Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2021) 14: 716

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06808-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Comprehensive evaluation of shaped charge blasting effect of rock

roadway based on entropy-weighted matter-element
extension model
Huiyao Zhang 1,2 & Xiantang Zhang 1,2 & Hui Yu 2 & Juan Li 2 & Hongmin Zhou 1,2 & Dan Li 3

Received: 27 November 2020 / Accepted: 18 February 2021 / Published online: 13 April 2021
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2021

Abstract
In order to accurately evaluate the cumulative blasting effect of roadway, an entropy-weighted matter-element extension model
was introduced to evaluate the blasting effect. Through the analysis of blasting quality, blasting economic and technical benefits,
and blasting safety, 12 indexes such as bulk rate, blasting shape, and explosive consumption were selected to build a compre-
hensive evaluation model. Then, in order to avoid the uncertainty of subjective weighting method in the evaluation process, the
entropy weighting method was introduced to determine the weight coefficient of matter-element index. Finally, the model is
applied to the blasting example of Kong Zhuang coal mine, and the grading of blasting effect is evaluated qualitatively and
quantitatively. Results show that the evaluation of the model is consistent with the actual grade. In addition, compared with
ordinary smooth blasting, cumulative blasting can reduce the explosive consumption by 27%, increase the blasthole utilization
rate to 97.1%, and improve the forming quality of roadway.

Keywords Shaped charge blasting effect evaluation . Extension theory . Matter-element model . Entropy method

Introduction surrounding rock. Therefore, it is decided to adopt the shaped

charge blasting and utilize the bidirectional shaped charge
The Kong Zhuang coal mine is located in Pei Xian County, device to make the rock mass fracture directed and reduce
Jiangsu Province, China, with an annual approved capacity of the damage of surrounding rock.
1.3 million tons and its recoverable reserve of 76.399,000 tons, The effect of blasting directly affects the stability of slope
which is rich in coal resources. However, most of the sur- surrounding rock, integrity of excavation surface, and produc-
rounding rock is hazardous rock and the compressive strength tion cost (Monjezi et al. 2012). For many years, scholars have
of the rock is low. Traditional drilling and blasting technology tried to use different methods to evaluate the blasting effect
lead to too many driving zones, serious over-excavation, and systematic comprehensively. Yao et al. (2020), Liu et al.
under-excavation and even damage the stability of (2020), and Wang et al. (2014) established the blasting effect
evaluation model by using fuzzy mathematics theory. Zeng
and Fang (2012) proposed to make multifactor comprehensive
Editorial Responsibility: Ahmed Farouk
evaluation of blasting scheme with variable weight method.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Big Data and Intelligent Zhang et al. (2014) selects five evaluation indexes such as
Computing Techniques in Geosciences
bulk rate, established the blasting effect evaluation model
based on AHP and gray correlation analysis, and optimized
* Xiantang Zhang
[email protected] the blasting effect of Huang Mailing open-pit mine. Monjezi
et al. (2013), Nguyen et al. (2020) and Ozer et al. (2019) used
1 artificial neural network to evaluate the blasting effect and
Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation, Shandong University of Science and predicted the blasting distance of flying stones. Ghiasi et al.
Technology, Qingdao 266590, China (2016) used multiple regression method and artificial neural
2
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Shandong University network to predict the blasting effect of Golegohar open-pit
of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China mine in Iran. Armaghani et al. (2014) used multiple regression
3
College of Earth Science and Engineering, Shandong University of model and Monte Carlo method to simulate blasting flying
Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China stone distance. Shams et al. (2015) used fuzzy reasoning
716 Page 2 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716

system (FIS) to establish the prediction model of rock (2011) studied the structural damage and dynamic response
fragmentation and reasonably predicted the degree of rock under blasting earthquake action. Based on the actual tunnel
fragmentation caused by rock burst at Sarcheshmeh copper project, Wang and Chen (2018) studied the blasting vibration
mine in Iran. Zhu (2015) and Lei et al. (2015) adopted the law of the upper steps in the tunnel. Wu et al. (2020) established
theory of unascertained measure, established the comprehen- a shaking table test model to analyze the change of shear
sive evaluation model of blasting effect, and applied it in prac- strength of the slope fault zone under the action of repeated
tical projects. blasting vibration. Roy et al. (2020) studied the effect of the
Although the above research methods can comprehensive- total amount of explosives on the blasting effect in an open-cast
ly evaluate the blasting effect, they inevitably have some lim- project in India. Gao et al. (2020) carried out a two-dimensional
itations. Gray correlation method and analytic hierarchy pro- optimization simulation study on complex five-hole cut
cess have low evaluation accuracy and subjective misjudg- blasting under different side pressure coefficients and analyzed
ment in weight determination. Due to the limitation of sample the evolution law of blasting cracks and side pressure
size, the structure precision of neural network method is easy coefficients.
to fall into the local optimal solution. The theory of By referring to the research results of related blasting effect
unascertained measure theory relies on the scoring of consult- evaluation, three aspects of evaluating the blasting effect are
ing experts to make quantitative analysis of indicators, which summarized: blasting quality, economic and technical bene-
is still inevitable and subjective. fits, and blasting safety. Starting from the three aspects, com-
In view of the uncertainty and subjective misjudgment bine the actual situation, and choose blasting bulk rate c1,
existing in the multifactor evaluation system, some scholars blasting muck pile c2, explosive consumption c3, detonator
proposed to use extension theory to comprehensively evaluate consumption c4, blasthole utilization rate c5, blasthole mark
such problems. And it has been applied in the stability and rate c6, average drilling time c7, average charge time c8, max-
safety analysis of rock slope (Su et al. 2016; Zhao et al. imum linear over-break (under-break)c9, peripheral hole den-
2015), rock blasting degree prediction (Chen et al. 2019; sity coefficient c10, blasting vibration safety distance c11, and
Shang et al. 2013), coal bed methane development risk blasting air shock wave c12; a total of 12 indicators as the basis
(Wang et al. 2019), earthquake risk (Xu et al. 2020), goaf risk of blasting effect evaluation established the evaluation index
assessment (Zhu 2014), green coal mine construction (Zhou system, as shown in Fig. 1:
et al. 2016), and other fields. Compared with the previous ex- where the peripheral hole density coefficient c10 is the ratio
tension models, entropy weight method and matter-element of the minimum resistance line of the peripheral holes to the
extension theory are introduced in this paper to transform the distance between the peripheral holes (Li et al. 2019). The
evaluation index from a single determination index to a variable density coefficient is the key factor affecting the over-
interval. The relation function is used to determine the mem- excavation (under-break) of surrounding rock.
bership degree between blasting index and grade, thus solving Blasting vibration safety distance c11 can be calculated
the problem of fuzzy correspondence between evaluation index according to the formula by Sun et al. (2019):
and grade. Entropy weight method is used to determine the
 α1
weight coefficient of each factor, which avoids subjectivity in K
R¼ Qm ð1Þ
the process of weight determination. The validity and rational- V
ity of the evaluation method are proved by practical engineering
application. where R is the blasting vibration safety distance, m; Q is the
amount of explosive, kg; V is safe vibration speed, cm/s; m is
the drug quantity index, 1/3; K and α are related to the coef-
Establishment of entropy weight ficient and attenuation index related to the blasting site and
matter-element model geological conditions, which can be selected according to
Table 1 below.
Construction of evaluation system Blasting air shock wave c12 refers to the blast wave caused
by explosive detonation in the air or in rocks. Once the air
Due to the numerous factors affecting the blasting quality shock wave exceeds the allowable limit, it will cause certain
(Zhang et al. 2016), the blasting process is an extremely damage to the surrounding buildings and personnel.
complex stress-strain process. There is no unified standard The effect evaluation of cumulative blasting is a compre-
for the research on the blasting quality evaluation system. In hensive evaluation problem of multi-index characteristic
recent years, many scholars have conducted in-depth studies on parameters, and matter-element extension is an important
the blasting mechanism and its influencing factors. According method to solve such problems. Based on the theory of
to the orthogonal anisotropic dynamic damage constitutive matter-element analysis, the extension matrix is established
model of different rock material components, Chen et al. with quantitative data. The flow chart of comprehensive
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716 Page 3 of 12 716

Comprehensive evaluation of coal mine blasting effect

B1 Blasting quality B2 Economic and technical benefits of blasting B3 Blasting safety

Blasting vibration safety

Blasting air shock wave

Blasthole utilization rate

Peripheral hole density

Maximum linear over-
Detonator consumption
Blasting muck pile

Average drilling time

Blasting bulk rate

Explosive consumption

Average charge time

break(under-break)
Blasthole mark rate

coefficient

distance
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12
Fig. 1 Comprehensive evaluation system of coal mine blasting effect

evaluation of cumulative blasting evaluation effect is Establishment of extension comprehensive

shown in Fig. 2. evaluation model

(1) Determine the classical domain, joint domain, and matter-

Evaluation grade and standard of blasting effect element According to the grading standards of blasting eval-
uation indexes, the evaluation results of blasting effect are
In order to evaluate the effect of cumulative blasting scientif- divided into five levels. Thus, the grade set N = {N1, N2, N3,
ically and rationally, this paper comprehensively considers the N4, N5} is established, and the evaluation index set C = {c1, c2,
classification standard of blasting indexes, Safety Regulation …c11, c12} is composed of 12 specific evaluation indicators,
for Blasting (Association CEB 2014; Ltd CFHEC et al. 2009), such as blasting bulk rate and blasting muck pile. Two groups
the blasting manual, and other relevant specifications. Based of blasting tests are conducted in this paper, so the objects to
on the integrated practical engineering cases (Jiang et al. be evaluated is P = {P1, P2}, where P1 represents the blasting
2016;Wu et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2013) and expert opinions operation test under the original operating rules, and P2 repre-
(Ren and Hong 2016; Zhang et al. 2015), the blasting effect is sents the shaped charge blasting test.
divided into I~V levels, which stand for “excellent, good, Then the value range of the same grade R constitutes the
average, fair, and poor.” In order to determine the correlation classical domain R0j (j = 1, 2, …, m).
degree, the qualitative evaluation indexes such as bulk mass 2 3 2   3
N0j c1 v0 j1 N0j c1  a0 j1 ; b0 j1
rate, blasting muck pile, and blasting air shock wave are eval- 6 7 6 c2 a0 j2 ; b0 j2 7
6
c2 v0 j2
7 6 7
uated by semi-quantitative method. Table 2 shows the classi- 6 − − 7 6 − − 7
6 7 6 7
6 − − 7 6 − − 7
6 7
fication standards of each qualitative index. On the basis of   6 − −
7 6 7
6
R0 j ¼ N 0 j; C; V 0jk ¼ 6
7
7 ¼6 − −  7 ð2Þ
domestic and foreign blasting test data and expert opinions, 6 ck v0jk 7 6 ck a0 jk ; b0 jk 7
6 7 6 7
6 − − 7 6 − − 7
the grading standards are established for quantitative indexes 6 7 6 7
6 − − 7 6 − − 7
4 5 6 7
(Table 3). − − 4 5
− − 
cn v0jn cn a0 jn ; b0 jn

Table 1 K and α values of different lithologies where N0j is the j-class (j = 1, 2, …, m) in the matter-element
system; ck is the kth index to be evaluated (k = 1, 2, …, n), and
Lithology K α v0jk is the value range of the j-class after the normalization of
the kth index, that is, the classical domain taken by the eval-
Hard rock 50–150 1.3–1.5
uation index of each level on the object, corresponding to the
Medium hard rock 150–250 1.5–1.8
variation range of the value of each single-factor parameter in
Soft rock 250–350 1.8–2.0
a certain category.
716 Page 4 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716

blasting effect of rock roadway based on entrophy

Entropy weight method Extension theory

Comprehensive evaluation of shaped charge

weighted matter-element extension model

Evaluation grade of blasting effect

Construction of evaluation system Determine evaluation grade

Determine the classical domain, joint

Dimensionless processing
domain and matter-element

Determine the correlation function and

Evaluation index weight allocation the correlation degree

Classical Evaluated Simple Weight of the Grade of

Joint domain
domain matter element correlation evaluation index blasting effect

Evaluation results Levels variable

Stable grade
characteristic value

Fig. 2 Flow chart of comprehensive evaluation of shaped charge blasting evaluation effect

The minimum and maximum values within this range con- where Pi represents the ith blasting test to be evaluated (i = 1,2), ck
stitute the node domain Rp = (Np, C, Vp). (k = 1, 2, …, n) represents the kth index of blasting effect evalu-
ation, and vik represents the quantity value of the kth index of the
2 3
ith evaluation object.
2 3  
Np c1 vp1 Np c1  ap1 ; bp1
6 7 6 c2 ap2 ; bp2 7
6
c2 vp2
7 6 7 (2) Dimensionless treatment Since different units of each in-
6 − − 7 6 − − 7
6 7 6 7
6 − − 7 6 − − 7 dicator are not easy to analyze, it is necessary to conduct
6 7 6 7
  6 − − 7 6 − −  7 dimensionless treatment for each indicator. The treatment
Rp ¼ N p; C; V p ¼ 6 7 ¼6
6 apk ; bpk
7
7 ð3Þ
6 ck vpk 7 6 ck 7 method is as follows (Ren and Hong 2016):
6 − − 7 6 7
6 7 6 − − 7
6 − − 7 6 7
6
4
7
5 6 − − 7 8
− − 4 − 5
 −  >
> vik −vmin
cn vpn cn apn ; bpn >
<
k
min ðgenetic indexÞ
ab vik ¼ k −vk
vmax
ð5Þ
>
>
> k −vik
vmax
: max ðefficiency indexÞ
Np is the totality of the blasting effect level in the mate- vk −vmin
k
element system, and vpk is the range of characteristic ck, de-
noted as the joint domain of Np. In the formula, ab vik represents the evaluation value of the
The relevant evaluation data obtained by the mth blasting test kth evaluation index of the ith blasting object before the di-
object to be evaluated is expressed as the matter-element Ri: mensionless treatment, vik represents the evaluation value of
2 3 the kth evaluation index of the ith blasting object after the
Pi c1 vi1
6 c2 vi2 7 dimensionless treatment, and vkmax and vkmin, respectively,
6 7
6 − − 7 represent the upper and lower limits of the corresponding
6 7
6 − − 7 values of the kth index.
  6 6 7
− − 7
Ri ¼ Pi; C; V ik ¼ 6 7 ð4Þ
6 ck vik 7 (3) Construction of the correlation function The correlation
6 − − 7 7
6 function of the kth index of the ith blasting object with respect
6 − − 7
6 7 to the evaluation grade j is calculated by using the following
4 − − 5 functions:
cn vin
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716 Page 5 of 12 716

8 

light structures were badly damaged and power lines and railways collapsed
>
> −ρ vik ; vjk
>
<

; vik ϵ v0 jk

vjk

Overall dispersion, unreasonable form The internal organs of the people were damaged, causing some casualties;
Personnel very safe, windows and doors of surrounding buildings without
rjk ðvik Þ ¼  ð6Þ
>
> ρ vik ; vjk
>
:   ; vik ∉v0 jk

windows and doors of surrounding buildings were all destroyed,

ρ vik ; vpk −ρ vik ; vjk

local damage of windows and doors of surrounding buildings

Causing some casualties; brick and tile houses were damaged,


1
1 
ρ vik ; v0 jk ¼
vik − a0 jk þ b0 jk

− b0 jk −a0 jk

ð7Þ
2 2


1
1 

and weak brickwork walls were destroyed

ρ vik ; vpk ¼

vik − apk þ bpk

− bpk −apk

and steel structures were badly damaged

ð8Þ
2 2

where i = 1, 2; k = 1, 2, …, n; j = 1, 2, …, y.
Minor contusion of personnel,

People’s hearing is impaired,

Blasting air shock wave c12

(4) Weight determined Entropy is a measure of the disorder

degree of the system. Entropy weight reflects the amount of
useful information provided by each index. The magnitude
of entropy can be used to measure the importance of eval-
damage

uation index. The specific steps to determine the weight by

using entropy weight method are as follows:
1) Construct the judgment matrix R, which is the correla-
and the form is generally reasonable
Concentrated whole, reasonable form

tion coefficient matrix determined in the previous step:

The part is generally concentrated

the form is extremely irregular

shape is generally reasonable


R ¼ rjk ny ð j ¼ 1; 2; ⋯; y; k ¼ 1; 2; ⋯; nÞ ð9Þ
Overall shape is generally
Blasting muck pile c2

The whole disperses,

2) Define the entropy Hk of each evaluation index:

concentrated,

−1 y
Hk ¼ ∑ f 1n f jk ð j ¼ 1; 2; ⋯; y; k ¼ 1; 2; ⋯; nÞ ð10Þ
1ny j¼1 jk

rjk þ 1
f ik ¼ y  ð11Þ
∑ rjk þ 1
General, individual rock masses need to be secondary

Very high, most of the rock mass requires secondary

High, small pieces of rock need to be smashed again
Grading standards for qualitative evaluation index of blasting

j¼1
Very low, no need for secondary crushing at all

3) Calculate the entropy weight wk of each evaluation index:

1−H k n
wk ¼ ; meet ∑ wk ¼ 1 ð12Þ
Low, no secondary crushing required

n
n− ∑ H k k¼1
k¼1

(5) Determine the comprehensive evaluation grade.

Determine the weighted correlation degree between the
Blasting bulk rate c1

grades of blasting effect indexes to be evaluated. The weight-

ed correlation degree of the blasting test element Ni with re-
spect to grade j to be evaluated is:
crushing
crushed

k ij ðN i Þ ¼ ∑wk rjk ðvik Þ ð13Þ

According to the maximum recognition principle of corre-

0.85~1.0

0~0.35
0.85

0.75

0.55

lation degree, determine the comprehensive correlation degree

0.75~

0.55~

0.35~
Level Value

kit0 of the blasting effect index to be evaluated:

 
Table 2

k it0 ¼ max k ij ðN i Þ; j ¼ 1; 2; ⋯; y ð14Þ

IV
III

V
II
I
716 Page 6 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716

Table 3 Grading standards for quantitative evaluation index of blasting effect

Level I II III IV V

Explosive consumption c3 (kg/m3) 0.3~0.50 0.50~1.0 1.0~1.5 1.50~2.0 >2.0

Detonator consumption c4 (A/m3) <0.33 0.33~0.67 0.67~1 1~1.33 >1.33
Blasthole utilization rate c5 (%) >95 95~90 90~80 80~70 80~70
Blasthole mark rate c6 (%) >90 90~80 80~70 70~50 <50
Average drilling time c7 (min) <20 20~35 35~50 50~60 >60
Average charge time c8 (min) <10 10~20 20~30 30~40 40~50
Maximum linear over-break (under-break) c9 (mm) <100 100~200 200~300 300~400 400~500
Peripheral hole density coefficient c10 1.0~1.2 0.8~1.0 0.6~0.8 0.5~0.6 <0.5
Blasting vibration safety distance c11 (m) <50 50~100 100~150 150~200 >200

Application of entropy weight smooth blasting was adopted in the original blasting de-
matter-element extension model sign with centralized charge, one forward initiation, full-
section driving, cycling progress is 1600 mm, and error in
On the basis of the evaluation standard, this model is 100 mm. And shaped charge blasting used the decoupling
applied to the blasting test of Kong Zhuang coal mine. charge. After calculation and analysis, the shaped charge
In order to explore the quality and blasting effect of blasting increased the distance between peripheral holes
cumulative blasting, the original procedure P 1 was from 300 to 450 mm. Figure 3 shows the layout of the
designed as control group, to compare with shaped charge holes before and after the test.
blasting test P2. Because different strength of slit pipe material will pro-
7196 return air connection lane was used as an indus- duce the different blasting effect of rock, before the test, we
trial test roadway. The roadway had a total length of about put the explosive into the slit pipe of thin iron sheet, stain-
160 m and adopted the rock tunneling technology. Normal less steel slit pipe, and PVC plastic slit pipe with different

1900
1700

50
1900
1700 0 37
45

500
50
500

0
60 22

500
0 800
60
500
300

900
80 7

3650
900

7 3 4
500

500
3650

3 4
500 500

250 500 500 500

2 5
500

500
2 5
6 17 1 6 27
1 28 46
500

10 16
250

17 27 8 9
10 8 9 16
28 54 47 53
55 61 50
62 54

340 340
1900
1700

1900
1700

80°
80
°

50 50
500 500 400 1000 400 500 500 500 500 400 1000 400 500 500

3800 3800

(a) (b)
Fig. 3 Comparison of hole layout before and after the test. (a) Hole layout plan of original procedure. (b) Hole layout plan of shaped charge blasting
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716 Page 7 of 12 716

Fracture penetration effect is poor,

surrounding rock is basically intact

(a)
Fracture penetration effect is poor, surrounding rock is relatively
poor

(b)
Fracture penetration effect is good
no obvious fracture in the surrounding rock massy intact

(c)
Fig. 4 Different materials of shaped tube cutting blasting experiment effect. (a) Thin iron sheet slit pipe. (b) Stainless steel slit pipe. (c) PVC plastic slit
pipe

strength. Using the same section of detonating tube to con- test. The field test data and dimensionless processing
duct comparative tests, the slit tube with a better cracks results of original procedure blasting P 1 and shaped
effect can be selected as the device to test the shaped charge blasting P2 are shown in Table 4.
charge blasting effect. The experimental effect is shown According to the data in Table 4, there are some
in Fig. 4. differences in the test results under the same geological
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the slit pipes of the conditions between the test P1 and test P2. Moreover, it
three materials all can make the cracks connect along is difficult to determine the grade of the comprehensive
the line direction of the hole. After the blasting of the blasting effect directly by each index, which can be
other two types of slit pipes, some secondary cracks seen in Fig. 5. Therefore, this paper introduces exten-
exist in the rock mass, which is not conducive to the sion theory to determine the correlation degree between
surrounding rock support and later stability. However, indexes and grades. Based on this method, the degree
PVC plastic slit pipe has a better effect of crack pen- of association can be calculated, and the probability of
etration. Therefore, PVC plastic slit pipe is selected in the evaluation object being subordinate to this level is
this experiment to conduct the shaped charge blasting determined.
716 Page 8 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716

Table 4 Data of original procedures and shaped charge blasting

Blasting test Blasting bulk rate Blasting muck Explosive consumption c3 Detonator Blasthole utilization Blasthole mark
c1 pile c2 (kg/m3) consumption c4 rate c5 (%) rate c6 (%)
(A/m3)

P1 0.50 0.45 0.96 1.29 95.1 ≤50

Dimensionless 0.50 0.55 0.38 0.78 0.05 0.50
processing
P2 0.55 0.50 0.70 0.99 97.1 92.7
Dimensionless 0.45 0.50 0.28 0.59 0.03 0.07
processing
Blasting test Average drilling Average charge Maximum linear over-break Peripheral hole density Blasting vibration safety Blasting air shock
time c7 (min) time c8 (min) (under-break) c9 (mm) coefficient c10 distance c11 (m) wave c12
P1 50 20 400 0.55 58.40 0.55
Dimensionless 0.71 0.40 0.67 0.55 0.23 0.45
processing
P2 45 20 120 0.82 45.15 0.65
Dimensionless 0.64 0.03 0.20 0.32 0.18 0.35
processing

Determine the classical domain R0, joint domain Rp,

and matter-element Ri

According to Table 2 and Table 3, the dimensionless data of

the blasting effect evaluation index of class I ~ V are taken as
the classical domain, as follows:

2 3
N 01 N 02 N 03 N 04 N 05
6 c1 h0; 0:15i h0:15; 0:25i h0:25; 0:45i h0:45; 0:65i h0:65; 1i 7
6 7
6 c2 h0; 0:15i h0:15; 0:25i h0:25; 0:45i h0:45; 0:65i h0:65; 1i 7
6 7
6 c3 h0; 0:20i h0:20; 0:40i h0:40; 0:60i h0:60; 0:80i h0:80; 1i 7
6 7
6 c4 h0; 0:20i h0:20; 0:40i h0:40; 0:60i h0:60; 0:80i h0:80; 1i 7
6 7
6 c5 h0; 0:05i h0:05; 0:10i h0:10; 0:20i h0:20; 0:30i h0:30; 1i 7
6 h0; 0:10i h0:10; 0:20i h0:20; 0:30i h0:30; 0:50i h0:50; 1i 7
R0 ¼ 6 c6 7 ð15Þ
6 7
6 c7 h0; 0:29i h0:29; 0:50i h0:50; 0:71i h0:71; 0:86i h0:86; 1i 7
6 h0; 0:20i h0:20; 0:40i h0:40; 0:60i h0:60; 0:80i h0:80; 1i 7
6 c8 7
6 h0; 0:17i h0:17; 0:33i h0:33; 0:67i h0:67; 0:83i h0:83; 1i 7
6 c9 7
6 c10 h0; 0:17i h0:17; 0:33i h0:33; 0:50i h0:50; 0:58i h0:58; 1i 7
6 7
4 c11 h0; 0:20i h0:20; 0:40i h0:40; 0:60i h0:60; 0:80i h0:80; 1i 5
c12 h0; 0:15i h0:15; 0:25i h0:25; 0:45i h0:45; 0:65i h0:65; 1i

According to the overall value range of the grading stan-

I dard of blasting evaluation index, the joint domain Rp is de-
1.0
II termined as follows:
III
0.8 IV
V 2 3
P1 Np c1 h0; 1i
6 c2 h0; 1i 7
index value

0.6 P2 6 7
6 c3 h0; 1i 7
6 − − 7
Rp ¼ 6
6 −
7
7 ð16Þ
0.4
6 − 7
6 − − 7
4 c11 h0; 1i 5
0.2
c12 h0; 1i

0.0
Index1 Index2 Index3 Index4 Index5 Index6 Index7 Index8 Index9 Index10 Index11 Index12

predictive index The elements to be evaluated for the blasting effect are deter-
Fig. 5 The index grades of shaped charge blasting effect mined according to Table 4, as shown in the following categories:
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716 Page 9 of 12 716

Table 5 Correlation degree of each index to 5 grades in shaped charge blasting test

Grade Evaluation index of blasting effect

c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 c8 c9 c10 c11 c12

I −0.400 −0.412 −0.222 −0.492 0.420 0.270 −0.500 0.167 −0.143 −0.323 0.097 −0.364
II −0.308 −0.333 0.400 −0.319 −0.420 −0.270 −0.286 −0.833 0.200 0.091 −0.097 −0.222
III 0.000 −0.091 −0.300 0.032 −0.710 −0.635 0.333 −0.917 −0.400 −0.045 −0.549 0.500
IV 0.000 0.250 −0.533 −0.015 −0.855 −0.757 −0.167 −0.944 −0.700 −0.364 −0.699 −0.222
V −0.308 −0.231 −0.650 −0.334 −0.903 −0.854 −0.375 −0.958 −0.760 −0.455 −0.774 −0.462

2 3 2 3
P1 c1
0:500 P2 c1
0:450 −ρðv25 ; v015 Þ
6
6
0:550 7
7
6
6
0:500 7
7
r15 ðv25 Þ ¼
6
c2
c3 0:384 7 6
c2
c3 0:280 7 jv015 j
6 7 6 7
6 0:775 7 6 0:592 7

6 c4 7 6 c4 7

6
6
c5 0:049 7
7
6
6
c5 0:029 7
7
0:029− 1 ð0 þ 0:05Þ
− 1 ð0:05−0Þ
Rp1 ¼6 c6 0:500 7 Rp2 ¼ 6 c6 0:073 7
2
2
6 c7 7 6 c7 7
6
6
0:714 7
7
6
6
0:643 7
7
¼ ¼ 0:420
6
c8
c9
0:400 7 6
c8
c9
0:033 7 j0:05−0j
6 0:667 7 6 0:200 7
6 c10 7 6 c10 7
6 0:545 7 6 0:318 7
4 c11
0:234 5 4 c11
0:180 5
c12
0:450
c12
0:350 And v15 ∉ v021 , so c5 for the correlation of II grades is as
follows:


Determination of correlation degree ρ v25; v025;
r25 ðv25 Þ ¼  
ρ v25; vp5 −ρ v25; v025
According to Eqs. (6), (7), and (8), taking shaped charge

blasting test P2 for an example, the correlation degree of the

0:029− 1 ð0:05 þ 0:1Þ
− 1 ð0:1−0:05Þ

2
2
evaluation index, hole utilization rate c5, can be calculated. ¼


Since the hole utilization rate is an efficiency index, the eval-
0:029− 1 ð0 þ 1Þ
− 1 ð1−0Þ−ρ v25; v025

2
2
uation value can be dimensionless through Eq. (4):
¼ −0:420
5 −v25
vmax
v25 ¼¼ ¼ 0:029
5 −v5
vmax mix
Similarly, the correlation degree of other evaluation index-
es to the evaluation level can be calculated, as shown in
Because v15 ∈ v011 , c5 to the correlation of the I grade is as Table 5.
follows:

Fig. 6 The correlation degree 0.8

Index 1
between each index and Index 2
evaluation grade of cumulative 0.6 Index 3
blasting test Index 4
0.4 Index 5
Index 6
0.2 Index 7
c o r re la ti o n d e g r e e

Index 8
0.0 Index 9
Index 10
-0.2 Index 11
Index 12
-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0
I II III IV V
Assessment grade
716 Page 10 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716

Table 6 Relative weight of shaped charge blasting effect

Blasting test First-level evaluation index Second-level evaluation index Relative weights
Blasting quality Blasting bulk rate c1 0.01
Blasting muck pile c2 0.01

Shaped charge blasting Economic and technical benefits of blasting Explosive consumption c3 0.05
Detonator consumption c4 0.01
Shot hole utilization c5 0.17
Peripheral perforation retention rate c6 0.11
Average drilling time c7 0.02
Average charge time c8 0.32
Maximum linear over-break (under-break) c9 0.06
Peripheral hole density coefficient c10 0.01
Blasting safety Blasting vibration safety distance c11 0.07
Blasting air shock wave c12 0.16

The correlation degree of each evaluation index and each test were obtained, and the results were compared with the
evaluation equivalent is shown in Fig. 6. Since each index actual results, as shown in Table 7.
does not play the same role in the blasting effect, the evalua- Note: P1 represents the blasting operation test under the
tion grade of the blasting effect cannot be determined by one original operating test, and P2 represents the shaped charge
index alone. Therefore, after determining the correlation de- blasting test
gree of the evaluation index, the entropy weight method is By combining the calculation results of the comprehensive
introduced in this paper to assign the weight of each index, correlation degree of blasting test with the principle of maxi-
reflect the difference of the importance degree of each index, mum membership degree, the values can be determined to be
and calculate the comprehensive correlation degree between − 0.20 and 0.11, respectively. This indicates that the blasting
the index and the evaluation level to comprehensively evalu- results of the original operation procedure belong to the range
ate the blasting effect. of “Poor” and the shaped charge blasting test results belong to
the range of “Excellent,” which is consistent with the actual
field evaluation results.
Determine the weight and the comprehensive
correlation degree of the elements Comparative analysis of test results

The correlation degree calculated above constitutes the corre- Based on the correlation degree of specific blasting indexes,
lation degree matrix, and the values of each indicator are nor- shaped cutting blasting can improve the disadvantages of or-
malized according to equations (9) ~ (12), and the weights of dinary smooth blasting, such as low hole utilization rate, low
each indicator in the shaped charge blasting test are shown in hole retention rate, and poor tunnel forming quality. The field
Table 6. test report of this project points out that:
The weight of each evaluation index of cumulative blasting (1) The forming effect around the roadway is good, the
is shown in Fig. 7; the comprehensive correlation degree of under-excavation amount is no more than 3 cm, the over-
evaluation grade of blasting test effect can be calculated by excavation amount is no more than 12 cm, and the rock relief
formula (13), as shown in Fig. 8. According to the criterion of difference is within 10–15 cm.
maximum correlation degree, the effect grades of shaped (2) After shaped cutting blasting, the retention rate of half-
charge blasting test and original operation procedure blasting eye around hard rocks and well-integrated rocks is greater

Table 7 Comprehensive correlation degree of blasting test

Blasting test I Excellent II Good III Average IV Fair V Poor Actual results

Original procedures P1 −0.34 −0.22 −0.27 −0.20 −0.44 Fair

Shaped charge blasting P2 0.11 −0.36 −0.55 −0.66 −0.70 Excellent

Note: The numbers underlined in bold are the maximum of the five numbers, indicating that the evaluation object belongs to this level
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716 Page 11 of 12 716

Index 1
Index 2
effect, the extenics theory is introduced with comprehensive
Index 3 consideration of blasting quality, blasting economic and tech-
Index 4 nical effect, and blasting safety. By combining quantitative
Index 5 and qualitative methods, the evaluation index is transformed
6% Index 6
1% Index 7
from a single determined value to an interval value, so as to
32%
7% Index 8 evaluate the quality grade of blasting effect more comprehen-
Index 9 sively and make the best use of the measured data. The entro-
Index 10 py weight method is used to determine the weight of each
Index 11
Index 12
index, and the comprehensive blasting effect evaluation mod-
16% el is established to improve the accuracy of blasting evaluation
2% model results, and the conclusion is consistent with the reality.
1% 2) Compared with plain blasting, shaped cutting blasting
11% 1%
5% can reduce the explosive consumption by 27% and increase
1% the hole utilization rate to 97.1%. The blasting technique uses
17%
the characteristics of rock mass to reduce the number of holes,
Fig. 7 Relevant weights of each cumulative blasting evaluation index
increase the spacing of holes, and improve the density coeffi-
cient of holes. At the same time, it can reduce the blasting
vibration and improve the rock surface flatness and rock mass
than or equal to 95%, the retention rate of moderately strong stability after blasting, so it has great application prospect
rocks is above 85%, and the retention rate of soft rocks or under the condition of relatively soft geology.
rocks with joint development is greater than 75%. After 3) The process of blasting action is very complicated, and
blasting, there are no crushing or obvious cracks on the the influencing factors are closely related and interact with each
retained perforation wall surface (refer to the new fracture of other. Although the engineering cases applied in this paper are
blasting, except native bedding joints). representative, the indexes selected are limited. The evaluation
The analysis shows that the cumulative blasting effect of indexes can be expanded and supplemented later to improve the
this paper is obviously better than that of ordinary smooth accuracy and reliability of the model. In addition, in the process
blasting. The analysis result is consistent with the project test of calculating the correlation degree, the selection of the corre-
report, which proves that the evaluation result is reasonable lation function is of great significance to the calculation of the
and credible. model. According to the characteristics of blasting index, a
more reasonable correlation function should be constructed to
calculate the correlation degree.
Conclusion

1) The evaluation of blasting effect is influenced by many

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Natural
factors. In view of the uncertainty and concealment of the Science Foundation of China (51874189) and Shandong Province
grading classification of the evaluation index of blasting Graduate Education Innovation Project (SDYY15086, SDYY15088).

Fig. 8 Comprehensive
correlation degree between 0.2 Original procedures P 1
blasting evaluation grades and Shaped charge blasting P 2
Comprehensive correlaation degree

index
0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

Eva
luat
ion
grad
es
716 Page 12 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 716

Declarations Roy MP, Mishra AK, Agrawal H, Singh PK (2020) Blast vibration de-
pendence on total explosives weight in open-pit blasting. Arab J
Geosci 13:1
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing
Shams S, Monjezi M, Majd VJ, Armaghani DJ (2015) Application of
interests.
fuzzy inference system for prediction of rock fragmentation induced
by blasting. Arab J Geosci 8:10819–10832
Shang JL, Hu JH, Mo RS, Luo XW, Zhou KP (2013) Predication model
References of game theory-matter-element extension for blastability classifica-
tion and its application. J Min Safety Eng (China) 30:86–92
Su HZ, Yang M, Wen ZP (2016) An approach using multi-factor com-
Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Mohamad ET, Marto A, Noorani SA
bination to evaluate high rocky slope safety. Nat Hazards Earth Syst
(2014) Blasting-induced flyrock and ground vibration prediction
Sci 16:1449–1463
through an expert artificial neural network based on particle swarm
Sun Z, Xie SZ, Zhang XT (2019) Vibration reduction effect of damping
optimization. Arab J Geosci 7:5383–5396
holes in blasting excavation of tunnels with small spacing. J
Association CEB et al. (2014) Safety regulation for blasting vol GB 6722- Shandong Univ Sci Technol (Natural Science)(China) 38:25–31
2014. General administration of quality supervision, inspection and Wang HL, Chen JH (2018) Vibration law of partition in upper bench of tunnel.
quarantine of the People’s Republic of China; Standardization J Shandong Univ Sci Technol (Natural Science) (China) 37:43–50
Administration of China Wang YT, Liu DS, Liang S, Li HC, Xiao L, Li MH (2014) Vertical shaft
Chen SH, Zhang AK, Zhang ZH, Yan YF (2011) Damage of structural blasting effect prediction and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation.
and dynamic response analysis under the action of blasting seism. J Blasting (China) 31:10–14+27
Shandong Univ Sci Technol (Natural Science) (China) 30:36–41 Wang WQ, Lyu SR, Zhang YD, Ma SQ (2019) A risk assessment model
Chen JH, Chen Y, Yang S, Zhong XD, Han X (2019) A prediction model of coalbed methane development based on the matter-element ex-
on rockburst intensity grade based on variable weight and matter- tension method. Energies 12:1
element extension. Plos One 14 Wu M, Feng DR, He Y (2015) Comprehensive evaluation of blasting
Gao J, Xie SZ, Zhang XT, Wang HL, Gao WL, Zhou HM, Lv ZH (2020) effects based on analytic hierarchy process method and fuzzy math-
Study on the 2d optimization simulation of complex five-hole cutting ematics method. Modern Min (China) 31:6–9+18
blasting under different lateral pressure coefficients. Complexity 2020 Wu TY, Zhou CB, Jiang N, Xia YQ, Zhang YQ (2020) Stability analysis
Ghiasi M, Askarnejad N, Dindarloo SR, Shamsoddini H (2016) Prediction of for high-steep slope subjected to repeated blasting vibration. Arab J
blast boulders in open pit mines via multiple regression and artificial Geosci 13:828
neural networks. Int J Min Sci Technol 26:183 Xu JS, Xu H, Sun RF, Zhao XW, Cheng Y (2020) Seismic risk evaluation
Jiang WW, Liao YP, Guo Y, Li Q (2016) Evaluation of open-pit blasting for a planning mountain tunnel using improved analytical hierarchy
effect based on matter-element model research. Blasting (China) 33:137– process based on extension theory. J Mt Sci 17:244–260
141 Yao Q, Yang XG, Li HT (2020) A fuzzy ahp-based method for compre-
Lei Z, Yang RS, Tao JT (2015) Comprehensive evaluation of bench hensive blasting vibration comfort evaluation forecast. Adv Civil
blasting effect based on uncertainty measurement theory. Meitan Eng 2020:1
Xuebao/J China Coal Soc (China) 40:353–359 Zeng XZ, Fang ZF (2012) Comprehensive evaluation of blasting effects
Li HC, Zhang XT, Li D, Wu LM, Gao WL, Zhou HM (2019) Numerical based on variable weight method and research on fuzzy decision.
simulation of the effect of empty hole between adjacent blast holes in Adv Mater Res 1538
the perforation process of blasting. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37:3137–3148 Zhang ZL, Ma L, Peng HG, Xiao SS (2013) Comprehensive evaluation
Liu MQ et al. (2020) A comprehensive evaluation method of bench blast of the casting blast effect in open-pit coal mine based on cloud
performance in open-pit mine. Appl Sci Basel 10 model. Eng Blasting (China) 19:40–43
Zhang JH, Wang Q, Huang QC (2014) Optimization of blasting param-
Ltd CFHEC, Institute CTRAD, University CJ, University CA, Ltd
eters based on analytic hierarchy process and grey correlation anal-
HLCGC (2009) Technical specification for highway tunnel con-
ysis method. Blasting (China) 31:72–75
struction vol JTG F60-2009. Industry standard - Traffic
Zhang JH, Li ZA, Zhou LJY (2015) Extension theoretical evaluation of
Monjezi M, Dehghani H, Singh TN, Sayadi AR, Gholinejad A (2012) mine blasting effect. Metal Mine (China):33-36
Application of TOPSIS method for selecting the most appropriate Zhang XT, Ji YG, Zhou HM, Li XL, Zhang ZW, Wang Q (2016)
blast design. Arab J Geosci 5:95–101 Comparative analysis on blasting effect of different cutting blasting
Monjezi M, Mehrdanesh A, Malek A, Khandelwal M (2013) Evaluation for the sandstone tunnel drivage in iron mine. J Balkan Tribol Assoc
of effect of blast design parameters on flyrock using artificial neural 22:1014–1029
networks. Neural Comput Appl 23 Zhao B, Xu WY, Liang GL, Meng YD (2015) Stability evaluation model
Nguyen H, Drebenstedt C, Bui X-N, Bui DT (2020) Prediction of blast- for high rock slope based on element extension theory. Bull Eng
induced ground vibration in an open-pit mine by a novel hybrid Geol Environ 74:301–314
model based on clustering and artificial neural network. Nat Zhou HM, Zhang XT, Wang HL, Tao M (2016) Study on evaluation of
Resour Res 29:691–709 green coal mine construction based on fuzzy extension. Oxid
Ozer U, Karadogan A, Ozyurt MC, Sahinoglu UK, Sertabipoglu Z (2019) Commun 39:1150–1161
Environmentally sensitive blasting design based on risk analysis by Zhu BY (2014) Evaluation on risk level of goaf based on entropy-weight
using artificial neural networks. Arab J Geosci 12:60 and matter-element extenics model. J Safety Sci Technol (China) 10:
Ren HZ, Hong MQ (2016) The comprehensive evaluation of bench 180–186
blasting effect based on the methods of entropy-weight and Zhu BY (2015) Evaluation of open-pit blasting effect based on uncertain-
matter-element extension metal mine (China):1-7 ty measure theory. Blasting 32:141–146