Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Short Technical Note

Analysis of parameters of ground vibration produced from
bench blasting at a limestone quarry
Ali Kahriman
Department of Mining Engineering, Istanbul University, 34850 Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey
Accepted 12 June 2004

Abstract
The aim of this study is to predict peak particle velocity level at a limestone quarry located in Istanbul, Turkey. The ground vibration
components were measured for 73 blast events during the bench blast optimization studies during a long period. In blasting operations;
ANFO (blasting agent), gelatine dynamite (priming) and NONEL detonators (firing) were used as explosives at this site. Parameters of scaled
distance (charge quantity per delay and the distance between the source and the station) were recorded carefully and the ground vibration
components were measured by means of vibration monitors for every event. Then, the data pairs of scaled distance and particle velocity were
analyzed. The equation of scaled distance extensively used in the literature was taken into consideration for the prediction of peak particle
velocity. At the end of statistical evaluations, an empirical relationship with good correlation was established between peak particle velocity
and scale distance for this site. The established relationship and the results of the study are presented.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bench blasting; Environmental complaints; Charge per delay; Ground vibration; Peak particle velocity

1. Introduction 2. Test site and procedure

Ground vibrations and air blasts are the parts of rock

blasting. Therefore, they are unavoidable. With high
intensity of wave motion, they can damage nearby
buildings. Thus, the technical and economical aspects,
such as block size, uniformity and cost, should be taken
into consideration together with the elimination of
environmental problems resulting from ground vibration
and air blast by blasting engineer in bench blast
designs. The prediction of ground vibration components
has a great importance in the minimization of the
environmental complaints. Estimating the particle vel-
ocity and other components of ground vibration with
reliable approaches will be very useful in blast design
[1–3,5].
E-mail address: kahriman@istanbul.edu.tr.
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.06.018
2.1. Test site description
An extensive research program was carried out at a
quarry named Sarikayatepe which belongs to Akcansa
cement company in order to establish a reliable formula for
the prediction of peak particle velocity and to minimize the
environmental problems arising from blasting. The test site
is located near Istanbul and the layout of the quarry
including the shot points and monitoring stations is shown in
Fig. 1.
As it can be seen from Figs. 2 and 3, the blast holes were
vertical and 105 mm in diameter for all benches. Hole length
was 22 m with 1 m of sub-drilling and 6 m of stemming for
first and third benches and was 32 m with 1.5 m of sub-
drilling and 6.5 m of stemming for second and fourth
benches. In blasting operations, ANFO C5% Al (blasting
agent), Rovex 650 and gelatine dynamite (priming)
were used as explosives for all blasts. Non-electric
888 A. Kahriman / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892

Fig. 1. Layout of the quarry including the shot points and monitoring stations.

millisecond delay system was used to initiate the blasts.
The blast-timing pattern was designed to allow a 42 ms delay
between rows and a 17 ms delay between holes within a row.
Inner hole detonator was used as 25 ms interval.
2.2. Text procedure
the beginning. For this reason, some test shots were fired,
and acceptable results were obtained. The scaled distance
equation suggested mostly for cylindrical charge in the
literature was used for the prediction of peak particle
velocity and this equation is given below
SD Z R=Wd0:5 (1)

The ground vibration components were measured for 73
blast events in order to predict peak particle velocity for this
site during bench blast optimization studies over a period of
10 months. In this study, while the parameters of scaled
distance (charge quantity per delay and the distance
between the source and the station) were recorded carefully,
the ground vibration components were also measured by
means of two vibration monitors (Nitro Consult UVS 1504
and Instantel Minimate Plus models) for 73 blast events as
shown in Fig. 1. The specifications of these monitors are
nearly same. However, calibration between two types of
vibration monitors should be put into consideration at
where SD, scaled distance; R, distance between the shot and
the station (m); Wd, maximum charge per delay (kg).
Peak particle velocities (PPV) have been calculated from
the following equation that is widely used in various studies
PPV ðmm=sÞ Z KxðSDÞKb (2)
where K and b represent the influence of blast design and
geology.
For predicting the peak particle velocity for this site, the
developed blast design was applied accurately for each shot.
The maximum amount of instantaneous charges per delay
was recorded carefully and the distance between the shot

Fig. 2. Layout of the test benches of the quarry.

 A. Kahriman / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892 889

Fig. 3. General blasting pattern for Sarikayatepe limestone quarry.

point and the monitoring station was measured accurately
by using survey equipment.
3. Test results and discussion
The damage from vibration induced by bench blasting
has been evaluated on the basis of its peak particle velocity
related with corresponding dominant frequency.
A large number of blasts (73 events over a period of 10
months) were monitored for recording the peak particle
velocity in order to develop a similar formula. The results
of ground vibration measurements that were carried out at
the limestone quarry, including peak particle velocity,
frequency, total charge, charge per delay, distance and
scaled distance have been presented in Table 1 for a few
events as sample. In order to establish a useful relationship
between peak particle velocity and scaled distance, simple
regression analysis was carried out by using all data pairs. In
simple regression, linear, logarithmic, exponential, recipro-
cal and power curve fitting approximations were tested and
the best approximation equation with highest correlation
coefficients was determined.
At the end of the study, this determined equation for
limestone zone is found to be in accordance with the
literature and the equation can be used to eliminate

Table 1
Results of ground vibration measurements [7]

Event no. Peak particle velocity, Frequency, Total charge per Charge per Distance, Scaled
PPV (mm/s) f (Hz) round, Wt (kg) delay, Wd (kg) R (m) distance, SD
1 2.35 10 2102 538 257 11.08
5 1.2 10 1300 69 150 18.05
10 0.85 11 4390 81 255 28.33
15 0.95 5.6 3100 206 283 19.71
20 0.65 67 4165 93 295 30.59
25 0.70 91 3858 97 275 27.92
30 0.90 9.4 2225 175 254 19.20
35 144 20 180 180 23 1.72
40 0.20 9 4250 170 520 39.88
45 250 45 242 242 25.6 1.64
50 1.55 17 165 165 340 26.46
55 0.95 16 83 83 368 40.40
60 1.15 9.1 242 242 376 24.17
65 0.85 9.6 324 354 400 22.22
70 0.35 41 180 180 403 30.03
73 0.40 20 180 180 418 31.15
890 A. Kahriman / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892

Table 2
Summary of simple regression output

Multiple R Regression statistics

R square Adjusted R square Standard error Observation
0.927 0.861 0.859 0.246 73
Analysis of variance (Anova)
DF Sum of squares Mean square F Significance F
Regression 1 26.650 26.650 439.867 3.81
Residual 71 4.301 0.060
Total 72 30.952
Variables in the equation
Parameter Coefficients Standard error t Stat P-value 95% Confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 2.532 0.116 21.645 5.462 2.298 2.764
X Variable K1.793 0.085 20.973 3.810 K1.963 K1.622

Fig. 4. Peak particle velocity versus scaled distance.

environmental problems for the events that the vibrations tool. The R square quantity is a basic measure of the
will not be monitored. The formula, which has 95% quality of the fit. In this case, a value of 0.861 indicates
confidence level, is given below that 86.1% of the PPV variability is explained by the
 pffiffiffiffiffiK1:79 linear regression. The intercept coefficient is obtained
PPV Z 340x R= W ; ðr Z 0:92Þ (3) from the linear regression in the log–log transformed
space. It should be noted that 102.532 equals 340.40 which
The empirical factors K and b are determined as 340 and is in agreement with Fig. 4. Finally, the critical slope
K1.79, respectively, for this site. The results of the
regression and correlation have been presented in Table 2 Table 3
in detail. The graph of the obtained relations between the Calculated and measured values of peak particle velocity
particle velocity components and the scaled distances are
Event no. Scaled distance Peak particle velocity (PPV, mm/s)
also presented in Fig. 4. (SD) Prediction Measurement
Table 2 shows the statistical calculations using the full
data set consisting of 73 shot events. It shows the standard 1 25 1.06 1.0
2 35 0.58 0.65
summary output of the SPSS (statistical analysis software)
3 45 0.37 0.40
regression analysis performed within the data analysis
 A. Kahriman / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892
Fig. 5. Comparison of the established formula with some previous PPV prediction approaches [1,8,9].
value of K1.793 is easily extracted from the summary
output.
Hence, given a particular scaled distance, we offer a best
guess as to the PPV as well as upper 95% prediction limit
below which we expect future blasts to occur [4,6]. The
upper 95% prediction limit line was generated from the
standard error and data distribution curve by means of SPSS
(version 10) software (Fig. 4).
Additionally, the relation was also tested and it can be
seen that the measured and calculated values of PPV were
fairly close (Table 3).
As it can be seen from Table 3, the established relation
at upper 95% prediction bound was also tested and the
measured values of PPV were obtained below the line.
Meanwhile, the equation established as a PPV predictor is
also compared to some previous ones in Fig. 5. By
studying this graph carefully, the comparison shows that
the formula developed for limestone zone is also in
accordance with the literature. This case has proved that it
can be possible to design blasting reliably by using this
formula for the site.
4. Conclusions
Environmental constraints will be restrictive more and
more on mining activities. So, the measurement of ground
vibration induced by blasting is significantly important on
controlling and elimination of environmental problems.
Since the particle velocity is still one of the most important
ground vibration predictors for regulating the blast design,
an empirical relationship with good correlation has been
established between peak particle velocity and scaled
distance for this site where host rock is limestone. Using
this relation, practical charts should be prepared for various
891
charge levels and distances to control blasting for this
quarry. This empirical formula obtained from 73 data pairs
can only be used to provide approximate levels of the
particle velocity. It must be taken into consideration that its
use in the blast design could give erratic results. In order to
support this formula more events should be monitored in
various directions and the regression analysis should be
updated considering the results of further measurements.
Additionally, this formula should also be revised depending
upon the time and progressing of the pit.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Research Fund of
University of Istanbul (Project numbers are 1056/031297,
B-66/120199, UDP-46/24072002, 39/11092002, UDP-
93/20122002 and UDP-215/18122003) and Turkey Scien-
tific and Technique Research Society (Project number is
YDABCAG-199Y027).
The author is grateful to the authorities of Akcansa
Quarry for providing all the facilities during the field
investigation. Opinion and conclusions are of the author.
References
[1] Singh PK, Vogt W, Pal Roy P, Singh DP. Prediction and control of
ground vibration in a Dolomite quarry in India. Braunkohle Surf Min
1996;391–8.
[2] Langefors U, Kihlström B. The modern technique of rock blasting, 3rd
ed, 1978. Stockholm, Sweden.
[3] Dowding CH. Blast vibration monitoring and control. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1985.
892 A. Kahriman / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 887–892
[4] Johnson M, Pepper J, Mclellan G. Attenuation of blasting vibrations in
South Florida. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, vol. II. Anaheim, CA: ISEE;
2000, p. 83–95.
[5] Kahriman A, Ceylanoğlu A. Blast design and optimization studies for a
celestite open-pit mine in Turkey. Miner Resour Eng 1996;5(2):
93–100.
[6] Kahriman A, Gorgun S, Karadogan A, Tuncer G. Estimation
particle velocity on the basis of blast event measurement for an
infrastructure excavation located nearby Istanbul. First World
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Munich,
Bavaria, Germany, 2000.
[7] Kahriman A, Tuncer G. Prediction of ground vibration produced from
bench blasting Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, vol. VI. Nashville, TN: ISEE;
1999, p. 379–86.
[8] Hendron AJ, Oriad LL. Specifications for controlled blasting in civil
engineering projects. Proceedings of the first American Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference. Littleton, CO: Society of
Mining Engineers, AIME; 1972.
[9] Aimone-Martin CT, Faroni K, Gelormino T. Fifteen years of blast
vibration control and improved public relation for two Traprock
quarries. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Explosives
and Blasting Technique. California, USA: Anaheim; 2000, p. 187–96.