Perimeter Blasting with Significant Savings an Example of a

Hydroelectric Project
Dr A K Raina, Non-member
Dr A K Chakraborty, Non-member
M Ramulu, Associate Member
P B Choudhury, Associate Member
Dr A Sinha, Fellow
Rock blasting is an integral part of hydroelectric projects. Contour or perimeter blasting (seno stricto), although
in vogue for quite some time has received scant attention from civil engineers and engineering geologists,
particularly in India. This paper brings one such example in India where application of perimeter blasting
yielded significant savings to the implementing agency. A comprehensive blasting strategy evolved at
Priyadarshini Jurala Hydroelectric Project in Andhra Pradesh with detailed geological and geotechnical
assessment and the trial blast evaluation plus definitive measures for execution yielded excellent results.
This included excavating the vents, tail race pool and tail race channel in a rock platform that was left over
while constructing the power dam. Initially, it was proposed to remove the rock ledges and reconstruct the
ledges with concrete, which would have meant further cost on this head. The retention of rock ledges could
thus save Rs 110 million to the project. The aim of this paper is to familiarise the geologists and civil
engineers about the usefulness of the perimeter blasting
Keywords : Perimeter blasting; Hydroelectric project; Savings

INTRODUCTION

and deepening with perimeter blasting,

Priyadarshini Jurala Hydroelectric Project (PJHEP) of

APGENCO is located at about 200 km from Hyderabad to
produce around 244 MW power from six units. The dam had
been constructed earlier as a continuation of an irrigation
dam. While the power dam was completed earlier, a rock
platform in front of the dam was left over for later excavation
of vents, inspection and drainage galleries along with the
excavation of tail race pool and tail race channel. Initially it
was proposed to remove the whole rock platform in front of
the dam and reconstruct the vents with concrete. Later, it
was decided to excavate the vents within the rock mass
and retain the rock ledges between the vents. This was
possible only with the help of contour blasting. Moreover, a
systematic and scientific excavation with blasting would
ensure the integrity of the remaining rock mass and no
damage to the power dam.

retaining five rock ledges of 70m 10m 23m (max) in

between the vents,

Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) was

assigned the job by APGENCO for recommending perimeter
blasting which included,
recommending blast design for safe excavation of vents
Dr A K Raina, Dr A K Chakraborty, M Ramulu, P B Choudhury and
Dr A Sinha are with the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel
Research, Regional Centre, MECL Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur 440 006.
This paper (modified) was received on January 7, 2009. Written discussion
on the paper will be entertained till October 31, 2009.

Volume 90, August 2009

excavating inspection (IG; 2.6 m 3.6 m, D-shape) and

drainage galleries (DG; 3.1 m 3.6 m, D-shape) across
the rock ledges,
continuous monitoring of damage to the rock mass and
effects of vibration on the dam toe adjacent to the
excavation, and
blasting in tail race channel (TRC)
A systematic approach to the study was adopted as
described in the Figure 1 to achieve maximum possible
perfect perimeter in the excavations.
OBJECTIVE OF PERIMETER BLASTING AT PJHEP
The constraints as per Table 1 were kept in view while
Table 1 Constraints while blasting at PJHEP
Structure

Associated risk of damage

Tail race pool

Damage to the nearby

structures, rock mass

Power house

Damage to the five (5) rock ledges

being left between each unit,
stability of the ledges and
damage to the dam toe

15

 decking of explosives, and

Project
initiation

creating a pre-split line of artificial crack to limit radial

cracking

Reconnaissance

Rock properties; Face conditions

Contour or perimeter blasting can be achieved by different

methods4, 5 like line drilling, pre-split blasting, smooth wall
blasting and trim blasting.
Line Drilling

Support measures

Vent blast design

Trial blasts

Qmax, Vmax, D-based

regression equation

Slashing blast design

Pre-split Blasting

Gallery blast design

Gallery portal
blast design

In this system a line of closely spaced holes is drilled at the

periphery of the desired excavation which prevents formation
of cracks into the virgin rock mass. This line may or may
not be blasted.

Maximum charge
per delay
Post blast results

Periodic/continuous monitoring

Safe excavation, savings/end

Figure 1 Systematic approach to enact perimeter blasting

In pre-split blasting, the final line of excavation, where closely

spaced holes are filled with a smaller diameter explosive
and blasted prior to main production blast. The calculation
of the explosive concentration and diameter is made so that
overall shock pressure generated by detonation of the
explosive exceeds the tensile, but does not exceed the
compressive strength, of the rock. This creates an artificial
crack about the perimeter in the rock mass, beyond which
the cracks due to production blasts do not extend, thereby
preventing the damage to parent rock.
Smooth Wall Blasting

program at PJHEP

designing blasts in the areas which defined the objective of

the study.
The objective was thus to devise a blasting strategy without
damaging the dam toe and rock ledges to be left between
the vents.
STATE- OF- THE- ART
Perimeter blasting is in vogue for many decades now. The
method is used in defining clear perimeter in a rock mass,
while blasting, without damaging the final wall. In India,
although some examples exist, the method is scantly used
owing to higher costs than regular production blasting and
related reasons. There are many references pertaining to
the subject1. A useful recompilation of the subject has been
done by Jemino, et al 2. Raina, et al 3 have given an extensive
coverage of published literature with a description of rock
damage due to blasting.
The objectives of a perimeter blasting program can be
achieved by
use of less powerful explosives,
decreasing the hole diameter,

This method is used in pit wall control. A final row of holes

about the final wall is designed and loaded with explosive
that may be smaller in diameter or decked, so that the overall
damage does not exceed the final wall. The general rules
are explained by Hagan and Mercer 6, Holmberg and Persson7
and Bauer 8.
Trim Blasting
This method involves sort of slashing an uneven face created
due to production blasting by use of closely spaced holes
loaded with explosive of smaller diameter or spaced to yield
least explosive per meter of the blast hole6 .
In nutshell the whole exercise of perimeter blasting involves
understanding of the rock mass, the explosive configuration
and rock explosive interaction.
GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Geologically the area under discussion is composed of hard
lithology with few meters of slight to moderately weathered
rock formation from the surface. The lithology is complex
with granitoids, quartzite, and occasional basic rocks in the
form of dykes. The complex nature of the lithology is depicted
in Figure 3.

reduction in blast design parameters like burden and

spacing,

Geotechnical investigations at PJHEP revealed that the

rocks belong to a poor to fair category (Table 2) despite the
high strength of the intact rock.

use of small diameter explosive in large diameter holes,

This characteristic of the rock mass is also proven by

16

IE(I) JournalMN

10000
84% conf, Vmax = 796.69 (SD)1.4857

Vmax, mm/s

1000

100

10
50% conf, Vmax = 499.76 (SD)1.4857, R2 = 0.8422
Power, 50%; ....... Power, 84%

1
0.1

1.0

10

100

Scaled distance, m/Qmax 0.5

Figure 2 Detailed description of the excavation works at PJHEP

Figure 4 Regression equation for the vibrations

assessment of dynamic properties (Table 3) of the in situ

rock mass and the intact rock.

The Rock Characteristics

DAMAGE POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT

There are several pre-requisites for assessing the damage
(to rock) potential during blasting. These are the ground
vibration attenuation over distance, the rock characteristics,
and support measures while blasting
The Ground Vibration Attenuation over Distance
This involves trials and assessing the dying out of vibrations
over space. The near-field (near to blast hole) vibrations have
a direct influence as these determine the level of strain
observed by the rock mass. If strain levels exceed the bearing
capacity of the rock then damage is evident.

These include p-wave velocity, density of rock and dynamic

tensile strength of the rocks and are a measure of the
resistance of rock to strain due to blasting forces.
Support Measures Used while Blasting
These include rock bolts and shotcrete, which improve the
quality of the rock mass and may increase by some degree
with their application.
GROUND VIBRATION ATTENUATION
Initially, trial blasts were conducted to measure the ground
vibrations with both compliance and advance (near field)
seismographs, in order to determine the ground vibration
regression equation [equation (1), Figure 4] at PJHEP. A
safety measure was adopted by using a confidence level
over the equation.
Vmax = 796.69 (D/Q0.5max) 1.49

(1)

with a confidence level of 84%

where Vmax is peak particle velocity, mm/s a measure of
ground vibration; D, the distance of seismograph from blast,
m; and Qmax is maximum charge (explosive) per delay, kg.
DAMAGE CRITERION USED
Yu and Vongpaisal9 introduced a new damage criterion, the
blast damage index (Dib) which was subsequently modified
by Chakraborty, et al 4. The system developed and tested in
an underground metal mine allows calculation of a
dimensionless parameter, Dib (Table 4). The basic parameters
and equation involved in the computation of the Dib are:

Figure 3 Complex nature of the lithology at PJHEP

Dib = [(max r cp ) /(k td )]

Table 2 Dynamic properties of the rocks at PJHEP

(2)

Structure

Lithology

Joints
(number)

Joint
spacing, m

Joint
condition

Weathering

RMR

Rock
class

Tail race pool

Granitoids

3+1
(random)

0.2-0.3

Slightly
open

Slightly to moderately
weathered

49-52

Poor to fair

Power house

Pink granite, basic

rocks and quartzite

3+1
(random)

0.2-0.4

Slightly
open

Slightly
weathered

44-63

Poor to fair

Volume 90, August 2009

17

Table 3 Dynamic properties of the rocks at PJHEP

Dam toe
Line drilling

70

3.9

52%
(Fair)

Rock ledge 5

5.41

Vent 5

1.78

Rock ledge 4

50

Vent 4

Granite
(pink)

30

Rock ledge 3

44%
(Poor)

Vent 3

4.4

Rock ledge 2

6.67

Vent 2

2.34

40

Rock ledge 1

90

50
Vent 1

Granite
(biotite)

60

Width, m

Lithology UCS Density p-wave In situ RQD based on

intact, intact, velocity p-wave
P-wave
MPa
g/cc
intact, velocity,
results 11
km/s
km/s
Granite
135
2.26
6.20
4.2
46%
(biotite)
(Poor)

20
10

12

Note : RQD : Rock quality designation intact indicates

rock without joints and defects

0
0

75
100
125
150
Length, m
Figure 5 Workout of blast damage index for PJHEP blasting

Table 4 Modified blast damage index10

Type of
damage 9

D ib
< 0.125

Method of
excavation

Probable
HCF10, %

No damage to
Machine excavation/careful
the underground
controlled excavation
blasting in massive rocks

> 60

0.125

No noticeable
damage

Careful controlled
blasting

30-60

0.50

Minor or discretes
cabbing effects

Controlled blasting

10-30

0.75

Moderate and
discontinuous

Conventional blasting
scabbing damages

5-10

1.0

Major and
continuous scabbing

Conventional blasting

<5

1.5

Severed damage
to the entire

Rock failure aggravated

by blasting

Nil

Major caving

Rock failure aggravated

by blasting

Nil

> 2.0

25

50

where max is peak particle velocity predicted from a derived

equation (1), m/s; r , the density of the rock under
examination, kg/m3; cp , the compressional wave velocity in
the rock, m/s; k, the rock constant (derived from the RMR
and modified for the kind of support used); and td is the
dynamic tensile strength of the rock, Mpa.
The Di b may yield a number that is greater than zero with a
higher value corresponding to higher damage. Values in the
range of zero to two are generally applicable since major
caving is predicted with Dib>2.
A minor modification and Dib values along with expected
corresponding damage10 are given in Table 4. The half cast
factor (HCF) given by
HCF% = total drill length/total length of half casts
is also a measure of damage and is evaluated after the
blast.

Table 5 Workout of blast damage index for PJHEP blasting

Location

D,
m

Qmax,
kg

Vmax (p),
m/s

r,
g/cm3

C p,
km/s

UCS,
MPa

td,
MPa

Di b

Dam Toe

797

1.49

8.43

0.27

2.26

4.2

135

37.5

0.66

0.10

797

1.49

8.43

0.27

2.34

4.4

90

25.0

0.61

0.18

Vents

Vent splits/ slashing

*DG/IG portals

Main DG/ IG*

797

1.49

8.43

0.27

1.78

3.9

50

13.9

0.70

0.19

797

1.49

3.5

0.26

2.26

4.2

135

37.5

0.66

0.10

797

1.49

3.5

0.26

2.34

4.4

90

25.0

0.61

0.17

797

1.49

3.5

0.26

1.78

3.9

50

13.9

0.70

0.18

797

1.49

1.88

0.25

2.26

4.2

135

37.5

0.66

0.09

797

1.49

1.88

0.25

2.34

4.4

90

25.0

0.61

0.17

797

1.49

1.88

0.25

1.78

3.9

50

13.9

0.70

0.18

797

1.49

2.5

0.56

2.26

4.2

135

37.5

0.72

0.20

797

1.49

2.5

0.56

2.34

4.4

90

25.0

0.66

0.35

797

1.49

2.5

0.56

1.78

3.9

50

13.9

0.77

0.37

797

1.49

3.75

0.76

2.26

4.2

135

37.5

0.72

0.27

797

1.49

3.75

0.76

2.34

4.4

90

25.0

0.66

0.47

797

1.49

3.75

0.76

1.78

3.9

50

13.9

0.77

0.49

DG : Drainage gallery, IG : Inspection gallery

D: distance of perimeter or object from blast site, Qmax: maximum charge (explosive) per delay recommended, Vmax(p): maximum vibration
predicted at a known distance D, r: density of rock, Cp: p -wave velocity of rock, UCS: unconfined uniaxial compressive strength of the rock,
td: dynamic tensile strength of the rock (taken approximately = UCS/3.6), K is a constant for rock and support applied. In case of DG and IG
an increased Dibwas allowed as some over excavation was desired. In all other cases Dib was restricted to an average of 0.16.

18

IE(I) JournalMN

Table 6 Blast designs for different categories of blasting at PJHEP

Blast category

Hole diameter,
mm

Depth,
m

Burden,
m

Spacing,
m

Stemming,
m

Explosive per hole,

kg

Explosive used,

Line drill

115

23 (max)

1 1.5

Cartridged slurry

Production

115

3.0

2.0

2.3

1.8

8.43

Production

32

1.5 2.0

0.5

0.7

1.5

0.250
17 ms relay

At PJHEP the Dib criterion was also invoked as shown in

Table 5. Rock properties and related geo-technical values
described in Tables 2 and 3 have also been used to arrive at
the damage criterion. Site vibration constants = 796.69,
= 1.49 from the equation (1) have been used for prediction
or fixing the vibration levels. The simulated/recommended
maximum charge per delay for each of the blasts is also
given in Table 5. This has been calculated considering the
blast locations, rock characteristics and distance from the
nearby dam/ledges based on equation (1).
BLAST DESIGNS
Blast designs for different workings as per the requirements
and damage potential assessed (Table 5) are given in Tables 6
and 7.
Line drilling was done for full depth at the periphery of ledges
as shown in Figure 5 with a large diameter drill of 115 mm.
These holes were left without blasting and rest of the
excavation was conducted in a controlled manner.
Distance between the production blasts and the objects of
interest like dam toe and rock ledges was maintained as
simulated in Table 5. This helped in attaining the final periphery
in a perfect manner.
Pre-split blasting (Figure 6) using 32 mm holes was used to
create an artificial crack towards the rock ledges while
blasting in the vents. A different strategy for blasting in the
inspection gallery (Figure 7) and drainage gallery (Figure 8)

Stemming
=1m

Hole
depth =
2.4 m

Air-decking
= 1.2 m

Charge
= 0.125 kg
Figure 6 Pre-split blast design with small diameter holes

were adopted since these were to be driven through the rock

ledges.
A continuous monitoring program for ground vibrations, an
indirect measure of damage, was also enacted and it was
observed that all vibrations were within predictable range.
The confidence level at which the prediction actually worked
in the field was 93%, which was much higher than the
designed interval of 84%.
POST BLAST RESULTS
Half Cast Factor (HCF, %)
The representative HCF % for different workings around the
excavation site of PJHEP, that is a measure of assessing
performance of perimeter blasting have been worked out
(Table 8).

Table 7 Blast design for IG and DG

Hole
description

Delay
number

Number
of
holes

Number
of
detonators

Hole
depth

Drill
angle

Number of
cartridges/hole
(maximum)

Charge
per
hole, kg

Charge
per
delay, kg

Cut

1.5

65

0.625

3.750**

Helper

1.3

85

0.5

3.000

Stoping 1

1.3

90

0.375

1.125

Stoping 2

1.3

90

0.375

2.625

Lifters

1.3

95

0.375

1.875

Periphery 1

14

14*

1.3

95

0.125

1.750

Periphery 2

14

14*

1.3

95

0.125

1.750

Total charge, kg

15.875

* Detonating fuse used in periphery holes;

**Max charge/delay

Volume 90, August 2009

19

Figure 10 View of inspection gallery after blasting

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0
2.4
2.8
All dimensions are in m
Figure 7 Blast design for inspection gallery
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.5 -0.1 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5
Width, m
All dimensions are in m
Figure 8 Blast design for drainage gallery

Half holes of the line drilling left after blasting

Height, m

0.0

3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
-0.4

Figure 11 View of half casts on ledges

Table 8 Representative half cast factor at different locations of
PJHEP
Location

IG
DG

Figure 9 Half casts of line drill

20

Total drill length of

perimeter holes, m

Total length of
half casts, m

HCF, %

TRP

110

71.59

65

Ledge-1

118

109.26

93

Ledge-2

35

27.45

78

Ledge-3

252

146.5

58

Combined

515

354.8

69

IE(I) JournalMN

REFERENCES
1. A Bauer. Wall Control Blasting in Open Pits. Rock Breaking and
Mechanical Excavations, Editor : P Baumgartner. CIM Special, vol 30,
1982, p 3.
2. Z T Bieniawski. Engineering Rock Mass Classification. John Wiley
and Sons, 1989, p 251.
3. P Calder. Perimeter Blasting. Pit Slope Manual, CANMET Mining
Research Laboratories Report, Chapter 7, Canada, vol 77, pt 14, p 82.
4. A K Chakraborty, A K Raina, M Ramulu, R N Gupta and J L Jethwa.
Lake Tap at Koyna, Modification to Blast Design Result in Increased
Productivity on Two Indian Tunnels. World Tunnelling, November 1998,
p 456.
5. D U Deere. Technical Description of Rock Cores for Engineering
Purposes. Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology, vol 1, no 1, p 16.

Figure 12 View of half casts (TRP)

Based on the categorisation of the performance, the data

conforms to the controlled/ careful controlled blasting
category that indicates no or minor damage to the rock mass.
Figures 6 to 9 also document the performance.
CONCLUSION
A meticulous evaluation of the rock mass properties along
with the understanding and design of blast at PJHEP helped
to retain five rock ledges between the vents without damaging
the rock mass and dam toe. It was initially desired to remove
the rock ledges and reconstruct the same with concrete.
This would have increased the cost of the project. However,
with the application of contour blasting the ledges could be
retained and resulted in significant savings of Rs 110 million
to the APGENCO (documented). This is in contrast to the
general notion that perimeter blasting is costly. The method
is easy to adopt and saves on many fronts in rock excavation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to the Director, CIMFR for allowing
publishing the findings and APGENCO for awarding the
project. Special thanks are due to Shri J Baba, Shri
Sudarshan, Shri Muralimohan and Shri J Reddy of
APGENCO for their assistance.

Volume 90, August 2009

6. T N Hagan and J K Mercer. Safe and Efficient Blasting in Open Pit

Mining. Proceedings of Workshop by ICI Private Limited on Australian
Operations, Karatha, November 23-25, 1983.
7. R Holmberg and P A Persson. The Swedish Approach to Contour
Blasting. Proceedings of Fourth Conference on Explosive and Blasting
Technology, ISEE, 1978, p 113.
8. W Hustrulid. Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining - General Design
Concepts. Balkema, vol 1, p A A 293.
9. ISEE CD Rom. International Society of Explosive Engineering, 2006.
10. C L Jimeno, E L Jimeno and F J A Carcedo. Drilling and Blasting of
Rocks. Balkema, A A Rotterdam, 1995, p 252.
11. A Palmstrom. The Volumetric Joint Count - A Useful and Simple
Measure of the Degree of Jointing. Fourteenth International Conference
of IAEG, New Delhi, 1982, p V 221.
12. A K Raina, A K Chakraborty, M Ramulu, P B Choudhury and J L
Jethwa. Rock Mass Damage from Underground Blasting, a Literature
Review and Lab- and Full Scale Tests to Estimate Crack Depth by Ultrasonic
Method. International Journal - FRAGBLAST, vol 4, 2000, p 103.
13. A K Raina, A K Chakraborty, M Ramulu and P B Choudhury. Blasting
and Excavation Methodology at Priyadarshini Jurala Hydroelectric
Project. Internal Report of Central Mining Research Institute, Regional
Centre, APPGENCO, Andhra Pradesh, Nagpur No GC/MT/N/10/04-05,
2005, p 14.
14. T R Yu and S Vongpaisal. New Blast Damage Criteria for
Underground Blasting. CIM Bulletin No 998, vol 89, 1996, p 139.

21