O N E AND T W O SUPPORT M O D E L S

FOR BLAST RESPONSE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Hiroaki Todo 1 and Charles H. Dowding 2

ABSTRACT: Blast response was modeled with a two support, two degree of
freedom (TDF) system to investigate the importance of traveling wave excita-
tion. Measured structural response was found to correlate better with either
single degree of freedom or TDF calculated response than with peak ground
motion when excitation frequency varies greatly.

INTRODUCTION

Cosmetic cracking of nearby structures is an important consideration

in many blast designs. Early studies of the relation of cracking to blast-
ing vibrations have concentrated on correlating the peak ground particle
velocity with building damage (5,7) and presently, particle velocity cri-
teria of 1-2 in. /sec (25-50 mm/s) are widely used for assessing cracking
potential. However, a single particle velocity criterion does not explicitly
incorporate either excitation or structural response frequencies, nor does
it address critical strain levels of various wall covering materials. A lumped
parameter dynamic model includes frequency considerations and is po-
tentially capable of evaluating strains. Dowding (2) and Dowding and
Corser (3) employed a lumped parameter, single-degree of freedom (SDF)
model to represent the structure and reviewed SDF model responses in
relation to the cracking potential of structures. However, possible trav-
eling wave excitation (which cannot be taken into account with the SDF
model) can occur where the motions vary either in amplitude or phase
across a structure.
This article presents a method for calculating the effects of amplitude
attenuation and time lag across the structure with a two-degree of free-
dom (TDF) model with two independently excited supports. In order to
assess the appropriateness of the TDF model, measured response of res-
idential structures to mining and construction blast vibrations are com-
pared to peak ground particle velocity and response calculated with SDF
and TDF systems.

TRAVELING WAVE EXCITATION

The phase difference between the two sides of the structure for a trav-
eling sinusoidal wave can be expressed as

+ =^ m
Vs
^roj. Engr., Kiso-Jiban Consultants Co., Tokyo, Japan.
2
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Northwestern Univ., Evanston, 111.
Note.Discussion open until November 1, 1984. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical
and Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for
review and possible publication on November 9, 1982. This paper is part of the
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 6, June, 1984. ASCE, ISSN
0733-9410/84/0006-0675/$01.00. Paper No. 18935.
675

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1,Comparison of Wave Length and Size of Residential Structures

in which 4> = phase difference (radians); / = wave frequency (Hz); D =

distance between two sides of the structure; and vs = wave velocity.
If a wave is long enough compared to the size of a structure (low
phase angle, = TT/8), the entire structure tends to move in one direc-
tion as illustrated in Fig. 1. In this case, it may be reasonable to represent
the entire structure with the SDF model. On the other hand, if the wave
length is only twice the width of the structure (high phase angle, c> | =
IT) the two sides of the structure move in opposite directions as shown,
and the use of the SDF model may not be appropriate.
Fig. 2 shows the relationship between the phase difference across the
structure, wave frequency and wave velocity. In the figure, the distance
between two sides of the structure is assumed to be 30 ft (10 m), which
is typical for low rise residential structures in the U.S.A. As seen in the
figure, a IT radian phase difference across the structure, which indicates
one side moving up while the other is moving down, is expected from
high frequency, high propagation velocity waves (typical for close blast-
ing in rock) or low frequency, low propagation velocity waves (typical
for waves in very weak soils).
Model.The TDF system with two independently excited supports as
shown in Fig. 3 is the simplest model that can be employed to study

250m/s
(soil)

~~21L *- ]1 ~2~
Phase Angle, 0

FIG. 2.-Relation between Phase Difference Across Structure, Wave Frequency

and Wave Velocity
676

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

 the effect of the phase difference across the structure. In order to utilize
this model, dynamic structural response properties and traveling wave
characteristics have to be determined. However, natural frequencies and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

damping ratios of the low rise residential structures represented by this

TDF system have not been well defined. Furthermore, changes in wave
forms traveling across the structure have not yet been adequately doc-
umented. Therefore, the response characteristics of the two-support TDF
model have been studied with conditions that are approximated but suf-
ficiently defined to understand the behavior of the model. The assump-
tions are as follows:

1. The fundamental natural frequency, fnl, and the first mode damp-
ing ratio, p i, are those found in literature for the low rise residential
structures represented with the SDF model (4,6). The average values are:
/! = 8 Hz, Pi = 5% (1 story); fnl = 6.5 Hz, p x = 5% (2 story) (2)
2. The spring and damping constants of the model were assumed equal
because of the symmetry of most residential structures:

M K2 ^3 / C] C 2 C3 . . . . (3)
Thus, with equal masses, w2 (k1 + 2k3)/m and p 2 (ci + 2c 3 )/2
Vwi(fci + 2k3) and
/ 2 =13.9Hz and p 2 = 8.7% (1 story)
= 11.3 Hz and p 2 = 8.7% (2 story) (4)
3. The type of the wave traveling between the two supports is as-
sumed to be constant, and change in particle velocity only occurs through
phase or amplitude. Changes in phase are easily calculated from first
principles; however, changes in amplitude are empirical. If the relation-
ship between the peak particle velocity and the distance given by Am-
braseys and Hendron (1) is valid for the whole time history, the particle

Absolute displacement of mass 1 and 2

Absolute displacement of supports
Mass
Spring constants
Damping constants

FIG, 3.Two Support, Two Degree of Freedom Model

677

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

 velocity at the second support is determined by
1.6
R+ D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

v2 = vt (5)
~R~
in which vt = particle velocity at the first support; v2 = particle velocity
at the second support; and R = distance between blast source and the
first support (shot distance).
4. The distance between the two supports, D, is 30 ft (10 m).

MODEL RESPONSE TO SINUSOIDAL EXCITATION

Response characteristics of the two-support, TDF model, when excited

with sinusoidal motions of equal frequency, different phase angles, and
different amplitudes at the two supports are first examined analytically.
Closed-form solutions of absolute displacement of the masses from sin-
usoidal support excitation are given by Todo (8). Fig. 4 shows ampli-
tudes of absolute displacement of the masses for a unit excitation am-
plitude at support 1. The amplitudes of the masses are shown for different

Vs = Shear Wave Velocity (m/s) Response

D =Shot Distance (m) TDF X| -
M ^Magnification Factor X2 -
SDF

(C)

V-200m/s
R = 45m

10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Excitation Frequency, f(Hz) Excitation Frequency, f ( H z )

f&2 is.e

(b) (d)

V=ZOO0m/s V = 2 OOOnVs

1 R=l5m -\ R45m

0
-

10
w 20 30 4 0
Excitation Frequency, f(Hz )
-
' w_
"0 10 20 30 40
Excitation Frequency, f ( H z )

FIG. 4.Absolute Displacement Amplitude of Masses of Sinusoidally Excited Two-

Degree of Freedom Systems with Varying Excitation Frequencies

678

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

 excitation frequencies, wave velocities and shot distances; excitation fre-
quencies are between 5-40 Hz; shot distance is either 50 ft (15 m) or 150
ft (45 m); wave velocity is 660 ft/sec (200 m/s) for soil and 6,600 ft/sec
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2,000 m/s) for rock. In Fig. 4(a), response of the SDF system with the
same natural frequency and damping as those of the first mode of the
TDF system is also shown. It is seen in the figure that: (1) At high fre-
quencies, say greater than 20 Hz, responses of the masses of both the
TDF and SDF systems do not differ significantly and the responses of
both systems are very small for different wave velocities and shot dis-
tances; and (2) at low excitation frequencies, close to the natural fre-
quencies of the system, response is greatly amplified and the magnitude
of the response depends on the wave velocity and shot distance.
Therefore, out-of-phase excitation at frequencies above 20 Hz for typ-
ical low rise residential structures is an insignificant engineering prob-
lem. In fact, the comparison shows that high frequency excitation can
not excite the entire structure.
At excitation frequencies lower than 20 Hz, the phase difference for a
wave velocity of 2,000 m/s (representing rock) is smaller than IT/4 ra-
dians as seen in Fig. 2. This means that the size of the structure is smaller
than one-eighth of the wave length and this situation may be simulated
reasonably with the SDF system. On the other hand, for wave velocities
of 200-500 m/s (representing soil), phase differences of IT radians are
induced at excitation frequencies lower than 20 Hz. Therefore, the TDF,
two-support model appears to be more meaningful for soil than rock.

MODEL RESPONSE TO REAL BLAST VIBRATION TRANSIENTS

It may be of interest to see how well the model can predict actual
structural responses to the real blast vibration transient. For this pur-
pose, pairs of motions from construction and surface mining blasts that
were simultaneously recorded on the ground and at the upper corners
of the structure were chosen for analysis. The absolute response velocity
calculated with the recorded ground motion was then compared to the
absolute measured response velocity.

CONSTRUCTION BLAST. ( 4 9 m from 3.15 kg/delay )

v^V^

COAL MINE B L A S T . ( 2 7 0 m from 409 kg /delay )

FIG. 5.-Comparison of Ground Motion Transients from Construction and Coal

Mine Blasts

679

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

 The time history pairs were collected by the United States Bureau of
Mines during their re-evaluation of the criteria for safe blasting (7). The
construction motions were obtained from 8 shots associated with 6 struc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tures founded on the rock. Shot distance, R, ranged between 30-160 ft

(10-50 m) with scaled distances, R/W1/3, of 15-90 ft/(lb)1/3. The maxi-
mum explosive charge per delay is represented by W. The coal mining
motions were obtained from 3 shots near a single house founded on
weathered shale. Shot distances ranged between 600-900 ft (180-270 m)
with scaled distances between 30-75 ft/(lb)1/3. The predominant fre-
quency (3) of surface coal mine transients falls between 5-50 Hz, while
the ground motions from construction blasts many times contain prin-
cipal frequencies greater than 50 Hz. Fig. 5 compares two of the exci-
tation time histories employed in this study.
Fig. 6 shows measured peak velocity of the structure versus: (1) Peak
particle velocity of the ground; (2) SDF model peak velocity; and (3) TDF
model peak velocity (mass 1), for construction and surface mine blasts.
Lines shown in the figure indicate the average relationship between the
model and measured peak velocities; slopes closer to 1.0 and lower stan-
dard deviations between the regression line and the data imply better

| o~-Construction Blast (I-story house)

---Construction Blast {2-story house)
A-Coal Mine Blast
; m- Average Slope
(V--Standard Deviation

m = 3 02
dm= 3.02
Om/m= I 0 0 -

A
&
A
qh A A

- ^ i5 50 75
Measured Peak Vebctty of Structure, (mm/s)

_- Measured Peak Velocity of Structure, (mm/s)

8 75| ' ' 1

Measured Peak Velocity of Structure, (mm/s)

F!G. 6.Measured Structure Peak Velocity versus Ground Peak Velocity, SDF and
TDF Model Peak Velocities for Construction and Coal Mine Blasts
680

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

 Average Slope

: Standard Deviation
o - Construction Blast (1 - story house)
- - Construction Blast ( 2 - story bouse)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-Average Slope
--Standard Deviation

0 25 50 75 100
Measured Peak Velocity of Structure,(mm/s)
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5
Measured Peak velocity of Structure, (mm/s)

15.0

m = 0.603
=" 12.5 On> = 0 . 5 0 2
0m/m = 0. 832
I 10.0

25 50 75 100
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5
Measured Peak Velocity of Structure,(mnVs) Measured Peak Velocity of Structure, (mm/s)

FIG. 7.Observed Structure Peak Ve- FIG. 8.Observed Structure Peak Ve-
locity versus Model Structure Peak Ve- locity versus Model Structure Peak Ve-
locities for Coal Mine Blasts locities for Construction Blasts

agreement between the modeled and measured structure velocities. Both

the TDF and SDF models employed the same and constant values for
damping and natural frequency described in the model assumptions.
Response to the high frequency construction blasts is particularly poorly
correlated with the peak particle velocity of the ground.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the measured peak velocity of the structure versus
the model peak velocity for coal mine and construction blasts, respec-
tively. In these figures it can be seen that: (1) The two-support TDF model
is a slightly better estimator of structural response for coal mine blasts
with the house founded on weathered shale; and (2) both two-support
TDF and SDF models tend to underpredict structural response for hard
rock construction blasts (with the houses founded on rock). This un-
derprediction most likely results from the model's inability to predict
response of the higher frequency modes. Models with more degrees of
freedom should be investigated; however, the more complicated models'
requirements for more input parameters may outweigh the engineering
benefits of more accurate results.

CONCLUSIONS
Structural response to blast induced ground motions that vary in phase
681

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

 and amplitude across the structure were studied with the SDF and TDF
models with independently excited supports. With the simple model and
assumptions, the following conclusions are obtained; closed-form solu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tions to sinusoidal excitation of equal frequency but differing phase and

amplitude at the two supports revealed that for typical situations, out-
of-phase excitation is more significant for houses founded on soil than
rock. Numerical response calculations with real ground motion time his-
tories produced by hard rock construction blasts and surface coal mine
blasts showed that the two-support TDF model is a slightly better esti-
mator of structural response than the SDF model for coal mine blasts
(with the house founded on weathered shale). Most importantly, either
SDF or TDF response correlates better with measured response than peak
ground particle velocity; however, both two-support TDF and SDF models
tend to underpredict structural response for hard rock construction blasts
(with the houses founded on rock). This underprediction most likely
results from the model's inability to predict response of the higher fre-
quency modes. Models with more degrees of freedom should be inves-
tigated; however, the more complicated model's requirements for more
input parameters may outweigh the engineering benefits of more ac-
curate results.

APPENDIX I.REFERENCES

1. Ambraseys, N. N., and Hendron, A. J., "Dynamic Behaviour of Rock Masses,"

Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Stagg and Zienkiewicz, ed., John Wiley
and Sons, New York, N.Y., Chapt. 7, 1968.
2. Dowding, C. H., "Response of Buildings to Ground Vibrations Resulting from
Construction Blasting," thesis submitted to the Univ. of Illinois, at Urbana-
Champaign, in 1971, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering.
3. Dowding, C. H., and Corser, P. G., "Cracking and Construction Blasting:
Importance of Frequency and Free Response," journal of the Construction Di-
vision, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. COl, 1981.
4. Dowding, C. H., Murray, P. D., and Atmatzidis, D. K., "Dynamic Properties
of Residential Structures Subjected to Blasting Vibrations," journal of the Struc-
tural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. ST7, 1981.
5. Duvall, W. I., and Fogelson, D. E., "Review of Criteria for Estimating Damage
to Residences from Blasting Vibrations," United States Bureau of Mines, Re-
port of Investigations 5968, 1965.
6. Medearis, K., "Rational Damage Criteria for Low-Rise Structures Subjected to
Blasting Ground Motions," Pit & Quarry, No. 5, 1981.
7. Siskind, D. E., Stagg, M. S., Kopp, J. W., and Dowding, C. H., "Structure
Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine
Blasting," United States Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigation 8507, 1980.
8. Todo, H., "Blast Vibration Analysis with a Two-Support, Two-Degree of Free-
dom System," thesis presented to the Northwestern University, Evanston,
111., in 1982, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of Science.

APPENDIX II.NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

C\ ,c2,c3 = damping constants for two-degree of freedom system;
682

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683

 D = distance between two supports or size of house;
f = frequency of excitation;
/in 'fm = natural frequencies of first and second mode for two-de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanyang Technological University- Library on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

gree of freedom system;

ki,k2,k3 = spring constants for two-degree of freedom system;
M = magnification factor;
m = average slope of best fit line passing through origin;
JW1/W2 = masses for two-degree of freedom system;
R = distance between blast source and the first support (shot
distance);
SDF = single degree of freedom;
TDF = two-degree of freedom;
VirVi peak radial particle velocities at supports 1 and 2;
vs = seismic velocity of wave;
W = maximum charge weight of explosive per delay;
X\,%2 absolute displacements of masses for two-degree of free-
dom system;
1/1 /1/2 = absolute displacements of supports for two-degree of
freedom system;
P i , p 2 = damping ratio of first and second mode for two-degree
of freedom system;
am = standard deviation; and
4> = phase angle between two supports.

683

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1984, 110(6): 675-683