Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect

Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

TMREES22-Fr, EURACA, 09 to 11 May 2022, Metz-Grand Est, France

Pre-split blasting design to reduce costs and improve safety in

underground mining
Alexander Pomasoncco-Najarroa , Claudio Trujillo-Valerioa , Luis Arauzo-Gallardoa ,
Carlos Raymundob ,∗, Grimaldo Quispec , Francisco Dominguezd
a Ingenieria de Gestion Minera, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Prolongación Primavera 2390, Lima 15023, Peru
b Direccion de Investigacion, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Prolongación Primavera 2390, Lima 15023, Peru
c Universidad Nacional Autónoma Altoandina de Tarma, Tarma, Peru
d Escuela Superior de Ingeniera Informtica, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Mostoles, Madrid, Spain

Received 26 June 2022; accepted 19 July 2022

Available online 6 August 2022

Abstract
To control the overbreaking of an underground mining development gallery, the controlled blasting technique was proposed
and as a result it was possible to reduce costs and improve the physical stability of the periphery of the opening, achieving
greater safety for personnel and equipment. With the support of the geomechanical studies, the rock quality of the advancing
front was determined, serving for the design of the drilling mesh and the choice and distribution of the explosives in the
respective drills. This study demonstrates that it is possible to make progress in efficient mining preparation and development
work, achieving minimal damage to the roof and walls of the mining work. Performing the simulation with the software
determines a difference between conventional blasting with the design of the pre-cut technique, optimizing the parameters of
the perforation mesh, selection of the explosive charge, the order of detonation. As a result, the study found a 60%–70%
reduction in excess excavation, showing a better finish of the tunnel contour, yielding a 16% reduction in support costs.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the TMREES22-Fr, EURACA, 2022.

Keywords: Blast; Costs; Design; Pre-split blasting; Tunnel support; Contour quality

1. Introduction
In the recent past, the objective of every operative surface or underground mine was to primarily extract the
highest tonnage of rock. While this singular focus produces a greater amount of metal, it can often adversely affect
other important operational factors. This is usually due to blasting techniques that do not consider all the important
variables that affect mine excavation. Specifically in underground exploitations, the maintenance and worker safety
costs of tunnel installation increase significantly when the actual volume of rock debris is greater than theoretical
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: carlos.raymundo@upc.edu.pe (C. Raymundo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.07.109
2352-4847/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the TMREES22-Fr, EURACA, 2022.
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Nomenclature
VOD Detonation velocity of the explosive
B Burden
PPV Peak particle velocity
RQD Rock quality designation
RMR Rock mass rating

volume of the blast plan. Known as overbreak, this extra debris not only causes more cleanup, but due to the
reduced integrity of the remaining rock, will require extra fortification time to maintain a safe and efficient work
environment. While mitigating techniques such as extra support structures and the rebuilding and reinforcing of the
contour profile through wet and dry shotcrete do reduce accidents and improve efficiency, they significantly increase
material and lost time costs.
With more attention focused on blasting techniques that avoid excessive rock-fall, a new variable, contour quality,
is used to rate the post-excavation adherence to the original blast plan, helping to monitor the cost of excavation,
safety, support materials, and time [1–3]. Advances in controlled blasting look to improve blasting efficiency and
reduce overbreak, with the end product a smooth, stable rock surface with high contour quality.
To this end, many aspects of the drilling pattern, detonation sequence, and blasting vibration effect have been
studied. Modifying the type of explosive to the type of rock and its specific characteristics was studied by J. Yang [1]
through a two-dimensional (2D) numeric analysis of the in situ dynamic stress distribution of an explosive charge
and how it affected the integrity, particularly of the heading, in an underground mine. As rock is not homogeneous,
the analysis not only showed that after detonation various pre-existing conditions of the rock affected overbreak, but
interestingly it occurred in a thin area in the crown section of the opening [4–6]. This provided important insight
into how charge type and positioning, as well as modifying the drilling pattern to the specific rock characteristics
found at the point of excavation, can all help control the blasting effect [7,8].
However, results were mixed, as some mines reported a reduction in overbreak, while others did not. During
subsequent tests, new drilling and blasting factors were found to help minimize overbreak. Modifying parameters
such as the firing sequence, drill diameter, hole spacing, burden, and explosive charge size, as well as decoupling
the blast holes and even leaving some holes empty, all contributed to achieving more effective controlled blasting
and create new standards to control overbreak and improve contour quality [9].
P. K. Singh [10] looked at these promising controlled blasting parameters relative to the specific rock characteris-
tics and conditions in a surface mine to control overbreak and improve the stability of slopes. This study focused on
the controlled blasting technique mostly used in surface mining, pre-split blasting, where reduced charges, decoupled
and empty drills holes create fracture planes around the excavation mass, to ultimately minimize overburden on
slopes, produce an optimum inclination angle, and control overbreak in general after detonation. However, the
interactions and dynamics between these variables have not been extensively studied in underground mining.
This research is an extended version of a previously published study [4], looking to manage and optimize the key
parameters in a pre-split controlled blasting design for underground mining. This study will take as a case a mine
located in the country of Peru. Using simulation software, a novel pre-split blasting design will be analyzed and
compared with a conventional blasting design with regards to overbreak, contour quality and costs. By optimizing
the drill spacing, coupled verses decoupled loads, explosive type, explosive load, the separators for shock absorption,
the detonation sequence and other factors, this study looks to contribute to techniques of controlled blasting that
positively affect support and clean-up costs in underground mining.
The paper is structured first with a Literature Review to further explain the reasons for selecting a pre-split
blasting method and its key parameters for this study, then a description of the implementation of the process for the
case, and terminating with a discussion of the important technical factors that determine a successful implementation
of pre-split blasting in mines of similar geology to reduce overbreak and costs and improve tunnel quality and safety.

2. Literature review
E. Costamagna et al. [11] present appropriate techniques and methodologies for controlled blasting to reinforce
an overriding goal of tunnel excavation, contour quality. By looking to compare actual excavated rock mass to the
1209
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

theoretical blasting plan, contour quality can be quantified and used to optimize controlled blasting. Pre-existing
conditions, rock characteristics, data from the topographic measurements of the excavated contour, geological
mapping of the perforations, and the measurement of drilling data all help towards ensuring contour quality. This
evaluation of drilling efficiency is reflected in various indices, of damage due to the explosion, over excavation,
failure focus, and tunnel quality. These indices help orient blasting operations to consider the effect of vibrations,
shock wave propagation, pressure redistribution and stress on the rock mass. The final quality results center on the
average distance of over-excavation and the length of the design contour, a variable this study will measure and use
to guide its methodology.
K. Soroush [12] used simulation software for tunnel blasting design to analyze how a drill’s diameter, the total
number of holes, and the specific load per drill, affected the tunnel face area in different blast design models.
This showed the variability and adaptability of results based on the adjustment of the different parameters of the
drill pattern, and how the blast design is best developed using the Swedish model to adapt patterns to different
excavations. For this case study, the Holemberg model will be used to help build the blast design.
H. Yang [1] also used simulations to analyze rock damage induced by dynamic redistribution of in situ stress and
explosive load in a circular tunnel excavation using controlled blasting on a front. He found that explosion-induced
blast stress waves, and subsequent blast gas expansion, generated significant overbreak and an sub-optimal damage
zone. To reduce the explosion pressure, the charges were decoupled in the limit zone of the excavation. Specific
charges were selected by simulating peak particle velocity (PPV) values to predict the damage zone associated
with the specific type of rock mass. He also found that using an adjusted detonation sequence reduces the dynamic
disturbance of the transient stress release by minimizing the deformation energy generated. These results suggest
that applying the specific modifications of decoupled drills and lower density charges at the contour area, as well
as adjusting the detonation schedule, can help to minimize damage at the contour of the excavation, specifically at
the crown section, and will be implemented in this study.
L.X. Xie et al. [13] performed numerical simulations to evaluate the resistance to failure of the rock material
under blasting and dynamic loading, using a model of tensile and compression damage that considers the effects of
pressure, deformation speed, deformation hardening and damage. They found the primary challenges to excavation
of deep rocks are resistance to stress in situ and anisotropy in the direction of damage propagation. To address these
challenges, they proposed to optimize the blast design under high stresses in situ, varying the distance between the
cut holes and the arrangement of the blast holes. This will inform the burden and spacing between the holes for
the current study to generate adequate rock fragmentation.
M. Roy et al. [14] presented interesting work with experimental, simulated explosions to understand blast shock
mechanisms inside mines. Looking to reduce shock to the lowest levels possible, they used peak particle velocity
(PPV) as a key parameter, and adjusted the quantity of explosives, firing sequence, numbers of holes, drill geometry
and initiation devices. They adjusted these parameters to test different blasting designs, and also modified the delay
interval between the drills based on the magnitude of the vibration at the site. It was found that with a delay interval
in the firing of cut holes, vibration was reduced, generating the required fragmentation of rock. This case will use
these findings to determine the initiator for the explosives to be used and the proper detonation schedule.
P.K. Singh [10] studied controlled blasting techniques to control excessive breakage and aid in the stability of
the remaining rock mass in a surface mine. Blasting with different designs and loading patterns were carried out
on different banks of the mine. The study found that pre-split blasting worked well to maintain the stability of
installations that must remain for long periods of use, such as high walls for roads, accesses, ramps, etc. To obtain
the desired results, the properties and conditions of the rock, the space between the drills, and the amount and
type of explosives in the holes were taken into account. They found an improvement in the stability of the benches
that resulted in a 15%–18% decrease in their support costs. Specifically, the results confirmed that pre-split blasting
works as a filter to attenuate the vibrations caused by the primary explosions, and will inform the current case study
to improve the stability of the periphery of underground openings.

3. Design procedure methodology

As pre-split blasting is predominantly used in open-pit mining, this study looks to other open-pit methods
and procedures to test a controlled blasting design for underground mines. One such method is the use of the
mathematical model of RBS that helps reduce trial and error to quickly adapt blast designs to new situations, for
1210
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

instance allowing quick modification of the burden and spacing dimensions, and thus save time and cost [15,16]
and [17].
This also suggests that the use of the energy factor should be an everyday tool to measure the performance of
explosives. The energy factor is a parameter that allows us to determine the amount of energy used to fragment a
ton of ore or a cubic meter of sterile material. P.K. Singh [6] used this to test different combinations of hole spacing
and explosive loading in the holes to obtain a suitable drill pattern to minimize damage from over excavation of
the slopes.
This mathematical model applied in surface mining can also be used for underground mining by using the energy
factor to select the best explosive that will control the damage to the rock mass at the limits of the openings.
For the this study’s pre-cut blasting design for underground openings, RBS will help determine the energy factor,
specifically in the crown area, and the empty bores in the contour to improve the stability of the work.

4. Work methodology
In order to implement and extend the design methodology for pre-split controlled blasting in an underground
environment, a work methodology is proposed (Fig. 1) that will generate and optimize the blasting design parameters
that can be then compared with conventional blasting designs.

Fig. 1. Suggested methodology.

5. Study case
The research problem will be tested in a mine in the annexation of Llacuabamba, department of La Libertad,
Peru. It is located on the slopes of the eastern flank of the Marañón hydrographic basin, in the northern area of the
Central Mountain Range.
The target area is located in the gold-bearing area of Parcoy-Gigante Buldibuyo, linked to a strip of intrusive
rocks known as “Batolito de Pataz” that meet the phyllites, slates, and metavolcanic rocks of the Marañón Complex
(Fig. 2).
The Mining Unit is divided into sections or divisions, among which is Valeria IV, where the research problem
will be tested in a growing gallery clearing (Fig. 3) at 2300 m of elevation.

5.1. Current status of the mine

The mining company has suffered drops in production and tonnage, and looks to offset those declines by reducing
costs. From a technical and analytical perspective, their drilling and blasting operations incur extra costs and delays
due to the extensive support that must be installed and maintained for a safe work environment.
A flowchart (Fig. 4) presents the steps to develop the drilling and blasting design with all relevant parameters
taken into account.
1211
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Fig. 2. Location of the mining production unit and regional geological map.

Fig. 3. Growing gallery clearing.

5.2. Data collection

Data collection begins by collecting the pertinent information concerning the geology of the area, the geome-
chanical data of the rock mass, the density of the rock, the rock quality index (RQD) and its classification (RMR).
Given this data, the drilling and blasting parameter data can be collected and determined.
The necessary explosive parameters and their units are listed in Table 1.
1212
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Fig. 4. Flowchart for blast and drill pattern design.

Table 1. Explosive parameters.

Density g/cm3
Unconfined VOD m/s
Blasting pressure kbar
Energy Kcal/kg
Normal gas volume L/kg
Weight relative power %
q Kg/m
Type of explosive Brand

Table 2. Perforation parameters.

Total holes und
Drilling holes amount und
Loaded Drill Amount und
Production drill diameter mm
Relief drill diameter mm
Reamer Drill m
Effective Drill m
Power factor kg/ton
Drilling Efficiency %

The drilling parameters are presented in Table 2.

The blasting accessories are presented in Table 3.
The importance of the data collected in each mentioned area influences the correct design of the drill pattern
and the maximum efficiency of operations.
1213
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Table 3. Blasting accessories.

Explosive und
Semigelatins und
Carmex und
Fast cap m
Bamboo rods m
Clay pig %
PVC pipe (1 14 ” X 4 m) und

5.3. Evaluation of the site

This phase was used to develop the perforation pattern according to the parameters collected in Section 5.2. For
visual and technical purposes, the entire perforation pattern, as well as an elaboration of the start-up perforations,
are presented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Conventional perforation and blasting pattern 2.4 × 2.7 m.

5.4. Designing the pre-split blasting pattern

In this phase, the blast design will be developed according to the data collected in Section 5.2 as well as the
rock conditions and other factors. It will be applied for a 2.4 × 2.7 m section, for a type of bad-to-regular rock.
We theoretically calculated the number of drills that could enter our pattern, avoiding the relievers and the pre-split
boreholes. R. Holmberg (1982), establishes the following relationships (Table 4).
The properties of the rock are presented in Table 5.
The parameters required for the pre-split blasting design calculations are presented in Table 6.
1214
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Table 4. Rock type.

Rock type Distance between Constant “C”
drills “Dt” (m)
Hard rock 0.50 – 0.55 2
Intermediate – 0.60 – 0.65 1.5
semi-hard rock
Soft, fragile rock 0.70 – 0.75 1

Table 5. Rock properties.

Properties Value
Density, ρ (kg/m3 ) 2,600
Young’s modulus, E (Gpa) 11
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.30
Uniaxial compressive strength, σ c (MPa) 120
Uniaxial tensile strength, σ t (MPa) 20
Internal frictional angle, ϕ (◦ ) 38
Rock Mass Rating, RMR (%) 56
Rock Quality Designation, RQD (%) 62

Table 6. Drill and blasting parameters.

Parameters Value
Section width, A (m) 2.4
Section height, H (m) 2.7
Constant “C” 1.5
Resistance to simple compression, σ r (kg/cm2 ) 1,226
Distance between drills, Dt (m) 0.6
Diameter Relief hole, Ørelief (mm) 64
Diameter Charged hole, Øcharged (mm) 38
Hole length drilled, L (m) 1.74
Particle velocity, W (m/s) VoD/4
Conversion factor 10-5
Safety factor for cut drills 6
Safety factor for supports drill 5
Safety factor for sub supports drill 4
Safety factor for crown 3
Safety factor for stope 2
Diameter of the explosive S45, ØS45 (m) 0.32
Diameter of the explosive Ex45, ØEx45 (m) 0.22
Length of explosive cartridge S45, Le (m) 0.18
Length of explosive cartridge Ex45, Le (m) 0.18
Explosive density S45, de (g/cm3) 1.12
Explosive density Ex45, de (g/cm3) 1.08
Detonation speed explosive S45, VoD (m/s) 4,200
Detonation speed explosive Ex45, VoD (m/s) 3,400

The necessary calculations to generate the proper parameters from the data collected follow.
The number of drills is given by (1):
P
N ◦ Drills = +C ∗S (1)
Dt
The section area S (m2 ) is given by (2):
S = A∗H (2)
The section perimeter P (m) is given by (3):
√
P =4∗ A∗H (3)
1215
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

The number of explosive cartridges per hole, using a 6 foot drill bit is given by (4):
( )
2
◦ 3
∗L
N Car t. = (4)
Le ∗ 0.8
The charge volume per hole is given by (5):
[ ]
π ∗ ∅e2 car tridges
Ve = ∗ Le ∗ N ◦ (5)
4 hole
Cartridges per hole, and the associated parameters, are given by the distribution of the holes in the drill pattern.
The coupling ratio of the explosive in the hole is given by (6):
∅e
Ae ≤ Ae = (6)
∅t
The volume of the explosive coupled inside the hole is given by (7):
[ ]
∅e2 car tridges
Lc = 2 2
∗ Le ∗ N ◦ (7)
Ae ∗ ∅tal hole
The charge factor is given by (8):
Ae2 ∗ Lc
Fc = (8)
Ltal
The detonation pressure is given by (9):
PoD = de ∗ V O D ∗ W ∗ 10−5 (9)
Particle velocity is given by (10):
V OD
W = (10)
4
Burden calculation for granodiorite rock and semigelatin drills is given by (11):
[ ]
PoDtal × Fc × Ae
Bn = ∅ +1 (11)
Fs × σ r × R Q D
The results of the calculations required for the pre-split blasting design calculations are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Results of equations.

Results Value
Section perimeter, P (m) 10.18
Section area, S (m2 ) 6.48
Number of relief holes 2
Minimum number of drills 27
Number of cartridges per drill 8
Charge explosive volume S45, Ve (m3 /hole) 0.00056
Charge explosive volume Ex45, Ve (m3 /hole) 0.00114
Coupling explosive S45, Ae (%) 0.84
Decoupling explosive Ex45, Ae (%) 0.59
Charge explosive per hole, Lc (m) 1.44
Charge factor per hole S45, Fc (%) 0.6
Charge factor per hole Ex45, Fc (%) 0.3
Detonation pressure per hole for explosive S45, PoD (kbar) 49.39
Detonation pressure per for explosive Ex45, PoD (kbar) 29.47
Powder factor with explosives S45 and Ex45, Fp (kg/ton) 1.2

By using the data in Tables 6 and 7 in Eq. (11) (see Tables 8 and 9), the burdens are presented in Table 10.
1216
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Table 8. Safety factor per drill.

PoD Fc Ae Fs σr RQD ∅tal
Start-up 50,374.17 0.54 0.84 6 1226 0.62 38
Supports 50,374.17 0.54 0.84 5 1226 0.62 38
Sub supports 50,374.17 0.54 0.84 4 1226 0.62 38
Contour 30,285.65 0.27 0.59 3 1226 0.62 38

Table 9. Parameters for the burden calculation.

PoD Fc Ae Fs σr RQD ∅tal
Start-up 50,374.17 0.54 0.84 6 1226 0.62 38
Supports 50,374.17 0.54 0.84 5 1226 0.62 38
Sub supports 50,374.17 0.54 0.84 4 1226 0.62 38
Contour 30,285.65 0.27 0.59 3 1226 0.62 38

Table 10. The burdens of the pre-split

blasting design.
Burden (cm)
Start-up 23.86
Supports 27.87
Sub supports 33.88
Contour 12.15

For the design of our novel pre-cut blasting and drilling pattern for underground excavation, first the start-up
drills were coupled with larger diameter cartridges to take advantage of the direct transfer of the shock wave between
the explosive charge and the rock, and thus generate better fracturing in the area.
However, one of the interesting aspects of pre-cut blasting was incorporated in the crown holes. The drills were
decoupled with a lower density and smaller diameter explosive, as this affects the degree of confinement and will
decrease the blast pressure, causing the gasses released at explosion to accelerate faster than the detonation wave
in the charging column. Common in pre-cut blasting, this forms an air cushion that buffers the impact and reduces
the fragmentation of the rock in that area. Bars of 4’ and 6’ with a diameter of 38 mm and 36 mm respectively
were used, thus giving a longest drill length of 1.83 m.
After calculating the necessary parameters (Eqs. (1)–(11)) the drill pattern was designed (Fig. 6) using the
AutoCAD program.
Finally, following the findings of Roy [14], this study makes adjustments to the firing sequence. The detonations
for this pre-split blasting pattern begin with the five crown drills, then the initiation drills followed by the production
drills.

5.5. Simulation using the JK Simblast software

This study uses the JK Simblast simulation software to evaluate the various blasting parameters under the
designed drill pattern. The software allows input of the preliminary parameters, calculated results, geological and
explosive characteristics as well as the drill mesh geometry, specified by the firing design. The firing sequence is
then set and the simulation of the detonation is run. The resulting imagery allows the detection of anomalies in the
design, either by type and/or quantity of inadequate explosives, incorrect delays, wrong well moorings, poor spatial
distribution of the holes, vibrations, etc.
The Simblast software functions by extending the traditional power factor calculation, using the bore diameter,
bore length, and explosive charge and size as the primary variables. To simulate the blast, a sphere represents the
explosive distribution emanating from each charge location. It first calculates a point within that blast sphere, and
then expands the explosive distribution through the integration of that point calculation. The explosive concentration
and distribution at any point across a drill pattern is thus calculated by summing the explosive concentration of
1217
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Fig. 6. Pre-split blasting and perforation pattern (2.4 ×2.7 m).

each corresponding charge. The software also considers detonation timing as a fourth dimension by incorporating
a weighting factor which is a function of the moment of detonation and a specific rock mass factor.
In the first phase, the distribution of the holes was made for a section of 2.4 m × 2.7 m, where the drill pattern
is shown without the pre-cut holes (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Drill distribution section 2.4 m × 2.7 m.

Highlighting the influence of each drill in the rock mass is important to determine the damage that the drill design
will cause, showing the energy contained in each section of the pattern mapped to their corresponding explosives
to give an overview of how the blasting should affect the rock geometry and tunnel contour, enabling an analysis
and optimization of the influencing blast parameters.
1218
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

In the mine, this type of blasting design or simulation had not been used previously. It showed the formation
of the contour in the section of the crown, together with the wedges formed due to the drills, thereby presenting a
reduction of damage in the mass rock.
There will be two main simulations outputs given by the software for each blasting design: the energy distribution
simulation and the damage distribution simulation. Through these results, the contour and the overbreak of the
excavation can be established.

5.6. Data processing

In this stage, the operational and economic data collected from the current conditions of the mine and the
simulation results obtained are compiled for an analysis and comparison of the results.

5.7. Comparison of results

In this phase, the data obtained from the different scenarios are compared to select those that best deliver the
highest contour quality. One of the first datasets obtained is the basic costs for the drill patterns according to each
technique, as shown in the following Tables 11 and 12.

Table 11. Conventional blasting Explosives and Accessories costs.

Cost of explosives and accessories
Measurement parameters Cost Unity Quantity Total ($)
Carmex 8” 0.674 $/u 39 26.29
Exadit 45 0.183 $/u 25 4.57
Semexa 45 0.212 $/u 216 45.68
Blasting cordon 0.463 $/m 15 6.95
Barrel plunge bags 0.1 $/u 0 0
Measuring Sticks 0.1 $/u 0 0
Total Cost 83.49

The aim is to analyze the costs associated with the different blasting techniques, conventional and pre-split,
especially the costs of support, which depend on the efficiency of the blasting design and the damage produced by
the rock mass in the periphery. If, after applying the pre-split blasting, the rock mass remains intact and with good
contour quality, then the amount of support materials can be reduced, as can be seen when comparing the support
costs of conventional blasting (Table 13) and pre-split blasting (Table 14).

6. Discussion
To understand the effectiveness of the case, a simulation of the Conventional blasting design will be compared
to a simulation of the case’s pre-split Blasting design.

6.1. Explosive parameters

The simulation software requires the following explosive parameters for the modeling of the conventional blasting
(Table 15) and pre-split blasting (Table 16) designs.

6.2. Drill patterns

The simulation software shows the 2.4 m × 2.7 m drill patterns and blasting parameters on granodiorite rock,
with a production drill loaded with 7 explosive cartridges for the conventional blasting (Fig. 8), and lower density
explosive in the crown section for the pre-cut blasting parameters (Fig. 9).
1219
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Table 12. Pre-split blasting explosive and Accessories costs.

Cost of Explosives and Accessories
Measurement parameters Cost Unit Quantity Total ($)
Carmex 8” 0.674 $/u 34 22.92
Exadit 45 0.183 $/u 56 10.25
Semexa 65 0.232 $/u 188 43.62
Blasting cordon 0.463 $/m 20 m 9.26
Barrel plunge bags 0.08 $/u 42 3.36
Measuring Sticks 0.08 $/u 14 1.12
Total Cost 90.53

Table 13. Support materials used post conventional blasting.

Cost PU ($) Unit Amount Total ($)
Helicoidal bolt 37.66 Pza. 5 188.3
Pattern 31.646 m 16 506.24
Shotcrete 2” 60.62 m 2.5 151.55
Total 846.09

Table 14. Support materials used post pre-splitting blasting.

Cost PU ($) Unit Amount Total ($)
Helicoidal bolt 37.66 Piece 5 188.3
Pattern 31.646 m 16 506.24
Shotcrete 2” 60.62 m 0 0
Total 694.54

Table 15. Explosive Parameters for the conventional

blasting design.
Explosive Density 1.08 +/− 3% g/cm3
VOD uncofined 3,800 +/− 200 m/s
Detonation pressure of explosive 87 kbar
Energy 3,338 kcal/kg
Total amount of holes 42
No. Holes 64 mm 3
No. Holes 38 mm 39

Table 16. Explosive parameters for the pre-split blasting

design.
Explosive Density 1.02 +/− 3% g/cm3
VOD uncofined 3,400 +/− 200 m/s
Detonation pressure of explosive 73 kbar
Energy 3,000 kcal/kg
Total amount of holes 40
No. Holes 64 mm 2
No. Holes 38 mm 34

6.3. Detonation sequence simulation

The detonation sequence of pre-split blasting differs from conventional blasting in that the crown charges are
detonated first, with the usual initiation charges detonating next, and the normal sequence of detonations from inside
out follow (Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
1220
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Fig. 8. Simulation drill pattern and values of conventional blasting.

Fig. 9. Simulation drill pattern and values of pre-split blasting.

Fig. 10. Detonation sequence simulation for conventional blasting.

6.4. Energy distribution simulation

The simulation software presents the distribution of energy generated by the explosion with the red zone showing
predominantly crushed material, the green zone showing predominantly preserved material, and the yellow zone
showing a combination of effects for conventional blasting (Fig. 12) and pre-split blasting (Fig. 13).
1221
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Fig. 11. Detonation sequence for pre-split blasting simulation, indicating the locations of decoupled charges.

Fig. 12. Conventional blasting energy distribution.

Fig. 13. Pre-split blasting energy distribution.

6.5. Damage distribution simulation

The simulation software presents the distribution of damage though an analysis of the peak particle velocity
(PPV) that causes the fracturing of the rock mass. The analysis was performed with a PPV value of 4,000 mm/s to
show areas of intense fracture in the conventional blasting design (Fig. 14) and pre-split blasting design (Fig. 15).
1222
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Fig. 14. Damage distribution by PPV for the conventional blasting scenario.. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 15. Damage distribution by PPV analysis in the Pre-cut blasting design.. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

The software presents the damage across four levels, with general fracturing (500 > PPV > 1,666 mm/s) given
by the color blue, moderate fracturing (1,666 > PPV > 2,833 mm/s) given by the color green, intense fracturing
(2,833 > PPV > 4,000 mm/s) given by the color yellow, and severe damage (PPV > 4,000 mm/s) given by the
color red. Based on the color criteria and analysis, it is evident that much more damage occurs in the crown of
the conventional blasting design, and represents an over excavation of around 0.50 m to 0.6 m. However, in the
pre-split blasting design the damage induced by the explosion in the crown area is much less, and represents over
excavation of around 0.2 m to 0.3 m.
These are anticipated results as in the pre-cut drilling pattern design, the crown area of the drilling pattern has
four (4) empty holes, and four (4) loaded start-up holes were reduced compared to scenario 1. As decoupled, lower
density explosive was charged at the crown, there is less damage to the rock mass in that area and thus overbreak
is minimal and structural integrity is maintained.

6.6. Cost comparison

Overall, in almost every case, the costs of the pre-split blasting case were lower than those of conventional
blasting (Table 17), except for the Cost of Explosives and Accessories (Tables 11 and 12).
Not only would there be reductions in cost for the factors listed above, there would also be a reduction in
operational time as the number of holes to be drilled is reduced from 39 to 34, that also results in an explosive
reduction (Fig. 16).
Furthermore, according to Costamagna et al. [11], the contour rock quality index is negatively impacted by
over excavation, so the conventional blasting overbreak of 0.8–1.0 m would score lower than the pre-split blasting
overbreak of 0.2 – 0.5 m, and thus, as projected by this index, cause instability in the rock mass and increase
support and safety costs.
1223
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

Table 17. Costs of conventional vs. pre-split blasting.

Section area: 2.4 m × 2.7 m Conventional blasting ($) Pre-split blasting ($)
Support materials costs 846.09 694.54
Wood cost 14.86 7.84
Gallery/shaft Wood cost 18.24 11.22
Dynamite Blasting cost 83.49 90.53
Total Cost 962.68 804.13

Fig. 16. Comparison of drills and explosives between conventional and pre-split blasting.

7. Conclusions
To achieve cost reduction based on the reduction of overbreaking with the stability of the roof and walls of
the mining gallery, a perforation mesh design and the use of adequate explosives were proposed, achieving the
stated objective for which a distribution of drilling holes applying the pre-cut, likewise the replacement of the
type of explosive according to the estimated technical parameters, successfully achieving a blast with better results
compared to the conventional mesh used in operations.
The application of the mathematical model of Holmberg and collaborators (1982) for the estimations of the
technical parameters of the proposed and developed mesh served as support for the design and distribution of the
proposed drills. In the same way, the information from the simulations with the software validates the technical
proposal developed.
The controlled blasting design applying the pre-cut reduced the damage to the periphery of the walls and roof of
the underground opening, achieving better physical stability. Fig. 13 shows the best distribution of energy compared
to the mesh. conventional. Simulations showed that the proposed pre-cut design and detonation sequence reduce
excess breakage by 60.0 to 70.0% compared to a conventional blast design, thus also reducing the clean-up costs
and time lost in related mining activities. It is important to note that this reduction in excess breakage also provides
a safer working environment, considering the stability achieved from the contour of the periphery of the mining
work.
The detailed investigation of the rock quality and the design of the perforation mesh, choice of explosives,
detonation order are decisive for an efficient blasting design using the pre-cut technique in tunnel excavations in
different lithologies. In each mineral deposit with similar characteristics, they deserve to carry out their own design;
however, the present proposal leads and indicates that success lies in the study of the binomial rock, blasting.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
1224
A. Pomasoncco-Najarro, C. Trujillo-Valerio, L. Arauzo-Gallardo et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1208–1225

References
[1] J.H. Yang, C. Yao, Q.H. Jiang, W.B. Lu, S.H. Jiang, 2D numerical analysis of rock damage induced by dynamic in-situ stress
redistribution and blast loading in underground blasting excavation, Tunnell Underground Space Technol 70 (2017) 221–232.
[2] Yajun Chen, Juanjuan Zhao, De Cao, Optimal design of presplit blasting network of deep concave open-pit mine slope with
heterogeneous complex rock mass, in: IOP Conference series: earth and environmental Science, Volume 555, 2020 International
conference on green energy, environment and sustainable development, 2020, pp. 24–25.
[3] S.R. Dindarloo, N.-A. Askarnejad, .Ataei M, Design of controlled blasting (pre-splitting) in Golegohar iron ore mine, Iran Mining
Technol. 124 (1) (2015) 64–68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1743286314Y.0000000077.
[4] A. Pomasoncco, C. Trujillo, L. Arauzo, C. Raymundo, Optimized model for pre-cut blasting in mining operations in underground
mining in peru, in: IMCIC 2019-10th International multi-conference on complexity, informatics and cybernetics, proceedings. Vol. 2,
2019, pp. 75–80.
[5] C.K. McKenzie, ’Blasting near open pit walls’, in: P.M. Dight (Ed.), APSSIM 2016: Proceedings of the first asia pacific slope stability
in mining conference, australian centre for geomechanics, perth, 2016, pp. 83–94, http://dx.doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1604_0.5.
[6] J.W. Latilla, J.J. Vanwijk, H. Booysen, C. Silver, P. Fourie, Pre-split surface blasting to modify goaf behavior above shortwall panels,
in: 11th ISRM Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, 2007. ISRM-11CONGRESS-2007-221, 2007.
[7] Qiyue Li KaiLiu, Chengqing Wu, Xibing Li, Jun Li, Optimization of spherical cartridge blasting mode in one-step raise excavation
using pre-split blasting, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 126 (2020) 104182, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.104182.
[8] W.R. Adamson, in: Singh & Sinha (Ed.), Reflections on the functionality of pre-split blasting for wall control in surface mining, Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2013.
[9] Wenbo Lu, Ming Chen, Xiang Geng, Daqiang Shu, Chuangbing Zhou, A study of excavation sequence and contour blasting method for
underground powerhouses of hydropower stations, Tunnell. Underground Space Technol. 29 (2012) 31–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2011.12.008.
[10] P.K. Singh, M.P. Roy, R.K. Paswan, Controlled blasting for long term stability of pit-walls, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 70 (2014)
388–399.
[11] E. Costamagna, C. Oggeri, P. Segarra, R. Castedo, J. Navarro, Assessment of contour profile quality in D & B tunnelling, Tunnell.
Underground Space Technol. 75 (2018) 67–80.
[12] K. Soroush, Y. Mehdi, E. Arash, Trend analysis and comparison of basic parameters for tunnel blast design models, Int. J. Mining
Sci. Technol. 25 (2015) 595–599.
[13] L.X. Xie, W.B. Lu, Q.B. Zhang, Q.H. Jiang, M. Chen, J. Zhao, Analysis of damage mechanisms and optimization of cut blasting
design under high in-situ stresses, Tunnell. Underground Space Technol. 66 (2017) 19–33.
[14] M.P. Roy, P.K. Singh, Md Sarim, L.S. Shekhawat, Blast design and vibration control at an underground metal mine for the safety of
surface structures, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 83 (2016) 107–115.
[15] L. Wang, X.X. Li, Y.X. Zhao, The practice about deep hole pre-split blasting in mining faces of low permeability extra-thick seam,
Adv Mater Res 524–527 (2012) 781–785, http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.524-527.781.
[16] Ranjit Paswan, Pradeep Singh, M.P. Roy, Vivek Kumar Himanshu, Suraj Kumar, Pre-split blasting techniques at dragline benches for
stable bench with improved fragmentation level, in: Conference: 12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation By BlastingAt:
Lulea, Sweden, 2018.

1225