The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts

J.A. Rodgers, R.A. Lee & KC. Whitaker

Advanced Systems Group, The Ensign-Bickford Company, Simsbury, Connecticut, USA

Abstract
The time domain during which an explosive detonates and causes rock to fragment and displace is on
the order of tens of milliseconds. Because of this, the dynamic processes that occur during this time
frame often become a source of confusion when trying to analyze the performance of explosive products
in decked blast designs. As an illustration, the authors have experimentally examined explosives
malfunction in decked blasts through state-of-the-art measurement techniques. The interaction of
explosive products and blast geometry was examined in detail using the analysis of a series of decked
blastholes. Explosive and initiator malfunction in decked blasts is often considered to be entirely the
result of insufficient inert decking material, however, it is shown that rock properties and dynamic
burden conditions may have a significant impact on decking performance. The successful application of
deck-blasting technique for control of ground vibration amplitude relies on an understanding of the true
dynamic performance of the blasthole.

Introduction
One of the major benefits of electronic initiation systems will be seen through their use in decked
blastholes for the control of ground vibration levels. Decked blast designs require added drilling and
loading effort, often compromising fragmentation performance in an attempt to gain control over
vibration generation from the blast. Previous research and field experience, however, indicate that there
is often a ‘hidden’ lack of control over decked blast performance, normally due to pressure-induced
malfunction of decks within the blasthole. Regardless of initiation method, understanding and
elimination of explosive and initiation malfunction is necessary to fully control vibration amplitude
levels.

With the development of continuous, resistive-wire, velocity of detonation recorders, Bauer (1987)
was able to determine the propagation sensitivity of explosives in 4-inch and 6-inch diameter blastholes.
The extension of this technology to in-hole velocity of detonation (VOD) measurement allowed
researchers to see the actual performance of explosive products in a variety of blasting environments.

The introduction of carbon resistor-based sensors for measuring explosive shock and pressure has
greatly reduced the cost of in-hole pressure measurements, which has in turn permitted much more
extensive use of this technology. Wieland (1988) used a carbon resistor-based sensor to measure inter-
hole blast pressures, which he believed to be the cause of observed explosives malfunction in
underground coal blasts.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 1 of 11
 Konya (1988) noted that as many as 30 percent of all blast holes malfunction in some explosive
applications. He observed that malfunctioned holes my result in no energy release, insufficient energy
release, or energy released at the wrong time. Each of these malfunctions can affect the performance of
adjacent holes or decks. Katsabanis (1993, 1994) used carbon resistors to explore detonator and
explosives malfunction, as well as pressure transmission through various inert decking materials. He
found that the properties of the stemming material had a dramatic influence on pressure attenuation
rates, as did the hole diameter and the quantity of in-situ rock mass structure. He also drew a relationship
between detonator delay accuracy and the level of transient pressure to which the detonator was subject
prior to functioning. Chiappetta (1994) described the impact that explosive VOD has on blast results,
and addressed problems with multiple explosive decks separated by inert stemming decks. He observed
that failure of stemming decks and malfunction of explosive products appears to be site specific and
requires field measurement in order to determine stemming requirements.

During the past three years, The Ensign-Bickford Company has developed the capability to use blast-
induced pressure measurements, coupled with velocity of detonation measurements to analyze the
performance of decked blast holes. Such a capability will provide blast designers with information that
may be incorporated into vibration-control blasting programs. This paper describes methods of
measurement and analysis of explosive performance and presents data from selected experiments. It
also suggests further research directions to enable blast designers to better understand and control
explosive malfunction.

Decked Blasthole Monitoring Program

To investigate the performance of decked blastholes and investigate causes of explosives malfunction, a
series of five decked production blasts were instrumented. Two of the blasts were in an aggregate
quarry (Ql) in Massachusetts, USA, and the remaining three were in an aggregate quarry (Q2) in New
York, USA. The rock mass at Ql was a fine grained flow basalt with columnar jointing. The rock at 42
was a structurally complex, thickly bedded, dolomitic limestone. A single hole from each blast was
selected and instrumented to illustrate the effects of different burden and timing configurations on deck
performance. These holes were instrumented for velocity of detonation (VOD) and inter-deck pressure
transmission.

Velocity of detonation was monitored using an MREL DataTrap@ and continuous resistive wire probe.
Inter-deck pressure measurements were conducted with high frequency response carbon resistors. This
measurement method has been well characterized by Ginsberg & Asay (1991), Weiland (1988) and
others, as well as extensively calibrated by the authors for the current sensor configuration.

During test Q2-Tl all holes were instrumented for VOD in order to assess the pervasiveness of
malfunction within a blast.

Following these tests, a single-hole with one explosive deck was instrumented with VOD and pressure
sensors, as well as a uniaxial accelerometer and a proprietary face-response sensor. The test was
conducted at Ql and was completed in order to identify if inter-deck pressure was a shock or gas-
pressure related phenomenon.

Sensor locations, as well as explosive loading information are shown in the figures accompanying the
test results.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 2 of 11
Effect of inter-deck pressure on product performance
Previous research has clearly demonstrated the effect of pressure on explosive and initiator product
performance. Several modes of pressure-induced malfunction in deck-blasting applications were
identified. The top deck may experience the following (in order of increasing pressure):

1. decrease of initiator delay time;

2. sympathetic initiation of the primary explosive in the initiator;
3. deflagration of the bulk explosive immediately above the inert deck;
4. deflagration to detonation transition;
5. sympathetic detonation of the bulk explosive or dead-pressing of sensitized explosives.

It is common practice in deck blasting to raise the primer of the upper explosive column
approximately 4 to 5 feet above the inert deck. This is good practice since it places the primary
explosive of the detonator further away from the pressure source, allowing distance to attenuate the gas
pressure, as well as time for volumetric expansion of the rock mass and further reduction in gas
pressure.

Origin of inter-deck pressure

Figure 1 illustrates the results of the single-hole test, done to investigate the origin of inter-deck
pressure. As illustrated, 2 pressure sensors were located in the stemming zone above a single explosive
column, with the first sensor located immediately above the explosive and the second at 2 feet above the
explosive. A uniaxial accelerometer was located beside the second pressure sensor. A face-response
sensor was placed at approximately the same elevation as the second pressure sensor, on the free face,
with approximately 10 feet of burden in front of the hole.

Referring to Figure 1, at time A, the booster detonates and the data acquisition system is triggered. At
time B, approximately 0.58 ms later, a pressure of 25,000 psi is measure at the first pressure sensor. At
time C, approximately 0.72 ms after trigger, the accelerometer measures a vertical acceleration,
however, no pressure is measured at the adjacent pressure sensor. The accelerometer trace clipped and
then began to fall off until time D, approximately 1.34 ms, when another vertical acceleration was
measured. Approximately 0.16 ms later, a pressure of approximately 5000 psi was measured at the
second pressure sensor. The first response of the face occurred at approximately 4.50 ms following the
trigger.

Time B was assumed to be the point at which the detonation front first reached the stemming zone.
The shock front would have had to travel at approximately 14,300 ft/s (4,360 m/s) in order to reach the
accelerometer and cause the first vertical acceleration, measured at time C. Since this is on the order of
the detonation velocity for the product, it was concluded that the first acceleration is the result of the
detonation front continuing into the stemming zone and causing vertical motion in the stemming
material. Since no significant pressure is monitored in the adjacent sensor, it was also concluded that no
significant pressure accompanied this wave. The wave that caused the second acceleration, at time D,
traveled at an average velocity of 2,600 fVs (790 m/s). It was concluded that this was the stress wave
caused by the gas pressure generated within the borehole. Since this wave generated a significant
pressure in the adjacent sensor, it was concluded that the gas pressure is likely responsible for the
pressure measured in the remainder of the test series.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 3 of 11
 A BC D E F
6
: :
: :
5 : :
: :
: i
:
: :
Stemming : :
: :
: :
: :
1 :. :
Uniaxial : ::
0 ~
Accelerometer : :
30000
: :
= 25000 : :
:
g 20000 :
P r e s s u r e S e n s o r 2- : Pre 8
f! 15000
: i Se st
:
7 : :
u) 10000 : :
If 5 0 0 0
: ;
P r e s s u r e S e n s o r l- : :
: :
0 ~
0.4 i 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 +5 5 5.5 6
.: : :. Time (ms)
;
:

35166 Packaged
Blend Detonation Shock
Wave

Expanding
Detonation
Products

Figure 1. Test layout and results showing stages of shock and gas pressure transmission through the stemming zone. A - booster
detonates. B - detonation front sensed at first pressure sensor. C - vertical acceleration from shock wave. D - second vertical
acceleration from gas pressure effects. E - gas pressure sensed at second pressure sensor. F - First response measured on free
face.
It is important to note that these tests were conducted in dry holes, and that if water were present,
shock transmission may have been a contributing factor.

Table 1 shows the explosive loading for each of the test holes, along with the calculated isothermal gas
pressure within the hole following detonation. The peak pressure measured by the sensor located at the
top of the inert deck in each of the tests is also given, along with an attenuation ratio, which is simply
calculated as the ratio of the measured inert-deck pressure to the calculated bottom-deck gas pressure.
The attenuation ratio is provided in an attempt to normalize the effect of varying explosives in the
different test holes. There is a great deal of uncertainty within the industry regarding numerical
modeling of borehole pressures due to the many variables that are involved. Isothermal gas expansion
was used in order to simplify the calculation and provide a relative prediction of the pressures generated
within the different test holes. Results of pressure tests immediately above the explosive column
Table 1 - Bottom-deck loading data, theoretical gas pressure, and observed pressure at the top of the inert
deck.
Test Explosive Density Specific Gas Isothermal Gas Sensor Attenuation
hole Type Volume (fi3/lb) Pressure (PSI) Pressure Ratio
(PSI)
Ql-Tl 35165 1.11 17.77 17,908 780 0.04
Blend
Ql-T2 35/65 1.11 17.77 17,908 5,500 0.31
Blend
Q2-Tl 60/40 1.28 19.02 22,3 14 9,500 0.43
Blend
Q2-T2 35/65 1.20 17.58 19,332 6,800 0.35
Blend
Q2-T3 ANFO 0.85 15.57 12,119 1,550 0.13

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 4 of 11
indicate that the actual borehole pressures are likely to be somewhere between a balance point
calculation (Szuladzinski, 1993) and the isothermal pressures used in this paper. Balance point
pressures calculated for this test series ranged from 50,000 PSI to 52,000 PSI.

The gas pressure trapped in the bottom deck may be released through several mechanisms: escape
into existing or newly formed discontinuities, radial volumetric expansion of the blasthole, expansion of
the bottom deck cavity through compaction of the inert deck and overlying explosive, or gaseous escape
through the inert material. In reality, the process is likely a combination of the above mechanisms. The
later release mechanisms are responsible for inter-deck pressure transmission and the associated
malfunctions that result. Because of this, it is intuitively obvious that the confinement, as determined by
the properties of the rock mass, the burden condition, and the shot timing, will have a large impact on
the inter-deck pressure as well as the attenuation ratio.

Effect of burden on inter-deck pressure

Test holes Q 1 -Tl and Q 1 -T2 illustrate the effect of varying burden condition on pressure transmission
through the inert deck. The design layouts from Ql -Tl and Ql -T2 are given in Figures 2 and 3
respectively. Ql -Tl was positioned as an outside corner hole in rock that contained obvious open
fractures from overbreak. Q 1 -T2 was positioned in an inside corner in relatively intact rock, and with
heavy geometric confinement. Hole Q 1 -T 1 experienced substantially less pressure transmission through
the inert deck than hole Ql -T2, with a peak pressure at the top of the deck of only 780 PSI. Severe loss
of confinement was observed from the corner, through analysis of a video of the blast. Comparatively,
hole Ql-T2 experienced a much higher pressure at the top of the inert deck, reaching a peak of 5500 PSI
as shown in Figure 4. Close examination of the VOD record, Figure 5, shows some shortening of the
VOD cable above the inert deck. The rate of shortening of the cable is consistent with typical
deflagration velocities, which indicates that a deflagration of the explosive may have occurred between
the top of the inert deck and the primer. Field experience has repeatedly shown performance problems
in holes positioned in heavily confined inside corners such as this test hole. The test quarry (Ql)
occasionally experiences explosive malfunction in heavily confined inside corner holes. Modes of
malfunction include sympathetic detonations, as well as deflagration and desensitization.

Sensor #1 Sensor #2
Sensor #I

Fb B o o s t e r Burden: 17ft
Spacing: 15ft
’ Burden: 17ft
Spacing: 15ft Booster Booster

Figure 2 Test Ql-Tl design Figure 3 Test Q&T2 design

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 5 of 11
 VOD = t5078 Ws
/‘-
-30
525 V O D = 1 7 8 4 9 fth Sensor #2

5 20
8
I 15
0
10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 6 8 10
Time (ms) Time I ms 1

Figure 4 Pressure data test Q&T2 Figure 5 VOD data test Ql-T2

Effect of inter-hole delay on inter-deck pressure

Test holes Q2-Tl , Q2-T2, and Q2-T3 were examined to determine if the timing relief from adjacent
holes had an effect on the attenuation factor. The design layouts from these test holes are shown in
Figures 6, 7, and 8 respectively. Hole Q2-Tl was an opening hole, hole Q2-T2 was in the front row,
timed 17ms after the previous hole.

0
-
0 0
- Booster
Sensor #2
Sensor #I zt
33 ms Oms 17ms 4ft
t
0 0 0
117 ms 84 ms 168 ms
Burden: 12fi 2oft Burden: 12ft
Spacing: ? 4ft Spacing: 14ft
Booster

Figure 6 Test Q2-Tl design Figure 7 Test Q2-T2 design

Hole Q2-T3 was in the back row, and was

relieved from the opening hole in the front row
and the corresponding hole in the front row by
252ms and 168ms respectively. Timing relief
from the first hole in the back row was 84ms. 0
In summary, Q2-Tl had no timing relief from
adjacent holes, Q2-T2 had 17 ms of relief, and 0
Q2-T3 had the most relief with 84 ms. Burden: 12ft
Spacing: 14tI

Figure 8 Test Q2-T3 design

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 6 of 11
 -_.- - - - - - _I_---- _-_ ‘----"--i
16ONl
Since the explosives in the bottom deck were fploMl
different for each test, the attenuation ratio was ~12OCO
2 loo00
used in the analysis of the results. Test Q2-Tl ij8Mx)
experienced peak pressures in the inert deck of ii~
4ooo
14,500 PSI at 2ft above the explosive and 9,500 2ca
PSI at the top of the inert deck (Fig. 9). This 0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
pressure resulted in the top deck functioning only -rime (n-s)

4 ms after the detonation of the bottom deck as

shown in the VOD record (Fig. 10). The Figure 9 Pressure from test Q2-Tl
attenuation ratio for this hole was 0.43, the
highest of this test series. Figure 10 shows that
the recorded pressure of 9500 PSI did not appear
to cause deflagration of the emulsion blend used
for the upper explosive deck. This corresponds
with work published by Katsabanis (1994) and
Liu (1994) indicating that emulsion is less
susceptible to pressure induced deflagration than
ANFO. All other test holes were loaded with
ANFO in the top deck. In test Q2-T2 the pressure
at the top of the inert deck was measured at 6800
PSI, however, the top deck appeared to function I Time (ms)

normally. The attenuation ratio for this hole was

0.35. Finally, in test Q2-T3 the pressure at the Figure 10 VOD Data from test Q2-Tl
top of the inert deck was 1550 PSI and the hole
appeared to function normally. The attenuation
ratio for this test was 0.13. Based on this data, it Pressure Attenuation vs Delay the
appears that the delay between adjacent
blastholes had an effect on the blast-induced 0.45
pressure transmission through the inert deck, and
thus the performance of the explosives within the 0.4
blastholes.

The rock mass takes a finite amount of time to

respond to explosive loading. Because of this, the
confinement experienced by a blasthole is not
only a function of static burdens measured in the
design of the blast, but also of the time relief that
is allowed between holes for the onset of
fragmentation and movement. The above results
clearly indicate that with increased time allowed
for response of the rock mass surrounding the
previous hole, the pressure transmission
experienced by the top deck is reduced. 0 20 40 80 80 loo
Delay lime (ms)

Figure 11 Delay influence on pressure

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 7 of 11
To illustrate this, figure 11 shows a plot of the pressure attenuation ratio, from table one, as a function of
inter-hole delay times. Although there are too few data points to make a conclusive statement, the data
show a surprisingly linear relationship between delay time and pressures seen above explosive decks.
Blasters may find that inert decks that are sufficient with a given blast design may malfunction if either
delay times are reduced or burdens are increased. Generally, blasters are aware of choking between the
rows of a blast, however, choking between the holes in a row may be as problematic and should be
considered in any blast design modifications.

Inter-hole Pressure Analysis

In order to determine the significance of inter-hole pressure transmission with respect to explosives
malfunction, test hole Q2-T3 was also instrumented with a tourmaline underwater blast pressure sensor
as part of the measurement program. The sensor was placed in a vertical orientation in the explosive
column of the lower deck in order to sense pressures transmitted from holes #l , #2, and #3, as shown in
Figure 8. The VOD records from the donor holes are $hown on the time scale to indicate the time of
detonation of the bottom and top column in each hole. As shown in Figure 12, the peak pressures from
the adjacent bottom decks were relatively small, with a maximum pressure of 22 PSI witnessed from the 1
bottom deck of hole #2. As expected, the pressures witnessed from the detonation of the top decks were
much smaller in magnitude, with hole #2 yielding the only detectable pressure (5 PSI). These observed
low pressures suggest that inter-hole pressure transmission was not likely a source of malfunction in this
particular blasting environment. The negative pressure readings observed in the trace are of great
interest because they may represent slight underpressures, generated as the rock is affected by the
detonation of the adjacent holes. As the rock fragments and begins to move following the detonation of
the adjacent holes, open volumes are created within the rock in the form of new fractures and dilation of
structural discontinuities. This volume creates temporary negative ‘pressures in the fracture networks
surrounding the fragmented rocks, and may even be transmitted to the explosive columns of adjacent
holes. This is consistent with the work of Ouchterlony (1996) and Brent and Smith (1999) who
observed underpressures in the rock immediately behind a blast.

Hole 4 pressure trace from PCB Blast

Pressure Sensor located in bottom
Pressure (PSI) 201
powder deck - IOft from bottom of deck.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 160 190

Time From Trigger (ms)

Figure 12 Pressure from adjacent holes

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 8 of 11
Explosives malfunction in a full scale blast
Test blast Q2-Tl was fully instrumented for VOD in order to assess the overall explosive performance.
It was found that of the 15 blastholes in the shot, only 4 of the upper decks performed as designed. O f
the remaining holes, 10 experienced malfunction in the top deck and one experienced a full deflagration.
The performance of the shot is illustrated in Figure 13. The deflagration of the top deck in far right hole
in the second row resulted from movement of the rock and subsequent disruption of the explosive

@ @ @a QJ Gi?J @ @ a
50 m s
165 m s 132 m s 99 m s 66 m s 33 ms Oms 17 m s

@ @ @ @ @ @ 0
249 m s 216 m s 183 m s 150 m s 117 m s 84 m s 168 m s

+ - Top Deck Deflagrated Due to Lack of Confinement

x - Top Deck Malfunctioned

J - Top Deck Functioned Normally

Figure 13 Malfunctions in test Q2-Tl

Design Timing 8 ms window Actual Timing

b

0 l SOS~o,~~ e 0 d h l Top Deck

A Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q + 4) Q 4, Q 9 Bottom Deck

d’ / -2 a * ’ s ’ v ’ ’ ’
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290

Absolute Time (ms)

Actual Timing

Top Deck
B
Bottom Deck

290

Absolute Time (ms)

Figure 14 Effect on charge weight per delay

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 9 of 11
column prior to detonation. This shot employed an electronic initiation system, and as such did not
experience significant detonator-related timing scatter. This is shown in Figure 14a, where the bottom
decks function very close to programmed timing. The top decks, however, show the detrimental effect
of pressure-induced malfunction on blast timing. Although the 8 ms criteria is constantly under some
degree of scrutiny, in this case it serves as a useful tool to illustrate the effect the malfunctions had on
groupings of column detonations, as shown in Figure 14b. The windows overlain on the graphic show
regions where two or more powder decks are detonated within an 8 ms period. It is clear that
malfunction of the top decks within this shot had a significant impact on the attempt to control
vibrations through decking.

Conclusions & Recommendations

The authors have observed in field experiments that burden and timing relief each have a significant
influence on pressures recorded in deck blasting. Persson (1994) states, in a discussion regarding
explosive performance in rock blasting, that “for a given explosive and drill hole diameter, the pressures
are greater, the more resistance the rock mass offers to hole expansion.” While this statement may sound
trivial, it has enormous implications in deck blasting with regard to the influence of blast geometry and
timing selection on product malfunction and vibration generation.

In order to prevent explosive malfunction, changes in the blast design such as burden, spacing, timing or
explosive strength may require modification of the inert stemming length between explosive columns.
Likewise, pressure induced explosive malfunctions can be controlled if the confinement condition is
understood and taken into consideration in blast design.

Even though systemic problems have been documented in decked blast performance, the authors believe
that decking remains a viable approach to reducing ground vibrations. Each of the modes of
malfunction attributed to pressure can be mitigated through the use of informed best practices. Future
work will involve using the type of information presented in this paper to develop these best practices.

References
Bauer, A. W. and Bauer, A., “Evaluation of Propagation Sensitivity of Commercial Explosives in Large
Diameter Holes”, Proceedings of the Third Mini-Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research,
Miami, Florida, 1987.

Brent, G. F. and Smith, G. E., “The Detection of Blast Damage by Borehole Pressure Measurement”,
Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting-Fragblast-6, Johannesburg,
South Africa, 1999.

Chiappetta, F. R., “New Findings on the Impact of an Explosive VOD on Blast Results”, Proceedings of
the Twentieth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Austin Texas, January 1994.

Ginsburg, M. J. and Asay, B. W., “Commercial Carbon Composition Resistors as Dynamic Stress
Gauges in Difficult Environments”, Review of Scientific Instrumentation V62 (9), September, 199 1.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 10 of 11
Katsabanis, P. D. and Yeung, C., “Effects of Low Amplitude Shock Waves on Commercial Explosives-
The Sympathetic Detonation Problem”, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting-Fragblast-4, Vienna, Austria, 1993.

Katsabanis, P. D., Yeung, C., Fritz, G. and Heater, R., “Explosives Malfunction From Sympathetic
Detonation to Shock Desensitization”, Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Explosives and Blasting
Research, Austin Texas, January 1994.

Konya, C. J., “Problems With Malfunctioning Blastholes”, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, Anaheim, California, 1988.

Liu, Q., “The Concept of Explosives Malfunctioning in Rock Blasting”, Proceedings of the Tenth
Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, Austin Texas, January 1994.

Ouchterlony, F., Nie, S., Nyberg, U., & Deng, J., “ Monitoring of Large Open Cut Rounds by VOD,
PPV and Gas Pressure Measurements”, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, FRAGBLAST-5, Montreal, Canada, August 1996.

Persson, P-A., Holmberg R. and Lee, J., “Rock Blasting and Explosive Engineering”, CRC Press, Inc.,
Boca Raton, Florida, 1994: Library of Congress Card Number 93-28 150.

Szuladzinski, G., “Response of Rock Medium to Explosive Borehole Pressure”, Proceedings of the
Fourth Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST-4, Vienna, Austria, July 1993.

Wieland, M., “Cross Borehole Stress Wave Measurements in Underground Coal”, Proceedings of the
Fourth Mini-Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, Anaheim, California, 1988.

Copyright © 2003 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2000 BAI - The origins and effects of inter-deck pressure in decked blasts 11 of 11