Artigo 6

Effects of Aggregate Production Blasting on an Adjacent 42” (1.
067m) Pipeline
John Babcock, Deep Earth Logic
&
Bryan Smith, Luck Stone Corporation
Abstract
In a partnership between Luck Stone Corporation and Loudoun Water, a 42” (1.067m) steel pipeline was
constructed along the perimeter of an extensive permitted reserve of diabase rock Luck Stone was about
to begin mining. Loudoun Water provides drinking water and wastewater services to over 75,000
households in Loudoun County, Virginia. In discussions to establish the 30-foot (9.1 meter) easement for
Loudoun Water within the permitted reserve of diabase rock, Luck Stone and Loudoun Water agreed on
the following basic conditions:
• Luck Stone could execute production blasting as close to the easement as physical conditions of
overburden depth permits. We estimated the minimum distance to be about 75-feet (22.86 meters) from
the centerline of the pipe.
• Loudoun Water would install strain gauges on the pipe every 500-feet (152.4 m) along the entire length
of the future reserve area. This resulted in the installation of 18 strain gauges.
• Luck Stone would contract a third-party vibration monitoring company, agreed to by Loudoun Water,
to monitor the strain gauges and provide seismograph reading at appropriate locations along the pipe as
mining progresses. All information would be provided to Loudoun Water.
• Luck Stone’s blasting will be conducted in a manner that ensures the recommended strains are not
exceeded.
Luck Stone has conducted top lift production blasting. Shots in excess of 31,000 pounds (14,000
kilograms) of emulsion have been initiated at various distances approaching the 75-foot (22.86m)
minimum. The resulting seismograph and stain readings on the pipe will be shared in this paper. The
various aspects of recorded vibration, ground movement and frequency, will be related to strain on the
pipe. Initial shots used non-electric detonators and timed by the Blaster-in-Charge. As the shots
progressed closer to the pipe, electronic dets and timing developed by iBlast software were used. The
effects on pipe strain for the various blasting techniques will be presented.
Luck Stone recommended Deep Earth Logic perform seismic monitoring of the shots and record both
environmental and shot induced strains on the pipe. Strains were measured periodically even when no
blasting occurred to document ongoing environmental strains. Blasting strains were documented by
recording the strain before and after each blast as well as sampling during blasts although this would not
be considered a dynamic time history. Loudoun Water accepted this recommendation. This was also the
recommendation of Dewberry, the lead engineering firm.
Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2019G - Effects of Aggregate Production Blasting on an Adjacent 42" (1.067m) Pipeline 1 of 18
Loudoun Water & Luck Stone Partnership
Key to the Potomac Water Supply Program in metro Washington, D.C. is a unique concept described as
water banking—using retired quarries for water storage after they have been fully mined. Raw, non-
potable water is deposited in the quarries when Potomac River flows are normal to high and then
withdrawn from the quarries in lieu of continued withdrawals from the river during times of drought or
excess turbidity. In this way, sufficient water can be treated to serve the demands of customers without
impacts to the river or to the water supply needs of other jurisdictions. In Loudoun County, Virginia,
Loudoun Water’s public/private partnership and business agreements with Luck Stone have been
instrumental in implementing the water banking concept. Four quarries situated in proximity to each other
and to Loudoun Water’s proposed water treatment plant afford the opportunity to store up to 8 billion
gallons of water and minimize Loudoun Water’s withdrawals from the Potomac during less optimal times.
In this manner, Loudoun Water will be able to use quarries for a beneficial public purpose. While water
banking is in the planning stages for three quarries, Loudoun County has approved Luck Stone’s quarry
located north of the Washington and Old Dominion Trail (W&OD) and east of Goose Creek to be used
for water banking. It is anticipated that greater than 1 billion gallons of water will be able to be stored in
this quarry alone after mining operations are complete in 2019-2020. Loudoun Water has also constructed
over four miles of raw water transmission pipe from their Potomac River Intake pump station to the quarry
and another two miles of pipe from the quarry to the Trap Rock Water Treatment Plant.
To execute this project, Luck Stone dedicated a 30-foot (9.1m) easement along the east side of a permitted
diabase rock reserve for the placement of the water supply line to the Trap Rock Water Treatment Plant.
During these discussions, Luck Stone requested strain gauges be placed on the pipe. The goal was to
ensure there is a defined means of determining the affects of blasting on the pipe. During these
discussions, we also agreed how close our blasting would come to the pipe. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Agreed Minimum Relationship Between Blasting and the Loudoun Water Pipe

In our operating agreement, we agreed to provide a small travel-way berm adjacent to the easement, with
the top-of-cut to the diabase rock reserve on the opposite side of the berm. With anticipated overburden
in this area, we stated that the minimum distance from our blasting to the pipe would be 74.5 feet (22.7m).
In Figure 2, the easement is the road in the upper right-hand portion of the photo. The pit development is
seen in the foreground. The easement and the pit development extend to the south (right side of the photo)
8,500 feet (2.59 kilometers).
Figure 2. Pit Development on July 31, 2018

Pipeline Easement is the Road in the Upper Part of the Photo
The Pipe
The pipe Loudoun Water installed is described as follows:
• Type – Spiral Welded Steel Pipe
• Size – 42” (1066.8 mm)
• Steel Material – A139
• Steel Grade - C Minimum Yield Strength: 42,000 psi (289,580 kPa)
• Thickness - 0.323” (8.2 mm)
• Interior Lining – Concrete Mortar at 0.5 inches (12.7 mm) minimum thickness
• Exterior Coating – Polyurethane at 0.035 inches (35mil) minimum thickness
Pipe Joints
For the mainline pipe adjacent to our aggregate extraction area, 42” (1.067m) Bell & Spigot:
• Welded Joint (Restrained Joint) – Interior Lap Weld
• Gasket Joint (Un-Restrained Joint) – Rubber O-ring
• Exterior of Joint – Heat shrink sleeve
• Interior of Joint – Field Grout filled
Pipe Pressures
• Working Pressure – 183 psi (1,262 kPa)
• Surge Pressure – 270 psi (1,862 kPa)
• Field Test Pressure – 240 psi (1,655 kPa)
• Vacuum Pressure – 14.7 psi (101.35 kPa)

Volume in the Pipe
The pipe is designed to deliver 20 to 40 million gallons (75,708 to 151,416 cubic meters) per day of raw
water from the Potomac River to the Loudoun Water treatment plant.
Strain Gauges
Loudoun Water instructed Dewberry, the lead engineering firm for the raw water transmission project, to
specify appropriate strain gauges.
Dewberry selected a weldable strain gage from the Vishay precision Group T-Leadwire Series. This series
is designed to withstand exposure to water pressure of up to 500 psi (3,447 kPa). They can withstand
short-term (up to 14 days) immersion in crude oil. A flexible stainless-steel tube, providing wire routing
from the strain gage to a cable transition enables fine positioning of the sensor as well as providing strain
relief. These sensors are typically used on larger civil structures; including bridges, dams and buildings.
The LEA-06-W125F-350/10T model was specified. The strain gauges were measured and recorded using
the P3 Micro-Measurements Strain Indicator and Recorder.
See Figure 3 for a photo.
Figure 3. Picture of Strain Gauge that was Tack welded to the Pipe
The strain gauges are welded on the crown of the pipe at 500-foot (152.4 m) intervals to measure strain
in the longitudinal direction. This was the only direction monitored. A visual representation of how the
strain gauge is welded on the pipe is shown below in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Orientation of Strain Gauges

Loudoun Water instructed Garney Construction, the lead contractor for the construction of the raw water
pipe, to install the strain gauges on the pipe every 500 feet (152.4 meters) along the permitted diabase
rock reserve area.
18 strain gauges were installed over a total distance of 8,500 feet (2.59 kilometers) of pipe. Each strain
gauge can be accessed through a small port set above the pipe. The diameter of the steel cap is 5.813
inches (147 mm). See Figure 5 for a photo of the strain gauge access port.
Figure 5. Strain Gauge Port
Stress Strain Relationship

Once we agreed to measure the effects of blasting on the pipe using strain gauges, Luck Stone asked for
some education in regard to the selection of the strain limit Dewberry recommended to Loudoun Water
and Luck Stone. The strain limit was developed using the following information:
Steel is generally considered to be a homogeneous, isotropic material meaning that the properties do not
change with orientation (i.e. the same in the longitudinal and transverse direction). The mild carbon steel
in this pipe has a defined yield point below which the material is elastic. This means when loaded, then
unloaded, it will return to its original shape. This region in the stress/strain curve is known as the elastic
range. This pipeline has been designed such that all the anticipated stresses remain in the elastic
range. Within the elastic range, the stress and strain are directly proportional and are defined by the
equation:  = E   = stress (psi)
E = modulus of elasticity (psi); 29,000,000 psi (200 GPa) for mild steel
e = strain (in/in)
Therefore, strain measured by the gauge on the pipe can be directly converted into stress. Hoop stress
was not calculated for this paper.
Movement vs Stress
Next, we need to know how the movement of the pipe due to environmental factors and blasting relates
to stress. A buried pipeline is considered to be generally restrained from movement. This is the premise
of using restrained joint pipe to counteract thrust at bends, tees, valves, etc. In thrust restraint areas, the
pipe is used as a tension member to dissipate thrust by pipe-to-soil friction. In this case, the pipe remains
static, is placed into longitudinal tension and generally uniform longitudinal strain will result. If the
longitudinal stress, sl is 8000 psi (55,158 kPa), longitudinal strain, el=sl/E 8000 psi /29,000,000 psi =
0.000276 in/in would result. Or, 55,158 kPa / 200 GPa = 0.00276 m/m
In the case of thermal effects, if the pipe is in an unrestrained joint reach, it may actually be able to elongate
or shorten at the gasketed joints, resulting in strain with no corresponding stress. If it cannot move because

it is restrained, change in temperature would result in longitudinal stress with corresponding strain. For
example; if the ∆T were -30°F (-16.67°C):
▪ If the pipe could move, it would shorten by 0.0000065in x 30°F = 0.000195 in/in (0.00000030m
x 16.67°C = 0.00000495 m/m), with no longitudinal stress.
▪ If the pipe were restrained, a longitudinal tensile stress of 29,000,000 psi x .0000065 in x 30 =
5,655 psi (38,990 kPa) would result with a strain of 0.000195 in/in (0.00000495 m/m). One would
not be able to discern from the strain gauge reading whether the movement without stress or
restraint resulting in stress had occurred.
Actionable Strain Levels

As discussed above, the pipe was designed such that the anticipated stresses fall well within the elastic
range. The specified pipe material has a minimum yield strength of 42,000 psi (290 MPa). Standard
practice is to allow stresses up to ½ of yield strength; in this case 21,000 psi (145 MPa). The strain
corresponding to 21,000 psi (145 MPa) is 0.000724 in/in (0.000724 m/m). A reasonable approach would
be to:
▪ Document the in-situ strains prior to any operational activities (filling, pressure testing, etc.)
▪ Document the strains sequentially as the pipeline is filled and tested
▪ Document the strains after blasting events
▪ Use 0.000724 in/in as a safe actionable strain threshold.
Documenting the Environmental Stress on the Pipeline

A monitoring plan to document the environmental effects on the pipeline was established. The strain
impacting the pipeline as previously described will be compared to the blasting strain induced in the
pipeline during and after the blasting.
The environmental effects that are monitored and analyzed are as follows:
1. Daily stress from the morning to night.
2. Long term stress changes due to ground settling and other environmental factors
3. Normal hourly stress changes
Three strain gauges that were closest to the current blasting area were monitored on each blast from June
16, 2017 through July 31, 2018. See Figure 6. Measurements were made each morning before any
blasting occurred to document the existing strain occurring at each point.
SG-017 experienced some irregularities before stabilizing in February. This change in data was accounted
for in the daily stress monitoring analysis and in the analysis of the blasting effects on the pipeline.

Figure 6. Baseline Environmental Strain (Imperial)
Measurements were also made of the changes in the strain of the pipeline from morning to afternoon when
no blasting occurred. Per Dewberry recommendations, measurements of the strain were made after the
blast occurred. The change in strain from before the blast to after the blast is compared to the change in
environmental strain occurring on days when no blasting occurred over the same time frame.
The chart, as depicted in Figure 7, shows the hourly changes or absolute change in strain occurring at
different times throughout the year on days when no blasting had occurred. This is an important
measurement because the strain measurements before and after each blast will be compared to this
measurement of change in strain occurring during the same time frame.
Figure 7. Hourly Environmental Changes (Imperial)

Seismograph Monitoring Results
Standard blasting seismographs

conforming to the ISEE Performance
Specifications for Blasting Seismographs
2017 were used to monitor the blasting at
three different points along the pipeline.
For the sake of clarity in this report, only
the vibration from the closest seismograph
to the pipeline will be reviewed. This
seismograph is located at SG-017.
As shown in Figures 8 and 9, the USBM

graphs, the maximum vibration at 2.88
inches (73 mm) per second is well above
the standard criteria for structures. This
blast was detonated with non-el and not
optimized or designed to control the
vibrations. This would represent a worst-
case scenario for analysis.
Figure 8. USBM Graph (Imperial)
Figure 9. USBM Graph (Metric)

In addition to Peak Particle Velocity, the vibration will also be analyzed by displacement and acceleration
to determine if there is a correlation between these measurements and the change in stress of the pipeline.
Shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Acceleration and Displacement

Strain Gauge Monitoring Results
Figures 11, 12 and 13 show the results of the strain gauge monitoring for each blast at the three closest
strain gauges to each blast which in this area of the pit is SG-016, SG-017, and SG-018.
Figure 11. Strain Gauge 016 Monitoring Results

Each graph incorporates the normalized stress change that occurs during the same amount of time each
day even when there is no blasting. This is shown in the dashed lines in each graph. As shown in the
graphs, typically the stress occurring around each blast is not greater than the normal environmental stress
occurring daily.
Vibration Induced Stress and Strain Analysis

An analysis of the blasting can be completed using the baseline environmental strain and the strain limits
imposed by Loudoun Water’s engineering consultant, Dewberry, to determine the impacts of the vibration
on the strain and thereby the pipeline. Please see Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18
and Figure 19.

Figure 14. Strain Gauge 016 Results (Imperial)
Figure 15. Strain Gauge 016 Results (Metric)



The strain caused by the blasting is significantly lower than the agreed strain limits. Most of the strain
recorded during the blasting events is lower than the strain occurring when there is no blasting.
There does not appear to be a strong correlation Peak Particle Velocity and the strain. Further analysis
comparing the strain to displacement and acceleration shows that there does not appear to be any
correlation either. See Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 22, Figure 23, Figure 24 and Figure 25.
Figure 20. Strain Gauge 016 Strain to Displacement and Acceleration (Imperial)
Figure 21. Strain Gauge 016 Strain to Displacement and Acceleration (Metric)


Conclusion
Several conclusions can be gathered from the study.
First, the vibration is significantly lower than the safe strain limits imposed by the engineer for the water
line clearly demonstrating that this type of water line can safely withstand high vibrations.
Second, significantly higher vibration would have to be monitored to determine if a regression or trend
line would provide enough accurate data to determine at what point the vibrations would negatively impact
the pipeline and would or would not approach the strain limits
Although some trends could be partially visualized in the data, the final analysis would have to be based
on data sets where the vibration was significantly higher such as 6 or 9 inches (152 or 229 mm) per second.
An example scatter plot comparing the displacement to strain is shown on the next page in Figure 26.
Figure 26. Displacement to Strain Comparison

Acknowledgements
We want to recognize the support of Nicolle Boulay and Alton Echols of Loudoun Water and David
Cooper of Dewberry in the development of this paper and the execution of this project.
Leadership of the Luck Stone Leesburg Plant for helping to coordinate and properly execute many of these
activities, including Sam Rinehart, Fred Morgan, Katie Kosloski and Rusty Minix.
I would also like to recognize key members of the Luck Stone blasting team, including Joe Palmer, George
Field, Jorge Torres, Shane Gardner and Doug Masters.
Aerial photography by Eric Warinner of Luck Stone.


Artigo 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artigo 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of Aggregate Production Blasting on an Adjacent 42” (1.

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 2. Pit Development on July 31, 2018

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 4. Orientation of Strain Gauges

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 5. Strain Gauge Port

Stress Strain Relationship

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Actionable Strain Levels

Documenting the Environmental Stress on the Pipeline

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 7. Hourly Environmental Changes (Imperial)

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Standard blasting seismographs

As shown in Figures 8 and 9, the USBM

Figure 8. USBM Graph (Imperial)

Figure 9. USBM Graph (Metric)

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 10. Acceleration and Displacement

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 11. Strain Gauge 016 Monitoring Results

Figure 12. Strain Gauge 017 Monitoring Results

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Vibration Induced Stress and Strain Analysis

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 15. Strain Gauge 016 Results (Metric)

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 17. Strain Gauge 017 Results (Metric)

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 19. Strain Gauge 018 Results (Metric)

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 26. Displacement to Strain Comparison

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2019 International Society of Explosives Engineers

You might also like