|
Technology Associates
|
|
Forensic Engineering Experts - Ph (800) 358-9909 - Fax (888) 358-9901
|
|
CONSTRUCTION BLASTING |
|
|
|
Controlled blasting using explosives is often necessary in construction as the only practical way to remove bedrock. Despite the relatively violent reaction produced by detonations, there are effective blasting methods that will not cause physical damage to nearby structures, even in developed areas. This requires detailed knowledge of the relationship between explosive charge per delay, the magnitude and frequency of the shock waves created in the blasting process, and the ways that people and structures react to blast intensity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expertise |
|
Questions Answered |
We have extensive experience in controlled blasting for rock removal in congested urban and suburban areas including:
- U.S. Bureau of Mines criteria for safe blasting limits.
- Square- and cube-root blast scaling.
- Blast monitoring using seismographs.
- Response spectrum assessment of measured vibrations.
- Pre-construction surveys to define the existing condition of structures.
|
|
Through scientific analysis, we can help you answer pertinent questions such as:
- Was construction blasting the likely cause of observed structural damage?
- What levels of shock and vibration are likely to be felt as a result of planned blasting?
- What are permissible levels of blast-induced vibrations for a given structure?
|
Past Case Examples |
|
Urban Blasting:
|
|
Suburban Condo Development:
|
A church in a major city was located adjacent to a very deep excavation into rock. Initial attempts at blasting for rock removal caused cosmetic damage to the church. The contractor claimed that such damage was unavoidable. We were retained by the church and were able to demonstrate that by changing their blasting plan the contractor was still able to successfully excavate the rock, but without further damage to the church.
|
|
Controlled blasting was used to remove bedrock for a large suburban condominium development. An adjacent homeowner alleged that their retaining wall collapsed as a result of the blasting. We were retained by the condo developer and were able to demonstrate that, based on records of explosives used, and measured ground vibrations, it was highly unlikely that the blasting caused the subject wall collapse. This caused the homeowner to drop his claim for damages.
|
|
