TitleThe influence of electronic detonators on the quality of the tunnel excavation
Journal titleArchives of Civil Engineering
AffiliationSkłodowska, Anna Monika : Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Al. Armii Ludowej 16, 00-637 Warsaw, Poland ; Skłodowska, Anna Monika : Now at: Instituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale – OGS, Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/C - 34010 - Sgonico, Italy & University of Trieste, Piazzale Europa 1, Trieste, Italy ; Mitew-Czajewska, Monika : Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Al. Armii Ludowej 16, 00-637 Warsaw, Poland
KeywordsDrill&blast method ; contour quality ; scanning ; electronic detonators
Divisions of PASNauki Techniczne
PublisherWARSAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING and COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
 D. Chapman, N. Metje, A. Stark, “Introduction to tunnel construction” Second edition. CRC Press. Taylor&Francis Group, LLC, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315120164
 S. Zare, A. Bruland, J. Rostami, “Evaluating D&B and TBM tunnelling using NTNU prediction models”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 59: pp. 55–64, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.06.012
 Norwegian Tunnelling Technology, Publication no. 23: pp. 13–16, pp. 99–113. Norwegian Tunnelling Society, Oslo, 2014.
 B. Maidl, M. Thewes, U. Maidl, “The handbook of tunnel engineering. Drill and blast tunneling” (chapter 5), WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783433603499.ch5
 D. Zou, “Contour Blasting for Underground Excavation”. In: Theory and Technology of Rock Excavation for Civil Engineering. Springer, Singapore, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1989-0_17
 C. Jimeno, E. L. Jimeno, F. J .A. Carcedo, T. V. Ramiro, “Drilling and Blasting of Rocks”, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315141435
 Y. Kim, A. Bruland, “Analysis and Evaluation of Tunnel Contour Quality Index”, Automation in Construction 99: pp. 223–237, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.008
 A. Skłodowska, M. Mitew-Czajewska, “Contour quality in drill and blast method in Norwegian Tunnelling Method”, Inżynieria i Budownictwo 3/2017: pp. 159–161, 2017 (in Polish).
 H. L. Arora, D. V. Singh, “Overbreak in underground excavations-some key insights”, 12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden, 11–13 June 2018.
 J. A. Ibarra, N. H. Maerz, J. A. Franklin, “Overbreak and underbreak in underground openings Part 2: causes and implications”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3: pp. 325–340, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00421947
 E. Costamagna, C. Oggeri, P. Segarra, R. Castedo, J. Navarro, “Assessment of contour profile quality in D&B tunneling”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 75: pp. 67–80, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.02.007
 G. M. Foderà, A. Voza, G. Barovero, F. Tinti, D. Boldini, “Factors influencing overbreak volumes in drill-and-blast tunnel excavation. A statistical analysis applied to the case study of the Brenner Base Tunnel – BBT”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 105: pp. 103–475, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103475
 H. K. Verma, N. K. Samadhiya, M. Singh, R. K. Goel, P. K. Singh, “Blast induced rock mass damage around tunnels”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71: pp. 149–158. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.08.019
 B. Zou, Z. Xu, J. Wang, Z. Luo, L. Hu, "Numerical investigation on influential factors for quality of smooth blasting in rock tunnels", Advances in Civil Engineering 2020: 9854313, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9854313
 P. Montagneux, P. Buffard Vercelli, “A new approach for qualifying blasting works in underground”, Tunnels and Underground Cities: Engineering and Innovation meet Archeology, Architecture and Art, volume 3: Geological and geotechnical knowledge and requirements for project implementation – Peila, Viggiani & Celestino (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2020.
 A. Mottahedi, F. Sereshki, M. Ataei, “Development of overbreak prediction models in drill and blast tunneling using soft computing methods”, Engineering with Computers 34: pp. 45–58, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-017-0520-3
 A. H. Salum, V. M. S. R. Murthy, “Optimizing blast pulls and controlling blast-induced excavation damage zone in tunnelling through varied rock classes”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 85: pp. 307–318, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.11.029
 E. Salas Garcia, A. Diaz Butron, “Tunnels: Blasting Optimization for advance 100%, with overbreak and underbreak lower than 5%. Work Cycle Quality, direct improvement of the efficiency and profitability of an underground work”, DNA-TEC-N-013-B-TUNNEL & MINING, 2019.
 A. F. McKown, “Perimeter controlled blasting for underground excavations in fractured and weathered rocks”, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, xxiii (4): pp. 461–478, 1986. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.xxiii.4.461
 N. Innaurato, R. Mancini, M. Cardu, “On the influence of rock mass quality on the quality of blasting work in tunnel driving”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 13 (1): pp. 81–89, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(98)00027-3
 S. Zare, “Prediction Model and Simulation Tool for Time and Cost of Drill and Blast Tunnelling”, Ph.D Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, 2007.
 K. Dey, V. M. S. R. Murthy, “Prediction of blast-induced overbreak from uncontrolled burn-cut blasting in tunnels driven through medium rock class”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 28: pp. 49–56, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.09.004
 H. Mohammadi, A. Azad, “Applying rock engineering systems approach for prediction of overbreak produced in tunnels driven in hard rock”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 38: pp. 2447–2463, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01161-z
 H. Mohammadi, B. Barati, A. Y. Chamzini, “Prediction of blast-induced overbreak based on geo-mechanical parameters, blasting factors and the area of tunnel face”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 36: pp. 425–437, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0336-3
 J. van Eldert, “Measuring of over-break and the excavation damage zone in conventional tunneling”, Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2017: Surface challenges – Underground solutions [Internet], 2017.
 H. Jang, Y. Kawamura, U. Shinji, “An empirical approach of overbreak resistance factor for tunnel blasting”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 92: 103060, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103060
 A. Mottahedi, F. Sereshki, M. Ataei, “Overbreak prediction in underground excavations using hybrid ANFIS-PSO model”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 80: pp. 1–9, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.05.023
 W. Zhang, J. Tang, D-S. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y. Sun, W-S. Zhang, “Experimental study on the joint application of innovative techniques for the improved drivage of roadways at depths over 1km: a case study”, Archives of Mining Sciences 65 (2020), 1: pp. 159–178, 2020. https://doi.org/10.24425/ams.2020.132713
 J. Pengfei, X. Zhang, X. Li, B. Jiang, B. Liu, H. Zhang, “Optimization analysis of construction scheme for large-span highway tunnel under complex conditions”, Archives of Civil Engineering 64(4): pp. 55–68, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2478/ace-2018-0044
 Q. Gao, W. Lu, Z. Leng, Z. Yang, Y. Zhang, H. Hu, "Effect of initiation location within blasthole on blast vibration field and its mechanism", Shock and Vibration 2019: 5386014, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5386014
 R. König, “Improvement of tunnel profile by means of electronic detonators”, Modern Trends in Tunnelling and Blast Design: pp. 123–130, 2000.
 H. P. Rossmanith, "The mechanics and physics of electronic blasting", Proceedings of the 29th ISEE Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Nashville, Tennessee, 2-5 February, vol. 1: pp. 83–101, 2003.
 H. P. Grobler, “Using Electronic Detonators to Improve All-Round Blasting Performances”, Fragblast, 7:1, pp. 1–12, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.22.214.171.12461
 Y. Bleuzen, F. Monath, M. Quaresma, M. Joao, “Tunnel blasting in a sensitive environment using electronic detonators”, The Journal of Explosives Engineering, sept./oct.: 6–14, 2005.
 A. Fauske, “La construccion de tuneles urbanos en Noruega”, Rocas y Minerales, July: pp. 62–74, 1998.
 M. Stratmann, “Moderne Bohr-und Sprengverfahren beim Vortrieb des Mitholztunnel”, Nobel Hefte, 1/2: pp. 31–39, 1996.
 M. Yamamoto, T. Ichijo, Y. Tanaka, “Smooth blasting with the electronic delay detonator”, 21 st ISEE Int. Conf. on Explosives & Blasting Technique, International Society of Explosives Engineers: pp. 144–156, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1080/13855149909408030
 H. Fu, L. N. Y. Wong, Y. Zhao, Z. Shen, C. Zhang, Y. Li, “Comparison of Excavation Damage Zones Resulting from Blasting with Nonel Detonators and Blasting with Electronic Detonators”, Rock Mech Rock Eng 47: pp. 809–816, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0419-2
 M. Cardu, A. Giraudi, P. Oreste, “A review of the benefits of electronic detonators”, REM: Revista Escola de Minas 66(3): pp. 375–382, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0370-44672013000300016
 Y. Kim, “Tunnel Contour Quality Index in a drill and blast tunnel” (Ph.D.). Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2009.
 Manual 021. Road tunnels, Norwegian Public Roads Administration, NPRA Printing Center, Norway 2004. ISBN 82-7207-540-7
 V. Isheyskiy, J. A. Sanchidrián, “Prospects of applying MWD technology for quality management of drilling and blasting operations at mining enterprises”, Minerals 10: p. 925, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10100925
 J. Navarro, J.A. Sanchidrián, P. Segarra, R. Castedo, E. Costamagna, L.M. López, “Detection of potential overbreak zones in tunnel blasting from MWD data”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 82: pp. 504–516, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.08.060
 Statens vegvesen. Håndbok R761 Prosesskode 1: standard beskrivelsestekster for vegkontrakter: hovedprosess 1-7 (1st ed.), Oslo, 2015.
 Digitalisation in Norwegian tunneling. Publication no 28, Nowregian Tunnelling Society, Oslo, Norway, 2019. ISBN 978-82-92641-45-3
 Q. Jiang, S. Zhong, P-Z. Pan, Y. Shi, H. Guo, Y. Kou, “Observe the temporal evolution of deep tunnel's 3D deformation by 3D laser scanning in the Jinchuan No. 2 Mine”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 97: pp. 103–237, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103237
 H. Sun, Z. Xu, L. Yao, R. Zhong, L. Du, H. Wu, “Tunnel monitoring and measuring system using mobile laser scanning: design and deployment”, Remote Sensing 12(4): p. 730, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12040730
 N. H. Maerz, J. A. Ibarra, J. A. Franklin, “Overbreak and underbreak in underground openings part 1: measurement using the light sectioning method and digital image processing”, Geotechnical & Geological Engineering 14: pp. 307–323, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00421946
 S. Amvrazis, K. Bergmeister, R. W. Glatzl, “Optimizing the excavation geometry using digital mapping”, Tunnels and Underground Cities: Engineering and Innovation meet Archeology, Architecture and Art, volume 3: Geological and geotechnical knowledge and requirements for project implementation – Peila, Viggiani & Celestino (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2020.
 K. Voit, S. Amvrazis, T. Cordes, K. Bergmeister, “Drill and blast excavation forecasting using 3D laser scanning”, Geomechanic und Tunnelbau 10(3): pp. 298–316, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.201600057
Publication Ethics PolicyETHICS POLICY
”Archives of Civil Engineering” respects and promotes the principles of publishing ethics. Being guided by COPE’s Guidelines ( https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) we ensure that all participants of the publishing process comply with these rules, the journal pays special attention to:
1. Qualifying individual manuscripts for publication only on the basis of: (a) compliance with the guidelines provided to the authors, (b) substantive value, (c) originality, (d) transparency of presentation
2. Deciding whether the paper fulfills all requirements i.e. formal and scientific and which articles submitted to the journal should be published. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
3. Evaluating manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
4. Ensuring scientific accuracy and complying with the principle of authorship; making sure that individual authors who contribute to the publication accept its form after the scientific editing
5. Providing a fair and appropriate peer review process.
6. Withdrawing manuscripts from publication, if any information about its unreliability appeared, also as a result of unintentional errors, features of plagiarism or violation of the rules of publishing ethics were identified.
7. Requiring all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
8. Maintaining the integrity of the academic record, precludes business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
9. Not disclosing any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.
1. Cooperating with the scientific editor and / or editorial office and the authors in the field of improving the reviewed material;
2. Being objective and expressing the views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
3. Assessing of the entrusted works in a careful and objective manner, if possible with an assessment of their scientific reliability and with appropriate justification of the comments submitted;
4. identifying relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors
5. calling to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge
6. Maintaining the principle of fair play, excluding personal criticism of the author (s)
7. Maintaining confidentiality, which is not showing or discussing with others except those authorized by the editor. Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.
8. Performing a review within the set time limit or accepting another solution jointly with ACE in the event of failure to meet this deadline.
9. Notifying the editor if the invited reviewer feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible.
10. identifying relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors
11. Not considering evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
1. Results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
2. The authors should follow the principle of originality, which is submitting only their own original works, and in the case of using the works of other authors, marking them in accordance with the rules of quotation, or obtaining consent for the publication of previously published materials from their owners or administrators;
3. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study and phenomena such as ghostwriting or guest authorship in the event of their detection must be actively counteracted.
5. All authors should report in a Reliable manner the sources they used to create their own study and their inclusion in the attachment bibliography;
6. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
7. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
8. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
9. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
Peer-review ProcedureManuscript Peer-Review Procedure
”Archives of Civil Engineering” makes sure to provide transparent policies for peer-review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. There is clear communication between the journal and the reviewers which facilitates consistent, fair, and timely review.
-The model of peer-review is double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors). A complete list of reviewers is published in a traditional version of the journal: in-print.
-It is the editor who appoints two reviewers; however, if there are discrepancies in the assessment the third reviewer can be appointed.
-After having accepted to review the manuscript (one-week deadline), the reviewers have approximately 6 weeks to finish the process.
-The paper is published in ACE provided that the reviews are positive. All manuscripts receive grades from 1-5, 5 being positive, 1 negative, the authors receive reviews to read and consider the comments.
-Manuscript evaluations are assigned one of five outcomes: accept without changes, accept after changes suggested by the reviewer, rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review, reject, withdraw.
-Manuscripts requiring minor revision (accept after changes suggested by the reviewer) does not require a second review. All manuscripts receiving a "Rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review " evaluation must be subjected to a second review. Rejected manuscripts are given no further consideration. There are cases when the article can be withdrawn, often upon the request of an author, technical reason (e.g. names of authors are placed in the text, lack of references, or inappropriate structure of the text), or plagiarism.
-The revised version of the manuscript should be uploaded to the Editorial System within six weeks. If the author(s) failed to make satisfactory changes, the manuscript is rejected.
-On acceptance, manuscripts are subject to editorial amendment to suit house style.
-Paper publication requires the author's final approval.
- As soon as the publication appears in print and in electronic forms on the Internet there is no possibility to change the content of the article.
-The editor decides whether the paper fulfills all requirements i.e. formal and scientific and which articles submitted to the journal should be published.
-In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
-The editor maintains the integrity of the academic record, precludes business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
-The editor evaluates manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
-The editor does not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.
Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review is kept confidential and not used for personal advantage Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. All reviews must be carried out on a special form available in the Editorial System.