Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CENTEK, Lule
SWEDEN
1
INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT: The goal has been to develop a simple international acceptable technical formula that can be
standardized by explosive manufacturers and consumers and to be used for the determination of explosive
strength regarding its fragmentation capability. A literature review showed that the first well accepted
technical formula used to determine the strength of an explosive was developed by the Swede Ulf Langefors
in the 1940s and that this formula could be regarded as a paradigm shift at the time when it was developed.
The formula includes two explosive properties; heat of explosion and the gas volume produced per kg of
explosive. The formula was mainly developed for dynamite explosives. The formula can, however, not be
used for ANFO and emulsion explosives. Therefore, in this paper it is proposed a new formula for
international standardization including, besides the two mentioned parameters, also the detonation velocity,
density of explosive, density of rock and P-wave velocity in rock. Also rock structure, confinement and
initiation pattern and delay times affects the fragmentation considerably. Consumers of explosives and
manufacturers will benefit from this kind of development. An analysis of the variation range of the individual
parameters in the new developed formula are shown in the paper. For the validation of the developed formula
the SHB-method (SHB= single hole blasting method) is recommended to be used, because laboratory - or half
scale fragmentation test cannot give the full answer of explosive strength.
strength based on the energy (heat of explosion) name weight strength formula and the symbol s
developed upon detonation of the explosive and the was used. The formula was derived by Ulf Langefors
gas volume produced measured at standard in the 1940s, however, the result was never
temperature and pressure (STP). The formula will be published by Langefors, but the formula was later on
shown further on in the paper. In the Swedish published by Persson et al 1994. The formula reads
Technical Journal submitted by Dyno Nobel as follows
5 Qe
1 Ve
s
2
should be changed to for each. For the calculation
of the strength of explosives this empirical formula
was of large importance when it was developed.
Several researchers, inclusive Granlund, have
verified that this formula can not be used for slurry,
ANFO and emulsion explosives because the
fragmentation capacity for these explosives is much
higher than what can be calculated by the weight
strength formula.
The energy of the explosive delivered into the
rock mass is also affected by other parameters like
blasthole diameter, confinement of the blasthole,
water content in surrounding rock mass, density of
explosive after packing into the blasthole etc.
Blasthole diameters in the 1940s in Sweden were
normally less than 52 mm compared with todays
international blasthole diameters up to 500 mm.
Granlund is discussing in his paper three
interesting parameters; heat of explosion, gas
volume and detonation velocity.
(2)
3
because 1 m of explosive detonated corresponds to a
defined quantity of explosive but because the
detonation velocity depends on the blasthole
diameter it is not easy to calculate the explosive
strength if the diameter of the blasthole is not known.
Also the confinement of the blasthole, the water
content in the rock mass will affect the detonation
velocity. From full-scale field studies we know that
the detonation velocity normally varies from one
blasthole to another in spite that the blastholes are
located in the same surrounding environment.
The conclusion from this is that the detonation
velocity is of outmost importance for the strength of
an explosive and can therefore not be neglected in an
explosive strength formula. An important task for the
explosive manufacturers has been, since 1950s, to
be able to calculate the detonation velocity
unconfined and confined (metal tubes) at different
blasthole diameters with the help of computer codes.
Let us now look on how the detonation velocity
influences the detonation- and borehole pressure
because this determines the dynamic and quasi-static
pressure on the rock mass and thereby the
fragmentation degree.
2.4 Detonation pressure
According to Atchison 1964, at USBM, the
detonation pressure is the most important factor for
the calculation of the maximum amplitude of the
vibrations in the vicinity of the explosive in the
surrounding rock mass. This zone is also called the
shock zone. The amplitude of the ground vibrations
at larger distances from the blasthole are mainly
determined by the total amount of charge in the
blasthole. When several holes are used with delays
between the blastholes, that hole that have the largest
amount of explosive will determine the maximum
amplitude of the ground vibrations. The detonation
pressure pd (MPa) is the pressure that acts in the
reaction zone of the explosive and this zone is called
the Chapman-Jouget plane. The detonation
pressure in this zone can approximately be
determined by the following formula,
1
p d e c d2 10 6
2
(3)
where e is the density of the explosive in kg/m 3 and
cd is the detonation velocity of the explosive in m/s.
The knowledge of the explosive density and
detonation velocity is therefore necessary in a
strength formula for explosives. Both these
parameters are lacking in the Langefors weight
strength formula (1).
If an explosive is packed to a too high density or
is initiated wrongly the explosive can be dead
pressed (too high density is achieved) and detonation
will not occur or the energy for initiation is not
4
Explosives can therefore first be classified after
being tested in single hole blasts in full scale at that
blasthole diameter and burden that actually is going
to be used in the field.
2.6 Gas volume in Langefors weight strength
formula (1)
The gas volume produced by the explosive must
be very interesting as a strength parameter because
the larger the gas volume produced, the larger is the
pressure that will act on the blasthole wall and the
larger the fragmentation effect will be on the
surrounding rock mass. The gas volume produced is
normally calculated theoretically at standard pressure
and temperature and this volume is different from the
actual produced volume in the blasthole at higher
temperature and pressure.
The gas volume produced by an explosive in full
scale can therefore not be determined by a small
scale lab tests. It is important for the blast gases how
fast they are developed and how long the gas
pressure will stand in the blasthole. If the blast gases
are produced very slowly the gases would leak out
through joints into the atmosphere and less pressure
will be left for fragmentation.
The real produced gas volume could be
determined a little more accurate in a pond tests,
under water, because here the actual diameter of the
explosive can be used. The volume of the produced
gas under water can here be determined. The volume
of the gas bubble produced in the pond test can be
measured and the volume is representative of the
volume of blast gas produced. The confinement of
the explosive detonated under water is, however,
different to that in rock blasting and therefore these
results are not fully representative for blasting in
rock.
If the strength of Dynamex A and an ANFOexplosive are compared we will find that the strength
is about the same in spite the heat of explosion is 32
% larger for Dynamex A. The gas volume produced
at STP is 49 % larger for ANFO compared to
Dynamex A according to Brnnfors 1973, see Table
1.
Table 1. Comparison of properties between Dynamex A and
ANFO. Brnnfors 1973.
Explosive
Dynamex
ANFO
Heat of
explosion
(kJ/kg)
5125
3895
Gas volume at
STP
(l/kg)
655
975
Heat
explosion
(MJ/kg)
Reolit
A6 slurry
Titan
emulsion
of
Gas
volume
(l/kg) at
STP
4,520
638
3,20
908
Den
sity
(kg/
m3)
145
0
125
0
2.7 Conclusion
The relation between heat of explosion, gas volume,
detonation velocity and explosive density and the
blast result in the form of fragmentation has to be
examined in different rock types with different
acoustic impedances. Single hole blasting in full
scale (SHB-FS) is recommended for that purpose,
see section 3.2 in this paper. A final weight strength
formula must therefore include all the four
mentioned parameters.
3. THE BASIC MECHANISM OF ROCK
BLASTING
At rock blasting we have three important parts
regarding the ability to fragment rock.
I)
II)
III)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
6
only possible way to classify explosives in its used
blasthole diameter, confinement, saturation of rock
mass and geometry used at blasting. The cost for
testing of explosives would increase but in the long
run the method would give the best answers to what
we are seeking for.
The explosive manufacturers should therefore, in
collaboration with blasting research institutes, take
part in SHB-FS tests. The explosive data gained in
testing of explosive properties in the lab can only be
used for a rough relative indication of the strength of
explosives and cannot be used in sail against
customers regarding the result parameters 1 to 9.
3.3 Single hole blasting test in lab, SHB-LS
At Lule University of technology single hole
blasting tests were undertaken already in 1983 in
diamond cut blocks with the size 100x 300x300 mm,
see Rustan and Vutukuri 1983. The blastholes were
drilled perpendicular to the blocks (blasthole length
100 mm) so the geometry was more like slab
blasting than bench blasting where we have a
confined bottom. Detonating cord was used as an
explosive and the burden was varied up to and over
the critical burden. Tests were originally made in six
different rock and rock like materials and the result
from blasting in Storugns limestone was very similar
to that later on found in SHB-FS tests in Storugns
limestone quarry on Gotland in Sweden. The
following
parameters of the blocks were
determined: compressive strength, tensile strength,
fracture toughness, shear strength, P-wave velocity,
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. The tested
materials were four Swedish rock types Kallax
gabbro, jeby granite, Storugns limestone, Henry
quartzite and two artificial materials Siporex (a light
concrete similar in structure to a volcanic tuff) and
magnetite concrete. The fragmentation was best be
correlated to the acoustic impedance of the rock
mass where the acoustic impedance is the product of
sound velocity (P-wave velocity) in the rock mass cp
(m/s) multiplied by the rock density r (kg/m3). The
sound velocity
in
material can be
E
1 a specific
c
determined
p
by the following derived formula,
r (1 )(1 2 )
(5)
where E is the Youngs modulus of the rock in (Pa)
and is Poissons ratio dimensionless, and r is the
density of the rock mass in kg/m3. Therefore all the
three parameters given in formula (5) are important
parameters at rock blasting.
The P-wave velocity cp is roughly a measure of
the strength of the rock mass, because the velocity is
affected not only by the intact rock properties but
also the joint frequency and their conditions in the
rock mass. The fact that the density of rock is
important in rock blasting is very natural because it
n 0,54e 3310
(6)
(7)
5,18 10 3 I 0,588
k50
q 2,14
(8)
4.
8
the rock mass in (kg/m3), and finally cP is the
longitudinal wave velocity in the rock mass in (m/s).
The exponents must be determined from field tests
by multiple regression analysis. The effective weight
strength is the combined effect of explosive and rock
properties under the high stress interaction by
blasting. The numerical value should e.g. be used in
formulas for the calculation of mean fragment size
k50 and the fragmentation gradient n (the slope of the
fragmentation curve in a double logarithmic sieve
analysis diagram. (Amount of material passing
versus the square mesh size of the sieve).
Totally there are therefore needed 6 parameters to
describe the effective weight strength in rock
fragmentation, instead of the two parameters defined
by Langefors given in formula (1), namely heat of
explosion and gas volume,
Rock blasting is not a precise science because in
the field, it is difficult to make tests where the
parameters are kept constant. The most difficult
parameter to control is the detonation velocity, and
especially when water sensitive explosives are used.
For comparison of the fragmentation effect of
different explosives, a common used water resistant
explosive must be used as a reference explosive and
I would therefore suggest ANFO as a reference
explosive. It can be found all over the world, but it
has to be charged carefully into watertight plastic
sleeve to avoid damage of the explosive by water.
A test procedure for single hole blasting is
suggested in Appendix 1.
5. THE USE OF COMPUTER CODES TO
DETERMINE EXPLOSIVE STRENGTH
The derivation of computer codes for calculation
of explosive strength is based on chemical and
physical laws. Normally the models are, however,
not tested if they are correct for a large number of
explosives and rock masses and in a large amount of
different blasthole diameters. The codes are normally
used to calculate the detonation velocity and how it
varies with the blasthole diameter and different
confinement for a certain explosive. The work with
computer codes, is according to my opinion, lacking
a clear research strategy. For example the blasting
process needs to be described by different sub
models and each sub model has to be tested
according its accuracy. First after this have been
done, the sub models can be combined to model the
the explosive action.
In the formulas used today, the rock mass is
regarded as a compressible media but close to the
blasthole wall it is a plastic crushing zone of the
rock. This zone will act as a damping zone on the
shock waves and this has to be modelled if the final
result should be correct. Such work is now
Appendix 1
SUGGESTED METHOD FOR TESTING NEW
EXPLOSIVES BY SINGLE HOLE BLASTING IN
FULL SCALE (SHB-FS)
Goal: The purpose of single hole explosive
strength blasting is to find primarily the rock mass
fragmentation properties and how it depends on the
combination of explosive and rock properties.
For the sake of comparison between different
explosives and rock types it is necessary to do the
test in a manner that is standardized. New explosives
should at least be tested in the typical rock types
where they are going to be used but testing in rock
masses with a large variation of acoustic impedances
is preferred because of the full understanding of how
the rock mass acoustic impedance influences the
10
5.
6.
7.
8.
REFERENCES
Atchison, C. et al 1964. Comparative studies of explosives in
limestone. USBM RI 6395.
Bilgin, H. A. and Paamehmetolu 1994. Optimum burden
determination and fragmentation evaluation by full scale slab
blasting. Fourth International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, July 5-8 1993, pp. 337344.
Brnnfors, Sten (ed.) 1973. Bergsprngningsteknik. Esselte
Studium, Stockholm. (In Swedish).
Cunningham, Claude, Braithwaite, Martin and Parker, Ian
2006. Vixen Detonation Codes: Energy input for the High