Propellants and Explosives 5, 67-74 (1980)
Suggestions on Standards for Measurement and Data Evaluation in the
Underwater Explosion Test
G. Bjarnholt
Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, S-12611 Stockholm (Sweden)
Vorschliige zur Vereinheitlichung der Messung und Auswertung von
Daten b e i i Unterwassertest von Sprengstoffen
Normvorxhriften fur die Messung und Auswertung der beim
Unterwasser-Sprengtest erhaltenen Daten sind notwendig, um einen
Datenvergleich zwischen den einzelnen Laboratorien zu ermoglichen.
In dem vorliegenden Bericht werden Vorschriften sowohl fur Druck-
aufnehmer als auch fiir die Instrumentierung und die Eichung disku-
tiert, adierdem die Verwendung eines Priifsprengstoffs. Normvor-
schriften fur die Messung des Spitzendruckes, des Impuls, der StoB-
wellenenergie und der Gasblasenenergie werden vorgeschlagen. Eine
Praxis-Methode wird angegeben zur Bestimmung des Verlustes an
StoBenergie im Wasser bei der Wanderung der PrimarstoBwelIevon
der Ladung zum MeBgerat. Damit ist es moglich, im Unterwassertest
die Gesamtexpansionsarbeit eines Sprengstoffes zu bestimmen. Lei-
stungsvoraussagen fur Felssprengstoffe werden diskutiert aufgrund
von Daten, die im Unterwassertest erhalten wurden.
Summary
Standardized procedures for measurement and evaluation of data
obtained in the underwater explosion test are needed to make possible
comparisons of data obtained at different laboratories. In this paper
specifications for the pressure gage and instrumentation as well as
calibration and the use of a standard reference explosive are discussed.
Evaluation standards for peak pressure, impulse, shock wave energy
and bubble energy are suggested. A practical method for determina-
tion of the water shock energy lost when the primary shock travels
from the charge to the gage is given, making it possible to determine
the total expansion work performed by an explosive in an underwater
explosion test. Performance predictions in rock blasting for explosives
based on data obtained in the underwater explosion test are also dis-
cussed.
1. Introduction
Underwater firing of explosives provides a valuable means
of assessing performance under conditions which are safe and
reproducible. Realistically large charges can b e fired and the
effects transmitted to the water are easily measured for exam-
ple with a pressure transducer.
The value of the underwater test using a pressure transducer
t o measure the effects transmitted to the water is increased
considerably if the energy dissipated as heat in the water when
the primary shock travels from the charge to the gage is known
in addition to the bubble energy and the primary shock energy
measured at the gage.
The “original shock energy” E: defined as the sum of this
dissipated energy and the shock energy measured at the gage is
a measure of the high pressure part of the expansion work
0 Verlag Chemie, GmbH, D-6940 Weinheim, 1980
67
Propositions pour la standardisation des mesures et de I’exploitation
des &ultats des .essais d’explosifs dam I’eau
En vue d‘une comparaison des donntes obtenues par les difftrents
laboratoires, il est indispensable d’uniformiser le mode optratoire et
I’exploitation des rtsultats des essais de detonation dans I’eau. La
prtsente proposition concerne le capteur de pression, la chaine de
mesure, son ttalonnage et l’utilisation d’une charge explosive de rtft-
rence. On propose des modes optratoires standard pour la mesure de
la pression de Crete, I’impulsion, l’tnergie du choc et celle de la bulle.
Une mCthode pratique est indiqute pour dtterminer la perte d‘tnergie
que subit le choc dans I’eau lorsque l’onde de choc primaire se propage
de la charge vers le capteur. II devient ainsi possible de determiner la
totatit6 du travail d‘expansion foumi par une charge dans un essai dans
l’eau. On examine dans quelle mesure les rtsultats de I’essai dans l’eau
permettent de prtvoir les performances des explosifs d’abattage.
done by the explosive. The bubble energy E b can accordingly
be regarded as expansion work performed at expansions from
moderate to low pressures in the reaction products. Adding Eg
and Ebthen gives the total expansion work which normally is a
value close to the chemically liberated energy Q defined as the
heat of explosion or detonation.
We believe that knowing the detonation velocity, detona-
tion pressure, E: and Eb of a n explosive means that its per-
formance is characterized well enough for good relative per-
formance predictions in applications such as rock blasting.
If one wants t o use the results obtained in underwater test-
ing to make comparisons between results obtained at different
laboratories some standardization is however required. Based
on some years experience with the test I suggest that specifica-
tions should be made on the following details:
- Charge geometry and initiation
- Suitable dimensions of the pond
- Charge depth and distance between charge and gage
- Performance of pressure gage
- Standard and control explosive and its underwater perfor-
mance
- Evaluation standards for:
Peak pressure
Impulse density
Shock energy at the gage
Method to determine “original shock energy”
Method to determine bubble energy
In addition to the above mentioned specifications I would
like t o discuss the use of underwater data for performance
predictions in rock blasting and propose some criteria which
we consider to b e relevant in predications of rock blasting
capacity.
0340-746280/0305-0$02.50/0
68 G. Bjarnholt Propellants and Explosives 5, 67-74 (1980)

2. Charge Geometry and Initiation 3. Charge Depth and Distance between Charge and Gage

Charge geometry, confinement as well as initiation strength The distance R between charge and gage is defined as the
and positioning is often critical for the performance of many distance between center of gage and center of gravity in the
explosives. For nonideal explosives the steady state detonation charge and should be such that
velocity is influenced by the dimensions of the charge und such - the shock wave amplitude is in the range where the gage is
explosives often have accelerating or decelerating detonation reliable and has a long lifetime.
waves a long distance from the initiation point. In some explo- - Information on important performance parameters in the
sives the reaction rate is also critically slow and the complete- explosive can be deducted from the pressure time recording
ness of reaction is dependent on confinement, velocity of deto- of the gage.
nation and charge size. - Shock wave decay at the gage is governed mainly by spheri-
Because of the strong coupling between charge size and cal expansion.
geometry on one hand, and velocity of detonation and reac- In practice this means that R/W1I3should be in the range
tion rate on the other hand, changes in charge geometry and
size can give considerable changes in Performance.
The following points are worth considering in the choice of
charge design.
- When an explosive is immersed in water it will be exposed to
the hydrostatic pressure at the charge depth. For some
explosives the compression caused by this hydrostatic
m
pressure will influence initiation sensitivity and detonation
performance considerably. One may therefore have to con-
sider the choice of charge depth or the use of a charge with a
casing that will take the hydrostatic pressure and leave the
explosive unaffected.
- If the casing of the charge is made of easily combustible
material it may take part in the explosive reactions and
cause a change in the reaction products composition such
that Performance is affected. For a relatively strong casing
like a steel tube the energy expended in demolishing the
casing may also have to be taken into account.
- For some homogeneous explosives detonation performance
is strongly influenced by the density and sound velocity of
the charge casing.
- The placement of the initiator should be well controlled
because bad “corner turning ability” of the detonation wave
in some explosives may otherwise cause partial decomposi-
tion of different parts of the charge.
- Especially for nonideal explosives charge shape and size
should if possible resemble that of the intended application.
Deviations from spherical charge shape should, however,
not be too large. Length to diameter ratios over 10 should
be avoided because shock energy evaluation with only one
gage assumes spherical symmetry in shock wave parame-
ters.
Fig. 1 shows the design of some charge types we have been
using.
Specifications on a cylinder shaped charge with a length to
diameter ratio of about 6 is given in Fig. 2. This charge has
been used extensively for the testing of cap-sensitive watergel
explosives to predict their rock blasting performance.

Towards
surface
1 Figure 2. Charge design for testing of cap-sensitive watergel explo-
sives in ca.0 40 mm charge diameter. Charge depth 5 m.
1 Firing cable also used for suspension of charge
2 Open end of charge
3 Probes for detonation velocity measurement
4 Charge with casing of PVC tubing: 0 = 40 mm. Wall thickness ca.
0.3 m m
A 5 Position of primer when primer initiation is used
kf:100 kf =I 08-1 10 kf :I 02-1 03 kt =lo0
6 Loop on firing line for suspension of weight to keep charge in
Charge in Cylinder shaped charge Charge in Erlen- position
Sphere 7 Weight ca. 0.5 kg
paint can wlth L/D=6 meyer glass flask itiated at
IEml the center 8 Plastic lid with hole for cap
9 Probe cable
Figure 1. Charge shapes and charge shape factors kf. 10 Towards surface
Propellants and Explosives5, 67-74 (1980)
Considering the choice of charge depth h one should have
the following in mind:
As a rule of thumb the charge depth and the distance
between charge and bottom should be more than twice the
maximum bubble radius a,. The distance between charge
and walls of the container should also be more than five
times a,,,.
Going to large charge depths means that the charge is under
a considerable hydrostatic pressure. Some explosives
change their performance considerably when they are com-
pressed.
If h is about % of the total depth in the pond boundary
effects from surface and bottom cancel giving easy bubble
energy evaluation (discussed in chapter 7).
Normally the maximum bubble radius a, can be estimated
from the formula
1/3
1.3 QW
am == [ 1+h/10 ] Iml
where Q = the heat of explosion or detonation [MJlkg],
h = charge depth [m].
4. Performance of Pressure Gage
We have been using ‘/4 inch diameter 4-element tourmaline
pressure gages supplied by Naval Surface Weapons Center,
USA (NSWC). Mounted so that gage and cable are pointed
towards the charge these gages have nicely given reproducible
noisefree records for several hundred shots.
Mounted on special anti-microphonic cable, also supplied
by NSWC in lengths up to about 75 m, feeding a charge
amplifier type Kistler 5001, reproducible records showing a
primary water shock rise time of about 5 ps have been ob-
tained.
Our gages have been calibrated by the manufacturer. Com-
parisons of the results obtained with these gages with data
published by Cole(’) have shown that peak pressure, impulse
density, and shock energy for spherical TNT charges are in
very good agreement with Cole’s data. In the evaluation of our
data we have corrected our results for the distortion of the
shock front resulting from the geometrical size of the gage. As
the quality of the gage is critical for good shock wave measure-
ments we suggest that the NSWC gage or a gage with compa-
rable performance should be used.
An example of a recording obtained with a NSWC gage is
shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3. Typical primary shock wave recording obtained with a
Standards in the Underwater Explosion Test
5. Standard and Control Explosive and its Underwater
Performance
A standard explosive should be used for calibration a1
check of instrumentation performance and evaluation techn
que. Desirable properties of such an explosive include
- Good storage properties and safe handling
- Ideal detonation properties in charge sizes of interest
- Easily available in most countries
- Performance not affected by contact with water
- Underwater performance well characterized
- Performance well characterized by thermochemical calcula
tions
We have used spherical TNT charges as a standard anc
control explosive. Charge sizes from 0.100 kg to 200 kg havt
been fired. For charges up to about 5 kg pressed TNT with a
density of == 1570 kg/m3 were used and for larger sizes cast
TNT with a density of = 1580 kg/m3. The pressed TNT was
initiated in the center with a No. 8 cap plus 2 grams of a plastic
PETN/wax explosive. Cast TNT charges were initiated in the
center with a No. 8 cap plus approximatively 1 kg high explo-
sive primer, for example pressed PETN/wax.
For small charge work (below 1 kg) we believe pentolite
50150 (cast SO%PETN/SO%TNT by weight) is preferable to
TNT as standard explosive.
Pentolite can readily be cast into charges of varied size and
shape and is sensitive enough to be detonated with a minimum
size of initiating material.
Cole(’) has published data on the underwater performance
of spherical pentolite 50150 charges at a density of 1600 kglm3
and for spherical TNT charges at a density of 1520 kg/m3. Our
data on TNT compares very favourably with Cole’s data.
For pentolite Cole’s data were obtained with charges weigh-
ing between 36 kg and 0.2 kg at distances giving pressures
between 3 MPa and 70 MPa. For TNT the experimental val-
ues were obtained for charge weights of 35 kg and 22 kg at
distances giving pressures between 3.5 MPa and 140 MPa.
Initiation at the center of the charge. Cole’s data are described
by the following formulas.
Spherical TNT charges (po = 1520 kg/m3):
Shock peak pressure:
w1/3 1.13
P, = 5.25 . lo7 [Pa] (3)
Shock impulse density*:
Specific shock energy*:
w1/3 0.05
e, = 1.04 . lo6 [J/kg]
Specific bubble energy**:
eb = 1.99. lo6 [Jlkg]
70 G. Bjarnholt Propellants and Explosives 5, 67-74 (1980)

Spherical pentolite 50150 charges (po = 1600 kglm3):

Shock peak pressure:

Shock impulse density*:

I = 7.41 . 103~113]-
:w [ [Pa . s]

Specific shock energy*:

e, = 1.32 . lo6 [T]

w1/3 0.12
[Jlkg]
f r n 1
1 2
Ratio t / 8 -
Figure 4. Gage response for different values of gage size factor y.

Specific bubble energy**: Fig. 4 shows the gage response on a shock front of the form
given in Equation (11) for different ratios of gage size and time
eb = 1.98 . 10” [Jikg] constant 0.The recorded peak pressure and shock energy
should be corrected for this distortion. One can also show that
where:
the impulse is not affected by this type of distortion.
P, = Peak pressure in primary shock wave 6.7e The recorded peak pressure Pk and shock energy ef should
be corrected with the following equations
I = Impulse density in priniary shock wave Pdt
e, = Specific shock energy in primary shock wave

eb = Specific bubble energy EblW

0 = Time constant in primary shock wave (time for pressure where:
in shock wave to decay from P, to 0.37 P,) [s]
ew = Density of water at charge depth [kg/m3] K, = 1 + 0.5 y + 0.06 y’.6 (14)
C,,,= Sound speed of water at charge depth [mis]
W = Charge weight of explosive [kg] K, = 1 + 0.29 y + 0.016 y2 (15)

6. Evaluation of Primary Shock Wave Data

The front of the primary water shock wave caused by a

detonating charge can up to a time = 0 be approximated by

p(t) = P, .e-‘@ (11)

where P, is the peak pressure and 0 is the time constant in the
shock wave. The time constant 0 is thus defined as the time it
takes for the pressure to decay from its peak value P, to a
value P,/e i.e. 0.37 P,. The recording system usually distorts
the front of the shock due to high frequency cut off in the
system.
For % inch tourmaline gages with cable lengths below 50 m
and using a good amplifier operating in the charge mode the
distortion of the shock front in the recording is mainly caused
by the finite geometrical size of the gage.
A procedure for correcting experimental data for systematic
errors caused by finite gage size has been developed by
Jensed3). I I I I 1

---
I

100 200 300

Time Constant B C p ]
* Tntegrated to 6.7 0. Figure 5. Correction factors K, and K, for correction of measured
* * Calculated with “Willis formula” in a case with no boundary peak pressure and shock energy for gage size effect. Values are for a
effects. ?4inch diameter tourmaline gage.
Propellants and Explosives 5, 67-74 (1980) Standards in the Underwater Explosion Test 71

and
d For a case where the walls of the water container are far
y =-
c,.o
with
d = Diameter of pressure-sensitive part of the gage
C, = Sound speed of the water
0 = Time constant in the recorded shock wave
The correction factors Kp and K, are given in Fig. 5 for the
case of a % inch diameter tourmaline gage with the flat and
faces of the disc oriented so that they are perpendicular to the
incoming shock.
7. Evaluation of Bubble Energy
The bubble energy Eb in the first bubble pulse can be
defined as the work done in expanding the bubble to its first
maximum against the hydrostatic pressure.
The so called “Willis formula” can be used to calculate the
bubble energy from the time interval between the primary
shock wave and the shock wave caused by the first bubble
implosion in cases where boundary effects do not influence the
length of the bubble period. With boundary effects I mean
influence of water surface, bottom and walls on the oscillation
of the bubble.
Cole(’) has shown that for a case with boundary effects from
surface and bottom, the Willis’ formula will be modified some-
what.
With no boundary effects:
to around 50 grams at the given charge location and depth you
are going to use.
away the bubble period versus charge weight data should be
described by the formula
tb = + bWu3 (20)
where a and b are constants and W is the charge weight of the
chosen explosive. The constants a and b are then determined
by making a least square fit to the (tb, W1’3) data. The fit
should be forced to go through the (0,O) point.
For shallow charge depths normal hour to hour atmospheric
pressure changes may change the total hydrostatic pressure Ph
(atmospheric plus hydrostatic pressure) at the charge depth
enough to significantly influence the length of the measured
bubble period tb.
Before using the measured tb values in the fit to determine
the constants a and b one should therefore normalize all the
measured tb values to the same atmospheric pressure. For this
normalization one uses the fact that tb is proportional to Ph-5’6.
Fig. 6 shows an example of normalized tb values as a function
of charge weight of an ideal explosive PE (PETNiwax).
As normalization pressure Phn one should use a pressure
given by the sum of the normal atmospheric pressure at the
surface of the pond (for example 101325 Pa for a sea level site)
and the hydrostatic pressure at the chosen charge depth. If tb is
the measured period at Ph the period tbn at the chosen normali-
zation pressure Phnis given by

tb = KlEb1/3 (Willis formula) (17) When the constants a and b have been determined the con-
stant C defined by
With surface and bottom effects:
C = b/a2 (22)

can be calculated.
where tb is the period of the first bubble oscillation, Eb is the The bubble energy for any explosive fired at the given
bubble energy, K1 and K2 are constants at a given charge charge location where the constant C was determined is then
location in a given pond. The constant K1 is given by determined from its measured bubble period by

K1 = 1.135. Q , ~ ’ ~ / P ~ ‘ ~ (19)

where Q, is the density of the water, Ph is the total hydrostatic

pressure at the charge depth (including atmospheric pressure).
The constant K2 characterizes the influence of the boundaries
on the bubble period. For a case with no boundary effects

-1
Kz = 0. By choosing a charge depth that is $4 of the total depth
in the pond, boundary effects from surface and bottom cancel 015-
giving K2 = 0. Strictly this is valid only for a perfectly rigid
Y

bottom. If, however, the pond is so deep that it is impractical J

to place the charge at $4 the depth the value of Kz has to be 8
- 010-
determined. Cole has outlined a way to calculate K2. The &
CL
results as presented in his book(’) “Underwater Explosions” a,
B
are, however, not quite consistent. We therefore suggest 2 005 - -- Undisturbed period
another approach which means experimentally determining K2
by scaling experiments with one explosive.
In detail the experimental determination of K2 has been oOw ’
-
I I I I I 1 L
discussed by Bjarnholt and Holmberg(*). Practically the proce- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
dure is as follows: tEEm Charge Weight of Explosive PE [kg”31
Choose an explosive that detonates ideally also in small Figure 6. Example of scaling experiments performed with an ideal
charges, for example pentolite 50150. Fire shots with spherical PETN/wax explosive to determine boundary effects at a given experi-
charges with weights from the biggest you intend to test down mental site.
72 G. Bjarnholt Propellants and Explosives 5,67-74 (1980)

where Ph is the total hydrostatic pressure at the charge depth

when tb was measured. For C = 0 Equation (17) is used.

8. Determination of Total Expansion Work from Experimental

Underwater Performance Data

When an explosive is detonated underwater its reaction

products do work on the surrounding water in an expansion to
a volume in the reaction products of the order lo4 times the
original volume of the undetonated explosive. At this large
expansion the pressure in the products is less than 10% of the
hydrostatic pressure at the charge depth and normally more
than 90% of the energy liberated in the chemical reactions (the
explosion energy) has been transformed to expansion work.
When the primary water shock travels from the charge to
the gage some shock energy is lost because the shock process is
a non-isentropic process which results in heating of the water.
The largest losses take place close to the charge where the
shock amplitude is very high. The primary shock energy E, we
measure when the shock passes the gage is thus smaller than
E:, the shock energy “originally transmitted into the water”. EaLn Oetonation Pressure P,, [GPal -
E: can be regarded as a measure of expansion work per- Figure 7. Shock wave loss factor as a function of detonation
formed in an expansion from the detonation state to a pressure pressure Pd of the explosive.
of the order of a few kilobar in the products. The bubble
energy is then a measure of work performed in an expansion
from a few kilobar pressure in the products to the pressure The need for detonation velocity measurements in the
when the bubble reaches its first maximum. The sum of E: and underwater explosion test is underlined by the relatively
Eb is then the total underwater expansion work performed by strong dependance of p on Pd.
the explosive.
Knowing the detonation pressure of the explosive one can Example: Underwater testing of an explosive x in a cylinder-
determine E: from the shock energy E, as measured at the shaped charge with a length 6 times the diameter gave the
gage as shown by Bjarnholt and Holmberg(’). The procedure following data
works as follows:
Let us call the total underwater expansion work performed eo = 1100 kg/m3 (density of the explosive at the charge
per mass unit of an explosive Ao. We then get: depth)
D = 3800 m/s
es = 1.05 MJ/kg
where eb = 2.10 MJ/kg
Kf = Charge geometry factor First we estimate the detonation pressure Pd
p = Shock loss factor
e, = Primary shock energy at the gage per mass unit of ex- Pd = 0.25 @o * D2 = 3.97 . lo9 = 3.97 [GPa]
plosive
eb = Bubble energy per mass unit of explosive From Fig. 7 the shock loss factor p is determined

The charge geometry factor Kf is a correction for the influ-
ence of nonspherical charge shape on the measured data. Val-
ues of Kf for different charge shapes are given in Fig. 1. The
factor pe, is the shock energy “originally transmitted to the
water” per mass unit of explosive. The shock loss factor p has
been shown to be a function of the detonation pressure of the
explosive(’).
Fig. 7 gives p as a function of the detonation pressure Pd.
The detonation pressure Pd can be estimated knowing the
density eo of the undetonated explosive and the detonation
velocity D.
Assuming that ~1 is determined solely by Pd one can now
determine A. from the measured eo,D, e, and eb.
p = 1.46
From Fig. 1 we get the charge shape factor Kf = 1.08.
Formula (24) then gives
A. = Kf(pe, + eb) = 1.08 (1.46 X 1.05 + 2.10) = 3.92 [MJ/kg]
A0 = 3.92 MJikg
For researchers working with formulation of explosives, the
ratio of A. and the termochemically calculated heat of explo-
sion or detonation Q gives valuable information on the
behaviour of the explosive.
It should be pointed out that thermochemically calculated Q
values for explosives like TNT having an extremely negative
oxygen belance show significantly higher Q values than those
found in detonation calorimeter experiments.
Propellants and Explosives 5, 67-74 (1980) Standards in the Underwater Explosion Test 73

Most CHNO explosives show A d Q ratios of 95% - 100% if In competent rock, main fragmentation is finished when the
the reactions calculated by the thermochemical equilibrium reaction products have expanded 5 to 10 times the original
calculation are completed before any appreciable expansion volume of the charged length of the borehole. For a case with
has taken place(2). the charge filling the entire diameter of the borehole this
To demonstrate how A0 compares with Q over a wide range means that the expansion work performed from the detona-
of detonation pressure we have used underwater performance tion state to a volume of 5 to 10 times the volume of the
data for nitroguanidine at different densities published by undetonated explosive (V/Vo = 5-10) is important for frag-
Paterson and Begg(4). mentation in rock.
The results presented in Table 1 below show that A d Q is One should also consider that in crater blasting geometry
close to 100% except for the two highest densities. However, good fragmentation is more dependent on dynamic strainwave
from our previous work(2)we have reason to believe that the breakage than in bench blasting geometry.
shock loss factor p determined from Fig. 7 gives correct A. The underwater performance parameter that reflects the
values also at detonation pressures higher than 7 GPa. Table 2 expansion work from the detonation state to expansions of the
gives AdQ for explosives that were used to generate p = f(Pd) order V N o= 5 is the original shock energy E:.
in Fig. 7. I suggest that the low AdQ value for the nitro- Recently I have been involved in a program trying to predict
guanidine at the two highest densities might have been caused rock blasting performance from underwater performance
by weak initiation resulting in deflagration and low yield of data. I then used two criteria based on the importance of E: to
part of the explosive. predict rock blasting performance in bench and crater blasting
geometries in hard competent granite and iron ore.
For the reasons discussed above more weight is put on E: in
Table 1. Comparison of Experimental Underwater Expansion Work crater blasting than in bench blasting. Comparisons are made
A. and ThermochemicallyCalculated Heat of Explosion Q for Nitro- both for equal explosive weight and equal explosive volume.
guanidine at Different Densities. [Underwater Data from Paterson Rock blasting capacity relative to a reference explosive r:
and Begg(3)]
Bench blasting
Explosive Detonation A. Q AJQ
density eo pressure Pd Equal explosive weight comparison
[kg/m31 [GW [MJikg] [MJikg]
B, = (PeS -b 0.6 eb)
250 0.37 2.55 2.56 1.00
340 0.71 2.79 2.57 0.92 (pes f 0.6 eb)r
500 1.41 2.63 2.64 1.00 Equal explosive volume comparison
760 4.75 2.93 2.83 1.04
870 5.44 2.94 3.00 0.98
960 7.00 2.64 3.18 0.83
1180 8.79 2.76 3.44 0.80 Crater blasting
Equal explosive weight comparison

Table 2. Comparison of Experimental Underwater Expansion Work (pes + O.2 eb)

A. and Heat of Detonation as Measured in a Detonation Calorimeter. B, =
[Data from Ref. (l)]
(pes -k 0.2 eb)r
Equal explosive volume comparison
Explosive Density Detonation A” Q AdQ
eo pressure Pd
[kg/m3] [GPa] [MJ/kg] [MJikg]
With rock blasting capacity I here mean ability to break and
PETN 1000 7.3 5.54 5.73 0.97 fragment rock.
Nitromethane 1130 11.2 4.45 4.44 1.00
It also should be pointed out that if one goes to detonation
HMX 1190 13.4 5.09 5.13 0.99
TNT 1580 18.8 4.09 4.27 0.96 pressures higher than about 10 MPa excessive fine crushing of
CompB 1690 25.7 4.78 4.69 1.02 the rock close to the borehole may take place. In such a case
rock blasting performance may be overestimated with For-
mulas (26) to (29).
In the near future I hope to have collected field performance
data which makes it possible to judge the quality of my
9. Use of Underwater Performance Data to Predict criteria.
Performance in Rock Blasting

Use of underwater performance data to predict perfor-

mance in applications such as rock blasting has been tried by
several researchers.
Noren(’) has tried to correlate rock fragmentation in bench
blasting with measured underwater bubble energies for some
watergel explosives. The heat of explosion for the explosives
was varied mainly by different amounts of aluminium. He then
found that bubble energy is no definite indicator of an explo-
sive’s fragmentation performance in competent rocks like gra-
nite and limestone.
10. References
(1) R. H. Cole, “Underwater Explosions”, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1948.
(2) G . Bjarnholt and R. Holmberg, “Explosive Expansion Work in
Underwater Detonations”, Proceedings Sixlh Symposium on
Detonation, San Diego 1976, pp. 540-550.
(3) F. B. Jensen, “Weak Shock Waves in Water Generated by Small
Detonators”, Technical University of Denmark, Dept. of Fluid
Mechanics, Copenhagen, Denmark. 1977
74 G. Bjarnholt Propellants and Explosives 5,67-74 (1980)

(4) S . Paterson and A. G. Begg, “Underwater Explosion”, Propel- Acknowledgement

lants Explus. 3, 63-69 (1978).
(5) C. H. Noren and D. D. Porter, “A Comparison of Theoretical This work is part of the research program of the Swedish
Explosion Energy and Energy Measured Underwater with Meas &tonic Research Foundation (SveDeFo) jointly supported by
sured Rock Fragmentations” in: Advances in Rock Mechanics
Vol. 11, Part B, National Academy of Science, Washington 1974.
Swedish Board of Technical Development.
(6) C. H. Johansson and P. A. Persson, “Detonics of High Explu-
sives”, Academic Press, London 1970.