Evaluation of Blast Vibrations From Sekkoy Surface Coal Mine in Turkey

EVALUATION OF BLAST VIBRATIONS
FROM SEKKOY SURFACE COAL MINE IN TURKEY
Sedat Esen and H. Aydm Bilgin

Department of Mining Engineering
Middle East Technical University
Ankara, TURKEY
ABSTRACT
In this paper, the ground vibrations induced by blasting for stripping work at Sekkoy Open Cast Coal
Mine belonging to TKI Yenikoy Lignite Mine (YLI) are investigated and the procedures for monitoring
and control of ground vibrations are presented. Ground vibration measurements are conducted in the
direction of Turkish Electricity Authorities’ Yenikoy Establishment and social facilities because of the
complaints and annoyance arising from this site. Forty ground vibration records are taken in this
direction and the vibrations are measured in transverse, vertical, longitudinal components together with
peak vector sum. After then the scaled distance relationship is determined at 95% confidence value.
Further, Fast Fourier Transform analyses are carried out to determine dominant frequencies for both
ground and the structures and amplification factors. When the records taken at four different structures
together with the ground are evaluated, it is observed that one of the apartment buildings is amplified the
amplitude of longitudinal component 4.3 times. The maximum allowable amount of explosive that can
be fired safely at this mine is calculated and recommended on. In the determination of safe amount, 95%
confidence line, USBM RI8507 and OSMRE criteria, the dominant frequencies of both ground and the
structure, amplification factor and the human response are taken into account.
Figures and tables follow the text.
Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2001G Volume 1 - Evaluation of Blast Vibrations from Sekkoy Surface Coal Mine in Turkey - P 313 1 of 15
INTRODUCTION
Complaints arising from the neighboring residents are one of the most frequent problems of the
establishments in both mining and construction sectors where blasting operations are conducted.
Blast-induced ground vibration is said to be a reason for the complaints. Complaints in Turkey as well as
all over the world are classified into three major groups; complaints related with real damage,
complaints arising from anxiety and inadequate knowledge, complaints with unfair intentions.
It is possible to solve this enviromnental problem causing intransigence by conducting blast vibration
monitoring. The real reason behind the complaint can be determined by this approach. If the complaints
are right, mining companies should control the ground vibration by changing their blasting designs to
eliminate both the threshold damage to structures and the human response. In this way, they can conduct
their operations without causing any environmental disturbances and also eliminates possible high
indemnity.
Ground vibrations induced by blasting for stripping work at Sekkoy Open Cast Coal Mine belonging to
TKI Yenikoy Lignite Mine (YLI) were monitored upon the request of the mine management. Monitoring
and investigations were explained, the results were analyzed, commented on and evaluated in detail
(Bilgin et al., 1999a).
CHARACTERISTICS OF BLAST-INDUCED GROUND VIBRATIONS AND DAMAGE

CRITERIA
Properties of Ground Vibrations
One of the most important environmental aspects of blasting is ground vibration. It creates effects
similar to earthquakes. Thus, damages observed in structures are alike. Blast-induced ground vibrations
cause damages depending on the energy level they have. The energy levels of ground vibrations are
measured by displacement, velocity, acceleration and frequency.
In addition to the above energy levels, construction technique of structures, dimensions and ground
properties where the structure is located affects the level of damage to the structures (Siskind et al.,
1980). Therefore, it is required to carry out a detailed damage analysis related to ground vibration.
Limiting values determined by regulations of many countries in the world are present. Since there is no
regulation about this subject in Turkey, engineers tries to base their evaluations on the limiting values
given in regulations of other countries.
Blast-induced ground vibrations are short-term and irregular motions. Peak particle velocity is defined as
the greatest velocity of a particle about its rest state as a blast vibration wave passes. It is easy to
determine and it provides a single number to be compared with the regulations. However, because
waveforms from blasts are complex, the peak particle velocity is only a gauge of the level of vibration.
In a sense, peak particle velocity criteria assume that the spectral content and shape of all waveforms are
the same. To overcome this limitation of peak particle velocity criteria, regulations now often
incorporate a frequency along with a peak level. Determination of peak particle velocity and dominant

frequency by spectral analysis is one of the most proper techniques in blast vibration analysis (Anderson,
1993).
Characteristics of ground vibrations depend on the monitoring distance (near field, far Iield), distance
between blast and seismograph location, maximum charge weight per delay, blasting pattern, type and
loading technique of explosives, delay time and blasting direction. In other words, particle velocity
resulting from these effects is an important damage criteria. Since characteristics of ground vibrations
vary depending on the local geology and geometric spreading, site factors and frequency become
important parameters for the possible onset of damage to property. In this study, regulation of US
Bureau of Mines/OSM is selected as a standard as it takes into account both peak particle velocity and
frequency.
Ground vibration waveforms resulting from coal mine blasting differ from that resulting from quarries
and surface metal mines. They are characterized with their low-frequency and high-amplitude. Coal
mine blasting includes big rounds with a large number of blastholes, large drill pattern and complex
delay systems. Due to sedimentary rock formations observed in these sites, waves propagate to great
distances (Siskind et al., 1980). Ground vibrations induced by coal mine blasts can cause damages
within structures. Therefore, blast vibration problem caused by coal mine blast should be treated in
detail.
Frequency, Resonation and Amplification Factor
Frequency of ground vibration depends on local geology and delay time (Dowding, 1985). Public
concerns are completely due to the low-frequency and high-amplitude ground vibrations as in the case of
Can Lignite Mine (Bilgin et al., 1998; Bilgin et al., 1999b) where ground vibration levels are much
below 12.7 mm/s and no damages are encountered. It may be explained by the low frequency waves that
people perceive. When the frequency is high, it is hard for humans to feel and they do not react. Since
frequencies below 10 Hz create great displacements and high level unit deformations on ground, they
increase the damage risk (Siskind et al., 1980).
The probability of damage in structures depends on the relationship between dominant frequency of the
ground vibration and natural frequency of the structure. Most significant for blasting is that the principal
frequencies of the ground motion almost always equal or exceed the gross structure natural frequencies
of 4 to 10 Hz. In this case, structure resonates and it is shaked by amplitied vibration a few seconds.
People perceive and are concerned about this situation. While structure resonates, it may not be damaged
but people may still complain even if particle velocity is much below the limiting vibration value.
However, the damages within the structures are caused when structure resonates at a particle velocity
exceeding vibration limit. Although amplitude of the exciting wave travelling in the ground is not
sufficient to cause damage to structure, structure may be damaged due to amplification during
resonation. Amplification is defined as the increase in the amplitude measured in the structure with
respect to ground amplitude due to the transfer of the exciting wave on the ground to the structure. The
ratio of amplitude of the structure to ground amplitude is called as amplification factor.

Having remembered that the natural frequencies of one or two story residential type structures range
from 5 to 10 Hz (Dowding, 1992), the most possible significant increase in peak particle velocity is
formed when the dominant frequency of the exciting wave is 5 to 12 Hz.
Damage Classification
Three degrees of damage namely threshold, minor and major are described by the damage classificaiion
of US Bureau of Mines/OSM (Siskind et al., 1980). Threshold damage in which loosing of paint and
small plaster cracks are observed cause visual disturbance. Although minor damage in which loosing
and falling of plaster, hairline to 3-mm cracks and fall of loose mortar are observed is much
uncomfortable, it does not affect strength of structure and load bearing capability of structural elements.
The only damage type that forms permanent deformation in structures and weakens the structure due to
wide cracks in walls, rupture of opening vaults and fall of masonry is major damage. The word
“damage” in the further chapters of this paper is used to mean “threshold damage”.
Safe Levels of Blasting Vibrations for Residential Type Structures
Safe vibration levels for blasting are given in Table 1, being defined as levels unlikely to produce
interior cracking or other damage in residences (Siskind et al., 1980). Implicit in these values are
assumptions that the structures are sited on a firm foundation, do not exceed 2 stories, and have the
dimensions of typical residences, and that the vibration wave trains does not last longer than a few
seconds.
Limiting values given in Table 1 is selected much lower than the levels where threshold damages were
observed based on the damage statistics in USA. This assumes a 5O4~ probability for very superficial
cracking. However, an alternative blasting level criteria that takes into account frequency is illustrated in
Figure 1.
SURFACE WAVES
Typical characteristics of ground vibration waveforms induced by blasting operations at surface coal
mines are low frequency and high amplitude because of geotechnical properties of overburden material.
Moreover, local geology of the site such as fault, contact surface, layering, old scarp, etc. may affect the
waveforms recorded by seismographs and these effects should be assessed (Erkoc and Esen, 1998;
Bilgin et al. 1998).
When the waveforms formed by blasting are analyzed, P- and S- waves reach firstly to the measurement
point. P- and S- waves which generally travel and spread out in three dimensions are termed as “body
waves”. “Surface waves” are the waves produced by the interaction of body waves and structural
interfaces. They are strongest near the interfaces and decrease rapidly with distance from these
interfaces. Unlike body waves, they are restricted to two rather than three dimensions. They are
characterized as low-frequency, long-duration, and simple in appearance. There are two basic surface
waves which are Rayleigh waves and Love waves (Siskind et al., 1989).

Rayleigh wave is a surface wave with retrograde elliptical particle motion. They are strongest on vertical
and longitudinal components. Generation of Rayleigh waves requires a single interface, and particle
motion amplitudes decrease rapidly with increasing distances from that interface (Siskind et al., 1989).
Love wave is a surface wave with horizontally polarized particle motion. It is strongest on transverse
component. It requires a material layer or two interfaces. An example is a low velocity layer over rock,
with the soil-air boundary serving as the second interface.
Since surface waves have lower propagation velocities than body waves, they arrive to the measurement
point after body waves, However, these waves with above characteristics increase the damage risk.
DETERMINATION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY - SCALED DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP
Having obtained the records by placing the seismographs in line between blast site and the region of
interest, relationships between peak particle velocity and scaled distance are determined for transverse,
vertical and longitudinal components. It may be shown by the following equation (Dowding, 1985):
PPV m
where PPV = peak particle velocity (mm/s); R = distance from measurement point to blast site (m);
Q = maximum weight of explosives per delay (kg); k, F = dimensionless site factors.
This equation is used by various researchers at 50% contidence interval. However, if the correlation
coefficient (R2) of equation determined at 50°h confidence interval is close to 1.0, it may be used
reliably. If it is very low, these equations should not be used. Several authorities (Erkoc and Esen, 1998;
Bilgin et al., 1999b) have obtained satisfactory increase in correlation coefficient by detailed analyses
that involve FFT analysis and filtering. However, these analyses are rather complex and software of the
seismograph must be capable of carrying out them (Bilgin et al., 2000).
The most practical and reliable method developed till now is to determine this equation at 95%
confidence interval. 95% confidence value (upper) is that particle velocity that will not be exceeded 95
out of 100 blasts at that scaled distance. This criterion may be provided by the software or one may use
the methodology outlined by Dowding (1985).
HUMAN RESPONSE TO VIBRATIONS
Human response to blasting can be the limiting factor in blast vibration control People notice and react
to blast-produced vibrations at levels that are lower than the damage thresholds, A person will generally
become aware’ of blast induced vibration at levels of around 1.5 mm/s, although under some
circumstances this can be as low as 0.5 mm/s. Human reaction to vibrations depends on the amplitude as
well as frequency and duration of vibration (Bilgin et al., 2000). Particle velocity values perceived by
people at different levels depending on the duration of the vibration are illustrated in Figure 2 (Siskind et
al., 1980).

Relevant to whole-body vibration reaction is the degree that the vibration interferes with activity (sleep,
speech, TV viewing, reading), presents a health hazard, and affects task proficiency. For people at home,
the most serious blast vibration problems are house rattling, fright (fear of damage or injury), being
startled, and for a few, activity interference. Complaints from these causes should be definitely
considered in blast vibration control (Bilgin et al., 2000).
MONITORING AND CONTROL OF GROUND VIBRATIONS AT SEKKOY SURFACE COAL

MINE
Site Investigations and Selection of Monitoring Location
Blasting operations for stripping work at Sekkoy Open Cast Coal Mine in Turkey are carried out against
a free face or a face that includes material from previous blasts not excavated yet. Rock type blasted is
altered marl having thin laminae. Surface mining method employed at this mine is shovel/truck system.
Hole diameter of the drilling machine utilised by the contractor is 6” (152 mm) and drill pattern is 5m x
6m. Hole lengths range from 6 to 8 m. 60 to 75 kg ANFO is charged to each blasthole. 4 to 10 holes are
connected in series and blasted instantaneously. That is, delay blasting is not employed by the
contractor,
In this study, three 4-channel seismograph and one 8-channel seismograph are used. Thus, it is possible
to monitor a blast from five different stations at the same time which helps us to obtain many records.
As complaints arise from neighboring residential area namely TEAS District belonging to Turkisb
Electricity Authority due to blasts conducted at Sekkoy Open Cast Coal Mine, blast vibration
monitoring studies were carried out from the blast site towards TEAS District. Aims of these studies
were to determine whether the complaints were right or not and if it is right, it will be required to
determine necessary precautions to control the blast vibrations. 40 events were recorded on ground in
addition to 20 events recorded in selected apartment buildings at TEAS District.
It is aimed to obtain ground vibration records by placing the seismographs at the site, find the site factors
and observe (if any) the possible surprises in the waveforms due to local geology. The goals of the
vibration monitoring at the structures are to comment on the records according to US Bureau of Mines
damage criteria, determine the natural frequency of structures, resonation and amplification factor and
finally investigate human response to vibrations.
Seismograph placed on the ground is buried in the ground and that at the top story is sand bagged to the
concrete floor. An 8-channel seismograph is used to obtain records from these locations. Seismograph
field practice guidelines proposed by ISEE (Brochu & Etlschlager, 1999) are used in this study.
Authors did not interfere with the surface blast design in practice. They just monitored the blasts and get
the records.

Preliminary Evaluation of Seismograph Outputs
Events recorded by seismographs were downloaded to the computer. Event report include peak particle
velocities in transverse, vertical and longitudinal components, peak vector sum, air blast, peak
acceleration, peak displacement, waveforms recorded by transverse, vertical, longitudinal and
microphone channels, and particle velocity/frequency graph in USBM RI8507 standard. One of the most
important features of the sofware used is to determine dominant frequencies of both ground and
structures by FFT analysis.
When all records are evaluated, it is shown that ground vibration velocities recorded on ground obey the
USBM and OSMRE standards. In other words, safe vibration levels that cause no damages are not
exceeded. Although records fit the regulation, fear and worry because of blast-induced ground vibrations
continue and it made us carry out a detailed analysis to investigate wave propagation mechanics of
ground vibrations. When the ground vibration waveforms are analysed, low-frequency and high-
amplitude surface waves are observed to be dominant. It is the typical case that could be seen at the
surface coal mines. Figure 3 depicts a waveform that shows both the record on the ground and that on
the Sh story of an apartment building at TEAS District. Tran, Vert and Long are the components of the
vibration on ground; Tram?, Vert2 and Long2 are that of the vibration on the 5* story of the building. It
is a record obtained by an S-channel seismograph.
When all waveforms recorded on ground are investigated in detail, it is observed that the dominant wave
type is recognised as Love wave. However, one has to remember that a waveform include not only body
waves but also surface waves.
Figure 3 illustrates the arrival times of P, S, L and R waves on the waveforms (transverse, vertical and
longitudinal components). Rayleigh and Love waves are dominant on vertical and transverse
components, respectively. In general, Love waves travel faster than Rayleigh waves. P, S, L and R
waves may be put in an order according to the arrival times.
Determination of the Relationship Between Peak Particle Velocity and Scaled Distance
Peak particle velocity (PPV) - scaled distance (SD) graphs for transverse, vertical and longitudinal
components are plotted for the direction of TEAS District. Figure 4 gives the equations determined at
50% and 95% confidence intervals on longitudinal component only that includes measurements on
ground.
Table 2 and Table 3 presents the site factors for transverse, vertical and longitudinal components
determined at 50% and 95% confidence intervals, respectively. It can be seen fi-om Table 2 that
correlation coefticients of the equations determined at 50% contidence interval are very low. It is due to
the presence of the surface waves induced by structural geology of the site (faults, bedding, etc.). Thus, a
further detailed research is intended to investigate the effect of structural geology on ground vibration at
this mine. Since equations determined at 50% confidence interval have low correlation coefficients, it is
clear that there is a need to use equations determined at 95% confidence interval instead of that of 50%

confidence interval. Therefore, latter relationships may be used in blast vibration prediction with 95%
confidence.
Determination of Dominant Frequency and Amplification Factor
To determine the natural frequency of structure and amplification factors, 4 buildings are selected as
candidates for monitoring at TEAS District. Selection criteria were based on representative samples
having two, three, four and five stories. Ground vibration records from primary school (2 story); TEAS
apartment buildings with 3, 4, and 5 stories were obtained at the following numbers of 6, 7, 3 and 4,
respectively, Blast vibration monitoring is carried out at the top story because much more amplification
factor is expected at the top story of the most multi-story structures. Moreover, it should be remembered
that amplification factor depends on both the properties of the ground and the structure.
During monitoring while one of the seismograph is placed on the ground (front corner of the structure),
another is located at the top story. Four examples from the measurements conducted at both ground and
structures simultaneously are presented in Table 4. It is shown that when dominant frequency of exciting
wave on ground is compared with the natural frequency of the structure, there is a close match between
them. This is why relatively low ground vibration amplitudes can cause strongly annoying and
potentially damaging vibrations within a structure.
When all events recorded at structures are investigated, the ranges of their dominant frequencies and
amplification factors are given in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. The maximum amplification factor
for the 3-story TEAS apartment building in longitudinal component is observed to be 4.3 times as seen
in Table 6.
Blast Vibration Control
According to the USBM RI8507 and GSMRE standards (Figure 1), safe levels of blasting vibrations for
selected buildings corresponding to their dominant frequencies in transverse, vertical and longitudinal
components are given in Table 5. These values are divided by amplification factor (Table 6) for each
component to compute the allowable PPV value on ground. The closest distances between the blasting
site where contractor conducts stripping and primary school (2 story), TEAS apartment buildings with 3,
4 and 5 stories are 642 m, 1061 m, 1077 m, respectively. Based on the assessment, the most critical
structure is the 5-storey TEAS apartment building and other structures (3, 4 and 2 story) follow this
building. 3 and 4 story TEAS buildings are most sensitive to longitudinal component of ground
vibrations and 5-story TEAS building and primary school (2 story) are most sensitive to transverse
component of blast vibrations. Thus, the most critical structures in this district are those with 5 and 3
stories. It is shown that safe charge weight per delay should not exceed 932 kg when it is intended to
prevent threshold damage.
On the other hand, separate analyses were carried out for four apartment buildings considering the
human response to ground vibrations. Duration of vibration recorded in primary school (2 story) for
transverse, vertical and longitudinal components are 7, 4 and 7 seconds, respectively. The respective
duration for transverse, vertical and longitudinal components are 5, 3 and 5 seconds in 3 story TEAS
building, 8, 5 and 7 seconds in 5 story TEAS building, and 7,4 and 7 seconds in 4 story TEAS building.

So, duration of vibration recorded on apartment buildings ranges from 3 to 8 seconds depending on the
structure. “Distinctly perceptible” particle velocities corresponding to vibration duration are determined
from Figure 2. By selecting a slightly (5%) lower value and dividing by amplification factor determined
for each structure, allowable PPV values for ground are computed for each case to control human
response to ground vibrations. Safe charge weight per delay corresponding to these values are
determined. It is shown that people in 3-story TEAS building are more sensitive to ground vibrations
and longitudinal component of ground vibration of this structure is the most critical. When the subject is
evaluated from the point of view of keeping the human reactions at reasonable level, based on the
analyses, safe charge weight (ANFO) per delay for this mine is 159 kg at most. It is one sixth of the safe
charge weight that does not create threshold damage. As it is shown once more, people are very sensitive
to low-frequency waves.
CONCLUSIONS
Ground vibrations induced by blasting operations at Sekkoy Open Cast Coal Mine were monitored in the
direction of TEAS District. Totally 60 vibration records which consist of 40 events on ground and 20
events in selected four structures were taken. All of the events recorded during this research obey the
USBM RI8507 and OSMRE criteria. In other words, structural damages such as threshold damage were
not encountered during this study. However, since worry and fear due to blast-induced ground vibrations
were present, a further detailed vibration control study was a must.
When the waveforms of the events recorded by the seismographs on ground are investigated, they are
typically characterised by low-frequency and high-amplitude and it is shown that Love waves are
dominant in these waveforms. Relationships between peak particle velocity and scaled distance are
determined at ,95% confidence intervals for transverse, vertical and longitudinal components. Due to the
scatter of the data, 95 % confidence criterion is used to predict particle velocity reliably.
Dominant frequencies of the exiting waves travelling on ground match with the natural frequencies of
the structures. Thus, it is shown that structures resonates. Because of the resonation, vibration at the
structure is amplified and it encounters higher particle velocity due to amplification. Therefore, people
living in these structures feel worried, angry and scared. Although none of the records lead to threshold
damage, sincere complaints from causes in their daily activities such as sleep, speech, TV viewing,
reading, etc. and house rattling and fear of damage and injury should be detinitely considered in blast
vibration control. Furthermore, as the amplitude of ground vibration of the 3-story TEAS apartment
building in longitudinal component is increased by 4.3 times, it shows the importance of the
amplification factor in blast vibration control.
Based on the study to control ground vibration, safe charge weight per delay should not exceed 159 kg
ANFO, So, if 60 to 75 kg ANFO is loaded to each blasthole, two holes should be blasted per delay.
While determining that amount, relationships between peak particle velocity and scaled distance at 95%
contidence interval, USBM RI8507 and OSMRE criteria, dominant frequencies of structures and
ground, amplification factors and human response to vibration are considered. As a result of this study, it
seems possible to continue mining operations giving only minimum disturbance to citizens and without
structural damage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support in this research project given by BARUTSAN AS.
Company and Yenikoy Lignite Mine management belonging to Turkish Coal Enterprise for the help in
conducting the blast vibration monitoring program.
REFERENCES
Anderson, D.A., Blast Monitoring: Regulations, Methods and Control Techniques, Comprehensive
Rock Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 95-110, 1993.
Bilgin, H.A., Esen, S. and Krhc, M., 1998, A Research for Solving the Environmental Problems due to
Blasting at TKI can Lignite Mine, Project No: 97-03-05-01-08, ODTU, Ankara, Turkey, 100 pages, in
Turkish.
Bilgin, H.A., Esen, S, and Krhc, M., 1999a, Investigation of the Coal Fragmentation and Blast Induced
Ground Vibrations at Yenikoy Lignite Mine, Project No: 99-03-05-01-03, ODTU, Ankara, Turkey, 70
pages, in Turkish.
Bilgin, H.A., Esen, S. and Krlq, M., 1999b, Effect of Blasting Induced Ground Vibrations on Buildings
and the Importance of the Ampltjication Factor, 16th Mining Congress, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 25-32, in
Turkish.
Bilgin, H.A., Esen, S,, Krlq, M. and Aldas, G.G.U., 2000, Investigation of Ground Vibrations Induced
by Blasting at Yenikoy Lignite Mine, The 4th Drilling and Blasting Symposium, Ankara, Turkey, pp.
147-158, in Turkish.
Dowding, C.H., 1985, Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control, Prentice-Hall, 297 pages.
Dowding, C.H., 1992, Monitoring and Control of Blast Effects, SME Mining Engineering Handbook,
pp. 746-760.
Erkoc, 0.Y. and Esen, S, 1998, Measurement of Blast Induced Ground Vibrations and the Evaluation
of the Vibration Recording Device Outputs, The 3rd Drilling and Blasting Symposium, Ankara, Turkey,
pp. 139-147, in Turkish.
Siskind, D.E., Stagg, M.S., Kopp, J.W., Dowding, C.H., 1980, Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting, RI 8507, Bureau of Mines, 74 pages.
Siskind, D.E., Crum, S.V., Otterness, R.E., Kopp, J.W., 1989, Comparative Study of Blasting Vibrations
From bzdiana Surface Coal Mines, FU 9226, Bureau of Mines, 41 pages.
Siskind, D.E., Crum, S.V., Plis, M.N., 1993, Blast Vibrations and Other Potential Causes of Damage in
Homes Near a Large Surface Coal Mine in Indiana, RI 9455, Bureau of Mines, 62 pages.

IO.0 - , I I , r-r I,,,
2 in lsec
0 . 7 5 in/set,
Drywcll I
,’
0.5;o$l;ec, ,/
_____~_~~~_~_~
.I 1 t t, I,,, 1 0 I,,,<
I IO IO0
FREQUENCY, Hz
Figure 1. US Bureau of Mines safe blasting vibration criteria (Siskind et al., 1980)

IO.00 L I I I m
. .
S t r o n g l py e r c e p t i b l e comfort
I , .**.tl # nl*,l * , ,*a,
eoku.
B**c** , * , t
I.0 IO.0 100.0 I ,000.o

E X P O S U R E T I M E , set
Figure 2. Human response to vibrations of various duration (Siskind et al., 1980)

Figure 3. A typical ground vibration waveform recorded on ground and at the 5th story of a building
lO.aIl
95% _ PW=18.C334SD4~~2
Figure 4. PPV-SD relationship at 50% and 95% confidence intervals for longitudinal component

Table 1. Safe levels of blasting vibrations for residential type structures (Siskind et al., 1980)
Type of structure Peak particle velocity (mm/s)

Low frequency (~40 Hz) High frequency (>40 Hz)
Modern Homes 19.0 50.8
Older homes, plaster on 12.7 50.8
wood lath construction
Table 2. Site factors determined at 50% confidence interval
Component I k F R2
Transverse 32.887 -0.8794 0.4581
Vertical 2.341 -0.2161 0.0919
Longitudinal 9.0415 -0.5502 0.2295
Table 3. Site factors determined at 95% confidence interval
Component k F
Transverse 62.462 -0.8794
Vertical 4.2849 -0.2161
Longitudinal 18.664 -0.5502
Table 4. Some examples of dominant frequencies from events recorded on both ground and at the
structure
Date of Location of monitoring Dominant Dominant Dominant

monitoring frequency of frequency of frequency of
transverse vertical longitudinal
component, Hz component, Hz component, Hz
12.07.1999 Ground 5.750 3.500 5.375
Primary school (2 story) 5.875 3.500 6.125
14.07.1999 Ground 3.437 3.187 3 4.937
TEAS Apartment Building 5.062 3.250 4.937
(3 story)
15.07.1999 Ground 3.250 3.250 3.625
(5 story)
16.07.1999 Ground 3.500 4.062 3.625
(4 story)

Table 5. Dominant frequencies of selected structures in TEAS District
1 Structure Transverse Vertical 1 Longitudinal 1

component, Hz component, Hz component, Hz
Primary school (2 story) 3.9-6.1 3.5-6.1 4.3-6.1
TEAS Apartment Building 5.0-5.3 3.3-5.3 4.9-5.5
(3 story)
(5 story)
1 (4 story)
Table 6. Amplification factors of selected structures in TEAS District
1 Structure Transverse Vertical 1 Longitudinal 1

component component component
Primary school (2 story) 1.0-1.5 0.9-1 .o 1.4-1.8
(3 story)
(5 story)
(4 story)


Evaluation of Blast Vibrations From Sekkoy Surface Coal Mine in Turkey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Blast Vibrations From Sekkoy Surface Coal Mine in Turkey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATION OF BLAST VIBRATIONS

FROM SEKKOY SURFACE COAL MINE IN TURKEY

Sedat Esen and H. Aydm Bilgin

Figures and tables follow the text.

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

CHARACTERISTICS OF BLAST-INDUCED GROUND VIBRATIONS AND DAMAGE

Properties of Ground Vibrations

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Frequency, Resonation and Amplification Factor

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Safe Levels of Blasting Vibrations for Residential Type Structures

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

DETERMINATION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY - SCALED DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP

HUMAN RESPONSE TO VIBRATIONS

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

MONITORING AND CONTROL OF GROUND VIBRATIONS AT SEKKOY SURFACE COAL

Site Investigations and Selection of Monitoring Location

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Determination of Dominant Frequency and Amplification Factor

Blast Vibration Control

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

I , .**.tl # nl*,l * , ,*a,

I.0 IO.0 100.0 I ,000.o

Figure 2. Human response to vibrations of various duration (Siskind et al., 1980)

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Type of structure Peak particle velocity (mm/s)

Table 2. Site factors determined at 50% confidence interval

Table 3. Site factors determined at 95% confidence interval

Date of Location of monitoring Dominant Dominant Dominant

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1 Structure Transverse Vertical 1 Longitudinal 1

Table 6. Amplification factors of selected structures in TEAS District

1 Structure Transverse Vertical 1 Longitudinal 1

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

You might also like

I , .**.tl # nl,l , ,*a,