Experimental and statistical analysis of blast-induced ground vibrations (BIGV) prediction in Senegal’s quarry

Imad Kadiri; Younès Tahir; Omar Iken; Saïf ed-Dîn Fertahi; Rachid Agounoun

doi:10.2478/sgem-2019-0025

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Experimental and statistical analysis of blast-induced ground vibrations (BIGV) prediction in Senegal’s quarry

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica

Volume 41 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

By: Imad Kadiri, Younès Tahir, Omar Iken, Saïf ed-Dîn Fertahi and Rachid Agounoun

Open Access

|Dec 2019

Figures & Tables

(a) Vibration monitoring sensor; (b) ANFO truck loader; (c) Blast area inspection; (d) Bottom charge with cartridges and electric detonators.

Table 1

Summary of various PPV models.

N°	References	Empirical models	N°	References	Empirical models
1	Duvall et al. [28]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{R}{\sqrt{W}})}^{- b}$	7	Roy et al. [34]	$V_{p p v} = n + k {(\frac{R}{\sqrt{W}})}^{- 1}$
2	Langefors et al. [35]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{W}{R^{\frac{2}{3}}})}^{\frac{b}{2}}$	8	Murmu et al. [36]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{R}{\sqrt{Q}})}^{- b} β^{γ}$
3	Ambraseys et al. [37]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{R}{\sqrt[3]{W}})}^{- b}$	9	Rai et al. [38]	$V_{p p v} = k R^{- b} W^{a} e^{- α R}$
4	IS: 6922 [39]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{R^{\frac{2}{3}}}{\sqrt{W}})}^{- b}$	10	Ak et al. [40]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{R}{\sqrt{W}})}^{- b} λ^{α}$
5	Ghosh et al. [41]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{R}{\sqrt{W}})}^{- b} e^{- α R}$	11	Simangunsong et
				al. [42]	$V_{p p v} = k {((1 + \cos (θ_{i}) + N_{c}) \frac{R}{\sqrt{Q}})}^{- b}$
6	Ghosh et al. [41]	$V_{p p v} = k {(\frac{R}{\sqrt[3]{W}})}^{- b} e^{- α R}$	12	Kumar et al. [9]	$V_{p p v} = \frac{f_{c}^{0.642} D^{- 1.463}}{γ}$

Table 2

Calculated theoretical specifications^[44].

Physical properties	Dynaroc 6 A	Nitram 9	ANFO
Gas volume (0^oC/1At) (L/kg)	893	857	898
Total mass energy (MJ/kg)	4.5	4.2	4.6
Total volume energy (MJ/L)	6.4	5	3.7
Detonation pressure (confined) (φ 80 mm) (Gpa)	13.6	13.5	6.9
Detonation temperature (^oC)	-	2227	2830
Velocity of detonation (m/s)	-	6200	5200

Table 3

Technical specifications of “Mini seis” measuring device^[43].

Acquisition	2048 information/lane/second
Storage	storing records on internal memory
Duration of registration	4 seconds
Triggering seismic acquisition	by exceeding the minimum threshold of the sensors
Tri-directional geophones	4.5 Hertz electronically corrected at 2 Hertz

Table 4

Trial blast experiments (from T B1 to T B13) and the recording of data (velocity components and maximal velocity).

Trial blast (N^◦)	Measuring points	Measurement distance (m)	Maximal charge per delay (kg)	Sensor ID	Velocities (mm/s)			Maximal velocity (mm/s)
					Longitudinal	Vertical	Transversal
	DG	606	15	653	1.4	2.47	0.82	2.47
1	P1 (Lower exploitation level)	84	15	2022	15.94	31.82	23.5	31.82
	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	143	15	139	7	8.76	4.7	8.76
	Lake Ddoudj	291	15	2020	8	10.54	7.43	10.54
	Macodo	529	15	1318	2.67	2.8	1.01	2.8
	DG	613	30	653	1.71	4.12	1.27	4.12
2	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	136	30	139	11.05	13.84	7.62	13.84
	P1 (Lower exploitation level)	92	30	2022	20.32	37.72	39.88	39.88
	Lake Ddoudj	297	30	2020	9.46	15.55	12.44	15.55
	Macodo	524	30	1318	4.19	4.57	1.38	4.57
	DG	634	45	653	1.78	3.56	1.14	3.56
3	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	143	45	139	11.18	11.68	8.26	11.68
	P1 (Lower exploitation level)	110	45	2022	20.9	22.1	24.7	24.7
	Lake Ddoudj	320	45	2020	7.62	17.08	14.92	17.08
	Macodo	538	45	1318	5.71	5.33	2.54	5.71
	DG	582	45	653	0.5	1.01	0.7	1.01
4	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	174	45	139	8.64	8.25	6.73	8.64
	P1 (Lower exploitation level)	58	45	2022	10.73	40.45	25	40.45
	Lake Ddoudj	271	45	2020	3.89	5.71	2.98	5.71
	Macodo	555	45	1318	1.52	2.16	1.4	2.16
	Conveyor belt	469	100	653	2.48	6.98	2.35	6.98
5	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	77	100	139	42.67	25.91	25.91	42.67
	Garage station	636	100	2022	2.54	4.32	2.1	4.32
	Lake Ddoudj	302	100	2020	5.78	10.86	8.13	10.86
	Macodo	406	100	1318	6.86	9.27	2.54	9.27
	Conveyor belt	458	140	653	2.16	6.35	2.41	6.35
6	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	82	140	139	48.26	39.62	25.4	48.26
	Garage station	624	140	2022	2.03	3	1.71	3
	Lake Ddoudj	300	140	2020	5.33	8.76	5.9	8.76
	Macodo	455	140	1318	6.1	8.54	3.43	8.54
	Conveyor belt	436	50	653	5.34	13.97	3.87	13.97
7	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	150	50	139	13	13.84	8.25	13.84
	Garage station	597	50	2022	4.76	7.89	2.98	7.89
	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	89	50	2020	50.1	42.42	35.43	50.1
	Macodo	540	50	1318	8.25	7.49	2.79	8.25
	Conveyor belt	446	75	653	4.06	11.94	3.81	11.94
8	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	138	75	139	13.2	17.8	8.25	17.8
	Garage station	607	75	2022	3.36	5.9	2.41	5.9
	P1 (Lower exploitation level)	98	75	2020	52.96	54.04	23.05	54.04
	Macodo	529	75	1318	7.87	8	2.54	8
9	P2 (Upper exploitation level)	57	15.5	2022	47.56	61.98	27.87	61.98
	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	634	15.5	139	1.27	0.89	1.4	1.4
	Garage station	495	15.5	2020	8.06	7.37	5.33	8.06
	Macodo	1034	15.5	1318	0.51	0.76	0.13	0.76
10	P2 (Upper exploitation level)	64	31	2022	125.2	86.36	33.33	125.22
	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	621	31	139	1.52	1.14	2.16	2.16
	Garage station	500	31	2020	8.13	7.5	5.9	8.13
	Macodo	1020	31	1318	0.89	1	0.25	1
	Diao	1429	47	653	0.38	0.57	0.25	0.57
11	P2 (Upper exploitation level)	76	47	2022	125.4	112.7	37.46	125.41
	Garage station	511	47	2020	9.08	9.65	7.4	9.65
	Macodo	1017	47	1318	1.65	1.9	0.51	1.9
	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	618	47	139	2.67	2.28	3.81	3.81
	Diao	1422	63	653	0.38	0.7	0.25	0.7
12	P2 (Upper exploitation level)	70	63	2022	126.6	105.5	32.51	126.55
	Garage station	507	63	2020	8.95	8.82	7.11	8.95
	Macodo	1025	63	1318	1.9	2.03	0.51	2.03
	P1 (Upper exploitation level)	626	63	139	2.67	2.41	4.06	4.06
	Diao	1379	44.1	653	0.25	0.44	0.19	0.44
13	P2 (Upper exploitation level)	198	44.1	2022	28.19	12.32	17.8	28.19
	Garage station	555	44.1	2020	2.85	2.79	2.54	2.85

Blast’s location and the assessed measurement points.

(a) Signal analysis at *“Conveyor belt”* (charge weight per delay 50 kg – distance from blast 436 m); (b) Signal analysis at *“Panel 1 (Upper exploitation level)”* (charge weight per delay 50 kg – distance from blast 150 m).

*PPV* and its associated frequencies with *USBM RI 8507* criterion. (a) *“Conveyor belt” site*, (b) *“Panel 1 (Upper exploitation level)” site*.

Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis of the vibration signal at (a) “Conveyor belt” site and (b) *“Panel 1 (Upper exploitation level)”*.

(a) Least squares regression and 95% confidence level curves with the used trial blasts; (b) Observed production blasts and 95% confidence level curves.

Safe charge weight per delay (Q) for different distances and velocities.

(a) Safe charge weight per delay (Q) for *“Conveyor belt”* site; (b) Safe charge weight per delay for *“Panel1 (Upper exploitation level)”* site.

The blast design of charge structure in different site: (a) *“Conveyor belt”* site; (b) *“Panel 1 (Upper exploitation level)”* site.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0025 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X (formerly 0137-124X) | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 231 - 246

Submitted on: Apr 30, 2019

Accepted on: Jul 3, 2019

Published on: Dec 30, 2019

Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

BIGV,

PPV,

attenuation law,

blast,

charge per delay,

statistical analysis,

Related subjects:

Physics,

Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2019 Imad Kadiri, Younès Tahir, Omar Iken, Saïf ed-Dîn Fertahi, Rachid Agounoun, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 41 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Experimental and statistical analysis of blast-induced ground vibrations (BIGV) prediction in Senegal’s quarry

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Paradigm

My account