In recent work (Chiappetta & Wyciskalla 2003) both bottom and mid-column air-decks were

tested in two limestone quarries. The blasting conditions were 14-16 m bench height, Oh =
159 nun, 0,9-1,2 in of sub-drilling and a pattern of B-S = 3,7.4,3 in. Single hole
characterisation tests were first fired.

Then two rounds of two rows of 15 holes each were blasted with a delay of 159 ms between
and an in-row delay of 25 or 42 ins from the mid-row initiation point (V-design). One round
had the usual charge design with sub-drilling. The other used a 0,9 in high air-deck at the
bottom in holes without sub-drilling. A plug with a small amount of drill cuttings underneath
the explosive charge topped the air-deck. 'Everything else was kept the same'. Probably this
means the same stemming length and hence a lower specific charge.

The fragmentation was evaluated using the Split desktop system. Averages were computed
from 30-40 images of each muck-pile taken according to a set strategy during loading. VOD,
vibrations, toe breakage and muck-pile shape v‘i ere also measured.

While toe breakage and muck-pile shape remained basically unaffected or improved a bit, the
PPV-values were reduced by on average 33 % over the 700-m long seismic array.

Fragmentation in the air-deck shot showed an improvement in the coarse range in that xso, x50
and x20 were reduced by 20-25 %. This was accompanied by an increase in the amount of —50
nun fines if their (Chiappetta & Wyciskalla 2003) figures 4.1 and 4.2 can be believed. Even if
the difference is nearly 50 % at 25 nun, 8,85 % versus 6,03 %, they do not consider it
significant. Nor did they see any significant change in the coarsest material.