A New Era of Tunnel Blasting:

Electronic Detonators and

Geohazard Reduction

Geohazards in Transportation
August 3, 2005

Doug Anderson
Senior Supervising Geologist
Senior Professional Associate
Parsons Brinckerhoff
 Overview
¾ Issues in Tunneling
z Vibration
z Wall Damage/Overbreak
¾ Example Tunneling Projects (Urban)
¾ Traditional Blasting Approach
z Overall Procedures
z Vibration Generation
¾ Electronic Detonator Fundamentals
¾ Application to Tunneling
¾ Implications
 Before We Begin…

¾ Presentation is Informational
¾ NOT a Sales Pitch
z PB does not manufacture or sell electronic
detonators
z Strictly to promote advances in the state-
of-the-art
 Geohazard Issues in Tunneling
¾ For the Client
z Stability of the Project
z Safety and Security

¾ For the Stakeholders

z Protection of Neighboring Assets
• Stability of Underground Structure
• Vibration
 Example Tunneling Projects
¾ Two New York City Projects
z Hard Rock (Manhattan Schist)
z Close Proximity
• High-Value Surface Structures
• Network of other Tunnels, Underground
Structures
¾ East Side Access
¾ Number 7 Line Extension
East Side Access
East Side Access
 East Side Access

¾ Tunnel Boring Machine for Long Drive

¾ Blasting for:
z Station Cavern
z Shafts and Adits
• Access Shafts
• Vent Shafts
z Cross Passages
 East Side Access
¾ Client
z Long Island Railroad
¾ Stakeholders
z Metro North Railroad
• Grand Central Terminal
• Overlying Rail Lines
z New York City Transit
• Adjacent Subways
z Historical and Expensive Surface Structures
Number 7 Line Extension

Tenth Avenue Station

34th Street Station

 Number 7 Line Extension

¾ Tunnel Boring Machine for Long Drive

¾ Blasting for:
z Station Caverns
z Shafts and Adits
z Cross Passages
 Number 7 Line Extension
¾ Client
z New York City Transit
¾ Stakeholders
z Port Authority
• Bus Terminal
• Lincoln Tunnel
z Amtrak
• Hudson River and Empire Line Tunnels
z Long Island Railroad
• Adjacent Yards
z Surface Structures
• Javits Convention Center
• Historical Structures
 Geohazard Issues Revisited
¾ Client
z Design Issues KNOWN
• Overbreak and Stability
• Vibration Predictable and Controllable
¾ Stakeholders
z Confidence:
• Structure will be Stable
• Vibrations will be Minimal
¾ Overall – NO Surprises
 Electronic Detonators
And the Issues

¾ Vibrations Predictable and Controllable

¾ Overbreak Reduced

¾ Electronic Detonators Mandated

z Why? I’ll Tell You
Traditional Blasting Approach
¾ Timed Sequence of Specialized
Blastholes
z Burn Cut
z Production Holes
z Perimeter Holes
¾ Long Period Delays
Traditional Blasting Approach
¾ Long
Perimeter Holes
Period
Delays
¾ Several
Holes on
one delay
¾ Scatter
assumed
“good” Burn Cut
Production Holes
 Problems with Traditional
Approach

¾ Burn Cut irregularly developed

¾ Production Holes Inefficient
¾ Perimeter Holes Irregular – Overbreak

¾ Vibration Unpredictable

¾ Overall: Non-reproducible Results

 Detonator Comparison
¾ Similar Size for both
¾ Pyrotechnic:
z Delay Element is
Train of Explosive
z Delay time related to
length and density of
explosive
¾ Electronic:
z Delay Element is
Computer Chip
Electronic Detonator Advantages
¾ Accuracy of Firing Times (scatter)
z Electronic: 0.5 ms Irrespective of Period
z Pyrotechnic: 2% of firing time
• For 1500 ms Long Period Delay = 30 ms
¾ Safety
z Circuits Checkable Before and After Blast
¾ Security
z Detonator Fired by Specific Blasting
Machine
 Example
Courtesy Claude Cunningham
• The perimeter control and the over break experienced using shock-tube
timing. With E-Det timing the half barrels on the perimeter are clearly visible
as well as the minimal over-break experienced.

Electronic perimeter Shocktube perimeter

• The damage to wire meshing and roof bolts is extensive with shock-tube.
Resulting in the mine having to re-support each blast using this system at
great expense. When using E-Det timing little if any damage is experienced.

Joao Campos & AEL team: El Teniente, 2000

 Japanese Study (1995)*
Comparing Electronic and
Pyrotechnic
¾ Electronic
Used Only
on Perimeter
Holes
¾ Cracking
and Seismic
Profiling
Measured

* Yamamoto, Ichijo, and Tanaka, ISEE Proceedings

 Japanese Study (continued)
¾ Pyrotechnic
Delays
Produced 1
meter of
Damaged Rock
¾ Reflected in
Both Overbreak
and Subsurface
Damage
 Japanese Study (continued)
¾ Damage
Restricted to
0.1 meter
Below
Surface
¾ Less
Overbreak
and Damage
 Application of Electronic
Detonators to Tunneling
¾ 1. Applied
Perimeter Holes
to Standard
Delay
Sequence –
Long
Period
¾ 2. Shorter
Delays
Possible!
Burn Cut
Production Holes
 Why a “New Era”?

¾ Effects Design by Accurate Knowledge

of Blast Effects
¾ Possible Redesign with Shorter Delays
z More Effective Use of Explosive Energy
z Vibration Control Methods by
Superposition Possible
 Implications for Geohazards

¾ Important in Urban Environments

z Stability and Vibration Control

¾ Stability ALWAYS an Issue

¾ Vibration Control Increasingly

Important – even in the “Hollers”
THANK YOU!!!!