METHOD OF EVALUATING

FRAGMENTATION

1
 Method of evaluating fragmentation

Introduction.

One of the forced goals of companies engaged in

drilling and blasting operations today is the continuos
thrust towards increasing productivity.
This was brought about and dictated in the last few
years by the lowered economic activity and competition
on a a world basis.

Companies accustomed to operating at or near full

capacity suddenly found themselves operating at a
lower level of production.

2
Consequently, operations ceased to exist, others
struggled to a new level of equilibrium within the
marketplace, and still others adopted immediate
program changes in their operating methods and
techniques in the hope of lowering unit operating and
overhead costs. This part of the course presents field
operating procedures, methods and techniques to
evaluate fragmentation.
Emphasis is placed on understanting methods and
techniques to evaluate fragmentation. Emphasis is
placed on understanding “optimum” fragmentation and
the newest PC based, automatic, video imaging
techniques.

3
4
 Fragmentation defined.
The controversy surrounding the definition of “optimum”
fragmentation is one of great concern and often
confusing. A few examples of the definition encountered
over the years are:
1. Optimum fragmenttaion is the smallest size fragment a
blast will produce.
2. “Optimum fragmentation produces no oversize, hence no
secondary drilling and blasting are required.
3. “Optimum fragmentation gives the highest production
rates”
4. “Optimum fragmentation is achieved when crushing costs
are at a minimum.”
5. “Optimum fragmentation refers to breaking material into
small pieces which can be handled by our mining
equipment.”
5
6
7
On ocasión the supervisor of a drilling and blasting
departament is proud to announce that he has lowered
his drilling and blasting cost. However, the minimum cost
may not always be in the best interests of the overall
mining system.

His reported savings

may have been
directly or indirectly
passed onto other
departaments within
the operation.
Clearly then, none of
the definition are
adequate from an
overall mining
standpoint
8
In avoiding these pitfalls, the only proper approach to
blast evaluation is to investigate the total operation as a
whole, rather than insolate any one segment. The most
popular definition of optimum fragmentation in relation to
overall mining costs was proponed by Zeggeren and
Cheng (1971). The overall cost, C, was expressed as:
9
 C  DRC  BLC  LC  HCC  DC  CRC ... Eqn   1

Where the subscripts are:

DR = Drilling L = Loading D = Dumping

BL = Blasting H = Hauling CR = Crushing

10
Since the last tour terms of equation 1 are directly
related to the fragment size distribution, they can be
represented by a single function ƒ3 (F). The drilling
cost is dependent from borehole diameter, burden,
and spacing, thus DRC = F1 (, B, S). Blasting cost
depends primarily on the weight, W, and price, P, of
the explosive, therefore BLC (W, P). Equation 1 can
now be rewritten as:

C  f1 ( , B, S )  f 2 (W , P)  f 3 ( F ) ... Eqn   2

11
Equation 2 allows one to perform a cost
sensitivy análysis for the smaller operador is
that detailed costs may not be known or
readily available. Where the approach can be
utilizad, it tends to eliminate hidden and/or
cost transfers to other departaments.

An optimization program should aim at

lowering the highest cost element in an overall
mining cost breakdown, to produce a new
mining cost decrease.

12
There is usually a tendency for companies to
reduce the drilling and blasting costs, but unless
these costs form a relatively high percentage of
overall costs, the net result is usually a cost
increase in loading, hauling, dumping, and
crushing, even though the qualitative
appearance of the muck seems not to have
changed, Reid (1976).

In general, if productivity remains unchanged

while the direct drilling and blasting costs have
been reduced, an overall saving has been
realizad.

13
14
15
 Field methods used in evaluating
fragmentation.

There are a number of useful field methods of

evaluating and measuring fragmentation.

The techniques can be both qualitative and

quantitative; all of which have their place in
the industry with obvious advantages and
disadvantages. These are:

16
 Qualitative visual assessments
 Still picture photographic methods
 High-speed photography/videography during the
shot dynamics
 Photogrammetry
 Productivity studies with work and time studies
 Bridging delays at the crusher
 Boulder count and secondary breakage
 Screenin/sieving
 PC based video systems

17
18
19
20
Next to screening the entire muckpile, there is no
known full proof, reliable and economically
feasible method of evaluating fragmentation
quantitatively in a production environment.

Even if it were economically posible, no Standard

method of análysis could be applied (just 1979).
This is very unfortunate since a numerical estimate
assigned to fragmented material would certainly
escalate the evaluation and optimization of blast
designs.

21
Ideally, the method should provide a means of
comparing fragmentation on a pre blast basis so
as to be quantitatively sensitive to each
successive blast design. Due to the high costs of
obtaining complete size distribution, the operador
is left with less precise means.

Current methods of evaluating fragmentation,

although not “perfect”, do contribute in assessing
the more predominant changes in a blast design.

Obviously, the more methods employed, the

greater is the reliability of estimating size ranges.
No one method described is the best; each has
inherent accuracies, inaccuracies, advantages and
disadvantages.
22
The system has been used to evaluate
fragmentation from the effects of blast design
changes and other comparisons such as:

1. Drill patterns
2. Hole diameter
3. Delay timing
4. Convencional versus electronic detonators
5. Different explosives
6. Stemming materials
7. Primers
8. Degree of coal fines
9. Energy consumption (powder factor)
10.Maintenance costs
11.Digging, loading and hauling productivity
12.Secondary blasting (oversize)
13.Crusher throughput, etc., etc.
23
24
It was interesting to note that in a recent study
completed by palangio et al (1995), with the
WipFrag System, that by increasing the drill
pattern in a nickel mine from a B x S of 5 x 10
ft to 7 x 10 ft the characteristic fragment size
Xc was decreased from 0.617 m to 0.318 m.
Direct fragmentation measurement was the
only way to evaluate such changes.

25
Conclusions.
Quatifying fragmentation is essential to
achieve maximum productivity and to evaluate
whether changes in the blast design
significantly impact costs. Although there are a
number of viable techniques to evaluate
fragmentation, PC based video imaging and
processing techniques are becoming the
estándar where sieving is impractical.

At the present time the fractal geometry is

been used to evaluate the fragmentation
produce by a primary blast.

26
De no ser el camino, sé el sendero,
Si no sol, sé la estrella que titila,
No busquemos tamaño en la pelea,
Sino ser el mejor en nuestras filas.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D.

Profesor
27