blasting technology - blast design

Upload: benjamin-amoah

Post on 05-Apr-2018

229 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    1/36

    Blasting Course

    Designing BlastsDesigning Blasts

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    2/36

    Two important aims in blasting.

    To fragment the rock to a desirable size and

    To displace the fragments a desirable distance

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    3/36

    At the best overall cost

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1

    Powder Factor (kg/m3)

    Cos

    t/m3

    Explosive

    Drilling

    Load & Haul

    Crushing & Milling

    Overall Cost

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    4/36

    Three things that affect outcome

    ExplosiveRock

    Blast Geometry

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    5/36

    Rock

    Rock StrengthRock Strength

    Rock DensityRock Density

    Rock StructureRock Structure

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    6/36

    Rock Strength and elasticity

    UCS and Tensile Strength

    Has an influence on creation of cracks during blasting

    Measured in MPa

    Tensile strength about 1/10th UCS

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    7/36

    Rock Density

    Influences the displacement distance during a blast

    Influences fragmentation

    Higher density = higher energy for same end result

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    8/36

    Rock Structure

    Rock Structure has largest influence on fragmentation results.

    Sometimes fragmentation completely controlled by structure

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    9/36

    Rock Structure

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    10/36

    Rock Structure

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    11/36

    Rock Blastability Index

    Rock UCS

    Rock density

    Joint Spacing

    Joint Orientation

    RMDJPSJPODensityRockUCSRBI ++++

    +=

    6.477.235.0

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    12/36

    Blast Geometry

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    13/36

    Burden and Spacing

    Hoof vrye front

    Breeklas

    Effektiewe breeklas Spasiring

    BreeklasInterimvryefront

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    14/36

    Equilateral Pattern

    A B

    C

    A = B =Cor

    Base = 1.15 x height

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    15/36

    Spacing = 1.15 x Burden(in plan, energy distributed evenly.)

    Spacing > 1.15 x Burden

    (in plan, energy not distributed evenly

    and more overlap can be seen in the

    energy contours in one direction.)

    Red circles represent

    contours of equal energy

    around each borehole.

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    16/36

    Staggered Pattern

    Wherever possible use a

    staggered pattern. A

    square pattern is only

    suitable for narrow box-

    cut blasts

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    17/36

    Deciding on Burden - Scaled Burden

    cM

    BurdenBurdenScaled =

    cMBurdenScaledBurden =

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    18/36

    Scaled Burden

    RBI = 20 to 40 RBI = 40 to 60 RBI = 60 to 80

    Shale/Mudstone 1.3 1.2 1.1

    Sandstone 1.2 1.1 1

    Limestone/Dolomite 1.2 1 1

    Granite 1.2 1 0.9

    Dolerite 1.1 1 0.9

    RBI = 20 to 40 RBI = 40 to 60 RBI = 60 to 80

    Shale/Mudstone 1 0.8 0.7Sandstone 1 0.8 0.7

    Limestone/Dolomite 0.9 0.75 0.65

    Granite 0.9 0.7 0.6

    Dolerite 0.8 0.7 0.6

    For Reduced Heave or coarser fragmentation

    For increased heave or finer fragmentation

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    19/36

    Burden Stiffness

    5.2= burden

    heightbench

    Sb

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    20/36

    Burden Stiffness - Matching bench height to hole diameter

    Poor explosive distribution. Only the bottom half of the benchcontains explosive.

    Tendency to crater because the surface is closer than thevertical free face. This results in

    A tendency for uncontrolled fly rock

    Poor fragmentation in top half of bench

    Uneven floors

    Very little muckpile movement

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    21/36

    Explosives Energy

    HeightBenchSpacingBurden

    holeperkgFactorPowderDesign =

    RWSFactorPowderFactorEnergy =

    volumeblockkgtotalFactorPowderActual =

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    22/36

    Stemming

    Stemming affects the following results in a blast:

    Fly rock

    Air blast

    Fragmentation

    HeaveAll blasts require stemming

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    23/36

    Ineffective Stemming

    Excessive Fly

    Excessive Noise

    Poor Fragmentation

    Poor Heave

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    24/36

    Effective Stemming

    Fly rock controlAir blast control

    Optimal fragmentation

    Optimal heave

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    25/36

    Air

    Water

    Drill cuttings in water

    ClayDrill cuttings in dry hole

    Crushed aggregate - ungraded

    Crushed aggregate - graded

    Worst

    Best

    Stemming Effectiveness:

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    26/36

    Factors affecting stemming performance

    Stemming material

    Stemming length

    Rock strength

    Explosive energy

    Stemming length = 15 to 30 x diameter

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    27/36

    Scaled Depth of Burial

    = 1000

    4

    1000

    833.0

    cs

    MDS

    Scaled

    Depth of

    Burial

    0.7 1 1.2 1.5 1.7

    Hard rock much fly normal fly little fly no flyno surface

    ex ression

    Soft rock much fly much fly normal fly little fly no fly

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    28/36

    Crater tests to determine site specific

    values

    Scale depth of burial

    Maximum Burdens

    Explosives performance and comparisons

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    29/36

    Crater tests:

    Surface ExpressionFragmentation

    Crater Volume

    Vertical Displacement Velocity

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    30/36

    Sub-drill

    Uneven floors with high bottoms

    Difficult digging conditions at the bottom of the muckpile

    Insufficient Sub-drill =

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    31/36

    Sub-drill

    Usually set at 20 to 50% of burden

    BMQc

    39.0=

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    32/36

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    33/36

    Uniformity

    1 10 100 1000 10000

    Fragment Size (mm)

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    %

    Passing

    uniformity = 1.4

    uniformity = 0.8

    uniformity = 0.4

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    34/36

    The final fragmentation influences:

    Diggability: Impacts loading rates and wear and tear onequipment

    Coal exposure rates: Impacts mine profitability

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    35/36

    Kuzram model

    Explosive Energy

    Explosive distribution (burden, spacing, hole diameter, sub-drill,stemming length)

    Bench Geometry

    Rock Blastability

  • 7/31/2019 Blasting Technology - Blast Design

    36/36

    Kuzram

    633.0

    6/1

    8.0

    50115

    100

    =

    RWSMEFRx cf

    1.0

    5.0

    1.01001

    2

    1

    142.2

    +

    =

    c

    c

    b

    c

    h

    c L

    SubL

    H

    SubL

    b

    bb

    s

    bn