EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON BLASTING FRAGMENTATION OF IRON ORE INFLUENCED BY CHARGE STRUCTURE AND DETONATION POSITION Y. Long, X.H.

Li, Q.J. Xu, H. Zhou, J.F. Liu & Z.H. Jiang PLA University of Science and Engineering 88 Houbiaoying Street Nanjing, China

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON BLASTING FRAGMENTATION OF IRON ORE INFLUENCED BY CHARGE STRUCTURE AND DETONATION POSITION ABSTRACT The deep-hole surface blasting technique is a prime method of iron ore mining. Blasting fragmentation is one of the important economic indicators that measures the blast method to obtain the iron ore. To improve the efficiency of the blasting method and further reduce the cost of the subsequent processing of iron ore, this paper summarizes measured data gained from a certain amount of blasting test conducted in an iron ore mine in Guangdong province, China. According to the data analysis, there are differences on iron ore blasting fragmentation by different indicators of deep-hole blasting, such as decoupling coefficient of charge, contact state between charge and borehole wall, and change of detonation position in charge. These factors were compared in terms of relevance and impact. Research shows: under certain rock conditions, the decoupling coefficient of the charge has a best range related to blasting fragmentation. Since the detonation position in charge determines the direction of propagation of the explosion stress wave through ore and rock, bottom initiation and mid initiation will help to improve the iron ore blasting fragmentation in joints fractured rock and ore. The research conclusions have important application value for program design of iron ore surface blasting and to guide other types of rock surface blasting.

KEYWORDS Iron ore mining, Surface blasting, Blasting fragmentation, Charge structure, Detonation position INTRODUCTION Blasting fragmentation is one of the important indicators to measure the effect of the open-air deep hole blasting method in mining iron ore, which has a direct impact on the economic benefits of the mine. It cannot meet the requirements of iron ore transport and crushing if the chunks of iron ore are more after blasting, a secondary solution must be small. The secondary solution small not only increase mining costs, affecting the progress of the project, but also security risks. Therefore, in the process of the mining of iron ore blasting, improving control of the blasting fragmentation and explosives utilization, and increasing the economic benefits have great practical significance. The rock blasting blocks degree is affected by many factors of rock properties, rock formations, the explosives nature and blasting parameters. Many scholars have carried out in-depth research of rock blasting fragmentation control problems. Weiqi Long established a quantitative relationship between the resistance line and blasting degree of fragmentation (Long, 1989). Xiaolin Yang studied the rock impedance matching of blasting fragmentation (Yang, 1991). Yalun Yu established the fractured rock blasting fragmentation forecasting model by using the dimensional analysis method (Yu, 1993). Jun Liu used the statistical analysis method to reveal the internal relationship between fragmentation gradient, average block size and the different properties of rock blasting parameters (Liu, 2001). Jun Dai studied the effects of rock blasting explosives on detonation velocity and the amount of charge on the size of the rock crushing block (Dai,2008). Jichun Zhang established the main factors that affect the quality of rock blasting with the grey relational analysis method. This method is the blasting fragment-size index in jointed rock masses that is mainly affected by the explosion control zone jointed distribution characteristics, main

factors affecting the size distribution is the hole spacing, row spacing and the minimum resistance line (Zhang, 1997). PRESSURE ON BOREHOLE OF DECOUPLING CHARGE The structure of the charge means the concentration of explosive in the blast hole, the condition of coupling with the wall and the geometric relationship of the charge in the blast hole. The process of a decoupling charge exploding is very complicated, as it includes the detonation of explosives, the interaction between the gas produced by blasting and air gap, and the impact of air shock waves on the rock. Because of the low density and the high compressibility of air, the high temperature and pressure gas produced by the charge expands and compresses the air gap between the charge and hole wall, producing air shock waves. These shock waves act on the blast hole wall. The assumptions below are made (Ye, 1996): 1. 2. 3. Air doesnt exist between the charge and hole wall. Detonation products of explosives expand following the law : PVK = const (K3), cause an impact press when arriving at the hole wall and stir up a blasting stress wave in rock. The initial pressure of detonation products of explosives before expansion is calculated by the average detonation pressure, PH/2.

Based on the above assumptions, the initial pressure on the blast hole wall may be calculated by the following method.. The average detonation pressure of the detonation products is
Pm = PH 1 2 = 0 DH 2 8

(1)

The impact pressure on the blast hole wall by the products of detonation (i.e. incident pressure):
V0 1 2 d0 P = 0 DH 1 = P m V 8 b db
3 3

(2)

In Equation 2, V0 is the volume of the detonation products before expanding; Vb is the volume of the detonation products when expanding to hole wall (i.e. the volume of the blast hole); d0 is the diameter of the cylinder charge; and db is the diameter of the blast hole. The pressure increases n times when the detonation products impact on the blast hole wall. So, in the condition of decoupling charge, the initial impacting pressure on the blast hole wall is:
1 2 d0 P2 = 0 DH n 8 db
6

(3)

For the emulsion explosive, 0 = 1060 kg/m3, D = 2700 m/s. Considering Equation 3,where n = 10, the effect on the surge pressure of the blast hole wall by the radial decoupling charge coefficient is described in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Peak pressure of the blast hole wall versus decoupling coefficient SMALL BENCH MODEL EXPERIMENTS A small bench model test was conducted with a single row of holes (three holes), and the main parameters as shown in Table 1 below. Five decoupling coefficients, 1.0, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.0 were selected. The coupling charge is Kd = 1.0, and with each secondary decoupling coefficient, there were a total of 10 model tests. Table 1 Small bench simulation test blasting parameters table Bench height Minimum line Pitch Aperture 1.2 m 0.4 m 0.45 m 40 mm On the rock pile for each test block, the degree distribution and screening statistics and statistical average of the critical heap blocks degree composition data in double logarithmic coordinates linear regression can be obtained from the distribution the parameter X0 and uniformity index n (GGS distribution). Table 2 shows the distribution of blasting fragmentation regression results. Figures 24 show three blasting fragmentation evaluations with the coupling coefficient changed in the relationship between the three indicators: uniform exponent n, the characteristic fragmentation X0/cm, and K50. Table 2 Decoupling charging small bench blasting fragmentation distribution regression results Decoupling Uniformity index Characteristic fragmentation Correlation K50 coefficient n X0/cm coefficient 1.0 1.5420 5.36 0.9922 42.54 1.25 1.5031 5.15 0.9753 39.75 1.5 1.4524 4.71 0.9684 35.68 1.75 1.4112 4.20 0.9945 34.19 2.0 1.4526 5.28 0.9718 40.21 In Figures 24, radial coupling of the charge is visible under the conditions of each block index of less than coupling charge indicators, suggesting that decoupling drugs can improve the blasting effect. Three indicators are that the blasting effect occurs when other conditions remain unchanged (block index), that there is a more reasonable range, and that there is best decoupling coefficient.

Figure 2 Uniformity index n versus decoupling coefficient of variation

Figure 3 The feature blocks degree versus decoupling coefficient changes

Figure 4 K50 versus the decoupling coefficient of variation The reason for this phenomenon is the role of the media blasting energy due to the change in the structure of the charge allocation ratio changes, resulting in different effects of blasting. The single hole charge volume remained unchanged, as using different radial decoupling coefficient values have an impact only on the energy distribution of explosives, and the overall energy is constant. As the value of Kd increases, the charge height increases, and the decrease of the initial detonation pressure acts on the bore wall. The strip mounted on the distribution of the explosive energy of the height of the charge will tend to be uniform, and thus can be reduced to a small crushed area to increase the blasting stress wave zone and detonation gas active area. Thus, the blasting fragmentation is more uniform, and boulder yield decreases. When Kd is very large, the explosion energy will distribute, and will lead to a decrease in the single-point energy, so that the sharp drop in the amplitude of the tangential tensile stress and the blasting will be negatively impacted. Decoupling charging can improve the effect of the blast, but there is a reasonable range. In Figures 24, when Kd < 1.75, each group of three blocks degree distribution index with the increase and decrease; at Kd > 1.75 indices increase. Therefore, Kd = 1.75 is the minimum. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON EFFECT OF IRON ORE BLASTING FRAGMENTATION IN DIFFERENT DETONATION POSITIONS The experiment on the effect of iron ore blasting fragmentation in different detonation positions was done in Dading iron mine in Guangdong province. The method is to count the boulder yield in iron ore after blasting and obtain values of boulder yield with different detonation positions. The boulder yield calculation method is based on the requirements of the owner, who selects the fragments whose sizes are larger than 60 cm as boulders. The experiment was done in the relatively homogeneous experiment field with three different situations as direct initiation, indirect initiation and neutral position. The experiment was divided into three groups with iron content of 25, 30 and 40%. The specific blasting parameters are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 The main blasting parameters of deep-hole blasting Parameter Symbol Unit Value Bench height H m 12.0 Aperture D mm 140 Toe burden Wb m 5.0 0 Drilling angle 8590 Hole space a m 5.0 Hole depth L m 14.0 Subdrill h m 2.0 Stemming length Lc m 4.0 Explosive specific charge q kg/m3 0.5 Explosive in per hole Q kg 120180 First, the direct initiation experiment was carried out, measuring the amount of the square after the explosion. Then the ore with size larger than 60 cm was chosen and its volume was measured. All the ore was removed. Indirect initiation tests and neutral position tests are done in the same way. Three groups of blasting boulder yield tests research on different initiating position in iron ores were studied and shown in Table 4. The blasting effect of the second situation is shown in Figure 5. Table 4 Three groups of blasting boulder yield tests Initiating position 25% more than 30% above 40% Direct initiating (%) 8.63 7.28 15.92 Indirect initiating (%) 6.32 5.37 13.53 Central position initiation (%) 6.78 6.04 13.94

(a) Direct initiation effect

(b) Indirect initiation effect

(c) Neutral position effect Figure 5 Blasting effect of the different initiation Based on the result of three different initiation positions, we can say that the initiating position affected the blasting fragment. The first two groups of tests resulted in nearly the same boulder yield, and the third tests achieved a higher numeric value. This is mainly because the third group tests were studied in rock joints and developed cracks. Direct initiation has the highest boulder yield, followed by the neutral position; indirect initiation has the lowest rate. This is mainly because in the situation of the direct initiation, the explosion load is larger but decays quickly. In indirect initiation, the load is small, but sustained much longer. In the neutral position, explosion load is larger than the indirect initiation but decays faster. Although there is a middle pressure platform, the duration is not very long, so it is between positive and reverse initiation. In order to lower the boulder yield during the excavation, the technology of direct initiation should be adopted. CONCLUSIONS The air gap in decoupling charge can reduce the peak pressure of the blast shock wave and increase pressure time to reallocate dynamic explosive loading energy, influencing the blasting effect. Therefore, the decoupling charge may maximize the utilization of the explosive energy, improving blasting fragmentation.

The decoupling charge coefficient affects blasting fragmentation and creates an optimal radial decoupling coefficient range, in which the decoupling coefficient can get reasonable blasting fragmentation. The detonation positions influence blasting fragmentation and indirect detonating is better. Indirect initiation technology can effectively reduce the boulder yield in deep hole blasting of iron ore mining construction.

REFERENCES Dai, J., & Qian Q. (2008). Control of size of rock fragmentation. Blasting. Journal of Liaoning Technical University(Natural Science), 27(1), 5456. Liu, J., He, J., & Sun Z. (2001). A statistical analysis on the relationship between single-hole bench blasting parameters and fragmentation. Engineering Blasting, 7(1), 2833. Long, W., & Pang B. (1989). A study on the size distribution characteristics of blasted rock and ore fragments. Nonferrous Metals, 41(4), 1118. Yang, X.L. (1991). Study of blasting stress, size and matched impedance between explosive and rock. Journal of China Coal Society, 16(1), 8996. Ye, X.S. (1996). Explosion action basis. Nanjing: Engineers Engineering Institute. Yu, Y., & Zhao, J. (1993). Estimating model of dirted rock size in jointed rock masses. China Mining Magazine, 13(3), 5963. Zhang, J., Niu, Q., & Xu X. (1993). Determination of principal factors affecting the quality of rock blasting with grey correlation analysis. Explosion and Shock Wave, 13(3), 212218.