TESTING OF STEMMING PERFORMANCE

M.J. BRITS
Senior Explosives Engineer
Contents

1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 3

2 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ........................................................ 4

3 LITERATURE STUDY / THEORY ........................................................... 5

International Society of Explosives Engineers 5

The Third International Symposium on rock Fragmentation by Blasting Brisbane
Australia, August 1990 by JOSEPH R BRINKMANN 5
Literature Summary 6

4 TEST CRITERIA......................................................................................... 6

Drilling of Holes 6
Charging and Timing of Holes 7
Stemming of Holes 8

5 TEST RESULTS ......................................................................................... 9

6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 14

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................ 14

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................... 14
1 SUMMARY

Stemming of blast holes result in improved confinement of the gasses that are
generated by the explosives. The aim is to determine quantitatively whether
any type of stemming can lay claim to being a viable and progressive tool for
use in the underground mining industry.

The benefit of using proper stemming in blast holes is the containment of

explosive gasses for as long as possible to reduce energy wastage. In the
process air blast is reduced and fragmentation improves.

Due to the small diameter holes used for testing, and the lack of a cap
sensitive emulsion, all test holes were charged with Megamite Plus cartridge
explosives.

As the initiating system two Electronic Delay Detonators were used per hole.
One EDD was used in the hole to fire the charge and the second EDD was
used as a surface flare to be able to accurately determine the in-hole firing
time. The detonator on surface was lifted from the ground and moved away
from the hole.

Holes stemmed with only one plastic stemming plug appears to have very
little effect on containing the explosives energy. At each of these holes a
flame could be seen at the collar almost immediately after initiation. Clay
plugs inhibited the emission of a flame but the gas energy ejection occurred
almost immediately when the primer fired.

Holes that were stemmed with three or more plastic stemming plugs showed
no gas ejection and the venting of the holes only occurred two to four
milliseconds after the primer fired.

Holes stemmed with two or more clay type stemming cartridges show no
venting and performed the best.

From the tests done on the various stemming materials, it was concluded that
some of the stemming plugs (Clay and Plastic) is likely to have an effect on
the blasting results. It is, however, clear from the tests done, that the clay type
stemming material provides far better results than the plastic type during
these specific testing criteria.

From the results obtained from these tests, it is recommended that the blast
holes should be stemmed fully to ensure optimal use of the explosives gasses
and to reduce or eliminate gas/stemming ejection.

Using the findings in this report, further tests should be done to record the
effects on fragmentation and the costs of full column stemming needs to be
evaluated in terms of benefits obtained.
2 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Does the use of any type (material, configuration, design) of stemming

provide for better fragmentation in underground blasting, or is some just not
worth the effort? This is the basic question this report seeks to answer. In all
forms of mining, production is the key element. Without production, the
operation cannot make money. Two of the most important deciding factors of
production are safety and efficiency.

Furthermore, especially in situations requiring blasting, efficiency can be

directly related to rock fragmentation. Rock fragmentation, in this context, is a
measure of how material is broken by an explosive blast. In general, good
fragmentation can be defined by uniform distribution of size and ease of
processing. Large boulders that cannot be easily processed and require
secondary breakage cause losses of efficiency, safety concerns, and
increased cost.

Desirable fragmentation is especially crucial in underground applications,

where significant down-time is experienced after every blast. Down-time is
usually the period of time immediately after a blast, where production is
temporarily stopped for safety operations, such as ventilation, scaling, and
support installation. The need for secondary blasting of large boulders
requires similar periods of down-time, and thus decreases overall productivity.
Desirable fragmentation can also be of paramount importance in minimizing
mineral losses, being it in the excavating, transporting or processing
environment. In an effort to optimize fragmentation, different blast designs
have been tested with varying degrees of success.

In addition to changing the blast design, other techniques have been used,
such as stemming. With stemming, a hole is partially loaded, and the
remainder of the hole is plugged with inert materials such as crushed rock,
clay or various plastic materials. The aim of this inert material is to
momentarily contain and direct the explosive force and gasses into the rock
rather than shooting out of the hole, which becomes wasted energy.

This technique is used extensively in surface operations, where much larger

quantities of explosives are used to break larger volumes of rock. However,
the emphasis on the use of stemming in underground blast holes is less
pronounced, presumably due to extra time and costs incurred.

With the development of technology like pumpable emulsion explosives, it

became important to investigate the effectiveness of the current stemming
types available on the market.

Other factors such as extra costs incurred and the time-value of stemming the
blast holes in a round must also be considered. The aim was to determine
quantitatively whether any type of stemming can lay claim to being a viable
and progressive tool for use in the underground mining industry.
3 LITERATURE STUDY / THEORY

International Society of Explosives Engineers

During 2000 the International Society of Explosives Engineers (John W. Kopp,

Mining engineer, Twin Cities Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis,
MN.) examined the effectiveness of differing lengths of stemming by
measuring stemming ejection times as related to burden movement.

With properly stemmed blasts, explosives gases are contained until some
burden movement has occurred. Test blasts at two surface limestone
quarries were evaluated using high-speed photography. For the conditions of
these tests, a stemming length of at least 26 charge diameters was found to
prevent premature stemming ejection. In tests with stemming lengths of 16
charge diameters, the stemming was effective but there was early venting of
hot gases through fractures in the rock. Further testing with other rock types,
hole diameters, explosive types, and stemming materials to determine their
effect was recommended.

The Third International Symposium on rock Fragmentation by Blasting

Brisbane Australia, August 1990 by JOSEPH R BRINKMANN

Measurements done by Brinkmann in 1989 from single hole tests have shown
that explosion gases remain in the hole up to four times longer than holes with
no stemming at all.

Figure 1 shows exhaust-pressure at the hole collar verses time for two holes,
one without stemming (upper trace) and one with clay stemming (bottom
trace). It can be seen that the gases from the clay stemmed hole stay in the
hole longer than the un-stemmed hole and that the peak pressure and
duration from escaped gases are greatly reduced.

Figure 1: Exhaust Pressure measured at the Blast Hole Collar

Single-hole Blast with Emulsion Explosive
(Upper un-stemmed; Lower clay stemmed.)
(After Brinkmann 1989)
 Literature Summary

From the above studies it can be deduced that the benefit of using stemming
in blasting operations is the containment of explosive gases for as long as
possible to reduce energy wastage. In the process airblast is reduced,
fragmentation improved, and the chances of hot explosive gases igniting
methane and dust explosions in underground mines are reduced. The types
and amounts of stemming material that are desirable in underground mine
blasting to improve fragmentation while containing the hot gases is largely
unknown.

4 TEST CRITERIA

The tests consist of various phases and are done on a trial and error basis.
Due to the visibility restrictions and confinement in the underground situation,
the tests were moved to a surface operation.

To find the correct area was more difficult than expected as the drilled hole
diameters and blasting patterns were totally different than the underground
operations.

Xtrata Elands Chrome Mine (Platinum Division) was found to be the most
practical option. Their mining method and drill pattern was ideal for the tests
and the blasting contractors (Explotech) agreed in assisting us with the tests.

The tests consist of the measuring of VOD (Velocity of Detonation) of the

explosives and stemming material in the holes and measuring the time frame
of stemming ejection by means of high speed photography.

Drilling of Holes
The existing current drilling pattern was a box cut with a burden of 2.0 m and
a spacing of 2.0 m. The holes were drilled to a depth of 2.4 m with an 89 mm
diameter. Seven test holes were drilled in the middle of each block to a depth
of 1.4 m average and with a diameter of 40 mm. The drilling pattern is
depicting in Figure 2; the black circles indicate the production holes from the
mine and the green rings the test holes.
 Figure 2: The Drilling Pattern for Holes.

Charging and Timing of Holes

All the test holes were charged with BME Megamite Plus Packaged product
38 mm x 270 mm Emulsion cartridges. The Megamite Packaged product was
used as the pumpable emulsion used on the mine (HEF100), is not 8D cap
sensitive and will not detonate reliably in the 40 mm holes as it is below the
critical diameter of the product.

The timing of the test holes were done with BME electronic delay detonators
(EDD) to ensure accuracy and sequential firing during the tests.

Before charging commenced, all test holes were measured and numbered
and the depth, charge length and stemming length off the holes were
documented.

All the test holes were primed with one EDD and one Megamite plus 38 mm x
270 mm cartridge. Three Megamite cartridges were used as a column
charge. In each primer a shocktube was inserted that was coiled on surface
at the hole to indicate with a flash when the primer fired in the hole . The flash
is then picked up by the high speed camera and a the time between the flash
and the stemming ejection can be calculated. During the first blast VOD
cables were inserted in all the holes to measure detonation speed (velocity?).
 Megamite Plus

VOD Cable

EDD

Figure 3: Megamite Plus Cartridge, EDD, VOD Cable and Shock Tube.

Stemming of Holes
Seven test holes were drilled as described in drilling of holes under point no
6.1 paragraph “source of stemming material” of this report. The first hole was
not stemmed as this hole was used to indicate energy loss in the absence of
stemming.

The remaining six holes during the first blast were stemmed with different
stemming materials in each hole. Different stemming positions in the holes
were also used. (Figure 4). No other materials were inserted into the holes.

Figure 4
5 TEST RESULTS

The information obtained from the first two blasts was not as expected. The
brightness of the flash from the coiled shocktube on surface made it
impossible to see any movement at the collar of the charged holes on the high
speed camera. It was also noticed from the information received from the
handitrap (VOD) that the detonation speed of the explosives (3500 m/s)
exceeds the speed of the shocktube (2000 m/s) (Figure 5). This means that
when the flash is seen on surface, the explosives has have already
detonated. This information could not be used.

Flash in the air

Figure 5 Note the flash from the shocktube on hole no 3 firing in the air.
This indicates that the explosives have already fired but the
flash is late.

During the third blast the shocktube was replaced by EDD’s. This was to
ensure that the timing on surface and in the charged hole is the same. The
detonator on surface was lifted from the ground and moved away from the
hole (Figure 6).

Due to the results from the first two blasts, it was decided to test more than
one stemming plug (of the same kind) in a hole. Stemming plug no A was
used on this blast. The first hole was again left un-stemmed. The second
hole was stemmed with one plug, third hole with two plugs, fourth hole with
three plugs the fifth and six holes with four plugs and the seventh hole was
stemmed with drill chippings.
Figure 6: The Shocktube replaced with an EDD and lifted from the ground.
This method proved to be reliable. From the high speed camera noticed that
hole number one (un-stemmed) (Figure 7) has a large amount of gas ejection
as soon as the primer fires. Hole number two was stemmed with one
stemming plug type A. The gas energy ejection is still immediately (Figure 8)
as the primer fires but not as large as hole number one. Hole number three
(two stemming plugs) and hole number four (three stemming plugs) shows the
same as hole number two.

Hole number five and six (four stemming plugs) (Figure 9) shows no gas
ejection and the venting of the hole only occurs 2 milliseconds after the primer
has fires.

Hole number seven (stemmed with drill chippings) shows no venting and
performs the best.

Flash on surface as
primer fires

Gas ejection

Figure 7: Large gas energy ejection on hole no 1

Figure 8: Gas energy ejection (hole no 2 and 3) not as large as hole no 1

Figure 9: Hole no 4, 5 and 6 shows no gas energy ejection.

 The following table indicates the time frames from the above firing holes.

Table 1: Time Frames of Firing Holes

Time in Milliseconds Delay between Time to Ejection
Hole No Flas Hole holes
1 -1119 -1119 0 0
2 -1099 -1099 -20 0
3 -1079 -1079 -20 0
4 -1059 -1058 -20 -1
5 -1039 -1037 -20 -2
6 -1019 -1017 -20 -2
7 -999 -20 -999

From the above table notice the time to stemming ejection on hole number
one to three are zero milliseconds. As from hole number four notice one and
two milliseconds delay before stemming ejection. Hole number seven
performs the best as no stemming ejection could be measured.

All stemming material was tested using the same testing criteria as mentioned
above and the findings stipulated in the table 2 below:

Table 2: Time Frames of Firing Holes

Stemming Time in Milliseconds Delay between Time in Milliseconds Quantity per

Type Flash Hole holes to Ejection Hole

C -1184 -1184 -20 0 2

C -1165 -1163 -20 -2 3
C -1145 -1143 -20 -2 4
C -1104 -1102 -20 -2 5

B -1084 -1083 -20 -1 2

B -1064 -1064 -20 0 2
Plastic Type
B -1045 -1043 -20 -2 3
Stemming
B -1025 -1021 -20 -4 3
B -1005 -1001 -20 -4 3

A -2116 -2115 -20 -1 2

A -2095 -2093 -20 -2 2
A -1956 -1954 -20 -2 3
A -1936 -1932 -20 -4 4

D -1856 -20 No Ejection 2

D -1737 -20 No Ejection 2

Clay Type F -1836 -1816 -20 -20 2

Stemming F -1716 -20 No Ejection 2

E -1876 -20 No Ejection 2

E -1696 -20 No Ejection 2

From the above table notice the time to stemming ejection of the plastic type
stemming cartridges A, B and C. When using more than two stemming
cartridges, the stemming ejection is delayed up to 4 milliseconds.
 It is noticed that the clay type stemming material D, E and F show no
stemming ejection at all when using two cartridges per hole.

6 CONCLUSION

ƒ With properly stemmed blast holes, explosives gasses are contained until
some burden movement has occurred.

ƒ From the high speed camera it was clear that an un-stemmed hole has a
large amount of gas ejection as soon as the primer fires.

ƒ Holes stemmed with only one plastic stemming plug appears to have very
little effect on containing the explosives energy. At each of these holes a
flame could be seen at the collar almost immediately after initiation.

ƒ Clay plugs inhibited the emission of a flame but the gas energy ejection
occurred almost immediately when the primer fired.

ƒ Holes stemmed with three or more plastic stemming plugs show no gas
ejection and the venting of the hole only occurs 2 milliseconds after the primer
has fired.

ƒ Holes stemmed with two or more clay type stemming material show no
venting and performs the best.

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ƒ Bureau of Mines contract (Contract J0215031; Bauer, Calder & Workman,

Inc.) Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers
IC9135m Stemming Ejection and Burden Movements of Small Borehole
blasts.

ƒ The third international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting. Brisbane

Australia August 1990 by JOSEPH R BRINKMANN.

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ƒ Mr Manie Conradie - BME

ƒ Mr Giel Erasmus - BME
ƒ Mr Hennie Smith - BME

Xstrata Elands Chrome Mine

Explotech

ƒ Mr. Brian Coetzer

ƒ Mr .Sean Bole

Andru Mining
ƒ Mr. Kobus Kotze
ƒ Mr. Renier Lummis