Search Documents

By Piet Halliday, Ellina Kharatyan

Conventionally, emulsion matrices (unsensitized) need to be sensitized to become detonable explosives. This is done either chemically or mechanically. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Mechanical sensitization involves the addition of microballoons (plastic or glass) to the emulsion matrix, in order to create hot spots during detonation. This is usually done at the manufacturing site and poses a safety risk in terms of the storage, transportation and handling of a 1.1 type explosive. Many countries throughout the world make use of chemical sensitization as opposed to mechanical sensitization as this allows for the storage, handling and transportation of two 5.1 type products rather than the 1.1 type explosive. Chemical sensitization involves the addition of a small amount of a chemical that reacts with a component of the emulsion matrix causing the formation of gas bubbles that act as hot spots during detonation. The disadvantage of this is the lack of accurate density control (due to various factors affecting the reaction) and the lack of comprehensive understanding of the operators of the reaction. This can easily result in poor blast performance. Due to these disadvantages a pumpable, non-detonable (5.1 type) mechanical sensitizer was researched and developed. This product allows for pumping at a 50:50 volume ratio with the emulsion matrix, when loading into blast holes. The significance of this is that a 1.1 type explosive is formed in the blast hole. As such, the security and logistical issues of the transportation and storage of the 1.1 type explosive are eliminated. Another advantage is accurate density control of the final product, specifically in small diameter long hole applications. A cost effective, unique mini pumping system has been developed for the loading of this product. Moreover, this system can easily be used for secondary blasting applications and the on-site packaging of cartridged explosive products.

Jan 1, 2015

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 Joshua Hoffman, Rob Farnfield, Catherine Johnson, Braden Lusk, Morgan Lane

IMESAFR (IME Safety Analysis for Risk) is a quantitative risk assessment software tool developed by the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and A-P-T Research, Inc. It is used for managing risk in the commercial explosives industry, the newest version of the software was completed in 2012. This paper discusses the use of this software package in conjunction with data collected for a television series on the reenactment of the ‘London Blitz’, a 57-day bombing of the City of London in 1940. In this reenactment, purpose built structures using period design and materials were constructed at a test facility in the North of England. Five devices ranging in size from 20 kg (44 lb) to 1100 kg (2400 lb) were detonated at varying distances from the structures; each blast was monitored by EPC-UK and the resulting structural damage was analyzed. Data recorded from the blasts included high-speed videos, photographs before and after each event and air overpressure readings. The same data was inputted into the IMESAFR software package to assess the risk imposed on the residents of London during this time. The appropriateness of this tool for evaluating structures built using historical practices is discussed. Data from the full scale tests is compared to effects predicted by IMESAFR. Further analysis of the risk recommendations produced by IMESAFR is compared to the actual damage assessed during the large scale tests.

Jan 1, 2014

By C. T. Aimone-Martin, V. L. Rosenhaim

The response of two structures to blast-induced ground vibrations were evaluated and compared in order to quantify the impact of different blasting operations, hard rock and soft rock blasting, upon the structures movements. The first instrumented structure was a residential type, located in the operational area of a coal mine, were blasting is conducted in soft rocks, such as siltstone and coal, with compressive strength ranging from 20 to 50 MPa. Blasting is characterized by low benches, with hole lengths averaging 5.5 m (18 ft) and low powder factors, 140 to 210 g/m3 (0.236 to 0.354 lb/yd3), resulting in very little horizontal movement of the rock during the blast. The second structure was a commercial building, located in a basalt quarry (compressive strength between 109 and 180 MPa), where blasting is conducted in 12 m (39.4 ft) benches with powder factors ranging from 200 to 350 g/m3 (0.337 to 0.590 lb/yd3). Velocity sensors were placed on the structure walls to measure wall displacements and calculate blast-induced strains in the walls, and these results were compared with the driving ground excitations. The calculated strains were compared with the limits of rupture of the cement grout used as mortar between bricks and as wall coating, considered to be the weakest material in the structure composition. The blast-induced response of existing cracks in the structures were also measured using displacement gages and compared to the daily influence of weather fluctuations, such as changes in temperature and humidity, on crack movement. The results show that for the same levels of ground motions the structures present different movement, resulting in distinct levels of induced strains on the walls depending on the geology. The influence of long-term temperature and humidity variations on crack movements on both structures is very similar, during the same seasons of the year. Crack response to long-term weather changes is 2.5 to 3.5 times greater than blast influences.

Jan 1, 2015

By Shazad Hosein, Bill Birch, Catherine Johnson, Toby White, Liam Bermingham

Air overpressure (AOP) from blasting can give rise to a significant number of blasting complaints from residents living adjacent to blasting operations from mines, quarries or civil engineering projects. High amplitudes of AOP are usually associated with the lateral movement of a vertical free face, but it can also be caused by the upward lifting and the venting of gases through the surface of the blast area.

Jan 1, 2018

By John Platt, Mark Stephens

"When blasting is required in critical areas and anticipated shot movement and quick cleanup areessential to the success of the project it is extremely important to use the best technology available to achieve the goals expected by the customer. Wampum Hardware was given such a challenge in 2014-2015 when the PA Turnpike and New Enterprise Stone and Lime hired the company to do presplit blasting along the PA Turnpike. The face height averaged 45 feet (13.72m) and the shots had to be controlled to stop within 60-75 feet (18.29-22.86m) of the face or in this situation before they entered the travel lanes on the PA turnpike. In many if not most blasting environments, it is essential in controlling the movement of a blast, to make certain that the face holes are drilled at exactly the right place, with the proper amount and type of burden in front of and to the sides of the borehole. Profiling is an important first step to insure that the holes are drilled at exactly the right place and showing us the correct amount of burden in front of each and every drill hole."

Jan 1, 2016

By D J. McLane, J T. Rathbun, B T. Lusk

The dynamics of explosive detonations are understood, however recreating a real-world, full scale scenario is costly. The use of a shock-tunnel allows testing to be done on a smaller scale, with the simulated effect of a large explosion. Analyzing explosive waveforms using this method can greatly reduce cost in testing blast resistant products, such as anti-terrorism devices, mine safety products, and military equipment. The purpose of this paper is to better the understanding of how the waveform characteristics resulting from an explosive detonated within a shock-tunnel differ from those in an open-air arena test. The variables of comparison between an open-air arena test and those conducted within a shock tunnel are peak pressure, impulse, shock wave velocity, and cross sectional shape of the shock front. Understanding how these variables differ, tests utilizing a shock tunnel can be conducted with a higher degree of accuracy and repeatability.

Jan 1, 2013

By Steve Dillingham

A blast site incident has just occurred. Tensions are high, and, as the blaster, you’re in charge of the crisis at hand. Your mind is reeling, your thoughts frantic. The main areas of concern for you at the scene are to deal with immediate problems...aid the injured, take a head count, assess the damage, call emergency response, contact company headquarters, calm the neighbors, update your customer, and respond to the press on site. You feel as if all the bases have been covered...but, then again, have they? One of the biggest mistakes blasters and their companies can make is not including their Insurance carrier in the critical on-site accident procedures and emergency call list. Unfortunately, many companies believe that they are immune to the perils that can often, within a matter of minutes, create chaos that only happens to someone else.

Jan 1, 2002

By Sean Paterson

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a method of delaying and loading a shot. Since entering the construction industry, I have learned that cover is needed on a lot of blasts. When in close having to cover shots was new to me and it seemed time consuming and wastefull. Until I really needed it and didn’t have it. So What To Do??? Remember that safety comes first, if you have concerns cover it. Even if you have to sit on your shot all night to wait for cover. This method is not a replacement for cover, but it will help keep your rock down. Do not bet your life, others lives or your career on it.

Jan 1, 2001

By Mark Spaniel

Computer 3D modeling to evaluate the potential underground blasting fragmentation performance based on rock within calculated damage radii along drillholes, as well as the burden distance from explosives along each drillhole. The results estimated from the 3D computer models closely predicted results found in the real world testing.

Feb 1, 2020

By Richard H. Granhom

Detonation pressure, or Chapman-Jouguet pressure, is an intrinsic property of an explosive, and like detonation velocity, is an indicator of explosive performance. Pressure and velocity are also important for calibrating computer codes and for other calculations such as the stress imparted to rock or metal by an explosive. The detonation pressures, P~cj, of many "ideal" explosives have been measured indirectly by recording some hydrodynamic flow variable other than pressure, with P~cj being inferred from hydrodynamics and the assumed Chapman-Jouguet equations. One such method is the difficult and expensive "aquarium technique''.] Commercial explosive manufacturers generally rely on estimates of P~cj generated by computer codes not explicitly designed for non-ideal explosives typically used in commercial applications. Over the last decade, U.S. national and government laboratories have developed in-situ gauge techniques such as the manganin gauge, for direct measurement of detonation pressure. Manganin is an alloy of copper, manganese and nickel, and is ideally suited for use as a pressure transducer because its electrical resistance changes with pressure, but is nearly constant with changes in temperature. A simplified manganin gauge technique adapted for use at a commercial test site is described and some initial results from measurements on commercial emulsion explosives are presented.

Jan 1, 1991

By Alastair Torrance

The performance of commercial explosives is clearly influenced by the conditions under which they are used. Mining companies are supplied with Technical Data Sheets which provide details about explosive properties and its suitable application. These are generally produced using laboratory techniques which may not accurately reflect the quality and performance of the product in the field.

Jan 1, 2013

By Erica Lorenzo García, Benjamín Cebrian Romo, Antonio Morato Medina

This paper presents the results of a preliminary study on blast-induced vibrations conducted at a Radioactive Waste Storage Facility, located in Spain. The study was undertaken as a preparatory step prior to the blasting operations required for the construction of a new platform located near critical infrastructure housing very-low, low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. The primary goal was to establish a site-specific vibration attenuation curve to safely determine allowable explosive charges based on their distance to sensitive structures. The study followed the criteria defined in the UNE 22.381-93 standard, which regulates permissible vibration levels for different structural typologies. In this case, the existing facilities were classified as Type III structures, given their heightened sensitivity to vibrations. Two experimental campaigns were conducted. Test 1 consisted of a series of 10 individual blasts with increasing charges, monitored by five strategically placed seismographs to record seismic wave propagation and determine the attenuation parameters via regression analysis. Test 2 simulated a production blast using operational charges of 41.7 kg (91.93 lb), applying different delay sequences (42 ms and 25 ms) between holes to assess wave interference, resonance, and constructive effects. Data analysis showed that the longitudinal component dominated vibration transmission, and the predominant frequencies in the most critical zone ranged between 18 and 20 Hz. Based on these values, a conservative peak particle velocity (PPV) limit of 4.75 mm/s (0.19 in/s) was established for blast design. The recorded vibration levels during the tests remained within regulatory limits, with maximum values of 2.35 mm/s (0.09 in/s) and 2.86 mm/s (0.11 in/s) for the sequenced blasts, and peak acceleration of 0.0464g.

Jan 26, 2026

By Dyno Nobel

Impact of Enhanced Security on Operations Budgeting - What is the “value” I receive for enhanced security? Is there a “return” for the money I spend? Regulatory driven Economic driven

Jan 1, 2006

Prepare ATF Report of Theft or Loss (ATF Form 5400.5). A Report of Theft or Loss - Explosives Materials must be prepared when it is discovered that explosive materials are missing from inventory. Submit the original to the U.S. Bomb Data Center and keep a copy for your records. The form can be obtained from the ATF Distribution Center or from www.atf.gov. Although the U.S. Bomb Data Center should be notified as soon as possible, Federal law requires notification within 24 hours of the discovery. A full inventory check is also highly recommended (but not required) to locate missing explosives and to prevent future losses.

Jan 1, 2008

By Jerry Newton

The bulk explosives industry is relatively young compared to how long explosives have been in use. It's been around for about forty years, about the length of a person's career. This period of explosives history has seen constant change. The type of product, the manufacture and the trucks that haul it have changed a great deal over the years.

Jan 1, 1997

By Douglas R. Burns

In New England, an area of the country where 3 ½" holes are considered large diameter,we are starting to experiment with 5" and 6" holes. The results are excellent in some areas and poor in others. The geology of rock is the major consideration to account for the blasting results.

Jan 1, 1997

By Xu Tianrui, Jin Xiang, Pen Dianhua

Based on the results of research or investigation, this paper describes the causes of and countermeasures for unexpected accidents, such as premature, postponed or spontaneous explosions in blasting practices in China.

Jan 1, 1996

By John W. Brown

The purpose of this paper is to describe different methods of evaluating the performance of your current rotary blast hole drills. To properly evaluate a drill rig's performance you should include a competent driller, mechanic, rotary bit technician and a technician representing the manufacturer of the drill.

Jan 1, 1998

By Keith Maki

This paper details a simple substitution of precise electronic timing in the holes for standard pyrotechnic delays. In addition, we wanted to use two electronics in bottom and top to test the colliding shock wave theory. It also discusses the difficult loading conditions on the Iron Range of Northern Minnesota. No preliminary analysis (Signature Hole waveform analysis) was done to determine the most favorable blast timing for fragmentation increase or vibration reduction.

Jan 1, 2007