Search Documents

By Calvin J. Konya

Many controversies and differences of opinion exist in blasting technology. The primer location in small diameter dynamite columns is an example of one of these controversial areas. It is generally agreed that in rotation firing of small diameter blastholes, primer placement near the bottom of the borehole is beneficial since it reduces the likelihood of cutoffs. The controversy results in the actual location of the primer in the bottom of the blasthole. Some references indicate that the primer cartridge should be the first cartridge in the bottom of the hole, with the cap pointed toward the collar of the hole. Others indicate that performance is improved with no sacrifice in safety by placing a tamped cartridge first in the hole, and the second cartridge being the primer. The following investigation provides some factual data for consideration.

Jan 1, 1980

By R W. Bellenie, P N. Blakey

The phenomena of post detonation gases in muckpiles is reasonably well known. It causes the 'rumbling' noises occasionally heard after a blast in open pits or quarries and is thought to occur due to initiation of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, etc. by 'hot' spots within the muckpile. The problem usually occurs with highly aluminized products, but can occur with any oxygen deficient product. This phenomenon was never a problem underground due to restriction on access to blast areas, ventilation criteria, etc. until the advent of large diameter blastholes and particularly their use for specialized applications such as drilling for blasting down 'hang-ups' in ore passes.

Jan 1, 1980

By R C. Berglund

Since the Republic Mine began production in the mid 1950's, drilling and blasting practices have continually changed. In recent years, progress has been achieved through the development of more precise blast engineering methods, in greatly increasing the use of non-water resistant ammonium nitrate explosives, and in changing to a non-electric in-hole delay initiation system. Also, recent experience indicates that ammonium nitrate fueled with nitropropane and methanol is a viable substitute for aluminized AN-FO.

Jan 1, 1980

By Robert C. Friend

On-the-job and "hands-on" training programs which attempt to train newcomers to blasting with instructors whose only qualification is their experience can easily miss the boat. Organized training programs which utilize competent instructors and a well developed format are necessary if we wish to provide a meaningful program of instruction, But, let's not go overboard and attempt to provide a level of training which goes far beyond the scope of the worker's duties and responsibilities, and "need to know",

Jan 1, 1980

By Joe Dannenberg

A word of preface: The material contained in this talk is not completely original. Many thoughts and actual words come from a fine little book called "1,000 Years of Explosives" by William S. Dutton. The book is now out of print, but if there is enough interest shown by this Society, perhaps we can have it reprinted.

Jan 1, 1980

By Peter N. Calder, John N. Tuomi

The development of a successful control blasting program for an open pit iron mine in hard jointed rock is described. The objectives and mechanics of control blasting are discussed. Design and implementation procedures, which should have wide application, are given. Small diameter angle hole pre-split blasting, buffer blasting with production holes in front of pre-split lines and in front of strongly defined rock structures, and vibration control of production blasts are dealt with.

Jan 1, 1980

By John R. Coulson

A survey of federal and state licensing requirements for blasters employed on the surface and underground was conducted for the Bureau of Mines. Subdivisions include surface and underground (large and small), metal, nonmetal and coal. The requirements for certification, class of license, available training, types of testing and enforcement practices are discussed. Included are recommendations of some of the industry trade organizations.

Jan 1, 1980

By Gerald R. Coonan

Early in the open session of the 1979 SEE Fifth Conference panel discussion, someone asked a question of the panel concerning the future intent of the Office of Surface Mining and the regulatory limits established for ground vibration and air blast. The "gist" of the question was: "What assurances do we have that OSM will not promulgate a limit of 0.5 inch per second ground vibration, or some other number within the next two years or so."

Jan 1, 1979

By Kis M

The purpose of seismic control of blasting is to indicate the vibration magnitude or to eliminate the occurrence of vibration damage caused by blasting. At the Mining Research Institute in Hungary, a new method has been developed to determine the method of delay. Near the blasting site (within 100-200 meters), the peak value of the particle velocity is determined by calculation and also by measurement. In the calculations, the time error of the electric detonators is taken into consideration. During the test program, the results of the experimental blasts and the calculated data have shown good correlation. The method of calculation helps the operator eliminate vibration damage, while the greatest quantity of charge can be detonated.

Jan 1, 1979

By E Emery Jr Gray

The City of Richmond, in an effort to improve sewage treatment facilities, designed an invert syphon to cross the James River at Fulton Bottom. The design criteria called for installation of two 36-inch pipe' lines at an elevation of -35 with the mean water level being at elevation 00. This paper discusses the actual method of construction used to blast the river bottom. Choice of excavation equipment, nature of the river, as well as the geological structure, were taken into consideration.

Jan 1, 1979

By Richard A. Dick

On August 3, 1977 the 95th Congress passed Public Law 95-87, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. This Act created the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), which was given the responsibility of formulating regulations to implement the Act. This paper explains the rationale behind the specific provisions of the final blasting regulations, which were published in volume 44, No. 50 of the Federal Register, dated March 13, 1979. The major items covered by the regulations include preblasting surveys, blasting schedules, protection of the public, ground vibration limits, the scaled distance equation, airblast limits, blasting procedures, and record keeping. The regulations are designed to protect the safety and well-being of the public and to protect buildings and structures such as wells, pipelines, and storage facilities from damage.

Jan 1, 1979

By P Wapner, C Lo Edwards, S CO Schmidt, J N. Johnson, R Oliver

Shale oil recovery rates that can be achieved in underground in situ retorts can be strongly influenced by the shale breakage and fragment-size distribution achieved during rubblization. Since the fragmentation pattern in the retort is a direct result of the blast design used for rubblization, the characterizing blast parameters should be carefully selected. Explosives should be matched to the host material and blast geometries properly chosen so that the required fragmentation results are achieved at optimum costs. Special attention must be directed to selecting blast parameters that produce uniform bed permeability, suppression of fines, proper fragment size distribution, and minimal damage to the retort walls and ceiling. The influence of joints and natural fractures should also be known. In instances where the requisite blasting parameters are unknown, they should be determined from test blasts.

Jan 1, 1979

By Bill Runner, James T. Ludwiczak

During the last few years, there has been a flood of local, state, and Federal government regulations concerning blasting. Many of the laws and regulations were written by individuals who know little about explosives, the purpose of blasting, or blasting vibration and damage. I feel that the special interest groups responsible for some of these regulations are not trying to regulate blasting, but to stop it completely by unreasonable, non-flexible, regulations. The most recent being the Office of Surface Mining regulations that are already spreading to the quarry industry and will, no doubt, spread to all blasting involving disturbance of the surface.

Jan 1, 1979

By Earl Cook

With all our power and hope, we are part of the natural system and subject to its laws. As Francis Bacon pointed out long ago, we must understand those laws and "obey" them if we wish to "conquer nature." Bacon was saying that if we plan and engineer in compliance with nature's laws, we'll get a lot more out of the natural system than if we don't, because then we can use the system instead of fighting it.

Jan 1, 1979

By Rodney C. Espley-Jones, John C. B Wilson

South Africa is well known for its shaft sinking exploits, and many of the world's biggest and deepest shafts are to be found there. Blasting practice differs in a number of respects from that followed elsewhere.

Jan 1, 1979

By Edward J. Jr Walter, Edward J. Walter

The vibration problem is approximately fifty years old. The original investigation of the U.S. Bureau of Mines was begun in 1930. Significant investigation into the problem was done by Crandell, Langefors, et al, Edwards and Northwood, and again by the Bureau of Mines. This resulted in an effective Safe Limit standard expressed in particle velocity as 2.0 inches per second.

Jan 1, 1979

When CIL presented their new theory of the Breakage Process and Delay Blasting at the 74th Annual Meeting of the CIM in 1972(1), there was hardly any open pit operation in Canada that was using longer than 25 msec. delays. To the contrary, 10 and 15 msec. surface relays were common, which in our opinion were no delays at all for open pit blasting.

Jan 1, 1979

By Lee W. Saperstien

Section 709 of Public Law 95-87, "Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977," requests the National Academy of Sciences to determine if the standards of the act are applicable to minerals other than coal. The Academy has established the Committee on Surface Mining and Reclamation to respond to this charge. The committee is, itself, organized to be responsive to the varieties of minerals, environments, mining systems, and locations that are representative of U.S. mining systems. It is not the charge of the committee to write trial legislation, but to indicate whether or not technology, extant or proposed, is available to meet the standards of the law, and at what cost. It is within this set of conditions that the committee will examine blasting.

Jan 1, 1979

By W C. Burkle

A rather common observation over the last several decades at least has been that rock or ore properties influence blasting results more than does the explosive type that has been used in the blast. It we accept that premise than it is held here that the material to be blasted should receive even closer attention as to its properties. Several years ago, Dr. Richard Ash published papers that pointed out the rock properties that mostly influence blasting. These principles are given attention in this paper. We have gone somewhat further - or lets say expanded this subject in regard to the role of rock structure in open pit blasting. Though open pit work is given some prominence, we believe that much can be observed and applied to underground mining.

Jan 1, 1979

By Robert S. Mayo

Tunneling, for transportation, began in France with the Milpass Tunnel on the Lanquedoc Canal in 1680. Of course, the ancient miners had been driving tunnels in search of minerals since the dawn of history but this Milpas Tunnel was the first tunnel exclusively for transportation. In England in 1760, the Duke of Bridgewater opened a canal from his coal mines to Manchester, 10 1/2 miles away. At the mine, he drove a tunnel into the mountain so that the miners could shovel the coal directly into canal boats. James Brindley, an untutored genius, was his engineer and this whole transportation system was an instant success and very profitable through the years. Within a dozen years the Duke, again with James Brindley, opened up the Grand Trunk Canal, 139 miles in length with five tunnels. There was one major tunnel on this system, the First Harecastle Tunnel, 1 1/2 miles in length. But this tunnel was too small. It was only large enough for one 7-ft wide boat which had to be "legged" through by boatmen laying on their backs. By 1824 a second tunnel was driven parallel to the first one, but it had a towpath through it for horse haulage. This was the beginning of the " Industrial Age" and tunnels became a very important part of that era.

Jan 1, 1979