Experimental study on prediction model for maximum rebound ratio

Abstract

The proposed prediction model for estimating the maximum rebound ratio was applied to a field explosion test, Mandai test in Singapore. The estimated possible maximum peak particle velocities(PPVs) were compared with the field records. Three of the four available field-recorded PPVs lie exactly below the estimated possible maximum values as expected, while the fourth available field-recorded PPV lies close to and a bit higher than the estimated maximum possible PPV. The comparison results show that the predicted PPVs from the proposed prediction model for the maximum rebound ratio match the field-recorded PPVs better than those from two empirical formulae. The very good agreement between the estimated and field-recorded values validates the proposed prediction model for estimating PPV in a rock mass with a set of joints due to application of a two dimensional compressional wave at the boundary of a tunnel or a borehole.

Keywords

blasting wave / maximum rebound ratio / joint stiffness / field explosion test

References

[1] LeiW. D., TengJ., ZhaoJ., et al.. A study on transmission ratio (T_n) in the radian direction normal to joints in 2-D compressional wave propagation in rock masses[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing, 2006, 13(3): 199-206

[2] LeiW. D., TengJ., ZhaoJ., et al.. Numerical study on maximum rebound ratio in blasting wave propagation along radian direction normal to joints [J]. Journal of Central South University of Technology, 2006, 13(6): 743-748

[3] ChenS. G., CaiJ. G., ZhaoJ., et al.. Discrete element modeling of an underground explosion in jointed rock mass[J]. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2000, 18(2): 59-78

[4] ChenS. G., ZhaoJ., ZhouY. X.. UDEC modelling of a field explosion test[J]. Fragblast — International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2000, 4(2): 149-163

[5] LeeC. B.Fracturing characteristics of Bukit Timah granite [D], 2002, Singapore, Nanyang Technological University

[6] BieniawskiZ. T.. Engineering classification of joint rock masses [J]. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, 1973, 15(12): 335-343

[7] SerafimJ. L., PereiraJ. P.. Consideration of the geomechanical classification of Bieniawski[C]. Proceedings of International Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, 1983, Lisbon, Portugal: 33-44

[8] HartR. D.. An Introduction to distinct element modeling for rock engineering[C]// HUDSON J A. Comprehensive Rock Engineering, 1993, Oxford, Pergamon Press: 245-261

[9] ZhaoJ., HefnyM. A., ZhouY. X.. Hydrofracturing in-situ stress measurement in Singapore granite [J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2005, 42(4): 577-583

[10] ZhaoJ.. Construction and utilization of rock caverns in Singapore, part A: bedrock resource of the Bukit Timah granite[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 1996, 11(1): 65-72

[11] LeiW.-dong.Numerical Studies on 2-D Compressional Wave Propagation in Jointed Rock Masses[D], 2005, Singapore, Nanyang Technological University

[12] AmbraseysN. R., HendronA. J.. Dynamic behavior of rock masses[C]. Proceedings of Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1968, London, John Wiley and Sons: 203-227

[13] WuT. H.Soil Dynamics[M], 1975, Boston, Allyn and Bacon