A Multiple Blasthole Fragmentation

Model Its Concept, Formulation,

Capability and Field Comparison
Examples
R Yang1

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a fragmentation model for large production blasts in an open pit or underground
environment. The paper shows that the particle velocity is directly related to pressure, strain, and
strain rate and so it can be considered as driving force and mechanism of rock fragmentation.
This is supported by the fact that a vibration with a larger peak particle velocity (PPV) generates
larger disturbance in rock and so finer fragmentation or more blast damage than a low PPV. The
crack distribution in rock from impact is based on findings from previous researchers (Seaman,
Curran and Shockey, 1976; Liu and Xu, in press). The fragmentation size is calculated at three-
dimensional grid points within a blast. The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly the
fines generated close to blastholes and big blocks far from boreholes are modelled naturally. The
multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model takes surveyed irregular geometry of the free face
of a blast as the calculation boundary. The MBF can model fragmentation with over one million
grid points. Examples of the models field comparison are also included.
The PPV at a calculation grid is estimated based on the same approach used for the near field
non-linear vibration model (Yang and Scovira, 2007). The method is based on the dominant charge
for a calculation grid point, non-linear charge weight superposition within a charge and from
multiple charges, strain wave broadening, and amplitude attenuation with distance from a charge
segment. The blasthole confinement affected by earlier firing charges is also taken into account.
The MBF model inputs from blast design, such as: location and orientation of each blasthole,
stemming length, blasthole diameter, multiple decking, bench height, initiation sequence, etc. It
models the effect of the delay and its scatter in each blasthole on fragmentation and has a statistical
modelling capability for geological random variation on attenuation of particle velocity wave. The
wave reinforcement due to instantaneous waves arriving or diminishing cooperative contribution
due to long delay intervals between charges is also simulated.
The results are displayed in 3D volumetric plots, contour of fragmentation in cross-sections, and
size passing curves for a whole blast or a region of the blast.

INTRODUCTION
With advanced technology such as electronic detonators,
accurate charge weight logging, and GPS surveillance of
blasthole locations, it is possible to develop an accurate blast
fragmentation model to best utilise these new technologies.
Current semi-empirical fragmentation models (Cunningham,
1987; Lownds, 1995) in the literature cannot explicitly model
contributions from multiple blastholes (charges) with delay
timing in each blasthole (each charge). Most of them are not
three-dimensional. Furthermore, these models predict an
average fragmentation size within a volume surrounding a
blasthole and use the average size to calculate a size distribution
over the volume using a uniformity index or assumed fitting
parameters to describe the size distributions (Spathis, 2013).
Typically such models are inadequate for predicting fines and
oversize blocks (Cunningham, 1987).
Three-dimensional finite element models exist for modelling
rock fragmentation from first principles (Preece and Lownds,
2008; Tawadrous, 2012; Dare-Bryan, Mansfield and Schoeman,
2012). However, these models are limited to the simulation of
relatively small blasts due to the restrictions of the present
computing resources and are generally unable to model the
entire fragmentation size range, particularly the fines.
It is desirable to model a full production blast with all
blastholes (deck charges) and the real geometry. For example,
a commonly asked question by a blasting engineer is: If the
blast vibration is under control, can the rock fragmentation be
concurrently improved? Also: How does a blasting engineer

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

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 177
R YANG
compromise between blast vibration and rock fragmentation at a
particular site? In order to address these questions, the timing
effects on both blast vibration and fragmentation should be
modelled reliably. It was previously shown that the existing
multiple seed waveform (MSW) vibration model can model
the effect of timing delay on blast vibration in the near and
far fields (Yang and Lownds, 2011) and it is proposed here
that this model be expanded to address the fragmentation
prediction.
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY DIRECTLY RELATED
TO STRESS, PRESSURE AND FRAGMENTATION
Using peak particle velocity (PPV) induced by detonation
of explosive charges to model rock fragmentation and
heave has been reported with success in literature (Harries,
1987; Persson, 1990, 1996). Persson (1990, 1996) correlated
peak particle velocity with typical observed effects (swell,
rock damage, fragmentation, and crushing) of a blast in
Scandinavian bedrock. This section demonstrates the
justification of using PPV as controlling parameter for rock
fragmentation modelling.
Shock wave close to blasthole
For a plane shock wave, the pressure and the particle velocity
at the shock front are related as shown in Equation 1, where
the shock wave velocity is a variable depending on shock
pressure P. Therefore, P is nonlinearly related to particle
velocity u:
P = t0 Uu (1)
One dimensional elastic wave
For a one-dimensional longitudinal wave propagating along
a bar with infinite length, the strain and the particle velocity
can be depicted as in Figure 1 with the strain () being related
to the particle velocity as in Equation 2:
f = lim d (t) -cd$ T
( t - 3 t) u
= (2)
Tt " 0 t c
where:
u = the particle velocity (m/s)
c = the sonic velocity of the medium (m/s), it is
constant E
t
is density of the material constant
d(t) = the displacement at time t (m)
It is worth noting that Equation 2 shows that at any
time instances t in the waveform the particle velocity is
proportional to strain, which is often confused with the case
of a shock wave where the relationship 1 is only valid at the
shock front.
Peak particle velocity relating to three-
dimensional strain tensor
The present literature has not established a relationship
between PPV and three-dimensional strain tensor. However,
FIG 1 Stress wave propagation in a long bar.
178 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
it is well accepted within the blasting community that the
larger the PPV of a blast at a point of interest, the larger the
disturbance and damage to the rock. Therefore, there must
be a relationship between PPV and three-dimensional strain
tensor, no matter if it has been established or not.
The following analysis is similar to the previous paper on
dynamic strain of blast vibration by Yang (2012). Figure 2
shows particle velocity vector ^^ vv ]rv, tg, vv ]rv + 3 rv, tgh and
displacement (u(t), v(t), w(t)) induced by detonation of
explosive charges at two adjacent points ( Trv is small). At any
time instance, the relative displacement ]]Tu ] t g, Tv ] t g, Tw ] t gg
between the two points A (with location vector rv ) and B (with
a location vector rv + Trv ) induces the strain tensor E( Trv, t)
(Equation 3) at the point A (assuming Trv is small) or the
average strain between A and B:
2u 2u 2v 2u 2 w
2x 2y + 2x 2z + 2x
E ]rv, tg = 2u 2v
2y + 2x
2v
2z
2v 2w
2z + 2y (3)
2u 2w 2v 2w 2w
2z + 2x 2z + 2y 2z
The components of the strain tensor are related to the
relative displacement at any time instance t as following
equations (Yang, 2012):
Tu ] t g = 22ux _ xb - xa i + 22uy _ yb - ya i + 22uz _ zb - za i
(4)
Tv ] t g = 22xv _ xb - xa i + 22vy _ yb - ya i + 22vz _ zb - za i
Tw ] t g = 22wx _ xb - xa i + 22wy _ yb - ya i + 22wz _ zb - za i
The magnitude of the relative displacement between A and
B can be expressed as:
d] t g = ]Tu ] t gg2 + ]Tv ] t gg2 + ]Tw ] t gg2 (5)
On the other hand:
t
d] t g = # 6vv ]rv + Trv, xg $ dx - vv ]rv, xg@ $ dx (6)
0
t t
d] t g = # 6vv ]rv + Trv, x g - vv ]rv, x g@ dx # # vv ]rv + Trv, x g - vv ]rv, x g dx (7)
0 0
Take the length (eg calculation grid space) of Trv to be less
than the quarter wave length of the particle velocity wave at
the peak amplitude (the principal wavelength ) and the
phase difference between vv ]rv, tg and vv ]rv + 3 rv, tg to be less
than the quarter of the period of the particle velocity wave at
the peak amplitude (the principal period T). Consequently,
FIG 2 Particle velocity and displacement induced by detonation of explosive
charges at two adjacent points ( Trr is small).
 A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES
at any time instance, the difference in particle velocity
between the point A and B cannot be greater than PPV. From
the first mean value theorem for integration:
t
d] t g # # vv]rv + Trv, x g - vv]rv, x g dx =
(8)
0 if the particle velocity is measured at the vicinity to a blasthole
vv]rv + Trv, g g - vv]rv, g g $ t # PPV $ D
where:
0#g#t#D
D is the duration of the waveforms, accounted for by the
variable width of time window described in the later
section of the paper
If the directional cosines of the vector of PPV are known
(n,m,l) and if two additional points which are not co-planar
with A and B are chosen (Yang and Ray, 2012), the strain
tensor in Equation 3 corresponding to the maximum relative
displacement (the largest deformation) between A and B can
be estimated by solving nine independent equations similar
to Equation 9 below to obtain the nine displacement gradients
( 2u , 2u , 2u , 2v , 2v , 2v , 2w , 2w , 2w ):
2x 2y 2 z 2 x 2 y 2 z 2x 2 y 2 z
n $ PPV $ D = 22ux _ xb - xa i + 22uy _ yb - ya i + 22uz _ zb - za i
(9)
m $ PPV $ D = 22xv _ xb - xa i + 22vy _ yb - ya i + 22vz _ zb - za i
l $ PPV $ D = 22wx _ xb - xa i + 22wy _ yb - ya i + 22wz _ zb - za i
Equations 39 demonstrate that PPV is related to the
maximum three-dimensional dynamic strain. It is also given
by the well accepted fact that a vibration with a higher PPV
generates larger disturbance (ie strain) in rock, so more blast
damage or finer fragmentation than a lower PPV. Relating
PPV to rock fragmentation size distribution should be
accepted naturally.
A site-specific relationship between fragment size and
PPV derived from near-field vibration measurements from
blasts may be established as a starting point for calibrating
FIG 3 Size reduction dependent on loading strain rate for three rock types.
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
the multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model for a site.
Theoretical analysis may also serve as a guideline for model
parameter evaluation.
There is a misconception that blast vibration is only a small
portion of the explosive detonation energy without specifying
where the blast vibration is measured. Equation 9 shows that
the energy from the quantities includes or accounts for most
rock breakage energy of explosives since it relates the strain
close the blasthole.
Fragmentation size decreases with increasing of
strain rate that relates to peak particle velocity
Recent laboratory work by Liu and Xu (2015) shows that the
higher the loading rate to rock specimen, the finer the fragment
size is (Figure 3). Such result was repeated for three rock types
(marble, sand stone, and granite). The result is consistent with
the theory that the higher the strain rate, the more micro-
cracks participate in rock fragmentation, resulting in finer
fragmentation (Digby, Nilsson and Oldenburg, 1985). It should
be also pointed out that at a blast site the higher the vibration
amplitude (PPV), the higher the strain rate. This is because high
PPVs are generated at areas closer to blastholes with higher
frequency contents than at areas further away from blastholes.
It is consistent with the fines being generated near blastholes.
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY CALCULATION
For the MBF model, the effective charge weight from a single
charge to a point of interest is calculated by the integration
of non-linear charge weight superposition along the charge
length, which was described in the previous paper (Yang,
2015). The PPV at a calculation grid point is based on non-
linear charge weight superposition from different contributing
charges accounting for the distance to a calculation point and
the delay timing from the dominant charge (described below).
Such modelling of contributions from multiple charges
accounts for:
explosive energy superposition when delay timings
between charges are close
179
R YANG
diminishing contributions if charges are far away in
distance to a calculation grid point or delay timings of
charges are sufficiently different from the timing of the
dominant charge of the calculation grid point
reduced contribution from a charge if the confinement is
reduced by an earlier firing charge.
Confinement reduction due to earlier firing
blastholes
If a particle velocity wave from an explosive charge passes
through broken ground created by charges fired earlier,
the PPV (stress wave) contribution will be reduced by
an increased effective distance (Yang and Scovira, 2007).
Secondly, blastholes fired earlier in the vicinity of a firing
blasthole (according to distance between the blastholes) will
reduce the confinement to the charge and consequently reduce
the fragmentation potential (Yang and Kay, 2011; Yang, 2014).
Scaled distance at a point of interest from
multiple charges
For modelling rock fragmentation by multiple delayed
blastholes, any model (even a full waveform superposition
model; Blair and Minchinton, 1996, 2006) must account
for the case that fragmented and detached rocks cannot
receive further energy input from blast charges fired later.
For example, the rocks that are fragmented and moved by
blastholes in the first row may not get any further input from
the blastholes in the second row if the delay between the rows
is sufficiently long. The present MBF model in this paper uses
two concepts to model this phenomenon and the inter-charge
timing delay effects a dominant charge and a variable time
window for each charge at a calculation grid point.
Dominant charge
It is assumed that there is a dominant charge at each point
of interest (a calculation grid) that has the minimum
scaled distance calculated based on non-linear charge
weight superposition. It is reasonable to assume that the
dominant charge is the major contributor to the PPV and the
fragmentation at a grid point. The contributions from other
charges are accounted for by the implementation of a non-
sliding time window with a variable width for each charge
and are described in the following section.
Variable width of time window for a charge
Waveform broadening with distance travelled is an
important aspect to consider for near-field strain wave
modelling. Energy loss to the media is mainly attributed to
frequency attenuation. For a given travel distance, higher
frequency components are attenuated more rapidly than
lower frequency components.
To determine if any charge wi contributes to the peak strain
wave values along with the dominant charge, a symmetric
fixed time window around the strain wave arrival time (ti) of
the charge is assumed.
The width of the time window Ti for the particular charge
wi is calculated from Equation 11 with distance x = de (the
effective distance). If a particle velocity wave from the
dominant charge arriving at the grid point at the time tdc is
within the time window, ie
ti - 0.5 Ti 1 t dc 1 ti + 0.5 Ti (10)
then the charge wi is determined to be a contributing charge
to the peak strain wave value at the calculation grid point.
180 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
In order to assign different widths of the time window when
firing charges from different distances, a linear relationship
between the width of the time window and the distance is:
T = T0 + k $ de (11)
where:
T is the width of the time window
T0 is the initial width of the time window where the
effective distance equals zero
It is reasonable to assume that T0 is equal to the detonation
duration of the charge:
L
T = VD
0
where:
L is the maximum charge length to initiate
VoD is the velocity of detonation
The relationship 11 is similar to the linear rise time law
proposed by Gladwin and Stacey (1974). The constant k
in Equation 11 can be estimated from field measurements
of the vibration waveform duration at different distances
(Kavetsky et al, 1990). The near-field vibration data shows that
the waveform duration increases as a linear function of the
distance travelled and has the form of Equation 11 in a soft
coalmine in USA (Yang and Scovira, 2007).
Scaling a contributing charge weight to dominant
charge location
Before the superposition, the effective weight of a contributing
charge is non-linearly scaled to a charge weight equivalent to
that at the nearest effective distance of the dominant charge,
ddc (any screening and confinement effects from blastholes
fired earlier are taken into account), as follows.
The scaled charge weight:
b l
ddc b
wsi = wi $ c (12)
d
Modelling effect of arrival time difference within a
time window
In order to model the delay timing effects of multiple
blastholes (decked charges), such as the effect of wave
collision reinforcement or diminished cooperative
contribution due to long delay interval between holes
(charges), a weighting function is used to account for the
delay time effect on the PPV contribution. The PPV at a grid
point is due to the superposition of the particle velocity wave
from the dominant charge and weighted contributions from
other charges.
A weighting function on the scaled charge weight wsi
is used, as shown in Figure 4, where, tdc, is the strain wave
arrival time of the dominant charge, ti is the arrival time of
a contributing charge, Ti is the time window width for the
charge wsi determined from Equation 12.
FIG 4 An exponential weighting function for modelling
the delay time difference within the time window.
 A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES
It is assumed that the minimum weighting value is e-m when
the time difference (t) is equal to half the time window (0.5Ti)
and the maximum is 1.0 when the strain wave arrival time is
exactly the same as the dominant charge (ti =ti tdc =0).
The exponential function has the form (Equation 13):
x PPV - PPV0
- n $ 0.5T
fi ]x g = e i (13)
The sum of all contributing charges (the
time window of the contributing charge includes the dominant
charge) with the weighting function fi ]x g can be calculated as:
n
wec = / fi ]x g $ wsi (14)
i=1
where:
n is the total number of contributing charges including
the dominant charge (wdc)
wsi is the ith scaled contributing charge weight (refer to
Equation 12)
t i is the strain wave arrival time difference of the ith
contributing charge from the time of the dominant
charge
The PPV at a calculation grid point from multiple
contributing charges can be calculated from the effective
charge weight in Equation 14 and the nearest distance ( d dc )
from the dominant charge to the grid point:
n Model input and parameters
n j ` ec j
PPV = a ` d dc - b c
w (15)
Irregular free face modelling
The MBF model uses the surveyed blast geometry as
calculation boundary. The overburden geometry plays an
important role in rock fragmentation by blasting. For example,
a few feet more burden will generate substantially coarser
fragments or larger blocks than an initial small burden would
generate. The irregular geometry of a blast is modelled using
similar technique described by Yang, Preece and Chung (2004)
in which both concave and convex polygons of overburden
geometries can be modelled.
FRAGMENTATION AT A POINT OF INTEREST
Seaman, Curran and Shockey (1976) developed a model of
fracture and fragmentation for ductile and brittle materials
based on projectile impact experiments and theoretical analysis.
The model favourably compares fragment size distributions
with measurements and thus appears to be highly relevant
and fundamental research work for rock blast fragmentation
modelling (Yang, 2015). Below is a brief summary of the
dynamic rock fracture model used in the MBF model.
Fragmentation from rock blasting
It has been previously demonstrated that the peak PPV
induced from detonation of explosive charges is directly
related to pressure or strain. Therefore, it can be assumed that
the number of fractures that produce rock fragments during
blasting is governed by:
PPV - PPV0
N = N0 exp d n (16)
h irregular free face that is defined by survey points. Blasthole
where:
N0 and are material constants
PPV (m/s) is the peak particle velocity at the calculation grid
point
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
PPV0 is the threshold PPV for crack nucleation of the
material
The average fragment size is inversely related to the number
of the fractures:
x0
xr = (17)
N0 exp c m
h
where:
x0 = the initial fragment size (m)
It may be the in situ block size due to joints.
It is assumed that the cumulative volumetric fraction for
fragment sizes smaller than x has the distribution (exponential
distribution).
R ] xg = 1 - exp ^ - x xr h (18)
The advantage of the exponential distribution is that it
accounts large portion of fragmentation fines which is often
underestimated by imaging analysis of fragmentation.
Secondly, it has only one parameter ( xr ) to fit. Although it may
not yield better fitting than a two- or three-parameter model
to the measured distribution, the distribution (Equation 18)
may provide a fine correction to the imaging processing.
All blast design parameters, such as, location (x, y, z), timing
and weight of each explosive deck, blasthole diameter and
angle, length of stemming and stemming between decks, etc
are all direct input to the MBF model, the data is from a blast
design software (ShotPlus).
The modelling parameters include:
Parameters from field measurement
a, b, c, a 97.5%, b 97.5%, c 97.5% best fit and 97.5 per cent
upper bound of particle velocity attenuation
parameters in Equation 15, obtained from near-field
signature blasthole vibration monitoring
c ground sonic velocity, measured during signature
hole blasts
T0, k particle wave broadening parameters in
Equation 11, obtained from near field signature hole
blast vibration waveforms
Parameters from calibration in most cases
X0 /N0 rock material property parameter in Equation17,
estimated to in situ joint spacing and frequency
PPV0 the threshold PPV for crack nucleation in
Equation 17, may be estimated from rock property,
otherwise a calibration parameter
material constant in Equation 17, estimated from
rock property, otherwise a fitting parameter
wsrn, broken ground screening width ( B 2+ S ) and
screening coefficient (Yang and Scovira, 2007).
CASE EXAMPLES
Modelling a production blast with irregular
free face
Figure 5 shows a plane view of an open pit blast with an
diameter 311 mm. Bench height was 15 m with 1 m subdrill.
Burden and spacing was 8.5 m and 10 m. The stemming
was 5.5 m. The explosive was an emulsion with density of
1.25g/cm3. The operation is a goldcopper mine.
181
R YANG
FIG 5 A plane view of an open pit blast design with irregular free face.
Figure 6 shows volumetric displays of the modelled
fragmentation of the blast. It shows that large rock fragments
are from the stemming region and at the large front burden
due to irregular free face geometry (Yang, Preece and Chung,
2004). Fragment fines are generated around blastholes. The
modelled trends are consistent with field observations.
FIG 6 Volumetric displays of the modelled fragmentation
of the blast shown in Figure 6 (1 ft = 0.305 m).
182 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
Field comparison of modelling against
measurement
In reality, the fragment size depends on which section of the
blast the fragments come from. At present, this is the major
difficulty in which fragmentation measurement and modelling
are challenged. Secondly, when fragmentation measurement
size passing curves are obtained from a muck pile, it is often
not known what is the percentage that each passing curve
represents to a whole muck pile. If each measurement does
not represent the same percentage of the muck pile, a simple
average of measured distribution curves does not represent the
whole fragmentation of the blast. Therefore, the sampling of the
measurement must be known to make accurate comparison to
modelling. Thirdly, todays most commonly used technique of
fragmentation measurement is image analysis. The drawback
of this technique is that it is unable to measure fragment fines
below 10 mm. All three issues above pose big challenges for
comparison of fragmentation modelling to measurements. The
advantage of the MBF model is that it is capable of modelling
fragmentation size distribution respectively at various zones/
sections of a blast. If the fragmentation of a blast can be
measured systematically and completely for a whole blast or a
certain region of the blast, then meaningful comparisons may
be made between modelling and the measurements.
Example 1
Figure 7 shows a plane view and 3D view of an open pit blast
and calculation grid points of the blast for fragmentation
modelling. Blasthole diameter was 270 mm. The stemming
was 6 m and the charge length was 11 m with 1 m subdrill.
The explosive was emulsion. The mine is an open pit copper-
gold operation.
Figure 8 shows a comparison between the modelling
average and the measured simple average. Although the
comparison is reasonably satisfactory, the measurements
were done in a typical way of random sampling in the muck
pile without documenting exactly where the fragments come
from and without knowing if each measurement represents
the same percentage of the muck pile.
Figure 9 displays fragmentation passing curves of different
regions of the blast from modelling. The trends are consistent
with expectation. In the stemming region, rock fragments
are coarse, containing large oversized blocks. In contrast, the
 A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES
FIG 7 Plan view and 3D view of an open pit blast with
calculation grids for fragmentation modelling.
FIG 8 Model comparison with measurement for average fragmentation curve.
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
fragmentation in the plane close to a row of blastholes is finest
among the displayed cases. In the centre section with the full
bench height, the fragmentation is coarser than in the lower
section of the blast, where it is much lower than the stemming
region.
Example 2
Figure 10 shows a blast pattern and timing design at another
mine. The blast fired in a V cut. The blasthole diameter
was 381 mm. Burden and spacing were 6.7 m 7.9 m. The
stemming length was 6.7 m. The bench height was 16.8 m
with 0.9 m subdrill. The explosive was an emulsion. The rock
type was granite. Due to the limitation of the length of the
paper, the other model parameters are not all listed here.
Fragmentation data was collected by a camera mounted on a
shovel during digging of the blasts. The images are positioned
for each truckload of material. The location of images
analysed is displayed in a plan view in Figure 11. Although
the bucket location was recorded in horizontal locations, the
vertical positions of the material were not known since the
shovel bucket swung from the floor upwards and fragments
fell down from the top of the muck pile. Neverthless,
Figure 11 demonstrates a reasonably distributed sampling
of the muck pile fragmentation. Figure 12 shows a model
comparison with measurements for average fragmentation.
The model produced more fine fragments (<127 mm) than
the actual measurements. The model predicts more fragments
larger than eight inches than the actual measurements show.
However, overall the agreement is reasonably good.
Figure 12 displays a volumetric fragmentation size
distribution of the blast and horizontal slices of fragments.
183
R YANG

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

FIG 10 A blast pattern and timing design at another mine.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONS
As demonstrated, particle velocity is a parameter that can
be directly related to pressure, strain or stress within a rock
mass during the blast. The present paper relates PPV to the
maximum relative displacement between two adjacent points,
then to the three-dimensional dynamic strain. Such a relation
is warranted by a well-accepted fact that a vibration with a
higher PPV generates larger disturbance (ie strain) in rock, so
more blast damage or finer fragmentation than a lower PPV.
Relating PPV to rock fragmentation size distribution should
be scientifically sound.
Rock fragmentation mechanisms and size distributions
are modelled based on the work of Seaman, Curran and
Shockey (1976) and appear to be relevant and fundamental
FIG 11 Location of images analysed is displayed in a plan view.
for predicting rock fragmentation by blasting to the order
required for the current MBF model.
The non-linear charge weight superposition used in the
present model contrasts to the literature that use linear PPV
superposition to model peak particle velocity in the vicinity
of blastholes. Non-linear charge weight superposition is
more suitable in the near-field of explosive charges where the
interaction between the rock and shock wave behaves non-
linearly.
The model also accounts for the effect of waveform
broadening contribution (using a variable width time window

184 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 A MULTIPLE BLASTHOLE FRAGMENTATION MODEL ITS CONCEPT, FORMULATION, CAPABILITY AND FIELD COMPARISON EXAMPLES
FIG 12 Model comparison with measurements for average fragmentation.
for each explosive charge), the delay time of each charge
and broken ground confinement reduction. These features
account for blasthole interactions and the effects of blasthole
sequence and confinement effects.
The fragmentation model calculates a fragment size
distribution at each calculation grid point using an exponential
distribution determined only by the average size at the point.
The fines and oversized blocks are calculated explicitly. The
overall size distribution of a blast depends on all of the blast
design parameters, such as explosive spatial distribution,
delay time in each blasthole, blast configuration and free face
geometry, etc. All of these design parameters are inputsinthe
MBF model.
Todays most commonly used technique of fragmentation
measurement is image analysis. The drawback of the
technique is its inability to measure the fines portion of the
particle size distribution. Relying entirely on fitting such
measured data may not represent the real fragmentation.
Using an exponential distribution (one parameter only) to
describe rock fragmentation at a point (a small cube around
the point) may have an advantage to compensate for the fines
that are missed from image analysis.
The modelling examples demonstrate that the model
produces reasonable trends for blast fragmentation
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
prediction. Such a capability may find great use in Mine to
Mill optimisation through blast design variations and ultra-
high intensity blast applications (Brent et al, 2012).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr Dale Preece and Dr Alan Minchinton from Orica made
useful comments on the MBF model. Dr Mick Lownds also
provided constructive comments. Mr Charles Zdazinsky,
Martin Adams and Alex Steciuk from Orica kindly provided
some field data and participated in useful discussions with
author.
REFERENCES
Blair, D P and Minchinton, A, 1996. On the damage zone surrounding
a single blasthole, in Proceedings Fifth International Symposium
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 5 (ed: B Mohanty),
pp121130 (A A Balkema: Rotterdam).
Blair, D P and Minchinton, A, 2006. Near-field blast vibration models,
in Proceedings Eighth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting Fragblast 8, pp 152159 (Editec S.A: Santiago).
Brent, G, Rothery, M D, Dare-Bryan, P C, Hawke, S J, Gomez, R and
Humeres, I, 2012. Ultra-high intensity blasting for improved ore
comminution, in Proceedings Tenth International Symposium on
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 10 (eds: P K Singh and
ASinha), pp 163170 (CRC Press/Balkema: The Netherlands).
185
R YANG
Cunningham, C V B, 1987. Fragmentation estimations and the kuz
ram model four years on, in Proceedings Second International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 2,
pp 475487 (Society for Experimental Mechanics: Keystone).
Dare-Bryan, P C, Mansfield, S and Schoeman, J, 2012. Blast
optimisation through computer modelling of fragmentation,
heave and damage, in Proceedings Tenth International Symposium
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Fragblast 10 (eds: P K Singh
and A Sinha), pp 95104 (CRC Press/Balkema: The Netherlands).
Digby, P, Nilsson, L and Oldenburg, M, 1985. Finite element
simulation of time dependent fracture and fragmentation
processes in rock blasting, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 9(4):317329.
Gladwin, M T and Stacey, F D, 1974. Anelastic degradation of acoustic
pulse in rock, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 8:332336.
Harries, G, 1987. The calculation of heave and muck-pile profile, in
Proceedings Second International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting Fragblast 2, pp 248256 (Society for Experimental
Mechanics: Keystone).
Kavetsky, A, Chitombo, G P, McKenzie, C K and Yang, R, 1990.
A model of acoustic pulse propagation and its application to
determine Q for a rock mass, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics, 27(1):3341.
Liu, S and Xu, J, in press. Experimental and numerical analysis of
Qinling Mountain engineered rocks during pulse-shaped SHPB
test, Shock and Vibration.
Lownds, C M, 1995. Prediction of fragmentation based on distribution
of explosives energy, paper presented to Research Symposium of
International Society of Explosives Engineers Meeting, Nashville,
February.
McKenzie, C, 2013. Seed wave modelling applications for
fragmentation, damage, and environmental impact control, in
Blasting in Mines New Trends (eds: A K Ghose and A Joshi), 150p
(Taylor and Francis Group: London).
Persson, P, 1990. Fragmentation mechanics, in Proceedings Third
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting
Fragblast 3, pp 101108 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Persson, P, 1996. The relationship between strain energy, rock
damage, fragmentation and throw in rock blasting, in Proceedings
Fifth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting
Fragblast 5 (ed: B Mohanty), pp 113120 (A A Balkema:
Rotterdam).
186 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
Preece, D S and Lownds, C M, 2008. 3D computer simulation of bench
blasting with precise delay timing, paper presented to the 34th
Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, New
Orleans, 2730 January.
Seaman, L, Curran, D R and Shockey, D A, 1976. Computational
models for ductile and brittle fracture, Journal of Applied Physics,
47:48144826.
Spathis, A T, 2013. A three parameter rock fragmentation
distribution, in Measurement and Analysis of Blast Fragmentation
(eds: J A Sanchidrian and A K Singh), pp 7384 (Taylor and
Francis Group: London).
Tawadrous, A, 2012. Prediction of fines generated around a
blasthole using a state-of-the-art constitutive model, Blasting and
Fragmentation, 6(2):119130.
Yang, R, 2012. A method to calculate the dynamic strain tensor from
blast vibration records theory and measurement error analysis,
Blasting and Fragmentation, 6(2):101118.
Yang, R, 2014. A 3D multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model
based on peak particle velocity, non-linear charge weight scaling,
time window of contribution, and dynamic rock fracture models,
Orica internal report.
Yang, R, 2015. A multiple blasthole fragmentation (MBF) model
based on non-linear charge scaling, delay time contribution,
and rock dynamic fracture, paper presented to the 41st Annual
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, New Orleans,
14 February.
Yang, R and Kay, D B, 2011. Multiple seed blast vibration modeling for
tunnel blasting in urban environments, Blasting and Fragmentation,
5(2):109122.
Yang, R and Lownds, M, 2011. Modeling effect of delay scatter on
peak particle velocity of blast vibration using a multiple seed
waveform vibration model, Blasting and Fragmentation, 5(1):3146.
Yang, R, Preece, D S and Chung, S H, 2004. Accurate Modelling of the
Geometry of the Overburden Containing Irregular Free Faces Using
DMCBLAST3D (Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile: Santiago).
Yang, R and Ray, K, 2012. A method to determine 3-D dynamic strain
tensor based on displacement gradients from blast vibration
and field test results, paper presented to Tenth International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, New Delhi,
2429 November.
Yang, R and Scovira, D S, 2007. A model to predict peak particle
velocity for near-field blast vibration based on dominant
charge, waveform broadening, delay time modeling, and non-
linear charge weight superposition, Blasting and Fragmentation,
2(2):91116.