applied

sciences
Article
Blasting Fragmentation Study Using 3D Image Analysis of a
Hard Rock Mine
Janine Figueiredo 1 , Vidal Torres 2 , Rodolfo Cruz 3 and Douglas Moreira 2, *

1 Vale S. A., Porto de Tubarão, Vitória 29090-900, ES, Brazil; [email protected]

2 Instituto Tecnológico Vale, Ouro Preto 35400-000, MG, Brazil; [email protected]
3 Vale S. A., Serra do Esmeril, Itabira 35900-900, MG, Brazil; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Rock blasting with explosives is the first stage of rock fragmentation and plays a key role in
the results of the mining chain. Fragmentation optimization is achieved by considering the energy
efficiency of the explosive, the optimal distribution of explosive energy in the rocky mass, and the
programmed and controlled release of explosive energy during blasting. The quality of fragmentation
is usually performed using tools that estimate the sizes of fragments via the analysis of two- or three-
dimensional images. This article presents a study of the rock fragmentation optimization of very
compact itabirites, based on four blasting tests, performed in a different way from the conventional
blasting design. The fragmentation analysis was performed using the PortaMetricsTM tool, and
compared with the Kuznetsov and Rosin–Rammler particle size distribution model, to compare the
reliability of this tool. Finally, the mine productivity after blasting was estimated from the particle
size distribution obtained in the tests. The model presented idealistic results considering the technical
parameters used in the equations. However, the PortaMetricsTM tool suggests good performance for
the preliminary evaluation of blast design.

Keywords: 80% passing size; blasting design; very compact itabirite; mining productivity

1. Introduction
Citation: Figueiredo, J.; Torres, V.; The blasting of rocks using explosives is performed to fragment rocky material into
Cruz, R.; Moreira, D. Blasting blocks and particles of different sizes. In addition, the sizes of fragments must be smaller
Fragmentation Study Using 3D than those of the feeding of primary crushing [1,2]. Therefore, the optimization of drilling
Image Analysis of a Hard Rock Mine. and blasting is essential for controlling ore fragmentation and, consequently, the produc-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090. https:// tivity and operating cost levels of the subsequent stages. On the one hand, increasing
doi.org/10.3390/app13127090 fragmentation quality increases drilling and blasting costs; on the other hand, it reduces the
Academic Editor: Arcady Dyskin costs of loading and hauling [1,3]. Therefore, the qualities of drilling and blasting activities
are essential for generating adequate and uniform fragmentation for mining operational
Received: 10 May 2023 processes. Planning and executing these activities well leads to the effectiveness of breaking
Revised: 6 June 2023 rocks into smaller blocks. When drilling, some parameters, such as the state of the rock
Accepted: 8 June 2023
mass, conditions of the floor and toe of the drilling bench, environmental factors, and
Published: 13 June 2023
missed holes [1], can interfere with the result of blasting via explosives.
With drilling and blasting techniques, despite being continuous and effective in a
mining environment, in order to fragment the rock mass, fragmentation generates adverse
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
impacts such as soil vibration, flyrock, dust, and noise [4,5].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Drilling and blasting continue to be deprecated techniques in relation to the fragmen-
This article is an open access article tation of rock masses, mainly aiming at possibilities for economic gains and productivity in
distributed under the terms and the performance development sector. When observing the fragmentation of rock masses,
conditions of the Creative Commons these are observed with the possibility of fragmentation with generally a maximum of 30%
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// of explosive energy and about 70% of losses in residues, with a negative influence from a
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ safety perspective [6]. This approach can be better observed in techniques recently used in
4.0/). induced computational modeling for fragmentation analysis, in situations where there is

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13127090 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  2  of  16 
 

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 2 of 15

recently  used  in  induced  computational  modeling  for  fragmentation  analysis,  in  situa‐
tions where there is the possibility of using artificial neural networks, for example [4,6]. 
Via the use of neural networks, it is possible to delimit and optimize the fragmentation 
the possibility of using artificial neural networks, for example [4,6]. Via the use of neural
induced by explosives, whereby, according to several bibliographies, studies about these 
networks, it is possible to delimit and optimize the fragmentation induced by explosives,
analyses are difficult to find [6]. 
whereby, according to several bibliographies, studies about these analyses are difficult to
It is worth mentioning that blasting via explosives presents events of positive and 
find [6].
negative impacts, and through the execution of planning, and when executing it, it tends 
It is worth mentioning that blasting via explosives presents events of positive and
to fragment the rock, through the development of cracks in the surrounding rock and the 
negative impacts, and through the execution of planning, and when executing it, it tends
release of heat, energy, pressure, and stress waves [4]. The mishandling of these explosives 
to fragment the rock, through the development of cracks in the surrounding rock and the
can generate undesirable effects such as overpressure, ground vibration, flyrock, noise, 
release of heat, energy, pressure, and stress waves [4]. The mishandling of these explosives
heat,  dust, and 
can generate counter‐resistance [4]. 
undesirable effects such asThrough  the development 
overpressure, carried  out 
ground vibration, by  several 
flyrock, noise,
researchers, mainly due to flyrock, the relationship between the maximum distance of this 
heat, dust, and counter-resistance [4]. Through the development carried out by several
parameter as a function of the hole diameter, shape, and velocity coefficient of the rock to 
researchers, mainly due to flyrock, the relationship between the maximum distance of this
be dismantled was observed. Figure 1 presents a schematic summary of the drilling and 
parameter as a function of the hole diameter, shape, and velocity coefficient of the rock to
blasting operations. 
be dismantled was observed. Figure 1 presents a schematic summary of the drilling and
blasting operations.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of operations during blasting.  

Figure 1. Schematic representation of operations during blasting. 
Given the observations in Figure 1, the complexity of the analysis on the experimental
procedures according to the blasting is verifiable, being the necessary techniques that help
to gainGiven the observations in Figure 1, the complexity of the analysis on the experimental 
a better perspective of the process, as is the case for the generated fragments. In
procedures according to the blasting is verifiable, being the necessary techniques that help 
this case, the fragmentation generated can be improved and optimized by observing the
to gain a better perspective of the process, as is the case for the generated fragments. In 
parameters used and via evaluation using the fragmentation model, generated by software,
this case, the fragmentation generated can be improved and optimized by observing the 
as in the case of PortaMetrics.
parameters used and via evaluation using the fragmentation model, generated by soft‐
During blasting via explosives, material fragmentation can occur due to the formation
ware, as in the case of PortaMetrics. 
of new fractures, the presence of in situ blocks that must be released from the rock mass, or
During  blasting 
the fragments generatedvia byexplosives, 
the extensionmaterial 
of thefragmentation  can 
in situ fractures occur  due 
combined to the
with the new
for‐
mation of new fractures, the presence of in situ blocks that must be released from the rock 
fractures [4]. By considering the energy efficiency of the explosive, during the explosion,
the rock mass is fractured by high-pressure gas, causing a tensile stress field and the
mass, or the fragments generated by the extension of the in situ fractures combined with 
formation of cracks that develop and expand, thus rupturing and breaking the rock [5].
the new fractures [4]. By considering the energy efficiency of the explosive, during the 
The application of a suitable explosive should be considered according to the rock’s tensile
explosion, the rock mass is fractured by high‐pressure gas, causing a tensile stress field 
stress and uniaxial compressive strength to fracture and fragment the rock into blocks
and the formation of cracks that develop and expand, thus rupturing and breaking the 
of suitable
rock  sizes.
[5].  The  In addition,
application  of  a the fragmentation
suitable  explosive ofshould 
the rock
be mass directly
considered  influences
according  to the
the 
operating costs, observing the calibration of transport, crushing, excavated materials, and
rockʹs tensile stress and uniaxial compressive strength to fracture and fragment the rock 
other processes [6].
into blocks of suitable sizes. In addition, the fragmentation of the rock mass directly influ‐
The programmed release and control of explosive energy during blasting is performed
ences the operating costs, observing the calibration of transport, crushing, excavated ma‐
by adjusting the departure angle at the detonation of the explosive charge. This angle
terials, and other processes [6]. 
is determined by the relationship
The  programmed  release  and between
control  the burden and
of  explosive  spacing;
energy  consequently,
during  the
blasting  is  per‐
explosive energy and the level of fragmentation of the rocks are controlled
formed by adjusting the departure angle at the detonation of the explosive charge. This  by adjusting
these parameters [7,8]. Additionally, the hole diameter determines the mesh size (burden
angle is determined by the relationship between the burden and spacing; consequently, 
xthe explosive energy and the level of fragmentation of the rocks are controlled by adjust‐
spacing); therefore, for holes with smaller diameters, smaller spacings generate smaller
fragment sizes than blasts with larger hole diameters and spacings.
ing these parameters [7,8]. Additionally, the hole diameter determines the mesh size (bur‐
To contribute to fragmentation
den  x  spacing);  therefore,  for  holes  optimization, in blast planning,
with  smaller  diameters,  smaller  some parameters
spacings  generate 
can be modified, such as the hole diameter, spacing, explosive
smaller fragment sizes than blasts with larger hole diameters and spacings.  amount, explosive type,
stemming material size, and type [3,9].
The quality or degree of fragmentation of blasting has been evaluated by indicators
of blasting performance, such as the granulometric distribution of the blasting mate-
rial [1,10–12], the excavation time and productivity of shovels [13–15], and the loading time
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 3 of 15

of trucks, by the truck hauling time over short distances, by the hauling productivity, or by
the productivity of primary crushing [10,11,16].
The evaluation of blasting fragmentation by defining the particle size distribution
curve has been performed via image analysis using equipment and software available
on the market, such as Split-Desktop [1,12,15], WipFrag [2,17,18], and Fragblast
PortaMetricsTM [17–20]. These technologies have no limitation on the sizes of the sam-
ples that can be analyzed. The errors inherent to the method can be minimized by capturing
many high-quality images for analysis [2]. Some of these methods require the use of a
scale object to help determine the sizes of the fragments, which may require the presence
of humans in the field and may not be the safest alternative. Some methods have better
data processing than other equipment available on the market, providing immediate and
accurate fragmentation analysis [18].
A well-known example of the distribution of rock fragmentation analysis, known
as RFD, is currently widely used in order to simulate and optimize drilling and blasting
operations, with this movement being reflected even in the primary stages of crushing.
An example is the operations of the Sarcheshmeh copper mine [1]. It is worth mentioning
that the increase in the amount of material to be fragmented increases the cost of drilling
and reduces loading and transportation costs. However, there are problems that can be
generated from the definition of mining to be adopted, such as the need for secondary and
even tertiary blasting [1,17,18].
According to [1], when using Split-Desktop software, seeking the analysis of fragmen-
tation using the RFD method, five steps are necessary, which are image dimensioning, the
automatic or manual limitation of the fragments, the estimation of fines, the evaluation
of the results, and the export of the analysis result to a Kuz–Ram curve plotted in Excel,
demonstrated in the work performed by the same authors, with an d80 of 13.06 cm and a
d50 of 6.48 cm, post-blasting. In the work developed using the same method in [12,15], it
was possible to delimit the effectiveness of the method in the dismantling carried out, ana-
lyzing the size of the fragment and the effect of loading through the operational variables. It
was possible to observe that the Kuz–Ram method, for such a methodology, overestimated
the RFD from coarser granulometry and underestimated the fine granulometry.
In addition, the Split-Desktop method involves at least five steps, which are considered
to be the following: sizing the image, segmenting the fragments, the possibility of editing
the fragments, analyzing the marked parts, and the distribution diagram of size [4].
Another technique that is widely used is the analysis of fragmentations via WipFrag
with the help of the empirical model of Kuz–Ram. In the work developed by [2], when
developing a project for the evaluation and optimization of blasting, images captured from
a Muck pile were used. The results obtained by the method can vary significantly; therefore,
three tests were carried out, and all of which presented satisfactory and similar results.
However, it is worth noting that the Kuz–Ram model presents idealistic results due to
the variation in rock characteristics, being widely used for the preliminary assessment of
blasting [2].
When describing the operation of the equipment [17,18], a post-dismantling 2D cam-
corder is used to record images of the dismantled pile. For the record to be conducted
efficiently, photos must be taken from different angles, and the image must be transformed
into a fragmentation map. This equipment is considered to be good for more superficial
analyses, mainly generated via underground mine dismantling, with the possibility of
using PortaMetrics as a more efficient method for open pit mining [18].
The objective of this study is to analyze the fragmentation results of very compact
itabirites based on variations in some blasting design parameters for materials with high-
strength geotechnical and geomechanical characteristics. Fragmentation is studied by
defining the particle size distribution of the blasting material through monitoring images
using the PortaMetricsTM tool. Finally, the impact of fragmentation resulting from blasting
on the productivity of mining operations is estimated.
 The objective of this study is to analyze the fragmentation results of very compact 
itabirites based on variations in some blasting design parameters for materials with high‐
strength geotechnical and geomechanical characteristics. Fragmentation is studied by de‐
fining the particle size distribution of the blasting material through monitoring images 
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 4 of 15
using the  PortaMetrics TM   tool. Finally, the impact of fragmentation resulting from blast‐
ing on the productivity of mining operations is estimated. 
It is worth noting that, currently, the application of technological analysis via ma‐
It is worth noting that, currently, the application of technological analysis via machine
chine learning techniques, such as neural networks, has grown abruptly in mining, and 
learning techniques, such as neural networks, has grown abruptly in mining, and previous
previous studies of dismantling such as the one performed in this article are indicated, in 
studies of dismantling such as the one performed in this article are indicated, in order
order to enable the development of new approaches to the subject [4]. Such approaches 
to enable the development of new approaches to the subject [4]. Such approaches can
can assess, for example, the quality of the blasting in terms of the explosive materials used, 
assess, for example, the quality of the blasting in terms of the explosive materials used,
thus generating a new study perspective. 
thus generating a new study perspective.
2. Materials and Methods 
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. PortaMetrics™ Image Capture 
2.1. PortaMetrics™ Image Capture
The second phase of the study consisted of analyzing the sizes of rock fragments ob‐
The second phase of the study consisted of analyzing the sizes of rock fragments
tained in blasting tests using images. A robust technology based on machine learning and 
obtained in blasting tests using images. A robust technology based on machine learning
image  processing 
and image processing was  used 
was usedfor 
forfragmentation 
fragmentationanalysis: 
analysis:PortaMetrics™, 
PortaMetrics™, equipment  for 
equipment for
capturing  images  in  three  dimensions  (3D),  and  the  image‐processing  platform 
capturing images in three dimensions (3D), and the image-processing platform Metrics- Met‐
ricsManager™ Pro (MMPro). 
Manager™ Pro (MMPro).
PortaMetrics™ is a safe handheld device because it can accurately calculate rock frag‐
PortaMetrics™ is a safe handheld device because it can accurately calculate rock
mentation from a distance via stereo images. With this device, there is no need for mine 
fragmentation from a distance via stereo images. With this device, there is no need for mine
technicians to be near the bench to place the object to scale. The stability of the bench face 
technicians to be near the bench to place the object to scale. The stability of the bench face
can be evaluated using the integrated inclination sensor, indicating the inclination angle 
can be evaluated using the integrated inclination sensor, indicating the inclination angle
and the distance to the bench face [19].
and the distance to the bench face [19]. 
The equipment had three integrated high-resolution cameras (Figure 2) with a touch
The equipment had three integrated high‐resolution cameras (Figure 2) with a touch 
screen. Table 1 presents the main functions of the equipment.
screen. Table 1 presents the main functions of the equipment. 

 
Figure 2. PortaMetrics™ equipment is used to capture 3D images.
Figure 2. PortaMetrics™ equipment is used to capture 3D images. 

Table 1. Each component of the PortaMetrics™ equipment and its function.

Table 1. Each component of the PortaMetrics™ equipment and its function. 
Component Function
Component  Function 
A: Touch screen  A: Touch screen Edits and selects images
Edits and selects images 
B: GPS antenna Provides positioning information
B: GPS antenna  Provides positioning information 
C: Capture button Captures/records the fragmentation for analysis
C: Capture button  Captures/records the fragmentation for analysis 
D: On/off button For turning the equipment on and off
D: On/off button  E: Cameras Three stereoscopic cameras that create and analyze 3D fragmentations
For turning the equipment on and off 
E: Cameras  F: Fan Provides cooling to the equipment, preventing damage from overheating
Three stereoscopic cameras that create and analyze 3D fragmentations 
F: Fan  Provides cooling to the equipment, preventing damage from overheating 
Image capture was performed manually by pointing and shooting the device to the
blasting pile, with the least amount of disturbance in the environment (dust, vibration, and
Image capture was performed manually by pointing and shooting the device to the 
shadow). It was recommended to capture images in the morning to avoid shadows. The
blasting pile, with the least amount of disturbance in the environment (dust, vibration, 
three cameras could detect the distance from the user to the fragments to calculate the size.
and shadow). It was recommended to capture images in the morning to avoid shadows. 
The application had a NEAR/FAR mode disparity sensor, where the NEAR mode was for
distances less than or equal to 2.00 m, the FAR was for distances longer than 2.00 m and
shorter than 10.00 m, and the size of the smallest detectable particle was 0.03 m. Users
had to adjust the region of interest to cover, at most, 80% of the screen [19] and capture an
image, and the results were instantly displayed in an intuitive graphical user interface of
the portable device.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 5 of 15

2.2. PortaMetrics™ Image Analysis

After capturing the images, an artificial intelligence algorithm named Fragmentation
Artificial Intelligence (FMAI) performed the processing and thus provided a precise image
of the captured region of interest (ROI). The data obtained were sent to the MetricsMan-
ager™ Pro platform, displaying the same data in the cloud, allowing the fragmentation
results to be shared remotely. In this platform, the user could view each image with date,
time, and location information because the captured images were associated with the
specific location of the blasting site with an integrated global positioning system (GPS) [19].
In the MetricsManager™ Pro platform, there were resources for manual correction to
help the automatic analysis function and improve the results. It was possible to adjust the
images, such as adjusting the ROI, manually joining or dividing rock fragments, delimiting
the fines region, and delineating a fragment that was not automatically detected. Editing
tools were used to improve the detection of fragment boundaries. The processes were
repeated for other images in the same blast stack. The algorithm used to determine the
fragment size considered the longest dimension of the rock and its shape factor [18]. Finally,
with the measurement of the sizes of the blocks and particles, the distribution curve of the
percentage pass and the table of cumulative sizes were generated for each image.
The images were chosen to create reports that included certain information, such as the
average parameter in which 80% of the material passed through the sieve the particle size
distribution curve, the statistical frequency of size, the location, and the slope measurements
of the face of the bench [19].
In order for the PortaMetrics analysis to occur in a justified manner, its activity se-
quencing must have been previously detailed with maximum precision, to the point of
validating how the equipment performs in the face of an investigation. To this end, the
sequencing of the activities governed by it is based primarily on capturing the fragmen-
tations with a tablet with 3 cameras available and the possibility of investigating the 3D
analysis. After that, the model can be calibrated with the operator handling the equipment,
or even in the software portal, where the fragmentation images are inserted via the digital
cloud. With regard to these parameters, being delimited and sequenced according to the
desired granulometry, some requirements must be respected, such as avoiding the presence
of shadows and respecting the granulometry and distance limits, which are considered
to be 32.81 feet in distance and a minimum granulometry of 1.18 inches. At the end, the
fragmentation curve obtained manually via two models, the Swebrec and the Kuz–Ram
model, becomes available, with the latter being selected for comparisons in this work in
the equipament PortaMetrics.
A well-known and used technique in comparison to PortaMetrics is WipFrag, whereby,
as seen in Figure 3, it appears that despite the precision presented by the device, it needs
the support of an object for delimitation and the use of a measurement parameter, which is
not needed in PortaMetrics [21].
So that the visualization of the operationalization was mostly evidenced, operational
sequencing of the post-blasting PortaMetrics was carried out according to Figure 3. It is
worth noting that the entire operation was recorded right after the primary dismantling,
with Figure 3 being highlighted as a flowchart, thus leaving the operating mode of the
equipment as perceptible.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  6 of16 
6  of  15
 

 
Figure 3. Flowchart of equipment operation.
Figure 3. Flowchart of equipment operation. 

2.3. Kuz–Ram Model Analysis

2.3. Kuz–Ram Model Analysis 
The particle size distribution of the blasting fragments considered the average size of
The particle size distribution of the blasting fragments considered the average size of 
the blocks generated (X50 ) and the uniformity index (n). The Kuz–Ram model was used
the blocks generated (X50) and the uniformity index (n). The Kuz–Ram model was used to 
to predict the particle sizes of the fragments resulting from the blasting tests proposed in
predict the particle sizes of the fragments resulting from the blasting tests proposed in this 
this study.
study. 
The Kuz–Ram model considered three equations: the modified Kuznetsov equation
The Kuz–Ram model considered three equations: the modified Kuznetsov equation 
(Equation (1)), first developed by Kuznetsov [20] and modified by Cunningham [22–24];
(Equation (1)), first developed by Kuznetsov [20] and modified by Cunningham [22–24]; 
the Rosin–Rammler equation (Equation (2)) [25], and the Cunningham uniformity index
the Rosin–Rammler equation (Equation (2)) [25], and the Cunningham uniformity index 
(n) equation (Equation (3)) [26]. It is worth noting that the K-factor is also known as the
(n) equation (Equation (3)) [26]. It is worth noting that the K‐factor is also known as the 
powder factor, that is, the necessary factor for evaluating the rock fragmentation power in
powder factor, that is, the necessary factor for evaluating the rock fragmentation power 
the desired granulometry.
in the desired granulometry. 
115 .
 0.633
115
X50𝑋= Ar𝐴K −𝐾0.80. Q𝑄
0.167
.
  (1)
(1)
𝑅𝑊𝑆
RWS
where X 50 (cm) is the average size at which 50% of the particles pass the sieve;  𝐴   is the 
where X50 (cm) is the average size at which 50% of the particles pass the sieve; Ar is the
characteristic factor of the rock [27]; K (kg/m
characteristic factor of the rock [27]; K (kg/m) is the loading ratio; Q (kg) is the mass of 
3
3 ) is the loading ratio; Q (kg) is the mass of
explosive per hole; and RWS (%) is the relative power by weight of the explosive relative 
explosive per hole; and RWS (%) is the relative power by weight of the explosive relative to
to the energy of the ANFO (115 is the RWS of the trinitrotoluene (TNT) [24]). 
the energy of the ANFO (115 is the RWS of the trinitrotoluene (TNT) [24]).
The Rosin–Rammler equation (Equation (2)) estimated the complete fragmentation 
The Rosin–Rammler equation (Equation (2)) estimated the complete fragmentation
distribution using the percentage of retained fragments [26] for a sieve opening size: 
distribution using the percentage of retained fragments [26] for a sieve opening size:

𝑃 𝑥 1 𝑒 X n   (2)
P( x ) = 1 − e−( Xc ) (2)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 7 of 15

where P(x) is the cumulative frequency passing (%) through the opening of the sieve
of size X; X (cm) is the size of the sieve opening; and Xc (cm) is the characteristic size.
The characteristic size is the size at which approximately 63.20% of the material passed
through [28], and it could be obtained using the following equation:

X50
Xc = (3)
(0.693)n

By defining the uniformity index using Equation (4), it was possible to prepare the
particle size distribution curve [22,23]:
 
S
  
B 1 +   
n = 2.20 − 14
√
· 
B
 · 1 − W L ·P (4)
D 2 B H

where B (m) is the burden; D (mm) is the diameter of the hole; S (m) is the spacing; W (m)
is the standard deviation of the perforation; L (m) is the height of the explosive charge; H
(m) is the height of the bench; and P is the perforation factor for stepped loading, which is
equal to 1.10 [2,26].

2.4. Blasting Design Tests

The first stage of this study consisted of the development of a test design for blasting
with explosives to improve the quality of fragmentation of very compact itabirites, which
would be compatible with the maximum opening of the primary crusher, that is, equal
to 1.20 m. This study was needed because the lithologies of the mine had high-density
and simple compressive strength (CUS) values; additionally, there was a need to control
the generation of large fragments, which were incompatible with the maximum size of
the primary crusher feed. The geomechanical characteristics of the studied lithology are
presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Geomechanical characteristics of the HCI.

Properties Values
Density (kg/m 3 ) 3.300
P wave velocity (m/s) 4.308
Simple compressive strength (MPa) 350
Tensile strength (MPa) 33
Young’s modulus (GPa) 47
Poisson’s coefficient 0.22
Protodyakov’s coefficient 13
Diving lithology (◦ ) 60

The design of blasting tests, in very compact itabirites, considered holes with diameters
of 250.80 mm. The explosive used had a density of 1250 kg/m3 , velocity of detonation
(VOD) between 3500 and 6000 m/s, and relative power strength (RWS) of 97% relative to
ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO). The accessories adopted were a 0.90 kg booster and an
electronic fuse for sequencing the detonation of 7 ms between holes and 60 ms between
lines. In total, 4 tests were performed by considering modifying the parameters of the
blasting design using explosives, and, via comparison, a blasting test was conducted by
considering the conventional parameters used in the mine. Table 3 presents the parameters
of the blasting tests performed. In this table, the parameters to be investigated according
to the tests are B (m) as burden, S (m) as spacing, RC (kg/m3 ) as charge ratio, H (m) as
bench height, L (m) as explosive charge length, St (m) as stemming, Q (kg) as number of
explosives per hole, and J (m) as sub-drilling.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 8 of 15

Table 3. Mean parameters of the blasting tests performed in HCI.

No. of Rc
Blasting H (m) B (m) Y (m) L (m) St (m) J (m) Q (kg)
Drills (kg/m3 )
Test 1 24 15.00 4.00 4.80 10.14 5.65 0.79 668 2.06
Test 2 48 16.00 4.00 5.00 12.40 3.96 0.36 776 2.49
Test 3 36 15.00 4.00 5.00 11.43 4.21 0.64 701 2.59
Test 4 35 16.00 4.20 5.40 11.94 4.00 0.00 714 1.98
Conventional Test 114 16.00 4.20 5.40 11.94 4.00 0.00 713 1.46

In a conventional test, the holes were loaded in a staggered manner with 600 kg of
explosives and a deck with a blast bag, and the second load included approximately 150 kg
of explosives and buffer.

2.5. Impacts on Mine Productivity

An analysis of the impacts of blasting tests performed on the productivity levels of
the phases after blasting was performed regarding the relationship between the blasting
particle size distribution and the estimate of productivity for each stage: loading, hauling,
and primary crushing.
The mine-to-crusher methodology was used to increase productivity and reduce
operating costs from the mine to the primary crusher or crusher [1,3,28–30], based on
the blast fragmentation parameter X80 . In this study, the equations presented in Navarro
Torres et al. [3], which were adapted for the present case study (Table 4), were used to
estimate the productivity of each phase of mine operation.

Table 4. Productivity equations for the drilling and blasting, loading, transport, and primary crushing
phases.

Productivity (t/h) Variables

Pc : loading productivity; Uc : physical use of
3600Lc the excavator (%); Lc : excavator payload; a:
Pc = Uc
a(exp0.05X80 )+2tsw +td lithology calibration coefficient; tsw :
turnaround time (s); and td : discharge time (s).
Pt : transportation productivity; Ut : physical
60Lt use of transport (%); Lt : average transport load
Pt = Ut
[ a(exp0.05X80 )+2tsw +td /60] p+(tv +t f ) (t); p: number of passes; tv : variable time (min);
and t f : fixed time (min).
PbpX80 : primary crushing productivity and Pbp :
PbpX80 = Pbp e−0.002X80
real productivity (t/h).

3. Results and Discussion

The results of the particle size analysis of the piles of fragmented material from the
five blasting tests, obtained using the MMPro platform, were compared with the particle
size distribution curves obtained using the Kuz–Ram model, as shown in Figure 4A–E. This
configuration is presented graphically using a logarithmic scale for a better perception of
the results presented by blasting.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  99 ofof 
1516 
 

(B) 
(A) 

(C)  (D) 

(E) 

 
Figure 4. Kuz–Ram and MMPro particle size distribution for (A): Test 1, (B): Test 2, (C): Test 3,
Figure 4. Kuz–Ram and MMPro particle size distribution for (A): Test 1, (B): Test 2, (C): Test 3, (D): 
(D): Test 4, and (E): conventional test.
Test 4, and (E): conventional test. 

Through the analysis of the particle size distribution curves and Table 5, the Kuz–Ram
Through the analysis of the particle size distribution curves and Table 5, the Kuz–
model for Tests 1–3 with new blasting designs shows that the size at which 80% of the
Ram model for Tests 1–3 with new blasting designs shows that the size at which 80% of 
fragments pass through (X80) should be approximately between 365 and 469 mm; for
the fragments pass through (X80) should be approximately between 365 and 469 mm; for 
Test 4 and conventional blasting, the X80 values would be 457 and 556 mm, respectively.
Test 4 and conventional blasting, the X80 values would be 457 and 556 mm, respectively. 
By considering the values measured using the MMPro platform, it was found that for
By  considering  the  values  measured  using  the  MMPro  platform,  it  was  found  that  for 
conventional blasting, the X80 value was 398 mm, and for Test 4, it was 305 mm. Thus, it
conventional blasting, the X80 value was 398 mm, and for Test 4, it was 305 mm. Thus, it 
was understood that the proposal of a smaller blasting pattern led to better fragmentation
was understood that the proposal of a smaller blasting pattern led to better fragmentation 
since the values of X80 were lower for Tests 1–3, correctly planning the configuration of the
since the values of X80 were lower for Tests 1–3, correctly planning the configuration of 
blasting parameters and optimizing the fragmentation of the blasting parameters of very
the blasting parameters and optimizing the fragmentation of the blasting parameters of 
compact itabirites. Additionally, Test 4 was performed with a pattern of the same size as
very compact itabirites. Additionally, Test 4 was performed with a pattern of the same 
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 10 of 15

conventional blasting with an increased load ratio. The results showed improvement in
fragmentation relative to conventional blasting of the same pattern made with staggered
explosive loading.

Table 5. Parameters obtained using the Kuz–Ram model and the PortaMetrics platform.

Tests
Parameter
1 2 3 4 Conventional
Kuz–Ram model 1.37 1.58 1.56 1.54 1.69
n
PortaMetrics 0.48 0.61 0.51 0.52 0.36
Kuz–Ram model 331.46 281.44 269.19 335.72 419.48
Xc (mm)
PortaMetrics 125.86 111.00 82.83 134.00 194.92
Kuz–Ram model 253.44 223.28 212.73 264.52 337.45
X50 (mm)
PortaMetrics 60.29 61.91 47.08 74.00 114.42
Kuz–Ram model 469.19 379.80 365.14 457.12 556.01
X80 (mm)
PortaMetrics 341.29 242.82 186.00 304.76 398.08
Kuz–Ram model 1775.00 1198.00 1175.00 1492.00 1637.00
X100 (mm)
PortaMetrics 1530.00 1319.36 686.33 1421.86 1252.08

By observing the particle size distribution curves of Figure 5, it was found that the
particle size distribution curves of the Kuz–Ram model were slightly different from the
particle size distribution curves generated in the MMPro platform of PortaMetrics. Al-
though the curves of the Kuz–Ram model did not differ much from each other because
the blasting planes of Tests 1–4 were very similar, the conventional blasting curve was
different from the others, with large sizes for different P(x). In the PortaMetrics particle
size distribution curves, the values measured in the field were different for each blasting
performed. Despite the small differences in each of the blasting designs, some deviations
could be accounted for, such as the drilling operating conditions [8], explosive energy
control [8–10], geomechanical characteristics of the rock massif [10], experimental errors of
the image sampler, errors in the delineation of the rock limits and, consequently, of the size
of the fragments, and errors of the FMAI algorithm.
The distributions presented in Figure 5 correspond to the validation and difference
between the average sizes obtained in the determining conditions via Kuz–Ram analysis
(mathematical model), and the physical analysis obtained at the place where the events
were held (obtained via MMpro). It is possible to observe through the graph analyzed
that despite the Kuz–Ram model being widely used in most bibliographies, this method
presents a certain delimitation, making visible the inability to demonstrate the number
of fine particles present in the system. In addition, the range delimited to observe the
fragmentation of the grains corresponds to the granulometry to be destined for the crusher,
represented in the range between 150 mm and 1200 mm. The interesting thing about
checking the minimum range is related to the percentage of passers-by present in the
system, and this range will be differentiated according to the blasting tests carried out.
The MMPro results showed that the material was well fragmented, with an average
percentage of fragments passing through 150 mm: 69.70% for Tests 1–3; 66.20% for Test 4;
and 56.4% for the conventional blasting test. Regarding the maximum sizes measured, the
existence of blocks larger than 1200 mm was observed, with the exception of Test 3, where
secondary mechanical blasting was indicated. As observed, the equipment detected a large
amount of fines, thus making it necessary to adapt the Kuz–Ram formula, so that this
material was correctly detected after fragmentation. As the ideal option after detonation
is to present homogeneity between the grains and a finer range, facilitating the crushing
operation, the ideal range for this to occur in is adherent to the range of 150–1200 mm.
When checking the granulometric curves as a whole in Figure 5, it is possible to observe
the decrease in granulometry as the tests are applied.
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  11 11of of16 
15
 

100

90

80

70
Cumulative Passing (%)
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Distribution (mm)
PortaMetrics T1 Porta Metrics T2
PortaMetrics T3 PortaMetrics T4
PortaMetrics Conv T Kuz-Ram Model T1
Kuz-Ram Model T2 Kuz-Ram Model T3  
Figure 5. Kuz–Ram and MMPro particle size distributions for all tests. 
Figure 5. Kuz–Ram and MMPro particle size distributions for all tests.

The MMPro results showed that the material was well fragmented, with an average 
When checking each test, it is verified that as the dismantling operations are configured,
percentage of fragments passing through 150 mm: 69.70% for Tests 1–3; 66.20% for Test 4; 
it is possible to obtain finer grain sizes, with a considerable gap between the Kuz–Ram
and 56.4% for the conventional blasting test. Regarding the maximum sizes measured, the 
curves and those generated via the grain size analysis of the equipment, checking the
existence of blocks larger than 1200 mm was observed, with the exception of Test 3, where 
accuracy of the equipment. It is possible to observe that the equipment makes more
superficialmechanical 
secondary  records andblasting 
analyseswas 
of the blasting, As 
indicated.  with it not being
observed,  the possible to validate
equipment  non-
detected  a 
visible and overlapping particles. In order for this to have more conclusive apparent results,
large amount of fines, thus making it necessary to adapt the Kuz–Ram formula, so that 
it is recommended to use the equipment per shell to be moved for transport, thus resulting
this material was correctly detected after fragmentation. As the ideal option after detona‐
in more accurate analyses. Even so, it is possible to observe that the proportionality of the
tion is to present homogeneity between the grains and a finer range, facilitating the crush‐
results is maintained with the mathematical calculation, thus making it a form of significant
ing operation, the ideal range for this to occur in is adherent to the range of 150–1200 mm. 
analysis when validating the blasting.
When checking the granulometric curves as a whole in Figure 5, it is possible to observe 
An applied study similar to the one provided in this article can be seen by Ebrahi-
the decrease in granulometry as the tests are applied. 
mi [31], who used the neural network technique to optimize rock fragmentation induced
When checking each test, it is verified that as the dismantling operations are config‐
by detonation. For the same to happen in this study, instead of using PortaMetrics, Split-
ured, it is possible to obtain finer grain sizes, with a considerable gap between the Kuz–
Desktop was used, with the test verifying the same things, including a distribution variation
Ram curves and those generated via the grain size analysis of the equipment, checking 
between 15 and 40 cm, with this being possible due to using the neural network tools, a
the accuracy of the equipment. It is possible to observe that the equipment makes more 
good correlation, and obtaining the rock fragmentation in an optimized way.
superficial records and analyses of the blasting, with it not being possible to validate non‐
Based on the equations presented in Table 4 and information from Tables 2 and 5,
visible and overlapping particles. In order for this to have more conclusive apparent re‐
the yield indicator related to X80 obtained in each test performed was determined to
sults, it is recommended to use the equipment per shell to be moved for transport, thus 
evaluate the impacts of the quality of blasting fragmentation in the subsequent operational
resulting in more accurate analyses. Even so, it is possible to observe that the proportion‐
phases. Table 6 presents the operating parameters used to calculate the yield. These
ality of the results is maintained with the mathematical calculation, thus making it a form 
parameters were obtained from a database provided by the mine, which was processed
of significant analysis when validating the blasting. 
and An applied study similar to the one provided in this article can be seen by Ebrahi‐mi 
statistically analyzed.
Figure 6a,b and Figure 7 show the productivity estimates of the loading, transport,
[31], who used the neural network technique to optimize rock fragmentation induced by 
and primary crushing phases relative to the X80 obtained in each blasting test performed
detonation.  For  the  same  to  happen  in  this  study,  instead  of  using  PortaMetrics,  Split‐
in this study.
Desktop was used, with the test verifying the same things, including a distribution varia‐
tion between 15 and 40 cm, with this being possible due to using the neural network tools, 
a good correlation, and obtaining the rock fragmentation in an optimized way. 
Based on the equations presented in Table 4 and information from Tables 2 and 5, the 
yield indicator related to X80 obtained in each test performed was determined to evaluate 
 processed and statistically analyzed.

Table 6. Operating parameters are used to estimate the productivity of the loading, transport, and
primary crushing phases.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 Tests 12 of 15

Parameter
1 2 3 4 Conventional
𝑈 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
𝐿
Table 6. Operating 40.76
parameters used to 40.76
estimate the 40.76
productivity of the 40.76
loading, transport,40.76
and
primary crushing
a phases. 12.15 12.15 12.15 12.15 12.15
𝑡 21.67 21.67 21.67 21.67 21.67
Tests
Parameter𝑡
1 3.95 2 3.95 3 3.95 4 3.95 Conventional 3.95
𝑈 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Uc 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Lc 𝐿 40.76243.00 40.76243.00 40.76243.00 40.76243.00 40.76243.00
a p 12.15 6.00 12.15 6.00 12.15 6.00 12.15 6.00 12.15 6.00
tsw 𝑡 21.67 23.62 21.67 23.62 21.67 23.62 21.67 23.62 21.67 23.62
td 𝑡 3.95 6.38 3.95 6.38 3.95 6.38 3.95 6.38 3.95 6.38
Ut 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
𝑃 3523.00 3523.00 3523.00 3523.00 3523.00
L t 243.00 243.00 243.00 243.00 243.00
p 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
tv Figures 6 a) and b) and 723.62
23.62 show the productivity
23.62 estimates
23.62of the loading,
23.62 transport,
t f primary crushing
and 6.38 6.38
phases relative 6.38obtained in 6.38
to the X80 6.38performed
each blasting test
P
in bp
this study. 3523.00 3523.00 3523.00 3523.00 3523.00

2800 420
2600
Loading Productivity (t/h)

Hauling Productivity (t/h)

410
2400
400
2200
2000 390
1800 380
1600
370
1400
1200 360

1000 350
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
X80 (mm) X80 (mm)

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  13  of  16 

 
Figure 6. (a) Loading productivity and (b) transport productivity relative to X80 .
Figure 6. a) Loading productivity and b) Transport productivity relative to X80.
3420
3400
3380 Test 1
3360
Test 2
Crushing

3340
3320 Test 3
3300
Test 4
3280
3260 Conventional Test

3240
0 100 200 300 400 500
X80 (mm)  
Figure 7. Primary crushing productivity relative to X
Figure 7. Primary crushing productivity relative to80X. 80 .

As expected, the productivity levels of operations were inversely proportional to the

As expected, the productivity levels of operations were inversely proportional to the 
sizes of the blasting fragments, specifically studied by X80 in this case. When considering
sizes of the blasting fragments, specifically studied by X80 in this case. When considering 
each blasting and its parameters, Tests 1–4 showed a satisfactory improvement in productiv-
each blasting and its parameters, Tests 1–4 showed a satisfactory improvement in produc‐
ity relative to conventional blasting. Because it was performed with a higher load ratio, Test
tivity relative to conventional blasting. Because it was performed with a higher load ratio, 
Test 3 presented a better fragmentation result and, consequently, the best‐estimated val‐
ues for the productivity of the other steps. The mine productivity with conventional blast‐
ing was not the most adequate, considering the X80 obtained via the test performed in this 
study. However, when considering the operating costs, the maximum productivity esti‐
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 13 of 15

3 presented a better fragmentation result and, consequently, the best-estimated values for
the productivity of the other steps. The mine productivity with conventional blasting was
not the most adequate, considering the X80 obtained via the test performed in this study.
However, when considering the operating costs, the maximum productivity estimated here
that was related to fragmentation did not correspond to the lowest cost of any of the mine
phases [32]. Some scholars have evaluated the impacts of fragmentation on productivity in
loading and transport and on the energy consumption used by crushing [33]. This finding
was especially true for mines with very compact ore, such as the mine under study, where
there was increased pressure to improve fragmentation without significantly increasing the
blasting costs [34]. What could happen when adopting the configuration of the blasting
plane of Test 3, in which a greater level of explosives was used?
Based on the visual analysis in the field, it was possible to identify a relative improve-
ment in the fragmentation of HCI. Figure 8 shows examples of images taken in 14 
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW  each test
of  16 
 
and their respective analyses in the MMPro platform.

Blast Test 1 

Blast Test 2 

Blast Test 3 

Blast Test 4 

Conventional Test 

 
Figure 8. Examples of photographs taken from the piles of the blasting tests and graphical repre‐
Figure 8. Examples of photographs taken from the piles of the blasting tests and graphical represen-
sentation obtained using PortaMetrics™. 
tation obtained using PortaMetrics™.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
 • Via the execution of blasting tests, it was possible to evaluate the quality of the frag‐
Via the execution of blasting tests, it was possible to evaluate the quality of the
fragmented material and the proposed blasting design using explosives for very
mented material and the proposed blasting design using explosives for very compact 
compact itabirite.
itabirite. 
 • The new methodology of blasting design demonstrated compatibility with the parti‐
The new methodology of blasting design demonstrated compatibility with the particle
size requirements of the mine, presenting a considerable reduction in X80 values.
cle size requirements of the mine, presenting a considerable reduction in X80 values. 
 • The comparison of the particle size distribution curves generated using PortaMetrics 
The comparison of the particle size distribution curves generated using PortaMetrics
with the curves of the Kuz–Ram distribution model was an important method for
with the curves of the Kuz–Ram distribution model was an important method for 
verifying the applicability and effectiveness of the equipment.
verifying the applicability and effectiveness of the equipment. 
 • Through this investigation, it was possible to evaluate the productivity of the mine
Through this investigation, it was possible to evaluate the productivity of the mine 
phases after blasting, in which the increase in the load ratio and alteration of the
phases after blasting, in which the increase in the load ratio and alteration of the drill‐
drilling design generated immediate results in the blasting process and, consequently,
ing design generated immediate results in the blasting process and, consequently, in 
in the subsequent phases.
the subsequent phases. 

5. Future Works 
 Using the mine to crusher methodology, it is possible to approach future work via 
multivariable statistical analysis and the stochastic method, transmitting in this way 
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 14 of 15

5. Future Works
• Using the mine to crusher methodology, it is possible to approach future work via
multivariable statistical analysis and the stochastic method, transmitting in this way
greater knowledge about the predictability of blasts.
• A simulation using the Monte Carlo method can also be considered, making the KPIs
covered by the operations clearer and broader.
• It is also possible to evaluate other blasting parameters, such as the energy released
and the amount of explosives generated, to establish optimization around this factor
of interest.

Author Contributions: J.F.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Anal-

ysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Visualization,
Supervision. V.T.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Supervision, Project
Administration, Funding Acquisition. R.C.: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation.
D.M.: Software, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft
Preparation, Writing—Review & Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used to create this article are confidential, it is not possible to
publish them, only the graphics.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Vale Institute of Technology and Vale SA
for the material and resources used for the preparation of this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical Statement: The authors state that the research was conducted according to ethical standards.

References
1. Nikkhah, A.; Vakylabad, A.B.; Hassanzadeh, A.; Niedoba, T.; Surowiak, A. An evaluation of the impact of ore fragmented by
blasting on mining performance. Minerals 2022, 12, 258. [CrossRef]
2. Shehu, S.A.; Abdulazeez, S.; Yusuf, K.O.; Hashim, M.H.M. Comparative study of WipFrag image analysis and Kuz-Ram empirical
model in granite aggregate quarry and their application for blast fragmentation rating. Geomech. Geoeng. 2020, 17, 197–205.
[CrossRef]
3. Navarro Torres, V.F.; Figueiredo, J.R.; De La Hoz, R.C.; Botaro, M.; Chaves, L.S. A mine-to-crusher model to minimize costs at a
truckless open-pit iron mine in Brazil. Minerals 2022, 12, 1037. [CrossRef]
4. Dumakor-Dupey, N.K.; Arya, S.; Jha, A. Advances in Blast-Induced Impact Prediction—A Review of Machine Learning Applica-
tions. Minerals 2021, 11, 601. [CrossRef]
5. Yu, Z.; Shi, X.; Zhou, J.; Chen, X.; Qiu, X. Effective Assessment of Blast-Induced Ground Vibration Using an Optimized Random
Forest Model Based on a Harris Hawks Optimization Algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1403. [CrossRef]
6. Al-Bkri, A.Y.; Sazid, M. Application of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for Prediction and Optimization of Blast-Induced
Impacts. Mining 2021, 1, 315–334. [CrossRef]
7. Zamora, A.N.B. Analisis del uso de Emulsion Gasificable San-G APU para Optimizar la Fragmentaciòn de Voladuras Primarias—Compañía
Minera Antamina S. A—Huaraz; Tese para o título de Engenharia de Minas; Universidad Nacional San Antonio Abad Del Cusco:
Cusco, Peru, 2019.
8. Chang, J.; Sun, L.; Dai, B.; Li, H.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, X.; Ke, B. Research on the fracture properties and mechanism of carbon dioxide
blasting based on rock-like materials. Minerals 2023, 13, 3. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Z.X. Rock Fracture and Blasting: Theory and Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
10. Jimeno, L.C.; Jimeno, E.L.; Bermúdez, P.G. Manual de Perforación, Explosivos y Voladura en Minería y Obras Públicas. Grupo de
Proyectos de Ingeniería, ETSI Minas y Energía; Universidad Politécnica de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2017.
11. Akbari, M.; Lashkaripour, G.; Bafghi, A.Y.; Ghafoori, M. Blastability evaluation for rock mass fragmentation in Iran central iron
ore mines. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2015, 25, 59–66. [CrossRef]
12. Nielsen, K.; Lownds, C. Enhancement of taconite crushing and grinding through primary blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
1997, 34, 625. [CrossRef]
13. Adel, G.; Kojovic, T.; Thornton, D. Mine-to-mill optimization of aggregate production. In Semi-Annual Report No. 4; Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2006; p. 168.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7090 15 of 15

14. Jethro, M.A.; Shehu, S.A.; Kayode, T.S. Effect of Fragmentation on loading at Obajana Cement Company Plc, Nigeria. Int. J. Sci.
Eng. Res. 2016, 7, 608–620.
15. Taqieddin, S.A. Evaluation of the efficiency of a blasting operation designed for a dragline strip mining process. Min. Sci. Technol.
1989, 8, 59–64. [CrossRef]
16. Hamdi, E.; Du Mouza, J. A methodology for rock mass characterization and classification to improve blast results. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 2005, 42, 177–194. [CrossRef]
17. Kulula, M.I.; Nashongo, M.N.; Akande, J.M. Influence of blasting parameters and density of rocks on blast performance at
Tschudi Mine, Tsumeb, Namibia. J. Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. 2017, 5, 339–352. [CrossRef]
18. Khademian, A.; Bagherpour, R. Alteration of grindability of minerals due to applying different explosives in blasting operation.
Miner. Eng. 2017, 111, 174–181. [CrossRef]
19. Nanda, S.; Pal, B.K. Analysis of blast fragmentation using WipFrag. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2020, 5, 1561–1566. Available
online: https://ijisrt.com/assets/upload/files/IJISRT20JUN1086.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2023). [CrossRef]
20. Liu, B. Characterisation of Block Cave Mining Secondary Fragmentation. Master’s Dissertation, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2016. Available online: https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24
/items/1.0306909 (accessed on 7 March 2023).
21. Weir, M.M. Porta Metrics. Available online: https://www.motionmetrics.com/portametrics/ (accessed on 2 February 2023).
22. Kuznetsov, V.M. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Sov. Min. Sci. 1973, 9, 144–148. [CrossRef]
23. Mertuszka, P.; Kramarczyk, B.; Pytlik, M.; Szumny, M.; Jaszcz, K.; Jarosz, T. Implementation and Verification of Effectiveness of
Bulk Emulsion Explosive with Improved Energetic Parameters in an Underground Mine Environment. Energies 2022, 15, 6424.
[CrossRef]
24. Cunningham, C.V.B. The Kuz–Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. In Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå, Sweden, 23–26 August 1983; Holmberg, R., Rustan, A., Eds.; Lulea
University of Technology: Luleå, Sweden, 1983; pp. 439–454.
25. Cunningham, C.V.B. Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz–Ram model—Four years on. In Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, CO, USA, 23–26 August 1987; Society for Experimental
Mechanics: Bethel, CT, USA, 1987; pp. 475–487.
26. Cunningham, C.V.B. The Kuz-Ram fragmentation model—20 years on. In Brighton Conference Proceedings; Holmberg, R., Ed.;
European Federation of Explosives Engineer: Brighton, UK, 2005; pp. 201–210.
27. Rosin, P.; Rammler, E. The law governing the fineness of powdered coal. J. Inst. Fuel 1933, 7, 29–36.
28. Amoako, R.; Jha, A.; Zhong, S. Rock Fragmentation prediction using an artificial neural network and support vector regression
hybrid approach. Mining 2022, 2, 233–247. [CrossRef]
29. Hustrulid, W.A. Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining: Theoretical Foundations, 1st ed.; AA Balkema: Rotterdam, The Nether-
lands, 1999.
30. Cameron, P.; Drinkwater, D.; Pease, J. The ABC of Mine to Mill and Metal Price Cycles; Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy (AusIMM) Bulletin: Carlton, Australia, 2017; p. 9.
31. Mckee, D.J. Understanding Mine to Mil, 1st ed.; The Cooperative Research Centre for Optimizing Resource Extraction (CRC ORE):
Brisbane, Australia, 2013; p. 96.
32. Varannai, B.; Johansson, D.; Schunnesson, H. Crusher to mill transportation time calculation—The Aitik case. Minerals 2022,
12, 147. [CrossRef]
33. Ebrahimi, E.; Monjezi, M.; Khalesi, M.R.; Armaghani, D.J. Prediction and optimization of back-break and rock fragmentation
using an artificial neural network and a bee colony algorithm. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2015, 75, 27–36. [CrossRef]
34. Monjezi, M.; Rezaei, M.; Yazdian Varjani, A. Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting in Gol-E-Gohar iron mine using
fuzzy logic. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2009, 46, 1273–1280. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.