Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 451 – 457

Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics

Numerical Simulation of Rock Blasting Induced Free Field

Vibration
Y.L. Gui, Z.Y. Zhao*, H.Y. Zhou, A.T.C. Goh, L.B. Jayasinghe
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 639798 Singapore

Abstract

As the free field geological condition is usually complex, the conventional wave attenuation law established for the homogeneous
open field may not be applicable for actual field situations. Thus, to understand the impact of the attenuation law and
the geological features on the blast wave propagation, a field rock blasting test is conducted and the ground vibration is carefully
monitored. To better understand the phenomenon, a numerical model considering the field geological features is established
using the finite difference method. The field test results are then used to calibrate the numerical model. From the calibration,
the parameters involved in the general form of peak particle velocity have been determined. It is demonstrated that the blast wave
propagation in the free field is significantly governed by the field geological conditions, especially the interface between rock and
soil layers.
©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017
Keywords: rock blasting; PPV; geological condition; rock-soil interface; numerical simulation

1. Introduction

Drilling and blasting is one of the most commonly used methods for large-scale excavation in rocks and soils.
However, rock blasting induces adverse effects, for example ground vibration [1–6] and annoying noise.
The magnitude of ground vibration, often measured by the peak particle velocity (PPV), is highly dependent on
blasting design adopted, ground geological condition, e.g., heterogeneity, characteristic of wave propagation in
the media, response to dynamic wave propagation and discontinuities, and distance from the blasting location [2, 7].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-6790-5255.

E-mail address: czzhao@ntu.edu.sg

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.203
452 Y.L. Gui et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 451 – 457

Not only do these geological conditions affect the ground properties significantly, but also they determine its seismic
responses [7]. Therefore, a proper predicting and monitoring scheme has to be considered and implemented [2]
during blasting. Over the years, many studies have been carried out, based on field tests (e.g. [8–14]) and numerical
simulations (e.g. [12, 14]). Yet, so far there is no investigation on the significant effect of the rock-soil interface on
the blast wave propagation in ground. In this paper, a field rock blasting test is performed and the ground vibration is
monitored. A finite difference method (FDM) based on the platform of universal distinct element code (UDEC) is
used to simulate the field test. For comparison, a FD model with same dimension but without rock-soil interface is
established and simulated. The results demonstrate that the rock-soil interface plays a crucial role in the blast wave
propagation in the ground.

Nomenclature

ANFO ammonium nitrate/fuel oil

VOD velocity of detonation
r radius of equivalent single blast hole
m charge per delay
h charging length of ANFO
ȡe ANFO charging density
Pe blast hole wall pressure

2. The field test

A field rock blasting was conducted at a location in the western part of Singapore. The blast holes are 12 m in
depth with 60 kg ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) charge per delay. The on-site measured PPVs are listed in
Table 1. From the location of the blasting area and the monitoring points, the geological profile between the blasting
area and monitoring points can be interpolated from the geological investigation report. The material properties can
be found in Table 2.

Table 1. Ground vibration monitoring data.

Monitoring location VM1 VM2 VM3 VM4 VM5
Distance (m) 265 275 295 320 370
Measured PPV (mm/s) 3.20 2.50 2.44 2.13 1.89

Table 2. Material parameters used in the simulations

Material Rock Soil
Young’s modulus (MPa) 64.41×103 20
Poisson’s ratio 0.16 0.3
Density (kg/m3) 2650 1800

3. Numerical simulations

3.1. Numerical simulation procedures

In the field blasting test, two holes are detonated simultaneously. The two holes can be replaced by an equivalent
one in 2-dimensional modeling. Based on the amount of charge per delay and the blast hole depth, the radius of
the equivalent single blast hole can be calculated as
 Y.L. Gui et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 451 – 457 453

m
r
hSUe
(1)

where m is the charge per delay (60 kg), h is the charging length of ANFO (8 m), ȡe is the ANFO charging
density (820 kg/m3). Taking all the parameters into above equation, the equivalent blast hole radius is obtained to
be 54 mm.
In order to calculate the blast hole wall pressure, ANFO velocity of detonation (VOD) is needed. Sources and
Vitello (2004) [15] conducted experiments on ANFO explosion. The relationship between the radius of cylindrical
ANFO and VOD is obtained as shown in Fig. 1. The fitting curve for the relationship is

VOD 0.1514re2  44.272re  874.74 (2)

where re is the radius of ANFO. Thus, the VOD for ANFO with radius of 54 mm is 2823 m/s. Since it is fully
coupled between the blast hole and the charging ANFO in the field blasting test, i.e., there is no gap between
the explosive and the blast hole wall, ANFO explosion pressure will be the blast hole wall pressure and it can be
calculated as [16]

U e u VOD 2
Pe
8 (3)

Therefore, the blast hole wall pressure is 816.92 MPa. It is noted that in Eq. (3), the blast hole wall pressure is
the peak blast hole wall pressure experienced. The blast wall pressure evolution during the blasting is assigned to
follow the optimized pressure-time profile by Saharan and Mitri (2008) [16]. Considering the fact that ANFO is
non-ideal explosive, the evolution is adopted as shown in Fig. 2.

4.5

3.5
VOD (km/S)

2.5
VOD = -0.1514x2 + 44.272x + 874.74
2 R² = 0.9938

1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Radius (mm)

Fig. 1. Experimental relationship between velocity of detonation (VOD) and ANFO radius [15].
454 Y.L. Gui et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 451 – 457

900

800

Blast hole wall pressure, MPa

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time, ms

Fig. 2. The blast hole wall pressure-time evolution.

Since the field rock blasting was performed after removal of surface soils, the numerical model is built as shown
in Fig. 3. It has dimension of 25 × 400 m2. The mesh size selection technique in [4] is followed. The left, right and
bottom of the model are set as viscous boundaries. The pressure history presented in Fig. 2 is applied on the left
boundary as indicated in Fig. 3. The PPVs at the locations which are the same as the monitoring points in field test
are monitored to calibrate the model. Meantime, the locations along horizontal and vertical directions of the model
are investigated as well.
100m Ground surface

4m

P(t) Interface 14m

8m
Soil
25m
Rock
y

400m

Fig. 3. Illustration of the field and numerical rock blasting profile (non-scaled).

3.2. Simulation results

The material properties used in the simulation are tabulated in Table 2. The model is calibrated by comparing
the PPVs from the numerical simulations and the field monitoring points as shown in Table1. The calibration
parameter is the damping ratio. The damping scheme used in the simulation is local damping. It is suggested that in
dynamic analysis a local damping ratio of (0.02 ~ 0.05)S can be used as the damping constant [17].
The simulated ground surface PPV attenuation is shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the simulated PPVs are in
good agreement with the field monitoring ones. The obtained PPV attenuation law along the ground surface can be
fitted by the following equation:

PPV 532 .33 u SD 1.643 (4)

 Y.L. Gui et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 451 – 457 455

where SD is the scaled distance and expressed as ( D / m ) with D being the distance away from the blast hole for
the monitoring point and m being the charge per delay.
To demonstrate the significance of the rock-soil interface in the rock blasting site, a revised model is constructed
where the dimension is identical to the first numerical model, but the interface is removed and only rock material
exists, with all the parameters the same as the first model. The simulated relationship between the scaled distance
and PPV is again plotted in Fig. 4 and expressed as

PPV 310 .09 u SD 2.166 (5)

It can be seen in Fig. 4 that the interface can affect the wave attenuation extensively, from both PPV value and
the attenuation trend. More specifically, in the case with interface, the PPVs are all larger than those without
interface. Compared to the model without interface, the PPVs at the location on the left side of the interface
(i.e. rock) are increased for the model with the interface although they share a similar trend. This can be explained by
the superposition effect between the forward wave (propagating away from the blast hole) and backward wave
(propagating from the interface back to the rock domain). It is interesting to note that the PPVs at the locations on
the right side of the interface are not attenuated, rather increased slightly at the domain investigated.

10000

1000 PPV = 532.33×SD-1.643

100
PPV (mm/s)

10
PPV = 310.09×SD-2.166

1
With interface
0.1 Without interface

Field test
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Scaled distance (m/kg0.5)

Fig. 4. Simulated ground surface PPV attenuation law.

Fig. 5 presents the numerically monitored PPV evolution along both the horizontal and the vertical orientations. It
is found that the largest PPV values are detected at the location close to the charging ANFO. Especially, for
the points at x = 2 and 4 m, there is a dramatic increase of PPV between y = 10 and 25m. This is because
the charging location of the ANFO is between y = 13 and 21 m. However, the difference between the two simulation
results is that the PPV in the model with interface is higher for all the depth investigated. The most distinct
difference is that in the soil domain, e.g. x = 128 and 256 m, the PPV at y = 15 m is increased from the location at
x = 128 to x = 256 m (Fig. 5c). In addition, the PPV attenuation in the soil region is not as obvious as the one in
the model without interface.
456 Y.L. Gui et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 451 – 457

(a) (d)
30 30
x=2 m x=2 m
x=4 m x=4 m
25 x=8 m 25 x=8 m
x=16 m x=16 m
y-coordinate (m)

y-coordinate (m)
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
PPV (mm/s) PPV (mm/s)
(b) (e)
30 30
x=32 m x=32 m
x=64 m x=64 m
25 25
y-coordinate (m)

20 y-coordinate (m) 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PPV (mm/s) PPV (mm/s)
(c) (f)
30 30
x=128 m x=128 m
x= 256 m x= 256 m
25 25
y-coordinate (m)

y-coordinate (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
PPV (mm/s) PPV (mm/s)

Fig. 5. PPV distribution of the monitoring points in the numerical simulations: (a–c) with interface and (d–f) without interface.

4. Conclusions

This paper investigated the influence of rock-soil interface on the blast wave propagation in mixed soil/rock
ground conditions. Two numerical models, namely models with interface and without interface, were simulated.
During the simulation, the PPV of monitoring points along horizontal and vertical direction were studied.
The simulation results revealed the depth effect of PPV attenuation. Also, through comparison between the two
 Y.L. Gui et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 451 – 457 457

numerical simulations, it was demonstrated that the existence of the rock-soil interface could affect the ground wave
propagation significantly.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on research/work supported under the Land and Livability National Innovation Challenge
(L2NIC) Award Number L2NICCFP1-2013-1. The monitoring data provided by Asia Tunnelling & Construction
PTE LTD is highly acknowledged.

References

[1] C. Wu, Y. Lu, H. Hao, W.K. Lim, Y. Zhou, C.C. Seah, Characterization of underground blast-induced ground motions from large-scale field
tests. Shock Waves 13 (2003) 273–252.
[2] R. Nateghi, Prediction of ground vibration level induced by blasting at different rock units. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 48 (2011) 899–908.
[3] P.A. Persson, R. Holmberg, J. Lee, Rock blasting and explosives engineering, CRC Press, 1993.
[4] Z.L. Wang, H. Konietzky, Modeling of blast-induced fractures in jointed rock masses, Eng. Fract. Mech 76 (2009) 1945–1955.
[5] J. Torano, R. Rodrigues, I. Diego, J.M. Rivas, M.D. Casal, FEM models including randomness and its application to the blasting vibrations
prediction. Comput Geotech 33 (2006) 15–28.
[6] M. Svinkin, Minimizing construction vibration effects, Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 9 (2004) 108–115.
[7] Y.K. Wu, H. Hao, Y.X. Zhou, K. Chong, Propagation characteristics of blast-induced shock waves in a jointed rock mass, Soil
Dyn .Earthquake Eng. 17 (1998) 407–412.
[8] C.H. Dowding, C.T. Aimone, Multiple blast-hole stresses and measured fragmentation, Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 18 (1985) 17ˀ36.
[9] B.W. Stump, R.E. Reinke, Experimental confirmation of superposition from small-scale explosions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78 (1988)
1059ˀ1073.
[10] A. Kahriman, Analysis of parameters of ground vibration produced from bench blasting at a limestone quarry, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
24 (2004) 887ˀ892.
[11] E.C. Leong, S. Anand, H.K. Cheong, C.H. Lim, Re-examination of peak stress and scaled distance due to ground shock, Int. J. Impact Eng.
34 (2007) 1487ˀ1499.
[12] F.V. Donze, J. Bouchez, S.A. Magnier, Modeling fractures in rock blasting, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (1997) 1153ˀ1163.
[13] S.G. Chen, J. Zhao, A study of UDEC modeling for blast wave propagation in jointed rock masses, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 35 (1998)
93ˀ99.
[14] C. Wu, Y. Lu, H. Hao, Numerical prediction of blast-induced stress wave from large-scale underground explosion. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Mech. Geomech. 28 (2004) 93ˀ109
[15] P.C. Souers, P. Vitello, ANFO Calculations for Sedat Esen, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2004.
[16] M.R. Saharan, H.S. Mitri, Numerical procedure for dynamic simulation of discrete fractures duet to blasting. Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
41 (2008) 641ˀ670.
[17] H. Kolsky, Stress Waves in Solids. New York: Dover Publications, 1963.