0 Votos favoráveis0 Votos desfavoráveis

17 visualizações10 páginasThis paper presents a fragmentation model for large production blasts in an open pit or underground
environment. The paper shows that the particle velocity is directly related to pressure, strain, and
strain rate and so it can be considered as driving force and mechanism of rock fragmentation.
This is supported by the fact that a vibration with a larger peak particle velocity (PPV) generates
larger disturbance in rock and so finer fragmentation or more blast damage than a low PPV. The
crack distribution in rock from impact is based on findings from previous researchers (Seaman,
Curran and Shockey, 1976; Liu and Xu, in press). The fragmentation size is calculated at threedimensional grid points within a blast. The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly – the fines generated close to blastholes and big blocks far from boreholes are modelled naturally. The
multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model takes surveyed irregular geometry of the free face
of a blast as the calculation boundary. The MBF can model fragmentation with over one million
grid points. Examples of the model’s field comparison are also included.

Nov 17, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

This paper presents a fragmentation model for large production blasts in an open pit or underground
environment. The paper shows that the particle velocity is directly related to pressure, strain, and
strain rate and so it can be considered as driving force and mechanism of rock fragmentation.
This is supported by the fact that a vibration with a larger peak particle velocity (PPV) generates
larger disturbance in rock and so finer fragmentation or more blast damage than a low PPV. The
crack distribution in rock from impact is based on findings from previous researchers (Seaman,
Curran and Shockey, 1976; Liu and Xu, in press). The fragmentation size is calculated at threedimensional grid points within a blast. The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly – the fines generated close to blastholes and big blocks far from boreholes are modelled naturally. The
multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model takes surveyed irregular geometry of the free face
of a blast as the calculation boundary. The MBF can model fragmentation with over one million
grid points. Examples of the model’s field comparison are also included.

© All Rights Reserved

17 visualizações

This paper presents a fragmentation model for large production blasts in an open pit or underground
environment. The paper shows that the particle velocity is directly related to pressure, strain, and
strain rate and so it can be considered as driving force and mechanism of rock fragmentation.
This is supported by the fact that a vibration with a larger peak particle velocity (PPV) generates
larger disturbance in rock and so finer fragmentation or more blast damage than a low PPV. The
crack distribution in rock from impact is based on findings from previous researchers (Seaman,
Curran and Shockey, 1976; Liu and Xu, in press). The fragmentation size is calculated at threedimensional grid points within a blast. The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly – the fines generated close to blastholes and big blocks far from boreholes are modelled naturally. The
multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model takes surveyed irregular geometry of the free face
of a blast as the calculation boundary. The MBF can model fragmentation with over one million
grid points. Examples of the model’s field comparison are also included.

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Você está na página 1de 10

Capability and Field Comparison

Examples

R Yang1

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a fragmentation model for large production blasts in an open pit or underground

environment. The paper shows that the particle velocity is directly related to pressure, strain, and

strain rate and so it can be considered as driving force and mechanism of rock fragmentation.

This is supported by the fact that a vibration with a larger peak particle velocity (PPV) generates

larger disturbance in rock and so finer fragmentation or more blast damage than a low PPV. The

crack distribution in rock from impact is based on findings from previous researchers (Seaman,

Curran and Shockey, 1976; Liu and Xu, in press). The fragmentation size is calculated at three-

dimensional grid points within a blast. The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly the

fines generated close to blastholes and big blocks far from boreholes are modelled naturally. The

multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model takes surveyed irregular geometry of the free face

of a blast as the calculation boundary. The MBF can model fragmentation with over one million

grid points. Examples of the models field comparison are also included.

The PPV at a calculation grid is estimated based on the same approach used for the near field

non-linear vibration model (Yang and Scovira, 2007). The method is based on the dominant charge

for a calculation grid point, non-linear charge weight superposition within a charge and from

multiple charges, strain wave broadening, and amplitude attenuation with distance from a charge

segment. The blasthole confinement affected by earlier firing charges is also taken into account.

The MBF model inputs from blast design, such as: location and orientation of each blasthole,

stemming length, blasthole diameter, multiple decking, bench height, initiation sequence, etc. It

models the effect of the delay and its scatter in each blasthole on fragmentation and has a statistical

modelling capability for geological random variation on attenuation of particle velocity wave. The

wave reinforcement due to instantaneous waves arriving or diminishing cooperative contribution

due to long delay intervals between charges is also simulated.

The results are displayed in 3D volumetric plots, contour of fragmentation in cross-sections, and

size passing curves for a whole blast or a region of the blast.

INTRODUCTION

With advanced technology such as electronic detonators, Typically such models are inadequate for predicting fines and

accurate charge weight logging, and GPS surveillance of oversize blocks (Cunningham, 1987).

blasthole locations, it is possible to develop an accurate blast Three-dimensional finite element models exist for modelling

fragmentation model to best utilise these new technologies. rock fragmentation from first principles (Preece and Lownds,

2008; Tawadrous, 2012; Dare-Bryan, Mansfield and Schoeman,

Current semi-empirical fragmentation models (Cunningham,

2012). However, these models are limited to the simulation of

1987; Lownds, 1995) in the literature cannot explicitly model

relatively small blasts due to the restrictions of the present

contributions from multiple blastholes (charges) with delay computing resources and are generally unable to model the

timing in each blasthole (each charge). Most of them are not entire fragmentation size range, particularly the fines.

three-dimensional. Furthermore, these models predict an It is desirable to model a full production blast with all

average fragmentation size within a volume surrounding a blastholes (deck charges) and the real geometry. For example,

blasthole and use the average size to calculate a size distribution a commonly asked question by a blasting engineer is: If the

over the volume using a uniformity index or assumed fitting blast vibration is under control, can the rock fragmentation be

parameters to describe the size distributions (Spathis, 2013). concurrently improved? Also: How does a blasting engineer

1. Senior Research Fellow, Orica USA Inc, 33101 E Quincy Avenue, Watkins Co 80137. Email: ruilin.yang@orica.com

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 177

R YANG

compromise between blast vibration and rock fragmentation at a it is well accepted within the blasting community that the

particular site? In order to address these questions, the timing larger the PPV of a blast at a point of interest, the larger the

effects on both blast vibration and fragmentation should be disturbance and damage to the rock. Therefore, there must

modelled reliably. It was previously shown that the existing be a relationship between PPV and three-dimensional strain

multiple seed waveform (MSW) vibration model can model tensor, no matter if it has been established or not.

the effect of timing delay on blast vibration in the near and

The following analysis is similar to the previous paper on

far fields (Yang and Lownds, 2011) and it is proposed here

dynamic strain of blast vibration by Yang (2012). Figure 2

that this model be expanded to address the fragmentation

shows particle velocity vector ^^ vv ]rv, tg, vv ]rv + 3 rv, tgh and

prediction.

displacement (u(t), v(t), w(t)) induced by detonation of

explosive charges at two adjacent points ( Trv is small). At any

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY DIRECTLY RELATED time instance, the relative displacement ]]Tu ] t g, Tv ] t g, Tw ] t gg

TO STRESS, PRESSURE AND FRAGMENTATION between the two points A (with location vector rv ) and B (with

Using peak particle velocity (PPV) induced by detonation a location vector rv + Trv ) induces the strain tensor E( Trv, t)

of explosive charges to model rock fragmentation and (Equation 3) at the point A (assuming Trv is small) or the

heave has been reported with success in literature (Harries, average strain between A and B:

1987; Persson, 1990, 1996). Persson (1990, 1996) correlated

peak particle velocity with typical observed effects (swell, 2u 2u 2v 2u 2 w

2x 2y + 2x 2z + 2x

rock damage, fragmentation, and crushing) of a blast in

Scandinavian bedrock. This section demonstrates the E ]rv, tg = 2u 2v

2y + 2x

2v

2z

2v 2w

2z + 2y (3)

justification of using PPV as controlling parameter for rock 2u 2w 2v 2w 2w

fragmentation modelling. 2z + 2x 2z + 2y 2z

The components of the strain tensor are related to the

Shock wave close to blasthole relative displacement at any time instance t as following

For a plane shock wave, the pressure and the particle velocity equations (Yang, 2012):

at the shock front are related as shown in Equation 1, where

the shock wave velocity is a variable depending on shock Tu ] t g = 22ux _ xb - xa i + 22uy _ yb - ya i + 22uz _ zb - za i

pressure P. Therefore, P is nonlinearly related to particle (4)

velocity u: Tv ] t g = 22xv _ xb - xa i + 22vy _ yb - ya i + 22vz _ zb - za i

Tw ] t g = 22wx _ xb - xa i + 22wy _ yb - ya i + 22wz _ zb - za i

P = t0 Uu (1)

One dimensional elastic wave B can be expressed as:

For a one-dimensional longitudinal wave propagating along

a bar with infinite length, the strain and the particle velocity d] t g = ]Tu ] t gg2 + ]Tv ] t gg2 + ]Tw ] t gg2 (5)

can be depicted as in Figure 1 with the strain () being related

to the particle velocity as in Equation 2: On the other hand:

( t - 3 t) u t

= (2)

Tt " 0 t c d] t g = # 6vv ]rv + Trv, xg $ dx - vv ]rv, xg@ $ dx (6)

where: 0

u = the particle velocity (m/s) t t

c = the sonic velocity of the medium (m/s), it is d] t g = # 6vv ]rv + Trv, x g - vv ]rv, x g@ dx # # vv ]rv + Trv, x g - vv ]rv, x g dx (7)

constant E 0 0

t

is density of the material constant

Take the length (eg calculation grid space) of Trv to be less

d(t) = the displacement at time t (m) than the quarter wave length of the particle velocity wave at

It is worth noting that Equation 2 shows that at any the peak amplitude (the principal wavelength ) and the

time instances t in the waveform the particle velocity is phase difference between vv ]rv, tg and vv ]rv + 3 rv, tg to be less

proportional to strain, which is often confused with the case than the quarter of the period of the particle velocity wave at

of a shock wave where the relationship 1 is only valid at the the peak amplitude (the principal period T). Consequently,

shock front.

dimensional strain tensor

The present literature has not established a relationship

between PPV and three-dimensional strain tensor. However,

FIG 1 Stress wave propagation in a long bar. charges at two adjacent points ( Trr is small).

178 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015

A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES

at any time instance, the difference in particle velocity the multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model for a site.

between the point A and B cannot be greater than PPV. From Theoretical analysis may also serve as a guideline for model

the first mean value theorem for integration: parameter evaluation.

There is a misconception that blast vibration is only a small

t

portion of the explosive detonation energy without specifying

d] t g # # vv]rv + Trv, x g - vv]rv, x g dx =

(8) where the blast vibration is measured. Equation 9 shows that

0 if the particle velocity is measured at the vicinity to a blasthole

vv]rv + Trv, g g - vv]rv, g g $ t # PPV $ D the energy from the quantities includes or accounts for most

rock breakage energy of explosives since it relates the strain

where: close the blasthole.

0#g#t#D

Fragmentation size decreases with increasing of

D is the duration of the waveforms, accounted for by the

variable width of time window described in the later strain rate that relates to peak particle velocity

section of the paper Recent laboratory work by Liu and Xu (2015) shows that the

If the directional cosines of the vector of PPV are known higher the loading rate to rock specimen, the finer the fragment

(n,m,l) and if two additional points which are not co-planar size is (Figure 3). Such result was repeated for three rock types

with A and B are chosen (Yang and Ray, 2012), the strain (marble, sand stone, and granite). The result is consistent with

tensor in Equation 3 corresponding to the maximum relative the theory that the higher the strain rate, the more micro-

displacement (the largest deformation) between A and B can cracks participate in rock fragmentation, resulting in finer

be estimated by solving nine independent equations similar fragmentation (Digby, Nilsson and Oldenburg, 1985). It should

to Equation 9 below to obtain the nine displacement gradients be also pointed out that at a blast site the higher the vibration

amplitude (PPV), the higher the strain rate. This is because high

( 2u , 2u , 2u , 2v , 2v , 2v , 2w , 2w , 2w ): PPVs are generated at areas closer to blastholes with higher

2x 2y 2 z 2 x 2 y 2 z 2x 2 y 2 z

frequency contents than at areas further away from blastholes.

n $ PPV $ D = 22ux _ xb - xa i + 22uy _ yb - ya i + 22uz _ zb - za i It is consistent with the fines being generated near blastholes.

(9)

m $ PPV $ D = 22xv _ xb - xa i + 22vy _ yb - ya i + 22vz _ zb - za i

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY CALCULATION

l $ PPV $ D = 22wx _ xb - xa i + 22wy _ yb - ya i + 22wz _ zb - za i

For the MBF model, the effective charge weight from a single

charge to a point of interest is calculated by the integration

Equations 39 demonstrate that PPV is related to the of non-linear charge weight superposition along the charge

maximum three-dimensional dynamic strain. It is also given length, which was described in the previous paper (Yang,

by the well accepted fact that a vibration with a higher PPV 2015). The PPV at a calculation grid point is based on non-

generates larger disturbance (ie strain) in rock, so more blast linear charge weight superposition from different contributing

damage or finer fragmentation than a lower PPV. Relating charges accounting for the distance to a calculation point and

PPV to rock fragmentation size distribution should be the delay timing from the dominant charge (described below).

accepted naturally. Such modelling of contributions from multiple charges

A site-specific relationship between fragment size and accounts for:

PPV derived from near-field vibration measurements from explosive energy superposition when delay timings

blasts may be established as a starting point for calibrating between charges are close

FIG 3 Size reduction dependent on loading strain rate for three rock types.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 179

R YANG

diminishing contributions if charges are far away in In order to assign different widths of the time window when

distance to a calculation grid point or delay timings of firing charges from different distances, a linear relationship

charges are sufficiently different from the timing of the between the width of the time window and the distance is:

dominant charge of the calculation grid point

reduced contribution from a charge if the confinement is T = T0 + k $ de (11)

reduced by an earlier firing charge.

where:

Confinement reduction due to earlier firing T is the width of the time window

blastholes T0 is the initial width of the time window where the

If a particle velocity wave from an explosive charge passes effective distance equals zero

through broken ground created by charges fired earlier, It is reasonable to assume that T0 is equal to the detonation

the PPV (stress wave) contribution will be reduced by duration of the charge:

an increased effective distance (Yang and Scovira, 2007).

Secondly, blastholes fired earlier in the vicinity of a firing L

T = VD

blasthole (according to distance between the blastholes) will

0

the fragmentation potential (Yang and Kay, 2011; Yang, 2014).

L is the maximum charge length to initiate

VoD is the velocity of detonation

Scaled distance at a point of interest from

The relationship 11 is similar to the linear rise time law

multiple charges proposed by Gladwin and Stacey (1974). The constant k

For modelling rock fragmentation by multiple delayed in Equation 11 can be estimated from field measurements

blastholes, any model (even a full waveform superposition of the vibration waveform duration at different distances

model; Blair and Minchinton, 1996, 2006) must account (Kavetsky et al, 1990). The near-field vibration data shows that

for the case that fragmented and detached rocks cannot the waveform duration increases as a linear function of the

receive further energy input from blast charges fired later. distance travelled and has the form of Equation 11 in a soft

For example, the rocks that are fragmented and moved by coalmine in USA (Yang and Scovira, 2007).

blastholes in the first row may not get any further input from

the blastholes in the second row if the delay between the rows Scaling a contributing charge weight to dominant

is sufficiently long. The present MBF model in this paper uses

two concepts to model this phenomenon and the inter-charge charge location

timing delay effects a dominant charge and a variable time Before the superposition, the effective weight of a contributing

window for each charge at a calculation grid point. charge is non-linearly scaled to a charge weight equivalent to

that at the nearest effective distance of the dominant charge,

Dominant charge ddc (any screening and confinement effects from blastholes

fired earlier are taken into account), as follows.

It is assumed that there is a dominant charge at each point

of interest (a calculation grid) that has the minimum The scaled charge weight:

scaled distance calculated based on non-linear charge

b l

weight superposition. It is reasonable to assume that the ddc b

wsi = wi $ c (12)

dominant charge is the major contributor to the PPV and the d

fragmentation at a grid point. The contributions from other

charges are accounted for by the implementation of a non- Modelling effect of arrival time difference within a

sliding time window with a variable width for each charge

and are described in the following section. time window

In order to model the delay timing effects of multiple

Variable width of time window for a charge blastholes (decked charges), such as the effect of wave

Waveform broadening with distance travelled is an collision reinforcement or diminished cooperative

important aspect to consider for near-field strain wave contribution due to long delay interval between holes

modelling. Energy loss to the media is mainly attributed to (charges), a weighting function is used to account for the

frequency attenuation. For a given travel distance, higher delay time effect on the PPV contribution. The PPV at a grid

frequency components are attenuated more rapidly than point is due to the superposition of the particle velocity wave

lower frequency components. from the dominant charge and weighted contributions from

other charges.

To determine if any charge wi contributes to the peak strain

wave values along with the dominant charge, a symmetric A weighting function on the scaled charge weight wsi

fixed time window around the strain wave arrival time (ti) of is used, as shown in Figure 4, where, tdc, is the strain wave

the charge is assumed. arrival time of the dominant charge, ti is the arrival time of

a contributing charge, Ti is the time window width for the

The width of the time window Ti for the particular charge

charge wsi determined from Equation 12.

wi is calculated from Equation 11 with distance x = de (the

effective distance). If a particle velocity wave from the

dominant charge arriving at the grid point at the time tdc is

within the time window, ie

then the charge wi is determined to be a contributing charge FIG 4 An exponential weighting function for modelling

to the peak strain wave value at the calculation grid point. the delay time difference within the time window.

180 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015

A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES

It is assumed that the minimum weighting value is e-m when PPV0 is the threshold PPV for crack nucleation of the

the time difference (t) is equal to half the time window (0.5Ti) material

and the maximum is 1.0 when the strain wave arrival time is The average fragment size is inversely related to the number

exactly the same as the dominant charge (ti =ti tdc =0). of the fractures:

The exponential function has the form (Equation 13):

x0

xr = (17)

N0 exp c m

x PPV - PPV0

- n $ 0.5T

fi ]x g = e i (13) h

time window of the contributing charge includes the dominant x0 = the initial fragment size (m)

charge) with the weighting function fi ]x g can be calculated as: It may be the in situ block size due to joints.

n

It is assumed that the cumulative volumetric fraction for

wec = / fi ]x g $ wsi (14) fragment sizes smaller than x has the distribution (exponential

i=1 distribution).

where:

n is the total number of contributing charges including R ] xg = 1 - exp ^ - x xr h (18)

the dominant charge (wdc)

wsi is the ith scaled contributing charge weight (refer to The advantage of the exponential distribution is that it

Equation 12) accounts large portion of fragmentation fines which is often

t i is the strain wave arrival time difference of the ith underestimated by imaging analysis of fragmentation.

contributing charge from the time of the dominant Secondly, it has only one parameter ( xr ) to fit. Although it may

charge not yield better fitting than a two- or three-parameter model

The PPV at a calculation grid point from multiple to the measured distribution, the distribution (Equation 18)

contributing charges can be calculated from the effective may provide a fine correction to the imaging processing.

charge weight in Equation 14 and the nearest distance ( d dc )

from the dominant charge to the grid point:

n Model input and parameters

All blast design parameters, such as, location (x, y, z), timing

and weight of each explosive deck, blasthole diameter and

n j ` ec j

PPV = a ` d dc - b c

w (15)

angle, length of stemming and stemming between decks, etc

are all direct input to the MBF model, the data is from a blast

Irregular free face modelling design software (ShotPlus).

The MBF model uses the surveyed blast geometry as The modelling parameters include:

calculation boundary. The overburden geometry plays an Parameters from field measurement

important role in rock fragmentation by blasting. For example,

a, b, c, a 97.5%, b 97.5%, c 97.5% best fit and 97.5 per cent

a few feet more burden will generate substantially coarser

upper bound of particle velocity attenuation

fragments or larger blocks than an initial small burden would

parameters in Equation 15, obtained from near-field

generate. The irregular geometry of a blast is modelled using

signature blasthole vibration monitoring

similar technique described by Yang, Preece and Chung (2004)

in which both concave and convex polygons of overburden c ground sonic velocity, measured during signature

geometries can be modelled. hole blasts

T0, k particle wave broadening parameters in

Equation 11, obtained from near field signature hole

FRAGMENTATION AT A POINT OF INTEREST blast vibration waveforms

Seaman, Curran and Shockey (1976) developed a model of Parameters from calibration in most cases

fracture and fragmentation for ductile and brittle materials

X0 /N0 rock material property parameter in Equation17,

based on projectile impact experiments and theoretical analysis.

estimated to in situ joint spacing and frequency

The model favourably compares fragment size distributions

with measurements and thus appears to be highly relevant PPV0 the threshold PPV for crack nucleation in

and fundamental research work for rock blast fragmentation Equation 17, may be estimated from rock property,

modelling (Yang, 2015). Below is a brief summary of the otherwise a calibration parameter

dynamic rock fracture model used in the MBF model. material constant in Equation 17, estimated from

rock property, otherwise a fitting parameter

Fragmentation from rock blasting wsrn, broken ground screening width ( B 2+ S ) and

It has been previously demonstrated that the peak PPV screening coefficient (Yang and Scovira, 2007).

induced from detonation of explosive charges is directly

related to pressure or strain. Therefore, it can be assumed that CASE EXAMPLES

the number of fractures that produce rock fragments during

blasting is governed by: Modelling a production blast with irregular

free face

PPV - PPV0

N = N0 exp d n (16) Figure 5 shows a plane view of an open pit blast with an

h irregular free face that is defined by survey points. Blasthole

where: diameter 311 mm. Bench height was 15 m with 1 m subdrill.

N0 and are material constants Burden and spacing was 8.5 m and 10 m. The stemming

PPV (m/s) is the peak particle velocity at the calculation grid was 5.5 m. The explosive was an emulsion with density of

point 1.25g/cm3. The operation is a goldcopper mine.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 181

R YANG

FIG 5 A plane view of an open pit blast design with irregular free face.

Figure 6 shows volumetric displays of the modelled Field comparison of modelling against

fragmentation of the blast. It shows that large rock fragments

measurement

are from the stemming region and at the large front burden

In reality, the fragment size depends on which section of the

due to irregular free face geometry (Yang, Preece and Chung,

blast the fragments come from. At present, this is the major

2004). Fragment fines are generated around blastholes. The difficulty in which fragmentation measurement and modelling

modelled trends are consistent with field observations. are challenged. Secondly, when fragmentation measurement

size passing curves are obtained from a muck pile, it is often

not known what is the percentage that each passing curve

represents to a whole muck pile. If each measurement does

not represent the same percentage of the muck pile, a simple

average of measured distribution curves does not represent the

whole fragmentation of the blast. Therefore, the sampling of the

measurement must be known to make accurate comparison to

modelling. Thirdly, todays most commonly used technique of

fragmentation measurement is image analysis. The drawback

of this technique is that it is unable to measure fragment fines

below 10 mm. All three issues above pose big challenges for

comparison of fragmentation modelling to measurements. The

advantage of the MBF model is that it is capable of modelling

fragmentation size distribution respectively at various zones/

sections of a blast. If the fragmentation of a blast can be

measured systematically and completely for a whole blast or a

certain region of the blast, then meaningful comparisons may

be made between modelling and the measurements.

Example 1

Figure 7 shows a plane view and 3D view of an open pit blast

and calculation grid points of the blast for fragmentation

modelling. Blasthole diameter was 270 mm. The stemming

was 6 m and the charge length was 11 m with 1 m subdrill.

The explosive was emulsion. The mine is an open pit copper-

gold operation.

Figure 8 shows a comparison between the modelling

average and the measured simple average. Although the

comparison is reasonably satisfactory, the measurements

were done in a typical way of random sampling in the muck

pile without documenting exactly where the fragments come

from and without knowing if each measurement represents

the same percentage of the muck pile.

Figure 9 displays fragmentation passing curves of different

regions of the blast from modelling. The trends are consistent

FIG 6 Volumetric displays of the modelled fragmentation with expectation. In the stemming region, rock fragments

of the blast shown in Figure 6 (1 ft = 0.305 m). are coarse, containing large oversized blocks. In contrast, the

182 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015

A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES

among the displayed cases. In the centre section with the full

bench height, the fragmentation is coarser than in the lower

section of the blast, where it is much lower than the stemming

region.

Example 2

Figure 10 shows a blast pattern and timing design at another

mine. The blast fired in a V cut. The blasthole diameter

was 381 mm. Burden and spacing were 6.7 m 7.9 m. The

stemming length was 6.7 m. The bench height was 16.8 m

with 0.9 m subdrill. The explosive was an emulsion. The rock

type was granite. Due to the limitation of the length of the

paper, the other model parameters are not all listed here.

Fragmentation data was collected by a camera mounted on a

shovel during digging of the blasts. The images are positioned

for each truckload of material. The location of images

analysed is displayed in a plan view in Figure 11. Although

the bucket location was recorded in horizontal locations, the

vertical positions of the material were not known since the

shovel bucket swung from the floor upwards and fragments

fell down from the top of the muck pile. Neverthless,

Figure 11 demonstrates a reasonably distributed sampling

of the muck pile fragmentation. Figure 12 shows a model

comparison with measurements for average fragmentation.

The model produced more fine fragments (<127 mm) than

the actual measurements. The model predicts more fragments

larger than eight inches than the actual measurements show.

However, overall the agreement is reasonably good.

FIG 7 Plan view and 3D view of an open pit blast with Figure 12 displays a volumetric fragmentation size

calculation grids for fragmentation modelling. distribution of the blast and horizontal slices of fragments.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 183

R YANG

FIG 9 Fragmentation passing curves of different regions of the blast from modelling.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONS FIG 11 Location of images analysed is displayed in a plan view.

As demonstrated, particle velocity is a parameter that can

be directly related to pressure, strain or stress within a rock for predicting rock fragmentation by blasting to the order

mass during the blast. The present paper relates PPV to the required for the current MBF model.

maximum relative displacement between two adjacent points, The non-linear charge weight superposition used in the

then to the three-dimensional dynamic strain. Such a relation present model contrasts to the literature that use linear PPV

is warranted by a well-accepted fact that a vibration with a

superposition to model peak particle velocity in the vicinity

higher PPV generates larger disturbance (ie strain) in rock, so

of blastholes. Non-linear charge weight superposition is

more blast damage or finer fragmentation than a lower PPV.

Relating PPV to rock fragmentation size distribution should more suitable in the near-field of explosive charges where the

be scientifically sound. interaction between the rock and shock wave behaves non-

linearly.

Rock fragmentation mechanisms and size distributions

are modelled based on the work of Seaman, Curran and The model also accounts for the effect of waveform

Shockey (1976) and appear to be relevant and fundamental broadening contribution (using a variable width time window

184 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015

A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES

for each explosive charge), the delay time of each charge prediction. Such a capability may find great use in Mine to

and broken ground confinement reduction. These features Mill optimisation through blast design variations and ultra-

account for blasthole interactions and the effects of blasthole high intensity blast applications (Brent et al, 2012).

sequence and confinement effects.

The fragmentation model calculates a fragment size ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

distribution at each calculation grid point using an exponential Dr Dale Preece and Dr Alan Minchinton from Orica made

distribution determined only by the average size at the point. useful comments on the MBF model. Dr Mick Lownds also

The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly. The provided constructive comments. Mr Charles Zdazinsky,

overall size distribution of a blast depends on all of the blast Martin Adams and Alex Steciuk from Orica kindly provided

design parameters, such as explosive spatial distribution, some field data and participated in useful discussions with

delay time in each blasthole, blast configuration and free face author.

geometry, etc. All of these design parameters are inputsinthe

MBF model. REFERENCES

Todays most commonly used technique of fragmentation Blair, D P and Minchinton, A, 1996. On the damage zone surrounding

measurement is image analysis. The drawback of the a single blasthole, in Proceedings Fifth International Symposium

technique is its inability to measure the fines portion of the on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 5 (ed: B Mohanty),

pp121130 (A A Balkema: Rotterdam).

particle size distribution. Relying entirely on fitting such

measured data may not represent the real fragmentation. Blair, D P and Minchinton, A, 2006. Near-field blast vibration models,

Using an exponential distribution (one parameter only) to in Proceedings Eighth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation

by Blasting Fragblast 8, pp 152159 (Editec S.A: Santiago).

describe rock fragmentation at a point (a small cube around

the point) may have an advantage to compensate for the fines Brent, G, Rothery, M D, Dare-Bryan, P C, Hawke, S J, Gomez, R and

that are missed from image analysis. Humeres, I, 2012. Ultra-high intensity blasting for improved ore

comminution, in Proceedings Tenth International Symposium on

The modelling examples demonstrate that the model Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 10 (eds: P K Singh and

produces reasonable trends for blast fragmentation ASinha), pp 163170 (CRC Press/Balkema: The Netherlands).

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 185

R YANG

Cunningham, C V B, 1987. Fragmentation estimations and the kuz Preece, D S and Lownds, C M, 2008. 3D computer simulation of bench

ram model four years on, in Proceedings Second International blasting with precise delay timing, paper presented to the 34th

Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 2, Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, New

pp 475487 (Society for Experimental Mechanics: Keystone). Orleans, 2730 January.

Dare-Bryan, P C, Mansfield, S and Schoeman, J, 2012. Blast Seaman, L, Curran, D R and Shockey, D A, 1976. Computational

optimisation through computer modelling of fragmentation, models for ductile and brittle fracture, Journal of Applied Physics,

heave and damage, in Proceedings Tenth International Symposium 47:48144826.

on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 10 (eds: P K Singh

Spathis, A T, 2013. A three parameter rock fragmentation

and A Sinha), pp 95104 (CRC Press/Balkema: The Netherlands).

distribution, in Measurement and Analysis of Blast Fragmentation

Digby, P, Nilsson, L and Oldenburg, M, 1985. Finite element (eds: J A Sanchidrian and A K Singh), pp 7384 (Taylor and

simulation of time dependent fracture and fragmentation Francis Group: London).

processes in rock blasting, International Journal for Numerical and

Tawadrous, A, 2012. Prediction of fines generated around a

Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 9(4):317329.

blasthole using a state-of-the-art constitutive model, Blasting and

Gladwin, M T and Stacey, F D, 1974. Anelastic degradation of acoustic Fragmentation, 6(2):119130.

pulse in rock, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 8:332336.

Yang, R, 2012. A method to calculate the dynamic strain tensor from

Harries, G, 1987. The calculation of heave and muck-pile profile, in blast vibration records theory and measurement error analysis,

Proceedings Second International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation Blasting and Fragmentation, 6(2):101118.

by Blasting Fragblast 2, pp 248256 (Society for Experimental

Yang, R, 2014. A 3D multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model

Mechanics: Keystone).

based on peak particle velocity, non-linear charge weight scaling,

Kavetsky, A, Chitombo, G P, McKenzie, C K and Yang, R, 1990. time window of contribution, and dynamic rock fracture models,

A model of acoustic pulse propagation and its application to Orica internal report.

determine Q for a rock mass, International Journal of Rock Mechanics

Yang, R, 2015. A multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model

and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics, 27(1):3341.

based on non-linear charge scaling, delay time contribution,

Liu, S and Xu, J, in press. Experimental and numerical analysis of and rock dynamic fracture, paper presented to the 41st Annual

Qinling Mountain engineered rocks during pulse-shaped SHPB Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, New Orleans,

test, Shock and Vibration. 14 February.

Lownds, C M, 1995. Prediction of fragmentation based on distribution Yang, R and Kay, D B, 2011. Multiple seed blast vibration modeling for

of explosives energy, paper presented to Research Symposium of tunnel blasting in urban environments, Blasting and Fragmentation,

International Society of Explosives Engineers Meeting, Nashville, 5(2):109122.

February.

Yang, R and Lownds, M, 2011. Modeling effect of delay scatter on

McKenzie, C, 2013. Seed wave modelling applications for peak particle velocity of blast vibration using a multiple seed

fragmentation, damage, and environmental impact control, in waveform vibration model, Blasting and Fragmentation, 5(1):3146.

Blasting in Mines New Trends (eds: A K Ghose and A Joshi), 150p

Yang, R, Preece, D S and Chung, S H, 2004. Accurate Modelling of the

(Taylor and Francis Group: London).

Geometry of the Overburden Containing Irregular Free Faces Using

Persson, P, 1990. Fragmentation mechanics, in Proceedings Third DMCBLAST3D (Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile: Santiago).

International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting

Yang, R and Ray, K, 2012. A method to determine 3-D dynamic strain

Fragblast 3, pp 101108 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and

tensor based on displacement gradients from blast vibration

Metallurgy: Melbourne).

and field test results, paper presented to Tenth International

Persson, P, 1996. The relationship between strain energy, rock Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, New Delhi,

damage, fragmentation and throw in rock blasting, in Proceedings 2429 November.

Fifth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting

Yang, R and Scovira, D S, 2007. A model to predict peak particle

Fragblast 5 (ed: B Mohanty), pp 113120 (A A Balkema:

velocity for near-field blast vibration based on dominant

Rotterdam).

charge, waveform broadening, delay time modeling, and non-

linear charge weight superposition, Blasting and Fragmentation,

2(2):91116.

186 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015

- Chapter 06 - WavesEnviado porAl Nazuris
- ch15.pdfEnviado porRodrigo Silva Quirino
- Chapter 15and16Enviado poryexrewraigne9202
- Harmonic Wave TrainEnviado pormann123
- Ultrasound Analysis on steel pipesEnviado porHGuruGuruH
- Continuum Description of Vibrated SandEnviado porAFLAC ............
- 305lab1.pdfEnviado porKhaled Mohamed
- General Physics I Chapter 14 Wave Motion - Copy.docxEnviado pornomio12
- Wave Optics Type 1Enviado porMaharshi Roy
- NDA EXAMEnviado porsatyamgovilla007_747
- 12 Electric Potential EnergyEnviado porJose Barrera Galera
- ch 16Enviado porArthur Traferi Nassif
- WavesEnviado porGedeon Pagaduan
- Year 10 Revision RSG 2015 - WavesEnviado por이다은
- Afd 12lecture28Enviado porzcap excel
- 9_science_tp_12_1Enviado porSaurabh
- Uniform plane waveEnviado porPuneeth Siddappa
- lec_2_2004Enviado porSwati Sachan
- 3rd Periodic - FinalEnviado porARIES C. BULLO
- Physics of Waves QuestionEnviado porJian Wei Eng
- Waves in Empty SpaceEnviado porPrashant wadkar
- 1.1 Understanding WavesEnviado porEzhas Fauzi
- Chapter 6 Waves 2016Enviado porPikachu Alsaleh
- Particles and waves.pdfEnviado porShweta Sridhar
- Unit 4 Sound and HearingEnviado portwy113
- module phyics paper 3Enviado porzalini
- 1-s2.0-S2092678216304721-mainEnviado porBagus Panuntun
- soundsystemdesign note1Enviado porJames Nhuri Bach
- Vibration EngEnviado porHessel Juliust Wongkaren
- M_SASWEnviado porSameer Shashwat

- Open Pit Drilling and BlastingEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Value Creation Through Strategic Mine Planning and Cutoff Grade OptimizationEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Determination of a Mining Cutoff Grade Strategy Based on an Iterative FactorEnviado poralvaroaac4
- 05 Cutoff Grade Strategy.pdfEnviado porDiego Sarmiento
- Selection of a Cutoff Grade Strategy for an Open Pit MineEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Pillar Reinforcement or Rib SupportEnviado poralvaroaac4
- The Effect of Foundation Damage on the PillarsEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Roof Control, Pillar Stability, And Ground Control Issues in Underground Stone MinesEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Empirical Methods for Coal Pillar DesignEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Evaluation of a Mine Panel FailureEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Illteglity Factor Approach to Mine PillarEnviado poralvaroaac4
- OP or Block CavingEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Block Cave Production Scheduling Using PcbcEnviado porpelaojavier
- Kinross Mine Planning Best PracticeEnviado poralvaroaac4
- An Inversion Method for the Prediction of PPV in BlastingEnviado poralvaroaac4
- A Methodology for Rock Mass Characterisation to Control Blast-Induced VibrationsEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Assessment of Underground Production Blast DesignEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Integrated Modelling of Subsidence Mechanisms and Impacts Due to Mine CavingEnviado poralvaroaac4
- 015.pdfEnviado porneknew
- A Toolbox of Ideas for the Geoscientist.pdfEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Mechanisms of Thiobacillus FerrooxidansEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Olympic Dam Operation — an Overview of UndergroundEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Understanding the Role of ProductionEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Sublevel Caving — Today’s Dependable Low-Cost ‘Ore Factory’.pdfEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Diesel Particulate Matter Control Technologies and MeasurementsEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Anaerobic Bioremediation of Metallurgical WastesEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Interfacial Emulsion Formation Originated From OrganicEnviado poralvaroaac4
- Extraction of Th4+ from industrial effluents by liquid emulsion membraneEnviado poralvaroaac4

- at1 - individual research analysisEnviado porapi-354866797
- 83466057Enviado porMayank Gupta
- nationalism (1)Enviado porapi-281189080
- p21-stateimp_curriculuminstructionEnviado porFred Ryan Canoy Deaño
- Slide PembentanganEnviado porIkin Nora
- Calling People unto AllahEnviado poromair
- Designation: E2474 − 06Enviado porLupita Ramirez
- Augustine and modernity (1).pdfEnviado porAlonzo Loza
- ubdEnviado porMark Abion Valladolid
- ReferenciasEnviado porluan0292
- Business Ethics Ch4Enviado porSinyo Irfan
- Semi-Rigid Joints in Structural Steelwork 2000.pdfEnviado pordonnybtampubolon
- Board Exam ReviewEnviado porCervantes Darell Kim
- A Thematic Unity for Heidegger's Was Heisst DenkenEnviado porRăzvan Deju
- Alpha and OmegaEnviado pornikos nevros
- Ch-01 Indian Contract Act- Case StudyEnviado porSurya
- Sesi 10 - Motivasi 1Enviado porAyu Riana Sari
- Do It Tomorrow (Mark Forster) - A Brief SummaryEnviado porTom Zakharov
- English taskEnviado porAnouMalie
- Talent ChampionsEnviado porRia George Kallumkal
- Applied Linguistics Research on Project-based LearningEnviado pormike_thejetties
- Brain Based LearningEnviado porhafizah_90
- Advice for being a smarter teacher from Ian Jukes; made into a powerpoint by myselfEnviado porKen Whytock
- Lesson 08 - MnE - Work Done by Variable ForcesEnviado porFernandoMartínIranzo
- Schubert Pragmatic Sociology Interactionism Cooley MeadEnviado porolivia_alexandra
- First Conditional(1)Enviado porFrosoLazarou
- Chapter 1Enviado porAntun Rahmadi
- jason action research completeEnviado porapi-353850095
- Afareez Group ReportEnviado porruganhaur
- Bilingualism Presentation_Final DraftEnviado porRosvelle Malimban

## Muito mais do que documentos

Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.

Cancele quando quiser.