An Inversion Method for the Prediction

of Peak Particle Velocity in Blasting

M L Lawlor-ONeill1 and A T Spathis2

ABSTRACT
A methodology for the inversion of a scaled charge weight superposition model to predict peak
particle velocity (PPV) has been examined. The inversion involves two steps: first simulated
annealing is used to get an initial estimate of the model parameters; and second, these parameters
are used as input to a quasi-Newton non-linear optimisation method, used to refine the value
of the parameters. The methodology recovers the three required parameters (two charge weight
scaling parameters and a time window width) and does this directly from a single production
blast for a given point of interest. It has been tested on a synthetic example and recovered the input
model parameters successfully in the presence of introduced noise with a coefficient of variation
ranging up to ten percent. Another test used the vibration measurements of three tunnel blasts
monitored during the construction of the Citybanan tunnel in Stockholm. In this case, the three
model parameters are found from one blast and for a given point of interest, and the PPV at the
same point of interest is predicted for the second and third blast fired in the same vicinity as the first
blast. The three blasts used different firing sequences. The predicted PPV limits use a confidence
interval determined from the scatter in the peak levels obtained from the single calibration blast.
The methodology was able to predict an upper bound for the PPV in 21 of the 26 tunnel blast
vibrations studied. These predictions improve on a previous study involving the same model but
which did not use the inversion process above. Given this reasonable success, further testing of the
method on other data sets and alternative forward prediction models is recommended.

INTRODUCTION
The prediction of peak blast vibration levels is difficult due to
the observed variations in measured data for similar blasts.
Spathis (2009) reviews various approaches used for such
predictions. The models range from empirical curve fits to
measured data such as charge weight scaling laws (Dowding,
1985), waveform superposition models that use measured
seed waveforms (Blair, 1999), numerical analyses based on
finite elements or analytical solutions (Blair and Minchinton,
2006). One model tested recently (Spathis and Wheatley,
2012) is somewhat between a charge weight scaling law and
waveform superposition. It uses the primary factors that
affect blast vibrations: charge weight, distance to the point
of interest, initiation time, and travel time to the point of
interest. It also requires the standard charge weight scaling
law parameters plus one other parameter, a time window
that tries to capture the interaction and cooperation between
the vibrations from charges fired within a given time period.
This model is referred to here as RaVE for rapid vibration
estimation and is described by Spathis (2006).
An interesting feature of the models described above is that
they are what may be termed forward models the input
parameters of the model are given or determined outside
it and these are used to make a prediction. For example, in
charge weight scaling a common approach is to use:
-B
PPV = A c x m
W (1)
where:
PPV is the peak particle velocity
x is the distance to the point of interest
W is the charge weight fired instantaneously or within
an 8 ms window
A and B are the constants found by fitting the curve to the
measurements
A prediction for the maximum peak particle velocity (PPV)
for a different scaled distance uses Equation 1 directly.
Similarly, waveform superposition approaches to prediction
rely on a charge weight scaling law or similar and the details
of the blast design such as charge weight, distance to a point
of interest, initiation time and travel time. A simulated blast
vibration is predicted by adding suitably scaled and delayed
waveforms at the point of interest. As implemented by Blair
(1999), the model can include delay and amplitude scatter
in a rational manner to produce a distribution of possible
vibration outcomes.
An alternative approach is to use a set of measured data to
invert for the model parameters at a given point of interest by
minimising an error term or objective function and obtain an
objective value subject to relevant constraints. In essence this
approach uses a forward model to predict the given vibration
output features and iterates over the model parameters until
a minimum error is achieved between the measured and

1. Vacation Scholar, Orica Australia Pty Ltd, PO Box 196, Kurri Kurri NSW 2327. Email: mitchell.lawlor-oneill@uon.edu.au
2. MAusIMM, Senior Research Associate, Orica Australia Pty Ltd, PO Box 196, Kurri Kurri NSW 2327. Email: alex.spathis@orica.com

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 97
M L LAWLOR-ONEILL AND A T SPATHIS
predicted data. The method of finding the model parameters
that result in the minimum is known to be sensitive to the
nature of the forward model, including the sensitivity of the
model output to changes in the model parameters, and to the
starting values used for the model parameters.
While the approach described above is quite general, in
the present work we use RaVE as the forward model that is
inverted using a single measured blast vibration. Firstly, we
describe briefly the formal concept of inversion and the RaVE
model for completeness. We proceed to demonstrate the
efficacy of the approach using ideal data and extend that to
include data with various levels of noise to mimic some of the
variability observed in field measurements of vibrations from
blasting. We use the data of Spathis and Wheatley (2012) that
involved the prediction of the vibrations from three tunnel
blasts fired using electronic delay detonators and recorded at
several points of interest. In that work, 26 separate predictions
were made in a round robin approach where the vibration
measured from one blast at a given point of interest was used
to predict the vibration at the same point of interest for the
other two blasts. A calibration method was developed by
scaling average peak levels for the clearly separated holes fired
early in the blast compared to the levels observed from the
later firing holes. Finally, we conduct inversions for the data
of Spathis and Wheatley (2012) and discuss the effectiveness
of the associated predictions.
PARAMETER ESTIMATION, INVERSION AND
THE VIBRATION MODEL
Parameter estimation and inversion process
Aster, Borchers and Thurber (2013) provide a concise
description for estimating parameters of a model via inversion.
We follow their lead and explain briefly the concept of
parameter estimation or of process inversion used in this paper.
While the methods used for inversion can be challenging, the
inversion process may be abstracted as follows where we are
dealing with a so-called discrete inverse problem. We assume
that a process G acts through a number (vector) of model
parameters m to produce a (vector) data set d:
G(m) = d (2)
In an ideal situation, there are no errors or noise in the data
and the estimation of the model parameters by inverting
the process is likely to deliver a reasonable estimate of the
original model parameters. In some circumstances there may
be multiple processes that produce the same data and hence
there is a need to use a good understanding of the process in
order to reduce such ambiguity. That is, it is assumed that the
process G is understood sufficiently and is well represented.
Of course, real data includes noise, and the inversion may be
less robust so that the estimation of the model parameters is
more likely to be in error.
The so-called forward problem is the application of the
process G given m to find d, usually in the presence of noise. The
inverse problem is to have a known process G and measured
data d to determine the model parameters m. In our case, the
measured data d is a vibration waveform, or more specifically,
the vector peak particle velocity versus time measured at a
point of interest. The process G is the RaVE vibration model.
The model has just three model parameters m described
in the next section. The inversion process is thus a means to
obtain these three parameters by minimising an error term or
objective function that is a measure of the difference between
the prediction and the measured vibration data.
98 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
The inversion process we adopted first uses simulated
annealing (Bertsimas and Tsitsiklis, 1993) to obtain an initial
estimate of the model parameters, and these are used as
starting values for a quasi-Newton method, both implemented
in Scilab, version 5.3 (by Scilab Enterprises) (Baudin, Couvert
and Steer, 2010). The advantage of simulated annealing is that
it searches the parameter space quite widely and hence has a
good prospect of finding the vicinity of the global minimum.
Once we are near the global minimum the quasi-Newton
method commences from that location to rapidly find the
minimum. A description of the two methods may be found in
Gershenfeld (1999).
The objective function was chosen as the root mean square
(RMS) error between the measured value and the current
inversion estimate at each time step. The RMS error is
expressed as:
Obj = 1
N / iN= 1 (PPVi - PPV Ri) 2 (3)
where:
Obj is the objective value
N is the total number of time steps evaluated
PPVi is the measured PPV at time step i
PPVRi is the RaVE PPV estimate at time step i
The vibration model
The vibration model used here is described by Spathis (2006).
It is a simple extension of the traditional charge weight scaling
law and attempts to account for the influence of the timing
sequence in a blast. It retains the usual two parameters, A
and B, in Equation 1 and introduces a sliding time window
parameter T. The time window determines the cooperative
effect of multiple charges firing close in time as seen at a given
point of interest. The peak vibration level is given by the
maximum value of the following expression involving a
single convolution (denoted as , )
PPV = max {A [P (t) ,Q (t)] B} (4)
where:
(t) is a unit rectangular function of width T
Q(t) is the chronological sequence of scaled charge weights
assuming square root scaling that are given by:
Wi
(5)
xi2
where:
Wi is the charge weight at a distance xi from the point of
interest.
The exponent B is applied term by term on the resulting
convolution. An alternative expression for Equation 3 (where
the sliding time window process is implied) is:
B
PPV = max * A f / i x 2i p 4
W
(6)
i
The summation in Equation 6 is taken over the rectangular
window width of duration T, with the subscript i referring to
each charge within the sliding window. Using Equations5or6,
but excluding the maximum operator, produces a prediction
across the whole charge sequence and so its prediction can
be compared across a full vector peak particle velocity signal.
That is, there is an array of summations implied by Equation6
and the maximum value is the reported PPV.
 AN INVERSION METHOD FOR THE PREDICTION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY IN BLASTING

The range of the default values for the model parameters used
in the inversions were: A between 100 and 10000, B between
zero and four, and T between two and 100 (milliseconds).
The parameter ranges for A and B are based on the typical
maximum range noted in other charge weight scaling data. The
range for T is based on data from Spathis and Wheatley (2012).
R,c is the mean peak value greater than the cut-off
Cpercent of the maximum peak in the RaVE prediction
for that blast
A predicted maximum PPV upper bound was defined as:
PPVmax = s1 n predicted + 3v measured (8)

Method of analysis of the inversion process where:

The proposed inversion technique was tested for accuracy predicted is the mean of the RaVE predicted particle velocities
and reliability in two phases. The first phase aimed to use
that satisfy the cut-off conditions
the inversion technique to recover known values of the
measured is the standard deviation of the scaled RaVE
parameters A, B and T under various levels of random noise
inversion result from the initial blast
or scatter. The second phase aimed to use the inversion
model to predict the parameters providing the best fit to Successful trials were defined as those where the predicted
measured vibration waveforms and use these parameters to maximum PPV upper bound was greater than the measured
predict peak particle velocities for other blasts located near maximum PPV.
the initial blast. It is important to recognise that the inversion method applied
The first phase involved generating a known particle here relies on the forward model being a good representation
vibration versus time output from the RaVE program using of the process that produces the measured data. The basic
known parameters A, B and T for a representative surface assumptions are that the parameters determined from the
blast design. This was based on a blast design and monitor calibration from one blast in the second phase is appropriate
location developed in proprietary blast design software. The to apply to other blasts in the same vicinity as the calibration
inversion technique was then applied in an attempt to recover blast and that are at a similar distance to the identical point of
A, B and T. Normally distributed noise was added to each interest. These assumptions are tested to some extent by the
data point of the known particle velocity versus time output two phases described below.
at vn = zero per cent, one per cent, two per cent, five per cent
and ten per cent, where is the known particle velocity at RESULTS
the data point and is the standard deviation. When noise
was introduced, the RMS error was evaluated for the optimal Phase one synthetic blast design with added
solution as well as the no noise function (the output using
A, B and T before the noise was added). One hundred trials
noise
were run for each noise level and outputs from the model The synthetic blast design consisted of 104 blastholes of
were: trial number, A, B, T, A, B, T, the objective value 229mm diameter and with a depth of approximately 40 m in an
found through the inversion process and the objective value irregular pattern of some 11 rows. The earliest firing blastholes
obtained using A, B and T. Plots comparing the results with are located slightly away from the rest of the blast pattern.
no noise, with introduced noise and the converged inversion Rows are fired approximately 100 ms apart in the direction
result were developed. of the timing contours (Figure 1) with subsequent rows
gradually tapering with fewer holes in each row. Each hole
The second phase involved testing the inversion method
contained approximately 1380 kg of a bulk emulsion explosive
against recorded vibration measurements from the Citybanan
and was initiated by a single electronic delay detonator. The
tunnel project in Stockholm (Spathis and Wheatley, 2012).
blast duration was nominally 1610 ms. The single monitoring
Particle velocity was recorded at various points of interest
location was to the east of the blast and was 475 m to the
from three tunnel blasts occurring on consecutive days. To
nearest blasthole and 510 m to the centre of the blast.
predict the vibration levels at each blast, the inversion method
was applied to the portion of the vibration data in one blast
that correlated with multiple charges firing in close succession
to find the optimal values of A, B and T. The RaVE model was
then used to make a prediction of the peak particle velocity of
the two remaining blasts using the optimal A, B and T values
found in the inversion of the first blast, but with the charge
weights, distances and timing in the predicted blasts. This
process enabled 26 predictions from the recorded data at five
distinct points of interest. The process was then repeated so
that each of the three individual blasts was used separately
to predict the remaining two, and in one case predict the
remaining one.
A method for scaling was introduced for the tunnel blasts to
give a final estimate of the peak particle velocity. The scaling
factor, s1 is defined as:
n e,c
s1 = (7)
n R,c

where:
e,c is the mean peak value for peaks greater than the cut-
off C percent of the maximum peak in the envelope of
the measured vibration data for a given blast FIG 1 Hole timing (in milliseconds) of simulated blast with timing contours.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 99
M L LAWLOR-ONEILL AND A T SPATHIS
Inversion trials were conducted at five different noise
levels, including the case of no noise. For these trials, known
parameters A and B were set at 1100 and 1.60 respectively,
and T was randomly selected from the range of two to 100
for each trial. Early during this current work it was observed
that the value of T has a large impact on the shape of the plot,
hence finding the correct value of T is critical to producing
an accurate fit. The values of A and B had less impact on the
shape of the plot, especially at lower values of T, but instead
were important in providing the correct peak scaling.
Successful trials for zero per cent noise were defined as
those that returned the known values of each of A, B and T.
Successful trials for one percent, two percent, five percent
and ten per cent noise were defined as those that returned
the known value of T, and returned A and B such that the
objective value was within five percent of that found using
the known parameter values. It was observed that the optimal
solution found by the inversion process provided a better fit
to noisy data than the fit provided for known A, B and T
(designated the no noise function) in many cases. The results
of the inversion trials are summarised in Table 1.
Trials at one per cent, two per cent and five per cent
noise were all run with the simulated annealing inversion
processing 1000 sample points for each of the 20 times the
temperature was cooled. The initial 31 trials run at both
zero per cent and ten per cent noise were run with the
simulated annealing inversion processing 500 sample points
(A, B, T combinations) for each of the 20 times the temperature
was cooled. This did not provide successful results at ten
percent noise of these 31 trials, 18 failed to reproduce the
TABLE 1
Result of phase one inversion trials.
Noise level ( vn ) Total number of trials
0% 100 (69)
a
1% 100
2% 100
5% 100
10% 100a (69)
a. One hundred trials were run; however, the first 31 trials were run with fewer simulated annealing
iterations. The 69 remaining trials (results shown in parentheses) were run at increased
simulated annealing iterations.
A B
FIG 2 Trials at zero percent noise. (A) Trial 72 T = 31 ms, Tinv = 31 ms; (B) Trial 66 T = 99 ms, Tinv = 100 ms.
100 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
correctT. For the remaining 69 trials, the number of sample
points processed was increased to 1000. This provided
more accurate results at ten per cent noise, with 65 out of
the 69 trials being successful. However, the percentage of
unsuccessful cases remained the same when the number of
sample points was increased to 1000 at zero percent noise.
At zero per cent noise, all unsuccessful cases occurred
for high values of T (between 82100 ms), and the value
T found by the inversion process was off by 1 ms in each
unsuccessful case. In some cases, repeat trials at a given
unsuccessful value of T produced the same unsuccessful
result. The most likely explanation for this is poor sampling
in the simulated annealing process. It is noted that high
values of T result in a larger number of charges involved
in estimating the peak vibration within the blast window,
leading to less noticeable variation in the particle velocity
versus time plot when compared to lower values of T. In a
real waveform, significant noise is expected, so an error of
1 ms in the value of T may be considered acceptable. Errors
in T greater than 1 ms were observed only at ten per cent
noise with a lower amount of simulated annealing sampling.
This issue was resolved when the number of sample points
was increased. Sample plots showing a comparison of the
inversion output, the no noise function using known A, B
and T and the measured (noise added) function for each
noise level are presented in Figure 2 to Figure 7. Note that
Tinv refers to the T found by the inversion process. Also, the
Measured data refers to the ideal generated synthetic data
that would be measured from an ideal process that follows
Equations 4 or 5.
Phase two Citybanan tunnel, Stockholm
From the available data for the three tunnel blasts,
26predictions were possible. These are described by Spathis
and Wheatley (2012). An example of a vector particle velocity
Successful trials versus time plot is presented in Figure 8. The inversion was
conducted by comparing model predictions and measured
81 (56)
data within region E as shown in Figure 8. This region was
88 chosen as it contained the PPV in 24 of the 26 trials. Some
95 preliminary testing was conducted: inclusion of region D in
the inversion skewed the results by forcing the optimal value
100
of T lower to accommodate the individual holes firing; the
78 (65) inversion constantly over predicted the effects of rapid firing
in region F, which then forced A and B towards the lowest
values allowed by the model to produce essentially a single
horizontal line fit as the best fit. Following these preliminary
 AN INVERSION METHOD FOR THE PREDICTION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY IN BLASTING

A B

FIG 3 Trials at one percent noise. (A) Trial 6 T = 21 ms, Tinv = 21 ms; (B) Trial 32 T = 89 ms, Tinv = 90 ms.

A B

FIG 4 Trials at two percent noise. (A) Trial 18 T = 23 ms, Tinv = 23 ms; (B) Trial 38 T = 63 ms, Tinv = 63 ms.

A B

FIG 5 Trials at five percent noise. (A) Trial 79 T = 38 ms, Tinv = 38 ms; (B) Trial 91 T = 58 ms, Tinv = 58 ms.

tests, the inversion for each blast was conducted in regionE
and the estimated model parameters were applied to the
whole blast including all three regions D, E and F.
Initial trials presented within this report were run
with the scaling peak cut-off parameter C at 60 per cent
(Equations 7 and 8). For this cut-off level, the PPV upper
bound was predicted in 21 of the 26 cases. The measure of
success is that the envelope of the measured PPV was below
the value given by Equation 8; that is, below the scaled mean
plus three standard deviations. A sample set of predictions
(Echo2) are shown in Figure 9 to Figure 11. The horizontal
lines on each plot represent the 68.2percent, 95.4 percent

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 101
M L LAWLOR-ONEILL AND A T SPATHIS

A B

FIG 6 Initial trials at ten percent noise with fewer simulated annealing iterations. (A) Trial 1 T = 44 ms, Tinv = 42 ms; (B) Trial 11 T = 97 ms, Tinv = 94 ms.

A B

FIG 7 Trials at ten percent noise with increased number of simulated annealing iterations.
(A) Trial 40 T = 40 ms, Tinv =40 ms; (B) Trial 50 T = 76 ms, Tinv = 75 ms.

FIG 8 Sample vector particle velocity versus time plot for Blast 3148 at Echo 1. Region D blastholes fired
individually, Region E multiple blastholes fired and Region F rapid blasthole firing.

102 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 AN INVERSION METHOD FOR THE PREDICTION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY IN BLASTING

A A

B B

C C

FIG 9 Echo 2 predictions using Blast 3148. (A) Blast 3148 initial FIG 10 Echo 2 predictions using Blast 3152. (A) Blast 3152 initial
fit; (B) prediction of Blast 3152; (C) prediction of Blast 3156. fit; (B) prediction of Blast 3148; (C) prediction of Blast 3156.

and 99.7 per cent confidence limits for peak levels, that
is, one, two and three standard deviations from the mean
predicted level.
As noted previously the inversion method was successful in
predicting the PPV upper bound in 21 of the 26 studied cases,
with the other five cases falling just outside of the 99.7 percent
confidence level (or three standard deviations). The PPVs
of the envelope data are all larger than the corresponding
measured peak value, although the range of differences in
the two peaks is non-uniform, lying between approximately
threepercent and 36 percent (Table 2).
A comparison of the measured PPV (prior to the envelope
being applied) and the predicted PPV are shown in Table 3.
Two predicted PPVs are given: one that includes the scatter
given in Equation 8, and the other that excludes that scatter
component. Scaling was used in both cases using Equation 7.
Figure 12 shows the results for upper bound predictions
that used scaling and scatter. The relative error between the
measured peaks and predicted upper bounds shows that
the majority of the predictions lie above the measured data.
Limit lines are shown for -5 percent and 25 percent (a span
of 30 per cent) and most of the larger errors occur for the

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 103
M L LAWLOR-ONEILL AND A T SPATHIS

TABLE 2
A Difference in measured and envelope peak particle velocity.

Monitor Blast Measured Envelope Difference

peak (mm/s) peak (mm/s) (%)
Echo1 3148 0.89 0.97 9.0
Echo1 3152 1.14 1.22 7.0
Echo2 3148 1.74 1.97 13.2
Echo2 3152 1.75 2.15 22.9
Echo2 3156 1.94 2.35 21.1
Echo3 3148 6.73 7.33 8.9
Echo3 3152 7.36 8.45 14.8
Echo3 3156 8.79 9.10 3.5
Echo4 3148 6.54 7.40 13.1
Echo4 3152 6.48 7.59 17.1
B Echo4 3156 8.28 10.38 25.4
Echo7 3148 20.19 21.11 4.6
Echo7 3152 22.18 30.06 35.5
Echo7 3156 33.58 36.16 7.7

B scaled including scatter

60
(Predicted - Measured)/Measured (%)

40

FIG 11 Echo 2 predictions using Blast 3156. (A) Blast 3156 initial
fit; (B) prediction of Blast 3148; (C) prediction of Blast 3152.
20

larger PPV values with a single outlier at a small measured

value. Figure 13 shows the same data but this time no scatter
0

was included in the predictions. Most of the relative errors

are negative, that is, the predictions are smaller than the
corresponding measured data. Most of the relative errors lie
-20

between zero percent and -30 percent, the same range as the
dashed limit lines used in Figure 12. Figure 14 reproduces the 0 5 10 15 20 25

predictions of Spathis and Wheatley (2012). The prediction Prediction Number

data used RaVE as a forward model with the sliding time
window parameter set to 50 ms. The relative error bounds FIG 12 Measured peaks versus predicted peaks that used scaling and
shown in Figure 14 are set to -15 percent and 15 percent, the scatter (three standard deviations). (A) Raw data; (B) percentage differences
same range used in Figures 12 and 13. In Figure 14, most of with limits shown as dashed lines at -5 percent and +25 percent.

104 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 AN INVERSION METHOD FOR THE PREDICTION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY IN BLASTING

TABLE 3
Comparison of field measured peak particle velocity (PPV) and predicted PPV using both the three standard deviations upper bound and the mean of the scaled peaks.

Trial Monitor Basis blast Predicted blast Measured PPV Predicted PPV level Predicted PPV
(upper bound) (scaled peaks mean)
1 Echo 1 3148 3152 1.14 1.40 1.10
2 Echo 1 3152 3148 0.89 1.30 0.87
3 Echo 2 3148 3152 1.75 2.11 1.69
4 Echo 2 3148 3156 1.94 2.26 1.84
5 Echo 2 3152 3148 1.74 1.82 1.21
6 Echo 2 3152 3156 1.94 2.26 1.64
7 Echo 2 3156 3148 1.74 1.85 1.25
8 Echo 2 3156 3152 1.75 2.00 1.39
9 Echo 3 3148 3152 7.36 8.49 6.07
10 Echo 3 3148 3156 8.79 8.54 6.13
11 Echo 3 3152 3148 6.73 8.80 6.38
12 Echo 3 3152 3156 8.79 8.55 6.14
13 Echo 3 3156 3148 6.73 7.82 5.42
14 Echo 3 3156 3152 7.36 8.82 6.42
15 Echo 4 3148 3152 6.48 8.29 6.10
16 Echo 4 3148 3156 8.28 8.81 6.63
17 Echo 4 3152 3148 6.54 7.30 4.90
18 Echo 4 3152 3156 8.28 8.26 5.87
19 Echo 4 3156 3148 6.54 8.96 6.18
20 Echo 4 3156 3152 6.48 9.67 6.89
21 Echo 7 3148 3152 22.18 26.93 20.60
22 Echo 7 3148 3156 33.58 30.69 24.36
23 Echo 7 3152 3148 20.19 27.56 18.68
24 Echo 7 3152 3156 33.58 32.50 23.62
25 Echo 7 3156 3148 20.19 30.77 20.41
26 Echo 7 3156 3152 22.18 33.69 23.33
PPV peak particle velocity.
40

20

A B
Measured scaled excluding scatter
Predicted (scaled excluding scatter)
(Predicted - Measured)/Measured (%)

10
30
Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s)

0
20

-10
10

-20
-30
0

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

Prediction Number Prediction Number

FIG 13 Measured peaks versus predicted peaks using envelopes without scatter. (A) Raw data; (B) percentage
differences with limits shown as dashed lines at -30 percent and zero percent.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 105
M L LAWLOR-ONEILL AND A T SPATHIS
50
A B
40
Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s)
30
20
10
0
0 5
FIG 14 Measured peaks (envelopes not raw data as in Figures 12 and 13) versus predicted peaks using forward RaVE model
with T = 50 ms and scaling for cut holes that fired singly without overlap (after Spathis and Wheatley, 2012). (A) Raw data;
the outlier data occurs at the smaller measured values (note
the reversed order for the data plotted).
Figure 15 shows box plots of the relative errors for the data
shown in Figures 12 to 14. The box contains 50 percent (two
middle quartiles) of the data and the whiskers span the
rest of the data, except any assessed outliers of which there
is just one that comes from the Spathis and Wheatley (2012)
predictions. The solid vertical line in the box is the median
value of the given data. The predictions from Spathis and
Wheatley (2012) are centred near one per cent whereas, the
data with scatter is centred near 16 percent, and that without
scatter near -14 per cent. The boxes for all three data sets
using scatter
single hole scaling not using scatter
-40
FIG 15 Boxplots for the relative errors of the three models that use
the RaVE model with their predictions shown in Figures 12, 13 and 14.
Inversion model based on using scaling and scatter (top), inversion
model based on using scaling and no scatter (middle), forward model
using single hole scaling and assuming T = 50ms (bottom).
106
80
Measured Scaling for cut holes
Predicted
60
(Predicted - Measured)/Measured (%)
40
20
0
-20
-40
10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Prediction Number Prediction Number
(B) percentage differences. Note the data is not plotted in the same order as in used in Figures 12 and 13.
are similar in range, with the Spathis and Wheatley (2012)
predictions having the largest box and overall range.
As seen in Figure 12, the predictions with scatter provide
a reasonable upper bound prediction of the majority of
the measured PPVs. Significant deviation is observed in
those trials corresponding to Echo 7, which was the closest
point of interest to the blast and thus had the largest PPVs.
In two cases, an under-prediction of less than 3 mm/s was
observed (less than ten percent error), and in the other four
cases an over-prediction was observed. Both of these may be
considered acceptable.
In the majority of cases, the inversion fit converged to the
minimum allowable value for A. This is thought to be due to
the majority of the raw data points used in the RMS objective
function being low compared to the relatively few data points
associated with each peak. Having a low value of A limits the
height of any peaks in the inversion fit, leading to a fit focused
within the dense band of lower values. This result is one of
the key reasons for the introduction of the scaling factor.
Further review of the approach taken to define the scaling
factor is recommended to consider how the peaks are selected
and whether the use of the envelope or measured vibration
data should be used. Another factor that may influence the
estimated value of the parameter A, is that a larger peak is
predicted when either A is increased or the time window
parameter T is increased. That is, they both act in the same
direction as they are increased or decreased.
It is worth noting that the value of the parameter T was
found to be generally different for each calibration at a given
point of interest. In some instances two of the three values
were similar. The variation of the parameter T with distance
from the blast does not appear to show a significant trend
-20 0 20 40 60 80
(Figure 16).
Relative error (%) Future work may focus on reducing the number of data
points used in the inversion by judiciously choosing which
data to use that occurs between the major peaks in the
vibration record. Alternatively, the inversion process could
use a weighted objective function to focus on fitting to the
data points associated with peaks. A short examination was
conducted that compared just the peaks in the RaVE output
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015

100
80
Time Window Width (ms)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150
Distance (m)
FIG 16 Variation of the time window width parameter
T versus average distance from a blast.
to the peaks in the data associated with blasthole firing
times. Under these restrictions, the inversion process forced
T to the minimum allowable value (ie 2 ms) as it minimised
the number of data points that were required to fit and thus
minimised sources of error in the objective function. A hybrid
approach that weights the blasthole firing related peaks and
reduces the number of data points between peaks may be a
beneficial way of improving the inversion technique.
The cut-off variable was currently selected based on trial
and error at 60 per cent to provide the best approximation.
Future work could focus on developing selection criteria for
the cut-off parameter, or may even calculate the best value
within the model based on a statistical analysis of the input
data and known blast design.
Simulated annealing is a process that requires long
run times compared to other optimisation methods as it
evaluates the RaVE function and then computes the root
mean square error against a measured data set for between
15 00020 000 sets of variables (depending on the level of
accuracy specified). At the time of writing using a mid-
level personal computer, the model takes approximately
five to ten minutes to complete the inversion process.
Abrief examination of an alternate non-linear optimisation
method (Nelder-Mead) found that it was a much quicker
process than simulated annealing but failed to accurately
find the correct parameters in approximately 50 percent of
trials. The error associated with this was also considerably
larger than the simulated annealing process. The Nelder-
Mead method was not robust enough to provide the same
accuracy as simulated annealing. While the run times for
the inversion method using RaVE are relatively long, it
provides reasonably accurate upper bound predictions
given the scatter in measurements of peak vibration levels
from blasting, and in our case appears to be a reliable and
robust method.
CONCLUSIONS
A method for inverting measured vibration data assuming an
underlying RaVE model to recover its three parameters A, B
and T was developed and tested in two phases. Phase one
involved the recovery of known parameters for an idealised
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
AN INVERSION METHOD FOR THE PREDICTION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY IN BLASTING
implementation of the RaVE model that included increasing
levels of normally distributed noise. Phase two involved
Echo 1
Echo 2 applying the inversion technique to measured data from
Echo 3 tunnel blasts to recover values of A, B and T that best fit the
Echo 4 measured results. These results were then used in conjunction
Echo 7 with a scaling factor to predict the PPV of other blasts at the
same point of interest. The approach has been pragmatic
we have excluded data in the early and late times of the
measured vibration records where the early holes are fired
singly, and the later holes are fired with significant voidage
and attenuation that is not accounted for specifically in the
approach presented.
The phase one results for a simulated blast design with
different time window parameters show that the inversion
method is capable of successfully finding known parameters
to an acceptable level for simulated vibration data with
tenpercent noise or lower. Results at zero percent noise were
less accurate than the more noisy results only 81 percent of
trials were able to find the correct value of T. However, in all
200 250
failed cases the value of T found in the inversion process was
off by 1 ms, and this only occurred for relatively high values
of T (between 82 and 100 ms). For the trials with increased
simulated annealing sample points, the unsuccessful cases
were again due to the value of T being off by 1 ms. When
a fewer number of simulated annealing sample points
were used, the value of T was off by a maximum of 4 ms at
tenpercent noise, highlighting the need for increased sample
points. In cases with noise where the correct T was found, the
parameters A and B converged to give a lower objective value
than the known parameters.
Phase two results showed that the proposed inversion
model and prediction technique was reasonably accurate
at predicting the upper bound for the PPV at a given point
of interest when including the scatter of the peaks in the
measured data based on a cut-off parameter. Indeed, 21 of the
26 studied cases were successful, and the other five cases were
just outside the upper bound. We note that the time window
parameter in this study did not show any simple trend with
distance from the blast to the point of interest.
RaVE is a model designed to estimate peak levels rather
than the complete waveform. In that sense, one could argue
that the peak levels are not given their due prominence in
the inversion process we have used, or, conversely, that
the smaller values between the peaks are given too much
emphasis. In any case, some important considerations for
future improvement and use of the model may include:
Setting the minimum time window size to be above the
minimum delay between charges. This was shown to
prevent large over-prediction of the PPV in two related
cases.
Reducing the number of data points used in the inversion,
especially those low vibration levels associated with the
data between peaks.
Modification or removal of the envelope process to
minimise the potentially large errors in peak height that
impact the prediction. If the envelope is removed, the
scaling technique and standard deviation calculations
would need to be applied to the raw data. However, this
may cause other issues as the envelope smooths the data
set that may assist the inversion process.
Minimising the number of iterations performed by
simulated annealing whilst still maintaining an acceptable
level of accuracy and robustness in the solution.
Consideration of what cut-off value to use. Currently
60percent was chosen based on visual inspection.
107
M L LAWLOR-ONEILL AND A T SPATHIS
It is possible to include measurements from multiple
locations in the inversion process. This will require a simple
modification of the objective function for the number of
locations used but will reduce the number of predictions
in any given data set for testing the method. Care will be
required as typically charge weight scaling parameters are
different for measurements made in different directions.
Overall, the RaVE inversion model was shown to be a
reasonable method of predicting an upper bound for peak
particle velocities resulting from the detonation of explosives
in multihole tunnel blasting. Benefits of the method include
predicting the particle velocity when parameters in the blast
design are varied, such as the number of charges fired, charge
timing and small variations in the distances between the point
of interest and the charges included under the time window.
However, further refinement of the inversion and scaling
techniques, and further testing of the model for other blast
types is warranted before the inversion model may be used
as a standard predictive tool. Use of other forward prediction
models using the inversion process is also recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mike Wheatley helped collect the Citybanan data. Dave
Kay encouraged Mike and one of us (ATS) to undertake the
monitoring and the initial vibration analysis that has led to the
present paper. Our colleagues at Nitro Consult were integral
to the construction of the Citybanan tunnel and facilitated the
original data collection. We thank the anonymous reviewers
and our colleague Ayman Tawadrous for his review. The
work described here was conducted while one of us (MLL)
was on a vacation scholarship with Orica Australia.
108 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
REFERENCES
Aster, R C, Borchers, B and Thurber, C H, 2013. Parameter Estimation
and Inverse Problems (Academic Press: Waltham).
Baudin, M, Couvert, V and Steer, S, 2010. Optimisation in Scilab
[online], The Scilab Consortium Digiteo/INRIA. Available
from: <http://www.scilab.org/resources/documentation/
tutorials/optimization_in_scilab> [Accessed: 30 January 2014].
Bertsimas, D and Tsitsiklis, J, 1993. Simulated annealing, Statistical
Science, 8(1):1011.
Blair, D P, 1999. Statistical models for ground vibration and airblast,
Fragblast, 3(4):303334.
Blair, D P and Minchinton, A, 2006. Near-field blast vibration models,
in Proceedings Sixth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, pp 152159, Santiago, 711 May (Editec SA: Santiago).
Dowding, C H, 1985. Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control (Prentice-
Hall International: London).
Gershenfeld, N, 1999. The Nature of Mathematical Modelling
(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
Spathis, A T, 2006. A scaled charge weight superposition model for
rapid vibration estimation, Fragblast, 10(12):931.
Spathis, A T, 2009. A brief review of the measurement, modelling and
management of vibrations produced by blasting, in Vibrations
by Blasting, pp 111, Workshop held in conjunction with Ninth
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Granada, 1317 September (Taylor and Francis Group: London).
Spathis, A T and Wheatley, M J, 2012. Vibration from three eDev
tunnel rounds in the Citybanan tunnel in Stockholm, in
Proceedings Tenth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, pp 771786, New Delhi, 2629 November (Taylor and
Francis Group: London).