See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232862969

On the damage zone surrounding a single blasthole

Article in Fragblast · January 1997

DOI: 10.1080/13855149709408390

CITATIONS READS

62 642

2 authors, including:

Alan Minchinton
Independent Physics Research
15 PUBLICATIONS 296 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alan Minchinton on 19 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

On the damage zone surrounding a single blasthole

Dane Blair and Alan Minchinton

ICI Explosives PO Box 196, Kurri Kurri, Australia, 2327.

ABSTRACT: A critical analysis is given of vibration damage models based upon simple charge weight
scaling laws that have been modified in an attempt to account for the near-field influence of charge length. It
is shown that such simple models are significantly flawed since they do not correctly account for the charge
length or realistically account for the known blast wave radiation pattern. For example, these models fail to
predict a dominant vibration component which is a vertically polarised shear (SV) wave. An analytical
vibration model is developed to account for the charge length and radiation pattern as well as a finite velocity
of detonation. The results of the analytical model compare favourably with a Dynamic Finite Element Model
(DFEM). Both models clearly show that it is invalid to assume any simple relationship between vibration and
strain for waves radiating from a blasthole, even in the very far field. It is also shown that traditional Seed
Waveform modelling employing vibration waveforms measured from short (elemental) charges cannot yield
a realistic vibration output for the entire blasthole; an alternative method is suggested.

1 INTRODUCTION mechanisms (such as the separate attributes of p-

A simple model for the assessment of damage
surrounding a single blasthole has been recently
reported by McKenzie et al. (1995). Although this
model does not consider the influences of local
geology or blasthole gases, there are at least five
other assumptions implied by the model that
warrant further investigation,
i) the assumption that the radiating blast wave
obeys simple charge weight scaling laws,
ii) the assumption that the peak particle velocity
due to each element of charge within the blasthole
is numerically additive,
iii) the assumption of an infinite velocity of
detonation (VOD) for the explosive column,
iv) the assumption that the complicated
influence of the free surface(s) can be neglected,
v) the assumption that the particle velocity is
proportional to dynamic strain.
In this study the term "vibration" is used to
specifically describe the particle velocity. The
particle displacement and acceleration are also
included under the general definition, but are not
considered here. Charge weight scaling laws are
traditionally used to estimate surface vibration
levels due to production blasts. However, it should
be noted that such laws are not mechanistic insofar
as they do not provide an insight into any blast
and s-waves), and they do not predict vibration
variations with time. These scaling laws only
provide a simple engineering solution to the
problem of estimating peak surface vibration
levels (rather than underground damage levels)
measured as a function of charge weight and
distance, alone. In this regard, Blair (1990)
highlights several problems associated with these
laws which indicate that it might be ambitious to
expect that they could also provide the basis of any
blast damage model.
The model described by McKenzie et al. (1995)
is founded on the well-known model of Holmberg
and Persson (1979) who altered the standard
charge weight scaling law to include the influence
of the length of charge within the blasthole. It
should be appreciated that this alteration is
somewhat akin to adding a mechanistic component
to a non-mechanistic model.
Figure 1 illustrates the relevant geometry; two
blasthole elements are shown at A and B as well as
a general element of length dh. According to
charge weight scaling, the peak vibration, v,
measured at a point P in the rock mass due to the
element of charge dh is given by:
v = K weα R−β (1.1)
where we is the charge weight of the element dh;
K, α and β are constants and R is the distance
between P and the element dh. It must be
appreciated that equation (1.1) implies a uniform
vibration, decaying as R-β, in all directions at any
distance, R, from a fixed element of charge within
the blasthole. Thus under the assumption of charge
weight scaling, each element radiates a spherical
vibration wave into the surrounding medium.
According to this model, the total vibration from
the blasthole, of length L, is given by a series of
such spherically-radiating elements stacked along
this length. However, the work of Baird et al.
(1992) clearly showed that it is invalid to use
spherically-radiating elements to simulate a long
cylindrical column of explosive. This point is
discussed later in some detail.
The Holmberg-Persson model further assumes
that for any blasthole of length L the vibration
peaks (such as v1 and v2) due to all elements (such
as A and B) may be numerically added at the point
P to yield the total peak vibration, vT. Under this
assumption they derive:
α
 L dh  neglecting the free surface (as also implied by
vT = K  m∫ 2  (1.2)
 0 (R0 + (R0 tan φ 2 − h) )
2 β /2 α
 by a factor of approximately five for distances
where m is the charge mass per unit length of the
explosive column; other relevant variables are
illustrated in Figure 1. However, in the near-field
of the charge length the vibration peaks (such as v1
and v2) due to the elements cannot be numerically
added. In this case the complete vibration time
history for each element must firstly be resolved
into horizontal and vertical components and the
separate components added for all elements to
yield total components. The vector peak, vT, is
then obtained using the total vertical and
horizontal components. Clearly, since simple
charge weight scaling laws do not incorporate any
v2
v1
P
φ1
A VOD influence is then modelled by adding an
R appropriate phase delay to a succession of such
L φ
dh
h φ2
B R0
Fig. 1: The blasthole geometry.
time dependence, they are not capable of providing
the correct near-field analysis.
In fact a direct consequence of the assumption
that the peaks can be numerically added is that the
point P in Figure 1 must lie in the far-field of the
entire charge length for which φ1 is approximately
equal to φ2. Under this condition, the variation of h
with φ ιs negligible, soβ /that
(R02 + (R0 tan φ2 − h)2 ) simply reduces to Rβ/α
2α
which is constant for any point P, irrespective of L.
The integral of equation (1.2) then collapses to the
scaling law of equation (1.1) with we replaced by
the total charge weight W of the entire column.
Thus nothing has been achieved. This unfortunate
state of affairs is a direct consequence of
attempting to use a simple, time-independent and
non-mechanistic model to describe near-field
vibration.
Blair and Jiang (1995) used a Dynamic Finite
Element Model (DFEM) of a single blasthole to
study the surface vibrations produced as a function
of the blasthole explosive VOD. Although their
model was restricted to a blasthole of 5 m length,
it showed that assuming an infinite VOD and
equation 1.2) can overestimate the true vibration
greater than 2 m, and can underestimate the true
vibration level by a factor of approximately two
for distances less than 1.5 m. This finding, alone,
suggests that any model which neglects the
influences of VOD and the free surface may
produce dubious estimates of blast damage.
McKenzie et al. (1995) also fully appreciated
that assuming an infinite VOD could possibly
produce an overestimation of the true vibration,
and thus utilised the so-called Seed Waveform
Model to account for a finite VOD. The Seed
Waveform approach, which has enjoyed popularity
for some time, firstly involves the selection of a
specific Seed Waveform to represent a small
element of charge within a blasthole. In this regard
the technique is more powerful than charge weight
scaling since it does, at least, introduce time
dependent seed waveforms which are often
obtained experimentally by monitoring the
vibrations due to a small length of charge. The
waveforms in order to simulate the total vibration
due a series of stacked elements of total length, L.
However, almost all Seed Waveform Models, by
implication, incorrectly assume a spherical
radiation pattern for all wave types emanating
from each element, since the element vibration
seed at any point is simply scaled by R−β. It thus
appears obvious that unless the radiation pattern of
each element matches the known radiation pattern
of a short cylindrical charge (Heelan, 1953, Abo-
Zena, 1977) then any Seed Waveform Model must
be viewed with caution. The cylindrical charge
pattern is also dependent upon the p- and s-wave
velocities, (hence Poisson's ratio, ν) and the
material density, ρ.
The generalised Hooke's Law in elementary
elasticity theory shows that it is quite misleading
to make the blanket statement that stress is
proportional to strain for an elastic material. There
are many components of stress and strain, so care
must be exercised in specifying relevant
components. This generalised law is given by
equation (1.3), where σij are the stress components
and εij are the strain components; λ and µ are the
Lamé elastic constants and the volumetric strain
∆ = εxx + εyy + εzz, with reference to the x,y,z
directions, and δij is the Kronecker delta defined
by δij =1 if i=j, and δij =0 otherwise (see, for
example, Timoshenko and Goodier, 1971).
σij = λ∆δij + 2µεij (1.3)
For general wave propagation, the normal stress
with respect to the x-direction is given by equation
(1.3) as σxx = λ∆ + 2µεxx. Thus the normal stress,
σxx, is not simply proportional to the strain εxx
since it also depends upon the strain components
εyy and εzz.
However, if we consider planar p-wave
propagation along the x-axis in an unbounded
medium, then all the strain components vanish
except for εxx; then equation (1.3) yields:
σxx = (λ+2µ) εxx = ρvp2 εxx (1.4)
where vp (=[(λ+2µ)/ρ]1/2) is the p-wave velocity.
Since λ and µ are both constants, then it is correct,
in this instance, to state that stress is proportional
to strain with respect to the wave propagation
direction.
Let the planar p-wave displacement, ux(t), as a
function of time, t, in the x-direction be given by:
ux(t) = f(t-x/vp) (1.5)
where f is a general function. If vx(t) represents the
particle velocity, then:
vx(t) = dux(t)/dt = f ' (t-x/vp) (1.6)
also:
εxx = dux(t)/dx = (-1/vp)f ' (t-x/vp) (1.7)
Equations (1.4), (1.6) and (1.7) yield:
σxx = ρvp2 εxx = -ρvpvx(t) (1.8)
Thus the particle velocity, vx(t), is proportional to
dynamic strain, εxx, for planar p-wave propagation
in an unbounded medium simply because the
condition of equation (1.4) holds. Although it has
become popular to assume otherwise, this
proportionality is the exception, rather than the
rule. For example, this proportionality does not
hold for the propagation of the non-planar p-and s-
waves radiating from a cylindrical blasthole, and it
does not hold in the vicinity of any free faces.
Unfortunately, since blast damage is basically
concerned with radiation from cylindrical
blastholes and free faces, the assumption of any
simple proportionality between particle velocity
and strain is dubious.
The vibrations induced at the base of a tall, thin
structure, such as a smelter stack, provide a simple
example of a situation when dynamic strain is
clearly not proportional to vibration (i.e. particle
velocity). If this structure is excited in its
fundamental vibration mode, then the peak
vibration is always at the top of the structure, yet
in this region all components of dynamic strain are
very small. In fact the peak dynamic strain (and
possibly the region of potential damage onset) is
close to the base of the structure. In this case,
geometry (ie. the free sides of the structure) is one
obvious reason that vibration is not proportional to
strain. In a like manner, the geometry (free
surface) of a half-space also destroys any
proportionality between vibration and strain. For
example, in the half-space problem, the surface
vertical (z) vibration, vz(t), due to a normally
incident plane wave is exactly twice the vertical
vibration at depth below the surface. Yet in this
case the surface normal strain, εzz(t) (as opposed
to the shear strains εxz or εyz) in the vertical
direction is zero. Thus, clearly, the vibration vz(t)
is not proportional to the strain εzz(t).
The main aim of the present work is to use
analytical solutions and DFEM for a single,
axisymmetric blasthole in an infinite medium as
well as DFEM in a medium with a nearby free
surface to predict vibration and strain contours
surrounding the blasthole. DFEM solves the
elasticity problem in a rigorous manner,
automatically handling all free surfaces and
making no simplifying assumption between strain
and vibration. These results will then be compared
with the predictions based upon the model of
Holmberg and Persson (1979) in order to assess
the magnitude of any discrepancies. The starting
point of this investigation is a comparison of the
analytical and DFEM solutions for an element of
charge in a blasthole. The solutions are then
expanded to account for a finite VOD of the entire
explosive column; finally, the DFEM is used to
investigate the influence of a nearby free surface.
2 THE VIBRATION PRODUCED BY A
SINGLE ELEMENT OF CHARGE
Heelan (1953) gave a theory for the radiation from
a single element within a long, otherwise empty,
blasthole for distances sufficiently removed from
the source. Although both Jordan (1962) and Abo-
Zena (1977) have criticised the mathematical
detail of Heelan's solution, White (1983) noted
that when Abo-Zena re-worked the mathematics
then, in the far-field of the source, he produced a
solution identical to that of Heelan. Furthermore
White (1983) was able to reproduce Heelan's far-
field solution by using a completely different
approach based upon seismic reciprocity.
One of us (DB) has recently conducted a
detailed comparison of the Heelan and Abo-Zena
analytical solutions and finds that if the applied
borehole pressure function is of the form
P=Potne-bt (Po, n, b constants), then both far-
field solutions agree if the length of the elemental
charge approaches zero. In all the following
models b was set at 10,000 with the time
waveform having a sample interval of 25 µs.
Figure 2 (next page) shows the Abo-Zena
predictions for the contours of vector peak particle
velocity (vppv) surrounding a cylindrical element
of charge of diameter 0.2 m and length 0.2 m. In
the present study only pressure functions with n=6
are considered for both theories. All contour levels
in this study are given for the range 0.0 to 2.0 in
intervals of 0.2, and normalised to unity at the
point 5 m horizontally out from the centre of the
charge length. The material is assumed to have a
p-wave velocity, vp, of 5500 m/s, a Poisson's ratio,
ν, of 0.25 and a density ρ, of 2500 kg/m3. Unless
stated otherwise, all boundaries extend to infinity;
i.e. there are no reflections.
In this case of a 0.2 m charge length, there was
insignificant difference between the predictions of
the Heelan and Abo-Zena models. Thus only the
Abo-Zena analytical results are shown in this
study. The dominant vibration lobes at an angle of
45 degrees to the blasthole are due to the radiation
of the vertically polarised shear (SV) wave, and
the minor lobe along the horizontal axis is due to
the p-wave. It is pertinent to note that neither the
Holmberg-Persson nor traditional Seed Waveform
Models predict this dominant SV component.
Spherical wave radiation is implied by these
simple models, which means that the contour plot
of peak vibration would simply be represented as
concentric circles centred on the charge element.
The dynamic strains were then calculated from
the Abo-Zena displacements by evaluating the
appropriate displacement derivatives in the
cylindrical coordinate system (r, θ, z); in the
present case of axisymmetry εrr, εzz, εrz and εθθ
are the only non-zero components of strain.
In the present work, we have chosen to use two
particular strain parameters which do not depend
upon the rotation angle at any particular point in
the rock mass. These chosen parameters are the
absolute value of volumetric strain, ∆ , as
previously defined, and the maximum shear strain,
τm, defined as
τm = {εrz2 + (εrr -εzz)2 }1/2 (2.1)
The maximum shear strain is chosen because it is
often associated with the strength of materials
(Timoshenko and Goodier, 1971). It should be
appreciated that one of the main aims of this work
is to highlight the relationship between strain and
vibration in an elastic material; it is beyond the
present scope to investigate parameters (such as
the tensile failure stress) that might be more
relevant to rock damage.
Figure 3 shows contours of the peak volumetric
strain, and Figure 4 shows contours of the peak
value of the maximum shear strain.
A comparison of Figure 2 with Figures 3 and 4
clearly shows that the peak vibration is not
proportional to either the peak volumetric strain or
the peak maximum shear strain; this finding is not
unexpected since the charge element radiates non-
planar waves into the surrounding medium.
Figure 5 shows a DFEM solution for the vppv
surrounding the element of charge within the long,
otherwise empty, blasthole; Figure 6 shows the
DFEM solution for the peak volumetric strain and
Figure 7 shows the DFEM solution for the peak
maximum shear strain; all four boundaries are
non-reflecting.
There is a significant discrepancy between
DFEM and the analytical models for all regions
along the length of the blasthole lying within
approximately ten times the blasthole radius. This
is as expected since the analytical models are only
far-field solutions, valid for distances given by
R0/a > 10 and R/dh > 10; where R0 is the
horizontal distance from the axis of symmetry, a is
the charge radius, and dh the element length
(Figure 1). However, it must be emphasised that
this condition is not too restrictive for a single
element of charge having dh = 0.2 m, since in the
present case the analytical models only fail within
2 m or so from the charge column. The large lobe
in the DFEM solution directly above the blasthole
is due to the wave travelling along the borehole.
However, due to the far-field approximations
implied by the analytical models, this wave is not
correctly modelled in either the Heelan or Abo-
Zena solutions.
However, it is quite obvious that all three
models (Heelan, Abo-Zena and DFEM) clearly
show that the radiation pattern maintains its non-
spherical characteristic for all distances into the
far-field. Hence all these models clearly predict
that waves radiating from a cylindrical blasthole
will not become planar, even in the very-far field;
they will always maintain their non-planar form.
This characteristic of cylindrical charges was
pointed out by Jordan (1960); it is also interesting
to note that Nicholls et al. (1971) arrived at the
same conclusion from an analysis of experimental
data.
3 THE VIBRATION PRODUCED BY A
COLUMN OF CHARGE
3.1 The case for infinite VOD
In order to model an extended charge a series of
Abo-Zena elements were stacked vertically with
the angles such as φ1 and φ2 (Figure 1) calculated
for each element. It was found that the solution for
a 5 m charge length gave acceptable convergence
for as little as 11 elements; however 41 elements
were used in the present study. The total horizontal
and vertical waveforms components of velocity
and appropriate strain were then summed for all
elements, and the vppv, volumetric and maximum
shear strains calculated for the total waveforms.
This technique produces a solution that is only far-
field in R0/a, and not R/L, where L is the total
length of the charge. This situation is different to
that of the Holmberg-Persson model, which is far-
field in R/L rather than R0/a
Figure 8 shows the Abo-Zena predictions of the
vppv surrounding a 5 m charge column, Figure 9
shows the peak volumetric strain and Figure 10
shows the peak maximum shear strain. As before,
all boundaries are non-reflecting.
Figures 11 to 13 show the equivalent DFEM
results for the 5 m charge column, and Figure 14
shows the vppv predictions for this charge length
based upon the Holmberg-Persson model of
equation (2.1). A direct comparison between
Figures 8, 11 and 14 clearly shows that the
Holmberg-Persson model does not predict the
realistic distribution of vibration due to a column
of charge, and the resulting patterns are too
simplistic in both the near-field and the far-field.
The Holmberg-Persson contours become circular
in the far-field of the column because in this
regime they are given by the simple charge weight
scaling law. Unfortunately, in the near-field, the
contours have no physical significance since they
are based upon a flawed model that is clearly non-
physical in this regime. Thus the Holmberg-
Persson model does not even supply a first order
approximation to either the near-field or far-field
radiation from a blasthole
3.2 The case for finite VOD
Abo-Zena (1977) gave a treatment accounting for
a finite VOD across the element; however his
treatment did not account for variation in the
angles such as φ1 and φ2 (Figure 1) and thus the
stacked elements are still required. In this case
each element is time delayed by dh/v0, where v0 is
the VOD. However, despite the discrete summing
of 41 elements, the VOD is essentially continuous
throughout the entire column due to the VOD
within each element which is internal to the Abo-
Zena solution. Figure 15 shows the analytical vppv
results for a base-initiated 5 m column having a
VOD of 5500 m/s; in this case the base was
located at (0,0).
Figure 16 shows the results for the peak
volumetric strain and Figure 17 shows the results
for the peak maximum shear strain.
Figure 18 shows the DFEM vppv results for the
5 m charge column, Figure 19 shows the DFEM
solution for the peak volumetric strain and Figure
20 shows the results for the peak maximum shear
strain. Again, in all cases the boundaries are non-
reflecting.
3.3 The influence of a free surface
It is a formidable problem (perhaps impossible)
to incorporate the influence of a free surface
within the analytical model; thus only DFEM
solutions are given. Figure 21 shows the vppv due
to a 5 m column of explosive whose top is 5 m
below a horizontal surface. Figure 22 shows the
results for peak volumetric strain and Figure 23
shows the results for the peak maximum shear
10
8
6
1
4
DISTANCE (m)
2
0
-2
-4 2
-6
-8
-10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 14: Contours of vppv surrounding a 5
m charge column — Holmberg-Persson
solution.
strain. 10
It is clear from Figures 21 to 23 that the free 1 1
surface has a complex and significant effect on the 8
1
vppv and strain especially in regions close to the 6
surface. From an analytical viewpoint, the
4
influence of a horizontal free surface is to double

DISTANCE (m)
all vertical velocities in a vertically-incident planar 2
p-wave. Thus it is not surprising that the non- 0
planar waves also have an increased vppv near the 2
free surface. However, these figures also show that -2
it is incorrect to account for the free surface by -4
simply doubling all values of vppv on the surface.
-6
Unfortunately, this invalid technique has found its
way into the blasting literature (see, for example, -8
Persson, 1995). It is also clear from these figures -10
that there is no simple relationship between strain -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
and velocity for the realistic situation of a DISTANCE (m)
blasthole close to a free surface. Fig. 21: Vppv — DFEM solution.
10
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
8
6
There is good agreement between the analytical
and DFEM far-field contours for the vppv in a 4
DISTANCE (m)

single element (Figures 2, 5), the vppv in an 2

extended column having infinite VOD (Figures 8,
11) and the vppv in a column with a finite VOD 0
(Figures 15, 18). However, the agreement between -2
2
1
the analytical and DFEM far-field contours for -4
volumetric or maximum shear strain is not as
good. The particle velocity is simply the time -6
derivative of the appropriate displacement, -8
whereas the strains are dependent upon spatial
-10
derivatives of the displacements. Thus any small -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
differences between analytical and DFEM DISTANCE (m)
displacements throughout the contour grid may Fig. 22: Peak volumetric strain — DFEM.
result in significant differences in respective
10
strains.
The present work clearly shows that the 8
Holmberg-Persson scaling model does not 6
correctly describe the blast vibration due to a
column of explosive. The major weaknesses of the 4
DISTANCE (m)

scaling model are that it does not correctly account 2

for the charge length or the radiation pattern in
0
either the near-field or the far-field of the charge.
-2 1
Although the Abo-Zena model gives a good 2
description of far-field vppv, and a reasonable -4
description of far-field strain, it is not as realistic
as the DFEM which correctly describes both the -6
near- and far-fields of the charge assuming elastic -8
theory. In this regard, all the DFEM contours show -10
that there is no simple relationship between strain -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
and vibration for an element of charge or an DISTANCE (m)
extended column of charge with or without a free Fig. 23: Peak maximum shear strain —
surface. In fact there is no similarity in either the DFEM.
contour shapes or the contour gradients.
The Seed Waveform model attempts to account These figures are for a 5 m charge column
for the near-field influence of charge length by whose top is 5 m below the surface, and
taking the elemental seed waveform measured whose VOD is 5500 m/s.
from a short length of charge and summing all
such elemental waveforms over the length of the
blasthole. However, the present study on the
radiation from an elemental charge clearly shows
that the shape and magnitude of this measured
seed will depend significantly upon the angles φ1
and φ2 (Figure 1) for which the measurement was
conducted. Both these angles change markedly
during any summation along the blasthole, and so
a seed taken at any one location within the
surrounding material cannot be used to represent
each element.
A suggested alternative is to use a modified
Seed Waveform approach in which only the radial
component of particle velocity is measured in the
far-field (greater than ten blasthole radii) along the
line R0 for an element of charge located at B (i.e.
φ2=0, Figure 1). Under this condition it can be
shown that the second derivative of the acting
pressure function, P, is directly proportional to the
measured radial velocity. The parameters n and b
of the present source function P=Potne-bt could
be adjusted so that its second derivative is a least-
squares fit to the onset shape of the measured
elemental vibration waveform. Matching the
measured peak of the radial velocity with the peak
of the predicted radial velocity (using the
determined values of n and b in either the
analytical or DFEM solutions for a single element)
would provide the required scaling factor. This
scaling factor could then be input to the model of a
full length hole. In this manner, it would be
possible to predict meaningful contours of vppv
and strain surrounding any blasthole.
Despite the present work it is by no means clear
which parameter is the best indicator of damage.
What is certain, however, is that typical iso-
velocity and iso-fragment diagrams which appear
in the literature (i.e. Holmberg and Persson, 1979;
Persson, 1990; Persson, 1995) are seriously in
error. In the present work, the maximum shear
strain was one of several parameters employed
because such a strain is often associated with the
strength of materials (Timoshenko and Goodier,
1971). However, it is also possible to argue that in
some regions of the rock mass the damage is
induced by tensile failure (i.e. reflection spalling at
a free surface), in other regions the damage is
induced by compressive failure (i.e. close to the
blasthole) and in yet other regions the damage
might be induced by excessive vibration. Here the
previous analogy of the smelter might be useful. If
any damage occurred at the top of a resonating
smelter then it would be vibration-induced, yet any
damage that occurred at the base would be strain-
induced. If D(R) is the damage at a distance R
from a blasthole, then a simple equation of the
form
D(R) = F1(R)*strain + F2(R)*vppv (3.1)
might well be a more meaningful measure of
damage than measures of either vppv or strain
alone. In this equation F1(R) and F2(R) are general
functions of distance but also chosen such that
D(R) is a dimensionless quantity. Furthermore,
F1(R) would need to be short range in R (i.e.
dominate near the blasthole), and F2(R) would
need to be sensitive to the location of free
surfaces, and thus be a dominant term in the
medium-to-far field of the blasthole.
REFERENCES
Abo-Zena, A.M. (1977). Radiation from a finite
cylindrical explosive source. Geophysics, 42, 1384-
1393.
Baird, G.R., Blair, D.P. and Jiang, J.J. (1992). Particle
motions on the surface of an elastic half-space due
to a vertical column of explosives. West Aust. Conf.
Mining Geomech., 367-374, Kalgoorlie, Australia.
Blair, D.P. (1990). Some problems associated with
standard charge weight vibration scaling laws. Third
Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 149-
158, Brisbane, Australia.
Blair, D.P. and Jiang, J.J. (1995). Surface vibrations
due to a vertical column of explosive. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci & Geomech. Abstr., 32, 149-154.
Heelan, P.A. (1953). Radiation from a cylindrical
source of finite length. Geophysics, 18, 685-696.
Holmberg, R. and Persson, P.A. (1979). Design of
tunnel perimeter blasthole patterns to prevent rock
damage. Proc. Tunnelling'79, 2870-283 (IMM,
London).
Jordan, D.W. (1962). The stress wave from a finite,
cylindrical explosive source. J. Math. Mech., 11,
503-551.
McKenzie, C.K., Scherpenisse, C.R., Arriagada, J. and
Jones, J.P. (1995). Application of computer assisted
modelling to final wall blast design. EXPLO'95,
285- 292, Brisbane, Australia.
Nicholls, H.R., Johnson, C.F. and Duvall, W.I. (1971).
Blasting vibrations and their effects on structures.
USBM Bull. 656, 105 pp.
Persson, P.A. (1990). Fragmentation mechanics, Third
Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 149-
158, Brisbane, Australia.
Persson, P.A. (1995). A new technique for predicting
rock fragmentation in blasting. EXPLO'95, 421-425,
Brisbane, Australia.
Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N. (1971).Theory of
elasticity. McGraw-Hill, Third Edition.
White, J.E. (1983). Underground Sound. Application
of seismic waves. Elsevier.
 10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
2 2
-4 -4
-6 -6 1
1
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 2: Vppv — analytical solution. Fig. 5: Vppv — DFEM solution.
10 10
8 8
6 6
1
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)
2 2
0 0
-2 -2 2
2 1
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 3: Peak volumetric strain— analytical. Fig. 6: Peak volumetric strain — DFEM.
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4 1
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)

2 1 2
0 0
-2 1 -2 2
-4 -4
2 1
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 4: Peak maximum shear strain— analytical. Fig. 7: Peak maximum shear strain — DFEM.

These figures show the specified contours surrounding a squat cylindrical element of charge
 10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)
2 2
0 0
-2 21 -2
-4 -4 12
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 8: Vppv — analytical solution. Fig. 11: Vppv — DFEM solution.
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)
1
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
2 21
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 9: Peak volumetric strain — analytical. Fig. 12: Peak volumetric strain — DFEM.
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)

2 2
1
0 1 0
-2 -2
2
-4 -4 2
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 10: Peak maximum shear strain — analytical. Fig. 13: Peak maximum shear strain — DFEM.

These figures show the specified contours surrounding a 5 m charge column having infinite VOD.
 10 10
8 8
6 1 6
2
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)
2 2
0 0
1 1 2
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 15: Vppv — analytical solution. Fig. 18: Vppv — DFEM solution.
10 10
8 8
1 2 1
6 6
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
2
1
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 16: Peak volumetric strain — analytical. Fig. 19: Peak volumetric strain — DFEM
10 10
8 8
6 2 1 6
4 4
DISTANCE (m)

DISTANCE (m)

2 2
0 0 1
1
-2 -2 2
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
10 -10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
Fig. 17: Peak maximum shear strain — analytical. Fig. 20: Peak maximum shear strain — DFEM.

These figures show the specified contours for a 5 m charge column having a VOD of 5500 m/s.

View publication stats