Optimizing

Fragmentation
A study of the impact of stiffness ratio on the fragmentation of sandstone
strata in an opencast coal mine
By Dr Piyush Rai*, Abhai Kumar Ranjan** and B. Singh***

T
he ratio of bench Fig. 1. Mechanism of
height (H) to effective breakage by flexion,
firing burden (Be) after Ouchterlony2
represents the stiffness
ratio in a surface mine bench blast.
Changing the bench height,
effective burden and/or the mode
of firing may change this ratio in
field-scale blasts.This is because,
for a given burden, there exists a
maximum bench height to
produce a full crater.The breakage
angle for a given burden increases
with the increase in bench height
up to a certain point.This
phenomenon is attributable to the
decrease in the burden rock
stiffness, which makes the bench
more flexible for improved
fragmentation results. Lundberg et
al.1 reported a host of problems
due to increased burden rock Table 1. Potential problems related to stiffness ratio,
stiffness.
after Konya3
The mechanism of rock
fragmentation also considers the Ground
Stiffness Air Blast Fly
role of flexion in rock breakage Ratio Values
Fragmentation
Results Rock Results
Vibration
during and after the radial Results
fracturing and spalling phases; the 1 Poor Severe Severe Severe
pressure applied by the explosion
gases in front of the explosive 2 Fair Fair Fair Fair
column acts on the burden rock
3 Good Good Good Good
mass, which behaves like a beam
embedded in the bottom of the 4 Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
blasthole and in the stemming
region.This beam is subject to Table 2. Optimum bench heights for different drill hole *Reader in Mining
breakage by deformation, fracturing
diameters, after Sarathy4 Engineering (coal
and flexion, as depicted in figure 1. mining)
The potential problems in Drill Hole Bench Height, m **Post-graduate
relation to the changes in stiffness Average
Diameter, scholar, Department of
Burden, m Ideal Desirable Sub-optimal
ratio are summarized in the mm Mining Engineering,
table 1. Institute of Technology,
100 3–4 9–12 6–8 3–4 Banaras Hindu
Sarathy4 proposed the concept
University, Varanasi,
of optimum bench heights for 150 4–5 12–15 8–10 4–5 India
varying burdens with respect to ***Superintendent of
the drill hole diameter, as given in 250 7–9 21–27 14–18 7–5
Mines, Northern
table 2. Coalfields Ltd.,
It is interesting to note that, ®
311 8–10 24–30 16–20 8–10
Singrauli, India

QM February 2005 www.qmj.co.uk 33

Drilling, Blasting & Breaking
Fig. 2. Representative scale blasts in order to establish a
drilling and firing IP Free Face relationship between the
pattern for blast no. 1 fragment size and the stiffness
Previously ratio.To meet the above
Blasted objective, blasts were conducted
Muck in one of the opencast projects of
Northern Coalfields Ltd (NCL) in
Singrauli, India.
– 100ms The explosive and rock
= 125ms parameters were kept identical as
High Wall = 150ms
= far as possible in order to
categorically assess the impact of
stiffness ratio alone on the
even under similar bench-height consequential. Studies pertaining fragmentation results (under
conditions, blasts can be fired to the stiffness ratio can be made almost equivalent blast geometry
using different firing patterns that accordingly. parameters). In order to keep the
change the effective burden5, rock parameters constant, all the
which changes the stiffness ratio Objectives blasts were conducted on the
and the stiffness of the bench.The The present study investigates the same bench with no (or
role of effective burden when influence of stiffness ratio on the insignificant) geological variations.
firing the blasts thus becomes degree of fragmentation in field- The studies were performed
on a moderately strong sandstone
Table 3. Influence of stiffness ratio on fragmentation overburden formation with
compressive strength ranging
Parameters Blast 1 Blast 2 Blast 3 Blast 4
from 10–25MPa and tensile
strength from 0.8–2.0MPa.The
Hole diameter sandstone was fine-to-medium
(mm), φ
259 259 269 269
grained.The coal in this particular
Mesh area (m), coalfield is poor in grade and the
9x8 9x8 10 x 9 10 x 9
S xB mine is linked to a thermal power
Bench height plant.
12.5 16 19 22.5
(m), H The explosive used in the
Sub-grade drilling Singrauli opencast coalfield was
1 1 1 2.5 an emulsion comprising hydrated
(m), J
ammonium nitrate plus oil (burnt
Stemming (m),T 4.5 5 5 5 furnace oil, wax or paraffin), plus
sodium nitrite as gassing agent,
Decking (m), DK 1 1 2 0 plus sodium mono-oleate as
emulsifier, doped on site with
No. of holes 42 44 65 52
12–20% ammonium nitrate prills
by site mixing trucks.This
No. of rows 11 12 15 14
explosive was used throughout
Explosive quantity the entire project with no
18,634 26,565 51,350 47,832.5
(kg), Qt perceptible variations in its nature
Column charge and properties, hence the
7 10 12 17.5
length (m), CCL explosive parameters have also
been assumed to be identical for
Initiation system Detonating Fuse Detonating Fuse Detonating Fuse Detonating Fuse
different blasts studied on the
same overburden formation.
Drilling pattern Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular
Field study and
Firing pattern Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal methodology
Four field-scale blasts were
Delay (ms) 0/100/125/150 0/100/125/150 0/100/125/150 0/100/125/150
conducted and studied on the
Volume broken sandstone overburden bench.
37,800 50,688 111,150 105,300
(theoretical in m3) This bench was worked by a
Effective burden large-capacity shovel and
5.97 5.97 6.68 6.68 dumptruck combination. Details
(m), Be
Stiffness ratio
of the four study blasts, with
2 2.6 2.9 3.4 respect to blast geometry and
(H/Be)
other relevant parameters, are
Mean fragment size
0.4557 0.4069 0.3475 0.3376 tabulated in table 3. As is evident
(m), K50
from the table, the blasts were
Coarse fragment conducted at varying stiffness
0.7267 0.6815 0.5233 0.5476
size (m), K90
ratios.To measure the
Maximum fragment fragmentation in the blasted
0.9625 0.8415 0.6865 0.6963 muckpiles, image capturing,
size (m), K100
processing and analysis techniques

34 www.qmj.co.uk QM February 2005


were employed.The imaging
technique has been used with
respect to blasting and
fragmentation for the past two
decades.This technique can
precisely quantify the geometric
aspects of the broken fragments
using images in two dimensions6.
The basis of this method is to
capture scaled images of the
blasted muckpile using a
camera in the field, and then to
digitize and measure the
delineated fragments to provide
a measure of the particle size
distributions7,8.
In the present study, the
blasted muckpile was
documented with scaled
photographs captured from the
front of the blasted bench by
keeping a suitable scale at
physically convenient locations on
the huge muckpiles. Obviously a
single photo can not evaluate a
large muckpile, hence a series of
photographs was obtained
periodically to cover the entire
excavation sequence of the
muckpile.
A number of additional
photographs were captured in the
event of exceptional field
situations, such as the occurrence
of large-size boulders or a large
amount of fines, evidence of
geological features etc.Typically
200–250 broken rock fragments
could be easily captured in one
image frame. Analysis of 20–25
photographs would yield a
QM February 2005
Drilling, Blasting & Breaking
statistically representative sample
for characterizing the
fragmentation in one blasted
muckpile.This is as per the
recommendations of Paley9,
Exadyktlos and Tsourtrelis10,
Panlagio and Franklin11 and Scott
et al.12.
For the purposes of processing
and analysing the captured
images, Fragalyst Version 2.0
commercial software, developed
by Central Mining Research
Institute, Nagpur Centre, in
collaboration with Wavelet
Group, Pune, India, was used.
Although a wide range of image-
analysis software is commercially
available, ie Wipfrag, Split,Tucip
etc, Fragalyst has been well
proven under Indian conditions.
Results and
discussion
As is evident from the
observations provided in table 3,
two blasts with hole diameters of
269mm and two blasts with hole
diameters of 259mm were
studied. A perusal of table 3
indicates that blast nos. 1, 2, 3 and
4 were conducted at stiffness
ratios of 2.0, 2.6, 2.9 and 3.4,
respectively.The variation in the
stiffness ratio could be studied in
the field because of variations in
the height of the same bench at
different locations. Furthermore,
all four blasts were drilled in a
straight rectangular pattern but
fired diagonally. A representative
www.qmj.co.uk
Figs 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Fragment size
distribution curves for
blasts no. 1, 2, 3 and 4
respectively
drilling and firing pattern for blast
no. 1 is shown in figure 2.The
notation 0/100/125/150 in figure 2
and table 3 signifies that the
initiation point (IP) is represented
by digit ‘0’ and the subsequent
delay interval between the
diagonal firing rows is 100ms,
125ms and 150ms. Blast nos. 3
and 4 were fired with greater
number of firing rows (15 and 14
respectively) in comparison to
blast nos. 1 and 2 (11 and 12
respectively). Barring these few
exceptions, which were almost
inevitable under the field
conditions, all the blasts have
been assumed to be more or less
equivalent from the viewpoint of
blast geometry, rock and
explosive parameters. Hence,
the comparative fragmentation
study of the performance of the
blasts, made on the basis of the
results obtained from image
analysis of the blasted material,
could adequately reveal the
impact of stiffness ratio (H/Be)
alone.
Looking at table 3 for results of
fragment size and its distribution,
it is quite evident that with the
increase in the stiffness ratio,
fragmentation inside the blasted
muckpile improves.The results in
terms of cumulative fragment size
distribution curves, as provided
by the software, are illustrated in
figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 for blast
numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4
respectively. ®
35
Drilling, Blasting & Breaking

Fig. 8. Poor fragmentation with boulders inside the muckpile (blast

Fig. 7. Presence of large collar boulder (blast 1) 1)

Fig. 10. Good fragmentation inside the muckpile with occasional

Fig. 9. Large boulders coming from the back rows (blast 2) boulders from the back rows (blast 3)

Fig. 11. Good fragmentation with good uniformity inside the

muckpile (blast 4) Fig. 12. Oversizes along the back rows (blast 4)

Field photographs (figs 7, 8 and
9) reveal the occurrence of collar
boulders from the back rows and
Fig. 13. Graph showing
boulders inside the muckpile for
the relationship
between stiffness ratio
blast nos. 1 and 2, whereas the
and screen size for photographs captured on the
blast nos. 1, 2, 3 and muckpile of blast nos. 3 and 4
4 (figs 10, 11 and 12) by and large
reveal good fragmentation inside
the muckpile with good
uniformity. Nevertheless, boulders
were observed along the back
rows of these blasts
(figs 11and 12).
The impact of a change in the
stiffness ratio is clearly evident
from the relationship exhibited in
figure 13, which reveals that with
an increase in the stiffness ratio
there is a significant reduction in
the fragment size. Furthermore, it
also reveals that there is a drastic
reduction in the fragment size
when the stiffness ratio increases
from 2.5 to 3. Beyond a stiffness
ratio of 3, the curve is observed
to be almost flat.The findings are
in line with earlier work reported
by Konya3.
Smith13 also reported that an
increase in bench height for a
given burden makes the bench
more flexible, giving better
fragmentation. Lundborg et al.1
mentioned that a smaller
stiffness ratio implies greater
stiffness, which, in turn, offers
greater resistance to breakage
in bench blasts.The poor
breakage along the collar region
may be attributed to the
increased bench stiffness5.

36 www.qmj.co.uk QM February 2005


Sarathy14 also reported that a
bench height-to-burden ratio of
2.5 to 3 provides the ideal
situation for fragmentation as
smaller values than this result in a
‘cratering’ effect, which generates
flyrock, airblast, vibrations and
oversizes.
Conclusion
Based on this case study, it can be
concluded that for moderately
hard, medium-to-fine-grained
sandstone benches, stiffness ratio
exerts considerable impact on
fragmentation.
For such benches the fragment
size first decreases and then
increases with an increase in
stiffness ratio.The point of
inflexion corresponds to a
magnitude of almost 3, which
means that for moderately high,
medium-to-fine-grained sandstone
benches, optimum results in
terms of fragment size and
distribution are obtained at
stiffness ratio of almost 3.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to
express their gratitude for the
assistance and co-operation of
staff, officers and management of
Northern Coalfields Ltd. T 8.
QM February 2005
Drilling, Blasting & Breaking
References
1. LUNDBORG, N., PERSSON, P.R.,
PETERSON, A.L., and R.
HOLMBERG: ‘Keeping a lid on
flyrock in open-pit blasting’,
Engrg. & Min. Jour., 1975, May
issue.
2. OUCHTERLONY, F.: ‘Review of
rock blasting and explosives
engineering research at Sve De
Fo’, Procs. Explo-95, Brisbane,
1995, pp133–146.
3. KONYA, C.J.: Blast Design, pub. by
Intercontinental Development
Corporation, Ohio 44064, USA,
1995.
4. SARATHY, M.O.: ‘Optimum
blasting in surface mines – Major
issues’, Procs. Sem. on Blasting
Objectives and Risk Management,
Hyderabad, 13–14 July 2000,
pp1–29.
5. RAI, P.: ‘Evaluation of the effects
of some blast design parameters
on fragmentation in opencast
mines’, Ph.D. thesis, 2002.
6. JIMENO, C.L., JIMENO, E.L., and
F.J.A. CARCEDO: Drilling and
Blasting of Rocks, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam,The Netherlands,
1995.
7. MAERZ, N.H., FRANKLIN, J.A.,
ROTHENBURG, L., and D.L.
COURSEN: ‘Measurement of rock
fragmentation by digital photo
analysis’, 5th Int. Congr. Int. Soc.
Rock Mech., 1987, pp687–692.
MAERZ, N.H.: ‘Photo analysis of
www.qmj.co.uk
rock fabric’, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of
Earth Sciences, Univ. of Waterloo,
1990.
9. PALEY, N.L.: ‘Image-based
fragmentation assessment’, M.Sc.
thesis,The Univ. of Qld, Brisbane,
1990.
10. EXADAKTYLOS, G.E., and C.E.
TSOUTRELIS: ‘Fragmentation
analysis using the photographic
method’, Int. Jour. of Sur. Min. &
Reclamation, 1991, vol. 5, pp55–64.
11. PALANGIO,T.C., and J.A.
FRANKLIN: ‘Practical guidelines
for lighting and photography’,
Procs. Fragblast 5, Montreal,
Canada, 1996, pp111–114.
12. SCOTT, A., COCKER, A.,
DJORDJEVIC, N., HIGGINS, M.,
LA ROSA, D., SARMA, K.S., and R.
WEDMAIER: ‘Open-pit blast-
design analysis and optimisation’,
JKMRC monograph series in
Mining and Mineral Processing,
Eds. A. Scott and T.J. Napier, Munn,
1996.
13. SMITH, N.S.: ‘Burden rock
stiffness and its effects on
fragmentation in bench blasting’,
Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Missouri,
USA, 1976.
14. SARATHY, M.O.: ‘Delay blasting –
An inexpensive tool for reduced
total mining costs’, The Ind. Min. &
Engrg. Jour., 1991, Oct. issue,
pp51–58.
37