ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359

www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

Monte Carlo simulation as a tool to predict blasting

fragmentation based on the Kuz–Ram model$
Mario A. Morina,, Francesco Ficarazzob
a
Department of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
b
Dipartimento di Georisorse e Territorio, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Received 26 November 2004; received in revised form 19 June 2005; accepted 20 June 2005

Abstract

Rock fragmentation is considered the most important aspect of production blasting because of its direct effects on the
costs of drilling and blasting and on the economics of the subsequent operations of loading, hauling and crushing. Over
the past three decades, significant progress has been made in the development of new technologies for blasting
applications. These technologies include increasingly sophisticated computer models for blast design and blast
performance prediction. Rock fragmentation depends on many variables such as rock mass properties, site geology, in
situ fracturing and blasting parameters and as such has no complete theoretical solution for its prediction. However,
empirical models for the estimation of size distribution of rock fragments have been developed. In this study, a blast
fragmentation Monte Carlo-based simulator, based on the Kuz–Ram fragmentation model, has been developed to
predict the entire fragmentation size distribution, taking into account intact and joints rock properties, the type and
properties of explosives and the drilling pattern. Results produced by this simulator were quite favorable when
compared with real fragmentation data obtained from a blast quarry. It is anticipated that the use of Monte Carlo
simulation will increase our understanding of the effects of rock mass and explosive properties on the rock
fragmentation by blasting, as well as increase our confidence in these empirical models. This understanding will
translate into improvements in blasting operations, its corresponding costs and the overall economics of open pit mines
and rock quarries.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Monte Carlo simulation; Blasting; Fragmentation prediction; Kuz–Ram model

1. Introduction to rock fragmentation

Some 30 years ago, Mackenzie (1966, 1967) presented

his now classic conceptual curves showing the cost
$
dependence of the different mining unit operations on
Code available from server at http://www.iamg.org/CGE- the degree of fragmentation at the Quebec-Cartier iron
ditor/index.htm.
Corresponding author at: Room 517-6350, Mining Engi- ore open pit mine, namely:
neering, University of British Columbia, Stores Road-UBC,
Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4. Tel.: +1 6048275089;
Drilling
fax: +1 6048225599.
Blasting
E-mail address: mmorin@mining.ubc.ca (M.A. Morin).
Loading
0098-3004/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2005.06.022
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. Morin, F. Ficarazzo / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359

Hauling

Crushing
Mackenzie’s objective was to determine the cost
curves based on the mean fragmentation size. MacK-
enzie showed that loading, hauling and crushing costs
decreased with increasing rock fragmentation while
drilling and blasting costs increased with increasing
rock fragmentation. As shown in Fig. 1, the summation
Fig. 1. Effect of degree of fragmentation on individual unit
operation costs and overall cost (after Mackenzie, 1967).
353
of costs resulted in an inverted cost curve with a
minimum fragmentation cost and thus optimum frag-
mentation size. This concept of optimum fragmentation
is critical for optimizing a drilling and blasting program
that minimizes the entire cost for a mining operation
(Hustrulid, 1999; Kanchibotla, 2001; La Rosa, 2001;
JKTech Pty, 2004).
Mechanical crushing and grinding are particularly
expensive operations at a mine and considerable cost
and throughput benefits can be obtained by breaking the
rock using explosives effectively instead (Eloranta, 1997;
Simangunsong, et al., 2003; Katsabanis, et al., 2004).
Being able to predict the fragmentation of a rock mass
broken up by blasting offers significant advantages in
providing muck with a desirable size distribution and
specifications for aggregate purposes or mill feed. It is
possible to design a blast to provide riprap (an erosion
protection measure) to line up dams and channels that
meet engineered specifications. Knowing the size dis-
tribution for a particular blast and rock mass condi-
tions, the contractor can adapt the blasting if possible or
take into account the material that will not meet the
required specifications into the project bid. Such knowl-
edge can also be used for sizing and selecting crushers
and conveyor systems. An undersize material-handling
system will be a bottleneck; an oversize system will be
wasteful and underutilized.
2. The Kuz–Ram fragmentation model
The Kuz–Ram model is an empirical fragmentation
model (Cunningham, 1983, 1987; Lizotte, 1990) based
on the Kuznetsov and Rosin–Rammler equations as well
as an algorithm, developed by Cunningham, which
derives the coefficient of uniformity in the Rosin–-
Rammler equation from blasting parameters.
The model predicts fragmentation from blasting in
terms of mass percent passing a given mesh size:

Smaller fragmentation occurs with higher explosive
energy input, weaker rock types and smaller blast-
hole diameters.

More regular fragmentation sizing results from the
uniform distribution of explosives in the rock mass,
smaller burdens and greater spacing/burden ratios.
The problem areas in any specifically predictive
blasting model are typically:

definition of relevant rock mass properties,

selection of appropriate explosives performance
indices,

determination of actual blast fragmentation.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
354 M.A. Morin, F. Ficarazzo / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359
This work is meant to particularly address the issue of
variation and uncertainty in rock mass properties
through the use of Monte Carlo simulation. Because
rock mass conditions vary across a blast, the resulting
fragmentation should vary as well.
2.1. The Kuznetsov equation
Kuznetsov (1973) formulated a semi-empirical equa-
tion based on field investigations and a review of
previous published data that related the mean fragment
size to the mass of explosive, the volume blasted and the
rock strength. The Kuznetsov equation, given below,
relates the mean fragment size and the applied blast
energy per unit volume of rock (i.e. referred to as the
powder factor) as a function of rock type.
 0:8
V0 1=6
Xm ¼ A QT , (1)
QT
where Xm is the the mean fragment size (cm), A the rock
factor, V0 the rock volume (m3) broken per blastho-
le ¼ burden  spacing  bench height, QT the mass (kg)
of TNT containing the energy equivalent of the
explosive charge in each blasthole.
Cunningham (1983) shows how the basic equation can
be modified to treat various types of explosives relative
to the performance of ANFO (ammonium nitrate—fuel
oil, the most common bulk mining explosive) mixtures
with the use of the following equation:
SANFO
QT ¼ Qe , (2)
115
where Qe is the mass of explosive being used (kg), SANFO
the relative weight strength of the explosive relative to
ANFO.
The equation can also be stated as a function of the
powder factor or specific charge K (kg of explosives/m3
of rock) using
V0 1
¼ . (3)
Qe K
Eqs. (2) and (3) can be rewritten to calculate the mean
fragmentation size Xm for a given powder factor as
 
115 19=30
X m ¼ AðK 0:8 ÞQe1=6 . (4)
S ANFO
Cunningham (1983, 1987) and later Lilly (1986) provide
methodologies for evaluating the rock factor A based on
the geomechanical properties of the rock mass to be
blasted, typically in the range of 8–12.
2.2. The Rosin–Rammler equation
The Rosin–Rammler equation is used to characterize
the partial-size distribution of a material for use in a
variety of applications (Rosin and Rammler, 1933).
Mineral processors are generally familiar with this
equation, expressed as
n
R ¼ eðX =X c Þ , (5)
where R is the mass fraction larger than size X, X the
diameter of fragment (cm), Xc the characteristic size
(cm), n the Rosin–Rammler exponent, and e the base of
natural logarithms, 2.7183.
The characteristic size, Xc, is approximately the 36.8%
size retainment point on the size distribution function.
The Rosin–Rammler exponent, n, is known as the
uniformity coefficient. A wide variety of size distribu-
tions can be modeled with the Rosin–Rammler equation
by simply changing the value of n to fit the curve.
Cunningham (1987) notes that the uniformity coefficient
n usually varies between 0.8 and 1.5.
Since the Kuznetsov formula gives the screen size Xm
for which 50% of the material would pass, substituting
X ¼ X m and R ¼ 0.5 (see Fig. 2) into Eq. (6) one finds
that
Xm
Xc ¼ . (6)
ð0:693Þ1=n
Given that the Kuznetsov equation accounts for
explosive strength and rock mass characteristics, and
that the mean size is related to the characteristic size of
the Rosin–Rammler distribution, the only unknown left
is the uniformity coefficient. Cunningham established
the applicable uniformity coefficient through several
investigations, taking into consideration the impact of
such factors as: blast geometry, hole diameter, burden,
spacing, hole lengths and drilling accuracy. The ex-
ponent n for the Rosin–Rammler equation is estimated
as follows:
     
B 1 þ S=B 0:5 W L
n ¼ 2:2  14 1 , (7)
D 2 B H
Fig. 2. Typical fragmentation curve showing per cent retained
as function of screen opening.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. Morin, F. Ficarazzo / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359
where B is the blasting burden (m), S the blasthole
spacing (m), D the blasthole diameter (mm), W the
standard deviation of drilling accuracy (m), L the total
charge length (m), and H the bench height (m).
The above parameters are illustrated in Fig. 3.
It is normally desired to have uniform fragmentation;
so high values of n are preferred. Experience by
Cunningham (1987) has suggested that the normal
range of n for blasting fragmentation in reasonably
competent ground is from 0.75 to 1.5, with the average
being around 1.0. More competent rocks have higher
values.
The modified Kuznetsov Eq. (4), the Rosin–Rammler
Eq. (5) and the estimate of the Rosin–Rammler
exponent forms the basic of the Kuz–Ram formulation
for blast fragmentation prediction model. The Kuz–-
Ram model can be applied in a variety of ways
depending on the design objective. If it is possible to
vary the blast design to achieve a constant mean
fragmentation size (Xm), or the powder factor (K) can
be held constant, thus predicting the resulting size
distribution.
3. Monte Carlo-based simulation and fragmentation
prediction
First coined by Metropolis and Ulam (1949), Monte
Carlo-based simulation methods have gained the status
of a full-fledged numerical method capable of addressing
complex problems. Monte Carlo simulation can be
loosely described as a simulation method where the
simulation results are based on a model where the input
values are selected at random from representative
statistical distribution functions that describe those
inputs. The simulation is repeated n-times and the
results themselves now described a statistical distribu-
Fig. 3. Blasthole layout terminology.
355
tion (Sobol et al., 1994; Fishman, 1996). Monte Carlo
simulation methods are primarily used in situations
where there is uncertainty in our inputs and where the
calculated uncertainty of results accurately reflects the
uncertainty of the input data.
It is generally recognized that natural materials like
rock tend to show considerable variety of properties.
Rock strength, fracture spacing and orientation within a
given rock mass can and do vary. Drilling itself can
introduce variability with deviations in drill hole
spacing, burden and alignment. The end result of such
a variation is that the resulting fragmentation size
predicted by the Kuz–Ram model will also show
variability.
This observation is particularly important if blasting
is meant to achieve a specific purpose other that
breaking up the rock mass. For example, the width of
conveyor systems is typically dimensioned using the
typical fragment size to be moved. If rock oversize is
encountered more frequently than expected, the con-
veyor system will not perform as expected. Another
example involves the sizing of the throat for a rock
crusher. If the blasted material is coarser than expected,
the crusher will be undersized, if the material is finer
than expected, the crusher will be underutilized.
One last example involves the production of riprap, a
rock-based erosion control measure used in dam and
water channel construction. A contractor wishing to
blast riprap that must meet design specifications might
find that the rock mass is incapable of producing such
material, or that crushing and screening might be
required after blasting. The extra handling will be costly
and should be factored in the contractual bid.
Monte Carlo-based simulation using the Kuz–Ram
model can provide insight into all of these problems and
help the engineer create a suitable blast design to meet a
required goal.
4. Blasting principles for pits and quarries
Blasting is as much an art as it is a science. Although
much work has been done in the area of modeling
fracture development and stress wave propagation in an
isotropic/anisotropic medium, the natural variability of
the rock mass often precludes such complex approaches
to blast design and therefore considerable blasting
design is based on relatively simple rules-of-thumb.
Blast design must consider the following parameters
(Ash, 1968; Jimeno et al., 1995; Hustrulid, 1999):

Blasthole diameter D (m)

Bench height H (m)

Blasthole burden B (m)

Blasthole spacing S (m)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
356 M.A. Morin, F. Ficarazzo / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359

Blasthole subdrilling J (m)

Blasthole stemming length T (m)

Blasthole deviation and alignment

Blasthole pattern (staggered or rectangular)

Rock mass properties and discontinuities

Explosive properties
The most critical and important dimension in blasting
is that of the burden B as it represents the rock mass to
be fragmented by the explosive column. Its actual value
will depend on a combination of variables including the
rock characteristics, the explosive used, etc. A conve-
nient guide used for estimating the burden is the KB ratio
(KB is burden/diameter). Experience shows that when
K B ¼ 30 (typical range 20–40), the blaster can usually
expect satisfactory results for average field condition.
The distance between adjacent blastholes, measured
perpendicular to the burden, is defined as the spacing S.
Ideal energy balancing between explosive charges is
usually accomplished when the spacing dimension is
nearly equal to double that of the burden (K S ¼ 2) when
the charges are initiated simultaneously.
For most conditions, the required subdrilling (J)
should be 0.3 times the burden dimension yielding KJ or
the subdrill to burden ratio (Ash, 1963).
Stemming is the portion of blasthole that has been
packed with inert material above the charge so as to
confine and retain the gases produced by the explosion,
thus improving the fragmentation process. Field experi-
ence shows that a KT (stemming/burden ratio) of 0.7 is a
reasonable starting point.
It has been found that fragmentation is signifi-
cantly affected by local geological conditions. The strike
and dip direction of joint sets and their frequency in the
rock mass are of great importance, since the stress waves
produced by the detonation of the explosive charges will
be reflected at the joint surfaces. Rock mass disconti-
nuities that are perpendicular to the blasthole axis have
little effect on fragmentation. However, if they are
parallel to the axis of the borehole, energy is wasted in
excessive crushing in the area close to the borehole while
little work is done away from the blasthole. The
direction of the blast with respect to the structural
conditions is of paramount importance in practice.
5. Development of the Monte Carlo simulator using
Microsoft’s Visual Basic.Net
Microsoft’s Visual Basic.Net offers a strong software
platform for developing a Monte Carlo-based simulator.
Although, there exists other dedicated commercial
applications for performing Monte Carlo-based simula-
tion, Visual Basic offers the capability to create a
stand-alone program as well as the possibility
of future enhancements and integration into other
applications.
The Monte Carlo simulation model requires the
following seven parameters that have a range of possible
values:

Unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock

Elastic modulus of the intact rock

Joint’s dip

Joint’s dip direction

Joint’s spacing

Drilling accuracy

Bench’s face dip direction
To describe the behaviors, triangular distribu-
tions were utilized for all parameters except the joint
spacing, where both triangular and exponential distribu-
tions were used. The UCS parameter will be modeled to
serve as a general example of the approach taken. A
similar approach can be applied to all remaining
parameters.
The unconfined compressive strength value (UCS) is
typically determined by an unconfined compression test
where a cylindrical core sample is loaded axially to
failure, with no confinement (lateral support). Concep-
tually, the peak value of the axial stress is taken as the
unconfined compressive strength of the sample. In view
of the variability of rock properties, when adequate
samples are available, repeated testing may be war-
ranted to determine average values. Unfortunately, we
rarely have a unique value but a range. Fig. 4 shows a
histogram for a set of nine unconfined compressive
strength results for the same rock material.
The histogram shows an approximate triangular
distribution with the following characteristics:

Most Likely ¼ 405 with 0.238 probability

Lower Bound ¼ 375 with 0.095 probability

Upper Bound ¼ 455 with 0.047 probability
Fig. 4. UCS frequency histogram.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. Morin, F. Ficarazzo / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359
A linear relationship is assumed between lower bound
and most likely value as well as upper bound and most
likely value. Also, the cumulative frequency (from zero
to 1) can be calculated. Using a random-number
generator with a range set between zero and 1, it is
possible to work backwards and calculate UCS values
for substitution into the Monte Carlo simulator and the
analysis of one scenario. To guarantee the maximum
randomness of this ‘‘scenario’’ and the independence
between the parameters, seven values were generated
from the seven triangular distributions, producing seven
different random numbers.
The Kuz–Ram model produces three parameters for
defining the degree of fragmentation and the relative
percentage for each size:

Oversize as the upper bound of the fragmentation; its
percentage will represent the coarser part after
blasting of the fragmentation curve.

Optimum-size as the most likely size; it is the size
through which will pass value to the mineral
processing chain (loading, crushing, hauling)

Undersize as the lower bound size and it is the finer
part of the fragmentation curve.
6. Application of simulator to a case study
The simulation application has been designed to
answer two types of problems regarding the application
of the Kuz–Ram model:

Calculate the powder factor required to obtain a
certain mean fragment size

Calculate fragment size distribution while the powder
factor is held constant
As described above, the first approach is referred to as
the ‘‘constant mean fragmentation’’ and the second one
as the ‘‘constant powder factor’’.
To validate the model, the simulator was compared to
data obtained from a quarry, the Costiolo open-pit in
Table 1
Triangular distribution data for case study
Parameter Units Lower bound
Frequency Value
UCS MPa 1 121.34
Elastic modulus GPa 1 72.95
Discontinuity dip degree 3 55
Discontinuity dip direction degree 4 160
Discontinuity spacing cm 5 40
357
Italy. Costiolo is an open pit mine located near Bergamo
(Milano). The Ghisalberti Lime S.p.a. Company has a
concession to mine Triassic limestone for producing
hydrated lime.
The data consist of five specific gravity tests, 19 elastic
modulus and UCS tests, as well as discontinuity analysis
and the blast design itself. The actual fragmentation
obtained from the blast design was measured using
screen (sieve) analysis.
On average, the specific gravity value is estimated to
be 2.68 (g/cm3). The discontinuities data were obtained
from scanlines surveyed on the rock mass.
6.1. Constant powder factor analysis
In this approach, the fragment size distribution and
the mean fragment after blasting is predicted using a
constant and known powder factor (i.e. calculated from
a defined drilling pattern (burden, spacing) and mass of
explosive). Under the ‘‘constant powder factor’’ analy-
sis, the simulator uses the powder factor as an input. The
results of the simulation are compared with those
observed in the field to verify that the simulator
predictions are essentially congruent and physically
correct.
Table 1 lists the triangular distribution information
used by the simulator. Note that drilling accuracy was
assumed to be very high. The face dip direction parameter
was measured from a map. The drilling pattern used in the
actual blast was entered in the simulator.
Within the simulator, a drop box named ‘‘explosive
properties’’ contains the relative weight strength and the
density (kg/m3) of the most common explosives used in
the industry and can be used to select an explosive other
than ANFO. Explosive strength values and densities
have been extracted from the commercial literature. If
no information is available about the explosive strength,
that parameter can be calculated relative to ANFO if the
heat of explosion is known.
The simulator offers an ‘‘initial blast design’’ as
another helper tool to aid the user in selecting the
appropriate blasthole burden or spacing. The number of
simulations was set to 100,000 and the results of each
Most likely Upper bound
Frequency Value Frequency Value
3 141.22 1 208.16
3 81.22 1 91.79
19 75 9 85
14 240 6 340
21 200 1 400
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
358 M.A. Morin, F. Ficarazzo / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359

simulation stored into a temporary array for later Table 2

statistical analysis. The resulting population tends to Constant powder factor—real and simulated percent passing
be normally distributed, a consequence of the Central
Size (cm) Real Simulated Error (%)
Limit Theorem. The results indicate a mean of 7.12 and passing passing
a standard deviation of 0.738. It is of course possible to (%) (%)
specify the range of values to either the 68%, 95% and
99% confidence limits. Oversize 100 12.40 13 0.6
The simulator then calculates the mean fragment size Mean 42 50 48 2
using Eq. (4). The mass of explosive Qe is set to 50.8 kg/ Undersize 15 17.20 15 2.2
hole and the explosive column diameter D is 70 mm. The
bench height H is 15 m while the loaded length L above
the bench toe is 11 m. The powder factor K is 0.242 kg/
m3. For the case study, the mean fragment size Xm is
42 cm with a standard deviation of 4.35 cm.
Using Eq. (7), the simulator calculates n, the
Rosin–Rammler exponent, as 1.273 using a burden B
of 3.5 m, a blasthole spacing S of 4 m, a drill hole
diameter of 90 mm and a drilling accuracy W of 0.01 m.
The characteristic size Xc is the size through which
63.2% of the particles pass and is simply a scale factor.
In this case study, although n is a unique value, Xm is a
distribution and therefore Xc will also be a distribution.
Using Eq. (5) and increasing the X value from 0 to
300 cm, it is possible to calculate all cumulative
distributions. After 100,000 simulations, the simulator
has essentially described all possible scenarios and Fig. 5. Constant powder factor—final cumulative distributions.
defined the worst case scenarios and the expected or
‘mean case’.
The mean case takes into account all mean Kuz–Ram Table 3
values like the mean fragment size Xm, the mean Constant mean fragmentation—specified percent passing curve
characteristic size Xc, the mean blastability of the rock
Size (cm) Fixed passing (%)
mass and the mean uniformity indexes. The Monte
Carlo simulation also defines upper and lower percent Oversize 100 15
‘‘passing a given size’’ boundaries. The area between Mean 45 50
these two boundaries represents all cumulative frag- Undersize 15 15
ments distributions that could come out by blasting with
this particular design pattern and layout and provides
the blast designer with a possible range of variation. rock mass data previously defined and taking into
The simulator calculated the mean fragment size as account the explosive properties, the simulator can
42 cm and the characteristic size as 56 cm as well as the execute, in reverse, the constant powder factor process.
percentage between the undersize and the oversize Both the mean fragment size and the percent passing are
curves. Table 2 summarizes the predicted percent defined. It is possible to also define the undersize or
passing versus the measured field passing. oversize percent passing, depending on the cumulative
As shown in Fig. 5, a comparison between the distribution that is desirable after blasting. In fact, by
simulated distribution curve and the actual curve, fixing two points, it is possible to define the entire
measured in the field, shows considerable similarity, cumulative distribution. In this application, a constant
indicating that the Kuz–Ram simulator, under a mean and undersize passing will be specified (listed in
‘‘constant powder factor’’ process, can predict fairly Table 3) and the simulator will be searching for a
well the fragmentation size distribution of a blast layout. suitable drilling pattern, including spacing S and burden
The real mean fragment size is 45 cm while the predicted B values.
value is 42 cm. Several burden–spacing combinations are capable of
meeting the required fragmentation distribution. It is
6.2. Constant mean fragmentation analysis upto the blasting engineer to make the final selection
based on experience. Table 4 compares the values used
The simulator can also be used to design a blast to for the actual blast with those predicted by the
achieve a given fragmentation distribution. Using the simulator. Overall, the results are quite comparable.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. Morin, F. Ficarazzo / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 352–359
Table 4
Constant mean fragmentation—real and simulated blasting
patterns results
Actual pattern Simulated pattern
Burden B (m) 3.5 3.5
Spacing S (m) 4.0 4.2
7. Conclusions
The purpose of this work was to develop a Monte
Carlo-based simulation program that would provide a
reasonable estimate of blasting fragmentation for sur-
face mine and quarry blast design. The initial work done
to date suggests that this approach is applicable. The
Monte Carlo simulator can be used to target an
optimized feed size distribution for a mill or minimize
fines production. By using the simulator, the blasting
can be adapted to achieve consistent fragmentation
designs for different rock masses or to optimize the
fragmentation to maximize the throughput and perfor-
mance of crushing and mill circuits.
One of the drawbacks of simulation is that field data
are required. It can be difficult to fit certain parameters
to triangular distributions when there is not enough
data. Collecting this data can also be costly and time
consuming. However, with a little effort, much of this
information can be gathered and accumulated during
regular drilling and blasting operations. One benefit of
this simulator is that the triangular distribution
approach is quite amenable to the ‘‘expert’’ opinion
where the blasting engineer defines the ‘‘worst-case
scenario’’ or a suitable range of parameters.
At this stage of development, it appears that the
simulator program does its job reasonably well, based
on a real case study. However, further work is required
to fully validate this approach and to verify its long-term
usefulness and applicability. Over time, a more sophis-
ticated fragmentation model could be defined and
integrated within this simulator.
References
Ash, R.L., 1963. The mechanics of the rock breakage (Part 1).
Pit and Quarry 56 (2), 98–100.
Ash, R.L., 1968. The design of blasting rounds. In: Pfleider,
E.P. (Ed.), Surface Mining. AIME, New York, NY,
pp. 373–397.
Cunningham, C.V.B., 1983. The Kuz-Ram model for predic-
tion of fragmentation from blasting. In: Proceedings of the
359
First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, 22–26 August , Lulea, Sweden, pp. 439–454.
Cunningham, C.V.B., 1987. Fragmentation estimations and
the Kuz-Ram model—four years on. In: Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium on Rock Frag-
mentation by Blasting, 23–26, August, Keystone, CO,
pp. 475–487.
Eloranta, J., 1997. The efficiency of blasting versus crushing
and grinding. The Journal of Explosives Engineering
September/October, pp. 12–14.
Fishman, G.S., 1996. Monte Carlo, second ed. Springer, Berlin
728pp.
Hustrulid, W., 1999. Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining,
vol. 1. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam 382pp.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L., Carcero, F.J.A., 1995. Drilling and
Blasting of Rock, Geomining Technical Institute of Spain.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam 391pp.
JKTech Pty Ltd., 2004. Mine-to-mill optimisation study.
(http://www.jktech.com.au/ (accessed June 20, 2005).
Kanchibotla, S., 2001. Optimum blasting? Is it minimum cost
per broken rock or maximum value per broken rock. In:
Proceedings of Explo 2001, October, Hunter Valley, NSW,
Australia.
Katsabanis, P.D., et al., 2004. Blasting effects on the
grindability of rocks. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Interna-
tional Society of Explosives Engineers 30th Annual General
Conference, 1–4 February, New Orleans, LO.
Kuznetsov, V.M., 1973. The mean diameter of fragments
formed by blasting rock. Soviet Mining Science (in Russian)
9, 144–148.
La Rosa, D., 2001. The development of an information
management system for the improvement of drilling and
blasting in mining operations. In: Proceedings of the 29th
International Symposium on Computer Applications in the
Mineral Industries (APCOM), 25–27 April 2001, Beijing,
China, pp. 367–372.
Lilly, P.A., 1986. An empirical method of assessing rock mass
blastability. In: Davidson, J.R. (Ed.), Proceedings of Large
Open pit Planning Conference. The Aus IMM, Parkville,
Victoria, October, pp. 89–92.
Lizotte, C., 1990. Empirical procedures for prediction of
rock fragmentation by blasting. CANMET-MRL. Quebec.
pp. 3–26.
Mackenzie, A.S., 1966. Cost of explosives—do you evaluate it
properly? Mining Congress Journal 52 (5), 32–41.
Mackenzie, A.S., 1967. Optimum blasting. In: Proceedings of
the 28th Annual Minnesota Mining Symposium. Duluth,
MN, pp. 181–188.
Metropolis, N., Ulam, S., 1949. The Monte Carlo method.
Journal American Statistical Association 44, 335–341.
Rosin, R., Rammler, E., 1933. Laws governing the fineness of
coal. Journal Institute of Fuels 7, 29–36.
Simangunsong, G.M., et al., 2003. Optimization of blasting
fragmentation base on optimized comminution, In: Pro-
ceedings Annual Meeting, Japan Explosives Society, 15–16
May, Tokyo.
Sobol, I.M., et al., 1994. A Primer for the Monte Carlo
Method. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 107pp.