You are on page 1of 9

Original article

Analysis of ground vibrations caused by bench blasting at Can Open-pit Lignite Mine in Turkey
A. Kahriman

is generally a relatively small region of plastic deformation and cracking; the remaining energy is propagated as an elastic wave in the ground as well. If the charge is near the surface, there may also be propagation through the air. At short range, a wave radiates spherically and the amplitude diminishes inversely with the distance from the blast. At longer ranges, two other factors affect the propagation process: (1). the wave splits into three types of wave, which travel at different speeds; and (2) variations in the medium such as layering or fissuring may introduce further scattering and dispersal effects (Dowding 1985; Kahriman and others 2001c). A major geological fault intersecting the path may largely prevent propagation in a particular direction. In the near region, the ground vibration may cause damage to buildings and other man-made structures by creating dynamic stresses (Dowding 1985). In the past, the relationships between mines and communities have suffered from mutual cultural misunderstandings. Today, the mining industry needs to demonstrate its concern for the environmental and its ability to minimize environmental impacts caused by rock blasting. Poor public relations or a poor track record of environmental management can induce people who live near a mine facility to complain – sometimes quite loudly and publicly – against the environmental problems created by rock blasting. This can create unneighbourly controKeywords Blasting Æ Canakkale city Æ Ground versies and legal action, which may shut down the mine vibrations Æ Western Turkey (Costa and others 1996; Kahriman and others 2000a). Although various research studies have been carried out in the past in order to isolate environmental issues produced from blasting, a general reliable approach or a Introduction formula has not been established yet because of the complexity of the matter. In addition to the wave and According to the fragmentation principle, beyond the ground motion characteristics, the complexity of blasting region of material actually shattered and displaced, there parameters and site factors restrict the development of a general criterion. Therefore, experimental site-specific studies should be still performed in order to predict and Received: 23 March 2001 / Accepted: 7 September 2001 control blasting effects. Abstract The principal disturbances created by blasting in open-pit mines are vibrations, air blast and fly rock. All of these problems, under some circumstances, may cause severe damage to structures nearby and, apart from that, these can be the possible sources of permanent conflict with the inhabitants who live close to the operation. Therefore, a vibrationcontrol study was performed in mines on the basis that prediction of ground vibration components is of great importance in minimising environmental complaints. This paper presents the results of groundvibration measurements induced by bench blasting at Can Open-pit Lignite Mine, which is located close to the residential area of Can town. Within the scope of this study, in order to predict peak particle velocity and determine the slope of the attenuation curve for this site, ground-vibration components were measured for blast events. During the study, the parameters of scaled distance were recorded carefully, and the ground-vibration components were measured by suitable monitors for 54 blast events. At the end of the evaluation of data pairs, an empirical relationship, which gives the average line at a 95% confidence level and an upper bound 95% prediction line with a good correlation coefficient, was established and suggested for this site.
Published online: 14 November 2001 ª Springer-Verlag 2001

A. Kahriman Mining Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University, 34850 Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey E-mail: kahriman:kahriman@istanbul.edu.tr

Test site description
The test site is situated close to the town of Can, which is located about 79 km from Canakkale city in western Turkey (Fig. 1). 653

DOI 10.1007/s00254-001-0446-2 Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661

include Neogene formations. These formations are part of a local graben that strikes NW–SE and is intercepted by transverse faults (Ipekoglu and others 2000). These rock properties were taken into account. Table 1 Lithofacies series for the Can lignite basin Age Neogene Stratigraphic units Upper series Lignite-bearing series Lower series Lithology Conglomerate and alluvium deposits Marls.000 tonnes/year. which is going to be built on the site with a total installed capacity of 2·160 MW. it will supply the Can power plant unit. to determine the excavation class of encountered rock units in the mine. With 6. The present extent of the Can Open-pit Lignite Mine is 1. Intensive geomechanical studies on the basis of field and laboratory tests were conducted by Pasamehmetoglu and others (1991). 7 days a week. sandstone Tuff. who determined some of the mechanical and physical properties of encountered rock units according to the International Society of Rock Mechanics’ (ISRM) suggested methods(Table 2). which implies an average annual overburden removal of 20. clays. Current production rate of the mine is about 500. tuff Thickness (m) 30 400 20 654 Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 .Original article Fig. The Can Open-pit Lignite Mine has been in continuous operation since 1975.435. together with observations on actual blasting activities.300. 300 days per year. It supplies the domestic requirements. marly limestone. These values confirm that drilling and blasting is an unavoidable operation for all rock units.000 h per year of scheduled operating time of the power plant. The planned mine life is over 32 years at a rate of three shifts per day.000 m3. the average coal production is planned to be 2. This creates problems in mining operations (Kahriman and others 2001b).000 t/year. grey clays. The dip of the Neogene formations in this area changes between 0° and 20°. andesite. The sediments of the basin. 1 Locality map of Can Open-pit Lignite Mine Regional geologic setting and rock characterization The lithofacies series for Can lignite basin are given in Table 1. which may exceed 450 m in thickness in certain locations.400 m long by 600 m wide with a total of 155 m of overburden being removed in six high benches. basalt. In the near future. Some landslides have been observed at overburden benches.

91±0.69±0. From Fig. They mainly consist of three geophones (transversal.23 Blasting parameters In blasting operations. They use microcomputer technology.28±0.457 Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Poisson ratio Coal Volcanic breccia Tuff Mudstone Andesite Sandstone Aglomerate 12.22 0.62 32. In other words.86 6.70±13. Fig.20 64.57 5. a microphone.83 5.12 2.5 59 33 52 59 56.24±0.11 2.19±1.59 18.08±8.12 35.50±1.70 Internal friction (°) 39.181 0.53 3. Experimental Within the scope of the current research project.39 20.67±0. vertical and longitudinal).80 23.62±4.01 40.13±3.40 2.22±0. The instruments record peak values of particle velocity of up to 25 cm/s in three directions and time-histories of seismic vibrations and sound pressures. can also be examined.51±3.14 5. ground vibrations induced by blasting were measured to estimate the damage risk and site-specific attenuation. Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 655 .37 18.13 13. such as quantitative measurements and observations.81±0.00 3.30±13. the necessary information. Both the models are portable seismographs for monitoring and recording seismic and sound signals produced from blasting. it can be seen that blast holes were vertical with a 171-mm diameter for all blasts. they have similar specifications and their particle velocity measurement ranges are accepted by the commission of the International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE).00 20.5 57 20. A non-electric millisecond delay system was used to initiate the charge.65±0. An inner hole detonator was used at 25-ms intervals.22 6.33±23.59 4.99±1. peak acceleration and peak displacement for each of the transverse. emulsion (Emulite in wet blastholes) and Anfo (blasting agent) gelatine dynamite (priming) and delay detonators (in the activity contractor) were used as explosives during the study. zero crossing frequency (ZC freq). with 1 m of sub-drilling and 3 m of stemming for all blast patterns.98 25.44±0. and the vibration measurements were applied to this blasting geometry spontaneously by the research team.40±3.09 3.55±0.01±0.03±0.81±8. whose specifications are summarized below. 2 General design parameters of bench blasts for Can Lignite Mine Although two different types of vibration monitors were used during the study.49 3.31 0.Original article Table 2 The results of rock mechanics laboratory tests (Pasamehmetoglu and others 1991) Rock unit Unit weight (kN/m3) Moisture content (%) Indirect tensile Uniaxial strength compressive (MPa) strength (MPa) Triaxial compressive strength Cohesion (MPa) 4.35 2.103 0. were the only data obtained from the blast shots.46±0. The instruments calculate the peak particle velocity. They can be used for a single shot or in continuous mode. Blasting geometry applied in the mine and the charging process was designed by blasters from the company. which indicate these values. They also have their own seismographic data analysis software. which would be the basis of the monitoring (Kahriman and others 2001b).26 10.84±1. The timing pattern were designed as 42-ms delay between rows and 17-ms delay between holes within a row.59 21.20 24.60 35. 2.43 24. the ground vibration components were measured by using Instantel Minimate Plus Model and White Mini-Seis Model vibration instruments.34 2.263 0.84±0.20 24.23 5. Compliance reports.60 31. which provides the easiest way to access and analyse recorded data. a control and memory unit and a battery.2 2.31 17. The hole length was 8 m. While measured distances were recorded for the 54 shots.22 0. vertical and longitudinal axes.06 2.75±0.01 0.

Although waves accordance with the statistical rule of thumb. A minimum of 30 data pairs is needed for reliable analysis.7. the construction type and quality of the nearby buildings are also important in damage risk assessment for every site. rock type and properties. The scaled distance is derived by combining the distance between source and measurement points. particle velocity transverse. expovelocities. The used equation for the scaled distance is given below: SD ¼ R=Wd0:5 ð1Þ where SD scaled distance. and this is added to the amount of ANFO. the attenuation formula must be adjusted statistically to a 95% confidence level and a ‘goodness of fit’ or coefficient of determination (r) of the data should be no less than 0.were tested. Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 . peak particle velocity). Within the scope of this experimental study. etc. The scaled distance is a concept put forward by using the amount of explosive energy in air shock and seismic waves. and the maximum charge per delay. pattern and charge are explained above in detail. The best approximation equation with the rectly proportional to the energy developed in the blasting highest correlation coefficients was determined as follows: 656 reaction. depending on the weight strength. Dowding 1985). daily shot location. The distances between shot points and monitor stations were determined using surveying equipment and a GPS. particle velocity vertical. that occur at a blasting source disperse through the rock In order to establish a useful relationship between peak particle velocity and scaled distance. and this affects the basis of distance.7 or so. the formula given below. PPV. PVL. which is suggested extensively in most investigations. below 0. used to establish the confidence level. enough data sets have been obtained in Total energy from wave motions of rock varies with the amount of explosive ignited in one time. the most reliable relationships are those that accept the scaled distance and particle velocity as a basis. When statistical analyses techniques are applied to blast Kahriman 2000b). every blasting area is different from each other. logarithmic. In addition to small differences. In the predictions of ground vibration. In determining the maximum charge per delay. but variable) were chosen with arbitrary distances. One of the objectives for selection of these points was to evaluate the degree of damage from previous blasting and review the previous blasting records for such factors as blast pattern. a sufficient number of blasts (at least 30 events) have to be planned so that enough data can be Measurement results gathered to develop a similar formula. distance and scaled distance. are presented in Table 3. To assure the reliability of Eq. nential. type and amount of explosives used. a review of Statistical analyses of results the data and test procedures is advisable and a series of additional test must be carried out (Costa and others 1996. Within the scope of this study. such as the geology of the area. blasting pattern and hole charge. should be as close as possible to zero. peak particle velocity and scaled distance give a site a specific velocity attenuation equation. linear. When it occurs. R is the distance between the shot and the station (m). The shots of and their location. various station points (as close as possible. and to measure the environmental effects of the blasting.. by determining the level of frequency and velocity of the vibration.The results of groundvibration measurements of the 54 events carried out at the test site. When the goodness of fit is too low. particle velocity longitudinal. Statistically. On the other hand. this is an indication that there is some problem or inconsistency in the data. In simple regression. (2). In the blasting records. has been used as a predictor to estimate peak particle velocity (PPV). vibration data pairs. The particle velocity occurs as a vibration inside the rock. PPV ðmm=sÞ ¼ K Â ðSDÞÀb PPV ðmm=sÞ¼ K Â ðSDÞÀb ð2Þ where K is the ground transmission coefficient and b the specific geological constant. reciprocal and power curve fitting approximations Vibration velocities transferred from blasting rock is di.Original article The amount of explosives per delay was determined by controlling the hole charge. the geophones were located in the measurement stations at various random directions and distances (Kahriman and others 2001a). and this scaled distance concept has been used extensively in the literature to estimate particle velocity together with site factors (Siskind and others 1980. and frequency values were recorded using two types of monitors (a Instantel Mini-Mate Plus Model and a White Mini-Seis Model). Vibration damage induced analysis was performed using the data pairs given in by bench blasting can be evaluated based on the particle Table 3. There is an important relationship between total charge per delay and the distance from shot point to the measurement station. PVV. the amount of dynamite used as priming has been taken into consideration. simple regression mass. the original rock volume increases and influences the pressure effect of the wave. and Wd is the maximum charge per delay (kg). Some of these stations were chosen at locations where there are damage risks and also at foundations of mine company buildings where some cracks have been observed. although a lot of empirical relationships have been established and used by different researchers in the past. including particle velocity components (PVT. It is also inversely proportional to the distance of the blasting point. In contrast. which are related to the dominant frequencies. The standard deviation. total charge per delay.

0 12.6 14.78 3. Particle velocity (mm/s) Transverse peak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 10.6 17 7.8 9.2 6.52 6.49 3.5 5.9 2.1 18.3 24. the formula can be used to estimate particle velocity for similar operations as a preThe attenuation of the determined curve for this site is also liminary approach.4 4.4 4.51 5.1 4.41 7.5 25 5.4 7 4.37 2.57 5.7 28.40 1.3 16 9 6.1 4.08 17.06 4.73 2.86 12.3 30.3 4.57 12.44 2.24 10.44 3.60 1. The empirical factors K and b were in accordance with previous investigations of many redetermined as 191 and –1.08 23.90 2.57 5.6 13 9.10 12.94 9.7 33 12.Regression analysis was also done individually for velocity PPV ¼ 191 Â ðSDÞÀ1:13 ðr ¼ 0:85Þ Table 3 Blast vibration data recorded from Can Lignite Mine (Kahriman and others 2001b).7 35.5 5.90 5.05 2.83 2.6 7 39.5 22 30 5.87 9.Original article ð3Þ son and others 2000.8 9.3 26.3 4.5 82.08 12.3 28. respectively.5 35.13.3 15.64 1.3 1. Hence.7 2.08 23.5) Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 657 .02 1.5 3.48 7.8 Frequency (Hz) Charge per delay Distance (kg) (m) Scaled distance (m/kg0.05 6.9 7.53 1.5 19.05 5.43 69 22.7 24.88 2.37 1.2 14.32 28.19 0.4 8.88 Vertical peak Longitudinal peak 15.6 23.3 12 57 57 14.88 0.36 1.62 19.46 3. Dowding 1985.30 2.5 3.57 9.57 7.64 1.1 8.79 6.29 4.9 3.4 5.97 12.7 33.54 1.3 25.5 4.30 4.33 21.6 6.3 12.62 7.2 19.1 4.65 3.62 7.7 4. searchers (Siskind and others 1980.86 14. PPV Peak particle velocity Event no.94 7.6 27.45 1.19 17.57 5.15 1.76 2.8 8.02 4.65 1.11 13.4 14.7 24.03 15.17 4.3 1.97 1.3 35.45 1.4 0.7 57.2 30.35 3.95 13 3.30 2.55 1.2 16.9 3.1 15.9 1.6 12.2 101 120 61 100 50 300 100 126 126 125 125 90 125 90 60 60 115 190 110 110 60 50 115 190 110 150 170 154 150 70 70 130 90 100 300 56 80 80 80 80 100 90 90 80 75 75 200 200 200 150 150 200 200 150 166 99 121 243 100 75 120 640 640 160 125 149 800 780 230 210 200 120 110 115 245 200 180 125 150 85 100 150 155 130 55 110 150 85 350 150 110 130 135 45 50 60 40 100 500 500 500 350 350 350 350 500 500 350 16.33 18.1 9.14 6.41 7.17 7.84 0.4 14.64 15.7 9.57 16.62 27.62 27.78 29.57 20.87 7.5 28.02 24.30 6.11 3.4 36. John.3 11.1 11.3 13.05 21.2 1.3 40.5 15.70 14.07 14.76 2.2 11.58 1.5 5 5 4 7 8.14 20.08 11.4 6 56.48 6.06 15. because there was no a vibration monitoring device.94 5.1 57.24 13 5.73 1.5 10.9 0.1 9.10 4.1 16.3 16 11 10 6.6 28.7 71.52 4.05 7.53 6.07 12.5 8.7 26 17 17 11 5 8 3 6.30 6.3 27.27 3.2 32.51 7.65 3.97 1.19 17.1 8.3 6.25 32.3 14.25 17 7.3 43 10 34 15 5 4.50 31.81 2.06 3.16 14.5 5.5 32 3.14 1.1 7.2 29.03 5 6.21 1.27 23.46 1.3 25 5.76 2.4 31.6 1.4 5.02 3. PPV 20.43 31.8 3.7 10.09 5.14 4.27 4.1 27.11 4.11 9.02 3.37 2.6 8.40 5.8 7.7 3.76 4.17 2.6 10.83 2.67 3. for this site.14 Max.9 7.1 5.5 20.5 9.5 7.94 1.10 6.62 4.6 36.4 11 3.19 28.17 12.81 3.5 22.4 9.4 24.43 69 22.84 2.09 4.02 2.3 15.43 4.5 3.32 5.45 1.14 3.29 10.

094 Table 7 Summary of simple regression output from v. 4. given a particular scaled distance. As can be seen in Table 8.132 0.028 –1. The upper 95% prediction limit line. PPV peak particle velocity Site factors Particle velocity (mm/s) Transverse PVT K b r 100. the critical slope value of –1. Results of the regression and correlation are presented in Tables 5.099 18. Variables in the equation Parameter Coefficients Standard error t-test P-value 95% Confidence interval Lower Intercept X variable 2. The empirical formula was also tested using the new data pairs given in Tables 5. PVL particle velocity longitudinal. It presents a standard summary output from regression analysis performed within the data analysis tool.126 0. is shown in Fig. 3. Note that 10/2. Kahriman and others 2000b).134 is easily extracted from the summary output. and the standard deviation between values measured in-situ and the values predicted by the formula do not exceed 10%. 10 SPSS statistical software (1999). the regression analysis shows that all the results are close and are in accordance with the 50% prediction limit curve.054 F 128.334 Upper 2.228 0.Original article components.29 –1. Furthermore. The intercept coefficient is obtained from the linear regression in the log–log transformed space.534 –0. which is in agreement with Fig.85 Table 5 Summary of simple regression output from v. 4. 6 and 7. Therefore. 6 and 7. this prediction will give the best estimate for PPV as well as the upper 95% prediction limit below which it is expected future blasts will occur (Dowding 1985.706 Standard error 0.134 0. The measured values of PPV for the new events were below the line.233 Observation 54 Table 6 Summary of simple regression output from v.281 equals 191 (see Table 7). the established relationship at the upper 95% prediction level was also tested using four new shots.85 Vertical PVV 145. Analysis of variance (Anova) DF Regression Residual Total 1 52 53 Sum of squares 7.130 0.44 –1.16 –1.35 4. 10 SPSS statistical software (1999).09 2. Although the formula obtained from the transverse components of the particle velocity has a better correlation coefficient than the others.83 Significance F 1. 10 SPSS statistical software (1999). Tables 5. The R square quantity is a basic measure of the quality of fit.51 –1. The prediction of particle velocity requires that average and upper bound values be well known. In this case.281 –1.011 2.8412 Mean square 7.07 11.829 9. Regression statistics Multiple R 0. Table 4 Equations of particle velocity components for all events. Finally.712 Adjusted R square 0.48 1. which consists of 54 shot events.933 658 Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 .011 0. a value of 0. The graph of the relationship between particle velocity components and scaled distance is presented in Fig.78 Longitudinal PVL 213.844 R square 0. The relationship between the particle velocity components (including PPV) and the scaled distance are presented in Table 4. 6 and 7 show the statistical calculations when using the full data set. Johnson and others 2000. which was generated from the standard error and data distribution curve by means of 10 V SPSS software.712 indicates that 71.85 Peak PPV 191.2% of the PPV variability is explained by the linear regression. PVT particle velocity transverse.092 0. the measured and predicted values of PPV are close to each other.

Johnson and others 2000). as was expected in accordance with the literature (Siskind and others 1980. These results prove that measured event frequencies at this site are quite low because of the layer structure of the encountered rock masses. 50% are between 5 and 12 Hz. given above. When studying this graph. Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 659 .Original article Fig. the obtained equation. Additionally. These values show that it is important for the blasters and the mine authorities to record and evaluate all blast events. it can be determined that 11% of frequency values are Fig. was used for this site. 3 Particle velocity components versus scaled distance This case study has proven that it can be possible to design reliable blasts using this formula on this site. Therefore. It is obvious that the damage risk can be very high because of the measured low frequencies and because building self-structural frequencies change between 5 and 10 Hz in general. It is well known that low-frequency vibrations have a greater potential for damage than high-frequency vibrations (for a certain velocity). the distribution of frequency values in PPV for all events is shown in Fig. 4 Peak particle velocity versus scaled distance (at 50% and upper 95% prediction limits) between 1–4 Hz. 5. to predict peak particle velocity in control blast design. 26% are between 13 and 40 Hz and 13% are greater than 40 Hz.

5 Frequency distribution for all recorded blast events Conclusion important to eliminate environmental problems. a lower velocity may also damage building structure.0 3. CA. TUBITAK Project no YDABCAG-648 Johnson M. Anaheim. these frequency ranges may cause unexpected results on neighbouring buildings. These recommendations are based on the lowest particle velocity level versus dominant frequency range. Tuncer G (2000a) Estimation particle velocity on the basis of blast event measurement for an infrastructure excavation located nearby Istanbul. which is in accordance with the literature. it should be taken into account that the formula established is just a prediction of particle velocity and will give erratic results because of other various effects. Gorgun S. vol 2. 660 References Costa E. the US Bureau of Mines (Siskind and others 1980) has made important recommendations for the evaluation of damage risk to buildings. However. Scaled distance (m/kg0.40 For performing extensive investigations. the results of this study will be more meaningful to solve future environmental problems. Therefore. extensive research work was realised at the site.40 1. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Research Fund of the University of Istanbul (project numbers are 1056/ 031297 and BEKADEP: B-806/12122000) and the Turkey Scientific and Technique Research Society (Project numbers are YDABCAG-199Y027 and YDABCAG-648 ). to predict the vibration parameters. duration and repeated blasting will be important matters of increasing interest.77 9. too. This study was conducted by taking into consideration that a power plant is going to be built. and regression analysis should be updated by further measurement results depending on the advances at the time and the mine. As mining capacities change to an ever-larger scale depending on the power plant construction and the $30 years of mine life. the environmental issues will increase. accordingly. the vibration intensity. 1st Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 .Original article Table 8 Calculated and measured values of peak particle velocity Event no. Ayderes Da Silva LA (1996) Practical ways to reduce environmental rock blasting problems. which was composed of sedimentary rock units and was located quite close to Can. Karadogan A (2000) Planning and design of an open-pit mine for a coal field to supply the fuel for a thermal power plant. Pepper J. the annual production of the mine should increase and. To support the reliability of this formula more events should be monitored in different directions.43 8. Depending on this finding. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique.8 68. Therefore. pp 83–95 Kahriman A. Karadogan A. monitoring of shots the staff of the Turkish Coal Enterprise for their hospitality and and measurements of ground vibrations are extremely help during the field investigations. Kahriman A. Istanbul University. Within the scope of this study. The author is grateful to the Research Fund of the University of Istanbul and Turkey Scientific Environmental issues that arise from blasting increasingly and Technique Research Society for their financial support and to restrict mining operations. Italy Dowding CH (1985) Blast vibration monitoring and control. Environmental issues and waste management in energy and mineral production.24 1. McLellan G (2000) Attenuation of blasting vibrations in South Florida. as was expected. Gorgun S.77 2.64 1 2 3 4 35.5) (SD) Particle velocity (mm/s) Calculated Measured 3. At the end of the measurement evaluations. Englewood Cliffs Ipekoglu B. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Environmental Issues and Waste Management in Energy and Mineral Production. it was determined that vibration frequencies that occurred at the test site were quite low.4 48. Cagliari. Silva V. Fig. International Society of Explosives Engineers. Many other investigations and regulations have supported this approach. The cited concepts accept that as long as frequency decreases.0 15.61 2. Prentice-Hall. with consideration to the structure types.

Dowding CH (1980) Structure response and damage produced by ground vibration from surface mine blasting. Turkey Scientific and Technique Research Society (TUBITAK) Report of Investigation Project no YDABCAG-199Y027 Kahriman A. Middle East Technical University. Stagg MS. United States Bureau of Mines.Original article World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. vol 6. Karpuz C. Tuncer G. Orlando. pp 351–360 Kahriman A. Sul OL. Sari D (1991) Slope stability studies at Can Open-Pit Lignite Mine. SPSS 10. Kopp JW. Ankara Siskind DE. pp 107–115 Kahriman A. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. Munich. Demirci A (2001c) Estimation of powder factor in bench blasting by use of a work index in comminution. Tuncer G (2001b) Attenuation of ground vibration induced by blasting at Can Open-Pit Lignite Mine in Turkey. Gorgun S. CA.0 for Windows Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653–661 661 . Gorgun S. Anaheim. Istanbul University. Karadogan A. Trans Inst Mining Metall A110:A114–A118 Pasamehmetoglu G. Bavaria Kahriman A. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. Ozgenoglu A. Report of Investigation 8507 SPSS (1999) Statistical software. International Society of Explosives Engineers. vol 6. International Society of Explosives Engineers. Ozkan SG. Gorgun S. Karadogan A (2001a) Measurement of environmental issues (ground vibration and air blast) arisen from rock blasting and investigations for establishing damage criterion. FL. Karadogan A (2000b) Estimation particle velocity on the basis of blast event measurement.