Search Documents

By David Harrison, Edward J. Walter, Meitra Ferek

Agreat tool in the prevention of blasting complaints and subsequent damage claims. In today’s highly competitive industry, we are always looking for ways to become more cost effective. This article investigates the importance of pre-blast surveys-not just for regulatory compliance, but as an overall long term cost cutting and public relations tool.

Jan 1, 1995

By Sadettin Bagdatli, Ali Kahriman, Umit Ozer, Alper Celtikci, Yucel Karakus

Due to population growth and rapid urbanization in Turkey, the need for the construction of residential units, transportation and infrastructure facilities has become increasingly more pressing. Since rock units encountered in the surface and underground in the construction of the subway, infrastructure and housing facilities, it is a necessity to use blast excavation methods. In recent years, large housing construction projects have been carried out especially in Turkish metropolitan areas, involving foundation excavations giving rise to great amounts of earthmoving. Since rock units encountered during foundation excavations are usually hard and solid, excavation with conventional machinery proves to be inadequate and unproductive, hence the necessity for the application of blasting technology.

Jan 1, 2014

By Michael Wieland

For shooting rock properly, some relatively fixed quantity of rock work is required from the total charge mass, while keeping the overall toxic fumes to a minimum. The overall fumes weighted for the toxicity of different species and taken per unit charge mass, ??, are represented by a relative fume toxicity (RFT) formula. The worst two contributions are often carbon monoxide {CO} and total nitrogen oxides {NOX}, so the traditional Russian formula RFT-R formula suffices, though a generalized form RFT-G with more terms is worth checking. Using the work-principle model from thermodynamics, the rock work per unit charge mass, ??, is found from the reduction in internal energy for the reaction zone. This resolution technique for rock-work invokes the usual assumption that the quick irreversible process occurs without notable heat transfer to the rock (adiabatic); rock-work is not resolved, when this restriction is untenable. The ratio of ?? to ?? yields the weighted toxic fumes divided by the rock work or the readjusted fume toxicity ??, where ?? = ??/??. For convenience, graphical trends of ??, ?? and ?? were normalized using reference results for a stoichiometric (ANFO) mixture of ammonium nitrate (AN) and fuel oil (FO) shot under nominal rock confinement, noted later.

Jan 1, 2006

By Tom Short

"Construction blasting covers a very extensive variety of explosive applications. I will discussseveral of these with you and then show slides from my collection, starting in 1956, which will betterillustrate the types of blasting under discussion."

Jan 1, 1991

By Chris Uys, Johan Labuschagne

Sishen Iron Ore Mine, located in the Northern Cape, is an open cast mine excavating approximately 100 million tons rock to produce 25 million tons of high grade haematite ore per annum. The size of the pit is approximately 12 km ‘1.5 km ‘150 metres. The final depth is planned to be around 350 metres. It is hard rock mining operation employing the conventional truck and shovel method. Mining benches are twelve and a half metres in height and are divided into blasting blocks, each consisting of approximately 300 000 tons of material.

Jan 1, 1997

By Douglas Rudenko

Have you ever had a neighbor complain about a blast one day, but says the next day’s blast was better, even though the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) increased? How about neighbors that complain about a small trimming shot, but don’t complain about a big production shot? Have you ever reduced the pounds/delay and gotten more complaints ? Mine operators are often bewildered when trying to correlate blast design parameters to homeowner complaints. When complaints come, standard practice is to set up a seismograph in the neighbor’s yard to monitor the blast. Immediately after the blast, the neighbor usually reappears from the house wanting to know the seismograph reading. When told that the PPV was 0.1 in/set, well below damage levels, the homeowner explodes saying “Your machine is wrong”. Perhaps he is right. Understanding why people complain about blasting is not about PPV, it’s all about structural response. People could care less about how much the ground vibrates; they only care about how much their house vibrates. In this paper we will examine the primary factors that control structural response. Through the use of a large array of digital seismographs, the effects of two production blasts on a community surrounding a quarry are studied. The predicted structural response resulting from each blast is calculated at 175 seismograph locations. The predicted response is then correlated to previous research on human perceptibility to vibrations. The results of this analysis and correlation give a better understanding of what the residents actually feel in their homes. The detonations of two single-hole signature blasts are also recorded by the array of seismographs revealing the dynamic characteristics of the geology ‘surrounding the quarry. Once the influence of the geology was understood, blasts were configured to disrupt the natural rhythm of the site through the use of millisecond delays.

Jan 1, 2000

By Michael Mann, Kenneth K. Eltschlager

The International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE) Standards Committee has recently updated both the Field Practice Guidelines for Blasting Seismographs and the Performance Specifications for Blasting Seismographs. The revisions are the result of public and industry input along with recommendations of the ISEE Blast Vibration and Seismograph Section. The committee is comprised of blasting seismograph manufacturers, users and general interest personnel. On an as needed basis, subject matter experts are enlisted to advise the committee. Three phases of activities are necessary for each revision cycle: request for comment on the existing standard, first draft revision of the standard based on public input, and final draft approval by the ISEE Board of Directors. The ISEE standards revision process will be explained and each standard will be discussed along with the significant revisions from the latest revision cycle.

Jan 1, 2018

By Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northwestern University, Mike Wladron, Gordon Revey

A unique judicial opportunity allowed measurement of the response of three cracks in residential structure to blasting for underground aggregate mining. Instrumented cracks were located in the interior basement CMU mortar and upstairs dry wall as well as exterior brickwork. The dynamic environment was unusual. Even though the blasting occurred some 490 m (1600 ft) away, excitation frequencies were unusually high and there were no apparent surface waves. In addition there was no air overpressure wave to produce secondary crack response. As is typical, long term environmental effects produced greater crack response than did the blast induced ground motions.

Jan 1, 2007

By Robert B. Hopler

To understand any technology it is necessary that a thorough background of how we got to the present stage is necessary. To do that with the subject of initiation devices we need to begin many hundreds of years ago.

Jan 1, 1990

By Dimitri Frantzos, Stewart Thompson, Ed Skiba, Hans Tammemagi

On behalf of Acres International we would like to thank Frank Chiappetta of Blasting Analysis International for inviting our organization to participate in this state-of-the-art course on blasting analysis techniques.

Jan 1, 1989

By Noel Dent

The Electrodet@ Electronic Detonation System Wilere are we going with regard to Accurate, Reliable, Easy to Use and Cost Effective Initiation using electronic initiation techniques? Improvements and applications in theJierd

Jan 1, 1995

By Douglas Bartley, Brian Wingfield, Robert McClure

Recent studies and limited tests indicate favorable results utilizing high accuracy electronic detonator technology over conventional non-electric pyrotechnic systems. This study discusses the application of this technology using the Daveytronic programmable system in an on-going production basis. The study quantifies the performance as it relates to fragmentation, excavation, vibration and productivity in an eastern U.S. aggregate mining operation. In order to insure accurate data, tight field controls were adhered to during the drilling and blasting process as they related to blast design, bench preparation, pattern layout, drilling and blasthole loading. Following the blast the excavation and crushing procedures were studied to quantify any down stream advantages due to improvements in fragmentation. This study will help provide the industry with information as to the advantages of high accuracy electronic blasting systems over conventional pyrotechnic systems and show the results of an operation utilizing electronic detonator technology through their production season.

Jan 1, 2000

By Thierry Bernard, J. M. Laboz

2000 HIGH-TECH SEMINAR Blasting Technology, Instrumentation and Explosives Applications

Jan 1, 2000

By Benjamin Cebrian

Wall control blasting is an expensive and labor intensive operation. Obtaining a good design is a first step that is not enough to ensure desired results. Experience shows that designs are not always well implemented, not only in the contour blast itself, but also in surrounding production blasts that can affect the final pit wall. In this paper techniques and reference indicators are described in order to audit and evaluate if correct implementation of designs have been done.

Jan 1, 2013

By Ewan Selers, Gary Cavanough

Drilling automation technology is well advanced and automated drill rigs are in use at a number of operating mines. This is not the case for the other drill and blast processes due to significant technical challenges to overcome. These challenges, with regard to the current “on bench” practices, include placing the initiators, loading the explosive and connecting up the initiation system. Although difficult, these challenges will be solved with engineering advances.

Jan 1, 2016

By Unknown

Blast Site Security Involves: * Clearing the area * Controlling Access * Warning Signals

Jan 1, 2003

By Charolett Hayes, A. L. Russell, Anthony J. Bednar, Jared Smith, Valentine A. Nzengung, Stephen L. Pilcher

The manufacture of Energetics Materials (EM), including maintenance and demilitarization of munitions causes dangerously high levels of explosives residues to be harbored in building features. The two commonly approved methods of decontaminating energetics contaminated equipment and building features are thermal treatment and steam washing. The current regulatory environment is generally becoming more stringent and unfavorable to thermal and steam decontamination because of their adverse impact on air, soil, and water and their ineffectiveness to completely remove accumulated energetics from foundation cracks, internal and external piping, voids in walls and ventilation systems, and internal cavities of fixed equipment. However, chemical destruction of energetics, especially high explosives, is gaining acceptance as a safer, cost-effective and environmental friendly alternative to thermal and steam decontamination. Organic explosives, including nitramines and nitrate esters are oxidized organic compounds that are susceptible to chemical oxidation and reduction reactions. Under suitable conditions, a chemical reagent consisting of sulfur-based bulk reductants (neutralent) commercialized as MuniRem generates highly reactive free radicals that very rapidly degrade many energetic compounds to innocuous end products while stabilizing metals as the insoluble metal sulfides.

Jan 1, 2016

By Enver Alan

This Research & Development (R&D) study was conducted in the field of applied blasting engineering in Ethiopia, within the AKH Railway Project, which was built in Girena, within the boundaries of the province of Mersa, in the Basalt Quarry at km 346, Ashangi Formation, occured in Eocene geological time in the aphanitic trachibasalt. Under the scope of the study, which has been performed to determine the effects of the artificial discontinuities at different depths and the effects of artificial discontinuities through structural damage risk, three test areas, at the same location and same formation, were considered. Six numbers of artificial discontinuities, each 10 m (32, 81 ft) transverse, were created by using pre-splitting and drilling-blasting technology. The number of sequential artificial discontinuities on each test area is two and they have the same length. The length of artificial discontinuities are; 6,80 m (22,31 ft) at the first test area, 13,60 m (44,62 ft) at the second test area and 17,00 m (55,77 ft) at the third test area respectively. The distance between sequential artificial discontinuities is 8 m (26,25ft) on each test area. Thirty-one shots were executed in order to produce vibration (10 shots on the first test area, 11 shots on the second area, 10 shots on the third test area). One hundred and twenty-three seismic recordings were obtained during the execution of the shots by using 4 seismographs. The closest distance between the shot points and the nearest measuring station is 5,30 m (17,39 ft). During the shots, the rock was cracked and there was no fragmentation and/or fly rock. At the first test area, measured PPV values are between 25,40-127,00 mm/s (1-5 inch/s) before the first artificial discontinuity and less than 50,80 mm/s (2 inch/s) after the second artificial discontinuity. At the second test area, measured PPV values are between 76,20-177,80 mm/s (3-7 inch/s) before the first artificial discontinuity and less than 76,20 mm/s (3 inch/s) after the second artificial discontinuity. At the third test area, measured PPV values are between 50,80-279,40 mm/s (2-11 inch/s) before the first artificial discontinuity and less than 50,80 mm/s (2 inch/s) after the second artificial discontinuity. Peak reduction rates in Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) values determined by measuring as follows: In the first test area 95,77% (106,00 mm/s to 4,48 mm/s) (4,17 in/s to 0,18 in/s), in the second test area 79,77% (176,00 mm/s to 35,60 mm/s) (6,93 in/s to 1,40 in/s), in the third test area 95,85% (from 205,00 mm/s to 8,55 mm/s) (from 8,07 in/s to 0,34 in/s). The arithmetic mean of the differences of PPV values (decrease rate) is 82,66% in the first test area, 69,37% in the second test area, and 92,03% in the third test area. The highest sound value is 138,50 dB and is defined as “noise”. When the measured parameter values are examined it was determined on the USBM norm graphs that these vibrations carry a risk of structural damage in the region before the first artificial discontinuity. While passing through artificial discontinuities the vibrations progress by losing energy and the vibrations passing through two artificial discontinuities do not carry structural damage risk under current conditions.

By Brian T. Burch, Paul N. Worsey

When fired, submerged Linear Shaped Charges (LSCs) lose all effectiveness in the cutting of steel. Users in underwater applications have reported having to substantially increase the charge size to the point where brute explosive force shears rather than cuts the target.

Jan 1, 2015

By Gabsoo Kim, Rulin Yang, Dave Kay

Blast vibration data, such as PPV are usually scattered. In many cases, plots of PPV versus the charge weight scaled distance are so scattered that useful trends from different blast designs cannot be identified. The scattering of the data may be attributed to the inaccuracy of the PPV measurement, the definition of the scaled distance from a multiple-hole production blast, and the measurement of distances and charge weights. The error from vibration measurements is one of the major contributors to the scattering of the plots. If accurate monitoring is conducted, improved design options may be identified. This paper documents two case examples that compare different vibration sensor couplings. The first case shows mounting accelerometers at spots that protrude from the ground, compared with the sensors that were mounted on a flat ground surface. The second case compares data from loose-sand buried geophone with that from sensors coupled to the ground using concrete blocks.

Jan 1, 2014