A two-component model of blast fragmentation

By N Djordjevic
1
, Member
ABSTRACT
Prediction of fragmentation by blasting is most commonly based on the
assumption that a single distribution of pre-existing discontinuities is
present within a blasted rock volume and that the underlying mechanism
of failure is tensile failure. It is assumed that the tensile stress field
created by a blast initiates and extends radial cracks around the
blastholes. Interaction between radial cracks from different blastholes and
the free surface creates rock fragments.
In reality, fragmentation of the rock occurs due to two mechanisms.
One is related to the compressive-shear failure of the rock (mainly rock
matrix) close to the blastholes, while the second mechanism is the
previously mentioned tensile failure of the rock mass. The second
mechanism of failure occurs in the form of extension of the larger cracks
in the region beyond the crushed rock, and this type of fragmentation
occurs after the crushing phase. In the case of hard rock or blasting where
the extent of crushing is minimal, the currently used prediction methods
give a reasonably good result. However, there are many blasting
conditions where the amount of rock crushing is significant.
In the case where fragmentation of the given rock volume occurs due
to two different mechanisms, modeling of the rock fragmentation with a
single distribution function is not appropriate. To model the fragment size
distribution generated by two different mechanisms, it is necessary to use
a two-component fragment size distribution function and a scaling
parameter that will determine the proportion of the fragmented volume
created by each mechanism.
The purpose of this paper is to present results of blast fragmentation
modeling based on two mechanisms of failure. The two-component
model (TCM) utilises experimentally determined parameters from small
scale blasting and parameters of the Kuz-Ram model, for more accurate
prediction of the complete rock fragment size distribution curve. The
methodology is such that it is possible to predict complete fragment size
distribution, including fines, of ROM product for a future mine, at the
feasibility phase of mine design.
COMPOSITE FRAGMENT SIZE DISTRIBUTION
A muckpile resulting from blasting can be considered to be a
mixture of two sets of rock fragments. The first set originates
from the part of the in situ rock mass relatively close to the
blasthole which fragments due to compressive-shear failure. The
influence of the in situ structure tends to be very small. The
second set of rock fragments (typically much larger than the
first), comes from the rock that is farther away from the
blasthole. These rock fragments are created by tensile failure and,
to a large extent, by extension of pre-existing fractures, joints and
bedding planes.
Let us assume that the mass of the rock that fails due to
shear-compressive failure represents fraction F
c
of the total rock
mass per blasthole:
F
M
M
c
o
(1)
where:
M
o
= mass of rock failed in compression
M = total mass of rock per blast hole
Consequently, the fraction of rock mass that fails in tension
along pre-existing joints is 1- F
c
.
Due to the different mechanisms of failure, each subset of rock
fragments needs to be represented with a separate fragment size
distribution function. Using the form of the Rosin-Rammler
distribution the equations are:
P e
x
c
d
1
0 693
100 1

_
,

_
,

_
,

.
(2)
and
P e
x
a
b
2
0 693
100 1

_
,

_
,

_
,

.
(3)
where:
P
1
, P
2
= per cent passing size (x) for the region of compressive
failure and tensile failure respectively
c = mean fragment size in the first region (compressive
failure)
d = uniformity coefficient of the first fragment size
distribution
a = mean fragment size in the second region (tensile
failure)
b = uniformity coefficient of the second fragment size
distribution
The sum of the two distribution functions, multiplied by the
respective fraction of the total mass, F
c
and (1- F
c
), will represent
the fragment size distribution of the entire mass of fragmented
rock:
P = F
c
.P
1
+ (1- F
c
).P
2

_
,

_
,

100 1 1
0 693 0 693
( )
. .
F e F e
c
x
a
c
b

_
,

_
,

1
]
1
1
1
x
c
d
(4)
This superposition principle is illustrated in the case of a
fragment size distribution produced by blasting two large rock
samples. The first sample labelled OXSI has a total mass equal to
57.8 per cent of the combined mass of the two samples. The
second sample, labelled INTSR, has a mass equal to 42.2 per
cent of the combined mass. Fragments from both samples were
sieved separately, and plotted multiplied by their respective mass
fractions. On the same graph, Figure 1, the size distribution of
the combined sample (OXSI+INTSR) is also plotted. The
combined fragment size distribution is equal to the sum of the
individual size distributions.
We can interpret fraction (F
c
) as the volume of the rock that is
primarily fragmented due to explosion induced stresses, (due to
shear or compressive failure of the rock matrix in the immediate
The AusIMM Proceedings No 2 1999 9
1. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
E-Mail: N.Djordjevic@mailbox.uq.edu.au
Original manuscript received:
Revised manuscript received:
FIG 1 - Composite fragment size distribution.
vicinity of the blastholes). The coarse part of the curve is created
primarily due to liberation of the existing in situ blocks, or due to
extension and coalescence of the pre-existing cracks. In essence
the primary cause of such fragments is nature itself. Hence, the
post-blast fragment size distribution is a result of two distinctly
different factors. This is the reason why we need a
two-component model to describe the resultant fragmentation.
In the case of a statistically homogenous fragment size
distribution, where complete fragmentation occurs in one
domain, parameter (F
c
) is zero, and the previous equation reduces
to the single component Rosen-Rammler distribution. This
situation will occur in the case of blasting in very hard rock,
where the mass of the rock that failed in compression/shear is
negligible. In such a case the previous equation becomes:
P P 100 1 e
1
0.693
x
a
b

_
,

_
,

_
,

(5)
In some cases, this simplification does not introduce
significant error. However, in the case of rocks with moderate or
low hardness, or rocks where the amount of fines (fragments with
size less than 50 mm), have significant impact on the mining
operation, it is necessary to consider the crushing
(compressive/shear failure) action of a blast. In the context of the
classical Kuz-Ram model, the need for the TCM would be
largest, for the case of dust and boulders. Commonly such
conditions would be considered as not conducive to the control of
fragmentation by changes in the blast design. In the case of an
operating mine or quarry, this problem is further aggravated by
the inability of the optical methods used in the measurement of
the rock fragment size distribution to observe and measure the
quantity of the rock mass less than approximately 50 mm in size.
Hence, to model the blast fragment size distribution created by
two different mechanisms, it is necessary to use a two-component
fragment size distribution function and a scaling parameter that
will determine the proportion of the fragmented volume created
by each mechanism. A similar approach was proposed by
Gilvarry (1961), for modeling of fragmentation caused by
different types of flaws.
EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF ROCK
BLASTABILITY PARAMETERS
Due to the complexity of the mechanism involved in rock
fragmentation by blasting, most of the models of rock
fragmentation have strong empirical roots. A Kuz-Ram model is
frequently used. This model is based on an empirically derived
equation that predicts mean fragment size from powder factor,
explosive mass per blasthole, relative weight strength of
explosive and a rock blastability constant (Kuznetsov, 1979;
Cunningham, 1987).
The mean fragment size in the Kuz-Ram model can be
calculated by Equation 6:
x A
V
Q
Q
E
50
0.8
0.167
0.633
115

_
,

_
,
(6)
where
x
50
mean or 50 per cent passing size (cm)
A rock factor (empirical constant determined by the rock
density, strength and jointing)
V volume of the blasted rock per blast hole (m
3
)
Q mass of explosive per blast hole (kg)
E relative weight strength of explosive (ANFO=100)
An estimate of the fragment size distribution is given by the
Rosin-Rammler equation, in the form:
R(x) e
-
x
x
50
n

_
,

1
0 693 .
(7)
where
R(x) = proportion of the material passing screen of size x
x = screen size
x
50
= mean size
N = uniformity index
The uniformity index is determined from the blast design
through Equation 8, (Cunningham, 1987).
n
B
D
R W
B
L
H

_
,
+

_
,
2 2
14
1
1
2
1 . (8)
where
D = charge diameter (mm)
B = burden (m)
W = standard deviation of drilling accuracy (m)
R = spacing/burden ratio
H = bench height (m)
L = charge length (m)
It is interesting that the uniformity parameter in the Kuz-Ram
model, which controls the shape of the fragment size distribution
function, is not influenced by the mechanical properties of the
rock or the characteristics of the explosive. A possible reason for
this is in the nature of the numerical model used for the
development of the formula for the calculation of the uniformity
coefficient (Lownds, 1983). Underlying assumptions are that
fragmentation occurs due to the creation of radial cracks under
the influence of the tensile stress and do not include the
possibility for shear failure or plastic deformation of the rock.
Despite this, experience shows that the Kuz-Ram model predicts
the relatively coarse part of the fragment size distribution
(fragments with size greater than 50 mm) with reasonable
accuracy.
The Kuz-Ram model represents one component (P2), of the
proposed two-component blast fragmentation model. Before
being incorporated into the model output, results of the Kuz-Ram
model calculations need to be multiplied by the fraction that
represents the ratio of the rock mass (volume) which is
fragmented due to tensile failure and the total mass (volume) of
the rock per blasthole.
Typical fragments with size less then 50 mm are the result of
fragmentation of the intact rock blocks (rock matrix). The
influence of the macro-structural features of the bench or drift is
not significant. Also, macro geometrical parameters of the blast
design (burden, spacing, etc) are not key parameters for the
uniformity of the distribution of small fragments. Fine rock
fragmentation is predominantly controlled by the interaction of
explosive and rock matrix.
Aler, Du Mouza and Arnold (1996), investigated blast
fragmentation efficiency as a function of blast geometrical
parameters and explosive energy parameters using a multivariate
statistical method. They concluded that the influence of
geometrical parameters (burden, spacing) can be considered
independent of those associated with explosive energy. In the
original Kuz-Ram model applied to an in situ blast, the mean size
(x
50
) is, due to the nature of the model, calculated assuming a
uni-modal fragment size distribution curve. Hence, it represents
x
50
of the entire rock volume. However, in the case of the
two-component model mean size as calculated by the Kuz-Ram
model is assumed to refer to the coarse part only (not coarse +
fines).
The mean size of the coarse part of the TCM curve is the size
that refers to the coarser part of the traditional KUZ-RAM curve.
Mean size for the TCM coarse part refers to the size
10 No 2 1999 The AusIMM Proceedings
N DJORDJEVIC
corresponding to the (50 + 100
Fc
2
) per cent of the traditional
curve, where (F
c
) is fraction of the total volume representing
fines. The overall mean size of the entire volume should be equal
to the weighted average of the mean size for fines and mean size
for coarse. In the case that the fines fraction is nil, the TCM
curve transforms into the conventional uni-modal Kuz-Ram
(Rosin-Rammler) curve.
DETERMINATION OF THE BLASTABILITY
PARAMETERS OF FINES GENERATION BASED ON
BLAST CHAMBER TESTING
Small fragments are created through the interaction of the
explosive and rock matrix in the scale of an individual blasthole.
Fines generation has been shown to be independent of the scale
of investigation (Crum, Rholl and Stagg, 1990; Turcotte, 1986).
The blastability parameters of small fragments can be determined
from blasting large rock samples (approximately 0.1 m
3
),
provided that rock matrix properties are representative for the in
situ rock matrix and the properties of the explosive are the same
as or similar to those used in the field.
Fragmentation of large rock samples in a blast chamber occurs
in a similar manner to rock mass fragmentation in open pit
blasting. After the detonation of a small explosive charge in the
sample, a stress wave causes crushing of the rock in the
immediate vicinity of the charge. This stage of fragmentation
occurs while the bulk of the sample is still intact. This is
significant because of the confinement under which the crushing
of the samples interior occurs. Such confining conditions at least
qualitatively mimic conditions that exist during the initial stages
of rock fragmentation in situ. The second stage begins with
reflection of the stress wave from the rock sample boundary.
Such reflection is tensile in character, which initiates tensile
failure of the sample exterior, assisted by the high pressure gases
liberated by detonation.
The fragmented volume of the rock sample consist of
fragments created by the crushing of the rock matrix and from
fragments created through tensile failure in the form of extension
and coalescence of existing cracks or cracks created by
compression or shear. These two sub-volumes of the fragmented
rock are created in a significantly different manner and hence the
fragment size distributions cannot be described with one function
that will describe both mechanisms equally well. The resultant
fragment size distribution can be represented as a special case of
Equation 4, as the sum of two distributions, weighted by a factor
that reflects the relative volumes of the rock that is fragmented in
the two different ways.
From the results of sieving the fragments resulting from blast
chamber testing, it is possible to deduce the fraction of the rock
volume that is predominately affected by compressive-shear
failure (F
c
). This can be confirmed by fitting the observed size
distribution (Equation 3). It is important that parameter F
c
is
determined first, as the other parameters are determined with a
fixed value for F
c
. This fitting results in the mean fragment size
for the coarse part (a), the mean fragment size created by the
compressive-crushing action (c), and the corresponding
uniformity coefficients (b and d).
Mean fragment size can be related, in the first approximation,
to the blasting parameters using Equation 6 of the Kuz-Ram
model. From that equation it is then possible to determine rock
factors (Equation 4), for both sets of fragments (fines and
coarse). In practice, only the rock factor, fines fraction (F
c
) and
uniformity coefficient (d) that correspond to the fines are needed.
Coarse fragmentation of an in situ blast is influenced by the
interaction of the larger rock volumes with rock structures that
can not be simulated faithfully in the scale of a rock lump
(approximately 0.1 m
3
). The influence of blast hole interaction is
also beyond this type of testing.
In the case of fines, the rock factor and uniformity coefficient
are determined by the explosive-rock matrix interaction in the
scale of a single-hole blast, hence parameters determined by blast
chamber testing are transferable to the in situ blasting situation.
EXTRAPOLATION OF FINES BLASTIBILITY
PARAMETERS TO THE PRODUCTION BLAST
FRAGMENTATION
To be able to apply this model faithfully to production blast
fragmentation, it is necessary to independently estimate the
fraction of the total volume for each blasthole that will be
fragmented under the crushing (compressive) action of the
explosion. This can be done in several ways.
The stress field in the zone of shear failure around the
blasthole is compressive. Both radial and tangential stress are
compressive. In such case, the extent of shear failure around the
blasthole can be estimated using the Griffith failure criterion,
which for the bi-axial case of predominately compressive loading
is:
(
1
-
2
)
2
- 8T
0
(
1
+
2
) = 0 (9)
where

1
,
2
= major and minor principal stress respectively
T
0
= tensile strength
Assuming an average Poissons ratio () of 0.25 and using

2
=

1
1

2 1
1
3
(10)
The thick-walled cylinder equation with the above equations,
gives the equation to calculate the distance from the centre of the
blast holes at which shear failure will cease:
x
r
T
P
O
b

24
(11)
where
x = distance from the centre of the blast hole
r = radius of the blast holes
T
o
= tensile strength
P
b
= peak blast holes pressure
Peak blast hole pressure can be estimated using the
well-known equation (Persson, Holmberg and Lee, 1994):
P
VOD
8
b
2

(12)
where
P
b
= blast hole pressure applied to the rock (Pa)
VOD= velocity of detonation (m/s)
= explosive density (kg/m
3
)
For in situ application, T
o
needs to be corrected for the size
dependent strength of the in situ blocks. Some idea about that
influence can be gained using an empirical relationship,
originally developed for size-dependent compressive strength
(Hoek and Brown, 1988).
The strength of rock is influenced by the strain rate. Close to
blastholes, the strain rate is high (100 to 1000 s
-1
), so the
dynamic strength is larger than its static equivalent. Fortunately,
dynamic strength of rock becomes significantly larger than its
static equivalent (Tedesco et al, 1997) only at quite high strain
rates (above 100 s
-1
), which restricts its influence to very close
proximity to the blasthole. On this basis it is concluded that the
static value for strength is sufficient for modeling.
An alternative method for estimation of the volume of the
crushed rock is by dynamic numerical modeling. By modeling a
single hole blast using the dynamic version of the
finite-difference FLAC code (FLAC Manual, Itasca, 1997), it is
possible to determine the volume of the rock that is in the state of
The AusIMM Proceedings No 2 1999 11
A TWO-COMPONENT MODEL OF BLAST FRAGMENTATION
shear failure. The extent of the rock shear failure corresponds to
the zone of compressive crushing (plastic deformation). Further
improvement in the prediction of the volume of crushing for the
in situ rock is based on the concept developed in cratering theory
(the strain energy factor). From the results of blast chamber
testing it is possible to determine the fraction of the sample mass
exposed to shear failure F
c
, the mass of the crushed fraction Mo
and the corresponding volume Vo.
The equivalent Strain Energy Factor can be defined as:
SF =
Vo
Q
(13)
where
SF = strain energy factor
Q = explosive mass (kg) used in the experiment
Vo = volume of crushing determine from blast chamber testing
(m
3
)
For the point charge this is equivalent to the strain energy
factor used in cratering experiments (Persson, Holmberg and Lee,
1994). The volume of crushing in situ can be calculated from the
charge mass in the blasthole:
V(in situ) = SF *Q(in situ) (14)
In the case where the type of explosive used in situ is not
identical to that used in the blast chamber, the previous equation
needs to be corrected to:
Volume (in situ) =
SF *Q
139
RWS
0.633
( ) in situ

_
,

(15)
RWS = Relative weight strength (ANFO=100)
139 = Relative weight strength of PETN used in blast chamber
experiments.
The parameter
139
0 633
RWS

_
,

.
comes from the Kuz-Ram model,
whose purpose is to normalise explosive strength relative to
ANFO. From the volume of the crushed rock, we can than
calculate the fraction of rock exposed to shear failure:
F
c
=
Volume( )
burden * spacing * height
in situ
(16)
The explosive energy distribution function, used in the
JKMRC blasting software (JKSimBlast), calculates a spatial
powder factor index in kg/m
3
. The strain energy factor (SF) can
be considered as the inverse of this index, thus making it possible
to calculate the extent of the crushing zone around the blasthole
directly from the energy distribution function (JKMRC, 1996).
In the case of an existing mine, some idea about volume of
rock crushed (severely cracked) can be gained by observing the
extent of severe bench damage behind the last row of blastholes.
Parameter F
c
can be determined by dividing the volume of the
crushed rock (under shear failure) by total volume of rock per
blasthole. In such a way it is possible to investigate the influence
of changes in the explosive or size of the blastholes on fines
generation.
APPLICATIONS
Iron ore mine
The above two-component model was applied to the case of
blasting tests designed to predict fragmentation in an iron ore
mine in Western Australia. Large lumps of the iron ore were
blasted in a blast chamber (JKMRC, 1997). After sieving, the
fragment size distribution was fitted with a function described by
Equation 3. The results of fitting were described by Equation 17:
P(%) * . *
. *
.
.

_
,

_
,
100 1 0 927
0 693
26 276
1 3751
e
x

_
,

_
,

_
0 073
0 693
0 5728
0 3673
. *
. *
.
.
e
x
,

(17)
Fitted results are shown in Figure 2. On the same figure is also
presented a single Rosin-Rammler curve, which clearly can not
fit simultaneously the fine and coarse end of the curve.
Systematic misfit of the classical approach is particularly obvious
when graphs are presented as log-log diagrams. Best fit of the
observed data using a single component Rosin-Rammler function
is given by:
P(%) *
. *
.
.

_
,

_
,

100 1
0 693
23 68
1 1648
e
x
_
,

(18)
The mean size is a = 23.68 mm which is less than the mean
size of the coarse part of the TCM curve. Blast chamber testing
and fragment size determinations are performed in a manner
which practically eliminates the occurrence of the secondary
breakage of the rocks due to factors not caused by the explosive.
The observed fragment size distribution curve is strongly
bi-modal, where one part is created by the crushing action of the
explosive. This part represents about 7.3 per cent of the rock
volume. The second part is due to tensile type failure. The mean
fragment size for the fines is:
X
50
(fines) = c = 0.5728 mm,
with a very low uniformity coefficient of d = 0.3673
The fitted value of the mean size for fines was used to
calculate the rock factor for fines, using the Kuz-Ram equation.
This rock factor and the fitted uniformity coefficient for fines (d)
was then used to predict fines in the production blast, Figure 3.
12 No 2 1999 The AusIMM Proceedings
N DJORDJEVIC
FIG 2 - Fragment size distribution resulted from blasting of iron ore
sample fitted with TCM (upper) and Rosin-Rammler curve (lower).
The coarse part of the production blast fragmentation curve was
determined by application of the conventional Kuz-Ram model.
Copper mine
This approach was also tested in the case of a large open pit
copper mine. Operating experience at the mine has demonstrated
a clear dependence between mine fragmentation and milling
performance. Blast characterisation of the ore zone was done by
testing four large rock lumps in the blast chamber. The fragment
size distribution from the blast chamber was fitted using
Equation 4. The results of fitting, in terms of fraction of the
crushed rock, were independently verified through visual
inspection of the fragment of various sizes. Best results were
achieved with the crushed volume fraction of F
c
= 0.012. The
fitted fragment size distribution is given by Equation 19.
P(%) * . *
. *
.
.

_
,

_
,
100 1 0 988
0 693
46 606
1 5503
e
x

_
,

_
,

_
0 012
0 693
0 6829
0 6424
. *
. *
.
.
e
x
,

(19)
The mean size and uniformity exponent for fines were used to
predict the complete fragment size distribution created by a
production blast. Based on the estimated fraction of the crushed
rock, rock blastability parameters were determined through small
scale blasting experiments and geotechnical information about
the rock mass. Complete fragment size distributions were
calculated based on Equation 3, and one presented in Figure 4.
The results show that the amount of fines (-1 cm) are about 15
per cent, which is close to the observed value, determined using
an image based system which incorporates a fines correction.
SUMMARY
A new approach has been developed for determining blastability
parameters for the fragmentation of the rock in the immediate
vicinity of blastholes. The approach utilises results from blast
chamber testing of representative rock samples, which were then
linked in a logical way with the widely used Kuz-Ram model.
This new model demonstrates potential for the prediction of
the complete fragment size distribution curve, regardless of the
type of rock and amount of fines generated. This method is
relatively simple to use, based on the experimental data, and
allows reasonably accurate prediction of laboratory blast
fragmentation. It shows the potential for determining ROM blast
fragmentation even at the feasibility stage of mine design. Future
work will be required to verify the accuracy of this method by
comparing it with measured ROM data, as well as in the
development of a more specific model of rock matrix dynamic
fragmentation caused by shear failure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank JKMRC and sponsoring
companies of the AMIRA Mine-Mill Project P483, for their
permission to publish and their financial support. Sponsors of the
project are: Acacia Resources, Hamersley Iron, BHP-Iron Ore,
BHP-Manganese, MIM Holdings, ISCOR, Newcrest Mining and
KCGM. Blast chamber testing was performed with help of Mr
Darren Thornton, Dr Sarma Kanchibotla, Mr Robert Sovar and
Mr Simon Mishoux. The author would like to thank Dr Bill
Whiten for his helpful suggestions and review of this paper. The
author also would like to thank Dr Gideon Chitombo, Dr Tim
Napier-Munn and Mr Mike Higgins for their encouragement and
comments.
REFERENCES
Aler, J, Du, Mouza J and Arnold, M, 1996. Evaluation of blast
fragmentation efficiency and its prediction by multivariate analysis
procedures, Int J Rock Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr,
33(2):189-196.
Crum, S, Rholl, S and Stagg, M, 1990. The fragmentation of granite
cylinders using high explosives, in Proceedings 6th Research
Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Technique, pp 179-191
(Society of Explosives Engineers: Solon, Ohio).
Cunningham, C V B, 1987. Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz-Ram
Model - four years on, in Proceedings 2nd International Symposium
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 475-487, Keystone Colorado.
Gilvarry, J J, 1961. Fracture of brittle solids - I. Distribution function for
fragment size in single fracture (theoretical), J App Phys,
32(3):391-399.
Hoek, E and Brown, E T, 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion - a
1988 update, in Proceedings 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics
Symposium, pp 31-38 (Toronto University Press: Toronto).
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc, 1997. FLAC Manual, Ver 3.3,
(Minneapolis, Minnesota).
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, 1996. Open pit blast
design-analysis and optimisation, (Ed: A Scott) pp 98 - 101
(University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia).
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre/Australian Mineral
Industries Research Association, 1997. Optimization of mine
fragmentation for downstream processing, Project P483, second
progress report.
Kuznetsov, V M, 1973. The mean diameter of fragments formed by
blasting rock, Sov Min Sci, 9(2):144-148.
Lownds, C M, 1983. Computer modelling of fragmentation from an array
of shotholes, in Proceedings 1st International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 455-468.
Persson, Per-Anders, Holmberg R and Lee, J, 1994. Rock Blasting and
Explosives Engineering (CRC Press Inc: Boca Raton).
Tedesco, J W, Powel, J C, Allen Ross, C and Hughes, M L, 1997. A
strain-rate dependent concrete material model for ADINA,
Computers and Structures, 64(5/6):1053-1067.
Turcotte, D L, 1986. Fractals and Fragmentation, J Geophys Res,
91(B2):1921-1926.
The AusIMM Proceedings No 2 1999 13
A TWO-COMPONENT MODEL OF BLAST FRAGMENTATION
FIG 3 - Application of the TCM and Kuz-Ram model for prediction of
production blast fragmentation.
FIG 4 - Modeled and observed production blast fragmentation in the open
pit copper mine.