Wall PDF

Wall Control
by
Lyall Workman
Calder & Workman Inc.
2501 Twin City Dr. Suite 2
Mandan, ND
58554
Tel. (701) 667-5785 Fax (701) 667-5784

e-mail: lworkman@tic.bisman.com
WALL CONTROL
BLASTING
Calder & Workman, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction................................................................ 1
1.1 Definition of Controlled Blasting........................ 1
1.2 The Importance of Controlled Blasting............... 1
1.3 Methods in Use.................................................... 3
2.0 General Principles..................................................... 5
2.1 Introduction........................................................ 5
2.2 Controlling the Energy Input and the Borehole
Pressure.............................................................. 6
2.2.1 Fully Coupled Borehole Pressure.............. 8
2.2.2 Decoupling and Decking........................... 11
2.3 The Buffer Row.................................................... 15
2.4 Effect of Water on a Decoupled Explosive Charge. 17
3.0 Influence of Conditions at the Site............................ 18

3.1 Principle Rock Properties..................................... 19
4.0 Wall Control Practices in Surface Operations........... 23
4.1 Explanation of Methods....................................... 23
4.1.1 Buffer Blasting........................................... 23
4.1.2 Presplitting................................................. 28
4.1.2.1 General Discussion...................... 28
4.1.2.2 Spacing Between Holes............... 29
4.1.2.3 Presplitting on an Angle............... 31
4.1.2.4 Choosing the Hole Diameter........ 34
4.1.2.5 Shooting the Presplit Line........... 37
4.1.2.6 Active highwall Presplitting in

Dragline Operations..................... 40
4.1.3 Cushion Blasting........................................ 45
4.1.4 Line Drilling................................................ 55
4.1.5 Air Deck-Air Shock Techniques................. 56
4.2 Blast Design for Final Wall Shots........................ 60

5.0 Wall Control Practice Underground........................... 63
6.0 Controlled Blasting on Construction Projects........... 75
References......................................................................... 81
Appendix A: Technical Papers on Control Blasting.........
Considerations in pre-split Blasting for Mines and

Quarries by J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder.
Control Blasting at Sherman Mine by Peter J. Calder

and John N. Tuomi.
Considerations for Small Versus Large Diameter Pre-

split Blasting by J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder.
A Method for Calculating the Weight of Charge to use

in Large Hole Presplitting for Cast Blasting Operations
by J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder.
Wall Control Blasting at the Manassas Quarry by

J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder.
Glossery
Conversion Factors from Rock Slope Engineering by

Hoek and Bray

CONTROLLED BLASTING
J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 DEFINITION OF CONTROLLED BLASTING
Controlled blasting refers to various techniques used to minimize damage to the
rock at the limits of an excavation due to the action of the ground shock wave and the
high pressure explosion gases, generated during the blast.
1.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTROLLED BLASTING
Wall control blasting techniques have been used in surface and underground
blasting in the mining, quarrying and construction industries for many years. The
specific reasons for the use of controlled blasting techniques may vary according to the
industry and project, however, two generally applicable reasons can be identified.
1. To insure that the rock is broken to the excavation limit but not
beyond.
2. To insure the subsequent safety of personnel and equipment,

working under the wall, by avoiding backbreak and loose rock on the face.
In open pit operations breakage beyond the pit limit is costly. Excessive backbreak
at the perimeter generally results in an overall pit wall angle less than designed, and
may result in the need for costly artificial support techniques. In fact, failure to properly

3
control blasting at the final pit wall can cost a large open pit mine many
millions of dollars in additional waste removal for the same ore mined
(Workman and Calder, 1992).
Underground, overbreak in the stope results in costly ore dilution.
Poor breakage control at the perimeter of drifts and shafts means more
scaling of the walls and roof and more difficulty installing support and
facilities.
In construction blasting breakage beyond the designed limits may
lead to the removal of many tons of rock not specified in the contract.
Added scaling and support may be needed for the long term stability of
the wall. The consumption of concrete and other construction items may
well increase. All of this is expensive.
Equally important as cost, in every industry, is the need to provide a
safe working environment. Pit and quarry walls that have sustained
substantial backbreak are prone to hazardous rock falls. Safety benches,
intended to arrest the fall of loose material will typically be narrow and
ineffective. Drifts and stopes experiencing excessive overbreak will be
more prone to hazardous rock falls. Similar hazards will also exist in
construction work as well. Therefore, any organization that emphasizes
safety will want to control blasting at the limits of an excavation.

4
1.3 METHODS IN USE
There are four principal controlled blasting techniques which are:
• Presplitting
• Cushion blasting
• Buffer blasting
• Line drilling
Presplitting is the most commonly used technique especially in
surface work. This is followed by cushion blasting, also known as trim
blasting in open pits. Smooth blasting, used underground, is similar to
cushion blasting.
Buffer blasting may be used alone in cases where the rock is quite
competent, but this is not a common approach. However, a properly
designed buffer row at the back of the final production shot is essential to
the success of most presplitting and cushion blasting applications.
Line drilling involves the drilling of closely spaced small diameter
holes at the perimeter of the excavation. These holes are not loaded with
explosive, but form a discontinuity at the excavation limit. This method is
costly because of the many boreholes drilled and is therefore only seen in
blasting for civil works projects, where backbreak can be a very expensive
result. Modified forms of line drilling may be used in mining and quarrying
in special circumstances.

5
2.0 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Direct damage to the excavation limit due to blasting is usually found
in the form of backbreak or overbreak, crest fracture and loose rock on
the face. The mine operator has a number of tools available for minimiz-
ing or eliminating these problems. Techniques include changing the
explosive type, or changing the blasthole diameter, by decoupling the
explosive, by decking, and by changing the burden and spacing. Chang-
ing the depth of subgrade drilling or the stemming height can reduce crest
fracture and any resultant narrowing of the width of safety benches.
Changing the millisecond delay timing and the rotation of the round may
also be helpful in eliminating these problems.
The rock characteristics and geology must be considered when
designing controlled blasts as these have an important influence on the
final results. The compressive strength, crushing strength and tensile
strength of the rock should be known. The frequency and orientation of
joints and fractures in the rock are also important parameters. These
variables cannot be controlled but must be determined by suitable field
and laboratory techniques.
Geology can have pronounced effects on the results of wall control
blasts. For example, it is known that trim blasting does not work well in
the presence of relatively shallow dipping joint planes dipping into the

6
excavation (Crosby and Bauer, 1982). It may not always be possible to
obtain the classic result, with the half-barrel of all the wall control holes
showing on the face, when adverse geology is encountered. However, if
backbreak, crest fracture and face loose rock have been minimized, then
the result will be far more acceptable than a wall in the same rock where
no controlled blasting has been performed. This can be clearly seen in
figure 1, where the upper bench has been presplit while the lower one has
not. Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that good results can be
obtained, even when the ground is heavily fractured or the rock is very
weak (Workman and Calder, 1993, 1992).
2.2 CONTROLLING THE ENERGY INPUT AND THE

BOREHOLE PRESSURES
A fundamental goal of all wall control blasting is to reduce the energy
input and the borehole pressures at the perimeter of the excavation. The
borehole pressures generated by commercial explosives, that are fully
coupled to the hole, are much greater than the rock strength and will
cause extensive damage around the blasthole. Therefore, these
pressures must be reduced.

7
Figure 1: Pit Wall Illustrating the

Difference Between a Presplit
Bench (Upper) and a Bench
with no Wall Control Blasting
at the Perimeter (Lower)

8
2.2.1 FULLY COUPLED BOREHOLE PRESSURE
The borehole pressure for a fully coupled hole can often be
obtained from the manufacturer of the product being considered for use.
However. in the absence of this information it can be calculated using the
following formula:
(P b ) c = NqD 2
where (Pb = Borehole pressure of a fully coupled charge

completely filling the blasthole
q = Specific gravity (density) of the explosive in gm/cc
D = Velocity of detonation of the explosive confined in a
fully coupled blasthole of the given diameter
N = Constant determined from figure 2 or 3 depending on
the units being used
While this equation may not yield exact results it has proven quite
adequate for practical design requirements. However, it cannot be used
in the case of aluminized explosives. The velocity of detonation is
reduced because the initial reactions of the oxidizer with aluminum are
endothermic. However, beyond the detonation zone the equilibrium shifts
to the very rapid formation of exothermic reaction products. Therefore,
the actual borehole pressure will be considerably higher than that calcu-
lated from the detonation velocity.
Low density explosives produce low borehole pressures because
the detonation velocity is reduced. Table 1 lists borehole pressures for
ANFO charges of different density. Low density mixes were made with
microballoons or perlite (Calder. 1977).

9
Figure 2: Chart for Determining N Given

the Specific Gravity of the
Explosive (Imperial Units)

10

11
2.2.2 DECOUPLING AND DECKING
A primary means of reducing the borehole pressure is to decouple the
charge from the hole. This means that the diameter of the charge is less
than the diameter of the hole. Pressure may be further reduced by
decking, whereby wooden or cardboard spacers are used between
charges or the charges are taped to detonating cord with a gap left
between individual cartridges. The net coupling ratio can be expressed
by:
d
C.R. = C % d hc
where C = the percent of explosive column actually loaded
dc = charge diameter
dh = hole diameter
For a given hole diameter and explosive the usual approach is to
decouple radially first. if this is insufficient to reduce the borehole pressure
enough than decking can be employed.
Table 1: Borehole Pressure Generated by ANFO at Different

Densities.
ANFO Detonation Detonation Borehole Borehole

Density Velocity Velocity Pressure Pressure
gms/cc ft/sec m/sec psi MPa
0.80 13500 4116 364125 2511
0.40 9200 2805 84553 583
0.30 8200 2500 50378 347
0.25 7000 2134 30593 211
0.20 6600 2012 21758 150

12
When a charge is decoupled from the blasthole the explosion gases
must expand to fill the hole volume before exerting borehole pressure.
Therefore the decoupled borehole pressure will be much
less than the coupled value. The decoupled pressure may be calculated
from the following formula:
(P b ) dc = (P b ) c % (C.R. ) 2.4
where (Pb)dc = The borehole pressure for a decoupled and/or

decked charge
C.R. = Coupling ratio
Figure 4 is a graph of the coupling ratio versus the coupling ratio to
the 2.4 power. If one is known the other can be found.
In using these equations it is necessary to have an idea of what an
acceptable decoupled borehole pressure will be. In presplitting it has
been found that the pressure should be in the range of 2 to 5 times the
uniaxial compressive strength. (Calder and Tuomi, 1980) The upper
bound is the crushing strength which should not be exceeded. In larger
hole diameters it is often better to set the decoupled borehole pressure
near to the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock because of the
greater radius of rupture that may result around larger diameter
boreholes, when the borehole pressure exceeds thecompressive strength
of the rock. This potential for large rupture radius around the borehole
can lead to a wall more prone to unravel over time.

13

14

15
In the case of cushion blasting the coupling ratio should not exceed
0.45. While the borehole pressures generated in cushion blasting are
higher than those employed in presplitting, these must be considerably
reduced from the fully coupled values for good results.
For purposes of illustration figure 5 shows the decoupled borehole
pressure for 3-inch charges of ANFO in various hole diameters. In this
case there is no decking and all reduction in the pressure is obtained from
radial decoupling.
In some presplitting applications a concentrated charge is used in
or near the bottom of the hole with the remainder of the borehole left void.
Upon detonation the explosion gases are free to expand up the hole and
exert a suitable decoupled pressure on the surrounding rock. This
method has been used extensively in active highwall presplitting when
blast casting in dragline mines. It has also been used in other types of
mining, generally being most successful if the ground is reasonably
competent thereby avoiding damage at the bottom of the hole and exces-
sive leakage of gases as these expand up the borehole.
2.3 THE BUFFER ROW
Occasionally buffer blasting alone may be sufficient to protect a

final excavation limit from damage. However, when presplitting or cushion
blasting the last row of the final production blast must be a buffer row.
The exceptions to this rule would be when active highwall presplitting for a

16
dragline operation or in small diameter work underground where a buffer
row is not always used.
The buffer row must be designed with a sufficient charge to break
the rock between the buffer hole and the final wall. However, the explo-
sive consumption in the buffer row must not be so great as to cause
breakage beyond the plane of the final wall or the controlled blasting effort
will have been wasted. Often, when damage is observed beyond the final
wall limit the problem is the buffer row design rather than the presplit or
trim row.
The buffer row is designed with less explosive in the hole than is
found in production blasting boreholes. Because the explosive is kept
low, in the hole, with a greater length of stemming above, there is less
potential for crest fracture and face loose rock. but the toe between the
buffer hole and the excavation limit can still be adequately broken.
The low center of gravity of the charge in the buffer hole causes it to
behave like a spherical charge, for which cube root scaling applies (Living-
ston, 1957). In a buffer row a scaled depth of burial (SDOB) of about 1.5
times the optimum scaled depth of burial for the given explosive in the
given rock type should be used. The scaled depth of burial is simply the
depth from the surface to the center of the charge column divided by the
cube root of the total explosive weight in the column. Ideally the charge
should have a length not exceeding 8 times the diameter of the borehole.
If, because of the hole depth or diameter, the charge length exceeds 8

17
times the diameter the calculation should be performed using the depth to
the center of a charge column equal in length to 8 times the diameter and
located at the top of the charge. Only the explosive weight contained in
this charge, at the top of the column, should be used in the calculation.
The depth to the center of the charge can be calculated as follows:
C = SDOB x W 1/3
where D = Distance from the upper bench surface to the center of

gravity of the top eight diameters of the charge
SDOE = Scaled depth of burial
W 1/3 = Cube root of the weight of explosive found in a column
length equal to 8 times the diameter
As an example in hard jointed rock a scaled depth of burial of 4.0
ft/lb1/3 (1.59 m/kg1/3) has often been found suitable. Table 2 shows the
optimum scaled depth of burial and the recommended first approximation
values for the scaled depth of burial in a buffer row. These values must
be taken as general guidelines only, for not every possibility of jointing,
rock type and subgrade drilling can be accounted for. Also, different
explosives in the same rock may yield different optimum scaled depths of
burial. Therefore, field optimization is usually required.
2.4 EFFECT OF WATER ON A DECOUPLED EXPLOSIVE

CHARGE
When a decoupled charge is surrounded by water the pressure
generated by the detonating explosive, at the borehole wall, will be
considerably higher than would be the case if the explosion gases were
free to expand across an air filled gap. The degree of decoupling

18
achieved will be much less than that calculated assuming the charge is
surrounded by air. In fact because water is quite incompressible the
pressure transferred to the borehole wall may be quite similar to that of a
fully coupled hole. The explosive charge will need to be decoupled to a
greater extent than normal. If the area can be dewatered prior to final wall
blasting this will be the best solution. it will be necessary to choose a fully
waterproof explosive for this application.
When a column of water exits above a concentrated presplit
charge at the bottom of a large diameter hole another problem can
develop. The water column tends to behave as stemming and the explo-
sion gases are inhibited from freely expanding up the hole. There will be
more damage around the bottom of the hole. The presplit crack may not
extend the full length of the borehole. These holes will work best if
pumped before explosive loading. They should be loaded and fired
promptly to minimize the water column that forms above the explosive
charge.
3.0 INFLUENCE OF CONDITIONS AT THE SITE
The properties of the rock and the site geology are of significant
importance when designing a controlled blast. If these factors are ignored
the results will be, at best, a hit and miss affair. Serious backbreak. crest
fracture, face loose rock or sliding of weak portions of the wall are all
possible outcomes.

19
It is also important to recognize that in complex geological settings it
may not be possible to achieve the classic result. However, even though
the half-casts of all the holes are not visible on the face the controlled
blast will still have been successful if a safe, stable wall has been
achieved at an economical cost.
Table 2: First Approximation Scaled Depth of Burial at

the Collar of the Buffer Row Holes
Range of
Rock Type Range of SDOB for Use
Optimum on Buffer Row
SDOB, ft/lb1/3 ft/lb1/3
Very hard 2.2—2.5 3.30—3.75
massive
Hard more 2.5—3.0 3.75—4.50
fractured
Medium 3.0—3.5 4.50—5.25
Soft 3.5—4.0 5.25—6.00
Very Soft 4.0—4.5 6.00—6.75
3.1 PRINCIPLE ROCK PROPERTIES
The most important rock properties are the tensile strength, compres-
sive strength and crushing strength. Also very important are the
nature, frequency and orientation of joints and fractures, the rock density,
longitudinal wave velocity and Young's Modulus. Ideally these properties
should be measured in-situ. In-situ values reflect the effects of weather-
ing and structural features in the rock. A rock which tests as quite strong
in the laboratory may be considerably weaker when weathering, ground-
water alteration, presence of structures such as open joints, bedding or

20
foliation planes and fractures due to previous blasting are accounted for.
However, at this time methods for measuring rock properties in-situ are
not very satisfactory and are usually costly.
Therefore, laboratory tests are generally relied on. Laboratory data
can be adjusted by a site factor to account for in-situ conditions. Deciding
what the site factor should be is not a simple task and will be an
approximation.
Most practical is to design the controlled blast based on the labora-
tory results and observe the results in the field. Then the design can be
adjusted to account for any problems until an optimum result is obtained.
It may then be possible to back calculate the in-situ uniaxial compressive
strength and tensile strength.
Backbreak and radial crushing around the borehole result when the
stress produced in the rock by the explosion exceeds the crushing
strength of the rock. The crushing strength is typically two to five times
the uniaxial compressive strength. Major backbreak problems are likely if
an explosive loading that was successful in competent ground is subse-
quently used in highly jointed or fractured ground, even though the rock
type is the same. Therefore, powder factors and decoupled borehole
pressures must be adjusted to account for structural conditions and the
actual crushing strength of the rock surrounding the hole.
The potential for wall damage due to structural features is less
when the joints are tight or infilled and possess some strength. When the

21
joints are open and have little strength the potential for backbreak and
crest fracture is much greater.
The orientation of the joints has a major influence on the controlled
blast results. When joints or fractures strike parallel to the excavation
face a smooth clear wall may be obtained. When the joints are steeply
dipping (>70°) the wall can be made to conform to the joint planes.
When the joints are more shallow dipping it is undesirable to cause
the wall angle to conform to these planes. There is greater chance that
planes will undercut the face. When this occurs it is more difficult to
obtain a classic result because there is a greater likelihood that portions of
the wall will slide off along these structured planes. Large diameter
cushion blasting has been found unsuited to these conditions. Presplitting
may be more successful if great care is taken to design the presplit and
buffer rows to minimize the disruption experienced on the joint planes. It
takes relatively little movement along the plane to destroy cohesional
resistance and cause the material resting on the joint to be more prone to
slide.
When steeply dipping joints dip back into the wall while striking paral-
lel to the face, sliding on undercut planes is not possible.
However, toppling failures may occur. In the presence of these features
the final wall should not be vertical. An angle of 70 to 80 degrees is more
suitable. A toe buttressing effect is provided and the wall is far more likely

22
to remain safe and in good condition for the long term (Workman and
Calder, 1992).
When structural features strike at angles other than parallel to the
face the amount of backbreak depends on the nature of the joints and
fractures and their strike. Open joints are likely to break back more than
tight, infilled joints. Planes striking at 45 degrees to the face are likely to
break back further than near vertical joints striking at 90°.
The frequency of jointing is important. Jointing begins to interfere
with wall control results when the joint spacing is less than the hole
spacing. In presplitting the hole spacing should not exceed twice the
major joint spacing.
Frequent jointing can lead to greater crest fracture. The explosive
collar height must be increased or the upper column load reduced.
When the stress due to the reflected ground shock wave at the free
face, near to a blast, exceeds the rock tensile strength slabbing can occur.
If joints, bedding planes or foliations exist, striking parallel to the face, the
potential for slabbing is greatly increased. Slabbing is especially a hazard
when blasting near to tunnels or when blasting in a pit that is in close
proximity to the walls of another pit. Reduced explosive loading may be
necessary.
Where rock breakage is not desired, as in the case at the final
excavation limit, rock properties that relate to the in-situ rock strength are
important. The Young's Modulus of Elasticity is a measure of the

23
brittleness of a rock and its susceptibility to backbreak. Rock with a high
Young's Modulus has a higher crushing strength and is harder to break.
Higher borehole pressures may be permissible at the perimeter.
Rocks with a higher longitudinal wave velocity are also usually
found to be stronger. Weaker rock or strata that has been weakened by
weathering, alteration or fracturing due to dense jointing or previous blast-
ing exhibits a lower longitudinal wave velocity. This fact leads to the
seismic techniques for determining overburden depth, depth of broken
rock, radius of rupture, jointing and density. As an in-situ method these
techniques may be particularly valuable for determining the nature of the
in-place rock.
4.0 WALL CONTROL PRACTICES IN SURFACE

OPERATIONS
4.1 EXPLANATION OF METHODS
4.1.1 BUFFER BLASTING

This is perhaps, the simplest form of wall control shooting. The last
row of the production blasting pattern is altered to limit the energy input at

24
the final wall. The explosive loading is reduced and as a consequence
the burden and spacing are also decreased. As described in section 2
explosive loading is often reduced by selecting a scaled depth of burial
greater than would normally be used. Another approach is to use decou-
pled bagged powder above a toe load of fully coupled explosive.
Buffer blasting can only be used as the sole controlled blasting
technique when the ground is quite competent. Some minor backbreak or
crest fracture may develop but this will be much less than would be
caused by the production blast holes. Where buffer blasting can be used
alone the cost of wall control will be quite economical. Figure 6 illustrates
a typical buffer blast design.
In most cases buffer blasting is used in conjunction with another
wall control blasting technique. A properly designed buffer row is very
important to most successful presplit or trim blasts. Design of the buffer
row is the same as when the technique is used alone. It becomes impor-
tant to

25
Figure 6: A Typical Buffer Blast Design

26
insure that the buffer row is at the correct location relative to the
presplit or trim row.
Typical design for the buffer row includes using a scaled depth of burial at
the top of the charge of 1.5 times the production hole value and reducing
the powder factor to 0.5 - 0.8 times the production row powder factor.
Burdens range from 0.5 to 0.75 times the production burden. The spacing
should not be less than the burden and will usually be 1.0 to 1.25 times
the buffer row burden.
To avoid backbreak and crest fracture the buffer row holes must be
properly located in front of the intended plane of the final wall or the
presplit line. This distance must be sufficiently large to insure that the
stress at the final wall is adequately attenuated to avoid crushing beyond
the plane of the wall. Figure 7 shows how the stress generated by
detonating buffer row holes attenuates with distance from the blasthole.
From this chart one can see that in quite soft rock, such as coal
mine overburden, spacing the buffer row 10 feet or more in front of the
presplit line may indeed be prudent. In hard rock the spacing at the toe
needs to be much less to break the rock between the buffer row and the
presplit line. However, breakage beyond the presplit can be avoided.
This chart also shows that, to avoid crest fracture in competent rock, drill-
ing the presplit holes on an angle is advantageous. One can space the
presplit and buffer hole closely at the toe for breakage while obtaining a
greater standoff at the crest. When the compressive and crushing where

27

28
strength of the rock are known figure 7 can be helpful in determining to
place the buffer row relative to the presplit line.
At the same time the buffer row should not be moved out too much
or poorly fragmented material may be frozen to the wall and a toe may be
left at the base of the intended face.
In hard rock it has been found that the toe of the buffer row should
be 3 to 5 feet (1 to 1.5 meters) from an intended face angled at 80
degrees. In soft rock, such as coal overburden, it has been necessary to
move the toe of the buffer row out as much as 15 feet (4.6 meters) to
keep the zone of crushed material from extending beyond the planned
wall location.
4.1.2 PRESPLITTING
4.1.2.1 General Discussion
Presplitting is the most common controlled blasting technique and
has proven successful in applications from large open pit mines to civil
construction. This method involves the drilling of closely spaced holes at
the planned excavation perimeter which are lightly loaded with explosive
in order to generate an appropriate borehole pressure as described in
previous sections.
Presplitting is being done using hole diameters ranging from 2
inches to 12¼ inches. Often, small diameter presplitting is preferred for
technical reasons and because the cost per square foot of wall may be
lower (Calder and Tuomi, 1980; Workman and Calder, 1989). Other

29
mines use large diameter holes in order to employ the same drills for
presplitting as for production drilling. This approach has worked especially
well in active highwall presplitting designs associated with blast casting
operations. It has not always been as successful in other types of mining
applications.
In small diameters (<5 inches, 127 mm) spacings of 3 to 6 feet
(0.9—1.8 m) have been common. When the decoupled borehole
pressure can be permitted to significantly exceed the rock compressive
strength, then spacings of 7 to 9 feet (2.1—2.75M) have been used
successfully in 3-inch (76 mm) boreholes, greatly reducing the cost of wall
control.
In larger diameter (>6 inches, 152 mm) hole spacings of 5 to 18 feet
(1.5-5.5M) have been employed. As spacings become larger geological
structure becomes an increasingly important control on this dimension.
4.1.2.2 Spacing Between Holes
The spacing between the holes is a function of the hole diameter,
decoupled borehole pressure and the tensile strength of the rock. The
tangential stress is expressed as:

r 2
T = (P b ) dc % rh2
T = tangential stress
(Pb)dc = decoupled borehole pressure
rh = radius of the borehole
r = the distance from the center of the hole to the point of
measurement

30
It can be shown that the stress extending between two boreholes
fired together is:

T = 2(Pb )dcrh
This stress must everywhere exceed the force resisting crack
formation which is related to the hole spacing and the tensile strength.
This leads to the spacing equation, which is: (Sanden, 1974)

dh P b dc +T
S = 12T
where S = spacing between presplit holes, ft.

T = rock tensile strength psi
dh = hole diameter, inches
For the radius in inches, the decoupled borehole pressure in psi and
the tensile strength in psi. the spacing is given in inches. For appropriate
metric units it will be in centimeters. This formula points out the impor-
tance of knowing the tensile strength of the rock (measured using the
Brazilian Test) in order to properly compute the spacings. Table 3 gives
first order approximations of tensile strength for typical materials. The
spacing between presplit holes may have to be varied in different areas of
the pit if differing rock types exist with different uniaxial compressive
strengths and tensile strengths.

31
Table 3: First Order Approximations of Tensile Strength

for Different Rock Types
Tensile Strength
Rock Type Example psi MPa
Hard Granite, 1,600—6,0 11.03—41.
Taconite 00 37
Medium Limestone 800—1,600 5.52—11.0
3
Low Asbestos Ore, <800 <5.52
Coal
Overburden
Therefore characterization of the geology is important. Not only do
the rock properties affect the spacing, but the geological structure is also
an important control. As a rule of thumb the hole spacings should not
exceed twice the spacing between major, open joints.
4.1.2.3 Presplitting on an Angle

Observations in open pit mines and quarries has shown that
presplitting at an angle less than vertical contributes to a wall that remains
in better condition for extended periods of time than one that is presplit
vertically. This has been observed in iron mines, coal mines and quarries.
In the experience of the authors' an angled presplit is the preferred
approach. Vertical presplit may be appropriate where the rock is particu-
larly competent, or special circumstances preclude an angled wall.
Presplit angles typically range between 70 and 80 degrees, with 80
degrees being perhaps the most common.

32
In construction blasting a vertical presplit is likely to be more common.
An angled wall may lead to greater construction cost. However, in deep
road cuts for example an angled presplit should still be considered.
A principal advantage to angle hole presplitting results from the toe
of the presplit face being moved out from the crest. Therefore, if isolated
blocks of rock fall from the face near the toe the entire face is not under-
cut, as would typically be the case for a vertically presplit wall. Figure 8
illustrates these situations.
Another primary advantage occurs when steeply dipping joints or
bedding planes dip back into the wall and strike near parallel to the face.
Under these conditions the wall may be subject to toppling failures. The
stability of a wall prone to these failures can be enhanced by the toe
buttressing effect of an angled presplit wall.
The third important advantage to angled presplit holes relates to the
relative position of the presplit and buffer rows. When the presplit holes
are angled and the buffer row is vertical it is possible to locate the toe of
the buffer hole close to the presplit line for good breakage, while maintain-
ing a greater stand off at the crest to avoid excessive crest fracture.
The spacing between the holes, at the toe, varies according to rock
type and geological structure, so that standoffs of as little as 3 feet (0.9
meter) in hard iron ore to 15 feet (4.6 meters) in weak overburden

33
Figure 8: Advantages of an Inclined Ver
sus Vertical Face Slope Between Safety
Benches.

34
above a coal seam have been employed. The corresponding
crestspacing will depend on the bench height and the presplit hole angle.
Table 4 lists the crest standoff for different spacings at the toe with differ-
ent bench heights and wall angles.
4.1.2.4 Choosing the Hole Diameter
Current open pit and quarry designs call for multiple benches to be
brought back to the final limit between safety benches. This is illustrated in
figure 9. A smooth wall is desired between these berms. In general it is
not possible to drill an angled hole flush to the wall using large hole equip-
ment. Small diameter percussive drills, however, can perform this task
quite readily by drilling back under the machine. Therefore, these
machines are commonly used where the above criteria are to be met. In
some cases a larger diameter drill may be used to produce the angle
presplit, as in blast casting operations for example, if there is sufficient
clearance room for the drill to set up on the holes.
The use of small diameter holes is not appropriate if the boreholes
are quite deep. The limit is about 50 feet (15.2M) on hole depth, although
60 feet (18.3M) is possible in highly competent rock. In heavily fractured
ground 40 feet (12.2M) is likely to be the maximum depth to which small
diameter holes can be accurately drilled. Also, in very wet ground small
diameter holes are more difficult to drill with the desired degree of
accuracy, if the holes are more than 40 feet (12.2M) deep.

35

36

37
Increasing the decoupled borehole pressures beyond the compres-
sive strength of the rock has been more successful in small diameter
holes than in large. The radius of rupture around a smaller hole is less.
Therefore, any cracking that occurs around the borehole is less likely to
cause long term unraveling of the wall of the excavation. From the
spacing equation one can see that an increased decoupled borehole
pressure results in a wider spacing between presplit holes, thereby reduc-
ing the
cost. Thus the cost of small diameter presplitting will not always exceed
the cost incurred using large diameters as is sometimes believed. Each
situation should be assessed according to the factors discussed above
and the best option selected.
4.1.2.5 Shooting the Presplit Line
The presplit line may be shot with the final production blast or
before the final shot is laid out in the field. Both approaches are workable.
When the presplit line is detonated with the final blast it should be
initiated approximately 100 milliseconds before the final wall blast. In
delayed blasts care should be taken that the presplit line does not
precede the detonation of the adjacent buffer row holes by too great a
time. A delay may need to be introduced into the presplit line periodically
in order to
avoid the possible disruption of nearby buffer holes from the detonating
presplit holes. However, as many holes as possible should be shot

38
instantaneously taking into account the lead time and any vibration control
requirements, because this yields a better defined presplit.
When the presplit row is shot in advance the opportunity exists to
observe the result and make any appropriate changes to the final wall
blast design. However, there should not be too long a delay between
presplit shooting and the final production blast. If there is ground water
flow
or surface runoff in the interval the presplit line can be infilled with debris.
It will be rendered ineffective in dissipating gas pressures when the final
blast is shot. Also, good survey control of the location of the presplit row
is essential, in order that the buffer row can be properly placed when the
final wall blast is laid out.
If the final wall shot is quite narrow the presplit row should be
detonated with the final blast. Detonating the presplit holes in advance
may lead to the mass of rock sliding off the wall, leaving very poorly
fragmented material to be cleaned up. In addition, this rock may not fall
from the wall immediately but at a later time when it would be a serious
safety
hazard to those working beneath the presplit wall. Ideally, the final wall
blast should consist of two production rows and the buffer row in most
cases.

39
Figure 10: A Typical Pre-split Blast Design
Figure 10 is an example of a final wall blast incorporating two produc-
tion rows, a buffer row and the presplit holes angled at 80 degrees. This
example is for an iron ore mine in competent rock. Therefore, the
spacing between buffer row and presplit row is 3 feet (0.9 meter) at the

40
toe. In softer rock this spacing would be greater, as would the scaled
depth of burial on the buffer row.
4.1.2.6 Active Highwall Presplitting in Dragline
Operations
The presplitting technique has also been used to control the succes-
sive highwalls in a blast casting operation. The standard method involves
drilling large diameter holes on the designed highwall location and loading
these with a concentrated charge of explosive in or near the bottom of the
borehole.
Active highwall presplitting has two advantages. First, it allows a
very regular highwall to be produced. Therefore, front row burdens on the
next casting shot can be well controlled for maximum casting efficiency.
Second, in wet ground the presplit, fired in advance of drilling off the
production blast, can be used to dewater the block to be shot thereby
reducing explosives cost. When dewatering is a goal the presplit row will
be drilled along the back and both sides of the block to be shot to isolate
the area from recharge by groundwater. This is illustrated in figure 11.
Active wall presplitting has often been accomplished using vertical
drill holes. However in some mines this has lead to shallow slope fail
ures on the newly formed highwalls, largely due to the presence of steeply
dipping joint planes dipping into the highwall. When this occurs vertical

41
Figure 11 : Plan View of Typical Presplit

and Main Blast Tie-in at a
Dragline Operation

42
presplitting cannot be used. A much improved result has been achieved

by using an angle presplit (Workman and Calder, 1991). An angle of 70
degrees has often been employed in this application. Best results are ob
tained if the subsequent production blast is drilled on the same angle, so
that a constant burden from crest to toe can be maintained on the front
row.
The weight of charge can be obtained by calculating the diameter
required of a distributed decoupled charge of the explosive, as described
in a previous section and converting this to a charge weight. This may be
done using the following formula:
I
W c = 0.785D c 2 % h % q
W c = explosive weight
Dc = charge diameter of the equivalent distributed, decoupled

charge
h = the length of hole that would have been loaded if a

distributed, decoupled charge were used
q = density of the explosive
While this approach may not yield an exact result it has been found
quite adequate for practical design purposes. The calculated charge
weight is then placed at the bottom of the hole. The explosive may be
either bulk loaded or a packaged product. In some cases the coal seam
is
also presplit in which case packaged products are usually used and are
suspended above the coal seam.

43

44
The weight required to yield a specified decoupled borehole
pressure will vary with the hole depth and diameter as both parameters
affect the volume into which the explosion gases expand. This is illus-
trated in table 5 which shows the required explosive loads to give 20,000
psi of decoupled borehole pressure in different hole diameters and depths
when ANFO is the explosive. One can see that the explosive weight
required is greater in holes of different diameter but the same depth.
Also, the explosive weight increases in holes of the same diameter but
increasing depth. In this example the length, h, from the formula above is
assumed to be 10
feet (3.05 m) less than the hole depth, which is a common result in
presplitting.
These presplit holes are often not stemmed. The gases freely
expand up the borehole, exert the desired pressure on the walls of the
blasthole for the short time necessary to form the presplit and then
expand into the air. However, if airblast is a problem stemming may be
used. Also, those cases that involve airbag technology employ stemming
at the top of the blasthole.
The spacing equation is used to calculate the distance between-
representative hole diameters, borehole pressures and tensile strengths in
holes in active highwall presplitting. Table 6 gives spacings for active
wall presplitting. Spacings may need to be adjusted to account for
geological conditions, although this is less of a consideration in Table 5

45
sedimentary, horizontally bedded deposits. In active wall presplitting hole
spacings of 12 to 18 feet (3.7 to 5.5 meters) are common. Spacings in
feet tend to range from 1.0 to 1.75 times the hole diameter in inches (in
meters, about 0.01 to 0.02 times the hole diameter in millimeters).
Table 6: Spacing Between Presplit Holes Typically

Experienced in Active Highwall Presplitting
Presplit Hole Spacing, Ft.

Borehole Pressure, psi
Hole 15000 20000
Diameter Tensile Strength, psi
inches 1000 1500 1000 1500
6.500 9 6 11 8
11 7 14 8
9.000 12 8 16 11
9.875 13 9 17 12
10.625 14 10 19 13
12.250 16 11 21 15
4.1.3 CUSHION BLASTING
Cushion blasting is a common controlled blasting technique in
surface operations, second to presplitting as the most common method.
Cushion blasting is used to slash or trim excess material from the bench
face to leave a smooth, clean wall with little backbreak, which will remain
stable for extended periods.
Blastholes are drilled in a line along the planned excavation limit and
are loaded with a reduced charge capable of slashing material from the
wall without damaging the rock behind the holes. Charges are usually
decoupled for this purpose. Common diameters used in cushion blasting

46
have been 4-7 inches (102-178 mm), but large holes have often been
used in open pit mines. In the common range of diameters hole spacings
of 5-8 feet (1.5-2.4M) have been typical. In large diameters hole spacings
are greater. As a general rule the spacing in feet should be 1.25 to 2.0
times the hole diameter in inches. The lower value is to be used in hard,
competent rock while the higher value applies to soft, highly fractured
rock.
Figure 12 illustrates a single row cushion blast using 12¼-inch (311
mm) boreholes. A coupled toe charge is followed by a decoupled column
charge. Note the projected break line which will leave an angled face at
the excavation limit. The coupling ratio in this case is about 0.37 for the
column charge.
As an alternative to a decoupled charge low density explosives could
be used in a cushion row. Gassed slurries or emulsions are an example.
The density of ANFO can be reduced by adding microballoons or perlite.
As the density is decreased the velocity of detonation and the borehole
pressures also decrease.
Cushion blasting is also performed using multiple row blasts. These
usually incorporate larger diameter holes in the 9 7/8—12 ¼ -inch range
(251—311 mm). However, in surface gold mining diameters are more
typically 6 3/4—7 7/8-inch (171—200 mm). These blasts typically consist

47
Figure 12: A Typical Single Row Cushion Blast

Design.

48
of three to four rows including the cushion row. This type of final wall
blast is typically called a trim shot and the cushion line is then termed the
trim row. These blasts consist of three components similar to a presplit
blast.
• The trim row
• The buffer row
• One or more production rows
The trim row should be suitably decoupled. The coupling ratio
typically does not exceed 0.45. Experience at a large copper operation in
rock from hard to soft indicates that the loading should be from 3 lbs/ft to
10 lbs/ft (4.5—14.9 kg/M) in 9 7/8 to 12 1/4-inch holes (251—311 mm)
(Crosby and Bauer, 1982). In 9 7/8-inch this yields coupling ratios of 0.33
to 0.6 and at 12 1/4-inch the range is 0.26 to 0.49.
Decoupling is often achieved using undersized cardboard tubes.
An alternative is to use undersized plastic liners manufactured for use in
presplitting and trim blasting. A third approach is to place a suitable
charge in the bottom of the hole and allow the gases to expand into the
void above. The trim row must do sufficient work on the surrounding rock
to slash excess material off the wall. Therefore, borehole pressures
greater than that required for presplitting are necessary and these need to
be sustained for longer periods. Thus when a concentrated charge is
loaded in the bottom of the hole the use of an airbag and stemming may
be a good way to contain the explosion gases for a longer time while still
allowing the borehole pressures to be attenuated.

49
Trim blasting can be used to bring two benches back to a continu-
ous face, with a safety bench (also called a berm) left every second
bench. Figure 13 is a plan view of the trim blast on the upper bench. It is
usually called the crest trim blast and takes the upper bench back to the
limits of the excavation. There will be some backbreak at the crest which
will provide an angled final wall. This backbreak is primarily due to
subgrade drilling on the bench above. The trim row is suitably decoupled
and if stemming is placed around the charge only 40 to 50 percent of the
normal void should be assumed. If the trim row has been correctly placed
a suitable safety bench will be left once the blast is dug out.
As with presplitting the last row of the production blast is a buffer
row. The design is essentially the same as is used in presplitting. A
greater scaled depth of burial is achieved by increasing the stemming
thereby avoiding cratering back through the trim row at the crest.
The typical case involving two rows of production blast holes is
shown. These two rows are at the usual burden and spacing and are
loaded using standard procedures. In this example all holes, including the

50

51
trim row are 7 7/8-inch (200 mm) and all are drilled vertically.
Figure 14 shows the arrangement for the trim shot on the lower
bench. The arrangement is basically the same as the crest trim blast,
except that the trim lines is now 12 feet (3.7 M) from the toe position of
the crest blast. The distance that the wall trim row is out from the toe is
dictated primarily by the deck clearance of the drill in use and this dimen-
sion will vary according to the size and dimensions of the drill. In most
cases there will be some backbreak from the wall trim blast which results
in an excavated final wall that is quite continuous, with only a small offset
remaining where the two benches join together. Actual blast design
dimensions will vary between properties according to the rock types
experienced and the equipment in use.
Blast timing for both the shots is standard for the production and
buffer rows and could be a V-1 tie-in for a square pattern or a V-2
arrangement for a staggered square or equilateral pattern. The trim row
should detonate one delay period after the adjacent production holes.
Two or more trim holes can be shot per delay provided these do not
outrun the production holes and any vibration considerations are
accounted for.
Good relief for the trim blasts to move away from the final wall is
essential. Firing across two free faces will be very useful. Adequate
delay time should be provided to allow for good relief.

52

53
For cushion blasting in general accurate drilling is required.
Cushion holes up to 120 feet (36.5 meters) have been employed, but it
is more common for these boreholes to be one bench height in depth.
Drilling the cushion holes on each bench affords more control over the
accuracy and simplifies borehole loading.
When possible the trim holes should be drilled at the face slope
angle for reasons discussed under presplitting. However, as seen above
trim blasting may be performed using vertical holes with the backbreak at
the crest allowing the wall to be dug to the designed angle. This will be
most feasible in weak, fractured rock and may be more difficult to achieve
when the wall rock is more competent and massive.
As stated above a coupling ratio of 0.45 or less should normally be
used. It is helpful if wedges are used to push the cardboard tube or
plastic liner against the excavation side of the borehole to reduce damage
behind the holes. Crushed stone or cuttings could also be used for this
purpose, however the reduced void space will have to be accounted for in
explosive loading.
Powder factors on the trim row are reduced compared to the
production rows. Table 7 provides first approximation powder factors for
different rock strengths. One should add or subtract 20 percent of these
values for competent rock and highly fractured rock respectively.

54
TABLE 7: FIRST APPROXIMATION POWDER FACTORS

IN CUSHION BLASTING
Powder Factor
Rock Strength Lb/Ton Kg/Tonne
High 0.30—.040 0.15—0.20
Medium 0.28—0.38 0.14—0.19
Low 0.16 0.08
In competent rock the burden may be made equal to the spacing

between cushion blastholes. When the rock is weak and fractured the
burden should be 0.6 to 0.8 times the spacing.
When cushion blasting around curved areas the spacing will need to
be reduced, but a constant powder factor should be maintained. Where a
90 degree corner is encountered line drilling or presplitting should be
used.
Unloaded guide holes can be used between cushion holes to better
define the excavation wall when the rock is weathered or highly fractured.
Since this approach will add significantly to the cost one should first try
cushion blasting without guide holes. If the results are not acceptable
reduce the spacing to 25 percent and adjust the powder factor
accordingly. If the result is still unsuitable return to the original spacing
and drill guide holes half-way between the cushion holes. It may be that
the guide holes will only need to be drilled half the bench height to
properly define the crest of the bench.
Stemming is typically used at the collar of the cushion holes. Drill
cuttings or crushed stone may be used for this purpose.

55
When a single line cushion blast is employed the best effect is
attained when the holes are detonated simultaneously. Delays may be
introduced if vibration control is necessary. When a multirow trim blast is
shot it will normally be necessary to delay the trim row. The trim holes
should fire last and lag by at least one delay period.
4.1.4 LINE DRILLING
This method is seldom used in open pit mines because the closely
spaced holes are costly. However, it has been used in some cases where
the rock was very weak and difficult to presplit or cushion blast. It is more
commonly used in civil construction projects where overbreak can be very
costly.
The typical hole sizes for line drilling are 21½ to 3-inches (64-76
mm). However, large diameter rotary drill holes can also be used. When
the spacing between the holes remains constant regardless of hole
diameter the cost is comparable in small and large diameter work. If the
spacing can be increased as larger holes are used, then the larger diame-
ters will be more economical.
In small diameter work hole depths should be restricted to 30 to 40
feet (9.1-12.2 M) to minimize hole wander. Greater depths are possible
when larger diameters are used. No subgrade drilling is needed.
Drilling must be very accurate for line drilling to be successful. The
holes must be drilled so that they all lie in one plane which corresponds to

56
the angle of the final pit wall. Unequal spacings between holes will lead to
variable results.
In line drilling holes are very closely spaced when compared to
other methods. Table 8 provides initial approximation values for line hole
spacings. To get the hole spacing in feet (meters) one should multiply the
hole diameter in feet (meters) by the appropriate factor from the table.
TABLE 8: FIRST APPROXIMATION HOLE SPACING

FACTORS FOR USE IN DIFFERENT
MATERIALS
Rock Strength Hole Spacing Factor

High 2.0
Medium 2.5
Low 4.0
A buffer row is once again essential to good results. The design of
the buffer row would be as discussed earlier in the chapter. The produc-
tion hole loads should be used in holes that are 2 to 3 rows from the
excavation limit. That is, the row in front of the buffer row may also
require reduced loading.
4.1.5 AIR DECK-AIR SHOCK TECHNIQUES

Air-decking is a method which involves the use of a concentrated
charge in the blasthole with a void above the explosive. The idea was
originally expounded by Melnikov in 1940 but widespread use of the
technique only developed during the 1980's. It has been used in presplit-
ting where a charge is placed in the bottom of the hole and an air-bag is
placed near the top of the hole with stemming above.

57
The gases from detonation freely expand into the void and the
pressure is attenuated as would be the case with a distributed charge or a
concentrated charge when no stemming is used. However, the explosion
gases are contained in the blasthole for a longer period of time, due to the
stemming, and exert pressure on the borehole wall for a longer time.
Thus the stress generated in the ground between holes is sustained for
more time and there is greater potential for wedging action to further open
the presplit crack.
Experience in the industry has been that the explosive consump-
tion should be 8 to 11 percent of the total blasthole volume and 14 to 18
percent with respect to the air-deck volume above the charge. The
loading density ranges from 0.05—0.20 lbs/ft2 (0.24—0.98 kg/m2)
(Chiapetta and Mammele, 1987). However. one should also check the
decoupled borehole pressures using the methods above to insure that
these pressures will suit the rock being presplit.
When an air-bag and stemming are used it may be possible to
increase the hole spacing. However, this needs to be assessed on a site-
by-site basis. Geology will play an important role in determining whether
spacings can be expanded beyond those used in conventional
techniques.
Reviewing the spacing equation used in presplitting it can be
observed that a term related to the time the gas pressures are sustained
is not included. However, containing the gas pressures in the borehole for

58
a longer time will sustain the stress in the ground for a longer period.
Also, as the presplit crack is formed the gases have the opportunity to
wedge out into the initial crack thereby further defining the presplit line.
Therefore, a better result may be obtained, but on the same spacing as
would be calculated using the spacing equation.
The best approach will be to initially design the presplit shot, using
the air-deck approach, on the normal presplit spacing. If the results are of
high quality increase the spacing by 20 percent. If good results are still
obtained increase the spacing in 10 percent increments until the optimum
is achieved.
In the final analysis geology is likely to be the determining factor
for the success of air-decking on the presplit row. The method has been
used to good effect in strata with horizontal bedding that is relatively
widely spaced. Coal overburden often fits this description and it was in
these strata where much of the early work was done. Some quarry
deposits such as limestones may also fit this description.
Highly fractured rock tends to lead to a poorer result. Containing the
decoupled borehole pressure for a longer time can loosen existing joints
and fractures as well as further defining a presplit crack. The hole
spacing is more likely to be controlled by the distance between major
joints than by the application of air-deck technology.
When the in-situ strength of the rock has been significantly reduced
by fracturing, there is greater likelihood of damage to the borehole wall

59
surrounding the concentrated charge. This may lead to an undercut wall
which unravels over time. In addition the presence of numerous open
joints will lead to added leakage as the gases expand up the hole upon
detonation. This will be less pronounced when a distributed decoupled
charge is used in jointed and fractured ground. Leakage will result in a
reduced and less uniform decoupled borehole pressure which can
adversely affect results.
When the air-deck technique is used one must account for the
possibility of increased crest fracturing. This arises from increased stress
in the collar region due to the reflected wave off the bottom of the
stemming, which can approximately double the stem in the collar zone. It
may be necessary to adjust the stemming length or reduce the explosive
loading to prevent undue crest fracture.
Often in mining and construction, blasting takes place in proximity
to housing and other unowned structures. Under these circumstances
presplit holes cannot be left unstemmed because the resulting airblast
becomes excessive. In larger diameters the use of an airbag allows the
hole to be sealed such that it can be stemmed and airblast reduced to
acceptable levels. In small diameters the hole may be plugged by simply
pushing a wad of plastic hole liner down to the desired depth.
Some have reduced costs when air-decking by using devices other
than the inflatable or chemical air-bags. For example 1-gallon milk
cartons and paper mache flower pots have been used (Pilshaw, 1991).

60
Inflatable playground balls have also been used. Another approach for
holes up to 8-inch (203 mm) in diameter is to use plastic hole plugs, used
in the oil exploration industry for plugging seismic holes, which can be tied
off at surface.
Air-decking technology may have good application on the buffer
row. A bulk loaded charge could be placed in the blasthole with an
air-deck above and then stemming above the inflated air-bag. In this
manner the borehole pressure could be reduced while being distributed
evenly throughout the hole. Crushing around the hole and crest fracture
can be avoided provided the plug is placed at the correct depth.
When active highwall presplitting is employed in deep holes the
weight of explosive needed to provide a suitable decoupled borehole
pressure can become large. This can lead to excessive fracturing around
the toe of the hole. Thus there could be an advantage to splitting the
charge into two and placing these at different locations in the hole to
reduce the potential damage. An air-bag could be placed at the appropri-
ate location and the upper charge placed above it thereby reducing the
potential for damage.
4.2 Blast Design for Final Wall Shots

Successful wall control blasting involves not only the wall control
row and the buffer row but also the design of the associated production
blasts. If the overall design is improper results will be poor, even though
the wall control row has been well designed.

61
An ideal final wall blast would consist of two production rows and
the buffer row in addition to the presplit or cushion row. In the case of very
narrow final wall shots the presplit line should be shot with the final wall
blast, leading by about 100 Ms. If it is shot in advance of drilling the
remaining blastholes the mass of rock may slide off the wall leaving very
poorly fragmented material to be cleaned up. This rock may not slide off
immediately, but at a later time when it would pose a serious safety
hazard to personnel and equipment.
A key to successful wall control blasting is to allow excellent relief
for the blast to pull away from the excavation limit. Achieving this result is
a function of the orientation and millisecond delay timing of the shot.
When the bench can be established such that the final wall blasts
can be pulled across two free faces this will be the preferred approach. It
is often true that a final wall blast shot to one free face is more prone to
freeze material back against the presplit. If the blast consists of many
rows or is shot to a buffer poor results often occur. The inability of these
shots to properly relieve leads to more pressure being driven back against
the excavation limit leading to crest fracture and increased wall damage.
When two free faces are available the blast is better able to pull
away from the final wall. The shot can be delayed to systematically
pull the buffer row holes away from the presplit or trim line one hole at a
time. The potential for freezing material to the face or wall damage is
greatly reduced.

62
When tieing-in the blast the orientation can be V-1 at 45° to the
free face if the pattern is square. If it is a staggered square or staggered
equilateral pattern the shot may be tied-in on the V-2 orientation along the
long axis at a 34 degree or 30 degree angle to the principal free face
respectively. These latter patterns have often given good results, based
on the substantial burden reduction across the tie-in lines and the conse-
quent ability to displace the material away from the wall.
If only one free face is available then a full echelon tie-in can be
used, oriented to the single free face. In the event that two free faces
exist, as is preferred, then the tie-in can be on the diagonal across the two
faces.
The millisecond delay timing must be sufficient to allow the rock
mass to displace freely. Delay times of 2 to 3 times the effective burden
on the tie-in should be considered minimum. In some quarry applications
delay times of 5 to 7 times the effective burden have proven most effec-
tive. In weak overburden (<5000 psi uniaxial compressive strength) above
a coal seam a time of 6 ms per foot (19.7 ms/meter) of effective burden
has resulted in the ability to pull the casting shot cleanly away from the
active highwall presplit leaving a smooth wall and a good cost profile for
subsequent operations. In row on row casting shots the delay time per
foot (meter) of effective burden may vary, being least on the front rows
and increasing further back in the pattern to create more relief.

63
Since delay times can be quite long cutoffs and misfires are consid-
erably more likely if all the delay scheme is on surface. It is usually
prudent to use down-the-hole delays in combination with the surface
delays. Employing the same period DTH delay in each hole allows
surface and downlines to be consumed well in advance of actual hole
detonations. Methods that achieve all the delay sequence down-the-hole
can also be used. However, these techniques restrict the flexibility to
change the tie-in design after hole loading has begun to account for differ-
ences between the pattern design and actual results.
When using down-the-hole delays it is essential to insure that all
holes are connected and that lost or damaged downlines are avoided.
Careful attention to these details is necessary to insure that live delays do
not present a hazard in the blasted muckpile.
5.0 WALL CONTROL PRACTICE UNDERGROUND
Controlling overbreak is important in underground mining and
tunneling. Control of the blast effects at the perimeter can reduce the
amount of support needed in drifts and tunnels. Equipment and facilities
can be more readily installed. In stopes leaving a smooth wall contributes
to safety. Ore dilution is minimized when overbreak is minimized which
can have a major impact on mining costs. For example, one study in VCR
stopes has shown that controlled blasting reduced dilution from 20-35
percent to 3-9 percent (Plis, et al, 1991).

64
Many of the principles discussed above are applicable to wall
control blasting underground. The goal at the perimeter is to reduce the
explosive loadings and the borehole pressures in order to avoid damage
to the wall and minimize the overbreak. As before the degree of decou-
pling needed to provide a desired borehole pressure can be calculated.
Coupled borehole pressures can usually be obtained from the manufac-
turer for a given explosive. Alternatively, a value sufficiently accurate for
practical design can be calculated using the equation in section 2.
Decoupling, to reduce the pressure, can be achieved by employing
undersized cartridges of a suitable product. Given hole diameters used
underground and the diameter range of typical explosives a coupling ratio
in the range of 0.4 to 0.5 is common. Added decoupling may be achieved
if a space is left between cartridges as the explosive is loaded.
In some cases a coupled, low density product is used. The velocity
of detonation and hence the borehole pressure is reduced without the
inconvenience of decoupled loading. Low density products can include
ANFO (with microballoons or polystyrene) slurries and emulsion.
Figure 15 illustrates velocity of detonation relationships for low
density ANFO. For a density of 0.4 gm/cc the velocity of detonation is
about 9000 ft/sec (2744 m/sec) in a pneumatically loaded product in
2-inch (51 mm) diameter holes. The borehole pressure generated by this
product in fully coupled holes will be about 80,000 psi (552 MPa). This
pressure would be in a range often suitable for presplitting in competent

65
rock. It may be suitable if the holes are shot on the last delay to slash the
remaining material from the perimeter, if the rock is of weak to moderate
strength. Greater pressure can be generated for smoothwall shooting in
more competent rock by increasing the density.
Early work on such explosives for wall control blasting examined
slurries gassed to quite low densities (Workman, 1973). It was found that
a velocity of detonation of 5900 ft/sec (1800 m/sec) could be achieved
and a borehole pressure of approximately 40,000 psi (275 MPa) resulted

66
Figure 15: Detonation Velocity VS.

Charge Diameter for Charges
of ANFO

67
when the product was gassed to a 0.425 gm/cc density. However, the
critical diameter of this product was 3 inch (76 mm).
Further work, in underground operations, with low density dry mixes
has been reported (Hunter, et al, 1993). Products were made in density
ranges of 0.31—0.45 gm/cc. Borehole pressures from 58,000 —110,000
psi (400-760 MPa) are reported.
Given the available experimental and field test work reported it is
likely that coupled, low density products can be considered as an alterna-
tive to decoupled charges under suitable circumstances.
Another approach to reducing the pressure is to trace the borehole
with a high grain count detonating cord or a cord and a very light powder
load. Pressures can be varied depending on the grain count of the cord
used. The primary difficulty with this approach is that it can be difficult to
lock the product in the blasthole and high grain count products may not
meet underground fume class regulations.
In smooth blasting it may be necessary to place a fully coupled
charge in the bottom of the hole to avoid leaving toes. Also, the collar
must be plugged to avoid ejection of the explosive in the smoothwall holes
due to the detonation of holes on prior delays. Ejection of explosive
resulting in undetonated material in the muck can be a significant problem
(Bauer and Donaldson, 1992). In some operations the decoupled charge
is locked into the hole with a plug of pneumatically loaded ANFO at the
collar. However, in the typical case a stemming plug will be more appro-
priate. A 1½ to 2 foot (0.46—0.61 m) plug may be needed to avoid

68
ejecting explosive with attendant poor performance of the smoothwall
holes.
The row of holes next the perimeter holes (often called the cushion
row) must be carefully designed. This is necessary to avoid damage
beyond the perimeter of the excavation. These holes are sometimes
loaded as production holes rather than as buffer holes. However, it is
often appropriate to adjust the charge weights in these boreholes which
may be done by not tamping the explosive or by decoupling.
Of particular importance is the distance of the cushion holes to the
perimeter boreholes and the spacing between cushion blastholes. In
underground work the distance from the perimeter holes to the cushion
row typically ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 times the spacing between perimeter
holes. A good initial design value is 1.5 times the spacing. The optimum
value will depend on the rock properties and geology.
It is quite important that the burden between these rows be correct.
If it is too small there will be serious overbreak. If it is too large there will
be a ledge of poorly fractured material left between the rows. This
material may hang up leading to hazardous conditions. In either case
there is the potential for rock falls, much scaling may be required, and
screening and bolting operations are made more difficult.
Wall control techniques in underground operations have typically
involved lightly loaded small diameter holes that are detonated after the
round has fired to slash the remaining material from the excavation limit.

69
These holes lag by one or two delay periods. In some cases the holes
along the side walls are fired first followed by the hole across the arch. In
underground work LP delays are frequently used, but MS delays may also
be employed. The perimeter holes should not lag by too much or suck-
out and desensitization problems may develop.
Explosive loading in smoothwall blasting typically ranges from 0.10
lb/ft2 to 0.20 lb/ft2 (0.49 kg/m2 to 0.98 kg/m2). The actual load will depend
on the rock strength, and the degree of weathering or fracturing
experienced.
To obtain a good result with smoothwall blasting it is essential that
the boreholes be drilled parallel. Varying spacing between holes will lead
to poor results, just as in surface operations. Inaccurately drilled holes
next to the smoothwall holes will lead to damage into the wall or poorly
fragmented material at the back and sides. Therefore. suitable proce-
dures for layout and drilling of the blastholes is a prerequisite for good
results.
Figure 16 shows a typical smoothwall blast design. Figure 17 illus-
trates common hole loading procedures.

70
Figure 16: A Typical Smoothwall Blast

Design for a Development
Round (after Bauer and
Donaldson, 1992)

71
Figure 17: Hole Loading Procedures as

used on the Hanging Lake
Tunnels Project (after
Revey, 1991)

72
Overbreak in stoping operations is both a safety problem and may

also result in excessive dilution. These problems have become more
acute as many mines have adopted vertical crater retreat methods in
large diameter holes. Considerably more energy can be concentrated
next the hangingwall in a 6 1/2—7 7/8-inch (165 to 200 mm) hole than in a
2-inch (51 mm) hole. Therefore appropriate precautions, involving con
trolled blasting techniques, must be taken to control the breakage at the
walls of the stope.

Once again the requirement is to reduce the energy at the perime
ter, especially the hangingwall, through decoupling and reduced explosive
loading. The rock is slashed away from the wall without resulting in
damage to the perimeter that results in overbreak.
In one field study 4 inch (102 mm) diameter cardboard tubes of
ANFO were lowered into 6.5-inch diameter VCR holes (PIis et al, 1991).
With this configuration decoupled borehole pressures would have been
about 90,000 psi (621 MPa). This value is consistent with decoupled
pressures used in drifts and tunnels.
In this study 27 lbs (12.3 kg) of ANFO was loaded in 6 foot (1.83
meter) long tubes. Loading density was therefore 4.5 lbs/ft (6.7 kg/m).
Each round broke 10 feet (3.05 meters) of muck, so the loading density
over the total length of break was 2.7 lbs/ft (4.03 kg/M). Figure 18 shows
the production and wall control hole loading for these VCR stopes.

73
Figure 18: Example of Decoupled Hole Loading

Next the Hanging Wall of a VCR
Stope (after Plis, Fletcher, Stachura
and Sterk, 1991)

74
A very substantial reduction in dilution was seen. It was found that
unloaded guideholes half-way between the wall control holes did not
further enhance results.
As is true in drifts and tunnels. and surface operations as well,
accurate drilling is essential to good wall control results in stopes. Even if

everything else is done correctly the wall control will be poor if the bore
holes have not been correctly drilled.

Another factor essential to success is that the blast be shot to good
relief. This requirement holds true for all controlled blasting work under-
ground and on surface as well. Since most underground blasts are quite
confined by nature particular attention must be paid to how the shot is
opened and how it is timed, to maximize relief without disrupting holes
firing on subsequent delays.
In longhole stopes employing small diameters similar principles
apply. Borehole pressures along the hangingwall should be reduced.
The amount of reduction should be keyed to the rock strength and
geological structure as discussed in sections 2 and 3 of this chapter.
Accurate drilling is essential and the delay timing pattern should be
designed for maximum relief away from the wall.
In stopes, as in drifts and tunnels, the most common approach is to
use a smoothwall technique. Therefore the wall control holes are
detonated last for the purpose of slashing the remaining material off the
perimeter leaving a competent wall at the designed excavation limit.

75
In summary the following items are very important in underground
wall control blasting:
• Parallelism and accuracy in drilling must be maintained on the pe

rimeter holes. Indeed all holes in the round must be accurately
drilled for best results.
• Blasting energy must be reduced at the perimeter through explo-
sive selection and/or decoupling.
• Loading factors typically range from 0.1 to 0.2 lbs/ft2 (0.49 to 0.98
kg/m2). Actual loads depend on rock strength and fracturing.
• The collars of the wall control holes must be plugged to prevent

ejection of the explosive.
• Spacing between wall control holes will normally be reduced

compared to that of production holes.
• Proper location of the production holes next the perimeter holes is

essential to avoid breaking beyond the limit.
• In drifts and tunnels drilling to an arch rather than a flat back may
improve results.
• Wall control holes are normally fired on the last delay in the
manner of cushion blasting to slash the remaining material off the
wall.
• The blast should be opened and timed for maximum relief at the
perimeter.
6.0 Controlled Blasting on Construction Projects
The principles already expounded cover the majority of controlled
blasting requirements on construction work as well. Primary needs are to
control the energy and borehole pressures at the limit of the excavation
through decoupling or, possibly, the use of low density explosives. The
buffer row must be properly loaded and located relative to the wall control
line. The shot should incorporate the maximum ability to relieve away

76
from the perimeter and should be delayed to provide excellent relief for
the next holes to detonate.
In surface construction line drilling is more often employed than in
mining or quarrying operations. It may be the best method for very close-
in blasting when vibration levels associated with presplitting would be
unacceptable. Where highly accurate results must be obtained line drill-
ing using very closely spaced holes, while expensive, can provide the best
result.
In surface work presplitting is the most common approach used.
Buffer and cushion blasting are not common for construction projects.
Presplit holes are commonly drilled vertically in construction applications.
An angled wall can require the use of more concrete, for example, which
will be a costly result. Where a cut is made for the installation of equip-
ment such as a crusher an angled wall will lead to a greater bridge
distance for truck dumping which will add significantly to the subsequent
construction cost.
However, for projects such as a major roadcut that is to be presplit
angled holes should be considered. As described above in long-term
projects, like a highway roadcut, this is an important consideration.
Construction work is often conducted in proximity to built up areas.
Therefore, airblast is an important concern. For this reason leaving
presplit holes unstemmed is not usually possible. Adequately stemming
the boreholes prevents excessive airblast. In small diameter work, as is

77
the normal case in construction work, it is quite easy to plug the hole with
a wad of plastic liner or other material and stem on top of this. In larger
holes airbags may be an appropriate way to plug the top of the hole for
stemming.
Blast vibration can be an important issue on construction projects.
Therefore, detonating a large number of presplit holes instantaneously is
often not possible. A delay will need to be introduced into the line periodi-
cally. A shorter delay will be preferable and a 17 ms unit may be most
appropriate. Delays shorter than this are more apt to shoot close to
instantaneous unless a particularly accurate delay unit is used. As many
holes as possible should be shot on each delay period without exceeding
vibration limits. When choosing the delay time to introduce into the
presplit row some experimentation may be appropriate to determine that
delay duration gives the least vibration from the highly confined presplit
holes while still yielding a good presplit result.
When tunneling or performing other construction work underground
wall control blasting is very much the same as that described for tunneling
and drifting underground. However, the need for a good smoothwall
result can be even more critical. Irregular tunnel walls with considerable
overbreak can be very costly in terms of extra concrete requirements or
other construction tasks which become more difficult and time consuming.
While presplitting is sometimes used in underground construction
the trim blasting technique, where the wall control. holes are fired last to

78
slash the remaining material off the perimeter is most common. The
smoothwall holes are lightly loaded, typically using a decoupled powder.
The collar of the hole is plugged to avoid ejection of the powder due to the
action of holes firing on previous delay periods.
Loading factors are similar to those described for underground
mining. Loads range from 0.1 lb/ft2—0.2 lb/ft2 typically (0.49 kg/m—0.98
kg/m2).
The row of holes next to the perimeter blastholes can be termed the
buffer row. These holes must be properly positioned relative to the
cushion holes to avoid damage beyond the perimeter.
Figure 19 shows how the stress generated in the ground
decreases with distance from a 2.0 inch (51 mm) borehole. If the stress,
at a distance equal to the burden between the cushion and buffer row,
exceeds the tensile strength of the rock damage is possible.
The buffer row will normally be loaded with the same explosive as
the production holes in the round. However, for the purpose of reducing
the energy in the buffer row the cartridges are often left untamped,
thereby, having a lesser loading density than those in the production holes
which typically are tamped.
The importance of drilling accuracy must again be emphasized.
Parallelism is probably even more important than in underground mining
because the cost of added concrete and support makes poor wall control
very costly in many applications.

79

80
Emphasis should also be placed on properly relieving the round.
Whether a burn cut or V cut is used it must allow the blast to relieve.
Similarly the delay sequence must be such that the rock can pull away
from the perimeter. Failure to meet these criteria will throw considerably
added pressure back against the tunnel or drift wall and a poor result is
quite likely.

81
REFERENCES
Bauer, G.F. and Donaldson, D.M.; Perimeter Control in Development

and Breasting By Use of a Blasting Program Readily Accepted By Miners;
Proc. of the Eighteenth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique; January, 1992; Orlando, Florida.
Calder, P.N.; Pit Slope Manual, Chapter 7-Perimeter Blasting;

CANMET; Report 77-14; May, 1977.
Calder, P.N. and Tuomi, J.N.; Control Blasting at Sherman Mine;

Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique; ISEE; 1980.
Chiappetta, F. and Mammele, M.; Analytical High Speed Photography

to Evaluate Air Decks, Stemming Retention and Gas Confinement in
Presplitting, Reclamation and Gross Motion Applications; Second Int.
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting; Keystone, Colorado,
1987.
Crosby, William A. and Bauer, Alan; Wall Control Blasting in Open

Pits; Mining Engineering; February, 1982; pp 155-158.
Hunter, Christopher, Fedak, K. and Todoaschuck, J.; Development of

Low Density Explosives with Wall Control Applications; Nineteenth Annual
Conference on Explosive and Blasting Technique; ISEE; January, 1993;
San Diego, CA.
Livingston, C.W.; Theory of Fragmentation in Blasting; Sixth Drilling

and Blasting Symposium, University of Minnesota, 1956.
Plis, Matthew; Fletcher, Larry; Stachura, Virgil; Sterk, Paul;

Overbreak Control in VCR Stopes at the Homestake Mine; Proceedings of
the Seventeenth Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique;
ISEE, February, 1991, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Pilshaw, Russel N.; Rock Products; 1991.
Revey, Gordon F.; Controlled Blasting at the Hanging Lake Tunnels;

Proc. of the Seventeenth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique; ISEE, February, 1991; Las Vegas, Nevada.
Workman, J. Lyall; An Explosive Slurry Development and a Study of

Priming Practices; MSc Thesis, Queens University; 1973.
Workman, J. Lyall and Peter N. Calder; Considerations in Presplit
Blasting for Mines and Quarries; Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual

82
Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research; ISEE, January, 1993;

San Diego, CA.
Workman, J. Lyall and Calder, Peter N.; Wall Control Blasting at the
Manassas Quarry; Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on
Explosives and Blasting Technique; ISEE; February, 1992; Orlando,
Florida.
Workman, J. Lyall and Calder, Peter N.; A method for Calculating the
Weight of Charge to Use in Large Hole Presplitting for Cast Blasting
Operations; Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Explosives
and Blasting Technique; ISEE; February, 1991; Las Vegas, Nevada.
Workman, J. Lyall and Calder, Peter N.; Considerations for Small

versus Large Diameter Presplit Blasting; Potomac Chapter, Society of
Explosive Engineers; Fall Meeting; November 10, 1989; Leesburg,
Virginia.

83
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL PAPERS IN
CONTROL BLASTING

84
CONSIDERATIONS IN PRE-SPLIT BLASTING FOR MINES AND

QUARRIES
J. Lyall Workman1 and Peter N. Calder2
1. Blasting Consultant, Calder & Workman, Inc., Washburn, N.D.
2. Prof., Mining Eng. Dept. Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
ABSTRACT
Presplitting is a technique mines and quarries may use to produce

high quality final pit walls. Damage from backbreak can be minimized,
thereby insuring the final pit walls stand at the designed angle. Thus
costly excess waste removal is avoided. Safety in the pit is enhanced.
Control blasting is an essential component of procedures to maintain the
stability of final pit walls prone to failure.
Strip mines using blast casting also frequently employ presplitting of

the active highwalls. Subsequent blasts can be designed for maximum
effect behind the well defined highwalls that result. For some operations
this technique also provides dewatering of the block and greater flexibility
in choosing explosives.
This paper discusses methods for the effective design of presplit

blasts Experience in designing and implementing presplit blasts in open
pit mines, strip mines and quarries is presented. Relative merits of
presplitting with small and large diameter blastholes is discussed for
different situations. Merits of angle versus vertical presplitting are also
discussed. Factors affecting the success of presplitting are presented.
Conclusions and recommendations for the effective use of presplitting in
mines and quarries are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Wall control blasting is the technique used to obtain a pit wall, free of
backbreak and loose rock, that will stand safely at the required wall angle for
extended periods of time. Usually the method is employed for preparing the pit wall
at the final pit limit, or in construction work for producing a high quality wall in the cut
limit. However, when presplitting is used with cast blasting in dragline mines the
technique is employed to produce a suitable highwall on each successive mining cut.
There are four control blasting techniques. These are:

Presplitting
Trim (Cushion) blasting
Buffer blasting
Line Drilling
Of these four presplitting and trim blasting are techniques most commonly used
in mining and quarrying. Buffer blasting can only be used by itself when the rock is
quite competent. However, the buffer row, which involves modifying the loading and

85
pattern for the last row of the final production blast, is essential to good presplit blast
results.
Line drilling involves the use of closely spaced, small diameter drill holes along
the perimeter. These holes are not loaded with explosive but provide a defined line
along which the final blast can break. Line drilling is not often used in mines
because the cost is too great. For those construction jobs where back break may be
very costly this procedure can be warranted. It is sometimes used in mines for criti-
cal situations such as preparing a wall for a crusher installation. In this case half-
depth holes may be drilled between the normal presplit holes to insure that the wall
breaks cleanly at the crest.
Wall control blasting at the perimeter is an important issue for mines and
quarries. The trend in surface operations has been to larger blasthole diameters and
the use of more energetic, bulk loaded explosives. Consequently there is greater
potential for damage to the final pit wall.
When backbreak is not well controlled the final wall will typically be more
shallow than was planned. Furthermore, as the mine or quarry is developed to
increasing depth the safety of workers and equipment is reduced.
Consider a pit developed to a one thousand foot depth. The planned pit slope
angle is 60 degrees, but in practice, due to blast damage, the wall angle must be
reduced to 50 degrees. The result is the removal of an additional 4,800 cubic yards
of material per foot of perimeter, that is very likely waste or marginal ore. Almost a
half-million cubic yards of additional material will be excavated for every one hundred
feet of pit perimeter left in this condition. Clearly, walls that are produced at a flatter
angle than required for slope stability reasons, or for the installation of haul roads,
will be costly.
When there is much backbreak at the final pit wall the result is a good deal of
loose rock which can fall from the face. Furthermore, safety berms left to serve as
catchment areas for falling material may well be too narrow to perform effectively, or
may be non-existent.
Measures may then have to be taken to improve the wall to yield safe working
conditions. Techniques could include scaling large areas, using wire mesh and rock
bolting or other methods for artificial support. All of these are costly. Any of them
may be difficult to implement because of the inaccessibility of the wall.
Operations that employ dragline stripping methods have also used wall control
methods to advantage. These are employed in conjunction with cast blasting and
involve the use of presplitting in large diameter blastholes. The advantages are that
front row burdens can be well controlled behind each successive highwall, leading to
high blast-over percentages. In some cases presplitting the sides of the block to be
blasted, as well as the back, leads to successful dewatering and the use of less
costly non-waterproof explosives.
In many cases these pits are quite deep. When this is combined with structure
dipping into the pit wall failures may occur. In these cases active highwall
presplitting, at an appropriate angle, has been observed to enhance the stability and
safety of the stripping pit.
Wall control blasting is an important concern for surface mines. For best
results this requirement should be part of mine engineering and operation from the
beginning.

86
PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
The fundamental requirement of presplit blast holes is that the borehole

pressures generated must not be so great as to cause undue damage to the rock
surrounding the hole. However, the pressure must be adequate to produce the
desired smooth face at the bench limit.
It is necessary, therefore, to be able to determine the borehole pressure that

should be used and to be able to calculate borehole diameters and explosive
loadings that will generate the desired pressure in the wall control blasthole.
The borehole pressure generated by a fully coupled explosive in the blasthole

is given as follows (1):
Pb = NqD2
where Pb = borehole pressure in psi
q = explosive density, gm/cc
D = detonation velocity, ft/sec.
N = Factor varying with density (figure 1)
This equation can be used to calculate the borehole pressure for explosives
except those that contain aluminum. The nature of the reaction in aluminized explo-
sives results in the computed value understating the actual borehole pressure
obtained.
For wall control work the coupled borehole pressure is too high, unless the
density of the explosive has been substantially reduced by gassing or the addition of
microballoons. The borehole pressure is usually reduced to an acceptable level by
loading an explosive of smaller diameter than that of the blasthole. As the degree of
coupling decreases the pressure generated at the borehole walls decreases.
The degree of decoupling achieved in the hole may be expressed as follows:

rc
C.R. = C % r h
where C.R. = coupling ratio
C = percent of hole loaded
rc = charge radius, inches
rh = hole radius, inches
The factor, C. accounts for any spacing left between charges, which further
decouples the distributed charge along the hole.
The decoupled borehole pressure for a given situation is then expressed in the
following equation:
(P b )d c = P b % (C.R. ) 2.4
where (P b )d c = decoupled borehole pressure, psi
The 2.4 power of the coupling ratio pertains to the assumption of adiabatic
expansion of the gas and the value was found from blasting experiments by Bauer
(2).
In the case of presplitting it is desired to produce a discontinuity at the bench

limit by causing the rock between successive holes to fail in tension. At the same
time one does not wish to produce excessive compressive stress around the hole as
this will lead to undesired wall damage.

87
Therefore, in practice one usually decides on the decoupled borehole pressure

to be employed and then computes the decoupling necessary, for a given explosive,
from the equation above. This may be iterated until a satisfactory combination of
hole diameter, explosive type and explosive diameter is found. Determination of the
decoupled borehole pressure is usually made from a knowledge of the rock
compressive strength.
If the decoupled borehole pressure is set equal to the compressive strength of

the rock then it is quite possible to produce the presplit line in tension without damag-
ing the rock around the borehole, since the compressive strength of rocks is typically
six to ten times the tensile strength. It has, however, proved possible to exceed the
compressive strength of the rock in some cases and obtain a good result. This is
most successful when small diameter holes are used because the radius of rupture
around such holes is small. This radius increases in larger hole diameters so
increasing the pressure beyond the compressive strength is generally not advised as
the quality of the wall will deteriorate.
The advantage to increasing the decoupled borehole pressure is that the

spacing between holes can be increased. In reasonably competent rock it has been
found that the borehole pressure may be increased to a value of 2 to 3 times the
rock compressive strength when using holes of 4-inch diameter or less. This leads
to the question as to what the spacing between presplitting holes should be. It has
been found that a model based on the thick-walled cylinder analysis, with an infinite
thickness and no external pressure (3) works well in actual practice. The equation
that results from this analysis is:
D((P b )d c +T )
S= T
where S = hole spacing, inches
D = hole diameter, inches
T = tensile strength, psi
The spacing calculated from this expression may need to be adjusted to

account for geological structure. As a general rule the spacing between presplit
holes should not exceed twice the predominant joint spacing.
Proper design of the buffer row is a key to the successful wall control blast. If
the back row of the final production blast is loaded to heavily backbreak and crest
fracture through the designed final wall is likely.
An approach to the buffer row which has been successful is to design a charge
with a scaled depth of burial greater than optimum. For competent rock it has been
found that a value of 4.0 ft/lb1/3 works well. This is about 1.5 times the optimum in
such rocks. Since the critical depth occurs at about twice the optimum depth this
approach will avoid cratering action and damage to the wall. In the case of softer
rock the optimum scaled depth of burial may well be 3.5 to 4.0 ft/lb1/3. In these cases
depth of burial on the buffer row will need to be 5.3 to 6.0 ft/lb1/3 to avoid unwanted
fracture.
When drilling is done using holes of intermediate diameter we have had

success using a toe load of fully coupled explosive, an upper deck of decoupled
powder and increased stemming. Good breakage has been achieved on the buffer
row without damaging the final wall using this approach.
In one case, using 6½-inch production holes a ten-foot column of fully coupled
ANFO was used in the toe. Six feet of deck stemming were then placed followed by
a column of ANFO loaded into 4½-inch diameter bags. Stemming ranged from 14 to

88
18 feet. This was 1.2 to 1.5 times the usual production hole stemming height. The
stemming increased as the rock became less competent, particularly in the cases
where it was heavily fractured.
The powder factor on the buffer row will typically be 0.8 to 0.5 times the produc-
tion row factor. This necessitates changes to the buffer row burden and spacing.
Burdens range from 0.5 to 0.75 times the production burden. The spacing should
not be less than the burden and will typically be 1.0 to 1.25 times the buffer row
burden.
IMPLEMENTATION OF WALL CONTROL BLASTS
When implementing final wall blasts decisions must be taken about the diame-
ter of the wall control holes, the angle that the wall between berms is to be blasted to,
and the layout and timing of the final production blast. In general we have found that
pit walls in mines and quarries, that are designed to stand for extended periods of
time, provide the best result when these walls are presplit at an angle less than verti-
cal. Often an angle of 80 degrees works well, but this may vary to some extent
depending on the nature of the rock and the geology involved.
A principal advantage to angle hole presplitting is that the toe of the presplit
face is moved out from the crest. Therefore, if isolated blocks of rock fall out of the
face near the toe the column of material above is not necessarily undercut. Walls
that are angle presplit tend to remain in good condition for longer periods of time
than is true of those that are presplit vertically. The two situations are illustrated in
figure 2.
Another primary advantage results when steep joint or bedding planes dip back
into the pit wall. A wall having these conditions is subject to toppling failures,
especially when the face between berms is vertical. A pit wall prone to toppling
failures will often remain quite stable when angle presplitting is used, due to the toe
buttressing effect.
There is a third important advantage to angled presplit holes. This relates to

the position of the presplit holes and the buffer row. When the presplit holes are
angled and the buffer row is vertical it is possible to locate the toe of the buffer hole
close to the toe of the presplit hole, which allows for good breakage, while also
having a greater spacing at the crest, so that the potential for damage to the crest of
the presplit line is decreased. The spacing between the holes, at the toe, varies
according to the rock type and we have seen standoffs varying from 3 feet in iron to
15 feet in coal overburden. When both holes are drilled vertically, then the distance
between the holes is the same at the crest and the toe. This can lead to difficulty
breaking the toe if the holes are too far apart, or crest fracture if they are too close. It
is difficult to find a spacing that satisfies both conditions.
In mines and quarries the berm-to-berm distance is usually more than one
bench height. An interval of two or three benches is common. When angle presplit-
ting is used, for the reasons cited above, it usually is necessary to drill the holes with
small diameter drilling equipment.
To bring the intermediate benches back flush to the pit limit requires the drill to
be positioned immediately next the wall so as to drill the holes on the continued
plane of the pit limit. Large rotary blasthole drills cannot do this. Air track
equipment, which can be angled to drill back under the machine can drill the holes in
the correct location. Therefore, this equipment is preferred for the application and
hole diameters are typically in the 3-to 4-inch range.

89
Another reason for considering small diameter holes is the ability to increase
the borehole pressure to more than twice the compressive strength and therefore
increase the spacings according to the equation cited above. Increasing the
borehole pressures and spacing in large holes has not been as successful because
of the increasing radius of rupture. The result is that there have been cases where
presplitting using small diameter techniques yielded a lower cost per square foot
than the equivalent large diameter design. This needs to be considered when select-
ing a presplitting technique. It should not be assumed that larger hole work will
always yield the least cost.
In designing and laying out the final wall blast several aspects need to be
considered. First, should the presplit line be shot with the final production blast or
before the final blast is laid out.
In practice both approaches have been successful. If the presplit line is shot
with the final production blast it should be detonated 100 milliseconds in advance.
We have observed cases where the presplit result was better when the presplit
line was shot before the final wall blast was laid out and shot. This was in part due to
the ability to observe the presplit crack after shooting and making any appropriate
adjustments. Also, when the blast is delayed hole-by-hole the presplit line will
proceed far in advance of blast detonation as the blast progresses. The presplit
detonations may interfere with the buffer row causing misfires unless the presplit line
is delayed periodically to slow it down. Since presplit results are best when the line
is shot instantaneously the delays introduced may detract from the result.
When the presplit line is shot in advance there should not be too long a delay
between presplit shooting and the final production blasting. If there is ground water
flow or surface runoff in the interval the presplit crack can become infilled with debris
and will be ineffective when the final blast is shot. Also good survey control is neces-
sary. The presplit line may become obliterated in the interim and one must be able
to establish its location to properly design the blast.
If the final wall shot is very narrow the presplit line should not be shot in
advance. The reason is that upon detonating the presplit holes the mass of rock
may slide off the wall leaving very poorly fragmented material to be cleaned up. In
addition this rock may not fall off the wall immediately but may do so later when
employees are working in the area. Ideally the final wall blast should consist of two
production rows and the buffer row in most cases.
A key to successful wall control blasting is to allow good freedom for the blast
to pull away from the wall. This is a function of the orientation of the blast and
adequate millisecond delay timing.
When the bench can be established such that the final wall blasts can be pulled
across two free faces, this is the preferred approach. It is often true that a final wall
blast shot to one free face is more prone to freeze material back against the presplit.
When two free faces are available the blast is better able to displace and systemati-
cally pull the back row away from the presplit leaving a clean face.
When tieing-in the blast the orientation can be V-1, at 45 degrees to the free
face, if the pattern is square. If it is staggered square or equilateral pattern it may be
tied-in along the long axis at a 30 degree angle to the principal free face (V-2). The
latter patterns and tie-ins have given us good results, related to the substantial

90
burden reduction obtained across the tie-in lines and the consequent ability to
displace material away from the wall.
The timing must be sufficient to allow the rock mass to displace freely. Delay
times of 2 to 3 times the effective burden (on the tie-in) should be considered
minimum. We have, in fact, had good success in some quarries with delay times of
5 to 7 times the effective burden.
Since delay times for best effect can be quite long cutoffs and misfires are
possible if all delays are on surface. It is usually prudent to use down-the-hole
delays in conjunction with the surface delays to allow the surface tie-in and
downlines to be burned off in advance of actual hole detonation. Figure 3 is an illus-
tration of a final wall blast with hole-to-hole relief.
ACTIVE WALL PRESPLITTING
This method is used to presplit each successive highwall in dragline stripping

operations. The purpose is to provide a straight, consistent wall behind which the
front row of the next casting blast can be accurately placed to yield acceptable toe
burdens on walls that may exceed 100 feet in height. The result is a high castover
percentage. Also, when the sides of the block are presplit in addition to the back
dewatering can be achieved in some cases thereby allowing less costly explosives
to be used for production blasting.
Active wall presplitting employs large diameter blastholes and a concentrated

presplit charge at or near the bottom of the hole, rather than the distributed charges
described in the sections above. Decoupling is achieved by leaving the hole above
the charge void so the gases can expand freely up the borehole.
A method has been presented previously for calculating the weight of explosive
to use in the bottom of these presplit holes (4). It is based on first calculating the
diameter of an explosive needed in a distributed charge in a borehole of the given
diameter to generate a desired decoupled borehole pressure. Given the depth of the
blasthole and the standoff at the top of the hole the weight of explosive can be
calculated.
oD c 2
Wc = 4 %h%q
where W c = explosive weight, lbs.
Dc = hole diameter, feet
h = length of hole loaded when a distributed decoupled charge is
used
q = explosive density, lbs/ft3
The weight of charge thus calculated would be placed in the bottom of the hole.
For practical application the important factor is that as the hole diameter or
depth increases the volume in the borehole also increases. Therefore to maintain
the same decoupled borehole pressure requires more explosive generating a greater
volume of gas upon detonation. The explosive quantities can be calculated using the
formulas presented in this paper. The design can subsequently be optimized
through field observation and experimentation.
The spacing between holes can be calculated using the spacing equation if the
tensile strength has been found from Brazilian tensile strength tests. If this informa-
tion is not available reasonable estimates can often be obtained from published

91
sources. Typically we find spacing varying between 12 and 16 feet and hole diame-
ters between 9-7/8 and 12-1/4 inches.
Until recently much of the active wall presplitting work was done with vertical
holes. Good walls were produced in many cases. However, in some instances wall
failures occurred. These failures were not large, but did compromise the safety of
persons working beneath the wall. The reason for the failures was usually steeply
dipping planes of weakness in the wall which were undercut by the vertical wall.
As a result angle presplitting is being introduced in these pits. The angled wall
avoids the undercutting and provides a consistently good result. When angle
presplitting is used the casting blasts are most effective when these are also angled.
This allows the front row burdens to be maintained at the proper distance and avoids
large toe distances, especially in deep pits. Also it avoids the situation in deep cuts
where the standoff between the last row of the blast and the presplit line is too great
for proper breakage. Where this occurs, with vertical production holes, short holes
have to be drilled and lightly loaded to fragment the remaining material. This adds
time and cost to the effort.
Good results are currently being had with angled presplit holes in this applica-
tion. It is expected that this technique will be used more in the future. It appears that
angles between 70 and 80 degrees will be typical, but local geology must be
accounted for. Angle holes of 10 5/8-inch diameter up to 180 feet deep are currently
being contemplated. The spacings between holes is the same as for vertical holes.
USE OF AIR-DECKING
In recent years air-decking has seen use in mines and quarries for a variety of
purposes including wall control work. When used in presplitting reported results
include increased spacings and reduced airblast (5,6). Air-decking with a stemming
plug is typically used in holes of 6½-inch diameter or greater.
When a mine or quarry is operated in proximity to built-up areas the airblast

associated with open presplit holes may well be unacceptable. If large diameter
holes are being used, as in an active wall presplitting situation, then the use of
airbags and stemming is a good way to reduce the airblast to acceptable levels.
When airblast is not a problem good results are achieved with unstemmed
holes. However, if the introduction of an airbag and stemming allows the hole
spacing to be increased sufficiently then cost savings can accrue.
Reviewing the spacing equation provided above, there is not a term in the
expression which indicates that holding the gas pressure in the hole for a longer
period of time will allow greater spacing between holes. Presumably, at some
instance the decoupled borehole pressure in either an open or stemmed hole will be
the same. Subsequent attenuation of the pressure will be considerably more rapid in
the case of the open hole. However, the stresses generated by the gas pressures
will radiate outward very rapidly and the tensile crack will be formed before the
attenuation is complete.
If it is considered that gases contained in the hole for a longer period will wedge
out into the presplit crack thereby better defining the discontinuity formed, this is
possible. However, this does not indicate that spacings can necessarily be
expanded. It should be noted that if the contained gases can further open the
presplit crack they may also damage existing weak joints and bedding planes in the

92
ground surrounding the holes, leading to a poorer quality wall. Therefore, the ability
to expand the spacings in stemmed holes relative to those that are unstemmed
needs to be considered on a site specific basis.
If the rock is hard and drilling costs high an expansion of the spacing by 2 feet
will be adequate to reduce the drilling cost enough to pay for the airbag and its instal-
lation. In softer rocks with drilling costs of $1.50 to $2.00 per foot the spacings will
need to be able to be expanded by 4 to 5 feet, with the same quality wall resulting,
for the procedure to be economically attractive.
When air-decking is used consideration should also be given to the region of

the collar of the hole. When the expanding gas front from the detonated charge
impacts the bottom of the stemming column there will be a reflected stress wave.
This can double the stress in the collar region and may lead to excessive crest
fracture. Explosive weight in the concentrated charge, and consequently the decou-
pled borehole pressure, may need to be reduced to avoid this problem.
Air-decking may also play a role when a large concentrated charge must be
placed in the hole, due to its depth and diameter. If detonation of these charges
creates too much damage at the toe of the hole then it will be wise to split the charge
into two separate charges, one at the toe and one half way up the hole. An airbag
could be used to suspend the upper charge while leaving the hole void for the gases
to expand into.
Another role for air-decking, which is not wall control blasting per se but is a
control blasting technique is to leave an air gap between the top of the explosive
column and the stemming column. The gas expansion into this area may well
reduce fines production. One application for this would be in blasting coal, where it
is often desired to reduce the percent of fines produced. This application may also
be effective in designing the buffer row of a presplit blast.
FIELD APPLICATIONS
Iron Mine
Presplit blasting using 3-inch diameter holes drilled at an 80 degree angle were
successfully used to presplit the final wall at an iron mine in Northern Ontario (7).
Figure 4 illustrates the layout.
It was found that the decoupled borehole pressures in this competent rock
could exceed the rock compressive strength by 2½ to 3 times. This resulted in a 7
foot spacing between presplit holes. The holes were loaded with a small diameter
slurry into Vexar netting which allowed the holes to be loaded rapidly with the decou-
pled powder.
The spacing between the 80 degree presplit hole and the buffer row hole was 3
feet at the toe. At the crest of the 40 foot bench it was ten feet. The buffer row
loading in the 12¼-inch holes was designed using a scaled depth of burial of 4.0
ft/lb1/3. This resulted in a 600 pound charge in a ten foot column. The reduced
loading in the buffer holes led to a burden and spacing on the row of 20 x 20 feet.
The remaining two rows were normal production rows. The pattern was 27 x
30 feet. Normal stemming heights and subgrade were employed on these holes.
As noted the presplit hole spacings were 7 feet. This led to the result that the
cost per square foot of face was less when the small diameter holes were used than

93
if large diameter presplitting were to be employed. Good clean walls and full width
berms were produced using this approach.
Rock Quarry
At a rock quarry in Northern Virginia wall control blasting was performed on an

unstable wall which had experienced both toppling failures on steeply dipping
metasediments and also movement on a major fault zone (8). The wall was presplit
on 40 to 45 foot benches using 3-inch diameter holes drilled at an 80 degree angle.
The holes were loaded with 1-inch diameter Spliter to an 8 foot collar. The
resulting decoupled borehole pressure was 20,000 psi. The quarry was in proximity
to residential developments and airblast had to be minimized. Therefore the top 8
feet of the holes were stemmed with crushed stone. The holes were spaced 3½ feet
apart. Complex geology prevented the use of higher pressures and wider spacings
in this case.
In most cases the presplit line was detonated in advance of laying out the final
production blast. This approach worked well. In a few cases the presplit line was
shot with the final wall blast. A 100 ms lead time was used. The timing was
controlled so that the presplit line would not shoot more than 350 ms in advance at
any point. Acceptable results were also obtained with this approach. Overall,
however, shooting in advance of the final wall blast gave the best results.
The buffer row was drilled with 6½-inch holes. The bottom of the hole was
loaded with 10 feet of bulk ANFO and delayed with a period 7 delay. Then 6 feet of
deck stemming was added. Bags of 4½-inch diameter ANFO were loaded off the
bulk truck and placed in the upper deck. Stemming was then added. Stemming
length varied from 14 to 18 feet depending on the competency of the rock.
The buffer row powder factor was about 0.80 times the production powder
factor. In poor quality rock this was reduced to 0.70 times the production factor. The
buffer row pattern was 10 x 12 feet compared to a production pattern of 12 x 14 feet.
The buffer row was spaced 12 feet from the 80 degree presplit holes. This gave a 5
foot standoff at the toe.
The production holes were usually loaded with two decks of powder with a 6
foot stemming deck between them. When blasting through the fault, however, three
independently delayed decks were used to further reduce blast vibration in the fault
zone. For the two deck case a period 7 delay was used in the bottom and a period 8
delay was placed in the top deck. Figure 5 shows typical loading in production and
buffer holes on a 45 foot bench with 2 feet of subgrade.
Stemming on the production holes ranged from 12 to 14 feet. The pattern was
12 x 14 feet or 14 x 14 foot square pattern.
The blasts were laid out across two free faces and were shot on the diagonal.
It was desired to have each deck detonate separately because of housing nearby
and also to minimize the vibration at the unstable fault zone. To obtain the desired
delay sequence non-standard delay times had to be used in some cases. This
included the use of 59 ms delays on surface, which were obtained by tying a 42 ms
and 17 ms noiseless trunkline delay in series. Non-standard delays can be made but
require a longer lead time to manufacture and cost 25 to 30 percent more. Figure 6
shows a final wall blast as tied-in and shot.

94
Results at this quarry were consistently quite good. The angled presplit
allowed a good final wall to be produced in the metasediment, which would not have
been possible with vertical presplit. It was possible to blast through the fault zone
and leave a good quality stable wall even though the fault had experienced serious
failure several years prior and minor movement immediately prior to control blasting
work beginning on the wall.
In conjunction with the wall control blasting program toe drains were placed on
two levels as the project progressed. The purpose of these drains was to relieve
water pressure on the fault zone and in the metasediment. We have often found the
use of toe drains in conjunction with wall control blasting techniques an important
procedure for insuring the stability of potentially unstable slopes.
This wall control program was successful. The most difficult areas to success-
fully presplit were those where joint planes dipped into the face at relatively shallow
angles. Dips on these planes were in the 40 to 50 degree range. The tendency was
for the bottom 20 to 25 feet of the wall to stand as expected but for the upper half of
the wall to slide off on the joint plane. This leads to loss of the crest and a reduction
in the width of the safety berms. Various design modifications were made, such as
changes to the buffer row loading, stemming and spacing but the problem of these
joints was not fully resolved.
Coal Stripping Operation
A coal operation in the western United States employs cast blasting extensively
for moving the overburden. Total castover percentages of 35 to 60 percent are
achieved, with a direct cast benefit of 20 to 40 percent resulting. Active wall presplit-
ting is used in conjunction with the cast blasting.
At this property the presplitting was originally performed with vertical holes.
There are joints in the wall that dip at about 80 degrees on average. When these
undercut the wall, sliding failures tended to occur. These were localized but were a
serious safety concern. As a result the presplit program has been changed so that
the holes are drilled at a 70 degree angle. This has eliminated virtually all the wall
failures. Initially the angle presplit was introduced on upper lifts. However lower lifts
and partings were still presplit vertically but the results were erratic. Currently all
presplitting is done on the angle and the presplit results are uniformly of high quality.
Presplit holes are typically 10 5/8-inch diameter, but some 12 1/3-inch holes
are also drilled. The 10 5/8-inch holes are normally drilled on a 12 to 14 foot spacing
depending on the material. Spacings are calculated using the formula provided
above.
Decoupled borehole pressures are 15,000 psi in this material with a compres-
sive strength ranging from 4,000 to 7,000 psi. Tensile strengths are considered to
be 1,000 to 1,500 psi.
Presplit holes typically vary in depth from 80 to 140 feet. Explosive loads must
be adjusted accordingly to obtain a 15,000 psi pressure. For 10 5/8-inch holes with a
concentrated charge of ANFO 154 pounds are required in a 80 foot hole and 286
pounds are required in a 140 foot deep hole.
In order to properly control front row burdens the usual approach is to drill the
production pattern on a 70 degree angle as well. Front row burdens are therefore
virtually the same from crest to toe.

95
The back row of the blast is not a buffer row. This is typically the case in active
wall presplitting. Good fragmentation is necessary in the keycut next the new
highwall if the dozers and dragline are to successfully excavate the material away
from the new wall.
In early work where the presplit was drilled at 70 degrees but the production
holes were vertical it was found that a 15 foot standoff was necessary at the toe to
avoid damage. This led to wide standoffs at the crest. In this material a distance at
the surface up to 40 feet was not a problem. Beyond that however fragmentation fell
off and it was necessary to introduce stab holes between the final row and the
presplit. This was successful but is more time consuming and costly.
In the current situation with the production patterns drilled on the 70 degree
angle the 15 foot standoff is maintained at the toe. This means that there is a 15 foot
standoff over the entire length of the hole. These blastholes are loaded as produc-
tion holes and we initially had concerns for damage to the upper portions of the
presplit wall. In general this problem has not materialized however. In some cases
adjustments have been made to the stemming height to avoid crest fracture. The
angle drilling approach appears to help prevent fracture at the crest.
The production holes are drilled on a staggered equilateral triangle pattern. For
10 5/8-inch blastholes the pattern is 28 x 32 feet. The powder factor is typically 1.25
lbs/cyd.
The blasts are tied-in V-2. The effective spacing is therefore 3.5 times the
effective burden. For the pattern above the effective burden is 16 feet and the effec-
tive spacing is 56 feet.
Currently the blasts are delayed by 65 ms between tie-in lines. This yields 4
ms per foot of effective burden. Recent experiments using 100 ms delays between
lines in the back corner of the blast has helped to clear the back corner and leave a
good clean side face to locate the next shot against.
At this mine good results have been obtained with angle presplitting in large
diameter holes. Vertical presplitting results by contrast were not acceptable. The
methods presented for calculating the weight of a concentrated charge and the
spacing between holes has proved valuable at this operation. Figure 7 is an
example of the 70 degree angle presplit walls that are being produced.
CONCLUSIONS
Wall control blasting is an important technique for open pit mines and quarries.
Well prepared final walls are safe for men and equipment to work under. Also good
final walls can have a major impact on the amount of waste that must be moved at
the perimeter.
Methods are available by which explosive loads and hole spacings can be
computed successfully. The design must be optimized in the field to take into
account local geological conditions. For example presplit hole spacings should not
exceed twice the predominant joint spacing in most cases.
Good success has been had in open pits and in active wall presplitting when
angle presplit holes are used. We conclude that angle presplitting is the preferred
technique in general with vertical presplitting being applicable in some specific
circumstances such as active wall presplitting in competent rock with few joints or
joints that do not undercut the wall.

96
When small diameter holes are used it is possible depending on geology, to

increase the borehole pressures 2 to 3 times the compressive strength and pull out
the spacings with good success. This has led to instances where small diameter
presplitting was less costly than large diameter presplitting. It cannot be assumed
that cost will always be less at larger diameter. This must be evaluated for the given
mine or quarry taking into account local conditions.
Presplitting is the most commonly used method for wall control blasting and
generally the most successful. However, trim blasting has also had success and is
applicable in various situations.
When presplitting in open pits proper design of the buffer row is equally as
important as design of the presplit holes. However, in active wall presplitting it has
generally been possible to load the last row as a production row and still obtain good
results.
REFERENCES
1. Calder, P., Pit Slope Manual, Chapter 7 - Perimeter Blasting;

CANMET; Report 77-14; May 1977
2. Bauer, A.; The Status of Rock Mechanics in Blasting, 9th Symposium

on Rock Mechanics; Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado; ;April, 1967.
3. Sanden, B.H.; Pre-Split Blasting; Master's Thesis, Mining Engineering

Department, Queen's University; Kingston, Ontario; 1974
4. Workman. J.L. and Calder, P.N.; A Method for Calculating the Weight
of Charge to Use in Large Hole Presplitting for Cast Blasting Operations; Proc. of
17th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Vol. II; Int. Soc. of Explosive
Engineers; Feb., 1991
5. Chiapetta, F and Mammele, M.; Analytical High Speed Photography to

Evaluate Air Decks, Stemming Retention and Gas Confinement in Presplitting,
Reclamation and Gross Motion Applications, Second Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmenta-
tion by Blasting, Keystone, Colorado, 1987
6. McGill, M.D., Newhouse, D., Sieger, D., and Turner, J.; Airdeck: An
Update: Proc. of 17th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Vol. II;
Int.Soc. of Explosive Engineers; Feb., 1991
7. Calder, P.N. and Tuomi, J.N.; Control Blasting at Sherman Mine;

Proceedings of Sixth conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques; Society of
Explosive Engineers; 1980
8. Workman, J.L.; and Calder, P.N.; Wall Control Blasting at the Manas-
sas Quarry; Proc. of 18th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique; Int.
Soc. of Explosive Engineers; Jan., 1992

97
CONTROL BLASTING
AT SHERMAN MINE
by
Peter N. Calder, Professor, Mining Engineering Dept.,

Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario
and
John N. Tuomi, Operating Engineer, Sherman Mine

Temagami, Ontario
ABSTRACT
The development of a successful control blasting program for an open

pit iron mine in hard jointed rock is described. The objectives and
mechanics of control blasting are discussed. Design and implementation
procedures, which should have wide application, are given. Small diame-
ter angle hole pre-split blasting, buffer blasting with production holes in
front of pre-split lines and in front of strongly defined rock structures, and
vibration control of production blasts are dealt with.
INTRODUCTION
This paper describes the development of a control blasting program at

Sherman Mine. A design approach described in an earlier report (Ref. 1)
has been field tested, modified and expanded based on the results at
Sherman. The resulting design procedures should have wide application
in hard jointed rock.
Sherman Mine is an open pit iron ore mining, concentrating and

pelletizing operation employing 475 people and producing over one million
long tons of iron ore pellets annually. The mine is a joint venture between
Dofasco (Dominion Foundries & Steel Ltd.) of Hamilton, Ontario (90%)
and the Tetapaga Mining Company, Ltd. (10%) , a wholly owned subsidi-
ary of The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Operation &
management is by Cliffs of Canada Ltd. The mine is located in northeast-
ern Ontario, 280 miles north of Toronto.
References, tables and figures are at the end of the paper.
During the summer of 1977, a decision was made at Sherman Mine to

develop a control blasting program which would result in competent, safe

98
final pit walls. Prior to this time, relatively few of the final-pit walls had
been exposed.
PIT WALL DESIGNS
The predominant structure in the Sherman West Pit is associated

with the ore body itself and is quite regular. The structure dips at approxi-
mately 80°, resulting in a footwall in which the face between berms tends
to conform with this dip, and a hangingwall where the predominant struc-
ture is dipping back into the wall.
The footwall designs in the West Pit call for a 40' wide safety berm
with a berm interval of 120' and a face slope between berms which
conforms with the dip of the footwall (60 to 80°). Depending on the slope
of the wall between berms, the overall footwall slope varies from 42° to
63°.
The hangingwall in the West Pit is designed with a 40' wide berm, a
berm interval of 120' and a face slope of 80° between berms.
The basic pit wall design is illustrated in Figure 1.
OBJECTIVES OF CONTROL BLASTING
The main objective of a control blasting program is to limit the

damage to final pit walls and benches caused by production blasting.
This is accomplished by controlling the energy concentration at the pit wall
due to the main production blast. The most common form of blast
damage is backbreak, including crest fracture, loose face rock on the
immediately adjacent pit walls and damage to haulage roads. However,
blast vibration may damage pit walls and buildings some distance from
the blast, and limiting vibration levels is another important objective of
control blasting.
TYPES OF CONTROL BLASTING
Two types of control blasting are in use at Sherman Mine: buffer

blasting and pre-split blasting.
Buffer blasting is used when a natural strongly defined plane of

weakness in the rock mass coincides with the designed face slope, this
occurs along the footwall at Sherman, as can be seen in Figure 2. Buffer
blasting consists of using a line of lightly loaded blastholes, located
between the production blast zone and the desired final face, to
adequately fragment the rock between the buffer row and the wall without
overbreak.

99
Pre-split blasting is used in conjunction with buffer blasting, to form a

split coincident with the desired final face slope when no natural strongly
defined plane of weakness is present. Figure 3 is a sketch of a typical
pre-split blast layout with the buffer and production rows included.
MECHANICS OF CONTROL BLASTING
When an explosive is detonated in a blasthole, a borehole pressure is

generated, which has a magnitude characteristic of the explosive type.
The initial impact of this pressure on the borehole wall initiates a dynamic
elastic wave train, which carries part of the energy, generally, only a few
percent, into the rock mass. The energy in this dynamic wave train is
responsible for the familiar ground vibrations which accompany blasting.
Most of the energy remains within the explosive gases, which continue to
act on the borehole walls for a finite period of time. Following the forma-
tion of radial cracks in the borehole walls due to this pressure, gases enter
the cracks and cause them to propagate. As this progresses, the gas
pressures continually diminish.
The role of the pre-split line is to act as a vent so that gases reaching
the line will enter it, following the path of least resistance, thus terminating
the formation of cracks beyond that line. This is illustrated in Figure 3.
Strongly defined natural open planes of weakness play the same role, as
in the case of the footwall structure at Sherman.
Contrary to popular theory, the pre-split line does not have any
measurable effect in lowering the magnitude of the ground vibrations
which enter the wall behind the blast (Ref. 1). Ground vibrations can only
be controlled by limiting the weight of explosives per delay interval within
the blast.
The distance between the buffer row and the pre-split line must be
great enough to ensure that the stresses due to the static borehole
pressure do not crush the rock which is to form the final wall. On the
other hand, the charge must be sufficiently close so that the toe in front of
the pre-split line is broken.
The stress generated in the rock by the borehole pressure is given by

the following expression:
r r = P b rh2 . . . (1)
r2
where r r = the radial (compressive) stress in psi

Pb = the borehole pressure in psi
rh = the borehole radius in feet

100
r = distance from hole to point of interest in feet
The charge in the buffer row must be sufficient to adequately

fragment the rock between the buffer and pre-split rows. Because of its
low center of gravity, the charge in the buffer row acts as a spherical
energy source and cube root scaling applies. Spherical cratering tests
(Ref. 2) in hard jointed rock have indicated that the onset of fracturing
occurs at a critical depth dc defined as follows:
dc = 4.0 W 1/3 . . . (2)

~c
where dc= distance in feet from the center of gravity of the charge
to the upper surface
W = explosive charge in lbs
Results at Sherman indicate that this relationship provides a valid

guideline for determining the minimum buffer charge which will provide
adequate fragmentation to the upper surface, as illustrated in Figure 3.
The pre-split line itself is formed by the static borehole pressures in

the pre-split holes overcoming the tensile strength of the rock mass along
the line. The design equation is as follows (Ref. 1) :
v h (P b +T )
S= T . . . (3)
where S = spacing of holes in the pre-split line in inches
v h = pre-split hole diameter in inches
Pb = borehole pressure in psi
T = tensile rock strength in psi
Borehole pressures are reduced from the characteristic pressures of

the explosive to the desired value by decoupling. The desired borehole
pressure is the maximum value which does not excessively crush the
borehole wall. Experience at Sherman indicates that this value is three to
five times the static uniaxial compressive rock strength.
The following equations are used to estimate the correct loading of

the pre-split line:
Pb(dc) = Pb (C.R.)2 . 4 . . . (4)

where Pb(dc) and Pb are the decoupled and characteristic bore-
hole pressures in psi

101
and C.R. = C v c /v h . . . (5)
where C.R. = coupling ratio

C = decimal % of column loaded
v c v h = charge and hole diameters
DEVELOPMENT OF PRE-SPLIT BLASTING AT SHERMAN

12 1/4" Vertical Holes
Prior to 1977, some attempts were made to pre-split the hangingwall

with 12 1/4" diameter rotary blastholes. The presplit holes were drilled
vertically, on a 10' spacing. A row of buffer holes were drilled 15' from the
pre-split holes on a 20' spacing. The main production rows of the blast
were then drilled 20' out from the buffer holes. No subgrade was drilled
on either the pre-split or buffer rows.
The pre-split row was loaded with 300 lbs of 12% Al/AN/FO in the
bottom of the hole or with 300 lbs of slurry (Nitrex 717) in wet holes. The
column of holes was then loaded with a string of 2 1/2" diameter Power-
frac stick powder. The buffer row was loaded with 500 lbs of 12%
Al/AN/FO or slurry. The pre-split holes were fired 50 msec before the rest
of the blast.
The results of this type of pre-split blasting left much to be desired.

The resulting wall showed some evidence of the presplit holes in the
bottom half of the wall, but the top part of the wall had excessive
backbreak resulting in a highly fractured wall. The excessive backbreak
also left a very narrow and inaccessible safety berm. The excessive
backbreak was an indication that the-2 1/2" powder was not creating a
pre-split crack as was desired, thus the pressure from the rest of the blast
was not stopping at the pre-split line but was penetrating the wall behind.
Figure 4 is a photograph showing the results of this type of control
blasting.
Angle Holes
The need for an angled face slope between berns was determined to
be essential. With a vertical face, the slightest amount of backbreak or
weathering action results in the undercutting of the entire wall. This is
illustrated in Figure 5.
To achieve the 80° face slope between berms on the hangingwall as

previously mentioned, it is necessary to drill an 80° pre-split hole. The

102
most suitable machines to drill angle holes tight to the wall are small
diameter track mounted (air-trac) percussive drills.
4 1/2" Angle Holes
The first 80° pre-split holes drilled at Sherman were 4 1/2 and 5" in
diameter. The intent was to use the largest hole possible to maximize
hole spacing. To determine the loading and spacing of the pre-split holes,
Equations 3, 4 and 5 were applied.
The wall rock at Sherman consists mainly of andesite and rhyolite.

These rocks have a uniaxial compressive strength of 11,000 psi and a
tensile strength of 1,600 psi, on an average.
The explosive type used was Powermex 300 (C.I.L.) with a characteris-
tic borehole pressure of approximately 420,000 psi. A 1½" diameter
continuous column (C = 1.00) of explosive in a 4½" hole, using Equations
4 and 5, results in a decoupled borehole pressure of 30,000 psi. Using
Equation 3, the pre-split hole spacing was computed to be 7.4', an actual
spacing of 7' was used in the field.
The distance between the pre-split and buffer rows was left at 15' at
the collar. The distance between the buffer and the pre-split line at the
toe was 8'.
The loading in the buffer row was increased to 600 lbs of 12% ANFO
from the 500 lbs previously used, to help break the toe between the buffer
and pre-split rows.
The results of this first work with angled pre-split holes were very
encouraging. In most cases, the half holes could be seen on the wall and
very little fracturing occurred to the wall. The main problem encountered
was unbroken rock at the bottom of the pre-split hole in some areas. The
buffer row did not backbreak far enough at the toe in many areas to break
all of the rock. This problem is evident in Figure 6. It was necessary to
use secondary drilling and blasting to eliminate this toe.
Problems were also encountered with the drills used in the 4 1/2"
hole program. Excessive breakdowns occurred which were attributed to
the large size of hole. Holes of this size are at the upper limit of an
air-trac drill's capability. Drills of this size also have a fixed boom which
makes setups tight to the toe of the wall difficult. The closest these drills
could get to the wall was 2 to 3'. An extendable boom drill is ideal for this
type of work.

103
In the fall of 1977, a drilling contractor was hired to assist in the

pre-split drilling. The machine which was brought in and is still in use was
a TAMROCK ZOOMTRAK II, see Figure 7. This machine has an extend-
able boom and is capable of setting up tight to the wall. It is used to drill
3" diameter holes at an 80° angle.
Using Equations 3, 4 and 5, the theoretical loading and spacing of the

pre-split line was determined. A loading of 1¼" diameter Tovex 2000 SDL
(DuPont) was arrived at for the andesite and rhyolito waste rocks, and
1½" Tovex 2000 SDL in the harder iron formation (compressive strength
of 28,000 psi and tensile strength of 2,080 psi). A 100% column load to a
10' collar was used in both types of rock.
Tovex 2000 SDL has a characteristic borehole pressure of 388,000

psi. Calculations for 1¼" Tovex 2000 SDL loaded with a 100% column in
a 3" diameter hole drilled in andesite gave the following results:
Pb(dc) = 47,500 psi
S = 7. 7'
Calculations for 1½" Tovex 2000 SDL loaded with a 100% column in
a 3" diameter hole drilled in iron formation gave the following results:
Pb(dc) = 73,500 psi
S = 9'
In actual field testing, a spacing of 6' was used for both diameters of
powder.
The buffer row was drilled as before at 15' from the collar of the
pre-split line and was loaded with 600 lbs of 12% Al/AN/FO.
Results of this pre-split blasting with 3" diameter holes were very
good. A smooth wall resulted with very little fracturing of the wall. In most
places, a half hole could be seen on the wall right up to the crest. Very
little backbreak occurred, resulting in wider safety berms. However, the
old problem of unbroken rock at the toe of the pre-split line persisted.
To solve this problem, the spacing between the pre-split collar and the
buffer holes was reduced from 15' to 10'. This reduced the distance
between the bottom of the pre-split holes and the bottom of the buffer
holes from 8' to 3'. The loading of the buffer row was left the same at 600
lbs. This solved the toe problems. Only rarely does the area between the
presplit and buffer rows not break now. Decreasing this distance did not,

104
however, perceptibly affect the final wall. The results which are currently
being obtained can be seen in Figure B.
Cost Savings
The primary reason for developing angled pre-split blasting at

Sherman Mine was to provide safe competent walls. This objective was
met. However, in converting from the old method of using 12¼" pre-split
holes to the 3" pre-split holes, a substantial cost savings was realized.
The present method of pre-splitting is estimated to be about 15% less
expensive than the former method. This savings includes the cost of drill-
ing and blasting the buffer and pre-split holes and the extra production
holes required in the new method.
Future Developments
At the present time, a change from 6 ' to 7' spacing on the pre-split
line is in effect. Preliminary results have been good. Eventually, an 8'
spacing will be evaluated.
Drilling and Loading Pre-Split Holes
Air-trac drills can be positioned very close to the face whereas

conventional large diameter rotary drills require a standoff distance of 8' or
greater. A typical air-trac setup can be seen in Figure 9.
To facilitate drilling, a Caterpillar backhoe is used to dig away tile

loose at the collar of the pre-split holes. To cut down on the amount of
loose rock to be drilled through, subgrade is eliminated on the pre-split
and buffer hoIes above presplit line. Subgrade is also eliminated above
the crest of berms or haulroads to prevent fracturing. Subgrade guidelines
used at Sherman are illustrated in Figure 10.
In loading a single column of 1½" diameter powder in 3" diameter

holes, the problem of overlapping of the powder in the hole must be
solved. Methods which have been used to overcome this problem include
taping the powder to the downline or using powder manufactured with a
central hole to slide over the downline. Since taping the powder is very
time consuming and most powder is not available with manufactured
holes, a better method was sought.
Presently at Sherman Mine, a 4½" flat heavy gauge plastic netting

called VEXAR (manufactured by DuPont of Canada) is used to hold the
powder in place. The required length of netting for each hole is first pulled
onto a 3' length of 2" diameter plastic pipe which has a funnel end on it.
The end of the netting is then knotted, a stick with primacord attached is

105
fed through the plastic pipe into the netting and subsequently into the
blasthole. The loading is handled by two men who can load one hole in
two or three minutes. Figure 11 illustrates this method of loading.
BUFFER ROW DESIGN
The radial compressive stress generated by the borehole pressure in

the buffer row at various distances can be computed using Equation 1.
AN/FO with 12% aluminum has a characteristic borehole pressure of
465,000 psi. The results are given in Table 1. Notice that at a distance of
8', the stress level was only 1889 psi whereas at 3', it increases to 13,438
psi, slightly in excess of the strength of the andesite and rhyolite wall
rocks. Thus Equation 1 may be useful in estimating the minimum
distance between the buffer and pre-split lines, by selecting the distance
at which the stress level approximates the strength of the rock.
Equation 2 can be used to estimate the required column charge in

the buffer row. At Sherman, 600 lbs is loaded in the buffer row, giving:
dc = 4.0W 1/3 = 33.7'
Given the normal hole depth of 45' and the loaded column of approxi-
mately 10' for 600 lbs, the distance from the center of gravity of the
charge to the surface is actually 35'.
Increasing the loading in the buffer row would ultimately generate

borehole gas quantities in excess of the capacity, of the pre-split line to
dissipate them. The indicated guidelines provided by Equations 1 and 2
appear to give close to optimum parameters.
BUFFER BLASTING
Control blasting on the footwalls of the Sherman Pits has been

successfully accomplished with the use of buffer holes alone, taking
advantage of the natural strongly defined plane of weakness coincident
with the footwall dip, as seen in Figure 2. The buffer holes are drilled 20'
apart and are loaded with 600 lbs of 12% Al/AN/FO. The distance from
the toe of the buffer line to the desired final wall is dictated by the same
principle as when breaking to a pre-split line. The first production row is
drilled 20' from the buffer row. Results of buffer blasting the footwall have
been excellent, as can be seen in Figure 2.
BLAST VIBRATION CONTROL

106
Due to a potentially unstable wall zone in the Sherman Mine North Pit,
all blasts in that pit are designed so that a maximum of 600 lbs of explo-
sive is fired per delay interval. Figure 12 shows the delay design for an
actual North Pit blast. The fragmentation in this blast was excellent. The
muck moved well, and despite the tight conditions, there was a deep
trench in the muck pile around the entire outer boundary of the blast.
Figure 13 shows the resulting muckpile.
To achieve a maximum of 600 lbs per delay, decked charges are

used. As shown in Figure 12, two 600 lb charges are separated by 8' of
minus 5/8" crushed rock. An additional 8' of crushed rock is used as
stemming on the top charge. A combination of non-electric in-the-hole
delays and surface delays is used to fire each deck individually. The firing
time for the entire blast is relatively long using this delay method. The
50,000 long ton blast shown in Figure 12 had a total firing time of 1.95
seconds. The blast delay sequence shown is but one of several
sequences possible. Fragmentation in decked blasts at Sherman Mine
has been very good to date.
The experience gained in vibration control with decked blasts will be

very helpful when the Sherman Mine East Pit is developed in the early
1980's. The East Pit is within 1,000' of some parts of the village of
Temagami; ground vibration, air blasts and flyrock will have to be
controlled very carefully. Decked blasts will help a great deal in this
regard.
REFERENCES
1) Calder, P.N.'. Pit Slope Manual, Chapter 7 - "Perimeter Blasting";

Canada Centre for Mineral & Energy Technology (CANMET), Report
77-14, 82 p, May, 1977.
2) Bauer, A., "Trends in Drilling and Blasting", C.I.M.M. Bulletin, Septem-

ber 1978.
TABLE 1
STATIC COMPRESSIVE STRESS LEVELS GENERATED BY

BOREHOLE GASES BEHIND THE BUFFER ROW FOR 12%
AL ANFO IN A 12¼" HOLE

107
Distance from Center of Hole Compressive Stress

Ft. psi
1 120,946
2 30,236
3 13,438
4 7,559
6 3,359
8 1,889
WALL CONTROL BLASTING AT THE MANASSAS QUARRY

BY J. LYALL WORKMAN AND PETER N. CALDER

2. Prof., Mlining Erg. Dept. Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
ABSTRACT

108
The Manassas Quarry is a large industrial stonie quarry in Northern Virginia

owned and operated by Vulcan Materials Company. The quarry experienced
instability in a portion of the north wall, which included toppling failure in a
metasediment and movement on a major fault zone. It was necessary to take
remedial measures to stabilize the wall and create good quality final pit walls.
A fundamental requirement was wall control blasting that would achieve good,
clean final walls with minimal backbreak. Presplitting was employed at the
perimeter using 3-inch diameter holes and 1-inch diameter Splitex as the presplit
explosive. The presplit holes were drilled on a 10 degree angle from vertical,
achieving an 80 degree face angle.
The final wall blasts included a buffer row next the presplit line, which was
essential to success. The buffer row holes were loaded with a reduced amount
of powder to reduce gas pressures driven back against the presplit line.
Final blasts were shot across two free faces whenever possible to maximize
relief away from the final wall. Substantial delay times were used to further
enhance relief. Two or three independently delayed decks were used to
minimize vibrations at the wall as well as at nearby housing.
A second phase of the project included creating a slot for a new crusher and
ramps for conveyors out of the pit to a new plant facility. All walls had to be
presplit. in the immediate area of the crusher installation half depth line holes
were spaced between the 3-inch presplit holes to further guide the presplit crack
in this critical area.
For the north wall toe drains and artificial support were also used to insure the
stability of the wall. Six toe drains were placed on each of two different eleva-
tions for a total of twelve. Grouted rebar was employed on the uppermost safety
bench to insure the stability of this important bench.
The design methods for control blasting and the field implementation are
described in this paper. Good results were achieved, both for the north wall and
for the crusher area. Small diameter angle presplit can be used to produce good
quality final pit walls, which maintain safety and a high wall angle. This is true
even for walls exhibiting unstable conditions. At $0.75 per sq. ft. of %.,all
prepared the cost for presplitting in this manner is reasonable.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Manassas Quarry is located in Manassas, Virginia approximately 30 miles west

of Washington, D.C. It is owned and operated by Vulcan Materials and has been the
largest Quarry in Virginia in terms of annual tonnage produced.
A portion of the north wall of the quarry experienced instability, which included
toppling failures in metasediments that were steeply dipping back into the wall and
movement on major fault zone that crossed the pit from northwest to southeast and
dipped to the west,

109
In the fall of 1987 a serious failure occurred in the metasediment, The failure devel-
oped when the wall was close to final limit and near to the quarry property line. It was
essential that there by no further failure, A program of wall control blasting was begun, to
stabilize the wall and insure that stable conditions were maintained in the future.
Shortly thereafter movement occurred on the fault located to the east of the
metasediment. Therefore. steps including controlled blasting had to be taken to stabilize
this area as well.
The instabilities were observed over 180 feet of depth which was comprised of two
90 foot benches. Each of these benches were divided into two 45 foot benches to insure
effective presplitting and to help control production hole loads, An associated advantage
was that unit mining operations were facilitated, for the equipment in use, when lower
benches were employed.
During 1988 the quarry made the decision to build a new plant incorporating
advanced technology, This project included moving the crusher to a lower elevation in the
area where the instability had Previously occurred. Conveyor ramps and access roads
had to be built through the fault tone and next the wall that had been unstable. Therefore,
considerable wall control blasting was needed to develop an 80 foot deep slot for the
crusher and to prepare safe ramps for the conveyor and access roads.
The project took some two years to complete and involved extensive presplitting on
the final walls and the crusher area. over two and one-half million tons of rock were
blasted and removed. Toe drains were installed at two elevations to relieve water
Pressures on the fault and metasediments. Artificial support was employed on the first
safety bench, 90 feet below surface, to insure that the catchment bench remained stable
as the benches below were mined to limit.
2.0 PRESPLITTING PRINCIPLES
The authors have derived the expressions used in calculated presplitting designs in
previous publications 1,2,3. Therefore, these will not be developed from first principles in
this paper, but the pertinent equations are listed,
When performing presplitting designs a first requirement is to determine the amount

of explosive to use in the blastholes. Closely allied with this is selection of the hole
diameter as the amount of explosive is directly related to the diameter chosen.
For presplitting applications, other than active highwall presplitting employed in

dragline stripping operations as part of a cast blasting program, we have found that small
diameter holes are more successful than large diameter blastholes for the presplit line.
There are technical advantages to small holes and it is not uncommon for cost advan-
tages to accrue as well.
It has been found that a final pit wall presplit on an angle less than 90 degrees
provides better long term service than a vertically presplit wall. Often an angled presplit at
80 degrees works well. The reason is that the angled presplit provides toe support for the
wall so that, even if some rock is ejected from low in the face the wall remains stable. In a
vertical presplit rock ejected in the toe region tends to undercut a column of rock above
and the entire face is much more likely to unravel, This can be seen in figure 1. An angled
presplit can be especially beneficial when there are steeply dipping joints or bedding
planes inclined back into the pit wall, as was the case in the metasediment at the Manas-
sas quarry.

110
It is typical that two or three benches are brought back flush to the final wall between
berms (safety benches). Therefore, berm-to-bern distances are often 80 to 120 feet.
Large diameter drill rigs cannot perform angle presplit operations under these conditions
because these units cannot drill back under the machine. Air track drills however can be
moved in flush against the wall and angled back under the drill to create the 80 degree
wall. Therefore, these drills are preferred for the most effective results. This means that
a hole diameter in 3 to 4 inch range is usually the best choice for presplitting in open pits
and Quarries.
Once the presplit hole diameter has been selected one must calculate the explosive
loading that will generate the borehole pressures desired. The goal is to establish a good
continuous presplit crack in tension while not exceeding the dynamic compressive
strength of the rock so much that the wall surrounding the boreholes is damaged by
compressive failure.
First one must determine the borehole Pressure generated by the explosive when it
is loaded fully coupled to the blasthole. This pressure is given by:
P b = NqD 2 . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where Pb = coupled borehole pressure, psi
q = explosive density gm/cc
D = detonation velocity, ft/sec
N = constant, determined from figure 2 for the appropriate density
The decoupled borehole pressure is related to the coupled value as follows:

(P b )d c = P b % (C.R. ) 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . (2)
where (Pb)dc = decoupled borehole pressure
C.R. = coupling ratio
One can calculate Pb by equation 1 if the appropriate properties of the given explo-
sive are known. (Pb)dc is usually selected to be in a satisfactory relationship to the
dynamic tensile and compressive strength of the rock.
Once Pb is calculated and (Pb)dc chosen equation 2 can be rearranged as follows

(C.R. ) 2.4 = (P b )d c /P h . . . . . . . . . . (3)
Thus the coupling ratio can be found for the given relationship of pressures. The
coupling ratio is also given by the equation
r
C.R. = c % r bc . . . . . . . . . . (4)
where c = percent of the hole loaded with explosive

rc = charge radius, ins
rb = borehole radius, ins.
When explosive is loaded continuously along the axis of the hole, as is often the
case, c = 1.0 charge radius necessary to give the required decoupling is given by:
r c = C.R. % r b . . . . . . . . . . (5)
Finally it is necessary to determine the spacing between the presplit holes. The
spacing is a function of the decoupled borehole pressure chosen, the hole diameter and
the dynamic tensile strength of the rock1. It is calculated by the following equation,
d((P b )d c +T )
S= T
where S = hole spacing, ins.

111
d= hole diameter, ins.

(Pb)dc = decoupled borehole pressure, psi
T = dynamic tensile strength, psi
It is important to recognize that there may be geological controls on the hole

spacing. In general, if the hole spacing exceeds two to three times the predominant joint
spacing the quality of the presplit decreases. Thus geology factors may take precedence
over the spacing calculated above, This is especially true if larger diameter holes are
employed.
Presplit holes should be detonated instantaneously. For close-in work, where vibra-
tion may be a problem, an occasional delay can be used to regulate the scaled distance,
but as many holes should be shot together as possible,
Presplit holes do not need to be stemmed. However, in many cases. such as the
Manassas Quarry, the noise associated with unstemmed holes would be unacceptable.
Therefore 8 to 10 feet of stemming can be used at the top of the hole to control airblast.
Often, it is preferable to shoot the presplit line before the final blast is drilled and
shot. This allows one to observe the presplit result and make adjustments. if appropriate,
to the final blast and to the presplit design. However, the presplit should not shot more
than a week or two before the final production blast otherwise ground water or surface
water runoff may cause infilling of the presplit crack and loss of effectiveness of the
presplit line.
Equally as important as the presplit line itself is the buffer row. This is the last row of
the final production blast. The buffer row holes contain less explosive than the production
row holes. This reduces the gas pressures exerted against the presplit line and the gases
driven back from the buffer row are therefore more readily dissipated along the presplit
crack. If the buffer row is omitted or is poorly designed then presplitting by and large will
not succeed.
One approach to designing the buffer row is to use a large scaled depth of burial for
the charge. In hard rock a d/W 1/3 = 4.0 ft/lb1/3 has been found to work well. In soft materi-
als a d/W 1/3 = 5.5 to 6.0 ft/lb1/3 will provide better results. These deep scaled depths of
burial. relative to the rock type, allow the toe to be broken but avoid unwanted crest
fracture.
At Manassas, where the geology was quite complex, a modified approach was
found to work quite well. In this case a 10 foot charge of bulk ANFO was placed in the
toe. Then 6 feet of steaming was placed. An upper deck was charged with 4½-inch bags
of ANFO. loaded off the bulk truck, which provided decoupling in the upper deck relative
to the 6½-inch hole diameter, In more competent rock 14 feet of steaming was used, but
this was increased to as much as 18 feet in particularly poor ground.
The standoff at the toe between the inclined presplit hole and the vertical buffer hole
should vary depending on the rock type involved. At the Manassas Quarry a 5 foot stand-
off worked well. In hard rock we have found that a 3 foot gap is suitable. In very soft rock
more than 5 feet may be necessary to avoid damage to the presplit at the toe.
The buffer row burden and spacing generally must be reduced to account for the
reduced explosive loading. At Manassas reducing the burden and spacing to about 0.7 -
0,8 times the production dimension proved suitable. Powder factors on the buffer row
ranged from 0.35 to 0,45 lbs/ton depending on the rock. This compared to about 0.5
lbs/ton for the production holes.

112
3.0 FIELD IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 INITIAL WORK
The initial work involved slashing off overhanging material on the upper 90 foot
bench that had resulted from the toppling failures. This was accomplished with 6½-inch
blastholes up to 60 feet deep and drilled at angles as much as 25' so the drill did not need
to be positioned too close to an unstable crest.
Once the overhanging rock was successfully slashed off a front end loader cleaned
up the area until the loose rock from the failure was resting at about the angle of repose.
This broken rock was left resting against the face to avoid further toppling failures in the
metasediment on the upper bench.
At the toe of the upper 90 foot bench a 45 foot safety bench was left top provide for
safe working conditions below. To insure that this safety bench did not fail bundles of five
rebar were grouted into 6½-inch holes 35 feet deep. These were spaced 10 feet
apart and were 20 feet back from the crest of the berm. The depth was based on a
minimum 20 degree failure plane. Figure 3 shows the safety bench with the reinforcing
and the broken material left against the upper wall.
The second bench from surface was also go feet high and showed evidence of the
possibility of toppling failures in the metasediment, in order to insure that this problem
could be controlled and that a high quality presplit wall would be produced it was neces-
sary to split this bench into two 45 foot benches. This task was successfully convicted by
blasting next the west wall and using the blasted material to ramp up to the new bench
elevation,
3.2 CONTROLLING MOVEMENT ON THE FAULT
The movement on the major fault referenced above resulted in the need to take
measures to avoid such movement during and after the project, To avoid movement
during the blasting two steps were taken:
First. the blasts were delayed in a manner to keep vibration levels as low as possi-
ble. This was achieved by employing two or three independently delayed decks in each
bIasthole. In some larger blasts a few overlaps occurred but, by and large, decks
detonated individually.
Second, two well holes were drilled in the fault zone. The reason for drilling these
holes was that the movement on the fault which was striking perpendicular to the pit face
indicated high water pressures. Pumps were installed in the holes. One pumped
steadily; the other intermittently. By continuing to pump daily until toe drains could be
installed the water pressure was reduced on the fault plane. Figure 4 shows the pumping
arrangement.
3.3 PRESPLITTING
At Manassas presplitting was performed using an air track drill with a 3-inch diame-
ter bit. The presplit holes were drilled 10 degrees front vertical, creating an 80 degree
presplit face. Presplit hole depths were a maximum of 45 feet.
One inch diameter Splitex was used as the presplit powder. This product loads at
0.30 lb/ft and therefore has a density of 0.87 gm/cc. Splitex detonates at 12,000
ft/sec, The decoupled borehole pressure was 20,000 psi which was quite adequate.

113
For this decoupled pressure and assuming a tensile strength of 1,500 psi a spacing
of 3½ feet between presplit holes was calculated. This spacing was used throughout
most of the project and worked well. Figure 5 shows a presplit line with the drill producing
the 80 degree blastholes.
To avoid excessive noise from the detonation of the presplit line the top 8 to 10 feet
of the holes were stemmed with crushed rock. This worked well to avoid noise.
The presplit holes were connected together using detonating cord. The cord was
buried under crushed stone, also to avoid noise.
Presplit holes were usually detonated prior to the final blast. As many holes as
possible were shot instantaneously, The number was controlled by the need to avoid
excessive blast vibration at houses that were 700 to 800 feet away.
In some cases the presplit had to be shot with the final production blast. Then the
presplit line was tined to detonate at least 100 milliseconds before the buffer row holes.
Down-the-hole delays were in use so one had to determine where in the blast sequence
to connect the presplit to give the 100 ms lead time. Also, sometimes the presplit line had
to be cut and initiated from more than one point in the blast sequence. Otherwise with
the down-hole and surface delays in use some of the presplit could detonate 500 ms or
more before the adjacent buffer holes. This is too long a time and could lead to disrup-
tion or premature detonation of buffer row holes.
3.4 FINAL PRODUCTION BLASTS
The final production blasts generally included two or three rows of production holes
and the buffer row. Production patterns were 14 x 14 feet or 12 x 14 feet. The buffer row
was I2 feet from the presplit. Buffer row holes were spaced 10 feet apart and were
usually 12 feet from the nearest production hole. All holes were 6½-inch diameter. ANFO
was used as the explosive. Wet holes were pumped and dry liners used.
A typical production hole had two decks of explosive separated by 6 feet of steam-
ing. Fourteen feet of steaming was used at the collar, On average the weight of ANFO in
the hole was 330 pounds. A period 7 Long Lead Nonel was used in the bottom deck and
a period 8 delay was used in the upper deck,
The buffer holes were loaded as described in section 2. Bulk ANFO was used in the
bottom deck, loading at 12.2 lbs/ft. The 4½" bagged powder (the bags were loaded from
the bulk truck) loaded at 5.85 lbs/ft and reduced the pressure against the crest of the final
wall. These holes were delayed in the same manner as the production hole. Figure 6
shows the production and buffer hole loading. Figure 7 is a tie-in diagram for a final wall
blast,
A key to success was found to be providing as much relief as possible for the blast
to move away from the presplit. Therefore, wherever possible the blast was shot across
two free faces. This can be seen in figure 7. The method of delaying the blast, which
often provided 6-7 ms per foot of burden, also aided relief as well as controlling vibration.
3.5 BLASTING THROUGH THE FAULT

114
The presplit line through the fault tone was designed as described above. It was
shot with the production blast but 100 ms in advance. One did not want to shoot the
presplit separate from the final wall shot because it was not advisable to detach
the faulted tone from the wall in advance.
The blast through the fault was larger than usual and consisted of forty-two holes in
five rows, The reason was that the blast was started far enough in front of the fault so that
it did not undercut the toe of the face striking roughly parallel to the fault. The shot was
then extended fully through the fault zone .
To minimize vibration and gas pressures in the wall three decks were used for the
production holes. Bach was an 8 foot column of ANFO and each deck was delayed by 25
as from the preceding one. On surface 59 ms and 17 ms delays were used. The 59 as
delays were a combination of 42 as and 17 ms Noiseless Trunkline delays. Several
overlaps of two decks occurred because of the site of the blast. This did not appear to
materially affect the vibration level, based on the seismograph readings obtained.
The production pattern was l4 x 14 feet. The buffer row was 12 feet from the
presplit and 12 feet from the adjacent production hole. The buffer holes were loaded with
two decks of ANFO as described above.
The blast was tied-in on the diagonal across two free faces, This was to maximize
relief away from the presplit wall.
When shot this blast performed well. It pulled away from the wall and, when
excavated left a clean presplit wall. There was no crest fracture and the trace of the
presplit holes could be seen throughout the fault zone.
The blast described was on the first 45 foot bench where the fault was encountered,
Similar blasts were designed on subsequent benches where the fault was located,
However, for these shots fewer holes were required.
3.6 CRUSHER SHOT
The Manassas Quarry made the decision to build a new plant facility and to move
the crusher to a lower elevation in the pit, next to the wall where the work described above
was being performed. This necessitated further wall control blasting to prepare the
crusher location and ramps upon which the conveyors would ascend from the crusher to
the plant site.
The presplit and final wall blast designs were similar to those described above.
However, in the vicinity of the crusher itself certain changes were made.
For an eighty foot length of wall the presplit wall was vertical. This was done to
minimize the bridge distance out to the crusher hopper since a greater bridge distance
would mean considerably more construction cost.
To minimize the bridge distance it was also important to insure that the crest
remained intact. Therefore guide holes were drilled on the presplit line, between the
presplit holes which were 3½-feet apart. The guide holes were drilled 20 feet deep which
was one half the bench height. These holes were not loaded with explosive, but were
intended to further guide the generation of the presplit crack in the desired plane.
The crusher shot was produced on two 40 foot benches giving a total height of 80
feet. It was necessary to split an 80 foot bench into two 40 foot benches for this purpose.

115
It would have been difficult to obtain a high quality result using the original 80 foot bench,
especially given the high degree of jointing present in these walls.
To further insure a high quality result in the wall behind the crusher it was scaled
and rock bolted with 10 foot chemically anchored rock bolts. Metal straps were placed
across prominent joints as a further precaution and the crest was screened.
Figure 8 shows the crusher installation under construction.
3.7 TOE DRAINS
To alleviate water pressure on the fault tone and the metasediments, in order to
insure long term stability of the presplit wall, toe drains were installed at two elevations on
the wall. The first set was drilled 180 feet below the crest of the pit. The second set were
installed 40 feet above the base of the crusher installation.
The toe drains were diamond drilled, These holes were 200 feet long and drilled at a
5 degree up angle to facilitate drainage. Each set consisted of six holes. Four holes
intersected the fault and the remainder were in the metasediment.
Each hole was cased with PVC pipe. The pipe had three lines of holes drilled 120
degrees apart.
The water flow from the drains varied from a small drip to a steady stream of
approximately two gallons per minute.
4.0 RESULTS
The results of this project were that the unstable portion of the north wall was stabi-
lized by employing the presplitting, final production blasting, toe drain and artificial support
techniques described in this paper. The wall control blasting program was the most
important aspect of the process.
Small diameter, angle presplitting served well to provide a safe stable wall. The toe
support provided by the presplitting angle was especially helpful in stabilizing the area
where toppling failure in the metasediment was possible.
For the most part the trace of the presplit holes could be seen on the final wall
faces. The crest definition was very good through much of the area.
The most difficult areas to presplit were those where joint planes dipped into the
final face at relatively shallow angles. Dips on those joints were in the 40 to 50 degree
range, There was the tendency for the wall to stand as planned for the lower half and then
for the rock to slide out on the planes causing loss of the crest and reduction in the width
of the safety bench. Various design modifications were made but the problem was never
fully resolved.
Since the presplitting proceeded well it was possible to take two benches back to
limits between safety benches giving a bench-to-bench distance of 80 or 90 feet. The
benches were 45 feet wide.
The crusher slot was successfully produced, The vertical presplit and the guideholes
worked well for the immediate area of the crusher installation.
Drilling the presplit holes for the crusher area proved somewhat difficult. This
resulted from very high ground water flows. Penetration rate was reduced and holes

116
often had to be cleared out before loading. However, it was possible to complete the drill-
ing and good presplitting results were achieved.
The scaling, rock bolting and strapping of the wall behind the crusher further
enhanced the area and insured safe working conditions during construction and subse-
quent operation.
The artificial support system was successful in insuring that the first safety bench
was produced as planned, This area was in metasediment and it was very important that
toppling failure not occur. The use of grouted rebar was an easily used method to bind
these planes together to improve resistance to failure,
The toe drains all made some water. This varied from a very slow drip to a steady
stream of two gallons per minute. Since the quantity of water is not the most important
factor in the water pressure generated on the joint or fault plane it appeared clear that the
drains were successful in controlling the water pressures.
The cost per square foot for the small diameter angled presplitting was approxi-
mately $0.75/sq. ft. The cost for the section behind the crusher was greater due to the
guide holes and the additional scaling and rock bolting.
Figures 9 and 10 are examples of the final results.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
It is concluded that presplitting techniques can be employed to provide good final

quarry walls, even where slope failures and fault movement has already occurred. The
use of small diameter, angled presplitting works very well in this regard and at reasonable
cost.
The methods described in this paper worked well for calculating the hole diameter
and presplit charge weight. Firing the presplit line separate from the final production blast
generally provided the best resuIts,
Careful design and loading of the buffer row was very important to good results.
Also, providing two free faces for the final production shot provided a better quality result.
Introducing significant delay times into the blasts also aided relief and kept vibration
levels at the wall as gentle as possible.
The use of toe drains and grouted rebar were also proved to be good procedures for
providing high quality, stable final walls under difficult conditions.
REFERENCES
1. Calder, P.N..; Pit Slope Manual, Ch, 7 - Perimeter Blasting; CANMET; CANMET
Report 77-14; Kay 1977.
2, Calder. P.N. and Tuomi, J.; Control Blasting at Sherman Mine; Sixth Annual Confer-
ence of the Society of Explosive Engineers; Tampa, Florida; February, 1980.
3. Workman, J.L. and Calder, P.N.; A Method for Calculating the Weight of Charge to
Use in Large Hole Presplitting for Cast Blasting operations; Proc. of 17th Conference
on Explosives and Blasting Technique; Vol II; Society of Explosive Engineers; Febru-
ary, 1991.

117
4. Workman, J.L. and Calder, P.N.; Considerations for Small Versus Large Hole Diame-
ter Presplit Blasting; SEE Potomac Chapter; Fall Meeting-Leesburg, Virginia; Novem-
ber, 1989.
A METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE WEIGHT OF CHARGE TO USE IN

LARGE HOLE PRESPLITTING FOR CAST BLASTING OPERATIONS
by J. Lyall Workman1 and Peter N. Calder2
2. Professor, Mining Engineering Dept., Queen's University, King

ston, Ontario
ABSTRACT
Operations using draglines to remove the overburden above coal

seams have increasingly turned to cast blasting to improve productivity
and reduce costs. Many such operations also employ active highwall
presplitting to produce highwalls of well defined configuration, behind
which the subsequent blast can be designed and implemented to
maximize casting, In some cases isolating the block to be blasted allows
water to drain out of the rock mass and provides the opportunity to use
less costly explosives.
Presplitting is a technique which has been used to provide smooth,

competent final walls in open pit mining and construction for many years.
To reduce the borehole pressure the explosive is typically decoupled by
using an explosive of smaller diameter than the blasthole. Most often

118
presplitting for these applications is performed using small diameter

blastholes. Methods of calculating the amount of decoupling required and
the necessary spacing between presplit holes have been developed for
these typical presplitting situations.
When presplitting is incorporated into a cast blasting program the

explosives charge normally consists of a concentrated load in the bottom
of a large diameter presplit hole. A method has been developed, based
on the principles of conventional small hole presplitting, which allows one
to calculate the weight of charge needed in the bottom of a large diameter
hole to create a good presplit fracture. The charge weight is dependent
on the diameter and depth of the presplit hole, both of which affect the
volume into which the gases expand.
Once the necessary decouple borehole pressure has been deter-

mined the spacing between the presplit holes can be calculated. It is
dependent on the borehole diameter, the expanded borehole pressure
and the dynamic tensile strength of the rock mass.
Good results have been obtained in the field with this approach. The
technique at one large coal mining operation is described.
INTRODUCTION
Presplitting has long been used in surface mining to create good final
walls. The trend has been to larger diameter production blast holes, more
energetic explosives and greater berm-to-berm distances. Techniques to
form a high quality final wall, such as presplitting, are therefore essential.
Presplitting has often been performed using small diameter blast holes,
but large diameter holes have also been used.
During the past ten years cast blasting has become increasingly
common in coal mines. The method employs high explosive energy in the
bank to propel part of' the overburden into the previously mined pit.
Dragline production requirement are reduced and overall pit productivity
increased.
To maximize the cast requires that the front row of the blast be
placed so as not to be overburdened, especially at the toe.
Achieving this condition consistently requires a well controlled
highwall with little or no backbreak. In many cases a near vertical
wall is ideal for the placement of holes along the front row.
The solution to this need has been the introduction of active highwall
presplitting in dragline mines employing cast blasting. Early work in this
field is well described by McDonald et al, (1982). Good success was had
with vertically presplitting the successive highwalls. Large diameter

119
blastholes have invariably been used in this type of presplitting, primarily

for cost and production reasons.
The general approach has been to presplit vertically. Then, a consis-

tent burden is maintained over the entire hole depth. In a few cases,
where geotechnical considerations discourage a vertical wall, angle
presplitting has been used to produce an excellent pit wall. Best results
will be attained if the casting production holes are drilled at the same
angle.
A further advantage to presplitting, in some cases, has been the

ability to dewater the block before the production pattern is drilled and
blasted. Dewatering is accomplished by presplitting both sides of the
block out to the face, as well as presplitting the new highwall location.
Where successful the method can significantly reduce explosive costs for
production blasting.
Conventional methods of presplitting use a decoupled charge distrib-

uted along the hole. The decoupled explosive reduces the borehole
pressures and avoids damage to the wall while generating a presplit crack
in tension. When large hole presplitting is used in dragline operations the
usual approach is to place a concentrated charge in the bottom of the
hole. Decoupling is achieved by not stemming above the explosive,
thereby allowing the explosion gases to expand freely up the hole. In
some cases airbags are used to contain the pressure in the hole for a
longer time. This is said to allow for increased spacing or reduced powder
loads.
In active wall presplitting it is again necessary to generate adequate

gas pressures to propagate the presplit crack while avoiding compressive
failure of the surrounding rock. The weight of explosive required in the
concentrated charge at the bottom of the hole must be determined. Often
this is done by field experimentation. This paper provides a method by
which the explosive weight required may be initially determined.
STANDARD CALCULATIONS
Methods have been developed for the charge to be used in presplit

holes where the explosive is decoupled from the blast hole to decrease
the borehole pressure by expansion of the explosion gases. The treat-
ment presented herein has been described in detail in the CANMET Pit
Slope Manual (Calder 1977).
For People charges the first step is to calculate the explosion gas
pressures for the fully coupled condition. The following formula is used
for this purpose:

120
Pb = NqD 2
where Pb = coupled borehole pressure, psi
q = explosives density, gm/cc
D = explosive detonation velocity, ft/sec
N = constant
The value of N varies with the density of the explosive. Figure 1 is a

graph that relates N to density.
Once the coupled blasthole pressure has been obtained the decou-
pled pressure can be computed. The equation for the calculation is:
(P b ) dc = P b % (C.R. ) 2.4
Where (P b ) dc = decoupled borehole pressure, psi

C.R. = coupling ratio
The pressures are related by the coupling ratio to the 2.4 power,
which allows for an adiabatic expansion of explosion gases to the
borehole wall. The coupling ratio may be expressed as follows.
C.R. = c % rrhc
where C = percent of column loaded
rc = radius of charge, inches
rh = radius of hole, inches
The charge radius provides for decoupling between the hole and
charge diameters. Tie factor C represents decoupling along the axis by
leaving a gap between individual charges.
An important question is the desired magnitude of the decoupled

borehole pressure. For large diameter holes it is recommended that the
borehole pressure in presplitting not exceed the dynamic compressive
strength of the rock (Workman and Calder, 1989). Undue fracturing
around the presplit holes is thereby avoided. The borehole pressure must
exceed the dynamic tensile strength of the rock however. This is entirely
possible since the tensile strength is often a factor of ten less than the
compressive strength.
The usual practice, where decoupled powder is used in a large diame-

ter hole, is to set the decoupled borehole pressure equal to the compres-
sive strength of the rock in question. The coupling ratio to the 2.4 power
is then the ratio of the decoupled to coupled pressure. The coupling ratio
can be determined and, therefore, the radius of charge for a given hole
diameter. For the present purpose C would be taken as 1.0, thereby
assuming that decoupling is obtained by reducing the charge radius only.

121
The decoupled explosive is loaded into a presplit hole leaving a length

of hole, at the collar, unloaded. This distance is often 10 feet. Presplit
holes are not usually stemmed, but may be if airblast is a significant
problem for a given property.
APPLICATION TO LARGE HOLE PRESPLITTING WITH A

CONCENTRATED CHARGE
Whenactive wall presplitting is used with a concentrated charge of

bulk loaded or packaged explosive in the bottom of the hole, it is neces-
sary to determine the weight of charge to be placed. The amount of
charge is dependent on the diameter and depth of the presplit hole, which
control the volume into which the gases produced by detonation expands.
A greater borehole volume will require an additional weight of explosive to
generate sufficient gas to sustain tile necessary pressure.
Using the equations above one can determine the diameter, of explo-
sive required in a decoupled hole for a given borehole diameter. Then
the weight required can be calculated, for a given hole depth, as
follows:
oD c 2
Wc = 4 %h%q
where W c = explosive weight, lbs.

Dc = charge diameter, ft.
h = length of hole loaded if a distributed, decoupled charge
were used, ft.
q = density of explosive, lbs/ft3
The value of h, therefore, is the hole depth minus the length of hole
left unloaded at the top. As stated, this is often 10 feet but may vary
depending on the nature of the rock and its geology.
The charge weight so calculated is then placed at the bottom of the

hole. It may be either bulk loaded or a packaged product. ln quite soft
rocks there can be an advantage to the packaged explosive since a
small degree of decoupling will result, around the charge, which may help
to avoid damage to the borehole wall in the immediate vicinity of the
charge. In some cases the coal is presplit as well. Packaged products are
typically used for this and suspended above the coal seam.
TYPICAL RESULTS

122
Table 1 shows the diameter of charge required and the resulting

weight of explosive per foot of explosive for ANFO and for a heavy ANFO
(HANFO) in different hole diameters. These calculations are for decou-
pled, distributed charges that will provide a borehole pressure of 15,000
psi. Borehole pressures between 10,000 and 15,000 psi will often be
quite suitable. The density of ANFO is taken as 0.85 gm/cc and is 1.26
gm/cc for the HANFO. The detonation velocities are 14,000 and 16,000
ft/sec respectively.
Table 2 provides the weight of ANFO required in holes of different

diameter for hole depths between 80 and 140 feet. Increasing hole
diameter and depth both contribute to the need for additional explosives.
Table 3 gives the weight of HANFO for the same diameters and hole
depths.
Study of these tables will show that the required explosive weight
becomes substantial in deep holes. The increase in charge mass with
depth is further compounded when holes of large diameter are used. The
concern arises that the large concentrated charge will damage the
borehole immediately around the explosive, thereby undercutting tile
newly formed highwall.
Experience to date suggests that weights up to 200 pounds will not

cause much damage. Beyond this the situation is less clear. It appears
likely that beyond 300 pounds some problems may occur.
Should explosive weights be required that may cause wall damage

and potential undercutting a solution would be to split the charge in two,
with one portion at the bottom of the hole and the other further up the
hole. To support the upper charge one could suspend a packaged
product or, this could be an application for the airbag technology recently
introduced. An airbag could be placed at the desired location and the
upper deck of explosive loaded on top.
In terms of placement the upper charge might be located next a

harder layer in the bank. The two charges should be far enough apart to
avoid damage to the wall from interacting shock wave effects.
Another approach could be to use an airbag and stemming at the top

of the hole to contain the gas pressure for a longer period of time.
It may be possible to reduce the weight of explosive in the hole as a
result. The expanded gas pressure will be less, but the low tensile
strengths often found in coal mine overburden and the increased time
duration of the pressure pulse would be expected to offset the reduced
charge weight.

123
PRESPLIT HOLE SPACING
Once an appropriate explosive weight has been determined the

correct spacing between holes must be chosen. In general, the thick-
walled cylinder treatment may be used for this purpose. For a cylinder
with an infinite outer radius the radial and tangential stresses may be
calculated as follows:
r
r R = P b rh2
2
r
and r T = −P b rh22
where r R = the radial stress
rT= the tangential stress
Pb = the borehole pressure (decoupled)
rh = the borehole radius
r = the distance from the center of the hole to the point of
interest
From this result it can be shown that the force extending away from
two boreholes fired together is:
r T = −2P b r b
The force resisting formation of the presplit crack, formed in tension,

is related to the tensile strength of the rock and the surface area over
which the tensile strength acts. For a unit length of presplit blasthole this
force is given as follows:
F T = (S − 2r h )T
where T = rock tensile strength
S = the spacing between holes
The most accurate results are obtained when the dynamic tensile
strength is used.
The tangential stress acting along a radial line from the boreholes
must equal or exceed the force resisting cracking if the tensile crack is to
be successfully driven between presplit holes. The spacing must not
exceed the following relationship for this condition to be met.

124
(P b +T )
S = 2r h T
where Pb = the decoupled borehole pressure
S = spacing between presplit holes
For the borehole radius in inches and the borehole pressure and
tensile strength in psi the spacing will be determined in inches.
The borehole pressure is the decoupled value. It will have been

determined as described above.
As shown, the decoupled borehole pressure developed in a presplit
hole of given diameter and depth will depend on the weight of the concen-
trated charge placed in the bottom of the hole. Therefore, the weight of
charge placed has an important bearing on the spacing that can be used
between boreholes. Table 4 provides presplit hole spacings for different
borehole diameters, pressures and tensile strengths.
Joint or fracture spacing can be the controlling influence on presplit

hole spacing. In general, the hole spacing should not exceed 2 to 3 times
the predominant joint separation. However, in active highwall presplitting
widely spaced (ten feet or greater) horizontal bedding planes are usually
the predominant planes of weakness. Therefore, the spacings as calcu-
lated above will usually apply.
FIELD RESULTS
One coal mining operation in the Western U.S. employs active

highwall presplitting as part of its cast blasting operation. In this case the
presplit is performed at a 70° angle, to satisfy slope stability
requir-ements. The costing production blasts are also drilled at a 70°
angle in most cases. The presplit holes are typically 10 5/8-inch diameter
on a twelve to fourteen foot spacing.
The explosives load for the presplit holes is calculated according to

the method presented above. Tables have been prepared showing the
required presplit charge for different hole diameters in use and hole
depths between 80 and 150 feet. The tables are prepared for the use of
ANFO or of heavy ANFO.
The results achieved have raised from good to excellent. A very

clean wall is being formed and the trace of most presplit holes, from crest
to toe, can be seen on the new highwall. The angle presplit technique has
resulted in a stable arid safe wall given the existing geotechnical condi-
tions. Figure 2 is a photograph showing the presplit wall conditions
achieved at this mine.

125
CONCLUSIONS
Active highball presplitting is an important component of many cast

blasting programs in surface coal mines. For reasons of cost and opera-
tional convenience large diameter presplit holes are employed. Decou-
pled charges bulk loaded into undersized cardboard tubes have been
used, but it has often been found most convenient to load either a
packaged or bulk charge in the bottom of the blasthole. This charge must
be sufficient to generate borehole pressures that will create a continuous
presplit crack between holes, but should not cause borehole pressures
that would damage the full around the hole.
It has been found that the standard methods for computing the
presplit charge may be adapted to calculating the weight of explosive to
be used in the bottom of the large diameter hole. This involves calculating
the diameter of decoupled charge that would be needed and determining
the weight of such a charge in a presplit hole of given depth.
It is found that the weight of charge is dependent on hole depth and

diameter. For increases in either parameter the weight of a given explo-
sive must also be increased to maintain adequate pressure to insure a
good presplit crack between holes.
While other factors such as chemistry and detonation characteristics

of various explosives may affect the gas volumes and pressures the
present method has been found useful for determining the weight of
explosive to use in large diameter presplitting employing a concentrated,
bottom charge of explosive. Field work has indicated that using this
approach leads to good active highwall presplitting results.
REFERENCES
Calder, P.; Pit Slope manual, Chapter 7 - Perimeter Blasting;

CANMET (Canadian Center for Mineral and Energy Technology);
CANMET Report 77-14; May 1977.
McDonald, K.L., Smith, W.K. and Crosby, W.A.; Productivity Improve-

ments for Dragline Operations Using Controlled Blasting in a Single and
Multiple Seam Opencast Coal Operation at Rietspruit, South Africa;
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; Annual Meeting, Quebec
City; March 1982.
Workman, J.L. and Calder, P.N.; Considerations for Small Versus

Large Diameter Presplit Blasting; Society of Explosive Engineers Potomac
Chapter; Fall Meeting; Leesburg, Virginia; November, 1989.

126
TABLE 1: CHARGE WElGHTS NEEDED TO GIVE A 15,000

psi BOREHOLE PRESSURE FOR ANFO AND
HANFO IN 80 FOOT DEEP PRESPLIT HOLES
OF DIFFERENT DIAMETER
ANFO HANFO
Hole Distributed Charge Total Distributed Charge Total
Diameter Charge Weight Weight Charge Weight Weight
Inches Diameter, Per Foot, lbs. Diameter, per foot, lbs.
Ins. lbs. Ins. lbs.
6 1/4 1.6 0.74 52 1.4 0.84 59
9 7/8 2.5 1.81 127 2.2 2.08 146
10 5/8 2.75 2.20 154 2.4 2.47 168
12 1/4 3.2 2.96 207 2.75 3.24 227
TABLE 2: REQUIRED WEIGHT OF ANFO IN HOLES OF

DIFFERENT DIAMETER AND DEPTH FOR
15,000 PSI EXPANDED BOREHOLE PRESSURE
Hole ANFO Hole Depth

Dia. lbs/ft
inches 80 ft. 90 ft. 100 ft. 110 ft. 120 ft. 130 ft. 140 ft.
6 1/4 0.74 51.8 59.2 66.6 74.0 81.4 88.8 96.2
9 7/8 1.81 126.7 144.8 162.9 181.0 199.1 217.2 235.3
10 5/8 2.20 154.0 176.0 198.0 220.0 242.0 264.0 286.0
12 1/4 2.96 207.2 236.8 266.4 296.0 325.6 355.2 384.8

127
TABLE 3: REQUIRED WEIGHT OF HANFO IN HOLES OF

DIFFERENT DIAMETER AND DEPTH FOR
15,000 PSI EXPANDED BOREHOLE PRESSURE
Hole HANFO Hole Depth

Dia.
inches lbs/ft 80 ft. 90 ft. 100 ft. 110 ft. 120 ft. 130 ft. 140 ft.
6 1/4 0.84 58.8 67.2 75.6 84.0 92.4 100.8 109.2

9 7/8 2.08 145.6 166.4 187.2 208.0 228.8 249.6 270.4
10 5/8 2.47 172.9 197.6 222.3 247.0 271.7 296.4 321.1

12 1/4 3.24 226.8 259.2 291.6 324.0 356.4 388.8 421.2
TABLE 4: SPACING BETWEEN PRESPLIT HOLES FOR REPRE-

SENTATIVE HOLE DIAMETERS, BOREHOLE PRES -
SURES AND TENSILE STRENGTHS EXPERIENCED IN
ACTIVE WALL PRESPLITTING
Hole Presplit Hole Spacing Ft.

Diameter Borehole Pressure psi
Inches 1500 20000
Tensile Strength psi
1000 1500 1000 1500
6.5 8.7 6.0 11.4 7.8
7.875 10.5 7.2 13.8 9.4
9.875 13.2 9.1 17.3 11.8
10.625 14.2 9.7 18.6 12.7
12.25 16.3 11.2 21.4 14.6

128
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SMALL VERSUS LARGE DIAMETER

PRESPLIT BLASTING
by
Lyall Workman
and
Dr. Peter N. Calder
(a paper presented at the SEE Convention

held at Leesburg, Virginia on November 10, 1989)
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
Open pit mines are often very deep excavations. Recently, the trend
in quarrying has been to greater depth, maximizing the reserve potential
of existing operations. Both segments of the open pit industry have also
employed increasing blasthole diameters to increase productivity and
reduce drilling and blasting costs.
Also, there has been a trend throughout the industry to the use of
more powerful blasting agents to break the rock on reasonable patterns.
A primary result of these trends if the need to produce a final pit wall of
excellent quality, so that safety of the operation is assured and in order
that reserve extraction may be maximized.
Frequently, two or three mining benches are brought back to the pit
limit before a safety bench is installed. The safety benches are made of
adequate width to remain effective over long periods of time and to suita-
bly protect the lower elevations in the pit from falling rock and localized
wall failures. The greater berm to berm distance helps to maximize
reserve extraction by maintaining a steeper overall wall angle. It also
necessitates the use of excellent wall control procedures to assure that a
smooth wall is left without backbreak and isolated large chunks of material
that could drop from the wall at any moment.
There are several methods by which wall control blasting many be

performed. These include buffer blasting, trim blasting and presplitting.
Buffer blasting in and of itself is only useful in the most competent of
materials. Trim blasting is similar to presplitting except that the trim row is
shot after the production blast rather than before. It is intended primarily

129
to slash remaining material off the wall while avoiding excessive wall
damage. Presplitting is often the technique that leaves the best wall
conditions and has frequently been the method of choice in surface
operations. |A buffer row is always placed in front of the presplit line.
Traditionally, presplitting was performed utilizing small diameter holes

drilled with percussive drilling equipment. As mines and quarries
progressed to larger blasthole diameters and larger rotary and percussive
drilling equipment the small diameter machines became less readily avail-
able. Therefore, there has been a trend toward the drilling of large diame-
ter presplit holes for wall control. This has addressed concerns of opera-
tional convenience and of scheduling equipment to do the work. The
trend has not, however, taken into account other technical and perform-
ance considerations of equal importance. Also, contrary to what is often
believed, the cost of presplitting with large diameter holes is not necessar-
ily less expensive than performing the work utilizing small diameter holes.
This paper summarizes our experience with small and large diame-
ter presplitting. It explains why small diameter presplit blasting is often to
be preferred over presplitting work performed with large diameter holes.
The cost analysis included shows that there are certainly times when
small diameter presplitting is less expensive than presplitting using larger
diameter holes.
2.0 ANGLED VERSUS VERTICALLY DRILLED PRESPLIT HOLES
A consideration which often determines the type of presplit drilling to

be done is whether the pit walls are to be presplit vertically or whether
they are to be presplit at an angle less than 90 degrees. Most often there
are significant advantages to presplitting at an angle as opposed to a
vertical presplit operation. The angle presplit will be quite typically at
about 10 degrees from vertical leaving an 80 degree face angle.
A primary advantage of angle hole presplitting is that the toe of the

face is moved out from the crest. Therefore, if isolated blocks of rock fall
out of the face near the toe the column of material above is not necessar-
ily undercut. By contrast, for a vertical face in jointed rock material
ejected from low on the face may result in the entire column of rock above
being undercut and made unstable. A relatively minor situation can
become much more critical. These two situations are illustrated in Figure
1.
Another primary advantage results when there are steep joint or

bedding planes that dip back into the pit wall. Such planes are often quite
prone to toppling failures whereby the material rotates about the toe and

130
simply topples out of the face. An angled face, under these circum-
stances, provides a toe buttressing effect. The result is that a wall prone
to unstable, toppling type failures will often remain in quite stable
condition. It would not be possible to achieve this result with the use of
vertical presplit holes.
There is a third important advantage to angled presplit holes. The

buffer row is the vertically drilled back row of the final wall blast and is
lightly loaded to avoid damaging the wall through the presplit plane.
When the presplit holes are angled it is possible to locate the buffer holes
so that the distance from the toe of the presplit to the toe of the buffer
hole is reasonable while at the same time keeping the distance at the
collar of the holes greater so that there is not the potential for crest
fracture and damage to the upper wall. When the presplit holes are verti-
cally drilled then there is no option but for the distance at the collar of the
holes to be the same as at the toe. This can lead to difficulty breaking the
toe if the holes are too far apart or crest fracture and damage to the upper
wall if they are too close. It is quite difficult to find a spacing that satisfies
both conditions.
Once the decision is made to drill an angled presplit it most often

becomes necessary to use small diameter blast hole equipment. When
two or more benches are brought flush to the final wall the drill must be
able to angle holes back underneath itself. Large diameter rotary and
percussive drilling equipment does not have this feature. However,
airtrack drills drilling three- or four-inch diameter holes are capable of drill-
ing back underneath the drill. Therefore, to provide an angled presplit
with the associated advantages while avoiding loss of reserves requires
that small diameter airtrack equipment be employed.
3.0 BOREHOLE PRESSURES AND HOLE SPACINGS
Successful presplitting relies on each presplit hole having adequate

gas pressures to generate the presplit crack but not pressures of such
magnitude that would cause damage to the rock surrounding the
borehole. Usually, acceptable pressures are obtained by decoupling the
explosive from the borehole. The explosion gasses must, therefore,
expand to the borehole walls before doing work on the surrounding
material and as the gasses expand they lose pressure. As a first approxi-
mation the borehole pressures are set so as not to exceed the dynamic
compressive strength of the rock.
The equations by which the coupled borehole pressures and the

degree of decoupling required can be calculated are well known1. These
equations can be used to easily determine the presplit hole size and
explosive diameter required for a given explosive. In presplitting the crack

131
is formed in tensile failure due to the stresses emanating from the presplit
hole upon detonation. Therefore, the dynamic tensile strength of the rock
must be exceeded. As stated, it has often been believed that the dynamic
compressive strength of the rock should not be exceeded and this is quite
feasible when one considers that the difference between tensile and
compressive strength of the rock is likely to be a factor of 8 to 10. More
recently it has been found that in some circumstances one can exceed
the compressive strength of the rock to some degree without undue wall
damage.
Figure 2 is a graph showing the radius of rupture around the blasthole

as a function of the blasthole diameter for different rocks and explosives
types. What emerges from this chart is the fact that the radius of rupture
around large diameter holes is very much greater than around those of
smaller diameter. Therefore, if the dynamic compressive strength of the
rock is exceeded in large diameter holes the resulting wall damage and
isolated chunks that occur will be much more pronounced than would be
the case if small diameter holes were being considered. This result has
lead to small diameter presplit designs in which the gas pressures exceed
the dynamic compressive strength of the rock by about two. Because of
the greater radius of rupture the same increases in borehole pressure
have not been possible in holes of larger diameter.
The ability to increase the decoupled borehole pressures in the small

diameter presplitting is important because the spacing between the
presplit holes is directly affected by the borehole pressure. The equation
for the presplit hole spacing is given as follows:
2r(P b +P )
S= T
where S = presplit hole spacing in inches

Pb= borehole pressure, psi
T = dynamic tensile strength, psi
r = borehole radius, inches
Therefore, as the borehole pressure is increased the spacing

between holes also increases. In some cases it has been possible to
increase the presplit hole spacing where 4-inch diameter holes were in
use to as much as 7 or 8 feet. This compares to the more commonly
utilized spacing of 3- to 4-feet. For the reasons explained it has not
usually been possible to see similar gains in hole spacing when larger
diameter boreholes have been used for presplitting purpose.
In table 1, presplit hole spacings for hole diameters of 3-inch, 6½-inch

and 9 7/8-inch are shown for rock with a 25,000 psi dynamic compressive
strength and 2,000 psi dynamic tensile strength. The 3-inch hole

132
spacings are shown at three different borehole pressures. The 6½-inch

and 9 7/8-inch holes are shown for borehole pressures equal to the
dynamic compressive strength only. The table shows the significant
increases that can be made in small diameter presplit hole spacings in
many cases. The larger diameter holes are, however, generally restricted
to the spacing which corresponds to a blasthole pressure equivalent to the
compressive strength of the rock. The increase spacings in the small
diameter holes, of course, reduces the cost of drilling for the same
amount of area prepared. It should be noted that there are restrictions on
the maximum allowable spacings when rocks are substantially jointed.
The hole spacing in these instances should not exceed two or three times
the predominant joint spacing. This is true whether small or large diame-
ter holes are drilled for the presplit operation.
4.0 WEIGHT OF EXPLOSIVE UTILIZED
As the borehole diameter increases, to maintain the same borehole

pressure requires that the explosive be used in larger diameter. This
maintains the correct explosion gas expansion relationship when the
larger volume in the bigger hole is taken into account. When the diameter
of the explosive string in the hole is increased the weight of the explosive
increases. This increase is pronounced because the weight of explosive
is affected by the ratio of the square of the radii. Therefore, when using
larger holes the cost of explosive to obtain the same result increases
significantly. Table 2 shows the weight of explosive required for the rock
and hole diameters described in the previous section. In this table it is
supposed that a small diameter slurry is utilized in the 3-inch and the
6½-inch holes and that a decoupled column of ANFO is loaded in
cardboard tubes in the 9 7/8-inch diameter.
The weight of explosive required in each hole can also be a concern

when the quarry or mine is closed to housing or other structures. The
weight per delay may need to be controlled to avoid excessive blast vibra-
tion. In larger holes, where more weight of explosive is required to gener-
ate the same pressures, the total weight that can be detonated on an
individual delay period may be reached more rapidly. Therefore, less
holes per delay can be fired. In presplitting, the effect is usually enhanced
when as many holes as possible are shot simultaneously. When blasting
close to structures there can be an advantage to smaller diameter holes
for this reason.
5.0 THE EFFECTS OF GEOLOGY
Often the presplit line will be controlled by the geology. This is true
when the geologic structure is quite complex. Specifically, close joint

133
spacing will require the presplit holes to be spaced closer together. This
is true regardless of hole size.
The general rule is that the presplit hole spacing should be less than
twice the spacing of major, open joints2. The explosives distribution is
then more even and the occurrence of backbreak along the joint planes is
reduced.
First, suppose the rock is quite incompetent, with a major joint

spacing of two feet. Assume that the presplit hole spacing must,
therefore, be a maximum of four feet. Also, this rock has a dynamic
compressive strength of 18,000 psi and a dynamic tensile strength of
2,000 psi.
For the small hole (3-inch) case a borehole pressure of about 25,000
psi is desired. This will help to counteract leakage on the open joint
planes. For the large hole (6½-inch) scenario the borehole must be close
to 18,000 psi to avoid unnecessary wall damage around the presplit holes.
Both cases adequately exceed the tensile strength of the rock.
Table 3 lists the basic data assumed for the example. This data
represents recent experience and should be quite typical.
The equations for calculating coupled and decoupled borehole

pressures are thoroughly explained in the CANMET Pit Slope Manual.
Although a greater spacing could be used with the 6½-inch hole in compe-
tent rock it is restricted to 4 feet in this case because of the close joint
spacing.
Using the above data a cost comparison can be developed for the
two cases. The results are reported in Table 4.
In this example the unit cost of large hole presplitting is 14.97 cents
per square foot more than that of presplitting with small holes. This is
about 20 percent more per square foot. Reviewing the table one sees
that the difference is directly related to the much increased explosives
cost required for the larger hole. There would have to be a substantial
difference in drilling cost to compensate if the 6½-inch hole were to be
more economic. In this example small hole drilling would have to cost
$2.29 per foot for break-even to result.
The technical advantages of small diameter angle presplitting have

been explained above. When these advantages are considered break-
even cost per square foot would still favor small diameter techniques.

134
The other question is: What happens in competent rock with large
joint spacings? For example, assume a competent rock has a compres-
sive strength of 28,000 psi and a dynamic tensile strength of 2,500 psi.
The spacing between major joints is 6 feet.
For reasons explained about the decoupled borehole pressures in the

3-inch hole are allowed to exceed the compressive strength of the rock, in
this case by about 1.6 times. For the 6½-inch hole the decoupled
pressure is kept near to the dynamic compressive strength of the rock to
avoid undue rupture around the holes.
The result is that when major joints are closely spaced large hole
presplitting can be quite costly relative to small hole work. The hole
spacing is controlled by the jointing. Since the small hole and large hole
drilling cost per foot may not differ greatly the total drilling cost does not
change much. However, to maintain similar pressures in the large holes
requires more explosive. Therefore, the explosive cost increases for the
same amount of wall prepared. The overall cost increase can be substan-
tial when large diameter holes are utilized in these circumstances.
When the rock is heavily jointed there is the potential for leakage of
the explosion gases along these planes. This is especially true if the
joints are poorly cemented. Under these conditions there can be advan-
tages to increasing the decoupled borehole pressures to counteract the
leakage and insure that the rock mass is preferentially cracked in the
desired plane.
Increasing the small hole pressures beyond the dynamic tensile

strength of the rock is not usually a problem. This was observed in the
previous figure. The same graph showed that the radius of rupture
around large diameter holes could be quite large. Such rupture would
occur as the borehole pressure exceeds the dynamic compressive
strength of the rock. Therefore, larger holes will provide less opportunity
to generate a good, open presplit crack when quite incompetent rock is
encountered.
When the rock is competent the hole spacing is determined by the

spacing equation. Then, somewhat larger spacings may be possible with
large holes compared to smaller boreholes. However, the difference is
not as great as might be expected. Again, because of the rupture radius
concerns the large hole gas pressures would not exceed the dynamic
compressive strength of the rock. Conversely, small hole decoupled
pressures may exceed the compressive strength by a factor of at least
two. Since the hole spacing is directly related to the borehole pressure
the small hole spacing can be considerably expanded relative to the
diameter when compared to large hole spacings. Therefore, even in

135
competent rock with wide spaced jointing large hole presplitting may not
show the economy of scale initially expected.
6.0 COST COMPARISON OF SMALL AND LARGE HOLE

PRESPLITTING
There are important technical reasons why small hole presplitting is

often preferred. However, cost is also an important concern. This section
compares the cost of presplitting for two hole diameters, taking into
account the technical considerations of each.
Table 5 lists the data used in this analysis. The drilling cost has been
increased for each diameter in this example to reflect the more competent
rock.
Table 6 provides the results of the cost analysis for the competent
rock case.
Again, the small hole application is less costly per square foot of wall
prepared. In this case the difference is 11.35 cents per square foot or
about 21 percent. As before there would have been considerably more
disparity in drilling cost per foot to cause the economics to favor the large
hole approach. Also, the technical advantages of the small hole angle
presplit method means that there would need to be a considerable
economic advantage to large hole work to make it worthy of consideration.
7.0 APPLICATIONS FOR LARGE HOLE PRESPLITTING
The foregoing illustrates that there are often significant cost and
engineering advantages to performing small diameter angled presplitting
in mines and quarries. However, there are cases where utilizing large
holes is appropriate.
The primary application is in active wall presplitting for explosive

casting in dragline mines. In this case a concentrated charge can be
placed in the hole and the gases allowed to expand freely up the hole
upon detonation. A good, vertical presplit can be obtained in many
materials on wide spacings (13 to 16 feet). Since the highwalls do not
stand for long periods the vertical presplit is quite acceptable in most
cases. Also, the short duration of the wall exposure means that some
imperfections in the result can be tolerated. Active wall presplitting has
been previously reported by Bauer and Crosby.
More recently, we have performed some large hole, angled presplit in

active highwall presplitting. The approach has been taken because
steeply dipping joints in the wall tend to slab off if undercut, therefore

136
reducing safety for personnel working beneath the wall. The holes are
angled at 20° from vertical. This can be achieved because the large
diameter (10 5/8-inch) drill is working at the upper pit surface and does
not have the clearance room restrictions typical in pits and quarries. So
far the results have been quite satisfactory.
Another application for large diameter holes is on high benches.

Small diameter holes are difficult to drill accurately when deep. Large
holes can be accurately drilled to greater depths. In most cases small
holes should be limited to 55 feet in depth.
Normally bench height should not exceed 55 feet in any event.

Higher benches are harder to blast and are less safe to work under.
Often, the rule used is that the bench height should not exceed the
maximum digging height of the excavator. However, in some cases such
as a top bench that is affected by a variable overburden-rock contact, the
bench height may be more than 55 feet. Then the use of large holes is
indicated. For a top bench where there is not a working room restriction, it
may be possible to angle drill these holes.
A third application is when there is a major groundwater problem and

the rock is incompetent. In this case, it can be difficult to hole the small
diameter holes. However, before changing to large diameter holes one
should attempt to trench out broken rock in the collar region, from previ-
ous subgrade drilling, with a backhoe. Often it is the collar region that is
causing the problem. Still, where the rock is particularly incompetent
circulation from the hole being drilled to the previous hole can be a signifi-
cant problem and large holes, which are more likely to stay open, may
need to be used.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
It is clear that small diameter angle hole presplitting will often provide
the best result for final wall control in mines and quarries. The advan-
tages of an angled presplit wall are important and have been demon-
strated in numerous applications.
To maintain the same borehole pressure in larger boreholes requires

considerably more explosive weight. This can lead to problems stringing
the explosive in the hole and also with regard to blast vibration. Most
importantly the explosives cost increases rapidly with hole diameter.
When small diameter holes are used it is often possible to employ

decoupled borehole pressures that exceed the rock compressive strength.
Therefore, larger borehole spacings are possible. In large diameter holes
radius of rupture relationships limit the borehole pressures to no more

137
than the dynamic compressive strength of the rock. Therefore, there is

not the same opportunity for expansion of the spacings relative to that
seen in small diameter work.
The result is that large hole presplitting is often more costly than
small diameter work. A large disparity is necessary in drilling cost per foot
to make large hole work more economical. Even when the economics are
better, the technical factors must be considered.
Large diameter presplitting is most useful in active highwall presplit-

ting in dragline mines where explosive casting is employed and vertical
walls are often acceptable. It is also the better approach for benches of
greater than 55 feet because the holes can be drilled more accurately. It
may also be the best approach when incompetent rock is combined with
very difficult groundwater conditions.

Wall PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Wall PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wall Control

Tel. (701) 667-5785 Fax (701) 667-5784

Calder & Workman, Inc.

1.1 Definition of Controlled Blasting........................ 1

1.2 The Importance of Controlled Blasting............... 1

1.3 Methods in Use.................................................... 3

2.0 General Principles..................................................... 5

2.2 Controlling the Energy Input and the Borehole

2.2.1 Fully Coupled Borehole Pressure.............. 8

2.2.2 Decoupling and Decking........................... 11

2.3 The Buffer Row.................................................... 15

2.4 Effect of Water on a Decoupled Explosive Charge. 17

3.0 Influence of Conditions at the Site............................ 18

Calder & Workman, Inc.

4.0 Wall Control Practices in Surface Operations........... 23

4.1 Explanation of Methods....................................... 23

4.1.1 Buffer Blasting........................................... 23

4.1.2.1 General Discussion...................... 28

4.1.2.2 Spacing Between Holes............... 29

4.1.2.3 Presplitting on an Angle............... 31

4.1.2.4 Choosing the Hole Diameter........ 34

4.1.2.5 Shooting the Presplit Line........... 37

4.1.2.6 Active highwall Presplitting in

4.1.4 Line Drilling................................................ 55

4.1.5 Air Deck-Air Shock Techniques................. 56

4.2 Blast Design for Final Wall Shots........................ 60

Calder & Workman, Inc.

6.0 Controlled Blasting on Construction Projects........... 75

Appendix A: Technical Papers on Control Blasting.........

Considerations in pre-split Blasting for Mines and

Control Blasting at Sherman Mine by Peter J. Calder

Considerations for Small Versus Large Diameter Pre-

A Method for Calculating the Weight of Charge to use

Wall Control Blasting at the Manassas Quarry by

Conversion Factors from Rock Slope Engineering by

Calder & Workman, Inc.

J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder

1.1 DEFINITION OF CONTROLLED BLASTING

Controlled blasting refers to various techniques used to minimize damage to the

high pressure explosion gases, generated during the blast.

1.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTROLLED BLASTING

2. To insure the subsequent safety of personnel and equipment,

Calder & Workman, Inc.

(Workman and Calder, 1992).

Underground, overbreak in the stope results in costly ore dilution.

In construction blasting breakage beyond the designed limits may

well increase. All of this is expensive.

Equally important as cost, in every industry, is the need to provide a

substantial backbreak are prone to hazardous rock falls. Safety benches,

ineffective. Drifts and stopes experiencing excessive overbreak will be

construction work as well. Therefore, any organization that emphasizes

safety will want to control blasting at the limits of an excavation.

Calder & Workman, Inc.

1.3 METHODS IN USE

There are four principal controlled blasting techniques which are:

Presplitting is the most commonly used technique especially in

surface work. This is followed by cushion blasting, also known as trim

blasting in open pits. Smooth blasting, used underground, is similar to

competent, but this is not a common approach. However, a properly

the success of most presplitting and cushion blasting applications.

Line drilling involves the drilling of closely spaced small diameter

explosive, but form a discontinuity at the excavation limit. This method is

Calder & Workman, Inc.