Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Electronic Detonators - Why Not PDF
Electronic Detonators - Why Not PDF
Abstract
Initiation devices for controlling blasts have come from open trains of black powder
poured on a tunnel floor to highly sophisticated electronic systems that ensure
microsecond precision in the firing sequence.
What is of particular interest with electronic systems is the capability to incorporate all
of the advantages, while essentially eliminating the disadvantages, of each
contributing stage in detonator evolution.
This paper will present a condensed history of that transition, then focus on the
advantages of the available electronic technology over what was until very recently
considered “state of the art” in sequential blasting practice.
Delta Caps International, a leader in electronic detonator technology, has developed
specific software and analysis techniques for incorporating the geomechanical
characteristics of the rock into a blast design. Examples will be presented from a
variety of customer experiences to demonstrate results from the application of this
technology.
Finally, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will be presented showing a highly simplified
method of justifying testing of electronic blasting systems in an open pit environment
Patrick McLaughlin
The Rock Mechanics, EIRL
Tripoli 140-A, Miraflores
Lima 18, Peru
241-5448, fax 241-9954
e-mail : rokmech@attglobal.net
ELECTRONIC DETONATORS - WHY NOT
ABSTRACT
Initiation devices for controlling blasts have come from open trains of black powder
poured on a tunnel floor to highly sophisticated electronic systems that ensure
microsecond precision in the firing sequence.
This paper will present a condensed history of that transition, then focus on the
advantages of the available electronic technology over what was until very recently
considered “state of the art” in sequential blasting practice.
What is of particular interest with electronic systems is the capability to incorporate all
of the advantages, while essentially eliminating the disadvantages, of each
contributing stage in detonator evolution.
Delta Caps International, a leader in electronic detonator technology, has developed
specific software and analysis techniques for incorporating the geomechanical
characteristics of the rock into a blast design. Examples will be presented from a
variety of customer experiences to demonstrate results from the application of this
technology.
Finally, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will be presented showing a highly simplified
method of justifying testing of electronic blasting systems in an open pit environment
INTRODUCTION
The history of blast initiation systems has been driven by the basic tenet of all blasting
operations - the search for control. This control is absolutely necessary to the blast
engineer to continually improve safety and production levels. When we include
“downstream” effects of blast success (or failure) in the equation, it boils down to the
ability to predict results.
SAFETY FUSE
In the earliest days of black powder use, miners were forced to resort to such clumsy
and dangerous methods for controlling blast initiation as :
• laying out black powder trains on the floor
• preparing mixtures of straw and black powder
• impregnating wool yarn with black powder
• filling hollow goose feathers with black powder
All gave highly variable and often fatal results.
To correct this situation, William Bickford created what has universally become known
as safety fuse. Injuries in the Cornish mines dropped 90% as a result of this seemingly
minor advance in blasting technology. In addition, the miners were given a method by
which they could actually control and predict the sequence of holes detonating in a
blast. This was, in essence, a quantum leap in blasting technology.
ELECTRIC INITIATION
On surface projects, plagued by wandering livestock, pedestrians, passing trains and
ships, fuse blasting was simply too variable and difficult to control. This led to the
developement of a type of delay electric cap that combined an electric fuse lighter with
a short length of capped safety fuse. By varying the length of fuse between the
bridgewire and the fuse cap, delay blasting within a relatively short period of time could
be carried out. It is interesting to note that an “electric delay detonator” came before
the instantaneous version.
About twenty years later the instantaneous electric blasting cap was patented. The
next step was obvious - control of the firing sequence. A variety of external timing
devices were created for shooting electric caps in sequence, based on moving contact
bars, but the timing intervals were inconsistent. As a result, sequential blasts
continued to be an adventure.
Inevitably, delay electric detonators were developed and the race was on to produce
the shortest and most accurate firing times
DETONATING CORD
With the increased use of electric detonators came the realization that they were prone
to accidental initiation from stray electrical currents, discharges of static electricity,
induced currents and ground currents generated by lightning strikes. Around 1935,
detonating cord was offered to the explosives industry as an initiation system immune
to these phenomenon.
Detonating cord has no inherant delay depending on the length of cord between holes,
since the time for the detonation front to advance over these relatively short distances
is far too short to give any appreciable relief. As a result, the timing sequence was
often created using surface connections with delay electric detonators. This simple
system was still prone to accidental intiation from stray electrical currents, etc, but the
total exposure time was much shorter than with a complete electric blast.
With the introduction of surface delay connectors by DuPont Explosives about 1950,
the risks from induced and stray currents (but not from lightning strikes!) was
overcome.
ELECTRIC DETONATORS
Advantages
• relatively accurate firing time, measured in tens of milliseconds
• errors in delay times restricted to individual units
• can be tested prior to use
• no side effects on explosive column
• unlimited leg-wire length
• firing time independant of tie-in sequence
• limited compound circuit capability - sequential blasting machines
Disadvantages
• available delay times are fixed
• blast size limited by energy available for circuit
• circuit calculations can become complicated
• sequence is fixed after holes are loaded
• can be initiated by :
stray electric currents
induced currents in circuit
static electric discharges
DETONATING CORD
Advantages
• minimum training required
• impervious to :
stray electric currents
induced currents
static discharges
• sequence can be changed after holes are loaded
• theoretically has infinite blast size capability
Disadvantages
• available surface delays are fixed
• top initiation of cap sensitive explosive columns
• radial damage of blasting agents
• high risk of column or signal line cut-offs in adjacent holes
• errors in delay times compound as blast progresses
• demands use of relatively short delays in sequence (to avoid cut-offs)
• firing time dependant on tie-in sequence
• high noise levels
NONELS
Advantages
• relatively accurate firing time, measured in tens of milliseconds
• no side effects on explosive column
• unlimited tube length
• impervious to :
stray electric currents
induced currents
static discharges
• sequence can be changed after holes are loaded
• theoretically has infinite blast size capability
Disadvantages
• available delay times are fixed
• can not be tested prior to use
• errors in delay times compound as blast progresses
• firing time dependant on tie-in sequence
ELECTRONIC
Advantages
• delay times are variable, defined by operator
• very accurate firing time, measured in tens of micro-seconds
• errors in delay times restricted to individual units
• can be tested prior to use
• no side effects on explosive column
• unlimited leg-wire length
• compound circuit capability - add “slave” units
• insensitive to :
stray electric currents
induced currents
static discharges
• sequence can be changed after holes are loaded
Disadvantages
• firing time may be dependant on tie-in sequence
• requires special training :
in use of blast design software
in use of blast hardware
• higher unit costs - up to 10x price of a nonel unit
• cost of blast hardware and design software - depending on supplier
SO WHY CHANGE?
Rapid advances in the study of the fracture processes in rock under explosives
stresses have resulted in a much better understanding of the importance of individual
firing times of detonators in a sequential blast. Until very recently it has been
economically impossible to utilize the constructive, and destructive, interference that
could be incorporated into a blast design with precise detonator times. To complicate
matters further, no two rock structures are identical, and therefore will not be
influenced equally by the same firing sequence, regardless of whether we maintain all
other variables in the blast design equal. This implies that precision alone is not
enough - detonator firing times must also be user variable.
Electronic detonator technology - and cost - has improved considerably since 1979.
The attached spreadsheet and case histories are intended to illustrate that within the
normal range of drilling and blasting costs of open pit mines in Peru, there is little or no
economic risk to implementing an electronic blasting test.
With the currently available electric and nonel delay detonators, actual firing times in
the best products vary as much as 2% from their average (versus “nominal”) times. In
addition, these firing times are on fixed intervals, generally based on multiples of 25
milliseconds, ranging from 25 to 1000 milliseconds in the short delay series and up to
10,000 millieseconds in the long delay series.
Optimum delay times to maximize the constructive interference of shock waves can be
less than 3 milliseconds per meter of burden (or spacing). Obviously an operator
cannot adjust a drilling pattern to suit the delay available, and a quick calculation using
the potential scatter in pyrotechnic delays proves that such a measure would be
pointless anyway. In short, currently available pyrotechnical detonators have defined
the limits of optimization achievable. This is a classic example of work being defined
by the tools available for its completion.
With the inherant precision of electronic control, and the ability to define delay intervals
based on the existing geomechanical properties of the rock, a new dimension in
fragmentation control is opened up. Operators can now tailor the blast to specific
gradation requirements, reduce to a minimum the total energy required to produce this
material and improve drill productivity through pattern expansions without putting the
fragmentation at risk.
From the point by point comparison presented earlier, and the technical advantages
presented here, it is obvious that on both technical and safety aspects, the electronic
systems are equal or superior to anything available on the market.
However, mines must make a profit, so the decision to convert must be based
primarily on cost. Traditionally drilling and blasting were considered as single cost-
items in the total operations cost analysis. Recent trends have shifted from this
approach to a more global view, including the downstream effect of drill and blast
performance on the total cost of mining. It is not the intention of this paper to do an all-
inclusive analysis of cost benefits, but simply to present arguments for the
implementation of tests of electronic blasting systems based on the direct costs of
drilling and blasting (see attached spreadsheet).
Pattern adjustments for the following comparison are limited to the spacing only.
Spacing has been expanded by 4.75% in this example.
Prices used are approximate values, based on industry averages.
Nonel Electronic