Rock Mech Rock Eng (2011) 44:93–101
DOI 10.1007/s00603-010-0108-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparative Study on Calculation Methods
of Blasting Vibration Velocity
Qingguo Liang • Yafang An • Lei Zhao •
Dewu Li • Liping Yan
Received: 11 December 2009 / Accepted: 26 June 2010 / Published online: 11 July 2010
Ó Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract Due to the extreme complexities in rock
blasting and difficulties in theoretical or numerical analy-
sis, and the enormous consumption of explosives in mining
and construction operations, empirical or semi-empirical
formulae for blasting vibration velocity (BVV) were
obtained from observations and measurements in field blast
tests and are still widely used all over the world. This paper
investigates the fitting degree and characteristics of several
calculation methods for BVV based on 34 sets of data
samples from 27 projects belonging to 4 types. The results
indicate that both the cube-root scaling formula and the
square-root scaling formula have relatively good fitting
degree, while the multiple regression analysis can give the
best fitting outcome if the sample space satisfies certain
requirements. Whether the cube-root scaling formula or the
square-root scaling formula is chosen to analyze the rela-
tionship between BVV and scaled distance depends on the
average scaled distance under cubic-root scaling. If the
average scaled distance is over 0.1, the cube-root scaling
formula should be used; otherwise, the square-root scaling
formula should be used. Bigger samples integrated from
data samples of different projects but in the same type were
then analyzed to get the empirical relations for different
types of projects. The correlation coefficients of these
relations are quite good, thus these relations can be used for
Q. Liang (&)  Y. An  L. Zhao  D. Li
School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University,
Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: lqg_39@163.com
L. Yan
Geotechnical Engineering Group,
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
City of Los Angeles, CA, USA
reference in other similar projects. This paper then dis-
cusses the physical meanings of parameters in different
formulae, sample selection and parameter choice for BVV.
It suggests that the current calculation methods for explo-
sive charge, blasting-to-monitoring distance and scaled
distance need to be improved. It also concludes that the
integrated BVV from velocity components in three-
dimensions is more reasonable on a theoretical basis. It can
yield good results in predicting the blasting vibration, and
should be used as widely as possible.
Keywords Blasting vibration  Scaled distance 
Cube-root scaling formula  Square-root scaling formula 
Multiple regression analysis
1 Introduction
One of the basic problems in construction blasting is to
predict and then to mitigate the vibration induced by
excavation blasting. The intensity of blasting vibration is
usually described by the peak vibration velocity (PVV) of a
given particle, which would be called blasting vibration
velocity (BVV) or PVV, as a measure of vibration intensity
and a control parameter resulting in structural damage
(Duvall and Fogelson 1962; Wiss 1968; Nicholls et al.
1971). The propagation and attenuation of stress wave
resulting from blasting are affected by many complicated
factors such as borehole diameter, charging type, initiation
network, distance between blasting center and observation
position, strength and integrity of rock and soil mass along
the traveling path of stress wave, geographic and geo-
morphic conditions of observation site (Li and Shu 2005).
The empirical or semi-empirical formulae were obtained
from observations and measurements in field blast tests and
123
94 Q. Liang et al.

are still widely used all over the world due to the extreme applied to common rock types such as basalt, granite,
complexities of phenomena and processes in rock blasting quartzite and sandstone (Tripathy and Gupta 2002). This
and difficulties in theoretical or numerical analysis (Hao et al. paper is intended to investigate the characteristics and
2002; Saiang and Nordlund 2009). Many data are available to application conditions of several common formulae
develop the empirical or semi-empirical formulae due to the widely used with some published data as verification
enormous consumption of explosives in mining and con- samples and discuss their selection principles and influ-
struction operations, e.g., over 4,500,000 kg/day throughout encing factors.
the United States in 2001 (Revey 2001). Even more this is the
case in China, because of a large number of infrastructure
constructions, such as railway, highway, hydropower, and
2 Data Samples and Calculation Methods
mining.
The famous Sodev’s empirical formula is recommended
2.1 Selection of Data Samples
to analyze the blasting vibration effects by China’s national
standards, Blasting Safety Regulation (National Standards
The data samples include 34 sets of measured data from 27
of the Peoples Republic of China 2003). This formula
projects in China, which are classified into 4 types:
mainly involves the nonlinear relation of BVV with
(1) tunneling works (9 sets) (Li et al. 1997, 2008; Li 1998;
explosive charge and distance between blasting center and
Zhang et al. 2005a; Yang et al. 2006; Guo 2006; Zhao et al.
observation points and it has been widely used.
2007; Zhu 2007; Jiang et al. 2008), (2) earth excavation
In order to get a better prediction in accuracy, several
works (9 sets) (Shi 2001; Tian et al. 2004; Yang and Yang
studies used a high number of quantified factors such as
2005; Zhang et al. 2005b; Wang et al. 2005; Tang et al.
borehole diameter (Gao et al. 2003), topography (Tang
2007a; Lv et al. 2007), (3) hydropower works (9 sets) (Cai
et al. 2007a), free face of blasting (Xu et al. 2007), and
et al. 1996; Li et al. 1997; Zhang and Peng 2001; Wang
attitude of rock mass (Zhang et al. 2005b) to predict the
et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2007a), and (4) mining works
BVV of given points and surely obtained expected results.
(7 sets) (Li and Li 1999; Li and Hou 1999; Ning 2006;
Some studies even considered up to 11 factors besides the
Zhang et al. 2007a, b; Shi et al. 2008). The geological
above parameters in a prediction research using neural
characteristics vary at these monitoring sites, as shown in
network method (Tang et al. 2007b).
Table 1.
Admittedly, the more parameters quantitatively
The commonly used instrument to measure the blast-
describing the blasting and monitoring conditions, and the
ing vibration velocity is made up of three parts with
more accurate they are, the closer the velocities between
different functions, i.e., vibration pickup, recorder with
the predicted and the monitored values, and the higher the
amplifier and computer with software for data process-
degree of correlation will be. But it is impossible to obtain
ing. The detailed information for the monitoring tech-
them under most circumstances. Even those fundamental
nique and instrument at these monitoring sites is not
parameters, such as charge and distance between blasting
provided in the references. The following three aspects
center and monitoring points, are not able to be easily
were mainly considered in selecting data samples:
selected and calculated free of error (Zhou and Chen 1990;
(1) there are at least 10 sets of data in each data sample;
Li and Xue 1993).
(2) each data sample can give fairly good degree of
Therefore, one of the feasible approaches is to per-
correlation under its blasting conditions, and while some
form comparative analyses by choosing suitable formu-
data have more detailed or definite conditions, they can
lae to calculate BVV and minimize the prediction error
be combined into a bigger sample due to their acceptable
based on the available measured data of parameters and
degree of correlation (Li 1998; Yang et al. 2006); (3) the
according to engineering practical needs and empirical
BVV investigated in this paper is the vertical PVV of
methods. Presently, there are several formulae which can
given points except the data sets from the paper by
be used to analyze the relation of BVV with charge and
Zhang et al. (2007b), where the BVV is the resultant
distance (Xiong and Gu 2002; Tripathy and Gupta
velocity.
2002). The Sodev’s empirical formula is considered as
the best one, because of its better degree of correlation
under most circumstances (Xiong and Gu 2002). But the 2.2 Calculation Method
other formulae’s degrees of correlation also satisfy the
engineering requirements, e.g., the square-root scaling A large number of analysis results of measured data indi-
formula was used to predict the ground vibration cate that BVV (Vp) can be expressed as a function of
velocity based on the data from 14 projects in India, charge weight (Q), distance (R), rock and soil properties
which gave quite good degree of correlation and can be along traveling path of blasting wave and conditions at

123
Comparative Study on Calculation Methods of BVV 95

Table 1 Calculating results using multiple regression analysis per Eq. 7

Serial lg K n m r4 s a K Sample Geology Source
number size

1 1.8541 -1.5814 0.8879 0.9722 0.5615 1.5814 71.5 41 Sandstone Li and Ni (1997)
2 -0.0671 -0.8001 1.7782 0.9469 2.2225 0.8001 0.9 18 – Li (1998)
3 2.2184 -1.9704 0.9014 0.7419 0.4575 1.9704 165.3 25 Mudstone and sandstone Zhang et al. (2005a)
4 3.0980 -2.2436 0.8119 0.6833 0.3619 2.2436 1253.1 105 Sandstone and mudstone Yang et al. (2006)
5 2.3263 -1.8032 0.6009 1.0000 0.3332 1.8032 212.0 16 Sandstone Guo (2006)
6 1.2404 -1.1746 0.3032 0.8835 0.2582 1.1746 17.4 21 – Zhao et al. (2007)
7 0.4110 -1.3476 1.0909 0.7247 0.8095 1.3476 2.6 14 Weathered granite Zhu (2007)
8 -11.6026 -1.0496 8.0743 0.8047 7.6929 1.0496 0.0 17 Limestone Li et al. (2008)
9 2.1818 -1.6921 0.7998 0.9568 0.4727 1.6921 152.0 16 – Jiang et al. (2008)
10 7.6002 -2.0036 -2.2625 0.9511 -1.1292 2.0036 3.98910-6 14 – Shi (2001)
11 1.0810 -0.9513 0.4625 0.7853 0.4861 0.9513 12.0 39 Weathered deposit Tian et al. (2004)
12 2.3471 -1.7088 0.4812 0.9240 0.2816 1.7088 222.4 21 Granite-porphyry and Yang and Yang (2005)
quartz sandstone
13 2.3835 -1.6711 0.5756 0.9740 0.3445 1.6711 241.8 15 Dolomite limestone Zhang et al. (2005b)
14 3.5947 -2.2026 0.1022 0.9490 0.0464 2.2026 3933.1 12
15 2.2883 -2.2711 0.8895 0.9775 0.3917 2.2711 194.2 19 Interlayer of limestone Wang and Liu (2005)
and clay
16 1.6395 -1.5318 0.8171 0.8776 0.5334 1.5318 43.6 18 Hornstone granite Tang et al. (2007a)
17 1.9584 -1.9854 1.1320 0.9576 0.5702 1.9854 90.9 20
18 3.3738 -2.1802 0.6652 0.9078 0.3051 2.1802 2364.7 28 – Lv et al. (2007)
19 1.7629 -2.2111 0.8649 0.9394 0.3911 2.2111 57.9 36 – Cai et al. (1996)
20 8.7062 -2.2359 -2.3189 0.8939 -1.0371 2.2359 5.08910-7 20 Hard granite Li et al. (1997)
21 2.6113 -1.7421 0.0477 0.7440 0.0274 1.7421 408.6 15
22 1.6908 -2.1809 0.7246 0.9617 0.3322 2.1809 49.1 36 Slightly weathered Zhang and Peng
granite (2001)
23 1.9425 -1.7696 0.7373 0.9645 0.4166 1.7696 87.6 13 – Gao et al. (2003)
24 3.0922 -2.1421 0.0810 0.9781 0.0378 2.1421 1236.4 11
25 2.5408 -1.8805 0.4654 0.9594 0.2475 1.8805 347.4 19 Feldspar granite Wang et al. (2005)
26 3.1659 -1.6856 0.0000 0.9785 0.0000 1.6856 1465.2 39 Basalt Zhang et al. (2007a)
27 2.9891 -1.3688 0.0000 0.9858 0.0000 1.3688 975.2 29
28 1.7661 -1.0423 0.3682 0.7167 0.3532 1.0423 58.4 24 Migmatite and Li and Li (1999)
plagioclase
amphibolite
29 2.1941 -1.9990 0.7036 0.9602 0.3520 1.9990 156.4 30 – Li and Hou (1999)
30 1.7545 -1.6049 0.6748 0.9927 0.4205 1.6049 56.8 12 Biotite granulite Ning (2006)
31 1.3541 -1.6004 0.7087 0.9934 0.4428 1.6004 22.6 14
32 1.6866 -1.4995 0.6875 0.9230 0.4585 1.4995 48.6 38 Cupric scarn Zhang et al. (2007b)
33 1.9411 -0.8818 0.2976 0.8998 0.3375 0.8818 87.3 14 Copper ore Shi et al. (2008)
34 1.9809 -1.0799 0.3171 0.8707 0.2937 1.0799 95.7 22

observation points (K, m, n) (Xiong and Gu 2002; Tripathy p

3
ffiffiffiffia1
Q
and Gupta 2002) as follows: Vp ¼ K1 ð2Þ
R
Vp ¼ KQm Rn ð1Þ
The formula of Mining Bureau of USA is written as:
where Vp (mm/s) is the BVV of a given point; Q (kg) is the pffiffiffiffia2
Q
charge weight; R (m) is the distance between the blasting Vp ¼ K2 ð3Þ
R
center and the observation point; K, m and n are the parameters
describing the propagating media and monitoring points. The formula from the Indian Standards (IS: 6922–1973)
The widely used Sodev’s formula is as follows: has a similar style but is seldom used in China:

123
96 Q. Liang et al.

 2=3 a3
Q illustrate the relationships between the scaled distance
Vp ¼ K3 ð4Þ under the cubic-root scaling and the normalized correlation
R
coefficients of r2/r1, r3/r1, and r4/r1.
The formulaes 2–4 look alike except for the scaling of As shown in Fig. 1, the proportions with the normalized
charge weight Q. So they can be rewritten as the uniform correlation coefficient under the square-root scaling greater
equation as follows: than 1.0 are as follows for different kinds of projects: 2/3
 s a
Q for tunnelling works (whose average scaled distance under
Vp ¼ K ð5Þ the cubic-root scaling is less than 0.1), 1/3 for earth
R
excavation works and hydropower works, 3/8 for mining
where s is equal to 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3, respectively, which works. There are 14 of all the 34 samples with the nor-
corresponds to cubic-root, square-root and two-thirds malized correlation coefficient greater than 1.0, which
scaling formulae; K1 and a1, K2 and a2, K3 and a3 are the means 41.2% of the correlation coefficients under the
correspondent regression constants. square-root scaling is greater than that under the cubic-root
Formula 5 can also be expressed in logarithmic coor- scaling.
dinate as:
 s
Q 1.2
lg Vp ¼ lg K þ a lg ð6Þ
R 1.1

1 Tunnel Engineering
s
where Rr ¼ QR is called scaled distance.

r 3 / r1
Earth Work Excavation
0.9
Formula 1 can also be expressed as follows: Hydropower Projects
0.8
Mining Engineering
lg Vp ¼ lg K þ m lg Q þ n lg R ð7Þ 0.7

0.6
Comparing Eqs. 1 with 5 leads to: 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
m m Rr
a ¼ n; s ¼ ¼  ð8Þ
a n Fig. 1 Relationship between the normalized correlation coefficient
where a is the attenuation index and s is called the scaled under the square-root scaling and the scaled distance under the cube-
root scaling
coefficient.
Equation 7 is the linear multiple regression of Eq. 1 that
is in a nonlinear form. The advantage of using Eq. 7 is that 1.2

there is no need to calculate the scaled distance and thus no 1.1

need to determine the scaled coefficient because the charge 1 Tunnel Engineering
r3 / r1

weight and the distance are treated as independent vari- 0.9

Earth Work Excavation

ables. The focus of this paper is on using the linear rela- Hydropower Projects
0.8
Minging Engineering
tionships to conduct regression analyses on the data
0.7
samples. Based on comparison of the correlation coeffi-
0.6
cients obtained from different regression formulae, their 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Rr
characteristics and application conditions can be studied in
detail. Fig. 2 Relationship between the normalized correlation coefficient
under the 2/3 scaling and the scaled distance under the cube-root
scaling

3 Results
1.2

3.1 Comparison of Fitting Degree 1.15

Tunnel Engineering
r4 / r1

1.1 Earth Work Excavation

The correlation coefficients of data samples using the 1.05 Hydropower Projects
cubic-root scaling formula (r1) were used to determine the 1
Mining Engineering

correlation coefficients of data samples using Eqs. 3, 4, and

0.95
7, which give the normalized correlation coefficients, i.e., 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
r2/r1, r3/r1, and r4/r1, where r2, r3 and r4 are correlation Rr

coefficients obtained using the formulae of the square-root

Fig. 3 Relationship between the normalized correlation coefficient of
scaling, the two-thirds and the multiple regression, the multiple regression and the scaled distance under the cube-root
respectively, in the same data samples. Figures 1, 2 3 scaling

123
Comparative Study on Calculation Methods of BVV
When the scaled distance under the cubic-root scaling is
greater than 0.1, all the normalized correlation coefficients
are less than 1.0, which means that the cubic-root scaling
formula has a better fitting degree than the square-root
scaling formula. When the scaled distance under the cubic-
root scaling is less than 0.1, the proportions with the nor-
malized correlation coefficient under the square-root scal-
ing greater than 1.0 become larger: 3/7 for earth excavation
works, 3/6 for hydropower works and mining works. For
tunneling works, the scaled distances under the cubic-root
scaling are all less than 0.1.
Figure 2 indicates that there are 8 of all the 34 samples
or 23.5% with the correlation coefficient under the two-
thirds scaling greater than those of the cubic-root scaling. If
the average scaled distance under the cube-root scaling is
greater than 0.1, the cubic-root scaling still gives the best
fitting degree. And if the average scaled distance under the
cube-root scaling is less than 0.1, the two-thirds scaling
formula is slightly poorer than the square-root scaling
formula, and the proportions with the normalized correla-
tion coefficient greater than 1.0 are as follows: 4/9 for
tunnelling works, 2/7 for earth excavation works, 2/6 for
hydropower works, and 0 for mining works.
As shown in Fig. 3, there are 7 of all the 34 samples
whose correlation coefficients by the multiple regression
method are less than those using the cubic-root scaling
formula. In other words, the proportion with the correlation
coefficients under the multiple regressions greater than
those under the cubic-root scaling formula is up to 79.4%.
As for different types of projects, the actual proportions are
8/9 for tunnelling works and earth excavation works, 5/9
for hydropower works, and 6/7 for the mining works.
In summary, multiple regression using Eq. 7 is the best
method with regard to the correlation coefficient describing
the fitting degree whereas the two-thirds scaling formula is
the worst one. The advantage of the former one is that it
can avoid calculating the scaled distance and defining the
scaled coefficient of charge weight. Which of the cubic-
root scaling formula or the square-root scaling formula
yields a better correlation coefficient depends on the pro-
ject type and the scaled distance under the cubic-root
scaling. The proportion of correlation coefficients under the
square-root scaling formula greater than that under the
cubic-root scaling formula for tunnel engineering is larger
than that for other types of projects. If the average scaled
distance under the cubic-root scaling is less than 0.1, then
the square-root scaling formula has the better fitting degree.
Except 6 of all the 34 samples whose average scaled
distance under the cubic-root scaling is greater than 0.1 and
their correlation coefficients under the cubic-root scaling
formula are all greater than that under the square-root
scaling formula, there are 14 of 28 samples or 50% whose
correlation coefficients under the square-root scaling
97
formula are all greater than that under the cubic-root
scaling formula for those samples with average scaled
distance under the cubic-root scaling less than 0.1. It means
that the square-root scaling formula has the same level of
fitting degree if the average scaled distance under the
cubic-root scaling is less than 0.1, which is similar to the
adjustment suggestions given by Xiong and Gu (2002).
3.2 Multiple Regression Method
Table 1 presents all the results using the multiple regres-
sion method. There are several samples with abnormal
regression constants for each type of projects, i.e., 3 for
tunneling works (samples 2, 7 and 8), 2 for earth excava-
tion works (samples 10 and 14), 5 for hydropower works
(samples 20, 21, 24, 26 and 27). The scaled coefficients are
all greater than 1 for samples 2 and 8 and 0.8095 for
sample 7, while their K values are all very small. On the
contrary, although the scaled coefficients for samples 10
and 20 are all greater than 1, their K values are very large.
The scaled coefficients for samples 26 and 27 are 0 and
K values are abnormally large; the samples 14, 21 and 24
also have very small values with s close to 0, but K values
are slightly greater than the normal orders.
Examining the primary data such as distance and charge
weight, it is found that all these samples with abnormal
constants have the same characteristics of small variability
of independent variable or high repeatability of sample
data. For instance, of all the 10 samples with abnormal
regression constants, there are 9 samples with centralized
charge weight which varies only among 2–3 types of
charge weight and each charge weight repeats several times
except that the distance of sample 2 is very narrow
(between 19 and 22 and their coefficient of variation is
0.052). The samples 26 and 27 only have one type of
charge weight. Therefore, their regression constant m is 0.
After removing these above 10 samples, there are 19 of all
the remaining 24 samples or 79.2% whose correlation
coefficients using the multiple regression formula are
greater than or equal to those using the cubic-root scaling
formula, and of which three samples are equal. The pro-
portions for each type of projects are 5/6 for tunnelling
works, 5/6 for earth excavation works, and 2/4 for hydro-
power projects.
For those samples with correlation coefficients using the
multiple regression method less than those using the cubic-
root scaling formula, i.e., samples 4, 16, 19, 25 and 28,
their distances or charge weights vary only in a very small
range and they repeat frequently. For instance, sample 4
only has 2 types of charge weights with 49 sets of data for a
charge weight of 23.4 kg and 56 sets of data for a charge
weight of 10.5 kg. As for samples 16 and 28, due to the
complex variation in rock mass types, data sets for each
123
98 Q. Liang et al.

rock mass are small; thus the two samples have low overall
correlation coefficients. Obviously, the multiple regression
method will not give good prediction results if the distri-
bution of the distance or the charge weight of samples is in
a very narrow range or they repeat too often. These prob-
lems can be solved by calculating the distances or charge
weights using the square-root scaling formula or the cubic-
root scaling formula, which can transfer the corresponding
data into better parameters with a greater range and rational
distribution characteristics.
3.3 Empirical Regression Relations for Different
Project Types
Due to the relatively similar blasting parameters such as
borehole diameter, spacing and length, explosive types and
initiation method for the different project types considered
in this paper, the empirical regression relations can be
developed for each type of projects. Although every sample
represents the comprehensive properties of its rock and soil
between the blasting source and observation sites, they can
be combined into a bigger sample with a larger and more
uniform sample space if the sample has good correlation
relation. The empirical relations based on the bigger sam-
ple can better reflect the statistical law for different project
types. Also, if the empirical relations give good correlation
coefficients, they will be used or referred to those projects
without blasting experiments or empirical data under sim-
ilar circumstances. Therefore, the regression constants
of different formulae for different project types were
calculated and are listed in Tables 2 and 3. The data set of
sample 4 (tunnelling works) was neglected. The constants
using the two-thirds scaling formula were not presented
because of their overall poor correlation. And the
correlation constants for the hydropower works are not
presented either because the blasting types differ too much
and sample sets repeat too often which resulted in very low
correlation coefficients.
From Tables 2 and 3, it is clear that the multiple
regression method has better fitting degree than the other
methods, thus yielding more accurate prediction results.
The scaling coefficient s obtained by the multiple regres-
sion method is approximately close to that obtained by the
cubic-root scaling for tunnelling and earth excavation
works and that obtained by the 1/4 for mining works. For
the earth excavation works, the correlation coefficients
using the square-root scaling formula are greater than those
using the cubic-root scaling formula. However, it is
reversed for the tunnelling works although their average
scaled distance under the cubic-root scaling of the two
project types are all greater than 0.1. The variance of the
scaled distance under the cubic-root scaling for mining
works is greater than its average, which indicates that the
sample space is much bigger. Therefore, sample space and
distribution characteristics have an important effect on
correlation coefficients.
The above discussion demonstrates that the best formula
for calculating BVV varies with the geological conditions
and project types. The multiple regression method can give
better prediction results than the other methods, but it may
yield erroneous predictions when the samples have an
over-concentrated space or a repeated distribution of dis-
tances or charge weights. Then, the square-root scaling
formula can be used if the scaled distance under the cubic-
root scaling is less than 0.1; and if not, the cubic-root
scaling formula should be used. The empirical regression
constants listed in Tables 2 and 3 can be used if there are
no measured data available.

Table 2 Parameters of calculating formulae under square-root scaling and cube-root scaling for different types of projects
p3 ffiffiffi
Q
Engineering type Cubic-root scaling constants Square-root scaling constants R  SD
lg K1 ± SD a1 ± SD r1 lg K2 ± SD a2 ± SD r2

Tunnel engineering 2.324 ± 0.117 1.895 ± 0.095 0.8389 1.659 ± 0.099 1.512 ± 0.089 0.7956 0.145 ± 0.102
Earth work excavation 2.114 ± 0.104 1.641 ± 0.073 0.8578 1.872 ± 0.078 1.809 ± 0.066 0.8954 0.217 ± 0.246
Mining engineering 2.796 ± 0.131 2.091 ± 0.099 0.8645 1.546 ± 0.106 1.632 ± 0.110 0.7672 0.038 ± 0.026

Table 3 Parameters of calculating formula of multiple regression for different types of projects
Engineering type lg K4 ± SD n ± SD m ± SD r4 s a K Sample size

Tunnel engineering 2.269 ± 0.131 -1.872 ± 0.098 0.659 ± 0.043 0.8399 0.352 1.872 ± 0.098 185.8 168
Earth work excavation 2.321 ± 0.099 -1.888 ± 0.061 0.673 ± 0.046 0.9161 0.356 1.888 ± 0.061 209.4 186
Mining engineering 3.339 ± 0.179 -2.175 ± 0.096 0.544 ± 0.048 0.8798 0.250 2.175 ± 0.096 2182.7 154

123
Comparative Study on Calculation Methods of BVV
4 Discussion
4.1 Physical Implications of Regression Constants
The regression constants for different formulae have dif-
ferent implications. K can be considered as the initial value
of BVV at the blasting source (Tripathy and Gupta 2002),
which also means the initial blasting energy transmitted
from explosive into surrounding rock mass. The higher
value K is, the better rock quality is, and vice versa. BVV
increases with the increasing of charge coefficient m and
distance coefficient n. Therefore, m and n represent the
effects of blasting energy and distance on BVV, respec-
tively. Both of them are all closely influenced by borehole
diameter, distance and length, borehole distribution pattern
and range, and initiation network.
The parameter a represents the attenuation degree of
blasting energy along its traveling path and has something
to do with wave impedance of rock mass. The scaling
coefficient s comprehensively indicates the effects of
blasting energy and rock and soil properties along the
traveling path of blasting wave. The valid scaling coeffi-
cients calculated from the above 24 samples vary from 0.25
to 0.57 with an average of 0.39, a standard deviation of
0.092 and a coefficient of variation of 0.234. On the one
hand, it indicates that the above formulae in Eqs. 2 through
4 all have their reasonable application range and on the
other hand it explains the statistical implications why the
cubic-root scaling formula is widely used.
4.2 Selection of Samples
All the formulae in this paper are proposed based on the
best fitting of empirical data. The theoretical basis on
which the scaling coefficient s is selected is whether the
blasting source radiation is spherical or cylindrical (Tri-
pathy and Gupta 2002). The key to the good prediction
precision of formulae is the selection of data samples. The
confidence interval of 95% is commonly used and so is in
this paper, which means that those data sets outside the
95% confidence interval are removed from the data sam-
ples. To apply the formulae of the square-root scaling or
the cubic-root scaling, the difficulty lies in the determina-
tion of the charge weight, distance or scaled distance. The
calculation method by Li and Hou (1999) is cited as fol-
lows: ‘‘For the blasting near slopes, the distance R means
the distance between the geometrical centre of blasting area
and the row of blasting borehole closest to the slope toe.
According to the actual conditions of the open-pit, the
minimum bench width is 5 m, the width of last row of pre-
splitting blasting borehole is about 15 m, and the distance
between the nearest normal blasting (commonly for 2–3
rows of boreholes) to the pre-splitting blasting is
99
about 10 m; therefore the distance R is determined to be
30 m.’’
It is obvious that the distance R is somewhat an esti-
mation. Except for Li and Hou (1999), with the above
descriptions on how to determine the distance R, all the
other 26 projects used in this paper did not have details
about the calculation basis or method for distance R. There
have been very few results of research on this problem
(Zhou and Chen 1990; Li and Xue 1993). If the observation
points are far away from the blasting area, the error of
distance between blasting source and observations can be
small enough to be neglected and is much less than that of
closer distances between blasting and observations. But for
the latter, the distance has considerable effect on the pre-
diction results. This probably causes variations and dif-
ferences of different formulae in different average scaled
distances of the cubic-root scaling. It is especially true for
tunnels with large cross sections but small spacing, where
the calculation of charge weight and distance must be
adjusted based on the layout of observation points and the
measured waveform of blasting waves. The research on
this aspect is still very limited.
4.3 Resultant Velocity
The peak vertical velocities of observation points are used
in the majority of predictions at present. But there is one
example using resultant velocities calculated from three-
dimensional velocities (Zhang et al. 2007b). Li and Ni
(1997) also agree that ‘‘The new waveform is obtained by
composing the three-orthogonal velocity components into a
new composite velocity waveform. The peak value of the
newly composed waveform can be considered as the real
velocity for the given observation points.’’ The analysis
using the resultant velocity considers the complicated
three-dimensional vibrations of given points that actually
reflect the complicated stress states of material at given
points. This is more rational from the perspective of stress
de-composition and failure criteria because the use of
resultant velocity considers shear-tensile or compression-
shear stress state while the vertical velocity only considers the
singular tensile or compression stresses. The problem is that
the present failure criteria of materials cannot be applied to the
determination of whether the materials fail or not. Therefore, it
is more reasonable to analyze the blasting vibrations using
resultant velocities composed with three-dimensional blasting
velocity waveforms at given observation points.
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
The 34 sets of data samples from 27 projects belonging to
4 types of engineering works were used to compare
123
100
the different regression methods on blasting vibration.
Their physical constants, sample selection and resultant
velocity are discussed in this paper. The following con-
clusions and recommendations are obtained:
1. Which formula is the best for calculating BVV depends
on the geological conditions and project types.
2. Both the square-root scaling formula and the cubic-
root scaling formula produce good fitting results,
whereas the two-thirds scaling formula recommended
by the India Standard gives relatively poor fitting
degree. Whether the square-root scaling formula or the
cubic-root scaling formula should be adopted depends
on the scaled distance under the cubic-root scaling. If
the scaled distance is less than 0.1, the square-root
scaling formula should be used; otherwise, the cubic-
root scaling formula should be used, especially for
tunnelling works and earth excavation works.
3. The advantage of the multiple regression method is that
there is no need to choose the scaling coefficient and it has
better fitting precision than the cubic-root or the square-
root scaling formulae. But the multiple regression method
cannot fit well for those samples with concentrated data
space and repeated data sets of charge weights or
distances. The square-root scaling formula or the cubic-
root scaling formula can be adopted instead. The scaling
coefficients calculated from the multiple regression
method are averagely close to the cubic-root scaling or
the one-third scaling, which might be the main reason
why the cubic-root scaling formula is widely used and can
give quite good fitting results.
4. The regression constants of three prediction methods for
different types of projects were obtained by calculating
the bigger data samples combining the data sets of
different types of projects, which can be used for similar
projects. These regression constants are affected by the
geologic conditions at the blasting source and along the
traveling path of the blasting wave.
5. There is error in the calculation methods, which
considers at the same time the distance R, charge
weight, and scaled distance, which requires further
research. The selection of data samples is also influ-
enced by this error. This explains why there are some
differences in results derived with different methods,
applied to the same data samples. The distribution
characteristics of data samples decide which kind of
method can provide the best fitting results.
6. It is more reasonable to use the resultant velocity for
blasting vibration predictions because the resultant
velocity reflects the real vibration or stress state of
rock mass or construction material. The difficulty in
using the resultant velocity is that the current failure
criteria cannot be used to judge the safety of
123
Q. Liang et al.
engineering works, which may be solved by further
research after accumulating more data of three-
dimensional velocities on blasting vibrations.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by ‘‘Qing Lan’’ Tal-
ent Engineering Funds (QL-08-19A) from Lanzhou Jiaotong
University.
References
Cai D, Zhang J, Liu H et al (1996) Field test research on blasting
seismic effects on rock mass of dam foundation in the Three
Gorges Project. Yangtze River 27(3):6–9 (in Chinese)
Duvall WI, Fogelson D (1962) Review of criteria for estimating
damage to residences from blasting vibrations. U.S. Bureau of
Mines RI 5968
Gao S, Wang M, Shi T (2003) Influences of borehole aperture on
attenuation of particle blasting vibration velocity. Min Technol
3(4):36–37, 40 (in Chinese)
Guo H (2006) Blasting vibration monitoring and control technology
applied in construction of Huaishuping Tunnel. Tunn Constr
26(5):47–49, 78 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Hao H, Wu C, Zhou Y (2002) Numerical analysis of blast-induced
stress waves in a rock mass with anisotropic continuum damage
models part 1: equivalent material property approach. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 35(2):79–94
Jiang D, Chen Y, Ren S (2008) Monitoring and controlling techniques
on blasting vibration of tunnels with super small clear spacing.
West China Explor Eng 10:188–191 (in Chinese)
Li S (1998) Some experience on tunnel blasting construction with small
clear spacing. Railw Constr Technol 6(4):26–28 (in Chinese)
Li Y, Hou D (1999) Blasting vibration test and attenuation law
investigation for the north-section side slope in Jinduicheng
open-pit stope. China Molybd Ind 23(4):35–38 (in Chinese, with
abstract in English)
Li G, Li Z (1999) Monitoring and analysis on blasting vibration of
stope slopes. Nonferrous Metals Metall 3:21–25 (in Chinese)
Li Y, Ni Z (1997) The characteristics on surface vibration of blasting
in underground engineering. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 16:274–278
(in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Li H, Shu D (2005) Influential factors in blasting vibration attenuation
law. Eng J Wuhan Univ 38(1):79–82 (in Chinese, with abstract
in English)
Li C, Xue D (1993) Processing monitoring data of seismic effect
induced by cluster blasting through equivalent distance and its
software system design. Eng Des Res 3:17–22 (in Chinese)
Li X, Zhu R, Zhu W et al (1997) In situ testing study of protective
layer for blasting vibration reduction under complex environ-
ment. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 16:584–589 (in Chinese, with
abstract in English)
Li L, Li S, Zhang Q et al (2008) Analysis of dynamic response on
blasting excavation of close-spaced tunnel. J Highw Transp Res
Dev 25(7):100–106 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Lv T, Shi Y, Huang C et al (2007) Study on attenuation parameters of
blasting vibration by nonlinear regression analysis. Rock Soil
Mech 28(9):1871–1878 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
National Standards of the Peoples Republic of China (2003) Blasting
safety regulations (GB6722-2003). China Standards Publishing
House, Beijing, pp 41–45 (in Chinese)
Nicholls HR, Johnson CF, Duvall WI (1971) Blasting vibrations and
their effects on structures. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Mines Bulletin 656
Comparative Study on Calculation Methods of BVV
Ning L (2006) Study on influences of stope blasting vibration on
environment at Sijiaying Iron Mine. Express Inf Min Ind
2:41–43 (in Chinese)
Revey GF (2001) Evaluating and managing construction blasting risk.
Pract Period Struct Design Construct 6(1):19–24
Saiang D, Nordlund E (2009) Numerical analyses of the influence of
blast-induced damaged rock around shallow tunnels in brittle
rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42:421–448
Shi T (2001) A discussion on division of influence area of blasting-
induced seismicity. Min Res Dev 21(2):45–47 (in Chinese, with
abstract in English)
Shi X, Tian J, Wang H (2008) Regression analysis and time frequency
analysis of blasting vibration measurement data in Donggua Hill
Mine. Blasting 25(2):77–81 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Tang H, Li H, Jiang P et al (2007a) Experimental study on effect of
topography on propagation of blasting waves. Chin J Rock Mech
Eng 26:1817–1823 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Tang H, Shi Y, Li H et al (2007b) Prediction of peak velocity of
blasting vibration based on neural network. Chin J Rock Mech
Eng 26(s1):3533–3539 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Tian Y, Zhang L, Chen C et al (2004) Monitoring and controlling of
blasting vibration velocity during foundation pit excavation.
Non-ferrous Metals (Mine Edition) 56(6):35–37 (in Chinese)
Tripathy GR, Gupta ID (2002) Prediction of ground vibrations due to
construction blasts in different types of rock. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 35:195–204
Wang X, Liu H (2005) Reasonable selection of K in blasting vibration
velocity regression analysis and its application. J Wuhan Univ
Technol 27(11):103–104, 109 (in Chinese, with abstract in
English)
Wang Y, Liang K, Tian X (2005) Study on attenuation of seismic
waves induced by underground digging blasting vibration of
Zhouning Hydropower Station. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
24:4111–4114 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Wiss JF (1968) Effect of blasting vibrations on buildings and people.
Civil Engineering, ASCE, NY, pp 46–48
Xiong D, Gu Y (2002) Advances in the theory and technology of rock
blasting. Metallurgical Industry Press, Beijing, pp 155–179
(in Chinese)
101
Xu H, Zhang J, Yang H et al (2007) Investigation on calculating
formula of vibration velocity in drilling blasting and its
simplification. J Tongji Univ (Natural Science) 35:899–903,
914 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Yang W, Yang B (2005) Numerical analysis of explosion seismic
effect. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 25(1):8–13 (in Chinese, with abstract
in English)
Yang Z, Liu H, Wu H (2006) Study on the technology of blasting
vibration control in construction of small clear distance tunnel.
Mod Transp Tech 4:37–41 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Zhang J, Peng Q (2001) Field experiment and analyses of attenuation
law for seismic waves resulting from rock blasting. J Liaoning
Tech Univ (Natural Science) 20:399–401 (in Chinese, with
abstract in English)
Zhang J, Cao X, Zheng S et al (2005a) Experimental study on
vibration effects of ground due to shallow tunnel blasting. Chin J
Rock Mech Eng 24:4158–4163 (in Chinese, with abstract in
English)
Zhang J, Guo X, Zheng S et al (2005b) Experimental study on
vibration characteristics of rock mass blasting at layered slopes.
Chin J Undergr Space Eng 1(7):1041–1044 (in Chinese, with
abstract in English)
Zhang C, Li X, Cao J (2007a) In situ experimental study on
transmission of blasting vibration wave in groups of tunnels.
Blasting 24(4):71–76 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Zhang Y, Cao P, Gao S (2007b) Study on the attenuation law of
vibration velocities from blasting with medium-length Holes in
Wushan Copper Mine. Nonferrous Metal (Edition for Mine)
59(6):35–38 (in Chinese, with abstract in English)
Zhao J, Liu Y, Li J (2007) Study on vibration monitoring technique of
tunnel blasting construction under complicated buildings. Railw
Eng 1:33–34 (in Chinese)
Zhou J, Chen J (1990) Calculating methods for Q and R in vibration
test from pre-splitting blasting. Blasting 1:53–55 (in Chinese)
Zhu J (2007) The safety evaluation of the close building under the
tunnel blasting vibration. Chin J Explos Propellant 30(1):78–80
(in Chinese, with abstract in English)
123