HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeasurement & Analysis of Blast Induced Ground & Air Vibration
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
I D
'0
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
.Measurement and Analysis
of
Blast Induced Ground and Air Vibration
in the Vicinity of the
Martin Marietta Aggregates, North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Aggregates
1980 E. 1 t 6th Street, Suite 200
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Prepared by:
Vibra- Tech Engineers, Inc.
109 East First Street
Hazleton, Pennsylvania 18201-0577
1-800-233-618 t
November 30,2005
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EX E CUTIVE SUMM.....:\. R Y .......... ........ ........................... .............. ................................-.... ..........1
IN T RO D U CTI 0 N ......................... ............ ............................. .............................. ................... .... ...2
STUn Y TO PIC....................... ............................ ................_...................................-....................3
ESTABLISHED GROUND VIBRATION CRITERIA AND RELEVANT RESEARCH......5
RECOMMENDED GROUND VIBRATION CRITERIA FROM USBM RI-8507......... ..................................5
RESEARCH ON REPEATED VIHRATIONS FROM RI-8896 ......................................................... ............7
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO VIBRA TrONS.... ............................................ ........... ........ .......................8
TIlE RSVP TECHNIQUE......... .......... .......... ...... ............ .......... .............................. ...... .............. ........ II
RECOMMENDED AIR VIBRATION CRITERIA FROM USBM RI-8485.................................................13
ISOS EIS.l\'11 C SURVEY ....._........ ...............................................................................................14
ISOSEISMIC TECHNIQUE..... ... .................................................... ............................ ..... ..................... 14
DATA ACQUISITION PROCEDURE .... ...... .... ............ .... ...... ...... ......................... ... ........ .......... ............15
How TO READ THE ISOSEISMlC MAPS ............................ ................................ ................................16
DISCUSSION OF ISOSEISMIC MAPS.................... .......... .............. .............................................. ........ 17
VI BRA TION AN A LYSES ..........................................................................................................18
COMPARISON 01"' GROUND VIBRATION ToUSBM CRITERIA...........................................................18
COMPARISON OF AIR OVERPRESSURE ro USBM CRlTERIA............................................................18
SUMi\'fARY OF VlBRA nON ANALYSTS .............................................................................. t 9
R.EFE.R E N CES............... ___."........................ ................. .............................................................20
A P P'END IX A ...................._........ "._.................._...... ......................................... .... ....................2 ]
o
Q
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
LIST OF FIGURES
FiGURE 1. ROCK BREAKAGE BY ExPLOSIVES .................................__...........................................................3
FIGURE 2. US BUREAU OF MINES RECOMMENDED VmRATJON CRITERIA (FROM RI-8507)..........__........... 7
FIGURE 3. RESPONSE FOR A TYPICAL 2-STORY STRtlCTIJRE ..............__....................................................... 9
FIGURE 4. DETERMINATION 01' STRUCTURE'S NATURAL FREQUENCY BASED ON STRUCTURE HEIGHT... 11
FIGURE 5. FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES OF RESIDENTIAl. STRlJCTlJRES................................................. 12
2
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. SAFE MAXIMUM NRl3LAST LEVELS (USBM Rl-8485). .__............................................--14
3
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
Executive Summary
A vibration study that measured and analyzed ground vibrations and air overpressures from
blasting at the Martin Marietta Aggregates' North Indianapolis Quarry was conducted on May
20,2005. The purpose of this study was to determine if the blast induced ground vibrations and
air overpressure levels were in compliance with the established u.s. Bureau of Mines criteria.
On May 20, 2005, 151 digital seismographs were deployed to record the ground vibrations and
air overpressure levels produced by the detonation of four separate blasts. The blasts consisted
of one single hole blast, Signature Blast I (Northeast Wall, Bench Level A); one multiple-hole
production blast on the surface, Production Blast 1 (Northeast Wall, Bench Level A); and two
heading blasts underground, Production Blast 2 (N2 north of GG) and Production Blast 3 (Z west
ofN24). The seismographs were located in areas surrounding the quarry.
The results of the study show that all of the ground vibrations recorded on May 20, 2005 in the
vicinity of residential and commercial structures surrounding the North Indianapolis quarry were
in compliance with the USBM recommended limit. The recorded air overpressures outside the
permitted quarry area were also in compliance with the USBM recommended limit. The
calculated structural response for residential structures was compared to the research of Dr.
Meadearis regarding blast vibration damage potential of the blast induced vibrations. This
comparison showed that the non-damage probability at all structures, for each of the blasts, was
100 percent.
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
Measurement and Analysis of Blast Induced Ground Vibration and Air Overpressure
in the Vicinity of the
Martin Marietta Aggregates, North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
Introduction
This is a report of the Vi bra- Tech Engineers, Inc. vibration study which measured and analyzed
ground vibrations and air overpressures from blasting at the Martin Marietta Aggregates North
Indianapolis Quarry. The study was authorized by Mr. Dan Hoskins of Martin Marietta
Aggregates. The fieldwork was completed on May 20,2005.
The purpose of this study was to determine if the ground vibration and air overpressure levels
were in compliance with the U.S. Bureau of Mines vibration criteria. The vibrations produced by
the detonation of four separate blasts were monitored by 151 digital seismographs on May 20,
2005. The blasts consisted of one single hole blast, Signature Blast I (Northeast Wall, Bench
Level A): one multiple-hole production blast on the surface, Production Blast I (Northeast Wall,
Bench Level A): and two heading blasts underground, Production Blast 2 (N2 north of 00) and
Production Blast 3 (Z west of N24). The seismographs were concentrated in the residential and
commercial areas surrounding the quarry.
This large array of seismographs permitted IsoSeismic contour maps to be made showing the
distribution of blasting vibrations around the quarry. The IsoSeismic maps indicate the intensity
of the vibrations from each blast, measured in peak particle velocity.
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
Study Topic
Human perception and response to ground vibrations from blasting have been a continual issue
for the mining industry, the public living near mining operations, and regulatory agencies
responsible for setting environmental standards since the 19305. [0 order to understand the
nature of this issue the following pages are dedicated to educating the reader about mineraI
recovery via blasting, the effects of blasting operations on the earth, the causes of blast
vibrations, why people feel vibrations, and how vibrarions are measured.
~
Free Face
Explosive detonates.
Detonation pressure
crushes surrounding
rock, creates fractures.
Explosion pre ure
expands cracks.
Movement beg ns
toward free face.
Pressure is released,
cracking stops.
Figure J. Rock Breakage by Explosives
A common misconception among the general public is that mine and quarry operations blast so
that they can crush stone. Crushed stone is actually produced in machines called crushers. In
order to obtain rock for the crushers, a small amount of bedrock must be broken off and fractured
into pieces which will fit into the crusher. The most cost-effective way to achieve this is through
blasting. A typical response from homeowners located near blasting operations is that since they
feel the vibrations at a great distance, the fracturing of rock must also occur at this distance. This
assumption is far from the truth.
When a blast hole is detonated, the explosion produces a high temperature, high-pressure gas.
This gas pressure, known as the detonation pressure, crushes the rock adjacent to the borehole.
The detonation pressure rapidly dissipates, consuming approximately ten to fifteen percent of the
energy available in the explosive. The remaining energy produces a second, lower pressure gas,
known as the explosion pressure, Most of the work done by the explosive is done by the
explosion pressure. The explosion pressure expands the cracks made by the detonation pressure,
and pushes the fractured rock toward the free face. Once the blasted material is separated from
the bedrock, the gas pressure escapes, and no further fracturing of the bedrock can occur, The
momentum of the fractured rock continues its movement toward the open pit. This entire
process occurs within a few hundredths of a second after the detonation, and takes place within
about tw'enty feet of a typical quarry blast hole.
3
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
o
The vibrations that homeowners feel are not caused by the fracturing of rock. Blast induced
ground vibrations are primarily the result of the delonalion pressure aCling on lhe rock around
the borehole and the explosion gas pressure pushing the fractured rock away from the bedrock
toward the open pit. The application of this large force against the bedrock followed by its
subsequent release causes the bedrock to vibrate, much like pushing and releasing a swing will
cause it to vibrate. When a part of the bedrock is vibrated within the quarry, the vibration is
transmitted into the ground surrounding it. This transmission of vibration is called propagation.
The propagation of the ground vibration continues away from the blast location in all directions,
similar to ripples in a pond which move away from the initial disturbance. The ripples in the
pond, like ground vibration, are examples of elastic vibration. Elastic vibration means that the
material never moves very far from its original position while it is vibrating, and once the
vibration event is over, the material will be in its original position and condition. Unlike the
ripples in the pond, the motion of the ground is so small it cannot be detected visually.
Therefore, sensitive scientific equipment is required for its measurement. Outside of a quarry,
the ground rarely moves farther than the thickness of a sheet of paper before returning to its
original position, and it may do so faster than the eye can sense. Seismographs can measure how
the ground moves from its original position, much like a tishennan's bobber can detect how the
water surface moves from rest when a ripple passes by.
As the ground vibrations propagate further away from the source, the energy is dissipated. When
the energy dissipates, ground vibration amplitude decreases, until eventually the ground
vibration falls below perceptible levels. The rate at which ground vibration amplitude decreases
as it propagates away from the blast location is called seismic attenuation. Seismic attenuation
has been studied extensively and found to occur geometrically. A geometric reduction in ground
vibration means that ground vibration amplitude decreases very quickly near the source, but very
slowly far from the source. As a result, almost all of the ground vibration energy is dissipated
within the quarry, but the small amount of energy remaining may produce perceptible vibrations
at great distances.
Since blasting produces perceptible ground vibrations beyond the quarry property, attempts to
control vibrations have been accomplished via laws, regulations, and industry standards.
Maximum pennissible levels have been established based on academic and government studies
of the effects of vibration on nearby property and people. Seismographs are used to measure the
vibrations, and ensure that the permissible levels are not exceeded. The seismograph may
measure how far the ground moves from rest (displacement), how fast it moves (velocity), or
how fast the velocity changes (acceleration). These three parameters are related by the
frequency of the vibrations.
Frequency is a measure of how many times the ground will vibrate through its original position
in one second. The seismograph also measures frequency, which is commonly reported in cycles
per second or hertz (Hz). Standards limit the maximum amount of vibration that can occur at
any point, or particle, on the ground surface. The limit is therefore commonly referred to as a
peak particle displacement, peak particle velocity, or peak particle acceleration. Nearly all
residential vibration standards limit the peak particle velocity.
4
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
ID
I
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
Operator!; must have a method of estimating ground vibrations from a blast during its planning to
confidently adhere to vibration limits. Since the amplitude of ground vibration is determined by
how much energy is present to create vibration and how far the vibrations have propagated,
researchers devised a single number to relate these parameters. This number, called the Square
Root Scaled Distance, or simply Scaled Distance, relates ground vibration amplitude to
explosive charge weight and distance from the blast. The scaled distance requires the explosive
charge weight to decrease as the distance from the blast decreases in order to adhere to ground
vibration peak particle velocity limits. The scaled distance provides a convenient method of
comparing the ground vibration potential of different blast designs. Some regulations do not
require the use of seismographs if the scaled distance from the blast is large enough.
In response to quarry operator desires to minimize ground vibrations and still operate efficiently,
explosive manufacturers developed millisecond delayed blasting caps. Research has shown that
several charges detonated only a few thousandths of a second apart would not only produce less
ground vibration, but are also more effective at fracturing and moving rock than a simultaneous
detonation of all charges. All quarry blasts today consi st of many small charges detonated
several hundredths or thousandths of a second apart., and the scaled distance has been defined as
the total weight of explosives detonated within a certain period of time, rather than the total
weight of explosives in the blast.
Air-borne vibration may also be produced by blasting. These vibrations may occur within the
audible range of the human ear (sound), or at frequencies below those humans can hear
(infrasonic). Many sources for air vibration exist in a typical blast, but all can be traced back to
either the venting of the detonation and explosion pressures or the fractured rock pushing air out
of the quarry. Seismographs are equipped with microphones and measure these changes in air
pressure occurring as the air vibration passes to determine if permissible limits are exceeded.
Established Ground Vibration Criteria and Relevant Research
Recommended Ground Vibration Criteria from USBM RI-8567
The USBM has studied various aspects of ground vibration and air blast since 1930. In 1971,
the culmination of over forty years of research was compiled into Bulletin 656 entitled '"Blasting
Vibrations and Their Effects on Structures". In this publication the author reviewed effects of
blast design on the generation of ground vibrations and air blast propagation. Bulletin 656
developed three fundamental parameters that are used today in the field of blasting and vibration
seismology. First, peak particle velocity should be used as a measure of ground vibration.
Second, a minimum time delay interval of eight milliseconds (ms) between explosive charges
should be used to calculate scaled distance. Third, a safe scaled distance of 50 ftllbl: for quarry
blasting should be implemented in the absence of vibration monitoring.
Bulletin 656 also collected additional data that further substantiated the limit of 2.0 in/see peak
particle velocity as the overall safe level for residential structures. These recommendations were
widely adopted by the mining and quarrying industry and incorporated into numerous state and
local ordinances that regulate blasting activity.
Subsequent research conducted by the USBM from 1974 through 1980 reanalyzed the blast
damage problem and expanded on previous studies. USBM Report of investigation Rl-8507,
5
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
entitled "Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibrations From Surface Mine
Blasting" examined the more serious shortcomings of previous etTorts. In this study, direct
measuremenls of slmclural response and damage fi'01n aclual surface-mine produclion blasling
were observed in 76 residences for 219 production blasts. This data along with damage data
from six additional studies were combined with the historical data from Bulletin 656. Particular
emphasis was placed on the importance of frequency to structure response and its relationship to
damage.
The fonowing significant facts were concluded in RT-8507:
· Particle velocity is still the best single descriptor of ground motion.
· All homes eventually crack because of a variety of environmental stresses. These include
changes in humidity and temperature, settlement from consolidation and variations in ground
moisture, wind load, and even water absorption from tree roots.
· Damage potentials for low frequency blasts, below 40 Hz, are considerably higher than those
for high frequency blasts, above 40 Hz. In other words, the probability of damage for a blast
with an amplitude of 2.0 in/see at 10 Hz is greater than for a blast with an amplitude of 2.0
in/see at 50 Hz.
· Home construction is a factor in the minimum expected damage levels. Gypsum-board
(Drywall) interior walls are more damage resistant than older, plaster on wood lath
construction.
· The practical and safe criteria for blasts within the range of the natural frequency of
residential structures are 0.75 in/see for modem gypsum-board interiors and 0.50 in/see for
plaster on lath interiors. For frequencies above 40 Hz. a safe particle velocity maximum of
20 in/see is recommended for all houses.
· Threshold damage is classified as minor cosmetic damage such as loosening of paint, small
plaster cracks at joints between construction elements, and lengthening of old cracks. Such
damage is similar to that caused by a variety of environmental stresses including humidity
and temperature changes. The chance of threshold damage from a blast with peak particle
velocities of 0.50 in/see is extremely small and decreases almost asymptotically below 0.50
in/sec. Therefore, if the levels of ground vibration are below the recommended limits
established by the USBM the potential for damage is essentially zero.
6
D
D
The culmination of this study was
the Appendix B curve which \vas
entitled '"Altemalive Blasting Level
Criteria". The Appendix B curve to
the left used both measured structure
amplification and damage
evaluations to develop a criteria that
involved both displacement and
velocity. The curve in Figure :2
5hO\\'/5 that above 40 Hz_ a constant
peak particle velocity of 2.0 inisec is
the maximum safe value. Below 40
Hz however, the maximum velocity
decreases at a rate equivalent to a
constant peak displacement of eight
mil (0.008 inch). At frequencies
corresponding to 0.75 in/sec for
DI)'wall, and 050 in/see for plaster,
constant particle velocities are again
appropriate. An ultimate maximum
displacement of 30 mil is
recommended when frequencies below 4 Hz are encountered. Using this scheme, the Bureau
was able to recognize the displacement-bound requirement for house responses to blast
vibrations, and provide a smooth transition for intermediate frequency cases.
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES CRITERIA
From Rt'porl RI-8:'i1l7 (No'.cmhcr, 1(811)
10
o
<J
C)
<II
:E
2.0 ini,!,..ec.
D
~
;.:-
l-
e:;
o
u:j 1
>
L1J
..J
U
i=
0::
<l:
11.
(}.7~ itV$(lt':
01 W.lII
0.50 in.'~c .,
__...__P1jsje!__'
D
0.1
10
100
~
FREQUENCY (Hz)
~
Figure 2. US Bureau of !\llines Recommended
Vibration Critel"i:l (From RI-8507)
D
D
Research on Repeated Vibnltions from RI-8896
~
Homeowner reaction to the research used to develop the Appendix B curve in RI-8507 is
typically met with skepticism Residents often counter with the fact that their homes are
repeatedly being subjected to vibration loads and that there must be a cumulative effect on the
structure. In 1984, the USB:\'1 published RI-8896 entitled, "Effects of Repeated Blasting on a
Wood Frame House". This study \vas the first to document long term strain response ofa house.
Strain is an engineering measure of deformation llsed to predict failure. A strain of t mil/in
indicates that on average, every inch of a material was stretched or compressed one thousandth
of an inch. For example, the length of an eight-foot long section of wallboard would change by
approximately == 0.1 in. Long-term strain measurements alkmied blast-induced strains to be
compared with those produced by changes in environmental factors such as temperature,
humidity, and human activity.
D
D
D
Q
During this study the Bureau arranged to have a wood-frame test house built in the path of an
advancing surface coal mine so that the etfects of repeated blasting on a residential house could
be studied. In a two-year test period, 587 production blasts were tired \vith peak particle
velocities ranging from 0.10 in/sec to 6.94 in/sec. Later the entire house was shaken
mechanically to produce fatigue cracking in \Nalls. The tirst crack appeared in a dryv\'all tape
joint after the equi valent of 56,000 cycles. This is the equivalent of 28 years of shaking by blast-
generated ground motions orO.50 in/see tvy.ice a day_
~
D
o
7
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
The following significant facts were concluded from this study.
Conclusions in RI-8896 indicate that threshold type cracks appeared in the test house with and
without blasting. Because of this, the researchers felt that observations of individual cracks were
not the best indicator of the effects of blasting. The better indicator would be observations of the
rate of threshold crack occurrences. In this study, the rate of threshold cracking when ground
motions were less than 0.50 in/sec was not significantly different than when motions were
between 0.50 and 1.0 in/sec. However, when ground motions exceeded 1.0 in/see, the rate of
crack formation was more than three times the rate observed when vibrations were less than 1.0
in/sec.
Construction materials can fail by fatigue. However, for most materials the stresses must be a
significant fraction of the ultimate strength of the material in order for this to occur. Siskind
states that in general it must be at least 50%. He further states that load levels well below
failure strength will not produce failure no matter how long they are applied. In terms of the
ground vibration criteria developed in Rl-8507, if ground vibrations are kept below the safe-level
no fatigue could be expected for construction materials.
Structural Response to Vibrations
The potential for damage to a structure from blast vibrations is also obviously dependent upon
how that structure vibrates. Given the importance of how ground vibrations induce house
vibrations, or structural response, the following section of this report shall provide a foundation
to understand how ground vibrations can affect residential structures, and how engineers can
predict these effects.
Residential structures are complex structures. The many components of a residential structure
mean that at almost any vibration frequency, some element of a structure will respond. This is
why the vibrations produced by walking in a room may cause the dishes in a cupboard to rattle
but not the pictures on the opposite wall. Vibrations generated by walking through a room are
normally not considered damaging to the structure by the occupants. The vibration is familiar to
them, and only a small component of the entire structure is vibrcuing. Homeowners are confident
that the structure was designed to safely withstand the vibrations produced by everyday human
activity. Similarly, structures are designed to safely withstand events that cause the whole
structure to vibrate such as wind force and elastic ground vibration.
When ground vibrations emanating from a blast encounter a structure, that structure will begin to
vibrate as welL The characteristics of the structure and its interaction with the ground vibrations
determine how the structure will respond to these vibrations. The frequency, amplitude, and
duration of the structure's vibration are dependent upon not only the ground vibration but also
the structure's properties. The most important properties of a structure in determining how it
wi1l vibrate are its mass, stiffness, and damping. Damping is a measure of a building's tendency
to return to rest once set into motion. The mass and stiffness of the structure detennine the
fundamental frequency at which it will vibrate freely. The relationship between the fundamental
frequency of a structure and the frequency of ground vibrations is most important in determining
a structure's response.
8
When an entire structure vibrates as a unit, it shakes at some fundamental oscillation frequency.
When the structure is excited by a blast induced ground vibration, it must move at the same
liequellcy as the ground. If the frequency of the ground vibrations match the fundamental
frequency of the stmcture, the structure may magnify these vibrations. Engineers can determine
how much the vI/hole structure will vibrate from the ground vibrations by calculating [he
response of the house as a damped single-degree-of-freedom s)'stem. A single-degree-of-
freedom system means that the house will vibrate in the direction of the ground vibration, such
as vertically from vertical ground vibrations or laterally from lateral ground vibrations. A
damped system will return to rest on its own at some time after it is excited; it \vill not vibrate
indefinitely once the ground v'ibration stops. The solid line in Figure 3 below shmvs the solution
to an underdamped single-degree-of-freedom response for a typical 2-story stmcture vibrated
from its base. The relative vibration amplitude is determined by the structure's damping ratio.
The fundamental frequency of this stmcture was assumed to be 6.9 Hz, typical for a 2 story
residential structure as per the research of Dr. Kenneth Medearis. Further explanation of Dr.
Medearis' research will be discussed later in the report"s section regarding the RSVP technique.
Clearly ground vibrations \vith frequencies above 9 Hz \-vill have less drect on this type of
structure than those with frequencies below' 9 Hz.
Under'damped Single-Degr-ee-of-Fn~edom NOI"malized Response
Spectrum for a Typical 2 Story Residential Stl1lctul'e
Figure 3, Response for a Typical 2-Stol')' Structure
The structure response illustrated in Figure 3 was calculated for steady state vibrations.
Transient vibrations mayor may not evoke a response equal in amplitude to the solid line_ The
duration of the transient vibrations, as \.-vell as the frequency, vvill determine the amplitude of the
structure's vibration. If the duration is long enough, the maximum stmctural response will
occur. Shorter duration ground vibrations will produce a smaller response. occurring somew'here
within the area under the curve of the graph.
D
D
D
a
~
D
~
~
~
ell
"'C
:J
~
a.
E
<t
c
o
~
m
...
.c
>
"'C
ell
.~
III
E
...
o
z
D
D
~
~
D
D
D
i
~
, ! "Ground Vibr~tion ,
~----~----r----r----r----r----
~ ; ~
i
Structure R~spons,
5
10
15 20 25
Frequency
30
35
40
The amplitude of the stmcture's vibration alone is not enough to determine the potential for
damage to the structure. Because the structure begins at rest, its motion always lags behind the
motion of the ground. This lag is referred to as a phase shift in the vibration episode. The phase
shift from ground vibration to stmcture response is determined by how closely the frequency of
the ground vibrations matches the fundamental frequency of the stmctllre. The difTerence in the
o
D
o
9
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
phase of the ground vibrations with respect to the structure means that each may be moving in
opposite directions at some point in time. When this occurs, the stresses in the structure and the
potenlial for damage are altheir greatesL The strain induced in the structure by the phase shift
determines the potential for damage. Equivalent amplitudes of structural response can result in
different levels of strain, depending on the frequency of the vibration. For this reason, human
perception and vibration recordings limited to structure interiors are not valid indicators of the
potential for damage by a ground vibration episode.
10
Q
o
~
~
D
~
o
o
~
~
D
~
o
~
~
D
~
~
a
The RSVP Technique
The Response Spectrum Velocity Prolile (RSVP) technique used in this study was developed by
Dr. Kenneth .Medearis [t is a p(J\,verful vibration analysis too] which not only confonns to
USBf\', and Office of Surtace Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
recommendations, but also provides insight into the responses of valious types of structures to a
given vibration episode.
Research by the USBl\.r and OS7vfRE has determined that the natural frequency of typical
residential structures ranges bet\veen 3 and 16 Hz. Within this range, blast vibration limits
recommended by the LSBM and OS\iIRE are most stringent. Field measurements by :vledearis
shov..ed the natural frequency of residential structures as being primarily determined by the
structure's height. Figure 4
graphically depicts this
relationship between structure
height and natural frequency.
Nledearis related the
probability of blast vibration
damage with the stmcture's
response, Rather than using
only ground vibration levels,
he developed a rational
damage criteria based upon structural response. He published a damage criteria based upon the
relative velocity of the ground motion to a residential structure's response motion. This
calculated level of relative velocity, termed Pseudo Spectral Relative Velocity (PSRV), became
the basis for Medearis' damage threshold limits.
Approximate Natural Frequency
of Low-Rise Residential Structures
15
"
"
,
'.
'.
"
'.
"
"
...".....
".
"
.
'"
.
",-.,., '......
..., "
,
"
".
"'.
"
-
N
-
"-
Q)
:I:
-
".
""
'-.
'-..
'-.
"
"
10
.
''''.
".
'.
".
'.
.
....
-",
''''.
'"
".
'.
""..,
".
"
''llo.,
~
U
C
0,)
::J
c-
O,)
"-
LL
"
5
,
'.
,
",
Dashed lines represent
one standard deviation
from the mean.
10 15 20 25 30 35
Residence Height. Ground to Peak (feet)
Figure 4. Determination of Structure's Natural
Frequency Based on Structure Height
] I
In hi s research Medearis
measured the damping ratios
of sixty-three residential
stnIctures. He concluded that
a residential stmcture's
damping is not related to its
age, dimensions, natural
frequency, or geographical
location The damping for all
residential structures ~vas
found to fall withi n a very
narrow range. In later work
]\:ledearis showed that his
methods for determining
stnIctural dampi ng, natural
frequency, and response
compared quite favorably with
the measured structural
response.
D
I~
~
~
~
~
D
~
~
D
o
D
o
D
~
~
~
o
o
(a)
One Story Structure
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
(b)
. One & One Half
N
J: 0.25 Story Stnlcture
-
~ 0.2
...
>. 0.15
.....
(/) 0.1
c: 0.05
(1)
C (c)
~ Two Story Structure
...
- 0.25
.-
..Q
('Q 0.2
.c 0.15
0
'- 0.1
0- 0.05
(d)
All StructUl-es
0.25
0.2
0.15 .~
0.1
0_05
0 5 10 15 20
Figlll'e 5. Fundamental FI'equencies of Residential
Structures
..~;-'. .
t~'l,~,
'~""-Jl-
A ~.~ L ",
\.,~'..: .' ,,;,-~."', -."
,,:~t ': ....."'._
11
IJ ·
ii"';' .~
'0"H .
fjii":~~,~:{",: ". -
. ,
12
.....
Peak relative velocity for a
stnlcture is determined by the
ground vi brations, the structures
damping ratio, and the
fundamental frequency of the
stnlcture. The probability that a
given structure type \vil! have a
gi ven natural frequency \vas
empirically determined by
Medearis as shown in Figure 5 to
the left Medearis' method is a
more rational approach to
evaluating the risk to residential
stmctures as a result of blast
induced ground vibration.
These techniques developed by
Dr. Medearis are used by Vibra-
Tech to analyze blast vibrations.
Vibra- Tech calls the method by
the more familiar acronym
RSVP. When blast vibrations at
a residential structure conform
with the USB\1
recommendations, the probability
of damage is essentially zero.
\Vhen blast vibrations exceed
USBiVl recommendations Vibra-
Tech uses the RSVP analysis to
calculate the probability of
damage based on Medearis'
work.
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Recommended Air Vibration Criteria from LJSBM RI-8485
The USBM has also sel forlh recommended airblasllimils in ilS Report ofInvesligalion Rl-8485,
"Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast From Surface Mining". Although the air
vibrations produced by production blasting are typically referred to as noise levels, the USBM
report recognize that airolasts with frequencies below the threshold of human hearing
(infrasonic) are capable of producing structural response. The most common example of
infrasonic air vibrations that may produce structural response is wind rattling a window.
Accordingly, the USBM has recommended limits based upon the frequency range of the
recording system. The maximum allowable air-blast limits increase as the range of the recording
system expands further below the audible frequency range of the human ear.
The weight of the air in Earth's atmosphere produces pressure upon everything on Earth. This
pressure, known as atmospheric pressure, is commonly reported in daily weather reports in
millibars (mbar, metric) or inches of mercury (in.Hg., USCS). The air vibrations produced by
blasting cause the normal air pressure to fluctuate. Changes in normal air pressure due to the
airblast are referred to as overpressure, as in pressure over atmospheric pressure. Air
overpressure resulting from blasting is measured by microphones attached to seismographs.
When air pressure changes rapidly however, different pressures can result on both the inside and
outside of a structure. A change in pressure that occurs between locations is often called a
pressure gradient. A pressure gradient from the inside of a structure to the outside produces
forces which are exerted over the structure's exterior surfaces. These forces, if large enough, can
cause structural damage. Examples of causes of air pressure gradients which damage residential
structures are the winds from hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms. Changes in air pressure
due to blasting, like wind, occur very rapidly, resulting in different pressures on the inside and
outside ofa structure. These changes in pressure are not stationary, they travel away from their
source. When either a blast induced air pressure wave or a gust of wind propagates, they can
produce a pressure gradient not only from the inside of a structure to the outside, but also from
one side to the other. The difference between air pressure waves from blasting and those
produced by wind lies in the magnitude and frequency.
Changes in air pressure due to wind are many times greater than the changes in pressure
produced by blasting. This is why a gust of wind may push a garbage can down the street., but
the airblast from a quarry cannot. The frequency of the changes in air pressure produced by
wind is much lower than the frequency of the air pressure wave produced by blasting. Two
imponant etl'ects can be traced to this difference in frequency. First, wind remains inaudible,
while air overpressure from blasting may rumble or boom. Second, higher frequency changes in
air pressure due to blasting mean that forces on the structure's exterior change quickly. A
window pane may be alternately pushed and pulled fast enough to make it rattle as a result of a
quarry or mine blast. Wind force, on the other hand, does not change direction quickly. Wind
can therefore push or pull on a window pane with a much greater force without producing
audible sounds.
Most air overpressures from blasting are measured in thousandths or ten thousandths of psi.
Rather than reporting air overpressures in psi, most regulations specify decibels (dB). Since a
decibel is a measure of change, it must be with respect to some value. The reference pressure for
air overpressure monitoring is 2.9 x 10-9 psi. A small change in decibels can represent a very
13
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
large change in pressure. Doubling of the overpressure in psi yields a 6 dB increase; a tenfold
increase in overpressure equates to a 20 dB increase. Mines and quarries generally limit
themselves to less than 130 dB, or aboul one one-hundredth of one pound per square inch (0.01
psi).
Structural damage as a result of air overpressure is generally conceded to not be possible without
extensive window breakage, as the glass is the weakest portion of a structure's exterior where
this pressure acts. Window panes are designed to safely withstand changes of 1.0 psi (180 dB)
when ,properly installed, and even in the worst situation a pane should be able to withstand 0.1
Ibs/in- (150 dB). Air overpressures from mine and quarry blasting rarely exceed 0.01 psi. (130
dB), about one one-hundredth of the overpressure that a window can safely withstand.
The safe air-blast limits recommended by the USBM were determined by analyzing structural
response and damage from many applicable studies. Based on a minimal probability of the most
superficial type of damage in residential-type structures, any of the following represent safe
maximum airblast levels.
Table 1. Safe Maximum Airblast Levels (USBM R1-8485).
'.ower Frequency Limits a/Measuring .'))'stem Atfaximunl Level ill dB
O. I Hz high-pass system 134 dB
2 Hz high-pass system 133 dB
5 or 6 Hz high-pass system 129 dB
c- slow (events not exceeding 2 sec duration) 105 dB
The recommended limits listed in Table I were compared to a composite of five impulsive noise
studies for human tolerance in the USBM report. Based upon these studies, the USBM
concluded that these recommended airblast limits would provide an annoyance acceptability to
95 percent of the population for one to two events per day.
The USBM also concluded that the single best airblast descriptor is the 2 Hz system. These
recommendations have been accepted by many states. The GeoSonics MicroSeis, and the SSU-
2000DK Seismof,rraphs used in this study all operate with a low frequency limit of 2 Hz in the air
vibration measuring system. The maximum safe airblast level set forth by USBM RI-8485 for
this type of system is 133 dB (re. 2.9 x 10"9 psi).
IsoSeismic Survey
IsoSeismic Technique
The IsoSeismic technique is a powerful tool which empirically demonstrates the effect of
geology on blast induced f,Jfound vibration. Just as residential structures may magnify certain
types of ground vibrations, local surface geology can also respond to certain types of vibration.
While the response characteristics of residential structures have been carefuJly measured and
studied. the response of the geologic subsurface is not so easily quantified. The single-degree-
of-freedom model of a residential structure has been shown to very closely approximate the
motion of that structure, but such a model may be inadequate to predict the motion of the ground
at allloeations around a quarry or mine.
14
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
The IsoSeismic technique makes possible the simultaneous measurements of vibrations at many
locations. The complex interaction of the vibrations as they propagate through the. geology
around a quarry or mine determines the resulting ground vibration at each location.
Simultaneous measurements of individual blast events at many locations reveal the result of this
interaction. This interaction, or geologic response, is dependent on the geology at many
locations around a quarry or mine, but is usually dominated by surface geology at the location of
concern. Since the geology and its interactions will remain unchanged, the vibration
characteristics for the area around the operation may be mapped.
The geologic vibration response may increase the magnitude of the ground motion, change the
frequency of the vibration, and increase the duration of the ground vibration. This type of
response usually occurs in the shallow surface, where resonant frequencies are similar to those of
residential structures. Since structural response is directly proportional to the magnitude of the
ground vibration, to the duration of the vibration, and to how closely the frequency of the
vibration matches the natural frequency of the structure, IsoSeismic contour maps immediately
identify areas where structural response may be greater and the likelihood for complaints will be
enhanced. By comparing the IsoSeismic contours produced by production blasting with those
produced by a single charge blast, the IsoSeismic Technique clearly identifies areas of potential
complaints and provides insight on site specific vibration response.
The IsoSeismic survey is much more than just a map of relative ground vibration amplitudes
around a quarry or mine. Each vibration event is collected as digital data by the IsoSeismic
system which then computes the frequency, duration, and predicted structural response. The
IsoSeismic system is capable of recording more than 1500 blast induced ground and air vibration
events in less than one hour For a typical mine or quarry blasting two to three times per week,
this amounts to more than 10 years of blast vibration recordings. More importantly, an
immediate correlation between the vibration events can be made, since they are the result of the
same blasts. Computer modeling of the data can 'reveal causes of complaints and potential
solutions.
Data Acquisition Procedure
On May 19, 2005 representatives from Vi bra-Tech Engineers, Inc. met with representatives of
Martin Marietta Aggregates and Orica to discuss and organize the collection of data at the North
Indianapolis Quarry. On May 20, 2005 a total of 151 tri-axial seismometers were deployed for
the registration of otie single hole signature blast, one multiple-hole production blast on the
surface, and two heading blasts underground. The seismometers were deployed by personnel
from Vibra-Tech to assure proper placement and ground coupling. The location of each
seismometer and each blast is shovvn on the map in Figure A-I in Appendix A of this report.
The density of the seismograph positions and the type of seismograph were determined by the
density of residences and shot location.
On the morning of May 20, 2005, all the seismometers to be used for the data collection were
programmed to begin monitoring at 12:54 PM on that day. This precaution was necessary to
ensure that the memory in the seismometer would not be filled with false events prior to the
detonation of the blasts. The tirst blast was scheduled to be detonated at approximately I :00 PM
followed by the three subsequent blasts over a period of approximately 15 minutes. Once all of
15
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
the blasts were detonated the seismometers were collected and their data downloaded to
computers for future analysis. During the detonation of Production Blast 3, none of the
seismometers triggered indicating that the ground vibrations produced by that blast were below
the trigger level of the seismometers.
How to Read the IsoSeismic Maps
An IsoSeismic map is a contour map of the measured ground vibrations produced by a blast.
The contour lines on an IsoSeismic map connect locations of equal vibration, similar to contour
lines on a topographic map which connect areas of equal elevation. The peak particle velocity
level represented by each contour line is posted on that line. A separate map is created from the
seismic data collected from each blast.
It is not possible to collect seismic data at all locations around a quarry or mine, just as it is not
possible for cartographers (map makers) to collect elevation data at all locations on a map
Some of the data must be interpolated from trends observed in the field. However, two
impollant facts about vibration can be used to aid in the interpolation. First, vibrations propagate
away from the source like waves, therefore the amplitude cannot change abruptly. Second,
ground vibration amplitudes attenuate geometrically when the geoloblJ' is uniform. Vibra- Tech
has developed a unique method of incorporating both of these properties of ground vibration into
a gridding technique that allows isoseismic contour lines to be drawn much more accurately.
From these maps it will become apparent that the peak particle velocity at any particular location
around the quarry will vary from blast to blast. There are numerous reasons why the peak
particle velocity varies. A few of these reasons include the degree of confinement,
fragmentation, and casting of the blasted material, the maximum charge weight per delay, the
bulk strength of the explosive charge, the presence of water in the boreholes, and the direction of
initiation of the blast. However, while the amplitude of the ground vibration at a particular site
will vary from blast to blast, the rate at which the vibration amplitude changes will not. This
means that jf the geology at a particular location tends to attenuate vibrations rapidly, it will do
so consistently for either large or small vibrations. Similarly, if the geology tends to resonate,
ampliry, or perpetuate the ground vibrations. it will do so for both large and small vibration
levels. Because the rate at which vibrations are attenuated is constant for each individual
location, the shape of the IsoSeismic contours can be used to identify trends in ground vibration.
The vibration attenuation rates cause the peak particle velocity at a particular location to increase
or decrease relative to its neighbors predictably. The location of these anomalous (deviating
from what would be intuitively expected) vibration levels define the vibration "jingerprint" of a
site. This means that regardless of the amplitude of the vibration source, cellain locations will
have b'feater peak particle velocities than their neighbors. These locations will identify
themselves by concentric circles of increased peak particle velocity on the IsoSeismic contour
maps. These areas will reappear on many maps, often regardless of the blast location, number of
holes, or peak particle velocity. These areas must be the focus of vibration control techniques.
In order to identify the vibration fingerprint of a site, the following items should be kept in mind
as one reads the IsoSeismic contour maps.
16
J
o
o
. Contour lines denote locations of equal peak particle velocity, hence the name
"isQseismic" lines or contours. Areas between contour lines will have a peak particle
velocity between the values represented by the lines. The shape of the contour lines
represents the site "fingerprint".
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
. The source of the vibration, the blast, will be located inside the circular contour line
with the highest .value. The peak particle velocity will generally decrease as one
moves away from the source.
. The IsoSeismic contour lines, unlike elevation contours, do not necessarily represent a
uniform change in amplitude. Ground vibrations attenuate geometrically, with the
greatest change in amplitude occurring within the quarry or mine. In order to keep the
IsoSeismic maps from becoming cluttered, higher amplitude isoseismic lines,
especially those near the quarry, may represent a change of several tenths of an inch
per second, while the lower amplitude lines farther away usually represent a change of
one one-hundredth of an inch per second. Whenever possible, the lsoSeismic line
spacing is consistent on each map included.
. The distance between contour lines indicates how rapidly the vibration amplitude
changes. Many contour lines spaced very closely together is an indication of a rapid
change in peak particle velocity, usually downward. Contour lines spaced very far
apart indicate that the peak particle velocity is changing very slowly. This is usually
an indication of either a very small peak particle velocity or a possible low frequency
geological response.
. Contour lines that form small circles away from the vibration source are an indication
of a geological response. The area inside the circle may be referred to as a vibration
"hot spot" if the vibration amplitude is increasing, or as a vibration "dead zone" if the
amplitude is decreasing. Contours around "dead zones" have small cross-hatches to
identify them.
. When isoseismic contour lines deviate from a uniform shape and spacing, some
change in geology andlor topography exists. In this way, the isoseismic contour maps
can often become an intuitive map of geology. Keep in mind that changes in geology
usually introduce a change in frequency, as well as amplitude. lsoseismic contour
anomalies necessitate a detailed analysis of the ground vibration signatures to
determine the effect on structural response and human perceptibility. Abrupt changes
in peak particle velocity, whether increasing or decreasing, can result in increased
structural response and human perceptibility, resulting in increased complaints.
Discussion of lsoSeismic Maps
lsoSeismic maps for three blasts (Signature Blast I and Productions Blast I and 2) detonated in
this study can be found in Appendix A of this report in Figures A-2 through A-4. The vibration
tlngerprint for the area surrounding the North Indianapolis Quarry can be determined by
examining all three IsoSeismic maps and noting the consistencies. A summary of the
fingerprint, beginning to the north and proceeding clockwise about the map, is given below.
17
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
. The result of the detonation of the one single hole and two production blasts on May
20, 2005 show that ground vibrations above 0.50 in/sec were not measured out side of
the permitted quarry area.
. A peak particle velocity 0.50 in/sec as observed on the maps for Signature Blast 1 and
Production Blast 1 (surface shots) did not extend beyond 106th Street to the north,
Hazel Dell Parkway to the east, 96th Street to the south, or Gray Road to the west.
. The contour map for Production Blast 2 (underground shot) shows that the 0.50 in/sec
peak particle velocity did not exceed the quarry property.
. Figure A-5 in Appendix A shows the 0.50 in/sec projection for blasting at the northern
most limits of Martin Marietta's Mueller Property South. This projection is based on
IsoSeismic contours from Production Blast 1 migrated to this position. Based on the
blast design currently utilized by Martin Marietta Aggregates, ground vibrations from
blasting in the Mueller Property South are not expected to exceed USBM
recommended criteria.
Vibration Analyses
Comparison of Ground Vibration to USBM Criteria
The ground vibrations produced by Signature Blast 1 and Production Blasts 1 and 2, as recorded
at 151 locations around the quarry on May 20, 2005, were in compliance with the criteria
outlined in USBM RI-8507. Figure A-6 and A-7 of Appendix A graphically compares the
ground vibration produced by the production and signature blasts to the Variable Particle
Velocity versus Frequency Limits ofUSBM RI-8507 Appendix B curve.
Figure A-6 shows a distribution of the frequencies-at-the-peak for the signature blast. Figure A-7
shows the data recorded for the production blasts. Production Blast 1 exhibits a strong cluster of
data centered abound 20 Hz. For Production Blast 2 the majority of the data fell above 30 Hz.
When compared to Figure A-6 this clustering of data shows the effects that the millisecond
delays have in controlling the frequency character of the seismic signal.
Comparison of Air Overpressure to USBM Criteria
Air overpressure levels from the Production Blast 1 was not really similar to those of signature
blast. This can be seen on Figure A-8 and A-9 in Appendix A. These figures show a
comparison of the measured air overpressures to the criteria established by the USBM in RI-
8485. As evidenced by the graphs, resulting air overpressures are well below the established
criteria for the production blast.
18
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
Summary of Vibration Analysis
. All ground vibrations recorded on May 20, 2005 were in compliance with the USBM
recommended limits. The recorded air overpressures outside the permitted quarry area
were also in compliance with the USBM recommended limits.
. All of the vibrations recorded in the vicinity of residential and commercial structures
surrounding the North Indianapolis Quany were in conformance to the most stringent
USBM recommendations for residential stmctures. The calculated structural response
for residential structures was compared to the research of Dr. Medearis regarding blast
vibration damage potential; the 11011-damage probability at all structures, for each of
the blasts, was 100 percent.
. Ground vibrations did not exceed 0.29 in/see outside of property owned or leased by
Martin Marietta Aggregates as a result of the production blasting on May 20, 2005.
Ground vibrations of this magnitude and frequency do not constitute a hazard to
residential structures. Air overpressure levels did not exceed 131 dB outside of
property owned or leased by Martin Marietta Aggregates as a result of the production
blasting on May 20, 2005.
RespectfuJly Submitted,
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS, INC
~---
Kristin E. Ferdinand
Area Manager
~
Douglas Rudenko, PG
Vice President
19
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
References
Medearis, K., The Development of Rational Damage Criteria for Low-Rise Structures Subjected
to Blasting Vibrations, in Proceedings of the 18th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, 1-16,
and (1977).
Nicholls, H.R., c.F. Johnson, and W.l. Duvall, Blasting Vibrations and their Effects on
Structures, U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656, (1971).
DuPont, Blasters Handbook, Technical Services Division, E.l. DuPont, Wilmington, DE, (1977).
Dowding, CA., Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
( 1985)
International Society of Explosives Engineers, Blasters' Handbook (171h ed.), ISEE, Cleveland,
OR (1998).
National Highway Institute, Rock Blasting and Overbreak Control. US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-HI-92-001, (1991).
Reil, lW., D.A. Anderson, A.P. Ritter, D.A. Clark, S.R. Winzer, and A.J. Petro, Geologic
Factors Affecting Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mining
Research Contract Report H0222009, (1985).
Siskind, DE, Vibrations From Blasting. International Society of Explosives Engineers,
Cleveland, OR (2000).
Siskind, D.E., M.S. Stagg, J.W. Kopp, and C.H. Dowding, Structure Response and Dama~e
Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI-8507,
( 1980).
Siskind, DE, V,j. Stachura, M.S. Stagg, and J.W. Kopp, Structure Response and Dama~e
Produced bv Airblast from Surface Mining, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI-8485, (1980).
Stagg, M.S., DE Siskind, M.G. Stevens, and CH. Dowding, Effects of Repeated Blasting on a
Wood-Frame House, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI-8896, (1984).
20
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
Appendix A
IsoSeismic Study Maps and Results
2l
~
D
D
a
~
D
~
~
~
D
D
D
~
o
o
D
o
~
D
?vlartin iVlarietta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
) ndianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeisiVibraLVIHp Study
i"hl)' 20, 2005
SeiSI110graph Distribution lVlap
(,0110
o
1500 3HlHl 451l1J
1 inch ~ 1500 feel'
,,)../V' VIBRA- TECH ENGINEER~:u:~~~. "",."'''''''' ......"'hy<.c.irs
Figure A-I
~
[I
II
o
o
~
~
o
Q
D
o
o
o
o
~
~
Q
o
o
~
l\:lartin l\larictta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/Vibra!\'lap Study
IsoSeismic Contour lVlap of Peak Particle Velocity
for Sianature Blast 1
b
lVlay 20,2005
r--
1500 3uoo ~5tJ(J
I inch w 15<llt f~ef;
o
Mll}U
-\{"A^ VIBRA-TECH ENG1NEER~:;,.!~~;. .n'I"'~"'> _ "ldovl.",e""
Figure A-2
--
D
o
D
D
~
D
D
~
~
Q
a
~
~
D
D
D
D
D
o
l\-tartin :\larictta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/Vibral\lap Study
IsoSeismic Contour l\'lap of Peak Particle Velocity
for Production Blast 1.
l\lay 20, 2005
(J
I $Il(j 3(JUO ';5,IU
I inch - I $Ilfl ('<'1
(,l)(liI
~'llV' VIBRA~ TECH ENGINEER~t~}!.~S.:-:-"".;,,,<,,> ',;""'1""""""
Figul'c A-3
-
a
o
D
o
~
D
~
~
o
~
o
~
~
a
~
o
o
D
D
1\'1m-tin :\:larietta Aggregates
~orth Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/VibraIVlap Study
IsoSeismic Contour i\lap of Peak Particle V clocity
for Production Blast 2
l\lay 20, 2005
il
.....
15(11) ;J(jOO ..51Ki
1111<:11 = I SUO felif
60no
-v\j\',VI BRA-TECH E NGtNEER;:..~~S: . e"'I"...~" . '1'-"P"V';'C,<:'
Figure ;\-4
D
D
~
~
D
D
~
~
D
D
'D
Q
~
~
~
D
o
D
o
\'lartin IVlarietta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/Vibral'Vlap Study
Predicted Peak Particle Velocity for Production Blasting
in l\'IueUer I)roperty South (Utilizing Current Blast Design)
o
1500 Joon 45~)
I ioch - 15UO fe~l
MOO
,,1t VIBRA- TECH ENGINEER~.J~~;. ""gmwo. g"~'''''l'''CI<''
Figure A-5
~
~
0
0
~
~
D
a
~
~ u
CJ
r,n
---
c:
.-
....
~ ?-;.
......
.-
u
0
-
C)
~ ;>-
('"j
-
C,j
-,0
D :..
CI:l
Q,.
~
D
~
~
~
0
0
......
0.01
1
Comparison of Blast Vibrations
Measured at Residential & Commercial Structures to
Current U.S. Bureau of Mines Recomnlendations
lVlartinMarietta Aggre~ates, North Indianapolis Quarry
Signature Blast
lVlay 20, 2005
10
I e Signature 1 I
2.(Hn/scc
1
O. 75 ~n/~cc
, Drywall
. , ,
, ' - - - 0:50 'inNcC-' -; ~ -, - q --
.. ' .,
Plaster ~'
.~--_._-~--~--_.~~-~
0.1
. ,0-
.. '
: 0 ;. 0: G I
, .e
I '...
. v,. .'
" : -.-- .....
; ,C, .' ; -8 flr- fj .. __. CJ
~.I.:"~ e.-.,-:
"8041)"
a ' f? 8. CD · eO'.... 08
0$,: .......
...:... eo:
, eeo-~--.....
10
100
VIBRA- TECH
Frequency, Hz
Figure A-6
geologists ~ engineers - geophysicists
a
~
o
~
~
D
~
~
D
:0
~
~
D
D
~
o
D
D
D
u 1
Q.J
[IJ
---.
c=
.-
~
.-
u
o
~
>
~
.......
u
.-
.....
..
~
~ 0.1
0.01
1
Comparison of Blast Vibrations
lVleasured at Residential & Commercial Structures to
CUITent U.S. Bureau of ~lines Recommendations
lVlartin Marietta Ag~regates, North Indianapolis Quarry
Production Blasts
lVlay 20, 2005
10
. Production 1
. Production 2
,0.75 in/see
,Drywall
- . .. 050 -Hllke' - - - ; , . . . .
. . Plustcr ,,' ·
_______M__wa___..__,
.
.1
"#
; "
e..
. .
10
VI BRA- TECH
Frequency, Hz
2.0: iJ1~SCC :
.,
G
. , ,.
I
e: e
.:
.ff:"
.~ .
.
'.
-..ft..: ;
.:,~ ~-:.
" 0:"
~.- :0:1:
.e .:e:.:
. . . :
"0
..
100
Figure A-7
geologists - englne~rs - geophysicists
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
~ -
....
-
Q
,J.,
-
0 ",
.-
""
;;.-
~
-1
0 ~
-
-
...
V!
(I)
~
-
D "'"
:-<
~
;;.-
0
~ -
.-
~
0
~
~
~
0
D
D
'r. .,.
~
e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~. I
:.. i
l- I
i
~ l
- 1
....
0' I
'" j
.-
- I
c !
Q.. j
~
,..
- I
~ I
.- j
"0 I
:::
-
,.c ;.,'
:IJ I
t" ::: tr;
- S - I
c - j
Z - i
~ N I
I"- ... ..
.,.. ..-,
:;.l - -
..... N
- -
~ ~ ;;... !
eL ::: ~
~ t)L ~
:_ .......c ~
et;rJ).
OJ:
~
-
...
....
...
c;
.-
.
-
~
It!!"'"
~
=
.-
t"
-
-
...
-
-.i!:
Air Oycrpn:ssurc, psi
.... N ~ a ;. \C ~ g ::::: ~
<:>
~ :::: -- ~ '::; c ~ ~ 05
- - .~ = 0- ~
11fl!
" ftc)-
.. ~.l."(()
rt(~'
(\'10
tf!Y
O~i(J
.i.i t.~
9d~
t"Z!()
-%!!~
':ll')
1-110
t111~'
(mll)
WI~
,ul"
Iflt'll
MU~.
som
'''')<1
%..19
)trlrl
h~W.
f~,~:
l_jt1l.J
Ll/I~'
~
6.i.u9
lI.:.''''
~!~~:
1';.1'"
f':"'"
~.:.!r.1
l':'IN
lI':'H')
W)l~1
---. S".PH'J
'4)l~)
i~,~
t.~)9
l}fkN
(,-S:U.lJ
t';U~
t<;lttJ
1;"I}t)
ilfil'l
~t'N
~rl'"
,,..'"
ut!N
o":laq
S'::lN
"'UQ
9~O'l
~~tJlJ
hl.~'
n'ti'l
1\11'1
.. 1)~(j1J
()tlrl
= ~a~
Qi:lll)
tit}')
4"tN
lrirl
OZ'I'I
bll;l)
~-ntl~
WI9
,111')
I'll/'!
f!:~
U;rI
~~~
!.i~r)q
....NI'I
tllf)t)
(~l()<l
rt~
II'"'
Ul~t
<>lISt
.:..tt.f"
Ib~r.
~t
'L~t
_ tLqt
Sit}t
tf.lt
it~~
H{lW-
t.l~t
~":~...
tnt'!'
i~rr
~tt
!,;rt'
~~f:
'i-;~r
__ s~~t
It'T
.r.:lt
r;:lr
6rlt
onr
mt
U',
.z:
.".
.z:
..:.
:::::
-
~
:c
:r.
=
-
-
~
-
~
c
'"'
~
.:::;
~
'"
'"
~
:.
;;
.....
-
"':
.,.
-.
;c:
....,
....
~
....
....
V,
N
....,
.....
.....
~
HP \Hnss.udl').\.O 1!V
:;;c:
I
-<
t:
::::
er
~
2g
." -
2~
-,
,(:. .;".
'" =
~ .
;,:.~
- .
~~
:r.;:::
- ,<
~~
~.;
J1
?;
"-': ;.,
I
~I
f. !
zj
111
L---J
A ,
. ,
Ii
-'~
~ ~
~..:!
7.
"
?
:3
;}
:0'
is
:;J
.,
c;
~
~
~
<Il
....
?
.."'1.
Q
:s.
J:
U
UJ
....
<
a::
co
>
I::J
I=:J
CQ 130
-
~
...
""
~ 12~
t:"
~
;..
o
:.. 125
<
I:::l
I::J
~.......'.'.
~
E]
I::J
t:::J
I:::J
I::J
E:J
E:J
I::J
I::J
EJ
I::J
t=J
Ail" ()verlll"CSSUt"e Levels fl"om
1\-lal1in Marietta Aggregntcs, NOJ1h Indiamll)olis QmuTY
Production Blast I
!'vlay 20, 200S
134
133
Ai)'. OH:rp)'css_lu:.C n.~c()mI11.rnd~!1 inlj$~M R!-IW:s5
\3\
120
1\1
~~~~~~~..$;~~~~i=-'~~=~~w~~~m~Q~~ii-g~~:~t~~~~~i~e~~~~~-~~..~~~~t;~
-t'T"'T...,....,..,....,...,...,......,.""'M'~...,....,...,.~~~~~~:.~..:;.&/~.:~..:~~~,:)..:,;~~-:.~..;;...:....:~>:;I.::.~.:;,..:;..:,.~~~~~~~.;;~-~~~~~O_~_-.,:...:~.;:....::~.:;..:;.~-"'.:;.:;:~...::.~.:~.:.~~~..::.
"\'uh-: \if O~i."flt"'''''IJn l.t"HI HI-'l<umnU'lliJ..tI ilt ISIi\f IU.M.tS.; (LU tin-l
.\ir O\('rrr""un' L~'Hl H."lIUirl'l1111 Crud, \\ indu'<\ J>;H1\" \ 1~1 dlh
. Pl"lltlurlio/J \
VIBRA-TeCH
geo ogls S . engmeers - geop YSIClstS
Figure A-9
CJ
I::)
lUllS
0.11I-\.
lUlU
0.1112
11.1111
(1.111
;r..
U.OUl) '"
,....
'-'
...
O.OU~ -:
'"
"0
'"
(1.11(17 ~
'I..
"-
::
0.00(. ..,.
;-
"0
0.00:" :::.
IUII.l.J..
( UJ(jJ.
0.0112
0.001