Search Documents

By M Siefert, P Moser, T Oberndorfer

"The EC-project ""Blasting Control"" with partners from France, Austria, Italy and Greece dealt with the development of a diagnosis system, which enables blasting experts to investigate in detail on probable reasons of poor blasting results in underground drifting. The system incorporates monitoring of geometric, explosive, vibration and granulometry data. All data are compiled in a database and are provided for direct retrievement by demand of the experts in a graphical environment. This paper focuses on the advantages of such graphical system for both research tasks and applications in real testing situations. It describes the procedure of monitoring and presents a selection of graphical outputs generated during data processing immediately after blasting. Benefits of detailed monitoring in respect of detecting sources of errors are explicated by a actual example of a test series in a mine. The paper will conclude with an outlook onto the scientificresearch work which is planned to be based on the results of hitherto investigations."

Jan 1, 1996

By A. Pope

I have attended two Explosives Engineers’ Conferences in the past 4 years. The first was in Brighton, England with the European Federation of Explosives Engineers in 2005 and the International Society of Explosives Engineers in New Orleans, USA in 2008. At both of these conferences I listened to papers presented on European and English training methodologies and ideologies. As I have been training Shotfirers for the past 18 years in Queensland and the Northern Territory for some 8 years previously, I would like to present our methods of training in Queensland, which I believe is among the best in the world. In Queensland, this training is carried out by a training organisation that is registered by the Department of Education, Training and the Arts under the guidelines of the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF). Not only is this Registered Training Organisation (RTO) required to operate under these very comprehensive guidelines, but also those designated by the Explosives Inspectorate of the Queensland Department of Mines and Energy.

Jan 1, 2009

By Claude Cunningham

Simple bulk energy rating of explosives obscures the realities of how these deliver their energy, and diverts attention from the key question of controlling blasting results. Explosive performance is directly related to the pressure pulse impacting on the blasthole wall. This is helpfully visualised by comparing the adiabatic expansion plots for explosives of interest on the right scales and axes. The simple comparison of a pure emulsion with pure ANFO illustrates the practical significance of the intrinsic behaviour of these opposed formulations, showing that the emulsion can be expected to work more by softening rock, while ANFO will tend more to crack it. The explanation for these differences lies in the high shock, low sustained pressure of the former relative to the latter. The technique is readily applied, if a good detonation code is available and able to swap data into a spreadsheet. Any differences between codes will emerge most strongly in comparing the gamma plots.

Jan 1, 2002

By John C. Brulia

PowerAN is a tradename of Atlas Powder Company for a new line of explosive products comprising blends of emulsion and ANFO in a variety of bulk and packaged grades. The bulk PowerAN grades are either augered or pumped depending upon emulsion content. Augered PowerAN blends contain up to 60% emulsion. Pumped PowerAN grades have an emulsion content of 75% or higher. The blending of PowerAN is usually accomplished at the borehole to satisfy specific borehole conditions. Packaged PowerAN grades are produced in several types of mix plants in diameters of 4" and greater. PowerAN 300 (30% emulsion) and PowerAN 500 (50% emulsion) are the two most popular grades and their chief application is as an economical, high energy replacement for ANFO HD in wet holes. PowerAN combines the cost effectiveness of ANFO with the high performance of emulsions, permitting the blasting engineer to strike an optimum balance between drill pattern expansion and increased productivity according to need.

Jan 1, 1985

By Calvin J. Konya

Backbreak behind the last row of boreholes can be a significant problem for blasting operations. Backbreak will interfere with the proper drilling and execution of the subsequent shot and can produce well defined boulders, which will not be broken by the subsequent shot. In order to determine the effect of timing on backbreak, a full scale blast with 6 1/2 inch boreholes was used to test the effects of timing. The test site was a quarry which had suffered from severe backbreak regardless of the blasting pattern or explosive used. One half of the production blast was loaded and initiated using the current technology at the quarry, the other half of the blast was deliberately timed in such a manner as to minimize backbreak. The timing was such to allow for ground movement in one row before the subsequent row fired. The test results proved that the amount of backbreak and flyrock could definitely be controlled with the selection of the proper borehole timing.

Jan 1, 1987

By John C. Didlinger, John L. Didlinger

As we begin the pre-blast survey we need to decide on the number of holes needed for production and a detailed highwall inspection. The survey consists of checking the highwall and placement of barrier cones. At the Elmhurst Chicago Stone Company, Barbers Corner Plant, we use 18-24" orange highway type safety cones. These cones are easily noticed because of their high visibility color in all weather conditions and are placed approximately 20-25 feet from the face and approximately 50 feet apart along the highwall, then the area is checked for back break, under cut, over hang, surface filled area and clay area. This deposit is unique because of the number of clay filled areas and slip seams that meanders through the deposit plus a fault that runs North-Northwest and South-Southeast. This particular limestone deposit is overlaid with glacial sand and gravel and the top weathered stone wanders plus or minus 10 feet in 1400 feet.

Jan 1, 1996

By Roger E. Scholl

Data on off-site low-rise building damage from underground nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) [The AEC has been called the United States Energy Research ant Development Administration (ERDA) since 1975, but because the data presented here were gathered between 1966 and 1970, the AEC rather than ERDA is referred to in this paper.] are available for seven large tests in the period from 1966 to 1970. The data, while sparse, provide an adequate sample for the investigation of motion-damage relationships. Damage in the study is statistically described in terms of the incidence of damage complaints, the incidence of buildings damaged, and damage cost. Using 5%damped response spectrum acceleration amplitude to characterize ground motion, the plotted data fit reasonably well with previous motion-damage relationships established from extensive data available from the 1969 RULISON underground nuclear explosion (UNE) experiment conducted in western Colorado.

Jan 1, 1976

By Michael Wieland

Sharp transient stress waves generated during the delay blasting of underground coal can damage unfired borehole charges remaining in the delay pattern. These tremendous stress pulses in coal bear a strong resemblance to underwater shock waves, despite differences in rise times, damping rates, and scaling relations. "Shock wave" terminology is adopted to distinguish the sharp transient waveforms propagating through the coal from the gas-driven stresses that rift the coal. Reported waveform characteristics of shock waves through underground coal were utilized to design a simulator test for rating the impact resistance of cap-sensitive explosives. Theoretical minimum borehole separations were determined for each cap-sensitive explosive from the requirement that worst-case waves hitting an unfired charge would not exceed its impact resistance rating. Rugged explosives have higher impact resistance and will function properly at smaller borehole separations. Additional work is required to verify the findings from the simulator technique and modeling relations reported here.

Jan 1, 1990

By Ruilin Yang

This paper presents a fragmentation model for large production blasts. The model uses peak particle velocity (PPV) induced from the blast as a controlling parameter to predict the fragmentation size distribution. The PPV can be related to shock pressure or strain under a given rock condition. The fragmentation size is calculated at three-dimensional grid points within the blast volume. The grid size defines the calculation resolution of the model. The fragment size distribution is assumed to be in the same form as the crack distribution within a cube (of the size equals to the grid size) surrounding a grid point. The crack distribution in rock from impact is based on the finding from previous researchers (Seaman et al., 1976). The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly. The summation of the size distribution at all calculation grid points over a specified volume of the blast yields an overall size distribution for the volume.

Jan 1, 2015

By Jerry Wallace

This project consisted of blasting for expansion of a major interstate natural gas transmission pipeline pump station. The pump station handled 400-500 million cubic feet (1 l- 14 million cubic meters) of gas per day.

Jan 1, 1996

By Rapheal Trousselle

For over 5 years, Davey Bickford has been developing and testing an electronic detonator blasting system. These new-technology detonators provide more accurate timing than conventional systems that rely on the combustion speed of a pyrotechnic composition.

Jan 1, 1997

A case history is presented where a variance was permitted by the court to change a 500 foot limit to 250 feet for blasting overburden at a surface coal mine in the proximity of a historic structure.

Jan 1, 1991

By Bibhu Mohanty, Sheng Huang

Accurate measure of fragment size distribution is a key objective in all blasting and crushing operations. Several generic distribution functions have been devised to describe the degree of fragmentation for the representative range of fragments from selected measurements. The application of four distribution functions, i.e. Rosin-Rammler, Swebrec, Grady and Gilvarry, in describing fragment size distribution of impact-induced fragmentation of a limestone rock has been investigated. A modified Hopkinson Pressure Bar experimental set-up is used to control both impact velocity and energy input into the target rock. The feed size in the sample holder is varied from 6.35mm to 15.88mm in three ranges and the impact velocity up to 14m/s. The size distribution in the product is determined by sieve analysis for a range of impacts. The experimental results are fitted to the four distribution functions to examine their relative accuracy and reliability.

Jan 1, 2016

By Shazad Hosein, William Birch, Douglas A. Anderson

This paper will present the results of tests of a new method for assessing explosive performance using wavelet transform analysis of standard blast seismograms. The theoretical background of the method was presented at an earlier ISEE conference.

Jan 1, 2015

By Corry Goumans, Dan Agostino

Photo 1. Demolition work on the Pitt River Bridge. The drill crew is using the 3800 Gardner Denver Air Track to drill the holes on the Bridge turning dolphin. The barge in the background is used for support.

Jan 1, 2013

By N K. Jain, Rajesh Jain

This article has been written indicating the present trend in Blasting all over the World, so as to help in planning production and development of Industrial Explosives for the development of industries in all the countries in general

Jan 1, 1992

By Jerald E. Harris

"Often taken for granted, drill accuracy plays a major role in the relative success or failure of a blast.Expensive technological advances in equipment capabilities, drilling tools, communications, explosives, and timing can quickly be nullified by poor drilling."

Jan 1, 1999

By Gary Cavanough, Stuart Addinell, Hector Parra

Drilling deep, straight, accurate holes in hard rock to achieve efficient blasting is a challenge for the mining/quarrying industries with short holes normally drilled using “top hole hammer” (THH) and deep holes using “down the hole Hammer” (DTH).

Jan 1, 2013

By Thierry Bernard

Today, experimental measurement of the shock energy/gas energy pair, or pool test, has now become virtually standard. But pool" energy per m(exp 3) of bedrock has no significance for explosives used in any medium other than water.

Jan 1, 1994

By Wiliam Reisz

As we approach the peak season for thunderstorm activity it’s important to keep in mind that lightning still poses a serious threat to drilling and blasting operations. Lightning remains the number one cause of accidental detonation of explosives.

Jan 1, 2008