Automation in Blasting

Introduction
Blasting is one of the available technologies to be employed in underground excavation system. In
many instances it can be the only technologies that is suitable. The present paper discusses the
challenges presented by Telemining TM for drilling and blasting of drift rounds; and the evolution of
the burn cut, blast pattern, and perimeter control designs. It also describes how blast design software
was used to develop a drifting pattern, which was first proven effective with ANFO and packaged
explosives and then improved using a variable energy bulk repumpable emulsion explosive. The
automation in Blasting is very exciting alternative for enhancing the production and the safety of
miners.
The Mining Automation Project (MAP) was created in 1996 when a joint research and development
agreement was created between Into Limited, Tamrock Oy, a Finnish manufacturer of mining
equipment, and Dyno Industries A.S., a manufacturer of explosives and related products and services
for use in the mining industry. The mandate for Automation in Blasting is to deliver technology that
will enable the mining process to achieve a leap in profitability through unit cost reduction and the
effective use of resources. The object is to improve the product process by effective application of
tele-remote and automation technology.
Overview
In the late 1960’s the introduction of Ammonium Nitrate based explosives caused a major rethink
amongest explosive users. ANFO represented the first safe bulk explosives that drastically reduced
bulk blasting cost. That time, a cut was made in the seam manually in 1 st round for creating free space
for 2nd round and hence for continuation for the last round. With time various development was made
and now that cut is made mechanically using coal cutting machines. Now the effort is being
experimented for making all these operations automatic.
On January1, 1996, INCO Limited, Tamrock OY, Dyno Nobel and CANMET shaped a pool for the
event of robotic mining instrumentation referred to as the Mining Automation Program (MAP). The
year 2000 brings MAP to conclusion with actual production process trial testing of the developed
prototype equipment and systems during the period between May and October. MAP consisted of
various projects, that all were based on the communication system developed by INCO Mines
Research and presentely sold and marketed by Automated Mining Systems Limited. Major projects
include the development of a positioning and navigation module (including a software mapping
system that will be inherent to each piece of equipment), robotic systems for underground
development and decommissioning, as well as software systems to support the use of this equipment.
Some of the prototype equipment developed through the program are: a tele operated jumbo drills, a
remote initiation system for programming and detonation of electronic detonators, and the
development of a variable energy bulk emulsion explosive system, including loading equipment, to
deliver the explosives to boreholes.
Blasting
During the research project, the Drilling pattern became stored regular. both ANFO, Dyno split-C
perimeter packaged product and Dyno’s RUS-G emulsion explosives have been used with Dyno’s ED1
electronic detonators. The electronic detonators were programmed, armed, and detonated
from surface using the Dyno Rem ED1 system evolved inside
the MAP software. digital detonators were chosen no longer simplest for his or her ability impact on
blasting pleasant but their capacity for developing a completely tele-operated charging &
initiation gadget to ensure Telemining TM dreams.[ CITATION project3 \l 1033 ]
The blast design attempted to healthy the drill pattern and explosive products to minimize overbreak
with a high 1/2 cast thing. Dyno calculated the blast layout selected for each set of checks the usage
of the DynaCAD blast-modeling software evolved inside MAP. this system makes use
of thermodynamics to represent the explosive properties and calculate the pressure generated by the
detonation response. It incorporates rock mass residences, dynamic modulus, strength,
and structure to determine the forces that resist the stresses produced by means of the
detonation reaction. The software program software places out a photo illustration of the
radial distance round a drill hole, at which a certain percent of cracks exist and a higher restriction at
which radial cracking ceases. The blast pattern was defined based on a 20°h break overlap. Figure 1
shows the break radii calculated at the collar and toe of the drift round.[ CITATION Project1 \l 1033 ]
A reduction in the charge concentration in the perimeter and buffer rows was achieved using
chemically gassed repumpable emulsion (Dyno RUS-G) and the perimeter packaged product Dyno
Split-C. When Gassed emulsions were used the technique of string loading was also used to achieve a
specified charge weight and de-coupling of the explosive. The cup density of RUSG used during the
testing was 0.8 g/cc.
The loading hose was manually inserted to the end of the hole after which the automatic delivery
system retracted the hole discharging the desired quantity of explosive.

.
 Figure 1 - Loading Pattern showing break radii at the Collar & Toe
Buffer Holes (Green) - RUS-G (0.8 g/cc) & 75% coupling
Perimeter Holes (Red) - RUS-G (0.8 g/cc) & 50% coupling
Knee Holes (Black) - RUS (1.22 g/cc) & 100% coupling
Cut Relief Holes & Line Holes (Black Collars) NOT Loaded

The perimeter holes were fired simultaneously with the aim of creating a crack between the adjacent
perimeter holes that in turn would limit the propagation of radial cracks from within the excavation.
According to Onard (1982), the simultaneous firing of the holes enhances the preferential orientation
of the crack propagation. Rustan (1996) reported that micro-sequential timing sequences for
perimeter holes reduce the magnitude of the stress wave produced when holes are detonated
simultaneously. The timing sequence can only be performed with precise electronic detonators
because the required delay in timing is on the order of 2 ms.[ CITATION project2 \l 1033 ] Simultaneous
detonation is a fallacy when using pyrotechnic delays and their inherent scatter in timing. Dyno’s ED1
electronic detonators, with their ability to be programmed with precise delays were ideal to test the
theory of improved fragmentation, low vibration, less damage, etc. These detonators were used in
the majority of the drift rounds at the Research Mine. The timing, when compared to pyrotechnic
detonators, had no undesirable scatter in the data.

The results most noted in the literature were that electronic detonators show a remarkable decrease
in blast vibration (Rorke, 2000). A study by Bartley et al. (2000), comparing electronic detonator
technology and conventional non-electric pyrotechnics reported not only a reduced vibration
frequency but also improved rock fragmentation, improved excavation productivity, increased crusher
throughput, and reduced crusher costs.[ CITATION project2 \l 1033 ] Mohanty et al. (1990) reported that
electronic detonators in shaft-sinking increased the percentage of HCL to 47% from 32% for
conventional pyrotechnic delay blasts, increasing also the percent pull per round. Tucker and Kay
(2000) examined stope blasting at the Mount Isa Mines using electronic detonators to remove a
significant part of the risk associated with firing large and complex blasts.

Based on the data available to date on OB, UB, HCF and fragmentation, the following conclusion can
be
drawn:
 The 6 hole cut design provides enough relief with ANFO, but not enough for emulsion
explosives.
 The OB was on average less than 8% and UB was less than 10%.
  Calculated HCF was low. Due to the jointed and sheared nature of the rock mass, however,
HCF alone is not a good indicator of damage.
 The fragmentation using ED1 and ANFO had a DT~ of 8.6 inches (21.8 m). There is no
baseline, however, to indicate that this muck is either too fine or coarse. Less than 5%
of the fragments processed were greater than 18 inches (45.7 cm) and 100% of the
fragmentation screened was less than 24 inches (61.0 cm).

References

[1] H. L. J, "Blasting- An exciting non Boring alternatives," no. The Australian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 1987.

[2] m. Pawenti and w. Lidkea, "Mine Automation programme : Drill and Blast analysis," no. International
society of Mining Engineers, 2001.

[3] A. Rorke, "The influence of electronic delay detonators on vibration fragmentation,heave and throw," no.
High- Tech seminar, Blasting Analysis international, 2000.