DIGIDET ®

Electronic Delay Detonator

 Why Digidet® -

• Safety -
– An internal static isolation cup protects the unit
from static discharges or other spurious electrical
energy.
– No RF effects due to exposed surface wires.
– EMP and EMI resistant due to faraday cage
surrounding internal electronics.
• Ease of Use –
– Seamless introduction into current shock tube
accounts.
– Minimal additional training requirements.

4/16/2004 2
 Market Overview Target of Technical Push -

• Current market penetration has been a technical push rather than

customer pull focusing on:
• Vibration –
– Urban quarry
– Urban coal
– Construction
• Fly rock control –
– All surface applications
• Ground Control –
– Underground perimeter
– Surface metal
– Surface Quarry
• Improved Fragmentation –
– Surfaced Quarry
– Surface Metal
– Coal shoot to stand
• Improved Overburden Cast Performance –
4/16/2004 3
 Digidet® Overview Highlights -

• Non-wired system provides the elongation benefits of

shock tube
• Seamless introduction into existing shock tube
accounts
• Minimal training and support requirements
• Proven reliability of shock tube
• Users can continue to use existing pattern guides
and layout methods

4/16/2004 4
 Digidet® Product Description -

EXPLOSIVE ELECTRONIC
OUTPUT TIMING ENERGY
TRAIN MODULE CONVERSION

SCB PIEZO BOOSTER ANTISTATIC SHOCK

IGNITER CERAMIC DETONATOR CUP TUBE
CRYSTAL

4/16/2004 5
 Digidet® Product Advantages -

• Timing accuracy –
• Shock tube consistency
• SCB Accuracy
• Safety –
• No exposed wires
• Tube elongation
• ESD safe
• EMP / EMI Resistant
• No programming / firing hardware
• Ease of use –
– Looks like………………………..
– feels like………………….
– shoots like…………….
– Shock Tube
4/16/2004 6
A Case Study In Electronic Detonators
 Case Study in Developing Solutions

• Four Month Duration

• Drill and Blast Audit for Baseline
• Geology Characterization
• Seismic Modeling
• Minimal Shot Design Change
• Use of Precise Timing

4/16/2004 8
 Location and Situation

• Suburbs of a Large City

• Between Two Suburban Cities
• Lawsuit by one City to close quarry
• In court with Arbitrator appointed
• Arbitrator is major Mine Eng. School Dept. Head
• Arbitrator to recommend solutions to court

4/16/2004 9
 Geography Quarry Location

10.200

# 452
10.150

10.100
Fly Ash CITY # 1
Back Fill - LAWSUIT
# 450
10.050

CITY # 2
10.000
# 724 40' Bench # 635 NOE Fence

Northing
NOE Dike # 634 Area
9.950
# 877
SE Corner
9.900
Switchback
9.850

9.800
Quarry Limit

9.750
SW Corner

9.700
11.400 11.300 11.200 11.100 11.000 10.900 10.800 10.700 10.600
Easting

4/16/2004 10
 Aerial View

4/16/2004 11
 Request by Operator

• Provide knowledge and technology to win lawsuit

• Improve quarry shots

4/16/2004 12
 Methodology

• Measured approach to problem solving

• Drilling and Blasting Audit
• Correct Deficiencies
• Implement Recommendations
• Measure and Record Results

4/16/2004 13
 Shot Design

• Dolomitic Limestone
• 4.5” (114 mm) Diameter
• 20’ (6 m), 40’ (12 m), 55’ (17 m), and 73’ (22 m)
Benches
• Multiple Decks - One Common In Hole Delays in
each Deck
• Daisy Chain 17 ms between decks and to next hole

4/16/2004 14
 Primary Concern

• 40 (12 m) Foot Bench

4/16/2004 15
 Typical Hole Layout - 11 to 15 Holes
SHOTPlan v3.0 6/05/03, 40' Bench

Legend
E-ZTL 51

Bench

1 Leadin

Inhole DIG 300

4/16/2004 16
 Typical Tie In
SHOTPlan v3.0 6/05/03, 40' Bench

Legend
E-ZTL 51

Sibley Limeston, Trenton, MI 6/05/03

Surface
40' Bench
Nominal
Bench
#8 #6 #4 #2 #1
357 255 153 51 0
1 Leadin 1

561 459 408 306 204 102

510
Inhole DIG 300

#11 #10 #9 #7 #5 #3

4/16/2004 17
 Typical Loading

Sibley Limestone
40’ Bench, Hole Loading

Designed Loading
Daisy Chain 17 ms on surface
0’

Stemming

8’
ANFO
41 #
Primadet(R) 350 ms
15’

Stemming

20’
ANFO
52 #
Primadet(R) 350 ms

29’
Stemming
34’

Iremix 664
64 #
Primadet(R) 350 ms

43’
Not to Scale

4/16/2004 18
 Audit Measurements

• Drilling
• Timing
• Priming
• Loading/Decking
• Vibration

4/16/2004 19
 Seismic Measurements

• Signature Hole Analysis

• Modeling

4/16/2004 20
 Audit Findings

• Drilling
– At about 4 % Deviation (Good)
– Excess Sub (2-4’)
• Timing
– Planned 17 ms between decks
– Not good: 4 to 29 ms between decks
– In Hole cap scatter and pressure effects
• Priming
– Boosters ?
– Questionable performance in single deck

4/16/2004 21
 Audit Findings

• Seismograph Set Up ?
• Loading/Decking
– Used 5’ (1.5 m) between decks with fines
– Decking compression prominent
– Rules of thumb for decking don’t apply

4/16/2004 22
 Seismic Modeling

4/16/2004 23
 Recommendations

• 17 ms timing good
• Precision timing necessary
• Premium Boosters
• Minimum 6’ (1.8 m) Clean Decking
• No layout changes
• Control Hole Depth

4/16/2004 24
 Recommended Layout
SHOTPlan v3.0 6/05/03, 40' Bench

Legend
E-ZTL 51

Sibley Limeston, Trenton, MI 6/05/03

Surface
40' Bench
Nominal
Bench
#8 #6 #4 #2 #1
357 255 153 51 0
1 Leadin 1

561 459 408 306 204 102

510
Inhole DIG 300

#11 #10 #9 #7 #5 #3

4/16/2004 25
 Recommended Hole Loading

Sibley Limestone, 6/05/03 Digidet (R)

40’ Bench, Hole Loading

Designed Loading Digidet(R) 51 ms Hole to Hole

0’
Digidet(R)
Digidet(R)51
51ms
msHole
HoletotoHole
Hole
Stemming

8’
ANFO
36 #
Digidet(R) 334 ms
+ Primadet(R) 375 ms
15’

Stemming

21’
ANFO
47 #
Digidet(R) 317 ms
+ Primadet(R) 350 ms
29’
Stemming
35’

Iremix 664
64 #
Digidet(R) 300 ms
+ Primadet(R) 350 ms

43’
Not to Scale

4/16/2004 26
 40’ (12 m) Bench Shots

• 75 + Shots to date
• 2000 + Decks shot
• Several shots stressed caps and powder

4/16/2004 27
 5/20/03 Stress Test
SHOTPlan v3.0 5/20/03 Digidet Shot, 40' Bench

Legend
E-ZTL 0
E-ZTL 51

Sibley Limestone, Trenton, MI

40' Bench, Digidet Shot, 5/20/03

51
51 0 102 153 357 459

1
#1 #3 #4 #8 #10
Surface #2
Nominal
204 408 510 612
Bench #6 #5 #11 #13
306 255 #9
561 663 714
1 Leadin #7 306
VODR
#12 #14 #15
Cable
One
Inhole DIG 300

VODR
Cable
Two

4/16/2004 28
 5/20/03 Loading

Sibley Limestone, 5/20/03 Digidet (R)

Hole Loading

Designed Loading Modified Loading

To Increase Powder Factor
0’

Stemming Stemming

7’ 7’

1 1/4 Stick + 1 Booster

2 Sticks + 1 Booster
26 #
42 #

12’
14’
Stemming
Stemming
18’
19’
2 Sticks + 1 Booster
2 Sticks + 1 Booster
42 #
42 #
24’
25’
Stemming Stemming
30’ 30’

3 Sticks + 2 Boosters
3 Sticks + 2 Boosters 64 #
64 #

40’ 40’

4/16/2004 29
 Hole 13 Venting Behind 10

4/16/2004 30
 Hole # 15 Venting and Heaving Behind Holes
10 & 13

4/16/2004 31
 Hole # 15 Continuing to Heave

Poor

Good

Breakage

4/16/2004 32
 Still Good PPV

Sibley Limestone, PPV vs SD, Pyro Timing

y = 58.607x -1.4393
R2 = 0.7684
724
1
1 10 100 1000

450
PPV (Inches per Second)

635
0.1 452

NOE Fence

NOE Dike

0.01
Scaled Distance

4/16/2004 33
 VODR Holes 1, 2, & 3

4/16/2004 34
 VODR Hole 1

4/16/2004 35
 VODR Holes 4, 5, 6, & 7

4/16/2004 36
 VODR Hole 5

4/16/2004 37
 In Hole Pressures
7/31/03, Hole 14
770
756' Top of Hole
749' Top Deck Ends
760

750 738' Top Deck Starts

740
731' Bott. Deck Ends
730
10728.6 ft/s
Distance (ft)

720
719' Bott. Deck Starts
710

700
T = 11.8710 ms
690

680
Hole 14

670

660
360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430
4/16/2004 Time (ms) 38
 In Hole Pressures
7/31/03, Hole 12
670

660 End of Top Deck 647'

Top of Ground 653'

650
Start of Top Deck 636'
640
End of Bottom Deck 629' 11000 Ft/s
630

620
T = 16.9400 ms
5714 Ft/s
610
Distance (ft)

600 Start of Bott.

Deck 617' T = 71.1995 ms
590

580

570

560

550

540

4/16/2004 310 315 320 325 330 39 340 345

335 350 355 360 365
Time (ms)
 In Hole Pressures
Sibley, 7/29/03, Hole 8 VOD
365

360
10851.9 ft/s
355
6 Feet of Compression
350

345 19290.4 ft/s

340 7 Feet of Compression

Distance (ft)

335

330 18048.6 ft/s

325

320

315

310

305

180 190 200 210 220 230 240

4/16/2004 40Time (ms)
 Typical Times
Sibley 6/03/03, Holes 8,9,10,11,12,13
700
T = 16.5505 ms
Hole # 13
T = 16.7850 ms

600
T = 16.8725 ms
T = 17.0435 ms
T = 51.0695 ms
500 T = 16.7895 ms Hole # 12

T = 17.1355 ms T = 50.8080 ms

400 Hole # 11
Distance (ft)

T = 17.3780 ms
T = 16.9485 ms T = 50.7205 ms

300 Hole # 10
T = 16.5240 ms
T = 16.6655 ms
T = 51.0690 ms
200
Hole # 9
T = 16.6945 ms
T = 16.6220 ms
100 T = 50.8945 ms

Hole # 8

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
4/16/2004 Time (ms)41
 Typical Times
Sibley 6/10/03, Holes 7,9,11,13
T = 16.3105 ms
500 Hole # 13
T = 16.6380 ms

450

400
Hole # 11 T = 33.2945 ms
T = 102.1905 ms
350

300
Distance (ft)

T = 17.0000 ms
Hole # 9
T = 16.8355 ms
250

200 T = 100.9780 ms
Hole # 7 T = 17.1840 ms
150 T = 16.4725 ms

T = 100.3590 ms
100

50

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (ms)

4/16/2004 42
 Typical Times
6/10/03, Holes 8, 10, 12, & 14
T = 16.6105 ms
500
T = 16.7920 ms

450

T = 16.8780 ms
400
T = 16.4495 ms

350 T = 102.4410 ms
Distance (ft)

300 T = 17.1520 ms
T = 101.7090 ms
T = 16.6920 ms
250

200
T = 16.7920 ms
T = 101.8700 ms
150 T = 17.2650 ms

100

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time (ms)
4/16/2004 43
 Typical Times
Sibley, 7/31/03, Holes 5,7,9,11
650 4071 ft/s
3345 ft/s

600
11630.8 ft/sT = 17.2290 ms
550 4266 ft/s

T = 17.1075 ms
500 T = 66.4185 ms
Distance (ft)

15571.2 ft/s
450
20620.9 ft/s
T = 16.7565 ms
400
T = 66.4955 ms

350

T = 17.1370 ms
300

250 T = 64.7040 ms

200

150 200 250 300 350

Time (ms)

4/16/2004 44
 Typical Times
7/31/03, Holes 6, 8, 10

600
16825.4 ft/s Hole 10

550
14009.1 ft/s
T = 16.7810 ms
500
Hole 8
T = 64.1165 ms
450 15268.1 ft/s
Distance (ft)

T = 66.1165 ms
400 T = 16.7655 ms
13073.2 ft/s

Hole 6
350

T = 16.7875 ms
300

T = 66.1150 ms
250

125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325

Time (ms)
4/16/2004 45
 Results - Changes Made

• Complaints
• Seismic
• Productivity
• Blast Design
• Lessons Learned

4/16/2004 46
 Complaints

• 1/07/03 thru 4/29/03 - 10 Blasts, 111 Complaints

– 11 per shot
• 5/01/03 thru 6/10/03 - 9 Blasts, 17 Complaints
– 2 per shot

4/16/2004 47
 Results At Distance - Dominant Frequencies

Pyrotechnic Shots:
Radial Vert. Trans. Radial Vert. Trans. Radial Vert. Trans. Dist. Weight Scaled
PPV PPV PPV Hz Hz Hz Displ. Displ. Displ. Ft. # Dist.

Average 0.07 0.08 0.08 19.07 27.53 22.14 0.0010 0.0008 0.0007 1402 57 187
Vector Sum 0.13 Average Frequency 22.92 "Ave. Displ." 0.0009
3.30 mm 0.0229 mm

3.30 mm
3.30 mm
Displacement = PPV / 2 * п * Hz

Digidet (R) Shots:

Radial Vert. Trans. Radial Vert. Trans. Radial Vert. Trans. Dist. Weight Scaled
PPV PPV PPV Hz Hz Hz Displ. Displ. Displ. Ft. # Dist.

Average 0.05 0.06 0.06 19.24 30.32 28.53 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 1113 53 139
Vector Sum 0.10 Average Frequency 26.03 "Ave. Displ." 0.0006
2.54 mm 0.0152 mm

4/16/2004 48
 Regression Tool for Blaster Control
– 0.15” (3.8 mm) Limit, GPS Assisted

4/16/2004 49
 Production Record
Sibley Limestone, Trenton, MI

700.00

600.00

500.00
Daily Rate Tons/Hour

400.00
2002
2003
300.00

200.00
Digidet (R) Period: Pyro Period:

2002 - 447.86 Tons/Hour (Pyro)

100.00 2003 - 514.57 Tons/Hour (Digidet R) 2003 - 409.06 Tons/Hour (Pyro)
+ 15 %
+ 26 %

0.00
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56
Days

4/16/2004 50
 Word of Mouth

• Loader Operator
• Crusher Operator
• Quarry Foreman
• General Manager
• All agreed that digging was better for loaders

4/16/2004 51
 Corollary

• Increased Tons/Hr + Easier Diggability

• = Reduced Loader and Conveyor System

Maintenance and Operating Costs

4/16/2004 52
 Performance Convinced Court

• Demonstrated control
• Lawsuit won
• Changes permitted

4/16/2004 53
 Blast Design Changed

• Pounds per delay from 64# to 100#

• Number of Decks from 3 to 2
• Powder Factor from 0.72#/CY to 0.98#/CY

4/16/2004 54
 Lessons Learned

• Measured Planned Approach Works

• Modeling will predict results
– Proper Signature Data
– Available Software
• Accuracy matters
– Pyrotechnics not yet good enough
– In hole pressures
• Accuracy can be achieved
– Electronics are accurate

4/16/2004 55
 More Lessons

• Proper use of accuracy and modeling will control

complaints and Vibration
– Must be monitored
• Reduction of seismic energy goes to fragmentation
– Energy is partitioned
– It does not disappear
• Nothing is perfect
– Even Electronics will be affected by shot physics
– Close monitoring necessary
– Unmonitored and Unrecorded is Unknown and
Uncontrollable

4/16/2004 56
 Still More Lessons

• Electronics not perfect, but better than Pyrotechnics

– Pyrotechnics cannot supply the accuracy under
the conditions
• Electronics need to be fully understood
– Wired systems are not ‘electric’
– They are computer systems

4/16/2004 57
 Proof of Rugged System

• Pre-Programmed
– No Computers, Programmers, Testers, Long Program
Times, etc.
• Proven & Dependable Downlines and Surface Connections
– Nonel(R) all the way
– EMI - NO
• Invisible Technology
– No Extensive Training, Bench Engineering, Technical
Requirements
– No Language Barriers !

4/16/2004 58
 Completion

• Planned Goals Achieved

• Continuing use for Operator
• Lawsuit Won
• Significant Value to Operator
– Quarry open
– Disposal site stays open
• Limited monitoring

4/16/2004 59