390 likes | 412 Views
Trouble Shooting. Common Blast Design Pitfalls. The 19th Annual Surface Mined Land Reclamation Technology Transfer Seminar Jasper, Indiana December 5 th & 6 th , 2005. Wm. J. Reisz. Common Blast Design Pitfalls. Improper Hole Placement holes to close to the face
E N D
Trouble Shooting Common Blast Design Pitfalls The 19th Annual Surface Mined Land Reclamation Technology Transfer Seminar Jasper, Indiana December 5th & 6th, 2005 Wm. J. Reisz
Common Blast Design Pitfalls • Improper Hole Placement • holes to close to the face • optimal burdens & spacings • Transient Pressures/Dynamic Shock • deadpress • basic blast design • insufficient decking • Electronic Initiation Systems • why electronics? • pyrotechnic demonstration
Hole Placement Spoil Spoil
Optimum Burdens & Spacings • Determine Bench Parameters • bench height • width • length • hole diameter • explosives type • retangular 1:1.2 • staggered 1:1.5
Non-Proportional Burdens 15’ 25’ 25’ 105’ 25’ 15’
Proportional Burdens & Spacings Crest burden ≈ .7 X inner row burden 16.4’ 16.4’ 15.8’ 38.1’ 39.8’ 110’ 105’ 63.2’ 60.4’ 86.6’ 82.7’ 110’ 105’ 153’ 105’ ÷ 4.7 = 22.3’ 7 holes = 6 inner hole spacings 153’ ÷ 6 = 25.5’ 110’ ÷ 4.7 = 23.4’
Blast Design ISEE Certificate Program, Level One-Practical Blasting Fundamentals
Transient Pressures • Deadpress • Fire at a low order • Total failure of the explosive charge • Dynamic Shock • Damage the initiator • Destroy the booster • Fire at the wrong time • Sympathetic Detonation
Insufficient Decking Bottom First
< Bottom First Rule of Thumb • Bottom Up ↔12 - 15 times borehole diameter For example: 9” dia. X 15 = 135” ÷ 12” = 11¼’ Stemming Between Decks
< Top First Rule of Thumb • Top Down ↔ 1 foot for every inch of borehole diameter For example: 9” dia. X 1’ = 9’ stem Stemming Between Decks
Why Electronic Detonator Systems? • Eliminate pyrotechnic scatter • poor rock fragmentation • high ground vibration levels • high air blast levels • greater flyrock potential
Why Electronic Detonator Systems? • Eliminate pyrotechnic scatter • Delay selection, site specific • Safety • immunity to RF, EMI and Stray Current • completely testable • automated self-test and disarm features • requires specific blast machine to fire
Why Electronic Detonator Systems? • Eliminate pyrotechnic scatter • Delay selection, site specific • Safety • Optimized Blast Performance • Vibration Control • Flyrock Control • Floor Control • Wall Control • Improved Cast Percentage
Why Electronic Detonator Systems? • Eliminate pyrotechnic scatter • Delay selection, site specific • Safety • Autonomous Operation • Optimized Blast Performance • Inventory Control
What Electronic Detonator SystemsWill Not Do • overcome poor blast design • make your job easier
Detonators Attached to Grade Stake Shock Tube 400 ms Daveytronic 400 ms
Comparison to pyrotechnic dets Daveytronic
Actual Firing Times Grade Stake Pyrotechnics/ms Daveytronic/ms
Blast Simulation Using Actual Shock Tube Firing Times If we add 17ms between holes we have . . . . 405 405 34 68 85 515 102 412 531 119 421 574 153 496 51 136 0 411 428 17 451 383 434 428 490 419 555 417 405 413 - 4.25% + 7% Avg. dev. + 2.85% 6ms 6ms 2 6 4 5 7 8 9 1 3 10 Higher Air & Ground Vibrations Poor Fragmentation Zone Potential Flyrock Column Disruption Out of Sequence Holes
Blast Design ISEE Certificate Program, Level One-Practical Blasting Fundamentals
Thanks www.daveytronic.com Wm. J. Reisz