Prediction of the air wave due to blasting inside tunnels: Approximation to a ‘phonometric curve’

Field Tests on the Attenuation Characteristics of the Blast Air Waves in a Long Road Tunnel: A Case Study

“…Kuzyk [30] suggested the parameters a and b to be 2900000 and 730000, respectively, while the Chinese government's Enforceable Handbook of Safety Regulations for Blasting [5] suggested the parameters a and b to be 3270000 and 780000, respectively. e parameter m represents the amount of explosive energy converted to the air blast waves, and the parameter n represents the attenuation of the maximum overpressure with the distance x. Rodríguez et al [6,27] regarded m as a constant value 0.4 and n as a variate less than 0.15 and changing with the distance x. However, in the Enforceable Handbook of Safety Regulations for Blasting [5], the parameter m is suggested to be 0.05∼0.1 for drilling and blasting to advance the tunnel, and the parameter n represents the surface roughness coefficient of the wall.…”

“…e parameter λ has been found in previous studies to be 0.6 for the emulsion explosive commonly used in tunneling [32]. e parameter m was regarded by Rodríguez et al as a constant value 0.4 [6,27]. However, the exponential β is more difficult to determine because the heading face blasting and blast wave propagation are more complicated in a real tunnel.…”

“…Pennetier et al [26] conducted a scaled model test and numerical simulation of blast waves in tunnels and found that the data of the experimental tests fit well with the numerical simulation. In field tests, Rodríguez et al [6,27] developed a semiempirical model to predict the air wave pressure and sound level outside a tunnel due to the blasting inside. A series of explosive detonation experiments was conducted in NIOSH's Bruceton and Lake Lynn Experimental Mines to evaluate the blast wave propagation in underground mines, and a simple scaling relationship of the peak overpressure with the explosive charge and the propagation domain was proposed [28,29].…”

A combination of the ICA-ANN model to predict air-overpressure resulting from blasting

“…According to Siskind et al [11], as reported by the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM), a value of 134 dB is recommended for AOp limitation. Therefore, many attempts have been made to control AOp values [13,29].…”

Application of two intelligent systems in predicting environmental impacts of quarry blasting

“…Normally, four main sources can cause AOp waves in blasting operations: air pressure pulse which is rock displacement at bench face, rock pressure pulse which is induced by ground vibration, gas release pulse which is the escape of gases through rock fractures, and finally stemming release pulse which is the escape of gases from the blasthole when the stemming is ejected (Wiss and Linehan 1978;Siskind et al 1980;Morhard 1987). AOp may cause damage to structures and should be kept below critical ranges (Kuzu et al 2009;Rodriguez et al 2010). AOp is influenced by several factors such as explosive charge weight per delay, blast geometry, distance between blast-face and monitoring point, length of stemming, geological discontinuities, and blasting direction (Konya and Walter 1990;Khandelwal and Kankar 2011).…”