ELECTRONIC DETONATORS - WHY NOT

Abstract
Initiation devices for controlling blasts have come from open trains of black powder
poured on a tunnel floor to highly sophisticated electronic systems that ensure
microsecond precision in the firing sequence.
What is of particular interest with electronic systems is the capability to incorporate all
of the advantages,

while essentially eliminating the disadvantages,

of each

contributing stage in detonator evolution.

This paper will present a condensed history of that transition,

then focus on the

advantages of the available electronic technology over what was until very recently
considered state of the art in sequential blasting practice.
Delta Caps International, a leader in electronic detonator technology, has developed
specific software and analysis techniques for incorporating the geomechanical
characteristics of the rock into a blast design. Examples will be presented from a
variety of customer experiences to demonstrate results from the application of this
technology.
Finally, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will be presented showing a highly simplified
method of justifying testing of electronic blasting systems in an open pit environment
Patrick McLaughlin
The Rock Mechanics, EIRL
Tripoli 140-A, Miraflores
Lima 18, Peru
241-5448, fax 241-9954
e-mail : rokmech@attglobal.net

ELECTRONIC DETONATORS - WHY NOT

ABSTRACT
Initiation devices for controlling blasts have come from open trains of black powder
poured on a tunnel floor to highly sophisticated electronic systems that ensure
microsecond precision in the firing sequence.
This paper will present a condensed history of that transition,

then focus on the

advantages of the available electronic technology over what was until very recently
considered state of the art in sequential blasting practice.
What is of particular interest with electronic systems is the capability to incorporate all
of the advantages,

while essentially eliminating the disadvantages,

of each

contributing stage in detonator evolution.

Delta Caps International, a leader in electronic detonator technology, has developed
specific software and analysis techniques for incorporating the geomechanical
characteristics of the rock into a blast design. Examples will be presented from a
variety of customer experiences to demonstrate results from the application of this
technology.
Finally, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will be presented showing a highly simplified
method of justifying testing of electronic blasting systems in an open pit environment
INTRODUCTION
The history of blast initiation systems has been driven by the basic tenet of all blasting
operations - the search for control. This control is absolutely necessary to the blast
engineer to continually improve safety and production levels.

When we include

downstream effects of blast success (or failure) in the equation, it boils down to the
ability to predict results.
SAFETY FUSE
In the earliest days of black powder use, miners were forced to resort to such clumsy
and dangerous methods for controlling blast initiation as :

laying out black powder trains on the floor

preparing mixtures of straw and black powder

impregnating wool yarn with black powder

filling hollow goose feathers with black powder

All gave highly variable and often fatal results.

To correct this situation, William Bickford created what has universally become known
as safety fuse. Injuries in the Cornish mines dropped 90% as a result of this seemingly
minor advance in blasting technology. In addition, the miners were given a method by
which they could actually control and predict the sequence of holes detonating in a
blast. This was, in essence, a quantum leap in blasting technology.
FUSE AND CAP
Alfred Nobel patented a fuse detonator for initiating nitroglycerine in 1855, based on
black powder. This was simply a small wooden capsule filled with fine grain black
powder,

with a standard safety fuse attached through a wooden plug.

Shortly

afterwards more sophisticated fuse caps were developed with mercury fulminate as the
base charge in a copper shell, and this basic design has changed very little to the
present day.
Fuse and cap is still the preferred method of underground developement blasting in
many areas of the world, a decision based almost entirely on the unit cost of the
assembled initiator.
ELECTRIC INITIATION
On surface projects, plagued by wandering livestock, pedestrians, passing trains and
ships, fuse blasting was simply too variable and difficult to control. This led to the
developement of a type of delay electric cap that combined an electric fuse lighter with
a short length of capped safety fuse.

By varying the length of fuse between the

bridgewire and the fuse cap, delay blasting within a relatively short period of time could
be carried out. It is interesting to note that an electric delay detonator came before
the instantaneous version.
About twenty years later the instantaneous electric blasting cap was patented. The
next step was obvious - control of the firing sequence. A variety of external timing
devices were created for shooting electric caps in sequence, based on moving contact
bars,

but the timing intervals were inconsistent.

As a result,

sequential blasts

continued to be an adventure.
Inevitably, delay electric detonators were developed and the race was on to produce
the shortest and most accurate firing times
DETONATING CORD
With the increased use of electric detonators came the realization that they were prone
to accidental initiation from stray electrical currents, discharges of static electricity,

induced currents and ground currents generated by lightning strikes. Around 1935,
detonating cord was offered to the explosives industry as an initiation system immune
to these phenomenon.
Detonating cord has no inherant delay depending on the length of cord between holes,
since the time for the detonation front to advance over these relatively short distances
is far too short to give any appreciable relief. As a result, the timing sequence was
often created using surface connections with delay electric detonators. This simple
system was still prone to accidental intiation from stray electrical currents, etc, but the
total exposure time was much shorter than with a complete electric blast.
With the introduction of surface delay connectors by DuPont Explosives about 1950,
the risks from induced and stray currents (but not from lightning strikes!) was
overcome.
NONEL SHOCK TUBES
Operators soon realized that blasting with detonating cord carried a very high risk of
cut-offs due to ground movement during the blast. In addition, detonating cord will
initiate cap-sensitive explosives, making bottom priming impossible when the column
charge includes these products.

Several attempts were made to overcome this

limitation, but it wasnt until the introduction of the non-electric shock tube system
(nonel) about 1970 that top initiating of explosive columns and energy losses from
radial deflagration were controllable.
A SYSTEM INCORPORATING ALL OF THE ABOVE
Efforts to incorporate electronic control of firing times into a detonator assembly began
as far back as 1979, but the technology available at that time was too bulky and
outright expensive for any advance into the traditional mining market. Initiation system
suppliers were concentrating heavily on converting from electric over to nonel systems,
and most research and developement on the electronic answer was kept relatively low
profile.

Those involved with electronics R&D were understandably cautious about

introducing electronically controlled detonators to an industry that was heavily into

converting from electrical to shock tube.
Nonetheless, research and developement did continue, with its inevitable setbacks
and successes, and today a wide range of electronic detonators and systems are
available.

These range from units with factory pre-set firing times to fully field-

programable systems,
open pit blasts.

for everything from underground developement to massive

All have timing precison measured in micro-seconds,

and have built-in safety

measures to eliminate or minimize the risks generally associated with electrical blasting
systems. Prices, compared to pyrotechnic systems, appear to be prohibitively high,
but on closer examination it can be seen that they can actually reduce overall drilling,
blasting and material processing costs.
POINT BY POINT COMPARISONS
Before going into the technical benefits of precise timing by presenting some case
study results,

it may be worthwhile to compare all the current blast initiation

technology, on an advantage and disadvantage basis.

FUSE AND CAP
Advantages

extremely simple

time based on length of fuse

sequence of detonation = sequence of ignition

Disadvantages

highly variable total time, measured in tens of seconds

cannot be tested prior to use

potential side effects on explosive column

in-hole length is limited by potential scatter in burning time

blast size limited by burning time of first hole to fire

ELECTRIC DETONATORS
Advantages

relatively accurate firing time, measured in tens of milliseconds

errors in delay times restricted to individual units

can be tested prior to use

no side effects on explosive column

unlimited leg-wire length

firing time independant of tie-in sequence

limited compound circuit capability - sequential blasting machines

Disadvantages

available delay times are fixed

blast size limited by energy available for circuit

circuit calculations can become complicated

sequence is fixed after holes are loaded

can be initiated by :
stray electric currents
induced currents in circuit
static electric discharges

DETONATING CORD
Advantages

minimum training required

impervious to :
stray electric currents
induced currents
static discharges

sequence can be changed after holes are loaded

theoretically has infinite blast size capability

Disadvantages

available surface delays are fixed

top initiation of cap sensitive explosive columns

radial damage of blasting agents

high risk of column or signal line cut-offs in adjacent holes

errors in delay times compound as blast progresses

demands use of relatively short delays in sequence (to avoid cut-offs)

firing time dependant on tie-in sequence

high noise levels

NONELS
Advantages

relatively accurate firing time, measured in tens of milliseconds

no side effects on explosive column

unlimited tube length

impervious to :
stray electric currents
induced currents
static discharges

sequence can be changed after holes are loaded

theoretically has infinite blast size capability

Disadvantages

available delay times are fixed

can not be tested prior to use

errors in delay times compound as blast progresses

firing time dependant on tie-in sequence

ELECTRONIC
Advantages

delay times are variable, defined by operator

very accurate firing time, measured in tens of micro-seconds

errors in delay times restricted to individual units

can be tested prior to use

no side effects on explosive column

unlimited leg-wire length

compound circuit capability - add slave units

insensitive to :
stray electric currents
induced currents
static discharges

sequence can be changed after holes are loaded

Disadvantages

firing time may be dependant on tie-in sequence

requires special training :

in use of blast design software
in use of blast hardware

higher unit costs - up to 10x price of a nonel unit

cost of blast hardware and design software - depending on supplier

SO WHY CHANGE?
Rapid advances in the study of the fracture processes in rock under explosives
stresses have resulted in a much better understanding of the importance of individual
firing times of detonators in a sequential blast.

Until very recently it has been

economically impossible to utilize the constructive, and destructive, interference that

could be incorporated into a blast design with precise detonator times. To complicate
matters further,

no two rock structures are identical,

and therefore will not be

influenced equally by the same firing sequence, regardless of whether we maintain all
other variables in the blast design equal.

This implies that precision alone is not

enough - detonator firing times must also be user variable.

Electronic detonator technology - and cost - has improved considerably since 1979.
The attached spreadsheet and case histories are intended to illustrate that within the
normal range of drilling and blasting costs of open pit mines in Peru, there is little or no
economic risk to implementing an electronic blasting test.
With the currently available electric and nonel delay detonators, actual firing times in
the best products vary as much as 2% from their average (versus nominal) times. In
addition, these firing times are on fixed intervals, generally based on multiples of 25
milliseconds, ranging from 25 to 1000 milliseconds in the short delay series and up to
10,000 millieseconds in the long delay series.
Optimum delay times to maximize the constructive interference of shock waves can be
less than 3 milliseconds per meter of burden (or spacing).

Obviously an operator

cannot adjust a drilling pattern to suit the delay available, and a quick calculation using
the potential scatter in pyrotechnic delays proves that such a measure would be
pointless anyway. In short, currently available pyrotechnical detonators have defined
the limits of optimization achievable. This is a classic example of work being defined
by the tools available for its completion.
With the inherant precision of electronic control, and the ability to define delay intervals
based on the existing geomechanical properties of the rock,

a new dimension in

fragmentation control is opened up. Operators can now tailor the blast to specific
gradation requirements, reduce to a minimum the total energy required to produce this
material and improve drill productivity through pattern expansions without putting the
fragmentation at risk.
From the point by point comparison presented earlier, and the technical advantages
presented here, it is obvious that on both technical and safety aspects, the electronic
systems are equal or superior to anything available on the market.
However,

mines must make a profit,

so the decision to convert must be based

primarily on cost. Traditionally drilling and blasting were considered as single costitems in the total operations cost analysis.

Recent trends have shifted from this

approach to a more global view, including the downstream effect of drill and blast
performance on the total cost of mining. It is not the intention of this paper to do an allinclusive analysis of cost benefits,

but simply to present arguments for the

implementation of tests of electronic blasting systems based on the direct costs of

drilling and blasting (see attached spreadsheet).
SO WHY ARENT WE USING THEM?
In essence, there still exists a hang-over from the strong arguments for converting to
detonating cord and later to nonel shock tube systems.

An entire generation of

blasters have been affected by this transition, and are subconciously suspicious of any
blasting circuit that encompasses an electrical current.

The onus is now on the

suppliers of electronic detonators to allay the fears of the explosives industry

concerning accidental initiation of their products by stray or induced currents or static
discharges.
One very important note - direct strikes by lightning cant be included in
this argument, for the very simple reason that a direct lightning strike will
initiate any blasting accessory - or explosive. Under no circumstances is
it safe to continue working on any blast when a risk of lightning strikes
exists.

This rule applies to secondary blasting with fuse and cap,

production blasting with nonel or detonating cord,

or blasting with

sophisticated electronic systems.

A professional approach on the part of the supplier, and an open mind on the part of
the client, are the two essential ingredients to overcome this particular impedament to
advancing the science of explosives engineering.
The second hurdle to testing electronic systems is their perceived complexity. For the
inexperienced, they appear to include a multitude of mysterious components, require
a PhD level in Electrical Engineering to operate, and to be prone to meltdown at the
first error in setup.
In practice, most electronic systems have less components than would be used in a
normal multi-circuit nonel blast. Testing of the circuit in electronic systems requires
only one connection to the test unit,

and this one connection will pinpoint which

detonator has failed or not been correctly tied in. In addition, the field programmable
systems give the blaster the option of changing the delay sequence to offset the effect
of a detonator which has failed to test.
The only truly complex aspect of an electronic detonator system is the circuitry inside
the detonators and control boxes themselves.

Even these are considerably less

sophisticated than can be found in control systems of modern automobiles, with the
added advantage that they can be tested by the user before they are put to use.

CASE HISTORIES - TESTS IMPLEMENTED AROUND THE WORLD

With any change in an established procedure, there comes a risk - obviously the
potential benefits of the change must be greater than the risk to justify making the
change. It is perfectly understandable, and in fact commendable, that professionals in
charge of drilling and blasting operations are somewhat conservative in their approach
to change. Anyone who has been faced with a failed production blast can accept this
reluctance to commit an entire production schedule to the advice of a salesman touting
a newer, better, cheaper ..... product or technology.
The following are summaries of results obtained by a wide variety of operators, from
around the world, who were willing to at least test electronic detonator technology. As
can be seen,

for them at least,

the benefits clearly outweighed the risks.

No

underground studies have been included, but various success stories are available to
support the use of electronic blasting technology in underground operations.
New Zealand, open pit (Martha Gold Mine, Newmont)

weekly production increase of 6.7%

51.6% production increase from vibration sensitive zone

improved fragmentation

ability to increase explosive charge per delay

ability to increase blast size

ability to reduce number of blasts to achieve required production levels

Detonators - Sasol
United States of America (summary data, no specific mines named)

cast blasting for coal stripping

23% improvement in cast material
3.9% reduction in mining cost per ton of coal

limestone quarries
approximately 30% reduction in vibration levels
improved fragmentation, more uniform
increased primary crusher through-put
crushing costs reduced up to 25%

Detonators - Daveytronics

South Africa, quarry (Peak Quarry, Capetown)

100% increase in optimum fines required

50% decrease in oversize, secondary breakage

7.5% increase in truck fill factors

12% reduction in material to process at primary crusher

dramatic reduction in over-break on crest

elimination of substantial toes

reduced, predictable vibration levels

Detonators - AEL EDD system

Chile, open pit (Los Pelambres)

up 10% reduction in explosives load per hole

4.3% overall reduction in blasting costs

more uniform blast fragmentation

reduced over-break

Detonators - Delta Caps International

CONCLUSIONS
The gradual transition from crude, and very dangerous, initiation practices of the early
19th century to the micro-second control available today with electronic detonators has
been presented to put our collective search for control into perspective. We now have
the tools available to define the quality of our work, and have only to overcome our
own reluctance to put these tools and their supporting technology into practice.
1. Electronic detonator systems have been designed to eliminate, or at the very
least reduce to acceptable levels,

risks commonly associated with stray

currents or static electrical discharges.

2. They can be tested at any stage during the loading or tie-in process, ensuring
the operator, before the blast, that all detonators in the circuit will receive their
signal before any hole detonates.
3. They give the operator the freedom to use the optimum time between holes in a
blast,

utilizing the available geomechanical properties of the rock in highly

sophisticated, computer generated blast designs.

4. The cost of implementing a test of this technology is no greater than the current
costs incurred with standard blast initiation systems - if we take advantage of
the improved energy usage available through timing control.
5. Last,

but definitely not least,

they have been tested in a wide variety of

operations and rock conditions around the world and have proven that the
potential benefits of precise, user defineable timing justify the effort of a test
program.

SIMPLIFIED SPREADSHEET FOR COMPARING COST AND PRODUCTION

STANDARD SHOCK TUBE SYSTEM VS ELECTRONIC DETONATORS
DRILLING CONSTANTS
Drilling/shift
Hole diameter
Bench height
Hole depth
Cost per meter
Cost per hole

120.00
311
16
17.5
$7.50
$131.25

EXPLOSIVES CONSTANTS
meters
mm
meters
meters

Stemming
Specific gravity
Linear charge
Explosive cost
Cost per meter
Cost per hole

7.50
0.80
60.77
$0.35
$21.27
$212.70

meters
gm/cc
kg/m
per kg

Pattern adjustments for the following comparison are limited to the spacing only.
Spacing has been expanded by 4.75% in this example.
Prices used are approximate values, based on industry averages.
Nonel
Burden
Spacing
Theoretical drill factor
Actual drill factor
Shift production
Drilling cost / m3

9.25
10.50
97.13
88.80
10656
$0.084

Primer
Initiator
Surface accessories
Explosives
Total
Blasting cost / m3
Total (drill+blast) / m3

Electronic
m
m
m3/m
m3/m
m3

Burden
Spacing
Theoretical drill factor
Actual drill factor
Shift production
Drilling cost / m3

9.25
11.00
101.75
93.03
11163
$0.081

$2.25
$2.25
$0.65
$212.70
$217.85
$0.140

Primer
Initiator
Surface accessories
Explosives
Total
Blasting cost / m3

$4.00
$17.50
$0.00
$212.70
$234.20
$0.144

$0.225

Total (drill+blast) / m3

$0.224

m
m
m3/m
m3/m
m3

Notes on the spreadsheet above :

1) the nonel pattern is a standard equilateral triangle layout, spacing = burden x 1.15
2) the electronic pattern maintains a triangular (staggered) configuration
3) surface accessories include detonating cord, surface delays and initiator
4) fragmentation is assumed to be more sensitive to burden than spacing
5) overall pattern expansion of 4.75% was used to achieve a break even comparison
6) pattern expansions must be viewed primarily as production increases
7) overall pattern expansions of up to 20% have been achieved due to the ability to
match firing times to shock front velocities with electronic detonators

Figure 1 - standard electronic detonator timing circuit

Electronic detonator technology : field application and safety approach
1st World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Munich, 2000

Figure 2 - basic construction of Delta Caps electronic detonator

Figure 3 - safety features : firing unit cannot inadvertantly initiate a detonator

Figure 4 - safety feature : base detonator isolated by circuit board

Figure 5 - safety feature : resistance to electrostatic discharge

Figure 6 - safety feature, resistance to electromagnetic field

Figure 7 - primary variables in fragmentation process

Figure 8 - constructive interference to maximize fragmentation

Figure 9 - energy concentration as function of delay times between holes

Figure 10 - input variables and benefits of tailored delay times

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Atlas Powder Company, Explosives and Rock Blasting, 1987 edition
Canadian Industries Limited, Blasters Handbook, 1950 edition
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Blasters Handbook, 1942 edition
Olofsson, S., Applied Explosives Technology for Construction and Mining
Persson, P. A., et al, Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering
Bartley, D. A. et al, Electronic detonator technology : field application and safety
approach,

First World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique,

Munich, Germany, 2000

Tucker, G. B., Kay, D. B., The use of electronic blasting systems at the M.I.M. George
Fisher mine, First World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique,
Munich, Germany, 2000
Watson,

J. T,

A new Generation of Shock Tube Detonators,

Ensign Bickford

Company
Svrd, J., Possibilities with accurate delay time, Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Fragblast 4, Vienna, Austria, 1993
Martin Creamers Mining Weekly Online, Double win for electronic detonators, 29
November, 2002
McClure, R. A. and Bartley, D. A., Daveytronic digital detonator cost analysis study,
Minnesotas First International Surface Blasting Conference, Duluth, 1999
Mhle, H., Improving the trough opening process at Priemier Mine using Electronic
Delay Detonators, Sixth International Symposium for Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1999
Solomon, V. J., MacNulty, N.M.H.C., The application of electronic delay detonator
systems in narrow width deep level stoping, Sixth International Symposium for
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1999
Ngoma, J. C., et al, Smoothwall blasting the Finsch Diamond Mine using the EZTronic electronic detonator system, Sixth International Symposium for Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1999
Bosman, H. G., et al, Production blasting with electronic delay detonators at Peak
Quarry, Eigth High Tech Seminar on State of the Art Blasting Technology,
Instrumentation and Explosives Applications, Nashville, USA, 1998