Article

Journal of Vibration and Control

2019, Vol. 0(0) 1–12

Synthesis of single-hole signatures by group © The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
delay for ground vibration control in rock DOI: 10.1177/1077546319892435
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvc
blasting
Lifeng Li1 and Jhon Silva-Castro2

Abstract
Prediction and control of ground vibrations become essential as with the development of neighborhoods in the proximity of
active mining operations or the need for new infrastructure in urban centers, both requiring the use of blasting. Novel
ground vibration prediction models attempt to reproduce a whole vibration waveform from a blast and are based, in most
cases, on the collection of vibrational information from a single blasthole. A single blasthole should have the same
characteristics (geometry and weights of explosives) as the blastholes used in production shots. In some cases, the
collection of the fundamental information (the signature) is straightforward. In more complex cases, the fundamental
information from ground vibration data is collected from previous production shots. This study presents a novel
methodology to assess the fundamental ground vibration information (the signature) using known information such as one
event waveform (a production shot waveform) and the timing sequence used (the comb function) for the shot. The
methodology is based on the analysis of group delay, a concept widely used in signal processing, and is modified here for the
analysis of ground vibration waveforms. The methodology is developed using real data collected in coal and quarry mining
operations, and at the end of this document, one case study with step-by-step calculations is presented to show the benefits
of the methodology.

Keywords
Ground vibrations, single-hole signature, group delay, synthetic waveforms, rock blasting

1. Introduction based on the convolution operation given in equation (1) to

Millisecond-delayed detonations are used to achieve better
fragmentation and to control ground vibration levels pro-
duced by blast events in mining or construction works.
Various methods, including scaled distance law based on
empirical formula (Dowding, 1996; Nicholls et al., 1971;
Thoenen and Windes, 1942) and signature hole method
based on signals and systems (Anderson and Brinckerhoff,
2008; Blair, 2004; Silva, 2012; Yang and Scovira, 2010) or
other works (Khandelwal and Singh, 2006; Monjezi et al.,
2010; Oktay, 2017; Verma and Singh, 2011), have con-
tributed to the development of fundamental or practical
research on ground vibrations produced by a blast event.
Although most of the available methodologies for
ground vibration analysis attempt to predict only the peak
values of the ground vibrations produced by the blast event
(e.g. the peak particle velocity), the more elaborated sig-
nature hole methods try to replicate the whole ground vi-
bration waveform produced by a blast event (Anderson and
Brinckerhoff, 2008; Blair, 2004; Silva, 2012; Yang and
Scovira, 2010). The original signature hole methodology is
mathematically represent the vibrations produced by a blast
event
y ¼ h∗s (1)
In equation (1), h is the single-hole vibration waveform
(the vibration produced by a single hole), which was as-
sumed by Anderson as identical for every hole. The variable
s is the blasting time function, which can be assumed as
a Kronecker comb function. Last, y is the waveform pro-
duced by the blast event.
1
Wuhan University of Technology School of Resources and Environmental
Engineering, China
2
University of Kentucky, KY, USA
Received: 22 August 2019; accepted: 12 November 2019
Corresponding author:
Lifeng Li, Wuhan University of Technology, School of Resources and
Environmental Engineering, 122 Luoshi Rd, 430070 Wuhan, China.
Email: lifeng_li@outlook.com
2 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
The assumption of identical vibration waveform for each
hole is indeed not accurate (Silva, 2012), and the straight
use of equation (1) can provide results that can be three
times the magnitude than the actual ground vibration
(Spathis, 2010).
If the assumption is that individual holes produce dif-
ferent waveforms, it is more appropriate to superpose time-
lagged waveforms into a production blast waveform, as is
shown in the following equation
y ¼ h0 ðt  t0 Þ þ h1 ðt  t1 Þ þ / þ hN ðt  tN Þ (2)
where y still represents the waveform produced by the blast
event, hn ðn ¼ 0; 1; …; N Þ are the individual vibration
waveforms from N blastholes, tn ðn ¼ 0; 1; …; N Þ are the
firing times of the N sequential blastholes, and t0 is the
initial time of the blast event (it is assumed as zero ðt0 ¼ 0Þ
in most of the cases).
However, the general procedure to assess ground vi-
bration levels requires the measurement of a single-hole
waveform using equation (1) or even measurement of
multiple single-hole waveforms by using equation (2), and
then proceed with the superposition of waves produced by
each hole to assess the blast event waveform. Furthermore,
the measurement of a single waveform(s) requires addi-
tional operations besides the regular blast designs, which
has possibilities to interrupt the continuity and integrality of
production blasts, and thus increase the costs.
To overcome the aforementioned difficulties, attempts
on synthesizing single-hole signatures by deconvolution
inverse to equation (1) have been made in the past two years
(Li and Silva-Castro, 2017; Silva-Castro and Li, 2018).
Those methods work well with small-scale blasts with
a small number of blastholes. However, it becomes more
difficult to obtain reasonable single-hole signatures when
the number of blasthole or delays increases. Therefore, new
methods are urgently needed to adapt for blasts with dif-
ferent number of holes (delays).
This study presents a novel methodology inverse to
equation (2) to perform the synthesis of single-hole
waveforms using the concept of group delay analysis.
The proposed method can potentially eliminate the in-
terruption of single-hole waveform measurement to pro-
duction blasts and thus make the implementation of blast
engineering smoother. Now that single-hole waveforms can
be obtained mathematically in every round of blasts, sig-
nature hole method can be used to adaptively predict and
control blast vibrations.
2. Field tests and data collection
The collected field data used in this study contain four sets
of ground vibration signals. They have different numbers of
holes: 6, 47, 62, and 83. The 6-hole data are from a test
conducted at Guyan surface coal mine in West Virginia in
2011 (Silva Castro and Lusk, 2012). The other three data
sets are from a different surface coal mine also in West
Virginia. The sample rate used to collect the vibration
waveform information was 1024 samples/s (typical for
mining applications). Some explosion conditions and blast
patterns are summarized in Table 1.
3. Fourier transform analysis
3.1. Fourier transform of the superposition of
individual waveforms
The discrete Fourier transform of equation (2) can be ex-
pressed using equation (3). This equation is the frequency-
domain representation of the superposition of individual
waveforms
Y ðωÞ ¼ H0 ðωÞ þ H1 ðωÞ  eiωt1 þ / þ HN ðωÞ  eiωtN
(3)
In equation (3), Y ðωÞ is the Fourier transform of the
waveform produced by the blast event and Hn ðωÞðn ¼
0; 1; …; N Þ is the Fourier transform for each individual
waveform (vibration produced by each hole).
Using equation (3), the blast event can be seen as the
superposition of phase-delayed Fourier spectra of the
waveforms produced by each blasthole. Furthermore, using
the Fourier transform, a real function of time is transformed
into a complex function of frequency ðωÞ. Using Euler’s
formula
eix ¼ cos x þ i  sin x (4)
Equation (3) can be expressed in terms of magnitude
and phase. The expression is as follows
AY eiθY ¼ AH0 eiθH0 þ AH1 eiθH1  eiωt1 þ / þ AHN eiθHN  eiωtN
¼ A eiθH0 þ A eiðθH1 ωt1 Þ þ / þ A eiðθHN ωtN Þ
H0 H1 HN
(5)
where AY is the magnitude of the blast event,
AHn ðn ¼ 0; 1; …; N Þ is the magnitude of each signature,
θY is the phase of the blast event, and ðθHn 
ωtn Þ with ðn ¼ 0; 1; …; N Þ is the phase of each individual
waveform. This equation indicates that there is a linear
phase shift component given by ðωtn Þ added to the original
phase ðθHn Þ of each individual waveform.
3.2. Magnitude spectrum analysis
3.2.1. Effective range of magnitude spectrum. Magnitude is
one constituent part of Fourier transform as it appears in
equation (5), so it is necessary to first investigate the
magnitude spectrum in more detail. In general, the spectral
magnitude of blast vibrations tends to zero after a certain
frequency. In other words, frequency components higher
Li and Silva-Castro 3

Table 1. Measurement condition and collected data.

Number of holes Distance (m) Blast pattern Measured data
6 210

47 150

62 120

83 55

than this certain frequency do not contribute to the amplitude
of the ground vibrations. In this article, the maximum fre-
quency value that effectively contributes to the amplitude of
the ground vibration is called the “effective frequency limit”
or flim and is defined as the frequency corresponding to the
98% of the cumulative integral of the magnitude with respect
to the frequency within a range of 0 Hz–100 Hz. An example
is shown in Figure 1, and the value of flim is determined as
59.5 Hz. Different ground vibration signals will have dif-
ferent effective frequency limits.
4 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
3.2.2. Comparison of magnitude spectrum between a blast
event and a single-hole waveform (a signature). Using ground
vibration data recorded for several blast events, where the
waveform of the blast event and that of a single hole were
recorded, it is possible to compare the magnitude spectrum
of the blast event ðAY Þ and the magnitude of a single hole
ðAHn Þ according to equation (6). Figure 2 shows four dif-
ferent blast events with different number of blastholes (one
blasthole per delay).
In Figure 2, the number of delays (blastholes) decreases
from blast 1 to blast 4. As seen in Figure 2, the magnitude
spectrum of the blast event is more irregular and with higher
magnitude values than the less delay (less blastholes)
magnitude spectrum. Also, in all the cases, the single-hole
spectrum is always of lower amplitude than the blast event
magnitude spectrum. Although there are differences be-
tween the amplitude of the magnitude spectrum of the blast
event and the single hole, they have a similar dominant
frequency and similar distribution of the magnitude with the
frequency. This relationship is used to assess the unknown
Figure 1. Example of effective frequency limit.
Figure 2. Comparison between blast event magnitude spectrum and a single blasthole magnitude spectrum for four blasts in the
transverse vibration direction.
magnitude spectrum of the single hole when the blast event
spectrum is available.
3.2.3. Assessment of the single-hole signature magnitude
spectrum from the blast event spectrum. As analyzed pre-
viously, each blasthole produces a different vibration
waveform; in other words, in equation (6), if AHn and θHn are
different for different holes, then equation (6) (Hadamard,
1902) cannot give one unique solution. Without loss of
generality, it can be assumed that AHn and θHn possess
certain randomness, and they are the realization of an en-
semble magnitude AH and phase θH . For the magnitude AHn ,
it can be assumed that
AHn ¼ AYs  cHn (6)
where AYs is the smoothed magnitude spectrum of a mea-
sured blast event. The smoothing process can be conducted
by computation of moving average of the blast event
magnitude spectrum ðAY Þ, and cHn is a random factor which
in this article is assumed to follow a normal distribution
N ðμHn ; σ Hn Þ. Because the single-hole magnitude spectrum
is generally of lower amplitude than the event blast mag-
nitude spectrum, as shown in Figure 3, the range of μHn can
be assumed between zero and one. The optimum value of
μHn and σ Hn can be determined by an iterative process.
3.3. Phase spectrum analysis
As mentioned before, because frequencies higher than the
effective frequency limit ðflim Þ do not contribute to the
amplitude of the ground vibration, the analysis of the phase
spectrum is also correspondingly performed for the interval
of frequencies lower than flim . Initially, the principal angle
values (Schafer, 1969) or phase angles are computed as
angle values within the range of ðπ; πÞ. The computed
principal phase angle curve is not a continuous function,
Li and Silva-Castro 5

Figure 3. Comparison of unwrapped phase curves.

although continuity is a necessity for operations on phases, with respect to frequency. It represents a measure of the
such as the computation of complex cepstrum, phase pre- medium phase distortion or the transit time of the vibration
diction, and computation of group delay. The process to signal through the medium versus the frequency. In the
obtain a continuous phase curve from a discontinuous phase following sections, group delay will be used to study the
spectrum is called the unwrapping operation of the principal relationship between the waveform of a blast event and that
phase angles. In this context, the unwrapping algorithm of a single hole.
used in this study originates from Schafer’s research about
a homomorphic system and cepstrum (Schafer, 1969). It
allows positive phase differences between successive phase 4.1. Group delay—phase derivatives
elements by adding multiples of ±2π when absolute jumps The continuous form of group delay is defined as (Gouriet,
between adjacent frequency elements are greater than π. 1957)
This algorithm is widely adopted by many other researchers
(Childers et al., 1977; Thráinsson et al., 2000; Shrikhande dθ
τðωÞ ¼  (7)
and Gupta, 2001). dω
Figure 3 shows the unwrapped phase curves from the
where τðωÞ is the group delay which is a function of fre-
blast events and the single-hole signatures in Figure 2. As
quency, θ is the unwrapped phase, and ω is the angular
seen in Figure 3, the unwrapped phase spectra have a
frequency.
monotonically decreasing trend. In addition, the angle of
The vibrations produced by blasting are measured in
difference between the phase spectrum of the blast event and
a discrete form. Thus, the discrete form of group delay using
a single-hole phase spectrum increases with the increase of the
the symmetric derivative theorem can be expressed as the
number of holes (number of delays) involved in the blast event.
following limit (Aull, 1967)
Despite the observable trend between the blast event and
the single-hole phase spectrum in Figure 3, it is not possible θðω þ ΔωÞ  θðω  ΔωÞ
to establish at this moment a quantitative relationship be- τðωÞ ¼  lim (8)
Δω → 0 2Δω
tween both, so the concept of the group delay to assess
a single waveform (a signature) is introduced next. where Δω is the unit increment of the frequency. If Δω is
small, the central difference (Sheppard, 1899) can be used in
equation (8) as an approximation of the derivative given by
4. Group delay of blast ground vibrations
θðω þ ΔωÞ  θðω  ΔωÞ
All frequency components of a vibration signal are delayed τðωÞ ¼  (9)
2Δω
when propagating through a medium (Blauert, 1978;
Gouriet, 1957; Shulz, 1971). Group delay can be mathe- The unit frequency increment in equations (8) and (9) is
matically defined as the derivative of the phase characteristic calculated by
6 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
2π
Δω ¼ (10)
L στ ðnÞ ¼
where L is the length of the discrete Fourier transform. If
equation (9) is written in the discrete form, with ω ¼ nΔω,
equation (9) becomes
θðn þ 1Þ  θðn  1Þ
τðnÞ ¼  (11)
2Δω
4.2. Statistical characteristics of group delay of blast
ground vibrations
4.2.1. Frequency-dependent distribution. Group delay can be
calculated for a blast event and for a single-hole waveform
by applying equation (11). As an example, the group delay
of both the blast event and the single waveform for Blast 1
(83 delays) in Figure 3 is calculated and presented in
Figure 4. The horizontal lines in Figure 4(a) and (c) cor-
respond with the effective frequency limit ðflim Þ. In the case
of Blast 1, this value is 49.1 Hz. There are also two dash
vertical curves in Figure 4(a) and (c), respectively, which
represent 3-standard-deviation range ð3σÞ for the group
delay data. The 3σ curves indicate the inclusion of the
99.7% group delay data and were computed using equations
(12)–(14)
Pn
τðmÞ
μτ ðnÞ ¼ 0 (12)
nþ1
Figure 4. A typical group delay plot of Blast 1. (a) τ Y denotes the
group delay of the production blast, (b) AY denotes the magnitude
of the production blast, (c) τ H denotes the group delay of the
signature, and (d) AH denotes the magnitude of the signature.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
0 ðτðmÞ  μτ ðnÞÞ
2
(13)
nþ1
3σ range ¼ ½μτ ðnÞ  3σ τ ðnÞ; μτ ðnÞ þ 3σ τ ðnÞ (14)
where μτ ðnÞ is the cumulative moving average of n group
delay values, σ τ ðnÞ is the cumulative standard deviation of n
group delay values, and 3σ range is the range that covers
99.7% of n group delay values.
The wide range (dash curves) at the bottom of
Figure 4(a) for values lower than 1 Hz is the result of the
outliers identified at the left bottom of the figure. Figure 4
also shows that the group delay is frequency dependent and
has lower scatter behavior below the flim value. Above the
flim frequency, the values of group delay start to vary highly.
The change in the scatter of the group delay with flim is
more evident for the group delay of a single waveform
(Figure 4(c)) than for the blast event (Figure 4(a)).
Figure 4 also shows the magnitude spectrum for the two
signals ((4b) and (4d)). The relationship between the scatter
of the group delay values and the magnitude can be seen in
the figure. When a frequency has a relatively high mag-
nitude spectrum value, such frequency also has more
contribution to the waveform amplitude of the ground vi-
brations, and its corresponding group delay results in less
scatter than those frequencies with low contribution to the
vibration. This is one explanation of why the group delay
scatter presents different behavior above and below the flim
frequency.
Finally, Figure 4 shows that for the range given by
½0; flim , it is possible to represent the group delay versus
frequency relationship by a continuous smooth line, es-
pecially for the signature waveform. This line can be drawn
using a moving average filter for the data group delay versus
frequency in the ½0; flim  range.
4.2.2. Resemblance between group delay distribution and the
waveform. Another significant feature of group delay is its
unit of time, which is the same as that of ground vibration
waveform. Investigations (Boore, 2003; Nigam, 1982;
Sawada et al., 2000) have shown that the histograms (or
distributions) of group delays resemble the envelopes of
ground vibration waveforms. The mean of distribution of
the group delay most of the time corresponds to the location
of the envelope’s peak, and the standard deviation of the
group delay is related to the duration of the waveform. To
illustrate this concept in detail, the group delay histograms
for both the blast event and the single vibration waveform
(signature) for Blast 1 (Figure 4) are included in Figure 5(a)
and (b), respectively. The histograms were prepared using
the frequency range given by ½0; flim .
In this article, the group delay histogram is used to
estimate the length in time of the unknown signature
waveform. For convenience, the entire duration of the
Li and Silva-Castro 7

Figure 5. Group delay histograms and waveform for the event and signature.

vibration waveform in a particle velocity vs time repre-

sentation can be divided in two parts: the main part and the
tail part (Figure 5). The main part of the signal will contain
the particle velocity peak and the “essential” amplitudes of
the waveform, whereas the tail part will include very small
amplitudes (almost unessential amplitudes). Usually, when
a seismograph returns the raw seismic data, the data are in
most cases longer than what are needed for analysis. So, the
data need truncation to appropriately contain the main part
and the tail part of the vibration record.
After analysis of different vibration waveforms collected
for this research, it was evident that the 0.95 quantile of the
group delay distribution will separate the main and the tail
parts of the record. This is illustrated in Figure 5(a) and (b);
in such figures, the lines of 2.02 s and 0.23 s correspond
with the 0.95 quantile for the event waveform and the
Figure 6. Duration and group delay’s statistics among production
collected signature waveform, respectively. The equation blasts, single-hole signatures, and firing timing sequence.
representing the length of the main part of a general
waveform can be written as in equation (15) which is also a comb function, Lcomb ; (4) length of the entire
lmain ¼ μ þ 1:65 σ (15) production blast waveform, Ly ; and (5) length of the entire
single-hole signature waveform, Lh . There are also four
where lmain denotes the length of the waveform’s main part, statistical parameters labeled in this figure: (a) mean of the
and μ and σ are the mean and standard deviation, re- production blast’s group delay distribution, μy ; (b) standard
spectively, of the group delay distribution for a particle deviation of the production blast’s group delay, σ y ; (c) mean
velocity versus time waveform. of the signature’s group delay distribution, μh ; and (c)
To define the tail part of the unknown signature wave- standard deviation of the signature’s group delay, σ h .
form, it is necessary to plot the three functions under Using those parameters in Figure 6, it is possible to
analysis; they are as follows: the complete event waveform, propose various relationships. The first one is about the
the firing timing sequence, and the signature waveform. duration of the main portion of the production blast and
Such plot is included in Figure 6. the signature. Considering that a production blast waveform
There are five duration parameters in Figure 6: (1) du- ðyÞ and the single-hole signatures ðhn Þ are linked by
ration of the main part of the production blast waveform, equation (3) with the timing sequence ðtn Þ (see Figure 1),
Ly;main ; (2) duration of the main part of the single-hole the length of the main portion of the production blast can be
signature, Lh;main ; (3) duration of the firing time sequence, written as
8 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
Ly;main ¼ Lcomb þ Lh;main (16)
Equation (16) indicates that the difference between the
duration of the production blast’s main part and that of the
signature’s main part is just the duration of firing time
sequence. When electronic detonators are used, the timing
is accurate enough to determine Lcomb . So, after de-
termining Ly;main by equation (16), the value of Lh;main can
be estimated.
Then, a proportional relation of the statistical parameters
can be devised from the ratio of duration parameters
μy σ y Ly;main
¼ ¼ (17)
μh σ h Lh;main
Equation (17) is used to find the value of μh and σ h ,
provided all other parameters can be calculated based on
collected data. In addition, μy , μh , σ y , and σ h determine the
relative location and scale between the distributions of the
production blast and the signature.
Equations (16) and (17) can bridge the distributions of
group delay between the production blast and the signature
so that it is possible to simulate random group delays of the
signature. However, the duration of the main part cannot
represent the entire waveform, and the tail part is also
necessary to be included in a synthetic signature. If the
entire length of production blast and timing sequence are
known, then the whole length of the signature, Lh , can be
computed by equation
Ly ¼ Lcomb þ Lh (18)
5. Synthesis of group delay and signatures
from production blast
As mentioned before, in a regular mining production blast,
there is available information regarding the seismic in-
formation (particle velocity records of the blast event), and
in the case when electronic detonators are used, the firing
timing sequence can be considered as known. Using all the
characteristics of the waveforms discussed in previous
sections and the relationships proposed between the event
waveform and the signature waveform when both are
known, a methodology to assess the single-hole signature
waveform for vibration prediction and control is introduced
next. The methodology is illustrated by a case study in
which the data were collected in a surface coal mine. The
event waveform was recorded for a production shot of 62
holes, using electronic detonators and a timing given by
20 ms between charges.
Step 1. Perform fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the
measured blast event waveform and determine the ef-
fective frequency limit ðflim Þ of the Fourier spectrum. The
waveform of the blast event and the magnitude spectrum
as well as the unwrapped phase spectrum is included in
Figure 7.
Step 2. According to Figure 6, some parameters are to be
calculated.
First, compute the group delay histogram and calculate
the mean and standard deviation of the group delay data, μy
and σ y , for the measured production blast in the interval
given by ½0; flim . The results are calculated as 0.944 s and
0.579 s, respectively.
Second, determine the duration of the main part of the
production blast, Ly;main , and the duration of the main part of
the signature ðLh;main Þ by equations (15) and (16). In
equation (16), Lcomb is the duration of the firing sequence of
the blast event. In this case study, there were 62 holes
detonated at 20 ms intervals, so the total duration of the
firing sequence Lcomb is 1.191 s. The results are calculated as
Ly;main ¼ μy þ 1:65 σ y ¼ 0:944 þ 1:65ð0:579Þ s ¼ 1:899 s
Lh;main ¼ Ly;main  Lcomb ¼ 1:899  1:191s ¼ 0:708 s
Third, compute the mean and standard deviation of
group delay, μh and σ h , for the signature by equation (17).
Thus, μh and σ h are estimated parameters, and the corre-
sponding distribution is used as reference of location and
scale for synthetic group delays, which means the distri-
bution of synthesized group delays should be within the
reference distribution.
Lh;main 0:708
μh ¼ μy  ¼ 0:944  ¼ 0:351s
Ly;main 1:899
Lh;main 0:708
σh ¼ σy  ¼ 0:579  ¼ 0:215 s
Ly;main 1:899
Step 3. Next step is to randomly synthesize a series of group
delays for signatures which are within the reference dis-
tribution ðμh ; σ h Þ. This includes a series of operations on the
group delay of the blast event.
(1) Obtain a smoothed group delay spectrum, τ 0y , of the
blast event (production blast) by a moving average filter.
The purpose is to make the group delay of the blast event
less scattered.
(2) Obtain a seed group delay function τ 0h by the fol-
lowing equation so as to compress the seed group delay by
a scale factor of σ h =σ y and center it at μh
  σ
τ 0h ¼ τ 0y  μ0y
h
þ μh (19)
σy
(3) Add random factors to the seed group delay spectrum
ðτ 0h Þ, including changes in the sign, the scale ðaÞ, and the
shifting of the delay spectrum ðbÞ. The randomly generated
Li and Silva-Castro
Figure 7. Blast event waveform, spectral magnitude, and unwrapped phase.
Figure 8. Randomly generated synthetic group delay functions.
group delay spectrum will be denoted by τ h. The operation
is expressed in equation (20) as
 
τ h ¼ sign  a  τ 0h  μh þ b (20)
In equation (20), a negative sign (1) means to flip the
group delay spectrum around μh , the mean of reference
distribution. According to the reference distribution in step
9
2, the random scale factor ðaÞ can be such that the extent of
the synthetic group delay changes between σ 0h and σ h . Fi-
nally, the shifting factor ðbÞ will move the synthetic group
delay around the seed group delay within the range of the
reference distribution.
Sixty-two (62) random synthetic signatures were repro-
duced for this case study, and they are included in Figure 8.
10
Step 4. Based on the randomly generated group delays, it is
possible to synthesize the spectral magnitudes and un-
wrapped phases by using equations (6) and (11). Then, the
signatures can be synthesized by Fourier series. Figure 9
shows the results.
Step 5. Finally, using the synthetic signatures and the
linear superposition introduced in equation (5), it is
possible to back-calculate the event waveform. Figure 10
shows the recorded event waveform (waveform produced
by 62 holes) and the back-calculated waveform using the
synthetic generated signatures. As seen in Figure 10, the
simulated event waveform is similar to the measured
waveform.
At this point, the proposed methodology can be sum-
marized and presented in the following flowchart:
Figure 11 shows that the proposed methodology inno-
vatively integrates systems and signal theory and statistical
methods together to solve an inverse problem of blast
vibrations. The key for successfully conducting this
method is the duration of firing time sequence. Electronic
Figure 9. Spectral amplitude, unwrapped phase, and synthetic signatures using the proposed methodology.
Figure 10. Measured event waveform versus back-calculated event waveform using the synthetic signatures.
Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
detonators were used in those blast field tests in this re-
search, which makes sure the actual firing time of each
delay is accurate enough to be the same as the designed
timing. As a result, the duration of firing time sequence
would be close to reality. If accurate actual firing times
cannot be guaranteed when less accurate detonators are
used, the reliability of the proposed method may be
affected.
6. Conclusions
Below are some conclusions according to the findings of
this research and the proposed methodology.
1. To describe a production blast, a linear superposition
model is more suitable than a strict convolution
model, especially for complex situations.
2. The inverse problem of synthesizing a single-hole
signature from the measured production blast wave-
form cannot be solved by conventional deconvolution
methods.
Li and Silva-Castro
Figure 11. Flowchart of the proposed methodology.
3. The phase contents of Fourier transform have fun-
damental influence on the time-domain waveform.
However, phase angles do not carry much useful
information about synthesis of signature from pro-
duction blasts. We have to turn to its derivative—
group delay.
4. Group delay has the advantage of time unit, and its
distribution resembles the envelope of a time-domain
waveform. Quantitative relationships have been de-
veloped in this article so that an ensemble of group
delay spectra of signatures can be synthesized based
on the measured production blast data.
5. A methodology of synthesizing group delay and
signatures based on group delay operations has been
proposed. It takes into account the randomness of each
blasthole and wave propagation path in the way of
group delays. This methodology successfully syn-
thesized an ensemble of signatures, which can be used
to predict future production blasts.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with re-
spect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
study is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (WUT: 193108006).
ORCID iD
Lifeng Li  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4554-6563
11
References
Anderson D and Brinckerhoff P (2008) Signature hole blast vi-
bration control-twenty years hence and beyond. Proceedings of
the Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique
2(34): 27.
Aull CE (1967) The first symmetric derivative. The American
Mathematical Monthly 74(6): 708–711.
Blair DP (2004) Charge weight scaling laws and the superposition
of blast vibration waves. Fragblast 8(4): 221–239.
Blauert J and Laws P (1978) Group delay distortions in electro-
acoustical systems. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 63(5): 1478–1483.
Boore DM (2003) Phase derivatives and simulation of strong
ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 93(3): 1132–1143.
Childers DG, Skinner DP and Kemerait RC (1977) The cepstrum:
a guide to processing. Proceedings of the IEEE 65(10): 1428–1443.
Dowding CH (1996) Construction Vibrations. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Vol. 610.
Gouriet GG (1957) Two theorems concerning group delay with
practical application to delay correction. Proceedings of the
IEE-Part C: Monographs 105(7): 240–244.
Hadamard J (1902) Sur les problèmes aux dérivées partielles et
leur signification physique. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Bulletin, 49–52.
Khandelwal M and Singh TN (2006) Prediction of blast induced
ground vibrations and frequency in opencast mine: a neural
network approach. Journal of Sound and Vibration 289(4–5):
711–725.
Li L and Silva-Castro J (2017) Spectral division deconvolution of
blast vibration signals for signature estimation. ISEE 43rd
annual conference on explosives and blasting technique, Or-
lando, FL, February 2017. Orlando, FL, Princeton, NJ: In-
ternational Society of Explosives Engineers.
Monjezi M, Ahmadi M, Sheikhan M, et al. (2010) Predicting blast-
induced ground vibration using various types of neural networks.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30(11): 1233–1236.
12
Nicholls HR, Johnson CF and Duvall WI (1971) Blasting Vi-
brations and their Effects on Structures. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin, 656.
Nigam NC (1982) Phase properties of a class of random proc-
esses. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 10(5):
711–717.
Oktay T (2017) Output variance constrained bending control of
rotating Euler–Bernoulli beam. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Me-
chanical Engineering 231(2): 202–211.
Sawada S, Morikawa H, Toki K, et al. (2000) Identification of
path and local site effects on phase spectrum of seismic ground
motion. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on
earthquake engineering, Auckland, 2000. Upper Hutt, New
Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Silverstream.
Schafer RW (1969) Echo Removal by Discrete Generalized Linear
Filtering. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sheppard WF (1899) Central-difference formulae. Proceedings of
the London Mathematical Society s1–s31(1): 449–488.
Shrikhande M and Gupta VK (2001) On the characterisation of
the phase spectrum for strong motion synthesis. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 5(4): 465–482.
Shulz FJ (1971) Envelope delay phase delay group delay chroma
delay; what does it mean? how is it measured?. In: 19th Annual
NCTA convention. Washington, D.C.: National Cable Tele-
vision Association.
Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
Silva JJ (2012) Blast Vibration Modeling Using Improved Sig-
nature Hole Technique for Bench Blast. Lexington, KY:
University of Kentucky.
Silva-Castro JJ and Lusk B (2012) Modeling of signature waves
based on Fourier series for blast vibration prediction. Blasting
Fragment 6: 179–194.
Silva-Castro J and Li L (2018) Deconvolution of blast vibration
signals by Wiener filtering. Inverse Problems in Science and
Engineering 26(10): 1522–1538.
Spathis AT (2010) A brief review of measurement, modeling and
management of vibrations produced by blasting. In:
Vibrations from blasting: proceedings and monographs in
engineering, water and earth sciences, Grenada, Spain,
September 2009. London: CRC Press.
Thoenen JR and Windes SL (1942) Seismic Effects of Quarry
Blasting. Washington: US Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Bulletin 442.
Thráinsson H, Kiremidjian AS and Winterstein SR (2000) Mod-
eling of Earthquake Ground Motion in the Frequency Domain.
Stanford CA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
Report 134.
Verma AK and Singh TN (2011) Intelligent systems for ground
vibration measurement: a comparative study. Engineering with
Computers 27(3): 225–233.
Yang R and Scovira DS (2010) A model for near and far-field blast
vibration based on multiple seed waveforms and transfer
functions. Blast Fragment 4: 91–116.