Detonation Velocity: Its Significance

Claude Cunningham
ASIEX Explosives Workshop
Puerto Varas
October 2012
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations
and Consultancy

Why is Detonation Velocity important?

VoD a critical aspect of explosive characterisation
The only direct report from the detonation front
Defines non-ideal performance
Vital role in verification of detonation modelling

Problems in obtaining clean VoD data

How do we handle puzzling results?

Claims that lower VoD = worse breaking or better breaking!

Debates over relevance to energy delivery

Use of VoD in blast design, e.g. decoupled pressures

Pb = D2/ 8

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

and Consultancy

Emulsion vs Watergel for less fines: Quartzite

EmulsionB
Explosive

Watergel A
Explosive

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

Blast 1: High cup density VoD's

VoD measurements..

6000

Average 5170 m/s

5000

m/s

4000
1.18
Recovery

3000
2000

Average 4860 m/s

1000
0
1

Blast 2: Low cup density VoD's

10
6000
5000

m/s

4000

1000

Blast 3: Low cup density VoD's

6000
5000

m/s

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2

1.05

2000

Average 4970 m/s

3000

0
1

10

11

12

Findings:
High density decreases sensitivity
1.05 Low density reduces VoD
More rows reduces VoD.
WHY?
Claude
Blasting DOES IT MATTER? 4
WHEN
8
9 Cunningham:
10
Investigations and Consultancy

Road map
Parameters affecting VoD
Ideal detonation
Non-ideal detonation
Difficulties in modelling of Non-ideal
Consistency of commercial explosives performance
Field conditions
VoD system issues
Limitations of Kinetic modelling
Handling of VoD problems
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations
and Consultancy

Ideal Detonation and VoD

Shock front

Pressure falls with Particle Velocity

Decelerating particle velocity

Sonic (CJ) plane

VoD

Explosive

Reaction zone = DDZ

Reaction complete

Ideal detonation
Uniaxial flow
Reaction complete at Sonic plane.

Vixen_n ZND: ANFO density 0.8

100%

12

90%
10

70%
60%
50%

40%
4

30%
20%

10%
0

0%

Degree of reaction

GPa, km/s

Gas vel km/s

Pressure GPa
Reaction

80%

Conversion of chemical energy

ANFO at density 0.8.
Ideal VoD 4.8 km/s
Detonation Pressure 5 GPa.
Fluid velocity 1.3 km/s at Sonic Plane
Kinetic Energy 0.82 MJ/kg

Claude
Cunningham:
Blasting
10
100
Investigations and Consultancy
mm from Shock Front

Pstag
Normal start
for energy

Non-ideal detonation
Curved Shock
Front

Sonic (CJ) locus

VoD

Decelerating particle velocity

Reaction
zone

DDZ
Explosive

Expansion

WK solution

Vixen_n ANFO 0.8, 100mm dia, Kimberlite

Lateral Loss

100%

Pressure GPa
Gas vel km/s
Reaction

90%

80%

6
5

60%

50%

40%
30%

2
20%

10%

0%

10

100

Degree of Reaction

GPa and km/s

70%

ANFO at density 0.8

Ideal VoD 4.8 km/s
Detonation Pressure 5 GPa.
Gas velocity 1.3 km/s at Sonic Plane.
Non-Ideal VoD 3.85 km/s
Detonation Pressure 3 GPa.
Gas velocity 0.94 km/s at Sonic Plane,
where 16% of the explosive is still to
react.
The DDZ is inside the reaction zone.

mm from Shock Front

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

Effect of Ideality on Impulse

Detonation velocity points to significantly different pressure profile on the blasthole wall
ANFO, Density 0.8 - Ideal and Non Ideal, Kimberlite

12
Ideal ZND
ZND end reaction, CJ point
312mm Non Ideal
312mm CJ point
312 End reaction
100mm Non Ideal
100mm CJ point
100mm End Reaction

10

Pressure GPa

4.8 km/s

No impulse before CJ
4

4.44 km/s

Increasing impulse
before CJ, but lower 2
pressure

3.85 km/s

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Distance mm

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

Ideal VoD: influence of energy and density

Ideal Detonation (Vixeni)

4.5
ANFO Energy MJ/Li

4.0
ALANFO Energy MJ/Li

3.5
Emulsion Energy MJ/Li
VoD and Energy

3.0

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

Energy: ranking of common explosives

0.5
0.0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Density g/cc
Investigations
and Consultancy

1.1

1.2

Ideal VoD: influence of energy and density

Ideal Detonation (Vixeni)

7.0

ANFO VoD km/s

ALANFO VoD km/s
Emulsion VoD km/s
ANFO Energy MJ/Li
ALANFO Energy MJ/Li
Emulsion Energy MJ/Li

6.0

VoD and Energy

5.0

2
1
3

Spread within
exptl error

1
2

4.0
3.0

2.0

VoD: Does not rank with energy

Strong tie to density

1.0
0.0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Density g/cc

1.0

1.1

1.2

10

Ideal detonation: non-intuitive conclusions

Density the overriding influence on VoD
Emulsions not intrinsically faster than ANFO
Higher energy at same density does not
guarantee higher VoD

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

and Consultancy

11

Why lower VoD with higher Ideal energy?

Energy Delivery with ALANFO10 vs ANFO, same density

10.0

Crossover point

pressure

ANFO
Higher PCJ
= higher VoD 1.0
GPa, MJ/Li

energy
ALANFO GPa
ALANFO MJ/Li
ANFO GPa
ANFO MJ/Li

0.1

ALANFO
Hotter gas
= more energy

20 MPa
0.0
0

10
Volume, cc/g

ANFO is cooler and pressure drops more quickly with expansion.

100
12

Non-intuitive increase of Weight Strength

Ideal ANFO Energetics - Vixen_i
with density (ANFO)
10
IDE MJ/kg
VoDi km/s
Pcj GPa
Heat of Reaction MJ/kg

HoR constant

0
0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

Density g/cc

13
Ideal detonation: Weight strength, VoD and CJ pressure increase with density

Why does Ideal energy/kg increase with density?

CJ Pressure (& VoD) increases, but temperature falls

Faster initial delivery of energy, leaving cold gas for late
expansion
Lower density has hotter gas and more energy below
20MPa, but were not counting that.
So higher density gives more usable energy, higher ideal
VoD
This appears to confirm the opinion that higher VoD
means more Bang per Buck.
But the rock does not necessarily respond well to such
high pressures, and reaction is anyway non-ideal.
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations
and Consultancy

14

Non-ideal energy and VoD

Fundamentally different to Ideal detonation

Reaction energy leaks from DDZ owing to slow reaction
and divergence.
VoD is good indicator of energy released in DDZ.
Critical diameter reached when insufficient reaction energy
is sustaining shock front because of DDZ drainage from
sides and rear.
Reaction energy can still be released, but not easily
accounted for.

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

and Consultancy

15

ANFO in Non-ideal detonation

Critical VoD input

Ideal VoD (Det Code)

Modelled from kinetic

fitting
Critical diameter
unconfined

Kinetic fitting
(reactivity-voidpressure)

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

16

Effect of confinement on reaction

Non-Ideal performance parameters for ANFO at density 0.8 g/cc at 69mm

diameter in different confinements
Strong
Rock

(Ideal)

Unconfined

Weak
Rock

(100%)

34%

74 %

84%

VoD km/s

(4.80)

2.17

3.50

3.85

P CJ GPa

(4.8)

0.71

3.01

3.21

Reaction in DDZ

VoD only gives good data before Sonic (CJ) Point.

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

17

Direct link of VoD and DDZ reaction

ANFO in Weak rock (Vixen_n)

5.0

100%
90%

70%

4.0
VoD km/s

60%
50%
40%

3.0

VOD km/s
Reaction at CJ

30%

Reaction at CJ plane, %

80%

20%

Kinetic model calibrated using VoD tests

2.0
10

100
Hole diameter, mm

10%
0%

1000

18

Validation dependence on field VoDs..

MicroTrap VOD Data

MicroTrap VOD Data

54.0

33.5

53.5

33.0
53.0

32.5
52.5

32.0

52.0

4859.1 m/s

4529.2 m/s
Distance (m)

Distance (m)

31.5
31.0
30.5

51.5
51.0
50.5
50.0

30.0
49.5

29.5
49.0

29.0

48.5

28.5

48.0
53.00

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75
Time (ms)

1.00

1.25

53.25

53.50

1.50

53.75
54.00
Time (ms)

54.25

54.50

54.75

Need to be aware of factors affecting data collection

Claude Cunningham: Blasting
Investigations and Consultancy

19

Problems with non-ideal modelling

If unconfined VoDs are wrong, whole process is skewed:

Formulation variance in test sample
Confinement variance (pipe thickness etc)
Capture of loading data (density, noise)
VoD system issues (probes, resolution)
Interpretation of traces (scatter, dropouts)
Kinetic model limitations (complexity)

Energy release interpretation

is low VoD internally (composition) or externally
(confinement) caused?
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations
and Consultancy

20

Formulation variance
Fuel Oil Tests in ANFO: Spec 5.8% to 6.2%

7
Variation of ANFO with AN density, Nominal AN 0.73 g/cc

0.00

0.81

6
Density
Oxygen bal

0.79
0.79

-0.40
5

0.78

-0.60

0.78
Nominal ANFO
Density

0.77
0.77

-0.80

Oxygen balance resulting %

0.80
Density produced g/cc

-0.20

% Fuel Oil

0.80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

0.76

Day

-1.00

0.76
0.75
0

10

15

20

Variation in fuel content of ANFO

-1.20 affects
25
30
35
strength, and VoD.

Day

Volumetric mixing: varying bulk AN density

affects column rise and oxygen balance of ANFO
or of explosives using the AN.

21

ANFO strength and oil content

ANFO mixes
10

105

95
90

85
80

-5

75
REE %
OB, %

70

Oxygen Balance %

Relative Effective Energy

100

-10

65
-15

60
3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

% Fuel oil

Ideal code - a useful guide to the relative performance of like explosives.

Variable density causes unintended changes in Oxygen Balance.

22

Scatter in Loading data

Bulk systems, operational factors will deliver some

variation.
Volumetric metering of mixes
solids, flow processes affect density, formulation
Auto-compression/ adhesion in hole
Cooling of hot explosive
Loading into water
Variable hole diameter
eg, 118 to 132mm bits, cavities, friable zones
Only reasonably certain measurement is column rise...
23

17

1.70

16

1.60

Runaways?

1.50

14

1.40

13

1.30

12

1.20

kg/m

15

11

Nominal density in hole

1.10

Gauge loss?

kg/m effective
Implied Density

10

1.00

0.90

0.80
1

g/cc

Apparent loading densities - 115mm holes, same blast

10

24

Confinement variance
What does unconfined mean?
Indication that we have underestimated effect of
plastic tubing in unconfined tests.
Significant stratigraphic variation

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

and Consultancy

25

VoD system problems

Probes and cables

nicks, faults, sensitivities
Collector units
robustness, calibration, dropped data,
batteries
Readings
noise, drop-outs, impossible results, eg cable
cut at right time but apparent wrong depth
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations
and Consultancy

26

Choosing the number to quote..

Is 5.3 km/s the correct value to use?

27

Interpretation of VoD traces

Variation, noise and drop outs
Fraction of trace sensible
Curve fitting for VoD counter-productive
Density/ sensitivity equivalence between holes
may be not be same, as assumed

Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations

and Consultancy

28

Traces from ANFO in platinum reef

Narrow Reef VoD Tests

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
metres

0.6
A

0.5

0.4

C
D

0.3

E
F

0.2

0.1
0.0
0

50

100

150

200

250

microsec

300

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

Look closer at trace C...

350

400

450

29

High sampling rate and noise: trace C

Hole C: Point by point
60

+38km/s to -65km/s range

40

VoD, km/s

20

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450
Series1

-20

-40

-60

-80
Time, mics

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

1 MHz sampling rate

Investigations and Consultancy

30

Digital noise and curve fitting - C

Hole C: Point by Point

Polynomial fit poor

5.0

VoD (km/s)

4.0

3.0
VoD (apparent)
Poly. (VoD (apparent))

2.0

Byte
resolution

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Distance
(m)
Claude
Cunningham:
Blasting
Investigations and Consultancy

1
31

VoD derivation by averaging over span

Hole C: Effect of Point to Point Smoothing

5.0

Emulsion 3.9

4.0

km/s

3.0

20 pts
50 pts
100 pts

Average for this

hole 2.44 km/s

2.0

ANFO 2.0

1.0

0.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

metre
Claude Cunningham:
Blasting
Investigations and Consultancy

0.8

1
32

VoD readings
Probably 30 to 50% of readings are consistent - depending
on operator and conditions.
Learning happens with each attempt - need to use
judgement for initial data, and subsequent refining of
database.
Error bars nice but often misleading - need to know what is
causing the deviation
is it random error, or a specific influence which should
not be permitted?
Room for ongoing discussion and learning.
Kinetic model, and evaluation of this has to be based on the
chosen VoDs. Therefore focus is on progressive learning
in both areas.
Claude Cunningham: Blasting Investigations
and Consultancy

33

Unconfined
Doped emulsion

7.0
Density 1.2
1.08

VoD km/s

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0
0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

inv dia, mm

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

34

Kinetic Model limitations

Advanced modelling needed to understand
energy flows in DDZ
Hugoniot data for explosive particles and rock
confinement.
Reactivity on micro-scale.
Critical diameter is crucial to calibration but
extremely sensitive.
Deviation in VoD prediction doesnt mean energy
is ultimately not delivered.
A real problem: reluctance to share details of
progress for Peer Review
35

Conclusions
Problems both with theoretical modelling of detonation and
usable VoD measurements.
Calibration affected
VoD says how much reaction energy was released in DDZ
not how much was released in Reaction Zone, or how
long reaction lasted.
Detonation modelling and Blast modelling feed into each
other
Detonation affects rock, rock affects detonation

Higher VoD does mean more banked energy.

No perfect models yet
But some much better than others

36

The End (for now)

Claude Cunningham: Blasting

Investigations and Consultancy

37