Scholarlink

Conventional blasting with its advantages poses safety concerns to the nearby urban/rural dwellings. With the increasing demand of civil construction in urban areas, there is a rising need to apply safe and reliable technologies to execute rock excavation operations close to sensitive structures. In the recent past, non-detonating pyrotechnic methods of rock breakage have emerged ensuring relatively superior safety and reliability in the construction/excavation industry. Their composition is similar to propellants, implying that they deflagrate and not detonate. Examples include NoNex™, Royex™, Pyroblast™ and Autostem™. They are primarily used when urban blasting is carried out near sensitive structures, like heritage buildings or multi-storey structures, in order to minimize ground vibrations, flyrock and noise. This research work focuses on comparison of the bench blast performance of conventional explosives against the non-detonating pyrotechnic method of rock breakage for excavating moderately hard rocks (Quartzite having UCS of 45–50 MPa) with good fragmentation to an expected size range of 0.4 to 0.5 m for excavator loading. Measurements of blast induced ground vibration show that non-detonating pyrotechnic recorded PPV in the range of 0.70–42.7 mm/s for a square root scaled distance varying from 7.93–51.70 m/kg1/2. Similarly, conventional explosives recorded PPV in the range of 0.51–27.8 mm/s for a square root scaled distance of 5.47–266.32 m/kg1/2. Air over pressures recorded noise in the range of 116.5–136 dB for cube root scaled distance of 13.74–82.49 m/kg1/3. Similarly, blasting with the conventional explosives recorded noise level was 100.7–143.2 dB for the cube root scaled distance in the range of 6.15–225.65 m/kg1/3. The post-blast fragment size and throw were more acceptable in conventional explosives over pyrotechnic explosives. The reasons governing their blast performance have been analysed to bring out their applications and limitations for meeting future rock excavation needs in critical/tight locations.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Blast Performance Evaluation Using Pyrotechnic and Conventional Explosive Application in Hard Rock Quarrying Near Built-Up Areas—A Critical Comparison

  • 会议论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • N. V. Bhagade,
  • V. M. S. R. Murthy

摘要

Conventional blasting with its advantages poses safety concerns to the nearby urban/rural dwellings. With the increasing demand of civil construction in urban areas, there is a rising need to apply safe and reliable technologies to execute rock excavation operations close to sensitive structures. In the recent past, non-detonating pyrotechnic methods of rock breakage have emerged ensuring relatively superior safety and reliability in the construction/excavation industry. Their composition is similar to propellants, implying that they deflagrate and not detonate. Examples include NoNex™, Royex™, Pyroblast™ and Autostem™. They are primarily used when urban blasting is carried out near sensitive structures, like heritage buildings or multi-storey structures, in order to minimize ground vibrations, flyrock and noise. This research work focuses on comparison of the bench blast performance of conventional explosives against the non-detonating pyrotechnic method of rock breakage for excavating moderately hard rocks (Quartzite having UCS of 45–50 MPa) with good fragmentation to an expected size range of 0.4 to 0.5 m for excavator loading. Measurements of blast induced ground vibration show that non-detonating pyrotechnic recorded PPV in the range of 0.70–42.7 mm/s for a square root scaled distance varying from 7.93–51.70 m/kg1/2. Similarly, conventional explosives recorded PPV in the range of 0.51–27.8 mm/s for a square root scaled distance of 5.47–266.32 m/kg1/2. Air over pressures recorded noise in the range of 116.5–136 dB for cube root scaled distance of 13.74–82.49 m/kg1/3. Similarly, blasting with the conventional explosives recorded noise level was 100.7–143.2 dB for the cube root scaled distance in the range of 6.15–225.65 m/kg1/3. The post-blast fragment size and throw were more acceptable in conventional explosives over pyrotechnic explosives. The reasons governing their blast performance have been analysed to bring out their applications and limitations for meeting future rock excavation needs in critical/tight locations.