Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
DOI 10.1007/s10706-011-9425-x
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
Theory and Practice of Air-Deck Blasting in Mines
and Surface Excavations: A Review
J. C. Jhanwar
Received: 17 July 2008 / Accepted: 11 June 2011 / Published online: 17 June 2011
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract The mechanism by which the explosive
energy is transferred to the surrounding rock mass is
changed in air-deck blasting. It allows the explosive
energy to act repeatedly in pulses on the surrounding
rock mass rather than instantly as in the case of
concentrated charge blasting. The air-deck acts as a
regulator, which first stores energy and then releases
it in separate pulses. The release of explosion
products in the air gap causes a decrease in the
initial bore hole pressure and allows oscillations of
shock waves in the air gap. The performance of an
air-deck blast is basically derived from the expansion
of gaseous products and subsequent multiple inter-
actions between shock waves within an air column,
shock waves and stemming base and shock waves
and hole bottom. This phenomenon causes repeated
loading on the surrounding rock mass by secondary
shock fronts for a prolonged period. The length of air
column and the rock mass structure are critical to the
ultimate results. Several attempts have been made in
the past to study the mechanism of air-deck blasting
and to investigate its effects on blast performance but
a clear understanding of the underlying mechanism
and the physical processes to explain its actual effects
is yet to emerge. In the absence of any theoretical
J. C. Jhanwar (&)
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research Regional
Centre, 3rd Floor, MECL Building, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur 440006, India
e-mail: jcjhanwar@yahoo.com
basis, the air-deck blast designs are invariably carried
out by the rules of thumb. The field trials of this
technique in different blast environments have dem-
onstrated its effectiveness in routine production
blasting, pre-splitting and controlling over break
and ground vibrations etc. The air-deck length
appropriate to the different rock masses and applica-
tions need to be defined more explicitly. It generally
ranges between 0.10 and 0.30 times the original
charge length. Mid column air-deck is preferred over
the top and bottom air-decks. Top air-deck is used
especially in situations, which require adequate
breakage in the stemming region. The influence of
air-deck location within the hole on blast perfor-
mance also requires further studies. This paper
reviews the status of knowledge on the theory and
practice of air-deck blasting in mines and surface
excavations and brings out the areas for further
investigation in this technique of blasting.
Keywords Air-deck blasting  Conventional
blasting  Open-pit mine  Shock wave  Air-deck
length  Original charge length  Fragmentation
1 Introduction
Charge configurations play an important role in
achieving required blasting performance. The differ-
ent charge designs commonly used are: full column
123
652
fully coupled high explosive charges, full column
fully coupled low density low VOD charges, full
columndecoupled charges and fully coupled
decked charges using either air or solid decks.
In concentrated charge blasting, as a full column
of explosive detonates, the tremendous initial pres-
sure that arises in explosion products greatly exceeds
the strength of the rock mass, so that a strong shock
wave begins to propagate into the medium, crushing
it and breaking it into extremely small particles.
Because of this intense, excessive crushing of the
rock, a large portion of the explosive energy is wasted
in an area near the charge. The movement of medium
in that case is determined by compressive wave, and
once it has passed, the movement is virtually
discontinued, the medium passes into a quasi static-
equilibrium state, and the process of further breakage
ceases (Chiappetta and Memmele 1987; Moxon et al.
1993). Increase in the degree of coupling and/or
explosion pressure of charges, therefore do not
necessarily lead to enhanced breakage or improve-
ments in the degree of fragmentation.
In the case of decked charges, crushing is expected
to occur only within a certain distance of the charge
surface. When the decking material is dry and
granular, the rate of decay of blast hole pressure for
each charge deck is greater than that for a full column
charge. This change in the pressuretime profile is
caused by:
(i) the entry of explosion gases into and through
macro pores within the material, and
(ii) the rapid rate of yield of the material under very
high axial impulsive load.
These effects are most pronounced, when the
decking material is air. With air-decked charges,
the very rapid axial streaming of explosion gases into
the air void causes an impulsive decay of pressure at
each charge location (Hagan and Gibson 1988).
The air-deck blasting technique has a long history
of applications. The earliest reference of its use in
production blasting date as far back as 1893 as
reported by Liu and Katsabanis (1996). Much of the
research work on this technique has however been
carried out in the former Soviet Union (MelNikov
1940; MelNikov et al. 1979; MelNikov and March-
enko 1971; Marchenko 1982).
Later on, several researchers have conducted
theoretical and model studies towards further
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
understanding of the underlying mechanism and its
effects on blast performance (Fourney et al. 1981;
Chiappetta and Memmele 1987; Moxon et al. 1993;
Liu and Katsabanis 1996; Lu and Hustrulid 2003).
The presence of air gap allows the explosion
product gases to move and expand into the air gap,
thus decreases the initial bore hole pressure. The
shock waves oscillate in the borehole, interact
mutually and also with stemming column and/or
hole bottom. The repeated interactions result in the
generation of reinforced secondary shock front and
allow shock waves to act over the surrounding rock
mass for a longer period (MelNikov and March-
enko 1971; Fourney et al. 1981; Moxon et al.
(1993). The fracture and stress profiles resulting
from different charge geometries and distributions
are shown in Fig. 1 (Chiappetta and Memmele
1987).
Detailed discussions on the theory of rock break-
age and the relative techno-economic efficiency of
different charge designs is beyond the scope of this
paper. This paper, however reviews the status of
knowledge on the principles of rock breakage in air-
deck blasting and its practical applications.
2 Mechanism of Air-Deck Blasting
2.1 General
In blasting with air-decking, the presence of air in
air-deck plays a critical role in obtaining the
advantages. During a blast, the air is initially static
and at room temperature and pressure. The air
material under such physical conditions offers
virtually no resistance to the expansion of the
detonation products which have temperature and
pressure about 34 orders higher in magnitude. The
detonation products do transfer some energy to the
air by compressing and heating it. However, even if
the air is to be as energetic as the detonation
products, the fraction transferred is at the most in
the order of one thousandth of the energy retained in
the later (Liu and Katsabanis 1996).
The size and location of air-deck are the two
important parameters in this technique. The air-deck
can be placed in a blast hole at three different
locations namely, at the top of explosive charge, in
the middle of the explosive column and at the bottom
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
Fig. 1 Fracture and stress
profiles resulting from
different charge geometries
and distributions (After
Chiappetta and Memmele
1987)
of the blast hole below the explosive charge. The air-
deck placed at these locations are commonly referred
to as top air-deck, mid-column air-deck and bottom
air-deck respectively.
2.2 Some Basic Equations
The shock wave propagation of the detonation
products in a blasthole with an air deck was analysed
by Lu and Hustrulid (2003). They obtained the initial
average detonation pressure (Pe) as Eq. 1 and the
final average pressure of detonation products as
Eq. 2.
qeD2
Pe 1 MP1 P0
2 c 1
 c
La
Po Pe 2 where, DP1 is the excess pressure on the moving
La Le
where, Pe is the initial average detonation pressure
(MPa), qe is the density of explosive (kg/m3), D is the
detonation velocity of explosive (m/s), Po is the final
average pressure (MPa), La is the length of air-deck
(m), Le is the length of charge column (m) and c is an
adiabatic index, a unit less parameter.
The detonation pressure of explosive is initially
very high as compared to the fracture toughness of
surrounding rock however, as it enters the air-deck it
drops off rapidly with distance (Kinney and Graham
1985) (Eq. 3) as quoted by Moxon et al. 1991.
653
!C2
MnRT1=3
P C1 3
S
where, M is the mass of explosive, n is the number of
moles of gas, R is the universal gas constant, T is the
temperature of the expanding gas, S is the displace-
ment of the pressure front and C1 and C2 are the
empirical constants.
MelNikov and Marchenko 1971 considered the
collision of two gas streams in air gap as similar to the
impact of shock wave with a static wall and obtained
the excess pressure (DPref in MPa) as shown in Eq. (4).
3c  1=c  1MP1 P0  P0
MPref MP1 P0
c 1=c  1P0
4
wave front (MPa), P0 is the pressure in front of the
moving wave (MPa), and c is the adiabatic factor, a
unit less parameter.
2.3 Different Views
MelNikov (1940) first introduced the idea that
energy in a blast could be redistributed with air-
decks placed within an explosive column. He opined
that by reducing the initial pressure of detonation
products and increasing the duration of their action
on rock, energy consumed in crushing around the
123
654
bore hole wall would be reduced while increasing the
amount of energy transmitted into the surrounding
medium.
The theory as proposed by MelNikov et al. (1979)
concerns the use of an explosive column that contains
a number of air-filled gaps as a means of maximising
fragmentation for a given charge length.
They suggested that air-decks provide a means
whereby a second strain wave could be readily and
inexpensively generated. The theory postulates that
reflections of the shock wave within the bore hole
produce a secondary strain wave that extends the
network of micro fractures prior to gas pressurization.
Although this reduces the final borehole pressure
produced by the explosive, the degree of fracture
increases through the repeated loading of the rock by
a series of aftershocks. These aftershocks arise from
the different velocities or distances travelled within
the air-deck by three main pressure fronts: the shock
front, the pressure front resulting from the formation
of explosion products behind the detonation front,
and reflected waves from the bottom of blast hole
and/or from the base of the stemming.
According to MelNikov (1940), MelNikov and
Marchenko (1971) and Marchenko (1982), a greater
fraction of the energy with air-decked charges remains
initially in gases, heave energy increases at the expense
of strain wave energy and much less energy is wasted in
pulverising rock immediately around blast holes. The
air-deck in such cases acts as a strain accumulator,
which first stores energy and then releases it in separate
pulses rather than instantly. The greater fraction of
explosion energy in such cases therefore contributes to
useful fracturing and to burden movement.
In blasting an air-decked charge, the products of
explosion could no longer generate a powerful shock
wave in the medium, since, after charge detonation,
they expand into the air gap, and their pressure is
decreased. Expanding explosion products generate a
shock air wave ahead, and since expansions from two
portions of the charge move in the opposite direction,
in the middle of air gaps, there will be a collision of
shock air-waves, followed by a breaking of explosion
products.
As a result of this collision, a new source of high
pressure is formed in the center of the air gap (Eq. 4).
After reflection, the shock waves change direction
and start moving towards the hole face and the
stemming edge. Reflected from these hard obstacles,
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
the shock waves again collide in the center of air-gap,
and the process is repeated, although with changed
wave parameters. They calculated that the charges
with air gaps transfer approximately 1.51.7 times
more energy to the medium in comparison to the
continuous charges.
Since the shock waves oscillate repeatedly within
an air-gap, their velocities and pressure at the wave
front are governed by the length they travel within the
air column. Air-deck length is, therefore critical to
the fragmentation. The effectiveness of this technique
is also controlled by the rock mass structure and its
strength.
This pattern of dynamic expansion of explosion
products greatly increases the length of action of a
blast on the surrounding rock, and most importantly,
improves the crushing dynamics, since, during the
entire time of movement of the shock wave in the
hole, compression waves are radiated into the rock,
developing and expanding the network of micro
cracks formed by the primary shock wave (March-
enko 1982).
Fourney et al. (1981) observed that presence of air
gap at the top causes shock wave to move up and
interact with stemming base causing a pressure
increase at air-stemming interface. It helps in
enhanced breakage in the air-deck and stemming
regions.
Marchenko (1982) reported that due to reduced
stresses in the zone near air-decked charges, exces-
sive crushing of rock around the charge is signifi-
cantly decreased as compared to solid charges. He
reported a 25% increase in stresses in the farther
regions, which accounted for improved fragmentation
and a 50% increase in the utilisation of explosive
energy for breakage.
Chiappetta and Memmele (1987) observed that a
solid column explosive generates a high pressure
impulse into the medium that succeeds in creating
many micro-fractures, but decays very quickly and
the stress field around the charge decays to a quasi-
static state. To improve on the initial fracture
network, additional stress waves are needed to pass
through the medium. Since air-deck tends to generate
smaller, but repeated loading cycles, fragmentation is
expected to increase. An air-deck placed between two
charges was considered as an energy accumulator,
which first stored and later released energy in the
form of additional stress waves that produced
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
multiple loadings in the medium. It was this unique
ability of air-decked charges to prolong the explosive
action that enhance the fragmentation.
Moxon et al. (1993) opined that if the air-deck is
located at some intermediate point in an explosive
column, the pressure fronts that are produced by the
explosive at each end of the air-deck could, if strong
enough, interact. Such interaction should produce a
reinforced stress field that would contribute to the
formation of a more extensive radial crack pattern
than if an air-deck of the same length were placed at
the top of the charge.
Liu and Katsabanis 1996 noted that the presence of
an air-deck at the top of an explosive charge weakens
the primary loading on to the stemming. They
observed that if the air deck length is more than the
minimum required, the secondary loading effect due
to the reflection of shock wave at stemming interface
exceeds the weakening of primary loading and thus
induces enhanced breakage.
It was found that the energy relationships are
totally changed by the introduction of an air-deck.
Firstly, the energy retained is transformed into kinetic
energy, driving the detonation products into rapid
movement, and then the kinetic energy is imparted to
the rock mass upon collisions in the form of strain
energy and elastic dissipation. The extra strain energy
is responsible for the enhanced rock breakage.
Lu and Hustrulid 2003 conducted theoretical and
numerical simulations of blasting with top air-decks
and proposed that the repeated propagation of
rarefaction wave and the reflected rarefaction wave
in the detonation products causes the pressure
unloading process, which is instrumental in inducing
the benefits of enhanced breakage. They observed
that the breakage in the air-deck and in the stemming
regions is primarily caused by the reflection of shock
wave at the stemming base. Their other observations
on the overall blasthole pressure, reasonable air-deck
length, etc. were in general agreement to those by the
earlier researchers.
3 Laboratory Studies
3.1 Physical Modeling
MelNikov (1940) conducted some blasting experi-
ments in a ledge shaped model and found that air-
655
decked charges caused about 93% breakage whereas
solid charges caused only about 70%. The process of
cracking with air-decked charges was initially some-
what retarded, but then evolved rapidly (partly due to
reflected waves).
MelNikov and Marchenko (1971) reported the
study of dynamic stress fields by photo elasticity and
confirmed that the blast action of air-decked charges
was enhanced not only due to a lowering of the initial
pressure of explosion products and their increased
time of action on the medium, but also because of the
interaction of explosion waves due to the existence of
air gaps in the charge (Figs. 2, 3).
The motion of medium caused by blasting a
continuous charge is characterised by quickly
damped oscillations (Fig. 2). After the compression
wave has passed, the medium soon acquires a state of
static equilibrium. At that time, there is no further
energy transfer to the medium and no further
breakage.
When blasting charges with air gaps, the bore hole
inner hydrodynamics ensures multiple impact of the
shock wave with the surrounding medium (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2 Oscillogram showing the displacement speeds of
medium when blasting a continuous charge (After Melnikov
and Marchenko 1971)
Fig. 3 Oscillogram showing displacement speeds of medium
when blasting a charge with an air gap (After Melnikov and
Marchenko 1971)
123
656
An air gap between sections of a bore hole charge
results in excitation of secondary waves that diffuse
into previously compressed rock. This charge struc-
ture ensures multiple impacts of a shock wave into
the surrounding medium, and at the same time, it
changes the nature of energy transfer to the strained
rock mass that leads to an increase in the effective
explosion energy for rock breakage.
Fourney et al. (1981) conducted a series of
experiments in thick Plexiglas blocks to investigate
dynamic crack propagation resulting from an air-
filled bore hole. High-speed photography in conjunc-
tion with dynamic photo elasticity was used for this
purpose. A 250 mg charge of PETN was placed at the
bottom of a 12.7 mm diameter borehole and a stem
plug was placed near the top of the borehole. An air
column of 165 mm length was placed between the
stem plug and the top of the charge. It was observed
that a shock wave traveled up the borehole upon
detonation, impacted the stemming and reflected back
with the same sign as the incoming wave. Due to this
interaction, pressure at the stem plug not only acted
over a longer period but was also increased by a
factor of 25 which appeared to be very useful in
initiating and propagating fractures in this region. As
a result, the fractures in stemming region were more
Fig. 4 The developing
crack networks in Plexiglas
under the influence of an
air-decked explosive charge
(After Fourney et al. 1981)
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
elaborate than in the charge area (Fig. 4). The highest
pressures, other than near the explosive charge, were
experienced at the interface between stemming and
air-deck and extended up into the stemming region.
Though the fractures in this region were not as
intense as in the charge region but involved a larger
area.
Moxon et al. (1993) conducted experiments in
concrete models to evaluate the influence of air-deck
size and its location on fragmentation. They noted
that the degree of fragmentation depended on both
factors. As the size of air-deck increased, the degree
of fragmentation was reduced relative to a full
column charge, however the reduction was relatively
small until a critical size was exceeded (Fig. 5). A
critical air-deck length of 3035% of the original
explosive column was determined for the model
materials that were used in the study. The location
of air-deck also influenced fragmentation. Mid-
column air-decks produced better fragmentation for
the same air-deck length and explosive loading as
compared to top and bottom air-decks. They noted
that in the case of multi decked charges, length of
air-deck could probably be increased because of the
increased shock reflections and interactions within
the bore hole.
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663 657

Fig. 5 Effect of increasing

air-deck volume on mean
fragment size at constant
stemming height (After
Moxon et al. 1993)

3.2 Numerical Modeling

Liu and Katsabanis (1996) studied the influence of

different charge designs including air-decked charges
on blast results by means of numerical modeling. In
this study, air-deck was considered as a vacuum deck.
Only the rock damage induced by shock/stress wave
was modeled in this study.
They reported that during the detonation process,
only a fraction of the total energy is transmitted as a
shock energy into the rock medium while a signif-
icant amount of it is retained in the detonation
products. The existence of an air deck on top of the
explosive charge allows this part of energy in the
detonation products to be released when it expands in
the air deck. It was found that the energy relation- Fig. 6 Pressure history of an explosive element in a model
ships are totally changed by the introduction of an air with full stemming (After Liu and Katsabanis 1996)
deck. Firstly, the energy retained is transformed into
kinetic energy, driving the detonation products into
rapid movement, then the kinetic energy is imparted
to the rock mass upon collisions in the form of strain
energy and elastic dissipation. The extra strain energy
is responsible for the enhanced rock breakage.
Two cases were studied with an explosive charge
overlain by stemming and the other with an air-deck
between the charge and stemming. In the first case,
the movement of the detonation products was strictly
confined in a limited space. The pressure history of
top most explosive element in this case is shown in
Fig. 6. Upon detonation, the pressure reaches its peak
and then comes down to a stable value afterwards.
The stress field around the bore hole chamber is
approximately quasi-static and decays rapidly with
distance. The pressure history of the top most
explosive element when the air-deck is 0.96 m long Fig. 7 Pressure history of an explosive element in a model
is shown in Fig. 7. with an air-deck (After Liu and Katsabanis, 1996)

123
658
As a result of gas front impacting the stemming, a
series of pressure waves is stimulated as the detona-
tion products reverberate in the borehole chamber.
This process is accompanied by a rapid release and
transformation of the energy carried by the detona-
tion products. These additional stress waves due to
secondary loading act on the rock medium after the
passage of the primary loading wave and cause the
further damage.
They observed that there existed a minimum
beneficial air-deck length below which the blast
results were inferior as compared to the fully
stemmed boreholes. Although the use of an air-deck
facilitated the release of energy retained in the
detonation products, it also weakened primary load-
ing in the position of stemming. A significant amount
of energy was transmitted into the rock medium
through stemming during the loading process. An air
deck on top of the explosive column separated the
later from the stemming. As a result, primary loading
due to the detonation of the explosive charge could
not impact the stemming and imparted energy to it. In
fact, the stemming in this case was loaded by the
explosion gas only, which traveled through the air-
deck. The energy loss from primary loading to
stemming was assumed to be compensated by
secondary loading due to the reverberation of deto-
nation products. However, if the air-deck was not
long enough, only a small portion of potential energy
in the explosion gas could be released. This portion
was too small to compensate the said energy loss and
thus the results were deteriorated. With an increase in
air-deck length, the energy transmitted into the rock
medium by secondary loading increased rapidly. The
increased amount of energy fully compensated the
energy loss from primary loading to stemming and
enhanced the rock fracturing and fragmentation
processes. There existed a breakeven point in air-
deck length, termed as a minimum beneficial air-deck
length at which the energy loss from primary loading
to stemming was just compensated by energy gain
from secondary loading by detonation products.
Since, this length was resulted from the uncompen-
sated energy loss from primary loading, its existence
and actual value therefore depended upon how
important primary loading was i.e., on the explosive
properties as well as rock types. Mid-column and
bottom air-decks did not modify the blast results in
their studies.
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
Lu and Hustrulid (2003) studied the blast effects
from a top air deck and fully charged blast hole using
numerical simulations. In the case of a fully charged
blast hole, only one pressure loading process was
indicated during the whole rock breakage process. In
contrast to this, at least one loading process and one
unloading process were indicated in the pressuretime
histories corresponding to the different sections of
blast hole in the case of air decking. The induced minor
principal stresses responsible for enhanced breakage in
the air-deck case were far higher at 390 MPa as
compared to 59 MPa in the case of a fully charged blast
hole. The observed higher pressure in part of the blast
hole in air-deck case implied the effect of reflected
shock wave as a main energy source in breaking rock in
the air deck and stemming portions.
4 Field Studies
MelNikov and Marchenko (1971) and MelNikov
et al. (1979) reported that regardless of the rock
strength and explosive type as well as blasting
procedures, the use of air-deck charges substantially
improved the degree and uniformity of fragmenta-
tion. The average fragment size, the amount of
oversize and the explosive consumption were reduced
by 5060%, 5090% and 1030% respectively.
Besides this, the rock mass output increased and the
cutter break inside the rock mass and the seismic
effect of the blast were decreased. The productivity of
excavators and mine transport raised by 1030%, and
sometimes, it even doubled.
According to them, the application of air-decked
charges in open-pit and underground developments of
ore, coal, schist and other minerals considerably
improved the techno-economics. They observed that
air-decked charges provided efficient control over
explosive energy with the correctly selected param-
eters of charge and air deck lengths.
MelNikov et al. 1979 suggested practical guide-
lines on air-deck lengths as shown in Eqs. 5, 6.
La;d K1 Lt K1 0:15  0:35 5
La;d K2 d K2 8  12 6
where, La,d is the air-deck length (m), Lt is the total
charge length including air-deck (m), d is the charge
diameter (m) and K1 and K2 are the rock factors.
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
Chiappetta and Memmele 1987 reported full scale
trials of air-deck charges in a coal mine to charac-
terize their effects in a production environment. The
objective was to determine the techno economic
feasibility of using air-decks in pre-splitting and other
applications. Four tests were performed to investigate
the effects of air-decks in single hole detonations,
multiple hole detonations, bore holes containing
water and in unstemmed bore holes. The surface
effects resulting from single hole detonations in two
different deck patterns are shown in Figs. 8, 9.
They also reported air-deck pre splitting (ADP)
applications in the full scale production environment.
In one of such cases, the air deck length was 9.2 m,
the explosive charge by volume was approximately
17% of the drill hole and 27% of the air deck. This
technique had produced fair to excellent results in a
wide variety of formations with cost reductions of an
order of 1046%.
Bussey and Borg (1988) in their ADP trials
observed a reduction in drilling and explosive costs
by 25 and 50% respectively and improvements in
high wall control and safety.
Rowlands (1989) reported the results of air-deck
blasting in sedimentary formations in a coal mine.
The air-deck length as a fraction of original charge
length (ADL) was kept at 0.280.36 and was placed
in the weaker strata. Explosive consumption was
Fig. 8 Surface effects from single hole blasting with full
stemming (After Chiappetta and Memmele 1987)
659
Fig. 9 Surface effects from single hole blasting with 1.5 m
air-deck (After Chiappetta and Memmele 1987)
reduced by 1520% while improving or maintaining
the fragmentation. Face bursting was also minimized,
which helped to maximize the effective explosive
energy. He opined that air had an advantage over
other decking mediums in allowing the detonation
products to expand into the air gap.
Chiappetta (1992) observed that peak pressure
values were not necessarily the most important in
creating damage and/or heave. It was the repeated
loading of shock wave and the total pressure time
histories that appeared to be useful for permanent
damage and heave. Mid-column air-deck was imple-
mented with the use of precision detonators and it
was observed that upon collision, the gas fronts
reflected and reverberated within the column and
created repeated loading on to the rock mass.
Mead et al. (1993) reported the use of air-decks in
production blasting in three cases one each of copper,
iron ore and coal mine. The ADL varied between
0.35 and 0.45 and were placed between the explosive
column and stemming. The air-decks were used to
provide more even explosive distribution within the
hole. Explosive consumption was reduced by
1535% without any adverse effects on the diggabil-
ity of the material.
Jhanwar and Jethwa (2000) and Jhanwar et al.
(2000) reported the studies of air-deck blasting in
open-pit manganese and coal mines and observed that
123
660
air-deck blasting improved the overall fragmentation
and reduced explosive cost (in Indian Rupee) by 10
35%, throw (in meter) by 1035% and back break (in
meter) by 5080%. The blast performance from air-
deck blasting in terms of mean fragment size (MFS)
in meter (m), powder factor (PF) in kilogram per
cubic meter (kg/m3) and fragmentation index (FI), a
dimensionless parameter expressed as the ratio of
average in situ fragment size (m) to average muck
pile fragment size (m) was correlated with rock mass
rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1989), ADL and the ratio
of spacing (m) and burden (m) (S  B) (Jhanwar
1998) (Eq. 7, 8).
MFS  PF 2:04RMR  ADL  S  B1:04
r 0:94
FI 0:08RMR  ADL  S  B 3:40
r 0:82
Air deck blasting maximised the fragmentation
and made it more uniform. Analysis of field results
further revealed that the technique was more effective
in very low to low strength rocks with medium to
large in-situ blocks in comparison to medium strength
rocks with small in situ blocks. In medium strength
rocks with smaller blocks, the benefit was more in
terms of explosive saving than in terms of fragmen-
tation (Jhanwar 1998).
Based on direct field observations and the analysis
of field data of blasting studies, a feasibility index for
air deck blasting and guidelines on ADL for various
rocks masses in open-pit mines were proposed by
Jhanwar 1998 (Tables 1, 2).
Sen (1997) reported the use of ADP and observed
improvement in powder factor from 0.21 to 0.16 kg/
Tonne, reduction in mean fragment size from 211 to
162 mm and back break from 9 m to nil. Further, the
Table 1 Feasibility of air-deck blasting for various rock
masses (After Jhanwar 1998)
No. Type of rock mass Feasibility
1. Very low to low strength Excellent
Sedimentary rock
2 Very low to low strength Very good
Sparsely jointed rock
3. Medium strength sedimentary rock (blocky Good
type), closely jointed rock
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
Table 2 Air-deck length for different rock masses (After
Jhanwar 1998)
No. RMR (Bieniawskis 1989) ADL*
1. 2035 0.300.40
2. 3545 0.200.30
3. 4565 0.100.20
* Air deck length measured as a fraction of the original charge
length
shovel loading rate and shovel availability were
reported to have improved from 1136 to 1148 Tonne/
hour and from 78 to 87% respectively.
Pal Roy (1999) reported that VOD of the detona-
tion front was much higher at 4163 m/s in the air
column as compared to 399 m/s in solid deck.
7 Further, through air-deck blast trials in blast holes
of different lengths and diameters, he observed that
8 air-decking was more pronounced and profitable
when the length of hole was more than 10 m and
the diameter was more than 150 mm.
Subsequent to the field trials on mid column air-
deck and full column blasting conducted in Iron ore
and Coal mines, Sastry and Chandar (2001) reported
savings in explosive by 18%. ADL varied between
0.13 and 0.14 with a corresponding reduction in
stemming column by 1420%. Further, ground
vibration, throw and back break were reported to be
reduced by 3550%, 2035% and 1625% respec-
tively. Fragmentation was also better in comparison
to the full column charge blasting. The explosive
consumption per hole in the case of a coal mine
reduced from 42 kg to 31.25 kg, a reduction of 26%.
Thote and Singh (2001) reported that air-deck
blasting resulted in increased powder factor,
improved fragmentation (average fragment size
reduced by 8.2564.84%) and reduced explosive
consumption by 1520% in coal mines. They
observed a reduction of approximately 35% in ground
vibration also and indicated that the technique was
more suitable for higher depths of hole preferably
beyond 6 m. The ADL used was in the range of
0.150.16.
5 Discussions
A number of studies have been conducted in the past
to understand the theory and mechanism of air-deck
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
blasting. These indicate that this technique induces a
change in the mechanism of explosive energy transfer
to the surrounding rock mass. The explosive energy
in this case acts repeatedly in pulses on the
surrounding rock mass rather than instantly as in
the case of a concentrated charge blasting. This
change is brought about by the release of detonation
products in the air gap and the multiple interactions
between reverberating shock fronts, shock front and
stemming base/hole bottom.
This phenomenon cause repeated loading on
surrounding rock mass for a prolonged period. The
pressure of shock front reduces with distance in air
and also the shock induced rock breakage is influ-
enced by the rock mass strength and structure. The air
deck length and rock mass characteristics are there-
fore critical to the ultimate results.
The issues which appear to be vital to air-deck
blasting performance are:
(i) the influence of air-deck on fragment size
distribution,
(ii) the reasonable length of air column for different
types of rock mass,
(iii) the location of air column in the blast hole.
5.1 Air-Deck Size
MelNikov et al. 1979 suggested two empirical
correlations of air-deck length, one with total charge
length including air-deck and the other with charge
diameter as shown in Eqs. 5 and 6. Two ranges of
values for rock factors K1 and K2 were suggested,
however these factors were not explicitly related to
the different rock types. Moxon et al. (1993) theo-
retically estimated the air-deck length and found it to
be in conformity with MelNikovs recommenda-
tions. The basic difference between their assessment
of critical air-deck length was that MelNikov et al.
(1979) had called it as an optimum range for circumstances, however, it can be beneficially used in
improving fragmentation whereas Moxon et al.
(1993) had termed it as a critical air-deck length
below which fragmentation was not significantly
deteriorated but beyond which, it was significantly
worsened.
Jhanwar 1998 had suggested values of ADL
suitable for different rock masses as characterised
by their RMR. These findings were, however based
upon the limited number of experiments conducted in
661
two different mines, which didnt cover the whole
range of rock mass.
Lu and Hustrulid (2003) mathematically derived
the reasonable ADL at 0.130.39, which is in the
close agreement to that suggested by MelNikov et al.
(1979).
5.2 Air-Deck Location
The studies of Fourney et al. 1981 using top air deck
has indicated improvements in extent of breakage in
air-deck and stemming regions, though the intensity
was lesser than in the charge region. The effects of
middle air deck and deck length were not discussed in
this study. Liu and Katsabanis 1996 has indicated in
respect of top air deck, the requirement of minimum
air-deck length to benefit fragmentation but has not
specified its upper limit. The minimum air deck
length has been defined as the one at which the loss
due to weakening of primary loading is just compen-
sated by the gain from secondary loading.
Mid column air-decks have been indicated to
produce better results on account of interaction of
two shock fronts emanating from two charge ends than
the top and the bottom column decks (Moxon et al.
1993). This is not in line with the observations by Liu
and Katsabanis (1996) that mid-column air deck has no
special benefits over top of column air decks. The
theoretical and model studies indicate that the presence
of an air-deck at the top of explosive column allows the
stemming and air-deck regions to experience rein-
forced loading due to the interaction of shock wave,
thus enhances rock breakage in these regions. Similar
phenomena is expected to occur upon the interaction of
shock wave with hole bottom in the case of bottom air-
deck also. Since the hole bottom experiences high
degree of confinement and requires maximum stresses
to cause adequate toe breakage. It is for these reasons
that the bottom air deck is not suggested in the normal
the soft bottom conditions.
As regards the effectiveness of air-deck blasting in
practical blasting situations, this review reveals that
the technique allows even distribution of explosive in
the bore hole and has a high potential in improving
fragmentation through better energy utilization
mainly in soft and medium strong rock masses. The
technique has found its applications also in presplit-
ting, controlling ground vibration, overbreak etc.
123
662
The author feels that this technique is more
suitable in highly jointed (the individual rock type
may be strong), soft and medium strength rock types
which require less amount of shock energy and more
of gas energy i.e. situations where blasting is required
to induce little additional cracks and to shake the rock
mass for heaving only. As the mechanism involves
the interaction of two gas fronts leading to a
reinforced stress field and explosive action for a
prolonged period, this basic phenomenon thus must
help in almost all blasting situations.
The techno-economic feasibility of this technique
was found to be governed by the rock mass structure,
air-deck size and the desired blast results besides
other design parameters. In the case of a medium
strength and sparsely jointed overburden rocks, if the
blasted muck is worked by a larger bucket size, the
resulting fragmentation is not of much concern for
the systems productivity and thus long air-deck could
be used and if the blasted muck is loaded by a small
bucket size, the concern for fragmentation overrides
other considerations and hence air-deck length has to
be cautiously selected. Still, some generalizations can
be made as to the reasonable range of air deck length.
6 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from this
review:
The presence of air gap in blast hole induces a
change in the mechanism of explosive energy transfer
to the surrounding rock mass. The energy transfer in
this case takes place in a series of pulses rather than
instantly, this increases the time period over which
explosive energy acts over the rock mass. A clear
understanding of the mechanism involved, the phys-
ical processes and their effects on the degree of
fragmentation is yet to emerge to fully explain the
blast effects and to formulate a theoretical basis for
practical designs using air-decks.
The air deck length is a crucial parameter in this
technique and needs to be selected judiciously. The
reasonable length may differ for different rock types
and blasting applications. Some generalisations,
however can still be made as regards the optimum
range. The ADL based on the present knowledge
varies from 0.1 to 0.35. Further field studies are
needed to derive practical guidelines on air-deck
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
lengths appropriate to different rock mass blasting
situations.
Mid-column air-deck is preferred over top and
bottom air-decks for general applications. Top air
deck may be used to cause adequate breakage in the
stemming regions. Bottom air deck is generally not
suggested except in the case of soft bottom regions.
The overall blast performance increases in air-
deck blasting with improvements in blast-induced
fragmentation, loading equipment productivity, eco-
nomics etc. For routine blasting operations, it is
expected to provide best results in soft, highly jointed
or medium strong rock types.
Acknowledgments The author is thankful to Dr. A. Sinha,
Director, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research,
Dhanbad (India). Thanks are due to (Late) Dr. A. K.
Chakraborty for his keen interest and kind help on this
subject. The views expressed in this paper are, however of the
authors and not necessarily of the institute he belongs to.
References
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, p 251
Bussey J, Borg DG (1988) Pre-splitting with the new air-deck
technique. In: Proceedings of 14th conference on explo-
sive and blasting technique, explosive engineers annual
meet, Anaheim, California, pp. 197
Chiappetta RF (1992) Precision detonators and their applica-
tions in improving fragmentation, reducing ground
vibrations and increasing reliabilitya look into the
future. In: Proceedings 4th high tech seminar on state-of-
the-art, blasting technology, instrumentation and explo-
sive applications, Nashville, TN, USA
Chiappetta RF, Memmele ME (1987) Analytical highspeed
photography to evaluate air-decks, stemming retention
and gas confinement in pre-splitting reclamation and gross
motion studies. In: Proceedings of the second interna-
tional symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting.
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT, USA,
pp. 257301
Fourney WL, Barker DB, Holloway DC (1981) Model studies
of explosive well simulation techniques. Int J Rock Mechs
Min Sci Geomech Abs 18:113127
Hagan TN, Gibson IM (1988) Lower blast hole pressure: a
means of reducing costs when blasting rocks of low to
moderate strength. Int J Min Geolo Eng 6:113
Jhanwar JC (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 Engi-
neering, Nagpur University, Nagpur, India, p. 142
Jhanwar JC, Jethwa JL (2000) The use of air-decks in pro-
duction blasting in an open-pit coal mine. Geotech Geol
Eng 18:269287
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:651663
Jhanwar JC, Jethwa JL, Reddy AH (2000) Influence of air-deck
blasting on fragmentation in jointed rocks in an openpit
manganese mine. Eng Geol 57:1329
Kinney GF, Graham KJ (1985) Explosive shocks in air.
Springer, New York, pp 80106
Liu L, Katsabanis PD (1996) Numerical modeling of the
effects of air decking/decoupling in production and con-
trolled blasting. In: Mohanty (ed) Proceeding 5th inter-
national conference on rock fragmentation by blasting.
A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 319330
Lu W, Hustrulid W (2003) A further study on the mechanism
of air-decking. Fragblast 7(4):231255
Marchenko LN (1982) Raising the efficiency of a blast in rock
crushing. Fiziko-Tekhnicheskie Problemy Razrabotki
Poleznykh Iskopaemykh. Sov Min Sci 18(5):16
Mead DJ, Moxon NT, Danell RE, Richardson SB (1993) The
use of air-decks in production blasting. In: Proceedings of
the 19th annual conference on explosives and blasting
technique, international society of explosives engineers,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA, pp. 219226
MelNikov NV (1940) Utilisation of energy of explosives and
fragment size of rock in blasting operations, Gorn. Zh.
No.5
MelNikov NV, Marchenko LN (1971) Effective methods of
application of explosive energy in mining and construc-
tion. In: Twelfth symposium on dynamic rock mechanics.
AIME, New York, pp. 350378
MelNikov NV, Marchenko LN, Seinov NP, Zharikov IF (1979)
A method of enhanced rock blasting by blasting, IPKON
AN SSSR, Moscow, Translated from Fiziko-Tekhnicheskie
663
Problemy Razrabotki Poleznykh Isko-Paemykh. J Min Sci
6:3242
Moxon NT, Mead D, Richardson SB (1991) Reducing blasting
costs using air-decksthe dos and donts. In: 3rd high
tech seminar on blasting technology, instrumentation and
explosive applications, San Diego, California, USA, 27
June, p. 26
Moxon NT, Mead D, Richardson SB (1993) Air-decked blasting
techniques: some collaborative experiments. Trans Inst
Min Metall 102:A25A30 (Sec. A: Mining Industry)
Rowlands MD (1989) Separating explosive charges with air
gaps to improve fragmentation whilst reducing explosive
usage. In: Proceedings of second large open-pit mining
conference. Latrobe Valley, Vic (Melbourne: Australian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy)
Roy PP (1999) New techniques for improved performance in
surface blasting operation and optimization of blast design
parameters. J Mines Metals Fuels Special Issue Explos
Blasting 316
Sastry VR, Chandar RK (2001) New trends in blasting: a case
study of Indian mines. In: Proceedings of national seminar
on rock fragmentation, ITBHU, Varanasi, pp. 7790
Sen GC (1997) New concepts in pre-splitting. In: Proceedings of
27th international conference of safety in mines research
institutes, Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, pp. 625632
Thote NR, Singh DP (2001) Improvement in fragmentation by
application of air-deck technique. In: Proceedings of
national seminar on rock fragmentation, IT- BHU, Vara-
nasi, pp. 6576
123