Investigation into the Effect of Stemming on Blast Performance in Underground

Excavations- A Model Study

1
M. Devendar, 2 Dr. Manish D. Uttarwar
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic, Bellampally, 504251, Mancherial District, Telangana, India
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering, Research and Technology, Chandrapur 442 403
(M.S.)
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
Blasting in an underground mine produces potentially harmful elastic stress waves that propagate down the walls and back of t he
entry. Stemming may be used to maximize the effectiveness of an explosive at the face and minimize the magnitude of the elastic
waves that propagate down the entry and also reduce unnecessary discharge. Stemming is necessary to stop the explosive energy
from escaping through the upper part of blast holes in underground mines.

Keywords
Blasting, Stemming, Underground Excavation, Fly Ash Brick (FAB), Fragmentation, Air Overpressure, Ground Vibrations

Introduction
Rock fragmentation by blasting is an extensive and effective practice in the engineering of mines and quarries (Shi et al., 2016a;
Jhanwar et al., 2000; Bohloli and Hoven, 2007). Utilization efficiency of energy from the explosive has a profound impact on rock
fragmentation and subsequent mucking and transportation. Researchers have been trying to utilize more energy released during
blasting for rock breaking but less for air shock waves and ground vibration (Zhang et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2016b). It is commonly
agreed that energy released during blasting spreads into surrounding rock through two types of loadings: shock wave (stress wave)
and explosion gas pressure (Zhu, 2009; Bhandari, 1977; Brinkman, 1989). The stress wave initiates cracks around the blast hol e
and near free surface, and the longer duration gas pressure penetrates these initial cracks and causes their further extension, finally
driving the movement of fractured rocks (Kutter, 1971; Mchugh, 1983).
Generally, blast holes from the explosive charge at the mouth of the hole are stemmed with inert materials to optimize the usage
of explosive energy and reduce unnecessary discharge (Dobrilovi et al., 2005). Due to adequate stemming, the efficiency of
blasting increases nearly 50%, which has been proven by both lab and field tests (Brinkmann, 1990). Missing or improper
stemming, which leads to detonation gas escaping from blast holes in advance, results not only in wastage of explosive energy and
poor fragmentation but also in environmental problems, such as ground vibration, noise, flying rocks, back breaks and air bla sts
(Floyd, 1999). Previous research showed that stemming can increase the action time of detonation gas inside the blast holes (Fig.
1) and promote the full reaction of explosives, reducing explosive consumption (Zong, 1996; Luo and Wu, 2006).

Fig.1: The Curves of Pressure and Time: (a) Without Stemming; (b) With Stemming.

In mining industries, three types of materials, including solid, liquid and colloidal materials, are used as stemming materia ls in
blast holes. Scholars have not yet made enough progress on the selection of stemming materials. The process of ejection of
stemming material from a blast hole is strongly dependent on the length and type of stemming material. Currently, there are
several documents devoted to studying the effect of stemming length in blasting (Cevizci and Ozkahraman, 2012; Li and Liu,
2012; Wang et al., 2016).
The composition and type of stemming material will play an important role in the blasting efficiency. This study was directed
towards establishing a procedure for determining the type of stemming that would be the most effective in accomplishing the t ask.
In the present study, model tests were carried out to investigate the effect of different stemming material on blasting perfo rmance.
Methodology
This paper discusses the performance of the blasting with different stemming materials and the role of stemming in blasting. A
series of small-scale tests were conducted with different stemming materials on Fly ash brick (FAB) with a detonator to
investigate the effect of stemming material on blast performance. The types of stemming materials used were Drill cuttings, Moist
clay, Fly ash-Clay Mixture, Sand -Clay Mixture and Sand. The Parameters like Fragmentation, Air overpressure, Ground
Vibrations were studied and data generated for each blast model was observed. For each stemming material used, the above
parameters were measured and compared with the each of the stemming material performances for all the blast trials. The
performance for each stemming material is observed and analyzed for underground excavations. The study revealed that the
quality and type of stemming material significantly influences the blasting performance. Hence, the quality and type of stemm ing
material must be considered in designing blast rounds. The results indicated that the sand was the best stemming material that can
be effectively improve blast performance and in turn mining efficiency for all situations.

Experimental Setup
Block Preparation: Fly ash brick (FAB) model blocks, owning to its flexibility in making with desired shape, size, and necessary
strength were prepared. A total of 36 (FAB) model blocks made of Fly-ash, sand, cement mixtures at different proportions were
developed.
The blocks were prepared with the sizes of 30cm X 20cm X 15cm by using FAB moulds [Fig. 3(b)]. The clay in the mould was
compacted by using compaction machine. The blocks were kept in shade for drying and curing for 14 days.

Fig.2(a): Sand Used in F.A.B. Fig.2(b). Fly Ash Used in F.A.B

Fig.3 (a): Mixing Unit Fig. 3(b): F.A.B. Moulding Unit

Fig. 4(a): Mobile Moulding Machine Fig. 4(b): F.A.B Models

As stated below in the Table no.1, a total of 12 models were prepared with inferior quality (Low strength), 12 models wi th
medium and another 12 with superior quality. The models were cured for a period of 2 weeks and dried for another 2 weeks. The
models were then blasted with an instantaneous detonator inserted in a 10 mm drill hole made in the models.
Model No. Model Strength Fly Ash Sand Cement
1 Low strength 60 25 15
2 Medium strength 50 30 20
3 High strength 40 35 25
Table 1: Composition of the FAB Model Mixture

Tests Conducted in the Laboratory:

The strength properties like Volumetric Shrinkage, Density, Water absorption and Compression strength tests were conducted at
the laboratory and at the model preparation site on (FAB) model blocks. For each composition 3 model blocks were tested, and
the average results were given in the Table 2
1. Shrinkage Test:
Volumetric shrinkage is the measure which decides the final size of mould which was to be used in the brick preparation.
Volumetric shrinkage = W₁ - W₂ X 100
W₂
W₁ - Volume of moulded brick (cm³)
W₂ - Actual volume of moulded brick after drying (cm³)
2. Density:
Density =M X 100
W
M - Mass of dry block
in gm W - Volume of
dry blocks (cc)
3. Percent Water Absorption: The dried brick was immersed in water for 24 hours.
W3 = W₂ - W₁ X 100
W₁
W₁ - Weight of dry brick in kg.
W₂ - Weight of brick after 24 hrs
immersion in water W3 - Percent
water absorption.
4. Compression Test: Universal Testing Machine
(Vivekananda college of Polytechnic, Mancherial) was used to determine compressive strength of the
brick.
Compressive strength = Crushing load (kg) X 100
Surface area in contact

Fig.6 (a): Compression Testing Machine Fig.6 (b): FAB Block

Weight per unit Compressive strength Volumetric Water absorption

FAB Type
volume g/cm3 (kg/cm2) shrinkage (%) (%)
Low strength 1.10 62 5 12
Medium strength 1.16 80 7 15
High strength 1.20 93 10 19
Table 2: Average Strength Properties of FAB Specimen

Trial blasts with Fly ash brick (FAB) Models

Fly ash brick (FAB) were used for laboratory scale model studies. A series of small -scale tests were made on these model blocks
by blasting with an instantaneous detonator inserted in a 10 mm drill hole made in the models. Fragmentation, Ground Vibration
and Air overpressure data was generated with Fly ash brick (FAB) model blasts with various stemming material. All the other
parameters are to be kept constant. The influence of Fragmentation, Ground Vibration and Air overpressure with varying
stemming material was determined for various onsite trial blasts.

Maximum seismic range 254 mm/s

Resolution 0.127 mm/s
Accuracy 3% at 15 Hz
Trigger levels 0.25 to 254 mm/s
Table 3: Technical Specifications of the Geophones of Seismograph

Measurement of Ground Vibration and Air overpressure

Ground vibration monitoring is the process of recording and reporting the intensity of the vibration levels. Ground vibrations were
by using seismograph. The seismograph monitor measures the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) in millimetres per seco nd. The PPV
defined “the maximum speed of a particular particle as it oscillates about a point of equilibrium, caused by the traveling se ismic
wave”. Air overpressure or “Airblast”, is “an airborne shock wave resulting from the detonation of explosives.” Air overpressure
is monitored with a microphone designed to measure and record air pressure changes over time in pounds per square inch (psi),
millibars (mb), or pascals, and is often reported in decibels (dB).
In this study, Minimate Plus (Instantel, Canada) was used for measurement of Ground Vibration and Air overpressure. Minimate
Plus is the one of the most advanced compact seismograph developed by Instantel Inc., Canada. It is a programmable instrument
with user-friendly menus with particle velocity measuring range of 0 - 2540mm/s and frequency measuring range of 28Hz to
2kHz. This instrument used in most of the experimentation sites where the near -field vibration recorded. Technical specifications
of geophones of seismograph (Minimate Plus) are given in Table 3.5.

Fig.7(a): Instantel Minimate Plus and its Accessories Fig. 7(b): Instantel Minimate Plus

Preparation of F.A.B. Model for Blasting:

The F.A.B. models were drilled by a drill rod with 10mm drill bit up to 10cm depth as shown in Fig.8 and inserted a plain
detonator and then stemmed by varying the stemming material. As shown in Fig.10 other Fly Ash Bricks were covered around the
F.A.B. model all sides so as act as to reduce the fly rock pieces from F.A.B. model caused by detonation .

Fig.8 (a): Drilling the Blast Hole in F.A.B Fig.8 (b): Measurement of Depth of Drill Hole

Fig.8(c): Depth Measurement Rod

Fig.9: F.A.B.Models
 Fig 10: F.A.B. Model after Charging a Detonator and Stemming with Weights over F.A.B. Model

Fig 11(a): Minimate Plus Installation for Recording

Fig 11(b): F.A.B. Model after Blasting

Fig.12: Blasted Models with Different Stemming Material

Results & Discussions

Fly ash –Red Clay as

Parameter Drill cuttings as stemming Sand as stemming
stemming
Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1.Fragmentation ( No. of
7 8 7 7 7 8 9 8 9 8 9 9
Major Cracks)
2.Air over pressure (dB )
83 84 83 84 81 82 81 80 73 74 75 74
(2m from the source )
3. Ground Vibrations
4.5 4 4 4.5 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.5 2 2 2.5 2.5
(mm/s) (2m from the face )
Table 4.1: Results of Experimental blast trials with different stemming on Low Strength F.A.B. Models
 Fly ash –Red Clay as
Parameter Drill cuttings as stemming Sand as stemming
stemming
Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial
Trial 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
1.Fragmentation (No. of
5 6 6 5 6 6 7 6 7 7 8 6
Major Cracks)
2.Air over pressure (dB)
84 86 84 84 83 81 82 82 75 75 73 74
(2m from the source )
3. Ground Vibrations
5.5 4.5 5 5.5 4 4 4.5 4 2.5 2 2.5 3
(m/s) (2m from the face )
Table 4.2: Results of Experimental Blast Trials with Different Stemming on Medium Strength F.A.B. Models

Fly ash –Red Clay as

Parameter Drill cuttings as stemming Sand as stemming
stemming
Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1.Fragmentation (No. of
5 4 5 4 4 6 6 5 6 7 6 6
Major Cracks)
2.Air over pressure ( dB )
88 87 84 85 85 85 83 82 78 78 77 75
( 2m from the source )
3. Ground Vibrations (
mm/s ) ( 2m from the face 6 4.5 4 4.5 4.5 4 5 5 3.8 3.9 3.5 3
)
Table 4.3: Results of Experimental Blast Trials with Different Stemming on High Strength F.A.B. Models

Drill cuttings as stemming Fly ash –Red Clay as Sand as stemming

Parameter stemming
Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial Trial Trial Trial 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3

1.Fragmentation 7.2 8.0 8.7 5.5 6.8 7.0 4.5 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.0 8.7
( No. of Major Cracks)

2. Air over pressure ( dB ) 83.5 81 74 84.5 82 74.4 86 83.8 7.7 83.5 81 74

(2m from the source )

3. Ground Vibrations (mm/s) ( 2m 4.25 3.4 2.2 5.3 4.1 2.5 4.7 4.6 3.6 4.25 3.4 2.2
from the face )
Table 4.4: shows the average Results of Experimental blast trials with different stemming on different strength F.A.B.
Models

Fig.13.1: Bar Chart Showing the Graphical Representation of Different Stemming for Different Parameters
 Fig.13.2: Bar Chart Showing the Graphical Representation of Effect of Different Stemming on Blast Fragmentation

Fig.13.3: Bar Chart Showing the Graphical Representation of Effect of Different Stemming on Air Over Pressure

Fig.13.4: Bar Chart Showing the Graphical Representation of Effect of Different Stemming on G round Vibrations

Comparative Analysis of Stemming Materials

a. Fragmentation is more with sand stemming compared to the Fly ash-red clay and drill cuttings.
b. Ground Vibrations with Sand stemming is less compared to other stemming materials.
c. Air-overpressure is also less with sand stemming as compared to Fly ash-red clay and drill cuttings as stemming materials.

Conclusions

1. The performance of models blasted with the stemming Fly ash-Red clay composition is more as compared with that of drill
cuttings.
2. The performance of models blasted with the sand stemming is more as compared with that of Fly ash-Red clay composition.
3. The Average fragmentation with the sand as stemming material increased by 12% as compared with Fly ash -Red clay
composition and increases by 20% as compared with the drill cuttings.
4. The Average Air over pressure of the blast reduces with the sand as stemming material by 9% as compared with Fly ash-Red
clay composition and by 12% as compared with the drill cuttings.
5. The Average Ground vibrations of the blast reduces with the sand as stemming material by 20% as compared with Fly ash-Red
clay composition and by 30% compare with the drill cuttings.
6. Sand is the best stemming material among all other compositions of stemming. Sand is found to effectivel y confine the high-
pressure stress produced by the blasting.
References
[1] Shi et al., 2016a; Jhanwar et al., 2000; Bohloli and Hoven, 2007
[2] Zhang et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2016b
[3] Zhu, 2009; Bhandari, 1977; Brinkman, 1989
[4] Kutter, 1971; Mchugh,1983
[5] Dobrilovi et al., 2005
[6] Zong, 1996; Luo and Wu, 2006
[7] Cevizci and Ozkahraman, 2012; Li and Liu, 2012; Wang et al., 2016
[8] Xianyang Qiu , Xiuzhi Shi *, Shu Zhang *, Bo Liu , Jian Zhou,2017. “ Experimental study on the blasting performance
of water-soil composite stemming in underground mines”, School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South
University,Changsha 410083, China
[9] Zong Q., 1996. “Theoretical discussion of movement rule of stemming in blast holes. Blasting”. 13(1), 8–11.
[10] https://www.instantel.com/file/127/download?token=oDRiD_NS