Comparison of Highwall Control

Methods at Bayswater Colliery

Tapan Goswami and Michael Croucher 2

Abstract
At Bayswater Colliery various methods of
controlling highwall stabii were investigated.
The use of presplitting was trialled and its
effectiveness measured. The presplit hole spacing
and explosive charge were based on those succes&lly used in other coal mines in the Hunter
Valley. The major presplit design parameter to be
determined was the stand-off distance between
the presplit line and the back row of the production blast. This could not be transfmed directly
from other sites due to the difference between the
Bayswaters production blast geometry and
geology to that of other sites. Using highwall face
surveys and Oricas SUR..YPlus@ software, the
average back-break behind normal production
blasts was determined. This was then used to
select the stand-off distance between the back
row production blastholes to the presplit line.
While presplit designs are normally based on
powder factor (kg/m2), the use of energy factor
(MJ/m2) was also investigated as a possible
design criteria.
Presplit results were evaluated using half
barrel factor measurements and a visual assessment ofback-break. The final presplit design was
successfi.llly implemented to form advancing
highwalls which had halfbarrel factors ranging
from 42% at the ends ofthe blast block to 67% in
the centre.
Due to the high drilling requirements of
presplitting, a method called double stitching was
investigated as a cost effective alternative. This
method involves drilling the back row blastholes
on a spacing which is closer than the normal
production blasthole spacing and reducing the
charge in each hole. Developing the double stitch
design consisted of determining the back row
burden, spacing, powder factor, and the loading
arrangement of air and explosives decks. Again,
results were evaluated visuahy and also by measuring halfbarrel factors. SURVEYPlus@ was
used to assess the amount of damage beyond the

double stitched row.

The cost comparisons between presplitting
and double stitching highwalls, and the relative
results achieved, tavoured double stitching. In
view of this, Bayswater Colliery considers the
most cost effective method of wall control for
truck and shovel mining to be double stitching.
However, the cost ditherential between presplitting
and double stitching is only around 2% when
evaluated on a $ per bcm basis. The merits of
presplitting may be reevaluated if the performance of subsequent blasts are reduced by uneven
faces or ifthe pit geometry or the blasting application changes.

Introduction
Bayswater Colliery operates the Bayswater
No. 3 open cut coal mine situated 6 km south of
Muswellbrook in the Hunter Valley region of
NSW, Australia. It is a multi-seam truck and
shovel operation.
The mine is currently handling 30 million bcm
of overburden per annum to produce 4.8 million
tonne ofROM coal, at an approximate stripping
ratio of 7.5: 1. The finished product is 4.0 million
tonne. Mining is carried out by two P&H 4 100
and one P&H 2800 shovels. Drilling is done by
Driltech D90KS and D75KS machines.
In truck and shovel mining, highwall stabiity
has a significant impact on safety and coal recovery. Various methods of controlling highwall
Figure I

Prespiit blast geometry

Copyright 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1999G Volume 2 - Comparison of Highwall Control Methods at Bayswater Colliery - P 125

1 of 7

stability were investigated. The mine, together with

Orica Explosives, embarked on a two-stage
process to assess various highwall control blasting
options.

Stage one - Presplitting

investigation
Presplitting involves drilling a row of closely
spaced parallel blastholes along the design
highwall (Figure 1). These blastholes are lightly
charged and then detonated simultaneously or in
groups, preceding the adjacent production blast.
Firing ofthe presplit charges produces an interhole crack along the design highwall, providing a
fracture zone to which the production blast can
break. This crack reduces the damage from the
subsequent production blast, thereby rendering
the highwall more competent and stable. However, the presence of a presplit does not necessarily guarantee stability ofthe highwall.
A presplit plane may act as a pressure
release vent for the explosion gases generated in
front of it and as a discontinuity to attenuate stress
or vibration waves. As a result ofthis, the exposed highwall is less damaged.
Geology
Presplitting is usuaLly most successful in
brittle massive rocks and in strata in which a high
percentage ofthe discontinuities are tight and
essentially normal to the design highwall. In closely
fissured, weathered and poorly consolidated
rocks, presplitting isusually less effective. In
closely fissured rocks, slight overcharging can be
quite detrimental, as rock may move along the
closely spaced discontinuities.
Drilling presplit blastholes
At Bayswater, the production drills were
used to drill presplit blastholes. ADriltech D9OKS
rig was used to drill 270 mm vertical blastholes.
The blastholes were drilled to the depth of the
coal seam. To avoid fracturing or weakening of
the underlying coal, no subgrade drilhng was used.
This is in line with the recommendations by
Leinberger et al ( 1992).
The selected spacing of 4 m was based on
those successfully used elsewhere in the Hunter
Valley.

Surveyplus sofhvare sh
view of highwall and back row of
preceding blast

Presplitting requires a large amount of

drilling. The drilling must be closely supervised to
ensure that blastholes are collared and drilled
accurately in the design direction.
Determination of presplit stand-off distance
The major presplit design parameter to be
determined was the stand-off distance between
the presplit line and the back row of the production blast. This could not be transferred directly
fi-om other sites due to Bayswaters different
production blast geometry and geology.
After blasting a strip which did not have a
presplit, the position of the resulting face was
surveyed using a laser profiler. Its position relative
to the back row of the blast was measured using
Oricas Surveyplus software. Figure 2 shows a
three dimensional view along the crest of the
highwall with the position of the back row of the
preceding blast.
Table 1

Average backbmak distance

Face Profded
MAO7# 1
MAO7#2
MAO7#3
MAo7##4
MAO8# 1
MAO8#2
MAO8#3
Average

Average backbreak
distance (m)
2.95
2.65
2.32
2.48
2.52
2.48
2.80
2.60

Copyright 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1999G Volume 2 - Comparison of Highwall Control Methods at Bayswater Colliery - P 126

2 of 7

Figure 3

Screen view from Surveyplus showing the calculation of average backbreak

Several faces were surveyed. Table 1 shows

the average backbreak distance between the back
row production blastholes and the resulting face.
Figure 3 gives a screen view from Surveyplus,
showing a section through the highwall behind the
production blastholes. The average backbreak

Figure 4

Backbreak in the stemming zone

distance was found to be 2.6 m. The abnormally

large amount ofbackbreak (>4.2 m) in the stemming zone (Figure 4) was excluded ti-om these
calculations to avoid skewing of the results.
Because a presplit plane may act as a partial
fi-ee face, the overbreak distance is likely to be
slightly greater where a presplit is present. Accordingly, an initial stand-off distance of 3 .O m
was selected.

Figure 5

Charging of presplit blastholes

Presplii

Copyright 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1999G Volume 2 - Comparison of Highwall Control Methods at Bayswater Colliery - P 127

3 of 7

Prespiit powder factor

Dry blastholes were charged with 150 kg of
ANFO, while 150 kg of Powergel@ (a bulk
emulsion based explosive) was used in wet holes.
The actual blasthole depth and spacing were
measured and the explosive powder factor for
each hole was calculated based on the fixed mass
of explosive. The average powder factor was
found to be 0.97 kg/m2 and ranged from 1.06 to
0.94 kg/m2.
Two decks were used, one at the base of the
blasthole and one Way up. Due to the increased confinement at the toe, the explosive
charge mass was divided in the ratio of 67% (100
kg) at the bottom and 33% (50 kg) located at the
mid point of the face, with air decks between the
charges. Figure 5 shows the presplit loading
arrangement
The use of air decking techniques has become widespread with large diameter blastholes in
the Hunter Valley. Because of lower confinement,
this method has been found to result in less damage around the charged region.
stemming
Duet0 the f3nvironmentally sensitive nature
of Bayswater mine there is a need to control
airblast. Therefore, 4 m of drill cuttings were used
to stem the blastholes. Also, stemming is believed
to maintain the blasthole pressure for longer
periods of time.
Initiation
Downlines of 3.6 s/m detonating cord with
Anzomex@ Power-plus Q primers (390 g) in
each explosive decks were used. To control
vibration, a 9 ms delay was used between every
tenth hole (Figure 6). This was used to limit the
maximum instantaneous charge. Since presplit

Figure 6

blasts usually produce higher vibration levels than

normal free face blasts, a conservative approach
was taken in determining the maximum charge
weight per delay. The amount chosen was 1500
kg, this being lower than that used for normal
production blasts.
Results of presplit trials
A measure of presplit quality which has been
accepted by several authors for example Brent
and Armstrong, 1998, and Darrell, 1993, is the
I-IaIfBarrel Factor (HBF). This involves taking
photographs Corn a position perpendicular to the
highwall and measuring the length ofvisible
presplit blasthole remnants in the exposed face.
The total measured length is then divided by the
total drilled length of presplit holes and expressed
as a percentage. This factor represents the actual
length ofvisible presplit holes as a percentage of
what would result if all of the presplit holes were
entirely visible.
Photographs of three presplit highwalls were
taken (Figure 7) and HBFs were calculated. The
HBF varied Erom 67 % over most of the newly
formed highwall to about 42% at the ends of each
blast block. The reason for this may be that
freedom for forward movement was less at the
sides of the blast and, therefore, greater cratering
may have occurred here, leading to increased
overbreak. Also, in one blast, the end of the
highwall was weakened by the presence of a dyke
which may have led to a large amount of back
break The accepted good practice of extending
the presplit beyond the end of each production
blast had been followed.
In general, a HBF of 50% or greater appears to represent a high standard of presplitting
Figure 7

Photograph of one of the presplit

highwalls showing the visible horf
barrels

Initiation ofgroups ofpresplit holes

Copyright 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1999G Volume 2 - Comparison of Highwall Control Methods at Bayswater Colliery - P 128

4 of 7

Figure 9

Figure 8

Photograph of one of the double stitched

highwalls showing the occasional
half barrels

in the Hunter Valley open cut coal mines.

Presplit Energy factor

The use of energy factor (MJ/m2) was also
investigated. The energy factor may be defined as
the amount of explosive energy in megajoules per
square metre of presplit surface.
By keeping the charge weight at 150 kg and
changing the explosive type (ANFO and
Powergel), diflerent energy factors were introduced. However, due to the low variation in
energy factor in each presplit blasthole, no distinct
evidence of a trend in HBF could be found. More
work is needed in controlled trials in which the
energy factor is varied signiIlcantly between
groups ofblastholes.

Stage two - Double stitching

investigation
Presplitting has a high drilling requirement.
Accordingly, Bayswater Colliery was keen to
evaluate possible alternative methods of forming
safe highwalls. with this aim in mind, trial blasts
were carried out in which the presplit was replaced by back row production blastholes with
halfthe normal spacing (4.5 m), burden reduced

Various options of charging double

stitched holes

to 6 m, and normal powder factor of057 kg/m3.

Various options ofcharging were used as
shown in Figure 9. These were:
A) One toe charge and stemming in every second
blasthole. In the adjacent blasthole the charge
was located near the top (Figure 9A),
B) Two decks, the charge being divided into two,
with 67% at the bottom and the remaining 33%
at the top in every second blasthole. In the
adjacent blastholes, to provide a staggered
charging configuration, one middle charge was
located as shown in Figure 9B. The staggered
charging contlgurations ofFigure 9A& 9B
were chosen in an attempt to minimise damage
from the adjacent decks.
C) The explosive charge mass was divided in the
ratio of 67% at the bottom and 33% in the
upper deck (Figure 9C) for all blastholes.
The most successful design was found to be
charging option A) which produced the least
amount of backbreak.
Stemming
The normal stemming length of 4.5 m was
used.
Initiation
To control the amount of rock displaced
towards the pit, the normal inter-hole (control
row) delay of 65 ms and inter-row (echelon)
delay of 150 ms were used. This timing has given
consistently good results at Bayswater.

Copyright 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1999G Volume 2 - Comparison of Highwall Control Methods at Bayswater Colliery - P 129

5 of 7

Results of double-stitching
trials
As expected, the HBF for double stitching
was significantly lower than that for presplitting.
HBF values of only 11% to 14 % were achieved
with double stitching compared with values in the
42 to 67% range for presplitting. However, the
HBF is a measure of highwall smoothness rather
than soundness or stability. The lower HBF value
does not necessarily mean that the highwall is
more hazardous.
Despite their lower HBF values, the
highwalls produced by double stitching were
visually acceptable and satisfactory to the mine.
The backbreak behind double stitching was
also evaluated. After blasting a double stitched
strip, the resulting face was surveyed and its
position relative to the back row in the blast was
measured. The average backbreak distance
between the back row blastholes and the resulting
face was found to be 3.1 m. These results are
summa&d in Table 2. This table also shows
results from two u.nm&ed production blasts in
this area of the pit, which produced an average
backbreak of 3.4 m.
The average backbreak was 3.1 m. But
because the HBF was 11 to 14%, backbreak was
zero in the places where halfbarrels were visible.
Therefore, the wall produced by double stitching
was relatively rough. This roughness could lead to
poorer performance in subsequent blasts. The
effect of rough walls needs to be assessed during
the subsequent blasts.
Table 2

Average backbmak distance for double

stitched highwall

Average backbreak
Face Profded
(Double stitched) distance (m)
3.1
MAl6#5ds
3.2
MA16Mds
2.9
MAl6#3ds
Average backbreak

HBF

The unmodified production blasts without

any wall control method resulted in newly formed
faces which had a saw tooth appearance (Figure
10 and 11). It is clear that the double stitch
method showed an improvement in the amount of
backbreak. Also, the influence of the joints which
ran at approximately 45to the highwall was not
seen to be as significant where double stitching
was employed.

Cost of Presplitting vs
Double Stitching
A detailed cost analysis was done to compare presplitting and double stitching. The following typical blast at Bayswater was analysed:

Figure 10

Horizontal cross-section of normal

production blast, which produced a saw
tooth appearance

Figure II

Horizontal cross-section of a double

stitched face showing a relatively smooth
profile

13%
11%
14%

3.1 m

(Unmodified production blast)

3.3
MA15#1
3.5
MA1 5#2
Average backbreak

3.4 m
Copyright 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers
1999G Volume 2 - Comparison of Highwall Control Methods at Bayswater Colliery - P 130

6 of 7

18
25
8x9m
35m

Double
stitching
18
25
8x9m
35m

3m
8m

6m

4m

4.5 m

Presplitting
Number of rows
Blastholes per row
Burden x spacing
Bench height
Presplit stand-off
to back row
Back row burden
Presplit and double
stitchingspa&lg

Costs for drilling, explosives and accessories

(primers, downlines, surf= connectors, gas bags
and labour) were taken into account and the total
cost for each blast configuration (ie, the presplit
case and the double stitched case) was calculated.
The cost per bcm for presplitting was found
to be around 2% higher than that for double
stitching. This cost difference needs to be weighed
against the potential disadvantages of a more
uneven highwall, such as less control over the
performance of front row charges in the blast
behind and a possible reduction in the overall
performance ofthe next blast.

Conclusions
Highwall face surveys and Oricas
Surveyplus so&are wereuseti in determining
the average backbreak behind normal production
blasts. This average backbreak then became an
indicator of the stand-off distance for trial presplit
blasts. In these trials, a very high standard of
presplit highwalls was achieved, as evidenced by
HBF values of42 to 67%.
In subsequent trials with double stitched
highwalls, an approximate 2% decrease in the
cost per bcm was achieved when compared to
presplitting. There is no evidence ofthis cost
benefit having been achieved at the cost of safety
However, to increase the HBF (currently 11 to
14%) of double stitched faces and to reduce the
average backbreak, additional work will need to
be done. This would include optimising the
blasthole pattern weight and distribution of
charge, powder factor or energy factor, and delay
timing for the double stitched row.
When compared to a base case (ie. an
unmodified production blastwithout any wall
control techniques), double stitching was margin-

ally more expensive. Due to the relatively small

differences in the unit cost of each technique,
other factors such as safety, blast performance
and drill availability must then be used as selection
criteria.
In future, the merits of presplitting may be
re-evaluated, particularly ifthe pit geometry or the
blasting application changes.

Acknowledgements
The authors extend their thanks to
Bayswater Colliery CO and Orica Explosives for
permission to publish this paper.
The authors would also like to thank Tim
Hagan, GeoffBrent and Nigel Irvine for their
useful inputs.

References
1. Leinberger, P, Chung, S. H. and Nan Lee
1992. Blasting Techniques for PitWall Control
at Into Limiteds Thompson Open Pit. Proc.
18th SEE Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique. Orlando, SEE.
2. Brent G F., and Armstrong L. W., 1998. Large
Diameter Presplitting Improved Through Two
Novel Techniques, Proceedings of the Twentyforth Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique, New Orleans, Louisiana,
ISEE.
3. Danell,R.E., 1993.PresplittingforFinalWall
Blasting Theory and Calculations, Proceedings
of the 6th Mining, Drilhng and Blasting BHP
Research Seminar. Cairns, BHP
4. Goswami T., 1997, Bulga Blast Audit Report,
Orica Explosives Internal Report, Nov 1997.

Copyright 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1999G Volume 2 - Comparison of Highwall Control Methods at Bayswater Colliery - P 131

7 of 7