Blast Vibration Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 72.9% of all 48 records sit with just five assignees — this field is concentrated at the top, not fragmented.
- G01V (geophysics/surveying) appears in 62.5% of records far ahead of F42D blasting itself at 31.3%, showing monitoring and sensing dominate the claim space.
- Railway classes B61L and B61K turn up in a quarter of records — a rock-fall/vibration-monitoring overlap with rail infrastructure that most searches on "blasting patents" miss.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 48 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent set actually covers
The 48 records in scope span methods for predicting and controlling peak particle velocity and airblast overpressure from blasting operations, alongside the monitoring hardware, attenuation models and structural-damage thresholds used to govern them. The search string ties classic blast-control terms — charge weight scaling, dominant frequency, flyrock prevention — to the monitoring-station and attenuation-model language that separates operational patents from purely academic ones.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent year is understated and should not be read as a drop in activity.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 48 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings moved from 0 in 2017 to a peak of 3 in 2022, with 2026 at 2 on a partial year. With fewer than four complete post-lag years to compare, no growth rate can be stated reliably from this trend alone.
IPC subclass composition
G01V (geophysics and gravity surveying) leads at 62.5% of the 48 records, followed by F42D (blasting) at 31.3% and G01N (material analysis and testing) at 29.2%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and reflects how monitoring, testing and control claims are bundled into the same filings.
Shares are the percentage of the 48 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Blast Vibration and Airblast Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about blast vibration and airblast control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited record and what it established
US4725991A — Method for controlling blasting operations
A method for predicting the ground vibration and airborne noise at any position resulting from a blasting operation using the data obtained from one or more single-charge low level blasts. By using convolution in the frequency domain, large charge weight nonlinear vibrations are considered, such that the optimum excitation frequency (detonation delays) is induced for minimizing objectionable ground and air vibrations and noise. The method also allows optimization of the number, position and loading of the blast holes, and the number and position of charges detonated per delay period, to produce maximum removal of material without damage to surrounding structures.Cited 53 times — the highest citation count in the record set, filed by ICG, LLC.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4725991A | Method for controlling blasting operations | 53 |
| 2 | US20230168406A1 | Rock burst hazard prediction method based on seismic wave energy attenuation characteristics of mine earthqua… | 46 |
| 3 | US20110313671A1 | System and method for detecting rock fall | 32 |
| 4 | US9031791B2 | System and method for detecting rock fall | 26 |
| 5 | US20150285927A1 | System and method for detecting rock fall | 25 |
| 6 | US20140365143A1 | Vibration analysis for blasting | 25 |
| 7 | US20140379304A1 | Extracting timing and strength of each of a plurality of signals comprising an overall blast, impulse or othe… | 22 |
| 8 | EP0323687A1 | Method of measuring, analysing, predicting and controlling vibrations induced by explosive blasting in earth … | 21 |
| 9 | US20080245254A1 | Method Of Blasting | 19 |
| 10 | US7707939B2 | Method of blasting | 15 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings; read this as a signal of influence on later filers, not of current commercial weight.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-outs from the ranking, the trend and the citation table, translated into what they mean for where to file and who to watch.
A small group holds most of the ground
Five assignees account for 72.9% of all 48 records in scope, and the top ten reach 93.8%. The leader alone holds 14 records against a fifth-place figure of 2 — a steep drop that marks a genuine leader-plus-long-tail structure rather than a crowded field.
Sensing and monitoring outweigh blasting-method claims
Geophysics and surveying (G01V) claims appear in nearly two-thirds of records, almost double the share for the core blasting subclass F42D. That says the active claim space is in how vibration and overpressure are measured and modelled, not primarily in new detonation methods.
One 1988 filing still anchors the field
US4725991A, on predicting ground vibration and airborne noise from single-charge test blasts, carries the highest citation count in the set at 53 — well ahead of the next records, three of which cover rock-fall detection systems clustered around 25-32 citations each.
Filing activity centres on US, Canadian and Australian offices
The United States leads receiving offices with 17 filings, ahead of Canada at 7 and Australia at 6; Europe and India each show 4, and WIPO/PCT 3. That spread points to mining and rail jurisdictions rather than a single dominant filing venue.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to blast vibration and airblast control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and where the gaps sit
The ranking is short and top-heavy: a handful of assignees, largely explosives suppliers, engineering consultancies and Chinese university-linked filers, hold most of the ground. Recent-year momentum across the named leaders shows zero filings in the latest year for each — consistent with the general publication lag rather than a sign the field has gone quiet.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 14 of the 48 records in scope, more than double the combined total of positions five through ten. That gap is unusual for a field this size and suggests a long-running, deliberate filing programme rather than opportunistic filing.
Collaboration is limited and mostly internal
Ten co-assignee pairs appear across the set, with the strongest pairing tied to individual named inventors rather than cross-company partnerships. Two Chinese entities pair repeatedly with a university co-assignee, pointing to an applied-research collaboration rather than an industry consortium.
A long tail of single- or low-count filers
Beyond the top ten, who together hold 93.8% of the 48 records, the remaining assignees in the 26-company ranking each hold small counts. That is typical of a technical niche where most entrants file once or twice around a specific monitoring or damage-threshold claim.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Weir-Jones Engineering Consultants Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Orica International Pte Ltd | 0 | — |
| GILBERT STEVE L | 0 | — |
| Shell Oil Company | 0 | — |
| WEIR JONES IAIN | 0 | — |
| NEDILKO BOHDAN | 0 | — |
| Ziegler Coal Holding Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a few concrete next steps for anyone deciding where to file or who to watch.
Map claims against the leader's 14-record portfolio
With one assignee holding nearly a third of the 48 records, a claim-by-claim comparison against that portfolio is the fastest way to see whether a planned filing sits in occupied or open space.
Explore assignee portfoliosCheck the rail-overlap classes before assuming this is a mining-only field
B61L and B61K each cover roughly a quarter of records, signalling that rock-fall and vibration monitoring claims increasingly reach into railway infrastructure — a branch easy to miss if the search stays mining-only.
Trace the IPC overlapWatch citation flow from US4725991A forward
The most-cited record in the set, at 53 citations, sits well ahead of the pack; tracing who has cited it and when shows how the field's foundational method claims have been built on or designed around.
Trace citation lineageCommon questions on blast vibration and airblast patents
The ranking covers 26 assignees across the 48 records in scope, and it is heavily top-weighted: the leading assignee alone holds 14 records, and the top five combined account for 72.9% of all records. Beyond the top ten, which together reach 93.8%, filing counts drop off quickly into single- or low-digit totals. This structure means a competitive check should focus first on the handful of leaders rather than the full ranked list.
Geophysics and surveying (IPC class G01V) appears in 62.5% of the 48 records, making it the single most common classification, ahead of the core blasting class F42D at 31.3% and material testing (G01N) at 29.2%. This shows that patent activity concentrates on how ground vibration and airblast are sensed, modelled and monitored, rather than solely on new blasting methods. Railway-related classes B61L and B61K also show up in roughly a quarter of records, reflecting overlap with rock-fall and structural monitoring near rail infrastructure.
The filing trend shows activity moving from 0 in 2017 to a peak of 3 in 2022, with 2 recorded so far in 2026 on a partial year. There are not enough complete post-lag years in the data to state a reliable growth rate, and because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent years understate real activity. Treat any apparent flattening in the last one to two years with that lag in mind rather than as a definitive slowdown.
US4725991A, assigned to ICG, LLC and dated 1988-02-16, describes a method for predicting ground vibration and airborne noise from single-charge test blasts, using frequency-domain convolution to optimise detonation delay timing and blast-hole layout while limiting structural damage. It is the most-cited record in this dataset at 53 citations, meaningfully ahead of the next-most-cited records. Its age and citation count make it a foundational reference point for later filers working on vibration-prediction and delay-timing methods, so any new filing in that space should be checked against it directly.
Sub-areas with comparatively thin coverage relative to the dominant monitoring and blasting classes include rail-adjacent rock-fall sensing, real-time dominant-frequency delay optimisation, structural damage threshold calibration for legacy structures, charge-weight scaling for multi-delay arrays, and flyrock prediction driven directly from vibration telemetry. These sit at the intersection of well-covered classes like G01V and G01H rather than inside a single dense subclass, which is exactly why they are easy to overlook in a mining-only search. Confirming true openness still requires a claim-level check against the leading assignees' portfolios rather than relying on class-level shares alone.
Research Blast Vibration and Airblast Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole blast vibration and airblast control corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.