03 Timing Precision ASIEX Workshop-C Cunningham

Blast Timing Precision
When does it matter?
Explosive column
AQUARIUM
Claude Cunningham
Blasting Investigations and Consultancy
Road Map
Why the presentation?
Blasting mechanics
Timing Parameters
Delay Limitations
Minimum requirements
Shock tube and ED characteristics
Wrap-up
October 2012
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy
Why the presentation?

Involved with EDs since 1993
Focussed on application, specs and expectations
General confusion over when and how timing

precision can help
Guidelines to help anticipate likely benefit of
more precise timing
But many good reasons to choose EDs,
other than precision
October 2012
Key blasting results

Vibration amplitude and frequency
Airblast amplitude and frequency
Fragmentation size range
Overbreak and depth of damage
Movement direction and range
Drilling/ Powder factor needed
- cost and productivity
All affected to some degree by timing
October 2012
Blasting mechanisms governed by:

Explosives characteristics
Energy, sensitivity, VoD
Ground reaction to detonation impulse

Strength, rigidity, structure
Blast Layout
Drilling pattern
Free Faces
Timing of holes
October 2012
Explosive-Rock Interaction
The initial ground conditions are FIXED
They determine how the available energy is partitioned.
Shock phase:
Plastic distension,
Weakening of mass
Heave/Gas phase:
Loosening of weakened mass,
Expansion/ movement
Strong rock: 40 60% shock energy.

Resists shock mechanisms
Weak rock: 60 90% shock energy.

Absorbs shock mechanisms
Less expansion of the hole

Greater transmission of strain waves
Greater displacement of burden.
More expansion of the hole

Reduced transmission of strain waves
Reduced displacement of burden.
October 2012
Mechanisms in blasting
Radial expansion/ compressive failure
Transmission of strain waves
Extension of microcracks weakens mass
Tensile failure by reflected strain waves
Hard rocks
Tensile failure by gas expansion in cracks
Displacement of burden rock
Shear failure by displacement between holes
Fragmentation by autogenous attrition
Weak rocks
October 2012
Timing influence
Ground condition and geometry determine if timing can
influence hole interaction.
Holes too far apart cannot influence each other
Fractured, weak ground limits benefits of precise timing
For holes that can influence each other, timing

determines whether they interact well, badly, or not at all.
Strong rock strain interaction quick timing
Weak rock gas interaction slow timing
October 2012
Key needs of timing

Sequencing:
holes firing in wrong sequence tend to be catastrophic
to efficiency, effectiveness and safety.
Interval:
given a critical interval, the physics of too-short or toolong will give sub-optimal outcome.
Priority:
Timing that favours one outcome might degrade
another outcome: e.g., movement vs fragmentation.
October 2012
Vibration Control
Weak rock,
far off.
Hard rock,
close up
Vibration Frequency vs Row Interval
100
90
Responding Fequency Hz
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
100
150
200
ms Interval
Frequency ~ 1000/dt
October 2012
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

and Consultancy
10
Fragmentation - intervals
Timing for Fragmentation in different rock types
Sound
speed,
m/s
100
Inter-row ~ 3 x Intra-row interval
90
80
ms intra-row interval
70
60
2000
3000
50
4000
5000
40
6000
30
20
10
0
0
10
12
Burden m
October 2012

and Consultancy
11
Delay vs Interval: easy to confuse

Blastholes
Scatter range on interval - 20%

Interval 100ms
10 ms
15 ms
Delay
Scatter
5%
200
300
Interval determines Effect

Delay determines Scatter
October 2012
20 ms
range
90 110 ms
400
TIME, ms
Delay
Scatter affects Interval
Scatter influences Effect

and Consultancy
12
Basis of Precision:
Normal Distribution
Normal Distribution - 500 ms Shock Tube Delays, 7.5ms SD
6
477.5
485
492.5
500
507.5
515
522.5
Percent
4
3
34%
34%
2.1%
2.1%
1
13.8%
13.8%
52
3
52
1
51
9
51
7
51
5
51
1
51
3
50
9
50
7
50
3
50
5
50
1
49
9
49
5
49
7
49
3
49
1
48
7
48
9
48
5
48
3
47
9
48
1
47
7
Delay m s
1/20 shots fall outside 2
Only 3/1000 shots fall outside this envelope

October 2012
13
Real vs Modelled Scatter

But we can only work
with modelled stats
Actuals are not

symmetrical
500ms Shock tube Delay Stats
Batches have different

Means and SDs
60%
50%
500ms Shock tube - Normal Distribution

45
40
40%
D is t r ib u t io n
All
03-Feb
28-Feb
06-Mar
% in Bin
30%
20%
35
30
03-Feb
28-Feb
6-Mar
All
25
20
15
10%
10
5
0%
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
0
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
Delay ms (5ms bins)
5ms Delay Range

October 2012

and Consultancy
14
Timing Scatter
Normal distribution
SD for Mean time Tm
Range = + 6
Range vs delay
Coefficient of Variance
CoV = / Tm x 100%
Shock tube CoV 1.5% to 2% down hole

ED CoV <0.1% (old systems only?)
October 2012
15
Pyrotechnic delay precision

CoV, %
Standard deviation, ms
14
12
Main source of interval error

10
8
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
Surface delays
October 2012
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Nominal delay, ms
16
Risk of falling outside range:

CoV 1.5% and 2%
Does it matter if 10% of the intervals are more than 13,
or 17 ms out?
Risk vs Range of Delay, SD varying
100.0
% Risk of falling outside range
10% >17ms out

10.0
SD 7.5
SD = 10
10% >13ms out

1.0
0.1
0
October 2012
10
15
20
25
Claude Cunningham:
Blasting
Investigations
m s outside Nom
inal Delay
and Consultancy
30
35
17
Scatter Ratio RS
Tm
= Standard deviation of timing

e.g., 10 ms
6
= Range of deviation
60 ms
Tw = Interval desired
Tw
e.g., 25 ms, < Range!
Rs = 6
/ Tw x 100%
60 / 25 = 204%
As Rs>100% control is lost

non-sequential firing,
inconsistent intervals
October 2012
18
Effect of RS on timing uniformity

Mean
CoV
498
0.9
497
1.8
494
1.3
AchievedInterval:
Interval:120
25 ms
42
Achieved
ms nominal
nominal
ms
ms
ms
100
100
200
50
50
100
0 0
0 0
-500
October 2012
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
20
40
RsRs
154%
91%
Rs 32%
60
80
Rs
Rs211%
126%
Rs 44%
100
120
Rs
Rs108%
64%
Rs 22%
140
160
ED
ED
ED
180
19
So what value of RS?

33% will ensure very steady breaking results.
Anything more than 100% is very irregular
In between, OK for weak ground or where
focus is more on unit input cost than on
quality of blast.
Vibration control is most critical application:
but weak ground loses frequency control
anyway.
Unplanned reversals = backbreak, vibration.
October 2012
20
What delays are needed?

Heavy, enduring debate with strong positions.
EDs have enabled delays never attainable before in
production.
Colliding shock waves theorists vs holistic realities
doubters.
Comparative trials very seldom done properly.
By and large, try (a) effect of precision, (b) variation
of delays.
In weak rock, quick delays can work for reasons
other than precision
October 2012
21
Timing Precision: two systems

Pyrotechnic
Shock tube: 500ms in-hole with pre-set surface delays
Electronic
0 to 20000ms in-hole, in 1 ms programmable steps
October 2012
22
Shock Tube and Electronic Detonators

All current EDs are zero-based systems
Different delay for each det
Increasing scatter with time
Lag not an issue.
All opencast Shock tube systems are relaybased systems

Same delay for down-hole dets
Scatter constant
Lag issues.
October 2012
23
ED precision
Dependent on capacitor power and time
Typically two influences
Fusehead jitter constant ~ 0.1-2 ms SD
Delay circuit jitter depends on delay <0.1%
For 1000 ms delay, SD ~ 1 ms, range ~ 6 ms.
Can be big if delay is say 10 000 ms.
In general far better than shock tube
ST Range ~ 35 ms for 500 ms delay.
ED Range ~ 3 ms for 500 ms delay.
But for very long delay, ED intervals can be worse than shock
tube.
And doubtful for inter/intra-millisecond apps.
October 2012
24
Normal distribution timing curves

Normal Distribution of 500ms Delay Detonators and Low Precision ED's
40
35
S/T SD, ms 7.5

ED1 SD, ms 1.1
30
Probability
25
20
15
10
5
0
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
Time ms
October 2012
25
Limits of Precision
Total Delay Range from ED and Shock Tube Systems
70
Range ms (6 SD's)
60
50
Total ED
40
ED circuit 0.10% SD
ED fusehead 1 ms SD
30
Shock tube 1.5% SD
20
10
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Total Period ms
October 2012
26
Effect of delay on Precision

Effect of Delay on ED Precision.
40
35
As delay increases
Probability
30
Precision decreases
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Delay ms
October 2012

and Consultancy
27
Summary
Weak and highly jointed rock masses dissipate shock energy.
Less need for precision
Strong, intact rock masses benefit from precision

All rock masses are variable
Extreme caution in modeling vibration, fragmentation
Vital to test out effect of precision before changing delays

Scatter ratio is key to grasping timing issues
Timing precision is not the only criterion in choosing between
EDs and shock tube.
October 2012
28
The end
Questions?
October 2012
29

03 Timing Precision ASIEX Workshop-C Cunningham

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 Timing Precision ASIEX Workshop-C Cunningham

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blast Timing Precision

When does it matter?

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Why the presentation?

General confusion over when and how timing

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Key blasting results

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Blasting mechanisms governed by:

Ground reaction to detonation impulse

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Strong rock: 40 60% shock energy.

Weak rock: 60 90% shock energy.

Less expansion of the hole

More expansion of the hole

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

For holes that can influence each other, timing

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Key needs of timing

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

Inter-row ~ 3 x Intra-row interval

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

Delay vs Interval: easy to confuse

Scatter range on interval - 20%

Interval determines Effect

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

1/20 shots fall outside 2

Only 3/1000 shots fall outside this envelope

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Real vs Modelled Scatter

Actuals are not

Batches have different

500ms Shock tube - Normal Distribution

Delay ms (5ms bins)

5ms Delay Range

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

Shock tube CoV 1.5% to 2% down hole

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Pyrotechnic delay precision

Main source of interval error

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Risk of falling outside range:

% Risk of falling outside range

10% >17ms out

10% >13ms out

= Standard deviation of timing

e.g., 25 ms, < Range!

As Rs>100% control is lost

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Effect of RS on timing uniformity

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

So what value of RS?

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

What delays are needed?

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Timing Precision: two systems

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Shock Tube and Electronic Detonators

All opencast Shock tube systems are relaybased systems

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations and Consultancy

Normal distribution timing curves