See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231037548

Explosive charge mass and peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in

mining blast

Article  in  Journal of Geophysics and Engineering · June 2010

DOI: 10.1088/1742-2132/7/3/001

CITATIONS READS

12 1,851

1 author:

Guzin Gulsev Uyar

Hacettepe University
31 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Guzin Gulsev Uyar on 08 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Explosive charge mass and peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in mining blast

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2010 J. Geophys. Eng. 7 223

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-2140/7/3/001)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 80.251.38.161
The article was downloaded on 20/10/2010 at 12:05

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS AND ENGINEERING
J. Geophys. Eng. 7 (2010) 223–231 doi:10.1088/1742-2132/7/3/001

Explosive charge mass and peak particle

velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in
mining blast
G G U Aldas
Department of Geophysics, Ankara University, Faculty of Engineering, 06100, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey
E-mail: aldas@eng.ankara.edu.tr

Received 10 December 2009

Accepted for publication 28 April 2010
Published 9 June 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/JGE/7/223

Abstract
A new relationship called the mass/peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in mining
blast is introduced in this study. Two well-known formulae of mining engineering and
geophysical engineering are joined to create a new formula which relates ‘explosive charge’ to
‘PPV-frequency’ at a target location. The meaning of the frequency computed from the newly
proposed formula is thoroughly analysed and discussed for its validity and limits. This
frequency is named as the ‘PPV accompanying frequency’ or simply ‘PPV-frequency’ as an
alternative to the known ‘dominant’ and ‘zero-cross frequencies’. The paper also points to the
importance of the geophone properties like resonance frequency, damping factor and response
curve, for safe dominant frequency determinations.

Keywords: explosive charge mass and peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in
mining blast

1. Introduction Once the soil and/or man-made structure on this soil

In mining engineering, interest is given to the determination
of peak particle velocity (PPV) from the amount of explosive-
charge (mass) used in blasting (Bollinger 1971, Siskind
et al 1980, 1989, Anderson et al 1982, Dowding 1985,
Anderson 1993, Persson et al 1994, Muller 1997, Muller
and Hohlfeld 1997, Hoshino et al 2000, Siskind 2000, Chen
and Huang 2001, Tripathy and Gupta 2002, Adhikari et al
2004, and many others). In geophysical engineering and
seismology, the amplitude of the particle velocity depends
on the source frequency, mechanism and geological factors of
the surrounding media. Mining engineers are aware of the
frequency effects of the vibrations on nearby settlement areas.
Widely used damage-criteria tables are classified according
to some selected frequencies (no continuous frequencies).
Geophysical engineers are aware of the importance of the
amount of charges used as seismic sources. However, the
exact amount of explosive charge used is not important for
them, as long as the seismic signal amplitudes are above the
noise level.
are induced by blast vibrations, the damage cannot be solely
explained by PPV measurements. Other attributes, such as
the frequency content and the duration of the vibrations, are
important as well. A very important study that thoroughly
analyses the frequency content of vibration was done by
Blair (2004). He demonstrated quite clearly that the popular
zero-crossing method cannot be used to obtain the frequency
associated with the peak vibration level. He suggested sliding
filter techniques in order to examine the dependence of the
peak level upon this frequency content. In light of the
sliding filter approach, a new frequency-dependent criterion
for allowable levels of vibration was presented. This criterion
is a completely continuous and well-defined function of
frequency and so is more realistic than the current criteria
which are only piecewise continuous and based upon an ill-
defined frequency.
In light of Blair’s work (Blair 2004), we introduced the
mass/frequency relationship in this study. The meaning of the
frequency computed from the newly proposed formula is also
discussed. We named this frequency the ‘PPV accompanying

1742-2132/10/030223+09$30.00 © 2010 Nanjing Geophysical Research Institute Printed in the UK 223

G G U Aldas

12 45

11
40
M β /2
10 PPV = k
Rβ
35
9

8 30 π
− fR
QV
e
PPV = 1/ 2
7 R
PPV (mm/s)

PPV (mm/s)
25

6 β=1.6
k=1.299 m/s 20
5
R=610 m
V=600 m/s
4 15
Q=5
3 R=610 m
10

2
1.587 mm/s
5
1
1.587 mm/s
85 kg 5 Hz
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
M (kg) f (Hz)

Figure 1. Plot of formula (1). Figure 2. Plot of formula (2).

frequency’ or simply ‘PPV-frequency’ as an alternative to the

The values Q = 5 V = 600 m s−1 R = 610 m β = 1.6 k =
known ‘dominant’ and ‘zero-cross frequencies’.
1.299 m s−1 M = 85 kg and f = 5 Hz (f is calculated from
Two well-known model functions, one used by mining
formula (6)) yield
engineers and the other by geophysical engineers, are equated.
The newly obtained model function is thoroughly analysed 851.6/2
PPV = 1000 × 1.299 ×
for its validity and limits. Following the determination of site 6101.6
parameters, the ‘PPV-frequency’ of blast vibrations at a target = 1.587 mm s−1 (from formula (1), in figure 1).
location will be computed using the proposed model function
Formula (2), first introduced by Ricker (1977), is widely
represented in this paper.
used in geophysical engineering and seismology to model or
compute the absorptive properties (attenuation) of the Earth.
2. Theoretical development Formula (2) is deterministic (figure 2). The seismic quality
factor, Q, and seismic phase velocity, V, are measurable
Formula (1), first introduced by Devine (1966), is widely used physical properties of the Earth:
in mining engineering to determine the ‘allowable amount of
e− QV f R
π
maximum charge weights’ in order to stay within the safe area
PPV = (2)
under the damage curves. Formula (1) is empirical (figure 1). R 1/2
The site parameters k and β are determined from the field data yielding
e− 5×600 ×5×610
π
using regression techniques:
PPV =
M β/2 6101/2
PPV = k
. (1) = 1.587 mm s−1 (from formula (2), in figure 2).
Rβ
To generate the curve in figures 1–4, the following parameters
Formula (3) is obtained from equating of formulae (1) and (2):
are used:
e− QV f R
π
M β/2
PPV peak particle velocity(×1000 mm s−1 ) k = . (3)
Rβ R 1/2
M mass (kg)
R blast-point/target distance (m) From formulae (4) and (5), one obtains formula (6):
k site parameter (m s−1 ) mass/PPV-frequency relation. This formula is the subject
of this study. If one compares formulae (1) and (2), the
β site parameter
denominators of formulae (1) and (2), i.e. R, roughly define the
Q seismic quality factor geometrical spreading of surface waves. The parameters k and
V seismic velocity (m s−1 ) M of the numerator of formula (1) comprise the parameters Q,
a absorption factor (s m−1 ) V, f and R of the numerator of formula (2):
f PPV-frequency (Hz). M β/2
= e− QV f R ,
π
k (4)
R β−1/2

224
 Explosive charge mass and peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in mining blast

30 18

16 M (kg)
50 QV ⎛ R β −1 / 2 ⎞
f = ln⎜ ⎟
14 π R ⎜⎝ k M β / 2 ⎟⎠
QV ⎛ R β −1 / 2 ⎞
f = ln⎜ ⎟
π R ⎜⎝ k M β / 2 ⎟⎠
20 12

10
100 β=1.6

f (Hz)
f (Hz)

k=1.299 m/s
200m β=1.6 V=600 m/s
8
k=1.299 m/s 150 Q=5
V=600 m/s
10
Q=5
6 200
5 Hz 250 85 kg
400m 4

5 Hz 610 m
600m
800m 2
1000m
85 kg 0 610 m
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

M (kg) R (m)

Figure 3. Plot of formula (6) with variable M including invalid R Figure 4. Plot of formula (6) with variable R.
values.

  To ensure the positive curvature of formula (8), R should

M β/2 π
ln k β−1/2 = − f R, (5) be R > e3/2 (kM β/2 ) 1/(β−1/2) . If invalid R values
R QV
 β−1/2  are included, the computations of figures 3 and 4 are
QV R
f = ln , (6) obtained. Curves corresponding to invalid values of R,
πR kM β/2 i.e. R < e3/2 (kM β/2 ) 1/(β−1/2) , unwantedly cut other curves
 
5 × 600 6101.6−1/2 (figure 3); a maximum point and negative curvature
f = × ln
π × 610 1.299 × 851.6/2 unwillingly appear in all curves (figure 4). Figure 5 presents
= 5 Hz (from formula (6), in figure 3). plots of formula (6) for variable R including invalid R values.
Those properties of formula (8) can only be investigated
Numerical proofs of formulae (1), (2) and (6) are given in the when the variable is R; otherwise, if the variable is M, those
expressions above and related figures. In actual computations, properties are not explicitly observed (formulae (12) and (13)):
the values of Q and V need not be known. Let us express Q
and V in terms of the absorption factor a (which will be dealt df β
=− , (12)
with later in section 2.1) as seen in formula (7): dM 2aRM
1 QV d2 f β
= . (7) 2
= . (13)
a π dM 2aRM 2
In formula (8), the PPV-frequency f is a function of the mass
It should be noted that the above theoretical development
M (in terms of mining: explosive charge per delay):
 β−1/2  includes progressive waves only. Any reflections, diffractions
1 R and their multiples from bedrock and other layers are not
f = ln . (8)
aR kM β/2 considered. The latter seismic events are analysed in Can
To thoroughly analyse formula (8), first we need to investigate (2008).
the behaviour of the PPV-frequency f with respect to the
distance R. For this reason, we proceed by taking first 2.1. The determination of the absorption factor a
and second derivatives of formula (8) with respect to R
(formulae (9), (10) and (11)): The field configuration used in the determination of k, β
(site parameters obtained from regression analysis) and a
 β−1/2 
df 1 R (β − 1/2) (absorption factor obtained from spectral ratio techniques) is
= − 2 ln + , (9) shown in figure 6. Let us define G0(f ), G1(f ) and G2(f ) as
dR aR kM β/2 aR 2
 β−1/2  the amplitude spectra of seismic signals at stations 0, x1, and
d2 f 2 R 3(β − 1/2) x2, respectively. Formulae can be written as
2
= 3
ln β/2
− , (10)
dR aR kM aR 3
πf πf

d2 f e− Qv x1 e− Qv x2
=0 → R = e3/2 (kM β/2 )1/(β−1/2) . (11) G1 (f ) = √ G0 (f ), G2 (f ) = √ G0 (f ), (14)
dR 2 x1 x2

225
G G U Aldas

18 50kg
G2 (f )
98m ln
16
G1 ( f ) f
0

14 x1
ln
x2 Af
12

100kg
162m
10 β=1.6
f (Hz)

k=1.299 m/s
8
150kg 217m V=600 m/s
Q=5
200kg 268m
6
250kg 315m Figure 7. Plot of formula (8). A (always negative) denotes the slope
of the linear dependence of the absorption to the frequency.
4

2
signal-to-noise ratio is high. However, we should note
that the same slope persists on both sides of the frequency
0 axis. Therefore, different seismic sources comprising different
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 frequency windows yield the same value of the slope A. The
R (m) implication of this is that the absorption factor a can be
Figure 5. Plot of formula (6) with variable R including invalid R determined using alternative seismic sources which provide
values. wider frequency intervals for better a computations. In this
study, we used a buffalo-gun (Canyaran and Ecevitoğlu 2002)
β
as a seismic source. Figure 8 shows seismic signals obtained
0 from two stations, 90 m apart. The time-domain counterparts
x1 x2 g1(t) and g2(t) of the frequency-domain functions G1(f ), G2(f )
G0( f ) x used in spectral ratio computations are shown in their related
G1( f ) G2( f )
analysis windows in figure 8. Analysis windows cover the
surface waves and care should be taken while placing those
Figure 6. Field configuration used in the determination of k, β, a.
The x-axis is the seismic profile, the seismic source is located at the windows over seismic wavelets to secure the zero crossings of
station 0, and the receivers are located at stations x1 and x2 along the the amplitudes to prevent spectral ‘edge’ effects.
seismic profile. Figure 9 depicts the computation of absorption factor a.
The dashed lines G1(f ) and G2(f ) are the amplitude spectra of
 the near and far receiver station signals, respectively. Note the
G2 (f ) x1 Qv
πf
= e (x2 −x1 ) , left shift of the G2(f ) curve with respect to the G1(f ) curve
G1 (f ) x2
 due to the absorption (loss of high frequency energy). The
G2 (f ) πf x1 solid line shows formula (17) where the straight-line segment
ln =− (x2 − x1 ) + ln , (15)
G1 (f ) Qv x2 depicts the absorption factor a which is 0.001 s m−1 in this
π A case. From formula (17), the value of dominant frequency f
a= , A = −a(x2 − x1 ), a=− , (16)
Qv x2 − x1 is computed as 5 Hz.
 Figures 8 and 9 were obtained by using the transversal
G2 (f ) x1
ln = Af + ln . (17) component of the blast signal. Calculations for the other
G1 (f ) x2
components were also done but not included in the text.
Formula (14) expresses the input–output relation among The absorption factor a is calculated as 0.0011 and 0.001
G0(f ), G1(f ) and G2(f ). Note that the numerators model for longitudinal and vertical components, respectively. Note
frequency-dependent absorption where f is the frequency, that no filter was applied to the signal in the calculation of a
Q is the seismic quality factor, V is the seismic velocity (figures 8 and 9), because we realized that, if a filter is applied
and x is the travelled distance; the denominators model the to the signals (figure 10), the absorption factor a becomes
geometrical spreading of surface waves. Formula (15) is the greater (figure 11). This case brings unsafe determination
natural logarithm of the G2(f ) over G1(f ) ratio and is a linear of the dominant frequency. Therefore, we suggest using the
function of the frequency f . This linear dependence on the original (no filter) signal to determine the a value.
frequency may be summarized in formula (16) where A is
the slope (always negative) and a is the absorption factor (slope
per unit distance) as depicted in figure 7. Substitution of the 3. Discussion
slope A in formula (15) yields formula (17).
The determination of A from field measurements should The newly derived frequency, named ‘PPV-frequency’
be performed within the frequency of interest where the (formula (6)), is a joint version of two well-known formulae

226
 Explosive charge mass and peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in mining blast

t =0.249 s
g1(t) t =0.530 s
2
1
Amplitude (mm/s)

-1

g2(t)
Amplitude (mm/s)

t3=0.220 s
t =1.050 s
1 4

-1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Time (s)

Figure 8. Two seismic signals (at the top, the receiver station close to the source point; at the bottom, the receiver station far from the source
point) obtained from two receiver stations, 250 m apart. The analysis window between 0.249 and 0.530 s comprises the near station seismic
wavelet g1(t), and the analysis window between 0.220 and 1.050 comprises the far station seismic wavelet g2(t). The original signal
(transversal component).

site constants, k and β, for formula (1). Using formula (1),

4
the ‘allowable amount of maximum charge weights’ can be
calculated in order to stay within the safe area under the
damage curves. Those widely used curves, such as USBM and
a=0.001 s/m
2 DIN4150 (Siskind et al 1980), establish a correlation between
some selected frequencies, particle velocity and damage limits.
At lower frequencies, threshold damage limits occur at lower
peak velocities. As the frequency of a wave increases, higher
0
ln [G2(f)/G1(f)]

particle velocities are allowed before the damage limits are

G1(f)
-2 G2(f)
-4
-6
0 10 20
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9. Plots depicting the computation of absorption factor a.
The dashed lines G1(f ) and G2(f ) are the amplitude spectra of the
near and far receiver station signals, respectively. The solid line
shows formula (8) where the straight-line segment depicts the
absorption factor a (the original signal).
of mining engineers (formula (1)) and geophysical engineers
(formula (2)). In mine blasts, peak particle velocity of ground
vibrations can be predicted from the scaled distance using
formula (1). The accuracy of the equation will depend on
how well the site constants are known for a particular blasting
operation. The site constants are quantities that can be derived
from a plot of PPV versus scale distance on a log–log graph.
The slope and intercept of the regression line will give the
reached. For example, according to DIN4150 criteria (Siskind
et al 1980), the maximum allowable PPV that cannot cause
minor damage to the structures is 5 mm s−1 for a blast signal
less than 10 Hz. Similarly, it is 10 mm s−1 for a blast signal less
than 20 Hz. The correct use of those damage curves depends
on employing a more realistic frequency value for a blast.
The meaning of ‘frequency’ is important for its subsequent
use in mining engineering. The newly developed ‘PPV-
frequency’ is better than the ‘dominant frequency’ and
‘zero-cross frequency’. The ‘dominant frequency’ may be
30 40 50 determined generally from the maximum peak in the amplitude
spectrum. However, if there exist two or more picks of almost
equal amplitudes, then the determination of a unique peak
frequency in the amplitude spectrum becomes ambiguous.
The ‘zero-crossing frequency’, determined in the vicinity
of the seismic event comprising the PPV, usually overestimates
the sought frequency, due to the uncertainty in the origin of the
amplitude axis of the seismic trace (the dc effect). However,
an overall frequency value (PPV-frequency) comprising the
properties of the whole area of interest, based on several
measurements, is a better candidate for subsequent mining
or geophysical engineering use. Therefore, following the
determination of site parameters, the PPV-frequency of blast
vibrations at a target location will be computed using the
proposed model function (formula (6)). While employing this
formula, Q and V values do not need to be known. Instead,
the absorption factor a can easily be found (see section 2.1)

227
G G U Aldas

Figure 10. Two seismic signals (at the top, the receiver station close to the source point; at the bottom, the receiver station far from the
source point) obtained from two receiver stations, 250 m apart. The analysis window between 0.249 and 0.530 s comprises the near station
seismic wavelet g1(t), and the analysis window between 0.220 and 1.050 comprises the far station seismic wavelet g2(t). The filtered signal
(transversal component).

4
200 fG=4 Hz
Corrected Spectrum

a=0.0018 s/m
2
160

0
Amplitude Spectrum
ln [G2(f)/G1(f)]

120
G1(f)
λ=1
-2 G2(f)
80

-4
40
Original Spectrum

-6
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Frequency (Hz) f (Hz)

Figure 11. Plots depicting the computation of absorption factor a.
The dashed lines G1(f ) and G2(f ) are the amplitude spectra of the
near and far receiver station signals, respectively. The solid line
shows formula (8) where the straight-line segment depicts the
absorption factor a (the filtered signal).
and applied in formula (6). Once the PPV-frequency is
determined, the damage curves can be used in a more realistic
way.
Other important factors which should be considered
are the resonance (natural) frequency of the geophone and
its (impulse) response curve, which play a very important
role in dominant frequency determinations. Details about a
Figure 12. Amplitude spectrum of a seismic signal. The dashed
curve depicts the original spectrum. The solid curve depicts the
corrected spectrum.
geophone’s response curves are given in the appendix. The
geophone used in our field applications has a 4 Hz resonance
frequency. In figure 12, the amplitude spectrum of a typical
seismic signal is drawn with a solid curve; the corresponding
corrected amplitude spectrum is drawn with a dashed curve.
It is obvious that the information around 2 Hz is suppressed
due to the deafness of the geophone in the vicinity of this
frequency. The original spectrum cannot be recovered till
the frequency of 10 Hz. Therefore, one should be very careful

228
 Explosive charge mass and peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in mining blast

when determining the soil’s dominant frequency. He/she must 1

consider the properties (resonance frequency, damping factor fG=1 Hz
and response curves) of his/her geophone. The new concept 0.9 fG=2 Hz
of ‘PPV-frequency’ proposed in this study is exempt from the fG=4 Hz
geophone properties used. The absorption factor a is computed 0.8 fG=10 Hz
within the effective frequency band of the source (blast) and
the geophone. This frequency band does not need to include 0.7
AD=0.71
the resonance frequency of the geophone where substantial
0.6
amount of informations loss occurs.

AD
0.5
4. Conclusion
0.4 AS=1
In this study, two well-known formulae of mining engineering λ=λC=0.7071
0.3
and geophysical engineering are joined to create a new formula
which relates ‘explosive charge’ to ‘PPV-frequency’ at a target
0.2
location. Therefore, once the PPV-frequency at a target
location is determined from the newly developed formula, a 0.1
mining engineer can easily address the appropriate damage-
criteria tables of chosen frequencies. Likewise, a geophysical 0
engineer can easily compute soil-engineering parameters 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(dynamic parameters such as soil dominant frequency and fF (Hz)
soil amplification) based on PPV-frequency obtained from the
Figure A1. Geophone amplitude–response curves for various
newly developed formula of this paper. The paper also points resonance frequencies.
to the importance of the geophone properties in use (resonance
frequency, damping factor and response curves) for safe soil
dominant frequency calculations. 1

As pointed out earlier in the paper, the PPV cannot λ=0.7071 λ=1.0071
λ=0.9071
solely explain the damage from blast-induced vibrations in 0.9 λ=0.8071
settlement areas. The PPV-frequency and the duration of the
0.8
vibrations are important as well. The coupling among (1)
the PPV-frequency of the blast induced vibrations, (2) the PPV- AD=0.71
0.7
frequency of the soil and (3) the PPV-frequency of the man-
AD=0.61
made structures plays an important role in the environmental 0.6
AD=0.55
damage as well. This fact is called ‘the mechanical resonance’
AD=0.50
AD

where the original amplitudes of the blast-induced vibrations 0.5 AS=1

are amplified several times (soil amplification). fG=4 Hz
0.4

Acknowledgments 0.3

This work was financially supported by Turkey Scientific 0.2

and Technique Research Society (TUBITAK: project number
108M359). I am indebted to Professor Dr Berkan Ecevitoglu 0.1

for his valuable advice and support. I would also like

0
to thank Asli Can, Basak Toprak, Ezel Babayigit, İsmail
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Erguder and Bülent Kaypak for assistance in collecting much
fF (Hz)
of the field data presented in the text. The considerable
effort of Turkish Coal Company (TKI) GELI’ managers Figure A2. Geophone amplitude–response curves for various
(especially General Director Yüksel Akın, Okan G Dalgıc damping factors.
and Erman Kahyaoglu) in all the vibration trials is gratefully
acknowledged, particularly with regard to site availability and
The amplitude response and the phase response of a geophone
drilling of test holes.
may be computed with formulae (A.1) and (A.2), respectively
(Ergin 1973):
Appendix
As fG
As referred in the main text, a geophone cannot fully recover AD (r) =  ; r= ;
(r 2 − 1)2 + (2λr)2 fF
the original signal’s frequency contents in the vicinity of (A.1)
1
its resonance frequency. Therefore, the accuracy of the λC = √ ≈ 0.7071,
computations made around resonance frequencies decreases. 2

229
G G U Aldas

180 1.2

160
fG=1 Hz Original
0.8
140 fG=2 Hz
fG=4 Hz Geophone-modified
fG=10 Hz
120

0.4

Amplitude
100
δ (degrees)

δ=90

80
0

60 λ=λC=0.7071

40
-0.4

20

0 -0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
fF (Hz) Time (s)
Figure A3. Geophone phase–response curves for various resonance Figure A5. Original and geophone-modified Ricker wavelets.
frequencies.

180
fF frequency of the forced vibrations
λ=0.7071 λ damping factor
λ=0.8071
160
λ=0.9071 λC critical damping.
λ=1.0071
140
Figures A1 and A3 show amplitude and phase
120
response curves for four selected resonance frequencies
(namely for fG = 1, 2, 4 and 10 Hz),
respectively. At the critical damping factor of
δ (degrees)

100
δ=90 λC = 0.7071, only 71% of the original signal strength
80 is recovered. Figures A2 and A4 show amplitude and
phase response curves for four selected damping factors.
60
At damping factors of λ = 0.7071, 0.8071, 0.9071 and
40
1.0071, only 71%, 61%, 55% and 50% of the original
signal strengths are recovered, respectively. Figure A5
20 shows how a geophone of 4 Hz resonance frequency and
λ = 1 damping factor affects the shape of a symmetrical
fG=4 Hz
0 Ricker wavelet of 10 Hz dominant frequency.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
fF (Hz)

Figure A4. Geophone phase–response curves for various damping References

factors.
Adhikari G R, Theresraj A I, Venkatesh S, Balachander R and
Gupta R N 2004 Ground vibration due to blasting in limestone
  quarries Fragblast—Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation 8 85–94
2λr−1 fG Anderson D A 1993 Blast monitoring: regulations, methods and
δ(r) = tan ; r= ; control techniques Comprehensive Rock Engineering vol 4
r2 − 1 fF
(A.2) (Oxford: Pergamon) pp 95–110
1
λC = √ ≈ 0.7071. Anderson D A, Winzer S R and Ritter A P 1982 Blast design for
2 optimizing fragmentation while controlling frequency of
ground vibration Proc. 8th Conf. on Explosives and Blasting
where: Technique (New Orleans, 1982) pp 69–89
Blair D P 2004 The frequency content of ground vibration
AD dynamic amplification (amplitude response)
Fragblast 8 151–76
AS static amplification Bollinger G A 1971 Blast Vibration Analysis (Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press)
r frequency ratio
Can A Z 2008 Surface waves/base rock interaction and
fG resonance frequency of the geophone mapping site amplification with 3D seismic ray-tracing

230
 Explosive charge mass and peak particle velocity (PPV)-frequency relation in mining blast
MSc Thesis Ankara University Natural Science
Institute
Canyaran L and Ecevitoğlu B 2002 Multi-head-buffalo-gun Turkey
Patent No 2002/01203
Chen G and Huang S 2001 Analysis of ground vibrations caused by
open pit production blasts: a case study Fragblast—Int. J.
Blasting Fragmentation 5 91–107
Devine J F 1966 Effect of charge weight on vibration levels from
quarry blasting USBM Report of Invest 6774
Dowding C H 1985 Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
Ergin K 1973 Applied Geophysics (Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul
Technical University Publications)
Hoshino T, Mogi G and Shaoquan K 2000 Optimum delay interval
design in delay blasting Fragblast—Int. J. Blasting
Fragmentation 4 139–48
Muller B 1997 Adapting blasting technologies to the characteristics
of rock masses in order to improve blasting results and reduce
blasting vibrations Fragblast 1 361–78
View publication stats
Muller B and Hohlfeld T h 1997 New possibility of reducing
blasting vibrations with an improved prognosis Fragblast 1
379–92
Persson P A, Holmberg R and Lee J 1994 Rock Blasting and
Explosives Engineering (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press)
pp 365–7
Ricker N H 1977 Transient Waves in Visco-Elastic Media
(Amsterdam: Elsevier)
Siskind D E 2000 Vibrations from Blasting (Cleveland, OH:
International Society of Explosives Engineers)
Siskind D E, Crum S V, Otterness R E and Kopp J W 1989
Comparative study of blasting vibrations from Indiana surface
coal mine USBM RI 9226
Siskind D E, Stagg M S, Kopp J W and Dowding C H 1980
Structure response and damage produced by ground vibrations
from surface mine blasting USBM RI 8507
Tripathy G and Gupta I D 2002 Prediction of ground vibrations due
to construction blasts in different types of rock Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 35 195–204
231