## 4 Comparison of the Dynamic Blasting and HPGEM  
The vibration velocity under the same geological conditions is mainly affected by the pharmaceutical quality and the \(R\). Therefore, under the same geological conditions, the PPV of the two rock-breaking methods with different R of the same Q or different Q of the same R is compared and analyzed. Due to the limitations of the site conditions and the differences between the two rock-breaking methods, the field test R and Q cannot be fully consistent. Considering \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number** & \(Q_{1}\) **(kg)** & **R (m)** & **Monitor PPV (cm/s)** & **Calculate PPV\({}^{\prime}\) (cm/s)** \\ \hline
1 & 0.5 & 3 & 3.389 & 3.034 \\
2 & 0.5 & 4.3 & 1.713 & 1.724 \\
3 & 0.5 & 43.6 & 0.057 & 0.045 \\
4 & 1 & 7 & 1.600 & 1.305 \\
5 & 1 & 5.9 & 1.810 & 1.706 \\
6 & 1 & 43.6 & 0.084 & 0.074 \\
7 & 1.5 & 45 & 0.118 & 0.095 \\
8 & 1.5 & 65 & 0.039 & 0.051 \\
9 & 1.5 & 6.2 & 2.237 & 2.098 \\
10 & 1.5 & 11 & 0.667 & 0.850 \\
11 & 1.5 & 18 & 0.225 & 0.391 \\
12 & 5 & 18 & 0.740 & 0.910 \\
13 & 7 & 15 & 1.659 & 1.544 \\
14 & 15 & 13.6 & 2.438 & 3.070 \\
15 & 20 & 27.5 & 1.480 & 1.245 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Measured and calculated PPV of the tunnel with HPGEM. Figure 12: Comparison of measured and calculated PPV by HPGEM. that the reasonableness of the fitting equations for the vibration velocity of the two rock-breaking methods has been verified; therefore, the two fitting equations can be used for the calculation of vibration velocity. To facilitate the comparison, the Q is set to 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 kg, while the R is set to 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 m. The specific data are as displayed in Table 8. The vibration velocities of the explosives and aerosols under different Q and R are plotted in Figure 13, in which \(PPV_{1}\) and \(PPV_{2}\) are the vibration velocities of the explosives and HPGEM, respectively. As can be seen from Figure 13, the vibration velocity of the dynamic blasting method and HPGEM exhibits a similar pattern of change. In the case of the same agent quality  
Figure 13: Difference and ratio of vibration velocities with different Q and R. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number** & **Q (kg)** & **R (m)** & \(PPV_{1}\) **(cm/s)** & \(PPV_{2}\) **(cm/s)** \\ \hline  
\hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Comparison of PPV of dynamic blasting and HPGEM with different Q and R.  
and blasting center distance, the vibration velocity formed by explosives and gas generator explosion is much higher than the HPGEM. In the case of the same R, the greater the Q, the larger the vibration velocity, the larger the difference in vibration velocity between the dynamite blasting and HPGEM. For the same Q, a larger R results in a smaller difference in vibration velocity between the explosive blasting and HPGEM. The smaller the R, the more obvious the difference brought about by the difference in the Q. The opposite is less obvious. For the same Q and R, the vibration velocity of the explosive blasting method is 2.33-4.7 times that of HPGEM. For the same R, the greater the Q, the smaller this multiplier relationship. But for the same Q, with the increase in the R, the multiplier becomes greater. The smaller the maximum section of the charge (for HPGEM, it is a detonation of the mass of the gas generating agent) and the further away the protected structure is from the point of explosion, the better the vibration rate can be controlled and reduced by the HPGEM. For scenarios where the maximum cross-section of the charge is very large and is close to the protection limits, the use of HPGEM can also significantly reduce the vibration rate, but the effect is relatively weak. The reason for this phenomenon is that the explosives' blasting vibration mainly generates from explosive shock waves (of course, there are also high-temperature and high-pressure gas effects).