FInal

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 89

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333455747

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF STEMMING PLUG TO ENHANCE BLAST


PERFORMANCE

Thesis · May 2017


DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15991.47523

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:

Surface mining and blasting View project

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.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


M. Sc. Thesis

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF STEMMING


PLUG TO ENHANCE BLAST PERFORMANCE

Submitted by: Atta ur Rehman


Registration No: 2015-MS-Min-04
Status: Full Time
Registration Date 4th February, 2015
Supervisor Name: Dr. Muhammad Zaka Emad
Cell Number: +92-333-035-9999, +92-334-696-9454
Email: atbi_58@yahoo.com

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING


Faculty of Earth Sciences & Engineering
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore

3rd January, 2016


1
Abstract
Incorporation of stemming plugs in blasting is in practice for last three decades. Their

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

limestone quarry in Pakistan.

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

or secondary blasting. Based on these criteria blast performance is judged.

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

at an average 280 blasts per year.

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

Degree from UET on departmental grant.

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

during the completion of this Research.

It would be out of justice if I don’t express my gratitude toward Dr. Zulfiqar Ali, Chairman

Mining Engineering Department. I would like to send my salutations to management of D.G.

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

them in all aspects of their lives.

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.

This is due to the diversity of parameters which affect blasting activity.

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

practice with improvisation according to local conditions.

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

causes poor energy utilization resulting in wasteful blasting in terms of fragmentation,

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

generally improves stemming performance.

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

where economics is secondary or tertiary consideration.

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

factor, but maximum energy utilization results in enhanced fragmentation.

1.2. Problem Statement

Surface mining industry of Pakistan is not introduced to stemming plugs due to the fact that there

is no marketing of such blasting accessory locally. No mining equipment or utility supplier

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

experiences and efficiency of operator.

1.3. Objective of Research

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

economics. The secondary objectives of this research include

1. Introduce stemming plugs to local quarries

2. Design and development of convenient stemming plug for surface blasting operations

3. On site testing of stemming plug

4. Conduct economic analysis to justify the choice of systems

1.4. Scope of work

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.

1.5. Thesis Outline

The research topic is introduced and objectives are shown in Chapter 1. Basic outline of research

work is also discussed in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 discusses literature review conducted in

pursuance of designing a convenient stemming plug. This includes importance of stemming

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.

2.2. Explosives in Mining

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.

Brinkman (1990) without experimentation authentication claimed that if we allow venting of

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

grinding. Experimentation conducted on increased powder factor indicated that increase in

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

optimum level of utilization must be known to avoid overcharging of holes or lack of

fragmentation due to poor charging. Explosives operate on a fundamental principle of burning

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

and scattered muck pile.

2.3. Stemming and Stemming Plugs

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

velocity of detonation being standard measuring parameter. Results obtained by these

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

generated due to blasting activity.

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

mill throughput by 4% and power reduction by 5%.

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,

specific surface, granulometry, fragmentation coefficient, crusher monitoring, boulder count,

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

over conventional method of sieving used for size analysis.

22
a) Quick working and multiple images can be processed and analyzed.

b) High speed operation doesn’t affect the production

c) Due to inexpensive and fast approach many samples can be analyzed resulting in less

significant sampling error.

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

oversize in fragmentation, muckpile profile, displacement of muckpile, undiggable area after

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

Sr. No. Supplier Name Location Access Website


1 Hole Products United States http://www.holeproducts.com
2 Vari-Stem United States http://www.varistem.com
3 Ideal Blasting United States http://www.idealblasting.com
4 Blaster Tool United States http://www.blasterstool.com
5 Para Plugs United States http://www.paraplug.com/
6 LHS Germany Germany http://www.lhs-germany.de/
7 Stem Lock United States/Canada http://stemlock.com
8 Oresome Products Australia http://www.oresomeproducts.com
9 Super Plugs South Africa http://www.superplugsa.com/
10 Max Blast United States http://www.max-blast.com/
11 BF Carr & Associate United States http://www.stemplug.com/

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

Kallar Kahar and 8 Km from Kallar Kahar motorway interchange.

3.2. Plant Raw Material Requirement and Processing

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

fragmentation and enhanced blast energy utilization.

3.3. Test Site Parameters

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

crusher produces crushed limestone of size less than 125mm.

26
Table 3-1: Bench nomenclature and their heights from each other and sea level

Bench Number Bench Height from Bench Height


Sea Level (meters) (meters)
0 846 14

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.

3.4. Equipment at test site

Test site has a very efficient and maintained pool of heavy machinery, the list of all those

machines is given below.

o Off Road Haul Dumpers – Caterpillar 775F, 775E

o Wheel Loader – Caterpillar 988, 966

o Front Shovels – Caterpillar 385C

o On Road Haul Dumpers – Volvo FM410

o Rock Break/Back Hoe – Volvo E205D

o Drilling Machine – Atlas Copco RocL6, 460PC

o Dozers – Caterpillar D8, D9

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

for 24 hours with 8 hours of each shift.

3.5. Drilling Pattern

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

3.6. Explosive usage and working

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

the air circulating to remove NOx.

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

Name Type of Explosive Use of Explosive

Wabox 80% Dynamite Primer

Blaster Watergel Booster

Emulite Emulsion Booster

ANFO Blasting Agent Blasting Agent


(Prilled and Fertilizer grade)

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.

Figure 3- 2: Cross-section of conventional blast design at site

The firing pattern was as Figure 3-3, detonating cord was used to connect the last hole of

previous circuit to new hole of next circuit.

30
Figure 3- 3: Typical firing pattern

3.7. Explosive Calculation

Following methodology is adopted to calculate the amount of explosive to be used in each blast

hole and total amount is calculated accordingly.

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

multiplied with total number of holes. For example;

Bench height = 12 meters

Sub drilling = 1 meter

Total height = 13 meters

Spacing = 5 meters

Burden = 4 meters

Total Number of Holes = 97

Volume of single hole = 13 × 4 × 5= 260 m3

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

used in Quarrying operation.

Step 4: Explosive is calculated based on powder factor standards set after due diligence of

previous operators and manufacturing catalogue incorporation based on uniaxial compressive

strength of rock. 0.4 kg/m3 is criteria set by DG Khan Cement Company’s management and on

following that following calculations were done.

Amount of Explosive = 0.4 x 25,220 = 10, 088 Kg

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.

Figure 3- 4: Conventional stemming material


Figure 3-5 indicates the typical circuit construction where one trunk line is laid and each hole

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

delay difference between these two rows.

Figure 3- 5: Typical Nonel blast connections

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

as geology, hole profile, blast design, powder factor etc.

4.2. Design Methodology

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

flexible material to fit in the blast hole.

4.3. Onsite Experimentation

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

added as 4 times the quantity of cement.

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

from them are represented on excel in form of percentage passing.

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

maximum consideration to economics and blasting efficiency. Worldwide, in mining industry,

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.

4.4. Product Description

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

stemming plugs or stemming system with consideration to economics. Based on parameters

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.

4.5. Stemming Plug 1

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.

This Stemming plug has no interaction with Nonel or Detonating cord.

Figure 4- 1: Stemming Plug-1

38
Stemming Plug
Positioned

NONEL &
DET-CORD

Figure 4- 2: Application of Stemming Plug-1 in blast hole

Lowering
technique

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

4.6. Stemming plug 2

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

view of blast holes.

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)

Figure 4- 6: Air-line and Nonel going into blast hole

41
Inflated Air-Plug
in blast hole

NONEL

Figure 4- 7: Inflated air plug in hole after removal of air assembly

Air-line insertion point

Figure 4- 8: Cross section of blast hole with Stemming Plug-2


Once again the installation is followed by conducting the blast. The results obtained from these

experimentations are discussed in Section 5.

4.7. Stemming plug 3

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.

On site quick setting


cement preparation

Additive for
quick setting
cement

Figure 4- 9: Additive for quick setting cement and cement mixture

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

hole new mixture was made.

Measuring container

Figure 4- 10: Measuring container for additives to be added in the mixture.

Quick Setting Cement


Slurry (4 liters per hole)

Figure 4- 11: Pouring mechanism for cement mortar


44
Quick Setting
Cement Packing

Figure 4- 12: Cross section of blast hole with cement mortar


All detailed comparison on blast results and comparative analysis on fragmentation and in

between different stemming system tested are explained in Section 5.

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.

Figure 5- 1: Bench before blasting (Stemming Plug-2)


Figure 5-1 shows the bench used for stemming plug-2 testing before blasting. Right side in the

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

size distribution of muck pile.

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,

depicting approximated size below fine cutoff size.

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

be seen at Figure 5-5.

Figure 5- 5: Graph showing passing size portion in whole muck pile.

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.

Table 5-1: Percentage of material passing for Blast-1

Size (Inches) % Passing


50 100.00
25 87.18
15 59.78
10 40.33
8 33.05
6 25.26
4 17.30
2 9.05
1 4.74
0.75 3.62
0.5 2.48
0.38 1.89
0.25 1.29
0.19 0.99
0.08 0.44

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

crusher at quarry site is 2 meters.

Reference Football Reference Football

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

between 2 to 3 inches followed by 9% passing through size range between 10 to 18 inches.

Similarly rest can also be seen at Figure 5-8.

Figure 5- 7: Graph showing percentage passing size for Blast-2

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.

Table 5- 2: Table showing percentage of material passing for Blast-2

Size (Inches) % Passing


75 94.75
50 93.77
25 92.41
15 89.59
10 80.14
8 75.36
6 69.61
4 62.23
2 51.34
1 42.32
0.75 39.05
0.5 34.86
0.38 32.16
0.25 28.70
0.19 26.46
0.08 20.80

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

of blast taken at site in accordance with Split Desktop directions.

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

with hopper action.

Figure 5- 10: Percentage passing size for Blast-3


Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11 are the analysis reports received after image processing in Split

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

can also be seen at Figure 5-11.

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.

Table 5- 3: Percentage of material passing for Blast-3

Size (Inches) % Passing


75 100.00
50 90.60
25 49.30
15 29.71
10 21.83
8 17.89
6 13.83
4 9.63
2 5.18
1 2.79
0.75 2.15
0.5 1.50
0.38 1.16
0.25 0.80
0.19 0.62
0.08 0.28

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

seen at Figure 5-15.

Figure 5- 13: Percentage passing size for Blast-4

Figure 5- 14: Passing size portion for Blast-4

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.

Table 5- 4: Percentage of material passing for Blast-4

Size (Inches) % Passing


75 91.97
50 75.41
25 46.50
15 32.60
10 26.79
8 23.43
6 19.71
4 15.44
2 10.17
1 6.69
0.75 5.62
0.5 4.39
0.38 3.68
0.25 2.88
0.19 2.41
0.08 1.42

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

the results obtained after image analysis in Split Desktop.

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

seen at Figure 5-17.

Figure 5- 16: Percentage passing size for Blast-5


Table 5-5 comprises the summary of results obtained from blast-5. 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. All the fragmented material is far below size of 50 inches.

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.

Table 5- 5: Percentage of material passing for Blast-5

Size (Inches) % Passing


50 100.00
25 80.64
15 52.60
10 36.28
8 31.20
6 26.29
4 19.38
2 11.51
1 6.82
0.75 5.49
0.5 4.04
0.38 3.25
0.25 2.39
0.19 1.92
0.08 0.99

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

to be around 92 inches or 2.5 meters.

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

seen at Figure 5-20.

Figure 5- 19: Percentage passing size for Blast-6

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

is clear that fragmentation is not within the required range.

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

one part however on other hand no effect on 11% of fragmentation.

67
Table 5- 6: Percentage of material passing through with respect to size

Size (Inches) % Passing


50 89.60
25 62.68
15 35.73
10 26.92
8 23.29
6 22.01
4 20.83
2 17.04
1 12.08
0.75 8.55
0.5 7.40
0.38 6.04
0.25 5.23
0.19 4.26
0.08 3.68

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.

All the three pairs of blasts are compared on following criteria’s

1. Passing size percentage

2. Boulder limits

3. Top size of boulder

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)

Figure 5- 21: Comparison of percentage passing for Blast-1 and Blast-2


It is evident from Figure 5- 21 that Blast-1 has overall low fragmentation as compared to the

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

than 2 meters or 75 inches. So using a stemming device in Blast-1 in addition to conventional

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

both the blasts.

5.9. Comparison Blast-3 and Blast-4

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)

Figure 5- 22: Comparison of percentage passing for Blast-3 and Blast-4


Blast-3 and Blast-4 were performed at a bit looser strata as compared with other blasts still after

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)

Figure 5- 23: Comparison of percentage passing for Blast-5 and Blast-6


The analysis in Figure 5-23 indicates that amount of fines is approximately same for both the

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

Figure 5- 24: Representation of top boulder size for each blast

Percentage of material greater than


acceptable limit (75 inches)
12.00

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- 25: Representation of material requiring secondary blasting

Figure 5-26 is overall summary of fragmentation where percentage passing with respect to size is

given for better convenience in driving conclusions.

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)

Figure 5- 26: Blasts performance with respect to 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

performance as compared with Blast-1. On actual it is contrary. Blast-2 showed abnormal

73
blasting result, major part had excessive fragmentation and approximately 10% was greater than

1.5 meters. However Blast-1 has better homogenized fragmentation.

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

of scope for further research in this area.

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

such as detonator, Nonel etc.

Table 6- 1: Prices of explosives and accessories necessary for blast

Product Name Product Price (PKR)

Nonel (10 meters) 183.46/unit

Detonating Cord 24.94/meter

Safety Fuse 9.82/meter

Plain Detonator 16.72/unit

Ammonium Nitrate (Prilled) 49.37/kg

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

information received from higher management of DG Cement, Operational cost of machinery is

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

due to bulking contract and no third party in between.

Table 6- 2: Operational cost of mining machinery

Machinery Fuel High Speed Maintenance Total cost


(liters/hour) Diesel/hour Cost/hour per hour
@ 68 PKR (PKR)
Drilling Machine, Roc L6 40 2720 288 3008

Haul Truck, Caterpillar 775F 25 1700 157 1857

Front Shovel, Caterpillar 385C 45 3060 316 3376

Dozer, D9R 35 2380 276 2656

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

Machinery Cost/hour No. of hours Total Cost


or or (No. of
(Cost/unit) Units/kg)
Drilling Machine, Roc L6 3,008 6 18,048

Haul Truck, Caterpillar 775F 1,857 4 7,428

Front Shovel, Caterpillar 385C 3,376 4 13,506

Dozer, D9R 2,656 2 5,312

Nonel (10 meters) (183.46/unit) 15 2,752

Safety Fuse (9.82/meter) 2 19.64

Plain Detonator (16.72/unit) 1 16.72

Ammonium Nitrate (Prilled) (49.37/kg) 20 987.4

Blaster (259.94/kg) 14.28 3,712

Grand Total (Rupees) 51,776

Table 6- 4: Cost of each stemming plug

Type of Stemming Plug Unit Price Total Total Cost


(PKR) Number of (PKR)
Units used
Stemming Plug-1 (Plastic Molded) 220 47 10,340

Stemming Plug-2 (Air-Plug) 95 80 7,600

Stemming Plug-3 (Cement Mortar) 335 56 18,760

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

can be seen per annum as well.

Table 6- 5: Comparison between stemming plugs and secondary blasting.

Type of Stemming Plug Total Total Cost of Savings per Approx.


Cost Secondary Blast (PKR) Annual
(PKR) Blasting Savings
(PKR) (280
Blasts)
Stemming Plug-1 (Plastic 10,340 51,776 41,436 11,602,080

Molded)

Stemming Plug-2 (Air-Plug) 7,600 79,193 71,539 20,030,920

Stemming Plug-3 (Cement 18,760 102,565 83,805 23,465,400

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

explosive was done for blast design.

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

conclusions were reached after detailed research work.

1. Blast performance is definitely increased after use of stemming plugs as compared to

conventional stemming material.

2. Economical benefits are not ignorable.

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

and Air Plugs.

7.2. Recommendations

Based on the research work following recommendations are proposed.

1. Stemming plugs must be used in blasting associated mining industry.

2. It is recommended to use three reference footballs for better image analysis.

3. Manual delineation must be done to have best results from image analysis software.

4. High resolution camera must be opted for imagery.

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

improvising the available material to maximum.

81
8. References

Adhikari, G.R. 1999 Studies on flyrock at limestone quarries. Rock Mechanics and Rock

Engineering, 32(4): 291-301

Bartley A., 2003. Performance testing of Vari-Stem hole plugs. September 24, 2003.

Boshoff D, Webber-Youngman RCW (2011) Testing stemming performance, possible or not?

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

blasting, Chamber of mines research organization, Auckland Park, South Africa.

Cevizci H., 2012. A newly developed plaster stemming method for blasting. The Journal of the

South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. December, page. 1071-1078

Cevizci H., Özkahraman H.T., 2012. The effect of blast hole stemming length to rock pile

fragmentation at limestone quarries. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining

Sciences, volume 53, page. 32-35

Eloranta, J., Selection of powder factor in large diameter blast holes, EXPLO 95 conference,

Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Brisbane, September, PP 25-28 (1995)

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

and Technology, 11: 19-36. (1990)

IME (1997). Glossary of commercial explosives industry terms. Institute of Makers of

Explosives, Washington, D.C., Safety Publication No. 12, p. 16.

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

2003. ISBN 975–395–605-3

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.

Miner Engineering 18:1398–1404.

Koop J. W., 1987. Stemming ejection and burden movements from small borehole blasts. Report

of Investigation United State Department of the Interior 1987.

Maerz, N.H., Franklin, J.A., Rothenburg, L. and Coursen, D.L., Measurement of rock

fragmentation by digital photo analysis. 5th International Congress of International Society of

Rock Mechanics, (1987)

Maerz, N.H., Palangio, T.C., and Franklin, J.A., WipFrag image based granulometry system.

Proceedings of the FRAGBLAST (1996)

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

Geotechnical Engineering Volume. 18 (2013).

Mohamad, E. T., Armaghani, D. J., Noorani, S.A., Saad, R., Alavi N. K. A., 2012. Prediction of

Flyrock in Boulder Blasting by Using Artificial Neural Network. Electronic Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering. Volume 17, Bund. R, 2585-2595.

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

Quarry Management. February 2008.

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

Modern Engineering (IJISME) ISSN: 2319-6386, Volume-4 Issue-2, January 2016.

Sazid M., Singh T. N., Saharan M.R. Monjezi M., (2012) International Mining Congress and

Expo, Iran. January 2012.

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

fragmentation. Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Fuels, December, 539 – 548.

Singh, T.N., and Singh, V. 2005 An intelligent approach to predict and control ground vibration

in mines. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2 3: 249–62.

Stagg,MS, Otterness, R E and Djahanguiri, F, 1994.Prediction of blast fragmentation of

underground stopes for in situ leaching. Proceedings of the10th annual symposium on explosives

and blasting research, Austin, Texas USA, 197-208

Tawadrous, A. S, and Katsabanis, P. D. 2005 Prediction of surface blast patterns in limestone

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

variation on blast fragmentation. International Journal of Fragmentation Blasting, 6(2): 169–88.

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.,

August 9,1991, by Raymond L. Cantrell.

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.,

August 28, 1992, by Raymond L. Cantrell.

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.,

August 23, 1993, by Raymond L. Cantrell.

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.

Workshop on Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 23 -24 Aug.,

1996, pp. 91 -99.

Zettler R, 2009. Monthly magazine of Rock the Lock. January 2009.

Zhu Z, Xiea H, Mohanty B 2007 Numerical investigation of blasting-induced cracking in

cylindrical rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 44(2007):412–

42

87
Terminologies

Blast: The action of pulverization and displacement of intact rock by


utilizing explosive energy.

Blast hole: The vertical or horizontal hole drilled in rock for the purpose of
loading explosives and containing the explosive energy after
initiation.

Explosive: It is a chemical substance which upon initiation generates a lot


amount of heat and gas that can be used for blasting and propelling
functions.

Charge: It is the amount of explosives blasted/initiated at the same time.

Delay: It is the time difference between two blasts in same circuit.

Circuit: The totally connected and interlinked array of all blast holes to be
initiated by single firing.

Confinement: Containment of explosive generated gases in borehole after their


initiation.

Initiation: The process of starting explosive reaction, generally done by


detonator.

Ground The waves transferred via ground after being emitted by blasting
vibrations: activity.

Flyrock: Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME, 1997) defined flyrock as


rock propelled beyond the blast area due to force resulted by
explosion.

Powder Amount of explosive required to break one ton of desired material.


Factor:
Stemming: Material used to fill the top part of blast hole for providing
confinement to blast produced gases.

Stemming The device used to do function of stemming, i.e. containing the blast
Plug: produced gases.

88

View publication stats

You might also like