Understanding Blast Vibration and

Airblast, their Causes, and their

Damage Potential
Author: Wesley L. Bender

This document was originally presented at the Spring

2006 and Fall 2007 workshops of the Golden West Chapter
of the International Society of Explosives Engineers and has
been updated and revised to include new material.

Permission to copy or distribute this document is forbidden

unless prior express written permission is obtained from the author.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this document is meant to be informative and
educational to those individuals involved with the use of explosives. As such, it is
believed that the information presented herein is both reliable and accurate;
however, because the author has no control over the conditions under which the
information might be used, any and all risks associated with the use of the
information contained herein lies with the reader.
It must be understood by all concerned that blasting is not an exact science and
that safe blasting incorporates experience as well as the study and proper
application of the fundamentals involved. If the reader is not adequately
experienced in the type of blast-related operation that he intends to undertake,
he is advised to obtain assistance from a qualified, experienced person before
commencing the work and under no circumstances should he attempt to design
blasts or conduct blasting operations based solely upon use of the information
contained herein.

Contents

page

1. Introduction to Blast Vibration and Airblast ..

2. Effect of Blast Vibration on Materials

and Structures .

3. Probable Results of Impulsive Airblast .......

4. Human Response

5. Blast Scaling

6. Predicting Blast Vibration ...

10

7. Predicting Air Overpressures from Blasting ...

13

8. Blast Vibration Regulatory Limits .

15

9. Airblast Regulatory Limits ..

18

10. Blast Recording .

18

11. Designing Blasts to Minimize Vibration .

24

12. Designing Blasts to Minimize Airblast ....

26

13. Blast Documentation

27

...............................................

14. Exploding Myths

Appendix A - Blasting Complaint Form

Appendix B - Metric Conversions and Graphs
Appendix C - Calculations for Sinusoidal Waveforms
Appendix D - References and Additional Reading

29

1. Introduction to Blast Vibration and Airblast

When a blast is detonated, only a portion of the total energy is consumed in fracturing and shifting the
rock. The remaining energy is dissipated in two forms:
(a) as vibration, in the form of seismic waves traveling very rapidly within the ground and along
the ground surface and,
(b) as airblast, in the form of compression waves traveling through the air.

Blast Vibration.
Immediately surrounding the detonating hole is a crater zone (or inelastic zone), within which the rock
has been fractured and displaced by the shockwave and by the pressure of the hot gasses generated
in the combustion process. Outside this crater zone, the shockwave continues to travel, spawning a
family of seismic waves. These waves radiating outward are categorized as body waves traveling
through the ground and surface waves traveling on the surface of the ground.
The body waves consist of P (or primary) waves and S (or secondary) waves. P waves are
compression waves that radiate outward from the source at velocities ranging from several thousand
to twenty thousand feet per second, depending upon the sonic velocity of the material through which
they pass. Over long distances, P waves average 5 kilometers (approximately 16,000 ft) per second.
In addition to traveling faster, the P waves are of a higher frequency and dissipate more rapidly than
the other wave types. S waves are shear waves (motion perpendicular to P waves). Their frequency
is lower than P waves, they do not dissipate as rapidly, and they travel at approximately 60 percent of
the velocity of the P waves.
Higher frequencies dissipate more rapidly than lower frequencies because energy is lost with each
cycle. Higher frequencies cycle more often and consequently lose energy more rapidly.
Surface waves are formed as the body waves reach the surface. Of the various surface waves, the
dominant one is the Rayleigh wave, characterized by motion that is in the form of a retrograde ellipse.
(A vertical rolling loop moving away from the source, with the direction of motion at the top of the loop
being back toward the source.) Surface waves travel at approximately 90 percent of the velocity of S
waves and are of a lower frequency. Surface waves do not diminish as rapidly as the body waves. In
all instances, however, the intensities of body waves and surface waves dissipate with distance.
It is this difference in the velocity of the various wave types that enables a seismologist to determine
the distance from a recording station to the epicenter of an earthquake by comparing the arrival time of
the different wave types. For vibration that is recorded on blasting seismographs in fairly close
proximity to a blast however, the waves have not had time to sufficiently separate, and individual wave
types are not easily identified.
As seismic waves travel outward from the blast, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which
they pass and cause them to oscillate. Spherical spreading, energy loss and imperfect coupling of the
particles, among other factors, cause these seismic waves to dissipate with distance. When we record
blast vibration, it is the motion of these particles at a given point that is measured.

Blast vibration is described using the following terms:

Displacement - the distance the particles move, usually only
a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch.
Particle Velocity - how fast the particles move. Since the velocity is continually changing,
the maximum, or Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), is the important value. This rate is expressed
in inches per second or millimeters per second.
Acceleration - the rate at which the particle velocity is changing, measured in
feet/second/second, millimeters/second/second or in G's.
Frequency - The number of oscillations per second that a particle makes when under the
influence of seismic waves, measured in Hertz (cycles per second).
(The mathematical relationships of the above four terms as they apply to sinusoidal
waveforms are contained in Appendix C of this document.)
Propagation Velocity - The speed at which a seismic wave travels away from the blast,
measured in feet/second or meters/second. (As indicated in the previous discussion and
above, note that propagation velocity is several orders of magnitude greater than particle
velocity.)
It is possible to record blast vibration as particle velocity, displacement or acceleration, depending
upon the type of sensor being used. It has become standard practice for blasting, however, to use
particle velocity as the best descriptor of vibration as it pertains to damage potential to residential
structures. Most modern blasting seismographs use velocity sensors.
When blast vibration is recorded with a seismograph, the actual velocity of the particle motion,
regardless of its direction, is recorded using a geophone block containing three mutually perpendicular
velocity sensors. When properly oriented to the blast, these record in longitudinal (to and from the
blast), in transverse (side to side) and in vertical axes. Each of these axes is recorded by a channel
on the seismograph. Since the velocities are recorded against an accurate time base, additional
information such as frequency, displacement, acceleration and true vector sum can also be derived.
This is accomplished internally by modern blasting seismographs.
In close proximity to the blast, body waves dominate. As the distance from the blast increases, the
body waves dissipate faster than the surface waves. As the surface waves become the dominant
motion, the dominant vibration frequencies will be lower.
Some published blast vibration standards allow higher particle velocities at higher frequencies (which
normally occur closer to the blast). This factor alone may allow the blaster to stay within the specified
frequency-dependent limits as his blasts approach a protected structure. In other words, with no
change in blast parameters or site geology, both the intensity and the frequency of the vibration would
be expected to increase as the distance to the blast becomes smaller.
When the distance between the recording point and the blast becomes large enough, there is little the
blaster can do to alter the frequency of the vibration. The greater the distance from the blast, waves
that have traveled different paths arrive at different times and overlap. At much greater distances, the
entire blast begins to take on the characteristics of a single point charge of relatively long duration.
Individually detonating charges cannot easily be identified on a seismograph record unless the
recording is accomplished quite close to the blast.

Airblast or Air Overpressures from Blasting.

As in the case of ground vibration waves, air overpressure waves radiate outward from a blast,
diminishing with distance. Air, acting as a fluid, can only transmit compression waves.
There are various sources of airblast, some of which the Bureau of Mines identified in their report, RI
8485, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast from Surface Mining, in 1980 and by
Wiss and Linehan earlier. While these reports may seem a bit outdated, the air overpressure sources
contained therein are still valid. Among them are:
Air Pressure Pulse (APP) - direct rock displacement at the face or mounding at the collar
(the result is a low frequency air overpressure)
Rock Pressure Pulse (RPP) - vibrating ground at the measuring point (the result is low
frequency air overpressure and is usually inconsequential)
Gas Release Pulse (GRP) - gas escaping through fractured rock (the result is medium to
high frequency airblast)
Stemming Release Pulse (SRP) - gas escaping through blown-out stemming (the result is
medium to high frequency airblast)
Unconfined surface charges, including detonating cord on the surface
(the result is high frequency airblast)
Those waves from sources resulting in higher frequencies could be properly termed airblast. The
term air overpressure is probably more suitable for the lower frequency waves, however it is
conventional in many circles to refer to all airborne blast pressures as airblast.
Airblast or overpressures from blasting are usually measured in either decibels or psi or, in the case of
SI (metric) units, in Pascals.
When comparing airblast with conventional noise sources, one must bear in mind that airblast is an
impulse of very short duration and is not repeated continuously. For this reason, airblast limits are
usually established that are well above the limits set for continuous noise sources and also above
those limits usually imposed on firing ranges and the like that are sources of repeated impulses.
Because of its very short duration, airblast makes a negligible contribution to recorded average daily
noise levels.
That part of the air overpressure wave that is in the audible range (above 16 Hz or so) can be startling
in an otherwise quiet surrounding. The energy level, however, is usually very small and will not
normally contribute to actual damage. The lower frequency portion of the pressure wave, rather than
being heard, is felt as concussion. This concussion tends to excite structures and cause windows and
doors to rattle. Damage from this concussion at elevated levels is possible, but the major adverse
contribution is to human response. If a nearby blast causes windows to rattle, the average person
cannot tell whether it was airblast or vibration that caused it, although he will generally assume the
latter.

2. The Effect of Blast Vibration on Materials and Structures

In order to provide some idea of what various PPV intensities represent, their effect on various
structures and materials is contained in the following listing. These have been documented by
researchers and organizations as referenced. Because of the many variables that could be
encountered in the field, this listing should not be used to establish limits or be considered as the
absolute point where the effect will always occur. To do so would also require consideration of
frequencies. PPV units are inches per second.
PPV
600
375
200
> 100
100
100
50 - 150
25 - 100
40
25
25
10 - 25
24
15
> 12
12
< 10
9.1
8.0
8.0
7.6
7.0 - 8.0
> 7.0
4.0 - 7.0
6.3
5.44
5.4
4.5
4.3
> 4.0
2.0 - 4.0
2.8 - 3.3
3.0
1.2 - 3.0
2.8
2.0
2.0
< 2.0
< 2.0
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.1 - 0.5
0.3
0.03

Application
Explosive inside concrete
Explosive inside concrete
Explosive inside concrete
Rock
Explosive inside concrete
Explosive near concrete
Explosive near buried pipe
Rock
Mechanical equipment
Explosive near buried pipe
Rock
Rock
Rock
Cased drill holes
Rock
Rock
Rock
Residential structure
Concrete blocks
Plaster
Plaster
Cased water wells
Residential structure
Residential structure
Residential structure
Water wells
Plaster
Plaster
Residential structure
Residential structure
Residential structure
Plaster
Plaster
Residential structure
Residential structure
Residential structure
Plaster
Residential structure
Residential structure
Residential structure
Mercury switch
Residential structure
Residential structure
Residential structure
Residential structure

Effect
Mass blowout of concrete
Radial cracks develop in concrete
Spalling of loose/weathered concrete skin
Complete breakup of rock masses
Spalling of fresh grout
No damage
No damage
Tensile and some radial cracking
Shafts misaligned
No damage
Damage can occur in rock masses
Minor tensile slabbing
Rock fracturing
Horizontal offset
Rockfalls in underground tunnels
Rockfalls in unlined tunnels
No fracturing of intact rock
Serious cracking
Cracking in blocks
Major cracking
50% probability of major damage
No adverse effect on well
Major damage possible
Minor damage possible
Plaster and masonry walls crack
No change in well performance
50% probability of minor damage
Minor cracking
Fine cracks in plaster
Probable damage
Plaster cracking (cosmetic)
Threshold of damage (from close-in blasts)
Threshold of cosmetic cracking
Equals stress from daily environmental changes
No damage
Plaster can start to crack
Safe level of vibration
No damage
No damage
Equivalent to nail driving
Trips switch
Equivalent to door slam
Equates to normal daily family activity
Equivalent to jumping on the floor
Equivalent to walking on the floor

Reference
j
j
j
a
j
l
n
a
d
o
c
a
b
d
b
g
a
b
d
h
g
m
e
e
b
k
g
h
b
f
e
g
h
i
b
d
g
e
f
i
d
i
i
i
i

List of References Used:

a) Bauer, A., & Calder, P.N. (1978), Open Pit and Blast Seminar, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
b) Langefors, Ulf, Kihlstrom, B., & Westerberg, H. (1948), Ground Vibrations in Blasting.
c) Oriard, L.L., (1970), Dynamic Effect on Rock Masses From Blasting Operations, Slope Stability
Seminar, Univ. of Nevada.
d) Bauer, A., & Calder, P.N., (1977), Pit Slope Manual, Canmet Report 77-14.
e) Nicholls, H.R., Johnson, C.F., & Duvall, W.I., (1971), Blasting Vibrations and Their Effects on
Structures, Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656.
f) Edwards, A.T., & Northwood, T.D., (1960), Experimental Studies of the Effects of Blasting on
Structures. The Engineer, September 1960.
g) Blasters' Handbook, (1977), E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
h) Northwood, T.D., Crawford, R., & Edwards, A.T., (1963), Blasting Vibrations and Building Damage.
The Engineer, May 1963.
i) Stagg, M.S., Siskind, D.E., Stevens, M.G., & Dowding, C.H., (1980), Effects of Repeated Blasting on
a Wood Frame House. Bureau of Mines R I 8896.
j) Tart, R.G., Oriard, L.L., & Plump, J.H., (1980), Blast Damage Criteria for Massive Concrete
Structure. ASCE National Meeting, Specialty Session on Minimizing Detrimental Construction
Vibrations, Portland, OR, April 1980.
k) Robertson, D.A., Gould, J.A., Straw, J.A., & Dayton, M.A., (1980), Survey of Blasting Effects on
Ground Water Supplies in Appalachia: Volumes I and II. Bureau of Mines open field report 8(1)-82.
l) Oriard, L.L., & Coulson, J.H., (1980), TVA Blast Vibration Criteria for Mass Concrete. ASCE.
m) Rose, R., Bowles, B. & Bender, W., (1991), Results of Blasting in Close Proximity to Water Wells at
the Sleeper Mine. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique.
International Society of Explosives Engineers.
n) Oriard, L.L., (1994), Vibration and Ground Rupture Criteria for Buried Pipelines. Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. International Society of
Explosives Engineers.
o) Siskind, D.E. & Stagg, M.S., (1993), Response of Pressurized Pipelines to Production-Size Mine
Blasting. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research.
International Society of Explosives Engineers.

3. Probable Results of Impulsive Airblast

The relationship of decibels to pressure and the probable result of various airblast intensities are
presented in the following chart. The equivalent wind gust velocities are also given for several
intensities.
Airblast Intensity
dB
psi
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
134
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60

2.900
1.631
0.917
0.516
0.290
0.163
0.092
0.052
0.029
0.0145
0.0092
0.0052
0.0029
0.0016
0.00092
0.00052
0.00029
0.00016
0.000092
0.000052
0.000029
0.000016
0.0000092
0.0000052
0.0000029

Probable Result

Average
Human Response

Structural damage

Ear drum rupture possible

Many windows break

Intolerable

(equal to a 96 mph wind gust)

Poorly mounted windows can break
(equal to a 40 mph wind gust)
OSMRE and USBM limit
(equal to a 23 mph wind gust)

Distinctly unpleasant

Mildly unpleasant
(equal to a 7.2 mph wind gust)

Strongly perceptible

Distinctly perceptible
Perceptible

In the foregoing chart it should be noted that Average Human Response is just that. One can find
individuals who would tolerate considerably higher intensities of airblast without complaint, while
others may appear to be distressed at much lower intensities.
The formula for converting pressure in psi to decibels is -

dB = 20 log ( psi / 2.9 x 10 -9 )

or conversely,

psi = 2.9 x 10-9 x anti-log (dB / 20)

The formula for equating wind gusts to pressure is from PPG Industries architectural design
criteria for their windows and is expressed as

psi = 1.78 x 10-5 x V2

where V is the wind speed in miles per hour.

4. Human Response to Blast Vibration and Airblast

Human response is not something that the explosive user can readily control, although one might be
able to affect it in a positive way if it can be understood and properly addressed. The main
contribution of typical human response to blast effects is that it increases the perception that some
damage was either possible or likely to have occurred from the blasting.
Most humans are quite sensitive to motion and sound. They can perceive levels of each that are well
below (by a factor of 100 to 1000 or more) those levels that could cause damage to the average
structure. As sensitive as they may be, however, humans are notoriously bad in their estimation of the
intensity levels of vibration and airblast. Even trained individuals, in the absence of instrumentation,
have been known to make poor estimates of intensity levels.
Among the factors that have an impact on human response are:
(a) health of the individual.
(b) orientation of the individual i.e. in a standing position, more responsive to vertical motion;
lying down, more sensitive to motion from side to side.
(c) location of the individual indoors, more receptive to structure noises; outdoors, blast
effects are not as noticeable and may be masked by ambient noise and vibration.
(d) activity of the individual persons at rest are more sensitive than those actively engaged in
some physical activity.
(e) whether the individual is pre-warned or not (the startle factor) persons expecting a blast
will usually not consider the effects to be as severe as those who are not warned.
(f) quality and type of construction (for those indoors) structural noises and rattling of
windows and doors.
(g) ambient noise or vibration levels blast effects are not perceived to be as severe when
other ambient noise and vibration are present.
Obviously there is a wide range of human response to blasting and blast effects. On one end of the
spectrum is the individual who recognizes some benefit from the blasting operation. He or she will
usually be a friend or ally and can actually assist in public relations with other more "average"
neighbors.
At the other end of the spectrum is the individual who, for whatever reason, did not want the blasting
operation there in the first place. It is not likely that anything you do, short of going away, will satisfy
him. You can't ignore him, though.
Between these two extremes will be the individuals from whom you can benefit the most with a good
informational or public relations program.
Attempts have been made by many to quantify Human Response in technical terms. In most cases,
researchers have found that, while you can gather data on how humans respond to sonic booms,
ground vibration, earthquakes, etc., the subject tends to be an elusive target. This is because there
are many factors, physiological, technical and political, that can skew the results. While this may
appear to make it seem futile to address human response, this is not the case.

The easiest case is the friend of the operation. Make sure that he understands that you appreciate his
feelings toward your operation and that you also appreciate any efforts he may make on your behalf.
While it isn't likely that he would change his opinion, you shouldn't ignore him. Stay in touch with him.

The most difficult, the fellow who didn't want you and your blasting in his neighborhood in the first
place, is going to require a completely different approach. Don't ignore him either. It will only make
him try harder to get you out of his life. Treat him with respect and treat him fairly, but be firm. If you
didn't cause the damage that he may be claiming, there is no reason for you to pay for fixing it. When
he calls and complains, don't immediately deny his claim. While you may feel certain that you didn't
damage him, you cannot reach a conclusion until a proper investigation is done. Your best defense
will be to use all the tools at your disposal. Pre- and post-blast surveys should be considered.
Recording of blast vibration and airblast with blasting seismographs will help you disprove any false
claims of damage.
While you might be inclined, as a good will gesture, to pay for minor damage claimed, be aware that if
you knuckle under and pay for something that you did not cause, you will probably find that he has
additional items to fix. You also run the risk of him boasting to others how he got you to take care of
his problem. This could initiate a flood of complaints. Again, your best bet is to be fair, but be firm.
Before going further, with regard to the preceding comments, some (but not all) insurance companies
will have a tendency to look at the cost of settling a claim versus the cost of fighting it. They will
usually conclude that it is cheaper to settle than fight. Unfortunately, in addition to a total lack of
fairness in the matter (and the loss experience that you or your company will receive because of it) this
can establish a precedent for others who may then also claim damage.
Get a good investigative consultant or consulting group, pay promptly for only the damage that you
cause (or was likely caused by you) and, above all, let your insurance company know how you feel in
the matter.
Getting back to human response, what can you do to properly address those individuals who are
average in their response? First, try to find out what their concerns really are. Most people haven't
been around blasting and may be more fearful of it because of the unknown or because of what they
see in movies or on television. When they see earthquake damage on TV, they don't understand the
differences between the ground motion that caused it and the ground motion from blasting. It is
understandable that they might be concerned. You (or your blast effects consultant) should explain
beforehand what they will feel, see and hear when you conduct your blasting operation. Educate
them. Pre-blast surveys provide an excellent opportunity to meet and talk with these people. Take
advantage of that opportunity.
While some may argue against warning neighbors when a blast is going to take place, the lack of a
proper warning severely increases the startle effect. In my experience, when I have been standing
with neighbors and have counted down to a properly designed blast, the usual comment has been, "Is
that all there is to it?" On the other hand, when a blast is detonated with no warning, most people
perceive it to be worse than it really is.
Most individuals appreciate the attention that you show them when you monitor vibration and airblast
at or near their residence. Granted, there are some who will refuse to allow equipment to be set up on
their property, but they are usually in the minority. In some instances, just knowing that the blast
effects were recorded by instruments will preclude someone from claiming damage.
Structural response has an impact on human response when the structure amplifies or otherwise
adversely affects the noise and/or motion that the human may hear or feel indoors when you blast.
Low frequency concussion that may only sound like a muffled thump outdoors, will probably rattle
windows and other objects indoors when it reaches the side of a structure.
In the authors experience, many complaints blamed on blast vibration should have actually been
attributed to airblast. Without instrumentation, the average homeowner has no way of telling the
difference. When someone a half mile away complains that you shook their house and you calculate a
peak particle velocity well below the average threshold of human perception, don't tell them they're
crazy. They know what they experienced. Investigate their complaint. Its possible that your blast
generated a low frequency airblast pulse in their direction.

If the blast under consideration is going to be a one time affair, consider establishing a safe viewing
location for the neighboring residents. Not only will they appreciate the attention and the chance to
witness the blast, they will not be in their houses to possibly hear the windows or other objects rattle.
(Make sure the viewing location is truly safe, though. Your efforts at PR will suffer greatly if they are
frightened or have to duck flying objects.)
Above all, be a good neighbor. Design blasts to keep adverse effects to a minimum. Cultivate good
relationships with your neighbors. Remember, some day you might need to modify your operating
permit for a mining operation or, in the case of construction, need to blast in an area where permitting
has been difficult in the past. A few friends and neighbors who speak highly of your blasting may
come in handy. In the meantime, keep good blasting records, monitor your blasts and keep a good log
of complaints as they are received and the disposition of the investigation of those complaints.
Most persons, when invited to witness a well-designed blast, are usually disappointed and tend to feel
that the effects are minimal. Some have gone so far as to accuse the blasting company of purposely
setting off a much smaller blast than normal, when the opposite situation has actually occurred.

For further study on the subject of human response, see Oriard (1999 and 2002)
or USBM RI8485 as referenced in Appendix D.

5. Blast Scaling
To facilitate comparing or estimating the effects from blasts of varying charge weights and varying
distances, some scaling method is required. The conventional scaling method in use is referred to as
Scaled Distance (Ds), a number (without units) that provides a means of scaling a ratio of distance
and charge weight.
Square Root Scaled Distance is derived by dividing the true ground path distance between the
detonating charge and the object of interest by the square root of the charge weight. This is used for
scaling blasts involving linear charges (the length is more than four times the diameter) and would
apply to most conventional blasts.
Square Root (Ds) = Distance / Weight

1/2

Cube Root Scaled Distance is similarly derived except that it uses the cube root of the charge weight.
Cube Root scaling is used for those instances where the item of interest involves airblast or air
overpressures, underwater blast pressures and for those infrequent instances where ground vibration
is generated by a spherical charge (the length of the charge is less than four times the diameter).
Cube Root (Ds) = Distance / Weight

1/3

When scaling blasts, the proper charge weight for the calculations would be the total quantity of
explosive that is detonated in a given instant. Instant (for this purpose) has been further defined as
being that amount of explosive detonating within any 8 millisecond time period.
With proper care, Ds can be used to predict blast vibration. When utilized in conjunction with blast
vibration monitoring, it facilitates the design of blasts to conform to vibration limits. Shorter distances
and higher explosive weights result in a lower Ds and would yield more vibration. Conversely, greater
distances and smaller explosive weights result in a higher Ds number and less intense vibration.
In order to accommodate a large range of Scaled Distances and PPVs, the data is usually plotted on
graphs that are logarithmic in both horizontal and vertical axes.

The correct Ds is the lowest number calculated for various configurations within the blast and will more
closely relate to the highest intensity of vibration. Technically speaking, there are as many Ds
numbers as there are holes detonating. If all the holes are loaded nearly identically and are detonated
on individual delays, the closest hole will naturally yield the lowest number.
If the blast has varying charge weights (the shot may be deeper in some areas), the lowest Ds may be
calculated for a hole that is actually farther away, toward the center of the blast, or even on the far side
of it from the object of concern.
With regards to distance measurements, bear in mind that blast-induced ground vibration (for our
purposes) can travel only through the ground. It can't jump across an open space. The shortest path
through the ground between the detonating hole and the object of interest should be the distance
used. If the distance is a couple of hundred feet, measure it with a tape. Out to five hundred feet or
so, use a wheel or pace it off (if you can do so accurately). For distances of five hundred feet or more,
a GPS would prove valuable. Whatever method is used, remember to adjust for any change in terrain.
Strive for maximum accuracy.
Similarly, the correct distance for air overpressure purposes would be the shortest distance through air
between the detonating charge and the item of concern.

Precautions to observe when scaling blasts.

Possible problems with Scaling (square root or cube root) may be encountered in certain situations. If
more than one hole is detonated simultaneously, in most instances they will not all cooperate fully in
increasing vibration. An example might be a long row of charges detonating simultaneously, with the
point of interest located adjacent to the row. Obviously the nearest hole and those close to it would
cooperate. Holes at a much greater distance would not. Oriard (2002) found that only the holes that
were included in a length along the row equal to slightly more than the distance from the row to the
point of interest contributed appreciably to the vibration intensity. For example, say you are recording
20 feet to the side of such a row. Only the nearest hole and those located within a little more than 10
feet to either side of that hole would contribute. Counting additional holes would yield a lower Ds
number, but without an appreciable increase in vibration intensity.
A similar situation could occur if one were to try to record near a hole with an extremely long charge
length. While these situations do not occur often in normal blasting schemes, they are brought to your
attention so that you might recognize them when they are encountered.
Blasters should also be aware that just because two blasts have the same calculated Ds, the potential
effects may not be the same. A large blast at a great distance and a small blast much closer might
have the same Ds, but the characteristics of the blast-generated vibration would not be the same. The
distant blast would have lower frequencies and lower acceleration levels while the closer blast
characteristics would be just the opposite. It is for this reason that one of the OSMRE alternative
blasting level criteria allows a Ds that varies with distance.

6. Predicting Blast Vibration

Various methods of predicting blast vibration have been used by researchers through the years, but
the most commonly used prediction curves were developed by Lewis L. Oriard, a noted seismologist
from Huntington Beach, California (now retired). His curves are based upon data gathered from a
large number of blasts in various geological settings. Most other researchers have come to similar
conclusions with their estimations usually falling somewhere within Oriards parameters.

10

The graph that follows contains curves representing Oriards upper and lower bounds for typical downhole blasting and also a higher approximation for those instances where there is very high
confinement, such as in pre-splitting. It is important to understand that, due to the many variables
involved in blast design and site-specific geology, it is possible that data points can fall above or below
the bounds for typical data shown on the graph. Oriards basic formula for predicting blast vibration is:
PPV =

H x (Ds)

-1.6

x K1, K2, K3, etc.

where PPV is the Peak Particle Velocity (in inches per second) of a particular axis,
H is a factor that varies as follows:
Lower bound for conventional blasting =

24.2

Upper bound for conventional blasting =

242

Typical bound for increased response (pre-splitting, etc.) =

605

Ds is the Square Root Scaled Distance (as defined earlier),

The attenuation slope of -1.6 is typical. It can be steeper for body waves recorded close to the
blast or can be flatter at extended distances where surface waves would dominate. In your
estimations for a given location it is best to use an attenuation slope of -1.6 until enough data
is gathered to facilitate calculating a site-specific attenuation slope.
K , K , K , etc. are factors as described below:
1
2
3
The resulting peak particle velocity will decrease with decreasing confinement of the explosive energy,
decreasing elastic moduli,
increasing spatial distribution of the energy source,
increasing time of energy release or timing scatter,
decreasing coupling of the energy source,
and other similar factors.
(PPV would obviously increase when the effect of these factors is reversed.)
Of the factors involved, charge weight and distance, followed closely by confinement of the explosive
energy, will have the most impact on vibration. Confinement of the energy is increased as the burden
and spacing increase, the depth of burial of the charge increases, strength of rock improves, quality of
stemming improves, etc.
Spatial distribution of the energy source would occur when two holes detonating simultaneously are
separated by some finite distance. The combined weight of explosive in such holes will not generate
as much vibration as one hole containing a similar total charge weight. The effect will vary depending
upon the distance between the holes. The greater the distance, the less they will cooperate.
In using the Oriard prediction curves it is important to understand that the particle velocities used are
those from individual channels and not the vector sum.

11

True vector sum is derived by summing the squares of the particle velocities of all three channels (at
the same instant in time) and extracting the square root of that sum. Although this would indeed yield
the absolute highest particle velocity for the event, current convention does not use vector sum. When
our current vibration standards and prediction curves were developed, digital seismographs had not
been developed and analog equipment was still in use. Vector sums could only be derived by hand
digitizing the data, hence single channel data were used. Modern digital seismographs have the
ability to calculate and display vector sum. The true vector sum could be as much as 73% higher than
the highest individual channel although, in practice, it is usually only 15 to 20% higher. This difference
should be taken into consideration if a vector sum vibration limit were to be proposed, with the limit
increased accordingly.
Persons experienced in blast vibration prediction will use the range given in the curves (or formulas)
as a basis and adjust them for any blast-specific variables that they can identify and quantify through
experience. Data from previous blasts at the site should be plotted on log-log paper (usually
obtainable from university or community college bookstores) or plotted on a computer using a good
graphing program. Success in predicting blast vibration largely depends upon the experience of the
predictor and the accuracy of the input data. In addition to making sure the charge weights are
correct, the correct number of holes per delay should be verified and, if more than one hole or deck is
detonating simultaneously, the spatial separation of those holes or decks should be noted.
In developing prediction curves for blasts, it is extremely helpful to gather data from a wide range of
Scaled Distances. If all of the data is from a narrow band of Ds, it will be difficult to establish a
regression factor.
When predicting blast vibration (or airblast, for that matter) it is always preferable to predict within a
range rather than predicting a single number. It is also important to base your estimate on as many
data points as possible.
If you are attempting to predict vibration for the first blast at a site, you will have to rely upon your
experience at predicting and on as many of the blast and geological parameters as you can quantify.

12

7. Predicting Airblast or Air Over-Pressures

In a manner similar to vibration, air overpressures from blasting can be predicted, however Cube Root
Scaling is used rather than square root.
The curves that follow are based upon data gathered from blasts in many varied locations and from
research done by various individuals and organizations. Again, due to variables, many of which are
difficult to quantify, data points for a given event may fall above or below the bounds shown on the
graph. Results are approximate at best because wind velocity and direction can fluctuate widely in a
very short span of time.
The prediction curves use a basic formula for estimating air overpressures:
Peak Air Overpressure (in PSI) = K ( Ds )

-1.2

where Ds is the Cube Root Scaled Distance (as previously defined).

The curves representing the normal upper and lower bounds for confined charges and for the average
for unconfined charges use combined K factors (intercepts at a Ds of 1) as follows:
Lower bound for normal blasting

0.78

Upper bound for normal blasting

2.5

Average for unconfined charges

82

The attenuation slope of -1.2 is typical for static conditions and represents a reduction of
approximately 7.2 dB for each doubling of distance. Some researchers have used attenuation slopes
as flat as -1.0 or -1.1; however, the difference in pressures from using those slopes does not become
a major factor until a considerable distance has been reached. If the airblast is caused by detonating
high velocity explosives in mid-air, the actual slope may approach -1.3 or -1.4. This steeper slope
would be the result of the higher frequencies decaying more rapidly than the lower frequencies that
result from conventional blasts.
In addition to charge weight and distance (which impact the Cube Root Scaled Distance), the following
factors affect the intensity of air overpressures or airblast:
Depth of burial of the charge
Terrain features, trees and foliage or other screening
Blast face orientation (facing toward the recording point increases the intensity recorded)
Velocity of blast progression (either across the face or along the surface)
Explosive composition (This can affect the elapsed time of energy release. Compared to
other factors, this is minor and can normally be disregarded for most conventional in-ground
explosive products)
Atmospheric conditions such as:
Changes in Barometric Pressure - minimal effect that can normally be disregarded.
Humidity - normal daily fluctuations may be disregarded; however, the difference
between a very dry day and a rainy one can be noticeable.

13

Temperature gradients Normal (cooler with increasing altitude) - sound is refracted upwards and the
blast may not be noticeable at a distance.
Inversion (warmer with increasing altitude) - sound is refracted downwards
and the blast may suddenly become noticeable at a distance.
Note: A temperature inversion has little effect in the immediate area of the
blast and usually only affects airblast intensities beyond a radius equal to the
height of the inversion layer. Rather than focusing airblast and causing
damage, a temperature inversion usually results in the blast suddenly
becoming audible at a greater distance.

Wind direction and velocity - These have a major impact on air overpressure intensity.
Downwind from the blast, the intensities will not dissipate as rapidly as they would
upwind from the blast. Also, because wind velocities typically increase as you move
upward from the ground surface, the wave front is being bent downward. This can
add from several to 20 or so decibels to the intensity.
Wiss (1978) suggested that one may attempt a rough approximation of the effect of
wind direction and velocity by modifying the attenuation rate of -1.2 by adding to it the
result of:
Additive = 0.0265 V cos A
where V is the wind velocity in mph,
and A is the angle (in degrees) between the wind direction and a line from the blast to
the recording point.
(Wind blowing from the blast directly toward the recording point would be 0 degrees,
resulting in an attenuation rate lower than -1.2. Conversely, a wind blowing directly
away from the recording point would be 180 degrees, resulting in an attenuation rate
that is higher than -1.2.)
(CAUTION: The above modification of the attenuation rate was derived from data gathered
from blasts during wind conditions up to a maximum of approximately 30 mph. At wind
velocities in excess of this, the formula can result in a slope that is flat or inverted. Such a
slope would result in predicted blast air overpressures that would remain constant or increase
with distance, a situation which is not physically possible.)
In addition to the cautions concerning charge weights and delays mentioned in the previous comments
on predicting vibration, it is important that the shortest distance through the air be used as the distance
for predicting airblast. Depending upon the terrain, this may not always be a straight line.
The estimation of air overpressures is considerably more difficult than estimating vibration due to
weather variables that can change from moment to moment. For this reason, it is usually advisable to
allow for a greater margin of error when estimating air overpressures and airblast. Gathering data for
specific sites and carefully noting weather conditions at blast times can assist in building accurate
prediction curves for specific operations or specific sites.

14

8. Blast Vibration Regulatory Limits

U. S. Bureau of Mines In 1974, the Bureau of Mines began a study to gather and update available blast vibration data. Work
was included in the area of structural and human response to vibration. This resulted in the publishing
in 1980 of Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8507, Structure Response and Damage Produced
by Ground Vibration From Surface Mine Blasting. Some of the conclusions contained in the report are
as follows:
1. Peak Particle Velocity is the most practical descriptor of vibration as it applies to the
damage potential for residential structures.
2. The potential for damage to residential structures is greater with low frequency blast
vibration (below 40 Hz) than with high frequency blast vibration (40 Hz and above).
3. The type of residential construction is a factor in the vibration level required to cause
damage.
4. Alternative blasting level criteria were proposed that utilized limits over a wide range of
frequencies and included consideration of some limits on displacement. A graph containing
the RI 8507 alternative criteria is included at the end of this discussion.

15

Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement (OSMRE) In 1983, the OSMRE established regulations controlling vibration at all surface coal mining operations.
Three optional methods of limiting vibration are allowed:

1. The first option limits Peak Particle Velocity based upon the distance to the nearest
protected structure. Each blast must be monitored by a seismograph. Velocities must be
kept at or below the following levels at said structures:
Distances up to 300 feet ............ 1.25 inches/second
Distances of 301 to 5000 feet ........ 1.00 inches/second
Distances beyond 5000 feet ...........

.75 inches/second

2. The second option does not require monitoring, but requires the operator to design his
blasts utilizing Scaled Distances (Ds). The calculated Scaled Distances must not fall below the
following values:

Distances up to 300 feet .........

50

Distances of 301 to 5000 feet ........

55

Distances beyond 5000 feet ...........

65

3. The third option requires an operator to monitor his blasts with a seismograph and allows
the use of Particle Velocity limits that vary with frequency, similar to the Alternative Blasting
Level Criteria proposed in RI 8507 by the Bureau of Mines. The OSMRE option differs from RI
8507 in two areas: (1) it does not differentiate between drywall and plaster-on-lath
construction, allowing 0.75 inches per second for either case, and (2) it allows a Particle
Velocity of 2.0 inches per second to be acceptable down to a frequency of 30 Hz rather than
40 Hz. A chart depicting this option is included on the following pages.

An analysis of the three OSMRE alternatives indicates that the second option, while not requiring
recording, is quite conservative. This option could be feasible in remote locations where distances to
structures were large. The third option will usually provide the operator with more flexibility,
particularly for close-in blasts where frequencies would be higher.

Other blast vibration limits have been proposed for specific instances and applications. It is not
unusual to find PPV limits approaching 0.5 inches per second for fragile or historic structures. These
situations should be evaluated and limits applied on a case by case basis.

It is also not unusual to find instances where the limit for a residential structure is incorrectly applied to
massive concrete structures, buried pipelines and other vibration resistant structures. In many of
these, a far better approach would be to use a ground control specification rather than vibration limit.
The damage potential more likely would come from back-break or rock-block movement than from
blast-generated vibration.

16

17

9. Airblast Regulatory Limits

Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8485 (1980), "Structure Response and Damage Produced by
Airblast From Surface Mining" generally recommends a maximum safe overpressure of 0.014 psi (134
dB) for airblast recorded at residential structures.

The OSMRE addressed airblast limits in their regulations of 1983. However, they also took into
consideration the characteristics of the recording systems and established the following limits:
Recording device with a lower frequency response limit of 0.1 Hz ...... 134 dB *
Recording device with a lower frequency response limit of 2.0 Hz ...... 133 dB
Recording device with a lower frequency response limit of 6.0 Hz ...... 129 dB
Recording device C weighted, slow response ..... 105 dB *
* These can be used only with prior approval of OSMRE.
Generally, the above USBM and OSMRE limits on blast vibration and on airblast are quite
conservative as they would apply to the potential for actual damage. It would appear that they were
developed more for reducing human annoyance than to prevent damage to residential structures.
Residential structures and humans are rather sensitive seismographs, although they tend to not be
calibrated well. Buildings respond to minor vibration and to air overpressures by rattling windows and
making other sounds. When the occupants hear these, the overall effects tend to be amplified. For
this reason, it is important that blasters and blast designers strive to minimize the adverse effects of
blasting as much as possible.
Important: The fact that blast vibration and airblast are kept below accepted standards does not
guarantee that claims for damage will not be made (although the occurrence of actual blast-induced
damage would be extremely unlikely).

10. Blast Recording

Definitions:
Seismograph - an instrument that writes a permanent continuous record of motion. A seismograph's
physical constants are known accurately enough that it can be calibrated. The motion is recorded
against a time base, allowing for the calculation of acceleration, displacement, velocity and frequency.
Transducer (or sensor) - an individual device that converts motion or pressure to voltage or
capacitance.
Geophone or Geophone block - a housing that contains three motion transducers mounted in
mutually-perpendicular axes; longitudinal, transverse and vertical.
Longitudinal axis - horizontal and oriented to record radial motion emanating from the source. The
direction of the arrow on the geophone block. Motion to and from the source.
Transverse axis - horizontal, but oriented 90 degrees from the longitudinal axis. Motion from side to
side.
Vertical axis - vertical, oriented 90 degrees from other two axes. Motion up and down.

18

Seismographs could be constructed with sensors to record in terms of particle velocity, particle
displacement or particle acceleration. It is conventional in blasting, however, to record velocity.
Modern units are also capable of recording the output of other types of sensors such as strain gauges,
pressure transducers, etc.
We monitor the effects of blasting (1) to defend against claims of damage, (2) to comply with job
specifications or regulatory or permit limits, (3) for in-house use such as slope stability or protection of
owned facilities, (4) gauge the effectiveness of our blast designs, and (5) for research purposes.
A blasting seismograph is a four-channel, self-triggering recording device. It can usually process the
data and print results in the field or store events for later download to a computer, or both. It is a
sophisticated instrument, but it cant differentiate between a blast and other sources of motion, such as
that from nearby operating equipment, heavy feet or a car door slam, etc. Most seismographs can also
be accidentally triggered by a nearby source of RF (radio) energy.
Blasting seismographs are usually programmable for:
Operating mode - single shot, continuous (several shots), manual trigger, or histogram (strip chart).
Trigger source ground vibration or airblast, or both.
Trigger level - The intensity level that will cause the seismograph to start recording.
In order to make sure the event is recorded, use the lowest trigger level consistent with avoiding false
triggers. Trigger on airblast alone only if absolutely necessary. (Bear in mind that pressure waves
travel much slower in air than vibration does through the ground. Depending upon the distance from
the blast and the size of the pre-blast data buffer in the instrument, the ground vibration may have
already passed through the recording point before the instrument would be triggered by airblast.)
Recording duration - How long the seismograph will record after it has been triggered.
Set the recording duration sufficiently long to record the entire event, including airblast. A good rule of
thumb is to use the total blast initiation system time and then add one second for every 1000 feet (or
portion of 1000 ft) of distance from the blast.

Geophone location.
The geophone should be located on the ground near the base of the structure to be protected.
Optionally, it can be located at an interim site closer to the blast in the case of great distance and/or
small charge weights. If at all possible, record on original ground rather than fill.
Do not record blast vibration:
On structures (unless that is the only possible location or is mandated).
Over hollow spaces or areas of subsidence.
Immediately adjacent to posts, poles or any other object that could oscillate and contribute to
the motion in that specific location.
On grass, leaves, mulch, planter mix, loose soil or near trees and their roots.
Be specific in your documentation as to the monitoring location. Relate it to some permanent
landmark. Be accurate. Don't estimate distances, measure them.
Geophone orientation should be level and with the longitudinal sensor (usually indicated by an arrow
on the geophone case) pointing toward the blast.

19

If for some reason you are required to record on or in a structure, align the longitudinal sensor parallel
with one wall, preferably pointing closest to the direction of the blast. In these instances, it is advisable
to also place a second seismograph outside the structure and align its geophone so that its sensors
are parallel to the ones inside. (Bear in mind that, in this instance, you are recording the structures
response to ground motion rather than the ground motion itself.)
Geophone Anchoring.
Proper coupling to the ground surface is very important. A geophone block that slips, bounces or
rocks will result in readings that contain artificially high velocities and artificially low frequencies.
Possible anchoring methods (listed from best to worst):
bolting
epoxy
burying
spiking
wax
double-sided tape (carpet tape)
holding in place (not advisable unless you are an experienced operator)
merely resting on the surface

The use of sand bags or shot bags is questionable unless protection from flyrock is required. If used,
make sure that the sand bag is firmly in contact with the ground surrounding the geophone block. A
sand bag may raise the center of gravity of the geophone block and will not stop rocking or sliding
above approximately 1/3 of a G.
The anchoring method required is determined by the amount of acceleration that is anticipated. See
the attached graph for Seismograph Geophone Anchoring Recommendations.
Accelerations do not have to be very high to cause a geophone block to slip or rock. It can be shown
that a combination of 1/3 G of vertical acceleration, when combined with 1/3 G of horizontal
acceleration, can cause a poorly-anchored geophone to slip.
Recording airblast.
When recording blast vibration, always include the recording of airblast. Structures may respond to
airblast that you cannot readily hear and can result in creaking, rattling or other internal noises. Many
blast vibration complaints are actually the result of airblast-induced structure motion rather than ground
vibration.
Orient the microphone at least 3 feet above the ground and away from walls, internal corners or other
reflective surfaces. Although most microphones are omni-directional in the frequency range of most
airblast, point them toward the blast. This will avoid the problem of someone thinking you are
cheating.
Record linear, peak air overpressure levels (either in dB, psi or in Pascals). Do not use A or C
weighting as is common in conventional noise recording. A or C weighting will not properly record the
low frequency air overpressures that are the cause of most structure response complaints.

20

A graph showing the attenuation curves for various sound-weighting schemes follows. The weighting
curves shown are intended to duplicate the hearing capability of the human ear at various intensities.
(A is for low Sound Pressure Levels, B is for medium SPLs and C is for high SPLs.) The horizontal line
at 0 dB represents the linear, un-weighted sound level. If human annoyance was the concern with
airblast, these weighting curves might apply. Our main concern, however, is structural response and
sound weighting is not appropriate in this instance.

Care of the seismograph.

The leading problems experienced by seismograph users are usually caused by:
1. Dirt in the printer/plotter. Don't leave the instrument (and especially the printer compartment) open
in the field. When stowing the geophone, microphone and microphone stand, wipe off the dirt and
mud before putting them in the accessory compartment. Vacuum out the unit occasionally.
2. Failure to keep the batteries charged. A fully-charged instrument should monitor
for one or two weeks or longer before the battery becomes too low to power the instrument. Follow
the manufacturers instructions on charging the battery. The better units utilize a voltage regulator that
will not allow the battery to overcharge, even if it is left on the charger for extended periods of time. If
the battery will not hold an adequate charge, the unit probably needs servicing.
It is important that the time and date on the instruments clock be reasonably accurate. This ties the
record to a specific event. This is especially important if you are using the instrument in a continuous
monitoring mode and are leaving it set out to record a series of events.

Seismograph Calibration.
When monitoring for legal protection purposes, have the instrument calibrated annually, but absolutely
no less often than 18 months. Some agencies mandate a factory calibration within the preceding 12
months or, in some instances, more often. Between calibrations, the instrument's self-check is usually
sufficient to verify that the sensors are functioning properly and that the geophone is sufficiently level
to provide an accurate reading.
Failure to record.
If for any reason the seismograph fails to trigger and record a blast, the seismograph operator should
fill out a form (similar to the one that follows) to certify that a proper attempt was made. The document
should be filed with the blast report. If at all possible, determine the reason for the failure and take
corrective action. If the distance was too great and/or the vibration intensity too low to trigger the
instrument, either lower the trigger level or move the instrument closer to the blast for future attempts.
It is far better to extrapolate a known result than to have to estimate the blast vibration intensity.

Seismograph limitations.
Aliasing - A digital sampling phenomenon that occurs when the highest frequency of the vibration
exceeds half the sampling rate of the instrument. This phenomenon will usually show up as a high
frequency wave superimposed over a low frequency wave. An anti-aliasing filter can prevent this from
occurring in properly designed seismographs. Most modern blasting seismographs record at a
minimum sampling rate of 1024 samples per second per channel. At the universally accepted four to
one ratio, this provides a satisfactory frequency response for field use of up to 256 Hertz. It should be
noted that, for research work, it is customary and preferable to use a ten to one (or higher) ratio.
If the instrument has an anti-aliasing filter and you are recording in very close proximity to the blast,
the higher frequencies may be filtered out.

21

22

SEISMOGRAPH OPERATOR'S REPORT

(To be filled out following a blast where blast vibration levels do not
exceed the trigger level of the monitoring equipment)
Client ______________________________________________________________
Project _____________________________________________________________
Date _____________ Time of Blast ____________ Blast Number ______________
Seismograph Make & Model ___________________ Serial Number ____________
Trigger Source ________________________ Trigger Level __________________
Range Selected _______________________ Record Duration ________________
Sensor Test Results (at set-up)________________ (after blast)________________
Geophone Location ___________________________________________________
Witnesses (if any) ____________________________________________________
Additional Comments __________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

I certify that the above listed monitoring equipment was properly

set in place for the blast indicated and that the trigger level
was set at the value specified above.

Signature of seismograph operator:

__________________________________
__________________________________
(printed name)
__________________________________
(company)

23

11. Designing Blasts to Minimize Vibration

Before proceeding, it is very important to understand (and all successful blasters do) that most of the
parameters involved in blast design are interrelated or interactive. By this we mean that making a
change in one parameter will have an impact on the others and could necessitate additional changes.
With the understanding that efforts at correcting one problem could possibly lead to others, let's look at
what we can do with blast design to reduce vibration. Blast vibration is affected by the following list of
variables. These are in turn modified by blast design parameters as indicated.
Variables over which the blaster has no control 1. Distance - The farther from the blast, the less vibration, however you have to blast the rock where
you find it.
2. Site geology - As the distance between the blast and the recording point increases, geology
plays a somewhat larger role in the vibration frequency and how quickly the vibration dissipates.
While this variable may be technically interesting to some, its impact is minor due to the normal rapid
dissipation of blast vibration with distance.
Variables over which the blaster does have control 1. Quantity of explosive per delay - This is one of the major factors in controlling blast vibration.
Blast design parameters that affect this would be hole diameter, number of decks, initiation scheme,
etc. Generally, reducing the quantity of explosive per delay will reduce the vibration generated, but the
powder factor must remain high enough to adequately fracture the material.
(See number 3 following.) Most blasters avoid decking if at all possible because it is labor intensive.
Decking not only provides some reduction in blast vibration but, in certain instances, can yield better
fragmentation.
2. Confinement of the explosive energy - Another major variable in blast vibration. Confinement is
affected by burden and spacing, the quantity (and quality) of stemming, drilling accuracy, amount of
sub-drilling and primer location, all as they relate to the quantity of explosive. Highly confined blasts
(such as pre-splitting) generate higher vibration levels per unit weight of explosive. Mud-capping of
boulders generates less vibration per unit weight of explosive (but much higher airblast). If a certain
amount of throw or heave is acceptable, or if means are employed to prevent excessive throw,
reducing burdens will lower vibration levels appreciably. However, one must be careful of increased
airblast.
Bottom initiation will generally result in slightly more vibration than top initiation; however, the need to
adequately break or pull the bottom usually outweighs any vibration benefit that might be gained from
shooting from the top down.
3. Powder factor - Affected by almost all of the blast design parameters. The key here is to use as
close to the optimum amount of explosive as possible and to distribute it through the material to be
blasted in such a way as to adequately fracture and shift the mass. Too low a powder factor will not
adequately fragment the material and a large portion of the available energy will be lost as seismic
energy resulting in higher blast vibration. Too high a powder factor can result in flyrock along with
higher airblast and vibration.
4. Explosive/borehole coupling - Although this has some minor effect on vibration, reducing coupling
is seldom tried. Pre-splitting uses decoupled charges, but still results in high vibration levels because
the increased confinement (the burden is far greater than normal) has a greater impact on vibration
than the decoupling. Because of the difficulty in implementing it, reducing vibration by decoupling
explosive charges is normally not utilized.

24

5. Spatial distribution of the energy source - This is a phenomenon that is a possible means of
reducing vibration and can also increase the frequency of the vibration. Two examples of this are: (1)
Two holes containing 100 lbs each and detonated simultaneously will generate less vibration than one
hole containing 200 lbs. To take good advantage of this concept, the holes or decks detonating
simultaneously should be separated by some reasonable distance, say half the width or half the length
of the blast, whichever is greater. The more distance, the better. Adjacent, or nearly adjacent, holes
or decks detonating simultaneously will benefit minimally from this effect. (2) A second example would
be a long column of explosive generating less vibration than a spherical charge of the same weight
because it is imparting vibration to a greater area. There have also been instances where a quarry or
open pit mine might detonate two distinctly separate blasts simultaneously, with neither contributing
appreciably to the vibration of the other.
6. Timing of energy release - Most regulatory agencies specify a minimum of 9 milliseconds (ms)
between detonating charges, considering all explosives detonating within any given 8 ms time period
to have detonated in the same instant. This is done solely for determining explosive weight for Scaled
Distance calculations. In actual practice, delays of 5 ms to 9 ms can minimize vibration in very closein blasting situations (say 10 to 25 feet). As distance increases, 9 ms will yield less vibration than
shorter delay periods, but will not yield the minimum possible. The optimum time delay will depend on
site-specific variables, but will tend to be in the range of 17 to 50 ms, with the higher delay being
applicable only in larger blasts.
In the matter of selecting delay timing, some organizations have advocated a process that records the
results from detonating a "signature" hole, and then using a computer program to superimpose
identical waveforms over one another at differing time intervals in an attempt to find some optimum
delay time that appears to offer the least amount of vibration. While this seems theoretically possible
(and is easily accomplished mathematically), the method has met with only limited success. The
biggest drawback is that it does not consider blast geometry, direction of initiation propagation and
other blast parameters, factors which play an important part. It also assumes that the geology is
consistent in all directions, a situation which may not exist.
There is a simpler method of the foregoing process that has met with some success where it is
desirable to limit vibration in just one direction. The vibration resulting from a single signature hole
(with burden, size and loading parameters being identical to a production hole) is recorded at several
locations along a line in the direction of interest. A frequency spectrum analysis or Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) is then accomplished on the recorded data. A search is made to find one or more
frequencies at which the ground in that direction does not readily transmit energy. This frequency is
then converted to a delay time between detonating charges. If a realistic time can be found, a
production blast is designed and detonated to test the timing. Basically what is done is to find a
frequency that the ground doesn't readily transmit and then to try to pulse it at that frequency.
In considering either of the above two methods, it is very important to understand that: (1) The
geology needs to be reasonably consistent between the blast and the structure or in the direction of
interest, and (2) the method used to reduce blast-generated vibration in one direction may very well
increase it in another.
7. Blast orientation. The maximum vibration will tend to be in a direction opposite to that in which
the material is being heaved or thrown. By changing the direction of throw, you may also change the
direction of maximum vibration, but usually only in a minor way. Again, be aware that, while you may
be reducing the vibration in one direction, you may very well increase it in another. In most open pit
mining operations, the geology will allow the rock to pull better in one direction than in others and the
orientation of faces may have to be largely determined by geology, property boundaries and/or mining
methods.
For conventional blasting, remember that the most efficient blasts will also have the lowest vibration
levels.

25

12. Designing Blasts to Minimizing Airblast

From the causes of airblast listed earlier, we can readily see what steps need to be taken to reduce or
prevent airblast. Exposed explosives charges and surface detonating cord trunk lines should never be
used in urban situations.
We will assume here that you are using proper blast designs with normal burden, spacing and powder
factors. If this isnt the case and you are experiencing excessive airblast, you may need to revisit your
basic blast designs and compare them with well established standard criteria.
The main cause of high frequency airblast tends to be holes blowing out, either by ejecting the
stemming or by venting through mud seams. Check your stemming quality and quantity. Its
conventional to use drill cuttings for stemming holes because it is convenient. Cuttings, however, are
not the most efficient stemming material. Pea gravel or any round stone is the worst. (Remember,
shot in a shotgun load is round..) Any fine material that turns into a slurry when loaded in a waterfilled hole will also blow out quite readily. The best stemming material is angular crushed stone.
Research has shown that the best size would be approximately 1/17th of the borehole diameter. If you
can readily obtain something close to this and use the correct quantity per hole, you should be able to
confine the energy rather than letting it vent to atmosphere. It will take some experimenting, but the
correct stemming height should be close to 80% to 100% of the burden dimension. You may find that
this can be reduced if you are using the correct stemming material. The amount required is indirectly
proportional to the quality. If the correct size of stemming is in short supply, at least pour a couple of
feet of it directly on the explosive column and fill the remainder of the hole with drill cuttings.
To prevent holes from venting to the atmosphere in other ways, you should have your driller log the
holes, watching for mud seams. When there is an obvious weak zone or cavity in a hole, it would be
advisable to stem through it and resume loading (with another primer) once you are past the seam or
weak zone.
Videotaping your blasts will greatly assist in troubleshooting sources of airblast from either of the
above two causes.
Low frequency airblast can be caused when the velocity of initiation along a free face approaches or is
above the speed of sound. This can also occur in a row of holes on the surface of the blast. The
speed of sound in air at sea level is a little over 1100 feet per second. 1 millisecond of delay per foot
of spacing results in blast progression of 1000 feet per second and 2 milliseconds per foot would be
half of that, or 500 feet per second. It has been found that reducing the velocity of blast progression
along the face to half the speed of sound or slower reduces this cause of airblast considerably. It is
important to remember, however, that the delay timing should not be increased to the point of causing
misfires through cut-offs in initiation systems or explosive columns. You must design for a buffer zone
of several or more rows of holes between a hole that is detonating and detonators in holes where the
initiation signal has not been received. If this is not done, misfires are often the result. Many
successful blasters prefer to use delay timing between holes in a row of 2 ms to 5 ms per foot of
burden. Many also prefer to use delay timing from row to row that is double, or nearly double, the
delay timing in a row. Following these initiation design procedures will usually bring the blast
progression below half the speed of sound and should prevent excessive low frequency airblast from
this source.
Important: In your search for the reduction of airblast, do not compromise safety by causing misfires.
In the above adjustments to blast progression, it may become necessary to increase your down-hole
delay time so that a sufficient buffer zone exists.
If production requirements allow, it could also prove beneficial to schedule your blasts to take
advantage of times when winds are blowing in a favorable direction or to take advantage of calmer
wind conditions.

26

13. Blast documentation

It is extremely important to have adequate documentation of your blasts. This is more than just
properly accounting for the explosives that you consume in your blasting operations. You must have
a document that completely describes the blast. This can be in any format that you find convenient,
but it must be accurate and it must be complete.
A good test to determine the adequacy of your blast documentation is to see if you (or better yet,
another blaster) could reproduce the blast, in detail, solely from the data on the blast report. Any
additional information that you have to provide from memory in order to reproduce the blast is
information that should have been included on the original report.
Why is it critical to be able to reproduce a blast and to do so accurately? Assume for the moment that
someone has filed a damage claim against you for a blast on a specific day. Most people (including
judges and juries) who do not have first hand experience with blasting and blast effects, will tend to
believe that blasting can cause all manner of structural damage and defects. Unless you, with or
without your experts, can prepare a defense that proves that the damage could not have been caused
by the blast in question, it is quite likely that you will be held responsible for the damage claimed.
To disprove a damage claim, one of the facts that must be established is the maximum amount and
nature of blast-generated ground vibration that would have been experienced at the site of the damage
claimed. Hopefully, you recorded the vibration with a blasting seismograph. If not, people
knowledgeable in blast vibration can make acceptable estimates and testify as to the highest level of
vibration experienced, but they need good blast records on which to base their calculations. They will
be primarily interested in the specific location of the blast, the highest charge weight per delay and the
time separation between delays. They should also have information on the orientation and geometry of
the blast, the specific timing pattern utilized, type(s) of explosive used, burden, spacing, hole count,
hole diameter and depth(s), stemming height, etc. These will help in estimating the amount of
confinement of the blast.
If you monitored the blast for vibration and air over-pressure (airblast), all the better. Bear in mind that
the specific location of the seismograph must also be noted. Try to relate the location of the
seismograph to relatively permanent landmarks so that the location can be reconstructed a year or two
later. Even when you monitor a blast, good blast documentation is important. The seismograph tape
is only half the picture. You also need to know what caused the amount of vibration or air overpressure that was recorded.
A couple of additional comments regarding blast documentation are in order:
(1) Blast records filled out in the field and in the blasters own handwriting, signed by the blaster, are
far better in court than a computer-generated printout (that might have been put together some time
after the blast in question).
(2) Be accurate. Dont list a charge weight of 15 lbs and a distance of 500 feet if the real charge
weight was 16.5 lbs and the distance was actually 475 feet. For the highest charge weight per delay,
dont just divide the total explosives weight by the number of delays and then list the result. Put down
the actual largest charge weight per delay that was loaded in the shot. Finding an inaccuracy on a
blast report will probably lead an opposing attorney or the plaintiffs expert to argue that the rest of
your records cannot be trusted.
Every blaster has his own favorite blast report format. A sample blast report form is included on the
next page. Regardless of the format you use for the details, always include a diagram of the blast.

27

28

14. Exploding Myths

Through the years there have been a number of strange theories, processes and phenomena that
have come to the attention of blasting consultants, forensic specialists, geophysicists and others
involved in addressing blast effects. Some of these were proposed by well-intentioned, but otherwise
inexperienced persons, while others appear to have been dreamed up by individuals (some of whom
were highly educated) in an attempt to explain some otherwise impossible situation. It might prove
enlightening to look at a few of them.
Myth 1. Concrete can be readily damaged by blast vibration.
Most concrete slabs, walks, etc. will develop cracks over time for any number of reasons, but external
vibration is not one of them. Explosive charges in or under concrete may cause damage to it, but this
would have been the result of rock-block movement, cratering, or by heaving the concrete upward. If it
was possible to crack concrete with vibration, concrete demolition work would be much easier and far
less expensive. Among the normal causes of concrete damage are inadequate soil compaction, tree
roots, normal curing shrinkage, heavy traffic, etc.
Myth 2. A pre-split crack can be used to control vibration.
Blasters, and even some fairly knowledgeable consultants, have fallen into this trap. While an abrupt
canyon wall may attenuate surface waves, a pre-spilt crack will not make an appreciable difference in
vibration attenuation. A pre-split plane has a finite length and depth and vibration will go around it.
The crack is not sufficiently open, having numerous contact points that will transmit vibration. As early
as 1965, the Bureau of Mines (RI 6695) investigated this as a possible means of reducing ground
vibration. In 1975, the Explosive Excavation Research Lab of the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station in Livermore California conducted its own study (Tech Report E-75-2). Both
agencies determined that a pre-split fracture plane was ineffective as a buffer for vibration. In some
instances, more vibration will result from a pre-split blast than from conventional production blasts with
normal burdens.
Myth 3. Damage can be expected to occur automatically if blast vibration standards are
exceeded.
Blast vibration standards in current use are quite conservative. As previously mentioned, it would
almost appear that some of them were formulated for human response factors rather than to prevent
damage. There are numerous instances where the limits spelled out in these standards have been
exceeded, sometimes by double, without causing any damage.
The blaster should be cautioned however that, in refuting a claim of damage, it is not sufficient to use
as his sole defense the argument that his blast vibration and airblast were within specified limits. That
may form part of his defense, but it is much more important to base it upon some other type of
irrefutable evidence.
Myth 4. Blast vibration can travel underground along some geologic layer or discontinuity and
then suddenly come to the surface at some distant point and damage a structure.
This theory is usually proposed when an expert is trying to explain why he feels a complainants
residence was damaged while other structures much nearer the blast were not adversely affected. We
can mostly thank texts that describe seismic refraction theory for handing us this problem. Even
though there are an infinite number of rays in waves that emanate from a detonating charge, to
simplify refraction theory the diagrams normally only show a single ray traveling from the charge down
to a layer, thence along the layer, and finally coming back up to the recording device on the surface.
This ray represents the ray with the earliest arrival, not the largest motion. Depending upon the
distance from the blast, the largest motion would probably have been a surface wave.
No structure or portion of the ground between the detonation and the complainants residence
escaped also being affected by passing seismic waves. If damage did indeed occur to the subject
residence, there should also be evidence of damage at others closer to the blast.

29

Myth 5. Airblast was reflected off of a cloud layer / inversion layer (pick one) and focused on
the complainants residence causing damage.
As previously mentioned in the discussion of temperature inversions, the effect only occurs at an
extended distance from the blast. The airblast from normal blasts at that distance has diminished to a
point well below that capable of causing damage. If windows werent also broken between the
complainants home and the blast, this damage from reflection theory falls short.
Myth 6. Vibration energy was trapped in a waveguide, causing it to travel much farther from
the blast, eventually causing damage when it surfaced.
While one may occasionally find conditions in nature similar to a waveguide, they are fairly rare. The
most common of these might occur when a layer of alluvium overlays solid rock. In this situation,
vibration waves in or on the alluvium might not diminish as rapidly as they might have if the condition
did not exist, but they will still be diminishing rapidly with distance. The vibration closer to the blast
would have been of a higher intensity and if there was damage at the distant location, it would have
also been accompanied by damage closer to the blast.

In addressing and refuting some of the foregoing myths, a useful tool as suggested by Oriard (1999
and 2002) is called the Scale of Effects. Scale of Effects comes out of earthquake technology where
it has been used for years to identify zones of similar damage around the epicenter of an earthquake.
Within a given zone, damage levels will be relatively similar and can be assigned to a specific intensity
level on the Modified Mercalli scale. Higher numbers, closer to the epicenter, indicate the higher levels
of damage. As the distance from the epicenter becomes greater, the decreasing levels of damage
result in zones that are assigned lower numbers. In all cases, the numbers are assigned based upon
ranges of actual documented damage or effects. For a further discussion of the Modified Mercalli
scale or earthquakes in general, the reader is referred to a good earthquake text, to Richters book or
to one of Oriards books listed in Appendix D.
To use the Scale of Effects for evaluating blast vibration damage, one must consider the following
question: If the damage claimed was indeed caused by the blast, what other effects would have had
to have occurred at the same time? Often the damage claimed would have required extremely high
levels of vibration, yet other far more sensitive objects nearby were not harmed.
A classic example of this occurred in Southern California some years ago. The owner of a $7 million
home claimed damage from blasting that took place approximately a half mile away. The damage
claimed included cracks in the concrete garage floor, swimming pool, pool deck, chimney and plaster,
a broken PVC water line, cracks in a paved tennis court, and displacement of opposing bathroom walls
that showed separation of almost a half inch near the ceiling. In the owners words (who happened to
be an attorney), this was a classic example of blast vibration damage. Where the Scale of Effects
came into play was the fact that there were several statues delicately balanced on pedestals in the
main hall of the residence. These statues would have surely been toppled and broken had the
damage claimed been from blast vibration, but they were not. A second application of Scale of Effects
was in the bathroom. If vibration from blasting had caused the walls to be permanently displaced
outward at the top, why did it not also crack the mortar in the joints in the flagstone shower at one end
of the bathroom?
It was fairly obvious that there had been some major shrinkage issues in the bathroom materials and
the area in the garage that was cracked was located on poorly compacted fill. Although some of the
damage claimed bordered on the ridiculous and was easily refuted, the Scale of Effects helped
immensely in defending the contractor in this case.

30

Myth 7. Vibration from a blast acted as a triggering force when it was added to existing strain
in a structure (i.e. the straw that broke the camels back).
Strains that occur in structures start as soon as the structure is under construction and continue
throughout its life. These are caused by many sources, among which are the shrinkage of building
materials as they cure, expansive soils, changes in weather, temperature variations between day and
night or different seasons, etc. Most of these far exceed the strain from blast vibration. The slight
elevation of strain level during a blast would still fall well short of peak strains that the structure has
experienced numerous times prior and would thus not be capable of being a trigger source.
If one were to monitor and document the various cracks in structures over an extended period, one
would find that they would open and close on a continuing basis, depending upon the strain being
generated by normal environmental sources. If you were to detonate a blast nearby during one of the
phases when the cracks were relatively closed, the argument could be made that the blast vibration
assisted in the healing of the cracks. Of course, this would be ludicrous, but that is exactly the same
logic being used by persons who claim that blast vibration acted as a trigger source and caused the
crack in the first place.
Lew Oriard (1999) also refutes this theory quite effectively. He states that, Because of the action of
powerful environmental forces, all houses undergo large cyclic strains on a continuing basis. That
simple fact alone dictates that a triggering force would have to be quite large. Otherwise the crack
would already exist.
Myth 8. Damage from structural fatigue will result from repeated exposure to vibration from
blasts.
The consensus of various segments of the engineering community holds that, for permanent
deformation to occur from fatigue, strain must regularly exceed at least half of the yield strength of the
structure or material. While strains generated from blasts could possibly exceed half the yield strength
of a material or structure, it would take very large charges detonated in extremely close proximity to do
so. Damage would far more likely be caused by block movement rather than vibration. Other types of
damage would become apparent before fatigue could occur.
The Bureau of Mines in RI 8896 (1984) also addressed this issue. They constructed a house in the
path of an advancing large open pit coal mine. Due to mine operational constraints, the blasting tests
were discontinued when the high wall reached a distance of 300 feet from the house. At that point,
because they had not been able to obtain structural damage from the blast vibration, they resorted to
the installation of mechanical shakers in the structure in an attempt to cause cosmetic damage through
accelerated fatigue tests. The shakers were set up to put vibration through the structure equivalent to
approximately 0.5 inches per second of PPV. The frequency was set to fall within the resonant range
of portions of the structure (5.90 to 9.35 Hertz).
The shaking of the structure finally managed to generate a tape joint crack and a crack in joint
compound over a nailhead (basically cosmetic damage) after 56,000 cycles. This would have been
the equivalent of 28 years of shaking, twice a day, from blast-induced vibration at a PPV ranging from
0.3 to 0.5 inches/second.

31

Appendix A - Blasting Complaint Report

Complaint received:

Date: _______________

Time: ___________________

Complainants name: __________________________________________________

Address: _______________________________________ Phone: _____________
Specific complaint: ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Date and specific time of occurrence (as reported by Complainant):
Date: ______________

Time: _______________

Complaint received by: _________________________________________________

Results of Investigation: ________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Investigated by: _______________________________________________________

Disposition of Complaint: _______________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
(use additional pages as necessary)

32

Appendix B

Metric Conversions

The following information is provided to facilitate the conversion of blast calculations

between imperial (US) and SI (metric) units Official Definitions (according to U.S. and Canadian law):
1 inch (in.)

1 pound (lb.) =

25.4 millimeters (mm)

453.59237 grams (g)

Useful Conversion Factors:

Distance:

feet (ft)
meters

Weight:

pounds (lbs)
kilograms

Peak Particle Velocity:

Volume:

in/sec
mm/sec
cu. yards (yd3)
cu. meters

Powder Factor:

lbs/yd3
kg/m3

x .3048
x 3.2808

=
=

meters (m)
feet

x
x

.454
2.2026

=
=

kilograms (kg)
pounds

x
x

25.4
.3937

=
=

mm/sec
in/sec

x
x

1.308
.7645

=
=

cu. meters (m3)

cu. yards

x
.93
x 1.6863

=
=

kg/m3
lbs/yd3

Square Root Scaled Distance:

ft/lbs1/2
m/kg1/2

x
x

.45236
2.2106

=
=

m/kg1/2
ft/lbs1/2

Cube Root Scaled Distance:

ft/lbs1/3
m/kg1/3

x
x

.3965
2.5221

=
=

m/kg1/3
ft/lbs1/3

x
x

.145
6.895

=
=

Pascals
psi

Pressure:

psi
Pascals

33

34

35

Appendix C - Calculations for Sinusoidal Waveforms

The following equations express the relationships between Velocity,
Displacement, Frequency and Acceleration for sinusoidal waveforms.

V = 2 f D

or

V = 386.1 Gs / (2 f)

D = V / (2 f)

A = 2 f V
or
Ag = (2 f V) / 386.1
f = V / (2 D)

or

f = A / (2 V)

Where:
V is velocity in inches/second
D is peak displacement in inches
A is acceleration in inches/second2
Ag is acceleration in Gs
f is frequency in Hertz (cycles per second)
is 3.14159.

36

Appendix D - References and Additional Reading

Blasters Handbook (1998), International Society of Explosives Engineers,
Cleveland, OH.
Dowding, Charles H. (1985), Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control, published by
Prentice- Hall. ISBN 0-13-078197-5.
(See Note A following)
Dowding, Charles H. (1996), Construction Vibrations, published by Prentice Hall.
ISBN 0-13-299108-X.
(See Note A following)
Edwards, A.T., and Northwood, T.D., (1960), Experimental Studies of the Effects of
Blasting on Structures. The Engineer, September 1960.
Medearis, K. (1976), The Development of Rational Damage Criteria for Low-rise
Structures Subjected to Blasting Vibrations, Report to the National Crushed Stone
Association, Washington, D.C.
Nicholls, H. R., Johnson, C. F., and Duvall, W. I. (1971), Blasting vibrations and
Their Effects on Structures, Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656.
Oriard, L. L. (2002), Explosives Engineering, Construction Vibrations and
Geotechnology, published by the International Society of Explosives Engineers.
ISBN 1-892396-13-0.
(See note A following)
Oriard, L. L. (1999), The Effects of Vibrations and Environmental Forces, published
by the International Society of Explosives Engineers. ISBN 1-892396-10-6.
(See
note B following)
Oriard, L.L., (1994), Vibration and Ground Rupture Criteria for Buried Pipelines.
Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers.
Richter, Charles F., (1958), Elementary Seismology. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Robertson, D.A., Gould, J.A., Straw, J.A., and Dayton, M.A., (1980), Survey of
Blasting Effects on Ground Water Supplies in Appalachia: Volumes I and II. Bureau
of Mines open field report 8(1)-82.
Rose, R., Bowles, B. and Bender, W., (1991), Results of Blasting in Close Proximity
to Water Wells at the Sleeper Mine. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers.
Siskind, D.E. and Stagg, M.S., (1993), Response of Pressurized Pipelines to
Production-Size Mine Blasting. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium on
Explosives and Blasting Research. International Society of Explosives Engineers.

37

Siskind, D. E., Stagg, M. S., Kopp, J. W., and Dowding, C. H. (1980), Structure
Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting,
Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations, RI 8507.
Siskind, D. E., Stachura, V. J., Stagg, M. S., and Kopp, J. W. (1980), Structure
Response and Damage Produced by Airblast from Surface Mining, Bureau of Mines
Report of Investigations, RI 8485.
Stagg, M. S., Siskind, D. E., Stevens, M. G., and Dowding, C. H. (1984), Effects of
Repeated Blasting on a Wood-Frame House, Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigations, RI 8896.
Stagg, M. S., and Engler, A. J. (1980), Measurement of Blast-Induced Ground
Vibrations and Seismograph Calibration, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations,
RI 8506.
Tart, R.G., Oriard, L.L., and Plump, J.H., (1980), Blast Damage Criteria for Massive
Concrete Structure. ASCE National Meeting, Specialty Session on Minimizing
Detrimental Construction Vibrations, Portland, OR, ASCE Preprint 80-175 April 1980.
Wiss, J. F. and Linehan, P. W., (1978), Control of Vibration and Blast Noise from
Surface Coal Mining. Bureau of Mines Open File Report 103-79. National Technical
Information Service.

Note A - These publications are exceptionally good in their treatment of the subject
matter.

Note B - This publication will prove to be of great value to those persons or

organizations who investigate claims of blast vibration or airblast damage.

38