See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257270005

Blasting vibration safety criterion for a tunnel liner structure

Article  in  Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · November 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2012.04.016

CITATIONS READS

73 869

2 authors:

Nan Jiang Chuanbo Zhou

China University of Geosciences China University of Geosciences
82 PUBLICATIONS   567 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   477 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 41807265 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nan Jiang on 20 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32 (2012) 52–57

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

Blasting vibration safety criterion for a tunnel liner structure

Nan Jiang, Chuanbo Zhou ⇑
Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Due to the complexity of rock blasting mechanism and rock mass conditions, the safety criterion of blast-
Received 26 October 2011 ing vibration velocity for adjacent tunnel is often set empirically without scientific theoretical basis. In
Received in revised form 31 March 2012 order to analyze the influences of blasting vibration on tunnel structure, we calculated and analyzed
Accepted 25 April 2012
the vibration velocities and effective stresses of tunnel liner and surrounding rock subject to blasting
Available online 22 June 2012
vibration by the finite element software LS-DYNA based on the field blasting tests of an excavation blast-
ing project adjacent to a railway tunnel top. The sequential characteristics of vibration velocities and
Keywords:
effective stresses in the elements at different positions of tunnel liner and surrounding rock are obtained.
Blasting vibration
Tunnel liner
The differences of the peak particle velocities (PPVs) and the effective stresses between tunnel liner and
Structure surrounding rock subject to blasting vibration are observed. The relationship of dynamic stresses and
Dynamic response PPVs of tunnel structure under the different blasting conditions is studied and modeled. According to
Numerical simulation the maximum tensile strength theory and the numerical calculation results, the blasting safety criterion
of PPV is determined. The numerical simulation results have been confirmed by field blasting tests and
provide a reference to specify blasting vibration criteria for other similar projects.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction velocity are discussed. The numerical simulation results have been
confirmed by field test data.
With the rapid infrastructure development in China, there is a
rising number of blasting engineering in construction projects near
2. General information of the project site and vibration
railway tunnels. The blasting vibration during operation can dam-
measurement method
age the neighboring tunnel structure and endanger the construc-
tion project. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the
The land formation project of the Economic Development Zone
dynamic responses of the tunnel subject to blasting vibration to
industrial park in Shiyan city occupies an area of 53.3 hectares,
ensure the safety of the tunnel and the construction project.
and the design elevation is 253.00 m. The upper and central rock
The influences of blasting vibration on underground structures
mass is loose and strongly weathered, which can be excavated by
have been studied by many scholars using field experiments
machines. The lower rock mass is medium-hard and mainly
(Ansell, 2004; Ozer, 2008; Nateghi, 2011; Ahmed and Ansell,
weakly weathering dolomitic limestone, which can only be exca-
2011) and numerical simulations (Zhu and Tang, 2006; Kim et
vated by blasting. The Xiangyu railway Bailang 1# tunnel
al., 2006; Jiang et al., 2011). The theoretical researches are rela-
(K96+286.1–K96+767) is below the blasting excavation area. The
tively scarce and mainly adopt the integral equation method and
Bailang 1# tunnel liner is made of 30 cm thick concrete and built
the ray theory method (Pao, 1983). The simplified two-dimen-
in the end of the 1960s. It is 8 m high, 5 m wide, and the shape of
sional model or the blasting vibration load assumptions are used
its cross-section is arch wall. The distance between the tunnel top
in previous numerical simulation (Zhu and Tang, 2006; Kim et
and the blasting excavation area is 14 m.
al., 2006; Jiang et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2011).
To investigate the dynamic responses of the tunnel subject to
In this paper, based on the field blasting tests of an excavation
blasting vibration, the reasonable controlled blasting test plan is
blasting project adjacent to a railway tunnel top, the 3D numerical
selected with consideration of the geological conditions and the
model of the real field engineering is established by LS-DYNA. The
surrounding environment. The field blasting tests are carried out
dynamic responses of the tunnel liner and the surrounding rock
adjacent to the tunnel top and the blasting vibration effects are
subject to blasting vibration are calculated and analyzed. The
monitored throughout the test. The schematic diagram of the pro-
dynamic responses of the tunnel structure subject to vibration
ject is depicted in Fig. 1. The UBOX20016 Data Collection System
and its SDP-1 speed sensors are used to measure the blasting vibra-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13707175382. tion, and the data are analyzed by the TOPVIEW-2000 software.
E-mail address: cbzhou@cug.edu.cn (C. Zhou). According to the analysis of test data, the particle vertical peak

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.04.016
 N. Jiang, C. Zhou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32 (2012) 52–57 53

blasting test range from the tunnel center is simulated by the dynamite model and
the JWL state equation in LS-DYNA.

3.2. Model calculations

50m
In order to fully reflect the layout of the construction site,

14m
according to the practical blasting parameters, the model size is
tunnel set to be 58 m long, 14 m wide and 30 m high. In the model, the
blasthole diameter is 90 mm, the number of blastholes is 5, the
spacing is 4 m and the depth is 7 m. Their charging structures are
vibration monitoring points all coupling charge, and the charging height is 5 m. In the calcula-
tion, the blastholes detonate from the bottom all at the same time.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the project.
The rock mass is considered as semi-finite unit and the model is
built symmetrically. Half the model is discretized into 201,280
elements to reduce the size of the research object. Of these, the
Table 1 rock and tunnel are discretized into 168,460 elements and 6450
Monitoring data of in situ blasting vibration. elements, and the element types are 3D-solid-164. In the model,
Maximum Distance Measured Predicted Error the top surface is free, the surface containing the half hole is the
charge per delay (m) vertical PPV vertical PPV rate symmetry plane, and the other four surfaces are non-reflecting
(kg) (cm s1) (cm s1) (%) boundaries, as depicted in Fig. 2 (Chen et al., 2007a).
5.40 70.30 1.691 1.442 14.73 According to the geological conditions, the lithology from the
45.40 69.70 1.683 1.463 13.09 blasting excavation areas to the tunnel is simplex and integrated
45.40 72.10 1.732 1.383 20.17
and made of dolomitic limestone. The surrounding rock is assumed
32.60 61.20 1.634 1.511 7.51
32.60 63.90 1.542 1.407 8.78 homogeneous in the model. Based on laboratory tests, the physical
32.60 50.90 1.919 2.053 7.01 and mechanical parameters of the rock mass are determined and
25.80 71.50 0.927 1.025 10.55 listed in Table 2.
25.80 61.80 1.009 1.306 29.44 MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC tab can be used to simulate the con-
25.80 60.80 1.112 1.342 20.68
stitutive relationship of rock under blasting loading in LS-DYNA (Lu
21.50 60.20 1.079 1.233 14.29
21.50 59.70 1.275 1.250 1.93 et al., 2011).
21.50 60.30 1.178 1.230 4.39 The JWL state equation can simulate the relationship between
12.00 70.30 0.812 0.689 15.09 pressure and specific volume in the explosion process (Lee et al.,
12.00 64.80 0.719 0.790 9.81
1986). The equation is as follows:
12.00 69.70 0.703 0.699 0.51
   
w W xE0
p¼A 1 eR1 V þ B 1  eR2 V þ ð2Þ
R1 V R2 V V
velocities of blasting vibration monitor points are slightly higher
than the horizontal velocities. The vertical velocity has a major where A, B, R1, R2, W are material constants, p is pressure, V is rela-
controlling effect in the blasting vibration (Jiang and Zhou, 2010). tive volume and E0 is specific internal energy. The physical and
The empirical formula (Eq. (1)) of the vertical PPV attenuation mechanical parameters of the dynamite are the same with that of
law is established with reference to the Sadaovsk formula based the field test and are listed in Table 3.
on the monitoring results listed in Table 1: According to the tunnel design data and laboratory test, the
tunnel liner was made of C25 concrete. Considering that the tunnel
p
3
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!1:6635 has been in service for 40 years, the tunnel material is aged accord-
Q max
V ¼ 205:37 ð1Þ ingly. It is inconvenient to test the liner parameters in situ the tun-
R
nel without disturbing tunnel operation. Based on the laboratory
test results, the liner parameters are close to C20. According to
where V is the PPV (cm/s), Qmax is the maximum charge per delay
the research result for aging concrete (Hu, 2006), the aging liner
(kg), R is the distance between the monitoring point to the blasting
is considered by setting the concrete to C20 and regarded as elas-
center (m). The blasting vibration velocity is predicted by Eq. (1)
tomer and fitted with the MAT_ELASTIC material model.
and their errors are analyzed by comparing with the test data.
The average error rate of prediction is 11.86%.

3. Numerical simulation of the dynamic response

3.1. Calculation of dynamite load

According to the Safety Regulations for Blasting in China

(GB6722-2003), the safety criterion of blasting vibration velocity
for traffic tunnel is 10–20 cm/s (CQSEQ, 2004). Because the Bailang
1# tunnel was built in the end of the 1960s, the support liner has
been aging. To ensure the safety of the tunnel structure during the
subsequent field test, a safety factor of 2.0–4.0 is assumed, hence
the safety criterion of the blasting vibration is assumed to be
5 cm/s. Therefore, according to Eq. (1), the largest single fire dyna-
mite at 50 m away from the tunnel center is 173 kg. The stress
wave resulted from the 173 kg explosion dynamite 50 m away Fig. 2. Numerical calculation model.
54 N. Jiang, C. Zhou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32 (2012) 52–57

Table 2
Physical and mechanical parameters of dolomitic limestone.

Density (g/ Young’s modulus Poisson’s Yield strength Tangent modulus Dynamic tensile strength Hardening Critical
cm3) (GPa) ratio (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) coefficient strain
2.537 69 0.26 0.5 2.0 3.9 0.5 1.25

Table 3
Material parameters of explosive.

Density (g/cm3) Detonation velocity (cm/ls) A (GPa) B (GPa) R1 R2 x E0 (GPa)

1.09 0.4 214.4 18.2 4.2 0.9 0.15 4.192

Table 4 21,095 is in the surrounding rock of the tunnel and element 2599 is
Material parameters of air. in the tunnel liner. The positions of the selected elements are
shown in Fig. 3.
q (kg m3) C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 E0 (MPa) V0
As shown in Fig. 4, the vertical PPV and horizontal PPV of ele-
1.290 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.25 1.0
ment 2263 are 4.37 cm/s and 3.32 cm/s, respectively, both smaller
than the 5 cm/s value predicted by the empirical formula (Eq. (1)).
According to the ‘‘Specification for Seismic Design of Hydraulic The horizontal PPV is smaller than the vertical PPV, which is con-
Structures’’ (DL5073-2000), the dynamic elastic modulus of con- sistent with the blasting vibration velocity statistical rule.
crete is increased by 30% under earthquake loading (SETC, 2001). Fig. 5 shows that element 2743’s vertical PPV is 4.55 cm/s. Since
Thus the parameters of the liner material in the model can be set the tunnel is in operation, mounting the test instrument on the
as follows: elastic modulus, 3.84  1010 Pa; density, 2300 kg/m3;
Poisson’s ratio, 0.167; tensile strength, 1.47 MPa; compressive
strength, 11 MPa (SRSDI, 2001). 5 A Element no.
vertical velocity (cm/s)

In order to simulate the reflection of blasting stress waves in the 3 A 2263

contact surface between tunnel liner and the blasting area, we con-
sider the tunnel to be fully filled with air, which is simulated using 1
A A A
the MAT_NULL model and calculated by the linear polynomial -1
state equation EOS_LINEAR_POLYNOMIAL (Eqs. (3) and (4)) (LSTC,
A
2003). -3

-5
p ¼ C 0 l þ C 1 l þ C 2 l2 þ C 3 l3 þ ðC 4 þ C 5 l þ C 6 l2 ÞE ð3Þ 0 100 200 300
time (ms)
l ¼ q=q0  1 ð4Þ
(a) Vertical velocity
In Eqs. (3) and (4), E is the internal energy of unit volume, q is
density, q0 is reference density, and C0, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 are real
horizontal velocity (cm/s)

Element no.
constants. The linear polynomial state equation follows the Gam-
A 2263
ma law. The parameters of air are listed in Table 4.

4. Analysis of the calculation results

To investigate the dynamic response of the tunnel subject to

blasting vibration, we select element 2263 on the bottom of tunnel
wall, element 2743 in the roof, element 21,095 and element 2599
at the joint of arch and wall to monitor the PPV. Note that element time (ms)
(b) Horizontal velocity
Fig. 4. Velocity of element 2263.

Element no.
vertical velocity (cm/s)

A A 2743

A
A A

time (ms)

Fig. 3. Positions of selected elements in model. Fig. 5. Vertical velocity of element 2743.
 N. Jiang, C. Zhou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32 (2012) 52–57 55

Element no. 2002), such difference indicates that the tunnel liner receives less
vertical velocity (cm/s)
A 21095
B B 2599 energy from the blasting stress wave than the surrounding rock.
However, due to its dynamic responses, the liner releases more en-
A
ergy, which can reduce the plastic damage produced by the explo-
B A B sion energy and enhance its structural stability.
A A

B 5. Safety criterion of PPV

To further study the dynamic responses of tunnel under differ-

time (ms) ent blasting conditions, eight blasting processes with different dos-
ages and explosion center distances are simulated. The effective
Fig. 6. Vertical velocities of element 2599 and element 21,095.
tensile stresses and vertical PPVs at the joint of tunnel arch and
wall are listed in Table 5.
The numerical simulation results indicate that under the same
effective tensile stress (MPa)

Element no. blasting condition, the tunnel liner generally has larger vertical
A A 21095 PPVs but smaller peak effective tensile stress compared with the
B 2599
surrounding rock. It is obvious that the PPVs are different from
effective stresses. The statistical relationship models of the peak
effective tensile stresses and the vertical PPVs in tunnel liner and
B surrounding rock are established and shown in Fig. 8.
A
A The statistical relationship models established from Fig. 8 are as
B B A B follows:

7:7164PPV þ 0:3230ðLinerÞ
rt ¼ ð5Þ
time (ms) 2:5099PPV þ 0:4399ðSurrounding RockÞ

Fig. 7. Effective tensile stress of element 2599 and element 21,095. where rt is peak effective tensile stress.
Vertical velocity (cm/s)

roof of the tunnel is inconvenient. According to the simulation re-

sults, the vertical PPV of the roof is also smaller than 5 cm/s.
Fig. 6 shows that element 2599 has larger vertical PPV (4.41 cm/
s) than element 21,095 (3.58 cm/s), and the velocity of element
2599 attenuates notably more slowly. Fig. 7 shows that the trend
of the effective tensile stress of element 2599 and element 21,095
are similar, but the maximum effective tensile stress of element
2599 (0.52 MPa) is smaller than that of element 21,095 (1.23 MPa).
Effective tensile stress (Mpa)
The stress wave theory states that blasting stress wave turns
into tensile stress when it reflects on the free surface and tensile (a) Tunnel liner
failure mainly occurs on the surface of structures (Hulshizer,
1996).
Vertical velocity (cm/s)

The peak effective tensile stress in the tunnel liner is 1.14 MPa
at the junction of tunnel arch and wall that is closest to the explo-
sion source. It does not exceed the strength standard for aging con-
crete. The peak effective tensile stress in the surrounding rock is
2.85 MPa and also does not exceed the tensile strength standard,
which is the dynamic tensile strength (3.9 MPa) shown in Table
2. Therefore, the tunnel structure is safe and stable according to
the maximum tensile strength theory. It can be clearly noted that
Effective tensile stress (Mpa)
the PPV and the peak effective tensile stress are different between
the liner and the surrounding rock at the junction of arch and wall. (b) Surrounding rock
The attenuation trends of vibration velocity are also different.
Fig. 8. The statistical relationship of the peak effective tensile stresses and vertical
According to the description of seismic energy release (Yang, PPVs in tunnel liner and surrounding rock.

Table 5
Results of numerical calculation.

No. Distance (m) Charge per delay (kg) Liner Surrounding rock
Effective tensile stress (MPa) PPV (cm s1) Effective tensile stress (MPa) PPV (cm s1)
1 51.90 173.0 0.52 4.41 1.23 3.58
2 51.90 142.0 0.47 3.52 0.81 2.55
3 51.90 112.0 0.39 3.08 0.74 2.18
4 51.90 81.00 0.18 2.03 0.42 1.74
5 42.40 112.0 0.67 5.64 1.43 4.21
6 42.40 81.00 0.35 3.22 0.95 2.67
7 42.40 56.00 0.24 2.33 0.81 2.14
8 42.40 22.00 0.10 0.85 0.28 1.19
56 N. Jiang, C. Zhou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32 (2012) 52–57

Eq. (5) indicates that a linear relationship exists between the
vertical PPVs and the peak effective tensile stresses (Chen et al.,
2007b). Based on the maximum tensile strength theory, when
the PPV in the tunnel liner at the joint of tunnel arch and wall
reaches 11.66 cm/s, the peak effective tensile stress will approach
the maximum tensile strength. When the PPV in the surrounding
rock at the junction of tunnel arch and wall exceeds 26.04 cm/s,
the surrounding rock will fail. Due to the limited influences of
blasting stress wave frequency on the maximum vibration velocity
of concrete liner, there is no need to take the frequency of the
explosion stress wave affecting the liner structure into account
(Li et al., 2007). To sum up, in order to be more practical, the safety
criterion of PPV for the tunnel is determined to be 11 cm/s.
6. Field test verification
To verify the numerical simulation results, eight field tests are
carried out. The arrangement of blastholes and the blasting param-
eters of each test are the same with the numerical simulation. Six
vibration monitoring points are installed on the bottom of the tun-
nel wall in every test. The fracture development on the tunnel liner
is watched closely before and after each test.
There is no visible fracture development in the tunnel liner after
the blasting tests. The vibration monitoring data of the first blast-
ing test are taken as an example and shown in Table 6. The average
vertical PPV of the field monitoring points is 4.201 cm/s and the
average horizontal PPV is 3.188 cm/s, both smaller than the
Table 6
Vibration monitoring data of the first test.
Monitoring 1 2
points
Horizontal PPV 3.674 3.713
(cm/s)
Vertical PPV 4.567 4.422
(cm/s)
numerical simulation results. Considering the complexity in the
geological conditions, the discrepancy between the monitoring
data and simulation result can be attributed to the accelerated
attenuation of blasting seismic wave by the fractures and structure
planes in the rock (Nateghi et al., 2009). The monitored velocities
are all within the assumed safety criterion. The typical curves of
the monitored PPV (monitoring point 6) are shown in Fig. 9. The
curves are consistent with the simulation results shown in Fig. 4
and Fig. 5. The error rate of the Sadaovsk formula and the LS-DYNA
simulation are 19.02% and 4.02% respectively by comparing their
predicted vertical velocity with the field test data. The LS-DYNA
simulation result is clearly more accurate.
7. Conclusions
(a) The real blasting vibration load can be calculated from the
dynamite model and the JWL state equation in the LS-DYNA
software.
(b) It is inconvenient to install the test instruments in the tunnel
roof without disturbing tunnel operation. However, the PPV
of tunnel roof can be obtained by numerical simulation. This
helps to enable a better evaluation of tunnel structure
stability.
(c) There is a notable difference in the PPV and the peak effective
tensile stress between the tunnel liner and the surrounding
rock at the joint of arch and wall. The attenuation trends of
vibration velocity are also different. The evaluation of tunnel
structure safety should account for the characteristics of both
the tunnel liner and the surrounding rock.
(d) The relationship between dynamic stresses and PPVs is
established for tunnel structure under different blasting con-
ditions. Based on the maximum tensile strength theory, the
3 4 5 6 Average safety criterion of PPV affecting adjacent tunnel in the pro-
PPV
ject is determined to be 11 cm/s. The numerical simulation
3.422 3.382 3.478 3.559 3.538 results have been confirmed by field blasting tests.
4.263 4.177 4.305 4.371 4.351
Acknowledgements

We thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China

(Grant No. 41072219) for financial support. We are also grateful
5 to Jianzhou Zhao, Xi Xu, and Qiaoshen Lv for their help during
vertical velocity (cm/s)

the field testes.

2.5

References
0
Ahmed, L., Ansell, A., 2011. Structural dynamic and stress wave models for the
-2.5 analysis of shotcrete on rock exposed to blasting. Engineering Structures 35,
11–17.
-5 Ansell, A., 2004. In situ testing of young shotcrete subjected to vibration from
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 blasting. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 19, 587–593.
time (s) Chen, M., Lu, W.B., Yi, C.P., 2007a. Blasting vibration criterion for a rock-anchored
beam in an underground powerhouse. Tunneling and Underground Space
(a) Vertical velocity Technology 22, 69–79.
Chen, M., Lu, W.B., Wu, L., Xu, H.T., 2007b. Safety threshold of blasting vibration
velocity to high rock slop of Xiaowan hydropower station. Chinese Journal of
4
horizontal velocity (cm/s)

Rock Mechanics and Engineering 26 (1), 51–56 (in Chinese).

CQSEQ, 2004. Safety Regulations for Blasting GB6722-2003. State Standardization
2 Publishing House (in Chinese).
Hu, C.H., 2006. Dynamic Response and Safety Evaluation of Vicinal Pier Subjected to
0 Underwater Blasting Vibration. Dalian University of Technology, Dalian (in
Chinese).
Hulshizer, A.J., 1996. Acceptable shock and vibration limits for freshly placed and
-2 maturing concrete. ACI Materials Journal 93 (6), 524–533.
Jiang, L.C., Hu, L.Q., Lai, X.Y., 2011. Investigation on the threshold control of safety
-4 blasting vibration velocity for the extraction of complicated orebody under
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 railway. Mining Science and Technology (China) 21, 169–174.
time (s) Jiang, N., Zhou, C.B., 2010. Controlled blasting of rock-soil excavation adjacent to
tunnel top. Blasting 27 (2), 49–52 (in Chinese).
(b) Horizontal velocity Kim, S., Jeong, W., Jeong, D., Seok, J., 2006. Numerical simulation of blasting at
tunnel contour hole in jointed rock mass. Tunneling and Underground Space
Fig. 9. Vibration velocity at monitoring point 6. Technology 21, 306–307.
 N. Jiang, C. Zhou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32 (2012) 52–57
Lee, L., Homing, C., Kury, J., 1986. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Report UCRL-
50442[R]. [S. l.]: [s. n].
Li, H.T., Lu, W.B., Shu, D.Q., Zhu, C.Y., 2007. Study on the Safety velocity for concrete
liningunder P wave loading. Explosion and, Shock Waves 27 (1), 34–39 (in
Chinese).
Lu, W.B., Yang, J.H., Chen, M., Zhou, C.B., 2011. A equivalent method for blasting
vibration simulation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 19, 2050–2062.
LSTC, 2003. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual. Livermore Software Technology
Corporation.
Nateghi, R., 2011. Prediction of ground vibration level induced by blasting at
different rock units. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 48, 899–908.
Nateghi, R., Kiany, M., Gholipouri, O., 2009. Control negative effects of blasting
waves on concrete of the structures by analyzing of parameters of ground
vibration. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 24, 508–515.
View publication stats
57
Ozer, U., 2008. Environmental impacts of ground vibration induced by blasting at
different rock units on the Kadikoy–Kartal metro tunnel. Engineering Geology
100, 82–90.
Pao, Y.H., 1983. Elastic waves in solids. Journal of Applied Mechanics 50 (4), 1152–
1164.
SETC, 2001. Specification for Seismic Design of Hydraulic Structures DL5073-2000.
China Power Press (in Chinese).
SRSDI, 2001. Specification for Railway Tunnel Design TB10003-2005. China Power
Press (in Chinese).
Yang, S.Q., 2002. Study on Theory and Application of Blasting Vibration Cumulative
Effects. Central South University (in Chinese).
Zhu, W.C., Tang, C.A., 2006. Numerical simulation of Brazilian disk rock failure
under static and dynamic loading. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 43, 236–252.