Field Study of The Blasting Vibration Stability of Pinnacle

FIELD STUDY OF THE BLASTING VIBRATION STABILITY OF
LARGE NATURAL ROCK PINNACLES
Francis S. Kendorski and Robert A. Cummings

Engineers International, Inc.
Downers Grove, IL
Charles H. Dowding
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL
ABSTRACT
During the summer of 1980, a field project was carried out to determine the stability of the
beautiful and dramatic natural limestone pinnacles (locally termed "Hoodoos") at Bryce
Canyon National Park, Utah, when subjected to ground motions and airblasts resulting
from proposed strip coal mine blasting. The concern arose from environmental
considerations associated with the proposed development of a large coal strip mine which
would approach within 4 miles of the park. The pinnacles range up to 150 ft in height and
are quite slender, producing a fragile appearance. The remoteness and ruggedness of the
area required a field camp, and 4-wheel drive vehicles, helicopters, and snowcats for
support. Portable magazines were necessary to store the more than 7 tons of blasting
agents and explosives required. In conducting the blasting, great attention was paid to
environmental impacts. In the field, a target pinnacle was selected and instrumented with
mechanical strain gages, and research seismographs that required helicopter placement.
Vibration events were of three different types:
1) blast hole shots,

2) free air (airblast) shots, and
3) mechanically generated vibrations.
Four single blasthole shots were detonated in areas 4 and 12 miles away from the target
pinnacle. The holes were 80 ft deep, 12-1/4 in. in diameter, were loaded with ANFO, and
partially stemmed. The vibration behavior of the target pinnacle was measured in response
to each detonation. Air blast shots consisted of 100 lb of ANFO elevated on top of ten 9 ft
tall towers spaced 50 to 75 ft apart, and connected blast shots consisted of 100 lb of
ANFO elevated on top of ten 9 ft tall towers spaced 50 to 75 ft apart, and connected to
detonate at 17 ms intervals. These generated a low frequency "roll front" of airblast
overpressure at the 4 mile distance. Mechanical vibrations were generated by a motor
driven shaker bolted to the rock at the pinnacle base. The shaker uses whirling eccentric
loads, and was set to vibrate the pinnacle for 100,000 cycles at its natural frequency and at
the blast induced vibration amplitudes. The duration of this activity simulated blasting
Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1982G - FIELD STUDY OF THE BLASTING VIBRATION STABILITY OF LARGE NATURAL ROCK PINNACLES - P 1 1 of 30
during the life of the proposed mine. The target pinnacle was "strummed" to determine its
natural frequency of 3 Hz by rapidly releasing a tensioned rope affixed to the top.
The ground motion vibrations induced in the pinnacle were very low in magnitude, in the
range of 0.001 in. per second. Airblast induced vibration displacements were about 0.0001
in. Rock mechanics studies of the pinnacle rock mass strength and bending stresses
indicate that stresses resulting from these vibration levels are several orders of magnitude
too low to result in damage, even if repeated for 100,000 cycles. Indeed, wind gusts
measured at 60 mph induced vibration displacements of 0.00005 in.
The study concluded that blasting vibrations from typical coal mine blasts 4 miles or more
away would not damage the park's pinnacles.
INTRODUCTION
The efforts to preserve and provide access to the nation's natural beauty may occasionally
conflict with nearby land uses that may be disruptive and destructive, but nonetheless
necessary for the well being of the nation. Such a situation arises when a mine proposes to
exploit, by blasting, an essential resource such as coal located near a scenic resource of
apparent great delicacy such as the impressive erosional rock structures at Bryce Canyon
National Park, Utah.
Since rock blasting inevitably induces vibrations in the unexcavated surrounding rock it is
quite natural that there should be some concern over the longterm stability of these rock
pinnacles and arches.
Accordingly, the National Park Service and Office of Surface Mining initiated this study of
vibration and erosion of delicate features of Bryce Canyon National Park as affected by
blasting at the proposed coal mine near Alton, Utah.
One of the oldest and most popular national parks, Bryce Canyon National Park extends
along the west rim of the Paunsaugunt Plateau in southern Utah, shown in Figure 1.
Formed by movement along the Paunsaugunt Fault, the Plateau is bounded by a steep
escarpment of Wasatch Formation. The Wasatch is a pink to red limestone that essentially
caps the Plateau. On the west side, the limestone forms the Sunset Cliffs; on the east side,
it forms the Pink cliffs.
Wherever the Wasatch Formation crops out in the Pausaugunt Plateau area, it has been
eroded into steep-sided slopes or cliffs (Figure 2). In the area of Bryce Canyon National
Park, erosional processes have sculpted the formation into an expanse of spires, pinnacles,
and arches, in intricate bands of pinks and reds. The rock features extend into adjacent
National Forest land as well, and their development is not restricted to the Park.
The features may extend out from ridges as thin "vanes" or "fins," or may be freestanding
vertical projections. More resistant caprock commonly protects the erodable material
beneath, resulting in a variety of bizarre shapes that appear so top-heavy and fragile that

toppling seems imminent. The term "hoodoo," used in the West for vertically oriented,
erosional forms, is the term often applied to Bryce Canyon features. It is clear that these
formations exist in a highly specialized set of physical conditions.
A large strip mine has been proposed to mine coal near Alton, Utah, in order to supply coal
to power plants located near St. George, UT, and Las Vegas, Navada, to supply power to
southern Utah and Nevada, as well as excess power to southern California.
In Figure 1 the planned mining area is along the southern border of the map. The coal is to
be mined utilizing strip mining methods. In strip mining of coal, the process generally
followed is: the land is cleared, and the soil, if any, is removed and stockpiled, holes are
drilled into the overburden rock and the holes loaded with blasting agents. The detonation
of the blasting agents pushes the overburden rocks apart and breaks them up so that they
can be removed and the coal uncovered. Drill holes are then drilled into the coal to load
blasting agents and break up the coal, or the coal is dug out mechanically without blasting.
The removed overburden is then replaced and the land reclaimed.
In the Alton coal field the coal averages 12 ft in thickness while the overburden varies
from 0 to 150 ft, with deeper coal to be mined by underground means. Total coal reserves
for mining are 212 million tons. Planned mine life is 39 years with annual production rates
of 0.58 to 10.9 million tons per year.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the coal mine approaches within 4.5 miles of Bryce Canyon
National Park at the eastern end of the leased area.
The proximity of the mine to Bryce Canyon National Park has raised questions as to the
possible effects of blasting induced vibrations in the erosional features such as pinnacles
and arches that typify the park.
Since no specific studies had ever been carried out on blast phenomena at Bryce Canyon
or on the dynamic stability of pinnacles of rock, the present study was initiated to answer
these questions. A companion paper (Dowding and Kendorski, 1982) describes in detail
the vibrational behavior of the rock pinnacles.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Bryce Canyon National Park and the surrounding area belong to the High Plateaus of Utah
section of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province. Plateaus range in elevation from
8,000 to 11,000 ft and commonly are bounded, as is the case of the Paunsaugunt Plateau,
by steep normal faults. The valleys between plateaus range in elevation from 4,000 to
7,000 ft.
Rocks of importance to this study range in age from Jurassic to Recent; the most important
units are Cretaceous and Tertiary. Rocks older than the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone have
negligible effect on blasting shock transmission and are therefore not discussed.

The generalized sedimentary geology is shown in Figure 2. The discussion that follows is
taken from Gregory (1951). The pinnacles are chiefly in the Wasatch Formation.
The Wasatch Formation, as exposed near Rainbow and Yovimpa Points, may be divided
into three members that have characteristic erosion properties.
The uppermost is a distinctive white silty limestone that contains some conglomerate and
sandstone. It caps the highest points in the southern portions of the Park. The thickness
may be as much as 300 ft. This unit tends to form cliffs and steep talus-covered slopes.
Hoodoos may be found in it, but these are small and poorly formed.
Beneath the white limestone is a red limestone with some shale and conglomerate. It forms
soily slopes, scree, and some hoodoos where protected by resistant caprock. The red
limestone may reach 800 ft in thickness, but near Yovimpa Point is about 400 ft thick.
The lowermost unit is a red limestone that appears massive from a distance, and forms
cliffs. It erodes by slabbing along joints and consequently does not readily form hoodoos
unless gullying separates intact slabs. Although Gregory (1951) reports the massive
cliff-former as reaching only 100 ft, this member is about 450 ft thick near Yovimpa Point.
The target pinnacle occupies a position near the top of this unit.
The mechanisms of hoodoo formation vary according to the degree of influence of joints
and rock hardness. Lindquist (1980) found that joints may control some aspects of hoodoo
formation, but are not a prerequisite. This is because the rates of weathering and scarp
retreat along the rim are already so high that joints offer little added weakness. Thus, joints
are more important controlling mechanisms when the rock is hard and competent, such as
is the case in the lower massive red limestone.
In the red slope-forming member, hoodoos are formed beneath layers of resistant caprock.
The caprock protects the weaker rock beneath it. Weathering rates on slopes, and
therefore rates of slope retreat, may be much greater than weathering rates on the bedrock
surface, so that hoodoo formation in the slopeforming member is a self-enhancing
mechanism.
Geology of the Target Pinnacle
The target pinnacle was selected to meet a number of criteria. These led to the selection of
a pinnacle in the southernmost part of the Park. The target pinnacle is shown in Figure 4.
The target pinnacle is in the upper part of the massive red limestone. Detailed mapping of
the target pinnacle showed that it is bounded on all sides by close-spaced, near-vertical
joints ranging from north northeast to northwest. The interior of the pinnacle is essentially
unfractured and massive. The target pinnacle, therefore, exhibits a large degree of
structural control. Bedding is absent, except for a thin red bed at the top. Horizontal
fractures are scattered and scarce.
Blast Site Geology

The Lower Podunk Creek downhole shot site (Figure 1) is in the southwest corner of Sec.
24, T39S, R4W. The blast hole was collared in the lower portion of the Tropic Shale, near
the Dakota Sandstone contact. The orientations of the beds in this area still have not been
determined with a high degree of accuracy, but inconsistencies in outcrop elevation and
exploration drillhole intercepts indicate that the beds have been disrupted due to the
nearby faulting to the northwest. The Dakota Sandstone is about 200 ft thick in this area.
In contrast to the lower Podunk Creek site, the Sink Valley site (Figure 1) is not close to
major faulting. The closest available mapping shows a number of steep faults several miles
to the south, but none of these appears to affect the site. Dips are to the northeast at 1° or
less. The Tropic Shale crops out at the surface; the Dakota Sandstone contact is about 50
ft deep.
LOGISTICS
The difficulty of the work to be performed, and the ambitious time schedule mandated by
contractual deadline and management considerations, necessitated an intense level of
organization in project planning. The project was conducted in a remote area, and was
highly vulnerable to the natural forces of weather and rough terrain. Accordingly,
contingency plans were formulated for the most critical field activities: blasthole drilling,
instrument placement, shaker operation and transport, and blast detonation.
The task of maintaining a 5-man field crew in a remote area for three weeks while
engaging in highly technical, and at times hazardous, work is a complicated matter.
Field accommodations were in the form of a tent camp. Two large (10 ft x 13 ft) tents
were used to house personnel. A smaller tent was used to store equipment, food, supplies,
and so forth. Perishables were stored in refrigerated ice chests. Food purchases had to be
at wide intervals, because the closest supermarket was a half-day away over gravel roads.
Tables were constructed for eating and cooking which was done on portable stoves and
the campfire.
Transportation of equipment, personnel, and supplies was by four-wheel-drive vehicle. An

exceptionally wet winter and spring had left the ground saturated and treacherous as a
driving surface. Stuck vehicles were a problem in the early part of the project.
For the initial blasting test, the only access to the target pinnacle for seismograph set-up
was a 1-1/2 mile cross-country hike from the head of Crawford Canyon. The climb
involved was over 1,200 ft. A second tent was set-up on the rim to store equipment, so
that the seismographs did not have to be carried back and forth every day.
Certain functions required helicopter support. Short of a lengthy and difficult technical
climb in poor rock, the helicopter was the only means of access to the pinnacle summit.
Much of the equipment that was to have been moved around the target area by helicopter
had to be moved by hand or other means, primarily because altitude, weather, and

helicopter availability combined to make helicopter transport unfeasible in later parts of
the project.
Communications between blast and target sites were critical in order to obtain proper
seismograph records. This was accomplished by hand-held, FM 2-way radios. As other
agencies became involved in the project, the Park Service obtained a similar but larger and
more powerful system, used for communications during forest fires and rescue operations,
that included a portable repeater system. This proved to be of immense benefit during the
later phases of the program, when coordination became necessary between instrument
operators stationed throughout the Park and the blast site area.
The work was done on land administered by three Federal agencies as well as on private
land. The BLM, Dixie National Forest, and Bryce Canyon National Park cooperated fully
in expediting the process of issuing permits for access, specimen collection, low altitude
flight, and special uses. Private parties also cooperated in allowing access where necessary.
Electrical power was required around camp for recharging seismograph and radio batteries
and for operation of a power saw. This was delivered by a 115 volt gasoline generator. For
the shaker operation, a 220 volt, 3 phase trailer mounted diesel generator was brought to
the target area and positioned on the rim. Special electrical cables were lowered over the
edge to the shaker controls.
Immediately after contract award to Engineers International, Inc., (EI) on 25 April 1980,
preparations were begun to mobilize field crews and equipment to the site. Instrumentation
and field equipment was ordered, and arrangements were made with suppliers of
equipment and services in Utah.
The first project personnel traveled to the site on 07 May 1980 to make specific
arrangements and begin reconnaissance of the area around Bryce Canyon. The purpose of
the reconnaissance was to select potential blasting sites, examine the erosional features
within the Park and select a representative pinnacle for instrumentation, and select a site
for the field camp.
The blast sites, were selected in general areas where the coal lease is close to the Park, and
in such a way that two directions of seismic wave propagation would be possible. The
particular sites were located on the basis of land ownership, access, and expected depth to
coal. Each site was examined by an archaeologist with the Bureau of Land Management.
A special use permit was then granted for use of the area, after EI posted a performance
bond.
The pinnacle selection process involved examination and characterization of hoodoo

morphologies in the Park. This was accomplished by means of ground inspection and an
air overflight. The greatest concern was for the Yovimpa and Rainbow Point areas, where
the coal lease is closest. Accordingly, the greatest attention was focused there. A target
pinnacle was eventually selected on Dixie National Forest land, for a number of reasons.
First, the pinnacle was seen to have a flat top, a requirement for placement of a

seismograph sensor. Second, the base was readily accessible for placement of the shaker, a
crucial requirement. Third, road access is within half-a-mile. Fourth, the geology is typical
of the Yovimpa Point area. Finally, the geometry of the pinnacle selected allowed a
conservative approach, without being so tall and slender as to be dangerous to work. There
are no pinnacles within the Park boundary near Yovimpa Point that satisfy the first two
criteria. Accordingly, arrangements were made with the Dixie National Forest to carry out
the project using the target pinnacle indicated on Figure 1 and shown in Figure 4.
The field base camp was set-up on 17 May 1980, at a site on the banks of Slide Creek,
south of the Park. This site had clear running water, sufficient size, and a place nearby to
store explosives out of view of the main gravel road from Skutumpah to Cannonville. The
complete staff assigned to the project arrived at this time.
On 20 and 21 May 1980, the blastholes at the Lower Podunk Creek and Sink Valley sites
were drilled.
By this time, involvement in the project by various public and private agencies had grown
to include eight separate organizations (National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining,
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Utah International, Inc., National
Geographic Society, Friends of the Earth, and Engineers International, Inc.), creating
significant communications problems, because the EI field camp could not be contacted
readily. After a day of meetings, it was decided to set-up an FM hand-held radio system
with a repeater to allow all parties to monitor the test blasts. In addition, the Park
Headquarters served as a message relay point.
Instrument placement was accomplished, despite extremely hazardous flying conditions

due to 60 mph winds, by helicopter on 23 May 1980. Heavy snow remaining at the target
pinnacle site prevented vehicle access, so equipment and personnel were transported by
helicopter.
The high winds prevented lowering of an engineer onto the pinnacle summit to place the
seismograph sensor, as was originally planned, so an alternative was employed. A
weighted rope designed specifically for ascending vertical faces was dropped on both sides
of the pinnacle from the helicopter as it hovered. The high winds made even this simple
task extremely hazardous, as the helicopter had to stay within 15 ft of the pinnacle without
being blown into it (Figure 5). After the rope was dropped, one end was affixed at the
bottom on one side, and the OSM Advisor, an accomplished climber, ascended the
pinnacle to place the sensor.
The first blasthole shot was detonated and recorded the afternoon of 23 May 1980.
After completing the airblast and downhole test shots, the field camp was moved to
Cougar Hollow for the fatigue shaking tests. By this time, enough snow had melted that
vehicular access was possible. Because of the weight of the shaker and the uncertain
weather conditions, helicopter support for shaker placement was ruled out, and a "snow
cat" was used to transport the equipment. Ropes and pulleys were used to lower the

equipment over the rim and down the slope to the pinnacle.
INSTRUMENTATION
Four major difficulties posed significant problems in the selection of the proper seismic
instrumentation. First, the remoteness of the project area precluded all but selfpowered
equipment. Second, the absence of published data concerning the seismic response of rock
pinnacles prevented accurate estimation of the natural frequencies of the Bryce Canyon
erosional features. Since equipment to measure pinnacle response must be tuned to the
responding natural frequencies, alternative systems of instrumentation needed to be
specified. Third, the great distance between the Park and the nearest mining lease area
eliminated use of standard blast monitoring equipment, which is insensitive to the
expected, extremely low amplitudes. Forth, the hazards involved in climbing the pinnacles
allowed only a single point measurement of the top response.
Table 1 is a brief description of the equipment employed to monitor the ground motion, air
blast pressures, and the response of the target pinnacle; and of the equipment employed to
measure the ground motions and air blast pressures near the blast. The two most important
properties of instrumentation for any seismic and air pressure recording scheme are the
frequency range and the minimum recordable signal. All seismic instrumentation except
the shaker was battery-powered. A shaker large enough to excite the target pinnacle could
not be powered by batteries.
Because of the high cost of manpower, ground motions near the blast sites were recorded
with seismically triggered equipment. Systems such as Dallas Instruments ST-4,
continuously monitor the ground vibration at all times and record only those motions
which exceed specified trigger levels. Prior experience with this instrumentation scheme
has shown that recording of blast induced ground motions is assured provided the peak
particle velocities are at least 0.05 to 0.10 ips.
The instrumented pinnacle is shown in Figure 6. The uppermost position, A, occupied by

the VS 1200 was one of the most important instrument positions for the successful
completion of this testing program. Unfortunately, it was also the most difficult to reach.
The sensor at Position A was placed by a rock climber (the OSM Project Technical
Advisor) assisted by a helicopter. The hazardous nature of this climb, and the extreme
difficulty of instrument placement, prohibited positioning of other instruments above the
base of the target pinnacle. The sensor in Position A was tied to the target pinnacle by
nylon cord attached to rock bolts. Care was taken to attach the cable so that no stress was
placed on the connection.
The base, Position B, occupied by the VS 1100 with the pre-amp, was reached by foot.
The rock base was chiseled to create a level platform for two adjacent sensors. During the
first blasthole shot, two VS 1100 sensors (with and without an in-line pre-amp) were
employed to measure the ground motions. These were both necessary in order to record
the ground motion with two different sensitivities simultaneously, so that an adequate
record could be assured. The knowledge gained after the first blast eliminated the need to

employ the second VS 1100.
Blast-induced air pressures were measured near the target pinnacle at Positions C and D.
Position C was at the rim of the amphitheater in which the target pinnacle was located.
This position was some 300 ft north of and 200 ft above the pinnacle. Position D was in
the amphitheater some 100 ft directly west and at the same level as the monitored
pinnacle. Only the special airblast shots were monitored at the pinnacle.
The ST-4 seismographs were located near the downhole shot sites. The sensors were
buried, and the air pressure microphones were either set on tripods or taped to nearby
trees. The pinnacle sensor positions were positioned directly on unweathered limestone.
Considerable effort was required for placement of the 1,400 lb shaker (at Position E,
Figure 6) in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The shaker and the 220 volt
generator were brought to the amphitheater rim from a road 1/2 mile away, by a snow cat
(low ground pressure vehicle) to avoid damaging a U. S. Forest Service pine tree
plantation. The shaker and ancillary equipment were then lowered by rope over the 40°
scree slope some 400 ft to the pinnacle base. Special electrical cables were also lowered
over the rim to deliver power to the shaker.
The shaker was anchored to the rock wing of the pinnacle at Position E by grouted rock
bolts. Because of the absolute necessity for a level orientation the shaker had to be
positioned twice before a satisfactory set-up was achieved.
BLASTING PRACTICES
The detonation of the explosives (or more usually blasting agents) in the blast hole imparts
a shock into the surrounding rock which travels outward as a seismic wave.
If the explosives are imperfectly contained within the borehole, the expanding gas and
shock energy may impart an acceleration to rocks rather than just pushing the rock mass
apart. These accelerated rocks are termed "flyrock" and can travel considerable distances.
Also, the air surrounding the rock is forcibly pushed back by either the explosive gases or
the moving rock and an airblast or concussion results.
Energy from both ground shock and airblast produces vibrations that may adversely affect
nearby structures.
It is these effects that EI was to simulate in the project. Accordingly, two fundamentally
different blast types were utilized. For seismic motion generation, blastholes were drilled,
loaded, and detonated. For airblast phenomena, uncontained blasting agents were elevated
on posts and detonated. These are described in detail below.
Blastholes

At the time of planning and budgeting the field activities for the project, EI did not have
available to it any details on the proposed mine's blasting plans. Accordingly, we planned a
blasting program that incorporated the following guidelines:
· Since blast vibrations were an early concern in the Alton area, vibration
minimization techniques would be regularly employed.
Drill holes would be of relatively larger diameter (greater than 9 in.) because of
overburden thickness and larger scale coal mining operations generally carried
out in the western states,
· Detonating cord would be utilized in larger mines.
EI therefore decided to utilize 12-1/4-in. diameter blastholes drilled to coal in areas where
the seam is approximately 80 ft deep. These holes would be loaded with poured ANFO to
a depth that minimized the potential of cratering and backfilled with stemming material
that would only partially contain the explosive gases.
Because of the known vibration concerns in the area, EI further surmised that vibration
minimization measures would be incorporated such as millisecond delay connectors for
detonating cord, which, when connected in line between detonating core lines to blast
holes, allow separate detonation of each hole (DuPont, 1977, p. 133). The mine's proposal
suggests that three to four holes would be detonated simultaneously, but it is considered
that single hole detonations are cost effective and reasonable; further, EI was informed on
06 May 1980 by OSM that because of other considerations not related to the pinnacle
question, single blasthole detonations would be a provision for mining approval.
Figure 7 shows the drilling of a blasthole by the drilling contractor who utilized a
12-1/4-in. rotary bit flushed with air. After drilling to the desired depth the air flushing
continued and cuttings were blown out. Nevertheless, approximately 6 ft of cuttings
suspended in the air or clinging to the hole sides would fall back down the holes.
The typical blasthole utilized by EI is shown in Figure 8. EI purchased ANFO packaged in

60-lb plastic reinforced bags that could be lowered into holes containing water or slit and
the ANFO poured into dry holes. The brand used was United States Steel Niconate-Plus
Blasting Agent. The ANFO placed in each hole was 29 bags or 1,740 lb. Priming utilized
cast primers one lb each in weight slid over detonating cord. The primer brand was Trojan
1 lb Cast Primers, while detonating cord was Ensign-Bickford E Cord, with an explosive
weight of 25 gr per ft. Loading of a blasthole is shown in Figure 9.
Because of the cost and criticality of each blasthole, and the budget limitation that all
blastholes be drilled by the drilling contractor with no down time for waiting, each
blasthole was equipped with a redundant initiation system of two entirely separate and
unconnected downlines of detonating cord with individual primers. Primers were placed
on the end of the detonating cord which was then lowered to the hole bottom. The cord
ran up the hole and approximately 100 ft across the ground surface. The detonating cord

was then secured to an electric blasting cap with no delay element and wired into the
blasting circuit.
When detonated, Figure 10, these blasthole shots produced seismic shock, some noise, and
much dust.
Airblast Shots
Because of the distance from the coal mine site to the target pinnacle of approximately 4.5
miles as a minimum, it was decided to utilize open air or "free air" blasts so that sufficient
airblast overpressures would be generated for measurement at the target pinnacle and
elsewhere in Bryce Canyon National Park. In this way data would be gathered that could
then be scaled down to actual anticipated levels. NO RESPONSIBLE MINING
OPERATION WOULD EVER DETONATE FREE AIR BLASTS OF THIS
MAGNITUDE, AND THIS POINT MUST BE KEPT IN MIND.
Because of concerns that the blasting agents, if simply placed on the ground surface,
would when detonated destroy the vegetation and blow out a crater, it was decided to
elevate the shots on posts, to minimize their ground effects. There were 10 individual
blasts in a shot, each approximately 50 to 75 ft apart and detonated in sequence 17
milliseconds apart.
The blasting products used were similar to the blasthole shots, that is, United States Steel
Niconate ANFO in 50 lb paper bags, 1 lb Trojan cast primers, and Ensign-Bickford E-Cord
25 gr per ft detonating cord. To achieve the 17 ms delay between individual blasts, DuPont
MS-Delay Detonating Cord Connectors were used. Because of the criticality of each shot,
detonation was redundant, each individual blast having two separate initiations.
The typical arrangement of a single airblast tower is shown in Figure 11, while the array of
10 is shown in Figure 12. Figures 13 and 14 show the completed towers and a detonation.
When detonated, these airblast shots were dramatic, with a ball of flame and dust rising
into the air from each tower. Near the shot, the sharp report of each individual detonation
could be heard, while farther away the individual detonations coalesced into a single,
lower frequency blast wave, as planned.
BLAST INDUCED MOTIONS AND PRESSURES
There are three principal objectives around which the measurement scheme was devised:
1. Define how the target pinnacle would respond to blasting taking place in the nearest
coal lease area;
2. Determine what ground motions and air pressures would be produced in the target
pinnacle area and near the blasting sites;

3. Determine the susceptibility of the target pinnacle to any strength loss due to fatigue,
which might result from blasting during the permit life of the mine.
The following section discusses the measurements which were made to accomplish these
objectives.
The first day that seismic equipment was available at the pinnacle was extremely windy;
wind gusts were measured as high as 65 mph. Vortex shedding of the wind-induced
pressures resulted in motions that could be measured at Position B in Figure 6.
The gusts measured at Position B produced ground motion velocities on the order 0.0003
ips. The motions were largest in the transverse direction. Vortex shedding allows free but
decaying vibration of the pinnacle. During this period of free vibration, the natural
frequency (3 Hz), and percentage of critical damping (3%) were determined.
Table 2 contains a summary of all the blast-induced motions that were recorded. It relates
the peak amplitudes and associated frequencies produced by test blasting. The distance, R,
from the sensor or transducer to the blast is necessary to calculate the scaled distances
(R/W [exponent -1/2] and R/W [exponent -1/3]) required for comparison of these data
with that of others. (W = maximum explosive charge weight per delay.)
Target pinnacle response at Position A (as shown in Figure 6) to the blast-induced motion
and air pressures is also recorded in Table 2. This response is always that in the transverse
(horizontal) or least stiff direction. This least stiff direction is always associated with the
peak response.
Pinnacle response was recorded in the displacement mode rather than the particle velocity
mode, in order to filter some of the higher frequency motions caused by cable rattling.
Because of this, pinnacle responses are reported in terms of inches of displacement.
The rope employed during placement of the sensor at Position A was also used to conduct
pull tests. The rope was used to pull the pinnacle slightly in the transverse direction. Upon
rapid release of the rope the pinnacle vibrated freely in a manner similar to that shown in
Figure 15 for the wind gusts. These free response motions confirmed the natural frequency
and damping characteristics described previously.
The fatigue shaking of the target pinnacle was monitored at Position A. The results are
presented in Table 3. The motions shown were measured in the transverse direction as
shown in Figure 6, and were recorded in the displacement mode. The excitation and the
response frequencies were the same.
The maximum vibration amplitude at A, due to shaking, was 10 times greater than that
produced by any type of blast excitation. These high amplitude motions were produced by
the L1 loading at 3 Hz. Unfortunately, malfunctions of key electronic components
prevented maintaining this excitation level for more than 12 minutes or some 1,620 cycles.

The amplitude produced during this 12 minute period was some 0.0015 in., which
compares with the maximum of 0.00017 in. produced by the blasthole shot number 2 at
Lower Podunk Creek. The response of the target pinnacle to the motions produced by
blasthole shot number 2 was the greatest recorded during the entire testing period.
However, it should be noted that the air blast shots produced displacements of 0.00011 in.,
and the wind gusts themselves produced displacements of 0.00005 in.
The extended fatigue shaking was conducted to produce displacement amplitudes, at

Position A, equivalent to or slightly greater than those produced by the blasthole shot No.
2. This fatigue event consisted of some 78,000 cycles of motion at 7 Hz which produced
some 0.00018 in displacement at Position A.
RESULTS OF MEASUREMENTS
A time history of the target pinnacle response, as measured at Position A, for blasthole
shot No. 2 at Lower Podunk Creek is compared in Figure 15 to the blast-induced motion at
Position B, the target pinnacle base. The initial or high frequency motions at the target
pinnacle base are comparable to those measured elsewhere during the shot. Amplitudes
must be calculated as explained before. The 3 Hz region of the base motion, which begins
after the first 3 seconds, is associated with the peak pinnacle response. Four motions at
Position B are presented in Figure 15; two are short and two are long; a pair of the short
and the long motions has a higher amplitude than the other pair.
The air pressure time histories induced by the blasthole shots do not differ significantly
from those produced by the wind gusts in either amplitude or frequency content. At most,
the amplitudes produced by the airblast shots are a factor of 2 greater than those produced
by the wind. The air pressure time histories are compared in Figure 16 with the
corresponding target pinnacle response time histories. The wind gusts produced the same
type of pinnacle response as do the air blast shots. Comparisons of the two prominent
peaks (at 1.9 and 4.9 seconds) in the airblast overpressure shows that the pinnacle
responds more to the smaller amplitude but lower frequency pulse than to the larger
amplitude and higher frequency pulse. This selectivity shows that the lower frequency
pressure pulses (near the natural frequency of the pinnacle) create the greater response.
Thus, high-decibel noise (having a high-frequency air pressure time history) is not as
important as the lower frequency (inaudible) pulses (Dowding and Fulthorpe, 1980).
TARGET PINNACLE ROCK MASS PROPERTIES
The rock formation that makes up the target pinnacle was sampled in the field and the
samples returned to the EI laboratory. The rocks collected consisted of a large rock
weighing about 250 lb, and 7 sets of rock containing natural joint planes.
The large rock was diamond drill cored in the EI shop and several 2-in. diameter cores
obtained. These were cut to length and placed in a suitable capacity testing machine to
determine the unconfined compressive strength, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, and split
cylinder (Brazilian) tensile strength. With the aid of a hydraulic pressure chamber several

cut cores were also tested for compressive strength at a biaxial confining pressure of 100
psi.
The joint samples were placed in a direct shear machine and the shear strength of natural
rock joints determined at 50 psi and 100 psi normal stress.
Estimates of rock mass characteristics around the base of the target pinnacle resulted in
joint sets observed to have in general these properties
Mean joint length of 7.2 ft
Mean joint spacing of 1.05 ft
but it must be kept in mind that joints are not omnipresent as in fractured rock masses, but
are rather localized in occurrence in this formation. In fact, the jointed rock areas have
mostly eroded away leaving the intervening unjointed rock standing as pinnacles.
Therefore, any evaluations made of rock mass characteristics of such pinnacles is strictly a
worst case evaluation in localized jointed areas.
In summary, combining these observations and data the rock mass strength properties may
be conservatively characterized as in Figure 17 in a Mohr's envelope presentation
(Kendorski, 1980; EI, 1980).
PINNACLE STABILITY FROM INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
There are two fundamental ways that the pinnacles at Bryce Canyon or Dixie National
Forest can be damaged by blast induced vibrations. Firstly, the ground motion induced by
the blasting is transmitted to a pinnacle through its base and tends to either shear the
pinnacle at its base or flex the pinnacle as a cantilevered beam. Secondly, the airblast
pressure wave strikes the pinnacle and induces either the base shear effect by trying to
forcibly push the pinnacle back or by forcing the pinnacle to flex as a cantilevered beam.
The field measurements showed these induced motions from the seismic wave, airblasts,
and from the gusty wind to be similar. Therefore, the stability of the target pinnacle will be
examined in two modes without regard to the exciting phenomena:
· Base Shear
· Cantilever Bending.
This base shear mode of analysis is shown in Figure 18, where the forces imparted to the
pinnacle are attempting to slide it along its base, introducing shearing stresses at the base.
If the beam were a block with a uniform horizontal acceleration, then the shear stress
associated with that horizontal acceleration would be 0.0802 psi for 3 Hz motion, or

0.0147 psi for 7 Hz motion (Dowding and Kendorski, 1982; EI, 1980).
It is clear that the shear stress is extremely low, even though this method overestimates the
base shear stress by a factor of three. The conservative estimation arises from the
assumption of uniform motion equal to that measured at the top position A.
Referring back to Figure 17, these stresses are too small to plot on the Mohr's envelope for
the target pinnacle rock mass strength. In fact, with a height of pinnacle of 97 ft, there
exists a normal load or force of 97 ft x 52 ft x 10 ft x 140 lb/ft3 = 7,062,000 lb, which
when applied over the 52 ft x 10 ft base results in a normal stress of 94.3 psi acting
vertically on the base. Such a normal force tends to increase the shearing forces necessary
to cause displacement in the rock mass.
Referring again to Figure 17, it can be shown (Jaeger, 1969) that the shearing stresses and
normal stresses for a linear Mohr's envelope geometry are related by
τ = c + σtan φ
where τ = shear stress
c = cohesion (Y-intercept)
σ = normal stress
φ = angle of internal friction (inclination of line from X-axis).
If σ = 94.3 psi, φ = 48°, and c = 78 psi, the shear strength of the pinnacle rock mass at the
base is 183 psi. Therefore, the ratio of rock mass strength to induced stresses for base
shear is 12,449.
Using a Joint plane which would be the situation if a bedding plane ran continuously across
the base, the shear strength is 111 psi. Therefore, the ratio of joint shear strength to
induced stresses for base shear is 7,551.
Cantilever bending of an idealized pinnacle is shown in Figure 19, when the forces
imparted to the pinnacle tend to make it flex in a cantilever fashion. Bending stresses are
thus induced that are tensile on one side and compressive on the other. The stress in a
cantilevered beam in this instance is 0.0465 psi, which will be tensile on one side and
compressive on the other, and will occur at the pinnacle base (Dowding and Kendorski,
1982; EI, 1980).
Since the weight of the pinnacle itself is 7,062,000 lbs, this induces a compressive stress of
94.3 psi at the base, so that the tensile stress of 0.0465 psi is effectively cancelled out and
the weight induced compressive stress is merely slightly reduced on one side and slightly
increased on another.

The ratio of rock mass compressive strength to the induced bending and self-loading
compressive stresses (a total of 94.35 psi) is 4.30, while the ratio of strength to induced
bending stress is 8,731. In order for the induced bending tensile stresses to create a net
tensile stress in the rock mass potentially leading to deformation, they would have to be
2,029 times larger; and to reach the compressive strength (subtracting out the self-load)
they would have to be 6,703 times larger.
In summary, the typical blast event detonated by EI is insufficient by a ratio of 12,449 in

base shear and between a ratio of 2,029 and 6,703 in cantilever flexure, to exceed the
target pinnacle rock mass strength.
LONG TERM PINNACLE STABILITY
Rock which undergoes repeated loading at between 75% and 100% of its full capacity
rapidly decreases in strength until it reaches a point at which no further reduction
occurs--approximately one million cycles (Hamimson and Kim, 1972). This long-term
fatigue strength is somewhat more than 50% of the original level for most rocks, but may
be as low as 35% for some, such as oil shale (Chang, et al., 1978). Concrete fatigue
strength is approximately 55% of the original level (Troxell, Davis, and Kelly), 1968.
Hamison (1973) has reported that rock cylinders that had been "failed" by loading to near
their original capacity, eventually arrived at the same fatigue strength, though more
rapidly. The "failed" rock required 100,000 cycles to stabilize its strength. However, at low
levels of loading, no diminution of strength has been reported for rock, no matter how
many cycles it endures.
The response of the rock mass to fatigue is probably similar to the "failed" rock of
Haimson (1973), but it must be kept in mind that these Haimson's samples were primarily
behaving elastically, while the erosional features of interest, when subjected to shearing
stresses, may dilate and not recover the strain.
However, if the shear acceleration imparted to the rock features is low enough that the
induced forces are consistently well be]ow the cohesion of the bedding or fracture
surfaces in the rock mass, little, if any, permanent movement is likely. If 50% or 75% of
the rock mass strength is approached the deformation may perhaps then be permanent,
resulting in accelerated deterioration of the erosional features due to fatigue.
The target pinnacle was mechanically excited for approximately 78,000 cycles at
approximately the same level of stress as the blast-induced motions, that is, 0.0147 psi in
base shear stress and 0.0465 psi flexural cantilever bending stress. Mechanical
measurements of joint openings in the target pinnacle during the repeated shaking
indicated that the measured deformations are only one tenth of the deformations to peak
shear strength along joints observed in laboratory testing. Therefore, since the repeatedly
induced stresses are only a small fraction of the strengths, the blast induced motions would
have no long term effect on the pinnacle stability.

It should be noted that the pinnacle behavior observed during high winds was of the same
order of magnitude as the blast induced motions, and since the pinnacles in Bryce Canyon
National Park and Dixie National Forest are many thousands of years old, they have
undergone untold millions of wind induced stress cycles at stress levels similar to
blast-induced stress levels.
Since this study concerns itself only with blasting phenomena, it should be noted that these
findings presented in this work must not be construed as guaranteeing the stability of any
pinnacle or other erosional feature in Bryce Canyon National Park or Dixie National
Forest, since their origin rests with an inherently destructive process - erosion - and the
pinnacles are temporary features that cannot totally be safeguarded from natural processes.
This study has addressed itself solely toward the ground motion induced and airblast
induced vibration stability of erosional features at Bryce Canyon National Park and Dixie
National Forest, Utah, and not toward other effects of blasting from the proposed mine.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was carried out by Engineers International, Inc., for the National Park
Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, under Contract No. CX-1200-0-B033.
The contract was administered by Mr. David L. Olson, Contracting Officer, with Mr.
Richard B. Keigley as Project Supervisor. Mr. Keith Kirk of the Office of Surface Mining
was Technical Advisor.
In a difficult field project such as this one, many individuals contributed towards its
success. The following persons materially aided the field work and their efforts are
sincerely appreciated: Mr. Bob Benton and Mr. George Buckingham of Bryce Canyon
National Park, Mr. Rex Rowley and Mr. Mike Noel of the Kanab District of the Bureau of
Land Management, and Mr. A. Clair Baldwin of the Dixie National Forest of the U. S.
Forest Service.
Special thanks are due to Mr. Keith Kirk of OSM for his skills as a rock climber which
allowed instrumentation placement on the target pinnacle and to Mr. Jack Wright,
Helicopter Pilot of Hosking Exploration Helicoptor, Inc. for his great skill under very
difficult weather conditions.
The support of Engineers International, Inc., and permission to publish this work are
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Ballard, R. C., Personal Communication, 1980.
Bath, M. Spectral Analysis in Geophysics, Elsevier Scientic Co., NY, 1974.

Biggs, M. Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw Hill, NY, 1964.
Cheng, B., et al., Fatigue Tests of Oil Shale, Proc. 19th Rock Mech. Symp., Univ.
Nevada. p. 408-413, 1978.
Doelling, H. H., and Graham, R. L., Southwestern Utah Coal Fields, Monograph Ser. N.1,
Utah. Geol. Miner. Surv., 333 p, 1972.
Dowding, C. H. and Fulthorpe, Manuscript in Progress, Jour. of the Acoustical Society of

America, 1981
Dowding, C. H., and Kendorski, F. S., Response of Rock Pinnacles to Blasting Vibrations
and Airblasts, submitted to Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists,
1982.
Dowding, C. H., Murray, P. D. and Atmatzidis, D. K., Dynamic Response Properties of

Residential Structures Subjected to Blasting Vibrations, submitted for publication the
the Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1981.
DuPont, Blasters' Handbook, EI DuPont de Nemours and Co. (Inc.), Wilmington, DE,
494 p, 1977.
Engineers International, Inc., Seismic Characteristics, Dynamic Behavior, and Long Term
Vibration Stability of Erosional Features at Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah, Final
Report on National Park Service Contract No. CX-1200-0-B033, 126 p. November,
1980.
Goode, H. D., Preliminary Geologic map of the Bald Knoll Quadrangle, Utah, U. S. Geol.
Surv. Misc. Field Studies Map, MF-520, 1:24,000, 1973.
Gregory, H. E. Geology and Geography of Paunsaugunt Region, USGS Prof. Paper 226,
116 p, 1951.
Hamison, B. C., Mechanical Behavior of Rock Under Cyclic Loading, Final Report on
USBM Contract No. H0220041, Univ. Wisconsin, 84 p, 1973.
Hamison, B. C., and Kim, C. M., Mechanical Behavior of Rock Under Cyclic Fatique,
Proc. 13th Rock Mech. Symp., New York, ASCE, p 845-863, 197?.
Hintze, L. H., Geologic History of Utah, BYU Geology Studies, v. 20, pt. 3, 181 p, n. d.
Jaeger, J. C., Elasticity, Fracture and Flow, 2nd. ea., London, Methuen and Co. Ltd., 268
p, 1969.
Kendorski, F. S., Field and Laboratory Assessment of Rock Mass Strength for Tunnel
Design with Allowance for Dilation, Proc. 13th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. Toronto,

Montreal, CIMM, p. 162-167, 1980.
Keystone Coal Industry Manual, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1265 p, 1978.
Lande, Personal Communication, Manager, Advanced Technology Group, Nitro Consult.,

Stockholm Sweden, 1968.
Lindquist, R. C., Geology of Bryce Canyon National Park, Paragon Press, Inc.,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 52, 1977.
Lindquist, R. C., Slope Processes and Forms at Bryce Canyon National Park, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Utah, 122 p, 1980.
Nicholls, H. R., Johnson, C. F., and Duvall, W. I., Blasting Vibrations and Their Effects
on Structures, United States Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656, 1971.
Richart, F. F., Woods, R. D. and Hall, J. R., Vibrations of Soils and Foundations,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970.
Siskind, D. E. and Summers, C. R., Blast Noise Standards and Instrumentation U. S.

Bureau of Mines Technical Progress Report, 1974.
Sparks, B. W. Rocks and Relief, St. Martins Press,~ NY, 1971.
Sweeting, M., Karst Landforms, Columbia University Press, NY, 1973.
Troxell, G. E., Davis, H. E., and Kelly, J. W., Composition and Properties of Concrete,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY, 529 p, 1968.
Veletsos, A. S. and Newmark, N. M., Response Spectra of Single-Degree-of Freedom

Elastic and Inelastic Systems, Design of Underground Protective structures, Volume
III, Prepared for the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Contract NO. AF 29(601)-4564,
1964.
Wiss, J. F. and Linehan, P. W., Control of Vibration and Blast Noise From Surface
Coal Mining, vols I-IV, Final Report on USBM Contract J0255022, 1978.

Figure 4. Target
Pinnacle

Figure 5. Helicopter
Hovering for Climbing
Rope Placement
Figure 7. Drilling a
Blasthole.

Figure 9. Loading of a Blasthole.
Figure 10. Detonation of a

Blasthole.

Figure 11. Typical Airblast Tower Shot.

Figure 13. Completed Tower Blast
Figure 14. Airblast Detonation
Figure 15. Comparison of Motions at Positions A

and B.


Field Study of The Blasting Vibration Stability of Pinnacle

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

Field Study of The Blasting Vibration Stability of Pinnacle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIELD STUDY OF THE BLASTING VIBRATION STABILITY OF

LARGE NATURAL ROCK PINNACLES

Francis S. Kendorski and Robert A. Cummings

Vibration events were of three different types:

1) blast hole shots,

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Geology of the Target Pinnacle

Blast Site Geology

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Transportation of equipment, personnel, and supplies was by four-wheel-drive vehicle. An

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

The pinnacle selection process involved examination and characterization of hoodoo

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Instrument placement was accomplished, despite extremely hazardous flying conditions

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

The instrumented pinnacle is shown in Figure 6. The uppermost position, A, occupied by

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

· Detonating cord would be utilized in larger mines.

The typical blasthole utilized by EI is shown in Figure 8. EI purchased ANFO packaged in

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

BLAST INDUCED MOTIONS AND PRESSURES

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

The extended fatigue shaking was conducted to produce displacement amplitudes, at

TARGET PINNACLE ROCK MASS PROPERTIES

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Mean joint length of 7.2 ft

Mean joint spacing of 1.05 ft

PINNACLE STABILITY FROM INDIVIDUAL EVENTS

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

where τ = shear stress

φ = angle of internal friction (inclination of line from X-axis).

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

In summary, the typical blast event detonated by EI is insufficient by a ratio of 12,449 in

LONG TERM PINNACLE STABILITY

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Ballard, R. C., Personal Communication, 1980.

Bath, M. Spectral Analysis in Geophysics, Elsevier Scientic Co., NY, 1974.

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Dowding, C. H. and Fulthorpe, Manuscript in Progress, Jour. of the Acoustical Society of

Dowding, C. H., Murray, P. D. and Atmatzidis, D. K., Dynamic Response Properties of

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Keystone Coal Industry Manual, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1265 p, 1978.

Lande, Personal Communication, Manager, Advanced Technology Group, Nitro Consult.,

Siskind, D. E. and Summers, C. R., Blast Noise Standards and Instrumentation U. S.

Sparks, B. W. Rocks and Relief, St. Martins Press,~ NY, 1971.

Sweeting, M., Karst Landforms, Columbia University Press, NY, 1973.

Veletsos, A. S. and Newmark, N. M., Response Spectra of Single-Degree-of Freedom

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 10. Detonation of a

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 14. Airblast Detonation

Figure 15. Comparison of Motions at Positions A

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

You might also like