Full Text 01

2008:071
MASTER'S THESIS
Fragmentation analysis of optimized

blasting rounds in the Aitik mine
- effect of specific charge
Vasileios Demenegas
Luleå University of Technology
Master Thesis, Continuation Courses

Mining and geotechnical engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Division of Rock Engineering
2008:071 - ISSN: 1653-0187 - ISRN: LTU-PB-EX--08/071--SE

FRAGMENTATION ANALYSIS OF
OPTIMIZED BLASTING ROUNDS IN THE
AITIK MINE - EFFECT OF SPECIFIC
CHARGE
VASILEIOS DEMENEGAS
Luleå University of Technology

Department of civil mining and environmental engineering
I
Preface
This thesis summarizes the work done at the Swedish blasting research center at Luleå
University of Technology. The supervisor for this thesis was Professor Finn
Ouchterlony. The thesis is part of a related project of the Swedish blasting research
center named “Model for bench blasting in open pits” and it was performed at
Boliden’s Aitik copper mine.
The entire Project was sponsored by the Swedish blasting research center in LTU.
I would firstly like to thank my supervisor, Professor Finn Ouchterlony for his
valuable guidance and support throughout the course of this project. Special thanks go
to Ulf Nyberg of the Swedish blasting research center for all his help, advice and
encouragement. The contribution of Boliden’s Peter Bergman and of the entire Aitik
mine’s engineering staff in field data acquisition is gratefully acknowledged.
Finally my deep gratitude goes to my parents Αντώνιος and Παρασκευή for their
invaluable support and patience throughout the course of my academic studies.
II
Utökad sammanfattning
I detta Masters-arbete undersöks vilken effekt som en höjd specifik laddning har på
styckefallet. Arbete är kopplat till Swebrecs projekt ”Modell för pallsprängning och
förkross i dagbrott” och Boliden Minerals projekt ”G5 Optimerad sprängning i Aitik”.
Fältdelen utfördes i Boliden Minerals Aitikgruva i Gällivare. Målet kom att bli att
mäta den skillnad i styckefall som den högre specifika laddningen, ca 1,35 kg/m3,
orsakar i ena halvan av salva 5162 orsakar. Den andra halvan av salvan hade normal
specifik laddning, 1,0-,1 kg/m3.
En kombination av bildanalys och siktning har använts för att bestämma styckefallet i
de två salvhalvorna. För bildanalysen användes mjukvaran Split Desktop. Över 250
bilder av trucklass togs nära lastningen. Av dessa valdes 60, 30 från vardera
salvahalvan, ut enligt ett kvalitetskriterium och analyserades med Split Desktop.
Dessutom togs fyra stickprov, två från vardera salvhalva, som siktades vid ett
ackrediterat laboratorium.
I fältarbete ingick en detaljerad uppföljning av borrnings- och laddningsarbetet.

Denna plus övrig information från gruvans personal användes för att räkna fram den
förväntade styckefallet i salvhalvorna enligt de teoretiska CZM och KCO-modellerna.
Resultaten pekar på betydande skillnader i finandelen medan skillnaderna i
storstensområdet är betydligt mindre.
Styckefallsanalysen har gett ett blandat resultat. För medelstyckefallet x50 är

skillnaden på 233 – 200 = 33 mm mellan hög och normal specifik laddning statistiskt
säkerställd men detta gäller inte för alla skillnaden mellan 10%-percentiler. Runt
hälften av dem innehåller värdet 0, dvs. skillnaden är inte säkerställd.
Å andra sidan så gäller att den enligt CZM- och KCO-modellerna förväntade
skillnaden i t.ex. x50 och x80 är ungefär lika stor. Detta leder till slutsatsen att en
utvärdering av fler foton, vilket skulle ge snävare konfidensintervall, förmodligen
skulle kunna säkerställa skillnaderna.
III
Bildanalysdata för grovt material och siktdata för finandelen användes tillsammans
med Swebrec-funktionen, som ingår i KCO-modellen, för att konstruera en
medelkurva för styckefallet i de två salvhalvorna. Passningen blev god för båda
halvorna och korrelationen hög, r2 > 0,999.
Boliden Mineral ställde också en modell för primärkrossen i Aitik till förfogande.
Dess förmåga att återge styckefallet för produkten testades när de olika fördelningarna
för inmatat salvberg användes. Modellens beräknade utfall jämfördes med mätvärden
som erhållits för respektive salvhalva genom systemets Split Online som finns
installerat över bandet efter förkrossen.
Det är möjligt att krossmodellen underskattar bildandet av finmaterial i

krossprocessen. Vidare så måste troligtvis den teoretiska CZM-modellen förbättras
eftersom inmatat material innehåller mer fint än produkten mätt med Split Online.
IV
Executive Summary
This report investigates the effect increased specific charge has on the fragment size
distribution of the blasted material. It is a part of a related project of the Swedish
blasting Research center named “Model for bench blasting in open pits” and the field
tests took place in Boliden’s Aitik copper mine in Gällivare.
The goal of this thesis work was to measure the difference in fragmentation caused
due to increased specific charge. In order to achieve this, one bench i.e. bench 5162,
was divided into two blasting domains. One domain was charged with the normal
specific charge used for bench blasting in the mine which is approximately 1 to 1.1
kg/m3, while the other domain had a slightly elevated specific charge close to 1.35
kg/m3.
A combination of optical methods and lab sieving tests was used to evaluate the
fragment size distribution of the blasted material in each blasting domain. The
software used for the purposes of this investigation is “Split Desktop”. Over 250
images of truck – loads were acquired during the loading period of the material, from
which, 60 were picked according to a quality criterion formulated and analyzed with
the afore-mentioned software suite. In addition to the image analysis, four samples
were taken from the muck pile, two from each blasting domain and they were sent for
sieving in an accredited laboratory.
Included in the field work was detailed monitoring of the drilling and charging
parameters. The results, along with additional information provided by the mine
personnel, were used in order to obtain the fragment size distribution estimation of
different theoretical models for each blasting domain. The models used were the Kuz-
Ram model, the CZM and the KCO model. The results indicate significant differences
in the model predictions for the finer ranges of the fragment size distribution curve,
while the differences are reduced in the coarse range.
V
The results of the fragmentation analysis give a mixed picture. For the average
fragment size, there is a statistically significant difference of approximately
233 – 200 = 33 mm between the high and the low specific charge blasting domain.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the passing sizes.
Approximately 50 % of the values between x10 and top-size include 0 in the 95 %
confidence intervals of the size difference between the two blasting domains
therefore, it cannot be claimed that the existence of a distinct difference has been
substantiated. On the other hand the values for the differences in fragment size
between domains for e.g. x50 and x80, even though for the latter they are not
statistically significant, agree rather well with the range of values predicted by
theoretical models such as the Kuz-Ram model the CZM and the KCO model. This
leads to the conclusion that an increase in the sample size would allow for a better
determination of the sample mean differences which would in turn have a beneficial
effect in reducing the range of the confidence intervals rendering more difference
values statistically significant and allowing for a more consolidated view of the
fragment size distribution of the material within each blasting domain.
A compilation of image analysis and laboratory sieving data was used in an attempt to
describe the fragment size distribution curve for the material within each blasting
domain with the use of the Swebrec function incorporated in the KCO model. The
results were satisfactory with the Swebrec function obtaining a fit better than 0.999
for both domains.
For the last part of the investigation, a crusher model for the mine’s primary crusher
was made available and its ability to reproduce the fragment size distribution of
crushed rock was tested for feeds from different theoretical models. The output of the
crusher model for different feeds was compared to the results of the fragmentation
analysis of the crushed rock performed by the “Split Online” monitoring system
installed after the mine’s primary crusher. It is possible that the crusher model under-
predicts the amount of fine material generated during the crushing process.
Furthermore, the theoretical CZM model used as input for the crusher model probably
needs to be improved, since the feed material appears to contain more fines than the
crusher product as measured with “Split Online”.
VI
Preface............................................................................................... ii
Utökad sammanfattning ..................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................ v
1 Introduction ................................................................................. 1
2 Background theory....................................................................... 3
2.1 BENCH BLASTING ...................................................................................................................3

2.1.1 Geometry ..........................................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Detonation ........................................................................................................................5
2.2 BLAST FRAGMENTATION ........................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Fragmentation’s influence in down-stream operations ....................................................6
2.2.2 Blast fragmentation models ..............................................................................................7
2.2.2.1 The Kuz – Ram Model.......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2.2 The JKMRC models............................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2.2.1 Crushed Zone Model (CZM) ......................................................................................... 10
2.2.2.2.2 The Two Component Model (TCM).............................................................................. 13
2.2.2.3 The KCO Model.................................................................................................................. 15
2.2.3 Discussion.......................................................................................................................16
2.3 IMAGE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................17
3 Aitik Mine ................................................................................... 19
4 Background information on blast no. 5162 .................................. 20
4.1 GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................................20

4.2 DRILLING .............................................................................................................................23
4.3 CHARGING............................................................................................................................25
4.4 JKSIMBLAST ........................................................................................................................26
5 Fragmentation analysis .............................................................. 28
5.1 CRITERION FOR CHOOSING WHICH IMAGES TO ANALYZE ......................................................29

5.1.1 Light conditions ..............................................................................................................29
5.1.2 Presence of unwanted particles in the image..................................................................31
5.1.3 Other parameters............................................................................................................31
5.2 IMAGE PROCESSING ..............................................................................................................32
5.3 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................34
5.3.1 Low Specific charge domain...........................................................................................34
VII
5.3.2 High specific charge domain ..........................................................................................36
5.4 SIEVED SAMPLES ..................................................................................................................38
5.4.1 Sampling process ............................................................................................................38
5.5 CONSTRUCTING THE FRAGMENT SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES ...............................................43
5.6 FRAGMENT SIZE DISTRIBUTION PREDICTION OF DIFFERENT MODELS ....................................46
5.6.1 The Kuz – Ram model .....................................................................................................46
5.6.2 The CZM Model..............................................................................................................47
5.6.3 The KCO model ..............................................................................................................48
5.6.4 Collective model comparison..........................................................................................49
5.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO DOMAINS .........................................................................51
5.7.1 Discussion.......................................................................................................................55
5.8 COMPARISON WITH THE RESULTS FROM THE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ..............................58
5.9 COMPARISON WITH SPLIT ONLINE DATA FROM THE CRUSHER ..............................................60
6 Conclusions and future work ...................................................... 71
References ....................................................................................... 75
Appendix 1 ....................................................................................... 77
Appendix 2 ....................................................................................... 91
VIII
Vasileios Demenegas Monitoring fragmentation in the Aitik Mine
1 Introduction
In open pit hard rock mining, rock blasting is by far the most cost effective way of
extracting the ore. The purpose of rock blasting is to extract adequately fragmented
rock in the most economically viable way while avoiding possible damage to mine
infrastructure and the foot wall.
Blast fragmentation is one of the most important aspects of open pit blasting. The
blasted rock should be easily loaded and hauled and the blasted rock fragments should
be adequately pre-conditioned (i.e. weakened) in order to reduce the energy
requirements in down-stream processes such as crushing and grinding.
In Boliden’s Aitik open pit cooper mine over 18 million tons of copper ore are
excavated every year along with over 20 million tons of waste rock. An expansion has
been scheduled which will double the ore production to an astounding 36 million tons
per year.
In order to achieve this ambitious goal, special attention is paid to blasting and blast
fragmentation. Since January 2007, the Aitik Mine is running the project: “G5
optimized blasting” with the goal of giving a statistically based conclusion of the
potential benefit optimized fragmentation can have on loadability, wear and mill
throughput for both the ore and the waste rock. The first part of this project
investigates the influence of a raised specific charge in production blasting. During
2007, 5 test rounds have been blasted and the tests will continue (to a maximum of 20
test blasts) until a significant effect in mill throughput has been observed.
The Swedish Blasting Research center has a related sub-project named: “Model for
bench blasting in open pits” with a goal of giving a description of how to blast in
different geological domains within the mine, so that the mill throughput increases.
A report by Nyberg et. al., (2006) and a paper by Ouchterlony et al. (2006) summarize
the follow up of test blast 4141-2 in the Aitik open pit mine. The work done entails
modeling of the blast using the JKSimBlast software, structural mapping of the bench
-1-
face with the BlastMetrix system, investigating the potential of a borehole camera in
fracture mapping of production blast holes, evaluating blast fragmentation using
“Split Desktop” and “Split Online” software (www.spliteng.com, Kemeny, 1999)
along with sieved samples from the muck pile and the adjustment of the parameters of
the Kuz – Ram model combined with the Swebrec function to fit Aitik’s conditions.
The results of this investigation pointed out several deficiencies in the image analysis
methods such as different types of delineation errors, lighting conditions and possible
camera effects. A correlation between “Split Desktop” and “Split Online”
fragmentation data could not be established and the authors conclude that the
fragmentation results obtained by the two systems should be regarded with suspicion,
for the latter more than for the former.
The fragment size distribution curve for the entire bench was constructed using a
combination of sieved and image analysis data. The Swebrec function was used to
describe the curve and it gave a fit better than 0.995.
The present research is a continuation of the work performed by Nyberg. The

objective of the project is to investigate the effect specific charge has on blast
fragmentation through the use of image analysis data complimented by sieved
samples from the muck pile. In addition to investigating the effect of specific charge,
the data is to be used to construct the fragment size distribution curve for the blasted
material.
-2-
2 Background theory
2.1 Bench blasting
2.1.1 Geometry
The main purpose of bench blasting is to facilitate the fracturing and moving of the
intact rock mass so that it can be loaded, hauled and further processed in an easy and
efficient way.
There are several parameters that influence the fragmentation result of a bench blast.
Among the most significant ones are the rock mass properties and the geometrical
features of the blast design. Secondary parameters include explosive and detonator
type, initiation pattern and timing etc. A brief overview of the terminology used in
bench blasting drilling patterns can be seen in the following figure.
Figure 2.1: Bench blasting geometry and terminology (Bergman, 2005)
-3-
Brief definitions for some of the terms seen in figure 2.1 follow.
Burden (B): The distance between the borehole and the free face or the distance
between two consecutive rows of boreholes.
Spacing (S): The distance between two consecutive boreholes in the same row
Bottom charge (BCL): When charging with non bulk explosive material, the bottom
charge is often heavier to compensate for the increased confinement on the bench toe.
Column charge (CCL): The main volume of explosive distributed along the main
section of the borehole.
Bench height (H): The vertical distance form the bench’s crest to the bench’s toe.
Sub-drill (U): The section of the borehole extending below the bench’s toe. Sub-
drilling is necessary to achieve sufficient breakage and have a relatively smooth
working surface for loading the muck pile.
Stemming (Ho): The top part of the borehole which is left uncharged and then filled
with sand, drill cuttings and gravel rock. The stemming is left uncharged in order to
reduce the risk of fly-rock and it is filled with sand and gravel in order to prolong the
action of the gas masses generated after the detonation of the explosive material and
improve breakage.
Specific charge is a unit used in bench blasting to define the quantity of explosive
material used per units of mass or volume. In this report, specific charged is defined
as mass of explosive material used per cubic meter of rock. The specific charge for a
bench blast can be calculated through the following equation (equation 2.1)
Q
q= (2.1)
B⋅S ⋅H
Where:
q: Specific charge (kg/m3)
B: Burden (m)
H: Bench height (m)
S: Spacing (m)
Q: Total amount of explosive material in blast hole (kg)
All as defined above
The burden in bench blasting depends on a multitude of parameters ranging from hole
diameter and rock properties to the density of the explosive material. A great variety
of equations exist for the calculation of the burden, based mainly on empirical data.
-4-
Among the most widely used is the Langefors and Kihlström (1963) equation for the
calculation of the maximum burden (Bmax) (equation 2.2)
D p⋅E
Bmax = ⋅
( B)
33 c ⋅ f ⋅ S (2.2)
Where:
Bmax: Maximum burden (m)
D: Blasthole diameter (mm)
p: Density or degree of packing of explosive material (Kg / dm3)
E: Weight strength of explosive material
S : Spacing to burden ratio
B
c: Rock constant
f: Degree of packing, 1 for vertical holes, 0.93 for 3:1 inclined holes
2.1.2 Detonation
The explosives are placed inside the blast hole and with a detonator and a primer
which will be used to initiate the detonation sequence. The holes are fired sequentially
with an in-row time delay between holes as well as an inter-row delay. The detonation
delay is part of the blasting plan and it takes place in millisecond intervals. This is
made possible through delay elements embedded in the blasting caps as well as delay
elements in the inter-hole and inter-row connection points on the surface. Timing the
detonation sequence is a very important part of the blast design which, if done right,
will ensure a smooth initiation front and will minimize the risk for reverse firing order
and blast hole overlapping. A failed detonation can result to unexploded holes or
insufficient fragmentation of the material which complicates down stream processes
such as loading and hauling an creates the need for further processing of oversize
fragments through means of re-blasting or breaking with a hydraulic hammer.
-5-
2.2 Blast fragmentation
2.2.1 Fragmentation’s influence in down-stream operations
Blasting is the first step in the rock comminution process and it has a major impact on
subsequent operations such as loading, hauling, crushing and grinding. The uniformity
of the muck pile benefits its digability which makes loading and hauling of the
material easier and less time consuming. The amount of oversize boulders produced
by a blast defines how much resources will be used to further decrease their size in
order for them to be effectively handled by the mining equipment.
Crushing and grinding are examples of two more operations which are to a great
degree influenced by blasting. The size distribution of the blasted fragments is the
most obvious parameter to be examined here. An increased amount of coarse material
in a muck pile will result to increased energy consumption in the crushing and
grinding stages as well as reduced primary crusher throughput due to the volume of
the material which has to be downsized.
The effect of blasting in the grinding stages of the comminution process has been
investigated by Nielsen and Kristiansen, (1996) and Workman and Eloranta, (2003). It
is suggested that apart from fragmenting the rock, blasting also preconditions the
fragmented material through the development of micro-fractures within the individual
fragments. These micro-fractures develop through and around mineral grains and they
are small enough to survive the initial crushing stages
There is evidence, (Nielsen& Kristiansen, 1996, Workman and Eloranta, 2003, Paley
& Kojovic, 2001) that the micro-fractures weaken the individual fragments, which
reduces the overall energy required in the grinding stages to achieve the desired
fragment size (Bond’s work index).
-6-
2.2.2 Blast fragmentation models
Through the years, a number of different models developed to describe the size
distribution of the fragments after blasting (Ouchterlony, 2003). Most of these models
offer equations to calculate the average fragment size (x50) as well as the entire
fragment size distribution curve. The input for such models includes explosive
material properties such as the weight strength, geometrical design features from the
blast such as burden, spacing and bench height as well as in situ rock properties like
discontinuity spacing, orientation etc.
While explosive properties and blast geometrical features are relatively easy to obtain
and can be quite accurate, the same cannot be said for rock properties. The
consideration of the rock mass as homogenous as well as the existence and properties
of discontinuities throughout the rock mass make the rock properties difficult to
establish and, in most cases, assumptions have to be made which will reduce the
model’s ability to accurately reproduce the fragment size distribution curve.
However, the trends indicated by the model’s predictions are assumed to be correct
and are used to provide blast design guidelines.
Although the blast fragmentation models predict the mesh size of the individual
fragments, they give no prediction for their shape or the degree of preconditioning due
to the generation of micro-cracks from blasting.
A brief description of the most popular blast fragmentation models follows.
2.2.2.1 The Kuz – Ram Model
The Kuz – Ram model is by far the most widely used fragmentation model to date.
The model is based on the expression for the average fragment size x50 constructed by
Kuznetsov in 1973 and a Rosin – Rammler distribution (Cunningham 1983, 1987,
2005). The model basically consists of 4 equations, from which, one describes the
fragmentation curve, one gives the value for x50 in cm as a function of the blasting
parameters, the third gives a value for the rock mass factor A and , the last gives a
value for the uniformity index n. (equations 2.3 – 2.6)
-7-
n
⎛ x ⎞
− ln 2⋅⎜ ⎟
P ( x) = 1− e ⎝ x50 ⎠ (2.3)
Where:
P(x): Percentage of material below size x
X: Size of material (m)
x50: Average fragment size (m)
n: Uniformity index
19
⎛ 1 ⎞ 1 ⎛ 115 ⎞ 30 (2.4)
x50 = A ⋅ ⎜ 0.8 ⎟ ⋅ Q 6 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝q ⎠ ⎝ S ANFO ⎠
Where:
x50: Average fragment size (cm)
A: Rock mass factor
q: Specific charge (kg/m3)
Q: Total amount of explosive material in blast hole (kg)
SANFO: Strength of explosive used, % ANFO equivalent
A = 0.06 ⋅ ( RMD + RDI + HF ) (2.5)

Where:
10, if powdery, friable
RMD: Rock mass description: JF, if joints are vertical
50, if rock mass is massive
JF: Joint factor = JPS + JPA
10, if average joint spacing Sj<0.1m
JPS: Joint plane spacing 20, if Sj<X0 oversize fragment
50, if Sj>X0 oversize fragment
20, if the joints dip out of the face
JPA: Joint plane angle 30, if strike is perpendicular to the face
40, if the joints dip into the face
RDI: Rock density influence: ( 0.025 ⋅ p) − 50 (kg/m3)
-8-
⎛ S⎞
⎜ 1+ ⎟ ⎛ 0.1
⎞ ⎛ Ltot ⎞
⎛ ⎛ B ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ SD ⎞ ⎞ B BCL − CCL
n = ⎜ 2.2 − 14 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ 1 − ⎜ ⎟⎟⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅⎜ + 0.1⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (2.6)
⎝ ⎝ D ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎝ B ⎠⎠ ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎝ Ltot ⎠ ⎝ H ⎠
⎝ ⎠
Where:
B: Burden (m)
D: Drillhole diameter (mm)
SD: Standard deviation of drilling accuracy (m)
S: Spacing (m)
BCL: Length of bottom charge (m)
CCL: Length of column charge (m)
Ltot: Total charge length (m)
H: Bench height (m)
The above equations indicate certain trends some of which are briefly summarized
below.
The 50 % passing fragment size (x50) appears to be mainly influenced by explosive-

related parameters. Improved fragmentation (i.e. smaller x50 value) can be achieved
by using an explosive with higher weight strength of with higher density, which has
an impact on specific charge. If the specific charge is increased by means of
shrinking the blasting pattern (but maintaining hole diameter D and spacing to burden
ratio constant) fragmentation will improve (i.e. become finer) and the uniformity
index will increase as well according to the model.
The uniformity index (n) appears to be mainly influenced by blast geometry

parameters as well as charge length. An increase in the uniformity index will result to
a more uniform fragmentation with less fines and oversize material (Cunningham,
1983). A decrease in the burden to hole-diameter ratio B ( D) will have a positive
impact on the uniformity of the muck pile. An increase in parameters such as drilling
accuracy, spacing to burden ratio, total charge length to bench height ratio will also
case an increase of the uniformity index. Finally it is suggested by Cunningham,
although it is not derived from the mathematical expression of the model, that a
-9-
staggered blasting pattern instead of a rectangular one will increase the uniformity
index by 10 %.
2.2.2.2 The JKMRC models
The Julious Kruttsnitt Mineral Research Center has developed two blast
fragmentation models, the crushed zone model (CZM) and the two component model
(TCM), both of which are essentially based on the Kuz – Ram model. The main
assumption behind those models is that there are two discrete mechanisms causing the
fragmentation of blasted rock. The models assume that the fine material in generated
within a circular zone (crushed zone) around the charge where the failure mode is
predominately compressive, while the coarse part of the fragment size distribution is
attributed to tensile fracturing and preexisting fractures in the rock mass. The
following figure illustrates the concept of the crushed zone
Figure 2.2: Schematic illustration of processes occurring in the rock around a blast hole, showing
formation of crushing zone, fracture zone and fragment formation zone (Essen, 2003)
2.2.2.2.1 Crushed Zone Model (CZM)

The crushed zone model uses two different Rosin – Rammler functions to describe the
entire fragment size distribution curve. One function describes the fines part of the
curve while the second describes the coarse part of the curve. The two curves join at a
characteristic fragment size Xc which depends on the rock mass properties. The
coarsest particle size in the crushed zone is assumed to be 1 mm and the characteristic
fragment size Xc ranges from x50 for strong rocks (UCS>50 MPa) to X90 for very soft
rocks (UCS<10 MPa) (Kanchibotla et al, 1999).
The coarse part of the fragmentation curve is given by the following equation:
- 10 -
⎛ ncoarse ⎞
⎜ ln (1− P ( xc ) )⋅⎜⎛ x ⎟⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ (2.7)
P ( x) = 1− e ⎝ ⎝ xc ⎠ ⎠
Where:
P(x): Percent of material passing sieve size x (%)
P(xc): Percent of material passing characteristic size xc (%)
x: Sieve size (m)
xc: Characteristic size (m)
ncoarse: Uniformity index for the coarse part of the curve
⎛ S⎞
⎜ 1+ ⎟
⎛ ⎛ B ⎞⎞ B ⋅ ⎛ Ltot ⎞
ncoarse = ⎜ 2.2 − 14 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2.8)
⎝ ⎝ D ⎠⎠ ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎝ H ⎠
⎝ ⎠
Where:
B: Burden (m)
D: Drillhole diameter (mm)
S: Spacing (m)
Ltot: Total charge length (m)
H: Bench height (m)
The fine material is assumed to originate from a cylindrical crushed zone around the
blast hole, within which the particles are generated by the crushing of the rock due to
compressive – shear failure (Kanchibotla et al, 1999). The radius of the crushed zone
is assumed as the distance from the blast hole to the point where radial stresses exceed
the compressive strength of the rock mass and is given by the following equation:
Pd
rc = r ⋅ (2.9)
σc
- 11 -
Where:
rc: Crushed zone radius (m)
r: Blast hole radius (m)
Pd: Detonation pressure (Pa)
σc: Compressive strength of the rock (Pa)
The detonation pressure is given by the equation:
Cd 2
Pd = ρc ⋅ (2.10)
4
Where:
Pd: Detonation pressure (m)
Cd: Velocity of detonation (m/s)
ρc: Density of explosive material (kg/m3)
The fraction of the crushed material is calculated through equation 2.11.
Vc
Fc = (2.11)
Vb
Where:
Fc: Fraction of crushed material
Vc: Volume of crushed rock (m3)
Vb: Volume of blasted rock (m3)
The Fine part of the size distribution curve is given by the following equation:
n fine
⎛ x⎞
ln (1− P ( xc ) )⋅⎜ ⎟
P ( x) = 1− e ⎝ xc ⎠ (2.12)
Where:
x: Sieve size (m)
xc: Characteristic size (m)
nfine: Uniformity index for the fine part of the curve
- 12 -
⎛ ln (1 − Fc ) ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ln (1 − P ( xc ) ) ⎟
n fine = ⎝ ⎠ (2.13)
⎛1⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟
⎝ xc ⎠
Where:
xc: Characteristic size (mm)
nfine: Uniformity index for the fine part of the curve
2.2.2.2.2 The Two Component Model (TCM)

The two component model (Djordjevic, 1999) uses two simultaneous Rosin –
Rammler functions to describe the fine and the coarse components of the size
distribution curve which results to a curve with a uniform slope unlike the CZM
model’s size distribution curve which has a breaking point in the characteristic size xc.
The fragmentation curve is given by the following equation:
⎛ ⎞
b d
⎛x⎞ ⎛x⎞
− ln 2⋅⎜ ⎟ − ln 2⋅⎜ ⎟
P ( x ) = 100 ⋅ ⎜1 − (1 − Fc ) ⋅ e ⎝ a ⎠
− Fc ⋅ e ⎝ c ⎠ ⎟ (2.14)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where:
P(x): Percentage of material below size x (%)
x: Size of material (m)
a: Mean fragment size outside the crushed zone (m)
b: Uniformity coefficient outside the crushed zone
c: Mean fragment size within the crushed zone (m)
d: Uniformity coefficient within the crushed zone
The parameters c and d are determined through blast chamber tests where samples are
blasted and the fragments are then sieved to obtain the desired values.
- 13 -
The parameters a and b are similar to the Kuz – Ram model parameters x50 and n and
are determined using the same equations with slight modifications of JPS and RDI.
The fraction of the crushed material is determined the same way it is calculated for the
CZM.
The radius of the crushed zone for the TCM in calculated through the following
equation:
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ r ⎟
rc = ⎜ ⎟−r (2.15)
24 ⋅ TSin si tu
⎜ ⎟
⎜ Pb ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where:
rc: Crushed zone radius (m)
r: Blasthole radius (m)
Pd: Detonation pressure (Pa)
TSin situ: In situ tensile strength (Pa)
The detonation pressure is calculated using the same equation as the CZM, while the
in situ tensile strength is determined as follows:
0.18
⎛ 0.05 ⎞
TSin situ = στ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (2.16)
⎝ mean block size ⎠
Where:
στ: Tensile strength of rock (MPa)
And the mean block size is given in meters.
- 14 -
2.2.2.3 The KCO Model

The KCO model (Ouchterlony, 2005a) is an extended version of the Kuz – Ram
model. The model essentially replaces the Rosin – Rammler function used to describe
the fragmentation curve in the Kuz – Ram model with a new function, the Swebrec
function. The Swebrec function includes 3 parameters, the 50 % passing size x50, the
maximum size Xmax and b which is a curve undulation parameter similar to n in the
Kuz – Ram model. The expression for x50 remains the same as for the Kuz – Ram
model while the expressions for b and the Swebrec function can be seen bellow.
1
P ( x) =
⎧ ⎡ b
⎫
⎪ ⎢ ln ⎛ xmax ⎞⎤ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎜⎝ x ⎟⎥ ⎪
⎠⎥ (2.17)
⎨1 + ⎢ ⎬
⎪ ⎢ ln ⎛ xmax ⎞⎥ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎜⎝ x50 ⎟⎥ ⎪
⎩ ⎣ ⎠ ⎦⎥ ⎭
⎡ ⎛x ⎞⎤
b = ⎢ 2 ⋅ ln 2 ⋅ ln ⎜ max ⎟⎥ ⋅ n (2.18)
⎢⎣ ⎝ x50 ⎠ ⎥⎦
Where:
b: Curve undulation parameter
x: Sieve size (cm)
x50: 50 % passing size (same as in Kuz – Ram model) (cm)
Xmax: Maximum in situ block size (cm)
n: Uniformity index (same as in Kuz – Ram model)
The KCO model also suggests an alternative expression for x50 with an addition of a
pre - factor originally derived by Spathis (2004), which can be seen below.
⎛ 1 ⎞ 19
⎜ ( ln 2 ) n ⎟ ⎛ 1 ⎞ 16 ⎛ 115 ⎞ 30
x50 = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ A ⋅ ⎜ 0.8 ⎟ ⋅ Q ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (2.19)
⎜ Γ ⎛1 + 1 ⎞ ⎟ ⎝q ⎠ ⎝ S ANFO ⎠
⎜ ⎜ n⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠
The above expression shifts the fragment size distribution to smaller values for x50,
which in turn makes the model predict an increased amount of fines.
- 15 -
2.2.3 Discussion
The Kuz – Ram model has been the dominant model in prediction the fragment size
distribution for blasted rock for nearly 25 years. Through the course of those years
several shortcomings, such as the inability to adequately reproduce the fines part of
the distribution curve, have been observed and it has become clear that very few
sieved samples follow the models fragment size distribution curves.
The JKMRC models were made to compensate for the Kuz – Ram models poor ability
reproduce the fines part of the size distribution curve. The CZM model has been
successfully incorporated in the JKSimBlast blasting management software suite and
the results have been checked against image analysis software such as “Split”.
However, evidence exists that the assumption that all the fine material comes from a
crushed zone around the blast hole is mistaken and that a fraction closer to 25 %
actually comes from that region (Svahn, 2003). In addition to the above, very few
sieving curves have been noted to have break points such as the one in the Xc the
CZM model predicts (Ouchterlony, 2007).
The KCO model is the most recent of the above models and its ability to accurately
reproduce the entire range of the fragment size distribution curve for both blasted and
crushed rock appears to be promising. The model is compatible with the already
widespread Kuz – Ram model and it counteracts its basic draw back i.e. the poor
predictive capacity in the fines range. One additional advantage of the KCO model is
that it introduces a finite top – size for the fragment size distribution.
- 16 -
2.3 Image analysis
Image analysis is a method to measure blast fragmentation through the use of digital
photography. The fragmentation achieved by blasting is often assessed qualitatively as
“good”, “too fine” or “too coarse”. This is a distinction made by people with relative
experience and the criteria used for this empirical assessment are vague and difficult
to quantify. The most reliable way for fragmentation to be assessed is through sieving
of the entire muck pile or, of representative samples. This of course is nearly
impossible given the volume of material being handled in modern day operations.
Bench blasts of thousands of m3 of rock make sieving costs astronomical and the
entire process of sieving is known to be “intrusive” in terms of interfering with the
production process.
Image analysis has several inherent advantages (Maerz & Zhou, 1998):
• The measurements can be completely automated eliminating several process-

related expenses
• A great number of measurements can be made, which increases the overall

statistical reliability through the reduction of sampling errors
• It is a non- intrusive to production method since it requires no interruption of

the production process
• It offers a way to evaluate the fragment size distribution of materials which are
too coarse to be sieved such as riprap material.
The disadvantages of image analysis are related to errors, which can be divided into
the following main categories:
• Errors related to the method of analysis of the images
• Errors related to the sample presentation
• Errors related to the imaging process
• Errors related to the sampling process
- 17 -
For more details see (Maerz & Zhou, 1998)
It is accepted that all the above errors can be minimized through carefully established
sampling methods, proper sampling environment and site-specific calibration of the
software (Maerz & Zhou, 1998, 2000, Katsabanis, 1999).
As mentioned above, image analysis is a “non intrusive” method. Images of the

material are acquired and used as input for image analysis software. The image is
delineated (i.e. lines are drawn along the boundaries of the individual fragments)
through the use of a special delineation algorithm. The size of the individual
fragments is then measured and, a size distribution curve is constructed. The images
can be acquired either from a fixed camera located e.g. above a conveyor belt or,
photographs of muck piles or truck loads taken by an individual user can be used as
input.
The software used for the purposes of this analysis is “Split Desktop” (Potts &
Ouchterlony, 2005). Apart from the standard functions of delineating images and
constructing fragment size distribution curves, the program offers an editing suite and
allows the user to edit the images before the delineation takes place as well as after
the delineation process and prior to the fragment size measurement. This option
enables the user to correct false delineations and outline and characterize patches of
fine material within the muck pile.
- 18 -
3 Aitik Mine
The Aitik mine is one of the biggest open pit mines in Europe. The mine is situated 60
km north of the Arctic Circle near the town of Gällivare in the northernmost part of
Sweden. The mine is owned and operated by Boliden AB and the main product is
cooper with gold and silver as by-products.
The pit is approximately 2.5 km long, 500 m wide and more than 300 m deep.
The ore body has a strike of N20oW with a 45o dip to the west.
The mining area is divided in three main zones, the foot-wall, the ore zone and the
hanging-wall. The division is made on the basis of the actual tectonic boundaries as
well as the cooper grades. A map of the mining area along with the different rock
types can be seen below.
Map 3.1: Geological map of the Aitik mining area.
A detailed description of the site geology, main rock type properties, process and
monitoring systems has been made by Peter Bergman in his Licentiate thesis titled
“Optimization of fragmentation and comminution at Boliden mineral, Aitik mine”
(Bergman, 2005). The relevant chapter can be found as an appendix to this work
(Appendix 1) with Bergman’s permission.
- 19 -
4 Background information on blast no. 5162
Bench 5162 is located on the 300 m level of the Aitik mine. It has an area of 10627
m2 and a height of approximately 15 m. The total volume of the bench is 159405 m3.
Loading of the bench will take place in the 315 m level. An overview of the open pit
mine can be seen below with the position of bench 5162 marked.
Map 4.1: Overview of the Aitik Mine, the position of bench 5162 can be seen marked with a red dot
(source: Google Maps)
4.1 Geology
Bench 5162 consists mainly from biotite schist and pegmatite with a small amount of
muscovite schist located in the northeast edge (local coordinate system) as suggested
by diamond drilling data. An analysis of the drill cuttings from 95 holes out of a total
of 177 indicated mainly biotite schist and biotite gneiss with some pegmatite and only
one occurrence of muscovite schist. An older geological interpretation suggested that
the bench consisted from muscovite schist and pegmatite. The above is illustrated in
the following maps (maps 4.2 – 4.4) . Pegmatite is considered waste rock and
- 20 -
therefore it is not processed. The polygon which can be seen in maps 4.2–4.4 outlines
an area where mainly pegmatite can be found which is going to be loaded separately
and disposed in the waste rock dump.
Map 4.2: Older geological model of bench 5162. Muscovite schist marked with yellow color,
Pegmatite with red, biotite schist with green and biotite gneiss with turquoise.
Map 4.3: Diamond drilling results. Different colors on individual line signify different rock types
along the drill cores. Muscovite schist marked with yellow color, Pegmatite with red, biotite schist with
green, biotite gneiss with turquoise and biotite amphibole gneiss with dark blue.
- 21 -
Map 4.4: Drill cuttings analysis Muscovite schist marked with yellow color (1 hole), Pegmatite with
red ( 10 holes), biotite schist with green (41 holes), biotite gneiss with turquoise (43 holes) and biotite
amphibole gneiss with dark blue (0 holes). The red circle designates holes with some, or only,
pegmatite found in the drill cuttings.
A block model of the bench can be seen map 4.5. The low-grade pegmatite region is
again outlined.
Map 4.5: Block model of bench 5162, local north noted on the map.
- 22 -
4.2 Drilling
The drilling pattern for blast 5162 consisted of a total of 177 production holes with a
diameter of 311 mm divided in two blasting domains. The first domain was the “low
specific charge” domain. 81 holes were drilled in a rectangular pattern, with planned
values of 7.5 m and 9.5 m for burden and spacing respectively. The spacing-to-burden
ratio for this domain is 1.27. In the “high specific charge” domain, 96 holes were
drilled in a rectangular pattern. The planned values for burden and spacing were 6.5 m
and 8.1 m respectively, with a spacing-to-burden ratio of 1.25.
Statistical information about the drilled holes can be seen in the following table (table
4.1). The design of the blast can be seen in Figure 4.1.The boundary between the blast
domains as well as the planned values for burden and spacing can also be seen in the
figure. The east and north faces of the bench are the free faces, while the south and
west faces (local coordinate system) are the confined faces by benches 51621 and
5163 respectively.
Low specific High specific

charge domain charge domain
Bench height (m) 15.0 15.0
Hole diameter (mm) 311 311
Hole angle vertical holes vertical holes
Number of rows 11 12
Number of holes 81 96
Planned hole depth (m) 16.8 ± 0.9 16.6 ± 0.7
Measured hole depth (m) 17.1 ± 0.8 17.0 ± 0.7
Maximum hole depth (m) 18.9 18.8
Minimum hole depth(m) 13.8 14.7
Planned drilling (m) 1364 1589
Total drilled (m) 1381 1630
2
Approximate domain area (m ) 5350 5277
Approximate domain volume (m3) 80250 79155
Specific drilling (m/ m3) 0.0172 0.0206
Burden (m) 7.5 6.5
Spacing (m) 9.5 8.1
Table 4.1: Statistical information about the drilled blast holes ± standard deviation
- 23 -
Figure 4.1: The blast design for blast 5162 the boundary between the blast domains can be seen in
magenta color, along with the planned values for burden and spacing
The top part of the drilled hole is not charged with explosives. It is filled with drill
cuttings and aggregates in order to minimize the risk of fly-rock and improve
breakage by prolonging the action of the gas masses generated during the detonation
of the explosive material. The length of the stemming was measured for 146 out of
177 holes and the results are presented in the following table.
Low specific High specific

charge domain charge domain
Measurements 68 78
Minimum length (m) 2 2.5
Maximum length (m) 7 6.1
Mean value (m) 5.4 4.9
Std deviation (m) 0.8 0.8
Table 4.2: Statistical information about the length of the stemming section of the blast holes
- 24 -
4.3 Charging
The explosive used in blast 5162 is TITAN 8070, a site sensitized emulsion with a
content of 30 % of AN prills. The density before gassing is 1330 kg/m3 while after
gassing it drops to approximately 1050 kg/m3. The explosive’s velocity of detonation
(VOD) is close to 5200 m/s and the explosive energy is 3.34 MJ/kg. The weight
strength compared to ANFO is calculated to 85 %.
Inside each blast hole, two primers are placed. One in the bottom of the hole and one
approximately one meter above in order to ensure detonation. The primers are
Dynamex 1,7 cartridges with a 66 mm diameter and 361 mm length. The theoretical
explosive energy is approximately 5.5 MJ/ kg and the velocity of detonation is close
to 6500 m/s. The detonators used with the primers are NONEL U 500, which have the
equivalent strength of a standard no 8 detonator. An inter – hole delay of 42 ms and
an inter – row delay of 176 ms is dictated by the blasting plan.
The planned values indicated a total of 178105 kg of emulsion was to be charged in a

total of 177, 311 mm production holes. However, there was a deviation of 8.6 %
(15346 kg) from the planned values and the quantity of emulsion used was 193451
kg. More information about the quantity of explosive material charged can be seen in
table 4.3.
Quantity of explosive material
Actual
Planned Specific charge Specific
Planned (kg) Measured (kg) Deviation (kg) Deviation % (kg/m3) charge(kg/m3)
High Specific 99446 107088 7642 7.7 1.26 1.35
charge domain
Low specific 78659 86363 7704 9.8 0.98 1.08
charge domain
Total values for 178105 193451 15346 8.6 1.12 1.21
the entire blast
Table 4.3: Summary of explosive material charged in the holes of each blast domain
It is apparent from the previous table that there is a clear difference in the specific
charge of the individual blast domains. The planned values dictated a 28.6 % increase
in the high specific charge domain. However the actual values indicate that the
difference was in the vicinity of 25 %.
- 25 -
4.4 JKSimBlast
A model of the entire blast was constructed with the use of the blast simulation
software JKSimBlast (www.jksimblast.com). Data from the MWD system was used
to position the blast holes within the bench and the charging data provided was used
to charge the holes with explosives. The primers and detonators used in the simulation
were identical to the ones used for the actual blast and the initiation pattern was
plotted unchanged. An effort was made to keep the model as close to the real
conditions as possible. A depiction of the model and the parameters used to build the
model can be seen in the following figures (figures 4.2, 4.3).
Figure 4.2: The JKSimBlast model. The drilling parameters used can be seen .
Figure 4.3: The JKSimBlast model. The charging parameters used can be seen
- 26 -
After running the detonation simulation, the software gave a depiction of the
explosive energy distribution across the entire area of the bench on the 315 m level
(bench bottom level). The explosive energy distribution can be seen in the following
figure.
Figure 4.4: Explosive energy distribution across the entire area of the bottom of bench 5162.
Figure 4.4, illustrates a higher explosive energy in the high specific charge part of the
bench with several “hot spots” where holes are placed very close together or, are
overcharged with explosives. The explosive energy is clearly lower in the perimeter
of the bench in order to avoid excessive damage to the surrounding rock. The
explosive energy seems to be evenly distributed along the biggest part of the bench
with the exception of the northwest corner (local coordinate system) where the energy
levels are significantly reduced.
- 27 -
5 Fragmentation analysis
A total of 264 pictures of truck trays were taken for the purpose of the analysis in a
period of 7 days from 10/03/2008 to 16/03/2008. From those, 60 were chosen to be
analyzed with “Split Desktop”. The criteria for deciding which images would be
analyzed and which would be discarded is discussed more in detail later in this report.
The entire round was loaded within 8 days from 10/03/2008 to 17/03/2008 into
approximately 1500 truck loads.
The mine’s truck fleet consists of Caterpillar trucks with a tray capacity of
approximately 200 ton. Loading was done with a P & H electric shovel which could
load each truck in three dumps.
The images were acquired from an appropriate location with a Canon EOS 350 D
digital camera with a 75 – 300 mm lens. The tray of the truck was photographed with
an image resolution of 3456 ⋅ 2304 pixels. The distance from the truck to the camera
was approximately the same for all the images acquired. Only images of trucks
hauling ore were acquired. Trucks headed to the waste rock dump followed a different
route therefore the distinction between them was easily made.
Before the image was analyzed it was cropped in order to remove all the unnecessary
background elements such as the sky, the ground and all the truck elements besides
the truck tray and the hauled material. An example of an image prior to, and after
cropping can be seen in the following figure.
Figure 5.1: Example of cropped (right) and un-cropped image (left)
- 28 -
The image was scaled (i.e. creating a relationship between the pixels of the image and
an actual physical distance) with the “Split Desktop” software using the width of the
truck tray as a known physical distance. Mainly, two types of trucks were used to haul
the material Cat 793 C and Cat 793 D. The width of the truck tray was measured and,
with a deviation of ± 4 cm the results can be seen in the following table
Truck type Inner tray diameter ( cm ) Outer tray diameter ( cm )

Cat 793 C 638 670
Cat 793 D 647 680
Table 5.1: Truck tray diameters
5.1 Criterion for choosing which images to analyze
From the 264 images acquired, not all were of the same quality. Lighting conditions
as well as weather conditions play a significant part in the image quality and
throughout the 7 days during which the images were acquired, the dynamic nature of
these parameters created a significant variation in image quality. It was decided that a
set of criteria was to be formulated in order for the quality of the images to be
assessed. The criteria would take into consideration the parameters which influence
the image quality and particularly those parameters which influence the capacity of
the “Split Desktop” software to effectively delineate the individual fragments of the
analyzed material.
5.1.1 Light conditions
Since the images where acquired in an outdoors environment, the light conditions
varied depending on the weather conditions and the time of day. Different light
intensities across a region of interest i.e. the material on the truck tray, are often
misinterpreted by “Split Desktop” as fragment boundaries causing mistakes in the
fragment delineation. In addition to that, shadows on the material can be confused as
large areas of fine material when the program’s thresholding algorithm is applied on
the grayscale image in order to turn it into a binary image (Potts & Ouchterlony,
2005).
- 29 -
For the above reason, pictures with direct sunlight, where large shadows are present
on the material were disregarded while images taken under diffused sunlight were
favored.
Another issue is the amount of light present in the environment at the time the image
was taken. Images taken in a reduced light environment (i.e. under a very cloudy sky,
too early in the morning or too late in the afternoon) appear somewhat dark and the
software would have a problem in delineating them correctly. Due to that, images
which appear somewhat dark were discarded, while images taken with enough light
present in the environment were favored. Examples of images taken under good and
bad lighting conditions can be seen in the following figures (figures 5.2, 5.3).
Figure 5.2: Example of image taken under direct sunlight (left) and of image taken under diffused
lighting conditions (right)
Figure 5.3: Example of image taken under reduced lighting conditions and of image taken under
satisfactory lighting conditions
- 30 -
5.1.2 Presence of unwanted particles in the image
There were several images acquired under heavy snowfall. The distribution of
snowflakes across the image combined with the reduced visibility render those images
unsuitable for further processing since snowflakes can be misinterpreted for fine
material and distort the outcome of the fragment size distribution analysis.
Dust is another example of unwanted particles within an image. Apart from

concealing and distorting part of the material, it can also be misinterpreted by “Split
Desktop” for fine material and create a fragment size distribution which is too fine for
the material on the truck tray. An example of unwanted particles within an image can
be seen in figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4:
Example of image with a lot of unwanted particles in the frame (left) and of a clear image (right)
5.1.3 Other parameters
Different material colors within the same pile also have an adverse effect on image
analysis software’s capacity to delineate an image,(Maerz & Zhou, 1998) therefore,
images with similar material colors were favored over images which contained multi
– colored material such as pegmatite.
Images which were acquired in a non perpendicular position to the material were
discarded due to possible scaling errors which might lead to a mistaken estimation of
the fragment size.
- 31 -
The images acquired from material originating from the proximity of the boundary
between the high and low specific-charge domains were discarded since the transition
zone between the two domains would contain mixed material, deemed not useful for
the purposes of this investigation.
Examples of images taken at an angle to the truck tray and of images of loads
containing multi-colored material can be seen in the following figures (figures 5.5-
5.6)
Figure 5.5:
Example of image taken at an angle to the truck tray (left) and perpendicular to the truck tray (right)
Figure 5.6: Example of image containing multi colored material (left) and of image containing
uniformly colored material (right)
5.2 Image processing
The images were cropped, and all the unnecessary elements were removed leaving
only the material and the edges of the truck tray required for editing. If the image after
cropping was larger than 1640 ⋅ 1400 pixels, its size was reduced since “Split
Desktop” cannot process images lager than the above size. Most of the images range
in dimensions between 1450 – 1580 pixels width and 800 – 900 pixels height. The
images downsized, were reduced to 1580 ⋅ 812 pixels size.
- 32 -
The images were then scaled and delineated by the “Split Desktop” software.
For the delineation, the “Split Desktop” auto-parameters function was used to
determine the noise size, the watershed ratio and the gradient size. The options to
remove noise and de-interlace the image were also used at this step.
After the delineation was done, the image with the delineation mask was manually
edited. The time required for editing the image ranged from 30 to 35 minutes
depending on the quality of the delineation performed by the software. An effort was
made to spend an equal amount of time on each image.
The basic steps of the editing process include breaking false delineations separating
large fragments into smaller ones, drawing new delineations between individual
fragments which were assumed united by the software, outline and characterize
patches of fine material, and, outline areas which are not to be taken into
consideration in the fragment size distribution analysis, such as the edges of the truck
tray used for scaling.
After editing was done the image was transformed into a binary image and the size of
the individual fragments was computed. A fines adjustment factor of 20 % was used
to compensate for the fine material which would be concealed by larger particles and
a Rosin – Rammler distribution was chosen to construct the fines part of the
distribution curve. The parameters governing image analysis process such as the value
for the fines adjustment factor and the time spent editing images were chosen on the
basis that they were deemed optimum by previous research (Nyberg et al., 2006) for
the mine conditions.
The last stage of the image analysis process was the acquisition of the fragment size
distribution curve. An example of a delineated image and of the fragment size
distribution curve constructed by “Split Desktop” can be seen in figures 5.7 – 5.8
- 33 -
Figure 5.7: Example of original cropped image (left) and delineated binary image (right)
Figure 5.8: Fragment size distribution curve constructed by “Split Desktop”
5.3 Results
For each image analyzed with “Split Desktop” the fragment size distribution curve
was acquired for that particular truck load along with size values for X10 to X90 and
the top size (X100). During the analysis these values were averaged per domain in
order to produce what is considered to be an approximate representation of the size
distribution of the material fragments within that particular domain.
5.3.1 Low Specific charge domain
For the low specific charge domain, 30 images of truck loads were analyzed. In table
5.2 the average fragment size data are presented along with the standard deviation. In
Graph 5.1, the sieving curve, plotted in a semi-log space can be seen.
- 34 -
% Passing
Particle Standard
Size (mm) Domain average Deviation
value
4000.0 100.0 0.0

2000.0 100.0 0.0
1000.0 99.4 1.5
750.0 96.1 5.1
500.0 84.6 9.6
250.0 54.7 7.7
125.0 32.4 4.7
88.0 24.6 4.4
63.0 18.9 4.2
44.0 14.3 4.0
31.0 10.8 3.7
22.0 8.3 3.4
16.0 6.6 3.1
11.0 5.0 2.7
7.8 3.9 2.4
5.5 3.1 2.2
4.0 2.3 1.7
Table 5.2: Low specific charge domain mean fragment size data
Low specific charge dom ain m ean fragm ent size distribution curve
120.0
100.0
80.0
% Passing
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Fragm ent size (m m )
Graph 5.1: Low specific charge domain mean fragment size distribution curve
The mean values for x20, x50, x80 and top-size is presented in the following table with
range and the standard deviation. The sample size is n=30.
x20 x50 x80

Topsize
Mean value (mm) 70 233 463 838
Standard deviation 19 47 108 190
Minimum value (mm) 37 161 293 527
Maximum value (mm) 98 369 735 1235
Table 5.3: Mean values for 20, 50, 80 % passing and top-size material, standard deviation and range.
- 35 -
5.3.2 High specific charge domain
A total of 30 images were analyzed using “Split Desktop” for the high specific charge
domain. Mean values for the fragment size distribution are presented in the following
table (table 5.4). The results are plotted in semi-log space in graph 5.2
% Passing
Particle Standard
Size (mm) Domain Deviation
average value
4000.0 100.0 0.0

2000.0 100.0 0.0
1000.0 99.5 1.01
750.0 96.1 4.6
500.0 86.7 9.7
250.0 61.6 12.1
125.0 37.0 7.4
88.0 27.9 5.3
63.0 21.2 4.2
44.0 15.8 3.5
31.0 11.9 3.0
22.0 9.1 2.6
16.0 7.1 2.3
11.0 5.3 1.9
7.8 4.1 1.7
5.5 3.2 1.4
4.0 2.4 1.1
Table 5.4: High specific charge domain mean fragment size data
High specific charge domain mean fragment size distribution curve
120.0
100.0
80.0
% Passing
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Fragment size (mm)
Graph 5.2: High specific charge domain mean fragment size distribution curve
- 36 -
The mean values for 20, 50 80 percent passing material as well as the top-size are
presented in the following table along with the data range and the standard deviation
the sample size in n=30.
x20 x50 x80 Topsize
Mean value (mm) 61 200 419 802
Standard deviation 14 54 126 214
Minimum value (mm) 37 108 224 476
Maximum value (mm) 85 302 548 1059
Table 5.5: Mean values, standard deviation and data range for x20, x50, x80 and top-size for the high
specific charge domain
- 37 -
5.4 Sieved samples
For the purposes of the fragmentation analysis, samples were taken form the muck
pile and sent for sieving in an accredited laboratory. A total of four samples was
taken, two from each blasting domain. The sampling process is described in detail
below.
5.4.1 Sampling process
The samples were taken from predefined locations within the muck pile. The
sampling points were chosen on the basis of providing a representative image of the
fragment size distribution within each blasting domain. The transition zone between
the two blasting domains was avoided due to the possibility of existence of mixed
material from both blasting domains.
The samples were loaded with a front-end loader into a truck and transported away
from the face, where they were weighed. After weighing the material was sieved with
a grizzly sieve which had an opening of 100 mm. The +100 mm material was
discarded and the -100 mm material was weighed again, and blended thoroughly. The
blended material was then piled up in a cone and then flattened to a circle. Two 350
kg barrels were filled with material from two opposite sectors of the circle and they
were sent to be sieved. The above process can be seen in the following figure (figure
5.9)
The quantity of material over and below the 100 mm threshold can be seen in the
following table.
Total X > 100 mm X < 100 mm

mass
(kg) (kg) % (kg) %
Sample 1 10060 6460 64.2 3600 35.8
High specific
Sample 2 12580 9360 74.4 3220 25.6
charge domain
Sum 22640 15820 6820
Sample 1 7880 5000 63.5 2880 36.6
Low specific
Sample 2 9340 4480 48.0 4860 52.0
charge domain
Sum 17220 9480 7740
Table 5.6: % of mass of sampled material -100 mm.
- 38 -
Figure 5.9: Sampling process
The Results from the laboratory sieving can be seen in the following table
- 39 -
Low specific charge domain High specific charge domain

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2
Sieve (mm) % Acc % % Acc % % Acc % % Acc %
200.000 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 99.8

180.000 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 99.8
100.000 64.6 35.4 48.4 51.6 64.9 35.1 75.1 24.7
90.000 2.7 32.7 3.5 48.1 1.4 33.7 1.6 23.1
63.000 6.0 26.7 6.4 41.7 4.7 29 3.6 19.5
45.000 5.9 20.8 6.9 34.8 5.4 23.6 3.7 15.8
31.500 4.6 16.2 7.4 27.4 5.1 18.5 3.0 12.8
22.400 4.0 12.2 5.9 21.5 3.6 14.9 2.2 10.6
16.000 3.0 9.2 4.6 16.9 2.9 12 1.7 8.9
11.200 1.3 7.9 3.2 13.7 1.0 11 0.6 8.3
8.000 1.6 6.3 2.7 11 1.5 9.5 1.0 7.3
5.600 1.1 5.2 1.9 9.1 1.0 8.5 0.8 6.5
4.000 0.8 4.4 1.5 7.6 1.3 7.2 0.7 5.8
2.000 1.1 3.3 1.9 5.7 1.7 5.5 1.0 4.8
1.000 0.6 2.7 1.1 4.6 1.1 4.4 0.6 4.2
0.500 0.4 2.3 0.7 3.9 0.9 3.5 0.5 3.7
0.250 0.4 1.9 0.8 3.1 1.0 2.5 0.5 3.2
0.125 0.7 1.2 1.0 2.1 1.2 1.3 0.6 2.6
0.063 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 2.2
-0.063 0.7 1.3 0.6 2.2
Total mass sieved (kg) 342 341 303 286
Size of largest particle (mm) 135 120 120 120
Table 5.7: Sieving results as returned from the laboratory
The data from the above table was processed before plotted into a graph. The top two
values of the sieving series were removed since the sieve size is just an arbitrary
number and the accumulated percentages were not rounded to the closest natural
number. In addition, the distribution was normalized to the top – size of the material
bypassing the grizzly rather than the 100 mm value. Despite the afore mentioned
changes, the material that bypassed the grizzly will still be referred to as -100 mm
material for practical reasons.
The results can be seen in table 5.8 along with the average values for each domain.
Respective plots of the size distribution curves per sample and per domain can be seen
in graphs 5.3 and 5.4.
- 40 -
Low Specific Charge Domain High Specific Charge Domain

Sample Sample Domain
Sample 1 Sample 2 Domain Average
1 2 average
Sieve (mm) Acc % Sieve (mm) Acc % Sieve (mm) Acc % Sieve (mm) Acc % Acc % Acc %
135.000 35.4 120.000 51.6 135.000 43.5 120.000 35.1 24.7 29.9
90.000 32.7 90.000 48.1 90.000 40.4 90.000 33.7 23.1 28.4
63.000 26.7 63.000 41.7 63.000 34.2 63.000 29.0 19.5 24.3
45.000 20.8 45.000 34.8 45.000 27.8 45.000 23.6 15.8 19.7
31.500 16.2 31.500 27.4 31.500 21.8 31.500 18.5 12.8 15.7
22.400 12.2 22.400 21.5 22.400 16.9 22.400 14.9 10.6 12.8
16.000 9.2 16.000 16.9 16.000 13.1 16.000 12.0 8.9 10.5
11.200 7.9 11.200 13.7 11.200 10.8 11.200 11.0 8.3 9.7
8.000 6.3 8.000 11.0 8.000 8.7 8.000 9.5 7.3 8.4
5.600 5.2 5.600 9.1 5.600 7.2 5.600 8.5 6.5 7.5
4.000 4.4 4.000 7.6 4.000 6.0 4.000 7.2 5.8 6.5
2.000 3.3 2.000 5.7 2.000 4.5 2.000 5.5 4.8 5.2
1.000 2.7 1.000 4.6 1.000 3.7 1.000 4.4 4.2 4.3
0.500 2.3 0.500 3.9 0.500 3.1 0.500 3.5 3.7 3.6
0.250 1.9 0.250 3.1 0.250 2.5 0.250 2.5 3.2 2.9
0.125 1.2 0.125 2.1 0.125 1.7 0.125 1.3 2.6 2.0
0.063 0.7 0.063 1.3 0.063 1.0 0.063 0.6 2.2 1.4
-0.063 0.0 -0.063 0.0 -0.063 0.0 -0.063 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 5.8: Lab sieving results after processing
Fragment size distribution curves from laboratory sieving
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
% Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000
Size (mm)
Low charge domain sample 1 Low charge domain sample 2

High charge domain sample 1 High charge domain sample 2
Graph 5.3: Fragment size distribution curves from laboratory sieving
- 41 -
Average fragment size distribution curves per domain from

laboratory sieving
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
% Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000
Size (mm)
Graph 5.4: Average fragment size distribution curves per domain from laboratory sieving
To be noted here, is the fact that the sieving curves from the laboratory samples
represent the entire sampled material not just the -100 mm fractions. The size
distribution from the material larger than 100 mm in size is unknown but the
percentage of that material within the samples is known through weighing. The
weight values give us the ability to maintain the proportionality of the material below
and over 100 mm in the sieving curves i.e. to be able to distinguish the percentage of
material over and below 100 mm in the entire sample, just by looking at the sieving
curves.
A look at tables 5.6 and 5.8 reveals that the percentage of the – 100 mm material in
the entire sample has a slightly different value for all the samples taken. This occurs
as a result of rounding off errors during the sieving process and due to the fact that
during the screening process, not all the -100 mm material will pass the sieve so the
true amount of – 100 mm material can be assumed to be slightly higher than what the
numbers illustrate
The results of the sieving tests indicate no significant difference between the fragment
size distribution of the finer fractions (-100 mm) of the material within the two
blasting domains. The differences observed are minimal and can be attributed to data
- 42 -
scatter. However, the sieving data provides a valuable insight of the size distribution
of the finer material within the muck pile and can be used together with the results of
the “Split Desktop” analysis to construct a size distribution curve which describes the
entire range of the material.
5.5 Constructing the fragment size distribution curves
An attempt to construct the fragment size distribution curve for the entire material
within each blasting domain was made, with the help of the Swebrec function
(Ouchterlony, 2005a) Data from the “Split Desktop” analysis and laboratory sieving
was used to describe the coarse and fine part of the distribution curve respectively.
Since the entire size range of the material was impossible to be sieved due to both size
and volume, the coarse part of the size distribution curve was constructed with data
from the image analysis. The values for x50 and x80 were chosen to be “fixed” points
for the construction of the curve. The reason these points were chosen as opposed to
x20 per say, is that those values are less susceptible to systematic errors.
The fine part of the fragment size distribution curve was constructed with values
from the sieved material. The part of the curve which is concave upwards (i.e. the size
range between 1 and 90 mm) is assumed to provide a good representation of the
fragment size distribution of a percentage of the entire material in that range (Nyberg
et al., 2006, Ouchterlony et al., 2006)
Since we have no way of determining what percentage of the material in the given
fines range the sieved samples represent, a series of fines correction factors will be
tried and the factor which gives the best fit to the Swebrec function will be used to
construct the fines part of the fragment size distribution curve.
This step assumes that the Swebrec function provides a good representation of the
material size distribution in the fines range, an assumption which is based on the
consistently good fit values the function has produced for a large amount of sieving
data (Ouchterlony et al., 2006). The values used for the construction of the fragment
size distribution curves for the two domains can be seen in the following table.
- 43 -

Sieve size (mm) % Passing Sieve size (mm) % Passing
Values from 463.17 80.00 419.13 80.00

Split Desktop 233.28 50.00 199.96 50.00
90.00 22.22 90.00 28.40
63.00 18.81 63.00 24.25
Values from sieving data
45.00 15.29 45.00 19.70

31.50 11.99 31.50 15.65
22.40 9.27 22.40 12.75
16.00 7.18 16.00 10.45
11.20 5.94 11.20 9.65
8.00 4.76 8.00 8.40
5.60 3.93 5.60 7.50
4.00 3.30 4.00 6.50
2.00 2.48 2.00 5.15
1.00 2.01 1.00 4.30
Correction factor 0.55 1
Table 5.9: Data used for the construction of the fragment size distribution curves
The correction factor which gave the best fit for the low specific charge blast domain
is 55 %. That essentially means that the sieved material represents 55 % of the fine
material in that range for that particular domain. For the high specific charge domain
the best fit was for a correction factor equal to 1 which would mean that the sieved
sample represents 100 % of the material in that range for that particular domain.
The fit of the data to the Swebrec function for the low specific charge domain was
r2 = 0.9992 while for the high specific charge domain it was r2 = 0.9995. The graphs
can be seen below.
Graph 5.5: Low specific charge domain fragment size distribution curve r2 = 0.9992
- 44 -
Graph 5.6: High specific charge domain fragment size distribution curve r2 = 0.9995
- 45 -
5.6 Fragment size distribution prediction of different models
The estimations for the fragment size distribution for the different models reviewed in
chapter 2.2.2 differ to a substantial degree. The geometrical data from blast 5162
along with information about charging and drilling were used to obtain the prediction
of several models for the fragment size distribution of the material within each of the
blasting domains. For the estimation of the rock parameters, the assumption that the
entire bench (i.e. both blast domains) had homogenous geological and structural
properties was made. The structural information used, consists of values for the
broader mining area rather than blast - specific information.
At this point it can be argued that the ability of a model to accurately reproduce the
fragment size distribution is compromised due to the lack of blast - specific rock
properties. This might be considered true if one assumes that the rock properties
change significantly across the mining area and the general values used throughout
the mine do not provide a good approximation. However, it is much more interesting
to notice the change in the expected fragment size distribution each model predicts
between the two blasting domains. Given the assumption of bench homogeneity, the
difference in the average fragment size between the two domains can be considered
quite accurate even though the numerical value for say, x50, might be looked upon
with suspicion. The data used as input for the models along with the values for the
sieving curves can be found in appendix 2.
5.6.1 The Kuz – Ram model
Drilling and charging information was used as input for the model as seen in chapter
4. The prediction for the average fragment size was 224 mm for the high specific
charge domain and 266 mm for the low specific charge domain. The uniformity factor
n had a value of 1.61 for the low specific charge domain and 1.70 for the low specific
charge domain. The fragment size distribution curves for the two domains can be seen
in the following graph.
- 46 -
Kuz - Ram model fragment size distribution curves
100.0%
90.0%
Percent Passing (%)
80.0%
70.0%
High specific charge
60.0%
domain
50.0%
Low specific charge
40.0%
domain
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.01 0.1 1 10
Size (m)
Graph 5.7: Kuz – Ram model fragment size distribution curves
It can be seen that the high specific charge domain is expected to have a finer
fragmentation along the entire size range of the material. The difference in the
average fragment size for the two domains is 42 mm while the material in the high
specific charge domain is more uniform i.e. has a larger value for n.
5.6.2 The CZM Model
To be noted here is the fact that an altered version of the CZM model was used for the
following calculations, specially customized for the Aitik conditions. The customized
version of the model was delivered by Peter Bergman of Boliden. Additional
information on the customized model can be found in appendix 2.
The input used for the Kuz – Ram model was also used for the CZM model. For the
high specific charge domain, the model predicts that 50 percent of the material is finer
than 34 mm. The uniformity factor for the fine part of the size distribution curve is
0.340 while for the coarse part of the distribution it is 1.806. The characteristic size Xc
is 236 mm. For the low specific charge domain, 50 percent of the material has a size
below 67 mm and the uniformity factors are 0.390 and 1.692 for the fine and the
coarse part of the curve respectively. The characteristic size for the low specific
charge domain is Xc = 260 mm.
- 47 -
The size distribution curves for the two domains can be seen in the graph below.
CZM model fragment size distribution curves
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Percent Passing (%)
60.0%
High specific charge domain

50.0%
Low specific charge domain
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000
Size (m)
Graph 5.8: CZM model fragment size distribution curves
The difference in the average fragment size for the two domains is 33 mm while the
difference in the characteristic size is 24 mm. The high specific charge domain
appears to contain a significantly larger amount of fine and mid-size material (average
fragment size differs almost by a factor of 2) while the differences are smaller for the
coarse part of the fragment size distribution curves. The breaking point at the
characteristic size, where the distribution curves for the fine and the coarse material
join is obvious for both domains.
5.6.3 The KCO model
The parameters used for the KCO model are the ones determined through the curve
fitting process as described in chapter 5.5. For the low specific charge domain, the
average fragment size is 233 mm, the maximum fragment size is 1276 mm and the
curve undulation parameter b = 2.661. For the high specific charge domain the
average and maximum fragment size are 197 mm and 914 mm respectively and the
curve undulation parameter b is 2.12. Plots of the curves can be seen in the following
graph.
- 48 -
KCO Model fragment size distribution curves
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
Percent passing (%)
70.0%
60.0%
High specific charge domain

50.0%
Low specific charge domain
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000
Size (m)
Graph 5.9: KCO model fragment size distribution curves
The high specific charge domain seems to contain slightly finer material and the
difference in the average fragment size between the two domains is 36 mm. The
difference for the top – size between the two domains is 362 mm. The high specific
charge domain seems to have a significant surplus of material in the range of 10 – 110
mm but the differences become smaller for the coarser part of the distribution.
5.6.4 Collective model comparison
The estimation of the fragment size distribution curve for each domain for the Kuz –
Ram KCO and CZM models can be seen plotted in the following charts, along with
the estimation of the image analysis for that particular domain.
Comparison of fragment size distribution curves from different models for the low specific charge domain
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Percent passing (%)
60.0% CZM Model

KUZ - RAM Model
50.0%
KCO Model
40.0% Split Desktop
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Size (m)
Graph 5.10: Comparison of different model predictions for the low specific charge domain
- 49 -
Comparison of fragment size distribution curves from different models for the high specific charge domain
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
Percent passing (%)
70.0%
60.0% CZM Model

KUZ - RAM Model
50.0%
KCO Model
40.0% Split Desktop
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Size (m)
Graph 5.11: Comparison of different model predictions for the high specific charge domain
It can be seen that the differences in fragmentation prediction are substantial for the
three models examined. The Kuz - Ram model predicts the smallest amount of fines
while in the coarse range the differences are reduced. The CZM model prediction in
the fines and mid - size region differs substantially to the rest of the models.
The differences in the fragment sizes of x20, x50, x80 and top - size between the two
blasting domains can be seen in the following table.
x20 x50 x80 Topsize

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Kuz - Ram 114 224 369 950
High specific
KCO 48 197 419 914
charge domain
CZM 1.4 34 263 700
Kuz - Ram 131 266 449 1200
Low specific
KCO 73 233 463 1276
charge domain
CZM 4 67 314 800
Kuz - Ram 17 42 80 250
Difference
KCO 25 36 44 362
between domains
CZM 2.6 33 51 100
Table 5.10: The difference in the fragment sizes of x20, x50, x80 and top - size between the two domains
according to different fragmentation models.
- 50 -
5.7 Comparison between the two domains
The fragment size distribution curves for the two blasting domains can be seen in
graph 5.16 plotted in semi – log space. Graphs 5.12 to 5.15 give the sample size
distribution for x20, x50, x80, and top-size for each blast domain.
Range of X50 between the two blasting Range of X80 between the two
domains blasting domains
16 8
14 7
Frequency of occurence
12 6
10 5
8 4
6 3
4 2
2 1
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Low Specific charge domain 0 0 0 8 14 5 2 1 0 0 Low Specific charge domain 0 0 1 4 4 7 5 4 0 4 0 1
High specific charge domain 0 0 5 11 8 4 2 0 0 0 High specific charge domain 0 3 4 2 6 4 2 3 2 3 1 0
Size (mm) Size (mm)
Graph 5.12: Size distribution for x50 Graph 5.13: Size distribution for x80
Range of Topsize between the two Range of X20 between the two blasting
blasting domains domains
8 12
7
10
6
8
5
4 6
3
4
2
2
1
0 0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Low Specific charge domain 0 0 0 2 7 7 4 3 3 3 1 Low Specific charge domain 0 2 3 5 7 4 3 6
High specific charge domain 0 1 2 3 5 2 6 4 6 1 0 High specific charge domain 0 3 4 6 10 5 2 0
Size (mm) Size (mm)
Graph 5.14: Size distribution for Top-size Graph 5.15: Size distribution for x20
- 51 -
Fragment size distribution curve for the two blasting domains
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
% Passing
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Size (mm)
Low specific charge domain High specific charge domain Low charge + St.Dev.
Low charge - St. Dev. High charge + St. Dev. High charge - St. Dev.
Graph 5.16: Fragment size distribution curves for the two blasting domains
In order to evaluate the differences observed between the fragment size distribution
curves of the two domains, a confidence interval for the difference of x20, x50, x80 and
top – size will be calculated with the use of a pooled standard deviation.
The confidence interval will be defined as seen below
(n )( ) + (n )( )
2 2
iHigh − 1 ⋅ σ ι High iLow − 1 σ ι Low 1 1
X iHigh − X iLow ± tC ⋅ ⋅ +
niHigh + niLow − 2 niHigh niLow
Which for the present case becomes :
( ) + (σ )
2 2
σι ι Low 1 1
X iHigh − X iLow ± t58 ⋅ ⋅ +
High
2 30 30
Where X is the mean value of the fragment size per domain, σ is the standard
deviation of the fragment size, n is the sample size and tC is the Student’s t value for
the chosen confidence level and degrees of freedom. The following table summarises
the results of the image analysis.
- 52 -
x20 x50 x80 Topsize

Low specific charge Mean value (mm) 70 233 463 838
domain Standard deviation 19 47 108 190
High specific Mean value (mm) 61 200 419 802
charge domain Standard deviation 14 54 126 214
Mean difference between domains (mm) 9 33 44 36
Table 5.11: Differences in fragment size between the two blast domains
In the table below, 90 % and 95 % confidence intervals can be seen for x20, x50, x80
and top – size.
95 % confidence 90 % confidence
t58 = 2.0017 t58 = 1.6716
Difference Confidence Range of Confidence Range of
(mm) interval interval interval interval
x20 9 9±9 [ 0, 18 ] 9±7 [ 2, 16 ]
x50 33 33 ± 26 [ 7, 59 ] 33 ± 22 [ 12, 55 ]
x80 44 44 ± 61 [ -17, 105 ] 44 ± 51 [ -7, 95 ]
Topsize 36 36 ± 105 [ -68, 141 ] 36 ± 87 [ -51, 124 ]
Table 5.12: 90 % and 95 % confidence intervals for x20, x50, x80, and top – size
As it can be seen on the table above, it is only the average fragment size which seems
to demonstrate a difference in fragmentation between the two domains. Essentially
what the data says is that we are confident that 95 % of the time there will be a
difference between the average fragment size values of the two domains and, the
difference will range between 7 and 59 mm. The confidence intervals for x20, x80 and
top – size contain the value 0 which means that there might be, or, there might not be
a difference in fragmentation between the two domains in those fragment sizes (i.e.
the data is consistent with a population mean difference of 0) therefore, we cannot
claim to have demonstrated a difference.
In order to gain a better overview, 95 % confidence intervals have been calculated for
the difference of the mean values of the entire sieving curves from x10 to top – size
and the results can be seen in the following table and graph.
- 53 -
95 % Range of
Difference
confidence interval
(mm)
Interval (mm)
x10 4 4±6 [ -1, 10 ]
x20 9 9±9 [ 0, 17 ]
x30 15 15 ± 13 [2, 28 ]
x40 24 24 ± 18 [ 5, 42 ]
x50 33 33 ± 26 [ 7, 59 ]
x60 43 43 ± 36 [ 7, 79 ]
x70 48 48 ± 47 [ 1, 95 ]
x80 44 44 ± 61 [ -17, 105]
x90 38 38 ± 81 [ -43, 119 ]
Topsize 36 36 ± 105 [ -68, 141 ]
Table 5.13: 95 % confidence interval for the difference of the mean values of the entire size range
Range of 95 % confidence interval
110%
100%
90%
80%
Percent passing (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Difference in mean size values between the two blast domains (mm)
Graph 5.17: range of 95% confidence interval for the difference of the mean values of the entire size
range
Overall, it can be concluded that the data were unable to demonstrate a consistent
difference in fragmentation between the two domains, since 50 % of the values
contain 0 in the confidence interval. However, the practical importance of the data is
not ruled out, since it can be said that the population mean difference is not well
enough determined to rule out all cases of practical importance. The values of the
differences in fragment size between domains predicted by the theoretical models are
also included in the range of the confidence intervals calculated, which suggests that
the data is consistent with differences of practical importance and with differences of
no importance at all. It cannot be said that the failure to demonstrate a difference in
- 54 -
fragmentation between the two domains means that such difference does not exist.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The results from the fragment size analysis clearly state that there are no significant
differences between the fragment size distributions of the two blasting domains,
despite the fact that the difference in specific charge was close to 25 %.
Tables 5.3 and 5.5 show that the mean values for e.g. x20, x50, x80 and top-size are
lower for the high specific charge domain but due to the population scatter the
difference between the fragment size distribution curves of the two blast domains
cannot be characterized as a statistically significant one.
A look at graphs 5.12 to 5.15 shows that the material from the high specific charge
domain has a greater scatter than the material from the low specific charge domain for
x50 x80 and top-size. This is verified by looking at the standard deviations for the
above values which, for the case of the high specific charge domain are larger.
The fragment size distribution curves indicate the same as above. Though the mean
values suggest that the high specific charge domain contains a greater percentage of
finer material, the statistical analysis revealed that the population scatter is too great to
substantiate a statistically significant difference.
5.7.1 Discussion
The fact that the differences in fragmentation between the two domains do not appear
to be significant despite the 25 % increase in specific charge can have a variety of
causes.
The blasting domains were defined by means of geometry only i.e. the bench was
divided into two parts of roughly the same size and the geometry was adjusted in
order to facilitate the blasting patterns for the two domains. Defining the domains did
not take into consideration variation in geology or structural parameters such as joint
sets.
- 55 -
The analysis of the drill cuttings does not provide enough evidence to make a
geological distinction between the two domains since large areas from each domain
were not investigated. However, both the diamond drillings and drill cuttings analysis
indicate the existence of a vein of pegmatite of substantial size which appears in the
bench close to the boundary between the two domains and proceeds well inside the
high specific charge domain (Maps 4.1-4.3). A variation in geology between the two
domains could be responsible for “dampening” the difference in the fragment size
distribution between the two domains and, increasing the data scatter.
A structural analysis for bench 5162 was not performed prior to defining the blast
domains. An assumption has been made that the entire bench is dominated by joint
sets with similar properties (spacing dip etc.). Though evidence to contradict this
assumption has not yet been discovered it is deemed as an important parameter which
could potentially have a significant impact on the size distribution of the blasted
material.
It is suggested by Eloranta (2001) that the benefit of increased energy levels in the
drilling and blasting process are greater in pre-conditioning the individual rock
fragments in order to reduce the energy required in the grinding stages of the
downstream process than in reducing the actual physical size of the rock fragments
themselves. Keeping the above in mind, one could argue that the increase in specific
charge was not large enough to produce a major measurable difference in
fragmentation between the two blasting domains.
The fact that the data failed to demonstrate a difference in fragmentation between the
two blast domains does not by any means state that a difference does not exist. An
increase of the sample size would have a beneficial effect in reducing the width of the
confidence interval through better determination of the sample mean differences. That
would render more differences between the two domains statistically significant and
allow for more reliable conclusions to be drawn. It is the large scatter observed in
blasting tests which makes it rather difficult to draw any hard conclusions based on a
small number of samples. However, for a substantial increase of the sample size a
considerable amount of time for image editing and acquisition would be required if
the “Split Desktop” software is to be used.
- 56 -
A possible alternative to the “Split Desktop” software is presented by the automated

“Split Online” system which automatically acquires images at the truck dumping
stations and processes them, automatically providing the fragment size distribution
curve for the material on the truck tray. Efforts have been made to utilize the “Split
Online” system to evaluate blast fragmentation in the Aitik mine but they have proven
fruitless since the “Split Online” fragmentation analysis results do not seem to
correlate well with the results from the analysis performed with the “Split Desktop”
software for the same material (material which has not undergone the initial crushing
stages). Keeping in mind that the images for the “Split Desktop” analysis are carefully
chosen in terms of light conditions, unwanted particles etc, and the amount of editing
performed on each image, the outcome of the “Split Desktop” analysis can be
considered rather reliable. Therefore, the next to non – existent correlation between
the “Split Desktop” and the “Split Online” results suggests that measures need to be
taken in order for the reliability of the fragmentation analysis results obtained through
the “Split Online” system to improve.
Even though the differences in fragmentation between the two blasting domains
cannot be characterized as statistically significant it’s worth mentioning that they
agree quite well with the fragmentation differences predicted by the various
theoretical models. For the mean fragment size there was a prediction of a difference
range 33 – 42 mm with the “Split Desktop” analysis giving a value of 33 mm while
the respective range for X80 was 44 – 80 mm with “Split Desktop” giving a difference
of 40 mm. Although these differences cannot be considered “hard evidence” they
certainly reinforce the belief that additional samples would allow for a more
consolidated view of the fragment size distribution of the material within each
blasting domain.
- 57 -
5.8 Comparison with the results from the previous

investigation
The investigation done by Nyberg et. al. (2006) monitored the fragmentation of blast
4141-2 located one level above blast 5162 and further north –east (local north).
The investigation included “Split Desktop” analysis using the same user-defined
parameters and equipment to this investigation, which makes the results comparable
to an extent. The production holes for that blast were not divided into different
blasting domains and the specific charge was evenly distributed across the production
part of the round. A specific charge of 0.88 kg/m3 was used for that bench blast and
the results from the “Split Desktop” analysis can be seen in the following table.
x20 x50 x80 Topsize
Mean value (mm) 80 425 849 1971
Table 5.14: Mean values for x20, x50, x80 and top-size (Nyberg et. al. 2006)
The above values compared to the values for the current investigation (table 5.15)
indicate a significant difference in the fragment size distribution between the two
benches.
x20 x50 x80 Topsize
Low specific Mean value (mm) 70 233 463 838
High specific Mean value (mm) 61 200 419 802
Table 5.15: Mean values and standard deviation for x20, x50, x80 and top-size from this investigation
The specific charge for round 5162 was approximately 22.7 % higher for the low
specific charge domain and 53.2 % higher for the high specific charge domain
compared to the respective specific charge for bench 4141-2.
The geological analysis of bench 4141-2 indicates that biotite schist is the dominant
mineral component (32 out of 40 analyzed drill cuttings contain mainly biotite schist)
followed by biotite gneiss (4 out of 40 holes as stated by the drill cuttings analysis)
and some muscovite schist (4 out of 40 analyzed holes). No pegmatite has been
reported in that bench
It is apparent from the comparison of the values between the above tables that the
fragmentation is much finer for blast 5162. Especially when examining the coarse part
- 58 -
of the fragment size distribution represented by x50, x80 and the top-size, the material
in blast 5162 appears to be almost 50 % finer than the material in blast 4141-2.
The difference in the fragment size between the two blasts might be attributed to
geological and structural differences between the two benches. In addition to those, as
mentioned in the discussion of the results of the image analysis (chapter 5.7.1) benefit
of increased specific charge in a bench blast is greater in pre – conditioning the
individual rock fragments rather than in reducing their actual physical size (Eloranta,
2001).
- 59 -
5.9 Comparison with Split Online data from the crusher
Split Online is a system used to monitor fragmentation in the Aitik mine. The system
has five installed cameras, four over the dumping stations on the primary crusher and
one on the conveyor belt transporting the material from the primary crusher for
further processing. The system uses a series of triggers to acquire images during the
dumping of the material which are in turn analyzed and the fragment size distribution
curve is constructed. A typical setup of the “Split Online” system can be seen in the
following picture.
Figure 5.10: Typical Split Online system setup (source, Split engineering)
Due to triggering errors there was no data recorded for the material of blast 5162 in
the truck dumping stations. The only fragmentation data available from that blast
came from the conveyor belt right after the primary crusher. The obvious problem
with this data set is that the material has already undergone the initial crushing stages
and the fractions larger than the closed side setting have been downsized. This process
would give an entirely different fragment size distribution curve than the one of the
material in the muck pile.
Despite the disadvantages mentioned above, the data acquired from the Online system
can still prove useful, combined with a crusher model, i.e. a model that uses the
fragment size distribution of the material in the muck pile as input and provides the
fragment size distribution of the material after it has been crushed. A crusher model
for the primary crusher of the Aitik mine has been constructed by Bergman (2005)
and it was made available for the purposes of this investigation.
- 60 -
Bergman describes his model as follows: “Feed is classified and crushed in several
steps, each step contributes to the final fragment size distribution. The classification
part of the model separates the fragments that have passed through the crusher, from
the material that will be crushed. The breakage part of the model gives the size
distribution of the rock after crushing. The open side setting, OSS, and the closed side
setting, CSS, control the probability that a rock will be crushed. For rock fragments
in the size between CSS and MAX the probability that a smaller fragment will be
crushed is less than the probability that a large rock will be crushed, with the
assumption that the crusher is not choke fed. A large rock fragment close to MAX will
be exposed to the crusher head during a longer distance than a small fragment.”
MAX is used to describe the maximum fragment size after breakage.
The probability of breakage of rock fragments with a size between the OSS and MAX
is described by an ellipsoid with a radius equal to the distance between the OSS and
MAX as it can be seen in the figure below. X0 is used to denote the size of the particle
to be crushed.
Figure 5.11: Probability of breakage in the primary crusher (Bergman, 2005)
An assumption is made by Bergman that the rock fragments in each size between the
CSS and MAX are crushed into a new size, whose average value is equal to half the
size value of the original fragment. The new size distribution is described by a semi -
circular shape with a radius equal to half the fragment’s size prior to crushing and the
breakage distribution of each fraction after crushing is obtained by dividing the area
under the semi – circle up to each fraction with the total area under the semi – circle.
The size distribution for each size after breakage can be seen in figure 5.12.
- 61 -
Figure 5.12: Size distribution for each fragment size after breakage (Bergman, 2005)
The “Split Online” values which will be compared to the output of the crusher model
are domain average values. The values were determined through averaging the
fragmentation analysis data from the “Split Online” system for the entire period
during which, material from domain under consideration was hauled. Data from
material surrounding the area of the boundary between the two blasting domains was
discarded for reasons explained earlier in this report (see 5.1.3). The average Online
data, along with time series plots and all the data used for the construction of the
curves in chapter 5.9 can be found in tables in appendix 2.
The crusher model uses the fragment size distribution curve provided by the Crushed
Zone Model (CZM) as input, in order to estimate the size distribution of the crushed
material. The input of the model for this investigation will be the results of the image
analysis process. The Crusher model is designed to use a custom sieve series which
consists of 35 sieving clothes. In order to manufacture this input from the sieving
curves of the image analysis, linear interpolation and extrapolation techniques were
used. The original data along with the manufactured sieve series for the two domains
can be seen in the table below.
- 62 -
High specific charge domain Low specific charge domain

Original values Manufactured sieve series Original values Manufactured sieve series
Size (m) % Passing Size (m) % Passing Size (m) % Passing Size (m) % Passing
0.0040 2.4 0.0010 0.8 0.0040 2.3 0.0010 0.8
0.0055 3.2 0.0050 2.9 0.0055 3.1 0.0050 2.8
0.0078 4.1 0.0200 8.4 0.0078 3.9 0.0200 7.7
0.0110 5.3 0.0300 11.6 0.0110 5.0 0.0300 10.6
0.0160 7.1 0.0400 15.1 0.0160 6.6 0.0400 13.2
0.0220 9.1 0.0600 20.4 0.0220 8.3 0.0600 18.2
0.0310 11.9 0.0800 25.8 0.0310 10.8 0.0800 22.8
0.0440 15.8 0.1000 30.9 0.0440 14.3 0.1000 27.2
0.0630 21.2 0.1200 36.5 0.0630 18.9 0.1200 31.3
0.0880 27.9 0.1500 41.9 0.0880 24.6 0.1500 36.8
0.1250 37.0 0.2000 51.8 0.1250 32.4 0.2000 45.8
0.2500 61.6 0.2500 61.6 0.2500 54.7 0.2500 54.7
0.5000 86.7 0.3000 66.6 0.5000 84.6 0.3000 60.7
0.7500 96.1 0.3500 71.6 0.7500 96.1 0.3500 66.7
1.0000 99.5 0.4000 76.7 1.0000 99.4 0.4000 72.6
1.0594 100.0 0.5000 86.7 1.2352 100.0 0.5000 84.6
2.0000 100.0 0.6000 90.5 2.0000 100.0 0.6000 89.2
4.0000 100.0 0.7000 94.2 4.0000 100.0 0.7000 93.8
0.8000 96.8 0.8000 96.7
Topsize 1.0594 0.9000 98.1 Topsize 1.235153 0.9000 98.1
1.0000 99.5 1.0000 99.4
1.1000 100.0 1.1000 99.6
1.2000 100.0 1.2000 99.9
1.3000 100.0 1.3000 100.0
1.4000 100.0 1.4000 100.0
1.5000 100.0 1.5000 100.0
1.6000 100.0 1.6000 100.0
1.7000 100.0 1.7000 100.0
1.8000 100.0 1.8000 100.0
1.9000 100.0 1.9000 100.0
2.0000 100.0 2.0000 100.0
2.1000 100.0 2.1000 100.0
2.2000 100.0 2.2000 100.0
2.3000 100.0 2.3000 100.0
2.4000 100.0 2.4000 100.0
Table 5.16: Original and manufactured sieve series from the image analysis
The manufactured column was used as input for the crusher model and the results for
the material in the two blasting domains can be seen in the following graphs
- 63 -
Fragment size distribution curves for the material in the low specific charge domain before and after
the primary crusher
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Passing (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Sieve Size (m)
Split Desktop Manufactured Split Online Crusher model
Graph 5.18: Fragment size distribution curves for the material in the low specific charge domain
before and after the primary crusher
Fragment size distribution curves for the material in the high specific charge domain before and after
the primary crusher
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Passing (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Sieve Size (m)
Split Desktop Manufactured Split Online Crusher model
Graph 5.19: Fragment size distribution curves for the material in the high specific charge domain
- 64 -
As it can be seen in graphs 5.19 and 5.18 there are major differences in the estimation
of the material in the fine part of the curve. X10 for the prediction of the crusher model
is a factor of 10 larger than the size observed by “Split Online”. The differences
decrease in the coarse part of the curve i.e. x50 to top – size but remain nevertheless
notable.
Given “Split Desktop’s” reduced ability to accurately reproduce the fragment size
distribution as the material size decreases, it could be assumed that if the input for the
crusher model is inaccurate in the fines range the prediction of the model will be
inaccurate as well. The KCO model has demonstrated a remarkable ability to
reproduce the fragment size distribution of blasted rock well into the fines range. An
attempt was made to use the size distribution of the KCO model as input for the
crusher model and the results can be seen in the following graphs.
Fragment size distribution curves for the material in the low specific charge domain
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Passing (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Sieve Size (m)
KCO model Split Online Crusher model
- 65 -
Fragm ent size distribution curves for the m aterial in the high specific charge
dom ain before and after the prim ary crusher
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Passing (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Sieve Size (m )
KCO m odel Split Online Crusher m odel
As it can be seen in graphs 5.21 and 5.20 there are no major differences in the output
of the crusher model for the KCO model input, compared to the model’s output for
the “Split Desktop” input. For the material in the high specific charge domain a
difference in the fines range can be observed with X10 reduced from 20 mm to 10 mm.
For the material in the low charge domain the size distribution prediction of the
crusher model is very close to the respective for the “Split Desktop” input.
The CZM model was also tried as input for the crusher model and the results can be
seen in the following graphs.
- 66 -
F r ag ment si z e d i st r i b ut i o n cur ves f o r t he mat er i al i n t he l o w sp eci f ic char g e

d o main b ef o r e and af t er t he p r i mar y cr usher
100%
90%
80%
Percent Passing (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0. 001 0. 010 0. 100 1. 000 10. 000
Si e v e Si z e ( m)
C ZM s pl i t onl i ne C r us he r mode l
F r ag ment siz e d ist r ib ut io n cur ves f o r t he mat er i al i n t he hig h sp ecif i c char g e
d o main b ef o r e and af t er t he p r imar y cr usher
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Passing (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0. 001 0. 010 0 . 1 00 1. 000 10. 000
Si e v e Si z e ( m)
C ZM s pl i t onl i ne C r us he r mode l
It can be seen that the heavy bias of the CZM model towards the fines part of the
curve has a significant impact on the output of the crusher model. The model predicts
more fine material than it is observed by “Split Online” , while the curves are closer
- 67 -
for the mid-size and coarse range of the material. The outputs of the crusher model
(crusher products) for different assumed feeds are compared in graphs 5.25 and 5.24.
Fragment size distribution of crushed material from the low specific

charge domain
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Percent passing (%)
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000
Size (m)
Crusher model Split Desktop input Crusher model KCO model input Split Online CZM input
Graph 5.24: Fragment size distribution of crushed material from the low specific charge domain
Fragment size distribution of crushed material from the high specific

charge domain
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Percent passing (%)
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000
Size (m)
Crusher model Split Desktop input Crusher model KCO model input Split Online CZM input
Graph 5.25: Fragment size distribution of crushed material from the high specific charge domain
- 68 -
It is observed in the graphs above that the differences in the output of the crusher
model vary to great extend depending on the input used. Due to the nature of the
crushing process which vastly reduces the size range of the material, one would
expect that the differences in feed distributions would be greatly diminished after the
initial crushing stages. Looking at the model outputs, it can be seen that the
differences are not “dampened” to a great degree. It can be concluded that, in order
for the crusher model to be utilized in a constructive manner, a standard input model
has to be established. Furthermore, the model has to be calibrated for that particular
input i.e. a fines adjustment factor needs to be determined and introduced to the
model.
A calibration of the model combined with information on the energy consumption of

the primary crusher might be able to provide valuable information on the degree of
preconditioning the material was subjected to during blasting.
From all the models tested as input, the CZM model seems to produce the values
closer to the results observed by “Split Online” with an over – prediction for the fine
part of the curve and an under – prediction for the coarser part. However, this does not
necessarily mean that the CZM model provides the best prediction for the fragment
size distribution of blasted rock. The model predicts more fine material in the blasted
rock than the actual quantity of material which exists in the crushed rock, as detected
by the “Split Online” system which is physically impossible. The “Split Online”
system has been calibrated by sieving tests down to the size of 4 mm which renders
the results it produces relatively reliable. In the range of 4 to 14 mm where the “Split
Online” curves would be judged to be relatively reliable, the CZM model over –
predicts the amount of material by a substantial amount. Furthermore, the model’s
estimation of the size distribution of the material in the muck pile differs significantly
from the respective estimations of other models and from the results of the laboratory
sieving. For the above reasons, the prediction of the CZM model for the fragment size
distribution curve is deemed unrealistic and its use as input for the crusher model is
not recommended.
- 69 -
The KCO model parameters were determined through a curve fitting process which
used both sieving samples and image analysis results as input. It is the author’s belief
that the fragment size distribution curve proposed by the KCO model is much closer
to the actual fragment size distribution of the material in the muck pile than the ones
proposed by the Kuz – Ram and the CZM models. Therefore, it is recommended that
the crusher model is calibrated to use the KCO model as an input model and with an
adjustment factor to counteract the differences in the fines region.
Regardless of the input to the crusher model which has a profound impact on the
model’s output, there is a possibility that the crusher model itself underestimates the
amount of fine material generated in the initial crushing stage. This possibility has to
be examined more closely in future research by comparing the crusher model output
for a given input model, with the results of the “Split Online” size analysis of the
crushed material. Should the crusher model be found to consistently underestimate the
amount of fine material in the crushed rock, the model’s functions controlling the
probability of breakage and the breakage distribution have to be reevaluated and,
possibly, reconfigured.
- 70 -
6 Conclusions and future work
An investigation of the blast fragmentation off blast 5162 in Boliden’s Aitik copper
mine has been performed. A model of the test blast was constructed with the use of
the JKSimBlast software tool and the image analysis software “Split Desktop” was
used to evaluate the blast fragmentation. Finally the fragment size distribution curves
for the material in the two blasting domains of the bench were constructed with the
use of data from image analysis and sieved samples from the muck pile.
The primary objective of this work was to determine the impact that a higher specific
charge has on blast fragmentation through the use of image analysis software
complemented by sieved samples from the muck pile. In order for this objective to be
achieved, over 250 pictures of truck loads were acquired over a period of 7 days.
From those pictures, 60 were chosen, 30 for each domain, according to a quality
criterion formulated. The images were analyzed with the “Split Desktop” software
and the size distribution of the material within each domain was obtained.
Amongst the initial objectives of this project was the acquisition and processing of
fragmentation data from the “Split Online” system installed in the truck dumping
stations. The goal was to evaluate the quality of the data from the system by
comparing them to fragmentation data obtained through “Split Desktop” and
laboratory sieving of samples. Through this process, evaluation routines for rapid
image assessment were to be developed and a correlation between the results of the
fragmentation analysis of the Online system in the dumping stations and the manual
Desktop system was to be established. Unfortunately, due to triggering errors the
“Split Online” system over the dumping stations was put out of commission thus, no
images of the material before the primary crusher were acquired by the system during
the loading period.
The data from the image analysis were unable to demonstrate a consistent difference
in fragmentation between the two blast domains since half of the confidence intervals
calculated along the entire range of the fragment size distribution curves included the
value 0 within their range. However, the practical importance of the data is not ruled
- 71 -
out. The population mean difference is not well enough determined which makes the
confidence intervals very wide. The differences in fragmentation predicted by
theoretical models are also included in the confidence intervals calculated. The values
determined through “Split Desktop” for the differences between e.g. x50-High and
x50-Low and x80-High and x80-Low are very close to the range of prediction of the
theoretical models. Bearing the above in mind, it can be said that the data is consistent
with both differences of practical importance and differences of no importance at all.
Since the precision of the method cannot be improved, it is suggested that an increase
in sample size would reduce the sample variance, allow for a better determination of
the population mean and reduce the width of the confidence intervals of the
differences between mean size values. The above would allow the better
approximation of the differences in fragmentation and increase the likelihood of
obtaining statistically significant results and/or, results of practical importance.
An issue which was not investigated in this research and it is very interesting indeed,
is the impact of the “unseen” effect of rock blasting, that of preconditioning. Even
though the difference in fragment size might not be a major one, the weakening of the
individual rock fragments due to the increased specific charge might decrease the
energy requirements significantly in the downstream crushing and grinding stages,
and/or, influence the mill throughput.
A compilation of image analysis and laboratory sieving data was used in a attempt to
describe the fragment size distribution curve for the entire material with the use of the
Swebrec function. The results were satisfactory, with the Swebrec function obtaining
a fit better than 0.999 for both domains.
A crusher model for the primary crusher was also made available and its ability to
reproduce the size distribution of crushed rock with accuracy was tested for various
model inputs. Even though the CZM model input provides a size distribution much
closer to the one observed by the “Split Online” system installed over the conveyor
belt transporting crushed material right after the primary crusher, it is argued that this
happens due to the model’s inherent fines bias rather than due to its ability to
accurately represent the fragment size distribution of blasted rock. The CZM model
predicts more fine material in the muck pile than the amount measured by the “Split
- 72 -
Online” system installed after the primary crusher which, given the fact that the afore
mentioned Online system was calibrated through sieving down to 4 mm, renders the
output of the CZM model rather suspicious. The KCO model appears to provide the
most accurate description of the fragment size distribution of the material in the muck
pile and it is therefore recommended it be used as the basic input model for the
crusher model, along with a fines adjustment factor which would serve to counteract
the differences in the finer fractions of the material. The research also indicated the
possibility of the crusher model under – predicting the amount of material in the fines
range in the crusher product. It is suggested that this possibility is further investigated
in future research.
The results of this investigation offer additional insight to the effects of increased
specific charge in blast fragmentation and to the problems and shortcomings related to
fragmentation measurements. In consonance with the objectives of the Swebrec
project “Model for bench blasting in open pits”, the fragmentation profile of the
blasted material represented through the constructed fragment size distribution curves
will contribute in the development of a site specific blast model calibrated to fit
Aitik’s conditions. The work done with crusher models will assist to improve the
accuracy of the model’s predictions and render it an integral part of the mine’s
fragmentation analysis routines.
There are a few areas that deserve some attention from future research, namely:
• Investigate the effect of geology and structural elements such as joint sets on
blast fragmentation
• Increase the amount of samples analyzed with image analysis taken in order to
reduce the data scatter and obtain statistically significant results
• Consider integrating MWD data to the geological, structural and blast models
in order to gain additional insight for the material in each bench.
• Focus on the “Split Online” system which was unavailable for this research.
Investigate ways to increase its reliability through automated routines which
discard images of inadequate quality.
- 73 -
• Investigate the impact increased specific charge has on preconditioning the

blasted rock and the effect of preconditioning on mill energy consumption and
throughput.
• Investigate the possibility of the crusher model under – predicting the amount
of material in the finer fractions of the size distribution.
- 74 -
References
Bergman, P., 2005. Optimisation of fragmentation and comminution at Boliden
Mineral, Aitik Operation. Licentiate thesis 2005:90, Dep. Civil. Environmental.
Engineering. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology.
Cunningham, C. V. B., 1983. The Kuz-Ram model for prediction of fragmentation

from blasting. Proceedings 1st international symposium for fragmentation by blasting,
Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology pp 439 – 454.
Cunningham, C. V. B., 1987. Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz-Ram Model –

four years on. Proceedings 2nd international symposium on rock fragmentation by
blasting, Bethel CT, SEM, 1987, pp 439 – 453.
Cunningham, C. V. B., 2005. The Kuz-Ram fragmentation model – 20 years on, ? in

Proceedings 3rd EFEE World Conference on Explosives and Blasting pp 201-210.
Djordjevic, N., 1999. Two-component blast fragmentation. Proceedings of the 6th

International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting-Fragblast, South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, South Africa pp 213–219.
Eloranta, J., 2001. Improved milling through better powder distribution. 27th ISEE.
2001, vol 1, pp 55 – 63.
Essen, S., Onederra, I., & Bilgin, H.A., 2003. Modelling the size of the crushing zone
around a blast hole. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences ,
Vol 40, pp 485 – 495.
Kanchibotla, S.S., Valery, W. & Morell, S., 1999. Modelling fines in blast
fragmentation and its impact on crushing and grinding. In Proceedings from Explo
1999 Conference: pp 137–144. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: AusIMM.
Katsabanis, P.D., 1999. Comparison between image analysis and sieving using
laboratory scale model muck piles. Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on
explosives and blasting technique vol. 2, pp 325 – 332.
Kemeny, J., Girdner, K., Bobo, T. & Norton, B., 1999. Improvements for
fragmentation measurements by digital imaging: Accurate estimation of fines. In
Proceedings from the 6th international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting
pp 103 – 109 Symposium series S21 ( SAIMM: Johannesburg, South Africa).
Maerz, N. H., Zhou, W., 1998. Optical digital fragmentation measuring systems -
Inherent sources of error. Fragblast, The International Journal for Blasting and
Fragmentation, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp 415- 431.
Maerz, N.H., Zhou, W., 2000. Calibration of optical fragmentation measuring

systems. International Journal for Blasting and Fragmentation, v.4, no 2: pp 341–368.
- 75 -
Nielsen, K., Kristiansen, J., 1996, Blasting- crushing-grinding: optimisation of an

integrated comminution system, In Proceedings from the 5th International Symposium
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, B, pp 269-277.
Nyberg, U., Esen, S., Bergman, P. & Ouchterlony, F., 2006. Monitoring the
fragmentation in blast 4141-2 in the Aitik mine. Swebrec Rpt. 2006:1, Luleå, Swedish
Blasting Research Centre, English summary.
Ouchterlony, F., 2004. Influence of blasting on the size distribution and properties of
muck pile fragments, a state-of-the art review. Report Project P2000-10: Energy
optimisation during comminution. Stockholm: Swedish Mineral Research
organisation, MinFo.
Ouchterlony, F., 2005a. The Swebrec function: linking fragmentation by blasting and
crushing. Mining Technology Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Ouchterlony, F. 2005b. What does the fragment size distribution from blasting look
like? Proceedings from the 3rd EFEE World Conference on Explosives and Blasting,
Brighton, UK, pp 189-199.
Ouchterlony, F., 2007. “Applied blasting” course lectures. Lectures 14 – 15.
Ouchterlony, F., Nyberg, U., Bergman, P. & Essen, S., 2006. Monitoring blast
fragmentation at Boliden mineral’s Aitik cooper mine. EFEE 4 World Conference on
Explosives and Blasting, Vienna Conference Proceedings 2007, pp 47-62.
Ouchterlony, F., Olsson, M., Nyberg, U., Andersson, P. & Gustavsson, L., 2006.
Constructing the fragment size distribution of a bench blasting round, using the new
Swebrec function. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, Chile, pp 332-344.
Paley, N., Kojovic, T., 2001: Adjusting blating to increase SAG mill throughout at the
Red Dog mine, Proceeding of the 27th annual conference on explosives and blasting
research, Cleveland OH ISEE, 2001, pp 65-81.
Potts, G., and Ouchterlony, F., 2005. The capacity of image analysis to measure
fragmentation, an evaluation using Split Desktop. Luleå University of Technology,
Sweden, Swebrec Project Rpt.
Spathis, A.T., 2005. A correction relating to the analysis of the original Kuz – Ram
model. International Journal Fragmentation and Blasting, pp 201 – 205.
Svahn, V., 2003. Generation of fines in bench blasting. Licentiate thesis, Dep.of
Geology, publication A104, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden.
Workman, L., Eloranta, J., 2003. The effects of blasting on crushing and grinding
efficiency and energy consumption. Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Explosives
and Blasting Technique, Nashville, TN pp 131 – 140.
- 76 -
Peter Bergman
Optimization of fragmentation and comminution at Boliden mineral Aitik mine
Appendix 1
Bergman, Peter:
“Optimization of fragmentation and comminution at Boliden

mineral, Aitik mine”
Chapter 3
- 77 -
Peter Bergman
3 Aitik - site description
3.1 General
The Aitik mine is located in northernmost part of Sweden, in the municipality of
Gällivare. The ore is a low-grade copper mineralisation with about 0.4 percent of
copper, 0.2 g gold/tonne and 3.5 g silver/ tonne. The mineralisation occurs in veinlets
and disseminations of chalcopyrite within a westerly dipping altered porphyritic
diorite. The ore zone is 2500 x 300 m in size and dips about 45o to the west and the
plunge varies from very steep to flat.
The ore is mined in an open pit with an annual production of 18 Mt of ore and about
25 Mt of waste rock.
The ore flow in Aitik, Figure 3.1, starts with drilling and blasting, then the ore is
loaded with excavators and hauled with trucks to the in pit crusher. The ore is crushed
and transported on a conveyor belt, to two ore piles that feeds the grinding mills.
After grinding the ore goes through flotation, thickening, dewatering and finally
drying. The concentrate is transported to the Rönnskär smelter.
Figure 3.1 Schematic ore flow from mine to smelter.
3.2 Geology
The Aitik mine is situated in the shear zone between the Svecofenian and the Karelian
plate and are of Precambrian age. The area consists of metamorphosed plutonic,
volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The ore body is continuous in the dip direction and
- 78 -
Peter Bergman
strikes from north to south with a dip of about 40° to 50° to the west. Shear zones
surrounds the ore body and divides the mine into a northern and a southern part.
The footwall, in the west, consists mainly of biotite gneiss and diorite. There is no
distinct contact between the footwall rocks and the ore zone, the cut of grade gives the
limit. At the footwall the ore zone consists of biotite gneiss and biotite schist with
muscovite schist towards the hanging wall. Pegmatite dykes occur within the ore
body. The main rock types in the ore zone can be found sporadic anywhere within the
ore zone, i.e. lenses of muscovite schist can be found close to the footwall etc., Figure
3.2. It can sometimes be difficult to separate the biotite schist and biotite gneiss due to
a gradual transition between them. The hanging wall mainly consists of amphibole
gneiss and the contact is very distinct.
Figure 3.2 Horizontal geological interpretation at level 225 m.
The strength of the rock types in the ore zone has been investigated several times,
Table 3.1. The results from the investigations have varied to some extent, but the
overall result is distinct. Muscovite schist is the weakest and the biotite gneiss is the
strongest rock type in the ore, if pegmatite is disregarded. From point load tests the
unconfined compressive strength of the rock has been calculated as the point load test
index, IS50 times 24.
- 79 -
Peter Bergman
3.3 Drilling and Blasting
The drilling of the blast holes can be divided into two categories, one for the contour
holes and one for the production holes, Figure 3.3. A contractor drills the contour
holes with five inch and six inch holes. The bench height is 15 m and sub drilling 2 m.
The burden and spacing of the production holes are with the current design 7.75 x
9.75 m. The diameter of the production holes is 311 mm for three of the drill rigs, and
270 mm for the fourth. The average rate of drilling, per drill rig, is about 17 m per
hour, but large variations occur due to difference between the drill rigs, operators and
the rock characteristics.
Figure 3.3 Current drill and blast design, for the ore.
The production drill rigs are equipped with Aquila measurement while drilling,
MWD, systems. Examples of parameters logged by the MWD-systems are torque,
weight on bit, rate of penetration etc. The rotational torque is one of the parameters
that give an indication of the rock characteristics for each hole drilled. The different
- 80 -
Peter Bergman
MWD parameters can be plotted to their coordinates in the mine, showing a two
dimensional map of the drilling characteristics at different areas in the mine,
indicating variations of the mechanical properties of the rock. Figure 3.4 shows the
torque parameter plotted for the holes drilled on the bench at level 240, the green
areas means that the rock gives a low resistance on the drill bit and red areas means a
high resistance. There should be a correlation between the drilling characteristics and
some of the rock characteristics, i.e. strength, structures, grindability etc. which will
be studied in future researches.
Figure 3.4 Figure showing the MWD parameter, torque, at level 240 m.
The blasting in Aitik is done with emulsion explosives. The average density of the
emulsions in the holes is about 1150 kg/m3 and the velocity of detonation, VOD, is
about 5700 m/s. Over the years there has been a trend to decrease the powder factor in
the mine, due to increasing scale of the mining equipment, Figure 3.5.
- 81 -
Peter Bergman
Figure 3.5 Powder factor in Aitik over the years.
After the holes are charged they are plugged with about 6.5 meters of crushed and
screened stemming material, 11-25 mm. Dyno Nobels Nonel ignition system is used
for the ignition of the blasts with 176 ms delay between the rows and 42 ms between
the holes in the rows. The direction of the blast is to the foliation of the ore body. The
ignition of the blasts normally takes place at the outermost holes of the blasts, like in
conventional bench blasting. When the blast has reached a couple of rows into the
blast the confinement from the blasted material is so big that the swelling mainly goes
in axial direction of the holes, like crater blasting. This makes a selective loading of
the different ore qualities, high/low grade, possible. Each round is on average about
450 000 tonnes.
3.4 Loading and Hauling

Four shovels, with varying bucket size from 17 m3 to 43 m3, are used for loading the
ore and waste rock in the mine. A Caterpillar 994 wheel loader, 16 m3 bucket,
completes the loading fleet. 25 trucks haul the ore and the waste rock to the crusher or
to the waste dumps. To optimise the production, all trucks and the shovels are
equipped with the MineStar system, see chapter 3.7, which schedules and assigns the
trucks to the different shovels and dumps.
- 82 -
Peter Bergman
3.5 Crushing and storage
The main part of the primary crushing is done at the crusher station in the pit, at 165
m level. The crusher station consists of two parallel gyratory crushers, model Allis
Superior 60-109. Two older crushers on the surface are still in use but only during
periods of maintenance and break downs of the crusher station in the pit. The opening
of the main crushers is 152 cm and the diameter at the lower part of the mantel is 277
cm. The closed side setting, 16 - 18 cm, determines the crusher product. The coarsest
rocks after the crusher varies from 35 cm to 40 cm with variations depending on the
characteristics of the ores. A belt conveyor transports the crushed ore to two
stockpiles. The total stockpile capacity is about 50 000 tonnes, i.e. 16 – 20 hours of
full production in the mill.
3.6 Grinding
There are three grinding sections, B C and D, in the concentrator plant, with a total of
five grinding lines, Figure 3.6.
- 83 -
Peter Bergman
Figure 3.6 Schematic picture over the conveyor system and the grinding sections.
Each grinding line consists of two mills, one primary autogenous mill and a secondary
pebble mill. The pebbles for the secondary mill are extracted from the primary mill,
and controlled by the power requirement from the pebble mill. The grinding lines are
operating in a closed circuit with a screw classifier, the coarse material from the
classifier is fed back to the primary mill, Figure 3.7.
- 84 -
Peter Bergman
Figure 3.7 Schematic picture of a grinding line in Aitik.
There are two grinding lines in the oldest section, section B. The primary mills are
10.5 m long and have a diameter of 6 m, the installed effect is 3600 kW. The pebble
mills are 4.5 x 4.8 m with an effect of 1250 kW. The throughput in each grinding line
is on average about 350 tonnes/production hour (t/p.h.). Both the primary mills and
the pebble mills are run at 75 % of the critical speed.
In section C there is only one grinding line. The autogenous mill is 12.5 m long and
has a diameter of 6.7 m, with an installed effect of 6600 kW. The pebble mill is 5.2 x
6.8 m with an installed effect of 2500 kW. The throughput in section B is on average
550 t/p.h. The primary mill and the pebble mill are run at 76 and 73 % of the critical
speed respectively.
The newest section, section D, consists of two grinding lines. Both the primary and
the secondary mills have the same size as those in section C. The installed effects are
6000 and 3000 kW respectively. The throughput for each grinding line is on average
550 t/p.h. The mills are run at 75 % of the critical speed.
The grindability of the ore, the ease of which the ore is ground, varies depending on
the mechanical properties, strength and feed size distribution. The throughput in the
grinding stage varies between 1500 and 3200 t/p.h, the average throughput is 2350
t/p.h. The power utilisation of the primary mills, for the different grinding sections, is
3200 kW for section B and 5200 kW for section C and D. The energy consumption,
kWh/tonne, varies between the different sections and with different ore
characteristics. The magnitude of the energy consumption is 9.1 kWh/tonne with a
standard deviation of 1.4 kWh/tonne.
Water added to the mills is constant to the ore feed, tonnage, and the charge consists
- 85 -
Peter Bergman
of 55-60 percent solids by weight. The final product after the grinding lines has a k80
value of 180 m and the amount of material smaller than 45 m is 25 percent by
weight.
3.6.1 Mill control in Aitik

Either the charge level or the mill engine power, P, control the feed rate of the mill.
The engine power constraint is set by the maximum load on the gearbox and the
charge level constraint comes from when the mill starts to overflow.
From the ore piles, the ore feed, tonnage, and the water feed is the only controllable
input parameters that can be manipulated to influence the throughput in the mills.
Since the water feed is constant to the ore feed, the ore feed is the only controllable
input parameter. This means that the control system consists of one input parameter,
ore feed, and two output parameters, mill power and charge level.
The charge level is the angle between the toe angle and the shoulder angle. The toe
angle is defined as the angle between the vertical line and point where the lifters hit
the charge or the pulp, and the shoulder angle as the angle from the vertical line to the
point where the lifters leave the charge, Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 Charge definition and toe angle measurement.
To measure the charge level in the mill a strain gauge is installed in one of the lifters
in the mill. The lifter deflection is measured as it rotates through the mill contents.
The strain gauge gives a distinct signal for the toe angle measurement, but much noise
from the shoulder angle measurement. The toe angle itself gives good information
- 86 -
Peter Bergman
about the charge level, Berggren et al. (2000), and consequently a change in the toe
angle indicates a change in the charge level.
The constraint that demands the least ore feed, i.e. the one that is closest to its
limitation, controls the ore feed. This signifies that the mill is always at one of its
limitations, which consequently gives the highest possible throughput for the mill.
Figure 3.9 shows an example where the ore feed to mill 11, see Figure 3.6, initially
has been limited by engine power, 5200 kW, is being limited by toe angle, 70 degrees.
Figure 3.9 Mill control showing change from effect control to toe angle control.
3.7 Existing monitoring systems and data collection
3.7.1 MineStar
MineStar is a mining information system delivered by Caterpillar, see Figure 3.10. It
consists of three subsystems. The production control is based on communication
between the machines in the mine and a dispatcher.
- 87 -
Peter Bergman
Figure 3.10 Schematic picture over the MineStar system.
• MineStar, schedules and assigns the machines to the correct locations to

optimise the production. It provides productivity information from trucks and
loading equipment i.e. tonnage and coordinates etc. The system monitors
material movement and type, to ensure material is moved to the proper
location.
• CAES, Computer Aided Earthmoving System, is a system that gives the
loading operators the information needed to achieve planned bench heights
and grade control.
• Aquila Drill Management provides operators with an on-board graphical drill
pattern, with hole depths, and with drill positioning. The Aquila system
includes a MWD application that measures drilling characteristics, i.e. torque,
rate of penetration, weight on bit etc.
In Aitik all of the mining machines are connected to the MineStar system, and the
positions and a time stamps, for all of the events and all of the machines, are stored in
a database.
- 88 -
Peter Bergman
3.7.2 Fragment size analysis
The Aitik mine have two SplitOnline image analysis systems, one for the mine and
one for the mill, comprised of five cameras for each system. The systems were
installed and calibrated during July 2003. The five cameras in the mine system
monitors the four truck dump bays and the conveyor belt after the discharge from the
primary crusher, belt 189. The system in the mill monitors all the conveyors feeding
the primary mills, belt 130, 140, 150, 160 and belt 170, named B130-170 in Figure
3.6. The analysed data, K10 - K100, are stored in databases. K10 is the sieve size
where ten percent of the material passes and K100 is the size where all of the material
passes. Combined with the MineStar data the result can be linked to the location in the
mine. Table 3.2 gives an example of image analysis data from the mine system
database. The analysed data from the mill system is not connected with a truck cycle
identity, due to problems with tracking the material in the ore storage, but by batching
data into larger units they can be linked by its time stamp. FRAME COUNT in Table
3.2 is the number of pictures analysed.
Table 3.2 Example of image analysis data.
In addition to the image analysis system the mill in Aitik has a laser distance
transmitter installed above belt 160, to estimate the fragment size. This system
measure the distance to the material on the conveyor belt, and the standard deviation
in the signal gives an indication of the feed size, i.e. larger rock fragment sizes on the
belt gives larger standard deviation of the signal. This system gives only one value of
the fragmentation not the whole distribution as the SplitOnline system does, but the
results correlates well with the K60 value from the image analysis, both in magnitude
and variance, Figure 3.11.
- 89 -
Peter Bergman
Figure 3.11 Image Analysis K60 vs. laser measurement, Belt 160.
- 90 -
Vasileios Demenegas Monitoring fragmentation in the Aitik mine
Appendix 2
Data tables
- 91 -
Passing %
Size (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 93.7 99.8 99.1
750 99.5 97.2 96.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 100.0 91.5 100.0 81.4 90.5 93.3
500 92.7 86.9 87.1 91.7 91.9 97.2 93.9 86.5 95.9 96.6 77.8 99.2 65.6 67.8 83.5
250 63.2 56.6 58.6 52.5 61.8 59.2 63.2 51.9 67.8 63.2 50.7 72.2 48.0 40.2 53.0
125 33.8 33.9 33.9 26.8 37.8 27.1 31.3 28.1 39.3 36.0 31.6 41.5 34.8 24.3 32.9
88 23.4 25.3 25.3 18.1 29.6 18.1 20.6 19.9 28.3 27.1 24.1 31.3 29.6 18.6 25.6
63 16.1 18.9 18.8 12.3 22.5 12.4 13.5 14.2 20.3 20.6 18.3 23.9 25.3 14.4 20.2
44 10.7 13.6 13.5 8.0 16.6 8.2 8.4 9.7 14.0 15.4 13.5 17.9 21.4 11.0 15.7
31 7.0 9.8 9.6 5.2 12.2 5.5 5.3 6.7 9.6 11.6 10.0 13.5 18.2 8.4 12.2
22 4.7 7.1 6.9 3.4 8.9 3.7 3.3 4.6 6.6 8.8 7.4 10.3 15.5 6.5 9.6
16 3.2 5.2 5.0 2.3 6.7 2.6 2.2 3.2 4.6 6.8 5.6 8.0 13.5 5.1 7.7
11 2.0 3.6 3.5 1.4 4.7 1.7 1.3 2.1 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.9 11.4 3.8 5.9
7.8 1.3 2.6 2.5 0.9 3.4 1.1 0.8 1.5 2.0 3.8 2.9 4.5 9.8 3.0 4.7
5.5 0.8 1.8 1.7 0.6 2.5 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.3 2.9 2.2 3.5 8.6 2.3 3.7
4 0.6 1.3 1.3 0.4 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 1.0 2.2 1.6 2.6 6.7 1.8 2.8
Table 1: Fragment size distribution curves acquired from Split Desktop for the low specific charge domain, images 1-15
- 92 -
Passing %
Size (mm) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
4000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.5 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 97.9 96.5 100.0
750 98.7 93.4 99.4 98.2 88.1 90.3 99.7 100.0 99.8 100.0 97.3 93.3 87.5 87.2 99.7
500 82.5 76.3 87.3 85.7 79.2 72.7 84.8 94.8 87.9 92.8 83.5 79.0 69.0 65.1 83.7
250 51.9 47.6 54.6 54.4 56.7 49.8 53.0 59.4 55.5 62.0 49.0 48.3 42.3 38.5 55.6
125 34.7 28.5 34.5 31.9 39.4 34.1 35.3 34.2 28.8 36.2 29.3 25.5 25.1 24.1 36.7
88 28.2 21.9 28.2 24.3 32.5 28.5 28.8 25.7 20.3 28.0 22.4 18.4 19.1 18.7 29.7
63 23.1 17.0 23.1 18.7 27.1 23.8 23.7 19.2 14.5 21.5 17.4 13.5 14.8 14.7 23.9
44 18.6 13.0 18.7 14.1 22.3 19.7 19.2 14.1 10.1 16.2 13.2 9.7 11.2 11.4 18.9
31 15.1 10.0 15.2 10.7 18.4 16.3 15.7 10.4 7.1 12.3 10.1 7.0 8.5 8.8 15.1
22 12.3 7.7 12.4 8.2 15.3 13.6 12.8 7.7 5.1 9.4 7.8 5.1 6.5 6.9 12.0
16 10.2 6.1 10.3 6.4 12.9 11.5 10.7 5.8 3.7 7.3 6.1 3.8 5.1 5.5 9.8
11 8.2 4.6 8.3 4.8 10.6 9.5 8.7 4.2 2.5 5.4 4.6 2.7 3.9 4.2 7.7
7.8 6.8 3.6 6.8 3.7 8.9 8.0 7.2 3.1 1.8 4.2 3.6 2.0 3.0 3.3 6.2
5.5 5.7 2.8 5.7 2.9 7.5 6.8 6.0 2.4 1.3 3.2 2.8 1.4 2.3 2.6 5.1
4 4.3 2.1 4.3 2.1 5.8 5.3 4.6 1.7 0.9 2.4 2.1 1.1 1.7 2.0 3.9
Table 2: Fragment size distribution curves acquired from Split Desktop for the low specific charge domain, images 15-30
- 93 -
% Passing
Size (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1000 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 95.8 100.0
750 100.0 95.1 98.0 89.9 100.0 91.4 97.5 100.0 95.6 97.7 100.0 99.0 92.4 87.2 100.0
500 100.0 84.0 87.1 75.1 100.0 74.7 83.4 96.8 76.2 84.9 92.8 88.0 74.4 74.5 97.0
250 78.8 60.2 66.3 42.9 83.7 47.3 55.3 72.3 48.2 51.3 58.7 53.3 48.5 51.3 66.9
125 42.3 34.9 38.3 25.8 56.7 27.3 32.7 38.3 34.0 31.2 34.5 31.9 28.9 31.7 40.8
88 30.7 26.4 28.5 20.4 41.5 20.5 24.9 26.1 28.0 24.0 26.7 24.5 22.0 24.8 30.0
63 22.3 20.1 21.4 16.2 31.3 15.7 19.2 16.8 23.2 18.7 20.7 19.0 16.9 19.6 22.6
44 15.8 15.0 15.7 12.6 23.1 11.7 14.5 10.5 18.9 14.3 15.7 14.5 12.7 15.3 16.4
31 11.3 11.3 11.6 9.9 17.2 8.8 11.1 6.6 15.6 11.0 12.0 11.2 9.7 12.0 12.0
22 8.2 8.6 8.6 7.8 12.9 6.7 8.5 4.2 12.8 8.5 9.3 8.6 7.4 9.4 8.8
16 6.0 6.6 6.6 6.2 9.8 5.2 6.6 2.8 10.8 6.7 7.3 6.8 5.8 7.5 6.6
11 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.8 7.2 3.8 5.0 1.7 8.8 5.1 5.5 5.2 4.3 5.8 4.7
7.8 3.0 3.7 3.5 3.8 5.4 2.9 3.8 1.1 7.3 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.3 4.6 3.5
5.5 2.2 2.9 2.7 3.1 4.1 2.2 3.0 0.7 6.2 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.6 3.7 2.6
4 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 2.2 0.5 4.8 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.9 2.8 1.9
Table 3: Fragment size distribution curves acquired from Split Desktop for the high specific charge domain, images 1-15
- 94 -
% Passing
Size (mm) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
4000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1000 100.0 100.0 97.9 96.9 100.0 100.0 97.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
750 100.0 93.7 87.4 86.6 93.9 97.7 88.6 100.0 100.0 98.2 93.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
500 100.0 84.7 67.8 75.5 86.5 88.2 72.9 91.0 99.3 89.5 78.2 95.8 93.6 91.5 97.8
250 85.1 62.4 45.3 62.8 58.5 62.3 45.8 58.5 77.1 58.5 57.6 76.1 59.9 73.0 80.3
125 47.9 37.7 29.7 41.8 32.5 39.6 29.0 34.3 39.0 31.2 39.2 45.6 34.8 49.6 49.5
88 32.4 29.3 23.7 33.9 24.5 31.7 23.9 26.6 24.1 22.4 31.6 33.4 26.0 37.9 37.6
63 21.7 23.0 19.1 27.7 18.6 25.1 19.7 20.4 15.0 16.4 25.1 24.0 19.3 29.8 28.1
44 14.1 17.8 15.1 22.2 13.8 19.5 16.0 15.3 9.0 11.7 19.4 16.7 14.0 22.9 20.4
31 9.2 13.8 12.0 17.8 10.3 15.2 13.1 11.6 5.5 8.4 15.1 11.8 10.2 17.8 14.9
22 6.1 10.8 9.6 14.4 7.7 12.0 10.8 8.8 3.4 6.1 11.9 8.3 7.5 13.8 11.0
16 4.2 8.6 7.8 11.9 5.9 9.6 9.0 6.9 2.2 4.5 9.5 6.0 5.7 11.0 8.3
11 2.6 6.6 6.2 9.5 4.4 7.4 7.3 5.1 1.3 3.2 7.3 4.1 4.1 8.4 6.0
7.8 1.7 5.2 5.0 7.7 3.3 5.9 6.0 3.9 0.8 2.3 5.8 2.9 3.0 6.6 4.4
5.5 1.1 4.1 4.1 6.4 2.5 4.7 5.1 3.0 0.4 1.7 4.6 2.1 2.2 5.2 3.3
4 0.8 3.1 3.1 4.9 1.9 3.6 3.9 2.3 0.3 1.2 3.5 1.5 1.6 3.9 2.4
Table 4: Fragment size distribution curves acquired from Split Desktop for the high specific charge domain, images 15-30
- 95 -
Size (cm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
X10 2.8 2.7 2.6 3.2 1.6 3.6 2.7 4.2 1.4 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.2 2.4 2.5
X20 5.7 6.3 5.9 8.5 3.7 8.5 6.6 7.2 4.9 7.0 6.0 6.7 7.8 6.5 5.5
X30 8.7 10.5 9.5 15.6 6.0 14.1 11.2 9.8 10.0 12.0 10.2 11.5 13.1 11.6 8.8
X40 11.9 15.1 13.3 22.8 8.4 20.3 16.4 13.0 16.7 18.1 15.2 16.9 19.2 17.7 12.2
X50 15.1 19.8 17.2 30.2 10.8 26.8 21.8 16.3 26.8 24.5 20.4 23.0 26.2 24.1 16.3
X60 18.3 25.2 21.6 37.8 13.4 34.5 28.1 19.7 36.0 30.9 25.7 29.0 35.6 31.8 21.3
X70 21.8 32.4 28.0 45.6 16.9 44.4 35.9 23.9 44.5 37.8 31.5 35.2 45.6 42.7 26.7
X80 25.9 43.5 38.6 54.8 22.4 56.3 45.9 29.2 53.7 45.9 38.0 42.5 55.7 60.8 32.4
X90 31.7 63.8 56.8 75.2 30.6 72.0 59.6 37.2 64.8 56.8 46.7 52.4 69.9 81.7 40.1
Topsize 44.8 93.6 82.3 105.9 47.6 100.9 82.9 64.5 87.1 86.1 63.3 78.6 100.8 116.0 59.2
Size (cm)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
X10 3.3 2.0 2.4 1.2 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.6 4.8 3.7 1.7 2.6 3.1 1.4 2.0
X20 5.9 5.2 6.9 3.7 7.0 4.6 6.5 6.2 7.8 7.8 4.6 5.3 6.7 3.7 4.3
X30 8.3 9.1 12.9 7.2 11.4 8.1 13.4 10.4 10.4 12.0 8.1 7.9 10.6 6.4 6.8
X40 10.5 13.7 20.7 11.7 16.3 12.7 20.9 15.3 13.0 16.4 12.9 10.8 15.0 9.4 9.6
X50 13.1 18.6 30.0 16.5 21.1 17.8 28.6 20.4 16.1 21.0 18.5 13.8 19.9 12.6 12.7
X60 16.1 23.6 41.6 22.6 26.1 23.5 36.8 25.8 19.2 25.7 27.6 17.1 25.4 16.5 15.9
X70 19.2 30.4 53.2 34.6 32.3 30.6 47.1 31.7 22.6 31.3 40.3 21.5 31.5 22.3 19.7
X80 22.8 41.6 65.7 60.4 41.4 39.4 60.3 38.8 26.7 38.7 52.2 27.8 38.2 33.1 24.9
X90 27.6 64.0 80.4 82.8 62.4 53.8 78.8 48.5 32.6 50.8 66.0 39.6 46.9 47.6 33.0
Topsize 39.4 95.4 109.0 107.9 98.9 83.0 107.6 70.3 52.2 83.4 95.0 62.4 63.9 66.7 57.8
Table 5: Fragment size data from the Split Desktop analysis for the high specific charge domain
- 96 -
Size (cm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
X10 4.2 3.2 3.3 5.4 2.5 5.0 5.3 4.6 3.3 2.6 3.1 2.2 0.8 4.0 2.4
X20 7.7 6.8 6.8 9.7 5.6 8.6 9.7 9.0 6.3 6.1 7.1 5.1 3.9 9.8 6.3
X30 11.3 10.9 10.9 14.1 9.1 12.1 13.8 13.6 9.5 10.1 11.8 8.5 9.2 17.1 11.1
X40 15.2 15.7 15.7 19.3 13.7 15.8 17.9 19.0 12.9 14.4 17.5 12.1 17.1 25.2 16.8
X50 19.4 21.4 20.6 24.2 18.6 19.6 21.8 24.3 17.3 19.3 24.7 16.1 27.6 34.2 23.4
X60 23.8 27.5 26.2 29.0 24.3 23.6 25.7 30.1 21.6 23.9 33.6 20.1 42.2 43.3 30.1
X70 29.1 34.5 32.9 34.3 30.8 28.4 29.8 36.4 26.5 28.6 42.7 24.4 57.5 53.0 37.4
X80 36.2 42.8 41.8 40.3 38.3 34.6 34.7 44.1 32.5 34.4 53.7 29.3 73.5 63.4 46.5
X90 46.7 55.9 55.0 48.8 48.2 44.3 41.5 55.5 41.4 42.0 72.9 36.6 92.9 75.4 64.9
Topsize 76.1 88.2 88.5 65.7 69.1 66.6 59.8 78.1 64.5 65.0 98.2 52.7 123.5 99.4 103.7
Size (cm)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
X10 1.6 3.2 1.6 2.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 3.0 4.3 2.4 3.1 4.6 3.9 3.7 1.7
X20 5.0 7.9 5.0 7.0 3.7 4.6 4.8 6.7 8.7 5.8 7.7 9.7 9.5 9.8 4.9
X30 9.9 13.6 9.9 11.7 7.7 9.8 9.6 10.8 13.0 9.7 13.1 15.1 16.0 17.7 9.1
X40 16.6 20.2 16.0 17.2 13.0 17.2 15.9 15.3 17.7 14.4 19.1 20.8 23.5 26.8 14.6
X50 24.0 27.0 22.3 22.8 19.6 25.5 23.0 20.3 22.3 19.0 26.0 26.3 31.3 36.9 21.0
X60 31.6 34.6 29.0 28.8 28.1 35.6 30.7 25.7 27.5 24.2 32.5 32.4 40.9 46.3 29.2
X70 39.8 44.1 35.9 35.7 37.6 47.1 38.0 31.3 33.9 30.3 39.5 40.6 51.9 54.9 38.2
X80 48.3 55.0 43.5 44.5 52.3 60.2 46.2 37.4 42.4 37.7 47.4 52.2 64.5 64.7 47.2
X90 58.8 70.1 53.7 57.2 82.4 75.5 56.2 44.8 52.2 47.0 58.8 69.1 80.3 81.4 58.1
Topsize 79.1 97.4 76.9 80.4 118.2 101.0 74.8 65.0 72.9 63.0 85.9 100.5 110.4 115.0 75.4
Table 6: Fragment size data from the Split Desktop analysis for the low specific charge domain
- 97 -
Measured Planned Actual Measured Planned Actual Measured Planned Actual

Hole Planned Stemming Hole Planned Stemming Hole Planned Stemming
Length charge charge Length charge charge Length charge charge
number length (m) (m) number length (m) (m) number length (m) (m)
(m) (kg) (kg) (m) (kg) (kg) (m) (kg) (kg)
1 17.3 18.4 4.8 1114 1239 29 16.4 16.4 6.0 933 1083 57 16.0 15.9 5.5 883 976
2 17.0 17.6 1035 1135 30 16.4 16.4 6.0 936 1006 58 16.5 15.9 5.0 884 1184
3 17.0 17.2 5.5 1008 1133 31 16.7 16.6 5.0 952 1077 59 16.3 16.0 5.5 899 999
4 15.7 17.5 5.2 1027 1027 32 16.9 16.8 5.5 967 967 60 16.8 16.2 4.7 917 1017
5 17.7 17.4 5.3 1017 1100 33 16.6 17.1 4.1 993 1093 61 16.4 16.1 7.0 909 999
6 16.6 17.4 5.0 1017 1017 34 16.6 16.6 5.2 948 1073 62 13.8 16.0 5.2 892 992
7 18.2 18.2 1095 1095 35 16.6 16.1 5.2 904 904 63 16.6 15.9 5.4 885 985
8 18.5 18.5 1119 1119 36 15.9 16.1 5.5 906 1000 64 16.7 15.8 5.9 882 1002
9 18.4 18.4 4.5 1112 1112 37 17.7 16.3 5.9 919 1045 65 17.0 16.2 5.9 917 997
10 17.1 18.3 4.0 1104 1104 38 18.2 17.4 5.4 1019 1144 66 17.6 16.8 5.4 966 1276
11 16.8 17.1 2.0 994 994 39 17.5 18.4 1109 1209 67 18.0 17.8 5.1 1060 1060
12 17.1 17.0 5.9 984 1080 40 18.0 18.4 5.9 1108 1181 68 17.1 17.1 997 1057
13 17.0 17.2 6.0 1007 1007 41 18.0 16.9 978 1228 69 16.9 16.2 6.6 915 915
14 17.1 17.1 5.8 995 995 42 17.2 16.3 5.9 922 1022 70 17.6 16.0 5.5 896 1021
15 17.6 17.2 5.4 1007 1107 43 17.5 15.9 5.6 887 1089 71 16.7 16.0 5.9 895 1051
16 18.0 17.8 5.4 1054 1180 44 16.5 15.9 5.4 887 887 72 15.6 15.9 4.5 887 1051
17 17.0 17.0 982 1132 45 17.2 16.2 6.6 910 910 73 16.6 15.9 4.5 891 1016
18 16.7 16.7 4.5 956 1036 46 17.6 17.2 5.4 1002 1102 74 16.5 15.8 4.9 880 880
19 17.5 16.9 5.4 976 1076 47 17.3 16.5 6.8 939 1029 75 16.6 15.4 5.0 846 996
20 17.2 16.9 6.5 974 1094 48 16.1 16.1 5.5 903 1003 76 16.6 15.8 4.0 881 881
21 17.5 17.0 5.6 985 1105 49 16.6 15.8 7.0 882 882 77 16.5 15.9 5.9 890 1050
22 17.5 17.4 1024 1024 50 15.0 16.0 898 898 78 16.4 15.8 5.2 881 1051
23 17.5 18.1 1083 1208 51 17.0 16.5 5.2 940 1060 79 16.7 15.9 5.0 888 1098
24 17.7 18.2 6.5 1096 1196 52 17.6 17.6 5.9 1035 1035 80 16.0 16.2 5.3 914 1014
25 18.3 18.3 4.9 1106 1256 53 18.9 18.5 1116 1356 81 17.3 16.6 5.9 950 1020
26 18.5 18.2 5.9 1089 1215 54 18.0 18.4 5.2 1107 1232 82 17.9 16.7 4.5 1047 1117
27 17.9 17.5 1027 1027 55 17.6 16.9 5.0 974 1334 83 17.2 16.5 5.1 1026 1126
28 16.3 17.0 990 990 56 17.5 16.1 6.1 903 1123 84 17.5 16.0 4.0 988 1288
Table 7: MWD and charging information for blast 5162 blastholes 1-84
- 98 -
Measured Planned Actual Measured Planned Actual Measured Planned Actual

Hole Planned Stemming Hole Planned Stemming Hole Planned Stemming
Length charge charge Length charge charge Length charge charge
number length (m) (m) number length (m) (m) number length (m) (m)
(m) (kg) (kg) (m) (kg) (kg) (m) (kg) (kg)
85 16.7 15.7 5.0 963 1150 113 17.2 17.8 3.8 1149 1149 141 16.0 16.4 4.2 1019 1019
86 16.5 15.9 978 1008 114 17.3 18.3 3.5 1190 1190 142 17.2 16.5 5.0 1027 1177
87 16.1 16.0 5.2 985 1100 115 17.5 17.6 5.0 1129 1129 143 17.6 16.7 1048 1118
88 16.6 15.8 4.5 971 1121 116 17.0 16.6 5.9 1042 1102 144 17.6 17.2 5.0 1095 1095
89 16.4 15.5 4.4 938 1088 117 16.5 16.3 1012 1112 145 18.5 17.7 4.2 1139 1259
90 16.9 15.9 4.5 973 1174 118 16.5 16.3 1008 1008 146 18.0 17.6 4.8 1133 1133
91 17.0 16.0 983 1203 119 16.6 16.2 1007 1157 147 18.2 17.1 6.0 1087 1087
92 16.5 16.0 5.9 987 1051 120 16.7 16.2 5.0 1003 1131 148 18.1 16.6 1040 1100
93 14.7 15.9 3.0 981 1061 121 16.3 16.1 5.0 995 1123 149 18.2 16.5 6.0 1030 1150
94 16.7 15.9 974 974 122 16.5 16.1 5.3 992 1100 150 16.2 16.4 5.0 1018 1018
95 17.1 16.2 5.4 1002 1100 123 16.9 16.2 5.3 1005 1125 151 16.7 16.3 6.0 1010 1100
96 17.5 16.7 3.5 1052 1251 124 17.4 16.3 5.2 1008 1128 152 16.5 16.2 5.2 1002 1127
97 17.8 17.4 3.6 1107 1150 125 16.7 16.4 1018 1018 153 17.0 16.0 4.6 982 1132
98 18.5 17.5 4.8 1123 1123 126 16.3 16.5 4.0 1032 1172 154 16.3 15.9 6.1 978 1003
99 17.6 16.7 5.3 1052 1052 127 17.0 16.7 1052 1102 155 16.5 16.1 5.3 993 1048
100 17.8 16.4 5.0 1022 1102 128 17.5 17.7 5.0 1138 1138 156 17.4 16.2 5.9 1001 1081
101 17.0 16.0 990 1090 129 17.5 18.3 4.0 1191 1191 157 15.5 16.3 5.1 1013 1138
102 16.7 16.1 991 991 130 17.9 18.2 2.5 1181 1301 158 16.5 16.6 5.2 1035 1035
103 16.7 16.1 5.9 994 994 131 18.0 17.5 4.6 1118 1238 159 16.9 16.7 1049 1109
104 16.7 16.1 5.2 996 1100 132 17.3 17.1 1086 1156 160 18.8 17.4 5.9 1110 1180
105 16.8 16.1 5.3 991 991 133 18.0 16.6 5.1 1043 1193 161 15.1 17.9 3.1 1152 1222
106 16.2 16.1 4.0 993 1143 134 16.6 16.3 5.5 1017 1017 162 17.3 18.0 3.6 1161 1161
107 17.0 16.1 5.5 999 1101 135 16.8 16.3 5.0 1012 1152 163 18.6 17.7 5.2 1138 1283
108 17.0 16.2 1002 1152 136 17.5 16.2 5.3 1007 1207 164 17.0 17.0 1074 1199
109 17.0 16.2 1058 1058 137 16.3 16.0 4.6 988 1138 165 16.6 16.7 4.2 1052 1152
110 17.2 16.2 1004 1104 138 16.3 16.0 4.7 986 1136 166 16.9 16.2 4.0 1008 1158
111 17.0 16.4 4.4 1025 1105 139 16.6 16.2 5.3 1003 1128 167 16.5 16.1 4.6 996 996
112 17.8 17.3 5.9 1104 1104 140 16.5 16.3 5.0 1010 1130 168 16.4 16.0 5.4 989 989
Table 8: MWD and charging information for blast 5162 blast holes 85-168
- 99 -
Measured Planned Actual

Hole Planned Stemming
Length charge charge
number length (m) (m)
(m) (kg) (kg)
169 16.2 15.9 5.4 981 1006

170 16.2 15.9 5.4 975 1000
171 16.0 15.9 5.5 976 1001
172 16.5 16.0 5.1 982 1107
173 16.2 16.2 3.5 1007 1107
174 16.5 16.7 6.0 1046 1046
175 17.3 17.2 4.8 1089 1149
176 18.0 17.7 5.9 1134 1204
177 18.0 18.0 5.0 1161 1161
Table 9: MWD and charging information for blast 5162 blast holes 169 - 177
- 100 -
High Specific charge domain Low Specific charge domain

Size (m) Percent Passing Percent
Size (m)
Square pattern design Square pattern design Passing
Hole Diameter 311mm 0.0010 18.9% Hole Diameter 311 mm 0.0010 12.6%
Charge Length 13.4m 0.0050 30.3% Charge Length 12.8 m 0.0050 22.4%
Burden 6.5m 0.0200 43.9% Burden 7.5 m 0.0200 35.3%
Spacing 8.1m 0.0300 48.5% Spacing 9.5 m 0.0300 39.9%
Drill Accuracy SD 0.45m 0.0400 51.9% Drill Accuracy SD 0.45 m 0.0400 43.4%
Bench Height 15m 0.0600 56.9% Bench Height 15 m 0.0600 48.7%
Charge Density 1.35kg/m3 0.0800 60.4% Charge Density 1.08 kg/m3 0.0800 52.6%
Charge Weight per hole 1115.00kg/hole 0.1000 63.2% Charge Weight per hole 1066.00kg/hole 0.1000 55.7%
Sub drill 2m 0.1200 65.5% Sub drill 2 m 0.1200 58.3%
0.1500 68.3% 0.1500 61.5%
Explosive material 0.2000 71.8% Explosive material 0.2000 65.6%
Density 1.1SG 0.2500 77.3% Density 1.1 SG 0.2500 68.8%
RWS 85%(% ANFO) 0.3000 87.3% RWS 85% (% ANFO) 0.3000 77.7%
Nominal VOD 5200m/s 0.3500 93.4% Nominal VOD 5200 m/s 0.3500 85.8%
0.4000 96.9% 0.4000 91.3%
Rock factor A 5.3 0.5000 99.4% Rock factor A 5.2 0.5000 97.2%
Average fragment size 3.4cm 0.6000 99.9% Average fragment size 6.7 cm 0.6000 99.2%
Uniformity Exponent (fine) 0.34 0.7000 100.0% Uniformity Exponent (fine) 0.39 0.7000 99.8%
Uniformity Exponent (Coarse) 1.806 0.8000 100.0% Uniformity Exponent (Coarse) 1.692 0.8000 100.0%
FC 0.23 FC 0.20
Characteristic size 0.236m Characteristic size 0.260 m
X20 0.0014m X20 0.0040 m
X80 0.2634m X80 0.3141 m
Table 10: Input parameters and fragment size distribution curves for the CZM model
The customized version of the model includes an altered formula for the determination of the critical size xc and a different formula for the
determination of the proportion of crushed material both equations can be seen below (equations 1,2).
( ) (
X c = 0.3115 ⋅ 1 − e −0.9263⋅Fc ⋅100 + 0.7 ⋅ 1 − e −0.04⋅Fc ⋅100 ) (1)
- 101 -
⎛ Vcr ⎞ 0.75 (2)
Fc = ⎜ ⎟+
⎝ B ⋅ S ⋅ H ⎠ JS
A different expression is also used for the determination of the parameters required for the calculation of the rock factor A. The expressions for
each parameter can be seen below (equations 3-7) .
RMD = 5.56 + 44.4 ⋅ JS = 36.6 (3)

2
JS ⎛ JS ⎞
JPS = 200 ⋅ − 200 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = 13.7 LCD, 15.8 HCD (4)
S ⎝ S ⎠
RDI = 25 ⋅ ( ρ − 2 ) = 20 (5)
E
HF = = 16.7 (6)
3
A = 0.06 ⋅ ( RMD + JPS + RDI + HF ) (7)
To be noted here is the fact that the column charge length is calculated according to the quantity of explosive material going into each blast hole
taking into consideration an average theoretical explosive density. In reality, there is a possibility of the explosive density fluctuating as well as
the possibility of explosive leakage from within each blast hole, through the discontinuities of the bench. Therefore, the theoretical values used
for the model calculations might not exactly match the measured values mentioned in the data tables.
- 102 -
Low Specific charge domain High Specific charge domain

Percent Percent passing
Size (m) Size (m)
b 2.661 passing (%) b 2.120 (%)
Xmax/X50 5.485 0.0010 2.1% Xmax/X50 4.651 0.0010 4.1%
Xmax 1.276 m 0.0050 4.1% Xmax 0.914 m 0.0050 7.0%
X50 0.233 m 0.0200 8.5% X50 0.197 m 0.0200 12.7%
0.0300 10.9% 0.0300 15.5%
0.0400 13.1% 0.0400 18.1%
0.0600 17.4% 0.0600 22.9%
0.0800 21.5% 0.0800 27.4%
0.1000 25.5% 0.1000 31.6%
0.1200 29.4% 0.1200 35.7%
0.1500 35.2% 0.1500 41.5%
0.2000 44.4% 0.2000 50.6%
0.2500 52.9% 0.2500 58.9%
0.3000 60.6% 0.3000 66.4%
0.3500 67.5% 0.3500 73.1%
0.4000 73.5% 0.4000 78.8%
0.5000 83.0% 0.5000 87.9%
0.6000 89.7% 0.6000 94.0%
0.7000 94.1% 0.7000 97.6%
0.8000 96.9% 0.8000 99.4%
0.9000 98.5% 0.9000 100.0%
1.0000 99.4%
1.1000 99.8%
1.2000 100.0%
Table 11: Input parameters and fragment size distribution curves for the KCO model
- 103 -
Low Specific charge domain High specific charge domain

Size Percent Size Percent
Square pattern design (m) Passing Square pattern design (m) Passing
Hole Diameter 311 mm 0.01 0.4% Hole Diameter 311 mm 0.01 0.4%
Charge Length 12.8 m 0.05 4.6% Charge Length 13.4 m 0.05 5.3%
Burden 7.5 m 0.10 13.4% Burden 6.5 m 0.10 16.2%
Spacing 9.5 m 0.15 24.2% Spacing 8.1 m 0.15 29.6%
Drill Accuracy SD 0.45 m 0.20 35.6% Drill Accuracy SD 0.45 m 0.20 43.6%
Bench Height 15 m 0.25 46.7% Bench Height 15 m 0.25 56.6%
Charge Density 1.08 kg/m3 0.30 56.9% Charge Density 1.35 kg/m3 0.30 68.0%
Charge Weight per hole 1066.00 kg/hole 0.35 66.0% Charge Weight per hole 1115.00 kg/hole 0.35 77.2%
0.40 73.7% 0.40 84.4%
Explosive material 0.45 80.1% Explosive material 0.45 89.6%
Density 1.1 SG 0.50 85.2% Density 1.1 SG 0.50 93.3%
RWS 85% (% ANFO) 0.55 89.2% RWS 85% (% ANFO) 0.55 95.9%
Nominal VOD 5200 m/s 0.60 92.3% Nominal VOD 5200 m/s 0.60 97.5%
0.65 94.6% 0.65 98.5%
Rock factor A 7.3 0.70 96.3% Rock factor A 7.3 0.70 99.2%
Average fragment size 26.6 cm 0.75 97.4% Average Size of Material 22.4 cm 0.75 99.5%
Uniformity Exponent 1.61 0.80 98.3% Uniformity Exponent 1.70 0.80 99.8%
0.85 98.9% 0.85 99.9%
X20 13.1 cm 0.90 99.3% X20 11.4 cm 0.90 99.9%
X80 44.9 cm 0.95 99.5% X80 36.9 cm 0.95 100.0%
1.00 99.7% 1.00 100.0%
1.05 99.8% 1.05 100.0%
1.10 99.9% 1.10 100.0%
1.15 99.9% 1.15 100.0%
1.20 100.0% 1.20 100.0%
1.25 100.0% 1.25 100.0%
1.30 100.0% 1.30 100.0%
Table 12: Input parameters and fragment size distribution curves from the Kuz – Ram model
- 104 -

Size (m) Percent passing (%) Size (m) Percent passing (%)
Crusher model output Crusher model output
Crusher Crusher Crusher Crusher model Crusher model Crusher model
model Split model KCO model CZM Split Desktop KCO model CZM model
Desktop input model input model input input input input
0.0010 0.8% 2.2% 14.5% 0.0010 0.8% 4.1% 17.5%
0.0050 3.0% 4.3% 24.7% 0.0050 3.1% 7.2% 28.7%
0.0200 9.1% 9.9% 38.2% 0.0200 9.6% 13.9% 42.9%
0.0300 13.1% 13.5% 43.4% 0.0300 13.8% 17.8% 48.1%
0.0400 17.0% 17.0% 47.7% 0.0400 18.5% 21.6% 52.3%
0.0600 25.1% 24.4% 54.6% 0.0600 26.4% 29.1% 58.9%
0.0800 33.2% 32.1% 60.5% 0.0800 34.9% 36.7% 64.3%
0.1000 41.4% 40.0% 65.8% 0.1000 43.4% 44.4% 69.1%
0.1200 49.6% 48.1% 70.7% 0.1200 52.6% 52.1% 73.5%
0.1500 61.5% 60.4% 77.7% 0.1500 63.5% 63.6% 79.5%
0.2000 81.1% 80.5% 88.2% 0.2000 82.8% 82.3% 88.5%
0.2500 90.8% 90.1% 92.9% 0.2500 92.3% 91.1% 93.1%
0.3000 95.5% 95.4% 96.2% 0.3000 96.2% 95.8% 97.4%
0.3500 98.0% 98.1% 98.6% 0.3500 98.3% 98.3% 99.2%
0.4000 99.4% 99.5% 99.7% 0.4000 99.5% 99.6% 99.9%
0.5000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.5000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
0.6000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.6000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
0.7000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.7000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
0.8000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.8000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
0.9000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.9000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.0000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.0000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.1000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.1000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.2000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.2000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.3000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.3000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.4000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.4000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.5000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.5000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.6000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.6000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.7000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.7000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.8000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.8000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 13: Crusher model outputs for different model feeds
- 105 -
Low Specific Charge Domain High Specific Charge Domain

Percent Mean size Std Deviation Std Deviation Mean size Std Deviation Std Deviation
passing (%) (mm) (mm) % (mm) (mm) %
10% 2 1 33.9 2 1 40.9
20% 8 2 23.7 9 3 29.1
30% 19 4 18.9 20 5 23.3
40% 34 5 16.0 36 7 19.6
50% 54 8 14.0 57 10 17.0
60% 80 10 12.8 82 12 15.0
70% 107 13 12.3 109 15 13.9
80% 139 16 11.6 141 18 13.1
90% 186 20 10.8 189 23 12.1
100% 345 41 11.8 348 44 12.7
Table 14: Average fragmentation data from the “Split Online” system installed on the conveyor belt right after the primary crusher
- 106 -
Time series plot for X20 with data acquired from the "Split Online system"
25
20
X20 (mm)
15
10
0
14/03/2008 14:24 15/03/2008 00:00 15/03/2008 09:36 15/03/2008 19:12 16/03/2008 04:48 16/03/2008 14:24 17/03/2008 00:00 17/03/2008 09:36
100
80
X50 (mm)
60
40
20
0
14/03/2008 14:24 15/03/2008 00:00 15/03/2008 09:36 15/03/2008 19:12 16/03/2008 04:48 16/03/2008 14:24 17/03/2008 00:00 17/03/2008 09:36
250
200
X80 (mm)
150
100
50
0
14/03/2008 14:24 15/03/2008 00:00 15/03/2008 09:36 15/03/2008 19:12 16/03/2008 04:48 16/03/2008 14:24 17/03/2008 00:00 17/03/2008 09:36
Graphs 1,2,3: Time series plots for X20, X50 and X80 with data acquired from the “Split Online” system for the high specific charge domain
- 107 -
Time series plot for X20 with data acquired from the "Split Online" system
20
15
X20 (mm) 10
0
10/03/2008 12:00 11/03/2008 00:00 11/03/2008 12:00 12/03/2008 00:00 12/03/2008 12:00 13/03/2008 00:00 13/03/2008 12:00 14/03/2008 00:00 14/03/2008 12:00
100
80
X50 (mm)
60
40
20
0
10/03/2008 12:00 11/03/2008 00:00 11/03/2008 12:00 12/03/2008 00:00 12/03/2008 12:00 13/03/2008 00:00 13/03/2008 12:00 14/03/2008 00:00 14/03/2008 12:00
250
200
X80 (mm)
150
100
50
0
10/03/2008 12:00 11/03/2008 00:00 11/03/2008 12:00 12/03/2008 00:00 12/03/2008 12:00 13/03/2008 00:00 13/03/2008 12:00 14/03/2008 00:00 14/03/2008 12:00
Graphs 4,5,6: Time series plots for X20, X50 and X80 with data acquired from the “Split Online” system for the low specific charge domain
- 108 -

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008:071

Fragmentation analysis of optimized

Luleå University of Technology

Master Thesis, Continuation Courses

2008:071 - ISSN: 1653-0187 - ISRN: LTU-PB-EX--08/071--SE

OPTIMIZED BLASTING ROUNDS IN THE

AITIK MINE - EFFECT OF SPECIFIC

Luleå University of Technology

Boliden’s Aitik copper mine.

mine’s engineering staff in field data acquisition is gratefully acknowledged.

invaluable support and patience throughout the course of my academic studies.

I fältarbete ingick en detaljerad uppföljning av borrnings- och laddningsarbetet.

Styckefallsanalysen har gett ett blandat resultat. För medelstyckefallet x50 är

Det är möjligt att krossmodellen underskattar bildandet av finmaterial i

Utökad sammanfattning ..................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ............................................................................ v

2.1 BENCH BLASTING ...................................................................................................................3

3 Aitik Mine ................................................................................... 19

4 Background information on blast no. 5162 .................................. 20

4.1 GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................................20

5 Fragmentation analysis .............................................................. 28

5.1 CRITERION FOR CHOOSING WHICH IMAGES TO ANALYZE ......................................................29

6 Conclusions and future work ...................................................... 71

The present research is a continuation of the work performed by Nyberg. The

2.1 Bench blasting

Figure 2.1: Bench blasting geometry and terminology (Bergman, 2005)

2.2 Blast fragmentation

2.2.1 Fragmentation’s influence in down-stream operations

2.2.2 Blast fragmentation models

2.2.2.1 The Kuz – Ram Model

A = 0.06 ⋅ ( RMD + RDI + HF ) (2.5)

RDI: Rock density influence: ( 0.025 ⋅ p) − 50 (kg/m3)

The 50 % passing fragment size (x50) appears to be mainly influenced by explosive-

The uniformity index (n) appears to be mainly influenced by blast geometry

1983). A decrease in the burden to hole-diameter ratio B ( D) will have a positive

2.2.2.2 The JKMRC models

2.2.2.2.1 Crushed Zone Model (CZM)

The detonation pressure is given by the equation:

The fraction of the crushed material is calculated through equation 2.11.

2.2.2.2.2 The Two Component Model (TCM)

And the mean block size is given in meters.

2.2.2.3 The KCO Model

2.3 Image analysis

• The measurements can be completely automated eliminating several process-

• A great number of measurements can be made, which increases the overall

• It is a non- intrusive to production method since it requires no interruption of

• Errors related to the method of analysis of the images

• Errors related to the sample presentation

• Errors related to the imaging process

• Errors related to the sampling process

For more details see (Maerz & Zhou, 1998)

As mentioned above, image analysis is a “non intrusive” method. Images of the

Map 3.1: Geological map of the Aitik mining area.

4 Background information on blast no. 5162

Low specific High specific

Low specific High specific

The planned values indicated a total of 178105 kg of emulsion was to be charged in a

Figure 5.1: Example of cropped (right) and un-cropped image (left)

Truck type Inner tray diameter ( cm ) Outer tray diameter ( cm )

5.1 Criterion for choosing which images to analyze

5.1.1 Light conditions

5.1.2 Presence of unwanted particles in the image

Dust is another example of unwanted particles within an image. Apart from