Assessment of Underground

Production Blast Designs and

Blasting Performance
B Mohanty1 and D Zwaan1

ABSTRACT
Systematic near-field vibration monitoring of stope blasts was carried out in a large, deep
underground mine. A total of 31 production blasts were studied in order to investigate the
effectiveness of existing blast designs. This involved the vertical retreat mining method, which
requires drilling a raise bore or blasting a slot raise (typically 1.22 m in diameter) using large diameter
boreholes (165 mm). The diagnostic technique employed multistation near-field monitoring of
blasts with high-g (100 g) and high-frequency (>10 kHz) triaxial accelerometers. The amplitude
of the vibrations is correlated with the strain energy transmitted from each explosive deck. The
results showed that more than 30 percent of the explosive decks contributed little energy to the
rock breakage process in these blasts, and an equal number contributed only inadequately. These
findings are indicative of serious blast malfunctions. The problems can be traced to inadequate
deck blast design and possibly to drill hole deviation. The various causes for such malfunctions are
discussed and remedial measures suggested.

INTRODUCTION
Blasting represents the most efficient and economic method
of all excavation techniques, especially in hard-rock
environments and large-scale operations. Blast designs
employed at a mine, especially in an underground operation,
require careful assessment of the designs employed in terms
of their efficacy in achieving the desired results. These include
degree of rock fragmentation, minimising overbreak and
dilution and cost. Unfortunately, the degree of fragmentation
achieved is difficult to assess for any specific blast in a stope
blasting environment. Cavity monitoring techniques are
often used to assess overbreak but are not easy to control.
Such techniques provide little insight into the actual nature
of the blasted rock unless there is a systematic procedure
in place for regular monitoring of the blasted rock from the
stope in question. Such practice is not normally employed
in underground mines, except in the final stages. Therefore,
there must be an alternative method of assessing the blast
designs employed and the energy release characteristics of
the explosive system in use (eg drilling and loading practice,
explosive type, initiator system and blast monitoring). The
present investigation carefully monitored the vibration energy
released from 31 production blasts and used the findings to
provide improved blast design guidelines.
UNDERGROUND MINING OPERATION
The underground mine in question is located in the Sudbury
Igneous Complex in Ontario, Canada. The copper-nickel
sulfide mineral deposits form along the boundary of an
ancient crater. This particular location has a number of
orebodies extending from the surface to depths of 3000 m. The
majority of the stopes investigated are located in the deeper
orebodies of Creighton Mine. Selected studies were carried
out in a number of stopes from relatively shallow levels
(11451185 m) to much deeper levels (23282352 m). This
involved the orebodies 400, 402 and 461. At the deeper levels,
the stopes are subjected to high in situ stresses. The layout of
the mine is shown in cross-section in Figure 1.
The primary mining method used at the mine is a modified
version of vertical retreat mining (VRM) called slot and slash
(SS). This is a bulk mining method that involves drilling
a raise bore or blasting a slot raise using large diameter
boreholes. The raise creates more free blasting faces, which
allow the stopes to be mined with fewer yet larger blasts. The
production holes are then drilled off as parallel rows (called
rings) throughout the stope. The explosives are loaded
around the raise at the bottom of the stope and blasted. The
typical procedure for mining a stope using the SS method is
as follows:
raise bore or slot raise drilled (typically 1.22 m or
48diameter)
production holes are drilled (165 mm or 6.5 diameter)
blasting of slot raise (if required)
crown pillar blast.
A typical cross-section across the rings is shown in Figure 2.
PRODUCTION BLASTS
The blasts are set-up with a detonating cord (4.3 g/m of
pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)) on the top sill, which is in
turn connected to a similar downline detonating cord in each
borehole. Blasting is typically carried out with explosive deck
charges in each borehole. The boreholes are plugged at 1.2 m

1. Lassonde Institute of Mining, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 1A4, Canada.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 607
B MOHANTY AND D ZWAAN
FIG 1 Sectional view of the underground operation (Vale, 2013).
above the previous breakthrough. Crushed stone is used as
plugging material. The same material is employed as inter-
deck stemming, which typically measures 11.3 m in length.
The average charge weight for each deck is 35 kg. The deck is
detonated with a shock tube detonator with a different delay
and is tied to a 450 g pentolite booster in each deck. Normally,
the booster is placed near the bottom of each deck. A booster-
sensitive packaged water-gel slurry explosive was employed
in these blasts. It had a nominal density of 1.15 g/cm3,
maximum velocity of detonation of 4.9 km/s and a quoted
strength of 96 (ie RWS for gas expansion up to 100 MPa).
INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODOLOGY
The stopes to be investigated were selected in a variety of
levels and orebodies. High-frequency (>10 kHz) and high-g
accelerometers (50 g and 100 g) served as the principal tools
608 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
for investigating the nature of these blasts. Where possible,
these were supplemented in a few cases by borehole camera
survey. The boreholes were typically inspected one day
following drilling. Such surveys provided a visual record of
any deformation of the boreholes immediately after drilling,
with or without the presence of any perimeter de-stress
holes. The accelerometer stations, consisting of high-g (50g
and 100 g) accelerometers mounted in a triaxial fashion,
were bolted securely to solid rock or shotcrete along the
drift walls in the top sill. Normally, three such accelerometer
stations were employed around the blastholes in the top sill
at distances ranging from 1020 m from the blastholes. This
helped eliminate any anomalous reading of acceleration
caused by the presence of any voids or other structural
discontinuities that may have affected the propagation of
the seismic signals between the explosive charge and the
accelerometers. Multichannel data acquisition systems were
 ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION BLAST DESIGNS AND BLASTING PERFORMANCE

FIG 2 A typical ring blast layout showing the blastholes (after Mohanty et al, 2013).

employed to record the signal from the accelerometer stations
at a sampling frequency of 50 kHz, which is well above the
maximum expected frequency content of the acceleration
signals. The system could also be timed to record multiple
blasts in the same stope over several days. The importance
of proper measurement of blasting vibrations, especially
close to blasts, such as choice of sensors and their mounting,
the required bandwidth and amplitude range have been
described by several authors (Farnfield, 1996; Segarra et
al, 2009; Fleetwood et al, 2009). The need to employ high-
frequency accelerometers instead of geophones in such close-
in vibration monitoring studies has been detailed by previous
researchers (Mohanty, Zwaan and Malek, 2013).
The recorded accelerometer recordings from multiple
locations were compared for each blast to eliminate any spurious
recordings. These would be mainly due to significant anomalies
in the path of the seismic waves (eg the presence of possible
voids or other anomalies). The vibration is viewed in both
particle acceleration form and its integrated particle velocity. In
the latter approach, any DC drift in the recorded acceleration
data, if present, is filtered out. The vibration data from each
mode (ie longitudinal, transverse and vertical components) is
then converted to their resultant vector sum to yield the true
vibration amplitude at that particular location. The square of
the resultant particle acceleration (or velocity) is directly related
to the transmitted stress energy from the explosive charge
(Mohanty and Yang, 1997). The transmitted seismic energy,
or shock energy, from the detonation of an explosive charge
is directly related to the detonation pressure in the borehole,
which is directly linked to proper initiation and assurance of a
steady velocity of detonation and, therefore, the shock energy
component of the charge. Although the latter represents only
part of the total explosive energy release, all other conditions
remaining the same, the former accurately represents the energy

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 609
B MOHANTY AND D ZWAAN

release characteristics of an explosive charge (Bjarnholt and respective amplitudes at the two accelerometer stations are to
Holmberg, 1976; Mohanty, 2000). Therefore, the measurement be expected due to their differing sensitivities. However, the
of the transmitted vibration (seismic) energy in close-in ranges respective normalised energy estimates mirror one another
from a blast represents a very powerful diagnostic tool on the exactly at the two stations. Since the charge weights for all
state of detonation behaviour of any specific explosive charge the decks were identical and the respective distances to the
in the borehole. For a better comparison of explosive energy sensor were nearly the same, it would have been expected that
release from the respective explosive decks with different all the transmitted stress energy (normalised by the weight
charge weights, the transmitted stress energy is further of the respective charges) would be the same, within an
normalised by dividing the square of the resultant acceleration acceptable margin of error. However, as Figure 5 shows, there
by the corresponding charge weight. For now, the effect of is unacceptable variation in the respective energy yields from
varying distances from the specific explosive to the sensor is otherwise identical deck charges, which is indicative of serious
neglected as these distances are fairly close to one another. detonation malfunctions or a lack of adequate burden against
specific decks (which would also lead to lower transmitted
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS stress energy). These factors will be discussed in a later section.
A typical loading scheme for a multihole blast (blast #1, The analysis is further modified by assigning a degree of
stope 6351) is given in Table 1. It consisted of four single- malfunction to the energy release from individual deck
decked holes and nine double-decked holes for a total of 22 charges into three broad categories:
explosive decks. The acceleration records obtained at two 1. full energy if the recorded normalised energy level
monitoring stations (with 50 g and 100 g accelerometers) are falls between 40 and 100 per cent of the maximum level
shown in Figures 3a and 3b respectively. Each deck had an recorded for that blast
identical charge weight (89.6 lb or 41 kg), initiated by a shock 2. partial energy if the recorded energy falls between 5 and
tube detonator of specific delay connected to the downline 39 percent of the maximum energy yield
detonating cord (4.3/m of PETN). The nominal firing times 3. failure if the energy level is below 5 per cent of the
of the various decks are shown as vertical lines in Figure 3. maximum normalised energy.
The vibration signatures appear identical for the two While this is a rather broad classification, it is a necessarily
accelerometer stations for this blast, as do the respective resultant conservative criterion in determining the degree of blast
acceleration amplitudes (Figure 4). There is considerable scatter malfunction. Such a classification also accounts the great
in the firing times of the individual decks compared to their majority of factors that could contribute to lower energy
designed nominal firing times, but this is to be expected from yields from individual charges in an actual blast.
the pyrotechnic detonators employed. However, the obvious The results show that of the 22 explosive decks, only four
and very significant differences in vibration amplitudes from boreholes with a single deck each could be considered as
deck to deck, despite identical charge weights, are noteworthy yielding full energy (see Table 2). In contrast, the nine holes
and central to this investigation. The normalised transmitted with double decks showed one hole with both decks failing,
energy (with respect to charge weight and in arbitrary units) one hole with both decks yielding full energy and the other
for the two stations is shown in Figure 5. The differences in the seven holes with one malfunctioning deck. In the latter case,
the upper deck showed a greater probability of failure than
TABLE 1 the bottom deck. A plan view (ie an approximate horizontal
Blast design for blast #1 (stope 6351). separation between the holes but not necessarily in the same
plane) of this stope blast is shown in Figure 6, along with
Ring Hole Delay Sticks of Explosive Nominal their nominal firing times. As shown, three decks failed and
no. no. explosive deck (lbs) detonation three others yielded only partial energy. This translates to
time (ms) unacceptable energy yield for more than 25 percent of the
7 2 1 4 89.6 25 explosive decks involved in this blast.
8 2 2 4 89.6 50 Typical results from a larger stope blast (blast #16, stope4364)
consisting of 18 holes with 27 decks of varying weight are now
7 2 4 4 89.6 100 discussed. The loading information for this blast is given in
8 2 5 4 89.6 125 Table 3. There were a total of 18 holes in five rings, with charge
9 3 7 4 89.6 175 weight for the decks varying from 3051 kg (67112 lbs), and
a maximum of three decks in each hole. The acceleration
9 3 9 4 89.6 225 record at the 50 g station is shown in Figure 7. It shows the
8 3 11 4 89.6 275 characteristic scatter in firing times and, more importantly, a
8 3 11 4 89.6 275 number of missing or low-energy events. Following the same
procedure, the resultant acceleration is shown in Figure 8 and
8 1 13 4 89.6 325 the normalised energy values for the decks are shown in Figure
8 1 13 4 89.6 325 9. Again, had the various explosive decks performed according
10 4 15 4 89.6 375 to their specifications, all the peaks in Figure 9 would have
registered the same value because of normalisation by the
10 4 15 4 89.6 375 respective charge weights. The malfunctioning of the decks
6 4 17 4 89.6 425 is illustrated in the plan view of the blast in Figure 10, along
6 4 17 4 89.6 425 with the corresponding nominal firing times for the decks. It
clearly shows the instances of malfunctioning decks and their
10 5 19 4 89.6 475 relative positions in the boreholes (ie lower, middle or upper
10 5 19 4 89.6 475 for the multideck holes). In this blast, only eight of 27 decks
5 5 20 4 89.6 500 released full energy, while the same number appeared to have
failed. The failed decks and those only contributing partially
10 2 24 4 89.6 600 constituted more than 60 per cent of the explosive decks. In

610 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION BLAST DESIGNS AND BLASTING PERFORMANCE

FIG 3 Acceleration records (vertical, longitudinal and transverse components) from blast #1 (stope6351)
with (A) a 100 g accelerometer station and (B) a 50 g accelerometer station.

addition, the middle and upper decks were seen to be more
susceptible to failure than the bottom deck. A summary of
the performance of all the decks in these 31 production blasts,
based on transmitted stress energy, is shown in Figure 11. It
shows that less than 30 percent of the explosive decks released
acceptable levels of energy, and almost 35 percent of the decks
released less than five percent of the maximum transmitted
energy on a weight basis.
DISCUSSION
Assessment of the performance of explosive decks in
underground production blasts employing the VRM method
poses a significant challenge as there is no direct means of
measuring the energy release from these explosive decks.
The only practical means of assessing the effectiveness of a
blast design is to examine the fragmentation and overbreak
results after each blast. For obvious reasons, this practice
is rarely employed in large underground operations.
Systematic monitoring of blasting vibration energy in close
range to the blasts offers a practical solution to studying the
efficiency of a blast design. There is extensive literature on the
use of blasting vibration measurements to identify blasting
malfunctions (Hulmes et al, 1987). However, these mostly
relate to confirming firing time scatter and uneven vibration

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 611
B MOHANTY AND D ZWAAN

FIG 4 Resultant magnitude of acceleration from blast #1 (stope 6351) at the two stations. (A) 100 g sensor; (B) 50 g sensor.

FIG 5 Transmitted stress energy release from blast #1 (stope 6351). (A) 100 g sensor; (B) 50 g sensor.

TABLE 2 where orders of magnitude higher levels of amplitude and

Analysis of malfunctioning explosive decks (blast #1, stope 6351) based frequency are present, as evidenced in this study. Such an
on transmitted stress energy yield (normalised) and failure criteria. approach is the only way to relate explosive energy release
and possible malfunctions of individual explosive decks in
Acceleration-based: single charge (four single-charge boreholes) large underground production blasts.
Explosive decks No. of charges % of total However, any apparent blasting malfunction, as represented
by a loss or reduction of transmitted stress energy (which the
boreholes
blasting vibrations represent), has to take into account several
Failed 0 0 related issues. The loss or reduction of vibration energy from
Partial 0 0 a specific explosive charge could be traced to a number of key
blasting parameters, including:
Full 4 100
explosive malfunction due to sympathetic pressures
Acceleration-based: decked charges (nine double-decked boreholes) discontinuity of explosive columns due to borehole
Explosive decks Malfunctioning % of decked squeezing in stopes under high stress
boreholes boreholes borehole deviation resulting in insufficient burden against
All decks failed 1 11 specific explosive decks
initiation practice
All decks partial energy 0 0
insufficient inter-deck stemming to prevent sympathetic
All decks full energy 1 11 pressure desensitisation of successive explosive decks in
Lower deck detonated followed by upper 5 56 specific boreholes.
deck malfunction All of these factors, either alone or in combination, could
Lower deck malfunctioned followed by 2 22 lead to a significant loss of transmitted blasting vibration
upper deck detonation energy. Thus, a reduced vibration level in proximity to a
blast with identical charge weight could be related to any of
these factors and is not necessarily due to lower explosive
amplitudes, where the emphasis has been on assessing energy yield from specific explosive decks or suboptimal
their damage potential to residential structures. These explosives. To overcome these uncertainties, a comprehensive
normally involved low vibration amplitudes (~10 mm/s) vibration monitoring program has to be in place. Combined
in the frequency range of 1030 Hz. There has been little with comprehensive blast design data, the present study
attempt to measure vibrations in close range to the blast, using high-frequency and high-g triaxial accelerometers to

612 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION BLAST DESIGNS AND BLASTING PERFORMANCE

TABLE 3
Blast design for blast #16 (stope 4364).

Ring no. Hole no. Delay Sticks of Explosive Detonation

explosive deck (lbs) time (ms)
4 6 1 5 112 25
Raise bore 1 3 5 112 75
2 7 5 5 112 125
Raise bore 3 7 5 112 175
2 5 9 4 90 225
2 5 10 3 67 250
2 9 12 4 90 300
1 9 14 5 112 350
4 9 15 3 67 375
1 7 16 4 90 400
1 7 17 3 67 425
2 4 19 4 90 475
1 10 20 4 90 500
2 4 20 3 67 500
1 10 22 4 90 550
1 4 24 4 90 600
1 10 24 3 67 600
1 4 26 3 67 650
1 4 28 3 67 700
5 5 28 4 90 700
4 4 32 3 67 800
4 4 36 3 67 900
5 3c 40 5 112 1000
2 3 48 5 112 1200
FIG 6 Normalised energy yields in explosive decks in blast #1 5 3 56 5 112 1400
(stope 6351) consisting of single- and double-decked boreholes 1 3b 64 4 90 1600
with corresponding nominal delay times (plan view). The 1 3b 72 4 90 1800
radius of the circles denotes the level of energy yield.

FIG 7 Acceleration records (vertical, longitudinal and transverse components) from blast #16 (stope 4364) with the 50 g accelerometer station.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 613
B MOHANTY AND D ZWAAN

FIG 8 Resultant magnitude of acceleration from blast #16 (stope 4364) with the 50 g accelerometer station.

FIG 9 Transmitted stress energy release from blast #16 (stope 4364) with the 50 g accelerometer station.

FIG 10 Normalised energy yields in explosive decks from blast #16 (stope 4364) consisting of a combination of single, double and triple explosive
decks in a total of 18 holes, with corresponding nominal delay times. The radius of the circles denotes the level of energy yield (plan view).

FIG 11 Average transmitted stress energy release as a function of the number of explosive decks employed in the production blasts.

614 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION BLAST DESIGNS AND BLASTING PERFORMANCE
record blasting vibration in close range to the blast essentially
represents such a program. The effect of field parameters
and initiation practice on the energy release characteristics of
explosives columns have been reported extensively in the past
(Mohanty and Joyce, 1994; Mohanty, 2000; Lee, Rodgers and
Whitaker, 2000). This study has conclusively shown that there
is very consistent and significant loss in near-field vibration
energy from a majority of explosive decks representing
31 production blasts employing a multitude of blastholes.
For example, inter-deck stemming employed in these
blasts was typically in the range of six borehole diameters,
whereas published data show that it should be in the range
of 1215 borehole diameters in order to prevent sympathetic
desensitisation of the upper explosive deck (Mohanty, 2009).
The high incidence of the upper explosive deck releasing
greatly reduced vibration energy in these blasts is a clear
indication of this problem. The same applies to the increased
incidence of explosive deck malfunction with increased
duration of blast, which is indicative of pressure desensitisation
of explosive decks in the neighbouring holes. In some of the
blasts, hole deviation could reduce effective burden and thereby
result in a loss of confinement and a reduction in recorded
vibration energy. Finally, under high lithologic stress, the
blastholes at this mine deform significantly with time, which
could result in hole blockage or squeezing. This might affect
continuity of the explosive column or pressurisation of the
explosive deck, resulting in a loss of sensitivity, especially in
gassed explosives products. In either case, the vibration energy
monitoring technique described in this study represents a very
significant technique in assessing blast design.
CONCLUSIONS
Production blast designs at a large underground operation
were assessed using triaxial accelerometer stations located close
to the stope blasts. The blasting vibrations were recorded by
high-frequency and high-g accelerometers at multiple stations.
The results from 31 production blast investigations showed
that only 33 percent of the explosive decks appeared to release
acceptable levels of vibration energy, with the rest yielding
either negligible or significantly reduced vibration energy. In
addition, in multideck blastholes, the upper explosive decks
were frequently characterised by very low vibration energy, as
were the explosive decks fired later than the initial initiation.
These are indicative of serious flaws in deck-blast design
and a high incidence of sympathetic pressure desensitisation
of the explosive decks. Significant borehole deviation from
the planned layout may also be present, thereby providing
insufficient burden for the affected boreholes.
Consideration must be exercised in designing deck blasts,
especially in terms of providing an adequate length of inter-
deck stemming to prevent sympathetic effects between
explosive decks (Mohanty, 2009). Systematic monitoring is
also required to minimise drill hole deviation and further
investigate the effectiveness of de-stress techniques in high-
stress stopes in terms of minimising borehole deformation
and blockage and maintaining continuity of explosive
columns. Improved productivity at the mine would require
that these studies and continued monitoring of near-field
blasting vibrations become standard practice.
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance
provided by Vale Canada and the National Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada during the course of
this investigation. Without continual help at the mine site by
the Vale mine personnel, it would not have been possible to
carry out such a detailed study.
REFERENCES
Bjarnholt, G and Holmberg, R, 1976. Explosives expansion work
in underwater detonations, in Proceedings Sixth International
Symposium on Detonation, pp 540550 (Office of Naval Research
Department of the Navy: Arlington).
Farnfield, R, 1996. So you think you are monitoring peak particle
velocity?, in Proceedings 12th Annual Symposium on Explosives and
Blasting Research, pp 1320 (International Society of Explosives
Engineers: Cleveland).
Fleetwood, K G, Villaescusa, E, Li, J and Varden, R, 2009. Comparison
of traditional near-field vibration prediction models with
three-dimensional vibration scaling and blast wave energy, in
Proceedings Ninth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting Fragblast 9 (ed: J A Sanchidrin), pp 579588 (CRC
Press: Boca Raton).
Hulmes, M, LeJuge, G, Ellison, C and McKenzie, C, 1987.
Improvements in blasting practice at Mount Charlotte through
vibration monitoring and analysis, in Proceedings Second
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting
(eds:WFourney and R Dick), pp 530540 (Society of Experimental
Mechanics: Keystone).
Lee, R, Rodgers, J and Whitaker, K, 2000. Explosives malfunctions in
decked blasts, in Proceedings 26th Annual Conference on Explosives
and Blasting Technology, pp 2534 (International Society of
Explosives Enginners: Cleveland).
Mohanty, B, 2000. The Underwater Test as a tool for rating explosives,
in Proceedings 26th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technology, volume 2, pp 924 (International Society of Explosives
Enginners: Cleveland).
Mohanty, B, 2009. Intra-hole and inter-hole effects in typical blast
designs and their implications on explosives energy release and
detonator delay time a critical review, in Proceedings Ninth
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting
Fragblast 9 (ed: J A Sanchidrian) pp 2331 (CRC Press: Boca Raton).
Mohanty, B and Joyce, D, 1994. Explosive initiation practice and its
effect on energy release in commercial explosives, in Proceedings
Tenth Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, pp 149161
(International Society of Explosives Enginners: Cleveland).
Mohanty, B and Yang, R, 1997. Blasting vibrations and explosives
performance, in Proceedings 13th Annual Symposium on Explosives
and Blasting Research, pp 1528 (International Society of Explosives
Engineers: Cleveland).
Mohanty, B, Zwaan, D and Malek, F, 2013. Diagnostics of production
blasts in a deep underground mine, Engineering and Mining
Journal, 214(8):5257.
Segarra, P, Sanchidrian, J A, Lopez, J M, Querol, E and Guiterrez, J,
2009. Assessment of the error of blast vibration measurements, in
Proceedings Ninth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting Fragblast 9 (ed: J A Sanchidrin), pp 551560 (CRC
Press: Boca Raton).
615