Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Effect of blast-induced vibration on existing tunnels in soft rocks

Jong-Ho Shin a,*, Hoon-Gi Moon a, Sung-Eun Chae b
a b

Department of Civil Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea Seoyeong Engineering, Seoul 135-851, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
In urban areas, it is common to excavate rocks adjacent to existing tunnels. Excavation of rock ground is commonly carried out using the drill and blast method which may cause blast-induced damages to the existing tunnels. In this case securing the safety of the existing tunnels is one of the main issues, and the possible effects need to be evaluated. Empirical approaches using the velocity formulae are frequently adopted to evaluate the inuence of the blast-induced vibration. This method cannot, however, appropriately consider various inuencing factors on vibration and basically needs to be validated using the trial blast in the eld. In this paper, attempts to identify the effect of blast-induced vibration on the immediately adjacent tunnels are made, and a preliminary guideline for evaluating the protection zone for the blast vibration is proposed. A numerical method is adopted for the dynamic modeling of a tunnel in soft rock. A two-dimensional blast load is evaluated by modifying the detonation pressure formula based on the results of eld tests. Tunnel behavior due to the blast-induced vibration is investigated in terms of particle velocity, displacement, and stress of the linings. A guideline for the blast protection zone is proposed based on a parametric study on blast location, tunnel depth, and the amount of explosives. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 19 September 2009 Received in revised form 10 May 2010 Accepted 12 May 2010 Available online 11 June 2010 Keywords: Urban tunnel Adjacent excavation Blast-induced vibration

1. Introduction Urban redevelopment including underground spaces and foundations for high rise buildings often requires deep excavation adjacent to existing metro tunnels. Excavation of rock ground is commonly carried out using the drill and blast method which generates and transmits elastic waves. It is known that shear and compression waves due to blasting cause changes in circumferential stresses to retrained structures such as tunnels (Dowding, 1985). Generally, urban developers propose close construction to obtain more spaces and convenience to approach the metro system, and prefer blast-excavation because the non-vibrating excavation methods are too expensive. In this case the control of vibration becomes a key issue between tunnel owners and developers. To protect the tunnels, the authorities operating the metro systems generally have their own guidelines. Fig. 1 shows examples of such guidelines by Seoul Metro Corporation (1983) and Japan Railway Research Center (1995). Protection zones are quite close to a tunnel. As the developers commonly consider that the guidelines are not necessarily strict, there are often arguments and disputes between the authorities and developers. However, the problem is that these guides are based on static disturbance, or environmental aspects rather than mechanical.

There is no consideration in dynamic effects such as blast-induced vibration. Impulsive or shock loads frequently are of great importance in certain classes of structural system such as nearby tunnels. Securing the safety of the existing tunnels is one of the main issues in blast-excavation in an urban area. Traditionally the empirical approaches used to evaluate the effect of blast load on structure have been used. This method cannot, however, appropriately consider various inuencing factors on vibration. In addition, the parameters need to be determined using the trial eld tests before the main excavation. In this study, the characteristic behavior of existing tunnels due to blast-induced vibration is investigated using the numerical method. Based on the parametric study on locations, the blast protection zone where blasting needs to be avoided is proposed.

2. Numerical modeling of blast-induced vibration problems Blast vibration is an impulsive load problem requiring threedimensional (3D) consideration. Shock waves propagate spherically and a complex interaction between detonation and explosion gas pressure induces strains in surrounding rocks and nearby structures. However, the exact 3D modeling is extremely complicated as there are signicant fractures around the blast holes and many inuencing factors such as geological structures and geometries. Thus it is often convenient to model the problem in a simplied form. In this study, a two-dimensional (2D) modeling method

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +82 2 2049 6081. E-mail address: jhshin@konkuk.ac.kr (J.-H. Shin). 0886-7798/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2010.05.004

52

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

45 2

2D

protection zone 5m

is adopted considering the 3D effect. Main concerns were given to the modeling of blast load which is impulsive and threedimensional.

6m 4~

tunnel D A : no excavation B : limited excavation C : excavation with reinforcement tunnel

0.5m

(a) Seoul Subway

(b) Japan railway

Fig. 1. Protection zones for metro tunnels.

equation proposed by the International Society of Explosive Engineers (Siskind et al., 1980) is adopted.
6 P d 2: 5 q D 2 e 10 kbar
3

2.1. Blast load Blast loads are impact loads traveling through the ground mass three-dimensionally. A large part of the blast energy is dissipated during the fracturing of the rocks surrounding the charged borehole as shown in Fig. 2a. Some portion of the blast energy travels away from the blast hole and reaches the tunnel. The transmission of the blast-induced vibration is inuenced by several factors such as geological structures, rock stiffness, travel distance and amount of explosives. This complicated situation makes it difcult to theoretically handle the blast-induced vibration problems. Because a great portion of blast energy is dissipated by creating fractures around the charged borehole, only a small portion of the blast energy is transmitted through the ground mass in the form of elastic waves. Modeling the blast load is quite complicated. Choi et al. (2004) evaluated the time history of the blast load by modifying the eld records. However, the method has limitations in representing a general blast load, as the eld records are sitedependent. One possible method is to modify the empirical detonation pressure formulae. Although the formulae were initially developed to evaluate the fracture mechanism around the charged borehole, they can also be modied into the input blast loads by using the empirical reduction method. In this study, to determine the input blast load for the numerical analysis, a modication of the detonation pressure is adopted. So far, several detonation pressure equations have been proposed (Siskind, 2000) considering the explosive energy based on a chemical and an ideal explosive mechanism. The detonation pressure

where q = explosive density (g/cm ), and De = detonation velocity (m/s). The actual dynamic pressure on the borehole wall needs to be presented in terms of time as shown in Fig. 2b. The time history of the blast load is obtained by adopting the decay function proposed by Stareld and Pugliese (1968). The consequent detonation pressure, P D is presented

   p  1 PD 4PB exp p Bt exp 2Bt 2

where PB = decoupled detonation pressure ( P d dc =dh 3 ; where dc = charge diameter, dh = borehole diameter), and B = empirical load coefcient (=16,338), t: time. The time history given in Eq. (2) cannot directly be used as an input blast load, because the pressure includes energy dissipated by causing fractures adjacent to the boreholes. Generally, it is known that 550% of explosive energy dissipates by traveling away through the rock mass (Choi et al., 2004). Thus, the modication of detonation pressure requires considering energy loss. This can be made simply by applying a reduction factor to the detonation pressure. Consequently, the elastic portion of the detonation pressure, PDc can be written

PDc aPD

where a is the reduction factor considering energy dissipation. To represent the three-dimensional phenomenon in two dimensions, an equivalent loads in two dimensions also needs to be evaluated. In this study the equivalent load is assumed to be

energy loss fractured plastic zone zone elastic zone

Pd : detonation pressure

borehole diameter

charge diameter

blast load

detonation pressure

pd

PD : time series of decoupled detonation pressure (PD=Pd) PD' : modified blast load (PD'='Pd)

time

(a) pressure mechanism

(b) blast load

Fig. 2. Explosion mechanism and blast load.

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

53

proportional to the detonation pressure, PD . Thus the equivalent two-dimensional pressure, P 0D can be presented

where ut

m X ij

Ui qi t

P0D a0 PDc
0

where a is the combined reduction factor considering energy dissipation and geometrical equivalence. As the a0 cannot be determined theoretically, in this study it is obtained by the numerical simulation of the eld tests. 2.2. Damping and model boundary It is known that damping has much less importance in controlling the maximum response of a structure to impulsive loads than for periodic and harmonic loads (Clough and Penzien, 1975). The maximum response to an impulsive load will be reached in very short time, before the damping forces can absorb much energy from the structure. For this reason the un-damped response to impulsive loads is generally adopted. The ground prole considered in this study is that of rocks varying mainly from soft to hard. Although the effect of damping is expected to be insignicant, to consider the energy loss of the system, 5% of Rayleigh damping is used. To avoid the reecting effect at the model boundaries, the viscous absorbing boundary proposed by Lysmer and Wass (1972) was used. 2.3. Solution scheme Because the wave propagation problem in rock mass can be modeled in small strain ranges, elastic behavior is assumed. In solving the dynamic equations, the mode superposition method of the time history analysis was adopted. This analysis requires free vibration analysis to decide mode shape and natural frequency. The analyses were carried out using the MIDAS/GTS computer program (MIDASIT GTS, 2009). The dynamic equilibrium equation is represented as

where Ui : ith mode shape, qi t: solution for single degree of freedom system for the ith mode shape. 3. Field measurements and analysis model 3.1. Field measurements and blast loads The detonation pressure propagates spherically, mainly radial from the charged borehole as shown in Fig. 2a. The 3D modeling of this behavior requires a great deal of effort and calculation resources. Thus in engineering practice the empirical approach or simplied two-dimensional model is generally adopted. To represent the three-dimensional problem in 2 dimensions, it is necessary to establish an equivalent two-dimensional input blast load. In this study, the equivalent two-dimensional blast load is evaluated based on the eld tests. Fig. 3 shows the prole of the test site and measurement prole. The tunnel is 57 m away from the explosion location. Ground prole for the test site is shown in Fig. 4. Soft rock is followed by weathered rock of which parent rock is granite. The average dynamic elastic modulus of the weathered rock and soft rock are 3000 MPa and 73,040 MPa respectively. Cohesion intercepts are in the range of 30300 kPa, and the angles of shearing resistance ranges from 32 to 35. The vibration due to the blasting is monitored at the bottom of the tunnel as shown in Fig. 4. The maximum particle velocity measured was in the range of 0.2660.601 cm/s. Monitoring device used is the Minimate Plus (Instantel, Canada, 2010) of which adaptable frequency ranges are 200300 Hz. Numerical analyses simulating the tests were also preformed for varying reduction coefcients. Analysis results for the reduction factor of 0.5 are added in Fig. 4 to compare them with the mea-

t C u _ t K ut Pt M u

3 2
measured calculated ('=0.5)

velocity (mm/sec)

where M : mass matrix, C : damping matrix, K : stiffness matrix, _ t : velocity and u t : Pt : dynamic load ut: displacement, u acceleration. To perform the time history analysis, the modal superposition method which requires un-damped free vibration analysis to obtain mode shape and natural period is adopted

1 0 -1 -2 -3 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

K Un w2 n M Un

where w2 n : nth natural frequency (eigenvalue), Un : nth mode vector. By combining the Eqs. (5) and (6), the equations can be rewritten and solved in terms of mode shape

t UT C Uq _ t UT K Uqt UT P t UT MUq i t c i q _ i t ki qi t P i t; mi q i 1; 2; 3; . . . ; m

7 8

time (sec)
Fig. 4. Results of eld tests.

57m

blast location W=500g

measuring point

weathered rock

E d : 3,000,000 kN/m d : 0.43 E d : 7,340,000 kN/m d : 0.41

2

soft rock

(a) test site and ground profile

Fig. 3. Field tests.

(b) blasting

54

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

sured data. Generally, the pattern is quite different, as the measured one includes noises and reections. In this study, the main focus is the maximum particle velocity. Fig. 5 presents the maximum particle velocity for varying reduction coefcients. The coefcients are in the range of 0.250.6. The upper bound of the coefcient is about 0.5, which is adopted for further analyses in this paper.

rock properties used are dynamic elastic modulus, Ed = 3.0 106 kN/m2, Poissons ratio, td=0.43 for the weathered rock, Ed = 7.3 106 kN/m2, and td = 0.41 for the soft rock. 3.2.2. Tunnel and excavation prole A typical Seoul subway tunnel in soft rock is considered. The tunnel was constructed by the conventional tunnelling method, NATM (Shin, 2000). Fig. 7 shows the typical excavation plan and tunnel prole. The tunnel is horseshoe-shaped with a height of 7.6 m and width of 7.0 m. The lining is represented with thin elastic solid elements. The initial state of stress was obtained from construction analysis of the tunnel. 3.2.3. Blast load It is assumed that the excavation is performed downwards from the surface and the borehole for blast is vertical. The three-dimensional effect of blast load is represented in 2D using the reduction coefcient of detonation pressure as reviewed in the previous section. The blast load is evaluated using Eqs. ()()()(1)(3). The time history of blast load with the rise time of 0.00006 s and the duration of 0.0006 s is assumed. An emulsion blast of which specic gravity is 1.2 and explosive velocity is 5900 m/s is assumed. The evaluated maximum explosive pressure is 50.7 MPa, and the duration is 0.001 s. Consequent time history of the blast load is obtained as shown in Fig. 8. As mentioned, the reduction coefcient used is 0.5. 3.2.4. Analysis cases Analyses were performed in two groups based on blast locations. The rst group is for the representative analysis to identify the general tunnel behavior due to the blast-induced vibration. A total of nine cases of analysis are considered: ve cases for varying vertical distances and four cases for varying lateral distances. The second group is used to investigate the nodal effect of the tunnel for varying blast locations. 20 cases for blast location are considered including the rst group cases. Fig. 9 shows the blast location

3.2. Analysis model 3.2.1. Site and ground prole The region around Seoul forms part of a large granite batholith. The vertical alignment of Seoul Metro is typically 1530 m below the ground surface, and weathered granites ranging from soft to hard rock are frequently encountered at the tunnel face. Fig. 6a shows a typical geological prole where the tunnel face is soft rock, and some basic parameters. Fig. 6b presents the dynamic properties of rocks obtained for four similar construction sites. The dynamic behavior of rocks is assumed to be linear elastic. Dynamic

14

particle velocity (mm/sec)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2
range of reduction factor 6.01 range of measured data 2.66

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

reduction factor
Fig. 5. Comparison with eld measurements.

GL 0.0m fill =15.7kN/m3 , K0=0.5 decomposed granite for weathered rock =20.6kN/m3 , K0=0.45 typical tunnel location soft rock =20.6kN/m 3 , K0=0.45 GL 5.0~30.0m hard rock =20.6kN/m3 , K0=0.3 GL 3.0~10.0m

(a) Typical geologic and tunnel profiles for the Seoul Subway tunnel
dynamic modulus of elacity (1X106 MPa) dynamic Poissons ratio
3.5
sector 302 sector 918 sector 919 sector 914 average

0.48 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.33 0.30

weathered rock soft rock hard rock
sector 302 sector 918 sector 919 sector 914 average

2.5 1.5

0.5
weathered rock soft rock hard rock

(b) dynamic soil properties

Fig. 6. Ground prole and material properties.

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161
A

55

tunnel

H : tunnel depth
S

excavation

h
excavation site

D
A

(a) plan
Fig. 7. Excavation prole.

(b) section A-A

60

4. Analysis results
Pmax = 50.7Mpa De = 5,900m/sec B = 16,338 ' = 0.5 PD duration= 0.001sec

dynamic pressure(Mpa)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006

PD'

The results of the representative analyses are analyzed in terms of particle velocity (v ), lining displacement (d) and stress (r) for the reference nodes in the lining shown in Fig. 9. Maximum parti2 1 =2 cle velocity is evaluated as v v 2 . Only the displacement x vz and stress in the x-direction are considered, since the dominant effect is expected in the lateral direction of the tunnel. The results are summarized in Table 1. 4.1. Particle velocity

0.0008

0.001

Time(sec)
Fig. 8. Time history curve of blast load.

of the cases. The minimum distance between the tunnel and excavation boundary is set to be 1.0 D, where D is the width of the tunnel. As the excavation is performed downwards from the surface, horizontally and vertically varying locations of blast were considered. To investigate the effect of tunnel depth and the amount of explosives on the nodal particle velocity, six additional cases are analyzed. This will be explained in the next section.

Fig. 10a shows the typical time history of the particle velocity at node 3 of the lining for case 3-1. The actual response time is less than 0.1 s and the maximum velocity of 0.0447 cm/s is obtained at the spring line. Dominant particle velocity is obtained in the x-direction. Maximum particle velocity decreases signicantly with an increase in lateral distance between tunnel and blast locations as shown in Fig. 10b. It is shown that the effect is also dependent on the vertical distance between the blast location and node 3 as shown in Fig. 10c. The response decreases considerably with an increase in vertical distance. It is also shown that the vertical velocity reduces near the tunnel.

weathered rock
CASE 1-1 CASE 1-2 CASE 1-3 CASE 1-4 D
1 : crown 8 7 2 3 : spring line 4

soft rock
CASE 2-1 CASE 2-2 CASE 3-1 CASE 3-2 CASE 4-1 CASE 4-2
6 5

CASE 2-3 CASE 3-3 CASE 4-3

CASE 2-4 CASE 3-4 CASE 4-4

tunnel crown tunnel S.L tunnel invert D

S CASE 5-1 CASE 5-2 CASE 5-3 CASE 5-4

D : tunnel width S : distance from the spring line 0 1D 2D 3.5D 6D

Fig. 9. Analysis model and cases.

56 Table 1 Summary of the results. Case Distance* Lateral 11 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 34 41 42 43 44 51 52 53 54

*

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

Max Vertical 1.5b 1.5b 1.5b 1.5b 0.5b 0.5b 0.5b 0.5b 0 0 0 0 0.5b 0.5b 0.5b 0.5b 1.5b 1.5b 1.5b 1.5b

v (cm/s) vz
0.709 0.481 0.213 0.117 1.668 0.478 0.131 0.131 0.511 0.212 0.144 0.128 1.500 0.298 0.159 0.107 0.893 0.533 0.192 0.079 v 1.189 0.707 0.446 0.233 2.873 1.361 0.599 0.259 4.484 1.572 0.577 0.281 3.662 1.482 0.568 0.274 1.291 0.757 0.496 0.237

Max d (mm) dx 0.0505 0.0434 0.0397 0.0305 0.0770 0.0475 0.0347 0.0309 0.1238 0.0634 0.0336 0.0322 0.1012 0.0571 0.0316 0.0301 0.0473 0.0328 0.0253 0.0250 dz 0.0289 0.0236 0.0176 0.0111 0.0450 0.0181 0.0084 0.0105 0.0132 0.0070 0.0123 0.0131 0.0374 0.0149 0.0135 0.0128 0.0354 0.0271 0.0181 0.0110 d 0.058 0.049 0.043 0.032 0.089 0.051 0.036 0.033 0.125 0.064 0.036 0.035 0.108 0.059 0.034 0.033 0.059 0.043 0.031 0.027

Max r (kN/m2)

vx
0.955 0.518 0.392 0.201 2.339 1.274 0.584 0.224 4.455 1.558 0.559 0.250 3.341 1.452 0.545 0.252 0.932 0.538 0.457 0.223

rx
4.528 2.413 1.905 1.542 9.461 4.447 1.634 1.155 11.980 4.289 1.599 1.049 6.066 2.829 1.352 0.917 3.886 2.726 1.433 0.715

rz
19.240 11.720 8.040 6.338 30.540 21.54 10.640 4.780 58.210 24.690 13.650 4.399 34.920 19.660 12.880 4.391 24.780 17.640 9.764 3.643

r
19.766 11.966 8.263 6.523 31.972 21.944 10.765 4.918 59.430 25.060 13.743 4.522 35.443 19.862 12.951 4.486 25.083 17.849 9.869 3.713

1b 2b 3.5b 6b 1b 2b 3.5b 6b 1b 2b 3.5b 6b 1b 2b 3.5b 6b 1b 2b 3.5b 6b

distance from node 3.

6 4

vz

velocity (mm/sec)

2 0 -2 -4 -6 0 0.02 0.04 0.06

vx

vx vz v

0.08

0.1

time (sec) (a) time history of particle velocity at node 3

50 60

max particle velocity (mm/sec)

max particle velocity (mm/sec)

vx at node3 vz at node3 v at node3

50 40 30 20 10 0
-

vx at node3 vz at node3 v at node3

40
3 s

(+) 3 (-)

30

20

10

0 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D

2D

1D

1D

2D

lateral distance(s)

vertical distance

(b) effect of lateral distance (Case 3-1,3-2,3-3 and 3-4)

Fig. 10. Particle velocity.

(c) effect of longitudinal distance (Case 1-1,2-1,3-1 and 4-1)

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

57

4.2. Lining displacement Fig. 11a shows the maximum displacements of the lining for case 31. As the distance from the blast location to the reference points varies, the occurrence of the maximum displacement is not simultaneous. Displacement has decreased signicantly with an increase in distance. Displacements of the rear part of the blast are almost constant and less than a half of those obtained at the front part. The effects of lateral and vertical distance on node 3 are generally the same as those of particle velocity as shown in Fig. 11b and c. 4.3. Lining stresses Dowding (1985) indicated that stresses and strains in a restrained structure will usually be those of the ground surrounding the structure such as tunnels considered in this study. Fig. 12a shows the maximum stress for different blast locations for case 31. Although the maximum stresses do not occur simultaneously at all nodes, they are presented and compared to examine the relative effect of the lining location. It is interesting to note that maximum stress does not occur at point 3, but stresses at points 1 and 5 which are at the tunnel crown and invert respectively, showed higher stresses than those at around the spring line. This is because, at the spring line, the tunnel does not have lateral restraint,

which causes large displacements and low stresses. The maximum lining stress has decreased signicantly with an increase in distance as shown in Fig. 12b and c. Stresses of the lining at the other side of blast location are almost constant and less than a half of those obtained at the front part of the blast. 5. Evaluation of blast protection zones 5.1. Equal particle velocity lines In the phase of planning and preliminary design, the blast-induced effect often needs to be evaluated. The area inside the allowable particle velocity is named here as the blast protection zone. In this section, the blast protection zone for a given blast-induced vibration is investigated for varying blast locations. The guideline for the blast protection zone can be presented in terms of particle velocity. The allowable level of particle velocity depends on the type of structures, and is specied in the design regulations (DIN4150 Part3, 1986). The allowable particle velocity for the tunnels in the Seoul metro area is in the range of 1.02.0 cm/s. The results for the 20 cases of blast (Fig. 9) were analyzed. For each blast case, the effect of blast on a specic node of the tunnel lining is investigated. For each node, contour lines which give the same particle velocity were obtained and are shown in Fig. 13. The values on the contour lines are the particle velocities for the

max displacement in x-direction (mm)

0.16
1

0.14 0.12

8 7 6 5

2 3 4

0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 node 1 node 2 node 3 node 4 node 5 node 6 node 7 node 8

locations

(a) max x-direction displacement ( xx ) for the Case 3-1

0.14 0.12 0.10
3 s

50

max particle velocity (mm/sec)

max displacement (mm)

xx at node3 zz at node3 at node3

vx at node 3 vz at node 3 v at node3

40
3 s

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D

30

20

10

0 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D

lateral distance(s)

lateral distance(s)

(b) effect of lateral distance (Case 3-1,3-2,3-3 and 3-4)

Fig. 11. Lining displacements.

(c) effect of longitudinal distance (Case 1-1,2-1,3-1 and 4-1)

58

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

max stress in x-direction (kN/m2)

50
1 8 2 3 7

40

30 20

10

0 node 1 node 2 node 3 node 4 node 5 node 6 node 7 node 8

location

(a) max x-direction stress ( xx )at nodes (Case 3-1)

60 50
xx at node 3 zz at node 3 at node 3

70 60
xx at node 3 zz at node 3 at node 3

max stress (kN/m2)

max stress (kN/m2)

50
3

(+)

40 30 20 10 0 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D

40 30 20 10 0

(-)

6D

-2D

-1D

1D

2D

lateral distance

vertical distance

(b) effect of lateral distance (Case 3-1,3-2,3-3 and 3- 4)

Fig. 12. Lining stress.

(c) effect of longitudinal distance (Case 1-1,2-1,3-1 and 4-1)

blast location of the line. Thus, the contour line means that the blasting inside the line exceeds the value on the contour line. If the allowable particle velocity is 1.0 cm/s, the blast protection zone is the area inside the 1.0 cm/s and blasting needs to be avoided inside the line. Node 3 has the widest blast protection zones, which indicates that the node is the most vulnerable to the blast-induced vibration. The shape of the protection zone is elliptical with a center of the spring line for the given conditions considered in this study. The 1.0 cm/s contour lines for all nodes considered are re-plotted in Fig. 14. It is interesting to note that the 1.0 cm/s contour line for node 3 almost covers those for all other nodes. The minimum lateral distance from the tunnel spring line which gives 1.0 cm/s particle velocity is about 2.5D for the given blast, and meanwhile the vertical distance from the spring line is about 1.5D. 5.2. Effect of tunnel depth and explosive amount Fig. 14 can be a useful guideline for the preliminary evaluation of the blast-induced effect. As the envelope is obtained for a specic tunnel and blasting conditions, for practical use it would be appropriate to generalize the envelope by considering other inuencing factors. Tunnel depth and the amount of explosives are chosen, and additional analyses are carried out to investigate the effects of the factors on the envelopes. For each factor, two more cases were considered. The effect of tunnel depth is investigated for the tunnel in soft rock with the depth of 14.6, 21.6 and 28.6 m. It is shown that the

effect is not signicant except at the tunnel crown, as shown in Fig. 15a. At the tunnel crown, the decrease in tunnel depth significantly increased the blast inuence. Thus, in shallow tunnels the tunnel crown is considerably susceptible to the blast-induced vibration and there needs to be a longer distance maintained from the tunnel crown to protect the tunnel. Fig. 15b shows the effect of the amount of explosive. As expected, the larger amount of explosive requires larger safe-zones. It is shown that the explosive amount can change the whole size of protection zones and the extension of the envelope is almost proportional to the amount of explosive. 5.3. Proposed guideline of blast protection zones The results presented in this paper are based on a specic tunnel in soft rocks which is frequently encountered in the Seoul Metro tunnels. It is shown that the blast protection guidelines can be proposed under specic conditions. Based on the results, a general pattern of blast protection zone can be proposed as shown in Fig. 16. The shape of the protection zone is elliptical with a center of the spring line for the given conditions considered in this study. However, it has been noticed that the explosive amount can change the whole size of the protection zones, and meanwhile the tunnel depth can barely modify the vertical distance of the protection zone at the tunnel crown. By comparing static protection zones in Fig. 1, the dynamic protection zone is much larger than the static zone which is circular.

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

59

13 11 1 9 0.9 0. 8 0. 7 0.6 1. 0 1. 1 1.2

2

13

0.5

0.4

0.3
1.5 8

0.9 0. 8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

Z-DIS TANCE (m)

7 5 3 1 -1

0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

(0,0)

Z-DISTANCE (m)

2.0

3 1 0.9 -2 0.8

(0, 0)

0. 7

X -3 -5

0.6

0.5

0. 4

0.3

Z -7 6.9 11. 9 16. 9 21.9 26.9 31.9 36.9 X-DIS TANCE (m)
Z -7 6. 9 11.9 16. 9 21. 9 26. 9 X -DIS TANCE (m ) 31. 9 36. 9

1D

2D

3.5D

6D

1D

2D

3.5D

6D

(a) Node1

(b) Node2
13

13 10 8 1.0 0.8 0. 6 0.4

10 8 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0.9 1.0

0. 5

0.4

0.3

0.2

Z-DISTANCE (m)

Z-DISTANCE (m)

2.0 5 3 1.0 0 -2 -5 0. 8 0.6 0. 4

5 3

0.5 0.4 1. 5 0. 7 0.6

0. 3

0 -2

(0, 0) X

(0, 0)

4 X

-5 Z
6.9 10 11.9 15 16.9 20 21.9 25 26.9 30 31.9 35 36.9 40 X -DIS TANCE (m )

-7

-7 6.9 10 11. 9 15 16. 9 20 21. 9 25 26. 9 30 31. 9 35 36. 9 40 X-DIS TANCE (m )

1D

2D

3.5D

6D

1D

2D

3.5D

6D

(c) Node3
13 10 8 0.4 0.2 13 10 8 0.35 0. 3 0.25

(d) Node4

0.3

0.2

0.15

Z-DISTANCE (m)

Z-DISTANCE (m)

0.5 5 3 0 -2 0. 6 0.7 0. 8 0.9 1.0 0. 5

0.4 5 3 0.6 0 -2 0.15 0.35 0.25 0.3 0.2

0.4 0.3 0.2 6 (0,0)

(0,0)

-5 Z -7 6.9 10 11.9 15 16.9 20 21.9 25 26.9 30 31.9 35 36.9 40 Z

-5 -7 6.9 10 11.9 15 16. 9 20 21.9 25 26. 9 30 31.9 35 36.9 40 X -DIS TANCE (m ) X-DIS TANCE (m)

1b

2b

3.5b

6b

1D

2D

3.5D

6D

(e) Node 5
13 10 8 0. 3 0.28 0. 26 0.24 0.22 0.32 0. 34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0. 2 0.18 0. 16 0.14
13

(f) Node 6

0.42 0.4

0 .32 0.28

10 8

0. 24

0.22

0.2

0.18

Z-DISTANCE (m)

Z-DISTANCE (m)

0.16 5 3 0. 22 0 0.2 0. 14

5 3

0.18 0.16

0 0. 3 -2 0.32 0.28 0.26 0. 240.22 0.2 0.16

(0,0)

0.28

(0, 0)

0.2 4

-2

0. 12

-5 Z -7 6.9 10 11.9 15 16.9 20 21.9 25 26.9 30 31.9 35 36.9 40 X -DIS TANCE (m )

Z

-5 -7 6. 9 10 11.9 15 16.9 20 21.9 25 26.9 30 31. 9 35 36.9 40 X -DIS TANCE (m )

1D

2D

3.5D

6D

1D

2D

3.5D

6D

(g) Node7
Fig. 13. Particle velocity contour lines (invert basis).

(h) Node8

The proposed basic envelope is based on the specic conditions for a single track metro tunnel in soft rock under a single blast of 0.125 kg explosives. The blast safe zone can be reduced by reducing the amount of explosives. Thus the control of the amount of explosive is a key factor in managing the safe zone. The guideline

is based on 1.0 cm/s of particle velocity. However, the requirement of the allowable particle velocity depends on structural importance and relevant regulations. The 1.0 cm/s of particle velocity seems to be relatively high for the metro tunnel. If the maximum allowable particle velocity is not 1.0 cm/s, then the safety zone can be

60

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

1.5D

1.0D

reevaluated based on Fig. 13. Although special consideration is required in applying the results to a different tunnel and ground conditions, the results might be useful for the preliminary evaluation of the blast-induced effects on tunnels.

vertical distance (m)

0.5D

No. 1 No. 2

6. Conclusions The behavior of a tunnel due to blast-induced vibration is investigated using the numerical modeling methods. The blast load is evaluated by simulating the eld tests and modifying the empirical detonation pressure equations. The results have shown that (a) a dominant maximum particle velocity is found at the tunnel spring line in the lateral direction, (b) the maximum particle velocity of the tunnel increases considerably with a decrease in distance between the tunnel and blast location, and (c) the maximum displacement and stress of the lining also increases signicantly with a decrease in vertical and horizontal distance. Based on a parametric study for blast location, the guideline for the blast protection zone has been proposed under specic conditions of a single track metro tunnel in soft rock. It is shown that the
1.5D 1.0D
'=0.3(75g) '=0.5(125g) '=0.7(175g)

No. 3

-0.5D No. 5

No. 4
(+)

-1.0D

3 (0,0)

lateral distance (-) vertical distance

-1.5D
1D 1.5D 2D 2.5D 3D 3.5D

lateral distance (m)

Fig. 14. Distance envelope causing 1.0 cm/s particle velocity (spring line basis).

1.5D

vertical distance (m)

1.0D 0.5D 0 -0.5D -1.0D -1.5D 1D 1.5D 2D 2.5D 3D 3.5D 4D

H1 =14.6m(2D) H2 =21.6m(3D) H3 =28.6m(4D)

vertical distance (m)

0.5D 0 -0.5D -1.0D -1.5D 1D 1.5D 2D 2.5D 3D 3.5D 4D

3 (0,0)

(+) (-)

3 (0,0)

(+) (-)

lateral distance (m)

lateral distance (m)

(a) Effect of tunnel depth

(b) Effect of explosive amount

Fig. 15. Effect of tunnel depth and explosive amount.

3D

vertical distance

2D

V 0.5D

dynamic protection boundary shallow tunnel large amount of explosive 1.5D

1D

1.0D
1D 2D 3D

-1D

tunnel depth
1.0D
1.0D

1.5D

1.5D

lateral distance

0.5D

-0.5D

-1.0D 75 100 125 150 175

explosive amount
Fig. 16. Proposed protection zones.

J.-H. Shin et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 5161

61

shape of the protection zone is elliptical with a center of the spring line for the given conditions considered in this study. However, it has been noticed that the explosive amount can change the whole size of the protection zone, and meanwhile the tunnel depth can barely modify the vertical distance of the protection zone at the tunnel crown. It is recommended that the proposed blast-free guideline can be used for the preliminary evaluation of the blastinduced effects on tunnels. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Ministry of land, transport and maritime affairs, Korea, under the C104A1010001-05A0501-00210 research project. The authors gratefully appreciate the support. References
Choi, C.O., Park, E.S., Choon, S.W., Chung, S.K., 2004. A study on the blasting dynamic analysis using the measurement vibration waveform. Journal of Korean Society for Rock Mechanics, 108120.

Clough, R.W., Penzien, J., 1975. Dynamics of Structures. Mc graw Hill, Newyork. DIN4150 Part3, 1986, erchterungen im Bauwesen Einwirkungen auf bauliche Anlagen. Dowding, C.H., 1985. Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control, Northwestern University. Instantel, Canada, 2010. <http://www.instantel.com/products/MinimatePlus.aspx>. Japan Railway Research Center, 1995. The Guidelines for Tunnel Protection. Lysmer, J., Wass, G., 1972. Shear waves in plane innite surface. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE 98 (1), 351358. MIDASIT GTS, 2009. User supports web page. <http://gts.midasit.co.kr/ Tech_default/default.asp>. Seoul Metro Corporation, 1983. The Safety Guidelines for the Metro Tunnel of Line 3 and 4. Shin, J.H., 2000. Numerical analysis of tunneling in decomposed granite. PhD thesis. Imperial College: London. Siskind, D.E., 2000. Vibrations from Blasting. International Society of Explosive Engineers. Cleveland, OH, USA. Siskind, D.E., Stagg, M.S., Kopp, J.W., Dowding, C.H., 1980. Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration From Surface Mine Blasting. USBM RI 8507. Stareld, A.M., Pugliese, J.M., 1968. Compression waves generated in rock by cylindrical explosive charge: a comparison between a computer model and eld measurements. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 5, 6577.