Search Documents

By Robert B. Hopler

First, a definition: “an explosive is called a permissible explosive when it is similar in all respects to the sample that passed certain tests by the national Bureau of Mines, and when it is used in accordance with the conditions prescribed by that bureau. * This was the definition as stated in Miners’ Circular No. 2,” published by the United States Bureau of Mines in 1911, and it is still applicable today. Of course there have been changes over the years, with the name “MSHA Permitted Explosive” now the legal terminology since January 1989, but the old 1911 circular still tells us what the material is. Note that the definition doesn’t even specifically state “coal mining.” A permissible can be required in guy underground operation that is deemed to have a gas or dust hazard, although in 1911 it was certainly meant to refer only to coal.

Jan 1, 1995

By Robert B. Hopler

The hazards which naturally prevail in underground coal mines, always severe and unpredictable due to the loosely-consolidated strata in which coal is frequently found, are increased by the commonly-occurring combination of coal dust, methane, and explosives. It was recognized by the mid-nineteenth century that coal dust was the basic factor contributing to disastrous explosions killing hundreds of miners, and that the ignition of methane gas was often the source of the coal dust explosions. It was apparent that preventing the ignition of methane was a critical part of avoiding these disasters, and it was also apparent that one cause of such ignitions was the firing of explosives. In addition, it was found that dust explosions were often initiated by blown-out shots of explosives in the absence of methane.

Jan 1, 1996

By A R. Cameron

"The number of commercial explosive products available to the mining industry has been steadilyincreasing and associated with this there has been an increase in the range of characteristics or properties of them. This has lead to increased difficulties in selecting the most appropriate explosive for a particular blasting situation. Techniques are available that can be used to evaluate and compare the characteristics of explosives under a range of conditions. Also, the techniques are used to assess the variability in the characteristics between batches."

Jan 1, 1994

By R. Bitmead, R Barker, A. Drake

The opencut coal mine is located about 50 km west of Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland in Australia and produces about 140 000 tonnes per annum of high grade steaming coal utilising a small team (ten) of personnel to mine remnants of the Aberdare and Bluff seams left by previous underground mining. This, in itself, is not remarkable except that one of the seams has commenced spontaneously cornbusting resulting in temperatures in excess of 55’C commonly being encountered with portions of the p’it being wreathed in steam. To extend mine life, the mine required a blasting system that would: . Safely blast in temperatures below 100°C . Significantly reduce overall unit costs . Not increase the current vibration impacts on nearby housing . Not increase flyrock.

Jan 1, 2002

By John Dean Smith

"In many operations the two most overlooked aspects in the drilling and blasting process is theblast optimization and explosive selection. Often times we find a blast design that seems to work andproduce acceptable results and will use this cut afier cut, even years. When in reality one should never become complacent and should be constantly looking for ways to improve the drilling and blasting operation."

Jan 1, 1995

By W. J. Birch, R. Farnfield

The use of electronic detonators to control blast vibrations has been previously established by many authors. This is performed by determining the optimum delay period between the blast holes for a particular pattern that can accurately control the firing frequency of the blast, which in turn has a direct bearing on the frequency composition of the ground vibrations recorded at a particular location. This was established by Pedgen, Birch, Hosein & Farnfield (2006) whereby like-for-like comparison tests between non-electric and electronic blasts were carried out in a limestone quarry in northern England. They demonstrated that resulting peak particle velocity values recorded at near and mid-field distances were primarily a product of the firing frequency of the electronically initiated blasts.

Jan 1, 2009

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 Norman Disley, David B. Counter, Lionel Hebert

Misfires in underground and surface production blasts can be costly. Costs can arise from loss of resource, production interruptions, having to redrill or otherwise refire the blast (a hazardous process at best), due to added secondary blasting or breakage, and/or from increased LHD maintenance costs attributable to poor fragmentation.

Jan 1, 1996

By Mark Abernathy

When most people think of a motor vehicle accident, the direct costs resulting from that accident, such as vehicle repair or towing charges, are generally easy to quantify. However, the indirect costs associated with an accident are often overlooked. These indirect costs can take a tremendous toll on a company in more ways than you might think.

Jan 1, 2006

1974 The Society of Explosives Engineers officially formed to “advance the art and science of explosives engineering” on August 20, 1974 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Jan 1, 2010

By Shazad Hosein, William Birch, Douglas A. Anderson

This paper will present the results of tests of a new method for assessing explosive performance using wavelet transform analysis of standard blast seismograms. The theoretical background of the method was presented at an earlier ISEE conference.

Jan 1, 2015

By Kenneth Eltschlager, Jim Ratcliff, Michael Mann, Edward Sheehan

The Appalachian Blaster Certification Delegation initiated a study to compare the consistency of measurements from blasting seismographs. Six blasts were monitored at surface coal mines in West Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio. A total of seven different makes were deployed during the tests, with as many as seven models from five different manufacturers compared during any one blast. Great care was taken to bury the geophones in identical fashion. The variations in seismograph readings were compared to the International Society of Explosives Engineers’ Performance Specifications for Blasting Seismographs. Between 4 and 125 Hertz, the ground vibration amplitudes should be within ±5% and airblast amplitudes should be ±1 decibel. For each of the three mutually perpendicular ground vibration channels and the acoustic channel, the median value of all the units was used as a baseline for comparison. The six blasts monitored had median peak particle velocities ranging from 0.42 to 3.47 inches per second (in/s) (10.7 – 88.1 mm/s) and median airblasts ranging from 124 to 135 decibels (dB). There were 46 seismograph recordings for the six blasts. Eighteen (39%) of the 46 maximum peak particle velocities varied more than ±5% from the median. A total of 138 (3 × 46) component particle velocities were recorded, with 50 (36%) of the readings varying more than ±5% from the median. For airblast comparison, 43 recordings were obtained, with seven (16%) varying more than ±1 dB of the median. Variances may be attributable to blasting seismograph differences, variations in field deployment, and relative locations of the geophones. Full waveform seismic and acoustic overlays for individual blasts showed encouraging conformity with some slight anomalies

Jan 1, 2015

By Tom Pfitzer, Alice Correa, Meredith Hardwick

The past decade has brought significant changes in the use of risk-based criteria for safety within the U.S. Department of Defense. The Range Commanders Council (RCC) chartered a working group to develop and define risk acceptance criteria for protecting the general public and mission essential personnel from debris from launch ranges. This working group has continued to develop and update RCC Standard 321 as the needs of the ranges and range users have evolved. A revision to RCC Standard 321 is near finalization and will include casualty criteria, guidelines for assessing risks due to other flight hazards in addition to inert debris, and an overall risk management process for range safety. This paper reports on work in progress and includes several precedents which may prove important to the explosives safety community.

Jan 1, 2007

By Randy Wheeler

One of the more difficult topics to address concerns the effects of vibration on historic structures. Not only blast induced vibration, but also vibration from other transient and semi-continuous sources like, traffic, human activity, and environment forces. A common question might be, “What level of blast-re l a ted PPV is considered safe?” A review of some of the papers available from the ISEE Explosives Reference Database on CD ROM shows that 0.50 inch per second was often used. It was not clear on what basis this value was selected except that it represents the low frequency limit for plaster developed by the United States Bureau of Mines in RI 8507. In another case, a limit of 0.20 inch per second was mentioned, apparently simply because it was ten times less than 2.00 inches per second.

Jan 1, 2004

By P D. "Takis" Katsabanis

The phenomenon of sympathetic detonations in blastholes is investigated by comparing experimental observations and numerical modelling results. Numerical modelling using the TDL computer code and Forest Fire decomposition rates for commercial explosives has shown the importance of blasthole diameter, impedance of the stemming and host rock. Comparison with experimental observations has also shown that sympathetic detonations cannot always be treated as shock to detonation transition. Examination of previous results which have been obtained from calibrated low amplitude shock experiments reveal that there is an ignition threshold prior to the detonation threshold. The difference between the two thresholds is more pronounced in the case of air bubble sensitized products. The ignition threshold can be very important under the confinement provided by the blasthole and the conditions of application. It also correlates well with the pressures expected at the gap distances of interest in the practical application. It is suggested that critical energies are used as the criterion for cross initiation in blastholes. Practical suggestions based on the numerical calculations and experiments based on these calculations are also given and discussed.

Jan 1, 1991

By Patrice Favreau

In 1990 the Noranda Technology Centre commenced a project to develop an interactive three-dimensional blast design system using a commerical computer-aided drafting and design package (CADD). The objective was to alleviate the blast engineer from the tedious and time consuming blast layout and design functions normally done by hand. This would allow more time for optimizing blast designs through assessing multiple options. Since several blast design software "tools" already existed at Noranda, the need arose to integrate all the applications into one overall system that shared one common database. The result is BLASTCAD.

Jan 1, 1992

By Thomas Hans Kleine

In general the software required by a blast designer includes tools that graphically present blast designs (surface & underground), can analyze a design or predict its result, and can assess blasting results. As computers develop and computer literacy continues to rise the development of and use of such tools will spread.

Jan 1, 1995

By David Miller, James Santoro

Blasting is often required in urbanized areas to allow for economical execution of construction, demolition, and mining. Several examples of operations that require blasting in built up areas include: rock blasting for foundation and utility excavations; surface and underground mining for mineral extraction; and explosives demolition. Although explosives demolition is an engineering discipline, not at all like rock blasting, it still uses explosives for the felling of structures that have outlived their usefulness. Through the use of modem technology and implementation of extra safety precautions, explosives are used safely in congested areas to make the performance of critical work economical and feasible. This paper discusses several precautions required when undertaking various types of rock blasting and explosives demolition in congested areas. It also presents the adverse effects that must be considered when blasting in congested areas. The effects identified include flyrock, vibration and airblast, fumes, and non-elastic (permanent) ground deformations/overbreak. Measures for mitigating and controlling these adverse effects to provide on-site and public safety are presented.

Jan 1, 2000

By Gungor Tuncer, Ali Kahriman, Abdulkadir Karadogan, Mehmet Aksoy, Kagan Ozdemire

With increasing environmental constraints on the levels of disturbance induced by blasting operations upon nearby residents, there is an increasing need to be able to design cautious blasting with greater precision. Therefore, determination of maximum amount of explosive per delay for a certain distance especially in large blasts is of great importance for the elimination of these environmental problems. Although too many research studies had been carried out in the past in order to eliminate environmental issues produced from blasting unfortunately a general approach or formula has not been established yet because of the complexity of the matter. In addition to the wave and ground motion characteristics, the complexity of blasting parameters and site factors restrict the developing a general criterion. So experimental site-specific studies should be still done in order to predict and control blasting effects. This paper presents the results of ground vibration measurements carried out in Espey Open-Pit Boron (Colemanite) Mine located on the west side of the central Anatolia near Kütahya province in Turkey. Within the scope of this study, ground vibration components were measured for 13 shots during bench blast optimisation studies in order to predict peak particle velocity level for this site. In blasting operations; ANFO and Powergel Magnum 600 (blasting agent), Powergel Magnum (priming) and delay electric detonators (firing) were used as explosives. Parameters of scaled distance (charge quantity per delay and the distance between the source and the station) were recorded carefully and the ground vibration components were measured for all blast events using 4 different types vibration monitors (3 White Mini-Seis and 1 Instantel Minimate Plus Models). Then, the data pairs of scaled distance and particle velocity obtained from the 38 record events were analysed statistically. At the end of statistical evaluation of the data pairs, an empirical relation which gives average line at 95% confidence level and upper bound 95% prediction line with a reasonable correlation coefficient was established between peak particle velocity and scaled distance.

Jan 1, 2005

By Randall M. Wheeler

The measurement and analysis of blast-induced ground vibrations are more complex than ever before. This is primarily due to the advancements made in microchip technology, mass storage utilities and the computer, which have allowed us to reduce and analyze data in a matter of moments instead of days. Terminologies such as Fourier transform, response spectra, cross-correlation, convolution, deconvolution and half-length frequency, etc. mean little to anyone except those who are experts in the field. A little understanding of the basic concepts behind vibration effects can help a beleaguered end-user feel more confident about what their measurements really mean.

Jan 1, 1992