Tunnelling and

Underground Space
Technology
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research

www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Causes, impact and control of overbreak in underground excavations

S. Paul Singh
a

a,*

, Peter Xavier

School of Engineering, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont., Canada P3E 2C6

b
Falconbridge Ltd., Falconbridge, Ont., Canada

Received 24 October 2003; received in revised form 8 May 2004; accepted 8 May 2004
Available online 23 July 2004

Abstract
Drill and blast system is used in hard rock excavation due to its economics and adaptability to changing rock mass conditions.
Common question during mining and tunneling operations is whether overbreak has been caused by blasting practice or poor rock
mass quality. Critical evaluation of the factors inuencing blast damage is required to address such questions.
In order to understand the mysterious nature of blast damage prediction and control, the eld work involved the small scale
blasting of physical models and the assessment of blast damage during drifting operations. The damage was measured by the Half
cast factor, percentage overbreak and the Blast damage index. The inuence of rock mass features, explosive characteristics and
blast design parameters on overbreak has been examined in this study. A new approach for the judicious design of perimeter hole
pattern and charge concentration has been proposed. Implications of blast damage have also been outlined in this paper.

2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Blast damage; Perimeter control; Controlled blasting; Underground excavations

1. Introduction
Blasting remains the most inexpensive method of
hard rock fragmentation, however, the cost associated
with the blast damage in terms of safety and productivity of mines is becoming increasingly important. Rock
damage due to blasting is directly related to the level
of stress experienced by the rock and its pre-blasting
condition. In high stress environments and under unfavourable geological conditions, disturbances associated
with blasting may result in extensive ground control
and dilution problems. To minimize these undesirable
eects, perimeter control techniques are available, but
the results of their application are often less than optimal. A study was conducted to better understand the nature and extent of rock damage caused by blasting and
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-705-675-1151; fax: +1-705-6754862.

E-mail address: ssingh@nickel.laurentian.ca (S.P. Singh).
0886-7798/$ - see front matter
2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2004.05.004

involved the critical evaluation of the factors inuencing

blast damage.
The factors inuencing blast damage can be broadly
categorized in three areas:
1. Rock mass features.
2. Explosive characteristics and distribution.
3. Blast design and execution.
Rock mass features cannot be changed but their
knowledge facilitates the judicious selection of the explosive characteristics and the blast design parameters
to obtain optimum results.
1.1. Blast damage and mining operations
Damage is a change in the rock mass properties
which degrades its performance and behavior (Singh,
1992). From the mining point of view, it is the structural
performance of the rock, which is of importance because

64

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

the remaining rock has to support load in the form of

back, wall or a pillar. That is why blast damage determines an important link between the excavation process
and the structural stability of the rock mass.
During the excavation process, the redistribution of
in situ stresses and releases of seismic energy also induce
rock mass damage, which can sometimes overshadow
that caused by blasting. The distinct dierence between
the two is that blast-induced damage is highly localized
around the immediate perimeter of the blasting area.
The impact of blast induced rock mass damage on mining includes:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)

Dilution of ore.
Ground control problems.
Poor fragmentation.
Restricted access to damaged ground for drilling
and charging operations.
Reduction in the moduli and strengths of rocks.
Reduction in the maximum unsupported span and
stand up time.
Breakdown of the inherent interlocking of the
weakness planes.
Increased cost in the installation and maintenance
of supports.

2. Field work
The Fieldwork involved small scale blasting experiments on modeling material, drift blasting and assessment of blast damage at several operating mines.
2.1. Small scale blasting experiments
During normal blasting operations, it becomes dicult to compute and predict the eects of individual factors and it is best to start with small scale blasting
experiments. These tests were conducted on blocks of
hydrostone modeling material. Additional tests were
conducted on concrete and granite blocks. The diameter
and length of holes were 8 and 150 mm, respectively.
The number of holes varied depending upon spacing
and they were red simultaneously. Dierent lengths
of low-strength detonating cord were used as an explo-

Fig. 1. Concrete model with joints simulated between the holes.

sive. In order to study the eect of geological features

on blast damage, concrete models were prepared with
joints simulated at dierent orientations (Fig. 1). The
properties of hydrostone and high strength concrete
are given in Table 1.
2.2. Experimental drift
The small-scale experiments provide a basic idea of
the factors inuencing blast damage but fall short of
predicting full scale blasting results. Therefore experiments were also conducted in a drift setting. A 2.7
m 2.4 m (9 0 8 0 ) experimental drift was driven through
a hard rock. The characteristics of the test site are given
in Table 2. Several blasting rounds were taken by varying the blast design parameters. Six dierent explosive
products were used in the perimeter holes and the damage was assessed by dierent techniques. In addition,
blast damage was also monitored at several underground mining operations.
2.3. Assessment of blast damage
The blast damage was assessed in dierent situations
by utilizing the following techniques:
Blast damage index. This index was determined by the
minimum value of the P-wave velocity in the damaged
material expressed as a percentage of the P-wave veloc-

Table 1
Properties of hydrostone and high strength concrete
Property

Tensile strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)
P-wave velocity (km/s)

Hydrostone

High strength concrete

Number of tests

Average value

Number of tests

Average value

15
10
15

3.61
29.0
1.74

10
10
5

6.1
76.9
4.39

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371
Table 2
Characteristics of the test site
Parameter

Description

Rock type
Grain size

Quartzite and quartz sandstone

Very ne grained (<0.2 mm)
to ne grained (0.20.6 mm)
4
0.62.0 m
0.20.6 mm
250
4.8

Number of joint sets

Joint spacing
Joint aperture
Compressive strength (MPa)
P-wave velocity (km/s)

ity in the intact material. The P-wave velocity at dierent distances from the line of blastholes was measured
after each small scale blast and the Blast damage Index
was determined.
Half cast factor. This is length of the half barrels after
the blast expressed as a percentage of the initial length of
the blast holes. The lengths of the half barrels after each
drift round were measured and Half cast factor was
computed.
Blast vibration monitoring. Each small scale blast as
well as drift round was monitored with a seismograph.
The blast monitoring set-up for small scale blasting
has been shown in Fig. 1.
Percentage overbreak. The percentage increase in volume of the actual prole over the designed prole of
each round provided this parameter for blast damage assessment.

3. Results and discussion

65

est links in the rock mass (Scoble et al., 1996) In order to

minimize the blast damage it is critical to understand the
role played by the rock mass features in producing the
damage to the perimeter of an excavation.
3.1.1. Orientations of discontinuities
Joint orientation can have a signicant eect on the
excavation perimeter (Cunnigham and Goetzsche,
1996). The presence of joints aects the attenuation of
the induced stress wave. The attenuation of the wave
transmitted through the joint depends upon the angle
of incidence of the wave on to the joint surface. The attenuation is minimal, when the angle of incidence is parallel or perpendicular to the face and increases to a
maximum when the angle is between 15 and 45 (Lewandowski et al., 1996). This leads to the suggestion
that the crack proceeds with minimum attenuation when
the relative angle of jointing with respect to the perimeter line is parallel, nearly parallel or normal. For other
orientations, wave attenuation is signicantly increased
and hence the perimeter control is more dicult.
During small scale blasting experiments, the joints at
dierent orientations were simulated between the blastholes. As shown in Fig. 2, the largest overbreak was observed in the case of samples with 45 joint orientation.
Worsey et al. (1981) have concluded from similar
tests and eld observations that the presence of discontinuities at an angle less than 60 to the designed perimeter line have an adverse eect on controlled blasting
outcome. If the discontinuity orientation is less than
15, controlled blasting produces no improvement over
normal blasting.

3.1. Rock mass features

Rock is a heterogeneous material, a fact rarely considered during blast design. In reality, the rock mass features have a controlling inuence on the outcome of a
blast. Most of the rocks contain a variety of visible discontinuities and aws. The discontinuities are the weak-

3.1.2. Aperture of discontinuities

Worsey and Qu (1987) reported that increasing joint
surface separation severely decreases the quality of nal
excavation prole as a result of increased cratering of
joints. Open joints can also arrest or cause branching
of cracks being propagated between two perimeter

25
% Overbreak

20
15
10
5
0
10

20

30

45

60

Joint Orienatation in Degrees

Fig. 2. Percentage overbreak for dierent orientation of joints.

90

66

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

holes. When the joints are tight and cemented, they have
no signicant eect on the overbreak.
Tariq and Worsey (1996) observed during small scale
blasting experiments that joint aperture of 3 mm acts
like a free face, thereby reecting back the explosive energy without producing a split plane. It was further revealed that as the joint opening was increased, the
angle of cratering was also increased.
3.1.3. Frequency of discontinuities
Close spacing of joints is an indicator of a highly fractured rock mass. During blasting in loosely jointed rock
the critical factor is whether or not the drilling pattern is
wider than joint spacing. lf it is, then contour problems
can be expected. The frequency of joints in the range of
23 joint planes per spacing may produce adverse eects
on perimeter control.
3.1.4. Filling in the joints
The lling material within a joint, changes its wave
transmission characteristics. The smaller the width of
the lling material and closer the impedance of the lling
material to that of medium, better would be the strain
energy transmission through the joint. With the increase
in the joint width, the energy loss into the joint will be
considerable, particularly when the joint is closer to
face. The presence of clay material in joints, its swelling
potential and thickness contribute to poor rock mass
quality thus resulting in excessive overbreak and underbreak. If the aperture of the joint is small with strong
and stable lling material, the overbreak will depend
upon the orientation of the joint with respect to the line
of blastholes.
3.1.5. Rock quality designation
This is dened as the total length of cores greater
than 100 mm expressed as a percentage of the total
length cored. This is an indicator of the quality of the
rock mass. Rock quality designation (RQD) of less than
70% indicates that the rock mass will be more susceptible to blast damage (Singh, 1992). The RQD values less
than 50% would require close spacing, light loading and
relief holes to produce acceptable results.
3.1.6. Watery conditions
Hydrogeological conditions have the following eects
on the rocks and rock masses:
(a) Reduction in the compressive and tensile strengths
of the rocks (Obert and Duvall, 1967), as the friction between the particles is lower.
(b) Reduction in the shock wave attenuation and consequently the breakage eects are enhanced.
(c) Lowers the cohesion and the frictional properties of
the joints.

(d) Joints lled with water allow the passage of shock

waves without internal spalling. But when the rock
mass is in tension, the water is mobilized, forming a
wedge, which may produce overbreak.
Water present in drill holes takes over the air as decoupling agent. This increases the degree of coupling
and results in higher levels of ground vibrations.
3.1.7. State of stress
The direction of the principal stress with respect the
line of contour holes inuences the initiation and propagation of cracks between the blastholes. The magnitude
of principal stress, inuences overbreak particularly
when the stress approaches the strength of the rock. In
homogeneous massive rocks, the cracks which initiate
to propagate radially from the blast holes tend to follow
the direction of the principal stress (Brady and Brown,
1985).
3.2. Explosive characteristics and distribution
Explosive characteristics play a vital role in producing blast damage. Explosive products release their energy
and interact with rocks in dierent ways due to the difference in their constituents and reaction characteristics.
The properties of dierent explosives, except tracer
blasting, have been given in Table 3. Tracer blasting is
commonly used in Canadian underground mines for
overbreak control. This involves placing a detonating
cord along the wall of a blasthole before charging the
main column of ANFO (Fig. 3). Although, it is not a
panacea for overbreak control in all mining situations,
it produces good results if properly applied. The mechanism of tracer blasting has been described in Singh
(1996, 1997). The eect of explosive type on the blast
damage has been shown in Fig. 4.
3.2.1. Bore hole pressure
The magnitude of the bore hole pressure determines
the stress and fracturing experienced by the rock mass.
The eects of borehole pressure on blast damage index
and the maximum depth of damage have been displayed in Figs. 5 and 6. The small scale blasting of

Table 3
Properties of dierent explosives and coupling ratio
Explosive

Density
(kg/m3)

Velocity of
detonation (m/s)

Coupling
ratio

High strength
detonating cord
Semi-gelatin dynamite
Emulsion (HS)
Diluted ANFO
Emulsion (LS)

1350

5500

0.34

1320
1170
700
1140

2800
4600
2500
5100

0.59
0.8
1.00
0.8

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

67

Fig. 3. ANFO traced with detonating cord in a blast hole.

Tracer Blasting
Low Strength Emulsion
High Strength Det. Cord
High Strength Emulsion
Semi-gelatin Dynamite
Diluted ANFO
0

20

40
60
Half Cast Factor

80

100

Fig. 4. Half cast factor for dierent explosive types.

hydrostone models obtained these results. Considering

the manner in which these experiments were
conducted, this observation holds true only for perimeter holes. It cannot be generalized for all holes that
reduction in the explosive charge will result in less
damage. For holes other than perimeter holes, if the
charge concentration is less than optimum, the explosive energy will have diculty in fragmenting and displacing the burden rock. As the gases at high pressure
are bottled up in the blasthole for a longer period and
a lesser percentage of the explosion energy is converted
into kinetic energy of rock movement, higher damage
will result (Hagan, 1982). An explosive charge concentration higher than optimum will be manifested as
noise, airblast, yrock and increase in ground vibrations.
Maximum distance of blast damage increases with
borehole pressure up to a critical value, beyond which
the excessive explosive energy is used in fragmentation

and throw of rock. The critical value of the borehole

pressure depends upon the rock characteristics, size
and shape of the opening and the direction and magnitude of the stress eld.
3.2.2. Velocity of detonation
The borehole pressure generated by an explosive is directly proportional to its velocity of detonation (VOD).
But if we look through the blasting literature, it tells us
that higher bore hole pressure produces more damage
whereas high VOD explosives produce less damage
(Fig. 7). It looks unbelievable but it is true due to
the reason that generally the high VOD explosives are
decoupled and yield higher shock energy and less gas
energy.
It appears that due to the decoupling eect, shock energy is dissipated in a less harmful manner and the longer
acting gas energy is more important from the damage
point of view.

68

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

Blast damage index

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

250

300

Bore hole pressure in MPa

Max. Distance of Damage in

cms

Fig. 5. Bore hole pressure vs. blast damage index.

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

50

100

150

200

Bore Hole Pressure in MPa

Fig. 6. Bore hole pressure vs. maximum depth of damage.

3.3. Blast design and execution

Overbreak in meters

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Velocity of detonation in meters/sec

Fig. 7. Velocity of detonation vs. overbreak.

3.2.3. Powder factor

The powder factor is the ratio of the explosive weight
and the volume of rock blasted. Generally, higher powder factor will produce overbreak and lower powder factor may produce may produce overbreak or underbreak.
But from the blast damage point of view, the perimeter
powder factor is more critical than the overall powder
factor.The eect of perimeter powder factor on the
blast damage has been shown in Fig. 8.

3.3.1. Blast hole parameters

Generally, the large diameter holes are responsible
for higher blast damage. The longer holes also produce
considerable damage because they contain larger quantities of explosives. The optimum diameter and length
of the holes depends upon the rock mass characteristics
and the purpose of the hole. The typical diameter range
for drift blasting ranges from 38 to 52 mm.
In general, an increase in hole diameter results in
blast damage poor fragmentation and increased loading
costs. Small diameter holes provide better drift proles
but with higher costs for drilling and charging.

3.3.2. Cut design and blasting

Blasting in a development heading starts from a cut
because it provides a free face to which the remainder
of the round may break. It is the most critical part of
the round because the rest of the holes to re cannot pull
to the desired depth unless the cut comes out as planned.
The events associated with the pulling of the cut are
so remote from the perimeter of an opening that there
is a tendency to believe that cut holes have insignicant

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

14

% Overbreak

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Perimeter Powder factor, Kg/cub.meter

Fig. 8. Perimeter powder factor vs. percentage overbreak.

eect on blast damage. But that is not true. If progressive relief is not achieved in the cut, then later ring
charges will be over conned thus resulting in higher
damage. Minimum blast damage requires that each hole
fragments and displaces its burden with reasonable ease
(Singh, 1995).
3.3.3. Drill hole deviation
The drilling error may be caused by collaring, alignment and trajectory deviation. The ultimate error may
be due to one ore more of these deviations (Singh,
1998). The blast hole deviation changes the burden,
spacing and plane of the holes, which is particularly critical for the contour holes. This results in overbreak and
underbreak at the perimeter of the opening.
Before drilling, the holes should be properly marked
as shown in Fig. 9. A driller should be commended for
the accuracy of drilling and not the footage per shift
(Koehler and Carey, 2002). During drift and tunnel
blasting, the intentional deviation (look out) of the
contour holes is needed to allow space for drilling.

Fig. 9. Typical mark up of the face before drilling.

Fig. 10. The contour of the excavation by ring upto baby arch holes.

69

70

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

Table 4
Recommended burdens for perimeter holes
Diameter of holes
(mm)

Explosive in baby
arch holes

Burden for
perimeter holes (m)

32
38
45

ANFO
ANFO
ANFO

0.550.65
0.650.75
0.750.90

Variations in the look out angle also contribute to

overbreak and underbreak.
3.3.4. Baby arch holes
These holes are also called rst-row-in holes and are
adjacent to the perimeter holes. The care in drilling and
charging of these holes is important but often overlooked. Positioning them too close to the back and overcharging results in damage to the perimeter of the
opening. Ideally the damage pattern from the baby arch
holes should not exceed the damage zone from the back
holes. These holes should be drilled parallel to the perimeter holes and their burden, spacing and charging
should be 0.60.75 times the stoping holes.
In one of the blasts, all holes except the back holes
were red. As shown in Fig. 10, if the baby arch holes
are charged and spaced properly then the damage to
the back can be minimized. The contour of the top portion of the excavation after blasting is pretty close to the
designed contour. The baby arch holes were charged
with ANFO but the spacing, alignment and their distance from the back was properly controlled.
On the basis of the blast vibration model developed
for the site and the blasting experience, the burden for
the perimeter holes is recommended in Table 4.
3.3.5. Perimeter hole pattern and charge concentration
The spacing and burden of perimeter holes have a signicant inuence on the shape and precision of an excavation. Higher spacing results in underbreak between
the blastholes whereas too close spacing cause overbreak. It was observed that burden to spacing ratio of
1.20 for perimeter holes facilitates the timely joining of
the cracks between the holes along the arch of an open-

ing and minimizes damage due to the explosive load in

the rst-row-in holes. The optimum spacing between perimeter holes depends upon the rock type and the drillhole diameter. Based upon the eld tests and
observations in operating mines, following approach involving two steps is proposed:
(A) Classication of rock type
(B) Determination of
(1) Explosive charge per meter of charge length
(2) Spacing of perimeter holes
(3) Burden of perimeter holes
The rock type for the site can be classied according
to Table 5. Explosive charge (Q) can be determined as
follows:
Q Qf
d 2 ;

where Qf is the explosive charge factor; Q the explosive

charge (kg/m); d is the diameter of the hole (m).
Spacing and burden for the perimeter holes can be determined, respectively, using the following equations:
S S f
d;

B Bf
S;

where S is the spacing between perimeter holes (m); Sf

the spacing factor; B the burden for perimeter holes
(m); Bf is the burden factor.
3.3.6. Delay time and sequencing of holes
It has been observed that the desirable formation of
the cracks along the row of back holes is obtained by
the simultaneous ring of these holes. To achieve this effect, the back holes during drift blasting were initiated
dierently as follows:
(a) All back holes initiated simultaneously by a detonating cord.
(b) Using delay caps of the same number for each hole.
(c) Back holes were blasted separately using instantaneous electric caps

Table 5
Rock type and perimeter hole pattern design factors
Rock type
Hard rock; strong joints; specic
gravity (SG) > 2.7; compressive
strength: >220 MPa
Medium hard rock; no weak
joints; SG > 2.5; compressive
strength: 95135 MPa
Soft rock; Weak joints; SG > 2.3;
compressive strength: <70 MPa

Exposive charge
factor (Qf)

Spacing
factor (Sf)

Burden
factor (Bf)

100

16

1.20

II

90

15

1.20

III

80

14

1.20

Class

S.P. Singh, P. Xavier / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 6371

In option (a), sometimes the fragments from the previous holes snapped the detonating cord and all the back
holes did not re. In option (b), there was a timing scatter in the delay caps of the higher number, which are
commonly used for the perimeter holes. This problem
can be avoided by using electronic caps. In option (c),
the results were good but it was more time consuming.
Initiation of back and side holes by detonating cord
gave the best results because only this method ensured
the simultaneous initiation of the group of perimeter
holes. Theoretically also, the objective of minimum
damage can be achieved only if the adjacent blast holes
are initiated at an interval not greater than the time required for a tensile crack to grow between these holes.
The longitudinal wave velocity (Cp) of the rock in this
study was 4800 m/s. If the crack propagation velocity
is 30% of the Cp and the holes are spaced at 0.6 m, then
the constructive interaction between the adjacent holes
can be achieved if they initiate within 0.21 ms of each
other. But the expected degree of scatter for a delay detonation with an initiation time of 5000 ms is around 500
ms. A cooperating eect between holes red simultaneously directs the breaking eect of the blast along a
straight path between the holes and there is less damage
to the surrounding rock. The long delay between the adjacent holes produced long cracks at the perimeter holes.
The problem of snapping of detonating cord by earlier ring charges can be solved by
(i) Using more robust detonating cord.
(ii) Keeping the trunk line joining the perimeter holes
as close to the rock surface as possible.
(iii) Using safety lines.

4. Conclusions
Blasting is an inherently destructive process and inicts damage to the surrounding rock, which is later
manifested as ground control and dilution problems.
Overbreak techniques are generally most successful
in massive rocks. Though each specic rock mass occurrence is unique yet there are common features in
rock masses, which can inuence the outcome of controlled blasting in a similar way. It is not possible to
change the rock mass features but their timely knowledge can facilitate the judicious selection of the explo-

71

sive characteristics and blast design parameters.

Proper planning and drilling accuracy can signicantly
contribute in achieving the objective of minimum
damage, optimum productivity and safer working environment.

References
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 1985. Rock Mechanics for Underground
Mining. George Allen & Unwin, Sydney 527p.
Cunnigham, C.V.B., Goetzsche, A.F., 1996. The specication of blast
damage limitations in tunneling contracts. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 5 (3), 2327.
Hagan, T.N., 1982. Controlling blast induced cracking around large
caverns. In: Proceedings of the ISRM Symposium on Rock
Mechanics Related to Caverns and Pressure Shafts, Achen, West
Germany, pp. 11551167.
Koehler, M., Carey, J., 2002. Blasting techniques to control roof
failure in underground Limestone mine. In: Proceedings of the 28th
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, February, Las
Vegas, pp. 91102.
Lewandowski, T., Luan Mai, V.K., Danell, R., 1996. Inuence of
discontinuities on presplitting eectiveness. In: Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium on Rock fragmentation by Blasting,
Montreal, Canada, August, pp. 217225.
Obert, L., Duvall, W.I., 1967. Rock Mechanics and the Design of
Structures. Wiley, New York 650p.
Scoble, M., Lizotte, Y., Paventi, M., 1996. Rock mass damage from
blasting: characterization and impact. In: Franklin, J., Katasbanis,
P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Measurement of Blast
Fragmentation, A.A. Balkema, pp. 225235.
Singh, S.P., 1992. Mining industry and blast damage. Journal of Mines
Metals and Fuels (December), 465472.
Singh, S.P., 1995. Mechanism of cut blasting. Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 104, September
December, pp. A134A138.
Singh, S.P., 1996. Mechanism of tracer blasting. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 14. Chapman & Hall, London pp. 4150.
Singh, S.P., 1997. Cost eective blast damage control with tracer
blasting. Mineral Resources Engineering Journal 6 (2), 4961.
Singh, S.P., 1998. The eects of rock mass characteristics on blasthole
deviation. CIM Bulletin 91 (1016), 9095.
Tariq, S.M., Worsey, P.N., 1996. An investigation into the eect of
varying joint aperture and nature of surface on presplitting. In:
Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Explosives and Blasting
Research, Orlando, USA, pp. 186195.
Worsey, P., Qu, S., 1987. Eect of joint separation and lling on
presplit blasting. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Mini Symposium on
Explosives and Blasting Research, Miami, USA, pp. 2640.
Worsey, P., Farmer, I.W., Matheson, G.D., 1981. The mechanics of
presplitting in discontinuous rock. In: Proceedings of the 22nd US
Rock Mechanics Symposium U.O. Missouri, Rolla, USA, pp. 205
210.