Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Sanchidrin (ed)

2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48296-7

Fragmentation characterization; the Swebrec function and its use

in blast engineering

F. Ouchterlony
Swebrec, Swedish Blasting Research Centre at Lule University of Technology, Sweden

ABSTRACT: This work summarizes recent research at Swebrec and SveBeFo. It has led to a new
fragment size distribution with an unexpected ability to reproduce sieving curves of all kinds of rock and
concrete/mortar that have been blasted or crushed in almost every conceivable way. The three-parameter
Swebrec function is described but its parameters are not independent. Examples of curve fits are given as
is some advice about the fitting procedure. Its relations to other comminution concepts such as t10 from
JKMRC are explored. How to use the Swebrec function for full-scale blasts is described, especially for
large blasts where the available information is very limited. The final section treats design curves, which
can predict the changes in fragmentation that are caused by changes in specific charge and other geo-
metrical parameters of a bench blast. Evidence to the effect of confining debris at the free face is finally
presented.

1 INTRODUCTION parameters, e.g. the median fragment size x50 and a

uniformity index n. With P(x) the fraction of mass
Fragmentation plus looseness and shape of the passing a sieve cloth with a quadratic mesh of side x,
muck pile are the primary outcomes of a produc- it can e.g. be written P(x) = 1 exp[ln2 (x/x50)n].
tion blast. They determine the effectiveness and One realizes that when x << x50 then P ln2 (x/x50)n
cost of digging, loading, hauling, crushing and and that in a diagram of logP vs. log(x/x50), this
other downstream operations in falling importance. reduces to a straight line of slope n.
Most mines and quarries produce a fragmentation Hardly any sieving data for blasted and crushed
that allows an efficient operation, yet they do not rock look like that though, not even Kuznetsovs
know nor can they accurately measure the frag- (1973) original data, see Figure 1.
ment size distribution they produce. Nor could The Rosin-Rammler function has no upper
they with good accuracy predict the fragmentation size limit xmax either but this may be incorporated
if they change their operating conditions substan-
tially or open production at another site. Passing, %
100
The fragment size distribution in comminution is 90 Kuznetsov table 6
usually determined by sieving and quarry products 80
Rosin-Rammler, r2 = 0,9827
are e.g. classified by their sieving curves. Sieving 70
60 Swebrec function, r2 = 0,9995
could in principle also be applied to the fragmen-
50
tation of a blast, but a complete sieving curve of
a full-size blast round hardly exists. The digital 40
image based technique to measure fragmentation
30
(Franklin & Katsabanis 1996) has many draw-
backs (Ouchterlony 2004, 2005b). A major one is
the limited range of fragment sizes that could be 20
resolved, from xmax down to xmax/10 or xmax/30 e.g.
Another drawback is its tendency to give an erro-
neous form of the size distribution (Ouchterlony
et al. 2006). Yet the method has found many practi- 10
cal applications. 100 1000
Mesh size, mm
The most commonly used fragmentation model .

is the Kuz-Ram (Cunningham 1983, 1987 & 2005). Figure 1. Plot of fragmentation data from Kuznetsov
To describe the sieving curve it uses a single Rosin- (1973) with curve fits. Note deviation from Rosin-
Rammler or Weibull distribution, which has two Rammler behavior.

3
by truncation of the function (King 2001) or a
transformation of the variable x when needed. The
size range in which it gives an accurate description
of the sieving curve is 12 orders of magnitude in
fragment size.
The Kuz-Ram models poor ability to describe
fines was one of the major reasons why the Two
Component Model (TCM; Djordjevic 1999) and
the Crush Zone Model (CZM; Kanchibotla et al.
1999) were developed. Both combine two Rosin-
Rammler distributions or components, one for the
coarse part of the curve and one mainly for the
fines. The ability to reproduce a sieving curve accu-
rately improves at the price of introducing 2 or 3
extra parameters and the problem of a linear size
distribution for the fines in log-log space remains.
Recently Blair (2004) has used both a one- and
two-component log-normal and sigmoidal func-
tion description of fragmentation to compare with
the Rosin-Rammler fits on three sieved data sets.
He restricted his studies to up to 40 % passing, i.e.
he focused on the fines part down to below 0.1 mm.
He found that the two-component lognormal func-
tion with 5 parameters provided the best fits, the
Rosin-Rammler the worst ones. Unfortunately he
also found that the solutions obtained were rela-
tively sensitive to the initial guesses for the input
parameters, i.e. the solutions were not robust.
This paper presents a new distribution called
the Swebrec function (Ouchterlony 2003) discov-
ered during the Less Fines project (Moser 2005,
Sanchidrin et al. 2009). It is robust and has just
three parameters, with physical meaning, in its
basic form. Yet it covers a size range of 23 orders
in magnitude of fragment size and even more in
an extended version. It has been tested on several
hundreds of sets of sieving data from different
kinds of blasting and crushing of many different
kinds of rock. The coefficient of determination
r2 has in 95 % of the cases been better than 0.995,
often substantially better.
This paper gives examples of such curve fits
and it points out the relation of the Swebrec func-
tion to traditional comminution concepts like the
NBC concept (Steiner 1991, 1998), the t10 concept
(Napier-Munn et al. 1996) and the GGS-slope.
It gives an experimental relation between the three
curve fit parameters, whereby the number of inde-
pendent parameters in a way reduces to two.
Applications like an extrapolation from the
coarse range to the fines and vice versa will be
shown and as will how the Swebrec function could
be used to construct the fragment size distribution
for muck piles from full-scale blasts, based on lim-
ited data.
A final remark on how to implement the Swebrec
distribution into fragmentation models will be
given.
4
2 THE SWEBREC FUNCTION
The basic Swebrec function is given by the expres-
sion (Ouchterlony 2003)
P(x) = 1/{1+[ln(xmax/x)/ln(xmax/x50)]b}, (1)
when 0 < x xmax. This cumulative distribution
function may take any value in the range 01.
Figure 2 gives an example of a fit to bench blast-
ing data in which the range of fit is three orders of
magnitude, 0.5500 mm.
The logarithm term becomes zero when x = xmax
and one when x = x50, the median fragment size.
Thus the necessary conditions P(xmax) = 1 and
P(x50) = 0.5 are met. The function has 3 param-
eters, xmax, x50 and the curve undulation exponent
b, about which more later. xmax limits the frag-
ment size. The logarithm term dominates for small
x-values.
This function has an inflection point in log P
versus log x space at
1/b 1/b
x/xmax = (x50/xmax)(b1) or x/x50 = (x50/xmax)(b1) 1
(2)
when b 1, the inflection point tends to x = xmax.
For increasing values it moves towards x = x50,
which is reached when b = 2. When b increases
further, the inflection point moves to smaller val-
ues of x and then moves back towards x = x50. The
inflection point and hence the undulating charac-
ter of the Swebrec function is always there and this
makes it possible to pick up the fines behaviour
already from coarse fractions data near x50.
Common expressions for the variance of size dis-
tributions like x80x30 or x80/x30 may be easily derived
2 2
Residuals
0.5 0.5
-1 -1
Mass passing, %
10 10
1 1
0.1 0.1
0.02 0.2 2 20 200 2000
Mesh size, mm
Figure 2. Sieving curve for bench blasting with an emul-
sion explosive, Brarp round 4, with best fit Swebrec func-
tion. Function parameters: x50 = 459 mm, xmax = 1497 mm
and b = 2.238. r2 = 0.9973. Data range 0.5500 mm.
x = 1000 mm is based on oversize counting, not a sieved
value. Moser et al. (2003b).
from the Swebrec function. The mesh size corre- 2 2

Residuals
sponding to a percentage passing Pp is given by 0.5 0.5

-1 -1
1/b
xp/xmax = (x50/xmax)(1/Pp1) (3)

Mass passing, %
By choosing p = 30 or 80 %, i.e. Pp = 0.3 or 0.8, 10 10
the correct expression is obtained. As can be seen
the dependence on b and xmax is relatively com-
plicated. Another way to express the variance of 1 1

the distribution is the slope at a central point. We

choose to give the expression at the median frag- 0.1 0.1
ment size, P(x50) or s50, which is especially simple, 0.02 0.2 2 20 200 2000
Mesh size, mm

s50 = P(x50) = b/[4x50 ln(xmax/x50)] (4)
Its use will become apparent below.
Even if P(x) fits most sieving data for fragmented
rock quite well, it can not be used to estimate the
surface area of the fragments in a muck pile. A sim-
ple conversion from volume to area in the probabil-
Figure 3. Brarp round 4 data with best fit extended
Swebrec function. Function parameters: x50 = 459 mm,
xmax = 1480 mm, b = 2.224, a = 0.99999812 and c = 2.0.
r2 = 0.9976. Data range 0.075500 mm. Note small mag-
nitude of prefactor (1a) in Equation 5.
Residuals

1.5 1.5
ity density function dA/dV = 6/x gives an estimate
of the cumulative area as being proportional to -0.5 -0.5

P(x) dx/x. This integral doesnt converge however.

In other words, the logarithmic behavior of P(x)
when x 0 is in all probability physically unsound.
Mass passing, %

An extended version of the Swebrec function

takes care of this anomaly, 10 10

P2(x) = 1/{1 + a [ln(xmax/x)/ln(xmax/x50)]b

+(1 a) [(xmax/x 1)/(xmax/x50 1)]c} (5)
1 1
0.5 5 50 500
The new term has the effect that P2(x) behaves Mesh size, mm

like a Gaudin-Schuhmann function (x/xmax)c for

small values of x. Its form is chosen so as to retain
the properties P2(xmax) = 1 and P2(x50) = 0.5. For
reasonable values of c, c > 0, the area integral
P(x) dx/x converges and the range of fit now
includes all points in the set of sieving data behind
Figure 1, see Figure 3.
Figure 4. Tunnel blasting with ANFO in Bondkall syenite.
Function parameters: x50 = 132 mm, xmax = 500 mm and
b = 1.965. r2 = 0.9985. Data range 2500 mm. Ouchterlony
(2003).
Residuals

Figures 47 give examples of curve fits to the 2 2

sieving curves from different types of full scale -2 -2
blasts. Figures 810 give examples for crushing.
Ouchterlony (2003, 2005b) enumerates many
different applications and more are added all the
Mass passing, %

time. To date more than 600 sets of sieving data

from blasting in full-scale and model-scale have
been fitted and more than 300 sets from crushing 10 10

with many different types of machines and crush-

ing type tests.
The materials covered include concrete and
many types of rocks; amphibolite, andesite, dol- 1 1
erite, dolomite, gabbro, gneiss, granite, greywacke, 0.05 0.5 5 50 500
Mesh size, mm
hornfels, hyperite, leptite, limestone, magnesite,
magnetite, metabasalt, quartzite, sandstone, silt- Figure 5. Reef blasting in quartzite with Gelatine.
stone, syenite and tonalite etc. Function parameters: x50 = 37.8 mm, xmax = 215 mm
The b-values usually lie in a relatively narrow and b = 2.067. r2 = 0.9962. Data range 0.6215 mm.
range, 14. For the blasting curves the average lies Ouchterlony (2003).

5
 Residuals

Residuals
1 1 1 1

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Mass passing, %

Mass passing, %
10 10

10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1
1 1 0.05 0.5 5 50 500
5 50 500 Mesh size, mm
Screen size, mm

Figure 9. Toothed roller crusher product of limestone.

Figure 6. Bench blasting in dolomite with dynamite.
Function parameters: x50 = 147 mm, xmax = 571 mm
and b = 2.150. r2 = 0.9990. Data range 9.5457 mm.
Ouchterlony (2003).
Residuals [7]
Function parameters: x50 = 48.8 mm, xmax = 107 mm
(fixed) and b = 2.451. r2 = 0.9994. Range 0.25100 mm.
Ouchterlony (2003).

Residuals [6]
1 1
1 1
-2 -2 0 0
-1 -1
Mass passing, %

Passing, %

10 10

1 1 10 10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 4 40 400
Mesh size, mm Mesh size, mm

Figure 7. Blasting of sublevel caving panels with ANFO.
Function parameters: x50 = 85.8 mm, xmax = 1110 mm
and b = 2.931. r2 = 0.9988. Data range 0.074800 mm.
Maripuu (1968) and Wimmer et al. (2008).
Residuals [5]
Figure 10. Gyratory crusher product of biotite
gneiss. Swebrec function parameters: x50 = 89.4 mm,
xmax = 300 mm and b = 1.535. r2 = 0.9993. Data range
4300 mm.

4
2
4
2
The b-values tend to be relatively constant for a
0 0 given material but they are not true material prop-
-2 -2
erties as they e.g. depend on explosive type, type of
crusher and crusher settings etc.
Mass passing, %

Most curve fitting has been done with a commercial

10
1 1
0.1 1 10
Mesh size, mm
Figure 8. Cone crusher product (CSS = 24 mm) of andes-
ite. Function parameters: x50 = 29.5 mm, xmax = 107 mm
and b = 2.291. r2 = 0.9987. Data range 0.380 mm.
Ouchterlony (2003).
around b = 2.5, for the crushing curves around
b = 2.0. Very few b-values for blasting lie below 1.5.
High b-values in conjunction with high xmax-values
tend to occur when the sieving curve looks more
like a Rosin-Rammler curve (Ouchterlony 2003).
10
program, TableCurve2D, which uses non-linear least
squares fitting based on the Levenburg-Marquardt
algorithm (SPSS 2003). A weighting of 1/x has usu-
ally been used to improve the fit in the fines range,
100 with little penalty in the coefficient of determination
value r2. The convergence for the three term func-
tion is usually rapid when xmax, xmax/x50 and b are cho-
sen as the fitting parameters and reasonable initial
guesses are used.
In the case of the three term function the data
range is limited to values of x from 0.252 mm
and upward. Often the P(x) = 100 % value should
be excluded as the x100-value in this case may be a
rather inexact estimate of the xmax-value.
If only linear least squares algorithms are avail-
able, there are alternatives. One is to use the linear
properties of the Swebrec function over a large part

6
of its range in P vs. x space and to do a linear curve fit
y = A + B x over a suitable part of the sieving data,
which contains x50. The values of x50 and s50 immedi-
ately follow as s50 = B and x50 = (0.5 A)/B. Equation 4
relates b and xmax through b = 4s50x50 ln(xmax/x50). With
x50 and b0 = 4s50 x50 as known constants Equation 1
may be rearranged to read
P(x) = 1/{1 + [1 + ln(x50/x) b0/b]b} or
1/{1 + [1 + ln(x50/x)/ln(xmax/x50)]
b0 ln(xmax/x50)
},
In a recent paper (Ouchterlony 2009) it has been
shown that expressing the fragment size distribu-
tion in terms of variables like x/xmax and parame-
ters like x50/xmax and b, i.e. as P(x/xmax; x50/xmax, b) of
Equation 1, has advantages. Any explicit depend-
ence on material or explosive parameters is con-
fined to the equations that define the parameters
and unlike in the Kuz-Ram model they become
(6) functions of the same composite charge and bur-
den parameter s.

with b and xmax respectively as the only undeter-

3 RELATION TO OTHER DESCRIPTIONS
mined parameter.
It is then easy to search for that xmax-value > x50
3.1 GGS exponent curves
(or b-value), which minimizes r2. xmax should prob-
ably also be chosen larger than the top stone size. The good fit of the five term Swebrec function
The corresponding b-value (xmax-value) and the to the whole range of a set of sieving data allows
Swebrec function P(x; x50, xmax, b) follow. If a good a smoother description of the Gates-Gaudin-
agreement between the function and the data Schuhmann or GGS exponent n used in commi-
is desired in the fines range, the weighting 1/x nution theory. The discrete expression becomes
mentioned above should probably be included. (Ouchterlony & Moser 2006a)
An example of the linear behaviour is given in
Figure 11 the approximate parameter values come ln(Pu Pl ) lnP d( lnP ) P ( x )
out quite close to the best fit ones of Figure 2. n= = = (7)
ln( x u x l ) ln x d( ln x ) P(x) x
The three basic parameter values may then be
used to improve the initial guesses of the param-
here subscripts u and l denote the upper and lower
eters for the five term extended Swebrec function
limits of a fragment size interval. Figure 12 shows
in a non-linear least squares fitting. The parameter
the GGS-exponent curve for the size distribution
a is frequently quite close to the value a = 1 and
in Figure 3, which also shows the corresponding
the convergence tends to be sensitive to the initial
GGS-exponent curve for the basic Swebrec func-
guess. The exponent c usually lies in the range
tion of Figure 2.
0.5 < c < 3. Sometimes a manual setting of c = 2
It is clear from these figures that the lower inflec-
to start with e.g. will give a better feeling for the
tion point in the lnP vs. lnx (or logP vs. logx) curve,
convergence process. The exact value of c has very
which shows up as a minimum in the GGS expo-
little influence on the r2-value. It is conceivable that
nent curve, is only described by the five term func-
c is related to the mineral species in the rock and
tion. The upper inflection point, which Equation 2
their properties, see the discussion about the GGS
minimum below.
GGS exponent or local slope in log-log diagram
Brarp Round 4
Residuals [4]

Discrete values, based on sieving data

2 2 1.5 Continuous, extended Swebrec
1 1
0 0 Continuous, basic Swebrec function
-1 -1
55 55

45 45 1
Passing, %

35 35

25 25

15 15 0.5

5 5
0 100 200 300 400 500
Mesh size, mm
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Figure 11. Linear least squares fit to Brarp round 4 Mesh size, mm .

data in range 90500 mm to get estimates of Swebrec

function parameters: x50 = 459.4 mm and s50 = 0.0010224 Figure 12. GGS exponent curves from sieving data and
1/mm. Remaining fit parameters xmax = 1525 mm and Swebrec curve fits, Brarp round 4. Ouchterlony & Moser
b = 2.254. C.f. Fig. 2. (2006a).

7
refers to, is displayed by both the basic and the
extended Swebrec functions.
The GGS exponent curve has the property that
all sieving curves that are parallel in logP vs. logx
space collapse onto the same curve. Figure 13
shows the GGS exponent curves for full-scale
and model-scale blasts in Brarp granitic gneiss.
Ouchterlony and Moser (2006a) show similar sets
of GGS-exponent curves for Hengl amphibolite
and for Vndle granite.
Figure 13 shows that the model- and full-scale
curves lie pretty much within their own bands and
hence that a curve in each set is reasonably paral-
lel with its own members. In the fines range, from
about 30 mm and down, the sieving curves may be
regarded as shifting upward in parallel in a log-log
diagram when the specific charge increases.
Secondly, both sets of sieving curves seem
to have a minimum at the same fragment size,
x 1 mm. Thus logP vs. logx has an inflection
point there, which depends on the value of c e.g.
The same observation holds for Hengl amphibo-
lite, but with x 0.5 mm and for Vndle granite,
but with x 1.5 mm. Recent investigations suggest
(Grasedieck 2006) that this minimum is associated
with the point where the fragments switch from
containing basically several grains to being mono-
mineralic, i.e. containing single grains or parts of
single grains. The fast switchover may be explained
by that fragments consist of two or only a few
grains are relatively seen weaker than other con-
figurations (strm 2004).
In addition to this grain size cut-off for small
fragments, the universal fragmentation model
(strm & Ouchterlony 2004) describes two other
cracking mechanisms. The small scale one is a
branching-merging of cracks that explains e.g. the
debris torn loose by propagating larger cracks, c.f.
the test results of Miklautsch (2002). This is one
explanation of why much of the fines generated in
GGS exponent
2.0
Round 1
1.8 Round 4
Round 5
1.6 Round 6
1.4 Round 7
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1 1 10 100
Mesh size, mm
Figure 13. Continuous GGS exponent plots for full- and
model-scale Brarp blasts. Ouchterlony & Moser (2006a).
blasting do not originate in the crushed zone around
the blast-hole (Svahn 2003, Reichholf 2003).
3.2 Comminution theory; NBC properties,
simple OCS circuit and t10 approach
Steiners (1991, 1998) approach to mechanical com-
minution is based on the concept that a material,
which is fractured under pure conditions exhibits
a material specific Natural Breakage Characteris-
tic (NBC). Some of the tenets are that
Rock broken in the crushing and grinding
sub-circuits of an Optimum Comminution
Sequence (OCS) has the steepest possible cumu-
lative fragmentation curve PNBC(x).
When the sub-circuit product streams are classi-
fied, their fragmentation curves are shifted verti-
cally upward as the comminution progresses.
When plotted in logP vs. logx space this becomes
a parallel shift so that the local slope depends
basically only on the fragment size.
This concept has been expanded to cover
model-scale blasting with different specific charges
(Moser et al. 2000, 2003a). GGS-exponent curves
that collapse onto each other, see above, is a way
to visualize this parallelism. Figure 14 shows that
the OCS comminution and model-scale blasting
curves for Hengl amphibolite are quite parallel in
the range x = 0.110 mm. This also makes it pos-
sible to extend Steiners energy register concept to
model-scale blasting (Moser et al. 2003b) but an
extension to full-scale blasting has not yet been
achieved. It may never be because the full-scale
curves are usually flatter than their model scale
counterparts, see Figure 13.
The parallel shift property in logP versus logx
space reduces to the statement that the slope
n = xP(x)/P(x) remains independent of some
100,0
BA 10-1, 100 mm
BA 10-2, 100 mm
BA 1-2, 190 mm
BA 2-2, 190 mm 10,0
Comminution
BA 1-1, 240 mm
Passing [%]
BA 9, 290 mm
BA 2-1, 290 mm BIT 2B (190/4)
BIT 66 (190/4)
BIT 3 (190/5)
BIT 79 (190/5)
BIT 2A (240/5)
1,0
BIT 21 (240/5)
BIT 8 (290/5)
BIT 78 (290/5)
Blasting BIT 73A (100/5)
BIT 73B (100/5)
Comminution
Curves
0,1
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Screen size [mm]
Figure 14. Comparison of fragmentation curves from
OCS comminution in Figure 3 and model-scale blasts
with the same amphibolite. Moser et al. (2000).
8
parameter that describes the shift. This is not met by
the basic Swebrec function itself but by its behaviour
when x 0, xP(x)/P(x) b/[x ln(xmax/x)], which
is independent of x50 (Ouchterlony 2003, 2005a).
Though to retain the meaning of xmax as the maxi-
mum 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, 0xmax. Then the following function has
NBC properties
PNBC(x) = [ln(xc/xmax)/ln(xc/x)]b with the new
x50 = xmax/(xc/xmax)2
1/b1
(8)
It describes a set of parallel shifted curves when
the value of xmax (formerly x50) is changed but xc
and b are kept constant. The function PNBC(x) is
always concave upwards when x < xmax, which is
the behaviour of the OCS sub-circuit curves in
Figure 7 except for very fine material. This makes
it reasonable to call b an NBC exponent and to
give it a physical meaning.
The same kind of reasoning could be used for
the extended Swebrec function with regards to the
dominating exponential term for super fine mate-
rial, 1/{(1 a)[(xmax/x 1)/(xmax/x50 1)]c} in Equa-
tion 7, which obviously reduces to a set of parallel
curves when x 0 and c is kept constant. If the
substitutions xmax xc and x50 xmax are made like
above and the prefactor 1a removed one obtains
Steiners version of NBC curves. The same kind of
reasoning doesnt appear to work for the combined
logarithmic and exponential terms though.
Another interesting property of PNBC(x) is
related to a simple OCS circuit, in which all mate-
rial x < a bypasses the crusher and the remainder
x a is crushed. See Ouchterlony (2003). Let F(x)
be the probability density function (PDF) of the
feed stream of material. The product coming out
of the crusher can be described by the probability
density function
t
(x) = a B(x, t) F(t)dt. (9)
here B(x, t) is the breakage distribution function of
the crusher, which gives the relative size distribution
after breakage of a particle of size t. One realises
(Ouchterlony 2003) that B(x, t) with x t must be a
PDF function. According to the NBC concept, the
form of B(x, t) is independent of t. Thus
t (Ouchterlony 2003, 2005a)
B(x, t) = b(x)/0 b(s)ds = b(x)/N(t) = b(x)/N(a)
= PNBC(x, xmax = a), (10)
as the crusher was described as producing no
material larger than x a. Adding the stream
that bypasses the crusher to that which passes
the crusher (x) gives the final product stream,
described by the probability density function
Pc(x). This gives the equation for the PDF of the
simplified OCS circuit
Pc(x) = F(x; x < a) + PNBC(x, a) a F(t)dt. (11)
An integration of Equation 11 would show that
the mass flow balance is conserved. It also permits
a couple of interesting observations, namely that i)
if F(x) is an NBC function, then so is Pc(x) and ii)
if all feed material passes the crusher then Pc(x) is
a NBC function.
Finally, if one inserts the specific form of PNBC(x)
given in Equation 8 into Equation 11, using it both
for F(x) = PNBC(x, xmax) and PNBC(x, a) then Equa-
tion 11 is trivially satisfied. Thus one can say that
the simplified description of an OCS sub-circuit,
which led to Equation 11, is indeed compatible
with the statement that the asymptotic of the basic
Swebrec function is a NBC function.
The JKMRC (Napier-Munn et al. 1996) engi-
neering oriented approach to crushing fragmenta-
tion describes comminution circuits and associated
individual crushing and grinding breakage func-
tions. They use a matrix description of the product
flow through the system and a one-family descrip-
tion of breakage functions based on the t10 concept
and expressed in terms of splines. t10 is that part of
a given size fraction of material subjected to a drop
weight crushing test, which afterwards is smaller
than 1/10 of the original feed materials size.
The proper non-dimensional version of the basic
Swebrec function in Equation 1 with x/xmax = and
x50/xmax = 50 reads
P() = 1/{1 + [ln()/ln(50)]b} with max = 1 (12)
The coupling to B(x, t) is obtained if we set
= x/t. It has been fitted to AG/SAG mill break-
age function data in Table 6:1 (Napier-Munn et al.
1996) e.g. The whole t10 family of crusher curves of
may be reduced to the following simple equation
tn = 100/{1 + (100/t10 1) [log(n)]b(t10)}. (13)
here n is the size reduction ratio. When n = 10 e.g.,
log(n) = 1 and Equation 13 reduces to the straight
line tn = t10 as it should. An approximate expres-
sion for b(t10) was obtained from data fitting
b = 1.616 + 0.02735 t10, (14)
and the results are plotted in Figure 15. Note that
an arbitrary vertical line connects points on the
9
tn-curves that together make up the P(x)-curve for
the chosen degree of breakage. The full lines were
obtained using Equation 14, the dashed ones for
n = 2 and 75 using the value b = 2.174 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 %. The t10
family of curves has thus received an extremely
compact form compared to the large set of splines.
A similar agreement with the other breakage
appearance function data in Napier-Munn et al.
(1996) is expected.
3.3 The ultra-fines range and other size
distribution functions
The range of dry sieving usually goes down to 75
or 63 m. Very few sieving data for rock fragmenta-
tion that include smaller fragments are presented.
One exception is Grimshaw (1958). He blasted
18 30 cylinders of Darley Dale sandstone
and limestone with decoupled low VOD explosives
to measure the dust generation. The fine mate-
rial was measured with a sedimentation method.
The sieving curves go down to 2 m. An example
with an extended Swebrec function fit is shown in
Figure 16.
The fit to the data is good down to 66 m, includ-
ing the increasing slope below 1 mm. Below 66 m
the sieving curve again flattens, indicating a sur-
prisingly high amount of ultra-fine material.
Besides the respiratory aspect, this dust may rep-
resent a large surface area that could account for
some of the energy losses in a blast. The estimated
fragmentation, i.e fracture surface energy in bench
blasts has earlier been estimated to be of the order
0.1 %1% (Ouchterlony et al. 2003). A later revision
tn, % passing
100
b = 1,616+0,02735.t10
80
b = 2,174
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Breakage index t10, %
Figure 15. Mass passing isolines for constant degrees of
size reduction, plotted as function of the breakage index
t10. Full lines denote prediction by Equations 13 and 14.
(Sanchidrin et al. 2007) gives values in the range
18 %. A general sieving curve behaviour like in Fig-
ure 16 may increase the value further. All Grimshaws
(1958) sandstone shots have this behaviour but his
only limestone shot doesnt so more data is needed.
The extended, five parameter Swebrec function
cant fit the data in Figure 16 completely. Silvestrov
(2004, Figure 9) uses the Gilvarry (1961) distribu-
tion to achieve a very good fit with a trimodal
version with seven terms. Each mode contains a
maximum of three size values that give the rela-
tive importance of linear, surface and volume flaws
respectively.
The data in Figure 16 covers an extremely wide
range, more than 5 orders of magnitude. An addi-
tion of an extra mode to the extended Swebrec
distribution might work as well as the Gilvarry
function but this is beyond the scope of this paper,
which focuses on blast engineering.
3.4 Robustness and parameter interdependence
The robustness of the parameter fitting of the
Swebrec function was described above. Another
example is the data from Svahn (2003). She blasted
three 300 mm cylinders of cement mortar with
40 g/m PETN cord. The cylinders consisted of
3 concentric layers of differently pigmented mortar;
black, yellow and green. After blasting in a closed
container, the fragments were collected, sieved and
colour separated. The resulting curves are shown
in Figure 17.
The fragment size distributions for each layer,
Pb, Py and Pg are reproduced nicely by the Swebrec
function, r2 < 0.9978 over the range 0.532 mm
(Ouchterlony 2003, 2005b). The composite fragment
size distribution Ptot was equally well reproduced by
the Swebrec function, even if the weighted average
t2
Residuals [4]
2 2
t4
0 0
-2 -2
Mass passing, %
10 10
t10
1 1
t25
0.1 0.1
t50
0.01 0.01
t75 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Mesh size, mm
50
.
Figure 16. Swebrec function fit to sieving data for
blasted Darley dale sandstone. Function parameters:
x50 = 84.2 mm, xmax = 601 mm and b = 2.162. r2 = 0.9958.
Data range 0.002406 mm, 220 m (0.0020.02 mm)
excluded in fit.
10
 Mass passing, % Blasting, lab & full-size
100 Brarp lab tests
Slope s50 at x50, 1/mm
Hengl lab tests
Less Fines lab cylinders CP lab tests
s50 = 0.25/x500.75 NK stroma lab tests
NK krino lab tests
0.100 NK rev lab tests
NK fragment lab tests
10 Brarp bench blasts
Reef blasts (Claude C)
Quarry blasts (Claude C)
Dolomite blasts (Stagg)
0.010
full-size blasts
s50 = 0.12/x500.75
1 All, black+yellow+green
Swebrec function fit all
0.001
Either black, yellow or green
Individual color Swebrec fits
1 10 100 1000
Weighted ave. of indiv. fits x50, mm
0.1
0.1 1 10 100
Mesh size, mm
Figure 18. The relationship between the slope s50 at x50
.

and x50 itself for blasted rock. Ouchterlony (2005b).

Figure 17. Size distributions for blasted mortar cylinder
no. 2. Valid range 0.532 mm. The layer weights used were,
black inner layer 1 = 16.0 %, yellow middle layer 2 = 28.4 %
Table 1. Statistics, meanno. of tests std deviation, for
and outer green layer 3 = 55.6 %. Ouchterlony (2005b).
composite slope product s50 x500.75, including estimate of
Equation 17.

of the three individual functions doesnt add up to Burden q s50 x500.75 0.2 (0.25/B)0.25
the composite Swebrec function mathematically, i.e. Reference m kg/m3 1/mm0.25 1/mm0.25
1 Pb + 2 Py + 3 Pg Ptot with 1 + 2 + 3 = 1.
When the parameters x50, xmax and b of the Swe- Krist. (87) 0.125 0.40.6 0.23108 0.014 0.238
brec function are determined by curve fitting one Krist. (87) 0.250 0.6 0.18012 0.014 0.200
would usually expect them to be independent. An Krist. (90) 0.250 0.6 0.20821 0.021 0.200
Myk. (96) 0.250 0.6 0.18214 0.016 0.200
analysis (Ouchterlony 2005b) of the size distribu-
Krist. (87) 0.375 0.6 0.14004 0.006 0.180
tion data that were used to confirm the Swebrec Quarrying 3.0 0.51.0 0.125 0.107
function gives an interesting result when the slope Open pits 10.0 0.51.0 0.060.10 0.080
value s50 (1/mm with x50 in mm) at x50 is plotted
versus x50 in a log-log diagram. The data collapses
more or less on two parallel lines independent of
the specific charge. The lines are given by with increasing specimen size. Recent tests
(Ouchterlony et al. 2007) in a large open pit mine
s50 = 0.12/x500.75 for full-scale blasting and (15a) with 311 mm holes in a pattern with burden and
s50 = 0.25/x 0.75
for cylindrical models (15b) spacing B S = 7.7 9.7 m in double 15 m benches
50
gave the result that s50 x500.75 0.060.10. See chap-
Figure 18 shows these results for the blasting ter 4 below.
of amphibolite, dolomite, granite, granitic gneiss, In another recent development (Ouchterlony
limestone, syenite and quartzite. The relationship 2009) dimensional analysis is used to derive expres-
s50 1/x50 would e.g. have implied uniformity of sions for the parameters of the size distribution
the fragmentation curves. in terms of one dimensionless parameter, either
Kristiansen (1987) and Mykland (1996) have s q e B0.4 or expressions in which the exponents
blasted cubic blocks of concrete of side lengths 0.25, for e and B vary. s contains the specific charge
0.50 and 0.75 m with many different explosives. q (kg/m3), the explosive energy e (MJ/kg) and
Kristiansen et al. (1990) have blasted 0.25 m side the burden B (m). Equations 11a, 26 and 27 give
length cubic specimens of gabbro, granite, syenite x50/B /s where is a dimensionless geometrical
and quartz rock with two different kinds of dyna- shape factor and the exponent is a constant. Simi-
mite. The charge configuration and the specific larly by Equation 19a (Ouchterlony 2009) we could
charge was pretty much the same in all tests. write s50 B s/. This leads to
Statistics for the slope product s50 x500.75
(1/mm0.25) that would tend to be constant accord- s50 x500.75 (q e B0.4)3/4/( B)0.25 1/( B)0.25. (16)
ing to Equations 15ab are shown in Table 1.
The data in the second last column in Table 1 As a first approximation we have set the expo-
show a definite tendency to decrease significantly nent 3/4 = 0 as the left member appears to be

11
relatively independent of q, see Equations 15ab whether Equation 17 is compatible with the require-
above. Thus in 2D only a dependence on shape ment that harder blasting should give more fines.
through and on size through burden B remains. Equation 18 is important because it means that
Still as a first approximation, assume that the fragment size distribution from regular full-
doesnt vary much, and normalize the composite scale blasting within a very wide range could be
product value for the 0.5 m cubes to 0.2 m. Then described by two parameters only, x50 and xmax e.g.
we may write This is a very strong limitation to the possibilities
of altering the size distribution by ordinary means
s50 x500.75 0.2(Bref /B)0.25 with Bref = 0.25 m. (17) like changing the blast hole diameter etc. This will
be discussed further below.
The last column in Table 2 shows that this
expression captures the main variation in the com-
posite product s50 x500.75. Equation 17 may thus 4 PREDICTING THE SIEVING CURVE
replace 15a and 15b. BASED ON LIMITED DATA
Combining Equations 4 and 17 we obtain a
good starting value for b for normal full-scale A sieving curve for a full-scale blast is a rare occur-
blasting such as quarrying from rence but the wide range of good fit, which the
basic Swebrec distribution has, up to 3 orders of
b 0.4 (Bref/B)0.25 x500.25 ln(xmax/x50). (18) magnitude, opens a number of possibilities to
obtain such a curve. The first and obvious one
here Bref is a new reference burden of about 4 m. is predicting the complete fragment size distri-
It may be fine tuned for a specific full-scale appli- bution from either coarse material or fines data.
cation by a different choice of Bref. When field Examples of this are given in Figures 1920 for the
data are analyzed in more detail it is expected that Brarp bench blasts in granitic gneiss described by
i) the exponent 0.25 may change somewhat, ii) some Moser et al. (2003b). The relatively small rounds,
dependence on q and the size ratios in may emerge about 500 ton, were sieved in their entirety down
in Equations 17 and 18. It also remains to be seen to 90 mm and then quartered twice to obtain the
fines part of the sieving curves from lab sieving.
Figure 19 shows the example of fitting the
Table 2. Sieving data for barrel samples, sum (or basic Swebrec function to the coarse range data,
weighted ave.) and best fit Swebrec function. Param- x 90 mm, and extrapolating into the fines range
eters: x50 = 55.9 mm, xmax = 250 mm and b = 1.387. Range to obtain a prediction. Figure 20 shows how abso-
0.25180 mm. lute sieving data in the range 1 x 22.4 mm is
used for curve fitting and subsequent extrapolating
Barrel 1 2 3 4 14 Swebrec
into the coarse range. This extrapolation becomes
Mesh Pass. Pass. Pass. Pass. Pass. Pass.
mm % % % % % %
Mass passing, %
250 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100
180 89.1 91.0 71.3 97.2 86.9 89.2 Swebrec function: x50 = 459 mm
125 79.3 83.2 47.7 89.9 74.7 74.5 xmax = 2260 mm and b = 2.81
90 69.0 69.3 38.4 81.6 64.1 63.0 x50
63 59.0 58.0 30.5 72.0 54.4 52.9 10
45 50.9 50.0 25.3 63.8 47.1 45.3
31.5 43.6 41.5 20.2 55.3 39.8 38.9
22.4 36.9 34.6 16.7 47.2 33.5 34.0 1
16 31.7 29.1 14.3 40.8 28.7 30.1
11.2 29.5 25.8 12.3 36.9 25.8 26.6 Rosin-Rammler function
8 27.0 22.9 11.0 32.9 23.2 24.0 x50 = 468 mm and n = 1.063
5.6 24.4 20.0 9.9 29.4 20.7 21.5 0.1
4 22.3 17.9 9.1 25.9 18.6 19.6
2 19.7 15.7 8.1 21.9 16.2 16.5
1 17.7 14.3 7.4 19.2 14.5 14.1
0.5 16.2 13.0 6.7 17.1 13.1 12.2 0.01
4
0.25 13.3 9.7 5.4 13.7 10.4 10.7 0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.125 7.2 4.4 2.7 7.3 5.3 9.5 Mesh size, mm .

0.063 3.7 2.2 1.4 3.7 2.7 8.5

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Figure 19. Prediction of fine fractions for Brarp round
4 from sieving data in range 90500 mm. Comparison of
Mass, kg 350.3 367.9 358.5 322.9 1399.6 Swebrec and Rosin-Rammler extrapolations. Ouchterlony
(2005a).

12
 Mass passing, %
100
Swebrec function: x50 = 460 mm
xmax = 1800 mm and b = 2,41
10
1 1
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Mesh size, mm .
Figure 20. Using Brarp round 4 sieving data in range
122.4 mm plus estimate of xmax to make Swebrec predic-
tion of x50 and coarse fractions. Ouchterlony (2005a).
an interpolation if a reasonable estimate of xmax can
be used and then the prediction gets better. Both
figures show that the extrapolation/interpolation
gives prediction values that lie quite close to the
measured ones.
The statistical description of the fragmentation
is generally expected to become poorer as fragment
size increases. Firstly, the number of fragments
in each size class decreases rapidly. Secondly, the
Swebrec function approaches the 100 % line at a
tangent, which makes the curve fit more sensi-
tive. Thirdly, because of the finite size of a blast-
ing round, the largest boulder represents a finite
percentage of it. Thus the 100 % line will never be
reached in practice and the measured x100 value is a
rather inexact upper limit.
This means that a prediction of the coarse range
fragmentation based on fines data will probably
be more exact than the reverse procedure. This
could also serve as a justification for using the 1/x
weighting in the curve fitting procedure.
One such case is the blasting round at Hengl
analysed by Ouchterlony and Moser (2006a). For
a 2000 ton blast in amphibolite, the material for
which x 100 mm was sieved and found to consti-
tute 10.9 % of the round. From this material sieve
samples were taken. The xmax-value was estimated
to be about 1200 mm. Figure 21 shows three fitting
alternatives, a linear interpolation from the fines
data to xmax in log-log space, the basic Swebrec
function and the extended Swebrec function.
The linear extrapolation is a bad alterna-
tive because it gives a GGS-exponent curve with
strangely constant value in the interpolation range
and the predicted x50-value of 448 mm is unrealisti-
cally large.
xmax = B Mass passing, %
100
Hengl full-scale blast
50 Data points in curve fit
Data points not used
x50 - points 1-50 and 1200 mm
- points 0.063-50mm
10 - points 100 and 1200 mm
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Mesh size, mm .
.
Figure 21. Constructing a complete sieving curve for
Hengl blast 420-4 through i) straight line interpolation,
ii) interpolation with basic Swebrec function and
iii) extrapolation with extended Swebrec function.
The curve fit based on the extended Swebrec
function in Figure 21 is based on sieving data in
the range 0.063 x 50 mm. This produces pre-
diction of xmax of 424 mm which is unrealistically
low but the curve fit in the fines range is well suited
for a calculation of the GGS-exponent curve.
The curve fit based on the basic Swebrec func-
tion uses only the concave part of the sieving data,
1 x 50 mm. There are two alternatives, to use
the xmax estimate of 1200 mm (interpolation) or not
to use it (extrapolation). It was found that using
this xmax estimate gave the most reasonable value for
the slope product, s50 x500.75 = 0.131, which is quite
close to the expected value 0.12 in Equation 15a.
The ensuing prediction of x50 became 316 mm.
This method could also be used for a crusher with
a known open side setting where the fines fractions
part of the product is sieved off and weighed using
a belt scale. Figure 22 shows the example of a rotary
jaw crusher at the Vndle granite quarry. Fitting the
basic Swebrec function to the concave part of the
fines data, 1 x 22.4 mm, plus a open side setting
of xmax 300 mm produces the curve in the figure.
For the muck piles of larger blasts even less data
would be obtained. Ouchterlony et al. (2006) con-
struct the complete sieving curves of four 1215000
ton muck piles in the Vndle granite quarry in the
following way. From each pile every 25th bucket
from the backhoe was loaded on a dumper and used
to build a test pile of about 400 ton. From each pile
100 ton were taken and run over grizzlies (//250 and
150 mm) and then sieved twice (#100 and 40 mm).
From both sieving fractions, 0100 mm and
040 mm, oil drum samples were taken for lab
sieving down to 0.063 mm. The sieving samples
13
 Mass passing, %
Residuals

0.2 0.2
100
uncertainty of
-0.1 -0.1 90 boulder limit
correction for 400-500 mm
80
flakiness = 1.1
70
Mass passing, %

10 10 60
50 Test pile Round 1-L
sieved mtrl 0-100 mm
40 PowerGrid data
1 1
30 interpolated data
grizzly data
20 PowerGrid data - flakiness corrected
0.1 0.1 fixed points Swebrec distribution
0.05 0.5 5 50 500 10
on linear part Kuz-Ram distribution
Mesh size, mm

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Figure 22. Using sieving data for granite for rotary jaw Mesh size, mm.

crusher product in range 0.522.4 mm plus open-side set-

ting estimate of xmax 300 mm to predict missing frac- Figure 23a. Constructed sieving curve for test pile from
tions. Swebrec function parameters: x50 = 77 mm and round 1L. Note linear scales for P and x. Ouchterlony
b = 2.33. et al. (2006).

showed little scatter and were more or less overlap- Mass passing, %
ping in the range x 22.4 mm. 100
The construction of the sieving curves was done 90 Test pile Round 1-L
as follows, see Figures 23ab. sieved mtrl 0-100 mm
80 PowerGrid data
interpolated data
1. The basic Swebrec function is relatively linear 70
grizzly data
within the range of 1060 % passing and the 60 - flakiness corrected
cumulative sieving data for 40 and 100 mm Swebrec distribution
50
mesh sizes lie well within this range. They are Rosin-Rammler
the fixed points of the construction. Data 40
Rosin-Ramler distribution
points for 45, 63 and 90 mm mesh sizes were 30 only good around x50 = 167 mm
taken from a straight line interpolation and the errors for fines and coarse mtrl
20
125 mm point taken as an extrapolated value on
the same line. These extra points give the central 10
data range a stronger weighting and they could
be left out. 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mesh size, mm
2. The lab samples from the 0100 mm fractions .

are assumed to be relatively uninfluenced
by the sampling procedure for the material
x 40 mm. As 40 mm is missing in the lab
screen series, the 40 mm data point was inter-
polated from the 31.5 and 45 mm data points.
The lab sample data for all smaller screen sizes
were thus scaled by the factor P(40 mm). This
makes the lab sample data a continuation of
the interpolation line into the fines region.
The continuation is expected to be quite, if not
exactly smooth.
3. A grizzly with a given gap lets through larger
fragments than a square mesh with the same
dimensions. To account for this the grizzly gap
values 250 and 150 mm have been multiplied
with a flakiness factor. A lower limit is given by
the interpolation line of step 1). We let the flaki-
ness factor be determined by the curve fit that
gives the highest r2 value. i.e. a flakiness factor
was chosen, the curve fit program TableCurve2D
Figure 23b. Constructed sieving curve for test pile
from round 1-L. Note log scale for x. Ouchterlony et al.
(2006).
run and a new flakiness value chosen until the
minimum was found. This value turns out to be
1.10 or 1.15 and we chose the value 1.10.
4. The amount of oversize that was put aside
during digging was estimated at 12 %, which
means that the sieving curve of the test piles
wouldnt differ very much from those of the cor-
responding muck piles. The representativity of
the test piles might contain larger errors so the
final adjustment to the oversize wasnt made.
Furthermore a lower cut off size in the boul-
der piles is not sharp, it started at about 0.25 m.
A visual judgement gave 0.40.5 m as a reason-
able largest fragment size in the test piles. For
the construction of the fragmentation curves we

14
 chose 400 mm as a representative grizzly gap,
which was then multiplied by the flakiness fac-
tor of step 3). This data point was also used in
the curve fitting.
The predicted fragment size distribution for one
of the test piles is shown in Figures 23ab, in a lin-
ear diagram and in a semi-log diagram.
The test piles from which the 100 ton sieving
samples were also photographed and digital image
analysis (Split Desktop) was used to obtain the cor-
responding fragment size distributions, which were
quite different than the ones constructed using the
Swebrec function. A relatively thorough discussion
about the two methods, sieving and image analy-
sis, was made (Ouchterlony et al. 2006) and it was
concluded that the sieving data were more reliable.
One point was that the mathematical form of the
fines description in the image analysis is erroneous,
another that the digital edge definitions had to be
manually corrected, primarily for the splitting of
large blocks.
A situation with even less information was at hand
in an investigation made in the Aitik copper mine.
The blast in this case consisted of about 190 kton
(Ouchterlony et al. 2007) of gneiss and schist.
Oil barrels with fine material were taken from the
muck pile. The material was sieved in the size range
0.063 x 250 mm, see Table 2 and Figure 24.
The samples were quite well described by the
basic Swebrec function. Now of course what por-
tion of the muck pile these samples represent is not
known. The other accessible fragmentation data
was that from image analysis; an installation of
Split On-line where the trucks dumped their loads
into the primary crusher and images taken of the
surface of the truck trays after loading for analysis
Mass passing, %
100
90 Sieve samples round 4141-2
Barrel 1
80 Barrel 2
Barrel 3
70
Barrel 4
60 Ave. barrels 1-4
50
40 0,5-125 mm
30
20
10
0 x50,desktop, mm
0.1 1 10 100
Mesh size, mm
Figure 24. Lab sieving data for a total of 1400 kg of
barrel material. Ouchterlony et al. (2007).
with Split Desktop. The two systems were used to
obtain estimates of x50 and x80.
The Split On-line system had been calibrated
using belt cuts from the primary, gyratory crusher.
These belt cut samples were also well described by
the basic Swebrec function. See Figure 10. A closer
inspection of the images taken as the trucks dumped
revealed a number of shortcomings in the data col-
lection (empty or partially filled trays e.g.), errors
in the edge definition (splitting of large pieces and
merging of small ones e.g.) and an appreciable
sensitivity to light conditions (time of day), which
undermined the credibility of the On-line data in
absolute terms (Ouchterlony et al. 2007).
The corresponding Desktop images contained
the same type of edge definition errors but were
manually edited to correct for them. The correla-
tion between the On-line and Desktop data is not
very high, see Figure 25 and the predicted x50 and
x80 values differ quite much, see Table 3.
It is practically impossible to calibrate either
of the systems for the blast fragmentation. Split
On-line has the theoretical possibility to shift ma-
terial from one bin to another to emulate sieving
results but the sieving of a whole 180 ton truckload
has yet to be done. Split Desktop is more restricted
but has an experience based fines correction factor
ff, which quantifies the amount of fine material that
the system doesnt see. The factor ff will of course
vary with the position (of the photo) in a muck pile
and a sieving of the corresponding material is hard
x50,online, mm
dig inside round
1000 dig outside round
mean x80, online
best fit slope
2best fit slope
750
best fit slope
x50,online =
0.389x50,desktop
500
x50,online = 203 mm
250
0
0 250 500 750 1000
.
Figure 25. Correlation between Split On-line and Desk-
top data for x50 values for contents in same truck tray. The
trend in the best fit line is not significant (Ouchterlony
et al. 2007).
15
Table 3. Split data and Swebrec function parameters for
muck pile curves in Fig. 18. DT-0 means Desktop program
with fines factor ff = 0%. OL means On-line program.
Mtrl Swebrec param.
Anal. x50 x80 125 x50 xmax
meth. mm mm % mm mm b r2
DT-0 585 990 15.0 587 1536 1.772 0.9999 0.094
DT-20 425 850 22.4 426 1565 1.834 0.9998 0.078
OL 170 600 43.7 175 2922 2.462 0.9987 0.060
Residuals [6]
0.6
0.3
0 0
-0.3
Mass passing, %
10
1 1
0.1
0.02 0.2 2 20
Mesh size, mm
200
Figure 26. Constructed sieving curve from ave. barrel
data in Table 3 (0.5125 mm) and Split Desktop data
DT-20 for x50 and x80. Even weights. Data for Swebrec fit
given in Table 3.
to do. This makes the x50 and x80 values obtained
from image analysis relatively unreliable in abso-
lute terms.
All three sets of x50 and x80 values in Table 3
plus the averaged lab sample data in the range
0.5 x 125 mm with an unknown fines multiplier
were used as a basis for the fitting procedure. For
each set of x50 and x80 values the multiplier value
that maximized r2 was chosen. Figure 26 gives
one example. The associated parameter values are
given in Table 3, the curves are shown in Figure 27
together with an estimate of the sieving curve of
the crusher product.
Table 3 and Figure 27 show that the amount
of fine material x 125 mm predicted by the dif-
ferent curve fits is quite wide, from 15 to 44 % of
the material fed to the crusher. In order to narrow
the range further, the estimated sieving curve of
the crusher product is also shown in Figure 27. The
crushers feed curve can of course never cross the
product curve but how close can it lie?
The report by Ouchterlony et al. (2007) discusses
this matter, looks at the top size data etc. and
concludes that the real fragment size distribution
probably lies somewhere between the two dashed
curves, with a fine material fraction of 22 to 44 %.
To choose between the alternatives, power draw
Mass passing, %
100
x50+x80, Desktop ff = 0 %
90
x50+x80, Desktop ff = 20 %
80
Primary crusher product
70 x50+x80, On-line data
s50 x500.75
1/mm0.25 60
50
40
30
20
10
0.6
0.3 0
1 10 100 1000
-0.3
Mesh size, mm .
Figure 27. Alternative constructed sieving curves for
10 muck pile rock (lower three curves) and estimated siev-
ing curve for primary crusher product. Ouchterlony et al.
(2007).
0.1
2000 measurements on the gyratory crusher could prob-
ably be used because the upper dashed, On-line
curve predicts that 2040 % of the feed is crushed
and the lower dashed, Desktop curve predicts that
3565 % or twice the amount is crushed.
Table 3 also contains values for the slope factor
s50 x500.75 that lie in the range 0.060.10. See also
section 3.4 above. Equation 17 suggests that 0.08
would be reasonable value so from this point of
view none of the three alternatives are excluded.
More Aitik rounds have been monitored. In a
MSc report (Demenegas 2008) blast 5162 of about
400 kton was studied. It had been divided in two
halves. One domain had the normal specific charge
of 1.08 kg/m3 (B S = 7.5 9.5 m) and the other
1.35 kg/m3 (B S = 6.5 8.1 m). The round was
part of a test series in which the goal was to improve
the throughput in the primary autogenous mill.
Drilling, charging and fragmentation were
closely monitored like in the previous investiga-
tion. The On-line system at the primary crusher
didnt work during the hauling so the investigation
took a different direction.
More than 250 photos of truck loads were
taken and the 60 best ones chosen for evaluation
with Split Desktop, 30 for each domain. Two truck
samples were taken from specified positions in
each domain, run over a 100 mm grizzly and quar-
tered until two 350 kg samples remained. These
were sieved.
As before, Split Desktop data for x50 and x80
with ff = 20% (DT-20) were obtained from the
photos and combined with the lab sieving data
in the range 190 mm. The data in Table 4 were
obtained. Note that the value x50 = 233 mm places
16
Table 4. Fragmentation data (DT-20) for Aitik round Mass passing, %
100
5162, given as mean std deviation. N = normal specific
charge, H = high. 90 Crusher model data
Blasted, Split Desktop
80 Crusher model output
q x20 x50 x80 x100
70 Measured Split On-line
Round kg/m3 mm mm mm mm
60
5162-N 1.08 70 19 233 47 463 108 838 190
50
5162-H 1.35 61 14 200 54 419 126 802 214
40
30
20
the fragmentation curve midway between the two
dashed lines in Figure 27. 10
A statistical analysis showed that of these sets of 0
data only the x50-values are significantly different. 1 10 100 1000
Mesh size, mm
Even if On-line data from the truck dumping into .

the primary crusher wasnt available, On-line data Figure 28. Crusher model product () for measured
from the product belt were for the times when the blast fragmentation () at normal specific charge com-
blasted rock was dumped. It was decided to apply pared with measured product (x). Demenegas (2008).
the crusher model developed by Bergman (2005)
to different input or feed distributions; the one just
constructed, the Kuz-Ram model with the Swebrec Mass passing, %
function and the CZM model (Kanchibotla 1999). 100
The results for the measured feed are shown in 90 Crusher model data
Figure 28 and those for the calculated CZM feed in Blasted, CZM input
80 Crusher model output
Figure 29. The Kuz-Ram cum Swebrec function feed
70 Measured Split On-line
gave a curve nearly identical to the one in Figure 28.
Figures 2829 permit a couple of observations. 60
Firstly, the CZM model feed, whose coarse part 50
looks quite like the measured fragmentation has
40
vastly more fine material than the one measured.
It has more fines even than the measured crusher 30
output. This is of course impossible. It may be that 20
a better calibration of the CZM model parameters 10
would remove this contradiction but the rather
abrupt change in slope, in Figure 29 at P = 70 %, is 0
1 10 100 1000
also unrealistic and it is built-in into the model. Mesh size, mm .

Secondly, the crushing doesnt seem to create

any progeny smaller than about 3050 mm. This is
highly suspect when one compares with a breakage
function description like in Equation 12 and Fig-
ure 15. Thus it is quite probable that the crusher
model used under-predicts the amount of fine
material created during the crushing process.
The gap between measured and predicted
amounts of fine material is a factor of two at
75 mm and it increases with decreasing fragment
size. This too supports the conjecture above about
fines under-prediction.
We have shown how one can make predictions
of the sieving curves of blasted and crushed mate-
rial, using the basic Swebrec function but based on
less and less information as the size of the muck
pile increases. The less input information that is
used naturally, the lower the expected accuracy
of the prediction. We have also shown how these
data could be applied to studies of crushing in pro-
duction conditions. The uncertainties are now so
Figure 29. Crusher model product () for calculated
CZM feed () at normal specific charge compared with
measured product (x). Demenegas (2008).
large however that it would definitely be advisable
to use crusher effect measurements to support the
analysis.
A final note, even if criticism has been voiced
about the image based fragmentation systems used
above there is no reason to believe that they give
any worse or any better fragmentation data than
any other commercial systems in widespread use.
5 DESIGN CURVES FOR BLAST
FRAGMENTATION
The final step in fragmentation prediction is to be
able to predict how the parameters x50, xmax and

17
possibly b depend on blast design factors like spe-
cific charge q (kg/m3), explosive weight strength s
and the rock properties. This is usually called a frag-
mentation model and several exist (Cunningham
1983, 1987; Kanchibotla et al. 1999 & Djordjevic
1999 e.g.). The main crux of the models lie in quan-
tifying the influence of the rock properties and
many authors have modified the complicated rock
mass factor A of the Kuz-Ram model (Cunningham
1987) to suit their own needs.
In a more limited situation, in a single quarry or
mine where the rock conditions are relatively con-
stant or well known domains exist, there is still the
need to predict how fragmentation changes when
specific charge is changed, either by expanding or
shrinking the blast hole pattern, by altering the
blast hole diameter or some other choice.
Ouchterlony et al. (2006) developed such design
curves for the Vndle granite quarry. The purpose
of the work was to provide the quarry owner with a
tool that would tell him how to change the blasting
so that the desired feed into the primary crusher
was obtained.
The fragmentation in four blasts was monitored.
The specific charge was changed in the range 0.49
to 0.68 kg/m3. This was accomplished by expanding
the original pattern B S = 3 4 m to 3.2 4.25 m
and by shrinking it to 2.8 3.75 m in production
blasts with four rows of 90 mm holes charged
with bulk emulsion and a shallow V-initiation with
the Nonel Unidet system.
The Kuz-Ram prediction equation for the
median fragment size reads (Cunningham 1987)
x50 = A Q1/6 (115/sANFO)19/30/q0.8, (19)
where x50 is given in cm, Q is the charge weight per
hole (kg) and sANFO is the weight strength of the
explosive relative to ANFO (%). The rock mass
factor A in the model is determined by a fairly
complicated equation based on rock and jointing
properties. It has a range from about 1 to 20 and is
easily the most influential factor in Equation 19.
An independent assessment of the Vndle con-
ditions gave the value A = 4.76. The measured
fragmentation is more compatible with a value of
A 3.9, see Table 5 and the following discussions.
As Cunningham (2005) accepts a correction factor
C(A) = A/A in the range 0.5 C(A) 2 the value
A/A 3.9/4.76 = 0.82 comes quite close to the
independent assessment. This gave confidence to
the use of Equation 19 to describe the median frag-
mentation at Vndle but with factor 0.05 instead
of 0.06 in A.
To obtain the design curves, equations or values
for xmax and b are still needed. As the composite
parameter s50 x500.75 0.125 for the two most reli-
able of the constructed Vndle sieving curves, 1-L
18
Table 5. Back calculated rock mass constant A from
constructed sieving curves. L = low specific charge,
H = high.
Round 1-L 1-H 2-H 2-L
x50 (mm) 167 141 190 180
q (kg/m3) 0.52 0.63 0.68 0.49
sANFO (%) 85 85 85 85
Q (kg/hole) 86 78 93 77
A 3.89 3.89 5.41 4.07
and 1-H, that value was used in the construction of
the design curves, c.f. Equation 15a (Ouchterlony
et al. 2006). The idea that xmax would be unaffected
by the specific charge was further rejected because
it led to the unrealistic result that blasting with a
lower specific charge would for sufficiently small
fragments yield a higher portion of fines than blast-
ing with a higher specific charge. Instead it was pro-
posed that the rock in the muck piles for sufficiently
small fragments obeys the NBC characteristic of
that material, just as in model-scale blasting and
OCS comminution (Moser et al. 2000 & 2003a).
This amounts to setting b constant. Working
backwards from a b-expression like Equation 18
with Bref constant, the result became an equation
similar to the Kuz-Ram one in Equation 19. It
reads xmax 500 (0.55/q)0.6 and describes how xmax
changes in the range 0.3 < q 0.8 kg/m3.
The resulting design curves are shown in Fig-
ure 30 and the corresponding Swebrec function
parameters are given in Table 6. The two middle
curves, for which q = 0.5 to 0.6 kg/m3, are basically
what was measured in the quarry. The other curves
are extrapolations. Together they make it possible
to predict the effect of changing the blast hole pat-
tern on all fractions in the muck pile.
As an example take the road base material at
Vndle, the fraction x 32 mm, that is produced
and sieved off directly after the primary crusher.
The quarry sells 2030 % of its production as road
base material and the crusher settings and screen
size are chosen accordingly. It was found that the
crusher and the blasting contribute roughly equal
amounts. Figure 30 put the amount of such mate-
rial in the muck pile as 1314 %. The figure also
says that by changing the specific charge in the
range 0.3 < q 0.8 kg/m3 we would expect the road
base material in the muck pile to lie between 10
and 20 %.
This reasoning could be repeated for any muck
pile fraction, like x30 or x80, and the design curves thus
provide a help for the quarry blast management.
The design curves in Figure 30 is repeated
with linear axes in Figure 31. For each the tan-
gent line at x50, Pt(x) = 100 [0.5 + s50 (x x50)] has
been plotted as a solid straight line. The lines are
 Mass passing, % Mass passing, %
100 100

90 Blasting at Vndle 90 0,8 kg/m3

fragmentation when q varies
0,8 kg/m3 0,7 kg/m3
80 xmax = varies, b constant 80
95% slope
0,7 kg/m3
70 70 q = 0,6 kg/m3
q = 0,6 kg/m3 60
60
50 50
0,5 kg/m3 0,5 kg/m3
40 40
0,4 kg/m3 0,4 kg/m3
30 30
0,3 kg/m3 0,3 kg/m3
20 20
10 10

1 10 32 mm 100 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mesh size, mm . Mesh size, mm .

Figure 31. Blast design curves of Figure 30 in diagram

Mass passing, % with linear axes. Tangent lines at x50 added to illustrate
100
range of linear behavior of Swebrec function.
0,8 kg/m3
50 0,7 kg/m3
q = 0,6 kg/m3 The Kuz-Ram prediction equation for x50
0,5 kg/m3 worked in the Vndle quarry. The q-exponent
0,4 kg/m3 = 0.8 was roughly right, the A-value too. Table 4
0,3 kg/m3 says that raising the specific charge q from 1.08
10
to 1.35 kg/m3 at Aitik lowered x50 from 233 mm
to 200 mm. This corresponds to = ln(200/233)/
Blasting at Vndle ln(1.08/1.35) 0.68, which is not too far from
fragmentation when q varies 0.8 considering that only two domains were
xmax = varies, b constant
monitored.
The weight strength factor wasnt tested at
1 Vndle, nor was the size factor Q1/6 as the charge size
1 10 32 mm 100 1000
Mesh size, mm .
was constant. In a later paper (Ouchterlony & Moser
2006a) it was concluded both that the size factor
Figure 30. Blast design curves; the effect on fragmenta- Q1/6 couldnt fully explain the size dependence of
tion of changing the specific charge at Vndle by expanding blast fragmentation and that there also appeared
or contracting the drilling pattern when the hole diameter to be some effect of blast size on A and even on the
is kept constant. Upper graph: linear scale on y axis. Lower q-exponent.
graph: log scale on y axis, showing parallel NBC character
of curves in fines region. Ouchterlony et al. (2006).
Recent developments (Ouchterlony 2009) shed
new light on this part. One observation is that
the quantities xmax/B and b to a first approxima-
Table 6. Calculated values of Swebrec parameters for tion both depend on exactly the same material and
Vndle design curves. s50 x500.75 = 0.125 (1/mm)0.25 and explosives parameters as x50/B through the com-
b = 2.03. bination s q e B0.4, see Ouchterlony (2009)
Equations 11b and 18. This is e.g. respected by
q (kg/m3) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.7 0.8 Equation 18 above. Had this been known during
the Vndle tests then one or both of the choices for
x50 (mm) 259 205 172 159 148 131 118
xmax and b made above would probably have been
xmax (mm) 710 600 525 500 475 435 405
a bit different.
Another observation is that the equation x50/
B /s is an extension of Equation 19 in which
excellent approximations of the sieving curves the Q-dependence has been replaced by a combina-
within the range 20% P(x) 60% for all curves tion of explosive energy e (MJ/kg) and burden B,
but one, q = 0.3 kg/m3. C.f. Figure 4 and step 1 of see Ouchterlony (2009) Equation 30a, and in which
the construction procedure in chapter 4. It is also bench height H and hole spacing S also enters. The
apparent that by lowering the slope of the tangent result is
for the latter curve the same range of validity could
be achieved. x50/B = A [(H/B) (S/B)/k]1/3/(q e B0.4). (20)

19
 The choice = 19/30 0.633 emulates the
Kuz-Ram exponent for the explosive strength
in Equation 19. If the blasting pattern (BSH)
is kept constant and q varies because of chang-
ing bore-hole diameter would also express the
q-dependence, otherwise not.
At Vndle and Aitik though, H and S/B were
kept constant and the blasting pattern S B was
changed for a given bore-hole diameter to change
as the specific charge. Using Q/q = BSH to elimi-
nate all explicit dependence on B retrieves a factor
Q1/3 0.2, in which the exponent becomes 0.21 and
a q-factor in the denominator q0.8 + 1/3 in which the
exponent becomes 0.84.
Thus the more general Equation 20 has the capac-
ity to explain in better detail than Equation 19 what
happens to fragmentation when various parameters
in the blasting pattern are changed. The work by
Ouchterlony (2009) doesnt reconcile the difference
between how q is defined in bench blasting and in
the small scale cylinder tests though.
So far the results presented have been obtained
for blasting towards a free surface at which the
incident compressive wave is reflected as a tensile
wave, which helps the breakage. Johansson (2008)
and Johansson et al. (2007, 2008) present model
blasting data for mortar cylinders in which the frag-
mentation under confinement by aggregate debris
was studied. The cylinders were 140 280 mm
and had central, through-going holes in which
decoupled PETN cord of different strengths were
detonated. The coupling ratio was kept reasonably
constant.
Four debris confinements were tested and 160
free and confined shots made. The sieving curves
followed the Swebrec distribution quite well also
for the confined shots, except close to the critical
specific charge (burden).
Figure 32 shows some results. The debris con-
finement makes the fragmentation considerably
coarser. Denote the elastic properties of the mortar
by m (density) and cm (P-wave velocity) and of the
aggregate a and ca respectively. Next denote the
impedances Zm = m cm and Za = a ca. Then the
amplitude of the reflected wave when a 1D rectan-
gular wave arrives at a mortar-aggregate interface
is given by multiplying the incident wave by the
reflection coefficient Re = (Za Zm)/(Za + Zm). The
energy content of the reflected wave is obtained by
multiplying by Re2.
In the final regression analysis (Johansson 2008),
the effect of the debris confinement was quite well
explained by multiplying the specific charge q or
its energy q e by Re2 in an equation like 19. This in
a sense makes q Re2 an effective specific charge.
Full-scale blasts, like large open pit rounds,
where the material movement changes from hori-
zontal in the first few rows to near vertical swelling
20
100
Ave. fragment size x50, mm
aggr.& plaster debris
x50 = 52.4/q0.76
50
free cylinder
x50 = 18.5/q0.84
aggr.debris
x50 = 38.1/q0.40
Free
power fit
Aggregate debris
10
power fit
Aggr. & plaster debris
power fit
0.1 1 5
Specific charge, kg/m3
Figure 32. Effect of debris confinement on the
fragmentation of mortar cylinders blasted at specific
charges in the range 0.22.6 kg/m3. Johansson et al.
(2007).
in the confined interior rows might superficially
be considered 3D blasts crater like rather than 2D
ones. This would require some changes in Equa-
tion 20 (Ouchterlony 2009). The bore-holes in the
interior of such a blast have in reality not only a
free top surface but also side surfaces confined by
blasted rock. It might thus be worthwhile to test
the approach above in which the effect of the con-
finement is characterized by an effective specific
charge.
6 CONCLUSION
This paper summarizes the last decade of research
at Swebrec and its predecessor SveBeFo (Swedish
Rock Engineering Research), work in which the
Less Fines project had an important part. This
has led to a new fragment size distribution with
an unexpected ability to reproduce sieving curves
of all kinds of rock and concrete/mortar that has
been blasted or crushed in almost every conceiv-
able way.
The Swebrec function is described in some detail
and examples of curve fits are given as is some
advice about the fitting procedure. Its relations
with other comminution concepts such as t10 from
JKMRC are explored. The result that the param-
eters of the Swebrec function are not independent
is of special importance and a more general ver-
sion of this dependence is presented.
How to use the Swebrec function for full-scale
blasts is described and especially for determining
the fragment size distribution for large blasts where
the available information is very limited.
 The final section treats design curves, in short
determining developed versions of the Kuz-Ram
model which can predict the changes in fragmenta-
tion that are caused by changes in specific charge
and other geometrical parameters of a bench blast.
Some recent results finally suggest that the effect of
confining debris at the free face could be accounted
for by multiplying the specific charge by the wave
reflection factor of 1D wave dynamics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wants to give special thanks to profes-
sor Peter Moser of MU-Leoben with whom he
has long collaborated in matters of blast fragmen-
tation. This paper is based on a manuscript pre-
ceding a paper in German (Ouchterlony & Moser
2006b). An updated version was presented as a ple-
nary lecture at the ISEM 2008 in Tokyo, April 24,
2008. This paper is a second update.
MU-Leoben financed the lab scale tests with
the Brarp and Vndle specimens with internal
resources. The EU financed the Hengl part of this
work through the Less Fines project, EU project
GRD-2000-25224 and Hengl Bitustein AG sup-
plied the test site. SveBeFo and supporting Swed-
ish industries financed the work in the Brarp
quarry. Emmaboda Granit AB supplied the test
site. The MinBaS Development Programme, the
Swedish Geological Survey, the Swedish Mineral
Processing Research Association (MinFo) and the
Swedish Energy Administration financed the work
in the Vndle quarry. Swerock AB supplied the
test site. The site owners have made many in-kind
contributions.
REFERENCES
strm, J.A. 2004. Personal communication.
strm, J.A. & Ouchterlony, F. 2004. Universal fragmen-
tation in D dimensions. Physical Rev Letters 52(24):
245506-1 to 4.
Bergman, P. 2005. Optimisation of fragmentation and
comminution at Boliden Mineral, Aitik operation.
Licentiate thesis 2005: 90. Lule: Lule Univ. Techn.
Blair, D.P. 2004. Curve-fitting schemes for fragmentation
data. FragblastInt. J. Blast. Fragment. 8(3): 137150.
Cunningham, C.V.B. 1983. In R. Holmberg & A. Rustan
(eds.), Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Lule, Sweden, 2226 August, pp. 439453.
Lule: Lule Univ. Techn.
Cunningham, C.V.B. 1987. Fragmentation estima-
tions and the Kuz-Ram modelfour years on. In
W.L. Fourney & R.D. Dick (eds.), Proc. 2nd Int. Symp.
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 2326 August,
pp. 475487. Bethel, CT: SEM.
Cunningham, C.V.B. 2005. The Kuz-Ram fragmenta-
tion model20 years on. In R. Holmberg (ed.), Proc.
21
3rd EFEE World Conf. on Explosives and Blasting,
Brighton, UK, 1316 September, pp. 201210. Reading,
UK: European Federation of Explosives Engineers.
Demenegas, V. 2008. Fragmentation analysis of opti-
mized blasting rounds in the Aitik mine. MSc thesis
2008: 071. Lule: Lule Univ. Techn.
Djordjevic, N. 1999. Two-component model of blast
fragmentation. In Symp. series S21, Proc. 6th Int.
Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannes-
burg, South Africa, 812 August, pp. 213219. Johan-
nesburg: SAIMM.
Franklin, J. & Katsabanis, T. (eds). 1996. Measurement of
Blast Fragmentation. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Gilvarry, J.J. 1961. Fracture of brittle solids. I. Distrib-
tion function for fragment size in single fracture (theo-
retical). J. Appl. Physics 32(3): 391399.
Grasedieck, A. 2006. The natural breakage characteris-
tics (NBC) of rocks in blasting. PhD thesis, 217 pp.
Leoben, Austria: Montanuniv., Dep. of Mining Eng. &
Mineral Economics.
Johansson, D. 2008. Fragmentation and waste rock com-
paction in small-scale confined blasting. Licentiate
thesis 2008: 30. Lule: Lule Univ. Techn.
Johansson, D., Ouchterlony, F. & Nyberg, U. 2007. Blast-
ing against aggregate confinement, fragmentation and
swelling in model scale. In P. Moser et al. (eds.), Proc.
4th EFEE World Conf. on Explosives and Blasting,
pp. 1327. Reading: EFEE.
Johansson, D., Ouchterlony, F., Edin, J., Martinsson, L. &
Nyberg, U. 2008. Blasting against confinement,
fragmentation and compaction in model scale. In
H. Schunnesson & E. Nordlund (eds.), MassMin
2008, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. & Exhib. on Mass Mining,
pp. 681690. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Kanchibotla, S.S., Valery, W. & Morell, S. 1999. Mod-
elling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on
crushing and grinding. In C. Workman-Davies (ed.),
Proc. Explo 1999 Conf., pp. 137144. Carlton, VIC:
AusIMM.
King, R.P. 2001. Modeling & simulation of mineral
processing systems. Boston: Butterworth-Heineman.
Kristiansen, J. 1987. Utvikling av en ny parameter for
karakterisere sprengstoffers evne til fragmentere
fjellbelyst ved sprengningsforsk i betong. Cand Sci
Thesis, 87 + 73 pp. Univ. Oslo: Inst. Geol. In Norwegian.
Kristiansen, J., Kure, K., Vestre, J. & Bergqvist, I. 1990.
An investigation of heave and fragmentation related
to explosive properties. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, pp. 8390. Parkville, VIC:
AusIMM.
Kuznetsov, V.M. 1973. The mean diameter of the frag-
ments formed by blasting rock. Soviet Mining Sciences
9(2): 144148.
Maripuu, R. 1968. Investigation of sieving analysis and
fragment shape of SLC rock from LKAB, Kiruna. Dipl.
Thesis. Stockholm: Royal Inst Techn. In Swedish.
Miklautsch, A. 2002. Experimental investigation of the
blast fragmentation behaviour of rock and concrete.
Dipl. work: 161 pp. Leoben, Austria: Montanuniv.,
Dep. of Mining Engng & Mineral Economics.
Moser, P. 2003. Less fines production in aggregate and
industrial minerals industry. In R. Holmberg (ed.),
Proc. EFEE 2nd World Conf. on Explosives & Blasting
Techn, pp. 335343. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Moser, P. 2005. Less Fines in aggregate and industrial
minerals productionResults of an European research
project. In R. Holmberg (ed.), Proc. 3rd EFEE World
Conf. on Explosives & Blasting, Brighton, UK, 1316
September, pp. 567574 England: EFEE.
Moser, P., Cheimanoff, N., Ortiz, R. & Hochholdinger, R.
2000. Breakage characteristics in rock blasting. In
R. Holmberg (ed.), Proc. 1st EFEE Conf. on Explo-
sives & Blasting, pp. 165170. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Moser, P., Grasedieck, A., Arsic, V. & Reichholf, G.
2003a. Charakteristik der Korngrssenverteilung von
Spreng-hauwerk im Feinbereich. Berg- und Htten-
mnnische Monatshefte 148: 205216.
Moser, P., Olsson, M., Ouchterlony, F. & Grasedieck, A.
2003b. Comparison of the blast fragmentation from
lab-scale and full-scale tests at Brarp. In R. Holm-
berg (ed.) Proc. EFEE 2nd World Conf. on Explosives &
Blasting Techn., pp. 449458. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Mykland, J. 1996. En teoretisk og eksperimentell under-
skelse av sprengstoffenes egenskaper relatert till
fragmentering och kast av bergarter. Cand Sci Thesis,
159 + 83 pp. Univ. Oslo: Inst. Geol. In Norwegian.
Napier-Munn, T.J., Morrell, S., Morrison, R.D. &
Kojovic, T. 1996. Mineral comminution circuitsTheir
operation and optimisation. JKMRC Mon. Series Min-
ing and Mineral Proc. Brisbane, QLD: JKMRC.
Ouchterlony, F. 2003. Bend it like Beckham or a wide-
range yet simple fragment size distribution for blasted
and crushed rock. EU project GRD-2000-25224. Less
Fines project int. techn. rpt no. 78. Leoben, Austria:
Montanuniversitt.
Ouchterlony, F. 2004. Influence of blasting on the size
distribution and properties of muckpile fragments, a
state-of-the art review. Rpt project P2000-10: Energy
optimisation during comminution. Stockholm: Swed-
ish Min. Res. Org. MinFo.
Ouchterlony, F. 2005a. The Swebrec function: link-
ing fragmentation by blasting and crushing. Mining
Techn. (Trans. of the Inst. of Mining & Met. A) 114:
A29A44.
Ouchterlony, F. 2005b. What does the fragment size distri-
bution from blasting look like? In R. Holmberg (ed.),
Proc. 3rd EFEE World Conf. on Explosives & Blasting,
pp. 189199. England: EFEE.
Ouchterlony, F. 2009. A common form for fragment
size distributions from blasting and a derivation
of a generalized Kuznetsovs x50-equation. In J.A.
Sanchidrin (ed.), Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Frag-
mentation by BlastingFragblast 9, Granada, Spain,
1317 September. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Ouchterlony, F. & Moser, P. 2006a. Likenesses and
differences in the fragmentation of full-scale and
model-scale blasts. Proc. 8th Int Symp. on Rock Frag-
mentation by BlastingFragblast 8, Santiago, Chile,
711 May, pp. 207220. Santiago: Editec.
22
Ouchterlony, F. & Moser, P. 2006b. Die Swebrec Funktion:
Eine neue Korngrenverteilungsfunktion und ihr
praktischer Einsatz in der Sprengtechnik. BHM, Berg-
und Httenmnnische Monatshefte 151(10): 389404.
Ouchterlony, F., Nyberg, U., Bergman, P. & Esen, S.
2007. Monitoring the Blast Fragmentation of Boli-
den Minerals Aitik Mine. In P. Moser et al. (eds.),
Proc. 4th EFEE World Conf. on Explosives & Blasting,
pp. 4762. EFEE.
Ouchterlony, F., Nyberg, U., Olsson, M., Bergqvist, I.,
Granlund, L. & Grind, H. 2003. On the energy balance
of production blasts at Nordkalks Klinthagen quarry.
In R. Holmberg (ed.), Proc. EFEE 2nd World Conf.
on Expl. & Blasting Techn., pp. 193203. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Ouchterlony, F., Olsson, M., Nyberg, U., Andersson, P. &
Gustavsson, L. 2006. Constructing the fragment size
distribution of a bench blasting round, using the new
Swebrec function. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Frag-
mentation by BlastingFragblast 8, Santiago, Chile,
711 May, pp. 332344. Santiago: Editec S.A.
Reichholf, G. 2003. Experimental investigation into the
characteristic of particle size distributions of blasted
material. PhD thesis, 223 pp. Leoben, Austria: Monta-
nuniv., Dep. of Mining Engng & Mineral Economics.
Sanchidrin, J.A., Segarra, P. & Lpez, L.M. 2007. On
specific surface and fragmentation energy of blasted
rock. In P. Moser et al. (eds.), Proc. 4th EFEE World
Conf. on Explosives & Blasting, pp. 6373. EFEE.
Sanchidrin, J.A., Segarra, P., Ouchterlony, F. & Lpez, L.M.
2009. On the accuracy of fragment size measurement by
image analysis in combination with some distribution
functions. Rock Mech Rock Engng 42(1): 95116.
Silvestrov, V.V. 2004. Application of the Gilvarry distri-
bution to the statistical description of fragmentation
of solids under dynamic loading. Comb. Expl. & Shock
Waves 40(2): 225237.
SPSS. 2003. TableCurve2D, Automated curve fitting &
equation discovery, ver. 4. Users Manual. Chicago:
SPSS, Science Marketing Dep.
Steiner, H.J. 1991. The significance of the Rittinger
equation in present-day comminution technology, In
Proc. XVII Int. Minerals Processing Cong., Dresden,
I: 177188.
Steiner, H.J. 1998. Zerkleinerungstechnische Eigenschaf-
ten von Gesteinen. Felsbau 16: 320325.
Svahn, V. 2003. Generation of fines in bench blasting.
Licentiate thesis A104. Gothenburg: Chalmers Univ.
Tech.
Wimmer, M., Ouchterlony, F. & Moser, P. 2008. The
fragment size distribution of Kiruna magnetite, from
model-scale to run of the mine. In H. Schunnesson &
E. Nordlund (eds.), MassMin 2008, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. &
Exhib. on Mass Mining, pp. 691703. Rotterdam:
Balkema.