A Review of General Considerations for Assessing Rock Mass
Blastability and Fragmentation
E Widzyk-Capehart1 and P Lilly2
ABSTRACT
Blasting is the primary comminution process in most mining operations.
This process involves the highly complex and dynamic interaction
between two main components. The first is the detonating explosive and
the second is the rock mass into which the explosive is loaded.
The mechanical properties of the rock material (such as dynamic
strength, tensile strength, dynamic modulus and fracture toughness) are
important considerations in understanding the blasting process. However,
it is the characteristics of the geological defects (joints, foliation planes,
bedding planes) within the rock mass that ultimately determine how
effectively a blast performs in terms of fragmentation, all else being
equal. The defect characteristics include, but are not limited to, their
orientation, spacing, and mechanical properties.
During the blasting process, some of the geotechnical characteristics
of the rock mass are substantially changed. From the blasting outcome
point of view, the most notable and important is the change in fragment
size distribution that the rock mass undergoes. The pre-blast in situ
defect-bounded block size distribution is transformed into the post-blast
muckpile fragment size distribution. Consequently, it is fundamental to
our understanding of and ability to predict the blasting process that both
the blastability of a rock mass and its transformation into the fragment
size distribution can be appropriately quantified.
INTRODUCTION
The mining cycle is a system of unit operations that are
normally in series. At its simplest level, the system includes:
blasthole drilling;
rock mass fragmentation by blasting;
loading (or mucking) the fragmented rock mass;
hauling (or otherwise conveying) the fragmented rock mass;
and
dumping (or otherwise re-locating) the fragmented rock mass
onto a waste or ore stockpile, or into a hopper or other point
of transfer.
The reliability of such a system is the product of the
reliabilities of the individual components (for example,
Blanchard and Fabrycky, 1990; Sage and Rouse, 1999). As a
consequence, the system reliability is highly sensitive to each of
these individual component reliabilities. This is particularly true
of the first two unit operations in the cycle (drilling and blasting)
in which a low level of reliability could thwart subsequent
operations no matter how individually reliable or well planned
they may be. The optimisation of mining systems therefore
requires that the impacts of drilling and blasting on downstream
operations be understood.
A great deal of this understanding relies on a fundamental
knowledge of the nature of the rock masses that are to be blasted.
Furthermore, the manner in which these rock mass parameters
influence the formation and properties of the blasted rock mass is
also critical to the reliability of the system and, from the blasting
outcome point of view, the change in fragment size distribution
1. Mining Engineering Program, Western Australian School of Mines,
Curtin University of Technology, Locked Bag 22, Kalgoorlie WA
6433. E-mail: widzyke@wasm.curtin.edu.au
2. FAusIMM, Mining Engineering Program, Western Australian
School of Mines, Curtin University of Technology, Locked Bag 22,
Kalgoorlie WA 6433.
EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
that the rock mass undergoes is of particular importance.
Management and measurement are irretrievably connected
(Sage and Jensen, 1999) and, consequently, what cant be
measured cant be properly managed. Consequently, it is
essential to the understanding, prediction and management of the
blasting process that both the blastability of a rock mass and the
nature of its transformation after blasting can be appropriately
quantified. It is these two aspects of blasting that are reviewed in
this paper.
ROCK MASSES AS ENGINEERING MATERIALS
Rock masses are arguably the most complex materials that
engineers have to deal with. Predicting how rock masses behave
under load is fraught with uncertainty (for example, McMahon,
1985; Harr, 1987; Lilly, 2001) and their performance under the
convoluted distribution of transient forces and displacements that
are applied during the blasting process is particularly difficult to
foresee and/or describe. The reason for this complexity is
manifold, but principally related to the following issues:
the intact rock material that exists between the macroscopic
(usually geological) defects has unit weight, strength and
deformation properties that are variable, even within the
same rock type and geotechnical domain;
the strength and deformation properties of the defects
themselves (joints, bedding planes, etc) are usually quite
different from those of the rock material and are also
stochastic variables;
the frequency and orientation of the defect sets dissecting the
rock mass have a major influence on the behaviour of the
rock mass under load and, again, follow probability
distributions that may or may not be well understood; and
rock mass properties vary both in time and in space.
In the face of such high levels of uncertainty, it is a small
wonder that rock excavation engineering can take place with any
degree of reliability at all! However, we do manage to do it
somehow and, in the subcontext of rock mass blastability (that is,
the ease with which a rock mass can be fragmented during the
excavation process) this is achieved partly through simplification
of the parameters and the processes involved.
THE TRANSFORMATION FROM ROCK MASS TO
MUCKPILE
The rock mass (and its attendant in situ defect bounded block
size distribution) is transformed into the blasted muckpile
(having its own fragmented block size distribution) through the
application of energy supplied primarily by the detonating
explosive. Lu and Latham (1998, 1999) have described this
change (Figure 1) from the in situ block size distribution (ISBD)
to the blasted block size distribution (BBSD) via an
energy-block-transition (EBT) model that is defined by:
Bi = (kai kab) / qci[(kai + kab)/2]0.5 (1)
where Bi is the EBT coefficient, qci is the explosive energy input
(in kWh/t), and kai and kab are the mean sizes (in m) of the ISBD
and BBSD, respectively.
267
E WIDZYK-CAPEHART and P LILLY
FIG 1 - Schematic representation of the transformation process
(after Lu and Latham, 1998).
A description of Bi based on the fractal dimension of the in
situ and blasted blocks has also been proposed (Lu and Latham,
1999).
PREDICTING ROCK MASS BLASTABILITY
The properties that affect rock mass blastability include, but are
not necessary limited to, the following:
The Youngs modulus, yield point, compressive strength,
tensile strength, Poissons ratio, shear modulus, bulk
modulus, fracture toughness, Hugoniot elastic limit,
compressional wave velocity and shear wave velocity of the
rock material.
The spacing, length, orientation, aperture, in-fill
characteristics, shear strength, shear stiffness, normal
stiffness and tensile strength of the ubiquitous rock defects
the intersect the rock mass. Two of these properties (the
spacing and orientation of the in situ defects) control the
ISBD.
For all practical intents and purposes (the focus of this paper),
it is neither possible nor particularly desirable to be able to
include all of these properties in a model. However, the number
of variables that have a significant effect on rock mass
blastability can be reduced to a relative few as follows (Lilly,
1986 and 1992):
the structural nature (for example, massiveness);
the spacing of the principal defect set(s) in the rock mass;
the orientation of the principal plane(s) of weakness relative
to the free face;
the strength of the rock material between the defects; and
the unit weight of the rock mass;
268 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
of which the first three have a direct effect on the ISBD. The
reason why these five parameters or parameter sets are important
is worthy of some comment.
Massive rock masses (measured at the scale of the face being
blasted) will, in general, require more energy to fragment
than jointed rock masses, all else being equal.
The spacing of the various defect sets controls the size and
shape of the in situ block size distribution, with more closely
spaced defects necessitating less explosive energy for
fragmentation than widely spaced defects, all else being
equal.
If a particularly persistent or dominant set of defects is
present in the rock mass, then the orientation of that set
relative to the free face or, in the case of bench blasting,
relative to the bench floor has an effect on muckpile shape
and/or achievement of grade.
Rock materials that are relatively strong will, all else being
equal, require more energy to fragment than those that are
weak (although there may be some exceptions to this when
very weak, clay-like materials are being blasted). This is
particularly true when massive rock masses are being blasted
and in which the only significant variable (in the absence of
defects) is the strength of the rock material.
Rock materials that are relatively dense will, all else being
equal, require more energy to fragment and heave than those
that are relatively less so.
Ideally, the ISBD would be quantitatively derived for the rock
mass within a particular geotechnical domain to be blasted, and
how this might be done is discussed in some detail in the next
section. However, there are many situations in practice where
constraints on available time, budget and/or data preclude this
information from being collected. Often the necessary
engineering skills required to conduct the relatively sophisticated
analysis associated with the in situ block size distribution
assessment and modelling described by Lu and Latham (1998,
1999) are not available on site. Under these circumstances,
Lillys (1986 and 1992) Blastability Index provides a means of
readily assessing the ease with which a rock mass can be
fragmented by blasting. To minimise confusion with the Bi
terminology used by Lu and Latham (1998 and 1999), Lillys
Blastability Index will be referred to as the LBI in this paper.
Since its introduction into two of the Pilbara iron ore mines in
the early-1980s, the LBI has been relatively widely used in
bench blasting (for example, Cunningham, 1987; Hunter, Sandy
and Miles, 1990; Jiang and Little, 1990; Djordjevic, 1999). It is
linearly related to powder factor (PF) for a given explosive type,
bench height and blast hole diameter, which makes practical
site-related relationships between LBI and PF extremely easy to
formulate. Some applications to underground mining have also
been attempted (for example Griffin, 2000). In summary, the LBI
comprises:
a Rock Mass Description Rating (RMD) ranging from ten for
a powdery rock mass to 50 for a totally massive rock mass;
a Joint Plane Spacing Rating (JPS) ranging from ten for
spacings less than 0.1 m to 50 for spacings greater than
1.0 m;
a Joint Plane Orientation Rating (JPO) ranging from ten
where the predominant defect orientation is horizontal to 40
where the predominant defect dip is into the free face;
a rating (RDI) for the unit weight (D in t/m3) of the rock
mass equal to [25D 50] for D>2, or equal to one for D2;
and
a rating (S) for rock strength equivalent to [0.05UCS] where
UCS is given in MPa.
EXPLO 2001
 A REVIEW OF GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING ROCK MASS BLASTABILITY AND FRAGMENTATION

The LBI for a rock mass can be estimated by halving the sum
of the five ratings. That is,
LBI = [RMD+JPS+JPO+RDI+S] (2)
For a given distribution of explosive energy, the higher the
LBI the coarser the resultant BBSD.
Typical (or mean) ratings can be used to derive the typical (or
mean) value of LBI for a rock mass. However, these input
parameters are random variables and, as a consequence, the
distribution of LBI can be obtained through stochastic
simulation. For example, consider a blocky, well-bedded
sandstone that has the LBI parameters shown in Table 1.
The LBI distribution for this particular rock mass has been
derived using the Microsoft Excel add in @Risk (Pallisade,
2000) and is based on a Latin hypercube simulation with 5000
iterations. The two forms of the distribution are shown in
Figures 2 and 3, which demonstrate that LBI for this particular
rock mass ranges from 24.5 to 45.2 with a mean value of 37.3.
The example distributions also show that 95 per cent of the
values lie between 27.2 and 40.5.
From Figure 3 it is possible to quickly estimate the probability
of LBI being greater than a particular value. For example,
assume that rock fragments greater than 1 m in size are
considered to be oversized for a particular operation and that a
blast design based on a LBI of 35 gives rise to negligible
oversize. As stated above, for a given distribution of explosive
energy, the higher the LBI the coarser the resultant BBSD.
Figure 2, therefore, shows the probability of the LBI being less
than or equal to 35 that is only about 0.68 (or 68 per cent). In this
example, it implies that the likelihood of the LBI being greater
than the mean (and hence likely to produce oversize) is about
0.32 (or 32 per cent).
MEASURING THE ISBD
The geometric properties required to generally characterise the
rock structural geometry obtained from a typical discontinuity
survey include primary set characteristics such as discontinuity
orientation, trace length and spacing and secondary set
characteristics such as discontinuity termination, roughness and
planarity. The naturally occurring structural features can be
divided into two classes (Call, Savely and Nicholas, 1976):
1. main structures, such as faults, dykes, contact and related
features with a size of the same order of magnitude as that
of the site to be characterised; and
2. minor geological features, such as, discontinuities, minor
shears and bedding planes which represent, for practical
purposes, an infinite population in the area of design and
thus their properties (geometrical and physical) must be
estimated by measurements of a representative sampled
population.

TABLE 1
Example LBI parameters and distributions.

LBI parameter Lower-bound estimate Mean or most likely value Upper-bound estimate Assumed distribution type
Rock mass description rating 15 20 25 Triangular
Joint plane spacing (m) 0.1 0.3 0.8 Triangular
Joint plane orientation rating 10 15 20 Triangular
Unit weight (t/m3) 2.2 2.5 2.8 Triangular
UCS (MPa) 80 120 130 Triangular

Distribution for Blastability Index

X <=27.2 X <=40.54
0.12 2.5% 97.5%

Mean = 33.3
0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
20 30 40 50

FIG 2 - An example of a probability distribution function for Blastability Index.

EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001 269

E WIDZYK-CAPEHART and P LILLY
Cumulative Probability Distribution for Blastability Index
X <=27.2
2.5%
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20 30
FIG 3 - An example of a cumulative probability distribution function for Blastability Index.
Rock discontinuity properties are three-dimensional entities,
yet the observations of rock structure are usually
one-dimensional (for example, information obtain in boreholes)
or at best two-dimensional (for example, observations gathered
from outcrops or excavation walls). Unfortunately, even a
complete two-dimensional description of the rock structure is
sometimes difficult to establish due to the limited sizes of
exposures and/or limited access along the various orientations.
Methods
There are several methods available to determine the
discontinuity set characteristics, such as line sampling (Call,
1972), semi-trace length sampling (Cruden, 1977; Priest and
Hudson, 1981) and cell mapping techniques (Mathis, 1988).
These are outlined below.
Line mapping is a systematic one-dimensional spot sampling
technique, which can be extended to two-dimensions if the line is
located inside the sampling window. The method consists of
stretching a measuring tape along the exposed face and recording
the measurements and features of interest of every discontinuity
that intersects the tape. Ideally, the sample sites would be
randomly selected in three mutually orthogonal directions of
equal length. Thus, any discontinuity ignored by one line, due to
its orientation, would be then sampled preferentially by one or
both of the other lines. In practice, however, mapping sites are
determined by the availability and accessibility of rock exposures
and approximately two days are required to choose an
appropriate mapping site, establish the line, and record the data
required (Villaescusa, 1992). In addition, at least 40 observations
per discontinuity set are required in order to construct
experimental histograms and provide a sound statistical database
of the discontinuity set characteristics (Villaescusa, 1991).
The semi-trace length mapping concept was first introduced by
Cruden (1977) and later used by Priest and Hudson (1981). The
two-dimensional mapping scheme consists of sampling only the
discontinuity trace segment appearing above the sampling line
and uses an intersection criterion to determine whether or not a
particular discontinuity will be included in the sample (Mathis,
1988). However, mathematical analysis of the observed
270 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
X <=40.54
97.5%
Mean = 33.3
40 50
discontinuity trace length distributions indicates that semi-trace
length data appears insensitive to changes in the underlying
uncensored trace length distribution (Warburton, 1980; Laslett,
1982; Villaescusa, 1992).
Cell mapping is a form of areal sampling or two-dimensional
mapping in which an area interception criterion is established in
order to collect the field data. Rectangular or square windows
called cells are defined along the excavation walls. A statistical
value based on the properties of the discontinuities found within
the boundaries is assigned to each cell. A family of
discontinuities with similar orientation properties is grouped in
order to form a geological design set. Subsequently, the
orientation and locations of all the discontinuities within the cell
boundaries are recorded for each discontinuity set and the
number of end points contained within the window is recorded
for each discontinuity observed. Mathis (1988) has developed a
sampling method in which the discontinuity properties are
sampled from a reduced number of observations, which appear to
represent the mean values for each individual set. Estimates of
the observed number of discontinuity trace centres per cell and
the average sampled trace length can also be calculated. Pahl
(1981), Laslett (1982) and Kulatilake and Wu (1984) have
presented methods to estimate the two-dimensional average
values of the discontinuity trace length from areal sampling
techniques. From a practical point of view, the cell method is
time consuming in comparison to line sampling as the number of
discontinuities sampled using the cell mapping procedure is
much higher than the number of discontinuities sampled along
the horizontal line with line sampling method (Villaescusa,
1992).
With any of the three conventional rock discontinuity mapping
methods discussed above (which are based on a line or an areal
intersection criterion in order to establish a statistically
representative sample of the rock masses) mapping biases are
introduced in relation to orientation, size, truncation and
censoring. Therefore, carefully defined sampling or correction
procedures are essential to eliminate or minimise these effects.
Mathematical corrections for mapping biases are available for
both cell and line mapping methods.
EXPLO 2001
 A REVIEW OF GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING ROCK MASS BLASTABILITY AND FRAGMENTATION
The line intersection criterion considerably reduces the
number of mapped discontinuities required for the mathematical
analysis as compare to the areal intersection criterion and thus
reduces the processing time; however, the accuracy of
discontinuity mapping might be compromised. To remedy the
problem, Villaescusa (1992) suggested that a modified line
sampling technique be used, which combines the line and cell
mapping techniques. In this case, a line is drawn inside the
convex window and the traces, which cross the line are recorded
within each window. The data collected includes distance along
the tape where the discontinuity intersects the line, end points of
the discontinuities intersecting the tape, type of structure, trace
length and others (Villaescusa, 1991). With this method, the
number of mapped discontinuities is increased as compared to
the line intersection criterion yet the measurement and
processing time is reduced with respect to the areal intersection
criterion.
The Spacing Population Technique (Gillespie et al, 1993;
Boadu and Long, 1994; Harris, Franssen and Loosveld, 1991) is
a one-dimension fractal analysis technique in which the fractal
nature of the spatial distribution of fractures, faults and joints is
investigated. The fracture pattern is first broken down into
orientation sets by grouping the discontinuities according to their
orientation clustering. Subsequently, distances between
immediately adjacent fractures (ie fracture spacings) are
measured and represented on log-log plots of spacing, S, vs
cumulative number, N(s), where N(s) is the number of fracture
spacing values S. The measurements are made on each set
individually with reference to a scanline that is perpendicular to
the mean orientation of the set in question.
Distributions
Based on the measurements performed, the final distribution of
discontinuity spacing has been shown to follow a normal
distribution or negative exponential distribution (Priest and
Hudson 1976), a monotonic decreasing distribution (Cox, 1959),
a lognormal distribution (Roleau, 1984; Massoud, 1987;
Villaescusa, 1991) or a fractal distribution (Segall and Pollard,
1983; Gillespie et al, 1993; Boadu and Long, 1994; Harris,
Franssen and Loosveld, 1991). Hobbs (1993) suggested that any
geometrical model of discontinuities in real rocks would show a
tendency towards fractal or lognormal frequency distributions for
joint spacing, although particular joint sets may show a tendency
towards a negative exponential distribution over a limited range.
If a set of discontinuity spacings has a fractal distribution, then
the distribution will plot as a straight line on the log-log plot of
spacing S vs cumulative number N(s), that is:
N(s) S-D (3)
where N(s) is the number of discontinuity spacing values S,
and D is the fractal dimension. Fractal dimension, D, provides a
measure of the degree of clustering of discontinuity structure on
a line sample. The frequency of spacing (or trace length) is then
computed and plotted as a histogram and a theoretical
distribution is fitted to the histogram. This is the so-called
Regression Fitting Technique that was used by Segall and
Pollard (1983).
Lu (1997) also used the spacing population and the regression
fitting techniques to study the IBSD of rock masses intersected
by discontinuities with fractal spacing distributions.
Other techniques, such as the interval counting and the fracture
number box-counting technique have been used to study the
spatial distributions of discontinuities (La Pointe, 1988; Turcotte,
1989; Davy, Sornette and Sornette, 1990; Harris, Franssen and
Loosveld, 1991; Gillespie et al, 1993) with various outcomes.
EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
Gillespie et al (1993) recommend two approaches for
characterisation of fracture systems, that is, the description of
individual sets of discontinuities separated according to their
orientation or the consideration of the system as a whole based
on cluster size (Odling, 1992) or in terms of fragments size
distribution (Turcotte, 1992). The former approach is well suited
to the investigation of fracture development while the latter to
connectivity or fragmentation analysis.
In practice, a frequency or cumulative histogram is generated
based on the collected data and a mathematical function is fitted
to provide basis for future modelling of discontinuities within the
specified geological domain.
With the onset of digital imaging, geological face mapping has
entered yet another stage. Photogrammetric techniques to map in
situ block size distribution allow for much faster assessment of
discontinuities than ever before using computer software, for
example, WipJoint (WipWare, 2001) or Sirojoint (CSIRO,
2001). The digital images of fractures, acquired with a high
resolution camera, are downloaded onto the computer and the
fracture distribution is determined with the help of the computer
software. The time spent to acquire data at the mine site using
digital imaging is considerably less than when conventional
mapping methods are employed (hours vs days) greatly reducing
the interference with the mining process.
PREDICTING THE BBSD
Blasted block size distributions are most often represented by
either the Schuhmann (for example, Lu and Latham, 1999) or the
Rosin-Rammler (Rosin and Rammler, 1933) distributions. Both
distributions require an index of uniformity and knowledge of a
particular point on the fragment size distribution (either the
maximum block size or the characteristic size, respectively). In
the case of the Rosin-Ramler distribution, the block size
distribution can be defined by a re-arrangement (Cunningham,
1983) of the original equation as follows:
( )
P = 100 1 exp 0.693 x
n
(4)
x
where:
P is the percentage passing fragment size x;
x is the mean fragment size; and
n is the uniformity index.
The empirical Kuznetsov equation (Cunningham, 1983) used
in conjunction with the LBI can be used for estimating mean
fragment size. In this way, the LBI and the Rosin-Rammler
distribution are used to relatively easily predict the distribution
of post-blast fragment size (Lilly, 1986 and 1992; Cunningham,
1987) for the coarser end of the size distribution above
approximately 50 mm (Djordjevic, 1999). Using this approach,
the mean fragment size (x) and uniformity index (n) are
estimated as follows:
x = 0.12 LBI[V/Q]0.8 Q0.167 [115/E]0.633 (5)
n = [2.2 (14B/D)][1+(R-1)/2]0.5[1-(W/B][L/H] (6)
where V is the volume of rock broken (in m3) by each blast hole,
Q is the charge weight (in kg) in each blast hole, E is the relative
weight strength of the explosive (ANFO is 100), B is the blast
hole burden (in m), D is the blast hole diameter (in mm), W is
the standard deviation associated with the drilling accuracy
(in m), R is the ratio of blast hole spacing to burden, H is the
bench height (in m) and L is the charge length above grade
(in m).
271
E WIDZYK-CAPEHART and P LILLY
Once again, the variability of the LBI parameters can be taken
into account by using stochastic simulation techniques. For
example, Figure 4 shows a Latin hypercube simulation of
percentage oversize based on a particular bench blast design in a
rock mass having the LBI distribution shown in Figures 2 and 3.
From this figure it can be seen that the percentage oversize is
likely to range from slightly under six per cent to about 21 per
cent with a mean of about 12 per cent. If ten per cent oversize
was the target level, for example, then the stochastic analysis in
Figure 3 suggests that the probability of oversize being less than
or equal to this target is about 0.19 (or 19 per cent).
Consequently, the probability of exceeding the target is about 81
per cent (that is, most of the time).
MEASURING THE BBSD
Traditionally, volumetric size distribution measurements were
determined by sieving a small sample of the fragmented rock.
However, accurate sieving is time consuming and cumbersome,
with large sample sizes required to obtain representative results.
Thus, it is no small wonder that, in the age of computers, the
continuous development and application of fragmentation
photoanalysis software has gained widespread acceptance in the
mining industry.
A number of software packages have entered the market that
measure particle size distributions using digital or laser
techniques, such as WipFrag, Split, FragScan, Goldsize,
PowerSieve and others. As a consequence of the so-called
mine-to-mill approach to mining operations, the application of
imaging software is steadily increasing. However, as Noy and
Chung (1997) pointed out with the widespread use of this
measurement technique there is a need to put the approach in
perspective.
The acquisition of images can be performed in a number of
ways, whereas the method(s) selected depends on the
site-specific application of the photoanalysis, which range from
pure fragmentation analysis to process control. Roving cameras,
fixed on-line video cameras, shovel mounted cameras and
over-head cameras have all been employed with varying success
at numerous mine sites around the world (Maerz, 1996; Franklin
and Katsabanis, 1996; Kemeny et al, 1999). Roving cameras
Cumulative Probability Distribution for Oversize (%)
X <=7.85
2.5%
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4 10
FIG 4 - Example of a cumulative probability distribution function for percentage oversize.
272 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
have the advantage of providing large numbers of images, which
can be selected when required to obtain the most representative
sample possible. Fixed on-line cameras (usually CCD cameras)
are able to monitor material flow at strategic points in the
materials handling process. CCD cameras are suitable for a large
variety of situations and locations and can be effectively
protected against cold, heat, moisture and dust. The main benefit
of using video and digital cameras for sampling is that images
can be viewed immediately after acquisition unlike conventional
camera film.
Practical aspects of the optical assessment of rock
fragmentation occur prior to any image processing, that is,
during the image acquisition stage. A number of issues have to
be dealt with, such as sampling scheme, lighting conditions, view
angle, and rock texture. These, however, can be resolved (in
most cases) by physically adjusting the acquisition system by
providing appropriate lightning conditions, taking photographs
perpendicular to the muckpile surface and so on. However, the
problem of particle overlap cannot be easily controlled. That is
where the notion of the unfolding function was developed.
The early applications of two dimensional imaging to BBSD
concentrated on measuring some parameter of fragment size such
as the longest, intermediate or shortest axis or cross-sectional
area (for example, Carter, 1977: Aimone and Dowding, 1983;
Farmer, Kemeny and McDoniel, 1991; Franklin and Maerz,
1986; Kemeny et al, 1993) and developing an unfolding
volumetric distribution function. The three-dimensional
distribution function was based on the initial assumption that
there exists a relationship between the volumes of blocks in a
muckpile and the one- or two-dimensional surface information
(Mojtabai et al, 1989; Farmer, Kemeny and McDoniel, 1991;
Kemeny et al, 1993). The image based function was in the end
compared with the sieve results and, if necessary, adjusted
accordingly to account for discrepancies, such as
underestimation of fines. Over the years, the techniques to
improve the final distribution function to closely match the sieve
results have been refined, especially with regard to fines in
on-line measurements. The photoanalysis results have been
shown to lie within four per cent to ten per cent of the sieve
results (for instance Maerz and Zhou, 1999; Kemeny et al,
1999).
X <=17.51
97.5%
Mean = 12.31239
16 22
EXPLO 2001
 A REVIEW OF GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING ROCK MASS BLASTABILITY AND FRAGMENTATION
Lu (1997) used the photo scanline technique to determine the
parameters of either the Rosin-Rammler or the Schuhmann
equation. The photo-scanline technique is similar to the scanline
technique used when mapping discontinuities on an exposure
assuming that the three principal axes of each block lie with
random orientations with respect to other blocks on the surface.
On a properly scaled photograph of a muckpile, several parallel
straight lines are aligned along representative directions and
these intersect a sample of exposed blocks. For each scanline, the
lengths of visible blocks exposed on the surface and intersected
by the line are recorded. Therefore, the accumulated block length
represents the one-dimensional surface information of the BBSD
of the muckpile. The parameters of the Rosin-Rammler or
Schuhmann distribution are determined using a relationship
derived by comparing the length distribution information of the
one-dimensional surface intersection of the BBSD information
determined by directly sieving artificial muckpiles. In studies
conducted by Lu (1997), the photo scanline technique provided
good results, however, as Lu (1997) admits, the image
acquisition errors still needed to be addressed.
A different approach to image based fragmentation analysis
has been proposed by Chavez, Cheimanoff and Schleifer (1996)
and supported by Noy (1997) in which the two-dimensional
assessment could be a valid method for comparing distributions
rather than developing a universal unfolding function. Noy
(1997) showed that the particle projected area distributions
measured optically from known mass distributions were able to
follow changes to the mass distribution in muckpiles with similar
particle characteristics. In addition, Noy and Chung (1997)
advocate that the application of two-dimensional optical
measurements of fragmentation should focus on benchmarking,
that is, on assessing how well each system was able to track
changes to a known distribution. The results can be correlated
with blast input parameters, thus allowing input to blast
optimisation.
It was noted earlier that the spacing of the principal defect
set(s) in the rock mass has a significant effect on rock mass
blastability. If the observed discontinuities have a fractal spacing
distribution, the explosive energy would fracture the rock along
the fractally spaced defects. As the rock mass is reduced to a
blasted pile, the notion that the fragmented rock is also fractally
distributed could be entertained. The three-dimensional
fragmentation distribution function would be a power function
with fragmentation fractal dimension. Turcotte (1992), Kaye
(1989), Sammis and Biegel (1989) and Widzyk-Capehart and
Young (1996a and 1996b) provided some insight into the
possibility of fractal distribution of blasted rock.
CONCLUSIONS
It is essential to the understanding, prediction and management
of the blasting process that both the blastability of a rock mass
(of which its ISBD is an important part) and the nature of its
transformation after blasting (to form the BBSD) can be
appropriately quantified.
Ideally, the ISBD is quantitatively derived for the rock mass
within a particular geotechnical domain to be blasted. There are
several methods available to obtain the necessary structural data
(including line sampling, semi-trace length sampling and/or cell
mapping techniques) which, when combined with appropriate
mathematical correction methods, allow the ISBD to be
estimated. Fractal analysis has also added significantly to this
approach. However, there are many situations in practice where
various constraints preclude this information from being
collected. In such cases, the LBI provides a means of readily
assessing the ease with which a rock mass can be fragmented by
blasting. The use of the LBI coupled with a stochastic simulation
technique can yield useful quantitative information of the
likelihood of success in blasting outcomes.
EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
Measurement of the BBSD has included sieving and, more
recently, the application of image acquisition techniques coupled
with fragmentation photoanalysis software. The early
applications of two-dimensional imaging concentrated on
measuring some parameter of fragment size and developing an
unfolding volumetric distribution function. These methods
have improved over the years and the final distribution function
can now be made to closely match known sieve results.
However, if the observed (in situ) discontinuities have a fractal
spacing distribution then it is possible that the fragmented rock is
also fractally distributed, which can lead to alternative methods
of assessing the BBSD.
The final determination of the ISBD and BBSD need to be
viewed in relation to the site specific conditions in order to better
understand the blasting process and consequently to better
manage both mining and milling operations. In line with
conventional engineering practices, the overall objective, the
measurement process and the final outcome must be considered
in terms of the available geological and geotechnical
information, mining parameters and milling constraints prior to
the application of any method notwithstanding its proven
accuracy elsewhere.
REFERENCES
Aimone, C T and Dowding, C H, 1983. Fragmentation measurement
results for fourteen full-scale production blasts: a comparison with a
three-dimensional wave code, in Proceedings Ninth Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Techniques, pp 330-333 (Society of
Explosives Engineers: Montville, Ohio).
Blanchard, B S and Fabrycky, W J, 1990. Systems Engineering and
Analysis, p 721 (Prentice Hall: New Jersey).
Boadu, F K and Long, L T, 1994. The fractal character of fracture
spacing and RQD, Int J Rock Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr,
31(2):127-134.
Call, R D, 1972. Analysis of geologic structure for open pit slope design,
PhD thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Call, R D, Savely, J P and Nicholas, D E, 1976. Estimation of joint set
characteristics form surface mapping data, Monograph on Rock
Mech Appl in Mining, (Ed: W A Hustrulid) pp 65-73 (AIME:
New York).
Carter, J W, 1977. Analysis of a simple photographic method proposed
for determining size distribution of rock fragments, USBM Lab
Report, RBM 77-03, pp 1-19.
Chavez, R, Cheimanoff, N and Schleifer, J, 1996. Sampling problems
during grain size distribution measurements, in Proceedings 5th Int
Conf on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting: Fragblast 5, (Ed:
B Mohanty) pp 245-252 (A A Balkema: Rotterdam).
Cox, D R, 1959. Some sampling problems in technology, in New
Developments in Survey Sampling, (Eds: N Johnson and H Smith)
pp 507-513 (Wiley and Sons: New York).
CSIRO, 2001.
http://www.dem.csiro.au/research/imaging/sirojoint/index.html
Cruden, D M, 1977. Describing the size of discontinuities, Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr, 14:133-137.
Cunningham, C, 1983. The Kuz-Ram model for prediction of
fragmentation from blasting, First Int Symp Rock Frag By Blasting,
(Eds: R Holmberg and A Rustan) pp 439-453 (The University:
Lule, Sweden).
Cunningham, C, 1987. Fragmentation estimation and the Kuz-Ram
modelfour years on, Second Int Symp on Rock Frag by Blasting,
(Eds: W L Fourney and R D Dick) pp 475-487 (Society for
Experimental Mechanics: Bethel, Connecticut).
Davy, P, Sornette, A and Sornette, D, 1990. Some consequences of
proposal fractal nature of continental faulting, Nature, 348:56-58.
Djordjevic, N, 1999. A two-component model of blast fragmentation,
The AusIMM Proceedings, 2:9-13 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Farmer, I W, Kemeny, J M and McDoniel, C, 1991. Analysis of rock
fragmentation in bench blasting using digital image processing, in
Proceedings Seventh International Congress on Rock Mechanics,
(Ed: W Wittke) pp 1037-1042 (A A Balkema: Aachen, Germany).
273
E WIDZYK-CAPEHART and P LILLY
Franklin, J A and Maerz, N H, 1986. Digital photo-analysis of rock
jointing, in Proceedings 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
pp 11-26.
Franklin, J and Katsabanis, T (Eds), 1996. Measurement of Blast
Fragmentation, (A A Balkema: Rotterdam).
Gillespie, P S, Howard, H, Walsh, J J and Watterson, J, 1993.
Measurement and characterisation of spatial distributions of fracture,
Tectonophysics, 226:113-141.
Griffin, D, 2000. Optimising underground production blast pattern
designs at Olympic Dam Mine via photographic fragmentation
analysis and blast fragmentation modelling, BEng thesis, WA School
of Mines, Curtin University of Technology, p 64.
Harr, M E, 1987. Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering, p 290
(McGraw-Hill: New York).
Harris, C, Franssen, R and Loosveld, R, 1991. Fractal analysis of
fractures in rocks: the Cantors dust methodcomment,
Tectonophysics, 198:107-111.
Hobbs, B E, 1993. The significance of structural geology in rock
mechanics, in Comprehensive Rock Engineering, (Ed: J A Hudson)
Vol 1, pp 25-26.
Hunter, G C, Sandy, D A and Miles, N J, 1990. Optimisation of blasting
at a large open pit mine, in Proceedings Third International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 21-30 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Jiang, J and Little, T N, 1990. Selection and design of blasting techniques
for selective open pit gold mining using knowledge-based systems
technology, in Proceedings Third International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 391-391 (The Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Kaye, B H, 1989. A random walk through fractal dimensions, (VCH
Publishers: New York).
Kemeny, J M, Devgan, A, Hagaman, R M and Wu, X, 1993. Analysis of
rock fragmentation using digital image processing, J Geo Eng,
119(7):1144-1159.
Kemeny, J, Girdner, K, Bobo, T and Norton, B, 1999. Improvements for
fragmentation measurement by digital imaging: accurate estimation
of fines, in Proceedings Sixth International Symposium for Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting - Fragblast 6, pp 103-111 (The South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg).
Kulatilake, P S S W and Wu, T H, 1984. The density of discontinuity
traces in sampling windows, Tech Note, Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
and Geomech Abstr, 21:345-347.
La Pointe, P, 1988. A method to characterise fracture density and
connectivity through fractal geometry, Int J Rock Mech Min Sci and
Geomech Abstr, 25(6):421-429.
Laslett, G M, 1982. Censoring and edge effects in areal and line transect
sampling of rock joint traces, Mathematical Geology, 14(2):125-139.
Lilly, P A, 1986. An empirical method of assessing rock mass
blastability, in Proceedings Large Open Pit Mining Conference, pp
89-92 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Lilly, P A, 1992. The use of the Blastability Index in the design of blasts
for open pit mines, in Proceedings Western Australian Conference
on Mining Geomechanics, (Eds: T Szwedzicki, G R Baird and T N
Little) pp 421-426 (Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin
University of Technology: Kalgoorlie).
Lilly, P A, 2001. Probability and Risk in Geomechanics, MEngSc Unit
Handbook, Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University
of Technology, Kalgoorlie.
Lu, P, 1997. The characterisation and analysis of in situ and blasted
block size distributions and the blastability of rock masses, PhD
thesis, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London,
England.
Lu, P and Latham, J P, 1998. A model for the transition of block sizes
during rock blasting, Int J Blast Frag, 2:341-368.
Lu, P and Latham, J P, 1999. Investigation into the relationship between
fractal dimension and the blastability of rock masses, in Proceedings
Sixth International Symposium for Rock Fragmentation by Blasting -
Fragblast 6, pp 191-198 (The South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Johannesburg).
Maerz, N H, 1996. Image sampling techniques and requirements for
automated image analysis of rock fragmentation, in Proceedings
Fragblast 5 Workshop on Measurement of Blast Fragmentation,
(Eds: J Franklin and T Katsabanis) pp 115-120 (A A Balkema:
Rotterdam).
274 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
Maerz, N H and Zhou, W, 1999. Calibration of optical digital
fragmentation measuring systems, in Proceedings Sixth
International Symposium for Rock Fragmentation by Blasting -
Fragblast 6, pp 125-130 (The South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Johannesburg).
Massoud, H, 1987. Modelisation de la petite fracturation pur les
techniques de la geostatistique, PhD thesis, Ecole Nationale
Superieure des Mines des Paris, France.
Mathis, J I, 1988. Development and verification of a three-dimensional
rock joint model. PhD thesis, Lulea University of Technology,
Sweden.
McMahon, B K, 1985. Geotechnical design in the face of uncertainty,
Australian Geomechanics, 10:7-19.
Mojtabai, N, Cetinas, A, Farmer, I W and Savely, J P, 1989. In place
and excavated block size distributions, in Proceedings 30th Rock
Mech Symposium, (Ed: A Wahab Rhair) pp 537-543 (A A Balkema:
Rotterdam).
Noy, M J, 1997. 2D versus 3D fragmentation analysis: preliminary
findings, in Proceedings 13th Annual Symposium on Explosives and
Blasting Research, pp 181-190 (Las Vegas, Nevada, USA).
Noy, M J and Chung, S H, 1997. Image Based Fragmentation Analysis,
in Proceedings Continuing Education Course on Explosives
Technology, Open Pit and Underground, Vol I, Part C, pp 23-28
(Queens University: Kingston, Ontario, Canada).
Odling, N E, 1992. Network properties of a two-dimensional natural
fracture pattern, Pure Appl Geophys, 138:95-114.
Pahl, P J, 1981. Estimating the mean trace length of discontinuity traces,
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr, 18:221-228.
Pallisade, 2000. A guide to using @Risk Advanced risk analysis for
spreadsheets, Version 4, November, p 474.
Priest, S D and Hudson, J A, 1976. Discontinuity spacing in rock, Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr, 13:135-148.
Priest, S D and Hudson, J A, 1981. Estimating discontinuity spacing and
trace length using scanline surveys, Int J Rock Mech Min Sci and
Geomech Abstr, 18:183-197.
Roleau, A, 1984. Statistical Characterization and numerical simulation of
a fracture systemApplication to groundwater flow in the Stripa
granite, PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Rosin, P and Rammler, E, 1933. The laws governing the fineness of
powdered coal, J Inst Fuel, 7:29-36.
Sage, A P and Jensen, A J, 1999. Systematic measurements, in Handbook
of systems engineering and management, (Ed: A P Sage and W B
Rouse) pp 519-589 (John Wiley and Sons: New York).
Sage, A P and Rouse, W B, (Eds) 1999. Handbook of Systems
Engineering and Management, p 1236 (John Wiley and Sons: New
York).
Sammis, C G and Biegel, R L, 1989. Fractals, Fault-gouge and Friction,
PAGEOPH, 131():255-271.
Segall, P and Pollard, D D, 1983. Joint formation in granitic rock of the
Sierra Nevada, Geol Soc Amer Bull, 94:563-575.
Turcotte, D L, 1989. Fractals in geology and geophysics, PAGEOPH,
125(5):171-176.
Turcotte, D L, 1992. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics,
p 221 (Cambridge University Press: New York).
Villaescusa, E, 1991. A three-dimensional model of rock jointing, PhD
thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Villaescusa, E, 1992. Review and analysis of rock discontinuity mapping
methods, in Proceedings Sixth Australian New Zealand
Conference on Geomechanics Geotechnical Risk Identification,
Evaluation and Solutions, pp 274-279 (Christchurch, New Zealand).
Warburton, P M, 1980. A stereological interpretation of joint trace data,
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci and Geomech Abstr, 17:181-190.
Widzyk-Capehart, E, Young, D S, 1996a. Fractal and Digital Image
Analyses of Rock Fragments, in Proceedings 2nd North American
Rock Mechanics Symposium, (Eds: M Aubertin, F Hassani and H
Mitri) pp 627-633 (Balkema: Rotterdam).
Widzyk-Capehart, E, Young, D S, 1996b. Fractal Based Approach to
Image Analysis of Rock Fragments, in Proceedings APCOM 1996,
(Ed: R V Ramani) pp 309-313 (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration: Littleton, Colorado).
WipWare, 2001: http://wipware.com/WipJoint.htm
EXPLO 2001