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

net/publication/257785745

A new damage criteria norm for blast-induced ground vibrations in Turkey

Article  in  Arabian Journal of Geosciences · April 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12517-013-0830-8

CITATIONS READS

8 1,227

3 authors, including:

Abdulkadir Karadogan Ali Kahriman

Istanbul University Okan Universitesi
40 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

ground vibration due to blasting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdulkadir Karadogan on 02 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626
DOI 10.1007/s12517-013-0830-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
A new damage criteria norm for blast-induced ground
vibrations in Turkey
Abdulkadir Karadogan & Ali Kahriman & Umit Ozer
Received: 9 May 2012 / Accepted: 11 January 2013 / Published online: 21 February 2013
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2013
Abstract Environmental problems such as vibration and air
blast are often faced and discussed in mining, quarrying,
civil construction, shaft tunnel, pipeline, and dam opera-
tions, where blasting is inevitable. It is necessary to establish
national standards in order to minimize environmental prob-
lems induced by blasting and judicial matters in our country
as it is in the USA, European Union (EU) countries, and
other developed countries. This necessity and the obligation
of Turkey, which has started the procedure of joining the
EU, to accept EU criteria emphasize the importance of this
study. In other words, the establishment of a particular
national standard related with this subject is inevitable for
Turkey. This will be possible only by studying and applying
scientific methods and techniques by experts. This paper
presents a new damage criterion norm for blast-induced
ground vibrations in Turkey. In this study, first, numerous
vibration records were taken in blasting operations per-
formed at different sites and rock units. For these rock units,
particle velocity predictions and frequency analysis were
done. At the same time, structures in the neighborhoods of
these blasts were also observed and investigated. Finally, a
damage criterion norm based on risk analysis was estab-
lished and proposed by using these collected data. In light of
the norm to be obtained from the data that were collected in
the research, it will lead the excavation work in our country
to be performed in such way that they are more effective and
will cause minimum environmental problems.
Keywords Blasting . Ground vibration . Peak particle
velocity . Frequency . Damage criteria norm
A. Karadogan (*) : U. Ozer
Mining Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Istanbul University, Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: akadir@istanbul.edu.tr
A. Kahriman
Explosives Engineering MSc Program, Institute of Sciences,
Okan University, Hasanpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
Introduction
According to the fragmentation principle, beyond the region of
material actually shattered and displaced, there is generally a
relatively small region of plastic deformation and cracking, and
remaining energy is propagated as an elastic wave in the ground
as well. If the charge is near the surface, there may also be
propagation through the air. At short range, a wave radiates
spherically and amplitude diminishes inversely with distance
from the blast. At longer ranges, two other factors affect the
propagation process: (1) the wave splits into three types of wave
that travel at different speeds and (2) variations in the medium
such as layering or fissuring may introduce further scattering
and dispersal effects (Dowding 1985; Kahriman 2001).
A major geological fault intersecting the path may largely
prevent propagation in a particular direction. In the region
nearby, ground vibration may cause damage to buildings and
other man-made structures by creating dynamic stresses
(Dowding 1985). Scientists and experts in this area agree that
the level of excited ground and structure vibrations depends
on blasting technology, type and weight of explosive, delay-
timing variations, site geology, scaled distance, parameters of
waves at a site, susceptibility ratings of adjacent and remote
structures, and other factors (Ak et al. 2009). Peak particle
velocity (PPV) has been accepted as an important indicator of
structural damage. It depends mainly on maximum charge per
delay, distance from the blast to the measuring point, and
characteristics of the intervening medium (Kuzu 2008). In
estimating ground vibrations, a common practice uses PPVs
to predict structural responses and human tolerance to ground
vibrations by using various empirical ground motion predic-
tors (attenuation equation (AE)). They give PPV as a function
of site conditions (i.e., geological and technological condi-
tions) and scaled distance (Mesec et al. 2010).
In the past, the relationship between the mine and the local
communities suffered from mutual cultural misunderstand-
ings. Today, the mining industry needs to demonstrate its
concern for the environment and its ability to minimize the
1618 Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626

environmental impact caused by rock blasting. Poor public Table 1 OSMRE (Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Enforcement, United States, Department of the Interior March, 1987)
relations or a poor track record of environmental management
regulation
can induce people who live near a mine facility to complain,
sometimes quite loudly and publicly, against the environmen- Distance for blasting site (m) Maximum allowable peak
particle velocity (mm/s)
tal problems created by rock blasting. This can create neigh-
borly controversies and legal action, which may shut down the 0–90 31.25
mine (Costa et al. 1996; Kahiriman et al. 2002). 90–1,500 25.00
Although various research studies were carried out in the 1,500 and above 18.75
past in order to isolate the environmental issues produced by
blasting, a general reliable approach or a formula has not
been established yet because of the complexity of the matter.
European Standards
In addition to the wave and ground motion characteristics,
the complexity of blasting parameters and site factors re-
The European Standards are PPV level as a function of two
strict the development of a general criterion. Therefore,
factors: (1) the frequency of vibration and (2) the type of struc-
experimental site-specific studies should still be performed
ture. The German standards from DIN 4150 are summarized in
in order to predict and control blasting effects (Kahriman
Table 2. The French standards (87/70558) are tabulated in
2002; Karadogan 2008).
Table 3. The Swedish standards (SS 460 48 66) are based upon
The main goal of this study is to estimate the structural
ground conditions (as mentioned Table 4 (Basu and Sen 2005).
damage produced by ground vibration in blasting excava-
tions and to present data and principles upon which a na-
Indian Standard
tional damage criterion norm can be established. Therefore,
a major contribution was made in terms of reaching
As per present Indian Standards, as mentioned in Directorate
European Union (EU) standards, a significant beginning
General of Mines Safety (DGMS) (Tech) (S&T) Circular No.
for the minimization of environmental and judicial problems
7 dated 29th August of 1997, depending on the type of
and the solution to these problems. A damage criterion norm
structures and dominant excitation, the PPV on the ground
based on risk analysis specific to Turkey was also presented.
adjacent to the structure shall not exceed the values given in
the Table 5 (Basu and Sen 2005).
Blast vibration standards
Test sites descriptions
PPV is the most accepted criteria to assess the damage poten-
tial of structures due to blast vibrations. Various types of
An extensive 5-year research program was carried out in
research have been done in different countries and different
order to eliminate environmental problems and estimate
standards have been established for damages to different
PPV for 16 blasting sites in Turkey. To increase the number
structures as per their findings (Basu and Sen 2005).
and diversity of data in the scope of this study, some re-
search that had been conducted previously on the subject in
United States Bureau of Mines
our country was reviewed again. For this purpose, the data
obtained in 11 different fields since 1995 by Kahriman et al.
The United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) has extensively
and the data of the study that was conducted in the Akdaglar
studied various aspects of ground vibration, etc. due to opencast
Quarry by Kuzu and Ergin (2003) were evaluated again in
blasting and damaging effects on different types of structures.
this study. Thus, the amount of data is even more integrated
They found the PPV is the best index to determine the damage
and diversified and vibration characteristics of different rock
criteria for structures. However, the recent thought is also
frequency oriented and dominant frequencies in the blast vibra-
tions are also considered to assess damage criteria in a better
Table 2 The German standards from DIN 4150
way.
As per Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Structure type Peak particle velocity (mm/s)
Enforcement (OSMRE, United States, Department of the
Interior, March, 1987) Regulation 816.67 (d) (2), the max- 4–8 Hz 8–30 Hz 30–100 Hz
imum PPV shall not exceed the following limits at the Commercial 20 20–40 40–50
location of any dwellings, public buildings, school, church Residential 5 5–15 15–20
or community or institutional building outside the permitted Very sensitive 3 3–8 8–10
area (Table 1) (Basu and Sen 2005).
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626 1619

Table 3 The French standards (87/70558) Table 5 Permissible peak particle velocity (PPV) at the foundation
level of structures in mining areas in mm/s (Indian DGMS Standard)
Structure type Peak particle velocity (mm/s)
Type of structure Dominant excitation frequency (Hz)
4–8 Hz 8–30 Hz 30–100 Hz
<8 Hz 8–25 Hz >25 Hz
Resistant 8 12 15
Sensitive 6 9 12 A. Buildings/structures
not belonging
Very sensitive 4 6 9
to the owner
i. Domestic houses/ 5 10 15
structures (Kuchha
brick and cement)
units to be put in place are studied. In fact, the vast majority ii. Industrial buildings 10 20 25
(RCC and framed
of these studies were conducted by the authors of the study. structures)
Within the scope of this study, the locality map of these 28 iii. Objects of historical 2 5 10
blasting sites (12 previous studies and 16 new studies) importance and
sensitivestructures
studied for vibration monitoring is given in Fig. 1. B. Building belonging
to owner with
limited span of life
i. Domestic houses/ 10 15 25
Test procedure structures (Kuchha
brick and cement)
Within the scope of the current research, ground vibrations ii. Industrial buildings 15 25 50
(RCC and framed
induced by blasting were measured to estimate damage risk structures)
and site-specific attenuation for each site and rock unit. While
the measured distances were recorded for all the shots for each
site, the ground vibration components were measured using scaled distance and particle velocity as basis. The scaled dis-
about 21 vibration monitors (Instantel Minimate Plus model, tance is a concept that puts forward that using an amount of
Instantel Blastmate and the White Mini-Seis model). explosive creates energy in air shock and seismic waves and
The blasting geometry applied in these sites and the affects the basis of distance. The distance between shot points
charging process were designed by blasters of the compa- and monitor stations was determined using surveying equip-
nies and the vibration measurements were applied to this ment and global positioning system (GPS) on each site. The
work spontaneously. In other words, necessary information scaled distance is derived by a combination of distance between
such as quantitative measurements and observations were source and measurement points and the maximum charge per
the only data obtained from the blast shots, which would be delay. The equation used for the scaled distance is given below:
the basis of the monitoring.
The amount of explosive per delay was determined by SD ¼ R=W 0:5 ð1Þ
controlling the hole charge. In the determination of maxi-
mum charge per delay, the amount of dynamite used as where SD is the scaled distance, R is the distance between the
priming has been taken into consideration depending on shot and the station (meter), and W is the maximum charge per
weight strength and added to the amount of ammonium delay (kilogram). In addition, the formula given below, which is
nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO). suggested extensively in most investigations, has been used as a
In predictions of ground vibration, although a lot of empirical predictor for the estimation of the PPV:
relations have been established and used by different research-
ers in the past, the most reliable relations are those accepting b
PPVðmm=sÞ ¼ K  ðSDÞ ð2Þ

where K is the ground transmission coefficient and β is the

Table 4 The Swedish standards (SS 460 48 66)
Subsoil
Unconsolidated strata of moraine sand, gravel, and clay
Consolidated strata of moraine slate and soft limestone
Granite, gneiss, hard limestone, quartzite sandstone,
and diabase
specific geological constant.
Vibration To assure reliability of the equation (Eq. 2), the attenuation
(mm/s) formula must be adjusted statistically to a 95 % confidence
level and the “goodness of fit” or coefficient of determination
18
(r) of the data should be no less than 0.7. The standard devia-
35
tion, used in establishing the confidence level, should be as
70
close as possible to zero. When the goodness of fit is too low,
below 0.7 or so, this is an indication that there is some problem
1620 Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626

Fig. 1 Location of the test sites and previous studies in Turkey

Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626 1621

Table 6 Data of the test sites

Test site Number Number of Number of used
of shots event records vibration monitor

İstanbul-Beylerbeyi–Küçüksu Wastewater Tunnel Const. 139 461 5

İstanbul-Çatalca Akyol Quarry 715 754 10
Kütahya-Hisarcık Open Pit Colemanite Mine 1,361 1,361 1
İstanbul-Çatalca Beta Quarry 4 32 8
İstanbul-Kağıthane-Piyalepaşa Tunnel Const. 126 250 4
Kütahya-Emet Espey Open Pit Colemanite Mine 13 38 4
İstanbul-Kemerburgaz Öztaş Quarry 6 31 10
İstanbul-Cendere Lafarge Quarry 2 12 6
Zonguldak-Cemaltepe Quarry 6 90 15
İstanbul-Melen Project Derbent Tunnel Construction 19 32 13
İstanbul-Cebeci Quarries 35 35 4
İstanbul-Çatalca Artaş Quarry 4 7 4
Northern Cyprus Quarries 6 27 3
İstanbul-Beykoz–Kavacık Wastewater Tunnel Const. 33 21 1
İstanbul-Kadıköy Kartal Subway Tunnel Construction 204 365 4
Çan Open Pit Coal Mine 25 246 11

or inconsistency in the data (Costa et al. 1996; Kahriman 2002;
Ozer et al. 2008a).
Measurement results
Within the scope of this experimental study, in order to
measure the environmental effects of this blasting, various
station points (as close as possible but variable) were chosen
randomly with arbitrary distances at all sites. In addition,
some of these stations were chosen as locations where the
damage risk possibilities were available. The main objective
for the selection of these points was to be able to evaluate
the affecting degree of the damage arising from previous
blasting by reviewing past term blasting records such as
blast pattern, type and amount of used explosives, daily shot
location, etc. by determining the level of the frequency and
velocity of the vibration.
In the shots where the application conditions such as loca-
tion are as explained above, the particle velocity occurred by
vibration inside the rock and the frequency values were
recorded using 21 vibration monitors (15 Instantel Minimate
Plus model, one Instantel Minimate Blastmate model, and five
White Mini-Seis model). In the blasting records, geophones

Table 7 Data of the previous

studies Previous studies Number Number of Number of used
of shots event records vibration monitor

Sivas–Open Pit Celestite Mine 47 47 1

İstanbul-Cendere Akdağlar Quarry 33 33 1
İstanbul-Çatalca Sarıkayatepe Quarry 73 73 1
Mudanya–Kayabaşı Quarry 6 5 1
İstanbul-Tuzla Dragos Tunnel Construction 3 3 1
Gebze–TOSB Infrastructure Construction 149 149 1
İstanbul-Tarabya Wastewater Tunnel Construction 1 3 3
Çan Open Pit Coal Mine 54 54 1
İstanbul Subway–Tunnel Construction 251 452 4
Afyon Cement Factory Halımoru Quarry 5 11 4
Balıkesir Cement Factory Naipli Quarry 5 20 4
İstanbul-Foundation Const. of Cumhuriyet Purification Plant 5 18 5
1622 Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626

Table 8 Field constants for test sites

Test site Rock unit No. of No. of event Field constants of Field constants of
shots records 50 % average line 95 % prediction
equation line equation

K β r K β r

İstanbul-Çatalca Sarıkayatepe Quarry Limestone 73 73 340 1.79 0.93 1,148 1.79 1

Mudanya–Kayabaşı Quarry Limestone 6 5 2,115 1.99 0.83 12,589 1.99 1
İstanbul-Tarabya Wastewater Tunnel Limestone 1 3 13 0.26 0.07 – – –
Construction
Afyon Cement Factory Halımoru Quarry Limestone 5 11 696 1.79 0.89 2,188 1.79 1
Balıkesir Cement Factory Naipli Quarry Limestone 5 20 1,190 2.21 0.79 6,607 2.21 1
İstanbul-Beylerbeyi–Küçüksu Wastewater Limestone 139 461 978 1.45 0.67 3,020 1.45 1
Tunnel Const.
İstanbul-Çatalca Akyol Quarry Limestone 715 754 564 1.41 0.81 1,288 1.41 1
Kütahya-Hisarcık Open Pit Limestone 1,361 1,361 839 1.52 0.80 2,291 1.52 1
Kütahya-Emet Espey Open Pit Mine Limestone 13 38 294 1.45 0.71 1,778 1.45 1
İstanbul-Çatalca Beta Quarry Limestone 4 32 2,874 1.99 0.89 10,715 1.99 1
Zonguldak-Cemaltepe Quarry Limestone 6 90 773 1.67 0.79 3,311 1.67 1
İstanbul-Cebeci Quarries Limestone 35 35 78 1.01 0.81 229 1.01 1
İstanbul-Çatalca Artaş Quarry Limestone 4 7 59 1.20 0.83 145 1.20 1
İstanbul-Beykoz–Kavacık Wastewater Limestone 33 21 46 1.06 0.64 85 1.06 1
Tunnel Const.
Northern Cyprus Quarries Limestone 6 27 148 1.28 0.81 1,445 1.28 1
İstanbul-Kemerburgaz Öztaş Quarry Sandstone 6 31 87 1.00 0.75 182 1.00 1
İstanbul-Cendere Lafarge Quarry Sandstone 2 12 91 1.11 0.91 209 1.11 1
İstanbul-Kağıthane-Piyalepaşa Tunnel Greywacke+siltstone 126 250 890 1.38 0.71 2,754 1.38 1
Construction
İstanbul-Cendere Akdağlar Quarry Greywacke 33 33 113 1.15 0.89 257 1.15 1
İstanbul-Melen Project Derbent Siltstone 19 32 70 0.74 0.30 490 1.03 1
Tunnel Construction
İstanbul-Tuzla Dragos Tunnel Const. Siltstone 3 3 3.6 0.25 0.20 – – –
Çan Open Pit Coal Mine Marl+clay+coal 79 300 408 1.34 0.89 1,072 1.34 1
İstanbul Subway–Tunnel Construction Claystone 251 452 600 1.22 0.61 1,479 1.22 1
Gebze–TOSB Infrastr. Const. Granite 149 149 92 1.19 0.79 275 1.19 1
Sivas–Open Pit Celestite Mine Gypsum+anhydride+celestite 47 47 645 1.71 0.83 2,570 1.71 1
İstanbul-Foundation Const. of Conglomerate 5 18 127 0.90 0.70 417 0.90 1
Cumhuriyet Pur. Plant
İstanbul-Kadıköy Kartal Subway Greywacke 11 25 496 1.16 0.89 955 1.16 1
Tunnel Construction Lump limestone 59 116 6,702 1.91 0.86 13,182 1.91 1
Shale–limestone 44 59 16,139 2.20 0.93 38,019 2.20 1
Sandstone 40 51 137 0.96 0.86 302 0.96 1
Arkosic sandstone 59 114 1,134 1.50 0.86 2,291 1.50 1
Peak particle velocity equation: PPV=K·(SD)−β

were randomly located at the measurement stations in various
directions and at different distances.
The results of the ground vibration measurements carried
out at these test sites including PPV, total charge per delay,
distance, and scaled distance were recorded. The test sites
studied in this research and the number of shots, the number
of event records, and the number of used vibration monitors
in these sites are presented in Table 6. The reevaluated
workplace and the number of shots, the number of event
records, and the number of used vibration monitors in these
sites are presented in Table 7.
Statistical analysis of measurement results
When statistical analysis techniques are applied to the
blast vibration data pairs, PPV and scaled distance give
site-specific velocity AE. Statistically, a sufficient num-
ber of blasts have to be planned so that enough data
can be gathered to develop a similar formula
(Kahriman 2002; Ozer et al. 2008b). Within the scope
of this study, enough data sets have been obtained in
accordance with the statistical rule of thumb for each
site.
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626 1623

Table 9 Field constants for different rock units

Rock unit Number of shots Number of event records Field constants of 50 % Field constants of 95 %
average prediction
line equation line equation

K β r K β r

Limestone 2,509 3,110 292 1.24 0.74 1,047 1.24 1

Sandstone 107 209 67 0.81 0.84 162 0.81 1
Greywacke+siltstone 192 340 126 0.93 0.85 407 0.93 1
Marl+clay+coal 79 300 408 1.34 0.88 1,072 1.34 1
Claystone 251 452 600 1.22 0.61 1,479 1.22 1
Granite 149 149 92 1.19 0.79 275 1.19 1
Gypsum+anhydride+celestite 47 47 645 1.71 0.83 2,570 1.71 1
Conglomerate 5 18 127 0.90 0.70 417 0.90 1
Peak particle velocity
equation: PPV=K·(SD)−β

Table 10 Structure classes

(Karadogan 2008) Structure Structure class Types of structure
class no.

I Industrial and commercial buildings Buildings in steel, steel towers, reinforced concrete
buildings, bridges, dams
II Concrete buildings Concrete buildings, walls in conrete domed structures
III Masonry buildings Walls in stone, brick and briquet
Sun-dried brick structure, wooden structure
IV Historical and sensitive buildings Sensitive structure under protection
Historical buildings

Fig. 2 A concrete building

from İstanbul-Cebeci region

Fig. 3 A concrete building

from Kütahya-Emet region
1624
Fig. 4 A masonry building from Kütahya-Emet
In order to establish a useful relationship between PPV
and scaled distance, a simple regression analysis was per-
formed using the data pairs obtained from all these sites and
rock units. In the simple regression analysis, linear, loga-
rithmic, exponential, reciprocal, and power curve fitting
approximations were tested. The power one as the best
approximation equation with the highest correlation coeffi-
cients was determined as follows. In this study, the results of
the regression and correlation are presented in Table 8 in
detail for each site. The determined equation for each site is
also in accordance with the previous investigations realized
by many researchers. Hence, there is no vibration monitor-
ing device; the formula can be used to estimate particle
velocity for similar operations as a preliminary approach.
The field constants K and β are determined for each site
according to a 50 % average line and a 95 % upper predic-
tion line (SPSS 1999).
All the fields studied were analyzed according to the
rock units. The results obtained from fields that showed
similar rock features were evaluated and analyzed to-
gether. The results of the regression and correlation are
presented in Table 9 for the rock units. In Table 9, the
Fig. 5 A masonry building from Zonguldak region
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626
Table 11 Average natural frequency values belong to the structure
classes (Karadogan 2008)
Structure class Number of Average natural
investigated frequency (Hz)
structure
Industrial and 11 12
commercial
buildings (I)
Concrete buildings (II) 55 8
Masonry buildings (III) 42 5
Historical and sensitive 8 4
buildings (IV)
field constants K and β are determined for the studied
rock units according to a 50 % average line and a 95 %
upper prediction line (SPSS 1999). In this study, the
results of the regression and correlation are presented in
Table 8 in detail for each site.
Structure classes and their natural frequencies
To create damage criteria, firstly, it was necessary to deter-
mine structure classes of our country. When the structure
stock of our country was examined, the usual classification
given in Table 10 was done.
The examined structures in this study are usually suitable
for this classification. The measurements taken from some
examined structures are shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5.
The natural frequencies of buildings and structures are
analytically calculated with equations that are available in
literature. Taking into account the examined structures in the
studied sites, average natural frequencies belonging to the
structure classes were calculated and given in Table 11.
Damage criteria norm
Within the scope of the study, the data pairs that have high
statistical values (based on particle velocity, charge, and
distance) were obtained and important data for the predic-
tion of vibration velocity propagation and frequency distri-
bution were obtained. With these data, a basis for risk
analysis and damage criteria studies was formed. In the
study, frequency changes in the rocks and structures were
analyzed according to distances and very significant data
were obtained for the criteria that will be created.
In the study, in light of the assessments taking into consid-
eration the obtained field constants in the studied rock units,
the measured velocity and frequency values in the rock units,
and the examined structures and natural frequency values of
structure stock of our country, a damage criterion norm based
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626
Fig. 6 Damage criteria norm
on risk analysis was developed for Turkey. The developed
damage criteria norm is given in Fig. 6.
The norm provides recommended maximum levels of vi-
bration that reduce the likelihood of building damage caused
by vibration. The norm presents recommended maximum
limits over a range of frequencies measured in any direction
at the structure. In the norm given in Fig. 6, the lines that show
Roman numerals and damage limits belong to the structure
classes for Turkey that are given in Tables 10 and 11.
The only one damage limit for all structures was deter-
mined in the USBM (USA) damage criteria given under the
vibration standards heading. In the European Standards
(DIN4150, BS, etc.), the structures were usually assigned to
three groups as commercial, concrete, and sensitive structures
and damage limits were determined according to these groups.
In Indian Standards (IS, DGMS), damage limits were deter-
mined for domestic structures and industrial buildings.
When the structure stock of Turkey was examined, there
are different types and qualities of structures such as build-
ings in steel; steel towers; reinforced concrete buildings;
bridges; dams; concrete buildings; walls in concrete; domed
structures; walls in stone; brick and briquette; sun-dried
brick structure; wooden structure; sensitive structure under
protection; and historical buildings. Therefore, structures in
Turkey, showing similar properties, were assigned to four
groups as given in the Table 11. Qualities of the structures in
Turkey are lower than the qualities of the structures in other
countries. Therefore, damage limits in Fig. 6 were deter-
mined according to these structure groups.
Conclusions
In this study, an extensive research study realized at 28
different blasting sites (12 previous studies and 16 new
1625
studies) constituted different rock units and was located
quite close to residential areas. Within the scope of the
study, the data pairs with high statistical values (based on
particle velocity, charge, and distance) were obtained and
important data for the prediction of vibration velocity prop-
agation and frequency distribution were obtained. With
these data, a basis for risk analysis and damage criterion
studies was formed. In the study, frequency changes in rocks
and structures were analyzed according to distances and
very significant data were obtained for the criteria that will
be created.
In the study, in light of the assessments taking into
consideration the obtained field constants in the studied rock
units, the measured velocity and frequency values in the
rock units, and the examined structures and the natural
frequency values of structure stock of our country, a damage
criterion norm based on risk analysis was developed for
Turkey. In the norm given in Fig. 6, the lines that show
Roman numerals and damage limits belong to the structure
classes for Turkey. Qualities of the structures in Turkey are
lower than the qualities of the structures in other countries.
Therefore, damage limits in Fig. 6 were determined accord-
ing to the structure stock of our country. The effects on
structures of blasting excavation activities can be reduced
in future, taking into account limits in developed damage
criteria norm.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Executive Sec-
retariat of Scientific Research Projects of Istanbul University (project
numbers 429/13092005, T-865/02062006, UDP–3168/02012009,
UDP–3798/22052009, and UDP–7465/26052010) and the State Plan-
ning Organization (project number 2005 K120990). The authors are
grateful to the Executive Secretariat of Scientific Research Projects of
Istanbul University and the State Planning Organization for their
financial supports and to the authorities of companies for providing
all the facilities during the field investigation. Opinion and conclusions
are of the authors.
1626
References
Ak H, Iphar M, Yavuz M, Konuk A (2009) Evaluation of ground
vibration effect of blasting operations in a magnesite mine. Soil
Dynam Earthquake Eng 29(4):669–676
Basu, Sen M (2005) Blast induced ground vibration norms—a critical
review. National Seminar on Policies, Statutes & Legislation in
Mines Postale. Blasting Cell. CMPDI(HQ). Ranchi
Costa E, Silva V, Ayderes Da Silva LA (1996) Practical ways to reduce
environmental rock blasting problems. Paper presented at Envi-
ronmental Issues and Waste Management in Energy and Mineral
Production. SWEMP. Cagliari, Italy
Dowding CH (1985) Blast vibration monitoring and control. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 119–126
Kahiriman A, Tuncer G, Gorgun S, Karadogan A (2002) Monitoring and
analyzing ground vibration induced by different blasting excavation
activities. Proceeding SWEMP. Cagliari. Italy, p.385-394
Kahriman A (2001) Prediction of particle velocity caused by blasting
for an infrastructure excavation covering granite bedrock. Miner
Resour Eng 2:205–218
Kahriman A (2002) Analysis of ground vibrations caused by bench
blasting at can open-pit lignite mine in Turkey. Int J Geosci
Environ Geol 41(6):653–661
View publication stats
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:1617–1626
Karadogan A (2008) The investigation of establishing the national
structure damage criteria for the ground vibration induced by
blasting. Doctorate Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
Kuzu C (2008) The importance of site specific characters in prediction
models for blast induced ground vibrations. Soil Dynam Earth-
quake Eng 28(5):405–414
Kuzu C, Ergin H (2003) OSMRE procedures on blast induced vibra-
tions—I. A case study of Istanbul-Cendere Region. 3th National
Aggregate Symposium. 3–4 December. Istanbul. Turkey; p. 115–
120
Mesec J, Kovac I, Soldo B (2010) Estimation of particle velocity based
on blast event measurements at different rock units. Soil Dynam
Earthquake Eng 30(10):1004–1009
Ozer U, Kahriman A, Aksoy M, Adıgüzel D, Karadogan A (2008a)
The analysis of ground vibrations induced by bench blasting at
Akyol Quarry and practical blasting charts. Environ Geol 54
(4):737–743
Ozer U, Karadogan A, Aksoy M, Adiguzel D, Ozdemir K (2008b) The
analysis of the ground vibrations induced by blasting and the
investigation of establishing the national structure damage crite-
ria. The Research Fund of the University of Istanbul, Project
Number: 429/13092005, Istanbul
SPSS, (1999) Statistical software, SPSS 11.5 for Windows