applied
sciences
Article
Effect of Excavation Blasting in the Arch Cover Method on
Adjacent Existing Pipelines in a Subway Station
Xiang Liu 1 , Annan Jiang 1, *, Xinping Guo 1 and Lu Hai 2






Citation: Liu, X.; Jiang, A.; Guo, X.;
Hai, L. Effect of Excavation Blasting
in the Arch Cover Method on
Adjacent Existing Pipelines in a
Subway Station. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12,
1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app12031529
Academic Editor: Arcady Dyskin
Received: 11 January 2022
Accepted: 27 January 2022
Published: 31 January 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031529
1 Liaoning Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Bridge and Tunnel Engineering,
Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China; xliu@dlmu.edu.cn (X.L.);
guoxinping113@dlmu.edu.cn (X.G.)
2 Key Laboratory for Urban Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Jiaotong University,
Beijing 100044, China; hailucas@bjtu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: jan20051006@dlmu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-0411-84724258
Abstract: The dynamic responses of existing pipelines are of great significance to be studied in
blasting excavation in the arch cover method. In this paper, the Shi Kui Subway Station Line 5 in
Dalian, China, is selected as a case study. A 3D numerical simulation model is established to analyze
the dynamics characteristics of the existing pipelines subjected to blasting vibration, with a triangular
pattern describing the blast hole pressure. The numerical simulation is verified by comparing the
existing pipelines’ PPVs of the numerical model and field monitored points. Then, the dynamic
responses of the pilot tunnels, existing pipelines, and secondary lining are discussed. The effects of
the later pilot tunnel on the earlier pilot tunnel are remarkable when the relative distance between
them is small. Extensive blasting areas and many charges will result in large peak velocities of the
existing pipelines in a short time, as well as a decreased distance from the pilot tunnels. However, the
hollow effect can change these dynamic characteristics. The implementation of a secondary lining can
reduce the existing pipelines’ dynamic responses when the lower rock is blasted. The most adverse
position of the secondary lining is the arch foot rather than the arch crown and arch waist; thus,
blasting should be carried out at a suitable age for the concrete to ensure the safety of the structures
and pipelines.
Keywords: dynamic responses; excavation blasting; PPV; arch cover method; existing pipelines;
numerical simulation
1. Introduction
The arch cover method, developed from the traditional shallow tunneling method [1],
is widely used to construct subway stations in the upper-soft lower-hard stratum. Due
to the low self-stability of soft soil, an upper arch structure in the arch cover method is
implemented to allow the bearing capacity of the underlying surrounding rock to be fully
utilized. At present, some cities, such as Dalian, Chongqing, and Qingdao in China, have
applied the arch cover method to station construction, including two different types of
primary lining support and double lining support.
Some scholars [2–7] studied the arch cover method using physical model tests, field
measurements, analytical methods, and numerical simulations. The main concerns of
the research are tunneling-induced ground deformation, the mechanical responses of the
supporting structures, the deformation control effect of various support methods, and the
optimal construction sequences. The construction sequences, composed of constructing
and dismantling the temporary support, erecting and removing the mid-pillar, setting up
the secondary lining, middle plate, and floor, are the critical construction technologies
of the arch cover method to control the ground deformation and ensure the safety of
subway station.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 2 of 15

Nevertheless, the previous research has some drawbacks: (1) Few research study the
dynamic responses of the surrounding rock and structures induced by blasting excavation
in the arch cover method. (2) The effects of blasting excavation on the existing pipelines
have rarely been investigated, considering the complex construction sequences. Although
many researchers have widely considered the dynamic responses of blasting on the exist-
ing pipelines, few studies have focused on the effects of blasting excavation in the arch
cover method.
The dynamic responses of existing pipelines subjected to blasting excavation have
been mainly analyzed by means of field tests [8–10], analytical [11–13], and numerical meth-
ods [14–16]. Some scholars mainly study the effects of surface blasting on non-pressurized
pipelines [17–19]. Subsequently, other scholars began to investigate the dynamic responses
of pressurized pipelines, such as gas, water, oil, and steel pipelines [20–24]. Moreover,
the dynamic responses of the existing pipelines due to blasting during the construction of
adjacent tunnels are studied because it is one of the most detrimental factors for existing
pipelines [25]. However, the effects of blasting during different construction sequences of
the arch cover method are rarely studied.
This paper aims to study the dynamic responses of the existing pipelines subjected
to blasting excavation by the arch cover method. A dynamic geotechnical software
Flac3D.5.0 [26] is used to establish a numerical model. A triangular pattern describes
the time history of the blast hole pressure. Using the Shi Kui Road Station project, No. 5
Line in Dalian, China, as a case study, our numerical simulation is verified from the moni-
toring data of the ground vibration in this project. The dynamic response characteristics of
the existing pipelines induced by blasting pilot tunnels and the lower rock are analyzed.

2. Engineering Background
2.1. Overview of Subway Station
Shi Kui Subway Station of Dalian Subway Line 5 is located on the north side of the
intersection of Jie Fang Road and Shi Kui Road. The subway station is set up as an island
station with two layers of underground excavation. The length, width, and height of
its main standard section are 235.0 m, 19.9 m, and 20.5 m, respectively. The station is
excavated adjacent to various existing structures, such as residential buildings, middle
schools, viaducts, and pipelines. Therefore, the adjacent existing structures are
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 ofso
16 sensitive
that high requirements for deformation control are put forward during the construction. A
plan view of Shi Kui Subway Station is shown in Figure 1.
Shi Kui Road

Middle School
Business building
Entrance/Exit D
Entrance/Exit A
Bridge pile

Viaduct Shi Kui Station

Bridge pile
Air shaft
Entrance/Exit B Air shaft

Entrance/Exit C
Business building
Residential building

Figure Planview
1.Plan
Figure 1. viewofof
ShiShi
KuiKui Subway
Subway Station.
Station.

Pipe roof (L=20 m, t=5)

Leading conduits (L=2.5 m, t=3.25)
3.6 m

Gird steel frame (S=0.5 m) and shotcrete (C25, t=350)

Longitudinal steel (t=22, S=1.0¡ Á
1.0)
Pipe roof (L=20 m, t=5) Double-layer steel mesh (D=6.5, S=150¡ Á 150)
2.0 m

Leading conduits (L=2.5 m, t=3.25)
Gird steel frame (S=0.5 m) and
shotcrete (C25, t=300)
Longitudinal steel (t=22, S=1.0¡ Á
1.0)
Gird steel frame (S=0.5 m) and shotcrete (C25, t=250)
Longitudinal steel (t=20, S=1.0¡ Á
1.0)
Steel mesh (D=6.5, S=150¡ Á 150)
Waterproof membrane
 Bridge pile

Viaduct Shi Kui Station

Bridge pile
Air shaft
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 3 of 15
Entrance/Exit B Air shaft

Entrance/Exit C
Figure 2 shows the cross-sectional view of the subway station’s standard section.
Business building
Residential building
The overburden depth of the station is about 11–18 m. The stratum in the station area is
composed of plain fill and medium-weathered quartzite, with local inclusions of fully-
weathered greywacke and strongly-weathered greywacke. The main body of the station
is located in medium-weathered quartzite. Table 1 lists the physical parameters of the
rock
Figurestratum.
1. Plan view of Shi Kui Subway Station.

Pipe roof (L=20 m, t=5)

Leading conduits (L=2.5 m, t=3.25)

3.6 m
Gird steel frame (S=0.5 m) and shotcrete (C25, t=350)
Longitudinal steel (t=22, S=1.0¡ Á
1.0)
Pipe roof (L=20 m, t=5) Double-layer steel mesh (D=6.5, S=150¡ Á 150)

2.0 m
Leading conduits (L=2.5 m, t=3.25) Gird steel frame (S=0.5 m) and shotcrete (C25, t=250)
Gird steel frame (S=0.5 m) and Longitudinal steel (t=20, S=1.0¡ Á
1.0)
shotcrete (C25, t=300) Steel mesh (D=6.5, S=150¡ Á 150)
Longitudinal steel (t=22, S=1.0¡ Á
1.0) Waterproof membrane
Double-layer steel mesh Reinforced concrete (C45)
(D=6.5, S=150¡ Á 150)
Backfill concrete (C20)

Mortal bolt (D=22, L=3.7 m)

Lock-foot bolt (D=42, L=3 m) 3rd pilot tunnel 4th pilot tunnel
1st 2nd
pilot tunnel pilot tunnel Top beam
150)
Gird steel frame (S=0.5 m) and

Steel mesh (D=6.5, S=150¡ Á

Mortar bolt (D=22, L=3 m)

Reinforced concrete (C45)

20.55 m

39.4 m
Waterproof membrane
shotcrete (C25, t=300)

Steel support

20.5 m
Reinforced concrete (C45, P7)
Buffer layer (C20, t=500)
Waterproof membrane
Concrete cushion (C20, t=1500)

Plain fill Medium-weathered quartzite Strongly-weathered quartzite

Figure 2. Cross-section view of Shi Kui Subway Station by the arch cover method.
Figure 2. Cross-section view of Shi Kui Subway Station by the arch cover method.
2.2. Construction
Table Sequences of
1. Physical parameters of surrounding
Arch Cover Method
rock.
To ensure the safety of the adjacent existing structures and to facilitate rock excava-
Elastic Modulus Poisson’ Ratio Bulk Density Cohesion Friction Angle
Surrounding Rock tion, Ethe subway station isµexcavated by γblasting
(MPa) (kNm-3)and the arch cover method. As
c (kPa) ϕ (shown
◦) in
Plain fill
Figure 2, 8
the station cross-section
0.40
is excavated
17
respectively in the
10
upper and lower
15
parts,
Strongly-weathered quartzite composed 50 of the top arch, 0.25sidewall, beam, 23
and slab. Small leading
80 conduits filled
35 with
Medium-weathered quartzite 1300 0.23 26.5 180 40

2.2. Construction Sequences of Arch Cover Method

To ensure the safety of the adjacent existing structures and to facilitate rock excavation,
the subway station is excavated by blasting and the arch cover method. As shown in
Figure 2, the station cross-section is excavated respectively in the upper and lower parts,
composed of the top arch, sidewall, beam, and slab. Small leading conduits filled with
grouting are implemented to pre-reinforce the upper rock mass. The rock mass in the
upper part is excavated by four pilot tunnels. After excavating the pilot tunnels, steel frame
and shotcrete are carried out. In the pilot tunnels on the left and right sides, top beams
are erected and backfilled concrete. The top beam is connected with the side walls. The
surrounding rock around the side walls is reinforced with rock bolts. The secondary lining
of the upper part is constructed in reverse. After completing the upper part, the rock mass
in the lower part is excavated, and the side walls are constructed. Steel supports are set
up between the side walls to prevent overturning. The secondary lining of the lower part
 rounding rock around the side walls is reinforced with rock bolts. The secondary lining
of the upper part is constructed in reverse. After completing the upper part, the rock mass
in the lower part is excavated, and the side walls are constructed. Steel supports are set
up between the side walls to prevent overturning. The secondary lining of the lower part
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529
is constructed in order. W waterproof layer construction is required between the primary
4 of 15
support and the secondary lining.
The construction sequences of the arch cover method are shown in Figure 3. The pri-
mary construction
is constructed sequences
in order. in detaillayer
W waterproof are as follows: is required between the primary
construction
1. support
The excavation and primary
and the secondary lining. support for the first and second pilot tunnels are carried
out after implementing the of
The construction sequences the arch reinforcement
grouting cover method are in shown in Figure
advance. Mortar 3. bolts
The and
primary construction sequences in detail are as follows:
lock-foot bolts are set up at the foot of the arch cover. The top beams are installed
1. after
Thetheexcavation
first andand primary
second pilotsupport
tunnelsfor finish;
the first and second pilot tunnels are carried
out after implementing the grouting
2. The excavation and primary support are carried out reinforcement in advance. Mortar
for the third andbolts and pilot
fourth
lock-foot bolts are set up at the foot of the arch cover. The top beams are installed after
tunnels. Backfill concrete is filled in the vacant parts of the first and second pilot tun-
the first and second pilot tunnels finish;
nels;
2. The excavation and primary support are carried out for the third and fourth pilot tun-
3. The inner-layer
nels. primary
Backfill concrete support
is filled in theof the arch
vacant parts cover is constructed.
of the first Meanwhile,
and second pilot tunnels; the
3. temporary support in the first and second pilot tunnels is removed;
The inner-layer primary support of the arch cover is constructed. Meanwhile, the
4. According
temporarytosupport
the monitored
in the firstdata,
and the mid-pillar
second is removed
pilot tunnels and the secondary lining
is removed;
4. of According
the arch istoconstructed;
the monitored data, the mid-pillar is removed and the secondary lining
5. The of lower
the arch is constructed;
rock mass is excavated by the bench-cut method. The primary lining and
5. mortar
The lower rock mass is excavated
bolts are constructed. The by the steel
inner bench-cut
supportmethod. The primary
is erected. lining and
The concrete cushion
mortar bolts are constructed. The inner steel support is erected. The concrete cushion
after excavating to the elevation of the bottom is implemented;
after excavating to the elevation of the bottom is implemented;
6. The waterproof layer and the secondary lining of the main body are constructed. The
6. The waterproof layer and the secondary lining of the main body are constructed. The
internal
internal structure
structureand
and decoration
decoration ofofthe thesubway
subway station
station are are completed.
completed.

Leading conduits Outer primary support

Backfill concrete
3rd 4th
pilot tunnel pilot tunnel
1st 2nd
pilot tunnel pilot tunnel

(1) (2)
Outer primary support

Inner primary
support Secondary lining

(3) (4)

Internal structure

Steel support

(5) (6)

Figure 3. 3.
Figure Construction
Constructionsequences ofthe
sequences of thearch
archcover
cover method.
method.

3. Blasting Vibration in the Arch Cover Method

3.1. Design of Blasting
Shi Kui Subway Station is located in a construction site with complex geological
conditions adjacent to schools, residential communities, business buildings, and buried
gas, water, and sewage pipelines. The blasting vibration induced by blasting excavation
of the subway station has a detrimental effect on these existing structures. Thus, the
 N  3.3  3 f  S 2  3.3  3 10  4112  393 (1)

where N is the number of blast holes; f is a firmness factor for rock; S is the cross-sectional
area.
Blasting excavation speed is adjusted based on the monitoring data and actual geo-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 5 of 15
logical conditions. The maximum charge weight per delay can be calculated by an empir-
ical solution [27]:

principle of the blasting design is shortQadvancing, v 3

 R3 ( )  slight blasting, strong supporting,(2) and
frequent measuring. K
where QDue to charge
is the the large spanper
weight of the subway
delay; station,
R is the the overall
safe distance fromblasting excavation
the measurement of the
point
to the blast; v is the permissible vibration velocity of safety; K is the propagation coefficient 4
whole section has a potential safety risk. Blasting excavation is designed in steps. Figure
shows
of blast the arrangement
vibration and partition
in the medium; α is theof the blast holes.
attenuation The cross-section
coefficient is divided into
of blast vibration.
eight partitions. The number of blast holes can be calculated by:
According to the parameters in practice and related regulation [27], the R, v, K, α are
set to be 14 m, 1.5 cm/s, 100, and 2.0,qrespectively. The p3
maximum charge weight per delay
3
N = 3.3 × × S2 ≈ 3.3
is 5.03 kg for this project. The charge,f internal, and×quantity
10 × 411 2 ≈ 393
of individual blast holes can(1)
be reasonably adjusted to achieve the optimal blasting effect, considering the geological
where N isthe
conditions, therock
number of blast holes;
fragmentation, andf isweakness factor for rock; S is the cross-sectional area.
a firmnessdegree.

7
7 3 3

5
5 5 5
7 1 1 7
3 3
3 3
1 9 1
5 5 9 5 5
Region 2 Region 2
1 7 1 7
9 7 9
3 3 Region 1
Region 1
1 5 5 1
5 9 9 5
5 3 5 3
7 1 7
1 3 1

3 5 3
9 9 11 Region 4 11 9 9
5 7 5
Region 3 Region 3
7 9 7

11 13 11

1 1 1
7 7 7 7
3 3 3
Region 5 7 Region 6
5
7 Region
5
5
5

9 9 9
1 1 1
3 3 3
7 7 7
Region 7 Region 8 Region 7 7
5 5
5
9 9
9 7 9
11

Figure 4. Layout of blast holes.

Figure 4. Layout of blast holes.

Blasting excavation speed is adjusted based on the monitoring data and actual geolog-
ical conditions. The maximum charge weight per delay can be calculated by an empirical
solution [27]:
v α3
Q = R3 ( ) (2)
K
where Q is the charge weight per delay; R is the safe distance from the measurement point
to the blast; v is the permissible vibration velocity of safety; K is the propagation coefficient
of blast vibration in the medium; α is the attenuation coefficient of blast vibration.
According to the parameters in practice and related regulation [27], the R, v, K, α are
set to be 14 m, 1.5 cm/s, 100, and 2.0, respectively. The maximum charge weight per delay
is 5.03 kg for this project. The charge, internal, and quantity of individual blast holes can
be reasonably adjusted to achieve the optimal blasting effect, considering the geological
conditions, the rock fragmentation, and weakness degree.

3.2. Blast Pressure Induced by Rock Blasting

The blast pressure induced by rock blasting follows an exponential attenuation pattern
or an approximate triangular pattern. The time history of the blast hole pressure P described
by a triangular pattern is straightforward and convenient, as shown in Figure 5. The main
parameters are the peak blast pressure Pe , the peak blast pressure rising time ta , and the
vibration period T. Many published papers refer to peak blast pressure attainment time
 3.2. Blast Pressure Induced by Rock Blasting
The blast pressure induced by rock blasting follows an exponential attenuation pat-
tern or an approximate triangular pattern. The time history of the blast hole pressure P
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 described by a triangular pattern is straightforward and convenient, as shown in Figure
6 of 15
5. The main parameters are the peak blast pressure Pe, the peak blast pressure rising time
ta, and the vibration period T. Many published papers refer to peak blast pressure attain-
ment time within several milliseconds. However, there are also blast hole measurements
within several milliseconds. However, there are also blast hole measurements that indicate
that indicate the peak pressure rising time is between 20 and 150 μs, depending on the
the peak pressure rising time is between 20 and 150 µs, depending on the explosive type
explosive type and confinement [28].
and confinement [28].

P/MPa
Pe

0 ta T t/μs
Figure5.5.Time
Figure Timehistory
historyof
ofblast
blastpressure
pressuredescribed
describedby
bytriangular
triangularpattern.
pattern.

To
Toestimate
estimatethe
thepeak
peakblast
blastpressure
pressureininthe
theblast
blastwave
wavepropagating
propagatingfrom
fromaacylindrical
cylindrical
explosive,
explosive, Fickett
Fickett and
and Davis
Davis [29]
[29] and
and Henrych
Henrych [30]
[30] proposed
proposed the
the following
following simplified
simplified
equation derived by the equation of state for an ideal gas:
equation derived by the equation of state for an ideal gas:

Pd = ρ e2D
Pd ρ=e D 2
++γγ))
/(1/ (1 (3)
(3)
wherePPd is
where is the
the detonation
detonation pressure;
pressure; D D isisthe
thedetonation
detonation velocity;
velocity; ρρe is
is the
the density
density of
ofthe
the
d e
unreacted explosive; γ is the specific heat
unreacted explosive; γ is the specific heat ratio. ratio.
Thewell-known
The well-known expression
expression of of the
thedetonation
detonation pressure
pressurefor formany
manyexplosives
explosivesisisgiven
given
by assuming γ = 3
by assuming γ = 3 [31]. [31].
Thedetonation
The detonationpressure
pressureproduces
produces a gas
a gas pressure,
pressure, oftenoften called
called explosion
explosion pressure,
pressure, in thein
the reaction
reaction portion portion
of the of the explosive
explosive column.column. The explosion
The explosion pressure pressure
is exertedisonexerted onhole
the blast the
blast hole walls by expanding gases after the chemical reaction is completed.
walls by expanding gases after the chemical reaction is completed. Ozgur and Tugrul [32] Ozgur and
Tugrul [32]
proposed thatproposed that the
the explosion explosion
pressure pressure is approximately
is approximately one-half the
one-half the detonation detonation
pressure:
pressure:
Pe = Pd /2 = ρe D2 /8 (4)
Pe = Pd / 2 = ρ e D 2 / 8 (4)
The
The explosion
explosion pressure
pressure isis also
also called
called full
full coupled
coupled blast
blast hole
hole pressure
pressure in
in the
the case
case of
of
the charge completely filling the blast hole. However, an empty space exists
the charge completely filling the blast hole. However, an empty space exists between an between
an explosive
explosive column
column andand the blast
the blast holehole
wall wall
usingusing the decoupling
the decoupling technique.
technique. Nie and Nie and
Olsson
Olsson [33] provided a calibration equation to consider the decoupling effect.
[33] provided a calibration equation to consider the decoupling effect.
2λ2 λ
P0 = =eP
P0 P (ed(cd/d
c /bd)b ) (5)
(5)
where ddcc is
where is the
the explosive
explosivediameter;
diameter;dbdis the blast hole diameter; λ is the explosive’s adia-
b is the blast hole diameter; λ is the explosive’s
batic expansion constant, assuming 1.5
adiabatic expansion constant, assuming 1.5 forforaverage
averageadiabatic
adiabaticexponent.
exponent. Table
Table 22 lists
lists the
the
explosives properties for this project.
explosives properties for this project.

Table2.2.Explosives
Table Explosivesproperties
propertiesfor
forthis
thisproject.
project.

tata(µs)
(μs) TT (μs) P0 (MPa)
(µs) P0 (MPa)Pe (MPa) Pd (MPa)
Pe (MPa) ρe (kgm
Pd (MPa) −3 ) −3) D (m/s)
ρe (kgm D (m/s) dc (mm)
dc (mm)db (mm)
db (mm) a (m)
a (m)
100
100 700
700 133.6
133.6 1944 1944 3888 3888 1200 1200 36003600 32 32 40 40 0.50.5

3.3. Equivalent Blast Pressure for Numerical Simulation

Applied blast pressures in a numerical simulation are usually categorized into three
methods: (a) fluid-structure coupling computation; (b) application of blast pressure–time
history curve to the blast hole walls; (c) equivalent blast pressure without considering
the blast hole shape. The first two methods require a high level of refinement in the
 Applied blast pressures in a numerical simulation are usually categorized into three
methods: (a) fluid-structure coupling computation; (b) application of blast pressure–time
history curve to the blast hole walls; (c) equivalent blast pressure without considering the
blast hole shape. The first two methods require a high level of refinement in the numerical
model. Mesh generation is so difficult that large 3D blast vibration simulations are not
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 7 of 15
computable.
Due to the mentioned limits, an equivalent solution of blast pressure acting on the
blast hole walls is provided based on St. Venant’s principle, and the equivalent blast pres-
numerical
sure directlymodel.
to theMesh
blastgeneration is so difficult
hole hypocenter that large
line without the3D blastgeneration
mesh vibration simulations
of the blast
are not computable.
hole is applied. Other scholars [34,35] also adopted this method. Figure 6 shows the cal-
Dueprinciple
culation to the mentioned limits, an
of the equivalent equivalent
blast pressure.solution of blastpressure
The explosion pressurePacting on the
0 is applied to
blast hole walls is provided based on St. Venant’s principle, and the equivalent
the blast hole wall of dh diameter. The space of adjacent blast holes is a. The explosion blast
pressure
pressure shown in Figure 6a is equated to the equivalent pressures shown in Figure the
directly to the blast hole hypocenter line without the mesh generation of 6b.
blast hole is applied.
The expression is: Other scholars [34,35] also adopted this method. Figure 6 shows the
calculation principle of the equivalent blast pressure. The explosion pressure P0 is applied
to the blast hole wall of dh diameter. ThePEspace  (d h of
/ a )adjacent
P0 blast holes is a. The explosion (6)
pressure shown in Figure 6a is equated to the equivalent pressures shown in Figure 6b. The
According to the input parameters in Table 2, the equivalent blast pressure PE is 13.4
expression is:
MPa. The equivalent blast pressure is applied as a surface pressure onto the normal direc-
PE = (dh /a) P0 (6)
tion of the tunnel face during the numerical simulation.

P0 P0

a
(a)

PE PE
(b)

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Equivalent
Equivalent blast
blast pressure.
pressure. (a)
(a) Explosion
Explosion pressures;
pressures; (b)
(b) Equivalent
Equivalent pressures.
pressures

According of
4. Verification toPipeline’s
the input Dynamic
parameters in Tableby
Response 2, Numerical
the equivalent blast pressure PE is
Simulation
13.4 MPa. The equivalent
4.1. Numerical Model blast pressure is applied as a surface pressure onto the normal
direction of the tunnel face during the numerical simulation.
The existing pipeline’s dynamic responses induced by the arch cover method and
blasting are rarely
4. Verification studied. Buried
of Pipeline’s Dynamic pipelines are by
Response notNumerical
convenientSimulation
to monitor and analyze.
Thus, we used FLAC3d
4.1. Numerical Model software to establish a numerical model to study the effects of
blasting excavation and the arch cover method on the existing pipeline’s dynamic re-
The existing pipeline’s dynamic responses induced by the arch cover method and
sponses. According to Section 3, the equivalent blast pressure of 13.4 MPa was applied as
blasting are rarely studied. Buried pipelines are not convenient to monitor and analyze.
a surface pressure on the normal direction of the excavation face of each arch cover con-
Thus, we used FLAC3d software to establish a numerical model to study the effects of
struction sequence. Figure 7 shows the numerical model of the Shi Kui Subway Station.
blasting excavation and the arch cover method on the existing pipeline’s dynamic responses.
According to Section 3, the equivalent blast pressure of 13.4 MPa was applied as a surface
pressure on the normal direction of the excavation face of each arch cover construction
sequence. Figure 7 shows the numerical model of the Shi Kui Subway Station.
The overall size of the numerical model was 110 m × 75 m × 18 m. The top of the model
was set as a free boundary, whereas the other surfaces were quiet boundaries. The quiet
boundary was selected to reduce the reflective waves on the boundary because the explosive
pressure was applied inside the numerical model. According to the engineering background
in Section 2, the ground is respectively set as plain fill, medium-weathered quartzite, and
strongly-weathered quartzite. The mesh generation of the Shi Kui Subway Station was
established based on the arch cover method construction sequences in Section 2. The Shi
Kui Subway Station is excavated parallel beneath some existing pipelines. The existing
pipelines include two water pipelines (DN400, DN900), a drainage pipeline (DN800), and a
gas pipeline (DN300). The maximum overburden depth is 3.0 m. The vertical clearances
between the pipelines and the station are 12.00 m, 12.47 m, 10.66 m, 12.25 m, respectively.
Figure 8 shows the relative location between the pipelines and the subway station. The
explosive area is from 1.5 m to 3.0 m along the construction direction.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 8 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure 7. Numerical model of Shi Kui Subway Station.

The overall size of the numerical model was 110 m × 75 m × 18 m. The top of the
model was set as a free boundary, whereas the other surfaces were quiet boundaries. The
quiet boundary was selected to reduce the reflective waves on the boundary because the
explosive pressure was applied inside the numerical model. According to the engineering
background in Section 2, the ground is respectively set as plain fill, medium-weathered
quartzite, and strongly-weathered quartzite. The mesh generation of the Shi Kui Subway
Station was established based on the arch cover method construction sequences in Section
2. The Shi Kui Subway Station is excavated parallel beneath some existing pipelines. The
existing pipelines include two water pipelines (DN400, DN900), a drainage pipeline
(DN800), and a gas pipeline (DN300). The maximum overburden depth is 3.0 m. The ver-
tical clearances between the pipelines and the station are 12.00 m, 12.47 m, 10.66 m, 12.25
m, respectively. Figure 8 shows the relative location between the pipelines and the sub-
way station. The explosive area is from 1.5 m to 3.0 m along the construction direction.
The TC-4850N blasting vibration vibrometers were used to measure blasting excava-
Figure 8. Relative location between pipelines and subway station.
Figure
tion Relative
in8.the location
arch cover betweenWith
method. pipelines and subway
a sampling station.
rate of 16 kHz and a monitoring range of
0 toVerification
4.2. 35 cm/s, the devices can
of Numerical record the vibration velocity versus time curve and easily
The TC-4850N blastingModel
vibration vibrometers were used to measure blasting excava-
capture the PPVs of the existing pipelines.
tion The
in themonitoring
arch coverdata wereWith
method. selected for comparison
a sampling rate of 16tokHz
verify
andthe applicationrange
a monitoring of the
of
The existing pipelines are not easily accessible for direct monitoring because they are
numerical
0 to 35 cm/s,calculation model
the devices canshown
recordinthe
Figure 8. Thevelocity
vibration subsequent studies
versus on theand
time curve dynamic
easily
buried in the soil. Therefore, two vibration vibrometers were attached to the ground sur-
capture the
responses ofPPVs of the existing
the existing pipelines.
pipelines were based on the reliability of the numerical model.
face directly above the No. 2 and No. 4 pipelines to obtain the actual vibration velocity.
TableThe existing
3 shows the pipelines
numericalare not easily
results of theaccessible
resultantfor
peakdirect monitoring
particle velocitybecause theythe
(PPV) and are
The actual vibration velocity verified our established numerical model.
buried in the
monitored soil.
data of Therefore, two vibration
each monitored point. vibrometers were attached to the ground surface
directly above the No. 2 and No. 4 pipelines to obtain the actual vibration velocity. The
actual3.vibration
Table Comparison velocity verified
of monitored ourand
data established
numerical numerical
results. model.
Monitored Point Loca- 4.2. Verification of Numerical Relative Difference
Pilot Tunnel Number MonitoredModel
PPV (cm/s) Numerical PPV (cm/s)
tion (%)
The monitoring data were selected for comparison to verify the application of the
④ 2nd
numerical calculation model0.90 0.94
shown in Figure 8. The subsequent studies on4.4
the dynamic
② 4th
responses 2.58
of the existing pipelines were based on 2.64 2.3
the reliability of the numerical model.
Table 3 shows the numerical results of the resultant peak particle velocity (PPV) and the
Figure data
monitored 9 shows the monitored vibration
of each point. velocity waveform and the numerical vibra-
tion velocity waveform of the ground surface monitored points ④ and ② (directly above
the pipelines DN300 and DN800). As shown in Table 3, the PPVs of the monitored points
were slightly smaller than those of the numerical simulation. The relative differences of
the resultant PPVs were 4.4% and 2.3%, which are less than 10%.
The numerical waveforms of the vibration velocity were consistent with the moni-
tored ones. The waveform consisted of a large peak in PPV at the beginning and numerous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 9 of 15

Table 3. Comparison of monitored data and numerical results.

Monitored Pilot Tunnel Monitored PPV Numerical PPV Relative

Point Location Number (cm/s) (cm/s) Difference (%)

4 2nd 0.90 0.94 4.4

2 4th 2.58 2.64 2.3

Figure 9 shows the monitored vibration velocity waveform and the numerical vibration
velocity waveform of the ground surface monitored points 4 and 2 (directly above the
Appl. Sci. 2022,pipelines
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
DN300 and DN800). As shown in Table 3, the PPVs of the monitored points were 10 of 16

slightly smaller than those of the numerical simulation. The relative differences of the
resultant PPVs were 4.4% and 2.3%, which are less than 10%.

(a)

(b)
Figure 9. Comparison of vibration velocity waveforms: (a) PPV of monitored point ④ induced by
Figure 9. Comparison of vibration velocity waveforms: (a) PPV of monitored point 4 induced by
the 2nd pilot tunnel; (b) PPV of monitored point ② induced by the 4th pilot tunnel.
the 2nd pilot tunnel; (b) PPV of monitored point
2 induced by the 4th pilot tunnel.

5. Dynamic Response Characteristics and Safety Analysis

The numerical waveforms of the vibration velocity were consistent with the monitored
5.1. Dynamic Responses of Earlier Pilot Tunnel Induced by Blasting of Later Pilot Tunnel
ones. The waveform consisted of a large peak in PPV at the beginning and numerous peaks
In order to study the effect of blasting excavation of the later pilot tunnel on the ear-
that decayed with time. The vibration period time of the numerical and monitored results
lier pilot tunnel and to avoid the influences between adjacent pilot tunnels, the 1st, 2nd,
and 4th pilot tunnels were selected for numerical simulation. Figures 10 and 11 show the
maximum vibration velocities of the 1st pilot tunnel induced by the blasting of the 2nd
pilot tunnel and 4th pilot tunnel, respectively.
As shown in Figure 10a, the farther away from the blasting source of the 2nd pilot
tunnel the monitored point of the 1st pilot tunnel was, the lower peak velocity at the mon-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 10 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

was close.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW The PPV of the numerical model lagged behind that of the monitored 11 ofpoints
16 by
approximately 0.1 s. It can be attributed to the homogenous simplification of the rock and
soil during the numerical simulation. Indeed, soil pores, rock mass joints, and discontinuity
in the
the 4th
the pilot
field
4th tunnel
delay
pilot theon
tunnel the
the 1st
1st pilot
propagation
on pilot tunnel,
of shown
shown in in Figure
the blast-induced
tunnel, Figure 11a,
11a, were
stress waves
were consistent
[36–38].with
consistent with that
that
of the
of By 2nd pilot
the comparing tunnel. The maximum peak velocity in Figure 11a was 18.4 cm/s, much
the numerical
2nd pilot tunnel. The maximum calculation results with
peak velocity the monitored
in Figure 11a was 18.4 data,
cm/s,the numerical
much
larger
largeristhan
than 1.34
1.34 cm/s
cm/s in
in Figure
Figure 10a
10a because
because the
the 4th
4th pilot tunnel is
is closer
closer toto the
the 1st pilot
model applicable, and the model parameters arepilot tunnelreasonably.
selected The 1st pilotat each
PPVs
tunnel
tunnel than
than the
the 2nd
2nd pilot
pilot tunnel.
tunnel. Meanwhile,
Meanwhile, the
the blasting
blasting area
area and
and charge
charge of
of the
the 4th
4th pilot
pilotis used
node in the
tunnel were
numerical
larger. It
simulation
indicates that
and
the
the field
effect of
are later
the
close.pilot
Thetunnel
numericalon the
simulation
earlier pilot
tunnel
to tunnel were
study will larger.
the dynamic It indicates
responses of that the effect of the
the existingsource later
pipelines pilot tunnel
because on the earlier
it is impossible pilot
to directly
tunnel the be
be more
more pronounced
willexisting pronounced if
if the
the blasting
blasting source is
is closer
closer or
or the
the blasting
blasting area
area isis more
more
monitor
extensive. pipelines themselves in the actual project.
extensive.
Figures 10b and 11b show the PPVs of the 1st pilot tunnel at the minimum blasting
Figures 10b and 11b show the PPVsand of the 1st pilot tunnel at the minimum blasting
5. distance
Dynamic Response Characteristics Safety Analysis
distance LL == 33 m.
m. The
The vibration
vibration velocity
velocity increased
increased to
to the
the peak
peak within
within aa relatively
relatively short
short
5.1.time,
Dynamic Responses
gradually of Earlier
attenuated, Pilot Tunnel
then eventually Induced The
stabilized. by Blasting
velocityof
ofLater Pilot
the 1st pilotTunnel
tunnel
time, gradually attenuated, then eventually stabilized. The velocity of the 1st pilot tunnel
peaked at
at approximately
In order
peaked to study the
approximately 0.03 ss in
effect
0.03 in the case
case of
of blasting
of blasting
the the
the 2nd
excavation
blasting 2ndofpilot
thetunnel.
pilot However,
later pilot
tunnel. the
tunnel
However, theon the
peak
earlier velocity
peakpilot was
tunnel
velocity reached
was and in
to avoid
reached less
in lessthethan 0.01 s
influences
than when
0.01 s when the
between 4th pilot
the 4thadjacenttunnel
pilot tunnel was
pilotwas blasted.
tunnels, The
the
blasted. The1st, 2nd,
earlier
and pilot
pilot tunnel
4th pilot
earlier tunnel will
tunnels take
were
will aa shorter
takeselected
shorterfortime
time to
to reach
reach its
numerical peak
peak value
value if
itssimulation. the
the later
ifFigures pilot
later10 and
pilot tunnel’s
11 show the
tunnel’s
blasting
blasting source
source and
and blasting
blasting area
area are
are closer
closer and
and more
more extensive.
extensive.
maximum vibration velocities of the 1st pilot tunnel induced by the blasting of the 2nd
pilot tunnel and 4th pilot tunnel, respectively.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Dynamic responses of the 1st pilot tunnel induced by blasting the 2nd pilot tunnel: (a)
Figure
Figure 10.10. Dynamicresponses
Dynamic responsesofofthe
the1st
1stpilot
pilottunnel
tunnel induced
induced by
by blasting
blastingthe
the2nd
2ndpilot
pilottunnel:
tunnel:(a)(a) Peak
Peak velocity of x-direction; (b) PPV of monitored point L = 3 m.
Peak velocity
velocity of x-direction;
of x-direction; (b) of
(b) PPV PPV of monitored
monitored point
point L =L3=m.
3 m.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Dynamic responses of the 1st pilot tunnel induced by blasting the 4th pilot tunnel: (a)
Figure 11. Dynamic responses of the 1st pilot tunnel induced by blasting the 4th pilot tunnel: (a)
Peak 11.
Figure velocity of z-direction;
Dynamic responses (b)ofPPV
the of
1stmonitored point
pilot tunnel L = 3 m.by blasting the 4th pilot tunnel: (a) Peak
induced
Peak velocity of z-direction; (b) PPV of monitored point L = 3 m.
velocity of z-direction; (b) PPV of monitored point L = 3 m.
5.2.
5.2. Pipeline
Pipeline Dynamic
Dynamic Responses
Responses Induced
Induced by
by the
the Blasting
Blasting of
of Pilot
Pilot Tunnels
Tunnels
Figure
AsFigure
shown 12 shows
12 in the
Figure
shows pipeline
the 10a, dynamic
the farther
pipeline dynamicaway responses induced
frominduced
responses by
by blasting
the blasting source
blasting the
theof1st,
the2nd,
1st, 2nd pilot
2nd,
3rd,
tunnel and
3rd, and 4th
the 4th pilot
monitored tunnels,
point
pilot tunnels, respectively. As
of the 1st As
respectively. shown
pilot in
tunnel
shown Figure
was, 8,
in Figure 8,
the the pipelines
thelower peak
pipelines are directly
arevelocity
directly at the
above
above the
monitored blasting
thepoint willarea.
blasting be. The
area. The vertical
The vibration
peak velocity
vertical vibrationofvelocities were
were larger
the monitored
velocities pointthan
larger L = the
than mhorizontal
3the decreased with
horizontal
ones.
ones. So, we chose the vertical vibration velocity to analyze the dynamic responses. The
So, we chose the vertical vibration velocity to analyze the dynamic responses. The
the increase in the distance between the monitored point and blasting source. The effects
of the 4th pilot tunnel on the 1st pilot tunnel, shown in Figure 11a, were consistent with
that of the 2nd pilot tunnel. The maximum peak velocity in Figure 11a was 18.4 cm/s,
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 11 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

much larger than 1.34 cm/s in Figure 10a because the 4th pilot tunnel is closer to the 1st
blasting
pilot tunnel source
than was
the at
2ndL =pilot
3 m. tunnel.
The relative distance Sthe
Meanwhile, is the distance
blasting from
area andthecharge
monitored
of the 4th
points along the pipelines to the blasting source.
pilot tunnel were larger. It indicates that the effect of the later pilot tunnel on the earlier
As shown in Figure 12, the maximum peak velocities decreased with the increase in
pilot tunnel will be more pronounced if the blasting source is closer or the blasting area is
the relative distance S. When the 1st pilot tunnel was blasted, the peak velocities of the
more extensive.
pipelines were: Vmax1 > Vmax2 > Vmax3 > Vmax4 (the superscript is the pipeline number). The
Figures 10b and 11b show the PPVs of the 1st pilot tunnel at the minimum blasting
dynamic response of pipeline ① decreased remarkably, whereas that of pipeline ②③④
did not.L The
distance = 3 distance
m. The between
vibration thevelocity
1st pilotincreased
tunnel andtoother the peak within
pipelines is soafar
relatively
that the short
time, gradually
effect attenuated,
of blasting on these then eventually
pipelines stabilized.
was insensitive. The velocity
When the 2nd pilotof thetunnel
1st pilot
wastunnel
peaked at approximately
blasted, the peak velocities 0.03 s inVthe
were: max4case of3 blasting
> Vmax > Vmax1 > V the
max22nd
. Thepilot
dynamictunnel. However,
response of the
peak velocity
pipeline was reached
① changed in less it
little because than 0.01
is far aways when
from thethe2nd4thpilot
pilottunnel.
tunnelWhen was the
blasted.
3rd The
earlier
pilotpilot
tunneltunnel will take
was blasted, the apeak
shorter time were:
velocities to reachVmaxits
2 > peak
Vmax1 >value
Vmax3 >ifVthe
max4.later pilot tunnel’s
The changes
in the source
blasting dynamic andresponses
blastingofarea
the pipelines
are closerwereand obvious. Notably, the peak velocity of
more extensive.
pipeline ① was much larger than that of pipeline ③, but the pipeline ③ is closer to the
5.2.blasting
Pipelinesource rather
Dynamic than theInduced
Responses ①.
pipelineby theItBlasting
did not of
conform to the abovementioned
Pilot Tunnels
characteristics. The reason is that the hollow effect amplifies the pipeline vibration [39].
Figure 12 shows the pipeline dynamic responses induced by blasting the 1st, 2nd, 3rd,
The 1st pilot tunnel below the pipeline ① had been excavated when the 3rd pilot tunnel
and 4th pilot tunnels, respectively. As shown in Figure 8, the pipelines are2 directly above
blasted. When the 4th pilot tunnel was blasted, the peak velocities were: Vmax > Vmax3 >
theVblasting area. The vertical vibration velocities were larger than the horizontal
max4 > Vmax1. The peak velocity of pipeline ② was much larger than that of pipeline ③.
ones. So,
weThe
chose the vertical vibration velocity to analyze the dynamic responses. The blasting
hollow effect of the 3rd pilot tunnel below the pipeline ② also amplified the pipeline
source was at L = 3 m. The relative distance S is the distance from the monitored points
vibration.
along the pipelines to the blasting source.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 12. Dynamic responses of existing pipelines induced by blasting the pilot tunnels: (a) 1st
Figure
pilot12. Dynamic
tunnel; (b) 2ndresponses of existing
pilot tunnel; pipelines
(c) 3rd pilot tunnel;induced by blasting
(d) 4th pilot tunnel. the pilot tunnels: (a) 1st pilot
tunnel; (b) 2nd pilot tunnel; (c) 3rd pilot tunnel; (d) 4th pilot tunnel.

As shown in Figure 12, the maximum peak velocities decreased with the increase in
the relative distance S. When the 1st pilot tunnel was blasted, the peak velocities of the
pipelines were: V max 1 > V max 2 > V max 3 > V max 4 (the superscript is the pipeline number).
The dynamic response of pipeline 1 decreased remarkably, whereas that of pipeline 2 3
4
did not. The distance between the 1st pilot tunnel and other pipelines is so far that the effect
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 12 of 15

of blasting on these pipelines was insensitive. When the 2nd pilot tunnel was blasted, the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16
peak velocities were: V max 4 > V max 3 > V max 1 > V max 2 . The dynamic response of pipeline
1 changed little because it is far away from the 2nd pilot tunnel. When the 3rd pilot tunnel
was blasted, the peak velocities were: V max 2 > V max 1 > V max 3 > V max 4 . The changes in the
5.3. Dynamic
dynamic Responses
responses of Existing
of the Pipelines
pipelines Induced byNotably,
were obvious. Blasting ofthe
Lower Rock
peak velocity of pipeline 1
was much According
larger to the that
than construction procedure
of pipeline ,3 butofthe
thepipeline
arch cover 3 method,
is closerblasting
to the the lower source
blasting
rock than
rather is carried out after .
the pipeline implementing the secondary
1 It did not conform to thelining. The lower rock
abovementioned mass in Re- The
characteristics.
gion 4 shown in Figure 4 was blasted to study the effects on the existing pipelines. Figure
reason is that the hollow effect amplifies the pipeline vibration [39]. The 1st pilot tunnel
13 shows the dynamic responses of the existing pipeline ② and ③ induced by blasting the
below the pipeline 1 had been excavated when the 3rd pilot tunnel blasted. When the 4th
lower rock. The lower rock was first blasted at L = 3 m. The2 cases with and without the
pilot tunnel was blasted, the peak velocities were: V max > V max 3 > V max 4 > V max 1 . The
secondary lining of the arch were simulated and compared.
peak velocity
When the pipeline
of secondary 2 was much larger than that of pipeline .
lining of the arch was not implemented, the maximum3 The hollow effect of
PPVs of
thethe
3rd the pipeline
pipeline ② and ③ were about 1.0 cm/s and 0.8 cm/s, respectively. The vibration.
pilot tunnel below 2 also amplified the pipeline maximum val-
ues were larger than those induced by the 3rd pilot tunnel, smaller than those induced by
5.3.theDynamic
4th pilotResponses of Existing
tunnel. However, Pipelines Induced
the maximum PPVs ofby
theBlasting
pipelineof②Lower
and ③Rock
decreased to
According
about 0.3 cm/s to
andthe construction
0.15 cm/s when theprocedure
secondaryoflining
the arch
wascover method,
completed. The blasting the lower
results indi-
cate
rock is that the secondary
carried lining installation
out after implementing thenot only controls
secondary lining.theThe
deformation
lower rock butmass
also in
re-Region
duces the effects of blasting on the adjacent structures, such as pipelines and
4 shown in Figure 4 was blasted to study the effects on the existing pipelines. Figure 13 buildings.
The prompt
shows implementation
the dynamic responsesof secondary lining pipeline
of the existing is essential
2 for
blasting
and excavation
3 induced when
by blasting the
using the arch cover method.
lower rock. The lower rock was first blasted at L = 3 m. The cases with and without the
secondary lining of the arch were simulated and compared.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Blasting the lower rock with and without secondary lining: (a) Existing pipeline ②; (b)
Figure 13. Blasting the lower rock with and without secondary lining: (a) Existing pipeline ; 2
Existing pipeline ③.
(b) Existing pipeline . 3

5.4. Dynamic Responses of Secondary Lining Induced by Blasting the Lower Rock
When the secondary lining of the arch was not implemented, the maximum PPVs
The dynamic responses of the secondary lining of the arch induced by lower rock
of the pipeline 2 and 3 were about 1.0 cm/s and 0.8 cm/s, respectively. The maximum
blasts require analysis. The blasting of the lower rock mass in the Region 4 was taken as
values were larger than those induced by the 3rd pilot tunnel, smaller than those induced
an example to obtain the vertical vibration velocities of the secondary lining. Figure 14
byshows
the 4ththepilot
PPVs tunnel. However,
of the arch crown, the
archmaximum
waist, and PPVs of the
arch foot, pipeline
respectively. 2 and
3 decreased
to about 0.3 cm/s and 0.15 cm/s when the secondary lining was completed. The results
indicate that the secondary lining installation not only controls the deformation but also
reduces the effects of blasting on the adjacent structures, such as pipelines and buildings.
The prompt implementation of secondary lining is essential for blasting excavation when
using the arch cover method.

5.4. Dynamic Responses of Secondary Lining Induced by Blasting the Lower Rock
The dynamic responses of the secondary lining of the arch induced by lower rock
blasts require analysis. The blasting of the lower rock mass in the Region 4 was taken as an
example to obtain the vertical vibration velocities of the secondary lining. Figure 14 shows
the PPVs of the arch crown, arch waist, and arch foot, respectively.

(a)

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529
5.4. Dynamic Responses of Secondary Lining Induced by Blasting the Lower Rock
The dynamic responses of the secondary lining of the arch induced by lower rock
blasts require analysis. The blasting of the lower rock mass in the Region 4 was taken as
an example to obtain the vertical vibration velocities of the secondary lining. Figure
13 of14
15
shows the PPVs of the arch crown, arch waist, and arch foot, respectively.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 14. Dynamic responses of secondary lining induced by blasting the lower rock: (a) Arch
Figure 14. Dynamic responses of secondary lining induced by blasting the lower rock: (a) Arch
crown; (b) Arch waist; (c) Arch foot.
crown; (b) Arch waist; (c) Arch foot.
As shown in Figure 14, the most adverse position of the secondary lining was the
As shown in Figure 14, the most adverse position of the secondary lining was the arch
arch foot.
foot. The The maximum
maximum peak velocity
peak velocity wascm/s.
was 0.859 0.859 cm/s. The vibration
The vibration velocity
velocity of the of thefoot
arch arch
foot peaked at about 23 ms. The PPV was stable after 0.3 s. The maximum
peaked at about 23 ms. The PPV was stable after 0.3 s. The maximum peak velocities of peak velocities
of arch
the the arch
crowncrownandandarcharch waist
waist werewere 0.131
0.131 cm/scm/s and
and 0.136
0.136 cm/s,respectively.
cm/s, respectively.The
Thepeak
peak
velocities of the arch crown and arch waist were reached in less than
velocities of the arch crown and arch waist were reached in less than 50 ms and 36 ms. The 50 ms and 36 ms.
The time required for the velocity stabilization was about 0.6 s. The results
time required for the velocity stabilization was about 0.6 s. The results indicate that the indicate that
the blast
blast shockshock
wavewavein theinsecondary
the secondary
lininglining
mainly mainly propagates
propagates through through the surrounding
the surrounding rock
rock from near to far. It is essential to take certain protective measures
from near to far. It is essential to take certain protective measures for the arch foot for the because
arch foot
because
the the is
arch foot arch foot
close to is
theclose to thesource
blasting blasting source
of the of rock.
lower the lower rock.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, four existing pipelines adjacent to the blasting of a subway station were
taken as a case study to analyze the dynamic responses induced by the arch cover method.
When compared with the ground surface monitoring data, our numerical simulation was
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 14 of 15

6. Conclusions
In this paper, four existing pipelines adjacent to the blasting of a subway station were
taken as a case study to analyze the dynamic responses induced by the arch cover method.
When compared with the ground surface monitoring data, our numerical simulation
was verified. The dynamic blasting characteristics of the pilot tunnels, existing pipelines,
secondary lining were studied and analyzed. The findings are as follows:
1. When using the arch cover method for construction, the effect of blasting the later
pilot tunnel on the earlier pilot tunnel will be pronounced if the clearance between
the later and earlier pilot tunnels is smaller. Extensive blasting area and many charges
will result in large peak velocity in a short time;
2. The maximum peak velocities of the existing pipelines induced by blasting the pilot
tunnels decreased with the increase in the relative distance. The effect of blasting
the pilot tunnel on the far pipelines was insensitive. However, the hollow effect can
amplify the pipeline vibration to change the characteristics;
3. For blasting in the arch cover method, installing the secondary lining can control the
deformation and reduce the effect of blasting on the existing pipelines. Setting up
the secondary lining promptly can guarantee the safety of the subway station and
adjacent structures;
4. When blasting the lower rock mass, the vibration velocity of the arch foot was larger
than that of the arch crown and arch waist. The arch foot is in the most adverse
position. The blasting of the lower rock mass should be carried out at a suitable age
for the secondary lining concrete, and more attention should be paid to protect the
built-up arch structure.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.L. and A.J.; methodology, X.L.; software, X.G.; vali-
dation, L.H. and X.G.; formal analysis, X.L.; investigation, X.L.; resources, A.J.; data curation, L.H.
and X.G.; writing—original draft preparation, X.L.; writing—review and editing, A.J.; supervision,
A.J.; project administration, A.J.; funding acquisition, X.L. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation, grant
number 52108363 and 52078093, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, grant number 2021M700654,
and LiaoNing Revitalization Talents Program, grant number XLYC1905015.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fang, Q.; Zhang, D.; Wong, L.N.Y. Shallow tunnelling method (STM) for subway station construction in soft ground. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2012, 29, 10–30. [CrossRef]
2. Ji, Z.Q.; Jia, Y.G. Study of Model Tests on Large-Span Tunnel’s Damage Caused by Overload with Arch Cover Method. Adv. Mater.
Res. 2014, 941–944, 717–722. [CrossRef]
3. Shang, Y.; Du, S.; Han, T.; Shao, B. Case Study on Deformation Control of Upper-Soft and Lower-Hard Large Span Tunnel Station
using Combined Control Technology and Monitoring Demonstration. Sains Malays. 2017, 46, 2091–2099. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, G.; Du, Z.; Song, J.; Cai, J.; Tao, T. Monitoring and analysis of excavation-induced subsidence of subway station constructed
by arch cover method and control measures. Chin. J. Rock. Mech. Eng. 2012, 31, 3413–3420. (In Chinese)
5. Song, C.Y.; He, W.G. Structural design of the stacked loaded arch of large-span tunnels in upper-soft lower hard rock stratum.
Modern Tunn. Tech. 2018, 55, 17–26. (In Chinese)
6. Lv, B. Key techniques of the arch-cover method for bored metro stations. Mod. Tunn. Tech. 2014, 51, 181–187. (In Chinese)
7. Liu, T.; Huang, Y.L.; Lei, G. Analysis of the optimum support dismantling scheme for shallow bored subway stations in a soil-rock
compound stratum. Mod. Tunn. Tech. 2015, 52, 131–137. (In Chinese)
8. Won, J.H.; Kim, M.K.; Kim, G.; Cho, S.H. Blast-induced dynamic response on the interface of a multilayered pipeline. Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2014, 10, 80–92. [CrossRef]
9. Gao, W.; Yan, P.; Li, Z.; Wei, P.; Hou, B. Blasting excavation and vibration effects of shallow tunnel excavation. Chin. J. Rock Mech.
Eng. 2011, 30, 4153–4157. (In Chinese)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1529 15 of 15

10. Wang, H.; Jin, H.; Jia, J. Model test study on the influence of subway tunnel drilling and blasting method on adjacent buried
pipeline. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2018, 37, 3332–3339. (In Chinese)
11. Kouretzis, G.P.; Bouckovalas, G.D.; Gantes, C.J. Analytical calculation of blast-induced strains to buried pipelines. Int. J. Impact
Eng. 2007, 34, 1683–1704. [CrossRef]
12. Xia, Y.; Jiang, N.; Zhou, C.; Meng, X.; Luo, X.; Wu, T. Theoretical solution of the vibration response of the buried flexible HDPE
pipe under impact load induced by rock blasting. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 146, 106743. [CrossRef]
13. Abedi, A.S.; Hataf, N.; Ghahramani, A. Analytical solution of the dynamic response of buried pipelines under blast wave. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2016, 88, 301–306. [CrossRef]
14. Yu, H.; Wang, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Li, W. Numerical analysis of internal blast effects on underground tunnel in soils. Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 2015, 12, 1090–1105. [CrossRef]
15. Giannaros, E.; Kotzakolios, T.; Kostopoulos, V. Blast response of composite pipeline structure using finite element techniques.
J. Compos. Mater. 2016, 50, 3459–3476. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Liang, Z. Buckling failure of a buried pipeline subjected to ground explosions. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.
2018, 114, 36–47. [CrossRef]
17. Gad, E.F.; Wilson, J.L.; Balendra, T.; Moore, A.J.; Richards, A.B. Response of Pipelines to Blast Loading. Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 2007,
7, 197–207. [CrossRef]
18. Sohrabi, B.A.; Moradi, A. Consideration of gas pipeline safety against vibration of blasting; Case study: Excavation in Arak-
Khorramabad freeway route. J. Earth Space Phys. 2017, 43, 297–308.
19. Wang, K.; Shi, T.; He, Y.; Li, M.; Qian, X. Case analysis and CFD numerical study on gas explosion and damage processing caused
by aging urban subsurface pipeline failures. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 97, 201–219. [CrossRef]
20. Gospodarikov, A.P.; Kolton, G.A.; Buldakov, E.L. One approach to mathematical modeling of the effect of blast waves on an
underground oil pipeline. Zap. Gorn. Inst. 2014, 210, 37–42.
21. Jiang, N.; Gao, T.; Zhou, C.; Luo, X. Effect of excavation blasting vibration on adjacent buried gas pipeline in a metro tunnel. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 81, 590–601. [CrossRef]
22. Jiang, N.; Zhu, B.; He, X.; Zhou, C.; Luo, X.; Wu, T. Safety assessment of buried pressurised gas pipelines subject to blasting
vibrations induced by metro foundation pit excavation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 102, 103448. [CrossRef]
23. Zhu, B.; Jiang, N.; Zhou, C.; Luo, X.; Yao, Y.; Wu, T. Dynamic failure behavior of buried cast iron gas pipeline with local external
corrosion subjected to blasting vibration. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2021, 88, 103803. [CrossRef]
24. Kakaei, R.; Hajiazizi, M. The effect of GFRP on reinforcing the buried and internally pressurised steel pipes against terrorist
attacks. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2021, 189, 104273. [CrossRef]
25. Shi, C.; Zhao, Q.; Lei, M.; Peng, M. Vibration velocity control standard of buried pipeline under blast loading of adjacent tunnel.
Soils Found. 2019, 59, 2195–2205. [CrossRef]
26. Itasca. FLAC 3D-Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions (Version 2.1); Itasca Consulting Group Inc.: Minneapolis, MN,
USA, 2003.
27. AQSIQ. Safety Regulations for Blasting; GB6722-2014; China WaterPower Press: Beijing, China, 2014.
28. Saharan, M.R.; Mitri, H.S.; Jethwa, J.L. Rock fracturing by explosive energy: Review of state-of-the-art. Fragblast 2006, 10, 61–81.
[CrossRef]
29. Fickett, W.; Davis, W.C. Detonation; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979.
30. Henrych, J. The Dynamics of Explosion and Its Use; Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY,
USA, 1979.
31. Persson, P.-A.; Holmberg, R.; Lee, J. Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
32. Yilmaz, O.; Unlu, T. Three dimensional numerical rock damage analysis under blasting load. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2012,
38, 266–278. [CrossRef]
33. Nie, S.; Olsson, M. Study of fracture mechanism by measuring pressure history in blastholes and crack lengths in rock. In Pro-
ceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Orlando, FL, USA, 1 February 2000; pp. 291–300.
34. Zhang, Y.C.; Yang, G.H.; Hu, H.Y. Study on numerical model and safety criterion of the influence of blasting vibration on
buildings and structures. China Civ. Eng. J. 2015, 48, 22–29.
35. Zuo, S.Y.; Xiao, M.; Xu, J.K.; Shi, W.B. Numerical simulation of dynamic damage effect of surrounding rocks for tunnels by
blasting excavation. Rock Soil Mech. 2011, 32, 3171–3184.
36. Jiang, Q.; Yang, B.; Yan, F.; Liu, C.; Shi, Y.; Li, L. New method for characterising the shear damage of natural rock joint based on
3D engraving and 3D scanning. Int. J. Geomech. 2020, 20, 06019022. [CrossRef]
37. Azizabadi, H.R.M.; Mansouri, H.; Fouché, O. Coupling of two methods, waveform superposition and numerical, to model blast
vibration effect on slope stability in jointed rock masses. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 61, 42–49. [CrossRef]
38. Li, J.; Ma, G. Analysis of Blast Wave Interaction with a Rock Joint. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2010, 43, 777–787. [CrossRef]
39. Yu, J.; Liu, S.Y.; Tong, L.Y. Hollow effect induced by blasting vibration in shallow tunnels. J. Southeast Univ. 2010, 40, 176–179.