PREDICTION OF PEAK PARTICLE

VELOCITY FOR A CHROMITE MINE

IN SUKINDA REGION
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
MINING ENGINEERING
BY
DEBASISH NATH
114MN0528

Under the guidance of

PROF. Manoj Kumar Mishra

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ROURKELA - 769008
 National Institute of Technology, Rourkela
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled“PREDICTION OF PPV FOR A

CHROMITE MINE IN SUKINDA REGION ” submitted by Sri Debasish Nath in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Technology degree in Mining
Engineering at the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela is an authentic work carried out
by him under my supervision and guidance.

To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in the thesis has not been submitted to any
other University/Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.

Prof. Manoj Kumar Mishra

Dept. of Mining Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Rourkela – 769008
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my profound gratitude and indebtedness to Prof. M.K. Mishra Department of
Mining Engineering, NIT, Rourkela for introducing the present topic and for their inspiring
guidance, constructive criticism and valuable suggestion throughout this project work.
Last but not least, my sincere thanks to all our friends who have patiently extended all sorts of
help for accomplishing this undertaking.

Debasish Nath
Dept. of Mining Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Rourkela – 769008

i
 CONTENTS

SL NO. CHAPTERS PAGE NO.

ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective of the project 1
2 EXPLOSIVES
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Types of explosives 6
2.3 Choice of exlplosives 6
3. BLASTING
3.1 Blasting geometry 10
3.2 Blasting pattern 10
4 GROUND VIBRATION
4.1 Introduction 14
4.2 Generation of ground vibration 14
4.3 Wave form of blast vibration 15
4.4 Parameters affecting propagation of 17
ground vibration
4.5 Reduction of ground vibration 18
4.6 Air over pressure 18
5 PREDICTION OF GROUND
VIBRATION
5.1 Introduction 21
5.2 Peak particle velocity 21
6 DGMS REGUALATION
6.1 Damage criteria and DGMS regulations 25
7 BLASTING SEISMOGRAPH
7.1 Introduction 28
7.2 Specification 29
7.3 Procedure of monitoring 32

ii
8 CASESTUDY
8.1 Geology 34
8.2 Description of formation 35
8.3 Blasting design pattern 35
8.4 Observation and calculation 37
8.5 Conventional predictor for predicting 38
PPV
8.6 Calculated parameter for different 41
predictor
8.7 Prediction by MLR 43
8.8 Model development by ANN 46
8.9 Performance of developed statistical 46
models
9 RESULT AND CONCLUSION
9.1 Conclusion 48
9.2 References 49

iii
 ABSTRACT
Blasting is the important aspects of mineral excavation. Due to large scale excavation and
blasting it can pose danger to nearby residential area and working area. This paper deals with
the prediction of blast induced ground vibration level at a chromite mine in the Sukinda area
.The ground vibration was monitored and analysed by widely use vibration predictors. The
Multiple regression model , Empirical models and ANN was employed to establish the relation
between blast parameters and PPV. Then the best model which is more accurate to to measured
data is proposed for the mine.

iv
 List of figures
Fig No. Title Page no.
1 Emulsion explosives 6
2 Blasting geometry 10
3 Sequence of initiation of single row blasting 11
4 Multiple row blasting 12
5 Pictorial representation of the various zones and the 15
Phenomenon
6 Illustration of the motion of the particles within ‘P’ wave 16
7 Illustration of the motion of the particles within S – Wave 16
8 Illustration of the motion of the particles within R – wave 17
9 Blasting seismographs 28
10 Part of seismographs 29
11 Minimate blaster 31
12 Satellite photo of Chromite mine 34
13 Blasting design pattern 35
14 Staggered V pattern 36
15 USBM, Bureau of Indian standard , Ambraseys-hendron , 39-40
Langfors-Kihlstorm Predictors with confidence level 95%
16 MLR predictor 42
17 Architecture of Artificial Neural Network Model 43
18 ANN model architecture 44
19 Training, validation and testing with all graph shows 45
output vs. target for ANN model
20 Comparison between Predicted PPV by ANN and 45
measured PPV by minimate

v
 List of Tables
Sl No. Title Page No.
1 Various empirical models for prediction of PPV 22-23
2 DGMS damage criteria 25
3 Limiting blasting vibration criterion 25
4 Ground vibration limits 26
5 Effects of ground vibration on human beings 26
6 Specification of the vibration monitoring equipment - 30
Minimate Blaster
7 Specification of Aquadyne explosives 36
8 Observation of Blasting parameters and PPV 37
9 Site constants for different predictors 38
10 Comparison between statistical models 46

vi
 CHAPTER -1
INTRODUCTION

1
 1. INTRODUCTION

Drilling and blasting is the controlled use of explosives and other methods such as gas
pressure blasting pyrotechnics, to break rock for excavation. It is practiced most often in
mining, quarrying and civil engineering such as dam or road construction. The result of rock
blasting is often known as a rock cut.
Drilling and blasting currently utilizes many different varieties of explosives with different
compositions and performance properties. Higher velocity explosives are used for relatively
hard rock in order to shatter and break the rock, while low velocity explosives are used in soft
rocks to generate more gas pressure and a greater heaving effect. For instance, an early 20th-
century blasting manual compared the effects of black powder to that of a wedge, and dynamite
to that of a hammer. The most commonly used explosives in mining today are ANFO based
blends due to lower cost than dynamite.
Beam-induced ground vibrations are an influence of the use of explosives, which has been a
very difficult problem in the past. Many variables and location constants are included in the
equation which, when combined, result in the generation of a complex vibrational waveform
created by the confined detonation of an explosive charge. Using appropriate field controls
during all the drilling and blasting operations helps minimize the negative effects of ground
vibration by creating a well-designed blast plan. This design helps to account for the correct
bore diameter and pattern that reflects the efficient use and distribution of the explosive energy
loaded into the blast hole. It would also provide for the appropriate amount of time between
adjacent holes in a blast to provide the explosive with the optimum level of energy confinement.
1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT:
To study the blast vibration which is generated by the surface mine blasting operation and to
predict the accurate statistical model for PPV calculation so that surface structures can be
protected from the impact of the blast vibration.

2
CHAPTER-2
EXPLOSIVES

3
 2. EXPLOSIVES
2.1 Introduction:
Dangerous chemical mixtures or aggravate that, when subjected to heat, impact or shock are
fit for experiencing a quick decomposition that discharge heat and gasses, which thusly expand
to form high pressures.
Stabilizers such as magnesium and calcium carbonates are also used and sensitizers like
metallic powders are used in explosive mixture. Explosives are classified into two categories:-
 Low explosive
 High explosive
2.2 Types of explosives:
2.2.1 Ammonium Nitrate: ANFO (or AN /FO, for ammonium nitrate/fuel oil) is a widely used
bulk industrial explosive. Its name is commonly pronounced as "an-fo".
It consists of 94% porous prilled ammonium nitrate (NH 4NO 3) (AN), which acts as the
oxidizing agent and absorbent for the fuel, and 6% number 2 fuel oil (FO).
ANFO has found wide use in coal mining, quarrying, metal mining, and civil construction
in applications where its low cost and ease of use may outweigh the benefits of other
explosives, such as water resistance, oxygen balance, higher detonation velocity, or
performance in small-diameter columns. ANFO is also widely used in avalanche hazard
mitigation.
The chemistry of ANFO detonation is the reaction of ammonium nitrate with a long-chain
alkane (C n H 2n+2) to form nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. In an ideal stoichiometrically
balanced reaction, ANFO is composed of about 94.3% AN and 5.7% FO by weight. In practice,
a slight excess of fuel oil is added, as under dosing results in reduced performance while
overdosing merely results in more post-blast fumes. When detonation conditions are optimal,
the aforementioned gases are the only products. In practical use, such conditions are impossible
to attain, and blasts produce moderate amounts of toxic gases such as carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxides (NOx).
The fuel component of ANFO is typically diesel, but kerosene, coal dust, racing fuel, or
even molasses have been used instead. Finely powdered aluminium in the mixture will sensitise
it to detonate more readily.
ANFO is classified as a blasting agent, meaning that it decomposes through detonation
rather than deflagration at a velocity higher than the speed of sound in the material but can't be
detonated with a No. 8 blasting cap without a sensitizer. ANFO has a moderate velocity

4
compared to other industrial explosives, measuring 3,200 m/s in 130 mm (5 in) diameter,
unconfined, at ambient temperature.
ANFO is a tertiary explosive, meaning that it cannot be set off by the small quantity of
primary explosive in a typical blasting cap. A larger quantity of secondary explosive, known
as a primer or a booster, must be used.One or two sticks of dynamite were historically used;
current practice is to use Tovex or cast boosters of pentolite (TNT/PETN or similar
compositions).
2.2.2Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil: It is the mixture of prilled AN and fuel oil, at the
nearly oxygen balanced ratio of 94/6 AN/FO. Both the sensitivity and performance depend
upon prill properties. It does not get detonated ideally and its performance properties depend
upon charge diameter and confinement. For dry hole condition it is excellent, and also it should
be initiated as soon as it is loaded. It is initiated by small quantity of O.C.G. or booster.
2.2.3 Site Mixed Slurry: For blasting on a large scale in an opencast mine these explosives
are used. It involves specially designed pump trucks for transport to the blasting site
ingredients required for SMS system. It is basically consists of a mother support plant where
intermediate non-explosive slurry is, initially, prepared for its application. This intermediate
slurry subsequently, is transferred to a 10 ton capacity stainless steel tank.
2.2.4 Emulsion Explosive : It is a liquid mixture of oxidizer and fuel. With the help of
emulsifying agent an intimate mix of oil and water is possible. Delivery rate of 200-300 kg/min
can be achieved by the Load cells/digital meters. Straight emulsion explosive is considered to
have high bulk strength. Support tankers of 10-12 tones capacity or more which can be used
for carrying Emulsion matrix which is transferred at site thus saving time. It ensures
uninterrupted charging. It is recommended that 500 gm. Pentolite boosters can be used for
boosting. Manpower savings are obtained with less deployment of van drivers or helper,
blasting crew and magazine staff. Full borehole coupling expanded burden/spacing parameters
on blasting efficiency. It does not give explosive pilferage.

5
 FIG-01 Emulsion explosives(Source:tyhent.com)
2.3 Choice of explosive depends on the following factors :
 Strength
 Velocity of detonation
 Density
 Water resistance
 Fume Class
 Temperature
 Shelf life
 Sensitivity
2.3.1 Strength:
This is a measure of the amount of energy released by an explosive during blasting, and
therefore its ability to do useful work. The total energy released by detonation of explosives
includes both beneficial energy (energy that causes fragmentation or rock) and waste energy
(soil vibration, air vibration, light, heat).
2.3.2 Velocity of detonation:
Explosive velocity, also known as detonation velocity or velocity of detonation (VoD), is
the velocity at which the shock wave front travels through a detonated explosive. The data
listed for a specific substance is usually a rough prediction based upon gas behavior
theory[citation needed] (see Chapman-Jouguet condition), as in practice it is difficult to
measure[citation needed]. Explosive velocities are always faster than the local speed of sound
in the material.
If the explosive is confined before detonation, such as in an artillery shell, the force
produced is focused on a much smaller area, and the pressure is massively intensified. This
results in explosive velocity that is higher than if the explosive had been detonated in open air.

6
Unconfined velocities are often approximately 70 to 80 percent of confined
velocities.Explosive velocity is increased with smaller particle size (i.e. increased spatial
density), increased charge diameter, and increased confinement (i.e. higher pressure). Typical
detonation velocities in gases range from 1800 m/s to 3000 m/s. Typical velocities in solid
explosives often range beyond 4000 m/s to 10300 m/s. Velocity of detonation in any borehole
can be calculated by placing a gage inside the borehole. This gage is wired to an oscilloscope
that logs the speed of the detonation wave in the borehole.
2.3.3 Water resistance: The effectiveness of explosive after contamination of water is defined
as water resistance of explosives. The detonation energy of ANFO mixtures that have been
exposed to water in blast holes is far less than that of such mixtures placed in dry holes. When
blasting is to be performed under wet conditions a gelatinous or slurry explosive should be
used. The higher the nitroglycerine contents of an explosive, the better its water resistance
properties.
2.3.4 Fume class : Fume class is a measure of amount of toxic gases, primarily CO and NOX,
produced by the detonation of an explosive. To minimize any hazardous exposure from the
gases produced by outdoor blasting, it is essential that the blaster:
 Be aware that lack of ground displacement may prevent venting of the blasted material
and result in the entrapment of gases.
 Excavate blasted material as soon as possible after blasting. Excavation should start as
close to the underground enclosed space as possible in order to provide for venting of
any entrapped gases.
Additionally, it is recommended that the blaster:
 Be aware of and look for geologic pathways for CO such as old trenches, horizontal
partings, faults, joints, hillseams, unconsolidated material, water, and voids that would
allow movement of gas towards underground enclosed spaces.
 Monitor possible problem areas to determine if any gases have migrated from the
blasting operation.
 Keep accurate and complete records of all blasts. Blast records should include the
names of the blaster-in-charge and crew, the exact blast site location, the weather
conditions, site-specific loading and geologic data, vibration compliance data, a sketch
of the blast site, and the blaster's signature.

7
2.3.5 Temperature:
Extremely low temperatures can affect the performance of water- based explosives, the
ingredients of which can solidify and aggregate, thereby reducing the particle surface area
available for reaction. At high temperature, the crystal structure of AN cab be affected.
Temperature fluctuations under this scenario can result in high density stages at which the
explosive may no longer detonate.

2.3.6 Shelf life:

The chemical stability and performance of an explosive change with age. The extent of
instabilities and rate of aging will depend upon the formulation and storage conditions of the
explosives; accordingly. Modern explosives material contains inhibitors and/or stabilizers that
lengthen their shelf life.
2.3.7 Sensitivity:
The term sensitivity, as it pertains to explosives, has two meaning, the first meaning of the
sensitivity as it relates to explosives refers to various safety aspects and describes the ease with
which an explosive may be detonated or its sensitivity to accidental detonation from shock,
impact, friction, electrostatic discharge and heat. The second meaning has to do with
sensitiveness or an explosive’s ability to propagate. The two tests that are most applicable to
commercial explosives are:-
• Cap sensitivity
• Gap sensitivity

8
CHAPTER -3
BLASTING

9
3. Blasting :
The blasting process must be carried out to meet the quality and quantity requirements of the
production. The production of well smashed and loosely packed dirt piles that are not scattered
around the excavation facilitates loading and transport operations. Fragmentation properties
affect misfiring productivity, crusher throughput and energy consumption, plant efficiency,
yield and recovery, or even the price of the final product in industrial minerals and aggregates.
There are controllable parameters and the uncontrollable parameter to control the
fragmentation. Control parameters are explosive types, delay time, bank parameters, firing
patterns, etc. and the uncontrollable parameters are the properties of rocks, properties of
explosives, etc. The controllable parameters should be set so that optimal fragmentation is
achieved from holes spaced greater than the largest required block size.
3.1 Blasting Geometry:

Fig-02 Blasting geometry

3.2 Blasting pattern followed in opencast mines:
Row of the holes may be in single or multiple. So there are mainly two types of blasting pattern
followed in opencast mines. These are
• Single Row blasting pattern
• Multiple Row blasting pattern
3.2.1 Single row firing pattern :
In single row blasting the fragmentation is low and specific explosive consumption is more
than multi-Row blasting, so multi-Row Blasting pattern is preferred
In this the following pattern are used

10
• The alternative delay pattern (used for softer rocks)
• Consecutive shot delay pattern (rock with medium hardness)
• Short delay firing with a cut (used for hard rocks)

Fig-03 Sequence of initiation in a single row blasting

3.2.2 Multi row blasting pattern:
The Multi Row firing pattern is of mainly five types
• Square grid in-line initiation (spacing (S) =Effective burden(B).)
• Square grid ‘V’ pattern (S=B; SE=2.BE).
• Square grid ‘V1’ pattern (S=B; SE=5.BE).
• Staggered grid ‘V’ pattern (S=B; SE=1.25BE).
• Staggered grid ‘V1’ pattern (S=B; SE=3.25BE).

11
 Fig -03 Multiple row blasting(after Blast vibration monitoring by
opencast mines by Shiv Shankar Choudhary and Ravi ranjan)

12
 CHAPTER-4
GROUND VIBRATION

13
4.1 Introduction:
The movement of any particle in the ground can be described in three ways; displacement,
velocity and acceleration. Velocity transducers (geophones) produce a voltage which is
proportional the velocity of movement, and can be easily measured and recorded. They are
robust and relatively inexpensive and so are most frequently used for monitoring. It has been
shown in many studies, most notably by USBM that it is velocity which is most closely
related to the onset of damage, and so it is velocity which is almost always measured. If
necessary, the velocity recording can be converted to obtain displacement or acceleration.
Each trace has a point where the velocity is a maximum (+ve or -ve) and this is known as the
Peak Particle Velocity (or PPV) which has units of mm/s. Geophones are only able to respond
to vibration in one dimension and so to capture the complete signal it is necessary to
have three geophones arranged orthogonally (at right angles). One will always be vertical and
the other two will be horizontal, but the horizontal geophones can either be aligned with the
cardinal points of the compass or they can be arranged with reference to the blast position. In
the latter case, one geophone would be set along the line from blast to monitor (this is known
as the longitudinal or radial) so that the other would be perpendicular to this line (this is
known as the transverse).
4.2 Generation of ground vibration:
When an explosive charge detonates, intense dynamic waves are set around the blast hole,
due to sudden acceleration of the rock mass. The energy liberated by the explosive is
transmitted to the rock mass as strain energy. The transmission of the energy takes place in
the form of the waves. The energy carried by these waves crushes the rock, which is the
immediate vicinity of the hole, to a fine powder. The region in which this takes place is called
shock zone. The radius of this zone is nearly two times the radius of the hole. Beyond the
shock zone, the energy of the waves gets attenuated to some degree which causes the radial
cracking of the rock mass. The gas generated as a result of detonation enters into these cracks
and displaces the rock further apart causing its fragmentation. The region in which this
phenomenon takes place is called transition zone. The radius of this zone is twenty to fifty
times the radius of the hole. As a result of further attenuation taking place in the transition
zone, the waves although cause generation of the cracks to a lesser extent but they are not in a
position to cause the permanent deformation in the rock mass located outside the transition
zone. If these attenuated waves are not reflected from a free face, then they may cause
vibrations in the rock. However if a free face is available, the waves reflected from a free face
14
cause further breakage in the rock mass under the influence of the dynamic tensile stress. Fig
4 is a pictorial representation of the various zones described above and explains the
phenomenon of reflection of waves.
4.3 Wave form of blast vibration:
Ground vibration radiates outwards from the blast site and gradually reduces in magnitude,
in the same manner as ripples behave when a stone is thrown into a pool of water, schematically
shown below. The motion of the wave can be defined by taking measurements of a float on
the surface of the water. With suitable instruments the displacement or amplitude, velocity,
acceleration and wave length of the waves can be measured.

Fig-04 Pictorial representation of the various zones and the Phenomenon

of reflection of waves(after Blast vibration monitoring by opencast mines by Shiv
Shankar Choudhary and Ravi ranjan)

15
The ground vibration wave motion consists of different kinds of waves:
• Compression (or P) waves.
• Shear (or S or secondary) waves.
• Rayleigh (or R) waves.

Fig-06 Illustration of the motion of the particles within ‘P’ wave(after Blast vibration
monitoring by opencast mines by Shiv Shankar Choudhary and Ravi ranjan)
The Compression or ‗P‘ wave is the fastest wave through the ground. The simplest illustration
of the motion of the particles within the ‗P‘ wave is to consider a long steel rod struck on the
end. The particles of the rod move to and fro as the compressive pulse travels along the rod,
i.e. the particles in the wave move in the same direction as the propagation of the wave. The P‘
wave moves radially from the blasthole in all directions at velocities characteristic of the
material being travelled through (approximately 2200 m/s).

Fig -07: Illustration of the motion of the particles within S – Wave(after Blast vibration
monitoring by opencast mines by Shiv Shankar Choudhary and Ravi ranjan)

The Shear or S wave travels at approximately 1200 m/s (50% to 60% of the velocity of the P
wave). The motion of the particles within the wave can be illustrated by shaking a rope at one
end. The wave travels along the rope, but the particles within the wave move at right angles to
the direction of motion of the wave. The ‗P‘ waves and ‗S‘ waves are sometimes referred to
as ―body waves because they travel through the body of the rock in three dimensions.

16
 Fig-08: Illustration of the motion of the particles within R – wave( after Blast
vibration monitoring by opencast mines by Shiv Shankar Choudhary and Ravi ranjan)
The Rayleigh or ‗R‘ wave is a surface wave, which fades rapidly with depth and propagates
more slowly (750 m/s) than the other two waves. The particles within the wave move
elliptically in a vertical plane in the same direction as the direction of propagation. At the
surface the motion is retrograde to the movement of the wave, similar to waves on the ocean.
In general terms, ground vibration increases with increased charge (explosive) mass and
reduces with distance. The relationships between charge mass, distance and vibration can be
determined from analysis and then used in predictive formula to limit and control the ground
vibration.
4.4 Parameters influencing propagation and intensity of ground vibrations
The parameters, which exhibit control on the amplitude, frequency and duration of the
ground vibration, are divided in two groups as follows:
a. Non-controllable Parameters
b. Controllable Parameters
The non-controllable parameters are those, over which the Blasting Engineer does not have
any control. The local geology, rock characteristics and distances of the structures from blast
site is non-controllable parameters. However, the control on the ground vibrations can be
established with the help of controllable parameters. The same have been reproduced below:
 Charge Weight
 Burden, spacing and specific charge
 Delay Interval
 Coupling
 Type of Explosive
 Confinement
 Direction of blast progression

17
4.5 Reduction of ground vibrations
To protect a structure, it is necessary to minimize the ground vibrations from the blast. The
acceptable techniques for reduction and control of vibrations are:
a. Reduce the charge per delay: This is the most important measure for the purpose. Charge per
delay can be controlled by:
i. Reducing the hole depth.
ii. Using small diameter holes
iii. Delayed initiation of deck charges in the blast holes
iv. Using more numbers of delay detonators series
v. Using sequential blasting machine
b. Reduce explosive confinement by:
i. Reducing excessive burden and spacing
ii. Removing buffers in front of the holes
iii. Reducing stemming but not to the degree of increasing air-blast and fly rock
iv. Reducing sub-grade drilling
v. Allowing at least one free face
vi. Using decoupled charges
vii. Drilling holes parallel to the bench face
viii. Accuracy in drilling
c. Limit the explosive confinement to bedrock if the overburden can be excavated by other
means.
d. Square patterns produce more vibrations
e. Limit frequency of blasting
f. Time the blasts with high ambient noise levels
g. Use controlled blasting techniques
h. Use a low VOD and low density explosive
4.6 Air Overpressure
Pressure waves emanated in the atmosphere by the detonating charge is called air
overpressure/noise. The intensity of noise depends upon the quantity of the charge and its
confinement. . The frequency of the pressure waves in the range of to 20 Hz. To 20 kHz are
in the audible range.
The air overpressure is calculated in dB (A) or Pa.
The dB (A) is calculated by the following formula
dB =10log P/P0

18
Where P is measured pressure and Po is the reference pressure of 0.00002 Pa.
A low level of air-over pressure plays an important role in causing distress because of rattling
windows. At present we don‘t have any standards regarding levels of air-over pressure.
The principle sources of air-over pressure are:
a. Detonation of unconfined charges.
b. Too short stemming or improper stemming material
c. Venting of high velocity gases through poorly designed blasts.
When air overpressure is within the range of hearing it is called 'sound'. When its frequency
is below the range of hearing, it is generally referred to as 'concussion' or 'airblast'. Air
vibration from blasting is measured with an air vibration meter, which meets the requirements
of Australian Standard 2187.2-2006 and is expressed in terms of decibels (linear) or dBL.
The techniques to control air-over pressure are:
a. Use of NONEL in place of D-cord in the blasts near the residential area.
b. Reduction in the size of the blast.
c. Avoiding top initiation.
d. Avoiding excessive delays between the rows.
e. Avoiding blasting in early morning, late afternoon and evening when temperature inversions
are likely to occur.
f. Avoiding blasting when the wind is blowing towards residential area as the sound waves
travel in the direction of the wind.

19
 CHAPTER-05
PREDICTION OF GROUND VIBRATION

20
5.1 Introduction:
A number of investigators have studied ground vibrations from blasting and have developed
theoretical analysis to explain the experimental data. The energy released is considered to be
proportional to the square root of charge.
Earlier studies on wave propagation showed that the amplitude of particle displacement can
be given by

𝑄 0.5
𝐴=𝐾 𝐷

Where K is site constant; D is the distance and Q is the charge per delay.
Assuming the cylindrical explosive geometry for long cylindrical charges, Researchers
working on blast-induced ground vibrations concluded that any linear dimension should be
scaled with the square root of the charge weight. Blasts should be scaled to the equivalent
distance, which is the actual distance divided by the square root of the charge. The
corresponding relation known as USBM predictor equation takes up following form:

𝐷 𝛽
𝐴 = 𝐾 (𝑄0.5 )

Where, K and 𝛽 are site-specific constants, which depend on local geology and ground
characteristics and other terms have their usual meanings.
The USBM predictor equation is used in India for calculating maximum safe charge per delay
for different distances according the standards fixed by DGMS. The value of K and 𝛽 are
determined by regression analysis of the data generated by trial blasts in terms of A, D and Q.
5.2 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV):
Ground vibration can be measured by the concept of peak particle velocity.
Peak Particle Velocity – is defined as the highest speed at which an individual earth particle
moves or vibrates as the waves pass a particular site.
There are many predictive equations to compute explosive weight per delay to attain a
specific level of peak particle velocity.

21
Table -01 Various empirical models for prediction of PPV

Name Equation References

USBM −𝛽 It shows scaled distance as
𝑅
𝑉 = 𝐾( )
√𝑄𝑀𝐴𝑋 the function of radial
distance and square root of
maximum charge per delay
Langfors-kihlstorm 𝛽 This formula is based on
𝑄𝑀𝐴𝑋
𝑉 = 𝐾 (√ 2 ) early researcher by
𝑅3
Langefros and Kihlstrom
into blasting in hard Swedish
granite.
Ambraseys-Hendron 𝑅 𝛽 The USBM investigators
𝑉 = 𝐾 (𝑄 0.33 )
𝑀𝐴𝑋
predictor (1968) suggested that any linear
dimension should be scaled
to the cube root of the
explosive charge weight for
spherical geometry. An
inverse power law was
suggested to relate amplitude
of the seismic waves and
scaled distances to obtain the
mentioned relationship.
Indian Standard Predictor 𝛽 Indian standard suggested
𝑄𝑀𝐴𝑋
(1973) 𝑉 = 𝐾( 2 ) that the blast should be
𝑅3
scaled to the equivalent
distance or the scaled
distance; define as the
explosive charge weight
divided by the cube root of
square of the real distance.
CMRI PREDICTOR V = n+k[R/√Qmax]-1 Pal Roy proposed a new
predictor equation based on

22
 the data collected from
different India geo- mining
conditions. This equation is
valid in the zone of
disturbance, i.e. when
Qmax>0 and V>0

Where,
1. V = Peak Particle Velocity (mm/sec)
2. R = Distance between blast face and monitoring point (m)
3. Q max = Maximum explosive charge used per delay (kg)
4. K, A, 𝛽 = Site constants which can be determined by multiple regression analysis.

23
 CHAPTER 06
DGMS REGULATIONS

24
6.1 DAMAGE CRITERIA & DGMS REGULATIONS:
The damage criteria was proposed by many organizations including USBM, DGMS, Indian
Standards etc. based on the Permissible PPV in mm/s and Frequency of the ground vibrations
for various types of structures. The criteria based on the Permissible PPV in mm/s and
Frequency of the ground vibrations for various types of structures as per DGMS (1997) as
presented below in Table 05 is followed for the present investigations to estimate safe charge
per delay to limit the ground vibrations within safe limit.
Table -2 DGMS damage criteria

Table-3 Limiting blasting vibration criterion

25
 Table-4 Ground vibration limits

Table-5 Effects of ground vibration on human beings

26
 CHAPTER-7
METHODOLOGY

27
7.1 Blasting seismographs:
Blasting seismograph consist of a transducer (generally a geophone, although an accelometer
may be used) connected to a processor to collect any analyze the signals. The tri-axial geophone
contains three mutually perpendicular transducers, each consisting of a spring-loaded moving
mass system located within a moving coil. The system moves in a magnetic field created by a
permanent magnet, when the ground vibration caused the coil to move within the magnetic
field an electric current signal is induced with a magnitude proportional to the velocity of the
coil. The signals are conducted to the processor by cable as indicated in figure 10.

FIG-9(a) Geophone sensor operation (after blast vibration studies in surface mines by
Badal kumar kujjur)

FIG-9(b) A tri-axial geophone(after blast vibration studies in surface mines by Badal

kumar kujjur)

28
 Fig-10 Parts of a seismograph (after blast vibration studies in
surface mines by Badal kumar kujjur)

Some of the commonly used equipment’s for measuring ground vibration due to blasting are
as follows: Micro- Innovations: - PVM A6/Sinco ETNA 8., Blastronics: - µ MX, Instanel: -
[Blastmate DS 677, Minimate Pro6, Minimate Pro4 , Minimate Plus ,Minimate Blaster,
Blastmate III ] , Datamaster: - Dynamaster Blast Monitoring System,Terrock: -
Vibpak/CJ4/VIB Vibration Monitoring System.
7.2 Specifications of Minimate Blaster:
Currently in this mine, ground vibration monitoring is conducted with the help of the equipment
Minimate Blaster of Instantel. The monitor incorporates an eight-key tactile keypad and
onboard LCD, with a clearly structured, menu-driven interface. Specification of the equipment
is listed below in the Table 6.

29
 Table No 06: Specification of the vibration monitoring equipment - Minimate Blaster

Event monitoring measures both ground vibrations and air pressure. The monitor measures
transverse, vertical and longitudinal ground vibrations. Transverse ground vibrations agitate
particle in a side to side motion. Vertical ground vibration agitate particle in an up and down
motion progressing motion. Longitudinal ground vibration agitates particles in a forward and
back motion progressing outwards from the event site. Events also affect the air pressure by
creating what is commonly referred to as “air blast”. By measuring air pressure, we can
determine the effect of air blast energy on structures.

30
 Fig-11 Minimate blaster (after blast vibration studies in
surface mines by Badal kumar kujjur)

31
7.3 Procedure for Monitoring:

1. Install the Minimate

Blaster

2.Turn the Minimate Blaster On

3.Check your installation

4.Review Setups

5. Change the Minimate Blaster Setups

6. Record Events

7. View the Events

8. Turn the Minimate Blaster OFF

32
CHAPTER -8
CASE STUDY

33
8.BLAST VIBRATION STUDY AT CHROMITE MINE – A CASE STUDY
8.1 Geology of the iron ore area:
The Chromite Mine (ML area – 64.463 Ha.) gives Production of Capacity of 1.692 MTPA at
Sukinda region , District Jajpur, Odisha State . The area lies in the South-Western quadrant of
the survey of India topo sheet No. 73 G/16. The Tomka-Mangalpur all weather road passes
almost along the northern lease boundary. This road connects the area with Jajpur- Keonjhar
Road, the nearest rail head on the South- Eastern Railways via-Mangalpur as well as Tomka.
At Tomka it joins with the Express Highway (Daitari -Paradeep) and via-Duburi to Jajpur Road
the total distance is 57 Km. The distance via- Mangalpur where it joins NH 53 to Jajpur Road
is 53 Km.

Fig 12 Satellite photo of Chromite mine(Source: Goggle earth)

34
8.2 Description of the formation:
As per UNFC system, total resources of chromite in the country as on 1.4.2010 are estimated
at 203 million tonnes, comprising 54 million tonnes reserves (27%) and 149 million tonnes
remaining resources (73%). More than 93% resources of chromite are located in Odisha, mostly
in the Sukinda valley in Cuttack and Jajpur districts. Minor deposits are scattered over
Manipur, Nagaland, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
Grade-wise, charge-chrome grade accounts for 36% resources followed by ferro-chrome grade
(19%), beneficiable grade (17% ) and refractory grade 5%. Low, others, unclassified and not-
known grades together account for 23%.

8.3 Blasting design pattern

Fig.13 Blasting design pattern (after blast vibration studies in surface

mines by Badal kumar kujjur)

35
 Fig.13 Staggered V pattern of drilling
Staggered V pattern of drilling is followed during the drilling process. The explosive like
Aquadyne Explosives developed by IDL explosives limited are used and delay for Down the
hole is about 250ms and and hole to hole to hole horizontally is 42ms. Aquadyne is a medium
strength cap-sensitive aluminised gelled slurry explosives for large diameter holes as primer
/booster .It effectively initiates booster–sensitive explosives. Its excellent slumping
characteristics ensures good loading density and borehole coupling .Its density and gel
consistency ensure fast sinking in water filled drillholes. Aquadyne can be initiated either with
a detonator or detonating cord .It is recommended to be used in medium hard rocks.Some
specifications for Aquadyne are
Table -07 Specification of Aquadyne explosives
Properties Aquadyne
Sensitivity Sensitivity to No.6 strength detonator and
detonating cord
Density (g/cc) 1.14 to 1.26
Detonation velocity (m/s unconfined) 3800 to 4600
Water resistance Excellent
Application As booster in medium hard rocks

36
8.4 Observations and calculation of blast vibration of iron ore mine:
Values are recorded for different blasting site in which peak particle velocity, frequency is
measured through monitoring device and distance of the monitoring site form the blasting site
is also recorded. Accordingly charge per delay (Qmax) is calculated and for the various
observations:
Table -08 Observation of Blasting parameters and PPV
Distance Charge/delay PPV Air over pressure
200 31.25 4.636 100
150 31.25 4.505 108
205 31.25 2.5 106.5
100 24 5.836 130.2
50 31.25 9.5 137.2
400 24 1.09 93.98
300 31.25 4.94 112.8
420 100.08 13.8 136.2
320 100.08 18.5 142
380 111.2 6.55 132.7
536 111.2 6.24 127.2
640 66.72 0.984 126.4
400 224.4 1.76 126.9
460 224.4 1.38 126.8
420 33.63 0.996 104.9
480 33.63 0.509 105.5
8.5. Conventional predictors for predicting PPV
Various academicians , scientists, researchers, and field engineers proposed conventional
vibration predictor equations illustrated in table 1. The US bureau of mines (USBM)
established equation to calculate PPV as follows
−𝛽
𝐷
𝑉 = 𝐾( ) OR V=K(𝑆𝐷)−𝛽 (1)
√𝑄𝑀𝐴𝑋

Where v is the PPV , standard deviation SD is the scaled distance and K and 𝛽 are site
constants. The site constants K and β were determined by plotting graph between PPv and
different scaled distance (SD) on log-log scale by the given procedure
log v= log K-βlog SD (2)
The general equation of straight line is

37
 Y=mx+c (3)
It means that PPV and SD data should exhibit a straight line on log-log graph paper
.therefore y=logv , x=logSD, intercept C=logK, and slope –β=m, Figure 15 represents the
relationship between measured and predicted PPVs by different SD laws and is summarized in
Table 09 .Based on the PPV results ,site constants were determined predictor models.
8.6 Calculated parameters for different predictors
Table -09 Site constants for different predictors
Equations Site Constants
K 𝛽
USBM 109.73 0.6782
Langfors-Kihlstorm 2.8067 1.337
Ambraseys-Hendron 7.3287 0.4485
Bureau of Indian Standards 12.7573 0.0313

38
 FIG-15(a)

FIG -15(b)

39
 FIG -15(c )

FIG -15(d)
Fig-15 USBM(a), Bureau of Indian standard(b) , Ambraseys-hendron (c), Langfors-
Kihlstorm Predictors(d) with confidence level 95%

40
8.7 Prediction by MLR analysis
MLR analysis is used to derive relationship between a dependant variable and one or more
independent variable and one or more independent variables.The following equation derives
MLR.

y=β0 + β1 X1+β2 X2 +…………+βp Xp +e (4)

where y is the predicted variable , Xi (i=1,2,3…..p) are the predictors ,β0 is called intercept
(coordinates at origin) βi (i=1,2,3,…..,P) is the coefficient of the ith predictor, and e is the error
associated with the predictor.
Mohammadnejad et al.[14] adopted novel artificial method, called a ‘Support Vector
Machine’ (SVM) for the prediction of blast-induced ground vibration by taking into
consideration the maximum charge per delay and the distance between the blast face and
monitoring point. Two limestone quarries have been studied through this research. The results
showed a correlation coefficient of 0.944 which has been obtained by comparing measured and
predicted values.
K ram chandar[19] made an attempt to correlate measurable parameters associated with
ground vibrations with scaled distance. Using the correlated data, it was found that a predictor
equation can be determined for the amplitude and PPV, but not for dominant frequency as it is
dynamic and depends upon infinitesimal changes that occur within a number of other
parameters. Another analysis of the same is made using multiple linear regression analysis.
This included predicting the PPV using scaled distance, maximum charge per delay, amplitude
as predictors. A considerable improvement is seen in the prediction on adding the interaction
of the predictors in multiple regressions. A comparison of different combination of predictors
is made so as to assess the best combination giving the best R2 value for the given mine.
Frequency is also plotted using the aforementioned method. However, it was found that the
dominant frequency cannot be predicted with high accuracy even with this method.

41
 MLR model was developed based on the input dependant variables, and oputput dependant
variables .the following equation represents the estimated output based on MLR
PPV= -24.1334+0.273377(P ,dB)-0.00491(D, m)-0.02271(Qmax, Kg)
The coefficient of determination (R2 ) between predicted and measured PPV obtained is
0.577132.

Fig 16 MLR predictor

42
8.8 Model development by Artificial Neural Network:
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are a family of statistical learning algorithms inspired by
the biological neural networks (the central nervous systems of animals, in particular the brain)
are used to estimate functions that can depends on large number of inputs and are generally
unknown. Artificial neural networks are generally presented as system of interconnected
“neurons” which can able to compute values from inputs, and are capable of machine learning
as well as pattern recognition.

Fig-17 Architecture of Artificial Neural Network Model (after blast

vibration studies in surface mines by Badal kumar kujjur)

In the present study for the prediction of PPV value of coal 15 blasting parameters from
distance from balsting site , maximum charge per delay, Air over pressure are taken. For the
ANN Model development ANN tool of MATLAB software used. Feed forward neural
network is a biologically inspired classification algorithm. It consist of a (possibly large)
number of simple neuron-like processing units, organized in layers. Every unit in a layer is
connected with all the units in the previous layer. These connections are not all equal, each
connection may have a different strength or weight. The weights on these connections encode
the knowledge of a network. Often the units in a neural network are also called nodes. Data
enters at the inputs and passes through the network, layer by layer, until it arrives at the outputs.
During normal operation, that is when it acts as a classifier, there is no feedback between layers.
This is why they are called feed forward neural networks.
Manoj khandelwal and T.N singh[18] published a paper which deals with the prediction of
blast induced ground vibration level at a magnesite mine in tecto-dynamically vulnerable hilly
terrain in Himalayan region in India. The ground vibration was monitored to calculate the safe
charge explosive to avoid continuous complaints from near by villages. The safe charge
43
explosives and peak particle velocity were recorded for 75 blast sites. These data sets were
used and analysed by widely used predictor models and three layered ANN to predict PPV
values. Among all predictors , a very poor correlation was found , whereas ANN provides very
near prediction with high degree of correlation.
In 2015 S.R. Dindarloo proposed the support vector machine (SMV) algorithm for
prediction of the peak particle velocity (PPV) induced by blasting at a surface mine. Twelve
input variables in three categories of rock mass, blast pattern, and explosives were used for
prediction of the PPV at different distances from the blast face. The results of 100 experiments
were used for model-building, and 20 for testing. A high coefficient of determination with low
mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was achieved, which demonstrates the suitability of
the algorithm in this case. The very high accuracy of prediction and fast computation are the
two major advantages of the method.
Bahrmi et al.[20] implemented ANN to develop a model to predict rock fragmentation in
blasting in iron ore mines. They incorporated eight parameter hole diameter, average hole
depth, burden, spacing, powder factor ,SMR, blastability index, specific drilling. Stemming
length, charge per delay as input parameter. From the model they found that 10-9-7-1
architecture gives optimum R2 and RMSE value as 0.97 and 0.56.
Armaghani et al.[15] predicted environmental impacts such as peak particle velocity, Air over
pressure and fly rock by using two intelligent system such as artificial neural network(ANN)
and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) at four granite quarry in Malaysia. They
investigated total 166 blasting operations to predict PPV, AOP and fly rock. For ANN and
ANFIS, they took burden to spacing, stemming length, powder factor, maximum charge per
delay, Distance from blast face as input parameter and PPV, AOP and fly rock as output
parameter. They found that coefficient of regression (R2) values of 0.939, 0.947 and 0.959
while 0.771, 0.864 and 0.834 using ANFIS and ANN for prediction of PPV, AOP and fly rock.
So they concluded that ANFIS is better than ANN.
Saydi et al. [16] used back propagation neural network (BPNN) and radial basis functional
neural network(RBFNN) for prediction of rock fragmentation and back break in limestone
mines, Iran. They found that (BPNN) network with architecture 6-10-2 is found to be optimum
whereas RBFNN with 6-36-2 with spread factor provides maximum prediction aptitude. So the
BPNN model is most preferable model providing maximum accuracy and minimum error.
Hajihassani et al.[15] predicted ground vibration by artificial neural network which was
optimized by imperialist competive algorithm (ICA).They monitored 95 blastevent(PPV) value

44
in a granite quarry in Malaysia. During prediction they found that ANN was able to fit curve
at 2 R =0.911whereICA model fit curve at 2 R =0.976.

The model architecture has been presented in Figure 18.

Fig-18 ANN model architecture

FIG – 19 Training, validation and testing with all graph shows output vs. target

45
 Fig. 20 Comparison between Predicted PPV by ANN and measured PPV by
minimate
8.9 Performance of developed statistical models
R2 is the important performance index for evaluation of effective statistical model. Comparison
with different models are provided in the table below

Table-10 Comparison between statistical models

Statistical Models R2 values
USBM 0.1218
Langfors-kihlstrom 0.0144
Ambraseys-hendron 0.1086
Bureau of Indian Standards 0.1409
Multiple Regression model 0.577132
ANN model 0.75806

46
 CHAPTER-9
RESULT AND CONCLUSION

47
9. Result and Conclusion:
Analysis of the blast vibration data of the Peak Particle Velocities (PPVs) for various blasts
was recorded. It was found that for the different blast PPV varies and it is related to that of the
charge per delay, Distance from blasting. In most of the blasting operation PPV is found to be
within the limits. Different predictor model is applied with the measured blasting parameters
to establish the empirical equation for this chromite mine for better and accurate prediction of
PPV. To evaluate the accuracy of the developed model the coefficient of determination R2
value for every model were compared of which ANN model was found to be highest so this
model seem more accurate for the prediction of PPV. So this model can be applied for the
chromite mine for accurate prediction for PPV.

48
References
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_and_blasting
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation_velocity
4. Misra G.B, (1979) Surface Mining, Dhanbad Publishers, Dhanbad, Explosives, pp.337392,
Blasting, pp.393-448
5. Deshmukh D.J., (2011)Element of Mining Technology , Vol.-1 , Denett & co. Nagpur ,
Explosives, Accessories And Blasting Practices ,pp.8.1-8.69
6. Kalu L.C., (1994) D.G.M.S. Circulars, Lovely Prakashan, Dhanbad, Explosives and Shot
firing, pp.397-444.
7. Matlab 2015b Licensed version.
8. Jayanthu S. and Naveen Ch. , Rao G V, B R V Kumar Susheel Kumar , ground vibrations
in opencast mine blast onstructures vis-à-vis a local environmental effect and its mitigation
through mining technology.
9. Minimate Blaster Instantel ISO 9001 user manual
10. Khandelwal Manoj, Singh T N, 2007, PhD thesis, Evaluation and prediction of blast
induced ground vibration and frequency for surface mine- a neural network approach, pp- 1-
30
11. Singh B, PalRoy P., 1993, Generation, propagation & prediction of ground vibration from
opencast blasting, Blasting in ground excavation & mines, pp- 21-35.
12. Blast vibration study in surface mine by Badal kumar Kujjur.
13. Evaluation of Blasting Efficiency in Surface Mines by Abinash Parida 2016
14. Mohamadnejad, M., et al., Prediction of blast-induced vibrations in limestone quarries
using Support Vector Machine. Journal of Vibration and Control, 2011: p. 1077546311421052.
15. Hajihassani, M., et al., Ground vibration prediction in quarry blasting through an artificial
neural network optimized by imperialist competitive algorithm. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment, 2015. 74(3): p. 873-886.
16. Sayadi, A., et al., A comparative study on the application of various artificial neural
networks to simultaneous prediction of rock fragmentation and backbreak. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2013. 5(4): p. 318-324.
17. Evaluation of blast induced ground vibration predictors by Manoj khandelwal and T.N.
Singh.

49
18. Peak particle velocity prediction using support vector machines: A surface blasting case
study by S.R. Dindarloo. 2015.
19. Prediction of peak particle velocity using multi regression analysis: case studies by K.Ram
Chandar, Chiranth Hegde, V.R. Shastry , Shrisharan Shridharan. 2017.
20. Bahrami, A., et al., Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neural
network. Engineering with Computers, 2011. 27(2): p. 177-181.

50