Opencast Quarries:

Vibration Assessing Methods

Guido Alfaro Degan, Dario Lippiello, and Mario Pinzari
Department of Engineering
University ROMA TRE, Roma, Italy
Abstract. The proposed work is a prediction of the propagation of seismic waves
induced by the cultivation of quarries through the use of explosives. The paper is
divided in two different stages: first of all it is necessary to choose, among the
various explosives for industrial use and all possible blasting designs, the one with
which it would be possible to get an embraceable result from the industrial point
of view and with the minimal possible forecasted disturbance for the buildings
present in the surrounding areas (receptors); as a second step it was found, with
the simulations, the indicative values (for different distances) for the peak particle
velocity (PPV - peak particle velocity). In order to work with the values as real as
possible, we used the data contained in a draft E.I.A. (Environmental Impact
Assessment) of the Lazio Region, regarding the project of a quarry. The optimal
blasting design choice was made considering that a substantial amount of the work
has to be spent at the foot of each blastholes; therefore, we considered two
different types of plughole, one obtained with two different diameters of drilling
(the larger for the lower portion of the blasthole) containing only one type of
explosive, and another one having the same diameter along its entire length, but
containing two different types of explosives.
Obtained the mine parameters (blasting design), the peak particle velocity
(PPV) and its trend was determined, assuming an exponential decaying of the
mathematical function f = PPV(t). At the conclusion of the paper "iso-PPV"
maps were created regarding the quarry adjacent area.
Keywords: Vibration assessment, blasting design, PPV forecasting methods.
1 Foreword
Quarrys Drill and Blast planning consists first of all, in creating the right blast
pattern in order to obtain a prefixed value of productivity. According to data
contained in a Lazio Region E.I.A. draft, it was possible to arrange the optimal
design choice, purposed to minimize the forecasted PPV values in an adjacent
amenable area (figure 1 below shows a particular of the Technical Regional Chart
n. 364040, Lazio, Italy).
254
Fig. 1 The quarry location an
Once obtained the bla
assumed to achieve the e
working with parallel pa
choice, it was calculated t
trend as a mathematical ti
2 The Quarry Pr
The present work refers a
(Viterbo, Italy), where th
stone. As for its lithology
alternation of pyroclastic
Whinstone quarries gen
1) Hill-side quarries
excavated material fr
(lower down the slope
2) Open-pit quarries
of the processing plan
Hill-side quarries ma
excavation has reached, a
The choice of whethe
usually dictated by the
structure and environmen
features and have a high v
It is assumed that, for t
identified and is consider
technological, environme
G. Alfaro Degan, D. Lippiello, and M. Pinza
nd the adjacent protected area (right side)
asting parameters with specific computer codes, it wa
nforced productivity value (817 m3 of ore per day) bot
anels and with serial ones; according with the differen
the provisional peak particle velocity (PPV) value and i
ime depending function.
roject
about a whinstone quarry project, located near Setteven
hey will extract whinstone for the production of crushe
y the area is made up of major volcanic complexes wit
products and lava flows.
nerally take one of two forms:
characterized by a general downward haulage o
rom the quarry area (up slope) to the processing plan
e);
where quarrying workings are generally below the lev
t and excavated material is hauled up and out of the pit.
ay often become open-pit quarries once the level o
nd subsequently extends below, the quarry plant area.
er a hill-side or open-pit operation is contemplated
e site topography, ownership boundaries, geologic
ntal considerations (hill-side quarries can be very obviou
visual impact).
the purposes of this paper, a hard-rock resource has bee
red suitable for quarrying subject to the usual economi
ental and legislative matters being satisfied. From th
ari
as
th
nt
its
ne
ed
th
of
nt
el
of
is
al
us
en
ic,
his
Opencast Quarries: Vi bration Assessing Methods 255
point of view, quarry management planning will be assumed, according with a
simple scheme in which the whinstone is extracted using explosives. Loose
materials are captured with diggers and sent to a crushing and sifting plant. In this
phase materials are processed and then loaded into trucks for road transportation.
3 Ore Description: The Whinstone
Whinstone is a term used in the quarrying industry to describe any hard darkcoloured
rock. Examples include the igneous rocks basalt and dolerite as well as
the sedimentary rock chert. The name 'whin' derives from the sound it makes when
struck with a hammer. It is used for road chippings and dry stone walls, but its
natural angular shapes do not fit together well and are not easy to build with, and
its hardness makes it a difficult material to work.
Whinstone is an igneous rock, which formed as the volcanic molten magma
cooled. Being such hard, resistant rock, dolerite stands out as prominent cliffs or
crags.
In modern times whinstone has been extensively quarried to be used in the
construction of roads.
Whinstone is an extrusive igneous volcanic formed from the rapid cooling of
basaltic lava. By definition, it is an aphanitic igneous rock with less than 20%
quartz and less than 10% feldspathoid by volume, and where at least 65% of the
feldspar is in the form of plagioclase. Whinstone is usually grey to black in colour,
but rapidly weathers to brown or rust-red due to oxidation of its mafic (iron-rich)
minerals into rust. It almost always has a fine-grained mineral texture due to the
molten rock cooling too quickly for large mineral crystals to grow, although it can
sometimes be porphyritic, containing the larger crystals formed prior to the
extrusion that brought the lava to the surface, embedded in a finer-grained matrix.
Whinstone with a vesicular or frothy texture is called scoria, and forms when
dissolved gases are forced out of solution and form vesicles as the lava
decompresses as it reaches the surface.
4 Drill and Blast Design and the Forecasting Model
The purpose of blasting operations is rock fragmentation. It provides appropriate
rock material granulation or size that is suitable for loading and transportation.
The blasting process and usage of explosives, however, remain a potential source
of numerous human and environmental hazards. Several studies indicate that
fragmentation accounts for only 20-30% of the total amount of explosive energy
used. The remainder of the energy is wasted away in the form of ground
vibrations, air-overpressure and flyrock. All of them can, under some
circumstances, cause damage to structures nearby and, apart from this, be the
source of permanent conflict with inhabitants who live close to the operation.
256 G. Alfaro Degan, D. Lippiello, and M. Pinzari
Ground vibrations can be considered as acoustic waves that propagate through
the rocks. They differ from the round vibrations caused by earthquakes in terms of
seismic source, amount of available energy and travelled distances. Usually,
parameters such as velocity, displacement and acceleration of particles are
recorded during the vibration measurements, but several studies achieved that the
most important parameter, that has to be studied, is the Particle velocity. Many
scientists and engineers investigated on PPV prediction considered to be the
maximum velocity in any of the components and also on the peak vector sum
(PVS) that is the true vector sum of the three components. The first significant
PPV predictor equation was proposed by the United States Bureau of Mines.
There are also modified predictors from other researchers or institutions such as
Langefors and Kihlstrom, Ambraseys, Indian Standard, Ghosh and Daemen, Pal
Roy of CMRI, etc. However, the PPV predictor established by USBM is still the
most widely used equation in the literature. To the knowledge of the author, no
work has been reported in the literature that addresses the application of
geostatistical approach for the estimation of ground vibration.
4.1 Frequency of Ground Vibration
The dominant frequency of ground vibration was determined through the
developed forecasting software. The range of observed frequencies for different
mines and blasting projects varies between 5 and 40 Hz.
The provisional adopted formula assumes frequency decreases with distance:
f = (Kf logR)-1 (1)
Where f is the frequency, R is the distance from the blasting hole (m), Kf is a
constant that takes into account the ground characteristics (tab.1).
Table 1 Values of Kf in function of the ground characteristics
Ground Kf
Sands and waterlogged soils 0,110,13
Middle hardness 0,060,09
Hard rocks 0,010,03
Studies [1] refer that the frequency is confined within 5-60 Hz in spite of
differing blast geometries and used explosives. In spite of the differing blast
geometries and the explosives used, blasts in coal, lignite and iron ore mines
produced low frequency. Relatively higher frequencies were found in case of
limestone quarries and construction projects. It is therefore inferred that large
blasts using higher bench heights and larger diameter blastholes are more likely to
produce lower frequency of ground vibration.
Opencast Quarries: Vi bration Assessing Methods 257
The lowest frequencies were associated with coal mine blasting, intermediate
with quarry blasting and high frequencies with construction blasting.
4.2 PPV Forecasting
To assess the PPV it has been used the arrangement of an important Italian
theoretical model [2]. This model considers that the seismic energy transmitted to
the rock by the explosive can be evaluated with the two following equations:
Es = 2 2 f2 2 Ds
2 )r Vc Tv 10-6 (2)
Es = nt n1 n2 ET Q (3)
Where:
A = displacement (m), f = Frequency (Hz), DS = Distance from the blasting
point (m), )r = Density of the rock(kg/m), VC = Seismic velocity (m/s), TV =
Duration of the vibration (s), n = Breaking factor (charges laid on the ground
n<0.4; charges without a free face n>0.4), ET =Energy per unit of mass, Q =
amount of explosive. n and n are respectively the impedance factor and coupling
factor, represented by the following formulas:
n1 = 1 - [(Ze Zr )2 / (Ze + Zr )2] (4)
n2 = 1 / (ED/d 1,72) (5)
Where:
Ze = impedance of explosive (kgms), Zr = impedance of rock (kg ms),
D = blasthole diameter (mm), d = charge diameter (mm). From previous equations
the following is obtained:
A(m/s2) = [(nt n1 n2 ET Q 10-6) / (43 f2 Ds
2 )r Vc Tv)] (6)
As the significative duration of vibrations is considered to be five times the
period:
TV = 5 TS = 5 / f (7)
According to the equation (1), f = (Kf logR)-1, the equation (6) can be written
as follows:
A(m/s2) = [(nt n1 n2 ET Q Kf logDS 106) / (203 Ds
2 )r Vc Tv)] (8)
And integrating,
V(m/s) = (Q/DS) [(nt n1 n2 106) / (5 Kf logDS
)r Vc)] (9)
258 G. Alfaro Degan, D. Lippiello, and M. Pinzari
5 Blasting Design
It has been found that the type of explosives has significant influence on ground
vibration [1]. Hossaini and Sen [3] have found that ANFO generates lesser
vibration than slurry explosives. Among the different blends tested, it was found
that the explosive with lower density and lower detonation velocity produced
lower level of ground vibration.
As the shock energy component of an explosive gives rise to unwanted
vibrations [4], explosives having larger portion of gaseous energy should be
preferred.
Table 2 Explosives technical characteristics
Explosive [Kg/m3]
Impedance
Ie
Energy per kg
[MJ/kg]
GOMMA A 1550 11,63 6,74
GELATINA 1 1450 9,50 4,52
GELATINA 2 1420 8,66 4,44
SISMIC 2 1550 10,23 4,00
IDROPENT D 1550 12,25 7,47
PROFIL X 1200 3,89 2,66
TUTAGEX 210 1150 4,83 3,52
TUTAGEX 110 1150 4,60 2,79
VULCAN 3 1050 4,73 3,90
CAVA EXTRA 2 1050 4,78 4,31
CAVA 1 1000 3,80 4,16
ANFO 5 800 1,84 3,66
5.1 Blasthole Design
According to results obtained, it was found that the best issue can be reached
using two different quantity of explosives. The first explosive should be used to
charge the upper part of the blasthole (column area) and the second one to charge
the lower portion of the hole (foot area).
The lower portion of the blasthole, indeed, will be charged with a greater
quantity (kg) of explosives according to the equations (8) and (9):
QFoot = (| / 2)2 V )e (10)
QColumn = ( |
c / 2)2 (H - V - b) )e (11)
Opencast Quarries: Vi bration Assessing Methods 259
This design choice (two different quantity of explosives) is coerced, according
to the occurrence that it is necessary develop a different amount of energy in the
lower part of the blasthole (foot portion), especially in case of sub-drilling
perforation.
The same result, indeed, can be obtained even using two different explosives
with different specific characteristics (density, detonation velocity, energy per kg
etc.).
5.2 I nfluence of Delay I nterval on PPV
Using a combination of single hole waveforms and computer simulation, the
influence of delay interval was investigated. It is found that the delay of 25-35 ms
produces the lowest vibration in term of PPV propagation. We can say that this
agrees with the mines practice [5].
6 Conclusion
In order to respect the daily imposed productivity (817 m3) it was calculated (even
on the base of the geological site characteristics) that it is necessary to drill at least
56 blastholes. Those holes can be subdivided in two different blasting (benchs) of
28 holes each (single panel case study) or in 5 different blasting of 11 holes (case
of parallel panels).
Figure 2 and 3 show the PPV forecasting for the two cases (single panel,
parallel panels).
Fig. 2 PPV Forecasting single panel case
260 G. Alfaro Degan, D. Lippiello, and M. Pinzari
Fig. 3 PPV Forecasting parallel panels case
7 Discussion: Most Significant Study Findings
1) This study identifies the blast design parameters that can be suitably modified
to control peak particle velocity (PPV).
2) When predicted or monitored vibrations exceed the statutory limits, ground
vibrations are to be controlled by modifying the blast design parameters.
Digging trenchs between the blast and the structure can further reduce ground
vibration seems to be a feasible solution. Numerical simulations show that the
percentage of reduction obviously depends on the trench depth to blasthole
depth ratio (at a ratio of 1.2, PPV value was reduced by 53%).
3) The PPV forecasting method shows its always preferable the productivity
process with parallel panels.