International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Prediction of ground vibration level induced by blasting at different

rock units
Reza Nateghi n
Sepasad Engineering Co, Technical Department of Uper Gotvand Dam, Khozestan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Blasting is generally inevitable for hard rock excavation. Vibrations, induced from blasting affect
Received 7 April 2010 adjacent and remote structures, as well as people in the neighborhood. This paper describes ground
Received in revised form motions induced by blasting near underground and surface concrete structures during the construction
15 February 2011
of upper Gotvand dam. Effects of different rock formations, different detonators and explosives are
Accepted 13 April 2011
analyzed. During underground and surface excavation, 498 ground motions, produces by 216 shots
were measured with Vibraloc vibration monitors. Scaled distance and peak particle velocity data pairs
Keywords: were carefully recorded and analyzed statistically. This analysis allowed the document of empirical
Blasting relationships between scale distance and peak particle velocity in different surface and underground
Ground vibration
regions. Finally, the particle and frequency values of further blast events were evaluated according to
Scale distance
the USBM (RI 8507) to validate the relation and predict the influence level to the neighboring concrete
ppv
Aghajari formation structures.
Bakhtiary formation & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction study were to measure the ground vibration induced by blasting

Construction activities and explosive materials induce ground
and structures vibration. The influence of construction vibrations
on surrounding buildings, sensitive devices and people in urban
environments is a significant consideration in obtaining project
approvals. Disruption of some business activities, possible struc-
tural damage and annoyed people are the problems that need to
be addressed [3]. The level of ground and structure vibrations
caused by construction work depends on the construction meth-
ods, soil and rock medium, heterogeneity of soil and rock deposit
at the site, distance from the source, characteristics of wave
propagation at a site, dynamic characteristics of soil and rocks,
response characteristics of fractures and susceptibility rating of
the structures [2]. Many of these parameters especially geological
and geotechnical condition of rocks cannot be altered however,
the quantity of explosive detonated per delay can be estimated
with empirical formule proposed that account for geological and
blast design. Therefore given the importance of geological factors
and blast data construction vibrations must be monitored at the
beginning of construction and continued during construction to
ensure serviceability of vulnerable structures. This paper presents
results of extensive measurements of ground motions during the
construction of Upper Gotvand dam. The main objectives of this
n
Tel.: þ98 3112289808; fax: þ98 612672 0033.
E-mail address: r.nateghi@gmail.com
during the construction of intake and waterway tunnels, power-
house, plunge pool and grouting galleries. These measurements
were undertaken to determine relationships between peak particle
velocity (PPV) and square root scaled distance (SD), to predict PPV
and to estimate dominant frequency. Both PPV and dominant
frequency are necessary to determine the response of the neighbor-
ing buildings and structures in different geological formations [16].
Because of excavated materials used as the rock fill stuff, which
must be in the specific range, usually explosive materials, detona-
tors and blasting patterns (hole diameter, burden, spacing, stem-
ming, etc.) were unique in underground and surface excavations,
so geology was a significant parameter in ground vibration
difference [8].
2. Scale distance as a common formula
The literature search revealed a plethora of papers on blasting
physics and measurement techniques, many of which correlate
structural damage to peak particle velocity. Seismic waves die out
or decay with distance in a fairly regular manner, which makes
them predictable with the acceptable accuracy and allow restric-
tion on blasting vibrations to be regulated either by means of
mathematical expressions. Because the particle velocity is less
sensitive to change in geological conditions than acceleration or
displacement, hence is more consistence and predictable when
relating blast size and distance, with the scaled distance.

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.04.014
900 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908

Scaled distance is a normalized factor that combines distance effects of both relief during blasting and geology. Both constant
with the explosives energy to give a single number, which we can can be determined by regression analysis [7,5,6,1,15].
be plot on a graph or use easily in calculation [8]. Scaled distance
is calculated by dividing distance to the structure of concern by
the square or cube root of the weight of explosive material used in 3. Existing vibration standard and criteria to prevent damage
the blast [9]. Scaled distance concept can be used to predict the
maximum peak particle velocity, PPV, from an explosive charge, Peak particle velocity measured on the ground adjacent to the
Q, at a known distance R. Equation for a cylindrical charge is structure of concrete has been traditionally used in practice for the
measurement of blast damage to structures. Some of the suggested
V ¼ KðSDÞb , where SD ¼ DQ 1=2 ð1Þ damage criteria that are based solely on the peak particle velocity
(PPV mm/s) are listed in Table 1. These recommendations are based
where V is the peak particles velocity (mm/s), Q is the maximum
on experience and observation of cracking in residential structures.
charge per delay (kg), D the distance between blast face to
Table 2 presents PPV limit for cracking of concrete that based on
vibration monitoring point (m), K and b are factors that include
concrete age and distance. As seen in these tables, there is a
common agreement that a peak particle velocity of less than
Table 1 50 mm/Section (2 in/s) would have low probability of cracking in
Some of suggested damage criteria [13,14]. residential buildings. For commercial and engineered structures,
Wiss [18] suggested to use a conservative limit of 100 mm/s.
Predictor Effects and Maximum
damage Allowable PPV
(mm/s)
4. Site descriptions
Longefors et al. [10] No damage o 50
Fine crack 100
This study took place during construction of Gotvand dam,
Cracks 150
Serious cracks 225 located in Zagros Mountains in the south-west of Iran. The 178 m
height and 730 m length embankment dam, which regulates the
Edwards and Northwood [11] Safe zone o 50
Damage zone 100–150
water of the Karun River, also serves power generation, flood
control and irrigation needs.
Duvall and Fogelson [7] Major damage (95%) 50

Nicholls et al. [12] Safe zone (95%) 450

Damage zone o 50 5. Geology of the project area
Indian standard institution Soil, weathered or soft rock 70
Hard rock conditions 100 As seen in Fig. 1, basic concrete structures (intake, waterway
tunnels, surge tanks, spillway, plunge pool and powerhouses) of
the dam were constructed in the left abutment, which consists of
two formations: Bakhtiary (BK) and Aghajari (AJ) (Fig. 2).
Table 2 The BK formation is composed of conglomerate, cherty lime-
Vibration limit for freshly concrete [17]. stone and interbedded mudstones and sandstone. The conglom-
Age of concrete (h) Peak particle velocity
erate mainly consists of limestone pebbles but it also contains a
significant amount of fragments. This formation is of upper
Up to 3 102 mm/s (4 in/s) Pliocene age that overlies the Aghajari formation [20].
3–11 38 mm/s (1.5 in/s) The AJ formation contains 2 to 5 m thick layers of gray and
11–24 51 mm/s (2 in/s)
greenish gray sandstones, interbeded claystone, siltstone and
24–48 102 mm/s (4 in/s)
Over of 48 178 mm/s (7 in/s) brow reddish marlstone. More resistant than the fine-grained,
the sandstone usually forms topographic heights and steep

Fig. 1. Upper Gotvand dam and HEPP.

 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908 901

benches alternating with gentler slopes corresponding to the
softer interbeds. The sandstones of the AJ formation are composed
of the well-rounded siliceous-limy grains with approx. 70% lime
and 30% quartz. The AJ formation, of late Miocene to lower
Pliocene age, overlies the Mishan formation [19]. Geotechnical
properties of the intact rocks are described in Table 3.
6. Test procedure
Drilling and blasting were selected as the excavation method
for underground and surface excavation from the beginning of the
project. During latter years to reach the time schedule for filling
the reservoir Different activities (formwork and concreting,
grouting and excavation) were conducted adjacent to each other.
To minimize negative effects of blast excavation, ground motions
were monitored during blasting with three vibration monitors
near main concrete structures. Distances between shot points and
monitoring stations were determined by survey equipment. The
scaled distances are derived from the combination of distances
between source and measurement points and maximum charge
per delay and were used to determine dynamic site factors (K&B).
These relations were then employed for designing blasting
patterns near these structures. In addition the frequency content
was also measured for comparison with the USBM (RI 8507)
standard for cracking of weak wall covering.
7. Blast monitoring equipment
Three Vibroloc blasting seismographs and analysis software
were used in this study. Vibraloc is a complete and easy to use
waveform Blast vibration monitor with an integrated tri-axial
geophone and air blast system. The blasting analysis software
provided features for graphical output of the wave forms in each
of the three axes and comparison between measured peak
particle velocities and frequency content with various accepted
standards developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and others. Each
transducer measured velocities on three mutually perpendicular
axes (Vx, Vy, Vz) corresponding to a radial, transverse, and vertical
component. All three seismographs were used in a line with
different distant for each blast and as shown in Fig. 3, a three
sharp pins and wall attachment device was used to coupling of
the instrument to the ground or concrete lining [4].
8. Statistical analysis of measured results
8.1. Power house excavation
Powerhouse structures are nearly located in 1 km distance
from the south-west of dam body. It is approximately 350 m in
length and 250 m in width. The extension was excavated during
construction of the main powerhouse and installation of hydro
mechanical equipments. Therefore these blasting required extra
caution because of the existing building. Field observations and
exploratory drilling showed the powerhouse to be excavated in
the AJ formation, which consists of sequence 0.2–1.5 m layers of
sandstone, clay and siltstone as shown in Fig. 5. ANFO and non-
electric detonators were used for more excavation but for excava-
tion under water level dynamite and emulsion type explosive and
electric detonators were used. Blasting patterns often consist of
45 holes in three rows with 8 m length and 76 mm diameter and

Fig. 2. Geology of the project area [19]. Fig. 3. Wall and ground attachment device.

Table 3
Summary results of laboratory testing: geo-mechanical properties [21].

Rock formation Rock type UCS Tensile Dry Young’s Porosity Wave velocity
(MPa) strength density modulus (GPa) (%)
(MPa) (g/cm3)
Vp Vs

Aghajari Claystone 16 1.9 2.31 2.28 19.5 1270–2800 820–2330

Siltstone 16.1 1.95 2.30 2.6 16.4 1800–2800 1520–2280
Sandstone 41.9 3.2 2.49 11.2 2.1 3960–4480 2560–2780

Bakhtiary Mudstone 25.2 2.5 2.22 4.95 18.7

Sandstone 15.6 2 2.1 12.3 2180 1530
Conglomerate 25.8 2.8 2.48 13.6 7.5 2620–5000 1800
902 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908

Fig. 4. Powerhouse (usually surface) blasting pattern.

Fig. 5. Statistical regression of recorded data from bench blasting in Powerhouse.

Fig. 6. Statistical regression of recorded data from bench blasting in plunge pool.
 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908 903

2.5 m burden and 3 m spacing array (Fig. 4). Some 130 events
from 52 blasts were recorded and statistical analysis was applied
to blast vibration data pairs, peak particle velocity and scaled
distance to specific velocity attenuation equation and dynamic
site factors. Fig. 5 shows the curve of regression analysis and
respective parameters in this region.
rectangle shape tunnel with the height of 17.3 m and a vertical
shaft (Fig. 7). These structures are located in Bakhtiary formation
that consists of thin layers of conglomerate with thin interbeded
layers of mudstone. To reach the scheduled time for filling of the
dam, rectangle tunnels and vertical shafts were excavated first.

8.2. Plunge Pool

The plunge pool is located downstream of dam in front of the

spillway. Geology is the same as powerhouse, (AJ formation);
however the thickness of sandstone and claystone layers is
greater in comparison to the powerhouse rocks. Excavation was
simultaneous with concreting and formwork of different parts of
spillway. To eliminate negative effects of ground vibration on
concrete of spillway also near blasting, vibrations were monitored
during production. Fig. 6 shows the simple regression analysis of
records and dynamic site factors in this region. ANFO and non-
electric detonators were used for excavation. Blasting patterns
were similar to power house.

8.3. Intake of waterway system

This part is located in upstream of dam body in entrance

of waterway system as shown in Fig. 1. Each tunnel consists of
a bugle shaped tunnel with the height of 30 m at start and Fig. 9. Blasting pattern in waterway tunnels.

Fig. 7. excavation near concreting and formwork.

Fig. 8. Statistical regression of recorded data from bench blasting in intake.

904 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908

Then during concreting of these parts the bugle shapes monitored. For increasing accuracy of scale distance and regres-
were excavated by head and bench blasting from entrance of sion analysis only ANFO and non-electric detonators were used
tunnels. Because ultimate parts of bugle shape tunnels were for excavation. Fig. 8 shows regression analysis and dynamic site
excavated very close to concrete lining, primary blasts were factors in this region.

Fig. 10. Statistical regression of recorded data from underground blasting in Waterway.

Fig. 11. Particle velocity versus frequency values in USBM standard (Powerhouse).
R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908 905

Fig. 12. Particle velocity versus frequency values in USBM standard (Plunge Pool).

Fig. 13. Particle velocity versus frequency values in USBM standard (Intake).
906 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908

9. Waterway tunnels vibrations have greater potential for damage than high-frequency
vibrations for a certain velocity. In order to predict the influence
As watch the intake structures, the waterway tunnels are of the PPV level on the neighboring structures, the peak particle
located in Bakhtiary formation. However interbeded of mudstone
layers are thicker in comparison to the rock mass. The extended Table 4
plant waterway tunnels were excavated of the simultaneous with Summary of the results of the regression analysis.
concreting of basic plant, so care was require. All blasts were done
Location Formation Blasting type Equation R value
with electric detonators and one scale combination of dynamite
and emulsion and uniform pattern in head and bench blasting. Power house Aghajari Bench blasting PPV ¼ 169.5 SD  0.869 64.7
As shown in Fig. 9, blasting pattern consist of 116 holes in V-cut Plunge pool Aghajari Bench blasting PPV ¼ 660.7 SD  1.71 79.8
array with 3 m length and 54 mm diameter holes that explode Intake Bakhtiary Bench blasting PPV ¼ 346.7 SD  1.63 81.3
with 11 electric delay detonators. PPV versus SD relation and Waterway Bakhtiary V-Cut PPV ¼ 416.8 SD  0.955 53.4

dynamic factors of rock type are shown in Fig. 10.

10. Damage risk evaluation of the shots

Dynamic loads transmitted to the ground change in a wide range

of frequency content and intensity between 3 and 100 Hz [12].
In general, frequencies of ground vibrations from dynamic waves
may affect adjacent and remote structures in two different ways [3].
Structure vibrations: Vibrations may produce direct damage to
structures when excitation frequencies of ground vibrations do
not match natural frequencies of structures.
Resonance condition: The proximity of the frequency of ground
vibrations to one of the building’s natural frequencies may
generate the condition of resonance in the building
Because of the natural frequencies of the structures of small
scale concrete building in site are below 10 Hz, low-frequency Fig. 15. Particle velocity versus SD values in Aghajari and Bakhtiary formations.

Fig. 14. Particle velocity versus frequency values in USBM standard (Waterway).
 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908 907

velocity and frequency values of all blast events are evaluated
according to the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) with the
safety factor about 1.5. The graphs of measured maximum
particle velocity versus frequency values of some events at USBM
are given in Figs. 11–14. These time history records show that the
PPV values of the recorded events did not exceed damage limits of
USBM. Some of the PPV values recorded at the underground
excavation were higher than predicted values, so for underground
blasts near concrete lining blasting patterns were designed with
safety factor 3. However, as can be seen in Figs. 11–14 almost all
dominant vibration frequencies in all blasts are higher than 20 HZ
for this site, and no damage risks caused by low-frequency and
resonance condition have been observed.
11. Summary
This paper presents some guidelines for preconstruction sur-
vey, prediction, measurement, analysis and control of structure
vibrations generated by blasting activities at a site. Within the
scope of this study, at the large number of measurements from
different blasting material and detonators in different rock
formation at upper Gotvand dam were employed to develop the
attenuation relations. These relations for the four regions com-
pared in Table 4.
Fig. 15 compares the expected value and attenuation relations
in two basic formations. As seen in this figure for Aghajari
formation the dynamic site factors K and b changes respectively
between 170–660 and 0.87–1.71. Because of blasting patterns and
explosive material and device (detonators, exploder, etc.) were
unique in measured blasts, these variations are the outcome of
changes of thickness and dip of layers, aperture of major joints
and bedding and less related to explosive parameters. But for
Bakhtiary conglomerate difference between two relations mainly
refers to inexistence of prefer free face in underground excavation
in comparison with bench blasting. Predicted rock dynamic
factors (K and b) in Bakhtiary conglomerate are about 350 and
1.63 from bench blasting and 420 and 0.955 from underground
excavations.
12. Results
It is important to assess the dynamic effect before the begin-
ning of construction activities and at the time of construction.
Therefore monitoring construction vibrations have to be started
prior to the beginning of construction work at a site and be
continued during construction to provide the safety and service-
ability of sound and vulnerable structures.
The measurement of ground vibration induced by blasting is
significantly important in controlling and eliminating of blast
damages to structures. Since the particle velocity is still one of the
most important grounds vibration predictors for regulating the blast
design, an empirical relationship with good correlation has been
established between peak particle velocity and scaled distance.
Based on the vibration tests done in Aghajari formation,
constant dynamic factors of the rock mass which are related to
vibration velocity, are changed between 170–660 and 0.87–1.71.
Based on the vibration tests done in Bakhtiary conglomerate,
constant dynamic factors of the rock mass, which are related to
vibration velocity, are changed between 350–420 and 1.63–0.955.
As a result of this vibration test in Bakhtiary conglomerate
rocks, ground vibration induced by underground blasting is at
least three times more than vibration induced by bench blasting
in the same rock.
Vibration frequency in all blasts is higher than 20 Hz for this
site so there is no potential for damage risk caused by resonance
from blasting waves and self-structural frequencies of structures.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Iran water and power resources
development co and Sepasad engineering co. The author would like
to thank for financial support for carrying out this research work.
Appendix
See Table A1 for details.

Table A1

VIBRATION MONITORING REPORT

Project: UPPER GOTVAND RESERVOIR DAM AND H.P.P. PROJECT

Location: Intake- Plunge pool- Waterway- Power house
Results Vibration Concrete age Explosive Distance Date and time Exact seismograph Test no.
(mm/s) limit weight (m) location
(kg/delay)

3.79 102 Under construction 20 156 Thr 4 Mar 2010 12:26:03 Waterway T4 559 1
6.21 102 Under construction 20 109 Thr 4 Mar 2010 12:26:03 Waterway T4 569

1.36 102 Under construction 18 190 Mon 8 Mar 2010 12:36:09 Waterway T4 559 2

2.61 178 Over than 48 h 18 183 Tue 9 Mar 2010 05:38:53 Waterway T4 559 3

1.86 178 Over than 48 h 18 111.3 Wed 14 Apr 2010 13:37:41 Waterway T4 559 4
5.98 178 Over than 48 h 18 95 Wed 14 Apr 2010 13:37:41 Waterway T4 569

23.82 178 Over than 48 h 20 95 Mon 10 May 2010 13:39:05 Plunge Pool 569 5
20.16 178 Over than 48 h 20 71 Mon 10 May 2010 13:39:05 Plunge Pool 574

1.22 178 13 h 27 138 Wed 19 May 2010 13:33:03 Plunge Pool 559 6
1.44 51 13 h 27 154 Wed 19 May 2010 13:33:03 Plunge Pool 569
1.30 51 13 h 27 149 Wed 19 May 2010 13:33:03 Plunge Pool 574

12.69 178 Over than 48 h 40 164 Fri 7 May 2010 06:24:03 Plunge Pool 559 7
908 R. Nateghi / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 899–908

Table A1 (continued )

VIBRATION MONITORING REPORT

Project: UPPER GOTVAND RESERVOIR DAM AND H.P.P. PROJECT

Location: Intake- Plunge pool- Waterway- Power house
Results Vibration Concrete age Explosive Distance Date and time Exact seismograph Test no.
(mm/s) limit weight (m) location
(kg/delay)

7.72 178 Over than 48 h 40 163 Tue 18 May 2010 13:11:36 Plunge Pool 569

9.01 51 24 h 30 58 Tue 18 May 2010 06:02:15 Plunge Pool 559 8

19.47 51 24 h 30 56 Tue 18 May 2010 06:02:15 Plunge Pool 569

8.76 178 Over than 48 h 38 80 Sun 9 May 2010 18:49:27 Powerhouse 559 9
32.63 178 Over than 48 h 38 38 Sun 9 May 2010 18:49:27 Powerhouse 569
27.74 178 Over than 48h 38 55 Sun 9 May 2010 18:49:27 Powerhouse 574

9.14 178 Over than 48 h 36.5 38.6 Wed 31 Mar 2010 01:46:42 Powerhouse 559 10
13.43 178 Over than 48 h 36.5 38.3 Wed 31 Mar 2010 01:46:42 Powerhouse 569

7.31 178 Over than 48 h 28 38.6 Sat 1 7 Apr 2010 13:39:12 Powerhouse 559 11
14.66 178 Over than 48 h 28 38.3 Sat 1 7 Apr 2010 13:39:12 Powerhouse 569

18.04 178 Over than 48 h 9 26 Sat 20 Feb 2010 16:29:37 Intake 559 12
23.55 178 Over than 48 h 9 18.5 Sat 20 Feb 2010 16:29:37 Intake 569

36.14 178 Over than 48 h 15 20 Sun 7 Mar 2010 12:41:13 Intake 559 13
23.25 178 Over than 48 h 15 13 Sun 7 Mar 2010 12:41:13 Intake 569

4.12 32 4h 7 60 Tue 9 Mar 2010 12:40:14 Intake 559 14

10.65 32 4h 7 26 Tue 9 Mar 2010 12:40:14 Intake 569

References
[1] Ozer U. Environmental impacts of ground vibration induced by blasting at
different rock units on the Kadikoy–Kartal metro tunnel. Eng Geol 2008;100:
82–90.
[2] Olofsson S. Applied explosive technology for construction and mining.
APPLEX, 1998.
[3] Svinkin M. Minimizing construction vibration effects. Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction ASCE 2004:08–115.
[4] Nateghi R, Kiyani M, Gholipour O. Control negative effects of blasting waves
on concrete of the structures by analyzing of parameters of ground vibration.
Tunnel Undergr Space Tech 2009;24:608–16.
[5] Brinkmanm JR. The control of ground vibration from colliery blasting during the
undermining of residential area. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 1987;87:53–61.
[6] Khandelwal M, Singh T. Evaluation of blast-induced ground vibration pre-
dictors. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2007;27:116–25.
[7] Duvall WI, Fogelson DE. Review of criteria for estimating damage to
residences from blasting vibration. US Bur Mines 1962;5968(RL):19.
[8] Oriard LL. Explosives Engineering, construction vibrations and geotechnol-
ogy. Int Soc Explos 2002.
[9] Ambrasys NR, Hendron AJ. Dynamic Behavior of Rock Masses. London:
Wiley; 1968 pp 203–207.
[10] Langefors U, Kihlstrom B, Westerberg H. Ground vibration in blasting. Water
Power 1958;part I–III:335–8. 390–395, 421–424.
[11] Edwards AT, Northwood TD. Experimental study of effects of blasting on
structures. The Eng 1960;210:40.
[12] Nicholls HR, Johnson CF, Duvall WI. Blasting vibrations and their effects on
structures. US Bur Mines 1971;656(R.I):105.
[13] Indian Standard. Criteria for Safety and Design of Structures Subjected to
Underground Blast. lSI Bull No 15-6922, India, 1973.
[14] Pal Roy P. Rock Blasting Effects and Operations. Rotterdam: Balkema; 2005.
[15] Sivarajan V. Kumara KLDS, Hearath HMSD, Nanayakare NWP. Ground vibra-
tion and air blast overpressure assessment using scaled distance. Proc ERE
2007:33–6.
[16] Siskind D. Structural Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration
from Blasting. US Bur Mines 1980(RI):8507.
[17] Hershiser AJ, Desai AJ. Shock vibration effects on freshly placed concrete.
ASCE J Constr Eng Manag 1984;110:266–85.
[18] Wiss JF. Effect of blasting vibrations on buildings and people. Civ Eng ASCE
1968:46–8.
[19] Moshanir, CAITEC, 1997. Upper Gotvand Hydroelectric Power Project, Feasa-
bility Study, Appendix 4, Civil Design of Project, December 1997.
[20] Geology of the project area: Upper Gotvand Dam & HEPP, 2005. Rev A, Mahab
Ghodss/coyneet bellier.
[21] Geotechnical characteristics of the dam foundation, 2004. Rev A, Mahab
Ghodss/coyneet bellier.