Effect evaluation and experimental validation of engineering blasting based on extension-analytic hierarchy process model

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.12.0509

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to ensure the normal passage of vehicles and the safety of the existing tunnel support structure during the blasting through the highway, the evaluation method of engineering blasting effect based on extension-AHP model was proposed. Firstly, by means of investigation and analysis, the blasting effect rating standard and index system were established, and the model was applied to the evaluation of a water diversion project. Secondly, AHP was used to determine the weights of evaluation indexes, and the combined relevance degree of blasting rating was calculated. Finally, the results of the blasting effect rating were verified by acoustic detection test, blasting shock wave test and blasting seismic wave test. The study shows that the combined relevance degree $Q j (X - M)$ is calculated by extension-AHP model. The blasting effect of the tunnel boring is Q_max=-0.017, and the evaluation grade is a good blasting effect. The surrounding rock loose circle of the tunnel is relatively small and evenly distributed. The influence range of the surrounding rock stability is about 0.5-0.6 m. The blasting energy does not cause the rock rupture zone to further extend the signs of the inward. The energy attenuation trend of blasting seismic waves is different under different wave frequencies. However, the attenuation rate is greater than that of low-frequency component energy in the overall performance of high-frequency component energy. In the same channel, with the increase of the distance between the blasting source and the measurement points, the overall vibration waveform becomes narrower. The main frequency increases first and then decreases, and the main frequency domain moves to the low-frequency direction. The overpressure peak attenuation characteristic of blasting shock wave meets P_S=αl^-^γ. With the increase in the distance from the blasting source, blasting shock wave overpressure attenuation coefficient is an increasing trend. The measurement range belongs to the shock wave attenuation zone. The shock wave overpressure peak of the tunnel entrance and the construction outside tend to converge.

Key words: extension-analytic hierarchy process(AHP) model, blasting effect evaluation, acoustic detection, blasting shock wave, blasting seismic wave

CLC Number:

X932爆炸安全与防火、防爆

NI Suqian, XU Ying, YANG Rongzhou, YAO Xiangyang, YUAN Yanwei, DING Jinfu. Effect evaluation and experimental validation of engineering blasting based on extension-analytic hierarchy process model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(12): 129-139.

Figures/Tables 19

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Standard of evaluation grade

评级		M₁	M₂	M₃	M₄	M₅	实际量值
Y₁	Z₁₁	[1,0.61]	(0.61,0.38]	(0.38,0.25]	(0.25,0.17]	(0.17,0]	0.404
	Z₁₂	[1,0.88]	(0.88,0.70]	(0.70,0.53]	(0.53,0.32]	(0.32,0]	0.663
	Z₁₃	[1,0.86]	(0.86,0.71]	(0.71,0.57]	(0.57,0.34]	(0.34,0]	0.523
	Z₁₄	[1,0.89]	(0.89,0.68]	(0.68,0.47]	(0.47,0.29]	(0.29,0]	0.503
	Z₁₅	[1,0.71]	(0.71,0.42]	(0.42,0.29]	(0.29,0.20]	(0.20,0]	0.393
Y₂	Z₂₁	[1,0.79]	(0.79,0.53]	(0.53,0.26]	(0.26,0.08]	(0.08,0]	0.204
	Z₂₂	[1,0.78]	(0.78,0.46]	(0.46,0.18]	(0.18,0.08]	(0.08,0]	0.383
	Z₂₃	[1,0.59]	(0.59,0.27]	(0.27,0.15]	(0.15,0.07]	(0.07,0]	0.445
	Z₂₄	[1,0.84]	(0.84,0.62]	(0.62,0.45]	(0.45,0.24]	(0.24,0]	0.397
	Z₂₅	[1,0.63]	(0.63,0.42]	(0.42,0.21]	(0.21,0.10]	(0.10,0]	0.295
	Z₂₆	[1,0.90]	(0.90,0.69]	(0.69,0.51]	(0.51,0.31]	(0.31,0]	0.527
	Z₂₇	[1,0.65]	(0.65,0.34]	(0.34,0.13]	(0.13,0.05]	(0.05,0]	0.544
Y₃	Z₃₁	[1,0.63]	(0.63,0.32]	(0.32,0.16]	(0.16,0.07]	(0.07,0]	0.274
	Z₃₂	[1,0.72]	(0.72,0.50]	(0.50,0.28]	(0.28,0.09]	(0.09,0]	0.109
	Z₃₃	[1,0.82]	(0.82,0.56]	(0.56,0.29]	(0.29,0.11]	(0.11,0]	0.545
	Z₃₄	[1,0.77]	(0.77,0.43]	(0.43,0.24]	(0.24,0.08]	(0.08,0]	0.130
	Z₃₅	[1,0.88]	(0.88,0.67]	(0.67,0.39]	(0.39,0.16]	(0.16,0]	0.805
	Z₃₆	[1,0.86]	(0.86,0.64]	(0.64,0.40]	(0.40,0.18]	(0.18,0]	0.717
Y₄	Z₄₁	[1,0.88]	(0.88,0.67]	(0.67,0.46]	(0.46,0.29]	(0.29,0]	0.642
	Z₄₂	[1,0.86]	(0.86,0.61]	(0.61,0.49]	(0.49,0.29]	(0.29,0]	0.738
	Z₄₃	[1,0.61]	(0.61,0.33]	(0.33,0.16]	(0.16,0.06]	(0.06,0]	0.439
	Z₄₄	[1,0.82]	(0.82,0.54]	(0.54,0.38]	(0.38,0.21]	(0.21,0]	0.255
	Z₄₅	[1,0.71]	(0.71,0.40]	(0.40,0.29]	(0.29,0.18]	(0.18,0]	0.417
	Z₄₆	[1,0.67]	(0.67,0.46]	(0.46,0.33]	(0.33,0.19]	(0.19,0]	0.343
	Z₄₇	[1,0.92]	(0.92,0.69]	(0.69,0.46]	(0.46,0.20]	(0.20,0]	0.531
Y₅	Z₅₁	[1,0.76]	(0.76,0.48]	(0.48,0.29]	(0.29,0.07]	(0.07,0]	0.471
	Z₅₂	[1,0.60]	(0.60,0.28]	(0.28,0.15]	(0.15,0.05]	(0.05,0]	0.099
	Z₅₃	[1,0.67]	(0.67,0.46]	(0.46,0.25]	(0.25,0.08]	(0.08,0]	0.455
	Z₅₄	[1,0.68]	(0.68,0.36]	(0.36,0.17]	(0.17,0.06]	(0.06,0]	0.187

Table 1

Fig.3

Table 2

Consistency checking result

判断矩阵	单层指标权重R	λ_max	CI	CR
X	R_X_-_Y=(0.209,0.076,0.491,0.089,0.136)^T	5.376	0.094	0.084
Y₁	$R Y 1 - Z$ =(0.088,0.013,0.046,0.018,0.044)^T	5.167	0.042	0.037
Y₂	$R Y 2 - Z$ =(0.080,0.086,0.054,0.055,0.157,0.034,0.024)^T	7.659	0.110	0.081
Y₃	$R Y 3 - Z$ =(0.041,0.014,0.040,0.006,0.028,0.007)^T	6.451	0.090	0.072
Y₄	$R Y 4 - Z$ =(0.030,0.011,0.003,0.006,0.011,0.011,0.002)^T	7.744	0.124	0.091
Y₅	$R Y 5 - Z$ =(0.043,0.015,0.026,0.005)^T	4.234	0.078	0.088

Table 2

Table 3

Single layer index -grade correlation degree Qj(Z-M)

评价指标	$R X - Z$	Q₁	Q₂	Q₃	Q₄	Q₅	隶属级别	评级
Z₁₁	0.088	-0.338	0.104	-0.039	-0.205	-0.282	M₂	良好
Z₁₂	0.013	-0.247	-0.053	0.218	-0.283	-0.504	M₃	普通
Z₁₃	0.046	-0.392	-0.263	-0.082	0.204	-0.277	M₄	较差
Z₁₄	0.018	-0.435	-0.260	0.157	-0.062	-0.300	M₃	普通
Z₁₅	0.044	-0.446	-0.064	0.208	-0.145	-0.241	M₃	普通
Z₂₁	0.080	-0.742	-0.615	-0.215	0.311	-0.135	M₄	较差
Z₂₂	0.086	-0.509	-0.167	0.275	-0.248	-0.329	M₃	普通
Z₂₃	0.054	-0.246	0.453	-0.240	-0.347	-0.403	M₂	良好
Z₂₄	0.055	-0.527	-0.360	-0.118	0.252	-0.207	M₄	较差
Z₂₅	0.157	-0.532	-0.298	0.405	-0.108	-0.217	M₃	普通
Z₂₆	0.034	-0.414	-0.236	0.094	-0.035	-0.314	M₃	普通
Z₂₇	0.024	-0.163	0.342	-0.309	-0.476	-0.520	M₂	良好
Z₃₁	0.041	-0.565	-0.144	0.288	-0.136	-0.219	M₃	普通
Z₃₂	0.014	-0.849	-0.782	-0.611	0.100	-0.021	M₄	较差
Z₃₃	0.040	-0.335	-0.027	0.056	-0.359	-0.489	M₃	普通
Z₃₄	0.006	-0.831	-0.698	-0.458	0.313	-0.054	M₄	较差
Z₃₅	0.028	-0.085	0.357	-0.409	-0.680	-0.768	M₂	良好
Z₃₆	0.007	-0.166	0.350	-0.214	-0.528	-0.655	M₂	良好
Z₄₁	0.030	-0.270	-0.042	0.133	-0.337	-0.496	M₃	普通
Z₄₂	0.011	-0.142	0.488	-0.328	-0.486	-0.631	M₂	良好
Z₄₃	0.003	-0.280	0.389	-0.163	-0.332	-0.403	M₂	良好
Z₄₄	0.006	-0.689	-0.528	-0.329	0.265	-0.057	M₄	较差
Z₄₅	0.011	-0.413	0.055	-0.028	-0.179	-0.289	M₂	良好
Z₄₆	0.011	-0.488	-0.254	0.100	-0.019	-0.189	M₃	普通
Z₄₇	0.002	-0.423	-0.230	0.309	-0.131	-0.414	M₃	普通
Z₅₁	0.043	-0.380	-0.019	0.047	-0.255	-0.431	M₃	普通
Z₅₂	0.015	-0.835	-0.646	-0.340	0.490	-0.052	M₄	较差
Z₅₃	0.026	-0.321	-0.011	0.024	-0.273	-0.408	M₃	普通
Z₅₄	0.005	-0.725	-0.481	0.089	-0.020	-0.135	M₃	普通

Table 3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Table 4

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Table 5

Fig.13

Fig.14

References 15

[1]	徐颖, 袁璞. 爆炸荷载下深部围岩分区破裂模型试验研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2015, 34(增2): 3844-3851.
	XU Ying, YUAN Pu. Model test of zonal disintegration in deep rock under blasting load[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2015, 34(S2): 3844-3851.
[2]	汪旭光, 吴春平. 智能爆破的产生背景及新思维[J]. 金属矿山, 2022 (7): 2-6.
	WANG Xuguang, WU Chunping. The background and new thinking of intelligent blasting[J]. Metal Mine, 2022(7): 2-6.
[3]	沈世伟, 许君臣, 代树林, 等. 基于熵值赋权法的节理岩体隧道爆破质量可拓学评价[J]. 土木工程学报, 2013, 46(12): 118-126.
	SHEN Shiwei, XU Junchen, DAI Shulin, et al. Extenics evaluation of joint rock tunnel blasting quality based onentropy weighting method[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2013, 46(12): 118-126.
[4]	许振浩, 李术才, 李利平, 等. 基于层次分析法的岩溶隧道突水突泥风险评估[J]. 岩土力学, 2011, 32(6): 1757-1766.
	XU Zhenhao, LI Shucai, LI Liping, et al. Risk assessment of water or mud inrush of karst tunnelsbased on analytic hierarchy process[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2011, 32(6): 1757-1766.
[5]	赵万强, 路军富, 汤印, 等. 铁路隧道底鼓风险等级划分方法及控制措施研究[J]. 现代隧道技术, 2023, 60(4): 178-187,212.
	ZHAO Wanqiang, LU Junfu, TANG Yin, et al. Study on risk level classification method and control measures for railway tunnel floor heave[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2023, 60(4): 178-187,212.
[6]	GORAI A K. Sensitivity analysis of GIS-based fuzzy-AHP model for prediction of slope failure susceptibility index[J]. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 2022, 50(4): 715-733.
[7]	CHEN Hongyu, YANG Sai, FENG Zongbao, et al. Safety evaluation of buildings adjacent to shield construction in karst areas: an improved extension cloud approach[J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023, 124: DOI:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106386.
[8]	LI Qingfu, ZHOU Jianpeng, FENG Jinghe. Safety risk assessment of highway bridge construction based on cloud entropy power method[J]. Applied Sciences-Basel, 2022, 12(17):DOI: 10.3390/app12178692.
[9]	杜岩, 白云飞, 张晓勇, 等. 基于多种风险因素的矸石山边坡风险评价[J]. 工程力学, 2022, 39(10): 249-256.
	DU Yan, BAI Yunfei, ZHANG Xiaoyong, et al. Multiple risk factors risk assessment of coal gangue slope considering[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2022, 39(10): 249-256.
[10]	安永林, 李佳豪, 赵丹, 等. 可拓法评估运营隧道衬砌结构健康实例[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2020, 17(2): 422-428.
	AN Yonglin, LI Jiahao, ZHAO Dan, et al. Comprehensive extension assessment on tunnel structure health[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2020, 17(2): 422-428.
[11]	陈祥, 孙进忠, 张杰坤, 等. 岩爆的判别指标和分级标准及可拓综合判别方法[J]. 土木工程学报, 2009, 42(9): 82-88.
	CHEN Xiang, SUN Jinzhong, ZHANG Jiekun, et al. Judgment indexes and classification criteria of rock burst with the extension judgment method[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2009, 42(9): 82-88.
[12]	王述红, 王斐笠, 高红岩, 等. 基于可拓理论的边坡地震稳定性评价方法研究[J]. 土木工程学报, 2016, 49(增2): 132-137.
	WANG Shuhong, WANG Feili, GAO Hongyan, et al. Evaluation method of seismic slope stability based on extension theory[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2016, 49(S2): 132-137.
[13]	梁桂兰, 徐卫亚, 谈小龙. 基于熵权的可拓理论在岩体质量评价中的应用[J]. 岩土力学, 2010, 31(2): 535-540.
	LIANG Guilan, XU Weiya, TAN Xiaolong. Application of extension theory based on entropy weight torock quality evaluation[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2010, 31(2): 535-540.
[14]	张永刚, 王永红, 王梦恕. 渤海湾海底隧道工程施工风险评估与控制分析[J]. 土木工程学报, 2015, 48(增1): 414-418.
	ZHANG Yonggang, WANG Yonghong, WANG Mengshu. Risk assessment of construction for Bohai bay subsea tunnel[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2015, 48(S1): 414-418.
[15]	钱蓉, 邓树新, 王明洋, 等. 深部工程围岩松动圈范围确定及变形破坏机理[J]. 同济大学学报:自然科学版, 2023, 51(6): 839-845.
	QIAN Rong, DENG Shuxin, WANG Mingyang, et al. Range determination and deformation failure mechanism of loosening zone of surrounding rock in deep engineering[J]. Journal of Tongji University:Natural Science, 2023, 51(6): 839-845.

测点	通道	最大振速/ (cm·s^-1)	主振频率/Hz	持续时间/s
N₁	x	0.697	42.725	0.819
	y	0.518	32.959	0.819
	z	-1.245	35.4	0.819
N₂	x	0.954	104.37	1.843
	y	-1.912	62.866	1.843
	z	4.122	108.643	1.843
N₃	x	1.479	59.204	1.843
	y	0.732	61.646	1.842
	z	-4.097	61.646	1.842