Electronic vs Pyrotechnic Detonators (v2 Email)

Electronic Electronic vs vs Pyrotechnic DetonatorsPyrotechnic Detonators

Presented by Philipa Lamb

RedBull Powder Company Ltd

OverviewOverview

CapacitorFuseHead

PrimaryCharge

BaseCharge

MicrochipEarthSpike

LeadWire

Electronic Delay Detonator

• Background

• Methodology

• Case Studies

• Conclusions Shock Tube

Bushing

Crimp

IsolationCup

Sealer Crimp

Delay Train

PrimaryCharge

BaseCharge

Pyrotechnic Detonator

BackgroundBackground

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1860 1910 1925 1950 1965 1990 1990

Lo

g S

catt

er

(ms)

Historic Review of Scatter

Safety Fuse 1 meter

ElectricDetonators

PyrotechnicDetonators

FirstGenerationElectronic

DelayDetonators

1950 1965 2003

Methodology Methodology –– First ExampleFirst Example

0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120

Probability and Consequence

Rela

tive E

ffect

Inter Shot Interval (ms)

Relative Rock Response

25 ms

40%

20%

60%

80%

100%

0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120


Rela

tive E

ffect



40%

20%

60%

80%

100%

RelativePyrotechnic Timing

Probabiliy

0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120


Rela

tive E

ffect



40%

20%

60%

80%

100%


Probabiliy

66% ConfidenceInterval forPyrotechnic

0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120


Rela

tive E

ffect



40%

20%

60%

80%

100%


Probabiliy


Relative ElectronicTiming Probability

Methodology Methodology -- Second ExampleSecond Example

0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120


Rela

tive E

ffect



100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

35 ms

0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120


Rela

tive E

ffect



100%

80%

60%

40%

20%


Probabiliy

0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120


Rela

tive E

ffect



100%

80%

60%

40%

20%


Probabiliy


0 20 40 60 80-20 100-40 120


Rela

tive E

ffect



100%

80%

60%

40%

20%


Probabiliy


Relative ElectronicTiming Probability

Methodology ConclusionMethodology Conclusion

• Electronic detonators improve timing accuracy:

Increases fragmentation

Improves production rates

Increases overall efficiency

• Stock inventory decreases, as any delay time can be chosen

Case Studies using Electronic DetonatorsCase Studies using Electronic Detonators

Manukau Quarry, Auckland - Basalt Quarry

Controlling Vibration

Reliable Way Quarry, Auckland - Basalt Quarry

Controlling Vibration

Martha Gold Mine, Waihi, New Zealand - Open Cast Gold Mine

Controlling Vibration and Increasing Production

Trapper Coal Mine, Colorado, USA - Open Cast Coal Mine

Controlling High Wall Stability

Manukau Manukau Quarry, AucklandQuarry, AucklandBasalt QuarryBasalt Quarry

• Aim

To control vibration while blasting next to main highway and archeological site

• Result

Vibration levels controlled through use of explosive decking and timing optimisation

Production levels maintained

• Conclusion

Significant improvement in vibration control through the use of electronic detonators

Reliable Way Quarry, Auckland Reliable Way Quarry, Auckland Basalt QuarryBasalt Quarry

• AimMaintain production levels while complying to vibration limits of 5mm/s (PPV)

• MethodologyDelay optimisation for vibration controlSequential delaying of explosive decks within each blast


Delay Sequence of Explosive Decks within a Blast

70ms

0ms 35ms

140ms

105ms

245ms

210ms

385ms

175ms

350ms

280ms

455ms

420ms

595ms


• Results

Production blasting achieved to within 35m of quarry boundary

Frequency channellingimproved the public perception of blasting

• Conclusion

Extended the reserves of the quarry through the use of electronic detonators

85 68 52 35

2

4

6

8

10

0Peak

Par

tica

l Vel

oci

ty (

mm

/sec

)

Distance from Boundary (m)

Peak Partical Velocity versus Distance to Boundary

ActualPPV

Limit

CalculatedPPV

Martha Gold Mine, Martha Gold Mine, WaihiWaihi, New Zealand, New ZealandOpen Cast Gold MineOpen Cast Gold Mine

• Aim

Increase predictability of vibration

Improve fragmentation

Improve mining production


• Results

Charge masses per hole doubled

Blast size increased from an average 70 holes to a maximum of 1300 holes

There was a five fold increase in production on the North Wall

Product

ion (

BCM

)

Weekly Mining Production

April July October December

Total Mine

North Wall

Pyrotechnics Electronics

Date (2002)


• Results

Oversize percentage decreased by 50%

Mine production improved 8%

Excavator efficiency increased by 17%

• Conclusion

Mine converted to electronic system

Ove

rsiv

e Pr

oduct

ion (

%)

Oversize Comparison

April July October December

Total Mine

North Wall

Pyrotechnics Electronics

Date (2002)

Trapper Coal Mine, Colorado, USATrapper Coal Mine, Colorado, USAOpen Cast CoalOpen Cast Coal

• AimTo improve the stability of high wallsTo improve cast, fragmentation and dragline production

• MethodologyTo use the flexibility of electronic timing to reduce the vibration that affects the high walls stability

Trapper Coal Mine, Colorado USATrapper Coal Mine, Colorado USAOpen Cast CoalOpen Cast Coal

• Results

High walls stable where previously pyrotechnic presplit had failed

Improved fragmentation

• Conclusion

Mine converted to electronic system

Case Study ConclusionCase Study Conclusion

• Electronic systems have been successful at the four sites discussed

• Electronic Delay Detonators have:

Improved production rates

Improved overall efficiency

Minimised vibration

Improved fragmentation

Improved face conditions

Increased safety

Conclusive Benefits of Electronic over Conclusive Benefits of Electronic over Pyrotechnic DetonatorsPyrotechnic Detonators

• Significantly improved cost efficiencies and output

• Electronic detonators have extended the life of quarries and mines

• Greater flexibility for blast design

• Despite higher unit cost of electronic detonators production output and cost efficiencies more than offset this cost.

• True comparison of cost is not of using an electronic system, but rather not using one!

Electronic vs Pyrotechnic Detonators (v2 Email)

Documents

Transcript of Electronic vs Pyrotechnic Detonators (v2 Email)