Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 292–297

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

A case study on the cavity effect of a water tunnel on the ground vibrations MARK
induced by excavating blasts
⁎
Xiang Xia , Haibo Li, Yaqun Liu, Chong Yu
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The cavity effect means the amplifications of blast vibrations when propagating through a cavity inside the rock
Cavity effect mass. It has been investigated by a series of blast tests in an underground water tunnel. Monitoring points were
Tunnel set up in pairs on the ground surface and symmetrically about the tunnel face. The amplifying coefficient of blast
Blast vibration vibrations was defined as the PPV (peak particle velocity) ratio of the two symmetry points. It is found that the
PPV
amplifying coefficient first rises to a maximum of 3.5, and then falls down with the distance in the tunnel axial
direction. Meanwhile, tunnel radius and its buried depth are two other influencing factors. The coefficient
linearly increases with tunnel radius, while decreases with the depth in a power function. These results suggest
that the cavity effect only works within a limited scope on the ground, and mainly occurs in shallow tunnel
excavations. By introducing a ratio of the tunnel depth to its radius, an empirical formula was proposed to
calculate the amplifying coefficient. It can be used to predict the PPV amplifications and therefore define a
vibration control area for the safety of ground structures and facilities. It could also be applied to more site
conditions by choosing appropriate parameter values in the formula.

1. Introduction
Until now, the blast technique has still been the most common
method in tunnel excavations due to its low cost, high efficiency and
easy operation. Equally remarkable are its side effects, such as the blast-
induced damage and vibrations. Generally, damage only occurs in a
limited range around the explosive source, while vibrations have a
much wider range of influence. They will propagate not only along the
tunnel axis, around its periphery, but also upward far to the ground.
The ground vibrations may have an adverse impact on the property
safety and people’s health in the neighborhood, arising civilian com-
plaints (Lee et al., 2016; Ozer, 2008). Their influences on the ground
structures and sensitive devices are also a significant consideration in
the excavation site (Nateghi, 2011). Therefore, severe restrictions on
blast vibrations have been implemented and the limits are becoming
increasingly strict in recent years (Arora and Dey, 2010; Kim and Song,
2015).
To exercise control over the blast vibrations, the prerequisite is to
investigate their propagations in rock mass and thereby make accurate
predictions of PPV (peak particle velocity) at varied locations. Many
PPV predictors have been proposed for level ground and undulate ter-
rain conditions (Alvarez-Vigil et al., 2012; Khandelwal and Singh,
2007; Kumar et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2010; Nateghi, 2011; Xia et al.,
2014; Zhang et al., 2000), respectively. However, few of them can deal
with the problems of underground tunnel blasts. In this case the ex-
cavated section of the tunnel turns into a void space, which will change
the structural integrity of rock mass and thereby leads to more com-
plicated transmissions and reflections of blast waves (Zhang et al.,
2005). Singh et al. (2015) monitored the blast vibrations at an open-pit
mining and found that the PPVs recorded on the ground surface are
much higher than those inside the underground opening at the same
scaled distance. Same conclusions have been drawn by Blair (2014) and
Feldgun et al. (2014). Such a phenomenon may be attributed to the
following reasons. First, in comparison with external free-air explo-
sions, tunnel blasts are performed in interior and confined conditions,
which will generate higher intensity of shock waves and in turn cause
more damage to nearby residential and industrial structures (Wu et al.,
2004b). Second, as stated above, the underground void space created
by the tunnel excavation plays an important role in the propagation of
blast waves.
Moreover, there also exist interesting and important differences
among rock behaviors on the ground (Basarir et al., 2010; Tao et al.,
2013). For example, Zhang et al. (2005) have conducted blast tests
inside a railway tunnel and measured the ground vibrations at several
points. These points were arranged symmetrically on both sides of the
tunnel face. It is found that there is a discrepancy between the PPVs of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xxia@whrsm.ac.cn (X. Xia).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.08.026
Received 14 October 2016; Received in revised form 8 August 2017; Accepted 16 August 2017
Available online 19 September 2017
0886-7798/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Xia et al.
each pair of symmetry points. The PPV of the point behind the tunnel
face (see Fig. 1) is generally greater than that of the symmetry point
ahead of the face. The ratio between the two PPV values can reach as
high as 3.5 (Cai et al., 2015; Yang, 2012). It is the so-called cavity effect
or hollow effect and this effect will act up to 40 m on the ground (Yang,
2012). Due to its action, the general attenuation law of ground vibra-
tions does not apply to the cases containing underground blasts. Little
reports have been found on this topic, though it is of great interest to
experts who are supposed to carry out safety and stability analysis and
design of surface structures (Feldgun et al., 2014).
In the present work, the cavity effect of a water tunnel and its in-
fluencing factors have been investigated at the construction site of a
nuclear power plant in China. The blast vibrations are magnified by this
effect when they reach the ground. The problem is that, several
building structures are being and have been built on the ground surface,
inside which vibration sensitive instruments have been installed.
Besides, there are still several tower cranes in operation just above the
tunnel (see Fig. 2). The blast vibrations may have adverse effects on
these facilities. Their safety and performance are the primary concern.
Therefore, the ground vibrations must be controlled under a certain
limit in the whole process of tunnel driving. For this purpose, it is es-
sential to investigate the amplifying effect of the tunnel, based on which
an accurate prediction of blast vibrations can be made and a vibration
control area is thus determined for the sake of ground structures.
2. Descriptions of vibration measurements and cavity effect
The circular shaped water tunnel links the foundation pit of pump
house and a water reservoir. It is approximately 1000 m long and 15 m
deep, with a radius of 3.5 m. The construction site mainly consists of
lightly to moderately weathered granite, no macro cracks or faults
running through. The tunnel excavation starts from the rock slope of
the foundation pit and advances to the reservoir. At the present stage,
Fig. 2. Underground water tunnel and ground structures near the construction site.
293
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 292–297
Fig. 1. Configurations of blast tests and ground vibration mea-
surements.
the working face is close to the point right beneath several ground
structures and facilities (Fig. 2). Their safety and normal operation are
the primary concern and the adverse effect of tunnel blast vibrations
deserves great attention.
Blast tests and vibration measurements have been conducted in
order to study the propagations and amplifications of vibration waves
after they pass through a void space. 3–5 pairs of monitoring points
(MP) were placed on the ground surface along the longitudinal axis of
the water tunnel, each installed with a set of vibration sensor and data-
logging instrument. Here a pair of MP refer to the two symmetry points
about the tunnel face, like the ones of B1 and A1, B2 and A2, and so on
in Fig. 1. It is obvious that one of the pair (B1, B2, B3) is located behind
the tunnel face and the other one (A1, A2, A3), ahead of it. The velocity
time histories of all MP were recorded in each blast test by the vibration
monitoring system. The amplifications of blast vibrations can thus be
analyzed by comparing the monitoring results of each pair of points.
According to the research findings of Tao et al. (2013) and Zhang
et al. (2005), an amplifying coefficient of ground vibrations has been
introduced here to describe the cavity effects of the water tunnel, which
is given by
f = PPVb/PPVa (1)
where PPVb and PPVa are the PPV values of each pair of symmetry
points behind and ahead of the tunnel face, respectively.
3. Analysis on the test results of cavity effect
As a demonstration, the velocity time histories of two symmetry
points A1 and B1 in Test 1 are presented in Fig. 3(a), for which the PPVs
are determined as 3.41 and 6.02 cm/s, respectively. The amplifying
coefficient is thus worked out as 1.77 according to Eq. (1). The other f
values have been derived by the same method. Table 1 presents all the
measurement results of the 9 groups of blast tests, in which Q stands for
the explosive charge weight, being in the range of 13–25 kg; D denotes
the horizontal distance between either one of the symmetry points and
the tunnel face (see Fig. 1). The distribution of cavity effect is taken as
the variation of amplifying coefficient with the MP distance along the
tunnel axial direction, as is graphically presented in Fig. 4. It is ob-
served that the amplifying coefficient rapidly rises to a peak value of
1.95 at a critical distance of 7 m, meaning that the ground vibrations
were nearly doubled due to the action of cavity effect. It must be taken
into consideration in the prediction of blast vibrations.
The f-D relation could be fitted to a segmented Gaussian function
given by
D − Dcri 2
f = 1 + (fmax −1)e
−0.5 ⎛
⎝ w ⎞⎠ ⎧ w = w1 D ⩽ Dcri
⎩ w = w2 D > Dcri
⎨ (2)
where fmax is the maximum value of amplifying coefficient f, and Dcri
denotes the critical distance, being 1.95 and 7 m for the current case,
respectively. w is a constant depicting half width information of
Gaussian function. A fitting result with 95% confidence is given by
D − 7.0 2
f = 1 + 0.95e−0.5 ( w ) { w = 2.85 D ⩽ 7.0
w = 7.96 D > 7.0 (3)
X. Xia et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 292–297

10 Table 1
A1 Tunnel blast test and vibration monitoring results.
5 B1
Velocity (cm/s)

Group no. Q (kg) MP no. D (m) PPV (cm/s)

0 1 23.2 B3 17 3.36
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 B2 10 4.91
B1 5 6.02
-5
O 0 4.56
Time (s) A1 5 3.41
-10 A2 10 2.91
A3 17 2.29
(a) Measurement results
2 24.4 B3 15 4.15
B2 10 5.75
10 B1 7 7.32
A1 O 0 5.13
5 B1 A1 7 3.75
Velocity (cm/s)

A2 10 3.22
A3 15 2.29
0
3 23.2 B3 24 1.28
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
B2 18 3.43
-5 B1 7.5 5.96
Time (s) O 0 4.39
-10 A1 7.5 3.14
A2 18 2.7
(b) Numerical results A3 24 1.06

Fig. 3. Measurement and numerical results of the velocity time histories for a pair of 4 14.4 B3 21.5 0.86
monitoring points A1 and B1. B2 10 3.43
B1 3 3.98
O 0 2.67
It is further inferred therefrom that no amplifications will occur A1 3 2.8
(i.e., f decreases to near 1.0) when the MP is far enough from the tunnel A2 10 1.89
A3 21.5 0.76
face, say, D > 30 m, for the current case. This suggests that the cavity
effect only appears within a certain range on the ground and it is 5 20.6 B3 15 3.27
negligible beyond this range. B2 8 5.47
B1 4 6.16
O 0 4.66
4. Further study on the influencing factors of cavity effect A1 4 3.84
A2 8 2.83
A3 15 2.22
In underground tunnelling, the cross-section size and buried depth
6 14.4 B3 15 2.34
of the tunnel are the most important factors that will influence on the
B2 9 3.56
deformations, vibrations and stress distributions in the surrounding B1 5 4.12
rock mass (Qian et al., 2009; Singh, 2002; Singh et al., 2015; Tao et al., O 0 3.52
2013). Similarly, they will also have impact on the cavity effect, which A1 5 2.46
A2 9 1.84
has been investigated by the combination of field measurements and
A3 15 1.66
numerical simulations.
7 14.4 B3 25 1.2
B2 16 2.7
4.1. Numerical model setup and validation B1 8 4.24
O 0 2.48
A1 8 2.35
First, a three-dimensional model of the water tunnel was built using
A2 16 2.15
the FLAC3D program. It is an explicit finite-difference code and was A3 25 1.03
employed here to analyze the dynamic behaviors of rock mass induced
8 13.8 B3 28 0.85
by underground blasts (ITASCA Consulting Group, 2003). Since the B2 13 4.15
model is symmetric about the vertical plane across the tunnel axis, only B1 1 3.97
one half is considered in the calculation. As presented in Fig. 5, the O 0 3.26
dimensions are 180 m × 40 m × 60 m (width × length × height), re- A1 1 3.15
A2 13 2.18
presenting the sizes in the axial, radial and vertical directions, respec- A3 28 0.75
tively. It consists of approximately 351 000 elements and 372 600 nodes
9 14.4 B3 18 2.27
(gridpoints), with quiet (viscous) boundaries on lateral sides and free
B2 12 2.95
boundaries on the ground. The vibration MPs were set up according to B1 6 5.21
the arrangements of the field tests. O 0 3.51
For simplicity, the explosive load took the form of a stress wave A1 6 2.92
A2 12 1.69
function proposed by Starfield and Pugliese (1968) and Jong et al.
A3 18 1.47
(2005), given by

P (t ) = 4Pb (e−βt / 2 −e− 2 βt )

(4)
β= 2 ln2/ tr (5)
where Pb denotes the bore-hole pressure (Pa) in a cylindrical charge
explosion, β is damping factor (1/s) and t stands for time (s). The when Eq. (4) reaches the maxima. According to Yilmaz and Unlu
damping factor, β, can be determined according to the rising time of (2013), Eq. (4) can substantially replicate the time histories of dynamic
peak pressure, tr, as follows: pressure induced by a blast. In the present study, it was applied on the

294
X. Xia et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 292–297

2 Fig. 4. The PPV amplifying effects of the water tunnel in 15 m buried

Amplifying Coeĸcient, f

depth.
Test results
Numerical results
Bigaussian Įƫng
1.5

Dcri
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance, D (m)

Table 3
Physical and mechanical properties of the target granite.

Property Moderately Lightly weathering Numerical

parameters weathering granite granite input

Density (kg/m3) 2600 2700 2650

Elastic modulus 42.1 55.0 46.8
(GPa)
Poison’s ratio 0.236 0.229 0.231
Cohesion (MPa) 11.5 20.7 15.6
Friction angle (°) 37 48 41
Tensile strength 3.7 7.3 5.3
(MPa)

Table 3. In Fig. 3(b) are shown the calculated results of velocity time
Fig. 5. Numerical model of the water tunnel with buried depth B = 15 m and radius histories of the MP A1 and B1. The PPVs of these two points are 4.12
R = 3.5 m.
and 6.58 cm/s, respectively, and therefore the amplifying coefficient is
worked out as 1.60. A comparison between the test and numerical re-
tunnel face as well as on the wall within the section of advance per sults is shown in Fig. 4. It validates the preciseness of the present model
round. by the rather good agreement and provides a basis for the further study
The peak value of the bore-hole pressure Pb can be estimated by on the influencing factors of cavity effect.
Henrych (1979) and Persson et al. (1993)
3 4.2. Influencing factors: the tunnel radius and buried depth
d
Pb = ρe De2 ⎛ e ⎞ /8 ⎜ ⎟

⎝ dh ⎠ (6) This problem was solved by making minor modifications to the

where ρe and De denote the density (kg/m ) and detonation velocity 3 above model. That is, considering a series of cases with varied tunnel
(m/s) of the explosives; de and dh are the diameters of explosive charge radius from 1 to 10 m and buried depth from 6 to 80 m. The amplifying
and blast-holes, respectively. Their values are shown in Table 2. coefficient was resolved for each case, and accordingly the maximum
The rock mass was treated as a Mohr-Column material in the nu- value fmax was determined by the same method as demonstrated in
merical model. Its properties are determined based on the test results of Fig. 4. The influences of tunnel radius R and buried depth B on the
the granite and still, these parameters need some adjustments since a maximum coefficient fmax is graphically illustrated in Fig. 6. It’s in-
number of simplifications and assumptions have been made in the si- dicated that the amplifying effect of the tunnel linearly increases with
mulation. The adjustments follow a trial-and-error procedure until the the cross-section radius, while decreases with the buried depth in the
numerical results essentially conform to those of field measurements. form of a power function. fmax can reach as high as 3.0 in the case with a
Both the test results and numerical input of the granite are presented in large tunnel radius of 9.5 m, or with a small depth of 6 m.
In the present study, a ratio of buried depth to tunnel radius, B/R,
Table 2
has been introduced to describe their combine action to the cavity ef-
Parameters for determination of explosive load. fect. The variation of fmax with the ratio B/R is shown in Fig. 7, as is best
fitted by
Parameters Value
fmax = 1 + a (B / R)−α (7)
Explosive density, ρe (kg/m )3
1310
Detonation velocity, De (m/s) 3200 where the site constants a and α are determined as 2.69 and 0.83, re-
Pressure rising time, tr (μs) 100 spectively. Substituting Eq. (7) into Eqs. (2) and (3), we have
β (s−1) 9803
B −0.83 −0.5 ( D −w7.0 )2
Explosive diameter, de (mm)
Blast-hole diameter, dh (mm)
32
64
f = 1 + 2.69 ⎛ ⎞
R
⎝ ⎠
e { w = 2.85 D ⩽ 7.0
w = 7.96 D > 7.0 (8)

295
X. Xia et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 292–297

Tunnel radius, R (m) Table 4

0 2 4 6 8 10 Recommendations for the constant values in the empirical
3 equation of amplifying coefficient.

Buried depth Parameters Value

Maximum Coeĸcient, fmax

Tunnel radius
a 1.5–3.0
α 0.8–1.1
Dcri (m) 7.0–10.0
2 w1 (1/3–1/2) Dcri
w2 (1.0–1.2) Dcri

5. Discussions and conclusions

1 A series of tunnel blast tests and ground vibration measurements

0 16 32 48 64 80
Buried depth, B (m) have been conducted at the construction site of a nuclear power plant in
order to investigate the cavity effect of the underground tunnel. The
Fig. 6. The influences of tunnel radius and buried depth on the maximum amplifying
coefficient of ground vibrations.
vibration MPs were arranged in pair and symmetrically about the
tunnel face. The vibration velocities of each pair of MPs were compared
and it’s found that the PPV of the MP behind the tunnel face is greater
Maximum Coeĸcient, fmax

3
2 distance from tunnel face, indicating the cavity effect only works within
1 erties and so on. The safety of ground structures and facilities requires
0 5 10 15 20
B/R
Fig. 7. The variations of maximum amplifying coefficient, fmax with the ratio of tunnel
buried depth to radius, B/R.
It is the empirical formula used in the present construction site to
predict the amplifying effect of ground vibrations.
A general form of Eq. (8), which is given by
2 than 30 m underground. The amplifying coefficient of the tunnel above
B −α −0.5 ⎛ D − Dcri ⎞ ⎧ w = w1 D ⩽ Dcri
f = 1 + a⎛ ⎞ e ⎝ w ⎠
R
⎝ ⎠ ⎩ w = w2 D > Dcri
⎨ (9)
will probably apply to more site conditions, depending on the values of
parameters a, α, Dcri, w1 and w2. It reaches the peak point fmax at the
critical distance Dcri. More field tests and numerical researches in var-
ious site conditions are still needed to complete these parametric stu-
dies. However, a feasible range could be defined for some of them, since
the amplifying effect will generally follow several rules. For example, it
only takes effect within a certain distance on the ground, say, 30 m at
most from the tunnel face. Second, no cavity effect will appear if a
tunnel is located below a certain level underground. It is 60 m, ac-
cording to the current study. Yang (2012)’s research shows that when
the buried depth is greater than 50 m, fmax will drop down below 1.2. In
addition, according to other similar observations (Yang, 2012; Zhang
et al., 2005), the maximum coefficient fmax will not be greater than 3.5
in normal conditions. As to the critical distance Dcri, it will increase
rapidly from approximate 5 m to 11 m with the buried depth B, then
remains unchanged afterwards. In fact, all these rules are the boundary
conditions of Eq. (9). Possible ranges of the constant values can be
determined and are presented in Table 4, through which an accurate
prediction of blast vibrations is available for various tunnel sites.
than that of its symmetry point ahead of the face. An amplifying
coefficient thus has been introduced to quantify such an effect, which is
defined as the PPV ratio of the two symmetry points. Numerical models
have been built accordingly and they take account of varied tunnel
geometries. It’s concluded that the amplifying coefficient first rises to a
peak point of approximately 3.5, then falls down with the increasing
a limited scope on the ground, i.e., 30 m in this study. Yang (2012)’s
research reveals a greater action range of the cavity effect, i.e., 40 m,
due to a larger tunnel radius. A few other observations (Cai et al., 2015;
Zhang et al., 2005) show that this range is generally less than 30 m. The
discrepancy is caused by the neglect of tunnel size, depth, rock prop-
special attention when underground blasts are performed within this
range.
Both the tunnel radius and its buried depth have an influence on the
cavity effect. It linearly increases with tunnel radius, while decreases
with the buried depth in the form of a power function. When a tunnel is
located deeper than 60 m underground, nearly no PPV amplifications
will occur, suggesting the cavity effect can be safely ignored in this
case. It is verified by Zhang et al. (2005)’s observations that the cavity
effect only appears in shallow tunnels, generally referring to those less
this level is probably greater than 1.5, according to the current study. In
contrast, a maximum 50% of vibration amplification induced by deep
tunnel blasts is usually acceptable in engineering applications.
An empirical formula has been proposed to calculate the amplifying
coefficient of ground vibrations. It is used at the present site to predict
blast vibrations on the ground and thereby determine a control zone
where vibrations need special care. Moreover, the formula takes into
account the influences of the geometric features of the tunnel by in-
troducing a ratio of the buried depth to its radius B/R, therefore it is
able to be applied to more site conditions by choosing appropriate
constant values. These constants are determined by data-fitting method
based on blast test results, or by a rough estimate as recommended in
the present work. The latter approach will bring about a substantial
saving in labor, time and cost, along with an acceptable accuracy.
It should be stressed that only the amplifying effect in tunnel axial
direction was discussed in the present study. The distribution of am-
plifying coefficient on the entire ground surface still needs research. In
addition, on the basis of Feldgun et al. (2014), Liu (2009) and Wu et al.
(2004a)’s findings, there are still some other factors such as rock
properties, joint distribution, charge detonation manners and blasting
scheme, which will, to some extent, affect the amplifying effect of
ground vibrations. Theoretically, the cavity effect will also have an
impact on the frequencies of the blast waves. For instance, Singh et al.
(2015) have concluded that the ground vibration frequencies are

296
X. Xia et al.
lowered due to the underground opining. However, no significant
functional relationship can be drawn from the present tests, partly be-
cause only surface vibrations have been considered. A thorough mea-
surement at varied locations in rock mass is needed to solve this pro-
blem. All these topics should be included in the future research.
Acknowledgement
The authors would thank for the financial assistance from National
Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC, Authorizing Nos. 41572307
and 51439008). We gratefully acknowledge all the support in the re-
search work.
References
Alvarez-Vigil, A.E., Gonzalez-Nicieza, C., Gayarre, F.L., Alvarez-Fernandez, M.I., 2012.
Predicting blasting propagation velocity and vibration frequency using artificial
neural networks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 55, 108–116.
Arora, S., Dey, K., 2010. Estimation of near-field peak particle velocity: a mathematical
model. J. Geol. Min. Res. 2, 68–73.
Basarir, H., Genis, M., Ozarslan, A., 2010. The analysis of radial displacements occurring
near the face of a circular opening in weak rock mass. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 47,
771–783.
Blair, D.P., 2014. Blast vibration dependence on charge length, velocity of detonation and
layered media. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 65, 29–39.
Cai, J., He, Z., Lin, Z., Huang, Z., 2015. Numerical simulation of blasting vibration effect
for tunnel excavation. Min. Metall. Eng. 35, 5–8 (in Chinese).
Feldgun, V.R., Karinski, Y.S., Yankelevsky, D.Z., 2014. The effect of an explosion in a
tunnel on a neighboring buried structure. Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 44,
42–55.
Henrych, J., 1979. The Dynamics of Explosion and Its Use. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, New York.
ITASCA Consulting Group, I., 2003. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3
Dimensions, Version 2.1 User's Guide, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Jong, Y., Lee, C., Jeon, S., Cho, Y.D., Shim, D.S., 2005. Numerical modeling of the cir-
cular-cut using particle flaw code. In: 31st Annular Conference of Explosives and
Blasting Technique, Orlando, CO., USA. CD-ROM.
Khandelwal, M., Singh, T.N., 2007. Evaluation of blast-induced ground vibration pre-
dictors. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27, 116–125.
Kim, J.-G., Song, J.-J., 2015. Abrasive water jet cutting methods for reducing blast-in-
duced ground vibration in tunnel excavation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 75,
297
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 292–297
147–158.
Kumar, R., Choudhury, D., Bhargava, K., 2016. Determination of blast-induced ground
vibration equations for rocks using mechanical and geological properties. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 8, 341–349.
Lee, J.S., Ahn, S.K., Sagong, M., 2016. Attenuation of blast vibration in tunneling using a
pre-cut discontinuity. Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 52, 30–37.
Liu, H., 2009. Dynamic analysis of subway structures under blast loading. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 27, 699–711.
Lu, C., Dou, L., Wu, X., Xie, Y., 2010. Case study of blast-induced shock wave propagation
in coal and rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 47, 1046–1054.
Nateghi, R., 2011. Prediction of ground vibration level induced by blasting at different
rock units. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48, 899–908.
Ozer, U., 2008. Environmental impacts of ground vibration induced by blasting at dif-
ferent rock units on the Kadikoy-Kartal metro tunnel. Eng. Geol. 100, 82–90.
Persson, A., Holmberg, R., Lee, J., 1993. Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering. CRC
Press.
Qian, Q.H., Zhou, X.P., Yang, H.Q., Zhang, Y.X., Li, X.H., 2009. Zonal disintegration of
surrounding rock mass around the diversion tunnels in Jinping II Hydropower
Station, Southwestern China. Theoret. Appl. Fract. Mech. 51, 129–138.
Singh, P.K., 2002. Blast vibration damage to underground coal mines from adjacent open-
pit blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39, 959–973.
Singh, P.K., Roy, M.P., Paswan, R.K., Dubey, R.K., Drebenstedt, C., 2015. Blast vibration
effects in an underground mine caused by open-pit mining. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 80, 79–88.
Starfield, A.M., Pugliese, J.M., 1968. Compression waves generated in rock by cylindrical
explosive charges: a comparison between a computer model and field measurements.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 5, 65–77.
Tao, M., Li, X., Wu, C., 2013. 3D numerical model for dynamic loading-induced multiple
fracture zones around underground cavity faces. Comput. Geotech. 54, 33–45.
Wu, C., Hao, H., Lu, Y., Sun, S., 2004a. Numerical simulation of structural responses on a
sand layer to blast induced ground excitations. Comput. Struct. 82, 799–814.
Wu, C., Lu, Y., Hao, H., 2004b. Numerical prediction of blast-induced stress wave from
large-scale underground explosion. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 28, 93–109.
Xia, X., Li, H., Niu, J., Li, J., 2014. Experimental study on amplitude change of blast
vibrations through steps and ditches. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 71, 77–82.
Yang, Y., 2012. Hollow effect induce by blasting vibration in shallow tunnel. Blasting 29,
127–130 (in Chinese).
Yilmaz, O., Unlu, T., 2013. Three dimensional numerical rock damage analysis under
blasting load. Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 38, 266–278.
Zhang, J., Cao, X., Zheng, S., Guo, X., 2005. Experimental study on vibration effects of
ground due to shallow tunnel blasting. Chin. J. Rock Mechan. Eng. 24, 4158–4163 (in
Chinese).
Zhang, Q., Bai, C., Liu, Q., 2000. Experimental research on amplitude change of blasting
seismic wave with topography. J. Beijing Inst. Technol. 9, 237–242.