See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/35696000

A fragmentation model for underground production blasting /

Article · January 2005

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
4 212

1 author:

Italo Onederra
The University of Queensland
69 PUBLICATIONS   317 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design, Construction and Monitoring of Tunnels at Great Depth View project

CoP and advisory group on emerging and immersive technologies, VR/AR/MX to support teaching, learning and research” View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Italo Onederra on 22 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fragblast 1385-514x/03/0000-000$16.00
2003, Vol. 00, No. 0, pp. 000–000 # Swets & Zeitlinger

A Fragmentation Modelling Framework

for Underground Ring Blasting Applications

I. ONEDERRA1,2

ABSTRACT

Empirical approaches for predicting fragmentation from blasting continue to play a significant role in the
mining industry in spite of a number of inherent limitations associated with such methods. These methods
can be successfully applied provided the users understand or recognize their limitations. Arguably, the most
successful empirical based fragmentation models have been those applicable to surface blasting (e.g., Kuz-
Ram/Kuznetsov based models). With widespread adoption of fragmentation assessment technologies in
underground operations, an opportunity has arisen to extend and further develop these type approaches to
underground production blasting.
This paper discusses the development of a new fragmentation modelling framework for underground
ring blasting applications. The approach is based on the back-analysis of geotechnical, blasting and
fragmentation data gathered at the Ridgeway sub level caving (SLC) operation in conjunction with
experiences from a number of surface blasting operations.
The basis of the model are, relating a peak particle velocity (PPV) breakage threshold to a breakage
uniformity index; modelling of the coarse end of the size distribution with the Rosin-Rammler distribution;
and modelling the generation of fines with a newly developed approach that allows the prediction of the
volume of crushing around blastholes.
Preliminary validations of the proposed model have shown encouraging results. Further testing and
validation of the proposed model framework continues and the approach is currently being incorporated into
an underground blast design and analysis software to facilitate its application.

Keywords: fragmentation, underground blasting, back analysis, sublevel caving surface blast.

1. INTRODUCTION

The modelling of fragmentation from knowledge of nominal blast design parameters

and rock material and rock mass properties has been an enduring challenge for many
researchers and practicing engineers. The main reason for the concentrated effort
aimed at developing these predictive tools, lies on the demonstrated impact that

1
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
2
Address correspondence to: Italo Onederra, BE(Hons), MEngSc., Senior Research Engineer – Mining
Research, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), Isles Rd., Indooroopilly, Qld 4068,
Australia. Tel.: þ61 7 3365 5888; Fax: þ61 7 3365 5999; E-mail: [email protected]

126R03
2 I. ONEDERRA

fragmentation has on downstream processes such as loader/excavator and hauling

productivity as well as crusher and mill productivity [1–3]. In underground mining
methods such as sub level caving (SLC), fragmentation can be linked to recovery, as it
is hypothesised that it has a direct impact on material flow, thereby influencing ore
loss and waste dilution entry. If the ore is finer than the waste, it may be drawn
preferentially thus delaying dilution entry [4].
Our understanding of fragmentation by blasting has been significantly enhanced by
the application of both experimental research and numerical modelling [5–9].
Numerical methods have allowed the further development of theories that describe the
mechanisms of stress wave propagation and have provided us with a better insight into
what the rock mass may be experiencing during the blasting process. There is
however still many issues to be resolved before numerical methods can be routinely
applied as engineering design tools, they include the development of mechanisms that
can accurately model the impact of important factors such as the structural
characteristics of the rock mass and the non-ideal detonation behaviour of explosives.
Advances in this field are currently under way by combining newly developed 3D
rock mass modelling tools with advanced numerical methods linked to both ideal and
non-ideal detonation codes [9–12].
Whilst advances in numerical models continue, due to the complex nature of the
explosive/rock interaction process, engineering solutions in the form of semi-
mechanistic or empirical models still dominate the blast design engineering process.
Wagner [13] in a recent keynote address has noted that experience-based design
criteria have and continue to give the most reliable results in mining applications.

2. MODELLING FRAMEWORK

Figure 1 describes the framework of the proposed empirical approach. At the top
of this diagram is the definition of the key input parameters influencing the
fragmentation process which include the structural characteristics of the rock mass,
rock material physical and mechanical properties and the nominal blast design
parameters such as geometry, charging conditions and boundary conditions.
The proposed modelling approach requires an unambiguous definition of the
volume of rock mass and rock material to be blasted. It is widely acknowledged that
discontinuities (joints) play a major role in the blast fragmentation process. The
network of discontinuities and their characteristics including orientation, spacing, and
persistence can have a marked influence on fragmentation, particularly in the
definition of coarser fragments.
Mapping techniques in combination with newly developed statistical techniques
can be used to infer a size distribution of in situ blocks formed in a particular domain.
Several approaches have been proposed to model the network of discontinuities and in
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 3

Fig. 1. Framework of the proposed empirical approach to predict fragmentation from blasting.

situ blocks [11, 12, 14, 15]. These techniques are advanced modelling tools that
require information from detailed geotechnical mapping. When operational
constraints do not allow the collection of detailed geotechnical mapping data, other
approximations such as those proposed by Palmstron [16, 17], Bouden-Romdhame
et al. [18], and Kleine [19] may be considered. This may involve obtaining fracture
spacing or fracture frequency statistics for localised regions within pre-defined
blasting domains. In the case of undercut blasting for example, fracture counts in three
orthogonal directions in windows defined by the nominal ring burden and the height
of the drive may be used to estimate the degree of fracturing and infer the mean size of
blocks formed by the rock mass.
Regardless of the methodology adopted, subjectivity must be reduced by
implementing consistent data collection procedures. The final analysis should also
be limited to the accuracy and reliability of the data collected and this should be
recognised at the early stages of modelling.
The physical and mechanical properties of the rock material will also have a
major influence on the ease at which crushing and new breakage occurs. In the pro-
posed modelling approach, rock material properties are considered to have a
more pronounced effect on the finer end of the size distribution of the muckpile.
4 I. ONEDERRA

As described by the framework, rock material properties in combination with blast

design parameters are key inputs to the modelling of fines by way of estimating the
maximum extent of crushing around blastholes.
Boundary conditions and blast design parameters influenced by geometry and
operational constraints must be specified. They include parameters such as the
location of the free face defining the nominal burden, toe spacings, hole diameters,
hole lengths, amount of explosive per hole, type of explosives used and their
properties.

3. ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH

The principal assumption of the proposed modelling approach is that a muckpile is

formed by a combination of two fragment size distributions, a distribution for the
coarser end and another for the finer end. This approach has been adopted by others
including Djordjevic [20] and Kanchibotla et al. [21], as a way of distinguishing
between the source of the fragmented particles given by the main breakage
mechanisms observed during the detonation process (i.e., crushing, stress generated
fractures, extension of existing fractures and tensile failure). This combined approach
has shown to be an improvement upon the deficiencies of other empirical approaches
which generally apply only one distribution to explain the whole of the fragmented
muckpile [22].
The key factors describing the proposed modelling approach are illustrated in
Figure 2. As indicated, a fragmentation size distribution may be divided into two

Fig. 2. Definition of key parameters influencing the empirical modelling of fragmentation by blasting.
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 5

distinct regions (i.e., coarse and fines). The curve describing the distribution of
particles within these two regions may be modelled by the definition of three key
components:
1. The mid point or mean fragment size (x50) which is mainly controlled by the
structural characteristics of the rock mass (i.e., in situ block sizes) and the
interaction between the explosive and rock mass.
2. A uniformity index (n) which is mainly controlled by blast design parameters
including, pattern geometry, charging, boundary conditions and the interaction
between the explosive and rock mass.
3. The fines inflection point which is mainly controlled by the proportion of fines
generated during blasting.

3.1. Modelling of the Coarse Region of the Size Distribution

The distribution of fragmented particles in the coarse region is assumed to follow the
Rosin-Rammler distribution [23] in a format similar to that adopted by Cunningham
[24, 25].

n
0:693 x x
RðxÞ ¼ 1  e 50 ¼ 1  expf0:693 ðx=x50 Þn g ð1Þ

where R(x) is the proportion of the material passing a screen of size x, x50 is the post
blast mean fragment size and n is the uniformity index.
The Rosin-Rammler distribution has been extensively tested and successfully
adopted in a number of empirical models to predict fragmentation from bench
blasting [20–22, 24]. Detailed analysis of fragmentation data from SLC ring blasting
at Ridgeway also justified the adoption of the Rosin-Rammler distribution for
modelling purposes.
Within the proposed framework, the post blast mean fragment size (x50) is assumed
to be mainly controlled by the ‘‘local’’ characteristics of the rock mass and the
explosive charge concentration within the rock mass volume. Section 4.1.1 describes
in more detail the estimation of the mean fragment size (x50).
The uniformity index (n), as the name suggests, gives an indication of how uniform
the distribution of fragments is within the muckpile. High values of n indicate a more
uniform muckpile (coarse particles lie within a narrower size range), whilst low
values of n indicate that the distribution of fragments is less uniform, that is,
fragments lie within a wider size range. Current literature indicates that the uniformity
index n for blasted rock masses generally lies between values of 0.6 and 2.2 [26].
Values below 0.6 tend to indicate a non-uniform fragmentation caused by the
combination of blasting and other secondary effects such as structurally controlled
failures, overbreak and back-break.
6 I. ONEDERRA

Although the above ranges are based on fragmentation analysis conducted on

surface blasting operations, as illustrated in Figure 3, the analysis of underground
fragmentation data from the Ridgeway operation, confirms that this range is also

Fig. 3. Spread of the Rosin-Rammler uniformity index n for Ridgeway 5330L fragmentation data.
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 7

realistic of the outcomes of sub level caving (SLC) ring blasting. Further analysis of
the Ridgeway data also confirmed that for low n values (i.e., n < 0.6), muckpiles were
affected by secondary effects such as structurally controlled failures. Further revision
of fragmentation and image analysis data also indicated that extremely low n values
(i.e., n < 0.3) were due to images with very fine and wet material, taken at distances
for which the system’s resolution was not capable of producing reliable particle
delineations. Fragmentation assessment of muckpiles was conducted at regular stages
of extraction using the SPLIT image analysis system [27].
From a fundamental point of view, fragmentation uniformity is expected to be a
function of blast design parameters, boundary conditions and the characteristics of
the rock mass. However, fragmentation assessment studies from surface blasting
operations (i.e., large open pit and quarries) have shown that the uniformity index (n)
is predominantly influenced by blast design parameters and boundary conditions. An
example is given by the Kuz-Ram model [24, 25] where the uniformity index n is
estimated through an empirical relationship that only includes parameters such as
charge diameter, burden, spacing, bench height, charge length and drilling deviation.
Because this relationship was derived from open pit blasting geometries, it cannot be
directly applied to underground ring blasting conditions. Hence a new relationship is
proposed for the estimation of fragmentation uniformity which extends to drilling and
charging configurations found in underground ring blasting conditions.
In the proposed framework, the uniformity index n is a function of a breakage
uniformity index (Bu). The Bu index is in turn a function of the proportion and
distribution of strain energy likely to produce breakage in a given volume or rock.
This is approximated by the distribution of peak particle velocity (PPV) exceeding a
pre-defined breakage threshold (see Section 4.1.2).
The concept of peak particle velocity has been used by a number of practicing
engineers to model the extent of near field damage and preconditioning experienced
by the surrounding rock mass during blasting. This concept is extended here to define
an engineering index describing rock breakage and fragmentation uniformity. In
summary, the Bu index is a function of boundary conditions, pattern geometry,
charging parameters and a pre-defined breakage criteria.
To define the regions of peak particle velocity likely to exceed a breakage
threshold, the Holmberg-Persson approach is adopted [28]. From a fundamental point
of view and as argued by Blair and Minchinton [7], the Holmberg-Persson approach
may not be strictly accurate. However, comparisons made to assess the accuracy of
this approach with dynamic numerical and analytical methods may also be
questioned, as both approaches are fundamentally different (i.e., static empirical vs
dynamic numerical). Nevertheless, the Holmberg-Persson approach is not used as a
direct input to accurately determine strain energy but used instead as an approx-
imation to derive an index based on peak particle velocity which is essentially
calibrated from direct field measurements.
8 I. ONEDERRA

Because the Holmberg-Persson approach requires field calibration, there are

certain limitations to its widespread application. Nevertheless, the approach provides
a unique practical methodology for blasting engineering applications which has been
demonstrated by several studies [28–35].
Section 4.1.2 describes in more detail the way in which the breakage uniformity
index (Bu) is determined for specific rock mass conditions and nominal blast design
parameters.

3.2. Assumptions for the Modelling of the Fines Region

The proportion of fines generated during blasting is estimated using the approach
discussed by Onederra et al. [36]. This model is based on the back-analysis of a
comprehensive experimental program conducted in Ankara, Turkey [37]. The
program included the fragmentation assessment and direct measurement of the zone
of crushing from 92 blasting tests on concrete blocks using two commercial
explosives. The concrete blocks varied from low, medium to high strength and
measured 1.5 m in length, 1.0 m in width and 1.0 m in height. Stagg et al. [38]
demonstrated that the proportion of fines generated by blasting can be considered to
be scale independent. This means that the proportion of fine material generated in a
small scale blast can indicate the tendency to generate fines in full production scale
blasting [39].
The proposed model is similar to the concept adopted by Kanchibotla et al. [21] in
that the proportion of fines is directly related to the mass of crushed material given by
a cylindrical volume of crushing around a blasthole. The model combines two specific
developments from the experimental program, firstly is the relationship between the
fines cut off point (i.e., size less than 1.18 mm) and the volume of crushing; and
secondly but equally important is the development of a model to predict the size of the
crushing zone around a blasthole. In contrast to the approach discussed by
Kanchibotla et al. [21], the relationship between fines and the volume of crushing
is explicitly defined from model scale blasts and it is not based on calibrations of full
scale run of mine (ROM) fragmentation. Further details of this new model are
discussed in Section 4.2.

3.3. Other Key Assumptions and Limitations

The effect of different levels of confinement and the influence of in situ stresses are
not considered in this model. In relation to semi-confined conditions such as those
experienced in SLC ring blasting, the influence of the angle of ring dumping has not
been included in the modelling framework. There is some empirical evidence
suggesting that dump angle may have an impact on fragmentation uniformity as this
factor may be directly related to the degree of confinement or void volume available
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 9

for rock displacement. Model scale tests conducted by Jarlenfors and Holmberg [40]
and also documented by Persson et al. [41] showed that for three different void ratios
11.1%, 16.7% and 50%, the best fragmentation was achieved for a void volume of
50%. When the void volume was decreased, an increase in the fragmentation size
occurred.
Back analysis of fragmentation data from SLC ring blasting at Ridgeway has
shown that higher n values or more uniform muckpiles had been achieved with
dump angles of 10 degrees. This finding is in agreement with internal studies carried
out at Ridgeway in looking at the influence of dump angle on top size [42]. There is
however not enough information to be conclusive and confident to include dump
angle as a factor in the modelling framework. Further work is required to verify its
influence.
The proposed modelling approach also assumes that optimum inter-hole and inter-
row timing conditions exist. In the case of SLC rings this refers to inter-hole
pyrotechnic delays of between 17 to 100 ms. The inclusion of empirical factors that
can account for the effect of detonation timing on fragmentation cannot be justified at
this stage due to the limited amount of data available. This is a limitation that will be
addressed in the future as our understanding about the influence of timing on
fragmentation is improved. The opportunity to address this issue has become possible
with the advent of precise initiation systems such as electronic detonators.
The following section describes in more detail the procedures and empirical
relationships developed to model fragmentation from knowledge of nominal blast
design parameters such as geometry, charging conditions as well as rock material
properties and rock mass characteristics.

4. FRAGMENTATION MODELLING PROCEDURE

4.1. Estimating the Coarser End of the Size Distribution

As described earlier, the size distribution of coarser fragments is modelled by the
Rosin-Rammler distribution. To determine this part of the distribution, one must
estimate the expected post blast mean fragment size (x50) and the expected uniformity
index n.

4.1.1. Estimating the Post-Blast Mean Fragment Size (x50)

Estimates of the post-blast mean fragment size (x50) can be obtained by the following
relationship,

Xinsitu
x50 ¼ ð2Þ
Fþ1
10 I. ONEDERRA

where Xinsitu is a measure of the mean size of in situ blocks formed by the rock mass
discontinuity network in the local domain and F is defined as the fragmentation factor.
When F takes very small values (i.e., approaches zero) which indicates a low
concentration of explosive energy then the value of x50 approaches the size of the in
situ blocks or the rock mass itself. For large values of F the range of situ block sizes
are degraded and become the fragmented size x50.
4.1.1.1. Definition of Xinsitu The parameter Xinsitu or mean size of in situ blocks may
be estimated from a combination of detailed line mapping and 3D rock mass modelling
techniques such as those proposed by Villaescusa [14], Grenon et al. [15], Harries [12],
and Eadie [11]. When operational constraints do not allow the collection of detailed
geotechnical mapping data, other approximations such as those proposed by Palmstron
[16, 17], Bouden-Romdhame et al. [18], and Kleine [19] may be considered.
In defining Xinsitu, it is important to recognise conditions where fragmentation will
mainly be influenced by the ring geometry (burden and spacing). This may apply to
extremely massive conditions where joint spacing is greater than the nominal ring
burden, in which case the pattern geometry plays a more pronounced role in
fragmentation. The Xinsitu parameter does not refer to a single value but a range that
can describe the variability of the rock mass within the blasted domain for one ring or
a collection of rings.
4.1.1.2. Definition of F The fragmentation factor (F) is determined by the following
expression:
 0:633
115
F ¼ K 0:8  Q0:254  ð3Þ
RWS

where K is the equivalent ring ‘‘toe’’ powder factor (kg/m3), Q is the average mass of
explosive per hole (kg/hole) and RWS is the relative weight strength of the explosive
(i.e., ANFO ¼ 100 and TNT ¼ 115).
The above relationship is based on the Kuz-Ram model [24] and the back analysis
of both Ridgeway’s SLC blasting data and several surface blasts. In the proposed
approach, the equivalent ring ‘‘toe’’ powder factor (K) is the maximum value of the
3D explosive energy concentration (kg/m3) calculated at the toes of the ring and at
the burden plane (see Fig. 4). The 3D explosive energy distribution analysis was
introduced by Kleine [19] to describe the concentration of explosive energy given by
different pattern geometries and charging conditions. In underground ring blasting,
the 3D explosive energy concentration allows for the optimisation of the distribution
of charges within a ring. This approach has been previously used to develop site
specific rules to optimise rock breakage and fragmentation in ring blasting [43–45].
Figure 4 shows examples of 3D explosive energy distribution contours calculated
using the BMS-2DRING software.
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 11

Fig. 4. BMS-2DRING output of 3D explosive energy concentration.

The approach proposed to estimate the mean fragment size (x50) (Eq. (2)) bears
similarity to what was first proposed by Bouden-Romdhame et al. [18]. They found
that the introduction of a breakage reduction factor and a block discontinuity factor
could improve the predictive capabilities of empirical fragmentation models such as
the Larsson and Kuznetsov models [46, 47]. A number of authors have also proposed
modelling frameworks that attempt to apply some kind of degradation to a known in
situ block size distribution. Those approaches are generally related to the application
of comminution theory [19, 48–51].

4.1.2. Estimating the Rosin-Rammler Uniformity Index (n)

As discussed earlier, an engineering index called the breakage uniformity index (Bu)
allows the determination of the Rosin-Rammler uniformity index (n).

Table 1. Holmberg-Persson attenuation parameters and damage/breakage thresholds for different rock types.

Rock type K a PPVcrit (mm/s) PPVbreakage (mm/s)

Massive Granite [41] 700 0.7 1000 >4000

Andesite [30] 200 0.9 600 >2400
Strong Sandstone [30] 400 0.78 450 >1800
Strong Shale [30] 175 1.25 350 >1400
Strong slate (across bedding) [34, 35] 456 1.12 848 >3400
Ridgeway Volcanics [52] 470 0.94 1200 >4800
Medium/coarse grained quartz diorite [31] 150 0.87 840 >3360
12 I. ONEDERRA

Nominal blast design parameters, the Holmberg-Persson attenuation constants

(K and a) and a PPV rock breakage criteria must be specified. Holmberg-Persson
attenuation constants and the associated PPV breakage criteria may be obtained from
documented case studies or by implementing a site-specific blast monitoring program
[52, 53]. Table 1 provides a summary of published field work that has been conducted
to define the Holmberg-Persson attenuation constants (K and a) together with
estimates of damage and breakage thresholds.
Because the Holmberg-Persson model is essentially a static model (it does not
consider the influence of explosive VOD), monitoring to obtain the attenuation
constants must be conducted separately if two significantly different explosive types
are being compared.
Incipient damage or critical peak particle velocity (PPVcrit) may be estimated
by assuming the simple equation for the stress in a plane sinusoidal stress wave
[41],
Ts Vp
PPVcrit ¼ ð4Þ
E
where Ts is the tensile strength of the rock (Pa), Vp is the compressional wave velocity
(mm/s) and E is the Young’s modulus (Pa). Literature shows that the value of PPVcrit
generally defines a threshold of incipient damage and that breakage and fragmentation
is closer to four times the value of incipient damage [30, 31].
After defining the PPV breakage threshold and the Holmberg-Persson attenuation
constants (K and a) then the Bu index is calculated by,
 
%PPVbreakage
Bu ¼  100 ð5Þ
V=Hc

where %PPVbreakage is the average proportion of peak particle velocity exceeding the
onset of breakage in a given volume, V is the total volume of rock to be blasted (m3)
and Hc is the number of charged/detonated blastholes.
As illustrated in Figure 5, %PPVbreakage is estimated from calculations conducted
at three locations parallel to the ring plane, starting at the half burden plane, quarter
burden and at the ring plane itself.
In general, the Bu index gives an indication of breakage uniformity. This index has
been empirically correlated to a normalised uniformity index (Nn). Figure 6 shows the
empirical relationship between Bu and this normalised uniformity index Nn.
The normalised uniformity index Nn described above is simply defined by the
following expression,
 
n
Nn ¼  1000 ð6Þ
V=Hc
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 13

Fig. 5. Calculation of the Bu index for a typical ring pattern.

where n is the Rosin-Rammler uniformity index, V is the total volume of rock being
blasted (m3) and Hc is the number of charged/detonated blastholes.
As discussed earlier, this empirical relationship has been developed from the back-
analysis of SLC ring blasting data and a number of experiences from surface blasting.
Currently, the breakage uniformity database is composed of a total of 68 cases, they
14 I. ONEDERRA

Fig. 6. Empirical relationship between Bu and the normalised uniformity index Nn.

include: 59 SLC ring blasts in volcanics; 4 surface blasts in porphyry ore; 2 in quartz
monzonite ore; 2 in monzonite and volcanics ore and 1 in diorite ore. The database is
currently being expanded to incorporate experiences from other methods such as open
stoping, bench stoping and narrow vein mining.
For the example illustrated in Figure 5, with a Bu index equal to 78.3 the expected
Nn value given by the line of best fit is 9.42, the Rosin Rammler uniformity index n is
then equal to:

9:42  ð1279:4=14Þ
n¼ ¼ 0:86
1000
It is important to highlight that the proposed empirical relationship has strict
boundaries and caution should be exercised when used outside this empirical
boundary. An envelop showing the upper and lower 95% confidence limits for the
data collected is also given. This envelope represents the variability expected from
any measure of fragmentation uniformity which is fundamentally affected by the
characteristics of the rock mass and cannot be directly measured and/or quantified.

4.2. Estimating the Fine End of the Size Distribution

or Fines Inflection Point
As discussed earlier, the proportion of fines generated during blasting is estimated
using the approach discussed by Onederra et al. [36] and is based on a comprehensive
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 15

experimental program. The approach combines two specific developments, firstly is

the relationship between the fines cut off point (i.e., size less than 1.18 mm) and the
volume of crushing; and secondly but equally important is the development of a
model to predict the size of the crushing zone around a blasthole.

4.2.1. Correlation Between Fines and the Crushing Volume

From experimental measurements and observations, the shape of the crushing zone
generally follows a pear shape form and can approach a cylindrical shape depending
on the length of charge, explosive type and material properties. A cylindrical
approach is commonly used and this shape is adopted here. Given this assumption, the
volume of the crushing zone (Vc) can be simply estimated by,
Vc ¼ Vf  Vb ð2Þ

where Vf is the volume of the cylinder of crushed material defined by the maximum
radius of crushing (rc) and charge length and Vb is the blasthole volume.
Given the above approximation, a relationship between the measured proportion of
fines (i.e., material less than 1.18 mm) and the volumetric proportion of crushed
material has been established (Fig. 7).
In Figure 7, the percent of crushed material is calculated by,
m 
c
%Crushed ¼  100 ð3Þ
M

Fig. 7. Relationship between % crushed and measured proportion of fines from small scale blasting tests.
16 I. ONEDERRA

where mc is the mass of crushed material and M the total mass of broken material. mc
is calculated by,
m c ¼ Vc  ð4Þ
where Vc is the volume of crushing around the blasthole and  is the material
density.
A good correlation exists between the measured proportion of material less than
1.18 mm and the proportion of crushed material given by the volume of crushing. The
linear equation describing this relationship is given by,
% less than 1:18 mm ¼ 0:79 ð%CrushedÞ þ 0:026 ð5Þ
The above relationship appears to agree with assumptions made by Comeau [54] and
Kanchibotla et al. [21] in describing the 1 mm fines cut off point as a critical value.
One of the key components of the proposed approach is the ability to predict the
size of the crushing zone around a blasthole for a given explosive and rock type, in
order to estimate the volume and mass of crushed material around a blasthole. This
model is discussed in the following section.

4.2.2. Modelling the Size of the Crushing Zone Around a Blasthole

In order to predict the maximum extent of crushing around a blasthole, a new model
has been developed. This particular model is discussed in more detail by Esen et al.
[55]. In this model, the radius of crushing denoted as rc (Fig. 8) is assumed to be a
function of explosive type, material properties and borehole diameter.
As shown by Figure 8, ro is the original borehole radius (mm), Pb is the borehole
pressure (Pa) calculated using a non-ideal detonation model developed by Esen [56],
K is the rock stiffness (Pa) and c is the uniaxial compressive strength (Pa). Rock
stiffness K is defined assuming that the material within the crushing zone is

Fig. 8. Parameters influencing the extent of crushing.

 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 17

homogeneous and isotropic and is given by,

Ed
K¼ ð8Þ
1 þ d

where Ed is the dynamic Young’s modulus and d is the dynamic Poisson’s ratio.
From the experimental work, a non-linear relationship defined by two dimension-
less indices has been derived and is given by:
ro
¼ 1:231ðCZIÞ0:219 ð9Þ
rc
and
ðPb Þ3
CZI ¼ ð10Þ
ðKÞ  2c
where CZI is defined as the crushing zone index. This is a dimensionless index that
identifies the crushing potential of a charged blasthole.
Because it is physically impossible for the ratio between ro and rc to be greater than
1, the above relationship is constrained to 1 for very small values of CZI. In this case
for values of CZI less than 2.6. These small values of CZI will generally correspond to
small borehole pressures (i.e., decoupled charges). Further details of the proposed
model are discussed by Esen et al. [55], including the validation and comparison of
this model with other approaches and its applicability to full scale production blasting
environments.
Experimental results appear to have successfully quantified the likely proportion of
fines (i.e., material less than 1.18 mm) generated during the crushing stage in blasting.
However, literature indicates that the overall proportion of fines to the final run of
mine (ROM) fragmentation is a function of many other factors [39, 57] including,
Rock mass characteristics such as degree of fracturing, infilling type and
weathering characteristics.
The creation of new fractures (shearing) during the breakage process as well as
particle collision.
Impact of digging/loading equipment on the further generation of fines.
Physical and mechanical properties of the rock material after the blast, that is,
degree of pre-conditioning making the rock material more susceptible to further
degradation.
Specifically to underground blasting, the impact of attrition before material reaches
the drawpoint and through ore passes prior to feeding primary crushers.
The above alludes to the possibility that the current proposed approach may in fact be
underestimating the overall proportion of fines being delivered to downstream
18 I. ONEDERRA

processes (e.g., crushing and milling equipment). However, because the impact of the
above factors can be very difficult if not impossible to isolate and quantify, an
engineering approach involving the site specific calibration of ROM fragmentation to
allow for their impact should always be considered.

4.3. Estimating the Complete Size Distribution of Fragments

As discussed and explained in earlier sections, the size distribution of the muckpile is
composed by the combination of a size distribution for the coarser end (i.e., Rosin-
Rammler) and another for the finer end. The approach to link these two distributions is
currently based on the model described by Kanchibotla et al. [21] and Thornton et al.
[22].
In summary, a fines uniformity index and a characteristic size for the fines region is
derived from the fines inflection point and the post blast mean fragment size x50. This
uniformity index is then used to describe the slope connecting the coarse end of the
distribution, given by the Rosin-Rammler equation, with the fines inflection point. A
mathematical algorithm is used to connect both regions into one single distribution
curve.

5. EXAMPLE APPLICATION

A number of simulations are conducted to demonstrate the application of the

proposed model. In this case, the impact of hole diameter (i.e., 102 mm vs 89 mm) on
fragmentation is investigated for a typical 9-hole SLC ring pattern in three different
structural domains. Figure 9 shows the nominal ring design parameters and Table 2
summarises the physical and mechanical properties of the rock material and rock
mass adopted in the simulations.
The resulting output of the simulations is shown in Figure 10. The analysis
demonstrates the relative impact of rock mass characteristics on fragmentation (i.e.,
degree of fracturing). For similar design parameters, changes in the top size (i.e., 80%
passing size) from fractured to massive conditions are significant (i.e., 300 mm to
600 mm for design A and 450 mm to 900 mm for design B). There are also differences
in the expected mean fragment size (i.e., 50% passing size) between a ring pattern
using 89 mm instead of 102 mm blastholes (i.e., 170 mm to 140 mm respectively in
fractured conditions). The analysis also shows that below the 20% passing size, there
are no significant changes in the distribution of sizes for changes in blasthole
diameters from 89 mm and 102 mm.
In general, a more uniform and finer fragmentation is achieved across structural
domains with the adoption of 102 mm blastholes at this 2.5 m burden configuration
(i.e., design A). However, a more comprehensive analysis should also include the
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 19

Fig. 9. Nominal parameters of designs A and B.

Table 2. Physical and mechanical properties of the rock mass assumed for the simulations.

Rock material properties Rock mass attenuation Rock mass structural characteristics
constants & breakage threshold

UCS, MPa 131 K 470 Highly fractured (Xinsitu), m 0.3

Ts, MPa 15.8 a 0.94 Fractured (Xinsitu), m 0.6
P-Wave, m/s 5180 PPVbreakage, mm/s >4800 Massive (Xinsitu), m 1.2
Ed, GPa 70
Density, kg/m3 2700

assessment of the impact of 89 mm versus 102 mm on drill hole deviation and

secondary effects such as brow damage and back break, as these factors may also have
a marked influence on the operational feasibility of a particular design.
Because the modelling framework provides the flexibility to allow for the inclusion
of uncertainty in input parameters. Further analysis may also be conducted by
adopting a stochastic approach. For example, a defined range or distribution of rock
20 I. ONEDERRA

Fig. 10. Modelling output for designs A and B.

material and rock mass parameters (e.g., mean and standard deviations) can be
assigned instead of only using mean values, as in this particular example.

6. CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK

A novel framework for the modelling and prediction of fragmentation with emphasis
on underground ring blasting applications has been introduced. Preliminary
validations have shown encouraging results and further testing continues.
The modelling framework has been established to allow for the inclusion of
uncertainty in input parameters so that a stochastic modelling approach can be
implemented.
The general applications of the proposed modelling tool include:
Engineering design and analysis for underground ring blasting both at the mine
feasibility stage and at the operational stage.
By adopting a stochastic approach, the model may be used as a tool for conducting
‘‘what if’’ scenarios, to assess the effects of different pattern geometries and
charging conditions on fragmentation prior to the implementation of trials and/or
design changes.
The model may also assist site engineers in the continual improvement of the
drilling and blasting design process by better matching designs and explosives to
specific domains.
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 21

Further work to improve the predictive capabilities of the proposed model are
continuing. In summary the work covers the following:
Further development of the breakage uniformity database to include other
underground mining methods.
Further validation and calibration of the proposed approach for the modelling of
fines with underground ROM fragmentation.
Study the impact of ring ‘‘dump angle’’ on confinement and fragmentation.
Investigate the influence of delay timing on fragmentation.
Address the limitations of the Holmberg-Persson model.
With regards to addressing the limitations of the Holmberg-Persson model, the
framework provides the flexibility to implement other approaches such as advanced
numerical methods that are able to realistically and adequately model breakage by
considering the influence of explosive performance and the effect of rock material and
rock mass characteristics.
As part of the technology transfer process, the model is currently being incorporated
into a Ring design and analysis software (i.e., JKSimBlast-Underground) to help further
development, testing and implementation in production environments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank sponsors of the AMIRA/BART II Project for allowing
the publication of this paper. In addition I would like acknowledge the contribution
and commitment of both Ridgeway and JKMRC personnel in the data collection,
documentation and analysis work. They include Gavin Power, David La Rosa, Kai
Riihioja, Tanya Law, Lachie Dunn, Luca Popa and Robert Lowther. The supervisory
and technical role of Andrew Logan, Clive Jones, Duncan Tyler and Peter Trout is
also acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Eloranta, J.: Selection of Powder Factor in Large Diameter Blastholes. In: Proceedings of the
EXPLO’95. A Conference Exploring the Role of Rock Breakage in Mining and Quarrying, Brisbane,
Australia, September, 1995, pp. 25–28.
2. Grundstrom, C., Kanchibotla, S.S., Jankovic, A. and Thornton, D.: Blast Fragmentation for Maximising
the Sag Mill Throughput at Porgera Gold Mine. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique (ISEE), Vol. 1, 2001, pp. 383–399.
3. Paley, N. and Kojovic, T.: Adjusting Blasting to Increase SAG Mill Throughput at the Red Dog Mine.
In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique (ISEE), Vol. 1,
2001, pp. 65–81.
22 I. ONEDERRA

4. Bull, G. and Page, C.H.: Sublevel Caving – Today’s Dependable Low-Cost ‘‘Ore Factory’’. In:
Proceedings of the AUSIMM – MASSMIN 2000 Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 2000, pp. 537–556.
5. Wedmaier, R.: An Investigation of Failure Criteria and a Blast Wave Propagation Model for a
Description of the Rock Breakage Problem. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia,
1992.
6. Yang, R., Bawden, W.F. and Katsabanis, P.D.: A New Constitutive Model for Blast Damage.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 33 (3) (1996), pp. 245–254.
7. Blair, D. and Minchinton, A.: On the Damage Zone Surrounding a Single Blasthole. FRAGBLAST Int.
J. Blasting Fragmentation 2 (1997), pp. 59–72.
8. Kouzniak, N. and Rossmanith, H.P.: Supersonic Detonation in Rock Mass – Analytical Solutions
and Validation of Numerical Models – Part 1: Stress Analysis. FRAGBLAST Int. J. Blasting
Fragmentation 2 (1999), pp. 449–486.
9. Uenishi, K. and Rossmanith, H.P.: Blast Wave Propagation in Rock Mass – Part II: Layered Media.
FRAGBLAST Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation 2 (1998), pp. 39–77.
10. Chitombo, G.: A Description of the Development of the Hybrid Stress Blasting Model (HSBM).
Internal Confidential Reports JKMRC/ITASCA and Personal Communication, 2001.
11. Eadie, B.: Model for Predicting Primary Fragmentation in Caving. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Queensland-JKMRC, in preparation, 2001.
12. Harries, N.: Rock Mass Characterisation for Cave Mine Engineering. Thesis, The University of
Queensland JKMRC, submitted for publication, 2001.
13. Wagner, H.: The Rock Mechanics Challenge in Mining. In: Proceedings of EUROCK 2001, Rock
Mechanics – A Challenge for Society. Finland, 2001, pp. XIX–XXVIII.
14. Villaescusa, E.: A Three Dimensional Model of Rock Jointing. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of
Queensland, 1991.
15. Grenon, M., Hadjigeorgiou and Liu, Q.: Quantifying In-Situ Rock Block Size and Resulting Fragment
Size Distributions Due to Blasting. FRAGBLAST Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation 2 (1998), pp. 205–218.
16. Palmstrom, A.: The Volumetric Joint Count – A Useful Measure of the Degree of Rock Mass Jointing.
In: Proceedings of the Fourth Congress International Association of Engineering Geology, 1982,
pp. 221–228.
17. Palmstrom, A.: RMi – A Rock Mass Characterization System for Rock Engineering Purposes. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway, 1995.
18. Bouden-Romdhame, Du Mouza, J., Blanchier, A. and Weber, P.: Analysis of Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Colorado, 1987, pp. 310–325.
19. Kleine, T.H.: A Mathematical Model of Rock Breakage by Blasting. Ph.D. Thesis, JKMRC – The
University of Queensland.
20. Djordjevic, N.: Two-Component of Blast Fragmentation. In: Proceedings of the Fragblast 1999. South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1999, pp. 213–219.
21. Kanchibotla, S.S., Valery, W. and Morrell, S.: Modelling Fines in Blast Fragmentation and its Impact on
Crushing and Grinding. Explo’99 – A Conference on Rock Breaking. The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Kalgoorlie, Australia, 1999, pp. 137–144.
22. Thornton, D., Kanchibotla, S. and Esterle, J.: A Fragmentation Model to Estimate ROM Distribution of
Soft Rock Types. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique,
ISEE, Orlando, FL, USA, 2001, pp. 41–53.
23. Rosin, R. and Rammler, E.: Laws Governing Fineness of Powdered Coal. J. Inst. Fuels 7 (1993),
pp. 29–36.
24. Cunningham, C.: The Kuz-Ram Model for Prediction of Fragmentation from Blasting. In: Proceed-
ings of the First International Congress in Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, Vol. 2, 1983,
pp. 439–453.
 A FRAGMENTATION MODELLING FRAMEWORK 23

25. Cunningham, C.: Fragmentation Estimations and the Kuz-Ram Model – Four Years on Second
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, CO, 1987, pp. 475–487.
26. Chung, S.H. and Katsabanis, P.D.: An Integrated Approach for Estimation of Fragmentation. In:
Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique (ISEE), Vol. 1, 2001,
pp. 247–256.
27. Kemeny, J., Girdner, K., BoBo, T. and Norton, B.: Improvements for Fragmentation Measurement by
Digital Imaging: Accurate Estimation of Fines. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium
for Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, SAIMM, 1999, pp. 103–110.
28. Holmberg, R. and Persson, P.A.: Design of Tunnel Perimeter Blast Hole Patterns to Prevent Rock
Damage. Trans. Inst. Mining Metall. 89 (1980), pp. A37–A40.
29. Andrieux, P., McKenzie, C., Heilig J. and Drolet, A.: In: The Impact of Blasting on Excavation
Design – A Geomechanics Approach. In: Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Explosives and
Blasting Research. ISEE, Austin, USA, 1994, pp. 107–119.
30. McKenzie, C., Scherpenisse, C., Arriagada, J. and Jones, J.: Application of Computer Assisted
Modelling to Final Wall Blast Design. In: Proceedings of the EXPLO’95 – A Conference Exploring the
Role of Rock Breakage in Mining and Quarrying, Brisbane, Australia, 1995, pp. 285–292.
31. LeBlanc, T., Heilig, J. and Ryan, J.: Predicting the Envelope of Damage from the Detonation of a
Confined Charge. In: Proceedings of the Sixth High-Tech Seminar on the State of the Art in Blasting
Technology Instrumentation and Explosives Applications, Massachusetts, USA, 1995, pp. 225–291.
32. Liu, Q. and Proulx, R.: The Mechanisms of Rock Damage in Blasthole Open Stope Mining: Blast
Induced Versus Stress Induced. In: Proceedings of the NARMS 1996 – Rock Mechanics Tools and
Techniques, 1996, pp. 599–608.
33. Meyer, T. and Dunn, P.G.: Fragmentation and Rock Mass Damage Assessment – Sunburst Excavator
and Drill and Blast. In: Proceedings of the NARMS 1996 – Rock Mechanics Tools and Techniques,
1996, pp. 609–617.
34. Villaescusa, E., Scott, C. and Onederra, I.: Near Field Blast Monitoring at Hilton. Mount Isa Technical
Report No RES MIN 78, 1997.
35. Villaescusa, E., Onederra, I. and Scott, C.: Blast Induced Damage and Dynamic Behaviour of
Hangingwalls in Bench Stoping. Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation, submitted for publication, 2002.
36. Onederra, I., Esen, S. and Bilgin, H.: An Engineering Approach to Predict the Proportion of Fines
Generated by Blasting. Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation, submitted for publication, 2002.
37. Bilgin, H.A., Esen, S. and Kilic, M.: Patarge Project, Internal Report, Barutsan A.S., Elmadag, Ankara,
Turkey, 1999 (in Turkish).
38. Stagg, M.S., Otterness, R.E. and Siskind, D.E.: Effects of Blasting Practices on Fragmentation.
In: Proceedings of the 33rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Santa Fe, NM, USA, 1992,
pp. 313–322.
39. Scott, A., David, D., Alvarez, O. and Veloso, L.: Managing fines generation in the blasting and crushing
operations at Cerro Colorado Mine. In: Proceedings of the Mine to Mill 1998 Conference. The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Brisbane, Australia, 1998, pp. 141–148.
40. Jarlenfors, J. and Holmberg, R.: Blasting Against a Compressible Rock Mass. Model Scale Experiments
in PMMA, Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, Report DS 1980: 5, Stockholm, Sweden (in
Swedish).
41. Persson, P.-A., Holmberg, R. and Lee, J.: Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 1994, pp. 259–264.
42. Law, T.: Fragmentation Analysis. Determining the Influence of Dump Angles on Fragmentation Results.
Internal Ridgeway Report.
43. Guest, A., Chitombo, G. and Grobler, H.: Blast Optimisation for Efficient Extraction of a Block Cave
Undercut – Case Studies at De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. In: Proceedings of EXPLO’1995
Conference, AusIMM, 1995, pp. 75–80.
 24 I. ONEDERRA

44. Chitombo, G.: A Review of the Proposed Front Cave Undercut Rings for Koffiefontein. JKMRC/
AMIRA/BART P447 Report. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre Brisbane, Australia, 1996.
45. Onederra, I., Player, J., Wade, P. and Chitombo, G.: Mass Blast Computer Design, Analysis and
Monitoring – A Case Study. Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation 3 (1999), pp. 1–23.
46. Larsson, B., Hemgren, W. and Brohn, C.E.: Styckefallsutredning. Skanska, Cementgjuteriet, 1973.
47. Kuznetsov, V.N.: The Mean Diameter of the Fragments Formed by Blasting of Rock. Soviet Mining Sci.
Part 2 (1973), pp. 39–43.
48. Da Gamma, C.D.: Size Distribution General Law of Fragments Resulting from Rock Blasting. Trans.
SME/AIME (1971), pp. 314–316.
49. Da Gamma, C.D.: Use of Comminution Theory to Predict Fragmentation of Jointed Rock Masses
Subjected to Blasting. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 1983, pp. 565–579.
50. Prasad, U., Laplante, A.R. and Mohanty, B.: Blasting as a Comminution Process: A Useful Tool for
Prediction of Fragment Size and Explosive Energy. In: Mohanty (ed.): Proceedings of Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting (FRAGBLAST-5), Montreal, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1996, pp. 285–292.
51. Lu, P. and Latham, J.P.: A Model for the Transition of Block Sizes During Fragmentation Blasting of
Rock Masses. FRAGBLAST Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation 2 (1998), pp. 341–368.
52. Onederra, I.: Near Field Vibration Monitoring of SLC Ring Blasting in XC11 of the 5305 Level
Undercut. Confidential JKMRC-BARTII Project Report submitted to Newcrest Ridgeway, November,
2001.
53. Onederra, I. and Esen, S.: An Alternative Approach to Determine the Holmberg–Persson Constants for
Modelling Near Field Peak Particle Velocity Attenuation. Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation, submitted for
publication, 2002.
54. Comeau, W.: General Report: Blasting Technology. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 3. Aachen/Deutschland, 1991, pp. 1605–1609.
55. Esen, S., Onederra, I. and Bilgin, H.: Modelling the Size of the Crushing Zone Around a Blasthole.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 2002, submitted for publication.
56. Esen, S.: Modelling Non-Ideal Detonation Behaviour of Commercial Explosives. Internal Report,
JKMRC, Australia, 2001.
57. Djordjevic, N., Esterle, J., Thornton, D. and La Rosa, D.: A New Approach for Prediction of Blast
Induced Coal Fragmentation. In: Proceedings of the Mine to Mill 1998 Conference. The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Brisbane, Australia, 1998, pp. 175–181.
58. Vovk, A., Mikhalyuk, A. and Belinskii, I.: Development of Fracture Zones in Rocks During Camouflet
Blasting. Soviet Mining Sci. 9 (4) (1973), pp. 383–387.

View publication stats