See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318744047

Prediction of Blast Induced Vibration using Numerical

Simulation

Chapter · January 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 223

1 author:

Vivek Kumar Himanshu

Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
32 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mining View project

Excavation of underground metalliferous deposits using drilling and blasting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vivek Kumar Himanshu on 28 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Prediction of Blast Induced Vibration
using Numerical Simulation

Vivek Kumar Himanshu1,*, Murari Prasad Roy2

1
Scientist, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
2
Principal Scientist, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
E-mail: *vivekkhimanshu@cimfr.res.in, vivekbit07@gmail.com

Abstract
Mineral excavation by blasting is dominant over the globe till date, although there are
certain undesirable effects of blasting which needs to be controlled. Blast induced
vibration is one of the major concerns for blast designers as it may lead to structural
damage. Empirical method for prediction of blast induced vibration has been adopted
by many researchers in the form of predictor equations. Predictor equations are site
specific and indirectly related to physico-mechanical and geological properties of
rock mass, so its formulations require extensive data collection and is time consuming.
Numerical simulation is a comprehensive approach which incorporates physico-
mechanical properties of rock mass in the model. Detonation pressure equivalent
to actual blast condition is incorporated in the model for this purpose, which is a
function of density and velocity of detonation (VOD) of explosive. Following study
deals with simulation of a blast wave incorporated with measured in-the-hole VOD
of explosive at a mine. Longitudinal, vertical and transverse wave velocity along
with peak particle velocity (PPV) of blast wave has been predicted in the model and
is compared with actual blast vibration recorded at mine site.

1.  Introduction
Mineral excavation by blasting is a challenging job as this operation leads
to many undesirable effects like blast induced vibration, flyrock, noise etc.
Controlled blasting technique is adopted for optimization of blast parameters
from safety and productivity point of view. Blast induced vibration, Flyrock,
noise, environmental annoyance etc. are key concern for safe blasting operation
and fragmentation of blasted rock is key concern of productivity [1]. Blasting
engineer focuses to optimize blast using various blasting pattern which
encompasses variation of delay timing, maximum explosive charge per delay,
number of blasted holes, total explosive charge per delay etc. [2]. Blast induced
220 Prediction of Blast Induced Vibration using Numerical Simulation

ground vibration is a key issue to be taken care of for safety of surrounding

structures [3]. DGMS have formulated its standard to restrict blast vibration
for safety of structures around blasting source, which can be maintained either
by proper prediction methodology or from trial blasting leading to actual
formulation for the site.

2.  Blast induced vibration

Explosive charge inside a hole generates strain wave which is commonly termed
as seismic wave. The family of seismic waves generated from a blasting source
is broadly classified into body wave and surface wave. The body wave travels
through the medium as well as on the surface whereas surface wave travels only
along the surface of the medium. Body waves are again classified into P-wave
(primary wave) which is compressional in nature and propagates along medium,
and S-wave (shear wave) which propagates perpendicular to the p-wave. Surface
waves are broadly classified into Rayleigh wave (R-wave) and Love wave
(L-wave). Primary wave is fastest among these waves. Shear wave velocity is
roughly 60% of the velocity of primary wave. R-wave is slowest wave with
velocity roughly 90% of the velocity of S-wave [1,4].
The primary wave causes particle of the medium to move in to and fro motion
with particle motion in the direction of wave propagation, it causes volumetric
change in the medium whereas shear wave which propagates in direction
perpendicular to the direction of particle motion causes change in shape of
medium. Rayeligh wave causes particles on surface of a medium to move in
elliptical orbit, it causes maximum highest potential damage risk at a greater
distance from blasting source [4].

3.  Prediction of blast induced vibration

There are different approaches to predict blast induced vibration, Empirical and
statistical approach consisting of predictor equation is very common among
them.

3.1 Empirical-Statistical Approach
This approach requires intensive data collection of vibration at different distance
for varying maximum charge per delay and establishment
__ of an empirical relation
   ​) in the form of equation (1).
between vibration and scaled distance (D/​÷Q 
__
   ​)b
PPV = k (D/​÷Q  ...(1)
Where PPV = peak particle velocity
D = Distance from blasting source
Q = Maximum charge per delay
k, b = site constants
 Vivek Kumar Himanshu, et al. 221

3.2 Signature Hole Analysis Approach

This approach deals with blast vibration prediction based on fast fourier
transform of blast wave recorded for a single hole blast. Blast vibration recorded
for this purpose are simulated under designed deck and blast design to predict
superimposed blast vibration at a particular distance [5].

3.3 Equivalent Spherical Charge Approach

Peak particle velocity generated by cylindrically-charged blastholes fired at
different delay detonators in surface blasting can be predicted with reasonable
degree of certainty by an equivalent spherical charge conversion (ESCC)
approach wherein the cylindrical charges are replaced by equivalent spherical
charges [6].

3.4 Numerical Simulation Approach

This approach comprises of basic equations of elasticity to predict blast induced
vibration based on rock properties and explosive material properties provided to
the model. This can be achieved by continuous as well as fracture dynamics.
Discontinuous modelling approach is more preferable as it considers reflection
and refraction of blast waves through joints and discontinuities.

4. Simulation of Blast waves-A case study

This study has been done to predict blast-induced vibration for a signature
equivalent spherical charge for a coal mine overburden blast with Shale as
main host rock. Simulation has been performed with Finite difference method
approach using Flac3D [7]. Compressional p-wave velocity has been predicted
at different radial distances. Rock mass properties used in model have been
presented in Table1. Explosive properties have been incorporated in model using
detonation pressure.

Table 1  Rock mass properties used in model.

Elastic Modulus 5.7 GPa
Poissions ratio 0.25
Density 2310 Kg/m3
Rayeligh damping 22 Hz, 1%

4.1  Explosive Energy Input

Detonation pressure has been simulated in model to represent behavior of explosive
material. Detonation pressure is a function of velocity of detonation (VOD) of
explosive material and density of explosive as shown in equation (2).
222 Prediction of Blast Induced Vibration using Numerical Simulation

1
Pd = ​ __  ​ re (VOD)2 10– 6 ...(2)
2
Where, Pd = Detonation pressure (MPa)
re = Density of explosive (kg/m3)
VOD = Velocity of detonation (m/s)
Site mixed emulsion explosive has been simulated in the model. Velocity of
Detonation tested and taken for this purpose using Data TrapII of M/s MREL is
shown in Fig. 1. Measured VOD for explosive is 5165 m/s. Detonation pressure
has been calculated based on tested VOD and density of explosive which has
been presented in Table 2 [8].

Fig. 1  Velocity of Detonation for SME explosive

Table 2  Explosive input parameters for model.

Velocity of Detonation 5165 m/s
Density 1100 kg/m3
Detonation pressure 14.67 GPa

4.2 Wave Propagation in Numerical Model

Compressional p-wave has been simulated in numerical model around signature
spherical charge. Result has been validated with equivalent signature hole blast.
Diameter of equivalent sphere has been calculated as per charging pattern of
cylindrical charge. Empirical relationship for diameter of equivalent sphere is
shown in equation (3) [6].
at = (3Qt /4pr)1/3 ...(3)
where at = Equivalent diameter of sphere
Qt = Total explosive charge in the hole.
r = density of explosive.
 Vivek Kumar Himanshu, et al. 223

Considering total SME explosive charge for conducted signature hole blast as
975kg, diameter of equivalent sphere has been taken as 298mm.
Boundary conditions has been considered in the model to absorb compressional
p-wave, but in practical situation it is being reflected from free surfaces, joints
or discontinuities in the form of tensile wave. Tensile wave is useful from
fragmentation point of view but it reduces overall vibration in opposite side of
face, so compressional wave can be taken as worst cause for vibration. A view
of propagation of compressional p-wave in model with varying dynamic time is
shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2  View of compressional wave propagation in Numerical model.

4.3 Vibration Prediction from Numerical Model

Magnitude of particle velocity has been plotted with dynamic time for signature
hole blast at a distance of 50m and 100m from blasting source. Particle velocity
was recorded at equivalent distance in longitudinal, vertical and transverse
direction and its peak vector sum has been plotted in terms of velocity
magnitude. Plot shows maximum particle velocity of 10.5mm/s and 2mm/s for
a distance of 50m and 100m respectively in longitudinal, vertical or transverse
direction. Plot for particle velocity at 50m and 100m in longitudinal direction is
shown in Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 respectively. Magnitude of particle velocity in terms
of peak vector sum at 50m and 100m radial distance is 18.2mm/s and 3.45mm/s
respectively. Magnitude of particle velocity for 50 m and 100 m radial distance
has been shown in Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 respectively. Magnitude of particle velocity
has been compared for two measuring points in different direction. PVS in front
direction from blasting source is 1.65mm/s (refer Fig. 7) at a radial distance of
100m whereas in back direction from blasting source is 3.45mm/s (refer Fig. 6),
which shows that back side of blasting face have more potential for blast induced
vibration.
224 Prediction of Blast Induced Vibration using Numerical Simulation

Fig. 3  Longitudinal particle velocity at radial distance of 50m from blasting source

Fig. 4  Longitudinal particle velocity at radial distance of 100m from blasting source

Fig. 5  Peak vector sum of vibration at radial distance of 50m from blasting source
 Vivek Kumar Himanshu, et al. 225

Fig. 6  Peak vector sum of vibration at radial distance of 100m from blasting source

Fig. 7  Peak vector sum of vibration at radial distance of 100m in front side of
blasting source

5. Field Monitoring of blast vibration for signature

hole blast
Monitoring of blast induced vibration was performed for similar condition as
presented in model at a coal mine at Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, India. Signature
hole blast for this purpose was performed for 24m length hole of hole diameter
259mm using 975kg Site mixed emulsion explosive. Vibration monitoring was
performed in back side of the face at a distance of 100m and 150m. Recorded
vibration at a distance of 100m was 2.22mm/s and at a distance of 150m from
face was 1.69 mm/s. A view of vibration monitoring using seismograph is
shown in Figure 8. Event report of recorded vibration at a distance of 150m
from blasting source is presented in Fig. 9.
226 Prediction of Blast Induced Vibration using Numerical Simulation

Fig. 8  A view of Blast vibration monitoring using seismograph.

Fig. 9  Event report of recorded vibration for signature hole blast

 Vivek Kumar Himanshu, et al. 227

6. Conclusions
Prediction of blast induced vibration is a challenging task for blast designers.
Various approach has been tried for prediction of blast induced vibration,
predictor equation is very common out of them. Predictor equation is site
specific and its generation requires a lot of data. Numerical simulation can
be a comprehensive approach which predicts blast induced vibration based on
simulation of compressional wave. Yet compressive wave simulation doesn’t
give complete picture of blast but still it is useful as tensile wave after reflection
will tend to reduce vibration in back side of face.
A case study using rock mass properties of a coal mine has been simulated in
this study which gives peak vector sum of vibration as 18.2mm/s at a distance of
50m and 3.45mm/s at a distance of 100m in back side of blasting face. Vibration
monitoring using seismograph for signature hole blast at similar condition shows
peak vector sum of vibration as 2.22mm/s at a distance of 100m in back side of
face.

Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Director, CIMFR for giving permission and
necessary support for writing paper. Authors are thankful to Scientists, Technical
staffs and Project Assistants of Rock Excavation Engineering Division, CSIR-
CIMFR, Dhanbad for their support and co-operation.

References
[1] P. P. Roy and A. Sinha, “Technical Guidelines for Controlled Blasting”, 2007.
[2] P. P. Roy, “Terms and parameters influencing mine and ground excavations”,
Rock blasting effects and operations, pp. 17–22, 61, 2005.
[3] G.R. Adhikari, and H.S.Venkatesh, “An approach for optimizing a blast design
for surface mines”, The Indian Mining & Engineering Journal, February, pp.25–
28, 1995.
[4] C. J. Konya, “Rock Blasting and Overbreak Control”, National Highway Institute,
pp 226–265, 2003.
[5] Blastware operator manual version 10.72, M/s Instantel Inc. Canada
[6] P. P. Roy, “An equivalent spherical charge conversion (ESCC) approach for
prediction of ground vibration due to blasting”, Mining Technology 1474–9009
(Print) 1743–2863 (Online) Journal, 2016,.
[7] FLAC3D Version 5.0, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., USA, 1997.
[8] CIMFR Visit note on the blasts conducted at Moher and Moher Amlohri OCP
during June 08–14, 2016 and September 17–22, 2016.
View publication stats