This article was downloaded by: [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek]

On: 11 March 2015, At: 09:33

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Fragblast: International Journal for

Blasting and Fragmentation
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nfgb20

Concepts of blast hole pressure applied

to blast design
a
C. Cunningham
a
African Explosives Limited , The Platform, Longmeadow North,
Modderfontein, 1645, South Africa
Published online: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: C. Cunningham (2006) Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast
design, Fragblast: International Journal for Blasting and Fragmentation, 10:1-2, 33-45, DOI:
10.1080/13855140600852977

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13855140600852977

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Fragblast, Vol. 10, Nos. 1–2, March–June 2006, 33 – 45

Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast design

C. CUNNINGHAM*
African Explosives Limited, The Platform, Longmeadow North,
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

Modderfontein 1645, South Africa

Blast hole pressure is the starting point for many blast design calculations, but the way in which
it is usually derived, from measured detonation velocity, indicates that more thought is needed
as to its true meaning and implication. The general impression is given that the energy in the
hole is defined by velocity of detonation (VoD), but this is rarely the case. VoD is defined by the
energy released in the detonation driving zone between the shock front and the sonic (or CJ)
surface, and for commercial explosives it is normal for reaction not to be complete within this
zone. Reaction and energy delivery continues behind it, not reflected by VoD. Thus it would be
more appropriate to use the theoretical VoD, not the measured VoD, to derive the starting
pressure, since this would reflect the energy input of full reaction. In decoupled situations, the
derivation of pressure at the blast hole wall using a polynomial decay concept is also of
debatable value, and an alternative is offered.

Keywords: Explosives; Detonation; Ideal; Non-ideal; Coupling; Energy; Blasting; Pressure;

VoD; Performance

1. Introduction

Blasting is an exceptionally dynamic process in an opaque and often anisotropic

medium. This creates intrinsic difficulty in attempting to either understand the mecha-
nisms or predict results with precision. However, engineers need to deliver specific
blasting results and must harness whatever tools are available. The simplest tool is the
concept of powder factor, which correctly links increased explosive usage with more
energetic blasting results – increased fragmentation and movement in particular, but not
necessarily back damage.
Powder factor does not apply when considering the specific damage originating from
individual blast holes, an important question when attempting to design for reduced
damage with lower energy in the hole; probably the most common parameter used for
such designs is ‘‘blast hole pressure’’, PB. This, also known as the ‘‘explosion’’ pressure,
is defined as the pressure exercised by the explosive after detonation, if the resultant

*Email: cunninghamc@ael.co.za

Fragblast
ISSN 1385-514X print/ISSN 1744-4977 online Ó 2006 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13855140600852977
 34 C. Cunningham

gases are at rest and confined at the same density as the original explosive. What makes
the concept particularly attractive, is its ease of derivation, from the detonation velo-
city and the explosive density, typically quoted (e.g., Cooper [1]) as

Pb ¼ rD2 =8000 ð1Þ

where PCJ is sonic pressure, GPa; r is density, kg/m3; D is detonation velocity, km/s.
This is often quoted with the related equation,

PCJ ¼ rD2 =4000 ð2Þ

The value 4 in equation (2) above derives from

Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

PCJ ¼ rD2 =ðg þ 1Þ; ð3Þ

assuming that g, the polytropic index at the sonic locus, is about 3.

Thus if the explosive is ANFO with a density of 800 kg/m3 and the measured
detonation velocity is 3.5 km/s, an estimation of pressure using equation (2) would be
PB ¼ 80063.52/8000 ¼ 1.225 GPa.
This pressure is then used as the starting point for calculations which ultimately
match explosive pressure to rock strength so as to draw conclusions as to intensity of
cracking in the rock. The equation used to estimate applied pressure is

PR ¼ Pb ðvb =vh Þg ð4Þ

where PR is pressure applied to the rock surface; vb/vh is the ratio of volume of
explosive to volume of hole, and g is an assumed value for decoupled charges; for
example 1.2 as given by Hustrulid [2], and Chiappetta [3].
Chiappetta also provides a formula for the maximum spacing of decoupled holes in
splitting designs:
d  ðPB þ TÞ
S¼ ð5Þ
T

where S is maximum hole spacing, inches; d is hole diameter, inches; PB is borehole

pressure, psi; T is tensile strength (Brazilian test), psi.
Unfortunately, the concept, in the way that it is usually applied, is flawed, both
because it ignores the dynamic nature of detonation, and because the algorithm itself is
derived from assumptions that are just not valid for the normal application; this paper
examines these premises, and suggests a more appropriate approach. In the discussion
that follows, it is necessary to define and explain in detail core concepts of detonation
energy, since there is a high level of confusion on the topic amongst engineers and non-
detonation scientists.
In order to discuss and clarify the way that energy is handled, the concepts of Ideal
detonation, Ideal confinement and an Ideal container require definition.

1.1. Ideal detonation

Ideal detonation is steady state and one-dimensional with complete reaction between
the shock front and sonic locus, and no dependence on time, dimension or external
 Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast design 35

physical parameters. CJ detonation treats only the boundary states of the unshocked
explosive and the sonic locus, while ZND detonation treats also the detonation driving
zone between.

1.2. Ideal confinement

Ideal confinement is totally rigid, smooth and non-conducting, so that detonation

within it will alter neither its volume nor its temperature; it will thus absorb no energy
from the hot, high pressure detonation fluids.
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

1.3. Ideal container

A container constructed of ideal confinement, which therefore neither expands nor

changes in temperature on detonation of the contained explosive. However, the
resulting pressure waves and fluid motion stabilize over time through internal friction,
retaining their overall energy.

2. Derivation of borehole pressure

Equation (1) derives from the long-established and frequently quoted equations of
conservation of mass, momentum and energy, as applied to ideal (CJ) detonation
conditions (e.g., Cooper [1]). In an ideal detonation, the entire explosive reacts in the
detonation driving zone (DDZ) between the shock front and the sonic (CJ) plane.
Figure 1 aligns a physical representation of this in an ideal container, with the
classical CJ pressure-volume curve and tangential Rayleigh line defining the CJ locus.
The DDZ is shown as long in order to clarify what happens with non-ideal detonation.

Figure 1. Ideal detonation. Top: physical process. Bottom: pressure-volume curves.

 36 C. Cunningham

In practice all detonation is non-Ideal, but some situations are so close to ideal that it is
a good approximation. The phases of detonation are annotated from 1 to 6, and
described in table 1.
The unreacted Hugoniot is the locus for points 1 and 2, representing the pressure and
specific volume of the explosive as it goes from the unshocked to the shocked state.
Points 3 to 5 lie on the CJ isentrope defining the energy states of the product gasses
as in expansion from the CJ state. The well known conservation of energy equation
(again, see Cooper [1]) applies:

E þ Pv þ 0:5u2 ¼ C  W ð6Þ

where E is internal energy, MJ/kg; P is pressure, GPa; v is specific volume, m3/kg 

Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

1000; u is particle velocity, km/s; C is the constant within the isentrope; W is work on
environment.
Because of the ideal container, no external work is done and the pressure gradient is
a result of the velocity gradient: temperature, particle velocity and pressure adjust until
a stable pressure is achieved, at point 6.
The key things to notice are that:

. If the explosive components react slowly but ideally in ideal confinement, then the
pressure in the container would be the explosion pressure, also known as the
borehole pressure, PB.
. With Ideal detonation in ideal confinement, the container will also settle at
pressure PB, once dynamic interaction of the reacted fluids is complete.
. The pressure gradient after the sonic locus is caused by the dynamic balance
between pressure, velocity and heat content, regulated by conservation of energy,
mass and momentum. The kinetic energy of the detonation fluids plays a major
role in creating a transient pressure wave, even in ideal confinement. The time of
transition of the DDZ is of the order of a few microseconds, and the decline in
pressure behind the Sonic locus is initially rapid but plateaus as it approaches the
stagnation condition.

Table 1. Key points in the pressure-specific volume plane for ideal detonation.

Point Pressure Comment

1 100 kPa Initial state of the explosive prior to shock front impact.
2 PSH Shock (spike) pressure. Reaction commences.
3 PCJ Sonic locus. Reaction complete and all of chemical energy converted to supporting
the shock front. Beyond this point, pressure is available to the environment.
Mass flow, supporting pressure, follows the detonation front, but particle velocity
falls with distance from the sonic locus, and approximates to zero at the
detonation starting point.
4 PCV Constant volume pressure. Explosive product density equals original density. In 1D
analysis, particle velocity still contributes to pressure at this point.
5 PST The stagnation pressure at the end of the cylinder, where particle velocity is zero.
6 PB Explosion or borehole pressure. The gas dynamics have equalised leaving a static state
of equal pressure throughout the Ideal Container. The broken line from this point
shows the isentrope along which the pressure will fall and energy be released if
expansion is allowed. The different locus of the isentrope reflects the entropy
change resulting from this situation.
 Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast design 37

. The ideal sonic or CJ pressure PCJ is about half the shock pressure, PS, and
the borehole pressure PB is about half PCJ, as reflected in equations (1) and (2).
The pressure difference is created by the particle velocity, resulting from the densifi-
cation of the DDZ by the shock wave. In figure 1, particle velocity is zero at the
starting end of the container (point 5), and pressure is about PCJ/3. The instanta-
neous pressure at original density is PCV, also below PB. Equalization of the pres-
sure pulses within the vessel would then rearrange the pressure to PB, about PCJ/2.
. By definition, the sonic (CJ) locus isolates the DDZ from any later physical
processes. In non-ideal detonation, chemical energy released after the DDZ
detracts from the VoD, but not from the energy of the explosive.

Figure 2 illustrates the difference between the blast hole pressure concept and an
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

Ideal detonation wave. Pressure is here plotted against length, not specific volume.
Note that neither of these scenarios is yet addressing energy release to the environment:
they are merely considering conservation of energy within the explosive.
In a real rock-breaking environment, PB cannot be achieved, since ideal confinement
does not exist. Blast hole pressure is only a helpful concept whose value lies in the elimi-
nation of the complicating dynamics of kinetic energy that arise from correct analysis of
ideal detonation. While it has application for engineering estimations, any serious
reference to it for imagining in-hole pressure waves is inappropriate. If it is evoked, what
is actually being presented is the instantaneous application of a uniform pressure to the
entire hole. The detonation mechanism is bypassed and there is no concept of a VoD.
The dynamic scenario applies a pressure wave up the hole at the detonation velocity,
falling very rapidly from the detonation pressure but stabilizing at about a third of this
at the end of the hole. If the hole is allowed to expand before stabilization of the
pressures in hole, then the borehole pressure will not be experienced.
The dynamic stress/strain patterns around the hole would be seriously different for
these scenarios.

3. Reality of blasting

It is crucial to recognize that not one of the assumptions by which PB is derived and
made to be the key starting point for calculations is even nearly true in practice.

Figure 2. Ideal detonation: static (A) and dynamic (B) solutions. Dynamic solution eventually produces static
solution if container is ideal.
 38 C. Cunningham

3.1. Dynamics in the hole

Even if the explosive detonates ideally, the gases are dynamically distributed within a
non-ideal confinement which yields, and seldom yields elastically, or without leakage of
the gases. Thus

a. energy is converting to work continuously and equilibrium is never achieved,

b. the initial, momentary pressure experienced is double PB, and even in ideal
confinement rapidly drops below PB.

3.2. Non-ideal detonation

Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

In a truly ideal container, non-ideal detonation would not be possible, as non-ideality is

caused by the DDZ losing radial energy, which is prohibited by ideal confinement.
Thus, in order to illustrate the point that needs to be made, we define Ideal confinement
as ‘‘quasi ideal’’, in that it allows partial reaction within the DDZ without the
confinement yielding.
The conventional pressure calculation, equation (1), is usually undertaken with
measured VoD’s that are less than the ideal value, signifying that reaction is incomplete
at the sonic locus, proving non-ideal detonation. Unless quenched, reaction will
continue after the sonic plane and the gas build up must cause a slower pressure drop
than is the case for ideal detonation, in which reaction is complete at the sonic locus. In
addition, the incomplete DDZ reaction produces a lower pressure at the sonic locus, so
the reduced pressure drop feeds into a lower initial pressure.
Thus in non-ideal detonation, PCJ will be lower, but as the explosive reacts after the
DDZ, pressure drops less, as illustrated in figure 3, for a point in the middle of an ideal
container. For clarity, the stabilization of pressure as particle velocity comes to rest
after detonation is shown as a smooth recovery of pressure. It indicates that, because of

Figure 3. Non-ideal detonation has lower VoD but same end of borehole pressure concept.
 Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast design 39

energy conservation, both ideal and non-ideal detonation should result in the same
ultimate borehole pressure. Higher ideality of reaction will result in a higher sonic
pressure but deeper rarefaction. This process cannot be represented on a conventional
P – v chart, since rates of reaction are involved.
The usual equations used to derive PCJ and PB (equations (1) and (2)), depend on
reaction being complete at the sonic plane, so it is clearly wrong to expect them to
be valid for non-ideal VoDs. After all, even if there were no detonation and
the formulation reacted slowly in Ideal confinement, the pressure would reach the
ideal value of PB. Clearly equation (2) expects lower pressure for a lower VoD,
and in equation (3) this translates into holes being spaced closer together, which must
be questioned in the light of neither energy nor borehole pressure being related to VoD.
If the above reasoning is correct, then there should be little or no difference in work,
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

provided the energy is similar. However, the conclusion drawn from conventional use
of the equations leads to an expectation that higher VoD explosives will do more work
than lower VoD explosives. This represents a vital change in understanding which
needs to be supported.

3.3. Evidence: effect of VoD on borehole pressure

Without extended discussion of recent work by Dremin [4] (which requires a separate
paper), figure 4 shows two sets of 28 mm ID steel pipes that have been filled with the
same explosive composition consisting of 30% TNT with 70% AN, at a density of
880 kg/m3.

Figure 4. Steel pipes detonated with same density explosive. Each left hand pipe had half the VoD of the right
hand pipe.
 40 C. Cunningham

The only difference is that two of the pipes contained a coarser explosive mix. They
were detonated in sand, which provided a yielding environment. There is nothing,
apart from the labelling on the pipes to identify which had the coarse and which the
fine explosive. However, the coarse explosive detonated at 1.8 km/s and the fine at
3.6 km/s. Using equation (1), the borehole pressures should be 0.36 GPa and 1.43 GPa
respectively, which would be expected to produce very different expansion, as the
indication would in fact be of different energy levels.
This work is a telling confirmation that energy is a more reliable parameter than
detonation velocity in considering the work from an explosive. Unfortunately it is not
easy to obtain this kind of confirmation, because it is very seldom that one can secure
the situation in which identical explosives are compared rigorously where the only
difference is the detonation velocity.
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

However, Johansson and Persson [5] quote, ‘‘An interesting conclusion of these
experiments was that no influence of the detonation velocity was observed. This
supports earlier conclusions from practical experience of the strength of dynamites . . .
no indication has been found that the breaking capacity depends on whether
detonation proceeds with low or high velocity.’’
This is in connection with investigations into the ability of a variety of nitro-
glycerine explosives (which exhibit dual VoD) to break to a particular burden. The
overwhelming effect was related to the calculated energy, calculated gas volume playing
a relatively small role.
Seemingly at odds, Bergmann et al. [7] in 1973 reported a strong relationship
between VoD and fragmentation, in a meticulous set of scale blasts in granite.
Kristiansen [6] reported similar findings in 1995, for 0.5 metre blocks of hard rock with
high and low VoD dynamite. However, close examination of both sets of data indicates
that the VoD relationship was in fact related to other parameters – especially the
geometry of scaled models in which late explosive reaction is not allowed to go to
completion before release of the confinement. Under such situations, a high VoD
ensures that more energy is available from fragmentation.

4. Varying gamma in decoupled holes

The derivation of applied pressure from measured detonation velocity is clearly

unsupportable, but, in a decoupled situation the reliability of the conventional model is
even worse. Apart from using flawed science to derive the starting pressure, the method
adopts equation (4) to estimate the fall in pressure to the blast hole wall, using an
assumed gamma, usually between 1.3 and 2.
An important issue, mentioned by Meng et al. [8] in 2005 referring to Johansson and
Persson [5], is that it is inappropriate to attribute an isentropic solution to the expansion
process in a decoupled space, where no work is being performed. If anything, a constant
energy expansion should be allowed from the explosive to the blast hole wall, and from
this situation an isentropic expansion should be used to track blasting work.
Even this improvement is a gross simplification of the decoupled situation, with
spaced and radially decoupled explosive charges, often initiated by detonating cord,
where the decoupling medium may be air, water or soil. In the face of such challenges,
an approach which simply tracks the conservation of energy promises the easiest and
most practical way to establish a starting point for blast design.
In terms of the assumption of a value for the gamma exponent, hopefully only to be
used for estimating work in the rock and not for estimating decoupled pressure, this is
 Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast design 41

a very hazardous step, not only because small differences in gamma make great
differences in pressure drop versus energy delivered, but also because explosives differ
widely in their values. Figure 5 plots gamma for two explosives – ANFO and an
aluminized emulsion – from borehole pressure downwards. It is clearly inappropriate
to assume the same gamma for both explosives, and hardly justifiable to assume a
common value within any one range, unless the estimated pressure before expansion is
below 200 MPa: typically VoD based estimates are above 1 GPa.

5. Remedy

In pointing out the weaknesses in the current design method, it is vital to at least
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

provide a practical solution which although still flawed, is more justifiable. The step
suggested here is to move to an energy focus which addresses pressure through ideal
VoD. Whatever method is used to approximate a solution, it must be energy
conserving, which the popular method is not.
The core problem with the conventional method of estimating pressure in the hole is
its focus on measured detonation velocity to derive the full confined pressure of the
reacted explosive products. However, the detonation velocity is only dependent on the
faster reacting components of the explosive. The energy released after the DDZ is not
accounted for.
While pressure is the agent that acts on the confinement, it must not be seen in
isolation from the chemical energy creating it. Pressure amplitude means little without
duration, and the reason that Borehole Pressure can be used as an indication of work
capacity, is that it represents a stable starting point for the aggregate of potential and

Figure 5. Variation of exponent gamma with explosive pressure for two explosives, showing wide range
(Vixen_i detonation code).
 42 C. Cunningham

kinetic energy presented to the rock. On the other hand, detonation pressure is
transient, even in ideal confinement.

5.1. Borehole pressure estimation

An energy-conserving solution must allow for reaction after the sonic locus, and the
first resort should be to use the output from a good ideal detonation code, which tracks
pressure against volume for full reaction. Good codes are not necessarily easily come
by however, and as an initial approximation, equation (7) can be taken as a guide to
ideal detonation velocity:
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

Di ¼ ð4:19r þ 1250Þ=1000 ð7Þ

where Di is the ideal detonation velocity, km/s; r is density of explosive, kg/m3.

Figure 6 shows a plot of different explosive types and densities against detonation
velocity, with equation (7) compared. The data were generated using the Vixen_i ideal
detonation code and a range of explosives from AEL. The two worst fit points are
for low density, pure ammonium nitrate without fuel. Other points include aluminized
ANFO, emulsions with various proportion of AN, and small diameter packaged
explosive.
Thus a better starting point for borehole pressure is

Pb ¼ rDi 2 =8000 ð8Þ

In the introduction example of ANFO at density 800 kg/m3, the ideal VoD,
according to AEL’s Vixen_i code is 4800 m/s, or using equation (5) is 4600 m/s.
Ignoring the measured value of 3500 m/s, a better estimate of the effective pres-
sure in the hole assumes that all of the ANFO detonates so, from equation (8),
PB ¼ 80064.802/8000 ¼ 2.3 GPa, not 1.23 GPa as first calculated.

Figure 6. Fit for Ideal VoD-density algorithm.

 Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast design 43

5.2. Decoupling

For a decoupled situation, for constant energy, the hole volume and explosive mass can
be used to infer an ‘‘effective density’’ to be used in equation (7) which then through
equation (8) provides a blast hole pressure. This eliminates the need for guessing a
gamma value. The example below shows how this is done.

Given:
Hole diameter: 100 mm
Hole length: 12 metres
Explosive: 9 metres of 45 mm diameter cartridges at 1.15 density
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

Calculation:
Mass explosive=16.5 kg
Volume of hole=0.0943 m3 (based on 100 mm diameter)
In-hole density=175 kg/m3
Ideal VoD=1.98 km/s equation (7)
Borehole pressure= 0.086 GPa equation (8)
Table 2 illustrates and compares the above method with the conventional solution,
taking a 25 mm cartridged emulsion at density 1.18 in a 50 mm hole, VoD measured at
4.2 km/s. Ideal data is from AEL’s Vixen_i detonation code. PR is the decoupled
pressure on the blast hole wall.
The wide range of values from the five energy consistent methods (b) to (f) points to
a need to standardize on a common method. The approach with least requirement for a
code or guesswork is (f), which therefore makes it the most attractive for daily field use.
Clearly, the use of an expansion isentrope to attempt to evaluate decoupled pressure (c)
penalizes available energy, and calls for holes to be more closely spaced.

6. Discussion

The four-fold range in calculated values for effective borehole pressure has implications
for the estimation of rock damage and hole spacing. Conventional wisdom attempts to

Table 2. Comparison of estimates of decoupled pressure on blasthole wall PR.

P813
(b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
(a) Energy Vixeni Vixeni Vixeni Energy
Emulsion Conventional conserving code code code conserving

Explosive diameter mm 25 25 25 50 25 50
Hole diameter mm 50 50 50 50 50 50
Density kg/m3 1180 1180 1180 295 1180 295
VoD m/s 4200 61941 5896 2590 5896 24901
PCJ GPa 5.202 11.322 10.24 0.63 10.24 0.46
PB GPa 2.6023 5.665 4.47 0.33 4.476 0.235
Decoupling vh/ve 4 4 4 1 4 1
Gamma 1.4 1.4 3 to 1.5 – – –
PR GPa 0.374 0.814 0.176 0.336 0.346 0.23
Comment Ref. Gamma Ref. Gamma Ideal Effective Const. Effective
isentrope density Energy density
1
Eq (7); 2Eq (2); 3Eq (1); 4Eq (4); 5Eq (8); 6Code output.
 44 C. Cunningham

match applied pressure to dynamic rock strength such that explosive pressure is more
than the tensile strength and less than the compressive strength of the rock. Here again,
one finds a number of significant assumptions and simplifications, including using the
dynamic strength of the rock. Note however that this is being aligned with the ‘‘static’’
pressure of the explosive!
In addition there is guesswork in defining the ratio between static and dynamic rock
strength, just as there is in defining gamma for non-ideal, decoupled explosive
expansion, or of knowing how long pressure is contained within the hole. In various
books and papers figures given range between five times and twice the static strengths.
Also, statistically adequate and technically satisfactory rock testing is seldom possible
on blasting sites.
It is thus fair to conclude that, as is the case with powder factor calculations, the
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

calculations are only really valid for comparison purposes, and not as absolute
estimations of real damage from blasting. One can then ask that if the whole exercise is
highly empirical and calibrated by field use, why bother with changing the treatment of
the explosive part of the exercise since this could upset the calibration for the rock
aspects?
The answer is that the need for changing the explosive calculation is related to the
wrong thinking that VoD and delivered energy are linked – this would lead to
wrongly assuming less energy from lower velocity explosives, and predicting wider hole
spacing for high VoD explosives. Empirical models mislead if they point in the wrong
direction.
Thus in typical use, there is no downside for an energy conserving model. Practi-
tioners use the calculations to confirm their sense of an appropriate design, apply it,
and make adjustments in accordance with both the results and the empirical model.
These adjustments should result in arriving at better answers sooner.
It is also vital to notice that adding metal fuels and dry AN prill to explosives can
reduce both the ideal and measured VoD, while noticeably increasing the movement of
the rock. This could only be a result of increasing the sustained blast hole pressure, and
indicates that even adopting the ideal VoD rather than the measured value can
underestimate the impact on the wall. Similarly, explosives containing water may have
high ideal and measured VoDs, but drop quickly in pressure owing to the lower
temperature reaction, so may have significantly lower wall pressure than is indicated by
VoD. Chemical energy is a prime reality that has to be taken into account in blast
design, using pressure as an important, but dependant, parameter.
An important further issue is the need at the rock surface for the applied pressure to
exceed the threshold yield strength, but it is very unlikely that this situation will arise in
normal situations, and if it does, it is easily handled.

7. Conclusion

The tracking of energy dissipation from blasting is core to achieving improved blast
designs. Unfortunately, the dynamic processes both within the blast hole and between
this and the confining rock mass are so extreme that simplifying assumptions are
inevitable, but a common lack of understanding as to the fundamental nature of the
detonation process and how it is solved in detonation codes have led to wrong use of
some of the simple equations arising from ideal detonation. In order to illustrate the
reality of the abuse and point to an improved approach, it has been necessary to define
the artificial concepts of ideal confinement and an ideal container. These isolate the
 Concepts of blast hole pressure applied to blast design 45

detonation process from the process of energy transfer to the environment, and help to
show that there is a pressure gradient even when no energy is transferred. Thus partial
reaction in the detonation driving zone is not necessarily an indication that the impact
on the confinement will be any less.
Of necessity there is a great deal of empiricism in blasting, with relatively little
statistically satisfactory evidence to support it. Engineers embrace the simplest and
most convenient algorithms for design work, and the concept of borehole pressure has
long dominated damage calculations. Ultimately, for daily use in blast design, energy
concepts are better than pressure concepts, but neither can stand on its own. VoD is a
handy and readily obtained parameter, but its link to detonation pressure has led to an
unfortunate assumption that it is linked to output energy.
The correction suggested here is that rather than using measured detonation velocity
Downloaded by [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek] at 09:33 11 March 2015

as a basis for estimating borehole pressure, engineers should use the ideal detonation
velocity, which is reasonably consistent with available energy. The difference in the
design process resulting from this change will require less guess work. Most engineers
understand that blast calculations are starting points, not absolute solutions, and arrive
at good results incrementally and by comparison.
Another whole debate, and an important one, is around whether the explosive not
yet consumed at the sonic plane proceeds to full consumption and energy delivery
within the required time frame, or whether and to what extent it is quenched.

Acknowledgements

African Explosives Limited gave permission to publish this paper, and sponsored
significant interaction with technical authorities in detonation over the years. I am
particularly indebted to Dr Martin Braithwaite, Dr Ian Parker and Dr Finn
Ouchterlony for patient discussions on the topic.

References

[1] Cooper, P., 1996, Explosives Engineering (New York, NY: Wiley), 179 – 184.
[2] Hustrulid, W., 1999, Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining: Volume 2. Theoretical Foundations
(Rotterdam: Balkema) 680 – 756.
[3] Chiappetta, R.F., 1990, Presplitting and controlled blasting techniques. Proceedings of the 2nd High Tech
Seminar (Florida and Cleveland, OH: ISEE).
[4] Dremin, A., 2005, Project summary of ISTC 2301p. Investigation of combined explosives’ energy release
at non-ideal detonation as it propagates along the charge of explosive under conditions approximating
conditions of explosives’ operation within boreholes. Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics of the
Russian Academy of Sciences.
[5] Johansson, C.H. and Persson, P.A., 1970, Detonics of High Explosives (London and New York, NY:
Academic Press), 272.
[6] Kristiansen, J., 1995, How the velocity of detonation affects fragmentation. Proceedings of Explo 95,
Australian Institute of Minerals and Metallurgy, Series 6/95, Carlton, Victoria, Australia, 437 – 444.
[7] Bergmann, O.R., Riggle, J.W. and Wu, F.C., 1973, Model rock blasting – effect of explosives properties
and other variables on blasting results. International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Minerals Science and
Geomechanics (UK: Pergamon Press), 10, 585 – 612.
[8] Meng, X., Hustrulid, W.A. and Carter, K., 2005, Some new insights on borehole wall pressure when using
de-coupled charges. Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Vol 1, 6 – 9
February (Orlando, FL and Cleveland, OH: ISEE).