Rock Fragmentation

ROCK FRAGMENTATION
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this chapter, participants will be able to

achieve:
- Fragmentation principles
- Factors controlling fragment size
CONTENT
- Fragmentation Principles
- Factors Affecting Fragment Size
- How to Quantify the Fragmentation
- Calculation
C l l ti off F
Fragmentation
t ti
- Demands on Fragmentation
- Evaluation
E l ti off F
Fragmentation
t ti
INTRODUCTION
When a round has been fired, the result is more or less
always a subject of discussion. What then mainly is studied,
at least in surface operations, is the fragmentation and the
profile
fil off th
the muck
k pile.
il Thi
This means, th
thatt th
the ffragmentation
t ti
together with the heave often are synonyms of the result
In most types of blasting,

g
is the
the fragmentation
primary quality demand.
ROCK FRAGMENTATION
OPTIMUM FRAGMENTATION
- Minimise oversize boulders ((less secondaryy breaking)

g)
- Minimise ultra fines production
- Maximise Lump product
- Fragmentation enough to ensure efficient digging and
loading
- Muck pile loose enough for fast cycle times and full buckets
OPTIMUM MUCKPILE SHAPE

- Pit geometry
- Loading machines
a) Front end loader
b) Shovel
FRAGMENTATION RATIO
Blasting
Crushing
800 mm blocks
150 mm blocks
Infinite dimension
800 mm blocks
BENCH HEIGHT & HOLE DIAMETER

- Large hole diameter and small bench energy
yield are difficult to control.
control
- Bad blast effect
- Small hole diameter and tall

bench energy yield are reduced.
- Drill and blast cost is high
MINING CYCLE AND FRAGMENTATION

What do we mean by a good fragmentation?
To be able to answer this, let us first have a look at the
complete working cycle to handle the rock
rock, to see where the
fragmentation may be important to the final result. This
cycle is generally split up in following elements:
- Drilling
- Charging
- Blasting
- Loading
- Hauling
- Crushing
g and g
grinding
g
HOW TO QUANTIFY THE FRAGMENTATION

A commonly used method today to quantify fragmentation is to
use the mean fragment
g
size, often designated
g
by
y k50.
- k50 is a figure which represents the screen size through which
50% off the
th loosened
l
d rockk would
ld pass if screened.
d
- This implies that a low value represents a fine fragmentation and
vice versa.
- When a complete picture of the fragmentation is required, it is
however necessary to know the entire distribution, i.e. the entire
curve and
d nott only
l one single
i l point.
i t
- Theoretically one and the same value of k50 could represent
three completely different muck piles
piles, for instance:
- very fine and very coarse, with nothing in between
- one fraction only, where the size corresponds to k50
- the same amounts of all fractions from fine to coarse
Another way to quantify the fragmentation is by the

oversize
i content.
t t
- This could be expressed in percentage of the broken
material exceeding an acceptable stone size
size.
- The acceptable stone size may be defined in different
ways depending on actual conditions
conditions.
- One way is to relate it to the smallest side of the
primary crusher
crusher, for example 75% of itit.
The oversize content is a very good complement to the k50

value, as these two values together will provide a much
better control of the fragmentation distribution than the k50
value
l alone.
l
CALCULATION OF FRAGMENTATION
Kuz-Ram Model
The Kuz-Ram model is probably the most widely used
approach for the prediction of rock fragmentation by
blasting. The unique feature of this model is that the input
data consists of the relevant blast design parameters.
Th
Three
key
k equations
ti
are the
th backbone
b kb
off this
thi model:
d l
- Kuznetsovs Equation:
- Rosin-Rammler
R i R
l equation:
ti
- Uniformity index
CALCULATION OF FRAGMENTATION
Formula was originally created by Kutznetzov and further developed by Cunningham:
The n-value, which is dependent of drilling pattern, hole deviation, hole depth, charge
length, etc, commonly varies between 0.8 and 1.5. A high value indicates uniform sizing,
while a low value indicates higher proportions of both fines and coarse.
UNIFORMITY INDEX
B = Burden, m;
S = Spacing,
S
i
m;
d =hole diameter, mm
W = standard deviation of drilling precision
precision, m;
L = Charge length, m
CCL = column charge length, m;
BCL = bottom charge length, m;
H = bench height, m
LIMITATIONS OF KUZ-RAM MODEL

According to Cunnigham (2005), the Kuz-Ram model is a tool to
examine
i h
how diff
differentt parameters
t
could
ld iinfluence
fl
th
the bl
blastt
fragmentation and not a quantitative prediction model. The empirical
models are based on the assumption that the fragmentation is
generally proportional to the energy level of the explosive. This is
valid in general but it does not take into consideration the following
(C
(Cunnigham,
i h
2005)
2005):
(i) Detonation behaviour of the explosive
(ii) Blast dimensions
(iii) Bench dimensions
(iv) Delays between holes
( ) Delay
(v)
D l accuracy
(vi) Decking with air water and stemming
(vii) Edge effects
REPRESENTING FRAGMENTATION DATA
DEMANDS OF FRAGMENTATION
- If we look at an operation where the blasted rock is transported to
a crusher, the fragmentation will primary have an influence on
- Loading
g
- Hauling
- Crushing
as regards production,
production wear and consequently also costs
costs.
- To suit both loading and crushing, a favorable result from blasting
would be a uniform material with a low mean size fragmentation.
g
- Too much fine and coarse material should be avoided.
- As can be seen, the demands may be different from one case to
another However,
another.
However in general the total cost for the complete
operation has to be optimized.
EVALUATION OF FRAGMENTATION
- Visual size assessment
gp
production rate
- Loading
- Digitizing of photos
- Comparison of photos
- Boulder count
BLAST MONITORING
BLAST MONITORING
BLAST MONITORING
VISUAL SIZE ASSESSMENT

A very much used method due to its simplicity and low
cost.
t Only
O l llarge diff
differences iin ffragmentation
t ti are, h
however,
possible to register.
LOADING PRODUCTION RATE

May be misleading if all factors are not taken into
consideration. The production is for instance to very high
degree
g
affected by
y truck availability,
y, skill of the operator,
p
,
break- downs, etc.
Also when taking all these factors into consideration, it
cannot be quite sure that the degree of fragmentation is
reflected by the digging rate. For instance may an
improvement to a finer fragmentation, but with an
unfavorable
f
bl di
distribution,
t ib ti
cause worse di
digging
i conditions
diti
due to a tighter muck pile.
DIGITIZING OF PHOTOS
Means that photos are taken of the muck pile at different
stages.
t
Afterwards
Aft
d each
h single
i l stone
t
iis di
digitized
iti d ffrom th
the
photos and transferred into a computer by means of a
pen
pen . The fragmentation distribution is then calculated by
the computer.
COMPARISION OF PHOTOS
- Also this method means that
photos are taken of the muck
pile at different stages.
- Each
E h photo
h t h
has tto contain
t i a
scaling object, such as a ball
of a known diameter
diameter.
- These photos are then
compared to a set of photos,
photos
according to a certain system,
where both the mean fragment
size as well as the n-value are
known.
known
BOULDER COUNT
This is a rather simple and common method where the
number of boulders is a figure of the result
result. However,
However the
method only takes oversize into consideration.
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRAGMENTATION

- The
Th fragmentation
f
t ti is
i influenced
i fl
db
by a number
b off ffactors.
t
- Some of them we know very well whereas others are
more difficult to understand.
understand
- The conditions of the rock are of great importance which
means that the influence of changes of other factors can
vary considerably from one place to another.
- A change of a parameter in one type of rock can for
instance give an important difference of the result whereas
a corresponding change in another place may not be
noticed at all.

1. Rock conditions
The physical and mechanical characteristics of the rock as well as the structure are of
great importance in rock blasting. Some of the properties normally discussed are:
Tensile strength of the rock
This is normally determined by the Brazilian-test which is a more relevant value than the
more common compression strength. According to Cunningham (3) rock with a tensile
strength > 15 MPa should have a tendency to give a rough fragmentation whereas < 6
MPa is supposed to give a fine fragmentation
fragmentation.
Youngs modulus of the rock
For rock with the same tensile strength a coarser fragmentation is expected at a lower
value of Youngs modulus than at a higher one. According to Rorke (8) this is most obvious
when it is lower than 50 GPa.
The density and P-wave velocity of the rock
The product of the density of the rock and its P-wave velocity, is called the impedance of
the rock, which according to some theories is of great importance.

2. Specific drilling and charging
The general rule is that an increase of specific drilling and specific
charge gives a finer fragmentation.
This is
Thi
i also
l iindicated
di t d iin some way b
by th
the fformulas
l used
d ffor
calculation of the fragmentation.
To maintain a certain fragmentation it is therefore usual to increase
the specific charge when increasing the hole diameter.

3. Drilling and firing pattern
- The placing of the holes is of importance for the blasting result
result.
- This applies to the location in relation to the structure of the rock
and in relation to each other.
- The latter can be influenced by the relation between spacing and
burden, E/V and how the holes are placed in a row in relation to
th preceding
the
di row.
- A normally accepted rule of thumb says that for a constant
area/hole, i.e. V*E
V E = const. there will be a liner fragmentation when
increasing the E/V and vice versa.
- By studying different tests the best fragmentation will be found at
a staggered
t
d pattern.
tt
- When a drilling and firing pattern is made it is important to study
each hole at the moment of detonation.
detonation

4. Delay times
- The choice of delay
y times has a veryy big
g influence on the fragmentation,
g
,
on one hand that the cracks shall have enough time to develop and on the
other that the rock must get time to move to avoid problems for the rows
behind.
behind
- When choosing delay times the risks for throw and ground vibrations
must be considered which in certain cases can give contradictory delay
times.
ti
- There are many different rules of thumb for the choice of delay times
between the holes in a row as well as between the rows. Here are some
examples:
- Delay between rows according to Rock Blasting : 3-5 ms/m burden.
- Delay between the holes in a row according to Explosives
Explosives and Blasting
Procedures Manual 3-15 ms/m burden.
- Between the rows it is recommended 2-3 times as big delay as between
the holes.
holes

5 Type of explosive
- In order to achieve optimal
p
fragmentation
g
an explosive
p
adapted
p
to the actual rock
conditions should be chosen. With the knowledge today this is not easy.
- Even if there are certain general rules there are still many question marks. Among
the properties of the explosive which may influence the fragmentation there are for
instance:
- Energy content
- Gas volume
- Detonation velocity
- Density
- In order to get a satisfactory picture of an explosives
explosive s rock blasting performance it
is necessary to take its environment into consideration because of the useful
energy released by the explosive is dependent on a lot of factors, like
- Properties of the explosive
- Confinement of the explosive, i.e. properties of the rock
- Hole diameter
- Degree of coupling
CONCLUSIONS
Have to achieve:
- Fragmentation definition
- Fragmentation Measurements
- Factors affecting fragment size
Then we will have a good fragmentation, with no fly
g
floors.
rocks, stable faces, low vibrations and regular

Rock Fragmentation - Blasting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Fragmentation - Blasting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Fragmentation - Blasting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

At the end of this chapter, participants will be able to

In most types of blasting,

- Minimise oversize boulders ((less secondaryy breaking)

OPTIMUM MUCKPILE SHAPE

a) Front end loader

BENCH HEIGHT & HOLE DIAMETER

- Small hole diameter and tall

MINING CYCLE AND FRAGMENTATION

HOW TO QUANTIFY THE FRAGMENTATION

HOW TO QUANTIFY THE FRAGMENTATION

Another way to quantify the fragmentation is by the

HOW TO QUANTIFY THE FRAGMENTATION

The oversize content is a very good complement to the k50

LIMITATIONS OF KUZ-RAM MODEL

REPRESENTING FRAGMENTATION DATA

VISUAL SIZE ASSESSMENT

LOADING PRODUCTION RATE

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRAGMENTATION

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRAGMENTATION

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRAGMENTATION

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRAGMENTATION

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRAGMENTATION

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FRAGMENTATION

You might also like