Hindawi

Shock and Vibration

Volume 2019, Article ID 1828313, 10 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1828313

Research Article
Analysis of the Cavity Formation Mechanism of Wedge Cut
Blasting in Hard Rock

Zhongkang Wang ,1,2 Xiaowei Gu ,1,2 Wenlong Zhang,3 Qiankun Xie,4 Xiaochuan Xu,2
and Qing Wang 2
1
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education on Safe Mining of Deep Metal Mines, Northeastern University,
Shenyang 110819, China
2
School of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
3
Guangdong People Blasting Engineering Co. Ltd., Guangzhou 510000, China
4
The First Engineering Co. Ltd. of CTCE Group, Hefei 230041, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xiaowei Gu; [email protected]

Received 18 December 2018; Revised 12 March 2019; Accepted 9 April 2019; Published 9 May 2019

Academic Editor: Fabio Minghini

Copyright © 2019 Zhongkang Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

The basic process of cut blasting is to break rock, throw fragments, and form a cavity. Based on the characteristics of cut blasting
and the combined effect of stress waves and detonation gas, the evolution process of wedge cut blasting is divided into two stages,
and a theoretical model is proposed to investigate the cavity formation mechanism by theoretical analysis and field tests. In phase
one, rock breaking is caused by stress waves. By considering the dynamic strength of the rock, a computational model is built for
the rock failure zone derived from the coupled cylindrical charge explosion. In phase two, the driving force of the detonation gas
overcomes the total resistance of the surrounding rock mass, accelerates fragments, and then throws fragments to form a cavity.
The criterion of cavity formation is established on the basis of the quasi-static loading of the detonation gas. The theoretical model
provides an overall interpretation of the cavity formation mechanism, in which stress waves break rock and detonation gas throws
fragments. A specific case indicates that the range of the failure zone is approximately 18 times the borehole radius in granite and
that the hole-bottom spacing of the wedge cut can be designed as 50 cm; in addition, detonation gas is sufficient to overcome the
total resistance, accelerate rock fragments, throw fragments, and form a cavity. Field tests present favourable blasting results, with
a high utilization rate of boreholes and uniform fragment sizes. Therefore, the model could provide theoretical support and
technical guidance for wedge cut blasting in hard rock.

1. Introduction requirements; thus, these cuts have been widely used in hard
rock excavation. Langefors and Kihlstrom [3] studied cut
With the rapid progress of modernization, the construction blasting earlier and proposed some cut patterns. Shapiro [4]
of high-speed railways, freeways, and underground rock compared wedge cuts with other cuts and believed that
projects has grown rapidly. Currently, drilling and blasting wedge cuts ensured maximum efficiency in soft rock with
methods are still the main methods of tunnel and un- relatively shallow blast holes, i.e., shallower than 2.5 m.
derground rock space excavation. More than 95% of Chakraborty et al. [5] proved that wedge cuts were more
mountain tunnels are formed using drilling and blasting in productive than parallel cuts in small drivages and developed
China [1]. Cut blasting is key to creating another free surface an empirical relation for the precise prediction of the powder
for subsequent blasting and influences the overall blasting factor and for the specific drilling with wedge cuts by
procedure [2]. Wedge cuts have the advantages of few considering rock strength, Barton’s rock mass quality, and
boreholes, easy rock casting, and low drilling accuracy hole depth. Cardu and Seccatore [6] offered statistics of
2 Shock and Vibration

industrial trends in which wedge cuts appeared to be pressure further extends the fractures [15]. In this paper,
adopted in a wider variety of applications. based on the theory of the coaction of stress waves and
Due to the complexity of the mechanism of wedge cut detonation gas, the evolution process of wedge cut blasting is
blasting, there are few theoretical studies on the cavity divided into two stages. In the first stage, assuming that rock
formation of wedge cuts and most of the published literature breaking caused by stress waves occurs, the objective is to
is about engineering applications. Dai and Du [7] fully establish a computational model of the rock failure zone by
considered the failure modes of different sides of cut rock considering the rock dynamic strength. In the second stage, a
mass and provided a qualitative explanation for the cavity criterion is proposed for cavity formation based on the
formation mechanism of wedge cuts, believing that the quasi-static loading of detonation gas, assuming that the
bottom, left, and right sides had been broken under the driving force from the detonation gas needs to overcome the
action of explosion and that shear failure occurred on the total resistance from the reserved surrounding rock mass,
upper and lower sides. Based on the quasi-static theory of accelerate fragments, and then throw fragments to form a
detonation gas and the limit equilibrium theory of rock cavity. The cavity formation mechanism is investigated via
mechanics, Shan et al. [8] analysed the generation process of modelling and the theoretical analysis from the initiation of
a cavity by considering that upper, lower, left, and right sides the cylindrical charge to the formation of the cavity.
were the result of shear damage and that the underside was
due to tensile damage. Furthermore, numerical simulation is
used extensively in cut blasting due to its rapid imple- 2. Failure Zone from Coupled Cylindrical
mentation and low cost [9]. Using the dynamic analysis
Charge Explosion
software LS-DYNA, Wang and Konietzdy [10] simulated
stress and crack evolution in an infinite rock mass with a After charge detonation, the rock mass around a borehole is
single free face during blasting. Yang et al. [11] performed a usually divided into three areas based on the failure degree of
study of duplex wedge cut blasting with 12 holes via nu- the rock: the crushed zone, the fractured zone, and the elastic
merical simulation, and the results revealed the propagation vibration zone. In the near area, the violent explosion shock
of stress waves in hollow cavities and the formation process wave causes a small range of rock crushing, i.e., the crushed
of cavities at the bottom of the blastholes. Xie et al. [12] zone. Then, the shock wave rapidly attenuates into stress
adopted the RHT model in LS-DYNA to analyse damage wave, which generates cracks in the middle area, that is,
mechanisms of cut blasting under high in-situ stresses and fractured zone I. The stress wave later weakens into seismic
proposed a modified design method applicable to deep rock wave, which arouses elastic vibration in the far area, known
mass according to numerical optimization simulation. Hu as the elastic vibration zone. Although the detonation gas
et al. established a model of wedge cut blasting by combining penetrates into cracks and elongates them, forming fractured
Auto-CAD with ANSYS and employed LS-DYNA to sim- zone II, the detonation gas plays a much weaker role in rock
ulate cavity extension. In terms of temporal and spatial fragmentation than the stress waves. In cut blasting, we focus
evolution with multidirection cutaway views, the applica- on the crushed zone and fractured zone I caused by the
bility of wedge cut blasting for roadway excavation was shock wave and the stress wave, respectively, and the
studied [13]. Although considerable efforts have been made combination of these two zones is called the failure zone. The
in past decades to understand the cavity formation mech- combined effects of explosion shock wave and stress wave
anism of cut blasting, few studies have considered the whole are collectively called stress waves in this paper. The par-
process of cut blasting from charge initiation to cavity titions of rock blasting around a borehole are shown in
formation. Compared with open-pit blasting, cut blasting is Figure 1 [16].
more difficult due to the lack of free surface. The basic
process of cut blasting is to break rock, throw fragments, and
form a cavity. The hypotheses about cavity formation in 2.1. Blasting Load. After detonation of a coupled cylindrical
wedge cut blasting in the literature are not very reasonable. charge, the blasting impact load directly exerts a force on the
In addition, the whole process of wedge cut blasting has not hole wall. Because of the lack of feasible measuring methods,
been comprehensively considered. Numerical simulation is empirical formulas are usually adopted to estimate the
commonly limited to the research on stress propagation and detonation pressure [17]. Based on the equation of the state
rock failure, and the consideration about fragments casting of ideal gases, Fickett and Davis [18] and Henrych et al. [19]
is insufficient. Therefore, by considering the characteristics proposed a simplified formula to calculate the Chapman–
of cut blasting and the effects of stress waves and detonation Jouguet (CJ) detonation pressure from a cylindrical charge:
gas, it is meaningful to investigate the whole process of 1
wedge cut blasting, which includes rock breaking and P0 � ρ D2 , (1)
1+n 0
fragments casting.
Research on postblast fractures suggests that stress waves where P0 is the CJ detonation pressure, ρ0 is the explosive
from the detonating explosive contribute to rock fracturing, density, D is the detonation velocity, and n is the specific
while the detonation gas is responsible for moving or heat ratio. This equation gives the well-known expression
throwing fractured rock [14]. Recent studies have revealed when assuming n � 3 [20].
that stress waves are responsible for the initiation of the The impact load arouses shock wave in the vicinity of the
crushed zone and surrounding radial fractures, while the gas borehole, according to acoustic approximation theory [21]:
Shock and Vibration 3

taken as c � μd /(1 − μd ), where μd is the dynamic Poisson’s

ratio of the rock [21].
Fractured The dynamic Poisson’s ratio is an important parameter
zone II in the numerical analysis of the rock dynamic response. The
dynamic Poisson’s ratio is related to the load, moisture
content, loading rate, and stress state. In some rock en-
gineering applications with limited field data, a value be-
Crushed tween 0.2 and 0.3 is a common estimate for Poisson’s ratio
zo [22]. Generally, the static Poisson’s ratio of intact rocks can
ne
be directly determined in the laboratory using static tests,
and because the dynamic Poisson’s ratio is slightly lower
than the static Poisson’s ratio, the value of the dynamic
Fractured Poisson’s ratio can be estimated by the empirical equation
zone I μd � 0.8 μ, where μ is the static Poisson’s ratio of the rock
[21, 23, 24].

Elastic vibration
2.2. Rock Failure Criterion. During blasting, the rock around
zone
the borehole is in a state of three-dimensional stress mixed
with tension, compression, and shear. This complex stress
Figure 1: Partitions of rock blasting around a borehole. The state of the surrounding rock can be expressed at any point
combination of the crushed zone and fractured zone I is called the by the equivalent stress [21]:
failure zone. 􏽱����������������������������
1 2 2 2
σ e � √� σ r − σ θ 􏼁 + σ θ − σ z 􏼁 + σ z − σ r 􏼁 . (4)
2
2ρm Cp When blasting, the rock is subjected to instantaneous
Pr � ·P , (2)
ρm Cp + ρ0 D 0 impact load. Only when the dynamic strength of the rock is
adequately considered can the characteristics of rock
where Pr is the initial pressure of the shock wave on the blasting be truly reflected. The crushed zone is caused by
borehole wall, CP is the longitudinal wave velocity of the rock dynamic compression, while fractured zone I is the
rock, and ρm is the rock density. result of tensile failure. According to the failure charac-
The shock wave causes rock crushing near the charge, teristics and the von Mises criterion, the rock failure cri-
which consumes a large amount of energy; thus, the wave terion is represented as
rapidly attenuates into stress wave and spreads to the sur- σ e > σ cd (crushed zone),
rounding rock mass, which is subjected to complex stress 􏼨 (5)
σ e > σ td (fractured zone I),
loading. Since the longitudinal (i.e., axial) dimension of the
borehole is significantly larger than the transverse (i.e., radial where σ cd and σ td are the dynamic compressive strength and
and circumferential) dimensions and all sections perpen- the dynamic tensile strength of the rock, respectively.
dicular to the axis of the borehole are the same, both the The strain rate effect of rock-like material strength has
radial and circumferential stresses of the rock mass and the been generally recognized and accepted by researchers in
constraint conditions hardly change along the axis at the related fields. According to a study of the strain rate
moment of explosion. Thus, this situation can be simplified threshold value [25], rock strength presents significant rate-
to a plane strain problem, and the stress at a point in the rock dependent characteristics when the strain rate exceeds
mass can be expressed as 5 × 10−4 s−1. The strain rate range of engineering blasting is
−α approximately 100–103 s−1 [26], and the blasting load be-
⎪
⎧
⎪ σ r � Pr 􏼒rr 􏼓 , longs to dynamic load with a high strain rate. The dynamic
⎪
⎪ b
⎪
⎪ strength of granite increases with the strain rate under a high
⎪
⎨
⎪ σ θ � −cσ r , (3) strain rate, and the rock dynamic strength has a linear re-
⎪
⎪ lationship with the 1/3 power of the strain rate [27, 28], as
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ follows:
⎩
σ z � μd σ r + σ θ 􏼁,
⎨ σ cd � σ c · ε_ 1/3 ,
⎧
⎩ (6)
where σ r , σ θ , and σ z are the radial stress, circumferential σ td � σ t · ε_ 1/3 ,
stress, and axial stress, respectively; r is the distance from the
point to the axis of the cylindrical charge; rb is the borehole where σ c and σ t are the static compressive strength and static
radius; α is the coefficient of attenuation, taken as α1 � 2 + c tensile strength of the rock, respectively, and ε_ is the strain
in the shock wave zone and α2 � 2 − c in the stress wave rate, which is higher in the shock wave zone (_ε1/3 � 5) and
zone; and c is the coefficient of the lateral confining pressure, lower in the stress wave zone (_ε1/3 � 3).
4 Shock and Vibration

2.3. Failure Zone of Blasting. The crushed zone generated by c

shock wave is I
1/α1 J
rc K·P
� 􏼠√ � r 􏼡 , (7)
rb 2 σ cd 1
M
A 4 N
where rc is the radius of the crushed
􏽱�������������������������������� � zone and 2
2 2
K � (1 + c) + 2μd (μd − 1)(1 − c) + (1 + c2 ). C
5
The fractured zone I is outside the crushed zone, and the

2a
3
interface between these two zones is in a critical state, di-
L
vided into compression failure and tensile failure. The stress 6
on the interface [21] can be described by θ
E
b F
σ r′ � σ r ,
􏼨 r � rc , (8)
σ e � σ cd , Figure 2: Three-dimensional model of wedge cut blasting.
where σ r′ is the radial stress on the interface between the
crushed zone and fractured zone I. Therefore, the fractured simplified force analysis for the 3D cut entity is shown in
zone I resulting from the effect of the stress wave is Figure 3. The cut entity is excavated in a semi-infinite
1/α2 1/α1 geologic body, which is subjected to an in situ stress field
rt σ K·P
� 􏼠 cd 􏼡 · 􏼠√ � r 􏼡 , (9) of σ v (vertical component) and σ h (horizontal component).
rb σ td 2 σ cd
The shearing resistance on each of the two lateral sides, AIJC
where rt is the radius of fractured zone I. and EMNF, is expressed as f1 ; f2 expresses the shearing
The rock failure zone is generated by a coupled cylin- resistance on each of the two lateral sides, AIME and CJNF.
drical charge and contains the crushed zone and fractured F expresses the net force of quasi-static pressure from k
zone I; thus, it is easy to know that the radius of the failure inclined boreholes, which is perpendicular to the free surface
zone is equal to rt . pointing outwards.

3. Cavity Formation in Cut Blasting

3.2. Cavity Formation Mechanism. According to the
In phase one, rock is subjected to the dynamic loading Mohr–Coulomb strength criterion, the shearing resistance
induced by stress waves, which typically has a very short on each of the two lateral sides, AIJC and EMNF, can be
duration of a few milliseconds. In phase two, detonation gas estimated by
penetrates into the broken rock mass, has work done on rock (b + c)L sin θ
fragments, and throws them. The cavity formation mech- f1 � σ v tan ϕ · , (10)
2
anism in wedge cut blasting is investigated by means of a
three-dimensional simplified model of the cut rock mass [8]. where ϕ is the internal friction angle; σ v is the vertical stress,
taken as σ v � λH, where λ is the volume weight of over-
burden, and H is the buried depth; and λ � ρm g, where g is
3.1. Model of Wedge Cut Blasting. A model of wedge cut
the gravitational acceleration constant. Similarly, the
blasting is shown in Figure 2, where numbers 1–6 represent
shearing resistance on each of the two lateral sides, AIME
two rows of inclined boreholes arranged symmetrically; four
and CJNF, is given by
capital letters constitute a surface, e.g., ACFE represents the
free surface and CJNF represents the right lateral side; L is k
f2 � σ h tan ϕ · 􏼠 − 1􏼡aL, (11)
the hole length; θ is the angle of inclination; a is the hole 2
spacing of the same row; b is the space at the top of sym-
metrically inclined holes, called hole-top spacing for short; where k is the number of boreholes and σ h is the horizontal
and c is the space at the bottom of symmetrically inclined stress, taken as σ h � 0.72 + 0.041H [29].
holes, named hole-bottom spacing for short. It should be noted that cohesion appears in neither of
The dynamic loading of stress waves causes rock mass these two equations for the calculation of shearing resistance
damage in the first stage of cut blasting, and the rock mass is because the broken rock is regarded as a granular media
separated into rock fragments of various sizes. Therefore, we material that has lost cohesion but reserved internal friction.
treat broken rock as a granular media material that has lost After the explosion, boreholes are full of detonation gas.
cohesion but reserved internal friction in the subsequent According to the quasi-static theory, the force exerted on the
analysis of cavity formation. When detonation gas works in rock mass [8] follows the equation
the second stage, it needs to overcome the resistance from PP � PH · 2rb Lc , (12)
the surrounding rock mass, accelerate fragments, and throw
fragments to form the cavity. Then, the Mohr–Coulomb where PP is the perpendicular force exerted on the lateral
strength criterion can be adopted to calculate the shearing side, PH is the quasi-static pressure, and Lc is the charging
resistance on the four lateral sides. A schematic of the length. The theoretical borehole pressure is approximately
Shock and Vibration 5

σv Table 1: Physical and mechanical properties of the rock.

f1 ρm (kg·m−3) CP (m·s−1) σ c (MPa) σ t (MPa) ϕ (°) μ

2620 5200 117.42 8.09 45.7 0.22

σh f2
is no more than 30 cm. Nevertheless, the hole-bottom
f2 σh spacing is too small to cause the bottom of boreholes to
f1 overlap, and rock is excessively crushed in engineering
applications. When determining the hole-bottom spacing, it
F
is necessary to ensure
􏽱�������� � that the failure zones connect,
i.e., c < (2rt )2 − a2 , taken as c � 50 cm here. Figure 4 shows
θ
σv the borehole layout of the wedge cut. The charging length is
200 cm, and the blasting parameters are presented in Table 2.
Figure 3: Schematic of the force analysis for cut entity. When the relevant parameters are substituted into the
equations in Section 3.2, the loading force and resistance are
derived. The total force on the four lateral sides perpen-
dicular to the free surface pointing inwards is approximately
45% of the CJ detonation pressure, assuming complete re- 109.09 MN, which resists rock casting and cavity formation.
action at the front [17]. According to Persson et al. [20], the The net loading force from 8 inclined boreholes perpen-
borehole pressure with a coupled cylindrical charge can be dicular to the free surface pointing outwards is approxi-
estimated by PH � P0 /2. The net force from k inclined mately 488.94 MN. Thus, equation (14) is shown to be
boreholes perpendicular to the free surface pointing out- useable.
wards is shown below:
F � k · Pp cos θ. (13) 4.2. Field Test. Field tests were performed at the Huizhou
underground water-sealed oil storage caverns project, which
In the second stage of cut blasting, rock casting and is located in the coastal region of southern China, as shown
cavity formation occur when the loading force of the det- in Figure 5. There are no active and regional faults near the
onation gas overcomes the total resistance from the reserved project site. According to geologic survey, field drilling, and
surrounding rock mass and accelerates fragments, laboratory tests, the strata are mainly composed of medium-
i.e., subject to the following constraint: fine grained granite with good rock integrity and non-
F > 2 f1 + f2 · sin θ􏼁. (14) developed joint fissures. The physical and mechanical pa-
rameters of the granite are shown in Table 1. The connection
tunnel has a width of 12 m, height of 6 m, and length of
4. Application to a Project 150 m, and its cross section has a straight-wall arch profile
with an area of approximately 62 m2; the borehole layout and
4.1. Computational Solution. A large-scale connection blasting parameters are identical to those introduced in
tunnel in hard rock, with a buried depth of 230 m, is in- Section 4.1.
vestigated as an example. The physical and mechanical Excavation is carried out according to the design. A
properties of the rock are listed in Table 1. According to the jumbo driller with three arms is adopted and assisted by
equations mentioned in Section 2, the crushed zone and manual operation. The cut holes are charged with No. 2 rock
fractured zone are obtained in granite caused by No. 2 rock emulsion explosive, and a continuous charging structure is
emulsion explosive with ρ0 � 1100 kg · m−3 and used. The blasting parameters are listed in Table 2. Adequate
−1
D � 3800 m · s . These two zones extend approximately 2.9 stemming could greatly improve the efficiency of blasting,
times and 18 times the borehole radius; i.e., their scope is and a water-soil composite stemming material is used.
approximately 1 to 2.9 times and 2.9 to 18 times the borehole Figure 6 shows the relevant materials and instruments of the
radius, respectively. field tests.
The borehole is 45 mm in diameter; i.e., the borehole Fine mechanical construction guarantees the quality of
radius is 22.5 mm. Therefore, the crushed zone and fractured the field tests, and the task of obtaining a series of statistics
zone caused by the cylindrical charge explosion extend has been completed. The utilization rate of boreholes from
approximately rc � 65.3 mm and rt � 405 mm, respectively, all twelve field tests is more than 89%, and the average
and the range of the rock failure zone is approximately utilization rate is 91.6%, as summarized in Table 3. The
405 mm. The hole spacing of the same row is designed on the advance per round maintains a high level, which is ap-
principle of connecting the failure zones of adjacent bore- proximately 2.7-2.8 m. The tunnelling face presents a decent
holes, and the spacing should satisfy the condition a < 2rt , flatness after blasting, and the rock has no noticeable out-
taken as a � 60 cm here. The determination principle of ward bulge. Because a detailed fragment size distribution in
hole-bottom spacing is usually based on connecting the underground blasting is difficult to obtain, we have chosen
crushed zones of symmetrical boreholes, and often, the value three reference values for the fragments to obtain a general
6 Shock and Vibration

50

254
600

300
60
70°

1200 254
(a) (b)

Figure 4: Borehole layout of the wedge cut (unit: cm).

Table 2: Blasting parameters of the wedge cut.

d (mm) L (cm) a (cm) θ (°) c (cm) Lc (cm) Single charging weight (kg) Initiation point Initiation sequence
45 300 60 70 50 200 2.4 Bottom initiation Simultaneous

Beijing N

Guangzhou 1 km

Storage caverns project

Figure 5: Location of Huizhou underground water-sealed oil storage caverns.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6: Relevant materials and instruments of field tests. (a) Explosive. (b) Detonator. (c) Stemming. (d) Driller.

fragment size distribution of the broken rock, as shown in advance per round, accelerating excavation, and achieving
Figure 7. The fragments from 20 to 50 cm account for ap- good blasting performance.
proximately 60% of fragments. The large block ratio is close
to 2%, and the largest fragment size is no more than 80 cm. 4.3. Discussion. Although the coalescence of stress waves
Figure 8 shows some details about the field tests. These and detonation gas is widely accepted to cause rock fracture
results indicate that wedge cut is good for enhancing the and fragmentation during rock blasting, the features of rock
Shock and Vibration 7

Table 3: Statistics of cut holes.

No. Hole length (cm) Advance per round (cm) Utilization rate of boreholes (%) Average value (%)
1 300 278 92.7
2 300 275 91.7
3 300 273 91.0
4 300 278 92.7
5 300 267 89.0
6 300 280 93.3
91.6
7 300 273 91.0
8 300 276 92.0
9 300 275 91.7
10 300 275 91.7
11 300 277 92.3
12 300 271 90.3

100

80
Cumulative passing (%)

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fragment size (cm)
Figure 7: Fragment size distribution of the broken rock.

(a) (b)

Figure 8: Details of field tests after blasting. (a) Tunnelling face. (b) Fragments.

breaking still vary considerably because of significant dif- stress waves could make reasonable predictions of the rock
ferences in the physical and mechanical properties and mass response to blasting load [15, 30–35]. The effect of rock
structural characteristics of engineering rock mass. Stress fragmentation caused by stress waves is more obvious in
wave loading plays a dominant role in rock fracturing and is hard rock.
key to rock crushing and initial crack formation. Related The crushed zone and the fractured zone appear around
numerical results showed that a model that considers only the borehole when a coupled charge explosion occurs in an
8 Shock and Vibration

infinite rock, and the scopes of these two zones are ap- after overcoming the resistance, the gas may have too much
proximately 3–7 times and 8–150 times the borehole radius, work done on the fragments, leading to a higher velocity,
respectively [36]. Many models have been proposed to es- farther casting distance and more difficult mucking. Past
timate the scope of the zones around a borehole. Hustrulid investigations on the cavity formation mechanism of cut
suggested that the rc /rb did not exceed 3–5, and Esen et al. blasting frequently paid more attention to the propagation
indicated that the range of rc /rb was between 1.3 and 6.6 law of stress waves, while neglecting fragments casting and
[17]. According to Yaoulafc, the crushed zone was ap- cavity formation. In this paper, when analysing the for-
proximately 2-3 times the charging radius and the fractured mation of a cavity, the broken rock mass is regarded as
zone was approximately 10–15 times. Dai suggested that the granular media that have lost cohesion but reserved internal
crushed zone and the fractured zone were approximately friction under the impact of stress waves. The formation
1.6–2.7 times and 13–17 times the charging radius, re- mechanism of the cavity is reasonably explained from a
spectively, and these two zones caused by No. 2 rock mechanical perspective of detonation gas.
emulsion explosive in granite were approximately 3.7 times The average utilization rate of boreholes from twelve field
and 24 times, respectively [21]. Tang et al. suggested that the tests is as high as 91.6%, and the volume of the cut cavity is
crushed zone and the fractured zone were approximately approximately 6.5 m3. Thus, the specific charge is approxi-
2.5–6.0 times and 16–26 times the charging radius, re- mately 2.9 kg·m−3, which means that slightly more explosives
spectively, and these two zones caused by TNT explosive in are consumed. The rock is well fragmented, with uniform
granite were approximately 1.7 times and 12.9 times, re- fragment sizes and hardly any large blocks, and the cavity is
spectively [37]. In this paper, the crushed zone and the well formed. These results mean that the rock mass has been
fractured zone caused by No. 2 rock emulsion explosive in broken previously because of stress wave loading before the
granite are approximately 2.9 times and 18 times the detonation gas throws fragments to form the cavity. Field tests
borehole radius, respectively; that is, the scope of the two have verified the feasibility of the cut design based on rock
zones is approximately 1–2.9 times and 2.9–18 times the breaking and fragment casting caused by stress waves and
borehole radius, respectively. Although the crushed zone detonation gas, respectively, and the blasting results indicate
and the fractured zone derived from the proposed model are the validity of modelling and analysing the cavity formation
only considered stress waves, these two zones are consistent mechanism of wedge cut blasting.
with the results from the models in the literature. Although
this choice may cause the calculations of the failure zone to 5. Conclusions
be slightly low, the impact is very small. Thus, it has been
verified that the proposed model shows good applicability In this paper, by considering the characteristics of cut
for predicting failure zones. The model could predict the blasting and the combined effects of stress waves and det-
blast-induced failure zone caused by the coupled cylindrical onation gas, a theoretical model of the whole process from
charge well in wedge cut blasting. In addition, this model charge initiation to cavity formation is proposed and then
provides theoretical support to determine cut parameters, applied to engineering practice. The conclusions can be
such as hole spacing and hole-bottom spacing. summarized as follows:
The hole-bottom spacing is taken as 50 cm, which is
(1) Dynamic loading from stress waves plays a dominant
larger than conventional values. As spacing increases, more
role in rock breaking. The scope of the rock failure
energy is used to generate and extend cracks; thus, a wider
zone caused by the coupled cylindrical charge in
fractured zone can be acquired rather than a wider crushed
granite is approximately equal to 18 times the
zone. The increase helps avoid borehole overlap during
borehole radius according to theoretical calculation.
drilling and excessive rock crushing in blasting. With a
The hole-bottom spacing of the wedge cut can be
larger spacing, the number of boreholes decreases for the
designed as 50 cm, which is significantly larger than
same cross section, which saves time and reduces resource
the conventional value.
consumption. Therefore, although the value of hole-bottom
spacing is larger than conventional values, we could achieve (2) Detonation gas is responsible for rock fragment
better blasting results and greater efficiency. casting. When the driving force from quasi-static
Some previous studies indicate that detonation gas does pressure overcomes the total resistance from the
not contribute significantly to fracture propagation and is reserved surrounding rock mass and accelerates
responsible for moving or throwing rock fragments fragments, fragment casting occurs, leading to cavity
[14, 36, 38]. In the second stage of blasting, detonation gas formation.
penetrates into the broken rock mass, swells, and has work (3) Considering the coalescence of stress waves and
done on fragments. The quasi-static force of detonation gas detonation gas together during rock blasting, the
is as high as 489 MN, while the resistance is approximately evolution process of wedge cut blasting has been
109 MN. Therefore, this force can sufficiently overcome the divided into two stages, which contains the com-
resistance from the reserved surrounding rock mass, and pression damage and the tensile damage caused by
fragment casting occurs after fragments speed up. Then, a stress waves and the fragment casting caused by
cavity forms that provides another free surface and rock detonation gas. For wedge cut blasting, the theo-
swelling space for subsequent blasting. However, if the retical model makes an overall interpretation of the
detonation gas is strong enough that excess energy remains mechanism.
Shock and Vibration 9

This study is based only on theoretical analysis and a University of Mining & Technology, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 755–760,
specific case, and more blasting tests are needed to provide 2013.
theoretical support and technical guidance for wedge cut [12] L. X. Xie, W. B. Lu, Q. B. Zhang, Q. H. Jiang, M. Chen, and
blasting in hard rock. J. Zhao, “Analysis of damage mechanisms and optimization of
cut blasting design under high in-situ stresses,” Tunnelling
Data Availability and Underground Space Technology, vol. 66, pp. 19–33, 2017.
[13] J. Hu, C. Yang, K. Zhou, B. Zhou, and S. Zhang, “Temporal-
The data used to support the findings of this study are in- spatial evolution and application of blasting cavity of single
cluded within the article. wedge cutting,” Journal of Central South University, vol. 48,
no. 12, pp. 3309–3315, 2017.
[14] S. Nie and M. Olsson, “Study of facture mechanism by
Conflicts of Interest measuring pressure history in blast holes and crack lengths in
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. rock,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Confer-
ence on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Orlando, FL, USA,
Acknowledgments January 2001.
[15] O. Yilmaz and T. Unlu, “Three dimensional numerical rock
This research was financially supported by the National damage analysis under blasting load,” Tunnelling and Un-
Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51674062 and derground Space Technology, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 266–278, 2013.
[16] Z. Leng, W. Lu, M. Chen, P. Yan, and Y. Hu, “A new theory of
51474049), the National Science Foundation for Young
rock-explosive matching based on the reasonable control of
Scientists of China (No. 51604061), and the Basic Scientific
crushed zone,” Engineering, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 32–38, 2014.
Research Operating Expenses of Central University (No. [17] S. Esen, I. Onederra, and H. A. Bilgin, “Modelling the size of
N160104009). We wish to thank Guangdong People Blasting the crushed zone around a blasthole,” International Journal of
Engineering Co. Ltd. and The First Engineering Co. Ltd. of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 40, no. 4,
CTCE Group for supporting the field tests and assisting with pp. 485–495, 2003.
data collection. Special thanks are due to American Journal [18] W. Fickett and W. C. Davis, Detonation, University of Cal-
Experts for its professional English editing service. ifornia Press, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979.
[19] J. Henrych, R. Major, and Č. A. Věd, The Dynamics of Ex-
References plosion and Its Use, Academia, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1979.
[20] P.-A. Persson, R. Holmberg, and J. Lee, Rock blasting and
[1] W.-B. Lu, Y. Luo, M. Chen, and D.-Q. Shu, “An introduction explosives engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993.
to Chinese safety regulations for blasting vibration,” Envi- [21] J. Dai, “Calculation of radii of the broken and cracked areas in
ronmental Earth Sciences, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 1951–1959, 2012. rock by a long charge explosion,” Journal of Liaoning Tech-
[2] Z. Zhao, Y. Zhang, and H. Bao, “Tunnel blasting simulations nical University (Natural Science), vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 144–147,
by the discontinuous deformation analysis,” International 2001.
Journal of Computational Methods, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 277–292, [22] H. Gercek, “Poisson’s ratio values for rocks,” International
2011. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 44, no. 1,
[3] U. Langefors and B. Kihlstrom, Modern Technology of Rock pp. 1–13, 2007.
Blasting, Metallurgical Industry Press, Beijing, China, 1983. [23] P. Segarra, J. A. Sanchidrián, R. Castedo, and I. del Castillo,
[4] V. Y. Shapiro, “Efficiency of cut configuration in driving “Coupling of blasting seismographs to rock and its effec-
tunnels with a set of deep blast holes,” Soviet Mining Science, tiveness for horizontal ground motion,” International Journal
vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 379–386, 1989.
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 92, pp. 81–90,
[5] A. K. Chakraborty, P. Pal Roy, J. L. Jethwa, and R. N. Gupta,
2017.
“Blast performance in small tunnels—a critical evaluation in
[24] C. Liu, J. Yang, and B. Yu, “Rock-breaking mechanism and
underground metal mines,” Tunnelling and Underground
experimental analysis of confined blasting of borehole sur-
Space Technology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 331–339, 1998.
rounding rock,” International Journal of Mining Science and
[6] M. Cardu and J. Seccatore, “Quantifying the difficulty of
tunnelling by drilling and blasting,” Tunnelling and Un- Technology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 795–801, 2017.
derground Space Technology, vol. 60, pp. 178–182, 2016. [25] C. Liang, X. Li, S. Li, J. He, and C. Ma, “Study of strain
[7] J. Dai and X. Du, “Research on blasting parameters of wedge- threshold value between static loading and quasi-dynamic
shaped cutting for rock tunnel driving,” Mining Research and loading of rock,” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Development, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 224–232, 2011. Engineering, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1156–1161, 2012.
[8] R. Shan, B. Huang, W. Gao, Y. Zhu, and X. Hao, “Case studies [26] M. Cai, P. K. Kaiser, F. Suorineni, and K. Su, “A study on the
of new technology application of quasi-parallel cut blasting in dynamic behavior of the Meuse/Haute-Marne argillite,”
rock roadway drivage,” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, vol. 32,
and Engineering, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 224–232, 2011. no. 8–14, pp. 907–916, 2007.
[9] T. Bernard and P. Dozolme, “The digital simulation of blasts: a [27] F. Gong, D. Lu, X. Li, and Q. Rao, “Experimental research of
major challenge for mines in the 21st century,” Procedia sandstone dynamic strength criterion under different strain
Engineering, vol. 83, pp. 100–110, 2014. rates,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 2433–2441,
[10] Z. L. Wang and H. Konietzky, “Modelling of blast-induced 2013.
fractures in jointed rock masses,” Engineering Fracture Me- [28] S. Kubota, Y. Ogata, Y. Wada, G. Simangunsong, H. Shimada,
chanics, vol. 76, no. 12, pp. 1945–1955, 2009. and K. Matsui, “Estimation of dynamic tensile strength of
[11] G. L. Yang, L. L. Jiang, and R. S. Yang, “Investigation of cut sandstone,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
blasting with duplex wedge deep holes,” Journal of China Mining Sciences, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 397–406, 2008.
10 Shock and Vibration

[29] W. Zhao, Rock Mechanics, Central South University Press,

Changsha, Hunan, China, 2010.
[30] F. Donze, J. Bouchez, and S. Magnier, “Modeling fractures in
rock blasting,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1153–1163, 1997.
[31] G. W. Ma, H. Hao, and Y. X. Zhou, “Modeling of wave
propagation induced by underground explosion,” Computers
and Geotechnics, vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp. 283–303, 1998.
[32] H. Hao, C. Wu, and Y. Zhou, “Numerical analysis of blast-
induced stress waves in a rock mass with anisotropic con-
tinuum damage models part 1: equivalent material property
approach,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 35,
no. 2, pp. 79–94, 2002.
[33] S. H. Cho and K. Kaneko, “Influence of the applied pressure
waveform on the dynamic fracture processes in rock,” In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 771–784, 2004.
[34] G. W. Ma and X. M. An, “Numerical simulation of blasting-
induced rock fractures,” International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 966–975, 2008.
[35] J.-H. Shin, H.-G. Moon, and S.-E. Chae, “Effect of blast-
induced vibration on existing tunnels in soft rocks,” Tun-
nelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 26, no. 1,
pp. 51–61, 2011.
[36] S. Huang, L. Luan, W. Xing, and Q. Liu, “Instantaneous rock
blasting wave and its microscopic characteristics during in-
teraction with concrete,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2015,
Article ID 318286, 6 pages, 2015.
[37] T. Tang, J. Zhou, H. Wu, Y. Xu, and J. Ma, “Theoretical
calculation of breakage zones caused by cylindrical charge
blasting,” Blasting, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 23–27, 2014.
[38] L. Liu and P. D. Katsabanis, “Development of a continuum
damage model for blasting analysis,” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 34, no. 2,
pp. 217–231, 1997.