J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.
D
DOI 10.1007/s40033-015-0078-4
CASE STUDY
Assessment of Blasting Performance Using Electronic Vis-à-Vis
Shock Tube Detonators in Strong Garnet Biotite Sillimanite
Gneiss Formations
Suresh Kumar Sharma1 . Piyush Rai1
Received: 1 December 2014 / Accepted: 8 May 2015
Ó The Institution of Engineers (India) 2015
Abstract This paper presents a comparative investiga-
tion of the shock tube and electronic detonating systems
practised in bench blasting. The blast trials were conducted
on overburden rocks of Garnet Biotite Sillimanite Gneiss
formations in one of the largest metalliferous mine of In-
dia. The study revealed that the choice of detonating sys-
tem was crucial in deciding the fragment size and its
distribution within the blasted muck-piles. The fragment
size and its distribution affected the digging rate of exca-
vators. Also, the shape of the blasted muck-pile was found
to be related to the degree of fragmentation. From the
present work, it may be inferred that in electronic
detonation system, timely release of explosive energy re-
sulted in better overall blasting performance. Hence, the
precision in delay time must be considered in designing
blast rounds in such overburden rock formations. State-of-
art image analysis, GPS based muck-pile profile plotting
techniques were rigorously used in the investigation. The
study revealed that a mean fragment size (K50) value for
shock tube detonated blasts (0.55–0.59 m) was higher than
that of electronically detonated blasts (0.43–0.45 m). The
digging rate of designated shovels (34 m3) with elec-
tronically detonated blasts was consistently more than
5000 t/h, which was almost 13 % higher in comparison to
shock tube detonated blasts. Furthermore, favourable
& PiyushRai
prai.min@itbhu.ac.in
1 age time. In many cases, CIMFR reported delay scattering
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi 221 005,
India
muck-pile shapes were witnessed in electronically
detonated blasts from the observations made on the dozer
performance.
Keywords Electronic detonation

Shock tube detonation
Fragmentation
Throw

Excavator digging rate
Muck-pile shape
Introduction
Precession and accuracy in delay timings are of great im-
portance in blasting. As a result, delay detonators have
been undergoing modifications ever since the inceptions of
the milli-second delay blasting [1]. The most promising use
of high precision in delay detonators was to augment in-
flight collisions during blasting. Chiappetta [2] suggested
that accurate delay timing can be effectively utilized, in
rock blasting to enhance the rock breaking capabilities of
an explosive charge. The blast performance is widely af-
fected by delay scatters. Higher deviation from nominal
delay leads to higher overlapping possibilities [3]. Liu and
Katsabanis [4] numerically examined effects of in-hole
stress wave collision and superposition of stress wave
generated by simultaneous initiation on rock fragmentation
by modeling high-precision detonators. Non-electric shock
tube detonation system provides true bottom priming and is
used in bench excavations. Shock tube detonators employ
pyrotechnic charge for incorporating delay time, as such,
they are subjected to cap scattering. They are factory
assembled and have built-in delay periods (17/25/42/65/
100/125 ms). Their delay accuracy deteriorates with stor-
in the shock tube detonation with high standard deviations
as depicted in Fig. 1 [5].
123

Fig. 1 Recorded percentage scattering of nonel delay detonators
(Courtesy, Lal et al. [5])
Given all these, current technological advancement
warrants precise and accurate delay timing by the use of
electronic detonators. Even in complex geological condi-
tions, use of electronic detonators seem to be much more
efficient and versatile. It can maintain proper detonating
sequence. Therefore, in electronic blasting, the extent and
degree of rock fragment size can be better controlled by
providing progressive relief to burden movement. In this
light, present research programme was designed to inves-
tigate and compare the blasting performance of the shock
tube with the electronic detonation system.
The geology of the mine entailed a stratiform, sediment-
hosted Lead–Zinc deposit that occurred in Pre-Cambrian
Study benches
(a)
Fig. 2 Location of study benches and 3-D block model of the mine.
a 3-D Block model depicting an overview of geology of study
benches [GBSG (golden colour), Amphibolites (green colour),
Table 1 Salient physico-mechanical properties of the overburden rock formations
Litho-geological unit Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)
GBSG 40.45–74.23
Amphibolite 99.45–257
Pegmatite 136.76–148.92
Ore 18.1–77.5
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
banded gneissic complex. A representative 3D-block
model of the mine geology is shown in Fig. 2a. It shows
that the GBSG formed the major chunk amounting to
around 70–80 % of the rock mass and the rest of the rock
mass included intrusions of Pegmatite and Amphibolites.
The geological formations presented host of problems
owing to the presence of major foliation and fissure planes
that indicated high anisotropy. Foliations (60–80°/N130°)
were the predominant discontinuity planes which governed
the blasting results. The salient physico-mechanical prop-
erties of the overburden rock formations are tabulated in
Table 1.
The blast trials have been conducted in a lead–zinc
mine, on the middle benches in hanging wall side (Fig. 2a,
b).
The mine was situated on a high plateau of 390 m above
the MSL. The ultimate pit depth of the mine was 372 m.
The length of the ore body was 1500 m and width varied
from a few meters to 120 m with an average of 58 m. The
annual Lead–Zinc Ore production of the mine was around
5.94 million tonne with a stripping ratio of 1:11.72. The
average bench height ranged from 10 to 12 m. Average 4–5
blast rounds were performed daily, to meet the production
targets. The mine was using operator independent truck
dispatch system (OITDS), slope stability monitoring radar
(SSMR) system and global positioning system (GPS) for
execution of uninterrupted mining operation. The mine
deployed large-capacity hydraulic shovels (34 m3) in
Study benches
(b)
Pegmatite (yellow colour) bands]. b Corresponding location of study
benches for blast (B1–B6) in the study mines. (Color figure online)
Tensile strength (MPa) Young’s modulus (GPa) Density (g/cc)
3.12–11.17 26.12–88.37 2.67–2.98
14.5–21.59 97.82–131.91 2.99–3.11
10.27–13.33 65.72–90.57 2.69–2.74
1.97–12.5 57.54–84.63 3.00–3.12
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
conjunction with 240 tonne rear dump trucks for removal
of overburden. The explosive was straight emulsion doped
with 12–20 % ammonium nitrate prills on site.
Design of Trial Blasts
The principal objective of the current research paper was to
compare the performance of two different types of
detonation systems used in the mine, i.e., electronic and
shock tube detonation systems. Three blasts with each type
of detonation system were conducted, documented and
evaluated, to assess and compare the shock tube and
electronic detonation systems. Consequent to the eval-
uation of the shock tube detonated blast performance,
electronic detonators, were then, attempted for improved
results on changed locations on the same study benches.
Further, to compare the blast performance results, all the
blast design parameters including the blast size were kept
almost identical excluding blast detonation system. The
study benches were almost identical geologically and blast-
(a)
(c)
Fig. 3 Shock tube and electronic detonations used in conducting
study blasts. a Shock tube assembly (12 m) with 450 ms down-the-
hole delay detonator, b field connection with shock tube detonation
rounds were fired with similar explosive (SME). Hence, the
rock and explosive conditions were assumed to be almost
indistinguishable in order to investigate the influence of the
detonating system categorically.
The shock tube and electronic detonation systems used
in conducting study blasts are shown in Fig. 3a–d. All the
blasts were drilled on the staggered pattern and diagonally
fired with almost identical blast design parameters.
Schematic blast design pattern with timing details and
longitudinal charged blast hole sections for both the
detonation systems are presented in Figs. 4a, b and 5a, b
respectively.
For electronic detonation, inter-hole delay time was kept
as 16 ms. In the shock tube detonation system, Down The
Hole (DTH) delay detonator of 450 ms in association with
17 ms Trunk Line Delays (TLD) in between each hole
were provided. It may be of consequence to mention here
that 450 ms DTH delay in shock tube detonation system, in
conjunction with 17 ms TLD, was provided for blast sta-
bilization, security against the premature cut-offs and
maintenance of safety regulations mandated in the blasting
TLD 17 ms
(b)
(d)
with TLD of 17 ms, c electronic detonator assembly (15 m) with
harness wire, and d field connection in electronic detonation (no
TLD)
123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

operations. However, the study doesn’t preclude the scat-
tering effect of DTH in the shock tube initiated blasts. In
fact, this is one of the serious limitations of nonel initiated
blasting due to which researchers have been insisting (since
last four decades) on use of electronic blasting. Total du-
ration of one blast round (as illustrated in Fig. 4a, b) for
shock tube detonated blast (B3) and electronically
detonated blast (B6) was 1162 and 1488 ms respectively.
The maximum duration of one blast round stipulated by the
mine was 2000 ms.
Parameter Measurement Techniques
To evaluate the blasting performance, four parameters were
measured i.e., fragmentation distribution, powder factor,
digging rate of excavators and muck profile.
Fragmentation distribution is a primary concern of any
blast round [6]. Non-uniform fragmentation reduces truck
and bucket fill factors. Moreover, it also increases the wear
and tear of bucket teeth and dumper boxes. The uniform
fragmentation increases the bucket payload in shovels and
dumpers because of the higher fill factor. In the present study,
good quality and high-resolution digital images were cap-
tured on the blasted muck pile, keeping known dimension
scale (1 m 9 1 m) over the muck-pile. 25–30 digital images
were obtained before and during the entire excavation his-
tory of each blasted muck-pile to measure the fragmentation
distribution. Scaled images were processed and analysed
using image analysis software FragalystTM 4.0 [7–9]. The
software has an accuracy of ±10 %. It has been duly checked
and verified. The software generates size and other related
parameters of the individual boulders by using the 2-D image
network. Captured images (each with 250–350 edge-de-
tected fragments) were analysed and merged to provide the
results from single blasted muck pile. The output, in terms of
mean fragment size (K50), characteristic fragment size (Xc),
coarse fragment size (K95) and maximum fragment size
(K98) along with fragment size distribution plot was also
generated by the software. The data files were saved in the
computer that helped in comparing the fragmentation results.
The total volume (m3) of the bench was estimated from
the GPS logged coordinates. The obtained value was divided
by the total amount of the explosive. The PF was reported in
terms of m3/kg. The total explosive consumption (kg) was

Total Duration of Blast=1162ms Number of holes per row=35 Total Number of holes=245 DTH Delay=450ms =17ms delay

1162ms 1145ms 771ms 754ms 737ms 720ms 703ms 686ms 669ms 652ms 635ms 618ms 601ms 142+442ms

Free Face
1020ms 1003ms 986ms 629ms 612ms 595ms 578ms 561ms 544ms 527ms 510ms 493ms 476ms 459ms 117+325ms

903ms 886ms 512ms 495ms 478ms 461ms 444ms 427ms 410ms 393ms 376ms 359ms 342ms 100+225ms
776ms 759ms 752ms 395ms 378ms 361ms 344ms 327ms 310ms 293ms 276ms 259ms 242ms 84+141ms

702ms 685ms 311ms 294ms 277ms 260ms 243ms 226ms 209ms 192ms 175ms 158ms 141ms 65+59ms

637ms 620ms 603ms 229ms 212ms 195ms 178ms 161ms 144ms 127ms 110ms 93ms 76ms 42+17ms

578ms 561ms 187ms 170ms 153ms 136ms 119ms 102ms 85ms 68ms 51ms 34ms 17ms 0ms

Initiation Point
Free Face

(a)

Total Duration of Blast=1488ms Avg.Number of holes per row=52 Total Number of holes=362 DTH Delay=0ms =16ms delay

1488ms 1472ms 832ms 816ms 800ms 784ms 768ms 752ms 736ms 720ms 704ms 688ms 672ms 656ms
Free Face

1352ms 1336ms 728ms 712ms 696ms 680ms 664ms 648ms 632ms 616ms 600ms 584ms 568ms 552ms

1248ms 1232ms 608ms 592ms 576ms 560ms 544ms 528ms 512ms 496ms 480ms 464ms 448ms 432ms

1128ms 1112ms 488ms 472ms 456ms 440ms 424ms 408ms 392ms 376ms 360ms 344ms 328ms

1024ms 1008ms 384ms 368ms 352ms 336ms 320ms 304ms 288ms 272ms 256ms 240ms 224ms 208ms

904ms 888ms 264ms 248ms 232ms 216ms 200ms 184ms 168ms 152ms 136ms 120ms 104ms

816ms 800ms 176ms 160ms 144ms 128ms 112ms 96ms 80ms 64ms 48ms 32ms 16ms 0ms

Initiation Point
Free Face

(b)
Fig. 4 Schematic blast design pattern with timing details. a Schematic blast design pattern with timing details for shock tube initiation system
(B3), and b schematic blast design pattern with timing details for electronic initiation system (B6)

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Fig. 5 Representative Shock Tube 17ms TLD

longitudinal section of charged Harness wire
165 mm 165 mm
blast holes. a Shock tube
detonation, and b electronic
detonation

Stemming with Stemming with

4.6 m drill cuttings 4.6 m drill cuttings

Column Charge Column Charge

Emulsion Explosive Emulsion Explosive
6.4 m 6.4 m
203.8 Kgs 203.8 Kgs

Subgrade Level Subgrade Level

1m Primer 400 gm & 1m Primer 400 gm &

Shock Tube Detonator Electronic Detonator

450 ms DTH Delay 16 ms

(a) (b)

noted down from the field blaster’s report after thorough and
random cross-checking procedure. The procedure included
weigh bridge measurement of explosive van, explosive van
meter records etc.
The existing OITDS in the mine was used to precisely
record the real time weight of loaded dumpers and cycle
time of hydraulic shovels. The cycle time of the excavator
comprised of five-time elements viz., digging time,
swinging time, unloading time, swinging back and bucket
repositioning time. The cycle time for each dumper was
registered in color graphics console (CGC) panel attached
with dumpers. Furthermore, loading time was also duly
checked and verified by cycle time study recorded in the
field. In this study digging rate implies the ratio of weight
of the material on the loaded dumper with respect to cycle
time of the shovel. The weight of the loaded material on
the dumper was sensed by load cells (installed in the
dumpers). The real-time loading data was also displayed
via OITDS on dispatch utility screen online as shown in
Fig. 6c.
The relationship between digging rate/cycle time of
excavators and the degree of fragmentation was the useful
index to characterize the fragmentation. This index has
been regularly used by several researchers [10–14] from
time-to-time. Therefore, the cycle time of the shovels along
with the corresponding weight of the loaded muck, was
logged meticulously throughout the excavation history of
the blasted muck. So that precise and accurate digging rate
could be obtained by proper analysis of the data.
The GPS was used to measure bench height before
blasting and muck- pile height after blasting to evolve the
average muck-pile height, its lateral throw and conse-
quently, its shape. The muck-pile survey was done for
every blast using marker points along the center line of the
blasted muck commencing from the middle point of the
bench, as shown in Fig. 7a. The co-ordinates of the sur-
veyed marker points were obtained by hand-held GPS as
shown in Fig. 7b which reveals the real-time surveying on
the blasted muck-pile. Additionally, GPS was used to
designate proper location of the blast holes before drilling
and also for checking it after the drilling operation in order
to ensure the implementation of the designed drilling plan.
The GPS based blast hole location assisted in the pre-blast
volumetric measurement.

123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 6 The existing OITDS and GPS technology in the mine. a Working array of OITDS, b signal transmitter, c online data recording on
dispatch utility screen, and d GPS used to demarket the hole position

X-
Fre Ax
eF Mid is
dle
ac Po
eo int
fN
6m ew
Be
5m nc
h
5m
5m
5m
5m
m
Z-Axis

10
is

m
10
Ax
Y-

5m
5m
5m
5m
5m
5m
5m

=Gps Measurement point

(a) (b)
Fig. 7 GPS survey program on the blasted muck pile. a Representative grid pattern for GPS measurements, and b muck pile survey using GPS
on grid pattern

Comparison of Results Table 2 revealed that excluding the detonation system, all
other blast design parameters were kept almost similar.
The salient blast design parameters of all the six study Furthermore, it may be noted that the blast design pa-
blasts (B1–B6) along with the fragment size and its dis- rameters were checked and found correct as per the given
tribution, maximum muck-pile height and throw, PF and rock and explosive parameters for 165 mm dia. hole. An
dozing time are summarized in Table 2. examination of fragment size (tabulated in Table 2) and its
The composite fragment size distribution curves for distribution results (Fig. 8) revealed that the blasts (B4–
blasts (B1–B6) are illustrated in Fig. 8. A perusal of B6) detonated with the electronic detonators at 16 ms inter-

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 2 Details of blasts fired with shock tube and electronic detonating system
Parameters type Cases Shock tube detonation Electronics detonation
Blast ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

Blast design parameters Hole diameter (mm) 165 165 165 165 165 165
Number of holes 319 359 245 458 412 362
No. of drilling rows 7 7 7 7 7 7
Avg. bench width (m) 32.9 33.7 31.8 30.2 32 31.2
Avg. burden (m) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Avg. spacing (m) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Avg. stemming length (m) 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5
Avg. bench height (m) 10.8 11 10.8 10.9 11 10.9
Avg. sub grade drilling (m) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Avg. hole depth (m) 11.8 12 11.8 11.9 12 11.9
Total explosive (kg) 64,132 73,163 48,581 92,077 83,964 73,774
Avg. SME (kg)/Hole 201 203.8 198.3 201 203.8 203.8
Quantitative evaluations Avg. muck-pile height (m) 5.2 5.9 6.1 7.4 7.2 7.6
Avg. throw (m) 42.4 43.2 41.5 32.2 35.2 33.5
Avg. broken volume (m3) 80,871 90,137 62,718 120,805 109,153 97,677
Total broken volume (t) 240,995 268,608 186,899 359,998 325,275 291,077
Total loading time (h) 50.1 56.8 41.4 66.6 63.5 54.4
Avg. digging rate (t/h) 4810.4 4728.1 4517.9 5408.4 5123.7 5348.6
Avg. P F (m3/kg) 1.26 1.23 1.29 1.31 1.3 1.32
Avg. cycle time (s) 72 63 68.4 52.8 49.8 51
Avg. dozing time (h) 1.6 1.8 1.75 0.4 0.2 0
FragalystTM 4.0 software output Uniformity index 1.86 2.01 1.91 2.41 2.71 1.83
Characteristic size (Xc) (m) 0.7 0.72 0.68 0.51 0.52 0.55
K25 (m) 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.28
K50 (m) 0.58 0.59 0.55 0.43 0.45 0.45
K80 (m) 0.88 0.89 0.85 0.6 0.61 0.69
K98 (m) 1.43 1.4 1.36 0.88 0.85 1.13

hole delay timing yielded superior results in comparison to
the contemporary blasts (B1–B3) detonated with shock
tube at 17 ms inter-hole delay timing (in conjunction with
450 ms DTH delay). The K50 values for the blasts (B4–B6)
were smaller (0.43–0.45 m) in comparison to the blasts
B1–B3 (0.55–0.59 m). In addition to this, the slopes of the
fragment size distribution curves for the blasts (B4–B6)
were steeper in comparison to the blasts (B1–B3). A
steeper slope of the distribution curve reasonably indicated
the uniform degree of fragmentation within the blasted
muck-pile. Similarly, flatter slopes meant lesser uniformi-
ty; this showed that blasts (B4–B6) detonated with the
electronic detonators yielded better uniformity in compar-
ison to shock tube detonated blasts (B1–B3) in fragment
size distribution.
The state of good overall fragmentation of uniform size
(Fig. 9b) and smooth wall control (Fig. 9d) was witnessed
in all the blasts carried out using electronic detonators. The
blasts (B1–B3) detonated with shock tube detonation
comprised of heterogeneous fragment size and produced
significant amount of boulders. It was also noteworthy
from the perusal of the results given in Table 2, that the
maximum fragment sizes (K98) were alarmingly high for
blasts (B1–B3) (beyond 1.35 m). The occurrence of large
to gigantic boulders inside the broken muck pile was quite
evident in these blasts Fig. 9a, c. The fragment size results
established the importance of accurate delay timing. Role
of precise and super-accurate delay provided by electronic
detonators seems to play a major role in providing proper
progressive relief throughout the movement of burden rock
which, in turn provided excellent opportunity for in-flight
rock collisions before the final placement of burden rocks.
On the other hand, scatter time inherent with the typical
pyrotechnic delay detonators (shock tube with longer DTH
delay of 450 ms) introduces a ± 10 % (±45 ms) scatter
uncertainty [15]. This much scatter was capable of creating
inappropriate relief with fewer opportunities for in-flight
collisions. Furthermore, even slight scatter in delay allows

123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

100

90

80

70

Cumulave % Passing 60

50

40

30

20

10
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Fragmentaon Size (m)

Fig. 8 Composite fragment size distribution curve for blast B1 to B6

Scale Scale

(a) (b)

Scale

(c) (d)
Fig. 9 Comparative illustrations of blasted muck-piles detonated with shock tube and electronic detonators. a Boulders and non-uniform
fragmentation (Shock tube detonation), b good fragmentation (Electronic detonation), c collar region boulders (Shock tube detonation), and
d good wall control (Electronic detonation)

the gas penetration in the weak foliated planes and fissures burden rock, bearing foliations, fissures, joining, etc. The
to create premature fracture planes. Moreover, also, during shock wave ought to attenuate owing to the presence of
the initial stages of shock wave propagation through the these complicated geological features, which offer high

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

specific dampening to the shock wave. Hongxian et al. [16]
reported 36 % reduction in P-wave velocity when blasting
was done using shock tube detonators. On the contrary,
18 % reduction was observed when blasting was done with
electronic detonators. Thereby, lesser reduction in P-wave
velocity, with electronic detonators indicated higher uti-
lization of explosive energy in fragmenting the rock mass.
Besides, even slight cap-scattering in the presence of dis-
continuity planes may cause, multiple, highly unorganized
and unsystematic reflection and refractions of blast waves
from the surface of such discontinuity planes. The extent of
the back breakage was also observed to be high in the
shock tube detonated blasts.
The PF values for all the blasts conducted using shock
tube detonation (B1–B3) were significantly lower
(1.23–1.29 m3/kg) than the blasts conducted using elec-
tronic detonators (B4–B6) i.e., (1.30–1.32 m3/kg). Lower
PF value was suggestive of greater loss of explosive energy
in shock tube detonated blasts in comparison to the con-
temporary electronically detonated blasts. The digging rate
and cycle time results are tabulated in Table 3.
The average digging rate of the blasts conducted using
shock tube detonation was 4685.5 t/h. It was 5293.6 t/h for
electronic delay blasting. This represents about 13 % in-
crease in average diggability of 34 m3 shovel loading on to
240 t dumpers. The cycle time of excavators were sig-
nificantly less (49.8–52.8 s) in the blasts detonated with
electronic detonators in comparison to the blasts detonated
with shock tube detonation system, where cycle time varied
from 63 to 72 s (Avg. 32.4 % higher).
It may be appropriate to mention here that the results
with shock tube firing were acceptable but slated stipulated
excavation target (5500 t/h) for 34 m3 hydraulic shovels.
The excavator performance results in terms of cycle time,
and digging rate approved the prominence of electronic
detonation over the shock tube detonation in such difficult
geological overburden formations.
Muck-pile heights were measured to evaluate the muck
profile and throw, as per the methodology elucidated in the
parameter measurement section. Typical muck profile
section and the maximum throw, generated by GPS coor-
dinates, along the central grid, is representatively plotted in

Table 3 Comparative cycle time and digging rate results

Detonation type Blasts with shock tube detonation Blasts with electronic detonation Comparative improvement in blasts
system system with electronic detonation system
Blasts/Parameters B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

Cycle time (s) 72 63 68.4 52.8 49.8 51 16.6 s (24.5 %) less excavator cycle time
Avg. cycle time (s) 67.8 51.2
Digging rate (t/h) 4810.4 4728.1 4517.9 5408.4 5123.7 5348.6 608.1 t/h (12.97 %) More digging
Avg. digging rate (t/h) 4685.5 5293.6

10
9
8
7
Muckpile height (m)

6
5
4
3
2
1
Electronics Iniaon Shock Tube Iniaonl
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Horizontal Distance from new face (m)
Fig. 10 Comparative muck-pile profile section of electronic and shock tube detonated blasts (based on GPS Co-ordinates)

123

(a)
Fig. 11 Comparison of muck-pile shape parameters of electronic and shock tube detonated blasts. a Well-shaped muck-pile in electronic
detonation, and b Excessively thrown muck-pile (up to bench width limit) in shock tube detonation
Fig. 10. The height and throw distances obtained by the
shock tube system indicate comparatively lower average
height and inordinately longer throw. On the other hand,
the higher average muck-pile height and the lesser throw in
the electronic delay blasting were witnessed.
A perusal of Table 2 revealed that the shock tube
detonated blasts were mostly assisted by dozers in the
loading operation for 1.6–1.75 h but in electronically
detonated blasts, dozer assistance was quite negligible
(0–0.4 h). Flatter profile with shock tube detonation man-
dated extensive deployment of dozer for assisting the
loading shovel. Substantially higher volume of blasted
muck was settled in the lower productivity zone of the
loading shovel, in the shock tube detonated blasts, due to
which, the dozer deployment hours got increased.
The result illustrated in Fig. 10 clearly indicates the
distinctive profiles of blasted muck-piles. The muck-pile
throw distance ranged from 41.5 to 43.2 m for shock tube
detonated blasts and from 32.2 to 35.2 m for electronically
detonated blasts. The average bench width varied between
31.8 and 33.7 m for shock tube detonated blasts (B1–B3)
and 30.2 to 32 m for electronically detonated blasts (B4–
B6). Visual comparison of throw and muck-pile shape due
to shock tube, and electronic detonation blasts are shown in
Fig. 11a, b. This disparity in the muck-pile shapes may
again be attributed to unsystematic and larger progressive
relief to the burden rock mass due to cap-scatter in the
shock tube detonation system. The successive burden rock
movements probably stimulated in an unsystematic manner
following poorer interference among them before their fi-
nal placement. This phenomenon seems to be responsible
for excessive lateral spreading and subsequently excessive
vertical lowering of the muck-piles. The results may be
further drawn by understanding the fact that electronic
detonators tailored the muck-pile shape and looseness en-
suing continuously high ([5000 t/h) digging rate of
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
(b)
shovels. Besides, the blast carried out using electronic
detonators revealed better wall control and good perimeter
control as compared to shock tube detonated blasting.
Conclusions
Following, case specific conclusions may be drawn from
the present case study:
1. Precision in detonation time played a pivotal role in
blast performance. Thus, electronically detonated
blasting yielded lower mean fragment size
(0.43–0.45 m) over shock tube detonated blasting
(0.55–0.59 m). Given this, it may be reasonably
presumed that explosive energy utilization was better
in electronically detonated blasting.
2. It appears that in shock tube detonated blasts the
explosive energy provided excess heave at the expense
of fragment size.
3. The digging rate of designated shovels (34 m3) with
electronically detonated blasts was almost 13 % higher
and excavator cycle time was 24.5 % lower in
comparison to shock tube detonated blasts. This
difference indicated that the shape of the muck-pile
profile and mean fragment size was favourable for
better performance of the excavators in case of
electronically detonated blasts.
4. The reduction in dozing hours seems to substantiate the
improved digging performance in electronic blasting.
5. Favourable PF results also corroborate the findings on
improved fragmentation results.
Acknowledgments Authors extend their sincere gratitude towards
the staff and management of the mine for rendering the admirable
support and assistance during the study for the research project.
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
References
1. B. Larsson, R. Holmberg, J. West berg, Super accurate detona-
tors: a blaster’s dream, in Proceedings of the 14th Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Explosives
Engineers Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California, pp. 44–58
2. R.F. Chiappetta, Precision detonators and their applications in
improving fragmentation, reducing ground vibrations and in-
creasing reliability: a look into the future, in Fourth High-Tech
Seminar, Blasting Technology, Instrumentation and Explosives
Applications, Nashville, Tennessee, USA (1992) 20–25
3. S.K. Roy, R.P. Singh, Studies into firing accuracy of some Indian
permitted electric detonators, in Performance of explosives and
new developments, Explosive and explosion Laboratory, CIMFR,
Dhanbad, Taylor and Francis group London ISBN 978-0-415-
62142-7 (2013) pp. 57–62
4. L. Liu, P.D. Katsabanis, Numerical study of the effects of ac-
curate timing on rock fragmentation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
34(5), 831–835 (1997)
5. A.K. Lal, M. Daripa, A. Kumar, V. Chittora, M.P. Roy, P.K.
Singh, Blast optimization at Sindesar Khurd undergrounds mine
to improve productivity with reduced level of vibration, in Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, ed. by Singh, Sinha (Taylor &
Francis Group, London, 2013), pp. 231–240. ISBN 978-0-415-
62143-4
6. Mario A. Morin, Ficarazzo Francesco, Monte Carlo simulation as
a tool to predict blasting fragmentation based on the Kuz–Ram
model. Comput. Geosci. 32, 352–359 (2005)
7. H.S. Yang, Rai Piyush, Characterization of fragment size vis-à-
vis delay timing in quarry blasts. Powder Technol. 211(1),
120–126 (2011)
8. M.N. Bagde, A.K. Raina, A.K. Chakraborty, J.L. Jethwa, Rock
mass characterization by fractal dimension. Eng. Geol. 63(1–2),
141–155 (2002)
9. A.K. Raina, M. Ramulu, P.B. Choudhury, A.K. Chakraborty, A.
Sinha, B. Ramesh Kumar, M. Fazal, Productivity improvement in
an opencast coal mine in India using digital image analysis
technique, in J.A. Sanchidrian (ed.), Fragmentation by Blasting,
Proceedings of the 9th Int. Symp. On Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting—Fragblast 9, Sept. 13–17, Granada Spain (2010)
pp. 707–716
10. P. Rai, F.L. Imperial, Mesh area vis-à-vis blast performance in a
limestone quarry: a case study. Fragblast Int. J. Blasting Fragm.
UK 9(4), 219–232 (2005)
11. S.P. Singh, T. Yalcin, Effect of muck size distribution on
scooping operations. J. Int. Soc. Expl. Eng. 2002G, 315–325
(2002)
12. P. Rai, Evaluation of the effects of some blast design parameters
on fragmentation in opencast mines, Ph. D. Thesis, 2002
13. S.S. Kanchibotla, Optimum blasting? Is it minimum cost per
broken rock or maximum value per broken rock? in Proceedings
of Explo-2001, Hunter Valley, NSW (2001) pp. 35–40
14. A. Marton, R. Crookes, A case study in optimising fragmentation.
Aus. IMM Proc. 1, 35–43 (2000)
15. P.A. Persson, R. Holmberg, J. Lee, Rock Blasting and Explosive
Engineering (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1994), pp. 163–164
16. Fu Hongxian, Wong Louis Ngai Yuen, Zhao Yong, Shen Zhou,
Zhang Chengping, Li Yanzhi, Comparison of excavation damage
zones resulting from blasting with nonel detonators and blasting
with electronic detonators. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. (2013). doi:
10.1007/s00603-013-0419-2
123