Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 133–138

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Evaluation of blast induced ground vibration for minimizing negative effects

on surrounding structures
Reza Nateghi n
Technical Department of Sepasad Engineering Co., Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: The present paper mainly deals with the prediction of blast-induced ground vibration level in Bakhtiary
Received 3 July 2010 formation at intake of waterway system in Gotvand dam, Iran. For this research the ground vibration
Received in revised form components were recorded carefully by means of 3 sets of vibration monitors for 32 blast events during
29 May 2012
the bench blasting in front of tunnels. Then, the data pairs of scaled distance and particle velocity were
Accepted 8 July 2012
Available online 9 August 2012
analyzed by using the USBM equation. At the end of statistical evaluations, a relationship between peak
particle velocity and scaled distance for this site was established with good correlation. Again, other
data measurements during tunnel excavation near concrete structures were used to validate the
predicted PPV and optimize the blasting patterns to omit the effects of resonance and vibration in
USBM (RI-8507) standard. Based on the vibration tests done in Bakhtiary conglomerate, constant
dynamic factors of the rock mass related to vibration velocity are 159.07 and 1.077.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction experimental site-specific studies should be still performed in

Blasting is generally inevitable for hard rock excavation
activities not only in mining and quarrying but also in tunnel,
subway, highways and in dam constructions. The ill effects of
blasting (ground vibrations, air blasts, fly rocks, back breaks, and
noise) are unavoidable and cannot be completely eliminated but
can certainly be minimized up to permissible level. Among all the
ill effects, ground vibration is a major concern to the planners and
environmentalists. The level of ground and structure vibration
caused by construction work depends on the construction meth-
ods, soil and rock medium, heterogeneity of soil and rock deposit
at the site, distance from the source, characteristics of wave
propagation at a site, dynamic characteristics of soil and rocks,
response characteristics of fractures and susceptibility rating of
the structures [2]. Many of these parameters especially geological
and geotechnical conditions of rocks cannot be altered, but the
quantity of explosive detonated per delay can be estimated with
empirical formula and proposed for blast design [4]. Various
research studies were carried out in the past in order to isolate
environmental issues produced from blasting; a general reliable
approach or a formula has not been established yet because of the
complexity of the matter. In addition to the wave and ground
motion characteristics, the complexity of blasting parameters and
site factors restrict the development of a general criterion and
n
Tel.: þ98 9133023488; fax: þ98 3116812501.
E-mail address: R.nateghi@gmail.com
order to predict and control blasting effects [5,6]. Therefore
vibrations must be monitored at the beginning of construction
and continued during construction to measure geological factors
and blast data and to ensure serviceability of vulnerable struc-
tures [7]. By selecting the right blasting methods and correct
drilling and firing patterns, the magnitude of ground vibrations
can be controlled. Present paper mainly deals with the prediction
of blast-induced ground vibration level and dynamic site factors
and will discuss excavation designing of intake waterway system
in Upper Gotvand dam by focusing on the reduction of negative
effects of blasting on concrete of gate shaft structure that had
been constructed at the back of them. These measurements were
undertaken to determine the relationships between peak particle
velocity (PPV) and square root scaled distance (SD) to predict PPV
and to estimate dominant frequency. Both PPV and frequency are
necessary to determine the response of the neighboring buildings
and structures. This relation was used to calculate the site factors
and design blasting patterns, contains of vibration controlling
method by delay blasting with NONEL and electrical detonators
and pre-split blasting.
2. Dynamic waves from blasting
Source of construction vibration generates body and surface
waves in soil and rock medium. Body waves propagate through
the soil deposits and rock. Compression and shear waves are
the main types of body waves that should be taken in to

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.009
134 R. Nateghi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 133–138

consideration at relatively small distance from the construction
sources. Surface waves, of which Rayleigh waves are the primary
type, propagate along the upper ground surface. Rayleigh waves
have the highest practical interest for structural engineers
because building foundations are generally placed near the
ground surface. In addition, surface waves contain more than
2/3 of the total vibration energy. Rayleigh waves induce vertical
and radial horizontal soil vibration. In the horizontal layers of soil
medium, a large transverse component of motion could be caused
by second type of surface waves called Love waves [8].

3. Scaled distance modeling and prediction of ground

vibrations

The literature search revealed a plethora of papers on blasting

physics and measurement techniques, many of which correlate
structural damage to peak particle velocity. Seismic waves die out
or decay with distance in a fairly regular manner which makes them
predictable with the acceptable accuracy and allow restriction on
blasting vibrations to be regulated either by means of mathematical
expressions. The peak particle velocity (PPV), experienced at some
distance (D) from an explosive source of mass (Q) in rock is
conveniently expressed in the form of a power law as follows:
PPV ¼ KðD=Q n Þb ð1Þ
Where K and b are factors that include effects of both relief during
Fig. 1. General form of blast vibration time–history [9].
blasting and geology. Both constants can be determined by regression
analysis. The quantity D/Qn, known as scaled distance, is a normal-
izing factor to account for the mass of the charge and the propagation
Table 1
Some of the suggested damage criteria [12–16].
distance from the source and is calculated by dividing the distance
from the structure of concern by the nth root of the weight of
Predictor Effects and damage Maximum allowable PPV explosive material [9,10] (Fig. 1).
(mm/s) There are two accepted scaled distance formulas used in
blasting, square root scaling and cube root scaling. Square root
Longefors et al. (1958) No damage o 50
Fine crack 100
scaling is the general formula used in most regulations and
Cracks 150 general blasting situations, where the charge can be considered
Serious cracks 225 linear.
Edwards and Northwood Safe zone o 50 Cube root scaling is used for blasting in the extreme near field
(1960) Damage zone 100–150 where the charge can be considered a point charge or in explo-
Duvall and Fogleson
sions involving very large quantities, such as those created by
Major damage (95%) 50 nuclear explosion [11].
(1962)

Nicholls and Johnson Safe zone (%95) 450

(1971) Damage zone o 50
4. Existing vibration standards and criteria to prevent damage
Indian standard (1973) Soil, weathered or
70
soft rock
Peak particle velocity has been traditionally used in practice for
Hard rock conditions 100
the measurement of blast damage to structures. In this criterion the

Fig. 2. US Bureau of mines vibration criteria [17].

 R. Nateghi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 133–138 135

shape of the wave formed and duration of dynamic loading are not 130,000 m3 surface excavations. Each tunnel consists of a bugle
taken in to account. Some of the suggested damage criteria that base shape tunnel with the height of 30 m at start and rectangle shape
solely on the peak particle velocity (PPV mm/s) are listed in Table 1. tunnel with the height of 17.3 m with a vertical shaft (Fig. 4) [18].
These recommendations are based on author experiences for These structures are located in the Bakhtiary formation that
vibration limit in blasting near various types of structures in consists of sequence thick layers of conglomerate with interbeded
urban area and is different for the same structures from one mudstone and sandstone. In order to measure geotechnical
country to another [9]. The US Bureau of mines has studied properties, laboratory and in situ tests have been carried out in
various aspects of ground vibration from 1930. In 1980, the feasibility study and during construction. Results are presented in
culmination of over 50 years of research was compiled in to RI- Table 2.
8507 entitled (structure response and damage produced by
ground vibrations from surface blasting). The culmination of this
study is shown in Fig. 2. The curve used both structure amplifica- 6. Measurements and statistical analysis
tion and damage evaluation to develop a norm that involved both
displacement and velocity. The curve shows that a constant peak To reach the time schedule for filling the reservoir, excavation
particle velocity of 2.0 in/sec is the maximum safe value above of rectangular tunnels and vertical shafts were done at first and
40 Hz. This level was established to protect and ceil the struc-
tures, regardless of construction material. Below 40 Hz, however
the maximum velocity decreases at a rate equivalent to a constant
peak displacement of 0.008 in. For intermediate frequencies
(4–12 Hz), a 0.5 in/sec maximum particle velocity is the accepted
level to preclude threshold damage to the plaster-on-wood
lath interior portions of older structures and a maximum of
0.75 in/sec is the accepted level for protection of modern drywall
interior condition. An ultimate maximum displacement of 0.03 is
recommended when frequencies are below 4 Hz [3,17].

5. Case study: designing excavation pattern of intake

waterway system, near concrete walls

This dam is located on the Karun River in south west of Iran

(Fig. 3). The 178 m height and 730 m length embankment dam,
regulating the water of the Karun River, also serves power
generation, flood control and irrigation needs. The final design
of the dam has been completed and construction works has been
started at 2000.
The waterway system of powerhouse consists of huge collec-
tions of underground and surface excavations. One of the parti-
cular traits of this waterway system is the existence of four
waterway intakes with more than140,000 m3 underground and Fig. 4. Intake water way system scheme [18].

Fig. 3. Upper Gotvand dam.

136 R. Nateghi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 133–138

then during concreting of these parts, excavating bugle shape
tunnels was done by head and bench blasting from entrance of
tunnels same as Fig. 5 and 6.
To reduce negative effects of blasting on concrete of neighbor
structures the USBM relation on the basis of peak particle velocity
was adopted to design a safe blast for excavation of bugle shape
tunnels. At first the ground vibration components were measured
for 32 blast events in order to predict dynamic constant factors
for this site during bench blast over a period of 3 months. Three
Vibraloc blasting seismographs and analysis software were used
in this study. Vibraloc is a complete and easy to use waveform
blast vibration monitor with an integrated tri-axial geophone and
air blast system. To couple the instrument to the ground or
concrete lining, three sharp pins and wall attachment device
were used. Furthermore maximum amount of instantaneous
charges per delay were recorded carefully and the distance
between the shot point and monitoring station was measured
accurately by using surveying equipment. The results of ground
vibration measurements including peak particle velocity, fre-
quency, charge per delay, distance and scaled distance are
presented in Table 3, for a few events as samples.
In order to establish a useful relationship between peak particle
velocity and scaled distance, the resultant of velocity versus scaled
distance based on square root relationships were plotted and simple
regression analysis was carried out by using all data pairs with Mini
Tab software. Graph of the relation is presented in Fig. 7 and the
resultant equation is found to be in the form of Eq. (1).
LogðPPVÞ ¼ 2:201591:07795 logðSDÞ ð1Þ
So the empirical factors K and b are determined as 159.07 and
1.07795, respectively. The results are very close to the new
research that was done in the same rock formation in Turkey [2].
The above equation has been used for the prediction of
maximum weight of charge in each delay by rewriting it on the
base of Q.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Q ¼ ðD= b K=PPVÞ2 ð2Þ
By replacing maximum allowable peak particle velocity, max-
imum allowable charge in each distance has been determined [4].
The relation between distance and charge if maximum allowable
PPV will be equal to 50 mm/s is
Q ¼ 0:13D2 ð3Þ

Table 2
Geotechnical properties of rock mass [19]. Table 3
Results of ground vibration measurements.
Rock type Conglomerate Mudstone
Event Peak particle Frequency Charge per Distance Scaled
3
Density (kg/m ) 2.4 2.04 no. velocity (mm/s) (Hz) delay (kg) (m) distance
Friction angle (1) 50 40
RQD 60 38 1 3.54 50.2 54 65.5 8.91
RMR 72 47 3 13.78 23.6 54 42.5 5.78
Tensile strength (MPa) 2.8 2.5 8 19.29 30.7 54 29.3 3.98
Cohesion (MPa) 10 5 11 18.44 17.7 36 45 7.5
UCS (MPa) 25.8 10.3 19 52.57 32 36 16 2.66
Vp (m/s) 2620–5000 1980 26 14.16 48.5 37.5 44 7.18
Vs (m/s) 1800 1430 32 100.01 27.4 65.1 14.5 1.79

Fig. 5. Sequence of blasting in intake system [1].

Fig. 6. Excavation near concreting and formwork [1].

 R. Nateghi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 133–138 137

Fig. 7. Ground vibration versus scaled distance curve.

In this relation Q is the maximum allowable explosive material

and D is the distance between concrete lining and explosive holes.
As seen in Fig. 5, critical distance between under construction
walls and the nearest excavation point is about 13 m, so max-
imum charge per each delay couldn’t be more than 22 kg. By
receding from concrete lining, the charge increases progressively
on the base of Eq. (3).

7. Designing of blasting patterns and verification

A major geological fault intersecting the path may largely

prevent propagation in a particular direction. At first for reduction
of ground vibration induced from bench blasting of burden in
front of tunnels (part (0) in Fig. 5), pre-splitting blast was used to
create artificial joint and separate this part of rock mass. By using Fig. 8. Ground vibration measurement from blasting in front of tunnels.

this method wave propagation from surface was omitted. This

part was excavated by bench blasting with vertical blast holes
with 76 mm in diameter and 10 m length for all holes. In blasting
ANFO, Pentolit (priming) were used as explosives and electric
delay system was used to initiate the blasts. Fig. 8 shows a sample
of ground vibration measurements of these blasts. As seen in this
figure, by these schemes, blasts were done in the safe level
despite in some of blasts more than 80 kg of charge was used in
each delay. Comparing the recorded data with the main criteria
shows that using the pre-splitting blast causes a large reduction
in amount of induced vibration; in a way that vibration velocity in
both sides of the cut will reduce by 64%.
At the second stage, excavation of top parts of tunnels (parts
1 to 5 in Fig. 5) was done by using head blasting with V-cut
method and horizontal holes. In this stage combination of dyna-
mite and emulate with half and millisecond electric detonators
were used to excavate tunnels. Outset of tunnels were excavated
by 3 m holes, full face excavation with maximum about 40 kg
charge per delay (parts 1 to 4) and outrance (part 5), near concrete
walls were excavated in two stages with maximum charge about
15 kg. Fig. 9 is one of the records of ground vibration measure-
ments in this step (Fig. 10).
Finally extant parts (6 to 10) were excavated by bench blasting
with 4 m vertical blast holes. In this stage ANFO with pentolit Fig. 9. Ground vibration measurement from blasting in second stage (USBM
were used as explosives too, and to reduce charge per delay, non RI 8507).
electric detonator was used to initiate the blasts. Blast pattern
was designed to allow three rows with 8 holes in each row with in the safe level. As a result of this vibration test and some other
109 ms delay between rows and 25 ms between holes in a row. So records that was done during excavation of waterway tunnels in
maximum three holes from different rows exploded together and Bakhtiary conglomerate rocks, ground vibration induced by
maximum charge per delay was not more than 24 kg in about underground blasting specially in vertical direction is about
15 m distance from concrete linings and ground vibration will be 3-times more than vibration induced by bench blasting in the
138 R. Nateghi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 133–138
Fig. 10. PPV from surface and underground blasts with same SD.
Fig. 11. Ground vibration measurement from blasting in end parts.
same rock, furthermore as can be seen in Figs. 8, 9 and 11 almost
all dominant vibration frequencies in all blasts are higher than
20 Hz for this site, and no damage risks caused by low-frequency
and resonance condition have been observed.
8. Results and conclusion
1. The measurement of ground vibration induced by blasting is
significantly important in controlling and eliminating the blast
damages to structures. Since the particle velocity is still one of
the most important grounds vibration predictors for regulating
the blast design, an empirical relationship with good correla-
tion has been established between peak particle velocity and
scaled distance.
2. Based on the vibration tests done in Bakhtiary conglomerate,
constant dynamic factors of the rock mass which are related to
vibration velocity are about 159.07 and 1.07795.
3. Natural frequencies of the structures and small scale concrete
buildings proportion to height and foundation area are below
10 Hz. Vibration frequencies in surface and underground blasts
in this rock mass with different detonators and explosives are
higher than 20 Hz. So there is no potential of damage risk
caused by resonance from blasting waves and self structural
frequencies of structures.
4. Comparison between wave’s velocities induced from surface
and underground blasts in Bakhtiary conglomerate shows that
ground vibration induced by underground blasting is more than
waves from bench blasting with the same SD and in the same
rock. So using empirical formula for underground excavation
should be done under special considerations and should be
revised depending upon the time and propagation of tunnels.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the Sepasad Engineering Co. for
partial financial support for carrying out this research work.
References
[1] Nateghi R. Measurement dynamic parameters of rock mass to reduce
negative effects of blasting waves. In: First international conference on dams
and hydropower; 2012. pp. 187–95.
[2] Ozer U. Environmental impacts of ground vibration induced by blasting at
different rock units on the Kadikoy–Kartal metro tunnel. Engineering Geology
2008;100:82–90.
[3] Mesec J, Kovac I, Soldo B. Estimation of particle velocity based on blast event
measurements at different rock units. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engi-
neering 2010;30(10):1004–9.
[4] Nateghi R, Kiany M, Gholipouri M. Control negative effects of blasting waves
on concrete of the structures by analyzing of parameters of ground vibration.
Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 2009;24:608–16.
[5] Kahriman A. Analysis of ground vibrations caused by bench blasting at Can
Open-Pit Lignite Mine in Turkey. International Journal of Geosciences
Environmental Geology 2002;41(6):653–61.
[6] Karadogan A. The Investigation of establishing the national structure damage
criteria for the ground vibration induced by blasting. Doctorate thesis.
Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul University; 2008.
[7] Sivarajan V, Kumara K, Hearath H. ‘Ground vibration and air blast over-
pressure assessment using scaled distance’. In: Proceedings of environmental
research event 2007. Auckland, New Zealand. pp. 6–33.
[8] Svinkin M. Minimizing construction vibration effects. Practice periodical on
structural design and construction 2004;37(02):108–15.
[9] Pal Roy P. Rock blasting effects and operations.Balkema Publisher; 2005.
[10] Brinkmanm JR. The control of ground vibration from colliery blasting during
the undermining of residential area. Journal of the South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy 1987;87(2):53–61.
[11] Khandelwal M, Singh T. Evaluation of blast-induced ground vibration
predictors. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2007;27:116–25.
[12] Langefors V, Westerberg H, Kihlström B. Ground vibration in blasting. Water
Power, Part I–III 1958;335–338(390–395):421–4.
[13] Edwards AT, Northwood TD. Experimental study of effects of blasting on
structures. The Engineer Volume 105 of Canada Nrc Div. of Building Research
Research Paper.
[14] Duvall WI, Fogleson DE. Review of criteria for estimating damage to
residences from blasting vibration. US Bureau of Mines, RL 5968; 1962. p. 19.
[15] Nicholls HR, Johnson CF. Blasting vibrations and their effects on structures.
US Bureau of Mines, RI 656; 1971. p. 105.
[16] Indian Standard. Criteria for safety and design of structures subjected to
underground blast. ISI Bulletin no. 15-6922. India; 1973.
[17] Siskind DE, Stagg MS. Structural response and damage produced by ground
vibration from blasting. US Bureau of Mines, RI 8507; 1980.
[18] Moshanir, CAITEC. Upper Gotvand hydroelectric power project, feasibility
study. Appendix 4. Civil design of project; December 1997.
[19] Mahab Ghodss/coyneet bellier. Geotechnical characteristics of the dam
foundation. Rev. A; 2004.