GROUND VIBRATIONS CAUSED BY SURFACE MINE

BLASTING.

Item type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Shoop, Sally Annette.

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this

material is made possible by the University Libraries,
University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction
or presentation (such as public display or performance) of
protected items is prohibited except with permission of the
author.

Downloaded 21-Feb-2016 06:55:10

Link to item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/274641

 INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or

notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

Universe
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
 1319936

SHOOP, SALLY ANNETTE

GROUND VIBRATIONS CAUSED BY SURFACE MINE BLASTING

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA M.S. 1982

University
Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document havebeen identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or pages ^

2. Colored Illustrations, paper or print

3. Photographs with dark background

4. Illustrations are poor copy

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8. Print exceeds margin requirements

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print

11. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages

15. Other

University
Microfilms
International
GROUND VIBRATIONS CAUSED BY SURFACE MINE BLASTING

by

Sally Annette Shoop

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
WITH A MAJOR IN GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 8 2
 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­

quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is
deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers
under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special

permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made.
Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of
this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the
major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­
ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­
ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained
from the author.

SIGNED:

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

\ 0 - l t - s i
Jaak J. K. Daemen Date
Associate Professor
Mining and Geological Engineering
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project has benefited greatly from the cooperation and

assistance provided by many people. The author would like to express

her sincerest gratitude to:

My wonderful husband and fellow engineer, Clayton Morlock for

numerous consultations and invaluable technical and moral support.

My advisor, Jaak Daeraen, for just the right amount of advice.

Dr. David Siskind, Virgil Stachura, Alvln Engler, and Mark Stagg,

U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for making available

their unique laboratory facilities for testing and calibrating our

field equipment, as well as for their assistance with calibrations,

and for extremely helpful discussions and recommendations on field

measurements.

Mr. Gerald R. Coonan, Peabody Coal Company, for arranging field

monitoring sites, for his generous cooperation during field

monitoring, and for very valuable discussions on blast vibration

measurements.

Mr. Larry Cornelius and Ray Callicoatte, Dallas Instruments, for

assistance far beyond the call of duty in modifying and adjusting our

seismographs.

ill
 Paul Pojar, State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources,

for his willingness to help arrange additional monitoring sites if

needed.

Dr. A1 B. Andrews, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, Inc., and Dr. Doug

Anderson, Martin Marietta Corporation, for valuable discussions on

blasting and vibrations.

Dennis Fisher, Chief Mine Engineer, Oracle Ridge Mine, for

allowing mine access to test our instruments.

Larry Salhany, Blaster, University of Arizona San Xavier Mine,

for arranging several small surface blasts used as preliminary tests.

The General Foreman and the Drill and Blast Foreman at the

limestone quarry for their willingness to make arrangements for our

monitoring program on short notice and their valuable help and

cooperation.

The following mine personnel from Peabody Coal for their help and

patience:

Rocky Diabri, Regional Blast Foreman (and cuisine specialist)

Dennis Stevensen, Superintendent, River King No. 6

Stan Lewis, Assistant Blast Foreman, River King No. 6

Joe Walford, Engineer, River King No. 6

Pam Calvert, Secretary (and communications expert), River King

No. 6

Ted Thomas, Superintendent, River King No. 3

Jim Roberts, Blast Foreman, River King No. 3

Terry Traylor, Blast Foreman, Will Scarlet Pit 14

 V

Bob Campbell, Blast Foreman, Will Scarlet Pit 16

Dick Relslnger, Engineer, Will Scarlet

The following undergraduates who assisted In sample preparation

and testing In the Rock Mechanics Laboratory: Eduardo Reyes, John

Graham, Chris Presmyk, Chuck Stevens, Ellen Sagal, Colleen Wood, Greta

Mattson, and Molses Chongolala.

Graduate students Ernest Baafl and Sukhendu Barua for sharing

their statistical expertise.

Let us not forget the typist who prepared this work, Mike Porter.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii

LIST OF TABLES ^

ABSTRACT *vil

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Objectives *
1.2 Importance of Ground Vibrations ^
1.3 Background 2

1.4 Scope of This Thesis 9

2. THEORY * 12

2.1 Generation of Ground Vibrations from Blasting ^2

2.2 Type of Seismic Haves Generated 17

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 21

3.1 Some Major Studies of Ground Vibrations Induced

by Blasting 21

3.1.1 U.S. Bureau of Mines 21

3.1.2 Hiss and Linehan 24

3.1.3 Hendron, Dowding, Ambraseys 27

3.1.4 Swedish Blasting Research 29

3.1.5 A Soviet Case Study.... 31

3.2 Prediction of Ground Motion 32
3.2.1 Propagation Equations 32
3.2.2 Frequency Content 34

4. BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 39

4.1 Instrumentation 39
4.1.1 Equipment 39
4.1.2 Blasting Seismographs 39
4.1.3 Synchronizing Timing System 43
4.1.4 Frequency to Digital Converter 47
4.1.5 Oscillograph 48
4.1.6 Software 48

vi
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

4.1.7 Shallow Refraction Seismograph 51

4.1.8 Geomechanlcs Lab Equipment 51
4.2 Field Work 52

4.2.1 Preliminary Tests 52

4.2.2 Ground Transducer Placement 55
4.2.3 Monitoring Production Blasts 57
4.2.4 Monitor Layout 62
4.2.5 Shallow Seismic Survey 62
4.2.6 Rock Samples 65
4.3 Lab Work 65

5. ANALYSIS 68

5.1 Rock Properties 68

5.2 Shallow Seismic Refraction Survey 68
5.3 Propagation Equations 73
5.3.1 Square Root Scaling vs. Cube Root Scaling 73
5.3.2 Site-Specific Propagation Equations 80
5.3.3 Comparison with U.S. Bureau of Mines Studies 84
5.3.4 Scaling Factors: The Effect of the Height
of Exposives 87
5.4 Evaluation of Time Histories and Frequency Spectra 91

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES 120

6.1 Summary 120

6.2 Recommendations 123

APPENDIX A: TABLE OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VALUES 125

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURFACE COAL MINE RK6... 135

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURFACE COAL MINE RK3... 152

APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURFACE COAL MINE WS14.. 161

APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURFACE COAL MINE WS16.. 173

APPENDIX F: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM LIMESTONE QUARRY C 182

REFERENCES 203
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1 Composite of the safe blasting levels recommended by

major studies of blast vibration damage prior to 1971.... 3

2 Graphical representation of the .empirical constants for

propagation equation v • k(D/W ' )n, used to predict
ground motion from blasting 6

3 Predominant frequency histogram of coal, quarry and

construction blasts 8

4 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled

Distance 10

5 Schematic of the fracturing and deformation around an

explosion in rock * 13

6 Millisecond delay pattern showing time setting and

direction of movement 14

7 Time sequence of wave transmission and reflection

through a layer of different propagating
characteristics 15

8 Typical blast record 16

9 Types of seismic waves 18

10 The Raylelgh wave is generated by interaction of the

body waves at the surface and forms at a distance E
from the blast 20

11 Safe levels of blasting vibration for houses using a

combination of velocity and displacement 25

12 The effect of blast variables on ground vibration 26

13 Sketch showing the effective delay time, te, for

locations at different orientations from a 3-hole
blast 28

14 Damage and noticeability criteria (limit values) as

functions of frequency 30

viii
 ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued

Figure Page

15 Comparison of the predicted ground motion and

predicted structural response to the actual
calculated structural response spectra 36

16 Calculated and measured frequency spectra showing

a relationship between the delay times and the
frequency of the resulting ground motion 38

17 Dallas Instruments SM-4 four channel blasting

seismograph 41

18 Sketch of synchronizing timing system 44

19 Timing device output for three vibration time

histories and map of seismograph placement for the
output shown 46

20 Data manipulation flowchart 49

21 Final output, time history and Fourier transform.

Blast WS16-2. position C 50

22 Seismic analyzer 53

23 Testing seismographs in an underground mine 54

24 The SM-4 seismograph showing placement of the

geophone 56

25 Monitoring of a coal mine production blast 60

26 Map of the monitor locations for WS16 61

27 Travel time graph used to determine seismic

velocities and sketch of ray paths for 2 horizontal
velocity boundaries 64

28 Seismic line RK6S-2, looking west 70

29 Seismic line KK6N-4, looking east 71

30 Schematic of the reflection and refraction of the

P-wave and the corresponding time-distance graph 72
 X

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued

Figure Page

31 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance

for the limestone quarry 75

32 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Cube Root Scaled Distance

for the limestone quarry, showing the mean for each
component of ground motion 76

33 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance

for all coal mines studied 77

34 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Cube Root Scaled Distance

for all coal mines studied showing the mean for each
component of ground motion 78

35 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance

for Coal Mine US16 86

36 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance

for Coal Mine RK6S 88

37 Blast WS14-1 93

38 Record RK6N-3b 94

39 Record RK6S-1B 95

40 Record RK3-3b 97

41 Modulation effects of the Fourier spectrum as a

function of the number of delay intervals 99

42 Record RK6S-3B, showing peak Fourier amplitude at

50 Hz on the radial and transverse components and
energy up to 125 Hz on all channels 100

43 Record RK6S-4B 101

44 Record RK6N-4B, showing energy at 60 and 120 Hz even

at a large distance from the blast 103

45 Blast WS14-2 monitored at 425 feet 104

46 Blast WS14-2 monitored at 725 feet 105

47 Blast WS14-2c 106

 xi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued

Figure Page

48 Cross-section view of blasts C-3 and C-4 showing

relative elevations of the blasts and monitor
locations 107

49 Quarry blast C-4, monitored on a bench near the edge

of the pit 108

50 Blast C-4, position B on the soil overburden above

position A 109

51 Cross-section view of blast C-7 showing the

configuration of the pit and the monitor locations Ill

52 Quarry blast C-7 at position B, 810 feet behind the

blast 112

53 Blast C-7, position C, across the pit from the blast 113

54 Record RK6N-4c 114

55 Blast RK3-1, 415 holes 116

56 Record RK3-2c 117

57 Record RK3-3b, 458 holes 118

58 Record RK3-4b; same blast desing and monitor location

as RK3-3b (Fig. 57), but only 35 holes 119

B-l Cross-section of a decked horizontal hole at Coal

Mine RK6... 136

B-2 Map of the monitor locations for RK6S 140

B-3 Map of the monitor locations for RK6N 141

B-4 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance

Distance for site RK6S 142

B-5 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled

Distance for site RK6N 143

B-6 Seismic line RK6S-1, looking south 144

B-7 Seismic line RK6S-2, looking west 145

 xii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued

Figure Page

B-8 Seismic line RK6N-1, looking south 146

B-9 Seismic line RK6N-2, looking south 147

B-10 Seismic line RK6N-3, looking east 148

B-ll Seismic line RK6N-4, looking east 149

C-l Sketch of blasts RK3-3 and RK3-4 153

C-2 Map of the monitor locations and blast sites for site
RK3 155

C-3 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance

for site RK3, showing the mean of each component and
the mean and upper limit of the USBH data 156

C-4 Seismic line RK3-1, looking north 158

C-5 Seismic line RK3-2, looking east 159

D-l Cross section illustrating the types of blasts used

at Coal Mine WS14, bench shots and parting shots 162

D-2 Sketch of two of the blasts monitored at coal mine

WS14 163

D-3 Map of the monitor locations for WS14 166

D-4 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance

for site WS14 168

D-5 Geologic cross section of the site WS14, provided by

the mine geologist 169

D-6 Seismic line WS14-1, looking west 171

E-l Plan view and hole section of a 12-hole blast at Coal

Mine WS16 174

E-2 Map of the monitor locations for WS16 176

 xiii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued

Figure Page

E-3 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled

Distance for site WS16 showing the mean for each
component. the mean of the USBM data from RI 8507,
and the upper limit of the USBM data chosen 2
standard deviations above the mean 177

E-4 Geologic cross section of site WS16 obtained from the

mine geologist 179

E-5 Seismic line WS16-1, looking north ISO

F-l Sketch of blast designs for shot C-2 and shots C-3 and
C-4 185

F-2 Sketch of blast design for shot C-8, shot C-9, and
shots C-ll and C-12 186

F-3 Map of the blasted areas and the monitor locations in

the west section of the Limestone Quarry 187

F-4 Map of the blasted areas and the seismograph locations

in the southeast section of the Limestone Quarry 188

F-5 Map of the blasted area and seismic monitor sites in the
north section of the Limestone Quarry 189

F-6 Cross section veiw of blasts C-l through C-4 190

F-7 Cross section view of blasts C-5 through C-8 191

F-8 Cross section view of blasts C-9 through C-12 192

F-9 Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled

Distance for the limestone quarry 193

F-10 Cross section showing the relationship between the

geology and the mine levels 194

F-ll Seismic line C-l, looking northwest 196

F-12 Seismic line C-2, looking southwest..... 19 7

F-13 Seismic line C-3, looking south .198

F-14 Seismic line C-4, looking west 199

 xiv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued

Figure Page

F-15 Seismic line C-5, looking south 200

 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Safe Levels of Blasting Vibrations for Residential

Type Structures 7

2 Rock Properties from RK3 67

3 Optimum Constants in Square Root and Cube Root

Scaling Laws by Means of Statistical (Least Squares)
Fitting 79

4 Propagation Equations for Specific Sites Using

Square Root Scaling 81

5 Propagation Equations Including the Weight Scaling

Factor 90

A-l Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal

Mine RK6N 126

A-2 Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal

Mine RK6S 127

A-3 Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal

Mine RK3 128

A-4 Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal

Mine WS14.... 129

A-5 Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal

Mine WS16 131

A-6 Peak Particle Velocity Values for Limestone Quarry C 132

B-l Blast parameters for the Shots Monitored at Site RK6S....137

B-2 Blast parameters for the Shots Monitored at Site RK6N....138

B-3 Rock Properties from RK6 151

C-l Blast Parameters for the Shots Monitored at Site RK3 154

C-2 Rock Properties form Coal Mine RK3 160

xv
 xvi

LIST OF TABLES—Continued

Table Page

D-1 Blast Parameters for the Shots Monitored at Site WS14....164

D-2 Rock Properties from WS14 170

E-1 Blast Parameters for the Shots Monitored at Site WS16....175

E-2 Rock Properties from WS16 181

F-1 Blast Parameters for the Shots Monitored at the

Limestone Quarry 183

F-2 Rock Properties from the Limestone Quarry 201

 ABSTRACT

Research on blast vibrations will Improve the prediction

techniques used to avoid structural damage and human annoyance.

Thirty-seven blasts were monitored using three or four seismographs at

each. Statistical analysis of the data showed that square-root, cube-

root, and site-specific scaling each predicted ground motion with the

same degree of reliability. Imprecise prediction is partly caused by

geologic variability and partly by blast variables, especially

Inaccurate delay firing times.

Propagation studies at each mine show that some mines tend to

have vibrations lower or higher than the U.S. Bureau of Mines data

(RI 8507). Regulations based on USBM data would then be either too

conservative or too lenient.

The frequency spectra reveal that the predominant frequencies

were generally less than 50 Hz but several blasts had a significant

amount of energy up to 125 Hz. In some cases the vibration energy was

concentrated at frequencies corresponding to the delay intervals.

xvii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

The objective of this study was to provide a better understanding

of the propagation of seismic waves generated by surface blasting.

This was accomplished by monitoring several blast vibrations and

collecting back-up information on the blasting parameters, in-situ

overburden velocities and rock strength properties for each site.

Data were statistically analyzed in light of predicting ground

vibrations using propagation equations. Frequency content was also

studied. It is hoped that this research will ultimately contribute to

a relatively simple, more reliable method of predicting ground

vibrations caused by blasting which can be incorporated in government

regulations and used in the mining industry.

1.2 Importance of Ground Vibrations

The effect of ground vibrations is of increasing importance.

Blast vibrations can cause human annoyance and major structural

damage. With the increase of urban sprawl, mining and construction

must take place in populated areas close to man-made structures.

Since the general public is directly affected, vibrations are of

concern to all levels of government and to regulatory agencies. In

short, blast vibrations are not merely a matter of scientific interest

1
 2

but are the concern of the general public, government, mine operators,

construction companies, explosive manufacturers, and consultants.

Property damage is the major concern, and underlying this is the

need for understanding why and how the damage is caused. This

includes understanding the nature of the vibrations and how they

propagate. This research deals with the vibration propagation.

Damage was not measured.

1.3 Background

Legal restrictions on vibrations are based on threshold damage

levels determined by field tests. Figure 1 is a composite of the

damage levels recorded by several studies. Vibration limits are

chosen below the levels at which damage was observed. The most

commonly used damage criteria are a given level of Peak Particle

Velocity and a corresponding Scaled Distance. Peak Particle Velocity

is the maximum velocity of ground vibration. Velocity is used rather

than displacement or acceleration because velocity correlates more

closely with damage. Scaled Distance is a function of the distance to

the blast and the weight of explosive per delay.

Two types of Scaled Distances are frequently used. Square Root

Scaled Distance (SRSD) is recommended by the Bureau of Mines

researchers as having the best correlation with ground motion and

damage. Cube Root Scaled Distance (CRSD) is used for predicting the

air blast overpressure. Some engineers suggest that cube root scaling

should also be used for ground vibrations (Hendron, 1977; Ambraseys

and Hendron, 1968). This controversy will be discussed later.

 3

-Major damage
: v =7.6 in/sec a
1 .-Minor domoge ~. a Cil
I I v•5.4 in/sec ~ .o.
I .~ 0 •
1 1 %~o a a a
~-------~4--~--~~-~--
•o~" • a ~~~·o

, .-..·- --':"1 .
: o

.•
~_j---v-
•

rP
• • ooe o •
-.a~--
ttt~•

-----r--
----:r
•

• • OomaQe zone II
~ 2~---~------~~~~~~---------------------~rr1
u Safe zone Safe blasting criterion 1l1 :
j:: I 11
a:: • • Crandall ER=3.0, v•3.3 in/sec-•: 1 1
f • Langefors v •2.8 in/sec- -• :
1

• Edwards ond 11
Northwood v•2.0 in/sec---' •
1
Bureau of Mi nes v•2 .0 in/sec--

o Bureau of Mines }
o Langefors Major damage data
• Edwards ond Norttlwood
• Bureau of Mines }
• Langefors Minor damage data
• Edwards ond Northwood
0 ASCE-BuMines Test

Figure 1. Composite of the safe blasting levels recommended by major

studies of blast vibration damage prior to 1971.

Vibration limits are chosen below levels at which damage

was observed. The U.S. Bureau of Mines study suggested
that vibrations be kept under 2 ips. Note that this is
conservative in the high frequency range where damage
occurs at a higher partic~e velocity (Nicholls, et al.,
1971).
 4

SRSD - Distance to shot (1)

~\/ weight of explosives per 8 ms interval

CRDS - Distance to shot (2)

weight of explosive per 8 ins interval

The weight of explosive is generally taken as the maximum weight of

explosives ignited within any 8 ms period.

Scaled Distance and Peak Particle Velocity are related by

propagation equations. Several equations exist. The generalized

equation is of the form:

v - k (D/Wa)n (3)

or

log v « log k + n log (D/Wa) (4)

where D * distance from blast (feet); W - weight of explosive

(pounds); a - a scaling factor, generally taken as 1/2 or 1/3; and k

and n are constants dependent on site characteristics. Assuming that

a is equal to 1/2 suggests cylindrical spreading of the wave. A value

of 1/3 represents spherical spreading. The quantity in parentheses is

then equal to either of the Scaled Distances.

To determine the propagation constants several blasts are

monitored at one site. The particle velocity of the ground motion vs.

time is recorded in three perpendicular directions. Data can be

plotted as Peak Particle Velocity vs. Scaled Distance on log-log

 5

paper. The empirical constants are the slope (n) and the intercept

(k) of the line representing the mean of the data (see Figure 2). The

resulting equation can then be used as a predictor of ground motion

for that site.

In 1977, federal regulations required that vibrations from

blasting (measured as velocity of a ground particle) be kept under 1

inch per second (Ips), or that scaled distance to any structure be

greater than 60 ft/lb*^ to avoid damage. However, human annoyance

and complaints occur at much lower levels than these.

More recently, the frequency of vibration has been considered.

This is particularly important since most damage is caused by

vibration frequencies within the resonance frequencies of structures.

In 1980, the U.S. Bureau of Mines published report 8507 (Siskind

et al., 1980) recommending vibration limits based on structure and

frequency (see Table 1). In the same report they also determined the

frequency content for coal mine, quarry, and construction blasting

(see Figure 3). The vibrations from coal mine blasting are generally

less than 40 Hz; coal mines would therefore be subject to the much

lower vibration limits. The validity of this study is debated among

explosive users.

In January of 1981 the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) slightly

modified the Bureau of Mines standards and proposed them as federal

regulations (Office of Surface Mining, 1981). These were withdrawn in

June, 1981, and new rules were proposed March 24, 1982. The new rules

give Increased responsibility to the operator and the blasters and

 PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE
VERTICAL

Intercept at SRSD =

Slope, n = — = -1.4

mil 0

101 10*
SQUARE ROOT SCflLEO 01STANCE FT/LB"1

Figure 2. Graphical representation of the empirical constants for

propagation equation v • kCD/W-^/^jn^ use(j to predict
ground motion from blasting.
 7

Table 1. Safe levels of blasting vibrations

for residential type structures
(from Siskind et al., 1980^, p. 3)

Ground vibration - peak particle

velocity, in/sec
Type of structure
At low At high
frequency1 frequency
(<40 Hz) (>40 Hz)

Modern homes, Drywall interiors .... 0.75 2.0

Older homes, plaster on wood lath

construction for interior walls .. .50 2.0

"'"All spectral peaks within 6 dB (50 pet) amplitude of the pre­

dominant frequency must be analyzed.
 -1 r— i i i i i i i i i

Cool mine blasting

"LTL

<

Quarry blasting

T J~L
Construction blasting

^J~U-rL, n, "
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FREQUENCY, Hz

Figure 3. Predominant frequency histogram of coal,

quarry and construction blasts (after
Siskind et al., 1980).
 9

blast vibration experts. Three regulation options are provided with

each allowing the choice to either monitor the blasts or to use a

scaled distance in the design of the blast (Office of Surface Mining,

1982). Within the options, site-specific information about the type

and condition of the structure, the probable frequency of the blast,

and other site-specific information will be considered in assigning a

site-specific peak particle velocity.

1.4 Scope of This Thesis

In the past, research has concentrated on Peak Particle Velocity

and Scaled Distance. Neither of these are totally adequate

predictors. Ground motion can vary greatly from that predicted by

scaled distance and damage can occur much above or below Peak Particle

Velocity limits. Figure 4 shows a plot of Peak Particle Velocity vs.

Square Root Scaled Distance from a recent study by Anderson et al.

(1982). Only the weight of explosive was varied; the distance from

the blast was the same. There is no apparent trend in the data.

More work is needed in the area of propagation of ground

vibrations from blasting, including spectral content. This project

was to implement a field program to monitor ground vibrations and

complete analysis of the data in terms of predicting vibration

propagation. Field studies included monitoring several blasts at four

surface coal mines and one limestone quarry. A complete time history

of the three perpendicular components of the ground particle velocity

was taken. Back-up information, including blasting parameters, ln-

situ overburden velocities and rock strength properties, was collected

 PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SRSD, SAME LOCATION
1.4.

1200 ft
o = 1800 ft
1.2
i/i

4 i.o
o
3
LU
0.8
>
LU

o 0.6
on
<
Q_
0.4
<
o
0.2 Oo

0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
20 40 60 80 100

SQUARE-ROOT SCALED DISTANCE (SD = ftA/fb)

Figure 4. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance (SRSD). Two locations are
shown at given distances from the active face. Since distances are constant, the
SRSD depends only upon pounds per delay. Note no apparent trend. After Anderson
et al., 1982.
at each site. Data analysis consisted of comparison of the scaling

laws, statistical analysis and a study of the frequency content. More

detailed analysis, in the form of computer modeling, was performed by

Ross Barkley (Berkley, 1982). Analysis of the air overpressure

problems associated with surface blasting was conducted by Clayton

Morlock (Morlock, 1982).

This report presents the field work accomplished along with

equipment description, a brief literature review and data analysis.

Analysis consists of simple Scaled Distance calculations, a look at

propagation laws and spectral content, and comparison of our results

with other studies.

The appendices contain additional data collected from each

site. They include maps of the monitor locations, a plot of the Peak

Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance for each site,

geologic Information, geologic cross sections, rock strength and

velocity as determined in the lab, in-situ velocities determined from

seismic surveys, and the details of each blast. The time history and

Fourier transform of each blast and drill core data can be found in

the Final Research Project Report to the Office of Surface Mining

grant G 510 5010 and G 511 5041 (Shoop and Daemen, 1982).

Documentation on the computer programs used can be found in the same

report, Volume 111 (Morlock, 1982).

 CHAPTER TWO

THEORY

2.1 Generation of Ground Vibrations from Blasting

Ground vibrations from blasting are the result of a rapid stress

increase caused by the explosion. In the area immediately around the

hole the rock is crushed; then there is a zone of fracturing (see

Figure 5). Beyond a radius equal to a few borehole diameters the rock

deforms elastically and the energy travels as a stress wave or a

seismic wave. This wave can cause ground displacement in the form of

vibrations at a considerable distance from the blast.

Production blasts generally consist of many holes, connected by

millisecond delays, exploding in rapid succession (see Figure 6).

Each hole produces a seismic pulse propagating radially and

spherically. These waves destructively and constructively interfere,

forming a complex vibration pattern.

As the waves travel away from the blast they are further

complicated by the geology. Reflections and refractions are generated

at fractures, boundaries between rock types, the interface between

rock and soil, and at the surface (see Figure 7).

The final result is a complex wave form that is a function of

blast parameters such as amount of explosives, delay Intervals, depth

and diameter of holes, and site characteristics such as rock type and

structure, depth and nature of overburden, etc. (see Figure 8).

12
 13

M l / ?
Explosion Cavity V
and Original , , f v
rt.in u^u / y ^

f-«—Blast-
. Fractured
I Zone

\ Crushed Zone

i\W Elastic

Figure 5. Schematic of the fracturing and deformation around an

explosion In rock (E.I. duPont de Nemours, 1980).
 14

--.
e

J75
,.,
•100
~
233

.. ...
' ..,
tlSt
;!91

.216
'--..,
349

II ... ,..
.~ ..
"
407

332
465

• 390 r
448
580

505 L
639 697

622

MS Delay Period Firing Time - MS open face

t
_ _.._Direction of Movement
. • 407

58 - MS Timer Settin&

Figure 6. Millisecond delay pattern showing time setting and

direction of movement (E.I. duPont de Nemours, 1980).
 15

-N /
4\L

\ -
-V

VIM

Figure 7. Time sequence of wave transmission and reflection through

a layer of different propagating characteristics (Coates,
1970).
In Sketch I, a simple wave pulse intersects a medium
boundary and is reflected and refracted as shown in
Sketch II. As the refracted wave propagates through the
layer, it intersects the second boundary and is again
reflected and refracted. The final result of a simple
pulse propagating through a layer with lower velocity is
the complex pulse shown in Sketch VIII. Reproduced by
permission of the Minister of Supply and Services, Canada.
 16

(a)

(b)
-i|^, Ml. •!«»>«, t I. >» ' » - .

<d > —

i• •
1 second

Figure 8. Typical Blast Record.

(a) Vertical ground particle velocity.
(b) Air overpressure.
(c) Horizontal longitudinal ground particle velocity (Hi).
(d) Horizontal transverse ground particle velocity (H2).
 17

2.2 Type of Seismic Waves Generated

Blasts can generate several types of seismic or stress waves

through the earth. The most easily understood are the primary and

secondary body waves. In the primary, or compressional wave (P wave),

particle movement Is parallel to the movement of the wavefront. In a

secondary wave, or shear wave (S wave), the particle motion Is

perpendicular to the path of the wave. Both of these types propagate

spherically from the source and therefore attenuate in three

dimensions. Using dimensional analysis, this spherical attenuation

forms the basis of the Cubed Root Scaled Distance scaling law as

expressed by Equation 2.

In addition to body waves, a blast will also generate surface

waves. These are waves that propagate along the surface with an

amplitude that decays rapidly with depth. Two common types of surface

waves are the Raylelgh and Love waves. In a Rayleigh wave the

particle movement is retrograde elliptical. In a Love wave the ground

motion is shear. See Figure 9.

Surface waves are generated by the interaction of body waves at a

free surface. The Rayleigh wave forms at a distance of E

E - (5)

(Cr " velocity of Rayleigh wave, Cp • velocity of P-wave, and h -

depth of source) for a compressional source such as a blast (Ewing,

 18

(«)

0>)

(c)

(<0

Figure 9. Types of seismic waves. Sketches (a) and (b) are body
waves and (c) and (d) are surface waves.
(a) plan view of compressional or P wave;
(b) plane view of a shear or S wave;
(c) 3-dimensional view of a Love wave;
(d) 3-dimensional view of a Raylelgh wave.
 19
Jardetzky, and Press, 1957). See Figure 10. From a purely

compresslonal source, very little energy will propagate as Love waves.

Since the surface waves propagate only near the surface, the

attenuation Is In only two dimensions. Therefore, with distance, body

waves dissipate faster than surface waves. If a significant amount of

energy is generated in surface waves, this would seem to justify

Square Root Scaled Distance scaling as given by Equation 1.

A Soviet study (Vorob'ev et al., 1973) of the wave types

generated from blasting at the Dzhezkazgan deposit states that the

body waves rapidly dampen and have little Influence on the ground

motion at a distance. "From a seismic viewpoint, therefore, the most

hazardous wave is the R wave (Rayleigh wave), which carries up to 80%

of the energy of elastic vibrations."

Therefore, it can be speculated that body waves will be the major

cause of ground motion near the blast while surface waves are dominant

at a distance. Consequently, a Cubed Root Scaled Distance may be

appropriate for vibration concerns close to blasting, as in

construction, and a Square Root Scaled Distance would better describe

the distant vibrations caused by mine blasts.

i
 20

E* Cr h//cn2-Cp2 ^
wave

Figure 10. The Raylelgh wave Is generated by Interaction of the

body waves at the surface and forms at a distance E
from the blast (Barkley, 1982).
 CHAPTER THREE

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Some Major Studies of Ground Vibrations Induced by Blasting

3.1.1 U.S. Bureau of Mines

The United States Bureau of Mines has made major contributions to

the study of ground vibrations and structural damage caused by

vibrations from blasting. They have been involved in various studies

of the subject since 1935. The first major attempt at establishing

damage criteria is summarized by Thoenen and Windes in Bulletin 442

(Thoenen and Windes, 1942). This was followed by Crandell's work in

1949 relating energy ratio to damage.

In 1962, as a prelude to a major study of vibration effects, the

Bureau published a summary and statistical analysis on the research to

date (Duvall and Fogelson, 1962). This report Includes the work of

Langefors, Kihlstrttm and Westerberg in 1958, in which the vibration

levels of several damaging construction blasts were measured. The

experimental studies by Edwards and Northwood in 1959 during the St.

Lawrence Project in Canada are also included. A regression analysis

was performed on data associated with structural damage. It was

concluded that particle velocity is more closely related to damage

than is displacement or acceleration. They also found that all major

damage and 94% of the minor damage occurred at particle velocities

 22

above 2 Inches per second (ips), and this became the recommended limit

for vibration.

Design requirements for instrumentation suitable to measure

vibrations produced by blasting were published by the Bureau of Mines

in 1964 (Duvall, 1964). The seismographs then on the market were not

satisfactory. An instrument was needed to measure particle velocity

amplitude as a function of time in order to study phase, frequency,

amplitude and duration. Duvall suggested an instrument with a maximum

acceleration of 0.2 g and a frequency range of 5-125 Hz.

Bulletin 656 (Nicholls, Johnson and Duvall, 1971) reexamined the

problem of blast vibration based on Bureau of Mines studies and the

published work of others. The Bureau study included data from 171

blasts at 26 different sites of varying geology. They concluded that:

1) damage Is more closely related to velocity than to

displacement or acceleration;

2) a peak particle velocity below 2.0 in/sec has roughly a 5%

probability of causing damage;

3) human response and complaints are noted at ground vibration

levels much lower than levels causing damage;

4) maximum charge weight per delay correlates better with

vibration amplitude than total charge weight per blast.

Therefore, delay techniques can help reduce vibration levels;

5) geology can affect the amplitude and attenuation of vibration

but specific effects could not be determined from the data;

 23

6) overburden will change the frequency content of the wave but

not particle velocity amplitudes.

Recently, the Bureau has released R1 8506, "Measurement of Blast-

Induced Ground Vibrations and Seismograph Calibration" (Stagg and

Engler, 1980), and RI 8507, "Structure Response and Damage Produced by

Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting" (Siskind et al., 1980).

In RI 8506, commercially available seismographs were evaluated in the

field and laboratory to determine accuracy and response. It was found

that several of the seismographs operate in the recommended frequency

range of 2-150 Hz for coal mine and 5-200 Hz for construction

blasting. All but one of these are within manufacturer's stated

accuracy limits of ±3 dB. Seismographs recording only the peak

vibration or a vector sum are adequate when only maximum amplitude

levels are desired. Recording the entire waveform is preferable for

the study of the vibration. Instrumentation is also discussed in

Engler, 1980.

Damage from blasting was again evaluated In RI 8507 (Siskind et

al., 1980). This study was based on direct measurement of a structure

response to ground vibration. Data were obtained for 76 homes and 219

production blasts. Damage threshold values were from 0.5 to 2.0 ips

depending on frequency of the vibration and the type of

construction. Low frequency vibration (<40 Hz) was found to be the

most damaging. Amplification factors between structural vibration and

adjacent ground vibration range from 1.5 for the total structure to
 24

4.0 for midwalls. It was found that peak particle velocity is the

best single descriptor of ground motion.

Damage potential depends on the frequency and amplitude of the

vibration and the type of structure involved. Low frequencies are

within the resonance of residential structures (5-25 Hz) and can cause

high displacements and strain. Table 1 gives the recommended

practical safe criteria. An alternate criterion is shown in Figure

11.

Human perception of vibration can be at much lower than damaging

levels and is often the limiting factor on tolerable vibration

levels. This makes good public relations and blasting education

programs essential.

3.1.2 Miss and Linehan

An extensive experimental program was performed by Hiss and

Linehan under a Bureau of Mines contract (Wiss and Linehan, 1978).

Experiments consisted of specially designed quarry blasts and

measurements of production blasts in four surface coal mines. The

data were analyzed to determine the effect of several blast variables

on ground vibration. Results are shown in Figure 12.

An experiment was designed specifically to study the vibration

propagation laws, especially the effect of the weight of explosive.

The following are some of the conclusions made:

1) From the specially designed test, Cube Root Scaled Distance

correlated better with Peak Particle Velocity than Square Root Scaled

Distance. However, the data from the other tests showed no

 25

10.0

u
a> 2 in/sec
</>
•»S.
C

>- 0.008 ia
H-
u
o
-i 0.75 in/sec
UJ
> Drywoll
UJ
-J
o 0.50 in/sec
•- ploster
cr
<
a. 0.030 in

10 100
FREQUENCY, Hz

Figure 11. Safe levels of blasting vibration for houses using a

combination of velocity and displacement (from Siskind
et al., 1980).
 26

Influence on ground motion

Variable* vlthln the control
of mine operators Signlf. Moderately Inslgnif.
•Ignlf.

1. Charge weight per delay X

2. Length of delay X
3. Burden and spacing X

4. Stemming (amount) X

5. Stemming (type) •
X

6. Charge length and diameter X

7. Angle of borehole X

8. Direction of initiation X

9. Charge weight per blast X

10. Charge depth X

11. Bare vs. covered detonating X

cord

Variables not in control of

mine operators

1. General surface terrain X

2. Type and depth of overburden X

3. Wind X

Figure 12. The effect of blast variables on ground vibration (from

Wiss and Llnehan, 1978).
significant difference in correlation whether using square root or

cube root scaling. This was probably because of the large scatter in

the data. Hiss and Linehan concluded that either is acceptable, but

since most studies and regulations are based on a square root, it is

more desirable to stick with square root scaling.

2) To estimate conservatively a vibration of less than 1.0 ips,

the scaled distance should be greater than 75 ft/lb*^.

3) The length of delay affects whether separate stress pulses

constructively interfere and therefore affect the amplitude of

vibration. The effective delay can be described as follows:

^ m
(»)
Where tg - effective delay at a given position
tj " delay time
S - spacing between holes
$ - angle between successively detonated holes and the
position of interest
Cm • compressional wave velocity of medium

The burden and the spacing affect the effective delay time. A

higher amplitude will be expected when the blast is fired toward the

direction of the monitor location, $ 0° (see Figure 13).

3.1.3 Hendron, Dowding, Ambraseys

Ambraseys, Hendron, and Dowding have written several papers on

the subject of ground vibrations from blasting and the associated

damage. They favor a Cube Root Scaled Distance law over Square Root

Scaled Distance based on dimensional analysis.

 C
^ = 90
t = 17 ms
e

\
fi = 135
t = 19.^ ms te = 14.6 ms
e

# = 180 * = 0
tg = 20.3 ms t0 = 13.7 ms
\ / > • v /
- o-»o-*o -
'• * f \ / \
= 17 ms S = 20 feet C = 6 ft/ms
m

S cos cr
\ m t i
m

Figure 13. Sketch showing the effective delay time, te, for locations at different orientations
from a 3-hole blast.
The blast is left to right with a true delay time of 17 ms and a 20-foot spacing
between holes. The propagation velocity of the medium is 6 ft/ms.
 Hendron and Dowding state that a structural response spectrum to

ground motion Is more broadly applicable than peak particle velocity

for determining damage (Hendron and Dowding, 1974). They developed a

method of predicting the ground motion spectrum based on blast

parameters and geologic Information quite similar to methods used in

earthquake engineering. This will be discussed in section 3.2.2.

3.1.4 Swedish Blasting Research

The Swedes have done a considerable amount of work on blasting

and blasting vibrations in urban areas. The Swedish regulations are

based on the frequency content of the vibration as shown in Figure 14

(Persson et al., 1980). It should be noted, however, that they are

typically dealing with short-duration, carefully controlled

construction blasting close to city structures. This is quite

different from the type of mining and quarry blasting that was

monitored in our study.

In addition to the particle velocity, they also consider that

damage risk In relation to the shearing angle, y> defined as

m v m vibration velocity
Y ™ c propagation velocity ';

(Gustafsson, 1973). Using shearing angle, vibration limits take into

account the type of geologic material Involved (propagation velocity

term).
 30

PEAK 1000
PARTICLE
VELOCITY
MM/SEC

&

1000
nKOUBCVCOEC

Figure 14. Damage and noticeability criteria (limit values) as

functions of frequency. Line A represents the threshold
for damage to normal buildings on hard rock. Line B
represents the limit enforced by the Stockholm police
authorities to prevent damage. Line C is the upper
limit for vibrations allowed in the supports of a large
computer. Line D is the limit where the vibration is
just perceptible by a human being. Experience indicates
that velocities up to 100 mm/sec (3.94 in/sec) are
acceptable to most people, provided the origin of the
vibration is known in advance and provided no damage is
done (after Persson et al., 1980).
 31

The Swedish Detonic Research Foundation prefers to use a

propagation law which Includes determining the weight effect. The

constants a, 3> and k of the equation

v « k Da WB or v - k(~)a
W®

are determined for each site. When using the charge weight as a

scaling factor, D/W3, they found the exponent of the weight a to vary

from approximately 0.12 to 0.6 and to average approximately 0.48

(personal communication with Roger Holmberg, 1982). Therefore, square

root scaling is recommended when it is not feasible to determine the

exact scaling factor of the weight.

3.1.5 A Soviet Case Study

Russian scientists have analyzed ground motions with a different

perspective which deserves mention. A study of blast vibrations at

the Dzhezkazgan deposit yielded the type of seismic wave generated and

the equation governing the resulting ground motion (Vorob'ev et al.,

1973). They determined the Raylelgh surface wave to be the most

significant wave type formed.

The equation used to determine the particle velocity depends on

the distance from the blast. For locations in the elastic region the

source is considered to be the zone of residual deformation. The

equation best describing the particle motion is determined empirically

as:
 32

0
vr m ——
e when x » R (8)
res

v. when x > R^g (9)

^ + 1

/x - R ' + R
v res res

where vx » velocity of soil particles at a distance x from the

epicenter of the explosion

Vq • vibration velocity of the medium at the boundary

between zones of elastic and residual deformations.

Vq does not depend on charge weight, but is governed

by physical properties of the medium.

a - amplitude absorption coefficient; a decreases with

distance, but can be considered constant at distances

over 1000 m.

Rj.e8 • radius of the zone of residual deformation

f(x)• divergence function, found experimentally to be •

The method is quite different from the prediction equations used

in the United States and Europe. Notice that the particle velocity

does not depend on the weight of explosives.

3.2 Prediction of Ground Motion

3.2.1 Propagation Equations

Prediction of ground motion from blast vibrations has

concentrated mainly on predicting particle velocity, v, as a function

 33
of charge weight, W, and distance from the blast, r. The following

relationships are commonly suggested.

v « k W*^3/r for spherical propagation (10)

v • k (W/r)*^2 for cylindrical propagation (n)

where k is a constant depending on site characteristics (Jaeger and

Cook, 1977).

Duvall, Atchison and Fogelson (1967) developed the following

relationship based on several measurements.

v - k (Wa/r)n (12)

where a is generally taken as 1/2 or 1/3 and n and k are constants

determined empirically.

Other similar equations in use are

v » k W/r*'* (Langefors and Kihlstrom, 1978) (13)

v - 160 (r/W1/2)"1,6 (E.I. duPont de Nemours, 1980) (14)

v • 360(r/W*/^)""*(Ambraseys and Hendron, 1968) (15)

for (r/W1/3) > 10

v - 0.024 W0-83 r"2,5 Cp (Coates, 1968) (16)

(Cp » P-wave velocity of propagating medium In ft/sec)
The values of the constants (k and n) are determined empirically and

depend on the units used. The peak particle velocities are generally

recorded in inches per second or millimeters per second.

3.2.2 Frequency Content

The use of peak particle velocity as a criterion for damage has

been the subject of much heated discussion. Although research has

been primarily oriented toward peak particle velocity, Hendron and

Dowding state that a response spectrum is more broadly applicable.

This is justified because a response spectrum deals with the entire

frequency range of the vibration rather than merely the frequency

limited to velocity bounds.

Hendron and Dowding developed a scheme to estimate the response

spectra of ground motion from blast parameters and geologic

information. First the equations are developed to predict peak

particle displacement, velocity, and acceleration. The ground

displacement, velocity, and acceleration are plotted as dimensionless

o
parameters (S/R, v/c, and aR/c ) against the scaled distance,
R( dc2)1/3
. it , where 6 • particle displacement (Inches), R • distance
w
from source (feet), v • particle velocity (in/sec), c • seismic wave

velocity of propagating medium (ft/sec), a - particle acceleration

(in/sec ), W - maximum weight of explosive per delay (lbs), and p «

mass density of propagation medium per unit volume (slugs/cubic feet

or lbs per cubic ft/g, g - acceleration due to gravity (32.2

ft/sec2)).
 35

Then multiple regression analysis is used to determine the

attenuation relationships, which are expressed as:

(19)

2 ,100ft,1,9 c
a - g( R (10,000 ft/sec'
3

(Hendron, 1977)

The calculated ground motions are plotted on tripartite paper to yield

a trapezoidal ground motion spectrum. To get the corresponding

structural response spectrum, amplification factors are applied to

appropriate sections of the spectrum for a predetermined critical

damping of the structure. The result is a predicted structural

response spectrum which can be used to estimate damage potential. See

Figure 15. Similar techniques are presented in Coates (1970) and

Medearis (1978).

Based on data from production blasts at two surface coal mines,

Linehan (1977) found correlation between the equivalent delay interval

and the frequency of the peak amplitudes of the Fourier spectrum. The

correlation was greater with an Increase in the delay interval. He

also found the phenomenon more easily seen at distances closer to the

blast.
 36

<5

S ^tctrum

*—7
Reipon* qjectrum
& Predicted peak
ground motions/
calculated from
actual around motions
/w I/K t/\
v
1
%
i
0.02
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 6008001000
Frequency, cps.

Figure 15. Comparison of the predicted ground motion and predicted

structural response to the actual calculated structural
response spectra (after Hendron, 1977).
 37

A similar relationship between the blast delays and the frequency

of ground motion was observed by Wlnzer, Anderson, and Ritter

(1981). They found good agreement with the Fourier spectra when the

square of the frequency multiplied by the number of delay intervals

corresponding to that frequency are plotted as a histogram (see

Figure 16). This information can then be used to design blasts which

will have ground motions with less damaging frequencies (i.e.,

frequencies other than the resonant frequencies of structures).

 FREQUENCY (Hz)

Figure 16. Calculated and measured frequency spectra showing a

relationship between the delay times and the frequency
of the resulting ground motion.
a) calculated from laboratory-derived initiator firing
times;
b) Fourier spectrum (longitudinal component) from the
seismogram.
After Winzer et al. (1981).
 CHAPTER FOUR

BLAST VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM

4.1 Instrumentation

4.1.1 Equipment

Several pieces of equipment were either purchased or manufactured

for this project. Blasting seismographs were needed to record the

three perpendicular components of particle velocity as a function of

time. The blast vibrations were recorded on a cassette tape. A

frequency-to-dlgital converter was custom built to digitize the

vibration time history and transfer the digital Information to the

university computer system. Once In the computer, the Information can

be manipulated at will. An oscillograph strip chart recorder was

purchased that enabled one to visually examine the vibration without

going through the digitizer or computer. Additional equipment used in

the field program included a synchronizing timing unit to determine

the propagation velocity of the rock and soil overburden, a shallow

refraction seismograph for more detailed analysis of the overburden

velocity, and laboratory equipment to determine the static and dynamic

strength of representative rock samples from each mine.

4.1.2 Blasting Seismographs

The most important pieces of equipment are the devices used to

measure and record the ground vibration and air overpressure. The

39
 40

purpose of these instruments is to record blast-induced ground

vibration (particle velocity) and air overpressure as a function of

time. The instrument chosen was the Dallas Instrument SM-4 blasting

seismograph (see Figure 17)• Three of these instruments were

acquired«

The SM-4 is a four-channel recording instrument. Signals from a

three-component geophone and an air pressure transducer are

recorded. The recording device is a four-channel cassette recorder.

Information is placed on the cassette in the form of a variable

frequency with a center (carrier) frequency of 2500 Hz and a maximum

deviation of ± 60%. The variable frequency corresponds to the

amplitude of the overpressure in the case of the acoustic channel and

to the ground particle velocity for the seismic channels.

In addition, a digital readout displays the peak readings from

each component. The acoustic readout is in units of millibars precise

to 1/100 of a millibar. The ground vibration readout is in inches per

second (Ips) to the nearest 1/100 lps.

These particular instruments have a frequency response from less

than 1 Hz to 500 Hz, linear to within ± 3 dB. The instruments are

battery powered and switched on manually. Two gain positions are

available on both the air and ground channels. The ground vibration

can be set at either 0 to 1 ips or 0 to 4 ips. Velocity levels 20%

above the range will normally be recorded satisfactorily.

The operation of the SM-4 is relatively simple. The pressure

transducer microphone and three-component geophone are removed from

Figure 17. Dallas Instruments SM-4 four channel blasting seismograph. Three ground
channels and one air channel are recorded on a magnetic cassette tape.
the case and plugged In. The microphone is placed in a tripod. The

geophone Is oriented with the radial component, Hj, directed toward

the blast and then burled. Before the blast Is Initiated the

Instrument Is turned on and reset. The range switches are set on the

appropriate settings depending on the blast size and distance from the

shot. The calibration button is pushed to check that the geophone Is

horizontal and the electronics are functioning.

Once the blast is finished, the peak readings can be taken from

the digital display. A method of recording the peak values is

available by pressing the "VOICE" button on the switch panel and

reading the peak measurements, date, time, location, and any other

pertinent information into the microphone. Pressing the voice button

records the comments on the acoustic channel. All that remains is to

calibrate the geophones (pressing the calibration button) and to turn

off the machine.

An internal dynamic calibration of the geophone allows a check of

the instrument in the field. A D.C. current causes a given

displacement in the transducers. When the current is released, a

dynamic signal equivalent to 1.0 ips Is generated. The digital

display will read 1.00 ± 0.05 lps for each ground channel if the

transducer is properly in place and all the electronics are

functioning. This signal will also be present on the permanent record

as a scale reference.

The blasting seismographs were modified after the field season to

include an automatic triggering device and an automatic range

 43

selector. This will alleviate problems of blasts missed due to lack

of direct communication with mine personnel. The modified

seismographs automatically select the correct range for the amplitude

of ground vibration, which was not always the same as the estimated

amplitude. These modifications reduce the upper limit of the

frequency range to 200 Hz.

All three seismographs were calibrated by the manufacturer and at

the U.S. Bureau of Mines Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where the

frequency response and distortion level were checked. The sensitivity

of the geophones was determined using a shaker table. Frequencies

from 20 to 500 Hz were checked. Equipment available at the time was

not suitable for frequencies less than 20 Hz. The geophones were

found to function within the manufacturer's specifications.

4.1.3 Synchronizing Timing System

A timing system was constructed for the purpose of finding the

relative arrival times for the waveform between the three

instruments. The device consists of three boxes, one for each

seismograph. Each box contains a relay switch with a timer located in

the central box. The boxes are connected in series with the

microphones and hard-wired between seismographs, allowing a spacing of

up to 300 feet (see Figure 18).

Once the system is turned on it creates a synchronous square wave

on each acoustic channel. Each relay can be set individually to trip

 44

S = Seismograph; G • Geophone; T = Timing unit

Figure 18. Sketch of synchronizing timing system.

and shut off the square wave when the microphone signal becomes

greater than the background noise.

The output would be as shown In Figure 19. Relative time is

counted from an arbitrary timing mark near the first ground motion.

The distances , X£, and are known, the relative arrival times ,

t2, and tj are known, and the time from the blast to the reference

time mark, tg, is unknown. Velocity can be determined by solving any

two of the following three equations.

Compressional wave velocity of the medium -

distance
time (21)

(See Figure 19)

Unfortunately, damage during shipping and faulty replacement

parts made the devices unusable during the summer field season.

Therefore, another method of timing was tried. Small AM transistor

radios were placed near the microphones and tuned to the same

commercial station. It was hoped that this would create high

frequency noise on the tape (a frequency high enough so as not to

distort the blast record). If the record from the radio was

distinguishable, then common points on the records could be picked for

a time reference. This method was not successful due to insufficient

amplitude put out by the radios.

 46

Blast, to
(unknown
unknown time)
tir
I I L

a)
J I I

J I L J——

Time of arrivals with rcspcct to arbitrary

time mark

t3f

12? *
b)

\ \ / /

/
/ I\ \
Plan vi<zw x=seismograph location

Figure 19. a) Timing device output for three vibration time histories,

b) Map of seismograph placement for the output shown.

4.1.4 Frequency to Digital Converter

Since it is desirable to have the capability to manipulate the

blast record (taking the Fourier transform, filtering, changing the

plotting scale, etc.), a converter was needed to get the blast record

Into the university computer system in a compatible form. It was

decided that the most economical way to do this was to have a device

built through university facilities (i.e., the University of Arizona

Central Electronics Shop). The device consists of a portable unit

contained in two aluminum casings. It is capable of reading the blast

record cassette (4 channels simultaneously) and converting the analog

frequency into a digital, binary form compatible with the university

computer.

The converter works by:

1) reading the variable frequency sine wave from the cassette;

2) squaring the sine wave;

3) measuring the length of each square wave;

4) converting that measurement into numbers; and

5) shipping the number sequence (12 numbers per line, 3 per

channel) to a computer terminal.

This set of numbers is stored in a computer file. The data can

then be manipulated and plotted by means of the software package

described In section 4.1.6. The converter also has the option to

convert the FM signal to a variable current which can be fed into the

oscillograph to obtain a strip chart of the blast vibration.

 48

4.1.5 Oscillograph

A five-channel oscillograph can be used to observe the blast

signature without going through the digitizer and the computer

graphics routines. The channels are the three ground components and

the air overpressure with the fifth channel serving as a time base.

The oscillograph takes the variable current obtained from the playback

unit and records the blast on photosensitive paper using

galvanometers. This unit is quite helpful in allowing one to view the

blast without digitizing or even while in the field. It also serves

as an important check to the digitizer when problems arise or

modifications to electronics are made.

4.1.6 Software

The primary function of the software is to manipulate and to plot

the data. Currently, the software package performs a Fast Fourier

Transform on the digitized time history to generate a frequency

spectrum. Both the time history and the frequency spectrum can be

plotted. Filtering and phase information may be added in the

future. Figure 20 is a flowchart of the data manipulation from the

geophone input to the final output. The final output is a computer-

generated plot shown in Figure 21. The top graph is the amplitude of

the particle velocity (or overpressure) vs. the time in seconds. The

full scale of the particle velocity Is either 1 ips (Inches per

second) or 4 ips, depending on the range setting of the instrument

while in the field. For easy comparison the peak values of each

component are listed below the component label (i.e., below Vertical,
 Microphone
0.2-500 Hz
0-6 millibars • ••
FM Analog
inputs
r Cassette Recorder
outputI ©© t'npuf I

a3 Component
Geophone Four Channel
I-500 Hz Cassette Magnetic Tape
0-4 inch/sec.

Strip chart of
Frequency to analog outputZ Oscillograph wave form
Digital Convertor digital informationI Computer
Fast Fourier Transform
Plotting Routines

Time History
Final Output \
Frequency Spectrum

Figure 20. Data manipulation flowchart.

VO
 RMPLITUOE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD
RADIAL
PEflKt 0.940 IN/8EC

TRANSVERSE
PEflKt 0.207 IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PEflKt 0.322 IN/SEC

RIRBLflST
PEflKt 0.0057P8I

0-00 OJO 0.40 040 040 IJO 140 1.40 tJ •••0 tJB
[« MS16 2 TIME ISEC)
OSITIONiC

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

RADIAL
PEflKt 0.021 IN/SEC

fiuACS
TRANSVERSE
PEflKt 0.005 IN/5

VERTICAL
PEflKt O.OOB IN/SEC

RIRBLflST
PEflKt 0.0003

I1ryjw
040 1040 00.04 «.T9 7040 0041 11040 UO^O 10047 110.00
BLASTt ugift 9 FREQUENCY (HZ)
POSlTIONiC Distance - 515 ft.

Figure 21. Final output, time history and Fourier transform,

Blast WS16-2, position C.
 51
Radial, or Transverse). The bottom graph is the Fourier amplitude vs.

frequency. Here each component is scaled so that the peak value is

full scale. The peak values are again listed below the component.

The x-axis, frequency, is from 1 to 200 Hz in every plot.

Headings at the bottom of each plot state the mine name, the

blast number, the monitor position, and the distance to the blast.

Maps of the monitor positions are in Appendices B through G.

Documentation on the programs used can be found in Morlock (1982).

4.1.7 Shallow Refraction Seismograph

A shallow refraction seismograph was used at each mine site to

determine in-situ rock and soil compressional wave velocities. A

Seamen Nuclear Model 2560 belonging to the Department of Mining and

Geological Engineering was repaired and borrowed for use. The

instrument is a 2-channel signal enhancement seismograph. Only one

channel can be tested at a time. The display consists of a CRT with a

marker position yielding direct digital readout of time in milli­

seconds. Gain and sample period are adjustable.

4.1.8 Geomechanlcs Lab Equipment

Rock properties were tested at the University of Arizona

Geomechanlcs Lab. Standard apparatus were used for uniaxial

compression, tensile tests, static elastic constants and density

tests. Dynamic elastic constants were determined using a 1950's

vintage Sonometer and a Seismic Analyzer. The Sonometer vibrates a

sample at its resonant frequency and the elastic constants are

 52

determined by relationship to the fundamental frequency. However, the

results of these tests were Inadequate and a Seismic Analyzer was pur­

chased (see Figure 22). The Seismic Analyzer is essentially a pulse

generator accompanied by a timing device. The pulse is initiated at

one end of the sample and the arrival time is recorded at the opposite

end. The velocity can then be calculated. Dynamic values of Young's

Modulus and Polsson's ratio are calculated from the P-wave and S-wave

velocities. Details of dynamic testing are given in Obert and Duvall

(1967, pp. 339-350) and in Roberts (1977, pp. 273-279).

4.2 Field Work

4.2.1 Preliminary Tests

Seismographs were tested in the lab and at local sites before the

summer field season. First, the instruments were tested in the lab to

assure that all parts were working. Next, two blasts were monitored

at a nearby underground mine. The instruments were placed side by

side to check whether the results were the same (see Figure 23). The

air overpressure was in excess of 12 millibars, twice the specified

range of the instrument, but the ground vibration was negligible.

Similar tests were conducted on the surface at the university-

owned San Xavier mine. Several blasts of 1/2 to 3 lbs. of explosive

were detonated and monitored. Air overpressure was consistent between

instruments, but ground vibrations were too small to be conclusive.

An additional attempt to check the geophones and especially

geophone placement was made. Different combinations of anchoring the

Figure 22. Seismic analyzer. A wave is generated through the rock sample and travel time
is recorded. The propagation velocity can then be calculated. The generated
wave can be monitored on an oscilloscope.
 54

Figure 23. Testing seismographs in an underground mine.

Microphones and geophones are placed side by side to
check whether results are the same.
 55
geophones were tested using a sledgehammer as a source. It was found

that burying the geophones and packing the soil around the sides gave

the best coupling with the soil and the most consistent results

between instruments.

4.2.2 Ground Transducer Placement

It is critical to assure a good contact between the ground and

transducer. Both the bottom and the sides of the geophone must be

secured since all three components of ground motion are measured.

Improper placement may result in the geophone moving with respect to

the ground, causing erroneous readings.

Several tests were performed to determine the best method of

placement. The most efficient placement was to bury the geophones at

least as deep as the sides. In soil, it is sufficient that the

geophone be buried 3 to A inches deep and ground packed around the

sides so that horizontal movement is confined (see Figure 24). Spikes

in the bottom of the geophones were also used to assure good ground

contact.

The geophone should be horizontal and should not wobble or

shake. An easy test for this is to allow a 2 lb ball-peen hammer to

free fall from a height of 1 foot at a distance of 12-18 inches from

the geophone. The resulting vibration should not be more than 0.15

ips. Vibrations higher than 0.15 ips mean the geophone Is not secured

properly. The dynamic calibration signal can be used as a field check

to see if the geophones are horizontal and the electronics are

functioning.
 56

Figure 24. The SM-4 seismograph showing placement of the geophone.

Geophone is spike and buried. The ground is packed
around the sides for best coupling effect.
 57
On gravel, rocky soil or rock surfaces, geophones were spiked and

buried when possible. Weighting the transducer with a sandbag may

help assure good contact as long as vibrations are not high enough to

cause the weight to move (acceleration greater than 1.0 g). Standing

or kneeling on the transducer may produce uneven pressure or

distortion and is not recommended (Engler, 1980).

Materials such as bentonite or cement may be used to smooth the

contact surface. Care should be used not to create a surface removed

from the natural ground material and, therefore, cause damping or

other distortion of the natural ground movement. No such materials

were used for our purposes.

4.2.3 Monitoring Production Blasts

Monitoring of actual production blasts was done at four surface

coal mines and one limestone quarry. The sites were chosen based on:

1) operator's Interest in blast vibrations;

2) accuracy and completeness of the blasting logs;

3) different blasting situations;

4) relatively simple geology (for computer modeling); and

5) access to required blasting and geologic information.

A variety of blasting techniques were monitored. The following

is a brief description of each site.

Coal Ming RK6

Number of holes: 8 to 20 horizontal

Weight of explosive per delay: 200 lb south pit; 800 lb north
pit
 58
Spacing: 21 feet, south pit; 24 feet, north pit
Length of holes: 60 to 90 feet
Type of explosive: ANFO
Method of firing: Nonel
Blast description: Rro separate pits. Horizontal holes were
drilled 2-3 feet above the coal seam. Overburden was left in
place until after blasting. Holes were located about 95 feet
below the ground surface.
Geology: Roughly 60 feet of clayey burden overlying very
slightly dipping interbedded limestone and shale.
Terrain: Relatively flat ground with topsoil removed. Scattered
clumps of trees. Monitor locations were on bare ground or
grassy plains.

Additional information in Appendix B.

Coal Mine RK3

Number of holes: 450, vertical

Height of explosive per delay: 300 pounds
Burden and spacing: 21 x 24 feet
Depth of holes: 52 feet
Type of explosive: ANFO
Method of firing: Nonel
Blast Description: Explosives were loaded in the bottom of
vertical holes. Holes were drilled in a bench created by
stripping overburden.
Geology: Consisted of horizontal to slightly dipping,
interbedded shale and limestone. Overburden of soil and clay
about 20-30 feet, all stripped.
Terrain: Low rolling hills. Vegetation was stripped near the
mine. Monitor locations were In high grass.

Additional information in Appendix C.

Coal Mine WS14

Blast description: In this pit three coal seams were mined

simultaneously. Therefore, three types of blasts were
performed. Holes were drilled and loaded from the surface to
the first seam, then blasted. Bench blasting was done to the
second seam. Parting shots were used to the lowest seam.
All shots used bagged ANFO, but most other parameters were
extremely variable. Blasts occurred every day.
Geology: Interbedded limestone, shale and sandstone occurring
almost to the surface. Bedding was slightly dipping.
Terrain: Relatively flat ground with rows of trees along roads
separating open grassy fields.
 59

Additional Information in Appendix D.

Coal Mine WS16

Number of holes: 12 vertical

Weight of explosive per delay: 200 pounds
Burden and spacing: 15 x 18 feet
Depth of holes: 44 feet
Type of explosive: ANFO
Method of firing: Nonel
Blast description: Holes drilled from surface after the topsoil
was stripped.
Geology: Thick layer of clay over irregular bed of shale
overlying coal.
Terrain: Flat ground with topsoil removed. Little or no vege­
tation. Ground interrupted by built-up road grades.

Additional Information in Appendix E.

Limestone Quarry

Several types of blasts occur at the quarry. In general,

bulk ANFO was used unless there was water in the holes; then, a
slurry type agent was used. Holes were generally vertical.

Due to the large size of the quarry most monitor locations

were either on the quarry floor, on a bench, or on the ground
surface near the perimeter of the pit.

Geology: Horizontal to slightly dipping thick bedded limestone.

Additional information in Appendix F.

A total of 37 blasts were monitored during the summer field

season using three or four seismographs at each blast. Twenty-five of

the blasts were at coal mines and 12 blasts were at the quarry. This

gave 114 complete records of the particle velocity time history of the

vibration measured in three perpendicular directions. Figure 25 shows

a coal mine blast with the seismograph in the foreground. Figure 26

is a map of the monitor layout for one of the surface coal mine
Figure 25. Monitoring of a coal mine production blast. One microphone and seismograph can
be seen in the foreground.
 61

,4781E

Topaut rtmovad

grasses

A3b

*C*.4477

COAL MINE WSI6 Pond

,449° Drj,| Hole Site
±lo Monitor Location
— 450— Topographic Contour Line
l i Shallow Seismic
Refraction Survey
/. Tall grasses and foliage pile
• Road-4 feet above ground level
i i Geologic Cross Section
100 200
Blast Site
v; Scale in Feet

Figure 26. Map of the monitor locations for WS16. Also shown are
the drill holes, shallow seismic line, geologic cross
section and blast locations.
 62

sites. A Table of Peak Values for each shot may be found In Appendix

A. Detailed descriptions of representative blasts along with

additional geologic Information may be found in Appendices B through

F.

4.2.4 Monitor Layout

Three or four seismographs were used to monitor each blast. The

monitor layout was usually aligned either approximately perpendicular

to or parallel to the blast face. Because of a short set-up time,

this arrangement was not always adhered to. After each blast, monitor

locations were plotted on a mine map using a brunton compass and a

100' tape. A map of the monitor locations used at each of the mines

can be found in Appendices B through F. Figure 26 is an example.

Two arrows are etched on the top of the geophone casing and are

labeled Hj and Hj. For consistency, the geophones were placed with Hj

toward the approximate geographic center of the blast so that Hj is

always the radial component of ground motion.

4.2.5 Shallow Seismic Survey

In a refraction seismic survey a pulse is generated at the source

(usually by a hammer blow or small explosive charge), propagates

through the ground and is detected at receivers (geophones). The

velocity of the pulse or seismic wave is obtained by determining the

time lapse from source to receiver for different distances. Velocity

boundary locations can be determined from equations based on Snell's

law. Velocity can be obtained directly from the time vs. distance
 63

graph if the subsurface structure is relatively horizontal (see Figure

27). The procedure for a shallow seismic refraction survey is

discussed in Griffiths and King, 1975.

A shallow seismic refraction survey was performed at each site to

obtain in-situ values of the rock and overburden velocity. The in-

situ values are generally less spread than laboratory measurements and

also have the advantage of integrating the effects of joints and

inhomogeneltles, whereas laboratory specimens are a small sampling of

the intact rock only.

Location of the surveys was based on the local geology and the

cultural noise in the area. The survey lines were at least 90 feet

long, and 200 feet long where possible. The longer source-to-sink

distance enables greater depth coverage. Generally, two perpendicular

survey lines were done at each site. This was to help determine any

appreciable anisotropy in velocity.

In the coal mines, velocities were obtained for overburden

only. The thickness of the overburden and the seismic noise created

by heavy machinery nearby prevented acquiring accurate data to the

depth of the bedrock. Since the mine operated 24 hrs every day it was

impossible to perform a survey in the pit where overburden had been

stripped.

The limestone quarry was large enough to avoid the noise of

working machinery and still stay on bedrock. Therefore, it was

possible to do a set of seismic lines on each level of the quarry and

also on the overburden.

 64
a)

LLJ
2

2f
o:

9c
v=slope = ST

IMPACT STATION DISTANCE

Impact
Stations

«a••«<(•••

•First Arrival Signal FSths V3

Figure 27. a) Travel time graph used to determine seismic velocities.

b) Sketch of ray paths for 2 horizontal velocity boundaries.

 65

4.2.6 Rock Samples

Bulk rock samples were collected at each site. Samples were

chosen to represent the major rock units. These samples were used in

the Geomechanics Laboratory to determine density, uniaxial compressive

strength, tensile strength, and static elastic constants, as well as

the P-wave and S-wave velocities. It should be noted that the samples

are somewhat biased since the more intact rocks were chosen to avoid

breakage during shipping and for ease of drilling. Also, samples were

collected from the face when possible, but often had to be picked from

spoils.

4.3 Lab Work

Bulk rock samples were collected In the field and shipped to the

University of Arizona for testing in the Geomechanics Laboratory. The

mechanical properties of the rock can be used to help explain the

vibration properties of the mine. This information may also be used

at a later date in computer simulation of the blast vibration.

The properties tested were density, uniaxial compressive

strength, Brazilian tensile strength, static Young's Modulus and

Poissori's ratio, and the P-wave and S-wave velocities. The P-wave and

S-wave velocities can be used to calculate dynamic values of Young's

Modulus and Poisson's ratio if needed. Rocks gathered represent the

major geologic units at each site. The rocks tested were non-

fractured samples of the major rock units. Highly fractured rocks

would be very costly to ship and drill.

 66

Standard equipment was used for all tests. The P-wave and S-wave

velocities were determined using a pulse method which is briefly

described in the equipment section. Cores were drilled parallel and

perpendicular to bedding in order to note any anisotropic

characteristics.

Table 2 is an example of the rock properties for one site. The

two rock types tested are the major units and are of most concern to

the blaster. A table of the rock properties for each mine can be

found in the appropriate appendix (B through F) for each specific

mine.
 Table 2. Rock Properties from RK3

Rock Standard Number of

Property Mean Deviation Samples

White Limestone
Density 166.6 1.2 35
lb/ft
Compressive 14,000 5100 27
strength, psi
Tensile 1230 370 19
strength, psi
eSTATIC» p®1 11,7 * 1q6 1,1 * 1q6 6

vSTATIC 0*^° ,0* 6

P-wave velocity 23,820 4740 7

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 10,020 270 3
ft/sec

Black Limestone
Density 160.0 5.9 20
lb/ft3
Compressive 14,100 4900 14
strength, psi
Tensile 2,000 230 4
strength, psi
^STATIC® psi 9.6 x 10^ .4 x 10^ 2

VSTATIC 2

P-wave velocity 14,080 3030 4

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 4290 3150 2
ft/sec
 CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSIS

5.1 Rock Properties

Tables summarizing the physical properties of the rocks

considered in this study are given in Appendices B through F. Of

particular interest is the correlation between the high-strength,

high-velocity rocks and the areas associated with high vibration

levels (high peak particle velocity). Such an example is coal mine

RK6. The vibrations at this mine tend to be higher than average

(average as stated in RI 8507) and the white limestone "cap rock" at

this mine was found to have high compressive strength, modulus of

elasticity, and seismic velocity. This is discussed more in Section

5.3.2.

5.2 Shallow Seismic Refraction Survey

The data obtained from the shallow seismic refraction surveys are

presented in appendices B through F. Time versus distance is plotted

for each site. The scatter in the data is largely due to the seismic

noise created by working mine machinery. The velocity layers were

Interpreted and representative lines were drawn by eye. Apparent

velocities and time intercepts of each layer were entered in a

computer program to calculate the depth, dip, and true velocities of

each layer. The program is courtesy of Dr. Marc Sbar, Assistant

68
 69

Professor of Geophysics at the University of Arizona (personal

communication, 1982). The calculations are based on the equations for

computing the depths of n dipping layers as referenced in Mota, 1959.

Some of the sites on thick clay layers had a prominent second

arrival (see Figure 28). This was first believed to be the arrival of

a surface wave (the Rayleigh wave) which should have a velocity less

than half the velocity of the P wave. If the top layer was thin, the

surface wave velocity would include properties from the second

layer. In some cases (Figure 29) the velocity of the second arrival

wave was nearly equal to the P-wave velocity of the top layer. These

arrivals are probably from the internal reflection of the P-wave (see

Figure 30).

The seismic wave velocity may be used in the attenuation

equations used to predict the ground response (Section 3.2.2). The

surface wave velocity may be more appropriate than the velocity of the

P-wave for such calculations. The seismic velocity is also Important

as back-up information for analyzing the vibration propagation.

Data was analyzed keeping in mind that velocity was the major

subject of concern. Therefore, detailed analysis of the subsurface

structure was not performed.

The variation in velocity within the same site is due to the

inhomogeneous character of the rock. This is believed to account for

at least part of the scatter in the blast vibration data. For

example, at the limestone quarry the velocity varies from 1110 f/s on

the soil overburden near the edge of the pit (seismic line C-3,
 CM

O
O
o
o
CM

O
O
O
CD
CD
X
LJ
Li_i o
CO o
o
2Z CNJ

LlJ
2=
o
h- o
o
CO

o
o
o

o
o
o
o,
0.000 4.000 8.000 12.000 16.000 20 .000
DISTANCE: IN FEEKXIQI )

V1 - 1608 f/s, V2 - 8767 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer 0 0' - 31.I1; @ 200' » 27.0'

Figure 28. Seismic line RK6S-2, looking west. The second arrival has
a velocity of 935 f/s and Intercepts the origin. This Is
similar to the behavior of a surface wave. -I- Is from
forward shot; A reverse shot.
 71

o
a
CO

o
o
o
CM
o
X
<_>
LLJ
cn §
zz o
CO
~Z.
•—i

o
o
o

o
o
o
o.
0.000 4-000 8.000 12.000 16-000 20.000
DISTANCE IN FEETC X10 1 )

V1 - 1137 f/s; V2 - 6060 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' • 14'; @ 200' • 141

Figure 29. Seismic line RK6N-4, looking east. The velocity of the
second arrival is nearly the same as the P-wave of the
top layer. The second arrival is probably the internal
reflection of the P-wave. + is datum from the forward
shot; A is the reverse shot.
 72

Receiver
Source

LAYER I
Refraction LAYERS

r— Reflection

f-

OISTANCE

Figure 30. Schematic of the reflection and refraction of the F-wave

and the corresponding time-distance graph.
 73

Appendix F) to 8263 f/s on the more competent limestone (seismic line

C-2, Appendix F). Even In the same location, the velocity of blasted

rock on the surface, 1000 f/s, Is much different from the more solid

limestone at depth, 8263 f/s (line C-2, Appendix F). These local

variations affect the vibration propagation and can hamper any type of

prediction scheme. The scatter of data from the quarry can be seen in

the Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance plot shown

In Figure 31.

5.3 Propagation Equations

5.3.1 Square Root Scaling vs. Cube Root Scaling

The U.S. Bureau of Mines suggests the use of Square Root Scaled

Distance to predict ground motion. Their recommendation is based on

equations determined empirically from the statistical analysis of a

large amount of data. There are scientists who prefer cube root

scaling based on dimensional analysis (Hendron, 1977; Ambraseys and

Hendron, 1968). Others suggest that the scaling factor should be

determined for each site (Holmberg, personal communication, 1982).

To determine scaled distance propagation equations requires only

that the peak particle velocity, distance from the blast, and the

maximum weight of explosive per delay be known. A table of the peak

velocities for each blast is given In Appendix A. The table lists

each of the three ground components, vertical (V), radial (Hj) an(j

transverse (Hj), the maximum pounds of explosive per delay, and both

the Cube Root and the Square Root Scaled Distance. In most cases the

peak velocities were recorded from the digital read out on the
 74

seismograph at the time of the blast. When peaks were not recorded on

site they were determined from the digitized blast signature produced

in the lab.

Square root scaling and cube root scaling equations are the most

commonly used propagation equations. It is not clear which of these

is a better predictor of ground motion. Figures 31 and 32 show the

square root and cube root plots for the limestone quarry. Figures 33

and 34 are the square root and cube root scaling plots for all the

coal mines studied, combined.

The propagation equation determined is of the form:

v - k(D/Wa)n

where v - peak particle velocity, D - distance to the blast, W -

weight of explosive per 8 ms interval, k and n - site-specific

constants, and a - 1/2 square root scaling, 1/3 for cube root scaling,

or a site-specific constant. The site constants are determined from a

best fit line as shown in Figure 1. The equation of the line was

calculated using simple linear regression in the log domain. The

regression analysis was performed on a CYBER 175 computer using

routines from the SPSS Library (Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences) (Nie, et al., 1975).

The propagation equations and statistics corresponding to Figures

31 to 34 are listed in Table 3. The statistics given are the

correlation coefficient and the coefficient of variability. The

coefficient of variability is equal to the standard deviation of the

 75

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE

verticrl
rroirl
transverse

•+
+©\

u
UJ
to m

m
UJ

UJ
—I
o

i-s
10" 10*

square root scrleo oistrnce ft/lb"1

Figure 31. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for the limestone quarry. The mean of each component,
the mean of USBM data, and the upper 95-percent confidence
interval for the USBM data are shovm.
 76

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS CUBE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE

to1
VERTICAL O
RADIAL A
TRANSVERSE +

10"

+^+. V ff
4T

&

tlO"1
4
U
o

1
£
a.
+ O + \v

10-l #• «t-A0

101-3
100 10< 10* 10'
CUBE ROOT SCALED OISTANCE FT/LB 1/3

Figure 32. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Cube Root Scaled Distance for
the limestone quarry showing the mean for each component
of ground motion.
 PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE
VERTICflL

Ul OO
IS

+ ffi*
o-
•f

10* 10' to* 10*

SQUARE ROOT SCRLEO OlSTflNCE FT/LB1/1

Figure 33. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for all coal mines studied. The mean of each component,
the mean of the USMB data, and the upper 95-percent
confidence interval for the USBM data are shown.
 PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS CUBE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE

u
to

+ ©
4M-

OO

101 lot LO»

CUBE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE FT/LB w

Figure 34. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Cube Root Scaled Distance
for all coal mines studied showing the mean for each
component of ground motion.
 Table 3. Optimum Constants in Square Root and Cube Root Scaling Laws
by Means of Statistical (Least Square) Fitting

Coefficient of
Site and Correlation Variability Number
Component Equation Coefficient (Percent) of Samples

Quarry: Square Root Scaled Distance

Vertical v - 19.8 (D/W1/2)"1,36 .767 37.8 41
Radial v - 73.4 (D/W1/2)"1,75 .817 39.4 41
Transverse v » 16.9 (D/W1^2)-1*4® .675 43.2 41

Quarry: Cube Root Scaled Distance

Vertical v 91.6 (D/W1/3)-1*36 .771 37.5 41
Radial v 1 456.8 (D/W1/3)"1,73 .806 40.5 41
Transverse v 83.5 (D/W1/3)-1*41 .680 43.0 41

All Coal Mines: Square Root Scaled Distance

Vertical v - 85.9 (D/W1/2)~1,40 .704 82.1 65
Radial v - 89.6 (D/W1/2)"1,38 .780 71.2 65
Transverse v • 42.2 (D/W1/2)-1*25 .780 53.3 66

All Coal Mines: Cube Root Scaled Distance

Vertical v = 214 (D/W1^3)-1*32 .649 88.0 65
Radial v - 283 (D/W1/3)-1*35 .747 75.5 65
Transverse v- 122 (D/W1/3)-1*23 .748 56.4 66
vo
estimate divided by the mean value of the estimate. Dividing by the

mean value of the estimate normalizes the standard deviation and

allows comparison of different data sets. The correlation coefficient

is a measure of the degree of relationship between variables, 1.0

meaning perfect and 0.0 meaning no relationship.

From a visual comparison of Figures 31 to 34, It appears that

there is little difference in the two types of scaling. The spread of

the data is nearly the same for both. The statistics in Table 3

confirm this. The correlation and variability are changed only

slightly by the different scaling, indicating that both scaling laws

predict with the same degree of accuracy. Similar findings were also

noted by Hiss and Linehan (1978).

5.3.2 Site-Specific Propagation Equations

Propagation equations for each site were determined using SPSS

linear regression routines. The propagation equations were determined

using square root scaling since square root scaling Is used in the

proposed regulations and the data in this study do not show cube root

scaling to be any more accurate. The equations and associated

statistics are listed in Table 4. The site-specific plots of Peak

Particle Velocity vs. Square Soot Scaled Distance are in Appendices B

through F.

The distance used in scaled-distance calculations was generally

taken as the distance from the monitor location to the approximate

blast center. However, In the case of surface coal mine RK3 the

distance was measured from the seismograph to the closest holes

 Table 4. Propagation Equations for Specific Sites Using Square Root Scaling

Equation Coefficient of
Site and Correlation Variability Number
Component v - k(P/W1^2)n Coefficient (Percent) of Cases

Coal Mines:

RK6S Vertical v - 560 (D/W1/2)"1*63 .867 97.1 12

Radial v - 369 (D/W1/2)"1'5 .857 123.8 12

Transverse v - 395 (D/W1/2)"1,62 .866 59.1 12

RK6N Vertical v - 263 (D/W1/2)"1,62 .953 75.9 10

Radial v » 228 (D/W1/2)"1*55 .983 23.2 10

Transverse v - 153 (D/W1^2)"1,54 .971 22.3 10

RK3 Vertical v - 11.7 (D/W1^2)"0,79 .666 75.7 11

Radial v - 12.3 (D/W1/2)"0,77 .559 103.6 11

Transverse v - 6.7 (D/W1/2)"0*67 .666 47.7 12

WS14 Vertical v - 162 (D/W1^2)"1,71 .776 39.5 24

Radial v - 83 (D/W1^2)"1,47 .794 37.8 24

Transverse v » 50 (D/W1^2)"1,35 .776 36.8 24

 Table 4. Propagation Equations for Specific Sites Using Square Root Scaling (Continued)

Equation Coefficient of
Site and Correlation Variability Number
Component « k(P/W1/2)n Coefficient (Percent) of Cases

WS14 Parting Shots Only

Vertical v - 88 (D/W1^2)-1,55 .691 40.6 18

Radial v - 56 (D/W1/2)-1*38 .716 38.7 18

Transverse v - 27 (D/W1^2)"1,23 .673 37.7 18

WS16 Vertical v - 10 (D/W1^2)""0,97 .855 41.5 8

Radial v - 32 (D/W1^2)-1,21 .915 69.8 8

Transverse v - 31 (D/W1/2)"1*38 .854 45.5 8

Limestone Quarry:

Vertical v - 20 (D/W1/2)-1*36 .767 37.8 41

Radial v - 73 (D/W1/2)"1*75 .817 39.4 41

Transverse v - 17 (D/W1/2)"1,40 .675 43.2 41

shot. This was done because of the large size of the blasts. The

statistics improved greatly with this change. The distance to the

blast center is not nuch different than the distance to the closest

holes for most of the other blasts.

Surface coal mine WS14 used bench blasts and parting shots. The

parting shots were treated separately and the resulting statistics are

included in Table 4. The statistics did not improve by treating the

type of blast separately.

Some differences and similarities in the propagation equations

should be pointed out. Surface coal mines RK6N and RK6S are located

within 3 miles of each other and have similar geology. The

propagation equations are also similar, with vibrations at RK6S being

slightly higher. The higher vibrations in the south pit may be caused

by a limestone caprock which lies under 30 to 70 feet of soil

overburden. This rock unit was found to have a high modulus of

elasticity (E - 17.4 x 10^ psi) along with a relatively fast velocity

(P wave - 18,770 f/s; S wave - 15,480 f/s). See Table B-3 in Appendix

B for a listing of the properties determined in the Geomechanics

Laboratory for rocks sampled from Coal Mine RK6. Such properties

indicate that the rock would be a good conductor for vibrations and

could carry vibrations long distances.

In the south pit the soil overburden lies directly on top of the

limestone layer and the vibrations are transferred into the overburden

without any damping from intermediate, less competent rock layers.

Although the limestone bed is also present, and tends to be thicker in

 84

the vicinity of the north pit, the rock is generally deeper and is

commonly below layers of shale or sandstone which would dampen and

scatter the vibrations propagating to the surface. (Geologic

information is from drill logs obtained from the mine and available in

the Final Research Project Report to the Office of Surface Mining

Grant G 510 5010 and G511 5041 (Shoop and Daemen, 1982).) Also, the

horizontal blast holes are closer to the caprock and closer to the

surface in the southern pit. Any or all of these factors combined may

contribute to the higher vibrations in the southern pit.

The low intercept values for coal mine RK3 are due to the

unusually low slope (exponent) values and do not necessarily mean that

the vibrations at this mine are low. The low exponent values are

probably caused by a lack of data or, more specifically, a lack of

information for a large range of distances. Vibration values were

obtained for a range of scaled distances between 22 and 65 ft/lb*^.

With such a small spread in the data it is less likely to have good

correlation or a reliable propagation equation. This seems to be the

case with coal mine RK3.

5.3.3 Comparison with U.S Bureau of Mines Studies

The correlation coefficients listed in Table 4 indicate that

although there is a relationship between the peak particle velocity

and scaled distance, the statistical correlation is not particularly

good. The correlation is less than 0.9 for all but one mine and drops

as low as 0.559. The Bureau of Mines, however, consistently reports

correlation coefficients greater than 0.9. The very low values from
 85

RK3 are believed to be due to the narrow range of scaled distance (22

to 65 ft/lb*^) on which the propagation equations are based. The

other mines, however, have a much wider range and better correlation,

yet still lower than the coefficients quoted by the Bureau of Mines in

RI 8507 (Siskind et al., 1980) or by Hiss and Linehan (1978). There

appears to be no major difference in the seismographs used or

experimental procedure. The cause of the difference in correlation

coefficients is unknown.

The equation derived by the Bureau of Mines to represent the mean

propagation equation for coal mines is V • 133 (D/W*^)""**"* (Siskind

et al., 1980). The 95% confidence level, two standard deviations

above the mean regression, is V - 408 (D/W*^)-*'^ The lines

representing these equations are shown on each of the Peak Particle

Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance plots (Figures 31 and 33 and

the plots for each mine in Appendices B through F). These equations

are quoted in the proposed regulations by the Office of Surface Mining

(Office of Surface Mining, 1982). Although the data is for coal mines

it is often applied to other surface mines and even construction

blasting as well.

If this 95% confidence limit were to be used to regulate

blasting, the results would be reasonable for some mines, but for

others it would be either too conservative or too lenient. For

example, the limestone quarry (Figure 31) and surface coal mine WS16

(Figure 35) have mean propagation equations that are below the USBM

mean. If the USBM equation for the upper limit of vibrations were
 86

101

\ VERTICAL O
V— RADIAL A
-V TRANSVERSE +

UJ
CO
2
•—4

>~
1—
M
(_)
o
-J
UJ
>
UJ

~uj°.
.\
\ + \ y
£ •
0.
J£
cc
UJ
Q.

\ V \ \
\ \\
\ °\\ \

\ ^
\
+
10"i
L0> 10«

SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE l/ ^T/LB

Figure 35. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for Coal Mine WS16. Note that the vibrations are much
lower than the USBM upper limit. Regulations based on
the USBM upper limit would be too conservative in this
case.
used to regulate blasting the results would be extremely conservative

for these sites based on the data obtained. On the other hand, other

sites may have vibrations which are typically higher than the USBM

average (see Figure 36). Using the USBM upper limit to regulate

blasting in these mines would be lenient. Vibrations could be higher

than what the USBM limit predicts. This suggests that site-specific

regulations are justified, or that the option for site-specific

variations for the general rules would be highly desirable.

5.3.4 Scaling Factors: The Effect of the Weight of Explosives

Most mines tend to use nearly the same weight of explosive per

hole when performing the same type of blast. Therefore, the weight of

explosive per delay is often constant. A variety of different weights

per delay is needed to calculate the exact scaling factor of the

weight. Only normal production blasts were monitored, and no attempt

was made to have the mines vary their blasting weights for this

study. However, two of the six sites did change the charge weight

enough so that the propagation equations could Include its

influence. These were Coal Mine WS14 and the Limestone Quarry. The

weight scaling factor was also determined for the coal mines

cumulatively.

A multiple regression analysis was performed In the log domain to

determine the site-specific constants, k, a, and 3 of the equation

v • k D° W® (22)
 88

PERK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE

LJ
o
\
z

00

SQUfiSE ROOT SCALED Dl&TfiNCE FT/LB1,

Figure 36. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for Coal Mine RK6S. Note that some vibration levels are
higher than the USBM upper limit. Regulations based on
the USBM upper limit would be too lenient in this case.
 89

where v - peak particle velocity

D - distance

and V) - weight of explosive per 8 ms delay Interval

This equation Is easily manipulated to get the scaling factor of the

weight, a/8, and an equation of the form

v " k (^7e)0 • <">

The analysis was performed on the University of Arizona CYBER 175

computer using SPSS routines for multiple regression. The equations

calculated are listed in Table 5.

Even when the weight factor is determined specifically for the

site, the variability of the prediction is not improved (compare with

Tables 3 and 4). This is likely due to the variability in local

geology and blast parameters, especially Inaccurate delay times•

These factors will Inhibit predicting the vibrations with much

accuracy.

The weight scaling factors range from 0.34 to 0.91. They do not

tend to either 1/2 or 1/3 and therefore can not support square root or

cube root scaling. In fact, the exact value of the scaling factor

does not seem to be critical to the accuracy of predicting vibrations

using scaled distance.

 Table 5. Propagation Equations Including the Weight Scaling Factor

Coefficient of
Site and Correlation Variability Number
Component Equation Coefficient (Percent) of Cases

Limestone Quarry
Vertical v 70 (D/W36)"1*37 .771 38.0 41
Radial v 37 (D/W55)"1*75 .818 39.9 41
Transverse v 77 (D/W*34)"1,41 .680 43.5 41

Coal Mine WS14

Vertical v ;- 880 (D/W36)"1*79 .785 39.7 24
Radial v - 147 (D/W44)"1*50 .796 38.5 24
Transverse v - 21 (D/W60)"1*31 .779 37.4 24

All coal mines studied

Vertical v 3 (D/W91)"1*28 .751 77.0 65
Radial v 24 (D/W65)"1*33 .788 70.5 65
Transverse v 13 (D/W65)"1,21 .788 52.8 66

SO
o
 91
5.4 Evaluation of Time Histories and Frequency Spectra

Damage caused by ground vibration Is dependent on the amplitude

of the ground velocity and on the frequency of the ground motion.

Much frequency Information can be observed from the time history of

the blast. However, if information regarding the energy or,

specifically, the percentage of energy at certain frequencies is

needed then the spectral content of the blast is helpful. A frequency

spectrum is obtained by taking the Fourier Transform of the time

history. This converts the time domain signal to frequency domain.

The Fast Fourier Transform routine used in this study is documented In

Jong (1982, p. 264).

Recent studies and proposed regulations commonly refer to the

frequency of the ground motion. It is not totally clear, however,

what kind of frequency measurement is most closely related to

damage. The frequency of the peak velocity as measured off the time

history is generally not the same as the peak Fourier frequency from

the transformed data. The best method may be to relate damage to the

percent of energy within a certain frequency range.

It is reasonable to assume that the delay intervals used in blast

designs will have some effect on the frequency of the ground motion.

For example, if several holes went off at 17 ms Intervals then one

would expect a stress pulse to be generated every 17 ms. This would

cause a large amount of energy at a frequency of 1/(17 ms) or 59 Hz.

In actuality, the inaccuracies In delay firing times cause a great

deal of deviation from predicted frequencies. The relationship

 92

between the delays and frequency can be seen in several frequency

spectra, however.

Many of the frequency spectra from both the coal mines and the

quarry have a large peak near 60 Hz. This corresponds to a delay

Interval of 17 ms which was used between holes In many of the blasts

monitored. (Sketches of the blast designs are in Appendices B through

G). Unfortunately, this frequency also corresponds to common

electrical power. Figure 37 is the vibration at 2480 feet from a 68

hole blast designed with 42 and 17 ms delays. It is highly unlikely

that all 17 ms delays were so accurate as to cause such a sharp peak

at 60 Hz. (The accuracy of delay firing times is discussed in Winzer,

Furth and Ritter, 1979, and in Becker and Hay, 1982.) Some spectra,

however, show no peak at 60 Hz (Figure 38). Other spectra show more

energy at and around 60 Hz than could be accounted for by a pure 60 Hz

electrical signal (Figures 38 and 39). The 60 Hz signal is believed

to be caused by power lines and is present only when the seismograph

was near the high voltage lines used in many mines.

A similar, but smaller, peak often occurs at 190 Hz (Figure

37). This frequency does not relate to any of the delay intervals and

it may also be caused by digitizing or transforming the data.

Also observed in many spectra is the drop in amplitude at

approximately 60 and 124 Hz. This is at least partly due to the delay

intervals. The delay Intervals at all the mines were 17 ms or

greater, which corresponds to 60 Hz or less. Considering the

inaccuracy of the delay timing, most of the energy should be below 65

 93

amplitude AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
peak:0.054 in/sec

TRANSVERSE
peak: 0.054 in/
n/8ec

VERTICAL
peak:0.042 in/8ec

peakt 0.0035psi

•.so o.m o.» i.u i-m i-jd tm i.« tm

1

amplitude (percent) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

RADIAL
PERK:0.003 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PEAKt 0.003 IN/81 C

VERTICAL
PEAKt 0.003 IN/SEC

uo L^kJIlAyJLAMUHb^WIki^^
•1 HIULi.

o.oo ikjn )i* «4t ia.M m lia-at ».« w.n m.n m.11
Distance * 2480 ft.

Figure 37. Blast WS14-1. Note the sharp peaks in the Fourier
spectrum at 60 Hz and 190 Hz.
 94

amplitude AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
PEAKi 0.996 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PEAK: 1.004 IN/SEC
IN>

VERTICAL
PEAK:0.967 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PEAK:0.01S6PS1

o.oo o.«o >40 t.n c.oo c.ao 1.00 ijd <-oo «.*> i.oo
BLAST s. RK6N 3 T1ME ,8EC'
POSITION:B

AHPLITUOE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

100
RADIAL
PEAKS 0.020 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PEAKS 0.015 IN/SEC
IN-

VERTICAL
PEAK I 0.017 IN/SEC

too
ic AIRBLAST
PEAK-.0.0004PSI

0.00 l»M t imjo im.m ta-m nt-m ua.n

FREOUENCY (HZ)
riONtBRK6N 3
Piigffr Distance • N/A

Figure 38. Record RK6N—3b. The concentration of energy near 60 Hz

could be caused by the 17 ms delays.
 MTLITUOe AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD
RADIAL
PEAKi 0.416 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PERK:0.427 IN>
N/8EC
^iii

VERTICAL
PEAK10.496 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PERK i 0.01S8P8I

0-00 040 0.40 •40 040 1-00 I4D I>40 |« 140 140
Tift (SEC)
fioN. r 8 1
6

flffLITVJOE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

PERK:o!"024 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
| ( PERK>0.015 IN/SEC

!w/l
VERTICAL
I PERKi 0.026 IN/8EC

too Ail
AIRBLAST
PERKi 0.0003

0.00 n hji uo-a

Distance - 1315 ft,

Figure 39. Record RK6S-1B, showing a concentration of energy near

60 Hz on the transverse component of motion.
 96

Hz. Blasts are usually designed so that no holes are fired within 8

ins of each other. Eight milliseconds corresponds to 125 Hz. The

number of holes firing between 8 and 17 ms is less than the number of

intervals of 17 ms or gerater. This explains why the energy is

greatest from 0 to 60 Hz and less from 60 to 125 Hz. Since blasts are

designed so that no holes fire within any 8 ms there should be very

little vibration energy greater than 125 Hz. See Figure 40.

The mathematical relationship between the Fourier amplitude of

the frequency spectrum and the delay interval Is derived in Hiss and

Linehan (1978, Vol. Ill, pages 147-157). The amplitude of the

spectrum is described as

n 2 n 2
[E cos nut ] + [E sin nut ]
An(u) - I 5 ! 9 1 (W)

(b)4 + 2(b)2 11 + (f)2] + 11 " (b)Zl2

where u * angular frequency, n - the number of delay intervals, and

tQ ™ the time of the delay Interval. The vibration produced by the

n**1 delay is defined as

f(t) - e~a(t " nt0> sin b(t - ntQ) ntQ < t < • (25)

and f(t) - 0 t < ntQ . (26)

Equation 24 is the same as the equation describing the Fourier

amplitude for a single hole blast except for the numerator. The

numerator, call it M, causes a modulation of the Fourier amplitude

 97

RHPLITUDE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
PEAKS 0.592 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
, . j| i. . , PEAK» 0.467 IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PEflKi0.8U IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PERK:0.0154PSI

0.00
TIME (SECI
nsffion.r3

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

too
RADIAL
PERKs 0.010 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PEAK* 0.007 IN/5EC

VERTICAL
PEAK>0.008 IN/SEC

gsm™

VJI W-M Ut-M IXJt IM-tl 17*40 II

FREQUENCY (HZ)
Distance • 620 ft

Figure 40. Record RK3-3b. The drop in the Fourier amplitude at 60 Hz

and at 125 Hz may be related to the 17 ms and 8 ms
intervals in the blast design.
which is associated witht the delay time. The modulation term is at a

maximum when utQ - 2kir, where k is zero or an integer. Since oi - 2irf,

these maxima occur when f/f^ - k, where • 1/tg. This means that

the Fourier spectrum is modulated at the delay frequency and its

harmonics (Wiss and Linehan, 1978). Figure 41 illustrates the

modulation effect for 0 (Mq) to 4 (M^) delays of the same time

interval.

The modulation effect may contribute to the appearance of the

frequency spectrum in Figures 40 and 43. Note that the peaks at 60 Hz

are repeated at 120 Hz and 180 Hz. This is in agreement with the

amplification of the spectrum at frequencies and harmonic frequencies

associated with the delay interval. The phenomenon is more easily

seen in the records from the large blasts at coal mine RK3, especially

blast RK3-3, which had 458 holes and more than 350 17-ms delays

(Figure 40).

The Bureau of Mines states that coal mine blasts generally have

predominant frequencies less than 40 Hz (RI 8507 and 8506, see Figure

3). Most of the shots monitored had predominant frequencies in this

range but many also had a considerable amount of energy at higher

frequencies and some had peak-Fourier frequencies greater than 40

Hz. Coal mine RK6 had vibrations with some high frequency energy,

typically between 80 and 125 Hz, even at large distances. Figure 42

shows the vibrations 950 feet from the blast with energy up to 125

Hz. Figure 43 shows vibrations 1705 feet from the blast, with the

largest amplitudes greater than 40 Hz and peaks up to 125 Hz. Figure

 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
f/f
d

Figure 41. Modulation effects of the Fourier spectrum as a function of the number of delay
Intervals (after Wlss and Llnehan, 1978).
 100

RNPLITUOE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

888!fc450 IN/8EC

EflK:0.254 IN/8EC

VERTICAL
PEAKi 0.367 IN/8EC

AIRBLAST
PERK10.0107P8I
^ T'

040 0.» 0.40 040 040 1.10 140 141 144 (4V C40
f!0N,g 3
K6S

WTLITUOE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

RSSfSh009 IN/8EC

*0.006 IN/5EC

VERTICAL
PEflK» 0.007 IN/SEC

FREQUENCY (HE)
Distance - 950 ft.

Figure 42. Record RK6S-3B showing peak Fourier amplitude at 50 Hz

on the radial and transverse components and energy up
to 125 Hz on all channels.
 101

AfPLITUOE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

HI.%603 IN/8CC

TRANSVERSE
PEAKi 0.317 IN/SEC
IN/

VERTICAL
PEAK:0.520 IN/SEC

mm srsi

r
0.00 0.00 0.K 0.10 t.04 1.10 |J i.ot t.n 0.04 f.oo
TIME (8EC)
ft§?f!oN.8 4
K6S

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

100
RADIAL
PEAK:0.021 IN/SEC

JALW^ A«i.<»wA/AMuw^in<A<rfAfc.
TRANSVERSE
PEAKi 0.009 IN/!

VERTICAL
PEAK»0.013 IN/SEC

too

. - PEAK 15.0001P8I

ji to.oo mm .o
iw I.TO iOi.7? 170.74 100.71
FREQUENCY (HZ)
Distance « 1705 ft.

Figure 43. Record RK6S-4B. The frequency spectrum shows peak

frequencies greater than 40 Hz and large amplitudes up
to 125 Hz. The modulation effect from the delays can
also be seen.
 102

44 Is 2860 feet from the blast and still shows considerable energy at

high frequencies.

The decay of high frequencies with distance, as expected

theoretically, can be seen in several of the blast records. A good

example of this can be seen by comparing Figures 45, 46 and 47, which

show the same blast (WS14-2) monitored at 425 feet, 725 feet, and 1020

feet.

The level of blast vibrations is dependent not only on the

distance and blast parameters, but also on the geology and pit

geometry between the blast and the monitor. Some Interesting

observations of these effects deserve mention. Occasionally,

vibration levels did not decrease with distance. This can be seen

from the peak velocities and distances recorded in Appendix A. An

example is blast RK6S-4, in which the peak readings at 1705 feet are

greater than the peaks at 1520 feet. In other blasts some vibration

components decrease while others increase. This was the case in blast

RK6N-2 where the vertical component increased between 2030 feet and

2750 feet while the radial and transverse components decreased.

Blasts C-3 and C-4 at the limestone quarry were monitored at the

same locations. Seismograph position A was on the rock surface on a

bench near the edge of the pit. Position B was on the overburden at

the pit perimeter above location A. Location C was also on the

overburden and was farther from the blast than B (see Figure 48).

Figures 49 and 50 show the vibrations at position A and position B.

The vibrations at location B were higher than at location A for both

 103

AMPLITUDE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
PERK J 0-3
319 IN/SEC
~ » ii I_^Vi *

ERKt 0.276 IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PERK:0.358 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
pew i o.osb:i3p8i

0-00 040 0.40 MO «.«0 t-00 |JD 140 140 l« IJO

TINE ISEC)
PbsffioN»8K6N 4

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

IAL _
erk> 0.015 IN/Sft

TRANSVERSE
PERKt o.oio IN-

VERTICAL
PERK:0.017 IN/80C

AIRBLAST
PERKt 0.0004

u* 1.71 -M.M M4I Ita.l N IM.I7 IT0.*> IH.H

FREQUENCY (HE)
fioN,^4 Distance - 2860 ft.

Figure 44. Record RK6N-4B showing energy at 60 and 120 Hz even at

a large distance from the blast. Also note the spikes
at 190 Hz, cause unknown.
 104

RflPLITUOE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

BPDIHL
ran *0.734 IN/MC
i

ffiffiSnU.
— -^p —

VERTICAL
PEAK:0.886 IN/8EC
<#>•

AIRBLAST
0062PSI
PERK i 0.006!
~*44\

0.00 o.(i o.oo I.* 140 141 IJO I.K 140 (41 (.10
BT* HS14 2 TIME (SEC)
OSITIONiR

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

too
n ERKs 0.014 IN/SEC
to

«V TRANSVERSE
PERK< 0.009 IN/8EC

VERTICAL
J PERKi 0.011 IN/SEC

i /iJiu-A/
l
AIRBLAST
PERK!0.0006P8I

0.00 IS47 *4* 0041 JO 40 11040 M0.70 tOO.TV HO.M U0.1I

FREQUENCY (In)
mien#14 2 Distance » 425 ft.

Figure 45. Blast WS14-2 monitored at 425 feet. The high frequency
of the vibration can be seen in the Time History and
the Frequency Spectrum.
 105

MTLITUOe AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

EflKJ 0*560 IN/8CC

PEAK«0.492 IN/SCC

VERTICAL
PEAK:0.512 IN/SEC
-^)j^VWVVv^

AIRBLAST
PEAK« 0.00S0P8I

0.00 040 040 0A 140 t-n t.io t.40 «.» 140

TIME (SCO
ioN.g814

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT)
ISO
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM
0.012 IN/SCC

iwwnllJi
TRANSVERSE
PEAK:0.017IN

PV./1
VERTICAL
PERK<0.005 IN/SCC

MO AjJKJ*
AIRBLAST
PEAKi 0.0005P8I

FREQUENCY (HZI
mi™?14 Distance - 725 ft.

Figure 46. Blast WS14-2 monitored at 725 feet. Some of the high
frequency energy has dissipated. Also notice the
formation of a low frequency tail.
 106

SHPLITUOE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
PEAK*. C.396 IN/SEC
•^W\A/v\A^

TRANSVERSE
PEW:C.334 IN/SEC
-vtotyVvWVv^^

VERTICAL
PERK*.0.232 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PERK-. C.C133PSl

0 00 0.4C OTO 1.20 t.60 t.00 8.40 f.00 3.20 3 60 4 00

BLAST: KS14 2 TlME ,SEC'
POSITION:C

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

too
RADIAL
PEW:C.022 IN/SEC

/i A>^. -f*L^ <y ~ .

TRANSVERSE
PEW:C.C1S IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PEW:0.006 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PEW:C.0004PS!

o.ce w.fj M.N »ti it .eg m.m nt.i: P9.7* im.ii t«*.7i
BLAST: NSM 2 FREQUENCY tHZ)
POSITION:C Distance * 1020 ft

Figure 47. Blast WS14-2c. Most of the energy is less than 60 Hz and
is caused by the low frequency tail.
 Blasts C-3 and C-4 - Looking north north-west 200 400

Scale in Feet

Figure 48. Cross-section view of blasts C-3 and C-4 showing relative elevations of the
blasts and monitor locations.
 108

RMPLITUOE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
PEflKt 0.17S 1N/8EC

mem* «

VERTICAL
PEflKt 0.233 IN/SEC

RIRBLAST
PEflKt 0.0084P8I

TI* (8EC)
Pfegffiwr™4

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT)
too ,
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM
1> RADIAL
PEAK J 0.019 IN/SEC

-**WU
TRANSVERSE
PEflKt 0.011 IN/
[N/8EC

^•Ju> .Ar^ii
VERTICAL
PEflKt 0.024 IN/SEC

100 A*—. . _a._. An

AIRBLAST
PEflKt 0.0007P81

ii r*1"*! i<i
M-77 1>.M it<01 1M.ST
FREQUENCY (HZ)
Distance » 1005 ft

Figure 49. Quarry blast C-4, monitored on a bench near the edge of
the pit.
 109

AMPLITUDE RMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RAOIAL
PEflKt 0.970 IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PEflK:0-290 IN/SEC

PEflKt0.0051P8I

0.00 ••(0 140 !•« 140 140 (40

Y4 TIME (SECJ

RhPLITUOE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

100
028 IN/SEC

~ - -' JWAJuj
TRANSVERSE
PEflKt 5.019 I*
IN/SEC

rA«/Vt*i
VERTICAL
PEAKi 0.022 IN/SEC

MBMH.P81

PUR!on,*™ Distance • 1100 ft.

Figure 50. Blast C-4, position B on the soil overburden above position
A. The low frequency vibrations are magnified by the soil.
 110

blasts C-3 and C-4, suggesting that the vibrations propagating through

the rock were magnified by the soil overburden. This agrees with

theory In that soil magnifies the lower frequencies of vibrations

which are close to the resonance frequency of soil.

The pit geometry also had some Interesting effects on vibration

measurements, as observed in blast C-7. Monitor locations were both

behind the blast and across the pit, as shown in Figure 51. Position

B was 810 feet behind the blast and position C was across the pit, 990

feet from the blast. Smaller vibrations were expected at C because of

the greater distance and because of the scattering of the waves by the

pit walls; however, this was not the case. The peak velocities of the

radial and vertical component were larger at C than at position B. By

comparing the time histories at locations B and C in Figures 52 and 53

one can see that the waveforms at position C are more complicated.

This is partly due to the complicated travel path.

The vibrations at each mine tend to have site-specific

characteristics. For example, the blasts at the limestone quarry

typically generate high-frequency vibrations followed by a high-

particle velocity, low-frequency tail. The frequency spectra show

that the predominant frequencies are generally less than 30 Hz (see

Figure 52). The vibrations recorded at coal mine RK6 had more energy

at high frequencies, up to 120 Hz, and a better frequency distribution

in the transform (Figure A3). The high frequencies were present even

at distances greater than 2500 feet (Figures 44 and 54). At coal mine

RK6N the peak velocity was always the vertical component and at WS16
FEET
200i
100 d c a b
JL JL Blast JL J.

Blast C-7 - Looking north-west

200 400

Scale in Feet

Figure 51. Cross-section view of blast C-7 showing the configuration of the pit «nH
the monitor locations.
 112

amplitude AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
PEAKi o.J280 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PEAK:0.312 IN/
N/8EC

VERTICAL
PEAK<0.293 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PEAKi 0.0141
0148PSI

0.00 040 0.40 040 O.n 140 14 140 140 ' 140 <40

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

too
RADIAL
PEAK:0.025 IN/8EC

•iW(lii<WlVlilli«l II I
TRANSVERSE N/8EC
PEAK:0.023 IN>

fc.dli. llillVlli llfllftl

VERTICAL
PEAKi 0.025 IN/8EC

1 m i M n n n f t W i•
AIRBLAST
PEAKiO.OOi:
13P8I

— - •- Jattim
040 1041 1044 •0.7V W 4 0 M 4J41 lit41 l»-44 IM.17 riO.SO IM-t4
FREOUENCY (HE)
s%§?JioN,r«v 7 Distance • 810 ft.

Figure 52. Quarry blast C-7 at position B, 810 feet behind the
blast.
 113

amplitude AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RROIRL
PEAK* 0.389 1N/8EC

'EflK:0.185 IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PERKi 0.320 IN/SEC

RIRBLRST
PEHKs 0.0120P8I

••40 s.« 140 1*40

IRY 7 TIME (8EC)

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT)
tm
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM
IV RRDIRL
PEAK:0.035 IN/SEC
to
« .
o *\AJ V»LA/ W.w. .. /v. ^ _ --
TRRNSVERSE
PEAK* 0.011 IN/SEC
Ml
Jlw*
VERTICAL
PEAK>0.024 IN/8EC

J|
100 ,
is .
•0 .

00 ,

•
0*00 10-Ot 00*71 10.00 00.01 liMI .40
1SI 100.ff 00
IW. U
BUgSTt QUARRY 7 FREQUENCY (HZ)
POSITION!c Distance • 990 feet

Figure 53. Blast C-7, position C, across the pit from the blast. '
The vibrations here are higher than at position B, even
though position B is closer and on a more direct wave path.
 114

amplitude AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

TRANSVERSE N/SEC
PEflKs 0.166lN>

VERTICAL
PEAK< 0.443 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PERKt 0.005SPS!

o.oo o.x o.io 1.40 t.w i.to t.m i* s.io i«

TIME (SEC)
floN.?"" 4

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

too
TRANSVERSE
PERK:0.006 IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PERKt 0.009 IN/SEC

100
AIRBLAST
PEflKs 0.0003P6I

o.x io4i M-ai 7i.m 00.00 ito.ot u».T» too.71 m.i« uo.ti
BiasTt RKSN 4 FREQUENCY (HZ) n<?n/% f
PosftioNiC Distance - 2590 ft

Figure 54. Record RK6N—4c. High frequencies are present even at a

large distance from the blast.
 115

the radial component was always largest. The peak component was not

consistent at the other mines.

The blasts monitored at RK3 consisted of up to 458 holes and

created vibrations which sometimes lasted longer than 6 seconds.

Blasts 1 and 2 are of the same blast design and monitor locations.

Blasts 3 and 4 are of the same design and monitor locations. Blast 1

had 415 holes and blast 2 had 25. The energy is distributed over many

frequencies in blast 1 while most of the vibration energy from blast 2

was less than 30 Hz (Figures 55 and 56). The change in frequency

content was not so drastic in blasts 3 and 4, but was still

noticeable. (Blast 3 had 458 holes and blast 4 had 35 holes.) In

fact, there is a strong similarity in the spectra of blasts 3 and 4 as

can be seen in Figures 57 and 58. In both cases the blasts with more -

holes created more high frequency vibrations than the same blast

design using fewer holes. This phenomenon was most prominent in the

transverse component and could be seen to a lesser extent in the

vertical and radial directions. The same change in frequency was

observed in the other eight records from these blasts.

 116

AMPLITUDE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
PEAKS 0.761 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PEAK:0.894 IN/SEC

VERTICAL
PEAK: 1.046 IN/SEC
W|M4|

AIRBLAST
PEflKi 0.0072PSI

O.W O.M 1.04 t.Oi t.<0 l.lt M4 4.M 4.N (.to

TIME (SEC)
MRUF3 1
RflPLITUOE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM
too
RHOIHL
PEflKt 0.015 1M/SCC

TRANSVERSE
PEfiKt 0*011 IN/SEC

H .UwiUdulkij
VERTICAL
PERKt 0.009 IN/SEC

too » AIRBLAST ,
PEAK»0.0005PSI

a •• >- - -r*rt» ni^im^rt rri ifin pit

0.00 M.M MXl U.M It.tJ MJI ita.oo m.N im.M m.ti IM>«
8Lfi§l!0NiRK3 t FREOOENCr (HZ)
Distance « 790 ft

Figure 55. Blast RK3-1, 415 holes. The energy is distributed over a
wide range of frequencies.
 117

RtTLITUOE AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

858 IN/3CC

TRANSVERSE
PEAKt 0.416 IN/
N/SEC

VERTICAL
PEflK j0.501 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PEflKi 0.0065P81

0« O-tl •« OH |« l« 1-47 im |« (.10

BLfiSTi RKS 2 «* ,8CC1
POSITION!C

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

EflKt 0.037 IN/SEC

Aaa
TRANSVERSE
PEAKi 0.017 IN/8EC
IN/

VERTICAL
PEAKi 0.010 IN/SdC

too
AIRBLAST
PEflK* 0.0003P8I

ka i - *i mi ii- i m ii «
>40 IMI »4 m-h iu4t ia.« ».n im .1I
FREQUENCY (HZ)
fioN .r3 2 Distance = 890 ft.

Figure 56. Record RK3-2C. The same blast desfgn and monitor location
as record RK3-1C, but only 25 holes were shot. The
vibrations have a lower frequency content.
 118

ahplituoe AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RAOIAL
PEAK:0.592 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
ii J i ,n , j PEAKs 0.467 IN/SEC
—

VERTICAL
PEAK:0.811 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PEAK:0.0154PSI

0.00 0.M I.N (.«! a.M 4.H I.M I4S ?.K (41 (.1

BLASTs RK3 3 TIME (SEC)

POSITIONSB

AMPLITUDE (PERCENT) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

too
RADIAL
PEAKS 0.010 IN/SEC

TRANSVERSE
PEAKS 0.007 IN/SEC

ji
VERTICAL
PEAK:0.008 IN/SEC

AIRBLAST
PEAK:0.000IPSI

o.oo ia.w »•*! Tf.M MM 11(43 IJi.K IMIl 17(40 IWM

BLASTS KK3 3 FREQUENCY (HZ)
POSITION:B Distance - 620 ft
Figure 57. Record BK3-3b, 458 holes.
 119

amplitude AMPLITUDE-TIME RECORD

RADIAL
perk<0.543 in/sec

fSSMl
n/sec

VERTICAL
perk: 0.s60 in/sec

AIRBLAST
PERK: 0.0049psi

0.00 040 1.10 1.1 t-to t.i» ».» ».m 4.40 4.1 f.H
t_sti rk3 4 tike (sec)
position:b

ruplituoe (percent) FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

too
RADIAL
peak: 0.012 in/sec

I tjluA j/U^ivMUvKAMhUMl -
TRANSVERSE
perk: 0.023 in/
n/sec

i&jAkii .Ibi —*«"

VERTICAL
perk: 0.009 in/sec

i/wvjArtAJvftAMllMUta
AIRBLAST
perk: 0.0001 p6i

frequency (hz)
Pbgffh-8"4 Distance • 715 ft

Figure 58. Record RK3—4b; same blast design and monitor location as
RK3-3b (Fig. 57), but only 35 holes. Note the spectra are
similar but there are less high frequencies here.
 CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

6.1 Summary

Ground vibrations from surface mine blasting may cause structural

damage and human annoyance. Legal restrictions on vibrations are in

terms of the peak particle velocity of ground movement or a scaled

distance measurement which is used as a predictor of ground motion.

Recently, the frequency of the vibration and the condition of the

structures involved have been considered.

In 1980 the U.S. Bureau of Mines published RI 8507 which

recommended new and stricter limits on ground vibration (Siskind et

al., 1980). The USBM recommendations were included in the Office of

Surface Mining proposed rules In January, 1981. These regulations

were withdrawn, rewritten and again proposed in March 1982. The new

regulations give increased responsibility to the operator, blasters

and the blast vibrations experts. Several options are allowed

including the consideration of site characteristics in determining the

vibration limits.

Regulations proposed by the Office of Surface Mining are based on

Peak Particle Velocity and Scaled Distance. The merit of these

parameters is debated in the explosives industry. Research is needed

to determine more reliable predictors of ground motion and to develop

120
 121

standards acceptable to Industry. Good field studies are the first

step in gathering data for research analysis.

Thirty-seven blasts were monitored at four surface coal mines and

one limestone quarry during the summer of 1981. A total of 114 blast

vibration records were collected using three or four seismographs at

each blast. Particle velocities in three perpendicular directions

were recorded. Additional Information gathered at each site Includes

shallow seismic refraction data, rock samples for laboratory testing

of the mechanical properties of the rock, blast parameters for each

blast and geologic information. Data analysis consisted of a study of

the different scaled distance equations, site-specific propagation

laws, and spectral content of the vibration. The results of this

study were compared with other research.

Statistical analysis of the data shows that the three scaling

laws tested, square root scaling, cube root scaling, and site-specific

scaling factors, each predicted ground motion with nearly the same

(low) degree of reliability. This is likely due to the spread in the

data caused by variations in blasting and geology within one site

and/or the inaccurate timing of the delays used. Although most

regulations limiting ground vibrations are based on square root scaled

distance, the results of this study suggest that all equations have

comparable prediction reliability and therefore there is no basis to

suggest that one scaling law is any better (or worse) than the

others. It should also be noted that the correlation between scaled

distance and peak particle velocity recorded In this study is lower

 122

than the correlation coefficients reported by Siskind et al. (1980)

and w18s and Llnehan (1978).

Even with the considerable spread In the data, an upper limit can

be defined and used to restrict vibrations. For some mines In this

study (RK6, for example) the upper limit of vibrations appears to be

considerably higher than the upper limit based on U.S. Bureau of Mines

data; for other mines (WS16 and the limestone quarry) the upper limit

is lower than.that established by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. For these

mines, site-specific regulations appear to be more reasonable.

The frequency spectrum of each record was obtained by using a

Fast Fourier Transform on the digitized time history. The predominant

frequencies were generally in the range of 0 to 50 Hz. This is in

accordance with the observations reported for other blasts by the

Bureau of Mines in RI 8507. Several of the transforms, however,

showed peaks above 50 Hz and/or a significant amount of energy at

higher frequencies, up to 130 Hz. These high frequencies are likely

to be of more significance for annoyance rather than for actual

damage. Also apparent in many of the blast records is the decay of

high frequencies with distance as is expected theoretically.

A relationship between the frequency content and the delay

intervals could be seen In several of the records. Figures 38 and 40

are examples. The vibration energy tended to be concentrated at

frequencies corresponding to the time Intervals between holes. The

relationship between the delay Intervals and the frequency spectrum is

described mathematically in Wiss and Llnehan (1978, Vol. Ill, pp. 147-
 123

157). The equation derived (Equation 24 in this text) shows that the

amplitude of the Fourier transform (frequency spectrum) is amplified

at frequencies and harmonic frequencies corresponding to the delay

interval. This phenomenon was somewhat muddled by the inaccuracy of

the delay firing times. In many blasts, however, no correlation was

seen.

Sharp spikes at 60 Hz and/or 190 Hz were observed in many of the

records. The 60 Hz signal is possibly caused by the high voltage

power cables used at the mines. The cause of the 190 Hz signal is

unknown.

6.2 Recommendations

Further field studies should concentrate on closer evaluation of

the propagation laws and particularly on defining the effect of the

weight of explosive on the vibration level. A thorough study at one

site would reduce the number of variables and enable the researcher to

characterize different types of blasts or geology and manipulate the

data with better control of the variables. It would be helpful to use

a sequential blasting machine so that the scaling laws can be judged

without the disadvantage of Inaccurate delays which may cause

vibrations to be higher than expected. Alternatively, the actual

detonation times could be recorded by means of time-switches in the

holes or by means of high-speed cameras.

Continued analysis of the data already compiled could include

development of equations for predicting the propagation of the

different types of waves generated by the blast. The type of wave can
 124
be Identified by its arrival in the time history and by tracing the

particle trajectory. The particle motion is different for each type

of seismic wave. Of particular interest is the Rayleigh wave which is

suspected to carry the most energy for the greatest distance. Also,

the scatter in the Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled

Distance plots might be reduced by plotting the peaks from the P-wave

and peaks from the Rayleigh wave separately. This should eliminate

any scatter caused by the different propagation characteristics of

different wave types.

The ground motion spectrum can be predicted and related to

structural response using the method derived by Hendron and discussed

in Section 3.2.2 (Hendron, 1977). A trapezoidal ground motion

spectrum is plotted using equations describing the attenuation of the

ground particle displacement, velocity and acceleration. The

structural response is calculated by multiplying the appropriate

sections of the ground response by amplification factors related to

the type of structure.

The frequency spectrum can be predicted from delay intervals

using a procedure proposed by Winzer, Anderson and Ritter (1981). The

number of occurrences of a delay interval is multiplied by the square

of the frequency corresponding to that delay. The results are plotted

as a histogram and can be compared with the frequency spectra obtained

by using a fourler transform on the time history of the vibration.

 APPENDIX A

TABLES OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VALUES

Tables A-l through A-6 list the Peak Particle Velocities for each

of the three ground components, vertical (V), radial (Hj) and

transverse (H2), the maximum pounds of explosive per 8 ms interval,

the distance and bearing from the blast to the monitor location, and

both the Cube Root and Square Root Scaled Distances. The peaks are

the values displayed on the digital readout on the seismograph. In

cases where this was not possible, the peaks were obtained from the

digitized vibration time history. The record number corresponds to

the blast. The letter corresponds to the seismograph used and the

monitor location as marked on the map for each mine. Seismographs

'a', 'b', and 'c' were Dallas Instruments SM-4 serial number 1805-5,

1805-6, and 1805-7, respectively. Seismograph 'd' was a Safeguard II

unit borrowed from the operators at the limestone quarry.

125
 Table A-l. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal Mine RK6N

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing V H2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

la 265 178 9.53 6.69 5.69 9 29 800

2a 840 118 2.05 1.12 0.52 30 90 800
2b 2030 104 0.50 0.44 0.17 72 219 800
2c 2750 100 0.76 0.21 0.11 97 296 800
*3a N/A N/A 7.79 3.51 3.61 N/A N/A 800
*3b N/A N/A 2.78 1.39 1.18 N/A N/A 800
*3c N/A N/A 3.84 2.17 2.13 N/A N/A 800
4a 2180 58 0.37 0.27 0.28 77 235 800
4b 2860 40 0.23 0.12 0.10 101 308 800
4c 2590 44 0.45 0.22 0.15 92 279 800
5a 2300 56 0.41 0.28 0.28 81 248 800
5b 2960 38 0.18 0.12 0.10 105 319 800
5c 2715 42 0.32 0.21 0.14 96 292 800

* Not included in statistics.

 Table A-2. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal Mine RK6S

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing V Hj Hj Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

la 940 66 0.59 0.61 0.41 66 161 200

lb 1315 68 0.30 0.33 0.36 93 225 200
lc 1620 71 0.43 0.52 0.35 115 277 200
2a 347 41 4.56 3.78 2.75 25 59 200
2b 685 86 0.69 0.67 0.59 48 117 200
2c 1020 85 0.31 0.35 0.33 72 174 200
3a 535 66 1.43 2.05 1.30 38 91 200
3b 950 90 0.31 0.42 0.22 67 162 200
3c 1280 88 0.22 0.24 0.10 91 218 200
4a 568 23 2.30 2.44 1.25 40 97 200
4b 1705 19 0.48 0.51 0.27 121 292 200
4c 1520 17 0.29 0.42 0.17 107 260 200
 Table A-3. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal Mine RK3

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing V Hj H2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

la 750 29 — .86 .64 36 100 425

lb 1230 66 .60 .54 .53 60 164 425
lc 790 58 1.05 .76 .89 38 105 425
2a 825 54 .49 .59 .43 40 110 425
2b 1340 100 .48 .66 .46 65 178 425
2c 890 108 .50 .86 .42 43 118 425
3a 710 71 .45 .88 .67 34 94 425
3b 620 46 .81 .59 .47 30 82 425
3c 460 27 1.04 - 1.00 22 61 425
4a 910 120 .54 .46 .47 44 121 425
4b 715 92 .56 .54 .60 35 95 425
4c 510 61 1.39 1.87 .94 25 68 425
 Table A-4. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal Mine WS14

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing V H1 H2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

la 1990 280 0.03 0.03 0.03 178 398 125

lb 2180 279 0.01 0.02 0.03 195 436 125
lc 2480 278 0.04 0.05 0.05 222 496 125
2a 425 8 0.89 0.73 0.94 20 55 450
2b 725 5 0.44 0.56 0.51 34 95 450
2c 1020 2 0.23 0.40 0.33 48 133 450
3a 920 290 0.05 0.07 0.06 82 184 125
3b 1060 305 0.13 0.27 0.20 95 212 125
3c 1250 316 0.12 0.13 0.13 112 250 125
4a 1060 13 0.33 0.45 0.40 47 134 500
4b 1800 5 0.07 0.11 0.17 80 227 500
4c 3040 5 0.01 0.03 0.06 136 383 500
Sa 780 340 0.22 0.31 0.22 78 168 100
5b 1250 337 0.04 0.07 0.04 125 269 100
5c 1810 343 0.01 0.02 0.04 181 390 100

M
N3
\o
 Table A-4. Table of Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal Mine US14 (Continued)

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing V Hj H2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

6a 560 317 0.23 0.31 0.33 56 121 100

6b 440 12 0.44 0.35 0.41 44 95 100
6c 730 56 0.62 0.65 0.52 73 157 100
7a 640 48 0.07 0.15 0.05 57 128 125
7b 380 355 0.11 0.14 0.14 34 76 125
7c 640 305 0.02 0.04 0.04 57 128 125
8a 605 40 0.30 0.28 0.32 54 121 125
8b 430 343 0.61 0.56 0.60 38 86 125
8c 730 302 0.17 0.24 0.24 65 146 125
 Table A-5. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Surface Coal Mine WS16

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing v hj h2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

la 540 , 180 0.25 0.35 0.12 38 92 200

lb 370 178 0.29 0.51 0.34 26 63 200
lc 200 184 0.82 1.44 0.71 14 34 200
2a 205 137 1.00 1.51 1.14 13 32 266
2b 350 153 0.50 0.77 0.45 21 54 266
2c 515 163 0.32 0.34 0.21 32 80 266
*3a 290 146 1.24 1.08 0.78 21 50 266
3b 485 146 0.49 0.53 0.29 30 75 266
3c 650 146 0.43 0.57 0.40 40 101 266

* Not Included In statistics.

 Table A-6. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Limestone Quarry C

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing V Hj H2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees In./sec. in./sec. In./sec. Distance Distance Delay

la 1630 69 0.06 0.07 0.11 58 176 800

lb 1980 65 0.01 0.03 0.02 70 213 800
lc 2740 65 0.01 0.03 0.04 97 295 800
2a 550 83 1.02 1.18 0.58 19 59 800
2b 940 87 0.40 0.37 0.24 33 101 800
2c 1200 86 0.20 0.20 0.14 42 129 800
2d 2150 327 0.1 0.1 0.0 76 232 800
3a 1005 286 0.07 0.08 0.02 36 108 800
3b 1100 286 0.20 0.20 0.08 39 118 800
3c 1300 286 0.02 0.12 0.04 46 140 800
3d 2050 323 0.1 0.0 0.1 72 221 800
4a 1005 286 0.17 0.16 0.11 25 86 1600
4b 1100 286 0.26 0.33 0.27 27 94 1600
4c 1300 286 0.17 0.15 0.19 32 111 1600
4d 2040 323 0.1 0.1 0.0 51 174 1600
5a 1360 168 0.13 0.12 0.22 64 177 450
*5b 1200 173 0.08 0.09 0.16 57 157 450
5c 1050 180 0.09 0.16 0.31 49 137 450
(continued)
 Table A-6. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Limestone Quarrry C (Continued)

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing v hj h2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

5d 2000 238 0.1 0.1 0.1 94 261 450

6a 1360 168 0.10 0.07 0.03 68 185 400
*6b 1200 173 0.03 0.02 0.02 60 163 400
*6c 1050 180 — — 52 143 400
7a 390 31 0.91 1.41 0.80 16 46 600
*7b 810 31 0.24 0.23 0.27 33 96 600
7c 990 232 0.27 0.38 0.15 40 117 600
7d 1415 222 0.1 0.0 0.0 58 168 600
8a 410 48 1.02 0.95 1.05 13 40 1050
8b 680 47 0.30 0.42 0.18 21 67 1050
8c 890 42 0.15 0.18 0.08 27 88 1050
8d 1215 109 0.1 0.1 0.1 37 120 1050
9a 1240 182 0.16 0.13 0.23 43 131 850
9b 870 233 0.20 0.35 0.50 30 92 850
9c 700 180 0.18 0.42 0.19 24 74 850
9d 1970 233 0.1 0.0 0.0 68 208 850
10a 400 38 0.44 0.63 0.35 12 38 1200
(continued)
 Table A-6. Peak Particle Velocity Values for Limestone Quarry (Continued)

Peak Readings
Monitor Location from Digital Display Square Cube Explosive
Root Root Weight,
Distance Bearing V Hi h2 Scaled Scaled lb/
Record feet degrees in./sec. in./sec. in./sec. Distance Distance Delay

10b 450 37 0.37 0.50 0.27 13 42 1200

10c 1100 27 0.23 0.11 0.21 32 104 1200
lOd 850 29 0.4 0.5 0.5 25 80 1200
11a 350 113 0.8 0.39 0.35 17 48 400
lib 640 107 0.24 0.17 0.13 32 87 400
11c 230 240 0.41 0.27 0.27 11 31 400
Ud 410 253 0.2 0.3 0.2 20 56 400
12a 370 83 0.43 0.23 0.13 18 50 400
12b 660 90 0.17 0.14 0.16 33 90 400
*12c 160 290 — — — 8 22 400
12d 360 280 0.2 0.4 0.2 18 49 400

* Not included In statistics.

 APPENDIX B

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURFACE COAL MINE RK6

Surface coal mine RK6 consisted of two pits less than 3 miles

apart. The geology and mining method was similar in both pits. After

the top soil was stripped, horizontal holes were drilled 2 to 3 feet

above the coal seam and the rock overburden was blasted. The clayey

surface overburden was 40 to 60 feet thick and was left in place until

after the blasting.

In the south pit, RK6S, 9" diameter horizontal holes were drilled

on a 21 feet spacing and were 60 feet in length. Each hole was decked

with 350 pounds of bagged ANFO, 200 pounds in the rear and 150 pounds

up front. The decks were separated by a bag of drill cuttings and the

hole was stemmed with 15 feet of cuttings. Forty-two millisecond

delays were used between holes. The decks were separated by 17-ms

delays. The blasts monitored in the south pit contained 8 to 20

holes.

The blast design in the north pit, RK6N, was quite similar. The

holes were 24 feet apart and 60 to 90 feet deep. The rear deck was

500 to 800 pounds depending on the length of the hole. Figure B-l is

a sketch of the blast design. Tables B-l and B-2 give the details of

each blast monitored.

Monitor locations were on the highwall for each blast except

blast 5 in the north pit. The monitor and blast locations are shown

135
 f >
V y

/Chips

Bagged ANFO/' N Bagged ANFO Chips

30- 60'- I'- •15' >N 15'-

Flgure B-l. Cross-section of a decked horizontal hole at Coal Mine RK6.

Holes are connected by 42 ms delays; the rear deck is
ignited 25 ms after the forward deck, near the face. The
spacing between the holes is 21 ft in the south pit and
24' in the north pit. The holes are loaded with 200 to
800 lbs of bagged ANFO in the rear deck and 150 lbs of
ANFO in the forward deck. The decks are separated by a
bag of chips and the holes are stemmed with 15' of chips.

u>
o\
 137

Table B-l. Blast parameters for the shots monitored at site RK6S.

Blast RK6S-1 RK6S-2 RK6S-3 RK6S-4

Date of Blast 7-11-81 7-14-81 7-14-81 7-17-81

Time of Blast 3:13 pm 10:38 am 3:36 pm 3:14 pm

Number of Holes 20 8 15 12

Burden 98' 98' 98* 98'

Spacing of Holes 21' 21' 21' 21'

Diameter of Hole 9" 9" 9" 9"

Depth of Hole 60' 60' 60' 60'

Type of Explosive ANFO ANFO ANFO ANFO

Total Lbs. Shot 7000 2800 5250 4200

Lbs. Per Delay 200 200 200 200

Max. No. of 1 1
1 1
Holes Per Delay

Method of Firing Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Type of Circuit Series Series Series Series

Type of Material Shale & Lime Shale & Lime Shale & Lime Shale & Lime
Blasted

Type of Delay Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Timing of Delay 42 & 17 ms. 42 & 17 ms. 42 & 17 ms. 42 & 17 ms.
Type of Stemming Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings

Height of Stenning 15' 15' 15* 15'

Weather Sunny Sunny Sunny Partly Cloudy

Wind Direction South 5-8 South West 3-5 South West 1-3 South West 1-3

Direction of S*N Solid N+S Solid S-»N Open S*N Solid

Initiation
 138

Table B-2. Blast parameters for the shots monitored at site RK6N.

Blast RK6N-1 RK6N-2 RK6N-3 RK6N-4 RK6N-5

Date of Blast 7-8-81 7-13-81 7-14-81 7-16-81 7-16-81

Time of Blast 3:20 pa 7:01 an 1:47 pm 7:06 an 7:16 am

Number of Holas 19 18 19 14 9

Burden 112' 113' 113' 114* 113'

Spacing of Holes 24' 24' 24' 24' 24'

Disaster of Hole 9" 9" 9" 9" 9"

Depth of Hole 60' & 75' 75' & 90' 75' & 90' 75' 75'

Type of Explosive ANFO ANFO ANFO ANFO ANFO

Total Lbs. Shot 15,350 14,350 17,100 12,600 8100

Lbs. Par Delay 500 & 800 800 800 800 800

Max. No. of
1 1 1
Holes Per Delay 1 1

Method of Firing Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Type of Circuit Series Series Series Series Series

Type of Material
Shale & Line Shale 4 Line Shale & Line Shale 4 Line Shale & Line
Blasted

Type of Delay Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Tlalng of Delay 42 & 17 as. 42 & 17 us. 42 & 17 na. 42 & 17 na. 42 4 17 ns.

Type of Steanlng Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings

Height of Steilng 15' 15* 15' 15' 15'

Weather Partly Cloudy Sunny Sunny Cloudy Cloudy

Hind Direction South West 8-10 South 1-3 South East 1-3 North Uest 1-3 North West 1-3
Direction of
Initiation S-»N Open S-*N Open N +S Open N*S Solid N-»S Open
 139

in Figures B-2 and B-3. Four blasts were monitored in the south pit

and five blasts were monitored in the north pit. The Peak Particle

Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance is plotted in Figure B-4 for

the south pit and B-5 for the north pit. The averge and the 95%

confidence interval of the USBM data for coal mines is shown in each

plot for reference.

The geology consists of flat lying sediments beneath 30 to 70

feet of overburden. Six seismic lies were run in the area to

determine the in-situ rock and overburden velocity. In the south pit

two perpendicular seismic lines were run as shown in Figure B-2. The

time vs. distance plots of the results of these surveys are shown in

Figures B-6 and B-7. The average velocity of the top layer was 1370

f/s (feet per second). This layer graded into a higher velocity, 2061

f/s, at a depth of 4 to 10 feet. A third layer was located at a depth

of 27 to 31 feet and had an average velocity of 7508 f/s. The third

layer was probably the rock overlying the coal seam. A second

prominent arrival has a velocity of 920 f/s and is believed to be a

surface wave (the Rayleigh wave).

Figures B-8 to B-ll are the results of the shallow refraction

seismic survey at the north pit (RK6N). Lines RK6N-2 and RK6N-3 were

in the vicinity of monitor stations 3a, 3b and 3c (see Figure B-3).

Overburden velocities here were 876 f/s for the surface and 4244 f/s

below 6 feet. The rock surface was not detected.

Line RK6N-1 was near monitor location 2c and line RK6N-4 was

approximately 1000 feet east of RK6N-1 (off the map). The surface
 140

COAL MINE RK6S

.14220 Drill H0|e site

A 'G
Monitor Location
— Drainage
3?
—450— Topographic Contour Line
Shallow Seismic
Refraction Survey
Trees
isra-raraa Blast Site
7
=^= Road

Scale in Feet

RK6S-2
RK6S-I
14223,
Toptoil

14222

15199

14231

Figure B-2. Map of the monitor locations for RK6S. Also shown are
the drill sites, shallow seismic surveys, blasted areas,
and topographic contours.
 COAL MINE RKGN
Road
TopoQraphie Contour Line
Shallow Seismic Refraction Survey
.14460 Drill Hole Site
Drainaoe

Blast Site

• lb Monitor Location

0 200 400
P---s;;;J d
Scale in Feet

.14094 .14092 .1409/

Figure B-3. Map of the monitor locations for RK6N. Also shown are the drill holes, blasted
areas, shallow seismic survey locations, and topographic contours.
 142

PEAK FART[CLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE

*•

u
o
>

_i
t_l
no

UJ
O-

+\

101 10» 10'

square root scftleo distance ft/lb

Figure B-4. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for site RK6S. The mean for each component and the
mean and upper limit of the USBM data are shown.
 143
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE
— VERTICAL
— RADIAL
— TRANSVERSE

u
uj

>-

<_>

_l
u

10® 10> 10* 10»

SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE FT/LB1/1

Figure B-5. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for site RK6N. The mean of each component and the mean
and upper limit of the USBM data are shown.
 144

CD
CO
O
o

CT
CD
C3

C5
«
I— O

CD
O
C3

o.coo 2.000 6-000 S - DUO

DISTANCE IN FEETC X10 1 )

V1 - 1132 f/s; V2 - 2061 f/s; V3 - 6250 f/s
Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' • 10.8'; @ 100' • 3.4'

Figure B-6. Seismic line RK6S-1, looking south.

 145

CM

O
O

O
•
CO
o

LJ
LU
CO o
21
CNJ

UJ
z: o
o
o
CO

a
a
o

4.000 8-000 12.000 20.000

DISTANCE IN FEETIXLQI )

Vx - 1608 f/s, V2 - 8767 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' - 31.1'; (3 200' • 27.0'

Figure B-7. Seismic line BK6S-2, looking west.

 146

o
o
o
o

LJ o
LlJ o
o
CO
2Z

CD
5Z CD
, CD
'— O
CSJ

CD
CO
CD
O

CD
CD
CD
CD,
0.000 2.000 4.000 8.000 8.000 10.000

DISTANCE IN FEETTX10 1 )

Vx - 695 f/s; V2 » 4650 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' • 6.0'; @ 100' « 5.31

Figure B-8. Seismic line RK6N-1, looking south

«
 147

o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o
en
LLJ
CQ
z:
o
o

LLJ
z:
i—
o
o
o
CO

CD
O
O
O,
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8-000 10.000

DISTRNCEi IN FEEiT( X10 1 )

Vx - 686 f/s, V2 - 4349 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' • 4.5'; @ 100 ft • 4.5'

Figure B-9. Seismic line RK6N-2, looking south.

 148

o
o
o
o

A
o
o
o
o
cn
(_J
UJ
CO

o
o
o
o
toJ Csl
n

o
o
o

o
o
o

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8-000

DISTANCE IN FEET(X101 )

^ - 1065 f/s; V 4140 f/s

2
Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' 6 . 6 ' ; <? 90' - 6.6'

Figure B-10. Seismic line RK6N-3, looking east.

 /

149

to

o
o
o
O

X
CJ
UJ o
CO
z:
CD

LLJ
5Z
t—H o
o
»—

4-000 8-000 12.000 16-000 20-000

DISTANCE IN FEET(X10I )

Vx - 1137 f/s; V2 - 6060 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' • 14'; @ 200' • 14 *

Figure B-11. Seismic line RK6N-4, looking east.

 150

velocities averaged 916 f/s. Below this, velocities reach up to 6060

f/s at only 14' depth. This fast layer is probably hardpan.

The most prominent rock layers were a strong white limestone

lying just below the clayey overburden and a thick black limestone bed

just above the coal. These beds were separated by several alternating

layers of limestone, shale, sandstone and clays. In the south pit the

hard white limestone was 2 to 7 feet thick, the black limestone was 5

to 15 feet thick, and the coal bed lay at a depth of 98 feet below the

surface. In the north pit the white limestone was 10-15 feet thick

and was occasionally covered by thin beds of sandstone and shale. The

black limestone at the north pit was 5-10 feet thick and lay directly

on top of the coal seam at a depth of 112 feet. The hard-white

limestone and the thick-black limestone were sampled and tested for

strength characteristics in the Rock Mechanics Laboratory. The

results are shown in Table B-3.

The time history and Fourier transform of each blast, along with

drilling data is available in the Final Research Project Report to the

Office of Surface Mining (Shoop and Daemen, 1982). The drill hole

locations are shown in Figures B-2 and B-3.

 151

Table B-3. Rock Properties from RK6

Rock Standard Number of

Property Mean Deviation Samples

White Limestone
Density 152.5 2.3 12
lb/ft
Compressive 17,600 8000 39
strength, psi
Tensile 1290 330 54
strength, psi
^STATIC' P®^1 17.4 x 106 4.7 x 10^ 6

vSTATIC' P®^ 0.31 .03 6

P-wave velocity 18,770 780 11

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 9,860 680 4
ft/sec

Black Shaley Limestone

Density 159.4 6.6 31
lb/ft3
Compressive 14,400 8600 39
strength, psi
Tensile 1,820 560 54
strength, psi
®STATIC' P®^- 7.1 x 106 2.5 x 10^ 8

VSTATIC '°5 8

P-wave velocity 15,480 2450 20

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 8,970 2320 13
ft/sec
 APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURFACE COAL MINE RK3

Coal mine RK3 was characterized by large blasts shooting up to

458 holes in one sequence. Forty to fifty feet of overburden was

removed and 10 5/8 inch diameter vertical holes were drilled 52 to 58

feet deep. Blasts were carefully designed and executed. Figure C-l

is a sketch of the blast design for blasts RK3-3 and RK3-4. Blasts

RK3-1 and RK3-2 are the same design as blasts 3 and 4, except the

delay interval between rows is 42 ms and the delay interval between

holes in a row is 17 ms. Details of each blast are given in Table

C-l.

Monitor locations were set up both parallel and perpendicular to

the blasts. It should be noted that the monitor locations for blasts

1 and 3 are not far enough away from the blasted area to include the

"far field" effects. (Far field refers to distances greater than

twice the length of the source.) It is the "far field" effects that

are usually of concern in coal mine blasting. Figure C-2 is a map of

the mine showing the blast locations, monitor locations and seismic

lines. Figure C-3 is a plot of the Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square

Root Scaled Distance for all the shots monitored at site RK3. The

mean and the upper limit of the U.S. Bureau of Mines data is also

shown for reference.

152
 153

|*
_ 2«'H_K» *00 _*>0
•p—.0—o—o-
2,1 / / / L / /
o o wt ot4t o Mt 0 441 o

c/* cr* J* J- d^*..

O Drill hoi* (bowing firing
tim* in millitoconds
p-/r«
r" oJin
,T* J^rt
ot7< _'st«
q"* d47*

10" o^s o"* /d™ d*~

-J— O—O—O—O—O—O—O—d—O—O—O BOULDER ROW
bi..
Plan .1..
view Ii initiation tim«
a) dfj|| h0)#

19'

29'
JL 791b. ANFO
r
10'-12' Chip*

390 lb. ANFO 3h 90 lb. ANFO

92'

Boulder row holts

b) Crou taction of holts

Figure C-l. Sketch of blasts RK3-3 and RK3-4.

a) Plan view of blast design. Numbers are Initiation
times In msec. Eight holes are fired simultaneously
in the boulder row.
b) Cross-section of holes. Most holes are approximately
52 feet deep and contain 425 pounds of ANFO separated
with 8 to 10 feet of chips. The boulder row holes are
approximately 14 feet deep and contain 50 pounds ANFO.
Blasts 1 and 2 were the same design shown except the delay
interval between rows was 42 msec and the delay between
each hole in a row was 17 msec.
 154

Table C-l. Blast Parameters for the Shots

Monitored at Site RK3.

Blast RK3-1 RK3-2 RK3-3 RK3-4

Date of Blast 7-24-81 7-24-81 7-31-81 7-31-81

Time of Blast 10:14 am 10:25 am 10:31 am 10:41 am

Number of Holes 415 25 458 35

Burden 21' 21' 21' 21"

Spacing of Holes 21' x 24' 21'x 24' 21'x 24' 21' x 24'

Diameter of Hole 10 5/8" 10 5/8" 10 5/8" 10 5/8"

Depth of Hole 52 52 58 58

Type of Explosive ANFO ANFO ANFO ANFO

Total Lbs. Shot 133,250 5000 149,850 11,375

Lbs. Per Delay 425 425 425 425

Max. No. of
1 1 1 1
Holes Per Delay

Method of Firing Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Type of Circuit Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Limestone &
Type of Material Limestone and Limestone and Limestone and
shale
Blasted shale shale shale

Type of Delay Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

42 x 100 x 17 42 x 100 x 17
Timing of Delay 42 & 17 m.s. 42 & 17 m.s.
m.s. m.s.
Limestone Limestone Limestone Limestone
Type of Steaming Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings Cuttlnes
Height of Stemlng 8 to 10 ft. 8 to 10 ft. 8 to 10 ft. 8 to 10 ft.

Heather Cloudy Cloudy Sunny Sunny

Wind Direction No Wind No Wind No Wind No Wind

Initiation S-»N S-»N S-»N S-+-N
Direction
 TREE LINE
9+
RK3-2
TREE LINE
14891 *14901

RK3-I
2a
•14899
14894 15138 15137 Topsoil
Ramovtd

14886 14887
HIGHW AI ,
"miov

SPOIL
COAL MINE RK3
•'5900 Dri„ ^,3 sjte

Monitor Location
Shallow Seismic
Refraction Survey
Blast Site
Road Scale in Feet

Figure C-2. Map of the monitor locations and blast sites for site RK3. Drill hole
locations and seismic lines are also shown. Ui
Ui
 156

101
V VERTICAL O
V RADIAL A
-V^ TRANSVERSE +
PEAK PAR Tl CLE VELOCIT Y [N/SEC
o•

A \

+0 ^Ss,TsN^
* \ v

!G"!
ioi 102
SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCEl/*7/LB

Figure C-3. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for site RK3, showing the mean of each component and
the mean and upper limit of the USBM data.
 157

Two perpendicular seismic lines were run to determine the in-situ

overburden velocity. The location of the survey lines is shown in

Figure C-2. The results are shown in Figures C-4 and C-5. The

average velocity of the clayey overburden was 1095 f/s; the rock

surface was not detected.

The geology of the mine consisted of flat lying limestone and

shale beneath 35 to 40 feet of clay and surface drift. The coal seam

was approximately 90 feet below the natural ground surface. The most

significant of the sediment layers was an 8 to 10 feet thick caprock

of hard white limestone directly below the soil overburden. Below the

caprock was a 12 to 15 feet thick shale layer. Beneath the shale were

thin beds of alternating shale and limestone. Samples of the hard

white limestone caprock and of an intermediate black shaley limestone

were tested in the Geomechanics Lab for strength properties. The

results are listed in Table C-2.

The time history and Fourier transform of each blast monitored

along with drilling data obtained from the mine personnel is available

In the Final Research Project Report to the Office of Surface Mining,

Vol. 11 (Shoop and Daemen, 1982).

 158

2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000

DISTANCE IN FEET(XLQI )
Vx - 1100 f/s

Figure C-4. Seismic line RK3-1, looking north.

 159

o
o
o

o
o
o
CO

o
o
X O
, o
CJ to
LU
CO
zr

o
o
o
LU
z:
>—i
i—

o
o
o
CM

O
O
O
O,
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8-000 10.000

DISTRNCE IN FEET(X10 1 )
- 1090 f/s

Figure C-5. Seismic line RK3-2, looking east.

 160

Table C-2. Rock Properties from Coal Mine RK3

Rock Standard Number of

Property Mean Deviation Samples

White Limestone
Densitv 166.6 1.2 35
lb/ft3
Compressive 14,000 5100 27
strength, psl
Tensile 1230 370 19
strength, psl
eSTATIC psl 11,7 * 1q6 1,1 x 1()6 6

VSTATIC °*3® ,0* ®

P-wave velocity 23,820 4740 7
ft/sec
S-wave velocity 10,020 270 3
ft/sec

Black Limestone
Densitv 160.0 5.9 20
lb/ft3
Compressive 14,100 4900 14
strength, psl
Tensile 2,000 230 4
strength, psi
^STATIC' 9.6 x 106 .4 x 10^ 2

VSTATIC *27 *02 2

P-wave velocity ' 14,080 3030 4

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 4290 3150 2
ft/sec
 APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURFACE COAL MINE WS14

Two types of blasts were monitored at surface coal mine WS14,

bench shots and parting shots. Blasts 2 and 4 were bench shots and

all other blasts were parting shots. The parting shots were used to

break rock to the deepest of three coal seams. The spoils were

against the face at the bottom level so the parting shots had no open

space to blast Into. Bench shots were used to blast the overburden to

the top two seams. Figure D-l Is a cross section Illustrating the

types of blasts. All shots were Initiated east to west.

The bench shot blasts contained 20 to 28, 10 5/8"-diameter holes,

35-40 feet deep. The holes were loaded with 400-500 pounds of ANFO

and stemmed with 22 to 25 feet of cuttings.

The parting shots contained 59 to 120 holes with the exception of

WS14-7, which was a misfire of only 2 holes. Each hole was 9 Inches

In diameter and 15 to 17 feet deep. Each was filled with 100 or 125

pounds of bagged ANFO and stemmed with 9 to 11 feet of cuttings. All

blasts used 42-ms. delays between rows and 17-ms. between holes in a

row. Sketches of blasts are in Figure D-2. The details of each

blasts are in Table D-l.

Monitor locations were both parallel and perpendicular to the

blast. Eight blasts were monitored using three seismographs each.

The monitor locations are shown in Figure D-3. The Peak Particle

161
 OVERBURDEN~\

COAL
SPOILS

SHOT

COAL

COAL

Figure D-l. Cross section illustrating the types of blasts used at Coal Mine WS14,
bench shots and parting shots.

ON
Isj
 163

"7 / / /
™7 / / H T,n> STEMMINO
•0 -CHIPS
O O O O L
/ O/ O/ O/—
• • • •O /— 17 m* delay
4~
T>b
1
BA68ED
ANPO
3/ y ~X—4imMiy
/ / / O Drill hoi* Crow itction of kola

a) Plon vi«w

kzr-H

p
7/ 0

o
O

p/ o/f
*-
Ox-
«'«• STEMMING
zz -CHIPS

/ / / / ia'.IA' BAGGED
••••O O O O —17 m» doloy 'V ANFO
/ / / / -X- 48 mt doloy T
/ / / / ° 0r'",l01*
Cron Mction of holt
O X O—X—O—X—^-Initiation
b) Plan vi««

Figure D-2. Sketch of two of the blasts monitored at coal mine

WS14.
a) Parting shot, WS14-1, 68 holes
b) Bench shot, WS14-2, 28 holes
 164

Table D-l. Blast parameters for the shots monitored at site WS14.

Blast WS14-1 WS14-2 WS14-3 WS14-4

Date of Blast 7-25-81 7-25-81 7-27-81 7-27-81

Time of Blast 6:40 am 3:52 pm 6:35 am 6:59 am
Number of Holes 68 28 120 20

Holes per Row 5 4 6 4

Burden 18' 21' 18' 21'

Spacing of Holes 21' 27' 21' 27'

Diameter of Hole 9" 10 5/8" 9" 10 5/8"

Depth of Hole 17' 36-40' 17' 35-40'

Type of Explosive 7" Bag ANFO 8" Bag ANFO 7" Bag ANFO 8" Bag ANFO

Total Lbs. Shot 8500 12,600 15,000 10,000

Lbs. Per Delay 125 450 125 500

Max. No. of 1
1 1 1
Holes Per Delay

Method of Firing Electric Electric Electric Electric

Type of Circuit Series Series Series Series

Type of Material Sandrock Shale Sandrock

Shale
Blasted

Type of Delay Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Timing of Delay 17 & 42 m.8. 17 & 42 m.s. 17 & 42 m.s. 17 & 42 m.s.

Type of Steaming Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings

Height of Steaming 10' 22' 11' 25'

Weather Cloudy Clear Cloudy Rain

Wind Direction NE NE NE NE

Type of Shot Parting Bench Parting Bench

(cont.)
 165

Table D-l. Blast parameters for the shots monitored at

site WS14— Continued.

Blast WS14-5 WS14-6 WS14-7 WS14-8

Date of Blast 7-29-81 7-31-81 8-1-81 8-1-81
Tine of Blest 6:35 am 6:50 am 6:45 am 7:00 pm
Number of Holes 59 89 2 58

Holes per Row 6 3 and 6 N/A 2-6

Burden 18' IB1 18* 18'

Spacing of Holes 21' 21' 21' 21'

Diameter of Hole 9" 9" 9" 9"

Depth of Hole 15' 17' 17' 17'

Type of Explosive 7" Bag ANFO 7" Bag ANFO 7" Bag ANFO 7" Bag ANFO

Total Lbs. Shot 5900 8900 225 6525

Lbs. Per Delay 100 100 125 125

Max. No. of 1 1
1 1
Holes Per Delay

Method of Firing Electric Electric Electric Electric

Type of Circuit Series Series Series Series

Type of Material Shale Shale Shale Shale

Blasted

Type of Delay Nonel Nonel Nonel Nonel

Timing of Delay 17 & 42 m.s. 17 & 42 m.s. 17 m.s. 17 & 42 m.s.

Type of Steaming Cuttings Cuttings Cutting Cutting

Height of Stemming 9' 9' 11' 11'

Weather Cloudy Clear Clear Clear

Wind Direction HE NE No Wind No Wind

Type of Shot Parting Parting Parting Parting

Figure D-3. Map of the monitor locations for WS14. Also shown
are the drill sites, blast sites, and locations of
the geologic cross section and shallow seismic
survey.
 166'

."'~"'9

r--- . . -------.. ,
trop$1Di/mtlflfJ#j
2c, ·--- --------
3c,4o
WSI4-I
... /· ~~--------
( .50
2 b•: Topsoil ,_,d :I I •
3b ,_____________ , ...
J

6b,7a,Bq)

e442!S
{ ·"'"'~ .4410

COAL MINE WSI4

Shallow Seismic Refraction Survey
•4440 Drill Hole Site

~
··· - ... . / Droinooe

Blast Site

Bench Shot (2 ond 4)

N

0
lw-aW
200
L::J
Scale in Feet
400
Monitor LDcotion

Geotooic Cross Section

Rood- 2 feet above Qround level

Trees
I
Former's Field- VeQetotion 2 feet h iQh

Figure D-3. Map of. the·: monitor locations for WS14.

 167

Velocities for each component and blast are listed In Appendix A. A

plot of the Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance Is

shown In Figure D-4. The average and the 95% confidence Interval for

the USBM coal mine data are shown as references.

The geology consisted of 15 to 20 layers of unfaulted

sediments. Two coal seams were mined at approximately 95-100 and 115-

120 feet below the natural surface. A coal seam at a depth of 55-60

feet was mined intermittently. Figure D-5 shows a geologic cross-

section provided by the mine geologist. The location of the section

is shown in Figure D-3. Samples were chosen from the more significant

beds to be tested in the Geomechanics Laboratory. Two samples were

chosen from a 25 to 30 feet thick brown silty sandstone at a depth of

approximately 30 feet from the surface; two samples were from a 15 to

35 feet thick gray sandstone at a depth of 80-90 feet. The results of

the strength tests are given in Table D-2.

A shallow refraction seismic survey was performed to determine

the ln-situ propagation velocity of the overburden. The results are

shown In Figure D-6. The velocity of the surface soil was 1000 f/s.

The velocity of the clayey overburden below 4 feet was 3446 f/s. The

average velocity of a prominent second arrival was 842 f/s. This may

be either the Rayleigh wave or the reflection of the P-wave as

discussed in Section 5.2 of the text.

The time history and Fourier transform of each blast recorded,

along with drilling data obtained from the coal mines is available in

the Final Research Project Report to the Office of Surface Mining

 168
PERK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE

CI

00

SGUflRE ROOT SCSLEO DISTANCE FT/LB1"

Figure D-4. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for site WS14. The mean for each component and the mean
and upper limit for USBM data are shown.
 169

4~30E

\
\
Davie

COAL MINE WSI4

- Surface Soil
~ Clays
o: Sandy Shale
::o:J Shale
• Shaley Coal
o Sandstone
• Coal

o.llovon .
0 200 400
Davis
~
Scola in Feet

Figure D-5. Geologic cross section of the site WS14, provided by

the mine geologist.
The location is shown in Figure D-2.
 170

Table D-2. Rock Properties from WS14

Rock Standard Number of

Property Mean Deviation Samples

Brown Sandstone
Density 145.0 2.3 21
lb/ft3
Compressive 5400 1760 26
strength, psi
Tensile 438 127 23
strength, psi
^STATIC' P8i 2.0 x 106 0.3 x 10^ 4
VSTATIC 0.36 "v .08 4
P-wave velocity 9830 990 11
ft/sec
S-wave velocity 7180 470 8
ft/sec

Grey Sandstone
Densitv 150.8 7.2 33
lb/ft3
Compressive 9660 4450 42
strength, psi
Tensile 655 298 84
strength, psi
ESTAT1C' p8i 1.9 x 106 .3 x 106 7

VSTATIC **5 *10 7

P-wave velocity 10,810 2290 26

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 7090 1070 12
ft/sec

^measured at 1/2 the failure load

 171
o
o
o
CNJ

o
o
o

o
o
o
cc
o
X
LJ
LU g
CO g
2=
CO

LU
2=
o
h- o
o
00

CD
O
o

o
o
o
O-
0.000 4-000 8-000 12.000 16.000 20.000
DISTANCE IN PEEKX10* )
Vx - 1003 f/s; V2 - 3446 f/s
Depth to 2nd layer @ 0* « 2.7'; @ 200' - 4.3'

Figure D-6. Seismic line WS14-1, looking west.

 172

(Shoop and Daenten, 1982). The drill hole locations are shown in

Figure D-3.
 APPENDIX E

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SURFACE COAL MINE WS16

Blasting at surface coal mine WS16 was required only

occasionally. Much of the time the clayey overburden was stripped

down to the coal and no blasting is necessary. However, in one

section of the pit shaley limestone overlies the coal and must be

blasted. The three blasts monitored contained 6 to 12 holes and 1250

to 3196 total pounds of explosive. The first blast had 6 holes with a

burden and spacing of 15' x 18'. The other 2 blasts were a 21' x 24'

patterri with 3 rows of A holes. The holes were 40 to 50' deep. Bags

of ANFO were placed in the bottom and chips were used to stem the

remaining 20-25'. Figure E-l is a sketch of a typical blast. Data

from each blast is in Table E-l.

Monitor locations were approximately perpendicular to the blasts

(see Figure E-2). A total of 8 records were'obtained. The peak

values are listed in Appendix A. Figure E-3 is a plot of the Peak

Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance. The average of the

USBM data and the USBM upper limit are included for reference.

The mine geology consisted of flat lying sediments covered with

glacial till. The coal bed was beneath 5 feet of hard shale and

limestone which swells to 15 feet to the south and pinches out to the

east and west. Above this is approximately 30 feet of glacial till

173
 174

2,'STEMMING
C1 -CHIPS

42'

21 • BAGGED
ANFO

Cross section of hole

Pit
Initiation

\A

I7m» delay 42msdelay O Drill hole

Plan view

Figure E-l. Plan view and hole section of a 12-hole blast at

coal mine WS16. The blast was shot east to west
using 42-ms delays on the outside and 17-ms delays
between holes in a row.
 175

Table E-l. Blast parameters for the shots monitored at site WS16.

Blast WS16-1 WS16-2 WS16-3

Date of Blast 7-21-81 7-25-81 7-31-81

Time of Blast 3:00 pm 5:32 pm 3:20 pm

Number of Holes 6 12 or 15 12

Burden 15' 21' 21'

Spacing of Holes 18' 24' 24'

Diameter of Hole 9" 9" 9"

Depth of Hole 441 44' 44'

Type of Explosive 7" Bag ANFO 6" Bag ANFO 6" Bag ANFO

Total Lbs. Shot 1200 3192 3192

Lbs. Per Delay 200 266 266

Max. Ho. of 1
1 1
Holes Per Delay

Method of Firing Electric Electric Electric

Type of Circuit Series Series Series

Type of Material Shale Shale Shale

Blasted

Type of Delay Nonel Nonel Nonel

Timing of Delay 17 & 42 m.s. 17 & 42 m.s. 17 & 42 m.s.

Type of Stemming Cuttings Cuttings Cuttings

Height of Steaming 25' 25' 9"

Weather Clear Clear Clear

Wind Direction NE NE NE
 176

,-- '
........

/
/
\
COAL MINE WSI6 \ Pond '~"-
•4480 Drill Hole Site \ , ... ______) )
•IaMonitor Location ~ ~
-450- Topographic Contour Line
t---i Shallow Seismic
Refraction Survey
Toll grasses and fol ioge pile
Rood- 4 feet above ground level
I
'
N

L--..J Geologic Cross Section

0 100 200
f::::·.=·::t:.:-:}~:·:1 Blast Site
'I. Scale in Feet

Figure E-2. Map of the monitor locations for WS16. Also shown are
the drill holes, shallow seismic line, geologic cross
section and blast locations.
 177

VERTICAL
RADIAL
TRANSVERSE

(_)
UJ
V)

>-
•-
(_>
a
-J
UJ
>
UJ
_)
(_)

UJ
a.

O*

10'
10*

SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE^T/LB

Figure E-3. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for site WS16 showing the mean for each component, the
mean of the USBM data from RI 8507, and the upper limit
of the USBM data chosen 2 standard deviations above the
mean.
 178

and soft, ripable shale. Figure E-4 is a geologic cross section

provided by the mine geologist.

A shallow seismic survey was performed to determine in-situ

overburden velocity. The velocity of the clayey glacial outwash is

roughly 837 f/s. Bedrock velocities were not obtained. Figure E-5

shows the time vs. distance plot of the shallow seismic data. The

location of the line is shown in Figure E-2.

Two samples of the hard shaley limestone were collected to be

tested at the geomechanics laboratory for strength, density and

velocity. Loss of moisture and shipping damage caused one of the

samples to crumble and split along the platey cleavage. Table E-2 is

a summary of the rock property data obtained from the remaining

sample.

The time history and Fourier transform of each blast, along with

drilling data obtained from the coal mines is available in the Final

Research Project Report to the Office of Surface Mining, grant 6 510

5010 and 6511 5041, Vol. 11 (Shoop and Daemen, 1982). The drill hole

locations are shown in Figure E-2.

 179

4780E 4781E

uKJOlVu'

4782E

COAL MINE WSI6

\
N
• Soi I - Horizons A, B & C
• Glacial Till
m Shal*
•Lime«ton«
• No. 4 Coal Saam
• Undorelay
Bi Sandstone

0^00^0
Scale In Feet

Figure E-4. Geologic cross section of site WS16 obtained from the mine
geologist. The location is shown on Figure E-2.
 180

o
a
O
CM

o
o
o
U3

2 o
X o
O cj
LLJt
CO
z=

o
o
o

o
o
o —

o
o
o
o.
0.000 4.000 8.000 12.000 16.000 20.000
DISTRNCE IN FEET(X1G 1 )
Vx - 837 f/s

Figure £-5- Seismic line WS16-1, looking north.

 181

Table E-2. Rock Properties from WS16

Rock Standard Number of

Propefty Mean Deviation Samples

Shale Limestone
Densitv 162.3 4.0 15
lb/ft3
Compressive 22,300 6800 13
strength, psi
Tensile 1020 330 11
strength, psi
^STATIC* 8.2 x 106 1.4 x 10^ 3
VSTATIC 0.28 0.02 3
P-wave velocity 14,840 670 7
ft/sec
S-wave velocity 8,450 470 6
ft/sec
 APPENDIX F

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM LIMESTONE QUARRY C

Twelve blasts were monitored at the limestone quarry. Blasts

consisted of 11 to 40 holes filled with ANFO, dynamite or a slurry.

The details of each blast are listed in Table F-l. Figures F-l and

F-2 are are sketches of some of the blasts monitored.

Seismograph locations were mostly perpendicular to the blast

initiation. Several monitor locations were on different benches or

across the quarry from where the blasting was taking place. Some

monitor set ups were on both sides of the blast. Figures F-3, F-4 and

F-5 are mine maps showing the blasted areas and the corresponding

monitor locations. Figures F-6 through F-8 are cross sections of each

of the monitor set ups.

Figure F-9 is a plot of the Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square

Root Scaled Distance for all shots monitored at the limestone

quarry. The average and the upper limit of the U.S. Bureau of Mines

data for coal mines is shown for comparison.

The quarry geology consisted of two major limestone units

abbreviated as RC and D. A small rock layer between the two is

abbreviated Mg. The lower half of the D formation is abbreviated

SL. For the most part, the mine benches correspond to the limestone

units as illustrated in Figure F-10.

182
Table F-1. Blast Parameters for the Shots Monitored at the Limestone Quarry

Blast C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6

Date of Blast 8-4-81 8-5-81 8-6-81 8-6-81 8-7-81 8-7-81
Time of Blast 3:28 pm 3:30 pm 3:21 pm 3:40 pm 3:14 pm 3:26 pm
· -"~
Number of Holes 11 17 1 26 27 1
Number of Rows 3 4 - 4 5 -
Burden 20,26 26 - 26 20 -
Spacing of Holes 20,26 26 - 26 22 -
Diameter of Hole 7 7/8"' 12 1/4" 12 1/4" 12 1/4" 12 1/4" 7 7/8" 7 7/8"
Minimum 47 37 66 65 52 52
Depth of Hole
Type of Explosive ANFO ANFO ANFO ANFO ANFO ANFO

Total Lbs. Shot 6500 12860 900 15000 14820 500

Max. Lbs. Per Hole 800 800 900 900 500 500

Max. No. of 1 2 1 1
1 1
Holes Per Delay

Method of Firing none! nonel none! none! none! none!

Type of Circuit series series series series series series

Type of Material limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone

Blasted

Type of Delay none! nonel nonel nonel nonel nonel

Timing of Delay 42 & 17 ms 42 & 17 ms 42 & 17 ms 42 & 17 ms 42 & 17 ms 42 & 17 ms

Type of Stemming cuttings cuttings cuttings cuttings cuttings cuttings

Height of Ste11111ing 23 33 46 33 18 18

Weather High overcast overcast overcast overcast overcast

Wind Direction 160/6 80/7 80/2 - 0/3 0/3

ln;it iat ion N-S SW-NE - N-S NN-SE -
Directlon
 Table F-1--Continued

Blast c-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 C-12

Date of Blast 8-10-81 8-12-81 8-12-81 8-13-81 8-14-81 8-14-81
Time of Blast 3:20 pm 1:50 pm 3:20 pm 3:20 pm 3:00 pm 3:10 pm
Number of Holes 40 42 35 40 19 16
Number of Rows 4 7 6 4 3 3

Burden 22 22 20 22 22 22
Spacing of Holes 25 24 22 25 22 22

Diameter of Hole 12 1/4" 7 7/8" 7 7/8" 12 1/4" 12 1/4" 12 1/4"

Minimum 37 31 52 40 16 18
Depth of Hole
Type of Explosive Slurry ANFO ANFO Slurry Dynamite Dynamite

Total Lbs. Shot 24,000 19,600 16,840 23,000 3225 3500

Max. Lbs. Per Hole 600 525 500 600 200 200

Max. No. of
Holes Per Delay 1 2 1 1 1 1

Method of Firing nonel nonel nonel nonel nonel nonel

Type of Circuit series series series series series series

Type of Material limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone

Blasted

Type of Delay nonel nonel nonel nonel nonel nonel

Timing of Delay 35 & 17 rna 35 & 17 ms 42 & 17 ms 35 & 17 DIS 35 & 17 ms 35 & 17 ms
Type of Stemming cuttings cuttings cuttings cuttings cuttings cuttings

Height of Ste11111ing 22 17 22 26 14 14

Weather high clouds overcast overcast overcast

Wind Direction 140°/12 mph 270°/3 mph 1/0 1/0 265/0 265/0
initiation
Direction NW-SE NW-SE S-N NW-SE N-S N-S
 185

^Initiation

a) \
\\\ ho,e
'm» delay
-X- 42 ms delay

^•Initiation
P

/
/ o
/
/ O—/
/
O /—O
/
/—O
/
o Drillhole
,7 m» d'loy
X X X X X -X-24 ms delay

O O O O O—f O

yl

f/ / / / / / /
0 0
J-*-26'-*|
0 0 0 0 o — t— o

Figure F-l. Sketch of blast designs for a) shot C-2 and b) shots
C-3 and C-4; shot C-3 is the first hole only.
 186

-t-O-t-O-t-p-f-O-J-O
******** —t— 17 ms delay
_ o o o o -x- 35 ms delay
** ** ** ** ** ** O Drill holt
o p o p p p
** ** 9* ** ** ^
^> o o o o o
p o ********
o p p p-*- *V
^ ^ ****** **22
~ o-v-o-z-o-y-o •*•
0-/-0
H24'|<

'Initiation

o-y-o-^o O O O O
—/— 17ms delay
WO Ho >
oWO H
O *
\
Q O
b) >< 42 ms delay
O Drillhole ^ ^^ >f »P
o o o o o b o
^ ^ V ^ V
1
O O O O O Q --
HA
O O V°
O-T-
H 22'h

^Initiation
• 17ms delay
35ms delay
¥• ¥ Drill hole
c) P^^ V ^.Initiation
O O O—f-O—t—O —/-p ^S^-O—/p-/-p-V-0-/-p-/-p-/-p
•ft. >£z >i >1 ^ >k yk. >fc ifz xk >k >/k sfc 22'
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - r -
>|22'(< A

Figure F-2. Sketch of blast design for a) shot C-8, b) shot C-9
and c) shots C-11 and C-12 (shot C-12 is to the right
of C-11).
 WEST SECTION
Ll MESTONE QUARRY (C)
-=-=-=Rood
- - Bench Outline
• I a Monitor Location
~ Shallow Seismic
Refraction Survey
~Blast Site
l
0 100 200

Scale in Feet

Figure F-3. Map of the blasted areas and the monitor locations in the west section of the
Limestone Quarry.
 SOUTHEAST SECTION
LIMESTONE QUARRY (C)
Read
- Bench OutHM
A'a Monitor Location
SM*
too

\\
\\
\\

\N,

Figure F-4. Map of the blasted areas and the seismograph locations in the southeast section
of the Limestone Quarry.
 189

lid
12d

NORTH SECTION
LIMESTONE QUARRY (C)

Inclint === Road

Bench outline
Blast site
Scale in feet
A |a Monitor Location

Figure F-5. Map of the blasted area and seismic monitor sites in the
north section of the Limestone Quarry.
FEET
200-.
100- Blast 0 b
* , • T

Blast C-l - Looking north-west

FEET £
2°°T •
100 ^Overburden
Blast a b c
Z X 3L

Blast C-2 - Looking north

FEET ^ V V 0
9oru
200i *^^
100 ^Overburden V.
w°st

Blasts C-3 and C-4 - Looking north north-west 200 400

Scale in Feet

Figure F-6. Cross section view of blasts C-l through C-4. The elevations are relative to the
quarry floor.
 FEET
200-1
100- i &
r>.
Blasts C-5 and C-6 - Looking west

FEET
200-j
100- d a b
• Blast * *
O-'
Blast C-7 - Looking north-west

FEET
200' c
100- b q
T , •
0J
Blast C-8 - Looking north-west
0 200 400

Scale in Feet

Figure F-7. Cross section view of blasts C-5 through C-8. The elevations are relative to the
quarry floor.
 FEET d
zooi
200 5i v
h
£q c
100 Overburden x W Blast

Blast C-9 - Looking north-east

FEET
ZOOi
too- ab d c
Blast tv • _
»
Blast C-IO - Looking north-west

FEET d
200-1 C
A
100- -t Blast b
Overburden •

Blasts C-ll and C-12 - Looking north 200 400

Scale in Feet

Figure F-8. Cross section view of blasts C-9 through C-12. The elevations are relative to
the quarry floor.
 193

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY VS SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE

vertical
rroial
trrnsverse

*+

u
bj
W

m
(->

>
_j
u

+•

10«
SQUARE ROOT SCALEO DISTANCE FT/LB1/1

Figure F-9. Peak Particle Velocity vs. Square Root Scaled Distance
for the limestone quarry. The mean of each component,
the mean of USBM data, and the upper 95-percent confidence
interval for the USBM data are shown.
 r \

FEET

OVERBURDEN

BENCH
150

RC

V BENCH
100

BENCH
50-

SL

Figure F-10. Cross section showing the relationship between the geology and the mine levels.
The elevations are relative to the quarry floor and correspond to the elevations
on the cross sections in Figures F-6 to F-8. RC and D are the major limestone
units in the quarry; they are separated by a thin bed labeled Mg. The lower
half of the D unit is abbreviated SL to distinguish sample locations.
 195
Five shallow seismic surveys were performed to determine the in-

situ rock and overburden velocities. The location of each line is

shown in Figure F-3. Seismic lines C-l and C-2 are on the SL

formation. The results are shown in Figures F-ll and F-12. The

seismic velocity of the formation was found to vary considerably with

depth ranging from 1000 to 2097 f/s at the surface to 8263 f/s at 6 to

13 feet. The difference in the velocity indicates local variation in

the competency of the limestone. The very low values at the surface

are probably due to fractures caused by the blasting.

Seismic line C-3 is on the soil overburden. The data obtained is

shown in Figure F-13. The average overburden velocity was 1110 f/s at

the surface and 2685 f/s below approximately 6 feet.

Seismic lines C-4 and C-5 are on the D limestone unit and include

some of the Mg layer. The seismic data are shown in Figures F-14 and

F-15. Velocities averaged 2290 f/s at the surface and 5156 f/s below

approximately 5 feet.

Rock samples were taken from each of the limestone units to test

the mechanical properties at the University of Arizona Geotnechanics

Lab. The results are given in Table F-2.

Time Histories and Fourier Transforms of each of the blasts

monitored at the quarry are available in Shoop and Daemen, 1982, Final

Research Project Report to the Office of Surface Mining, Vol. 11.

 196

(_> o
c-3
4=^
Ll ! O
CO •
y~ o
CsJ

"Z.
i—:

u_i o
ZZ o
' 9
I— o

o
o
o
o.
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 ic.ooo
DISTANCE IN FEEKX10 1 )

V, - 2097 f/s; V, - 5860 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' « 5.6'; @ 100' • 12.4'

Figure F-11. Seismic line C-l, looking northwest.

 197

o
cn

(_>
LLJ o
o
CQ
2Z eg

y=j o
21 o
o
I— o

o
C3
O
O,
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10-000

DISTANCE IN FEETIXIO 1 )

V, -1000 f/s; V, - 3922 f/s; V, - 8263 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0' » 0.5'; <3 100' • 0.5'
Depth to 3rd layer @ 0' • 6.6'; @ 100' » 13.3'

Figure F-12. Seismic line C-2, looking southwest.

 198

o
o
o
CO

o
o
o
o
<_) to
LiJ
CO
2=
o
o
o
o
Li_l
z:
i—i

h-
o
CD
CD
CD
Csl

O
O
O
Q.
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 3.000 ic.ooo
DISTANCE IN FEETIX10 1 )

- 1110 f/s; V2 - 2685 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer @ 0* « 5.5'; @ 100' - 7.31

Figure F-13. Seismic line C-3, looking south.

 199

o
o
o

o
o
o
o
cn
<_J
LU
CQ
z:
o
o
o
o
LU CNJ

z:
i—
o
o
o
o

2-000 4.000 6.000 8.000 IC.OOO

DISTANCE IN FEET(X10 L )
Vx - 2661 f/s; V2 - 4683 f/s
Depth to 2nd layer @ 0'• 4.9'; @ 100' • 8.1*

Figure F-14. Seismic line C-4, looking west.

 200

o
o
o
o
CO

LJ
LU o
o
CO
2=

y=! o
21 o
_ o
I— CD

o
o
o
o. IC.OOO
0.000 2.000 4.000 5.000 8-000

DISTANCE IN FEET(X10 1 )

V± - 1922 f/s; V2 - 5630 f/s

Depth to 2nd layer at 0' • 3.1'; @ 100' • 6.1'

Figure F-15. Seismic line C-5, looking south.

 201

Table F-2. Rock Properties from the Limestone Quarry

Rock Standard Number of

Property Mean Deviation Samples

RC Limestone
Densltv 163.3 10.9 9
lb/ft
Compressive 12,300 6400 4
strength, psl
Tensile 900 200 7
strength, psl
^STATIC' P®^ 9.6 x 10 N/A 1

VSTATIC ®*2^ 1

P-wave velocity 17,920 830 5

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 5940 2070 4
ft/sec

Mg Limestone
Densltv 151.7 6.7 7
lb/ft3
Compressive 4440 1740 7
strength, psl
Tensile 500 270 8
strength, psl
eSTATIC psl 3,7 x 106 2,5 * 106 3

VSTATIC *35 *02 3

P-wave velocity -
ft/sec
S-wave velocity - - -
ft/sec

(cont.)
 202

Table F-2. Rock Properties from the Limestone Quarry (cont.)

Rock Standard Number of

Property Mean Deviation Samples

D Limestone
Densitv 158.1 5.7 8
lb/ft
Compressive 5490 3140 5
strength, psi
Tensile 770 300 5
strength, psi
eSTATIC» p®1 8,3 x 1()6 1,4 x 1q6 3

VSTATIC 0.35 .09 3

P-wave velocity 17,890 430 3
ft/sec
S-wave velocity 10,670 N/A 1
ft/sec

SL Limestone
Density 159.4 6.0 20
lb/ft3
Compressive 10,900 5300 15
strength, psi
Tensile 840 350 18
- strength, psi
eSTATIC» p®1 9,0 x 1q6 2*5 * 1q6 4

vSTATIC *35 *0^ 4

P-wave velocity 18,120 1010 9

ft/sec
S-wave velocity 980 N/A 1
ft/sec
 REFERENCES

Ambraseys, N.N., and A.J. Hendron, Jr., 1968, "Dynamic Behavior of

Rock Masses": Rock Mechanics In Engineering Practice, K.G.
Stagg and O.C. Zienklewicz, eds., John Wiley and Sons, New
York, pp. 203-227.

Anderson, D.A., S.R. Wlnzer, and A.P. Ritter, 1982, "Blast Design for
Optimizing Fragmentation While Controlling Frequency of
Ground Vibration": Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
Conference on Explosive and Blasting Techniques, New Orleans,
LA.

Barkley, R.B., 1982, "Computer Simulation of Blast Induced Kayleigh

Waves": M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson (in
progress) and in Final Research Project Report to the Office
of Surface Mining, Vol. IV, grants G510 5010 and G511 5041.

Becker, K.R. and J.E. Hay, 1982, "Effect of Direct-Current Firing

Levels on Detonator Delay Times": U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Bureau of Mines RI 8613, 13 pp.

Coates, D.F., 1970, Rock Mechanics Principles: Ottawa, Canada,

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mines Branch
Monograph 874.

Crandell, F.J., 1949, "Ground Vibration Due to Blasting and Its Effect
Upon Structures": J. of the Boston Soc. Civ. Eng., April
1949, pp. 222-245.

Duvall, W.I., 1964, "Design Requirements for Instrumentation to Record

Vibrations Produced by Blasting": U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Bureau of Mines, RI 6487, 7 pp.

Duvall, W.I., and D.E. Fogelson, 1962, "Review of Criteria for

Estimating Damage to Residences from Blasting Vibrations",
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 5968.

Edwards, A.T., and T.D. Northwood, 1960, "Experimental Studies of the

Effects of Blasting on Structures": The Engineer, Vol. 210,
Sept. 30, 1960, pp. 538-546.

E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 1980: Blaster's Handbook,

Wilmington, Delaware, 494 pp.

203
 204

Engler, A.J., 1980, "Instrumentation for Measuring Ground Vibration

and Airblasts from Surface Mine Blasting": Presentation at
the AIME/SME Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, October 22, 1980.

Ewing, W.M., W.S. Jardetzky, and F. Press, 1957, Elastic Waves in

Layered Media, McGraw Hill, 380 pp.

Griffiths, D.H., and R.F. King, 1975, Applied Geophysics for Engineers
and Geologists: Pergamon Press, New York.

Gustafsson, R., 1973, Swedish Blasting Technique: SP1, Gothenburg,

Sweden, 323 pp.

Uendron, A.J., Jr., 1977, "Engineering of Rock Blasting on Civil

Projects": Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics, W.J. Hall,
ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp.
242-277.

Hendron, A.J., and C.H. Dowding, 1974, "Ground and Structural Response
Due to Blasting": Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
International Society of Rock Mechanics, Denver, 1974, Vo.
IIB, pp. 1359-1364.

Holmberg, R., 1982, Director, Swedish Detonic Research Foundation,

Stockholm, Sweden: personal communication.

Jaeger, J.C., and N.G.W. Cook, 1977, Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics:

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Jong, M.T., 1982, Methods of Discrete Signal and System Analysis,

McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 452 pp.

Langefors, U., and B. Kihlstrom, 1978, The Modern Technique of Rock

Blasting: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Langefors, U., B. Kihlstrom, and H. Westerberg, 1958: "Ground

Vibrations in Blasting": Water Power, February 1958, pp.
335-338, 390-395, 421-424.

Llnehan, P.W., 1977, "Spectral Analysis of air and Ground Vibrations

from Blasting in Surface Coal Mines": Proceedings of 18th
U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Keystone, CO, pp. 1A4-1 to
1A4-6.

Medearis, K., 1978, "Blasting Damage Criteria for Low-Rise

Structures": Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Explosive
Engineers Annual Meeting, New Orleans, pp. 280-287.
 205

Morlock, C.R., 1982, "Predicting Airblasts Caused by Surface Mine

Production Blasting": M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona,
Tucson (in progress) and in Final Research Project Report to
the Office of Surface Mining, Vol. Ill, grants G510 5010 and
G511 5041.

Mota, L., 1959, "Determination of the Dips and Depths of Geological

Layers by the Seismic Refraction Method": Geophysics, V. 19,
p. 242-254.

Nicholls, H.R., C.F. Johnson, and W.I. Duvall, 1971, "Blasting

Vibrations and Their Effects on Structures": U.S. Dept. of
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 656.

Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Stelnbrenner, and D.H. Bent,
1975, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, McGraw-
Hill, Inc., U.S.A., 675 pp.

Obert, L., and W.I. Duvall, 1967, Rock Mechanics and the Design of
Structures In Rock: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, pp.
339-350.

Office of Surface Mining, 1981, "Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation

Operations Interim and Permanent Regulatory Programs: Use of
Explosives": Federal Register/Proposed Rules, Vol. 46, No.
14, Jan. 22, 1981, pp. 6982-6997.

Office of Surface Mining, 1982, "Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation

Operations; Permanent Regulatory Program: Use of
Explosives": Federal Register/Proposed Rules, Vol. 47, No.
57, March 24, 1982, pp. 12760-12784.

Persson, P.A., R. Holmberg, G. Lande, and B. Larsson, 1980,

"Underground Blasting in a City": reprinted from Subsurface
Space, Proceedings of the International Symposium (Rockstore,
1980), Stockholm, Sweden, June 23-27, 1980, 3 volumes,
Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 199-206.

Roberts, A., 1977, Geotechnology: Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 273-
279.

Sbar, M., 1982, Assistant Professor of Geosclences, University of

Arizona, Tucson, AZ: personal communication.

Shoop, S.A., and J.J.K. Daemen, 1982, "Ground Vibrations Caused by

Surface Mine Blasting:" Final Research Project Report to the
Office of Surface Mining, Vol. II, Grant G510 5010 and G511
5041.
 206

Siskind, D.E., M.S. Stagg, J.W. Kopp, and C.H. Dowding, 1980,
"Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration
from Surface Mine Blasting": U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of
Investigation 8507.

Stagg, M.S., and A.J. Engler, 1980, "Measurement of Blast-Induced

Ground Vibrations and Seismograph Calibration": U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 8506, 62 pp.

Thoenen, J.R. and S.L. Windes, 1942, "Seismic Effects of Quarry

Blasting": U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 442, 83 pp.

Vorob'ev, I.T., Yu. V. Nelyubov, V.V. Pozdnyakov, and N.I. Lemesh,

1973, "Features of the Development and Propagation of the
Rayleigh Surface Wave in the Dzhezkazgan Deposit": Soviet
Mining Science, Russian Original, Vol. 8, No. 6, Nov-Dec
1972; Trans, into English, Aug 1973, pp. 634-639.

Winzer, S.R., W. Furth, and A. Ritter, 1979, "Initiator Firing Times

and Their Relationship to Blasting Performance,": 20th U.S.
Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Austin, TX, 10 pp.

Uinzer, S.R., D.A. Anderson, and A.P. Ritter, 1981, "Application of

Fragmentation Research to Blast Design: Relationships
Between Blast Design for Optimum Fragmentation and Frequency
of Resultant Ground Vibration": 22nd U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Boston, MA, pp. 237-242.

Hiss, J.R., and P. Linehan, 1978, "Control of Vibration and Blast

Noise from Surface Coal Mining":' Four volumes, U.S. Dept. of
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Open File Report 103(1)-79.