The Effect of Prill Specifications On Emulsion-ANFO Blends

THE EFFECT OF PRILL SPECIFICATIONS
ON EMULSION-ANFO BLENDS
Richard W. Givens, Greg S. Williams

Geupel Construction Company
Columbus, Ohio, USA
and
David L. McDorman
High Power Energy
Drenrien, West Virginia, USA
Fourth High-Tech Seminar
Blasting Technology, Instrumentation

and Explosives Applications
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
June 20-25, 1992
Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1992 - Fourth Annual High-Tech Seminar - State-of-the-Art Blasting Technology Instrumentation and Explosives Applications
The Effect of Prill Specifications on Anfo-Emulsion Blends - Section 16 1 of 17
HE
T LEND
Richard W. Givens
Mining Engineer
Geupel Consuuction Co., Columbus OH
David L. McDorman
Mining Engineer
High Power Energy, Drennen WV
Greg S. Williams
Mining Engineer
Geupel Construction Co., Columbus OH
Abstract ; This paper examines the effect of prill size consistency, internal panicle density, and
oil absorbency on Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO)-emulsion blends. By analyzing these
physical properties of prill and the nature of the blending process, a mathematical model has been
developed to theoretically predict blend densities. Calculated densities can now be compared to
actual field densities to give an operator a basis for comparing various manufacturers’ em&ions
and Ammonium Nitrate (AN) during bid solicitation. The lowest priced emulsion and/or AN may
not be the most economical, due to the impact of specific physical characteristics. These factors
dictate the blending mechanics and resulting density yields for various mixes. The research was
driven from observed ‘field’ mixing relationships and data. Ultimately, such a model can be an
effective tool in evaluating blends from a cost and performance basis.
Introduction
With a myriad of manufacturers’ emulsion and water gel concentrates available in the marketplace,
it is often difftcult for an end user to compare and evaluate them. There are many physical
characteristics which affect material handling, blendability and performance. Historically, versions
of Heavy ANFOY and slurries, usually utilizing water gels blended with ANFO, have existed
for the last thirty years. It could be said that the decade of the 80’s has been one of the emergence
of emulsions supplanting water gels in blend technology. Recently, there have been many well
documented studies regarding the comparison of emulsions with water gels in the perfotmance of
‘Heavy ANFOY. (Ref. 1) However, the emphasis of most of these studies has typically been on
the emulsion or water gel component, or the blend product itself. Although it is commonly known
that variations in prill size and percentage of fines affect blend density output because of the
variability of the AN bulk density, there has been very little documentation of this phenomena. The
model and analysis presented here demonstrate that these are significant observations.

Blend Densitv Control
It has been noticed that AN or ANFO with relatively large prills and a low percentage of fines seem
to give the most homogeneous blend over a wide range of blend percentages. As for controlling
fmes in blends, the reasons are obvious. Excessive fines can make density connol very difficult to
predict and monitor. Blending units are typically calibrated and monitored based on RPM’s of the
mechanical delivery systems with the AN bulk density used in the overall blend density calculation.
Whenever there is variability in this bulk density due to changes in prill size distribution or
excessive fines, the calibrations become less accurate. Load cells may help alleviate this problem,
however as long as monitoring is volume driven, as opposed to density driven, there will be a low
level of confidence in cost control. Furthermore, extreme fines can contribute to a blend becoming
more sensitive, possibly approaching a dangerous condition. Flow characteristics also tend to
become undesirable, producing blends that are gummy and less homogeneous. The need for
predicting and conuolling blend density is paramount for optimum cost control and performance.
Most blend density prediction techniques are empirically driven in the blasting industry. Typically,
manufacturers publish densities that are derived from empirical data. Interpolation is often used for
predicting densities between known points. Subsequently, a problem can result since interpolation
assumes a linear relationship. Blends do not mix in a propottional fashion like two fluids of
different densities, which can be mixed at a given ratio with the resuldng density calculated by
summing the products of their respective specific gravities and ratio percentages. (Ref. 5) A
comparison of this type of proportional relationship to the relationship of how blends actuahy mix
can be seen in Figure 1.
Variations in the physical specifications of AN can wreak havoc in controlling actual blend costs as
compared with forecast costs of blasting budgets. (Ref. 7) The absence of defining the effect of
these parameters also explains why the majority of the data on blend densities is empirically
derived. Thus, a need for a mathematical model for predicting blend densities is evident.
Blend Densitv Comauter Modeling
In this model, all product comparisons were made on the basis of achieving a mean
density for equivalency. Actual AN manufacturers’ prill products were used in the
model for analysis and are referenced by a letter code of A through G in Tables 1 and 3 for
purposes of anonymity. The following four phases of the blending process define the operational
blueprint of the computer model logic in hierarchal order and describe how calculated densities of
emulsion blends are achieved. (Fig. 5)
I. Absorotion by a particular prill is the fmt step in the model. The program assumes that
capillary action, or wicking, is a stronger force than surface tension and gravity. The degree of
absorption is governed by the porosity of the priI1 and the viscosity of the particular emulsion
concentrate being used. During this phase of the blending process, the volume displaced by the
prill remains constant with the emulsion concentrate being absorbed into this volume. The result is
a linear relationship that fairly approximates the arithmetic proportioning of the products of the
ingredients for the sum total density. This is the only portion of the computer generated ctuve that
closely parallels this calculation method. This trend can be observed up to point one in Figure 1.
II. Surfaceg is responsible for the next sequential step in the blending process. The
model assumes that surface tension is stronger than the force of gravity. Therefore, since the
emulsion concenaate is an incompressible liquid, each individual prill will realize a volume
increase at the surface coating saruration point, (Figure 4). The specific volume occupied by the
prill component of the blend will increase because of the increased volume of each individual
coated prill. This trend of increasing volume will continue until the surface area of the prill
component is saturated. An exaggerated picture of this can be viewed in Figure 5. This shows
that the model assumes spherical prills. The size distribution of the particular prill being blended is
responsible for the total surface area within a specific blend volume and the amount of emulsion
concentrate required to coat it. The viscosity of a particular emulsion concentrate is responsible for
the thickness of the coating on each prill. This viscosity is a function of the fuels used in the
emulsion as well as other additives such as calcium nitrate. The ambient temperature and age of an
emulsion are also critical contributors to its viscosity at any given point in time. (Ref. 1)
Even though the addition of concentrate during this portion of the blending process still results in
increasing densities, the slope of the blending curve flattens out significantly during this phase
because of the increasing volume. This portion of the curve can be viewed between points one and
two of Figure 1. Moreover, emulsions with lower viscosities will most likely saturate the available
surface area of the prills more quickly, resulting in a thinner coating of emulsion required for this
purpose.
III. FiIIine Interstices in the modeling architecture occurs after the prill surface area has been
saturated. This is the period during the blending process when the emulsion concentrate starts to
till the voids between the prills. It is in this phase that the concentrate has the greatest impact on
the resulting blend density due to the direct replacement of air with the dense concentrate. This
portion of the process can be observed between points two and three of Figure 1. The slope of the
curve clearly steepens between these points and appears to have the characteristics of an
exponential function. The interstitial volume of a particular prill is governed by the size
distribution and consistency of that product. Prill that offers a larger interstitial volume will sustain
this phase of the process longer. Moreover, an emulsion with a higher concentrate density will
yield higher blend densities during this phase. (Ref. 4)
It is known that a certain amount of internal volume must remain unfilled in order to provide “hot
spots” to keep a particular blend sensitive for an unsensitized emulsion concenuate. (Ref. 9)
Although it is not illustrated in this paper or discussed in detail, the model can track the status of
this void volume for a particular prill and emulsion

combination. (Ref.3) It can then flag blend percentages and their corresponding densities that may
surpass the sensitivity threshold. The flagging of critical densities for specific combinations and
applications evolve into quality control measures that can be implemented into a field environment.
The moniroring of blend density and these critical thresholds has been a success in Geupel’s field
systems. It has brought consistent results in a variety of different blasthole diameters without the
failure of a single blend to initiate. However, emulsion concentrates sensitized with microballoons
are not subject to these previously described constraints. Therefore the entire density range
predicted by the model is applicable in a tield situation. It does not, however, make good
economic sense to pay for air in the form of microballoons when the inherent air contained within
the interstices is free. The exception to this may be in wet hole applications with blends containing
large percentages of emulsion concentrates and specifically pumpable applications where dead
pressing conditions are apt to occur. Examples are high hydrostatic pressures and/or long sleep
times in loaded holes. However, the model can monitor the degree of surface coating and internal
void ratio to predict densities for any combinations of prill and emulsion concentrates for both
sensitivity and water resistance. This may be a more economical approach to less severe wet
applications. It is also evident from model scenarios that both the ammonium nitrate prill and the
emulsion concentrate affect the degree of sensitivity and/or water resistance.
IV. AMg f t e r ist the

h elastv blending
o i d s stage
h atov occur.
e b e e n t i l l e d , ( p o i n t 3 o n
Figure I), the concentrate starts to spread the individual prills apart as the volume occupied by the
blend increases. Because of this volume gain, the slope of this portion of the curve becomes
nearly flat. There appears to be little to gain by pumping more emulsion into a blend system
beyond point three on the curve, except for the gain in viscosity needed for proper blend rheology
for pumpable blends and the assurance of sensitivity in those applications.
Once the logical and mathematical operators of the model were designed, empirical data from field
tests were input and scenarios were ran to evaluate the model’s accuracy. Some of the program
inputs for ammonium nitrate prill included bulk density, absorption percentage, and size
disrribution. The major emulsion concentrate inputs included concentrate density and viscosity.
Initial runs paralleled actual field measured densities although the computer generated curves
consistently fell below the actual data points. However, it was realized that the field densities were
attained by tapping the samples to simulate the packing that may occur from the
product falling down a blasthole. The original model did not account for this packing and when a
set of field data was entered that was not tapped, the model matched them very closely. This match
of theoretical to actual can be observed in Figure 1. Consequently, the model has been modified to
account for this packing factor that may be realized in a true hole loading situation.

Effe ct of Different Prill Tvnes on Densities
Satisfied that the model did a good job of approximating realistic values, the next step was to
examine the effect of different prills on the final blend density, using a constant emulsion
concenaate specification. Test loads of prilI from different manufacturers were delivered to several
mine sites. Samples of these loads were collected and analyzed. These were screened for size
consist while absorption and bulk densities were determined. Choosing a specific emulsion
concentrate and leaving its density and viscosity constant, the data from each prill analysis were tan
in the model. The corresponding densities were calculated through a 0 to 50 percent blend range,
assuming that the majority of mixes fall within this range. This output data was inserted into a
regression model so that an equation could be fitted to the blend/density relationship. The
emulsion concentrate percentage of the blend was entered as ‘x’ data points and the calculated
density was entered as the ‘y’ data points into the regression program so that a cubic curve fit could
be achieved This resulting equation was then integrated to determine the total area under the
curve. This area was divided by the total ‘x’ range to solve for the mean density The graphic
representation of this process for a particular priI1 can be seen in Figure 3. Once this mean density
was calculated for each prill type, the prill that achieved the highest mean density for the 0 to 50
percent blend range was chosen as the standard of comparison for the others. An iterative routine
was set up so that blend percentages could be inserted back into the regression equation for each
manufacturer. The iteration yielded equivalent blend values to the nearest 100th of a percent for
each manufacturer relating back to the standard density. In other words, this process calculated the
additional amount of emulsion concentrate required for each prill manufacturer to achieve the same
density of that realized by the prill that was chosen for the standard.
The program outputs for each manufactured prill can be viewed in, Table 1. The regression
equation constants can be seen as well as the degree of tit, or the R2 coefficient value. The closer
R2 is to 1, the better the fit. As can be seen, the equations tit the actual values quite well and the
confidence in the calculated numbers can be high. The 0 to 50 percent blend densities, integrated
area, and total density range are shown for general information. The average blend density is the
resulting density calculated for each prill manufacturer over the 0 to 50 percent blend range.
Manufacturer C’s ptill realized the highest mean density and is the standard for comparison to other
manufacturers. The equivalent percent emulsion represents the amount of emulsion concentrate
required to attain the 1.141 g/cc average density of manufacturer C. Of course, the value for
product C represents the lowest value at 24.90%. This particular analysis is valid for an operator
who would use product densities equally distributed over the 0 to 50 percent blend range. The
mean density represents the calculated value for each prill manufacturer over this range.
Alternately, analysis based on a specific density regularly used by an operator could likewise be
made using that density value to calculate its baseline instead of the mean density. The equivalent
blend percentages could he solved by the model’s iterative routine for the range of manufacturer
prill types.

Although the analysis for the samples obtained in the test loads cannot bc regarded as uuly
representative of each manufacturers prill, the output data clearly shows that differences in the
specifications between prill samples is signiticanr in regard to the emulsion content/density
relationship. (Ref. 6)
nsit’
Fffectof_Prill
Once the effect of manufacturers specifications on resulting blend densities was established, the
effect of fines was analyzed. The specifications for one prill and one emulsion were chosen for
this application. The model was modified to accept increasing values for fines for one particular
set of specifications. Fines were defined as 425 microns in average size. The range for fines was
input as 0 to 30 percent of the ammonium nitrate weight since this range has been observed in the
field. Fines can actually increase the resulting density per blend percentage of a particular mix in
the low blend percentages because they enhance the bulk density and absorption. This typicahy
occurred in the low blend percentages, ( < =20%). However, since the fines also increase the total
surface area of the blend, the volume increase in the resulting blends lead to lower blend densities
as the percentage of tines increase in the 25 to 50 percent blend range. Consequently, the model
showed that as the fines increased more emulsion was required to achieve a targeted density in this
range. (Fig. 2)
A set of data was calculated to quantify the specific impact of fines on blends. A table of values
was derived in a manner similar to that utilized in the comparison of prill manufacturers. Table 2
shows the results of this scenario. It can be seen that as the fines increase, the corresponding mean
density decreases in the 25 - 50 percent blend range. Consequently, the percentage of emulsion
concentrate required to achieve the mean density at 0 percent fines, steadily increases as the fines
increase. The model again confirms and quantifies field observations.
Moreover, since the increase in fines also increases the friction between particles, problems occur
in the auguring characteristics of a blend. This is especially evident in the application of a premix.
Fines not only adversely affect the handling characteristics of bulk blends, but also increase the
amount of emulsion required to achieve densities in the mnge where the majority of users are
blending.
A cost model was built using the prill model outputs referred to in Tables 1 and 2. Once a base
mean blend density is established by selecting the manufacturer with the highest average blend
density, ie. manufacturer C, the base is used to compare the other manufacturers against it in the
cost model (Table 3). Each prill type has an equivalent blend percentage which must be used to
achieve the mean blend density. In a hypothetical bid scenario using a typical cost of $180.00 per
ton for bulk AN, and a price of 25 cents per pound held constant for emulsion, a table of
equivalent prices for each AN manufacturer is derived. These are the prices which each other prill
manufacturer would have to meet to be equal to manufacturer C, due to the less desirable blend
characteristics of their products. Another way to view this is to calculate the differential between
these costs and $180.00. This translates into an additional cost/ton for each manufacturer which
the user would have to pay, assuming all the manufacmrers quoted the same prill price of $180.00
(which for some reason happens quite frequently).
The additional cost/ton can be more graphically depicted by multiplying it by the annual usage of
bulk AN used in blends at a particular operation. Fig. 6 shows these potential expenditures (or
savings) for two different usage rates. As can be seen, a potential of $50,000 to $3O!l,fXkl or more
could be easily incurred depending on the particular manufacturer selected. (See legend) This does
not even consider the possible time lost due to inefficient blending and material handling problems
associated with bulk storage units and delivery systems in the field. A similar cost scenario can be
ran to show the effect of fines. Using the same cost model, the effect of fines was input from
Table 2 into Table 4, for 5 percent increments. The additional cost/ton was similarly derived. One
may now choose the effect of a particular percentage of fines, ie. 15 percent, from Table 4 and add
it to any of the manufacturers’ cost differentials previously discussed. These expenditures are
shown side by side with the base expenditures, for each manufacturer in Fig. 6. The results of
analyses using specific densities other than the mean density may result in a different distribution
of potential savings over the range of manufacturers. It shouid also be pointed out that if
concentrate cost is lower in the model, the overall cost differentials will be proportionally lower as
well. However, the dollars can still be significant.
It is obvious from this analysis that the specifications of the ammonium nitrate component of an
emulsion blend are as important as the emulsion concentrate specifications. The study also shows
that varying parameters will change resulting densities. If a user is monitoring his blending
operation from an input volume side only, these changes will be less directly observable.
However, the result will be variations in blasthole densities, possibly leading to bad shots or
increased costs. The effect of a prill’s physical characteristics upon blend densities is most
observable when blend quality is measured by density control. One quickly sees the increasing or
decreasing volume of emulsion required to achieve target densities. Although these adjustments
result in consistent densities and performances, they typicalIy result in increased cost over the
optimum.
The numbers generated by the model also identified the physical parameters of ammonium nitrate
prills which effect blend densities the most. It appears that bulk density of priI1 has the greatest
single impact on density yield. It should also be noted that this density should not result from a
large percentage of fines, typically defined as -30 mesh, but should correlate with the internal
particle density. The next important factor is the size distribution of a particular prill. Generally,
larger consistent prills, result in higher densities at lower emulsion content. This is due to the
decreasing surface area of the prill which results in decreased coating requirements for the
concentrate. The consistency comes into play because it may result in slightly increased interstitial
volume. A geometrical analysis shows that the interstitial volume would be equal when
considering all of one particular larger size prill to one particular smaller size prill for a constant
volume. However, a particular ammonium nitrate product with a wide range of sizes would likely
result in some smaller sizes occupying the voids between the larger prills, thus taking up a portion
of the volume which could be occupied by emulsion. The component which has the least effect
on resulting densities is the absorption. Although absorption usually results in a fairly steep slope
in the density yield/blend percent slope, this generally occurs in the extremely small blend
percentages. Absorption delays the period where coating of the prills is complete, and where the
largest density gains are achieved in the filling of the interstices. By increasing the absorption
percentage, the point on the blending curve where the largest density gains begin, would be
delayed.
Based on the model outputs, an ideal ammonium nitrate prill to be used in emulsion blends would
have the following priorities and characreristics:
-medium to low absorption
-relatively large, evenly distributed prill size
-relatively high bulls density due to internal particle density, not fines.
Conclusion2
This model, as described, permits a detailed analysis of blend requirements and can rtm various
scenarios to determine the optimum and most cost effective bulk blend for an application. While
not advocating the replacement of field knowledge, this model can serve the blasting engineer as a
tool for analyzing factors that are real, but difficult to quantify without the aid of computers.
Coupled with experience regarding rock type and specific geological considerations, one can better
evaluate and ‘fine tune’ the real effects of prill specifications on a blending operation. It has been
demonsaated that there is a significant potential cost savings to be incurred by doing so, depending
on an operator’s size and annual usage of bulk, blend products. Consequently, prill should no
longer be treated as a simple commodity and purchased solely on the basis of the lowest price.
Factors of physical specifications also need to be assessed when determining the optimal effective
blend.
6 E = Density of emulsion concentrate

3 = Mean density
&,, = Weight of emulsion concentrate in V,
WaQ = Weight of emulsion concentrate in V4
rl = Radius of uncoated prill.

r2 = Radius of coated prill.

vt=vAN= Volume occupied by raw ammonium nitrate.
Vz = \blume occupied by blend at surface saturation point.
V3 = Wume occupied by blend when all interstices are Nled
V, = Volume occupied by blend during spreading.
N = number of individual prilIs.
1 . Batter, A. , Glynn, G. , Heater, R.D. , Katsabanis P. , “A Laboratory Comparative Study of

Slurry, Emulsions and Heavy ANFO Explosives” , Dept. of Mining Engineering, Queen’s
University, Kingston , Ontario, Canada
2. Britton, R. R., Konya C. J. , Skidmore, D. R. , “Primariy Mechanism for Breaking

Rock with Explosives” ,25th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Northwestern University,
. Evanston, IL, June ,I984
3. Brinon, R. R. , “The Effect of Decoupling Ratio On Explosive Generated Energy Release” ,

unpublished M.S. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus , 1987
4. Brulia, J. C. , “PowerAN Emulsion/ANFO Explosives Systems” , Proc. of the 1 lth

Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique , Society of Explosive Engineers, San Diego ,
California, Feb. 1985,
5. Givens R. W. , Rollins R. R. , “Emulsion Performance Evaluation” ,Proc. of the 5th

Mini Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, New Orleans, Feb. 1989
6 . Renton , J. J. , Rymer, T. , Stiller, A. H., “The Effects of Pyrite Grain Clustering on

the Measurement of Total Sulfur” , Proc. 9th Annual West Viginia Surface Mine Drainage Task
Force Symposium , Morgantown , WV, 1989
7. Day,J.T.,Thomas,M.L.,Udy,L.L., “The Importance of Explosive Energy on

Mining Cost” , Proc. of the 13th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Society of
Explosive Engineers, San Diego, Florida, Feb. 1987 ,
9. Wade , C. , “Water in Oil Emulsion Explosive Composition ” , United States Patent

No.4,110,134, ( 1 9 7 8 )

Calculated Densities vs. Blend Pdrcent
Figure 1
Hypothetical Effect of Fines for Manufacturer C
Figure 2

Cubic Regression Curve Fit
lculations based o
j,f;=‘O.889+0.247 x+4.631 ~~-6.263 x3 =
I;;0.889+0.247 x +4.631$-6.263 x3
0.00% s.oo% to.oo% 15.00% 2o.oil% 2sm% m.oo% xi.oo% 40.00% 4s.o0% 50.00%
PnulDion cc4toc&* Parent
D HadalDl-- - ltcpwshalarw
Figure 3
Illustration of emulsion coating on individual prill
Figure 4

v, =v,, Y=M
The Effect of Prill Specifications on Anfo-Emulsion Blends - Section 16

Initial saturation showing Suriace area coaling stage Shows all remaining void Shows emulsion
specific prill volume showing increased specific prfll volume filled with emulsion. pushing prill apart
before emulsion coaling. volume due lo emulsion coating
1. Absorption II. Surface Coating III. Interstices filling IV. Spreading
stage stage stage stage
Sectional Views Illustrating Four Stages of Emulsion Introduction

into Blend System and Subsequent Volume Effects
Fig! 5
14 of 17
WTFNTfAL EXPENDfNRES vs AR BLEND “SAGE o, ,0,0OO,OOO Ibs.,yr by MANUFACTURER
A $160.000 q Mfr 0 (Basic Specs)

D
Fa MIT D (+1596 Fines)
p $14o,OW
H Mh G (Basic Spew)
T
, $120.000
k!d Mh G (+15% Fines)
0
N sloo.ooo q Mfr E (Basic Specs)
A
L N Mh E (+15% Fines)
s8o.ow
A Mh A&F (Basic Specs)
N s6o.000
kti! Mh A&F (+15% Fines)
; $40.000 l#i Mfr B (Basic Specs)

Y Ia Mh B (+15% Fines)
R $2O,OW
so
AN MANUFACTURERS (shodnO effect of basic prill speeffiullons plus offecl of 15% flnss)
PDTENTfAL EXPENDINRES VI AN BLEND USAGE of 2O.OOO.OOO lbrlyr by MANUFACTURER

(comparisons based on Yfr C *s $0)
$350.000
T
fz Mh D (Basic Specs)
; $300,000
Ea Mfr 0 (+15% FmS)
D
I
T $250.000 q Mfr G (Basic Specs)
I q Ml? G (+15% Fines)
0
N $200,000 q Mfr E (Basic Specs)
A
L kd MIT E (+15% Fines)
$150.000
A
q Mh A6F (Basic SpecS]
N q Mfr A6F (+15% fines)
Sloo.ow
s q Mh B (Basic Specs)
Mh B (+15% Fines)
AN MANUFACTURERS (showing offwl of basis prlll spdflutfons plus sffoCt of 15% flnes)
Figure 6

Prfll Model Outuuts vs Ammonium Nitrate Manufacturers
U.USM V.000
~1781 0.2471 0.142 -0.047 -0.099 0.071
L4 6.234 4.631 5.062 5.93 5.955 5.59
7 -7.354 -6.263 -6.629 -7.315
4 0.996 0.992 0.993
TABLE 1.
Effect of Frnesonlon Blenas
Category 0% Flnes 5% Fines 11 0% Fines 15% Flnes 20% Fines 25% Fines 30% Fines
1.6811 1.667’ 1.653 1.639 1.625 1.612 1.598

a I

h -R-l64
-.._. -8.064 -7.965 -7.868 -7.772 -7.678 -7.584
C 30.665 30.342 30.023 29.708 29.398 29.091 28.789
d -31.257 -30.938 -30.624 -30.313 -30.007 -29.705 -29.406
RA2 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994
25% BlendDensIty 1.07 1.065 nfii
I..--. fxfi
i. .___, i~iFl2
.-_- I.048
.._ .- 1.043
50% Blend Dens& Y 1.362 1.357 1.351 1.346 1.341 1.336 1.331
Integrated AIpea 0.315 0.314 0.312 0.311 0.31 0.309 0.307
Total Density Ri snge 0.292 0.292 0.29 0.29 0.289 0.288 0.288
_ Average Blend Density 1 1.261 1.2551 1.251 1.2451 1.241 1.2341 1.229
Equivalent % Emulsion 1 36.1 O%l 36.40%1 36.70%1 37.1 O%I 37.40%( 37.70%1 38.00%
TABLE 2.
16 of 17
Effect of Prill Suecifications on Cost bw Manufacturer
Mfr. Cost Model Outputs C D G

Mean Density for Poduct C 1.141 1.141 1.141
j Equivalent Blend % 24.90% 26.12% 26.94%
Emuslon Concentrate $I# $0.25 $0.25 $0.25
Equivalent AN SITOn $180.00 $174.72 $171.06
Additional COWTOn $0.00 $5.28 $8.94
TABLE 3.
Effect of FInits on Cost

TABLE 4.
17 of 17

The Effect of Prill Specifications On Emulsion-ANFO Blends

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

The Effect of Prill Specifications On Emulsion-ANFO Blends

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECT OF PRILL SPECIFICATIONS

Richard W. Givens, Greg S. Williams

Fourth High-Tech Seminar

Blasting Technology, Instrumentation

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Blend Densitv Comauter Modeling

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

IV. AMg f t e r ist the

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

6 E = Density of emulsion concentrate

&,, = Weight of emulsion concentrate in V,

WaQ = Weight of emulsion concentrate in V4

rl = Radius of uncoated prill.

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1 . Batter, A. , Glynn, G. , Heater, R.D. , Katsabanis P. , “A Laboratory Comparative Study of

2. Britton, R. R., Konya C. J. , Skidmore, D. R. , “Primariy Mechanism for Breaking

3. Brinon, R. R. , “The Effect of Decoupling Ratio On Explosive Generated Energy Release” ,

4. Brulia, J. C. , “PowerAN Emulsion/ANFO Explosives Systems” , Proc. of the 1 lth

5. Givens R. W. , Rollins R. R. , “Emulsion Performance Evaluation” ,Proc. of the 5th

6 . Renton , J. J. , Rymer, T. , Stiller, A. H., “The Effects of Pyrite Grain Clustering on

7. Day,J.T.,Thomas,M.L.,Udy,L.L., “The Importance of Explosive Energy on

9. Wade , C. , “Water in Oil Emulsion Explosive Composition ” , United States Patent

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Hypothetical Effect of Fines for Manufacturer C

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

j,f;=‘O.889+0.247 x+4.631 ~~-6.263 x3 =

Illustration of emulsion coating on individual prill

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

The Effect of Prill Specifications on Anfo-Emulsion Blends - Section 16

Sectional Views Illustrating Four Stages of Emulsion Introduction

A $160.000 q Mfr 0 (Basic Specs)

; $40.000 l#i Mfr B (Basic Specs)

PDTENTfAL EXPENDINRES VI AN BLEND USAGE of 2O.OOO.OOO lbrlyr by MANUFACTURER

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Effect of Frnesonlon Blenas

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

The Effect of Prill Specifications on Anfo-Emulsion Blends - Section 16

Mfr. Cost Model Outputs C D G

Effect of FInits on Cost

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

The Effect of Prill Specifications on Anfo-Emulsion Blends - Section 16

You might also like