Characterising the Blasting

Properties of Iron Ore

A Scott1 and I Onederra2

ABSTRACT
Most iron ores occur in mine benches as complex mixtures of lithologies and ore types. This
significantly complicates their characterisation for both blast design and fragmentation modelling.
A great deal of technical and research effort has been applied to the development of models
to predict fragmentation from rock blasting. A number of quite useful engineering models are
currently available to blasting engineers and consultants, and more sophisticated approaches using
mechanistic descriptions of rock breakage continue to be developed and applied by researchers
and explosives companies.
The engineering or empirical models that are in more general use within the industry, such as the
Kuz-Ram model, require appropriate data if they are to generate useful fragmentation predictions.
Some of these models have reached significant sophistication and have made very useful
contributions to both routine blasting operations and the exploration of new blasting paradigms.
However, these models struggle to adequately deal with rock that is as complex as iron ore. This
paper reviews the characteristics of the most successful blast fragmentation models available to the
industry and discusses approaches to the derivation of suitable rock mass properties to adequately
describe blast fragmentation in a range of iron ores.

INTRODUCTION
It is obvious to argue that in order to design an effective blast,
it is helpful to be able to predict how it will perform in the
field. However, such predictions have always been, and to
some extent still remain, fairly imprecise. The aspects of blast
performance that are of most interest to an open pit mine
include fragmentation, swell, muck pile movement and damage
to adjacent benches. Rules of thumb, nomograms, empirical
design rules and numerical models have been developed and
used over the years to address each of these blasting outcomes.
However, the design of most mine production blasts generally
relies on some relatively simple geometric relationships guided
by observations from the field essentially design rules that
have been honed by trial and error.
This paper addresses one of these blast outcomes in a
particular type of mine the prediction of blast fragmentation
in open pit iron ore mines. Fragmentation in these operations
is of interest in order to:
avoid boulders or oversized fragments that reduce the
efficiency of excavation and require secondary breakage
influence the proportion of fines in the run-of-mine (ROM)
ore, which may affect the market into which the ore is sold
affect the distribution of ROM particle sizes, which may
influence the design and efficiency of ore processing
operations.
An understanding of the range of expected fragmentation
outcomes is important to the design of ore handling and
process plants prior to the commencement of operations as
is the management of fragmentation performance throughout
the mines operating life. The prediction of blast fragmentation
depends on the use of a model that adequately responds to
the breakage processes and outcomes that are of importance
to the mining operation and an adequate description of the
relevant rock mass properties.
BLAST DESIGN
Local experience
A mining operation quickly develops a history of performance
that can be used to guide future designs. This can be
particularly effective in consistent geological environments
where surprises are minimal. However, this process is always
chasing its tail when conditions change or the required
blasting outcomes need to be varied. Industry experience
can be of some assistance when designing for a greenfield
development, but this experience is unlikely to apply to the
detailed characteristics of the ores found in a new mining area.
Traditional design rules
The literature abounds with texts providing blast design
guidelines and rules. Although sometimes contradictory
because of the diverse background of the authors, general
trends are evident in the design rules available. These
guidelines can be used to relate the burden to the blasthole
diameter, the burden to blasthole spacing via a spacing to
burden ratio, stemming lengths and subdrill lengths in terms
of multiples of the hole diameter and even the size of the

1. FAusIMM(CP), Consulting Mining Engineer, Scott Mine Consulting Services Pty Ltd, PO Box 5126, Kenmore Qld 4069. Email: andrew@scottmining.com.au
2. Senior Lecturer, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, University of Queensland, St Lucia Qld 4072. Email: i.onederra@uq.edu.au

IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015 481

A SCOTT AND I ONEDERRA
granular material used to stem the holes. Figure 1 shows the
style of nomograph published by Langefors and Khilstrom
(1978), which was a convenient way to capture these sorts of
relationships.
Many of these design rules have been refined and focused
over the years and have been made available in industry
handbooks and courses, conference papers, textbooks and
advice from consultants. A problem with these design rules
is that they offer advice on how to develop blast designs that
would generate satisfactory or good fragmentation when
blasting the type of rock in which the author had experience,
but not specific or tailored blasting outcomes.
These design rules are able to provide guidance to overcome
common blasting problems (eg avoiding excessive oversize
by improving the energy distribution within the blast) or
influence the fragmentation outcome (eg using higher velocity
of detonation explosive to increase the proportion of fines in
the muck). However, they are still not able to predict what the
particle size distribution of the blasted muck is likely to be
when a particular blast design is applied to a particular rock
mass. In fact, the rock and its properties are provided minimal
influence in most blast design guidelines.
FIG 1 Example of a blast design nomograph.
FIG 2 Chronology of developments in empirical fragmentation modelling.
482
FRAGMENTATION MODELS
Development paths
Scott, Chitombo and Kleine (1993) provide a useful
background to the status of fragmentation modelling 20 years
ago. This paper reviewed the fragmentation models available
at the time and suggested a path for their future development.
The development of models to predict fragmentation from
blasting has since followed the two distinct paths they
identified:
1. an empirical or engineering approach that captures
relationships between known rock mass properties, blast
designs and the subsequent blasting results
2. a mechanistic or fundamental approach that focuses on
the underlying physics of the detonation behaviour of
explosives and rock breakage.
Empirical or engineering approaches
As summarised in Figure 2, steady progress is evident in the
development of empirical fragmentation models. The starting
point can be traced back to Rosin and Rammler (1933), who
derived the original function adopted by both Kuznetsov
(1973) and Cunningham (1983) to model blast fragmentation.
Bond (1959) also contributed by proposing ways to predict
the mean fragment size, while Johnson (1962) developed
an empirical relationship based on simple crater tests. The
introduction of parameters that linked blast geometry and
charging configurations to fragmentation and resulted in the
Kuz-Ram model (Cunningham, 1983, 1987, 2005) has been
the mainstay of practical blast fragmentation modelling for
the past 30 years. The success of the Kuz-Ram model when
compared with most other approaches is due to its use of
most of the basic blast design parameters in a form that can
be reasonably quantified or estimated from field data, the fact
that it can be executed on a calculator or Excel spreadsheet
and that it can generate reasonable results for simple blasting
situations.
IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015

Further modifications to the Kuz-Ram model were intro
duced in the late 1990s, when developments in fragmentation
modelling saw the introduction of two component modelling
approaches. This allowed for improvements in the prediction
of fine fragmentation (Scott et al, 1998; Kanchibotla, Valery and
Morrell, 1999; Djordjevic, 1999; Thornton, Kanchibotla, and
Brunton, 2001). Over the years, two component approaches
have also been improved through the introduction of more
accurate ways of predicting the potential volume of crushed
material resulting from the crushing and shearing stages
of blasting (Onederra, 2004). These have also incorporated
the Swebrec function proposed by Ouchterlony et al (2006).
Developments in the prediction of very fine size fractions (to
one micron) have also been documented by Scott, Michaux
and Onederra (2009).
Incorporating rock mass variability
Notwithstanding the successful implementation of empirical
fragmentation models, their common constraint is that
they are unable to explicitly consider changes in rock mass
conditions and charging configurations. Current models
assume homogenous and isotropic conditions, with only
mean values used as input parameters. As an attempt to
consider the inherent variability of rock mass input data,
stochastic techniques such as those documented by Thornton,
Kanchibotla and Esterle (2001) and Onederra, Mardones and
Scherpenisse (2010) have been successfully applied. However,
these techniques do not consider the influence of actual
rock mass variability on final breakage and fragmentation
outcomes. As they are built upon current empirical models, the
stochastic approaches still do not take into account the three-
dimensional distribution of explosive charges typical of non-
uniform patterns and charging geometries such as stemming
length variations and decking. As a way of addressing these
limitations, a layered fragmentation modelling approach has
been developed and is currently undergoing evaluation and
validation. This newly developed model is called iFrag and
is an improved version of a methodology first proposed by
Onederra (2004) that has also been successfully incorporated
into a fragmentation model for underground ring blasting
applications.
The iFrag model is based on a combination of well-
established and newly derived empirical rules that allow the
FIG 3 Estimated breakage envelopes within the iFrag modelling framework.
IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015
CHARACTERISING THE BLASTING PROPERTIES OF IRON ORE
determination of fragmentation modelling parameters such
as mean fragment size, fines cut off points and fragmentation
uniformity indices. These modelling parameters are
determined for any given combination of pattern geometry,
explosive charging arrangement and rock mass conditions.
As shown in Figure 3, the extent of breakage (defined by
both crushing and fracturing zones) is discretely estimated
on predefined layers along the length of a blasthole. The
number of layers per blasthole can be defined by the user and
depends on the degree of variability associated with both the
rock mass and explosive charging condition.
It is likely that this model, or models of its type, will find
useful application within the industry in future years.
Mechanistic or fundamental approaches
Several attempts have been made to simulate the dynamic
fracturing process, fragment formation and displacement in
blasting. The numerical methods currently used are based
on finite element, finite difference and discrete element
analysis techniques. They have been applied in isolation and
in combined forms. In most cases, shock wave propagation
and the fracturing process have been modelled with finite
element and finite difference codes. Discrete element codes
have mainly been applied to model particle motion or
rock movement problems. In all three types of numerical
techniques, the geometry of the rock mass is divided into a
number of small elements or zones using a process referred to
as discretisation. The behaviour of each element/zone in the
model is governed by a constitutive law. If the constitutive
law is appropriate and all of the relevant mechanisms are
represented, the model is expected to behave in the same way
as the material being represented. The difference between the
three numerical approaches is in the treatment of the elements
and how the behaviour of each is summed to represent the
problem as a whole.
Sophisticated finite element/discrete element hybrid codes
such as ELFEN, commercially developed and marketed by
Rockfield Software Ltd, can perform both two- and three-
dimensional analysis of stress, fracturing and in-flight block
interaction during the blasting process. The codes capabilities
were improved with the integration of the MBM2D model
developed by Munjiza and Owen (1992), Owen, Munjiza and
483
A SCOTT AND I ONEDERRA
Bicanic (1992) and Minchinton and Lynch (1996). In MBM2D,
the detonation process is modelled using a non-ideal
detonation code called CPeX, which provides the velocity
of detonation and borehole pressure history as inputs to the
MBM2D model.
A discrete element code that has been used to model the
combined mechanical effect of stress waves and high-
pressure gas flow is the particle flow code PFC3D developed
by Itasca Inc (Potyondy, Cundall and Sarracino, 1996). In
this technique, a model is composed of distinct particles that
displace independently from one another and interact only
at contacts. PFC3D allows finite displacements and rotations
of discrete bodies (including complete detachments) and
recognises new contacts automatically as the calculation
progresses. Results from these attempts support the view that
particle flow codes can be successfully implemented in an
advanced blasting model.
In general, the success of earlier models indicated that an
improved code that could simulate detonation, rock fracture
and finally displacement must incorporate fundamental
principles of detonation theory (ideal and non-ideal), stress
wave propagation and interaction in a jointed rock mass,
gas flow, the ability to model continuum and discontinuum
behavior, and the ability to explicitly consider the effect of
different boundary conditions. This has been achieved within
the Hybrid Stress Blasting Model (HSBM), for which final
validation and commissioning is currently being conducted.
The HSBM can be described as a sophisticated blast modelling
research tool. The code has been under development for the
last 11 years as part of an international collaborative research
project funded by a consortium of companies comprising
explosive and equipment suppliers and major mining houses.
Over the course of its development, several improvements
and modifications have been made to both the detonation
and geomechanical modelling components in order to
improve calculation speed and the size of the problem that
can be modelled. A detailed description of the framework and
validation work is given by Furtney, Cundall and Chitombo
(2009) and Onederra et al (2013).
Codes such as the HSBM are still limited to research
applications because they are computationally demanding
and require specialist input for calibration. Todays practical
problems have to be tackled using simpler approaches.
THE BLASTING PROPERTIES OF A ROCK MASS
Concept
It seems trite to suggest that the fragmentation expected from
any blast will be heavily dependent on the properties of the
rock mass to be blasted. However, most empirical models
rely on a simple rock factor to describe the influence of
the rock mass properties on the blasting outcome. Previous,
current and emerging mechanistic models need to use explicit
rock mass properties that require sophisticated laboratory
measurements and detailed rock mass structural data if
realistic outcomes are to be generated. The industry has been
caught between excessively simple rock mass descriptions
for the empirical models and excessively complex data
requirements for the mechanistic models.
Data required by mechanistic models
The detailed mechanistic models attempt to honour the
actual physics of the dynamic loading applied to a structured
rock mass and the response of the rock mass in terms of its
subsequent breakage and movement. The detailed behaviour
of the explosive depends on the response of the rock mass
484
and the parameters required by the algorithms involved are
complex. The data driving the thermodynamic codes and
dynamic response of the rock substance in both their sonic
and supersonic states require sophisticated laboratory testing
and analyses.
It is simply not yet practical to obtain these data for
the complex environment of an operating mine. Simpler
approaches are required.
Empirical approaches
A detailed discussion about historical approaches to quantify
the blasting characteristics of a rock mass is provided
by JKMRC (1996a) and is still relevant today. Most early
approaches sought to identify a rock mass factor or
coefficient that could be inserted into a general formula to
generate the required blast design parameter or fragmentation
outcome. An example of this is the rock factor in the Kuz-
Ram model, which was based on a general assessment of the
competence of the rock mass to be blasted. In the Kuz-Ram
model, a rock factor of seven represented medium rocks, ten
represented hard, fissured rocks and 13 represented very
hard, weakly fissured rocks.
A more systematic approach was provided by Lilly (1986),
who introduced a number of rock mass parameters to generate
a rock factor for Cunninghams Kuz-Ram model to more
appropriately describe the blasting properties of iron ore.
Lillys approach has proven to be very practical, relying on
the field assessment of rock mass structure (massive, blocky
or friable), joint plane spacing, joint plane orientation relative
to the blast volume and the density and strength of the rock.
Estimates of these parameters were combined by a formula
to generate a single rock factor for use in both blast design
(related to powder factor) and the Kuz-Ram fragmentation
model.
A number of variants of Lillys index have been generated
by various workers. Perhaps the most useful form of Lillys
index uses the approach adopted by Bickers et al (2001) shown
in Figure 4. The rock mass description follows the geological
strength index approach developed by Hoek, Marinos and
Benissi (1998). In this application, the blastability index
(BI), or rock factor (RF), has been modified by combining
the original rock mass description and joint plane spacing
parameter into a single rating. The joint plane orientation,
rock density influence and rock strength parameters remain
as documented by Lilly.
The value of Lillys approach is that it incorporates many
of the properties that are important to blasting performance,
including rock substance strength, rock mass structure and
density. The form of the index also suits the assessment of
these parameters in the field because each of them is the result
of a field-based estimate rather than a refined measurement.
A successful empirical approach
The following describes the application of an advanced
empirical fragmentation model and the characterisation of the
rock mass upon which it relies. The original Kuz-Ram model
had the following shortcomings:
it relied on a simplistic description of the rock mass
(represented as a qualitative rock factor)
it tended to overestimate the coarse end of the resulting
size distribution because it did not adequately respond to
the structure of the rock mass
it tended to significantly underestimate the fine end of the
resulting size distribution because it was forced to fit a
Rosin-Rammler distribution curve.
IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015
 CHARACTERISING THE BLASTING PROPERTIES OF IRON ORE

FIG 4 Modified blastability index based on the geological strength index approach (Bickers et al, 2001).

The original concept behind the Kuz-Ram model has been

significantly extended to develop a model that:
uses a Kuz-Ram-like algorithm to estimate the mean
particle size
uses a modified RF (of the style proposed by Lilly (1986))
based on data typically available from drill core rather
than face mapping
uses an estimate of the in situ block size distribution for
the rock mass to influence and limit the coarse end of the
fragmentation curve
uses a form of crushed zone model and the in situ block
size distribution of the rock mass to influence the fine end
of the fragmentation curve
FIG 5 Relationship between unconfined
generates a final size distribution using a Swebrec function
compressive strength and strength factor.
(Ouchterlony et al, 2006), which has been demonstrated
to provide a much better fit to actual rock fragment size
distributions from blasting than the popular alternatives
responds to the basic explosive properties (density,
effective energy and velocity of detonation), explosive
distribution, subdrill and stemming lengths.
The resulting model has been applied to a wide range of
practical blasting situations and has been relied upon in a
large number of feasibility and field studies.
A rock factor (RF) is used to drive the mean fragment size
calculation and guide the explosive energy requirements
for blast design. RF is estimated based on a combination
of three basic influences: rock strength, rock structure and
rock density. The individual factors are estimated using the
relationships shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7. FIG 6 Relationship between density and density factor.

IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015 485

A SCOTT AND I ONEDERRA
FIG 7 Relationship between fracture frequency and structure factor.
The RF used by the model to estimate the mean fragment
size is estimated from:
RF = 11.5 * (strengthfactor * structurefactor *densityfactor) - 1 (1)
The RF is also used to estimate a nominal energy factor that
can be used to guide initial blast designs for the rock mass
being considered. Energy factor is the powder factor resulting
from a blast design modified by the effective energy allocated
to the explosive being used relative to ammonium nitrate/
fuel oil (ANFO) (JKMRC, 1996a). An initial target energy
factor can be calculated from:
EF = 0.295 e(0.1222 * RF) (2)
where: Modelling single species
EF is the energy factor in kilograms per bank cubic metre
RF is the rock factor defined previously
Examples of the RFs for different iron ore types are provided
in the next section.
In addition to the basic RF parameter influencing the mean
fragment size resulting from a blast, the model uses the
fracture frequency data to influence the coarse end of the
fragment size distribution curve. Higher fracture frequency
indicates a more fractured rock mass, which will generate
smaller fragments at the coarse end of the fragmentation
curve.
The rock strength influences the extent of fines expected
from the blast using a near-field crushing model of the form
used by Kanchibotla, Valery and Morrell (1999). Weaker rocks
will suffer finer fragmentation closer to each charge than
stronger rocks, and this crushing effect near each blasthole is
added to the general distribution of fragment sizes generated
by the model.
IRON ORE
Why is it different?
Most blasting research, and hence the aforementioned
fragmentation models, have focused on hard rocks like those
encountered in quarries and base and precious metal mines.
Some approaches have been extended to adequately deal
with weaker materials common in coal environments, but,
other than Lillys original blasting index, little work has been
directly focused on the fragmentation of iron ore.
Australian iron ores can be very complex in a physical
sense. They can vary significantly in terms of their strength,
structure and density the three principal characteristics that
influence blast fragmentation. The impact of this variability is
amplified by the fact that it can occur within a single bench or
blast volume.
486
Australias large-scale iron ore industry was initially
focused on mining the Premium Brockman ores of Mt Tom
Price and Mt Whaleback (OBrien, 2009). Reserves of these
premium ores are limited, and more recent developments
have focused on other hematite-goethite, Marra Mamba and
channel iron deposits. There are also very large magnetite
resources currently under evaluation, but they are yet to
reach large scales of production.
Blasting characteristics of iron ores
The blasting characteristics of Australian iron ores vary
considerably. Table 1 provides a summary of some indicative
blasting properties for a number of iron ore types.
TABLE 1
Typical blasting properties for a range of iron ore types.
Type Strength Fracture Density Rock
(MPa) frequency (t/bcm) factor
Magnetite 180 2 3.5 10.1
Massive hematite 150 2 3.4 9.2
Blocky hematite 130 4 3.2 7.9
Banded iron 110 10 3 6.5
Hematite/goethite 70 5 3.1 5.4
Goethite/limonite 25 20 2.9 1.9
Armed with the parameters shown in Table 1, it is a simple
matter to model the fragmentation expected from blasting
each of these materials. Table 2 shows examples of each of
these materials and the fragmentation predicted when they
are blasted using the same blast design. The blast design was
based on a 12 m high bench and utilised a pattern of 251 mm
diameter blastholes on a 7.0 7.9 m pattern charged with
a heavy ANFO explosive with a density of 1.15 g/cc. This
design results in an average powder factor of 0.73 kg/bcm.
The number of boulders (rocks greater than 1 m in
dimension) expected per truckload is a convenient way to
visualise the coarse end of the fragment size distribution.
The 80 percent and 50 percent passing sizes are often used
to guide excavation models, and the proportion of fines less
than 15 mm is often considered to be a useful parameter for
subsequent material handling and ore treatment.
Modelling mixtures of ores
The results from such modelling is often disappointing, usually
involving an underestimate of the fine end of the blasted
fragment size distribution. The reason for this is that it is quite
uncommon to find a single species with consistent blasting
properties in a mining face, let alone in an entire blasting block.
The problem lies in attempting to provide the model with
the properties of a mixture of rock mass components by
treating them as a single species. Magnetite and some of the
traditional massive hematites can present essentially as a
single species within a blast volume. However, the majority
of ores currently being mined are more like the blocky
hematite, hematite/goethite and goethite/limonite examples
in Table 2. These clearly present the blaster with a mixture of
materials. In these cases, it is useful to consider the mixtures
as consisting of three components:
a host matrix
a hard component
a component of fines.
IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015
 CHARACTERISING THE BLASTING PROPERTIES OF IRON ORE

TABLE 2
Example of different types of iron ores and their relative blasting performance.

Ore type Appearance Boulders/truck 80% passing (mm) 50% passing (mm) Fines <15 mm (%)

Magnetite 6.8 761 275 9.5

Massive hematite 6.4 728 247 10.8

Blocky hematite 2.5 573 213 11.5

Banded iron 0 409 178 12.0

Hematite/goethite 1.3 460 174 17.4

Goethite/limonite 0 193 53 32.4

Most fragmentation models rely on the properties of the

host matrix material and consequently ignore the contribution TABLE 3
of the harder component or fine component. The resulting Fragmentation results for components and mixtures.
analyses are likely to describe the breakage behaviour of this
Blocky hematite Matrix Hards Fines
matrix material reasonably, but ignore the contribution of the
harder components, which will behave quite differently during Proportion (%) 47.5 47.5 5
blasting than the matrix, and also ignore the fine material that is Density 3.0 3.2
unlikely to suffer significant further breakage during blasting. Strength 40 120
Table 3 summarises the results from modelling blast
Fracture frequency 5 3
fragmentation for the mixture ores in Table 1 using this
composite approach. The blast design and fragmentation Run-of-mine size Boulders X80 (mm) X50 (mm) Fines (%)
model are the same, but the rock mass has been characterised in Previous analysis 2.5 573 213 12
greater detail. The predicted fragment size distribution in the Component model 2.5 470 130 23
resulting muck piles is generally finer for the multicomponent
model because the materials that contribute to the generation Hematite/goethite Matrix Hards Fines
of fines have been represented more realistically. Proportion (%) 30 60 10
A feature of these types of ores is that the components Density 2.9 3.0
(the matrix, the harder components and the fines) tend to be Strength 20 60
consistent in character, but vary in proportion. Therefore,
Fracture frequency 10 5
the next blast is likely to encounter a different combination
of essentially the same materials. This means that once the Run-of-mine size Boulders X80 (mm) X50 (mm) Fines (%)
fragmentation characteristics of the component materials Previous analysis 1.3 460 174 17
have been modelled, it should be possible to estimate the
Component model 0.6 360 74 33
fragmentation from the whole blast by calculating the
weighted average or the percent passing each size based on Goethite/limonite Matrix Hards Fines
the proportion of each component. If additional components Proportion (%) 52.2 32.5 15
can be identified, then these can also be treated in the same
Density 3.0 3.2
way as the principal components shown in Table 1.
Strength 20 30
The challenge is to then establish the blasting characteristics of
each component of the rock mass and their relative abundance Fracture frequency 20 10
in any given blast volume. Dealing with the ore as a mixture Run-of-mine size Boulders X80 (mm) X50 (mm) Fines (%)
of its significant physical components enables the range of Previous analysis 0 193 53 32
physical properties relevant to blasting to be provided to the
model rather than an approximation of these properties. Component model 0 190 30 44

IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015 487

A SCOTT AND I ONEDERRA
SOURCES OF DATA
Drill core
For a greenfield site, there is little choice other than to rely on
drill core for the characterisation of the material to be blasted.
The fragmentation model used here has been designed to
utilise the data available from drill core. The basic data
requirements can be met from the following sources.
Strength measurements
Samples of core can be prepared in a laboratory for
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing.
Samples of core can be prepared in a core shed for point
load strength (PLS) testing:
As PLS tests are simple to undertake, many tests
can be made. This allows an understanding of the
variability of the rock strength, and any anisotropy
can be identified by testing specimens along the axis
and across the diameter of core samples.
PLS is usually multiplied by a factor of 2024 to
estimate the equivalent UCS.
Core samples can be used to measure sonic parameters
(P and S wave velocities), which can be related to rock
competence.
Core samples may be used to measure energy-breakage
relationships to guide the design of crushing facilities. The
drop weight crushing indices (A*b) (JKMRC, 1996b) can
also be related to static strength (Scott, Morrell and Clark,
2002).
Most logging formats provide for the assessment of a
field strength index, based on the response of the sample
to being scratched or struck by a geologists pick. While
indicative only, such indices can be used effectively to
identify strong and weak zones within the core.
Fracture frequency
While some care is required to distinguish between natural
fractures within the rock mass and breakage resulting from
drilling and handling the core, the number of natural or
in situ fractures observed over any length of core would
be recorded by most logging schemes. It is then a simple
matter to estimate the number of fractures per metre of core.
All core should be photographed, and it is not difficult to
get a reasonable estimate of fracture frequency from an
inspection of core photographs.
The relationship proposed by White (1977) allows the in
situ block size to be estimated based on fracture frequency.
Most logging procedures include the calculation of rock
quality designation (RQD). This is simply the percentage
of the core that is intact in lengths of 100 mm or longer.
While higher values of RQD are likely to refer to better
quality rock, the same RQD value can be correctly ascribed
to rocks with a wide range of fracture characteristics.
Nevertheless, relationships between RQD and fracture
frequency can be useful (Palmstrom, 2005).
Density
Samples of core can be subjected to laboratory density
measurements.
As some iron ores can be porous, it is useful to obtain
both coated and uncoated density results so that the true
substance density is known together with an estimate of
the rocks porosity.
488
Face samples and mapping
In an operating mine, there should be frequent access
available to bench faces. While safety requirements limit
human access to this environment, there are a number of
laser and photographic tools available that allow detailed
mapping to be undertaken in an office environment. Coupled
with geological interpretation and supplemented by strength
and density data from hand samples collected when access
is available, the basic characterisation requirements for
fragmentation modelling can be met.
Logging drill cuttings
Although drill cuttings are not available until the blasthole
pattern has been decided and drilled, they do provide the
opportunity to interpret the range of rock types present in the
blast volume and their approximate location. These techniques
have been routine in most operating mines to characterise the
ore types, grade and contaminants present in the blast block.
This work has been extended by some operations to capture
data to influence the explosive charge design and estimate the
resulting blast fragmentation.
Blasthole drill performance
The concept of monitoring the performance of the blasthole
drill and interpreting the relative strength of the rock to be
blasted is not a new idea. The concept faced many technical
challenges in the late 20th century, but with the development
of accurate GPS systems, drill control and automation systems
and communication and data management tools, there is
no technical barrier to this concept being realised. Directly
linking the resulting rock characterisation data to a smart
explosives truck is part of this emerging process.
While drilling data can readily provide relative strength
information, it struggles to reliably generate structural
information. The real value of having access to drilling data is to
track changes within the rock mass so that base characteristics
determined from more fundamental measurements can be
applied to the variable rock mass as a whole. In its simplest
form, just tracking the location and thickness of hard or soft
zones across a drill pattern is of value provided that the basic
blasting properties of these zones and the parent rock mass
have been determined from other sources.
Geophysics
Downhole geophysical logs can provide a basic description
of rock competence in an iron ore environment. Density,
magnetic susceptibility and natural gamma have been used
to distinguish a range of ore types. However, the situation is
similar to the interpretation of drilling performance in that the
basic geophysical and physical characteristics of the materials
present need to be determined based on other measurements.
The distribution of these materials within the blast volume
can then be interpreted based on the downhole geophysical
response.
Summary
The characterisation of the fundamental blasting properties
of a rock type is best achieved through physical sampling
and testing, logging and mapping. This can be achieved
from core or face mapping and sampling. Remote and
potentially automated characterisation techniques, such as
drill monitoring and downhole geophysics, can then provide
valuable information about the distribution of the identified
rock types within a blast volume.
IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015
 CHARACTERISING THE BLASTING PROPERTIES OF IRON ORE

AN EXAMPLE OF MODELLING THE Having characterised the blasting properties of each of

the component ore types and modelled the fragmentation
FRAGMENTATION OF A MIXTURE OF ORE expected for any given blast design, the size distribution
TYPES expected from blasting any combination of these ore types can
Core from a 12 m zone within a bedded iron deposit is shown be easily calculated. Data from drill monitoring, analysis of
in Figure 8. Core logging and testing of samples of these drill cuttings, geophysical logging or face mapping can then
materials generated the blasting properties shown in Table4. be used to allocate the proportion of each of these types to
The core had been characterised as either being massive, any given blast bench to estimate the fragmentation expected.
blocky, broken or unconsolidated. A visual assessment
rated this 12 m interval to contain 14 percent massive, CONCLUSION
58percent blocky and 28 percent broken ore. A great deal of technical and research effort has been applied
The blasting properties shown in Table 4 have been used to the development of models to predict fragmentation from
to model the fragmentation expected when ore with the rock blasting. A number of quite useful engineering models
properties of each of these characteristics is blasted using a are currently available to blasting engineers and consultants,
suitable blast design. In this instance, the design involved and more sophisticated approaches using mechanistic
251 mm diameter blastholes on a 7.7 8.9 m pattern charged descriptions of rock breakage continue to be developed and
with ANFO. This design results in an overall powder factor applied by researchers and explosives companies.
of 0.42 kg/bcm. When the ROM fragment size distributions The mechanistic models struggle to adequately represent
for each of these components are weight averaged, the size the rock mass properties that genuinely control rock breakage
distribution shown in Figure 9 results. under the action of an explosive charge. The explosiverock
interaction that controls the velocity of detonation, dynamic
breakage behaviour of the rock substance under super
and subsonic loading conditions and the distribution and
behaviour of the in situ rock mass defects make the provision
of these explicit parameters for a detailed breakage model
highly challenging in even simple blasting situations.
Even the much simpler engineering models that are in
more general use within the industry, such as the Kuz-
Ram model, require appropriate data if they are to generate
useful fragmentation predictions. Some of these models
have reached significant sophistication and have made very
useful contributions to both routine blasting operations and
the exploration of new blasting paradigms. However, these
models struggle to adequately deal with rock as complex as
iron ore.
Most iron ores in mine benches occur as complex mixtures
FIG 8 Core from a 12 m zone within a bedded iron deposit.
of lithologies and ore types. This significantly complicates
TABLE 4 their characterisation for both blast design and fragmentation
Blasting properties of the ore types in Figure 8. modelling. It is commonly observed that the properties of
each of these components tend to be fairly consistent within
Form Weathering Strength Fracture Density a deposit, but that the proportion of each of them in a given
(MPa) frequency (t/bcm) blast bench can vary significantly.
In order to generate a meaningful estimate of fragmentation
Massive Fresh 12 2 2.67
from the blasting of a mine bench containing a number
Weathered 8 2 2.67 of component ore types, it is necessary to use a model that
Blocky Fresh 8 5 2.67 responds to the required breakage mechanisms and provide
data that allows the model to respond appropriately. The
Weathered 4 5 2.67
complexity of most iron ores is such that this process needs
Broken 4 15 2.67 to be undertaken for each ore component individually and
Unconsolidated 4 150 2.67 the results combined to represent the outcome from the actual
bench blast.
Suitable information for this process can be obtained from
drill core when working on greenfield projects. Field samples
can be used to determine the blasting characteristics of the
materials encountered in an operating mine. Routine data
collection from the analysis of cuttings, drill performance,
face mapping or geophysics can be used to map the
distribution of the component ore types throughout the blast
volume, enabling blast design and fragmentation modelling
to be undertaken. It is not difficult to envisage automated
systems being configured to achieve this and the results used
to determine the detailed charge and initiation designs for
blasts to meet targeted performance characteristics. Although
they will continue to improve and develop with time, suitable
FIG 9 Weighted run-of-mine size distribution empirical blasting models exist to meet these requirements.
for a 12 m bench in fresh bedded iron. The development of detailed mechanistic models is well

IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015 489

A SCOTT AND I ONEDERRA
advanced, but the provision of suitable data to enable them
to generate useful outcomes in practical blasting situations
remains a challenge.
REFERENCES
Bickers, C F, Dunbar, C T, LeJuje, G E and Walker, P A, 2001. Wall
control blasting practices at BHP Billiton Iron Ore Mt Whaleback,
in Proceedings EXPLO 2001, pp 93102 (The Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Bond, F, 1959. The work index in blasting, Quarterly of the Colorado
School of Mines, 54(3):7782.
Cunningham, C V B, 1983. The Kuz-Ram model for prediction or
fragmentation from blasting, in Proceedings First International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 439453 (Lulea
University of Technology: Lulea).
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 475487 (Society
for Experimental Mechanics: Bethel).
Cunningham, C V B, 2005. The Kuz-Ram fragmentation model 20
years on, in Proceedings EFEE World Blasting Conference, pp 201
210 (European Federation of Explosives Engineers: London).
Djordjevic, N, 1999. Two-component of blast fragmentation, in
Proceedings 6th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, pp 213219 (South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Johannesburg).
Furtney, J K, Cundall, P A and Chitombo, G P, 2009. Developments
in numerical modeling of blast induced rock fragmentation:
updates from the HSBM project, in Proceedings 9th International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 335342 (Taylor
& Francis Group: Abingdon).
Hoek, E, Marinos, P and Benissi, M, 1998. Applicability of the
geological strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and
sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation,
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 57(2):151160
Johnson, J B, 1962. Small-scale blasting in mortar, 22 p, volume 6012,
US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines R1 6012.
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), 1996a.
Open Pit Blast Design Analysis and Optimisation (ed: A Scott),
pp112145 (University of Queensland: Brisbane).
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), 1996b.
Mineral Comminution Circuits Their Operation and Optimisation
(ed: T Napier-Munn), pp 4994 (University of Queensland:
Brisbane).
Kanchibotla, S S, Valery, W and Morrell, S, 1999. Modelling fines in
blast fragmentation and its impact on crushing and grinding, in
Proceedings EXPLO 99, pp 137144 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Kuznetsov, V, 1973. The mean diameter of fragments formed by
blasting rock, Soviet Mining Science, 9(2):144148.
Langefors, U and Khistrom, B, 1978. The Modern Technique of Rock
Blasting, third edition, 405 p (John Wiley and Sons: New York).
Lilly, P, 1986. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability,
in Proceedings Large Open Pit Mining Conference, pp 4144,
8992 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Minchinton, A and Lynch, P M, 1996. Fragmentation and heave
modelling using a coupled discrete element gas flow code, in
Proceedings 5th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, pp 7180 (Balkema: Rotterdam).
490
Munjiza, A and Owen, R J, 1992. Discrete element models of rock
blasting, Engineering Modelling, 5:6573.
OBrien, R, 2009. Australias iron ore product quality [online], Geoscience
Australia. Available from: <http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.
au/mapping/files/australianironorequality.pdf>.
Onederra, I, 2004. A fragmentation modelling framework for
underground ring blasting applications, Fragblast: International
Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 8:177200.
Onederra, I, Furtney, J, Sellers, E and Iverson, S, 2013. Modelling
blast induced damage from a fully coupled explosive charge,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 58:7384.
Onederra, I, Mardones, F and Scherpenisse, C, 2010. Application of
stochastic approach to blast fragmentation modelling, Mining
Technology, 119:221232.
Ouchterlony, F, Olsson, M, Nyberg, U, Andersson, P and Gustavsson,
L, 2006. Constructing the fragment size distribution of a bench
blasting round, using the new Swebrec function, in Proceedings
8th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
pp332344 (Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon).
Owen, D R J, Munjiza, A and Bicanic, N, 1992. A finite element
dicrete element approach to the simulation of rock blasting
problems, in Proceedings 11th Symposium on Finite Element Methods
in South Africa, pp 3958 (FRD/UCT Centre for Research in
Computational and Applied Mathematics: Rondebosch).
Palmstrom, A, 2005. Measurements of and Correlations between
block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunnels and
Underground Space Technology, 20:362377.
Potyondy, D O, Cundall, P A and Sarracino, R S, 1996. Modelling of
shock and gas-driven fractures induced by a blast using bonded
assemblies of spherical particles, in Proceedings 5th International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 5562 (Balkema:
Rotterdam).
Rosin, R and Rammler, E, 1933. Laws governing fineness of powdered
coal, Journal of the Institute of Fuel, 7:2936.
Scott A, Chitombo, G and Kleine, T, 1993. The challenge of the
prediction and control of fragmentation in mining, in Proceedings
4th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
pp507517 (Balkema: Rotterdam).
Scott, A, David, D, Alvarez, O and Veloso, L, 1998. Managing fines
generation in the blasting and crushing operations at Cerro
Colorado Mine, in Proceedings Mine to Mill Conference, pp141
148 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Scott, A, Michaux, S and Onederra, I, 2009. Characterising dust
generation from blasting, in Proceedings 9th International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 663671 (Taylor
& Francis Group: Rotterdam).
Scott, A, Morrell, S and Clark, D, 2002. Tracking and quantifying
value from mine to mill improvement, in Proceedings Value
Tracking Symposium, pp 7784 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Thornton, D, Kanchibotla, S and Brunton, I, 2001. Modelling the impact
of rockmass and blast design variation on blast fragmentation, in
Proceedings EXPLO 01, pp 331345 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Thornton, D M, Kanchibotla, S S and Esterle, J S, 2001. A frag-
mentation model to estimate ROM size distribution of soft rock
types, in Proceedings 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Techniques, pp 4153 (International Society of Explosives
Engineers: Cleveland).
White, D, 1977. Predicting fragmentation characteristics of a block
caving orebody, MSc thesis (unpublished), University of Arizona,
Tucson.
IRON ORE CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 1315 JULY 2015