Scientific Research and Essay Vol.4 (11), pp.

1213-1224, November, 2009

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE
ISSN 1992-2248 2009 Academic Journals

Full Length Research paper

Influence of rock mass properties on blasting efficiency

A. M. Kili1 , E. Ya ar2*, Y. Erdo an2 and P. G. Ranjith3
1

Department of Mining Engineering, Cukurova University, 01330 Adana, Turkey.

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Mustafa Kemal University, 31200 Iskenderun-Hatay, Turkey.
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia.

Accepted 28 August, 2009

The purpose of this paper is to determine the influence of rock mass properties on the blasting
efficiency which is ratio of the block size distribution of the rock mass to the block size distribution of
the muck-pile. The proposed methodology of blasting efficiency in this study is to compare physical
and mechanical properties of the rock mass and block fragmentation under the same blasting
conditions in Krka borax mine. Intact rock properties, block size of rock mass before blasting and
muck pile after blasting were found to measure blasting efficiency. Firstly, intact rock properties, which
are unit volume weight, water absorption, uniaxial compressive strength, tensile (Brazilian) strength,
cohesion and internal friction angle, were tested for each mining bench. Secondly, block sizes of rock
masses in respect to discontinuity boundaries were measured and muck pile photos were taken in
order to determine Block Fragmentation (BF) which is to separate the rock mass block size by blasting
and that of the corresponding muck pile. Thirdly, statistical analysis between rock mass properties and
block fragmentation were developed and these analysis test results have shown that a good relation
between block fragmentation and Brazilian tensile strength and internal friction angle were found. As a
result, block fragmentation in the same blasting conditions and other rock properties can be estimated
from the best empirical correlations with the rock properties.
Key words: Intact rock properties, blasting, block fragmentation, statistical analysis, image analysis.
INTRODUCTION
A particular rock fragmentation size by blasting methods
is very important to excavate in mining and civil
engineering applications. The fragment size is mainly
governed by the physico-mechanical properties and
structure of the rock masses. Block Fragmentation (BF) is
to separate the rock mass block size by blasting and that
of the corresponding muck pile. Therefore, the blasting
efficiency is important for the excavation of rock mass
and is evaluated through comprising of the blocky size
distributions of the rock mass and the corresponding
muck pile. Rock blasting is controlled by using of
explosive and rock characterization to excavate or remove rock. A number of researchers have long been studied about the influence of rock mass properties on blasting
blasting operations. Bond (1952) proposed (equation 1)

*Corresponding author. E -mail: eyasar@mku.edu.tr. Fax:+90

326 6135613.

for combination which was based on feed size, product

size and a rock property factor.

W = 10Wi (( 1

P80

)( 1

F80

))

(1)

where W = energy required for fragmentation (kWh/ton); Wi

= Bonds work index which depends upon the physico-

mechanical properties of rock; P80 = 80% passing size of

product (m) and F80 = 80% passing size of feed (m).
Bond's theory is a compromise between Rittinger's and
Kick's theories and is generally recognised to be the best
model to describe blasting operations (Da Gama, 1983).
McKenzie (1966) found, in the studies at Quebec Cartier
Mines, that the efficiency of all the subsystems is dependent on the fragmentation. Kuznetsov (1973) developed a
relation between the mean fragment size (K50, m) and the
explosive quantity used per unit volume as a function of
rock type categorised as medium hard rocks, hard and
fissured rocks and weak rocks (equation 2).

1214

K 50 = A(V

Sci. Res. Essays

QT

) 0.8 QT

(2)

where A = rock factor = 7, for medium hard rocks = 10,

for hard and highly fissured rock = 13, for hard and
weakly fissured rocks; V = rock volume broken per blast
3
hole (m ); QT = mass of TNT containing the energy
equivalent of the explosive charge in each blast hole (kg).
Cunningham (1983) developed a model (Kuz-Ram) for
prediction of the uniformity in the fragmentation based on
Kuznetsov model and Rosin-Rammler formula on
distribution pattern of fragmentation (equation 3). It was
experienced by many that the rock mass categories
defined by Kuznetsov (1973) are very wide and need
more precision. Cunningham (1983) used Blastability
Index proposed by Lilly (1986) to fulfil this gap.
n = (2.2. 14Bd / d )((1/ md) / 2) 0.5 (1 W / Bd)(abs(((lb lc) / Lch) + 0.1)0.1( Lch/ Hb)

(3)
where n = index of uniformity; Bd = burden in drilling (m),
d = blast hole diameter (mm), md = spacing to burden
ratio while drilling; W = standard deviation of accuracy in
burden while drilling (m); abs = the absolute value; lb =
base charge length (m); lc = column charge length (m);
Lch = total charge length (m); Hb = bench height (m).
Da Gamma (1983) encouraged for blast prediction to
engineers understanding the role of in-situ rock mass
geometry in terms of block sizes in mine production.
Estimating equations of the undersize fragment
percentage were developed by Da Gamma and Jimeno
(1993). These equations (equations 4 and 5) are in
below.

Pf = W b ( Sd / Bd ) c

(4)

Pf = aW b ( Sd / Bd ) c X (1 / F50 ) d (modified equation)

(5)

where Pf = percent cumulative undersize of a particular

fraction size (%); W = 10Wi/P80; Sd = drilled spacing (m);
Bd = drilled burden (m); a, b, c and d = site specific
empirical constants and F50 = average joint spacing or
inherent block size (m).
Jurgensen and Chung (1987) and Singh (1991) also
opined that the blast results were influenced directly by
the overall formational strength of rock. Chakraborty et al.
(2002) found the joint orientations can considerably
influence the average fragment size and shape. Hagan
(1995) concluded that the results of rock blasting were
affected more by rock properties than by any other
variables. He also opined that as the mean spacing
between the joints, fissures or the cracks decreases, the
importance of rock material strength decreases while that
of the rock mass strength increases. He added that in a
rock mass with widely spaced joints, the blasts were
required to create many new cracks. In a closely fissured

rock mass, on the other hand, generation of new cracks

is not needed and the fragmentation is achieved by the
explosion gas pressure which opens the joints to transform a large rock mass into several loose blocks. He also
commented that the blasting efficiency was affected to a
lesser degree by the internal friction, grain size and
porosity compared to rock strength. Pal Roy and Dhar
(1996) proposed a fragmentation prediction scale based
on the joint orientation with respect to bench face. Scott
(1996) reported that the blast-controlling rock mass
properties include the strength parameters, the mechanical properties like modulus of elasticity, Poisons ratio,
shock wave transmission capability, the size and the
shape of the natural block and the required fragment size
reduction by blasting. Thornton et al. (2002) categorised
the parameters influencing fragmentation in three groups
like; (i) rock mass properties, (ii) blast geometry and (iii)
explosive properties. Hall and Brunton (2002) claimed
that the JKMRC models provided better prediction than
Kuz-Ram model due to improved estimation of the fines
to intermediate size (< 100 mm) of the fragmentation
distribution. The models calculate the coarse and fines
distribution independently based on experimental observations made the developers and a semi-mechanistic
approach. Hudson (1992) developed a rock engineering
systems methodology for providing both a useful
checklist for the influential factors of rock engineering
projects. Rock mass properties are among the most
important contributory factors in fragmentation.
Aler et al. (1996) studied evaluation of blast fragmentation efficiency and its prediction by multivariate analysis
procedures. Their proposed methodology of evaluating
the blasting efficiency was essentially based on the
comparison of the block size distribution in the rock mass
and that of the corresponding muck pile after blasting.The
evaluation of blasting efficiencies is ultimately done by
calculating two ratios: Fragmentation Index and Fragmentation Quality Factor. Latham and Lu (1999) outlined
an energy-block-transition model for characterising the
blast process. A blastability designation model was
designed which reflected the intrinsic resistance of the
rock mass are relatively constant to blasting. Hamdi and
Mouza (2005) studied a methodology for rock mass
characterisation and classification to improve blast
results. They aimed the characterisation of the two rock
mass components which are discontinuity network and
rock matrix. The discontinuity network was described
using the 3D stochastic simulations of discontinuity
networks using the SIMBLOC program methodology. The
rock matrix microstructure was characterised by the means
of the experimental determination of several mechanical
and physical parameters. Wang et al. (2008) studied the
numerical analysis of blast-induced stress wave propagation and related spalling damage in a rock plate or wall.
Gheibie et al. (2009) developed a new Modified Kuz-Ram
fragmentation model which a prefactor of 0.073 is
included in the formula for prediction of X50 and its use at
the Sungun Copper Mine. In the model, a Blastability Index

Kilic et al.

1215

Ankara
Krka

Krka

N
0

10 15

20 km

Figure 1. The location map of Krka borax open-pit mine.

(BI) was used to correct the calculation of the Uniformity

Index of Cunningham. The new model has a two
parameter fragmentation size distribution that can be
easily determined in the field. Zhu (2009) simulated the
process of rock fracture and fragmentation in crater
blasting and bench blasting and found a better
understanding of the dominant parameters that control
the results of crater blasting and bench blasting. It was
noted findings reported by different researchers such as
Belland (1966), Just (1973), Singh and Sarma (1983),
Karpuz et al. (1990), Wang et al. (1992), Lizotte and
Scoble (1994), Jimeno et al. (1995), Hustrulid (1999),
Esen et al. (2003) and Bond and Whittney (1959). It is
evident from the above literature that greater the
explosive energy utilised in blasting finer will be the
product. But the product size depends not only on the
explosive energy input but also the initial size of the rock
to be fragmented. In widely jointed rocks, the average
block size is more and hence, more explosive energy
must be utilised to obtain the desired product size.
In this study, the mine of Krka Borax which is the
North-West of Turkey and is 246 km far away from
Ankara was investigated (Figure 1). The tincal (Na2B4O7,

10H2O) mineral of borax ore deposits is produced in the

altitude 1150 m. The current depth, width and length of
the open pit mine are 110, 800 m and 2 km respectively.
The thickness of ore deposits varies from 2 m in North to
150 m in South of the area (Etibank, 1970). Ore
production has been made as benches. The height of an
each bench of 6 m was divided into 4 sections. 3 blasting
in an each section and totally 48 blasting in 4 benches
were applied. Blast holes length of 6.5 m and diameter of
0.16 m are charged with gelatine dynamite and ANFO.
The main purpose of the investigation is to determine
the influence of rock mass properties on blasting in Krka
Borax mine. Firstly, geology of the study area, physical
and mechanical properties of rocks were determined.
Secondly, same blasting conditions were chosen to
determine the affecting of rock properties. Many factors
affect the blastability of rock masses and it is therefore
considered to be a composite intrinsic property of the
rock mass. Blasting conditions in a variety of rock mass
properties were assessed because rock masses have
inherently different resistance to fragmentation by
blasting. Thirdly, statistical analyses between rock mass
properties and blasting fragmentation were developed and

1216

Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 2. The geological map of the Krka borax open-pit mine around, Yaln
(988).

a number of equations were obtained from the analysis.

Geology of the study area
The geologic formations, Neogene sedimentary units,
volcanic rocks and alluviums around the Sakarya River
were outcropped in Krka borax open pit mine (Figure 2).
Five different stratigraphic units which are breccia
rhyolite, rhyolotic tuff, massive layered limestone,
dolomitic marl, clay and borax sequence, olivined basalt,
non-consolidate tuff and alluviums were determined as
can be seen in Figure 3 (Yaln, 1988). The borax ore
deposits were observed in the Sarkaya formation that
contains different lithological units. Borax layer, mainly
tincal mineral (Na2B4O7, 10H2O), is framed downwards
and upwards by a series of marl and clay followed of
limestone dating from Upper Miocene. The from lower to
upper of Sarkaya formation have the series of lower
limestone, marl and clay, tincal minerals, marl and clay
and series of upper limestone respectively.
The borax ore deposits are represented in three
different forms: breccia, layered and massive ores.
Breccia ore deposits have 2 - 3 mm thickness of
angulated mineral granules that were surrounded by clay
matrix. Layered ore shows thin layer ore alternate with
clay beds. A massive ore deposit presents as a vitreous
aspect and has not shown sedimentary structure. The
content of the layer of borax ore deposits is on average
3
25.3%. The average density of the ore is 1.92 t/m and its

hardness is 1.9. The proven and probable reserves of ore

deposits are 62.341 and 437.747 million tonnes
respectively.
Structural geology of study area consists of Neogene
sediments, which is over the schist and limestone, which
is lower level of ore deposits approaches to exploitation
as a fold. The ore deposit is cut by normal type faults
whose principal directions are N-S ad NE-SW (Baysal,
1972).
Physical and mechanical properties of rocks
In mining area, discontinuity direction and dips of formations before the blasting were measured in each mining
bench. The proposed methodology of fragmentations
efficiency is to compare block size in terms of rock
properties in the same blasting method (Figure 4). The
methodology occur three different stages. First stage is
that rock mass characterization such as dip and direction,
space, filling material of discontinuities were measured
and classified according to visual inspection and
measuring results of geologic compass. The number of
joint sets, orientation, dimension and intensity, distribution of discontinuities and intact rock properties such as
unit volume weight, porosity, water absorption, uniaxial
compressive (UCS), tensile (t) and cohesion (c)
strengths and internal friction angle () were determined
in the four sections of an each bench (Table 1).

Kilic et al.

1217

Figure 3. The generalised stratigraphic section of the study area,

(Yaln , 1988).

The dip, direction, length and space of discontinuities

were measured and discontinuities were classified into as
sets (Bieniawski, 1974; Barton et al., 1974; Hudson,
1993) and were analysed by standard graphical representations. In order to analyse discontinuities intersections for block size distribution, discontinuities are
assimilated to flat discs and the orientation of discs was
simulated in this model. These intersections give rise to
the formation of traces, vertices, edges and faces.
Second stage is that image analysis techniques were
used to estimate the block size distribution. The photographs of rock blocks were taken and blocks in each
photo are manually digitised and each of them was
measured as maximum and minimum width (Figure 5).
The analyses of fragmentation size after blasting were

evaluated and the results were given in Table 2.

According to percentages of block fragmentation, the
best efficiency of block fragmentation ratio in first bench,
however, the worst efficiency of that in fourth bench were
observed. The results have shown that big blocks gives
small rock fragmentation size better than small block
before the blasting. Third stage is that assessment of
block fragmentation and rock mass properties were
analysed by the statistical methods.
STAT ST CAL ANALYS S AND D SCUSS ONS
The effects of rock physico-mechanical properties before
blasting and block fragmentation after blasting on the

1218

Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 4. Flow sheet of the proposed methodology of blast fragmentation.

OF. Bench III. Bench

II. Bench

I. Bench

Table 1. The physico-mechanical properties of rocks in benches before the blasting.

A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D

Unit volume
weight (,
g/cm)
1.99
1.99
2.05
1.97
2.02
2.01
2.07
1.99
2.04
2.04
2.1
2.01
2.07
2.07
2.13
2.04

Water
Absorption
(w, %)
10.0
10.4
12.3
8.5
10.8
11.2
13.1
9.0
11.5
12.0
14.0
9.6
12.3
12.8
15.0
10.3

Uniaxial
compressive
strength (
, MPa)
19.7
19.9
21.3
19.0
20.3
20.5
22.0
19.6
22.7
23.0
25.0
20.0
23.9
24.2
26.1
22.9

blasting efficiency were analysed by statistical methods.

The tests results were made regression analysis for all
the blasting and rock properties. The equation of the
best-fit line at the 95% confidence limit and the
2
correlation factor (R ) were determined for each using
least squares regressions. It was made the statistical
analysis on the four benches. The block fragmentation
can be estimated from the best empirical correlations with
the rock properties. Good relations were generally found
between block fragmentation and physico-mechanical

Tensile
strength
(
t, MPa)
4.45
4.39
4.46
4.43
5.29
5.16
5.18
5.29
5.48
5.35
5.32
5.51
5.97
5.84
5.81
5.97

Cohesion
(c, MPa)

Int. friction
angle (
, )

4.7
4.69
4.94
4.57
4.78
4.85
5.11
4.72
4.96
4.95
5.2
4.84
5.07
5.06
5.3
4.96

34.7
36.9
37.0
37.9
39.0
38.6
38.8
39.7
41.2
40.2
40.2
41.2
42.2
41.3
41.1
42.5

properties of these rocks using the method. Especially,

high correlation values were found between block
fragmentation and tensile strength and internal friction
angle each bench of the study area. Before and after
blasting, block sizes were compared by statistical
analysis and the results were interpreted.
According to statistical results, a logarithmic relation2
ship (R = 0.73) between block size before blasting and
rock fragmentation size after blasting were found in
Figure 6. As seen in Figure 6, when block size before the

Kilic et al.

1219

Figure 5. Before (a) and after (b) blasting.

Table 2. Percentages of block fragmentation after blasting.

I. Bench (%)

II. Bench (%)

C1
C2
C3

57.85
57.35
56.44

57.21
0.71

49.80
50.21
51.25

50.42
0.75

41.90
35.12
38.96

38.66
3.40

38.25
24.72
34.78

32.58
7.03

D1
D2
D3

59.75
62.06
58.34

60.05
1.88

46.96
48.19
47.92

47.69
0.65

31.76
23.52
28.23

27.83
4.13

28.70
21.85
17.74

22.76
5.54

55.47
0.95
62.33
1.03

49.24
0.98
52.20
1.28

blasting increases, blasting efficiency increases. A comparison of the Block Fragmentation (BF) sieve size results of
four benches and previous works of Kuz-Ram, Corrected
Kuz-Ram and Bond-Ram is illustrated in Figure 7.
According to Figure 7, the following important observations can be made. The BF directly assessed using the
photo-scanline method appears to lie near the average of
the predictions from the other three techniques. The BF
predictions from the Kuz-Ram and Corrected Kuz-Ram
models from the far upper and far lower boundaries while
that from the Bond-Ram model based on the blastability
assessment is approximately in the middle of the range
formed by BF from the Kuz-Ram and the Corrected KuzRam models. Also, the BF from the corrected Bond-Ram
model are close to the BF assessed using the photoscanline technique for the study blasting. Especially the
first bench presents similar with Bond-Ram and also it
gives the best efficiency of block fragmentation ratio in
first bench however, the worst efficiency of that in fourth
bench were observed. The average block fragmentation

30.05
25.10
32.86
36.78
30.18
31.04

OF Bench (%)

56.44
54.54
55.45
63.05
62.82
61.15

50.04
48.14
49.54
53.56
51.02
52.03

III. Bench (%)

A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3

29.33
3.33
32.66
3.59

38.30
17.74
24,59
35.72
28.72
32.31

26.87
10.4
31.25
3.50

sieve size of 2 and 3 benches shows similar values with

Kuz-Ram and Corrected Kuz-Ram.
Table 3 shows the test results, regression analysis and
correlation factor between block fragmentation and rock
physicomechanical properties (unit volume weight,
water absorption, uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian
tensile strength, cohesion and internal friction angle).
The first bench data was analysed using regression
analysis methods. Although correlation values between
2
block fragmentation and Brazilian tensile strength of R =
0.82 was found high, correlation values between block
fragmentation and unit volume weight of R = 0.14, water
absorption of R = 0.18, uniaxial compressive strength of
R = 0.12, cohesion strength of R = 0.16 and internal
friction angle of R = 0.47 were found low. The good
relation between block fragmentation and tensile strength
was found (Figure 8).
In second bench, high correlation values as can be
seen in Figures 9 and 10 were found between rock fragmentation and Brazilian tensile strength of R = 0.91 and

1220

Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 6. The relationship between block fragmentation and block dimension

before blasting.

Figure 7. Comparison of block fragmentation with some previous

models.

internal friction angle of R = 0.84. Furthermore unit

volume weight of R = 0.18, water absorption of R =0.51,
uniaxial compressive strength of R = 0.55 and cohesion
of R = 0.34 were determined.
In third bench, high correlation values were found
between block fragmentation and all of the rock physicomechanical properties. The correlation factors were
determined for unit volume weight of R = 0.91, water
absorption of R = 0.90, uniaxial compressive strength of
R = 0.82 Brazilian tensile strength of R = 0.84, cohesion
of R = 0.90 and internal friction angle of R = 0.75. The
empirical equations between block fragmentation and unit

volume weight and cohesion are shown in Figures 11 and

12.
In fourth bench, high correlation values were found
between block fragmentation and tensile strength of R =
0.86 and internal friction angle of R = 0.96. The other
relations are unit volume weight of R = 0.69, water
absorption of R = 0.88, uniaxial compressive strength of
R = 0.77 and cohesion of R = 0.64.
After statistical analyses, it was observed that good
relations were determined between block fragmentation
size and tensile strength, internal fraction angle in all
benches. Data of all benches were evaluated as a whole

Kilic et al.

1221

Table 3. The statistical analysis results between block fragmentation and rock properties.

I. BENCH
Relation of rock properties

Equation

= -0.0043.BF + 2.253
w = -0.1462.BF + 18.897

= 18.142.Ln(BF) - 37.257

0.14
0.18
0.12
0.82
0.16
0.47

Equation

Unit volume weight (, g/cm) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

Water absorption (w, %) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

= -0.0968.BF + 25.662
t = -0.0092.BF + 4.9751
c = -0.0208.BF + 5.9496

U. Compressive strength (, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

Tensile strength (t, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Cohesion (c, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Internal Fiction Angle (, ) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
II. BENCH
Relation of rock properties

0.1467

= 1.1411.BF
2.4855
w = 0.0007.BF
= 12.042.Ln(BF) - 26.381

0.14
0.46
0.25

t = -0.0292.BF + 6.6769
0.0078.BF
c = 3.3064e
= -0.2192.BF + 49.877

0.76
0.22
0.91

Equation

Unit Volume Weight (, g/cm) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

Water Absorption (w, %) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

= 0.0075.BF + 1.8058
w = 0.3558.BF + 0.353

0.92
0.90
0.82

Unit volume weight (, g/cm) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

Water absorption (w, %) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
U. Compressive strength (, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Tensile strength (t, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Cohesion (c, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Internal fiction angle (, ) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
III. BENCH
Relation of rock properties

U. Compressive Strength (, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

= 0.3868.BF + 10.251

Tensile Strength (t, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

Cohesion (c, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

t = -0.018.BF + 5.9926
c = 0.03.BF + 4.0232

Internal Fiction Angle (, ) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

OF BENCH

= -3.4526Ln(BF) + 52.651

0.84
0.90
0.75

Equation

= 0.007.BF + 1.8776
0.8921
w = 0.6371.BF

0.69
0.88
0.77
0.86
0.64
0.96

Relation of rock properties

Unit Volume Weight (, g/cm) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Water Absorption (w, %) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
U. Compressive Strength (, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Tensile Strength (t, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)
Cohesion (c, MPa) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

= 0.2635.BF + 16.8
t = -0.0176.BF + 6.3958
c = 0.7058Ln(BF) + 2.7432

Internal Fiction Angle (, ) - Block fragmentation (BF, %)

data and valid empiric formulae were developed in all

blasting (Figures 13 and 14). Formulae between block
fragmentation and tensile strength (equation 6), internal
friction angle (equation 7) were found in below:

t = 0.0375BF + 6,8281

R = 0.83

(6)

= 0.1457 BF + 45.694

R = 0.82

(7)

where t = Brazilian tensile strength of rock; BF = block

fragmentation and = internal friction angle.
Block fragmentation can be determined by using these
formulae that were obtained from the values of Brazilian
tensile strength and internal friction angle in laboratory
conditions. As seen in equations 6 and 7, the relationship

= -0.1492.BF + 46.008

between block fragmentation and tensile strength,

internal friction angle were found linear and inverse ratio.
This inverse ratio shows that the values of tensile
strength and internal friction angle are low; the size of
block fragmentation is big. It means that determined
tensile strength and internal friction angle in laboratory
conditions, lower Brazilian tensile strength and internal
friction angle of rocks having the bigger block fragmentation size in the same blasting conditions.
Conclusions
In this study, blasting efficiency was assessed due to
rock properties, block size of rock mass and muck pile.
The proposed methodology of fragmentation efficiency is

1222

Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 8. The relationship between tensile strength and block

fragmentation (I. Bench) (all horizontal error bars indicate standard
deviations of the block fragmentation).

Figure 9. The relationship between tensile strength and block

fragmentation (II. Bench).

to compare block size in terms of rock properties in the

same blasting conditions. When planning the development
of dimension in blasting, it is clear that large blocks cannot
be produced of they are not there in the first place.
Furthermore, in characterising domains of a rock mass
for rock blasting development, much greater use can be
made of an entire rock mass block size assessment than
a single representative measure of block size such as the
50 or 100% passing size. The physical and mechanical
properties of rocks were determined and then same
blasting method was chosen to determine to the effects
of rock properties. Benches were divided into 4 sections
and each section has 3 blasting in mining area. It means
that totally 48 blasting in 4 benches were applied. The

Figure 10. The relationship between internal friction angle and

block fragmentation (II. Bench).

Figure 11. The relationship between unit volume weight and block
fragmentation (III. Bench).

image analysis techniques were used to estimate the

block size distribution. A comparison of the Block Fragmentation (BF) sieve size results of four benches and
previous works of Kuz-Ram, Corrected Kuz-Ram and
Bond-Ram were found similar with Bond-Ram in first
bench and also the best efficiency of block fragmentation
ratio but the worst efficiency of that in fourth bench were
observed.
Determining of the effects of rock physico-mechanical
properties before blasting and rock fragmentation after
blasting on the blasting efficiency were analysed by
statically methods. Good relations were generally found
between block fragmentation and physico-mechanical
properties of these rocks using the method. The block
fragmentation can be estimated from the best empirical

Kilic et al.

1223

Figure 12. The relationship between cohesion and block

fragmentation (III. Bench).
Figure 14. The relationship between internal friction angle and
block fragmentation (all benches).

Figure 13. The relationship between tensile strength and block

fragmentation (all benches).

correlations with the rock properties. The results have

shown that big blocks gives small rock fragmentation
better than small block before the blasting. Formulae
between block fragmentation and tensile strength, internal
friction angle were developed and also relationships were
found linear and inverse ratio.
REFERENCES
Aler J, Du Mouza J, Arnould M (1996). Measurement of the
Fragmentation Efficiency of Rock Mass Blasting and its Mining
Applications. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 33(2):
125-139.
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974). Engineering Classification of Rock
Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support. Rock Mech. 6(4): 189-236.

Baysal O (1972). Investigation of Mineralogical and Genetic of Sarkaya

(Krka) Borax Deposits, PhD Thesis, Hacettepe University (Ankara),
157 p. (unpublished in Turkish).
Belland JM (1966). Structure as a Control in Rock Fragmentation, CIM;
59:323-8.
Bieniawski ZT (1973). Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Mass.
Trans. S. Afr. ICE 15: 335-344.
Bond FC, Whittney BB (1959). The Work Index in Blasting, Quarterly of
the Colorado School of Mines. 54 (3): 77-82.
Bond FC (1952). The Third Theory of Comminution, Transactions of the
American Institute of Mining Engineers 193: 494-496.
Chakraborty AK, Raina AK, Ramulu M, Choudhury PB, Haldar A, Sahu
P, Bandopadhyay C (2002). Development of Innovative Models for
Optimisation of Blast Fragmentation and Muck Profile Applying Image
Analysis Technique and Subsystems Utilisation Concept In Indian
Surface Coal Mining Regime, Project No. MT/103, for Ministry of
Coal, Govt. of India, 125 pp.
Cunningham CVB (1983). The Kuz-Ram Model for Prediction of
Fragmentation from Blasting, In: Holmberg R, Rustan A, editors.
Transactions of the First International Symposium of Rock
Fragmentation by blasting, Lulea. 2: 439-453.
Da Gama DC (1983). Use of Comminution Theory to Predict
Fragmentation of Jointed Rock Mass Subjected to Blasting, Proc.
First Int. Symp. on Rock Frag. By Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, pp. 563579.
Da Gamma DC, Jimeno CL (1993). Rock Fragmentation Control for
Blasting Cost Minimisation and Environmental Impact Abatement,
Proceedings of 4th. International Symposium On Rock Fragmentation
By Blasting, July 5-8. Balkema, Vienna, Austria, pp. 273-279.
Esen S, Onederra I, Bilgin HA (2003). Modelling the Size of the
Crushed Zone Around a Blast Hole, Intl. J. Rock Mech. Min .Sci. 40:
485-495.
Etibank (1970). Project Exploitation: Exploitation of Krka, (Eski ehirTurkey).
Gheibie S, Aghababaei H, Hoseinie SH, Pourrahimian Y (2009)
Modified Kuz-Ram Fragmentation Model and its Use at the Sungun
Copper Mine, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 66: 967-973.
Hagan TN (1995). The Effect of Rock Properties on the Design and
Results of Tunnel Blasts, J. Rock Mech. Tunnelling Technol. 1 (1):
25-39.
Hall J, Brunton I (2002). Critical Comparison of Julius Kruttschnitt
Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), Int. J. Blasting Fragmentation.
6(2): 208-210.

1224

Sci. Res. Essays

Hamdi E, Du Mouza JA (2005). Methodology for Rock Mass Characterisation and Classification to Improve Blast Results, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. (42): 175-194.
Hudson JA (1992). Rock Systems Engineering: Theory and Practice,
Ellishorwood, Chicester.
Hudson JA (1993). Editor In Chief Comprehensive Rock Engineering:
Principles, Practice and Project, Vols. 1-5, Pergamon Press.
Hustrulid W (1999). Blasting Principles for Open-Pit Blasting, Vol. II.
Rotterdam, Balkema.
Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL, Carcedo FJA (1995). Drilling and Blasting of
Rocks, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Jurgensen GK, Chung SH (1987). Blast Simulation Surface and
Underground with SABREX Model, CIM Bull. 80(904): 37-41
Just GD (1973). The Application of Size Distribution Equations to Rock
Breakage by Explosives. Rock Mech. 5(3): 151-162.
Karpuz C, Pasamehmeto lu G, Bozdag T, Mftoglu Y (1990).
Rippability Assessment in Surface Coal Mining, In: Singhal RK, Vavra
M (Ed). Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Balkema,
Rotterdam. pp. 315-322.
Kuznetsov VM (1973). The Mean Diameter of Fragments Formed by
Blasting Rock. Soviet Mining Sci. 9(2): 144-148.
Latham JP, Lu P (1999). Development of an Assessment System for
the Blastability of Rock Masses, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36: 4155.
Lilly PA (1986). An Empirical Method of Assessing Rock Mass
Blastability, In: Davidson (Ed). Large Open Pit Mining Conference,
Ausimm, Victoria, pp. 89-92.
Lizotte YC. Scoble MJ (1994). Geological Control over Blast
Fragmentation. CIM Bull. 87(983): 57-71.
McKenzie AS (1966). Cost of Explosives- Do You Evaluate It Properly ?
Mining Congress J. 32-41.
Pal Roy P, Dhar BB (1996). Fragmentation Analyzing Scale- a New
Tool for Breakage Assessment, Proc. 5th. Int. Symp. On Rock
Fragmentation By Blasting- FRAGBLAST 5, Montreal, 25-29 Aug.
Balkema, Rotterdam, p 448.
Scott A (1996). Blastability and Blast Design, Proc. 5th International
Symp. on Rock Fragmentation By Blasting, Montreal, Canada, 25- 29
Sept. Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, pp. 27-36.
Singh DP, Sarma KS (1983). Influence of Joints on Rock Blasting: A
Model Scale Study, In. Proc. 1. Int. Symp. Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 533-554.

Singh DP (1991). Effect of Physico-Mechanical Properties of Rocks on

Drilling and Blasting Operations in Underground Drivage, Workshop
on Tunnels, Mine Roadways and Caverns, Ooty, September,
Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, OF-63-OF-68.
Thornton D, Kanchibolta, SS, Brunton I (2002). Modelling the Impact
and Blast Design Variation on Blast Fragmentation, The International
Journal for Blasting and Fragmentation. 6(2) Swets and Zeitlinger,
The Netherlands. pp. 171-172.
Wang H, Latham JP, Matheson GD (1992). Design of Fragmentation
Blasting in Surface Excavation, In: Hudson, (Ed) Rock
Characterisation, Thomas Telford, London, 233-238.
Wang ZL, Li YC, Wang JG (2008). Numerical Analysis of BlastingInduced Wave Propagation and Spalling Damage in a Rock Plate.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 45: 600-800.
Yaln H (1988). Investigation of Mineralogical and Geochemical of
Volcano-Sediment Occurring in Krka (Eski ehir) Region, PhD
Thesis, Hacettepe Univ. The Institute of Scientific Research, p209,
(Unpublished-in Turkish).
Zhu Z. (2009) Numerical Prediction of Crater Blasting and Bench
Blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46: 1088-1096.