Initiation and Timing Initiating Systems

24 November 2010

• Why:-
– To enable multi-row blasts

Wealth – To improve fragmentation

– To reduce ground vibrations and airblast

Unearthed • Requirements:-
– All the explosives must detonate
– It must detonate in correct sequence
– Timing must avoid either crowding or cut-offs
– Priming at bottom to avoid toes
– Simple and robust for mining conditions Competitive price

Factors influencing timing… Blasthole interaction

- Single hole firing…

• Rock properties • Blast hole initiation

– Strength, Young’s modulus, density, porosity, structure, etc – Blasthole expansion and crushing
• Blast geometry – Radial Cracks
– Burden, spacing, bench height, free faces, etc – Shock Waves
• Explosive
– Characteristics, degree of coupling, decking, etc
• Initiation system
– Surface or in-hole delays, type of downline etc
• Environmental constraints
– Air, ground vibration levels, frequency etc
• The desired result
– Fragmentation, muckpile displacement and profile etc 1. Blast hole initiation

1
 Single hole firing… Single hole firing

• Gas penetration • Rock movement

– Free face reflections and cracking – Fragmentation
– Gas Pressure – crack extension – Displacement, (Muckpile profile)
– Flexural bending – fractures in movement – Overbreak
– Ground vibration, airblast etc.

1. Blast hole initiation 2. Gas penetration 1. Blast hole initiation 2. Gas penetration 3. Rock movement 4. Final Result

Blast interaction
- Single row fired simultaneously

• Interaction between adjacent charges:

– Poor fragmentation
– More overbreak
– More throw
– Higher vibrations
• Principle of Cast Blasting

1. Blast hole initiation 2. Gas penetration 4. Final

3. Rock result
movement

2
Blast interaction Blast interaction
- Single row – Excess time delay - Single row – Optimal time delay

• Interaction between adjacent charges: • Positive interaction between holes:

– Better fragmentation than simultaneous firing – Best fragmentation
– Less overbreak than simultaneous firing – Similar overbreak to single hole
– Less forward movement than simultaneous firing – Less forward movement than long delay firing
– Lower vibrations than simultaneous firing – Low vibrations providing delay not too short. Same as single
hole

Spacing delay (Intra-row)…

• Optimal time delay is known as Intra-Row delay

• Optimum fragmentation
• Less displacement
• Smooth wall profiles possible
• Control of vibration levels
• Definition:
– Delay between adjacent holes within a row – (Spacing)
• Ideal delay influenced by:
– Rock properties, blast geometry and desired result.
– Short
• Brittle, elastic homogenous rock
– Long
• Porous, plastic, highly jointed rock

3
Spacing delay (Intra-row) Difference between Box and Staggered
hole patterns

• Typical range = 3 - 6 ms per metre burden • Fragmentation suffers towards back

• The intra-row delay controls interaction between adjacent • Forward movement deteriorates towards back
blastholes in the same row and determines whether • Overbreak gets worst with depth of blast
blastholes act independently or together • Flyrock increases with depth
– Better fragmentation
• Vibrations increase
• Soft to hard rock
– Optimisation of muckpile profile and looseness • Digging gets tighter at back
• Timing concepts remain the same for both Box and
Staggered hole patterns

Multi-row Blasts Row by Row initiation

• 1st row is adjacent to free face • Adequate time delay between rows
• 2nd, 3rd, etc., are not • Burden relief for each row
• What happens if all rows are initiated simultaneously?

4
What are timing contours? Timing contours –
Example using shock tube:

How to determine timing contours - Timing contours -

Holes firing on the same delay

• Note, the in-hole timing

has been ignored
– Will need to be added to
the total to get the actual
timing delays’

42 59 76

0 17 34 51 0 17 34 51

5
Multi-row blasts - Chevron Multi-row blasts – Chevron “V”

• Row by row initiation is not optimum More “Free Face” Smaller “Burden”
• Results can be improved with chevron blasting patterns

t1 t2 3 0 1 2

t3
4

t4
5 3 4

a) Square “V” b) Staggered “V”

∆t = t2- t1 = t3 - t2 = t4 - t3

Plan view, not to scale

Multi-row blasts – Chevron “V2” Chevron

More “Free Face” Smaller “Burden” • Holes have better face availability for breaking
• Apparent reduced burden
• Effective longer delay between rows – reduced choking
• Better fragmentation
3 1 0 1 2 3 1 0 1 2

5 4 5 4

7 6 5 6 6 4 5

a) Square “V2” b) Staggered “V2”

Plan view, not to scale

6
Chevron “V” or “V1”… Chevron “V2” …

V0 V1 V0 V1 V0 V2 V0 V2

a) Square b) Staggered a) Square b) Staggered

Plan view, not to scale Plan view, not to scale

Chevron “V3” Burden delay (Inter-row)

• Definition:
– The inter-row delay controls interaction between dependent
rows of blastholes, as it affects the progressive creation of new
effective free faces during the blast. (i.e. Burden)
V0 V3 V0 V3 • Optimum inter-row delay
– Enhanced fragmentation
– Together with intra-row delay controls muckpile displacement
and shape
– Optimum muckpile looseness
– Minimum vibration and airblast levels
– Optimum determined by observation, experience and
experiment
a) Square b) Staggered
– Typical Range = 12 - 18 ms per metre of Burden
• High to scattered muckpile

Plan view, not to scale

7
 Delay time interaction Timing Design Principles
- Examples

• Ratio of delay times is significant

• Spacing (Intra-row) delay
– Controls whether adjacent blastholes behave independently or
act together
• Burden (Inter-row) delay
– Controls creation of new effective free faces during the blast
• Ratio of Spacing (Intra-) and Burden (Inter-)
– Controls geometry and orientation of new effective free faces

Same Blast hole Layout: A. Line Blasting - Row by Row

Movement & muckpile profile achieved through control of
timing in relation to available “Free Face”

“Free Face” – Bench surface • Produces lowest muckpile

height
• Muckpile thrown furthest
• (Muckpile profile Z.)
• Broken rock very loose and
easy to dig
• Requires highest powder factor
Blast pattern – Drilled holes to get good fragmentation

“Free Face”

Reference line Z.

Point of initiation
Chosen for easy of access but will move to:
a) Avoid disruption or cut-off of chosen lead-in
Plan view, not to scale “Free Face” system Plan view, not to scale
b) To control timing pattern, movement and
muckpile profile

8
 B. Blasting - Shallow “V” C. Blasting - Deep “V”

• Produces results in-between • Produces highest muckpile

those described in examples A. height
and C. • Muckpile will produce highest
• (Muckpile profile Y.) heave and it will always be
above the bench
• (Muckpile profile X.)
• Muckpile will be thrown the
least
• Broken rock could be very tight
and difficult to dig, but will
generally achieve the best
fragmentation

Y.
X.

Plan view, not to scale Plan view, not to scale

Muckpile profiles D. Blasting - Shallow “V4” Echelon

• Smaller effective burdens

• Good profile for Shovel provide more relief and material
• Minimal clean up area will be thrown further out
X. • Safe for operator • Muckpile expected to be below
• Small row delays (Deep “V”) bench
• (Muckpile profile Y. to Z.)
• Reduced damage to highwall
• Good profile for Front End Loader
In-situ Rock
• Muckpile below cab height, Safety
Y. • Material is loose
Blasted
Muckpile
• Moderate row delays (Shallow “V”)

• Good profile for Dragline

Z. • Very easy to dig
• Long row delays (Line)

Plan view, not to scale

9
 E. Blasting - 45o or “V” Echelon F. Blasting - Box Cut Design

• Control and reduced damage to • Blasting material where there is

highwall no free face or no movement is
• Muckpile above/below bench required
depending on powder factor • Muckpile high with minimal
• (Muckpile profile X. to Y.) forward displacement of
• Material thrown less than material
example D. • Produces good fragmentation,
• Good fragmentation, but a high potential for flyrock
particularly when cutting across and requires more stemming
major, well defined, than usual
perpendicular joint planes

“Free Face” – Bench surface only

Plan view, not to scale Plan view, not to scale

F. Blasting - Box Cut Design Golden Rule

- Consequences of an Initiator failure…

• Using shocktube:
– 500 ms Down hole (e.g. Benchmaster)
– 17 ms Surface delay (e.g. Handimaster Trunkline Delay)
– 42 ms Surface delay (e.g. Handimaster Trunkline Delay)
• Two possible methods to connect up?

Plan view, not to scale

10
 Golden Rule Golden Rule
- Are they Identical?... - Yes, same timing contours…

a) a)

42 ms 42 ms

17 ms 17 ms

b) b)

Plan view, not to scale Plan view, not to scale

Golden Rule Golden Rule

- Yes, same movement… - Which do you use?...

a) a)

42 ms 42 ms

17 ms 17 ms

b) b)

Plan view, not to scale Plan view, not to scale

11
 Golden Rule Golden Rule
- Consequences of an Initiator failure… - Consequences of an Initiator failure…

a) a)

42 ms 42 ms

17 ms 17 ms

b) b)

Plan view, not to scale Plan view, not to scale

Golden Rule Golden Rule

- Consequences of an Initiator failure… - Consequences of an Initiator failure…

a) a)

42 ms

17 ms

b) b)

Plan view, not to scale Plan view, not to scale

12
Thank You
Thank you

13