Airdecking guidelines and

presentation

by

Pat McLaughlin

SUNCOR
 DESIGN AND APPLICATION OF AIR DECKS IN SURFACE BLASTING OPERATIONS

Airdecking was originally applied in the late 19th century as a means to distribute the explosives
pressure more evenly throughout the rock mass being blasted. This was critical to reduce
shattering in dimensional stone, yet was also recognized as a means to "stretch the powder" in
conventional shooting. The technique was restricted primarily to small diameter holes using
black blasting powder in dimensional stone work. Today, black powder shooting in dimensional
stone quarries is the exception rather than the rule.

MODERN APPLICATIONS

Today air decking is being used succesfully around the world to allow reductions of from 10% to
30% in total explosives required for production blasting. With the increased pressure on
operators in large volume operations to reduce blasting costs, potential savings of this
magnitude cannot be ignored.

Other common applications of airdecking are for wall control, rip-rap production, to reduce
vibration/overpressure and to create a barrier to groundwater using pre-splitting techniques.

In all these cases, air decking can result in substantial savings and improved efficiencies over
conventional methods.

PRODUCTION HOLES

In designing the burden for production blast-holes, the engineer is restricted to how much
ground the hole can pull at the toe. This is the most heavily constricted area of the hole and
proper fragmentation and movement in this zone is critical. At the top (or "collar") of the hole,
there is much less vertical constriction, so it follows that considerably less explosive energy is
required to fragment and move the material at the top of the hole than at the bottom.

Common practice to compensate for this is to use a lower energy/density explosive in the upper
region of the hole. Generally speaking, there is no lower density, lower cost explosive for the
upper region than AN/FO, and this in fact is the one most commonly used.

When blast engineers design the pattern to pull the toe with AN/FO as the total charge, things
get a bit more complex. Operators can use bulked out AN/FO mixtures to achieve similar
energy reduction in the collar zone, but the added time and effort often make this impractical.
Air decking offers an economical and energy efficient alternative to this practice.

The physical steps in creating an airdeck are simple :

1. Lower the design top of the explosive column

2. Set a barricade to the stemming material at some point above the original top of column
location

3. Stem from this barricade to the top of the hole, as usual

The explosive gases will be able to expand into the air deck created above the column and exert
a reduced but prolonged stress in the collar zone of the hole. This can allow significant
reductions in the total explosives loads in production holes without significant loss in either
fragmentation or movement of the collar zone.

DESIGN CRITERIA

The most common design criteria used to estimate an air deck volume is a percentage of the
total explosive column length. When working in a fairly tight range of diameters and hole
lengths, this approach works quite well. This method has the added advantage of automatically
giving the operator an accurate estimate of how much will be saved in explosives costs.

The new stemming length is usually started at 75% of the original - but this is dependant on the
degree of risk for stemming ejection or fly-rock. Gradual reductions in stemming length will
determine the minimum allowable, and this can often be as little as half of the original stemming
length provided good stemming material is used.

Carefully controlled field tests are required for exceptional conditions (rock or explosives types,
holes diameters or depths). It is recommended that these tests begin with the minimum amount
of stemming and explosives removed, with gradual increases in each until the maximums that
can be removed are determined.

PRESHEARING

Preshearing (or ”Pre-splitting”) is generally an expensive process, both from a drilling and from
a blasting perspective. Drill factors can be as low as 15% of normal production which in turn
means that the drilling cost per ton is increased over six-fold. In addition, there is a low yield of
rock per man-hour loading when compared to normal production holes. In the loading process,
high cost, specialty explosives are often used, or labour intensive preparations of string
charges are involved.

Air decking with bulk explosives offers two methods of reducing the impact of lower drill factors
and high explosives costs.

1. Air deck pre-shearing is conducive to large diameter holes - normal production diameters
can be used, usually at much wider spacings than small diameter holes. This, in effect,
reduces the impact of lower drill factors on drilling and loading costs.

2. Bulk explosives are considerably less expensive to purchase and load than specialty or
hand-prepared string charges.

DEWATERING LARGE BLOCKS OF GROUND

This technique involves the pre-shearing of target blocks well in advance of production drilling.
Pre-shear charges are generally slightly heavier than normal to ensure wide, full-depth cracks.
Ground water drains into these cracks and is able to escape at floor level into the previous
excavation, resulting in a dry, isolated block of material.

For operations already committed to pre-shearing for wall control, the only added cost is a
slight increase in required explosives. For those operations not using wall control, this
technique offers an added argument for wall control implementation.

When combined, the benefits of wall control and dewatering can help maintain more uniform
fragmentation, controlled blast displacement, more stable high walls and reduce wet hole
explosives costs.

DESIGN CRITERIA

Since more in-depth design criteria is presented in the attached material, a very basic method
of arriving at approximate values is presented here, based on the production pattern.

1. Spacing equals from 1/2 to 1/3 of normal spacing

2. Burden equals from 1/3 to 1/4 of the normal burden

3. Charge equals from 0.5 to 1.0 kg per square meter of final wall
VIBRATION AND OVER-PRESSURE REDUCTION

When vibration problems are the result of charge per delay, the simple expedient of introducing
air decks in the production holes can help. The resultant reductions in vibration levels are
primarily due to the simple reduction of charge in each hole. There is some evidence to support
the claim that the air deck also acts as an "accumulator", trapping previously wasted energy in
the collar zone and converting it into useful work. This may further reduce vibration levels in the
near field.

Over-pressure due to stemming ejection can also be reduced through the use of air decks. In
addition to effectively lowering the top of the explosive column, air decks can act as stemming
enhancers. Coal operators have been able to solve stemming ejection problems by simply
inflating an air bag directly on top of the explosive column before stemming the hole.

A second major cause of overpressure is the transmission of the explosive shock wave from the
rock surface into the atmosphere. Efficient pattern design and implementation, coupled with
proper delay sequencing, can go a long way to reducing the magnitude of the shock wave
introduced into the atmosphere, but can't eliminate it. Air decking, by the simple expedient of
reducing the total explosive amount, can reduce it even further.

Two surfaces must be considered - the vertical surface at the front of the shot (normally called
the free face) and the horizontal surface on the top. Shock waves from the vertical face are
least affected by air-decking, since the air deck itself comprises a relatively small portion of the
vertical section of the blast. The shock wave off the horizontal face is most affected by air
decking, where the deck (1) reduces the total explosive amount, and (2) increases the distance
the shock wave must travel through the rock before it reaches the surface.

A third mechanism in over-pressure reduction could be the "accumulator" effect noted

previously.

TEST RESULTS
Over a two year period, demonstrations and tests with air decks were carried out in a wide
variety of mines, and one quarry, in Peru and Venezuela. These included two iron mines, one
limestone quarry, one coal mine, two gold mines, one poly-metallic mine and two copper
mines. The objectives of these tests were to :
 1) improve fragmentation in the top zones of the blasts,
2) demonstrate how to implement air decks as standard practice in production blasts,
3) develope an air deck loading procedure that was at least as efficient as, and preferably
faster and simpler than, the normal loading procedure
3) demonstrate sufficient explosives savings to offset the cost of the air decking device
4) demonstrate the design and implementation of air decks for wall control
In all tests involving top air decks, surface fragmentation with properly designed and
implemented air decks was equal to or better than that achieved with normal practice.
In the one test with a mid-column airdeck, fragmentation was judged equal to normal, but this
was a subjective assesment on the part of the shovel operator.
Only minor adaptations were required to the bulk explosives trucks on the tests, consisting of
attaching the inflation hose kit to the air tank on the truck brake system. Training was rapid and
intuitive, rarely requiring more than fifteen minutes, and the additional step of lowering and
inflating the air decking device was acceptable to the loading crews.

During the demonstrations, the time to place the air decking device was between five and
twenty five seconds per hole - this included lowering the device into the hole, inflating it and
retrieving the inflation hose. The main variables in total time were the size of the bore hole
(which defined the size of inflatable device to use) and the length and diameter of the inflation
hose. For example, the longest time in any of the tests (25 seconds) was reduced to 10
seconds by simply removing six meters of un-necessary hose and several connectors.

Stemming time was reduced by from 25% to 50%, considerably more than the extra time taken
to place the air decking device. In addition, there was a substantial reduction in the amount of
stemming material required. This was a major issue in one mine that used crushed stone as
stemming material.

The initial air deck designs in all the mines visited were based on removing just enough
explosives to offset the purchase price of the air decking device. In all cases, the operators
insisted on removing at least double, and in two cases three times, this amount. There was no
discernable differance in the blast results between the minimums and maximums of these
values.
Air decking for wall control was demonstrated at only one mine, and no clear conclusion could
be drawn on the results of this demonstration. The wall that was blasted was not scheduled to
be dug out for two weeks, by which time the tests would have been concluded and the
participants returned to the United States. The drill/blast foreman at the mine affirmed that the
results from all test configurations were "acceptable" during a follow-up call one month later,
but it was not possible to enter the mine at that time to confirm this.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important thing for an operator to keep in mind is that these techniques do work and
are being used as standard operating procedure in a wide variety of applications. As in any
technique, there will naturally be situations where air decking will not be feasible - either due to
economics, convenience or geology.

In summary, the potential benefits of air decking include :

1. improved fragmentation in the collar zone of the blast

2. a faster loading cycle

3. reduced crushed rock requirements for stemming material

4. reduced vibration and overpressure levels

5. improved costs and production in wall control drilling and blasting

6. a savings in overall explosives costs

From Numerical modelling of the effects of air decking/decoupling in production and controlled
blasting, L. Liu and P. D. Katsabanis, Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada

Figure 1

Figure 2
From Numerical modelling of the effects of air decking/decoupling in production and controlled
blasting, L. Liu and P. D. Katsabanis, Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada

Figure 3

Figure 4
From The application of mid-column airdecks in full scale production blasts, T. Davids and B.J.
J. Botha, Fifth High Tech Seminar State of the Art Blasting Technology Instrumentation and
Explosives Applications, Blasting Analysis International

Figure 5 - VOD trace through inert deck

Figure 6 - VOD trace through air deck

From The application of mid-column airdecks in full scale production blasts, T. Davids and B.J.
J. Botha, Fifth High Tech Seminar State of the Art Blasting Technology Instrumentation and
Explosives Applications, Blasting Analysis International

Figure 7 - effect of primer location, detonating cord length between primers

Figure 8 - effect of VOD on acceptable time variance over a 5 meter mid-column air deck
From A study of free toe-space explosives loading and its application in open pit blasts, G. J.
Zhang, Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada

Figure 9

Figure 10
From A study of free toe-space explosives loading and its application in open pit blasts, G. J.
Zhang, Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada

Figure 11

Figure 12
CUSTOMER INFORMATION AND ESTIMATE SHEET (per shot)

CUSTOMER __________________________________ DATE __________

ROCK TYPE __________________________________

Hole diameter 311 mm METRIC

Hole depth 18 meters
Standard stemming 7 meters
Burden 7 meters
Spacing 8 meters
Subgrade 1.5 meters
Explosive density 0.8 gm/cc
Explosive cost $0.33 per kilogram, in the hole

Price of bag $6.50

kg/m. rise 60.77

$/m. rise $19.75

Proposed air deck 3.11 10.00 x borehole diameter

Proposed stemming 5.25 0.75 x standard stemming

Potential savings $20.36 per hole

Holes per shot 80

Potential savings $1,628.88 per shot

CUSTOMER INFORMATION AND ESTIMATE SHEET (annual)

DATE
CUSTOMER ___________________________________ __________

ROCK TYPE __________________________________

Annual production, BCM 10,000,000

OPEN TWO FACES

Percentage of production 75
Theoretical drill factor, BCM/m. 56.00
Actual drill factor 51.33
Total holes 8117
Sub-total 1, savings $165,268.18

OPEN ONE FACE

Percentage of production 20
Number of lines per shot 11
Actual drill factor 46.67
Total holes 2381
Sub-total 2, savings $48,478.67

TIGHT
Percentage of production 5
Number of rows per shot 15
Number of lines per shot 3
Actual drill factor 31.94
Total holes 870
Sub-total 3, savings $17,707.31

TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS $231,454.15

SPREADSHEET FOR PRE-SHEAR DESIGN/COMPARISON

CLIENT ___________________________________ DATE _______________

ROCK__________________________________ METRIC SYSTEM

Hole diameter 100 mm Recommended range

Hole depth 10 meters from to
Collar 1.05 meters 0.90 1.20
Spacing 1.35 meters 1.20 1.50
Burden 1.65 meters 1.50 1.80
Sub-grade 0 meters
Sp. Gravity of explosive 1.25 gm/cc
Price of explosive $2.00 /kg
Price of drilling $5.00 /m Recommended range
Price of air bag $0.00 from to
Charge per hole 10 kgs 7 14
Holes loaded per man-hour 4
$/hour for labour $50.00
$/initiator $4.00
$/primer $4.00
Holes per blast 400

Charge per square meter of final wall 0.74 kg

$90.50 per hole

Unit costs $6.70 per square meter of final wall
$4.06 per cubic meter

Total cost $36,200.00

SPREADSHEET FOR PRE-SHEAR DESIGN/COMPARISON

CLIENT ___________________________________ DATE _______________

ROCK__________________________________ METRIC SYSTEM

Hole diameter 200 mm Recommended range

Hole depth 10 meters from to
Collar 2 meters 1.80 2.40
Spacing 2.7 meters 2.40 3.00
Burden 3.3 meters 3.00 3.60
Sub-grade 0 meters
Sp. Gravity of explosive 0.8 gm/cc
Price of explosive $0.35 /kg
Price of drilling $10.00 /m Recommended range
Price of air bag $4.50 from to
Charge per hole 25 kgs 14 27
Holes loaded per man-hour 12
$/hour for labour $50.00
$/initiator $4.00
$/primer $4.00
Holes per blast 200

Charge per square meter of final wall 0.93 kg

$120.92 per hole

Unit costs $4.48 per square meter of final wall
$1.36 per cubic meter

Total cost $24,183.33

References

Chiappetta, R. Frank, Mammele, M. E., Analystical high speed photography to evaluate air
decks, stemming retention and gross motion studies, First High Tech Seminar State of the Art
Blasting Technology Instrumentation and Explosives Applications, Orlando, Florida, 1989

Davids, T. and Botha, B.J. J., The application of mid-column airdecks in full scale production
blasts, Fifth High Tech Seminar State of the Art Blasting Technology Instrumentation and
Explosives Applications, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1994

Lanz, G. P., Stemming ejection analysis for the apllication of air-decking and the borehole plug,
masters thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, 1997

Liu, L. and Katsabanis, P. D., Numerical modelling of the effects of air decking/decoupling in
production and controlled blasting, Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada, 1996

Moxon, N. T., Mead, D., Danell, R. E., Richardson, S. B., The use of airdecks in production
blasting, Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique, International Society of Explosives Engineers, San Diego, California, 1993

Zhang, G. J., A study of free toe-space explosives loading and its application in open pit blasts,
Fragblast 5, Montreal, Canada, 1996
 Air-deck design and use

• First patented in 1893

• Primary use was in dimensional stone
production, with black powder
• Currently used extensively in wall control
• Applications in production holes
 Applications - production
• Top air deck – improve fragmentation in
surface (stemming) zone of blast
• Mid-column air deck – replace inert decks
with improved fragmentation in the central
(inert deck) zone of the blast
• Bottom air decks – reduced sub-drilling
• Generally improve energy distribution
 Applications – wall control

• Replace expensive and time consuming use

of lineal decoupled charges
• Expand spacings and/or reduce loads used
with open hole, bottom charge designs
• Reduce air-blast complaints
• Extend time of pressure pulse on wall
 Variety of devices available
• Foam bags
• Mechanical plugs
– rope or stake supported – Taponex
– friction fit - Stemtite
• Gas bags
– chemical
– gas cartridge
• Air bags
Foam bag
Mechanical plugs - Taponex
Mechanical plug – Stemtite
Gas bags – chemical and gas
Air bags
 Modern design tools

• Computer modelling
• High speed photography
• Precise electronic detonators
• Controlled test environment
• Cost reduction incentives
• Recognition of benefits
 Computer models

1. Standard load, fully stemmed hole

2. Top air deck of 1.44 meters
3. mid-column air deck
4. bottom hole air deck
5. pre-shear with inert decks
6. pre-shear with lineal decoupled charge
7. pre-shear with air deck
Standard load
Top air deck
 Top air deck - formulae
• Stemming depth = 50% to 75% original
stemming depth
• Length of air deck = 20% to 40% x (air +
explosives) +/-
• Maximum explosives to remove = 20% of
original explosives load
• Minimum explosives to remove = cost of air
deck device
Mid-colmn air deck
 Mid-column air deck - formulae

• Stemming depth = adjust to maintain SDOB

constant
• Length of air deck = 20% to 40% x (air +
explosives) +/-
• Maximum explosives to remove = 20% of original
explosives load
• Minimum explosives to remove = cost of air deck
device
• Precise timing to initiate both charges
simultaneously
Bottom-hole air deck
 Bottom-hole air deck - formulae
• Stemming depth = adjust to maintain SDOB
constant
• Length of air deck = 20% of (air + explosives) +/-
• Maximum explosives to remove = 20% of original
explosives load
• Minimum explosives to remove = calculate based
on savings due to reduced drilling cost plus cost of
air deck device
• Precise drilling control to maintain center of all air
decks at the desired floor elevation
Pre-shear – inert decks
Pre-shear - decoupled
Pre-shear – air deck
 Pre-shear air deck - formulae
• Stemming = 9 to 12 x borehole diameter
• Spacing = 12 to 15 x borehole diameter
• Burden = 15 to 18 x borehole diameter
• Charge = 0.5 to 1.0 kg/square meter of wall per
hole
• Deep holes, support 1/3 of total charge at mid-
point
• Very deep holes, support 1/3 of total charge at 2/3
depth, 1/6 of total charge at 1/3 depth
Test results – Peru and Venezuela
• Wide variety of materials
– iron ore, soft to very hard, production
– limestone quarry, production
– copper, production, wall control
– poly-metallic, wall control
– coal, production
– gold, production and wall control
 Iron mine 1 – standard design
• Using air decks prepared with jute bags
manually filled with drill cuttings, lowered
and secured with rope
• Three man crew, 3 minutes per hole to
prepare
• 1.5 meter air deck
• 7.0 meters stemming on top of bag
 Iron mine 1 - test
• Air bags, inflated with brake system of
bulk loading truck
• One man (ground technician with truck)
placing air bags – 15 seconds per hole
• Approximately 50% reduction in loading
cycle time
• Recommended reducing stemming to 6.0
meters, maintain same explosives charge
 Iron mine 2 – standard design

• Three decks with inert stemming

• Three man crew, 5 minutes per hole to
complete
• 3.0 meters top stemming
• Individual Nonel and primer in each deck
 Iron mine 2 - test
• 3.0 meters top stemming
• Top air deck of 3.3 meters
• Single bottom charge, sum of three decks
normally used
• Single Nonel and primer
• One man (ground technician with truck)
placing air bags – 15 seconds per hole
 Iron mine 2 - test
• Approximately 33% reduction in loading
cycle time
• Same fragmentation results as with standard
design
• Recommend testing with 4.0 meter mid-
column air deck, top stemming of 2.75
meters
 Copper mine 1 - design
• Using 1.5 meter bottom hole air decks as
standard
• Mechanical plug, rope supported
• Between 90 and 120 seconds per hole to
measure hole, prepare and place plug
• Two crew operation, plugs placed in
advance of loading operations
 Copper mine 1 - test
• Air bags, inflated with brake system of
bulk loading truck
• One man (ground technician with truck)
measure holes and place air bags – 15 to 20
seconds per hole
• Maintained same air deck configuration
• Same fragmentation results and floor
conditions as with standard design
 Copper mine 2 - design
Production Holes
• 8.0 meters top stemming

Wall control
• 65 kg bottom load
• 2 to 4 meters stemming immediately on top
of bottom load
 Copper mine 2 - test
Production
• Removed 1.0 meter of explosives
• Stemming at 6.0 meters, 3.0 meter air deck
• Stemming at 5.3 meters, 3.7 meter air deck
Wall control
• Maintain same bottom load
• Air bag at 3.0 meter, fully stemmed above
 Copper mine 2 - test
Production
• At 6.0 meters stemming, improved swell
• At 5.3 meters stemming, improved swell,
surface fragmentation
Wall control
• Reduced back-break
• No cratering
 Poly-metallic – wall control
Standard load
• 150 kg bottom charge, open hole
• approximately 1.3 kg/sq meter of wall
Tests, maintained same charge
• 1/3 of charge supported on air bag at mid-
depth of hole
• Air bag at 3.0 meters from top of hole, fully
stemmed above air bag
 Poly-metallic - results

Standard load
• surface craters of from 2.0 to 2.5 meters radius
Supported charge
• surface craters of approximately 1.0 meter radius
Air bag at 3.0 meters
• surface craters of from 2.5 to 3.0 meters radius
Poly-metallic - recommendations
• Reduce charge to 1.0 kg/sq meter of wall
• Test with combination of supported charge
and top stemming :
– 75 kg bottom load
– 37.5 kg supported at mid-point
– air bag at 2.0 meters, fully stemmed above air
bag
Suncor - limestone production

• 251 mm and 311 mm x 15 meter deep

production holes
• Collars from 4 to 5 meters
• 3 meter cap of blocky material
 Suncor – normal results

• Very large boulders left in pits, up to 5% of

total material
• Up to two burdens of backbreak
• Face angle up to 45 degrees
 Suncor - airdeck designs

• 203 mm and 251 mm x 12 meter deep

production holes
• Explosives loaded to 4 and 5 meters
• Air bag placed at 1.5 and 2.0 meters
 Suncor – airdeck results
• Surface break still slightly coarse, but
acceptable and very uniform
• One half burden back-break
• Face vertical to collar depth
• Overall reduction of 10% in explosives
• Additional savings in “helpers” drilling on
crest rows