Sunteți pe pagina 1din 79

Study of Blast-Induced Vibration from Construction of Tunnels with Particular Emphasis on its effect to nearby Slopes

Background HKIE Cavern Engineering Group formed to promote the general use of cavern facilities in Hong Kong Common perception in the industry (contractor, consultant and some GEOs) vibration limit for slope (being considered as sensitive receiver) is being set too conservatively low No case record of slope failed/moved/distressed due to blasting Checking of slope stability usually follows the approach in GEO Report No. 15
2

Background Maximum vibration limit allowed for slope/utilities Rule of Thumb/Empirical Maximum vibration limit being further reduced Implication to cost and program to tunneling

HKIE GEOTECHNICAL DIVISION INTEREST GROUP ON CAVERN AND TUNNEL ENGINEERING

Terms of Reference:

1. 2. 3.

Consolidate current knowledge, experience and practice in cavern and tunnel engineering in Hong Kong. Identify key issues on and actions required for appropriate use of caverns and tunnels in Hong Kong. Promote awareness among professionals, developers and the relevant authorities of the potential and benefits of caverns and tunnels in Hong Kong. Make recommendations to the HKIE GDC on follow-up actions to be taken for promoting cavern and tunnel engineering good practice in Hong Kong.
4

4.

Specific areas under discussion by the Interest Group


There has been no improvement in blasting assessment methods for slopes since GEO Report No. 15 was published (1991). There is no data to show whether GEO Report No. 15 methods reflect reality in that in routine engineering practice, the vibration monitoring is designed for managing blasting risk but not to check the performance of the assessment method There appears to be a need to have published guidelines on how to set blast-induced vibration limits, in addition to the prescriptive values specified in the GS and other existing documents issued by facility owners. The prescriptive values may be overly conservative in some cases (which adds cost unnecessarily to the projects), but may not be conservative enough in other cases (e.g. listed buildings and monuments). Also, there does not appear to be any regular review by the authorities/facility owners of their limits and consultation with the profession. There is discussion on whether HK should be moving towards frequencybased vibration limits and use of probabilistic approaches (e.g. probability of exceedance of not more than 5%) rather than absolute limits. The industry currently adopts an empirical attenuation equation based on surface blast vibration monitoring data collected by the MD. This is necessary for a new project before sufficient site-specific vibration monitoring data are available to derive a site-specific attenuation equation. The HK-wide empirical equation needs to be reviewed to examine its appropriateness for underground blasting works for different geology, given the nature of wave propagation through body waves and surface waves may not be the same and attenuation may be different in different geological mass dynamic properties. 5

Approaches to Study:
Based on field instrumentation, calibrate numerical model which is based on established theory and assess the effect of blast-induced vibration on slopes Evaluate the vibration limit based on the above findings Depending on whether the vibration limit being set is conservative or un-conservative, propose alternative vibration limit based on the calibrated model Continue field monitoring and refine the model as blasting continue Allow more charge weight per delay improve blasting cycle and construction program
6

10 mm/s (HK-MTRC) 13 mm/s (HK-utilities) 25 mm/s (HK-GEO) 50 mm/s (Australia)

100 mm/s (USA)

U S Bureau of Mines Guidelines

Human Response to Vibration

50 mm/s

25 mm/s

Humans are very sensitive to vibrations. Low frequency vibrations are more readily felt than high frequency vibration.

Blasting Range

Hertz

Restriction on Peak Particle Velocity and Vibration Amplitude : Utilities and Other Installations
Maximum Allowable Vibrational Amplitude (mm) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
9

Utility

Installation

Maximum Allowable Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s) 25 11 13 25 13 25 25 13

Gas: Hong Kong & China Gas Company Electricity: China Light and Power Company, Hong Kong Electric Company Water: Water Supplies Dept., Hong Kong Government

All Power Stations Sub-Stations (major) Sub-Stations (minor) Underground Cable Joints Underground Cables & Pylon Foundations Non Water Retaining Structures & Water Mains Water Retaining Structures

Restriction on Peak Particle Velocity and Vibration Amplitude : Utilities and Other Installations
Installation Utility Maximum Allowable Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s) Maximum Allowable Vibrational Amplitude (mm) 0.2 0.2 0.2

Drains & Sewers: Drainage Services Dept., Hong Kong Government Telephone: Hong Kong Telephone Company Estates/Structures/ Schools/Private Properties Computers Fresh Concrete: Less than 2 days old: 2 and 8 days old: More than 8 days old:

All All All

25 25 25

All

0.2

All

5 25 50

0.1 0.2 0.2


10

Frequency based control


The natural frequency of two-storey residential buildings is in the range of 5 to 20 Hz, and it decreases with increasing height of the structure. Typical construction blasts produce vibrations with principal frequencies in the range of about 20 to 100 Hz, average about 50 Hz.

50 mm/s

25 mm/s

Relaxed criteria for 25 mm/s limit

10 mm/s

Blasting Range

11

95% 84% 50%

Li U. and Ng S. (1992), Prediction of blast vibration and current practice of measurement in Hong Kong, Asia Pacific quarrying the rim : proceedings of the Conference Asia Pacific - Quarrying the Rim, held in Hong Kong between 7 and 10 April 1992. Hong Kong: Institute of Quarrying (Hong Kong branch)

D PPV = K 0.5 W

Site Specific Constants PPV: Peak Particle Velocity D: Distance W: Charge weight per delay

12

The Hong Kong mean line


Mines and Quarries Division Wide range of blasts Vibration records since 1984 Highly variable
1.22

D PPV = 310 0.5 W D PPV = 644 0.5 W

D log PPV = 1.22 log 0.5 + log 310 W


1.22

50%

Mines Dept.

84%

Mines Dept.

D PPV = 1032 0.5 W

1.22
95%

Mines Dept.

MTRC
D PPV = 994 0.5 W
D PPV = 1079 0.5 W
1.22

DSM Clause 4.6.11.1

84%

1.07

DSM Clause 4.6.11.12 for Underground Blasts

84%

13

Regression Analysis for Ground Vibration

Shatin Height Tunnel

100.00

y = 644x - 1 . 2 2

Vector Sum PPV (mm/s)

Arbitrary Limit without data, and without knowing its actual effect

R2 = 0.8057 M&Q 84% Line

y = 1032x - 1 . 2 2

Error Probable (0.6745SE) Standard (SE) 84% (1.5SE)

Certainty (%) =50% =68.27% =84% =90% =95%

M&Q 95% Line

y = 642.33x - 1 . 2 3 4 2

10.00
y = 516.3x 84% Line
-1.2342

95%

1.00

90% (1.6449SE)
y = 368.95x - 1 . 2 3 4 2 R 2 = 0.8057 50% Line

95% (1.9599SE)

0.10 1 10 100 1000

14

Scaled Distance (m /kg0.5)

Eagles Nest Tunnel

All blasts are controlled to less than 10 mm/s at sensitive structures. Therefore real responses are never known.

15

Assumptions made in GEO Report No. 15 For soil slope (Pseudo-static Approach):
SDOF Simple Harmonic motion in bedrock rock Rigid body motion in soil mass (horizontal direction only) Movement in-phase with acceleration Constant damping ratio in soil, no damping in rock Constant peak acceleration at all period Constant dynamic pore pressure generated Fundamental period of slope material equal to 3.3H/S. H=height of slope. S=velocity of traveling wave (300 m/s) from study of dams where vibration is amplified at the crest (not applicable to slope which is confined and continuous) No phase shift between velocity and acceleration Single input frequency of 30 Hz is used Mode shape not verified
16

22 1

Apply horizontal seismic load 0.16g (trial and error)

ym y=4.6

H
H=12 m

Example of using chart in GEO Report No. 15

Limit Equilibrium Method

17

S rock = 300 m / s H = 12 m S rock = 25 H

y = 4.6 m H = 12 m y = 0.383 H

K a = 0.75 F = 30 H z

PPVc =

g 0.16(9.81) = = 0.0111 m / s = 11 mm / s 2Fk a 2 (30)0.75

D PPVc = 644 W D = 112 m

1.22

That means 11 mm/s would cause FOS to reduce to 1.0 (17% drop) further reduce in design to consider Alert, Alarm and Action levels
1 0.61

PPVc Wallow = D 2 644

1 0.61

11 = 112 2 644

= 16 kg / delay

K a = 0.75

y = 0.383 H

Ka vs y/H for Slopes with Horizontal Bedrock Based on 1-D Shear Response Model GEO Report No. 15

18

Dynamic Analysis reduces all the implicit assumption made in GEO Report No. 15 by considering:
MDOF Actual non-periodic time history of motion can be input Soil is a compliant system (different points within the system move differently and out-of-phase from each other)

Incremental equation of motion can be used to model the nonlinear soil behavior if necessary change in shear modulus and damping ratio varies with cyclic strain
19

Numerical Simulations to match with measured

D PPV = K 0.5 W

acceleration(m/s/s)

1 1

5 0 5 0 0 - 5 0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2

- 1 - 1 - 2

0 5 0 t i m e ( s )

Receiver 2

Receiver 1

Potential Failure Surface

D1

D2

Stability factor Response spectrum Peak particle velocity

Tunnel
Blasting
15 10 acceleration(m/s/s) 5 0 0 -5 -1 0 -1 5 -2 0 t im e ( s ) 0 .5 1 1 .5 2

(not to scale)

20

Numerical analysis Blasting carried out towards and away from the slope Different nodes on the soil slope and in the rock are monitored

Soil
Blasting point

6
Rock

21

Need to combine Dynamic Stability & Deformation Analysis QUAKE/W computes the static plus dynamic ground stresses at specified intervals during an earthquake. SLOPE/W can use these stresses to analyze the stability variations during the earthquake and estimate the resulting permanent deformation. This approach is based on the assumption that there will be some permanent movement of the sliding mass during short instances in time when the factor of safety falls momentarily below 1.0. An average acceleration for the entire sliding mass that makes the factor of safety equal to 1.0 is known as the yield acceleration. When the average acceleration is greater than the yield acceleration, the sliding mass will move.

22

Full frequency spectrum can be studied Deformation of slope can be modeled Factor of slope of critical slip surface can be calculated as a function of time

23

Average Mass Acceleration For each trial slip surface, SLOPE/W determines the total mobilized shear arising from the dynamic inertial forces. This dynamically driven mobilized shear is divided by the total slide mass to obtain an average acceleration. The procedure is to integrate along the average acceleration versus time record to find the velocity during the times that the acceleration is greater than or equal to the yield acceleration.

Diagram illustrating the Newmark method. (a) Acceleration versus time; (b) velocity versus time for the darkened portions of the acceleration pulses; (c) the corresponding downslope displacement versus time in response to the velocity pulses. (After Wilson and Keefer 1985.)

24

Numerical Simulation using Field Data from the Eagles Nest Tunnel

25

Eagles Nest Hill

26

27

Slope Berm 2

Tunnel Face North Bound Tunnel


Slope Berm 1

South Portal
Tunnel Face

South Bound Tunnel 19 m Span


28

Slope Crest

Slope Berm 3

Slope Berm 2
HKU sensor

HKU sensor

Slope Berm 1

HKU sensor

29

Accelerometer

30

VE103 Front of Village House

Slope Berm 3
Slope Berm 2

VE003 Inside Brick-lined Tunnel (underground)

South Portal

1 Slope Berm

VE101 On Slope

Contractor sensor

31

North Portal

Measured PPVs are too low for analysis because of the WSD Bend B tunnel

32

Slope Crest

HKU sensor

Slope Berm 3

Slope Berm 2

Slope Berm 1

33

Contractor sensor Contractor sensor

Contractor sensor

34

Longitudinal Geological Profile at South Portal

HKU sensor

35

Longitudinal Geological Profile at North Portal

36

Scrutinizing Data in relation to: Geology Tunneling Direction/Progress Boundary Condition Others so that only quality data (R2>75%) is used for comparisons with simulation that has similar boundary conditions

37

Tunnel Face Chainage (m)


Distance from Tunnel Face to Receiver (m)

1000 20-O ct-04

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

100

10
29-Nov-04 08-Jan-05 17-Feb-05 Date 29-Mar-05 08-May-05

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

North Bound and South Bound Top Heading Chainage vs Date

North Bound Top Heading

Top Heading Chainage (m )

17-Jun-05

27-Jul-05

VE003 Brick Lined Tunnel

North Bound CH 1155 Closest Distance 10.5 m 16 March 2005 Charge Wt per Delay 0.2747 kg

1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500

05-Sep-05

North Bound

South Bound

VE003 measuring vibration in Rock


38

Scaled Distance Vs PPV North Bound All Data

1000

100 PPV (mm/s) VE003 Brick lined tunnel 10

y = 800.44x-1.4194 R2 = 0.6506

0.1 1 10 100 1000 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Scaled Distance Vs PPV North Bound 13 Nov. 2004 to 15 March 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only
1000

100 PPV (mm/s)

VE003 Brick lined tunnel

For North Bound Tunnel, correlation increases if data approaching receiver is used only

10

y = 2620.4x 2 R = 0.893

-1.6842

0.1 1 10 100 1000

39

Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Longitudinal Geological Profile at South Portal

Sensor

Solid Face

Solid Face

Free Face

Free face = Excavated Surface

40

Distance from Tunnel Face to Receiver (m)


1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350

Tunnel Face Chainage (m)

100

10
20-O ct-04 29-Nov-04 08-Jan-05 17-Feb-05 Date 29-Mar-05

20
South Bound Top Heading
08-May-05

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

North Bound and South Bound Top Heading Chainage vs Date

Top Heading Chainage (m )

17-Jun-05

27-Jul-05

VE003 Brick Lined Tunnel

1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500
05-Sep-05 North Bound South Bound

41

Scaled Distance Vs PPV South Bound All Data


1000

100 PPV (mm/s)

10

VE003 Brick lined tunnel

y = 556.72x 2 R = 0.3306

-1.3161

0.1 1 10 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5) 100 1000

Scaled Distance Vs PPV South Bound 16 Nov. 2004 to 9 May 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only

1000 VE003 Brick lined tunnel

100 PPV (mm/s)

10

y = 5527.9x 2 R = 0.3905

-1.8843

For South Bound Tunnel, correlation does not increase even if data approaching receiver is used only

0.1 1 10 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5) 100 1000

42

North Bound and South Bound Top Heading Chainage vs Date


1350 1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 1050 1000 20-O ct-04 08-Jan-05 17-Feb-05 29-Mar-05 08-May-05 29-Nov-04 17-Jun-05 27-Jul-05 05-Sep-05 North Bound South Bound

Tunnel Face Chainage (m)

South Bound Tunnel is always behind North Bound Tunnel

Date

Sensor
Free Face

A free face is always present in between the South Bound Tunnel and the Sensor

43

North Bound and South Bound Top Heading


Tunnel Face Chainage (m) 1350 1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 1050 1000 20-Oct-04 29-Mar-05 17-Feb-05 08-May-05 08-Jan-05 29-Nov-04 17-Jun-05 27-Jul-05 05-Sep-05 North Bound South Bound

Date

South Bound Top Heading

100 90
Distance from Tunnel Face to Receiver (m)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500
South Bound CH 1149.5 Closest Distance 17.8 m 9 May 2005 Charge Wt per Delay 0.549 kg VE101 Soil Slope S f li d t l

VE101 measuring vibration in Soil Slope Surface

44

Top Heading Chainage (m )

Scaled Distance Vs PPV South Bound All Data


1000

100 PPV (mm/s) VE101 Soil Slope Surface 10

y = 51.603x 2 R = 0.1993

-0.6506

0.1 1 10 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5) 100 1000

Scaled Distance Vs PPV South Bound 16 Nov. 2004 to 9 May 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only
1000 VE101 Soil Slope Surface

For South Bound Tunnel, correlation increases if data approaching receiver is used only

100 P P V (m m /s)

10

y = 604.75x
2

-1.2328

R = 0.7504
1

0.1 1 10 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5) 100 1000

45

Always S olid Face b T un n e l a nd Senso etween r

Sensor

46

North Bound and South Bound Top Heading


Tunnel Face Chainage (m) 1350 1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 1050 1000 20-Oct-04 29-Mar-05 17-Feb-05 08-May-05 08-Jan-05 29-Nov-04 17-Jun-05 27-Jul-05 05-Sep-05 North Bound South Bound

Date

North Bound Top Heading


100 90
Distance from Tunnel Face to Receiver (m)

80
Top Bench

VE101 measuring vibration in Soil Slope Surface


VE101 Soil Slope Surface li d t l

70
Lower Bench

60 50 40 30 20 10
1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500

47

Top Heading Chainage (m)

Scaled Distance Vs PPV North Bound All Data


1000

100 PPV (mm/s)

VE101 Soil Slope Surface

10

y = 44.39x-0.7474 2 R = 0.3261

0.1 1 10 100 1000 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Scaled Distance Vs PPV North Bound 13 Nov. 2004 to 16 March 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only
1000

100 PPV (mm/s)

VE101 Soil Slope Surface

10

y = 218x-1.0823 R2 = 0.3347

For North Bound Tunnel, correlation does not increase even if data approaching receiver is used only

0.1 1 10 100 1000

48

Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Always Free Face between Tunnel and Sensor

Free Face

Sensor

A free face is always present in between the North Bound Tunnel and the Sensor 49

For VE106 (inside Brick Lined Tunnel) and VE103 (in front of Village House), vibration level recorded was too low for any good correlation.

50

Scaled Distance Vs PPV South Bound 16 Nov. 2004 to 9 May 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only HKU Data Added

1000

Close range
100 PPV (mm/s)

VE101

Slope

y = 604.75x 2 R = 0.7504

-1.2328

Similar

Far range
10

HKU Data
2

y = 1482x

-1.2093

R = 0.7662
1

0.1 1 10 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5) 100 1000

Scaled Distance Vs PPV South Bound 16 Nov. 2004 to 9 May 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only HKU Data Added

1000

It could be very deceiving when a straight line is forced to go through data at different ranges in a loglog plot
Contractor+HKU Data

PPV (mm/s)

100

10

y = 2469.6x 2 R = 0.7781

-1.5665

Very different after combined

0.1 1

Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

10

100

1000

51

Scaled Distance Vs PPV North Bound 13 Nov. 2004 to 15 March 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only

Receiver in Rock
1000

100 PPV (mm/s)

Range 10 20 mm/s

VE003 Brick lined tunnel

10

y = 2620.4x
2

-1.6842

R = 0.893
1

0.1 1 10 100 1000 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Scaled Distance Vs PPV South Bound 16 Nov. 2004 to 9 May 2005 Tunnel Approaches Receiver only HKU Data Added

It would also be very deceiving when simply look at the coefficient of a straight line without looking at the range of the data at different material
Similar

Receiver in Soil
1000
Range 10 100 mm/s

PPV (mm/s)

100

Contractor+HKU Data

Similar
10 1

y = 2469.6x 2 R = 0.7781

-1.5665

0.1 1

Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

10

100

1000

52

Numerical Modeling should match the actual range of data in natural scale and examine the trend closely
PPV vs Scaled Distance
120

100

80 PPV (mm/sec)

Measured in Rock Measured in Soil

60

40

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

53

110

Numerical vibration results in Rock


PPV vs Scaled Distance
500 450 400 350 PPV (mm/sec)
Measured in Rock

y = 2620.4x
2

-1.6842

300 250 200 150 100


QuakeW Generated in Rock

R = 0.893 y = 2556.2x
2 -1.2282

R = 0.9548

Which range will control the coefficient ?

Too small difference

50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Coefficients appear good match, but the trend line in numerical model appears higher. This is due to controlling too small vibration in sensitive structures and not recording close range vibration in rock.

54

Numerical vibration results in Soil


PPV vs Scaled Distance
120 100
Measured in Soil
2

y = 2469.6x

-1.5665

R = 0.7781

PPV (mm/sec)

80
QuakeW Generated in Soil
2

y = 2090.1x

-1.6434

R = 0.7662

60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Coefficients and trend line appear good match. This is due to large vibration obtained through HKU data (sensors placed at close range).
55

If removing HKU and Numerically Generated Close Range Results in Soil


PPV vs Scaled Distance Removing HKU and Numerically Generated Close Range Data
25
Measured in Soil

20 PPV (mm/sec)

y = 604.75x 2 R = 0.7504

-1.2328

QuakeW Generated in Soil

15

y = 289.03x 2 R = 0.5344

-1.1499

10

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

Coefficients and trend line appear good match with Mines and Quarries Data. i.e., Mines and Quarries Data did not measure the full range of blasting vibration

D PPV = 310 0.5 W

1.22

50 Percentile

56

Numerical Modeling using Quake/W and Slope/W

Initialize in-situ stresses and prescribe proper boundary conditions

Parameters Material Model 1 (CDG) Linear Elastic

Stiffness Model Constant Young's Modulus (E) Poisson's Ratio 0.33 20000 kPa

Material Model

2 (Rock) Linear Elastic

Stiffness Model Constant Young's Modulus (E) Poisson's Ratio 0.33 2000000 kPa

57

Y Total Stress Contour

Ensure Initial Stresses are correctly generated based on unit weight of material

58

Change boundary condition for dynamic analysis Ensure boundary is far away from input vibration source (tunnel blast)

59

Vibration receiving nodes

Enlarged View Vibration receiving nodes Scaled Distances

Blasting Source

Blasting Source

60

Average Charge Weight Per Delay is used = 0.929 kg (range from 0.275 kg to 2.308 kg)

61

2.5 m An assumption representing head and bench blasting. Assume blast induced vibration zone 2.5 m representing full face blasting zone (14 m diameter). Trial and error to match the measured vibration.

2.0 m (reasonable)

62

Parameter Material Model P Fn. # G Fn. # 1 (CDG) Linear Elastic 0 0 Constant 20000 kPa 0.33 2.5%
Variable by trial and error to match the measured vibration.

Stiffness Model Young's Modulus (E) Poisson's Ratio Damping Ratio

Material Model P Fn. # G Fn. #

2 (Rock) Linear Elastic 0 0 Constant 20000000 kPa 0.33 0.05%


Variable by trial and error to match the measured vibration.

Stiffness Model Young's Modulus (E) Poisson's Ratio Damping Ratio

63

Silty or Clayey Fine Sand with low plasticity

Borden, R. H., Shao, L. and Gupta, A. 1996.

64

Original vibration data recorded on 13 December 2004 on 1st Berm


25 20

HKU sensor

X-Velocity (m/sec) (x 0.001)

15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (sec)

Vibration data magnified by 2.5 to represent the blasting source (trial and error to match the measured vibration)
60

X-Velocity (m/sec) (x 0.001)

40

20

-20

-40

-60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

65
Time (sec)

Numerical analysis

Vibration received
25 20

X-Velocity (m/sec) (x 0.001)

15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (sec)

Soil

2
60

3
40 20 0 -20 -40

6
Rock

Blasting source
X-Velocity (m/sec) (x 0.001)

-60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (sec)

66

Numerical analysis if incorrect damping ratio of Rock is used

PPV vs Scaled Distance

1200 1000
Measured in Rock

PPV (mm/sec)

800
QuakeW Generated in Rock

y = 2620.4x 2 R = 0.893 -1.2282 y = 2556.2x R = 0.9548


2

-1.6842

600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

QuakeW Generated with Rock Damping Ratio 0.2

100

110

120

130

140

150

Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

67

Numerical analysis if incorrect damping ratio of Soil is used

PPV vs Scaled Distance


250

200 PPV (mm/sec)

Measured in Soil QuakeW Generated in Soil

y = 2311.2x
2

-1.5594

R = 0.7517 y = 2090.1x
2 -1.6434

150
QuakeW Generated with Soil Damping Ratio 0.3

R = 0.7662

100

50

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Scaled Distance (m/kg^0.5)

68

Displacement vectors direction reversal Sign reversal of displacement vector at Time Step 16. Displacement to the left and right along some vertical sections

69

Time Step 21 Displacement to the left

70

Time Step 26 Displacement to the right and left

71

Carry out Slope Analysis using the Dynamic Stress Generated at Every Time Step
Locate critical slip surface for each blast location for all time steps

72

Stability Factor = 1.374 (Before Blasting) Stability Factor = 1.363 (During Blasting) Drop in Stability Factor = 1.0%

Blast Location

73

Stability Factor vs Time


1.40

Stability Factor = 1.374 (Before Blasting) Stability Factor = 1.363 (During Blasting) Drop in Stability Factor = 1.0%

1.38

Stability Factor

1.36

1.34

1.32

1.30 0 1 2 Time 3 4 5 6

74

Stability Factor = 1.374 (Before Blasting) Stability Factor = 1.352 (During Blasting) Drop in Stability Factor = 2.0%

Blast Location

75

Stability Factor vs Time


1.38

Stability Factor = 1.374 (Before Blasting) Stability Factor = 1.352 (During Blasting) Drop in Stability Factor = 2.0%

1.36

Stability Factor

1.34

1.32

1.30 0 1 2 Time 3 4 5 6

76

SDOF at 30 Hz Velocity = 9 mm/sec Acceleration = 0.2g Displacement = 0.05 mm

77

Summary of Findings: Preliminary assessment of Eagles Nest Tunnel suggests the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Data must be scrutinized to take into account the geology, free surfaces between the source and the receivers. Should examine the data instead of providing a trend line to a log-log plot. K and in Rock is higher than that in Soil. Monitoring of vibration close to blasting source is needed to fully understand the attenuation law. Attenuation law changes rapidly when data is recorded close to the source. Numerical results, based on calibration of field data, provide good match with the measured attenuation law. Soil is a compliant system (different points within the system move differently and out-of-phase from each other) Preliminary numerical analysis shows that the reduction of FOS for slope due to tunnel blasting is small as compared to the analysis assumed in GEO Report No. 15.
78

9.

Potential room for relaxing the vibration limits in slope.

79

S-ar putea să vă placă și