Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-00163-y

Blast-Induced Rock Fragmentation in Wet Holes

Hesam Dehghani 1 & Nima Babanouri 1 & Farid Alimohammadnia 2 & Mokhtar Kalhori 1

Received: 28 May 2019 / Accepted: 5 December 2019

# Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc. 2019

Abstract
In open-pit mining, blasting pattern design is performed to achieve a desired degree of fragmentation for loading,
hauling, and crushing operations. Inappropriate fragmentation of rock will result in numerous problems such as
incurring extra costs for secondary blasting, production interruption, etc. Wetness of the blast holes is one of the
most important factors, which can cause the inappropriate rock fragmentation. Lowering ambient temperature in the
vicinity of the explosion, the presence of water in the hole adversely affects the quality of the explosive while
dissipating part of the explosion energy, ending up with inappropriate fragmentation problems. In the present
research, in order to study blast-induced fragmentation conditions in Baba-Ali Iron Ore Mine, three scenarios were
considered: explosion of ammonium nitrate with fuel oil (ANFO) in dry hole, explosion of ANFO in wet hole, and
explosion of the emulsion in wet hole. For this purpose LS-DYNA, a numerical simulation code was used. Results
of the present research showed that, compared to the explosion of ANFO in wet hole, the explosion of the emulsion
produced more uniform distribution of fragment size, while the explosion of ANFO in dry hole resulted in fewer
large fragments.

Keywords Wet hole . ANFO . Emulsion . Fragmentation . Blasting

1 Introduction rock fragmentation into two categories: (1) controllable

Drilling and blasting represent the first stage of produc-
tion in a surface mine. Accordingly, outcomes of this
stage affect the performance of other mining processes,
e.g., loading, hauling, and crushing, either directly or
indirectly. Given the destructive nature of the explosion
process, the occurrence of such unfavorable phenomena
as ground vibration, fly-rock, and air vibration is some-
what expected. In the meantime, the most significant
outcome of blasting operation is to obtain optimal rock
fragmentation. Considering the paramount importance of
this topic in surface mines and its impact on finished
cost of production, numerous researchers have studied
the parameters affecting the rock fragmentation. Lopez
et al. classified the entire set of parameters affecting
* Hesam Dehghani
dehghani@hut.ac.ir
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Hamedan University of
Technology, Hamedan, Iran
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
parameters such as burden, spacing, stemming length,
etc. and (2) uncontrollable parameters such as rock
strength, structural ground conditions, subsurface hy-
drology, etc. [1]. Since modifications can be made to
the controllable parameters only, most of the research
has been focused on these parameters. Table 1 lists
some of the studies performed on the impact of the
controllable and uncontrollable explosion parameters on
the rock fragmentation.
B, burden; S, spacing; St, stemming length; L, hole length;
PF, powder factor (specific charge); D, hole diameter; Rn,
Schmidt hammer rebound number; J, density of joint;
MC, maximum charge used per delay; S/B, spacing to
burden ratio; St/B, stemming to burden ratio; H/B, stiff-
ness factor; N, number of rows; INCL, blast-hole incli-
nation; B/D, burden to blast-hole diameter ratio; ET,
explosives amount and type; INI, initiation mode; Q,
charge per hole; QL, linear charge concentration; σc,
inconfined compressive strength; RQD, rock quality des-
ignation; B/S, burden to spacing ratio; E, modulus of
elasticity; t, delay timing; BI, blastability index; P, spe-
cific charge per delay; UCS, uniaxial compressive
strength; PL, point load strength; UTS, uniaxial tensile
 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Table 1 A review of the literature on rock fragmentation

Paper Year Controllable parameters Uncontrollable parameters Ref.

Ebrahimi et al. 2015 B, S, St, L, PF – [2]

Shams et al. 2015 B, S, D, PF, St Rn, J [3]
Hassanipanah et al. 2016 B, MC, PF, S/B, St/B, H/B,N, INCL, D, B/D – [4]
Hassanipanah et al. 2018 PF, St, S, B, MC, – 5]
Singh et al. 2016 B/D, S/B, St, H/B, ET, INI, PF – [6]
Trivedi et al. 2016 Q, QL, L, B, S, St, PF, D σc, RQD [7]
Bakhtavar et al. 2015 B/S, St, t, P,N, D, L, BI E, UCS [8]
Mehrdanesh et al. 2018 B, S, L, D, St, PF, PL, UCS, UTS, BT, ρ, E, Vp, [9]
Rn, υ, RQD, C, ϕ, XB
Murlidhar et al. 2018 P, PF, B/D, S/B, H/B, St/B BS, RQD, [10]
Faraji asl et al. 2018 B, S, L, Sub, St, P, PF, GSI [11]
Prasad et al. 2017 B, L, St, PF – [12]
Ghaeini et al. 2017 PF, B, St, S/D UCS, Jp, RQD, JS, ρ, JPO [13]
Monjezi et al. 2009 B, S, St, PF, L,B/S – [14]
Bahrami et al. 2011 B, S, St, SD, PF, – [15]
L, MC,D, BI
Sayadi et al. 2013 B, S, L, SD, PF – [16]
Karami and Afiuni-Zadeh 2013 B, PF, S/B, N, UCS [17]
St/B, MC

strength; BT, brittleness; ρ, density; Vp, P wave velocity;
υ, Poisson’s ratio; C, cohesion; ϕ, friction angle; XB,
mean in situ block size; BS, block size; Sub, sub-
drilling; GSI, geological strength index; JP, joint persis-
tency; JS, joint spacing; S/D, ratio of boreholes spacing
to their diameters; JPO, joint plane orientation ratio to
bench face; SD, specific drilling
The presence of water (wetness) in blast holes has
been regarded as an uncontrollable parameter affecting
the blasting outcomes in any of the following three
ways:
– The wetness decreases the explosion temperature, thereby
neutralizing part of the energy released by the explosive

Fig. 1 Influence of water in 3600

ANFO performance [18]
3400

3200
Velocity of Detonation (m/s)

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Percentage of water in ANFO (%)
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
Fig. 2 A view of the boulders
obtained upon blasting at Baba-
Ali Iron Ore Mine
material, which otherwise could be spent on rock
fragmentation.
– The wetness tends to decompose the explosive ma-
terial and produce nitric acid.
– The wetness may negatively affect the stability, sen-
sitivity, detonation velocity, and strength of the
explosives.
On the other hand, ANFO, one of the most popular and
cost-effective explosives for open-pit mines, cannot be used in
wet environments. As shown in Fig. 1, whenever the moisture
exceeds 9%, the blasting velocity of ANFO is deteriorated so
abruptly that no explosion occurs in practice. Thus as a pru-
dent precaution, ANFO is not used as such in watery
Fig. 3 The model geometry
boreholes, and this is one of the most serious drawbacks of
this explosive. In many instances, it may still be practical and
economical to pump out the water, line the borehole with a
plastic sleeve, then load with ANFO and carry out blasting.
Where the borehole is only moist, it would be possible to use
ANFO without recourse to plastic lining, provided that it is
loaded and blasted immediately [18].
Replacing the ANFO with water resistance explosives not
only increases the blasting costs but also renders impossible in
some cases due to unavailability of the material or technical
difficulties. Accordingly, some researchers such as
Mahadevan, Dehghani, and Shafaghi tried to introduce addi-
tives for the ANFO to make it hydrophobic, although any
acceptable result is yet to be reported [18, 19].
 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Table 3 The EOS

parameters of ANFO EOS parameter of ANFO Value

Material constants A (Pa) 4.946 × 1010

Material constants R1 3.907
Material constants B (Pa) 1.981 × 109
Material constants R2 1.118
Material constants ω 0.330
Internal energy E (J/ m3) 7.0 × 109

Table 4 The MAT

parameters of ANFO MAT parameter of ANFO Value

Mass density (Kg/m3) 0.931

Detonation velocity (m/s) 4200
Chapman-Jouguet pressure 2.60 × 1010

research adopts a three-dimensional approach to the

Fig. 4 Boundary conditions
Despite the large impact of water content on the
blast-induced rock fragmentation, this factor has been
less regarded by researchers. On this basis, the present
finite-element modeling of the effect of wetness of the
blast holes at Baba-Ali Iron Ore Mine. Finally, an im-
age processing technique was used to analyze rock frag-
mentation in wet environment.

Table 2 RHT model parameters for rock mass in the Lagrangian

2 Case Study
elements
Baba-Ali Iron Ore Mine is an open-pit mining complex
Parameter Amount Parameter Amount located 30 km northwest of Hamedan (Iran). In general,
Ref. compressive stain 3.0e8 Shear modulus 18.6 GPa the mineralization zones are classified into three groups:
rate northern, central (the main zone), and southwestern
Ref. tensile strain rate 3.0e9 Failure tensile strain 3.0e22 zones. Proved reserve of the mine has been estimated
rate about 6,000,000 tons, with a current annual mining ca-
Pore crush B0 1.22 Bulk modulus T1 40 GPa
pacity of 300,000 tons. Magnetite with an average grade
Pore crush B1 1.22 Bulk modulus T2 0
of 46% is the main mineral in this mine. In this mine,
Failure compressive 3.0e22 Bulk modulus A1 40 GPa
strain rate
the NONEL blasting agent was adopted with ANFO as
Compressive strain rate 0.032 Bulk modulus A2 0 main charge. Since the mine is located in the vicinity of
dependence exponent the Baba-Ali village (at a distance of 2.3 km), the large-
Tensile strain rate 0.036 Porosity exponent 3 diameter blast holes are not allowed. Hence, blast holes
dependence exponent
Compressive yield 200 MPa Volumetric plastic 0.001
strength strain fraction in
tension
Table 5 The MAT parameters of iron ore and stemming material
Tensile yield strength 7 MPa Failure surface A 2.618
Damage parameter D1 0.04 Failure surface N 0.7985 MAT parameter of iron rock and stemming Value
Damage parameter D2 1.0 Shear strength 36 MPa
Minimum damaged 0.01 Lode Angle Q0 0.567 Mass density (Kg/m3) 4500
residual strain Initial tangent modulus of concrete (Pa) 2.466 × 1010
Uniaxial tensile strength 10 MPa Residual surface 0.559 Poisson ratio 0.19
parameter AN
Uniaxial compressive strength (Pa) 6.000 × 107
Residual surface 0.873 Lode Angle B 0.0105
parameter AF Uniaxial tensile strength (Pa) 6.000 × 106
Gruneisen gamma 0 Compaction pressure 6 GPa Fracture energy 100
Crush pressure 133 MPa Initial porosity 1.0 Factor of aggregate size (radius) 5
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

with a diameter of 76 mm are used which are smaller

than those commonly used in open-pit mines. As the
mine got deeper and the mining benches went below
the underground water table, the blast holes were wet,
either fully or partially, raising many problems for the
blasting operation. Upon blasting operation in the wet
holes at the mine, boulders with average size of 2 m
were observed. Figure 2 provides a view of the blast-
induced rock fragments.
In the present research, rock fragmentation in dry and
wet blast holes charged with wetness-sensitive explo-
sives (i.e., ANFO) and water resistance explosives
(i.e., the emulsion) was modeled and analyzed. For this
purpose, rock fragmentation conditions at the mine were
Fig. 5 Crack growth upon blasting ANFO in a dry hole
studied under three scenarios:
Scenario 1: blasting a dry hole charged with ANFO
Scenario 2: blasting a wet hole charged with ANFO
Scenario 3: blasting a wet hole charged with the emulsion

3 Model and Material

A model with two blast holes was built in LS-DYNA

according to actual conditions at Baba-Ali Iron Ore
Mine. Geometry and dimensions of the model are dem-
onstrated in Fig. 3. Diameter and depth of the blast hole
were 76 mm and 6 m, respectively. The stemming and
sub-drilling lengths were 50 and 30 cm, respectively. In
the left figure, the part of the model marked in red
Fig. 6 Rock fragmentation under Scenario 1 illustrates the zones in which the blasting wave

Fig. 7 Rock aggregation diagram 100

under Scenario 1 485 Particles: (mm)
90
Min= 10.835

80 Max= 1575.696

Mean= 141.163
70
Stdev= 101.108

60 D10= 128.341
% Passing

D25= 172.558
50
D50= 252.826
40 D75= 381.221

D90= 499.419
30

20

10

0
1 10 100 1000
Size (mm)

Table 6 The EOS
parameters of water EOS parameter of water
C (m/s)
S1
S2
S3
γ0
E (J/ m3)
a 1
propagates, laterally confined with nonreflecting zones
shown in yellow.
The model was discretized using hexagonal elements.
The elements in the red zone were 6 × 6 × 6 cm in di-
mensions, while those in the yellow zone were 12 ×
12 × 12 cm in dimensions. The red and yellow zones
were connected to each other using transition elements.
The rock hosting the blast holes, explosive material,
stemming material, and water were modeled using
Eulerian elements. Other rock parts were modeled using
Lagrangian elements. The Eulerian elements were then
merged with the Lagrangian meshes. Start of explosion
was supposed to occur at 1 m above the borehole bot-
tom. As shown in Fig. 4, external surfaces of the rock
hosting the holes were defined as nonreflecting bound-
aries. Top surfaces and bench face were modeled as free
surfaces.
In order to model dynamic behavior of the rock mass
in the Lagrangian elements, the Riedel-Hiermaier-Thoma
(RHT) material model was used. RHT is an advanced
plasticity model with the ability to model brittle mate-
rials such as concrete and rock [20]. This model uses
three limiting levels to describe the material strength
characteristics [21]. The RHT model parameters used
in the present research were suggested by Schill [22]
based on the material tests performed by Haimson and
Chang [23]. These parameters are reported in Table 2.
4 Fragmentation Scenarios
As mentioned previously, in order to investigate the
effect of wetness on blast-induced rock fragmentation,
three scenarios were considered. In all scenarios the
Table 7 The MAT parameters of water
MAT parameter of Water
0 (Kg/m3)
Pressure cutoff (Pa)
Viscosity coefficient (optional)
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
Value
1480
2.5599
1.9859
0.2286
0.35
1.980 × 106
Fig. 8 Crack growth upon blasting ANFO in a wet hole
holes were exploded without any delay and
simultaneously.
4.1 Scenario 1: Blasting a Dry Hole Charged
with ANFO
In this scenario, the holes were assumed to be dry with
their bottoms above the underground water table. In this
case, the ANFO could be used reliably. Generally, the
model was made up of three parts, namely, explosive
material, stemming material, and iron ore, with each
part having its specific equation of state (EOS) and
material model (MAT). For the ANFO as the explosive,
the Jones-Wilkins-Lee (JWL) equation of state and the
008-HIGH-STRENGTH-EXPLOSIVE-BURN material
model were used in LS-DYNA. Coefficients of the
equation of state and the model parameters are reported
in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Moreover, the iron ore (rock) and stemming material
were modeled by 84/85_WIFRITH-CONCRET material
model. Coefficients of this material model are detailed
in Table 5.
Figure 5 demonstrates the crack growth in response
to the blast of ANFO as the explosive material in a dry
borehole. In order to analyze the resultant rock
Value
1025
0.01
8.580 × 10−10
Fig. 9 Rock fragmentation under Scenario 2
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Fig. 10 Rock aggregation 100

485 Particles: (mm)
diagram under Scenario 2
90 Min= 10.354

Max= 2523.132
80
Mean= 234.290
70 Stdev= 307.831

D10= 266.571
60

% Passing
D25= 607.534
50
D50= 1131.207

40 D75= 1825.170

D90= 2244.747
30

20

10

0
1 10 100 1000
Size (mm)

fragm entation, WipFrag Software was utilized. equation of state with cubic shock velocity as a function of
Accordingly, blast-induced fragmentation of the rocks particle velocity ( ) defines excess pore water pressure (p) as
was evaluated as depicted in Fig. 6. Figure 7 shows below:
fragment size distribution of the rock. Based on the h
γ  a i
analysis results, minimum and maximum fragment sizes ρ0 C 2 μ 1 þ 1− 0 μ− μ2
p¼h 2 2
were found to be 10.835 and 1575.693 mm, respective- i2 þ ðγ 0 þ aμÞE; ð1Þ
μ2 μ3
ly. Moreover, D50 of the fragmented rocks was estimat- 1−ðS 1 −1Þμ−S 2 μþ1 −S 3 ðμþ1 Þ 2

ed at 252.826 mm.
where E is internal energy; C is the intercept of the curve
(in velocity units); S1, S2, and S3 are the unitless coefficients
4.2 Scenario 2: Blasting a Wet Hole Charged
of the slope of the curve; γ0 is the unitless Gruneisen
with ANFO
gamma; a is the unitless, first order volume correction to γ0;
and μ ¼ ρρ −1, where 0 is a nominal or reference density.
In this scenario, the holes were assumed to be wet with their 0

bottom being below the underground water table by 0.5 m. In
this case, the wetness can impose serious damages to the ex-
plosive and even inhibit the explosion. This model was made
up of four components, namely, water, explosive, stemming
material, and iron ore. The explosive, stemming material, and
iron ore were modeled using the same EOS and MAT as those
adopted under Scenario 1. However, when it came to water,
the GRUNEISEN EOS and 009_NULL MAT model were
adopted for modeling the material [24, 25]. The Gruneisen
Table 8 The EOS parameters of the emulsion E682-b
Coefficients of the mentioned EOS and MAT model are re-
ported in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. A pressure cutoff can be
defined such that the pressure is not allowed to fall below the
cutoff value.
Figure 8 shows the pattern of crack growth following the
explosion of ANFO in the wet hole. As is evident on Fig. 9,
the wetness deactivated the ANFO in the hole, so that the
explosion occurred incompletely. Based on the analysis dem-
onstrated in Fig. 10, minimum and maximum fragment sizes
were 10.354 and 2523.132 mm, respectively, while the D50
fragment size was estimated at 1131.207 mm.

EOS parameter of Emulsion E682-b Value

Material constants A (Pa) 2.857 × 1010 Table 9 The MAT parameters of the emulsion E682-b
Material constants R1 4.933
MAT of emulsion E682-b Value
Material constants B (Pa) 6.715 × 109
Material constants R2 1.962 Mass density (Kg/m3) 1180
Material constants ω 0.520 Detonation velocity (m/s) 5866
Detonation energy per unit volume E (KJ/cc) 3.176 Chapman-Jouguet pressure (Pa) 1.006 × 1010
 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

explosive (the emulsion) was used to avoid negative effects of

Fig. 11 Crack growth upon blasting the emulsion in a wet hole
wetness on the blasting operation. Once more, the model was
made up of four components, namely, water, explosive, stem-
ming material, and iron ore. The water, stemming material,
and iron ore were modeled using the same EOS and MAT as
those adopted under Scenario 2. However, when it came to the
emulsion, the modeling was performed based on E682-b EOS.
Coefficients of the mentioned EOS and MAT model are re-
ported in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. These parameters were
calibrated using the cylinder expansion test performed by
Hansson [26].
Figure 11 shows the pattern of crack growth following the
explosion of the emulsion in the wet hole. As is evident on
Fig. 12, due to hydrophobicity of the emulsion, the explosion
occurred completely, so that the desired rock fragmentation
was obtained. Figure 13 presents the rock fragment size dis-
tribution under Scenario 3. Based on the analysis, minimum
and maximum fragment sizes were 10.627 and 1769.793 mm,
respectively, while the D50 fragment size was estimated at
297.588 mm.

5 Discussion and Validation

Figure 14 presents minimum and maximum fragment

Fig. 12 Rock fragmentation under Scenario 3
4.3 Scenario 3: Blasting a Wet Hole Charged
with the Emulsion
Similar to Scenario 2, in this scenario, the holes were assumed
to be wet with their bottom being below the underground
water table by 0.5 m. In this case, however, a water resistance
sizes as well as D50 under the three scenarios. As can
be observed from the figure, the largest blast-induced
fragment size was obtained under Scenario 2, i.e., the
Scenario 2 produced the most unfavorable rock frag-
mentation. This was mainly caused by dissolution of
ANFO in water and hence failure to achieve an accept-
able blasting velocity. At the other end of the spectrum,
under Scenario 3, the blasting operation produced a
more uniform (and hence favorable) rock fragmentation.

Fig. 13 Rock aggregation 100

485 Particles: (mm)
diagram under Scenario 3
90 Min= 10.627

Max= 1769.793
80
Mean= 129.373
70 Stdev= 121.696

60 D10= 132.338
% Passing

D25= 194.038
50
D50= 297.568

40 D75= 504.713

D90= 974.754
30

20

10

0
1 10 100 1000
Size (mm)
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Fig. 14 Comparative diagram of

the modeling results

In order to validate the modeling results, the actual 6 Conclusion

blast-induced rock fragmentation at Baba-Ali Iron Ore
Mine was investigated (Fig. 15). For this purpose, mul-
tiple images were taken during loading to capture dif-
ferent cross sections of the muck pile. A particle size
distribution (PSD) analysis was conducted on these im-
ages using the imaging software such as Split Desktop
Software. The result of the rock fragment size analysis
following the explosion of ANFO in dry holes was
shown in Table 10. Also a comparison between scenar-
ios and the real blasting fragmentation was presented on
Table 15. As observed, D50 of the fragmented rocks
under Scenario 1 was 252.826 mm, i.e., closely resem-
bling actual measurements performed upon such explo-
sion at Baba-Ali Iron Ore Mine (250 mm). This con-
firmed the accuracy and reliability of the modeling re-
sults obtained with the LS-DYNA Software in dry
blasting using ANFO.
In the present research, in order to investigate the role of water
in rock fragmentation following the blasting operation, nu-
merical modeling was performed in LS-DYNA Software.
For this purpose, three blasting scenarios were considered:
explosion of ANFO in dry hole, explosion of ANFO in wet
hole, and explosion of the emulsion in wet hole. Accordingly,
the following conclusions were drawn out of modeling the
three scenarios:
1. Rock fragmentation under dry conditions was successful-
ly modeled using LS DYNA.
2. The rock fragment size distribution obtained upon explo-
sion of ANFO in dry hole more closely resembled a nor-
mal distribution, compared to the other two scenarios. In
other words, more uniform rock fragment size distribution
was obtained under this scenario.
3. When ANFO was used to charge the wet holes, average
size of the obtained rock fragments was five times larger
than that obtained with ANFO in dry holes, thereby in-
curring high costs to the mine. On this basis, it is strictly
recommended to use water resistance explosive material
(e.g., the emulsion), rather than ANFO, in wet holes.

Table 10 Comparison of the fragmentation size (mm)

D10 D25 D50 D75 D90

Scenario 1 128.341 172.558 252.826 381.221 499.419

Scenario 2 266.571 607.534 1131.207 1825.17 2240.747
Scenario 3 132.338 194.038 297.568 504.713 974.754
Real blasting 79.634 170.125 250.001 336.878 402.157
Fig. 15 Blast-induced fragmentation in Baba-Ali Iron Ore Mine

Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1 Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL, Carcedo FJA. Drilling and blasting of rocks.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995
2 Ebrahimi E, Monjezi M, Khalesi MR, Jahed AD (2016) Prediction
and optimization of back-break and rock fragmentation using an
artificial neural network and a bee colony algorithm. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 75:27–36
3 Shams S, Monjezi M, Johari Majd V, Jahed AD (2015) Application
of fuzzy inference system for prediction of rock fragmentation in-
duced by blasting. Arab J Geosci 8:10819–10832
4 Hasanipanah M, Jahed Armaghani D, Monjezi M, Shams S (2016)
Risk assessment and prediction of rock fragmentation produced by
blasting operation: a rock engineering system. Environ Earth Sci 75:
808
[5. Hasanipanah M, Bakhshandeh Amnieh H, Saber Zamzam M,
Arab H (2018) Feasibility of PSO–ANFIS model to estimate rock
fragmentation produced by mine blasting. Neural Comput &
Applic 30:1015–1024
6 Singh PK, Roy MP, Paswan RK (2016) Sarim, Kumar S, Ranjan Jha
R. rock fragmentation control in opencast blasting. J Rock Mech
Geotech Eng 8:225–237
7 Trivedi R, Singh TN, Raina AK (2016) Simultaneous prediction of
blast-induced flyrock and fragmentation in opencast limestone
mines using back propagation neural network. Int. J. Mining and
Mineral Engineering 7:237–252
8 Bakhtavar E, Khoshrou H, Badroddin M (2015) Using dimensional-
regression analysis to predict the mean particle size of fragmentation
by blasting at the Sungun copper mine. Arab J Geosci 8:2111–2120
9 Mehrdanesh A, Monjezi M, Sayadi AR (2018) Evaluation of effect
of rock mass properties on fragmentation using robust techniques.
Eng Comput 34:253–260
10 Murlidhar BR, Jahed Armaghani D, Tonnizam Mohamad E,
Changthan S (2018) Rock fragmentation prediction through a new
hybrid model based on Imperial competitive algorithm and neural
network. Smart Construction Research 2:1–12
11 Faraji Asl P, Monjezi M, Khademi Hamidi H, Jahed AD (2018)
Optimization of flyrock and rock fragmentation in the Tajareh lime-
stone mine using metaheuristics method of firefly algorithm. Eng
Comput 34:241–251
12 Prasad S, Choudhary BS, Mishra AK (2017) Effect of stemming to
burden ratio and powder factor on blast induced rock
fragmentation– a case study. IOP Conf Series: Materials Science
and Engineering 225:012191
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
13 Ghaeini N, Mousakhani M, Bakhshandeh Amnieh H, Jafari A
(2017) Prediction of blasting fragmentation using the mutual infor-
mation and rock engineering system; case study: Meydook copper
mine. International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering 51:23–
28
14 Monjezi M, Rezaei M, Yazdian VA (2009) Prediction of rock frag-
mentation due to blasting in Gol-E-Gohar iron mine using fuzzy
logic. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:1273–1280
15 Bahrami A, Monjezi M, Goshtasbi K, Ghazvinian A (2011)
Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neu-
ral network. Eng Comput 27:177–181
16 Sayadi A, Monjezi M, Talebi N, Khandelwal M (2013) A compar-
ative study on the application of various artificial neural networks to
simultaneous prediction of rock fragmentation and backbreak. J
Rock Mech Geotech Eng 5(4):318–324
17 Karami A, Afiuni-Zadeh S (2013) Sizing of rock fragmentation
modeling due to bench blasting using adaptive neuro-fuzzy infer-
ence system (ANFIS). Int J Min Sci Technol 23(6):809–813
18 Mahadevan EG. Ammonium nitrate explosives for civil applications
slurries, emulsions and ammonium nitrate fuel oils. Wiley-VCH
Verlag & Co. KGaA, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany;
2013
19 Dehghani H, Shafaghi M (2017 Jan 1) Prediction of blast-induced
flyrock using differential evolution algorithm. Eng Comput 33(1):
149–158
20 Riedel W, Thoma K, Hiermaier S, Schmolinske E. Penetration of
reinforced concrete by BETA-B-500, numerical analysis using a
new macroscopic concrete model for hydrocodes. In: Proceedings
of the 9th International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of
Munitions with Structures. Berlin; 3–7 May 1999;315–322
21 Yi C, Sjoberg J, Johansson D, Petropoulos N (2017) A numerical
study of the impact of short delays on rock fragmentation. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 100:250–254
22 Schill M. Finite element simulations of blasting and the effects of
precise initiation on fragmentation. Swebrec Report, No 2012:2;
ISSN 1653-5006
23 Haimson B, Chang C (2000) A new true triaxial cell for testing
mechanical properties of rock, and its use to determine rock strength
and deformability of westerly granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:
285–296
24 Shah QH (2011) Experimental and numerical study on the orthog-
onal and oblique impact on water filled pipes. International Journal
of Impact Engineering 38:330–338
25 Panciroli R, Abrate S, Minak G, Zucchelli A (2012) Hydroelasticity
in water-entry problems: comparison between experimental and
SPH results. Compos Struct 94:532–539
26 Hansson H. Determination of properties for emulsion explosives
using cylinder expansion tests and numerical simulation. Swebrec
report. No: 2009:1 ISSN 1653–5006
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.