Application of Air Decking To Blasting - Findings From Numerical Modelling

Application of Air Decking to Blasting - Findings from
Numerical Modelling
P.D. Katsabanis
Department of Mining Engineering
Queen’s University
Abstract
Air decking applications are examined using numerical modelling and the AutodynT M code. The
mechanism of damage is illustrated and discussed. Air decking is shown to provide advantages
over stemming when powder factor is maintained. The current effort does not support reduction
of the explosives column in favour of air decking. In a similar fashion, bottom hole air decking
increases fracturing in the area of the air deck, compared to when the same volume is occupied
by inert materials; however air decking does not appear to reduce the requirement for subdrilling.
The apparent discrepancy between the numerical results and some field observations reported in
the literature is discussed.
Introduction
Air decking applications have a long history. In fact the first air decking was patented by Knox in
Germany in 1893. Air decking was subsequently applied by Melnikov and Marchenko (1971).
Fourney (1984) conducted experiments in lucite models while Chiappetta and Mamelle (1987)
demonstrated the promise of air decking in wall control applications. Zhang (1996) and Chiap-
petta (2004) published papers suggesting that bottom hole air decks can be beneficial for the
breakage of the toe and the minimization or the elimination of subgrade drilling. Although air
decking has been applied to blasting, the mechanisms of air decking are not well understood. Liu
and Katsabanis (1996), using finite element codes, demonstrated that the reverberation of the det-
onation products inside the borehole can produce secondary loading in the rock, which can result
in elevated damage. The Lagrangian techniques used could not model the flow of the gases in the
borehole and thus the results of the study needed to be verified. Jensen and Preece (2000) mod-
elled the action of air decks using Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian techniques. They confirmed that
there is a reverberation of the gases in the borehole, which, according to Liu and Katsabanis,
would result in additional damage.
Since air decking has been associated with damage and, under specific conditions, improvement
of breakage, the industry is continuously subjected to ideas about the substitution of explosive
with air decks for superior results! It is thus important to clarify how air decking works in the
various applications of interest. In a data limited field like blasting, the use of computer software
as a laboratory can provide clarification on the function of air decking and minimize the number
of experiments needed to investigate the validity of the various claims.
Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2005G Volume 1 - Application of Air Decking to Blasting - Findings from Numerical Modelling 1 of 12
Model
For the present study the air decking application was modelled using planar and axisymmetric
configurations. It is difficult to represent the typical three dimensional problem with either tech-
nique; however the complexity of the calculations increase drastically once three dimensional
problems are implemented.
In the planar case the borehole had a “diameter” of 60mm, the burden was 2.4m and the
stemming and subgrade was variable.
The rock was modelled using the Lagrangian processor of the Autodyn code, the stemming was
considered to be the same material as the rock, while the explosive was modelled using the Eule-
rian processor. The air deck, where used, was modelled using the Eulerian processor and was
simulated as void. In reality the air has a very low density compared to the detonation products
and can be ignored in the calculations. Damage was modelled using the RHT (Riedel- Hiermaier-
Thoma) model as implemented in the AutodynT M code using the model parameters for high
strength concrete with Compressive strength of 140MPa. The damage factor reported in the fol-
lowing is related to the amount of straining of the material and reduces the bulk and shear moduli
of the material and the yield strength (Autodyn user manual, 2003). In the calculations the
damage parameter D ranges from 0 (undamaged material) to 1 (fully damaged material).
The explosive was an emulsion explosive with JWL parameters given in Table 1.
TABLE 1. JWL equation of state for emulsion
Density, A, kPa B, kPa R1 R2 w D, m/s Pcj, kPa Ecj, kJ/m3

g/cm3
1.2 3.39087E+08 2.959E+06 5.176 1.031 0.339 5553 8.596E+06 3.824
Top air decking configurations

The effect of top air decking on damage was examined in a series of calculations. Initially, stem-
ming was varied from 0.4m to 1.2m in 0.2m intervals and later stemming was set to 0.4m and air
decking was varied from 0.2m to 1.0m in 0.2m intervals. Thus, comparisons could be drawn
using the same explosive mass in the borehole between stemmed holes and between holes in
which part of the stemming was replaced by an air deck. Figure 1 shows typical damage contours
at a time of 1.7 ms after initiation for air deck lengths (left) of 0.2m, 0.6m and 1m and stemming
lengths (right) of 0.6m 1.0m and 1.4m. Similar results were obtained at later times. The damage
appears as cracks surrounding the charge
The figures show, that as collar length increases, damage decreases. This happens to both
stemmed and air decked boreholes. It appears that the difference from the fully charged hole is
not very significant, when small air deck lengths are employed, but becomes very pronounced at
larger air deck lengths. The results are comp atible with the results of the work by Mead, Moxon,
Danell and Richardson, published in 1993. They claimed that, in their work, the reduction of the
quality of fragmentation was minimal until the air deck length became 40% of the length of the
blasthole. In the present work, fragmentation is not quantified; it is clear however that damage, in
the form of micro fracture or fragmentation, decreases with air deck length. The present calcula-

tions do not seem to support that there is an optimum air deck length which will produce the
greatest amount of damage. This was supported by earlier modelling done by the author and Liu
(1996).
(a) (b)
Figure 1: Damage contours of air decked (a) vs. stemmed (b) charges
Comparing the stemmed boreholes vs. air decking, it appears that very little difference exists
when the collar distance is small and the reflected pulse is strong enough to assist in the damage
of the collar region. However as collar height increases, the reflected pulse is not strong enough
to create adequate damage, while air decking appears to introduce more damage than stemming

when the borehole is fully stemmed in the collar region. The secondary loading of the rock, dis-
cussed by Melnikov, Mead et al.(1993), Liu and Katsabanis (1996) and Jensen and Preece(2000)
appears to introduce more damage in the case of air decking. Example of this secondary loading
is shown in Figures 2 and 3 where the pressure and velocity time histories of a point inside the
air deck are shown.
8e+5
6e+5
Pressure, kPa
4e+5
2e+5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time, ms
Figure 2: Pressure time history inside an air deck
6000
5000
4000
Velocity, m/s
3000
2000
1000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time, ms
Figure 3: Velocity time history inside an air deck

Initially the detonation products expand at a very high velocity to occupy the volume of the
borehole. Upon impact with the stemming the reflected pulse is of high pressure. Reverberation
of the detonation products inside the borehole gives rise to successive pulses which, in the
present case, last approximately 0.5ms. Subsequently semi-static conditions prevail. It is during
the period of reverberation that additional damage can be inflicted to the rock mass. Afterwards,
most of the damage is related to gas penetration, something not modelled by the present
approach. The damage histories of a point inside the rock mass are shown in Figure 4 and are
compared against damage histories from a fully loaded borehole and from a borehole with an
identical charge without air decking. Air decking damage occurs slower than damage from a full
charge. The reverberation of waves in the borehole occurs over a period of time and damage is
accumulated with successive impacts on the borehole wall. The step-wise increase of damage is
characteristic to the successive impacts inside the air deck, although reflections of pulses in
boundaries can create similar damage histories in other applications. The air deck length in this
case is 800mm, the stemming length in the fully loaded hole is 400mm and the stemming length
in the partially loaded hole is 1200mm. The point where the damage histories of the graph were
recorded is located 1000mm from the wall of the borehole and 400mm from the top of the bench.
1.2
1.0
0.8
Damage
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Time, ms
Airdeck
Full Charge
Stemming - no airdeck
Figure 4: Damage histories inside the rock mass

It is also interesting to notice (Figure 1) that the damage in the burden in front of the explosive
charge is larger in the case of the stemmed boreholes and short explosive charges than when air
decking is used. The use of small decked charges in wall control blasting applications is therefore
discouraged. Local borehole pressures are high when there is no expansion volume, resulting in
unwanted damage.

One possibility, which has been discussed in the past, is the replacement of explosive charge by
an air deck. The possibility is interesting since it has enormous economic implications. The
previous work, which modified the air deck in increments of 0.2m, consistently showed smaller
damage when an air deck is emp loyed, compared to when a full charge was used. Increased
damage was observed in the case of air decking only when air decking was used at the expense
of inert material (stemming or rock).
Bottom air deck modelling

Another possibility that has been proposed is that of the bottom hole air deck. Zhang (1996).
showed a successful application of bottom air decking to improve fragmentation at the bottom
part of a blasthole while Chiappetta (2004), suggested that air decking can be used to eliminate
subgrade drilling. We attempted to model the situation and evaluate whether their findings can be
backed by the model. Modelling was performed as in the previous and targets (gauges) were
placed every 0.4m away from the borehole at grade level. Figure 5 shows the damage histories
recorded at the target locations. Clearly the model predicts less damage in the case of the air
decked charges, indicating deterioration of fragmentation at the toe of the blasts. The apparent
discrepancy between field results and modelling suggests that some processes are not modelled
in the current effort. This will be discussed in the following section.
Zhang (1996) reported better fragmentation in the case of cratering charges, when an air deck,
away from the free face, was employed. He also reported improved fragmentation when air decks
were employed and the powder factor was maintained. This is compatible with the present find-
ings. However his results from the full scale tests on benches are different than what has been
suggested by the present modelling work. It must be pointed out that Zhang based his
conclusions on boulder counts and digability of blasts in which a variety of variables were
modified. Although the results suggest benefit of bottom air decking methods, they cannot be
considered as proof of success.
Axisymmetric modelling
Planar symmetry modelling is a drastic approximation in blasting. For this reason some models
were tested using axisymmetric modelling. This is valid for cratering charges but not very useful
to simulate bench blasting conditions in which free faces parallel to the charge play a significant
role in damage development. Figure 6 shows the damage zone in the case of charges placed
inside a borehole, which has its axis perpendicular to the only existing free face. The borehole
has a length of 2.4m, diameter 80mm, the air deck length is 0.4m and the stemming length is
0.4m. Air is modelled as an ideal gas in this case. The face at the top of the borehole,
perpendicular to its axis, is a free boundary, while the rest of the faces are absorbing boundaries
simulating confinement.
Clearly there is some damage around the air deck but this damage is less than the damage around
the charge. The case of the bottom air deck, similar to the experiments reported by Zhang (1996),
suggests that air decking at the bottom of the charge will result in additional damage than when
no air deck is used.

1.2
1.0
0.8
Damage
0.6
(a)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time, ms
1.2
1.0
0.8
(b)
Damage
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time, ms
1.2
1.0
0.8
Damage
0.6
(c)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time, ms
Target 2
Target 4
Target 6
Target 8
Figure 5: Damage histories for full charge (a) and bottom air decking with 0.4m (b) and
0.8m (c) long air decks.

Figure 6: Damage from bottom and top air decking applications

The damage at the collar region, due to top air decking is more enhanced than in the case of bot-
tom air deck. In both cases damage appears to be less pronounced than in the case of a full
charge.
Figure 7 presents the damage zone when a 1.5m long air deck is used. In this case collar
fracturing can be attributed entirely to air decking as the free face is far enough from the charge
so that reflected stress waves do not introduce damage. Clearly the air deck has created a
situation in which damage at the collar is significant and larger than in the case of a distributed
charge.
Figure 7: Damage contours for top air deck with length of 1.5m
This picture resembles the damage discussed by Fourney (1984) although the extent of the
damage in the collar is substantially smaller than in the case of the experiments in plexiglas. To
identify the damage mechanism, targets were used in the air deck and on the wall of the
borehole. The pressure histories are shown in Figure 8 while Figure 9 shows the radial
deformation history of the wall of the borehole. The damage history of the same element on the
wall of the borehole is shown in Figure 10. The reverberations of the pressure pulse and the
resulting deformations on the wall of the borehole are indicative of the mechanisms involved.
Initially a shock wave travels in the air deck followed by the expanding products of detonation.
Upon collision with the stemming/air boundary reflected pulses are generated, which propagate
backwards colliding with other waves in the borehole. The magnitude of the pulses created
depends on the distance from the charge and the volume of the air deck. If this volume is
sufficiently large, attenuation is significant and no additional damage occurs; however smaller
expansion volumes result in damage to the zone of the air deck. The question is whether this
damage can exceed the damage by a single continuous charge. The present work has shown that
this does not appear to be the case. However the situa tion may be different in very low strength
media; also the effect of gas penetration has not been examined in the present work.

6e+5
5e+5
4e+5
Pressure, kPa
3e+5
2e+5
1e+5
-1e+5
0 1 2 3 4
Time, ms
Borehole wall
Explosive
Figure 8: Pressure histories inside the air deck and on the borehole wall at the same distance
along the axis (1300mm from explosive, 200mm from stemming)
43.0
42.5
42.0
Displacement, mm
41.5
41.0
40.5
40.0
39.5
0 1 2 3 4
Time, ms
Figure 9: Radial displacement history for a point on the wall of the borehole
Fourney (1984) has suggested that a high borehole pressure, coupled with a high pressure rise
rate create creates a stress cage around the borehole while the longer rise times and the lower
pressure amplitudes at the stemming-air interface prevent the formation of a stress cage and

allow growth of fractures, if a residual pressure is present inside the borehole. Furthermore the
long rise times and the lower pressures favour the reduction of the strain rate around the
borehole. As a result, a smaller number of cracks is developed, leaving outgoing cracks open.
Ouchterlony has shown that stress intensity factors are larger in the case of boreholes surrounded
by pressurized cracks. The result is larger crack lengths.
1.2
1.0
0.8
Damage
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Time, ms
Figure 10: Damage history for element on the wall of borehole
Conclusion
Modelling of the effects of stress waves has shown that air decking will result in a higher level of
damage than stemming, when powder factors are kept constant.
Numerical modelling could not duplicate practical findings that bottom hole air decking can
result in elimination of subgrade drilling and could not support replacement of explosive material
by an air deck for fragmentation improvements. The reason for the difference could be related to
the inability to model gas penetration in the rock mass, which may have a strong influence on the
final result. It could also be related to the selected rock mechanics parameters of the modelled
material.
Other factors explaining the difference between measured and calculated data may relate to the
variability of the rock mass and the variability of blasting conditio ns, which do not allow deriva-
tion of conclusive results from few experiments. Changing blasting parameters, while employing
air decking, makes results difficult to interpret. It appears that a significant experimental effort is
needed to evaluate findings and suggest blast design modifications beyond any doubt.

References
Century Dynamics, Inc.(2004).: “AutodynT M User’s Manual”, Century Dynamics, Concord, Cali-
fornia, USA.
Chiappetta, F.: “New Blasting Technique to Eliminate Subgrade Drilling, Improve Fragmenta-
tion, Reduce Explosives Consumption and Lower Ground Vibrations”, ISEE Conf. on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, 2004.
Chiappetta, R.F. and Mammele, M.E.(1987): “Analytical High Speed Photography to Evaluate
Airdecks, Stemming Retention and Gas Confinement in Presplitting, Reclamation and Gross
Motion Applications”. Proc. 2nd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Keystone, Colorado, USA, 23-26 August, 1987, pp. 257-301.
Fourney, W.L., Barker, D.B. and Holloway, D.C.: “Fracture Control Blasting”. 10th ISEE Conf.
on Explosives and Blasting Technique, 1984, pp. 182-195
Knox (1893): German Patent Specification No. 67,793, 1893
Liu, L. and Katsabanis, P.D.(1996): “Numerical modelling of the effects of air decking/decou-
pling in production and control blasting”, Proc. 5th International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST-5, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 25-29 August, 1996,
pp. 319-330.
Melnikov, N.V. and Marchenko, L.N. (1971): “Effective Methods of Application of Explosion
Energy in Mining and Construction”. 12th Symposium Dynamic Rock Mechanics, AIME, New
York, Chapter 18, pp. 350-378.
Mead, D., Moxon, N.T., Danell, R.E. and Richardson, S.B.(1993): “The Use of Air-decks in Pro-
duction Blasting”, ISEE Conf. on Explosives and Blasting Technique, 1993,pp. 219-230.
Ouchterlony, F. (1976): “Fracture Mechanics Applied to Rock Blasting”. Proc. 3rd ISRM Con-
gress, 11-B, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 1377-1383
Zhang, G.J.(1996): “A study of free toe-space explosive loading and its application in open pit
blasts”, Proc. 5th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST-
5, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 25-29 August, 1996, pp. 313-318.


Application of Air Decking To Blasting - Findings From Numerical Modelling

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

Application of Air Decking To Blasting - Findings From Numerical Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Air Decking to Blasting - Findings from

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Density, A, kPa B, kPa R1 R2 w D, m/s Pcj, kPa Ecj, kJ/m3

Top air decking configurations

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 4: Damage histories inside the rock mass

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Bottom air deck modelling

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2005 International Society of Explosives Engineers

You might also like