TECHNICAL NOTE

Delay timing factor for empirical fragmentation

models
I. Onederra*
The need to provide engineering solutions to full scale blasting problems has driven the
development of several empirically based fragmentation models. Arguably, the most popular and
successful models have been those applicable to surface blasting such as the KuzRam
model;
8,2,3
and more recently the KCO model applying the Swebrec function.
14,15
These models
are based on what is generally described as the fragmentation associated with single hole firing
conditions, that is, they do not consider the potential interaction of detonating blastholes on the
breakage and fragmentation process. The application of precise and short delay timing using
electronic detonators has demonstrated the need to incorporate modelling parameters that can
adequately show the impact of timing on fragmentation. This paper describes an approach based
on the hypothesis that a correction factor can be applied to the uniformity of fragmentation, the
expected mean size of fragments and the proportion of fines generated during the blasting
process. The correction factor is a function of the ratio between the interhole delay time dt and the
minimum response time T
min
, which is defined as the time that elapses between explosive
detonation and rock mass movement and is a function of explosive type, rock properties and blast
design parameters. The use of this correction factor to predict relative changes in fragmentation
from changes in interhole delay timing is demonstrated using a newly proposed two component
Swebrec function. Preliminary data analysis demonstrates the practicality of the method. As with
any empirical methodology, site specific calibration and further testing is recommended.
Keywords: Surface mining, Blast fragmentation, Blast modelling, Rock breakage, Blasting, Delay timing
Introduction
Blasting activities in mines and quarries have been
placing signicant emphasis on the ability to tailor
fragmentation to improve downstream processes. In
order to do this, empirical fragmentation models have
been developed, calibrated and successfully applied.
Empirical models are the simplest form of modelling as
no mechanisms are included to explain the results. Their
popularity is due to simple frameworks, with design
variables that are familiar to the mine blast engineer
(e.g. powder factor, burden and spacing), making them
easy to implement in computer programs. Literature
shows that these methods can be successfully applied in
conditions for which they were originally developed,
provided the users recognise and understand their
limitations. Current empirical models are based on what
is generally described as the fragmentation associated
with single hole ring conditions, that is, they do not
consider or include the interaction of detonating blast-
holes on the breakage and fragmentation process. There
is general agreement in literature that delay timing can
have signicant impact on breakage and fragmentation
outcomes.
9,1,16,4,17,18
In fragmentation modelling, attempts to incorporate
delay timing correction factors to empirically based blast
fragmentation models has been limited due to the lack of
reliable data. Over several years there has been an
increase in the implementation of fragmentation assess-
ment studies which utilise precise initiation systems such
as electronic detonators. This has provided the basis for
the development of hypotheses that incorporate adjust-
ment factors into empirical predictive models. A recent
example is reported by Cunningham.
5
An alternative
approach to that proposed by Cunningham
5
is intro-
duced in this paper. It is based on the hypothesis that
fragmentation is affected by interhole timing in the
generic form explained by the diagram illustrated in
Fig. 1. From this diagram, it is hypothesised that as
timing delays are increased, blastholes begin to coop-
erate in a constructive manner to produce ner
fragments and more uniform fragmentation distribu-
tions. Cooperation diminishes as delays become too
large (i.e. approach the single hole ring case). The
diagram also identies an optimum cooperation time for
a given rock mass, blast pattern and charging cong-
uration. The concept of cooperation time has been
BRC Mining and Geology, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
*Corresponding author, email i.onederra@uq.edu.au
176
2007 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining
Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 17 June 2007; accepted 9 January 2008
DOI 10.1179/174328607X282181 Mining Technology 2007 VOL 116 NO 4
previously discussed by Guest et al.
6
and as shown in
Fig. 2, experimental work conducted in the late 1980s
appears to support it.
16
From the above argument, a timing correction factor
a
t
is introduced and it is hypothesised that this factor
can be directly applied to modelling parameters that
dene uniformity, mean fragment size and nes genera-
tion. The proposed factor is a function of the ratio
between the interhole delay time dt and the minimum
response time T
min
, which is dened as the time that
elapses between explosive detonation and rock mass
movement and is a function of explosive type, rock
properties and blast design parameters.
Delay timing factor and proposed
corrections to modelling parameters
A timing adjustment factor is here introduced to
simulate changes in fragmentation for a given interhole
delay conguration. The interhole delay timing factor a
t
is dened by the following criteria
a
t
~ 1{
dt
T
min

for dt=T
min
v1 or
a
t
~0 for dt=T
min
1 (1)
Minimum response time T
min
is here dened as a
discrete element of time which elapses from the time of
explosive detonation to mass burden displacement and
can be estimated by the approach discussed in more
detail by Onederra.
13
From the above expression, it is
clear that dt/T
min
ratios greater or equal to one,
correspond to the single hole ring case or where no
cooperation between charges is expected. The theoretical
basis of this correction factor can also be associated with
the period of time in which both stresses and gasses are
likely to act on the rock mass to generate fractures and
thus inuence fragmentation. This time is bound by the
detonation of the explosive charge, the propagation and
interaction of stresses and the work carried out by gasses
before rock mass detachment.
Given the above denition, corrections to modelling
parameters are conducted with the relationships
described in the following subsections.
Corrections applied to expected post-blast
mean fragment size
The expected mean fragment size predicted by conven-
tional formulae (e.g. Kuznetsov
8
and Cunningham)
3
and
referring to the base case of single hole ring conditions
is corrected with the following relationships
X
t
50
~
X
50
1zF
t
(2)
F
t
~F(1za
t
) (3)
F~
X
insitu
X
50
{1 (4)
where X
t
50
is the corrected mean fragment size, F
t
the
corrected fragmentation efciency factor, F is the base
case fragmentation efciency factor, X
insitu
is the mean
in situ block size and X
50
is the base case predicted
post-blast mean fragment size using conventional
formulae (e.g. Cunningham).
5
As described, the base
case fragmentation efciency factor F (i.e. single hole
ring conditions) is hypothesised to increase when there
is evidence of positive interaction (cooperation)
between blastholes. This will cause an increase in the
proportion of intermediate and ne fragments, as has
been shown by Vanbrabant and Espinosa.
18
It should
be mentioned that the fragmentation efciency factor F
discussed above, was rst introduced and discussed by
Onederra
10
as part of an alternative approach to
predict mean fragment size in underground ring
blasting conditions.
Corrections applied to the proportion of fines
generated by blasting f
c
Following a two component modelling approach, the
proportion of nes generated by blasting given by the
nes parameter f
c
(see Onederra et al.)
11
is also corrected
with the following expression
f
t
c
~f
c
1z
a
t
3

(5)
where f
c
is the proportion of the material passing a
screen of size 1 mm, or the nes inection point
estimated with the crushed zone and fracturing model
discussed by Onederra et al.
11
and a
t
is the interhole
delay timing factor dened by equation (1).
Corrections applied to uniformity indices
For two component RosinRammler based models such
as those discussed by Hall and Brunton
7
and Onederra
et al.,
11
when there is evidence of positive interaction
between blastholes, the uniformity index of the frag-
mentation distribution of coarse particles n
coarse
is
corrected by the following expression
1 Schematic diagram of effect of interhole timing on
breakage and fragmentation
2 Comparison of size at 80% passing versus delay per-
iod for full scale and reduced scale tests reported by
Stagg and Rholl
16
Onederra Delay timing factor for empirical fragmentation models
Mining Technology 2007 VOL 116 NO 4 177
n
t
coarse
~
n
coarse
1za
t
(6)
where n
t
coarse
is the adjusted uniformity index and n
coarse
is the base case or uniformity index calculated from
relationships based on single hole ring conditions such
as those proposed by Cunningham
5
and/or Onederra
and Rihiioja.
12
Similarly, the corrected uniformity index for the nes
region is given by
n
t
fines
~
ln
ln (1{f
t
c
)
{0
:
693

ln
1
X
t
50
(7)
The Swebrec function or KCO model proposed by
Ouchterlony
14
has also been modied as a two
component function by deriving two b parameters that
describe uniformity in the coarse and the nes ends of
the distribution (i.e. parameters b
coarse
and b
nes
). The
new implementation includes corrections to these para-
meters given by the following expressions
b
t
coarse
~ 2|ln (2)|ln
X
max
X
t
50

|n
t
coarse
(8)
b
t
fines
~
ln
1
f
t
c

{1

ln
ln
Xmax
1

ln
Xmax
X
t
50

(9)
where n
t
coarse
is the adjusted uniformity index given by
equation (6), X
max
is the expected top size, X
t
50
is the
corrected mean fragment size given by equation (2) and f
t
c
is the corrected proportion of nes given by equation (5)
Proposed two component fragmentation
modelling frameworks
The fragmentation distribution of two component based
models for the proposed corrections include:
(i) for the RosinRammler based models
R(x)~1{e
{0
:
693
x
X
t
50

n
t
fines
for xX
t
50
(10)
R(x)~1{e
{0
:
693
x
X
t
50

n
t
coarse
for xwX
t
50
(11)
(i) for the proposed two component Swebrec model
R(x)~
1
1z
ln
Xmax
x

ln
Xmax
X
t
50

b
t
fines
for xX
t
50
(12)
R(x)~
1
1z
ln
Xmax
x

ln
Xmax
X
t
50

b
t
coarse
for xwX
t
50
(13)
where R(x) is the proportion of the material passing a
screen of size x.
Demonstration of proposed correction
factor
The following analysis demonstrates the way in which
the proposed correction factor inuences the nal
output of the fragmentation curves derived from
empirical models. A base case scenario (single hole
ring) is dened by design and rock parameters
summarised in Table 1. From these input parameters,
fragmentation curves for the proposed two component
Swebrec model are generated for interhole timing
congurations ranging from 2 to 8 ms.
Base case modelling parameters for the above condi-
tions are given in Table 2 and fragmentation modelling
results for changes in interhole delay are given in Figs. 3
and 4. Corrected modelling parameters for each output
curve are summarised in Table 3.
As shown in Fig. 3, for the estimated response time of
11 ms, the use of interhole delays of ,8 ms promote
cooperation between charges and hence further frag-
mentation, thus producing an increase in the proportion
of intermediate to ne fragments. For example, in this
hypothetical case, the proportion of fragments less than
100 mm is shown to increase from 25% for the base case
condition to 36% when 2 ms interhole delays are used. It
should be noted that as interhole delays are increased,
results approach the single hole ring case. Changes in
uniformity at the coarse end also simulate the potential
increase in the proportion of coarse fragments, for
example 4% of fragments are expected to be .1000 mm
in the single hole ring case in contrast to 6% when using
2 ms interhole delays. This increase is simulating
the potential effect of approaching cluster blasting
conditions, where more pronounced bimodal distribu-
tions can be expected.
Table 1 Design and rock parameters of hypothetical
example
Design parameters Hole diameter 270 mm
Charge length 11
.
5 m
Bench height 17 m
Spacing 7 m
Burden 6 m
Explosive ANFO
Exp. density 0
.
8 g cc
Exp Dcj 4800 m/s
Exp. VoD* 4000 m/s
Rock parameters UCS** (velocity units) 160 MPa
Tensile 13 MPa
Density 2
.
68 g cc
21
v
p
5490 m s
21
v
s
2910 m s
21
E
d
59 GPa
Mean block size X
insitu
1
.
5 m
Top size X
max
3
.
0 m
*VoD is Velocity of Detonation.
**UCS is Unconfined Compressive Strength.
Table 2 Base case modelling parameters
Parameter Value Reference
A factor 6
.
87 Cunningham
3
X
50
298 mmCunningham
3
n
coarse
1
.
33 Cunningham
3
Proportion of fines f
c
3
.
1% Onederra et al.
11
Fragmentation factor F4
.
03 Equation (4)
b
coarse
4
.
26 Equation (8) for X
50
and n
coarse
b
fines
2
.
78 Equation (9) for X
50
and f
c
T
min
11 ms Onederra
13
Onederra Delay timing factor for empirical fragmentation models
178 Mining Technology 2007 VOL 116 NO 4
As a summary example of the effect of delay time on
fragmentation, Fig. 4 gives the changes in size for the 20,
50 and 90% passing fractions. This type of information
could be used in combination with other delay timing
design criteria to evaluate the best conditions that satisfy
both fragmentation, vibration and/or damage control
requirements.
It is important to mention that the sensitivity of the
proposed corrections should be reviewed in light of site
specic information or detailed experimental data. The
current adjustments are only based on preliminary
information.
Conclusions
Empirical fragmentation models used in practice are
based on the fragmentation associated with single hole
ring conditions, that is, they do not consider the
interaction of detonating blastholes on the breakage and
fragmentation process. The application of precise and
short delay timing using electronic detonators has
demonstrated the need to incorporate modelling para-
meters that can adequately show the documented impact
of delay timing on breakage and fragmentation.
A delay timing correction factor a
t
has been intro-
duced on the basis that corrections can be directly
applied to modelling parameters that dene uniformity,
mean fragment size and nes generation. The proposed
factor is a function of the ratio between the interhole
delay time dt and the minimum response time T
min
. The
theoretical basis of the proposed correction factor is
associated with the period of time in which both stresses
and gasses are likely to act on the rock mass to generate
fractures and thus inuence fragmentation. This time is
bound by the detonation of the explosive charge, the
propagation and interaction of stresses and the work
carried out by gasses before rock mass detachment.
The application of the proposed correction factor to
predict relative changes in fragmentation for changes in
interhole delay timing was demonstrated using a newly
implemented two component Swebrec function. Results
from this preliminary analysis showed the modelling
output to be compatible with trends observed and
measured in practice. However, the sensitivity of the
proposed corrections should be reviewed in light of site
specic information or more detailed experimental data.
With appropriate calibration, the analysis presented
provides a simple framework that may be used in
combination with other delay timing design criteria to
evaluate the best conditions that satisfy both fragmenta-
tion, vibration and/or damage control requirements.
References
1. W. L. Fourney, R. R. Boade, L. S. Costin: Proc. Conf. on
Fragmentation by blasting, 1st edn, 4162; 1985, Vancouver, SEM.
2. C. V. Cunningham: Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Rock fragmentation by
blasting, Lulea, Sweden, August 1983, University of Lulea, 439453.
3. C. V. Cunningham: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Rock fragmentation
by blasting, Society for Experimental Mechanics, Keystone, CO,
USA, August 1987, 475487.
4. C. V. Cunningham: Proc. Conf. on Explosives and blasting
technique, (ed. R. Holmberg), 123127; 2000, Roterdam, Balkemma.
5. C.V. Cunningham: Proc. EFEE World Blasting Conf., Brighton,
UK, September 2005, EFEE, 201210.
6. A. R. Guest, G. Chitombo and H. Grobler: Proc. Conf. EXPLO
95, Brisbane, Australia, September 1995, AusIMM, 7580.
7. J. Hall and I. Brunton: Proc. Conf. EXPLO 2001, Hunter Valley,
Australia, October 2001, AusIMM, 207212.
8. V. M. Kuznetsov: Sov. Min. Sci., 1973, 9, 144148.
9. L. C. Lang: Proc. 5th Conf. on Explosives and blasting techniques
(SEE Ann. Meet.), St. Louis, MS, USA, February 1979, 6680.
10. I. Onederra: Int. J. Blast. Fragm., 2004, 8, (3), 11720.
11. I. Onederra, S. Esen, and A. Jankovic: IMM Trans. A, 2004, 113A,
(4), 237247.
12. I. Onederra and K. Riihioja: Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock
fragmentation in blasting, Santiago, Chile, May 2006, Chilean
Association of Explosives Engineers, 193199.
13. I. Onederra: IMM Trans. A, 2007, 116A, (1), 715.
14. F. Ouchterlony: IMM Trans. A, 2005, 114A, (1), 2944.
15. F. Ouchterlony, M. Olsson, U. Nyberg, P. Andersson and L.
Gustavsson: Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock fragmentation in
blasting, Santiago, Chile, May 2006, Chilean Association of
Explosives Engineers, 332344.
16. M. S. Stagg and S. A. Rholl: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Rock
fragmentation by blasting, Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Keystone, CO, USA, August 1987, 210223.
17. S. Tose and C. Baltus: Proc. Conf. on Rock fragmentation by
Blasting (FRAGBLAST-7), Beijing, China, August 2001, China
Society of Engineering Blasting, 5053.
18. F. Vanbrabant and A. Espinosa: Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock
fragmentation in blasting, Santiago, Chile, May 2006, Chilean
Association of Explosives Engineers, 326331.
3 Fragmentation modelling output for range of interhole
delays
4 Delay time versus size for 20, 50 and 90% passing
fractions
Table 3 Corrected modelling parameters
Delay time dt, ms 2 4 6 8
T
min
11 11 11 11
dt/T
min
0
.
19 0
.
37 0
.
56 0
.
74
a
t
0
.
814 0
.
628 0
.
442 0
.
256
F
t
7
.
31 6
.
56 5
.
81 5
.
06
X
t
50
, mm 180
.
5 198
.
4 220
.
2 247
.
5
n
t
coarse
0
.
734 0
.
818 0
.
923 1
.
060
b
t
coarse
2
.
859 3
.
078 3
.
342 3
.
665
f
t
c
3
.
91% 3
.
72% 3
.
53% 3
.
34%
b
t
fines
3
.
06 3
.
01 2
.
95 2
.
89
Onederra Delay timing factor for empirical fragmentation models
Mining Technology 2007 VOL 116 NO 4 179