Scribd
Upload
537 views136 pages

Vibrations From Blasting

Uploaded by

María Angela Cornelio Curimania
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
537 views136 pages

Vibrations From Blasting

Uploaded by

María Angela Cornelio Curimania
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 136
ULV Ce by OU eye ie) By David E. Siskind, Ph.D. Vibrations from Blasting, summarizes the results of research by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) and related work Sn a res Ce eee cer ‘almost with its creation in 1910, the US8M was the lead SER ar ed ‘impacts on structures. The USBM's blasting research expertise ‘was scattered and lost when the agency was not funded by the eee eee ree eer chy eee ee ed eee Dre ee ee) Se ee oe rd Mines. He conducted and participated in studies of vibration response and damage to homes and other structures, vibra- tion and airblast generation and propagation. blast produced ean re aoe ead ieee ee ten cet) ee ee er ee ce pee ue ans ee en Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE) since 1995, In 1994 he was awarded the ISEE's Distinguished Service Award. Dr. Siskind is currently the Principal of DESA, D.E. Siskind and errs VIBRATIONS FROM BLASTING VIBRATIONS FROM BLASTING Published by International Society of Explosives Engineers 29100 Aurora Road Cleveland, OH 44139 wwwisecorg Copyright ©2000 Society of Explosives Engineers, Ine ‘The author and publisher have used their best efforts in preparing this book and make no warranty of any kind expressed or implied, ‘with regard to its content. This book is protected by Asian, European, Pan American and U.S.A. Copyright LaW-All rights including that of translation into other laa ‘guages, are reserved. Neither this book nor any part may be repro ‘duced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form of by’ any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 00106691 Author: Siskind, David. Vibrations From Blasting, 1st Edition Includes bibliographic references and index. LYibration 2.Blasting 3. Explosives Engineering, ISBN: 189239614 Printed in the United States of America Acknowledgements. Many people are owed thanks for the genesis and development of this text. It found original life as a background section of a USBM technical report to McAlester Army Ammunition Depot in 1993 and then as a report to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources in 1995. It was gradually expanded in scope and distrib tuted by David E, Siskind and Associates as DESA Reports: DR9, 18 and.-31.The final version, as represented by this text, includes new analyses and research work done for DESA clients between 1996 and 1999. Primary recognition goes to the Blasting Research Group of the ‘Twin Cities Research Center of the U.S, Bureau of Mines. All the USBM projects were team efforts and the results obtained the sum experiences of those teams. Although some were acknowledged through authorship in USBM RT's and IC’s, all deserve recognition here for their contributions: Steve Crum, Calvin Cumerlato, Larry Feetcher, John Kopp, Rolfe Otterness, Willard “Tim” Pierce, Karen Radcliffe/Abata, Steve Rholl, Dave Schulz, Mark Stagg, and Viegil Stachura. Others in the Bureau provided assistance and advice through supervision, graphics, computer use, and manuscript prepa- ration including Pete Chamberlain, Dennis D'Andrea, Richard Dick, ‘Marilyn Gilbertson, Mike Sweeney, Linnae Moey, Arlene Munter, and Jim Otson, ‘Technical reviews for this text were done by Dt, Charles H. Dowding, Lewis L. Oriard, Mark S.Stagg,and Kenneth K. Fischlager. Editorial reviews were provided by Marie Barrett who had been 3 tough but great reviewer when she had been employed by the USBM in the Washington, D.C. area. Finally thanks to the ISEE staff for all their help in getting this to press, and especially Dede ‘Manzoss. —David Siskind vii vit Preface. ‘The mining, quarrying, and construction industries use over 4 bil lion pounds or 2 x 10° tons of commercial explosives per year in the US.A. to fragment rock. A secondary effect of this blasting is ‘exposure of the blast site's neighbors to the possible environmental Impacts of ground vibrations airblast, lyrock, dust, and fumes. Recognizing an environmental problem is straightforward in some ceases. Impacting flyrock and orange fumes are immediate and vist ble manifestations of blasting. However, vibrations and airblast are invisible and thus subject to interpretation, If sufficiently strong, they can produce responses and cracks in homes, which are similar in nature to those caused by a varity of cultural and natural forces, ven when below these significant levels, they can be felt of heard and create apprehension about possible damages, Flyrock and fumes from blasting are safety issues requiring immedi- ate attention. Other effects such as vibrations and airblast require ‘comparisons with some “norms” The blaster has to know if the impacts are typical or whether sitespecific oF practice specific problems exist that should be addressed, Additional practical issues are: being a good neighbor, educing the threat of lawsuits, meeting regulatory levels, and maintaining reasonable costs, ‘This text summarizes the results of research by the US, Bureau of ‘Mines (USBM) and related work by others on vibrations and aisblast from blasting and specifically their impacts on homes and other structures, Starting almost with its creation in 1910, the USBM was the lead organization in addressing blast vibration generation and its impacts on structures. Tests were conducted in the 1930's at quarry sites with sticks of dynamite suspended in front of glass panels to identify aiblast effects. The USBM prepared comprehensive analy: ses and recommendations regarding vibration impacts on three ‘occasions: 1942, 1962 and 1980. ‘The USBM's blasting research expertise was scattered and lost when the agency was not funded by the US.Congress in September 1995, with the concurrence of a miningunitiendly administration, ‘This text is dedicated to the former Blasting Research Group at the ‘Twin Cities Research Center.The USBM mission was the advance ‘ment of science and specifically the control of the eavisonmental effects of mining, protection of the health and safety of workers, and improvement in the productivity and efficiency of the minerals and metals industries, ix Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... se se Mi PREFACE, — a - eee 1 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF SAFE BLASTING VIBRATION CRITERIA Z| 1.4 Induction: The Blasting Problem enna se US, Bure of Mines 1.2. US. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 442. nnnnnnn — 13. US. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656... sn 14 U.S. Buroau of Mines Reports of investigations 8485 nd 8507. 415 Studios Since 1980 or Not Known atthe Tmo of Repert of investigations 8507.3 ‘2 GROUND VIBRATIONS GENERATED BY BLASTING ... 2.1 Blasting asa Vibration Source, 7 Paricle Velocity, Measurement a & POM evn Vibration AMIE nnn ibration Frequency sonnnnsnnnnnininniiniiii® 22. Vibrations From Non-Blasting SOUCES wenn oe 3 VIBRATION CHARACTERISTICS eens — sn 84 Amplitudes of Displacemont, Velocity, and ACCOR nnn 8.2. Frequency of Vibration nnn 83 Selamic Wave Types, 4 MEASUREMENT OF VIBRATIONS, a 42 Measurement Practices. : aes Monitoring Locations a Burial or Attachment Requirements, — 49 Measurement for Propagation Versus CompllaNe2 nnn a4 44 ‘Setsmograph Accuracy and Calibration. sn aay 5 VIBRATION AMPLITUDE AND FREQUENCY VERSUS DISTANCE, csc! 1 Propagation Plots of Blast Vb nnn a7 5.2 Eneray propagation — Effects of Distance, vat lose Distance enn | Fear Distances and Surtace Wave wn 8.9 Scaled Distance nnn 54 Charge Weight Per Delay... The GMs CiteHon nnn — ‘Charge Weights Per Delay at Low-Frequency Sites. Number of Events ina Blas. — 55 Selmograph Arays fr Propagation Determination. ‘56 Propagation of Vibrations from Low-Frequency Site... 1517 Propagation Examples... ‘58 Vibration “Focusing” and Azimuthal Variations. ‘STRUCTURE RESPONSES FROM GROUND VIBRATION... at 6.1 Comer Versus midwall Responses. ne) 62 Responses at Resonance and Dynamic Amplification... 183 Absolite and Relative Responses. 184 Response Example, Natural Frequency and Damping. 165. Response Spectrum AnalS6 \VIBRATION-INDUGED CRACKING IN HOMES AND SAFE-LEVEL CRITERIA, ...37 7A. The Natu of the Safe-Level Blasting Criteria... se 7.2 US, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 8507 Study and Findings. ...97 7.3. Importance of Vibration Frequent 74 Probably of Crack Damage in Homes nnn 75 Dogrees of Bast Damage. vn 7.6 Nature of Bast-Produced Cracking, ‘racking From Non-Biast Cause ann ve ‘Stippage, Separations of Structures, and Open CBS aannnnn REPEATED BLASTING, FATIGUE A 841 Walboard Structure, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Constuction Engineering ROLeaRED LAB rnc entered 82 Masonry Wals, Drexel University, Civil Engineering Department. 48 89 Lab Tests of Wallboard Sections at U.S. Bureau of Mines and Northwestern Univer — sn 49 U.S. Bureau of Mines Test House on Coa Mine Highval, Blasting Stdos..50| Mechanical Shaking of Tost House, ANCO Engineersnnnnnennnnn Non-Blast Responses of Test House... ve US. National Bureau of Standards Tests on 16 Full Scale Concrato Block Wile . ss Eeeeenseasere ra] 88 Overall Findings From Fatigue Test vo fe 9 LOW-FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND DAMAGE STUDIES... 85 ‘8.4 Rinker Quarry in Dade County, Flt sn enn 85, 82. US. Bureau of Mines Montering forthe Otic of Surace Mining in Inciana.65. 983. Construction Site In Flt nnnn . 58 94 U.S, Bureau of Mines High-Ampitude Test a Four Coal Mines 8 95. Low-Frequency Summary... 58 10 VIBRATIONS EFFECTS SPECIAL CASES .oonenninnninnnnnnnnnenT 10:1 Non-Blasing Forces and Responses of Homes. as USS Bureau of Mines Measurements of Non-Blast Fore 57 Adonai Studie of Non Blast Vibrations and Stree 57 102 Stain-Based Faire Criteria. — 9 4103 Angular Distorton Criteria for Structure Damage sce Bulcing Categorie. = cen Damage Degrees. vn 104 Cracking of Conerete and Other Masonry From Vratons.... COriar's Construction Projects Involving Concrete... ‘Gracks in Masonry Foundations. 7 (Cracks in Conerate Pads, Driveways, and Wallways, Bending and Shoar Failure Calculations... ' Tense FE nn 405 Vibrations Effects of SO. nnn : Saturated Cohesionles Soils... Fine Dry Sol — nnn Time Efects on Compaction and Sattlement vs = "Non Vibration Soil and Foundation Problems... Caso Examplo of Vibrations and Bad Soll and ite Gonations.. 10.8 Wills and Buried Uti Resident Water Wellf.rssnssnvssnnnnnnnnnannn = Transmission Pipelines Buried Telephone Lines. 107 House Tales... : BEBRBRR REESE 11 VIBRATIONS IN UNDERGROUND MINES AND TUNNELS.ocsssnnnnnnY ‘1.4 Occupational Safty Versus Enveonmental Concent m 1112. Vinaton in Underground Works From Surface Mining, sons Effects of Depth eceeeeniee 7 7 72 Strycure Effects on Vibration Characteristics. 1113 Vibration From Blasting in Underground Mine nena 1144 Root Falls and instabty From Blast Vibration ‘Selamic tects of Quay Blasting (U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 442).73, Underground Explosion Test Program Final Report (Enginearing Research Associates). — sen Fock Blasting (Langetors and KUO!) onnrnniennnnT® Vieration of Tunnel Due to Adjacent Blasting Operations (Sakiral and item) 74 Citra fr the Proximity of Surface Blasting to Underground Coal Mines a ieseneneneneat re Underground Vibrations From Surface Blasting at Jenny Mine, Kentucky ens ot aeons — 7 ‘Damage to Underground Coal Mines Caused by Surface Mining (Fourie and Green} eonennnnnnnnT Blasting in Ground Excavations and Mines (Singh And ROY) sen 78 ‘Tho Impact of Blasting on Excavation Design (Andou) snnnn77 {115 Summary Analyse of Vibration Risks in Underground Works. 7 12 HUMAN RESPONSE TO VIBRATIONS... eT 12:1 Whole Body Vibrtions—Physiologcal Respanses.. : 73 ‘General Tolerance Guidains. % anaeeenes Tolerance of Persons in Bling. an) 422 ‘Startle and Apprehension Responses to Blasting nen 128 Community Responses to Vibration Environments. 80 Dosage Type Stand at enn my Discrete Events and Responses, 81 CCommunity-Wide Complaints and Blasting Dame. vet nat Drives Communty Concern About Blasting? 8 Cracks Existin All Homes. sen 82 Reguation Based on Community Complain ~ 82 13 AIRBLASTS 0... 83 18.1 Aiblast Generation, the Importance of Contnement cc nnnnnnnnnnB 182 Propagation Curves For Airlat. = _ 87 133 Weather Influences on Aibiast Propagation. 29 134 Albast Etfects on StUetUvrninnnnn Structural Response. Wind Pressure 09. BULGE nnn 92 Cosmetic Cracking and Glass Breskage. : nn Structural or Non-Cosmetic Crackin, sone 185 Human Rosponse to Alflast. nnn 95, Responses of Porsons Inside Homos to Alblasts... vB Perceptions Aro Not ANWayS liable .ccnnnnninnnnne OB 14 REGULATION OF BLASTING. ososnnnnsnnnnn or 444 Ground Vibrant ven 97 142 Airbast. . 98 143 European Standards For VibCtONG creme 15. BLasTine imPAcr SITE PROCEDURES 18.1 Tracking and Monitoring Blast Vibrations at an Active Site At 15.2 Recponding to Complaints and Cisims of Damage 153 Impact Assessment fr Blasting Operation’... a InfoAtON nnn . Blasting Procedures. = Vibration Characteistiescnnsnrn nnn ‘Struct Information enannnnn ‘Alleged Damage and Pest inspection 154 Use of Information Collect ennen REFERENCES. sent INDEX. se xiv CHAPTER 1 Historical Review of Safe Blasting Vibration Criteria 1.1 INTRODUCTION: THE BLASTING PROBLEM Mine, quarry, and construction blasts are relatively wellconfined blasts intended to fragment and move rock. However, they do produce some ‘ground vibrations and airblast as wasted energy, Questions frequently arise about blast vibration effects and specifically about whether vibrations can ‘oF could have caused cracking and other damage in homes and other struc tures. The answers depend primarily on vibration levels and frequencies, and to a lesser degree on site- and structure specific factors, Where meas- ‘urements are not available, assessments require knowledge of some or all of these factors: locations, charge sizes, blast procedures, weather conditions, ‘topography, geology, and structure response characteristics U.S. Bureau of Mines As the lead organization studying blast effects, the U.S. Bureau of Mines: (USBM) prepared three comprehensive reports over a petiod of 40 years on vibration generation, propagation, and impacts to low-rise, residentialtype structures. USBM findings, combined with the work of others, has led to an understanding of how housessize structures respond to blasting and rec ‘ommendations for safe levels and practices, From these findings, the USBM developed new wide-spectrum blast vibration criteria for residentialtype structures which take into account response amplifications of house upper stories and blast vibration sources ranging from close-in small construction {0 large surface coal mines, 1.2 U.S. BUREAU OF MINES BULLETIN 442 ‘The first USBM attempts at a comprehensive review of safe blasting were undertaken by Thoenen and Windes based on studies in the 1930's. Resulting were Bulletin 442 (1942) for vibrations and Windes’ Report of Investigations (RD. 3708 (1943) for altblast. The vibration criterion was 1 based on acceleration but was not well defined, with a broad caution" zone 6f 0.1 10 1.0 g The aisblast criteria were also not very useful, being high val ‘ues derived from small unconfined charges impacting nearby isolated panes ff glass.An attempt to more precisely define safe vibration limits resulted in [RI 5968 by Duvall and Fogelson in 1962.This report was the fist to recom ‘mend the use of particle velocity, as opposed to displacement of acceler tion, and gave a safedevel criterion of 2 in/s 1.3 U.S. BUREAU OF MINES BULLETIN 656 Bulletin 656 was a second-generation comprehensive summary by the LUSBM, Included were blast vibration measurements from many quarries plus criteria for safe levels for both vibrations and aitblast (Nicholls, Johnson, and Duvall, 1971)-The publication date ofthis Bulletin is mislead: ing as the recommendations for ground vibrations were those from the 1962 RI 5968 and the guidelines for aisblast were even older, being based ‘on Windes' 1943 report. By the mid-1970's serious questions were being raised about the adequacy ‘ofboth the vibrations and airbast criteria in Bulletin 656.The USBM's 2in/s vibration criteria had been adopted by some states to regulate blasting impacts, but large numbers of complaints were still being received from ‘persons concerned by vibrations they were experiencing. At the prompt ing of state government regulators, particularly those in Pennsylvania and Ilinois, and the concerned mining and explosives industries, the USBM ink tiated a pair of new studies in 1974 and 1975 to address both vibrations and. blast. 1.4 U.S. BUREAU OF MINES REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS 8485 ‘AND 8507 Following 5 years of field work and analyses, two reports were prepared ‘hat built on Bulletin 656 and other existing and applicable data from stud Jes done worldwide, These two major investigations included additional ‘measurements and inspections by the USBM and others, the addition of larger surface coal mine blasts and small construction blasts, measurements of structural response, and initial results of tests for fatigue and strength of construction materials. These two summaries, one on airblast, RI 8485 (Giskind et al, 1980a),and one on ground vibration, RI 8507 (Siskind eta 1980b), recommended frequency-based controls for prevention of thresh: old hairline or cosmetic eracks Which are more restrictive at lower excite tion frequencies. Upon publication, the vibration criteria in RI 8507 produced adverse ‘esponses from some industry representatives even while being recognized by the 1981 Applied Research Award of the U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council. As safeevel guidelines, they reduced a long-existing 24n/s safe level eiterion by a factor of 3 to 4 in the low-frequency regime. They have since become accepted and widely adopted in whole or part as appropri ate and practical guidelines by the Federal Office of Surtace Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMD, many state regulatory programs, the {insurance industry through the American Insurance Services Group (AISG, 1990), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI A10.7, 1998). ‘The same Society of Explosives Engineers that criticized the vibration study in 1981 (Pit & Quarry, August 1981) gave its author their Distinguished Service Award in 1994 The limits in RL 8507 remain the most restrictive eriteria in existence that are based upon measured structural responses and observations of cracking correlated to specific vibration events. They provide a guaranteed safe level to guide blasting practices and limits suitable for regulations. They account for the widest possible range and worst-case conditions for low-tise resi lentil structures, 1.5 STUDIES SINCE 1980 OR NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS 8507 Research done since RY's 8485 and 8507 by the USBM and others has reat firmed the conclusions from those studies even when the authors’ inten: tions were to find exceptions (Siskind, 1991). Ina follow-up to RI 8507, the USBM examined fatigue effects from long-term, repeated vibrations in an cightpart study that included a fullsize house specially built for the pur pose. Other parts of this comprehensive study involved testing of con- struction components and materials in the agency's own labs and through studies done Jor the USBM at Drexel and Northwestern Universities, the US.Army Comps of Engineers, and the US. Bureau of Standards (now NIST) n Washington D.C. (RI 8896, Stagg et al, 1984). This work is described in Chapter 8 Several studies have compared blasting, natural, and human-induced responses in homes (Fang, 1976; Stagg et al., 1984; White et al, 1993a,b. ‘These results are described in sections 8.6 and 10.1. One community neae 1 surface mine in Indiana was examined over a Gyear period by a mult agency task force that included the USBM, U.S, Geological Survey, and US. Army Corps of Engineers (Crum ct a, 1992;Siskind eta, 1993;O8M, 1994) USBM studies have recently addressed structure responses and cracking 3 BRATONS FROM BLASTING potential from vibrations at and below structure natural frequencies (the “low-frequency problem’) in Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida (Crum and Siskind, 1993; Crum and Pierce, 19954; Pierce et al, 1996; Siskind et al, 1996a; Crum, 1997) This work is described in Chapter 9. CHAPTER 2 Ground Vibrations Generated by Blasting 2.1 BLASTING AS A VIBRATION SOURCE Ground vibrations from blasting are acoustic (as opposed to electromag. nctic) waves that propagate through the earth. hey are also termed “seis mic” waves because their propagation characteristics are similar to the ‘ground motions produced ropagation velocities, amplitudes, and frequen- ‘ies of both blasting and earthquake waves are related to the elastic prop. cetties of the rock, soil, and other materials through which they travel, Particle Velocity, Measurement at a Point Ground vibration measurements of velocity, displacement, or acceleration are made at a point in the ground and measure the motion at that point of “particle” Time history records, or waveforms, are continuous representa tions ofthe particle my that p ‘of parameters, some of which ar ‘The most important of the design parameters for vibration amplitude are the maximum amount of explosive detonating within a time interval, ger crally 8 ms and usually called "pounds per delay" or “charge weight per ‘delay? and the distance between the shot and the location of concern, OF lesser importance for amplitude are the blaschole diameter, initiation 5 imensions of burden, spacing, subdrilling, how well st hole (coupling), and the direction of initiation sequencing, the layout the explosive fis the pening hole). Vibration Frequency Vibration frequency is particularly sensitive to absolute (rather than sealed) distance and the nature of the transmitting media. Vibrations traveling through rock retain the higher frequencies in contrast to soil as a transmit- ting media. oil layers over rock produce low frequency vibrations through both selective attenuation and the generation of surface waves (Chapter 5) Vibration frequencies are possibly related to the initiation sequence inter vals, however, this effect is usually masked by scatter in the timing, RI 8507 (Giskind et al, 1980b) describes the effects of these design parameters and studies done to identify their relative importance. Non-design parameters affecting vibrations are topography and the geology of both the transmitting ‘media and measurement sie, 2.2 VIBRATIONS FROM NON-BLASTING SOURCES ‘There are many sources of dynamic or transient vibrations in addition 10 blasting. Cultural sources, such as traffic, trains, and construction activities along with typical amplitudes and distances, are summarized in Table 1 Measurements were made on or in the ground. Not included are long-per- ‘od events not normally thought of as vibrations, such as frost, temperature and humidity cycles, and soil shrinkandswell responses to hydration ‘eycles. Nor is there any data included on earthquakes of storms, Of course, soll pressures, slope failures, hurricanes, and earthquakes are the largest orces impacting most structures. Even the unnoticed strain responses from temperature and humidity cycles exceed those from most conventional blasting, TABLE 1. Vibrations From Non-Blast Sources imme, 1B ny ot fenioee P SF San i Hasso are is ea cman i ’ CHAPTER 3 Vibration Characteristics 3.1 AMPLITUDES OF DISPLACEMENT, VELOCITY, AND ACCELERATION Particle motion can be measured and/or described as displacement, veloci 'y, oF acceleration, Current practice favors velocity for blast-produced ‘ground vibrations. Unless otherwise specified, "peak particle velocity” (PPV), or peak ground vibration,"is defined as the highest particle velocity ‘of any of the three components of motion without respect to plus or minus, sign. Vector sums are not recommended. In general, velocity, acceleration, and displacement are related through differentiation and integration. Often, vibrations can be approximated by sine waves or parts of sine waves. This allows simple conversions between. velocity (V), acceleration (A), and dlis- placement (D), where Fis the frequency: A= 2ntv = @2nn?D v= 2x0 For accelerations in, the value in inches per second squared must be divided by 386. Some modern seismographs calculate displacements and/or accelerations: {rom velocities. However, few use true integration and differentiation, and they occasionally report inexact results. This is likely from problems with Frequency determination, When concerned with displacements and/or accelerations, it is wise to check the seismographcaleulated values by ‘cxamining the waveforms. Figure 1 summarizes the features of a seismic ‘waveform, 3.2 FREQUENCY OF VIBRATION ‘Vibration frequency can be calculated ina variety of ways including Fourier and response spectrum techniques as well a inversion of the time periods read between zero crossings on the records. The Fast Fourier Transform or 9 ‘LASTING VERATION WAVEFORM Ample versus ie “he vation por 7) ee tne a Fort rece, ample is parle cere for ae earl vvaon ef 6 ‘lat, Weald sis be ate a cond pt of ‘Sepacemercepanng om meson nd fecorang sir ned Tha Migs valu Frequency () 1/7 or “ei pa second Settee em p50 Faria veloty (Py bea atid 7) Poti (an taquney) ean uly be Inthe vant, ing macs represent sma by measur ha ween zero 01 secon 160 me) andthe psd ak Stesings, acuta Yor a record which 86 me (2088) Te reqanay i Y.0a8 hess unr or one dominant requecy.” whch equa 11 He ‘tmaon can bo apposinaid bya sng nthe exam; the PPV i 045 no wave g. arya hamonie maton peak ‘hw peak sceatraton fsbo 32 Wet Veto (¥), aplcaret (0), sha when co 0.08 8 Sdn ee ‘he pak epicement 00089, = Via and aac FIGURE 1. Seiemic wavetorm features. FFT can be used to compute the frequency distribution of the vibration time history asa continuous spectrum but docs not directly preserve ampli ‘tude information contained in the time signal. The FFT is useful for signal processing (©, filtering) and other types of frequency-domain” analysis because the time signal can be reconstructed by reversing the FFT process Response spectra also portray frequency distribution. Dowding (1996) has shown that response spectra with zero damping are proportional to Fourier frequency spectra, Vibration wave periods measured from the records (e.g,,2er0 crossings) are ‘less rigorous method for frequency determination than the FFT, but main tain the intrinsic relationship between frequency and time-history ampli tude. Frequency is computed as the inverse of the period, or time needed for one cycle of oscillation (Figure 1) f=, where Fis frequency, in hertz (Hz), and is the period, in seconds, 10 Analysis based on PPV and the associated frequency is commonly used in blasting regulation because they correlate with observations of cosmetic structural Cracking and more severe forms of damage (Nicholls eta, 1971, Siskind et a, 19805), 3.3 SEISMIC WAVE TYPES Seismic or elastic waves in geologic media are of several types. General these specific wave phases are of interest to earthquake seismologists who use them to diagnose information such as distances to the source. The “pi mary" wave is also called the Pwave or compressional wave by theoretical seismologists.t has particle motions which are in the radial direction and. has the highest propagation velocity (and therefore arrive first. Next to arrive are the "secondary" waves (shea or S.waves) with particle motions perpendicular to the radial line These are of two types, horizontally and ver tically oriented particle motions. P-and S-waves ace relatively high frequen- cy and are collectively called "body waves” Slowest and last to arrive are the low frequency surface waves. The most significant is typically the Rayleigh wave with retrograde eliptical particle motions, similar to ocean ‘waves impacting a beach. (Siskind, 1989). These are common where neat surface soil layer overlay rock, Blasting seismologists seldom concern them: selves with wave types, measuring and analyzing the largest amplitude on a record regardless of wave type. However, specific wave types are relevant ‘when generation mechanisms are of concer (Chapter 5), u CHAPTER 4 Measurements of Vibrations 4.1 SEISMOGRAPHS Ground vibrations from blasting are typically measured with motion sens ing tansducers attached to or within the same case as a digital or analog. recorder. These specialized. “blasting seismographs" ace portable battery ‘operated devices and most are self-triggering. Some research applications ‘may involve the use of individual sensors and separate recorders, Seismographs and similar types of instrumentation measure and recond ‘ground movement in three mutually orthogonal (perpendicular) directions, ‘or “components of motion’ with two axes in the horizontal plane and one in the vertical-The horizontal components ate traditionally labled as “Ion gitudinal” or radial” if aligned in the direction of the blast) and “transverse” (perpendicular to the direction of the blast), When not so aligned, they should be alternatively identified as"H1"and"H2, respectively’ There is also fone channel for the airbast, 4,2 MEASUREMENT PRACTICES Monitoring Locations Scismographs are placed at the point of concern, usually next to the closest structure not owned by those responsible forthe blasting, Despite site vari- ations and effects on vibration amplitudes, itis good practice to measure on the ground and at the nearest house (with the possible exception of the aacrossit monitoring problem). More than one seismograph may be need- ced where vibration amplitudes are eritial andor structure density is high. Many sites monitored by the USBM team that were claimed to have anom. lous vibration amplitudes were found to fall close (o if not actually on the average. Scismograph placement is intended to assess the vibration impacting a structure, and should be measuring an*input”For this reason, and to be con- 3 sistent with the studies of structure response and damage, the seismo- ‘graph's measuring transducer should be located outside and next to the structure. Where measurements must be made inside a structure, the trans ‘ducer should be on a foundation wall which isin contact with the outside soll and at or close to ground level (Siskind et al., 1985) Below-ground basement floor measurements should be avoided as not rep. resentative of ground surface motions upon which safe criteria and regula tions are based. AS a possible addition to ground vibration measurement, "upperfloor measurements of structure response can be obtained to deter- ‘mine if responses are within the range of structures studied and covered by the recommended criteria These transducers should be placed in siructur al corners and as high up as possible, Response measurements are discussed in Chapter 6. Burial or Attachment Requirements TUSBM tests evaluated the need for firm attachment or shallow burial of transducer sensors for good coupling for close:n monitoring. Duvall, 1961, recommended firm attachment when vibrations are above 0.5 g for low and ‘wide transducers and above 0.1 g for transducers that are tll or have low coefficients of friction (USBM RI 3708). Stagg and Engler, 1980, simplified this recommendation to burial whenever >0.2 g is expected (USBM RI '8506).The problem arises from the combination of horizontal and vertical motions, which can cause slippage, rotation, and in extreme cases tipping, ‘These unwanted responses are motions not representative of the ground being monitored. Just placing sensors (spiked of not) on the ground, on a slab, or with sandbags is not sufficient when vibrations are above about 0.2 £8, Note:0.2.g corresponds to 0.61 in/s at 20 Hz and 1.23 in/sec at 10 Hz, ‘The Blast Vibration and Seismograph Section ofthe International Society of Explosives Engincers as developed *Seismograph Field Practice Guidelines’ for blasting seismographs published in the 2nd printing of the 17th Edition Blasters’ Handbook (ISEE, 2000)-These guidelines recommend, as a preferred method, firm busial or attachment for vibrations between 0.2 ‘and 1.0 g and requires such practices for vibrations above 1.0 9, 4.3 MEASUREMENT FOR PROPAGATION VERSUS COMPLIANCE Most seismographs are placed near homes for compliance with sale prac tices oF regulations. Such data are of limited value when information is needed on vibration generation and propagation. For example, OSM allows the development of a sitespecific propagation equation for use ia place of its standard scaled distances as a vibration control option. Similarly, com> pliance data may be of limited use in predicting likely vibrations at « non “ monitored site.The reason is that attenuation relations cannot be reliably derived from data collected over too narrow a range of distances, scaled or otherwise. To accurately study vibration generation and propagation, itis necessary to use logarithmically spaced linear arrays of seismographs from the blast zone (as close as 50 oF 100 ft) to as large a distance as needed or ‘can be measured (up to about 25,000 f1).USBM reports contain many exam- ples of such plots, such as, in Bulletin 656 (Nicholls et al, 1971), RI 8507 iskind, ¢ al, 1980b), and RI 9226 (Siskind, et al., 1989). Monitoring for vibration propagation and propagation examples are given in Chapter 5. 4.4 SEISMOGRAPH ACCURACY AND CALIBRATION In addition to standardized field practices, the International Society of Explosives Engineers’ Blast Vibration and Seismograph Section is develop- ing a set of performance standards for blasting seismographs. The September 30,1999, version call fora frequency response range of 210 250 Hz, or better, for both vibration and airblast channels. Accuracy require- ‘ments are: £5 pt or 20,02 in/s, whichever is large; for vibration, and 10 pet or #1 dB, whichever is lager, for aiblast. This minimum accuracy applies within the frequency range of 4 to 125 Hy. Other requirements deal ‘with a maximum transducer density of 150 Ib/f®, which is a specific grav \y of 2.40, sampling requirement of 21,000 per second per channel, and an operating temperature range of 10 to 120°E C12 to 49°C) 15 CHAPTER 5 Vibration Amplitude and Frequency Versus Distance 5.1 PROPAGATION PLOTS OF BLAST VIBRATION A propagation plot or attention Ee Sea (Cetensepirenenianee ace ae wy express (palilevelocRlesrind stances ean e scaled adjusted for charge weights, fee Section 53) or unsealed, Determination ofthe propagation chasers, tics of ground vibrations Cand abla) at ste canbe weful or contoling ons where levels could exceed compliance limits, Ste “craton is obtained by using aay of sesmographs oF 2 few sciamographs and many blasts and measuring PPV at various de tances rom the Dist 5.2 ENERGY PROPAGATION — EFFECTS OF DISTANCE Propagation effects and geology change the amplitude and frequency char- acter of ground vibrations as they travel from the blast area to measurement locations. The most important influence is dissipation, or-geometric spread ing,’ where the finite amount of vibration energy fills an increasingly larger volume of earth as it travels outward in all digections away from the blast. ‘The consequence is generally an exponential decrease in vibration ampli- tude with increasing distance from the source (approximately the inverse ‘square law), Other propagation effects are losses of energy’ through absorption and dis- persion (where different frequency components travel at different propa sation velocities), and the formation of surface waves. Generally, the paran- ters with the strongest influences on blast vibration amplitude are simple distance and the charge weight per delay. Ground vibration frequencies are Iso influenced by distance and geology (Siskind et al, 19805, 1987, and 1989), a Close Distances Within a few hundred (0 about 1,000 ft from larger miningtype blast, ground vibrations are dominated by relatively high frequencies created from the timedelayed detonations of the individual blast holes. The exact distance is dependent on how “influential” the ground is. Current blast ink tiator and explosives technology only allows limited control of ground vibration amplitudes and dominant frequencies close (0 the blast. New accurate initiators may improve controllability of vibration frequency and at sreater distances, Far Distances and Surface Waves At distances beyond a few hundred fect, surface waves tend to dominate the vibration wavetrain, Surface waves are particular types of low-frequency seismic waves generated by and characteristic of the geometry, geologic structure, and composition, Where the vibration wave train is mosty surface ‘waves, changes in shot design have litle effect on ground vibration fre «quencies and peak amplitudes. ‘The strongest sources of surface waves are low-velocity layers (particularly soil and fil) over harder, more competent material ('velocity" here is prop- gation velocity, not particle velocity) Surface waves develop in as litle as 100 ft from thick horizontal low-velocity layers. For a strong velocity con- trast, the surface wave frequency will approximate Vy/4h where Vy is the propagation velocity of body waves in the upper layer and hi is the layer thickness. Surface waves corresponding fo P- and S-wave interactions with structural interfaces are Rayleigh and Love waves, respectively. Qin sore ne ant quar aeas th hick sol agers i ‘lacial oF streambed deposits found surface waves with frequen- cies of 4 to 8 Hz and higher amplitudes compared to vibrations propagat- ing through solid rock at comparable distances and charge weights. These relatively higher amplitudes of particle velocity result more from construc- Live wave reinforcement from charges too close together in time compared to theit relatively long wave periods than from any geologicallyrelated amplitude enhancement. In southwestern Indiana coal stripping, dominant ‘ground vibration frequencies as low as 4 Hz were found in areas dominat- ‘ed by glacial deposits (Siskind et a, 1989), Similar cases of low frequencies ‘were also found in Pennsylvania and Florida (Chapter 9). Figure 2 shows vibration waves with different frequencies and durations. Figure 3 shows the development of sueface waves at larger distances from a single hole at surface coal mine ‘The selatively efficient transmission of low compared (0 high frequencies Gower attenuation) and the generation of low-frequency surface waves form the basis of OSM's more restrictive safe-level criteria for greater dis: tances. These are: 1.25 ins within 300 ft, 1.0 in/s 300 to 5,000 ft, and 0.75 in/s for distances greater than 5,000 Ft 18 1300 tidoiay. From UBoM RI-9220, Ste 2 19 ramon fron aasrING 5.3 SCALED DISTANCE Dividing the distances by a scaling factor of the charge weight allows com: parisons between blasts of different sizes. The best value fora sealing factor depends on how vibration increases with charge and is dependent on ‘charge shape,and to some degree, site characteristics such as confinement and material composition, Most vibration analyses use square root scaled distance (SRSD) or cube soot scaled distance (CRSD), SRSD is defined as the distance (feet) between the blast and the monitoring station divided by the square root of the maximum explosive charge weight (pouinds) per 8:ms delay period. CRSD is used to study aitblast propagation (and sometimes also ground vibration) and employs the cube root of the maximum per- delay charge weight. In practice either can be used, of alternatively, site specific beset scaling which will be neither SRSD or CRSD (Snodgrass and Siskind, 1974), Because of site variations from geological and source func: ‘ion complexity, it falls to the quality of fit (correlation coelficient) and data scatter (standard deviation) to show if the chosen scaling factor is reason: able, 5.4 CHARGE WEIGHT PER DELAY The &-ms Criterion ‘The ms criterion isa wellknown and applied rule for defining separate" ‘charges for predicting vibration amplitudes. However, the genesis ofthis eri terion is not well understood: The >8ms time between delays is from USBM. RI 6151, which examined singlerow quarry blasts of| "rand 34 ms dcys between fees Duval ea 5 A that,“except for the Ooms delay the length of delay and number of holes did ‘ot influence average vibration levels, for cases of one hole per delay” The authors therefore recommended the use of no fess than 9 ms to ensure vibration waves did not constructively interfere (and add together to increase vibrations) ult is not surprising with typical vibration fre ence a eS 50 40 N30 hn on ete place a second arriving wave one-fourth cycle out of phase with the previ ‘ous detay, e Charge Weights Per Delay at Low-Frequency Sites Recent studies of sites with low-frequency vibrations have found the ‘Sms criterion apparently too short to effectively separate charges. For a4 Hz wave (with a period of 250 ms), 8 ms is far too short to create destruc tive wave interference and a delay closer (0 60 ms is needed (Siskind et a, 1987 and 1989) The problem shows up in the propagation plots where such sites appear (0 generate abnormally high vibrations because the effec tive charge sizes are being underestimated. One way to diagnose this is to compare single charge blasts (signature shots) with production blasts, IF ‘measured vibrations are the same, then the effective charges (per delay) are also the same, Most sites described in RI's 9078 and 9226 do not pass this 20 8 PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY, in/s Key © Single-charge shot ® Production shots 2,446 2 Production sot @ o r 0 109) "1000 SOUARE-ROOT-SCALEO DISTANCE, f1/1b’? FIGURE 4. Propagation plots of peak ground vibrations from eight blasts at the ‘Same coal mine site as shown in Figure 3, From USBM AI 9226 Siekind et aly 1989). test, with Figure 4 showing an example, Where wave reinforcement between charges must be avoided, delays between charges should be at Jeast one-fourth of the period of the dominant wave frequency. Sections 5.6 and 5.7 deal with propagation plots and vibration prediction for low-ire- ‘quency sites ‘Number of Events in a Blast Counting every delay a8 a “blast” for purposes of estimating the total num- ber of events and the potential for fatigue damage is an obvious fallacy, anyone experienced in reading vibration records can attest. The idea of a neaons Fm AsTING delays isto crete phase shits sufcient for desrucivelnereence between scpunte the wavelet in

You might also like