High Fidelity Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior during Rock

Blasting

Dale S Preece
Orica Mining Services
Watkins, CO

Ruilin Yang
Orica Mining Services
Watkins, CO

Abstract

Air-decks are often employed for presplitting along the final highwall of a blast and are sometimes also
included at the bottom or in the middle of explosive columns in the production portion of a blast.

Shock wave physics is an important part of air-deck behavior since the bulk explosives in the column
impart a shock into the air-deck where the air shock then passes through the air-deck at a rapidly
attenuating velocity. Through both high-fidelity modeling and shock physics theory it is shown that the
resulting pressure in the air-deck is two orders of magnitude less than the detonation pressure of the
explosive. The induced air blast reflects from the bottom of the borehole and this reflected pressure,
even though doubled, is still approximately two orders of magnitude less than the detonation pressure.
Air-shocks will ring back and forth in the air-deck for a few tens of milliseconds while the adjacent
explosive column(s) are detonating. Transmission of the initial shock through the air along with
reflections is an intensive energy consuming process. Energy balance results in shock heating of the air
and a temperature increase. However, the increased temperature of the air is also orders of magnitude
less than that of the explosive detonation products immediately behind the detonation front. Replacing
high energy explosives with zero energy air-decks in a blasthole will always have a negative impact on
the adjacent rock fragmentation and movement.

The behavior of air-decks in explosive columns is well understood and can be modeled with “Rankine-
Hugoniot Jump Equations” as well as with finite difference or Lagrangian shock physics computer
programs. These approaches are documented in two papers at this conference to aid those interested in
understanding the behavior and impact of air-decks in blasting.

Introduction

High fidelity computer simulations of the blasting process have been done for many years (Preece and
Thorne, 1996) (Thorne et al, 1990) (Jensen and Preece, 1999). The computer program AUTODYN
(ANSYS Inc., 2010), in particular, has been used for many studies of explosive effects on rock in
traditional blasting as well as other applications (Holcomb et al, 2005) (Preece, 2006 & 2007) (Berg &
Preece, 2004) (Preece & Chung, 2003) (Tawadrous & Preece, 2011). All of these studies employ the
RHT Brittle Material Failure model (Reidel et al, 1999).

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 1 of 13
 Figure 1: Three different configurations of the blasthole that were modeled.

Figure 1 illustrates the three high fidelity axisymmetric AUTODYN models used in this air-deck study.
The first is a full column of explosive with the booster located 1.0 ft. (304.8 mm) from the bottom of the
hole. The second model has a 3 ft. (914 mm) air-deck interfacing directly with the ANFO explosive and
the third model has an inert sand stemming deck between the explosive and the air-deck. The second and
third models have the booster initiation point 6 ft. (1.83 m) above the bottom of the blasthole. This
places it 3 ft. (0.914 m) above the stemming giving space for the run up to full detonation. Also shown
on the right is a close-up of the computational grid illustrating the grid size employed as well as the axis
of symmetry and the two different “frames-of-reference” employed. The Euler computational method is
employed for air and explosive. Rock is modeled with the Lagrange computational method. The Euler
and Lagrange frames-of-reference are coupled together using “Flux Corrected Transport”, ANSYS Inc,
2010.

The explosive employed in these simulations is ANFO, the characteristics of which are presented in
Table 1. The explosive is fully coupled in 10 inch (251 mm) blastholes. Air is treated as an ideal gas
with a density of 1.225 x 10-3 g/cm3, and an adiabatic index (gamma) of 1.4. The rock is treated as a
medium strength concrete with the RHT brittle material model (Riedel et al, 1999) and a porous sound

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 2 of 13
speed of 2.92 x 103 m/s. Stemming is modeled as sand with a compaction material model that has been
proven reliable in other studies (Risenmay et al, 2005).

Table 1: Equation of State Parameters for ANFO

Parameter Value Units
Equation of State JWL
Reference Density 0.931 g/cm3
Parameter A 49.46 GPa
Parameter B 1.891 MPa
Parameter R1 3.907
Parameter R2 1.1180
Parameter W 0.33333
C‐J VoD 4160 m/s
C‐J Energy/unit‐vol 2.484 GJ/m3
C‐J Pressure 5.15 MPa

AUTODYN Simulations

All the simulations focused primarily on the bottom of the borehole, in the booster and air-deck regions,
to increase the modeling resolution there. However, with the first case to be considered from Figure 1
(detonation of the “Full Column Explosive”) the results in Figure 2 show a slight effect on the damage at
the top of the model indicated by the reduced diameter of the damaged zone compared with the lower
sections of the blasthole. This is a direct result the “transmitting boundary” at the top of the model which
is needed when not treating the entire length of the blasthole in the model.

The next case considered is the “Explosive with Air-Deck” from Figure 1. This scenario is impossible to
implement in the field but was simulated to provide information for comparison with the shock physics
study by Yang and Preece (2017). It also provides the ideal case for how an air-deck is perceived to
function and will provide a significant contrast to what is usually implemented in the field.

The final case, from Figure 1 is the “Explosive with Air-Deck and Stemming. This case is what is
usually implemented in the field with a stemming deck between the explosives and the air-deck.

Full Column Explosive

Detonation pressure in the blasthole and the conical nature of the shock/stress in the rock from this case
is shown in Figure 2. The induced damage (broken rock or fragmented zone) following detonation of the
entire blasthole is given in Figure 3. The confined detonation velocity and pressure for ANFO in the
rock/concrete were determined by analysis of the simulation results to be 4208 m/s (1.38 x 104 ft/s) and
3.51GPa (5.01 x 105 psi)

Explosive with Air-Deck

Figure 4 illustrates detonation and shock wave transmission through the model with an air-deck at the
bottom. This is a very complex process. At time 0.25 ms the detonation wave is approaching the air-
deck from above. At time 0.35 ms the wave has passed through the air/explosive interface. Since air is

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 3 of 13
much less dense than the virgin explosive a compressive wave is reflected back upward into the
explosive

Figure 2: Detonation of the full column Figure 3: Rock damage at 2.5 ms induced
of explosive 1.0 ms following initiation. by the detonation. Color plot of damage
Color plot of pressure. scaling from 0 to 1, with 0 being intact
rock and 1 totally broken rock.

Figure 4: Pressure induced in the air-deck by the detonation of ANFO from above.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 4 of 13
Stationary gauge points along the axis of the borehole are indicated by red diamonds and numbers. The
pressure range in kPa is indicated by the color bar and corresponding pressures. The maximum and
minimum pressures are also shown converted to psi. It is very important to note that the pressure ranges
on the color-bar have been changed/adjusted at each time to best capture the shock phenomena.

detonation products. This substantially reduces the explosive energy that enters the airdeck. This wave is
manifested by the higher pressure dome above the explosive/air interface. Also note that the outward
deformation/expansion of the borehole essentially terminates at the original explosive/air interface,
another indicator of a drastic reduction of energy going out into the adjacent rock.

Due to the significant difference in the density of the explosion by products and air (explosive by
products being higher) there is little initial mixing of the explosive gases and air. The line separating the
two is evident as it progresses downward across the gauge points. At 0.35ms the color gradation dome
that goes upward from gauges 4 to 1 is indicative of the waves reflecting from the outside edge of the
borehole in the air-deck. These waves will converge towards the center and self-bounce back outward
towards the edge of the borehole. This process is referred to as radial ringing.

Radial ringing of the waves between the center and outer surface of the borehole happens several times
while the wave energy is attenuating and is evident in the remainder of the timed images. It is evident at
times 0.4 and 0.45 ms that the pressure wave moving downward in the airdeck is at a substantially lower
pressure than in the detonating column of explosive. From the color-bar, the pressure immediately below
the explosive/air line is 23.91 MPa (3.47x 103 psi). This indicates that the pressure in the air-deck is a
factor of 0.0046 less than the blasthole pressure in ANFO of 3.51 GPa (5.01 x 105 psi). Hence, the lack
of outward expansion of the borehole wall in the air-deck.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 5 of 13
 Figure 5: Pressure histories at gauge points in the air-deck. Explosive with air-deck.

Figure 5 shows the pressure histories at the gauge points for this case. Yang and Preece (2017) used
shock physics theory to calculate the initial pressure in the air immediately below the explosive/air
interface to be ~1.0% of the CJ pressure. This pressure of 7.47x103 psi is reached by the incident
pressure pulse at gauges 3 and beyond in the AUTODYN simulation. The fact that it doesn’t happen at
gauge 1 is likely due to this discretized computational approach to shock physics. However, the fact that
this pressure is reached in the air-deck is a significant point of validation for this work because both the
theoretical and computational methods used to analyze this phenomenon give very similar results.

Reflection of the air blast from the sides of the blasthole are evident in the immediate oscillations
following the first arrival of the air blast. The second major oscillation, which happens sooner for gauges
closer to the blasthole bottom, are the result of the reflection of the air blast from the bottom of the
blasthole. This corresponds to the reflection and pressure increase seen from times 0.5 ms to 0.8 ms in
Figure 4.

The air blast wave induced at the top of the airdeck has arrival times at gauges 1 and 2 of 0.298 ms and
0.315 ms respectively. The gauges are 88mm apart which gives an air blast velocity of 5176 m/s (16983
ft/s). Yang and Preece (2017) also used shock physics theory to calculate the velocity of the incident
pressure pulse propagating in the air-deck as 5702 m/s (18707 ft/s). There is a 9% difference here but
the two predictions are both greater than the detonation velocity. This relatively close correlation

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 6 of 13
between air blast velocities determined by two very different methods is another point of validation for
this work.

A physical phenomena that has been touted as a reason for air-decks in blastholes is that the air blast
produced by the detonating explosive within the air-deck will buffer the detonation effects over time and
that the reverberation of the air-blast reflecting from the sides and bottom of the blasthole will
approximately double the air-blast pressure at later times to spread the explosive effects out over time
(Jhanwar, 2011).

a. Full column explosive. b. Explosive with air-deck

Figure 6: Damage induced in the air-deck region of the blasthole at 0.8 ms, compared with that
resulting from a full column explosive.

In fact, this idea is flawed because in reality the shock wave attenuates very rapidly in air, as illustrated
in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 also illustrates the reflection of the air blast from the bottom of the
blasthole beginning at time 0.5 ms and continuing through 0.8 ms. The reflected pressure has a peak of
~8.0x104 psi (5.54x105 kPa), which is ~10% of the C-J pressure in the explosive, but the pulse lasts only
a few milliseconds. An important aspect of explosives effects on rock and concrete is the impulse, which
is force (pressure) multiplied by the time of application (Bulson, 1997). Due to the low pressure and
short application time the reflected air blast produces only a small amount of fragmentation/damage in
the rock mass. Figure 6 presents the simulated damage at the bottom of the airdeck at the end of the
reflection of the air-blast from the bottom of the borehole (0.8 ms). The small effect on the borehole
wall by the reflected shock wave is evident. It is also evident that compared with the damage induced by
the “full column explosive”, the damage in the rock adjacent to the air-deck is virtually non-existent.
This is due to the previously mentioned causes: 1) reflection of substantial explosive energy back into
the explosive due to the density difference between air and explosive, 2) rapid attenuation of the air
pressure and velocity in the air-deck, and 3) the very short duration of the pressure spike resulting from
reflection of the air blast from the blasthole bottom.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 7 of 13
Figure 7: Pressure induced in the stemming and air-deck by the detonation of ANFO from above.
Stationary gauge points along the axis of the borehole are indicated by red diamonds and
numbers. The pressure range in kPa is indicated by the color bar and corresponding pressures.
The maximum and minimum pressures are also shown converted to psi. It is very important to
note that the pressure ranges on the color-bar have been changed/adjusted at each time to best
capture the shock phenomena that are occurring.

Explosive with Air-Deck and Stemming

The final AUTODYN simulation that will be examined is the “Explosive with Air-Deck and
Stemming”, shown in Figure 1. This is the case that will exist in some form in all field applications of
air-decks. Figure 7 illustrates the interaction of the detonation induced shock wave with the stemming
and airdeck. In this case the stemming is treated with the Eulerian frame-of-reference and a “Sand”
compaction material model.

The advance of the detonation wave down the explosive column toward the stemming block is evident at
time 0.20ms. Transmission of the shock wave into and through the stemming can be seen at times
0.25ms and 0.45ms. Reflection at the stemming/air interface of a significant portion of the wave energy
back into the stemming is indicated at time 0.45ms.

Figure 8 shows the pressure histories at the gauge points for this case. The pressures seen here are
approximately half the pressures presented in Figure 5, the difference being that there is a stemming

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 8 of 13
deck between the explosive and the air. Stemming further depletes the shock wave by another 50%. In
the ideal case of explosive and air in direct contact, the pressure in the air-deck was calculated by shock
physics and computer modeling to be approximately one percent of the CJ pressure. Thus, the addition
of the stemming deck results in the air-deck pressure being 0.5% of the CJ pressure. This is a very
substantial decrease which results in no damage (fragmentation) adjacent to the air-deck.

Figure 8: Pressure histories at gauge points in the air-deck. Explosive with air-deck and sand
stemming.

A curious phenomenon that occurs is the acceleration and movement of the stemming deck down the
borehole. In this model the stemming deck can generate friction forces with the borehole wall that
manifests itself through the curvature of the top surface of the stemming. However, this friction is
inadequate to hold the stemming deck in place due to the high pressure from the detonation wave on the
upper surface. The stemming deck is pushed through the airdeck to the bottom of the blasthole as
indicated in Figure 7, at times 0.5 ms through 2.5ms. In Figure 8, notice that following the initial
pressure spike, the pressure is gradually drifting upward at each of the gauge points, starting at later and
later times. This is due to the stemming slug passing through the gauge points as seen in Figure 7.

To validate this phenomenon another simulation was completed that treated the stemming with the
Lagrangian frame-of-reference and a concrete RHT (Reidel et al, 1999) material model. The concrete
model was modified to reduce the initial density and porosity to match that of a typical gravel. A
Lagrange sliding surface was defined between the stemming and the borehole wall with a high
coefficient of friction. In Figure 9 the same phenomenon was observed in which the stemming block
was pushed to the bottom of the hole.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 9 of 13
 Figure 9: Stemming plug movement modeled with the Lagrangian frame-of-reference. The plug
movement phenomenon is similar to that observed in Figure 7, which treated the stemming as
Eulerian, with a sand compaction material model.

In both Figures 7 and 9 it is evident that the stemming plug virtually stops the shock wave, being driven
by the detonation, from entering the air-deck. Hence a pressure increase needed to drive damage
(fragmentation) adjacent to the air-deck is never realized.

Comparison of All Three Cases

An advantage of this type of computer modeling study is that the effect of air-deck physics on damage
and fragmentation can be assessed as an integral part of the modeling. Figure 10 illustrates the damage
induced in rock adjacent to the blasthole by each of the three cases included in this study. Several
characteristics are evident from both of the cases with an air-deck: 1) expansion of the blasthole in both
of the air-deck cases is noticeably less than it is with the full column explosive, which is due to the
drastically reduced pressure compared with the full column explosive, 2) damage adjacent to the air-
deck is less than it is for the full column explosive and is produced by the shock waves emanating
downward from the bottom of the explosive charge (top of the air-deck or stemming), 3) in the case of
the “ideal air-deck” a small region of damage is produced at the bottom of the borehole due to the
reflection of the air shock wave from the bottom of the blasthole, however this damaged region is much
smaller than that produced at the bottom of the “full column explosive” case, 4) the damage adjacent to
the air-deck is the least for the case with stemming between the explosive and the air-deck, which is due
to the further reduction in the air-shock pressure caused by the stemming deck.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 10 of 13
 Figure 10: Comparison of predicted damage (fragmentation) induced in the rock mass for the
three cases treated in this study.

Conclusions

There has been significant mystery and misinformation concerning the shock physics behavior of air-
decks in an explosive column. This study has two different components with entirely different
approaches for treating the shock physics associated with air-deck behavior. The first component is
based on shock physics theory and is documented by Yang and Preece (2017). The second is this paper
which employed computer modeling with the dynamic shock physics code, AUTODYN. As pointed out
earlier, there have been two points of validation between these two approaches which are the predictions
of the shock pressure and velocity induced in the air-deck by the explosive column when they are in
direct contact. Both analytical and computer modeling methods gave essentially the same results: 1) the
shock pressure in the air-deck is ~1 percent of the CJ pressure, and 2) the initial shock velocity is greater
than the detonation velocity and approximately 5400 m/s (17717 ft./s). The AUTODYN study,
presented in this paper, documents the very rapid attenuation of the air shock induced in the air-deck by
the explosive.

Overall, this study shows that removing explosive from a blasthole and replacing it with an air-deck is
detrimental to the damage and fragmentation desired from blasting. As a result of this study the authors
can find no good reason to ever replace explosives with an air-deck in production blastholes.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 11 of 13
References:

ANSYS Inc. (2010). AUTODYN Theory Manual. ANSYS Inc.

Berg, V. S., and Preece, D. S. (2004). Reinforced Concrete Structure Failure Mechanisms Resulting
from Explosively-Induced Overpressure. Proceedings of 30th Annual Conference on Explosives &
Blasting Technique, (Vol. 1, pp. 301-312). ISEE; 1999.

Bulson, P. S. (1997). Explosive Loading of Engineering Structures, E & FN Spon, Chapman Hill
Publishers, London.

Holcomb, D. J., Fossum, A. F., Gettemy, G. L., Hardy, R. D., Bronowski, D. R., Rivas, G. R. R., and
Preece, D. S., (2005). Geomechanics of penetration: Experimental and computational - Final report for
LDRD Project 38718. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories.

Jensen, R. P. and Preece, D. S. (1999). Modeling Explosive/Rock Interaction During Presplitting Using
ALE Computational Methods, Sixth International Symposium for Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Sandton, Gauteng, South Africa.

Jhanwar, J. C. (2011). Theory and Practice of Air-Deck Blasting in Mines and Surface Excavations: A
Review, Geotech Geol Eng 29(5), pp 651-663

Preece, D. S. and Chung, S. H. (2003). Blasting Induced Rock Fragmentation Prediction Using the RHT
Constitutive Model for Brittle Material, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique. Nashville, TN (Vol. 2, pp. 375-382). ISEE; 1999.

Preece, D. S. and Thorne, B. J., A Study of Detonation Timing and Fragmentation Using 3-D Finite
Element Techniques and a Damage Constitutive Model, Proceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 147-156

Risenmay, M. A., Preece, D. S., and Northcutt, A. Y. (2005). Land Mine Simulation Using AUTODYN,
Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, International Society
of Explosives Engineers, Orlando, FL, February, 2005.

Tawadrous, A. S., & Preece, D. S. (2011). Analysis of Annual-Delayed Successive (4D) Geophysical
Charges in a Borehole. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Techniques. San Diego, CA: International Society of Explosives Engineers.

Preece, D. S. (2006). Explosive Destruction of an Underground Reinforced Concrete Bunker –

Computer Hydrocode Simulation, Proceedings of the 32st Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique, (Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 299). ISEE.

Preece, D. S. Oil Shale Blasting Simulations Employing State-of-the-Art (2006) Computer Hydro-
Codes and Constitutive Models, Proceedings of the 33d Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique, International Society of Explosives Engineers, Nashville, TN, January, 2007.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 12 of 13
Riedel, W., Thoma, K., Hiermaier, S. and Schmolinske, E., Penetration of Reinforced Concrete by
Beta-B-500 Numerical Analysis Using a New Macroscopic Concrete Model for Hydrocodes,
Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on the Effects of Munitions with Structures, Berlin-
Straussberg, Germany, 1999.

Thorne, B. J., Hommert, P. J. and Brown, B., Experimental and Computational Investigation of the
Fundamental Mechanisms of Cratering, proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, Australia, August, 1990.

Yang, R. and Preece, D. S. (2017), Shock Physics Theory of Air-Deck Behavior during Rock Blasting,
Proceedings of the 43d Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, International Society
of Explosives Engineers, Orlando, FL, January, 2017.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - High Fedility Computer Modeling of Air-Deck Behavior Duriong Rock Blasting 13 of 13