Digital Detonators keep PA Coal Mine Operating

By
Jay Elkin, Wampum Hardware Company
Douglas Bartley, DBA Consulting

The state of Pennsylvania was at one time one of the leading coal
producing states in the east. However, legislation and industry trends over the
last 10 years have adversely affected the amount of bituminous coal mined in
Pennsylvania and the whole eastern United States. The application for and
approval of a new mining permit is a very costly and arduous task. When a new
mining operation is established it is crucial that nothing within the operators
control causes the operation to stop producing. This paper discusses the action
taken by a small mine in Pennsylvania when their blast induced vibrations rose to
levels that typically would have resulted in a total mine shut down by the
regulatory body governing such operations.
The Rosebud Mining Co. in Gastown, PA is owned by Mr. Cliff Forest of
Kittanning, PA and is located in Armstrong County, western PA. The Big Mac
Leasing Co. has been contracted to perform the actual mining operations. The
Big Mac Leasing mining method consists of block stripping with 2 D-11 Cat
Dozers, and a Cat 992 supported with 3 Cat 777 rock trucks. The overburden on
the coal reaches depths of 85 feet (26M).
The intent of the permit was to strip mine the low-cover coal using
conventional mining methods and then do a face-up for a deep mine operation
entry. The permit application and proposed blasting activity were challenged by
the local residents for many months prior to the eventual permit approval by the
PA DEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) in 1999. The
actual mining operations were begun in early 2000. Many site and environmental
problems were encountered from the very start of excavation. The initial blasts
were sinking shots with no relief resulting in very perceptible ground vibration
levels. This exacerbated the already negative public opinion of the blasting
operations, but the low dominant frequency seismic recordings were still below
PA DEP regulations. The public disapproval and reaction to the mining operations
were very publicized.
As the mining approached the nearby town of Gastown, the vibration levels
increased in magnitude. During the third cut of the mining cycle the mine once
again received numerous complaints concerning the blasting activity. The mining
permit was issued before the PA DEP regulations adopted the USBM RI8507
(United States Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 8507) Z-curve in July of
2001. The mandated vibration criteria stipulated in the mining permit was a flat
Page 1

1.0 inch per second (25.4mm/s) peak particle velocity. As the complaints
increased in frequency, Big Mac Leasing started getting numerous field
inspections by the DEP. In Pennsylvania, the DEP can suspend a mining permit
because of what is termed, being a nuisance. After several heated public
meetings and two low frequency seismic recordings right at the vibration limit,
the DEP informed both Rosebud Mining and Big Mac Leasing that they had to
mitigate the problem or they would suspend the mining permit.
The mining company then requested that the blasting contractor (Wampum
Hardware Co.) develop with a new blast design that would resolve the vibration
issues. A meeting between the mining operator, the blasting contractor and DBA
Consulting (Blast and Vibration Consultants) concluded that there were 2 viable
options that could reduce the ground vibrations.
1. Decking the blast holes to reduce the amount of explosives detonated per
delay period (higher scaled distance).
2. The implementation of electronic detonators and a signature hole waveform
technique to modify ground vibrations and improve blast performance.
The mining operator decided to initially attempt to resolve the problem by
decking the blast holes before the introduction of electronic detonators. The next
scheduled blast consisted of 28 holes. The holes were loaded with 2 delays or
decks per hole and a maximum amount of explosives of 261 pounds (119 kg) per
deck, less than one-half the amount of explosives previously detonated per delay
period. This blast was initiated using non-electric pyrotechnic blasting caps and
resulted in a seismic reading of 1.04 inches per second (26.4 mm/s) PPV with
dominant low frequencies. The shot duration was doubled to a length of 800 ms
due to the decking design. This long duration blast vibration coupled with low
dominant frequencies spawned numerous homeowner complaints to the PA DEP
regional office. The PA DEP immediately responded by halting the blasting until
an alternative plan could be established. This plan would maintain the 1.0 inch
per second (25.4 mm/s) PPV or invoke the RI-8507 - Z curve variable vibration
vs. frequency criteria that would reduce the acceptable vibration limits to 0.5 PPV
(12.7 mm) at low frequencies.
DBA Consulting, Wampum Hardware and the Rosebud Mining engineers
met with the DEP to discuss the electronic detonators and the methodology of the
signature hole technique. This technique required the initiation of a single
signature hole loaded with the maximum amount of explosives we thought we
might encounter. The DEP agreed, with the stipulation that if the signature hole
vibrations exceeded the 1.0 ips (25.4 mm/s) PPV they would revoke the mining
permit.

Page 2

The Signature Hole Technique

The purpose of this signature hole study was to quantify the vibration
characteristics at the Woods and VanHorne residences adjacent to the Rosebud
Coal Companys Permit in Gastown, PA in order to determine the optimum delay
timing configuration to be utilized in their blasting operations. This optimum
timing should yield reduced ground vibration levels, more acceptable vibration
frequency characteristics and improved blast performance.
Blast induced ground vibration is an impact from the use of explosives that
has historically been an extremely difficult problem to effectively resolve. There
are many variables and site constants involved in the equation that when
combined, result in the formation of a complex vibration waveform generated by
the confined detonation of an explosive charge. The application of proper field
controls during all steps of the drilling and blasting operation will help to
minimize the adverse impacts of ground vibrations, providing a well designed
blast plan has been engineered. This design would consider the proper blast hole
diameter and pattern that would reflect the efficient utilization and distribution of
the explosives energy loaded into the blast hole. It would also provide for the
appropriate amount of time between adjacent holes in a blast to provide the
explosive the optimum level of energy confinement. After the blast has been
properly designed the parameters that have the greatest effect on the
composition of the ground vibration waveform are:

Geology between the blast site and the monitoring location

Accurate timing between blast holes in a detonation sequence

Research developed by the USBM (United States Bureau of Mines),

universities, and others over the last 15 years in the blasting industry, has
concluded that a residential structures level of response to blast induced ground
vibration is dependent on both the peak particle velocity and the frequency of the
waveform. The frequency is the number of oscillations that the ground particles
vibrate per second as a blast vibration wave passes by the structures location.
Above ground structures will resonate much like a tuning fork whenever
they are exposed to a vibration wave containing adequate energy at the
fundamental frequency of the structure. A structures resonant frequency is
primarily dependent upon its mass, height and stiffness. The maximum response
of a house to blast induced ground vibration occurs whenever the frequency of
the ground vibration matches the natural resonant frequency of the house.
Likewise, if there is little or no energy at the resonant frequency of the structure,
the structural response to the vibration will be negligible.
Page 3

Further studies have also shown that there are direct relationships between
the firing times of blast holes in a detonation sequence and the frequency
composition of the ground vibration recorded at a particular structure in
question. These studies have also observed that a total blast sequence is simply
defined as a series of single hole detonations that are separated by a given
amount of time (t). It is the relationship between this t and the geology of the
site that has the most effect on the amplitude and frequency composition of the
ground vibration wave. The geology is generally the constant in the equation but it
will change as the blasting operations move throughout the mine or quarry.
This relationship between timing and geology has led to the development of
several sophisticated computer programs to predict and modify ground
vibrations. These programs will process the ground vibration signal recorded
through the detonation of a single hole blast at a given production blast location.
The computer then performs thousands of mathematical iterations that generate
a synthesized complex waveform determining waveform amplitude and frequency
composition for any given t between adjacent holes in a row and t between
consecutive rows in a blast.
The major limitation of these software systems since their development has
been the inherent inaccuracy of the pyrotechnic delay elements currently
available in todays explosives market. The application of these computer
prediction and control programs, often will recommend optimum delay timing
intervals that are not available. Even if the computer times are achievable through
combinations of available surface and in hole detonators, the inherent scatter in
pyrotechnic detonators will cause the blast sequence to fire at times other than
the designed firing time. These variances from the nominal firing times can
potentially result in magnifying the impact rather than mitigating it. The
introduction of a high accuracy electronic detonator into the commercial
explosives market has had many positive effects in the area of predicting and
controlling blast induced ground vibrations. It has been the experience of the
author that without the implementation of electronic detonators the above
software techniques are very ineffective.
Electronic detonators also offer the flexibility in blast timing design that
has never before been achievable. All commercial detonators to date have been
manufactured with pre-set firing times that have evolved around vibration criteria
and statistics that have since been questioned as to their relevance, ie. the 8
millisecond criteria.
Prior to the introduction of user programmable electronic detonators, an
optimized site specific timing sequence that would provide maximized benefits in
terms of vibration control, fragmentation, muck pile configuration and heave were
Page 4

unobtainable. The firing times were chosen from the limited selections available
to the consumers. The introduction of the high accuracy detonators will provide
the opportunity to design blasts based upon the desired results required by the
user.
The detonator used in conjunction with this study is the Daveytronic
Programmable Electronic Blasting System. This detonator is manufactured by the
Davey Bickford Company in France. The Daveytronic Blasting System pictured
below, is capable of firing up to 1,500 detonators in a single blast with firing
times from 1 ms to 4,000 ms with a firing accuracy of 0.1 ms.

The composition of the detonator consists of a ASIC (application specific

integrated circuit), one logic capacitor, one firing capacitor and the high explosive
charge within a standard sized shell compatible with any pre-cast booster.

The Daveytronic
DAVEYTRONIC

Cross Section of detonator.

1. Circuit board IED assembly.

6. Firing capacitor.

2. Duplex detonator wire.

7. Fuse head.

3. Crimped plug.

8. Primary charge.

4. Logic capacitor.

9. Base charge.

5. ASIC processor.

Page 5

Implementation of the Signature Hole Technique

In order to obtain meaningful vibration signature waveforms for use in the
vibration prediction program a single hole test blast was detonated on
November 6, 2001. The blast geometry and loading details of the test hole are as
follows:
Location
Of Seis
Woods
VanHorne

Distance
From Seis
FT / M
720 / 219
830 / 253

Depth

Diameter

Burden

FT / M
41 / 12.5
41 / 12.5

IN / mm
6.75 / 172
6.75 / 171

FT / M
15 / 4.6
15 / 4.6

Explosive
Weight
Lbs. / KG
521 / 236
521 / 236

The ground vibrations from the blasting operations were recorded at the
Woods and VanHorne residences located on Route 210 in Gastown. The Woods
residence is a two-story frame structure located north of the test hole. The
VanHorne residence is a one-story frame structure located west of the test hole.

Figure 1 - Woods residence

Figure 2 - VanHorne residence

Page 6

Signature Hole

The following waveform represents the single hole vibration characteristics

recorded at the Woods residence on November 6, 2001. The plot on the right
depicts the FFT analysis of the single hole test blast. Note the high levels of low
frequency dominant energy.

Page 7

The seismographs used in this study were the Mini-Seis seismographs

manufactured by Larcor, Inc. of Quinlan, TX. These units are micro-processor
controlled
digital
seismographs
that
were
configured to record vibration data at the sampling
rate of 1024 samples per second per channel. The
seismographs are self triggering units that were
armed to trigger at a vibration threshold of 0.05
inches per second peak particle velocity. The
seismographs are designed and calibrated to
record vibration levels within a frequency range of
2 - 200 hertz from 0 - 5.0 inches per second
Figure 3 - Digital seismograph
(127mm) peak particle velocity.
The analysis of the production blast data indicates that the horizontal
components of the waveform contain significant energy between 10 and 14
hertz. It is the horizontal components of the vibration wave that have the most
effect on above ground structures in terms of structural response. Typical
residential structures, by their design, are more susceptible to induced resonant
mid-wall bending and corner shear racking by the horizontal components of a
blast induced vibration. The vertical components have more effects on the ceiling
and floor shear responses.
Each of the test hole blasts were processed individually in order to provide
a timing configuration unique to the particular bench or mining level to be
blasted. The analysis procedures were also conducted to provide timing
information for a single and a double row of blast holes. The table below indicates
the recommended hole-to-hole and row-to-row timing.
Hole (ms)
22

Row (ms)
89

The delay intervals of 22ms between adjacent holes in a row and 89ms
between rows results in 2 holes being detonated within the 8 millisecond criteria.
The DEP inspectors had a very hard time accepting that this new design would
effectively double the amount of explosives detonated per 8 ms delay. Approval
was eventually given by the DEP to implement the new blast design with the
electronic detonators with the stipulation that if the recorded PPV exceeded the
1.0 (25.4mm) PPV, they were going to revoke the mining permit.

Page 8

Electronic Production Blasting

The signature hole study report stated that the best scenario would be to
blast 2 rows of up to 10 holes per row with each blast. The first two electronic

Page 9

detonator blasts were fired on November 13, 2001. The 16 hole blast consisted
of 2 rows of 8 holes with 832 pounds (378 KG) of explosives firing within 8 ms.
The preceding vibration recordings are from the November 13, 2001 blast. Note
the lack of PV data points below 10 hertz and the reduced peak particle velocity
at both the recording locations. The PPV of this blast was 0.35 inches per second
(8.89 mm/s), representing 35% of the PPV of the decked pyrotechnic blast.
The blast induced ground vibrations that were recorded were dramatically
lower than the decked blast with pyrotechnic detonators. The blast duration was
also reduced by 557 ms from 800 ms to 243 ms. It is the duration of a vibration
that can cause an above ground structure to amplify the vibration through
resonance. A shorter duration blast will always be perceived as a better blast by
adjacent homeowners because of this.
The second electronic detonator blast was fired on December 5, 2001. We
fired 30 holes with a maximum of 1210 lbs (550 KG) per delay. The Scaled
Distance worked out to 15.8. Our seismic recordings indicated that we were on
the right track. The following seismic recordings were from the December 5th
blast at the Gastown Permit.

The following chart summarizes the blast information and vibration data
for the initial electronic blasting conducted at the mine. The electronic timing
designs consistently resulted in dominant frequencies above 20 hertz providing
less restrictive (RI 8507) vibration limits.
Page 10

Gastown Mine SMP 03000103

Armstrong County / Plum Creek Township
Big Mac Leasing Co. / Rosebud Mining Co.

Date

Seis.
No.

Distance
FT / M

12/5/01

1478

550 / 168

12/13/01

1477

12/14/01

Ch. Wght.
Lbs / KG

SD

PPV
Ips / mms

Hz

Location

1160 / 527

16.1

0.72 / 18.3

36.4

WOOD

700 / 213

772 / 351

25.2

0.46 / 11.7

15.0

VANHORNE

1477

630 / 192

386 / 176

33.7

0.41 / 10.4

12.0

VANHORNE

12/14/02

1477

700 / 213

708 / 322

26.3

0.55 / 14

13.0

VANHORNE

12/17/01

1477

700 / 213

704 / 320

26.3

0.40 / 10.2

13.2

VANHORNE

12/18/01

1477

630 / 192

386 / 176

32.1

0.39 / 9.9

13.4

VANHORNE

1/4/02

1478

600 / 183

466 / 212

27.7

0.39 / 9.9

32.0

WOOD

1/4/02

1478

520 / 158

370 / 168

27.0

0.34 / 8.6

30.1

WOOD

1/7/02

1478

580 / 177

402 / 183

28.0

0.46 / 11.7

28.8

WOOD

1/16/02

1478

530 / 162

482 / 219

24.1

0.49 / 12.4

24.3

WOOD

1/17/02

1478

510 / 155

498 / 226

22.9

0.65 / 16.5

28.4

WOOD

1/18/02

1478

510 / 155

530 / 241

22.2

1.00 / 25.4

26.9

WOOD

1/22/02

1478

457 / 139

457 / 208

22.7

0.95 / 24.1

26.9

WOOD

1/23/02

1478

375 / 114

750 / 341

13.7

0.71 / 18.0

32.0

WOOD

1/24/02

1478

425 / 130

375 / 171

21.9

0.87 / 22.1

34.1

WOOD

1/29/02

1478

435 / 133

400 / 182

21.7

0.68 / 17.3

36.5

WOOD

1/30/02

1478

430 / 131

425 / 193

20.8

0.67 / 17.0

32.0

WOOD

1/31/02

1478

430 / 131

425 / 193

20.8

0.60 / 15.2

34.1

WOOD

2/1/02

1478

435 / 133

425 / 193

21.1

0.58 / 14.7

36.5

WOOD

2/5/02

1478

437 /131

450 / 205

20.6

0.64 / 16.3

18.2

WOOD

2/6/02

1478

440 / 134

480 / 219

20.1

0.42 / 10.7

34.1

WOOD

2/7/02

1478

500 / 152

492 / 224

22.5

0.42 / 10.7

21.3

WOOD

2/7/02

1478

443 / 135

510 / 232

19.6

0.42 / 10.7

21.0

WOOD

2/11/02

1478

535 / 163

640 / 291

21.1

0.75 / 19.1

18.0

WOOD

2/12/02

1478

545 / 166

656 / 298

21.2

0.57 / 14.5

22.2

WOOD

2/19/02

1478

690 / 210

516 / 235

30.3

0.39 / 9.9

28.4

WOOD

Page 11

As the mining progressed the filter or geology between the blast location
and the recording locations changed resulting the vibration signals being
conditioned differently. The characteristics of the vibration recordings indicated
that a second signature hole study should be conducted to again determine the
optimum timing sequence to mitigate the negative vibration impacts. This second
study was conducted on January 3, 2002.
The blast geometry and loading details of the test hole was as follows:
Location
Of Hole
East Side

Distance
From Seis
FT / M
550 / 168

Depth
FT / M

Diameter
IN / mm

Burden
FT / M

30 / 9

6.75 / 172

15 / 4.5

Explosive
Weight
Lbs. / KG
342 / 156

The vibration recordings were again obtained from the Woods and the
VanHorne residence for use in this study. Each of the test hole blast recordings
were processed individually with higher weighting placed on the VanHorne data
recording due to its closer proximity to the blast area. The table below indicates
the recommended hole-to-hole and row-to-row timing.
Hole (ms)
33

Row (ms)
76

The above timing sequence was implemented on January 18, 2002. The
seismic recordings below depict the blast induced ground vibrations generated by
the production blast. Again, the timing configuration of the blast resulted in 2
holes being fired within the 8 millisecond criteria effectively doubling the reported
maximum pounds detonated per delay period.

Page 12

The preceding seismic analysis again indicates that the technique has
effectively produced seismic signals without high levels of energy in the low
frequency band. In fact, the following blasts resulted in peak particle velocity
levels at higher frequencies that provided maximum allowable PPV limits greater
that the flat 1.0 inch per second (25.4 mm/s) in the original mining permit.
PA DEP Site Regression Study
The implementation and success of this technique at the Rosebud Mine has
been and is still currently being closely monitored by the PA DEP. During the
months of blasting using the electronic detonators at the mine, the DEP has
conducted their own seismic monitoring and analysis study. This study was to
make sure the operator did not exceed the regulatory limit and to gain a better
understanding of electronic detonators and their effect on blast vibrations. The
vibration study was conducted by Mr. William Shush, a blasting inspector from
the Greensburg, Pennsylvania office of the PA DEP.
During the months following the initial implementation of the Daveytronic
Programmable electronic detonators the DEP has monitored the ground
vibrations in several locations adjacent to the mine site. They also conducted a
linear regression analysis study at the Rosebud Mining Permit.

Seismograph Attenuation Line

Page 13

The study first correlated the data gathered prior to the implementation of
electronic detonators to determine the regression characteristics of the
pyrotechnic detonators. Then an array of 9 seismographs were installed to
monitor blasting operations for a total of 5 electronic blasts from April 4, 2002 to
May 23, 2002. Using this electronic detonator data from the attenuation line of
seismographs and the units installed at residential structures adjacent to the
mine, the DEP determined the site regression characteristics of the electronic
detonators. The table containing the blasting data and vibration data collected
by the PA DEP to determine the site characteristics of the Gastown Site using the
Electronic Detonators is in the appendix of this report.
The following chart exhibits the comparison between the actual electronic
detonator PPV recordings and the predicted pyrotechnic PPVs using the
regression attenuation formula of:

Predicted: PPV

pyrotechnic

= 145 (SD)

1.4

Electronic Cap Study Gastown Mine

Predicted Pyrotechnic PPV and Actual Electronic PPV
Power Regression Curve

10
9
8
7

PPV

6
PPV Actual
Predicted WC Pyro.

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

10

20

30

40

Scaled Distance

Page 14

50

60

The derived attenuation formula of the electronic detonators with an R2

goodness of fit, of 89% is :

Actual: PPV

electronic

= 74 (SD)

1.49

The comparison of the prediction formulas demonstrates both the better fit
of data when using precision electronic data and the lower Site Constant resulting
in a lower predicted PPV for the same blast when using electronic detonators.
This goodness of fit has been a consistent trait of the electronic detonators in
practically every application where vibrations were closely monitored. It provides
a higher level confidence to a blast design as to the expected magnitude of the
vibration impacts.
Conclusion
The introduction of electronic detonators at the Rosebud Coal Mine in
Gastown, PA has enabled the mine to stay in business. The public outcry against
the blasting operations placed the mine under high scrutiny by the regulatory
bodies that issue the permits and monitor the compliance of the mining
operations. The PA DEP was poised and ready to revoke the mining permit at the
Gastown Mine due to the impacts of the blasting operations.
The implementation of electronic detonators in conjunction with State of
the Art analytical and design techniques has successfully demonstrated the
usefulness of programmable electronic detonators. It is the opinion of the authors
that this scenario can and will be repeated with the same level of success in our
industry as we embrace the technology and benefits the electronic detonator has
to offer.

Page 15

Appendix

Page 16

Gastown Mine SMP 03000103

Armstrong County / Plum Creek Township
Big Mac Leasing Co. / Rosebud Mining Co.

Date

Shot # 1

Shot #2

Shot # 3

Seis. No. Distance Ch. Wt. C^2

SD

PPV

FL

FT

FV

AOP

Location

4/4/01

2747

1660

756

27.5 60.4

0.12 0.09 0.12

0.05 31.2 26.3 19.2 117

S-1-3

4/4/01

2746

1450

756

27.5 52.7

0.19 0.19 0.13

0.1 23.8 17.2 55.5 118

S-1-2

4/4/01

4900

885

756

27.5 32.2

0.29 0.29 0.19

0.28 29.4 22.7 21.7 129

S-1-1

4/26/01

4904

2215

378

19.4 113.9

0.07 0.05 0.07

0.03

S-2-11

4/26/01

4108

1833

378

19.4 94.3

0.17 0.11 0.17

0.05 14.3 18.5

4/26/01

4899

1799

378

19.4 92.5

0.07 0.07 0.07

0.03 17.2

6.3 15.6

S-2-9

4/26/01

2746

1654

378

19.4 85.1

0.18 0.09 0.18

0.05 33.3

25 27.7 114

S-2-8

4/26/01

2747

1380

378

19.4 71.0

0.13 0.13 0.09

0.06

6.7

10 45.4

S-2-7

4/26/01

4900

1377

378

19.4 70.8

0.11

0.09

20 19.2 45.5 116

S-2-6

4/26/01

4105

1350

378

19.4 69.4

0.15 0.15 0.12

0.07 17.2 18.5 45.5

S-2-5

4/26/01

4085

1060

378

19.4 54.5

0.23 0.23 0.19

0.17 33.3 21.7 55.6 114

S-2-4

4/26/01

4903

925

378

19.4 47.6

0.19 0.11

4/26/01

4106

400

378

19.4 20.6

4/26/01

4107

265

378

5/22/01

2644

147

5/22/01

4085

5/22/01

0.1 0.11

9.4

S-2-3

0.87 0.71 0.87

0.43 15.2 21.7 41.7 127

S-2-2

19.4 13.6

1.28 1.28 0.97

0.85 13.9 19.2 45.5

S-2-1

612

24.7

5.9

3.92 3.16 3.92

3.52

9.4 10.2 18.5 134

S-3-8

1861

612

24.7 75.2

0.15 0.06 0.15

0.06 10.2 12.8 16.7 114

S-3-7

4105

1368

612

24.7 55.3

0.13 0.13 0.12

0.08 11.9 14.7

8.2 117

S-3-6

5/22/01

4106

1141

612

24.7 46.1

0.19 0.18 0.19

0.11

8.8 10.4 16.7 117

S-3-5

5/22/01

4899

648

612

24.7 26.2

0.73 0.73 0.67

0.39 12.5 13.5

25 123

S-3-4

5/22/01

4900

807

612

24.7 32.6

0.51 0.45 0.51

0.24 20.8 19.2 29.4 123

S-3-3

5/22/01

4903

983

612

24.7 39.7

0.50 0.32

0.18 10.9 10.4 15.2 100

S-3-2

5/22/01

4904

1756

612

24.7 71.0

0.24 0.08 0.24

0.05 20.8 10.9

S-3-1

0.5

0.1 11.4 23.8 21.7

S-2-10

10

Page 17

0.1

6 12.8 21.7 109

4.5 117

Shot # 4

Shot # 5

5/22/01

2644

526

486

22.0 23.9

1.48

5/22/01

4085

1580

486

22.0 71.7

5/22/01

4105

1176

486

5/22/01

4106

913

5/22/01

4107

5/22/01

1.48 15.6 19.2 29.4 133

S-4-9

0.15 0.15 0.09

0.07

25 117

S-4-8

22.0 53.3

0.14 0.14 0.12

0.14 26.3 19.2 27.8 121

S-4-7

486

22.0 41.4

0.41 0.41 0.24

0.18 27.8 13.2 22.7 123

S-4-6

316

486

22.0 14.3

1.52 1.52 0.98

1.18 11.4 20.8 41.7 133

S-4-5

4899

790

486

22.0 35.8

0.80

0.44 17.9 21.7 31.3 126

S-4-4

5/22/01

4900

913

486

22.0 41.4

0.55 0.55 0.43

0.28

50 35.7 62.5 124

S-4-3

5/22/01

4903

1106

486

22.0 50.2

0.41 0.27 0.41

0.15

20 10.9 23.8 100

S-4-2

5/22/01

4904

1861

486

22.0 84.4

0.20 0.19

0.08 11.9 33.3 31.3 119

S-4-1

5/23/01

4085

1525

612

24.7 61.6

0.14 0.09 0.14

0.04

5.3 13.9

5.5 116

S-5-7

5/23/01

2747

1453

612

24.7 58.7

0.29 0.16 0.29

0.07

6.5 10.6 11.3 118

S-5-6

5/23/01

4108

1330

612

24.7 53.8

0.18 0.11

0.18 35.7 62.5 167 110

S-5-5

5/23/01

4106

1120

612

24.7 45.3

0.21 0.11 0.09

0.21

167 83.3 167 109

S-5-4

5/23/01

4107

924

612

24.7 37.4

0.29 0.17 0.09

0.29 20.8 100 167 109

S-5-3

5/23/01

4900

900

612

24.7 36.4

0.52 0.37 0.52

0.28 13.9 11.9

20 123

S-5-2

5/23/01

4899

730

612

24.7 29.5

0.77 0.45 0.77

0.27 10.9 13.5 23.8 124

S-5-1

Page 18

0.7 1.48

0.8 0.52

0.2

0.1

9.6 11.1