An Analytical Approach For Diagnosing and Solving Blasting Complaints

Have you ever had a neighbor complain about a blast one day, but says the next day’s blast was better, even though the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) increased? How about neighbors that complain about a small trimming shot, but don’t complain about a big production shot? Have you ever reduced the pounds/delay and gotten more complaints ? Mine operators are often bewildered when trying to correlate blast design parameters to homeowner complaints. When complaints come, standard practice is to set up a seismograph in the neighbor’s yard to monitor the blast. Immediately after the blast, the neighbor usually reappears from the house wanting to know the seismograph reading. When told that the PPV was 0.1 in/set, well below damage levels, the homeowner explodes saying “Your machine is wrong”. Perhaps he is right. Understanding why people complain about blasting is not about PPV, it’s all about structural response. People could care less about how much the ground vibrates; they only care about how much their house vibrates. In this paper we will examine the primary factors that control structural response. Through the use of a large array of digital seismographs, the effects of two production blasts on a community surrounding a quarry are studied. The predicted structural response resulting from each blast is calculated at 175 seismograph locations. The predicted response is then correlated to previous research on human perceptibility to vibrations. The results of this analysis and correlation give a better understanding of what the residents actually feel in their homes. The detonations of two single-hole signature blasts are also recorded by the array of seismographs revealing the dynamic characteristics of the geology ‘surrounding the quarry. Once the influence of the geology was understood, blasts were configured to disrupt the natural rhythm of the site through the use of millisecond delays.