Explosives are used in most large-scale development projects such as high-speed lines, highway projects and hydroelectric development as an energy source to destroy rocks and concretes.[1] Several technics can be used to
enhance the productivity of the operated site, for instance, by increasing the diameters of the borehole, by adjusting the total charge or by controlling the charge per delay. [2] Actually, it is difficult to control the explosive energy involved in mine blasting, which can be considered as the main source of disturbance described by the induced vibrations, noises and projections of rock fragments.[3] In this paper, an experimental study was carried out on the site of
In the recent years, the sensitivity of populations to the environment has increased. The urbanization around the exploitation sites has intensified, and both of the comfort and safety threshold are required to decrease the damage level such as noises, projections of rock fragments and vibrations induced by the exploitation of quarries. In fact, the threshold comfort of human’s sensitivity is twenty times lower than the threshold criteria, which is commonly used to limit the damage of structures.[4]
When the explosion occurs, 5 to 10% of the energy propagates as an over-pressure in the air, without affection, the building’s structures except on glazed facades,[5] while 10 to 20% of the energy propagates as a vibration in both fluids and solids parts of the ground. It is noted that the wave propagates in an elastic medium as an earthquake at different velocities, depending on its type (longitudinal, transversal or surface wave) and the elastic properties of the medium. The remaining energy part is used to destroy the rocks.
Ranjan et al.[9] show that the rock properties (unit weight, uniaxial compressive strength, rock quality designation and geological strength index) affect the blast wave propagation extensively. They developed a
Recently, several authors have studied the effects of rock joints on the propagation of stress wave, such as peak value attenuation, spectrum and spatial variations. For example, Hao et al.[11] showed that a rock mass usually contains various joints with different aperture widths, and a blast-induced shock wave is characterized by various frequency spectrum. Rock joints act as a series of connected low-pass filters when the wave propagates through a jointed rock mass. Indeed, the high-frequency signals with wave lengths that are shorter than the joint widths are filtered, while the low-frequency signals are allowed to pass with small modifications in the magnitude. Accordingly, the amplitude and frequency of the wave decrease. The orientation of the joints regarding the wave-propagation direction is another important factor. Theoretically, the transmission and reflection of the wave on a joint surface are closely related to its incident angle. [11] These authors showed that the transmission decreases with the increase of the incident angle, whereas the reflection increases.
King et al.[12] measured the magnitudes and durations of high-frequency seismic waves prop- agated in parallel and perpendicular to columnar joints in basalt. They reached lower
Further, several researchers have attempted to predict the ground vibrations using an Artificial Neural Network
Other authors attempt to model
The potential damage of ground vibrations is largely quantified either in terms of
Siskind et al.[19] investigated the structure response and damage resulting from
This paper aims to establish the site-specific attenuation law for ground vibration, and to predict the charge’s weight per delay (Q) that could be used without affecting the safety of nearby structures (
Thirteen trial blasts (signature boreholes
The achieved vibration data were analyzed by the least square regression method [22] to develop the empirical relationship between the scaled distance
The production blasts (
Based on this current analysis, site-specific safety criteria were established by using the safety criteria (
The safe charge weights per delay (Q) has been evaluated for
The scientific community has carried out several studies to predict the amplitude of
Regarding the SM modelling, the first accepted empirical correlation that has been used to evaluate the blast vibrations was developed by Koch et al.[26] It is based on the systematic measurements of
where
Eq. 1 was slightly modified by
where
Other empirical equations have been suggested by different researchers to describe the attenuation of blast vibrations, such as Dowding et al.,[27] Duvall et al.,[28] Ghosh et al.,[29] Gupta et al.[30] and Roy et al.[31] However, Koch’s fundamental finding[26] of the considerable effect of the charge weight and the distance on the vibrations is still widely accepted. Recently, many authors used Eq. 2 and compared it with the measured
Summary of various
N° | References | Empirical models | N° | References | Empirical models |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Duvall et al. [28] | 7 | Roy et al. [34] | ||
2 | Langefors et al. [35] | 8 | Murmu et al. [36] | ||
3 | Ambraseys et al. [37] | 9 | Rai et al. [38] | ||
4 | IS: 6922 [39] | 10 | Ak et al. [40] | ||
5 | Ghosh et al. [41] | 11 | Simangunsong et | ||
al. [42] | |||||
6 | Ghosh et al. [41] | 12 | Kumar et al. [9] |
The equations reported in Tab. 1 are mainly based on statistical analysis. The field experiments have to be carried out to determine the site parameters using the linear regression analysis. The equations indicate that the
The site of
The site of
in depth, a homogeneous gray limestone, formed by multi-levels with thicknesses ranging from 30 to 60 cm approximately
a yellow limestone, which contains silex, with 10 to 20 meters of thickness
an alternation of limestone and marls. This level ensures the transition between the aforementioned limestone level and the surface marl level
finally, on the surface, a level of marls presenting some beds of limestone that are decreasing toward the east until disappearing
The blasts were made using 105, 115 and 165 mm diameter drill boreholes with a depth varying between 7.5 m and 11 m. The boreholes corresponding to the trial blasts
Calculated theoretical specifications[44].
Physical properties | Dynaroc 6 A | Nitram 9 | ANFO |
---|---|---|---|
Gas volume (0oC/1At) (L/kg) | 893 | 857 | 898 |
Total mass energy (MJ/kg) | 4.5 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
Total volume energy (MJ/L) | 6.4 | 5 | 3.7 |
Detonation pressure (confined) ( | 13.6 | 13.5 | 6.9 |
Detonation temperature (oC) | - | 2227 | 2830 |
Velocity of detonation (m/s) | - | 6200 | 5200 |
Technical specifications of
Acquisition | 2048 information/lane/second |
---|---|
Storage | storing records on internal memory |
Duration of registration | 4 seconds |
Triggering seismic acquisition | by exceeding the minimum threshold of the sensors |
Tri-directional geophones | 4.5 Hertz electronically corrected at 2 Hertz |
Trial blast experiments (from
Trial blast (N◦) | Measuring points | Measurement distance (m) | Maximal charge per delay (kg) | Sensor ID | Velocities (mm/s) | Maximal velocity (mm/s) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Longitudinal | Vertical | Transversal | ||||||
DG | 606 | 15 | 653 | 1.4 | 2.47 | 0.82 | 2.47 | |
1 | P1 (Lower exploitation level) | 84 | 15 | 2022 | 15.94 | 31.82 | 23.5 | 31.82 |
P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 143 | 15 | 139 | 7 | 8.76 | 4.7 | 8.76 | |
Lake Ddoudj | 291 | 15 | 2020 | 8 | 10.54 | 7.43 | 10.54 | |
Macodo | 529 | 15 | 1318 | 2.67 | 2.8 | 1.01 | 2.8 | |
DG | 613 | 30 | 653 | 1.71 | 4.12 | 1.27 | 4.12 | |
2 | P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 136 | 30 | 139 | 11.05 | 13.84 | 7.62 | 13.84 |
P1 (Lower exploitation level) | 92 | 30 | 2022 | 20.32 | 37.72 | 39.88 | 39.88 | |
Lake Ddoudj | 297 | 30 | 2020 | 9.46 | 15.55 | 12.44 | 15.55 | |
Macodo | 524 | 30 | 1318 | 4.19 | 4.57 | 1.38 | 4.57 | |
DG | 634 | 45 | 653 | 1.78 | 3.56 | 1.14 | 3.56 | |
3 | P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 143 | 45 | 139 | 11.18 | 11.68 | 8.26 | 11.68 |
P1 (Lower exploitation level) | 110 | 45 | 2022 | 20.9 | 22.1 | 24.7 | 24.7 | |
Lake Ddoudj | 320 | 45 | 2020 | 7.62 | 17.08 | 14.92 | 17.08 | |
Macodo | 538 | 45 | 1318 | 5.71 | 5.33 | 2.54 | 5.71 | |
DG | 582 | 45 | 653 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 0.7 | 1.01 | |
4 | P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 174 | 45 | 139 | 8.64 | 8.25 | 6.73 | 8.64 |
P1 (Lower exploitation level) | 58 | 45 | 2022 | 10.73 | 40.45 | 25 | 40.45 | |
Lake Ddoudj | 271 | 45 | 2020 | 3.89 | 5.71 | 2.98 | 5.71 | |
Macodo | 555 | 45 | 1318 | 1.52 | 2.16 | 1.4 | 2.16 | |
Conveyor belt | 469 | 100 | 653 | 2.48 | 6.98 | 2.35 | 6.98 | |
5 | P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 77 | 100 | 139 | 42.67 | 25.91 | 25.91 | 42.67 |
Garage station | 636 | 100 | 2022 | 2.54 | 4.32 | 2.1 | 4.32 | |
Lake Ddoudj | 302 | 100 | 2020 | 5.78 | 10.86 | 8.13 | 10.86 | |
Macodo | 406 | 100 | 1318 | 6.86 | 9.27 | 2.54 | 9.27 | |
Conveyor belt | 458 | 140 | 653 | 2.16 | 6.35 | 2.41 | 6.35 | |
6 | P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 82 | 140 | 139 | 48.26 | 39.62 | 25.4 | 48.26 |
Garage station | 624 | 140 | 2022 | 2.03 | 3 | 1.71 | 3 | |
Lake Ddoudj | 300 | 140 | 2020 | 5.33 | 8.76 | 5.9 | 8.76 | |
Macodo | 455 | 140 | 1318 | 6.1 | 8.54 | 3.43 | 8.54 | |
Conveyor belt | 436 | 50 | 653 | 5.34 | 13.97 | 3.87 | 13.97 | |
7 | P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 150 | 50 | 139 | 13 | 13.84 | 8.25 | 13.84 |
Garage station | 597 | 50 | 2022 | 4.76 | 7.89 | 2.98 | 7.89 | |
P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 89 | 50 | 2020 | 50.1 | 42.42 | 35.43 | 50.1 | |
Macodo | 540 | 50 | 1318 | 8.25 | 7.49 | 2.79 | 8.25 | |
Conveyor belt | 446 | 75 | 653 | 4.06 | 11.94 | 3.81 | 11.94 | |
8 | P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 138 | 75 | 139 | 13.2 | 17.8 | 8.25 | 17.8 |
Garage station | 607 | 75 | 2022 | 3.36 | 5.9 | 2.41 | 5.9 | |
P1 (Lower exploitation level) | 98 | 75 | 2020 | 52.96 | 54.04 | 23.05 | 54.04 | |
Macodo | 529 | 75 | 1318 | 7.87 | 8 | 2.54 | 8 | |
9 | P2 (Upper exploitation level) | 57 | 15.5 | 2022 | 47.56 | 61.98 | 27.87 | 61.98 |
P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 634 | 15.5 | 139 | 1.27 | 0.89 | 1.4 | 1.4 | |
Garage station | 495 | 15.5 | 2020 | 8.06 | 7.37 | 5.33 | 8.06 | |
Macodo | 1034 | 15.5 | 1318 | 0.51 | 0.76 | 0.13 | 0.76 | |
10 | P2 (Upper exploitation level) | 64 | 31 | 2022 | 125.2 | 86.36 | 33.33 | 125.22 |
P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 621 | 31 | 139 | 1.52 | 1.14 | 2.16 | 2.16 | |
Garage station | 500 | 31 | 2020 | 8.13 | 7.5 | 5.9 | 8.13 | |
Macodo | 1020 | 31 | 1318 | 0.89 | 1 | 0.25 | 1 | |
Diao | 1429 | 47 | 653 | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.25 | 0.57 | |
11 | P2 (Upper exploitation level) | 76 | 47 | 2022 | 125.4 | 112.7 | 37.46 | 125.41 |
Garage station | 511 | 47 | 2020 | 9.08 | 9.65 | 7.4 | 9.65 | |
Macodo | 1017 | 47 | 1318 | 1.65 | 1.9 | 0.51 | 1.9 | |
P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 618 | 47 | 139 | 2.67 | 2.28 | 3.81 | 3.81 | |
Diao | 1422 | 63 | 653 | 0.38 | 0.7 | 0.25 | 0.7 | |
12 | P2 (Upper exploitation level) | 70 | 63 | 2022 | 126.6 | 105.5 | 32.51 | 126.55 |
Garage station | 507 | 63 | 2020 | 8.95 | 8.82 | 7.11 | 8.95 | |
Macodo | 1025 | 63 | 1318 | 1.9 | 2.03 | 0.51 | 2.03 | |
P1 (Upper exploitation level) | 626 | 63 | 139 | 2.67 | 2.41 | 4.06 | 4.06 | |
Diao | 1379 | 44.1 | 653 | 0.25 | 0.44 | 0.19 | 0.44 | |
13 | P2 (Upper exploitation level) | 198 | 44.1 | 2022 | 28.19 | 12.32 | 17.8 | 28.19 |
Garage station | 555 | 44.1 | 2020 | 2.85 | 2.79 | 2.54 | 2.85 |
The vibrations were measured on the bedrock at different distances, varying from 57 m to 1429 m. The ground vibrations were recorded in three space directions, that is, the transverse (
According to the French Regulation Standard
Thirteen trial blasts (signature boreholes
Let us consider that the locations to protect from the harmful vibration are respectively the
These types of signals are often associated with a geological environment that includes intercalation of geological layers with low thickness (10 to 20 m) and different mechanical characteristics.[47] It is indeed, the case of the considered site of
The maximum velocities in each direction and their associated pseudo frequencies for the previous sites to protect are presented in Fig. 5 in conjunction with the
However, a complete analysis of the signal for each measuring point, in particular with the Fast Fourier Transform
The attenuation of blast vibration is commonly studied empirically using the field data collected by trial detonations. In this study, thirteen trial blasts (TB) located at the actual excavation site previously presented in Fig. 1 are used. The relation between the charge weight (Q), the distance (R) and the
The ground vibration data pairs, the scaled distance
The production blasts
The trial blasts that have been carried out in
The safe vibration levels were used with the site-specific attenuation relation (Eq. 2), to assess and predict the safe charges per delay (Q). Indeed, the safe charges weight per delay are presented in Fig. 8, they were achieved for distances varying from 58 m to 1422 m and for velocities varying from 1 to 10 mm/s. The safe weight charge per delay (Q) for the
The weight charge per delay (Q) of 50 kg can be considered as a safe charge weight for
The iso-velocity maps presented in Fig. 8 showed the importance of selecting with accuracy the charge weight per delay (Q), in order to meet a comfort threshold of 10 mm/s, and to enhance the productivity requirements from the quarry site. The limitation of the charge weight per delay requires the use of several solutions:
The use of multi-detonation in the case of small applied charges
The use of boreholes’ diameters of 105 to 165 mm, with a single detonation
According to the distance between the blast and the nearest sites, namely, the
A charge weight per delay of 116 kg can be conceived by using the following blast design, which is presented in Fig. 10(a) for the
A charge weight per delay of 13.75 kg can be conceived by using the following blast design, which is presented in Fig. 10(b) for the
This paper proposes a generalized methodology of blasting that helps to ensure the comfort of the inhabitants and the safety of structures against damage, which is induced by blast vibrations. The site-specific attenuation relation developed from ground vibration data observed from trial
blasts
This analysis remains insufficient. Indeed, the signal processing by FFT can highlight the low frequencies’ predominance, which characterizes the surface wave phenomena. Although the vibration levels measured at these points are low (always less than 10 mm/s), this phenomenon can be felt as an