Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
crushing
Finn Ouchterlony
BLAST FRAGMENTATION
In an area as complicated as rock fragmentation by
blasting, Cunninghams KuzRam model4,5,13 has for 20
years done an invaluable job in fostering a structured
approach to what can be done to change the
fragmentation pattern. Much experience has gone into
the equations that describe the defining parameters, the
median or 50% passing size x50 and the uniformity
exponent n of the underlying RosinRammler cumulative
fragment size distribution in Figure 1:
P (x) = 1 - e - ln 2 (x/x
50
)2
= 1 - 2 - (x/x
DOI 10.1179/037178405X44539
50
)n
(1)
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A1
Fragment size distribution of blasted hornfels from Mount Coot-tha quarry10 with RosinRammler curve fit.21 Data
range = 0352000 mm. Curve fit parameters x50 = 1158 mm, n = 0572. Coefficient of correlation r2 = 09958
CRUSHING FRAGMENTATION
Traditionally, a quarry or mine produces rock on the
ground for a plant to process. An eye is kept on
hauling and oversize with much less focus on the rest
of the blasted fragment-size distribution. This is
changed with the Mine-to-mill or drill-to-mill approaches.
Still, what blasting and crushing fragmentation or
comminution have in common has been neglected.
Comparison of fragment size distributions in CZM9 and TCM.7 Note different characters of curves but same
linear behaviour in logP versus logx space in fines range
A2 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
Energy register curves3,15 for limestones and the Hengl amphibolite of Figure 3
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A3
Comparison of fragmentation curves from OCS comminution in Figure 3 and model-scale blasts on same
amphibolite15
(2a)
ensures that xmax and x50 are fixed points on the curve
and a suitable choice for f(x) is:
b
Comparison of fragmentation curves from model- and full-scale blasts of Brarp granitic gneiss18
A4 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
(2b)
Fragment size distribution for Brarp round 4 with best fit Swebrec function.21 Data range 05500 mm. Curve fit
parameters: x50 = 459 mm, xmax = 1497 mm and b = 2238 (Table 1). x = 1000 mm is based on oversize counting,
not a sieved value
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A5
Blast-hole
diameter (mm)
x50
(mm)
xmax
(mm)
Range
(mm)
r2
(mm)
Residuals
(% of scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
51
51/76
76
51
38
64
76
468
629
529
459
414
422
511
1090
2011
2346
1497
1517
2076
1509
1778
2735
3189
2238
2398
2651
2261
05500
05500
05500
05500
05500
05500
05500
09966
09976
09969
09973
09977
09977
09968
< 24
< 09
< 18
< 18
< 22
< 22
< 19
b
8 2 $ ln 2 $ ln _ x max x 50 i B
(3)
] b - 1g
x x max = _ x 50 x max i
or
] b - 1g
x x 50 = _ x 50 x max i
b-1
(4)
10 Comparison of Swebrec and RosinRammler fits to coarse fraction data +90 mm and extrapolation to fines
range
A6 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
11 Using Brarp sample data in range 1224 mm plus estimate of xmax to make Swebrec prediction of x50 and coarse
fractions
example of where missing mass fractions might be
successfully determined. Figure 12 gives an example
from a granite quarry where the fines percentage was
known to be 1820% and the largest crushed pieces
were 250300 mm.
The final dip in the Brarp round 4 fragment size
distribution in the 500 m range in Figure 9 may be
taken care of by adding a second term to f(x) in the
Swebrec function (Fig. 13):
b
_1 - a i8 _ x max x - 1i _ x max x 50 - 1i B
(5)
12 Using 05224 mm fraction data from jaw crusher sample of granite plus closed-side setting estimate of xmax =
~300 mm to predict missing fractions. Curve fit parameters: x50 = 77 mm and b = 233
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A7
13 Brarp round 4 data with best fit extended Swebrec function.21 Data range 0075500 mm. Curve fit parameters:
x50 = 459 mm, xmax = 1480 mm, b = 2224, a = 099999812 and c = 20. r2 = 09976. Note magnitude of prefactor
(1a) in Equation (3)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
Table 2 Curve fit data for crusher product samples at Nordkalk,15 xmax free or fixed
Sample
number
x50
(mm)
xmax
(mm)
Range
r2
(mm)
Residuals
(% of scale)
2-01
2-02
2-03
2-04
2-05
2-06
2-07
2-08
2-09
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
Mean SD
759
649
867
485
828
573
847
784
757
868
959
763
649
753 132
300
508
300
376
300
488
320
300
377
345
300
360
300
352 72
2558
2479
2211
2712
2178
2681
2195
2297
2218
2518
2198
2142
2333
236 020
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
09990
09950
09997
09995
09992
09987
09998
09998
09985
09995
09986
09991
09995
09989
< 19
< 33
< 09
< 12
< 16
< 19
< 06
< 06
< 15
< 13
< 20
< 11
< 10
Fixed xmax
2-01
2-02
2-03
2-04
2-05
2-06
2-07
2-08
2-09
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
Mean SD
759
660
868
489
828
582
847
784
759
867
961
764
649
755 130
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
315
2625
1984
2270
2497
2234
2200
2175
2356
2027
2400
2254
2002
2386
226 019
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
09989
09930
09997
09993
09992
09977
09998
09997
09982
09994
09985
09989
09994
09986
< 19
< 32
< 09
< 17
< 16
< 28
< 06
< 07
< 14
< 14
< 20
< 13
< 11
Free xmax
A8 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
14 Fragment size distribution for gyratory crusher product 2 (CSS = 15) of andesite with Swebrec fit.21 Data range
042563 mm. Curve fit parameters: x50 = 356 mm, xmax = 68 mm and b = 1531. r2 = 09961.
Two examples of crusher product size distributions
are shown in Figures 14 and 15. For nearly all these
sets of sieved data, the 3-parameter Swebrec function
gives a better fit that the RosinRammler function.
The experience21 is that good-to-excellent fit to
different kinds of fragmentation data is obtained with
correlation coefficients of usually r2 = 0995 or better
over a range of fragment sizes of 23 orders of
magnitude. This range is at least one order of
magnitude larger than the range covered by the RosinRammler function.
15 Fragment size distribution for belt sample 2-04 of Nordkalk limestone.21 Swebrec function fit with fixed xmax =
315 mm. Data range 025300 mm. Parameters: x50 = 488 mm and b = 2451. r2 = 09994 (Table 2)
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A9
Table 3 Curve fit data for block samples blasted with different explosives11
Explosive
x50 (mm)
xmax (mm)
Range (mm)
r2
Residuals (% of scale)
Extra dynamite
Extra dynamite
Extra dynamite
Dynamite
Dynamite
Dynamite
329
332
338
629
761
721
113
135
124
167
168
184
2441
2635
2437
2053
1813
1976
05100
05100
05100
05150
05150
05150
09976
09969
09970
09955
09938
09936
< 20
< 20
< 20
< 31
< 28
< 46
Extra dynamite
Extra dynamite
Extra dynamite
Dynamite
Dynamite
Dynamite
499
505
466
661
742
781
143
136
142
127
131
133
2233
2102
2198
1657
1607
1592
1125
1125
1100
1125
1125
1125
09984
09994
09996
09996
09994
09988
< 08
< 15
< 06
< 08
< 16
< 20
Extra dynamite
Extra dynamite
Extra dynamite
Dynamite
Dynamite
Dynamite
608
625
668
953
103
106
161
146
168
330
464
408
2465
2279
2537
2939
3559
3261
1125
1125
1125
1100
1100
1100
09990
09988
09958
09985
09995
09989
< 21
< 16
< 51
< 09
< 04
< 07
Syenite
Granite
Gneiss
16 Laboratory ball mill data for limestone after 6 min grinding with extended Swebrec function fit.21 Data range
0063336 mm. Curve fit parameters: x50 = 100 mm, xmax = 336 mm, b = 1010, a = 09911 and c = 1753. r2 =
09995
A10 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
17 JKMRC breakage function for crusher19 at t10 = 30%, with Swebrec function.21 Data range 00251. Curve fit
parameters: 50 = 0197, max = 10 and b = 2431. r2 = 09985
curves all the way into the super fines range (x < 01 mm)
and also of reproducing laboratory ball mill grinding
data (Fig. 16).
It could thus be said that the Swebrec function
gives the fragment size distributions from blasting and
crushing a common form.
P (x) = 1 '1 + 8 ln _ x i ln _ x 50 i B 1
with = x/t and max = 1
(6)
18 Mass passing isolines for constant degrees of size reduction, plotted as function of the breakage index t10. Full
lines denote predictions from Equations (5) and (6)
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A11
]t g
10
(7)
(8)
and the results are plotted in Figure 18. The full lines
were obtained using Equation (8), the dashed ones for
n = 2 and 75 using the value b = 2174 valid for t10 = 20%.
It is seen that the variations in the b-value do make a
difference. The data are well represented by the
isolines, differing by at most 34%.
Excellent fits were also obtained to the data in
Tables 4:7 and 4:9 of Napier-Munn et al.19 This is an
indication that the whole set of spline functions used
to describe the breakage functions could be replaced
by two simple equations Equation (7) and a form of
Equation (8).
The connection with the NBC theory rests on an
observation of the asymptotic behaviour of the Swebrec
function. The parallel shift property in logP versus logx
space reduces to the statement that P(x)/P(x) =
constant, independent of some parameter that describes
the shift. This is not met by the Swebrec function itself
but the behaviour when x 0:
P(x) 1/f(x) yields
P(x)/P(x) f(x)/f(x) = b x ln _ x max x i
which is independent of x50. To retain the meaning of
xmax as the maximum allowable and x50 as the median
fragment size, make the substitutions xmax xc and
x50 xmax. Now xc denotes a characteristic size value
for the distribution, which lies outside the acceptable
range of x-values, 0 xmax.
PNBC _ x i = 8 ln _ x c x max i ln _ x c x i B
with x 50 = x max _ x c x max i
21
(9)
b-1
19 Comparison of three model predictions of the fragment size distribution of the Brarp round 4 muckpile with
actual data in logP versus logx space
A12 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
curve is:
(10)
P _ x i = 1 81 + 1 PNBC _ x i B
(11e)
where:
RMD = rock mass description = 10 (powdery/ friable)
JF (if vertical joints) or 50 (massive)
JF = joint factor = JPS + JPA
(joint plane spacing + joint plane angle)
JPS = 10 (average joint spacing SJ < 01 m), 20 (01 moversize xO) or 50 (> oversize)
JPA = 20 (dip out of face), 30 (strike vertical face) or
40 (dip into face)
RDI = rock density influence = 0025 (kg m3) 50
HF = hardness factor, uses compressive strength c (MPa)
and Youngs modulus E (GPa)
HF = E/3 if E < 50 and c/5 if E > 50.
(11a)
P _ x i = 1 (1 + 8 ln _ x max x i ln _ x max x 50 i B 2
x 50 = ; g _ n i $ A $ Q 1 6 $ _115 s ANFO i
19 30
q 0.8 E
(11b)
b = 8 2 ln 2 $ ln _ x max x 50 i B $ n
0 $1
(11d)
where:
x50 = median or size of 50% passing (cm)
Q = charge weight per hole (kg); q = specific charge (kg m3)
sANFO = explosives weight strength relative to ANFO (%)
B = blast-hole burden (m); S = spacing (m)
h = drill-hole diameter (m)
Lb = length of bottom charge (m)
Lc = length of column charge (m)
Ltot = total charge length, possibly above grade level (m)
H = bench height or hole depth (m)
SD = standard deviation of drilling accuracy (m).
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A13
20 Comparison of three model predictions of the fragment size distribution of the Brarp round 4 muckpile with
actual data in P versus logx space
RosinRammler function and the Swebrec function at
x50, which is expressed by Equation (3), is clear. There
is only one data point for x > x50 in Figure 20. Figure
9 contains a value for x = 1000 mm. The value P(1000
mm) = 983% obtained from boulder counting is not
very accurate but it lies closer to the Swebrec function
curve than to the RosinRammler one. The P(1000
mm) values for the other Brarp rounds range from
75% to 99%.
The final judgement as to whether the Swebrec
function or the RosinRammler function does a better
fitting job for the coarse fractions is left open until
sufficient sieved muckpile data from full-scale blasts
have been studied. The general experience in fitting
the Swebrec function to sieved data sets is that it is
fully capable of reproducing both the fines and the
coarse fractions.
It is hoped that the incorporation of the Swebrec
function in the KuzRam model will enhance the
tools available to blasting engineers and researchers.
Since the underlying size distribution is no longer the
RosinRammler function the name might be changed
to the KCO (KuznetsovCunninghamOuchterlony)
model.
The description of the effects of initiation delay
between blast-holes on fragmentation remains. To do
this properly and to account for systematic variations in
rock mass properties, for example, good numerical models
are required. Model complexity and computation speed
are two factors that, for the time being, limit development
of such models. Until this is overcome, the KCO model
has a role to play.
CONCLUSIONS
A new fragment size distribution function has been
found, which ties together rock fragmentation by
blasting and crushing, the KuzRam, CZM and TCM
models of rock blasting, the JKMRC approach to
A14 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
10.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A15
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Author
Finn Ouchterlony
Author Query
2.
A16 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
and
J.