Search Documents

By I. Petrovsky

Presence of the ground water, especially flowing water, causes limitations in the type of the explosives, which can be used for the blasting development in the open cats and quarries. This presents really big problem in Russia, because more than 70% of the blasting holes are wet and filled by flowing water. The waterproof explosives need to be used in these conditions, which increases the cost of the blasting development. So the search of the methods to remove the water from the blasting hole and to prevent direct contact of the explosive material with the water is important. It will give possibility to use nonwaterproof explosives (such as ANFO) and decrease the cost of the blasting development.

Jan 1, 2003

By Dale Ramsey

Emulsion explosives have become the product of choice for many blasting applications and are not limited to just extreme wet hole conditions or special application environments as in the past. Today’s novel emulsion technology has evolved over many decades, allowing a great diversity of formulations, Emulsion explosives can be effectively designed to produce very high energies, cap sensitive high explosive cartridges to bulk blasting agents, with varying viscosities, stable VOD’s, excellent water resistance, long shelf life and sleep time. They are also conducive to the mixture of emulsion, An/F0 blends in varying proportions and are amenable to any type of sensitizer. The key to a stable, reliable and consistent emulsion formulation is the careful mixing of the internal phase, which consists of a solution of oxidizer salts suspended as microscopically fine droplets, with the surrounding continuous fuel phase. There are few blasting applications today where some form of an emulsion explosive cannot fit the application. In massive, hard rock, dense, tightly jointed and fine grained rock types, the emulsion explosives are the best choices in creating new fracture networks for good fragmentation with a few alternatives. In such environments, emulsions with expanded drill patterns often result in better economics than the use of straight AnLFo. This paper will cover emulsion formulations, sensitizing options, product testing, material handling, and blast optimization, Emulsion explosives characteristics have also proven to reduce adverse environmental effects such as noxious fumes, ground vibration, and airblast while still remaining cost effective.

Jan 1, 2000

By Nick Lewis, Paulo Pereira

The Vulcan McCook quarry has been in operation for about 100 years. It is located about 17 miles from downtown Chicago and is surrounded by both industrial and private structures. Recent issues have forced the quarry to blast very close to structures and this will be necessary years into the future. This paper discusses the implementation of electronic detonators to McCook. It also discusses the advantages and savings that the Program has achieved

Jan 1, 2003

By Thomas M. Keevin, Gregory L. Hempen, David J. Schaeffer

In an attempt to reduce the potential for fish mortality during the explosive demolition of Locks and Dam 26, Mississippi River, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District explored the use of a bubble curtain to reduce the fish kill radius of underwater explosions. Bubble curtains are walls of bubbles rising from a bottom-resting bubbler manifold supplied with compressed air. Demolition engineers have long been aware of the attenuating properties of air bubbles in water. As such, air curtains have been routinely used to protect underwater structures from damage by underwater explosive shock waves. However, their use in protecting aquatic resources during full-scale explosive demolition projects was untested.

Jan 1, 1997

By James Rowland, Isaac Zlochower, Richard Mainiero, Michael Sapko

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) carried out exploratory laboratoryscale studies to identify factors that may contribute to nitrogen oxides (NOx) production associated with non-ideal detonation of blasting agents. Explosive admixture with drill cuttings, loss of fuel oil in ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) from wicking, ammonium nitrate dissolution with water, degree of explosive confinement, ANFO density, and critical diameter were identified as contributing factors to increased NOx production under the laboratory test conditions. Experiments were also conducted to examine the effectiveness of various additives in reducing the NOx production from ANFO, emulsion, and ANFO/emulsion blends. Aluminum powder, coal dust, urea, and excess fuel oil in ANFO formulations were tested and were found to reduce both the nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) production. Fumes measurements were obtained in the NIOSH underground closed chamber from the detonation of 4.5-kg (10 lbs) charges in schedule 80 seamless steel pipe and from detonations in light weight galvanized steel stove pipe. Some exploratory tests were also conducted with 0.8-kg (1.8 lbs) charges of pulverized ANFO initiated with 0.08-kg (0.18 lbs), 50/50 (Pentolite) boosters (in the NIOSH 12-ft (3.7-m) diameter steel sphere) to measure the degree of fumes production associated with post-detonation oxidation. Ammonium nitrate, emulsion and Pentolite boosters were also detonated in an oxygen-poor environment.

Jan 1, 2002

By Victor C. Bryan

"One of the more challenging issues facing operators of U.S. mines and quarries is blasting in an environmentally acceptable way. It is quite important that industry management understand and apply guidance, discipline, and control in the exercise of blasting operations. This presentation is a discussion of problems related to that environment away from the blasthole that may or may not be adversely affected by blasting and the steps management may consider in resolving resultant problems. In any case, one of the main concerns that will continuously be brought up is thatmanagement procedures inherent to good blasting is a uxporate responsibility of the mine or quarry business entity; and can not be delegated to the explosive manufacturer or supplier. This management attitude, based on education, training, and the comprehension that the process of production begins with drilling and blasting and consumes a significant amount of overall production costs."

Jan 1, 1995

By Larry R. Fletcher

A misfire results when explosives fail to detonate as planned during a mine blast. Accidental detonation of misfires is a frequent cause of personal injury, equipment damage, and lost production. In an effort to minimize these problems, the Bureau of Mines investigated the causes of misfires, methods for detecting misfires, and procedures for their disposal. During this investigation, input was obtained from explosives suppliers, mining companies, blasting contractors, blasting consultants, and governmental agencies. Additional data were obtained through detailed analysis of blasting accidents involving misfires.

Jan 1, 1983

By Jerry Wallace

Construction of a new grammar school required blasting within three meters of the existing school. Due to changes not anticipated at time of bid opening, blasting had to take place while approximately 200 children were in attendance inside the building. Blasting with children in such close proximity forced the blaster to review and revise a systematic approach to construction blasting and make changes to previous Rules of Thumb guidelines. The revised rules of thumb place Blaster-in-Charge at the top of the List. Other changes specific to the project included putting in place a blasting safety plan that included communicating the serious job hazards to teachers and students. The plan included stringent lockdown guidelines establishing school procedures for accounting for each student prior to the countdown-to-blast being implemented. Emergency communications channels were kept open so that any scheduled blast could be aborted at the last instance.

Jan 1, 2001

By Douglas A. Anderson

The US Bureau of Mines, in RI 8507, has shown that blast vibrations at low frequency are more likely to cause damage and complaints than those at higher frequency. Since that publication in 1980, the Office of Surface Mining and many state and local regulatory authorities have incorporated frequency in their regulations for acceptable ground vibration from blasting. Even when frequency is not explicitly stated in regulations, it may become an issue in hearings or in court.

Jan 1, 1992

By C. Navalkar

Systematic drilling & blasting techniques are currently being viewed in the mining & construction industry as a correct 8z scientific approach for optimization process in rock excavation, as drill & blast costs usually represent major share in total cost of production and also the environmental impacts plays an important role in designing of the operations. Designing a blast is a complex planning task, which for optimization, includes deciding the bench geometry with respect to the rock properties & geology of the area, capacity of the excavators, choice of explosives & detonation method, tiring sequence, etc. Optimization of blast design needs a detailed comprehensive study of all the above intersecting elements. Preblast & Post blast surveys are required for further improvements in blast designs. However, the choice of blast design depends upon the the requisite blasting results opted for and the cost you are ready to pay for the same. The blasting operation, in general, also involves numerous side effects namely, ground vibrations, fly rocks, dust, noise & gas pollution, air blast effect etc. Again these effects can be made tolerable up to a certain extent depending upon the limitations of the environmental obligations as may be specified by the concerned authorities.

Jan 1, 2001

By Russell D. Melton, Gary A. Kanelos

A construction company performed blasting operations to break up limestone bedrock for excavation of residential basements. The owners of an existing residence located approximately 400 feet from the operation claimed that vibration damaged the structure and created foundation subsidence by lowering the moisture content of the foundation soils.

Jan 1, 1996

By Timothy Stark

Blasters are usually strictly liable for injury or damage caused by flyrock (trespassory invasion) and blast-induced vibrations (non-trespassory invasion). The application of strict liability to non-trespassory invasions has resulted in significant litigation that has hampered the use of blasting and the blasting industry. Stark (2002) proposes that blasters should not be held strictly liable for non-trespassory invasions but should be liable only if their conduct is proven to be negligent. This change in legal standard was proposed because improvements in blasting technology over the last thirty years allow blasting to be conducted without substantial risk of harm to property and thus the amount of harm imposed by a blast can be related to the level of care exercised by the blaster. It is anticipated that a negligence standard will reduce the amount of litigation because a plaintiff will have a greater burden to overcome. To facilitate the acceptance of a negligence standard by a court of law, this paper summarizes the standard of care using the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, extensive U.S. Bureau of Mines research, and current blasting techniques, such as blasting mats. It is important for the blasting industry to promulgate a standard of care so a judge can feel confident that blasting can be routinely and systematically controlled and if the legal standard is changed from strict liability to negligence a subsequent judge or jury will be able to evaluate the level of care exercised by the blaster. This paper also suggests that the industry and/or ISEE develop and disseminate a comprehensive standard of care that courts can use to further justify a change from strict liability to negligence and evaluate the standard of care.

Jan 1, 2003

By Gordon M. Matheson, David K. Miller

Possible impacts to the water quality and production capacity of ground water supply wells by blasting is a common cause of complaints for blasting contractors, mining companies, and local regulatory authorities. The major complaints of changes in well water quality include; turbidity, discolored water (red, brown, black, yellow and milky water), and nitrate and/or coliform contamination. The major complaints for changes in well water production capacity include: loss of quantity production, air in water and/or water lines, damage to pump, and damage to well screen or borehole.

Jan 1, 1997

By Rachel L. Bauer, Catherine E. Johnson

Explosive demolition involves first, the use of cutting charges to sever a column and second, kicker charges to move it out of alignment. Dynamite is the traditional explosive used in kicker charges as it is inexpensive, easy to initiate, and has a consistent track record of use. Dynamite, however, has health concerns in handling, fragmentation concerns from direct contact on the beam, and availability concerns due to being manufactured at only one location in the continental United States. Recently, water-cased kicker charges have been used in industry, and research has shown that a reduced dynamite mass is possible due to the added confinement, for energetic performance, and the incompressible fluid, which aids in the transfer of explosive energy into beam movement. This research will compare two different explosives, an emulsion (DYNO AP), and binary (HELIX), to dynamite for use in kicker charges, both with and without water-casing. Emulsion is commonly used in rock blasting to create a large push or throw due to its high gas volume production which could translate to kicker charge movement. HELIX is a binary explosive commonly used by the military in breaching charges with water backing. Experimental tests placed kicker charges at the base of a hanging steel column, modifying the ballistic mortar test used to determine explosive power. The study shows that water-casing effectively reduces air overpressure and enhances explosive performance. Among the tested explosives, HELIX showed the most substantial improvements with a 1.8 dB reduction in air overpressure and a 3.2 m/s (10.5 ft/s) increase in column velocity when water-cased. Dynamite and emulsion also benefited from water casing, with decreases in air overpressure (1.1 and 0.7 dB respectively) and increases in column velocity (1.1 and 0.7 m/s (3.6 and 2.3 ft/s) respectively). This research also shows that emulsion is a viable replacement for dynamite in demolition projects, performing similarly in both traditional use and water-cased charges.

Jan 21, 2025

By Sandra Penttinen

There are several ways to get a positive reaction from neighbors to blasting projects. When you need to enter structures to conduct a pre-blast inspection, the impression you make on the structure owner must be positive from the very start. Public relations with neighbors is the key. The purpose of all communications with persons residing near planned blasting operations is to educate structure owners as to what will take place during the blasting operations, to explain that safe blasting practices will be followed and vibration and airblast limits will be imposed to protect surrounding structures from damage. Once access into the structure is obtained, the structure owner can be shown, by careful documentation, all existing cracks and defects in the structure prior to blasting and construction. The objective of your visit and all communications is get your foot into the door and win the confidence of the structure owner so that he or she understands blasting will not compromise the structure.

Jan 1, 2006

By B S. Petri, N T. Rouse

Underground limestone mines generally lack air pressure monitoring procedures and instrumentation guidelines. The blasting industry also lacks an applicable source for air overpressure levels that are produced by blasting operations in underground mines. This became apparent during the development of a new underground limestone mine, where overpressure levels from production blasting needed to be estimated. During the development phase of the mine, it was imperative that newly constructed underground structures be capable of withstanding the overpressure produced by blasting. Therefore, a study was conducted to (1) identify and review any published studies for data that may be applicable, (2) identify the appropriate equipment required to record the overpressure levels, (3) determine the proper procedures for setting up the equipment and recording overpressure, and (4) provide an understanding of the nature of the air overpressure in a developing mine.

Jan 1, 2014

By Jeremiah Cohn, Rachel L. Bauer, Catherine E. Johnson

Water is frequently used in explosive applications to increase explosive performance and reduce air overpressure. Water tamping can enhance cutting abilities of shaped charges in demolition and increase impulse of kicking or breaching charges. In explosive disposal, water is used to suppress air overpressure and reduce noise. Despite its widespread use, the specific effect of water placement, whether in front of or behind the explosive, has not been studied. This work evaluates the directional effects of water placement on blast performance using 400-gram sheet explosive charges in five configurations: no water (control), rear-only water (tamped), front-only water (pushed), water on both sides (confined), and a thin front-and-rear water layer (low mass confined) to assess reduced mass effects. Water was sealed in plastic bags and held in position with custom 3D-printed cages to ensure consistent geometry and contact. A modified ballistic pendulum consisting of a hanging steel W-beam was used to evaluate impulse transfer, with high-speed video capturing swing velocity. Air overpressure was recorded using a seismograph microphone. Rear-only water (tamping) increased beam swing velocity by 69% over the control while confinement with water on both sides increased performance by 12% at a 2:1 water-to-explosive ratio and by 50% at 4:1, though it still underperformed the tamped-only configuration. Pushed water alone did not increase beam momentum and reduced tamping effectiveness by 19% when combined. Seismograph microphone data showed that pushed and low mass confined water configurations produced some of the highest air overpressure levels (up to 139.2 dB), while tamped and control charges produced lower levels (~134–136 dB), suggesting that pushed water may amplify, rather than mitigate, air shock transmission. These findings show that water placement has a strong directional influence on blast dynamics: water behind a charge enhances energy transfer to the target, while water in front provides limited or potentially counterproductive mitigation. This study advances understanding of water–explosive interactions and will lead to more effective charge designs for breaching, disposal, and demolition.

Jan 26, 2026

By Sandra Penttinen

To assist blasting professionals with the creation, documentation, and appropriate methodology to standardize the data collection of the pre and post blast investigation process. Penttinen Associates will present a logical non-technical presentation focusing on: Why pre-blast surveys SAVE How to prepare for pre-blast inspections What to do in preparation of pre-blast inspections The creation of an industry standard all-inclusive pre-blast document Establishing pre-blast inspection operational standards Preserving the data.

Jan 1, 2001

By Jack Eloranta

Optimization of blasting requires the comprehension of processes including drilling through milling. The author has previously considered the role of powder factor in relationship to downstream processing costs. Recent modeling done by Lownds provides improved prediction of fragmentation based on the distribution and level of blast energy. Many recent studies have indicated improved downstream costs due to higher powder factor. However, changes in powder factor are accompanied by changes in pattern. The purpose is to segregate the effects of higher powder factor from powder distribution. This paper will attempt to use typical Mesabi Range iron ore parameters and costs to illuminate the subject of total process optimization.

Jan 1, 2001

By Agne Rustan

This paper is intended to give a summary of the first ten Symposia on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting where the symposia activities were governed by a Steering Committee replaced at Fragblast 2 by an International Organizing Committee (IOC). At Fragblast 9 the name was changed to Fragblast International Organizing Committee (FIOC). Eighty four pages of statistical data about Fragblast 1-10 is documented on the Fragblast Website (ISEE.org).

Jan 1, 2014