Basics on detonation theory

Basics on detonation theory

and explosive rock interaction
and explosive rock interaction
Parameters that impact on rock
breakage and damage
Explosive characteristics and performance: VOD, Density:
controlling shock and gas energy and rate of loading
Intact rock properties: density, elasticity, shock properties and
dynamic strength
Rock mass characteristics: Degree of jointing, condition of joints
and orientation
Degree of confinement: free surface boundaries and blast pattern
geometry
Decoupling ratio: controlling pressure and energy
Charge concentration: controlling energy
Time of initiation: controlling shock and gas energy and rate of
loading
What do engineers need to
know ?
Ideal and non ideal detonation
Effect of confinement on explosive performance
Role of shock, stress and gas
Intact rock and rock mass response to shock stresses and gas
Effect of decoupling
Explosive energy concepts
Modelling capabilities
Basic terminology
Shock wave
Intense compression wave produced by detonation of
explosives
Shock front
The outer side of a shock wave
Chapman-J ouguet (CJ ) plane
Interface separating the steady and the non steady regions
at the detonation front
Reaction zone or detonation driving zone (DDZ)
Region behind the shock front which drives the shock
wave
Particle velocity
A mechanical wave in which displacements are in the
direction of the wave propagation
Explosive detonation
Explosive Explosive
Stable by-products,
mainly gases
Shock/stress wave in the
surrounding media
Chapman-J ouguet (CJ ) Plane
Direction of detonation Direction of detonation
Undisturbed explosive
Primary
reaction zone
Shock front in the
explosive
Expanding gases
Explosive detonation
Basic terminology
CJ
(Sonic)
Plane
Shock
Plane
DDZ
Reaction
Nothing that happens behind the CJ
plane can affect the DDZ.
Particle velocity follows Shock Front,
but slower and decelerating
Explosive
Rho Z
Rho CJ> RhoZ
u
D
Shock initiates
reaction
DDZ drives
Shock Wave
After Cunningham 2003 (HSBM)
Detonation Modelling of Explosives
Ideal Detonation
1-D, chemical equilibrium
governed by thermodynamics of detonation products
Non-ideal detonation eg slightly divergent flow
curved shock front
detonation velocity diameter/ confinement dependence
partial reaction
Hydrocode simulations
Basic terminology
Ideal detonation
One dimensional, infinite diameter
Shock wave planar
Complete instantaneous reaction
Maximum attainable performance
Non ideal detonation
Shock front curved
Flow diverges
Detonation driving zone (DDZ) terminates at sonic locus where
relative particle speed equals local sound speed
Reaction is always incomplete in DDZ
Velocity of detonation decreases with 1/diameter
If diameter of cylindrical charge is too small detonation fails
1- D ideal detonation
Braithwaite, 2003
Non ideal detonation
After Bill Byers Brown (2002)
Ideal vs non ideal detonation
After Cunningham 2003 (HSBM)
Ideal: CJ/ZND
Ideal: CJ/ZND
No Divergence/ effect of confinement
Reaction zone = CJ zone
Ideal VoD
Non
Non
-
-
Ideal: WK/MIG
Ideal: WK/MIG
Divergence/ effect of confinement
Reaction zone>CJ zone
Sub-Ideal VoD
Critical diameter
Note: WK, MIG model curvature, not edge losses
Basic terminology
Confinement
Constraining effect of the environment surrounding the explosive
Function of density, strength, sonic velocity and thickness of
confining media
Determines the detonation velocity (VoD) and peak pressure
Confined detonation velocity
Velocity of detonation (VoD) measured under confined conditions
(e.g. in situ)
The higher the confinement the higher the VoD
VoDsays how much reaction energy was released in the DDZ
Critical diameter
Minimum diameter at which the detonation reaction is sustained
Critical density
Density at which detonation fails. Also known as dead pressing
density
VoD vs charge diameter for some
explosives
Persson et al , 1994
Unconfined VoD data
Heavy ANFO
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Diameter (mm)
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

V
o
D

(
m
/
s
)
Microtrap System ShotTrack System
Confined VoD
3735.5 m/s
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
-1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
MicroTrap VOD Data
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
m
)

Time (ms)
3736 m/s
Significance of VoD
VoDa critical aspect of explosive
characterisation
The only direct report from the detonation front
Defines non-ideal performance
Vital role in verification of model
Claims that lower VoD= less energy
Debates over relevance to energy delivery
Basic terminology
Energy
Measure of the potential for an explosive
to do work
Energy partitioning
Types of energies released during various
phases of the blasting process (e.g.
shock, heave and wasted)
Energy model: Ideal Detonation
Braithwaite, 2003
Fully reacted
Fully reacted
products
products
Explosive
Explosive
Reaction
Reaction
zone
zone
Planar
Planar
shock front
shock front
CJ plane
CJ plane
Energy delivered
Energy delivered
by expanding gases behind
by expanding gases behind
CJ plane
CJ plane
Kinetic
Kinetic
energy of
energy of
products
products
Energy partitioning
By Udy and Lownds (1990)
Pressure
Volume
1
2
A
B
C
O
3
4 5
Response of the blasthole
wall to explosive loading
D E
1 Kinetic componenet of shock energy
2+3 Fragmentation and heave energy
5 Waste energy
2 Strain component of shock energy
4 Strain energy in the burden at the
time of gas escape
1+2 Shock energy
Anfex Adiabat (Density 0.8)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 1 10 100
Specific volume, cc/g
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

G
P
a
200 MPa rock
strength
Borehole pressure
Detonation pressure
20 MPa End
pressure
Internal energy
Kinetic energy
Start volume
1.25
CJ volume 0.92
Net available
expansion energy
Energy partitioning
Cunningham, 2003 (HSBM)
Energy partitioning definitions
Cunningham, 2003 (HSBM)
Shock Energy
The stage of energy transfer in which the material responds to the
impulse of the detonation wave
Characterised by permanent displacement, volume increase, and
alteration of material.
Heave Energy
The stage of energy transfer in which material response is primarily to
an identifiable pressure regime.
Characterised by elastic reaction, movement and cracking but not
alteration of the nature of the material.
Energy partitioning experimental findings
Percentage depth of damage by shock energy increases with increase
in VoD
The VOD of the explosive charge controls the rate of release of the
explosive energy and also influences the energy partitioning with
respect to shock and gas
An explosive with a low VOD releases its energy at a slower rate and
usually a larger proportion of the total energy in the form of gas energy
In low VOD explosives the bulk of the energy is contained in high
pressure gases which work on the rock mass for a much longer
duration, helping the crack propagation process
(Singh, 1993)
Energy models
Conventional energy tables
RWS, REE (Relative Effective Energy):
Calculated using ideal detonation codes
Expansion Energy from detonation state to
cut off pressure (e.g. 20MPa)
Relative to ANFO (94:6) density 0.8 g-cm
-3
Basic terminology
Relative Bulk Strength
Strength per unit volume of an explosive
calculated from its weight strength and
density relative to ANFO
Relative Weight strength
The energy of an explosive material per
unit weight relative to ANFO
Energy of Bulk Explosives (AEL)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
P
1
0
1
P
4
0
1
P
7
0
1
E
5
0
0
1
E
4
5
0
1
E
4
0
0
1
E
3
5
0
1
E
3
0
0
1
A
N
F
E
X
% Emulsion
Density g/cc*100
RBS
Pump
Pump Augur
Augur
Basic terminology
Detonation pressure
Pressure achieved within the reaction zone in a detonating
explosive measured at the CJ plane
Borehole pressure
Pressure exerted on the borehole walls by the expanding
gases of detonation after chemical reaction
Decoupling
Borehole diameter greater than explosive charge diameter
Decoupling ratio
Ratio of charge diameter to borehole diameter
Effect on pressure intensity from
decoupling
Miller et al 2005
Experimental work with decoupled charges
Olsson and Bergqvist ,1996
The rock mass consisted of a fine-grained massive granite with a uniaxial
compressive strength of approximately 200 MPa and a tensile strength of 12 MPa.
Explosive
Type
Description Explosive
Diameter
(mm)
Hole diameter
(mm)
Density
(kg/L)
VOD
(m/s)
Gas
Volume
(l/kg)
Energy
(MJ /kg)
Charge
concentration
(kg/m)
Gurit A nitroglycerin/nitroglycole sensitized
explosive in plastic cartridges
17 38, 51 1 2000 930 3.4 0.21
Gurit A nitroglycerin/nitroglycole sensitized
explosive in plastic cartridges
22 24, 51, 64 1 2000 930 3.4 0.4
Emulet 20 A low density ANFO type bulk
explosive
Bulk 51 0.25 1800 1117 2.6 0.51
Kimulux 42 An emulsion type explosive in plastic
pipe cartridges
22 64 1.15 4800 903 3.2 0.37
Detonex 80 Detonating cord (80g/m) 11 51 1.05 6500 780 5.95 0.08
Hole diameter (mm) 24 38 51 64
Charge diameter (mm) 22 17 17 22
Decoupling ratio 0.92 0.45 0.33 0.34
Olsson and Bergqvist ,1996
51 mm hole
Crack Extension B = 0.5m, S = 0.5m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Detonex 80
Emulet 20
Gurit 22
Gurit 17
E
x
p
l
o
s
i
v
e

t
y
p
e
Maximum crack length (cm)
6500 m/s
1800 m/s
2000 m/s
2000 m/s
d.c. ratio= 0.33
d.c. ratio= 0.43
Olsson and Bergqvist ,1996
64 mm hole
Crack extension B = 0.5m, S = 0.5m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Kimulux42
Gurit 22
E
x
p
l
o
s
i
v
e

T
y
p
e
Maximum crack length (cm)
2000 m/s
4800 m/s
d.c. ratio= 0.34
d.c. ratio= 0.34
Olsson and Bergqvist ,1996
24 mm hole
Crack extension B= 1m , S= 0.8m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Gurit 22
E
x
p
l
o
s
i
v
e

T
y
p
e
Maximum crack length (cm)
d.c. ratio= 0.92
2000 m/s
Summary of decoupling experiments
Olsson and Bergqvist ,1996
Explosive VOD
m/s
Maximum
crack length
(cm)
Charge
Diameter
(mm)
Hole
diameter
(mm)
Decoupling
ratio
Detonex 80 6500 16 - - -
Emulet 20 1800 37 - - -
Kimulux 42 4800 26 22 64 0.34
Gurit 22 2000 30 22 51 0.43
Gurit 22 2000 15 22 64 0.34
Gurit 17 2000 5 17 51 0.33
*Gurit 22 *2000 *90 *22 *24 *0.92
All tests were carried out on a 0.5x0.5 mpattern (B xS), except for (*) where B =1 and S =0.8m.
Summary of decoupling experiments
Olsson and Bergqvist ,1996
Crack length and hence pre-conditioning behind the blast
decreases with a reduction in decoupling ratio (charge diameter/hole
diameter)
Data shows the influence of confinement and velocity of detonation.
An increase in burden and spacing and hence confinement showed
a clear increase in the zone of damage
Higher VOD explosives appeared to generate a high frequency of
cracking near the zone of the blast hole
Crack length increased with an increased in charge concentration
Explosive performance
detonation codes
Braithwaite, 2003
Thermodynamic codes
Theoretical description of the chemical reactions, their rates, products
and energy released .
A large number of computer codes have been published. The principle
difference between the predictions of the codes are
due to different chemistry explicit fluid and solid Equations of State
Codes include:
Empirical BKW, Virial Tiger, Fortran BKW
Semi-Empirical J CZ3 Tiger
Fundamental WCA or similar CHEQ, IDeX, Cheetah, TDS, Vixen-i
Ideal Detonation Computer Programs
For Condensed Phase Detonations
Braithwaite, 2003
Military/ Governmental Institutions
TIGER, CHEQ, CHEETAH
Commercial Companies
IDEX, Vixen_i
Consultants
TIGERWIN
Academic/ University
QUATTOR, TDS
LLNL Code, CHEETAH
Braithwaite, 2003
CHEETAH
Braithwaite, 2003
TDS
Braithwaite, 2003
Typical ideal detonation predictions
Braithwaite, 2003
Explosion/ Detonation
Property
Base Emulsion
Explosive
Aluminized Emulsion
Explosive
Detonation
Detonation Velocity (m/s)
5400 5230
Particle Velocity (m/s)
1350 1320
Detonation Pressure (Gpa)
7.75 7.25
Detonation Density (kg/m
3
)
1390 1400
Energetics
Ideal Shock Energy (MJ/kg) 0.53 0.51
Ideal Strain Energy (MJ/kg) 0.11 0.1
Ideal Gas Energy (MJ/kg) 1.71 2.01
Typical ideal detonation predictions
Braithwaite, 2003
Explosion/ Detonation
Property
Base Emulsion
Explosive
Aluminized Emulsion
Explosive
Detonation products
H
2
O (moles/kg explosive)
27.5 25.1
CO
2
3.5 2.3
N
2
9.5
9.1
H
2
0 0.2
Al
2
O
3
0 1.1
Aims of modelling explosive
performance
Energy release and rate of energy release
Pressure history
Detonation velocity
Critical VOD/ diameter
Applications of performance modelling
Formulators tool
Blasting optimisation
Front end for rock breaking modeling
Vixen_I ideal detonation
Vixen_N non-ideal detonation and rarefaction
Itasca rock breaking simulation/ rarefaction
Confinement
Model
Refinement
Formulation
& density
Unconfined
Characteristics
Rock Properties
Performance modelling process
(HSBM approach)
Explosive primers
Every explosive has an energy requirement
to be initiated (activation energy)
Nitroglycerin = very small
ANFO = very high
Priming of explosives with both packaged
and cast boosters provides this activation
energy
If the activation energy level is not
exceeded, the explosive will not perform to
optimum
Source : Dyno Nobel, 2005
Effect of primer detonation
pressure on VoD of ANFO
Source : Dyno Nobel, 2005
Effect of primer diameter on
VoD of ANFO
Source : Dyno Nobel, 2005
Explosive rock interaction
Crushing/pulverising of the rock
Rapid expansion of the borehole wall
Rapid generation of gaseous products
at high temperatures and pressures
Radial crack formation and extension
Circumferential crack formation from
pressure drop (unloading)
Formation of dynamic stress waves
Gas penetration and extension of cracks
and discontinuities
Undamaged zone
Radial fracturing
Mechanisms of breakage
The main mechanisms of breakage
are:
Shock and stress drive
Failure in compression and shear
Radial fracturing
Reflection
Gas driven
Gas expansion
Combined mechanisms
Compression and shear
Level of stresses exceed both the
static and dynamic strength of the
rock material in both shear and
compression
Rock is pulverised as the borehole
expands (Udy and Lownds, 1990; Whittaker
et al, 1992 and Szuladzinski, 1993)
r
c
r
o
Radial fracturing
Tangential strains generated from radial
compression during the passage of the shock
(stress) wave
Radial fractures are developed when the
intensity of the tangential strains is greater than
the dynamic tensile strength of the rock
Reflection
Compressive shock wave is reflected as a
tensile wave at a free face boundary or open
discontinuity
Tensile fractures are generated when the
tensile stresses exceed the dynamic tensile
strength of the rock mass
Gas expansion
The propagation of fractures due to gas was
demonstrated in laboratory scale conditions by
Kutter and Fairhurst (1971), Dally et al (1975)
and McHugh (1983)
It is almost impossible with current methods to
independently measure the processes of shock
and gas in full scale conditions.
The combined theory
Mosinets (1966) argued that fracturing due to stress waves is
dominant, contributing approximately 75-88% of the total volume
broken with a contribution of 12-25% by the action of gaseous
explosion products. This is also supported by experiments with
blasthole liners reported by Brinkmann (1990)
Shock and stresses condition the rock mass (crushing, radial
and circumferential fractures)
Explosive gases enlarge the primary radial cracks together with
the sudden release of energy contained in the rock mass
As compressive stresses are reduced through rock mass
displacement, additional tensile fracturing occurs
Rock breakage mechanisms
Relevant rock properties (Cundall, 2007)
For the full rock breakage process, the
relevant rock properties are:
Density
Confined modulus
Shock properties (e.g. yield strength HEL)
Dynamic tensile strength
Plate Impact test for shock
properties (Cambridge University, Field 2005 HSBM)
Designed and built in house
Single stage gas gun, compressed air or
helium
50mm bore
5m barrel
Pressure up to 350 bar
Velocity range 100-1100 m s
-1
Hopkinson Bar test (NIOSH Laboratories, USA)
Provide dynamic properties and design formulas
Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) and
Hustrulid modification
Gas gun Laurance Livermore
National Laboratory
Braithwaite, 2003