and P-own 1980. v«j£where v W R k. However. One result of interest is shown in Fig. presplitting is a more cumbersome method to use. However. These case histories showed that presplitting controlled blasting had minimal damage. < = 0. Other values of these constants have been suggested by various workers (see Table VI). depending upon the method.5 for * tunneling in competent Swedish rock. Calculations using Eq. Thus. a 45-mm blasthole with a charge density of 1.5-m damage radius. p. It appears from the case histories described in Table VII that damage from perimeter holes varies from 1 to 6 ft. which shows damage measured (by refractive techniques) for specific rounds. and = constants that are functions of the structural and elastic properties of the rock mass. 1586. The best that can be expected in terms of damage (measured by direct borehole observations or peak particle velocity gauges) is 1 ft. a. a value of between 700 and 1000 mm/s has been accepted as being the onset of damage to rock. kg. mm/s.

metres Fig. Peak particle velocities at various distances from a borehole charge with different densities (from Hoek and Brown 1980. 22 . 372). 19.3000 t 2 Radial distance from charge R . p.

71 0. p.78 1. 23 .TABLE VI. 20. [Fracture Control (5) 1 Pre-Split (6) [Bedding Plane (3) 1 Pre-SpJit ( 2 ) {Smooth Wall ( I ) Bulk Blast Rib (7) Bulk Blast Pillar (6) j Cratering (4) •o f Im '2 m Depth of Disturbance Fig.97 Average Swedish bedrock Downhole bench blasting Coyote blasting Presplit blasting a To calculate the particle velocity v in in. 1139).80 1.42 and use the same values for a. 379) r 730 2 083 11 455 1 686 707 700 193-1930 37-148 5 953 a B Conditions R/W 3 R/W 3 X/ X/ Reference Lundborg et a l . (1978) Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) Ambraseys and Hendron (1963) Holmberg (1979) Vorb'ev et a l .10 1.55 0.53 0.56 1./s for a distance R in ft from a charge of W lb of explosive.66 0. divide k by 7.80 1.60 3.97 3. (1972) Holmberg and Persson (1980) Oriard (1972) Oriard (1972) Oriard (1972) 0.68 0.60 2. and B.50 1. p. and B (after Hoek and Brown 1980. TYPICAL PUBLISHED VALUES FOR THE CONSTANTS k.53 0. It is used to loosen large volumes of rock close to surface. Average disturbance depths for various controlled blasting techniques experienced in eight tests (from Worsey 1985.80 0.60 1. a.54 1.70 0. Coyote blasting involves placing a large concentration of explosives in a tunnel or cavity.

5m x 2.5m 0. Colorado Belledonne. Japan Sandstone/ shale Conventional 5.5-lm Rama Tunnel. Canada Straight Creek.5m 2/! . BWIP Basalt Conventional 5 m 2 m Ontario.3 . Ireland Dolomite Conventional 5 m Granite Conventional 2.5-2.3m Crestmore Mine Marble Conventional 30-70ft 4-5ft Churchill Falls.2.1m up t o 1. 1986) ROCK TYPE Biotite gneiss BUSTING METHOD Smoothwall TUNNEL DIMENSIONS 5m x 3 E DEPTH OF DAMAGE 0. Canada Limestone Presplit 8m lm Saimogo.3m Zeolitized tuff Dolomite Conventional Various 3 m 2. France Mine Gneiss Granite/ gneiss/ schist Granite Controlled Perimeter Conventional 2.4m 4m <lm "few f t " Conventional 5.TABLE V I I .5m SITE Colorado School of Mines (Edgar Mine) Colorado Stripa Mine Sweden Rainier Mesa Nevada Test Roll a Experimental Mine Granite Smoothwal1 4m x 4m 0. m 0.1m x 2.5m Near Surface Test Facility. Yugoslavia Turlough H i l l . CASE HISTORIES OF BLAST DAMAGE MEASURED IN TUNNELS ( a f t e r K e l s a l i .9m lm Shale Conventional 0.2m ci.7.

0. borehole logging Plate load test Seismic refraction Most damage within 0. permeability of blast damaged zone not measured Blast damage not well d i s t i n guished from stress effects Depth of damage varies according to method used. 1985 Air permeability Seismic refraction Cross-hole seismic King et a l .3m Blast damage depth estimated within overall low ve1oc'<. 1981 Kujundir et a l . cross-hole permeability (packer t e s t s ) .y layer extending l-5m Blasting and stress r e l i e f effects not specifically distinguished Blasting and stress r e l i e f effects not specifically distinguished Blasting and stress r e l i e f effects not specifically distinguished Blasting and stress r e l i e f effects not specifically distinguished Heuze and Goodman. . effects of stress r e l i e f seen in horizontal direction Separate zones of moderate cracking and hairline cracks. borehole jack. borehole deformation Boreholes COMMENTS Depth of blast damage not well documented but in agreement with theoretical calculations 0. d i f f i c u l t to separate blast damage from stress r e l i e f REFERENCES Montazer and Hustrulid. . . . 1963 Plichon. 1973 Scott et a l . .Om. 1978 Miller et a l . 1974 Cross-hole seismic Cross-hole seismic 25 . 1982 Seismic refraction Nishiida et a l . 1982 Seismic refraction. 1983 Anderson and Halen.3m = average.TABLE VII (cont) MEASUREMENT METHOD Borehole logging. 1974 Benson et a l . 1970 O'Donoghue and 01 Flaherty. . 1974 Worsey. depth of damage varies with charge weight Comparison of blasting with excavation by TBM. 1984 T camera in boreholes V in crown Lukajic. blast damage not distinguished from stress r e l i e f Blast damage seen most clearly in vertical travel direction in d r i f t wall.1-l. 1980 Seismic refraction Seismic refraction Brizzolari.

Their study indicates that damage can be limited to 0. two common methods of assessing damage.V. depending upon the controlled blasting method. MONITORING TECHNIQUES There is a well-developed literature concerning blast damage monitoring. For example. Dowding (1985). Vibration monitoring is perhaps the most common monitoring technique. These are the three methods we discuss in this section. (1985). One other method used is the seismic refraction technique (Worsey 1985). (1985) showed the following correlation between the two: 26 . One additional study that has been published subsequent to that compilation is given by Rustan et al. These values were obtained by vibration monitoring and borehole viewing. particularly for damage to nearby structures. Good references are Bollinger (1980). which is a function of the peak particle velocity v as follows: e = v/c (3) where c is a characteristic propagation velocity. Dowding 1985) and seems to correlate well with damage observed visually (with borehole viewing). Specific case studies dealing with blast damage monitoring in underground settings are summarized in Table VII. Peak particle velocity is the most common entity monitored since damage is the result of induced strain e. A value of 700 mm/s has been quoted for the onset of damage (Holmberg and Persson 1979.1 to 0. Rustan et al. and Hanna (1985).7 m into the rock.

5 0. This method requires a series of geophones laid out along the shaft wall and would be a good method for assessing damage after-the-fact. . periscope monitoring damage limit set at distance where more than three cracks develop per meter. Vibration monitors can be placed on the surface. m a Vibration Monitoring 0. . Results observed (see Fig. The final technique that has been used for damage assessment is seismic refraction. 21 for an example) can then be correlated to the explosive site by an appropriate distance scaled law.55 0. For the NNWSI site. 27 . This seems unacceptable in the application under discussion and is thus discarded. attached to a structure or in boreholes close to the area of interest. 22).Damage Limit.4 0.7 0. This method relies upon waves being propagated faster in unbroken material. or perhaps in existing boreholes near the shaft. . .1 0. Borehole viewing can also be used but requires another hole be drilled for the viewing operation.75 Vibration damage limit set at 700 mm/s. so monitoring in this manner would be limited to the surface.6 a Borehole Vi ewi ng 0. in the shaft itself. with the depth of broken material being calculated from an intersection of time/distance curves (see Fig. no further holes in the vicinity of the shaft are desired.3 0. .25 0.3 0.

Example of acceleration registration and resulting particle velocity close to detonating charge (from Holmberg and Persson 1979.BCCELERHTION CG> 5KDTT KHNHL TCB R-MRX IBI77 I 9B2SG 1031 G 7 SB -750 MILL I SEC VH. 282).UC i TY 10177 KRNHL TC6 V-MHX I Id id 14 I 9B2SB IMH2 MM/b -1 wan MILLisec Fig. 21. 28 . p.

1134).Fig. 22. We conclude that the best monitoring techniques to use in the NNWSI exploratory shaft would be "remote" velocity monitors in an array of some sort. and seismic refraction to verify depth-of-damage. p. 29 . Seismic profile equation for determining depth of disturbance using seismic refraction (from Worsey 1985. with damage threshold at 700 mm/s.

E. Dick." Geoexploration. ASTM STP 477. American Society for Testing and Materials. Hanna. 89-116. 1968. 48 pp. 16th ed. (John Wiley & Sons. pp. "The Design of 'Room and Pillar' Structures in Competent Jointed Rock. Yucca Mountain Area. Y3Z pp. F. B.REFERENCES Abraseys. Blasting Operations (McGraw-Hill Book Co." in Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice. letter to T. K. L. and D'Andrea. Blasting Technique. "Modulus Testing of Rock at the Churchill Falls Underground Powerhouse. and Hendron. Dynamit Nobel Wien (Austrian edition). 327 pp. G. Anderson. "Mining Methods Used in the Underground Tunnels and Test Rooms at Stripa." Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock. Bentley. Trans Tech Publications. Example: The Crestmore Mine. Gustafsson. Denver. C. V." US Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8925. Bollinger. N. Ohio. Brizzolari. 259-267. Dowding. E. Yugoslavia. (Explosives Products Div. D.. Hempill. Vol. Wilmington. Murphy. 1985. Inc. 1974.... Heuze.. Illinois). A. D. H. and Goodman.. 1983. California. 30 . New York). 1980. Englewood. Blast Vibration Analysis (Southern Illinois University Press. 258 pp. R. pp. Delaware). Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control (PrenticeHall.. "Explosives and Blasting Procedures Manual. Series on Rock and Soil Mechanics. Fletcher.I. "Miniseismic Investigations in Tunnels: Methodology and Results.. E. R. New York). Merson. 18. 1981. A. 10. and Halen. 1984.. duPont de Nemours and Co. T. 2. A. 1978. Labrador. 843 pp.. Benson. "Dynamic Behavior of Rock Masses. Columbus. Nevada. 297 pp. 1978.. D... 1981. P. pp. E..... B. 1985. E. P.. R. pp. H.. Stagg and Zienkiewicz." Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory report LBL-7081. C. Carbondale. Inc.." Proceedings of the Second Congress of the ISRM. I... Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. Eds. and McGreath. Vol." US Geological Survey Open File Report 84-063. Colorado. 679-687.. "Geohydrologic Data for Test Well USW-G-4. Nye County.R. A.. R. Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1981. G. Blasters' Handbook. B. Cottle. Field Instrumentation in Geotechnical Engineering. I. duPont. 1980. 203-236. 494 pp. R. R. Belgrade. September 1985. New Jersey). 105 pp.

"A Pressure Tunnel Lining Using High-Pressure Grouting. Z.. P. 1977. Holmberg. "Results from Single Shot Ground Vibration Measurements. E. Distance and Charge Weight. January 1986 . Ed. Evanston." Swedish Committee for Building Research report No. "Geothermal Experience with Tunnel Portal Construction." viewgraphs presented July 1984 at Sandia National Laboratory..Hoek. London. 103 pp. P. P. Illinois." Swedish Detonic Research Foundation report DS 1979:9." Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Lukajic. 1984. B. B. U. London. and Persson. N.. R. and Radosavljevic. and Person." (in French) Proceedings of the Second Congress of the ISRM. 1053-1063.. 1982. T." Battelle Memorial Institute/Office of Crystalline Repository Development report BMI/0CRD-4(3). 4-66. (Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 31 .. England). Kelsall.." in Underground Mining Methods Handbook. Inc. 1979. 1983. "Hard Rock Excavation at the CSM/OCRD Test Site Using Swedish Blast Design Techniques...C. 1580-1589. 280-283. pp. R. Albuquerque. "Cross-Hole Acoustic Measurements in Basalt.. Myer.. Sandia National Laboratory. "Design of Tunnel Perimeter Blasthole Patterns to Prevent Rock Damage. R. R. Vancouver. 402 pp. Holmberg. Denver. King. P. London.. R.A. Los Alamos National Laboratory. England. revised second ed. 1978.. L. E. Hustrulid.. "Relation Between Vibration. letter to J... Fernandez. Underground Excavations in Rock (Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. IT Corp. Hoek.. 8b7-381.New York). Joranovic.." Proceedings of the 25th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Colorado). 1978. Yugoslavia. 1980. E. J. The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting. and Kihlstrom. England)." Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Tunnelling (Tunnelling '79) (Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 1980. 1970.-A. R. pp.. S. M. 527 pp. Canada.. ^9_. pp. (SME of AIME. a Division of John Wiley & Sons. Holmberg. L. Kujundic.. 1982. 1979. New Mexico. Holmberg. "Design of Tunnel Perimeter Blasthole Patterns to Prevent Rock Damage. and Persson. Rll. pp. London. -A. Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations Project.. Holmberg. and Bray. New Mexico. 3rd ed. 438 pp. R. J. 1984. and Brown. J. "Charge Calculations for Tunnelling. Lundborg.. A37-40. England). Belgrade... Langefors. and Rezowalli.. B. (Halsted Press. Holmberg." 14th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium. "Exploratory Shaft Test Plan. pp. Albuquerque.. Rock Slope Engineering. J.

. and Relationship to the Regional Stress Field. Lee. Worsey. Montazer. H. Oriard... M. 634-639. Scott. J. Rustan. "The Underground Works in Turlough Hill: Part I. J. M. Rock Mech. M. Nishiida.. T. Carroll. "Features of the Development and Propagation of the Rayleigh Surface Wave in the Dzhezkazgen Deposit. Stock. Rapid City. M. T. pp. Colorado).H.. Analysis of Tunnel Stability by the Convergence-Confinement Method... 8. Healy. 203-217. D.. F. "The Relationship of Geophysical Measurements to Engineering and Construction Parameters in the Straight Creek Tunnel Pilot Bore." CIM Bulletin. and Cunningham. "An Air-Injection Technique to Study Intensity of Fractures Around a Tunnel in Volcanic Rock." Underground Space. 361-402. Y. J. Sci. Miyanaga. W. Vorob'ev.. M. 1972. B." J.. (SME of AIME. (B10). "Measurement of the Thickness of the Decompressed Zone in an Excavation Under High Overburden Cover." Int. P. T. A.. L.. and Ludvig. 1983. 1985. B. Y. 1974.. 63-68. 1968. Plichon." Battelle Memorial Institute/Office of Crystalline Repository Development report BMI/0CRD-4(5). H. 1985. ]8_. "Rock Mechanical Viewpoint on Excavation of Pressure Tunnel by Tunnel Boring Machine.. "Blasting Effects and Their Control. pp. Naarttijarvi. Colorado. J. 1590-1603. pp.. Sci. 1-30. No. "Blasting Effects and Their Control in Open Pit Mining. pp.. Vol. 1133-1140. Oriard.. T. 1982.Miller. 5-12. 4_. and Robinson.. I." ISRM Symposium.. pp. Matsumura. pp. 1974... A. L. S." Sov. Denver.. C. pp. "Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements at Yucca Mountain."in Proceedings of the US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. 1985. Dec. Canada.. and Zoback. pp. Nevada. H. and Hori. S. R. "In-situ Measurement of Blast Damage Underground by Seismic Refraction Surveys. 197-222. 1972. 6. J.. AIME. 884. J. 1982." Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Stability in Open Pit Mining. L. pp. Min. O'Donoghue. Res. 1982. "Controlled Blasting in Hard Intense Jointed Rock in Tunnels. South Dakota. Ed. P. et al. "An Investigation of Fracture Permeability Around an Underground Opening in Metamorphic Rocks. N." Association of Engineering Geologists Bulletin. ^P_. L.. D. M. N. 1980. Min. 5. R. 32 .. C. XI. No. May 26-28. and Hustralid. Geophys. pp. Germany." Underground Mining Methods Handbook. Hickman. Cunningham.. 3. 8691-8706.R. Vancouver... D. and O'Flaherty. Hustrulid... Aachen. L.. No." Water Power.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful