Yin, Y; Wang, J; Zou, B; Zhang, J; Su, Y and Sun, Q (2023) Evaluation of controlled blasting quality for rock-mass tunneling based on multiple indices. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(1): 04022155, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Current index factors considered in tunnel blasting quality evaluation are relatively onefold, as well as the unrefined evaluation standards, which may debase the reliability of quality evaluations. In this study, an evaluation index system of tunnel-controlled blasting quality was first established considering the characteristics of geometry and safety. The fractal dimensions of blasting contours were calculated based on the field over/underbreak data using wavelet analysis. Then, the index grades and the index weights were obtained via cluster analyses and an innovative combination weighting method, respectively. Finally, an unascertained measure model (UMM) was established and applied in Zigaojian Tunnel blasting evaluation. The results indicate that the evaluation grade of tunnel blasting quality turns down with the increase of the intensive degree of discontinuities in rock mass. The UMM makes evaluation results more refined compared with the traditional scoring method, which prepares an important basis for the quality optimization of tunnel blasting construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | controlled blasting; evaluation index; index weight; over/underbreak; rock mass structure; stability; tunnel construction; unascertained measure |
| Index terms: | geometry, tunnel construction, dimension, stability, tunnel, cluster analysis |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, civil engineering, structural engineering, health monitoring assessment and metrics, data analysis and analytics, mathematical modelling |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here