Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests



Aidin Parsakhoo and Majid Lotfalian
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

In this study, the AHP and Expert choice software were used for data analysis. The criteria to be used for selecting agents were determined and then scorings were done with authorized engineers. Results indicated that the priorities of the various demolition agents in the case of laminated schist stone was hydraulic hammer>expansive chemicals>dynamite>CARDOX>rock cracker and for dry sandstone, limestone, marl was rock cracker>CARDOX>expansive chemicals>dynamite>hydraulic hammer. Also, the alternatives were arranged as rock cracker>CARDOX>dynamite>hydraulic hammer>expansive chemicals for moist sandstone, limestone and marl. To conclude, this study reveals that decision-making methods can be used in the process of selecting demolition agent for the rock breaking.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

Aidin Parsakhoo and Majid Lotfalian, 2009. Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3: 384-391.

DOI: 10.3923/rjes.2009.384.391

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=rjes.2009.384.391
 

INTRODUCTION

In mountain region of the Hyrcanian forests of IR-Iran, road building is difficult due to larger quantities of stones and rocks (Woltjer et al., 2008; Parsakhoo et al., 2008a). Thus at these regions, rock breaking is frequently performed by use of explosive agents with traditional methods of blasting such as dynamite and non-explosive demolition agents such as expansive chemical materials, rock cracker, CARDOX and rarely hydraulic hammer. Then the bulldozer and hydraulic excavator are used to remove broken stones. The detonation of non-explosive matters in the holes is for protection of the trees in adjacent zones, since it avoids the throwing around of rocks (Whitney and Stowers, 1885; Sarikhani and Majnonian, 1994; Parsakhoo et al., 2008b).

Rock breaking technologies and equipment has developed after 1960 in Romania which led to important changes in this field of forest roads building. From 1966 to 1985 the carbides, Ferro-alloys rods, Mobile compressor for energy production with compressed air at 8-10 atm, Drills and electric drills and pneumatic hammers with a productivity of 3 m h-1 with 2 hammers were used for rock breaking (Asmarandei and Cazan, 1996; Aleksandrova and Sher, 1999).

The CARDOX system of rock breaking was perfected in the UK many years ago and has been used extensively throughout the world on major projects and projects where certain sensitivities need to be considered. These include environmental, cultural, heritage and urban areas where very little disturbance or pollution may be tolerated. CARDOX uses electrically charged compressed Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gas to gently heave, rather than explode or blast rock, making the job quicker, safer and more cost effective, consequently optimizing their own environmental and safety policies, Because CARDOX system does not use explosives in any way and noise, vibration and dust is controlled (Singh, 1998; Dey and Ramcharan, 2008).

Chemical demolition agents such as KATROCK, DEXPAN and FRACT.AG are highly expansive powder compositions for stone breaking, non toxic chemicals and environmentally friendly, safe, controlled demolition agent used as an alternative to blasting. Chemical non-explosive demolition agents are mixed with clean water and poured into pre-drilled holes on rock and concrete. The holes are often prepared by pneumatic hammer. The diluted non-explosive demolition agent swells and exerts significant expansive thrust on the hole-wall. After a certain period, the pressure induced by the chemical non-explosive demolition agent fractures the wall and splits the rock across the line of the drill holes. These chemicals easily split and fracture mass rock without producing any noise, vibration, toxic gases or flying debris (Murray et al., 1994).

The rock cracker is a non-explosive rock-splitting tool that makes use of the technology of motive force. After the borehole is drilled, it is filled with water and the cracker cartridges and tee-piece are inserted. After firing mechanism, the stone is split successfully into several pieces with the rock cracker, without requiring a blasting license (Ginzburg, 1999).

The hydraulic hammer mounts on backhoes or excavators for demolition work. The hammer of this equipment has various shape and size. Moil, chisel and blunt are the most important drill attachments of the hydraulic hammer for demolition and boulder breaking process. The moil is a standard tool for almost any application. The moil point is ideal for general use in demolition (Haarlaa, 1973; Voitsekhovskaya, 1974; Tuncdumir, 2008).

When using a multiple criteria decision-making method, the criteria that will affect the selection should be determined beforehand. The most important factors for selecting the demolition agents for forest roads construction in Hyrcanian Mountains are environmentally pollutions, purchasing, transporting and preparing cost and demolition power. The basic principle in demolition agent selection is to define the degree of priority or governing factors among the ones given above and then determining the matching demolition agent and the alternatives to these parameters comparatively (Coulter et al., 2006; Sanchidrian et al., 2007).

The objectives of this research were to select the best demolition agent for breaking the three types of stones (i) moist sandstone, limestone and marl (ii) dry sandstone, limestone and marl and (iii) laminated schist stone in mountain regions of the Hyrcanian forests of IR-Iran with the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and Expert choice software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rocks are divided to three groups (1) Igneous rocks, (2) Metamorphic rocks and (3) Sedimentary rocks. Metamorphic rock usually derived from fine-grained sedimentary rock. Individual minerals in schist have grown during metamorphism so that they are easily visible to the naked eye. Schists are named for their mineral constituents. For example, mica schist is conspicuously rich in mica such as biotite or muscovite (Motamed, 2000). Sedimentary rocks are classified by the source of their sediments. Sandstones and limestones are examples of sedimentary rocks (Fig. 1) (Folk, 1965; Blatt and Tracy, 1994).

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Fig. 1:

Different types of stone or rock (a) limestone, (b) sandstone and (c) schist

AHP developed by Satty (1980), is a method that enables reaching a decision by using quantitative and qualitative data. As the problem is stated in the hierarchical tree structure in this method, the problem becomes easy to understand. A hierarchical tree comprises a minimum of three stages: target, criteria and alternatives. Use of this method is widespread in mining and geology. AHP is based on determining the relative priorities (weighting) of the criteria by pairwise comparison. In pairwise comparison, the question is asked that ‘how many times is a criterion more important than another one?’ and it is answered according to the scale in Table 1. For controlling the consistency of comparison, the consistency ratio is determined. Firstly, the consistency index (Ti) of the matrix is determined by Eq. 1:

Ti = (λmax -n)/(n-1)
(1)

where, λmax is the maximum value and n is the size of matrix. The random consistency index (Ri) is obtained by Eq. 2:

Ri = 1.98 (n-2)/(n)
(2)

The consistency ratio is determined by the Ti/Ri ratio. If the ratio is below 0.1 this shows the comparison is consistent (Acaroglu et al., 2006; Aykul et al., 2007). Lastly in AHP, the normalized eigenvectors created by the scoring of the alternatives considered for each criterion are turned into a matrix and this matrix is multiplied with the normalized eigenvector, including the weights of the criteria. The result gives the preference values of the alternatives. In this study which was conducted in July 2008, the Expert choice software was used for selection of demolition agent. Our criteria were environmental pollution of agents, their cost advantages and demolition power. Also, our alternatives were chemical demolition agent, rock cracker, CARDOX, dynamite and hydraulic hammer (Fig. 2). Required data were gathered through pairwise comparison questionnaires filled by forest engineers (Fig. 3).

Table 1:

Scale for pairwise comparison

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
2, 4, 6 and 8 can also be used

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Fig. 2: Different types of explosive and non-explosive demolition agents (a) dynamite, (b) CARDOX, (c) hydraulic hammer, (d) expansive chemical materials and (e) rock cracker

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Fig. 3: AHP decision support hierarchy

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2 and 3 explains the cost of the demolition agents and their environmental pollution. The pairwise comparison of alternatives according to cost and environmental pollution (criterion) was done with Satty (1980) scale and the normalized eigenvectors of obtained matrices were calculated (Table 4, 5). Table 6, 7 and 8 shows pairwise comparison matrix of alternatives for the different stones. Also, pairwise comparison matrix of criteria has been shown in Table 9.

The values of alternatives for environmental pollution are given in Fig 4a. The dynamite (w = 0.034) and hydraulic hammer (w = 0.082) had more environmental pollution than the other agents because of throwing of broken stones and noise pollution during blasting (Whitney and Stowers, 1885; Tuncdumir, 2008). The use of expansive chemicals (w = 0.463), dynamite (w = 0.304) and rock cracker (w = 0.142) were more commodious than CARDOX (w = 0.046) and hydraulic hammer (w = 0.046) (Fig. 4b). Expansive chemical materials had lowest demolition power in moist sandstone, limestone and marl (w = 0.028) (Fig. 4c). This problem was also observed for rock cracker (w = 0.033) (Fig. 4d) in laminated schist stone and was observed for hydraulic hammer in dry sandstone, limestone and marl (w = 0.033) (Fig. 4e).

After rack cracker, the CARDOX had highest demolition power in breaking the moist or dry sandstone, limestone and marl. The CARDOX system consists of a high-strength reusable steel tube filled with liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) that is energized with a small electrical charge. Expanding up to 6,000 times the original volume, the CO2 is released through a discharge nozzle, creating a powerful pushing force reaching pressures up to 34,000 psi. More than three tons of blockages can be dislodged by a single blast in milliseconds (Singh, 1998; Dey and Ramcharan, 2008). Environmental pollution (w = 0.731) was most important factor influencing the demolition agent selection in hyrcanian mountain forests (Fig. 4f).

Lastly, according to the AHP, the normalized eigenvectors obtained by scoring the alternatives according to each criterion were turned into one matrix and this matrix was multiplied by the normalized eigenvector, including weights of the criteria (Acaroglu et al., 2006; Aykul et al., 2007). As a result of this operation in the Expert choice software, the values of alternatives (demolition agents) for types of stones are given in Table 10.

Table 2:

Demolition agents costing in US dollar based on 2007 prices

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 3:

Assessment of the environmental pollution of demolition agents

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 4:

Alternatives pairwise with respect to environmental pollution

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 5:

Alternatives Pairwise with respect to cost advantage

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 6: Alternatives Pairwise with respect to demolition power in dry sandstone, limestone and marl
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 7: Alternatives Pairwise with respect to demolition power in moist sandstone, limestone and marl
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 8: Alternatives pairwise with respect to demolition power in laminated schist stone
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 9: Pairwise comparison matrix of the criteria
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Table 10:

Final results of the AHP for different types of stones

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests

Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Image for - Demolition Agent Selection for Rock Breaking in Mountain Region of Hyrcanian Forests
Fig. 4: (a) Derived priorities with respect to environmental advantages, (b) derived priorities with respect to cost advantages, (c) derived priorities with respect to demolition power in moist sandstone, limestone and marl, (d) derived priorities with respect to demolition power in laminated schist stone, (e) derived priorities with respect to demolition power in dry sandstone, limestone and marl and (f) weights of the criteria

Therefore, the priorities of the various demolition agents in the case of laminated schist stone was hydraulic hammer>expansive chemicals>dynamite>CARDOX>rock cracker. These priorities for dry sandstone, limestone and marl were rock cracker>CARDOX>expansive chemicals>dynamite> hydraulic hammer. Also, the alternatives were arranged as rock cracker>CARDOX>dynamite> hydraulic hammer>expansive chemicals for moist sandstone, limestone and marl.

CONCLUSION

Demolition agents have been used extensively in rock breaking operations. Their selection should be made correctly in known rock and project properties. Some serious problems may occur as a result of wrong selections and the production will be affected negatively. The multiple criteria decision-making methods can be used in various fields of forest engineering where there are ambiguities in the selection of demolition agents for the rock breaking in mountain region of Hyrcanian forests. By using these methods, some conflicting criteria can be evaluated together and scoring can be done by considering the properties of the region and the requisites.

This study reveals that the most suitable blasting agent for breaking the laminated schist stone was hydraulic hammer. When hydraulic hammer is not available, expansive chemicals are used for breaking large rocks. Also, dry or moist sandstone, limestone and marl are better destroyed by rock cracker. In traditional blasting methods by dynamite, the dislocated rock is thrown around chaotically and causes excessive damage to the environment. So it was recently forbidden by the forestry authorities of northern forest of Iran. Explosive and non-explosive techniques and material that do not damage environment must be used while road passing on rocky areas.

REFERENCES

  1. Acaroglu, O., H. Ergin and S. Eskikaya, 2006. Analytical hierarchy process for selection of roadheaders. J. South Afr. Institute Min. Met., 106: 569-575.
    Direct Link  |  


  2. Aleksandrov, N.I. and Y.N. Sher, 1999. Effect of stemming on rock breaking with explosion of a cylindrical charge. J. Min. Sci., 35: 483-493.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  3. Asmarandei, M. and I. Cazan, 1996. Building and Maintenance of Forest Roads Technologies and Equipment. FAO, Rome, pp: 291-300
    Direct Link  |  


  4. Aykul, H., E. Yalcin, I.G. Ediz, D.W. Dixon-Hardy and H. Akcakoca, 2007. Equipment selection for high selective excavation surface coal mining. J. South Afr. Institute Min. Met., 107: 195-210.
    Direct Link  |  


  5. Blatt, H. and R.J. Tracy, 1994. Petrology: Igneous, Sedimentary and Metamorphic, Freeman. 2nd Edn., Cambridge University Press, New York, ISBN: 0-7167-2438-3


  6. Coulter, E.D., J. Sessions and M.G. Wing, 2006. Scheduling forest road maintenance using the analytic hierarchy process and heuristics. Silva Fenn., 40: 143-160.
    Direct Link  |  


  7. Dey, P.K. and E.K. Ramcharan, 2008. Analytic hierarchy process helps select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados. J. Environ. Manage., 88: 1384-1395.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  8. Folk, R.L., 1965. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. 2nd Edn., Hemphills Bookstore, Austin, ISBN: 0-914696-14-9


  9. Ginzburg, É.S., 1999. Combined “steel-hard alloy” outfitting of rock-breaking drilling tool. Chem. Petroleum. Eng., 35: 725-729.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  10. Haarlaa, R., 1973. Maaston vaikutuksesta metsäteiden rakennukseen (On the effect of terrain on forest road construction). Silva Fenn., 7: 284-309.
    Direct Link  |  


  11. Motamed, A., 2000. General Geology. Tehran University, Iran, ISBN: 964-03-3571-1, pp: 477


  12. Murray, C., S. Courtley and P.F. Howllett, 1994. Developments in rock-breaking techniques. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol., 9: 225-231.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  13. Parsakhoo, A., S.A. Hosseini, H. Jalilvand and M. Lotfalian, 2008. Physical soil properties and slope treatments effects on hydraulic excavator productivity for forest road construction. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 11: 1422-1428.
    CrossRef  |  PubMed  |  Direct Link  |  


  14. Parsakhoo, A., S.A. Hosseini, M. Lotfalian and H. Jalilvand, 2008. Bulldozer and hydraulic excavator traffic effect on soil bulk density, rolling project and tree root response. Int. J. Natural Eng. Sci., 3: 139-142.
    Direct Link  |  


  15. Satty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, ISBN: 0070543712, pp: 19


  16. Sanchidrian, J.A., P. Segarra and L.M. Lopez, 2007. Energy components in rock blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 44: 130-147.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  17. Sarikhani, N. and B. Majnonian, 1994. Forest roads plan, performance and utilization guide line. Publ. Program Budget Org. Iran, 131: 159-175.


  18. Singh, S.P., 1998. Non-explosive applications of the PCF concept for underground excavation. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol., 13: 305-311.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  19. Tunçdemir, H., 2008. Impact hammers applications in Istanbul metro tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol., 23: 264-272.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  20. Voitsekhovskaya, F.F., 1974. A high-power hydraulic drill for breaking hard rock. J. Min. Sci., 10: 599-604.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  21. Whitney, W.A. and J.H. Stowers, 1885. The dynamite explosion in westminster hall. Lancet, 125: 363-364.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  22. Woltjer, M., W. Rammer, M. Brauner, R. Seidl and G. Mohren, 2008. Coupling a 3D patch model and a rockfall module to assess rockfall protection in mountain forests. J. Environ. Manage., 87: 373-388.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


©  2022 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved