Blasting Competency Programme

Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts

1

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
Blasthole Interaction ............................................................................................................. 2
Single Hole Firing ................................................................................................................. 2
Single Row Blasts ................................................................................................................ 2
Intra-Row Delay ................................................................................................................... 4
Multi-Row Blasts .................................................................................................................... 4
Row by Row and Chevron Initiation ..................................................................................... 5
Downline Cut-offs ................................................................................................................. 6
Timing Design Principles ...................................................................................................... 7
Delay Time Interaction ......................................................................................................... 7
Controlling Movement .......................................................................................................... 7
Hole-by-Hole Initiation........................................................................................................... 8
Principles and benefits ......................................................................................................... 8
Initiating Systems ................................................................................................................. 8
In-Hole Delay Selection ......................................................................................................... 9
Design Principles ................................................................................................................. 9
Advantages of Electronic Initiation with Smartdets ............................................................ 10
SHOTPlus Initiation Simulator............................................................................................ 10
Detonator Accuracy and it’s impact on Blast Design ...................................................... 11

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
2

Initiation and Timing of Blasts

Introduction
The sequence in which blastholes are initiated and the time interval between successive
detonations has a major influence on overall blast performance. A poor blast design (up to
the point of initiation design) cannot be rectified by good initiation design. A good blast can
however be enhanced with appropriate initiation design.
The optimum, initiation sequence and delay timing for any blast depends on many factors,
including :-
• Rock properties (Strength, Young’s modulus, density, porosity, structure, etc).
• Blast geometry (Burden, spacing, bench height, free faces, etc).
• Blasthole diameter, inclination, sub-drill, stemming length, etc.
• Explosive characteristics, degree of coupling, decking, etc.
• Initiation system (surface or in-hole delays, type of downline etc).
• Primer type and location
• Environmental constraints (air and ground vibration levels and frequency).
• The desired result (fragmentation, muckpile displacement and profile etc).

Blasthole Interaction

Single Hole Firing

When a single blasthole is fired to a free face, the result is unique in terms of fragmentation,
displacement, overbreak, ground vibration, airblast, etc.

Single Row Blasts

A single row of blastholes detonated simultaneously would produce quite different results
compared to the single hole blast. Firing a single row of blastholes is more complex, as it
involves interaction between adjacent charges. The end result is thus not the same as the
sum of the effects of individual blastholes.
• Poor fragmentation as cracks from adjacent blastholes (inter-hole cracks) link up
preferentially and produce an elongated slab of rock.
• Greater forward displacement, as explosives gases enter interconnecting cracks
and adjacent blastholes work together..

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
3

• More overbreak, behind the blastholes, as the burden tends to move forward in a
mass producing a sudden large reaction on the rock behind the blast.
• Higher ground vibrations and more airblast, as a larger quantity of explosives is
reacting and imparting energy to the surroundings in a short period of time.

If a single row of similar blastholes is detonated in sequence with relatively long time delay
(e.g. several seconds) between successive detonations, the result will be different again.

• Better fragmentation than the instantaneous single row blast, as cracks between
blastholes would not tend to link up preferentially.
• However, fragmentation may be poorer than the single hole blast because there
is no positive interaction between adjacent blastholes, and earlier-firing charges
may disrupt adjacent explosives charges or the rock mass surrounding them.
• Less forward movement than the single hole or simultaneous single row blasts,
as the rock displaced by the first holes to fire will come to rest and become a
buffer which restrains subsequent burden movement. The opening of cracking
from earlier-firing charges may also permit premature venting of gases from
subsequent detonations.
• Less overbreak than the instantaneous row of blastholes, but more than the singe
hole blast because forward displacement is restrained by the broken rock buffer.
• Lower ground vibrations and airblast than the instantaneous single hole blast,
because energy release and ground movement are spread over a longer period
of time. Ground vibrations may be higher than the single hole blast, because of
the restraining effects of the broken rock buffer.

Alternatively, a single row of similar blastholes could be fired in sequence with a relatively
small time (e.g. several milliseconds) between adjacent detonations. In general, a delay
interval of a few milliseconds per metre of spacing between adjacent blastholes will produce
quite different results compared to the previous examples.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
4

The essential difference is that each blasthole charge is detonated whilst the surrounding
rock mass is pre-stressed but not completely disrupted by the effects of earlier-firing charges.
Adjacent blastholes thus interact positively, producing superior results because the
explosives energy is released in a controlled manner and applied to the rock mass more
effectively. In fact, for any pair of blastholes there is a unique delay time which will produce
the best possible result.

Intra-Row Delay
The delay time between adjacent blastholes within a row is commonly referred to as the INTRA-Row
delay or INTER-Hole delay. Firing a single row of blastholes with the optimum intra-row delay will
produce the following results:
• A degree of fragmentation which cannot be improved upon without altering
geometry, explosives type or some other variable to increase the explosives
energy per cubic metre of rock.
• Forward displacement will be somewhat less then an instantaneous single row
multi-hole blast, but displacement and muckpile profile can be altered by
changing the intra-row delay.
• Overbreak will be similar to a single hole blast, and a smooth wall profile can be
produced by manipulating the intra-row delay.
• Ground and air vibration levels can be maintained at the level of a single hole
blast. Seismic energy can be channelled into a more appropriate frequency band,
if necessary.

Identifying the right intra-row delay is thus one of the keys to predictable and efficient
blasting.
• For a brittle, elastic, homogeneous rock type, a short intra-row delay is usually
appropriate. Short delays promote a united effort between adjacent blastholes,
tending to maximise forward displacement at the expense of fragmentation and
vibration levels.
• A porous, plastic, highly jointed rock mass would require more time between
detonation of adjacent blastholes. Long delays tend to make each blasthole work
more independently, reducing positive interaction.

Results from a wide range of conditions indicate that the appropriate intra-row delay for
conventional blasting is usually less than 5 milliseconds per metre of blasthole spacing (as
measured along a row or echelon). The ideal delay for each situation is clearly influenced by
rock properties, blast geometry and the desired result, but 2 to 4 milliseconds per metre of
spacing is recommended for initial trials.

Multi-Row Blasts
In a properly designed multi-row blast, charges adjacent to free faces have an acceptable
burden of rock to break and displace. However all blastholes in subsequent rows are
dependent on the earlier-firing charges creating new free faces during the blast. Charges
with too large burdens will tend to crater towards the collar, which is their only alternative free
face. Blastholes that are subjected to this type of lateral confinement will not perform
efficiently, and the overall blast result will be adversely affected.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
5

In a simple multi-row blast with a single free face, all blastholes could be initiated
simultaneously. Front row blastholes have a finite burden and would produce a certain level
of fragmentation, forward displacement, ground vibrations etc. However each blasthole
behind the front row would perform less effectively because of excessive lateral confinement
at the time of initiation.
These charges would tend to crater upwards, with the effect becoming more pronounced
towards the back row. Thus fragmentation and forward displacement would suffer, whilst
overbreak, ground vibration levels and airblast would increase. The resulting muckpile would
become progressively more difficult to dig towards the sides and back, where the rock mass
may be virtually intact near the toe.

Row by Row and Chevron Initiation

A multi-row blast can be fired to a free face in a row-
by-row sequence by introducing a time delay between
detonation of each successive row of blastholes.
If this time delay is adequate, overall blast performance
may improve significantly because progressive relief of
burden is provided for successive rows of blastholes.
However, if the delay time between successive rows is
not sufficient to provide proper relief, later-firing rows
will become progressively more choked.
The use of a staggered drilling pattern with row-by-row
initiation will produce better results, as explosives are
more evenly distributed and perimeter blastholes have
a more favourable breakout angle
This can significantly reduce vibration levels and
overbreak, whilst improving fragmentation and
muckpile looseness. However for most operations row
by row firing will not produce the best results.

Blast performance can usually be significantly

improved by initiating multi-row blasts in a V or VI
sequence instead of line-by-line.
Drilled rows of blastholes are split into effective rows
which have an apparent reduction in burden.
Progressive relief of burden is enhanced by a longer
time delay per metre of effective burden which tends to
reduce choking towards the back of the blast. A
staggered V1 initiation sequence (shown) also leads to
a reduction in geometric confinement for side and
corner holes, promoting forward displacement and
reducing overbreak.
Fragmentation is improved by the progressive
development of suitable effective bi-planer free faces
during the blast and the constructive interaction of
adjacent charges. Vibration levels are reduced
because of progressive burden relief and because the
blast is spread over a longer period of time.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
6

Inter-row Delay
The delay time between initiation of dependent blastholes
or successive effective rows of blastholes is the INTER-
ROW delay. Firing multi-row blasts with the optimal inter-
row delay will produce the following results :- V0 V1 V2 V3

• Fragmentation will be enhanced, particularly in the

toe region of blastholes towards the perimeter of the SQUARE DRILLING PATTERN
blast.
• Lateral movement, muckpile profile and looseness
can be optimised by manipulating the inter-row and
intra-row delays together to vary the extent and
direction of rock displacement.
• Overbreak at the back and side(s) of the blast will be
minimised.
• Ground and air vibrations are minimised and can
often be maintained at levels similar to a single row
blast.
V0 V1 V2 V3

The right inter-row delay for specific applications cannot be

calculated from first principles and in any situation some STAGGERED DRILLING PATTERN

experimentation is necessary. Chevron Types

• For a brittle, elastic, highly jointed rock type a relatively short inter-row delay is usually
appropriate - short delays tend to restrict lateral movement, reduce diggability and
cause higher ground vibrations
• In contrast, a porous, plastic, dense homogenous rock mass would require more time
for burden movement. Long inter-row delays encourage maximum forward
displacement and muckpile looseness.

Results from a wide range of conditions indicate that the appropriate inter-row delay for
conventional blasting is usually in the range 8 to 18 milliseconds per metre of effective
burden (measured between dependent blastholes). The ideal figure for each situation is
heavily influenced by rock properties, blast geometry and the desired result, but 12
milliseconds per metre of burden is recommended for initial trials.

Downline Cut-offs
Where a surface delay system is used to fire instantaneous detonating cord downlines with
no inter-hole delays, a blasthole detonates almost immediately after its downline is initiated.
This will disrupt the surrounding rock mass and cause ground movement which may damage
or cut unfired trunklines in the vicinity. The probability of this occurring will increase when
relatively long surface delays are used between closely spaced blastholes.

As a general rule, the maximum delay between adjacent blastholes should not exceed 6
milliseconds per metre of effective spacing if downline cut-offs are to be avoided, unless in-
hole delays are used.
In-hole delays provide a time interval between the initiation of each downline and detonation
of the corresponding explosive charge. Provision of a suitable time delay ensures that the
initiation signal has reached the detonator(s) within each charge before it or adjacent

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
7

charges begin to disrupt the surrounding rock mass. This minimises the probability of
downlines being physically damaged or cut off by ground movement during the blast. The
use of suitable in-hole delays also permits the use of longer inter-row delays, which may be
essential for best results.

Timing Design Principles

Delay Time Interaction

The overall performance of production blasts can be controlled by altering delay timing to vary the
degree of interaction between adjacent blastholes.
• Controls interaction between adjacent blastholes and determines whether
blastholes act independently or together.
• Controls interaction between dependent blastholes, as it affects the progressive
creation of new effective free faces during the blast.
• The ratio of inter-row delay to intra-row delay controls the geometry and
orientation of new free faces created as the blast progresses.

Controlling Movement
Row by Row firing to free face
The manipulation of delay timing to control
blast performance is best illustrated by
considering several alternatives for initiating
the same blast. Where blastholes are
initiated row-by-row, forward displacement
will be maximised and the general direction
of movement will be perpendicular to the
rows
Layout firing to free end
If the same blast is initiated in a V1 Pattern,
the direction of movement will be
perpendicular to the effective rows, towards
the free corner

Echelon firing to buffered end

Alternatively, the blast can be effectively
choked by linking up echelons as effective
rows and firing towards a buffered end

Of these three alternatives, only the V1 initiation will produce the best balance of
fragmentation, displacement, overbreak and vibration for most applications.
A V1 initiation sequence can be used for blasting in a wide range of applications and is best
utilised when a free end is available. With the same V1 pattern, delays can be altered to suit
different conditions, in conjunction with in-hole delays if necessary.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
8

System Selection
The V1 initiation sequence can be achieved by using several combinations of the non-
electric initiation systems; the most common are :-
• Detonating cord trunklines with surface delays.
• Detonating cord trunklines, surface and in-hole delays.
• Total shock tube system.

Hole-by-Hole Initiation

Principles and benefits

In hole-by-hole firing, where every blasthole is initiated in sequence at a unique time. Where
appropriate delays are selected, hole-by-hole initiation exploits the positive benefits of
blasthole interaction whilst avoiding some of the negative effects. This can lead to:
• greatly improved fragmentation and muckpile looseness,
• reduced overbreak,
• lower ground vibrations, and
• better control over the final muckpile position and profile.

Initiating Systems
In practice, hole-by-hole initiation is usually achieved by using a surface delay system to
control blasthole sequencing.

Noisemasters provides a simple and effective

means of producing hole-by-hole firing.

Hole-by-hole firing can be achieved by using any

of the many standard non-electric blast initiation
systems currently available. However the
available range of commercial in-hole delays is
limited and hence it is rare to see large blasts
fired with sequencing controlled by in-hole
delays.

This unidirectional system

initiates each downline in the
correct sequence, progressing
from one blasthole to the next.

A detonating cord trunkline

network with surface delays
(Noisemasters) can also be used
to produce individual hole firing.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
9

A detonating cord ‘backup’ line is used to ensure that there are at least two paths of initiation
to each downline. However the use of such a system can lead to holes firing out of sequence
if downlines are initiated by an indirect route via the backup line. The increased number of
components required, and the complexity of connecting up, also makes this system less
attractive than the detonating relay
system to provide individual hole
firing.

If relatively long inter-row delays

are required to produce the
desired result, a combination of
surface and in-hole delays will be
required to avoid downline cut-offs
caused by ground movement
during the blast. Where this
combination system is used, each
blasthole usually contains the
same in-hole delays. Inter-hole delay times are controlled by the surface initiation system,
whilst the in-hole delay provides a safety factor against potential trunkline or downline cut-
offs caused by ground movement during the blast.

In-Hole Delay Selection

Design Principles
Where a combination surface and in-hole delay system is used it is generally recommended
that the in-hole delay should be 3 to 5 times the longest surface delay. A ratio of in-hole to
surface delay in this range will provide a practical balance between two conflicting factors.
• An adequate time delay is provided between the initiation of a downline and the
detonation of adjacent blastholes. This ensures that ground movement during the
blast disrupts neither the downline nor the surface delays.
o If surface delays are used with no in-hole delays (i.e. the ratio is zero) there is
a significant risk of cut-offs.
o Higher ratios (i.e. longer in-hole delays) provide more security against cut-offs,
and ideally all downlines would be fired before any charge detonates.
However this is not recommended because all delay detonators have finite
‘scatter’ in actual delay times, which can lead to blastholes firing out of
sequence.
• The probability of blastholes firing out of sequence is minimised with a ratio of 3
to 5 for in-hole to surface delays, because delay time variations within the in-hole
delays are small compared to the most critical surface delay interval.
o A higher ratio will increase the probability of blastholes firing out of sequence.

Consistent results are obtained by using in-hole delays, which are approximately 4 times the
longest surface delay.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
10

Advantages of Electronic Initiation with Smartdets

Electronic initiation offers many advantages over other initiation systems:

• Highly accurate,
• Individual timing of each hole,
• Able to test each detonator,
• Logger and Blaster are completely separate,
• Tying up is very safe,
• Blaster options make blasting very safe, and
• Very quick to use.

SHOTPlus Initiation Simulator

SHOTPlus is a computer program developed by Orica and AEL, and has the ability to store
and analyse the initiation sequencing of a blast.

Once the blast pattern has been entered into the program, SHOTPlus may be used to make
a range of calculations including:
angle if initiation,
number of holes firing in a given time,
the probability of blasthole times crowding or overlapping due to delay variation and
blast development rate in time/dimension format.

These calculations are graphically represented on screen and may be printed out as hard
copy. The program will graphically “fire” the blast and may be used to produce the blast
initiation plan and an initiation products listing for use on the bench.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009

Blasting Competency Programme
Module 3: Initiation and Timing of Blasts
11

Detonator Accuracy and it’s impact on Blast Design

All pyrotechnic detonators are inaccurate to some degree, as it is not possible to
manufacture a perfectly accurate detonator. Even electronic detonators are not exact
although they are considerably more precise than pyrotechnic systems.

The accuracy of a single delay in isolation is of little significance in most blasting operations.
What is important in the accuracy in relation to adjacent delay – ie between successive
delays.

The graphs show standard deviation curves for three successive delays plotted along a time
scale. The top graph shows what might be the delay range design specifications against
which production is measured before passing it as being acceptable for sale. If the standard
deviation of the detonators is worst than specification then the curve flattens and grows wider
as shown. Now there is a greater chance of a slightly late Delay 1 detonator firing close to an
early firing Delay 2 detonator.
The detonators will fire in sequence but very close together – much closer than the nominal
delay firing times would suggest. This is known as crowding and can result in reduced throw,
tighter muckpile and increase flyrock.

If the standard deviation further deteriorates and the situation shown in the bottom graph
occurs then there is a greater risk of an early firing Delay 2 firing before a late firing Delay 1.
This is known as an overlap and also as a reversal or out-of-sequence shot. In certain
situations this, in addition to the consequences listed for crowding, can result in coarse
fragmentation, excessive flyrock, high ground vibrations and the formation of toes.

© African Explosives Limited, 2009