FInal
FInal
FInal
net/publication/333455747
CITATIONS READS
6 5,330
1 author:
Atta Ur Rehman
University of Texas at Austin
25 PUBLICATIONS 159 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Predictive Analysis of Mechanical Properties in limestone with an emphasis on blast design View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Atta Ur Rehman on 29 May 2019.
effectiveness is one major factor in their increasing demands. Increased demands have major
effect on cost of plugs. Local mining markets in Pakistan are not familiar with the use of
stemming plugs. The focus of this research is mainly on designing a local stemming plug within
the economic constraints. The plugs are tested on full scale blasting at one of the biggest
Many significant aspects due to blasting operation, such as excessive vibrations than normal
blast, flyrocks due to use of stemming plugs (if any), mean particle size of blasted material, D50,
D80 criteria, percentage of material passing, wall condition, and consideration of secondary
blasting are discussed. Good blasts always have vibration lower than permissible range, with
least number of flyrock with close particle size, smooth wall condition and no requirement of toe
A total of 6 blasts were carried out in pair of three sets. First blast of each set was newly
proposed stemming plug followed by second one with conventional settings. The three new
stemming plugs are proposed and designed based on literature review and onsite observations.
On ease of operation and utilization plastic molded stemming plugs were the best followed by
quick setting cement and Air-Plugs. Blast performance is analyzed by using Split Desktop
Software which also endorsed that plastic molded stemming plugs as most efficient. On
economical side quick setting cement was top of the list. All of the stemming plugs reduced the
requirements of secondary blasting which is a major success for this research work. Use of
stemming plugs has economic benefit of around 11.6 to 23.4 million Pakistani Rupees calculated
2
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to my respected Boss Director, Mines & Minerals, Afzaal Hameed Butt,
who guided me throughout my professional career, supported and persuaded me to get Master’s
3
Acknowledgements
All praises for Allah Almighty the most gracious and merciful. The One who is beginning of all
the endings. The One Who is ultimate source of guidance, wisdom, knowledge. One Who gave
me health and wisdom to complete this thesis within stipulated time span. Many praises for His
Holly Prophet Hazrat Muhammad P.B.U.H who made us realize our creator.
I feel my first and foremost duty to express my grateful appreciation, sense of gratitude,
indebtedness, and thanks to my learned thesis advisor, Dr. Muhammad Zaka Emad, for his
precious time, keen interest, continuous guidance, support & cooperation at each and every stage
of this work. His valuable advice and encouragement were real source of inspiration for me
It would be out of justice if I don’t express my gratitude toward Dr. Zulfiqar Ali, Chairman
Cement for allowing me to use their quarry for test blasts, but especially Engr. Rafi ur Rehman,
Engr. Hidayat Shah, Engr. Rehan Shoukat, Engr. Sajid ur Rehman, Mr. Khurshid Khan, Mr.
Irfan, Mr. Hashmi, Mr. Naseem Khattak, Mr. Hikmat Shah and Mr. Mumtaz Shah for their
continued support, guidance and dedicated help towards my research work. May Allah bless
Last but not the least, I would like to say thanks to my friends Engr. Tanzeel Jabbar and Engr.
Ahsan Saleem for their continuous support towards arranging supplies for my research work and
providing moral support. I send my deepest gratitude to PAGEL private limited for providing me
with additives and Split-Desktop team for their assistance in providing image analysis software.
4
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................ 5
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 7
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 9
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 10
1.1. General .......................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2. Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 13
1.3. Objective of Research ................................................................................................................... 14
1.4. Scope of work ............................................................................................................................... 14
1.5. Thesis Outline ............................................................................................................................... 14
2. Literature Review.................................................................................................................................. 16
2.1. General .......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2. Explosives in Mining .................................................................................................................... 16
2.3. Stemming and Stemming Plugs .................................................................................................... 18
2.4. Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 24
3. Case Study ............................................................................................................................................ 25
3.1. Location ...................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2. Plant Raw Material Requirement and Processing ......................................................................... 25
3.3. Test Site Parameters ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.4. Equipment at test site .................................................................................................................... 27
3.5. Drilling Pattern.............................................................................................................................. 28
3.6. Explosive usage and working ....................................................................................................... 29
3.7. Explosive Calculation ................................................................................................................... 31
3.8. Stemming ...................................................................................................................................... 33
4. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.1. General .......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.4. Product Description ...................................................................................................................... 37
4.5. Stemming Plug 1 ........................................................................................................................... 37
4.6. Stemming plug 2 ........................................................................................................................... 40
4.7. Stemming plug 3 ........................................................................................................................... 42
4.8. Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 45
5
5. Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 47
5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 47
5.2. Blast-1 ........................................................................................................................................... 48
5.3. Blast-2 ........................................................................................................................................... 53
5.4. Blast-3 ........................................................................................................................................... 56
5.5. Blast-4 ........................................................................................................................................... 59
5.6. Blast-5 ........................................................................................................................................... 62
5.7. Blast-6 ........................................................................................................................................... 65
5.8. Comparison of Blast-1 and Blast-2 ............................................................................................... 69
5.9. Comparison Blast-3 and Blast-4 ................................................................................................... 70
5.10. Comparison of Blast-5 and Blast-6 ........................................................................................... 71
5.11. Summary ................................................................................................................................... 74
6. Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 75
7. Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Work ............................................................................... 79
7.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 80
7.2. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 80
7.3. Future Work .................................................................................................................................. 81
8. References ............................................................................................................................................. 82
Terminologies ............................................................................................................................................... 88
6
List of Figures
Figure 3- 1: Staggered pattern of blast design .............................................................................................. 29
Figure 3- 2: Cross-section of conventional blast design at site ..................................................................... 30
Figure 3- 3: Typical firing pattern................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 3- 4: Conventional stemming material .............................................................................................. 33
Figure 3- 5: Typical Nonel blast connections ............................................................................................... 34
Figure 4- 1: Stemming Plug-1 ....................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4- 2: Application of Stemming Plug-1 in blast hole .......................................................................... 39
Figure 4- 3: Lowering technique for stemming plug-1 ................................................................................. 39
Figure 4- 4: Typical cross-section and top view of blast hole for Stemming Plug-1 .................................... 40
Figure 4- 5: Air line along with Stemming Plug-2 and air injection assembly ............................................. 41
Figure 4- 6: Air-line and Nonel going into blast hole ................................................................................... 41
Figure 4- 7: Inflated air plug in hole after removal of air assembly ............................................................. 42
Figure 4- 8: Cross section of blast hole with Stemming Plug-2 ................................................................... 42
Figure 4- 9: Additive for quick setting cement and cement mixture ............................................................ 43
Figure 4- 10: Measuring container for additives to be added in the mixture. ............................................... 44
Figure 4- 11: Pouring mechanism for cement mortar ................................................................................... 44
Figure 4- 12: Cross section of blast hole with cement mortar ...................................................................... 45
Figure 5- 1: Bench before blasting (Stemming Plug-2) ................................................................................ 48
Figure 5- 2: Stemming Plug-1 dimensions ................................................................................................... 49
Figure 5- 3: blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-1 .................................................. 50
Figure 5- 4: Percentage passing size with respect to size in inches for blast-1............................................. 50
Figure 5- 5: Graph showing passing size portion in whole muck pile. ......................................................... 51
Figure 5- 6: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-2 ................................................. 53
Figure 5- 7: Graph showing percentage passing size for Blast-2 .................................................................. 54
Figure 5- 8: Graph showing passing size portion for Blast-2 ....................................................................... 55
Figure 5- 9: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-3 ................................................. 56
Figure 5- 10: Percentage passing size for Blast-3 ......................................................................................... 57
Figure 5- 11: Passing size portion for Blast-3............................................................................................... 58
Figure 5- 12: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-4 ............................................... 59
Figure 5- 13: Percentage passing size for Blast-4 ......................................................................................... 60
Figure 5- 14: Passing size portion for Blast-4............................................................................................... 60
Figure 5- 15: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-5 ............................................... 62
Figure 5- 16: Percentage passing size for Blast-5 ......................................................................................... 63
7
Figure 5- 17: Passing size portion for Blast-5............................................................................................... 64
Figure 5- 18: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-6 ............................................... 65
Figure 5- 19: Percentage passing size for Blast-6 ......................................................................................... 66
Figure 5- 20: Passing size portion for Blast-6............................................................................................... 67
Figure 5- 21: Comparison of percentage passing for Blast-1 and Blast-2 .................................................... 69
Figure 5- 22: Comparison of percentage passing for Blast-3 and Blast-4 .................................................... 70
Figure 5- 23: Comparison of percentage passing for Blast-5 and Blast-6 .................................................... 71
Figure 5- 24: Representation of top boulder size for each blast ................................................................... 72
Figure 5- 25: Representation of material requiring secondary blasting ........................................................ 72
Figure 5- 26: Blasts performance with respect to size (inch)........................................................................ 73
Figure 5- 27: Analysis for D50 and D80 for each blast results. .................................................................... 73
8
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Table showing stemming plugs supplier all over world .............................................................. 24
Table 3-1: Bench nomenclature and their heights from each other and sea level ......................................... 27
Table 3-2: Types of explosives used at site along with their utilization ....................................................... 30
Table 5-1: Percentage of material passing for Blast-1 .................................................................................. 52
Table 5- 2: Table showing percentage of material passing for Blast-2 ......................................................... 55
Table 5- 3: Percentage of material passing for Blast-3 ................................................................................. 58
Table 5- 4: Percentage of material passing for Blast-4 ................................................................................. 61
Table 5- 5: Percentage of material passing for Blast-5 ................................................................................. 64
Table 5- 6: Percentage of material passing through with respect to size ...................................................... 68
Table 6- 1: Prices of explosives and accessories necessary for blast ............................................................ 75
Table 6- 2: Operational cost of mining machinery ....................................................................................... 76
Table 6- 3: Detailed costing of secondary blasting ....................................................................................... 77
Table 6- 4: Cost of each stemming plug ....................................................................................................... 77
Table 6- 5: Comparison between stemming plugs and secondary blasting. ................................................. 78
9
1. Introduction
1.1. General
Proper energy utilization from explosives is a prime consideration for bench blasting operations.
Maximum output from explosives is need of the hour due to their constantly rising cost,
economical mining challenges and associated hazards. Output of explosives is defined as rock
fragmentation and muckpile obtained after rock blasting. In addition the noxious effects of
blasting are also an indication of explosive performance. The output of explosive can affect the
entire mining process from scaling of blast to efficiency of processing plant. Thus, it is desirable
by bulk mining operations to aim for better fragmentation while minimizing the associated costs
and environmental effects. The idea is to acquire desired fragmentation from intact rock while
minimizing the cost of drilling, blasting and environmental effects, while practicing the
recommended safety standards. While developing a blast design an engineer should consider
keeping the cost to lowest with satisfactory technical and safety requirement (Mohamad et al.
2013).
Everyday increasing production demands and mechanized machinery to process raw material
have put immense pressure on raw material production sites like mines and quarries. Surface
mines use drill and blast to meet these unquenchable demands especially with an increase blast
size. This is due to the fact that drill and blast is the cheapest way to break the rock. The larger
blast size accompanies major issues including blast performance and environmental effects, in
addition to adverse effects on economics. Singh and Singh (2005) and Khandelwal and Singh
(2006) stated that optimization of flyrock and rock fragmentation in tandem is a complex task.
10
Zhu et al. (2008) stated that blast performance depends on blast geometry, rock mass properties
and explosive specifications. Mohamad et al. (2013) stated that blast hole diameter, stemming,
burden priming, spacing and delay timing also play important role in fragmentation dynamics.
Drill hole diameter is very critical parameter in surface mining industry as it is dependent on drill
machine output force and its effectiveness, on the other hand blast design is dependent on
diameter of drill machine. Larger the diameter of drill hole wider is the blast design and more
oversized material is produced, with more charge per delay blasting. Many techniques of blast
design, including square, rectangle and staggered pattern have been used and some are still in
The process of drilling is carried out by compressed air powered drill machines at quarries. The
drill machines used are generally rotary type percussion drills. In past top hammered rotary drills
were used to provide the same function. All these holes are drilled based on specified blast
design which includes hole depth, spacing, burden and hole angle. These drilled holes are loaded
with explosive column. Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil mixture named as ANFO is most
widely used as explosive being cheap and ease of use. This type of explosive is not
recommended when there is wet atmosphere as ANFO is not used as its efficiency is reduced.
For all watery conditions there are specially designed water based explosives which are known
as emulsion and water gels. They have better efficiency and velocity of detonation as compared
to ANFO. This is one of the reasons why powder factor is reduced accordingly for emulsions and
water gels.
In surface mines, the blast holes are filled and/or covered with inert material known as
stemming. This practice helps with confining gases which helps in enhanced fragmentation in
addition to the reduction of flyrock. The stemming material is generally comprised of soil and
11
drill cuttings. This practice is most common in many countries including Pakistan. Problem
associated with drill cuttings is that there is no fixed size range of particles and it does not
confine the gases produced from explosives. Thus gas venting takes place through pores hence
decreasing the efficacy of blasting. Venting of gas pressure also causes flyrock from collar which
environmental aspects and overall efficiency of the operation. In addition to the stemming
material, the length of stemming is also a prime consideration. The decrease in stemming length
will increase the quantity of explosive in the blast hole and an increase in stemming material
Air plugs, stemming plugs, small inflatable balloons, plaster of Paris packing, cement concreting
and grouting are being utilized to confine the gases generated from explosives in drill hole
columns in mining industry worldwide. Cevizci (2012) stated that plaster stemming length with
0.45 meter along with ordinary drill cutting provided more strength to blasting activity with more
gas retention as compared to 2.5 meters stemming length of ordinary drill cutting material.
Inflatable balloons and air plugs are most widely used but the success of this method is limited to
specific sites only. Cement and plaster of Paris packing are used at very rare and critical position
There are main 24 quarries which operate on full fledge explosives based raw material
generation with approximately daily targets of 10,000 to 20,000 tons of material approximately
each (Punjab, Sind and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Development Statistics, 2013). This clearly
indicates the excessive usage of drilling and blasting. With the upcoming demands of cement for
China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and development projects this demand will surge
higher. To cope up with this problem more drilling and blasting is expected. Under such
12
conditions it is surely expected that safety and operational measures will be compromised to
fulfill the demands and race of profits. Along with pressurized situations in construction industry
there are more advents of research work and if successful will help in better efficiency and
overall economics.
The entire world gyrates around economics, so does blasting and mining operations. Economics
of blasting operation can be controlled through a reduction in cost. Total minimum cost for
overall operation, drilling, blasting, hauling and processing, should be maintained. Cost of
explosives is main head for explosive cost. Labor, shot-firers and blasting crew costs are again
same and have very less effect on blasting efficiency and costing, however a slight decrease or
increase in powder factor has multiplier effect. Fragmentation is mainly controlled by powder
Surface mining industry of Pakistan is not introduced to stemming plugs due to the fact that there
company is willing to take a risk of importing large quantities of stemming plugs without prior
experimentation and full scale testing. On the other hand the local explosives and blasting
product manufacturers are also not interested in developing blasting accessories. It is a well-
known fact that stemming plays a pivotal role in enhancing fragmentation and muck-pile
displacement while reducing the noise, flyrock and air-blast. Under such circumstances it is need
of hour to design cheap indigenous stemming plugs and introduce them to local industry. This
research aims to design and develop stemming plug for local industry. An economic analysis of
the stemming systems proposed is also required to justify their utilization. Effect of drill machine
13
in operation is not considered in this research as it depends on the choice of owner, previous
The main objective of this research work is to design and develop new stemming plug or system
along with improvisation of existing stemming material for better productivity, safety and
2. Design and development of convenient stemming plug for surface blasting operations
This research work will assist local mines and quarries operators to get their working in
accordance with better practices alongside enhanced economics and safety. If industrialized, this
research work might help in enhancement of opportunity cost for people involved in this work.
This research work will be focused on local cement quarry operations of Kalar Kahar area. DG
cement quarries near Kalar Kahar are used as a case study for this research work.
The research topic is introduced and objectives are shown in Chapter 1. Basic outline of research
material, types of stemming material used in past, types of devices used, patented as stemming
plugs. Chapter 3 presents the case study based on the first field visit to the test site that is Dera
14
Ghazi Khan Cement Company Limited Chakwal Plant, and discusses all the established blast
parameters such as bore hole height, spacing, burden, sub-drilling, for all respective benches.
Explosive types used, their mechanism of storage, purchase and utility is also discussed with
their outcomes and problems faced by site. Chapter 4 is based on the outcomes of Literature
review and mine operational activity discusses the designing of stemming plug, its effectiveness,
laboratory testing and detailed operational manual for these stemming plugs. Numerical
modeling and economic study of stemming plugs is also discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
presents detailed experimental validation of stemming plugs with comparison of results for
different types of stemming system previously used. Complete working of stemming plugs,
operational issues, utilization, costing effectiveness are also discussed. Chapter 6 is last one with
conclusions derived and recommendations based on the results obtained after almost six months
of comprehensive research.
15
2. Literature Review
2.1. General
Detailed literature review always sets a strong foundation for the research work. This literature
review was done on types of stemming plugs used in past, their analysis and comparison between
stemming plugs and conventional stemming material. Effects on powder factor, fragmentation,
was also studied. This literature review provides the basic necessary insight required for this
research work.
Mining Industry utilizes explosives for fracturing the in-situ rock mass and preparing rock mass
for excavation and transportation purposes. Explosives used on industrial scale are mostly
ammonium nitrate based. A mixture of ammonium nitrate with fuel oil is commonly used as
blasting agent for surface mines. Mixture of both is called as ANFO. In United States more than
90% of blasting needs are based on ammonium nitrate based explosives. It is roughly estimated
that between 1991 and 1999 an amount of 22.3 billion kilograms of explosive was used only in
United States (USBM, 1991; USBM 1992; USBM 1993; USBM 1994; USGS 1995; USGS
1996; USGS 1997; USGS 1998; USGS 1999; USGS 2000). The explosive usage clearly depicts
the utilization and importance of explosives in mining industry. Due to explosion reaction a large
quantity of energy is produced in form of shock and gas pressure, resulting in shock wave and
pressure waves, originating from the point of detonation. These pressure waves are responsible
for rock fragmentation. These pressure waves dependent on the amount of confinement.
16
gases from blast holes almost 50% of explosive energy is lost. Hence the importance of
stemming is very clear. Loss in 50% of explosive energy means doubling the powder factor.
Powder factor is one of the major economic parameter in blasting activity. Powder factor plays
key role in blast designing and after blast operations such as excavation, loading, crushing and
powder factor not only reduces the electricity requirement for crushing and grinding, but it also
increases the machine productivity. Eloranta (1994) by increasing the powder factor by 15%
overall machine and crusher productivity increase by 5%. With constant diameter blast hole,
shortening the basic blast design parameters such as spacing and burden will also result in
increased powder factor. This increase in powder factor always favor the fragmentation but its
and decomposing, in a short period time once detonated by detonator. Explosive gases are
contained in blast hole for as long as they can be by the help of stemming. Koop (1987)
correlated stemming material with airblast and fragmentation. He stated that containment of
gases helps in reduction of airblast and improve fragmentation. In short, higher the gas
containment time, higher is the blast efficiency with all other parameters kept constant. Another
group of researchers Persson et al. (1994) stated that available stemming material is used to give
confinement for explosives in blast holes, which help in better blasting efficiency. Bartley (2003)
conducted differential experimentation with different stemming plugs and ordinary stemming
material and concluded that dramatic improvement with respect to the energy confinement was
observed which resulted in increasing overall blast performance. It is pertinent to mention here
that increase in powder factor shall not be confused with blast performance as increased blast
performance results in better fragmentation, less commination cost and less wear and tear of
17
machinery, whereas increased powder factor results in flyrocks, excessive vibrations, back break
Stemming that is top most part of blast hole is generally filled with drill cuttings to provide
confinement for the gases produced from an explosion. Stemming material varies from site to
site, but majorly drill cuttings are used where stemming plugs are not available. Study about the
efficacy of stemming plug as compared to conventional system which was done by many
researchers. Cancec et al. (2001) did a comparison of stemming plug with soil and gravel with
comparisons indicated that better efficiency is obtained while using stemming plug as compared
to those of gravel and soil. Cevizci (2013) stated that drill cuttings is mostly used stemming
material in open pit mines and quarries because they are readily availability. While studying the
working of stemming plugs, Cevizci (2012) stated that stemming material of blast holes in
surface mines redirects the energy back to rock in such a way that energy is utilized in breaking
the rock more effectively. Cevizci (2014) studied the effectiveness of stemming in drilling and
blasting mechanism at basalt quarry and stated that drill cuttings are used as stemming material
at most of quarries due to easy availability. Use of plaster as stemming material increases the gas
confinement and helps in cost reduction. Cost was reduced by 15%. Using plaster as stemming
material helped in reducing +30cm size percentage in overall pile from 32.6% to 47.3%. A slight
increase in blast vibrations and air shock were also observed but under permitted limit.
Usage of stemming devices increases overall efficiency in tunneling industry as well. Ramulu
(2012) stated that using stemming devices instead of conventional stemming in horizontal
blasting resulted in advance improvement of 5-10% in dolomite and 8-12% in gneiss. Many
18
researchers worked on efficiency of stemming plug and stated their results as positive. Rai et al.
(2008) stated that inadequate stemming results in improper explosive confinement which causes
premature venting of gases and can cause up to 50% loss of explosive energy through collar
region.
Commercially available stemming plugs that are supplied by “Ideal Blasting Company” includes
vari-stem’s gear design patented as US6330860 B1, Birdie plug, air balls, blast bag, clay
dummies, foam plug, funnel and stemming bag, max blast plug, para plug, stemlock gas bag,
pilgrim hat plug, rocklock plug etc which can be accessed at their website. Another supplier
named “Blaster Tool and Supply Company” provides stemming plugs named as air plugs, clay
dummies, EPCO stemming plugs, gas bags, hole savers, vari-stem MO CAP, MTI solo bag,
powder deck, seismic plugs which can also be accessed online at their website.
Dobrilovic et al. (2005) did comparative analysis on the sizes of material used in stemming for
different quarries with different size ranges measured in millimeters and suggested that
stemming type depends on desired blasting effect and conditions under which blast activity is
performed. They further suggested that size range of 16 to 32 millimeters is recommended in all
cases. Eloranta (1994) stated that millisecond preservation of explosive energy will help
transferring more energy to rock mass and therefore reducing velocity and range of flyrocks
The issue of conventional stemming is not only associated with ejection of stemming material
but also the venting of gases. To cater this situation, Sazid et al. (2016) compared conventional
stemming with a newly developed SPARSH stemming technique in which an air deck is used in
between stemming. It was concluded that by using SPARSH system, the retention time of
explosive gases, within the blast hole, is increased by five times. Conventional stemming clearly
19
indicated the venting of premature explosive gases and wasted energy in form of flyrocks.
Bartley (2002) studied the working of stemming plugs in comparison to ordinary stemming
techniques and stated that stemming plugs help in retaining explosive gases for almost 50
milliseconds as compared to conventional stemming techniques. Zettler (2009) gathered the data
of blasts using stemming plugs and compared them with conventional stemming and stated that
the use of stemming plugs helps in improving fragmentation with uniform distribution of
fragment sizes, which further assists in reducing the overall mining and hauling cost.
Sun (1997) stated that stemming plays an important role in blast design, especially its length.
However, if stemming blows out there will be excessive vibrations and there will be loss of
confinement. Top most reasons for stemming blow out are smaller lengths and greater fines. Lee
Moor Romp (2009) stated that the material to be used for stemming purpose should be of
adequate quality and quantity (in length) so as to provide sufficient confinement to explosive
gases. Coarse stemming material such as angular chipping should be preferred, and drill fines
should be avoided because of the fact that they may shoot out of the holes under pressure, due to
poor interlocking.
Rai and Imperial (2005) stated that spacing also plays role in premature ejection of explosive
gases as if the spacing is lesser than burden, it will result in loosening of stemming, this sudden
drop in pressure may result in hostile effects on fragmentation. Sharma and Rai (2015) studied
the effectiveness of crushed rock aggregate as stemming material and compared it with the
conventional drill cuttings and stated that overall average fragmentation size was reduced from
(0.58-0.77 meter) to (0.45-0.59 meter) with machine utilization increased by 18% due to lesser
fragment size. Muck pile displacement (throw) was also increased by 21.2%.
20
Kojovic (2005) proved that using aggregated crush material as stemming helped increase in SAG
To assess the blast performance majorly fragmentation is compared to powder factor in mining
and mineral processing industry, however other than this, blast performance can also be judged
based on size of muck pile and throw of pile. Sieve analysis is one of the basic method for
analyzing fragmentation. J. A. Sanchidria´n et al. (2005) stated that image processing techniques
were developed in 1990’s and are worldwide accepted nowadays in mining and mineral
processing industry. Image processing has a built in advantage which causes no disturbance to
production cycle, but everything has its pros and cons so is image processing technique. Beyond
a particular size one needs to get help from data obtained through sieving data. Latham et al.
(2003) also suggested that, onsite sieve analysis data calibration with image processing, can be
utilized to minimize the errors. In case of this research the crusher capacity ranges from 0.150
meter to 1.5 meter. Maerz and Zhou (1998) did research using WipFrag software by WipWare
and stated the results with mean sizes ranges from 7.6 mm to 11.1 mm. This research work
conducted in past depicts that WipFrag can analyze very small range of particle. However in this
research work smallest size for consideration is 150mm which is the output of hammer crusher
for limestone. Therefore onsite sieving for smaller particle size is not a disadvantage in this case
particularly.
WipFrag software is used for fragmentation analysis through image processing. Palangio (1985)
stated that WipFrag is an image analysis system for sizing materials such as blasted and crushed
rock.
21
Maerz et al (1996) stated the importance of Wipfrag software for digital image processing and
indicated that the said software is good for processing images from digital image and video
images for size distributions analysis. This software works on the principal of EDV (Edge
Detection Variable) which is utilized by powerful image analyzing. Manual support is also
available in the software for boundary locations. Another feature associated with Wipfrag is its
ability for zoom merge analysis which assists in combined analysis of different images snapped
at different scales. Wipfrag can process images of BMP and TIFF format, which may be treated
as its limitation. However to incorporate other formats customization is done. Bahandri (1997)
also pointed out that image processing is limited to process fines and is biased toward the
particles larger than standard size set. Bahandri (1997) stated that no specific criteria of
measuring fragmentation is established and many methods such as average size, screen sizing,
muck assessment, productivity studies with work and time studies, photographic analysis, high
speed photography and image analysis. Limitation associated with these techniques were also
discussed as screen sizing requires complete muckpile to pass through screening process, which
is applicable to smaller muckpiles and are preferred in laboratory scale sizing analysis. These
analysis are sometime plotted as fragmentation gradients. Similarly granulometry is also limited
to small size test samples with origin of ore to be known but it is not possible for blast analysis.
Whereas, crusher monitoring only give generalized idea about size of fragments, muck
assessment along with productivity studies can be correlated with the average size of ore and can
be used as effective performance indicator but results are still generalized with involvement of a
lot of operational parameters. Maerz et al (1996) gave following benefits of image processing
22
a) Quick working and multiple images can be processed and analyzed.
c) Due to inexpensive and fast approach many samples can be analyzed resulting in less
d) It does not dependent on size and quantity of blasted material, unlike sieving which
becomes impractical due to high size ranges and amount of blasted material.
Franklin and Maerz (1987) emphasized the importance of quick and accurate measurement and
depicted its necessity in blasting, mining and material handling industries. In mining industry
engaging blasting activities accurate fragmentation measurement and analysis can be utilized for
selection of explosives, blasting parameters, patterns and delay timings for blast designs. Maerz
and Germain (1996) stated that Wipfrag can be used for optimization of all the blasting
parameters which results in cost reduction. Bahandri (1997) stated that better blasting can lead to
reduced shovel maintenance, increased teeth life, reduced overall maintenance of hauling
machinery and reduced secondary blasting requirement. He further stated that percentage
blast, back break, over break, vibrations, airblast and flyrock indicates the efficiency of blasting
activity. Image sampling must be done on the basis of past experiences and after detailed study
of software manual. Images were taken using three reference footballs sizing 9 inches each. They
were place at three different locations for better referencing and to minimize the error in
calculations by software.
23
2.4. Summary
Literature review covers all the related aspects of explosives use in mining industry. The use of
stemming material is also discussed. The importance of stemming material is also given. The
advent of stemming plugs in mining and explosive industry is discussed in details. The broad
mechanism of stemming plugs working, efficacy, analysis, ease of operation, image analysis
techniques and tips etc. Types of different stemming plugs used in past are also discussed in
detail with their effectiveness and enhanced performance over conventional stemming material.
Table 2-1: Table showing stemming plugs supplier all over world
24
3. Case Study
3.1. Location
The area selected for testing new stemming system is Dera Ghazi Khan Cement Company Ltd.
located in District Chakwal, Tehsil Kallar Kahar. There are 12 established cement plants in
Punjab Province. There were many solid reasons to select Dera Ghazi Khan Cement Company
Ltd. (Chakwal) as testing site, among which research supporting attitude of Quarry
administration, great facilities at site, ease of access to main highway i.e. motorway and nearest
place for experimentation from Lahore, Pakistan. D.G. Khan Cement Company is one of the top
company of Pakistan. It has clinker capacity is 6,700 tons per day. This plant is located in a
village named Khairpur, Tehsil Kallar Kahar, District, Chakwal. Co-ordinates of this plant are
Latitude 32º 43’ 53” North and Longitude 72º 48’ 46’’ East. This area is located on mountains of
eastern salt range, approximately 280 Km from Lahore, 120 Km from Rawalpindi, 12 Km from
Test site is cement manufacturing plant established in 2004. Cement manufacturing requires two
basic components that are calcareous and argillaceous material. The need of calcareous material
is full filled by limestone and for argillaceous material, argillaceous clay or shaley material
serves the purpose. Approximately a plant of 6,700 tons per day capacity, annual requirement of
limestone ranges around 3,300,000 tons of raw material for 300 working days.
DG khan Cement Company has acquired lease of argillaceous clay and its deposits are around
230 million tons, which can be used for almost next 10 decades. However Limestone is located
in form of three main geological formations of Namal, Sakesar and Chorgali with rough
25
estimates of about 500 million tons of limestone for next 10 decades. All of these three
formations are from Charaat group of formation and from early Eocene age. Chorgali has olive
green shales with bedded Limestone deposition, whereas Sakesar formation majorly consists of
Massive Nodular limestone with marls and chert in upper part. Namal formation contains
calcareous shales and limestone, this formation contains fossils of different animals.
Drilling and blasting activity is carried out for quest of limestone to manufacture cement. These
limestone mountains were the test sites. Quarrying operation is conducted in top slicing pattern
where top benches are toiled first followed by benches that area present below. Limestone and
clay is mostly extracted by quarrying operation. Staggered drilling pattern was used for better
DG Khan Cement Company is carrying out quarrying operation and has established 6 working
benches. These benches are named in numerical order from top to bottom starting from 0 and
ending at 5. Currently a new bench is being developed at an altitude of 777 meters above sea
level. All of these benches are operational, so at a time, multiple loading sites are available
which depicts great planning before development of quarry. Vertical holes are drilled in these
benches with minute angle of 5 degrees toward face to provide better face condition after blast
and better removal of toe. Afterwards these vertical holes are loaded with explosives and are
blasted using Nonel initiation system with millisecond delays. The resulted blasted material is
loaded onto Caterpillar 775F 60 ton capacity dumper and taken to the hammer crusher. This
hammer crusher’s capacity is 1500 tons per hour with maximum feed size up to 1.5 meters. This
26
Table 3-1: Bench nomenclature and their heights from each other and sea level
1 838 14
2 824 12
3 812 12
4 800 12
5 788 11
6 777 Development
phase
All of these benches are interconnected with well-constructed haul roads. Total haul road cover
is around 15 Km.
Test site has a very efficient and maintained pool of heavy machinery, the list of all those
27
Fork lifter, maintenance vans, explosive truck, quick response motorbikes, safety routing guard
bikers and all other related workshop machinery was also available.
RocL6 was drilling machine on site with drilling diameter of 110mm. Weight of drill machine is
almost 18.5 tons and is crawler mounted. It can crawl up to 20 degrees with approximated
drilling rate range around 1-2 foot per minute. This machine operates on diesel engine with
inbuilt compressor. The compressed air is used for drilling operation. Compressor provides air at
25 bar pressure. It takes around 20-30 minutes to drill one hole in limestone deposit of 4
hardness on Moh’s Scale, UCS ranging from 45-70 MPa. The abrasivity of limestone deposit
ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 on CERCHAR Abrasivity Index. The machine is down the hole drilling
machine, with hammer fixed just above the drill bit and hammering action is done just above the
drill bit. Quarry operation continues for two shifts of 8 hours each, while overall plant operates
Drilling pattern used at the site was staggered as shown in Figure 3-1. There were two lines of
drill holes with around 20-50 holes in each row varying according to working face. These two
lines were drilled in staggered pattern. The reason reported for this pattern is that it results in
better fragmentation than square or rectangular pattern. Square and rectangular pattern is mostly
used for dimensional stones and they result in bad fragmentation, but huge boulders which are
then cut into dimension stones. Angle of drill hole is kept at 5-15 degree depending on the face
conditions. The burden ranges from 3.5 meters to 4 meters and spacing ranges from 4.5 to 5
meters. Hole depth is equal to bench height and sub drilling of 1 meter done for toe removal and
better ground condition. 2-3 meters of stemming is done to contain explosive gases.
28
Figure 3- 1: Staggered pattern of blast design
After exploring the data obtained at site during visit it was revealed that quarry is operating
consistently on the set rules by enforcing agencies. A state of the art magazine is available at site
with fool proof security including pits around boundaries and armed guards placed with 24 hours
surveillance. There are separate rooms for storing explosives and initiating equipment.
Ventilation to these rooms is provided by Z-type ventilation system. In this type of ventilation
there is no direct relation of outside and inside, rather via Z type air chamber. This Z type air
chamber doesn’t allow any flame or explosive initiating agent to enter the magazine, but keeps
There are two explosive manufacturing companies in Pakistan that are Biafo Pvt. Ltd. and Wah
Nobel Pvt. Ltd. Dynamites, Water Gels and Emulsions are bought from these two companies.
Ammonium Nitrate is also used as explosive when mixed with fuel oil i.e. diesel. It is called as
ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil). Table 3-2 indicates the types of explosives and their
name.
29
Table 3-2: Types of explosives used at site along with their utilization
ANFO for both cases of fertilizer and prilled grade is prepared on site and loaded in blast hole.
All the holes are primed from bottom with dynamite. Nonel is used for primer initiation. Nonel is
beneficial for avoiding air blasts. The explosive is loaded based on charging scheme shown in
Figure 3-2.
The firing pattern was as Figure 3-3, detonating cord was used to connect the last hole of
30
Figure 3- 3: Typical firing pattern
Following methodology is adopted to calculate the amount of explosive to be used in each blast
Step 1: Firstly holes were inspected and count is completed with the help of blastman who
reports to Assistant Manager drilling and blasting about number of holes to be fired.
Step 2: Based on bench height, spacing and burden volume is calculated for each hole and is then
Spacing = 5 meters
Burden = 4 meters
31
Total volume to be blasted = 25,220 m3
It is worth noting that this volume calculation is an approximation method and is most widely
Step 4: Explosive is calculated based on powder factor standards set after due diligence of
strength of rock. 0.4 kg/m3 is criteria set by DG Khan Cement Company’s management and on
Explosive is separated in two types that are low explosives and high explosives. High explosives
are costly as compared to low explosives due to their better efficiency. To balance out between
high and low explosives, management has decided to go for certain percentages which in case of
high explosive is 0.20 and 0.80 for low explosives. So based on these approximately 2017 Kg of
high explosive and 8,701 Kg of low explosive are required. The cartridges of explosive come in
size of 90mm diameter and 500 mm length in a 25 kg box containing 7 cartridges. Firstly a
cartridge of Wabox 80% is made primer by adding a Nonel attached detonator and lowered into
the hole, after that 4 cartridges of watergel explosive that comes under the name of blaster is
added. It is preferred over Wabox 80% due to less price and approximately same result. After
adding the bottom charge the hole is filled with bulk loaded ANFO. Amount of ANFO ranges
from 90-100kg per hole based. It can vary due to change in hole diameter, any cavity and driller
efficiency while doing sub-drilling for toe. This ANFO is loaded along with addition of boosters.
Blaster is cut into pieces making dimensions of one piece of 250mm × 90mm other two of
125mm x 90mm and is used as booster. It is approximated to start bulk loading and add first
booster after 50kg of ANFO, which translate to height of 4 meters approximately, followed by
32
20-25 kg (around 2-2.5 meters) loading and adding the smaller booster and repeating the same
again.
3.8. Stemming
Stemming length is kept around 2-3 meters based on distance from plant establishments,
residential area, previous experiences and explosive loading. Drill cuttings were used as
stemming material at DG Khan Company’s quarry. When the strata was competent it was
observed that chips produced were a bit larger in size than for those where it was loose, slimey or
shaley. It is a common practice to bring some mud from argillaceous quarry and use it as
stemming. Once holes are loaded with stemming material circuit is completed to initiate blast
holes.
line is attached to it. There is a delay of 25 milliseconds between each hole and ranges up to 500
milliseconds delay. After using delays up to 500 milliseconds next delay is added by joining 500
millisecond delay with next 25 millisecond delay detonator making it 525 milliseconds as shown
33
in Figure 3-6. This can be continued to infinite number of delays. All the holes are initiated at
once by main trunk line or zero line. It is called as zero line because it initiates instantaneously
and allows shock to reach each and every hole. Each hole is delayed on the basis of detonator
attached. There are two thumb rules to avoid excessive vibrations and back break. Firstly keep
the charge below the permitted charge per delay limit. The limit at site was 250Kg/delay.
However approximately 120 kg is initiated per delay. Secondly keep the delay in between layers
not more than 15 millisecond per meter. For example if the burden of second row is 3 meters
(distance between first and second blast row), then there should be 3×15ms = 45 millisecond
34
4. Methodology
4.1. General
This Section includes detailed discussion on evolution of blasting industry, type of product and
its description and types of stemming plugs used in this research. It was planned to do a pair of
blasts for each type of proposed stemming plug. One of the blast was done at same profile with
conventional stemming material and second blast with proposed stemming plug. Later both of
these blasts were compared with each other as majorly most of the factors remain the same such
The design methodology of stemming plug comprised of review of existing stemming plugs.
From the literature review it is evident that stemming plugs should seal the blast hole during
blasting. This requires the stemming device to resist borehole pressures. A stemming device is
required to have a suitable geometry, utilize the wall friction of blast hole and should be made of
Three types of stemming plugs were selected to be tested for this research work. These consist of
plastic molded stemming plugs, cement mortar and Air-Plugs. Plastic molded stemming plugs
are named as stemming plug-1 in this research work; they are shown in Figure 4-1. They were
simply inserted in blast hole after loading it with explosives. Second type of stemming plugs was
air-plugs or inflatable rubber ball. The air-plugs are named as stemming plug-2. Stemming plug-
2 is shown in Figure 4-5. Cement mortar is also used as stemming plug, it is named as stemming
plug-3 as shown in Figure 4-9. Stemming plug-1 is worldwide recognized and proven stemming
35
plug therefore it was used to set a benchmark for two other newly tested plugs. Based on the cost
of stemming plug-1 two new stemming plugs were designed to be cheaper than it in cost and
better or equal in performance. Stemming plug-2 was inflatable rubber ball that was inflated after
lowering into the blast hole. Stemming Plug-2 was lowered in hole after adding small amount of
conventional stemming material into blast hole. Similarly Stemming plug-3 is mixture of
ordinary Portland cement, an additive for quick setting at 10% of cement quantity and water was
Blast performance is monitored in terms of onsite observations and fragmentation obtained. The
fragmentation is calculated based on Split Desktop software which is worldwide renowned for its
image analysis techniques. This software works on processing images based on the visible
fragmentation. User is given availability in delineating the boundaries of pile and particle sizes in
the image for better processing. Auto delineation is also adjustable which gives more ease while
working and edit-ability helps in proper marking and least erroneous results. Sampling is done
based on directions given in the software pack that are using maximum of three reference scales
at different distance for best delineation of border at appropriate size. Software also gives
approximate sizes on screen which acts as second check on better delineation of borders.
Reference images are referenced in the photos taken at site and then processed. Results derived
With the passage of time and evolution of blasting techniques, the emphasis on optimized
blasting activity has increased. Initiation system is evolved from packed straws to electronic
detonators and explosive is evolved from simple black powder (or gun powder) to water based
watergels, emulsions, dynamites and ANFO etc. A lot of research and development is carried out
36
in aforementioned explosive’s efficient working with consideration to economics. In quest of
excellence in explosive working stemming was also improved from no stemming to clay, drill
cuttings and many different stemming materials. This era is for stemming plug development and
their comparativeness, as which type of stemming plug serves the best stemming purpose with
drill cuttings are used as conventional stemming material due to their ease of availability and no
extra cost. However due to development of stemming systems and their associated benefits other
than conventional material many sites are shifting towards adapting new stemming plugs in
addition to conventional plugs. MoCop Inc. is one of the leading stemming plug manufacturers
in world which is providing stemming plugs of variant sizes as per client’s requirement.
After detailed visit to D.G. Khan Cement Company, field visits to other cement industry and
telephonic communicating to far flung companies it was decided to locally develop stemming
plug 2 and 3, with assumption to give the same or better performance than already established
taken from site study and visit to quarry, three single time use, stemming plugs were finalized
based on economic feasibility. All of these plugs are explained in chronological order.
Stemming plug 1 is plastic molded cylindrical piece with 4.5 inch diameter and 5 inch length. It
is a hollow cap like structure with gear type body to easily get lowered in the hole. Figure 4-1
indicate the typical shape of plug. It assists in building up extra gas pressure which in case of
conventional stemming material is not maintained due to venting of blast gases from voids in
between the stemming material. Once drill holes are charged with explosives these stemming
37
plug are inserted and pushed using a stick after lowering it to required depth hole. The blast hole
is then filled with conventional stemming material, which is drill cuttings, to fill the column up
to surface. Figure 4- 2 and Figure 4- 3 indicate installation of stemming plug 1. After installation,
the initiation system is connected to carry out blasting operation. The results are discussed in
Section 5. Figure 4- 4 show an exact cross-sectional view of blast hole for better information.
Figure 4-2 indicates the typical setting of stemming plug-1 in blast hole. It is shown that gear
type making of stemming plug-1 makes it easy for lowering. No special mechanism was required
to lower it. Only bamboo stick as shown in Figure 4-3 was used simply to push it down the hole.
38
Stemming Plug
Positioned
NONEL &
DET-CORD
Lowering
technique
39
Figure 4- 4: Typical cross-section and top view of blast hole for Stemming Plug-1
Stemming plug 2 is a kind of an air-deck system in which an inflatable rubber ball was inserted
into the hole to assist conventional stemming system. Complete hole was loaded with explosive
column as in conventional blasting and after that 0.5 meters of conventional stemming material
was added in the hole. After that inflatable rubber plug was inserted empty with the help of
filling assembly as shown in Figure 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7. Figure 4-7 clearly indicates the inner setup
of the hole, where one can easily see that Air-Plug has been inflated and is sticking to the walls
of hole. Hand pump was used to inflate the plug and after inflation the assembly was detached
and remaining part was filled with conventional system. Figure 4-8 depicts the cross-sectional
40
Figure 4- 5: Air line along with Stemming Plug-2 and air injection assembly
Figure 4-5 depicts that Air-plug or Stemming Plug-2 was attached to a detachable air injection
nozzle and was lowered in blast hole as shown in Figure 4-6. As soon as this plug was inflated it
gets stick to walls of hole and was detached by pulling the air-line upward hence the plug stays
in its position. Figure 4-7 indicates how it appears after being inflated and taking its shape after
detachment.
Air line
NONEL (Initiation
System)
41
Inflated Air-Plug
in blast hole
NONEL
This third type of stemming system was simple usage of quick setting cement. The quick setting
of cement was achieved using additive named as “Rockset C 303” obtained from PAGEL private
42
limited. Experimentation and planning was conducted to figure out setting time for the cement
paste and strength. After consultation of literature and experimentation at site it was noted that
after 20 minutes the cement paste gets its final form. According to literature provided it attained
approximately 20 MPa uniaxial compressive strength but no testing was done at site to prove the
claim of supplier for the additives for strength. However curing time was calculated using
different proportion of cement and additive mixture. Mortar took almost 20 minutes to get in
good shape and have setting shape. The concentration of additive was 10% of total mass of
cement for one hole. Due to quick initial setting the cement paste was made for not more than 4
holes at once. Figure 4-9, 4-10, 4-11 & 4-12 indicates the installation method of stemming plug 3
which is basically quick setting cement. The length of cement column was kept at approximately
6 inches. 2 liter solution was added which made up 6 inches length in hole of 110 mm diameter.
Additive for
quick setting
cement
43
Amount of additive required for four number of holes was calculated pre-blast and was marked
on measuring the container as shown in Figure 4-10. As soon as the mortar was ported down the
Measuring container
4.8. Summary
Three different stemming systems were tested at three different sites. Along with the new testing
system conventional blasting was also done and both were compared for each blast respectively.
If any percentage of blast fragmentation is more than required particle size or in other words if
any blast leaves place for secondary blasting is treated as bad blast. If there is no requirement of
secondary blasting then it will be treated as good blast. However in ease of operation the first
stemming system consisting of plastic molded stemming plugs were the best followed by quick
setting cement. Air-Plugs had least ease of operation. Approximated average extra time taken for
molded plug stemming system was 1.5 minutes, whereas cement slurry took around 4 minutes.
45
Air-Plugs took around 9 minutes extra than conventional system stemming system. Based on the
working mechanism molded stemming plug system is best followed by quick setting cement and
Air-Plugs respectively.
46
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Introduction
A total number of six blasts were carried out to determine the best stemming plug from the three
materials selected for this research. To measure the performance of stemming plug it was
decided to conduct a fragmentation analysis using the image analysis software and site
observations such as muck pile throw, muck pile shape, any abrupt change in vibrations and
flyrock. This decision was taken in the light of limited resources available for this research.
Ideally a high speed blasting camera video and pictures can translate the performance of a
blasting plug.
Blasts were carried out in 3 sets, each in a pair making, it 6 in total. In every set first blast was
conducted with new stemming material followed by conventional blast at same site with same
parameters. To minimize the effects of adjacent blasts each pair of blasts was initiated with
single fire with only a difference of 25 millisecond. Ground was marked with spray paint to have
true idea while taking photo. This mark was also corrected using GPS and flag at the back of
bench for referencing. Images taken were analyzed on Split Desktop software and were
examined on the basis of particle sizes along with a reference red football of 9 inches in
diameter. Software after loading image asks for reference dimension in the image to be analyzed.
For every blast 3 footballs were used as references. Fine factor was set up based on ground
conditions. Fine factor is amount of fines appearing in image taken. Fine cut off was another
parameter which was to be derived based on ground conditions. If strata was loose, fine cut was
higher as compared to strata when it was high in compressive strength. First pair of blast (Blast-
1 and Blast-2) was carried out at bench number 2, whereas second pair (Blast-3 and Blast-4) was
47
done at bench number 6 and last pair of blast (Blast-5 and Blast-6) was executed at bench
number 4 of D.G Khan Cement Company’s quarry. Details of each blast follows.
picture showing yellowish color was used for blasting. It is evident that there is no material
present alongside wall and wall is smooth. However interbedded layers are also visible which
justifies the blocky type of fragmentation after blast. Detailed report about each blast follows.
5.2. Blast-1
After detailed experimentation on field by utilizing case study parameters, literature review and
quest to answer research question following results were obtained from 6 blasts conducted.
Blast-1 was conducted utilizing rubber molded stemming plugs placed at Figure 5-2. 47 holes
were blasted using stemming plug-1 with same conventional technique of loading explosive.
After blast images were taken as per directions of software Split Desktop which is utilized for
image analysis and processing. These images were analyzed on the software to know the particle
48
Figure 5- 2: Stemming Plug-1 dimensions
Muck pile image can be seen in Figure 5-3. Standard football of 9 inch diameter was used as
reference at various points after blast and same was used in image analysis. Two to three
reference footballs were available for each blast image. Figure 5-4 and 5-5 shows the typical
graphical plot obtained after image analysis depicting the size distribution and percentage
passing size. Fine factor was kept at 50%, whereas fines cutoff was set at 9 inches as during
loading, transportation and hopper movement it gets approximately around 6 inches which is
passing out size for crusher. Fine factor classification is based on visible parameters as site,
49
Reference Football Reference Football
Reference Football
Figure 5- 3: blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-1
Figure 5- 4: Percentage passing size with respect to size in inches for blast-1
Figure 5-4 indicates the graphical presentation of percentage passing with respect to size in
inches. The curve indicates that 37% of material is below the set size of fines i.e. 9 inches. D50
was achieved at the size of 12 inches. D80 was achieved at almost 22 inches. Top size obtained
after blast was approximately 43.5 inches. Figure 5-5 elaborates the passing percentage with
50
respect to size range. It is evident that 27.5% of material ranges in between 15 to 25 inches
followed by 19.5% passing through size range between 10 to 15 inches. Similarly rest can also
51
Table 5-1 comprises the summary of results obtained from blast-1. It can be seen from the table
that what size of muck pile is passing with respect to size bench mark, just like sieve analysis. It
is evidently clear that fragmentation is within the required range. There is no need of secondary
blasting.
52
5.3. Blast-2
Blast-2 was conducted using the conventional blasting parameters and stemming system at the
same bench with 31 holes. It was named as bench no. 2 and was at an elevation of 838 meters
from sea level. The bench was 14 meters in height, whereas hole depth was 15 meters, spacing
and burden was 4.75 meters and 3.75 meters respectively. Powder factor was 0.4 kg/m3. All
these parameters were same for Blast-1 but the stemming material was simple drill cuttings as
compared to Blast-1 where rubber molded stemming plugs were used after filling the hole from
conventional drill cuttings. There were visible boulders and blast-2 image can be seen at Figure
5-6. Amount of boulders were not counted singly but as per image analysis there were more than
6.5% of boulders in whole muck pile. Fine factor was kept as same as that of Blast-1 i.e. 50. Top
size boulder was approximately equal to 243 inches, i.e. approximately 6 meters. Intake size of
Reference Football
Figure 5- 6: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-2
53
Figure 5-7 and 5-8 are the analysis reports received after image processing in Split Desktop
version 4. Figure 5-7 indicates the curve for passing size with respect to percentages. Figure 5-7
indicates the graphical presentation of percentage passing with respect to size in inches. The
curve indicates that 79% of material is below the set size of fines i.e. 9 inches. D50 was achieved
at the size of 2 inches. D80 was achieved at almost 10 inches. Top size obtained after blast was
approximately 243 inches. 10% of material was beyond the size of 25 inches. However
approximately 6% of fragmentation was more than 75 inches, which requires secondary blasting.
It clearly indicates that blast energy is not utilized homogenously. The Figure 5-8 elaborates the
passing percentage with respect to size range. It is evident that 11% of material ranges in
54
Figure 5- 8: Graph showing passing size portion for Blast-2
Table 5-2 comprises the summary of results obtained from blast-2. It can be seen from the table
that what size of muck pile is passing with respect to size bench mark, just like sieve analysis. It
is evident that fragmentation is not within the required range. There is need of secondary
blasting.
55
5.4. Blast-3
Blast-3 was done with inflatable rubber plugs whose mechanism is already been discussed in
Section 4. There were total 57 holes blasted in blast-3 which was conducted at Bench No. 6
which was at altitude of 777 meters with bench height of 11 meters, whereas the hole depth was
12 meters, spacing being 4.75 and burden 3.75 meters. Due to a bit loose material as compared to
blast-1 and blast-2 powder factor was reduced to approximately 0.38 kg/m3. Image taken were
processed and results are placed at Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11. Figure 5-9 portrays the picture
Reference Football
Reference Football
Figure 5- 9: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-3
The blast-3 was loaded in same pattern as conventional system, but as described in Section 4
small amount of conventional drill cuttings were added after filling hole with explosives and
after that whole assembly was lowered in to the hole and inflatable plug was inflated. Visibly the
fragmentation was more homogenized and fine cut was kept at a bit higher size at 12 inches as
56
the geology was loose and loading, unloading would result in excessive reduction in size along
Desktop version 4. Figure 5-10 indicates the curve for passing size with respect to percentages.
Figure 5-10 indicates the graphical presentation of percentage passing with respect to size in
inches. The curve indicates that 25% of material is below the set size of fines i.e. 10.5 inches.
D50 was achieved at the size of 11.5 inches. D80 was achieved at almost 40 inches. Top size
obtained after blast was approximately 73 inches. The Figure 5-11 elaborates the passing
percentage with respect to size range. It is marked that 42% of material ranges in between 25 to
40 inches followed by 20% passing through size range between 15 to 25 inches. Similarly rest
57
Figure 5- 11: Passing size portion for Blast-3
Table 5-3 comprises the summary of results obtained from blast-3. It can be seen from the table
that what size of muck pile is passing with respect to size bench mark, just like sieve analysis. It
is evidently clear that fragmentation is within the required range. There is no need of secondary
blasting.
58
5.5. Blast-4
Blast-4 was conducted at the same bench where Blast-3 was conducted with same parameters,
only the stemming system used was conventional as compared to one used in Blast-3. Blast-4 has
simple drill cuttings as stemming system. 51 holes were blasted for Blast-4. Figure 5-12
represents the blast image that was used to do image processing. Two footballs of 9 inch
diameter were used as reference for blast. Visible excessive boulders were seen. Total count was
not done but overall Blast-4 result had approximately 9% boulders greater than 2 meters or 75
inches size. Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-14 are results obtained from the Split Desktop. Fines cut
was kept at 10 inches as the muck pile appeared more stringent than in Blast-4.
Reference Football
Reference Football
Figure 5- 12: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-4
Figure 5-13 and 5-14 are the analysis reports received after image processing in Split Desktop
version 4. Figure 5-13 indicates the curve for passing size with respect to percentages. Figure 5-
14 indicates the graphical presentation of percentage passing with respect to size in inches. The
curve indicates that 30% of material is below the set size of fines i.e. 10.5 inches. D50 was
achieved at the size of 20 inches. D80 was achieved at almost 50 inches. Top size obtained after
blast was approximately 102 inches. The Figure 5-14 elaborates the passing percentage with
59
respect to size range. It is evident that 29% of material ranges in between 25 to 40 inches
followed by 14% passing through size range between 15 to 25 inches. Similarly rest can also be
60
Table 5-4 comprises the summary of results obtained from blast-4. It can be seen from the table
that what size of muck pile is passing with respect to size bench mark, just like sieve analysis. It
shows that fragmentation is not within the required range. There is need of secondary blasting.
Approximately 8% of material is more than required size which have to pass secondary blasting.
Almost 15% of material is in between 50 to 70 inches which is also hectic in loading and
hauling.
61
5.6. Blast-5
Blast-5 was done using quick setting cement in stemming system where stemming material was
partially placed over explosive to avoid direct contact of cement and explosive. Blast was
conducted on Bench No. 4 which was at altitude of 812 meters above sea level and had 39 holes
with bench height being 12 meters and blast hole depth making 13 meters. Spacing and burden
was 4.75 and 3.75 meters respectively. Figure 5-15 depicts the muck pile after blast. It showed
visible boulders but not beyond 1.5 m so can easily be used in crusher without further need of
secondary blasting. Powder factor was kept at 0.4kg/m3. Figure 5-16 and Figure 5-17 indicates
Reference Football
Reference Football
Figure 5- 15: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-5
Figure 5-16 and Figure 5-17 are the analysis reports received after image processing in Split
Desktop version 4. Figure 5-16 indicates the curve for passing size with respect to percentages.
62
Figure 5-17 indicates the graphical presentation of percentage passing with respect to size in
inches. The curve indicates that 30% of material is below the set size of fines i.e. 6.5 inches. D50
was achieved at the size of 15 inches. D80 was achieved at almost 25 inches. Top size obtained
after blast was approximately 102 inches. The Figure 5-17 elaborates the passing percentage with
respect to size range. It is evident that 29% of material ranges in between 15 to 25 inches
followed by 18% passing through size range between 25 to 40 inches. Similarly rest can also be
that what size of muck pile is passing with respect to size bench mark, just like sieve analysis. It
is evidently clear that fragmentation is within the required range. There is no need of secondary
63
Figure 5- 17: Passing size portion for Blast-5
Highest boulder size estimate from image analysis was 46 inches which is around 1.1 meters and
well under the size of crusher demand. Due to high uniaxial strength of strata fines cut was kept
as 6.5 inches which is slightly greater than the pass out size of crusher.
64
5.7. Blast-6
Blast-6 was the last blast conducted for this research work. It was conducted on same bench and
with same parameters as for Blast-5, however drill cuttings were used to fill in the hole for
stemming purpose. A total of 47 holes were blasted using conventional stemming system. Figure
5-18 indicates the representation of muck pile after blast. Visible boulders can be seen. However
total count is not done due to limited time and too large blast. Image analysis was used to find
out the percentage of boulders beyond 2 meters or 75 inches size. From image analysis 11.5%
percent of total blasts were beyond 2 meter size. Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20 depicts the detailed
image analysis. Table 6 is the summary of Blast-6, whereas the largest particle size is estimated
Reference Football
Reference Football
Figure 5- 18: Blasted muck pile with reference orange footballs for Blast-6
Large size boulders are visible from the picture (Figure5-18) taken after blast. Figure 5-19 and
Figure 5-20 are the analysis reports received after image processing in Split Desktop version 4.
Figure 5-19 indicates the curve for passing size with respect to percentages. Figure 5-20
indicates the graphical presentation of percentage passing with respect to size in inches. The
65
curve indicates that 20% of material is below the set size of fines i.e. 6.5 inches. D50 was
achieved at the size of 35 inches. D80 was achieved at almost 75 inches. Top size obtained after
blast was approximately 92 inches. The Figure 5-20 elaborates the passing percentage with
respect to size range. It is evident that 27% of material ranges in between 25 to 75 inches
followed by 8% passing through size range between 15 to 25 inches. Similarly rest can also be
66
Figure 5- 20: Passing size portion for Blast-6
Table 5-6 comprises the summary of results obtained from blast-6. It can be seen from the table
that what size of muck pile is passing with respect to size bench mark, just like sieve analysis. It
There is need of secondary blasting. More than 11% of material was more than 75 inches. Based
on image analysis it is clear that there is no size in between 50 and 75 inches. Hence the top
bench mark is set at 50 inches. Fragmentation around 11% is even greater in size than 75 inches
which depicts improper blast energy distribution. As it has resulted in effective fragmentation at
67
Table 5- 6: Percentage of material passing through with respect to size
Further research in this area is suggested as this research work has limited scope due to shortage
of funds and limited monitoring devices such has high speed camera, drill hole monitoring
devices, seismograph.
2. Boulder limits
68
5.8. Comparison of Blast-1 and Blast-2
110.00
100.00
90.00
Percentage Passing
80.00
70.00
60.00 Blast-1 Percentage
50.00 Passing
40.00 Blast-2 Percentage
30.00 Passing
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.19 0.38 0.75 2 6 10 25 75
Size ( Inch)
Blast-2 which was conducted over a same profiled rock with same parameters apart from
stemming system. It can be seen that 100% material is passing by the criteria of 50 inches size,
whereas in case of Blast-2 the approximately 5.25% material was more than 75 inches in size.
Apart from size reduction it is also noted that blasting energy is more efficiently utilized as there
are lesser fines which depict proper utilization of energy. Pass out size of crusher at site is 6
inches so any particle lesser than this size is extra utilization of energy. Blast-2 has
approximately 70% of blasted material lower than 6 inches size, whereas in case of Blast-1, 27%
material was lower than 6 inches. This extra reduction is due to inappropriate energy distribution
making lower side of blast extra fragmented whereas the collar rock results in boulders larger
stemming material provided, supported towards even distribution of blast energy, within range
69
boulder size for crusher and ease of loading. However the muck pile was approximately same for
110.00
100.00
90.00
Percentage Passing
80.00
70.00
60.00 Blast-3 Percentage
50.00 Passing
40.00 Blast-4 Percentage
30.00 Passing
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.19 0.38 0.75 2 6 10 25 75
Size ( Inch)
perusal of Figure 5-22 it can be noted by there is a difference in between the effectiveness of Air
plug type stemming device and conventional system. The amount of over crushing was 20% for
Blast-4, whereas for Blast-3 it was 15%. The muck pile top size for site crusher in case of Blast-3
was acceptable however for Blast-4, which was done using conventional stemming only needed
8% of its muck pile to pass through secondary blasting. The throw of muck pile was also same in
these blasts.
70
5.10. Comparison of Blast-5 and Blast-6
110.00
100.00
90.00
Percentage Passing
80.00
70.00
60.00 Blast-5 Percentage
50.00 Passing
40.00 Blast-6 Percentage
30.00 Passing
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.19 0.38 0.75 2 6 10 25 75
Size ( Inch)
blasts, however the Blast-5 indicated a slight more crushing as compared to Blast-6 for crusher
passing size i.e. 6 inches. Material below passing size was 20% for Blast-6 and 25% for Blast-5.
However beyond the passing size criteria the effectiveness of Blast-5 was better as it again
depicted boulders acceptable for the crusher size whereas conventional blast with conventional
stemming portrays 10.5% of muck pile larger than the acceptable size.
Figure 5-24 depicts the overall comparison of most top sized boulder received after blasting and
Figure 5-25 depicts the percentage size beyond the acceptable limits of crusher that is 75 inches
or 2 meters.
71
Top Size of Boulder (Inches)
300.00
250.00 243.97
200.00
150.00
101.20 92.05
100.00
63.41
50.00 43.52 46.21
0.00
Blast-1 Blast-2 Blast-3 Blast-4 Blast-5 Blast-6
10.00
10.40
8.00
8.03
6.00
4.00 5.25
2.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
Blast-1 Blast-2 Blast-3 Blast-4 Blast-5 Blast-6
Figure 5-26 is overall summary of fragmentation where percentage passing with respect to size is
72
110.00
100.00
90.00 Blast 1 Percentage
Passing
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00 Blast-2 Percentage
Passing
60.00
Blast-4 Percentage
50.00 Passing
40.00
Blast-3 Percentage
30.00 Passing
20.00 Blast-5 Percentage
10.00 Passing
0.00 Blast-6 Percentage
10
15
25
50
75
0.08
0.19
0.25
0.38
0.75
1
2
4
6
8
0.5
Passing
Size ( Inch)
80 75
70
60
50
50
INCHES
40
40 35
30 25
22 20
20 15
12 10 11.5
10
2
0
Blast-1 Blast-2 Blast-3 Blast-4 Blast-5 Blast-6
D50 12 2 11.5 20 15 35
D80 22 10 40 50 25 75
Figure 5- 27: Analysis for D50 and D80 for each blast results.
Figure 5-27 clearly indicates that Blast-3 and Blast-5 had better D50 and D80 performance as
compared to Blast-4 and Blast-6 respectively. However it appears that Blast-2 is showing better
73
blasting result, major part had excessive fragmentation and approximately 10% was greater than
5.11. Summary
After review of whole research work it’s manifestly concluded that using a stemming device,
clearly enhances the effectiveness of blasting energy by having more material in between
crusher’s range, reduction in boulder production up to minimal level, hence reducing the
secondary blast cost, blasted material maneuverability and all associated economical affiliations.
Due to limitations of research funds and lack of state of the art monitoring devices such as high
speed blast cameras, deep hole cracks monitoring devices, seismographs and sound level
measuring devices the scope of this thesis was limited. However it is proposed that there is a lot
74
6. Economic Analysis
As indicated in Figure 5-25, First pair of blast requires secondary blasting for 5.25% of muck
pile, whereas second and third pair requires 8.03% and 10.40% respectively. Similarly this
amount of material will also require additional hauling and loading. Based on the accounts of
labor, explosive and machinery cost, economic analysis is conducted between the blasts with
stemming plugs and those with conventional stemming material. Based on the data received from
Magazine section of blasting site Table 6-1 indicates the pricing of explosives and accessories
Blaster 259.94/kg
Wabox 434.70/kg
Along with added explosives cost, piling up, hauling and maneuvering cost is also increased as
after secondly blasting all of these operations have to be performed again. As per field
given on per hour criteria. Drilling operation has to be dedicated for boulder blasting and
therefore one drilling machine has to spend 6 hours of drilling operation. One complete shift of
blasting team is used for boulder blasting. Expenses incurred in the head of lubricants, filters and
75
spare parts are given under single head of maintenance. Fuel consumption per hour is given in
Table 6-2, along with fuel rates received from refinery. These rates are lower than market price
As the blasting crew and machine operators are on monthly salary therefore these two heads are
not considered in economic analysis. Table 6-3 indicates the time utilized by each machinery
along with cost and amount of explosive to be used. Calculation done in Table 6-3 is calculated
for Blast-2, i.e. having 5.25% of oversized material. For Blast-4 and Blast-6 this will cost around
Rs. 79,193 and Rs. 102,565. Now coming to the cost of stemming plug, which is added cost to
the conventional system, but will result in reduction of secondary blasting cost. The cost per hour
given in the tables or any other parameter given to gauge the economics of operation is solely
taken from the test site and should not be used as reference at any place.
76
Table 6- 3: Detailed costing of secondary blasting
Table 6-4 gives the costing of each stemming plug and their numbers used in research work. As
all other parameters remain same and there is no need of extra shift for operators and labor to
utilize the stemming plugs therefore no extra cost is added. Furthermore the cost of plugs to
77
reach at site is considered. Once purchased in bulk quantity might reduce the cost further.
Stemming plug is rigid plastic material which can’t be wasted therefore their numbers are same
as that of used in actual. It is pertinent to mention here that due to puncturing and bursting of
Air-plugs approximately 30 Air-plugs were wasted, but their cost is added in the total number as
this issue is inbuilt with Air-Plugs. Similarly based on the ground conditions 6 additional units
are considered for cement mortar due to wastage during mixing, sticking of mortar with
container and pouring. Table 6-5 indicates the main crux of economic analysis and it can be seen
that only cost of stemming plugs is compared with cost of secondary blasting. Saving impact
Molded)
Mortar)
Economically speaking Stemming Plug-3 is showing the best performance as compared with
others which is a new design and still needs a lot of things considering its practicality and
applicability.
78
7. Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Work
This research work was conducted after complete planning of work to be carried out. Intensive
Literature review was done to know about related aspects of stemming plugs working, efficacy,
analysis, ease of operation, image analysis techniques and tips etc. It was also studied that if
there are any stemming plugs being used in Pakistan. Types of different stemming plugs used in
past were also discussed in detail with their effectiveness and enhanced performance over
conventional stemming material. Different type of stemming plugs available in market were also
studied.
After completion of literature review field visit was performed and all details relating to surface
mining operation was collected. Blast design, quarry working, drilling pattern, lithology, geology
and all related information was gathered. As quarry was in high rainfall zone, therefore weather
conditions and forecast were also studied to avoid any kind of inconvenience or delay that might
occur due to rain may be overcome. From Raw material requirement to equipment available at
the site, type of explosives being used were noted. Complete methodology for calculation of
Using knowledge attained by literature review and its practical application in field, three new
stemming systems were proposed. Plastic mold, inflatable ball and quick setting cement were
used to plug holes. After completing test blasts images were taken for analysis on Split Desktop
Software. Results were analyzed and blast pairs were discussed in detail. Each of blast pair was
compared and analyzed based on top boulder size, D50, D80, percentage passing and percentage
of fragmentation beyond limit of 75 inches. Based on the results and discussions few conclusions
were reached.
79
7.1. Conclusions
Based on the planned working mechanism and guideline attained from research work, following
3. None of the stemming plug gave any kind of boulder which means homogenized blast
energy utilization.
4. Using stemming plug reduced mechanical stress induced by large sized boulders.
5. No Secondary blast requirement, when stemming plug was used alongside conventional
stemming material.
6. Plastic molded stemming plugs had best performance followed by quick setting cement
7.2. Recommendations
3. Manual delineation must be done to have best results from image analysis software.
80
7.3. Future Work
A lot of research can be carried out in this field related to absolute economic analysis,
experimentation with new types of stemming plugs, vibration analysis, machine utilization
timing analysis, comparison between stemming plugs and designing of new stemming plugs.
This research work was a successful one with a lot of stones still to be unturned. At start this
research was focused on developing a new stemming plug and it was designed up till 3-D model
but due to acute shortage of funds for making its dye and molding it, this research was shifted
towards using already established or discussed stemming plugs previously used as the literature
states. These plugs were not exactly made for this purpose, rather they were utilized by
81
8. References
Adhikari, G.R. 1999 Studies on flyrock at limestone quarries. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Bartley A., 2003. Performance testing of Vari-Stem hole plugs. September 24, 2003.
The Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 111(12). ISSN: 0038-223X
Brinkmann J.R. 1990. An experimental study of the effects of shock and gas penetration in
Cevizci H., 2012. A newly developed plaster stemming method for blasting. The Journal of the
Cevizci H., Özkahraman H.T., 2012. The effect of blast hole stemming length to rock pile
Eloranta, J., Selection of powder factor in large diameter blast holes, EXPLO 95 conference,
Hunter, G.C., McDermott, C., Miles, N.J., Singh, A. and Scoble, M.J., A review of image
analysis techniques for measuring blast fragmentation. International Journal of Mining Science
82
Kanchibolta S. S., Morell S., Valery W., and O’Loughlin P., (1998), Exploring the effect of
blasting design on sag mill throughput at KCGM, Processing Mine to Mill Conference.,
Brisbane.
Karakus D., Onur A. H., Konak G., Kose H., 2003. Application of stemming plugs and a case
study in a limestone quarry. International Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey IMCET
Khandelwal, M, and Singh, T. N. 2006 Prediction of blast induced ground vibrations and
frequency in opencast mine—a neural network approach. Journal of Sound Vibration, 289:711–
25.
Kojovic T., 2005. Influence of aggregate stemming in blasting on the SAG mill performance.
Koop J. W., 1987. Stemming ejection and burden movements from small borehole blasts. Report
Maerz, N.H., Franklin, J.A., Rothenburg, L. and Coursen, D.L., Measurement of rock
Maerz, N.H., Palangio, T.C., and Franklin, J.A., WipFrag image based granulometry system.
Maerz, N. H., and Zhou, W., Optical digital fragmentation measuring systems - inherent sources
of error. FRAGBLAST, International Journal for Blasting and Fragmentation, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.
415-431. (1998)
83
Mohamad E. T., Armaghani D. J., Hajihassani M., Faizi K., Marto A., 2013. A simulation
approach to predict blasting induced flyrock and size of thrown rocks. Electronic Journal of
Mohamad, E. T., Armaghani, D. J., Noorani, S.A., Saad, R., Alavi N. K. A., 2012. Prediction of
Ozkahraman H.T., 2006. Fragmentation assessment and design of blast pattern at Goltas
limestone quarry, Turkey. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43. p.
628-633.
Rai P., Chaoudhary B.S., 2013. Stemming plug and its effect on fragmentation and muck pile
shape parameters. International Journal Mining and Mineral Engineering, Volume 4, No. 4,
2013.
Rai P., Imperial F. L., 2005, Mesh area vis-à-vis blast performance in a limestone quarry of the
Philippines, Fragblast: International Journal for Blasting and Fragmentation, 9:4, 219-232
Rai P., Ranjan P.K., Chaoudhary B.S., 2008. Achieving effective fragmentation. The Journal of
Sazid M., Sharan M. R., Singh T. N., 2016. Enhancement of the explosive energy utilization with
the application of new stemming contrivance. International Journal of Innovative Science and
Sazid M., Singh T. N., Saharan M.R. Monjezi M., (2012) International Mining Congress and
84
Sharma S. K., Rai P., 2015. Investigation of crushed aggregate as stemming material in bench
blasting: A case Study. International Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering DOI
10.1007/s10706-015-9911-7.
Singh, D.P. and Sastry, V.R.S., 1988, Effect of controllable blast design factors on rock
Singh, T.N., and Singh, V. 2005 An intelligent approach to predict and control ground vibration
underground stopes for in situ leaching. Proceedings of the10th annual symposium on explosives
quzarries using artificial neural networks. International Journal Fragmentation Blasting 10:233–
42.
Thornton, D., Kanchibolta, S. S, and Brunton, I. 2002 Modelling the impact and blast design
Trivedi R, Singh TN, Raina AK (2014) Prediction of blast induced fly rock in Indian limestone
mines using neural networks. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
6(2014):447–454
USBM (1991). Apparent Consumption of Industrial Explosives and Blasting Agents in the
United States, 1990, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.,
85
USBM (1992). Apparent Consumption of Industrial Explosives and Blasting Agents in the
United States, 1991, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.,
USBM (1993). Apparent Consumption of Industrial Explosives and Blasting Agents in the
United States, 1992, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.,
USBM (1994).Mineral Industry Surveys -Explosives in1993, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C., August 12, 1994, by Deborah A. Kramer.
USGS (1995). Mineral Industry Surveys - Explosives, 1994 Annual review, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 983 National Center, Reston , VA 20192, July1995, by
Deborah A. Kramer.
USGS (1996). Mineral Industry Surveys - Explosives, 1995 Annual review, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 983 National Center, Reston , VA 20192, August 1996,
by Deborah A. Kramer.
USGS (1997). Mineral Industry Surveys - Explosives, 1996 Annual review, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 983 National Center, Reston , VA 20192, August 1997,
by Deborah A. Kramer.
USGS (1998). Mineral Industry Surveys - Explosives, 1997 Annual review, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 983 National Center, Reston , VA 20192, August 1998,
by Deborah A. Kramer.
86
USGS (1999). Mineral Industry Surveys - Explosives, 1998 Annual review, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 983 National Center, Reston , VA 20192, August 1999,
by Deborah A. Kramer.
USGS (2000). Mineral Industry Surveys - Explosives, 1999 Annual review, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 983 National Center, Reston , VA 20192, August 2000,
by Deborah A. Kramer.
cylindrical rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 44(2007):412–
42
87
Terminologies
Blast hole: The vertical or horizontal hole drilled in rock for the purpose of
loading explosives and containing the explosive energy after
initiation.
Circuit: The totally connected and interlinked array of all blast holes to be
initiated by single firing.
Ground The waves transferred via ground after being emitted by blasting
vibrations: activity.
Stemming The device used to do function of stemming, i.e. containing the blast
Plug: produced gases.
88