See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/261061905

Impact of Burden and Spacing on Fragment

Size Distribution and Total Cost in Quarry
Mining
ARTICLE JANUARY 2006

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

274

67

2 AUTHORS:
Vladislav Kecojevic

Dragan Komljenovic

West Virginia University

Hydro-Qubec

64 PUBLICATIONS 249 CITATIONS

49 PUBLICATIONS 144 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Vladislav Kecojevic

Retrieved on: 02 July 2015

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

Impact of burden and spacing on

fragment size distribution and
total cost in quarry mining
V. Kecojevic

Assistant professor of mining engineering, The Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, Pennsylvania

D. Komljenovic

TITLE, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Quebec, Trois-Rivires, Canada

Abstract

Quarry mining operations consist of a chain of processes, including drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and crushing. Drilling and blasting result in fragmentation that can affect downstream processes.
The resulting oversized and/or undersized fragmentation can determine the value of the final product,
the production cost and the energy consumption. Though most previously completed research studies
pointed out the benefits of taking a holistic approach to the entire mining process, this study undertakes
a novel approach in determining the impact of drilling and blasting geometry (burden and spacing)
on fragment size distribution and the total cost of a quarry operation. Mathematical modeling is used
and the process is coded within the MS Excel environment. A study on fragment size distribution and
mining cost was performed on an operating quarry in eastern Pennsylvania. The obtained results show
that a new drilling/blasting geometry may reduce the total mining cost by 8.6%. The research presented
contributes to the domain of surface mining engineering and can be used by quarry professionals to
evaluate different drilling and blasting scenarios.

Introduction

Most mining operations consist of a chain of several processes,

including drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and crushing.
The main objective of drilling and blasting, the first elements
of the ore extraction process, is to fracture the in situ rock
mass while maintaining safety and environmental standards.
This subprocess needs to produce fragment size distributions tailored to minimize the production costs and energy
consumption in downstream processes, including loading,
hauling and crushing.
P&H Mining Pro data indicate that drilling and blasting
typically account for 15%, loading and hauling account for
75% and ancillary operations account for 10% of the total cost
of primary mining process (Harnischfeger Corp., 2003). When
the cost of mining and processing operations are considered
together, drilling and blasting account for 6%, loading and
hauling account for 30%, ancillary operations account for 4%
and processing accounts for 60%. The latter shows the need to
reduce costs at the processing step, where the consumption of
energy and cost is the highest. A study performed by Fernberg

(2005) shows that a typical cost distribution in quarry mining

is as follows: drilling and blasting account for 25%; loading
and transport account for 25 %; and crushing, screening and
storage account for 50%. Crushing, screening and storage
represent about half of the cost, whereas drilling represents
less than 10% of the total cost.
Hagan (1983) states that of the three most important properties of muck piles, i.e., fragmentation, looseness and shape,
fragmentation has the greatest affect on mining costs. Studies
by Persson et al. (1994) and Scott and McKee (1994) yielded
results showing that the degree of fragmentation influences the
economy of the excavation. Moody et al. (1996) found that
power consumption at the crusher is more sensitive to rock
dimensions than to tonnage. A study by McKee et al. (1995)
showed that the benefits of good fragmentation can extend further to the grinding circuits because most of the power/energy
used at a mine is consumed by crushing and grinding.
In most cases, the drilling and blasting regime depends on
the requirements for the final product size of the ore being
mined. Copper ore, for instance, may end up in a powder form

Paper number TP-06-009. Original manuscript submitted online March 2006. Revised manuscript accepted for publication
June 2006. Discussion of this peer-reviewed and approved paper is invited and must be submitted to SME Publications
Dept. prior to Sept 30, 2007. Copyright 2006, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

133

Vol. 320 2006 TRANSACTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

as the final product for beneficiation, whereas the final product

of a stone quarry may be 25.4 mm (1 in.). A quarry operator,
therefore, may be interested in ensuring that excessive blasting
does not lead to stone finer than a specific size. The Advanced
Optimization Group (2005) indicates that for many quarries
fines are a problem in terms of lost saleable stone and storage. Lejuge and Cox (1995) state that fragmentation control
is perhaps the most critical aspect of quarrying operations,
potentially impacting on the costs of all downstream processes
and sometimes even on the economic viability of an operation.
Therefore, the research challenge is to provide the solutions
where quarry operators will be able to minimize the total cost
of mining process while securing an appropriate fragmentation
size for the downstream process.
The research presented in this paper considers the impact
of burden and spacing on the target objectives, i.e., fragment
size distribution and minimal total mining costs. There are
particular values of burden and spacing that should result in
minimum total unit cost. By connecting the burden and spacing
to fragment size distribution and costs, it is possible to establish
the values of these variables that yield optimum results. An
assumption is made that the cost of drilling is fixed on the basis
of dollars per unit length of drill holes, such as when drilling
is subcontracted. Therefore, the variation of the total cost of
drilling should be thought of as a linear function, i.e., it depends
only on the number of drill holes required and the sum of the
depths (lengths) of these drill holes. The slope of this linear
function is a flat drilling rate ($/unit depth) that is applicable
to the prevailing conditions at a particular mine site.
This paper provides an overview of previous research related
to optimization of the entire mining chain costs; describes a
new mathematical model developed for determining the impact
of drilling and blasting geometry on fragment size distribution
and the total mining costs in quarry operations; and presents the
results of a case study on the example of an operating quarry
in eastern Pennsylvania.

comparison indicated a 19% difference in specific fracture

energy from blasting. The results showed the potential benefits
of blast-induced damage to the comminution processes. In this
study, the average uniaxial compressive strengths for damaged
specimens (exposed to blasting) were slightly lower than for
intact specimens (those not exposed to blasting).
A study by Nielsen and Kristiansen (1996) shows that there
are two important results of blasting. The first is that the fragment size distribution can be seen and easily measured because
of tools available for this purpose and the second is that crack
generation (microfracturing) that occurs within fragments is
not easily seen or measured but plays an important role in
the reduction of energy usage during crushing and grinding.
The authors found that the effect of internal fractures is to
make the fragments less resistant to breakage, i.e., it is easier
for the crusher to fragment feed that has been extensively
microfractured.
The same authors (Nielsen and Kristiansen, 1995) presented
the results of several industrial and laboratory blasting, crushing
and grinding tests and experiments. These tests and experiments investigated the influence of blasting on the subsequent
crushing and grinding operations. They also discussed how the
results of the tests could help in evaluating the whole comminution system. One of their findings is that the amount of
explosive energy and how this energy is applied will influence
the crushability and grindability of hard component ore. The
authors indicated that blast design should aim at an economic
optimum by balancing the use of chemical energy applied to
the rock by the explosive, and the electrical energy applied in
crushing and grinding.
Work done at the Julius Krusttschnitt Mineral Research
Center (JKMRC, 1999) shows that good fragmentation of runof-mine ore has the greatest beneficial effects at the crushing
circuit. This is especially true for machines such as jaw and
gyratory crushers, where the power draw is dependent on the
ore feed rate and the size reduction across the machine.
In a study at the McCoy/Cove Mine owned by Echo Bay
Minerals Company, Fuerstenau et al. (1995) conducted fullscale blasting experiments. The portion of the ore body on which
the test blasts were conducted was limestone. Redistributing
the energy from the crushing and grinding steps to the blasting reduced the total energy expenditure in mining and ore
preparation processes. The study was conducted by adjusting
blasting parameters, i.e., burden and spacing distance and
charge length. The burden and spacing distances were reduced
by 25% first and later the charge length was increased by 25%.
In each test, eight blast holes were involved in the experiment.
Four of them were fired with regular blasting parameters while
the other four with adjusted parameters. The blasted material
was subjected to two laboratory-scale comminution tests, i.e.,
single-particle roll mill crushing and ball mill grinding.
The findings from this study are that more than 10% energy
is saved in both the crushing and grinding processes through
reducing the burden and spacing distance by 25% or increasing the charge length by 25%. These results indicate that an
increase in consumption of explosives at an operation may
very well result in overall savings for the mine. However, the
study does not say by how much the actual cost of drilling and
blasting increased due to tightened blast patterns and increased
powder consumption, but it is clear that the increased costs
were offset by the overall savings.
Burden and spacing are the two most important variables
in blast design (Ash, 1963). According to Ash (1990), the
spacing/burden ratio should be between 1 and 2. It was suggested that blastholes initiated independent of one another

Bibliography review

Mackenzie (1967) performed some of the earliest research in

the area of blast optimization in surface mining operations. The
research established a method of evaluating optimum blasting
and presented operating data to illustrate its use and effectiveness. Conceptual curves illustrating the interdependence of the
steps in the mining production chain were used. The authors
acknowledged the difficulty of optimizing the entire surface
mining sequence because of the large number of variables and
parameters that need to be considered. However, it was further
elaborated that optimization can be successfully implemented if
only dominant variables are considered. Focusing on efficiency
and minimum cost as the primary objectives, Mackenzie (1967)
conducted a study using data from an iron mine in Canada.
The results of this study indicated better fragmentation that
improved the productivity of downstream steps, i.e., loading,
hauling and crushing.
Eloranta and Workman (1995) studied drilling and blasting optimization and emphasized the use of energy where it
is least costly and conserving it where it is most expensive.
The authors stated that an important component of optimum
fragmentation for reducing energy consumption during crushing and grinding is microfracturing. Further support for the
concept of microfracturing is provided by the work of McCarter (1996), who employed a load-cell device to measure the
specific fracture energy of pairs of samples. The author states
that out of the seven rock types tested, five showed preconditioning (microfracturing) benefits from blasting. A statistical
2006 TRANSACTIONS Vol. 320

134

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

will require this ratio to be between 1 and 1.5, where a value

of 1.41 is the ideal geometric balance for breakage of massive
material. The author further states that rocks with joint planes
almost perpendicular to one another should have a ratio of 1.41,
while rocks with joint planes oriented at close to 60 with one
another and blastholes with long delay interval should have
the ratio value at 1.15.
Kojovic et al. (1995) did extensive research at the Mt. Coottha quarry in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Changes in blast
design were done by adjusting the burden and spacing alone.
The powder factor increased from 0.52 to 0.61 kg/m3. Some
of the reported improvements were 25% increases in loading
and handling productivity, saving $0.40/t, and a savings in
crushing of $0.30/t. Total savings were $0.70 less $0.05/t due
to increased blasting cost, for a net savings of $0.65/t.
A study by Kanchibotla et al. (1998) showed that an increase
in powder factor from 0.58 to 0.66 kg/m3 resulted in a decrease
in grinding power consumption from 10.2 to 9.0 kWh/t. The
crushing capacity increased from 1,250 to 1,420 t/hr. The authors state that a much larger powder factor increase to 0.96
kg/m3 resulted in only a small further improvement in crushing
capacity (60 t/hr) and a correspondingly smaller decrease in
power consumption (0.4 kWh/t). The explanation for increased
throughput is that the higher powder factor resulted in fine
material that flowed freely through the mill.
Nzombola (2005) performed a comparative analysis for
drilling and blasting parameters in quarry operations. The
author used the Kuz-Ram model to obtain fragment size distributions and calculated the total explosive energy and unit cost
of obtaining a given fragment size distribution. The unit cost
was derived from the cost of energy expended in fragmenting
material using explosive energy.
Rantapaa et al. (2005) documented measurable improvements in production at Barrick Goldstrike due to increased ore
fragmentation through efficient drilling and blasting techniques.
A series of tests was conducted to determine if adjustments to
drilling and blasting could positively influence throughput. Better fragmentation and a subsequent increase in mill throughput
were achieved through the use of electronic caps, explosives
with higher velocity of detonation and improved distribution
of explosives by decreasing pattern spacing. The authors state
that these changes resulted in benefits to operation of $1.3 to
$1.5 million in 2003. Lejuge and Cox (1995) studied the bulk
emulsion and watergel explosive performance, using velocity
of detonation measurements and its impact on fragmentation.
The findings showed a strong correlation between blast hole
velocity of detonation and fragmentation.
Bearman et al. (1991) conducted a study with a laboratoryscale cone crusher to determine the effect of feed size, closed
side setting and rock strength on the power consumption and
product size. Their findings include equations that are used
for predicting power consumption and the 80% passing size
of product for a range of closed side settings. This is a noteworthy finding because it enables a prediction of power that
is consumed by the crushing plant to give 80% passing size
of a given material. Using these equations, adjustments can be
made to minimize the consumption of power by the crushing
plant through control of feed.
Field experimentation in this area is not taken lightly due
to the cost of implementation and the associated risk of making changes where knowledge of the likely effects is lacking.
Modeling and simulation are a cost-effective way to evaluate
new blasting and comminution strategies while minimizing risk
(Kanchiboltla et al., 1998). In an effort to develop methods that
can be universally applied as opposed to studying trends that
SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

135

are specific to a given site, Thornton et al. (2002) developed

a stochastic technique to identify the parameters that have the
greatest influence on various size fractions in a distribution
of fragments. The authors stated that the various blast-related
parameters influence different parts of the fragmentation size
distribution, e.g., rock strength and explosive velocity of
detonation have most impact on the fines. This goes back to
the idea of target application of energy to effectively tailor the
results to get the desired final product. In this case, the blast
designer can adjust the parameters of the blast to get desired
results at a particular part of the distribution.
In a similar effort to develop universally applicable tools,
Simangunsong et al. (2002) developed a new approach for the
prediction of blast results based on the theory of the Natural
Breakage Characteristics (NBC). The NBC parameters were
determined with a test procedure called optimized comminution
sequence. The empirical fragmentation equation was developed
based on Bergmans model (Bergmann et al., 1973) and it was
found that was a reasonably good fit of data with the model.
According to Moser et al. (2000) the optimized comminution is the steepest uniformity fragmentation size distribution
achievable in the fragmentation process. The researchers on
this project also used the fragmentation model by Bergmann
et al. (1973), which was originally developed for granite,
limestone and sandstone. This model revealed the relationship
between average fragment size and blasting parameters. The
researchers concluded that the NBC concept could be used to
evaluate whether the actual blast fragmentation distribution is
already close to the optimum or not.
Assuming that the blast design has been successfully optimized, there is the issue of accurate implementation in the field
every time the design is used. According to Scott (1992), this
is one of the reasons blasting seldom gives consistent results
from one blast to the next. Scott states that the most common
problem experienced in the field involve the real differences
between blasting operations as designed and as built. One of
his findings is that 60% of the blasting problems were caused by
such differences. For example, a study by Hermansson (1983)
contends that unsatisfactory drilling techniques cause hole
deviation, which leads not only to a wide spread in fragment
size distribution but also limitation on practical hole length.
Clearly, it is not enough to have optimized blast designs, but
it is necessary to make certain that they are implemented according to specification in the field.
The studies reviewed here take different approaches to
optimizing the drilling and blasting for crushing and further
ore processing. For example, the increase in crushing capacity
and corresponding decrease in power consumption due to a
higher powder factor supports the idea that blasting can positively influence crushing. This finding is highlighted by most
of the studies discussed here. Another pertinent finding is that
utilizing higher powder factors reaches a value beyond which
it is no longer beneficial to the downstream process. Therefore,
an optimization exercise should be intended to search for the
particular range of values of powder factors that optimizes the
process, i.e., maximizes capacity while minimizing consumption of power by the crusher.
Though most of the studies reviewed here focus on pointing
out the benefits of taking a holistic approach to mining operations and providing cases where certain techniques achieved
optimization objectives at one operation or other, only two attempted to develop tools that are universally applicable. Some
of the studies point out parameters in the design of a blast that
are influential to the operations in one form or another. This
paper shows an optimization model that ties drilling and blastVol. 320 2006 TRANSACTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

ing variables (burden and spacing) to target results including

fragment size distribution and total mining costs.

Drilling and blasting require less effort to yield oversized

fragmentation, and more effort to produce undersized
fragmentation.
Loading, haulage and crushing productivity decreases
with oversized fragmentation. This is due to a number
of factors such as an increase of equipment maneuvering
time, a decrease of fill factor, and an increase of swell
factor in particular for loading and haulage equipment.
The crushing operation is less effective while handling
oversized fragmentation.
Loading, haulage and crushing productivity increases
with undersized fragmentation. The increase in productivity is due to more favorable fill and swell factors as
well as less equipment maneuvering time. The energy
consumption decreases in crushing operation with undersized fragmentation.

Optimization model

Background. Optimization seeks the ideal values for a series

of variables contained within an objective function subject to
a set of constraints on the values of the controlling variables
(Crawford, 2003). It may target the operating factors that
maximize an objective function (maximizing profit) or minimize the objective function (minimize costs). The optimization
model should have the ability to predict the impact on some
performance target from the various components controlling
production and must contain a series of constraints to limit
solutions to feasible answers.
Model development. The optimization model developed here
includes the perfomance targets such as the fragment size
distribution and the total cost of mining process.
There are a number of models that are used to predict
fragment size distribution. However, two main models have
been taken into consideration in this analysis Kuz-Ram and
JKMRCs blast fragmentation models. The Kuz-Ram model,
developed by Cunningham (1983), is the most popular and
represents a combination of Kuznetsovs and Rossin-Rammlers
equations. A drawback of the Kuz-Ram model is that it needs
verification and calibration by other means, such as imagebased fragmentation analysis (Chung and Katsabanis, 2000).
This is due to the nature of the rock being blasted. The rock
properties change significantly from site to site, even within
the same site these properties may change over relatively short
distances. According to Cunningham (1983), other points to
note concerning the model include:

Optimization criterion represents the total cost of mining

process (drilling, blasting, loading, haulage and crushing) and
can be expressed as
CTM = C DR / BL + CT L / H /CR (inrange ) +
(1)
CT L / H /CR ( oversize ) + CT L / H /CR (undersize ) min
where
CTM is the total cost of mining process (drilling, blasting,
loading, haulage and crushing) ($),
CDR/BL is the drilling and blasting cost ($),
CT-L/H/CR(inrange) is the loading, haulage and crushing
costs when fragmented rock mass is inside the required
range ($),
CT-L/H/CR (oversize) is the loading, haulage and crushing costs
when fragmented rock mass is oversized ($) and
CT-L/H/CR (undersize) is the loading, haulage and crushing costs
when fragmented rock mass is undersized ($).

the spacing/burden ratio applies to the drilling and not

the timing, and this ratio should not exceed 2;
initiation and timing must be arranged so as to reasonably
enhance fragmentation and avoid misfires or cut-offs;
the explosive should yield energy close to its calculated
Relative Weight Strength; and
the jointing and homogeneity of the ground require careful assessment as fragmentation is often built into the
rock structure, particularly when loose jointing is more
closely spaced than the drilling pattern.

Each of these cost subcategories can be modeled as follows

C DR / BL =

ATOTAL C DR LH + 0.25 Cex d 2 Lex ch d ex

(2)

CT L / H /CR (inrange ) =
C
C
C
VT P(inrange ) L + H + CR
QN ( L ) QN ( H ) QN (CR )

The JKMRCs blast fragmentation model uses a modified

version of the Kuz-Ram model to predict the coarse end of the
distribution while the fine end is estimated from theoretical
equations (Kojovic et al., 1995; Comeau, 1996). The model uses
rock mass, blast pattern and explosive properties to predict the
entire fragment size distribution. Like the Kuz-Ram model, this
model is also a single-hole model (Thornton et al., 2002), i.e.,
it assumes the same parameters (rock type and blast pattern) for
the entire blast volume. However, in practical situations, each
input parameter will have some variations associated with it.
For example, rock mass properties such as joint spacing and
strength can vary within a blasting pattern. Burden and spacing
could also vary due to drilling inaccuracy. The fragment size
distributions used in this optimization exercise are determined
using Kuz-Ram fragmentation model.
The optimization model developed through this research is
based on the following assumptions:

(3)

CT L / H /CR ( oversize ) =

CL
CH
CCR
VT P( oversize )
+
+

a L QN ( L ) a H QN ( H ) a CR QN (CR )

(4)

CT L / H /CR (undersize ) =
CL
(5)
CH
CCR
VT P(undersize )
+
+

b L QN ( L ) b H QN ( H ) bCR QN (CR )
where
VT is the total rock volume to be moved (m3)
VT = ATOTAL Lstem min g + Lex ch

ATOTAL is the total area per shot (m2),

B is the burden (m),
S is the spacing (m),
CDR is the drilling cost ($/m),
LH is the hole depth (m),

Loading, haulage and crushing equipment operate at

100% of its nominal capacity, while the fragmentation
range can be undersized, in range or oversized.
2006 TRANSACTIONS Vol. 320

BS

136

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

Cex is the explosive cost ($/kg),

d is the hole diameter (m),
Lex-ch is the explosive charge length (m),
Lstemming is the stemming (m),
dex is the density of explosive (kg/m3),
P(inrange) is the percentage of the fragmented rock volume
inside the required range (%),
CL/H/CR is the hourly cost of loading, haulage and crushing,
respectively ($/h),
QN(L/H/CR) is the loading, haulage and crushing productivity
when the rock mass is inside the required range (m3/h),
P(oversize) is the percentage of the rock volume fragmented
as oversized (%),
aL/H/CR is the oversize capacity factor in loading/haulage/
crushing due to oversized rock (1) mass,
P(undersize) is the percentage of rock volume fragmented as
undersized (%) and
bL/H/CR is the undersize capacity factor in loading/haulage/
crushing due to undersized rock mass (1).

Case study

Field data. An optimization study on fragment size distribution,

drilling and blasting costs and the total relative mining cost was
performed on the example of an operating quarry in eastern
Pennsylvania. The name of the quarry will not be revealed to
honor the request of the mine management.
The final requested product of the quarry is 12.7 mm (-0.5
in.). Blasted limestone is crushed through three stages: primary,
secondary and tertiary. The feeds are as follows: primary =
0.91 m (<36 in.), secondary = 127 mm (<5 in.) and tertiary =
38 mm (<1.5 in.). The primary crusher can handle a maximum
feed size of 1.5 m (60 in.). However, the requirement of the
quarry is to limit the primary crusher feed to maximum 0.91
m (36 in.). The rock properties data are presented in Table 1,
the explosive properties are shown in Table 2 and the drilling
and blasting data are shown in Table 3.
The most accurate way to analyse fragment size distribution is to take actual samples from muck piles and pass them
through a series of seives to get the percent by weight of a given
size range. However, in the absence of actual sieve analysis,
the image analysis technique may be applied to determine the
fragment size distribution of a muck pile. The Split-Desktop
software, by Split Engineering, is used for this analysis (an
academic version of the software and for the research purpose
only). This software is applied in many mining operations
around the world and demonstrated accuracy to within 10%
or better in calculating and describing the fragment size distribution of a muck pile. In this work, the uncertainty related
to image processing and its impact to obtained results is not
analyzed.
In general, the more digital images acquired and used in
the analysis, the more accurate the results of fragment size
distribution. For this particular analysis, 15 digital images were
acquired. However, only six were useful because some were
duplicates of each other and, therefore, represented the same
sector of the muck pile. Typical images from the quarry are
shown in Fig. 1, while the results of the analysis are shown in
Fig. 2. Fragment size distribution obtained by the Kuz-Ram
model is shown in Fig. 3.
By comparing the results obtained in the field with those
obtained by Kuz-Ram model, there is some slight difference
between the two distributions. The first notable point is that
Kuz-Ram model predicts coarser fragmentation than does
the image analysis. However, the difference between results
disappears after a fragment size of 650 mm (26 in.), which is
SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

137

Table 1 Rock mass characteristics.

Rock type
Rock mass
Compressive strength (MPa)
Moh hardness
Specific gravity
Joint spacing (m)

limestone
generally layered
207
3.5 to 4
2.81
3 - 3.66

Table 2 Explosive properties.

Column charge
Bottom charge
Detonators
Booster

ANFO 94/6
orica gianite ME
non-electric
TNT/RDX

Table 3 Drilling and blasting data.

Pattern
Number of rows
Hole inclination
Burden (m)
Spacing (m)
Stemming (Row 1) (m)
Stemming (Row 2-3) (m)
Hole diameter (m)
Subdrilling (m)
Number of drill holes
Hole depth (m)
Powder factor (kg/t)
Explosive cost ($/kg)
Drilling cost per meter ($/m)

rectangular
2 to 3
vertical
3.96
4.27 - 4.88
3.66
4.57
0.165
1.22
35-40
16.76
0.34
0.23
0.46

much less than the critical oversize value of 0.91 m (36 in.) in
this study. Further analysis shows that both distributions are
almost identical for the critical area of undersized fragments.
Another contributing factor could be the limited number of
digital images acquired in the field and used in the analysis.
It is possible that the digital images are not true representation
of a typical muck pile at the quarry. Perhaps more meticulous
acquisition of digital images or further improvement of the
Kuz-Ram model would provide better agreement. However,
an overall accuracy of Kuz-Ram model for the studied case is
sufficient for further analyses.
Optimization calculations. The values of burden and spacing
currently used in the quarry are 3.9 and 4.8 m (12.8 and 15.7
ft), respectively. The fragment size should not be larger than
0.91 m (36 in.) and less than 12.7 mm (0.5 in.). These are the
required sizes for the crusher and the final product size at the
quarry, respectively. Any fragments that fall outside of this
range are considered oversize and undersize, respectively. The
rock volume and tonnage should be the same regardless of the
values of burden and spacing. It is assumed that the required
production will be maintained. The rest of the output values, i.e.,
number of drill holes, powder factor and unit costs of drilling
and blasting will vary according to the values of burden and
spacing. The percentage fragmentation gives the proportion
of fragments that are either undersized, in range or oversized
in reference to the target fragmentation.
Vol. 320 2006 TRANSACTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

Figure 1 Digital images of muck piles from the quarry.

Figure 2 Fragment size distribution obtained by image

analysis.

Figure 3 Fragment size distribution obtained by KuzRam model.

To obtain other cost values from corresponding configurations of burden and spacing, a range of these values were tested
using the Kuz-Ram fragmentation model. The oversize capacity
factor in loading/haulage/crushing productivity due to oversized
rock mass is used with a value of aL/H/CR = 0.50. The undersize
capacity factor in loading/haulage/crushing productivity due to
undersized rock mass was given a value of bL/H/CR = 1.10. Table
4 and Fig. 4 show the total relative mining costs for various
burden/spacing ratios. The minimum unit cost is given a value of
unity (1), while all other values are proportionally increased.
Based on the results given in Table 4 and Fig. 4, it can be
concluded that a new drilling/blasting geometry may reduce the
total mining cost by 8.6%. Figure 5 shows the new optimum
drilling and blasting parameters that yield a required fragment
size distribution at a minimum cost.
There are the significant differences in the number of drill
holes, powder factor and the costs for the various values of
burden and spacing. Another significant result is that the
fragment size distributions are virtually the same. It is plausible to conclude that the quarry could employ significantly

larger values of burden and spacing and drill fewer blast holes
without negatively impacting the blasting objectives. This
would in effect lead to lower total mining costs as per model
developed here.

2006 TRANSACTIONS Vol. 320

Sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis is performed to

take into account the uncertainty of dominant influence factors on the final results. The authors point of view is that for
both values the oversized capacity factor, aL/H/CR, and the
undersized capacity factor, bL/H/CR, may experience some
significant variations. Thus, a sensitivity analysis has been
performed where aL/H/CR was considered in the value range
of aL/H/CR = 0.40 to 0.65. The second sensitivity analysis was
carried out on bL/H/CR in the value range of bL/H/CR = 1.05 to
1.40. Other variables were kept unchanged. The results were
placed in the relative ratios, where the reference values were
those obtained in the main analysis (aL/H/CR = 0.50; bL/H/CR =
1.10; S/B = 1.40; S . B = 37.8 m2). Numerical and graphical
values of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Tables 5 and
6 and Figs. 6 and 7.
138

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

Figure 4 The total relative mining cost (RCT) as a function of drilling geometry and spacing/burden ratio.

Table 4 Total relative mining cost.

Total relative mining cost (RCT) for various ratios

S/B = 1.25

S/B = 1.10

S/B = 1.40
B S,
m2
B (m)
RCT
B (m)
RCT
B (m)
RCT
70.3
61.3
52.8
45.0
37.81
31.3
25.3
18.72
15.3

7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
3.902
3.50

1.102
1.068
1.039
1.017
1.007
1.011
1.033
1.0862
1.134

8.00
7.50
6.90
6.40
5.90
5.30
4.80
4.10
3.70

1.116
1.085
1.051
1.029
1.016
1.017
1.035
1.089
1.138

7.10
6.60
6.15
5.70
5.201
4.70
4.25
3.70
3.30

1.090
1.054
1.027
1.008
1.0001
1.009
1.032
1.081
1.135

1Proposed
2Current

optimal parameters
drilling and blasting geometry

Based on the results of the both main and uncertainty

analysis, the following can be noted:
An oversized fragmentation has a more significant
impact on the total mining cost than an undersized one.
This might be explained by the fact that the Kuz-Ram
model gives a relatively small increase in undersized
fragmentation with a significantly increasing powder
factor. For a powder factor (PF) range of 0.10 to 0.42
kg/t, the undersized fragmentation percentage (UFP)
increases in the range 0.76% to 1.66%. At the same time,
the decrease in an oversized fragmentation percentage
(OFP) is situated in the range of 19.80% to 0.00%.
The quarry mining operators should pay particular attention to both oversized and undersized fragmentations.
The undersized fragmentation is not desirable in quarry
mining because fines are a problem in terms of lost saleable stone and storage, while oversized fragmentation
leads to higher total operating costs.
SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

139

An intangible affect that is not modeled but really happens is that a significant increase in powder factor does
not necessarily result in an increase in the undersized
fragmentation. While the amount of energy introduced
into the rock mass is too high, the latter becomes energy
saturated, and an energy surplus is spent to launch rock
particles without producing new fragmentation.

Conclusions

In this study, the new mathematical model is developed to

determine the impact of drilling and blasting geometry on
fragment size distribution and the total mining costs in quarry
operations. The target optimization function include the minimal costs of an entire mining chain including drilling, blasting,
loading, haulage and crushing, while the limiting factor was the
required fragment size distribution. The optimization model
developed here provides a systematic tool to select from among
many configurations of burden and spacing that minimize the
total mining costs in quarry mining. A sensitivity analysis is
Vol. 320 2006 TRANSACTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

kg/t. The rock volume and tonnage will be the same while the
fragment size will be within the required range. However, the
overall quarry performance in terms of costs should be closely
monitored, because significant changes may occur in operating
environment that could adversely affect this performance. The
most optimizations models involve the modifications based on
observed field performance. The changes in rock mass properties
encountered in the field may vary considerably from one location to another, even within the same relatively small blasting
zone. The compressive strength of rock, abrasiveness and the
rock density play very important role in the blasting process,
as does the spatial distribution of rock properties.
All these input data have a major impact on setting appropriate drilling and blasting patterns. Therefore, further research is
required to address and reflect the changes in rock properties
and drilling and blasting patterns within the same blasting
zone. It also should include research related to the impact of
changes in other elements of an operating environment, such
as organizational, technical and market.

Acknowledgments
Burden (m)

Spacing (m)
Rock volume (m2)

5.2
7.28
11,958.34

The portion of research work in this paper is supported through

a George H. Deike Jr. Research Grant. The financial contribution from this foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

Rock tonnage (t)

23,916.67
No. of drill holes
20
Powder factor (kg/t)
0.17

Percentage fragmentation:
Oversize
2.5%
In range
96.7%
Undersize
0.7%

References

Advanced Optimization Group, 2004, Quarries can reduce fines and add value,
Advanced Optimization News, Vol. 4, No 1, pp 1-2.
Ash, R.L., 1963, The mechanics of rock breakage: Standards for blasting design,
Pit and Quarry, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 118-122.
Ash, R.L., 1990, Design of blasting rounds, in Surface Mining, 2nd Edition,
B.A. Kennedy, ed., SME, pp. 565-583.
Atlas Powder, 1987, Explosives and Rock Blasting, Field Technical Operations,
Atlas Powder Company, Dallas, Texas, 662 pp.
Bearman, R.A., Barley, R.W., and Hitchcock, A., 1991, Prediction of power
consumption and product size in cone crushing, Minerals Engineering, Vol.
4, No. 12, pp.1243-1256.
Bergmann, O.R., Riggle, B., and Wu, F. C., 1973, Model rock blasting effect
of explosive properties and other variables on blasting result, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geomechanics, Vol. 10,
pp. 585-612.
Chung, H. S., and Katsabanis, P.D, 2000, Fragmentation prediction using improved
engineering formulae, International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation,
Vol. 4, Issue 3-4, pp. 198-207.
Clark, G.B., 1987, Principles of Rock Fragmentation, John Wiley and Sons, pp.
438-442.

Figure 5 The new drilling and blasting parameters at

the quarry.

performed to take into account the uncertainty of dominant

influence factors on the total mining costs.
Data from the limestone quarry were used throughout this
study. The results of the developed model show a tangible
decerease in total mining cost. It can be concluded that current
values of burden and spacing used in a quarry, i.e., 3.9 and
4.8 m (12.8 and 15.7 ft), respectively, may be increased to 5.2
and 7.28 m (17.1 and 23.9 ft), respectively. This optimized
configuration will reduce the powder factor form 0.34 to 0.17

Figure 6 The total relative mining cost (RCT) as a function of oversize capacity factor aL/H/CR.

2006 TRANSACTIONS Vol. 320

140

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

PROOF COPY

Comeau, W., 1996, Explosive energy partitioning and fragment size measurement Importance of correct evaluation of fines in blasted rock, Proceedings of the Fragblast Workshop on Measurement of Blast Fragmentation,
pp. 237-240, Montreal, Canada.
Crawford, G.D., 2003, Mine Optimization and Operations Research, Pincock
Perspectives, No 41, April.
Cunningham, C.V.B., 1983, Fragmentation estimations and Kuz-Ram model
four years on, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, pp. 439-453, Lule, Sweden.
Eloranta, E., and Workman L., 1995, The effects of blasting on crushing and grinding efficiency and energy consumption, http://www.elorantaassoc.com.
Fernberg, H., 2005, Surface drilling, in Quarrying and Open Pit Mining, M.
Smith, ed., Atlas Copco, Orebro, Sweden, pp. 37-40.
Fuerstenau, M.C., Chi, G., and Bradt, R.C., 1995, Optimization of energy utilization and production costs in mining and ore preparation, Proceedings
of the XIX International Mineral Processing Congress, pp. 161-164, San
Francisco, California.
Hagan, T.N., 1983, The influence of controllable blast parameters on fragmentation and mining costs, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp. 31-51, Lule, Sweden.
Hermansson, L., 1983, Production drilling with high accuracy, Proceedings of
the First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp.
789-798, Lulea, Sweden.
Harnischfeger Corporation, 2003 Peak performance practices excavator selection, P&H MinePro Services, 1-87 pp.
JKMRC, 1999, Mineral comminution circuits. Their operation and optimization,
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Kanchibotla, S.S., Morrell, S., Valery, W., and OLaughlin, P., 1998, Exploring the
effect of blast design on SAG mill throughput at KCGM. Proceedings of the
Mine to Mill Conference, The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Brisbane, Australia, pp. 153-162.
Kojovic, T., Michaux, S., and Mackenzie, C., 1995, Impact of blast fragmentation on crushing and screening operations in quarrying, Proceedings of the
Mine to Mill Conference, The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Brisbane, Sept, pp. 427-436.
Lejuge, G.E., and Cox, N., 1995, The impact of explosives performance on
quarry fragmentation, Proceedings of the Explo 95 Conference Exploring
the Role of Rock Breakage in Mining and Quarrying, The Australian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy Brisbane, pp. 445- 452.
Mackenzie, A.S., 1967, Optimum blasting, Proceedings of the of 28th Annual
Minnesota Mining Symposium, Duluth, Minnesota, pp. 181-188.
McCarter, M.K., 1996, Effect of blast preconditioning on comminution for
selected rock types, Proceedings of the Twenty-second Conference of
Explosives and Blasting Techniques, International Society of Explosives
Engineers, Orlando, Florida, pp. 119-129.
McKee, D.J, Chitambo, G.P., and Morrell, S., 1995, The relationship between
fragmentation in mining and comminution circuit throughput, Minerals
Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 11, pp. 1265-1274.
Moody, L., Cunniningham, C., and Lourens, H., 1996, Measuring the effect
of blasting fragmentation on hard rock quarrying operations, Proceedings
of the of FRAGBLAST 5, Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, pp. 269-277.
Moser, P., Cheimanoff, N., Ortiz, R., and Hochholinger, G., 2000, Breakage
characteristics in rock blasting, Proceeding of 1st World Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, A.A Balkema, pp. 165-264.
Nielson, K., and Kristiansen, J., 1995, Blasting and grinding: an integrated
comminution system, EXPLO 95, Exploring the Role of Rock Breakage in
Mining and Quarrying, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Brisbane, Sept, 113-117.
Nielsen, K., and Kristiansen, J., 1996, Blasting-crushing-grinding: Optimization
of an integrated comminution system, Proceedings of the FRAGBLAST 5,
Montreal, Canada, pp. 269-277.
Nzombola, M., 2005, Comparative Analysis for Drilling and Blasting in Quarry
Operations, M.Sc. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA, 107 pp.
Persson, P.A., Holmberg, R., and Lee, J., 1994, Stress waves in rock, rock mass
damage, and fragmentation, Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering,
CRC Press, pp. 233-264.
Rantapaa, M., Mcinstry, R., and Bolles, T., 2005, Drill-to-mill: Efficient drilling
and blasting resulting in increased mill throughput at Barrick Goldstrike,
CIM Bulletin, Vol. 98, No 1085, pp. 1-3.
Scott A., 1992, A technical and operational approach to the optimization of
blasting operations, Proceedings of the MASSMIN, Johannesburg, South
Africa, pp. 247-252.
Scott, A., 1996, Blastability and blast design, Proceedings of the Fragblast
5, Canada, pp. 26-36.
Scott, A., and McKee, D.J., 1994, The interdependence of mining and mineral
beneficiation processes on the performance of mining projects, Australian
Mining Looks North: the Challenges and Choices, Australian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 303-308.
Simangunsong et al., 2002, MISSING REFERENCE MENTIONED IN
TEXT

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION

141

Table 5 Total relative mining cost as a function of

aL/H/CR.

Total relative mining cost (RCT) for

various values of aL/H/CR
B S,
2
m
a = 0.40
a = 0.50
a = 0.65

70.3
61.3
52.8
45.0
37.8
31.3
25.3
18.7
15.3

1.070
1.113
1.067
1.032
1.011
1.012
1.033
1.081
1.135

1.090
1.054
1.027
1.008
1.000*
1.009
1.032
1.081
1.135

1.015
1.001
0.991
0.986
0.990
1.006
1.031
1.081
1.135

*Reference value

Table 6 Change in relative mining cost as a function

of bL/H/CR.

Total relative mining cost (RCT) for

various values of L/H/CR
B S,
m2
= 1.05
= 1.10
= 1.25
= 1.40

70.3
61.3
52.8
45.0
37.8
31.3
25.3
18.7
15.3

1.090
1.055
1.028
1.008
1.000
1.009
1.033
1.082
1.136

1.090
1.054
1.027
1.008
1.000*
1.009
1.032
1.081
1.135

1.089
1.054
1.027
1.008
0.999
1.008
1.031
1.080
1.134

1.089
1.053
1.026
1.007
0.999
1.007
1.031
1.079
1.133

*Reference value

Figure 7 The total relative mining cost (RCT) as a function of undersize capacity factor bL/H/CR.

Thornton, D.M., Kanchibotla, S.S., and Brunton, I., 2002, Modelling the impact
of rockmass and blast design variations on blast fragmentation, International
Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, Vol. 6, No 2 pp. 169 -188.

Vol. 320 2006 TRANSACTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65