# Dynamic Response and Rock Damage of Different Shapes of Cavities under Blasting Loads
## 5 Conclusions  
This study has conducted an in-depth exploration of the dynamic response and rock mass damage issues under blasting loads for different shapes of cavities. Through field tests and numerical simulations, the mechanisms of rock mass damage and destruction under blasting loads were revealed, and the following conclusions were drawn:  
Firstly, the dynamic response laws of different shaped cavities under blasting loads were analyzed, and the damage mechanisms and blast block size distributions under blasting loads were studied. The influence of cavity geological bodies on the size of blasting fragments and the characteristics of rock mass damage were revealed. A combination of field tests and numerical simulations was used to verify the experimental results and further reveal the influence of different geological structures on the blasting effect. The results show that the presence of spherical, conical, and parallelepiped cavities has a significant impact on the blasting effect and rock mass damage under blasting loads. The spherical cavity, with its good anti-blast performance, can absorb a large amount of blast energy and reduce the degree of rock mass destruction, while parallelepiped and conical cavities are prone to stress concentration at the corners, promoting rock mass damage and destruction. Additionally, the study of blast block size distribution indicates that the blasting effect of the parallelepiped and conical cavities is better than that of spherical cavities. The research results of this study contribute to the enrichment of the theory of rock mass dynamic response and damage under blasting loads, providing new ideas and methods for subsequent research. These research findings serve as an important theoretical basis and practical guidance for the design and construction of underground engineering blasting, helping to improve engineering safety and promote the sustainable development of the underground engineering industry.  
X.C.: conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition, methodology, writing--review and editing. M.Z.: writing--original draft, formal analysis, investigation, software. Q.L.: validation, investigation, writing--review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO. 520640031008654), the State Key Laboratory of Precision blasting and Hubei Key Laboratory of Blasting Engineering, Jianghan University (No.PBSKI2022C02), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.52064003).  
Not applicable.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Numerical Model Type** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Complete** \\ **Model** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Parallellepiped** \\ **Cavity Model** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Conical Cavity** \\ **Model** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Spherical Cavity** \\ **Model** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Number of failed units & 70,800 & 70,771 & 70,644 & 62,857 \\ Number of rock units & 639,566 & 625,742 & 633,580 & 638,661 \\ Percentage of & 11.07\% & 11.31\% & 11.15\% & 9.84\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Number and proportion of failed units for different condition models.  
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request.