See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280530863

A Proposal to Deter Residential Houses

Cracking Due to Subsurface Blasting
Conference Paper September 2005

CITATIONS

READS

19

2 authors, including:
Ezzeldin Yazeed Sayed-Ahmed
Ain Shams University
111 PUBLICATIONS 457 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strengthening of RC beams in Shear using FRP laminate View project

Strengthening steel beams using prestressed FRP laminate View project

Available from: Ezzeldin Yazeed Sayed-Ahmed

Retrieved on: 04 October 2016

A Proposal to Deter Residential Houses Cracking Due to Subsurface Blasting

Ezzeldin SAYEDAHMED
Associate Professor
University of Qatar (Qatar)
(on leave from Ain Shams
University, Egypt)
eysahmed@qu.edu.ea
BSc and MSc from Ain Shams
Univ. (Egypt); PhD from the
Univ. of Calgary (Canada);
State Award in Eng. Sc. (ASRT Egypt)

Khaled NAJI
Assistant Professor and
Head; Civil Eng. Dept.
University of Qatar
Doha, Qatar
knaji@qu.edu.qa
BSc from Univ. of Qatar
MSc from Univ. of Texas
PhD from Univ. of Florida

Summary
Vibration due to subsurface construction blasting may have a damaging effect on residential
buildings. The damage criteria currently adopted to limit the effect of these vibrations are based on
the soil Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) generated due to blasting on the ground surface close to the
structure. The real culprit, however, is not the ground PPV but it is the structural response to the
ground vibration. Here, the safe limit criteria of ground vibration generated by subsurface blasting
are presented. Two case stud ies have been performed on two residential houses located nearby an
excavation-by-blasting construction site. Analysis of the data recorded during blasting is compared
to the currently adopted vibration safe limit criteria. A new approach, which has recently been
proposed, is applied to these data. This approach is based on relating the PPV and the vibration
frequency to the structural response. A generalized safe limit criterion for sub-surface construction
blasting is proposed.
Keywords : construction blasting, ground vibration, rock excavation, peak particle velocity.

1. Introduction
Subsurface blasting results vibrations which may have an effect on residential buildings ranging
from disturbing the occupants to causing severe threshold cosmetic or structural damage.
Currently, there are no unified or widely accepted criteria for the safe limits of ground vibrations
resulting form subsurface blasting. All the currently available damage criteria are mainly based on
field observation. These criteria correlate the structural damage with either the soil Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) produced on the ground surface close to the structure or to the PPV together with
the soil particles vibrations frequency. Most of the safe limit criteria limit the PPV of the ground
vibration to 51 mm at the nearest non-owned structure to the blasting site.
However, it is not the soil PPV that matter but it is the structural response to the ground vibration:
all the blast-vibration complaints are actually due to the structure vibration not the ground vibration.
Thus, the currently adopted criteria can not define reliable and acceptable safe limits for subsurface
construction blasting. Three factors of ground vibration affect the structural response: ground
vibration amplitude defined via the PPV, ground vibration duration (which is not the same as the
blast duration), and ground vibration frequency. Usually seismographs report the PPV and the
frequency and often ignore the duration. Reducing ground vibration duration would reduce the
structure response but increase the perception of the occupants to the ground vibration.
In this paper, an overview of the existing safe limit criteria of ground vibration generated by
subsurface construction blasting is presented. Two case stud ies have been performed and discussed
on two residential houses (one and two storeys) located nearby a rock excavation which was
performed by blasting. Analysis of the accumulated data recorded during blasting is presented and
compared to the currently adopted ground vibration safe limit criteria. The PPV and the vibration
frequency due to excavation by blasting measured close to these houses satisfied the existing safe
limits criteria for subsurface blasting ground vibration. Despite this fact, both houses suffered
threshold cracks and one of them even had structural cracks. Thus, a new approach which has

recently been proposed is applied to the recorded data of the case stud ies. This new approach is
based on relating the PPV and the ground vibration frequency to the structural response. A
generalized safe limit criterion for sub-surface construction blasting is proposed.

2. Safe-Limit Vibration Damage Criteria

Considerable data for the effect of construction ground vibrations on nearby structures has been
collected and analyzed. Attempts have also been made to relate the vibration parameters
(displacement, velocity, acceleration and frequency) with the observed human annoying,
disturbance of sensitive devices and structural/threshold damage [1-6].
Blasting is generally adopted for rock excavation; the level of the resulting ground vibration and the
structural response depends on the explosive type and weight, delay time, blasting technology, soil
properties, distance between the structure and the blasting centre, susceptibility ratings of the
adjacent and remote structures, and the age and type of the structure. The damage cracks resulting
form construction blasting effect must be differentiated form these due to the influence of the
environmental condition affecting the structure. Structures with existing environmental damage
may be affected by construction blasting in a greater degree than sound structures.
2.1 Existing Vibration Safe-Limit Criteria
Currently, there is no universally accepted standard for safe limit of ground vibrations generated by
blasting. However, the International Standards ISO 4866 refers some major regulations of ground
vibrations for different types of buildings [7]. It was broadly argued that the structural/threshold
damage could be related to the PPV of the ground vibration [8-9].

40 Hz

30 Hz

15 Hz

12 Hz

4 Hz

PPV (mm/s)

2.1.1 United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) Criterion

A 10-year research programme of the USBM [10] led to the widely adopted criterion for the safelimit vibration against structural and threshold damage of buildings resulting from ground
vibrations generated by blasting.
100
The safe limit for the resulting
PPV (mm/s) USBM
50 mm/s
PPV was set at 51 mm/s in the
PPV (mm/s) OSM
frequency range of 3-100 Hz. In
its initial state, the USMB
<0.2
Drywall (19 mm/s)
criterion could not prevent the
frequent residents complaints
<0.76 mm
from construction blasting. To
Plaster (12.7 mm/s)
10
take into account the effect of the
dominant vibration frequency to
assess the ground vibration effect
on structures, an alternative
USBM frequency-based safe
limit was proposed [6]. This
1
criterion is known as USMB-RI
1
10
100
8507 (Figure 1) for providing
Frequency
(Hz)
safety against ground vibrations
Fig 1. USBM and OSM safe limit criteria against construction vibrations.
resulting from blasting.
2.1.2 United States Office of Surface Mining (OSM) Criterion
The USMB-RI 8507 criterion was modified by US Office of Surface Mining (OSM). It is shown
graphically in Figure 1 and compared to the USMB-RI 8707 criterion.
Table 1. PPV and Scaled Distance (US-OSM)

The OSM adopted two other methods. In the first method,

the PPV is limited to the values shown in Table 1 without
the need for monitoring the vibration frequency. In the
second method, the amount of explosive is designed based
on a scaled distance (SD) using the following Equation:

Distance

PPV

Scaled Distance

0~91 m

31.8 mm

22.6 m

92~1524 m

25.4 mm

24.9 m

> 1524 m

19.1 mm

29.4 m

W=

D
SD

(1)

Where W is the allowable charge weight per delay (kg), D is the distance (m) and SD is the scaled
distance given in Table 1 (m). The scaled distance method is very conservative and there is no need
to fit seismograph to measure the PPV or the vibration frequency during the blasting operation.
100
PPV (mm/s) OSM
PPV (mm/s) BS 7385
PPV (mm/s) DIN 4150
PPV (mm/s) Swiss Std

PPV (mm/s)

2.1.3 British Standard Criterion

The British Standard BS 7385
criterion for safe limit against
ground vibrations due to blasting
is plotted in Figure 2 and
compared to the OSM criterion.
This criterion is very close to
both the USBM-RI 8507 and the
OSM criteria. The BS 7385
adopts two lines for the safe limit
depending on the building type:
line 1 (independent of the
vibrations frequency) is used for
commercial large buildings and
line 2 (frequency based) is used
for residential or small buildings.

BS 7385 - Line 1
OSM

BS 7385 - Line 2

Swiss Std

10
DIN 4150

1
1

10
Frequency (Hz)

100

Fig 2. OSM versus other safe limit criteria against construction vibrations.

2.1.4 German
and
Swiss
Standards Criteria
The DIN 4150 and the Swiss Standards criteria for safe limits against ground vibrations resulting
from blasting are also plotted in Figure 2 and compared to the criterion of the US OSM. It is evident
from Figure 2 that these two criteria are conservative compared to both the American and British
criteria. It was argued that the DIN 4150 criterion is not damage-based; it is intended to minimize
the perceptions and complaints of housing residences nearby the blasting site.

2.2 Recently Proposed Vibration Damage Criteria

Drawbacks are common for all the currently adopted safe limit criteria. Generally, these criteria did
not consider the effect of blasts with low dominant vibration frequencies. They also provide no
distinction for the type, age or stress history of the structure; all of which considerably affect the
safe limits.
Despite its wide applicability, the currently used safe-limit criteria for ground vibration which are
all based on the PPV and frequency of the ground vibrations fail in many situations [11,12]. In the
matter of fact, the major drawback is in the concept of the safe limit criteria itself. The currently
adopted criteria were obtained by only correlating the structural damage to the intensity of the
ground vibration. However, a safe limit criterion against ground vibration due to blasting should be
based on the structure vibration not the ground vibration. In other words, the 51 mm/s safe- level
criterion should be applied to the PPV of the structural vibration due to blasting not to the soil
vibration.
The intensity of the vibration depends on the soil-structure interaction that determines the structure
responses to the ground excitation. A ground vibration frequency which is 40% (or more) greater
than the fundamental frequency of the structure introduces a structure PPV that is less than the PPV
of the ground vibration. On the other hand, a ground vibration with a frequency below the
fundamental frequency of the structure causes the structure to vibrate at least as much as the ground.
If the ground vibration frequency is close to the structural natural frequency, a state of resonance
may be ge nerated and the PPV of the structure will increase in folds beyond the PPV of the ground
vibration.
Low-rise buildings have a natural frequency in the order of 4~12 Hz [5,6,12]. However, the
structures and their parts (e.g. floor, walls, etc.) respond differently to ground vibration as they have

different natural frequencies. For example, the natural frequencies are 12~20 Hz for interior walls
horizontal vibrations and 8~30 Hz for floors vertical vibrations. Mid-walls vibrations cause
residential buildings to rattle making vibration more noticeable and aggravate human response to
and annoyance from ground vibration. In the matter of fact, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
follow a uniform vibration standard to reduce the human perception of vibratio n due to subsurface
blasting [13]
For the currently adopted safe limit criteria which are based on threshold/structure damage
prevention, it was proposed to apply an amplification factor ranging between 2 and 4.5 to the soil
PPV in the frequencies range of 4 Hz to 30 Hz as a modification to these criteria in order to
consider the structures resonance effect [14].

3.

Case Studies

The Ministry of Municipal Affair and Agriculture (MMAA) of the State of Qatar executed a project
for sewerage system in Alkhor City. Part of the project layout plan is shown in Figure 3. The soil of
the whole construction site mainly consists of hard rock which is very difficult to excavate using
conventional methods. Thus, the contractor proposed to perform the excavation using subsurface
blasting. The MMAA granted the contractor the permission to perform the excavation by blasting.
According to the local regulations, the Ministry of Interior (MoI) has to supervise all the blasting
procedures and record, using seismograph, the resulting soil PPV and vibration frequencies.
N

House 1

House 2

Fig. 3 Part of the layout plan of Alkhor City sewerage system project

All the safe limits criteria for ground vibration resulting from the subsurface blasting, particularly
those of the USBM and OSM, were accurately followed. The readings recorded by the
seismographs for all the blasting events were below the 51 mm limit specified by the MoI
regulations. However, complaints were reported from many houses residents accusing the blasting
operations to cause threshold cracks to their houses. Two case studies are investigated in this paper.
The readings of the seismographs recorded nearby the houses of the two case studies are presented
and compared to the currently adopted safe limit ground vibration criteria. The proposed safe limit

criterion is also applied to these two case studies to investigate the effect of the ground vibration
resulting from the excavation by blasting on the two houses.
3.1 Case Study 1
The first investigated case study is a two-storey residential house which was newly built. When the
excavation by blasting started the house was almost one year old. It is an ordinary reinforced
concrete structure with solid slabs carried by reinforced concrete beams which are supported over
columns. The foundation of the house is composed of isolated footings constructed 1.20 m below
the lowest ground level and tied together with ground beams. The mid-wall partitions of the house
consist of concrete block masonry walls. The house contains one stair case joining its two storeys.
After the excavation by blasting, many cracks appeared inside and outside the house (Figure 4).
Most of the thresholds cracks started from the window frames, propagated vertically for a short
distance then continue to propagate diagonally at an angle ranging between 30o to 60o . One
structure crack was also visible in the beam carrying the reinforced concrete slab of the second
storey over the stair case.

Figure 4. Some cracks which appeared on House 1 after excavation by blasting. (Cracks circled by dotted
lines have been enhanced by plotting grey lines on top of them)

Samples of ground PPV measured during the excavation by blasting process around the house are
listed in Table 2. The first row of the table gives the event number while the second lists the
recorded PPV. The date of the event and its position with respect to the house were eliminated from
the table. The seismographs also recorded the blasting event frequency in the vertical, radial and
circumferential directions. These frequencies are plotted against the PPV for every blasting event in
Figure 5 and compared to some of the currently available safe limit ground vibration criteria. The
PPV of the low frequency vibrations (between 10 20 Hz) are magnified, as recommended by the
newly proposed safe limit criterion, and also plotted in Figure 5.

100
OSM

PPV (mm/s)

Due to resonance

Swiss Std
USBM

10
BS7385

DIN 4150

281

283

177

185

282

280

288

294

295

218

220

284

285

279

287

147

155

163

219

1
1

10
Frequency (Hz)

100

Figure 5. Comparison between the ground PPVs and vibration Frequencies of the blasting events recorded for
House 1 and the safe limit damage criteria.
Table 2. PPVs recorded for some blasting events around House 1.
Event No.

281

282

280

283

177

185

288

294

287

PPV (mm/Sec)

14.67

22.73

23.17

20.78

14.95

27.47

20.07

15.69

19.80

Event No.

219

218

220

284

285

279

147

163

PPV (mm/Sec)

25.47

28.84

20.46

19.29

12.44

14.24

24.77

23.32

3.2 Case Study 2

The second investigated case study is a one-storey residential house which was about twenty years
old when the excavation by blasting started. The house was renovated about two years before the
start of the excavation work. It is an ordinary reinforced concrete structure with solid slabs carried
by reinforced concrete beams which are supported over columns. The foundation of the house is
isolated footings. The partitions of the house consist of concrete block masonry walls. Some of the
cracks which appeared in this house after excavation are shown in Figure 6.
Samples of ground PPV measured during the excavation by blasting process are list in Table 3. The
vertical, radial and circumferential frequencies recorded by the seismographs are plotted against the
PPV for every blasting event in Figure 7 and compared to some of the currently available safe limit
ground vibration criteria. Ground PPV which have low frequency vibrations are magnified and
plotted in Figure 7.
Table 3. PPVs recorded for some blasting events around House 2.
Event No.

269

270

175

176

266

267

182

183

PPV (mm/Sec)

18.78

22.34

23.0

12.68

21.95

15.72

22.42

16.90

3.3 Discussion of Case Studies Data

It is evident form the readings of the seismographs (samples of them are summarized in Tables 2
and 3) that the PPVs recorded for all blasting events were well below 51 mm; the safe limit required
by the MoI and defined in most of the currently available safe limit criteria. However, threshold
cracks, and even structural cracks, appeared in these houses after the excavation by blasting.
Furthermore, the residents complaints from the blasting effect were pronounced.

Figure 6. Some cracks which appeared on House 2 after excavation by blasting. (Cracks circled by dotted
lines have been enhanced by plotting grey lines on top of them)

Plotting the relations between the PPVs and the frequencies of the ground vibrations for these
events (Figures 5 and 7) reveals that the ground vibrations satisfy the safe limit criteria set by the
USBM, the OSM and the BS 7385. Some the events do not satisfy the Swiss Standards and most of
them are unsafe compared to the DIN 4150 specifications. However, these two standards are human
annoyance driven as opposed to structural damage driven criteria.

100
OSM

PPV (mm/s)

Due to resonance

Swiss Std
USBM

10
BS7385

DIN 4150

268

269

270

175

266

267

182

183

176

1
1

10
Frequency (Hz)

100

Figure 7. Comparison between ground PPVs and vibration Frequencies of the blasting events recorded for House
2 and the safe limit damage criteria.

Thus, it is clear that the currently available safe limit criteria ignore a very important factor which is
the structural response to the ground vibration. So, as a modification, the PPVs of the low level
frequency vibrations (4-20 Hz) were magnified by a factor of 4.0 to simulate the resonance or wall
rattling which may occur to the houses in these cases. With this modification, Figures 5 and 7 reveal

that some of the ground vibrations have PPVs which are outside the safe limit defined by most safe
limit criteria and may cause damage to the structures.

4.

Summary and Conclusions

The currently available safe limit criteria for ground vibrations resulting from subsurface blasting
were discussed. All these criteria do not focus on the resonance or wall rattling which may occur to
a residential building if it is subjected to low- frequenc y ground vibrations.
Data recorded for two case studies of houses located nearby subsurface blasting were examined.
The two houses suffered cracking despite satisfying the safe limit criteria required for subsurface
blasting. It is argued that ground vibrations with low level frequencies affected the structural
response of these two houses causing resonance and wall rattling. These, in turn, caused threshold,
and even structural, cracks beside the unbearable disturbance to the residences.
Thus, it is recommended to magnify the PPV of the low level frequencies (4-30 Hz) by factors
ranging between 2.0 and 4.5 before comparing them to the currently available safe limit criteria.

5.

References

[1]
[2]

DOWDING C.H., Construction Vibrations, Prentice Hall, N.Y., 1996, 610 p.

WISS J.F., Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 107, No. GT2, 1981, pp. 167-181.
SVINKIN M.R., Analyzing Man-Made Vibrations, Diagnostics and Monitoring,
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Case Historic in Geotechnical
Engineering, Rolla, Missouri, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 663-670.
Crandell F.J., Ground Vibration Due to Blasting and its Effect upon Structures, Journal of
the Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section/ASCE, Vol. 3, 1949, pp. 222-245.
Medearis K., Development of Rational Damage Criteria for Low-Rise Structures Subjected
to Blasting Vibrations, Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Rock Mechanics. 1977.
Siskind D.E., Stagg M.S., Kopp J.W. and Dowding C.H., Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Ground Vibrations from Subsurface Blasting, RI 8507, US Bureau of Mines,
Washington DC, USA, 1980.
ISO 4866-1990 International Standards, Mechanical Vibrations and Shock Vibrations of
Buildings Guidelines for the Measurement of Vibrations and Evaluation of their Effects on
buildings.
Wiss J.F., Effect of Blasting Vibration on Buildings and People Civil Engineering, ASCE,
July 1968, pp. 46-48.
Duvall W.I., and Fogelgon, Review of Criteria for Estimating Damage to Residences from
Blasting vibrations, US Bureau of Mines, RI 5868. 1962
Nichollas H.R., Johnson C.F., and Duvall W.I., Blasting Vibrations and Their Effect on
Structures, US Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656. 1971.
Quesne J.D., Blasting Vibratio n from Limestone Quarries and Their Effect on Concrete
Block and Stucco Homes, Vibration Problem, Geo-Discussion Forum, www.geofrum.com.
2001
ISEE, Blasters Handbook, International Society of Explosive Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio,
USA, 1998, 743 p.
Baliktsis E.K., Blasting Vibration Limits to Prevent Human Annoyance Remarks from Some
Case Studies, Mineral Resources Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2001, pp. 71-81.
Svinkin M.R., Drawbacks of Blast Vibration Regulatio ns, http://www.vulvanhammer.org.

[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]