Uso Do Tampão Open Pit

AN‘4LYpL?
L H I G H - S P E E D PHGTOGR4PHY T O EVALDATE
AIR DECKS, STEMMING RETENTION AND CAS CONFINEMENT
IN PRESPLITTING, RECLAMATION AND GROSS NOTION APPLICATIONS
R. Frank Chiappeetal Mark E. Mammele’
ABSTRACT
A “umber of new thoughts have recently emerged concerning the role of air decks, stemming, gas confine-
ment and gross motion in specific blasting environments and applications. Field research in full-scale
production environments is based on the theoretical work first proposed at the University of Maryland’s
Fracture Mechanics Laboratory.
Results from work conducted over a three year period are summarized. It was determined that air decks
placed in a” explosive column between a charge and stemming deck had a pronounced effect on fragmentation at
the air/stemming interface. Such loading techniques were found t.o give excellent results in applications
for presplitting and reclamation of compacted soils when compared t” conventional methods. The new technique
of presplitting has bee” designated as ADP.
Blasting mechanisms in terms of four time f r a m e s e.re discussed i” detail with respect to bench blasting,
cratering, presplitting with air decks, and reclamation applications.
Analytical techniques, field set-ups, and instrumentation used are discussed in detail. The presentation
Will also be supplemented with segments of high-speed 16mm movias of specific test results.
I N T R O D U C T I O N - GENERAL BLASTING MECHANISMS

There are basically four time frames, designated as Tl t o T4, in which breakage and displacement of
material occur during and after complete detonation of a confined charge. The t,.me frames are defined 8s
follows: Tl - Detonation T3 - Gas Pressure Expansion
T2 - Shock and/or Stress Wave Propagation T 4 - Mass M o v e m e n t
Although these are discussed as discrete events, it should be emphasized that in a typical shot hole or
production blast, one e”e”t phase will generally occur simultaneously with another at specific time intervals.
Detonation is the beginning phase of the fragmentation process. The basic fuel and oxidizer ingredients of
a” explosive, upon detonation, are immediately converted to high pressure, high temperature gases. Next to a
nuclear reaction, a detonation is the fastest chemical reaction known to mankind. For commercial explosives,
preksures just behind the detonation front are on the order of 2.0 x lo9 Pa (20 Kbars) t o 21.5 x 10’ P a
(275 K b a r s ) . This pressure referred to as detonation pressure is primarily dependent on the density and
velocity of detonation of the explosive. The time frame necessary for complete detonation to occur may range
from a few microseconds for s small spherical charge to a few milliseconds far a long cylindrical charge.
Other factors effecting the detonation time include geometric shapes, dimensions, and the velocity of deton-
atian of the specific charge.
The second phase immediately fallowing detonation is the shock and stress wave propagation throughout
the rack mass. .5This $isturbance or pressure wave(s) transmftted through the rock mass results, in part,
from the rapidly~apanding high-pressure gas impacting the borehole “all and detonation pressure. The
geometry o f disgRrsion~depe”ds on many factors, such as the location of the initiation point (or p o i n t s ) ,
detonation velo~fp;and shock wave velocity I” the rock. Generally, extensive compressive, shear, and
tensile failure occur as a region of pulverized material “ext to the charge since this is where the wa”e
energy is *t i t s maxim”sl. A s t h e s t r e s s wave front proceeds outward, it has a tendency to compress the
material at the wave f r o n t . At right angles to this compressive front, there exists another component
’ K. Frank Chiappetta is the Assistant Director of Field Technical Operations vieh the Atlas Powder Company,
a subsidiary of Tyler Corp., Colonnade, 15301 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas, 75%S-W9 - a
pioneer end developer of analytical high-speed photography in blast analysis and design t” its Present day
form.
= M a r k E. Hammele is a Research Engineer with the Atlas Powder Co., (same address as above) - specialties
are in explosive formulations and field applications.
251
Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1989 - First Annual High-Tech Seminar - State-of-the-Art Blasting Technology Instrumentation and Applications
Analytical High-Speed Photography To Evaulate Air Decks, Stemming Retention and Gas Confinement in Presplitting, Reclamation and Gross Motion Applications - Section 11 1 of 45
r e f e r r e d to e s t h e ta”ge”tia1 or “ h o o p ” s t r e s s . I f the t a n g e n t i a l stress i s o f s u f f i c i e n t m.%Z”itude, i t
CB” CB”S~ tensile fF.ih?eS at right .S”+S t0 t h e d i r e c t i o n o f prOp=g=tiO”. T h e largest tensile f a i l u r e s i n
rock are e x p e c t e d t o o c c u r c l o s e t o t h e b o r e h o l e , =t discontinuities, o r vhere t h e r e i s = d r a m a t i c c h a n g e i n
impedance mismatch. Compressive, tensile, shear and the combined components of any wave front will always
d e c a y wirh d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e Charg=. T h e inrerectio” o f S t r e s s wave= i n = c o m p l i c a t e d , d i s c o n t i n u o u s
m e d i u m S u c h a s r o c k i s c u r r e n t l y =” sre= o f i n t e n s e r e s e a r c h a n d i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e q u i t e i m p o r t a n t i n S o m e
o f t h e “ever b l a s t i n g t+xies. I,, o r d e r t o e f f e c t i v e 1 9 u t i l i z e t h e s e i n t e r a c t i o n s i n a p r o d u c t i o n e n v i r o n -
m e n t , ultra-precise~-de~naeors w i t h m i c r o s e c o n d p r e c i s i o n a r e n e e d e d f o r t h e n e x t ge”er=tiOn of detonators.
During and/or =f’&:str=ss wave propa8acion, t h e high-temper=tUre, h i g h - p r e s s u r e gases impart a st=e=S

f i e l d a r o u n d t h e blasthole t h a t c a n e x p a n d t h e o r i g i n a l b o r e h o l e , e x t e n d r a d i a l c r a c k s . a n d j e t i n t o any
discontinuity. I t i s d u r i n g t h i s p h a s e t h a t s o m e conrroversy e x i s t s over t h e m a i n m e c h a n i s m o f fragmentarion.
S o m e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e f r a c t u r e n e t w o r k t h r o u g h o u t t h e r o c k mass i s c o m p l e t e d , w h i l e o t h e r s b e l i e v e t h a t t h e
V,,aJc,? f?S,CWTi”8 ,XOCeSS iS ,“St begi”“i”6. I n a n y case, i t 1s t h e g=seS c o n t a i n e d in t h e n e w l y f o r m e d
e x p a n d e d cavity a r o u n d t h e b o r e h o l e . gases j e t t i n g i n t o discontinuitiea, and the impulse imparted to the
m a t e r i a l b y t h e d e t o n a t i o n thst =re p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m=Ss d i s p l a c e m e n t o f b r o k e ” m a t e r i a l . I t i s not
c l e a r a s t o t h e ex=ct trsvef p a t h s that g a s e s t a k e w i t h i n t h e r o c k m=ss, a l t h o u g h i t i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e y w i l l
always take the path of least resistance. T h i s means t h a t BBS== Will first migr=Ce into eXiSti” c r a c k s ,
j o i n t s , f a u l t s , a n d discontinuities, i n a d d i t i o n t o Se=mS o f m a t e r i a l s that e x h i b i t l o w c o h e s i o n o r b o n d i n g a t
interfaces. I f = S u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e d i s c o n t i n u i t y o r s e a m c o n n e c t s t h e borehole t o a f r e e f a c e , t h e h i g h
p r e s s u r e g=aeS genereted after detonation will immediately vent co the atmosphere. This will rapidly reduce
t h e t o t a l cO”fi”i”g pressvre w h i c h will i n e v i t a b l y l e a d to a r e d u c t i o n in fragme”tE%tiO” a n d material ejectio”.
C o n f i n e m e n t timeS f o r 8=&Z== wic’hi” a r o c k m=sS v a r y Si&“ifiC=“tly d e p e n d i n g o n t h e =mo”“t a n d t y p e o f s t e m -
ming and burden. S t u d i e s b y Chiappetra, 1983l, 19802 w i t h t h e u s e o f h i g h - s p e e d p h o t o g r a p h y i n f u l l - s c a l e
b e n c h b l a s t s h a v e s h o w ” chat g=S c o n f i n e m e n t times b e f o r e t h e &et o f b u r d e n ~lovement c a n v a r y f r o m a f e w t o
t e n s o f milliSeco”da. To date confinement times have been measured to range from 5 t o 1 5 0 ms for a wide
variety of q sterfils, exp1oSives, and burdens. G e n e r a l l y , b u t n o t a l w a y s , c o n f i n e m e n t t i m e s can b e d e c r e a s e d
by employing higher energy explosives, decreasing the burden, or = combination of both. This applies equally
t o m a t e r i a l =t t h e b e n c h f a c e o r a t t h e b e n c h t o p , =s i n t h e c=se o f steIDQi”8 b l o w o u t s o r ~~~te~i”~. Thus,
only w e l l c o n f i n e d a n d s u i t a b l e b u r d e n e d charges c=n d e l i v e r t h e i r full p o t e n t i a l o f a d d i t i o n a l g=S e x t e n s i o n
f?‘,Ct”?i”g a n d m=Ss mo”eme”t.
M e s s movement o f m a t e r i a l i s the last stage i n t h e blasting procese. T h e m a j o r i t y o f f r a g m e n t a t i o n h a s

a l r e a d y b e e n c o m p l e t e d t h r o u g h compressio”a1 a n d t e n s i l e StreSS w=veS, gas preseuriearion, o r a c o m b i n a t i o n
o f b o t h . H o w e v e r , some d e g r e e O f fr=g,Se”t=tiC.“, a l t h o u g h Slight, occurs throu&h in-flight collisions and
when the meterial impacts the ground. G e n e r a l l y , t h e h i g h e r the b e n c h h e i g h t , t h e g r e a t e r i s t h i s t y p e af
breakage beceuse O f i n c r e a s e d i m p a c t v e l o c i t i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l fr=gme”ts w h e n falling o n t o t h e b e n c h f l o o r .
S i m i l a r l y , m a t e r i a l e j e c t e d f r o m o p p o s i t e r o w s o f a “V s h o e ” d e s i g n u p o n h e a d - o n c o l l i s i o n s c=n r e s u l t i n
increased fragmentation. T h i s p h e n o m e n o n w=s evidenced and documented with the “se of high-speed photogrsphy
of bench blasts. Hass b u r d e n movement o f f r a g m e n t e d m a t e r i a l i s Show” i n Figure 1 ( A - H ) f o r a n u m b e r o f
t y p i c a l f a c e c o n d i t i o n s e n c o u n t e r e d i n b e n c h blastin operations. Fete p r o f i l e s a n d v e l o c i t i e s =re b a s e d o n
t h e r e s u l t s o f h i g h - s p e e d p h o t o g r a p h i c a”=lysis.‘.*, f ,Sv6 Where “o subdrilling i s u t i l i z e d ( A a n d B ) , two
type= o f face movement may be encountered. I n F i g u r e lA, t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h o f f a c e b u r d e n , d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t
o f t h e e x p l o s i v e c o l u m n , m o v e s out s i m i l a r t o S p l a n e w=ve a n d t h e f a c e v e l o c i t y a t a n y p o i n t i s c o n s t a n t .
T h i s b e h a v i o r is u s u a l l y e n c o u n t e r e d w h e r e m a t e r i a l i s v e r y c o m p e t e n t . q u i t e b r i t t l e , a n d S t r u c t u r e d w i t h
w e l l - d e f i n e d , l a r g e l y S p a c e d j o i n t s , m u c h greater than t h e Sp=Ci”gS o r b u r d e n s e m p l o y e d in b l a s t designs.
When t h e m a t e r i a l i s s o f t . h i g h l y f i s s u r e d a n d / o r c l o s e l y j o i n t e d as might b e f o u n d i n coal a n d s o m e s e d i m e n -
t a r y d e p o s i t s , f a c e p r o f i l e s r e s e m b l i n g t h a t o f flexural r u p t u r e are m o r e l i k e l y . I n T h i s cese. t h e g r e a t e s t
d i s p l a c e m e n t a n d v e l o c i t y o c c u r a d j a c e n t t o t h e center o f t h e e x p l o s i v e c o l u m n w i t h t h e l e a s t =mou”t o f m o v e -
m e n t OCC”rd,“g a t t h e t o e a n d c r e s t . W h e n i d e n t i c a l c o n d i t i o n s i n F i g u r e IB are assumed, and when subdrilling
is employed, face q owmant results in much the same way, except that the toe burden is displaced upward faster
e n d a t = greeter =“@e t o t h e h o r i z o n t a l ( F i g u r e 1C). T h e f i r s t t h r e e c a s e s a s s u m e d .e r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t
f a c e b e t w e e n t h e c r e s t a n d t o p ; h o w e v e r , i n many b e n c h b l a s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s , e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s a r e m o r e l i k e
that i l l u s t r a t e d 10 Figure lD, w h e r e t o e b u r d e n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y gt’eater than t h e c r e s t b u r d e n . T h e t o e
b u r d e n i s t o o 8X+ f o r t h e e x p l o s i v e s e l e c t e d ; h e n c e v e r y l i t t l e m o v e m e n t o c c u r s a t t h e t o e , w h i l e t h e g r e a t -
e s t d i s p l a c e m e n t rasul:s ?n thrupper h a l f o f t h e b e n c h . T h r e e o p t i o n s are a v a i l a b l e t o i n c r e a s e t o e m o v e -
ment : 1) Bpp109 Mgle d r i l l i n g i n a n a t t e m p t t o m a i n t a i n constaot b u r d e n s f r o m t h e c r e s t t o t h e t o e , 2) U s e
O f h i g h e r . energy b;Ottom charge in t h e c u r r e n t v e r t i c a l d r i l l h o l e s . 3) D e c r e a s e t h e b u r d e n w i t h t h e c u r r e n t
v e r t i c a l d r i l l ho+.- fzi s e l e c t i n g t h e t h i r d o p t i o n , c a r e s h o u l d b e e x e r c i s e d s o a s n o t t o d e c r e a s e t h e
b u r d e n t o t h e poinf o f O b t a i n i n g t h e c,,ndition s h o w n i n F i g u r e 1E. The toe burden is now correct for the
explosive selected, but the crest burden is substantially reduced. T h i s may b r i n g a b o u t many a d v e r s e c o n d i -
t i o n s “ e a r t h e c r e s t b u r d e n , s u c h as flyrock,blowouts, a n d i n c r e a s e d a i r .blaat c o m p l a i n t s . B e c a u s e c o n f i n e -
m e n t preseures are r e l e a s e d neer t h e crest ( i n t h i s CBBE, a p a t h o f l e a s t resistance r e l a t i v e t o t h e t o e
b u r d e n ) , r e s t r i c t e d t o e m o v e m e n t vi11 r e s u l t . I t i s b e t t e r LO “Se t h e 8-e b u r d e n , b u t with = h i g h e r energy
b o t t o m Charge =t t h e t o e . T h i s l o a d CO"fi8U?StiO", as s h o w n i n F i g u r e IF, tends to pressurize more of the
b u r d e n mass f o r 1O”geI p e r i o d s w i t h o u t a d v e r s e e f f e c t s , a n d a d e q u a t e t o e mo”eme”t ,4Gz”et’a119 r e s u l t s . W h e r e
large l e f t o v e r m u c k p i l e s Ste l e f t a g a i n s t t h e f a c e ( F i g u r e 1G). t o e mo”eme”t w i l l b e r e s t r i c t e d a n d i n c r e a s e d
g r o u n d v i b r a t i o n l e v e l s a r e l i k e l y . U n l e s s t h e s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r e s a b u f f e r . s u c h 88 w h e n b l a s t i n g i n t h e
vicinity o f mining e q u i p m e n t o r to a v o i d d i l u t i o n o f a ” o r e b l a s t a d j a c e n t t o a waste muckpile, i t s h o u l d b e
a v o i d e d . W h e r e large seams ere e n c o u n t e r e d i n a b l a s t (Figure lH), t r e m e n d o u s 8.M e j e c t i o n s w i t h v e l o c i t i e s
u p t o I.83 m/a ( 6 0 0 ftlaec) c a n occur. ‘he” s u c h 8a~3 “e”ti”8 OCc”T‘B. it will prevent other parts of the
258
burden from dl.splacing adequately end will inevitably lead to poor overall blasti”ng results. A stemming deck
immediately adjacent Co the eeam will give better results.
Up t o t h i s point, time events Tl to T 4 have been discussed more or less as separate isolated events.
Howevet, in a real blasting e”“i=o”ment, more than one evenr can occu= at rhe same time. Consider a single
verrical hole in a quarry face with the primer located near the bottom of the hole as illustrated i n Figure 2.
Assume the exploswe--mred is 12 m (40 ft) of ANFO with a velocity of detonation equal 20 3 963 mls (13,000
ftlsec), and the ma&%1 blasted is limestone with a sonic “ave velocity of 4 573 m/s (15,000 trlsec) and a
density of 2.3 g/cc..Ypon initiation of the primer. it takes only a few microseconds and a dlsrance of 2-6
hole diameters up tke~+lumn t o few. a full detonation head. When a full detonation head is formed, it
travels up the explosiie column with B velocity characteristic of the steady state velocity (in this cese
3 963 m/s (13,000 frlsec). It takes approximately 3 me for the 12 m (40 fe) column of ANFO to be completely
detonated.
Within t h i s 3 me, many other things have occurred. Starting at the borcom of the hole and progressing
“ p the column, borehole expansion t h r o u g h crushing of the borehole walls has taken place. This produces
compressive et=ees weves with tangential components emanating from the borehole walls end progressing outward
in every direction with a velocity characteristic of the sonic wave velocity of limestone. It takes approx-
imstely 1 ms for the compressive stress “eve to travel the 4.6 me (15 ft) of burden to the free face. Behind
the st=ess wave propagation, some radial cracks start to develop beyond the crushed z”ne region of the bore-
hole with a velocity ranging from 25 to 50% of the P wave velocity for limestone. If the intensity of the
compressive st=eas pulse is high enough, “ew cracks and/o= extensions of preexisting cracks and flaws can be
initiated anywhere between the crushed zone next to the borehole and the free face. The greatest number of
cracks are generally found closest ta the borehole. When the compressive wave strikes a free face, it is
immediately converted to a tensile stress wave t h a t starts at the free face and travels back t h r o u g h the rock
mass toward the borehole. As a result of the new fractures created from the outgoing compressive stress wave.
the tensile st=ess wave will take somewhat longer to travel the same burden distance of 4.6 m (15 ft). If
the burden is small enough and the intensity of the reflected stress wave is large enough, then some spalling
at the free face o= bench top is expected. although no significant mass movement will occu=. A t 3 ms after
detonation and complete reaction of ANFO, the original h i g h - t e m p e r a t u r e . high-pressure gases have reached a
new equilibrium due to borehole expansion. Both temperature and pressure have dropped sij@ficantly. result-
ing in a” energy reduction ranging from 25 to 60% of t h e theoreeical energy originally bailable. This
remaining energy, along with the impulse generated earlier by the detonation, acts on the surrounding “pre-
conditioned” rock mass to displace it i n the direction of least resistance. Further fragmentation ca” occur
at this stage from gases entering and extending preexisting cracks Q= disconeinuities. I t is a t t h i s s t a g e
t h a t come blasting theories are contradictory since some believe that the major fractute network is just
beginning. Regardless of which tfme frame is responsible far t h e development of a fracture n e t w o r k , mass
movement and displacement of material at the bench top o= face occu= much later in time due to the confinement
of gas pressure vithin t h e rock mess and the momentum imparted to t h e fragmented material by the detonation.
The onset of mass movement depends on material response in eon,u”ction with the st=ess and gas pressure
stimulus generated from the explosive. For typical stermning and burdens encountered in the field, bench top
swelling occu=s between 1 end 60 ms, stemming ejecrions between 2 and 80 01s. and bench burdens between 5 and
150 ms after detonation. Surface uplifting velocities around the collar region of a hole are between 2-37 mls
(5 to 120 ft/sec), stemming ejections between 3-457 m/s (10 to 1,500 frtsec), and bu=den velocieies between
Z-40 m/s (5 to 1 3 0 ftlsec). Gas eJection velocities et discontinuities have been recorded as high as 213 m/s
(700 ft/sec) end crfee” occu= i n l e s s t h a n 5 m a .
CONWNTIONAL CRATERING KECHANISMS

I” terms of conventional cratering applications “*5*6* the four time frames Tl-T4 a=e i l l u s t r a t e d f o r a
discontinuous medium in Figure 3 (a-d). As the high-pressure explosive gases expand against the medium imme-
diately surrounding t h e explosion, a spherical shock wave is generated causing crushing compaction and plastic
deformation (Figure 38). As the shock front movee outward in a spherically diverging shell, the medium
behind the shock front is put into radial compression and tangential tensfo”. This results in the fannation
of radial cracks directed outward f r o m t h e c a v i t y . The peak pressure in the shock front becomes reduced due
to spherical divergence and the expenditure of energy in the medium. For shock pressures above the dynamic
xrushing- st=en&h of the medium, the material is crushed, heated, and physically displaced, folming a cavity.
In regions o”tsSde this limit, t h e s h o c k wave will produce-permanent deformation by plastic flow, until the
peek p r e s s u r e iQhe .shock front has decreased to a value equal to the plastic limits o f the medium. This is
the boundary be$reen.the plastic and elastic zones shown in Figure 4. We,, the compressive shock front
encounters a free face, it must match the boundary condition that the normal stress or press”fe be zero at all
times. This results in the generation of negative st=ess, o= a rarefaction wave, which propagates back into
the medium (Figure Lib). T h u s , t h e medium that was originally under high compression is put into tension by
the rarefaction wave. This phenomenon ca”ses the medium to break up and fly upward with a velocity character-
istic of the partial momentum imparted to i t . I” e loose sail material, this spalling makes almost every
particle fly into the air individually, while in a rock medium, the thickness of the spalled material is
generally determined by the presence of preexisting fracture patterns and zones of veakoesa. As the distance
from surface increaees, the peak negative pressvre decreases until it no longer exceeds the tensile strength
of the medium. The velocity Of spalled material also decreases in proportion to the peak Pressure. This
breakage mechanism is predominant only for charges placed at very shallow depths of burial.
The two mechanisms described so far are short term, lasting “nly a f e w milliseconds. The gas aecelere-
259

tion mechanism. however, is a much longer Iasttig process that imparts motion to the medium around the detona-
atioi, by the expansion or gases trapped in the explosion-formed cavity (Figure 3, c and d). These gases are
praduced in the surrounding materisl by vaporiratio” and chemical changes induced by the heat and pressure of
the explosion products. Venting occurs because the material is no longer cohesive enough LO contain the
explosion gases. As the gases are released, fragments assume free ballistic trajectories. At depths of
burial at which crater~~~~enslons are maximum, the gsses produced will give appreciable acceleration to over-
lying material duriFg iw escape or venting ,through cracks extending from the cavity to the surface. At
shallow depths of bue-isF> the spall velocities are so high that the gases are unable to exert any pressure
before venting occurs..-zor very deep exploslo”s, the weight of the overburden precludes any significant gas
acceleration of the ovt&yi”g material. Gas acceleration is the dominant mechanism at optimum depth of
burial, With a constant weight of explosive, the optimum depth of burial varies with the surrounding materiaL
figure 5 illustrates surface time profiles after detonation of a 18 Kg (40 lb) equivalent charge of ANFO,
buried 2.4 m (8 ft) in .s” unconsolidated, sedimentary type material. High-speed photography was used to
document the effects of shock and gas pressure. The first observation was that of brisance. or the reflection
of the compressive shock at the surfsce, a few mllliseco”ds after detonation. This is indicated by the dotted
ellipse immediately above the charge hole or surface. With sufficient camera coverage and appropriate viewing
angles, this shock ring ca” often be used to estimate approximately, the degree of crater damage. I” this
case, sufficient viewing angles were not available, and so only part of the total reflected shock could be
resolved. Because the charge was placed at .s depth significantly greater than the optimum depth of burial, no
appreciable spslllng occurred. Gas pressure was the dominant mechanism responsible for uplifting and ejecting
material radially outward. As gas expansion occurs around the charge cavity, the material above the charge is
compacted and heaved upward. Between 0 and 45 ms after detonation, thi uplifted material is resilient and
compacted enough to maintain sufficient cohesion to contain all gases resulting from expansion. At 60 ms, gas
venting begfns to occur directly above the charge and continues to expand in a well-defined are with respect
t o time. If the gas venting co”tacts at each end of each time profile are connected with straight lines, the
lines will most always point toward the top or the center of the charge. In this case, the gas venting angle
was measured to be approximately 45 degrees. The gas venting angle is useful in determining how much of the
top part of a cylindrical charge, as found in production holes, actually contributes to gas venting, crater-
ing, and/or lost energy through lack of stemming confinement. AC either side of the gas venting angle, “O
gas venting occurs, but material fragments are displaced and/or ejected outwardly. Material fragments are
also ejected from within the bounds of the gas venting angle. Wing to a charge depth beyond optimum, the
final result is a mound rather than a crater. The mound 1s indicated by the dotted line underneath the 60 ms
time profile. The initial instantaneous uplifting velocity above the charge 1s generally high, but diminishes
CO zero when the material has reached its highest displacement. In reference to Figure 5, the average initial
velocity along the vertical displacement vector up to 45 q s is 21 m/s (68 ftlsec). The average velocity from
60 to 239 me is 16 m/s (54 ft/sec). The difference in velocity is attributed to the effects of gas venting
and expansion beyond 60 ms. These velocities 81‘s dependent on material type and structure, explosive, and
depth of burial. In general, the velocity will decrease exponentially with depth for a give” explosive and
material type as shown in Figure 6. Changing the explosive and/or material blasted will result in a dlffer-
ent characteristic curve for that particular combination.
There are many people l&t;,” Industry who believe that heave energy for a” explosive, measured by tha
underwater explosion method 9, 1s still the best criterion to predict heave In a full-scale production
en”ironment. A sequence af photographs for such a test is illusrraced in Figure 7 (a-f) in increments of
epprorimateIy 200 Ins. The technique Is easy and a good relative measure of heave energy from one explosive
CO another, but only in water. Unfortunately, most blasting is performed in much more complex environments,
that exhibit physicaL strength, geological and structural properties quite different and less predictive than
water. The point Is that we have yet to correlate bubble energy tests in water to the results obtained 1” a
full-scale production environment. When a detonstlon occurs in a borehole, the original borehole 1s going to
expand to a larger cavity. AB the cavity increases, volume increases, temperature drops and so does pressure.
It Is the remaining effective pressure acting on the walls of the new formed cavity, along with the impulse
Imparted to the medium from the detonation Itself, which are primarily responsible for the displacement of
broke” burden material. Many people would like to believe that the new formed csvity is symmetric about the
borehole axis si”ce.it makes for easy calculatio”. Hawever, “a know this is not to be true since the initial
cavity volume is highly dependent on the material response to the explosive stimulus, ground structure, stress
intensity, and the jetting and migration of gases into preexisting discontinuities. All of these play a much
more important role-than previously realized. I” essence, a” explosive which yields the highest bubble energy
in .a water test’ is ~~tW.cesssrily the 0”s which will yield the best field results, depending 0” the appliea-
tion. It is for these reksons that site specific testing for blast designs is stiII the most reliable and
realistic from a” application standpoint. Custom blast designs specific to a give” environment will be the
norm in the near future compared to the generally accepted single blast design used today in many types of
=““irD”UbS~tS.
Another misconception and err‘o”eous use of explosive energy has bee” with the theoretically calculated
thermochemical energy of a” explosive to design a blast. There are many problems associated vith this
epprosch: first, the calculation assumes B constant volume: second, It does not take Into account the ground
response to the explosive stimulus: and third, it assumes ideal detonation or that 100% of the thermochemical
energy is extracted. Since most commercial wpl~slves are “on-ideal, energy released may range between 50-
95X ,,f theoretical, depending o” the explosive formulation, borehole diameter, confinement, and priming
*y*t.3U. A reliable method of overcoming these limitations is to compare explosives with single hole crater
tests by placing the charge at blast design burdens, and filming the results with high-speed photography as
260

show in Figure 5. If the blast design burden is restricted *or testing, smaller scale testing Will suffice,
providing t,,ar small deviations from production-hire hole diameters are achered to. By digitizing the area
expansion ,,,,der each rime profile, =" area versus time plot can be constructed as shown in Figures 8 and 9.
I,, .qgure 8, each line grap,, represents a different experimental explosive system, with each system having the
=ame calculated thermochemical energy. A" explosive system is defined here == a detonator-primer-explosive
CClShi"*tiCT.. The charges were placed in a" unconsolidated, overburden-type fo”e=tiO” at a depth Of burial
equal to 2.4 m (s-ft)z- 1n this environment, explosive efficiency of system 1 and 2 in terms of kinetic energy
transferred to e,iee&,r&den XBS equivalent, bile char in system 3 was much less. Each line graph corresponding
to its respeccive exprcsive sysrem reflects the total combined effect of detonation, shock, =tres= waves, and
gas pressure =cti"gethe surrounding medium and resulting kinetic energy in the form of burden displacement.
It is interesting tr, &ce that for the three explosive systems. differences in P==fOrm="C= =r= "0t r==llY
noticeable until approximately 75 ms after detonation. Figure 9 *llusrraces an area expansion Ye?*"* time
plot for two other explosive systems in the ==me environment as that show" in Figure 8. Depth of burial i"
this case was 3.6 m (11.75 ft). Eve" though calculated energy for explosive sysrsm 2 contained a1mos.t
23X *ore theoretical energy, field results were identical with a" almost perfect Sf=ti=tiC=I CO==eI=tiO".
1t indicates, clearly, that in this particular environment and with these explosive systems, c=Icul=ted
theoretical energies without field testing =re me="i"gleSs. In a different more competent e"viro"me"t,
differences would be more likely to OCC"~.
AIR DECKS
The use of air decks in full-scale production blasting has bee" well documented since 1940, when
Mel'nikov' introduced the idea chat energy in a blast could be redistributed with air deck= placed within a"
explosive column. The purpose was to minimize that part of explosive energy consumed in crushing and pulver-
izing the are= immediately adjacent to the borehole wall. By reducing the initial pressure of the detonation
products and increasing the duration of their action on the rock, energy in crushing around the borehole wall
would be reduced while increasing the amount of energy transmitted into the surrounding medium. It was
believed that the fracture network was created by the interaction of shock w=ve= and the interaction of gas
fronts via a resonating mode within the borehole. This resulted in lower initial peak pressures but longer
repeated pulses. The air deck between two charges ~a= considered a form of energy accumulator, which first
stored end later released energy in the form of additional =tre== waves that produced multiple loadings in
the medium. It was thi= unique ability of the air decked charges to prolong the detonation procese to perman-
ent damage that enhanced fragmentation. I" co"tr==t to airdecked boreholes, a solid column explosive will
generate a large amplitude impulse into the medium that succeeds in creating many microfractures. but decays
very quickly and the =tres= field around the charge decays to a q,,=sist=tic state. To improve on the initial
fracture network of microflactures to grow and/or branch into each other, additional stress waves are needed
to pass through the medium. For this to be effective, the additional =tre=s waves muse be generated in the
charge cavity behind the from of the main compression YBVB. Since air decks tend to generate smaller, but
repeated loading cycles, fragmentation is expected to increase.
Another application where eir decks were used was to i"cre==e me== burden movement as outlined and tested
in practice by Marchenko, 1954'. fallowed by other blasting researchers between 1954-1979'. The purpose we=
to maximfze the kinetic energy imparted to the burden. The mechanisms of moving burdens with air decked
charges Y=S quite similar to that described for creating a better fracture network. In both cases, the tr="=-
fez? of explosive energy to the surrounding solid medium Y=S due to the repeated =ction of the detonation
products on the walls of the charge chamber. To maximize the fracture network, the extrs stress waves must
be "umerou= and short, whereas to incre==e the volume of material moved; they can be weaker but longer. It
v== reported by Hel'nikov et al, (1979)' that explosive consumption in the Soviet Union for = wide variety of
materials was reduced considerably by using these methods.
AIR DECKED EFFECTS MODELED IN PLEXIGLASS

During the early SO's, a series of test= were conducted by Fourney, et al", at the University of
Haryland's Fracture Mechanisms Laboratory in thick plexiglass block= to investigate fracture propagation from
explosively charged boreholes. Part of the tests were designed to investigate the dynamic crack propagation
resulting from B" air-filled borehole where = charge was placed at the bottom of the hole and sealed "ear the
top with = stem plug. Boreholes in this series of tests contained two notches each; one notch or groove
oppasite each other for the entire length of the bole. High-speed photography in conjunction with dynamic
photoelasticity me= used to view the dynamic crack propagation in the general borehole models and to determine
the effect notcWg tire-borehole walls could have on i"itiation and propagation of fractures. The idea was
that the resulti@, increase in =tre== intensity after detonation would permit fracture initiation at the
notches =t lower values of borehole pressure than would otherwise be required.
Figure 10 (A-D) illustrates selected frames from a multiple spark gap camera showing crack growth (solid
black area) from a" air-filled, notched borehole. A 250 mg charge of PETN was placed at the bottom of a 12.7
mm (l/Z in) diameter hole and = =tem plvg "a8 placed near the top of the barehale. The air length column
between the stem plug and top of the charge was 165 nrm (6.5 in). Figure 10-A shows the fracture network as =
solid, dark, eclipse shape at the bottom of the hole 90 us after detonation. The two long, straight fringe
lines which form a "ertex near the stem plug are due to a shock wave which has traveled up the borehole. Since
the fringe makes an angle of 40' with the borehole wall, the ratio of shock wave speed to P-wave speed in
Plexiglass is 1.19. The bright area "ear the bottom of the charge is due to detonation, while the bright area
"ear the Hem is due to the increase in pressure and shock wave reflecting from the stem as the air ionized =t
that location. Due to the nature of the camera design, these bright areas remain vfsible for all recorded
261

frames. I ” Figure 10-g (113 vs), the beginning of e fracture network is see” to have been Initiated in the
stem erea, while continued slower grouch occurs in the charge area. At 191 ,,s (Figure 10-C) the stem eree
fracture network is now much larger then the charge area fracture. This type of growth continues until the
stem area fracture engulfs the fracture network developed around the charge, (Figure 10-D). Figure 11
illustrates, from a computer sketch, the time profile of the developing fracture network in reference to
Figure 10. In summarizing the events, a shock weve travels up the borehole upon detonation, impacts the stem
end reflects beck with the seme sign es the incoming wave. Due to this reinforcement, the pressure et the
stem plug not only acts iiver e longer period but can also be increased by e factor of 2 to 5 fold.
AIR DECKS FOR PREs*LITTf?$

Around the eeme t&; Crosby et al, 1982 I’, began using air decks for presplitting applications in a
production environment at Rietspruit, South Africa. They were looking for a quick, efficient, and easy means
of achieving well control without some of the drawbacks associated with conventional presplitting techniques.
Conventionel techniques generally required smell drill hole sires compared to large diameter production holes,
thus necessitating the need for additional size drills. Where production size holes were used, attempts to
reduce the borehole pressure by either string loading cartridges of explosives on detonating cord, decoupling
with paper or pleatic tubes or using multiple explosive decks separated by stemming decks far the entire
length of hole were found to be effective, but very time consuming from e productivity standpoint. Refer to
Figure 12 (a and b). To alleviate these drawbacks, the technique developed et Rietspruit consisted of placing
a bulk loaded, fully coupled explosive charge in the bottom of production size holes that “ere used es the
presplit line, Figure 10-C. Approximately 136 Kg (300 lb) of explosive was placed in the bottom of large
diameter 25-38 cm (lo-15 in) diameter, 37 m (120 ft) holes. The remaining length of hole remained open to
the surface with no stemming. The ratio of bottom charge length to hole depth wee approximately 1:lS - 1:20.
A presplit line loaded by this method could be fired similar to conventional techniques by firing the line by
e few milliseconds, or by firing it well in advance (days, weeks, or months) of the main blest. Spacing of
holes in the presplit line, end the burden between the last production row and the presplft line were
gnerally smaller then that selected in the main production blast. Results reported were quite favorable
compared to conventional techniques. The technique YBS tried in selected erees of the USA with similar
results, but found to be overly restricted due to excessive airblast created from unstemmed, open holes.
In 1983 the Atlee Powder Compsny’s Field Technical Operations group began a series of detailed field
studies in full-scale production environments to investigate the ideas put forth by the University of
Heryland’s Fracture Hechanisms Laboratory and the work performed et Rietspruit. The main objective wes to
determine if the techniques would produce adequate results in many diverse types of ground conditions found
in the USA end reduce or eliminate the severe airblast problem. With the spread of urban areas surrounding
many mining communities in the USA, control of air blest “es the meet critical. The main difference between
teets performed et the University of Uerylsnd end ours was that we used regular, unnotched production holes
ranging in diameter from 12.7 cm (5 in) to 27 cm (10-5/g in) rather than notched holes. Between the
Rietsprult technique end owe, the main difference was that ve used e stem plug et the top of the borehole es
opposed to leaving the hole open. In both ceses, and air deck was employed between the bottom hole charge
and stemming plug.
FULL SCALE AIR DECK RESULTS

Air decks were tested, full scale, in en Eastern Pennsylvanie coal mine to characterize their effects
in s production eriviro,u.,e”t. The objective ves to determine the economic , physical and practical feasibility
of using air decks for presplitting and other applications. Materiel blasted consisted of e sendstone end
shale overburden with the density ranging from 2.0 - 2.7 g/cc. All test hole diameters and drill depths were
kept constant et 17 cm (6-3/4 in) end 7.6 m (25 ft), respectively. Four tests were performed to investigate
the effects of air decks in single hole detonations, multiple hole detonations, boreholes containing water
and in unstemmed boreholes.
Test number 1 consisted of 5 holes (RI to H5), with each hole detonated separately. Stemming and ei=
deck lengths were the two variables in each test hole. Test hole parameters and high-speed photography
results ere presented in Table 1 and Figure 13 (a-e). Time profiles were obtained by aoalyring 16 mn films
taken by two high-speed cemeree operating et 500 frames per second. Dimensional control was achieved by
Placing Preset, flti=eecmt painted ter8ets in the horizontal and vertical planes. Time contr.,l wee obt&ed
with shock tubing W Pleei”g one end of the shock tubing in the explosive end running the end through the
air deck end stems&~ to surface. Aole Rl contained stemming above the charge to the surface, 82 contained
5 1.5 q (5 ft) airgeck b$twee” the charge and StPrmming, H3 contained a 3.1 q (10 ft) air deck, ,,4 contained
a 4.6 m ( 1 5 it) aifdeck, end H5 wee en ape” hole to surface. Refer to ~igw~ 13 (=+). Vertical surface
displacement o f burden, gee, dust, etc., with the exception of H4 which contained the lsrgest air deck,
occurred immediately after detonation. The duration betwea” detonation and the onset of surface displacement
f o r Ii4 VB8 5 m*. The greatest area o f influence on surface occurred for holes HZ to H4, all of which
contained air decks. The least surface damage resulted from the open hole, H5. although it generated the
maximum airblast. The gas, smoke, flame and dust front ejected from H5 at a supersonic velocity of 1 920 m/s
(6,300 ftlsec), and continued to vent for approximately 488 q s. In the three holes containing air decks, a
distinct. noticeable white ring formed well beyond the surface damage zone about 197 to 244 ms after
detonation. It remained stationery for approximately 100 ms end then eppeared to collapse inward and toward
the center of the hole. Am explsnatio” for the late occurrence of this ring is still largely unresolved.
It may be due to late arriving gases which have migrated to surface through the newly formed fracture network
and/or due to borehole collapse. In any case, it occure too late I” time to be considered es e direct result
262

of shock and/or stress wave effects generated from the detonation. It i s interesting t o note f r o m earlier
rests that the results of H4 (hole with the largerr air deck) are identical to a” equivalent charge of 18 Kg
(40 lb), placed at a depth af burial of 2.4 m (8 ft) and with full stemming to surface. Identical rewlts
are in reference to surface influence, vertical ejection velocities, TMIN, and mound profile, which is
indicated by the dotted profile “exe to the 102 m= time profile in Figure 13d. It was determined from this
series of tests that the effects df t&es H4 and 85 were worthy of further invesCigatio”.
CONSTANT TEST PARAMETERS (Field Te=t No. 1)

1) stemming Nateriii%Sise 9.5 - 19
mm (3/B - 314 in) 4 ) Borehole Diameter = 17 cm (6-314 in)
2) Explosive Type - ANFO, p - 0.81 g/cc 5) Depth of Burial - 6.4 m (21 f t )
3) Borehole D e p t h 7 . 6 m (25 ft) 6) Backfill Depfh = 0 . 9 m (3 f t )
*** ***
PERCENT OF PERCENT OF UPLIFTING MINIHUH AVG. DIA.
EKPLOSWE VOL. EKPLOSI”E VOL. VELOCITY lIME t o OF SURFACE
HOLE NO. STEMMING AIR DECK T O BOREHOLE TO AIR DECK “0 DISPLACEMENT INFLUENCE
m (ft) m (ft) m/s (frlsec) TWIN (ms) m (fr)
1 6.1 (20.0) 0.0 10 -- 3.0 (10.0) 0 5.5 (18)
2 4.6 (15.0) 1.5 40 7.6 (25.0) 0 6.7 (22)
3 3.1 (10.0) 3.1 (10.0) :i 20 4.9 (16.0) 0 6.7 (22)
4 1.5 ( 5.0) 4.6 (15.0) IO 13 10.7 (35.0) 5 6.7 (22)
5 0.0 ( 0.0) 6.1 (20.0)* 10 10 1 920 (6300)** 0 1.5 ( 5)
* OPEN HOLE TO SURFACE (NO STMHINC)

** FLAME FRONT EJECTION VELOCITY AT TOP OF HOLE
*** CALCULATION DOES NOT INCLUDE “OLW OF DRILL
CUTTINGS USED FOR BACKFILL
Tat “umber 2 consisted of 3 holes in a line, spaced 1.8 m (6.0 it) apart, and loaded with 14 Kg (31 lb)
of ANFO in each hole, (Figure 14). The objectiw here was to determine the effecrs of multiple open holes
fired simulta”eously when compared to multiple air decked holes fired under the same conditions. Charge
d e n s i t y p e r unit area w=s 1.2 Kg/d (0.25 lb/ft’). Upon detonation of the three holes, Hl, H2 and H3, a
distinct flame front Y== observed ejecting out the top of each hole with a velocity of 1 052 mts (3,450 ftisec).
This is indicated by the dotted time profile =t 2 m=. A t 4 ms after dewnation, the individual flame fronts
merge into a larger single flame front. Beyond 4 ms, the flame front is masked by gas, smoke and dust that
is ejected vereically at approximately the speed of sound in air. Surface displacement on either side of the
end holes Hl and H3 occurs 50 to 59 ms after detonation with uplifting velocities o f about 3 m/s (10 ft/sec).
Di=pl=cement in these two region= continue for well over 400 m=, but with the sbsence of gas venting. The
final result was a m o u n d of fragmented material 1.1 m (3 fr) high, 11 m (36 ft) long, and 3 m (10 fr) wide.
Surface investigations revealed that the charge quantities selected for the spacings employed Y=S excessive
for presp1irting applications.
In test number 3 (Figure 15). identical test parameters as described for t==t 2 were used except for the
explosive charge which was reduced by half to 7 Kg (15.5 lb) of ANFO, and t”o of the three holes contained
water on top of the explosive column. Hole H4 was open to surface, H5 contained 0.9 m (3 ft) of vat== on top
of the sealed explosive and H6 contained 1.5 m (5 it) of w=t=r on top of the explosive. All three holes VW=
f i r e d simulta”eously. A gas front with = velocity of 274 ml= (900 ft/sec) was immediately ejected from the
open hole. A combined gas and w=tee front ejected at 108 mfs (353 ft/sec) from the center hole containing
0.9 (3 ft) of water, and hole H6 containing the largest =mou”t of water ejected a gas and water front at 64 m/s
(210 ft/sec). Confinement time= for ejections in both holes containing water were approximately equal at 26 and
27 as. Vertizal ejections for hole 115 and H6 continued for approximately 590 ms and 900 m=, respectively.
No noticeable damage was observed on surface in term= of cratering or mounding. However, =” acceptable pre-
split line wae formed between holes H4 and HS, but not between holes H5 and H6, which contained water.
Although the change density of 0.6 Kg/m’ (0,125 lb/fr2) appeared sppropriate for the environment, it d o e s
suggest that water f” boreholes~will be detrimental to reeults when presplitting with the open hole technique.
Airblast resulting from the violent efections at the cellar of the hole continued to be = problem.
In rest nus,&r 4 ( F i g u r e 16), design parameter= were identical to test “umber 2, except that a 1.5 m
(5.0 ft) stem plug w== placed at the collars o f each hole. The objective "as to maximize contai”ment 4f
the explosion products within the rock m===, reduce surface displacement and eliminate the airblast problaiO
This field test Y== based in part on previous small scale plexiglass experiments performed by Foumey et al .
Confinement times varied from 6 to 20 ms and s u r f a c e ejection velocities varied from 7.3 m/s (24 ft/sec) t o
39 m/s (128 ft/sec). Stem failure in hole H9 was directly responsible for the maximum ejection velocity in
that region. The f i n a l result “8s a mound of fragmented material 1.2 m (4 ft) high, 9.8 m (32 ft) long and
3 m (10 ft) wide; almost identical to the reeults of te=t number 2 with open holes fo surface. T h e on19
advantige of thie technique using a 8t.a plvg Y== = drastic reduction in airblast.
263

NIGHWALL CONTROL WITH AIR DECKS
me theoreeical and experimenral ideas developed at the University of Maryland’s Fracture Nechanics
~aborarory by E”ur”ey et al”, were tried in the field for highwall control, by utilizing air decks in a pre-
splir line of holes. Testing took place in a full scale production operation in a West Virginia coal mine
using 23 cm (9 in) diameter boreholes. The presplir line consisted of 9 holes spaced 5.2 m (17 fr) apart,
with each hole drilled to a depth of 14.3 m (47 ft). Hole loading was s i m i l a r to rhac illustrated in
Figure 12d. ANFO vasb”,&loaded in the bottom of the holes for a length of 2.4 m (8 ft), or approximately
8 1 Kg ( 1 7 8 l b ) of ex&ktie. ‘fhe holes were then sealed with a stem plug consisting of an air bag approxi-
mateD 2.4 m (8 ft) fro#Xhe top of the borehole. Drill cuttings were placed o” top of the air bag and the
barehole was filled to thesurface. The stem pLug is a commercially available, patented, flexible, thin
walled, plastic bag desigried to inflate at law air pressure, (Figures 17-23). The air bag proved to be
reliable and durable for the rugged conditions encountered in the field, (Figures 17 and 22). It was also
a n effective plug c o u s e a t the collar o f t h e h o l e as a m e a n s o f preventing w a f e r , d r i l l cuttings or o t h e r
foreign material from entering and falling into the bacehole (Figure 23). The final air deck length between
the stemming and top of the explosive charge was 9.2 m (30 ft). The explosive charge by volume was appr”xi-
mately 17% of the drill hole and 27 % of the air deck. Figures 24, 25 and 26 illustrate the results of this
presplir test at the c o l l a r re&m of the holes. the presplic crack. a n d the f i n a l highwall a f t e r excavarion
of the main blast, respectively. Although it appeared that there may have been a little more breakage at
the collar regions of the boreholes than desired, the final presplit line and integrity of the highwall was
quite acceptable. High-speed photography results suggested that less explosive’andlor somewhat more stemming
would have bee” desirable. Nevertheless, the test was deemed a s”ccess, as shown in Figure 27, where a
direct comparison of a section of the highwall “sing air decks is made with a” adjacent section of the same
highwall. To date, the Air Deck Presplitting (MI’) technique has been tried in a wide variety of formations
with fair to excellent results. Where conventional presplieting techniques succeeded, the ADP technique
achieved equivalent or better results in borehale diameters ranging from 13 cm (5 in) to 30 cm (12 in).
0” a” economic basis, the ADP technique has reduced costs from 10 - 46% compared to conventional techniques.
Figures 28 and 29 illustrate a comparison of costs and borehole loads for conventional versus the ADP technique.
Based on successful presplit blasts, the explosive load with respect to borehole volume, should be 8 - 11%
and 14 - 18% with respect to the air deck v”lume. The loading density per unit area of presplit surface
ranged from 0.24 to 0.98 Kg/m’ (0.05 to 0.2 lb/ft’). Significant c”st savings were a direct result of lowered
expl”sive costs, larger hole spacing, and lower labor costs.
REC,.N,ATION WITH CRATERING. AIR. DECKS, AND LINEAR CHARGES

A large problem facing the coal industry today concerns reclamation of areas regarded as prime farmland.
After strip coal mining is completed, these high yield tracts of land must be returned to their original
crop producing capabilities. Because of p”or mining practices in the past, most states today require large
amounts of bond m”“ey prior to mining a” area, LO ensure that proper reclamation procedures are followed.
This bond money can be held for up to 10 years as crop yields are monitored for productivity. I f the
reclaimed land does not meet productivity standards within the 10 year period, all of the money could be
forfeited. It has also bee” legislated that the first 1.22 m (4 ft) of subsurface m”st be loose enough
and unconsolidated to allow adequate and healthy root growth to this depth. A ma,or reason it is difficult
to obtain high crop yields lies in that heavy haulage and mining equipment during active mining most always
compacts the soil layer tremendously, thereby allowing “a water, air, and fertilizer to penetrate and condit-
ion the ground for a successful crop yield’“~‘s. Figure 30 illustrates the typical subsurface comp”sitio”
of reclaimed and compacted land LO a depth of 1.5 m (5 ft). The top soil has a density of approximately
1.2 g/cc and is composed of 7% sand, 65% silt, and 28% clay. The subsoil has a density of approximately
1.6 g/cc and is composed of 4% sand, 63% silt, and 33% clay. The compacted problem layer is illustrated
in Figure 31, where argonomists are investigating the health and penetration depth of roots. In the case
of corn roots, the m”re energy expended ir penetrating into the compacted layer, the less energy remains
to feed crop growth. Figure 32 shows a section of a good, healthy and preferred root system. I” very compact-
ed soils, r”“ts seldom reach the 1.2 m (4 ft) depth, but when they do. the roots are quite thin, fragile,
and very sparce. TO date, mechanical means such as hydraulically drive” cut-lift systems, mechanical penetra-
tion by ripping, and mechanical shakers (Figure 33) have all been unsuccessful in loosening soil to the
prescribed depth. At best, mechanical means are effective to a depth between 0.8 - 0.9 m (2.5 - 3.0 ft).
If the regulations w”cerni”g loosening of the soil to a depth of 1.2 m (4 f,t) are not met. all of the bond
money for that parti+ar tract of land is last with little hope of obtaining any new mining permits. As
an alternative s”lutio” LO the reclamation problem facing many coal mine operators, the Atlas Powder Company
in conjunction wieh:~the Amax Coal Company and Black Beauty Resources launched a field research program t”
investigate the phy@cal ‘tid economic feasibility of using explosives. Although the use of explosives in
farming is ceetainl~not new, the focus and urgency in reclamation is. only part of many test series will
be described in this paper.
Three techniques were tried in a formation typical of that described in Figure 30: co”ve”tio”a1 crater-
ing techniques, air decked charges, and linear charges. At1 least two high-speed 16~ cameras (Figure 34)
were used to record each test with the use of dimensional and time controls’. A video camera and playback
unit with a sampling rate of 30 fields per second was also tried, but found to be unreliable in cold weather,
was quite sensitive to mine dust environments, gave very poor spatial resolution and the sampling rate needed
to analyze blasts was much too low. Thus, a video camera is not recommended for any kind of blasting
analysis.
264

Figure 3 5 ( a - e ) illustrates the c”““enti”nal crater technique Of drilling a vertical h o l e f” a precJeter-
mined depth, placing a” explosive charge at the bottom of the hole and stemming to surfact. Tests ve=e condo=-
ted in 11 cm (4-l/2 in) diameter boreholes with rhe charge depth of burial varying be~wee” 1.4 m (4.5 fr) t o
3.8 m (12.5 ft) in increments of 0.6 m (2 ft). The charge quanfify in each borehole was kept constant at 2.5
Kg (5.6 lb). T e s t parameters and =es+ts a=e listed in Table 2 and the high-speed photography surface time
profiles a=e presented in Figure 35 (a-e). Prior to and after each test hole was detonated, a soil probe was
used to determine, qualitatively, the extent of looseness to a depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) around the borehole
(Figure 36 and 37)++ surface. A backhoe (Figure 38, 39 and 40) was used co excavate along one or two axis
to measure, quantltx32Fely, the extent of fracturing and/o= looseness below surface. The contact profile
between material whit,+,, fractured and/o= loosened, and the unaltered compacred ground was clearly visible
and easy t o identify;-~$The f r a c t u r e l i m i t c o n t a c t i s shown i n F i g u r e 3 5 ( a - c ) a s a dotred l i n e . TIhe o b j e c t i v e
here was to determine which charge depth of b”rial resulted in the maximum volume of loosened material above
the 1.2 m (4’ ft) elevation mark, assuming the stirface elevation was ze=o. It was not to determine the opt,,num
depth of burial which gives the maximum volume of broken material. Ground loosened below the 1.2 m (4 ft)
elevation was considered a” undesirable unless that particular geometry also resulted in the maximum material
loosened above 1.2 m (4 ft) to surface. The EWD charges at the smallest depth of burinl (Figure 35, a-b) gave
the best and roughly equivaienr breakage. 1” rerms of drilling economics, test hole Cl-HI 1s more desirable;
in terms of noise and flyrock control, test hole Cl-112 is preferred. lest h o l e s Cl-114 a n d Cl-115 nt t h e l a r g -
est charge depth of burials were not excavated since there was no noticeable surface influence from the
detonation.
CONSTANT TEST PARAMETERS (Conventional Crater Tests)
1 ) E x p l o s i v e - ANFO @ p = 0 . 8 1 g / c c , 2 . 5 K g ( 5 . 6 lbs)
2) stemming Material - Drill cuttings
3) Hole Diameter = 11 cm (4-l/2 in)
DEPTH OF GAS EJECTION “PLIETING MINIMUM TIME TO

HOLE NO. BURIAL STEMMING VELOCITY VELOCITY OISPLACEMENT
m (ft) m (fr) m/s at/s4 mls (fcisec) TMIN (ms)
Cl-H1 1.4 (4.5) 1.2 (4.0) 3 2 (105) 15

19:; (62)** 42
Cl-HZ 2.0 (6.5) 1.8 (6.0) -- 8 . 5 (28) 22
Cl-H3 2 . 6 (8.5) 2.4 (8.0) -- 3 . 4 (11) 36
Cl-H4 3.2 (10.5) 3.1 (10.0) * * *
Cl-H5 3.8 (12.5) 3.7 (12.0) * * *
* NO NOTICEABLE SURFACE OISPLACEMENT

** STEMMING BLOWOUT “ELOCI’IT
Air deck results a=e shown in Figure 41 (a-e) and tabulated in Table 3. Depth of burials for a 2.5 Kg
(5.6 lb) charge of ANFO ranged from 1.5 m (5 fr) to 4.0 (13.5 ft). The stem plug was kept constant at 0.9 m
(3 fc) from surface so chat the air decks were designed to vary from 0.5 m (1.5 ft) to 2.9 m (9.1 ft). Since
the surface was influenced at each test hole afrer detonation, all holes were excavated and the fracture
contact was documented. Figure 42 illustrates the stem plug used for this series of tests. I t c o n s i s t e d o f a
molded, multi-flanged, flexible plastic assembly that could be forced into a barehole and no= collapse under
the weight of stemming. 1t was determined that this type of plug was more conducive to smaller borehole
diameters than the afrbagsdiscossed earlier. Best results were achieved from tee= hole C2-Hl which had the
smallest air deck and charge depth of burial. The fracture limit was almost identical to rhat in test hole
Cl-“1 f o r t h e crater t e s t s . It suggests that perhaps the air deck volume to charge and hole volume is
insignificant in these ratios. As the charge depth of burial increased with air deck length (Figure 41 b-e),
ic is interesting to note that all test hole configuration resulted in some degree of damage, stretching from
the stem plug to surface. In reference to test hole CZ-H5 (Figure 41-e). which had the largest charge depth
of burial 4.0 m fU.5. ft) and the longest air deck 2.9 m (9.5 ft), horizontal damage on either side of the
borehole was th&=aatest. Another interesting observation in Figure 41-e was that for B length of approxim-
ately 1.2 m (4 f$) j&t below the stem plug, the borehole diameter had increased from 11 cm (4.5 in) to 19 cm
(7.5 in); t h u s a+ cDnfirming predictions from the small scale plexiglass experiments performed by Fourney
et allo, at the @,ive&ity of Maryland’s Fracr”re Mechanics Laboratory. It appears reasonable that had the
stem plug in test hole C2-,I5 (Figure 41-e) been placed 1.4 m (4.5 ft) below the surface rather 0.9 m (3 ft).
it may have well give” the best overall results, barring drilling costs.
The last series of teets for reclamation purposes involved linear charges. A linear charge here refers
to a continuous or discontinuous line of explosives, either string loaded, taped cogether, or bulk loaded.
Three rypes of explosives were tested, a” emulsion, semi-gelatin dynamite end ANFO. A 15 cm (6 in) wide
ditch was created to the design depth o f burial (figures 43 and 44). the linear charge was laid at the bottom
and covered with stemming. ~esulrs are shown in Figures 45 (a-e) and Table 4. Note rhar each explosive was
assigned a specific depth of burial, had a different density, diameter and linear density. The linear 6.1 m
(20 ft) of ANFO loaded in a 7.6 cm (3 I”) PVC pipe at a depth of burial equal to 2.1 m (7 it) produced the best
=eSAlte.
265

CONSTANT TEST PASANETERS (Air Deck Tests)
1) E x p l o s i v e - ANFO @ P = 0 . 8 1 g / c c , 2 . 5 K g ( 5 . 6 lbs)
2 ) seemming Macerid - m-ill cureings
3 ) s t e m m i n g - 0 . 9 m (3 fc)
PERCENT OF PERCENT OF CM MINIMUM

DEPTH Of-~ .~I~- CONSTANT EKPLOSI”E VOL. EXPLOSIVE VOL. EJECTION TIME TO
HOLE BURIAL -; S T E M M I N G AIR DECK TO BOREHOLE TO AIR DECK VELOCITY UISPLACKMENT
m (fC) ~2:~ m (fr) m (ft) m / s (fe/sec) (ms)
CZ-“1 1.5 (5.0) 0.9 (3.0) 0.5 (1.5) 20 33 37 (121) 12

CZ-“2 2.1 (7.0) 0.9 (3.0) 1.1 (3.5) 14 29 10.4 (34) 16
C2-“3 2.7 (9.0) 0.9 (3.0) 1.7 (5.5) 11 18 47 (155) 0
C2-“4 3 . 4 (11.0) 0.9 (3.0) 2.3 (7.5) 13 33.5 (110) 10
CZ-H5 4 . 0 (13.5) 0.9 (3.0) 2.9 (9.5) 11 43 (140) 22
TABLE 4
LINEAR CHARCE RESULTS
HINIMUM
DEPTH OF EXPLOSIVE CHARCE EXPLOSIVE EXPLOSIVE UPLIFTING TIME TO
TEST NO. E)[PLOSI”E BURIAL DIAMETER LENGTH WEIGHT DENSITY VELOCITY DISPLACEMENT
m (ft) cm (in) m (ft) K g (lb) g/cc m/s (felsec) (ms)
Ll h”lSi0” 1 . 2 (4.0) 3 (IW 6 . 1 (20)** 5 . 6 (12) 1.15 1 0 . 1 (33) 0

L2 Semi-Gelatin 1.8 (6.0) 7 . 6 (3) 6 . 1 (20)* 1 1 . 4 (25) 1.28 1 8 . 0 (60) 29
Dynamite
L3 ANFO 2 . 1 (7.0) 7 . 6 (3) 6 . 1 (20)** 2 3 . 0 (50) 0.81 16.8 (55) 15
* 5 cartridges s p a c e d over 6 . 1 m (20 ft) u s i n g d e t o n a t i n g c o r d **Continuous column of explosive for 6.1 m
CONCLUSIONS (20 ft)
Analytical h i g h - s p e e d 16mm m o t i o n p i c t u r e p h o t o g r a p h y to e v a l u a t e a i r d e c k s , s t e m m i n g r e t e n t i o n , g a s
confinement, mass movement and grass motion in such applications as prespliccing, bench blast designs and
r e c l a m a t i o n is ‘still o n e o f t h e m a s t v a l u a b l e f i e l d t e c h n i q u e s a v a i l a b l e to e v a l u a t e b l a s t i n g p h e n o m e n a .
Prespliceing with a i r d e c k s i s p h y s i c a l l y a n d ecnomically f e a s i b l e i n a f u l l s c a l e p r o d u c t i o n envir~nmene
and in a wide variety of formations. T h e ADP t e c h n i q u e r e s u l t e d i n e q u i v a l e n t o r b e t t e r r e s u l t s a n d a t l e s s
cost c o m p a r e d to c o n v e n t i o n a l m e a n s of presplitting. A l t h o u g h t h e ADP t e c h n i q u e i s c o n t i n u a l l y b e i n g r e f i n e d
f o r f i e l d u s e , o c h e r p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a i r d e c k s e x i s t i n d i t c h i n g , breaking cap rock, bumping coal,
r e c l a m a t i o n a n d i n f u l l - s c a l e p r o d u c t i o n b l a s t e n v i r o n m e n t s . R e s e a r c h i s c o n t i n u i n g i n t h e s e a r e a s to
c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e s t r e s s p r o f i l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t c h a r g e a n d borehole loading geometries illustrated
in Figure 44.
266

W e w i s h t o e x p r e s s o u r s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e C o t h e f o l l o w i n g orSanizatio”e a n d i n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e i r
a s s i s t a n c e , cooperation a n d e n t h u s i a s m t h r o u g h o u t t h i s c o n t i n u i n g r e s e a r c h e f f o r t :
A T L A S P O W D E R C O M P A N Y - J. S i m p s o n , H. B a r b e r , D . B o r g , G. Revey, S. F i s h e r , S . Burchell. C. ~ostupack,
V. S t e r n e r , V. Lang, J. Wailer, 8. Brandr, C . Keefer, T . Hesserschmidc, 8. B r a w n
EAST KENTUCKY EXPLOSIVES - J. Bussey, D. Daniels
W E S T VIRGINIA-RXPLOSIVES - 8. W o o d
W E S T KENTU@&‘LOSIVES - Clark Ashby
AMAK COAL COMfDT - D. R a l s t o n , J. S m i t h , C . C r o w
MEADOWLARK FA?tB - D . Par
B L A C K BEAUTY REiXWRCES - M . T i n g l i n g , B. Ricci, Chuck Ashby, Bruce Evans
POWDER “ONKEY, INC. - D. Fitzgibbons
“NIVERSITT O F MARYLANE - W. Fourney, D. H o l l o w a y , R . D i c k , D . B a r k e r .
W e a r e a l s o i n d e b t e d t” J a n e Kehler and Joanne Perilli for their assistance and guidance in r h e

p r e p a r a t i o n Of this p a p e r .
REFERENCES
1 ) C H I A P P E T T A , R . P . , BAUER, A . , D A I L E Y , P.J., BURCHELL, S.L.. The “se of High-Speed Photography in

B l a s t E v a l u a t i o n s a n d Design, P r o c e e d i n g s , 9 t h Annual C o n f e r e n c e i n E x p l o s i v e s a n d B l a s t i n g
T e c h n i q u e s , D a l l a s , T e x a s , USA, 1 9 8 3 .
2) C H I A P P E T T A , R . F . , A p p l i c a t i o n s o f H i g h - S p e e d Phot-“ography i n T e s t i n g Convenrianal and “Hand-Made”

S u r f a c e D e l a y s , S q u a r e Knots a n d Blastinp: A n a l y s i s , BSc T h e s i s . Q u e e n ’ s U n i v e r s i t y . K i n g s t o n ,
Ontaria, C a n a d a , 1980.
3 ) B O R G , D.G., C H I A P P E T T A , R.P., MOF.“AP.D, R . C . , S T E R N E R . , “.A., Explosives and Rock Blasting,

Atlas Powder Company, 15301 Dallas Parkway, Colonnade Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas, USA,
75248-4692 - Slasting Theory Chapter, pp 157-203.
4) Headquarters, Department of the Army. Employment of Atomic Demolition Munitions (ADM), Field
w. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , FH5-26, August, 1971.
5 ) C H I A P P E T T A , R.F.. BDKCHELL, S.L., REYEY, G., F I S H E R , R.S.. Atlas Powder Campany, Field Technical
O p e r a t i o n s , “ “ p u b l i s h e d Data. Cratering Field Experiments at the Avery Caal Company, Pennsylvania,
USA, (1983-1985).
6 ) SHIREY, D.L., A t l a s Cratering T e s t s , Sandia National L a b o r a t o r i e s , A l b u q u e r q u e , N e w M e x i c o , U S A ,

De,,arement o f ~“ergy Contracf DE-AC04-76DP00789, Reporr N o . SAND85-0293, October, 1986.
7 ) “EL’NIKO”, N.“., U t i l i z a t i o n o f Enerpy o f E x p l o s i v e s a n d F r a g m e n t S i z e o f R o c k i n BlastinK Operations,

Gorn. Zh., N o . 5 (1940).
8 ) “AKCHENKO, L.N., Increasinp, t h e Energy Utilization Factor of Explosives in Ejection Blasting, Tr. ICD
Akad, Nauk SSSR, 1 , M o s c o w , 1 9 5 4 .
9) HEL’NIKOV, N,“., MAKCHENKO, L . N . , SEINOV, N.P.. ZHARIKOV, I . F . , A Method of Enhanced Kock Blasting by
~l=~ti”S, IPKON A N SSSR, Moscow, T r a n s l a t e d f r o m Firiko-Tekhnicheskie Problemy Kazrabotki Polez”ykh
Isko-Paemykh, No. 6, pp. 32-42, November-December, 1979.
10) FOLRNEY, W.L., BARKER, D . B . , H O L L O W A Y , D.C., Model S t u d i e s af E x p l o s i v e W e l l S t i m u l a t i o n T e c h n i q u e s ,

Inrernarianal J o u r n a l af Rock M e c h a n i c s , M i n . , Sei., a n d G e o . Mech., “alume 1 8 . pp. 113-127. 1 9 8 1 .
11) CROSBTJ ~W.K., MCDONALD, K.L., S M I T H W., Productivity Improvements for Dragline Operations Using
Cmtrorled Blasting in a Single and Hultiple Seem Open Cast Coal Operation at Reitspruir, S o u t h
u, C a n a d i a n I n s t i t u t e o f Hining a n d Mecallurw, Q u e b e c C i t y . Cuebec, C a n a d a , A p r i l , 1 9 8 2 .
.~ c-
12) SANDWb;L.D;, e t a l , E x p l o s i v e P e r f o r m a n c e ae R e l a t e d t o Slasting, R o c k M e c h a n i c s , C . Pairhurst E d . ,
Pergamo” Press, 1 9 6 3 .
1 3 ) K . TANKA, et a l . , P r e c i s e M e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e F.“erKy o f E x p l o s i v e s b y U n d e r w a t e r D e t o n a t i o n , J o u r n a l
o f Ind. Fxpl”. Sot. o f J a p a n , Volume 4 2 . N o . 4 , 1 9 8 1 , p p . 2 3 9 - 2 4 6 .
14) RALSTON, D.S., Compaction Related to Prime Farmland Reclamation, American “ininS ConSress. Chicago,
Set No. 8, April-Hay, 1984.
15) FEHRENBACHER, D.J., JANSEN, I.J., FEHRENBACHER. J.R.. C o r n Root D e v e l o p m e n t in C o n s t r u c t e d S a i l s on

S u r f a c e - M i n e d L a n d in W e s t e r n I l l i n o i s , S a i l S c i e n c e S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a J o u r n a l . V o l u m e 4 6 , Na. 2 ,
Harch-Apprll, IY*(L, P P . J3J-JXJ.
267

Benell Tap
I .l
Fig. 1 MASS BURDEN MOVEMENT DOCUMENTED WITH HIGH-SPEED 16 mn MOTION PICTURE PHOTOGRAPHY
FOR TYPICAL QUARRY AND COAL MINE BLASTS
268
vs = 10 to 1500 wsec.
_
. . .. : ~-Stemming Ejection
Surlace Uplifting
\ \vf~:~5i?200ft.,‘sec.
Malerial : Limestone Explosive = ANFO (40’)

vp = 15.000 wsec. v o o = 13.oooc
BLASTING ANALYS1S
p = 2.3 g/cc Hole Dia. = 5” BY
Ave. Burden = 15’ R. FRANK CHIAI-PETTA
MI\RK E. MI\MMELE
;m~1g;_2 INTERACTION OF TIME EVENTS Tl TO T4 IN A TYPICAL

QUARRY BENCH (SI UNITS ARE DISCUSSED IN TEXT)
269

Fig. 3 INTERACTION OF TIME EVENTS Tl-T4 FOR
A SINGLE CRATER CHARGE
270

I Fig. 4 DAMAGE ZONES RESULTING FROM
A CRATER CHARGE (EMPLOYMENT
I
OF ATOMIC DEMOLITION MUNI-

TIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY, WASHINGTON, DC, USA,
1971)
Fig. 5 HIGH-SPEED PHOTOGRAPHY RESULTS -

SHOWING SURFACE TIME PROFILES
FOR AN 18Kg (40 lb) ANFO CHARGE,
DOB = 2.4 m (8,O ft)
WOUND OR BURDEN
VELOCITY '/E&US
DEPTH OF BURIAL FOR
18 Kg (40 lb) ANFO
CHARGES
271

Fig. 7 SEQUENCE ILLUSTRATING TIME EVENTS Tl TO T4 IN AN UNDERWATER DETONATION OR
BUBBLE ENERGY TEST
272

(II EXPLOSIVE SYSTEM 1
(2) EXPLOSIVE SYSTEM 2
(31 EXPLOSIVE SYSTEM 3
FOR EACH
I I I I
100
TIME (ma)
Fig, 8 AREA EXPANSION VERSUS TIME FOR THREE EXPLOSIVE SYSTEMS HAVING
THE SAME THEORETICALLY CALCULATED THERMOCHEMICAL ENERGY
l----H-
(I) EXPLOSIVE SYSTEtl II)
IO - Enerq~ = 20,600 KcoI.
400
(2) EXPLOSIVE SYSTEM (2)
Energy = 25,300 Kcal.
t-
Fig. 9 AREA EXPANSION VERSUS TIME FOR TWO EXPLOSIVE SYSTEMS HAVING
DIFFERENT THEORETICALLY CALCULATED THERMOCHEMICAL ENERGY
273

FRAME 5 90 LIS FRAME 6 1 1 3 IIS FRAME 9 1 9 1 us
Fig, 10A Fig. 10 B Fig, 10 C
Frame Time
N O . “Set
1 13
2 34
I 57
4 81
5 90
6 113
7 140
8 164
9 191
10 215
12 247
14 272
16 323
FRAllE 15 296 MS
Fig. 10 D
274

:‘/‘,I 1 1,/‘)
I,
-Stemming ”
,’
(d) Bottom Charge

With Air Deck
Deck
-Explosive
-Air
(01 and (b) CONVENTIONAL PRESPLITTING TECHNIQUES

With Open Hole
(c) Bottom Charge
(Open Hole)
-Air
(c) OPEN HOLE TECHNIQUE

(d) NEW ADP TECHNIQUE
Charges
(b) Decked
Charges From
Borehole Wall
( a ) Continuous
Decoupled
Fig. 12

HI
TMIN = Oms
Vo = 3.0 m/s (10 FIISec)
Crushed Rock
9.5 - 19 mm
(‘I, In - % in)
DIA = 17 cm (6%I In)

In)
ANFO = 19 Kg (40 lb)
0 1 2 3 Meters
Fig. 13 A Hl - SURFACE EFFECTS FOR FULL STEMMING TO SURFACE
276

H2 ’
TMIN = 0 ms
Vo = 7.6 m/s (25 FllSec)
Dia. = 17cm (6%“)
Crushed Rock
Note: White Ring Forms At 244 ms 9.5 - 19 mm
Alter Detonation
White Ring Formed Remains
Visible Until 346 ms Alter
Detonation.
After 346 ms, Ring Appears
To Collapse Inwards And
Towards Center 01 Hole
SlXle ANFO = 18 Kg (40 lb)
Drill Cuttings .
0ow
--~ .,. 3 Feet
Meters
Fi& 13-B H2 - SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 1.5 m (5.0 ft) AIR DECK
277

H3
TMIN = OmS
Vo = 4.9 m/s (16 FlISec)
.-____ ____-- ---- --y--v------ _---------

197ms-While Ring Forms
.’
i‘>
‘.,
?;;
:!j - C r uCrushed
s h e d SloneSlone
;i 9.5 - 19 mm
,‘I
1 (J/b In. - ‘14 In. )
;,;, -Dia. = 1 7 c m (6% In.)

:‘i
ANFO = 1QKg (40 lb)
I
0 1 1 3’ M e t e r s u
Fig, 13 @: H37; SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 3,l m (10,O ft) AIR DECK
278

TMIN = 5 ms
Vo = 10.7 m/s (35 FIISec)
J
-.+ -----<G,r- ----- -we- I __ _-_--e-r-
211 mS White Ring Forms
-Crushed Rock
.f 9.5-19mm
(% in. - % in. )
4.6m (15 feel)

gAir Deck
Scale
Q ~3 6 9 Feet
I -ANFO = l8Kg (40 lb)

w 1 2 3 Meters
Analysis By:
-Drill Cuttings
Frank Chiappelta
Mark Mammele
Fig. 13 D H4 - SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 4.6 m (15.0 ft) AIR DECK
279

HS
TMIN = OIYIS
Vo = 1920 m/s (6,300 FlISec)
I
conthlues out Of view
6 -TIME (me)
Gas, Smoke A
And Oust
Front
Total Duration Of Gas,

Smoke And Dust Ejection
In The Vertical Direction
Is APP~OX. 466 ms
6.lm (20 leel)

-Open Hole To Surface
(No Stemming)
-Dia. = 17cm (6% in.)
16 Kg (40 lb) ANFO-

Primer-
Drill Cultings-
Fig, 13 E H5 - SURFACE EFFECTS FOR AN OPEN HOLE TO SURFACE

260
Fig, 14 SURFACE EFFECTS FOR THREE, UNSTEMMED OPEN HOLES FIRED
SIMULTANEOUSLY
281

Fig, 15 SURFACE EFFECTS FOR THREE, UNSTEMMED HOLES TO
SURFACE) Hl IS OPEN TO SURFACE, HZ CONTAINS
0,9 m (3 ft) OF WATER ON TOP OF CHARGE, AND
H3 CONTAINS 1.5 m (5 ft) OF WATER ON TOP OF
CHARGE
282

Fig. 16 SURFACE EFFECTS FOR THREE BOREHOLES FIRED SIMULTANEOUSLY;
EACH HOLE CONTAINED A 4.6 m (15 ft) AIR DECK BETWEEN THE
CHARGE AND STEMMING
283

Fig. 17 UNIFLATED AIR BAG Fig. 18 DEMONSTRATION OF TSE Fig, 19 CLOSE-UP OF
STNENGTB AND INTEGRITY OF AN
INFLRTED AIR BAG BY INFLATION
D. FITZGIBBONS, INVENTOR AND AND DEFLATION
PATENT SOLDER OF THE AIR BAG
SYSTEM VALVES
Fig. 20 LOWERING UNINFLATED BAG TO Fig, 21 AIR BAG COMES IN DIFFERENT

DESIRED DEPTH SIZES
Fig. 22 CLOSE-UP SHOWING STRENGTH Fig, 23 AIR BAG USED TO SEAL COLLAR
OF INFLATED AIR BAG OF BOREHOLE
284

Fig. 24 SURFACE RESULT OF A Fig. 25 CLOSE-UP OF Fig. 26 SECTION OF PRESPLIT
PRESPLIT TEST USING AIR DECKS PRESPLIT CRACK HIGHWALL AFTER EXCAVATION OF
IN A WEST VIRGINIA COAL MINE PRODUCTION ELAST
Fig. 27 DIRECT COMPARISON OF HIGHWALL RESULTS, THE ADP TECHNIQUE UTILIZED ON THE
RIGHT SIDE VERSUS NO PRESPLITTING OF HIGHWALL ON THE LEFT
&.
285

-..-LL CDTTINGS
4
~3 CN(TRIDGES OF
+2ONVENTIONAL
6 PIUCSPLIT EKPIRSIVE
FIGURE 28
SURFACE
y- 0%
I& DRIti
CDTTINGS
12
: , . ,:‘
40 ,...
.!.:I
- A I R
DECK
3:; DRILL CWTINGS
14
Hi+ 45 :;:‘i
:.'<,.f
1.5 m (5.0 ft)
METER1 FEET c
scALK FIGURE 29
286

Fig, 30 TYPICAL SUBSURFACE COMPOSITION OF RECLAIMED AE!D COMPACTED
FARMLAND TO A DEPTH OF 1.5 m (5,O ft)
Fig, 31 ARGONOMISTS INVESTIGATING THE Fig, 32 SECTION OF A GOOD, HEALTHY

HEALTH AND PENETRATION DEPTH OF ROOTS, AND PREFERRED ROOT SYSTEM
DOTTED LINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH INDICATES THE
COF!TACT BETWEEF' LOOSE Al!? COMPACTED LAYERS.
207

Fig, 33 MECHANICAL SHAKERS HAVE NOT BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN LOOSENING RECLAIMED AND COMPACTED
SOIL TO THE DESIRED DEPTH OF 1,2 m (4,O ft)
Fig, 34 TWO HIGH-SPEED 16 mm MOTION

PICTURE CAMERAS OPERATING BETWEEM 500
TO 1000 FRAMES PER SECOND WERE USED
FOR BLASTING ANALYSIS, A VIDEO CAMERA
WAS FOUND APPROPRIATE FOR DOCUMENTARY
WORK BUT TOTALLY UNDESIRABLE IN TERMS
OF BLASTING ANALYSIS DUE TO ITS POOR
133 RESOLUTION AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY
1nI
Fig. 35 A SURFACE EFFECTS

FOR A CRATER CHARGE AT A
: -slmmll"g DOB = 1.4 m (4,5 ft)
\

Fig. 35 B SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A CRATER CHARGE AT A DOB =
2.0 m (6,5 ft)
I
I
(I J-am
)
Fig. 35 C SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A CRATER CHARGE AT A DOB =

2.6 m (8.5 ft)
289

DOB : 3.2 m ,105 PI,
Hole cm = 11 cm 14.5 in.,
Fig, 35 D SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A CRATER CHARGE

AT A DOB = 38'2 m (IO.5 ftl
Fig, 35 E SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A CRATER CHARGE

AT A DOB = 3,8 m (12,5 ft)
290

Fig. 36 TOP VIEW OF SOIL PROBE USED TO Fig. 37 SOIL PROBE USED AROUND THE COLLAR
DOCUMENT COMPACTION REGION OF EACH TEST HOLE, BEFORE
AND AFTER EACH DETONATIOI!
Fig, 38 BACKHOE USED TO EXCAVATE EACH TEST

HOLE AFTER FIRING THE CHARGE, TO
OUANTATIVELY ASSESS FRACTURE ZONE
Fig, 39 RESULT OF EXCAVATION

IN ONE PLANE
Fig, 40 RESULT OF EXCAVATION FOR TEST HOLE

NUMBER C2-H2 (Figure 41B) SHOWING
CHAMBERING EFFECT IN THE CHARGE
VICINITY
291

Vo = 37 m/s (121 FWSec)
TMIN = 12ms
2~
I
\
\ .:.: /
3 -Slemming / SCG3k
\ .>‘,
. /
. >.. /
\ / Yer Feet
0
- A i r
D e c k /
Fracture Limit /
\ &-ANFO / 2
\ / -c
1
4
6
21
Fig, 41 A SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 0,5 m (1.5 ft) AIR DECK USED IN HOLE C2-HI
292

vo = 10.4mfs (34 FtlSec)
TMIN = 16ms
283
I 2a3- Time (ms)
480 i I
Scale
Meter Feet
Fracture Limit
DOB = 2.1 m (7.0 Ft)

Hole Dia = 11 cm (4.5 in.)
Air Deck = 1.1 m (3.5 Ft)
Fig, 41 B sURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 181 m (3.5 ft) AIR DECK USED IN HOLE Q-HZ
293

Vo = 47 m/s (155 Ft/Sec)
TMIN = 0 ms
Surface
.’
\
. +Stemming I-’
c - -
e
-- dc
C - S
-/ Mele :eet
Fracture Limit / o- -0
.---Air Deck
-2
l-
-4
cANF0 -6
2-
DOB = 2.7 m (9.0 FI)
Air Deck q 1.7 m (5.5 Ft)
Fig, 41 C SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 1,7 m (5.5 ft) AIR DECK USED IN HOLE C2-H3
294

Vo = 33.5m/s (110 FtISec)
TMIN = 1Oms
1 0 0 - T i m e (ms)
/
/
A’ SCZik
Meter Feet
0 0
DOB q 3.4 m (11 Ft)

Fig, 41 D SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 2.3 m (7,s ft) AIR DECK USED IN HOLE U-H4
295

Vo = 43 m/s (140 Ft/Sec)
TMIN = llms
I
133 -Time (ms)
/
\ ---Stemming /
/
__-*-’
//----~/--
Borehole Diameter
Scale increased From
ii cm (4% in.) To 19 cm (7% in.)
After Detonation
-Air Deck
cANF0
DOB q 4.0 m (13.5 Ft)

Fig, 41 E SURFACE EFFECTS FOR A 2,9 m (9,s ft) AIR DECK USED IN HOLE Q-H5
Fig , 42 STEM PLUG USED IN RECLAMATION
TESTS AND IN TESTS ILLUSTRATED
IN FIGURE 13 B-D, AND FIGURE 16
Fig, 4 3 EXCAVATION EQUIPKENT USED IN

LIl!EAR CHARGE TESTS
Fig, 44 LINEAR CHARGE, L2, PREPARED

FOR PLACEMENT INTO DITCH
291

Vo = 10.1 m/s (33 Ft/Sec)
TMIN = Oms
500 - Time (ms)
DOB = 1.2 m (4.0 Ft)

Charge Dia = 3 cm (1% in.)
Charge Length = 6.1 m (20 Ft)
Emulsion Explosive = 1.16 g/cc
Fig, 45 A RESULTS OF LINEAR CHARGE Ll
296

Vo q 16 m/s (60 Ft/Sec)
TMIN = 29ms
600 -Time (ms)
\ /
\ /
\ /
\
\ /
/
1.8 m (6.0 Ft) /
/
Fracture Limit 3, / SC&!
\ /
\ /
Ye’ Feet
0
.\
-. \ 0 1 y-/l’
\
/’ 2
‘-1
DOB = 1.8 m (6.0 Ft) 1
Charge Dia = 7.6 cm (3 in.)
4
Charge Length = 6.1 m (20 Ft)
5 Cartridges Of Semi-Gelatin
Dynamite Spaced Over 6.1 m (20 Ft)
6
Explosive Density = 1.28 g/cc 2 i-
Fig. 45 B RESULTS OF LINEAR CHARGE L2
299

Vo = 16.8 m/s (55 Fl/Sec)
TMIN = 15 ms
I 400 -Time (ms)
\
.
. .
--
\
I
2.1 r n (7.0 Ft) /
-- /
\ Scale
/
/ / Meter Feel
I
1 / / / /
“-I-”
-2
1
-4
DOB q 2.1 m (7.0 Fi)
Charge Dia = 7.6,cm (3 in.)
Charge Length = 6.1 m (20 Fl) -6
Explosive = ANFO, Density = 0.61 g/cc 2-
Fig, 45 C RESULTS OF LINEAR CHARGE L3
300

.~ .:..
:..:,_ .,:; .:-;;: ,. .,.
\:I’..
‘.., ,.~,::“..::,‘;::,~~.,..~i.(-
t
F
.-
i
2
ln
301


Uso Do Tampão Open Pit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uso Do Tampão Open Pit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN‘4LYpL?

R. Frank Chiappeetal Mark E. Mammele’

I N T R O D U C T I O N - GENERAL BLASTING MECHANISMS

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

During and/or =f’&:str=ss wave propa8acion, t h e high-temper=tUre, h i g h - p r e s s u r e gases impart a st=e=S

M e s s movement o f m a t e r i a l i s the last stage i n t h e blasting procese. T h e m a j o r i t y o f f r a g m e n t a t i o n h a s

CONWNTIONAL CRATERING KECHANISMS

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

AIR DECKED EFFECTS MODELED IN PLEXIGLASS

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

AIR DECKS FOR PREs*LITTf?$

FULL SCALE AIR DECK RESULTS

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

CONSTANT TEST PARAMETERS (Field Te=t No. 1)

* OPEN HOLE TO SURFACE (NO STMHINC)

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

REC,.N,ATION WITH CRATERING. AIR. DECKS, AND LINEAR CHARGES

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

CONSTANT TEST PARAMETERS (Conventional Crater Tests)

DEPTH OF GAS EJECTION “PLIETING MINIMUM TIME TO

Cl-H1 1.4 (4.5) 1.2 (4.0) 3 2 (105) 15

* NO NOTICEABLE SURFACE OISPLACEMENT

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

PERCENT OF PERCENT OF CM MINIMUM

CZ-“1 1.5 (5.0) 0.9 (3.0) 0.5 (1.5) 20 33 37 (121) 12

LINEAR CHARCE RESULTS

Ll h”lSi0” 1 . 2 (4.0) 3 (IW 6 . 1 (20)** 5 . 6 (12) 1.15 1 0 . 1 (33) 0

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

W e a r e a l s o i n d e b t e d t” J a n e Kehler and Joanne Perilli for their assistance and guidance in r h e

1 ) C H I A P P E T T A , R . P . , BAUER, A . , D A I L E Y , P.J., BURCHELL, S.L.. The “se of High-Speed Photography in

2) C H I A P P E T T A , R . F . , A p p l i c a t i o n s o f H i g h - S p e e d Phot-“ography i n T e s t i n g Convenrianal and “Hand-Made”

3 ) B O R G , D.G., C H I A P P E T T A , R.P., MOF.“AP.D, R . C . , S T E R N E R . , “.A., Explosives and Rock Blasting,

6 ) SHIREY, D.L., A t l a s Cratering T e s t s , Sandia National L a b o r a t o r i e s , A l b u q u e r q u e , N e w M e x i c o , U S A ,

7 ) “EL’NIKO”, N.“., U t i l i z a t i o n o f Enerpy o f E x p l o s i v e s a n d F r a g m e n t S i z e o f R o c k i n BlastinK Operations,

10) FOLRNEY, W.L., BARKER, D . B . , H O L L O W A Y , D.C., Model S t u d i e s af E x p l o s i v e W e l l S t i m u l a t i o n T e c h n i q u e s ,

15) FEHRENBACHER, D.J., JANSEN, I.J., FEHRENBACHER. J.R.. C o r n Root D e v e l o p m e n t in C o n s t r u c t e d S a i l s on

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Malerial : Limestone Explosive = ANFO (40’)

;m~1g;_2 INTERACTION OF TIME EVENTS Tl TO T4 IN A TYPICAL

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

OF ATOMIC DEMOLITION MUNI-

Fig. 5 HIGH-SPEED PHOTOGRAPHY RESULTS -

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

(d) Bottom Charge

(01 and (b) CONVENTIONAL PRESPLITTING TECHNIQUES

(c) OPEN HOLE TECHNIQUE

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

DIA = 17 cm (6%I In)

ANFO = 19 Kg (40 lb)

Fig. 13 A Hl - SURFACE EFFECTS FOR FULL STEMMING TO SURFACE

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Dia. = 17cm (6%“)

SlXle ANFO = 18 Kg (40 lb)

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

.-____ ____-- ---- --y--v------ _---------

;,;, -Dia. = 1 7 c m (6% In.)

ANFO = 1QKg (40 lb)

Copyright © 2001 International Society of Explosives Engineers

4.6m (15 feel)

.- -- ---- --y--v------ _---------