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

net/publication/364350279

Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation and

Measurement Methods

Chapter · January 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 149

2 authors, including:

Satyabrata Behera
Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL)
10 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Satyabrata Behera on 18 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Blast Induced Rock Damage –
A Review of Estimation and
Measurement Methods

S. Behera1,*, K. Dey1
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal – 721302, India
E-mail: *Satya24behera@gmail.com

Abstract
Blasting is the cheapest way of excavating, loosening, and fragmenting of rock mass
owing to its applicability over varied geo-mining condition. The process involves
uncontrolled release of a tremendous amount of energy instantaneously in the form
of shock and gas pressure. This uncontrolled energy damage the rock, structures
etc. beyond the desired zone of blast. Efforts are made by a number of researchers
to measure or estimate the damage zones, which are also classified suitably. A brief
review of the same is being presented in this paper.

1. Introduction
Blasting is an economical way of excavating, loosening, and fragmenting of rock
masses. The process releases a tremendous amount of energy instantaneously in
the form of shock and gas pressure. With the advancement of new technologies,
now the blasting is carried out in a controlled manner by utilizing proper
explosives. However, all the factors associated with the blasting are not in
controlled, and those uncontrolled energies resulted in the unwanted damages to
the surrounding rock masses beyond the desired zones. The blast induced rock
damages varies according to many factors, mainly: rock properties, surrounding
conditions, explosives strengths, blasting pattern, etc. So, the efficient blast
design requires a proper monitoring and control of blast-induced damages (BID)
in the surrounding rocks.

2. Definition of Blast Damage

Oriard [1] described rock damage as the phenomenon that includes not only the
breaking and rupturing of the rocks beyond the desired limit of excavation, but
164 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

also an unwanted loosening, dislocation and disturbance of the rock mass, the
integrity of which (such as mine pillars, underground openings etc.) one wishes
to preserve. Sometimes this blast-induced damage causes further fracturing of the
surrounding rocks and more than the desired rock is excavated. This additional
excavation is known as the over break. Rock damage can be possible by two
means. One is original rock mass damage, which is due to natural process and
the second one is human-made damage due to excavation. In mining, blasting
is the most common means of rock excavation process. The void place in the
excavated area triggers the rock mass to redistribute the ground stresses, and
this deteriorates the rock mass strength due to generations of new cracks in the
surrounding rock masses. The damage occurs when number of cracks are in
large number.
Page, et al., [2] described two zones of damage, namely, (i) In-elastic zone
and (ii) Elastic zone. The in-elastic zone is the damaged zone where rock mass
is left permanently disturbed due to rock rupture, block motion and gas venting.
The elastic zone is the area in which the rock mass itself is not damaged but
where the blasting vibration passing through the rock mass can cause damage
to existing excavation walls and installations.
The degree of damage has been explained as given below:
• Disturbance to equipment: Equipment installed such as underground
hoists, crushers and conveyors may only tolerate low levels of disturbance
and hence deserve an increased factor of safety.
• Falling of loose material: Rock previously exposed and damaged may
be dislodged due to vibration of subsequent blasts.
• Disturbance of rock mass: Blast damage to the rock can take the
form of fresh cracking. This has the effect of increasing number of
discontinuities in the final wall of an excavation and further reduce the
quality and strength of rock mass.
• Closure of an excavation: A large blast can be sufficiently close to an
excavation to cause complete closure of that excavation.
• Loss of drill hole: This is possibly the threshold value when pre-drilled
holes are closed due to blast-induced damage from the previous blast.
Chitombo, et al., [3] described gross damage to mine structures in the
appearance of the rock structure in different forms. For example, cracking,
slabbing, overbreak and visible displacement, etc.
Forsyth, et al., [4] described, the overbreak is the breaking or notable reduction
in rock standard after the outlined perimeter of the excavation.
According to Paventi, et al., [5] a rock mass is considered to be damaged if
it no longer reacts elastically and the deformation is plastic. This corresponds
to the zone where stress exceeds the rock strength. Thus, rock damage, in other
words, is reduction in integrity or quality.
 S. Behera, et al. 165

Scoble, et al., [6] described damage as degradation of rock mass strength and
the reason behind that strength reduction is the presence of freshly generated
or enlarged fractures or openings and shear movement along the cracks and
joints.
Murthy, et al., [7] categorized the blast-induced rock damage in case of
horizontal drivages in hard rocks and have identified four zones as follows:
• Overbreak zone: This is the zone of rock breakage or significant damage
to rock beyond the designed perimeter of the excavation following the
blast and subsequent face dressing.
• Crack widening zone: This is the zone where the aperture of existing
cracks in the rock mass increases due to expanding gases.
• Incipient crack growth zone: The zone where the fresh cracks are
generated in the rock mass due to blast-induced strain. However, rock
does not get dislodged immediately even after dressing. Repeated blast
cycles may trigger the crack growth and eventually result in overbreak.
• Intact Zone: The zone where the rock mass strength is not reduced
significantly and hence the effect of blasting is insignificant in terms of
rock damage.

3. Blast induced damage measurement techniques

Blast-induced damages decrease the inherent rock mass strength of the
surrounding rocks and thus, decrease the stability. Therefore, it is important
to measure the depth and extent of damages in the rocks. There are a lot of
traditional and modern techniques in the rock mechanics field to measure the
damages. Some of the important methods include “vibration measurement,
extensometer for gross movement, cross-hole seismic logging for determining
crack density, direct viewing cracks by a borehole camera etc” [8].

3.1 Sunflower Cross-sectioner Method

Measurement of excavated profile is to be done quickly, safely and accurately.
Durham, et al., [9] reported that the 4.5m circular New Croton Aqueduct in
New York was measured mechanically with the Sunflower Cross-sectioner. This
consists of a telescopic pole on pivoting disc that was extended to measure
the distance to the tunnel wall at fixed angles. The area of the section was
determined with a planimeter on a paper plot.

3.2 Photographic Method

Over break is calculated in this method by projecting a thin sheet of light
radially onto the walls [10]. In Switzerland, an automated instrument, which
uses optical triangulation by a light beam and photodiodes, was used to measure
distances to the wall [11]. Hagedron, [12] described a commercially available
166 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

profilometer, which is a pulsed laser mounted on a theodolite with digital storage

capabilities.

3.3 Light Sectioning Method

Franklin, et al., [13] proposed method of light sectioning, in which a conical
mirror projected a plane of light onto the walls, roof and floor of the tunnel or
drift thus defining a cross-sectional profile of the opening. The image is recorded
by video camera and processed with the corresponding scale of photograph.

3.4 Half Cast Factor

McKnown, et al., [14] and Singh [15] used a factor known as “half cast factor
(HCF)” as a measure of blast-induced overbreak. It is the ratio of the total
visible drill mark length (post blast) to the total pre blast drill length.
n
​S ​  ​​Li
_____
i=1
HCF = ​  n ​ ...(3.1)
S
​ ​  ​​Lr
r=1

Where, HCF = half cast factor

Li = post-blast drill mark length visible (m)
Lr = pre-blast drilled length (m).

3.5 Borehole Camera Method

Simangunsong, et al., [8] studied “Blast-Induced Damage of the Sedimentary
Strata Rock Mass at PT Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC), Indonesia by using bore
hole camera”. The aim of this investigation was to measure the importance of
the blast induce breakage within the rock mass. Five blasting operations were
carried out at Harpan south pit and Malewan Thiess Pit of KPC. The height of
the bench was 10m. ANFO and Emulsion were used. The field lay out was shown
in the Fig. 3.a. There were two investigations holes, which were perpendicular
with the blasting row. For measuring the PPV, Blastmate III instrument was
used. The borehole camera invented by Nakagawa was used to quantitatively
determine the fractures in the rock mass before and after the blast. Figure 3.b
shows a borehole view inside the investigation hole. Figure 3.c shows the nature
of cracks after the blast. The result shows that the cracks were spread and the
new ones were generated by the blast and it was also observed that the crack
densities were increased with the distances. The crack densities and the PPV
were correlated because the surrounding rock mass can resist a certain amount
of PPV. The result shows that the crack densities develops proportionally with
the PPV with correlation factor of 0.75. The relation between PPV and the
crack densities is PPV = 114 e0.0015p. Where p is the ratio of the crack density
increase.
 S. Behera, et al. 167

Fig. 3.a Layout of field experiment [8]

Fig. 3.b An example of borehole view [8]

Fig. 3.c Crack density before and after the blast [8]
168 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

3.6 Seismic Refraction Tomography Methods

Singer, et al., [16] studied the “high-resolution seismic refraction tomography
for determining blast-induced damage in a mine face”. In this study, the data
recorded at 0.25 to 0.5m spacing by using an accelerometer of frequency 1000Hz.
And the BID was analyzed by considering the P-wave velocity variation in the
mine wall. The P-wave travels faster in consolidated materials as compared to
fractured materials. Thus, by comparing the velocity the damage portion can
be determined [17]. In this study, the Rayfract seismic refraction tomography
software package was used. This software uses a smooth inversion method to
image the velocity structure. Here the WET (“Waveform Eikonal Travel-time”)
tomographic inversion method was used [18]. The test was carried out at four
locations. The first test was done in a concrete block. The seismic P-wave velocity
in the block was around 3000m/s. The second and third test was done in East
boulder mining company on gabbro and norite rock and the P-wave velocity for
both the sites was approximately 6500m/s. The fourth test was carried out in
Lucky Friday mine at a depth from the surface about 2km at the 4900level on
phylliticargillite rock and the P-wave velocity was approximately 5000m/s. In
the first test it was found that, there was a decrease of 500m/s P-wave velocity
between the pre and post blast. In the East boulder mine, the good rock found at
1m and 1.5m distance from the survey site 1 and 2 respectively at target velocity
of 6000m/s. whereas in Lucky Friday mine good rock quality found at 1.5m
depth into the wall at velocity of 5200m/s.
Trivino, et al., [19] studied “the blast induced damage through the cross-hole
seismometry in single hole blasting experiments by considering the damages
in macroscopic fractures”. The seismic velocities before and after the blast
were studied around the blast holes, through high exactness in-hole sensors.
Here, the crack density was determined by measuring the P-wave velocity
through an Effective Medium Theory (EMT). The experiment was carried out
in a controlled condition in granitic outcrop. According to the result, a 67%
decoupled charge the maximum stress wave damage would increase to an utmost
four-hole diameter. But the actual damage happens to 22 borehole diameters
when combining the effect of gas expansion. The results also showed that, even
for a relatively homogeneous rock outcrop, as used in this study, the resulting
damage is very far from being symmetric around the borehole. The variations
are due to macro-structures within the rock mass.
Dey, et al., [20] studied “the rock mass damage zones in blasting from
in-field seismic velocity and peak particle velocity measurement”. A crater
blast experiment was used to model the blast damage surrounding the blast
hole. Geophones were used to carry out the pre and post blast seismic velocity
survey. Four blast holes each of 1 m depth, spaced at 3 m interval were taken in
this study. The seismic survey was carried out before the blast, and the P-wave
 S. Behera, et al. 169

velocity profile was produced. The blast holes were loaded with a different
quantity of explosive charges. All the holes were blasted one at a time, and the
crater area was measured physically (Fig. 3.d). For delineating the blast effect,
the post-blast seismic imaging was done around the blast holes.
From the study of the pre and post-blast P-wave velocity of each block, it was
seen that there is a remarkable depletion in the P-wave velocity and the damage
is 2 to 30 times the measured crater volume. From the result, it was observed
that there was a maximum depletion of P-wave velocity in the borehole number
4 but the measured crater volume of this borehole is minimum. Also, the charge
used in this hole was the least among the four holes. Thus, it can be concluded
that maximum damage to the surrounding rock mass occurs due to suboptimum
charge which was not enough to contour the confinement. Thus, optimum
explosive charges have an important role.

Fig. 3.d Scheme of crater blast experiment and seismic imaging Source: [20]

4. Prediction models for determining blast induced

damage
4.1 Electrical Resistivity
Scott, [21] and Singh, [22] used geophysical techniques, namely, seismic
refraction and electrical resistivity to assess and describe the blast damage.
170 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

However, this process has not become popular due to its lengthy and time taking
procedure, which needs a lot of expertise to carry out.

4.2 Energy Ratio

Crandell, [23] proposed that “the damage caused by the blast vibrations was
proportional to the energy ratio”. The energy ratio, ER, is the ratio of the
squares of the acceleration a, and the frequency f, and is given by,
a2
ER = ​ __2 ​ ...(4.1)
f
It has been observed that for the energy ratio of less than three, there would
be no significant damage. For ER values between 3 to 6, some damage would
occur and for ER values greater than 6, there would be a major damage.

4.3 Permeability of Rock

Montazer, [24] and Kelsall, [25] used the permeability of rock mass as a measure
of blast damage. It has been found that permeability of rock mass significantly
increased with the blast-induced fracture generation.

4.4 Perimeter Specific Charge (qpcf)

Ibarra, et al., [26] proposed “perimeter specific charge (qpcf) as the controlling
parameter for the blast induced rock damage”. Analysis of the blast data of
“Aquamilpa Hydroelectric Project”, Diversion Tunnel No.2, revealed a linear
relationship between overbreak/underbreak with log of Barton’s Q index and
qpcf.
“Perimeter specific charge is defined as the ratio of weight of explosives
in the perimeter blast holes and the next row, divided by the volume of rock
within this annulus, ignoring the lifters in the invert”. With the increase of
qpcf, overbreak increases while underbreak decreases. A composite relationship
using multiple regression analysis with qpcf and Q value for the prediction of
overbreak/underbreak was established as,
Overbreak (%) = – K01 + K02 × qpcf – K03 × log (Q)

Underbreak (%) = Ku1 – Ku2 × qpcf + Ku3 × log (Q) ...(4.2)

Where, Ko1, Ko2 = constants for overbreak
Ku1, Ku2 = constants for underbreak
However, this method did not consider the geo-mining conditions on which
overbreak largely depends.
 S. Behera, et al. 171

4.5 P-Wave Velocity

Tezuka, et al., [27] carried out studies in a hard rock cavern of Osaka, Japan to
generalize the effect of blast damage by P-wave velocity measurements. Core
specimens were obtained from a retained wall. After reconstructing the separated
cores, P-waves propagated normal to the core axis were measured. It was found
that the P-wave velocities beyond 60 cm recovered to their original velocity,
i.e. 5200m/s, which was measured at the test site before blasting. Based on the
study, Tezuka et al., [27] proposed an equation for dynamic stress, s, as,
s = (rr × cp × v)/960.4 ...(4.3)
Where, s = dynamic stress (MPa)
rr = rock density (g/cm3)
cp = P-wave velocity (m/s)
v = PPV (m/s).
Tezuka et al., [27] found that “for the in situ rock mass, rr = 2650kg/m3
and Cp = 5300m/s and the evaluated peak particle velocity about 2.50m/s, the
dynamic stress which might be induced at the edge of the damage zone is 340
kgf/cm2”. The dynamic stress at the edge of the damage zone can be considered
as damage strength.

4.6 Acoustic Emission (AE)

Seto, et al., [28] used the Acoustic Emission (AE) technique and the Kaiser
effect in the laboratory study of Gosford sandstone to assess the rock mass
damage. Acoustic emission is a sudden outbreak of high frequency elastic wave
released by a local failure such as micro-cracking. In case of cyclic loading,
where applied stress exceeds previously applied stress state, acoustic emission
occurs in succession. This is called Kaiser Effect. It has been seen that for
higher stress level, restart (onset) of continuous acoustic emission right at the
maximum stress level of previous cycle did not exactly occur, but it started a
little bit before the maximum stress level. This is called felicity ratio and is
given by,
AE onset stress level of current cyclic loading
Felicity Ratio = ​ ________________________________________
     
      ​
Maximum stress level of previous cyclic loading
Higher the felicity ratio better is the quality of rock and lesser is the damage.
A rock damage parameter (cRDP) was suggested to evaluate the rock damage
and is given by,
cRDP = (sAE * sc)/sApplied2 ...(4.4)
where, AE = stress at AE onset (MPa),
sc = uniaxial compressive strength of the specimen (MPa)
sApplied = applied stress in testing (MPa).
172 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

However, this relationship was not valid for very low applied stress. If the rock
fails before the compressive strength of the rock, then that stress is considered
as the revised compressive strength.

4.7 Borehole Pressure Measurement

Brent, et al., [29] proposed borehole pressure measurement technique as a
useful damage predictor for surface blasting. In this technique, the measuring
holes were drilled of same depth, same diameter and same inclination as the
blast holes at the back of the last row of blast. It was recommended to use
smaller diameter and smooth walled bore holes (using rotary drill machine) as
the measuring hole. Diaphragm type pressure transducers were used for pressure
monitoring.
During monitoring it has been found that all the peak pressures were negative
to atmosphere and no gas intrusion, even at a measuring distance equal to burden,
has been noticed. The pressure fall is assumed to be the result of increase in
volume due to fractures (damage). So the peak pressure decrease is directly
related with the new volume creation as given below:

( )
1
Vnew Patm __
​  ​
​ ____ ​ = ​​ ____
g
​  ​  ​​ e ​ – 1 ...(4.5)
Vhole Pab
Where, Vnew = maximum extent of new volume created within the hole (m3)

Vhole = original volume of the hole (m3)

Patm = atmospheric pressure (kPa)
Pab = absolute pressure in the monitoring hole at negative peak (kPa)
ge = adiabatic expansion coefficient for air (generally 1.4)

4.8 Blast-Induced-Damage Through Langefors’ Theory

Bastante, et al., [30] developed a prediction model for determining the blast
induce damages in rocks. This model is based upon the “Langefors’ theory of
rock blasting” by considering some easily available variables, like, the explosive
energy, the coupling factor, the rock constant, and the mean gas expansion factor,
which depends on the type of explosive used and on borehole and cartridge
diameters. The study shows that there is a positive correlation exists between the
internal energy of explosive gases and the volume of rock damage.

4.9 Hybrid Stress Blasting Model

Onederra, et al., [31] studied the Hybrid Stress Blasting Model (HSBM) to
determine the blast induced damages in rock masses. It is a sophisticated blast
monitoring research tool designed to model the explosive detonation, wave
 S. Behera, et al. 173

propagation, muck pile formation, and rock fragmentation. In this study, for
evaluating the model’s ability to estimate the extent of damage, results from two
controlled blasting experiments which were done at Spokane NIOSH research
laboratory, were analyzed. From the study, it was concluded that the prediction
code is very much appropriate to evaluate the extent of the damage zone. The
physical experiment also provides the same result. In this study, it was found that
within the distance of 0.3m from the explosive charge, the code predicted radial
velocities was within a relative difference of 1.59%. Beyond that distance, the
difference is larger. That means the model overestimated the particle velocities
at these distances and that resulted in an overestimation of the expected damage
zone at the corner of the modelled block because modelled stress reflections
were excessive.

4.10 Blast-Induced-Damage Through Accelerometer

Murthy, et al., [32] studied a prediction model for determining “blast induced
rock damage” in burn cuts by using the accelerometer. This method is very
much useful in near field measurement with better accuracy. The measured
accelerations were analyzed and the corresponding PPVs were determined.
In near field, the correlation coefficient shows the maximum of the vibration
predictor derived acceleration. The measured PPV may be not suitable for
determining the damage threshold level because of its far field nature. Thus,
acceleration measurement of near-field monitoring is the perfect choice for
damage prediction.

4.11 Blast-Induced-Damage Through Numerical Method

Parra, [33] described a method to estimate the blast induced damage in rocks
considering both stress wave and gas expansion phases. In this study the numerical
method is used to determine stress wave damage and provides an indication of
zones prone to suffer greater damage by gas expansion. An extensive monitoring
program of multiple-hole production blasts was developed and carried out at
Williams mine, Ontario. Blast-induced vibrations were measured by triaxial
accelerometer stations and their seismic characteristics were determined. The
collected information on vibration amplitude and frequency as functions of
distance and charge weight was utilized to calibrate model parameters through
a process similar to that of single-hole blasts. Finally, the technique developed
to predict blast-induced damage from stress waves using the 2D FEM-DEM
method was applied to a regular production blast. Finally, additional models
were simulated in the FEM-DEM program to compare the variations in fracture
patterns with the incorporation of field stresses and in-hole initiation mode.
The results indicate more intense fragmentation in direct mode, particularly
around the area of the raise, due to the presence of free surface. The presence
174 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

of field stresses does not seem to increase significantly the fracture density on
the analyzed models, except around the free surface created by the raise. In fact,
ambient stresses seem to shorten the penetration of cracks into the rock mass
around the areas away from the raise, and appear to modify the orientation of
fractures from a non-preferred orientation in the unstressed case to an orientation
along the maximum principal stress. This result, although not new, shows the
consistency of the FEM-DEM method, by predicting reasonable fracture pattern
variations in presence of far field stresses.
Saiang, et al., [34] studied the numerical analysis method to study the blast-
induced rock damages. The near field ground deformation, induced boundary
stresses were examined by changing the strength and stiffness of the damage
rock zone. Then the characteristics of rock mass after the blast was examined
and the results clearly indicate that the blast induced damage of rock mass
affects the property of the ground deformation behavior and boundary stresses.

4.12 Holmberg–Persson Near-Field Vibration Estimation

Approach
Villaescusa, et al., [35] investigated the blast-induced damages rock mass
behavior where the extraction was carried out in stoping methods. The triaxial
geophones, the extensometer were used to measure the ground vibration and
the hanging wall deformations while stope extraction. The pre and post blast
rock damage was analyzed using a borehole camera. The peak particle velocity,
hanging wall deformation and the stope survey were used as input parameters in
the model and a damage prediction model was developed that controls the extent
of blast-induced damages. The model was based on the Holmberg–Persson
approach. The analysis further reveals that the dynamic loading on the hanging
wall due to subsequent blasting also weakening the rock mass. Thus backfilling
is crucial in this case to seize further failure.

4.13 Other Empirical Models

Konya, [36] suggested a more general vector model for the results of reduced
moduli, which could be integrated into finite element calculation of matter
movement, stress and strain.
Grady, et al., [37] utilized a scalar quantity, d, to represent the rock mass
damage. The value of d ranges between zero to one. Zero signifies the intact
rock while one represents the complete failure. The rock modulus Ed, of the
damaged rock, can also be determined using this.
Ed = E (1 – d) ...(4.6)
Where, E = intact rock modulus.
Anon, [38] proposed a method to describe the rock damage by considering
the frequency, surficial state condition and density of discontinuities.
 S. Behera, et al. 175

Paventi, et al., [39] monitored the rock damage through an empirical blast-
induced damage index, DM, as given by
DM = I * II* III * IV* (VA + VB) ...(4.7)
Where, I: considers the reduction in intact rock strength due to micro-
fracturing,
II: evaluates the extent of the exposed excavation surface area
remaining in place using the post scaling half cast factor,
III: determines the drift condition by assessing the drumminess of
the back with a scaling bar,
IV: accounts for the amount of scaling arising from damage,
VA and VB considered the direction of structure with respect to drift direction
to account for the anisotropy potentially caused by structural features at meso-
and macro-scale.
Yu et al., [40] studied on the dynamic tensile strength, wave velocity, rock
mass density and PPV of the blast and proposed a blast damage criterion. The
damage criteria are represented by,
v × rr × cp
Dib = __________
​  ​ ...(4.8)
Kr × std
Where, Dib = Blast Damage Index (BDI)
v = vector sum of peak particle velocity (m/s)
rr = density of rock (g/cm3)
cp = compressional wave velocity (km/s)
Kr = site quality constant (0 – 1.0)
= (RMR – Ground support adjustment)/100.
std = dynamic tensile strength (MPa)
On the basis of this blast damage index (BDI), the rock has been classified as
given in Table 4a. Raina, et al., [41] modified blast damage index and compared
it with the HCF.

Table 4a Blast damage index, damage type and half cast factor (Raina, 2000b)
BDI Type of damage HCF (%)
£ 0.125 Nothing damage to underground excavation >60
0.25 No observable damage 30-60
0.5 Slight and distinct scabbing effect 10-30
0.75 Average and interrupted scabbing damage 5-10
1.0 Crucial and uninterrupted scabbing failure <5
1.5 Extreme damage Nil
≥ 2.0 Major caving Nil
176 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

Singh, [42] reported a damages to the roof in underground coal mines

due to blasting on surface and that damages are quantified according to the
BDI values. BDI value less than 1 signifies no damage conditions, from 1 to
2 referred as minor damage and greater than 2 is severe damage. The results
were established on the basis of underground gadgets, machines and far-field
vibration monitoring.
Carlos, et al., [43] modified BDI based on the investigations carried out in
different tunnels and mines and gave the damage distance (Dd) as given below:

Dd = [(st /(rr × cp × K1 × Q)​]1/K

​ ​  ​
2
...(4.9)

Where, st = tensile strength (MPa)

Q = charge per delay (kg)
K1, K2 = constants

5. Measurement of blast-induced damage extent

using GPR
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is noninvasive, geophysical technique used
for probing into materials for investigation using the differences in electrical
conductivities (i.e., dielectric constants) at media interfaces. Radar antenna is used
to transmit pulsed or continuous wave train. Antenna can be applied on ground
response or from air (detached from the surface). Radio wave is coupled with the
ground surface and propagates in the subsurface medium. Wave fields attenuate
(decays) according to distance, specific attenuation of the medium, scattering
and reflections. Returning energy amplitude is recorded with similar antenna
with respect to time. Recorded time window is adjusted to contain the useful
signal, as time sampling is dense. Compilation of radar images require densely
repeated measurements on profile, placed along the surface. Measurements are
generally made on the basis of time and distance. For a given signal detection,
the maximum depth of penetration decreases with the increasing frequency.
Again, with increasing frequency resolution increases giving clear impressions
of the objects under investigation. So, a compromise between a penetration and
resolution must be made and is an important consideration in either selection of
system bandwidth or ranges of frequencies to be radiated. Generally, the latter
is opted for an optimum reading.
Prior to use GPR in the field of blast-induced damage assessment, laboratory
model study has been carried out. The following paragraph shows the result of
the same.
Model study 1
Cracks are created in the laboratory experiments by arranging three marble slabs
and bricks on floor as shown in Fig. 5.a for identification of cracks. In this
 S. Behera, et al. 177

1600MHz antenna GPR is moved along the marble slab from right side to left
side [44].

Fig. 5.a Shows arrangement of brick and marbles (left) & Figure 5.b: Shows
location of crack in case 1 (right) (# line scan & wiggle trace)

Fig. 5.c Shows location of gap in case 1(# line scan & wiggle trace)

After analyzing the raw data, there is sharp change observed in wiggle trace
at the location of created horizontal cracks and vertical cracks as shown in
Fig. 5.b and 5.c.
Model study 2
Vertical cracks are created in the laboratory experiments by arranging marble
slabs and bricks on floor as shown in Fig. 5.d for identification of vertical
cracks. In this 1600MHz antenna GPR is moved along the marble slab from
right side to left side.
178 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

Fig. 5.d Shows arrangement of brick and marbles (left) & Figure 5.e: Shows
location of crack in case 2 (# line scan & wiggle trace)

After analyzing the raw data, there is sharp change observed in wiggle trace
at the location of created vertical cracks as shown in Fig. 5.e.
The presences of cracks were well known in above experimental model tests,
which were carried out in laboratory. The controlled experiments were conducted
with ground penetrating radar having high frequency antenna (1600MHz),
known for its good resolution and lower depth of penetration. Above figures
shows detected location of cracks in different cases respectively, based on line
scan and wiggle trace generated by ground penetrating radar.
The field investigation has been carried out in a manganese ore mine of
western India. The post blast exposed wall is scanned with GPR to identify the
location of the damages. The blast vibrations are measured for blast rounds of
the same drift and a blast vibration predictor is established using the square root
scaled distance can be expressed as,

( )
R – 1.05
v = 962 × ​​ ____
​  __ ​  ​​ ​
÷
​ W​
...(5.1)

The empirical ground vibration predictor equation established using the cube
root scaled distance can be expressed as,

( )
R – 1.1
v = 1440 × ​​ ____
​ 3 __ ​  ​​ ​
÷
​ W​
...(5.2)

5.1 Mapping of Cracked Zone Through GPR Images

Ground penetrating radar was used to determining the cracked zone successfully
in this field investigation. A 1600MHz. Antenna was used in the footwall,
hangwall and roof of the mine to determine the cracked zone. The survey was
carried out for the freshly exposed blast area. The raw data stored in the GPR SIR
 S. Behera, et al. 179

3000 is processed in a computer using the RADAN version 6.6 software. After
removing the noises by different filtering process the analysis is carried out and
it has been found that the average extents of cracked zone (after overbreak zone)
in the roof, Hang-wall and foot-wall are 0.17m. 0.39m and 0.38m respectively.
The actual face and corresponding GPR profile is given in Fig. 5.f through
5.h. [45].

Fig. 5f GPR survey at roof of the haulage drive of a Manganese Mine

Fig. 5g GPR survey at hang-wall side of the haulage drive of a Manganese Mine

Fig. 5h GPR survey at foot-wall side of the haulage drive of a Manganese Mine

5.2 Estimation of PPV Threshold Levels for Overbreak

From the overbreak analysis, it has been found that an average length of 0.42m is
over-excavated in the roof. Considering the blast-induced rock damage distance
0.42, threshold level of PPV for overbreak is derived by using Holmberg-
180 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

Persson near-field model (1979) for square root scaled distance and Dey single
hole near-field model (2004) for cube root scaled distance.
Using Dey single hole near-field model (2004) for cube root scaled distance,
the damage threshold level for overbreak is found to be 570 mm/s whereas
using Holmberg-Persson near-field model (1979) for square root scaled distance
threshold level for overbreak is found to be 841 mm/s.

6. Discussion
Blast-induced damage can be classified as overbreak zone and cracked zone.
Post-blast overbreak zone can be measured suitably using tools like sunflower
cross sectioner, profilometer, surveying and Halfcastfactor (for controlled
blasting).
Measuring cracked zone is difficult and often not paid attention. Seismic
tomography, ground penetrating radar, electrical resistivity, bore hole pressure
measurement techniques are available to quantify the extent and degree of
damage to post-blast wall. However, all these techniques, being a geophysical
tool, possess their own limitations and demerits.
Apart from these, a number of researchers developed damage estimators,
namely, Energy ratio, Perimeter charge factor, Rock permeability, P-wave
velocity, ground vibration, FEM/DEM model, acoustic emission. A number of
empirical approaches are also available for the prediction of damage and most
of them are commonly called as “blast damage index”.
It is also observed that GPR would be an important tool to measure the
damage extent and thus threshold level of damage may be estimated using the
vibration predictors.
It has been found that the vibration based techniques are easy to follow and
results with fair accuracy of estimation. Most of the Blast damage indices are
also resulted with fair accuracy of damage estimation. The user should be careful
while choosing the suitable estimator/predictor about their applicability.

References
[1] L. L. Oriard, “Blasting effects and their control”, in Underground mining methods
handbook, Newyork, SME/AIME, 1982, pp. 1590-1603.
[2] C. H. Page, R. Steffen and Kirsten, “Controlled blasting for underground mining”,
in 13th Annual conference on Explosive and Blasting Technique, Miami, Florida,
1987.
[3] G. Chitombo and A. Scott, “An Approach to the Evaluation and Control of
Blast Induced Damage”, in International Conference on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Brisbane, 1990.
 S. Behera, et al. 181

[4] W. W. Forsyth and A. E. Moss, “Observation of Blasting and Damage around

Development Openings”, in 92nd Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Annual General meeting, Ottawa, 1990.
[5] M. Paventi, M. Y. Thompson, M. Scoble and B. Mohanty, “Measuring Rockmass
Damage in Drifting”, in Fifth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, FRAGBLAST-5, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1996a.
[6] M. Scoble, Y. Lizotte and M. Pavanti, “Rockmass damage from blasting”, in
Characterisation and Impact, Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, 1996, pp.
225-235.
[7] V. Murthy and K. Dey, “Roof Damage Prediction in Solid Blasting-An Approach”,
Minetech, pp. 43-53, 2001.
[8] G. M. Simangunsong, E. Yulianto, S. Kramadibrata, K. Matsui, H. Shimada,
S. Kubota and Y. Ogata, “Field investigation of blast induced damage of the
sedimentary strata rock mass at PT Kaltim prime coal, Indonesia”, Materials
Science Forum, Vols. 465-466, pp. 175-180, 15 September 2004.
[9] E. B. Durham, Mine Surveying, New york: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1913,
p. 391.
[10] F. Legge and V. Alocco, “Driving a 9m Diameter Power Conduit with Low Cover
at Nkula Falls,” Tunnels & Tunneling, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 23-29, 1981.
[11] A. Heretlendy, “Automated Measurement of Tunnelled Profiles”, Tunnels &
Tunelling, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 28-29, 1983.
[12] H. Hagedron, “Electronic Profile Measuring System for Tunnels and Slopes”,
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 88-97, April-June
1986.
[13] J. A. Franklin, J. T. Ibarra and H. M. Norbert, “Blast Overbreak Measurement by
Light Sectioning”, International Journal of Minig and Geological Engineering,
vol. 7, pp. 323-331, 1989.
[14] A. McKnown, “Some Aspect of Design and Evaluation of Perimeter Controlled
Blasting in Fractured Weathered Rock”, in 10th Conference on Explosive and
Blasting Techniques, 1984.
[15] S. P. Singh, “Mining Industry and Blast Damage”, Journal of Mines, Metals &
Fuels, pp. 465-472, December 1992b.
[16] J. A. Singer, C. A. Link and S. R. Iverson, “High resolution seismic refraction
tomography for detremining depth of blast induced damage in a mine wall”,
NIOSH, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 115-170, 2009.
[17] A. Kormendi, T. Bodoky, L. Hermann, L. Dianiska and T. Kalman, “Seismic
Measurements for Safety in Mines”, Geophysical prospecting, vol. 34, pp. 1022-
1037, 1986.
[18] G. Schuster and A. Quintus-Bosz, “Wave-path eikonal travel-time inversion:
Theory”, Geophysics, vol. 58, pp. 1314-1323, 1993.
[19] L. F. Trivino and B. Mohanty, “Estimation of blast-induced damage through cross-
hole seismometry in single-hole blasting experiments”, in Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting: Fragblast 10, London, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, pp. 685-695.
182 Blast Induced Rock Damage – A Review of Estimation...

[20] K. Dey and V. M. S. R. Murthy, “Delineating rockmass damage zones in

blasting from in-field seismic velocity and peak particle velocity measurement”,
International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.
51-62, 2011.
[21] J. H. Scott, “The Relationship of Geophysical Measurements to Engineering and
Construction Parametersin the Straight Creek Tunnel Plot Bore”, International
Journal of Rock mechanics and Mining Science, pp. 204-213, 1968.
[22] S. P. Singh, “Investigation of Blast Damage Mechanics in Underground Mines”,
Research Report to MHRD, Sudbury, 1992a.
[23] F. J. Crandell, “Ground Vibration due to Blasting and Its Effects upon Structures”,
Journal of Boston Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 222-245,
1949.
[24] P. M. Montazer, “Permeability of Unsaturated, Fractured Metamorphic Rocks
Near an Underground Opening”, Ph.D dissertation, Colorado School of Mines,
1982.
[25] D. C. Kelsall, “Evaluation of Excavation Induced Changes in Rock Permeability”,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, vol. 21, no. 3,
pp. 103-111, 1984.
[26] J. A. Ibarra, N. H. Maerz and J. A. Franklin, “Overbreak and Underbreak in
Underground Openings Part 2: Causes and Implications”, Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 325-340, 1996.
[27] M. Tezuka, Y. Kudo, H. Matsuda, A. Hasui and K. Nakagawa, “Study on
Estimation of Damage Zone Caused by Blasting”, in Proceedings of Asian Rock
Mechanics Symposium, 1997.
[28] M. Seto, D. K. Nag and V. S. Vutukuri, “Evaluation of Rockmass Damage
using Acoustic Emission Technique in the Laboratory”, in Fifth International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
1996.
[29] G. F. Brent and G. E. Smith, “The detection of blast damage by borehole
pressure measurement”, The journal of The South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, pp. 17-21, 2000.
[30] F. G. Bastante, L. Alejano and J. Gonza´ lez-Cao, “Predicting the extent of blast-
induced damage in rock masses”, International Journal of Rock Mechanics &
Mining Sciences, vol. 56, pp. 44-53, 2012.
[31] I. A. Onederra, J. K. Furtney, E. Sellers and S. Iverson, “Modelling blast induced
damage from a fully coupled explosive charge”, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 58, pp. 73-84, 2013.
[32] V. Murthy, K. Dey, B. Munshi and S. Kumar, “Predicting blast induced rock
damage (BIRD) in burn cuts using acceleration measurements”, in National
Seminar on Rock Excavation Technique, Bhubaneswar, 2003.
[33] L. F. T. Parra, “Study of Blast-Induced Damage in Rock with Potential Application
to Open Pit and Underground Mines”, Department of Civil Engineering University
of Toronto, Toronto, 2012.
 S. Behera, et al. 183

[34] D. Saiang and E. Nordlund, “Numerical Analyses of the Influence of Blast-

Induced Damaged Rock Around Shallow Tunnels in Brittle Rock”, E. Rock Mech
Rock Eng, vol. 42, pp. 421-448, 2009.
[35] E. Villaescusa, I. Onederra and C. Scott, “Blast Induced Damage and Dynamic
Behaviour of Hangingwalls in Bench Stoping”, Fragblast, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23-
40, 2004.
[36] I. Konya, “A Damage Mechanics Theory For Discontineous Rockmass”, in Fifth
Internatioanal Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, 1985.
[37] D. E. Grady and M. E. Kipp, “Dynamic Rock Fragmentation”, Fracture
Mechanics of Rocks, pp. 37-46, 1987.
[38] Anon, “Advanced Blasting Technology”, Final Research Report AMIRA P93D,
JKRMC, Brisbane, Australia, 1990.
[39] M. Paventi, M. Y. Thompson, M. Scoble and B. Mohanty, “Inherent and Mining
Induced-Rock Mass Damage Monitoring at the Birchtree Mine, Monitoba”, CIM
Edmonton, 1996b.
[40] T. R. Yu and S. Vongpaisal, “New Blast Damage Criteria for Underground
Blasting”, CIM Bulletin, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 139-145, 1996.
[41] A. K. Raina, A. K. Chakraborty, M. Ramulu, P. B. Choudhury, J. L. Jethwa
and T. N. Singh, “Assessment of Rockmass Damage (RMD) due to Blasting in
Underground Constructions”, Proceeding of National Seminar on Advances in
Drilling and Blasting Techniques, DRILLBLAST’99, pp. 69-76, 17-18 january
2000b.
[42] P. K. Singh, “Evaluation of Damages to Underground Coal Mines Caused by
Surface Blasting vis-a-vis Establishmenst of Blast Vibration Threshold”, CMRI
Coal A & T project report, pp. 1-50, 2000.
[43] D. D. G. Carlos and N. T. Vidal, “Prediction of EDZ (Excavation Damage
Zone) from Explosive Detonation in Underground Openings”, in International
Symposium on Rock Engineering for Mountainous region, Funchal, 2002.
[44] M. Bishnoi, “Identification of Buried Object using GPR- A Case Study”, M.Tech
dissertation, Department of Mining Engineering, IIT Kgp, 2015.
[45] K. Rao and K. Dey, “Project Report No. IIT/SRIC/MIN/BBDB/2012-13/142”,
2012-13.
View publication stats