Journal Pre-proof

Monitoring and Prediction of Seismic Wave Vibration Intensity of Underwater Rock

Induced by Underwater Drilling and Blasting

Zhenxiong Wang, Wenbin Gu, Ting Liang, Shoutian Zhao, Peng Chen, Liufang Yu

PII: S2214-9147(20)30465-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.10.007
Reference: DT 748

To appear in: Defence Technology

Received Date: 8 January 2020

Revised Date: 8 October 2020
Accepted Date: 20 October 2020

Please cite this article as: Wang Z, Gu W, Liang T, Shoutian Zhao Chen P, Yu L, Monitoring and
Prediction of Seismic Wave Vibration Intensity of Underwater Rock Induced by Underwater Drilling and
Blasting, Defence Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.10.007.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 China Ordnance Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi
Communications Co.
 Title Page

Manuscript Title: Monitoring and Prediction of Seismic Wave Vibration

Intensity of Underwater Rock Induced by Underwater Drilling and

Blasting

Authors: Zhenxiong Wang a, Wenbin Gu b, Ting Liangc，Shoutian Zhao a,

of
Peng Chen a, Liufang Yu a

ro
-p
a Research Institute of Chemical Defence, 102205, China
re
b Army Engineering University, 210007, China
lP

c Archives，Department of Space System,100094,China

na
ur

Corresponding author: Zhenxiong Wang;

Jo

Tel.: 8615321650702;

e-mail address： wangzhenxiong70310@126.com.

ORCID: wangzhenxiong70310@126.com

Total number: (1) Text pages, 26; (2) Tables,4; and (3) Figures, 12.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Xiangshan Project

Department of the Qingdao Coastal Defense Bureau for providing an

excellent test site, and especially Su Bo, who provided valuable

engineering assistance in the test arrangement and operation over the

course of the test. We also thank Liu Jianqing, Xu Jinglin, Dr. Chen

Jianghai, Xu Haoming, Lu Ming, Liu Xin, and their team for their

assistance in this study, and especially Dr. Chen Jianghai for his

invaluable assistance during the testing.

of
ro
-p
Funding: This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program
re
Project Fund [2017YFC0209901] and the National Defense Program
lP

[BY209J033].
na
ur
Jo

Declarations of interest: None.

Monitoring and Prediction of Seismic Wave Vibration Intensity of Underwater
Rock Induced by Underwater Drilling and Blasting
Abstract: All underwater drilling and blasting operations generate seismic waves.
However, due to a lack of suitable vibration sensing instruments, most studies on the
propagation of seismic waves have been limited to shorelines near construction areas
or wharfs, whereas comparatively few studies have been conducted on the larger
seafloor itself. To address this gap, a seafloor vibration sensor system was developed
and applied in this study that consists of an autonomous acquisition storage terminal,
software platform, and hole-plugging device that was designed to record the blasting

of
vibration intensities received through submarine rocks at a given measurement point.

ro
Additionally, dimensional analyses were used to derive a predictive equation for the
-p
strength of blast vibrations that considered the influence of the water depth. By
re
combining reliable vibration data obtained using the sensor system in submarine rock
and the developed predictive equation, it was determined that the water depth was an
lP

important factor influencing the measured vibration strength. The results using the
na

newly derived equation were compared to those determined using the Sadowski
equation, which is commonly used on land, and it was found that predictions using the
ur

derived equation were closer to the experimental values with an average error of less
Jo

than 10%, representing a significant improvement. Based on these results, the

developed sensor system and preliminary theoretical basis was deemed suitable for
studying the propagation behavior of submarine seismic waves generated by
underwater drilling and blasting operations.
 1 Monitoring and Prediction of the Vibration Intensity of Seismic Waves Induced in

2 Underwater Rock by Underwater Drilling and Blasting

3 Abstract: All underwater drilling and blasting operations generate seismic waves.

4 However, owing to the lack of suitable vibration sensing instruments, most studies on the

5 propagation of seismic waves have been limited to shorelines near construction areas or

6 wharfs, whereas comparatively few studies have been conducted on the larger seafloor

of
7 itself. To address this gap, a seafloor vibration sensor system was developed and applied in

ro
8 this study that consists of an autonomous acquisition storage terminal, software platform,

9
-p
and hole-plugging device that was designed to record the blasting vibration intensities
re
10 received through submarine rocks at a given measurement point. Additionally, dimensional
lP

11 analyses were used to derive a predictive equation for the strength of blast vibrations that
na

12 considered the influence of the water depth. By combining reliable vibration data obtained
ur

13 using the sensor system installed in submarine rocks and the developed predictive equation,
Jo

14 we determined that the water depth was an important factor influencing the measured

15 vibration strength. The results using the newly derived equation were compared to those

16 determined using the Sadowski equation, which is commonly used on land; the predictions

17 obtained using the derived equation were closer to the experimental values with an average

18 error of less than 10%, representing a significant improvement. Based on these results, the

19 developed sensor system and preliminary theoretical basis was deemed suitable for

20 studying the propagation behavior of submarine seismic waves generated by underwater

21 drilling and blasting operations.

22 Keywords: seismic wave; underwater drilling and blasting; blasting vibration; dimensional

1
23 analysis; induced seismicity

24 1. Introduction

25 Blast vibration effects are an important research topic in underwater engineering as

26 there are significant differences between the influences of water, sediments, and

27 water-saturated rocks on the vibrations created by underwater drilling and blasting

28 compared with those created by terrestrial rock borehole blasting. For example, in

of
29 underwater blasting and drilling operations, explosive energy is transformed into crushing

ro
30 energy in submarine rocks and shockwave energy in water, as well as seismic wave energy

31
-p
[1–3]. There are also significant differences in the physical phenomena of the explosions,
re
32 propagation of seismic waves, and type and degree of damage caused by blasting [4]. In
lP

33 underwater blasting, seismic waves can be induced by the direct impact of blasting on the
na

34 surrounding media, underwater blast-induced shockwaves at the sediment–water interface,

ur

35 and oscillatory impacts of water pulsations on bank slopes.

Jo

36 Advanced instruments used in civilian and military construction techniques have been

37 recently used in many large-scale underwater projects such as subsea tunnels, undersea

38 optical cables, and oil and gas pipelines [5,6]. Additionally, it is increasingly common to

39 deploy instruments on the seafloor to monitor underwater conditions to protect the sea and

40 maintain national security. As these projects play critical roles in national economic and

41 defense activities, any damage to such infrastructure by seismic waves can result in

42 significant economic and structural losses. This highlights the need for accurate sensing

43 equipment to monitor vibrations on the seafloor, ensuring the safety and stability of

44 underwater equipment.

2
45 The results of extensive engineering and technical studies of underwater blasting have

46 been utilized to develop many effective environmental vibration monitoring techniques and

47 damage assessment methods [7–9]. However, owing to the lack of reliable underwater

48 blasting vibration monitoring equipment and sensing techniques, most previous research

49 has focused on monitoring and evaluating damage caused by blast vibrations on shorelines

50 and land-based buildings, and research on the underwater vibrations caused by blasting

51 remains limited [10,11]. Previous underwater vibration monitoring research includes works

of
ro
52 by Araki and Shinohara [12,13], who developed a long-term, high-quality seismic ocean

53 -p
floor borehole observatory system known as “Neath Seafloor Equipment for Recording
re
54 Earth's Internal Deformation” (NEREID) to monitor earthquakes on the seafloor and
lP

55 recommended that seismometers be installed in boreholes to reduce the noise caused by

56 infragravity waves [12,13]. The NEREID system can be used to obtain ocean data, such as
na

57 water temperature and ocean current speeds; because the system must be fixed in a given
ur

58 location, its setup is complicated. However, while the NEREID system is useful for
Jo

59 monitoring the seismic waves caused by geological movements or volcanic eruptions on

60 the seafloor, it cannot be used to monitor blast-induced vibrations [12–17].

61 Factors specifically pertaining to underwater drilling and blasting vibrations that should

62 be considered when designing a vibration monitoring system include the dose of detonation,

63 blast-center distance, difference between the elevations of the measurement points and

64 blasting area, characteristics of the propagation medium, pore network parameters, and

65 influence of water. Indeed, just as the differences in elevation between measurement points

66 and explosion sites on land must be accounted for, differences in the elevations between

3
67 seafloor measurement points and underwater explosion sites should also be considered.

68 These differences in elevation are particularly important underwater because the water

69 pressure of an explosion differs with the difference in water depth. Accordingly, when

70 explosives are used to break underwater rocks, the distribution of the released energy that

71 generates seismic waves and underwater shock waves will differ between the explosion site

72 and a particular measurement point. Thus, during seismic wave propagation, as the

73 underwater topography changes, the water depth at the measurement points and the seismic

of
ro
74 wave intensity also change. These gradients must therefore be accounted for when

75 -p
predicting the strength of the induced vibrations as they affect the vibration intensity felt at
re
76 the seafloor measurement point.
lP

77 To overcome the limitations of previous studies and address the stated requirements for

78 measurement and prediction of underwater drilling or blasting vibrations, a self-contained

na

79 underwater blast vibration sensor with a large, reliable data storage capacity was developed
ur

80 and evaluated in this study that is capable of long-term, autonomous acquisition of seismic
Jo

81 signals on the seafloor. Key requirements for such a sensor are that it be reliable,

82 convenient, able to guarantee reliable contact with the measured rock surface on the

83 seafloor and meet the stringent design requirement of sealing its mounting hole under

84 specific displacement and stress continuity conditions. In conjunction with the sensor, a

85 software system was developed to oversee the mounting, testing, data transmission, and

86 blast signal processing. Dimensional analysis was then performed to incorporate the water

87 depths at the explosion site and measurement point into a predictive model for obtaining

88 the vibration intensity at a given seafloor measurement point due to a given explosion. The

4
 89 findings of this study will provide a solid foundation for further analyses regarding the

90 propagation behavior of seismic waves on the seafloor induced by underwater drilling and

91 blasting.

92 2. Materials and Methods

93 2.1. Underwater blast vibration sensor system

94 There are three main challenges that must be addressed in the design of an underwater

of
95 blast vibration measurement system. Firstly, it is difficult to place sensors underwater. To

ro
96 overcome this challenge, professional divers must be employed to install sensors at the

97 designated measurement points, and the total number of required dives increases
-p
98 significantly when sensors are deployed in deep water. Secondly, it is difficult to affix
re
99 vibration sensors to submarine rocks, but to obtain accurate seismic wave signals at a
lP

100 particular measurement point, it is essential that the bottom surface of the sensor be solidly
na

101 attached to the rock mass to satisfy the requirement for displacement continuity. However,
ur

102 the challenge is that the seafloor is not even and there are no bonding agents available for
Jo

103 use with submarine rocks, which makes it virtually impossible to completely secure a

104 sensor to a submarine rock surface. Thirdly, it is difficult to fully waterproof underwater

105 seismic wave sensor systems. Indeed, signals are often transmitted from underwater sensors

106 to land-based data acquisition systems via wired cables because wireless signal

107 transmission underwater is difficult. However, when using signal cables in offshore test

108 operations, it is critical that waterproofing be provided between the sensor and cable and

109 between the cable and test line. If this is not addressed satisfactorily, the tests are likely to

110 fail owing to insufficient waterproofing.

111 To solve the aforementioned problems and satisfy the functional and performance

112 requirements for a seafloor vibration sensor system, a system was developed that consisted

5
113 of a self-contained data acquisition and storage system housed inside a hole-plugging

114 device as well as an upper-position software platform. The self-contained data acquisition

115 and storage system, shown in Figure 1, included a three-way vibration signal sensor,

116 acceleration integration circuit, signal data acquisition card, data storage system,

117 input/output ports, and power supply control circuits, all of which were mounted in a

118 cylindrical hardened aluminum shell to withstand the conditions in the application

119 environment.

of
ro
-p
re
lP

120

121 Figure 1. Mechanical structure and component layout of the proposed self-contained blast
na

122 vibration data acquisition and storage sensor: (1) cable connecting hole; (2) guide rod; (3)
ur

123 hole-plugging device platform; (4) seal ring; (5) interface module; (6) power module; (7)
Jo

124 data acquisition board; (8) acceleration integration board; (9) shell; (10) three-way

125 acceleration sensor; and (11) sensor system base.

126 The problem of affixing the sensor to the seafloor rock surface was resolved by fixing the

127 sensor to the bottom of a pre-drilled rock hole using the developed hole-plugging device,

128 shown installed in a submarine rock in Figure 2, which also ensured the motion and force at

129 the contact point between the sensor and the rock body satisfied the continuity requirement.

130 A drilling platform was used to drill the hole in the rock, then the sensor was fed through

131 the sleeve into the hole, pushed into place with the drill pipe, and affixed within the hole

132 using the hole-plugging device. After setting, a wire rope fixed to the sensor was connected

6
133 to a buoy to assist in the recovery of the sensor. Thus, no divers were required to set and

134 retrieve the sensors. To program the sensor before placement and obtain the data collected

135 from the seafloor after retrieval, the sensor was connected to a laptop computer that

136 executed a program through the data transmission interface (Figures 3 and 4). A control

137 flow chart of the autonomous acquisition storage terminal and the workflow of the host

138 computer software platform are shown in Figure 5.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na

139
ur

140 Figure 2. Schematic of the underwater vibration sensor installation: (1) positioning float;
Jo

141 (2) cable; (3) hole-plugging device; (4) self-contained vibration data acquisition and

142 storage system; (5) water; (6) rock surface cover; and (7) rock.

Underwater vibration acquisition terminal Software platform

Metal shell

Acquisition Dedicated Data file Common

Communication
control storage software software
Three - connection
system platform platform
way
vibration
velocity
sensor Internal Power
External power supply
power supply connection port

143

144 Figure 3. Schematic of the overall sensor system.

7
145
146 Figure 4. Photograph of the physical sensor system.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

147

148 Figure 5. Flow chart of the host computer software platform.

149 2.2. Vibration experiment for underwater drilling and blasting

150 In this study, seafloor vibration tests were conducted near the underwater drilling and blasting

151 sites associated with the first construction phase of the main channel in the Port of

8
152 Ningbo–Zhoushan to obtain vibration data from the submarine rock mass under different

153 blasting conditions and test environments. The original rock surface elevation in the

154 construction area was -10–6 m, the rock was moderately weathered tuffaceous sandstone, and

155 the design bottom elevation of the channel was -10.1 m. According to the reef characteristics

156 of this region and those of the drilling and blasting ships, the charging holes were arranged in

157 a rectangular manner; the spacing between the charging holes was 2.5 m, the row spacing of

158 the charging holes was 2.0 m, and the excavation depths of the charging holes were 2–3 m.

159 Further, the diameter of the charge was 90 mm, that of the charging holes was 125 mm, and

of
160 the number of detonation holes depended on the weather and other factors during

ro
161 construction. Regarding filling of the charging holes for underwater rock blasting, water

162
-p
depths greater than 6 m may not need to be blocked; for water depths greater than 3 m and
re
163 less than 6 m, the orifice blocking length was 0.5–1.0 m; for water depths less than 3 m, the
lP

164 orifice blocking length was 1.5–2.0 m. Owing to the different construction conditions, the
na

165 blasting network utilized two types of initiation methods: millisecond initiation and

166 simultaneous initiation. In Table 1, Q is the amount of charge in single-stage blasting. The
ur

167 small amount of initiation charge is the largest charge in single-stage blasting, and at the same
Jo

168 time, it is the total charge. The photograph in Figure 6 shows the test site. It was selected

169 based on the water depth and conditions of the submarine rock in the area. The locations of

170 the measuring points should be selected considering the water depth of the setting area and

171 conditions of the underwater rocks. First, the sensors at the measuring points rely on the

172 drilling platform. The platform requires a certain water depth because the platform cannot

173 operate otherwise. In addition, it is necessary to examine the integrity of the underwater rock

174 mass at the measurement points; otherwise, holes cannot be drilled to install the sensors

175 properly. Therefore, the choice of measuring points mainly depends on the underwater rock

176 conditions and water depth during the test and has a certain randomness. The sensors were

9
177 installed using the drilling platform shown in Figure 7. The workflow of the testing procedure

178 is shown in Figure 8, and the relative positions of the measurement points and explosion site

179 are shown in Figure 9.

of
ro
180

181
-p
Figure 6. Underwater vibration sensor installation and testing site.
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

182

183 Figure 7. Photographs of the underwater vibration test sensor installation.

184

10
185 Figure 8. Workflow of the experimental procedure.

of
186

ro
187 Figure 9. Schematic of the relative positions of the measurement points and the explosion

188 site (blasting area). -p

re
189 The peak vertical vibration velocity (Vz-max) has been widely accepted as an evaluation
lP

190 criterion for vibration prediction in blasting engineering [18]. However, a limitation of this
na

191 approach is that it ignores the effects of blasting in the horizontal and radial directions.

192 Another approach has been to use larger speeds in the horizontal and vertical directions
ur

193 [19,20]. However, the understanding of the vibration velocity in a specific direction is limited
Jo

194 by these standard methods of measuring vibration intensity, which cannot comprehensively

195 reflect the full intensity in all directions at the measurement point. In contrast,

196 three-directional vibration velocity data can be used to determine the vector combination of

197 vibration intensity (VCV) and can adequately reflect the full variation in the vibrations at the

198 measurement point during blasting. This approach is detailed as follows:

( vx −t ) + ( v y − t ) + ( vz −t )
2 2 2
VCV =
199 , (1)
200 where vx-t, vy-t, and vz-t represent the respective vibration velocities of the measurement point

201 in the x-, y-, and z-directions at time t. The maximum value of the VCV (VCVmax) can be

202 considered the peak value of the vibration velocity. The time series of the vertical vibration

11
203 intensity (Vz) and VCV at two example measurement points are shown in Figure 10.

of
204
205 Figure 10. Time series of the vertical vibration intensity (Vz) and the vector combination of

ro
206 the vibration intensity (VCV) at measurement points #2 and #8.
-p
re
207 The blasting parameters and the vibration velocity data obtained during the tests in this
lP

208 study are given in Table 1.

na

209 Table 1. Vibration data for underwater measurement points.

ur

Point R (m) d (m) h (m) Q (kg) vz-max (cm﹒s-1) VCV (cm﹒s-1)

Jo

1 49.51 1 0.48 1277 8.893 12.122

2 67.59 1.11 0.48 1277 5.795 5.971

3 44.94 3.7 8.31 1173 12.703 19.617

4 44.94 3.07 7.70 1104 12.411 22.945

5 39.97 3.57 7.70 1104 17.24 21.806

6 42.51 1.78 5.70 1113 16.267 19.337

7 43.30 2.14 9.21 927 13.917 20.689

8 54.78 2.64 9.21 927 8.853 9.711

12
 9 37.97 4.92 5.68 1140 13.588 18.71

10 46.78 4.95 5.68 1140 8.554 12.286

11 53.21 4.91 4.97 1247 7.265 10.123

12 56.36 5.23 4.97 1247 6.015 9.029

13 63.42 5.02 4.97 1247 5.382 7.648

14 43.53 4.45 9.40 711 9.473 15.328

15 49.90 4.96 9.40 711 7.028 12.198

of
ro
16 57.25 5.15 9.40 711 4.379 8.841

17 42.13 2.08 5.69 1104 -p 12.698 16.33

re
18 49.13 2.57 5.69 1104 10.808 13.991
lP

19 55.95 2.44 5.69 1104 7.829 10.291

na

20 42.47 2.42 4.27 858 8.126 12.551

21 49.72 2.91 4.27 858 5.797 7.133

ur

22 55.00 2.78 4.27 858 4.684 6.836

Jo

23 38.22 2.33 3.95 247 4.894 7.359

24 49.11 4.24 3.95 247 2.281 4.493

25 57.18 4.92 3.95 247 1.598 2.461

26 32.55 1.95 1.41 1296 24.349 38.928

27 37.46 2.74 1.41 1296 18.839 27.198

28 40.14 2.49 1.41 1296 16.086 23.134

210 Abbreviations: d is the depth between the measurement point and the water surface; h, is the water depth in

211 the explosion site; When differential initiation is used, Q is the maximum charge per delay. When

13
212 simultaneous initiation is used for the blasting operation, Q is the total dose of the detonation; and R is the

213 distance from the measurement point to the center of the explosion site.

214 3. Results and Discussion

215 3.1. Dimensional analysis of vibration strength during underwater drilling and blasting

216 The effects of the blasting vibrations varied depending on the size of the explosion,

217 conditions of the on-site media (e.g., lithology, presence of joints, and geological

of
218 structures), water depth, blasting distance, and differences in elevation. In this study, nine

ro
219 main physical properties were considered when predicting the blast-induced propagation of

220 seismic waves and are detailed in Table 2.

-p
re
lP

221 Table 2. Main physical properties involved in blast-induced seismicity.

na

Symbol Description Dimension

1 Q Total dose of detonation M

ur

2 E Total explosive energy ML2T-2

Jo

3 R Distance from the center of the explosion site L

4 c Seismic wave velocity LT-1

5 Independent ρ Density of underwater rocks ML-3

variables Depth between the measurement point and water

6 d L
surface

7 h Depth of water at the explosion site L

8 Dependent t Duration T

9 variables v Vibration velocity at the measurement point LT-1

14
222 Note: L, M, and T represent dimensions of length, mass, and time, respectively.

223 According to π-theory and dimensional analysis techniques, the vibration velocity of a

224 measurement point can be expressed as follows:

225 v = Φ ( Q , E , R , c , ρ , d , h, t ) , (2)

226 where Q is the total detonation dose, E is the total explosive energy, R is the distance from

227 the center of the explosion site to the measurement point, c is the seismic wave velocity, ρ

of
228 is the density of the submarine rocks at the measurement point, d is the water depth at the

ro
229 measurement point, h is the water depth at the explosion site, and t is time. The underwater

230
-p
blasting vibration speed was related to the nine physical quantities defined in Table 2,
re
231 among which Q, R, and c are independent variables and π signifies a dimensionless
lP

232 quantity.
na

v
233 π = χ1 χ χ3
. (3)
Q R 2c
ur

234 where x1, x2, and x3 are all undetermined coefficients. According to dimensional
Jo

235 homogeneity,

236 dim v = LT −1 = ( M ) χ1 ( L) χ2 ( LT −1 ) χ3 , (4)

237 where v is the dimensional vibration velocity at the measurement point, which is equivalent

238 to the multiplied units of measure shown in Table 2. Thus, when x1 = 0, x2 = 0, and x3 = 1,
v
239 π= . (5)
c
240 By analogy, the remaining physical properties can be expressed as follows:

E ρ ρ ρ t
241 π1 = 2
; π2 = −3
; π3 = −3
; π4 = −3
; π5 = −1
; (6)
Qc QR Qd Qh Rc

15
 v E ρ ρ ρ t
242 π = = Φ( 2
, −3 , −3 , − 3 , −1 ) . (7)
c Qc QR Qd Qh Rc

243 Note that the water depth must be considered for predicting vibration intensity as it is

244 an important factor in the effects of underwater drilling and blasting [21]. As the products

245 and involutions of different dimensionless quantities are still dimensionless [22,23], the

246 dimensionless quantity π9 can be obtained by combining π2, π3, and π4:

ρ ρ ρ
247 π9 = (π 2 )
1/3
(π 3 )
1/3
(π 4 )
1/3
=( −3
∗ −3
∗ −3
)1/3 . (8)
QR Qd Qh

of
ρ ρ ρ

ro
v
248 According to Equations (7) and (8), and ( −3
∗ −3
∗ −3
)1/3 have the
c QR Qd Qh

249 following functional relationship:

-p
re
v ρ ρ ρ
250 ∝( * −3 * −3 )1/3 . (9)
lP

−3
c QR Qd Qh

251 As the rock density ρ and seismic wave velocity c can be considered constants under
na

252 the same test site conditions, the logarithm for both sides of Equation (9) can be obtained as
ur

253 follows:
Jo

3 Q 3 Q 3 Q
254 ln v = α1 + β1 ln( ) + β 2 ln( ) + β 3 ln( ), (10)
R d h

255 which gives

3 Q 3 Q 3 Q
256 v = k1 ( ) β1 ( )β2 ( ) β3 , (11)
R d h

257 where k is the comprehensive coefficient of influence for the given site and blasting

258 parameters, and β1, β2, and β3 are the attenuation coefficients of the distance from the center

259 of the explosion site, water depth at the measurement point, and water depth at the

260 explosion site, respectively. When the influence of water depth is not considered, the

16
261 predictive equation for the vibration intensity is

3 Q
262 v = k1 ( ) β1 . (12)
R
263 Equation (12) is consistent with the form used in Sadowski’s study [24] of blasting

264 vibration intensities on land.

265 3.2 Prediction of vibration intensity by fitting

266 Equation (12) is the predictive equation for determining the vibration intensity adopted

of
267 on land. According to the data given in Table 1, The 7th, 14th, 21th and 28th data were

ro
268 selected as the vibration data of the test prediction, and the rest data were used as the basic

269
-p
data of formula fitting. Based on the above data analysis, the equation for calculating the
re
270 predicted vibration intensity through the submarine rocks at the measurement point without
lP

271 considering the influence of water depth can be obtained as follows:

na

 Vz-max = 378.661( 3 Q R )2.402

272  (2.070＜ R 3 Q ＜9.113) . (13)
VCVmax = 446.518( 3 Q R )
2.274
ur

273 However, as research into the effects of vibration hazards has continued, the difference
Jo

274 in elevation between the blasting area and measurement point has been gradually

275 introduced into the predictive equations of vibration intensity on land, considerably

276 improving the accuracy of such predictions [25–30]. As discussed previously, drilling and

277 blasting operations are more complicated underwater than on dry land as there are more

278 factors that influence the intensity of blast-induced vibrations, the most notable of which is

279 the presence of water. Using dimensional analysis, the water depths at the measurement

280 point and explosion site in this study as per Equation (11) and the vibration data in Table 1

281 were fitted to obtain the following:

17
  3 Q 3 Q 3 Q
 z- max
V = 217.805( ) 2.212
( ) 0.337
( ) −0.168
 R d h
282  (2.070＜ R 3 Q ＜9.113) . (14)
 3 Q 3 Q 3 Q

VCV max = 438.605( ) 2.273

( ) 0.112
( ) −0.136
R d h

283 The fitting index of Equation (14) shows that the absolute value of the coefficient of

284 influence for the water depth at the explosion site was greater than that at the measurement

285 point. Except for a slightly larger value at the measurement point where VZ-max was

286 recorded, the coefficients of influence for the water depth at the measurement points in

of
287 Equations (13) and (14) were smaller than those at the explosion site. If only the influence

ro
288 of depth of water at the explosion site on the vibration intensity is considered, Equation (11)

289 can be simplified as

-p
re
3 Q 3 Q
290 v= k1 ( ) β1 ( ) β2 . (15)
lP

R h

291 Using the test data reported in Table 1, the following predictive equations were
na

292 obtained based on Equation (15) by fitting using the regress function in Matlab:
ur

 3 Q 3 Q
 Vz-max = 401.417( )2.424 ( )-0.028
Jo

 R h
293  (2.070＜ R 3 Q ＜9.113) . (16)
 3 Q 3 Q

VCV max = 537.538( ) 2.343

( ) −0.089
R h

294 The significance level was set to 0.05 [31], and the correlation coefficients and F values

295 were obtained as shown in Table 3. Table 3 indicates that the correlation coefficients of

296 fitted Equations (14) and (16) considering the influence of water depth are considerably

297 improved compared to those of Equation (13), which indicates that water depth

298 considerably influences the vibration intensity.

299 Table 3. Correlation coefficients and F-statistics of Equations (13), (14), and (16).

18
 Correlation coefficients F values

Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation

(13) (14) (16) (13) (14) (16)

VZ-max 0.924 0.961 0.929 280.633 163.969 136.701

VCVmax 0.917 0.939 0.935 253.837 103.297 152.143

300 A comparison of the experimental and predicted values obtained using the different

of
301 fitting equations and their calculated error values is shown in Figures 11(a–e); the values

ro
302 obtained by fitting the predictive equation based on the water depth were closer to the

303 experimental values, indicating that the prediction accuracy considerably improved
-p
re
304 compared to the other equations. Comparing the prediction errors of different fitting
lP

305 equations indicated that the deviation of the results without considering the influence of
na

306 water depth (Equation (13)) was large and the range of error was wide (Figure 11).
ur

Test data value 40 Equmation (13)

25 Predicted value by equmation (13) Equmation (14)
Jo

Predicted value by equmation (14) 35 Equmation (16)

Vibration intensity (Vz-max cm/s)

Percentage error (Vz-max -%)

20 Predicted value by equmation (16)

30

25
15
20

10
15

10
5
5
0
0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30

Number of measuring point Number of measuring point

19
 40 50
Test data value Equmation (13)
45 Equmation (14)
35 Predicted value by equmation (13)
Vibration intensity (VCV-max -cm/s)

Predicted value by equmation (14) 40 Equmation (16)

Percentage error (VCV -%)

30 Predicted value by equmation (16)
35
25
30

20 25

20
15
15
10
10
5
5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30

Number of measuring point Number of measuring point

307 Figure 11. Comparisons of the (a) predicted and experimental values obtained by different

308 fitting equations for VZ-max, (b) errors obtained by different fitting equations for VZ-max, (c)

of
ro
309 predicted and experimental values obtained by different fitting equations for VCVmax, and

310 (d) errors obtained by different fitting equations for VCVmax, in which VCVmax is the -p
re
311 maximum vector combination of vibration intensity and VZ-max is the maximum vertical
lP

312 vibration intensity.

na

25
Formula (13)
Formula (14)
ur

Formula (16)
20
Percentage of error(%)
Jo

15 14.35 13.88 13.94

12.61
11.67
9.89
10

0
1 2

313
314 Figure 12. Comparison of the prediction errors obtained using different fitting equations.

315 When VZ-max was used as the vibration intensity index, the prediction accuracy of the

316 equation that considered the influence of water depth improved. The prediction accuracy of

317 Equation (16) when only the water depth effect of the explosion site was considered was

318 13.88%. However, when the water depths at both the explosion site and the measurement

20
319 point were considered, the prediction accuracy of Equation (14) was 9.89% and the error

320 range was narrow, indicating that it predicted the vibration intensity better than the other

321 equations. When VCV was used as the vibration intensity index, the error that considered

322 the influence of the water depth (Equations (14)) was 11.67%.

323 Table 4 Vibration data for underwater measurement points. (cm﹒s-1)

vz-max VCV

of
Point Test Equation Equation Equation Test Equation Equation Equation

ro
data (13) (14) (16) data (13) (14) (16)

7 13.917 10.545 13.295

-p
10.801 20.689 15.049 17.410 16.263
re
14 9.473 8.419 8.346 8.632 15.328 12.160 13.025 13.184
lP

21 5.797 7.111 7.297 7.108 7.133 10.364 10.442 10.365

na

28 16.086 16.543 14.219 16.093 23.134 23.049 20.252 21.140

ur

Prediction error 18.09% 12.57% 16.94% 26.79% 22.23% 23.33%

Jo

324 The vibration data of No. 7, No. 14, No. 21 and No. 28 are predicted by using the

325 fitting formula. The prediction data and prediction error of different formulas are shown in

326 Table 4.Formula 14 has the best prediction precision, especially when VZ-max is predicted,

327 the prediction error of formula 14 is less than 15% , the average error is 12.57%.Similarly,

328 the prediction of VCV in the above four data shows that, although the overall prediction

329 error is larger than the prediction error of VZ-max, the average error of formula 14 is still the

330 most accurate among the three prediction methods.The results of this study demonstrate

331 that the influence of the water depth on the vibration intensity cannot be ignored in the

332 prediction of seismic behaviors resulting from underwater drilling and blasting operations.

21
333 This is emphasized by the fact that the equations including the influence of the water depth

334 exhibited significantly higher prediction accuracy. When different vibration intensity

335 indicators were selected, the accuracy of the predicted vibration intensities differed. Overall,

336 Equation (14), which included the water depths at both the measurement point and the

337 explosion site, exhibited the highest prediction accuracy.

338 4. Conclusions

of
339 In this study, a novel underwater blast vibration sensor consisting of self-contained data

ro
340 acquisition and storage system housed inside a hole-plugging device as well as a

341
-p
surface-based software platform was developed to collect and analyze the vibrations of
re
342 submarine rocks exposed to drilling and blasting operations. Additionally, the factors
lP

343 affecting the vibration intensity of such rocks were analyzed via dimensional theory. We
na

344 found that the proposed underwater vibration sensor system was able to collect the
ur

345 vibrational velocities at the rock measurement point under complex seafloor conditions.
Jo

346 The obtained data were reliable and suitable for use in research on the seismic wave

347 propagation behavior of submarine rocks.

348 Equations for predicting the vibration intensity during underwater drilling and blasting

349 operations while accounting for the water depth were obtained via dimensional analysis.

350 The water depth was an important factor affecting the vibration intensities experienced by

351 submarine rocks during underwater drilling and blasting by fitting the experimentally

352 obtained vibration data. On this basis, a reliable equation was proposed for predicting the

353 vibration intensity induced by underwater blasting that incorporates the blasting distance,

354 amount of charge, and water depth at the blasting area and measurement point as variables.

22
355 The vibration intensity of submarine rocks was then predicted using several different fitting

356 equations, and the equation that considered the influence of the water depth at both the

357 explosion site and the measurement point was shown to most accurately predict the

358 vibration intensity.

359 Acknowledgments

360 Funding:

of
361 Declarations of interest: none.

ro
362 References

363
-p
[1] Li XF, Li HB, Zhang GK. Damage assessment and blast vibrations controlling
re
364 considering rock properties of underwater blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
lP

365 2019;121:104045.
na

366 [2] Peng YX, Su Y, Wu L, Chen CH. Study on the attenuation characteristics of seismic wave
367
ur

energy induced by underwater drilling and blasting. Shock Vib 2019:4367698.

368 [3] Peng YX, Wu L, Chen CH. Study on the robust regression of the prediction of vibration
Jo

369 velocity in underwater drilling and blasting. Arabian J Sci Eng 2018;43(10):5541–49.
370 [4] Jimeno EL, Jimeno CL, Ayala-Carcedo, FJ. Drilling and blasting of rocks. Netherlands:
371 A.A. Balkema Publishers; 1995.
372 [5] Hai L, Ren X. Computational investigation on damage of reinforced concrete slab
373 subjected to underwater explosion. Ocean Eng 2020;195:106671.
374 [6] Zhang XL, Xu JS. A survey of the factors affecting submarine cable safety. Coastal Eng
375 2003;22(2):1–6.
376 [7] Park YS, Kang SH, Jeon YB, Gong GJ, Park SJ. An experimental study on ground
377 vibration equations by underwater blasting at construction site. Trans Korean Soc Noise

23
378 Vib Eng 2006;16(7): 777–83.
379 [8] Zavalishin SI, Shablinskii GÉ. Investigation of dynamic characteristics of concrete dam
380 by underwater blasts in the head race of the reservoir under field conditions. Power
381 Technol Eng, 2014;48(1):17–22.
382 [9] Madheswaran CK, Sundaravadivelu R, Boominathan A, Natarajan K. Response of
383 berthing structure due to underwater blasting for rock dredging. Exp Tech
384 2009;33(3):61–72.
385 [10] Wang Z, Gu W, Chen X, Xu H, Lu M, Hu Y. Numerical Simulation of Blasting Water

of
386 Depth Affecting the Propagation of Shock Waves and Seismic Waves Underwater Drilling.

ro
387 In Session Nine, 16th Annual Meeting of China Association for Science and Technology,
388 2014, 587–95.
-p
re
389 [11] Gu W, Chen J, Wang Z, Wang Z, Liu J, Lu M. Experimental study on the measurement of
lP

390 water bottom vibration induced by underwater drilling blasting. Shock Vib 2015:496120.
na

391 [12] Shinohara M, Araki EI, Kanazawa T, Suyehiro K, Mochizuki M, Yamada T, et al.
392 Deep-sea borehole seismological observatories in the Western Pacific: Temporal variation
ur

393 of seismic noise level and event detection. Ann Geophys 2006;9:625–41.
Jo

394 [13] Araki E, Shinohara M, Sacks S, Linde A, Kanazawa T, Shiobara H, et al. Improvement of
395 seismic observation in the ocean by use of seafloor boreholes. Bull Seismol Soc Am
396 2004;94(2):678–90.
397 [14] Wang W. The latest method and technology development of seabed seismic prospecting.
398 China Sci Technol Achiev 2010;6:7–11.
399 [15] Zhou G, Zhang S. International ocean seismic observation in the past 30 years. Recent
400 Dev World Seismol 2014;1:18–24.
401 [16] Levchenko DG, Ledenev VV, Il’in IA, Paramonov AA. Long term seismological sea
402 bottom monitoring using autonomous bottom stations. Seism Instrum 2010;46(1):1–12.

24
403 [17] Bradner H, de Jerphanion LG, Langlois R. Ocean microseism measurements with a
404 neutral buoyancy free floating midwater seismometer. Bull Seismol Soc Am
405 1970;60(4):1139–50.
406 [18] Chu HB, Ye HY, Yang XL, Liang WM, Yu YQ. Experiments on propagation of blasting
407 vibration based on damage accumulation. J Vib Shock 2016;35(2):173–7.
408 [19] Lin CM, Pang HD, Wang QS, Li B. Study on neural network prediction of peak
409 amplitude of blasting ground vibration for tunneling. Rock Soil Mech
410 2004;25(Sup):125–6.

of
411 [20] Su GS, Song YC, Yan LB. A new method for forecasting of blasting effect in rock mass.

ro
412 Chinese J Rock Mech Eng 2007;26(Sup1):3509–14.
413
-p
[21] Toomik A, Tomberg T. Blast vibration intensity in the changing hydrogeological
re
414 conditions. Oil Shale 2001;18(1):5–14.
lP

415 [22] Malmgren L, Nordlund E. Behavior of shotcrete supported rock wedges subjected to
na

416 blast-induced vibrations. Intl J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43(4):593–615.

417 [23] Tan H, Sun J, Qi S. Study on vibration decay of dynamic compaction. Geotech Investig
ur

418 Surv 2001;(5):11–4.

Jo

419 [24] Zhong J, Wang Z, Tian N. An experiment of attenuation law of vibration and evolution
420 mechanism of damage of granite under cyclic blasting. Hydrogeol Eng Geol
421 2019;46:101–7.
422 [25] Tang H, Li HB. Study of blasting vibration formula of reflecting amplification effect on
423 elevation. Rock Soil Mech 2011;32(3):820–4.
424 [26]Jiang N, Zhou C, Ping W, Xu X, Lu SW. Altitude effect of blasting vibration velocity in
425 rock slopes. J Central South Univ (Sci Technol) 2014;45(1):237–43.
426 [27] Marrara F, Suhadolc P. Site amplifications in the city of Benevento (Italy): Comparison
427 of observed and estimated ground motion from explosive sources. J Seismol

25
428 1998;2(2):125−43.
429 [28] Havenith HB, Vanini M, Jongmans D, Faccioli E. Initiation of earthquake-induced slope
430 failure: Influence of topographical and other site specific amplification effects. J Seismol
431 2003;7(3):397−412.
432 [29] Peng YX, Wu L, Su Y, Li HY, Li CJ. Fitting models of underwater blasting vibration
433 attenuation considering effects of elevation. J Vib Shock 2016;35(13):174–8.
434 [30] Xu HL, Zhang JC, Yang H, Zhen X. Investigation on calculating formula of vibration
435 velocity in drilling blasting and its simplification. J Tongji Univ (Nat Sci)

of
436 2007;35(7):899–914.

ro
437 [31] Wen Z. Matlab Scientific Calculation. Tsinghua University Press, 2017.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

26
Highlights
1. A novel underwater blast vibration test system is developed, consisting of a main acquisition storage
terminal, software platform, and hole-blocking device was developed to experimentally collect and
analyze the vibration data of submarine rocks exposed to drilling and blasting operations.
2. Equations for predicting the vibration intensity during underwater drilling and blasting operations
while accounting for the water depth were obtained via dimensional analysis, it is verified that water
depth was an important factor affecting the vibration intensities felt by submarine rocks during
underwater drilling and blasting by fitting the experimental vibration data.
3. A reliable equation is proposed to predicting the vibration intensity induced by underwater blasting that
incorporates the blasting distance, amount of charge, and the water depth of the blasting area and the
measurement point as variables.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo