Non-Ideal Shock Energy Factor

versus Powder Factor for Open

Pit Blast Design ANFO and
ChemicallySensitised Emulsion
K G Fleetwood1 and E Villaescusa2

Abstract
This paper proposes an approach to determine the influence of non-ideal detonation characteristics
related to the charge diameter, explosive type and confinement conditions on the available shock
energy of ANFO and a representative chemically-sensitised (gassed) emulsion. The proposed
degrees of non-ideality of the two different blasting agents are indicated by the Gurney ratios,
determined from existing cylinder expansion testing data. The influence of the non-ideal detonation
properties on blast design and performance are also compared using a series of theoretical, equal
powder factor open pit blasting patterns with hole diameters ranging from 102 mm to 270mm.
The non-ideal shock energy factor (NSEF), which is the available shock energy per tonne
of blasted material (MJ/t), is used to compare the different blasting patterns as charged with either
ANFO or the gassed emulsion of equal charge density (0.85 g/cm3). The intended purpose of this
investigation is to provide explosive users with an approach to compare different explosive types
or charge diameters in the absence of dedicated non-ideal detonation modelling, which is generally
not available to explosives users.
The results of the comparisons suggest that at low charge densities, the example gassed emulsion
displays a higher velocity of detonation (VOD) than ANFO in smaller charge diameters but
similar degrees of non-ideality (based on proposed Gurney ratios). The results also suggest that
the confined, non-ideal gassed emulsion VOD at hole diameters greater than 270 mm can be less
than ANFO due to the low density effects on the emulsion matrix. The differences in nonideal
detonation properties and Gurney ratios between the ANFO and gassed emulsion resulted
in gassed emulsion NSEF values ranging from 15 per cent lower to 65 per cent higher than ANFO
for equal powder-factor patterns in blasthole diameters from 102 mm to 270 mm.

introduction
The management of successful blasting operations requires
some level of understanding of the influence of explosive
distribution on the resulting fragmentation. The parameter
most widely used in the field of explosives engineering and
drill and blast design for describing explosive concentration
is powder factor. The term powder factor refers to the ratio
between the mass of explosive within a blast and the volume
or mass of blasted material. Some fundamental issues exist
when using powder factor as a blast design parameter,
especially when comparing different explosive products
or blasthole diameters. These issues include the lack of scale
sensitivity, lack of a standardised unit across different blasting
applications, no consideration of non-ideal explosive effects,
no explicit integration of rock properties or confinement
conditions and no consideration of explosive type or explosive
energy release characteristics. The use of powder factor for
comparing expected fragmentation for identical explosive
products over a small range in blasthole diameters can
be relatively reliable, but this reliability is reduced when
comparing different explosive products over a large range in
blasthole diameters. This loss of reliability is due to variability
in the non-ideal detonation characteristics of commercial
explosives as a function of charge diameter, type of explosive,
explosive density and confinement.
The introduction of chemically-sensitised bulk emulsion
explosives, capable of delivery at densities close to or equal
to ANFO, has resulted in increased use in some blasting
applications (eg quarry blasting, buffer blasting in open pits and
underground production blasting). The powder factor design
approach would suggest that the two different explosives of
the same density would be interchangeable without an impact
on the resulting breakage. Differences between the degrees of
non-ideality of ANFO and emulsion would suggest otherwise.
A more meaningful design parameter that takes into account
the influence of the explosive type, blasthole diameter and
degree of confinement (rock properties) on the available
energy for fragmentation and muck pile displacement should
therefore be considered. The energy-based blast design criteria

1. Senior Research Fellow, Western Australian School of Mines, Department of Mining Engineering and Surveying, Locked Bag 30, Kalgoorlie WA 6430. Email: k.fleetwood@curtin.edu.au
2. Professor of Mining Geomechanics, Western Australian School of Mines, Department of Mining Engineering and Surveying, Locked Bag 30, Kalgoorlie WA 6430. Email: villaee@wasm.curtin.edu.au

Explo CONFERENCE / melbourne, vic, 8 - 9 november 2011 43

K G Fleetwood and E Villaescusa
proposed in this paper will concentrate on the influence
of these factors on the non-ideal shock energy factor (NSEF),
expressed in megajoules of useful work per tonne of blasted
ore, for equal powder factor blasting patterns charged with
ANFO or a gassed emulsion of equal density (0.85 g/cm3).
Explosive Energy as a Blast Design
Approach
Downstream ore crushing, grinding and milling typically track
energy consumption per unit weight of processed material. It
therefore becomes logical to adopt an energybased design
criteria for blasting that can be compared with the other
energy consumptions. Energy consumption from blasting,
when compared with crushing and milling, represents
a small, but not insignificant percentage. Effective
breakage during blasting therefore is important in reducing
downstream energy consumption. Arbitrary descriptors
of blast performance such as powder factor cannot be
standardised with the downstream processes.
A number of past researchers have proposed the inclusion
of explosive energy as a method of designing blasts or
describing explosive performance (eg Mohanty, 1981;
Ducey, 2000; Rustan, 2010). Research into the influence
of non-ideal detonation and confinement on the VOD of
commercial explosive formulations (eg Sun, Later and Chen,
2001; Esen, 2004) has provided useful information on the
detonation characteristics of ANFO and emulsion explosives
in medium to large charge diameters. Additionally, research
into the available work energy or Gurney energy of more
substantial charge diameters (up to 100 mm) has confirmed
the differences in the degrees of non-ideality of ANFO and
emulsion explosives (Nyberg et al, 2003; Sanchidrin and
Lpez, 2006). One important note is that Gurney energy
ratios derived from cylinder expansion tests only represent
the unconfined detonation condition (and primarily shock
loading) and are unlikely to translate directly into confined
explosive performance. No reliable method exists for
measuring the release of explosive energy under realistic
confinement conditions, and therefore the Gurney ratio
approach has been proposed for relative comparison
of the degrees of non-ideality of the different explosive types
and densities. Some research does suggest that the Gurney
energy can be closely correlated with the useful explosive
energy calculated through partial reaction detonation codes
(Sanchidrin and Lpez, 2006).
One issue of concern in the field of blast engineering is the
reporting of explosive energy content and VOD by explosives
manufacturers. No standardised form of reporting exists in
product technical data sheets, and reported values of energy
and VOD are typically a result of ideal detonation modelling
or physical measurement at a single charge diameter under
various confinement conditions (eg cardboard, steel pipe
or blasthole). The VOD values contained in data sheets
are typically reported as a range, and energy content
is reported as a single value, sometimes relative to ANFO at
a given diameter. For detailed blast design or assessment
of explosive performance, these values provide little value
and rarely do the reported values consider non-ideal effects
related to the charge diameter or influence of the rock type.
Influence of Borehole Diameter
and Explosive Properties on velocity
of detonation
It is generally accepted that the VOD of commercial bulk
explosive formulations increases with increasing borehole
diameter. The sensitivity of the explosive to charge diameter
44
is a function of the degree of non-ideality; less ideal explosives
such as ANFO exhibit a higher degree of diameter sensitivity,
whereas more ideal emulsion explosives are less sensitive
to diameter effects. This increase in ideality of emulsion
explosives is due to increased oxidiser/fuel intimacy and
smaller oxidiser particle size.
The same relationship between charge diameter and VOD
can also be observed between explosive density and VOD.
In general, higher explosive densities yield higher VODs.
The relationship between in-hole density and confined
VOD for gassed emulsion explosives over a range of charge
diameters is not well defined for explosives users, though.
The sensitivity of VOD to gassed emulsion density becomes
an important aspect when comparing the performance
of ANFO and gassed emulsions of similar densities in open
pit and underground blasting applications.
Chemically-sensitised (gassed) emulsions
Field data on the measured velocities of detonation
of gassed emulsions as functions of gassed density, AN prill
content (for doped emulsions) and borehole diameter are
limited in the published literature. The relationship between
borehole diameter, density and VOD for gassed emulsions
has therefore been assumed to be similar in shape to that of
micro-balloon sensitised emulsions. The assumed similarity is
based on data published by Araos (2002) and Ravi-Shankar,
Kumar and Krishna-Mohan (1996). Araos (2002) published
data on the influence of the emulsion sensitiser on the lightly-
confined VODs at identical densities. These tests revealed an
approximate ten per cent greater VOD for gassed emulsion
when compared with the glass micro-balloon sensitised
product. Ravi-Shankar, Kumar and Krishna-Mohan (1996)
published VOD values where the micro-balloon sensitised
emulsion was from less than one to ten per cent higher than
the gassed emulsion over a range in water contents. Many
different chemical and physical attributes contribute to the
VOD of bulk emulsions and therefore a generalised behaviour
is difficult to characterise without specific testing data.
The relationship between the emulsion gassed density and the
unconfined or lightly confined VOD of chemicallysensitised
emulsions has been assumed to be approximately linear.
This assumption is based on data published by Araos (2002)
and Nyberg et al (2003) where an almost linear relationship
between the charge density and the lightly-confined VOD
over a range of practical delivered densities (60-90 percent
of matrix density) was observed (Figure 1). At densities
above 90 - 95 per cent of the unsensitised matrix density,
6500
Lightly Confined VOD (m/s)
VOD = 3665 (e) + 1332
6000 R = 0.86
data of Nyberg et al. (2003)
5500
5000
4500
4000
VOD = 4263 (e) - 184
3500 R = 0.98
data of Araos (2002)
3000
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Gassed Emulsion Density (g/cm3)
Fig 1 - Measured velocity of detonations of gassed emulsion formulations
for various gassed densities in lightly confined conditions (data of Araos,
2002; Nyberg et al, 2003).
Explo CONFERENCE / melbourne, vic, 8 - 9 november 2011
 Non-Ideal Shock Energy Factor versus Powder Factor for Open Pit Blast Design

the VOD was dramatically reduced. Additional studies on and borehole diameter. The general form of the VOD surface
microballoon sensitised emulsions have revealed similar is given in Equation 2:
trends (eg Lee and Persson, 1990). Only the linear range
in densities (60 - 90 per cent of matrix density) has been VODU = (C $ te + D) $ c 1 (2)
m
considered in the proposed energy factor model. 1 + A $ ^1/zh + B $ ^1/zh2
where:
Non-ideal velocities of detonation as a result VODu = unconfined or lightly-confined velocity
of borehole diameter of detonation (m/s)
It is widely accepted that the VOD of an explosive is sensitive e = emulsion density after gassing (g/cm3)
to the charge diameter. Charge diameters approaching the
critical diameter reduce the VOD until deflagration and z = borehole diameter (mm)
subsequent detonation failure occurs. The effects of diameter A, B, C, D = fitting parameters
on VOD in larger charge diameters are less pronounced,
increasing gradually towards the ideal VOD or VODCJ, which The values of A, B, C and D in Equation 2 have been
represents the infinite charge diameter. determined for an example emulsion using multi-variable
non-linear estimation of the data published by Lee and
A number of researchers have published approaches to Persson (1990) and listed in Table 1.
define the shape of the diameter sensitivity in both small and
large charge diameters (eg Sun, Later and Chen, 2001 and
Esen, 2004). At larger charge diameters common to open pit
TABLE 1
blasting applications, the model proposed by Esen (2004) has Regression constants from nonlinear multi-variable regression
provided a better fit to the data analysed in this study. This of Equation 2 using the data of Lee and Persson (1990).
model has therefore been employed in the current work to
describe the diameter-VOD relationship for ANFO. A modified
Regression constant Values
form of the approach is proposed for gassed emulsions, which A 7.68
takes into account the VOD dependence on density as well B -124.33
as charge diameter. The general equation proposed by Esen
(2004) is listed below: C 4828.56
D -64.24
VOD = VODCJ c 1
m (1)
1 + a $ ^1/zh + b $ ^1/zh2 The data used in the regression and the surface defined by
where: the regression constants listed in Table 1 have been plotted
VOD = velocity of detonation (m/s) in Figure 2 to display the relationship between the emulsion
density, charge diameter and unconfined VOD (VODU).
VODCJ = velocity of detonation (m/s) at CJ plane
(ideal VOD)
= borehole diameter (mm)
a, b = fitting parameters
The regression constants a and b for ANFO have been
determined in this study through nonlinear regression
of unconfined or lightly confined test data published by Bauer
et al (1984) and Thomas (2005). The value of VODCJ for this
analysis was 4845 m/s and the resulting regression constants
a and b were 12.2 and 7497.7, respectively. The regression
resulted in a correlation R-value of 0.95.
The relationship between the charge diameter and the
unconfined VOD of ANFO would suggest that in the charge
diameters common of large-scale open pit mines and coal
cast blasting, minimal VOD reduction would occur compared
with the VODCJ value (approximately ten to 15 per cent below
ideal). The effects of charge diameter become significantly
pronounced for ANFO in blasthole diameters typical
of quarrying and underground production blasting (64 mm
to 165 mm), where the VOD reduction versus ideal is up to
67percent according to the analysis.
Fig 2 - Three-dimensional surface defined by the relationship between
Suggested empirical relationship between emulsion density, charge diameter and unconfined velocity of detonation
gassed emulsion density, charge diameter for the low density emulsion of Lee and Persson (1990).
and velocity of detonation
The dependence of VODCJ and subsequent unconfined Equations 1 and 2 and the proposed regression constants
VOD (VODU from Equation 1) on density and diameter for ANFO and the example gassed emulsion at density
simultaneously has been proposed using a modified 0.85g/cm3 have been used to estimate the unconfined VODs
form of Equation 1. The modified equation represents over a range of blasthole diameters. These diameters represent
a threedimensional surface over which the lightly-confined those common to open pit and large-scale quarry blasting.
VOD can be determined in relation to both emulsion density Table 2 lists the resulting estimated VODU values.

Explo CONFERENCE / melbourne, vic, 8 - 9 november 2011 45

K G Fleetwood and E Villaescusa

TABLE 2 Approximate Available Work and

Calculated unconfined velocity of detonation values for ANFO Energy Content of the Non-Ideal
and emulsion of equal density.
Explosive in the Borehole
Charge diameter ANFO VODU Emulsion VODU The explosive VOD is commonly used to approximate the
(mm) (m/s) (m/s) detonation pressure and subsequently the explosive shock
102 2633 3799 energy contained in an ideal explosive. One equation used for
calculating the detonation pressure (PD) of an explosive from
126 3088 3836 the unreacted explosive density and velocity of detonation
165 3590 3877 (in km/s) is given in Equation 4 (Cooper, 1996):
200 3881 3902 P # VOD 2
PD = e (4)
270 4220 3935 c+1
where:
The values in Table 2 suggests that the unconfined VOD PD = detonation pressure (GPa)
of a pure emulsion explosive (and assumed gassed emulsion
equivalent) at a density of 0.85 g/cm3 is higher than that e = explosive density (g/cm3)
of ANFO for smaller hole diameters typical of construction = ratio of specific heats of detonation product gases ( 3)
blasting, quarrying or underground production blasting. For One assumption when using Equation 4 is that the value of
the larger hole diameters typical of large open pit or coal is constant and approximately equal to three. During the
blasting, the estimated VODU of ANFO would be higher than detonation process, decays as the expansion state relative
the low-density emulsion. This relative reduction in VOD for to the CJ state increases, but at the peak pressure (shock state
the emulsion at large charge diameters would be expected to with low expansion) may be approximately 2.6 for ANFO to
significantly reduce the detonation pressure and subsequent 3.2 for emulsion (Cunningham, 2002). These values represent
shock energy available to perform breakage when compared an approximate 10 per cent range around the assumed value
with ANFO.
( 3) and therefore the assumption appears to be acceptable
for the shock state and well within the range of measurement
Non-Ideal Velocities of Detonation error for other values such as VOD.
as a result of Confinement It is proposed that the detonation pressure calculated from
The increase in VOD of commercial explosive products as Equation 4 can be used to approximate the shock energy
a function of increased confinement has been observed by content of the explosive using Equation 5. Equation 5 is
many past researchers from the results of steel pipe tests a modification of the hydrodynamic work function provided
and in situ field measurements. Esen (2008) suggested by Cooper (1996), which is typically applied to high explosives
an empirical relationship between the degree of charge (near ideal detonation). This approach would therefore be
confinement and the measured VOD as a function of the expected to provide a poor approximation of the total energy
unconfined (VODu) and ideal (VODCJ) explosive VODs and the content of non-ideal blasting agents that contain significant
ratio of the shock impedances of the explosive and rock. The gas energy, but may be a justifiable approximation for
empirical relationship resulting from VOD measurements comparison of shock energies of different explosives. More
of eight different explosive formulations in various rock accurate values would be provided by non-ideal detonation
confinement conditions over a range of diameters from 32 - codes considering the individual equations of state of the
241 mm is provided below: detonation products, but these modelling tools are not
VODCJ - VODu readily available to explosives users and therefore a method
VODc = VODu f1 + e M
VODCJ oe op (3) of approximation and comparison becomes useful.
1 + 4.563 $ M0.688
and Eexp l = X $ PD (5)
PCJ
tr $ Vp
M=f p and
to $ Du
4
tCJ . t
where: 3 e
VODc = confined explosive VOD at given borehole where:
diameter (km/s) Eexpl = useful work energy content per unit mass (MJ/kg)
VODu = unconfined explosive VOD at given borehole X = ratio of chemical energy converted into
diameter (km/s) useful work energy
VODCJ = ideal VOD (km/s) PD = detonation pressure (GPa)
r = rock density (g/cm3) CJ = density of explosive at CJ plane (g/cm3)
Vp = P-wave velocity of rock (km/s) e = unreacted explosive density (g/cm3)
0 = initial explosive density (g/cm ) 3

The term M in Equation 3 refers to the ratio of the specific

acoustic impedance of the blasted rock to the shock impedance
of the explosive. This ratio influences the transmission of
pressure and thus energy across the borehole wall (Cooper,
1996). Equation 3 has been used to assess the influence of
confinement on the VOD at the different charge diameters and
to compare ANFO and gassed emulsion in this study.
Useful work energy available to perform
rock breakage
In unconfined or lightly confined conditions, the conversion
of potential chemical energy of an explosive into useful energy
or work depends on the explosive type, the efficiency of the
chemical reaction between the oxidiser and fuel components
and the oxygen balance. More ideal explosive formulations

46 Explo CONFERENCE / melbourne, vic, 8 - 9 november 2011

 Non-Ideal Shock Energy Factor versus Powder Factor for Open Pit Blast Design

such as emulsions typically convert a higher percentage TABLE 3

of chemical energy into high pressure gases than less ideal
Confined velocity of detonation and available work energy of ANFO
explosives such as ANFO. This conversion efficiency is related
and gassed emulsion in simulated primary copper ore.
to the amount of useful work an explosive can perform during
rock blasting. One method of examining the ratios of useful ANFO Emulsion
Charge Emulsion
energy to chemical energy of different explosives is through ANFO VODC available available
diameter VODC
cylinder testing to determine Gurney energies. As previously (m/s) work energy work energy
(mm) (m/s)
mentioned, Gurney ratios from lightly confined cylinder tests (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg)
would unlikely translate directly to rock mass confinement 102 3052 0.88 3868 1.45
conditions due to the differences in the rates of deformation
126 3456 1.12 3895 1.47
and material properties. The cylinder test Gurney ratios
may therefore be conservative estimates compared with 165 3880 1.42 3925 1.49
fully confined conditions, although some research suggests 200 4115 1.59 3943 1.51
that cylinder testing provides the most accurate test-derived
270 4380 1.80 3966 1.53
indication of potential energy transfer from an explosive to
a rock mass (Esen et al, 2005). The uncertainty in the
actual in situ non-ideal behaviour has therefore led to the ANFO diameters greater than 200 mm or most emulsion
proposed approach being recommended only for comparisons diameters is largely inconsequential and well with the range
of different explosives or charge diameters in the absence of of measurement error. Smaller charge diameters of ANFO
non-ideal detonation modelling, which is largely unavailable (<165mm) were more significantly affected.
to explosives users.
Gurney energies obtained through cylinder expansion tests Comparison of Non-Ideal shock Energy
of large-diameter samples of ANFO and bulk emulsions have Factors for Equal Powder Factor
been published by Nyberg et al (2003). This data identified
Gurney energies of 40 - 56 per cent for various ANFO
Blasting Patterns
products and 46 - 74 per cent for Titan 6000 and 6080 gassed The possible impacts of the estimated in-hole VODs and
emulsions. These values were comparable to values published available breakage energies on blast performance were further
by Lpez etal (2002) for watergel slurry and ANFO, which investigated by comparing a series of equal powder factor
were 73.2 per cent and 66.5 per cent, respectively, based on the blasting patterns, loaded with ANFO or gassed emulsion of
heats of reaction. The data of Nyberg et al (2003) also suggested density 0.85 g/cm3. The five theoretical blasting patterns were
that the conversion of energy of the gassed emulsion explosive designed using the range of blasthole diameters from 102 to
to useful work also depended on the density. The useful work 270 mm and matching powder factors of 0.26 kg/t (kilograms
conversion ratios (X values in Equation5) proposed for use of explosive per tonne of blasted rock). The patterns were
in the current approach are X = 0.50 for ANFO and the linear designed for realistic bench heights using existing rules of
function X = 0.55e + 0.05 for pure gassed emulsions based thumb for determination of burden, spacing, subdrill and
on analysis of the data of Nybergetal(2003). For the gassed stemming length. The available work energy values in Table3
emulsion density of 0.85g/cm3, the X value is 0.52, which were then used to estimate the non-ideal shock energy factors
represents highly non-ideal detonation similar to ANFO. (NSEF) for each pattern charged with both ANFO and gassed
emulsion. The resulting values are listed in Table 4 and shown
Comparisons of Confined VODs and in Figure 3.
Available Explosive Work of ANFO TABLE 4
and Gassed Emulsions in Identical ANFO and gassed emulsion non-ideal shock energy factors
Rock Types calculated for blast patterns of equal powder factor.
The non-ideal, confined VOD and available work energy of Charge Powder Emulsion
ANFO and gassed emulsion were compared for a given rock Burden Spacing ANFO NSEF
diameter factor NSEF
type over a range of blasthole diameters using Equations 1 (m) (m) (MJ/t)
(mm) (kg/t) (MJ/t)
to 5. A primary, low-grade copper ore was selected for the 102 2.7 3.8 0.26 0.23 0.38
comparison. The physical properties of the ore required for
the calculations are listed below 126 3.3 4.8 0.26 0.29 0.38
rock type primary copper ore, 165 4.4 6.2 0.26 0.37 0.39
R = 2.68 g/cm3, 200 5.3 7.6 0.26 0.42 0.40
C = 156 MPa, 270 7.3 10.4 0.26 0.47 0.40
Vp = 4577 m/s,
static Youngs modulus (Est) = 57 GPa, The impact of the proposed reduction in ideal behaviour of
static Poissons ratio (st) = 0.25, the emulsion at the lower density can be observed in Figure3.
dynamic Youngs modulus (Edyn, estimated) = 78 GPa, and Although the NSEF for the emulsion is 65 per cent higher than
dynamic Poissons ratio (dyn, estimated) = 0.29. ANFO at the charge diameter of 102 mm, it is 15percent lower
at a charge diameter of 270 mm. This would suggest that for
The results of the calculations of non-ideal, confined VODs large diameter blastholes and geometrically-scaled larger
and the available work energies per kilogram of explosive in patterns, emulsion explosives of equal density to ANFO would
the specified rock type over the range in blasthole diameters require reduced burdens and spacings to achieve similar
are listed in Table 3. breakage. For the smaller hole diameters, the ANFO-charged
Comparing the values in Table 3 with the values in pattern would be required to be reduced to achieve equal
Table 2 suggests that the effect of charge confinement in energy distributions compared with emulsion.

Explo CONFERENCE / melbourne, vic, 8 - 9 november 2011 47

K G Fleetwood and E Villaescusa
0.50
Non-Ideal Energy Factor (MJ/t)
0.45
Emulsion
0.40
0.35
0.30
ANFO
0.25
0.20
0.15
100 125 150 175 200 225
Blasthole Diameter (mm)
Fig 3 - Blasthole diameter and non-ideal shock energy factor for ANFO
and gassed emulsion patterns.
Scale-dependent issues with powder factor are also identified
when comparing the NSEF values for the same explosive
type in larger blasthole diameters and patterns. Over the
range in blasthole diameters, the NSEF for ANFO increases
by 109percent due to the substantial sensitivity of ANFO to
charge diameter; the emulsion only increases by fivepercent.
Discussion and Conclusions
The non-ideal behaviour of both ANFO and gassed emulsion
explosives depend on many different factors and explosive
properties. Four such factors are the charge diameter,
density, confinement and conversion of chemical energy into
useful work. These four have been investigated in the current
study to compare the non-ideal shock energy factors for a
series of theoretical open pit blasting patterns on the basis
of non-ideal detonation characteristics. The non-ideal shock
energy content of each explosive has been estimated using
a proposed approach containing a number of key assumptions.
These assumptions include a constant , use of the shockstate
hydrodynamic work function to estimate the shock energy
content and non-ideal behaviour described by the Gurney
ratio from cylinder testing. These assumptions likely do not
represent the realistic, confined detonation conditions in
the field, but become necessary to estimate the detonation
characteristics in the absence of non-ideal detonation codes
or in situ measurements.
Empirical relationships between charge diameter and
unconfined VOD for ANFO and charge diameter, density
and VOD for gassed emulsion have been proposed based
on existing and modified approaches. Equation 2 and the
regression constants in Table 1 represent one of the first
published attempts to define the complex relationship
between charge diameter, delivered density and VOD for
gassed emulsions through simultaneous analysis. Additional
field measurements of VOD are required for different
formulations of gassed emulsions over the entire range of
delivered densities and charge diameters to further investigate
the combined effects.
The relationship between density, blasthole diameter and
VOD for the simulated gassed emulsion clearly identifies
a significant loss of ideality of at lower charge densities.
Additionally, the decreased ideal VOD of the low-density
emulsion results in a lower NSEF compared with ANFO for
large hole diameters (>200 mm). This would suggest that
lower density gassed emulsions in large diameter open pit
blasts may lose some performance advantages over ANFO,
except for water resistance. In smaller hole applications
48
(<165mm), low density gassed emulsions displayed a
significant advantage over ANFO in respect to the available
energy to perform rock breakage.
REFERENCES
Araos, M, 2002. Influence of different parameters in the VOD
of gassed bulk explosives, in Proceedings Annual Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, pp 293-306 (International
Society of Explosives Engineers: Cleveland).
Bauer, A, Glynn, G, Heater, R and Katsabanis, P, 1984.
A laboratory comparative study of slurries, emulsion, and
heavy AN/FO explosives, in Proceedings Annual Conference on
250 275 300
Explosives and Blasting Technique, pp 299-317 (International
Society of Explosives Engineers: Cleveland).
Cooper, P W, 1996. Explosives Engineering (Wiley-VCH: New York).
Cunningham, C, 2002. The energy of detonation: A fresh look
at pressure in the blasthole, Fragblast Journal, 6(2):137-150.
Ducey, C D, 2000. Energy factor The next logical step, in
Proceedings Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique (International Society of Explosives Engineers:
Cleveland).
Esen, S, 2004. A statistical approach to predict the effect of
confinement on the detonation velocity of commercial explosives,
Rock Mech Rock Engng, 37(4):317-330.
Esen, S, 2008. A non-ideal detonation model for evaluating the
performance of explosives in rock blasting, Rock Mech Rock
Engng, 41(3):467-497.
Esen, S, Nyberg, U, Arai, H and Ouchterlony, F, 2005. Determination
of the energetic characteristics of commercial explosives using
the cylinder expansion test technique, Swebrec report 2005:1,
Swedish Blasting Research Centre.
Lee, J and Persson, P-A, 1990. Detonation behaviour of emulsion
explosives, Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 15:208-216.
Lpez, L M, Hamdi, E, Sanchidrin, J A and du Mouza, J, 2002.
On explosive useful work and rock mass fragmentation energy,
in Proceedings Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique, pp 175-185 (International Society of Explosives
Engineers: Cleveland).
Mohanty, B, 1981. Energy, strength and performance, and their
implications in rating commercial explosives, in Proceedings
Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique,
pp 293-306 (International Society of Explosives Engineers:
Cleveland).
Nyberg, U, Arvanitidis, I, Olsson, M and Ouchterlony, F, 2003. Large
size cylinder expansion tests on ANFO and gassed bulk emulsion
explosives, in Proceedings Explosives and Blasting Technique
(ed: R Holmberg), pp 181-191 (Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse).
Ravi-Shankar, G S R, Kumar, A S and Krishna-Mohan, V, 1996.
On the application of the plate dent test for the performance
evaluation of emulsion explosives, Propellants, Explosives,
Pyrotechnics, 21:70-73.
Rustan, P A, 2010. A new principal formula for the determination of
explosive strength in combination with the rock mass strength,
in Proceedings Ninth International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting: Fragblast 9 (ed: J A Sanchidrin),
pp 155-164 (CRC Press/Balkema: London).
Sanchidrin, J A and Lpez, L M, 2006. Calculation of the energy
of explosives with a partial reaction model. Comparison with
cylinder test data, Prop, Explos, Pyrotech, 31(1):25-32.
Sun, C, Later, D W and Chen, G, 2001. Analysis of the effect of
borehole size on explosive energy loss in rock blasting, Fragblast
Journal, 5(4):235-246.
Thomas, T J, 2005. An evaluation of the confinement provided
by PVC and cardboard pipes in unconfined detonation velocity
measurements, MSc thesis, University of Witwatersrand.
Explo CONFERENCE / melbourne, vic, 8 - 9 november 2011