Vibration from Underground Blasting at

the Davidson Project, Smithers, BC

Prepared for Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.

by Terry Matts, Ph.D.

ExTc Consulting Inc.
December 2008
Introduction
The Environmental Assessment for the Davidson Project was submitted to the
BC Environmental Assessment Office in September 2008. The Ministry of
Forests and Range questioned the adequacy of the geological risk assessment
for the east facing slope of Hudson Bay Mountain because of the known hazards
in that area, in particular rockfall and debris flows plus snow avalanche paths. It
was feared that underground production blasting could initiate landslides or snow
avalanches and pose a threat to residences and off-site infrastructure in the area.

This report will address the likely levels of vibration that will be experienced by
the various zones of concern nearest to the stoping areas and go part-way to
determining the probability of blasts initiating landslides or snow avalanches.

Estimation of Vibration Levels in Areas of Concern

Extraction of ore will be undertaken by the sublevel stoping method (Davidson).
This method will use blastholes of maximum diameter 4½” (114mm) and
maximum length about 50m. The intention is to use ANFO explosive, a bulk
product that completely fills the borehole. From its density of 0.84g/ml it is simple
to calculate the amount of ANFO that will be in the longest blasthole. Allowing
for a 2m collar at the top of the hole, the maximum charge weight will be 414kg
(913lbs). Shooting one hole per “delay” will give the best fragmentation as well
as the lowest vibration levels, both above and within the mine itself, so this is
assumed. The use of 25ms delays between boreholes effectively decouples the
vibration effects of shooting many charges in the same blast, so calculations of
vibration levels can use the figure of 414kg as the maximum explosive quantity.

The stopes are to be deep underground and the nearest point on the surface will
be roughly vertically above them. From the latest longitudinal projection (Figure
3.2-1, Davidson) the topmost stope is approximately at the 1200m elevation and
a minimum of 450m (1500’) below the ground surface.

The vibration intensity at a particular location is mainly a function of the weight of

explosive detonating at any instant (“charge weight per delay”) and the distance
of the blast from the monitoring point. The vibration level (“peak particle
velocity”) can be estimated using the formula (ISEE):

PPV = K(D/√W)-S

where: PPV = peak particle velocity (in mm/s or in/sec)

K = a constant depending on the site & explosive confinement
D = distance in metres or feet, as appropriate
W = charge weight per delay (in kg or lbs, as appropriate)
S = a constant (attenuation slope) depending on the site
For average conditions, with 95% confidence that vibration levels will not exceed
the calculated value, K = 1725 (metric) and S = 1.6. At 450m distance with a
charge weight of 414kg the forecast PPV is 12mm/s.

Using the “scaled distance” (D/√W = 22.1 metric or 48.8 imperial), this figure can
be compared with several references in which the vibration intensity at the
surface from underground blasting has been measured:

Jonson would predict 15mm/s at 50% confidence

Paavola & Rasanen would predict 13mm at 50% confidence
Dowding & Revey would predict 20mm at 95% confidence
Brinkmann would predict only 3.2mm at 95% confidence
(note that the last reference uses cube root scaling rather than square root)

For further discussion, the Dowding & Revey figure of 20mm PPV will be used as
a “worst case”, for the minimum distance of 450m.

Using the sinusoidal approximation of vibration waves: amplitude, velocity, and

acceleration are connected by the following equations (Dowding):

V = 2πfU and A = 2πfV

where:
U = maximum wave amplitude
V = maximum particle velocity
A = maximum particle acceleration

Most of the vibrational energy will lie in the range 10 – 50Hz, so the possible
values of wave amplitude and particle acceleration for 20mm PPV will be:

At 10Hz: Umax = 0.32mm Amax = 1.26m/s2 or 0.13g

At 50Hz: Umax = 0.06mm Amax = 6.28m/s2 or 0.64g

Note that particle motion is not polarized: the above figures can be used for
motion both perpendicular and parallel to the ground surface. Note also that
production blasting in the stopes is the only type of any concern. Charges used
in development blasting (e.g tunneling) are much smaller. Only where such
blasting occurs near the surface (i.e. close to the portals) would vibration levels
be at all significant and those areas appear to have no geological instabilities.
Potential for Vibration to Initiate Landslides or Rockslides
Earthquakes as small as magnitude 4 may precipitate landslides (Keefer) so it
seems reasonable to anticipate that blasting vibrations will act similarly (Dvorak).
However, the nature of vibration from blasting is different. The vibration
frequencies generated by earthquakes are low, always <5Hz, while those from
the blasting at the Davidson Project will have very little energy below 10Hz.
Therefore, the wave amplitude, and thus particle movement, from blast vibrations
of equal PPV to that of an earthquake will be much less even though the particle
accelerations will be higher. Another difference is the duration of the
disturbance. Blast vibration will tail off after a couple of seconds while the
shaking from an earthquake would persist for much longer.

Because time is a significant factor it is preferable when calculating slide

probability to use a dynamic rather than a static treatment, which would tend to
overestimate slide probability (Oriard). A quasi-static method was, however,
used by Dvorak who concluded that particle acceleration was unimportant up to
3g while the low limit of displacement amplitude for rockfalls was 0.5mm, even
with as high as 5% joint space volume. A pseudo-dynamic treatment was used
by Haneberg who concluded that rockfalls could not be initiated by vibrations of
frequency >10Hz, regardless of the peak horizontal acceleration.

Vibration can raise the pore pressure in water-saturated materials, increasing

with duration (Oriard), and thus increase the risk of a slide. However, PPV’s
<15mm/s raise the pore pressure very little in sand-filled dams (Charlie).

Locations of the zones of concern on Hudson Bay Mountain near to the stoping
areas of the mining operation are as follows:

22 R”b – rockfall initiation: above stopes, min. distance ~450m

32Rb - rockfall runout: above stopes, min. distance ~450m
43R”bd – rockfall & debris flow initiation: SE of stopes, min. distance ~780m
42Rbd - rockfall & debris flow runout: ESE of stopes, min. distance ~840m
41R”d - debris flow initiation: E of stopes, min. distance ~900m

Note that the above are estimated direct angled distances from the stoping area
to the nearest point on the surface, not just horizontal. Also, the estimated max.
PPV of blasting vibrations at 780m distance, from Dowding & Revey, would be
only 12mm/s.

It would therefore appear unlikely that blasting from mine operations could initiate
falls or slides from loose rock or till material. However, there are other situations
that may be less stable (e.g. overburden on glacially polished slopes) and it is not
clear if any situations like this occur on Hudson Bay Mountain.
Potential for Vibration to Initiate Snow Avalanches
There is much material in the literature connecting avalanches and explosives.
However, most of it concerns the deliberate use of explosives to trigger
avalanches if located above or buried in the snow layer, rather than in the rock
beneath. Thus this material is of no application to the current problem. There
are also many papers connecting avalanches and vibration. Some of them
examine the triggering of avalanches by earthquakes, but more concern the
vibration imparted to the ground by the impact of an avalanche.

A definite connection between blast vibration and the triggering of avalanches

was first reported in 2000 (Mokrov), though there had been much anecdotal
evidence before. The correlation was definite, but not significant enough to be
predictive. Later work by Mokrov and his collaborators attempted to quantify the
triggering risk. Three similar papers were published, the most recent of which is
cited (Chernouss). A stable/unstable criterion was developed for a snow layer
influenced by blast vibration. Unfortunately, in addition to the maximum
acceleration of the blast vibration, properties of the snow layer are required such
as its density, shear strength, friction coefficient, thickness, and slope.
Therefore, specialized knowledge of the snow conditions and topography of the
area would be necessary to use this information to quantify the probability of
blast triggered avalanches on Hudson Bay Mountain. Some additional laboratory
work on a shaker table reported in the same reference claims that the shear
strength of snow was reduced to one third “practically immediately” by the
application of a 15Hz oscillation at an acceleration of only 0.3m/s2 (0.03g). What
timescale was meant by “practically immediately” was not stated.

Should avalanches appear to be easily triggered by production blasting at the

mine there are two mitigating factors:

- if production blasting is regular enough, vibration triggering could serve

as a control measure to release avalanches before they grow too large
- production blasts will be conducted only at shift change, so if
avalanches are directly triggered, with no delay, they will be to some
extent predictable

Note that areas of snow lie directly above the stoping area, so the relevant
minimum distance to be used in any vibration intensity calculations is 450m.
Recommendations
1. A geotechnical expert with knowledge of the terrain on Hudson Bay
Mountain should review this report and determine if there are any areas of
geological instability within 1000m of the stoping area that could possibly
suffer from slide triggering, using the characteristics of the blast vibration
predicted here
2. A snow avalanche expert with knowledge of the snow conditions and
terrain on Hudson Bay Mountain should review this report and the relevant
references to determine the probability of avalanche triggering using the
particulars of the blast vibration predicted here. The expert should also
determine whether avalanches triggered by blast vibration could be more
catastrophic than those occurring naturally
3. When stope blasting commences at the Davidson project, the first
significant blasts should be monitored with a seismograph at the nearest
point on the ground surface above to verify that the vibration predictions
made in this report are conservative.
4. If the experts from 1 or 2 above recommend lower vibration limits than
those estimated, then blasting practices may need to be adjusted to use
lower charge weights (e.g. loading holes with separately-timed explosive
decks, separated by inert stemming material)
5. If recommendation 4 applies, or if vibration levels prove to be higher than
estimated, then a vibration monitoring program should be developed
capable of remotely measuring the vibration level from all significant blasts
at all sensitive areas on the surface within 1000m of the stoping areas.
References
Brinkmann, J. R. – “The Control of Ground Vibration from Colliery Blasting during
the Undermining of Residential Areas”, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall, 87, no.2 (1987)

Charlie, W. A. et al. – “Explosive Induced Pore Pressure in a Sandfill Dam”,

ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 24, issue 4 (2001)

Chernouss, P. et al. – “A Study of Blasting-induced Snow Instabilities and

Avalanche Releases”, Proc. Intl. Snow Science Workshop, Telluride, CO (2006)

Davidson Project - Application for Environmental Assessment Certificate (8/2008)

Dowding, C. H. – “Blast Vibration Monitoring & Control”, self-published,

ISBN 09644313-0-0 (1985)

Dowding, C. H. & Revey, G. F. – “Ground Motions from, and House Response to,
Underground Aggregate Mining”, Proc. 33rd Annual Conference on Explosives &
Blasting Technique, ISEE (2007)

Dvorak,A. – “Landslides Caused by Blasting”, Bulletin of the Intl. Assoc of

Engineering Geology, no. 16 (1977)

Haneberg, W.C. – “Simplified Pseudodynamic Analysis of Vibration Induced

Rock Toppling”, unpublished paper submitted to Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience, June 2008

ISEE – “Blasters’ Handbook”, Hopler. R. B. (ed.), International Society of

Explosives Engineers (1998), chapter 38

Jonson, D. – “Arlanda Link – A New Railway beneath Arlanda Airport in

Stockholm, Sweden – A Technical Blasting Challenge”, Proc. 23rd Annual
Conference on Explosives & Blasting Technique, ISEE(1997)

Keefer, D. K. – “Earthquake-induced Landslides and their Effects on Alluvial

Fans”, Journal of Sedimentary Research, 69, no. 1 (1999)

Mokrov, E. et al. – “The Influence of Seismic Effect on Avalanche Release”, Proc.

Intl. Snow Science Workshop, Big Sky, MT (2000)

Oriard, L. L. – “Explosives Engineering, Construction Vibrations, &

Geotechnology”, ISEE (2002), chapter 5

Paavola, P. & Rasanen, H. – “Vibration Control in a Tunnel Project under an

existing Hospital”, Proc. 23rd Annual Conference on Explosives & Blasting
Technique, ISEE (1997)