AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (1,018.7 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

Comparison and application of top and bottom air decks to improve blasting operations

Masoud Monjezi1( )Hamed Amiri1Mir Naser Seyed Mousavi1Jafar Khademi Hamidi1Manoj Khandelwal2( )
Department of Mining Engineering, Tarbiat Modaras University, Tehran, 14115-143, Iran
Institute of Innvovation, Science and Sustainability, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia
Show Author Information

Abstract

The blasting operation is an integral part of mines, and it is still being used as the most economical tool to fragment and displace rock mass. Appropriate blast optimization alleviates undesirable side effects, such as ground vibration, air blasts and flyrock, and it and enhances rock fragmentation. Blast optimization can also be effective in reducing the overall mining cost. One way of reducing blasting side effects is to use deck charges instead of continuous ones. The location of the deck(s) is still considered an unanswered question for many researchers. In this study, an investigation was carried out to find an appropriate air deck position(s) within the blast hole. For this, air decks were placed at three different positions (top, middle and bottom) within a blast hole at Cheshmeh-Parvar gypsum and Chah-Gaz iron ore mines to understand and evaluate air deck location impact on blast fragmentation and blast nuisances. The results were compared based on the existing blasting practices at both mines, as well as the air-deck blasting results. The results obtained from the blasting were very satisfactory; it was found that charging with a top air deck, as compared to current blasting practices, causes a decrement in the specific charge, as well as a decrement of 38% in the back break and 50% in flyrock; the average size of fragments obtained from blasting was increased by 26%. Thus, it can be said that the top air deck is more advantageous than the bottom air deck in terms of reducing undesired blasting consequences.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
AIMS Geosciences
Pages 16-33

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Monjezi M, Amiri H, Seyed Mousavi MN, et al. Comparison and application of top and bottom air decks to improve blasting operations. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(1): 16-33. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2023002

2

Views

0

Downloads

0

Crossref

0

Web of Science

Received: 19 January 2022
Revised: 01 August 2022
Accepted: 12 August 2022
Published: 15 March 2023
©2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)