ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock factor
Hyun-Jin Shim a, Dong-Woo Ryu b,, So-Keul Chung b, Joong-Ho Synn b, Jae-Joon Song c
a b c

SK E&C, Soonhwa-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul 110-300, Republic of Korea Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Gajeong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-350, Republic of Korea Seoul National University, San 56-1, Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-150, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e in fo
Article history: Received 15 January 2008 Received in revised form 6 May 2008 Accepted 15 July 2008 Keywords: Rock factor Rock fragmentation KuzRam model SIS

abstract
Rock fragmentation plays a critical role in large-scale quarrying operations because of its direct effects on the costs of drilling, blasting, secondary blasting and crushing. In this aspect, it is essential to consider rock fragmentation in blasting design. The optimum blasting pattern to excavate a quarry efciently and economically can be determined based on the minimum production cost which is generally estimated according to rock fragmentation. By comparing various prediction models, it can be ascertained that the results obtained from the KuzRam model relatively coincide with the results from eld measurements. This model uses the rock factor to signify conditions of rock mass such as block size, rock jointing, strength, and others. The rock factor is estimated from geologic data such as block size of rock mass, rock jointing, strength, and others, and its 3-D spatial distribution was predicted by a sequential indicator simulation (SIS) technique. The entire quarry in question was classied into three types of rock mass and an optimum blasting pattern was proposed for each type based on the 3-D spatial distribution of the rock factor. It can, therefore, be concluded that it is possible to design a blasting pattern to achieve a minimum production cost in large-scale quarrying operations by predicting rock fragmentation based on the 3-D spatial distribution of the rock factor. Crown Copyright & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Quarries tend to be developed on a large scale for an adequate supply of stones and sites development for the construction work of infrastructures such as airports, harbors, etc. The blasting work is one of the most important processes in such a quarry development, because blasting affects the productivity and safety of quarrying. Rock fragmentation plays a key role in the evaluation of efciency and productivity in quarry blasting. If rock fragmentation is not controlled, it can increase production cost and delay a quarrying process due to unnecessary secondary blasting or crushing. Therefore, a blasting design should take into account rock fragmentation to cut down the cost and shorten the work time. Studies have tried to predict the fragmentation of blasted rock mass [15]. By analyzing rock fragmentation through evaluation of the rock mass condition, it is possible to design a blasting pattern for target fragmentation. However, at the early stage of large-scale quarrying, it is difcult to evaluate the overall rock mass condition

because of the limitation of preconstruction site investigation. Therefore, exhaustively using the statistical information from a limited number of data can be an alternative approach. In this study, rock fragmentation is analyzed from actual dimension test blasting based on four different blasting patterns that are compared with the results of representative prediction models to get an optimum prediction model of rock fragmentation. Rock mass types of the entire quarry are classied based on a 3-D spatial distribution of the rock factor by using a sequential indicator simulation (SIS). Blasting patterns are determined to achieve a minimum production cost in case of a 12-m high bench from the analysis of rock fragmentation and production cost for each blasting type.

2. Fragmentation prediction model 2.1. Prediction model selection To select a prediction model for a quarry, on-site blasting tests and fragmentation analysis by image processing were conducted. Based on the results, representative fragmentation models were compared. Four blasting patterns with different explosives and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 868 3099; fax: +82 42 868 3416.

E-mail address: dwryu@kigam.re.kr (D.-W. Ryu).

1365-1609/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006

Please cite this article as: Shim H-J, et al. Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock.... Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 H.-J. Shim et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Table 1 Actual dimension test-blasting patterns and results of fragmentation analysis Division Blast-hole layout Pattern-I Pattern-II Pattern-III Pattern-IV

Bench height (m) Explosive Specic charge (kg/m3) Fragmented rock image

9 ANFO 0.30

9 Emulsion 0.32

11 Dynamite 0.34

11.5 Emulsion 0.31

Fragment size distribution curve

Mean fragment size(m)

0.32

0.28

0.28

0.29

100% 80% Passing (%) 60% 40% 20% 0% 0.01

kuz-Ram model image process

SveDeFo model Larsson model

Table 2 Parameters for estimation of the rock factor [4] Parameter RMD 10+10Xi JF JFs +JFo JFs 10 20 50 JFo 10 20 30 40
a b

Description Xi block size of in-situ rock mass

0.1 Particle size (m)

Joint spacingo0.1 m 0.1 mojoint spacingooversize (m) Oversize (m)ojoint spacing Joint dipo101 |Joint dip directiondip direction of bench|o301 601o|joint dip directiondip direction of bench| 30ojoint dip directiondip direction of bench|o601

Fig. 1. Comparison of fragment size distributions of different prediction models.

RDI 25 (SG-2) SG: specic gravity of rock HF UCS/5 HF E/3 Yo50 GPa, (UCS: uniaxial compressive strength of rock in MPa) Y450 GPa (E: elastic modulus of rock in GPa)

blast-hole layouts, were selected for the blasting test. The image analysis results of the fragmentation show that the fragment size ranges from 0.28 to 0.32 m (Table 1). Fig. 1 shows the predicted distributions of various models with a fragment size distribution curve resulting from four actual dimension test blasts. The KuzRam model was found to give a comparatively reasonable result. For sizes over 30 cm, the result of the KuzRam model was almost similar to that of the actual test; thus this model was selected as a prediction model in the quarry.

a b

JFs: Rating for joint spacing. JFo: Rating for joint orientation.

factor based on the blastability index (BI) developed by Lilly [7], which can be calculated from the joints, density, and hardness of the rock mass. Cunningham [4] suggested the relationship between the BI and the rock factor as follows: BI 0:5 RMD JF RDI HF

2.2. Rock factor The KuzRam model is based on the empirical equation developed by Kuznetsov [6] and an adaptation of the concept of the rock factor that considers various conditions of the rock mass. An estimation of a 3-D spatial distribution of the rock factor can be helpful in predicting production costs and determining the blasting pattern. A modied KuzRam equation [3,4] is used to predict the size range for actual blasts and includes a calculation for the rock

F r 0:12 BI

(1)

where the rock mass description (RMD) is a parameter related to the size of the rock block, joint factor (JF) is related to the joint spacing and the relative orientation to the bench, the rock density index (RDI) is related to the specic gravity of the rock and the hardness factor (HF) is related to the rock strength. The evaluation basis of the parameters in Eq. (1) is summarized in Table 2. The parameters for the evaluation of an in-situ rock mass condition can be divided into block size, spacing and orientation of joints, specic gravity and strength. The spacing and orientation of joints

Please cite this article as: Shim H-J, et al. Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock.... Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Shim et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]]]] 3

can be specied by borehole logging or outcrop survey. Specic gravity and strength can be estimated on site using the point load test and also in the laboratory. Block size can be estimated by various methods summarized by Palmstrom [8].

standard optimization method. The necessary conditions for the minimization are given by the linear kriging system of n+1 equations with n+1 unknowns
n X

la gjjsi sa jj n la gjjsi s0 jj; i 1; 2; . . . ; n

(9)

3. 3-D spatial distribution of the rock factor To predict the spatial distribution of the rock factor, the SIS technique is applied. SIS is the most widely used non-Gaussian simulation technique. SIS is a geostatistical simulation technique, equivalent to indicator kriging [9]. Indicator kriging, proposed by Journel [10], is an indicator approach using a kriging method, which is known as best linear unbiased estimation (BLUE). 3.1. Linear kriging system To introduce a kriging method simply, an intrinsic isotropic random eld is considered. The intrinsic isotropic random eld means that the mean is constant but unspecied, and the twopoint mean square difference depends only on the distance between the two locations Ezs zs0 0
1 2Ezs

a1
n X

la 1

(10)

a1

where n is a Lagrange multiplier.

3.2. Kriging by indicator approach The above kriging estimation is based on a Gaussian random eld. To avoid the assumption of a Gaussian random eld, the function F{s; z|z(sa), aA(n)} is modeled through a series of K threshold values zk discretizing the range of variation of z Ffs; zk jzsa ; a 2 ng PfZs pzk jzsa ; a 2 ng k 1; . . . ; K (11) The indicator approach is based on the interpretation of the conditional probability as the conditional expectation of an indicator random variable i(s; zk) given the measurements Ffs; zk jzsa ; a 2 ng Efis; zk jk 1; . . . ; Kg (12)

(2) (3)

zs0 2 gh

where h Jss0 J is the distance of the separation vector and g is a variogram which is used for modeling of spatial variability. Eqs. (2) and (3) comprise the intrinsic isotropic model. In general, a kriging method is a weighted linear combination of the measurements, i.e. ^ Z
n X

la Z a

(4)

a1

where Za is a spatially distributed measurement, la is a weight ^ corresponding to Za and Z is an estimate of the unknown quantity ^ by kriging. Therefore, the difference between the estimate Z 0 and the actual unknown value z(s0) is the estimation error ^ z0 zs0
K X k1

lk zsk zs0

(5)

The weights can be determined to meet the following specications such as an unbiasedness condition and a minimum estimation variance ! n n X X ^ Ez0 zs0 la m m la 1 m 0 (6)
a1 a1
n n XX

with i(s; zk) 1 if Z(s)pzk and zero otherwise. According to the projection theorem [11], the least-squares estimate of the indicator i(s; zk) is also the least-squares estimate of its conditional expectation. Thus, the conditional cumulative distribution function (CCDF) value F(s; zk) can be obtained by kriging the unknown indicator i(s; zk) using indicator transforms of the neighboring measurements [12]. Therefore, indicator kriging is based on the interpretation of the conditional probability as the conditional expectation of an indicator random variable i(s; zk). A strong advantage of the SIS technique over sequential Gaussian simulation is to allow one to account for class-specic patterns of spatial continuity through different indicator variogram models. The SIS is a sequential simulation based on an estimation of multivariate conditional distributions. The indicator formalism is used to model the sequence of CCDFs ( 1 if zsa pzk ; isa ; zk k 1; . . . ; K (13) 0 otherwise; where z(sa) is the precise measurement of the attribute of interest and sa is the datum location. The conditional expected value of i(s; zk)is

^ Ez0 zs0 2

la lb gjjsa sb jj
(7)

a1 b1

n X

la gjjsa s0 jj

a1

Efis; zk jzsa ; a 2 ng 0 PfZs4zk jzsa ; a 2 ng 1 PfZspzk jzsa ; a 2 ng PfZspzk jzsa ; a 2 ng Therefore, the value of the conditional probability P{Z(s)pzk|z(sa),aA(n)} can be predicted by estimating the corresponding indicator conditional expectation E{i(s; zk)|z(sa),aA(n)}. The estimation of that conditional expectation is made by kriging from the indicator transform of the conditioning data [12]. As mentioned above, kriging will give the BLUE of the expectation E{i(s; zk)|z(sa),aA(n)} conditioned to the indicator data values corresponding to the z(sa) data. The estimate of the conditional probability is obtained as a linear combination of the

In Eq. (6), for the estimator to be unbiased for any value of the mean, it is required that
n X

la 1

(8)

a1

Eq. (7) is given in terms of the variogram by using the unbiased condition, Eq. (2). Thus, the problem of the best (minimum meansquare error) unbiased estimation may be reduced to the constrained optimization problem: the weights l1yln should be selected to minimize Eq. (7) by satisfying constraint Eq. (8). That is, Eq. (7) is the objective function and Eq. (8) is a constraint. This problem can be solved easily using Lagrange multipliers, a

Please cite this article as: Shim H-J, et al. Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock.... Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 H.-J. Shim et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

indicator data

sample Values Node 2

F fs; zk jzsa ; a 2 ng P fZspzk jzsa ; a 2 ng n X la s; zk isa ; zk

a1

Node 1

where the superscript asterisk indicates an estimated value, i(sa; zk) is the indicator transform of the sample values z(sa) for the threshold zk and la(s; zk) is the corresponding indicator kriging weight. Note that the weights are a function of both the threshold zk and the location s where the CCDF is to be estimated. The weights are obtained by solving a kriging system using the indicator covariance function Ci(h; zk) or the indicator variogram gi(s; zk) specic to the binary random function i(s; zk).

Node 3

3.3. Description of the algorithm When considering a regionalized variable Z at N grid nodes s0 j conditional only to the z-data {z(sa),a 1,y,n}, SIS proceeds as follows [13,14]: 1. Discretize the range of variation of z into (K+1) classes using K threshold values zk. 2. Dene a random path visiting each node of the grid only once (Fig. 2). 3. At each node s0 , 3.1. Determine the K CCDF values [F(s0 ; zk|(n))]* using indicator kriging. The conditioning information (n) consists of indictor transforms of neighboring original z-data and previously simulated z-values. 3.2. Correct for any order relation deviations. Then, build a complete CCDF model, [F(s0 ; zk|(n))],8z using the interpolation/extrapolation algorithms. 3.3. Draw a simulated value z(l)(s0 ) by simulating a random number following the CCDF (Fig. 3). 3.4. Add the simulated value to the conditioning data set. 3.5. Proceed to the next node along the random path, and repeat steps 14.

Fig. 2. Transversing the simulation grid along a random path.

1 Cumulative Frequency

Simulated value 0 Regionalized variable

Fig. 3. Simulation of regionalized values following a cumulative distribution function.

4 Cumulative probability (%) 99.5 98 90 70 50 30 10 2 0.5 0.04 12 10 Counts 8 6 4 2 0 4

10 Indicator Semivariogram 2.5

P20 exprimental variogram P20 theoretical variogram P40 exprimental variogram

Semivariogram/ Sample Variance ()

2.0

P40 theoretical variogram P60 exprimental variogram P60 theoretical variogram P80 exprimental variogram

1.5

P80 theoretical variogram

1.0

0.5

0.0 6 Rock Factor 8 10 0 100 200 Seperation distance (m) 300 400

Fig. 4. Distribution and indicator variogram models of Fr sample data.

Please cite this article as: Shim H-J, et al. Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock.... Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Shim et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]]]] 5

z y x y

z x

xi 8.0 7.0 6.0 50 176400 176200

(m) N.s

JF 80.0 75.0 70.0 176400 176200

(m) N.s

Elevatiom (m)

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

65.0 150 100 50 0 180800 181000 181200 Elevation (m) 60.0 55.0 50.0

176000 175800 175600 180200 180400 180600 180800 181200 181200

150 100 50 0

176000 175800 175600 180200 180400 180600

E-W (m) y z

E.W (m)

z x y x HF 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 Fr 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5

176400 176200 Elevation (m) 150 100 50 0 180600 E-W (m) 180800 181000 181200

20.0 15.0 10.0

176200

150 100 50 0 180800 181000 E-W (m) 181200

(m)

176000 175800 175600 180200 180400

176000 175800 175600 180200 180400 180600

Fig. 5. 3-D spatial distributions of Xi, JF, HF and Fr, respectively: (a) block size, Xi (b) joint factor, JF (c) hardness factor, HF and (d) rock factor, Fr.

Repeat the entire procedure with a different random path to 0 generate another realization {z(l )(s0 j), j 1,y,N},l0 6l. For SIS, exploratory data analysis (EDA), variogram and indicator variogram modeling are carried out. The SIS technique is mainly based on indicator variogram models of each threshold which can be determined based on the overall distribution and percentiles of rock factors. Four representative thresholds of rock factors are determined from the sample data. Fig. 4 shows each experimental and theoretical indicator variogram model corresponding to each threshold. The simulation provides realizations of the rock factor and other parameters and the ensemble of them is taken for the construction of a spatial distribution map. Fig. 5 illustrates 3-D spatial distributions of the parameters and the rock factor by the SIS technique. From this map of the rock factor, planar distributions at each level were provided and made it possible to be reected in the blast process at each development stage. At each development stage, appropriate crushers were arranged where poor fragmentation is predicted, which can enhance the efciency of loading and transportation.

Table 3 The classication of rock mass type according to the distribution of the rock factor Division Range of Fr Representative Fr Ratio Type-I Fro6.0 5.5 19% Type-II 6.0oFro7.0 6.5 57% Type-III Fr47.0 7.5 24%

for each rock mass type. The rock mass in the entire quarry is also classied into three types according to the distribution of rock factors; TYPE-I for rock mass with Fro6.0, TYPE-II for rock mass with 6.0oFro7.0, and TYPE-III for rock mass with Fr47.0. The ratios of each rock mass type in the entire quarry are 19%, 57%, and 24% for TYPES-I, -II, and -III, respectively. The representative values for the rock factors for each rock mass type are applied to the rock fragmentation analysis.

4.2. Determination of optimum fragment ratio for each rock mass type Rock fragmentation control is essential to achieve a minimum production cost, because rock fragmentation estimation in bench blasting enables the determination of the production cost from the prediction of the amount of secondary blasting and the selection of the development process system [15]. To determine the optimum blasting pattern based on the minimum production cost, 16 preliminary blasting patterns for each rock mass type were designed varying in spacing, burden and specic charge. Fragment size distribution and the production

4. Blasting design 4.1. Classication of rock mass types using the distribution of rock factors The rock mass in the entire quarry was classied into three types for a blasting pattern design based on 3-D spatial distribution of the rock factor estimated by the SIS technique. Table 3 shows the range and representative values for rock factors

Please cite this article as: Shim H-J, et al. Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock.... Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006

Elevation (m)

25.0

176400

N.s

(m) N.s

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 H.-J. Shim et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

cost for each preliminary blasting pattern were obtained. The fragment size distribution for each preliminary blasting pattern was obtained by applying the representative rock factors for each blasting type to the KuzRam model which shows good agreement with the fragment size distributions of the eld measurements. In this quarrying project, it was planned that the stone products would have a fragment size under 0.03 m3 and that blasting rock larger than 0.03 m3 would need secondary blasting by a breaker or a crusher. The production cost, therefore, can be divided into drilling, primary blasting, secondary blasting and crushing costs. Drilling and the primary blasting costs were obtained from the preliminary blasting pattern design, and the secondary blasting and crushing costs were obtained from the predicted amount of the secondary blasting in the fragmentation analysis. Fig. 6 shows the relationship between fragment size and the production cost for TYPE-II, which is more than half of the rock mass type in the entire quarry. As the ratio of the fragment size under 0.03 m3 increases, drilling and the primary blasting costs increase because the specic charge and the specic drilling are increased. Drilling costs account for 4145% of the primary blasting costs. However, the secondary blasting costs decrease rapidly with an increase of undersize ratio because the need for the secondary blasting is decreased. Crushing costs show less change with an increased undersize ratio because crushing is the subsequent operation following the primary and secondary blasting. This result coincides with that of Gama and Jimeno [16]. Table 4 presents the optimum fragment ratio based on the minimum production cost for each rock mass type. As the undersize ratio increases, the total production cost, which is the sum of the drilling, the primary blasting, the secondary blasting and crushing costs, has a tendency to decrease to a certain extent and later increase for all rock mass types. The fragment size that

has a minimum production cost is set to the optimum fragment size. The ranges of the ratio of the undersize to achieve the minimum production cost are 7377%, 6670% and 6064% for TYPES-I, -II, and -III, respectively. 4.3. Blasting pattern design based on the analysis of rock fragmentation The optimum blasting pattern to excavate a quarry efciently and economically can be determined based on the minimum production cost, which is generally estimated according to the rock fragmentation. The optimum blasting patterns for each rock mass type were designed from the analysis of rock fragmentation and the results are shown in Table 5. The following blasting pattern parameters were chosen for all rock mass types: bench height 12 m, drilling diameter 76 mm, drilling length 13.6 m, drilling inclination 701, explosive emulsion and detonator electric. Spacing, burden and specic charge were determined based on the preliminary blasting pattern, which has the minimum production cost for each rock mass type. The fragment size distribution curves were obtained from the rock fragmentation analysis for each blasting pattern using the KuzRam model. They show that the percentages of the undersize are 75%, 68%, and 61% for TYPES-I, -II, and -III, respectively. It can be seen that these ratios are in the ranges of the optimum fragment ratio shown in Table 4.

5. Conclusions In this study, the rock mass types were classied in the entire quarry based on a 3-D spatial distribution of the rock factor by using the SIS technique. And the optimum blasting patterns were determined from the analysis of the rock fragmentation and

drilling

primary blasting

Secondary blasting

Crushing

Cost 21%

27%

34%

44%

57%

72%

88%

98%

Ratio of size <0.03m3>

Fig. 6. Comparison of production cost with fragment size distributions for TYPE-II.

Table 4 The optimum fragment ratio (o0.03 m3) based on the minimum production cost for TYPES-I, -II and -III Division Production cost fragment ratio Type-I Type-II Type-III

Optimum fragment ratio

7377%

6670%

6064%

Please cite this article as: Shim H-J, et al. Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock.... Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.-J. Shim et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]]]] 7

Table 5 The optimum blasting pattern for TYPES-I, -II and -III Division Bench height (m) Drilling diameter (mm) Drilling length (m) Drilling inclination(1) Burden (m) Spacing (mm) Charge per hole (kg) Specic charge (kg/m3) Explosive/detonator Fragment size Distribution curve Type-I 12 76 13.6 70 2.6 3.2 33 0.31 Emulsion/electric Type-II 12 76 13.6 70 2.6 3.2 36 0.33 Emulsion/electric Type-III 12 76 13.6 70 2.6 3.2 38 0.35 Emulsion/electric

production cost for each rock mass type. The following conclusions can be made

References
[1] Larsson B. Reports on blasting of low and high benchesfragmentation from production blasts. In: Proceedings of the discussion meeting BK 74, Swedish Rock Blasting Committee, Stockholm, 1974. p. 24754. [2] Kou S, Rustan A. Computerized design and result prediction of bench blasting. In: Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting, Vienna, 1993. p. 26371. [3] Cunningham C. The KuzRam model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. In: Proceedings of the rst international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting, Lulea, Sweden, vol. 2, 1983. p. 43953. [4] Cunningham C. Fragmentation estimation and the KuzRam model-four years on. In: Proceedings of the rst international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting, Colorado, 1987. p. 47587. [5] Choi YG. Determinants analysis and prediction of rock fragmentation in bench blasting. PhD thesis, Seoul National University, Korea, 2005 [in Korean]. [6] Kuznetsov V. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Sov Min Sci 1973;9:1448. [7] Lilly P. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In: Proceedings of the AusIMM/IE Australia Newman combined large open pit mining conference, 1986. p. 8992. [8] Palmstrom A. Measurement and characterization of rock mass jointing. In: Sharma VM, Saxena KR, editors. In-situ characterization of rocks. Rotterdam: Balkema; 2001. p. 4997. [9] Journel A, Albert F. New method for reservoir mapping. J Petrol Technol 1990;42:2129. [10] Journel A. The indicator approach to estimation of spatial distributions. In: Johnson TB, Barnes RJ, editors. Proceedings of the 17th APCOM International Symposium. New York: Society of Mining Engineers; 1982. p. 793806. [11] Luenberger D. Optimization by vector space methods. New York: Wiley; 1969. [12] Journel A. Constrained interpolation and soft kriging. In: Ramain R, editor. Proceedings of the 19th APCOM International Symposium. Littleton, CO: Society of Mining Engineers; 1982. p. 1530. [13] Goovaerts P. Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997. [14] Deutsch C, Journel A. Geostatistical software library (GSLIB) and users guide. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. [15] Nielsen K. Optimization of open pit bench blasting, In: Proceedings of the rst international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting, Lulea, Sweden, vol. 2, 1983. p. 65363. [16] Gama C, Jimeno C. Rock fragmentation control for blasting cost minimization and environmental impact abatement. In: Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting, Vienna, 1993. p. 27380.

(1) The KuzRam model is found to be the optimum prediction model based on the results of test blasting. The 3-D map of the rock factor by the SIS technique makes it possible to predict the fragmentation in a quarry. (2) The rock mass types can be classied into TYPES-I, -II, and -III according to 3-D spatial distribution of rock factor, and the respective ratios of each rock mass type are 19%, 57%, and 24%. (3) Analysis of the relationship between fragment size and production cost indicates that as the percentage of the fragment size under 0.03 m3 increases, both drilling costs and the primary blasting costs increase, while the secondary blasting costs decrease rapidly. (4) Blasting patterns for each rock mass type were designed from the rock fragmentation analysis results, and the ratios of the fragment size under 0.03 m3 in each blasting pattern met the ranges of the fragment ratio to achieve the minimum production cost. (5) The optimum patterns for each rock mass type were designed from the analysis of rock fragment size and the total production cost.

Acknowledgement This research was supported by the Basic Research Project of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) (GP2007-005) funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea.

Please cite this article as: Shim H-J, et al. Optimized blasting design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock.... Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.006