International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 379–385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Practical assessment of rock damage due to blasting

Jhon Silva a,⇑, Tristan Worsey a, Braden Lusk b
a
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40508, USA
b
Department of Mining and Nuclear Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Blasting is the most cost effective methodology to break rock for mining or civil engineering applications.
Received 8 August 2017 A good production blast will break only the rock that is needed to be removed, leaving the host rock with
Received in revised form 20 February 2018 minimal damage. The control of rock damage due to blasting is very important when it comes to mine or
Accepted 14 November 2018
construction design, safety, and cost. Damage to the host rock due to a production blast could result in
Available online 22 November 2018
failures, overbreak and unstable ground. Knowing how far the fractures generated by a production blast
will go into the host rock is a valuable tool for engineers to design a safe highwall while keeping the
Keywords:
actual excavation close to the design. Currently, there are several methods available to predict damage
Blasting
Fracture
due to blasting. The accuracy of many of these methods is questionable, and in most cases, the method-
Fracture extension ologies over predict the results. This often leads to inefficient mines and poor construction works. When
Peak particle velocity the current methodologies are reviewed, each one presents sound approaches, but in many cases they
also lack consideration of other variables that, according to the authors, need to be included when pre-
dicting blast damage. This paper presents a practical methodology to assess the rock damage from blast-
ing by combining other methodologies. The proposed method allows consideration of more variables
when compared to available methods, resulting in a more accurate rock damage assessment. The method
uses the estimation of the generated levels of peak particle velocity with the distance from a production
blast presented by Persson and Holmberg, the peak particle velocity damage ranges proposed by Forsyth
and the relationship between the static compressive strength and dynamic compressive strength of rocks
from Liu. The new methodology was validated using the data published in a large-scale study performed
in granite by Siskind.
Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Rock damage due to blasting is a very important topic when it
comes to ground control in surface mines, construction works,
underground mines, and tunnels. Blast induced rock damage can
induce ground failures that cause serious safety hazards, produc-
tion losses and lawsuits. Knowing the limit of rock damage due
to blasting will make safer and more productive mines and con-
struction operations.
Currently, there are several methods available to predict dam-
age due to blasting including Holmberg-Persson, Ash, Johnson,
CSM, NIOSH modified, and Powder Factor approach, among others
[1–4]. In most of the cases, such methodologies over predict the
assessments, providing poor results despite its sounding
approaches. This paper presents a practical methodology to assess
the rock damage from blasting by combining other methodologies.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jhon.silva@uky.edu (J. Silva), tpwo222@g.uky.edu (T. Worsey),
blusk@mst.edu (B. Lusk).
The proposed method includes equations from Holmberg and Pers-
son, Liu, and Forsyth [1,5,6]. The new methodology was validated
using the data published in a large-scale study performed in gran-
ite by Siskind, resulting in accurate predictions when compared to
current methods to assess rock damage from blasting [7].
According to Sun, there are no less than 18 methods that have
been proposed to predict damage due to rock blasting [8]. Many
of the methodologies to assess rock blast damage are based on
numerical modeling, such as Blair, Ansys, Jaroslav, and few propos-
als are based on observations (empirical approach) from testing,
including Esen et al., Olsson and Bergqvist, Olsson et al. [9–14].
With the advanced in computational tools, (hardware and soft-
ware) soft computing techniques have been also applied to the
rock extension damage problem. The expression ‘‘soft computing”
was introduced by Lotfi Zadeh to solve problems that doesn’t have
an exact solution and are tolerant to imprecisions and approxima-
tions [15,16]. A comprehensive review of soft computing technol-
ogy applications in several mining problems can be found in Jang
and Topal [17]. Most of the proposals of soft computing techniques
applied to the rock damage extend assessment can be found in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.11.003
2095-2686/Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
380 J. Silva et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 379–385

Mottahedi, Sereshki and Ataei [18]. Table 1 summarizes some of Table 2

the available rock damage extent models, primary assumptions, PPV criterion for blast-induced damaged, modified from Zadeh [15].

advantages and disadvantages. PPV (mm/s) Effect

As seen in Table 1, most of the methodologies calculate a parti- <250 No fracturing of intact rock
cle velocity value (PPV) produced by the detonating charge in the 250–635 Minor tensile slabbing will occur
borehole and then such value is compared against a PPV value that 635–2540 Strong tensile and some radial cracking
is known or adopted (most of the time based on site specific field >2540 Complete break-up of rock mass

tests) that will produce some damage in the rock or rock mass.
Table 2 includes one of the peak particle velocity damage criterion
modified from Bauer and Calder [19].
The calculation of the PPV can be done using modifications to
the scaled distance equation or using soft computing methodolo-
gies such as in Khandelwal and Singh or Verma and Singh [1,20–
22].
The selection of particle velocity as a parameter is driven by the
simplicity in measuring using conventional geophones. When PPV
is used as a parameter, the damage zone is calculated as the dis-
tance between the borehole and the location in the rock mass
where the PPV value doesn’t cause any fracturing or damage in
the intact rock/rock mass.
Table 1 also shows that the pressure generated by the explo-
sives in the borehole is chosen as the main blast damage parameter
for another researcher. When the pressure is used as a parameter,
the damage zone is determined by comparing the strength of the
rock/rock mass against the compressive and tangential stresses
generated by the explosive charge. It is assumed that there is not
damage in the rock/rock mass if the produced stresses are lower
than the strength of the material. A disadvantage of this approach
is the uncertainty in the value used as the pressure generated in
the wall of the borehole (borehole pressure). Some studies com-
pute the borehole pressure by dividing the detonation pressure
(the energy storage in the explosive) by two (2.0) Cook or assuming
that the detonation pressure is equal to the borehole pressure Hino
[23,24]. More recent and sophisticated proposals involve the stiff-
ness of the borehole wall (stiffness of the surrounding rock) in the
calculation of the borehole pressure to estimate the damage zone.
The uncertainty of the borehole pressure value used in the assess-
ment of the damage zone is increased by the difficulty to measure
this parameter especially for regions close to the borehole.
1.1. Traditional blast damage zone prediction models
There are various definitions of the blast damage zone (BDZ).
According to Singh, the BDZ is the extent of the zone where the
blast hole changes the rock mass properties, downgrading its per-
formance and behavior [25]. Scoble et al. defines the BDZ as the
reduction in integrity and quality of the damaged rock mass [26].
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
defines the BDZ as the unintended collateral damage and

Table 1
Rock damage extend models.

Model Year Procedure Advantage Disadvantage

Holmberg-Persson 1978 Calculate PPV to compare against PPV -Developed for cylindrical charges -Properties of explosive are not considered
damage ranges -Easy to use when all parameters are -Not strong theoretical support for its
known derivation
-Parameters of the equation are
established after several tests
Swedish Rock 1996 Fractures mechanics theories. Calculates -Uses gas pressures generated in the -Difficult to follow because the complexity
Engineering Research extent of damage zone around a borehole of the formulation and the number of
Organization borehole -Explosive properties included Velocity of variables
(SevBeFo) Detonation (VOD) and isentropic Fracture toughness parameter from the
properties of the explosive rock needs lab testing
-Too many ‘‘correction” factors in the final
formulation
Colorado School of 1969 Calculate PPV to compare against PPV -Uses gas pressures generated in the -Cylindrical charges divided into a chain of
Mines (CSM) damage ranges borehole spherical charges
-Uses Poisson ratio, density of the rock -Number of field tests needed to be
and longitudinal wave speed of the rock conducted to find inelastic coefficient
Hustrulid-Lu 2002 Calculate PPV to compare against PPV -Uses gas pressures generated in the -Number of field tests needed to be
damage ranges. Improved from CSM borehole conducted to find constant parameters
approach -Introduces attenuation formulations for (attenuation) in the equation
the PPV
Modified ash 2010 Calculates extent of damage zone around -Uses basic properties of explosives -Only density of the rock is accounted as a
a borehole using the explosive energy -Uses ANFO as reference rock variable
-Easy to use
Rock constant approach 2010 Based on Holmber’s approach for -Uses basic properties of explosives -No rock properties are included
tunnels. Calculate extent of damage zone -Uses ANFO as reference -Degree of hole confinement difficult to
around a borehole -Easy to use assess
Neiman hydrodynamic Based on hydrodynamic studies by -Uses basic properties of explosives -Explosive energy parameter difficult to
Approach Hustrulid. Calculate PPV to compare -Includes compressive strength of the assess
against PPV damage ranges rock as a variable
-Easy to use
Jang and Topal–artificial 2013 Based on Artificial neural network (ANN) -Considers rock and rock mass parameters -Blasting parameters are not involved in
Neural Network and multiple regression (UCS, RQD, RMR) the problem.
Approach
Mohammadi et al.– 2015 Based on Fuzzy Logic techniques and -Considers rock mass parameters (RMR), -A large data set of blasting parameters
fuzzy Logic Approach linear multiple regressions -Considers blasting parameters (powder (202 data sets) are required to obtain a
factor, ratio of contour holes to total reliable model.
holes) -Applied in a site specific project (Alborz
tunnel)
 J. Silva et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 379–385
weakening of the rock mass around the periphery of an under-
ground excavation due to explosive use. The idealization of the
explosion in a borehole in a rock mass indicates that there are four
zones surrounding the borehole studied by Whittaker et al.: (a) the
crushing zone, (b) the crack/fracture zone, (c) the fragment forma-
tion zone; and (d) the elastic zone [27]. Fig. 1 shows the different
zones and a typical radial crack pattern observed around a blast
hole.
The crushing zone is the zone of material adjacent to the blast-
hole. Usually this zone is in direct contact with the explosive. The
diameter of this zone is a function of many variables such as cou-
pling ratio, explosive type, rock and rock mass properties among
others. Its determination is not easy and in most of the cases the
boundary between the crushing zone and the fracture zone is not
evident. In the fracture zone, the presence of fractures is consider-
able (high fracture density zone) and as mentioned before, in most
of the cases its boundary is combined with the crushing zone
boundary. Beyond the fracture zone, there is the fragment forma-
tion zone. In this zone there are fractures but the density is lower
compared to the fracture zone. Usually, the fragment formation
zone cracks are evident in the remained rock mass of walls of a
tunnel or in the face of a slope. The depth of this zone will influence
the ground control required to guarantee the stability of excava-
tions, highwalls and slopes.
Fig. 1 also shows a simplification of the different cracks created
by a blast hole. According to Saiang, the generated cracks can be
classified as: (a) macroscopic and microscopic, of different shapes
and sizes; (b) in a horizontal section, they will follow a radial dis-
tribution and are highly anisotropic and non-persistent and, (c) the
fracture distribution and its nature (including the extent and the
intersection of the cracks) have spatial characteristics which
depend on factors such as explosive properties, blast hole geome-
try, and rock/rock mass properties [28].
A damage zone prediction model will assess the extent of the
crack/fracture and the fragment formation zone accurately.
Fig. 1. Typical radial crack pattern observed around a blast hole [27].
Fig. 2. H-P model PPV estimation results around a blast hole.
381
2. Methodology in this paper
The studies from Holmberg and Persson, Liu et al., Fleetwood,
and Forsyth were used to propose the practical methodology to
assess rock blast damage included in this paper [1,6,5,29]. Next a
more in depth overview of those studies is included.
2.1. Holmberg and Persson 1970
In the late 1970s, Holmberg and Persson (H-P) introduced the
Swedish approach to contour blasting [1]. The approach is based
upon rock damage being related to peak particle velocity using
the basic equation given by:
KQ a
PPV ¼ ð1Þ
Rb
where PPV is the peak particle velocity; K, a and b are constants; Q
the explosive charge; and R the distance. The constants are site
specific and could be estimated from a set of seismograph records.
The H-P model breaks down the explosive column into segments
and sums the contribution of each segment at a point according
to Eq. (1). By doing this, the discrete formulation of Eq. (1) corrected
by Hustrulid and Lu, is given in Eq. (2) [30].
0 1
XH B
DL C
PPV ¼ Kqa B C ð2Þ
@ 2ba A
DL¼T
ð r o Þ 2 þ ð z  zo Þ 2
where q is the loading density of the explosive per unit length; H
the depth to the bottom of the explosive column; T the depth to
the top of the explosive column; DL the incremental charge length;
and r o and zo the coordinates of the point in space under consider-
ation. As mentioned before, the detailed derivation of Eq. (2) can be
found in Hustrulid and Lu [30]. By using Eq. (2) for a specific site, it
is possible to develop vibration contours around a blasthole as
shown in Fig. 2a, adapted from Erickson [31].
Fig. 2b shows the prediction of the PPV for different loading
densities and distances from the blasthole for points in the mid
part of the explosive column, adapted from Iverson et al. [32]. To
be able to use these curves for design, one must determine the
PPV value associated with unacceptable damage. For example if
1500 mm/s is adopted as a PPV limit value, the extension of the
damage zone will go up to 0.65 m (Fig. 2b) for a loading density
explosive charge of 1.0 kg/m and up to 1.37 m if the loading den-
sity is 2.5 kg/m.
382 J. Silva et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 379–385
The validity of the two fundamental assumptions of the H-P
method are as follows: the entire charge detonates instanta-
neously; and the amplitudes are simply summed without consid-
ering arrival direction. The shape of the explosive charge
between spherical and cylindrical has been discussed by others,
including Blair and Minchinton, and Iverson et al. [9,32].
One disadvantage of Eq. (2) is the assumption that in the formu-
lation, every elemental charge contributes to the generation of the
with the same weight or proportion. This disadvantage is more evi-
dent for high column lengths of explosive. Iverson et al. corrected
the original error of the H-P model by re-writing Eq. (1) as follows
[32]:
KQ a
PPV ¼ b
R the initial Young’s modulus and the ratio of the dynamic strain

where R is the average distance to the observation point for all of
the elemental charges and can be evaluated as:
Z different types of rocks [5]. The rocks under study were samples
 1 L h i0:5
R¼ ðz  zo Þ2 þ ðr  r o Þ2 dz
L 0
The solution proposed by Iverson et al. involves determining R

and obtains PPV using Eq. (3) [25]. Fig. 3 shows the value of R for
different heights of explosive columns at different point locations
ro for points in the mid part of the explosive column. In Fig. 3,
for example, if the explosive column is 3 m (L ¼ 3 m), and the point
 types of rock and the strain rate reported by Liu are included in
is located at ro ¼0.6 m, and the average distance is 1 m (R ¼1 m).
On the other hand, for the same distance, (ro ¼0.6 m) if the explo-
sive column is L ¼ 16 m high, the average distance will be

R ¼4.1 m. If it is considered that the PPV is a function of the dis-
tance, in the case of L ¼ 16 m high column, the underprediction
of the PPV will be important.
As the H-P method continues to be reviewed, there are different
modifications available that attempt to improve the accuracy of
predictions, such as Arora and Dey; Inverson et al., and Smith
[32–34]. Despite the limitations mentioned before in the original
 values as proposed originally by Forsyth [6,29]. The strain rate esti-
Fig. 3. Average distance R for various location points r o .
Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves for amphibolites, sandstone and sericite-quartz schist [5].
formulation and its questionable accuracy, the H-P method, is pop-
ular and its popularity lies in the use of the scaled distance concept
that is of relatively easy understanding and implementation and it
will be used in this paper in its basic formulation (Eq. (1)).
2.2. Relevant results of studies by Liu, Forsyth, and Fleetwood
Some materials possess properties which are strain rate sensi-
tive. Strain rate sensitivity is observed when the stress-strain prop-
erties of a material change according to the strain-rate regime
affecting the way the material responds under loading conditions.
Despite the lack of a formal consensus on the manner in which
material parameters are affected by strain-rate loading conditions,
those changes can be characterized according to the behavior of
ð3Þ
ðed Þ to the static strain ðes Þ at the maximum stress ðrd =rs Þ.
A study presented by Liu et al., using a split Hopkinson pressure
bar (SHPB) determined the dynamic strength properties of three
of amphibolite, sandstone and sericite-quartz schist. Fig. 4 shows
ð4Þ
the dynamic properties of the tested rocks under different strain
 rate conditions reported by Liu et al. [5]. According to the study,
if a strength increase factor ðgÞ is defined to measure the changes
in the strength of the material for different dynamic conditions, it
will be possible to asses the dynamic strength from a static test,
knowing the strain-rate.
The expression of the strength increase factor for the different
the set of Eq. (5) as:
gamp ¼ 0:44598  e_ ð1=3Þ  0:37798
gsas ¼ 1:41039  e_ ð1=3Þ  3:58302 ð5Þ
gsqs ¼ 2:09497  e_ ð1=3Þ  7:96242
For example if a strain rate is 100 s1, the increase factor will be
1.69 and 2.96 for the amphibolite and the sansdtone respectively.
Forsyth, assuming a plane wave condition, discusses a relation-
ship between the PPV and the material properties to calculate the
PPV damage threshold given by Forsyth [6]:
Vp
PPV max ¼ 0:1  UCS ð6Þ
E
where PPV max is the critical peak particle velocity above which the
rock will fail under tension, mm/s, 0:1UCS the uniaxial tensile stress
estimated as the tenth percent (0.1) of the uniaxial compressive
strength ðUCSÞ, in MPa; V p the P-wave velocity; m/s; and E the static
Young’s Modulus, GPa.
Fleetwood et al. discusses the improvements in the accuracy of
the estimation of the PPV threshold value when Eq. (4) is used with
the dynamic properties parameters of the rock instead of the static
mated by Fleetwood et al., in the case study presented was
 J. Silva et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 379–385 383

between 10 and 100 s1, in agreement with information provided Table 3

by Chitombo et al. for blasting events [29,35]. For the case study Physical properties of Lithonia granite from study by Siskind [7].

presented by Fleetwood et al., the PPV threshold damage estimated Parameter Value
using dynamic parameters in Eq. (4) was five times higher than the Specific gravity 2.63
application of the original formulation with static values [29]. The Weight density (kg/m3) 2630
results were validated according to the level of damage observed in Longitudinal propagation velocity, in situ (m/s) 5550
the walls of the tunnel and the recorded PPV values. Longitudinal bar velocity (m/s) 2740
Tensile strength (N/m2) 3.10  106
Compressive strength (N/m2) 207  106
Modulus of rigidity (N/m2) 10.3  109
3. Proposed steps for the assessment of the rock damage due to
Young’s modulus (N/m2) 20.7  109
blasting Poisson’s ratio in situ 0.26

While there are several methods to predict damage due to rock

blasting, none of the methods encompass all the parameters that The steps of the proposed methodology in this paper are
should be included in the analysis [29]. The steps discussed in this explained in detail using the data from Siskind and included in
paper, takes the most significant parts from different rock blast Table 3.
damage studies, to create a simple but logical sequence to include
the variables that should be considered in a rock damage analysis. 3.2. Detailed steps for the assessment of the rock damage due to
The proposed sequence is a first attempt to create a practical and blasting
comprehensive rock blast damage model utilizing important
aspects of the other methods available. Further study will be Step 1: static material properties
required to refine the methodology. According to Table 3, the UCS of the rock is 207  106 N/m2 and
The five steps proposed to assess blast rock damage are as the Young Modulus is 20.7  109 N/m2.
follows:
Step 2: dynamic material properties
(1) Determine the static material properties for the rock under
The dynamic properties can be estimated based on the static
study including UCS, Young’s Modulus and P-Wave velocity
values through the strength increase factor ðgÞ. Using the results
(2) Determine the dynamic material properties based on the
from Liu and assuming a value for g ¼ 3 the dynamic compressive
strain rate levels expected from blasting
strength is given by:
(3) Determine a PPV damage limit using Forsyth, Eq. (4) and the
dynamic material properties [6]. UCSdyna ¼ 3:0  UCSstatic
(4) Using the H-P blast damage model, determine the iso- UCSdyna ¼ 3:0  207  106 N=m2 ¼ 621  106 N=m2
vibration contours around a single hole. To use the H-P
model, it is required to know the parameters in Eq. (2)
Step 3: PPV damage limit using dynamic material properties
ðK; a; bÞ. Those parameters can be assessed using a tradi-
tional blast vibration analysis relating scaled distance to
Using this dynamic UCS in the Forsyth equation (Eq. (4)), the
PPV from a database of seismograph information collected
PPV damage limit is given by:
at the site.
(5) Compare the PPV damage limit value calculated in step 3 PPV max ¼ 0:1  UCS
Vp
E
against the iso-vibration contours calculated in step 4 to
assess the area where damage limit PPV values will be PPV max ¼ 0:1  621 MPa 5550 m=sec
20:7 GPa

reached. The calculated area will be a prediction of the PPV max ¼ 16; 650 sec ¼ 16:65 sec
mm m

envelope subject to blast induced vibration damage.

Step 4: PPV values generated around a single hole using H-P
To validate the accuracy of the results using the previous steps model
the study presented by Siskind was used [7].
The basic equation (Eq. (1)) was used to calculate the generated
3.1. Retrospective case study utilizing USBM RI 7901 PPV according to the H-P model. The parameters used were
originally suggested by Holmberg-Persson and given by:
Siskind conducted a study on a full scale blast in Lithonia Gran- K ¼ 700; a ¼ 0:7; b ¼ 1:5. The amount of explosive per hole was
ite, Lithonia, GA [7]. This rock has been used for testing in the US calculated from the original RI 7901 report and corresponds with
because its orthotropic characteristics. The blast used large diame- 277 kg of explosive [7]. Fig. 5 shows the expected PPV values for
ter holes of 165 mm and ANFO. The measurements taken before the 165 mm blast-hole diameter in the midpoint of the
and after the blast to indicate the extent of damage in cores recov-
ered using horizontal core drilling were acoustic pulse velocity,
porosity, permeability, compressive strength, and, Young’s
modulus.
According to the measurements, the acoustic pulse velocity is
the most sensitive parameter to measure the extent of the dam-
aged rock due to blasting. For the test setup by Siskind, it was
found that there was heavy damage (severely fractured zone)
between the center of the blast hole and a distance of 64 cm (8
blast hole radii), and slight damage between 64 and 114 cm (8–
14 blasthole radii) [7]. Beyond 114 cm no damage was reported
according to the measured parameters. Table 3 includes the phys-
ical properties of the Lithonia granite. Fig. 5. PPV produced by a single hole according RI 7901 [7].
384 J. Silva et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 379–385
Fig. 6. PPV expected values and PPV maximum limits.
blast-hole, using the parameters originally recommended for the
H-P model.
Step 5: PPV values generated vs maximum limits
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the produced PPV and the
PPV limits below which no fracture damage is expected.
4. Results
The extent of rock damage predicted using the static value of
the UCS is 3.47 m. The extent of rock damage predicted using
dynamic compressive strength (3.0) is 1.67 m. And the extent of
rock damage predicted using 1000 mm/s as the limit of damage
as suggested by Holmberg-Persson is 2.34 m. If the measured value
reported in the RI 7901 (1.14 m) is assumed as the accurate value,
the error in the estimation of the damage fracture distance is
included in Table 4 [7].
One potential source of error in the calculation of damage
extent is the lack of empirical data for the site constants to be uti-
lized in the H-P model. By utilizing actual site constants and data
from the Lithonia site, it may be possible to assess the validity of
this method further. That data was unavailable for this research.
4.1. Discussion
The extent of rock damage due to blasting is an important
parameter to understand the development of mines, civil infras-
tructure, and development projects. A number of theories have
been presented to estimate the range of damage for typical blasting
scenarios. These theories have historically overestimated the
extent of damage to the rock material, and have not been very
effective at assessing the damage to the rock mass which is more
complex with limited understanding of structural and regional
geology. During the blasting process, multiple phases of loading
occur that can cause damage to the rock mass. Most practitioners
agree that the initial shock and pressure loading serves to extend
preexisting micro cracks in the rock material surrounding the bore-
hole. These cracks are further extended by gas pressure that results
from the completed detonation process within the hole. In massive
rock, the extent of these cracks is the sum of the rock damage
observed. In cases where geologic cracking, discontinuities, and
joint/bedding planes are present, the gas pressure is often directed
Table 4
Comparative results different methodologies.
Parameter Actual value (measured)
Damage extent (m) 1.14
Error (%) 0.0
into these naturally occurring cracks and will tend to extend and/
or expand these preexisting cracks preferentially to causing dam-
age to the intact rock material at distance. For this reason, estima-
tion and prediction of rock mass damage is related more to the
existing geologic conditions than it is to the intact strength of
the rock material. Conversely, in massive rock material, predictive
models considering the rock strength are more reasonably applied
to predict the extent of damage. For this reason, the comparison
data utilized for the damage prediction methodology presented
in this paper was taken from a rock deposit that is more massive
in nature. For a definitive model that considers both damage to
intact rock and damage to the rock mass, other parameters will
need to be considered.
The methodology in this paper advances understanding and
provides a tool for assessing the damage to intact rock surrounding
a borehole in typical blasting scenarios.
4.2. Further research areas
There are only a handful of large scale tests out there that do a
good job at proving when blast damage ceases to exist. Doing large
scale testing in different geology types would help validate the
model. The topic of damage due to blasting is important. For such
an important topic, the gap in the literature is inexplicable. The
evaluation is time consuming and expensive, probably driving
the lack of reported data.
The method used above uses constants from Persson and Holm-
bergs book. Further research into how these constants change is
necessary to make a more accurate model. These constants could
be used to calibrate models with different parameters or geology
types. Also, the equation in step 4 from the Persson and Holmberg
book is scrutinized for using an equation of a spherical charge cir-
cle instead of a cylindrical weighting each explosive increment
charge same. Future research comparing an equation using a cylin-
drical charge and weighting the contribution to the PPV for each
charge according to the distance will give a better prediction and
is needed.
The new method used an adjustment factor to predict the value
of dynamic strength. Future research is needed with tested values
for dynamic compressive strength. Also, using tests that take into
account confinement and dynamic situations to predict damage
range could be useful. Triaxial testing which takes confinement
into account will give compressive results that are higher than
UCS tests. Increased strength with increased load rate is also seen
giving evidence that dynamic strength is a more realistic property
to use for damage prediction. One dynamic testing method that
could use future research for damage prediction would be the Split
Hopkinson pressure bar.
There are many parameters that are not present in this model.
At the moment, this prediction method incorporates the most
practical variables for predicting rock damage due to blasting.
There is still much to do to incorporate the different variables that
go into rock damage. Other variables that could possibly contribute
to rock damage due to blasting are timing of shot, hole diameter,
blast design parameters, confinement, energy of explosives, geo-
logical conditions, and preexisting fractures or discontinuities.
Methodology in use
Proposed methodology Using 1000 mm/s criterion Using static parameter
1.67 2.34 3.47
46.5 105.3 204.4
 J. Silva et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 379–385 385

5. Conclusion [15] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1965;8(3):338–53.

[16] Crestan F, Pasi G. Soft computing in information retrieval: techniques and
applications (studies in fuzziness and soft computing). 1st ed. Berlin: Physica-
Currently there are methods in the literature that predict dam- Verlag; 2000.
age due to blasting. Most of them are very conservative methods [17] Jang H, Topal E. A review of soft computing technology applications in several
mining problems. Appl Soft Comput 2014;22:638–51.
that only use a couple of parameters for the prediction. Each one
[18] Mottahedi A, Sereshki F, Ataei M. Development of overbreak prediction models
of these methods has a very sound approach that just lacks further in drill and blast tunneling using soft computing methods. Eng Comput
research to introduce more variables into the model. This new 2018;34:45–58.
[19] Bauer A, Calder PN. Open pit and blasting seminar. Course No. 63321. Kinston,
method takes the sound parts of other methods and combines
Ontario, Canada: Queens University, Mining Engineering Dept.; 1978.
them to create a prediction method that uses more variables that [20] Khandelwal M, Singh TN. Prediction of blast induced ground vibrations and
influence rock damage due to blasting. Combining these methods frequency in opencast mine: a neural network approach. J Sound Vib 2006;289
into one method better predicts rock damage due to blasting when (4):711–25.
[21] Khandelwal M, Singh TN. Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration using
compared to the large-scale damage study performed by Siskind. artificial neural network. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46(7):1214–22.
Being able to more accurately predict rock damage due to blasting [22] Verma AK, Singh TN. Comparative study of cognitive systems for ground
will help design more efficient mines and help avoid legal cases vibration measurements. Neural Comput Appl 2013;22(1):341–50.
[23] Cook Melvin A. The science of high explosives. 1st ed. New York: Reinhold Pub.
involving blast damage. Corp; 1958.
[24] Hino K. Fragmentation of rock through blasting and shock wave theory of
References blasting. First U.S. symposium on rock mechanics. Golden, Colorado: American
Rock Mechanics Association; 1956.
[25] Singh SP. Investigation of blast damage mechanism in underground mines.
[1] Holmberg R, Persson PA. The Swedish approach to contour blasting. In:
MRD report mining research directorate. Sudbury, 1992.
Proceedings of conference on explosives and blasting technique. New
[26] Scoble MJ, Lizotte YC, Paventi M, Mohanty BB. Measurement of blast damage.
Orleans: Society of Explosives Engineers; 1978. p. 113–27.
Min Eng 1997:103–8.
[2] Ash RL. The mechanics of rock breakage. Pit and Quarry; 1963; Part I, p. 98–112
[27] Whittaker BN, Singh RN, Sun G. Rock fracture mechanics: principles, design
(Aug), Part II, p. 118–23 (Sept), Part III, p. 126–31 (Oct), Part IV, p. 109–18
and applications. Dev Geotech Eng Amsterdam 1992;71:570–1.
(Nov).
[28] Davis Saiang. Behaviour of blast-induced damaged zone around underground
[3] Johnson JC. The Hustrulid bar – a dynamic strength rest and its application to
excavations in hard rock mass. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology
the cautious blasting of rock. Salt Lake City: University of Utah; 2010. p. 380.
Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering Division of Rock
[4] Iverson Stephen R, Hustrulid William A, Johnson Jeffrey C. A new perimeter
Mechanics; 2008.
control blast design concept for underground metal/nonmetal drifting
[29] Fleetwood Kelly G, Villaescusa Ernesto, Li JP. Limitations of using PPV damage
applications. NIOSH RI 9691. Pittsburg, 2013.
models to predict rock mass damage. Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual
[5] Liu JZ, Xu JY, Lv XC, De HZ, Leng BL. Experimental study on dynamic
conference on explosives and blasting technique. Denver: International
mechanical properties of amphibolites, sericite-quartz schist and sandstone
Society of Explosives Engineers; 2009.
under impact loadings. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2012;13:209–17.
[30] Hustrulid W, Lu W. Some general concepts regarding the control of blast-
[6] Forsyth WW. A discussion of blast-induced overbreak in underground
induced damage during rock slope excavation. In: 7th International
excavations. In: 4th International symposium, rock fragmentation by
symposium, rock fragmentation by blasting. Beijing: China. p. 595–604.
blasting. Vienna: Austria. p. 161–6.
[31] Kirk Erickson. Investigating the extent of damage from a single blasthole. Salt
[7] Siskind David E, Fumanti Robert R. Blast produced fractures in Lithonia granite.
Lake City: University of Utah; 2014.
USBM RI 7901. Washington, 1974.
[32] Iverson SR, Kerkering C, Hustrulid W. Application of the NIOSH-modified
[8] Sun CS. Damage zone prediction for rock blasting. Salt Lake City: University of
Holmberg-Persson approach to perimeter blast design. In: Proceedings of the
Utah; 2013.
thirty-fourth annual conference on explosives and blasting technique. New
[9] Blair Dane, Minchinton Alan. On the damage zone surrounding a single
Orleans: International Society of Explosives Engineers; 2008. p. 33.
blasthole. Fragblast 1997;1:59–72.
[33] Arora S, Dey K. Comparison of two near-field blast vibration estimation
[10] Ansys. Autodyn user manual. Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; 2000.
models: a theoretical study. In: 10th International symposium, rock
[11] Mackerle J. Material and geometrical nonlinearities FEM and BEM analyses: a
fragmentation by blasting. Boca Raton: Florida. p. 465–71.
bibliography (1998–2000). Finite Elem Anal Des 2002;38(3):307–17.
[34] Smith AA. A modified Holmberg-Persson approach to predict blast
[12] Esen S, Onederra I, Bilgin HA. Modelling the size of the crushed zone around a
damage. Salt Lake City: University of Utah; 2003.
blasthole. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2003;40(4):485–95.
[35] Chitombo G, Guest A, Djordjevic N, La Rosa D. In search of the fundamentals of
[13] Olsson M, Bergqvist I. Crack lengths from explosives in small diameter holes.
rock breakage under controlled dynamic loading. In: 6th International
In: Proc. 4th int. symp. on rock fragmentation by blasting. Vienna: Austria. p.
symposium, rock fragmentation by blasting. Johannesburg: SA. p. 73–9.
193–6.
[14] Olsson M, Bergqvist I. Crack lengths from explosives in multiple hole blasting.
In: Proc. 5th int. symp. on rock fragmentation by blasting Montreal: Canada. p.
187–96.