Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks

Elliott Giles
Field Engineer
Orica USA Inc.

Eric Roller
Field Engineer
Orica USA Inc.

Abstract

All flyrock incidents have the potential to result in injuries or fatalities that can result in loss of company
reputation, license to operate with clients, and bear the exposure to high cost liability. From 2007 to 2009,
one NA Quarry and Construction Business experienced a series of flyrock incidents. In the spring of 2009,
this business declared that the frequency and severity of Flyrock Incidents had reached an unacceptable level.
A Flyrock Elimination Program was launched.

The Flyrock Elimination Program identified that the blasting services business was working with a mixed
fleet of blast design tools. This lead the business to standardize and upgrade the blast design tools used by
blasting services personnel.

A primary blast design tool is the laser face profiler. An in depth 2D face profiler performance assessment
and equipment selection was conducted. A series of evaluations using multiple operators was conducted
using hand held and tripod mounted 2D profilers to assess accuracy and repeatability. The results lead this
NA Quarry and Construction Business to select 2D tripod mounted profilers as their tool of choice for issue
to Blasters in order to ensure a high degree of confidence for measurement of face burdens.

A complementary tool to 2D face profilers are in-hole borehole orientation measurement instruments and
devices. Again an in depth performance assessment and equipment selection was conducted. Rodded and
cabled hole tracking instruments were assessed as well as some alternative technologies. Handling,
performance, and reliability were all considered. Rodded boretracks were selected as the tool of choice for
measurement of hole orientations.

The Flyrock Elimination Program can be attributed to significantly reducing the frequency and severity of
flyrock incidents experienced by this business. An investment in a company wide standard platform for 2D
face profilers and borehole orientation measurement instruments, plus personnel training and field support,
has been cornerstone to the delivery of operational excellence.

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 1 of 11
Introduction

In today’s environment, the term “flyrock” resonates with negative connotations in the minds of the public,
operators, and blasting service providers. Perhaps it’s through generations of incidents encountered that have
been embraced by the media or even the years of litigation that can surround such incidents. Perhaps it is the
unacceptable occurrence of injuries, tarnished reputations, or revoked licenses to operate that invoke such
perceptions. The question we as blasting service providers must ask ourselves is: Should there be a tolerance
or any acceptable level of flyrock incidents in the current and future environment? For our industry’s sake, it
is hoped that the general consensus is no.

One North American quarry and construction business providing blasting services encountered an elevated
occurrence of flyrock incidents from 2007 to 2009. The business acknowledged that the frequency and
severity of such incidents occurring was creating barriers to achieving the company’s core SH&E objective
of “No Injuries to Anyone, Ever.” Additionally, the company had worked diligently in establishing its
reputation as a provider of choice for explosive products and services and this was at risk. To address the
apparent risks, the company established a Flyrock Elimination Program in 2009. The onset of this program
was targeted at identifying the root causes of flyrock incidents and that led to mitigation efforts. The
company identified a series internal issues ranging from training deficiencies, policies, and equipment that
were preventing the business from achieving operational excellence. Of these issues, the company identified
that its fleet of mixed blast design tools had been causing a number of issues for its Blasters, both
operationally and in terms of training and support.

Over time, as the company had evolved and progressively made periodic updates to newer blast design
equipment on an as needed basis, the result was an accumulation assets that varied by type, manufacturer,
model and age. Many components of the older blast design tools were no longer supported by
manufacturers’. Those that were still supported by manufacturers’ had long lead times for repairs that were
costly to the business and further posed risks when they were unavailable. The accuracy of some equipment
was often brought into question. This mixed array of equipment also posed challenges for its users who had
been trained on using their assigned units that often operationally functioned different from the equipment
assigned to some of their coworkers. It became evident that there would be a tremendous benefit to the
business in standardization of its blast design tools.

Before the company embarked in a standardization effort, the business wanted to evaluate those critical
features that would be required to ensure selection of tools providing the maximum benefits in terms of
safety and performance to both the business and its clients. An in depth assessment was made that looked at
equipment durability, reliability, ease of use and manufacturer support. In terms of a Blaster’s ability to
achieve a blast design, the accuracy of the equipment utilized to layout the shot was universally accepted as
paramount throughout the business. Two common types of tools deemed critical to flyrock prevention were
evaluated: 1] Two dimensional (2D) laser face profilers and, 2] in-hole borehole orientation measurement
devices. The accuracy of the equipment utilized was crucial in the determination of which type of equipment
setup would be selected for standardization throughout the business. The sections that follow provide
discussion on these two primary tools that the company believes every Blaster seeking to mitigate risks of
flyrock incidents should have access to.

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 2 of 11
2D Laser Face Profilers

Imperative to flyrock prevention is adequate confinement, both in terms of collar length and burden
assuming a reasonable powder factor and good quality drill log that correctly identifies the location of
geologic anomalies. Besides the common question of where transitions between lose and competent material
actually resides, controlling collar ejection is mostly a matter of holding sufficient stemming length of
adequate quality that can be achieved utilizing a tape during loading. When it comes to burden however,
determination of sufficiency is often nebulous partially being a function of the measurement tool being
utilized. Traditionally, all Blasters have used a burden pole at one point in time with its pitfalls being
apparent: pole rigidity, uneven bench surfaces distorting true depth, windy conditions altering depth to
concern, presence of undercuts that cut in who knows how far, etc. The truth of the matter is, when using a
burden pole there are often many circumstances where the Blaster does not clearly know what the actual
burden is, and this is exactly what occasionally results in trouble. Quite clearly, today’s environment is
different than it used to be for the blasting business. No longer is it sufficient to say one has used a burden
pole yet has no documentation to back it up, especially if an incident occurs and knowingly had access to the
“burden pole of modern times.” With all the legalities surrounding blasting operations, now more than ever
having a record of burden consideration is an important aspect of assurance or at least a Blaster’s
documented best attempt at due diligence before pushing the firing buttons. Besides having a record,
paramount is the ability to measure burdens accurately overcoming the shortfalls of burden poles. Accurate
burden measurement is of utmost importance in prevention of flyrock incidents and in optimization of
burden for best outcomes. Here in of course leads into the use of 2D laser face profilers.

The inception of the laser range finder led to development of 2D laser face profilers utilizing trigonometric
functions with distance and angle of inclination/declination inputs to generate a 2D slice of the bench face
creating a representation of burden over the depth of bench face. While there are quite a few different
systems on the market, their basic function for purposes of generating a 2D profile of the bench face are all
very similar. The basic operation is to point, sight and shoot with the laser while following a series of menu
commands to generate a profile. Generating a basic profile typically consists of vertically shooting the bench
crest, bench toe, and hole collar offset (collar burden) to define each points location in reference to each other
followed by shooting a series of points between the crest and toe which models the contour of the bench
face. Some profilers are all-in-one meaning the computer that displays the profile and menu options are all
contained in one unit. Others consist of a laser profiler head attached to a data collector/computer that
prompts the user what points to shoot with the profiler to create the profile. Most profiling packages utilizing
a data collector allow for more add-on software that can provide additional functionality such as for
volumetric measurements of stockpiles for example. Most modern software available for the above
mentioned profiling packages allows for manipulation of profile information on the bench or a common
computer such as adjustment of hole angles, burden optimization, collar stemming, etc. Many newer profiler
packages have the ability to download profiles to a computer that can be attached to a blast report or printed
as desired. These types of packages are often Bluetooth capable allowing for cable free communication
between units. Additionally, some 2D lasers can be used handheld or mounted on a tripod or monopod. The
lasers themselves can range from low powered economical units intended for quick estimates to durable high
precision long-range units providing maximum reliability.

When relying on 2D laser face profiles, one must always be cognizant of the system limitations and never let
misleading information replace common sense and good judgment. 2D profiles are strictly 2D and may

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 3 of 11
require multiple 2D profiles for a specific hole to obtain adequate confidence that minimal burden has been
captured throughout the entire area of influence by a loaded blast hole. Take a corner opening hole for
example; there should be a minimum of two profiles captured to identify burdens on each face. On a 2D
profile, there is no way to distinguish between incompetent material such as a mud seam and solid rock. If
inadequate points were captured to appropriately define the bench face in front of a loaded blast hole, the
result could be an inaccurate profile since most profiling software assumes a linear relationship between data
points.

When the Flyrock Elimination Program initiated in 2009, the business already had experience utilizing an
assortment of 2D laser profiling equipment available on the market. From past experience, there were some
common issues with some of the profilers. Some were not holding up mechanically, falling out of calibration
and generating questionable profiles. The weaker lasers frequently caused issues because they were too
short-range unable to reflect off some faces and were more sensitive to interference from minute quantities
dust and other impurities in the air. Many Blasters expressed that they did not trust the equipment and often
went back to the burden pole. In particular, it was noticed that some Blasters were using handheld units
where as others were using tripod mounted units. It turned out that it wasn’t a coincidence that more issues
were encountered by Blasters which had been using handheld units.

A study was conducted to identify the best operating procedures for 2D laser profiling in light of the issues
encountered in the field. In particular, the evaluation was focused on identifying what procedures generated
an accurate profile. Several stronger lasers that can be used either handheld or mounted on a tripod attached
to a data collector were used. The study consisted of comparing the repeatability of profiles and evaluating
whether loading decisions would have changed based on their variances. Profiles were taken of 98 different
face holes with bench heights ranging from 33 feet (10 meters) to 153 feet (47 meters) at several operations.
Comparisons were made between different individuals profiling handheld versus profiling with the laser
mounted on a tripod. Additionally, as a control some holes were profiled two times each by the same
individual utilizing the same method to look at inner variance within the method.

The results of this study were fairly consistent. When comparing an average profile captured via handheld
versus one captured using a tripod, there will typically be noticeable variations in burden that are often
substantial enough to influence hole-loading decisions. Figure 1 shows one such example where placement
of a deck would have changed dramatically. These variations are even further amplified when comparing
profiles between two different individuals without the use of a tripod as shown in Figure 2. This variation is
logical as each individual’s perception of which points lie vertically in front of the borehole can vary.
Additionally, each individual has their own degree of stability when taking readings. Without a tripod, the
horizontal deviations away from the vertical line in front of the borehole on the bench face increases with
distance away from the face and can be quickly magnified with a shaky hand. Hitting the ideal reference
points (crest, toe and hole offset) can be very difficult without a tripod resulting in average burdens which
can be substantially different from actual burden. Utilization of a weaker laser can further compound the
problem yielding errors or extraneous points. However, when using a tripod this variation is minimized and
is consistently repeatable, even between different individuals with an example shown in Figure 3.

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 4 of 11
 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

An example of the average variance between two profiles utilizing a tripod versus two profiles utilizing a
handheld method can be observed in Figure 4. Utilizing a handheld method resulted in an average standard
deviation in measured burden of 3.3 feet (1.0 meter) where as tripod profiling yielded an average standard
deviation of only 0.7 feet (0.2 meter). The small variance that does occur when utilizing a tripod can be
largely attributed to individual perceptions of where the true crest, toe and critical face points lie. Typically
utilization of a crest marker can help to minimize discrepancies at the crest. While attempting to recreate a
profile may yield something very close, the odds of shooting the exact same points every time are unlikely
and thus no two profiles will ever be exactly the same. Minimization of variance in profiles that are
consistently repeatable amongst different individuals is critical to gaining confidence in profiles which are
both accurate and relatively precise. This minimal variance observed in utilizing tripod mounted lasers led
the business to focusing strictly on tripod mounted lasers that are also durable, strong enough to support
long-range distances through an array of different conditions and well supported by the manufacturer.

Figure 4

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 5 of 11
If used improperly, 2D profile information can be dangerously misleading and therefore appropriate training
is absolutely crucial considering the criticality of information being utilized for blast loading decisions. It is
therefore imperative that training be thorough enough to minimize variation of individual perceptions of
where critical points in a profile should lie. A standardized test that compares profiles generated by a new
user to a known baseline to ensure the user has correctly measured burdens is appropriate during the initial
introduction of such tools. As part of the Flyrock Elimination Program the company invested in building a
strong supporting technical staff of Field Engineers to ensure the new tools were well supported and being
used correctly by field personnel. Frequent auditing efforts have assisted in the enforcement of blast
surveying policies that raise awareness of potential flyrock hazards ensuring appropriate mitigation has in
fact been implemented in the field.

In-hole Borehole Orientation Measurement Devices

One of the leading causes of flyrock is the improper use of angled holes. Angled holes are used to help
relieve excess burden that vertical holes simply can not handle. Some quarries have steered away from the
use of angled holes and use other methods such as tightening the front line spacing or pairing up face
boreholes. If done correctly, utilizing angled holes is the best method for handling excess burden. Angled
holes provide better fragmentation and face movement when compared to the aforementioned methods. The
key to using angled holes is knowing how and when to use them and how to correctly measure the borehole
orientation. The ability to accurately measure the borehole’s orientation played a key role in the company’s
Flyrock Elimination Program.

In the past the company has used several different instruments and devices in order to measure borehole
deviation. The Flyrock Elimination Program identified the inconsistencies in the systems used and lead
to the standardization and upgrade to MDL Rodded Boretracks. The company conducted several in-
depth evaluations of the systems currently on the market in order to select the system that best suited the
company goal to mitigate flyrock incidents. The rodded boretrack was selected as the system of choice
and best fit the company’s need to accurately quantify borehole deviation.

There are several different instruments currently available to measure borehole orientation. These
include the rodded boretracks (MDL), various makes of cabled boretracks, and optical devices
(Stemlock Stemalign). While these instruments have the same application within the quarry and
construction market, their accuracy and effectiveness vary significantly. All company blasters have been
and are still equipped with a Stemalign, an optical measurement system, and there are several rodded
borehole deviation surveying systems located within each region.

When the company decided to standardize the borehole deviation measuring equipment, the company
looked at two different products: the rodded and cabled borehole deviation surveying system. While
both systems are equally accurate to the 0.2 degrees, they each have unique characteristics. The rodded
system uses two inclinometer sensors in its probe that record data along with a surface logger that
records the borehole depth and time. The probe is attached to a set of lightweight durable rods that allow
the probe to be lowered down the borehole on certain depth and time increments. The probe and logger
are then later synced to download the borehole information. The cable system’s probe uses a digital
compass and dual axis tilt sensor to record the borehole data. The probe is lowered down on a robust
cable which is also used as the transmitter between the probe and surface logger.

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 6 of 11
While both instruments provide the same data, the cable borehole deviation surveying system has
several detractors. Since the cabled system’s probe contains a digital compass, any magnetic material in
the ground can distort the readings providing the user with inaccurate data. Another challenge with the
cabled borehole deviation surveying system is that the cable itself is much smaller in diameter than the
probe. If a rock were to fall in on top of the probe while down the hole, it could be difficult or even
impossible to remove the probe from the borehole. With the rodded system, the rods and the probe are
very similar in diameter so if a rock were to fall in, the probe would not be stuck in a manner that it
cannot be removed from the borehole. After examining the two different systems, the rodded borehole
deviation surveying system was selected as the system of choice due to its durability, rigidness, and
reliability.

The purpose of the Flyrock Elimination Program is to reduce the number of flyrock incidents in North
America. To advance this initiative, rodded borehole deviation surveying systems have been rolled out
across North America with several units distributed amongst individual regions. Several regions use the
rodded borehole deviation system more than others due to the frequent use of angled holes. While the
rodded deviation surveying systems are the method of choice to measure blast hole orientation, it may
not be practical to measure all of the angled on each individual blast. In these instances, optical
measurement systems are also used quite often.

Accordingly, it was recognized that if blasters in the field were going to be using optical measurement
systems, then it was essential to understand the effectiveness of the device. This led to a comparative
evaluation between rodded borehole deviation and optical borehole deviation measurements.

The baseline study between the rodded borehole deviation surveying system and the optical
measurement system took place with a large aggregate producing company. More than 50 percent of the
blasts fired in this company’s quarries involve angled holes, and more specifically, front line angled
holes. The front line boreholes are almost always the target for borehole orientation measurement since
they pose the highest risk for a flyrock incident. It is essential to measure both the angle and orientation
of the borehole before loading it with explosives. By doing so it greatly reduces the risk of a possible
flyrock because the true burden is measured and any insufficient burden is recognized and handled
accordingly before loading with explosives.

The study encompassed measuring angled front line boreholes at each of the company’s quarries. There
are over 20 quarries within the region so the amount of data generated would be representative. At each
individual quarry two separate shots were measured with both the rodded borehole deviation surveying
system and the optical measurement system. The average variance, in degrees, between the two
instruments was recorded on each shot as well as the greatest variance present on a particular borehole.
The same driller and equipment were used on each shot within each quarry in order to obtain consistent
data.

Table 1 shows a compilation of the data collected from the study. The overall variance column shows the
average difference between the rodded borehole deviation surveying system and the optical measurement
system on all of the holes on that particular shot. The greatest variance column shows the highest difference
between the instruments on a particular hole measured within the shot.

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 7 of 11
 Table 1
Boretrak vs Stemalign Data
Overall Greatest
Quarry Shot Variance (°) Variance (°)
#1 1 1.31 2.3
#1 2 3.29 5.6
#2 1 0.58 1.7
#3 1 2.71 4.4
#3 2 2.25 4.6
#4 1 0.60 1.6
#4 2 0.71 1.8
#5 1 0.76 2.1
#6 1 0.86 3.7
#7 1 0.40 0.6
#8 1 1.1 1.4
#8 2 0.43 0.9
#9 1 0.93 1.9
# 10 1 0.96 2.8
# 11 1 1.29 3.4
# 11 2 1.11 2.2
# 11 3 1.05 2.1
# 12 1 1.13 2.3
# 12 2 1.42 3.6

The average variance for all of the shots measured is 1.2 degrees showing that the rodded boretrack and the
optical measurement system measurements are close in comparison. While the overall variance between the
two pieces of equipment is adequate, the greatest variance between measurements is questionable. One of the
shots measured at Quarry #1 (seen in Table 1) showed a variance of 5.6 degrees on a particular hole. Those
holes were 45 feet (13.7 meters) deep and on an angle of 20 degrees. The intended walk out of the borehole
was approximately 16 feet (4.9 meters) and the average actual walkout was 21.5 feet (6.5 meters). That 5.5
foot (1.7 meters) reduction of burden is cause for a potential flyrock situation and raises the issue of whether
the optical measurement system is a sufficient tool for measuring the angle of a borehole. On average, above
fifty percent of the data showed the rodded boretrack to have a slightly greater angle than the optical
measurement system. Figure 5 below shows the difference at Quarry # 1.

Figure 5

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 8 of 11
After completing this study the following comparisons can be made between the rodded borehole deviation
surveying system and the optical measurement system.

There are a few benefits to using the optical measurement system over the rodded borehole deviation
surveying system. The optical measurement system is a very quick and easy way to measure the angle of the
holes. All it requires is a sufficient tape length with flashlight attached to the end of it and a handheld
leveling device. The optical measurement system also takes less time to measure the angles compared to the
rodded borehole deviation surveying system. The optical measurement system does not require a computer;
the data can be recorded in a notebook as each hole is measured. The optical measurement system is
inexpensive and every Blaster is required to carry one. There are only a few rodded borehole deviation
surveying systems per region so it is not always readily available to a Blaster if they need to measure the
angle on a borehole. Lastly, the optical measurement system is very simple to use and requires a minimal
amount of training. A Blaster can be trained in a matter of minutes versus several days of training with a
rodded borehole deviation surveying system.

While the optical measurement system is a very simple product to use, it has numerous pitfalls, many that are
quite substantial. The limitations of the optical measurement system can be seen in Table 1 when looking at
the greatest variance column. These high variances present in the data are not caused by the inaccuracy of the
optical measurement system. It is the instrument’s limitations that prevent the user from obtaining the most
accurate data. One drawback of the optical measurement system is that it easily measures the angle of the
borehole only perpendicular to the face. The optical measurement system does measure if a hole deviates
horizontally, that is, parallel to the face, however it is a difficult task and often times impossible to tell the
borehole’s horizontal orientation. This can cause major issues when two holes deviate off the correct path
and intersect one another. This can cause flyrock due to the fact that there may be less burden where the
boreholes deviated left or right. This can also cause dead pressing if boreholes intersect one another.

When using an optical measurement system, you can only measure the angle a certain distance down the
hole, regardless of the caliber of flashlight that is being used. If a hole deviates to a great extent, the light can
no longer be seen, meaning that the true angle of the hole cannot be measured. Even with a high power
flashlight, you will only be able to see a certain distance down the hole, usually not to the bottom. This can
become a major issue when dealing with borehole depths of 50 feet or greater. A blast hole may deviate off
the intended path at any depth. If a hole does not start to deviate from the intended path until 50 feet down,
the measurement of that angled hole may not be accurate.

There are also different weather and geologic conditions where the optical measurement system does not
work well. If there is an excessive amount of dust it becomes very difficult to see the light down the
hole. This means there will be no measurement of the angled hole or one taken at a very short depth,
possibly resulting incorrect data. If the hole has an excessive amount of water, it may be difficult to
obtain a reading. The flashlight will not work in water since the light will be distorted. Often times when
a collar pipe is placed in the borehole, it is set in an abnormal angle or position, making it impossible to
see the light once it has passed the collar pipe down into the borehole.

All of the optical measurement system’s limitations lead back to one general shortcoming of the system
when compared to the rodded boretrack. That is, it can be difficult to take a reading at the necessary
depth within a borehole in order to obtain the most accurate data.

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 9 of 11
The rodded borehole deviation surveying system does provide the blaster with highly accurate data
within 0.2 degrees, showing deviation both towards and away from the face as well as horizontal
movement. This is something not easily accomplished with optical deviation measurement systems. The
rodded borehole deviation surveying system will work regardless of the weather conditions or the
condition of the borehole. The graphic display of the rodded borehole deviation surveying system results
also makes it user friendly and provides all of the date necessary. This can be seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6

From this evaluation it can be stated that both the rodded borehole deviation surveying system and the
optical measurement system give accurate readings of the borehole angle. The rodded boretrack is the
more effective instrument due to limitations associated with the optical measurement system. The use of
a rodded borehole deviation surveying system represents industry best practice. This best practice is key
to reducing flyrock incidents and protecting the interests of the blasting service provider and the client.

Conclusion

Successful prevention of flyrock is not a simple concrete process. While one would like to think this
company’s analyses can be all encompassing for every situation, experience dictates otherwise. One can,
however, use this company’s experience to place controls that mitigate the risk of flyrock incidents. The

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 10 of 11
Flyrock Elimination Program has been one such effort and to-date has proven highly successful. A firm
commitment by management to drive the program has been crucial. Recognition of hazards and building
awareness is the first step towards progress. Since safe successful blasting is only as good as the crews
designing and loading the shot, thorough training and technical support is paramount in flyrock prevention.
Without the right tools for the job, mitigating controllable risks remains at higher risk. It is this company’s
thoughts that the tripod mounted 2D laser profiler has, in essence, become the new burden pole of modern
times and should be utilized whenever possible. Equally important is understanding borehole orientation
within the rock mass to be blasted, especially holes that may have an influence on the free face. Having a 2D
profile is one thing, but if the assumed orientation of the borehole has deviated off target the outcome may
still present a risk of flyrock. Hence measurement devices such as a rigid in-hole borehole orientation
measurement device that is reliably accurate should also be utilized when ever possible. It is therefore
imperative that such flyrock prevention efforts supply Blasters with the right tools for the job in addition to
being adequately trained and ultimately maintaining a sense of awareness that never subsides.

Copyright © 2012 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2012G - Flyrock Elimination Program Part 2: Profilers and Boretracks 11 of 11