You are on page 1of 9

Original article

Analysis of ground vibrations caused by bench blasting at Can Open-pit Lignite Mine in Turkey
A. Kahriman

is generally a relatively small region of plastic deformation and cracking; the remaining energy is propagated as an elastic wave in the ground as well. If the charge is near the surface, there may also be propagation through the air. At short range, a wave radiates spherically and the amplitude diminishes inversely with the distance from the blast. At longer ranges, two other factors affect the propagation process: (1). the wave splits into three types of wave, which travel at different speeds; and (2) variations in the medium such as layering or ssuring may introduce further scattering and dispersal effects (Dowding 1985; Kahriman and others 2001c). A major geological fault intersecting the path may largely prevent propagation in a particular direction. In the near region, the ground vibration may cause damage to buildings and other man-made structures by creating dynamic stresses (Dowding 1985). In the past, the relationships between mines and communities have suffered from mutual cultural misunderstandings. Today, the mining industry needs to demonstrate its concern for the environmental and its ability to minimize environmental impacts caused by rock blasting. Poor public relations or a poor track record of environmental management can induce people who live near a mine facility to complain sometimes quite loudly and publicly against the environmental problems created by rock blasting. This can create unneighbourly controKeywords Blasting Canakkale city Ground versies and legal action, which may shut down the mine vibrations Western Turkey (Costa and others 1996; Kahriman and others 2000a). Although various research studies have been carried out in the past in order to isolate environmental issues produced from blasting, a general reliable approach or a Introduction formula has not been established yet because of the complexity of the matter. In addition to the wave and According to the fragmentation principle, beyond the ground motion characteristics, the complexity of blasting region of material actually shattered and displaced, there parameters and site factors restrict the development of a general criterion. Therefore, experimental site-specic studies should be still performed in order to predict and Received: 23 March 2001 / Accepted: 7 September 2001 control blasting effects. Abstract The principal disturbances created by blasting in open-pit mines are vibrations, air blast and y rock. All of these problems, under some circumstances, may cause severe damage to structures nearby and, apart from that, these can be the possible sources of permanent conict with the inhabitants who live close to the operation. Therefore, a vibrationcontrol study was performed in mines on the basis that prediction of ground vibration components is of great importance in minimising environmental complaints. This paper presents the results of groundvibration measurements induced by bench blasting at Can Open-pit Lignite Mine, which is located close to the residential area of Can town. Within the scope of this study, in order to predict peak particle velocity and determine the slope of the attenuation curve for this site, ground-vibration components were measured for blast events. During the study, the parameters of scaled distance were recorded carefully, and the ground-vibration components were measured by suitable monitors for 54 blast events. At the end of the evaluation of data pairs, an empirical relationship, which gives the average line at a 95% condence level and an upper bound 95% prediction line with a good correlation coefcient, was established and suggested for this site.
Published online: 14 November 2001 Springer-Verlag 2001

A. Kahriman Mining Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University, 34850 Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey E-mail:

Test site description

The test site is situated close to the town of Can, which is located about 79 km from Canakkale city in western Turkey (Fig. 1). 653

DOI 10.1007/s00254-001-0446-2 Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661

Original article

Fig. 1 Locality map of Can Open-pit Lignite Mine

Regional geologic setting and rock characterization

The lithofacies series for Can lignite basin are given in Table 1. The sediments of the basin, which may exceed 450 m in thickness in certain locations, include Neogene formations. The dip of the Neogene formations in this area changes between 0 and 20. These formations are part of a local graben that strikes NWSE and is intercepted by transverse faults (Ipekoglu and others 2000). Intensive geomechanical studies on the basis of eld and laboratory tests were conducted by Pasamehmetoglu and others (1991), who determined some of the mechanical and physical properties of encountered rock units according to the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) suggested methods(Table 2). These rock properties were taken into account, together with observations on actual blasting activities, to determine the excavation class of encountered rock units in the mine. These values conrm that drilling and blasting is an unavoidable operation for all rock units.

The Can Open-pit Lignite Mine has been in continuous operation since 1975. Current production rate of the mine is about 500,000 tonnes/year. It supplies the domestic requirements. In the near future, it will supply the Can power plant unit, which is going to be built on the site with a total installed capacity of 2160 MW. The planned mine life is over 32 years at a rate of three shifts per day, 7 days a week, 300 days per year. With 6,000 h per year of scheduled operating time of the power plant, the average coal production is planned to be 2,435,000 t/year, which implies an average annual overburden removal of 20,300,000 m3. The present extent of the Can Open-pit Lignite Mine is 1,400 m long by 600 m wide with a total of 155 m of overburden being removed in six high benches. Some landslides have been observed at overburden benches. This creates problems in mining operations (Kahriman and others 2001b).

Table 1 Lithofacies series for the Can lignite basin Age Neogene Stratigraphic units Upper series Lignite-bearing series Lower series Lithology Conglomerate and alluvium deposits Marls, marly limestone, clays, sandstone Tuff, grey clays, andesite, basalt, tuff Thickness (m) 30 400 20


Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661

Original article

Table 2 The results of rock mechanics laboratory tests (Pasamehmetoglu and others 1991) Rock unit Unit weight (kN/m3) Moisture content (%) Indirect tensile Uniaxial strength compressive (MPa) strength (MPa) Triaxial compressive strength Cohesion (MPa) 4.40 2.22 6.86 6.83 5.26 10.23 5.70 Internal friction () 39.5 59 33 52 59 56.5 57 20.00 3.13 13.01 40.00 20.12 35.01 0.103 0.181 0.22 0.263 0.22 0.457 Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Poisson ratio

Coal Volcanic breccia Tuff Mudstone Andesite Sandstone Aglomerate

12.550.20 24.030.59 18.240.59 21.670.98 25.010.20 24.133.43 24.810.39

20.841.2 2.840.11 2.440.12 2.220.09 3.690.06 2.650.35 2.460.31

0.750.14 5.513.34 2.280.49 3.991.53 3.910.57 5.501.59 4.191.37

18.624.31 17.3013.80 23.403.62 32.7013.60 35.818.20 64.3323.60 31.088.23

Blasting parameters
In blasting operations, emulsion (Emulite in wet blastholes) and Anfo (blasting agent) gelatine dynamite (priming) and delay detonators (in the activity contractor) were used as explosives during the study. From Fig. 2, it can be seen that blast holes were vertical with a 171-mm diameter for all blasts. The hole length was 8 m, with 1 m of sub-drilling and 3 m of stemming for all blast patterns. A non-electric millisecond delay system was used to initiate the charge. The timing pattern were designed as 42-ms delay between rows and 17-ms delay between holes within a row. An inner hole detonator was used at 25-ms intervals.

Within the scope of the current research project, ground vibrations induced by blasting were measured to estimate the damage risk and site-specic attenuation. While measured distances were recorded for the 54 shots, the ground vibration components were measured by using Instantel Minimate Plus Model and White Mini-Seis Model vibration instruments, whose specications are summarized below.
Fig. 2 General design parameters of bench blasts for Can Lignite Mine

Although two different types of vibration monitors were used during the study, they have similar specications and their particle velocity measurement ranges are accepted by the commission of the International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE). Both the models are portable seismographs for monitoring and recording seismic and sound signals produced from blasting. They mainly consist of three geophones (transversal, vertical and longitudinal), a microphone, a control and memory unit and a battery. They use microcomputer technology. They also have their own seismographic data analysis software, which provides the easiest way to access and analyse recorded data. They can be used for a single shot or in continuous mode. The instruments record peak values of particle velocity of up to 25 cm/s in three directions and time-histories of seismic vibrations and sound pressures. The instruments calculate the peak particle velocity, zero crossing frequency (ZC freq), peak acceleration and peak displacement for each of the transverse, vertical and longitudinal axes. Compliance reports, which indicate these values, can also be examined. Blasting geometry applied in the mine and the charging process was designed by blasters from the company, and the vibration measurements were applied to this blasting geometry spontaneously by the research team. In other words, the necessary information, such as quantitative measurements and observations, were the only data obtained from the blast shots, which would be the basis of the monitoring (Kahriman and others 2001b).

Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661


Original article

The amount of explosives per delay was determined by controlling the hole charge. In determining the maximum charge per delay, the amount of dynamite used as priming has been taken into consideration, depending on the weight strength, and this is added to the amount of ANFO. In the predictions of ground vibration, although a lot of empirical relationships have been established and used by different researchers in the past, the most reliable relationships are those that accept the scaled distance and particle velocity as a basis. The scaled distance is a concept put forward by using the amount of explosive energy in air shock and seismic waves, and this affects the basis of distance. The distances between shot points and monitor stations were determined using surveying equipment and a GPS. The scaled distance is derived by combining the distance between source and measurement points, and the maximum charge per delay. The used equation for the scaled distance is given below: SD R=Wd0:5 1

where SD scaled distance; R is the distance between the shot and the station (m); and Wd is the maximum charge per delay (kg). On the other hand, the formula given below, which is suggested extensively in most investigations, has been used as a predictor to estimate peak particle velocity (PPV). PPV mm=s K SDb PPV mm=s K SDb 2

where K is the ground transmission coefcient and b the specic geological constant. A minimum of 30 data pairs is needed for reliable analysis. To assure the reliability of Eq. (2), the attenuation formula must be adjusted statistically to a 95% condence level and a goodness of t or coefcient of determination (r) of the data should be no less than 0.7. The standard deviation, used to establish the condence level, should be as close as possible to zero. When the goodness of t is too low, below 0.7 or so, this is an indication that there is some problem or inconsistency in the data. When it occurs, a review of Statistical analyses of results the data and test procedures is advisable and a series of additional test must be carried out (Costa and others 1996; When statistical analyses techniques are applied to blast Kahriman 2000b). vibration data pairs, peak particle velocity and scaled distance give a site a specic velocity attenuation equation. Statistically, a sufcient number of blasts (at least 30 events) have to be planned so that enough data can be Measurement results gathered to develop a similar formula. Within the scope of this study, enough data sets have been obtained in Total energy from wave motions of rock varies with the amount of explosive ignited in one time. Although waves accordance with the statistical rule of thumb. that occur at a blasting source disperse through the rock In order to establish a useful relationship between peak particle velocity and scaled distance, simple regression mass, the original rock volume increases and inuences the pressure effect of the wave. Vibration damage induced analysis was performed using the data pairs given in by bench blasting can be evaluated based on the particle Table 3. In simple regression, linear, logarithmic, expovelocities, which are related to the dominant frequencies. nential, reciprocal and power curve tting approximations Vibration velocities transferred from blasting rock is di- were tested. The best approximation equation with the rectly proportional to the energy developed in the blasting highest correlation coefcients was determined as follows: 656

reaction. It is also inversely proportional to the distance of the blasting point. In contrast, every blasting area is different from each other. In addition to small differences, such as the geology of the area, rock type and properties, blasting pattern and hole charge, the construction type and quality of the nearby buildings are also important in damage risk assessment for every site. There is an important relationship between total charge per delay and the distance from shot point to the measurement station, and this scaled distance concept has been used extensively in the literature to estimate particle velocity together with site factors (Siskind and others 1980; Dowding 1985). Within the scope of this experimental study, and to measure the environmental effects of the blasting, various station points (as close as possible, but variable) were chosen with arbitrary distances. Some of these stations were chosen at locations where there are damage risks and also at foundations of mine company buildings where some cracks have been observed. One of the objectives for selection of these points was to evaluate the degree of damage from previous blasting and review the previous blasting records for such factors as blast pattern, type and amount of explosives used, daily shot location, etc., by determining the level of frequency and velocity of the vibration. The shots of and their location, pattern and charge are explained above in detail. The particle velocity occurs as a vibration inside the rock, and frequency values were recorded using two types of monitors (a Instantel Mini-Mate Plus Model and a White Mini-Seis Model). In the blasting records, the geophones were located in the measurement stations at various random directions and distances (Kahriman and others 2001a).The results of groundvibration measurements of the 54 events carried out at the test site, including particle velocity components (PVT, particle velocity transverse; PVV, particle velocity vertical; PVL, particle velocity longitudinal; PPV, peak particle velocity), total charge per delay, distance and scaled distance, are presented in Table 3.

Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661

Original article

3 son and others 2000. Hence, because there was no a vibration monitoring device, the formula can be used to estimate particle velocity for similar operations as a preThe attenuation of the determined curve for this site is also liminary approach. The empirical factors K and b were in accordance with previous investigations of many redetermined as 191 and 1.13, respectively, for this site. searchers (Siskind and others 1980; Dowding 1985; John- Regression analysis was also done individually for velocity PPV 191 SD1:13 r 0:85

Table 3 Blast vibration data recorded from Can Lignite Mine (Kahriman and others 2001b). PPV Peak particle velocity Event no. Particle velocity (mm/s) Transverse peak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 10.2 6.35 3.81 2.16 14.6 14.1 4.19 0.88 0.76 4.95 13 3.94 1.14 1.14 3.43 4.57 5.97 12.8 7.11 9.27 4.06 4.57 7.62 19.3 4.57 20.32 28.2 1.78 3.55 1.27 23.87 9.02 2.29 10.7 2.67 3.94 5.5 4.32 5.08 11.17 12.6 10.5 22.4 8.64 1.4 0.88 2.29 4.51 5.84 2.83 2.15 1.64 1.84 0.88 Vertical peak Longitudinal peak 15.9 7.87 7.49 3.05 21.5 19.8 3.81 3.30 2.41 7.24 10.5 5.21 1.27 3.05 5.48 6.86 12.7 33.0 12.6 12.1 7.62 7.11 13.2 32.5 5.08 17.78 29.3 1.90 5.58 1.02 24.8 9.02 4.19 17.4 4.06 3.17 7.11 3.30 4.57 12.19 28.3 26.4 36.3 15.9 0.36 1.02 1.65 3.05 2.54 1.76 2.45 1.90 2.45 1.14 20.4 14.1 9.4 5.33 18.3 25 5.46 1.40 1.14 6.10 12.40 5.97 1.65 1.52 6.10 4.70 14.7 24.5 8.25 17 7.62 4.57 16.2 30.48 7.62 27.43 31.5 3.30 6.9 3.43 69 22.7 3.94 9.52 4.44 2.79 6.09 4.57 5.08 23.3 25.1 27.6 23.5 10.3 1.60 1.02 3.17 2.05 7.37 1.37 2.76 2.73 1.53 1.14 Max. PPV 20.4 14.1 9.4 5.33 21.5 25 5.46 3.30 2.41 7.24 13 5.97 1.65 3.05 6.10 6.86 14.7 33 12.6 17 7.62 7.1 16.25 32.5 7.62 27.4 31.5 3.30 6.9 3.43 69 22.7 4.19 17.4 4.44 3.94 7.11 4.57 5.08 23.3 28.3 27.6 36.3 15.9 1.6 1.02 3.17 4.51 7.37 2.83 2.76 2.73 2.45 1.14 4.3 16 9 6.5 32 3.1 4.7 26 17 17 11 5 8 3 6.6 13 9.3 16 11 10 6.1 11.1 8.3 30.1 8.3 13.4 11 3.5 3.4 6 56.8 9.5 22 30 5.6 6.1 5.5 5.6 7 39.3 43 10 34 15 5 4.9 2.4 7 4.5 5 5 4 7 8.2 101 120 61 100 50 300 100 126 126 125 125 90 125 90 60 60 115 190 110 110 60 50 115 190 110 150 170 154 150 70 70 130 90 100 300 56 80 80 80 80 100 90 90 80 75 75 200 200 200 150 150 200 200 150 166 99 121 243 100 75 120 640 640 160 125 149 800 780 230 210 200 120 110 115 245 200 180 125 150 85 100 150 155 130 55 110 150 85 350 150 110 130 135 45 50 60 40 100 500 500 500 350 350 350 350 500 500 350 16.5 9.03 15.4 24.3 14.1 4.3 12 57 57 14.3 11.1 15.7 71.5 82.2 29.6 27.1 18.6 8.7 10.4 9.50 31.6 28.2 16.7 9.07 14.3 6.9 7.07 12.08 12.06 15.53 6.57 9.64 15.8 8.5 20.2 19.3 12.2 14.5 15.09 5.03 5 6.3 4.2 11.1 57.7 57.7 35.3 24.7 24.7 28.5 28.5 35.3 35.3 40.8 Frequency (Hz) Charge per delay Distance (kg) (m) Scaled distance (m/kg0.5)

Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661


Original article

components. Although the formula obtained from the transverse components of the particle velocity has a better correlation coefcient than the others, the regression analysis shows that all the results are close and are in accordance with the 50% prediction limit curve. The relationship between the particle velocity components (including PPV) and the scaled distance are presented in Table 4. Results of the regression and correlation are presented in Tables 5, 6 and 7. The graph of the relationship between particle velocity components and scaled distance is presented in Fig. 3. Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the statistical calculations when using the full data set, which consists of 54 shot events. It presents a standard summary output from regression analysis performed within the data analysis tool. The R square quantity is a basic measure of the quality of t. In this case, a value of 0.712 indicates that 71.2% of the PPV variability is explained by the linear regression. The intercept coefcient is obtained from the linear regression in the loglog transformed space. Note that 10/2.281 equals 191 (see Table 7), which is in agreement

with Fig. 4. Finally, the critical slope value of 1.134 is easily extracted from the summary output. The prediction of particle velocity requires that average and upper bound values be well known. The upper 95% prediction limit line, which was generated from the standard error and data distribution curve by means of 10 V SPSS software, is shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, given a particular scaled distance, this prediction will give the best estimate for PPV as well as the upper 95% prediction limit below which it is expected future blasts will occur (Dowding 1985; Johnson and others 2000; Kahriman and others 2000b). Furthermore, the established relationship at the upper 95% prediction level was also tested using four new shots. The measured values of PPV for the new events were below the line. The empirical formula was also tested using the new data pairs given in Tables 5, 6 and 7. As can be seen in Table 8, the measured and predicted values of PPV are close to each other, and the standard deviation between values measured in-situ and the values predicted by the formula do not exceed 10%.

Table 4 Equations of particle velocity components for all events. PVT particle velocity transverse; PVL particle velocity longitudinal; PPV peak particle velocity Site factors Particle velocity (mm/s) Transverse PVT K b r 100.44 1.092 0.85 Vertical PVV 145.51 1.132 0.78 Longitudinal PVL 213.16 1.228 0.85 Peak PPV 191.29 1.130 0.85

Table 5 Summary of simple regression output from v. 10 SPSS statistical software (1999). Regression statistics Multiple R 0.844 R square 0.712 Adjusted R square 0.706 Standard error 0.233 Observation 54

Table 6 Summary of simple regression output from v. 10 SPSS statistical software (1999). Analysis of variance (Anova) DF Regression Residual Total 1 52 53 Sum of squares 7.011 2.829 9.8412 Mean square 7.011 0.054 F 128.83 Signicance F 1.094

Table 7 Summary of simple regression output from v. 10 SPSS statistical software (1999). Variables in the equation Parameter Coefcients Standard error t-test P-value 95% Condence interval Lower Intercept X variable 2.281 1.134 0.126 0.099 18.07 11.35 4.48 1.09 2.028 1.334 Upper 2.534 0.933


Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661

Original article

Fig. 3 Particle velocity components versus scaled distance

This case study has proven that it can be possible to design reliable blasts using this formula on this site. Therefore, to predict peak particle velocity in control blast design, the obtained equation, given above, was used for this site. Additionally, the distribution of frequency values in PPV for all events is shown in Fig. 5. When studying this graph, it can be determined that 11% of frequency values are

Fig. 4 Peak particle velocity versus scaled distance (at 50% and upper 95% prediction limits)

between 14 Hz, 50% are between 5 and 12 Hz, 26% are between 13 and 40 Hz and 13% are greater than 40 Hz. These results prove that measured event frequencies at this site are quite low because of the layer structure of the encountered rock masses, as was expected in accordance with the literature (Siskind and others 1980; Johnson and others 2000). It is well known that low-frequency vibrations have a greater potential for damage than high-frequency vibrations (for a certain velocity). It is obvious that the damage risk can be very high because of the measured low frequencies and because building self-structural frequencies change between 5 and 10 Hz in general. These values show that it is important for the blasters and the mine authorities to record and evaluate all blast events.

Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661


Original article

Table 8 Calculated and measured values of peak particle velocity

Event no.

Scaled distance (m/kg0.5) (SD)

Particle velocity (mm/s) Calculated Measured 3.77 9.24 1.77 2.64

1 2 3 4

35.0 15.8 68.4 48.0

3.43 8.40 1.61 2.40

For performing extensive investigations, the US Bureau of Mines (Siskind and others 1980) has made important recommendations for the evaluation of damage risk to buildings. These recommendations are based on the lowest particle velocity level versus dominant frequency range, with consideration to the structure types. Many other investigations and regulations have supported this approach. The cited concepts accept that as long as frequency decreases, a lower velocity may also damage building structure. At the end of the measurement evaluations, it was determined that vibration frequencies that occurred at the test site were quite low, which is in accordance with the literature, as was expected. Depending on this nding, these frequency ranges may cause unexpected results on neighbouring buildings.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Research Fund of the University of Istanbul (project numbers are 1056/ 031297 and BEKADEP: B-806/12122000) and the Turkey Scientic and Technique Research Society (Project numbers are YDABCAG-199Y027 and YDABCAG-648 ). The author is grateful to the Research Fund of the University of Istanbul and Turkey Scientic Environmental issues that arise from blasting increasingly and Technique Research Society for their nancial support and to restrict mining operations. Therefore, monitoring of shots the staff of the Turkish Coal Enterprise for their hospitality and and measurements of ground vibrations are extremely help during the eld investigations.
Fig. 5 Frequency distribution for all recorded blast events


important to eliminate environmental problems. Within the scope of this study, extensive research work was realised at the site, which was composed of sedimentary rock units and was located quite close to Can, to predict the vibration parameters. This study was conducted by taking into consideration that a power plant is going to be built, the annual production of the mine should increase and, accordingly, the environmental issues will increase, too. Therefore, the results of this study will be more meaningful to solve future environmental problems. As mining capacities change to an ever-larger scale depending on the power plant construction and the $30 years of mine life, the vibration intensity, duration and repeated blasting will be important matters of increasing interest. However, it should be taken into account that the formula established is just a prediction of particle velocity and will give erratic results because of other various effects. To support the reliability of this formula more events should be monitored in different directions, and regression analysis should be updated by further measurement results depending on the advances at the time and the mine. 660

Costa E, Silva V, Ayderes Da Silva LA (1996) Practical ways to reduce environmental rock blasting problems. Environmental issues and waste management in energy and mineral production. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Environmental Issues and Waste Management in Energy and Mineral Production. Cagliari, Italy Dowding CH (1985) Blast vibration monitoring and control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Ipekoglu B, Kahriman A, Gorgun S, Karadogan A (2000) Planning and design of an open-pit mine for a coal eld to supply the fuel for a thermal power plant. Istanbul University. TUBITAK Project no YDABCAG-648 Johnson M, Pepper J, McLellan G (2000) Attenuation of blasting vibrations in South Florida, vol 2. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Anaheim, CA, pp 8395 Kahriman A, Gorgun S, Karadogan A, Tuncer G (2000a) Estimation particle velocity on the basis of blast event measurement for an infrastructure excavation located nearby Istanbul. 1st

Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661

Original article

World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Munich, Bavaria Kahriman A, Tuncer G, Gorgun S, Karadogan A (2000b) Estimation particle velocity on the basis of blast event measurement, vol 6. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Anaheim, CA, pp 107115 Kahriman A, Gorgun S, Karadogan A (2001a) Measurement of environmental issues (ground vibration and air blast) arisen from rock blasting and investigations for establishing damage criterion, Istanbul University. Turkey Scientic and Technique Research Society (TUBITAK) Report of Investigation Project no YDABCAG-199Y027 Kahriman A, Gorgun S, Karadogan A, Tuncer G (2001b) Attenuation of ground vibration induced by blasting at Can Open-Pit Lignite Mine in Turkey, vol 6. Proceedings of the 27th Annual

Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Orlando, FL, pp 351360 Kahriman A, Ozkan SG, Sul OL, Demirci A (2001c) Estimation of powder factor in bench blasting by use of a work index in comminution. Trans Inst Mining Metall A110:A114A118 Pasamehmetoglu G, Ozgenoglu A, Karpuz C, Sari D (1991) Slope stability studies at Can Open-Pit Lignite Mine. Middle East Technical University, Ankara Siskind DE, Stagg MS, Kopp JW, Dowding CH (1980) Structure response and damage produced by ground vibration from surface mine blasting. United States Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigation 8507 SPSS (1999) Statistical software, SPSS 10.0 for Windows

Environmental Geology (2002) 41:653661