You are on page 1of 16


ELSEVIER Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247 262

Effects of joint orientation and rock mass quality on tunnel blasting

A.K. Chakraborty a, J.L. Jethwa a, A.G. Paithankar b
a Central Mining Research Station Unit, 54 B, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur-440 010, India h Mining Engineering Department, Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering, Nagpur-440 011, India (Received 10 June 1993; revised version accepted 13 April 1994)

Abstract It is a well known fact that rock mass properties influence the process of fragmentation considerably. Model blasts and field investigations were carried out to find the effects of rock mass quality and joint orientation on tunnel blasting. Propagation of shock waves are partially restricted by joint planes. It was observed that the blast results (i.e., average fragment size and depth and cross-sectional area of the broken zone) were considerably influenced by joint orientation. Accordingly, it has been concluded that loading equipment with a larger capacity and deeper blast holes are required in formations with joint planes perpendicular to the tunnel axis. The number of blast holes, however, should be greater when joints are parallel to the tunnel axis. Furthermore, the powder factor (kg/m 3) has been found to be directly related to rock mass quality (Q). Optimisation of pull, powder factor and overbreak is required in the case of weak formations with joints perpendicular to the tunnel axis. The use of contour blasting technique seems to be essential in poor and fair rock masses to minimise the overbreak, reduce the support cost and improve the stability of the opening.

1. Introduction It is a well known fact that rock mass properties play an important role in rock fragmentation. Further, properties like rock mass strength and joint pattern have m a x i m u m influence on the rockexplosive interaction. The influence of these parameters, therefore, should be assessed to optimise the blast design parameters for different rock conditions. Blasting of physical models simulating coal measure formations with different joint orientations and field investigations in various rock formations were conducted to find the effects of rock mass quality and joint orientation on the tunnel blast performance. Some important inferences on the blast design criteria have been obtained analysing 0013-7952/94/$7.00 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSD1 0013-7952(94)00014-S

the blast results. Details of these experiments, observations, analyses and conclusions are presented in this paper.

2. Model study The propagation of shock waves is partially restricted by planes of weakness. As a result, the fragmentation beyond such a plane is restricted. Moreover, the explosive gas, under pressure, tries to vent through the existing planes of weakness and widens the separation. The line of breakage, therefore, mostly takes place along these weakness planes and the shape and size of the blast fragments


,4. K. Chakraborty ctal./Engineerin~ Geoh)k'r 37 ( 1994:247 2t52

greatly depend on the spacing and orientation of the weakness planes (Fig. 1 ). Because joints constitute a major share of rock discontinuities, jointed formations were selected in the model study (Chakraborty et al.. 1991 ). Microcharges were used for blasting a pattern of holes cast in the models.

same way as the models were. The cubes ~c~c tested in the laboratory to determine the compressive strength and density of model fornlaliotls (Table 1 ).

2.2. Blast pattern

One main v-cut and a baby cut consisting ol 10-mm diameter holes were provided in all the models. The blast pattern is shown in Fig. ~

2.1. Preparation o/models and joint patterns

Cement mortar was used to prepare models in mild steel cylindrical containers of 45 cm diameter. The models represented different tunnel sections. The ratio of sand and cement was kept as 8:1. Water was used to make a paste of sand and cement. Twelve litres of water were consumed to make the paste required for preparing one model. Three such models were prepared with different joint characteristics as follows (Fig. 2): (a) Model 1 - - Massive, without any joints. (b) Model 2 ..... Jointed, 25 mm joint spacing, joints perpendicular to the axis of the model (also referred as perpendicular formation). (c) Model 3 - Jointed, 25 m m joint spacing, joints parallel to the axis of the model (also referred to as parallel formation). The top view of the models 1, 2 and 3 and their sections along A A' are shown in Fig. 2. in models 2 and 3, mica flakes were evenly sprayed in between the two bedding planes to form the l m m thick joint fillings. The models were cured for 30 days and then dried at room temperature for 15 days. Cubes of 15cm length were simultaneously prepared to represent the model tbrmations. These were cured and dried in the

2.3. Blastin~
Each hole was charged with "Mexcord-II'" detonating fuse of a charge density of 10 g m and velocity of detonation of 6500 m/s. The baby cut holes and the main cut holes were ignited with zero and No. 1 short delay detonators. respectively. Before blasting, the models were covered with a polythene sheet to prevent scattering of fiagments.

2.4. Post blasting e.vereise

(1) The volume of each crater was determined by filling the craters (covered with thin polythene sheets) with water poured from a measuring beaker; (2) The depth and width of each crater at different sections were measured: (3) The pattern of breakage in each case was observed: and (4~ Sieve analyses of the fragments were carried out.

2.5. Results
( 1 ) The mechanical properties like compressive strength and density of the model formations are tabulated in Table 1 (Chakraborty et al., 1991 I. (2) The blast results like pull, cross-sectional area and volume of the craters and the type o1' cracks produced by blasting are also listed in Table 1. (3) The sectional view of the craters, along and across A A', are shown in Fig. 4 (Chakraborty et al., 1991 ). (4) The sieve analysis results are listed in Table 2 (Chakraborty et al., 1991 ). (5) Curves relating the average size and weight

" 7:"4.


Fracture plane developed by blasting

Fig. I. Two intersecting planes 1 and 2 have been intersected by a fracture plane developed by blasting. A, B, C are different fragments thus obtained with different shapes and sizes.

A.K. Chakraborty et al./Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247 262



Model -2

Model "5

28 ~

'l .....+

.... i

......... 45 - - - - - *
along A-A' /ection along



Section along


Joint plane

Blast hole

t~ A,

Top view Top view

Top view

Fig. 2. Top and sectional view of the models 1, 2 and 3 (dimensions are in cm).

Table 1 Observations from blasting of models (Chakraborty et al., 1991) Model


Compressive strength of model (kg/cm 2)

Density of model formation (g/cm 3)

Volume of craters observed by pouring of water (cm 3) 560.0 835.0 705.0

Pull (cm)

Crosssectional area of crater (cm 2)

Shape of the crater (sectional view along and across


Type of cracks beyond the crater area

1 2 3

22.00 10.07 9.18

1.67 1.67 1.67

5.5 7.4 9.3

205 192 180

See Fig. 4a See Fig. 4b See Fig. 4c

Not pronounced Pronounced radial cracks Pronounced parallel cracks

of the fragments for all the models are drawn in Fig. 5. (6) The specific surface area (SSA) and the

average fragment size (AFS) of the blasted muck from each model are listed in Table 3 (Chakraborty et al., 1991).


A. lx~ Chakraborty et aL ,'Engineering Geology 37 ~ 19942 247 262





340 300

5 .~ s! hole (dia , IOmm)
Fig. 3. Cut-hole pattern. i~;ection a c r o s s A

E c,i








5;ect ion a l o n ~ _ _

Averoge fragrnen! slzeprnm

Vig. 5. Axerage fragmcnt size ~ersus wcight. Yablc 3 Specific surface area (SSA) and avcrage fragment size I,\t-S (Chakraborty el al., 1991 ) Model no. Formation SSA .\I-S (cm) ~U)05 0.092 iL074

Model N o I



2 3 4(c

Massive Jointed, perpendicular joints Jointed. parallel joints

S5.20 5S.I)S 72.s

Mode[ No,3

Fig. 4(a,b,c). Sectional view of the craters m models I. 2 and 3, respectively (scale 1 cm = 10 cm).

2.6. Analysis
( 1 ) The powder factor was lower in the jointed formations than in the massive formation.
Table 2 Sieve analysis of fragments (Chakraborty et al., 1991 ) Model no. Total weight of fragments (g) Volume of crater (cm 3)

However, a better fragmentation was obtained in the massive formation ( Table 3 ). The average fragment size was larger in the perpendicular l\)rmation compared to that in the parallel or massive formation, because the perpendicular formation is morc prone to flexural rupture near the surface. As lhe optimum fragment size is directly dependem upon the size of the loading bucket, it may be concluded that a larger size bucket should be used in the perpendicular formation compared with whal is

Results of sieve analysis Fragment size greater than (ram) 80 4() 20 10 4.75 2 1.4 0.6 0.425 0.212 0.125 0.075 IL()375

Weight of each fraction (g) 1 920 550 2 1353 810 3 1164 697


29 80 66

41 107 50

19 63 61

121 145 2()8

152 152 197

293 320 323

146 135 140

70 65 65

7 -~ 5

I7 10 2()

7 Is Iq

A.K Chakrabortyet al./EngineeringGeology37 (1994) 247-262

required for loading the blasted rock fragments in the massive or parallel formation. (2) A shallower but wider crater was obtained in the perpendicular formation. This is due to the fact that the shock waves travelling forward, i.e., towards the bottom of the holes, were arrested by planes of weakness. Thus, the fragmentation in the forward direction was restricted. On the other hand, the shock energy travelled freely in lateral directions, i.e., along and across AM', to form a wider crater. On the contrary, in the parallel formation the shock energy travelled without any hindrance in the forward direction to produce a deeper crater. But the transmission of the shock waves across the line A-A' was restricted by the planes of weakness and, therefore, the crater was narrow. It is, therefore, found that the fragmentation and extent of the broken zone are restricted by the joint plane in the direction normal to it, Due to the restricted fragmentation towards the bottom of the hole in a perpendicular formation, deeper blast holes will be required to obtain a particular pull. Moreover, the cross-sectional area of the crater was the smallest in the parallel formation (Table 1) due to reasons stated above. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of breakage per hole was the smallest in this type of formation. It can be concluded that, to break a particular section (say, a tunnel section), more blast holes will be required in a parallel formation than in a perpendicular or massive formation. (3) It was also observed that overbreak and shattering were less explicit in massive formations compared to jointed formations. As a result, the shape of the craters in the jointed formations were irregular. Therefore, it will be imperative to adopt the contour blasting techniques in the jointed formations to minimise the overbreak and obtain a controlled shape of excavation.


observed over a length of 540 m in two inclines (1:4.65) each of 17.66 m e cross-sectional area (Jethwa et al., 1990). The location and contour map of the inclines are illustrated in Fig. 6.

3.1. Geology
The formations around the inclines belong to the Lower Gondwana sedimentary succession comprising the Talchirs, Moturs and Barakars. A geological cross-section along incline 2 is shown in Fig. 7. There are two major joint sets accompanied by some random joints (three at a few locations). The joints are tight, unaltered and spaced at an average distance of 20-30 cm. The strata are mostly wet. The rock mass condition was monitored throughout the length of the tunnels, The tunnels were divided into various zones according to the rock mass condition. No appreciable change in rock mass condition was noted at different locations within a particular zone. The Q values and the joint orientations observed in the different zones (determined every 10 m for each zone) are listed in Table 4 (Jethwa et al., 1990). It can be seen that the rock mass quality, except in few cases, was poor to fair.

3.2. Mechanical properties of rock

(a) Specific gravity - - 2.32 (b) Compressive strength - - 200 400 kg/cm z

3.3. Blast pattern (Fig. 8) (Chakraborty et al., 1990)

(a) Maximum depth of hole - - 2.3 m (b) Diameter of blast hole - - 38 mm (c) Average number of holes per round - - 60 (d) Type of explosive - - Special Gelatine 80% Make: IEL, Velocity of detonation 5000 m/s) (e) Explosive consumption/round - - 45 kg

3. Field investigations
The observations in the model studies were further verified in the field. The rock mass quality (Q), joint orientations and blast results were

3.4. Blast performance

(a) Average pull - - 1.45 m. The average pull per round in different locations of the inclines are shown in Fig. 9.


A.K. Chakraborty et al./Engineerin~ Geolog'y 37 (1994) 247 262

Fig. 6. Location and contour m a p of the inclines.

A.K. Chakraborty et al./Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247-262


.~_..~.__.e--~---~'"~"~~- " 500

: -


., ~

_F3 F4

: ,,


./.., ~'.



~ . ~

T ,,( T 1"
. . . . . '

200 INDEX Soi[ Moturs S3o ~ ~ F1 F3 F4 6eo Banakars Tatchirs F5 F 6 99o


Fig. 7. Geological cross-section along incline no. 2 (all dimensions are in metre).

Table 4 Joint orientations and "Q" values at different sections of the inclines (Jethwa et al., 1990) Serial no.

Incline no.

Ch.*(m) 60 70

Q 16.4

True joint dip () 80 70 27 17 82 15 52 15 74 33 21 63 72 8 56 12 67 15 Sheared zone 60 71

Strike angle with tunnel axis ()


2 3 4 5

1 1 1 1

80-90 110 120 180 190 230-240

18.66 4.89 13.5 4.5

6 7 8 9 10 11

2 2 2 2 2 2

60-70 70-80 100 110 140 150 230-240 260 270

11.75 24.0 3.96 9.37 0.8 9.07

35 8 30 70 55 85 80 90 30 30 30 15 85 20 80 70 80 40 40

* Ch. = Distance along the incline (m).

( b ) P o w d e r f a c t o r - - 1.47 k g / m 3. T h e p o w d e r f a c t o r o b t a i n e d at d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s o f t h e inclines are s h o w n in F i g . 10. (c) S m o o t h n e s s o f p e r i p h e r y :

T h e e x c a v a t e d p e r i p h e r y was v e r y u n e v e n , w i t h l a r g e o v e r b r e a k . T h e h e i g h t a n d w i d t h o f the o p e n i n g at d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s in t h e inclines a r e s h o w n in Figs. 11 a n d 12, r e s p e c t i v e l y .


4. K. ( T t a k r a h o r o ('l al. 'En.~ineermw (;uolo~,U" 37 ~ I ~)04~ 247 262

~iey (01| e! e| " el 1


OIiiii ? ell-e0"6m V ov ol~ el e0 of ol~LeI ett y <

= ~l- ---e II el--el-el--OlT el -


'"' ""'A'"'



VIEW Ha.of holes -"60 Total charge "-45 kg of Spl. Gel, BOI,

Fig. ~. Blast pattern in the inclines.

3..5. A ha/3,six ( 1 ) Minor variations in blast results such as in pull, overbreak and powder factor were found at various locations within the same zone, in spite of the lack of change in the rock mass condition and the similar blast pattern. This was probably because the spacing and burden of the blast holes were maintained approximately oil the basis of visual determination of the drilling operators. This led to an inconsistent and inaccurate drilling pattern. Later, when smooth blasting was adopted, the burden and spacing of the holes were correctly maintained with the aid of an optical instrument.

Thus, the effects of inconsistent and inaccurate drilling on the blast performance were reduced. This minimised the variations in the blast results at different locations with similar rock mass condition where the same blast pattern was used. (2) A correlation has been established between the powder factor (pj~ kg/m 3) and the Q wdues at different locations of the inclines (Fig. 13). The correlation coefficient (0.765) could be improved if the variations in the blast results could bc reduced by proper drilling practice, as detailed in the paragraph above. It can be seen that the powder factor was low for low Q values and high for high Q values. Indeed, higher pull and larger

A.K. Chakraborty et al./Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247 262

2'1 L


2 1.9

1'8 1.7 1.6

/ \


1.5 I-4 1.3





i, 80


' 120 '


' ' 160

' i80


. 200


;~4 0 ' 2'60

Lenglh of incline, m Incline no. I

Incline no.2



Fig. 9. Pull at different locations of the inclines.

overbreak were obtained in the low Q value zones (Figs. 14 and 15). At these locations, considerable time and money were spent in supporting the inclines due to excessive overbreak. The overbreak was minimised in the remainder of the inclines (which was through poor rock mass), by adopting smooth blasting, involving closely spaced (0.44 m) charged holes at the periphery (ignited with same delay detonators) with alternate charged and uncharged holes. The charge density and spacing (s) to burden (b) ratio in the perimeter holes were kept at 0.2 kg/m and 0.8, respectively. Due to this low charge density, the small s/b ratio (compared to an average charge density of 0.49 kg/m and an s/b ratio of 1.25 in the other holes) and the simultaneous detonation of the perimeter holes, the fragmentation was even at the periphery of the inclines. Moreover, cracks joining the charged and uncharged holes were formed immediately as the perimeter holes were blasted. Thus, a separation plane was created along the periphery which

restricted the transmission of shock waves to the virgin rock mass. As a result, formation of new cracks and opening of joint planes in the rock mass beyond the periphery were minimised, and a smooth profile with a 80% "half cast factor" (total length of the half drill hole marks visible at the periphery divided by the total length of perimeter holes, expressed in percentage) was obtained. These observations suggest that (a) optimisation of the blast performance requires proper design of the blast parameters based on the Q value of the location and (b) to have an optimum blast performance in a tunnel, it is required to obtain not only high pull and low powder factor but also minimum overbreak. High pull and low powder factor can be obtained in the weak rock masses (Figs. 13 and 14) but this involves a great risk of large overbreak (Fig. 15). Therefore, the blast parameters such as advance and charge per round should be properly designed in such rock types so that an optimum pull and powder factor with minimum overbreak


,-1. lx'i ( ' h a k r a h o r t y et el~ ,En,~ineerb ~ (;eolov,, ~7 ~ 1994~ 242 2(~2





tO 0


4-~ \


i. "0 0 CL


I t


(~-6 1 ! w


150 Length of Incline ~m




Incline 2


Fig. 10. Powder factor at different locations of the inclines.

can be achieved. Further, smooth blasting may be adopted in such cases to reduce the undesired breakage. (3) Low to moderate pull and small overbreak in the roof but large overbreak at the sides were noted between Ch. 130 and Ch. 190 (Figs. 9, 11 and 12), where the joint planes were dipping both steeply and gently, and the strike angle of the joint planes were nearly normal to the tunnel axis (Table4, Figs. 16 and 17). The case of gently dipping joint planes (Fig. 16) is similar to model 3 (Fig. 2) where the planes of weakness are parallel

to the axis. In the actual case of the tunnel, the joint planes restricted the transmission of the shock waves towards the roof but not towards the axis and the sides of the opening. Thus the fragmentation was poor towards the roof and the extent of the broken zone in this direction was limited, but a better fragmentation occurred towards the tunnel axis and the sides. The results are also similar to those in model 3 in terms of a narrow (across A A'), but deeper crater being obtained. The case of steeply dipping joint planes (Fig. 17) resembles the conditions in model 2 (Fig. 2) because the

A.K, Chakrabort) et al./Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247-262

6 5"8 5.6 5.4 5"2


ej C t-,

5 4,B 4.6 4.4


7= O~

4"2 4 :5'8 3"6 5"4" 60 80




\ I }J Desired

I00 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Lenglh of Inclinelm
E~ Incline no. I + Incline no.2

Fig. 11. Height of the opening at different locations of the inclines.

planes of weakness are perpendicular to the axis in both the tunnel and the model. In the actual case of the tunnel, the shock waves were transmitted in the lateral directions, i.e., towards the roof and the sides of the opening, but were restricted in the forward direction, i.e., the tunnel axis, because of the joint planes. This resulted in better fragmentation towards the roof and sides but not along the tunnel axis. The results are similar to those in model 2 in terms of the formation of a shallow but wider crater. Due to the combined effects of steeply and gently dipping joint planes, low to moderate pull and overbreak at the roof and large overbreak at the sides were obtained in this zone. The above phenomena and analyses support those in model blasting (section 2.6, part 2), i.e., the fragmentation and extent of the broken zone are restricted by the joint plane in the direction normal to it. Becaus of this, the percentage pull (pull per unit depth of hole, expressed in percen-

tage) and the cross-sectional area of the broken zone per blast hole are adversely affected by the perpendicular and parallel joint planes, respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that, (a) the blast performance is affected by the joint orientation and (b) deeper blast holes will be required for a particular advance in a perpendicular formation and more blast holes will be required for breaking a particular tunnel section in case of a parallel formation.

4. Correlation of field observations with model study It was found in the model study that the fragmentation and cracks were influenced by the strength of the formations and the joint orientations (Tables 1 and 3 and section 2.6). Field investigations also demonstrated that the blast results were dependent on the rock mass quality and the joint orientations with respect to the tunnel

7.6 7.4 7'2

.4.K. ('hakrahorlv ct a/..En~im,eri#l, (h'oioq5r 3 7

19t#4,, '


~ ~

i I
/ /

6.8 6'6 E





/'v'W'IX \ I
Overbreak Underbreak
1 I r " i u ! I l 1 v i ! i v






5"6 5-4 5.2 5 6O











Length of Incline~m
0 Incline no. I

Incline no. 2



Fig. 12. \Vidlh of" ~hc opening at differcnl locations oI" the incline~,

axis (section 3.5). A correlation between the observations in the models and the field has been made in Table 5.

5. Conclusions The tbllowing ltlajol" conclusions can be drawn from the above studies: (1) Tunnel blast pertbrmance strongly depends on the rock mass quality and joint orientation. To optimise the blast perlbrmance, the blast input parameters should be designed considering these properties. (2) The fl'agmentation and the cross-sectional area o1" the broken zone are restricted by a .joint phme in the direction normal to it. This means that more blast holes will be required for a particuhn" cross-section of a tunnel driven through a

parallel formation and deeper holes will be required to obtain the desired advance in the perpendicular formation. 13) In spite of high pull and low powder lhctor. considerable overbreak and strata control problems occurred in tunnels through poor and fair rock masses. The blast performance further deteriorated when low pull but high overbreak were obtained in formations with joint planes perpendicular to the tunnel axis. Therefore, to optimise the pull and powder factor and minimise the overbreak in such a case, the blast parameters (like advance and charge per round) should be designed considering the rock mass quality and thc j o i n t orientation. (4) Considerable overbreak and cracks were obtained in the models with ,jointed formations and in the low O value zones of the tunnels. The overbreak was responsible for strata control problems and low tunnelling rates but could be con-

A.K. Chakraborty et al./Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247-262





eO.04 (q-2)

E 1'6
o u

CorrBl~lion eoefflcien!= 0 . 7 6 5






8 Q



20 24

Fig. 13. Powder factor versus Q.





Fig. 14. Pull versus Q.


.4. K. (71akrahorty et al./Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247 2~2

/7 \ \



0 -02






Overbreok roof al

Overbreok o|


Fig. 15. Overbreak ~ersus Q.




7 _L
Fig. 16. Side view of a gently dipping joint set with its strike normal to the tunnel axis. J I


nnel face


( Fig. 17. Side view' of a highly dipping joint set with its strike normal to the tunnel axis.

A.K Chakraborty et al,/Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 247-262

Table 5 Comparisons of the observations in the model study and field investigations Sample no. 1 Modelstudy The powder factor in a massive and stronger formation was greater than that in the jointed and weaker formation. Field investigations


The powder factor was low in poor rock masses and high in stronger rock masses. The relation between the powder factor (pf) and the rock mass quality (Q) at any location was found as: pf= exp [0.04(Q- 2)].

The fragmentation was influenced by the joint orientation. Low pull and wider crater were obtained when the joint planes were perpendicular to the model axis. The reverse were found if the joint planes were parallel to the model axis The overbreak and cracks were greater in the jointed formations than in the massive one. Thus, contour blasting was deemed necessary in the jointed formations.

The blast performance was affected by the joint orientation. Low pull but higher overbreak were found when the joint planes were normal to the tunnel axis. But low overbreak at the roof and higher pull were obtained in case of gently dipping joint planes having the strike angle normal to the tunnel axis. The conventional blasting was responsible for large overbreak and stability problems to the opening. Overbreak was minimised by smooth blasting technique.

trolled by s m o o t h blasting. The technique may, therefore, be suggested to reduce the overbreak a n d improve the stability of the o p e n i n g a n d the rate of progress in tunnels driven t h r o u g h weak rock masses.

Ash, R.L., 1963. The Mechanics of Rock Breakage, Parts I IV; Pit and Quarry, Vol.V: 2 5, 98-100, 109-111, 118-123, 126 131. Badal, R., 1992. The influence of orientation of joints on blasting results: A comparative study. Proc. Workshop Blasting Technology for Civil Engineering Projects, Nov. 16 18, New Delhi, pp. 76-83. Bhandari, S., 1975. Improved fragmentation by reduced burden and more spacing in blasting. Min. Mag., (March): 187-195. Bhasin, M.L., 1992. Mechanised drifting at Tandsi Project. Wester Coalfields Ltd, Nagpur, India, unpublished report. Chakraborty, A.K., Jethwa, J.L. and Paithankar, A.G., 1990. Factors affecting blast performance in tunnels - - A case study. Proc. Natl. Seminar Modern Trends in Explosives Technology and Application, Nagpur, Oct. 25 27, pp. 116-131. Chakraborty, A.K., Paithankar, A.G. and Jethwa, J.L., 1991. Influence of joint directions on tunnel blasting - - A model study. Indian Min. Eng. J., XXX(Oct.): 25-30. Duvall, W.I. and Atchison, T.C., 1957. Rock breakage by explosives. USBM Rep. Invest., No. 5356, Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hagan, T.N., 1984. Blast design considerations for underground mining and construction operations. Proc. ISRM Symp. Design and Performance of Underground Excavation, Cambridge, pp. 255-262. Jethwa, J.L., Chakraborty, A.K., Goel, R.K., Verman, M., Murthy, V.M.S.R., Singh, R.P., Kiran, S.K, and Singh, B., 1990. Productivity and controlling blast damage in Tandsi

The a u t h o r s express their gratitude to the Director, C e n t r a l M i n i n g Research Station, D h a n b a d a n d the Principal, Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering, N a g p u r for their permission to publish this paper. The a u t h o r s would also like to t h a n k Sri R . K . Goel, Dr, M . K . V e r m a n a n d Sri V.M.S.R. M u r t h y , Scientists, C M R S U n i t , N a g p u r for helping in collection of field data a n d carrying out m o d e l studies. Sincere t h a n k s are due to Sri M.L. Bhasin, Dy. C M E , W C L a n d the m a n a g e m e n t o f M a n a g a n e s e Ore ( I ) Ltd. for m a k i n g useful a r r a n g e m e n t s for the above studies. The views expressed in this paper are those of the a u t h o r s a n d n o t necessarily of the institutions to which they belong.


A.K. Chakrahort 3' ctal./Engineering Geo[ogy 37 ~ 1994) 247 26?

luclines Preliminary investigations and feasibility report. Submitted to Western Coalfields Limited, Central Mining Research Station, Dhanbad. Kutter. H.K. and Fairhurst, C., 1971. On the fracture process in blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 8:181 202. Paithankar, A.G., 1988. A critical appraisal of double spiral cut in tunnel blasting. ISRM Symp., Sept. 12 16, Madrid, pp. 377 380.

Smgh, D.P_ 1991. Effect of ph>sico<ncchamcal p~l,l!Cl[it..!, i,! rocks on drilling and blasting ~pcrations in tmdcror~ind drivage. Workshop on Tunnels. Milw I~.,~ad~c,, ~mi Caverns. Ooty, Sepf.., pp. [\-63 lV-6,x. Singh, D.P. and Shastr 5, \;.R.. 1~)88. Ell'cot oi ~,mrollabl~" blast design factors on rock ['l-:.lgnlent~lliOll. J. Mille- \lcl;d', Fuels. (Dec.): 539 548.