Fragblast 2001, Vol. 5, No. 1-2, pp.

108-129

1385-514x/01 /0501 -108$ 16.00 Swets & Zeitlinger

The Influence of Burden on Blast Vibration

D.P. BLAIR1'2 and L.W. ARMSTRONG1

ABSTRACT
There is a common belief within the blasting community that increasing the burden will increase the blast vibration. In order to test this belief in a direct sense, it would be desirable to fire single blastholes with various burdens and monitor the vibrations at many locations. A review of past literature indicates that such direct tests are rare and only scant data is available. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of this and associated past work (on small-scale blocks and choke blasts) shows no convincing evidence of an influence of burden on blast vibration. On the other hand, by considering the role of reflected waves in a simple analytical model, reasoning is given to show that the vibration might well be insensitive to burden. In view of the scant data available, it was decided to conduct trials of a direct nature, in which 13 single blastholes were fired to a free face. The burdens chosen were 2.6 m, 5.2 m and 10.4 m, and the vibration was measured at typically 10 locations over the range 5 m to 50 m from each hole. The results clearly show that the vibration is independent of such burdens. Furthermore, a side-by-side comparison of a choke blast with a free-face blast showed that the vibration from the holes in the choke blast was not higher than the vibration from the holes in the free-face blast. The present work also shows that vibration, although insensitive to burden, is not insensitive to the condition (i.e., the degree of damage) of the surrounding rock mass. In this regard, blastholes in undamaged ground produce a significantly higher vibration than blastholes in damaged ground. This might well be the reason why pre splits and drop-cuts are observed to produce relatively high vibrations, i.e., it is not because such blasts typically involve large burdens, but rather that they are usually initiated in relatively undamaged ground. Keywords: Blast vibration, burden, damage, PPV.

INTRODUCTION

In many mining operations, it is desirable to blast leaving broken material (from the previous blast) lying in front of the rock face. Such choke blasting
^ r i c a Australia Pty. Ltd., George Booth Drive, Kurd Kurri, NSW Australia. Corresponding author: Tel.: 61 2 4939 5200; Fax: 61 2 4939 5299; E-mail: dane.blair@orica.com

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

109

has three main advantages. Firstly, this extra burden restricts horizontal face movement and so minimally disturbs ore-waste boundaries in grade control blasting. Secondly, it improves mine scheduling (and hence productivity) since broken material does not have to be removed prior to each blast. Thirdly, the broken material against the face helps to reduce face bursts which, in turn, helps to reduce excessive airblast. However, because any choke blast is fired with a burden significantly larger than that of an equivalent free-face blast, there is a common belief that choke blasting will produce excessive vibration (see, for example [1-3]. It is thus worthwhile reviewing available data regarding the influence of burden (either broken or solid material) on blast vibration. In this investigation the burden is assumed to be solid unless stated otherwise (as in choke blasts). Liu and Ludwig [4] measured the blast vibration for a series of charge weights, distances and burdens. Their tabulated raw data is plotted in Figure 1 as a function of the traditional scaled distance d/y/W, where d is the distance (in m) from the monitor to the blasthole, and W the explosive charge weight (in kg). The burden (in m) is shown beside each VPPV value.
900 800 700 600
VPPVi(mm/s
2.0

2.3

'

3.0 2.4

500 400
300 2.4

2.4

2.4 0.5

200 100

2.0

0 0

2 3 SCALED DISTANCE (m/kg/2)

Fig. 1. The raw experiment data of Liu and Ludwig [4] plotted as a function of scaled distance. The burden (in m) is shown for each data point.

110

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

There is obviously a significant amount of scatter in the data and this alone suggests that caution must be exercised in attempting to extract a correlation between any variables. In this regard, the raw data show no con-vincing evidence of an influence of burden. Nevertheless, because of the common belief, Liu and Ludwig [4] assumed a dependence of burden on vibration within their 4-parameter model that was used to fit a scant data set of 9 observed values. Thus their resulting claim that vibration depends upon burden must be viewed with great caution. Figure 2 shows the VPPV measured by Blair and Birney [5] for the monitoring of single blastholes, with burdens of either 6 m or 3 m, fired 900 m below the surface vibration detectors. It is quite obvious that this data for underground blasting also shows no convincing evidence of a dependence of vibration on burden. Figure 3 shows the data measured by Bergmann et al. [6] for blasting in small blocks of granite. Pressure gauges (rather than geophones or accelerometers) were used to measure the induced vibration, and so the results are given in terms of the gauge pressure (in MPa). The solid curve is the traditional least

1.2 r

o o

6 m BURDEN 3 m BURDEN

1 -

0.8

>
OH

> 0.6

o
0.4 -

o
1 1 i 1 1

0.2

50

55

60 65 SCALED DISTANCE (m/kg/2)

70

75

Fig. 2. The VPPV data of Blair and Birney [5] versus scaled distance.

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

111

120r 10080
00

0.11

60

40 0.38 20

0.46
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1/2

2.5

SCALED DISTANCE (m/kg )

Fig. 3. The raw experiment data of Bergmann et al. [6]. The burden (in m) is shown for each data point.

squares power curve fit to the data. Again, in this case there is no convincing evidence of an effect of burden on blast vibration (gauge pressure, in this case). Unfortunately, these authors, too, assumed a burden dependence and incorporated this effect into a rather questionable 9-parameter model. Incidentally, it was this model that also predicted the much-touted claim that an optimum velocity of detonation (VoD) for an explosive is 1.3 times the rock sonic velocity, and so this added claim must also be viewed with great caution. As it stands, the most common sense interpretation of Figure 3 is that all the data may be fit by the usual power curve (the solid line), irrespective of burden. Heilig et al. [7] monitored a series of blasts in a quarry in which the face was either free or confined by a muckpile. Figure 4 shows their data plotted over the same range in scaled distances. Their original data for the confined blasts covered a scaled distance that was approximately twice that of the unconfined blasts, and it is statistically unwise to compare data sets over vastly different regimes. The large amount of scatter in the data is quite evident, and raises the question regarding the significance to be placed on the fact that the regression line for the confined blasts lies above that for the unconfined blasts as shown in Heilig et al. [7] The data is shown in Figure 4 for similar ranges of scaled distance.

112

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

Davies and Goldsmith [8] outline a series of Hypotheses testing that can be used in multiple linear regression. When their statistical method is applied to the data of Figure 4, the conclusion is that all the data is bestfitby a singleline. In other words there is no significant difference in the separate regression lines for the free-face and confined blasts. Incidentally, the same conclusion results even if all the data for the confined blasts are used in the statistical analysis. An alternative method of analysing the data is to plot the 95% confidence bounds on the mean vibration for any scaled distance using the statistical method outlined in Draper and Smith [9]. These confidence bounds are shown in Figure 4, and it is quite clear that, for all scaled distances, the 95% confidence region for the mean vibration produced by the confined blasts significantly overlaps that for the unconfined blasts. This finding, alone, suggests that the data of Heilig et al. [7] show no convincing evidence that confined blasts produce vibrations different to those from unconfined blasts. Despite a detailed literature review, we have been unable to locate the original reasoning behind the claim that increased burden results in increased vibration. The experimental evidence reviewed above certainly does not seem

<>

OH OH

>

o o
-0.5

FREE FACE CONFINED MEAN BOUNDS, FREE MEAN BOUNDS, CONFINED

I I

-1 1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7 1.8 1.9 2 LOG]0 (SCALED DISTANCE)

2.1

2.2

Fig. 4. The data of Heilig et al. [7] plotted over similar ranges. The lines show the 95% confidence bounds on the mean.

'h

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

113

to support it. Perhaps this claim is based, in part, on the perceived role of confined explosive gases, and if so, would require clear experimental evidence for support. Perhaps the claim is also based upon a perception.that the explosive in an over-burdened blasthole, since it cannot move material forward, will back-react to produce a large vibration in the opposite direction. This perception warrants further investigation. At first glance, it might appear akin to Newton's Third Law of Motion-to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. However, the blasthole does not 'know' the extent of the burden until a wave has travelled out to the face and then returned. Thus there is a time delay between the action of the blasthole and its reaction off the face. In this regard (and neglecting any role of explosive gases) the influence of burden on blast vibrations must be analysed from a viewpoint of travelling waves. The situation is illustrated by the two-wave system shown in Figure 5; the monitoring line will be referenced in the modelling section. The blasthole (HI, say) on the left is located a distance b (burden) from the free face (shown as the solid line). The blasthole (H2, say) on the right has an infinite burden, with a fictitious line (shown dashed) placed at b just to emphasise the only difference between both holes in ideal, identical geology. There is just one wave system (which may include various types such as pwaves, and s-waves) radiating from H2, and we may call it the direct wave. However, there are two wave systems associated with HI: the direct wave system and the reflected wave system. It is very important to note that the only difference between HI and H2 is the reflected wave system, since the direct wave system is identical for both blastholes.

reflected wave system

direct wave system monitoring line

direct wave system

Fig. 5. The two-wave system for the influence of burden (b) on blast vibration.

114

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

Thus the simple model of Figure 5 immediately suggests that if the reflected wave can be eliminated by some means, then blast vibration is completely independent of burden. In any real situation there are at least four reasons to suspect that the reflected wave might not be significant. Firstly, the most dominant reflection would only occur for plane waves normally incident on a planar free face. However, due to the three-dimensional geometry and the finite velocity of detonation (VoD) of the explosive, an essentially conical wave hits the face at non-normal incidence. In fact, a three-dimensional Dynamic Finite Element Model (DFEM) of this situation has verified the weak nature of the reflected wave. Secondly, the direct wave travelling towards the free face encounters ground that is usually more damaged than ground at an equal distance behind the blasthole. Thirdly, this wave is then incident on a ragged (non-planar) face that will promote incoherent back-scattering of the energy rather than simple reflection. Fourthly, this back-scattered wave now travels back to the blasthole and beyond through ground even more damaged by the direct wave. The fact that previous experimental data shows little evidence for a burden influence on blast vibration might well be due to one or more of these mechanisms. Although the role of wave reflection from a smooth surface can be reasonably modelled, it is more difficult to model other influences such as back-scattering from a ragged face and wave propagation through variously damaged material. Furthermore, there may also be some role played by the confined explosive gases. The combined influence of all these mechanisms is best determined experimentally. Thus there are three main aims of the present work. Firstly, to analytically evaluate the influence of burden on blast vibration using a simple model that ignores any role of explosive gases. Secondly, and most importantly, to measure directly, the influence of burden on blast vibration by firing a series of single blastholes at various distances to free faces. Thirdly, to compare the vibrations from a free-face blast with a choked blast.

A SIMPLE MODEL FOR THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

One of us (DPB) is currently completing a series of models to yield fast analytical solutions for the vibration produced from an explosive source located near free faces. The source is either spherical [10] or cylindrical with a

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

115

finite VoD [11], and fired near one or two faces. The wave mode conversion upon reflection at each boundary is accomplished by a modified method of images. Material attenuation (viscoelasticity) is also modelled approximately, and non-linearity is built-in at the elemental level for the cylindrical blasthole model. Only the spherical source model is considered here, and only for vibrations detected along the monitoring line shown in Figure 5. Since the source produces only p-waves, then only p-waves will be reflected for all locations along this monitoring line (for locations off this line, the incident p-waves could also produce reflected s-waves via mode conversion). Figure 6 shows an example of the two pressure-time functions, PI and P2, used in the present model, and either function is applied to the wall of the spherical cavity. The function PI (heavy line) is given by /*exp(-otf),m which t is time and a is a constant (=10,000 s" 1 here, for the time, t, in s). The function P2 (light line) is given by an 8th order band-pass Butterworth response over the range 400 Hz to 800 Hz. The function PI has been expanded in time by a factor of 20 (its actual time duration is approximately 0.1 ms rather than 2.0 ms) in order to show its detail. The spherical cavity response to PI has been derived by Jiang et al. [12, 13] in a scale-independent form, and their equations have been re-cast for the

Heavy line- t*exp(-oct) function (PI) Light line - Butterworth function (P2)

10 TIME (ms) Fig. 6. The two pressure-time functions used in the spherical source model. The time scale for PI has been expanded by a factor of 20.

116

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

1.8

DASHED LINE - ELASTIC CASE

1.6 w

< 1.4
Pi

1.2

0.5

1.5 2 2.5 BURDEN (m)

3.5

Fig. 7. The vibration as a function of burden in materials of varying attenuation (I/Q) The monitor is placed 50m from the spherical source, SI.

present specific case. White [14] has given the spherical cavity response to a Heaviside unit step function, and so the response to P2 is obtained by first differentiating White's solution (with respect to time) and then convolving this with P2. These particular pressure-time functions are used since the first (PI) has a traditional history of application, and the second (P2) produces a reasonable degree of oscillatory response and so allows the possibility of constructive and destructive interference of the direct wave with the reflected wave. Figure 7 shows the influence of burden, b, on the peak vibration produced by a spherical source (SI) for an applied load given by PI. The detector is located 50 m from the source and along the monitoring line (Fig. 5). In the present models, the peak vibration is defined as the peak particle velocity for the only non-zero component (radial) lying in a direction along the monitoring line. The results are shown for various materials whose attenuation is described by the constant-Q viscoelastic model of Kjartansson [15]. The VPPV values have been normalised to that for the case of infinite burden. Figure 8 shows the influence of burden, b, on the peak vibration produced by a spherical source (S2) for an applied load given by P2. In this figure the VPPV values have been normalised to that for the elastic case at infinite burden.

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION 2 r-

117

1.6
CU

1.2

0.8

0.4

4 6 BURDEN (m)

10

Fig. 8. The vibration as a function of burden in materials of varying attenuation (I/Q) The monitor is placed 50m from the spherical source, S2.

The degree of overlap of the direct wave with the reflected wave is obviously dependent upon the width of these waves, and so it is not surprising that the peak vibration depends upon the original pressure-time function and the material Q as well as the burden. This simple model shows that the vibration can never increase by more than a factor of 2.0 due to the burden. Ironically, the model also shows that, under certain conditions, the vibration decreases with increasing burden, which is precisely opposite to the common belief.

VIBRATION FROM BLASTHOLES FIRED WITH VARIOUS BURDENS

The single blasthole trials were conducted over the period August 1997 to August 1998, in the Oroya South region of the Fimiston Open Pit Operations of Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (KCGM). All blastholes had a diameter 165 mm, were back-filled to a depth 10.2 m, charged with Energan 2640 explosive having charge weights in the range 125 kg to 150 kg, and stemmed with approximately 4.5 m of crushed aggregate. Figure 9 shows a plan view of some of the blastholes and monitor locations. In all cases the

118

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

. . .

47850 ..*

_ * 47800 O

a*

O 47750

47700 -

ffl

VIRGIN GROUND HOLES FREE FACE HOLES MONITORS

i i

* **

19650

19700

19750 19800 EASTING (m)

19850

Fig. 9. The location of some single blastholes and monitors used in the trials.

monitors (triaxial accelerometer arrays) were bonded directly to rock in an approximate line that was approximately normal to the bench face. The burden trials commenced in January 1998. Some months prior, two blastholes were initiated in relatively undamaged (virgin) rock when the operating bench face was 60 m east of the closest hole. These two holes are shown as the crossed squares in Figure 9 and their resultant vibration will be discussed later. The standard burden for blastholes at this KCGM site is 5.2m, and the present trials were conducted using burdens of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 times the standard. It is for this reason that the free face blastholes appear staggered in the figure. A total of 13 blastholes was monitored (with other holes elsewhere, not shown), with four repeats of 5.2 m and 2.6 m, and five repeats of 10.4m. The separation of blastholes along the face was 20 m since previous experience had shown that at this separation there was minimal influence of one hole on another. Figure 10 shows the vector peak particle velocity (VPPV) as a function of the scaled distance and various burdens. Each data set is fit with a least squares

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

119

2000 1000 & BURDEN=2.6 m K BURDEN=5.2 m - - - - B U R D E N = 10.4 m

> cu
a.

100
X

20 0

3 4 5 6 1/2 SCALED DISTANCE (m/kg )

Fig. 10. The VPPV as a function of burden for the single blasthole trials.

power curve. It is quite obvious that the burden has an insignificant effect upon the blast vibration, in fact the curve fits for the 2.6 m and 10.4 m burdens are practically indistinguishable. However, a formal statistical analysis was conducted on this data by first transforming each set to log 10 (VPPV) as a function of logio (scaled distance) and then applying the multiple linear regression analysis of Davies and Goldsmith [8]. The conclusion was found to be that all the data is best treated as a single data set rather than grouped by burden. As noted previously, there were two blastholes initiated in virgin (undamaged) ground prior to the burden trials (see Fig. 9). It is worthwhile comparing the VPPV measured for virgin ground with that measured for the burden trials. According to the statistical analysis, all the burden data may be considered as a single data set, and so this set may then be compared with the data obtained for virgin ground. The results are shown in Figure 11. In this case the Davies and Goldsmith [8] analysis shows that the data is best fit by two separate lines each having the same slope. Figure 11 also shows the 95% confidence bounds on the mean, and it is quite obvious that these regions are quite distinct except for a small degree of overlap in the very near field. Thus both statistical analyses show that the vibration produced from blastholes fired

120
3 2.8 2.6 > 2.4

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

DAMAGED UNDAMAGED MEAN BOUNDS, DAMAGED MEAN BOUNDS, UNDAMAGED

a.
Q-

2
18 . 16 . 14 .
J_

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

LOG10 (SCALED DISTANCE) Fig. 11. The single hole vibration plotted over similar ranges. The lines show the 95% confidence bounds on the mean.

in the undamaged ground is significantly larger than the vibration produced from blastholes in the burden trials. The significance of these findings is raised in the Discussion section.

VIBRATIONS FROM A FREE-FACE BLAST AND A CHOKE BLAST

Figure 12 shows the location of the vibration monitors and blastholes for the side-by-side comparison of a choke blast of 55 holes with a free-face blast of 33 holes. Each hole had the following nominal design parameters: diameter 165 mm, depth 11.3 m, charge weight 190 kg (Energan 2640) and stemming length 3.9 m. The local geology was similar for both blasts. Nine triaxial accelerometer arrays were bonded directly to the pit wall in order to measure the vibration behind each blast. The initiation sequence was similar for both blasts (17 ms between each hole, 100 ms between each row). The choke blast was fired with approximately 15 m of broken material (from a

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

121

47720,47700 47680

o
o oo
OoO

o oo

+ o

MONITORS CHOKE BLAST FREE-FACE BLAST

a z
X H a:

47660 47640 47620 47600

n o oo

47580 18840 18860 18880 18900 18920 18940 18960 18980 EASTING (m) Fig. 12. The location of monitors and blastholes for the two blasts.

previous blast) lying in front. The choke blast was fired first (13th Feb, 1999) and the free-face blast fired one day later. The peak vibration for the case of a single blasthole is conveniently described by the vector peak particle velocity (VPPV) which is just one point on the entire vibration vector trace. However, such a measure gives no information on how the vibration varies with time. In order to distinguish between the choke blast and the free-face blast, a vibration measure (such as the amplitude) is required for all times throughout these multi-hole blasts. Traditionally, the vector sum waveform, Vs(t), is used. However, the vector sum is not a measure of the vibration amplitude as a function of time. In this regard Farnbach [16] shows how the vibration envelope function may be obtained as a function of time for any single waveform by using Hilbert transform techniques. This envelope function gives the instantaneous vibration amplitude at any particular time. For example, the envelope function of a single component sine wave is constant and equal to its amplitude, whereas the vector sum (which reduces to the modulus of the sine wave in this case) is not. The work of Farnbach [16] is now extended to the analysis of triaxial measurements. If L{t), T(t) and V(t) are the triaxial components of the

122

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

vibration as a function of time, t, then the traditional vector sum,Vs(t) is given by:
Vs(t) =

(1)

If HL(t), HT{t) and Hv(t) are the Hilbert transforms of L(t), T(t) and V{t), respectively, then an envelope function, E(t), may be defined as: E{t) = (2)

This particular form of the envelope function is chosen in order to ensure that the peak value of Vs(t) is almost identical to the peak value of E(t). In this regard, Figure 13 shows the vector sum and the envelope function for the case in which L(t), T(t) and V(t) are given by sine waves of amplitudes 1, 2 and 3 units, respectively. In the present work, the Hilbert Transforms are calculated efficiently using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) techniques. Tapering is used at the beginning and end of each waveform in this simple example to avoid FFT time window effects. The vector peak is given by (I 2 + 2 2 + 32)1'2 = 3.742, and agrees with the peak value of the envelope function. Neglecting the taper regions, it is

or) H

VECTOR SUM ENVELOPE FUNCTION

H < O H

0.2

0.4 0.6 TIME (ARBITRARY UNITS)

0.8

Fig. 13. The vector sum and the envelope function for the superposition of 3 sine waves with amplitudes 1,2 and 3 units.

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

250 rCHOKH BLAST FREE-FACE BLAST

123

200

150

t ioo
50

0.1

0.2

0.3 TIME (s)

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fig. 14. The vibration mean envelope functions for the choke and free-face blasts.

expected that such a superposition of sine waves should give a total amplitude that is constant with time. The envelope function clearly meets this expectation whereas the vector sum does not. Figure 14 shows the mean vibration envelope (averaged over all 9 monitors) for each blast. However, a clearer comparison of the vibration from each blast may be made by averaging each envelope function at each detector over a sliding time window of specified width; these time-averaged envelopes may then be averaged over all detectors to form a vibration smoothed envelope function. Figure 15 shows the vibration smoothed envelope function for both blasts, the window width for smoothing the envelope function for each monitor was arbitrarily chosen to be 0.1 s. Figures 14 and 15 show that there is no evidence to suggest that the choke blast has produced vibrations larger than those of the free-face blast, especially over the first 0.5 s or so. In this regard, it should be appreciated that the first row of overburdened holes in the choke blast has completely initiated after 0.2 s. However, there were some slight differences in the actual design of each blast (such as charge weights and number of blastholes) and a definitive comment regarding relative vibration levels can only be made after these variables are taken into account. Therefore, each blast was modelled using the

124
250 ,-

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

200

CHOKE BLAST FREE-FACE BLAST

Q D

150

100

50

0.1

0.2

0.3 TIME (s)

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fig. 15. The vibration smoothed envelope functions for the choke and free-face blasts.

250 rCHOKE BLAST FREE-FACE BLAST

200

w
D H
Q

150

S 100
50

0.1

0.2

0.3 TIME (s)

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fig. 16. Monte Carlo solution for the vibration smoothed envelope functions for the choke and free-face blasts.

hi

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

125

Monte Carlo technique outlined in Blair [17]. Figure 16 shows the Monte Carlo results for both blasts. It should be appreciated that the Monte Carlo model does not account for the fact that holes in the choke blast were overburdened, in other words, all blastholes in both blasts are assumed to behave in a similar manner with regard to vibration. Thus the blast design, itself, is such that there should be little difference in vibration between the choke blast and the free-face blast for the first 0.4 s, approximately. The fact that only a small difference was observed is direct evidence that the overburdened holes in the choke blast did not produce vibration larger than that of corresponding holes in the free-face blast. The measured peak vibration for the choke blast (at approximately 0.52 s Fig. 15) is larger than that due to the free-face blast solely because of the design (as shown by Fig. 16).

DISCUSSION

In the introduction four possible mechanisms were suggested to explain why vibration waves reflected off a free face might have insignificant amplitude. It was also shown that an absence of reflected waves would imply that vibration was independent of burden provided any role of explosive gases was neglected. In this regard it is interesting to note that we found no evidence of a reflected wave in any of our experiments. Thus it is reasonable to assume that one or more of the four mechanisms was in operation. Nevertheless, analytical models were used to investigate the case where waves were reflected with maximum amplitude (i.e., reflected waves due to waves incident normally on the free surface). Such models will yield an upper bound to the influence of burden on blast vibration. The Dynamic Finite Element Model (DFEM), on the other hand, showed that it is more likely that any reflection will not be significant anyway, due to the three-dimensional nature of the problem. The results shown in Figures 7 and 8 for the analytical model neglected the influence of explosive gases on burden (confinement) because it was too difficult to model this mechanism. However, the work of Brent et al. [18] shows that this mechanism is probably insignificant, anyway. In this regard, they conducted gas pressure measurements in some of the single blastholes and demonstrated that the extent of gas penetration beyond the immediate confines of the blasthole was also independent of burden in the

126

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

present trials. Furthermore, the observed data of Figure 10 directly implies that any influence of explosive gases on vibration (although difficult to quantify) must, too, be independent of confinement for the present burdens of 2.6 m, 5.2 m and 10.4m. The fact that explosive gases play such an insignificant role in this aspect obviously improves the relevance of the analytical model and DFEM for the prediction of vibration as a function of burden. Obviously, in the extreme case when the burden approaches zero, gasventing and reduced vibration will occur. However, this is not relevant to the present trials that have only considered burden variations within a reasonable range. As noted earlier in regard to Figure 11, the statistical evidence suggests that the vibration data for blasting in damaged ground is significantly lower than that for blasting in undamaged ground. Furthermore, the slope of both data sets was found to be similar, i.e., the difference is due to the offset alone. The fact that the slopes are similar strongly suggests that the attenuation of vibration as a function of distance is the same for both data sets. This, in turn, also suggests that the observed difference in attenuation (i.e., the offset) occurs directly at the source. In other words, the source, itself, produces less vibration if it is located in damaged ground. This inference is not surprising, since source radiation is expected to be strongly dependent upon its coupling to the surrounding rock mass. On the other hand, for the frequencies of present interest, the attenuation of peak vibration with distance (and hence the slope) is primarily dependent on geometric spreading rather than rock mass condition. Thus, although vibration appears to be independent of burden over the ranges of present interest (or at least insensitive to it), the vibration is not insensitive to the local rock condition surrounding the blasthole. This finding, alone, suggests that even if an apparent dependence of vibration on burden was to be found at a particular site, then it would be quite difficult to isolate the burden influence, itself, unambiguously. For example, an increase in vibration with burden might simply reflect the fact that the holes further from the face are fired in ground less damaged than that slightly closer to the face. In this case it would not be a burden effect per se, but rather an influence due to ground condition. Alternatively expressed, the blast vibration is not dependent upon the volume of ground that the charged hole has to excavate, but is dependent upon the condition of the rock mass close to the hole. Blast vibrations due to presplits and drop-cuts are often claimed to be high relative to the charge weights used. The large burden typical of such situations

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

127

is the popular reason generally given for the high vibration in these cases. However, the present work strongly suggests that the high vibration is not due to the large burden, but rather to the fact that all such blastholes are-typically initiated in undamaged ground. According to Figure 14, the vibration from some of the overburdened holes in the front row of the choke blast appears to be somewhat lower than the vibration from corresponding holes in the free-face blast, even though all such holes had similar scaled distances in relation to the monitors. In this regard it is interesting to note that broken material lying in front of the face (i.e., as in the choke blast) provides some degree of confinement to vibration waves incident on the solid face-broken rock boundary. In other words this boundary is neither completely free to move (as in a free-face blast) nor completely fixed (as in the case of a rigid boundary). It is well known in dynamics that a partially restricted boundary is more likely to absorb incident waves (i.e., reduce any reflected waves) than is a completely free or fixed boundary. Based upon this reasoning and if a. reflected wave happens to occur to any significant degree, it might well be expected that choke blasts would reduce blast vibrations rather than increase them. This outcome is certainly not inconsistent with the present experimental data. For example, if the outgoing wave system (the direct wave shown in Fig. 5) from each blasthole is optimally incident on the face, then the choke blast has a better chance of absorbing such waves than does the free-face blast. In this aspect, choke blasting might well provide a better insurance against high vibrations reaching the wall of an open pit.

CONCLUSIONS

A literature survey of previous results showed that there was no convincing evidence to support the popular claim that vibration increases with increasing burden. On the other hand, by simply considering the role of reflected waves, reasoning was given to show that the vibration might well be insensitive to burden in many situations. Although the influence of explosive gases on vibration would be difficult to model, the evidence of Brent et al. [18] suggests that such influences might be insignificant anyway. This justifies neglecting any role of explosive gases in the present models used to predict the influence of burden on blast vibration. These models, which also assumed optimal reflection of vibration waves,

128

D.P. BLAIR AND L.W. ARMSTRONG

showed that the vibration can never increase by more than a factor of 2.0 due to burden. The models also predicted that vibration can either increase or decrease with increasing burden depending upon the source type and the rock attenuation (i.e., rock Q). In particular, for a source of very small time duration, the vibration invariably decreases with increasing burden (see Fig. 7) which is precisely opposite to the common belief. However, the experimental waveforms also showed that the reflected wave was too insignificant to detect. This observation, alone, is consistent with the fact that the vibration was found to be independent of burden as shown by the data in Figure 10 for the single blastholes, and by the data of Figures 14 and 15 for production blasts. The present work has also shown that it is not the burden that determines the vibration but rather the condition of the rock mass surrounding the blasthole.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The considerable effort of KCGM (especially Ian Brunton) and Roche Mining personnel in all the vibration trials is gratefully acknowledged, particularly with regard to site availability and drilling of test holes. Orica colleagues, Gil Smith, Dave Kay and Sahul Rafiudeen, also gave invaluable assistance during various stages of the monitoring, and Dave Kennedy performed the threedimensional DFEM analysis for a single blasthole firing to a free face.

REFERENCES
1. Ashby, J.P.: Production blasting and the development of open pit slopes. Proc. Sixth Conf. on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Florida, 1980, pp. 291-311. 2. Dowding, C.H.: Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control. Prentice-Hall, 1985, 297. 3. Floyd, J.L.: The development and implementation of efficient wall control blast designs. Explosives Eng. 15 (1998), pp. 12-18. 4. Liu, Q., Ludwig, G.: A blast damage study in blasthole open stope mining. Proc. Fifth Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, 1996, pp. 451-459. 5. Blair, D.P. and Birney, B.: Vibration Signatures Due to Single Blastholes Fired in the Charlotte Deeps. ICI Confidential Internal Report, 1994, 10. 6. Bergmann, O.R., Riggle, J.W. and Wu, F.C.: Model rock blasting effect of explosives properties and other variables on blasting results. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 10 (1973), pp. 585-612.

TV7

THE INFLUENCE OF BURDEN ON BLAST VIBRATION

129

7. Heilig, J., Zoitsas, A. and Cox, N.: Free face blasting: Is it the best for quarrying? Proc. 41st Annual Conf. Institute of Quarrying, Australia, 1997. 8. Davies, O.L. and Goldsmith, P.L.: Statistical Methods in Research and Production. Longman, London, 1972. -9. Draper, N.R. and Smith, H.: Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, 1981, 709. 10. Blake, F.G.: Spherical wave propagation in solid media../. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24(2) (1952), pp. 211-215. 11. Blair, D.P. and Minchintonm A.: On the damage zone surrounding a single blasthole. Fifth Int. Symp. Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal. Canada, 1996, pp. 121-130. 12. Jiang, J., Baird, G.R. and Blair, D.P.: Dynamic response of a half-space to a buried spherical source. Geophys. J. Int. 119 (1994), pp. 753-765. 13. Jiang, J., Blair, D.P. and Baird, GR.: Dynamic response of an elastic and viscoelastic fullspace to a spherical source. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 19 (1995), pp. 181-193. 14. White, J.E.: Underground sound. Application of Seismic Waves. Elsevier, 1983, 253. 15. Kjartansson, E.: Constant Q wave propagation and attenuation. J. Geophys. Res. 84 (1979), pp. 4737^748. 16. Farnbach, J.S.: The complex envelope in seismic signal analysis. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 65 (1975), pp. 951-962. 17. Blair, D.P.: Statistical Models for ground vibration and airblast. Int. J. Blasting and Fragmentation. 3 (1999), pp. 335-364. 18. Brent, G.F., Smith, G.E. and Lye, G.: Studies on the Effect of Burden on Blast Damage and the Implementation of New Blasting Practices at KCGM's Fimiston Mine. EXPLO 2001, Aus. I.M.M., NSW, Australia, [in press].