Tunnel Blast Design using Artificial Neural Network a Case Study

V M S R Murthy, Member
K Dey, Non-member
R R Chimankar, Non-member
Artificial intelligent research has produced several tools for commercial applications. Some of the techniques that are widely used today
include neural network, fuzzy logic and expert systems. Artificial neural network (ANN) is an excellent predictive and data analysis tool.
In the mining industry, ANN techniques are being used commercially for real-time process-control applications. Blast design in tunnel
construction, is still accomplished on trial and error basis which is not only time consuming but also leads to sub-optimum results in many
situations. In order to design blasts based on field data and standardize tunnel blasting pattern, development of an automated design program
is necessary. Thus, in this study an attempt has been made to develop a new method using Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as Artificial
Neural Network (ANN), based on the data generated carefully from a metal mine. To serve as a general-purpose design model more data
needs to be included.This paper presents the application of standard back propagation algorithm for tunnel blast design using parallel hole
cut. The developed ANN model, after training with actual field data, is used to design different tunnel blast design parameters. Performance
of the model has been evaluated by comparing the values obtained using the ANN model and actual values observed in the field. Results
indicate that the average error in prediction of blast design and performance parameters is less than five per cent1. Thus, the developed neural
network model can be applied for intelligent tunnel blast design.
Keywords : Artificial neural network; Back propagation; Tunnel blasting; Parallel hole cut; Blast design

INTRODUCTION
Tunnelling is an important activity in the field of underground
construction. Tunnels are driven for road and rail transportation,
sewer and water supply, gaining access to underground hydroelectric
power projects, mountain caverns for industrial, recreational and
storage purpose. Drilling and blasting technique, owing to its
capability to meet wide variations in geology, is predominantly used
to excavate majority of the tunnels. Therefore, proper blast design in
tunnels is the key to enhance blasting efficiency and reduce damage to
the tunnel wall, vibration and noise level. Important tunnel blast
design variables are burden, spacing, drilling dia, empty hole dia, face
advance and tunnel area2. In order to standardize the tunnel blasting
pattern, development of an automated design program based on
field data, which serves as knowledgebase, is necessary.
This article reports the development of one such self-learning tunnel
blast design3 method based on Artificial Intelligence (AI), namely,
Artificial Neural Network (ANN). The ANN networks do not
require an explicit functional model for relating system variables. It is
therefore, expected that limitations associated with traditional
method may be overcome by using ANN. Additionally, due to their
robustness to imperfect data and because of their capability of
modelling complex data set ANN presents an attractive alternative to
the traditional designing techniques.
TUNNEL BLAST DESIGN
Tunnel blast design, in recent times, is being accomplished by parallel
hole cuts for achieving higher pulls. The blasts in tunnels and drifts
are characterized by lack of adequate free surfaces towards which
V M S R Murthy, K Dey and R R Chimankar are with Mining Engineering
Department, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 826 004.
This paper (re-modified) was received on October 05, 2005. Written
discussion on this paper will be received untill April 29, 2006.

Vol 86 , February 2006

Roof Holes
Contour Holes

Stoping Hole

Wall

Cut

Hole
Cut Spreader
Hole
Lifters

Floor Holes
Figure 1 Different zones in tunnel blasting

breakage can occur effectively. The principle behind tunnel blasting is

to create an opening by means of a cut ( a set of holes that provide
initial free face) and then stoping to enlarge the opening. The cut,
usually, has a surface area of 1m2 2m2, although with large drilling
dia holes it can reach up to 4m2. The different zones in tunnel
blasting4 are shown in Figure 1.
Stoping can geometrically be compared to bench blasting although it
requires powder factors that are four to ten times higher5. Such a high
explosive consumption is mainly due to drilling error, the demand
made by swelling, the absence of hole inclination, the lack of cooperation between adjacent charges and also blasting against gravity
in case of lifter holes.
Contour holes are those, which establish the final shape of the
39

tunnel and are spaced closely (0.2m 0.4m apart) and directed
outwards to make room for the drill in collaring and advance. The
position of the cut has influence on rock projection, fragmentation
and also on the number of blast holes. Of the three positions,
namely, corner, lower centre and upper centre, the latter is usually
chosen as it avoids the free fall of the material, the profile of the
broken rock is more extended, less compact and better fragmented.
Design of Parallel Hole Cuts
The blasts in tunnels and drifts are much more complex than bench
blasting owing to the fact that the only free surface is the tunnel
heading. The powder factors are elevated and the charges are highly
confined. On the other hand, burdens are small, which require
sufficiently insensitive explosive to avoid sympathetic detonation
and at the same time have enough detonation velocity (above
3000m/s) to prevent channel effect in the cartridge explosive placed
in large dia blast holes. This phenomenon consists of the explosion
gases pushing the air that exists between the column charge and the
wall of the blasthole, compressing the cartridges in front of the
shock wave, destroying the hot spots or excessively increasing the
density of the explosive6.
Drilling has become more mechanized in the last decade with the
introduction of fully automatic and computer assisted hydraulic
jumbos with multiple booms. Thus, there is a general shift towards
parallel hole cuts as they are easier to drill, do not require a change in
the feed angle and the advances are not as conditioned by the width
of the tunnels, as happens with angled cuts7.
Some of the problems that can arise in blasting with parallel
blasthole cuts are sympathetic detonation and dynamic pressure
desensitization. The first phenomenon can appear in adjacent holes
to the detonating hole when the explosive used has a high degree of
sensitivity, such as, all those with nitroglycerine in their composition.
On the other hand, the dynamic pressure desensitization takes place
in many explosives and, especially, in ANFO. This is due to the
compression of explosive charge ahead of the shock wave and
resultant increase in the density of the adjacent charge above the
critical density. Desensitization problem can be attenuated by correctly
designing the initiation sequence, sufficiently delaying the successive
detonation of each blasthole so that the shock wave from the last
shot disappear, allowing the explosive to recuperate its normal
density and degree of sensitivity. Hagan8 suggests that, in order to
minimise these problems, the parallel hole cut may be carried out by
placing three relief holes in such a manner that they act as a shield
between the charged holes. Hagan has proved that fine-grained rock
is more susceptible to cut failure than coarse grained, due to the larger
volume of relief opening that is needed for the expulsion of the
material.

by adjusting the connection weights, it is possible to realize complex

mapping through its characteristics of distributed representations.
The neural network can find automatically the closest match through
its content-addressable property, even if the data are incomplete or
vague9. Even in the case that a few processing elements malfunction
or fail completely, the network can still function through its faulttolerance attribute. The neural network has the ability for extracting a
generalized correlation (or regularity) from many individual examples
(or experiences). Neural network models are set up by learning and
training. If a network model is trained with a large number of inputoutput pairs (or pairs of input and target vectors), it can produce an
appropriate output for untrained inputs. More than 50 neural
network models have been devised so far, and it is found that the
back-propagation learning algorithm based on the generalized delta
rule proposed by Rumelhart, et al 10 is the most popular and efficient
learning procedure for multi-layer neural networks.
The back-propagation neural network generally consists of many sets
of nodes arranged in layers (for example input, hidden and output
layer) as shown in Figure 2. The output signals from one layer are
transmitted to subsequent layer through links that amplify or
attenuate or inhibit the signals using weighting factors. Except for
the nodes in the input layer, the net input to each node is the sum of
the weighted output of the nodes in the prior layer. An activation
function, such as, sigmoidal logistic function is used to calculate the
output of the nodes in the hidden and output layers. In the
calculation, both the input and output are usually normalized to give
a value between 0 and 1. The number of hidden layers and the
number of nodes in each layer depends on the complexity of the
pattern and the nature of the problem to be solved.
The back-propagation neural network operates in two different
phases: one for learning and the other for production. The learning
phase is composed of forward and reverse passes. In the forward
pass, a set of learning pattern (or training pairs) is presented to the
system and the system calculates the output from the input patterns.
In the reverse pass, the system calculates the sum-squared error for
each training pair, comparing the output with the target pattern. If
the error summed overall learning pattern converge within a certain
limit, the learning phase is ceased. Otherwise, the system follows the
error-back propagation process where the calculated error signals
1

BACK-PROPAGATION ARTIFICIAL NEURAL

NETWORK
Neural networks are simplified model of the biological structure
found in human brains. Their layered structure is composed of a
large number of interconnected elementary processing elements to
mimic the biological neurons. The characteristics of a neural network
come from the activation function and connection weights. Since the
neural network stores data as pattern in a set of processing elements
40

Oi
Input
Layer
(i)

Wji

Oj
Hidden
Layer
(j)

Wkj

Ok
Output
Layer
(k)

Ep

tk

Figure 2 Architecture of back propagation in artificial neural network

IE(I) JournalMN

propagate backward through the network and adjust the connection

weights (or strengths).

Blast Design
Database

Selection of
Important
Parameters

Blast Design Calculation by

Conventional Method

Selection of Training
Cases

DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENT TUNNEL

BLAST DESIGN

Processing of Data

The artificial neural network described above is applied to tunnel

blast design. A neural network model has been developed using
Neural Planner Software(Easy NN Plus). The Neural Planner is a
menu-driven system in which three layers for input, hidden, and
output can be developed. It has the capability to interact with the
database developed in MsAccess/MsExcel for training purpose. A
large number of data prepared on MS Excel have been prepared and
the entire set is available with the authors.

Initial Estimation of
Weight
Adaptive Revision of
Weights

Forward Calculattion of
Network

Yes

Whether a Reasonable
error for all the Training
Cases Obtained ?

The developed network consists 31 inputs, 29 hidden(three layer

system) and seven output layers. The input parameters consist of
tunnel area, relief hole dia, blast hole dia, P-wave and the burden,
charge per hole and number of holes in different holes. The output
parameters are vibration, volume of rock, pull, overbreak, powder
factor, detonator factor and specific drilling.

No

Simulated Weights
Testing
Estimation

The procedural steps of the working of the model are shown in

Figure 3. Initially, a database of the previous blast records has been
developed from the actual blasts conducted in mines11. This database
contains a sufficient number of blast datasets so that during training
the model can converge. Thus, the model developed in Neural
Planner software has been trained. During training, software assigns

Determination of
Different Output
Figure 3 Flowchart showing the sequence of operation of the model

IX

VIII

IX

VI

IX

II

VI

VIII

VI

VI

VII

VIII

VI

5
III

II

IV

VIII

VII

800

VII

800

VI

II
8

VI

IX

III

IV
III

VIII

IX

3200

VIII

IV
II
2

IX

800

V
III

IX

800

IX

In completion of this learning procedure, the weights are stored in

the neural network for next production phase. In production phase,
the network produces appropriate output pattern for newly
presented input patterns.

All Dimension in mm
Not to Scale
Reamer Hole

5000

Charge Hole
700

720

720

720

720

720

700

1, 2,... represent short delay, I, II,... represent long delay

Figure 4 Blast pattern for drift with mechanised drilling

Vol 86 , February 2006

41

Table 2 Laboratory test results on rock samples

Table 1 Charging and delay pattern for blasting in mechanised drift

(4.5 m x 3.2 m)
Hole(s)

Rock Property

Delay Number* Number of Charge/Hole Total Charge

Holes

(Cartridge)

(Cartridge)

Rock density,

t/m3

Value
2.9

R Q D, %

81.67

RMR

66

Q Index

5.11

UCS, MPa

77.64

Center hole

10 + 1P

11

First square

1, 2, 5, 8

10 + 1P

44

Second square II 4, III 4

11+ 1P

96

Third square IV 4, V 4

11 + 1P

96

12 + 1P

117

Tensile strength, MPa

10.27
28.66

Easers

VI 6, VII 3

Side holes

VIII 6

11+1P

72

Youngs modulus, GPa

Top holes

IX 8

10 + 1P

88

P-wave velocity, km/s

4.50 6.10

Bottom holes

X8

12 + 1P

104

S-wave velocity, km/s

2.50 3.50

Total

52

628

Total number of holes : 52 + 4 R

Dia of cartridge : 32 mm

Depth of round : 3.2 m

Weight of cartridge : 0.220 kg

Dia of blasting holes : 38 mm

Total explosive : 138.16 kg

Dia of reamer holes : 64 mm

Total Yield : 157.5 t (expected)

analysis of the model results are discussed in the following

paragraphs.
GENERATION OF FIELD DATA
Field visits were made to collect representative data to generate actual
dataset on both input and output parameters pertaining to tunnel
blast design for training, validation and testing of the model
developed using ANN. Trial blasts were done in horizontal drifts of
a metal mine located in eastern India for this purpose where parallel
cut is being practiced on a large scale (Figure 4). The details of charging
and delay pattern for blasting in mechanized draft (4.5m x 3.2m) is
given is Table 1. Parallel cut demands a careful blast design with the
best possible delay sequence to achieve satisfactory blast results. The
rock type was chlorite-sericite-schists of massive metamorphic
formation. Some of the geo-technical studies conducted are given in
Table 2. The mine has both mechanised and manual faces. The field

Total number of cartridges : 628

* 0,1,2,3,.. : Short delays ; I, II, III, : Long delays

a weightage to various inter-related parameters and attempts to limit

the error. This process is repeated until the error converges to the set
limits. The final weightages are obtained after training.
The model has been tested using query process and the data predicted
with the trained ANN model and actual data compared has yielded
acceptable correlation. This has been done for randomly selected data
one each for mechanized and manual drilling and blasting. The
details of the field investigations conducted in the mines and the
Table 3 Details of mining sub-systems in mechanized face
Parameters

Mechanised face

Face size

53.2 m
Dia of blasthole, mm

Drilling

38

Dia of reamer hole, mm

64

Number of reamer holes

Drilling length, m

3.2

Machine used for drilling

Jumbo Drill (4 nos)

Explosive used: Powergel 801, Nobel gel, Belmx, Indorock

Explosive and detonator used

Short and long delay detonators manufactured by Indian Explosive Ltd are
used. Each increment in short delay number increase a delay time of 25ms
whereas for long delay it is 300ms. Charging pattern is given in Table 4.

Short and long delay used

Pattern is shown in Figure 4.

Mucking

LHD and Scoop Tram

Transportation

Mine truck of 25t capacity or low profile dump truck of 10t capacity dumped
in ore pass or directly in stope for filling.

Blasting

Loading and
transportation

The suggested support system used in the mine is rock bolting. Rock bolts are used as the permanent support for the drifts
and declines and as well as for raise and winze.
For drift/decline: 1.6m 1.6m
Support system

Length of bolt : 1.6 m

Shotcrete/grouting mixture: Strength of bolt : - 16t

direction of bolt is perpendicular to dip of rock.

32 mm dia with twisted surface.
1:1:0.5 (cement: sand : water)

Maximum distance of row of support from face : 2.5m

Large permanent excavation/junctions : 1.2m 1.2m

42

IE(I) JournalMN

tbdann1.tvq 485 cycles. Target error 0.0500 average training error 0.055826
The first 31 of 31 Inputs in descending order.
Column

Figure 5 The neural network for tunnel blast design (input, three hidden
and output layers)
tbdann1.tvq
Normalised Error
Maximum

1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
0.6000
0.5000
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000

Average

Minimum
Learning rate : 0.600000
Momentum :
0.800000
Maximum error : 0.086093
Average error : 0.055826
Minimum error : 0.021437
Target error :
0.050000
Validating examples :
0
Not validating or scoring

37

75 112 150 188 225 270 346 420 485

Layer : Input
Hidden 1
Hidden 2
Hidden 3
Output
Nodes
31
14
8
7
7
Weights
434
112
56
49

Input Name

23
Qe
12
N2
3
P-wave
9
N1
5
Hole length
15
N3
2
Blast hole DIA
10
B2
1 Relief hole DIA
7
B1
26
Qr
24
Ne
25
Br
13
B3
30
NI
27
Nr
32
Scaled dist
4 Number of holes
16
B4
31
Total charge
22
Be
17
Q4
14
Q3
0
Area
19
B5
21
Q5
28
BI
29
QI
8
Q1
6 Number of reamer
11
Q2

Importance

Relative Error

26.1111
18.2798
12.2427
12.2106
11.8021
11.7615
11.5500
11.4684
9.9268
9.6952
9.6333
9.5208
9.3074
9.1327
8.9300
8.8474
8.8163
8.7882
8.5337
8.5087
8.3091
7.9535
7.8870
7.8613
7.7236
6.9571
6.7330
6.4771
5.7552
5.6257
3.6936

Figure 8 Relative importance of input parameters.

Table 4 Comparison of ANN predicted and actual results

Figure 6 Normalised error against the iterating cycles (with layers, nodes
and weights)

Parameter

Mechanised Face
Predicted

tbdann1.tvq cycle 485. Target error 0.0500 Average training error 0.055826
The first 14 of 14 example rows in descending order
Above target
Below target
Row

Example

5
4
8
13
15
6
14
12
7
9
2
11
3
10

Mechanised
Mechanised
Manual
Mechanised
Mechanised
Mechanised
Manual
Mechanised
Mechanised
Mechanised
Mechanised
Mechanised
Mechanised
Manual

Normalized
Error (0-1)
0.032827
0.030889
0.030322
0.029939
0.028391
0.027595
0.020672
0.015072
0.015050
0.011680
0.010460
0.008478
0.003391
0.000011

Relative Error

Figure 7 Errors case-wise after training the ANN model

Actual

Manual Face
Predicted

Actual
254

Vibration, mm/s

48.98

29.3

251.83

Muck Volume, t

73.00

72.00

48.00

50.00

1.49

1.40

1.23

1.3

15.00

15.00

19.00

20.00

Powder factor, t/kg

0.73

0.72

1.204

1.24

Detonator factor, t/det

1.58

1.60

0.84

0.83

Specific drilling, t/m

0.49

0.47

0.54

0.55

Pull, m
Overbreak, %

ANALYSIS OF ANN MODEL OUTPUT

Blasting data, pertaining to a metal mine of eastern India, have been
collected for the training of the software. All the 14 data sets
generated, have been used for training the ANN model and two data
sets were put in the Query mode for testing purpose.
For learning purpose following information was provided to obtain
the desired results
Learning rate : 0.60

investigations have been carried out both in the mechanized and

manual faces of the mine. The unit operations carried out, such as,
drilling, blasting, mucking and transportation, in the mechanized
face are described in Table 3.
Vol 86 , February 2006

Momentum : 0.80
Target error : 0.05
Cycle/refresh : 100.
43

tbdann1.tvq 485 cycles. Target error 0.0500 average training error 0.055826
The first 31 of 31 inputs in descending order. Output column 33 vibration
(PPV)

Column Input
Name
12
23
10
16
31
13
7
30
5
3
26
19
32
2
24
4
9
1
6
22
21
27
14
8
11
29
25
17
0
28
15

Change
from

to

Sensivity

N2
2
4
Qe
1.8000
2.4000
B2
14
20
B4
17
40
Total
38.0000 131.0000
charge
B3
17
31
B1
8
15
NI
5
8
Hole
1.3000
3.2000
length
P-wave 4300
5700
Qr
0.5000
2.2000
B5
29
50
Scaled
5.3100
16.7400
Dist
Blast
32
38
Hole Dia
Ne
9
28
No of Holes 30
64
N1
1
5
Relief Hole 32
89
Dia
No of
1
5
Reamer
Be
40
58
Q5
0.6250
2.4000
Nr
5
8
Q3
0.6250
2.8000
Q1
0.6250
2.2000
Q2
0.6250
2.2000
QI
0.7500
2.8000
Br
45
68
Q4
0.6250
2.6000
Area
12.0000
16.0000
BI
55
85
N3
2
4

Relative Sensitivity

0.00444162
0.00235918
0.00150934
0.00109052
0.00099188
0.00095354
0.00087944
0.00080367
0.00065139
0.00063096
0.00060552
0.00058311
0.00048237
0.00046502

33
34
35
36
37
38
39

50
0
0

50

80

Vibration (PPV) (8.4800 to 576.000)

Volume (46 to 118)
Pull (1.2000 to 2.4000)
Ovrebreak (12 to 20)
Powder Factor (0.6700 to 1.2400)
Detonator Factor (0.8200 to 2.6400)
Sp Drilling (0.4500 to 0.7600)

The blast design input has been given to the trained network model
and the output was obtained at the end when the neural network
model stopped after 485 cycles. The ANN network developed

150
Actual Value

200

250

300

y =1.88 - 0.53, R2 = 0.94

60

20

0.00020951
0.00020773
0.00019278
0.00016050
0.00015771
0.00009467
0.00008296
0.00008229
0.00006087
0.00002802
0.00001584
0.00000071

100

Figure 11 Validation of actual and predicted values for manual face

0.00021434

Figure 10 Predictions of output for the training examples

44

100

50

Output columns (min to max values)

14 training examples

150

0.00040134
0.00036149
0.00031301
0.00031030

485 cycles. Target error 0.0500 average training error 0.055826

200

70

Figure 9 Relative sensitivity of inut parameters

tbdann1.tvq

y =1.008 + 0.38, R2 = 1

250
ANN Predicted Value

Press refresh to update

300

40
30

10
0
0

20

40

60

80

Figure 12 Validation of actual and predicted values for mechanized face

(Figure 5), normalized errors(Figure 6), errors case-wise(Figure 7)

after training the ANN model, relative importance of input
parameters(Figure 8), relative sensitivity (Figure 9) of input
parameters and predictions of output for training examples
(Figure 10) have been arrived at using the Easy NN Plus Neural
Network Planner.
For assessing the predictability of the ANN model query data sets
were used and the predicted output was compared with the actual
values observed in the field. A comparison has been given in Table 4.
One can infer from the analysis of errors that the blast design results
obtained from ANN model were acceptable. The proposed model
can be refined further by feeding more varied data to make it a close to
general purpose ANN Model.
CONCLUSION
Proper tunnel blast design is mandatory to achieve faster drivage rate
in order to minimize development cost in mining and tunnelling
work. Blast design includes a number of inter-dependent
parameters, which make it more complex to design an optimum
blast. An ANN model has been developed on the theory of back
propagation learning method. Altogether 14 numbers of blast data
have been collected from a metal mine located in eastern India.
It has been found that for the prediction of number of holes, length
of hole, different burdens for cut, stoping and roof holes, powder
IE(I) JournalMN

factor, pull, total charge, maximum charge, etc the model could
predict the output well within the range of five percent error.
However, for parameters like vibration it needs modifications.
Probably more data sets could find a closer prediction in these values.
The database of the software is of self-learning type and over the
time with large number of data it can act as an expert designer.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are thankful to mine authorities for permitting to
undertake the investigations. Authors also acknowledge the support
of Indian School of Mines (ISM) for pursuing the research and
utilize the facilities of the School. This paper reports a part of the
investigations carried out under a MHRD sponsored project to ISM.
The authors gratefully acknowledge MHRD for the same.
REFERENCES
1. R R Chimankar. 'Development of an Intelligent Software for Tunnel Blast
Design using Artificial Neural Network (M Tech Dissertation)'. Indian School
of Mines, Dhanbad, December 2002, p 48.
2. U Langefors and B. Kihlstrom. 'The Modern Techniques of Rock
Blasting'. John Wiley and Sons, 1973, p 23.

Vol 86 , February 2006

3. B R Yama and G T Lineberry. 'Artificial Neural Network Application for a

Predictive Task in Mining'. Mining Engineering, February 1999, p 59.
4. C L Jimeno, E L C Jimeno and J A Francisco. 'Drilling and Blasting of
Rocks'. A A Balkema / Rotterdam/ Brookfield, 1995, p 217.
5. R Gustafson. 'Swedish Blasting Technique'. SPI, 1997, p 23.
6. R Holmberg. 'Charge Calculation for Tunnelling'. Underground Mining
Methods Handbook, AIME, 1982, p 73.
7. J Johansen. 'Modern Trends in Tunneling and Blast Design', Rotterdam,
2002, p 42.
8. T N Hagan. 'Larger Diameter Blastholes A Proposed Means of Increasing
Advance Rates'. Fourth Australian Tunnelling Conference, Melbourne, 1981, p 283.
9. V Rao and H Rao. 'C++ Neural Networks And Fuzzy Logic'. BPB
Publications, New Delhi, 1996, p 104.
10. D E Rumelhart and J A MeClelland (eds). 'Parallel Distributed Processing.
Learning Internal Representation by Error Propagation' by D E Rumelhart,
G E Hinton and R J Williams'. Explotion in the Microstructure of Cognition, 1986,
p 318.
11. V M S R Murthy and K Dey. 'Development of Predictive Models for Blast
Induced Damaged Assessment (BIRD) in Tunnels'. Interim Report, MHRD,
Project No: MHRD, (27)/99-00/111/ME, 2002, p 12.

45