PROOF COPY

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6
7 Impact of burden and spacing on 6
7
8
9
10
fragment size distribution and 8
9
10
11
12 total cost in quarry mining 11
12
13 13
14 V. Kecojevic 14
15 Assistant professor of mining engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 15
16 University Park, Pennsylvania 16
17 17
18 D. Komljenovic 18
19 —TITLE—, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Quebec, Trois-Rivières, Canada 19
20 20
21 21
22 Abstract 22
23 Quarry mining operations consist of a chain of processes, including drilling, blasting, loading, haul- 23
24 ing and crushing. Drilling and blasting result in fragmentation that can affect downstream processes. 24
25 The resulting oversized and/or undersized fragmentation can determine the value of the final product, 25
26 the production cost and the energy consumption. Though most previously completed research studies 26
27 pointed out the benefits of taking a holistic approach to the entire mining process, this study undertakes 27
28 a novel approach in determining the impact of drilling and blasting geometry (burden and spacing) 28
29 on fragment size distribution and the total cost of a quarry operation. Mathematical modeling is used 29
30 and the process is coded within the MS Excel environment. A study on fragment size distribution and 30
31 mining cost was performed on an operating quarry in eastern Pennsylvania. The obtained results show 31
32 that a new drilling/blasting geometry may reduce the total mining cost by 8.6%. The research presented 32
33 contributes to the domain of surface mining engineering and can be used by quarry professionals to 33
34 evaluate different drilling and blasting scenarios. 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 Introduction (2005) shows that a typical cost distribution in quarry mining 39
40 Most mining operations consist of a chain of several processes, is as follows: drilling and blasting account for 25%; loading 40
41 including drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and crushing. and transport account for 25 %; and crushing, screening and 41
42 The main objective of drilling and blasting, the first elements storage account for 50%. Crushing, screening and storage 42
43 of the ore extraction process, is to fracture the in situ rock represent about half of the cost, whereas drilling represents 43
44 mass while maintaining safety and environmental standards. less than 10% of the total cost. 44
45 This subprocess needs to produce fragment size distribu- Hagan (1983) states that of the three most important prop- 45
46 tions tailored to minimize the production costs and energy erties of muck piles, i.e., fragmentation, looseness and shape, 46
47 consumption in downstream processes, including loading, fragmentation has the greatest affect on mining costs. Studies 47
48 hauling and crushing. by Persson et al. (1994) and Scott and McKee (1994) yielded 48
49 P&H Mining Pro data indicate that drilling and blasting results showing that the degree of fragmentation influences the 49
50 typically account for 15%, loading and hauling account for economy of the excavation. Moody et al. (1996) found that 50
51 75% and ancillary operations account for 10% of the total cost power consumption at the crusher is more sensitive to rock 51
52 of primary mining process (Harnischfeger Corp., 2003). When dimensions than to tonnage. A study by McKee et al. (1995) 52
53 the cost of mining and processing operations are considered showed that the benefits of good fragmentation can extend fur- 53
54 together, drilling and blasting account for 6%, loading and ther to the grinding circuits because most of the power/energy 54
55 hauling account for 30%, ancillary operations account for 4% used at a mine is consumed by crushing and grinding. 55
56 and processing accounts for 60%. The latter shows the need to In most cases, the drilling and blasting regime depends on 56
57 reduce costs at the processing step, where the consumption of the requirements for the final product size of the ore being 57
58 energy and cost is the highest. A study performed by Fernberg mined. Copper ore, for instance, may end up in a powder form 58
59 59
60 60
61 61
62 62
63 Paper number TP-06-009. Original manuscript submitted online March 2006. Revised manuscript accepted for publication 63
June 2006. Discussion of this peer-reviewed and approved paper is invited and must be submitted to SME Publications
64 Dept. prior to Sept 30, 2007. Copyright 2006, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. 64
65 65

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION 133 Vol. 320 • 2006 TRANSACTIONS
 PROOF COPY
1 as the final product for beneficiation, whereas the final product comparison indicated a 19% difference in specific fracture 1
2 of a stone quarry may be 25.4 mm (1 in.). A quarry operator, energy from blasting. The results showed the potential benefits 2
3 therefore, may be interested in ensuring that excessive blasting of blast-induced damage to the comminution processes. In this 3
4 does not lead to stone finer than a specific size. The Advanced study, the average uniaxial compressive strengths for damaged 4
5 Optimization Group (2005) indicates that for many quarries specimens (exposed to blasting) were slightly lower than for 5
6 fines are a problem in terms of lost saleable stone and stor- intact specimens (those not exposed to blasting). 6
7 age. Lejuge and Cox (1995) state that fragmentation control A study by Nielsen and Kristiansen (1996) shows that there 7
8 is perhaps the most critical aspect of quarrying operations, are two important results of blasting. The first is that the frag- 8
9 potentially impacting on the costs of all downstream processes ment size distribution can be seen and easily measured because 9
10 and sometimes even on the economic viability of an operation. of tools available for this purpose and the second is that crack 10
11 Therefore, the research challenge is to provide the solutions generation (microfracturing) that occurs within fragments is 11
12 where quarry operators will be able to minimize the total cost not easily seen or measured but plays an important role in 12
13 of mining process while securing an appropriate fragmentation the reduction of energy usage during crushing and grinding. 13
14 size for the downstream process. The authors found that the effect of internal fractures is to 14
15 The research presented in this paper considers the impact make the fragments less resistant to breakage, i.e., it is easier 15
16 of burden and spacing on the target objectives, i.e., fragment for the crusher to fragment feed that has been extensively 16
17 size distribution and minimal total mining costs. There are microfractured. 17
18 particular values of burden and spacing that should result in The same authors (Nielsen and Kristiansen, 1995) presented 18
19 minimum total unit cost. By connecting the burden and spacing the results of several industrial and laboratory blasting, crushing 19
20 to fragment size distribution and costs, it is possible to establish and grinding tests and experiments. These tests and experi- 20
21 the values of these variables that yield optimum results. An ments investigated the influence of blasting on the subsequent 21
22 assumption is made that the cost of drilling is fixed on the basis crushing and grinding operations. They also discussed how the 22
23 of dollars per unit length of drill holes, such as when drilling results of the tests could help in evaluating the whole com- 23
24 is subcontracted. Therefore, the variation of the total cost of minution system. One of their findings is that the amount of 24
25 drilling should be thought of as a linear function, i.e., it depends explosive energy and how this energy is applied will influence 25
26 only on the number of drill holes required and the sum of the the crushability and grindability of hard component ore. The 26
27 depths (lengths) of these drill holes. The slope of this linear authors indicated that blast design should aim at an economic 27
28 function is a flat drilling rate ($/unit depth) that is applicable optimum by balancing the use of chemical energy applied to 28
29 to the prevailing conditions at a particular mine site. the rock by the explosive, and the electrical energy applied in 29
30 This paper provides an overview of previous research related crushing and grinding. 30
31 to optimization of the entire mining chain costs; describes a Work done at the Julius Krusttschnitt Mineral Research 31
32 new mathematical model developed for determining the impact Center (JKMRC, 1999) shows that good fragmentation of run- 32
33 of drilling and blasting geometry on fragment size distribution of-mine ore has the greatest beneficial effects at the crushing 33
34 and the total mining costs in quarry operations; and presents the circuit. This is especially true for machines such as jaw and 34
35 results of a case study on the example of an operating quarry gyratory crushers, where the power draw is dependent on the 35
36 in eastern Pennsylvania. ore feed rate and the size reduction across the machine. 36
37 In a study at the McCoy/Cove Mine owned by Echo Bay 37
38 Bibliography review Minerals Company, Fuerstenau et al. (1995) conducted full- 38
39 Mackenzie (1967) performed some of the earliest research in scale blasting experiments. The portion of the ore body on which 39
40 the area of blast optimization in surface mining operations. The the test blasts were conducted was limestone. Redistributing 40
41 research established a method of evaluating optimum blasting the energy from the crushing and grinding steps to the blast- 41
42 and presented operating data to illustrate its use and effective- ing reduced the total energy expenditure in mining and ore 42
43 ness. Conceptual curves illustrating the interdependence of the preparation processes. The study was conducted by adjusting 43
44 steps in the mining production chain were used. The authors blasting parameters, i.e., burden and spacing distance and 44
45 acknowledged the difficulty of optimizing the entire surface charge length. The burden and spacing distances were reduced 45
46 mining sequence because of the large number of variables and by 25% first and later the charge length was increased by 25%. 46
47 parameters that need to be considered. However, it was further In each test, eight blast holes were involved in the experiment. 47
48 elaborated that optimization can be successfully implemented if Four of them were fired with regular blasting parameters while 48
49 only dominant variables are considered. Focusing on efficiency the other four with adjusted parameters. The blasted material 49
50 and minimum cost as the primary objectives, Mackenzie (1967) was subjected to two laboratory-scale comminution tests, i.e., 50
51 conducted a study using data from an iron mine in Canada. single-particle roll mill crushing and ball mill grinding. 51
52 The results of this study indicated better fragmentation that The findings from this study are that more than 10% energy 52
53 improved the productivity of downstream steps, i.e., loading, is saved in both the crushing and grinding processes through 53
54 hauling and crushing. reducing the burden and spacing distance by 25% or increas- 54
55 Eloranta and Workman (1995) studied drilling and blast- ing the charge length by 25%. These results indicate that an 55
56 ing optimization and emphasized the use of energy where it increase in consumption of explosives at an operation may 56
57 is least costly and conserving it where it is most expensive. very well result in overall savings for the mine. However, the 57
58 The authors stated that an important component of optimum study does not say by how much the actual cost of drilling and 58
59 fragmentation for reducing energy consumption during crush- blasting increased due to tightened blast patterns and increased 59
60 ing and grinding is microfracturing. Further support for the powder consumption, but it is clear that the increased costs 60
61 concept of microfracturing is provided by the work of Mc- were offset by the overall savings. 61
62 Carter (1996), who employed a load-cell device to measure the Burden and spacing are the two most important variables 62
63 specific fracture energy of pairs of samples. The author states in blast design (Ash, 1963). According to Ash (1990), the 63
64 that out of the seven rock types tested, five showed precondi- spacing/burden ratio should be between 1 and 2. It was sug- 64
65 tioning (microfracturing) benefits from blasting. A statistical gested that blastholes initiated independent of one another 65

2006 TRANSACTIONS • Vol. 320 134 SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION
 PROOF COPY
1 will require this ratio to be between 1 and 1.5, where a value are specific to a given site, Thornton et al. (2002) developed 1
2 of 1.41 is the ideal geometric balance for breakage of massive a stochastic technique to identify the parameters that have the 2
3 material. The author further states that rocks with joint planes greatest influence on various size fractions in a distribution 3
4 almost perpendicular to one another should have a ratio of 1.41, of fragments. The authors stated that the various blast-related 4
5 while rocks with joint planes oriented at close to 60° with one parameters influence different parts of the fragmentation size 5
6 another and blastholes with long delay interval should have distribution, e.g., rock strength and explosive velocity of 6
7 the ratio value at 1.15. detonation have most impact on the fines. This goes back to 7
8 Kojovic et al. (1995) did extensive research at the Mt. Coot- the idea of target application of energy to effectively tailor the 8
9 tha quarry in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Changes in blast results to get the desired final product. In this case, the blast 9
10 design were done by adjusting the burden and spacing alone. designer can adjust the parameters of the blast to get desired 10
11 The powder factor increased from 0.52 to 0.61 kg/m3. Some results at a particular part of the distribution. 11
12 of the reported improvements were 25% increases in loading In a similar effort to develop universally applicable tools, 12
13 and handling productivity, saving $0.40/t, and a savings in Simangunsong et al. (2002) developed a new approach for the 13
14 crushing of $0.30/t. Total savings were $0.70 less $0.05/t due prediction of blast results based on the theory of the Natural 14
15 to increased blasting cost, for a net savings of $0.65/t. Breakage Characteristics (NBC). The NBC parameters were 15
16 A study by Kanchibotla et al. (1998) showed that an increase determined with a test procedure called optimized comminution 16
17 in powder factor from 0.58 to 0.66 kg/m3 resulted in a decrease sequence. The empirical fragmentation equation was developed 17
18 in grinding power consumption from 10.2 to 9.0 kWh/t. The based on Bergman’s model (Bergmann et al., 1973) and it was 18
19 crushing capacity increased from 1,250 to 1,420 t/hr. The au- found that was a reasonably good fit of data with the model. 19
20 thors state that a much larger powder factor increase to 0.96 According to Moser et al. (2000) the optimized comminu- 20
21 kg/m3 resulted in only a small further improvement in crushing tion is the steepest uniformity fragmentation size distribution 21
22 capacity (60 t/hr) and a correspondingly smaller decrease in achievable in the fragmentation process. The researchers on 22
23 power consumption (0.4 kWh/t). The explanation for increased this project also used the fragmentation model by Bergmann 23
24 throughput is that the higher powder factor resulted in fine et al. (1973), which was originally developed for granite, 24
25 material that flowed freely through the mill. limestone and sandstone. This model revealed the relationship 25
26 Nzombola (2005) performed a comparative analysis for between average fragment size and blasting parameters. The 26
27 drilling and blasting parameters in quarry operations. The researchers concluded that the NBC concept could be used to 27
28 author used the Kuz-Ram model to obtain fragment size distri- evaluate whether the actual blast fragmentation distribution is 28
29 butions and calculated the total explosive energy and unit cost already close to the optimum or not. 29
30 of obtaining a given fragment size distribution. The unit cost Assuming that the blast design has been successfully opti- 30
31 was derived from the cost of energy expended in fragmenting mized, there is the issue of accurate implementation in the field 31
32 material using explosive energy. every time the design is used. According to Scott (1992), this 32
33 Rantapaa et al. (2005) documented measurable improve- is one of the reasons blasting seldom gives consistent results 33
34 ments in production at Barrick Goldstrike due to increased ore from one blast to the next. Scott states that the most common 34
35 fragmentation through efficient drilling and blasting techniques. problem experienced in the field involve the real differences 35
36 A series of tests was conducted to determine if adjustments to between blasting operations “as designed” and “as built.” One of 36
37 drilling and blasting could positively influence throughput. Bet- his findings is that 60% of the blasting problems were caused by 37
38 ter fragmentation and a subsequent increase in mill throughput such differences. For example, a study by Hermansson (1983) 38
39 were achieved through the use of electronic caps, explosives contends that unsatisfactory drilling techniques cause hole 39
40 with higher velocity of detonation and improved distribution deviation, which leads not only to a wide spread in fragment 40
41 of explosives by decreasing pattern spacing. The authors state size distribution but also limitation on practical hole length. 41
42 that these changes resulted in benefits to operation of $1.3 to Clearly, it is not enough to have optimized blast designs, but 42
43 $1.5 million in 2003. Lejuge and Cox (1995) studied the bulk it is necessary to make certain that they are implemented ac- 43
44 emulsion and watergel explosive performance, using velocity cording to specification in the field. 44
45 of detonation measurements and its impact on fragmentation. The studies reviewed here take different approaches to 45
46 The findings showed a strong correlation between blast hole optimizing the drilling and blasting for crushing and further 46
47 velocity of detonation and fragmentation. ore processing. For example, the increase in crushing capacity 47
48 Bearman et al. (1991) conducted a study with a laboratory- and corresponding decrease in power consumption due to a 48
49 scale cone crusher to determine the effect of feed size, closed higher powder factor supports the idea that blasting can posi- 49
50 side setting and rock strength on the power consumption and tively influence crushing. This finding is highlighted by most 50
51 product size. Their findings include equations that are used of the studies discussed here. Another pertinent finding is that 51
52 for predicting power consumption and the 80% passing size utilizing higher powder factors reaches a value beyond which 52
53 of product for a range of closed side settings. This is a note- it is no longer beneficial to the downstream process. Therefore, 53
54 worthy finding because it enables a prediction of power that an optimization exercise should be intended to search for the 54
55 is consumed by the crushing plant to give 80% passing size particular range of values of powder factors that optimizes the 55
56 of a given material. Using these equations, adjustments can be process, i.e., maximizes capacity while minimizing consump- 56
57 made to minimize the consumption of power by the crushing tion of power by the crusher. 57
58 plant through control of feed. Though most of the studies reviewed here focus on pointing 58
59 Field experimentation in this area is not taken lightly due out the benefits of taking a holistic approach to mining opera- 59
60 to the cost of implementation and the associated risk of mak- tions and providing cases where certain techniques achieved 60
61 ing changes where knowledge of the likely effects is lacking. optimization objectives at one operation or other, only two at- 61
62 Modeling and simulation are a cost-effective way to evaluate tempted to develop tools that are universally applicable. Some 62
63 new blasting and comminution strategies while minimizing risk of the studies point out parameters in the design of a blast that 63
64 (Kanchiboltla et al., 1998). In an effort to develop methods that are influential to the operations in one form or another. This 64
65 can be universally applied as opposed to studying trends that paper shows an optimization model that ties drilling and blast- 65

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION 135 Vol. 320 • 2006 TRANSACTIONS
 PROOF COPY
1 ing variables (burden and spacing) to target results including • Drilling and blasting require less effort to yield oversized 1
2 fragment size distribution and total mining costs. fragmentation, and more effort to produce undersized 2
3 fragmentation. 3
4 Optimization model • Loading, haulage and crushing productivity decreases 4
5 Background. Optimization seeks the ideal values for a series with oversized fragmentation. This is due to a number 5
6 of variables contained within an objective function subject to of factors such as an increase of equipment maneuvering 6
7 a set of constraints on the values of the controlling variables time, a decrease of fill factor, and an increase of swell 7
8 (Crawford, 2003). It may target the operating factors that factor in particular for loading and haulage equipment. 8
9 maximize an objective function (maximizing profit) or mini- The crushing operation is less effective while handling 9
10 mize the objective function (minimize costs). The optimization oversized fragmentation. 10
11 model should have the ability to predict the impact on some • Loading, haulage and crushing productivity increases 11
12 performance target from the various components controlling with undersized fragmentation. The increase in produc- 12
13 production and must contain a series of constraints to limit tivity is due to more favorable fill and swell factors as 13
14 solutions to feasible answers. well as less equipment maneuvering time. The energy 14
15 consumption decreases in crushing operation with un- 15
16 Model development. The optimization model developed here dersized fragmentation. 16
17 includes the perfomance targets such as the fragment size 17
18 distribution and the total cost of mining process. Optimization criterion represents the total cost of mining 18
19 There are a number of models that are used to predict process (drilling, blasting, loading, haulage and crushing) and 19
20 fragment size distribution. However, two main models have can be expressed as 20
21 been taken into consideration in this analysis — Kuz-Ram and CTM = C DR / BL + CT − L / H /CR (inrange ) + 21
22 JKMRC’s blast fragmentation models. The Kuz-Ram model, 22
CT − L / H /CR ( oversize ) + CT − L / H /CR (undersize ) → min (1)
23 developed by Cunningham (1983), is the most popular and 23
24 represents a combination of Kuznetsov’s and Rossin-Rammler’s where 24
25 equations. A drawback of the Kuz-Ram model is that it needs CTM is the total cost of mining process (drilling, blasting, 25
26 verification and calibration by other means, such as image- loading, haulage and crushing) ($), 26
27 based fragmentation analysis (Chung and Katsabanis, 2000). CDR/BL is the drilling and blasting cost ($), 27
28 This is due to the nature of the rock being blasted. The rock CT-L/H/CR(inrange) is the loading, haulage and crushing 28
29 properties change significantly from site to site, even within costs when fragmented rock mass is inside the required 29
30 the same site these properties may change over relatively short range ($), 30
31 distances. According to Cunningham (1983), other points to CT-L/H/CR (oversize) is the loading, haulage and crushing costs 31
32 note concerning the model include: when fragmented rock mass is oversized ($) and 32
33 CT-L/H/CR (undersize) is the loading, haulage and crushing costs 33
34 • the spacing/burden ratio applies to the drilling and not when fragmented rock mass is undersized ($). 34
35 the timing, and this ratio should not exceed 2; 35
36 • initiation and timing must be arranged so as to reasonably Each of these cost subcategories can be modeled as follows 36
37 enhance fragmentation and avoid misfires or cut-offs; C DR / BL = 37
38 • the explosive should yield energy close to its calculated 38
39 Relative Weight Strength; and (
ATOTAL ⋅ C DR ⋅ LH + 0.25 ⋅ Cex ⋅ d 2π ⋅ Lex − ch ⋅ d ex )
(2)
39
40 • the jointing and homogeneity of the ground require care- B⋅S 40
41 ful assessment as fragmentation is often built into the 41
42 rock structure, particularly when loose jointing is more CT − L / H /CR (inrange ) = 42
43 closely spaced than the drilling pattern.  C 43
C C  (3)
44 VT ⋅ P(inrange ) ⋅  L + H + CR  44
45 The JKMRC’s blast fragmentation model uses a modified  QN ( L ) QN ( H ) QN (CR )  45
46 version of the Kuz-Ram model to predict the coarse end of the 46
47 distribution while the fine end is estimated from theoretical CT − L / H /CR ( oversize ) = 47
48 equations (Kojovic et al., 1995; Comeau, 1996). The model uses   48
rock mass, blast pattern and explosive properties to predict the CL CH CCR (4)
49 VT ⋅ P( oversize ) ⋅  + +  49
50 entire fragment size distribution. Like the Kuz-Ram model, this  a L ⋅ QN ( L ) a H ⋅ QN ( H ) a CR ⋅ QN (CR )  50
51 model is also a single-hole model (Thornton et al., 2002), i.e., 51
52 it assumes the same parameters (rock type and blast pattern) for CT − L / H /CR (undersize ) = 52
53 the entire blast volume. However, in practical situations, each  CL  (5) 53
input parameter will have some variations associated with it. CH CCR
54 VT ⋅ P(undersize ) ⋅  + +  54
55 For example, rock mass properties such as joint spacing and  b L ⋅ QN ( L ) b H ⋅ QN ( H ) bCR ⋅ QN (CR )  55
56 strength can vary within a blasting pattern. Burden and spacing 56
57 could also vary due to drilling inaccuracy. The fragment size where 57
58 distributions used in this optimization exercise are determined VT is the total rock volume to be moved (m3) 58
59 using Kuz-Ram fragmentation model.
The optimization model developed through this research is
(
VT = ATOTAL ⋅ Lstem min g + Lex − ch ) 59
60 60
61 based on the following assumptions: ATOTAL is the total area per shot (m2), 61
62 B is the burden (m), 62
63 • Loading, haulage and crushing equipment operate at S is the spacing (m), 63
64 100% of its nominal capacity, while the fragmentation CDR is the drilling cost ($/m), 64
65 range can be undersized, in range or oversized. LH is the hole depth (m), 65

2006 TRANSACTIONS • Vol. 320 136 SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION
 PROOF COPY
1 Cex is the explosive cost ($/kg), Table 1 — Rock mass characteristics. 1
2 d is the hole diameter (m), 2
3 Lex-ch is the explosive charge length (m), Rock type limestone 3
4 Lstemming is the stemming (m), Rock mass generally layered 4
5 dex is the density of explosive (kg/m3), Compressive strength (MPa) 207 5
6 P(inrange) is the percentage of the fragmented rock volume Moh hardness 3.5 to 4 6
7 inside the required range (%), Specific gravity 2.81 7
8 CL/H/CR is the hourly cost of loading, haulage and crushing, 8
Joint spacing (m) 3 - 3.66
9 respectively ($/h), 9
10 QN(L/H/CR) is the loading, haulage and crushing productivity 10
11 when the rock mass is inside the required range (m3/h), Table 2 — Explosive properties. 11
12 P(oversize) is the percentage of the rock volume fragmented 12
13 as oversized (%), Column charge ANFO 94/6 13
14 aL/H/CR is the oversize capacity factor in loading/haulage/ Bottom charge orica gianite ME 14
15 crushing due to oversized rock (≤1) mass, Detonators non-electric 15
16 P(undersize) is the percentage of rock volume fragmented as 16
Booster TNT/RDX
17 undersized (%) and 17
18 bL/H/CR is the undersize capacity factor in loading/haulage/ 18
19 crushing due to undersized rock mass (≤1). 19
Table 3 — Drilling and blasting data.
20 20
21 Case study 21
Pattern rectangular
22 Field data. An optimization study on fragment size distribution, 22
drilling and blasting costs and the total relative mining cost was Number of rows 2 to 3
23 23
24 performed on the example of an operating quarry in eastern Hole inclination vertical
24
25 Pennsylvania. The name of the quarry will not be revealed to Burden (m) 3.96 25
26 honor the request of the mine management. Spacing (m) 4.27 - 4.88 26
27 The final requested product of the quarry is 12.7 mm (-0.5 Stemming (Row 1) (m) 3.66 27
28 in.). Blasted limestone is crushed through three stages: primary, Stemming (Row 2-3) (m) 4.57 28
29 secondary and tertiary. The feeds are as follows: primary = Hole diameter (m) 0.165 29
30 0.91 m (<36 in.), secondary = 127 mm (<5 in.) and tertiary = Subdrilling (m) 1.22 30
31 38 mm (<1.5 in.). The primary crusher can handle a maximum Number of drill holes 35-40 31
32 feed size of 1.5 m (60 in.). However, the requirement of the 32
Hole depth (m) 16.76
33 quarry is to limit the primary crusher feed to maximum 0.91 33
Powder factor (kg/t) 0.34
34 m (36 in.). The rock properties data are presented in Table 1, 34
the explosive properties are shown in Table 2 and the drilling Explosive cost ($/kg) 0.23
35 35
36 and blasting data are shown in Table 3. Drilling cost per meter ($/m) 0.46
36
37 The most accurate way to analyse fragment size distribu- 37
38 tion is to take actual samples from muck piles and pass them 38
39 through a series of seives to get the percent by weight of a given much less than the critical oversize value of 0.91 m (36 in.) in 39
40 size range. However, in the absence of actual sieve analysis, this study. Further analysis shows that both distributions are 40
41 the image analysis technique may be applied to determine the almost identical for the critical area of undersized fragments. 41
42 fragment size distribution of a muck pile. The Split-Desktop® Another contributing factor could be the limited number of 42
43 software, by Split Engineering, is used for this analysis (an digital images acquired in the field and used in the analysis. 43
44 academic version of the software and for the research purpose It is possible that the digital images are not true representation 44
45 only). This software is applied in many mining operations of a typical muck pile at the quarry. Perhaps more meticulous 45
46 around the world and demonstrated accuracy to within 10% acquisition of digital images or further improvement of the 46
47 or better in calculating and describing the fragment size dis- Kuz-Ram model would provide better agreement. However, 47
48 tribution of a muck pile. In this work, the uncertainty related an overall accuracy of Kuz-Ram model for the studied case is 48
49 to image processing and its impact to obtained results is not sufficient for further analyses. 49
50 analyzed. 50
51 In general, the more digital images acquired and used in Optimization calculations. The values of burden and spacing 51
52 the analysis, the more accurate the results of fragment size currently used in the quarry are 3.9 and 4.8 m (12.8 and 15.7 52
53 distribution. For this particular analysis, 15 digital images were ft), respectively. The fragment size should not be larger than 53
54 acquired. However, only six were useful because some were 0.91 m (36 in.) and less than 12.7 mm (0.5 in.). These are the 54
55 duplicates of each other and, therefore, represented the same required sizes for the crusher and the final product size at the 55
56 sector of the muck pile. Typical images from the quarry are quarry, respectively. Any fragments that fall outside of this 56
57 shown in Fig. 1, while the results of the analysis are shown in range are considered oversize and undersize, respectively. The 57
58 Fig. 2. Fragment size distribution obtained by the Kuz-Ram rock volume and tonnage should be the same regardless of the 58
59 model is shown in Fig. 3. values of burden and spacing. It is assumed that the required 59
60 By comparing the results obtained in the field with those production will be maintained. The rest of the output values, i.e., 60
61 obtained by Kuz-Ram model, there is some slight difference number of drill holes, powder factor and unit costs of drilling 61
62 between the two distributions. The first notable point is that and blasting will vary according to the values of burden and 62
63 Kuz-Ram model predicts coarser fragmentation than does spacing. The “percentage fragmentation” gives the proportion 63
64 the image analysis. However, the difference between results of fragments that are either undersized, in range or oversized 64
65 disappears after a fragment size of 650 mm (26 in.), which is in reference to the target fragmentation. 65

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION 137 Vol. 320 • 2006 TRANSACTIONS
 PROOF COPY
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 Figure 1 — Digital images of muck piles from the quarry. 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 Figure 2 — Fragment size distribution obtained by image Figure 3 — Fragment size distribution obtained by Kuz- 41
42 analysis. Ram model. 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 To obtain other cost values from corresponding configura- larger values of burden and spacing and drill fewer blast holes 46
47 tions of burden and spacing, a range of these values were tested without negatively impacting the blasting objectives. This 47
48 using the Kuz-Ram fragmentation model. The oversize capacity would in effect lead to lower total mining costs as per model 48
49 factor in loading/haulage/crushing productivity due to oversized developed here. 49
50 rock mass is used with a value of aL/H/CR = 0.50. The undersize 50
51 capacity factor in loading/haulage/crushing productivity due to Sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis is performed to 51
52 undersized rock mass was given a value of bL/H/CR = 1.10. Table take into account the uncertainty of dominant influence fac- 52
53 4 and Fig. 4 show the total relative mining costs for various tors on the final results. The author’s point of view is that for 53
54 burden/spacing ratios. The minimum unit cost is given a value of both values the oversized capacity factor, aL/H/CR, and the 54
55 unity (1), while all other values are proportionally increased. undersized capacity factor, bL/H/CR, may experience some 55
56 Based on the results given in Table 4 and Fig. 4, it can be significant variations. Thus, a sensitivity analysis has been 56
57 concluded that a new drilling/blasting geometry may reduce the performed where aL/H/CR was considered in the value range 57
58 total mining cost by 8.6%. Figure 5 shows the new optimum of aL/H/CR = 0.40 to 0.65. The second sensitivity analysis was 58
59 drilling and blasting parameters that yield a required fragment carried out on bL/H/CR in the value range of bL/H/CR = 1.05 to 59
60 size distribution at a minimum cost. 1.40. Other variables were kept unchanged. The results were 60
61 There are the significant differences in the number of drill placed in the relative ratios, where the reference values were 61
62 holes, powder factor and the costs for the various values of those obtained in the main analysis (aL/H/CR = 0.50; bL/H/CR = 62
63 burden and spacing. Another significant result is that the 1.10; S/B = 1.40; S ×. B = 37.8 m2). Numerical and graphical 63
64 fragment size distributions are virtually the same. It is plau- values of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Tables 5 and 64
65 sible to conclude that the quarry could employ significantly 6 and Figs. 6 and 7. 65

2006 TRANSACTIONS • Vol. 320 138 SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION
 PROOF COPY
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 Figure 4 — The total relative mining cost (RCT) as a function of drilling geometry and spacing/burden ratio. 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 Table 4 — Total relative mining cost. 26
27 27
28 Total relative mining cost (RCT) for various ratios 28
29 S/B = 1.25 S/B = 1.10 S/B = 1.40 29
B × S,
30 30
m2 B (m) RCT B (m) RCT B (m) RCT
31 31
32 70.3 7.50 1.102 8.00 1.116 7.10 1.090 32
33 61.3 7.00 1.068 7.50 1.085 6.60 1.054
33
34 34
52.8 6.50 1.039 6.90 1.051 6.15 1.027
35 35
45.0 6.00 1.017 6.40 1.029 5.70 1.008
36
36
37 37.81 5.50 1.007 5.90 1.016 5.201 1.0001 37
38 31.3 5.00 1.011 5.30 1.017 4.70 1.009 38
39 25.3 4.50 1.033 4.80 1.035 4.25 1.032 39
40 18.72 3.902 1.0862 4.10 1.089 3.70 1.081 40
41 15.3 3.50 1.134 3.70 1.138 3.30 1.135 41
42 1Proposed optimal parameters 42
43 2Current drilling and blasting geometry 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 Based on the results of the both main and uncertainty • An intangible affect that is not modeled but really hap- 47
48 analysis, the following can be noted: pens is that a significant increase in powder factor does 48
49 not necessarily result in an increase in the undersized 49
50 • An oversized fragmentation has a more significant fragmentation. While the amount of energy introduced 50
51 impact on the total mining cost than an undersized one. into the rock mass is too high, the latter becomes “energy 51
52 This might be explained by the fact that the Kuz-Ram saturated,” and an energy surplus is spent to launch rock 52
53 model gives a relatively small increase in undersized particles without producing new fragmentation. 53
54 fragmentation with a significantly increasing powder 54
55 factor. For a powder factor (PF) range of 0.10 to 0.42 Conclusions 55
56 kg/t, the undersized fragmentation percentage (UFP) In this study, the new mathematical model is developed to 56
57 increases in the range 0.76% to 1.66%. At the same time, determine the impact of drilling and blasting geometry on 57
58 the decrease in an oversized fragmentation percentage fragment size distribution and the total mining costs in quarry 58
59 (OFP) is situated in the range of 19.80% to 0.00%. operations. The target optimization function include the mini- 59
60 • The quarry mining operators should pay particular atten- mal costs of an entire mining chain including drilling, blasting, 60
61 tion to both oversized and undersized fragmentations. loading, haulage and crushing, while the limiting factor was the 61
62 The undersized fragmentation is not desirable in quarry required fragment size distribution. The optimization model 62
63 mining because fines are a problem in terms of lost sale- developed here provides a systematic tool to select from among 63
64 able stone and storage, while oversized fragmentation many configurations of burden and spacing that minimize the 64
65 leads to higher total operating costs. total mining costs in quarry mining. A sensitivity analysis is 65

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION 139 Vol. 320 • 2006 TRANSACTIONS
 PROOF COPY
1 kg/t. The rock volume and tonnage will be the same while the 1
2 fragment size will be within the required range. However, the 2
3 overall quarry performance in terms of costs should be closely 3
4 monitored, because significant changes may occur in operating 4
5 environment that could adversely affect this performance. The 5
6 most optimizations models involve the modifications based on 6
7 observed field performance. The changes in rock mass properties 7
8 encountered in the field may vary considerably from one loca- 8
9 tion to another, even within the same relatively small blasting 9
10 zone. The compressive strength of rock, abrasiveness and the 10
11 rock density play very important role in the blasting process, 11
12 as does the spatial distribution of rock properties. 12
13 All these input data have a major impact on setting appropri- 13
14 ate drilling and blasting patterns. Therefore, further research is 14
15 required to address and reflect the changes in rock properties 15
16 and drilling and blasting patterns within the same blasting 16
17 zone. It also should include research related to the impact of 17
18 changes in other elements of an operating environment, such 18
19 as organizational, technical and market. 19
20 20
21 Acknowledgments 21
22 Burden (m) 5.2 Rock tonnage (t) 23,916.67 The portion of research work in this paper is supported through 22
Spacing (m) 7.28 No. of drill holes 20 a George H. Deike Jr. Research Grant. The financial contribu-
23 Rock volume (m2) 11,958.34 Powder factor (kg/t) 0.17 23
24 tion from this foundation is gratefully acknowledged. 24
25 Percentage fragmentation: 25
Oversize 2.5%
26 In range 96.7% References 26
Advanced Optimization Group, 2004, “Quarries can reduce fines and add value,”
27 Undersize 0.7%
Advanced Optimization News, Vol. 4, No 1, pp 1-2.
27
28 Figure 5 — The new drilling and blasting parameters at Ash, R.L., 1963, “The mechanics of rock breakage: Standards for blasting design,” 28
29 the quarry. Pit and Quarry, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 118-122. 29
30 Ash, R.L., 1990, “Design of blasting rounds,” in Surface Mining, 2nd Edition, 30
B.A. Kennedy, ed., SME, pp. 565-583.
31 Atlas Powder, 1987, “Explosives and Rock Blasting,” Field Technical Operations, 31
32 Atlas Powder Company, Dallas, Texas, 662 pp. 32
33 performed to take into account the uncertainty of dominant Bearman, R.A., Barley, R.W., and Hitchcock, A., 1991, “Prediction of power 33
consumption and product size in cone crushing,” Minerals Engineering, Vol.
34 influence factors on the total mining costs. 4, No. 12, pp.1243-1256. 34
35 Data from the limestone quarry were used throughout this Bergmann, O.R., Riggle, B., and Wu, F. C., 1973, “Model rock blasting effect 35
36 study. The results of the developed model show a tangible of explosive properties and other variables on blasting result,” International 36
Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geomechanics, Vol. 10,
37 decerease in total mining cost. It can be concluded that current pp. 585-612.
37
38 values of burden and spacing used in a quarry, i.e., 3.9 and Chung, H. S., and Katsabanis, P.D, 2000, “Fragmentation prediction using improved 38
39 4.8 m (12.8 and 15.7 ft), respectively, may be increased to 5.2 engineering formulae,“ International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 39
Vol. 4, Issue 3-4, pp. 198-207.
40 and 7.28 m (17.1 and 23.9 ft), respectively. This optimized Clark, G.B., 1987, Principles of Rock Fragmentation, John Wiley and Sons, pp.
40
41 configuration will reduce the powder factor form 0.34 to 0.17 438-442. 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
59 59
60 60
61 61
62 62
63 63
64 Figure 6 — The total relative mining cost (RCT) as a function of oversize capacity factor aL/H/CR. 64
65 65

2006 TRANSACTIONS • Vol. 320 140 SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION
 PROOF COPY
Comeau, W., 1996, “Explosive energy partitioning and fragment size measure-
1 Table 5 — Total relative mining cost as a function of 1
ment – Importance of correct evaluation of fines in blasted rock,” Proceed-
2 ings of the Fragblast Workshop on Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, aL/H/CR. 2
3 pp. 237-240, Montreal, Canada. Total relative mining cost (RCT) for 3
Crawford, G.D., 2003, “Mine Optimization and Operations Research,” Pincock various values of aL/H/CR
4 Perspectives, No 41, April. B × S,
4
5 Cunningham, C.V.B., 1983, “Fragmentation estimations and Kuz-Ram model 2
m a = 0.40 a = 0.50 a = 0.65 5
6 – four years on,” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Rock 6
Fragmentation by Blasting, pp. 439-453, Luleå, Sweden.
7 Eloranta, E., and Workman L., 1995, “The effects of blasting on crushing and grind-
70.3 1.070 1.090 1.015 7
8 ing efficiency and energy consumption,” http://www.elorantaassoc.com. 61.3 1.113 1.054 1.001 8
9 Fernberg, H., 2005, “Surface drilling,” in Quarrying and Open Pit Mining, M. 52.8 1.067 1.027 0.991 9
Smith, ed., Atlas Copco, Orebro, Sweden, pp. 37-40.
10 Fuerstenau, M.C., Chi, G., and Bradt, R.C., 1995, “Optimization of energy uti- 45.0 1.032 1.008 0.986 10
11 lization and production costs in mining and ore preparation,” Proceedings 37.8 1.011 1.000* 0.990 11
12 of the XIX International Mineral Processing Congress, pp. 161-164, San
31.3 1.012 1.009 1.006
12
13 Francisco, California. 13
Hagan, T.N., 1983, “The influence of controllable blast parameters on fragmenta- 25.3 1.033 1.032 1.031
14 tion and mining costs,” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on 14
18.7 1.081 1.081 1.081
15 Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp. 31-51, Luleå, Sweden. 15
16 Hermansson, L., 1983, “Production drilling with high accuracy,” Proceedings of 15.3 1.135 1.135 1.135 16
the First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp.
17 789-798, Lulea, Sweden. *Reference value 17
18 Harnischfeger Corporation, 2003 “Peak performance practices excavator selec- 18
19 tion,” P&H MinePro Services, 1-87 pp. 19
20 JKMRC, 1999, “Mineral comminution circuits. Their operation and optimization,” Table 6 — Change in relative mining cost as a function 20
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. of bL/H/CR.
21 Kanchibotla, S.S., Morrell, S., Valery, W., and O’Laughlin, P., 1998, “Exploring the 21
22 effect of blast design on SAG mill throughput at KCGM.” Proceedings of the Total relative mining cost (RCT) for 22
Mine to Mill Conference, The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, various values of βL/H/CR
23 Brisbane, Australia, pp. 153-162. B × S, 23
24 Kojovic, T., Michaux, S., and Mackenzie, C., 1995, “Impact of blast fragmenta- m2 β = 1.05 β = 1.10 β = 1.25 β = 1.40 24
25 tion on crushing and screening operations in quarrying,” Proceedings of the 25
26 Mine to Mill Conference, The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 70.3 1.090 1.090 1.089 1.089 26
Brisbane, Sept, pp. 427-436.
27 Lejuge, G.E., and Cox, N., 1995, “The impact of explosives performance on
61.3 1.055 1.054 1.054 1.053 27
28 quarry fragmentation,” Proceedings of the Explo 95 Conference Exploring 52.8 1.028 1.027 1.027 1.026 28
29 the Role of Rock Breakage in Mining and Quarrying, The Australian Institute 45.0 1.008 1.008 1.008 1.007 29
of Mining and Metallurgy Brisbane, pp. 445- 452.
30 Mackenzie, A.S., 1967, “Optimum blasting,” Proceedings of the of 28th Annual 37.8 1.000 1.000* 0.999 0.999 30
31 Minnesota Mining Symposium, Duluth, Minnesota, pp. 181-188. 31.3 1.009 1.009 1.008 1.007 31
32 McCarter, M.K., 1996, “Effect of blast preconditioning on comminution for
25.3 1.033 1.032 1.031 1.031 32
selected rock types,” Proceedings of the Twenty-second Conference of
33 Explosives and Blasting Techniques, International Society of Explosives 18.7 1.082 1.081 1.080 1.079
33
34 Engineers, Orlando, Florida, pp. 119-129. 34
15.3 1.136 1.135 1.134 1.133
35 McKee, D.J, Chitambo, G.P., and Morrell, S., 1995, “The relationship between 35
fragmentation in mining and comminution circuit throughput,” Minerals
36 Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 11, pp. 1265-1274.
*Reference value 36
37 Moody, L., Cunniningham, C., and Lourens, H., 1996, “Measuring the effect 37
38 of blasting fragmentation on hard rock quarrying operations,” Proceedings 38
39 of the of FRAGBLAST 5, Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Quebec, 39
Canada, pp. 269-277.
40 Moser, P., Cheimanoff, N., Ortiz, R., and Hochholinger, G., 2000, ”Breakage 40
41 characteristics in rock blasting,” Proceeding of 1st World Conference on 41
42 Explosives and Blasting Technique, A.A Balkema, pp. 165-264. 42
Nielson, K., and Kristiansen, J., 1995, “Blasting and grinding: an integrated
43 comminution system,” EXPLO 95, Exploring the Role of Rock Breakage in 43
44 Mining and Quarrying, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 44
45 Brisbane, Sept, 113-117. 45
Nielsen, K., and Kristiansen, J., 1996, “Blasting-crushing-grinding: Optimization
46 of an integrated comminution system,” Proceedings of the FRAGBLAST 5,
46
47 Montreal, Canada, pp. 269-277. 47
48 Nzombola, M., 2005, “Comparative Analysis for Drilling and Blasting in Quarry 48
Operations,” M.Sc. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University
49 Park, PA, 107 pp.
49
50 Persson, P.A., Holmberg, R., and Lee, J., 1994, “Stress waves in rock, rock mass 50
51 damage, and fragmentation,” Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering, 51
CRC Press, pp. 233-264.
52 Rantapaa, M., Mcinstry, R., and Bolles, T., 2005, “Drill-to-mill: Efficient drilling
52
53 and blasting resulting in increased mill throughput at Barrick Goldstrike,” 53
54 CIM Bulletin, Vol. 98, No 1085, pp. 1-3. 54
55 Scott A., 1992, “A technical and operational approach to the optimization of 55
blasting operations,” Proceedings of the MASSMIN, Johannesburg, South Figure 7 — The total relative mining cost (RCT) as a func-
56 56
Africa, pp. 247-252. tion of undersize capacity factor bL/H/CR.
57 Scott, A., 1996, “Blastability and blast design,” Proceedings of the Fragblast 57
58 5, Canada, pp. 26-36. 58
Scott, A., and McKee, D.J., 1994, “The interdependence of mining and mineral
59 beneficiation processes on the performance of mining projects,” Australian 59
60 Mining Looks North: the Challenges and Choices, Australian Institute of Thornton, D.M., Kanchibotla, S.S., and Brunton, I., 2002, “Modelling the impact
60
61 Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 303-308. of rockmass and blast design variations on blast fragmentation,” International 61
Simangunsong et al., 2002, —MISSING REFERENCE MENTIONED IN
62 TEXT—
Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, Vol. 6, No 2 pp. 169 -188. 62
63 63
64 64
65 65

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION 141 Vol. 320 • 2006 TRANSACTIONS