Fragblast

2003, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 7986

1385-514x/03/0702-079$16.00
# Swets & Zeitlinger

Use of Air-Decks to Reduce Subdrillings

in Escondida Mine
CARLOS CORREA E.1

ABSTRACT
This paper aims to show the results and comparison obtained from blasting using overdrilled blastholes and
blasting using a bottom of the blasthole located air-deck. The effect of using a blasthole air-deck, on
medium to low hardness rock found in the western area of the Escondida pit, helped maintain the required
grade level even after loading with heavy equipment. Additional benefits include satisfactory fragmentation
of the blasted material.

Keywords: air-deck, blasting, fragmentation, Escondida.

1. INTRODUCTION
In open pit mine blasting, the drilling of holes under grade level, to prevent the
formation of high grades or toes, is usually considered essential. Overdrilling or
using explosive under the grade level is not only expensive, but may cause serious
problems, such as future drilling berm damage, damage to the adjacent crest bench,
and excessive vibrations.
Ash et al. [1] carried out trials to determine the conditions under which it is possible
to not use explosive in the subdrilling zone without affecting the fragmentation and
desired berm. Successful results were obtained for burden/spacing ratios between 1.0
and 1.5, in addition to using sequential hole detonations, and a high bench to burden
ratio.
Other relevant work, to reduce the roof overbreak of coal beds, was done in US
coal mines. This was successfully achieved by drilling holes so as to never exceed the
coal bed thickness. Use of a plastic product allowed suspension of the explosive
charge high in the blasthole. This resulted in the creation of bottom of the hole airdecks without generating stumps that need to be redrilled. The effect of the air-deck
needs further study.
1

Address correspondence to: Carlos Correa E., Blasting Senior Engineer, Minera Escondida Limitada
(BHP), Antofagasta, Chile. Tel.: 56 55 203475/203470; Fax: 56 55 203481; E-mail: Carlos.E.Correa@
BHPBilliton.com

80

CARLOS CORREA E.

Great expectations of economic benefits arise from the potential application of this
technique in copper mining, due to savings in drilling and explosive costs. Other
potential benefits include reduced damage to the lower bench and reduced vibration
levels. This led to a series of tests in soft rock areas during May 2000. The positive test
results obtained led to the extension of this practice to the west Expansion of the pit,
which contributes with an approximate monthly extraction between 5,500,000 and
7,000,000 tons.

2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
2.1. Standard Design Description
To implement the use of bottom of the blasthole air-decks a rock pit area containing
Andesites and Monzonite Quartz Granodiorite (Porphyry Escondida) was selected.
The corresponding properties for these rock types are presented in Table 1.
All pit areas use a drilling diameter of 10-5/800 for production, and a diameter of
6-1/200 or 7-7/800 for presplitting holes. The square drilling pattern area used in this
study is 10.5 m on a side. A heavy ANFO explosive called Blendex-930 is used for the
bottom charge, and ANFO is used in the column charge. No water exists in the study
area selected. The initiation of the explosive charge is done with a 450 gr APD
initiator. The initiation system uses a combination of detonator with line descending
shock tubes, a surface connection with detonating cord of 5 gr/m, and two-directional
delay connectors. Figure 1 shows the loading scheme for a standard production hole,
and Figure 2 shows the tie-up of surface delays.
2.2. Description of the Bottom of the Blasthole Air-Deck Design
The production holes are drilled to a depth equivalent to the bench height, i.e., with no
subdrilling or perforation under the grade level, keeping the spacing and burden
dimensions unchanged. The bottom of the blasthole air-deck is generated by using a
plastic device called Taponex, which is located 1.0 m from the bottom of the hole
(theoretically 14.0 m from the surface). Half a meter of rock cuttings cover the
Taponex. The weight of the rock cuttings expand the Taponexs flexible plastic,

Table 1. Characteristics of Andesites and Monzonite Quartz Granodiorite (Porphyry Escondida).

Andesite
Porphyry Escondida

Compressive strength (MPa)

Tensile strength (MPa)

40
60

3.7
5.8

USE OF AIR-DECKS

Fig. 1. Loading scheme for a standard production hole.

Note. Figure 1 Term Equivalencies:
Stemming Taco

Fig. 2. Tie-up of surface delays.

Note. Figure 2 Term Equivalencies:
Free face Cara Libre
Initiation Inicio

81

82

CARLOS CORREA E.

Fig. 3. Taponex: the flexible plastic expands and gets fixed to the blasthole walls.

Fig. 4. Column with stemming.

Note. Figure 4 Term Equivalencies:
Stemming Taco
Air Aire

allowing it to fix itself to the blasthole walls. This also serves to isolate the plastic
from the explosive charge (see Fig. 3). The explosive loading is then done normally,
finishing with 6.0 m of stemming (see Fig. 4).

83

USE OF AIR-DECKS

3. TESTING AND VALIDATION OF BOTTOM

OF THE BLASTHOLE AIR-DECK DESIGN
Starting in August 2000 a great number of blasting operations took place using the
bottom of the blasthole air-deck concept. Removal of approximately 8,500,000 tons
has been done without having problems with stumps or poor fragmentation of the
material.
To validate the system, two traditional blasting operations (see Table 2), and ten
bottom of the blasthole air-deck blasting operations (see Table 3) were sampled to do
the required comparisons. The following quantities were tracked:
 Blasting process parameters;
 Blasted material fragmentation measurement using software Wipfrag;
 Topographic measurement of resulting berms after loading with heavy equipment;
and
 Loading equipment output in net ton/hr.

Table 2. Results for traditional blasting operations.

Bench

Tonnage

FC
(gr/ton)

No.
holes

Depth
(m)

Blendex
930 (kg)

Anfo
(kg)

Stemming
(m)

D75
(cm)

Shovel
output
(ton/hr)

Grade
difference
(m)

3025
3025

324,580
161,225

160
181

77
54

17.0
17.0

350
350

200
200

7.0
6.0

28.68
27.83

4,592
5,599

0.7
0.5

Table 3. Results for bottom of the blasthole air-deck blasting operations.

Bench

Tonnage

FC
(gr/ton)

No.
holes

Depth
(m)

Blendex
930 (kg)

Stemming
(m)

D75
(cm)

Shovel
output
(ton/hr)

Grade
difference
(m)

3025
3025
3025
3025
3025
3025
3010
3010
3010
3010

276,972
118,421
234,423
273,370
149,838
122,385
228,792
225,157
68,893
103,627

110
109
102
101
95
115
115
111
90
103

79
36
65
77
37
37
73
58
18
30

14.0
13.5
13.5
14.5
15.4
14.5
14.0
16.0
15.0
14.5

390
360
360
420
450
420
390
510
450
420

6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

30.32
39.09
32.68
19.15
23.65
21.01
29.94
18.02
28.38
34.26

4,776
4,195
4,834
5,139
4,300
5,694
3,674
5,131
5,662
5,387

0.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.9
1.0
0.7

84

CARLOS CORREA E.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

When considering the mechanism to assess the effect of a blasthole air-deck located
on the upper part of an explosive charge, after a complete column of explosive has
detonated, it can be postulated that a great amplitude impulse or tensile wave is
transferred to the surrounding rocks creating a dense system of microcracks.
Melnikov et al. [2, 3] have suggested that a second tensile wave can easily be
generated by the existence of blasthole air-decks. The theory postulates that the
reflections of the shock waves inside the blasthole cause a secondary tensile wave that
expands the network of microcracks before the pressurisation of the gas takes place.
When a shock wave impinges on the stemming material, the shock wave is
reflected back into the blasthole volume to intensify the pressure field, thus extending
the duration of its effect on the surrounding rock mass by a factor of 2 to 5 [4, 5].
Basically the theory suggests that, when using air-decks, pressure fronts generated by
the detonation of the explosive will exert an effect on the rock for a longer period of

Fig. 5. Shovel output.

Note. Figure 5 Term Equivalencies:
Graphic No. 1: Shovel output Gra fico No. 1: Rendimiento de Palas
Samples Muestras
67 yd3 without air-deck 67 yd3 sin air-deck
67 yd3 with air-deck 67 yd3 con air-deck
56 yd3 with air-deck 56 yd3 con air-deck

USE OF AIR-DECKS

85

time in blasting operations. A similar explanation for the breakage mechanism

through shock wave reflection holds in cases where the air-deck is located in
intermediate segments of the blasthole (splitting the explosive column) instead of
close to the top stemming.
An analysis of the data reveals a 36% reduction in the explosives loading factor,
with no visible negative impact in the berm. Loading equipment output, portrayed in
Figure 5, shows no significant difference between traditional blasting and air-deck
blasting. This is validated by the results of the fragmentation analysis presented in
Figure 6.
It is important to mention that the shovel output refers to net and not to effective
output. For this reason, there are a number of factors not related to blasting that
negatively influence the output.

Fig. 6. Blasted material size.

Note. Figure 6 Term Equivalencies:
Graphic No. 2: Size of blasted material D75 Gra fico No. 2: Taman o material tronado D75
Samples Muestras
D75 with air-deck D75 con air-deck
D75 without air-deck D75 sin air-deck
Table 4. Realized savings.
Drilling meters saving
18.570
ANFO tons saving
928

Saving US$
23.211
Saving US$
285.000

86

CARLOS CORREA E.

In order to assess the economic benefits that can be obtained from using this
practice, the potential savings were estimated with respect to the reduction of meters
of borehole drilled (because subdrillings are not necessary) and with respect to
reduction of the amount of explosive (shorter column). This assessment was
performed having in mind its application in the development of an expansion sector
on the Western side of the mine. The results are summarized in Table 4.
Currently, the impact of this practice on the reduction of vibrations is being
evaluated through a series of carefully monitored blasts. These tests will be performed
in hard rock areas.

REFERENCES
1. Ash, R.L., Harris, T.D. and Smith, N.S.: Should Blast Hole Subdrilling be Loaded With Explosives?
In: Proceedings of the Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques. ISEE, 1997.
2. Melnikov, N.V. and Marchenko, L.N.: Effective Methods of Applications of Explosion Energy in Mining and Construction. In: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Dynamic Rock Mechanics. AIME,
New York, 1971.
3. Melnikov, N.V., Marchenko, L.N., Seinov, N.P. and Zharikov, I.K.: A method of enhanced rock blasting
by blasting. In: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Dynamic Rock Mechanics. AIME, New York,
1971.
4. Fourney, W.L., Barker, D.B. and Holloway, D.C.: Model Studies of Explosive Well Simulation
Techniques. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 18 (1) (1981), pp. 113127.
5. Mead, D., Moxon, N.T., Danell, R.E. and Richardson, S.B.: The Use of Air-Decks in Production
Blasting. BHP Research Newcastle Laboratories, undated.