Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.

143-156, 1992 0148-9062/92 $5.00 + 0.00

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Cop~r:ght 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ROCK MECHANICS

COMMISSION ON TESTING METHODS

S U G G E S T E D M E T H O D F O R BLAST V I B R A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G

CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 144

Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 145
Character of Blast Excitation ................................................................................................. 145
Measurement Techniques and Instruments .............................................................................. 149
Evaluation of Measurements ................................................................................................... 152
References .............................................................................................................................. 156
Appendix: Permanent Degradation and Displacement o f Adjacent Rock ............................. 156

Coordinator
C. H. Dowding (U.S.A.)

143
144 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGF:-TED METHOD

INTRODUCTION
The President of the Commission on Testing Methods appointe?, the Coordinator to organize a
Working G r o u p to draft a Suggested Method for blast vibration monitoring on I December 1988.
Since that appointment, the working group has reviewed three successivel? narrowed guidelines dated
Spring 1989, Summer 1990 and Spring 1991. This guideline fail~ under Category II: Engineering
Design Tests. within the In S i t u Group, Item 8 of Table 1. The purpose of this method is to specify
procedures, and to achieve some degree of standardization without inhibiting the development or
improvement of techniques.
Any person interested in these recommendations and wishing to suggest additions or modifications
should address his remarks to the Secretary General, International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Lab6ratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Avenida do Brasil, Lisboa 5, Portugal.

Table 1. Test categories--priority order for standardization~

Category I: Classification and Characterization
Rock material (laboratory tests):
(I) Density, water content, porosity, absorption
(2) Strength and deformability in uniaxial compression: point load
strength
(3) Anisotropy indices
(4) Hardness, abrasiveness, attrition, driUability
(5) Permeability
(6) Swelling and slake-durability
(7) Sound velocity
(8) Micro-petrographic descriptions
Rock mass (field obserrations ):
(9) Joint systems: orientation, spacing, openness, roughness, ge-
ometry, filling and alteration
(10) Core recovery, rock quality designation and fracture spacing
(I 1) Seismic tests for mapping and as a rock quality index
(12) Geophysical logging of boreholes
Category II: Engineering Design Tests
Laboratoo':
(1) Determination of strength envelope and elastic properties
(triaxial and uniaxial compression: tensile tests)
(2) Direct shear tests
(3) Time-dependent and plastic properties
In situ:
(4) Deformability tests
(5) Direct shear tests
(6) Field permeability, ground-water pressure and flow monitor-
ing: water sampling
(7) Rock stress determination
(8) Monitoring of rock movements, support pressures, anchor
loads, rock noise and vibrations
(9) Uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial compressive strength
(I0) Rock anchor testing
aThis Table will be superseded as the Commission updated
the priorities--J. A. Hudson, Commission President and Journal
Editor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
C. H. Dowding (U.S.A.) coordinated the working group and prepared the 1st, 2nd and 3rd drafts.
Extensive written comments were received from B. New (U.K.), F. Ouchterlony (Sweden), D.
Siskind (U.S.A.), K. Sassa (Japan). Written comments were received from J. Esteves (Portugal),
E. Fernandez (Spain), O. Mueller (Hungary), A. Ghose (India). Copies of the drafts have been sent
to D. Beitzer (Fed. Rep. Germany), J. Brinkman (South Africa), P. Calder (Canada), T. Li and
T. Xu (P.R. China), V. Rosai and M. L e r n (Mexico), and A. Schwenzfeier (France).
 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD
Suggested Method for Blast Vibration
Monitoring
Scope
1. This guideline is separated into three main sections.
The first section, Character of Blast Excitation, defines
the terminology necessary to describe blasting vibrations
and the associated air over pressure. Importance of
dominant frequencies of excitation and structural re-
sponse is introduced here and is emphasized throughout
the document. The second section, Measurement Tech-
niques and Instrumentation, describes generic attributes
of instruments necessary to measure time histories of the
blast-induced disturbances. Special emphasis is placed
on computerized systems. Guidance is given for the
choice and deployment of instruments, both at the
beginning and continuation of a project. The third
section, Evaluation of Measurements, presents defi-
nitions of structural response. Explanation is given for
the need of studies with immediate pre- and post-blast
inspection to separate weather- and blast-induced re-
sponse. Guidance is also given for monitoring response
of rock masses and buried structures.
(a) While the subject of this guideline is the measure-
ment of blast-induced, transient or vibratory displace-
ment, effects of blast-induced permanent displacements
are included in the Appendix for completeness as they
are associated with significant transient effects at rela-
tively small distances. Whenever vibration response is a
legitimate concern, these permanent displacements can
be more important than the vibrations.
Character of Blast Excitation
2. As shown in Fig. 1, both the ground and airborne
disturbances (upper-four time histories) produce struc-
ture response (lower-four time histories). Because of the
importance of excitation frequency in determining this
structural response, the full waveform or time history of
the motions should be recorded. When a critical location
in a structure is known, blast response is best described
by measurement of the strain at that location. Alterna-
tively, excitation particle velocity (that shown in Fig. l)
can be measured outside the structure of concern (U.S.)
or on the structure's foundation (Europe); however,
many recent cracking studies have correlated visual
observations of cracking with excitation particle velocity
measured in the ground.
GROUND MOTION
3. Ground motion can be described by three mutually
perpendicular components labelled L (longitudinal), T
145
(b) Transient effects result from the vibratory nature
of the ground and airborne disturbances that propagate
outward from a blast. In this discussion, it is assumed
that no permanent displacements are produced in or on
the rock or soil mass surrounding the blast. Thus the
only effects are those associated with the vibratory
response of facilitities. Transient means that the peak
displacement is only temporary (i.e. lasts less than
one-tenth of a second) and the structure or rock mass
returns to its original position.
(c) This document implicitly separates measurement
of vibration to control cosmetic cracking from that
to reduce human response by presenting only studies
of blast-induced cosmetic cracking. Differing cultures
have differing thresholds of the toleration of vibration.
Some have so little that urban blasting is prohibited
altogether. Others have a great deal more than the
regularly allowed 5 cm/sec maximum particle velocity
at high excitation frequencies. Since it is unlikely
that the physics of cracking changes at national
borders, these national variations are certainly influ-
enced by several factors in addition to the crack suscep-
tibility of structures. Additional factors such as human
response as well as administrative and political expedi-
ency must be recognized as separable from cracking
in the measurement and evaluation of ground
motions.
(transverse) and V (vertical) in Fig. 1. The L and T
directions are oriented in the horizontal plane with L
directed along the line between the blast and recording
transducer. When a study focuses upon structural re-
sponse, axes can be labelled HI, H2 and V, with H 1 and
H2 oriented parallel to the structure's principal axes.
(a) Variation of peak motions in each component (L,
V and T in Fig. 1) has led to difficulty in determination
of the most important. Horizontal motions seem to
control the horizontal response of walls and superstruc-
tures, and vertical motions seem to control the vertical
response of floors. In an absolute sense, the peak ground
motion and thus ground strain is the maximum vector
sum of the three components, which usually occurs at the
largest peak of the three components, the dashed line in
Fig. 1. This true maximum vector sum is not the
pseudo-maximum vector sum calculated with the max-
ima for each component (dots in Fig. 1) no matter their
time of occurrence. The pseudo-maximum vector sum
146 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION M O N I T O R I N G S U G G E S T E D M E T H O D

maximum maximum
ground motion superstructure resp.
I

Long. ,,,.Vvv,~vvu Vv v~ - 3.20 mm/s

A ''u" 9 ,' B excRatlon
Trans.
.... ~ , ^ a , A A / ~ ,,,,, r~ ^. 4.14 Ops)
-'-v,tr'v vV v,_v "'v velocity
VerL p^,,.a..~v p . . . ^ _ A ~ ^ ^
vV . . . . r . . . . ~ " V V "" ~ ,.r 2.69
, ........... ^ M^A, 109 dB
Air
'--', ..... yv"
I

dl(L) ._^A^A^^ ^AA,^~5.,, ~ t~-~^^.hA. 8.18

-'vv'Tv "" v ' v " v ~ w "" v',vv v" MID
WALL (15-25 Hz)
dl(T) .~, .... 1,.,..-.. ~., ^ ~ ^ ^ = 7.26 relponl4
ItlWln/!VVV"v'V v v V ~ -- v ---
011a)
9.17 velc~
v, SUPER (6-7 Hz)
STRUCTURE
d,(L) 9.24
~,--yv-vv vV [ I IV V ~ v "-"
I
I

1/fa

Time
Fig. 1. Comparisonof blast excitation by ground and air-borne disturbancesand residential structure response of walls and
superstructure. Measurementswere made some 2000ft (600m) from a typicalsurface coal miningblast (after Dowding[10]).

may be as much as 40% greater than the true maximum relatively larger " R " amplitude compared to the "P/S"
vector sum, which is normally 5-10% greater than the amplitude.
maximum, single-component peak.
(b) In general, experimental observations of threshold
TRANSIENT NATURE OF BLAST MOTIONS
or cosmetic cracking, which form the basis of blasting
controls in North America, have been correlated with 4. Great care should be taken not to confuse the
the maximum single component regardless of direction. effects of steady-state, single-frequency, harmonic
Therefore, use of the pseudo-maximum vector sum for motions with those of transient, irregular blast motions.
control provides a large, unaccounted for, factor of As can be seen in Fig. I, the maxima of blast-induced
safety. motions last only one or two cycles at a relatively
(c) Two principal wave types are produced by blast- constant amplitude and frequency. Thus they are not
ing, body (P/S) surface (R) and are illustrated by the continuous (last many cycles) or steady-state (have
ground motion in Fig. 1 measured some 600 m from a constant frequency and amplitude).
typical surface coal mining blast. Body waves travel
through earth materials, whereas surface waves travel
SINUSOIDAL APPROXIMATION
close to surfaces and interfaces of earth materials. The
most important surface wave is the Rayleigh wave, 5. Typical blast vibrations, no matter the wave type,
denoted R on the vertical trace in Fig. 1. Body waves can can be approximated as sinusoidally varying in either
be further subdivided into compressive (compression/ time or distance as shown by the time variations in
tension) or sound-like waves, and distortional or shear Fig. 2a and b. This approximation is similar to the
waves, denoted as P/S on the vertical trace in Fig. 1. motion of a cork caused by a passing water wave.
Explosions produce predominantly body waves at Displacement of the cork from its at-rest position is
small distances which propagate outward in a spherical similar to the displacement u of a particle in the ground
manner until they intersect a boundary such as another from its at-rest position. Similarly, the cork's velocity, as
rock layer, soil or the ground surface. At this intersec- it bobs up and down ti is analogous to that of a particle
tion, shear and surface waves are produced. Rayleigh in the ground, hence the term particle velocity. The wave
surface waves become important at larger transmission shape that excites the cork can be described by its
distances as illustrated in the vertical trace by the wavelength 2, the distance between wave crests; the wave

Time ( t ) ~j Distonce ( x )
Fig. 2. Sinusoidal approximations: (a) sinusoidal displacement at a fixed point (x = constant); and (b) sinusoidal displacement
at one instant (t = constant) [1].
 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD 147

speed or propagation velocity c at which the wave travels o, Surface

past the cork; and the frequency f, or the number of co(~l mine bla~n(~
times the cork bobs up and down in 1 sec. Frequency f o3
is equal to l I T or the reciprocal of the period or time
it takes the cork to complete one cycle of motion, o2
Frequency is measured in cycles per second or Hertz,
Hz. o~ L f = principal frequency
(a) The general form for the sinusoidal approxi- : 1.~ t 1
mation is best understood by beginning with the oo
equation for sinusoidai displacement u, when there is a ~ 03 Quarry blasting
single dominant frequency:
o 0.2
u = U sin(2nft) (1) o
.=
where U is maximum displacement, f is frequency and t ~ o1
is t i m e a n d tZ
0.0 r-I I I
Ureax ---- U (max displacement),
03 Construction blastin9
f~m~= U 2 n f = 2nfUm, (max particle velocity),
t2m~= U4n2f' = 27rfZim~ (max acceleration). (2) o.z

Usually, acceleration is measured in units of gravita-

tional acceleration, where g = 9814 mm/sec-'. Therefore,
an acceleration of 2000 mm/sec' is:
2000
9814 = 0.2g,
or two-tenths that of gravity.
(b) Kinematic relations between particle displace-
ment, velocity and acceleration for complex waveforms
are exactly related through integration or differentiation
of any of the waveforms. For instance, an acceleration
time history can be integrated once for a velocity time
history, which in turn can be integrated for a displace-
ment time history. Even though a particle velocity record
can be differentiated to find acceleration, it is not
recommended, as the procedure is sensitive to small
changes in the slope of the velocity time history. Further
discussion of the inaccuracies of differentiation and
integration can be found in Dowding [1] and in texts
devoted to interpretation of time histories (e.g. [2]).
ESTIMATION OF DOMINANT FREQUENCY
6. Adoption of frequency-based vibration criteria has
made the estimation and calculation of the dominant or
principal frequency an important concern. Dominant
frequency can be estimated through: (1) visual inspection
of the time history or calculated with (2) response
spectra or (3) Fourier frequency spectra.
(a) The accuracy or difficulty of visually estimating
the dominant frequency depends upon the complexity of
the time history. The type of time history record with the
most easily estimated dominant frequency is one with
a single dominant pulse like that shown in the inset in
Fig. 3. The dominant frequency of a single pulse is the
inverse of twice the time interval of the two zero
crossings on either side of the peak.
(b) The most difficult type of record to interpret is
that which contains nearly equal peaks at two dominant
frequencies such as that in Fig. 1. The two dominant
o.o 20 40 60 ao loo 12o
Principal frequency (Hz)
Fig. 3. Dominant frequency histograms at nearest structures catego-
rized by industry. Dominant frequency is defined in the inset (after
Siskind et aL [15]).
frequencies are the initial 15-20 Hz portion (peak A) and
the later 5-10 Hz portion (peak B). As can be seen in the
figure, the initial portion produces the highest wall
response while the second produces the greatest super-
structure response. For the best frequency correlation of
both types of response, both frequencies should be
calculated.
(c) The best computational approach to determining
the dominant frequency involves the response spectrum.
The response spectrum is preferred over the Fourier
frequency spectrum because it can be related to struc-
tural displacement and thus strains [1]. A compromise
approach is to calculate the dominant frequency associ-
ated with each major peak by the zero crossing approach
described above.
(d) Since many time histories do not contain as broad
a range of dominant frequenices as that in Fig. 1, most
approaches require only the calculation of the frequency
associated with the maximum particle velocity for blasts
that produce low particle velocities. The more complex
frequency analyses need to be employed only when peak
particle velocities approach control limits.
(e) As shown in Fig. 3, the relatively large explosions
produced by surface coal mining, when monitored at
typically distant structures, tend to produce vibrations
with lower dominant frequencies than those of construc-
tion blasts. Construction blasts involve smaller ex-
plosions, but the typically small distances between a
structure and a blast as well as rock-to-rock transmission
paths tend to produce the highest dominant frequencies
[3]. Such high-frequency motions associated with con-
148 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD
struction blasts have less potential for cracking adjacent
structures than do lower frequency mining blasts [1].
PROPAGATION EFFECTS
7. Ground motions decrease in amplitude with in-
creasing distance. Effects of constructive and destructive
interference and geology are included within the scatter
of data about the mean trend of the decay in amplitude
with distance. While this scatter is large, the associated
decay with distance is observed in all blast-vibration
studies. Typical examples of this decay are shown in
Fig. 4 where maximum particle velocity is plotted as
a function of square-root scaled distance from the
blast.
(a) Square-root scaling, or plotting peak particle vel-
ocity as a function of the distance R, divided by the
square root of the charge weight R / W ~/2, is more tra-
ditional than the cube-root scaling, which incorporates
energy considerations [4]. Both square or cube-root
scaling can be employed to compare field data and to
predict the attenuation or decay of peak particle vel-
ocity; however, square-root scaling is more popular. Site
specific scaling is sometimes employed where scaled
distance takes the form of R / W " , where n is determined
empirically by curve fitting [3].
(b) Several square-root attenuation relations em-
ployed in the U.S are shown in Fig. 4. They are banded
to reflect scatter, which is typical of blasting operations.
Curve P should be used for presplitting, cratering and
beginning new bench levels. It is also the basis for the
U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM) regulations for
conservative shot design when monitoring instruments
are not employed.
R/W "~( m/kg w2)
10 t00
100
1.000
0.500
c
> O.tOO
0.050
0,010
O.OOS
t0 100 1000
Square roo't scaled distance R/W~/Z(ft/Ib ~'~)
Fig. 4. Attenuation relations showing scatter from geological and blast
design effectsas well as high expected velocitiesfrom confined shots,
such as presplitting (after Siskind et al. [15]).
(c) Dominant frequencies also tend to decline with
increasing distance and with increasing importance of
surface waves. At larger distances typical for mining,
higher frequency body wa~es begin to have relatively
lower peak amplitudes than the lower frequency surface
waves, as shown in Fig. 1. Since lower frequencies can
elicit greater structural response [5] as shown in Fig. !,
OSM scaled-distance limits decline with increasing ab-
solute distance.
BLAST-INDUCED AIR OVER-PRESSURES
8. Although technically airborne disturbances are not
directly related to ground motion, these air over-press-
ures generated by blasting intensify human response and
thus need to be documented. Previous researchers have
found that response noise within a structure (from
blasting and sonic booms, respectively) is the source of
many complaints. The audible portion of the over-press-
ure produces direct noise, while the less audible portion
by itself or in combination with ground motion can
produce structural motions that in turn produce noise.
Over-pressure may crack windows; however, it would
have to be unusually high for such cracking.
(a) Just as with ground motions, blast-induced air
over-pressure waves can be described with time histories
as shown in Fig. 1. The higher frequency portion of the
pressure wave is audible sound. While the lower fre-
quency portion is less audible, it excites structures, which
in turn causes a secondary and audible rattle within the
structure and is the source of many complaints. The
air-blast excitation of the walls can be seen by comparing
air-blast excitation and wall response in the rightmost
portion of the time histories in Fig. 1 where there is no
ground motion. Unlike ground motions, air over-press-
ure can be described completely with only one trans-
ducer, since at any one point air pressure is equal in all
three orthogonal directions.
(b) Propagation of blast-induced air over-pressures
has been studied by numerous investigators and is
generally reported with cube-root rather than square-
root scaled distances. Peak pressures are reported in
sn
terms of decibels, which are defined as:
E
E
d B = 20 logt0 , (3)
where P is the measured peak sound pressure and P0 is
a reference pressure of 2.9 x 10 -9 lb/in.2 [20 x 10 -~ (P,)].
(c) Figure 5 summarizes the effect of two important
instrumentation and shot variables. First, the effect of
the weighting scales is dramatically evident. "C" weight-
ing greatly reduces the recorded peak pressure at any
scaled distance. This does not mean the peak is reduced
by changing instruments, but rather that the "C" weight-
ing system does not respond to the low-frequency press-
ure pulses. These low-frequency pressure peaks excite
structures and occupants whether or not they are sensed
by the measurement instruments. The other (5 and
0.1 Hz) labels denote the lower-frequency bounds of the
recording capabilities of these so-called "linear" systems.
 ISRM:
(d) Second, the effect of gas venting caused by in-
adequate stemming in shot holes can be observed in Fig.
5 from the higher average pressures produced by the
parting shots at any scaled distance. Parting shots are
detonated in thin rock layers between coal strata in
surface mines. Consequently, there is less hole height
available for stemming, and these shots many times eject
the stemming and thereby produce abnormally high air
over-pressures. The unconfined relation should be used
for demolition of structures after modification for effects
of weather and ground reflection.
(e) An air temperature inversion causes the sound
9. This section describes characteristics of instruments
that measure the ground motions (acceleration, velocity,
displacement) and air blast (air over-pressure). Since
there are many excellent sources for information on
instruments, the principal characteristics of available
systems will be summarized rather than exhaustively
reviewed. The most complete single reference for de-
tailed instrumentation information that is updated
periodically is the Shock and Vibration Handbook [7].
Specific information on blast vibration monitors is con-
tained in recent publications by the U.S. Bureau of
Mines and the OSM (i.e. [8]).
(a) An idealized, field-portable blast monitoring sys-
tem operating on a 12 V battery is illustrated in Fig. 6. It
consists of transducers (1) that convert physical motion
or pressure to an electrical current, which is transmitted
R/WV3(rn/kc~ *s )
10 100
10"I 1 ~
10"z
- s,.~O.l.,
, x\
' r.J,
-~
.~_
I
,~
10"" C- s l o w ~
HighwoII
PaRing
Unconfined
10"~ I I t ttllll i I
10 100
Cube roo1~ scolecl listonce,
Fig. 5. Attenuation relations for air over-pressures produced by
confined (highwall) and partially-confined (parting) surface coal min-
ing blasts as well as unconfined blasts [29].
BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD 149
pressure wave to be refracted back to the ground and at
times to be amplified in isolated locations about 16-acres
in size. Such an inversion occurs when the no ,rm,al
decrease in temperature with altitude is reversed because
of the presence of a warmer upper layer. Schomer et al.
[6] have shown that for propagation distances of
3--60 kin, inversions produce zones of intensification of
up to three times the average, attenuated or low air
over-pressures at those distances, with an average in-
crease of 1.8 times (5.1 dB). At distances less than 3 km,
where high air over-pressures are likely to occur, his
measurements show no inversion effects.
Measurement Techniques and Instruments
through cables (2) to an amplifying system (3); and a
magnetic tape, paper or computer digital recorder (4)
that preserves the relative time variation of the original
signal for eventual permanent, hard-copy reproduction
by a pen recorder light-beam galvanometric recorder or
dot matrix printer (5). There is an almost endless variety
of configurations of these five basic components. How-
ever, the best involve microprocessors (computers) for
data acquisition, storage and reproduction.
(b) While particle velocity is the traditional measure-
ment of choice, structural strains control cracking. They
should be measured directly from relative displacements
on structures or within rock masses when critical lo-
cations are known (i.e. pipelines and unusual opening
geometry) and can be obtained with a variety of strain
and relative displacement gauges [9, 10]. Unfortunately,
these critical locations may be either unknown or too
many in number to economically measure. Therefore
1,000
some means of estimation is necessary.
I t51 (c) Ground motion and air over-pressure time
\ histories can be employed to calculate the relative
displacement of structural components with a knowl-
141
\ edge of the responding structure's dynamic response
characteristics [l]. These relative displacements can in
131 turn be employed to calculate strains. The accuracy of
X \ \
these estimates is limited by the degree to which the
','41 \ structure behaves as a single-degree-of-freedom system
\\ . and the accuracy of the estimate of the dynamic response
characteristics.
-- 101
\ C- slow
I \\ 9'1
81
q Velocity (3 orthogonal) ond sound pressure transducers
I I tlttl i i i I lit
1,000 10,000 2 Cobles
3 Amplifier
R/W'/~(ft,/Ib I/3) 4 Recorder (tope, disk or memory)
5 Light beam oscilloSCope or dot maitrlx printer
Fig. 6. Idealized, field-portable, blast monitoring system that shows
the schematic relation of the five principal components [1].
 150 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION M O N I T O R I N G S L G G E S T E D METHOD

APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT OF 4O
PARTICLE VELOCITY 30

20
10. While any of the three kinematic descriptors
(displacement, velocity or acceleration) could be em-
= ~0
ployed to describe ground motion, particle velocity is the
>
most preferable. It has the best correlation with scientific ~ 6
observation of blast-induced cracking, which forms 4 #:o,r
the basis of vibration control. Furthermore, it can be 0 3
integrated to calculate displacement. If acceleration is 2
desired, it should be measured directly to avoid differen-
tiation of the particle velocity time history. Integration I I IBI I I I I I II I I I
02 0 . 4 0.6 ~ 2 ~, 4 6 e 10 20 ao
after vectoral addition of components should be con- o 3 0.8
ducted only after possible phase shifts have been taken Frequency (Hz)
into account. Fig. 7. Example response spectra of a velocity transducer with differ-
(a) The location for measurement varies throughout ing pereenta~s o f damping. With 70% o f critical damping this system
is 3dB ( 30%) down 1 Hz [I].
the world. In North America, the excitation or ground
motion is measured on the ground adjacent to the
structure of interest. In Europe, the excitation motion is blast monitors are electronically amplifying transducer
measured on the structure's foundation. The difference output at low-frequency excitation to allow use of
stems from historical precedent and location of trans- smaller, high-frequency transducers. Instruments with
ducers during scientific observation of cracking rather such electronic amplification should be physically cali-
than difference in philosophy. In North America, many brated as described below.
times it is impossible to place transducers on adjacent (a) Proper frequency response for blast vibration
property owned by a party not involved in the project. transducers is dependent upon two considerations:
Furthermore, if it is desired to describe the excitation measurement of the "true" phenomena, and efficient
motions, then those motions should be measured outside measurement of important characteristics. Unfortu-
of and not on the structure. If it is desired to measure nately the entire range of frequencies necessary to de-
structural response motions,, then they should be scribe true blast phenomena is too large for any one
measured on the most responsive structural members, transducer. Blast-induced delayed gas pressure pulses
which are not the basement or foundation walls because occur at frequencies of less than 1 Hz, and close-in
of the restraint provided by the ground. accelerations have been measured above 1000 Hz. There-
(b) Time histories of the three components of motion fore it is necessary to compromise the goal of defining
should be measured because of the importance of exci- the true phenomena when only one transducer type is
tation frequency. Recording only the magnitudes of employed, and the optimum choice is dependent upon
peak motions will not yield information about the the important motion characteristics.
dominant frequency and time history details that control (b) Monitoring ground motion to control cosmetic
structural response and rock mass strains. Peak motions cracking in low-rise structures is typically accomplished
and dominant frequency can be employed to describe by measurement of ground, or particle, velocity over a
low-level, non-critical motions. Therefore machines em- frequency range of 2-200 Hz. This range ensures proper
ployed to monitor critical motions (Type I below) should recording of amplitudes at excitation frequencies which:
be capable of recording time histories of selected critical (1) encompass fundamental frequencies of structures;
motions. Machines that record only peak motions (Type and (2) are associated with the peak velocity that
II below) can be employed with those that record time produces the greatest response displacement (i.e. are
histories to provide redundant measurement where fre- dominant). Typical structure fundamental frequencies
quency content does not vary widely and where particle are 5-10Hz for two- and one-storey structures and
velocity is low. 10--30 Hz for walls and floors. Some mechanical systems
may have fundamental frequencies near 100 Hz, but they
are usually attached to and excited by the lower fre-
TRANSDUCER RESPONSE FREQUENCY quency walls and floors. Typical dominant excitation
frequencies range from 5 to 100 Hz as shown in Fig. 3.
11. Frequency response is the frequency range over If it becomes necessary to monitor situations with un-
which the transducer's electrical output is constant with usually low or high dominant frequencies, special trans-
a constant mechanical motion. This constancy is nor- ducers should be employed that are linear in the range
mally expressed in terms of decibels (dB). For instance, of interest [30].
linear within 3 dB between 2 and 200 Hz means that the
transducer produces a voltage output that is constant
within 3 0 0 between 2 and 200 Hz. Generally, it is better TRANSDUCER ATTACHMENT
to request a transducer's response spectrum (such as 12. One of the most critical aspects of vibration
those shown in Fig. 7) to determine the frequencies monitoring is the mounting of the transducers in the
where this difference occurs. Many manufacturers of field. The importance of mounting is a function of the
 ISRM: BLASTVIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD
particle acceleration of the wave train being monitored.
The type of mounting on a horizontal surface is the least
critical when the vertical maximum particle accelerations
are less than 0.2g. In this range, the possibilities of
rocking the transducer or the transducer package are
small, and the transducer may be placed upon a horizon-
tal measurement surface without a device to supply a
holding force. When the maximum particle accelerations
fall between 0.2 and 1.0g, the transducer or transducer
package should be buried completely when the measure-
ment surface consists of soil [11]. Mounting of transduc-
ers on spikes in soil is discouraged because the free
response of the mounting system may effect the recorded
motion. When the measurement surface consists of rock,
asphalt or concrete the transducers should be fastened to
the measurement surface with either double-sided tape,
epoxy or quick-setting cement (hydrocal or other gyp-
sum based cements set within 15-30 min). If the above
methods are unsatisfactory or accelerations exceed 1.0g,
only cement or bolts are sufficient to hold the transducer
to a hard surface. All transducers mounted on vertical
surfaces should be bolted in place.
(a) Air over-pressure transducers should be placed at
least 1 m above ground, pointed downward (to prevent
rain damage) and covered with a wind screen to reduce
wind excitation-induced false events.
DIGITAL, TAPE AND HARD-COPY RECORDERS
13. Microprocessor (computer) or digital recording
systems now dominate new sales of technical recording
devices because of the ease of data acquisition and
computer linkage. The signal is sampled at a certain rate,
say, 1000 times/sec, and each sample is converted to a
single magnitude. Digital recording has several advan-
tages. It is very accurate, as variation in tape speed has
no effect if cassette tapes are employed as the storage
medium, and records can be directly accessed by a
computer. Details of the digitization process are dis-
cussed elsewhere [1].
(a) Of those blast-monitoring systems with tape
recorders, most employ compact FM cassettes, but the
best employ digital recording techniques. Many of the
tape systems involve separate record and reproduction
modules to reduce the complexity of recording. Care
should be exercised to determine the exact details of the
system before purchasing, as tape recorder performance
varies at low temperature.
(b) A permanent record or "hard copy" of the vi-
bration time history is usually made on photographic
film, floppy disc, battery-powered memory chips or
paper. Almost all present film-based recorders employ
field-developable, u.v. light-sensitive paper in combi-
nation with light-beam galvanometers to record high-
frequency motions. The newest generation recorders
employ dot matrix printers and/or floppy discs with
microcomputers. Unfortunately, those that automati-
cally print after a vibration event may not be recording
another event while printing. If multiple shots are likely,
this reset time should be determined. Furthermore,
RMMS 29/2--E
151
printer behaviour in cold weather is variable and should
also be investigated.
(c) Most recorders can be bought as either single- or
multichannel units. A four-channel unit is necessary in
blast monitoring to record simultaneously the three
components of the ground motion (L, V and T) and the
air blast. The present trend in vibration equipment is to
include a signal-conditioning amplifier in the recorder to
allow flexible amplification of the signals.
(d) Frequency analysis of records requires a time
history and thus some form of permanent record. Instru-
ments recording only peak particle velocities will not
allow a frequency analysis. Sending permanent records
through the mail for interpretation, results in a delay of
5 days, and sometimes up to 1 month. Systems with
light-sensitive paper or dot matrix printers allow im-
mediate interpretation of frequency without additional
costly equipment.
CALIBRATION
14. It is obvious that the entire vibration measure-
ment system should be calibrated, as it is futile to record
data if they cannot be exploited because of a lack of
reference. Manufacturers supply calibration curves with
their instruments that are similar to the response spectra
for transducers shown in Fig. 7. Recalibration or check-
ing requires special platforms where frequency and
displacement are controlled, and in the field, a calibrat-
ing circuit to pulse the magnetic core of the geophone
[12].
NUMBER OF INSTRUMENTS
15. While the smallest number of instruments or
triaxial transducer locations for recording blast exci-
tation motions is one, two triaxial positions would
provide a more thorough documentation of the spatial
distribution of effects. If only one instrument is em-
ployed, then it should be located at the nearest or most
critical receiver. This single, Type I instrument should
record time histories of the three axes of particle velocity
as well as air over-pressure. Since it must monitor
continuously, it must trigger (begin recording) automati-
cally, and be capable of monitoring even while printing
or communicating results. When blasting will occur at
more than one general location (i.e. involve different
nearest structures separated by hundreds of metres),
then two and four are the smallest and optimum number
of instruments, respectively. A third and fifth should be
available but not deployed to insure continuous cover-
age in case of instrument failure.
(a) The second and fourth instruments in the situ-
ations described above may provide a lower level of
information and will be termed Type II. They must at
least continuously record the peak particle velocity in
one axis and may or may not measure air over-pressure.
The best axis is the vertical, since no horizontal direction
decision is required and surface waves usually involve a
significant vertical component regardless of the direction
of the maximum horizontal component. These
152 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD
instruments should be located at a greater distance than
the nearest structure to monitor a large area.
(b) The third or spare instrument can be either Type
I or II. Where air over-pressures will be problematic or
frequencies critical, the spare should be Type I. This
spare instrument can also be employed to monitor sites
where complaints develop. Such public relations moni-
toring of vibrations at locations associated with com-
plaints is essential in North America where lawsuits arise
even when all blast effects comply with regulatory guide-
lines.
(c) The above approach describes the least number of
instruments. Applicable regulations and mining or con-
struction schedules may require a larger number.
Measurement of structural response (in addition to
excitation) may require more instruments; however,
control limits are based upon excitation and not re-
sponse motions.
INSTRUMENT DEPLOYMENT DURING
TEST BLASTS
16. When blasting projects begin, when geological
conditions change radically or when new initiation sys-
tems are introduced, test blasts should be conducted to
minimize the number of instruments necessary to moni-
tor production blasts. Instrument locations should be
chosen to produce project-specific attenuation relations
for both air over-pressure and ground motion. Such
relations vary from project to project because of changes
in geology and blasting practices. Additionally, the test
blasts allow the determination of the frequency content
of motions at different scaled and absolute distances.
(a) The attenuation relation is not solely a site prop-
erty. Although it is dependent upon geology, it is also
Evaluation of Measurements
17. Direct regulation or specification of effects, rather
than specification of blast design, is the most effective
control from a regulatory viewpoint because effects are
so dependent upon details of the shot geometry and
initiation sequence. Such dependency renders control
impossible by simple regulatory specification of two or
three design parameters. For instance, consider control
by specification of the maximum charge weight deto-
nated per instant at given distances from the nearest
structure. Even with such detailed specification, intended
vibration levels at the structure may be exceeded because
of poor choice in the location of holes and/or their
relative time of initiation.
DEFINITIONS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
18. Excessive structural response has been separated
into three categories arranged below in the order of
declining severity and increasing distance of occurrence
[14, 15]. MAJOR--permanent distortion---occurs only
at very high particle velocities and results in serious
weakening of the structure (e.g. large cracks or shifting
heavily dependent upon the blast geometry and timing.
For instance, wi:h the s:lme weight of explosive deto-
nated at any ins:..r,t of time, a blast with a larger burden
will produce :~.:: .'.::nuation relation parallel to that in
Fig. 4 but wi~.h a larger intercept on the velocity axis.
Furthermore. differing initiation timing will produce
changes in the time history, both length and frequency
content.
(b) During tes: blasts, a minimum of four instruments
should be deployed to measure peak particle velocity
along a single azimuthal direction at widely differing
scaled distances for the same blast. Therefore, for any
one blast design, parameters and initiation sequences are
constant, and the resulting attenuation relation shows
only the effect of distance, direction and/or geology.
Seismographs and/or transducers should be placed along
a single line with constant geology to determine best the
attenuation relation, or at all critical structures to deter-
mine the effects of direction and variable geology. Ide-
ally, the linear orientation should be along a path with
constant thickness of soil and not cross any large
geologic discontinuities such as faults. If geology
changes radically, then two such attenuation lines are
necessary, but not necessarily with each blast.
(c) A number of approaches to blast design for vi-
bration control are now available that employ a single-
delay, single-hole test blast and a number of instruments
to record the attenuation and frequency change around
the site [13]. These single-time histories are then syn-
thesized to reproduce the additive time history effects of
multiple delay, multiple hole blasts at the differing
instrument sites. Such synthesis of time histories to guide
blast design has met with variable success but does not
replace monitoring of blast effects at critical structures
during production blasting.
of foundations or bearing walls, major settlement result-
ing in distortion and non-vertical walls). M I N O R - -
displaced cracks--includes surfacial cracking which does
not affect the strength of the structures (e.g. broken
windows, loosened or fallen plaster), hairline cracks in
masonry. THRESHOLD--cosmetic cracking--occurs
at the lowest velocities and only opens old cracks or
produces hairline cracks in plaster walls or may dislodge
loose objects (e.g. loose bricks in chimneys). Description
of these responses collectively as "damage" blurs the
distinction between cosmetic cracking and structural
distress.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA WITH PRE-
AND POST-BLAST INSPECTION
19. Unmeasurables in observation or crack documen-
tation can be taken into account indirectly by consider-
ing the appearance of cosmetic cracks as a probabilistic
event. In order to investigate the effects of certain data
sets on the overall conclusions, the probability compu-
tations of threshold or cosmetic cracking at given
 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD 153

particle velocity levels have been made several times
[15, 16]. All of the observations studied by Siskind
involve both immediate pre- and post-blast inspection of
walls in residential structures in both Europe and North
America, many of which were old, distorted and whose
walls were covered with plaster. Such immediate inspec-
tion is mandatory to separate structural distortion
caused by natural weather changes from that caused by
blast vibration.
(a) Data from various sets of systematic crack obser-
vations were analyzed with the assumption that every
cracking observation excludes the possibility of non-
cracking at a higher particle velocity (Siskind et al. [15],
p. 55). If the probability of cracking is calculated as the
percentage of observations at lower levels of velocity, the
result is the log-normal scaled plot of the probability of
cracking particle velocity in Fig. 8. This approach seems
conservative as low particle velocity observations do not
count non-cracking at higher levels.
(b) According to Fig. 8, there appears to be a lower
limit of particle velocity of 12 mm/sec below which no
cosmetic or threshold cracking (extension of hairline
cracks) has been observed from blasting anywhere in the
world. This observation includes data with unusually
low frequencies that were collected by Dvorak [17]. His
data are those that tend to populate the lower region of
Fig. 8. High-frequency data ( > 40 Hz) show that a 5%
probability of displaced cracking does not occur until
particle velocities reach 75 mm/sec [15].
Particle
lO
(c) Admissibility of Dvorak's data has been ques-
tioned by the researchers reexamining the old data in the
late 1970s because of the absence of time histories; some
of the other studies, such as that by Langefors et al. [18],
are also plagued by the unavailability of time histories.
To resolve this difficulty, only the new U.S. Bureau of
Mines observations have been included in a recomputa-
tion of probabilities in Fig. 9. The observations include
low-frequency motions associated with surface mining.
Again there is a particle velocity, 0.79 in./sec
(20mm/sec), below which no blast-induced cosmetic
cracking was observed. Furthermore, this lower bound
case was observed in response to a surface coal mine
blast.
FREQUENCY CONTROL OF
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
20. Structures respond most to ground motions when
the excitation frequency matches the structure's funda-
mental frequency. As shown in Fig. 1, walls and floors
respond more to the higher frequency (15-20 Hz) waves
in the early portion of that time history, while the
superstructure or overall skeleton of the structure re-
sponds more to the last or lower frequency (5-10 Hz)
portion.
(a) Differences in structural response such as that
shown in Fig. 1 can be calculated from the ground
motions if the natural frequency and damping of struc-
tural components arc known or estimated. Langan [19]
velocity (mm/sec]
Particle velocity (mm/sec)
loo 1ooo

:/f,
lO too
99 i llll i i i i i i i i~ i iool II
99 I

95

90
Threshold
Minor domo,e
Major damage
damage
~;j:/.z~'-~-
~.~L ~

95
o

8O
90
oj
8o
7O
O
:= 60 O
J~
o
.o 50 ~ 60
o J~
0
" 40 g so
g &
o 30
G)
E O)
o
r~ 2o ~ 3o
o

2O
10 o
lO

1 I I ~ II ltl I i i i i till 1 1
0.2 0.5 1 10
1 I I I I I I
Particle velocity (in./sec)
0.2 0.5 I 2 5 10 20 50
Fig. 8. Probability analysis of worldwide blast cracking data [15]. Porticle velocity [in.lsec]
Threshold damage is the occurrence of hair-sized, cosmetic cracks
similar to those caused by natural, environmentally-induced expansion Fig. 9. Probability analysis of blast-induced threshold cracks observed
and contraction. by U.S. Bureau of Mines [16].
15,1 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD

has shown that measured structural response has a blast A; and 3.3 mm/sec for the surface mining blast B;
higher correlation coefficient with calculated single- the response spectra differ radically. This difference is
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) response than with peak greatest in the range of natural frequencies of residential
ground motion. Therefore structural motions can be structures and their components, 5-20Hz. In this
estimated more accurately by assuming that they are range the surface mining motions produce response
proportional to response spectrum values at the particu- velocities that are 10 times greater than the construction
lar structure's natural frequency than by assuming that blast.
they are proportional to the peak ground motion [1]. (c) This lower response of structures with natural
This improved correlation is largely a result of the frequencies of 5-20 Hz to high-frequency excitation
consideration of excitation frequency. shown in Fig. 10 has led to the adoption of frequency-
(b) Figure I0 compares time histories and response based standards in Germany and the U.S. [20, 21]. While
spectra from the longitudinal components of a small, both of these standards allow greater particle velocities
urban construction blast and a large, surface coal for high-frequency excitation, there is considerable dis-
mine blast. The mining blast involved detonation of agreement over the allowable particle velocities as shown
12,600 kg of ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil) with in Fig. 11, which compares various control limits. Limits
a planned maximum charge per delay of 60 kg some are based upon particle velocity measurement in the
825m from the recording instrument. The much ground (OSM) and on the foundation (DIN). Regardless
smaller construction blast involved detonation of 9 kg of of the difference in limits, the allowance of higher
gelatin with a maximum charge per delay of 2.3 kg at a particle velocities in high-frequency excitation is the
distance of only 15m. Although the peak particle same. More work is necessary to reconcile these differ-
velocities are similar: 3.8 mm/sec for the construction ences in limits.

O.lg 1.0 in. 1.~, 0.1 in. l O.~,,,, 0.01 in

10.00 : j

IOamping ! 5%)
lOO I

> lO
D

=,.
c

0.10
0.05

0.01
1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80100
Frequency, Hz

maximum
particle velocity
A 3.8 mm/s
Z
@ A B 3.3 mm/s
E
I I I I
"~ o O.lO 0.20 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~
o

Q.

I I I I I I I I I I
0 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00
T i t ~ , $O

Fig. 10. Comparison of time histories and response spectra from construction and surface mining blasts respectively lasting
0.15 and 2.0 sec. Even though the particle velocities are approximately equal, responses in the 5--20 Hz frequency range differ
greatly.
 ISRM: BLASTVIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD 155

crack are compared in Fig. 12. The continuous and

'1= . . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' ' '"'1
o I- .-.-:ore (6s~ ..... I highly cyclical curve is that of displacements produced
by environmental change. The small circles are the
~- maximum, zero-to-peak, dynamic displacements
.~ recorded by the same gauge. Even though the maximum
~, 20F (~) ~ i n ot,ea \ / "71 >
recorded particle velocity was as high as 24 ram/see, the
, .w" o.n maximum weather-induced displacements were three
times that produced by blasting. At other gauges,
a. weather changes produced displacements that were 10
@
25
e~
times greater than those produced by blasting.
_o
<

E RESTRAINED STRUCTURES AND ROCK MASSES

E
i 02.w J 22. Capacity for free response allows above-ground
I I[
structures such as homes and rock pinnacles to amplify
0.1j, , i i i t illl ! i i I , i ii selectively incoming ground motions; however, buried or
1 4 10 20 30 100
restrained structures such as pipelines and rock masses
Blast Vibration Frequency, Hz
cannot respond freely. Regardless whether response is
Fig. 11. Frequencybased blast vibration control limits: ( ) Office
of SurfaceMining[21]; (-- * --) DeutscheNormen [20]. Comers 2 and restrained or free, cracks are initiated by strains.
3 of OSM are unverified. Upper and lower dotted lines have been Whereas strains in a freely-responding structure are
employed safely for close-in construction blasting near engineered proportional to the relative displacement between the
structures (E) and in urban areas near older homes and historic
buildings (U). ground and the superstructure, strains in a restrained
structure such as pipelines will usually be those of the
COMPARISON OF BLAST AND surrounding ground and can be approximated as those
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS produced by plane wave propagation and are:
21. Crack width changes from ground motions less
than 25 mm/sec are less than those caused by the passage E = - - and 7 - - - (4)
C Cs '
of weekly weather fronts [1(3]. This conclusion was
reached after measuring the displacement response of a where ~ and 7 are axial and shear strains, c= and c, are
poorly-built, non-engineered, wood-framed house to compressive and shear wave propagation velocities, and
surface coal mining vibrations for some 8 months. are maximum compressive and shear wave particle
Displacements were measured at l0 different wall pos- velocities, respectively [1]. This calculation of strain is
itions that included cracked and uncracked wall cover- approximate, especially when ~ is measured at the
ing. Weather and blast-induced crack displacements ground surface, and requires the measurement of c= and
across the most dynamically responsive wall covering c, at the site. More work is required to improve this

2.0

~" 1.5
E
t43

~ 1.0
I

0.5

0.0 0
E 0 0 CD
0
0

~4).5
!
~ -1.0 weather
0 blast
-1.5 L

-2.0
86.6 86.8 87.0 87.2 87.4
Year
Fig. 12. Comparisonof crack displacementsin a wood-framedhouse produced by weather-inducedchanges in humidityand
temperature ( ) with those produced by surface coal mine introduced ground motions (0).
156 ISRM: BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING SUGGESTED METHOD
a p p r o a c h to e s t i m a t i n g s t r a i n . F o r cases i n v o l v i n g o n e
critical l o c a t i o n a l o n g a pipeline, the p i p e s t r a i n s s h o u l d
be m e a s u r e d directly o n the m e t a l . F o r cases i n v o l v i n g
t u n n e l a n d / o r c a v e r n liners, critical s t r a i n s c a n be esti-
REFERENCES
1. Dowding C. H. Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control. Prentice-
Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1985).
2. Hudson D. E. Reading and interpreting Strong Motion Accelograms.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA (1979).
3. New B. M. Ground vibration caused by civil engineering works.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory LR53, TRRL,
Crowthorne, U.K. (1986).
4. Hendron A. J. Engineering of rock blasting on civil projects.
Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics (W. J. Hall, Ed.). Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1977).
5. Medearis K. The development of a rational damage criteria for
low rise structures subjected to blasting vibrations. Report to
National Crushed Stone Assoc., Washington, DC (1976).
6. Schomer P. D., Goff R. J. and Little M. The statistics of amplitude
and spectrum of blasts propagated in the atmosphere. U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Technical Report
N-13 (1976).
7. Harris C. M. and Crede C. E. (Eds) Shock Vibration Handbook.
McGraw-Hill, New York (1976).
8. Rosenthal M. F. and Morelock G. L. Blasting Guidance Manual.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, IX2 (1983).
9. Stagg M. S., Siskind D. E., Stevens M. G. and Dowding C. H.
Effects of repeated blasting on a wood-frame house. U.S. Bureau
of Mines, Report of Investigations 8896 (1984).
10. Dowding C. H. Comparison of environmental and blast induced
effects through computerized surveillance. The Art and Science of
Geotechnical Engineering at the Dawn of the 21st Century, R. B.
Peck Honorary Volume (3,V. J. Hall, Ed.), pp. 143-160. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1988).
I 1. Johnson C. F. Coupling small vibration gauges to soil. Earthquake
Notes, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 40-47. Eastern Section, Seismological
Society of America (1962).
12. Stagg M. S. and Engler A. J. Measurement of blast induced
ground vibrations and seismograph calibrations. U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Report of Investigations 8506 (1980).
13. Anderson D. A., Winzer S. R. and Ritter A. P. Synthetic delay
versus frequency plots for predicting ground vibration from blast-
ing. Proc. 3rd Int. Syrup. on Computer Aided Seismic Analysis and
Discrimination, pp. 70-74. IEEE Computer Society Press (1983).
14. Northwood T. D., Crawford R. and Edwards A. T. Blasting
vibrations and building damage. The Engineer 215, (1963).
15. Siskind D. E., Stagg M. S., Kopp J. W. and Dowding C. H.
Structure response and damage produced by ground vibrations
from surface blasting. U. S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investi-
gations 8507 (1980).
16. Siskind D. E. Open file report of responses to questions raised
by RI 8507. Available for inspection, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Minneapolis, MN (1981).
APPENDiX--Permanent Degradation and Displacement of Adjacent Rock
23. Permanent effects, with the exception of fly rock, are encoun-
tered only near shot holes and can be divided into degradation and
displacement. Degradation is normally described by cracking intensity.
Such blast-induced cracking has been observed experimentally to vary
with hole diameter and rock type [24, 25]. Small-bole-diameter con-
struction blasting has induced cracking at distances of 1-2 m, and
larger-hole-diameter mining blasts are capable of producing cracks at
distances of 10-15m. Careful blast design can reduce dramatically
these maximum distances.
(a) Displacement can be produced by either delayed gas pressures
(those that accumulate during detonation) or to a lesser extent by
vibration-induced shaking. Delayed gas pressures have dislocated
blocks as large as 1000m ~ during construction blasting [1]. Such
movement is unusual but is associated with isolated blocks, leakage of
gas pressures along open joints, and poor shot design with large
burdens. Vibratory or shaking-induced displacement is normally as-
sociated with unstable blocks in rock slopes and can occur wherever
static factors or safety are low and ground motions produce permanent
displacements that are larger than the first-order asperity wavelength
m a t e d t h r o u g h c a l c u l a t i o n o f the relative flexibility o f
the rock a n d liner [23].
Accepted for publlcat,)n 30 Oc;ober 1991.
17. Dvorak A. Seismic effects of blasting on brick houses. Prace
Geofyrikenina Ustance. Ceskoslovenski Akademie, Ved., No. 159,
Geogysikalni, Sbornik (1962).
18. Lang*fors U., Westerberg H. and Kihlstr6m B. Ground vibrations
in blasting. Water Power Sept, (1958).
19. Langan R. T. Adequacy of single-degree-of-freedom system mod-
eling of structural response to blasting vibrations. M.S. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL (1980).
20. DIN. Deutsche Normen: Erschiitterungen im Bauwesen--Ein-
wirkungen auf bauliche Anlagen. DIN 4150 (1983).
21. OSM, Office of Surface Mining. U.S. Dept. of Interior. CFR, Vol.
48, No. 46 (1983).
22. Dowding C. H. and Gilbert C. Dynamic stability of rock slopes
and high frequency traveling waves. J. Geotech. Engng ASCE 114,
1069-1088 (1988).
23. Hendron A. J. and Fernandez G. Dynamic and static design
considerations for underground chambers. Seismic Design ofEra-
bankments and Caverns (r. Howard, Ed.). American Society of
Civil Engineers, Special Technical Publication (1983).
24. Siskind D. E. and Fumanti R. Blast-produced fractures in Litho-
nia granite. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 7901
(1974).
25. Holmberg R. and Persson P. A. The Swedish approach to contour
blasting. Proc. Fourth Conf. on Explosives and Blasting Techniques,
pp. 113-127. Society of Explosives Engineers, Montville, OH
(1978).
26. Roth J. A model for the determination of flyrock range as a
function of shot conditions. Report prepared for the U.S. Bureau
of Mines by Management Services Association, Los Altos, CA,
NTIS, PB81-222358 (1979).
27. Lundborg N. The probability of flyrock. Report DS 1981:5,
Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, Stockholm (I981).
28. Ivanov P. L. Compaction of noncohesive soils by explosions.
Translated from Russian by the National Science Foundation and
available from the library of the U.S. Water and Power Resources
Services, Denver, CO, TA I0193 (1967).
29. Siskind D. E., Stachura V. J., Stagg M. S. and Kopp J. W.
Structures response and damage produced by airblast from surface
mining. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 8485
(1980).
30. New B. M. The effect of detonator variability on explosively
induced ground vibration. Int. Conf. Earthquake, Blast and tmpact,
UMIST Manchester. Institution of Civil Engineers, London
(1991).
31. Stachura V. J., Siskind D. E. and Engler A. Airblast instrumenta-
tion and measurement techniques for surface mining. U.S. Bureau
of Mines, Report of Investigations 8508 (1981).
on the sliding joint or plane [22]. Gas pressure related displacement can
occur out to 10s of metres.
(b) Fly rock is a special case of permanent displacement of rock by
explosive expulsion from the top of the blast hole and has been
propelled as far as 100-1000 m [26]. Statistical studies have shown that
the probability of these extreme events are quite low under normal
circumstances, 1 in 10,000,000 at 600m [27]. Since the probability
increases with decreasing distance, blasting mats are required for any
construction blasting in an urban environment to prevent all fly rock.
(c) Another special case of permanent displacement is the vibratory
densification of a nearby mass of loose, clean sand. The propensity for
such densification is a function of the soil's density, mineralogy and
grain size distribution. Soils that are densifiable are loose sands, with
less than 5% silt-size particles. These clean sands were densified out to
distances of 20 m [28] after detonation of single, 5 kg charges within
the loose sand mass itself. Soils that are either slightly cemented or
contain more than 5% fines are a great deal less subject to vibratory
densification from typical ground motions.