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

net/publication/280494242

Status quo and critical review of PPV safe limits for subsurface
construction blasting close to low-rise buildings

Conference Paper · September 2013

DOI: 10.1201/b15963-19

CITATIONS READS

0 1,151

2 authors:

Ezzeldin Yazeed Sayed-Ahmed Khalid Naji

The American University in Cairo Qatar University
143 PUBLICATIONS   701 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Hollw block Masonry walls View project

Strengthening of Tubular Steel Connections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ezzeldin Yazeed Sayed-Ahmed on 27 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research and Applications in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation – Zingoni (Ed.)
© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00061-2

Status quo and critical review of PPV safe limits for subsurface
construction blasting close to low-rise buildings

E.Y. Sayed-Ahmed
The American University in Cairo and Professor (on leave), Ain Shams University, Egypt

K.K. Naji
Facilities and IT, Qatar University, Qatar

ABSTRACT: Subsurface construction blasting may result sever man-made ground vibrations. Waves generated
due to detonating a charge in a solid medium like rock generate particle movement and travel at different wave
velocities. As such, ground-borne vibrations have effects on nearby buildings that range from disturbing the
occupants to causing severe threshold “cosmetic” or structural damage. The said ground vibrations are usually
monitored to assess their impact on nearby structures. Currently, codes of practice adopt safe limit criteria
which are mainly based on field observations where the structural damage is correlated to the soil Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) produced on the ground surface close to the structure. For example, the criteria limit the PPV of
the ground vibration to 51 mm/s at the nearest “non-owned” structure to the blasting site. On the contrary, it is
not the soil PPV that matter but it is the structural response to the ground vibration which causes the damage:
all the blast-vibration complaints are actually due to the structure vibration not the ground vibration. In this
paper, some of the currently adopted safe limit criteria of ground vibration generated by subsurface construction
blasting are reviewed. Two real case studies have been performed on low rise buildings (houses) located nearby
an excavation performed by blasting in rock. The PPV and the vibration frequency due to excavation by blasting
measured close to these low-rise buildings satisfied the existing safe limit criteria for subsurface blasting ground
vibration. Despite this fact, both buildings suffered threshold cracks and one of them even had structural cracks.
Thus, it is argued that the current safe limit criteria ignore a very important factor which is the structural response
to the ground vibration. It is also argued that ground vibrations with low level frequencies affected the structural
response of the two houses may have caused resonance and wall rattling. These, in turn, caused threshold, and even
structural, cracks beside the severe disturbance to the residents. So, as an urgent modification, it is recommended
that the PPV for low level frequency vibrations (4–30 Hz) should be multiplied by a magnification factor before
comparing them to the current safe limits of the codes of practice. This would simulate the resonance or wall
rattling which may occur to low rise buildings subjected to ground-born vibrations with low level frequencies.

1 INTRODUCTION Skip 1984). The level of ground vibration resulting

Rock excavation is commonly adopted by blasting
which generates a family of waves that travel at dif-
ferent wave velocities. Approximately 15% of the
total blast energy is utilized for actual breakage
and mass displacement with the reminder spent on
undesirable activities Niclson (2005). Among these
are the ground-borne vibrations which may have an
effect on residential buildings ranging from disturb-
ing the occupants to causing severe threshold “cos-
metic” or structural damage. Problems may occur as
a result of large amplitude (low frequency) vibrations,
repeated occurrence of smaller amplitude vibrations,
or from differential settlement induced by soil par-
ticles rearrangement. Classifying ground vibrations
types, monitoring their effects and establishing their
severity were investigated (Dowding1985; Franfield
1996; Dowding 1996; Massarsch 1993; Wiss 1981;
from subsurface blasting 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 rat-
ings of the adjacent and remote structures, and the age
and type of the structure. A simple equation estimat-
ing the PPV in terms of distance from the blasting
location (D in m) and the charge weight per delay
(W in kg) is:
Many attempts have been made to relate the vibra-
tion parameters (displacement, velocity, acceleration
and frequency) with the observed human annoying,
disturbance of sensitive devices and structural dam-
age (Medearis 1976; Siskind et al. 1980; Wiss 1981;
Svinkin 1993; Dowding 1996). Currently, codes of

93
practice adopt safe limit criteria which are mainly
based on field observation (Svinkin 2004; ISEE 1998).
Most of these criteria correlate the structural dam-
age to the soil Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) produced
on the ground surface and limit the PPV to 51 mm/s
at the nearest “non-owned” structure to the blasting
site. Three factors of ground vibration affect the struc-
tural 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.
This paper shows that it is not the soil PPV that
matter but it is the structural response to the ground
vibration: all the blast-vibration complaints are actu-
ally due to the structure vibration not the ground
vibration. Thus, the currently adopted criteria cannot
define reliable and acceptable safe limits for subsur-
face construction blasting. Two case studies have been
performed and discussed for two residential houses
(one- and two-storeys) located adjacent to an excava-
tion where blasting was to be used for excavating the
rock. Data recorded during blasting are compared to
currently adopted ground vibration safe limit criteria:
PPV and the vibration frequency due to excavation
by blasting measured close to these houses satisfied
the existing safe limits criteria. Despite this fact, both
houses suffered threshold cracks and one of them had
some structural cracks. Thus, a new approach that is
based on relating the PPV and the ground vibration fre-
quency to the structural response is proposed and a safe
limit criterion for sub-surface construction blasting is
developed.
2 CURRENT SAFE LIMIT CRITERIA
The International Standards ISO 4866-1990 lists some
major regulations of ground vibrations for different
types of buildings. Further, it was continuously argued
that damage could be related to the PPV of the ground
vibration (Duvall and Fogelgon 1962; Wiss 1968;
ISEE 1998).
A 10-year research programme of the United States
Bureau of Mines (USBM) led to the widely adopted
criterion for the safe-limit vibration against struc-
tural and threshold damage of buildings resulting from
ground vibrations generated by blasting (Nichollas
et al. 1971). The safe limit for the resulting PPV was
set at 51 mm/s in the frequency range of 3–100 Hz.
This limit could not prevent the frequent residents’
complaints from construction blasting. To 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 pro-
posed (Siskind et al. 1980). This criterion is known as
USMB-RI 8507 (Figure 1) for providing safety against
ground vibrations resulting from blasting.
94
Figure 1. USBM and OSM safe limit criteria against
ground-born vibrations due to subsurface blasting.
Table 1. PPV and Scaled Distance (US-OSM).
Distance PPV Scaled Distance
m mm m
0∼91 31.8 22.6
92∼1524 25.4 24.9
>1524 19.1 29.4
The USMB-RI 8507 criterion was modified by US
Office of Surface Mining (OSM). It is shown graph-
ically in Figure 1 and compared to the previously
mentioned USMB-RI 8707 criterion.
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 explo-
sive is designed based on a scaled distance (SD) using
the following Equation:
where W is the allowable charge 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.
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. It is
very close to both USBM-RI 8507 and OSM crite-
ria. 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.
The DIN 4150 and the Swiss Standards criteria for
safe limits against ground vibrations resulting from
blasting are also plotted in Figure 2. It is evident that
these two criteria are significantly conservative. It is
argued that the DIN 4150 criterion is not damage-
based; it is intended to minimize the perceptions and
complaints of housing residents who live adjacent to
blasting sites.
Figure 2. OSM versus other safe limit criteria against
construction vibrations.
3 PROPOSED DAMAGE CRITERIA
The current safe limit criteria make no distinction
for the type, age or stress history of the structure;
all of which considerably affect the safe limits. The
y are all based on the PPV and frequency of the
ground vibrations and thus, they fail in many situa-
tions (ISEE 1998; Quesne 2001). A major drawback
is in the concept of the safe limit criteria itself: they
only correlate the structural damage to the intensity
of the ground vibration. However, a safe limit crite-
rion against ground-born vibrations due to blasting
should be based on the structure vibration/response
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 vibra-
tion 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 generated and the PPV of the
structure will increase considerably beyond the PPV
of the ground vibration. This phenomenon is totally
disregarded in all the currently adopted safe limit cri-
teria against ground-born vibrations due to subsurface
blasting.
Low-rise buildings have a natural frequency in
the order of 4∼12 Hz (Medearis 1977; Siskind 1980;
ISEE 1998). The structures and their parts (e.g. floor,
walls, etc.) respond differently to ground vibration
as they have different natural frequencies. For exam-
ple, the natural frequencies are 12∼20 Hz for interior
walls’ horizontal vibrations and 8∼30 Hz for floors
vertical vibrations. Mid-walls’ vibrations cause res-
idential buildings to “rattle” making vibration more
noticeable and aggravate human response to annoy-
ance from ground vibration. It is difficult, if not
Figure 3. The two houses outlined on the layout of the
sewerage system project (Blast locations are along the solid
lines representing the sanitary sewer of the city).
impossible, to follow a uniform vibration standard
to reduce the human perception of vibration due to
subsurface blasting (Baliktsis 2001).
For the currently adopted safe limit criteria which
are based on threshold/structure damage prevention, it
is 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 crite-
ria in order to consider the structure’s resonance effect
(Svinkin 2004).
4 PROPOSED CRITERIA VERFICATION
A project for sewerage system was executed in rock
soil; part of the project layout plan is shown in Fig-
ure 3. The excavation was performed using subsurface
blasting.The blasting events were officially supervised
and the resulting soil PPVs and vibration frequencies
were recorded using seismograph.
All the safe limits criteria for ground vibration
resulting from the subsurface blasting, particularly
those of the USBM and OSM, were accurately fol-
lowed. The readings recorded by the seismographs
for all the blasting events were well below the 51
mm/s limit. However, complaints were reported from
many residents who blamed the blasting operation for
causing threshold cracks to their houses. The readings
of the seismographs recorded nearby two houses are
compared to the currently adopted safe limit ground
vibration criteria. The proposed safe limit criterion
is also applied to these two houses to investigate
the effect of the ground vibration resulting from the
excavation by blasting on the two houses.
4.1 House 1
The first investigated house is a two-storey residential
building which was newly built. When excavation by
blasting started the house was almost one year old.
It is a common reinforced concrete skeletal structure
(solid slabs, beams and columns). The foundation of
the house is composed of isolated footings constructed
95
Table 2. PPVs recorded for some blasting events –
House 1.

Event No. 281 282 280 283 177 185 288

PPV mm/s 14.7 22.7 23.2 20.8 14.9 27.5 20.1
Event No. 294 287 219 218 220 284 285
PPV mm/s 15.7 19.8 25.5 28.8 20.5 19.3 12.4
Event No. 279 147 163
PPV mm/s 14.2 24.8 23.3

1.20 m below the lowest ground level and tied together

with strong 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 30◦ and 60◦ . One structural crack was visible
in the beam carrying the reinforced concrete slab of
the second storey over the stair case.
Samples of ground PPV measured during the exca-
vation by the blasting process around the house are
listed in Table 2. The date of the event and its posi-
tion with respect to the house were eliminated from
the table. The seismographs also recorded the blasting
event frequency in the vertical, radial and circumfer-
ential directions. These frequencies are plotted against
the PPV for every blasting event in Figure 5 and com-
pared to some of the currently available safe limit
ground vibration criteria. The PPV of the low fre-
quency vibrations (between 10–20 Hz) are magnified,
as recommended by the proposed safe limit criterion,
and also plotted in Figure 5: these events are enclosed
by the dotted line in the figure to highlight their sever
effects.

4.2 House 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 had
been renovated about two years before the start of the
excavation work. It is an ordinary reinforced concrete
structure with solid slabs carried by reinforced con-
crete beams which are supported over columns. The
foundation of the house consists of 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 excava-
tion 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.
Figure 4. Examples of cracks appeared on House 1 after
excavation by blasting (Cracks circled by dotted lines have
been enhanced by plotting grey lines on top of them).
4.3 Discussion
Data recorded for the two case studies of houses
located nearby subsurface blasting were examined. It
is evident form the readings of the seismographs (sam-
ples of them are summarized in Tables 2 and 3) that the
PPVs recorded for all blasting events were well below
51 mm/s; the limit defined in most of the available
safe limit criteria. Furthermore, 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

96

Figure 5. Ground PPVs and vibration frequencies of the
blasting events recorded for House 1.
Figure 6. Examples of cracks appeared on House 2 after
excavation by blasting (Cracks circled by dotted lines have
been enhanced by plotting grey lines on top of them).
the events do not satisfy the Swiss Standards and most
of them are unsafe compared to the DIN 4150 spec-
ifications. However, these two standards are human
annoyance driven as opposed to structural damage
driven criteria.
Table 3. PPVs recorded for some blasting events –
House 2.
Event No. 269 270 175 176 266 267 182
PPV mm/s 18.8 22.3 23.0 12.7 21.9 15.7 22.4
Event No. 183
PPV mm/s 16.9
Figure 7. Ground PPVs and vibration frequencies of the
blasting events recorded for House 2.
Despite satisfying all these criteria, threshold
cracks, and even structural cracks, appeared in these
houses after the excavation by blasting. Furthermore,
the residents complained that the blasting effects were
significantly pronounced.
It is evident that the currently adopted safe limit
criteria ignore a very important factor which is the
structural response to the ground vibration. 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 severe disturbance to the residents.
So, as a modification, the PPVs of the low level fre-
quency vibrations (4–30 Hz) should be magnified by a
certain factor (estimated as 4.0 in the current investiga-
tion) before comparing them to the currently adopted
safe limit criteria.This would simulate the resonance or
wall rattling which may occur to the houses subjected
to ground-born vibrations with low level frequencies.
With this modification, Figures 5 and 7 reveal that
some of the ground vibrations are significantly out-
side the safe limit defined by the safe limit criteria and
would cause damage to the structures.
Gad et al. (2005) presented an investigation which
agrees with the reached conclusion of this paper. They
investigated the effects of blast vibrations on a sin-
gle storey brick veneer house, which was monitored
for over 1 year and was subjected to 43 blasts with
ground PPV ranging from 1.5 to 222 mm/s. They rec-
ommended an amplification factor ranging between
2.0 and 4.0 for the ground PPV depending on the PPV
value where:
97
 No evidence was clear for this stepped function and
further research is required to investigate if a smoother
function for the magnification factor.
The amplification factor was adopted in calculating
the wall shear strain γ resulting from ground vibration
(Gad et al. 2005) where:
where PPV hl is the horizontal ground peak component
velocity, H is the floor height and f is the natural fre-
quency of the structure. It is evident from equation 4
that the shear strain (causing structural/threshold dam-
age) is dependent on both the PPV and the dynamic
properties of the building.
Other data collected by Niclson (2005) for resi-
dential houses located nearby subsurface blasting had
PPVs ranged between 0.06 mm/s and 11.5 mm/s which
were well below the 51 mm/s defined by common safe
limit criteria. Despite this fact, many complaints of
structural/threshold damages were reported which also
confirm the conclusions reached in this work.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The currently adopted safe limit criteria for ground-
born vibrations resulting from subsurface blasting
were discussed. All these criteria do not focus on
resonance or wall rattling which may occur to a resi-
dential building if it is subjected to low-level frequency
ground vibrations.
Data recorded for two houses located nearby subsur-
face blasting were examined. The two houses suffered
cracking despite satisfying the current safe limit cri-
teria 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 in addition to
causing severe disturbance to the residents.
Thus, it is recommended that the PPV for low
level frequencies (4–30 Hz) be multiplied by a cer-
tain magnification factor before comparing them to the
current safe limits. The magnification factor adopted
in the current investigation was 4.0; however, the value
of this factor should be refined to include the ratio
between the ground vibration frequency and the natu-
ral frequency of the nearby structure. Furthermore, this
proposed concept still needs to be explicitly verified
using more data.
98
View publication stats
REFERENCES
Baliktsis E.K. 2001. Blasting vibration limits to prevent
human annoyance remarks from some case studies.
Mineral Resources Engineering 10(1): 71–81.
Dowding, C.H. 1985. Blasting vibrations monitoring and
control. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Dowding C.H. 1996. Construction Vibrations, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, USA.
Duvall W.I., and Fogelgon 1962. Review of criteria for
estimating damage to residences from blasting vibrations.
US Bureau of Mines, RI 5868.
Franfield, R.A. 1996. Do you think you are monitoring peak
particle velocity. 12th Annual Symposium on Explosives
and Blasting Research, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 13–20.
Gad E.F., Wilson J.L. Moore A.J., 2005. Richards A.B.
Effects of mine blasting on residential structures. Journal
of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE. 19(3):
222–228.
ISEE 1998. Blaster’s handbook. 17th edition. International
Society of Explosive Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
ISO 4866-1990. International Standards, Mechanical vibra-
tions and shock – vibrations of buildings – guidelines
for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their
effects on buildings.
Medearis K. 1976. The development of rational damage
criteria for low-rise structures subjected to blasting vibra-
tions. Report to the National Crushed Stone Association,
Washington, D.C. USA.
Nichollas H.R., Johnson C.F., and Duvall W.I. 1971. Blasting
vibrations and their effect on structures. US Department
of Interior, Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656.
Niclson R. F. 2005. Determination of blast vibration using
peak particle velocity at Bengal Quarry. MSc thesis, Lulea
University of Technology. 72p.
Quesne J.D. 2001. Blasting vibration from limestone quar-
ries and their effect on concrete block and Stucco
homes, Vibration Problem. Geo-Discussion Forum,
www.geofrum.com
Siskind D.E., Stagg M.S., Kopp J.W. and Dowding C.H. 1980.
Structure response and damage produced by ground vibra-
tions from subsurface blasting. RI 8507, US Bureau of
Mines, Washington DC, USA.
Skipp. B.O. 1984. Dynamic ground movements – man-made
vibrations. In Ground movement and their effects on struc-
tures, Attewell, P.B. and Taylor R.K. (Eds), Chapman and
Hall, New York, pp. 121–130.
Svinkin M.R. 2004. Drawbacks of blast vibration regulations,
http://www.vulcanhammer.org.
Svinkin M.R.1993. Analyzing man-made vibrations, diag-
nostics and monitoring. 3rd International Conference
on Case Historic in Geotechnical Engineering, Rolla,
Missouri, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 663–670.
Wiss J.F. 1968. Effect of blasting vibration on buildings and
people, Civil Engineering. ASCE, July 1968, pp. 46–48.
Wiss J.F. 1981. Construction vibrations: State-of-the-art.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE
107(2):167–181.