Blast Induced Vibration Monitoring and Waveform Analysis. by L.W.

Armstrong ABSTRACT Blast induced vibrations are a by-product of mining operations. These vibrations can be as insignificant as a rumble in the far distance or they can be extremely devastating and can cause structural damage beyond repair. Measuring or monitoring the vibration from any blasting operation is not only recommended but in some mining operations, in close proximity to urban areas, it can be a requirement of the development application. How are these vibration waveforms recorded and what are the pitfalls that can be avoided in practice? Blast induced vibrations are as varied as the types of mining operations in practice today. Although the waveform from a blast is merely a combination of wave trains from each blasthole, the ground through which the wave travels can have a modifying effect on the waveform measured at any location. Blasting at quarry operations is normally carry out in hard rock that is usually jointed in some fashion. Blast designs in these cases have a rapid timing sequence as the final muckpile is required to stand up so that fragmented rock does not have to be chased all over the pit floor. The vibration waveform from this type of operation is short in duration and is usually uncomplicated (if a vibration waveform can be described as such). Viewing this waveform can show evidence of misfired holes or out-of-sequence hole firings. Open cut mining operations range from large cast blasts in coal operations to small quarry type blasts in metaliferrous mining operations. The waveforms from such operations range from long duration shots for open cut coal throw blasts to the typical short duration quarry type blast. Vibration levels are typically higher from these types of blasts due to the large charge weights used in each blasthole. Underground blasting operations produce vibration waveforms that predominantly have a higher frequency component due to the more competent nature of the rock being blasted. The waveform recorded from these blasting operations range from individual hole wave trains to waveforms similar to quarry blasts but with a much higher frequency content. The vibration waveform peak level may be related to the damage level for a particular blast but, is that all that is important when vibration waveforms are interpreted? An indication of other factors that can be extracted from the vibration waveform are given and are discussed in detail.

INTRODUCTION Blasting has long been seen as a cost effective means of fragmenting rock or overburden prior to its removal to expose the more valuable mineral below. However, blast induced vibrations are a by-product of such blasting operations which must be properly managed as exceedances can cause closure of mining operations. The first step in the process of controlling blast induced vibrations is to measure the vibrations. This is not an easy matter as many problems can occur if this task is not properly carried out. Standards associations throughout the world have been addressing this problem for many years and have now realized the importance that must be placed on the correct measurement procedure. Many litigation cases have occurred over the past decade relating to community concerns about blasting practices and if the mining operators do not adhere to correct procedures then the vibrations that are being recorded might be the result of something other than the blast induced vibrations. At present, one parameter is extracted from the blast record, the vector peak particle velocity, and this parameter is used as a pseudo-measure of what could cause structural damage. The damage parameter extracted from the blast record is only one parameter from a complicated event that occurs over a time frame of up to 10 seconds. The collection of the data from the vibration sensors can reveal some interesting facts about how the explosive has reacted with the ground. However, these facts are mostly ignored, mainly through lack of understanding. The blast-induced vibrations are transient in nature but during the time they are active a large amount of energy is delivered to the confining ground. This energy can cause excessive damage (fragmentation) close to the blasthole and perceived damage (building movement) at distances of 1to 2 km and more from the explosive source. Quarry operations are relatively small in terms of the number of blastholes detonated and also the charge weight in each blasthole. Such operations use what is termed a fast blast in that the total time of the initiation sequence of the blastholes takes between half and one second. The initiation sequence is reasonably consistent in that a typical control row would have 65 ms between blastholes and blastholes in each echelon would be delayed by 25 ms. This results in a muckpile that is fairly compact and rocks are not thrown very far. Thus the waveform recorded will show a fairly tight and compact structure with a small peak and energy dumped into a frequency band that is related to the hole initiation sequence. Open cut coal operations and metalliferous mine operations usually have many more blastholes in a pattern and the charge weight in each blasthole can be up to 2 to 3 tonnes. The blasthole initiation sequence can be similar to quarry blasting operations as in the case of small metalliferrous mines but in some open cut coal operations throw blasting is common practice. In throw blasting operations the control row is initiated in quick succession and the blastholes in adjacent rows are slowed down to allow the preceding row to move away. Of course there is an increase in energy (powder factor) to provide

this movement. So the waveform recorded will show an increase in peak levels as well as a change in the frequency of initiation compared to the quarry blast. Underground blasting poses completely different problems and some unique solutions have become available over time. The major difference between underground and surface blasting is that a void has to be formed into which the fragmented rock is thrown. Once this void has been established, similar initiation sequences to that those used in surface blasting practices can be adopted. Minimisation of fragmented waste material is more important and quite specific to underground operations as the main aim is to remove the valuable ore. Underground safety is of prime importance and to this effect smooth wall blasting techniques are regularly employed so that the integrity of the backs is maximised. A vibration waveform recorded for a typical development heading in an underground operation will show multiple individual peak levels as well as a change in the frequency of initiation compared to the above ground blasting operations. Blasting near existing structures can provide some difficult situations but blasting can be carried out with safety and no damage to these structures. Each and every structure has a natural or resonance frequency of vibration and it is wise to have knowledge of this frequency before any near field blasting is attempted. With this knowledge it is possible to design blast initiation sequences that minimize the energy being dumped into the structures resonance frequency band. BLAST INDUCED VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA. Compliance measures are part of any responsible mining operation and limits are detailed in standards. The limits set out in these standards are as a result of input from researchers and also industry consultation. The Australian Standard of reference for blast induced vibrations is AS 2187.2-1993 particularly Appendix J of this standard. The limits are shown in Table 1 and local and state authorities use these limits when mining companies apply for development applications to begin mining operations. Table 1. Blast induced vibration limits Type of building or structure Peak particle velocity mm/s Houses and low-rise residential buildings 10 Commercial and industrial buildings or structures of 25 reinforced concrete or steel construction These recommendations have become mandatory over the past decade as mining operations are now occurring close to populated areas and residential buildings have become affected by blast induced vibrations. Over the years, work by Siskind (1986), Dowding (1996) and others has shown that residential buildings can withstand a certain level of vibration. In fact stresses incurred during normal temperature and weather fluctuations can place excessive loads on some structures. It is not only the peak level that affects structures but also the frequency of the vibration loading along with the duration that the vibration is acting on the structure. A lot of work carried out by the

USBM and the Swedish blasting industry in the early 1960s developed damage criteria, which are related to the frequency and vibration levels. Again these are guidelines and a degree of safety is built into them. A typical damage criteria chart is shown in Figure 1.

Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s)

100

10

USBM Swedish
1 10 100 1000

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 1. Damage criteria charts in common use today. Peak particle velocity is assumed to be directly related to damage (after Technical Services, 1998).

EQUIPMENT AND MONITORING PROCEDURE To obtain a vibration record of any blast the first step is to have equipment that will adequately detect, sample and store the blast induced vibrations. The primary sensor must be designed to detect motion and two types are readily available today, accelerometers and geophones. No matter which type of primary sensor is chosen it is imperative that a good signal-to-noise ratio is obtained from the monitoring exercise. If, for example, low vibration levels, less than10 mm/s, are to be monitored at a local residence and the primary sensor can measure up to 200 mm/s then this type of primary sensor will normally be operating in the low sensitivity part of its operating range and some errors could result. It is always best to operate in the mid-range of the primary sensor for best accuracy. Next is the electronics required to sample the electrical signal from the primary sensor and store this signal for post processing either on board or through an external software package. The primary sensor output is usually an analogue electrical signal which must be digitized for storage, handling and analysis. The digitizer has a resolution that can affect the quality of the signal detected especially if the vibration level is low and the sensor output signal is low. Typically today 8-bit resolution is available with some manufacturers offering the option of 12-bit resolution. The only sacrifice in choosing a 12-bit resolution digitizer is the consumption of storage capacity and power, which

should not be a problem today with memory capacity availability. Storage capacity on field equipment has improved dramatically over recent years. The vibration monitoring equipment is usually only required to store one event, which is downloaded and the waveform analyzed prior to the next blast. Sampling rate is another important feature and one that is often overlooked. When a waveform is sampled too slowly for the frequency of the primary event, errors can occur. This effect is best shown in Figure 2 in which the solid line is the actual waveform and the solid squares are the sampled points. The resulting waveform, dashed line, shows where peak values can be missed by an inadequate sampling rate.

1 .0

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

0 .5

0 .0

-0.5

-1.0

50

100

150

B la s t T im e ( m s )

Figure 2. Inadequate sampling rate of a vibration waveform. An effect described in signal processing as aliasing can, at times, cause erroneous waveforms to be recorded. Aliasing is related to the Nyquist frequency, which is defined as half the period of the maximum frequency of the waveform. Sampling at frequencies less than the Nyquist frequency will cause aliasing and a poor representation of the vibration waveform will be recorded. Vibration monitoring equipment today usually offers a choice of sampling rates up to 1 or 2 kHz. This sampling rate has been shown to adequately sample the vibration waveform frequency (< 150 Hz in most cases) and not cause any aliasing problems. Possibly the most important aspect that an operator can affect is the way in which the primary sensor is coupled to the ground. The primary sensor is required to detect any movement of the ground due to the blasting operations and only those due to the blasting operations. If the primary sensor is improperly bonded to the ground then what is the

primary sensor measuring? Blair (1995) has shown that the effect of poor ground coupling can result in extraneous frequencies and amplitude peaks resulting from the mount rocking within its confinement following a transient vibration loading. Armstrong and Sen (1999) have shown the effect of different types of primary sensor mounting techniques recommended by vibration monitoring equipment manufacturers. The standards give recommendations on coupling techniques to use but do not assign the importance that this part of the monitoring procedure deserves. If this bond is not successful then the entire monitoring exercise is wasted. Bonding the primary sensor to the ground in soil and in rock is a different process. In soil the primary sensor is embedded in the soil as shown in Figure 3. In the case of rock it is best to find some outcropping bedrock and secure the primary sensor to the bedrock with a rigid cement as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Recommended ground coupling procedures for the primary sensor.

WAVEFORM ANALYSIS The explosive source for a single blasthole typically detonates in less than 10 ms depending on the column length and this is the order of the time that the shock wave acts on the surrounding ground. However, the ground takes time to react to this shock wave (due to inertia and particle-to-particle resistance etc.) and depending on the ground structure the reaction time of the shock wave on the ground will vary. Stratified overburden type ground in effect has room to move with a resultant recorded waveform, which is extended, and there is often evidence of wave separation in the recorded waveform. More competent underground rock structure, where internal rock rigidity

resistance to deformation is higher, results in a recorded waveform that is more compressed. Traditionally blast induced vibrations are measured as the peak particle velocity. As the vibration wave propagates through the ground from the explosive source it causes a displacement of neighboring particles and also of the bulk of the ground. Localized particles move or vibrate about some local equilibrium point under the influence of the vibration wave. It is the velocity that these particles move about their local equilibrium point that gives rise to this unit (velocity unit) of measure. The main concern with blasting operations is the potential damage that can be caused. Damage is a result of differential movement (displacement) between neighboring particles in a structure and movement with respect to time is velocity. In the early 1960s, when studies were carried out by the USBM and the Swedish blasting industry, velocity and acceleration gauges were readily available and the use of displacement gauges was not well received. Besides, displacement could be obtained from integration of velocity signals. A vibration waveform is basically a collection of wave trains from individual blasthole detonations following traversal through the ground. The primary sensor is a triaxial array of accelerometers (or geophones) that measure the ground movement in three orthogonal directions. The primary sensors are usually oriented with one sensor pointing towards the blast; this sensor is called the radial or longitudinal direction. The other directions are transverse and vertical. But for each of these directions there is a peak level as well as a frequency component. The peak vibration level reported for a blast is the maximum of the vector sum at each sample point of the three components. Vector Peak Particle Velocity = Maximum{v ([radiali]2 + [transversei]2 + [verticali]2)} where i is the component amplitude at each sample point. But is this the best way to represent what the explosives detonation have applied to the ground? For example a vibration level of 16 mm/s, which peaks once in the vibration waveform at a relatively high frequency (> 60 Hz) might not cause any damage to a structure. But a vibration level of 4 mm/s occurring at several points on the vibration waveform indicating a more even distribution of the vibration energy throughout the time frame of the blast and occurring at a much lower frequency (< 30 Hz) might cause severe damage to the structure. In the second case the peak vibration level might have been below the limit set (for example 5 mm/s). One value extracted from a transient event such as blast-induced vibrations does not tell the whole story. If we look at the energy in a wave (vibrating body) simple harmonic motion can be used to explain this approach. The total mechanical energy in a simple harmonic oscillation is the sum of the kinetic energy and the potential energy of a point at some time (Halliday and Resnick, 1966):

E = K + U = m v2 + k x2 = k A2 where k is a force constant and A is the amplitude of oscillation. Thus, the total mechanical energy of a particle executing simple harmonic motion is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the motion. The energy in a particle vibrating about some equilibrium point can thus be determined even though the event is transient in nature. So at any point on the vibration waveform trace the energy can be determined and a summation of these energy values over the time that the wave acts could be an indication of the energy imparted to the ground by the vibration wave. Even vibrations at lower levels than the peak vibration level impart some energy to the ground or structure. The energy imparted below the peak vibration level is neglected but it could still have an effect on the ground or structure (frequency dependent). Inclusion of the energy in the reporting of the vibration effect at a point could shed some light on potentially damaging blast-induced waveforms. This could give a more meaningful indication of the effect of the vibration wave on the ground or structure. The frequency of the vibration waveform is one parameter that is becoming more relevant in todays blasting operations. The frequency content is also one parameter used in the damage criteria approach. The vibration waveform is represented by a voltage signal from the primary sensor in the time domain. The primary sensor is designed to operate at frequencies below a certain resonance frequency of the sensor. This resonance frequency of the primary sensor is usually in 30-plus kilohertz range and well within the frequency range of blast-induced vibrations. This time domain signal may be converted to a frequency domain signal. Over many years of signal analysis a procedure known as fast Fourier transform, after the great 18th century French physicist Joseph Fourier (17681830), has been developed to a stage that this type of analysis can even be carried out in real time with some data acquisition devices. Basically the time domain transient signal is represented by a sine and cosine series and the coefficients are used to convert the time domain signal into the frequency domain. The mathematics behind the fast Fourier transform is quite complicated but the resultant output from the Fourier series is a plot of amplitude (or distance) as a function of frequency. There are many ways of representing the frequency of the waveform and the traditional approach is to determine the maximum value and quote this frequency. Again one parameter is used to represent the entire waveform. It has been reported (Siskind 1986, Dowding 1996 and USBM) that normal residential structures have resonance frequencies below approximately 35 Hz. To this extent some authorities require that blast-induced vibrations be reported as some peak level less than a frequency of 35 Hz.

VIBRATION PREDICTION Blast-induced vibrations recorded at a particular location are affected by many factors. The effect of the shock wave on the ground and the ground structure are characteristics

that cannot be controlled. These characteristics must be understood, for the local area of operation, if any control of the blast-induced vibrations is possible. Blasting operators can however exert a degree of control on their practices to maintain the blast-induced vibrations within prescribed limits. The level of blast-induced vibration is affected by both the charge weight that is initiated at any time and the distance from the explosive source to the monitoring location. For example, for a charge weight of 1000 kg, a higher vibration level will be produced at a distance of 100 metres from the source than that at a distance of 1000 metres from the source, all other conditions being the same. Similarly, at a monitoring location 100 metres from the explosive source a charge weight of 1000 kg will produce a higher vibration level than a charge weight of 100 kg, all other conditions being the same. The usual approach is to use a decay power law which relates vibration level as a function of scaled distance (distance /v charge weight). The site law, as it is termed, is of the form: Vector Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s) = a * (Scaled Distance)-b where a and b are site specific coefficients and the scaled distance is measured in metres. Blast-induced vibration prediction is not an exact science as there are many unknown variables associated with blasting in rock and overburden material. The rock and overburden material is usually not consistent or known and vibration wave propagation through this inconsistent material is difficult to predict. There are three approaches that can be taken to predicting blast-induced vibrations. a) Text book approach This type of approach is usually taken when there is no information available that can be used to predict the blast-induced vibration from blasting operations. Text books and manufacturers handbooks have published a generic decay power law for this situation. The standard parameters used result from many years of monitoring exercises in a lot of different materials. This generic first approach law is suited for locations where no historic data is available and is usually termed a greenfield site. A generic site law is of the form (Technical Services, 1998): Vector Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s) = 1140 x (Scaled Distance)-1.6 b) Single hole site law approach This type of approach to vibration prediction is more site specific and relies on single blastholes being detonated and the vibration level at various distances being measured. If several monitoring locations and several blastholes are detonated a reasonable amount of data can be collected and some confidence in the predictions can be assumed. Once again the decay site law equation is constructed and any scatter in the data can indicate variability in vibration transmission through the ground even on a single site. This approach should be used to gather useful site information that can be used in more powerful prediction programs.

c) Monte Carlo approach This type of approach to vibration prediction is possibly the most powerful as it takes into account the effect of detonation of a sequence of blastholes. A schematic diagram is shown in Figure 4 of the unit operations involved in this form of prediction. The basic structure of Monte Carlo analysis (Blair, 1999) is a probability approach using the expected variability of any input function to the event being modelled. There is variation in all measurements and so the charge weight and the initiation sequence will both have variability and influence the predicted output. Once a model is established and calibrated it can then be used to predict the changes in vibration level when blast pattern conditions are altered.
Single blasthole seed shapes

Seed model Single hole scaling law Ground velocity Blast design Waveform broadening Blasthole screening

MONTE CARLO ENGINE

Output for all simulated blasts

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of Monte Carlo prediction approach.

TYPICAL BLAST-INDUCED WAVEFORMS. Blasting operations are many and varied, as are the vibration waveforms recorded from these operations. In the following sections some typical waveforms are shown (if there is such a thing as a typical waveform) that have been recorded at mining operations. These are not the only waveforms that would be experienced at these operations but some of the characteristics are explained. Viewing the waveform can help explain any anomalies that might occur from a normal blast from which a complaint is received.

10

Quarry blast waveform.

2 0

R a d ial
-2

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

2 0 0 -2 2 0 0 -2 0 1 .0 0 .5 0 .0 0

T ransverse
1 2

V e rtic a l
1 2

Vector Sum

B l a s t T im e ( s )

Figure 5. Quarry blast with low vibration level. In this example a vibration monitor was embedded in the ground and coupled in the recommended manner approximately 2 kilometers from the blast. The waveforms for each orthogonal component and the vector sum are shown in Figure 5. This was a quarry blast where the rock was fairly competent and the operation required that the resultant muckpile be stood-up and not thrown very far. Quarry blasts are usually fast and have a small number of blastholes. The initiation sequence used for this blast was 25 milliseconds in the control row and 42 milliseconds along the echelon. This blast was a 3 m x 3 m square pattern with 89 mm diameter holes drilled to a depth of 10 metres. There were 80 holes in the pattern with 50 kg of explosives per hole. The design blast duration was approximately 1.25 seconds and the vibration pattern was considered to be evenly distributed. This shot was quite smooth but there is some persistent vibration after the blast finished. This can be expected at this distance (2 km) as the higher frequencies attenuate at a higher rate than the lower frequencies giving a lowering of the average frequency of the waveform. The ground conditions over this distance can change which can cause other types of waves to be generated. The point to note here is the higher vibration frequency of the wave at the beginning of the shot followed by a decrease in the vibration frequency at the end of the blast. At these monitoring distances this change in vibration wave frequency is often recorded and if this frequency excites any structural resonance frequencies there is the possibility of structural damage.

11

Open cut metalliferrous waveforms.

10 0 -10

R a d ial
0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

10 0 -10 0 .5 10 0 -10 0 .5 20 10 0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5

T ransverse
3 .0

V e rtic a l
3 .0

V e c tor S u m

B last Tim e (s)

Figure 6. Vibration waveform from a gold mine blast. For the waveforms shown in Figure 6, the vibration monitor was glued to a rock outcrop that was clean and dry. The monitoring location was approximately 250 meters from the blast. The rock being blasted was reasonably competent and massive. The majority of the bench had been excavated and the final pit wall was being cleaned up. Displayed are the waveforms for each orthogonal component and the vector sum. The initiation sequence used was 100 milliseconds in the control row and 42 milliseconds along the echelon. This blast was 5 m x 5 m square pattern with 140 mm diameter holes drilled to a depth of 16 metres and loaded with 150 kg of explosives per hole. This was a trim blast shot with approximately 60 holes and the two rows closest to the final wall were lightly loaded with explosives to minimize the vibration level on the final wall. The design blast duration was approximately 1.25 seconds and the vibration pattern was considered to be irregular as the vibration level showed a rising and falling pattern. From the vibration waveform it could be inferred that the timing sequence could be modified to provide a more even vibration loading on the final wall with the possibility of minimizing damage to the final wall. The point of interest here is as this was an in-pit location the mine could use the vibration waveforms to fine tune their blasting practices and produce minimal vibration loading on the final wall while still maintaining enough blasting energy to fragment the rock for excavation purposes. Vibration is one way of representing structural damage and as can be seen the interpretation of the vibration waveform can provide valuable information to help minimize any structural damage.

12

Open cut cast blast waveforms.

20 0 -20

R a d ial
0 2 4 6

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

20 0 -20 0 20 0 -20 0 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 2 4 2 4

T ransverse
6

V e rtic a l
6

V e c tor S u m
6

B last Tim e (s)

Figure 7. Vibration waveform from an open cut coal mine blast. For the waveforms shown in Figure 7, the vibration monitor was embedded in the ground and coupled in the recommended manner approximately 450 meters from the blast. This blast was a cast blast in which the overbruden material needed to be thrown in a controlled manner as far across the strip as possible to minimize dragline handling. Displayed are the waveforms for each orthogonal component and the vector sum. The initiation sequence used was 9 milliseconds in the control row and 100 milliseconds between rows increasing to 175 milliseconds in the last couple of rows. This blast was 8 m x 11 m staggered pattern with 251 mm diameter holes drilled to a depth of 30 metres and loaded with approximately 850 kg of explosives per hole. There were approximately 800 holes in the pattern. The blast time was approximately 3.5 seconds and the vibration pattern was considered to be reasonably even. The overburden material was stratified and as such was composed of layers of different density material which have different wave transmission properties. Even though the control row was fired on short delays, because of the structure of the ground, surface waves were set up in the ground as can be seen in the low frequency wave persisting up to 5 seconds after the blast. This low frequency wave is difficult to control as it is a property of the structure of the ground. The point of interest here is that low frequency waves can be generated by blasting in this type of ground. This low frequency waveform can cause residential building damage due to differential movement of local components of buildings.

13

Single blasthole waveforms

200

H a rd rock quarry

2 1

O p e n c u t coal m ine

R a d ial Particle Velocity (mm/s)

-200 0.0 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-1 -2 2 1 0 1 2 3

Radial
4

T ransverse
-200 0.0 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-1 -2 2 1 0 1 2

T ransverse
3 4

V e rtic a l
-200 0.0 200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-1 -2 2 1 0 1 2

V e rtic a l
3 4

Vector Sum
-200 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-1 -2 0 1 2

V e c tor S u m
3 4

B l a s t T im e ( s )

Figure 8. Vibration waveform from single blasthole detonations. Single hole waveforms are shown in Figure 8. For the hard rock quarry the monitor was glued onto bed rock approximately 50 metres from the blasthole. For the open cut coal mine the monitor was embedded using the soil in the recommended procedure at a distance of approximately 2 km for the blasthole. The waveforms for each component and the vector sum waveform for each single blasthole are shown in Figure 8. The hard rock quarry blasthole was 89 mm diameter drilled to a depth of 13 metres and loaded with 50 kg of explosive. The open cut coal mine hole was 152 mm diameter drilled to a depth of 15 metres and loaded with 125 kg of explosives. In both cases only single blastholes were detonated to produce the waveforms shown in Figure 8. In both cases the blast time was approximately 10 milliseconds as only one blasthole was detonated. In the hard rock quarry example the blast effect on the ground has dissipated in approximately 100 milliseconds even though the monitor was placed close to the blasthole. In the open cut coal mine example the single hole waveform has caused complicated waves to be formed in the stratified overburden material which are seen to vibrate the ground for nearly 2.5 seconds after the single blasthole was detonated. The point of interest here is the difference in the two waveforms for similar explosive detonations (one blasthole). The ground the wave travels through will have a major influence on the waveform recorded from any blast initiated.

14

Open cut blasting near electric power poles.

20 10 0 200 0

G r o u n d v ibration

N o rmal to lines

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

0 -200 200 0 -200 200 0 -200 0 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

A long lin e s

V e rtical

P o l e V e c tor
1 2 3 4

B last Tim e (s)

Figure 9. Blasting near power utilities. A vibration monitor was embedded in the ground and coupled in the recommended manner 20 meters from the base of the power pole in the line of the power lines. A second vibration monitor was glued to the top of the 20 meter high power pole and the individual components aligned along the power lines, normal to the power lines and in the vertical plane of the power pole. The waveforms for each component at the top of the pole and the vector sum waveforms for the ground and the top of the pole are shown in Figure 9. The initiation sequence used in the blast was 100 milliseconds in the control row and 9 milliseconds along the echelon. This blast was 6 m x 6 m square pattern with 200 mm diameter holes drilled to a 10 metre depth with 130 kg of explosives per hole. There were approximately 250 holes and the centre of the pattern was approximately 50 metres from this set of power poles. The set of power poles consisted of three poles connected together and secured in a plane normal to the direction of the power lines. The blast time was approximately 3 seconds and the vibration pattern was considered to be lumpy. This shot was felt to stop and start indicating a poor distribution of explosive energy or a poor timing sequence used. The point to note here is the resonance behavior that was set up at the top of the power pole and the amplification of the vibration level due to the structure itself. Resonance behavior can occur in any structure if the right frequency is excited.

15

Underground development heading waveform.

60 30 0 -30 -60

R a d ial
0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

6 0 0 .0 30 0 -30 -60 6 0 0 .0 30 0 -30 -60 0 .0 60 30 0 0 .0

T ransverse
0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0

V e rtic a l
0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0

V e c tor S u m
0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0

B last Tim e (s)

Figure 10. Vibration waveforms from an underground development heading blast. Figure 10 shows part of the waveform from a vibration monitor glued to a solid rock outcrop approximately 100 meters from the blast in a cuddy on the decline to the mining operations. The rock surface was dry and smooth and the coupling to the rock was considered to be good. The primary sensors were placed with the radial component directed towards the blast. Accelerometers were used as the primary sensor and the resultant waveforms are an integration from the acceleration trace, consequently some low frequency artifacts occur between the blasthole records. A typical underground development heading initiation sequence was used with delay numbers up to 12 (6400 milliseconds). This blast was 0.75 m x 0.75 m pattern with a diamond burncut and 64 mm diameter holes drilled to a depth of 3.6 metres. There were approximately 45 holes with 10 kg of explosives per hole. The centre of the pattern was approximately 50 meters from the main decline of the mine. The blast time was approximately 6.5 seconds and the vibration pattern showed the typical individual hole separation for this type of blast. Due to the harsh conditions under which explosives are required to perform in this type of blasting situation there is always the possibility that some blastholes fail to detonate. A misfire occurred during this blast as seen by the absence of signal at approximately 1.5 seconds. The point to note here is that the vibration waveforms can be used as a diagnostic tool to examine the performance of any blast and determine any remedial action that needs to be addressed for future blasts.

16

Underground stope blast waveform.

2 0 -2

R a d ial

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

2 0 0 -2 2 0 0 -2 0 2 1 0 0

T ransverse

V e rtic a l

V e c tor S u m

B last Tim e (s)

Figure 11. Vibration waveform from an underground slot and ring blast. Figure 11 shows the vibration waveform from a vibration monitor glued to a solid rock outcrop approximately 500 meters from the blast. The rock surface was dry and smooth and the coupling to the rock was considered to be good. The primary sensors were placed with the radial component directed towards the dip direction of the ore body. For this blast an opening or slot had to be established for the fragmented material to be thrown into before the subsequent rings in the stope were fired. A delay of 400 milliseconds was used in the slot formation period and then 25 milliseconds between blastholes in each ring. The slot blastholes were drilled on a 0.75 m x 1 m pattern and the rings were drilled with a toe burden of 2.2 m. The blastholes, 102 mm in diameter, were drilled up to 30 metres deep. There were approximately 9 sets of holes in the slot and 10 holes in each ring. The first ring was 1 metre from the slot that was formed. This is a similar waveform to the development heading blast, discussed above, except that the ring firings can be seen to appear at approximately 4.8 seconds. It can be seen that approximately 4.5 seconds was allowed for the formation of the slot which provide a void for the ring blasts to throw the fragmented material into. The point to note here is that the vibration waveforms can be used, in conjunction with post blast inspections, as a diagnostic tool to examine the performance of the slot formation in relation to the fragmented material formed by the ring blasting.

17

CONCLUSION. Vibration monitoring has been an integral part of responsible mining operations for about a decade now. As the urban sprawl begins to affect most mining/quarrying operations measures must be taken to minimize the blast-induced vibration effects on the nearby neighbours. These measures, in particular in some quarries, have become imperative if the quarry is to remain in operation. It doesnt matter that the quarry has been in the same location for 50 years the urban sprawl is here to stay and both the quarry and the local residents can co-exist provided the mine/quarry operations are carried out responsibly. The vibration monitoring procedure should be viewed as a constructive part of the mine/quarry operation and not something that just has to be done. When a diagnostic approach is taken to the recorded waveform it can not only help to reduce blast-induced vibrations for subsequent blasts but also provides a tool to view the effect of blasting on the ground. If final walls are to be protected then less damage can result from properly designed blasts as a result of analyzing the vibration waveforms from previous blasts. Smart blast designs are a key responsibility of mine/quarry operators not only in the efficient use of sometimes costly raw materials but also in the management of some of the environmental outputs from the mining/quarrying operations. REFERENCES. Armstrong L.W. and Sen G.C., 1999, The measurement of blast induced vibrations in soil. Explo 99, Kalgoorlie, WA, 7-11 November, pp. 99-104. AS 2187.2-1993, Explosives Storage, transport and use. Part 2: Use of explosives., 1993, Standards Australia, Homebush, NSW, Australia. Blair D.P., 1989, Ground coupling of vibration detectors., CSIRO Division of Geomechanics, Institute of Mineral Energy & Construction, External Report No.1, September, pp. 1-45 Blair D.P., 1999, Statistical models for ground vibration and airblast., Int, J of Blasting and Fragmentation, 3, pp 335-364 Dowding C.H., 1996, Construction vibrations., Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, USA Halliday D. and Resnick R., Physics Parts I and II., Wiley International Edition, New York, USA Siskind D.E., 1986, Frequency analysis and the use of response spectra for blast vibration assessment in mining., Proceedings of 12th Annual Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, Orlando, Florida, 4-8 February, pp.1-11.

18

Technical Services, 1998, Safe and efficient blasting in surface coal mines., Orica Explosives, April

19