Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Sanchidrin (ed)

2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48296-7

Productivity improvement in an opencast coal mine in India

using digital image analysis technique
A.K. Raina, M. Ramulu, P.B. Choudhury, A.K. Chakraborty & A. Sinha
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Nagpur, India

B. Ramesh-Kumar & M. Fazal

The Singreni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem Collieries, Khammam, India

ABSTRACT: A comprehensive study for productivity improvement at one of the largest opencast coal
mines in India was conducted in two phases. The fragmentation was determined using digital image
analysis technique (DIAT) using Fragalyst 3.0 software. In Phase-I of the study, it was observed that
the blast design was uniform for all types of rocks mass found in the mine. Moreover, there was excessive deviation in blast design parameters. This resulted in excessive burden and stiffness in certain hard
benches. In Phase-II of the study modifications were applied to blast designs in benches with variable
geology and fragmentation was further monitored over a period of 6 months. The results thus obtained
showed that fragmentation was within optimum limit and the oversize boulders were almost eliminated.
The mean fragment size was reduced by 20% with a standard deviation of 0.05 m. The shovel pick consumption was reduced by 14% along with reduction in cycle time. Energy calculations made through the
software show a significant agreement with the comminution index. This paper includes the detailed
analysis and results of the study.
1

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation is one of the major parameters that

affect the performance of the loading and hauling
equipment deployed in a mine. Fragmentation is a
relative term and its desired values are equipment
specific. There are several references (see ISEE
Reference CD, 2008) wherein the subject has been
detailed and explained by several workers on technical front as well as with the help of some case
studies.
Since there are conflicting requirements
(Figure 1) of drilling-blasting and loading-hauling
equipments deployed in a mine, the situation
poses a difficult proposition. The whole scenario
has been discussed by several workers and can be
described in terms of optimization. For enacting
an optimization schedule it is essential to understand the level i.e. the system or sub-system level
at which the optimization is anticipated. If the
whole system is considered, the scenario becomes
quite complicated, particularly, when costs of individual components of the system are to be taken
into account. In line with the existing literature if
Figure 1 is to be taken as standard, then the degree
of fragmentation assumes importance over other
components of system. The equation thus gets
reduced to a comparison of fragmentation with the

707

costs incurred. The reverse engineering thus holds

good on logical grounds, wherein the fragmentation can be defined as optimum (range) that can be
achieved at minimum cost (Hustrulid 1999).
The whole situation thus revolves around fragmentation and thus needs to be stressed. However,
fragmentation in itself is difficult to quantify for
different reasons enumerated below.
1. Fragmentation is dependent on the in-situ rock
condition which in conjunction with the blast
design and explosive used defines a range of
fragmentation.
2. Although, a method to estimate the blast
fragment size or its distribution is essential to
optimize and determine a production pattern,
no near perfect or established measure exists
till date.
3. It is not possible to evaluate fragmentation over
whole blast as the volumes are quite huge and
production demands are high. The use of physical sampling technique is also not feasible in
this case.
4. The visual techniques or boulder count does not
yield any engineering information.
With the above corollaries, it is evident that the
systems that have been devised for the above purpose
have a potential to address the problem. With the

fragmentation should be reckoned as optimum

when the ratio of shovel size to average fragment
size is about 6.5. Rzhevesky (1985) concludes that
the optimal size of fragment (Kopt, m) should be
between 0.150.2 times the cube root of the shovel
bucket size. Jimeno et al. (1995) concluded that the
recommended maximum fragment size (Kmax) for
crusher is 80 percent of the maximum permissible
size of the crusher, the maximum recommended
fragment size for loading bucket is 0.7 times the
bucket size and the optimum fragment size between
1/6th to 1/8th times the bucket size. Chakraborty
et al. (2002) based on studies in three large opencast coal mines, found that maximum permissible
fragment size should be 0.75 times the bucket size,
whereas, the optimum size (Kopt) should lie between
8 to 10.5 percent of the bucket size, i.e.
Kopt = 0.08 to 0.105 * V1/3
Kmax = 0.75 * V1/3

Figure 1. Relation of individual system components in

mine system and the optimum thereof (Neilson 1983).

use of Digital Image Analysis Technique (DIAT),

the problem can be resolved to some extent if not
fully. DIAT is in vogue for few decades now and
software systems have grown with time. The major
players in the field are WipFrag, Split, Fragalyst &
GoldSize (all copyrights of respective agencies).
Since basic premise of all these software(s) is similar, the results are thus co-relatable.
2

BACKGROUND

Franklin et al. (1995) detailed out the intricacies

of the fragmentation, different approaches to
the assessment and prediction. Hustrulid (1999)
explained the Mine-Mill Fragmentation System
in detail while presenting the objectives of such
system in relation to the energy requirements, fragmentation evaluation and definition of optimum
fragment size in blasting. Raina et al. (in press) compile many a references which deal with the subject.
In the studies conducted at Quebec Cartier Mines,
Mckenzie (1966) found that the efficiency of all
the subsystems like drilling, blasting, mucking and
transportation are dependent on the fragmentation. Van Zeggeren & Chung (1973) proposed that

where, V is the volume of bucket in m3.

Chakraborty et al. (2004) devised guidelines for
improvement of fragmentation in jointed and massive formations. Jimeno et al. (1995) conclude that
size distribution study is the basic tool for the optimization process of blasting as it is the only means
for comparing the fragmentation obtained when
a study is to be done for sensitivity of the design
parameters. Further, they comment that apart from
the classification of size distribution or screening
of the muck pile no other method provides a fool
proof quantitative evaluation of fragmentation.
However, according to them, out of the various
techniques of fragmentation evaluation, the digital
image analysis method has the highest potential.
2.1 Rock mass properties influencing
fragmentation
Rock fragmentation depends, among a host of
parameters, on the properties of joints and fractures. The importance of in-situ joints and fractures on the degree of fragmentation following
blasting has been explained by Ghosh et al. (1990)
and Mojtabai et al. (1990). Scoble et al. (1996)
summarize significant rock and rock mass properties influencing the fragmentation with their typical ranges in various rock types (Table 1).
Adhikari & Gupta (1989), on the basis of a
study in a dolomite mine found that it was fairly
possible to predict fragmentation based on geological discontinuities if other conditions remained
unchanged. Chakraborty et al. (1994) found the
joint orientations can considerably influence the
average fragment size and larger excavators should
be required for muck handling if joints are parallel
to free face than in case of joints perpendicular to

708

Table 1. Rock mass properties influencing fragmentation

(Scoble et al. 1996).
Rock mass
properties
In-situ stress

Weathering
Water inflow
Discontinuity
characteristics

Quality

Elasticity
Inherent
fragmentation

ing a combination of pre-existing and new fractures. The area in between the pre and post blast
fragmentation distribution curves, referred as in
situ block size distribution (IBSD) and blasted
block size distribution (BBSD) respectively, is a
measure of the energy utilized in blasting.
Bond (1952) and Bond & Whittney (1959) proposed the following equation to relate the in-situ
and blasted block size with the energy utilized
in fragmentation. The equation is known as the
Bonds third communition theory.

Evaluation procedure
Field measurements for
determining major stress
magnitude and orientation
Determination of location nature
and extent of weathering
Observation of importance of
water inflow in the area
Orientation: mean strike and dip
Persistence: extent to which it is
visible
Spacing: mean distance between
discontinuities belonging to the
same set
Planarity: quantification of the
planarity of the joint surface
over large distance
Aperture: measurement of
the mean aperture of the
discontinuity
Filling: description of the in-filling
material
Strength: cohesion
Can be assessed with systems such
as Q or RMR, which rate the
quality in terms of RQD, UCS,
volumetric joint count, joint
orientation, spacing, aperture,
roughness, presence of water,
weathering, and stress reduction
factor which accounts for the
in-situ stress in Q system
Can be estimated from RMR
Can be assessed from stereonet
projections of major planes and
volumetric joint count, digital
image analysis

1
1
E = 10 Bi

K80( BBSD ) K80( IBSD )

where:
E = energy utilised in fragmentation, kWh/t
Bi = Bond work Index (da Gamma, 1983)
K80(IBSD) = 80% passing size in in-situ block size
K80(BBSD) = 80% passing size in blasted muck pile,
micron
Bi = 15.42 + 27.35 (K50(IBSD) /B), (da Gamma, 1983),
where
K50(IBSD ) = mean in-situ block size, m
B = Burden, m
2.3 Fragmentation distribution
and prediction models
The fragmentation distributions are mostly
expressed in the models provided by RosinRammler or Schuhmann Distribution model. The
most commonly used Rosin-Rammler distribution
is shown in Equation 2.

R=e
the free face. Pal Roy & Dhar (1996) proposed a
fragmentation analysis scale for rock breakage
assessment based on the joint orientation with
respect to bench face.
2.2

(1)

Evaluation of explosive energy transmission

in fragmentation

Lizotte et al. (1993) defined that rock blasting is

essentially a communition process, whereby the
degree of fragmentation is proportional to the
amount of energy transmitted to the rock. Farmer
et al. (1991) found that the energy necessary to
create fragments can be calculated by estimating
the total crack surface area created by the blasting
process and fracture energy release rates for open-

xn

xc

(2)

where,
x = screen size,
xc = characteristic size,
n = uniformity index or slope of the curve, and
R = proportion of material retained on the
screen x.
Langefors & Kihlstrom (1963), Kuznetsov equation (1973) and Cunningham equation (1983) for
prediction of fragmentation are based on rock
heterogeneity, explosives relative weight strength,
specific charge, charge distribution, stemming to
burden ratio and drilling accuracy. Most of these
models were developed based on either laboratory
studies or model studies. Out of these the most
popular and oldest predictive model is that of
Kuznetsov (1973) as shown in Equation 3.

709

K50 = A (V/Q)0.8 Q1/6

(3)

where,
K50 = Mean fragment size, cm
A = Rock factor,
= 7, for medium rocks
= 10, for hard and highly fissured rocks
= 13, for hard and weakly fissured rocks
V = volume of rock broken per blast hole, m3,
and
Q = mass of TNT containing the energy equivalent of the explosives charge in a blast hole, kg.
Chakraborty et al. (2002) redefined the mean
fragment size of a blast as given in Equation 4.
K50 = 0.07 (ls)0.54 (A/q)0.172, m

8.
9.

2.5
(4)

where,
ls = stemming column length, m,
q = specific charge, kg/m3, and
A = Rock factor
= 1, when RQD is 4050
= 3, when RQD is 5060
= 15, when RQD is 6070
= 22, when RQD is 7080
Cunninghams (1983) equation (Equation 5) can
be used to determine the Uniformity Index (n).
n = (2.214 B/d) {(1 + S/B)/2}0.5 (1W/B) (lch/lb) (5)
where,
B = burden, m,
d = hole diameter, mm,
S = spacing, m,
W = standard deviation in drilling accuracy, m,
lch = charge length, m,
lb = bench height, m.
Ouchterlony (2005) devised a new distribution
model for blast fragmentation that takes care of
the problem of the maximum size and fines simultaneously. Ouchterlony et al. (2006) also brought
out some new insight in conducting digital image
analysis of blasted fragments. Sanchidrin et al.
(2006) while elaborating on the feasibility of DIAT
applied a method to calibrate the image analysis
method for fines correction.
2.4 Fragmentation estimation
For estimation of the block size distribution and
degree of fragmentation, the following methods
are generally used:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

geometric aspects of images in two dimensions

such as area, number, perimeter, shape, size and
orientation. The method is quick and reasonably
accurate.
Loading equipment productivity method.
Boulder count and secondary blasting required
with respect to the total muck volume gives an
idea of the blast efficiency.
Production at the crusher.
Screening: which is the most precise method
of qualitative fragmentation evaluation but
impractical for mining.

The qualitative visual analysis method.

Photographic method.
Photogrammetry method.
High speed photography.
Digital image processing techniqueuses sophisticated software and hardware to quantify the

Problems in digital image analysis approach

Problems with non-uniform lighting, shadows,

noise and the large range of fragment sizes make
delineation very difficult using standard edgedetection routines. Other problem is correct
extraction of 3-dimensional information from the
2-dimensional images. Also, a correction is to be
made for overlapping of fragments. Finally, to
include small and large size fractions from a site,
images at different scales must be taken and appropriately processed together to obtain a final size
distribution curve.
Franklin et al. (1995) advised some basic precautions in photography for reliable results in
image analysis of a muck pile. They suggested
that at least five to ten shots of a rock pile or

Table 2. Various digital analysis software globally available and the capabilities (Chakraborty et al. 2002).
Image processing
system (Acronym or
shortened form)
CIAS (USA), USBM
and Noramco
Engg. Corp.
FRAGSCAN (France).
Ecole des
Mines de Paris and
Centre de
Geotechnique etc.
Gold size
(USA and Canada),
Golder Associates
IPACs (Sweden)
KTH (Sweden)
Power Sieve
(Australia)
Split (USA)
TUCIPS (Germany)
Fragalyst 3.0 (India)
WipFrag (Canada)

710

Number
Manual of classes Accuracy
editing (bins)
(%)

1020

No

815

10

Yes
No
No

100

Yes
Yes

User
defined
<100

Yes
Yes

5
40

10
5
10
216

truck loads or dump yards should be taken to

merge them as a single data sample. They found
that the more the rock in the image compared
to fines, the better the results. In their opinion,
the largest block should occupy about 1020
percent of the width of the image but no single
block should occupy more than 20 percent of the
width of the image. They also suggested measures
to avoid wide angle, close up photography and
oblique shots which distort the scale. Palangio et
al. (1995) concluded that the photograph of each
muck pile should contain the image of at least
400 fragments. They also suggested that uniform
and diffused lighting should be provided without
excessively sharp or one-sided shadows. Table 2
summarizes the capabilities of various image

Figure 2.

analysis software developed world-wide for blast

fragmentation assessment.
3

FRAGALYST 3.0 (DIGITAL IMAGE

ANALYSIS SOFTWARE)

Fragalyst software was developed in India. The

software is being used by several mines and academic institutes in India for various purposes.
There are a lot of features available in the Version 3.0 of the software. Figure 2 (Raina et al.
in press) explains the flow of the events and
capabilities of the software which are available in other software(s) of similar nature. The
software was used to find the In Situ Block Size

Capabilities of the Fragalyst version 3.0.

711

were analyzed for BBSD using Fragalyst 3.0. The

merged size fractions were recorded for analysis.
The pre-blast IBSD and post blast fragmentation data (BBSD) generated in the two phases was
thus 22 and 110 blasts, respectively. A comparative analysis of the two phases is given here and
discussed.
5

Figure 3. Merged IBSD and BBSD leading to energy

utilization (kWh/t) with Fragalyst 3.0.

Distribution (IBSD) of the benches being blasted

and the post blast Blasted Block Size Distribution (BBSD) in the mine under study. The relationship between the IBSD and BBSD of a blast
is used to calculate the energy utilized in a blast
in kWh/t as shown in Figure 3. This procedure
was followed in all the blasts monitored during
this study.
4

AREA OF STUDY AND METHOD

ADOPTED

The study presented in this paper was conducted

in a large opencast coal mine of SCCL India. The
mine is designed to produce nearly 2.75 Mt of coal
per annum. The coal seam thickness varies from
6.12 m to 31.19 m having a gradient of 1:6.5. The
average stripping ratio of the mine is 1:3.68.
The present depth of the mine is 135 m and the
planned maximum depth is 155 m. The overburden
constituted by sandstone and soil is being handled
by 6 shovels each of 10 m3 bucket capacity. The
average capacity utilization of the shovels and
dumpers are reported as 76 percent. An amount
of nearly 3700 t of site mixed emulsion explosives
(SME) have been consumed in the past few years
for excavation of more than 10 Mm3 of overburden
with an average specific charge of 0.36 kg/m3.
The study was carried out in two phases viz.
Phase-I (3 months) and Phase-II (6 months). PhaseI was aimed to record the existing practice of blasting in the mine and Phase-II incorporated blasting
with modifications based on the findings of the
Phase-I study. Important data of blast parameters
was collected during the study. Pre-blast images
of the face being blasted were taken and analyzed
for IBSD. Minimum 15 images were taken later at
0, 25, 50, 75 and 90% of the muck removal and

STANDARDS USED FOR ANALYSIS

The standards provided for optimum range of

fragment size and maximum permissible fragment
size for a particular shovel bucket size as given by
Chakraborty et al. (2002) and Jimeno et al. (1995)
have been used here and are reproduced below
Kopt = 0.08 to 0.105 * V1/3
Kmax = 0.75 * V1/3
Kopt = (0.125 to 0.166)V1/3
Kmax = (0.7)V1/3
6

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The mean fragment size (K50, m) was plotted for all

the blasts with limits of optimum range (Kopt, m)
based on Chakraborty et al. (2002). The upper
limit of the Kopt adopted from Jimeno et al. (1995)
has been also used for reference. Figure 4 is such a
plot for the Phase-I study.
Figure 5 represents similar data for Phase-II
study. In Phase-II of the study the K50 is well within
the optimum range. A comparison of the post
blast results of the two phases of the study is presented in Table 3 (The blast data for rainy season
as indicated in Figure 5 have been omitted in the
comparison presented in Table 3).
As observed in Table 3 there is a significant
improvement in the K50 and K98 (maximum fragment size) values in Phase-II over Phase-I. This
could be achieved with:
1. Monitoring of existing blast pattern and fragmentation with image analysis in the Phase-I.
2. Identification of blast design parameters responsible for generation of higher fragment size.
3. Modifying the blast design in tune with the findings at 2 above (Table 4). Different blast designs
were adopted for different benches with varying
geological conditions.
4. Continuous monitoring for another 6 months
to document the changes.
The average K50 improvements are given in
Figure 6 along with the tabulated values. In this
manner, not only has the mean fragment size

712

been reduced by 20% in the Phase-II but the

standard deviation has also been reduced significantly by 42%.
Another measure of improvements that were
achieved during the Phase-II of the study is
demonstrated by the Explosive Energy Utilization (Eeu) provided by the software during analysis.

Table 4. Blast design for Phase-I & II.

Parameter

Unit

Phase-I

Phase-II

Hole depth
Burden
Spacing
Stemming
Decking
Charge length
Charge/Hole
Specific charge

m
m
m
m
m
m
kg
kg/m3

13
6.3
8.3
4.7
2.4
5.9
300
0.42

14
5.56.2
78
3.84.3
2.0
6.57
325360
0.50.56

Figure 4. K50 (m) for all the blasts in relation to Kopt (m)
and Kmax (permissible & obtained) obtained in Phase-I
of the study.

Figure 6. Mean fragment size (K50) measured in Phase-I

and Phase-II.

Figure 5. K50 (m) for all the blasts in relation to Kopt (m)
and Kmax (permissible & obtained) obtained in Phase-II
of the study.
Table 3. Comparison of K50 for Phase-I & Phase-II of
the study.

Number of blasts
considered
% of blasts above
optimum size
(Indian standards)
% blasts above
optimum size
International
standards

Phase-I
(A)

Phase-II
(B)

22

78

71

28

43

24

04

20

AB%

Figure 7. Improvement in the Explosive energy utilization in the two phases of the study.

The Eeu obtained during the field investigations

during the above mentioned phases is shown in
Figure 7. The improvements in blast design have
increased the Eeu by 50% in Phase-II in comparison to Phase-I. The comprehensive analysis of the
effect of individual parameters in this respect is
being conducted. Initial analysis reveals that the

713

improvements are due to increase in specific charge

with reduction in spacing and deck lengths.
In order to compare the performance and
results obtained from the Digital Image Analysis,
the tooth pick consumption was taken as an index.
The specific tooth pick consumption of the shovels was calculated by using the ratio of number of
tooth picks consumed to the total production over
the period. The results are shown in Figure 8 which
clearly shows a decrease of 14% in specific tooth
pick consumption of shovels and is a significant
figure.
Cycle time could also be measured in 18 blasts
in the Phase-II of the study. The trend of the cycle
time is logical when plotted against the mean fragment size. The relationship is given in Figure 9. It is
evident from the figure that despite of the fact that
the cycle time varies over a range, the cycle time
is increasing with increase in the mean fragment
size. Assuming this relationship, the decrease in
cycle time can be estimated to be 0.21 s/m3. Thus,
a rough estimate of productivity increase in terms

of days is around 24/annum due to the estimated

decrease in cycle time.
6.1 Other findings
There are a few more observations and findings
that are complementary to the study and could
provide valuable insight into furthering the knowledge of the fragmentation analysis in blasting.
These are described below.
6.1.1 Energy utilization vs. fragmentation ratio
Fragmentation ratio here is defined as the ratio of
the IBSD to BBSD which determines the energy
utilized while reducing the size of the in-situ
blocks to a particular fragment size during blasting. A specific relationship exists to this effect as is
demonstrated through Figure 10.
The relationship obtained in the above is quite
rational and indicates a function that corresponds
to the basic tenets of blasting mechanics. This
principle can be further refined to deduce blast
designs for achieving specific energy utilization.
6.1.2 Observed vs. predicted fragment size
An attempt was made to present a correlation
between the predicted and observed mean fragment
size since the number of blasts observed was quite
sizeable. For this two approaches of prediction of
K50 were considered viz. Cunningham (1983) and
Chakraborty et al. (2002). The basic formulae have
been discussed in earlier sections. Figure 11 is a
plot of observed vs. predicted fragmentation.
It can be observed from the figure that the plot
of Chakraborty et al. (2002) shows a better scatter
than that of the Cunningham (1983). Although the
intricate details and reasons for the deviation are
not known at this stage of the analysis, it is however evident that there is a further need in refining
the prediction method.

Figure 8. Specific shovel tooth pick consumption in

Phase-I and Phase-II of the study.

Figure 9.

Relationship between K50 and cycle time.

Figure 10. Energy utilized vs. Fragmentation ratio as

obtained from the study.

714

Figure 11.
Phase-II.

Observed vs. predicted fragmentation in

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive study for determination of

fragmentation in a large opencast mine in India
was envisaged and conducted in two phases. The
results indicate that the method of image analysis
for determination of fragmentation has significant
potential for improving the overall productivity
and provides an insight in to the blast designs being
followed. Although the system has its own deficiencies, the same can be readily used to determine
fragmentation until a better method is available.
This study conducted over a period of around
9 months revealed that the blast design followed
by the mine was not optimum and could be modified with significant improvements in performance
of the equipment with the reduction in mean fragment size. The study also introduces some new possibilities and further developments needed in this
direction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are thankful to the R&D department of
SCCL for their financial support and field people
of the mine for their help during the study. Valuable
suggestions by Directors of SCCL; Sri Baskar Rao,
Sri Chandru, Sri Uma Maheshwar, Sri Srinivas
Rao, Sri G. Srinivas and help rendered by Sri BNV
Sathish, Sri G. Suresh, Sri K. Krishnamoorthy, Sri
C.H. Ramesh, Sri B. Babji in generating the data is
acknowledged. We are thankful to DCIMFR for
his permission to publish the findings.
REFERENCES
Adhikari, G.R. & Gupta, R.N. 1989. Influence of natural
blocks on rock fragmentation by blasting. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 7(3): 239248.

Bond, F.C. 1952. The third theory of comminution.

Trans. AIMM 193: 484.
Bond, F.C. & Whittney, B.B. 1959. The work index in
blasting. Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines
54(3): 7782.
Chakraborty, A.K., Jethwa, J.L. & Paithankar, A.G.
1994. Effects of joint orientation and rock mass
quality on tunnel blasting. Engineering Geology 37:
247262.
Chakraborty, A.K., Raina, A.K., Ramulu, M. &
Jhanwar, J.C. 2002. Development of innovative
models for optimization of blast fragmentation and
muck profile applying image analysis technique and
sub-system utilization concept in Indian surface coal
mining regime. CMRI Report (Coal S&T Project No.
MT/103). CIMFR, India.
Chakraborty, A.K., Raina, A.K., Ramulu, M., Choudhury, P.B., Haldar, A., Sahu, P. & Bandopadhyay, C.B.
2004. Parametric study to develop guidelines for blast
fragmentation improvement in jointed and massive
formations. Engineering Geology 73: 105116.
Cunningham, C.V.B. 1983. The Kuz-Ram Model for
Prediction of Fragmentation from Blasting. Proc. 1st
Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea,
Sweden, 2226 August, pp. 439454.
da Gamma, C.D. (1983). Use of comminution theory to
predict fragmentation of jointed rock ass subjected to
blasting. Proc. 1st Int. Symp.on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 2226 August, pp. 565579.
Farmer, I.W., Kemeny, J.M. & McDoniel, C. 1991. Analysis of rock fragmentation in bench blasting using
digital image processing. Proc. Int. Cong. on Rock
Mechanics, Aachen, Germany, 1620 September,
pp. 10371042.
Franklin, J.A., Kemeny, J.M. & Girdner, K.K. 1995. Evolution of measuring systems: A review. In J.A. Franklin &
T. Katsabanis (eds.), Measurement of blast fragmentation: 4752. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Ghosh, A., Daemen, J.J.K. & Vanzyl, D. 1990. Fractal
based approach to determine the effect of discontinuities on blast fragmentation. In W. Hustrulid &
G.A. Johnson (eds.), Rock Mechanics Contributions
and Challenges, Proc. 31st US Symp. Rock Mechanics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 18 June.
Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 905912.
Hustrulid, W. 1999. Blasting principles for open pit mining, Vol. 1. Rotterdam: Balkema, 382 p.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L. & Carcedo, F.J.A. 1995. Evaluation of blast results, Drilling and Blasting of Rocks:
290311. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Kuznetsov, V.M. 1973. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Soviet Mining Science
9(2): 144148.
Langefors, U. & Kihlstrom, B. 1963. The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting: 1827. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Lizotte, Y., Scoble, M.J., Singh, A. & Mohanty, B. 1993.
Prediction and assessment of fragmentation in underground mine. In H.P. Rossmanith (ed.), Proc. 4th Int.
Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna,
58 July, pp. 361368. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Mckenzie, A.S. 1967. Optimum blasting, Proc. 28th
Annual Minnesota Mining Symposium, Duluth, MN,
pp. 181188.

715

Mojtabai, N., Cetintas, A., Farmer, I.W. & Savely, J.P.

1990. In-place and excavated block size distributions.
In: Khair, A.W. (ed.), Proc. Rock Mechanics as a Guide
for Efficient Utilization of Natural Resources: 537543.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Nielson, K. 1983. Optimisation of open-pit blasting.
Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 2226 August, pp. 653664.
Ouchterlony, F. 2005. The Swebrec function: linking
fragmentation by blasting and crushing. Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 114:
A29A44.
Ouchterlony, F., Olsson, M., Nyberg, U., Andersson,
P. & Gustavsson, L. 2006. Constructing the fragment
size distribution of a bench blasting round, using the
new Swebrec function. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, Chile, 711 May,
pp. 332344.
Palangio, T.C., Fraklin, J.A. & Maerz, N.H. 1995.
WipFragA breakthrough in fragmentation measurement. Proc. 6th High-Tech Seminar on State-of-Art
Blasting Tech., Instrumentation and Explosives, Boston,
Massachusetts, 814 July, pp. 943971.

Pal Roy, P. & Dhar, B.B. 1996. Fragmentation analyzing

scale. In B. Mohanty (ed.), Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Canada,
2529 August, p. 448.
Raina, A.K., Chakraborty, A.K., Choudhury, P.B.,
Ramulu, M., Udpikar, V. & Sinha, A. Fragalyst 3.0.
An indigenous tool based on digital image analysis
application and analysis. Journal of Mines Metals and
Fuels. (In press).
Sanchidrin, J.A., Segarra, P. & Lpez, L.M. 2006. Is
it possible to assess fragmentation by blasting using
image analysis? Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, Chile, 711 May,
pp. 7379.
Scoble, M., Lizotte, Y., Paventi, M. & Doucet, C.
1996. Structural control over fragmentation. In
J.A. Franklin & T. Katsabanis (eds.), Measurement of
blast fragmentation: 181191. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Van Zeggeren, F. & Chung, S.H. 1973. A model for
the prediction of fragmentation patterns and cost in
rock blasting. Proc. 15th Symp. on Rock Mechanics,
Custer State Park, South Dakota, 1719 September,
pp. 557569.

716