Está en la página 1de 9

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257924487

Mechanism of air deck technique in rock


blasting- a brief review
CONFERENCE PAPER JANUARY 2013

READS

268

2 AUTHORS:
Mohd Sazid

T.N. Singh

King Abdulaziz University

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

21 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS

155 PUBLICATIONS 1,125 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Mohd Sazid


Retrieved on: 06 October 2015

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

29 31 May 2013

MECHANISM OF AIR DECK TECHNIQUE IN ROCK BLASTING- A


BRIEF REVIEW
Mohd Sazid1 and T N Singh2
1

Scientist B
National Geotechnical Facility,
Department of Science & Technology
Dehradun-248001 (India)
2
Professor
Department of Earth Sciences
Indian Institute of Technology
Powai, Mumbai-76 (India)
E-mail of corresponding author: sazidmohd@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Application of blasting to rock breakage is increasing day by day due to faster rate of mining,
tunneling, construction of highways, canals and other civil infrastructure work worldwide. Furthermore, most of
the raw materials from which our modern society is built are produced by mining using blasting. The main
objectives of rock blasting in mining are to utilize more energy into rock fragmentation and minimize the
blasting ill effects like vibrations (seismic), fly rocks (kinetic), air blasts (noise), dust generation (environmental
hazards) etc. Therefore, mine managements are always trying to using some innovative technique to obtain
higher productivity with low excavation and operating cost. Air deck blasting is one of most commonly used for
improvement of blasting efficiency. It is completely changes the blasting mechanism phenomena for transfer of
explosive energy to surrounding rock mass. This paper has been enlightening the brief review on air deck
blasting mechanism to understand the phenomena of rock breakage under air space. The results of latest and
advance tool of dynamic numerical modeling are also represented in this paper.

1. INTRODUCTION
Air decking is a technique to create an air space in blast hole. This technique basically having two major
applications, first one for improvement in rock fragmentation by enlarging the induced fracturing and the second
for control the back break by reducing the fracturing (pre-split). This technique was marked the revolutionary
changes and provided the new definition for rock breakage within blast hole (MelNikov, 1940). The benefits of
air decking technique for rock blasting has long history for application in rock blasting since 1891, Saunders
(1891) who invented and patented the air deck technique in German. The copy of original drawing was
mentioned in Foster (1897) as shown in Figure 1, where A is the black powder, B is the air-chamber and C is the
stemming material. This is the technique to improve the utilization of explosive energy with reducing the
adverse effects of rock blasting. MelNikov and Marchecnko (1971) and MelNikov et al. (1979) reported that
air deck technique substantially reduce the explosive consumption with improved degree of fragmentation. It
were reduced the 10-30% explosive consumption as comparison to full column charge. The main objective of
air decking technique is to improve the explosive energy utilization within blast hole to improve the rock
fragmentation. and improve the powder factor. In addition, the productivity of excavator and transport
equipment reported the double where air decking techniques were used.

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

Fig 1

29 31 May 2013

Original drawing of Saunders used by Foster (1897)

Chiapetta and Mammaele (1987) used the air deck technique in pre-splitting and found 10-46 % cost
reduction in productivity. Bussey and Borg (1988) were noted the 25 and 50% reduction in drilling and blasting
cost, respectively. Rowlands (1989) reported that air deck technique reduced the 15-20% explosive consumption
with improvement the rock fragmentation. Mead et al. (1993) used the 15-35% less explosive charge by air deck
technique and found better blasting results without any adverse effects. Jhanwar and Jethwa (2000) and Jhanwer
et al. (2000) carried out field experiments of air deck technique and calculated that air deck technique improved
the fragmentation and reduce the explosive cost by 10-35%. Air deck technique also helpful to control the throw
of blasted material and back break (Jhanwar et al. 2000). Sastry and Chandar (2001) reported reduction in
vibration, throw and back break by 35-50%, 20-35% and 16-25% respectively. Chiappetta (2004) claimed on air
deck technique benefits that to reduce or elimination of subgrade drilling, 33% drop down vibration, reduce
explosive consumption by 16-25% and improved fragmentation up to 25%. Singh et al. (2012) observed from
crater blast experiments that more breakage and heave obtained from air decking. It is clear from above
references that air deck technique is very useful for rock blasting in terms of better utilize of explosive energy to
rock breakage and reduce the ill effects of rock blasting. There are many different views behind to understand
the mechanism of air deck technique which will improve the rock breakage, as given in subsequent headings.

2. MECHANISM OF AIR DECK TECHNIQUE


There are lot of research papers published on air-decking technique which explained the mechanism benefits
of air deck blasting technique (MelNikov, 1940; MelNikov et al., 1979; MelNikov and Marchenko, 1971;
Marchenko, 1982; Fourney et al., 1981; Chiappetta and Memmele, 1987; Moxon et al., 1993; Liu and
Katsabanis, 1996; Jhanwar, 1998; Thote and Singh, 2000; Jhanwar and Jhetwa, 2000; Jhanwar et al., 2000; Lu
and Hustrulid, 2003; Leelasukseree and Rommayawes, 2009; Jhanwar, 2011; Leelasukseree and Rommayawes,
2011; Singh et al., 2012).
MelNikov (1940) who was first explained the mechanism of air deck blasting that air deck redistributed the
explosive energy within blast hole. The empty space reduce the bore hole pressure and allow to more work of
explosive energy for longer period. Air deck reduced the wastage of explosive energy in excessive crushing and
at the same time transfer the remaining explosive in rock breakage. In another experiments of MelNikov et al.,
(1979) suggested that generation of secondary stress wave from air decking and increase the energy
transmission to the surrounding rock mass in a large degree due to the additional stress waves propagating
behind the shock wave front. It can be anticipated from oscillograhic outputs of velocity of movement of
medium for full column charge and air deck charge (Figure 2) that a single stage loading applied in case of full

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

29 31 May 2013

column charge. In contrast, an entirely different pattern was observed from air deck column. Various secondary
pulses were observed which expand and developed the networks of microcracks on surrounding rock mass. The
air deck charge accumulate the explosive energy which first store and then release it in separate pulses rather
than instantly loading as shown in Figure 2 (MelNikov et al. 1979). The greater interaction of explosive energy
with surrounding rock mass resulted into more fracturing.

(a) Full column charge


Secondary stress waves

(b) Air deck charge


Fig 2

Oscillograhic records of velocity of movement of medium using (a) full column charge (b) air deck
charge (modified after MelNikov et al. 1979)

Air deck provides the expansion of explosive products within air space which would be reduced the
explosive product pressure. It means explosive products could not generate powerful shock immediately after
detonation as in continuous explosive charge case. The developed shock waves travelled in opposite direction in
the middle of air gaps and reflected as collision to blast hole face and stemming bottom. The reflected energy
again collides in air space and this process continuously repeated up to complete rock blasting process. Fourney
et al. (1981) carried out laboratory experiment of air deck blasting on thick Palxiglass to observe the phenomena
of crack propagation (Figure 3). He found that stress wave move toward the stemming and reflected back. The
coalescence of reflected waves and primary waves improve the working time of explosive energy by 2-5 factor
which lead to more fractures on surrounding rock mass. Fourney et al. (1981) found more fracture area from air
deck and stemming interaction zone than explosive charge zone (Figure 3).

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

Fig 3

29 31 May 2013

Crack propagation from air decking in Palxiglass (after Fourney et al. 1981)

Marchenko (1982) inferred that air deck substantially reduced the stresses in air deck zone as well as
crushing zone area around the explosive charge and 25% increased stresses in farther regions, which improved
the rock fragmentation. Chiappetta and Memmele (1987) acknowledged to need additional stress waves to
improve initial fracturing and repeated loading for better utilization of explosive energy in rock breakage.
Therefore, air decking fulfilled the above said criteria and having this unique ability since generates lower
pressure but repetition cycle for longer duration. Liu and Katsabanis (1996) concluded from numerical
simulation that air deck weakens the primary loading and accumulate the explosive energy. This stored energy
transfer into kinetic energy and then kinetic energy generated the rock mass collision in the form of strain
energy and elastic dissipation. This process enhanced the rock breakage within rock mass. In this regards, two
numerical models were used to obtain the pressure history curves, which differentiated the blasting breakage
mechanism (Figure 4). It can noticed from pressure curves of top most element of explosive charge, that
pressure value attend the peak value after detonation and then comes down rapidly whereas, formation of
secondary loading was observed in case of air deck simulation. These additional loading represented the more
damage of rock mass. Liu and Hustrulid (2003) concluded that propagation of rarefaction wave and reflected
rarefaction wave developed the pressure unloading process which is major responsible for more breakage. Only
one pressure loading was noticed for rock breakage in case of continuous charged blast hole whereas, loading
and unloading pressure contributed for rock breakage process. The review paper of Jhanwar (2011) on air deck
blasting was explaining the theory and practices of air deck blasting in mines.

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

(a) Full stemming model

29 31 May 2013

(b) Air deck model

Fig 4 Pressure history curve of top element of explosive (after Liu and Katsabanis 1996)

It can be reviewed from above references that the air deck techniques changed the mechanism of explosive
energy transfer to the surrounding rock mass in which air decking allow the working of explosive energy with
repeatedly in pulses from rather than instantly in case of full column charged blast hole. There is need for
further detail understanding of air deck blast mechanism from latest and advance technology. In this regards,
Singh et al. (2012) simulated the air deck blast model in latest finite element tool to understand the phenomena
of shock energy in air decking. Two crater blast models with axisymmetricity were used to trace differences
between full stemming and air deck column blast. It was found that energy relationship is totally changed by air
decking (Figure 5). The kinetic energy is completely transferred to stemming column as fly rock in case of full
stemming whereas, retain the energy and transfer to the surrounding rock mass in repeated manner in case of air
decking (Figure 5). It can noticed from pressure history curves of different target points that air decking
represented different phenomena of pressure for loading and unloading in reverberation manner (Figure 6).
These types of loading and unloading contributed the intense damage rather than instantly loading. It was also
found that decay of pressure in air decking improve the stemming capability whereas, ejection of premature
explosive energy can be obtained with direct contact of explosive energy with stemming column. The tope
element of stemming in model-2 represented the ejection of explosive energy with instantly loading.

3. DISCUSSION
It can be revealed from available literatures on air deck technique that several attempts have been conducted
to understand the air deck blasting mechanism. It found that the air deck technique in blast hole completely
change the explosive energy transfer phenomena which would be enhance the rock breakage process. This
phenomenon is due to repetition loading of explosive energy on surrounding rock mass for longer duration.
Results of air deck blasting using advanced numerical tools are proposed to understand the air deck mechanism.

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

29 31 May 2013

Fig 5 Kinetic energy distribution curve in case of (a) model1- full stemming (b) model2- air decking

(a) Air decking model

(b) Full stemming model

Fig 6 Pressure history curve of different target points (Singh et al. 2012)

4. CONCLUSIONS
It can reveal from pervious study of air deck blasting that completely change observed from the explosive
energy transmission to surrounding rock mass. Air deck technique provides the repetition loading rather than
instantly loading of explosive generated pressure. Although, lower pressure formed from air deck blasting but it
worked for longer duration which improve the fracture process as compare to high intensity of loading with very
micorfraction of seconds. Several attempts have been made to understand the mechanism of air deck blasting by
previous existing tools but there is strongly need for understanding of air decking mechanism in the light of
latest and advance tool of numerical modelling. Authors have tried to contribute the new blasting mechanism in
next publications.

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

29 31 May 2013

REFERENCES
Bussey J. and Borg D.G. (1988). Pre-splitting with the new air-deck technique, Proc. 14th conf. explosive and
blasting technique, explosive engineer annual meet, Anaheim, California, 197p.
Chiappetta R.F. (2004). New blasting technique to eliminate subgrade drilling, improve fragmentation, reduce
explosive consumption and lower ground vibrations ISEE, Vol. 2, pp. 1-27.
Chiappetta R.F. and Memmele M.E. (1987). Analytical highspeed photography to evaluate air-decks,
stemming retention and gas confinement in pre-splitting reclamation and gross motion studies, Proc 2nd Int
sym on rock fragmentation by blasting. Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT, USA, pp. 257301
Foster C. Le.N. (1897). A text book of ore and stone mining, Royal school of mines, London.
Fourney W.L., Barker D.B. and Holloway D.C. (1981). Model studies of explosive well simulation techniques,
Int J Rock Mechs Min Sci Geomech, Vol. 18, pp. 113127.
Jhanwar J.C. (1998). Investigation into air-deck blasting and its influence on blast performance and economics
in open-pit mines, Unpublished M.E. Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, Visvesvaraya Regional
College of Engineering, Nagpur University, Nagpur, India, pp. 1-142
Jhanwar J.C. (2011). Theory and Practice of Air-Deck Blasting in Mines and Surface Excavations: A Review,
Geotech Geol Eng, DOI 10.1007/s10706-011-9425-x.
Jhanwar J.C. and Jethwa J.L. (2000). The use of air-decks in production blasting in an open-pit coal mine,
Geotech Geol Eng, Vol. 18, pp. 269287.
Jhanwar J.C., Jethwa J.L. and Reddy A.H. (2000). Influence of air-deck blasting on fragmentation in jointed
rocks in an openpit manganese mine, Eng Geol, Vol. 57, pp. 1329.
Leelasukseree C. and Rommayawes S. (2009). Rock fragmentation by air-deck blasting by Thai quarries, J
Rock Mechanics. Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds). pp. 249-256.
Leelasukseree C. and Rommayawes S. (2011). A guideline of empty gap length for Air Deck blasting in good
rockmass, J Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds). pp. 247-252
Liu L. and Katsabanis P.D. (1996). Numerical modeling of the effects of air decking/decoupling in production
and controlled blasting, Proc 5th Int Conf on rock fragmentation by blasting. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 319330.
Lu W. and Hustrulid W. (2003). A further study on the mechanism of air-decking, Fragblast J, Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp. 231255
Marchenko L.N. (1982). Raising the efficiency of a blast in rock crushing, Fiziko-Tekhnicheskie Problemy
Razrabotki Poleznykh Iskopaemykh. Sov Min Sci, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 16.
Mead D.J., Moxon N.T., Danell R.E. and Richardson S.B. (1993). The use of air-decks in production blasting,
Proc 19th annual conf on explosives and blasting technique, ISEE, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, pp. 219226
MelNikov N.V. (1940). Utilisation of energy of explosives and fragment size of rock in blasting operations,
(in Russian), Gorniy Zhurnal, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 60-61.
MelNikov N.V. and Marchenko L.N. (1971). Effective methods of application of explosive energy in mining
and construction, 12th Symp on dynamic rock mechanics. AIME, New York, pp. 350378

INDOROCK 2013: Fourth Indian Rock Conference

29 31 May 2013

MelNikov N.V., Marchenko L.N., Seinov N.P. and Zharikov I.F. (1979). A method of enhanced rock blasting
by blasting, Translated from Fiziko-Tekhnicheskie Problemy Razrabotki Poleznykh Isko-Paemykh. J Min
Sci, Vol. 6, pp. 3242.
Rowlands M.D. (1989). Separating explosive charges with air gaps to improve fragmentation whilst reducing
explosive usage, Proc2nd large open-pit mining conference. Latrobe Valley, Vic (Melbourne: Australian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy).
Saunders, (1891). Dimension stone quarrying- The blasting process, Trans. Amre. Soc. C.E. Vol. XXV,
504p.
Shastry V.R. and Chandar R.K. (2001). New trends in blasting: a case study of Indian mines, Proc. Nat. sem.
on rock fragmentation, IT-BHU, Varanasi, pp. 77-90.
Singh T.N, Sazid M. and Saharan M.R. (2012). A study to simulate air deck crater blast formation- a
numerical approach, 7th Asian Rock Mechanics Sym., Seoul, South Korea, pp. 495-505.
Thote N.R. and Singh D.P. (2000). Effect of air-decking on fragmentation: A few case studies of Indian
mining, Explosive & Blasting Technique. Holmberg (Ed.). Balkema. pp. 65-76.

También podría gustarte