Mining - A Comparison of Metallized Explosives

Both the underwater method and the rock cratering method contribute useful information in evaluating and comparing new explosive compositions. Results indicate that metallized explosive systems which contain no high explosives can be formulated to offer more energy and to do potentially more work than other slurry explosive systems. Commercial field trials are presently being conducted with a metallized explosive that does not contain any high explosive. Although there have been only a few commercial blasts to date, the results are encouraging. The Dow Chemical Co. has been engaged in explosives research since 1953. The incentive for this research was based on the desire to find additional markets and uses for magnesium metal of which DOW is a heavy producer. The thermodynamic calculations for explosives incorporating light metals indicate energies approximately twice that of nonmetallized explosives currently being used. Early in 1960, additional patent rights were acquired from independent inventors and a development station at Virginia, Minn., was set up to conduct a commercial testing and market evaluation program with this new product. The actual manufacturing of the explosive was to take place in the boreholes. Due to the complexities involved in controlling the manufacture of the explosive in the borehole, performance was sometimes in doubt. Furthermore, experience indicated that the metallized explosive systems could not be evaluated by the standard laboratory methods then being used, and it was necessary for us to look for more suitable research methods. Tests were conducted on several known methods for explosive evaluation. The most promising were the Navy underwater method for energy evaluation and a modified Livingston crater method intended to compare explosive performance in rock. After shooting over 2000 charges of 8 to 60 lb under water and in taconites and granites with many types of explosives, a metallized explosive was developed which is now being manufactured at a pilot plant in Virginia, Minn. and is being evaluated commercially. UNDERWATER METHOD An underwater method of evaluating explosives has a number of advantages. A permanent site can be established and operated indefinitely. A large number of charges may be fired in a short length of time. The medium in which the explosive is shot is exactly the same for successive shots. Data are recorded electronically minimizing human judgment. A disadvantage of the underwater method is the lack of confinement provided by the water medium. Many explosive compositions require a greater degree of confinement to develop good energy release. Although the relative significance of the two components of energy release that are usually measured, the shock energy and the bubble energy, and their relationship to breaking rock are not clearly understood, the underwater method is a valuable research tool for screening explosive compositions and gaining an insight into the manner in which explosives release their energy. Fig. 1 shows schematically the underwater apparatus. The piezoelectric gages are calibrated tourmaline crystals which convert the shock wave to an electrical impulse which is transmitted to an oscilloscope and recorded on Polaroid film. The shock traces are picked up by scopes 1 and 2. Scope 1 is timed to pick up the full trace whereas scope 2 is timed to cover the first increment of the shock trace expanded, and therefore allows full inspection of the propagation and peak pressures. Scope 3 records the bubble trace. When the explosion occurs, a bubble of gaseous detonation products is formed. The outward momentum of the water keeps expanding the bubble even after