Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
Abstract
The aim of this study is to predict peak particle velocity level at a limestone quarry located in Istanbul, Turkey. The ground vibration
components were measured for 73 blast events during the bench blast optimization studies during a long period. In blasting operations;
ANFO (blasting agent), gelatine dynamite (priming) and NONEL detonators (firing) were used as explosives at this site. Parameters of scaled
distance (charge quantity per delay and the distance between the source and the station) were recorded carefully and the ground vibration
components were measured by means of vibration monitors for every event. Then, the data pairs of scaled distance and particle velocity were
analyzed. The equation of scaled distance extensively used in the literature was taken into consideration for the prediction of peak particle
velocity. At the end of statistical evaluations, an empirical relationship with good correlation was established between peak particle velocity
and scale distance for this site. The established relationship and the results of the study are presented.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bench blasting; Environmental complaints; Charge per delay; Ground vibration; Peak particle velocity
Fig. 1. Layout of the quarry including the shot points and monitoring stations.
millisecond delay system was used to initiate the blasts. the beginning. For this reason, some test shots were fired,
The blast-timing pattern was designed to allow a 42 ms delay and acceptable results were obtained. The scaled distance
between rows and a 17 ms delay between holes within a row. equation suggested mostly for cylindrical charge in the
Inner hole detonator was used as 25 ms interval. literature was used for the prediction of peak particle
velocity and this equation is given below
2.2. Text procedure SD Z R=Wd0:5 (1)
The ground vibration components were measured for 73 where SD, scaled distance; R, distance between the shot and
blast events in order to predict peak particle velocity for this the station (m); Wd, maximum charge per delay (kg).
site during bench blast optimization studies over a period of Peak particle velocities (PPV) have been calculated from
10 months. In this study, while the parameters of scaled the following equation that is widely used in various studies
distance (charge quantity per delay and the distance
PPV ðmm=sÞ Z KxðSDÞKb (2)
between the source and the station) were recorded carefully,
the ground vibration components were also measured by where K and b represent the influence of blast design and
means of two vibration monitors (Nitro Consult UVS 1504 geology.
and Instantel Minimate Plus models) for 73 blast events as For predicting the peak particle velocity for this site, the
shown in Fig. 1. The specifications of these monitors are developed blast design was applied accurately for each shot.
nearly same. However, calibration between two types of The maximum amount of instantaneous charges per delay
vibration monitors should be put into consideration at was recorded carefully and the distance between the shot
point and the monitoring station was measured accurately the limestone quarry, including peak particle velocity,
by using survey equipment. frequency, total charge, charge per delay, distance and
scaled distance have been presented in Table 1 for a few
events as sample. In order to establish a useful relationship
3. Test results and discussion between peak particle velocity and scaled distance, simple
regression analysis was carried out by using all data pairs. In
The damage from vibration induced by bench blasting simple regression, linear, logarithmic, exponential, recipro-
has been evaluated on the basis of its peak particle velocity cal and power curve fitting approximations were tested and
related with corresponding dominant frequency. the best approximation equation with highest correlation
A large number of blasts (73 events over a period of 10 coefficients was determined.
months) were monitored for recording the peak particle At the end of the study, this determined equation for
velocity in order to develop a similar formula. The results limestone zone is found to be in accordance with the
of ground vibration measurements that were carried out at literature and the equation can be used to eliminate
Table 1
Results of ground vibration measurements [7]
Event no. Peak particle velocity, Frequency, Total charge per Charge per Distance, Scaled
PPV (mm/s) f (Hz) round, Wt (kg) delay, Wd (kg) R (m) distance, SD
1 2.35 10 2102 538 257 11.08
5 1.2 10 1300 69 150 18.05
10 0.85 11 4390 81 255 28.33
15 0.95 5.6 3100 206 283 19.71
20 0.65 67 4165 93 295 30.59
25 0.70 91 3858 97 275 27.92
30 0.90 9.4 2225 175 254 19.20
35 144 20 180 180 23 1.72
40 0.20 9 4250 170 520 39.88
45 250 45 242 242 25.6 1.64
50 1.55 17 165 165 340 26.46
55 0.95 16 83 83 368 40.40
60 1.15 9.1 242 242 376 24.17
65 0.85 9.6 324 354 400 22.22
70 0.35 41 180 180 403 30.03
73 0.40 20 180 180 418 31.15
890 A. Kahriman / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892
Table 2
Summary of simple regression output
environmental problems for the events that the vibrations tool. The R square quantity is a basic measure of the
will not be monitored. The formula, which has 95% quality of the fit. In this case, a value of 0.861 indicates
confidence level, is given below that 86.1% of the PPV variability is explained by the
pffiffiffiffiffiK1:79 linear regression. The intercept coefficient is obtained
PPV Z 340x R= W ; ðr Z 0:92Þ (3) from the linear regression in the log–log transformed
space. It should be noted that 102.532 equals 340.40 which
The empirical factors K and b are determined as 340 and is in agreement with Fig. 4. Finally, the critical slope
K1.79, respectively, for this site. The results of the
regression and correlation have been presented in Table 2 Table 3
in detail. The graph of the obtained relations between the Calculated and measured values of peak particle velocity
particle velocity components and the scaled distances are
Event no. Scaled distance Peak particle velocity (PPV, mm/s)
also presented in Fig. 4. (SD) Prediction Measurement
Table 2 shows the statistical calculations using the full
data set consisting of 73 shot events. It shows the standard 1 25 1.06 1.0
2 35 0.58 0.65
summary output of the SPSS (statistical analysis software)
3 45 0.37 0.40
regression analysis performed within the data analysis
A. Kahriman / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892 891
Fig. 5. Comparison of the established formula with some previous PPV prediction approaches [1,8,9].
value of K1.793 is easily extracted from the summary charge levels and distances to control blasting for this
output. quarry. This empirical formula obtained from 73 data pairs
Hence, given a particular scaled distance, we offer a best can only be used to provide approximate levels of the
guess as to the PPV as well as upper 95% prediction limit particle velocity. It must be taken into consideration that its
below which we expect future blasts to occur [4,6]. The use in the blast design could give erratic results. In order to
upper 95% prediction limit line was generated from the support this formula more events should be monitored in
standard error and data distribution curve by means of SPSS various directions and the regression analysis should be
(version 10) software (Fig. 4). updated considering the results of further measurements.
Additionally, the relation was also tested and it can be Additionally, this formula should also be revised depending
seen that the measured and calculated values of PPV were upon the time and progressing of the pit.
fairly close (Table 3).
As it can be seen from Table 3, the established relation
at upper 95% prediction bound was also tested and the
measured values of PPV were obtained below the line. Acknowledgements
Meanwhile, the equation established as a PPV predictor is
also compared to some previous ones in Fig. 5. By This work was supported by the Research Fund of
studying this graph carefully, the comparison shows that University of Istanbul (Project numbers are 1056/031297,
the formula developed for limestone zone is also in B-66/120199, UDP-46/24072002, 39/11092002, UDP-
accordance with the literature. This case has proved that it 93/20122002 and UDP-215/18122003) and Turkey Scien-
can be possible to design blasting reliably by using this tific and Technique Research Society (Project number is
formula for the site. YDABCAG-199Y027).
The author is grateful to the authorities of Akcansa
Quarry for providing all the facilities during the field
4. Conclusions investigation. Opinion and conclusions are of the author.
[4] Johnson M, Pepper J, Mclellan G. Attenuation of blasting vibrations in [7] Kahriman A, Tuncer G. Prediction of ground vibration produced from
South Florida. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on bench blasting Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, vol. II. Anaheim, CA: ISEE; Explosives and Blasting Technique, vol. VI. Nashville, TN: ISEE;
2000, p. 83–95. 1999, p. 379–86.
[5] Kahriman A, Ceylanoğlu A. Blast design and optimization studies for a [8] Hendron AJ, Oriad LL. Specifications for controlled blasting in civil
celestite open-pit mine in Turkey. Miner Resour Eng 1996;5(2): engineering projects. Proceedings of the first American Rapid
93–100. Excavation and Tunneling Conference. Littleton, CO: Society of
[6] Kahriman A, Gorgun S, Karadogan A, Tuncer G. Estimation Mining Engineers, AIME; 1972.
particle velocity on the basis of blast event measurement for an [9] Aimone-Martin CT, Faroni K, Gelormino T. Fifteen years of blast
infrastructure excavation located nearby Istanbul. First World vibration control and improved public relation for two Traprock
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Munich, quarries. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Explosives
Bavaria, Germany, 2000. and Blasting Technique. California, USA: Anaheim; 2000, p. 187–96.