Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

CRITICAL

COMPARISON OF
JKMRC BLAST
FRAGMENTATION
MODELS

AUTHORS: JULIE HALL & IAN BRUNTON

CONFERENCE: EXPLO 2001

Contact: Julie Hall


JKMRC
Isles Road
INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068
PH: 07 3365 5814
Fax: 07 3365 5999
Email: julie.hall@mailbox.uq.edu.au
PAPER TITLE: CRITICAL COMPARISON OF JKMRC BLAST
FRAGMENTATION MODELS

AUTHORS: JULIE HALL & IAN BRUNTON

Julie Hall Ian Brunton


Research Scholar Senior Research Officer
JKMRC JKMRC
Isles Road Isles Road
INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068 INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068
PH: 07 3365 5814 PH: 07 3365 5923
Fax: 07 3365 5999 Fax: 07 3365 5999
Email: julie.hall@mailbox.uq.edu.au Email: i.brunton@mailbox.uq.edu.au
ABSTRACT

Blast fragmentation can have a significant impact on the profitability of a mine. An optimum
Run of Mine (ROM) size distribution is required to maximise the performance of downstream
processes. If this fragmentation size distribution can be modelled and controlled, the operation
will have made a significant advancement towards improving its performance. Blast
fragmentation modelling is an important step in Mine to Mill optimisation. It allows the
estimation of blast fragmentation distributions for a number of different rock mass, blast
geometry, and explosive parameters. These distributions can then be modelled in downstream
mining and milling processes to determine the optimum blast design.

When a blast hole is detonated rock breakage occurs in two different stress regions –
compressive and tensile. In the first region, compressive stress waves form a ‘crushed zone’
directly adjacent to the blast hole. The second region, termed the ‘cracked zone’, occurs
outside the crush one. The widely used Kuz-Ram model does not recognise these two blast
regions. In the Kuz-Ram model the mean fragment size from the blast is approximated and is
then used to estimate the remaining size distribution. Experience has shown that this model
predicts the coarse end reasonably accurately, but it can significantly underestimate the amount
of fines generated.

As part of the Australian Mineral Industries Research Association (AMIRA) P483A Mine to
Mill project, the Two Component Model (TCM) and Crush Zone Model (CZM), developed by
the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), were compared and evaluated to
measured ROM fragmentation distributions. An important criteria for this comparison was the
variation of model results from measured ROM in the fine to intermediate section (1 mm to
100 mm) of the fragmentation curve. This region of the distribution is important for Mine to
Mill optimisation.
CRITICAL COMPARISON OF JKMRC BLAST FRAGMENTATION MODELS

INTRODUCTION
The Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC) uses two models when estimating
blast fragmentation distributions. The two models are the Two-Component Model (TCM) and
the Crushed Zone Model (CZM), developed by Djordjevic (1999) and Kanchibotla (1998)
respectively. These models are preferred over the Kuz-Ram model due to the improved
estimation of the fines to intermediate (<100 mm) section of the fragmentation distribution
curve. This section of the curve is important in the modelling of the mine to mill process.

This paper aims to compare and evaluate the two models in order to determine their
applicability for future blast fragmentation modelling. This evaluation will be made by
comparing measured ROM size fragmentation distributions with those estimated by the TCM
and CZM. The model parameters and measured ROM size distributions were obtained from the
JKMRC Mine to Mill database. The blasts analysed in this database consist of a wide cross
section of rock mass properties, blast geometries, and explosive types. This is ideal for a direct
comparison of the TCM and CZM with the measured ROM results.

JKMRC BLAST FRAGMENTATION MODELS


Traditionally, the most popular model used to estimate blast fragmentation is the Kuz-Ram
empirical model developed by Cunningham (1983, 1987). The JKMRC developed two blast
fragmentation models during the AMIRA P483 Mine to Mill project, which improved the
predictive capabilities of the Kuz-Ram model, particularly in the fine end of the fragmentation
distribution.

Figure 1 illustrates the zones of influence in a blasted hole for a homogenous concrete cylinder.
There are two major zones around the borehole – the cracked and crushed zones. The cracked
zone is caused by tensile failure of the concrete, which leads to the generation of the coarse
component of the fragmentation distribution. The crushed zone is generated by compressive
stresses, in which the compressive stress exceeds the dynamic compressive strength of the
concrete. The majority of fine material is generated in this zone.
Figure 1 - Photo of a blasted concrete cylinder clearly showing the zones of different breakage
mechanisms

Both the TCM and CZM calculate the coarse and fines end of the fragmentation distribution
independently as illustrated in Figure 2. The TCM uses experimental data obtained from a blast
chamber to estimate the fines end of the distribution, while the CZM uses an semi-mechanistic
approach to estimate fines. Both models calculate the coarse end of the distribution by using a
modified Kuz-Ram approach. Further details concerning the TCM and CZM can be referred to
Djordjevic (1999) and Kanchibotla (1998) respectively.
Figure 2 - Fragmentation distribution with two components

Model Useability
The inputs required for the TCM and CZM, shown in Table 1, vary with respect to the ease at
which they are obtained. ‘Good’ availability means that the parameter is usually available on
site. ‘Fair’ requires surveys to be conducted on site that are not necessarily always conducted.
‘Poor’ denotes data that is obtained by laboratory testing, which generally means the sample
has to be sent off-site.
Table 1 - Input Parameters Summary Table

Parameter Kuz-Ram TCM CZM Availability


Density Y Y Y Good
UCS Y Y Y Fair
Tensile Strength Y Y N Poor
Young’s Modulus Y Y Y Poor
Mean Block Size N Y Y Good
Face Dip N Y N Fair
Dip Dir’n N Y N Fair
Fines Cut-off N N Y Fair
Chamber VOD N Y N Poor
Chamber Hole Radius N Y N Poor
Chamber Powder Factor N Y N Poor
Chamber Crush Fraction N Y N Poor

The TCM model requires more input parameters than the CZM. Nine out of ten fair/poor
category parameters are required for the TCM, when compared to three for the CZM. It can be
concluded that more detailed and harder to obtain parameters are required for the TCM,
making the model less robust then the CZM.

RESULTS
Fourteen blasts (powder factors from 0.57 kg/m3 to 1.14 kg/m3) in moderately hard to hard
rock (UCS 81 MPa to 162 MPa) were modelled using the TCM and CZM. A summary of these
blasts are contained in Table 2.

Table 2 - Summary of Mine to Mill Database

Number of Bench Height Powder Factor Rock UCS


Mine
Blasts (m) (kg/m3) (MPa)
Copper Mine 5 15 to 17 0.65 to 0.74 101 to 144
Copper/Gold Mine 5 15 0.76 to 1.14 83 to 127
Copper Mine 2 15 0.57 to 0.81 81 to 148
Copper Mine 2 16 0.98 to 1.07 162
To directly compare the TCM and CZM, a measurement of the ROM fragmentation
distribution is required. For the blasts modelled, the Split image analysis technique was used to
estimate the ROM at the primary crusher (as truck is tipping). It is almost impossible for image
analysis techniques to correctly “measure” fines of the ROM due to the large difference
between the largest and the smallest fragments. As part of each site survey, the ROM fines are
calibrated from the measured crusher product size distribution. The method is discussed in
Kanchibotla et al (1999) and, to the best of our knowledge, is a close approximation to the
actual ROM size distribution.

Figure 3 gives an example of the fragmentation distribution for the TCM, CZM, and Split
ROM results. Generally, the Split distribution is finer then the TCM and CZM results. To
further evaluate the two models, variation between the model and Split results were
investigated.

670007 CZM V's TCM

100

90
CZM

80 TCM

Split
70
Cumulative Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 10 100 1000
Size (mm)

Figure 3 – Example of a direct comparison of TCM, CZM, and Split fragmentation distribution
results

Variation between the two models and Splits results were calculated by the equation:

( Model − Split )
Variation(%) = ∗ 100
Split
Figure 4 shows a histogram of the variation (as a percentage) between the modelled and Split
results for various size fractions. The graph is ‘zoomed in’ and excludes some of the higher
positive variation results (to a maximum of 670 %). The solid and dashed lines indicate results
for the TCM and CZM models respectively. Negative variation indicates that the modelled
result was coarser than the Split result, while a positive variation indicates a finer result. From
this figure it is not clear which model has the higher accuracy, due to the large degree of
variation between the model and Split results. It is evident that some of the CZM variations at
the 1 mm and 10 mm size fraction are very high. This could be due to limited intact rock
testing not representing actual field conditions for these blasts.

100
23122P3TCM 23122P3CZM 23123P2TCM 23123P2CZM
23124P2TCM 23124P2CZM 23124P3TCM 23124P3CZM
80
23125P2TCM 23125P2CZM 670025TCM 670025CZM
670032TCM 670032CZM 670007TCM 670007CZM

60 670008TCM 670008CZM 700040TCM 700040CZM


91010TCM 91010CZM 1331085TCM 1331085CZM
2014003B1TCM 2014003B1CZM 2014003B2TCM 2014003B2CZM
40
Variation Model - Split (%)

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
1 10 50 100 250 350 600 1000
Size (mm)

Figure 4 – Variation of model vs Split results for selected size fractions

The data was further analysed to determine the degree of variation for selected size fractions.
Table 3 summarises the statistics for variation in modelled to Split data for selected size
fractions. From this data it is evident that the mean variation in modelled to Split fragmentation
is generally lower for the CZM in the fines/intermediate fraction (1 mm to 100 mm). These
means are somewhat misleading in the 1 mm and 10 mm size fractions for the CZM due to the
large positive variations for some of the blasts. The TCM has a slightly lower mean variation
when compared to the CZM for the coarse size fraction (250 mm to 1000 mm).
Table 3 – Statistics for Variation of Selected Size Fractions

Size (mm) No. of Data Mean Variation (%) S.D. Variation (%)
Points TCM CZM TCM CZM
1 5 -19 145 62 303
10 14 -69 7 19 75
50 14 -51 -12 16 30
100 14 -37 -26 14 14
250 14 -14 -27 20 13
350 14 -5 -17 20 16
600 12 1 -6 13 13
1000 7 1 -2 2 4

Histograms of model vs Split variation for selected size fractions are illustrated in Figure 5,
Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8. Results obtained from the Kuz-Ram model are also included
in these graphs to give a direct comparison between the three models. It can be generally noted
that for the fine to intermediate range (10 mm to 100 mm) the Kuz-Ram model gives the
highest variation from the Split results, while the CZM gives the lowest variation.

For the 10 mm size fraction (Figure 5) there appears to be two populations of variation for the
CZM. The first population has a lower variation than that of the TCM, while the second
population has a positive variation (model results finer than Split results). As discussed
previously, this positive variation could be due to limited intact rock testing not representing
actual field conditions for these blasts.

For the 50 mm and 100 mm size fractions (Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively) it is evident that
the CZM results have less variation than the TCM. The modelled results for the
fines/intermediate end of the fragmentation distribution are generally coarser than that of the
Split results.

For the coarser size fraction of 600 mm (Figure 8) the variation of the three models when
compared to Split are similar. The modelled results for the coarse end of the fragmentation
distribution are generally slightly coarser than those of Split.
10

CZM Variation

TCM Variation

8
Kuz-Ram Variation

6
Frequency

0
<-100 -100 to -80 -80 to -60 -60 to -40 -40 to -20 -20 to 0 0 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 80 >80
Model vs Split Variation Range (%)

Figure 5 – Histogram of model vs Split variation for the 10 mm size fraction

10

CZM Variation

TCM Variation
8
Kuz-Ram Variation

6
Frequency

0
<-100 -100 to -80 -80 to -60 -60 to -40 -40 to -20 -20 to 0 0 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 80 >80
Model vs Split Variation Range (%)

Figure 6 - Histogram of model vs Split variation for the 50 mm size fraction


10

CZM Variation

TCM Variation
8
Kuz-Ram Variation

6
Variation (%)

0
<-100 -100 to -80 -80 to -60 -60 to -40 -40 to -20 -20 to 0 0 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 80 >80
Model vs Split Variation Range (%)

Figure 7 - Histogram of model vs Split variation for the 100 mm size fraction

10

CZM Variation

TCM Variation
8
Kuz-Ram Variation

6
Variation (%)

0
<-100 -100 to -80 -80 to -60 -60 to -40 -40 to -20 -20 to 0 0 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 80 >80
Model vs Split Variation Range (%)

Figure 8 - Histogram of model vs Split variation for the 600 mm size fraction

The results indicate that for the fines and intermediate size fractions the CZM generally varies
less from the Split results than the TCM. For the coarser end of the fragmentation distribution
the results for the CZM and TCM are similar, as would be expected due to the use of similar
modified Kuz-Ram models. The modified Kuz-Ram approach used in the TCM and CZM also
give similar results to that of the Kuz-Ram model in the coarse end of the fragmentation
distribution.

CONCLUSIONS
As part of the AMIRA P483A Mine to Mill project, the Two Component Model (TCM) and
Crush Zone Model (CZM), developed by the JKMRC, were compared and evaluated to field
ROM fragmentation distributions. Moderately hard (UCS = 81 MPa) to hard (UCS = 162 MPa)
rock types from 14 blasts were used for this comparison and evaluation.

From this evaluation, the following conclusions can be made:

• The CZM generally provides a better estimation of ROM Split fragmentation for the 14
blasts analysed.
• Both the TCM and CZM generally estimate a coarser fragmentation than that measured by
the Split system.
• The CZM generally varies less from Split results in the fine to intermediate size
distributions (1 mm to 100 mm).
• The coarse end of the modelled fragmentation distribution is estimated relatively well for
both the TCM and CZM.
• The CZM requires less and more easily obtained input parameters when compared to the
TCM.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made for future work:

• Comparison of modelled and Split ROM fragmentation distributions for softer ores.
• Continue the comparisons with future site surveys to increase confidence in the comparison
of the CZM and TCM to Split results.
• Conduct stochastic fragmentation modelling to take into account variation of input
parameters. A window of possible fragmentation distributions can be compared to those
obtained by Split.
• Development of an improved fragmentation model in response to these findings.
REFERENCES
Crum, S, Rholl, S and Stagg M, 1990. The Fragmentation of Granite Cylinders Using High
Explosives, in Proc.6th Research Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Technique,
Feb. 1990, Orlando, Florida.

Cunningham, C V B, 1983. The Kuz-Ram model for prediction or fragmentation from


blasting, in First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea,
Sweden, pp 439-454.

Cunningham, C V B, 1987. Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz-Ram Model – four years
on, in 2nd International Symposium Of Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone,
Colorado, pp 475-487.

Djordjevic, N, 1998. Modelling of Fines Generation for Alumbrera Production Blasting Based
on the Blast Chamber Testing – JKMRC Internal Report.

Djordjevic, N, 1999. Two-Component model of blast fragmentation, in Fragblast 1999, pp


213-219 (South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg).

Kanchibotla, S S, 1998. JKMRC Blast Fragmentation Model – JKMRC Internal Report.

Kanchibotla, S S, Valery, W, and Morrell, S, 1999. Modelling fines in blast fragmentation and
its impact on crushing and grinding, in Explo ’99 – A conference on rock breaking, pp
137-144 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Kalgoorlie).

Kuznetsov, V M, 1973. The mean diameter of fragments formed by blasting rock. Soviet
Mining Science, 9(2), 144-148.

Sarma, K S, 1994. Models for assessing the blasting performance of explosives, PhD thesis,
University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Вам также может понравиться