Institutional Repository
Technical University of Crete
EN  |  EL

Search

Browse

My Space

Σύγκριση δύο εναλλακτικών σχεδιασμών ανατινάξεων μετώπων μορφής στοάς

Pentheroudakis Vasileios

Full record


URI: http://purl.tuc.gr/dl/dias/810E2925-24D8-4B67-AD2B-A3DBFC27EB41
Year 2021
Type of Item Diploma Work
License
Details
Bibliographic Citation Βασίλειος Πενθερουδάκης, "Σύγκριση δύο εναλλακτικών σχεδιασμών ανατινάξεων μετώπων μορφής στοάς", Διπλωματική Εργασία, Σχολή Μηχανικών Ορυκτών Πόρων, Πολυτεχνείο Κρήτης, Χανιά, Ελλάς, 2021 https://doi.org/10.26233/heallink.tuc.89960
Appears in Collections

Summary

The purpose of this dissertation is to compare two alternative blast design methods of a tunnel face. The two methods are: the Norwegian method (NTNU method) and the Konya method. The first method, which was proposed by S. Zare in his doctoral dissertation in 2007, utilizes parallel drillholes with a length of 3.0 m. Zare, moreover, proposed the charging pattern. The second method, which was proposed by Konya in 1995, utilizes angled drillholes with a length of 2.0 m. Consequently, an alternative charging pattern is proposed, according to Konya’s method. The shape and area of the cross-section of the tunnel face considered here, was taken from the doctoral dissertation of S. Zare. The tunnel face has an area of 30 m2. The design of the tunnel face and of the design parameters was done using the designing program «Civil 3D» of the company Autodesk. Then, the tunnel face was divided in subareas, based on the type of blastholes which covered them. The data of this analysis were inserted into the program «Excel» of Microsoft for the prediction of fragmentation distribution based on the Kuz-Ram model. Additionally, a comparison of the operation times of certain activities of the drill and blast method was made between the two methods. These activities are: the drilling of the blastholes, the charging of the blastholes and the scaling. For the needs of this analysis, the Simulation method «TunnSim» which was presented by NTNU, was used. As the two design methods were not applied in real conditions, some differences are reported, which can alter the results. Therefore, the items for examination and comparison are the following: the usage of explosive materials (charging pattern), the realization time of a round of operations of the drill and blast method (which is related to the drilling pattern and the length of the drillhole or the round length) and the expected fragmentation of the muck pile of the tunnel face. In conclusion, the observations and the remarks of this dissertation are presented in the form of tables.

Available Files

Services

Statistics