A Practical Method of Bench Blasting Design For Desired Fragmentation Based On Digital Image Processing Technique and Kuz-Ram Model
A Practical Method of Bench Blasting Design For Desired Fragmentation Based On Digital Image Processing Technique and Kuz-Ram Model
A Practical Method of Bench Blasting Design For Desired Fragmentation Based On Digital Image Processing Technique and Kuz-Ram Model
net/publication/289470656
CITATIONS READS
15 2,799
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Investigation on the Usage of Terrestrial Laser Scanning Technology in Determination of Post-Blast Fragment Size Distribution and Blasting Efficiency View project
Examining the Efficiencies of Marble Factories in Afyonkarahisar City via Statistical Techniques View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Irfan Celal Engin on 06 January 2016.
I.C. Engin
Afyon Kocatepe University, Iscehisar Vocational School, Iscehisar, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
ABSTRACT: Blasting is the most productive excavation method in hard rock mining. In quarries, to
remove the mother rock from in-situ and crush into the desired size is realized by bench blasting method.
Bench height, hole diameter, spacing, burden, hole length, bottom charge, column charge, stemming, spe-
cific hole length and specific charge are the design parameters in bench production blasting. In addition,
rock factor has to be known for estimating the rock fragmentation. In determination of the design factors,
the most economic solution which provides required fragmentation is selected in the view of engineering
aspect. This research was carried out as a practical method to determine the design parameters giving
desired fragmentation and cost in a limestone quarry. In this research, rock factor was calculated indi-
rectly by using bench blasting design parameters which has already been applied and resultant fragment
size instead of the geological data. Fragmentation characteristics such as mean fragment size, uniformity
index and characteristic size were calculated by using digital images in an image analysis system called
SplitDesktop® software. Rock factor value of this part of the quarry was calculated by Kuz-Ram model
by means of design parameters and fragment size. After that, different bench blasting design parameters
were selected by optimization according to Langefors and other suggested equations. Optimum drill hole
diameter was observed as 89 mm and bench design parameters such as spacing 2.5 m, burden 2 m, specific
charge 0.97 kg/m3 were proposed according to this value. These parameters provide desired fragmentation
and less cost at the same time for given quarry conditions.
257
X m = AK −0.8QE0.167 (115 / SANFO )0.633 (1) Average particle size of the materials obtained
from a blasting operation is not enough informa-
where Xm is the mean fragment size (cm), A the tion explaining the efficiency of the operation.
rock factor (or blastability index), K the powder There could be two broken rock piles having the
factor or specific charge (kg of explosives/m3 of same average particle size but they could have dif-
rock), Qe the mass of explosive being used (kg), ferent particle size distributions. Very coarse and
SANFO the relative weight strength of the explosive fine particles can give acceptable average particle
relative to ANFO. size but can cause problems in subsequent opera-
The blastability index (or rock factor) is cal- tions. Uniform particle size distribution is an
culated from an equation originally developed important parameter that has to be considered.
by Lilly (1986). It is used to modify the average The uniformity coefficient is calculated from
fragmentation based on the rock type and blast an equation developed by Cunningham (1987).
direction. Cunningham established the applicable uniform-
ity coefficient through several investigations, tak-
A = 0.06(RMD + JF + RDI + HF ) (2) ing into consideration the impact of such factors
as: blast geometry, hole diameter, burden, spacing,
where A is the blastability index, RMD the rock hole lengths and drilling accuracy. The exponent
mass description, JF the joint factor, RDI the rock n for the Rosin & Rammler equation is estimated
density index, HF the hardness factor. These fac- as follows:
tors are calculated from geological data such as; 0.5
in situ block size, joint spacing, joint orientation, ⎡ S⎤
⎛ ⎢ 1 + ⎥
B⎞ B ⎥ ⎛⎜1 − W ⎞⎟⎟⎛⎜ L ⎞⎟⎟
rock specific gravity, Young’s modulus, unconfined n = ⎜⎜2.2 − 14 ⎟⎟⎟ ⎢⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎜ (6)
compressive strength and etc. ⎜⎝ D ⎠ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎜⎝ B ⎟⎠⎜⎝ H ⎟⎠
Powder factor or specific charge is the mass of ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
explosive being used (kg) to break a cubic metre
volume of rock. where B is the blasting burden (m), S the blasthole
spacing (m), D the blasthole diameter (mm), W the
K = Qe /V0 (3) standard deviation of drilling accuracy (m), L the
total charge length (m), and H the bench height
where Qe is the mass of explosive being used (kg), (m). Cunningham (1987) notes that the uniformity
V0 the rock volume (m3) broken per blasthole = bur- coefficient n usually varies between 0.8 and 1.5.
den (B) × spacing (S) × bench height (H ).
1.3 The bench blasting parameters
1.2 The Rosin & Rammler equation
Bench blasting can be defined as drilling of vertical
The size distribution of the materials is calculated or angled holes in one or several rows from a free
from the Rosin & Rammler equation especially in surface, which then are blasted again a second free
mineral processing area (Rosin & Rammler 1933). surface.
The bench blasting operations are classified
n
y = 100(1 − e−( X / X c ) ) (4) according to their purpose (Jimeno et al. 1995):
− Conventional bench blasting; the pursuit of max-
where y is the percentage of material less than the imum fragmentation and swelling of the rock.
size X (%), X the diameter of fragment (cm), Xc the − Rip-rap blasting; obtaining large fragments of
characteristic size (cm), n the Rosin & Rammler rock.
exponent (uniformity coefficient), and e the base − Cast blasting; using explosives to not only frag-
of natural logarithms. ment the rock, but to also project a large quan-
Since the Kuznetsov formula gives the screen tity of it to a predetermined place.
size Xm for which 50% of the material would pass, − Road and railway blasting; conditioned by the
the characteristic size is calculated from the aver- terrain and road plan.
age size for use in the Rosin & Rammler equation − Trench and ramp blasting; lineal operations due
by substituting X = Xm and y = 0.5 into Equation 4 to the shape and narrowness of the excavations
one finds that the confinement of explosives is high.
− Ground leveling and foundation blasting; usu-
⎛ ⎞ ally over a small area and quite shallow.
⎜⎜ X ⎟⎟ − Preblasting; increasing the natural fractures
m ⎟
X c = ⎜⎜ 1⎟
⎟ (5)
⎜⎜ ⎟ in the rock mass with as little displacement as
⎜⎝ 0.693 n ⎟⎟⎠ possible.
258
Bench blasting can also be classified by the the rock mass to be fragmented by the explosive
diameter of the blast hole: column, and is calculated as follows:
− Small diameter blasting: from 65 to 165 mm 1 1 1
− Large diameter blasting: from 180 to 450 mm D 45 ⎛⎜ 0.4 ⎞⎟2 ⎛⎜ PS ⎞⎟2 ⎛⎜ 1 ⎞⎟2
Bmax = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
1000 ⎜⎝ c ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝1.25 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ f ⎠⎟⎟
(7)
The subject of this research is conventional
small diameter blasting because it is performed in
a quarry to obtain a desired fragmentation with where Bmax is the maximum burden (m), D the
minimum cost. blasthole diameter (mm), c the rock constant,
Many formulae and methods for calculating P the degree of packing of the explosive, S the rela-
geometric parameters such as burden, spacing, and tive weight strength of the explosive, f the fixation
subdrilling have been around since the early 1950’s, of the hole.
and use one or more of the following parameters: Subdrilling is calculated by the formula given
hole diameter, characteristics of explosives, com- below:
pressive rock strength, and many more. In small
diameter blasting Swedish method developed by U = 0. 3Bmax (8)
Langefors & Kihlström (1976) is used (Jimeno
et al. 1995). Total length of the blasthole is:
Bench blasting design parameters are given in
Figure 1 are; D is the blasthole diameter (m), K the H = (K + U )k (9)
bench height (m), B the burden (m), E the blasthole
spacing (m), U the blasthole subdrilling (m), S (h0) Practical burden distance is calculated as follows:
the blasthole stemming length (m), H the blasthole
length (m), hp the length of column charge (m), B = Bmax − (D/1000 + 0.03H ) (10)
hb the length of bottom charge (m). Other param-
eters considered in bench blasting calculations are; Spacing (E ) is the distance in meters between
Ip the concentration of column charge (kg/m), Ib adjacent blastholes and is measured perpendicular
the concentration of bottom charge (kg/m), Qp to the burden. The relation between burden and
the weight of column charge (kg), Qb the weight spacing is:
of bottom charge (kg), Qe is the total weight of
explosive being used in a hole (kg), q the powder E = 1.25B (11)
factor or specific charge (kg of explosives/m3 of
rock), g the specific drilling (drilled meters/m3 of Stemming (S ) is the inert material filled between
rock). Blasthole pattern, delay timing and initia- the explosive charge and the collar of the blast-
tion sequence are also very important parameters hole to confine the explosion gases. The stemming
in bench blasting operations. material could be water, drill cutting, sand, mud or
The most critical and important dimension in crushed rock. Stemming distance is taken as equal
blasting is that of the burden B as it represents to the burden.
h0 = B (12)
hb = 1.3B (13)
Qb = hbIb (14)
Ib = (D2/1000)(P/1.25) (15)
259
Total quantity of column charge is given as: 2 METHODOLOGY
h0 = 0.7B (23)
⎛ K + 7 B ⎞⎟
E = ⎜⎜
⎜⎝ 8 ⎟⎟⎠ (24)
260
(approx 115 mm) when the research was started. 2.2 Optimization of the blasting parameters
Production has been observed at the rate of 2,000
The plan was to change the mean fragmentation
tons per day in 3,000 square meters of the work-
size to approximately 15 cm for subsequent opera-
ing area. Blasting design parameters were selected
tion units. In this research, bench blasting design
firstly as given in Table 1.
parameters were optimized to give the desired
Blasting was done via the use of a non-electrical
mean fragmentation size and minimum cost.
shock tube system. Each hole is loaded with a
Quarry drilling and blasting operation involves
1 kg booster, and approximately 40 kg of ANFO
cost (in Turkish Liras, TL) of the main explosive
per hole for a total of 41 kg of explosives per
mostly ANFO, booster, detonator and drilling
hole. Blasthole pattern were arranged as stag-
itself as shown in Tables 2–3.
gered three rows. 500 millisecond delays are used
Total drilling-blasting cost can be defined as:
to ensure that all the holes are burning before the
first hole row detonates. A view of the quarry is
CT = CA + CB + CD + CDR (25)
given in Figure 3.
After the blast, fragmentation was investigated CT = 0.92QA + 3.73QB + 2.4QD + 2.05LDR (26)
using the SplitDesktop® image analysis software.
The investigation procedure is given in Figure 4 as Cost components of the percussive dry type
working scheme. drilling unit are defined as:
Fragmentation sizes of the broken rock piles
were investigated in this way and mean fragmenta- CDR = CYD + CF +CP + CM (27)
tion size was calculated as 29.1 cm. By using the
formula given in Equation 1 and parameters given In this part of the research, blasthole diameter
in Table 1 blastability index (rock factor) of the D (m), burden B (m), blasthole spacing E (m), sub-
quarry rock was calculated as 6.65. drilling U (m), blasthole stemming length S (m),
blasthole pattern (staggered or rectangular) and
Table 1. Quarry blasting design parameters. explosive properties were selected according to
Parameter Value
261
Table 2. Quarry drilling-blasting cost components. Table 4. Quarry blasting design parameters according
to Langefors approach.
Cost
components Symbol Quantity Unit Unit cost Parameter Symbol Value
262
Table 6. Quarry blasting design parameters selected by quarry owner for the actual blasts and similar
the owner. results such as mean fragment size, uniformity
coefficient, specific charge, and total drilling and
Parameter Value blasting cost were observed with a cost reduction
Blasthole diameter (inch) 3.5
of around 50%.
Blasthole diameter (mm) 88.9 The results show that this procedure can be
Blasthole length 7.00 applied in quarry blasting operations, but frag-
Burden (m) 2.00 mentation determination by image analysis and
Blasthole spacing (m) 2.50 selected constraints used in optimization controls
Stemming length (m) 2.10 the performance and validity of the operation. The
Length of ANFO charge (m) 4.90 optimization process has to be repeated for other
Weight of ANFO charge (kg) 25.91 bench blasting design approaches to produce the
Specific charge (kg/m3) 0.86 best results.
Specific drilling (m/m3) 0.23
Mean Fragmentation size (cm) 15.33
Uniformity coefficient 1.77 REFERENCES
Total drilling-blasting cost (TL/m3) 1.47
Ash, R.L. 1963. The mechanics of rock breakage, standards
for blasting design. Pit and Quarry 56(3): 118–122.
Cunningham, C.V.B. 1983. The Kuz-Ram model for predic-
tion of fragmentation from blasting. In R. Holmberg &
E(m), subdrilling U(m), blasthole stemming length A. Rustan (eds.), Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Rock Frag-
S(m) and etc. were also taken into consideration as mentation by Blasting, Luleå, Sweden, 22–26 August,
constraints for the optimization process. Blasthole pp. 439–453. Luleå University Technology.
sizes were also restricted to the drill bit diameters Cunningham, C.V.B. 1987. Fragmentation estimations
that were already used in drilling operations. and the Kuz-Ram model—four years on. Proc. 2nd
Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Key-
stone, Colorado, USA, 23–26 August, pp. 475–487.
Bethel, CT: Society for Experimental Mechanics.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L. & Carcedo, F.J.A. 1995. Drill-
ing and Blasting of Rocks. Rotterdam: Balkema.
In this study, rock factor representing the rock Konya, C.J. & Walter, E.J. 1990. Surface Blast Design. Eng-
mass properties of a quarry was determined indi- lewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishing.
rectly by the resultant fragmentation of the blasting Kuznetsov, V.M. 1973. The mean diameter of the frag-
operation carried out by using the specified blast ments formed by blasting rock. Soviet Mining Science
design parameters. Rock factor was calculated by 9(2): 144–148.
Kuz-Ram model by means of design parameters Langefors, U. & Kihlström, B. 1976. The Modern Techn-
and fragment size investigated by SplitDesktop® inque of Rock Blasting, 3rd edition. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
image analysis software. Lilly, P.A. 1986. An empirical method of assessing rock
Optimum blast design parameters were deter- mass blastability. In J.R. Davidson (ed.), Proc. Large
mined by optimization of the drilling and blasting Open Pit Mining Conf., October, pp. 89–92. Parkville,
costs and also fragmentation. The first optimiza- Victoria: The Aus IMM.
tion study used the Langefors & Kihlström (1976) Mackenzie, A.S. 1967. Optimum blasting. Proc. 28th
approach which predicted the required fragment Annual Minnesota Mining Symp., Duluth, MN,
size and other targets but predicted relatively high pp. 181–188.
total drilling and blasting costs. Morin, M.A. & Ficarazzo F. 2006. Monte Carlo simula-
In the second optimization process optimum tion as a tool to predict blasting fragmentation based
on the Kuz-Ram model. Computers & Geosciences
blast design parameters were determined by using 32(3): 352–359.
suggested formulae used in the bench blasting Rosin, R. & Rammler, E. 1933. Laws governing the fine-
operations. The desired fragment size as well as ness of poedered coal. J. Inst. of Fuel 7: 29–36.
minimum drilling and blasting costs were pre- Wyllie, D.C. & Mah, C.W. 2005. Rock Slope Engineering,
dicted. Similar parameters were then used by the Civil and Mining, 4th edition. New York: Spon Press.
263