Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Control negative effects of blasting waves on concrete of the structures

by analyzing of parameters of ground vibration
R. Nateghi a,*, M. Kiany b, O. Gholipouri a
a
b

Amir Kabir University, Sepasad Co., Upper Gotvand Dam, Khuzestan, Iran
Iman Sazan Co., Azadi Square, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 November 2008
Received in revised form 19 April 2009
Accepted 22 April 2009
Available online 11 June 2009
Keywords:
Concrete structures
Dynamic wave
Damage
Blasting
Nonel

a b s t r a c t
In the most of civil projects, many activities are done in the vicinity of each other. Synchronic of concreting and blasting causes cracks and reduction of nal resistance of concrete because of dynamic waves
induced by blasting. This qualication is more negative for long term using structures and those which
is relevant with under pressure water. This paper introduces dynamic waves and their inuence on
the underground structures; controlling methods of dynamic waves induced by blasting in the base of
peak particle velocity and nally design of surge tank storage shafts excavation in Gotvand dam neighbor
of concrete structures in these storages. The dynamic site factors that are calculated from seismographic
tests in Bakhtiary conglomerate shows that constant dynamic factors K & b are 40.859 and 1.8717,
respectively. Furthermore with combination of Nonel and electric detonator we achieved the reduction
of negative effects caused by blasting of each construction as well as a signicant reduction in excavation
costs in each stage.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
One of the undesirable side effects of rock blasting is producing
structural damage and annoyance due to ground vibration. Ground
vibration is a form of energy transport in ground that may damage
adjacent structures when they reach a certain level (Hashash and
Hook, 2001). Over the years, attempt has been made to relate the
parameters dening vibratory particle motion with observed structural damage. This had lead to the formation numbers of empirical
damage scales relating observed particle motion in terms of peak
particle displacement and velocities. The damage levels differ from
one country to another, depending on construction, type of structure and state of repairing. The threshold limit of vibration for the
safety of structures depends on its importance and the degree of
safety criteria in a country. Ground vibration is directly related to
the quantity of explosive used and distance between blast face to
structures as well as geological and geotechnical conditions of the
rock units in excavation area (Olofsson, 1998). Geological and geotechnical conditions and distance between blast face to monitoring
point or structures can not be altered but the only variable factor is
quantity of explosive in each certain time to make ground vibrations in a permissible limit. By selecting the right blasting methods
and correct drilling and ring patterns the size of ground vibrations
can be controlled. Present paper mainly deals with the prediction of
blast-induced ground vibration level and dynamic site factors and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: R.Nateghi@gmail.com (R. Nateghi).
0886-7798/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2009.04.004

will discuss excavation designing of serge tank shafts in Upper

Gotvand dam by focusing on reduction negative effective of blasting on upper concrete chamber that had constructed on top of
them. Ground vibration was monitored to calculate the site factors
and designing contain of vibration control method by delay blasting
with combination of electric and non electric detonator (NONEL) to
create desirable delay and minimum cost. Stages of vibration analysis and design procedure are explained in Fig. 1.
2. Mechanism of ground vibration and inuence on
underground structures
When an explosive charge detonates in the blast hole, intense
dynamic stresses are set up around it due to sudden acceleration
of the rock mass by detonating gas pressure on hole wall. The
strain waves transmitted to the surrounding rock sets up a wave
motion in the ground. The strain energy carried out by these strain
waves fragments the rock mass due to different breakage mechanism such as crushing, radial cracking, and reection breakage in
the presence of a free face. Blast vibration induced waves can be divided in the three categories compressive, shear and surface. To
measure the motion three perpendicular of vibration motion must
be measured. They are as follow (Fig. 2):
Transverse: horizontal motion at right angles to the blast.
Vertical: up and down movement.
Longitudinal: horizontal movement along a line between the
recorder and the blast.

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

609

Fig. 1. Dynamic analysis and design procedure.

Fig. 2. General form of blast vibration time history (Pal Roy, 2005).

At small distance blast produce predominantly body waves.

This body waves propagate outward somewhat spherically until
they contact any boundary. These boundaries can include another
layer of rock, free face, fracture, joint and surface. Body waves arrive at these intersections, surface and shear wave are produced.

3. Scaled distance and ground vibration common formula

The literature search revealed a plethora of papers on blasting
physics and measurement techniques. Many developed relationships correlating structural damage to peak particle velocity (Birch

and Chaffer, 1983). In most cases the peak particle velocity was
identied as the most useful parameter when correlating. Blast size
to distance, with the scaled distance is another signicant parameter. Scaled distance is a scaling factor that relates similar blast effects from various charge weights of the same explosive at various
distances. Scaled distance is calculated by divided distance to the
structure of concern by the nth root of the weight of explosive
material used in the blast. Thresholds for structural damage are
typically based upon peak particle velocities although these correlations were very useful for blast design during the design phase of
project development. Early studies on wave propagation phenomena were conducted by Morris (1950). He proposed that the ampli-

610

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

tude (A) of particle displacement is proportional to the square root

of the weight of the charge (Q) and inversely proportional to the
distance (D) from the blast Pal Roy, 2005. That is

AK

Q 0:5
D

where K is the site constant. Habberjam and Whetton (1952) suggested a higher power for the charge weight in their formula (Habberjam and Whetton, 1952).

A / Q 0:85 :

Other investigators (Daemon, 1983; Duvall and Foggelson,

1962; Langefors et al., 1958; Ambraseys and Hendron, 1968) have
proposed further modication of the propagation law assuming
cylindrical explosive geometry for long cylindrical charges. They
proposed that any linear dimension should scale with the nth root
of the distance (D) divided by the charge weight (Q) (Pal Roy,
2005). Square root scaling (USBM equation) that was suggested
by Duvall and Fogelson is the general formula used in most regulations and general blasting situations, where the charge can be considered linear (Kahriman, 2004; Khandelwal and Singh, 2007;
Sivarajan et al., 2007).

D
k p
Q max

!b
3

where v is the peak particles velocity (mm/s), Qmax the maximum

charge per delay (kg), D the distance between blast face to vibration
monitoring point (m), and K and b the site constants, which can be
determined by multiple regression analysis.
Davies et al. (1964), Birch and Chaffer (1983), Attewell (1964)
and Daemen (1983) considered no particular charge symmetry
and used the general equation instead

V KDB Q A

where K, A and B are empirical constants witch can be determined

by multiple regression analysis of two independent variables (Pal
Roy, 2005; Birch and Chaffer, 1983).
4. Existing vibration standard and criteria to prevent damage
Peak particle velocity has been traditionally used in practice for
the measurement of blast damage to structures. In this criterion
the shape of the wave form and duration of dynamic loading are
not taken in to account. However, the energy input to the rock
mass is determined not only from the amplitude but also from
the time duration of the vibration pulse. Some of the suggested
damage criteria that base solely on the peak particle velocity
(PPV mm/s) are listed below in Table 1.
This recommendation based on author experience for vibration
limit in blasting near various types of structures in urban area and

is different for same structures from one country to another. Lewis

Oriard has done considerable work in researching effects on reinforce concrete structures. This author has used his basic recommendation many times without a problem. The following is
referenced in the international society of explosive engineers
blasters handbook and Oriards book. When blasting outside the
boundaries of concrete the results are variable and are dependent
on how the concrete was poured, type of reinforcement and raw
materials used.
Tests have shown concrete didnot crack until 375 (ips) was
reached and craters hadnot formed until 600 (ips) that is shows
the variability of concrete. In 1976 the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) developed limits based on Oriards research and investigation. These are still conservative and can be applied to concrete
footing, walls, dams, bridges, etc. These limits are based on concrete age and distance from blast. A distance factor (DF) was developed to multiply by acceptable peak particle velocity limits based
on the age of the concrete in hours and days (Lucca Frank, 2003).
The following charts show the concrete age, allowable peak particle velocity and distance factor (Table 2).
In 1987 Hulshizer and Desci suggested vibration limits for
freshly place concrete that were establish as a result of laboratory
and eld test programs. The vibration limits for concrete, expressed in terms of peak particle velocity and given in Table 3.
These values are used to generate allowable conservative limits
for blasting in US Army Corps of Engineers and are suitable for

Table 2
TVA developed limit Lucca Frank (2003).
Concrete age

Allowable PPV ips (mm/s)

04 h
4 h 1 day
13 day
37 day
710 day
10 days and up

4 ips (102 mm/s)DF

6 ips (152 mm/s)DF
9 ips (229 mm/s)DF
12 ips (305 mm/s)DF
15 ips (381 mm/s)DF
20 ips (502 mm/s)DF

Distance
Distance
Distance
Distance

DF = 1
DF = 0.8
DF = 0.7
DF = 0.6

050 ft (015 m)
50150 ft (1546 m)
150250 ft (4676 m)
>250 ft (76 m)

Table 3
Vibration limit for freshly concrete US Army Corps of Engineers (1995).
Age of concrete

Peak particle velocity

Up to 3
311
1124
2448
Over of 48

102 mm/s (4 in/s)

38 mm/s (1.5 in/s)
51 mm/s (2 in/s)
102 mm/s (4 in/s)
178 mm/s (7 in/s)

Table 1
Some of suggested damage criteria Pal Roy (2005).
Predictor

Effects and damage

Maximum allowable PPV (mm/s)

Langefors et al. (1958)

No damage
Fine crack
Cracks
Serious cracks
Safe zone
Damage zone
Major damage (95%)
Safe zone (95%)
Damage zone
Soil, weathered or soft rock
Hard rock conditions

<50
100
150
225
<50
100150
50
50>
50<
70
100

Edwards and Northwood (1960)

Duall and Fogelson
Nicholls et al. (1971)
Indian standard institution

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

our purpose so were used to simulation of maximum allowable

charge in each distance.
5. Case study: designing excavation pattern of Gotvand surge
tank shafts, adjacent concrete chamber
5.1. Site specication
This dam is located on the Karun River in the Khuzestan province in south west of Iran (Fig. 3). The 178 m high and 730 m length
embankment dam regulating the water of the Karun river, also

611

serves power generation, ood control and irrigation needs. The nal design of the dam has been completed and construction works
has been started at 2000 (Moshanir and CAITEC, 1997).
The waterway system of powerhouse consists of huge collection
of underground excavation that is more than 16,00,000 m3 that is
construction under the left abutment. One of the particular trait
of this waterway system is existing of four serge tank storages by
capacity of more than 45,000 m3 that each of them consist of
two galleries and one shaft between elevation 151230. Shafts
are vertical with circular section and maximum excavation diameter is 18 m (Fig. 4) (Moshanir and CAITEC, 1997).

Fig. 3. Shape and location of Upper Gotvand dam (Moshanir and CAITEC, 1997).

Fig. 4. Water way system and 3D shape of Upper Gotvand serge tanks (Moshanir and CAITEC, 1997).

612

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

Table 4
Geotechnical properties of rock mass Mahab Ghodss/coyneet bellier (2004, 2005).
Rock type
3

Density (kg/m )
Friction angle ()
RQD
RMR
Tensile strength (MPa)
Cohesion (MPa)
UCS (MPa)
Vp (m/s)
Vs (m/s)

Conglomerate

Mud stone

2.4
50
60
72
2.8
10
25.8
26205000
1800

2.04
40
38
47
2.5
5
10.3
1980
1430

These storages are located in Bakhtiary formation that consists

of sequence of thick layers of conglomerate with interbeded of
mudstone and sandstone. In order to measure geotechnical properties laboratory and in situ testing have been carried out in feasibility study and during construction that results are taken in Table 4.
5.2. Designing of smooth blasting sequence
As mentioned above ground vibration is directly related to the
three parameters weight of explosive used, distance between blast
face to monitoring point and geological and geotechnical conditions of the rock units in excavation area (Olofsson, 1998). Distance
is an apparent parameter and determined as the minimum distance between explosive holes and specied building, by measuring of dynamic constant factor of area formation and inserting
them in empirical formula proposed by the different researchers
safe quantity of explosive can be estimated to make ground vibrations in a permissible limit. This study documents 9 blasts consist
of 27 records and 81 velocity measurements which occurred be-

tween 411 July 2007 for excavation in head and bench blasting
of surge tank storages. As it can be seen from Fig. 5 holes was horizontal in V-cut excavation in heading with diameter about 54 mm
and was vertical in bench excavation with the diameter about
76 mm. In Blasting operation ANFO (blasting agent), and pentolite
(priming) were used in bench excavation and dynamite were used
as explosive for head excavations and combination of half and millisecond electric delay was used to initiate the explosive round.
Blasting was performed within the Bakhtiary rock formation in
Gotvand Dam located in south west of Iran.
For each blast event, three PG-2002 blasting seismographs were
deployed for measurements at varying distances from the blast
site. Each seismograph consisted of a 3-axis velocity transducer,
and a data acquisition. For predicting the peak particle velocity
for this site, the developed blast design was applied accurately
for each shot. The maximum amount of instantaneous charges
per delay was recorded carefully and the distance between the
shot point and the monitoring station was measured accurately
by using survey equipment. The results of ground vibration measurements that were carried out at the Bakhtiary conglomerate,
including peak particle velocity, frequency, total charge, charge
per delay, distance and scaled distance have been presented in
Table 5 for a few events as sample. In order to establish a useful
relationship between peak particle velocity and scaled distance,
simple regression analysis was carried out by using all data pairs.
In order to establish a useful relationship between peak particle
velocity and scaled distance the resultant of velocity array (consequent of vertical, longitudinal and transverse vector of velocity)
versus scale distance based on square root relationships were plotted and simple regression analysis was carried out by using all data
pairs. In simple regression, linear, logarithmic, exponential, reciprocal and power curve tting approximations were tested and

Fig. 5. Blasting patterns and waves induced from blasting.

Table 5
Results of ground vibration measurements.
Event no.

Peak particle velocity (mm/s)

Frequency (Hz)

Charge per delay (kg)

Distance (m)

Scaled distance

1
7
11
15
19
21
26

0.87
3.2
1.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4

23.7
23.6
13.2
17.7
21.8
4.9
37.6

124
118
120
39
37
31
39

172
36
103
122
99
132
58

15.5
3.4
9.4
19.6
16.4
23.8
9.3

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

613

Fig. 6. Graph of scale distance versus of peak particle velocity.

the best approximation equation with highest correlation coefcients was determined. The formula, which has 95% condence level, is given below. The empirical factors K and b are determined as
40.869 and 1.8717, respectively. The graph of the obtained relations between the particle velocity components and the scaled distances are presented in Fig. 6.

p
PPV 40:869D= Q 1:8717

The above equation has been used for the prediction of maximum
weight of charge in each delay by rewriting it on the base of Q.

p
Q D= b K=PPV2

By replacing maximum allowable peak particle velocity for

reinforced concrete from Table 3, maximum allowable charge in
each distance have been determined (Fig. 7). As shown in this gure the relation between distance and maximum allowable charge
for over than 48 h age concrete (178 mm/s) is

Q e 4:82 D2

In this relation Q is maximum allowable explosive material in each

distance and D is distance between concrete chamber and explosive
holes.
As seen in Fig. 8 critical distance between concrete chamber and
excavation line in rst stage is about 1 m, so maximum charge per
each delay in the holes in this distance couldnot be more than
4.8 kg by receding from concrete chamber. The maximum allowable charge increases progressively with the base of Eq. (7). So in
various distances from center to chamber we have various allowable charges in each delay.
For designing explosive pattern we envisage a basic problem.
Cross section of shafts is too big (about 254.5 m2) so we should
drill and explode many of explosive holes and we have only 10
numbers of half second electric detonators that usually were used
in underground excavation.

Maximum allowable charge (Kg)

450
400

Exp weight = 4.82(D)2

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

10

Distance (m)
Fig. 7. Graph and relation between distance and maximum allowable charge.

Fig. 8. Position of concrete chamber and excavation area (Moshanir and CAITEC,
1997).

614

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

There are two solutions for this problem

1. Using step excavation method and dividing the cross section in
two parts.
2. Using non electric detonator (NONEL) to create desirable delay.
To reduce unfavorable effects of blasting on concrete chamber
and reduce costs of blasting operation we offered both of above
methods by dividing the cross section in two parts and employing
combination of electric and non electric detonators for blasting.
By using this method the number of blast holes that explode in
each time will be reduced. Also it creates a free face for second
semicircular part in each step of excavation and reduces the back
break and ground vibration.
5.3. Proffered typical cycle of excavation

1. Excavation of 2.5 m diameter pilot shaft in the center by drilling

small diameter holes (32 mm) with perforator, blasting, loading
and conveying with bucket and crane. Explosive pattern of pilot
is shown in Fig. 9 maximum charge per delay in nearest distance (7.5 m to concrete chamber in outer ring) is about 5 Kg
that is far less than allowable charge in this distance, so excavation of pilot shaft will not have any negative effect on concrete
chamber.
Down reaming of pilot will be done in two semicircular sections
and conveying the stuff to lower storage and loading from here.
Fig. 10 shows designing pattern for reaming of shafts. There are
ve semicircular blasting rings with several numbers of blasting
holes in various distances from concrete chamber. This should be

noted that diameter of holes with the base of existing drill wagons
and best scatter of explosive material were supposed to be 64 mm.
Other components of explosive holes were calculated from relations proposed by Ash that are shown in Table 6 (Ostovar, 2006).
Fig. 11 shows sum of the explosive weight and limit of charge
weight in each explosive ring. As shown in this gure the weight
of explosive material in each rst three rings (1, 2, 3) is smaller
than allowable charge weight so we can explode each of them by
one number of half second delay detonator (HS1, HS2, HS3). Explosive weight in 4th ring is about 5.5 times greater than allowable
limit so we used six numbers of delay detonators (HS4HS9) for
these explosive holes. Final semicircular ring consists of 22 holes
with 3.6 Kg of explosive weight that are located in one meter distance from concrete chamber so we need one delay for each hole to
have a safe explosion. For these holes we used one non electric detonator with uniform 500 ms delay (NONEL UNIDET) and one black
connector to create 109 ms delay between each hole to avoid from
freezing of cuted area and the ground vibration. Nonel round initiated with a nal number of electric detonators (HS10). By this
method, maximum weight of explosive material in each delay in nal ring is about 3.6 Kg that is smaller than maximum allowable
charge in nearest distance from concrete chamber and the safety
factor of designing will be about 1.34.
The electric detonator is connected to the tube of immediate
connector that is used to initiate the round. For suppression of
cut off Nonel tubes by sharp own rocks, system was covered by
earth and drill cutting.
By using this method at rst we will explode total holes by one
electric exploder and second we could create desirable delay to reduce ground vibration with the cost that is cheaper than the case
that all holes should initiate by underground non electric
detonator.

Fig. 9. Pattern and equipments in excavation of pilot shaft.

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

615

Fig. 10. Offered Explosive pattern for down reaming.

Table 6
Offered explosive parameters for down reaming.
Rock type

Bakhtiary conglomerate

Cross section area

Holes diameter
Hole length
Burden
Spacing
Stemming
Explosive type
Detonating type
Total charge
Max charge per delay

129 m2
64 mm
2.5 m
1.6 m
1.6 m
1.1 m
ANFO + pentolite
Electric + non electric
225 Kg
3.6 Kg

250

7. Results

Charge weight (kg)

200
Allowable charge in each delay

150

charge weight in each explosive ring

100

50

1. Theory of explosion, the waves caused by blasting, pattern of

propagation, and their effect on underground and surface
structures.
2. The relations proposed for the distance, weight of explosive
material and induced ground vibration velocity caused by
blasting.
3. Different proposed standards for maximum allowable particle
velocity about underground and surface structures.
4. Using the results of ground vibration test in calculating
dynamic parameters of rock mass.
5. Designing maximum allowable explosive weight and smooth
blasting stage in order to avoid destroyed effects on adjacent
structures.
6. Introducing the Nonel detonator as a safe system and highly
capable of smooth blasting.

Explosive rings
Fig. 11. Comparison between allowable and needful explosive material.

6. Summary
During the article these subjects are considered:

1. The measurement of ground vibration induced by blasting is signicantly important on controlling and elimination of blast damage 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.
2. Comparison proposed damage criteria about allowable peak
particle velocity shows that almost all the researchers present
velocity of 50 (mm/s) as a maximum allowable particle velocity
with no any damage in buildings and structures in urban area.
But for special structures there are some other parameters that
limit the velocity of vibration such as age in concrete that is signicant parameter and changes vibration limit from 38 to
178 mm/s in US Army Corps of Engineers standard.
3. Statistical analysis of ground vibration test results, shows; that
multiple regressions based on USBM relation has higher correlation in comparison to the other presented relations about
the scale of distance with vibration velocity in this formation.

616

R. Nateghi et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 608616

4. Based on the vibration tests done in Bakhtiary conglomerate, constant dynamic factors of the rock mass which are related to vibration velocity are 40.859 and 1.8717 and these values can be used
in other under construction projects in this formation that have
same similar physical and geotechnical properties.
5. With combination of Nonel and electric detonators we achieved
the reduction of destructive effects caused by blasting of each
construction as well as a signicant reduction in excavation
costs in each stage.

Acknowledgement
The part of work reported in this paper has been nanced by
Sepasad Company of Iran. I would like to acknowledge this support
gratefully.
References
Ambrasys, N.R., Hendron, A.J., 1968. Dynamic Behavior of Rock Masses. John wiley
and sons, London. pp. 203207.
Attewell, P.B., 1964. Recording and interpretation of shock effects in rock. Min.
Miner. Eng. 1, 2128 (USA).
Birch, W.J., Chaffer, R., 1983. Prediction of ground vibration from blasting on
opencast sites. Inst. Min. Metall. Trans. Sec. A (mining industry), A102A107
(UK).
Davies, B., Farmer, I.W., Attewell, P.B., 1964. Ground vibration from shallow subsurface blast. The Engineer 217, 553559 (London, UK).
Daemen, J.J.K., 1983. Ground and air vibrations caused by surface blasting. USBM
report prepared by Department of Mining and Geological Engineering,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Duvall, W.I., Fogleson, D.E., 1962. Review of criteria for estimating damage to
residences from blasting vibration. US Bureau of Mines, RL 5968, p. 19.

Edwards, A.T., Northwood, T.D., 1960. Experimental study of effects of blasting on

structures. The Engineer 210, 40 (London).
Geology of the project area: Upper Gotvand dam & HEPP, 2005. Rev. A, Mahab
Ghodss/coyneet bellier.
Geotechnical characteristics of the dam foundation, 2004. Rev. A, Mahab Ghodss/
coyneet bellier.
Habberjam, B.M., Whetton, J.T., 1952. On the relation between seismic amplitude
and charge of explosive red in routine blasting operation. Geophysics 17 (1),
116128 (USA).
Hashash, A.M., Hook, J., 2001. Seismic
design
and analysis of
underground structures. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology
16, 247293.
Indian Standard, 1973. Criteria for Safety and Design of Structures Subjected to
Underground Blast. lSI Bulletin No. 15-6922, India.
Kahriman, A., 2004. Analysis of parameters of ground vibration produced from
bench blasting at a limestone quarry. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 24, 887892.
Khandelwal, M., Singh, T., 2007. Evaluation of blast-induced ground vibration
predictors. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27, 116125.
Langefors, U., Kihlstrom, B., Westerberg, H., 1958. Ground vibration in blasting.
Water Power, part IIII, pp. 335338, 390395, 421424.
Lucca Frank, J., 2003. Tight Construction Blasting: Ground Vibration Basics,
Monitoring and Prediction. Terra Dynamic LLC.
Moris, G., 1950. Vibration due to blasting and their effects on building structure. The
Engineer 394395 (London).
Moshanir, CAITEC, 1997. Upper Gotvand Hydroelectric Power Project, Feasability
Study, Appendix 4, Civil Design of Project, December 1997.
Nicholls, H.R., Johnson, C.F., Duvall, W.I., 1971. Blasting vibrations and their effects
on structures. U.S. Bureau of mines, R.I.656, p. 105.
Olofsson, S., 1998. Applied Explosive Technology for Construction and Mining.
Publisher APPLEX.
Ostovar, R., 2006. Blasting Theories, Bench Blasting and Tunneling, third ed.
Publisher Amirkabir. vol. 2.
Pal Roy, P., 2005. Rock Blasting Effects and Operations. Balkema Publisher.
Sivarajan, V., Kumara, K.L.D.S., Hearath, H.M.S.D., Nanayakare, N.W.P., 2007. Ground
vibration and air blast overpressure assessment using scaled distance.
Proceedings of ERE, 3336.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1995. Evaluation and Repair of Concrete Structures EM
1110-2-2002.