Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

FEM models including randomness and its application to the

blasting vibrations prediction
Javier Toraño *, Rafael Rodrı́guez, Isidro Diego, José M. Rivas, Marı́a D. Casal
School of Mines, Oviedo University, Independencia 13, 33004, Oviedo, Spain

Received 19 April 2005; received in revised form 23 November 2005; accepted 23 January 2006
Available online 15 March 2006

Abstract

This paper shows the development of a FEM model that predicts ground vibrations due to blasting, a very complex problem involving
factors very difficult to quantify: ground anisotropy, sequencing time of the blasting shots, action of each shot, etc. From the vibration
records in several blasts in a limestone quarry, we have approximated the referred factors obtaining a model that simulates with enough
accuracy the complex waves originated in real blasts. Afterwards, we detail a work methodology which was developed including random-
ness. This methodology allows the practical use of the models by the engineers who design the blasts.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ground vibrations; Blasting; Vibration monitoring; FEM modelling

1. Introduction only in the seismic phenomena but also recently in the

The only profitable method nowadays available for the
hard rock excavation is the use of explosives. In mining
or civil works projects, the usual procedure is making
blasts in areas that are highly close to inhabited places;
so buildings can be damaged by the vibrations transmitted
through the ground if the blast has not been correctly
designed. During the last 40 years, many researchers have
studied this problem in all its different viewpoints. The first
patterns of vibration transmission, empiric formulations,
were developed in the past sixties, e.g., Edwards and
Northwood [1]. These studies were completed in the follow-
ing years using research campaigns in order to determine
the damage produced by vibrations in structures or the
behaviour of structures against seismic phenomena.
Finally, in the 1990s, the development of powerful and
low-cost software and hardware allowed to study the vibra-
tion problems using numerical simulation methods, not
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 985 104 254; fax: +34 985 104 245.
E-mail address: jta@uniovi.es (J. Toraño).
explosion and blasting analysis (e.g., Jia et al. [2], Chen
and Zhao [3], Toraño and Rodrı́guez [4], Wu et al. [5],
Liu et al. [6]).
This paper is part of a research project granted with
public funds by the Spanish Ministerio de Fomento (Minis-
try of Development) whose objective is to develop FEM
models that can predict the negative effects of blasting in
buildings and structures and where the ground vibration
prediction is essential. A key aspect considered during
our research is the intentional use of general purpose soft-
ware and standard PC hardware, so the calculation meth-
ods and results can be easily applied by any small and
middle-sized companies.
During the research development and after an initial
phase where the modelling fundamentals were settled, we
moved to another phase where we were looking for the
most exact replication of the vibration waves through the
measuring of vibrations in a high number of blasts of var-
ious kinds. Work started based on the results obtained
from the sensing of several blasts in a limestone quarry
using this installation as a real scale laboratory. We chose
a quarry not only because it gathers several interesting

0266-352X/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.01.003
16 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28

Fig. 1. Quarry bench very near to buildings.

characteristics for ground modelling as a very well known
geology and a blast design with low number of shots, but
also because it reflects a typical problem in many areas of
Spain: the need of excavating rocks (mining or civil works)
in mountainous terrain with closely by inhabited buildings
(see Fig. 1).
2. Elaboration and calibration of the previous model
The ground vibration appears because of the instanta-
neous pressure caused by the explosive makes during the
detonation. One of the models previously developed by
the authors (Toraño and Rodrı́guez [4]) reproduces the
vibration generated by a single shot inside a granite rock
mass, and consists of a ground block with a bench where
a pressure pulse lasting for a few milliseconds actuates
against the bench face. In the present study, we repeat
the process for a single shot in a limestone rock mass. This
model was developed using commercial software based on
the finite element method (Anon [7], Belles and Vicente [8])
that allows a non-linear dynamic analysis, using 2D model
design and supposing plain deformations. The software
employed allows analyzing mechanical events including
simultaneously wide deformations, non-linearity of the
material behaviour and movements and forces created by
these movements. The simulation, which considers vibra-
tion, impact and movement, is guided by the widely known
equation:
½Mfag þ ½Cfvg þ ½Kfdg ¼ fF g ð1Þ
where [M] is the mass matrix, {a} is the acceleration vector,
[C] is the damping matrix, {v} is the velocity vector, [K] is
the stiffness matrix, {d} is the displacement vector and {F}
is the external nodal forces vector.
The geometric model (Fig. 2) is a ground block measur-
ing 2000 m long and 500 m high, with a bench height of
20 m in its upper zone which is the area where the blasting
is simulated. The model mesh has 10,754 elements and
10,767 nodes. This geometry is highly oversized in order
to study the vibrations at high distances and also to sim-
plify the boundary conditions: null horizontal displace-
ments at lateral boundaries and null vertical
displacements at the bottom of the model (considering
the wave damping, the results are not affected by the pos-
sible wave reflections in the model limits). Smaller models
would require more complex boundary conditions as in
Liu et al. [6]. The element sizes through the first 500 m vary
from 2 · 2 m2 near the pressuring point to 16 · 16 m2 in the

Fig. 2. Geometric model for the vibration analysis due to blasting.

 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28 17

border and where the results are more interesting the ele-
ment size is limited to a maximum of 8 · 8 m2, thus obtain-
ing the inexistence of wave distortions according to the
studies of Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer [9].
The ground is a limestone rock mass characterized by
values based on our experience: density q = 2600 kg/m3,
Young modulus E = 12,000 MPa and Poisson coefficient
t = 0.20. This value of the Young modulus can be esti-
mated from geomechanics characteristics of the rock mass
using the expression of Serafim and Pereira [10] modified
by Hoek and Brown [11]:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rci GSI10
E¼  10 40 ð2Þ
100
For a compressive strength of the intact rock rci = 70 MPa
and an average value GSI = 57 (it varies between 50 and
65), the Young modulus is near E = 12 GPa.
Taking into account that only in the vicinity of the blast
holes the rock gets yielded (Kutter and Fairhurst [12],
McHugh [13], Donzé et al. [14], Essen et al. [15]), and in
some meters the blast wave has no energy to break the
rock, its long distance transmission is like an elastic wave.
Then, we will assume the elastic behaviour of the rock mass
(this is q, E and t remain constant).
The method of introducing damping in the model is
done through the Rayleigh classical approach, by making
the damping matrix equal to a lineal combination of the
mass and stiffness matrix:
½C ¼ a1 ½M þ a2 ½K
The used values in our case are a1 = 6.30 and a2 = 0.05.
The shape of the pressure pulse that hits the bench face
has been developed from the curve of volume increase in a
hole subject to an inner explosion, supposing that the rela-
tion between pressure and volume follows an expression of
the kind PVc = constant (Mortazavi and Katsabanis [16]);
the pulse length is less than 10 ms and initially an arbitrary
maximum pressure value of 25 MPa is taken. Some
authors, Ding and Zheng [17], Ding et al. [18], have demon-
strated that in some cases the impulse that is the form of
this time function is more important.
The model calibration was done according to a general
vibration transmissivity law in limestone obtained from
numerous field measurements (Balsa [19], Figueroa and
González [20]). Such law allows estimating the peak parti-
cle velocity, v, in a point of the ground surface (expressed in
mm/s), against the scaled distance D/Q0.5 where Q is the
operating load (explosive load detonated on each micro-
delay) and D the distance from the point where the explo-
sion is caused. The curve that represents this law and also
the points cloud taken from experience are shown in Fig. 3.
This empirical law has the following mathematical
expression:
v ¼ 3085  Q0:757  D1:651 ð4Þ
As will be seen below, the explosive load in the quarry
blasting was approximately Q = 100 kg, so (4) turns to:
v ¼ 100;752  D1:651 ð5Þ
The model has been adjusted to allow the peak particle
velocity variation against the distance and the applied pres-
sure in a similar way as in reality. Thus, (4) changes to:
v ¼ 3573  P  D1:611 ð6Þ
If we consider P = 28 MPa, we obtain a law that approxi-
mates the general empirical law given by (5):
v ¼ 100;044  D1:611 ð7Þ
ð3Þ The limestone transmissivity law for Q = 100 kg and the
law obtained from the model that uses P = 28 MPa are
also shown in Fig. 3. Analyzing the figure, we can check
the adequate fit of the model.
It is worth mentioning that little changes in the model
(mesh, dimensions, shape of the pressure pulse . . . etc.)
cause changes in the results, but the model can
always be easily readjusted. On the other hand, this var-
iability in the model is avoided in the second part of the
study.

Limestone vibrations transmisivity law Limestone vibrations transmisivity patterns

10000 1000
Peak particle velocity (mm/s)

Empirical transmisivity Law (Q=100kg)

Peak particle velocity (mm/s)

1000 FEM model (P=28 MPa)

Dominant frequency: 25 Hz 100

100
10
10
1
1

0,1
0.1

0.01 0,01
1 10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
Scaled distance (D/Q 0.458 ) Distance (m)

Fig. 3. Vibrations transmissivity patterns for limestone (real and model).

18 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28

Fig. 4. Overview of the quarry.

3. Measurement campaign Blasting numbers 2, 3 and 4 are similar. The numbers of

In this research, the vibrations produced by four blasts
in a quarry have been measured. In each blast, the vibra-
tions were simultaneously measured in two points placing
seismographers at two different distances, always perpen-
dicular to the blasting line. A photograph of the quarry
is shown in Fig. 4 and a plan with the location of the blast-
ing benches and the position of the seismographers is
shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Location of the blasting lines and seismographers.
shots were 11, 12 and 13, all 18 m long and with approxi-
mate loads of 109, 108 and 106 kg of explosive per hole.
The blast design is more or less constant: 4 m of burden
and 5 m between holes.
Blast number 1 is the only one which is different, as it is
done in an access road to the bench; thus, the 13 shots have
different lengths and loads: 12.5 m and 63 kg, 13 m and
67 kg, 13.5 m and 70 kg, 14 m and 73 kg, 14.5 m and
77 kg, 15 and 80 kg, 15.5 m and 83 kg and finally six shots
of 18 m and 100 kg.
In all cases, the connection between the different shots is
done through a non-electric shot line (by means of shock
wave transmission tube). In order to sequence the shots,
a micro-delayed detonator of 25 ms is introduced between
consecutive shots, so the maximum charge per delay load is
limited only to one shot. The clay stopper length is always
around 3 m.
Seismographers were installed at 185–240 m in blast no.
1, and 100–180–240 m in the other blasts. In all cases seis-
mographers were in the quarry concession, several hundreds
of meters apart from the nearest houses. All of the records
gave information about the transmissivity law of the lime-
stone. Nevertheless, the records of the seismographers
located 240 m away from blasting were not representative
of the waveform because of the low magnitude of the veloc-
ity. On the other hand, in order to simplify the study, four
records have been chosen: two of them corresponding to
100 m distance and the other two corresponding to 180 m.
The records of the four blasts are shown in Figs.6–9. At
a first sight, one of the characteristics of this phenomenon

Blasting No. 1 (185 m)

10
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

7,5
5
2,5
0
-2,5 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-5
-7,5
-10
Time (s)

Fig. 6. Vertical velocity record of blasting no. 1 (185 m).

 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28 19

Blasting No. 2 (180 m)

Vertical velocity (mm/s) 10
7,5
5
2,5
0
-2,5 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-5
-7,5
-10
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Vertical velocity record of blasting no. 2 (180 m).

Blasting No. 3 (100 m)

20
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

15
10
5
0
-5 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-10
-15
-20
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Vertical velocity record of blasting no. 3 (100 m).

Blasting No. 4 (100 m)

20
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

15
10
5
0
-5 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-10
-15
-20
Time (s)

Fig. 9. Vertical velocity record of blasting no. 4 (100 m).

is clearly seen: its randomness. The big amounts of influ-
encing variables make vibrations highly unpredictable
and even when sensing similar blasts, the results are often
very different. On the other hand, the transmissivity law
is always accomplished: for the same distance and for the
same blasting loads the peak particle velocity is always in
a short range.
In this study, we have only taken into account vertical
velocities. The measurement of the longitudinal and the
cross velocities depends on the seismograph geophone
orientation and the relative position in relation to the
blasting line of the three available velocity sensors.
Taking into account the uncertainty that the cross
component has and also the two-dimensional characteris-
tics of the model, the study was simplified on this
sense.
4. Re-calibration of the model and its use in reproducing the
waves
4.1. Using the previous model
As was referred above, after an initial phase where the
modelling fundamentals were settled we moved to another
phase where the goal is to obtain the most exact reproduc-
tion of the vibration waves. This new calibration process
will be illustrated from the blasting no. 1 data (vibration
record at 185 m) because it is the one that presents most
different influencing factors. In Table 1, the length of each
shot, L, the explosive charge, Q, and the nominal delay
between shots, r, are resumed.
A first attempt using the model is done by producing 13
identical pressure pulses, separated by 25 ms in time and
20 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28

Table 1
Data of blasting no. 1
Blasthole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
L (m) 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 18 18 18 18 18 18
r (ms) 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Q (kg) 63 67 70 73 77 80 83 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 2
Pressure and delay for each shot (1st simulation)
Blasthole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
P0 (MPa) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
r0 (ms) 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

30 FEM model wave Real wave

20
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

10

0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-10

-20

-30
Time (s)

Fig. 10. Real velocity record and model result (1st simulation).

with a 28 MPa pressure, corresponding to the maximum ground, which depends on the quarry localization and
charge per delay, around 100 kg of explosives (18 m holes). sometimes on the different quarry zones, because of differ-
The pressure and the delay introduced in the model for ent geological structures, faults, terrain elevations, . . . etc.
each shot are shown in Table 2. The result of the model From the results of this experience (the peak particle veloc-
vs. recorded wave is shown in Fig. 10. ity vs. distance for all of the recorded data is shown in
Fig. 10 shows that the obtained results are not satisfac- Fig. 11), it can be inferred that in this zone, and in the
tory at all, as the simulated wave is not close to the mea-
sured one. Peak velocity is almost 30 mm/s (five times
higher) and the dominant frequency is around 35 Hz, big- Limestone vibrations transmisivity patterns
ger than the real one, which is 25 Hz. The only good 1000
approximation is the length of the wave, around 0.5 s in General transmisivity Law (Q=100kg)
both cases. Quarry transmisivity law (Q=100 kg)
Peak particle velocity (mm/s)

These differences between both waves can be explained 100

as follows: the initial model has been executed using a
transmissivity law that is over the point cloud, that is, it
10
predicts a peak particle velocity prevailing over the normal
limestone. In the real world, the ground response can be
below that transmissivity law. 1

4.2. First adjustment factor: local ground behaviour

0,1
Since the first works about this subject (Langefors and
Khilström [21] refers a number of them), it is known that
0,01
both vibration amplitude and frequency depend on the
10 100 1000 10000
characteristics of the rock mass that transmits the wave.
Distance (m)
Therefore, to calibrate the model better we have to know
the transmissivity curve corresponding to such specific Fig. 11. General and local vibrations transmissivity laws.
 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28
blasting and sampling conditions used, we have to use a
reducing coefficient of around 0.4.
The best possibility is to repeat the preceding reasoning
but using the real transmissivity curve of the quarry (that
we know at those points), which will guide us to suppose
that the 100 kg of explosives correspond in the model not
to 28 MPa but to 0.4 · 28 = 11.2 MPa.
4.3. Second adjustment factor: explosive charge on each hole
Another factor that has great influence on vibrations,
specifically in their maximum particle velocity, is the
amount of explosives that detonates at a certain moment
(also analyzed in the classical studies, Langefors and Khil-
ström [21]). Analyzing each blast hole separately, we can
establish that each of them will affect the surrounding
ground with an action proportional to the charge value.
As the distance of the holes to the wave measuring point
is approximately the same, the methodology expressed in
Toraño and Rodrı́guez [4] can be followed and then Eqs.
(4) and (6) can be combined as follows:
P ¼ 0:86  Q0:757
thus we can estimate approximately the pressure P (MPa)
that has to be introduced in the general model taking into
account the explosive load Q (kg) of one hole. Continuing
with the model referred above, it was already explained
that the value to introduce is around 40%, so Eq. (8)
becomes:
P ¼ 0:34  Q0:757
4.4. Third adjustment factor: explosive confinement within
the rock mass
In order to get a good rock fragmentation, the good
practice says that the explosive load in the different holes
cannot be detonated simultaneously but in a planned
sequence. By this we can arrive at a conclusion that when
a blast hole detonates, it encounters a pair of free surfaces
that eases its work: the bench and the void generated by the
previous blast hole detonation. This not only helps the rock
8 FEM model wave
6
Vertical velocity (mm/s)
0
0,0 0,1
-2
-4
-6
-8
Fig. 12. Real velocity record and model result after three corrections.
21
fragmentation but also diminishes the ground vibration
level. To take this into account, a 50% factor is arbitrarily
introduced in the pressure that simulates the explosive
effect on the rock mass from the second shot.
On the other side, the bigger is the distance from the
blast hole to the free surface of the bench (burden) the less
rock is excavated by the blasting and bigger are the vibra-
tions transmitted to the ground. In the blasting that is
being studied, the dip angle of the bench was steeper in
the sides of the blasting line than in the central part. As
the holes inclination was the same, the real burden was less
in the sides than in the centre. To take this into account, a
diminishing factor was used in both extreme holes.
The result of the modified model after these corrections
is shown in Fig. 12. With these new adjustments, we have a
better fit of the model and the real sample, as we can
observe a diminishing in the peak values in the first and
final cycles.
4.5. Fourth adjustment factor: firing sequence
The other factor that has to be taken into account in the
ð8Þ
simulation of a real wave is the time interval existing
between the arriving of the different waves produced by dif-
ferent blast holes and the measuring point. Two variables
have great influence on this: the sequence of the shot firing
and the real path of the wave from its origin to the measur-
ing point. The first one is studied here as it can be somehow
be estimated.
As was explained, in order to optimize the blasting we
ð9Þ
introduce a sequence in the shot firing. This is done
through the use of conventional delay detonators. This sys-
tem introduces an error that could be, following field
research (Winzer [22]), around 5–10 ms when using 25 ms
detonators (although manufacturers give minor values).
By this, the theoretical interval of 25 ms between shots
could really be between 15 and 35 ms.
To check this in this study, video tapes of the shot
sequence were used to have a reference of the effective time
of the shot initiation. Four photographs (at 40, 80,120 and
320 ms from the beginning of the blasting) are shown in
Fig. 13 where the light corresponding to the transmission
Real wave
0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
Time (s)
22 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28

Fig. 13. Photographs taken at times 40, 80, 120 and 320 ms.

line and the little detonator explosion can be seen crystal
clear. From their analysis it can be established: at 40 ms
shot 1 is already initiated and shot 2 is reached, at 80 ms
shot 3 is already initiated and shot 4 is reached, at
120 ms shot 5 is reached and at 320 ms shot 10 is initiated
and shot 11 is reached. It is clear that the real time delay
between shots is greater than 25 ms because if it would
be right, shot 10 would be initiated at 225 ms and not at
320 ms.
Taking all the information referred above into account,
in order to define the moment to introduce the pressure
pulses in our model the following hypotheses were estab-
lished: shots 2, 4, 5 and 11 detonate approximately from
the 40, 80, 120 and 320 ms, and the time interval between
pressure pulses could range between 15 and 35 ms. Com-
paring the model and the real waves (see Fig. 14) it can
be easily observed that we have improved the adjustment,
mainly the position of the wave peaks.

8 FEM model wave Real wave

Vertical velocity (mm/s)

0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-2

-4

-6

-8
Time (s)

Fig. 14. Real velocity record and model result after 4th correction.
 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28 23

4.6. Other adjustment factors: factors difficult to evaluate
Finally, other factors that have influence on the created
vibrations have to be taken into account.
For example, the relative position of the blast hole that
detonates and the measuring point, or the anisotropy of the
rock mass (that could make the wave to go through several
types of materials, faults . . . etc.), have influence mainly on
the wave velocity and the moment when the different waves
reach the seismographer.
Other factors, such as the clay stopper, the contact of
the explosive to the drill walls or the presence of water in
the hole, mainly influence the wave amplitude. The pres-
ence of these factors that exist but cannot be quantified is
what allows us to continue adjusting the model, but now
purely in an empirical manner trying to get a better fit of
the model to the reality. On this model, we have adjusted
specifically the pressure value on some shots with very
good results (see Fig. 15), which guide us to think that
these are the factors that we have still not taken into
account. The pressure and the delay introduced in the
model for each shot are shown in Table 3.
4.7. Re-calibration of the model for the blasting nos. 2, 3
and 4
Following the same methodology, the model has been
re-calibrated. Then, the vertical velocity records of blasting
nos. 2, 3 and 4 at 185, 100 and 100 m have been reproduced
with good results as it can be seen in Figs. 16–18.
5. Advances obtained in the wave simulation through FEM
modelling
As an example, Figs. 19 and 20 show the outputs of two
of the elaborated models for blasting no. 2: one with the
minimum possible adjustment (after one correction) and
other with all the possible adjustments (after six correc-

8 FEM model wave Real wave

6
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-2

-4

-6

-8
Time (s)

Fig. 15. Real velocity record and model result (blasting no. 1 at 185 m).

Table 3
Pressure and delay for each shot (final simulation)
Blasthole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
P6 (MPa) 3.4 3.4 4.5 4.4 6.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 8.9 7.2 5.6 1.1
r6 (ms) 0 35 33 37 36 32 14 28 30 37 33 34 39

10 FEM model wave Real wave

8
6
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

4
2
0
-2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
"
-4
-6
-8
-10
Time (s)

Fig. 16. Real velocity record and model result (blasting no. 2 at 180 m).
24 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28

20 FEM model wave Real wave

15

10
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

5
0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-5
-10
-15
-20
Time (s)

Fig. 17. Real velocity record and model result (blasting no. 3 at 100 m).

20 FEM model wave Real wave

15

10
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
-5 "
-10

-15

-20
Time (s)

Fig. 18. Real velocity record and model result (blasting no. 4 at 100 m).

10 FEM model wave

8
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

6
4
2
0
-2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
"
-4
-6
-8
-10
Time (s)

Fig. 19. FEM model wave of blasting no. 2 at 180 m (first simulation).

10 FEM model wave

8
Vertical velocity (mm/s)

6
4
2
0
-2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
"
-4
-6
-8
-10
Time (s)

Fig. 20. FEM model wave of blasting no. 2 at 180 m (final simulation).
 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28
tions). By comparing them to the real waves, better results
can be observed in the second one.
The more elaborated models simulate real waves with all
its complexity and even simulate the bigger vibration time
length or the fact of a frequency diminishing when we add
the effect of several shots. It is obvious that in order to pre-
dict the effect of blasting in buildings or surrounding struc-
tures (our last main objective), it is much better to use the
more elaborated models as an opposite to the simple one
that just gives us simple waves with frequency and ampli-
tude almost constant.
6. Practical use of the model
The availability of FEM models capable of reproducing
complex waves similar to the ones found in reality has a
great interest from the scientific and academic point of
view, but has the inconvenience of its difficult direct appli-
cation by the engineers who are designing the blasts, at a
quarry in this case. In fact, the model replicates a wave that
we know can be close to the real, but as all the real waves
are different, we know in advance that the wave reproduced
by the model will not be the same as the one that can be
measured in the blasting. That is, models as have been seen
are useful in the analysis of historical cases, blasts already
done, but are not so useful in the prediction work, when the
goal is to know the future results of a blast.
In order to achieve that these tools can also be used in
the daily work, a methodology that gets more practical
results has been developed. It uses the basic design param-
eters of the blast as initial inputs and then introduces a ran-
domness factor that make possible reaching several
solutions.
The working method is as follows. The method starts
from the calibrated model that follows the general law of
transmissivity and the design parameters of the blast: num-
ber of shots of the blast (n), explosive charge on each shot
(Qi) and the delay among shots, value depending on the
detonators used. In this case, we will suppose a mean delay
between shots tr = 32 ms, which is the measured mean (we
can also use the detonators nominal value, 25 ms).
The blast is simulated through ‘‘n’’ pressure pulses,
equally spaced at time tr. The maximum pressure on each
pulse is calculated, as was seen, from the explosive charge
on each shot:
P i ¼ k 1  k 2  ðk 3  Q0:757
i Þ ð10Þ
where k1 is the local conditions factor, in our case k1 = 0.40
(k1 = 1 can be used but higher peak particle velocity values
are obtained), k2 is a factor equal to 1 in the first shot and
0.5 for the other ones, k3 is the adjustment factor between
the model and the general transmissivity law, in this case
k3 = 0.86. We have to insist in the fact that these values
used in this model might be modified for another model
with different geometry, dimensions, number of ele-
ments, . . . etc. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to follow the
methodology in order to calibrate a different model.
25
It is known that there is some degree of uncertainty
about each shot detonation instant and how much energy
fraction is transmitted to the ground as a seismic wave.
In order to know which random variation can be intro-
duced, we will make use of our experience. From the ana-
lyzed waves it can be seen that the mean delay between
shots is 32 ms, but in order to adjust the waves as much
as possible there could be variations around ±7 ms. It
can also be checked from the models that in order to get
a better adjustment with the real wave, the pressure to be
introduced in the model can vary around ±30% from the
one estimated with Eq. (10).
In order to produce random results, the model inputs
can be randomized by adding to each delay a random num-
ber between 7 and 7 and multiplying each of the pressures
by a random number between 0.7 and 1.3.
Thus, five possible random waves generated by the
model appeared. But, from the practical point of view
the interest is not specifically in the waves but in the pos-
sible negative wave effects over the structures. These pos-
sible negative effects are generally defined by limiting the
peak particle velocity for different frequencies (BS 7385
[23], DIN 4150-3 [24], UNE 22-381-93 [25] or RI 8507
[26]). In order to show this, the positions of the pairs
of values, frequency–maximum particle velocity of all
the semi-cycles that compose the wave, are shown
in the graphic of the damage criteria with the limit
curves.
Those points clouds corresponding to the five simulated
waves of blasting no. 1 at 185, represented in the graphic,
that define the damage criteria of Spanish standard UNE
22.381-1993 are shown in Fig. 21. Group I are industrial
buildings and bays with concrete or metallic structures,
Group II are houses, offices buildings, shopping mal-
ls, . . . etc. or very strong architectonic structures and finally
Group III is formed by those archaeological, historic or
special architectonic structures that are very sensitive to
vibrations.
Rejecting the 5% of the points most separated from the
cloud, a surrounding area is defined that includes the rest
of the characteristics points of the random waves. These
areas are defined by a minimum frequency and a maximum
velocity of the semi-cycle that in the case of blasting no. 1
are 18 Hz and 6 mm/s at 185 m. And this is the result that
is really interesting for the engineer in his day to day work:
he will not be interested in the wave but in the area of the
damage criteria graphic where the representing points of
his blast will be included. This result can immediately eval-
uate the blast. Taking into account how the models have
been resolved, it can be inferred that all the blastings sim-
ilar to the no. 1 (13 shots with their different loads) will give
waves that, initially, cannot be predicted but we can say
that at 185 these will not cause damage to buildings below
this criterion, as the area defined by the models is below the
limit curves. Representing the real wave points, it can be
checked that they are effectively inside those estimated
areas (see Fig. 21).
26 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28

1000
1000

Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)

Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)

Group I Group I
100 100
Group II Group II

Group III Group III

10 10 FEM modelcurve
FEM model curve

Real wave points

FEM model points

1 1
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 21. Definition of the area through FEM model and real wave points cloud (blasting no. 1 at 185 m).

The estimated areas by this random technique and the If we intend doing a blast analysis in this quarry (blasts
real point cloud on each of the remaining blast nos. 2, 3 nos. 2, 3 and 4), we will conclude that using this blast
and 4 are shown in Figs. 22–24. We must say that using five scheme we can only have problems at distances around
random inputs, we already have a point cloud wide enough 100 m, as the estimated areas cut the limit curves of Groups
to define perfectly each case area. II and III. It can also be concluded that at 180 m it is very

1000 1000
Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)
Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)

Group I Grupo I
100 100
Group II Grupo II

Group III Grupo III

10 10
FEM modelcurve FEM model curve

FEM model points

Real wavepoints
1 1
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 22. Definition of the area through FEM model and real wave points cloud (blasting no. 2 at 180 m).

1000 1000
Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)
Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)

Group I Group I
100 100
Group II Group II

Group III Group III

FEM model curve FEM model curve

10 10

FEM modelpoints Real wave points

1 1
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 23. Definition of the area through FEM model and real wave points cloud (blasting no. 3 at 100 m).
 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28 27

1000 1000
Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)

Max. cycle velocity (mm/s)

Group I Group I
100 100
Group II Group II

Group III Group III

FEM model curve FEM model curve

10 10

Real wave points

FEM model points

1 1
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 24. Definition of the area through FEM model and real wave points cloud (blasting no. 4 at 100 m).

unlikely that these blasts can produce any damage, as the
estimated areas are below the building protection curves
of Group II.
We must say that due to the quarry size the nearest
buildings are 500 m far from the actual working benches,
so the blasts are correctly designed to avoid any damage
to the surrounding buildings.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the financial support given to
the project by the Spanish Ministerio de Fomento (Ministry
of Development) within the Priority Action Framework
‘‘New Technologies and Constructive Systems’’, of the Sec-
torial Area ‘‘Building and Cultural Heritage Conservation’’
(National R+D Plan 2000–2003).

7. Conclusions References

In this paper, the development of a non-complex FEM
model is summarized that allows the prediction of the com-
plex ground vibrations due to blasting. All the factors that
are known to have influence on the vibrations have been
introduced in the model trying to evaluate and quantify
their effect as much as possible. The more elaborated mod-
els simulate the real complex waves and even simulate the
fact of frequency diminishing when we add the effect of sev-
eral shots. It is obvious that in order to predict the effect of
blasting in buildings or surrounding structures (our last
main objective) it is much better to use the more elaborated
models as an opposite to the simple one that just gives us
simple waves with frequency and amplitude almost
constant.
A simple statistical study will guide to an approximated
solution of the same type as the one exposed, as shown in
the damage criteria. Now then, this statistical analysis can-
not allow reproducing ‘‘real waves’’, which is our new
model contribution. The model works as a virtual labora-
tory that generates possible waves and that can be used
with other rock types, as the rock characterization in order
to use FEM models is something that is widely studied and
that can benefit the engineer working with these studied.
In order to achieve that these tools can also be used in
the daily work wit, a methodology has been developed that
gets more practical results. It uses the basic design param-
eters of the blast as initial inputs and then introduces a ran-
domness factor that makes reaching several solutions
possible. These different solutions help us to define the risk
of existence of negative effects due to a real blasting.
[1] Edwards AJ, Northwood TD. Experimental studies of the effects of
blasting on structures. The Engineer 1960;210.
[2] Jia Z, Chen G, Huang S. Computer simulation of open pit bench
blasting in jointed rock mass. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1998;35(4–5):476–86.
[3] Chen SG, Zhao J. A study of UDEC modelling for blast wave
propagation in jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1998;35(1):93–9.
[4] Toraño J, Rodrı́guez R. Simulation of the vibrations produced during
the rock excavation by different methods. In: Proceedings of the XI
international conference on comp meth and exp measures. London:
WIT Press; 2003. p. 343–9.
[5] Wu C, Lu Y, Hao H. Numerical prediction of blast-induced stress
wave from large-scale underground explosion. Int J Numer Anal
Metho Geomech 2004;28:93–109.
[6] Liu YQ, Li HB, Zhao J, Li JR, Zhou QC. UDEC simulation for
dynamic response of a rock slope subject to explosions. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2004;41(3). CD-ROM.
[7] Anon. Algor12. Finite element analysis and event simulation
software. DocuTehc (user’s guide). USA: Algor Inc; 2000.
[8] Belles P, Vicente P. Ensayo sı́smico en un laboratorio virtual.
Ingenierı́a Civil 2001;123:53–9.
[9] Kuhlemeyer R, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for wave
propagation problems. J Soil Mech Foundations Div. ASCE 1973;
99:411–7.
[10] Serafim JL, Pereira JP. Consideration of the geomechanical classifi-
cation of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of the international symposium
on engineering, geology and underground construction, Lisbon 1(II),
1983. p. 33–44.
[11] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical stimates of rock mass strength. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(8):1165–86.
[12] Kutter HK, Fairhurst C. On the fracture process in blasting. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1971;8:181–202.
[13] McHugh S. Crack extension caused by internal gas pressure
compared with extension caused by tensile stress. Int J Fract
1983;21:163–76.
28 J. Toraño et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 15–28
[14] Donzé FV, Bouchez J, Magnier SA. Modeling fractures in rock
blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1998;34(8):1153–63.
[15] Essen S, Onederra I, Bilgin HA. Modelling the size of the crushed
zone around a blast hole. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2003;40:485–95.
[16] Mortazavi A, Katsabanis PD. Modelling burden size and strata dip
effects on the surface blasting process. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2001;38:481–98.
[17] Ding H, Zheng ZM. Source model of blasting vibration. Sci China,
Series E–Technol Sci 2002;45(4):395–407.
[18] Ding H, Labbas R, Zheng ZM. Features of blast-induced vibration
source and identification of geostructures. J Sound Vib
2005;288(1–2):91–106.
[19] Balsa J. Leyes estadı́sticas de transmisividad en distintos tipos de
roca. Canteras y Explotaciones 1989;272:61–73.
[20] Figueroa A, González E. Resultados del tratamiento estadı́stico de los
estudios de vibraciones producidos por voladuras. Canteras y
Explotaciones 1989;263:104–15.
[21] Langefors U, Kihlström B. The modern technique of rock blasting.
Gebers Förlag AB, Stockholm: Almquist & Wiskell; 1963.
[22] Winzer SR. Indiciator firing times and their relationship to
blasting performance. In: 20th US symposium on rock mechanics,
1979.
[23] Standard BS 7385. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in
buildings. United Kingdom.
[24] Standard DIN 4150-3. Erschütterungen im Bawessen. Germany.
[25] Standard UNE 22-381-93. Control de vibraciones producidas por
voladuras. Spain.
[26] US Buerau of Mines Researching Inform RI 8507. USA.