Environmental Impact of Blasting at Drenovac Limestone Quarry (Serbia)

Environmental impact of blasting at
Drenovac limestone quarry (Serbia)
Dejan Vasovi, Sran Kosti, Marina

Ravili & Slobodan Trajkovi
Environmental Earth Sciences

ISSN 1866-6280
Volume 72
Number 10
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:3915-3928
DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3280-z
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.
1 23
Author's personal copy

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:39153928
DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3280-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Environmental impact of blasting at Drenovac limestone quarry

(Serbia)
Dejan Vasovic Srdan Kostic Marina Ravilic
Slobodan Trajkovic
Received: 30 September 2013 / Accepted: 8 April 2014 / Published online: 8 June 2014
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract In present paper, the blast-induced ground

motion and its effect on the neighboring structures are
analyzed at the limestone quarry Drenovac in central
part of Serbia. Ground motion is examined by means of
existing conventional predictors, with scaled distance as a
main influential parameter, which gave satisfying prediction accuracy (R [ 0.8), except in the case of Ambraseys
Hendron predictor. In the next step of the analysis, a feedforward three-layer back-propagation neural network is
developed, with three input units (total charge, maximum
charge per delay and distance from explosive charge to
monitoring point) and only one output unit (peak particle
velocity). The network is tested for the cases with different
number of hidden nodes. The obtained results indicate that
the model with six hidden nodes gives reasonable predictive precision (R & 0.9), but with much lower values of
mean-squared error in comparison to conventional predictors. In order to predict the influence level to the neighboring buildings, recorded peak particle velocities and
frequency values were evaluated according to United
States Bureau of Mines, USSR standard, German
DIN4150, Australian standard, Indian DMGS circular 7
and Chinese safety regulations for blasting. Using the best
D. Vasovic
Department of Architectural Technologies, Faculty of
Architecture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
S. Kostic (&)
Department of Geology, Faculty of Mining and Geology,
University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
e-mail: srdjan.kostic@rgf.bg.ac.rs
M. Ravilic S. Trajkovic
Department of Underground Mining, Faculty of Mining and
Geology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
conventional predictor, the relationship between the

allowable amount of explosive and distance from explosive
charge is determined for every vibration standard. Furthermore, the effect of air-blast overpressure is analyzed
according to domestic regulations, with construction of a
blasting chart for the permissible amount of explosive as a
function of distance, for the allowable value of air-blast
overpressure (200 Pa). The performed analysis indicates
only small number of recordings above the upper allowable
limit according to DIN4150 and DMGS standard, while,
for all other vibration codes the registered values of ground
velocity are within the permissible limits. As for the airblast overpressure, no damage is expected to occur.
Keywords Blasting Peak particle velocity Artificial
neural network Frequency Building vibration
Introduction
Blasting is a commonly performed excavation technique in
various mining and civil engineering projects, for the
purpose of tunnel, subway, highways or dam construction.
These activities, usually performed both on surface and
underground, often induce ground motion and air blast
which could affect the existing nearby buildings and
infrastructure. According to Kuzu (2008), only 2030 % of
the energy from blasting is used to fragment the rock.
Moreover, with the increase of legal environmental constraints on the level of allowable environmental disturbances induced by blasting operations, there is an
increasing need to design blasting with greater precision.
On the other hand, when it comes to quarrying, blasting
operations must be carried out to provide such production
that overall profits of quarrying operation are maximized.
123

3916
Even though it seems that these two requirements are

mutually opposed, blasting should be designed in a way
that no ground motion and, simultaneously, no structural
vibrations are recorded above a certain threshold level. At
the same time, the effect of air blast should be reduced to
minimum.
There are two main groups of parameters that affect
ground vibrations induced by blasting (Hudaverdi 2012).
The first group consists of blast design parametersburden, spacing between holes, bench height, drillhole diameter, stemming height and subdrilling. The second group of
parameters is represented by rock properties. If the layer is
composed of several different soil types, the transmission
path of blasting vibration would be very complicated
because of the wave reflection and refraction (Kim and Lee
2000). On the other hand, if the waves induced by blasting
propagate through hard rock, the existing discontinuities in
a rock mass could cause significant spatial variations in
blast-induced ground motions due to uncontrollable physical conditions and their effect on fragmentation mechanism (Erarslan et al. 2010). As it could be seen, ground
motion shows large spatial variation primarily due to
geological setting, which is commonly treated as an
uncontrollable parameter, in comparison to amount of
explosive, distribution of blasting boreholes and their
depth, which are usually set up according to design
demands. This is why ground motion due to blasting is
usually evaluated using empirical attenuation equations,
which estimate peak particle velocity (PPV) based on the
quantity of explosive used and distance between the
explosive charge and monitoring station. These equations
are of great interests for field engineers, since they enable
them to predict the maximum ground vibration (Duvall and
Petkof 1959; Langefors and Kihlstrom 1963; Davies et al.
1964; Ambraseys and Hendron 1968; Ghosh and Daemen
1983; Singh and Roy 1993).
As a rule, blast-induced ground vibrations are accompanied by air-blast overpressure, which refers to the pressures above normal atmospheric pressure, generated by
detonation of explosive charges. These air vibrations usually have low frequency (\20 Hz), which is similar to
natural frequencies of many residential structures, so air
blast could cause resonance effect, and, consequently, a
possible structural damage (Olofsson 1990; Bhandari 1997;
Kuzu and Ergin 2005).
Both ground motion and air blast could affect nearby
structures. Different countries have set their own standards
on the basis of their extensive field investigations carried
out in their mines for several years. Peak particle velocity
has been traditionally used in practice for the measurement
of blast damage to structures. In this criterion, the shape of
the waveform and duration of dynamic loading are not
taken into account (Langefors et al. 1958; Edwards and
123
Northwood 1960; Duvall and Fogelson 1962; Nicholls

et al. 1971; Singh and Vogt 1998). Later on, both PPV and
predominant frequency of the seismic wave were used as a
damage criterion (Siskind et al. 1980a; German Institute of
Standards 1986; DGMS (Tech) S and T Circular No. 7
1997; Australian standard 2006; USSR standard, Singh and
Roy 2010; Lu et al. 2012). Sometimes even PPV and distance from the explosive charge to the endangered structure
is also used as a damage criterion (Rosenthal and Morlock
1987). All these standards give the threshold level of PPV
for various types of structures, like hospitals, residential
buildings, office and commercial areas (Singh and Roy
2010).
As for the air-blast effects, there are two risks which air
blasts pose including direct human irritation, and pressure
causing damage on neighboring structures such as breaking
windows. Existing standards are usually based on the
maximum pressure that structural elements can resist, as
well as the human response (Mohanty 1998). Australian
guidelines recommend maximum level for air-blast overpressure of 120 dBL based on human discomfort (ANZEC
1990; Environment Australia 1998). The same criterion is
given in Chinese National standard (General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
2003; Lu et al. 2012). USBM predicts a certain higher level
(133 dBL), which is a safe structural level, but may affect
residents (Siskind et al. 1980a, b). In this study, existing
Serbian Technical guidelines are used, which give critical
values of air overpressure due to amount of explosive used
and distance from the explosive charge (Technical guidelines for using explosives and blasting in mine operations
1988).
In present paper, the ground motion and air-blast overpressure due to blasting are investigated, as well as their
effect on infrastructure, at a limestone quarry Drenovac
in central part of Serbia. Limestone is chosen as a representative rock unit for investigating the ground vibration
because it is the most common rock type in Serbian
quarries, and limestone is mostly used rock type for civil
engineering purposes. Moreover, rather than being exceptions, there are many experimental investigations on blastinduced vibrations in limestone. Kesimal et al. (2008)
investigated the impact of blast-induced ground motion on
slope stability at Arakli-Tasonu limestone quarry in Trabzon (Turkey). Afeni and Osasan (2009) studied the level of
noise generated and ground vibrations induced during
blasting operations at the Ewekoro limestone quarry in
Nigeria, and their effect on residential structures within
villages near the quarry. Mohamed (2009) developed an
artificial neural network model for PPV prediction in a
limestone quarry in Egypt, by analyzing the predictive
power of ANN with different number of input units. Torno
et al. (2011) developed a computational fluid dynamics

Table 1 Main blasting
parameters
3917
No. of
explosive
charges
No. of
blast holes
Maximum charge
per delay (kg)
Total
charge (kg)
No. of
measurement
stations
Total number of
vibration records
210
3285.2
6001,988.6
32
Table 2 Different conventional predictors

Conventional predictor
Duvall and Petkof (1959) (USBM)
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1963)
General predictor (Davies et al. 1964)
Ambraseys and Hendron (1968)
Singh and Roy (1993) (CMRI)
Equation
p B
v K R= Qmax
hpiB
Qmax =R2=3
vK
v = KR-B(Qmax)A
p
B
v K R= 3Qmax
p a
v n K R= Qmax
v is peak particle velocity (PPV) in mm/s, Qmax is maximum charge

per delay, in kg, R is distance between the blasting source and
vibration monitoring point, in meters, and K, B, A, a, n are site
constants
power is evaluated for the recorded PPV, after which a new

model is suggested by using ANN approach. In Conclusions the impact of ground vibration and air-blast overpressure on nearby residential structures is estimated. Final
section presents discussion on the obtained results, with
suggestions for further research.
Fig. 1 Position of recording instruments (MM1MM7) and explosive charges (18) at Drenovac limestone quarry
model in order to simulate the dispersion of blast-generated

dust in limestone quarries. Mohamadnejad et al. (2012)
used artificial neural network and support vector machine
for prediction of blast-induced vibrations in two limestone
quarries.
The goal of the paper is manifold. Firstly, the predictive
power of existing conventional predictors is to be estimated
using the recorded PPV values. Secondly, a new model is
intended to be developed, using artificial neural network
approach (ANN), with three main input units (total charge,
maximum charge per delay and distance from the explosive
charge to monitoring station). In the final phase of the
research, the effect of the recorded PPV and corresponding
frequency, as well as air-blast overpressure, on the nearby
residential structures is estimated using the existing
vibration standards.
The scheme of this paper is as follows. Blasting and
field measurements provides the description of the
applied methodology and test procedure, which includes
the blasting equipment, and the corresponding field work.
In Analysis of blast-induced ground motion existing
conventional predictors are used, and their predictive
Blasting and field measurements

The main parameters of performed blasting are given in
Table 1, while the position of recording instruments and
blasting shots is shown in Fig. 1.
The velocity of ground oscillation induced by blasting
was measured by mobile seismograph of Vibralok type,
with frequency range 2250 Hz, sampling of 1,000 Hz and
trigger levels of 0.1200 mm/s.
Analysis of blast-induced ground motion

PPV prediction using conventional equations
In order to develop a proper and accurate PPV prediction
model, empirical attenuation equations are commonly
used, which represent prediction models for PPV as a
function of scaled distance, already used in Erarslan et al.
(2008), Iphar et al. (2008), Kuzu (2008). Various conventional predictors proposed by different researchers are
given in Table 2 (Duvall and Petkof 1959; Langefors and
Kihlstrom 1963; Davies et al. 1964; Ambraseys and Hendron 1968; Singh and Roy 1993). These equations are
developed on the basis of the assumption that the total
123

3918
Table 3 Calculated values of site constants

Site constants
USBM
LK
GP
AH
CMRI
3,659
1.70
3.82
0.43
56,954.05
1.87
0.41
19,608
1.81
-3.03
430.7
LK LangeforsKihlstrom, GP general predictor, AH AmbraseysHendron

Table 4 Coefficient of correlation (R) and mean-squared error (MSE) for measured PPV vs. predicted PPV by conventional predictors
Linear regression
USBM
LK
GP
AH
CMRI
MSE
MSE
MSE
MSE
MSE
0.88
3.88
0.88
15.60
0.87
4.04
0.69
3.92
0.88
3.80
LK LangeforsKihlstrom, GP general predictor, AH AmbraseysHendron
Fig. 2 Measured PPV vs. predicted PPV by conventional predictors: a USBM, b LangeforsKihlstrom, c general predictor, d Ambraseys
Hendron, e CMRI
energy of the ground motion generated by blasting varies

directly with the weight of detonated explosives and that it
is inversely proportional to the square distance from
blasting point. It has to be emphasized that the ultimate
123
goal of the present research is not to evaluate the existing

conventional predictors; the only intention is to examine
their predictive power for the specific case under study
(Iphar et al. 2010).

3919
The site constants were determined from the multiple

regression analysis of the total recordings (Table 3).
Coefficient of correlation (R) and mean-squared error
(MSE) for measured PPV vs. predicted PPV by conventional predictors is shown in Table 4. The relationship
between measured and predicted PPV is given in Fig. 2.
It is clear from Fig. 2 that all predictor equations, except
for AmbraseysHendron predictor, give rather high coefficient of correlation, in the range R = 0.870.88.
Regarding the past researches on this subject, the values of
coefficient of correlation above 0.8 indicate that the measurement data could be used for PPV prediction by
deploying the conventional predictor equations (Kahriman
et al. 2006; Iphar et al. 2009).
PPV prediction using artificial neural network
As a next step in present analysis, a neural network model
is developed by using the same approach as in Monjezi
et al. (2013) with total charge, maximum charge per delay
and distance from monitoring point to blasting source as
input parameters, whereas PPV was considered as a single
output parameter (Table 5).
In this paper, in order to create an adequate ANN model
for PPV prediction, based on the recorded data, a threelayer artificial neural network is chosen using back-propagation with LevenbergMarquardt training algorithm.
This training algorithm is commonly considered as the
fastest method for training moderate-sized feed-forward
neural networks (Tiryaki 2008), and it is usually recommended as a first choice for supervised learning, as in this
case (Hagan and Menhaj 1994). As for the activation
function, a sigmoid function is deployed, as the most
common transfer function implemented in the literature
(Sonmez et al. 2006).
Regarding the network architecture, one hidden layer
was chosen in present study, following the suggestion of
Rumelhart et al. (1986), Lipmann (1987) and Sonmez et al.
(2006). However, the number of hidden neurons was
determined using heuristics summarized by Sonmez et al.
(2006). As it is clear from Table 6, the number of neurons
that may be used in the hidden layer varies between 1 and
Table 6 The heuristics used for the number of neurons in hidden

layer
Heuristic
Calculated number
of neurons for this
study
References
B2 9 Ni ? 1
B7
Hecht-Nielsen
(1987)
3 9 Ni
Hush (1989)
(Ni ? N0)/2
Ripley (1993)
2N0 Ni 0:5N0 N02 Ni 3

Ni N0
Paola (1994)
2Ni/3
p
Ni N0
Wang (1994)
Masters (1993),
Kaastra and Boyd
(1996)
2Ni
Kanellopoulas and
Wilkinson (1997)
Ni number of input neurons, N0 number of output neurons
Data
Parameter
Range
Drenovac
9. In present study, the number of hidden neurons was

selected as 2, 6 and 9 separately to establish the most
effective ANN architecture.
In all the examined cases, the total data set has been
divided as following: 50 % for training (16 recordings),
25 % for validation (8 recordings) and 25 % for testing (8
recordings), which corresponds well with the suggestion of
Looney (1996), who proposed 25 % for testing, and with
recommendation by Nelson and Illingworth (1990) who
supported the idea of 2030 % of data for testing.
It has to be emphasized that the analysis of this relatively small data set could lead to ambiguous results and
interpretations. However, regarding the application of
ANN approach for prediction of blasting vibration, the
analysis of small data sets is not an exception. Mohamadnejad et al. (2012) also examined small number of data
(37) using support vector machine algorithm and regression
neural network, obtaining rather high prediction accuracy
(R2 = 0.92). Moreover, Monjezi et al. (2013) developed a
four-layer feed-forward back-propagation neural network,
using only 20 data sets. In this case, high prediction
accuracy was also obtained (R2 = 0.927).
The possible ANN architectures were trained by using
combinations of the number of hidden neurons defined
above. In order to utilize the most sensitive part of neuron
and since output neuron being sigmoid can only give output between 0 and 1, scaling of the output parameter was
necessary, and was performed in the following way:
Inputs
Total charge (kg)
6001,988.6
scaled value = max:value unscaled value=
Table 5 Inputoutput parameters for the ANN training and their

range
Output
Maximum charge per delay (kg)
3285.2
Distance from blasting source (m)

Peak particle velocity (mm/s)
210.96737.38
0.94914.997
max:value min:value
In that way, numerical values of the analyzed parameter

were normalized in the range of [0, 1].
123

3920
Fig. 3 MSE versus the number of epochs for training and testing data, using various number of hidden neurons: a two, b six and c nine
In order to avoid the possible occurrence of overfitting,

due to small dataset, an early stopping criterion is applied
(Yuan et al. 2007). Since a fast LevenbergMarquardt
training algorithm is used, the adaptive value l and its
decrease and increase factor were set to 1, 0.8 and 1.5,
respectively, so that the convergence is slow.
Mean-squared error (MSE) versus number of epochs for
testing and training data, using different number of hidden
neurons is shown in Fig. 3. The best validation performance occurs at iteration 23, for the cases with 2 and 6
hidden neurons, and at iteration 14, for the case with 9
hidden neurons. It is clear that the results are reasonable,
without any significant overfitting, in all the examined
cases, since the training and the validation set errors have
similar properties. This result compares well with the
previous analyzes, claiming that large back-propagation
neural nets tend to learn models similar to those learned by
smaller nets (Lawrence and Giles 2000).
123
Performance of the proposed neural network models

with scaled values for training, validation and testing set is
shown in Fig. 4 for the examined cases with different
number of hidden nodes. Evidently, the outputs track the
target values very well in all the examined cases. However, for the case with two hidden nodes, shown in
Fig. 4a, MSE for validation and test set (0.028 and 0.035,
respectively), is much larger in comparison with the
training set (0.002). Moreover, coefficient of correlation
for the training set, R & 0.97 is much higher when
compared to validation and test set (0.89 and 0.85,
respectively). Similar conclusions could be drawn for the
case with nine hidden neurons (Fig. 4c). Apparently, it
turns out that the ANN model with six hidden neurons has
the best predictive performance, since the coefficient of
correlation for training, validation and test dataset is
nearly the same (R C 0.9), with the MSE in the range
0.0110.0282.

3921
Fig. 4 Comparison of the predicted and measured values of PPV for training, validation and test set (scaled values), for the following number of
hidden nodes: a two, b six and c nine
Impact of blasting on neighboring structures

Evaluation of possible damage based on recorded PPV
and frequency
The main goal of the performed blasting was to estimate
the possible effect of blast-induced ground vibration on the
nearby residential structures. Concerning this, as it was
already stated in the introductory part, monitoring instruments were located in front of the neighboring buildings, so
as to obtain a reliable data for assessing the blast-induced
damage. As for the existing structures near the studied
quarry, the present analysis focuses on the six domestic
houses of the same structural characteristics, but with different dimensions. These buildings belong to masonry type
of construction, with foundation made from concrete, while
the steel reinforcements are used for overfooting. Slab is
made of reinforced concrete.
In present paper, since there are no domestic regulations
on the impact of blasting on neighboring structures, possible structural damage is estimated using most frequently
applied criteria, which commonly define the limits for
structural damage as a function of PPV and frequency of
the blast. Figure 5a presents the evaluation of damage
potential at monitoring stations for the conducted experimental blasts according to the above-mentioned criteria by
123

3922
Fig. 5 Evaluation of damage potential: a DIN 4150, b USBM, c USSR standard, d Australian standard
DIN (German Institute of Standards 1986) and US Bureau

of Mines (USBM) (Siskind et al. 1980a).
On the basis of this analysis, it is clear that, according to
USBM criterion (Fig. 5b), conducted blasts are far from
resulting in any structural damage. However, DIN criterion
(Fig. 5a) shows approximately ten cases off the upper
boundary predicted for the objects of class II. Even though
these recordings are far from the upper boundary of the first
class of objects (industrial buildings), one should bear in
mind that these vibrations could induce structural damage,
especially if the object is old or poorly constructed.
123
In Fig. 5, different colors denote data from different

velocity components: red, blue and black stand for transversal, longitudinal and vertical component, respectively. It
has to be emphasized that the observed buildings belong to
second class of object according to DIN, so only the lowest
boundary is shown in Fig. 5a.
Besides these two widely used criteria, USSR criteria
are frequently applied, especially in Eastern European
countries (Singh and Roy 2010). According to this criterion, the maximum allowable PPV, repeated and onefold,
for residential buildings of all types is 30 and 60 mm/s,

3923
Fig. 6 Evaluation of damage potential according to: a DGMS (Tech) S and T Circular No. 7 (1997), b Chinese safety regulations GB6722-201X
which is far above the maximum recorded PPV in analyzed

case, 14.997 mm/s (Fig. 5c). On the other hand, Australian
standard (2006) predicts maximal velocity value of 19 mm/
s for frequency greater than 15 Hz, for houses and low rise
residential buildings, which is also higher than recorded
ground vibration (Fig. 5d). The assessment of damage
criteria according to Indian DGMS (Tech) S and T Circular
No. 7 (1997) is given in Fig. 6a, while the level of recorded
ground velocity due to vibration frequency, evaluated
according to Chinese safety regulations GB6722-201X, is
given in Fig. 6b.
In Fig. 6a, the upper boundary is given only for
domestic houses/structures, not belonging to the owner,
while in Fig. 6b, the upper boundary stands for the reinforced concrete buildings. As in Fig. 6, different colors
denote data from different velocity components: red, blue
and black stand for transversal, longitudinal and vertical
component, respectively.
As it could be seen, no structural damage is expected
according to USSR, Australian and Chinese criteria, while
three recorded values of PPV exceeds the upper limit in
Fig. 6a (DMGS circular), which implies the necessity for
more careful blast design, in order to reduce any possible
damage to nearby objects.
In order to further evaluate the effect of blasting on
neighboring objects, the results from the measurements can
be extrapolated through the site-specific attenuation equations with the highest R and the smallest MSE (CMRI
predictor, Table 4), to obtain practical blasting charts to be
employed for future blasting operations, using the damage
limits set by the above-mentioned damage criteria. Similar
approach has already been used in Ozer et al. (2008), Ak

et al. (2009), Dogan et al. (2013).
For the performed blasts, the frequency analyzes resulted in a clustering in the range of 3.775 Hz. The corresponding maximum permissible PPV values for
residential buildings are 5 mm/s for frequencies
\10 Hz, 15 mm/s for frequencies in the range 1050 Hz
and 20 mm/s for frequencies in the range 50100 Hz,
according to DIN standard. On the other hand, maximum
allowable PPV values using USBM standard are 20 mm/s
for frequencies \10 Hz, and 50 mm/s for higher frequencies. Using conventional equations with the highest values
of R2 and the smallest value of MSE (CMRI predictor) the
relationships between the permissible amount of explosive
and the distance, i.e., the practical blasting charts, are
obtained for a given structural type according to each
standard, and are plotted in Fig. 7a, b. Similar approach is
also used for other previously analyzed vibration standards:
for USSR regulations, maximum allowable PPV is equal to
30 mm/s for repeated blasting, and 60 mm/s for onefold
blasting (Fig. 7c). According to Australian regulations,
maximum permissible PPV value is equal to 19 mm/s
(Fig. 7d).
DMGS regulations predict maximum velocity of 5 mm/
s for dominant excitation frequency \8 Hz, 10 mm/s, for
frequencies in the range 825 Hz, and 15 mm/s, for frequencies[25 Hz (Fig. 8a). On the other hand, according to
Chinese safety regulations GB6722-201X, the maximum
velocity of 35 mm/s is predicted for frequencies \10 Hz,
45 mm/s for frequencies in the range 1050 Hz and
50 mm/s for frequencies [50 Hz (Fig. 8b).
123

3924
Fig. 7 Blasting chart for regulations: a DIN4150, b USBM, c USSR, d Australian
Apart from the previously analyzed vibration standards,

some other regulations are sometimes used for estimating
the structural damage due to blasting. Crandell (1949)
suggested the correlation between the building safety and
relative energy (ER), as a function of recorded particle
acceleration and frequency or velocity. Zeller (1931, 1933,
1949) proposed a special scale according to Zellers power
(or strength) of vibration, as a function of recorded acceleration and frequency. Moreover, Zeller developed a special vibration parameter, called Strength, expressed in
vibrar units, as a ratio of Zellers power to its reference
value of 0.1 cm2/s3 (Steffens 1974).
Effects of air-blast overpressure
Dynamic overpressure in air was monitored with the
microphones connected to the air-blast channels of
123
recording units. Air-blast overpressure (AOp) was measured in a range of 2150 Pa. The microphones have an
operating frequency response from 2 to 250 Hz, which is
adequate to measure accurately overpressure in the frequency range critical for structures and in the range of
frequencies critical for human hearing (Raina et al. 2004;
Khandelwal and Singh 2005). The air-blast overpressure
was measured at four different distances from the
blasting shots (Table 7).
In terms of possible damage due to air-blast overpressure (windows breakage), a common limitation is
134 dB recommended in a report of United States
Bureau of Mines (USBM) (Siskind et al. 1980b).
Actually, 134 dB limit is one-half of the AOp of
140 dB that has served previously as a long-term
common standard for construction and quarry blasting.
Neither of these has been shown to cause window

3925
Fig. 8 Blasting charts for: a DMGS vibration standard, b Chinese safety regulations GB6722-201X
Table 7 Recorded values of air-blast overpressure

Recording
no.
Distance
from
explosive
charge to
measuring
point (m)
Total
amount of
explosive
(kg)
Maximal
amount of
explosives
per interval
(kg)
Air-blast
overpressure
Pa
dB
M1
647.42
661.4
36.2
22.4
120.98
M2
605.54
1,980.6
71.2
2.7
102.61
M3
616.35
915.3
66.2
103.52
M4
644.64
915.3
66.2
25.2
122.01
Table 8 Maximum allowable air-blast overpressure in function of

detonation frequency (Technical guidelines for using explosives and
blasting in mine operations 1988)
Frequency of detonation
Maximum allowable
overpressure increase
Several detonations during a day
Daily monitoring of air-blast

overpressure must be
conducted
Several detonation twice a week
\100 Pa
Maximum two detonations in a week \200 Pa

Maximum two detonations in a month \300 Pa
Maximum two detonations in a year
\500 Pa
breakage or structural damage (Kuzu et al. 2009).

Technical guidelines for using explosives and blasting
in mine operations (1988) gives permissible
overpressure in function of the detonation frequency, in

the range 100500 Pa (Table 8).
It is clear that in all the examined cases, air-blast
overpressure is well below the predicted limits according to
Tables 7 and 8, since the frequency of detonation is maximum twice a week.
Moreover, similarly to the previous case of blastinduced ground motion, a permissible amount of explosive
could be determined as a function of distance from the
blasting shot and allowable air-blast overpressure.
According to Technical guidelines for using explosives and
blasting in mine operations (1988), for maximum two
detonations in a week, allowable air-blast overpressure is
200 Pa. Using the empirical formula, suggested in Kuzu
et al. (2009):
AOp k
R
Qmax 0:33
!b
2
where AOp is air overpressure (dB), k and b are the site

factors, R is the distance from blasting shot to monitoring
station and Qmax represents maximum charge per delay.
The site factors are determined according to the recorded
values given in Table 6 (Fig. 9a).
Based on Eq. (2) and determined values of site factors
(Fig. 9a), it is possible to construct a chart for the permissible amount of explosive as a function of distance
from the blasting shot, for the maximum allowable value
of air-blast overpressure (140 dB), according to Technical guidelines for using explosives and blasting in mine
operations (1988). This diagram is shown in Fig. 9b.
123

3926
Fig. 9 a Determining the site factors k (8.18) and b (0.51) for Eq. (2),
based on the recorded values of air-blast overpressure and scaled
distance, b chart for permissible amount of explosives (kg) as a
function of distance from the blasting shot to the monitoring station,
for the maximum allowable value of air-blast overpressure (140 dB)

(Technical guidelines for using explosives and blasting in mine
operations 1988)
Conclusions
4150 and Indian DMGS standards indicate several cases of

recorded velocities off the upper limit for the chosen class
of objects. This further implies the need for more careful
blast design, in order to prevent the possible damage to the
residential objects in the quarrys surrounding.
Using the relation between the recorded PPV and scaled
distance with the highest coefficient of correlation and the
smallest value of mean-squared error (CMRI predictor), the
blasting charts for every analyzed vibration standard were
constructed, giving the permissible amount of explosive as
a function of distance from the blasting shot.
Besides the measuring of blast-induced ground motion,
air-blast overpressure was also recorded at four different
monitoring points. According to USBM and domestic criteria, recorded values of overpressure are far smaller than
the lowest threshold. Also, similarly to the previous analysis
of blast-induced ground motion, a blasting chart was constructed for the permissible amount of air-blast overpressure
as a function of distance to the explosive charge, using the
upper limit of 140 dB for air-blast overpressure, as predicted by the Technical guidelines for using explosives and
blasting in mine operations (1988). In this case, site factors
for the attenuation Eq. (2) were determined only on the
basis of four recordings, which could lead to ambiguous
interpretations. In order to avoid this, further research
should include a larger data set of air-blast overpressure.
It has to be emphasized that the major constraint for the
performed analysis was the limited data set, which could
affect the results and, consequently, lead to dubious interpretations and conclusions. Concerning this, an early
stopping criterion was applied in order to avoid overfitting,
In present paper, the blast-induced ground vibrations and

their effect on possible structural damage is analyzed at a
limestone quarry Drenovac in Serbia. The blasting was
performed at 8 locations, whereas the vibrations were
recorded at 6 different monitoring stations, with total
dataset of 32 measurements. Even though the analyzed
dataset is relatively small, it represents valuable experimental data that has never been analyzed in such a manner
for any type of surface blasting in Serbia, as far as authors
are aware.
In the first phase of the research, blast-induced ground
motion is examined using the existing conventional predictors, and artificial neural network approach. The conducted
analysis showed that, by using conventional predictors, a
satisfying prediction accuracy is obtained (R [ 0.8), except
for the case of AmbraseysHendron predictor. Similarly, by
applying ANN with six hidden nodes in a hidden layer, a
prediction model is developed with similar predictive precision (R & 0.9) as in the case of conventional predictors,
but with the lower value of MSE (0.028).
In the second phase of the research, the effect of blastinduced ground motion and air overpressure on the
neighboring residential objects is evaluated, using the
existing vibration standards. The affected objects represent
domestic houses of simple constructional properties, with
brick, mortar and concrete as main construction materials.
The performed analysis showed that, according to USBM,
USSR, Australian and Chinese standards, no structural
damage is expected for the nearby objects. However, DIN
123

which gave reasonable results and prediction models.

However, one should note that a proposed ANN model
would certainly be improved by analyzing a larger dataset,
which could further increase the accuracy and reliability of
the suggested model.
As for the impact of induced ground vibrations on the
nearby objects, it is confirmed that in most of the analyzed
cases, recording velocities (and corresponding frequencies)
are below the permissible values for the chosen class of
objects. However, several cases of higher recorded values
(according to DIN4150 and DMGS standard) imply the
need for more careful blast design, in order to avoid any
possible structural damage.
Acknowledgments This research was partly supported by the
Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of
the Republic of Serbia (Grants 176016 and 33029).
References
Afeni TB, Osasan SK (2009) Assessment of noise and ground
vibration induced during blasting operations in an open pit
minea case study on Ewekoro limestone quarry, Nigeria.
Mining Sci Tech (China) 19:420424
Ak H, Iphar M, Yavuz M, Konuk A (2009) Evaluation of ground
vibration effect of blasting operations in a magnesite mine. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 29:669676
Ambraseys NR, Hendron AJ (1968) Dynamic behavior of rock
masses: rock mechanics in engineering practices. In: Stagg K,
Zienkiewicz OC (eds) Rock mechanics in engineering practice.
Wiley, London
ANZEC (1990) Technical basic for guidelines to minimize annoyance
due to blasting overpressure and ground vibration. Australian
and New Zealand Environment Council, Canberra
Australian Standard (2006) Explosivesstorage and use, part 2: use
of explosives (AS 2187.2-2006: Part 2). Standards, Australia
Bhandari S (1997) Engineering rock blasting operations. Taylor and
Francis, United Kingdom
Crandell FJ (1949) Ground vibration due to blasting, and its effect on
structures. K. Boston Soc Civ Eng 36:222245
Davies B, Farmer IW, Attewell PB (1964) Ground vibrations from
shallow sub-surface blasts. Eng Lond 217:553559
DGMS (Tech) S and T Circular No. 7 (1997) Damage of the
Structures due to blast induced ground vibration in the mining
areas, India
Dogan O, Anil O, Akbas SO, Kantar E, Erdem RT (2013) Evaluation
of blast-induced ground vibration effects in a new residential
zone. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 50:168181
Duvall WI, DE Fogelson (1962) Review criteria for estimating
damage to residences from blasting vibration. US Bureau of
Mines Report of Investigation RI 5968, USA
Duvall WI, Petkof B (1959) Spherical propagation of explosion of
generated strain pulses in rocks. US Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigation RI-5483, USA
Edwards AT, Northwood TD (1960) Experimental studies of the
effects of blasting on structures. Eng Lond 210:538546
Environment Australia (1998) Noise, vibration and airblast control.
Best practice environmental management in mining, ISBN
0-642-54510-3
3927
Erarslan K, Uysal O, Arpaz E, Cebi MA (2008) Barrier holes and
trench application to reduce blast induced vibration in Seyitomer
coal mine. Environ Geol 54:13251331
Erarslan K, Uysal O, Arpaz E, Cebi MA (2010) Reply to the
comments by Tarkan Erdik on barrier holes and trench
application to reduce blast induced vibration in Seyitomer coal
mine. Environ Earth Sci 61:10951096
General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and
Quarantine (2003) Safety regulations for blasting (GB
6722-2003). Chinese National Standard, Standards Press of
China, China
German Institute of Standards (1986) Vibration of building-effects on
structures. DIN 4150 3, 15
Ghosh A, Daemen JK (1983) A simple new blast vibration predictor.
In: Mathewson C (ed) Proceedings of the 24th US symposium on
rock mechanics, College Station, Texas, pp 151161
Hagan MT, Menhaj M (1994) Training feed-forward networks with
the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(6):989993
Hecht-Nielsen R (1987) Kolmogorovs mapping neural network
existence theorem. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE international
conference on neural networks. San Diego CA, USA, pp 1114
Hudaverdi T (2012) Application of multivariate analysis for prediction of blast-induced ground vibrations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
43:300308
Hush DR (1989) Classification with neural networks: a performance
analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on
systems engineering, Dayton Ohaio, USA, pp 577280
Iphar M, Yavuz M, Ak H (2008) Prediction of ground vibrations
resulting from the blasting operations in an open-pit mine by
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Environ Geol 56:97107
Iphar M, Yavuz M, Ak H (2009) Reply to the comment on
prediction of ground vibrations resulting from the blasting
operations in an open pit mine by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system by Tarkan Erdik. Environ Earth Sci 59:473476
Iphar M, Yavuz M, Ak H (2010) Reply to the discussion on
prediction of ground vibrations resulting from the blasting
operations in an open pit mine by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system by Yavuz Karsavran. Environ Earth Sci 60:13431345
Kaastra I, Boyd M (1996) Designing a neural network for forecasting
financial and economic time series. Neurocomputing
10:215236
Kahriman A, Ozer U, Aksoy M, Kradogan A, Tuncer G (2006)
Environmental impacts of bench blasting at Hisarcik Boron open
pit mine in Turkey. Environ Geol 50:10151023
Kanellopoulas I, Wilkinson GG (1997) Strategies and best practice
for neural network image classification. Int J Remote Sens
18:711725
Kesimal A, Ercikdi B, Cihangir F (2008) Environmental impacts of
blast-induced acceleration on slope instability at a limestone
quarry. Environ Geol 54:381389
Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2005) Prediction of blast induced air
overpressure in opencast mine. Noise Vib Worldw 36:716
Kim D-S, Lee J-S (2000) Propagation and attenuation characteristics
of various ground vibrations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19:115126
Kuzu C (2008) The mitigation of the vibration effects caused by
tunnel blasts in urban areas: a case study in Istanbul. Environ
Geol 54:10751080
Kuzu C, Ergin H (2005) An assessment of environmental impacts of
quarry-blasting operation: a case study in Istanbul, Turkey.
Environ Geol 48:211217
Kuzu C, Fisne A, Ercelebi SG (2009) Operational and geological
parameters in the assessing blast induced airblast-overpressure in
quarries. Appl Acoust 70:404411
Langefors U, Kihlstrom B (1963) The modern techniques of rock
blasting. Wiley, New York
123

3928
Langefors U, Westerberg H, Kihlstrom B (1958) Ground vibrations in
blasting, parts 1, 2 and 3, water power, pp 911
Lawrence S, Giles CL (2000) Overfitting and neural networks:
conjugate gradient and backpropagation. In: Amari S.-I, Giles
CL, Gori M, Piuri V (eds) Proceedings of the international joint
conference on neural networks, Como, Italy, July 2427, IEEE
Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 114119
Lipmann RP (1987) An introduction to computing with neural nets.
IEEE ASSP Mag 4:422
Looney CG (1996) Advances in feed-forward neural networks:
demystifying knowledge axquiring black boxes. IEEE Trans
Knowledge Data Eng 8:211226
Lu W, Luo Y, Chen M, Shu D (2012) An introduction to Chinese
safety regulations for blasting vibration. Environ Earth Sci
67:19511959
Masters T (1993) Practical neural network recipes in C??. Morgan
Kaufmann, San Diego, p 493
Mohamadnejad M, Gholami R, Ataei M (2012) Comparison of
intelligence science techniques and empirical methods for
prediction of blasting vibrations. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech
28:238244
Mohamed MT (2009) Artificial neural network for prediction and
control of blasting vibrations in Assiut (Egypt) limestone quarry.
Int J Rock Mech Min 46:426431
Mohanty B (1998) Physics of explosions hazards. In: Beveridge A
(ed) Forensic investigation of explosions. Taylor and Francis,
London, pp 2232
Monjezi M, Hasanipanah M, Khandelwal M (2013) Evaluation and
prediction of blast-induced ground vibration at Shur River Dam,
Iran, by artificial neural network. Neural Comput Appl
22:16371643
Nelson M, Illingworth WT (1990) A practical guide to neural nets.
Addisin-Wesley, Reading MA
Nicholls HR, Johnson CF, Duvall WI (1971) Blasting vibration
effects on structures. US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation, Bulletin 656, USA
Olofsson SO (1990) Applied explosives technology for construction
and mining. APPLEX, Sweden
Ozer U, Kahriman A, Aksoy M, Adiguzel D, Kardogan A (2008) The
analysis of ground vibrations induced by bench blasting at Akyol
quarry and practical blasting charts. Environ Geol 54:737743
Paola JD (1994) Neural network classification of multispectral
imagery. MSc thesis, The University of Arizona, USA
Raina AK, Haldar A, Chakraborty PB, Choudhury M, Ramulu M
(2004) Human response to blast induced vibration and air
overpressure: an Indian scenario. B Eng Geol Environ
63:209214
Ripley BD (1993) Statistical aspects of neural networks. In: BarndoffNeilsen OE, Jensen JL, Kendall WS (eds) Networks and chaos
statistical and probabilistic aspects. Chapman and Hall, London,
pp 40123
123

Rosenthal FM, Morlock GL (1987) Blasting guidance manual. U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Office of surface mining reclamation and
enforcement, USA
Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learning internal
representation by error propagation. In: Rumelhart DE, McCleland JL (eds) Parallel distribution processing, 1, pp 318362
Singh RB, Roy PP (1993) Blasting in ground excavations and mines.
Balkema, Rotterdam
Singh PK, Roy MP (2010) Damage to surface structures due to blast
vibration. Int J Rock Mech Min 47:949961
Singh PK, Vogt W (1998) Ground vibration: prediction for safe and
efficient blasting. Erzmetall 51:677684
Siskind DE, Stagg, Kopp JW, Dowding CH (1980a) Structure
response and damage produced by ground vibration from surface
mine blasting. US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation RI
8507, USA
Siskind DE, Stachura VJ, Stagg MS, Kopp JW (1980b) Structure
response and damage produced by airblast from surface mining.
US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation RI 8485, USA
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2008) Discussion on the paper by H. Gullu
and E. Ercelebi a neural network approach for attenuation
relationships: an application using strong ground motion data
from Turkey. Eng Geol 97:9193 (in press)
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A (2006)
Estimation of rock modulus: for intact rocks with an artificial
neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical
equation. Int J Rock Mech Min 43:224235
Steffens RJ (1974) Structural vibration and damage. London, United
Kingdom
Technical guidelines for using explosives and blasting in mine
operations (1988) Official gazette. Serbia 26:743764 (in
Serbian)
Tiryaki B (2008) Application of artificial neural networks for
predicting the cuttability of rocks by drag tools. Tunn Undergr
Sp Tech 23:273280
Torno S, Torano J, Menendez M, Gent M (2011) CFD simulation of
blasting dust for the design of physical barriers. Environ Earth
Sci 64:7383
Wang C (1994) A theory of generalization in learning machines with
neural application. PhD thesis, The University of Pennsylvania,
USA
Yuan Y, Rosasco L, Caponnetto A (2007) On early stopping in
gradient descent learning. Constr Approx 26(2):289315
Zeller W (1931) Determination of the intensity of mechanical
vibrations. Bauing 12:586590
Zeller W (1933) Proposal for a measure of the strength of vibration.
V.D.I.Z. 77:323
Zeller W (1949) Units of measurement for strength and sensitivity of
vibrations, Automob.-tech. Zeit 51:9597

Environmental Impact of Blasting at Drenovac Limestone Quarry (Serbia)

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

Environmental Impact of Blasting at Drenovac Limestone Quarry (Serbia)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental impact of blasting at

Drenovac limestone quarry (Serbia)

Dejan Vasovi, Sran Kosti, Marina

Environmental Earth Sciences

Your article is protected by copyright and

Author's personal copy