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.

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-

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-

Table 1 Properties of hydrostone and high strength concrete Property Hydrostone Number of tests Tensile strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa) P-wave velocity (km/s) 15 10 15 Average value 3.61 29.0 1.74 High strength concrete Number of tests 10 10 5 Average value 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 Rock type Grain size Number of joint sets Joint spacing Joint aperture Compressive strength (MPa) P-wave velocity (km/s) Description 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

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. 3.1.2. 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

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 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-

25 20 % Overbreak 15 10 5 0 10 20 30 45 60 90 Joint Orienatation in Degrees

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

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 High strength detonating cord Semi-gelatin dynamite Emulsion (HS) Diluted ANFO Emulsion (LS) Density (kg/m3) 1350 1320 1170 700 1140 Velocity of detonation (m/s) 5500 2800 4600 2500 5100 Coupling ratio 0.34 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

70 Blast damage index 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Bore hole pressure in MPa
Fig. 5. Bore hole pressure vs. blast damage index.

Max. Distance of Damage in cms

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Bore Hole Pressure in MPa

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

0.3 Overbreak in meters 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

3.3. Blast design and execution 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.

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.

3.3.2. 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

69

14 12 % Overbreak 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 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.

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) 32 38 45 Explosive in baby arch holes ANFO ANFO ANFO Burden for perimeter holes (m) 0.550.65 0.650.75 0.750.90

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 ; 1

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-

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 Sf d ; B Bf S ; 2 3

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 Class I Exposive charge factor (Qf) 100 Spacing factor (Sf) 16 Burden factor (Bf) 1.20

II

90

15

1.20

III

80

14

1.20

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

71

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.

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.

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-