Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Aggregate Production
K Nielsen1
ABSTRACT • using the same explosive but a higher powder factor, will
generate more fines after blasting and crushing;
For many crushed aggregate producers will the finest fraction minus 4
mm represent a problem. The fine material will fetch a much lower price • using the same bulk explosive and powder factor, but
than the coarser products, and may even be difficult to sell in some increasing the drill hole diameter, will generate more fines
markets. after blasting and crushing; and
The blasting operation will strongly influence the generation of fines • using a high VOD explosive and/or increasing the powder
after both blasting and crushing. Drill hole deviation together with the factor, will reduce the crushing resistance of the rock.
drill hole diameter, powder factor and velocity of detonation are the most
important blasting parameters with regard to the generation of fines. Drill The third factor which influences the spatial distribution of the
hole deviation is often ignored, and many operators will just reduce the explosives, drill hole deviation, is often neglected in practical
drilling pattern in order to avoid hard bottom and an excessive number of blasting Many operators will just reduce the drilling pattern in
boulders. order to compensate for the irregular explosive distribution and
The paper presents a technical and economic analysis of how drill hole thus reduce the number of boulders and improve digging
deviation will lead to an increased generation of fines in crushed conditions. This practice will, however, increase the powder
aggregate production. The analysis shows that the loss of sales revenues
factor, reduce the crushing resistance, and lead to more fines
will be much higher than the extra costs for drilling and blasting caused
by compensating for drill hole deviation by putting in more holes. after blasting and crushing.
FIG 1 - Spatial distribution of explosives at the floor level of a blast without drill hole deviation and a drilling pattern of 3.0 × 3.6 m (JKMRC 3x3-PRO).
FIG 2 - Spatial distribution of explosives at the floor level of a blast with stochastic drill hole deviation and a drilling pattern of 3.0 × 3.6 m
(JKMRC 3x3-PRO).
FIG 3 - Spatial distribution of explosives at the floor level of a blast with stochastic drill hole deviation and a reduced drilling pattern of
2.2 × 2.8 m (JKMRC 3x3-PRO).
However, in practical blasting can a number of factors such as However, it is unlikely that the increase will be as high as 50 per
geological discontinuities, inaccurate initiation of drill holes, cent of minus 4 mm material. A more reasonable assumption
substandard explosive performance and detonation cut-off lead to may be that the amount of fines increases 20 per cent in addition
unsatisfactory results. It is therefore unlikely that the drilling to the 30 per cent caused by the additional drill holes.
pattern can be expanded to the maximum possible, even if drill Trying to compensate for the negative effects of drill hole
hole deviation could be reduced to the absolute minimum. deviation by reducing the drilling pattern, may then lead to a 50
A reasonable assumption may then be that the number of drill per cent increase of the proportion of minus 4 mm fines.
holes must be increased by 30 per cent in order to achieve
reasonable blasting results if the drill hole deviation as defined
earlier, is ignored. This will by itself lead to a 30 per cent ECONOMIC EVALUATION
increase in fines after blasting and crushing. In order to investigate the economic consequences of drill hole
As discussed above will the variations of the relative distances deviation, a case study has been used with typical Scandinavian
between adjacent drill holes also lead to more fines in addition to economic data and operating parameters. The basic parameters
the material from the fines zone around each drill hole. It is, are:
however, difficult to quantify this effect, and no data are known Annual production: 250 000 tonnes
from full-scale observations.
In order to get an indication, the Rosin-Rammler size Rock density: 2.6 tonnes/m3
distribution model takes into consideration the influence of drill Bench height: 14 m
hole deviation, and can be used to estimate the change in the Drill hole diameter: 76 mm
amount of fines. The Rosin-Rammler model can be expressed as
follows: Drill hole inclination: 15°
n
R = exp [ - ( x/xc) ] Proportion of fines with 30 per cent
drill hole deviation:
where: Proportion of fines without 20 per cent
R = Mass fraction larger than size x deviation:
xc = Characteristic size of fragments (69.3 per cent Drilling and blasting costs: 700 NOK per hole
passing size) Sales price for fines: 50 NOK/tonne
n = Uniformity index Sales price for other products: 110 NOK/tonne
The uniformity index usually varies between 0.8 and 2.2. High The drilling pattern used in order to compensate for drill hole
values indicate uniform sizing, while low values result in higher deviation is 2.4 × 2.8 m. One drill hole will then break about
proportions of both fines and oversize. The uniformity index can 94 m3 of rock, and 1020 holes must be drilled each year.
be calculated using the following formula: If drill hole deviation can be kept to a minimum, the drilling
pattern can be expanded so that each hole will break 30 per cent
n = (L/H) × [2.2 – 14 × (B/d)] × {[1 + (S/B)]/2}0.5 × [1 – (W/B)] more rock which is about 122 m3. The corresponding drilling
where: pattern will be about 2.7 × 3.25 m. With this pattern must 790
holes be drilled each year.
B = Burden (m)
The annual sales revenue with minimum drill hole deviation
d = Drill hole diameter (mm) and 20 per cent fines will be:
S = Spacing (m) 0.8 × 250 000 × 110: 22 000 000 NOK
W = Standard deviation on drill hole deviation (m) 0.2 × 250 000 × 50: 2 500 000 NOK
L = Charge length above grade level (m) Total: 24 500 000 NOK
H = Bench height (m) The annual sales revenue with the increased proportion of
fines caused by drill hole deviation will then be:
As a basis for calculating the proportion of fines caused by
drill hole deviation, two cases will be studied based on the 0.7 × 250 000 × 110: 19 250 000 NOK
following assumptions: 0.3 × 250 000 × 50: 3 750 000 NOK
• the average fragment size will be the same, 250 mm, for a
blast with drill hole deviation and a blast with a minimum of Total: 23 000 000 NOK
drilling errors; In addition to the loss of revenue caused by drill hole deviation
• the standard deviation of the drilling errors will be 2.5 and come the costs for drilling and blasting of more holes:
0.5 per cent of the bench height respectively; (1020 – 790) × 700: 161 000 NOK per year.
• the drilling pattern will be 2.4 × 2.8 m for both cases; and The loss of revenue will be 1 500 000 NOK per year, which is
• the charge length above grade is 11 m. almost ten times the extra costs for drilling and blasting in order
Looking at the minus 20 mm fragment size, the calculation to compensate for drill hole deviation. The costs for drilling and
shows: blasting will show up in the cost reports, but the loss of revenue
will not, and can be considered as invisible costs caused by drill
With drill hole deviation: 3.0 per cent of the blast will be finer hole deviation.
than 20 mm.
With minimum deviation: 2.0 per cent of the blast will be finer
than 20 mm.
CONCLUSION
A blast with drill hole deviation as defined above, will Drill hole deviation will in itself lead to an increased amount of
generate 50 per cent more material minus 20 mm compared with fines in crushed aggregate production, as well as hard digging
a blast with minimum deviation. conditions and an excessive number of boulders. The proportion
This may also be an indication of how the drill hole deviation of fines will further increase if the operator tries to compensate
can influence the generation of fines after blasting and crushing. for the negative effects by reducing the drilling pattern and put in
more holes.
Drill hole deviation is caused by a number of factors, and Nielsen, K, 1998b. Economic optimization of the
many of these are related to unsatisfactory operating practices. blasting-crushing-grinding comminution process in a low-grade iron
Drill hole deviation can consequently be minimised by adapting ore (taconite) operation, in Proceedings Mine to Mill 98, pp 135-138
ordinary Quality Assurance principles. (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Nielsen, K and Kristiansen, J, 1996. Blasting-crushing-grinding:
The costs for drilling and blasting will be lower, and the sales Optimization of an integrated comminution system, in Proceedings
revenues will increase, if the proportion of fines is reduced by 5th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
minimising drilling errors. FRAGBLAST 5, Montreal pp 269-277 (A A Balkema).
Nielsen, K and Lownds, C M, 1997. Enhancement of taconite crushing
REFERENCES and grinding through primary blasting, in Proceedings 36th US Rock
Mechanics Symposium and ISRM International Symposium,
Amundsen, J, 1993. Documentation and control of blasthole deviation, in NYROCKS’97, New York, 3:138-148 (Elsevier Science Ltd).
Proceedings Annual Rock Blasting Conference 1993, pp 14.1-14.17 Nielsen, K and Malvik, T, 1998. Grindability enhancement by blast
(Norwegian Tunnelling Society: Oslo) (in Norwegian). induced micro cracks, in Proceedings 9th European Symposium on
Bond, F C, 1961. Crushing and Grinding Calculations Part I and II. Chem Comminution, Albi, France, The European Federation of Chemical
Eng, 6/6, pp 378-385. Engineering, 1:81-88.
Karlsson, F, 1997. Improved drilling accuracy in quarrying, MSc thesis, Sheahan, R M and Beattie, T A, 1990. Effect of explosive on fines
Division of Mining Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, generation in blasting, in Proceedings The 3rd International
Sweden (in Swedish). Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST 3, pp
Kojovic, T, et al, 1995. Impact of blast fragmentation on crushing and 413-415 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
screening operations in quarrying, in Proceedings EXPLO’95, pp Melbourne).
427-436 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Tunstall, A M and Bearman, R A, 1997. Influence of fragmentation on
Melbourne). crushing performance, Mining Engineering, 49(1):65-70.
Kristiansen, J, 1995. A study of how the velocity of detonation affects
fragmentation and the quality of fragments in a muckpile, in
Proceedings EXPLO’95, pp 437-444 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
McKenzie, C, 1994. Diagnosis makes for better blasting, Rock Products,
97(4):34-43.
Nielsen, K, 1998a. Economic optimization of the
blasting-crushing-grinding comminution process, in Proceedings
14th Annual Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, New
Orleans, International Society of Explosives Engineers, pp 147-157.