DIPS

THE EFFECT OF CALCULATED EXPLOSIVE ENERGY
OUTPUT ON BLAST DESIGN
P.D. Katsabanis and Lyall Workman
ABSTRACT
The energy output of an explosive is typically calculated using an equation of state
and computer applications. Results are reported as weight and bulk strength, either in
absolute terms or relative to ANFO. The effect of the equation of state selected and
the assumptions regarding the energy calculation are considered and interpreted for
the purpose of blast design. It appears that variations in the heat of detonation which
result from the selection of the equation of state and parameters associated with it are
not sufficient to significantly affect blast patterns, explosive consumption and costs.
However variations stemming from the use of "available energy" associated with a
cut-off pressure are significant, suggesting in many cases large pattern expansions.
The validity of the various approaches is discussed and blast design results based on
the energy calculated by the different approaches are presented and evaluated.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Several methods exist for the measurement of the energy from commercial explosives.
These methods include mostly indirect methods like TNT equivalence tests, ballistic
mortar and underwater bubble tests. It is not clear which method provides a good
measure of the energy of detonation since energy losses in various forms cannot be
accounted for.
The only direct method of energy measurement is the calorimetric determination.

However this requires a detonation calorimeter, which is not readily available to most
laboratories, as well as the ability to detonate the explosives in small enough
diameters (approximately 12-13mm). Obviously, very few commercial explosives can
detonate under these conditions and all of them would detonate non ideally. Previous
work (1) has however demonstrated that commercial explosives can be sensitized to
achieve detonation in small diameters and non-ideal detonation does not inhibit the
measurement as long as the explosive is fully consumed in the detonation and the
reactions that occur in the expansion zone.
Nevertheless the above methods require sophisticated equipment and/or a significant

amount of analysis in order to yield a result that can be meaningful to blasting
engineers. It is for this reason that in many cases energy values are calculated using
thermodynamic codes.
There is no question that the term "energy" is well understood; the values obtained by
the commonly used indirect tests need however interpretation for field use. Energy is
Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1996G - THE EFFECT OF CALCULATED EXPLOSIVE ENERGY OUTPUT ON BLAST DESIGN - P 268 1 of 14
also partitioned during the blasting process. Partition of energy requires the explosive
adiabat and the rock stiffness(2). Prediction of the adiabat, especially when strong non
ideal detonation occurs, requires non ideal modelling, something that is rather
difficult, even for the most sophisticated user. Alternatively knowledge of the velocity
of detonation and comparison against the maximum (ideal) velocity of detonation can
provide a good estimation of the fraction of reaction occurring in the detonation
head(3). The use of a simple burning law in the expansion zone, in combination with
ideal modelling can yield acceptable results regarding the pressure-volume
relationship of the detonation products, as has been shown by various
investigators(4,5).
Unfortunately comparison between different explosives has been hindered by the use
of the term "strength" and of relative values associated with this. Different sources of
data use different methods of calculation of relative weight or bulk strength to
conduct blast design calculations.
In most of the "strength" determinations, explosion energy and gas volume are
considered. A typical, well known relationship is the one by Langefors(6):
Scalc = 5e + Vg (EQ 1)
6 6
e = Qe (EQ 2)
Qs
Vg = Ve (EQ 3)
Vs
where Scalc is the relative strength to the standard explosive (a typical dynamite)
Qe is the explosion energy of the explosive
Qs is the explosion energy of the standard explosive
Ve is the volume of gases produced by the explosive and
Vs is the volume of gases produced by the standard explosive.
While this is not the only method used, it is typical of "strength" calculations. It is
obvious that variations in the formula used will result in variation of published results.
Furthermore variations in the method of calculation of the explosion energy and
volume of product gases has been blamed for the inconsistency of published values of
"strength". In the following, the calculated values of energy and volume of product
gases will be investigated and the resulting values will be examined in typical blast
design considerations.
2.0 Explosion Energy Determination
The explosion energy is typically given by the following relationship:

Qe = Hf(detonation products) - Hf(reactants) (EQ 4)
where Hf denotes the heat of formation at standard conditions.
The above formula is quite simple and accurate. Calorimetric determinations have
indicated that once the products of detonation are known equation (4) will yield
identical results to the experimental measurement.
It is evident that if the products of detonation can be predicted, the explosion energy
can be accurately determined. In this fashion, thermo-hydrodynamic codes dealing
with explosive performance can be used.
It is at this point that the situation becomes nebulous. It has been supported that
different codes will offer different results and that the state at which the gases can be
assumed frozen affects the final result(7).
From the above discussion it is however evident that if products can be predicted,
energy output should be readily calculated. There is only one correct calculation; the
one that predicts products of decomposition reliably. In the case of oxygen or close to
oxygen balance commercial compositions there is little doubt about the correct major
products of decomposition. Small concentrations of possibly toxic gases do not affect
the calculations drastically and a potential error there is without serious consequences,
as far as the energy calculation is concerned. One might argue that non-ideal
performance of commercial explosives will affect the outcome of the calculations,
most of which are ideal. Work by the authors(1) has clearly demonstrated that the
fume spectrum is not affected by the ideality of detonation.
Regarding the state at which fumes can be considered frozen, the author has
demonstrated that the explosion state is quite representative(1). Similar findings have
been reported for the case of military explosives(8).
Figure 1 examines the effect of the final state on the energy of detonation for a typical
Aluminized Slurry using two different equations of state in the TIGER code. It is
clear that despite the minor shifts in the composition of the products, the result on
energy value is insignificant.
The question of the selection of the equation of state is also a typical one when
calculating energy output. Previous work(1) has demonstrated that two different
codes with different equation of state were able to match precise calorimetric
experiments. It was obvious that shifts in the chemical equilibrium were observed
which were however unimportant as far as the energy calculation was concerned.
Table 1 shows the performance parameters, explosion energy and gas product
quantity for a variety of commercial explosive compositions.

Figure 1: Calculated Energy Output as a Function
of Expansion Volume
Table 1: Calculated Parameters for a variety of Commercial Explosives

Property BKW-RDX BKW - JCZ2 JCZ3
fit TNT fit
AN/FO Density: VOD, m/s 5226 5252 4603 5037
0.85 g/cc
Det. Pressure, kbar 64.7 67 50 57.3
Heat of Detonation, cal/g 883 883 883 883
Gases, mole/kg 43.8 43.8 43.8 43.8
Slurry Density: VOD, m/s 6840 6513 6059 6610
1.3 g/cc
Det. Pressure, kbar 153 146 111.1 131.8
Gases, mole/kg 41.6 41.6 42.2 42
Al - Slurry Density: VOD, m/s 6558 6394 5847 6390
1.3 g/cc
Det. Pressure, kbar 146 137 103 122
Gases, mole/kg 40.1 40.1 40.7 40.6
Heavy AN/FO Density: VOD, m/s 6769 6470 5963 6519
1.3 g/cc
Det. Pressure, kbar 151.8 145.3 107.8 128.5
Gases, mole/kg 37.6 38.4 38.5 38.6
Emulsion of Heavy VOD, m/s 6379 6164 5559 6069
AN/FO Density:
1.35g/cc
Gases, mole/kg 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5
Emulsion/Al, Density: VOD, m/s 6405 6275 5610 6135
1.31 g/cc
Gases, mole/kg 36.8 36.8 37.3 37.2
It is observed that although performance parameters can vary significantly, the value
of energy output and the quantity of gases produced is not seriously affected by the

equation of state. A series of calculations was also conducted to examine the effect of
assumed parameters of the equation of state on energy output.
For the sake of the example, the BKW equation of state was selected and various
compositions were run with consistent and inconsistent sets of covolumes for the
various gaseous species of detonation. It is worth mentioning that covolume values
must be consistent with the equation of state parameters which are used in the
thermodynamic code. However, since covolumes are not standard quantities and a
variety of equation of state parameters have been proposed, it is not difficult to
assume that inconsistent values might be used in some cases. The purpose of the
results of Table 2 is not to endorse such practises but to evaluate the effect of such
errors on the energy values calculated by a code. The results of Table 2 were
calculated on the basis of the parameters shown in Table 3.
Table 2: Calculated Parameters using various fits of the BKW Equation of State
Property BKW-RDX BKW BKW BKW BKW BKW fit 5
fit fit 1 fit 2 fit 3 fit 4
Slurry Density: VOD, m/s 6558 7243 6203 8070 6992 5593
1.35g/cc
Det. Pressure, kbar 146 168 130 191 158 114
Heat of Detonation, 986 988 979 993 984 971
cal/g
Gases, mole/kg 40.1 39.8 40.3 39.8 39.5 41.1
AN/FO Density: VOD, m/s 5226 5742 5103 6017 5509 5715
0.85 g/cc
Det. Pressure, kbar 64.7 77.2 62.5 86.8 72.5 75.1
Heat of Detonation, 883 885 883 887 891 891
cal/g
Gases, mole/kg 43.8 43.5 43.9 43.5 43.5 43.5
Table 3: Parameters used in the Various Fits
Parameter BKW-RDX BKW BKW BKW BKW BKW

fit fit 1 fit 2 fit 3 fit 4 fit 5
α 0.54 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.54 0.50
β 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.10
θ 400 400 400 400 400 400
Κ 14.15 11.85 11.85 11.85 14.15 11.85
Covolume of CO2 600 670 600 370 370 670
Covolume of CO 390 390 390 390 390 390
Covolume of H2 80 180 80 180 180 180
Covolume of H2O 250 360 250 360 360 160
Covolume of N2 380 380 380 380 380 380
It is obvious that the energy values are not affected significantly by the method of

calculation if the equilibrium of the gaseous products of detonation has not been
dramatically shifted. The examples of Table 2 clearly indicate that a significant error
must take place for significant differences in the calculation of energy. Obviously
performance and energy partition are affected by the method of calculation, as clearly
indicated by the calculated values of the velocity of detonation and detonation
pressure. It is however debatable whether the blasting engineer needs calculated
performance parameters for blast design purposes.
Performance parameters for explosives can easily be measured in the field. A simple
velocity of detonation measurement and its comparison with the ideal value (which
can be derived from a series of velocity-diameter experiments) can clearly indicate the
fraction of the material reacting ahead of the C-J plane (inside the detonation head)
and the fraction of the material reacting in the expansion zone. It is therefore implied
that energy output and VOD data are sufficient data for explosives comparison in the
case of a given application. It is of interest that the calculated energy output does not
seem to vary as much as originally thought.
Regarding the volume of product gases, Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate similar

observations to the case of the energy of detonation. It is therefore expected that
strength calculations considering both energy and volume of product gases should
result in similar results for the same explosive compositions, if performed correctly.
Therefore, "strength" calculations based on explosion energy and/or volume of

product gases should yield comparable values for the various explosives of
commercial interest. However there is a tendency to consider the expansion energy in
strength calculations. Expansion is considered along an isentrope and complete
conversion of energy to useful work is assumed down to a certain level of pressure
(close to 1kbar). Below this "cut-off" pressure an assumption is made that the
expansion energy is not utilized (0% efficiency). This method of strength calculation
can however be debated since in any case the "cut-off" point is arbitrary and the
partition before and after the "cut-off" strongly depends on the performance of the
explosive which is calculated on the basis of an equation of state. Unfortunately, the
equations of state used in ideal detonation calculations are calibrated not on the basis
of complete expansion isentropes but on the basis of detonation performance. This is
the reason military explosives are subjected to the cylinder test in order to calculate
parameters of the JWL equation of state which is used in cases where complete
expansion adiabats are needed. Furthermore, in the case of non ideal performance,
common in commercial explosives, the calculated performance might be different than
the actual one.
Table 4 shows the calculated "available" energy in cal/g for the products and the
equations of state used in Table 1. The calculation assumed a "cut-off" pressure of
1000 bar. It is obvious that the values of "available" energy vary between the various
equations of state. The relative values are however similar as expected from properly
calibrated equation. It appears that the reference explosive "available" energy (AN/FO

in this case) and the "cut-off" pressure (1kbar in this case) are sufficient information
to enable conversion of values calculated with different equations of state. The
question however becomes if the calculated relative values can be used for blast
pattern adjustments with confidence. This will be addressed in the following sections
of the paper.
The cut-off pressure is obviously of great concern, since it will affect the outcome of
any calculation. Figure 2 shows the change of the relative to AN/FO weight strength
(calculated under identical conditions) of the slurry and Heavy AN/FO compositions
at various cut-off pressures. It appears that the decision on the cut-off pressure, which
is somewhat arbitrary, would have a significant effect on blast design and that higher
cut-off pressures typically boost the relative weight strengths of watergel and
emulsion compositions. It is however difficult to assume that fragmentation and throw
are not affected by pressures of 1-2 kbar. Borehole pressures of 1-2kbar would be
capable of initiating fractures at the wall of a borehole at flaws with a size smaller than
0.050mm in a typical granite(9) and would certainly be sufficient in maintaining
propagation of open cracks during the blasting process. .
Figure 2: Calculated Relative Weight Strength as a

function of Cut-off pressure
Table 4: Calculated "Available Energy" for a Variety of Commercial Explosives

BKW-RDXBKW - JCZ2 JCZ3
fit TNT fit
Energy of AN/FO, Density:0.85 g/cc 589 610 502 473
Relative Weight Strength 1 1 1 1
Energy of Slurry, Density:1.3 g/cc 673 677 571 556
Relative Weight Strength 1.14 1.11 1.14 1.18
Energy of Al-Slurry, Density: 1.3 g/cc 729 743 623 588
Energy of Heavy AN/FO Density: 1.3 g/cc 657 662 555 526
Energy of Emulsion of Heavy AN/FO, Density: 585 594 485 469
1.35g/cc
Energy of Emulsion/Al Density: 1.31 g/cc 628 644 525 509

3.0 Application of Explosive Energy to Blast Design

3.1 Powder Factor
In the modern era the blasting engineer has a large selection of explosives from which
to choose. The question then is what product will be best for the given application?
Often the choice is between explosives having different energy outputs. Consequently
the blast patterns will vary. The choice between products then becomes a matter of
the total drill and blast cost, for explosives which are technically suited to the project.
Since products have different energy outputs and may partition energy differently
between shock and heave, a simple powder factor quoted in kg/tonne (lb/ton) or
kg/m3 (lb/CYD) is not very meaningful to the person designing the blast. For this
reason a relative powder factor should be given. Usually ANFO is considered the
standard and consequently an ANFO equivalent powder factor is quoted.
Therefore, it is important to know the weight strength of the explosive. Most

important is that the relative weight strengths be an accurate representation of the
comparative energy provided by the detonating explosive. The relationship between
the values for different explosives must be reasonably accurate and consistent, and the
absolute values must also be accurate.
Another concept that is useful is that of energy units(10). Energy units are a relative
measure of the energy released in the explosion obtained by multiplying the weight of
explosive by the relative weight strength. Thus one can refer to the energy units per
hole or per kilogram of explosive for example. Once the proper explosive
consumption is known for one product blast, designs and costs can be readily
compared between explosives.
Energy units can also be expressed as a powder factor by quoting the E.U.'s per ton
or per cubic yard needed to break the rock. This can be simply expressed as:
(EQ 5) EU/ton = Explosive Weight x RWS / ton
Since the relative weight strength of ANFO is 100, a powder factor of 75 E.U./ton is
the same as 0.75 lb/ton (0.38 kg/tonne). For an explosive with an RWS of 90 the
equivalent powder factor is 0.83 lb/ton (0.42 kg/tonne), and for a product of RWS
equal to 110 the powder factor is 0.68 lb/ton (0.34 kg/tonne). Although a different
weight is required the same number of energy units per ton are used. Once again, in
order to perform meaningful comparisons one must be able to rely on the quoted
relative weight strengths.
3.2 Blast Design Calculations

The data contained in Table 1 shows that the heat of detonation doesn't change very
much for a given explosive when different equations of state are used. The greatest
difference appears to occur between the BKW equation with an RDX fit and the
JCZ2 equations.
If blast designs are performed using relative weight strengths derived from the heat of
detonation calculated by these two methods, it is found that the blast patterns do not
vary by more than 0.2 meters (0.66 feet). In many cases this is not considered
significant. Similarly, the drill and blast cost varies by no more than 6 tenths of a cent
per tonne. The results of the calculations are shown in Table 5. These results are for
270 mm (10-5/8 in) holes on a 14 m (45 ft) bench with 1.5 m (5 ft) of subgrade
drilled. For metric tonnes the E.U. are 72 E.U./tonne (65 E.U./ton). The scaled depth
of burial at the collar is 1.09 m/kg1/3 (2.75 ft/lb1/3) and the rock has a specific
gravity of 2.65 g/cc (165 lb/ft3). Clearly the equation of state that is used is not of
great importance provided the calculations are performed correctly. Even if there is
some inconsistency in the selection of parameters the result on the bench will be the
same, unless these inconsistencies become substantial.
Table 5: Blast Design Calculations Using Heat of Detonation from Two

Equations of State
ANFO TNT Al - Heavy Emulsion Al Emulsion
Slurry Slurry ANFO
Cost/kg, $ 0.260 0.550 0.590 0.400 0.520 0.560
BKW with RDX fit RWS
100 96 112 96 90 95
Tonnes/Hole 1572 2283 2663 2283 2207 2297
Stemming Height, 4.1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9
m
Burden, m 6.8 7.9 8.6 7.9 7.6 8.0
Spacing, m 6.8 7.9 8.6 7.9 7.8 8.0
D&B cost/tonne, $ 0.176 0.253 0.229 0.202 0.257 0.256
JCZ2 Equation
RWS 100 94.5 109 95 90 94
Tonnes/Hole 1672 2247 2592 2259 2207 2249
Stemming Height, 4.1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9
m
Burden, m 6.8 7.9 8.4 7.9 7.8 7.9
Spacing, m 6.8 7.9 8.4 7.9 7.8 7.0
D&B cost/tonne, $ 0.176 0.257 0.235 0.204 0.257 0.262
A greater problem develops when expansion energies are considered. As Table 4

shows this affects not only the absolute energy values but also the relationship of the
relative values. Some explosives are derated relative to their normal energy outputs
while others are enhanced. Therefore one will not obtain the same patterns or costs if
relative weight strengths such as those tabulated in Table 4 are used.

Table 6 compares the results when a 1 Kbar cutoff pressure is assumed, to the usual
BKW results using the RDX fit. The 1 Kbar results are from the same equation of
state. The data used for the rock are the same as before .
Table 6: Blast Design Calculations Using Heat of Detonation from BKW with a
1kbar Pressure Cutoff
ANFO TNT Al - Heavy Emulsion Al Emulsion
Slurry Slurry ANFO
Cost/kg, $ 0.260 0.550 0.590 0.400 0.520 0.560
RWS 100 114 124 112 99 107
Tonnes/Hole 1672 2711 2949 2663 2427 2560
Stemming 4.1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9
Height, m
Burden, m 6.8 8.6 9.0 8.6 8.2 8.4
Spacing, m 6.8 8.6 9.0 8.6 8.2 8.4
D&B 0.176 0.213 0.206 0.173 0.234 0.230
cost/tonne, $
Table 6 shows that the pattern can be increased by up to 0.7 meter (2.3 ft.) for some
of the products analyzed compared to the usual case. This can be a very significant
change economically, especially in harder formations where the drilling cost per meter
can be $30/m or more. It can also be very significant regarding the fragmentation
achieved and this will again be most noticeable in hard rock.
In this example the cost/tonne is slightly in favor of using the heavy ANFO rather than
ANFO. This is not what one usually sees in rock with a drilling cost of $9.10/m
($2.77/ft), where it is usually difficult to obtain enough pattern expansion to pay for
more energetic but higher cost explosives.
In point of fact only one of these sets of calculations can be correct. Either the larger
patterns will result in a loss of fragmentation and productivity of loading equipment,
or the smaller patterns will be overshooting the rock. The latter case will waste money
and may lead to unwanted side effects like flyrock and excessive ground vibration.
Figure 3 plots the tons broken per hole for the cases examined above. There is
essentially no difference for the designs based on the heat of detonation calculated by
either the BKW or JCZ2 equations of state. When a 1 kilobar cutoff pressure is
applied to the BKW based calculation, each explosive, except ANFO, breaks more
rock than it would otherwise be calculated to do. If the purpose of the 1 kbar cutoff is
to account for the venting of the explosion gases before all useful work can be
extracted this result seems anomalous. Further, the introduction of restrictions on the
expansion may lead to technical and cost conclusions that do not materialize on the
bench, because any cutoff pressure selected may not be appropriate to all rock
formations and geologies.

In our experience the use of the heat of detonation, calculated from the heat of
formation of the products and reactants has worked well. Field results have correlated
well with designs based on these calculated energy values. Its value does not depend
on the selection of any limiting value of pressure, the magnitude of which can be a
matter of debate, or on any other imposed conditions.
The effect on the design process if different energy values are calculated for the same
explosive due to inconsistencies in selecting the parameters of the equation of state
has been examined. For this purpose the HANFO has been used as an example. The
energy has been varied by _10%. The example is based on the BKW equation with the
RDX fit and no cutoff pressure. The heat of detonation varies from 765 cal/g to 935
cal/g. The weight strength relative to ANFO varies from 0.87 to 1.06.
Figure 3: Tonnes Broken per Hole by Different

Explosives and Different Assumptions.
Table 7 tabulates the results for 270 mm (10-518 in) holes under the same conditions
as before. The pattern dimensions vary by 0.4 meters (1.3 ft). Given the realities of
practical blast design the patterns for the basic design and that where the energy is
increased by 10% would be rounded off to 8 meters. For a calculated energy value
10% less than the standard, the pattern would usually be left at 7.5 meters.
The cost varies by $0.02/tonne between cases. However, if the basic and +10%
patterns are rounded off to 8 meters these costs will actually be the same. The most
important conclusion from this analysis is that variations in the calculated energy of 5
to 10 percent do not have a great impact on results. In addition it would take large
inconsistencies to achieve a 10% difference. Thus the reasonable differences that may
occur between investigators will not have much impact on the blast design.
Table 7: Effect of _10% Variation in Heat f Detonation of HANFO on Blast

Design
Heat of Cost/kg RWS Tonnes/holeStemming Burden, m Spacing, m D&B

Detonation, $ height, m Cost/Tonne, $
cal.g
850 0.4 96 2283 4.8 7.9 7.9 0.203
935 0.4 106 2521 4.8 8.3 8.3 0.183
765 0.4 87 2069 4.8 7.5 7.5 0.223
4.0 Velocity of Detonation
The thermochemical calculation of energy does not take into account how the
explosive is detonating in the field environment. Depending on the relationship of the
actual velocity of detonation to the calculated ideal value, the energy may be delivered
differently to the rock. If the explosive detonates non-ideally, more energy may be
released as heave energy with less delivered as shock energy.
A measurement of the VOD in the blasthole will confirm whether the explosive
detonates ideally or not. Generally if the measured VOD is 90% or more of the
calculated ideal value it can be assumed that the product is detonating ideally.
For blastholes greater than 165 mm (6 1/2-in) in diameter the products studied for this
paper will shoot near ideally, unless environmental conditions such as water attack,
explosive quality control, inadequate priming, etc. alter the nature of the detonation.
Diameters greater than 165 mm cover the bulk of open pit mining and quarrying
operations. ANFO may be an exception to this for diameters less than 254 mm (10
inches). The slurries are likely to show an actual VOD that varies more from the ideal
value than those of emulsions, due to a less intimate mixing of the oxidizer and fuel.
The process of fragmenting a rock mass is complex and difficult to model rigorously.
As a general rule of thumb it can be stated that hard, competent rocks will benefit
from greater shock energy while weak, fractured formations benefit from an explosive
with greater heave energy, where the peak pressure may be less but the pressure is
more sustained. It is also interesting to note that a greater percentage of the total
energy of a given explosive will be delivered as shock energy, in a weaker rock,
because the intersection of the explosive adiabat and the P-V line (stiffness) of the
rock will occur at a lower point on the adiabat.
Given the current state of understanding the blasting engineer can only use the
partition of energy in a general way to match explosives and rock formations.
Attempting to "fine tune" the selection on this basis will not be productive.
In any event both shock and heave energy are important to fragmentation. The initial
shock energy generates radial cracking and initiates cracks at flaws and joints remote
from the hole. These cracks will be extended and joined together by the action of the
pressure associated with the heave zone. In addition, throughout much of the heave
zone there is high enough pressure to generate new cracks. Therefore, heave energy
should not be thought of as only contributing to swell and displacement of the rock

mass.
The measurement of in-hole VOD will determine how the explosive performs relative
to ideality. This will provide a general idea of the energy partition and how the
explosive might perform relative to the rock. More important, if the measurements
demonstrate appreciable non-ideality modifications may need to be made to the
conventional blast design to obtain optimum blast performance and fragmentation.
5.0 Conclusion
It has been demonstrated that heat of detonation calculations based on chemical

equilibrium are reliable and can form the basis of blast design. Minor variations in the
equations of state used do not normally result in significant variations of heat of
detonation although they will typically result in significant differences in calculated
velocities of detonation and pressure.
On the contrary, "available energy" calculations on the basis of a pressure cut-off

result in significant variations in the relative weight strengths calculated. The result of
these calculations depend on the cut-off pressure and the equation of state used.
Available energy, based on a cut-off pressure, that is largely arbitrary, may not be
applicable to all rock formations and geological settings. Therefore, it should not be
the only energy value being quoted. The energy output, calculated from an established
thermodynamic code using valid parameters must always be provided. If an available
energy value is given, the assumptions on which it is based should be clearly
presented. The blasting engineer must understand that any particular value of available
energy is not likely to apply to all circumstances, because it is quite unlikely that one
set f conditions will ever apply to all types of rocks and geologies.
It has been demonstrated that blasting design parameters do not practically change
with minor changes in the calculated value of the heat of detonation. In the case of the
"available energy" calculation of blasting parameters indicate expansion of patterns
and cost savings that might never materialize.
6.0 References
1. Katsabanis, P.D. and Liu, Q.: "Calorimetric Determination of the Heat of

Detonation of Commercial Explosives", Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium
on Explosives and Blasting Research", International Society of Explosives Engineers,
1993.
2. Udy, L. and Lownds, M.: "The Partition of Energy in Blasting with Non-Ideal
Explosives", Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, Australia, 1990. 3. Cook, M.A. "The Science of
High Explosives", Reinhold Publishing Company, New York, 1958.

4. Mader, C.L., Johnson, J.N. and Goldstein, S.: "Performance Properties of
Commercial Explosives", Propellants, Explosives and Pyrotechnics, 8, 8-18, 1983.
5. Katsabanis, P.D. and Rizk, M.: "Underwater Performance of Polyurethane - PETN

Explosives", Journal of Energetic Materials, Vol. 10, 97-126, 1992.
6. Persson, P.A., Holmberg, R. and Lee, J.: "Rock Blasting and Explosives
Engineering", CRC Press, 1994.
7. Cunningham, C.V.B.: "Fragmentation Estimations and the Kuz-Ram Model - Four

Years on", Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, Colorado, 1987.
8. Ornellas, D.L.: "Calorimetric Determinations of the Heat and Products of

Detonation for Explosives", UCRL-52821, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
1982.
9.Fourney, W.L., Barker, D.B. and Holloway, D.C.: "Fracture Control Blasting",
Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Society
of Explosives Engineers, 1984.
10. Bauer, Alan, Calder, P. N. and Workman, J. L.: "Drilling and Blasting in Surface
Mines", Course Text, Calder & Workman, Inc., 1988


DIPS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIPS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECT OF CALCULATED EXPLOSIVE ENERGY

OUTPUT ON BLAST DESIGN

P.D. Katsabanis and Lyall Workman

The only direct method of energy measurement is the calorimetric determination.

Nevertheless the above methods require sophisticated equipment and/or a significant

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2.0 Explosion Energy Determination

The explosion energy is typically given by the following relationship:

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

where Hf denotes the heat of formation at standard conditions.

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Table 1: Calculated Parameters for a variety of Commercial Explosives

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Table 3: Parameters used in the Various Fits

Parameter BKW-RDX BKW BKW BKW BKW BKW

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Regarding the volume of product gases, Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate similar

Therefore, "strength" calculations based on explosion energy and/or volume of

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 2: Calculated Relative Weight Strength as a

Table 4: Calculated "Available Energy" for a Variety of Commercial Explosives

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

3.0 Application of Explosive Energy to Blast Design

Therefore, it is important to know the weight strength of the explosive. Most

(EQ 5) EU/ton = Explosive Weight x RWS / ton

3.2 Blast Design Calculations

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Table 5: Blast Design Calculations Using Heat of Detonation from Two

A greater problem develops when expansion energies are considered. As Table 4

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 3: Tonnes Broken per Hole by Different

Table 7: Effect of _10% Variation in Heat f Detonation of HANFO on Blast

Heat of Cost/kg RWS Tonnes/holeStemming Burden, m Spacing, m D&B

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

765 0.4 87 2069 4.8 7.5 7.5 0.223

4.0 Velocity of Detonation

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

It has been demonstrated that heat of detonation calculations based on chemical

On the contrary, "available energy" calculations on the basis of a pressure cut-off

1. Katsabanis, P.D. and Liu, Q.: "Calorimetric Determination of the Heat of

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

5. Katsabanis, P.D. and Rizk, M.: "Underwater Performance of Polyurethane - PETN

7. Cunningham, C.V.B.: "Fragmentation Estimations and the Kuz-Ram Model - Four

8. Ornellas, D.L.: "Calorimetric Determinations of the Heat and Products of

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

You might also like