MONITORING
AIRBLAST
FROM SURFACE
BMSTING
Blasting and Mining, Consultants, Inc.
The federal strip mine regulations
are now requiring that any surface
coal mine operator (who conducts
blasting) shall conduct periodic air-
blast monitoring to ensure com-
pliance with the airblast standards.
This regulation is also true for sur-
face blasting for underground mines.
This requirement seems to be sim-
ple enough for the manner in which
airblast is monitored has been a little
confusing to the people in the field.
Some monitoring programs are mon-
itoring airblast the same way they
monitor ground vibration. I am not
saying that monitoring airblast in con-
junction with ground vibration (at the
same location) is wrong. Using similar
methods and locations for monitor-
ing both ground and air vibration
should produce thedesired, and legal,
results. However, in densely pop-
ulated areas, or areas where there
are numerous complaints from resi-
dents at great distances from the
blasting, using similar methods may
not produce the results needed to
find and solve the problem.
Most people are not aware of the
differences of monitoring airblast
when compared to ground vibration.
There is not enough time, orspace, to
cover all the areas which must be con-
sidered when monitoring airblast in
one article. However, I would like to
try to present some thoughts and
opinions comparing the activity of
airblast and ground vibration shock
waves. I hope that this information
(however brief) will be helpful to the
operator for not only understanding
airblast, but also helpful in develop
ing an airblast monitoring program.
First, it is my opinion that the pur-
pose of the airblast limitations and
monitoring requirement were to re-
duce the human irritation and annoy
ante from blasting. The current air-
blast limitations are well below levels
which would cause any structural
Copyright 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers
The Journal of Explosives Engineering - Vol 5 No 4 - Monitoring Airblast From Surface Blasting - Page 1 of 1
by Jim Ludwiczak, President
damage to buildings. The limitations
are at levels that could irritate or
annoy people, and could even rattle
dishes or windows within the struc-
ture. However, one must be aware
that just because the airblast shock
wave is irritating, annoying, and rat-
tling dishes,does not mean that dam-
age is being caused to the structure.
Ground vibration is a different mat-
ter. Excessive and illegal ground vib-
ration from surface blasting can cause
structural damage. However, one
must realize that the ground vibra-
tion shock wave and the airblast wave
are very different. Aside from the obvi-
ous difference of one wave traveling
in the air and the other in the ground,
there are differences in the way the
wave moves out from the blast site.
The ground vibration wave will always
(without any reinforcement) become
weaker as it moves out from the blast
site. This means that the structures
that will receive the most ground vib-
ration will be those closest to the
blasting. That is why the regulations
limit the amount of explosives to be
used by considering the distance to
the closest dwelling.
With airblast this is not necessarily
true. Rather than passing through the
ground, the shock wave passes
through the air. The air can do funny
things to the passing shock wave.
Temperature changes and air den-
sities within the atmosphere can
cause the wave to act much different
when compared to the ground wave.
Briefly, an air wave produced from a
blast can skip completely over struc-
tures, can be focused into an area a
considerable and unexpected dis-
tancefrom the blast site, and can actu-
ally be reinforced as it travels from
the blast site. This is why the regula-
tions state that the airblast limits are
not the be exceeded at any dwelling,
not just at the closest dwelling (as
with ground vibration).
Terrain conditions can also direct
the air shock wave into certain areas
around the blasting area. This is espe-
cially true if you are blasting in the
mountains. The hills and valleys can
have an effect on the movement of
the shockwave. Some hillsand valleys
canreducethewavewhileotherscan
focus the wave to a certain area.
So, if airblast monitoring is being
conducted at only the closest dwell-
ings, and there are complaints from
people at greater distances, theairor
terrain conditions could be causing
the shock wave to bounce around.
Another factor that must be con-
sidered is that this bouncing around
mayonlyoccuratcertainareasofthe
blast site, or under certain weather
conditions.
HELPFUL HINTS:
1. Initially select airblast monitoring
stations at the closest dwellings, but
be prepared to move out to struc-
tures at greater distances. Select
dwellings (stations) in areas that will
completely surround the blast site.
Then conduct the periodic monitor-
ing at each of these stations during
the period blasting is taking place.
2. When seismic monitoring shows
that the reason for complaints is due
to airblast, it is a good idea to keep a
short record of the complaint. The
record should have the location of
the blast, the location of the struc-
ture, and the weather conditions. This
information will help in trying tosolve
the problem, or deal with the com-
plaints before they turn into claims
for damage.
Remember the state can require
the operator to conduct airblast meas-
urements of any or all blasts, and may
specify the locationsof the measure-
ments. Try to solve the problems
before the inspectors become
involved.