See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/208032337

Modified Kuz—Ram fragmentation model and its use at the Sungun Copper
Mine

Article  in  International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences · September 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.003

CITATIONS READS

64 5,693

4 authors:

Sohrab Gheibi Hamid Aghababaei

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Sahand University of Technology
20 PUBLICATIONS   148 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seyed Hadi Hoseinie Yashar Pourrahimian

Isfahan University of Technology University of Alberta
55 PUBLICATIONS   543 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   438 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization of underground mining limits in steeply dipping metalliferous deposits View project

EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yashar Pourrahimian on 05 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 967–973

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Modified Kuz—Ram fragmentation model and its use

at the Sungun Copper Mine
S. Gheibie a, H. Aghababaei a,, S.H. Hoseinie b, Y. Pourrahimian c
a
Faculty of Mining Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran
b
Faculty of Mining Engineering, Geophysics and Petroleum, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Rock fragmentation, which is the fragment size distribution of blasted rock, is one of the most important
Received 9 March 2008 indices for estimating the effectiveness of blast work. In this paper a new form of the Kuz—Ram model
Received in revised form is proposed in which a prefactor of 0.073 is included in the formula for prediction of X50. This new
27 April 2009
equation has a correlation coefficient that is greater than 0.98. In addition, a new approach is proposed
Accepted 8 May 2009
to calculate the Uniformity Index, n. A Blastability Index (BI) is used to correct the calculation of the
Available online 21 June 2009
Uniformity Index of Cunningham, where BI reflects the uniformity of the distribution. Interestingly, this
Keywords: correction also can be observed in the Kuznetsov—Cunningham—Ouchterlony (KCO) model, which uses
Rock fragmentation In situ block size as a parameter for calculating the curve-undulation in the Swebrec function. However,
Blasting
it is in contrast to prediction of X50 as the central parameter in Swebrec and Rosin–Rammler distribution
Kuz—Ram model
functions. The new model is a two parameter fragmentation size distribution that can be easily
Image processing
Geomechanical properties determined in the field. However, it does not consider the timing effect, or upper limit for sizes, as does
the original Kuz—Ram model. The model is used at the Sungun Mine, and it does a good job of
predicting the fines produced during blasting.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Kuz—Ram model, which was proposed by Cunningham,
has been used as a common model in industry for predicting rock
fragmentation size distribution by blasting [1,2]. Although it has
been used extensively in practice, it has some deficiencies; one is
timing effect, the other is lack in prediction of fines.
There are some models that proposed to improve the
Kuz—Ram’s model’s inability to predict the fragment size
distribution. The CZM [3] and TCM [4] models are two examples
of extended Kuz—Ram models to improve the prediction of fines;
they are known as JKMRC models.
In the CZM model, the size distribution of rock fragments
consists of coarse and fine parts. According to CZM, two different
mechanisms control the rock fragments produced by blasting. The
coarse part is produced by tensile fracturing, and the Kuz—Ram
model is used to predict this part of the size distribution.
However, fines are produced by compressive fracturing in the
crushed zone, for which the Rosin–Rammler function gets a
different value of n and XC.
In the TCM model, two Rosin—Rammler functions are used for
ROM size distribution. TCM is a five-parameter model in which
two of the parameters are related to the coarse fraction, one is
related to the fines fraction, and the other two are related to fines
part of the distribution.
In addition, by replacing the original Rosin—Rammler equation
with the Swebrec function, the Kuznetsov—Cunningham—
Ouchterlony (KCO) model is arrived at to predict the ROM size
distribution [5]. Like Rosin—Rammler, it uses the median or 50%
passing value X50 as the central parameter but it also introduces
an upper limit to fragment size Xmax. The third parameter, b, is a
curve-undulation parameter. The Swebrec function removes two
of Kuz—Ram’s drawbacks—the poor predictive capacity in fines
range and the upper limit cut-off of block size.
Spathis suggested that X50 should have the prefactor
ðln 2Þ1=n =G½1 þ ð1=nÞ. He claimed that the correction indicates
that the original implementation of Kuz—Ram will overestimate
the size of the rock fragments which may say that the original
Kuz—Ram underestimates the fines faction when the uniformity
index is 0.8–2.2 [6].
Riana et al. [7] presented a new method to determine the rock
factor A in the Kuz—Ram model. This factor was correlated to
drilling index for two different types of Indian rock types,
sandstone and coaly shale [7].
2. Review of blast fragmentation models

 Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 412 344 4312; fax: +98 412 344 4311. An empirical equation for the relationship between the mean
E-mail address: babaei@sut.ac.ir (H. Aghababaei). fragment size and applied blast energy per unit volume of rock

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
968 S. Gheibie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 967–973

(powder factor) has been developed by Kuznetsov [8] as a Table 1

function of rock type. He reported that initial studies had been Rock factor parameters and rates.
carried out with models of different materials and the results
RMD Rock mass description
were later applied to both open pit mines and an atomic blast.
Considering the nature of mining and the variability of rock, Powdery/friable 10
a degree of scatter between fragmentation measurements and Vertically jointed JF*
prediction was shown and was to be expected as well. The model Massive 50

predicts fragmentation from blasting in terms of mass percentage JPS Vertical joint spacing
passing through versus fragment size. Kuznetsov’s equation is [8]
o0.1 m 10
 0:8 0.1 m to MS 20
V0
Xm ¼A Q 1=6 (1) MS* to DP* 50
Qe
JPA Joint plane angle
where Xm is the mean fragment size (cm), A is the rock factor,
(7 for medium hard rocks, 10 for hard highly fissured Rocks, 13 for Dip out of face 20
Strike perpendicular to face 30
hard, weakly fissured rocks), V0 is the rock volume broken per Dip into face 40
blast hole (m3), and Qe is the mass of TNT containing the energy
RDI Rock density influence
equivalent of the explosive charge in each blast hole (kg) and
the relative weight. The strength of TNT compared to ANFO RDI ¼ 25 RD*50 RD; rock density (t/m3)
(ANFO ¼ 100) is 115. Hence, Eq. (1) based upon ANFO instead of
HF Hardness factor (GPa)
TNT can be written as
 0:8   Y/3 If Yo50
V0 Sanfo 19=30 UCS*/5 If Y450
Xm ¼A Qe1=6 (2)
Qe 115 * Meaning Unit

where Xm is the mean fragment size (cm), A is the rock factor, V0 is MS Oversize m
the rock volume broken per blast hole (m3), Qe is the mass DP Drilling pattern size m
Y Young’s modulus GPa
of explosive being used (kg), Sanfo is the relative weight strength of
UCS Uniaxial compressive strength MPa
the explosive to ANFO (ANFO ¼ 100). Since
JF ¼ JPS+JPA
V0 1
¼ (3)
Qe K

where K is the powder factor (kg/m3), Eq. (2) can be rewritten as following expression for the characteristic size:
 19=30 X
115 Xc ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (8)
X m ¼ AðKÞ0:8 Q e1=6 (4) n
Sanfo  lnð1  Rm Þ

Eq. (4) can now be used to calculate the mean fragmentation (Xm) Since the Kuznetsov formula gives the screen size Xm for which
for a given powder factor. Solving Eq. (4) for K gives 50% of the material would pass, substituting the values X ¼ Xm
and R ¼ 0.5 into Eq. (8) gives
"   #1:25
A 1=6 115 19=30 Xm
K¼ Qe (5) Xc ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (9)
Xm Sanfo n
0:693

One can calculate the powder factor required to yield the desired A useful indirect check on the index of uniformity has
mean fragmentation. In his experiments, Cunningham indicated been performed by Cunningham [2]. He based his prediction
that lower limit for A was 8, even in very weak rock mass, whereas of fragmentation on the Kuznetsov equation and used the
the upper limit was A ¼ 12. relationship between fragmentation and drilling pattern to
The Blastability Index, which was first proposed by Lilly [9], calculate the blasting parameter of the Rosin–Rammler formula.
has been adapted for Kuznetsov’s model (Table 1), in an attempt The blasting parameter, n, is estimated by
to better quantify the selection of rock factor A [2]. Cunningham      
B 1 S 0:5 W L
stated that the evaluation of rock factors for blasting should at n ¼ 2:2  14 þ 1 (10)
D 2 2B B H
least take into account the density, mechanical strength, elastic
properties and structure. The equation is where B is the burden (m), S is the spacing (m), D is the borehole
diameter (mm), W is the standard deviation of drilling accuracy
A ¼ 0:06  ðRMD þ JF þ RDI þ HFÞ (6) (m), L is the total charge length (m) and H is the bench height (m).
Where there are two different explosives in the hole (bottom
The Rosin–Rammler formula is then used to predict the fragment
charge and column charge), Eq. (10) is modified to:
size distribution. It has been generally recognized as giving
a reasonable description of fragmentation in blasted rock. This   sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
B W 1 S
equation is [10]: n ¼ 2:2  14 1 þ
D B 2 2B
n   0:1  
Rm ¼ 1  eðX=X C Þ (7) BCL  CCL L
 0:1 þ abs (11)
L H
where Rm is the proportion of material passing the screen, X is the
screen size (cm), XC is the characteristic size (cm), and n is the where BCL is the bottom charge length (m) and CCL is the column
index of uniformity. The characteristic size XC is one through charge length (m). When using a staggered pattern, this equation
which 63.2% of the particles pass. If the characteristic size XC and must be multiplied by 1.1. The value of n determines the shape
the index of uniformity n are known, a typical fragmentation of the Rosin–Rammler curve. High values indicate uniform sizing.
curve can be plotted. Eq. (7) can be rearranged to yield the Low values, on the other hand, suggest a wide range of sizes
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Gheibie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 967–973 969

including both oversize and fines. This combination of the
Kuznetsov and Rosin—Rammler equation results in what has
been called the Kuz—Ram fragmentation model.
3. Research method
3.1. Prediction of ROM size distribution
Based on a modified blastability index, the geomechanical
properties of ten blast sites were collected prior to blasting.
Several laboratory tests were carried out according to ISRM
standards to determine the mechanical and physical parameters
such as Young’s modulus, density and uniaxial compressive
strength and the overall results of these tests and collection have
been shown in Table 2. The flowchart (Fig. 1) shows the steps
in the ROM size distribution prediction, image processing,
modification and validation of the modified model.
3.2. Fragmentation assessment
After estimating the ROM size distribution for each case of
blasting at the Sungun Mine, image processing studies were
carried out for 10 blast sites muck piles. All blasts results were
analyzed after conducting blasting operation at three positions of
muck pile (soon after blasting, after loading around half of muck
pile and end of muck pile). For image processing, 15 digital
photographs were taken from each muck pile position and then
processed by the Goldsize program. The analyzed photo results
were merged to get a better analysis of the photo analyses.
where Pfines(x) is the passing percent for fines, X is the size of
particles, K is the Top size or rock fragments, and n is the material
constant.
After merging the fines and coarse size distributions obtained
by Eq. (12) and image analysis, as a result Fig. 2 shows the
corrected size distribution which is almost closer to sieving
result. By assuming that the rock fragmentation size distribution
follows the Rosin—Rammler distribution, thus, the two formulas
proposed by Chung and Katsabanis can be used to calibrate the
distribution [13]:
X c ¼ eð0:565LnX m þ0:435LnX 80 Þ (13)
n ¼ 0:842=ðLnX 80  LnX m Þ (14)
where Xm is the sieve size at 50% material passing (cm), X80 is the
sieve size at 80% material passing (cm), XC is the sieve size at
63.2% material passing (cm), and n is the uniformity index. The
values obtained from Eqs. (10) and (11) can be seen in Table 2.
As Table 3 shows, the Kuz—Ram model overestimates the size
distribution. This confirms that the mean fragment size (Xm)
and uniformity index (n) as the model’s inputs are not true
(obtained from image analysis) values. Thus, the Kuz—Ram model
is modified in this paper with the aim of having a better
prediction of ROM size distribution. Results obtained at the
Sungun Mine show that Kuznetsov’s model underestimates the
mean fragment size (Table 3). Also, the predicted uniformity
indexes for each blast site were different from those obtained by
image analysis.
4. Proposed model

3.3. Fines correction and distribution calibration
Since there are some fine particles that are hidden, the results
obtained by image analysis are always different from those of by
sieving. Fines correction usually is the common deal to overcome
this problem in practice. Some methods that can be used to
correct fines have been discussed in the literature [5,11,12].
In this paper, for correcting the fines a representative sample
was provided from muck pile. The sample was analyzed by sieving
and image processing. There were some differences between the
sieving and imaging methods. Actually, image analysis did not
include particles below 40 mm in this sampling and the fines ratio
was nearly 7%. Since the distribution of sizes below 40 mm at
the Sungun was a straight line in log–log plot, therefore, a Gaudin-
Schuhman distribution can be adopted to plot the size distribu-
tion curve [11]:
 x n
P fines ðxÞ% ¼ (12)
k
Table 2
Rating of geomechanical parameters collected from field.
Blast site BI n00 (Modified model) n0 (Image analysis) n (Uniformity index)
By analyzing the data from Sungun the two equations below
are proposed to predict ROM size distribution. The Rosin—Rammler
function is used as the size distribution with Xm as central
parameter and n, as the uniformity index for:
 0:8  
V0 Sanfo 19=30
X m ¼ 0:073BI Qe1=6 (15)
Qe 115
n0 ¼ 1:88  n  BI0:12 (16)
All parameters in Eq. (15) are similar to those described in Eq. (2),
where n0 is the modified uniformity index, n is the uniformity
index (Cunningham) and BI is the blastability index. The r2 values
for Eqs. (15) and (16) were 0.98 and 0.96, respectively.
5. Validation of proposed model
To validate the proposed model, five blast sites were studied
(Table 4). All the steps in the flowchart (Fig. 1) including fines
correction discussed in the Section 3.3 were carried out in the
verification study. Results show that the proposed model has
the acceptable ability to predict the ROM size distribution at the
Sungun Copper Mine (Table 5). Fig. 3 shows the reliability of the
results.

Mo-1 54.5 1.459 1.469 1.25

Mo-2 57 1.452 1.45 1.25 6. Discussion
Mo-3 56.5 1.451 1.447 1.25
Mo-4 60 1.443 1.441 1.25
Mo-5 60 1.44 1.437 1.25 As mentioned in previous sections, Kuznetsov’s model is based
Di-1 63 1.437 1.433 1.25 on geomechanical, geometrical parameters as well as explosive
Di-2 70.67 1.416 1.42 1.25 properties. In this research, 10 blast sites were chosen with
Di-3 72.42 1.411 1.414 1.25 comparable blast geometry and explosive type. Only the geome-
Di-4 76.7 1.402 1.4 1.25
Di-5 82 1.39 1.39 1.25
chanical properties of rock masses were variable. Rock mass
properties are defined by BI in Kuznetsov’s equation.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
970 S. Gheibie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 967–973

− −
− −

−
−

Fig. 1. Steps of Run of Mine (ROM) size distribution prediction, Kuz—Ram modification and validation.

Rock masses are an anisotropic and inhomogeneous media,
with different physical and mechanical behaviors in different
directions. There are many parameters used in the technical
description of rock masses, of which the blastability index uses
some, such as rock mass description, joint spacing, joint plane
angle, etc. Therefore, geomechanical properties as the most
important parameters in rock blasting are not considered
explicitly [14,15]. Therefore, it seems that Kuznetsov’s equation,
theoretically and practically, will not predict the mean fragment
size accurately.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Gheibie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 967–973 971

100 Table 3
Predicted and actual size distribution for each blast site.

Blast site X30 (cm) Xm (cm) X80 (cm)

80 MO-1
Kuz-Ram 10 17 33.4
Image analysis 13.8 22 38.7
Proposed model 13.5 21.3 38
60 MO-2
Fines Ratio = 7%
Kuz-Ram 10.6 18 35.3
End fine size 40 mm
%

Image analysis 14 22 39.6

Proposed model 13.9 22 39.3
40 MO-3
corrected Kuz-Ram 10.6 18 35.3
distribution Image analysis 15.2 24 42.8
Proposed model 15.1 23 43
Fines
20 MO-4
Kuz-Ram 11.2 19 37.3
Image
Image analysis 15 24 43.2
Analysis
Proposed model 14.7 23.3 42
0 MO-5
1 10 100 1000 10000 Kuz-Ram 11.2 19 37.3
Image analysis 16 25.5 45.5
X (mm) Proposed model 15.2 24 44.4

Fig. 2. Fragment size distribution obtained by image analysis, fines and fines DI-1
corrected distribution. Kuz-Ram 11.8 20 39.3
Image analysis 16.7 26.5 48
Proposed model 16.1 25.8 47
As the blast geometry and the explosive used were equal for all DI-2
blasts, it can be concluded that these differences arise from the Kuz-Ram 12.9 22 43.2
incomplete description of rock mass properties. Image analysis 17 27 49.2
The blastability index is representative of rock mass properties Proposed model 17.38 27.3 48.4
in the Kuznetsov’s equation. Paying attention to the parameters DI-3
used in the BI system, it is known that RMD, JPS, JPA, etc., alone Kuz-Ram 13.5 23 45
are not able to describe rock mass properties completely. As an Image analysis 18.8 28.5 51.7
Proposed model 17.7 28 50.9
example, joint aperture is one of the important properties
of joints, which affects the rock mass blastability [14,16], but is DI-4
Kuz-Ram 14 24 47
not considered in the BI system. Joint aperture controls the
Image analysis 18 29 53
outgoing gases and energy retention time in rock mass. If this Proposed model 18.3 29.5 53.8
parameter as an increasing parameter in BI system is considered,
DI-5
the BI value will increase, and the mean fragment size will be Kuz-Ram 15.3 26 51
closer to true value. Since the correction of BI and insertion of any Image analysis 19.8 32 58.7
effective parameter or development of a new classification system Proposed model 19.7 31.7 58.1
requires extensive researches in different mines and conditions,
these corrections are beyond the scope of this paper.
In addition, exponent n in the Rosin—Rammler model is the Table 4
uniformity of fragmentation distribution. The uniformity index Rating of geomechanical parameters collected from field for validation.
proposed by Cunningham depends on blast geometrical para-
Blast site BI n00 (Proposed model) n0 (Image processing) n (Uniformity index)
meters. As Eq. (10) shows, there is no parameter to describe the
rock mass properties. Although the uniformity index is deter- M-1 81.75 1.932 1.898 1.8
mined by blast geometry, in some methods, such as those M-2 73.75 1.136 1.223 1.032
proposed by Lilly [17] and Moomivand [16], blast geometries are M-3 80 1.606 1.612 1.400
M-4 78.75 1.525 1.552 1.400
determined on the basis of rock mass properties. M-5 92.5 1.506 1.482 1.554
As the only variable in all 10 blasts is the rock mass
geomechanical parameters, it seems that there may be a relation
between rock fragmentation uniformity and rock mass properties. blasting creates just few new fracture surfaces; it just produces
Certainly, assessment of rock mass properties effects on size blocks whose external surfaces are altered. These results strength-
distribution of rock fragments is difficult. Existence of disconti- en the theory of rock mass properties effects on uniformity of size
nuities with different properties, anisotropy and inhomogeneity of distribution of rock fragments.
rock mass media, adds to the blasting mechanisms complexity. In this research, a relation between real uniformity of rock
This complexity indicates that separation of gas pressure and fragments and blastability index was obtained. Through decreas-
shock wave efficiencies is difficult. Thus, achievement of a relation ing the joints spacing, the size of insitu blocks becomes more
in this case requires more researches. uniform. By releasing adequate gas particles, the blocks will
In Sungun Mine, there are several joint sets, which create liberate. Boulder formation is common in widely spaced jointed
uniform blocks. The explosive type used at the Sungun is ANFO, rock mass blasting [15]. Bhandari concluded that blasts in rock
which has high gas energy (EB) and produces high gas pressures. masses with parallel or perpendicular joints to bench face, leads
The gas particles passing the joints activate the elder joints and to a uniform fragmentation [15]. Certainly, BI may not be
then liberate the insitu blocks. In some sites at the Sungun Mine, completely proper to make a relation with uniformity; therefore,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
972 S. Gheibie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 967–973

Table 5 model has the different prefactor of 0.073. But maybe it rises from
ROM size distribution of image processing and modified model at the Sungun for different geological aspects of blast sites.
validation.
On the other hand, KCO uses a parameter, b, which is called
Blast site X30 X50 X80 curve-undulation parameter. According to the KCO, b is the function
of Cunningham’s uniformity index, Xmax and X50. Xmax is defined as
M-1 the minimum of insitu block size, S or B. Equally, in newly proposed
Proposed model 18.5 27.3 45 model n0 as the modified uniformity index is adopted Cunningham’s
Image analysis 20 30 49
uniformity, n and BI as representative of rock mass. Interestingly,
M-2 BI and the insitu block size are related to each other. Therefore, it is
Proposed model 14.85 27.9 62.1
believed that it has a challenging concept in rock fragmentation size
Image analysis 16 30 65.5
distribution which was revealed in both the KCO and the newly
M-3
proposed model in this paper.
Proposed model 19.95 33.5 64.7
Image analysis 20.84 35 66.9

M-4
Proposed model 17.33 31.7 68 7. Conclusion
Image analysis 18.33 33 69.56

M-5 In this research, the size distribution of rock fragmentation

Proposed model 24.35 39.3 74.5 at the Sungun Copper Mine was predicted by Kuz—Ram
Image analysis 25.2 42 80.3
model. Results of image processing show that Kuz—Ram model
overestimates the ROM size distribution. Therefore, the Xm (mean
fragment size) and n (uniformity index), as model’s inputs, are not
true values. Kuznetsov’s model predicts the mean fragment size
100
to be lesser the than true values. Since the blast geometry
M-2 and explosive type were the same, it was concluded that these
90
differences rose from disability of rock mass description. Blast-
80 ability Index does not consider some effective parameters such
as joint aperture and joint filling material. For modification of
70
Kuznetsov, 0.073 is proposed instead of the 0.06 multiplier.
60 Results confirm that the uniformity of size distribution of rock
fragmentation is a function of rock mass geomechanical parameters.
R%

50 The proposed equation to calculate modified the uniformity index is

40
30
20 Corrected Model
Image Proc
10
0 may rise from different blast sites. Interestingly, curve-undulation
100 101 102
X (cm)
Fig. 3. Comparison of ROM size distribution of image processing and modified
model.
development of a new index of rock mass properties to be related
with uniformity is suggested. The authors have experimented that
at the Sungun Mine, there are other parameters which affect the
fragmentation uniformity which are not considered in BI system.
It seems that when joint aperture is smaller, the retention time
of gas energy in rock mass gets higher and the gas pressure’s
efficiency increases. Thus, explosive energy leads to better
fragmentation. In some sites of the Sungun Mine, rock masses
consist of hard ferro-oxides filled with an irregular distribution of
tight joints. Ferro-oxides are stronger than the host rock itself,
which is monzonite. Fragmentation in these kinds of blast sites is
non-uniform. To extend that rock masses with BIo60 leads to a
mixture of more fines and boulders.
Since the KCO [5] is a more practical model for prediction
of ROM size distribution, it is better to compare it with newly
proposed model. The first considerable difference is that the KCO
uses Swebrec function instead of Rosin—Rammler for description
of size distribution. Also, it has an upper limit parameter, Xmax,
which makes the prediction more reliable. Moreover, KCO model
uses a prefactor of g(n) ¼ 1 or ðln 2Þ1=n =G½1 þ ð1=nÞ for prediction
of the mean fragment size, X50; however, the newly proposed
in the form of a power model. Increasing the BI (resistance of rock
mass against blasting), uniformity decreases. Finally, a new form of
Kuz—Ram fragmentation model was proposed.
Moreover, the new form of Kuz—Ram has some differences
and similarities with KCO model. Firstly, it uses Rosin—Rammler
function but KCO adopts Swebrec function. The prefactor that
are applied to mean fragment size are also different. However, it
parameter, b, is somehow related to newly used term in uni-
formity index, BI. Because, both of them consider insitu block size
as an influential parameter in exponent of distribution functions.
However, the proposed model does not consider the timing
effect and upper limit for sizes as the original Kuz—Ram does. It is
good to mention that it can also predict the fines produced in the
blasting at the Sungun Mine. Five other blast sites were used to
verify the newly proposed model at the Sungun; results show its
reliability in prediction of rock fragmentation size distribution.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to sincerely acknowledge the full financial
support provided by Sungun Copper Mine and Sahand University
of Technology. Grateful thanks are recorded to Dr. Moomivand,
Dr. Qanbari, Mr. Hajiloo, Mr. Karbasi and Mr. Mahammadzada for
their continuous support in during of the project.
References
[1] Cunningham CVB. The Kuz—Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from
blasting. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on rock
fragmentation by blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 1983. p. 439–54.
[2] Cunningham CVB. Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz—Ram model. In:
Proceedings of the second international symposium on rock fragmentation by
blasting, Keystone, Colo, 1987. p. 475–87.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Gheibie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 967–973
[3] Kanchibotla SS, Valery W, Morell S. Modeling fines in blast fragmentation and
its impact on crushing and grinding. In: Proceedings of the Explo 1999
conference. Carlton, Victoria: Australian IMM; 1999. p. 137–44.
[4] Djordjevic N. Two-component model of the blast fragmentation. In:
Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on rock fragmentation by
blasting, Johannesburg, 1999. p. 213–9.
[5] Ouchterlony F. The Swebrec& function: linking fragmentation by blasting and
crushing. IMM Trans Sect A 2005;114(1):29–44.
[6] Spathis AT. A correction relating to the analysis of the original Kuz—Ram
model. Int J Blast Fragment (Fragblast) 2004;8:201–5.
[7] Riana AK, Ramulu M, Choudhury PB, Dudhankar A, Chakraborty AK.
Fragmentation prediction in different rock masses characterized by drilling
index. In: Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on rock
fragmentation by blasting, Beijing, 2003. p. 117–21.
[8] Kuznetsov VM. The mean diameter of fragments formed by blasting rock. Sov
Min Sci 1973;9:144–8.
[9] Lilly PA. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In:
Proceedings of the large open pit planning conference. Parkville, Victoria;
Australian IMM; 1986. p. 89–92.
View publication stats
973
[10] Rosin R, Rammler E. Laws governing the fineness of coal. J Inst Fuels
1933;7:29–36.
[11] Cho SH, Nishi M, Kaneko K. Fragment size distribution in blasting. Mater
Trans 2003;44:1–6.
[12] Maerz NH, Zhou W. Calibration of optical digital fragmentation measuring
systems. Int J Blast Fragment (Fragblast) 2000;4(2):126–38.
[13] Chung SH, Katsabanis PD. Fragmentation prediction using improved en-
gineering formula. Int J Blast Fragment (Fragblast) 2000;4:198–207.
[14] Gheibie S, Hoseinie SH, Pourrahimian Y. Prediction of blasting fragmentation
distribution in Sungun copper mine using rock mass geomechanical proper-
ties. In: Proceedings of the third Iran rock mech conference, Tehran, 2007.
p. 751–6.
[15] Bhandari S. Engineering rock blasting operations. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1997.
[16] Moomivand H. Development of a method for blasthole pattern design in
surface mines. In: Proceedings of the second Iran open pit mines conference,
Kerman, 2005. p. 159–68.
[17] Lilly P. The use of blastability index in the design of blasts for open pit mines.
In: Proceedings of the West Australian conference on mining geomechanics.
Kalgoorlie, WA: Western Australian School of Mines; 1992. p. 421–6.