Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Queens University
April, 2010
Size reduction represents one of the most energy-intensive and costly processes in the
extraction of valuable minerals and rocks. Drilling and blasting, being the first operation
in the size reduction chain, may have a significant downstream effect, influencing mine
operations.
A series of small scale blasts have been conducted, and the fragments have been screened,
drop weight tested, crushed and their Bond Work Index and breakage parameters have
been determined. The process was repeated for 3 different types of granite blocks
(Stanstead, Laurentian, and Barre granite) using samples not blasted previously and
samples blasted with three different powder factors (0.391, 0.782, and 1.173kg/m3). As
well, four types of different charge methods with the same powder factor were used to
Barre granite. Subsequently, stress wave collision blasting and the effect of delay timing
Generally, powder factor resulted in the most significant changes in the breakage
parameters as well as fragmentation. The Bond Work Index showed a small decrease as a
fragmentation seems to be similar in both cases and better than when air decking was
used. The results from Barre granite showed clearly that stemming affected fragmentation
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Takis Katsabanis, for his
Special thanks to Dr. Jamie Archibald for his kindness and willingness to help in many
ways. I am also grateful to Dr. Philip Dirige for his support in the field experiments and
Rock Mechanics properties tests conducted at the Queens University test site and Rock
teaching in various crushing and grinding techniques and also grateful to my fellows Dr.
Guillermo Silva, Ayman Tawadrous and all staff in the Department of Mining
Engineering. And also really thanks to three summer students, Charlotte Braun, Cody
Kennedy, and Jacob Sigler for their assistance in the field and lab tests. I wish to extend
my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Christopher Pickles and Professor Victor Pakalnis
As well, I really appreciate to my three bosses, Alex Henderson, Jim Willan, and Jennifer
Pakula in Mines Technology, Vale Inco Limited Canadian Operations, for their support
The financial assistance for this thesis was provided by Natural Science and Engineering
Finally this thesis is dedicated to my wife Jiyeon and my juniors Donny and Donna, who
ii
To
1940 2006
IN MEMORIAM
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACTS .i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .ii
iv
5.3 Results of Bond Work Index Testing 40
6.2.4 Result Comparison between Drop Weight Test and Bond Work
7.2.4 Result Comparison between Drop Weight Test and Bond Work
v
8.2 Test Results .......80
REFERENCES 103
APPENDICES .110
After Blasting.121
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Energy cost comparison between explosive energy and electrical energy 7
Table 4.1 Example of size interval and planned impact energies for each
Table 4.2 Example of size interval and planned impact energies for each
Table 6.2 50% and 80% cumulative passing sizes for different powder factors . 46
Table 6.7 Results of the Bond Work Index test for Stanstead granite .... 56
Table 6.8 Results of the Bond Work Index test for Laurentian granite .. 56
Table 6.9 Results of the Bond Work Index test for Barre granite ... 56
Table 6.10 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for Stanstead granite 61
Table 6.11 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for Laurentian granite .. 61
vii
Table 6.12 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for Barre granite ... 61
Table 7.1 50% and 80% cumulative passing sizes for different charge method ..... 69
Table 7.3 Results of the Bond Work Index test for charge method 73
Table 7.4 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for charge method . 75
Table 8.1 50 % and 80 % cumulative passing sizes for in hole collision and
Table 9.1 50 % and 80 % cumulative passing sizes for blasting methods studied . 98
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.3 Generation of radial micro cracks by the tangential tensile stress at the
front of the P-wave (a), and concentric cracks by the tensile tail at the back of the
wave (b) 9
Figure 4.2 Example of size distribution curves and t10 determination after drop weight
testing . 35
Figure 4.3 Effect of specific energy, Eis on the Breakage Index, t10 .. 37
ix
Figure 6.1 Explosives charge for test blasting .. 45
Figure 6.6 Breakage parameters and t10 fittings for Stanstead granite .. 50
Figure 6.7 Breakage parameters and t10 fittings for Laurentian granite 51
Figure 6.8 Breakage parameters and t10 fittings for Barre granite . 52
Figure 6.10 Average Work Indices of Stanstead granite at various powder factors and the
Figure 6.12 Average Work Indices of Laurentian granite at various powder factors
and the percentage decrease in Work Index with increase in powder factor 58
Figure 6.14 Average Work Indices of Barre granite at various powder factors
and the percentage decrease in Work Index with increase in powder factor. 59
Figure 7.2 Blast fragment screening results for different charge method .. 68
Figure 7.3 Breakage Parameters and t10 fittings for charge method .. 72
x
Figure 7.4 Impact Breakage Parameter vs. Bond Work Index 75
Figure 8.6 Breakage Parameters and t10 fittings for Stanstead granite ... 85
Figure 8.7 Breakage Parameters and t10 fittings for Laurentian granite . 86
Figure 8.8 Breakage Parameters and t10 fittings for Barre granite .. 87
xi
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Years of depressed market metal prices and decreasing grades have resulted in significant
cost cutting by the mining industry. Decreased metal prices, caused by the global
economic slow down, are demanding control and optimization of energy consuming
costs, considering the effect of fragment size not only on blasting but on the subsequent
In the mining industry, traditionally mining and mineral processing have been considered
as separate processes. At the same time, they are both parts of the size reduction
operations related to size reduction and fragment handling consist of drilling and blasting,
as well as loading, transporting, and coarse crushing of the broken rock. Milling
Comminution is the most energy intensive process in mineral processing and may
account for up to 70 % of the total energy consumption in some operations. Since size
reduction starts at the mine and ends at the mill, it is important to consider the effect of
1
The present research focused on the link between mining and mineral processing as far as
selection and throughput have been established elsewhere (Kojovic et al., 1995, Nielsen
and Kristiansen, 1996, 1999, Eloranta, 1999), the main focus of the research was the
effect of blasting on grinding. It is well known that grinding is not an energy efficient
process and tremendous amounts of energy are wasted in heating the rock instead of
reducing its size. Any improvement in the process has tremendous implications on mine
implemented to produce an index related to the grinding effort. A Bond Ball Mill Work
Index (BMWI) test is a standard test for determining the grindability of a sample of ore.
However the BMWI test is established through time consuming and expensive milling
processes, which have had moderate success in the past (Katsabanis et al., 2003). Hence
more effective tests are required to optimize efficiency of the milling process. The drop
The blasting size reduction effect was established through careful blasting applied to
three different kinds of granite block samples. As past research (Hikita, 2008) has
blasting effort and grindability, thus dimensional quality stones were selected to
minimize variability in rock properties. The experiments were aimed at modifying the
properties of the rock fragments so that grinding effort is minimized at the mill.
2
To examine the effect of powder factor on coarse and fine grinding.
To examine how blasting results are affected by the rock mechanics properties of
the rocks.
characteristics of rocks.
To evaluate the drop weight test as an indicator of the effect of blasting effort on
Following a general introduction chapter, Chapter 2 reviews research trends and research
properties of samples. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the methodology of the drop weight test
and the Bond Work Index test, which were used in this study. Chapters 6 to 8 summarize
the results of all experimental works done and Chapter 9 includes comparisons of all
3
Figure 1.1 Outline of thesis
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Recently, the importance of blasting to downstream processes has been studied and
discussed by many researchers and engineers from all around the world. Several
publications by scientists and engineers can be found in the literature with the aim to
Nielsen and Kristiansen (1996) investigated the effect of blasting on the subsequent
crushing and grinding operations and discussed how to evaluate the application of the
whole comminution system. From industrial tests and laboratory grinding experiments,
they found some relationships between drillhole diameter, the amount of explosives, the
VOD (Velocity of Detonation), and the portion of fines generated after blasting and
crushing. They pointed out that the separated responsibility between mining and mineral
considered as the first step of the integrated comminution process for the optimization of
Eloranta (1997) compared energy requirements for blasting, crushing and grinding. In
this study, actual energy usage was estimated by the Bond equation, and was utilized in
energy requirements for blasting, crushing and grinding. He suggested that Blasting may
enjoy as much as 3:1 cost advantage over grinding. on the basis of overall efficiency
5
Figure 2.1 Optimum blasting leading to cost minimization
Comparing the cost of energy from a different viewpoint, in explosives and in electricity,
an explosive has 5 times higher benefit than electricity, as shown in Table 2.1. Hence we
could say grinding is costly. Thus any improvement in grindability by an earlier process
may have an effect on overall economics. Eloranta presented cost information for blasting
and processing, obtained from the Mintac operations in Minnesota. Figure 2.2 shows total
costs compared to drilling and blasting costs and processing costs. Apparently an
6
Table 2.1 Energy cost comparison between explosive energy and electrical energy
(after J. Eloranta, 1997)
Figure 2.2 Overall costs for various powder factors (after J. Eloranta, 1997)
Ethier et al. (1999), Lafarge Canada Inc. have achieved significant improvements in
operating costs, efficiencies, and controls through the Finer Fragmentation Project in
1998. The project consisted of 14 blasts (5 pilot scale tests and 9 full production tests) to
7
Larfage Canada Inc. was able to practice better control of the overall operations as well
Expected savings of 17 % in the operating cost over the next two years
Nielsen (1999) tried to explain the effect of blasting on grinding using the microcrack
concept. He suggested that the P-wave may generate two sets of microcracks in the rock,
propagates outwards from the borehole. The wave has a compressive component in the
radial direction and a tensile component in the tangential direction. Due to the
deformations from the tensile component new cracks may be formed when the stress
level exceeds the dynamic tensile strength of the rock matrix or of single grains. Blast-
induced microcracks which are generated by the shock waves emitted throughout the
rock mass by the detonating explosive affect the reduction of the crushing and grinding
8
Figure 2.3 Generation of radial micro cracks by the tangential tensile stress at the front
of the P-wave (a), and concentric cracks by the tensile tail at the back
The work of Nielsen and Kristiansen (1996) indicated that the work index of several
rocks was influenced by blasting. However this assessment was not based on standard
methodology.
optimization and introduced an approach where the influence of blast results on:
Profit
9
He showed that the optimum blasting effect (in Figure 2.4) should consider all of the
above components.
where,
10
Through this approach, he insisted that blasting results could have a varying degree of
influence on both revenue and operating costs depending on the nature of the operation.
Two open pit operation examples demonstrated well that An approach to blast
optimization which only focus on minimizing the cost per ton of broken rock and ignores
the impact of blast results on downstream processes may not result in maximization of
profits, which is the main aim of any business (Kanchibotla, 2003). The author
This study also demonstrated that purely minimizing operating costs does not result in
optimum solution unless the impact on unit fixed costs and revenues are considered.
have conducted research work related to blasting effects on damage and grindability of
Katsabanis et al. (2003) conducted small scale blasting with granodiorite and limestone
blocks using single blasthole or multiple blastholes detonating at various timing intervals.
The damage to the blocks was investigated through P-wave velocity monitoring, work
indices and measuring of the point load index of the impacted rock. Insignificant changes
of the work index were observed, although significant changes of P-wave velocity and
11
point load index were recorded. The authors concluded that the standard Bond Ball Mill
Work Index test did not show large differences with the low impact level used in the tests,
especially when grinding the material to very small sizes around 100 m . From the
measurement of the reduction of P and S wave velocities, they concluded that rock
To evaluate the effect of blasting on grinding resistance of rock, Katsabanis et al. (2004)
have conducted single and multihole types of small scale blasting tests using
homogeneous blocks of granodiorite and limestone. Relative ball mill tests, rod mill tests,
and the SAG Performance Index test (SPI) were used to evaluate the grindability
resistance. Results showed a varying trend depending on the natural grain size of the rock
examined. Significant Work Index changes resulted in finely grained limestone samples,
while granodiorite was not significantly affected in fine grinding tests. However the SPI
test (Hikita, 2008) suggested easier grinding in SAG mills for the blasted samples.
the effect of delays on rock fragmentation using granodiorite samples. The tests
opportunity cost techniques, for maximizing Net Present Value. In this study, Caceres
tried to optimize one existing industrial project, as well as another new project. For the
12
ongoing operation project, facing higher metal prices, the Net Present Value was
but with increased drilling and blasting effort. In the new project, a reduction of 40 % in
global Net Present Value. The analysis was done considering fragmentation changes only,
without any effects on grindability due to blasting. There are possible additional savings
grinding circuits. Such a possibility has significant implications, which are worth
investigating further.
Through the literature review, one could establish that there are two types of major
benefits that can be achieved from finer blast fragmentation; increased productivity and
throughput and mine economics is well established. However the concept of decreased
energy requirements at the mill has found moderate success as evidenced by the small
changes of work index obtained by researchers at Queens. The differences between the
works of various researchers (Nielsen (1996, 1999), Lownds (1997), McCarter (1996),
etc.) suggest that further work is necessary. The strength of fragments is affected by
blasting (Katsabanis, 2003), although the effect of the changes on downstream operations
is not clearly established. The issue is how to quantify such effects for the purpose of
13
It is apparent that rock samples, with minimum variability of properties, and standard
tests examining the performance of blasted rock in grinding circuits have to be used. To
minimize variability, granite samples from dimensional stone quarries were selected. As
far as the grinding performance methods are concerned, the two methods used are the
Bond mill test (Bond, 1952, 1961, and Deister, 1987) and the drop weight test. The Bond
Ball Mill Work Index test has been used as a standard test of comminution circuit design
and to evaluate designed or operating plant performance. The Bond Work Index provides
an idea of how much energy is required to grind a sample of ore in a ball mill. However
the Bond Ball Mill Work Index test is time consuming and did not prove to be very
Queensland has conducted various and intensive research on comminution for over 40
years, and Napier-Munn et al. (1996) published the Monograph Series in Mining and
Mineral Processing. In these books the authors summarized and introduced the Single
Particle Breakage Characterization. Among various testing methods, the drop weight test
was considered a practical method for examining the performance of particles under
impact. It was introduced at JKMRC to replace the twin pendulum apparatus. According
to Napier-Munn et al. (1996) it provides extended input energy range, it has shorter test
duration, it can be used in a large range of sizes and it is more precise. Drop weight
testing allows for the measuring of material comminution properties at particle sizes
larger than found in other laboratory bench tests, such as rod and ball mill work index
14
The drop weight test consists of dropping a known mass on a fragment of known mass
from a known height. Thus, the specific energy imparted onto the particle can be
calculated. The fragments from the smashed particle are collected and sieved, permitting
analysis of the relationship between specific impact energy and particle size (Napier-
(
t10 = A 1 e bEis ) (2.2)
where t10 is the percentage passing the 1/10th of the initial size, Eis is the specific impact
and 5.
15
CHAPTER 3
Three different types of finished granite, measuring 25 x 25 x 25 cm, were purchased for
testing. The reason for purchasing finished monument stones was to evaluate the blasting
effect on intact rock and avoid bias. Stanstead granite, Laurentian granite, and Barre
granite were used in this study. The same drilling parameters and testing methods were
used for the three different types of granite samples. The purpose of the experiments was
to investigate the role of the powder factor, charge distribution, and timing on
fragmentation and grindability. A second objective was to examine the drop weight test
as a better alternative to the Bond Work Index Test in establishing the effect of blasting
on the resulting fragments. The Bond Work Index Test (Bond, 1952, 1961, and Deister,
1987) is time consuming and did not prove to be very sensitive to lower impact energy
inputs (Katsabanis et al., 2003). Thus, a more convenient and more sensitive method is
needed to establish the effect of blasting on grindability in the case of various powder
factors, corresponding to various levels of impact energy. As such the drop weight test
It is expected that fragments increase in size with distance from the blastholes. So it is
expected that larger fragments, originally located furthest from the borehole, will be less
influenced by the blast and therefore they will develop a smaller number of
16
microfractures. In Figure 3.1 and in the subsequent analysis, smaller fraction and
larger fraction refer to fragments less than approximately -11.2 to -37.5 mm and larger
than +63.0 mm, respectively. Detailed size selections are shown later in Table 6.7.
17
3.1 Physical Properties of the Three Granite Samples
Laboratory tests were conducted to obtain the rock mechanics properties of the samples
and to examine anisotropic behaviour in the samples. All the raw material handling
equipment, the diamond drilling machine, the diamond saw, and the diamond grinding
machine, were provided by the Raw Material Handling and Preparation Laboratory of the
in three perpendicular directions from the small blocks, three diamond drill cores were
obtained in each direction, using a 50 mm diameter drill, as shown in Figure 3.2. After
preparing the samples for basic physical property tests, all samples were tested in the
University.
Acoustic wave velocity measurement was performed in accordance with the procedures
Strength testing. The velocities of compressive (P-wave) and shear ultrasonic (S-wave)
waves through the core sample were measured using a Panametrics Pulser (model
5055PR), a computer with a high speed data acquisition card (NI 5102) and Compression
Wave and Shear Wave Transducers (models A 101S and V 151 respectively). Since
anisotropy affects the results, this test was conducted to examine the anisotropy of rock
samples for the three (X, Y, and Z axis) directions. Before measuring velocities for rock
samples, machine calibration was conducted using a steel specimen, as shown in Figure
18
3.3. The Virtual Bench-Scope software (National Instruments online manual library,
19
Five unconfined compressive strength tests for each direction were conducted to obtain
the unconfined compressive strength (UCS), Youngs modulus (E), and Poissons ratio
() parameters. Also, nine Brazilian tests for each direction were conducted to obtain the
indirect tensile strength of samples. All samples for Brazilian testing contained a marking
line to recognize proper direction of loading. A 500 kN Material Testing System (MTS)
servo-controlled compression loading frame, shown in Figure 3.4, was used for both tests.
A Material Testing System (MTS) extensometer Model 63212F-20 was used to measure
circuit was adapted in the extensometer to detect the dimensional changes along the
conditioner, and then they were sent to the controller (internal data acquisition system) in
The unconfined compressive strength tests were conducted with a constant stroke rate of
20
Figure 3.4 500 kN material testing system (servo-controlled unit)
21
The unconfined compressive strength of the specimen was calculated by dividing the
F
c = (3.1)
A
where:
c = Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)
F = Maximum failure load (kN)
A = Cross-sectional area of the core sample (cm2)
The Brazilian tensile strength test provides a measure of rock toughness, as well as
2F
T =10
DT (3.2)
where:
All basic physical properties of the rocks studied were summarized in Table 3.1. Detailed
test data can be found in Appendix A. Tables 3.2 3.4 illustrate mineral composition and
microstructural features for each sample provided by Dr. Bibhu Mohantys Research
22
Table 3.1 Physical properties of the rocks studied
Stanstead Granite
XY Plane 2.67 3450 13 2207 42 108 6.8 7.4 0.7 44 3.8 0.20 0.01
XZ Plane 2.66 3701 57 2268 63 115 11.6 7.5 0.5 46 4.9 0.21 0.01
YZ Plane 2.67 2629 41 1747 12 112 8.5 7.6 0.4 39 3.7 0.22 0.02
Laurentian Granite
XY Plane 2.65 4115 14 2379 13 191 21.0 12.3 0.8 65 2.1 0.22 0.02
XZ Plane 2.65 4448 46 2766 30 144 24.8 11.5 1.0 59 3.0 0.21 0.01
YZ Plane 2.65 4513 42 2823 27 174 20.2 12.6 1.1 72 5.6 0.22 0.01
Barre Granite
XY Plane 2.63 4320 106 2282 52 137 10.0 12.0 0.8 53 5.5 0.22 0.03
XZ Plane 2.64 3913 58 2250 26 137 12.7 11.0 1.2 52 0.4 0.21 0.01
YZ Plane 2.64 4192 47 2397 55 130 11.0 10.5 1.0 54 2.4 0.24 0.03
Stanstead Granite
XY Plane 0.93 25% 1.40 65% 0.60 10%
XZ Plane 0.95 23% 1.63 68% 0.62 9%
YZ Plane 0.94 26% 1.45 67% 0.60 7%
Laurentian Granite
XY Plane 0.39 33% 0.37 59% 0.25 5%
XZ Plane 0.56 34% 0.51 60% 0.41 3%
YZ Plane 0.54 30% 0.40 64% 0.28 3%
Barre Granite
XY Plane 1.25 25% 1.10 75% 0.46 4%
XZ Plane 1.30 31% 0.81 61% 0.43 6%
YZ Plane 1.20 31% 0.96 65% 0.40 4%
23
Table 3.3 Microstructural features of the rocks studied (Courtesy of B. Mohanty)
Stanstead Granite
XY Plane 1.17 1.14 1.03 893 5.20 1.38 0.52
XZ Plane 1.35 1.11 1.21 668 4.80 1.08 0.45
YZ Plane 1.28 1.13 1.12 771 2.80 0.94 0.41
Laurentian Granite
XY Plane 0.48 0.33 1.42 3913 6.10 0.5 0.18
XZ Plane 0.58 0.50 1.15 2545 2.50 0.71 0.21
YZ Plane 0.52 0.45 1.16 3808 2.00 0.65 0.23
Barre Granite
XY Plane 1.41 1.12 1.26 972 5.20 0.84 0.36
XZ Plane 1.08 1.00 1.07 1534 4.46 0.68 0.25
YZ Plane 1.38 1.10 1.25 1381 4.10 1.07 0.54
Since the main goal of this study is to investigate the effect of blasting on grindability,
baseline breakage parameters and the Bond Work Index of intact samples were needed to
To conduct drop weight impact tests on particles of different sizes, samples which had
not been subjected to blasting were cut using a diamond saw located in the Raw Material
Handling and Preparation Laboratory. Figure 3.6 shows one set of samples used for
impact testing on unblasted material by drop weight tests. Sample size intervals used in
the analysis were -63.0 +53.0 mm, -45.0 +37.5 mm, -31.5 +26.5 mm, -22.4 +19.0 mm, -
19.0 +16.0 mm, and -16.0 +13.2 mm. In order to cut the samples, the arithmetic mean was
24
applied for each size interval, these being 58.0 mm (except Laurentian granite), 41.25 mm,
29.0 mm, 20.7 mm, 17.5 mm, and 14.6 mm, respectively. Every size interval consisted of
2 or 3 batches, and each batch consisted of 10 fractions. Every effort was made to obtain
as many cube fractions as possible from one block of each granite samples.
25
14.6mm
20.7mm
17.5mm
29.0mm
41.25mm
Figure 3.6 Unblasted samples prepared for drop weight test (Laurentian granite)
26
3.3 Preparation for Blasted Samples
hammer drill to prepare blast holes. Five 11mm diameter and 23 cm long holes were
drilled as shown in Figures 3.7 and 3.8 using a template to have identical geometry. Each
sample was subjected to blasting with various methods, then all fragments were collected,
sieved, and used in the drop weight test and Bond Ball Mill test.
27
Figure 3.7 Sample drilling and specification for blasting
28
CHAPTER 4
The purpose of drop weight testing was to determine if blasting caused any apparent
change of the properties of the rock that would affect crushing and milling. Drop weight
testing allows for the measuring of material comminution properties at particle sizes
larger than found in other laboratory bench tests, such as rod and ball mill work index
testing (Bond, 1961). Thus, it can be used just after blasting with relatively large and
damaged samples. The drop weight tester developed at Queens University (Hikita, 2008)
The Queens Drop Weight Tester (QDWT) was designed and built by Chadwick
Engineering of Kingston, Ontario. The apparatus consists of a long vertical guide tube
which contains a cylindrical 20 kg steel weight of a slightly smaller diameter. The weight
down through the pipe and impact the sample on the sample stage at the apparatus base.
On the sample stage, a removable steel shroud is used to prevent material loss of
impacted samples. Two infra-red timing gates allow measurement of the velocity of the
drop weight, and were used for calibrating the effective gravitational constant of the
machine. Using the following Equation (4.1), Hikita (2008) calculated that the
acceleration constant which provides the best prediction for the observed gate was 9.36
29
m/s2 over the range of heights tested. This constant was used in this study. Figure 4.1
shows the configuration of the Queens Drop Weight Tester and two variables, x1 and x2.
2x2
t =
2ax2 + 2a (x1 + x2 )
(4.1)
where:
t = drop time
30
Drop Weight
Guide Tube
X1
23.5 cm Sample
31
4.2 Calculations for Drop Weight Sample Testing
The QDWT requires dropping a known mass on a fragment of known mass from a known
height. Thus, the specific energy imparted on the particle can be calculated. The
fragments from the smashed particle are collected and sieved, permitting analysis of the
relationship between specific impact energy and particle size (Napier-Munn et al., 1996).
E p = mgh
(4.2)
Dividing the potential energy by the mean mass of the sample particle batch provides the
Ep
Eis =
m (4.3)
where:
Eis
= specific energy (J/kg)
32
Substituting Equation (4.2) into (4.3) and converting energy units from J/kg to kWh/t (in
order to conduct direct comparison with the Bond Work Index) yields Equation (4.4):
0.0026mh
Eis =
m (4.4)
From Equation (4.4) the required drop height to provide a desired Eis level is:
Eis m
h =
0.0026m (4.5)
A procedure for drop weight testing, proposed by Napier-Munn et al. (1999) was
followed. First, rock fragments from the unblasted and the blasted samples were screened
into size fractions, examples of which are listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
Planned impact energies were varied with the amount of samples collected for different
rock types, charge methods and delay times. The basic concept was to collect and weigh a
set consisting of a minimum 10 particles. The average particle mass was then used to
determine the drop height required to provide the required specific impact energy
according to Equations (4.4) and (4.5). The pre-determined height was used for each
particle size-energy combination. After all the particles under the specific size-energy
combination were broken, the resulting fragments were combined together and screened
to obtain cumulative size distribution curves for each size-energy combination as shown
in Figure 4.2.
33
Table 4.1 Example of size interval and planned impact energies for each size-energy
Table 4.2 Example of size interval and planned impact energies for each size-energy
It can be noticed that there is a difference between planned and actual levels of impact
energy. The reason for this is the final height of the projectile, which is known after each
experiment.
34
Product Size Distribution
(Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 2) t2= 96 (1/2th of original size)
100
100 90
10
Average particle size
20 0
= (53+45)/2 =49 mm
0 5 10 15 20 25
Particle Size (mm)
4.9 24.5
0 9.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
The results of the screening are plotted as fragmentation distribution curves. Figure 4.2
shows fragmentation distribution curves obtained at various impact energy levels. For the
present analysis the critical fraction is the one passing one tenth the original fragment size
or t10. In the same fashion t2 stands for the percentage passing half of the original average
particle size. One can expect a higher t10 when higher impact energy is applied to a
sample until a certain level of energy is reached, beyond which changes are insignificant,
when the fracturing process becomes less efficient. Napier-Munn (1999) has suggested
that tn can be expressed as a function of t10 for a wide range of ores; thus knowing the t10
bE cs
t 10 = A( 1 e )
(4.6)
35
where t10 is the percent passing the 1/10 of the initial size, Ecs is the specific impact
energy (kWh/t) and A and b are breakage parameters. Parameter t10 indicates how fine the
distribution is. A larger t10 indicates a finer distribution. In the above formula A is the
limiting value of t10 while b is related to the gradient for a constant value of A. Parameter
A could be interpreted as the percentage of t10 at infinite impact energy and could be a
characteristic property of the material. It indicates that high impact energies are less
efficient. Typically variables A and b on their own do not carry a significant meaning.
However, the product A*b is the initial slope of the curve, indicative of the effect of
initial energy input on size reduction. As such, it is considered the best indication of
According to Napier-Munn et al. (1996) the product A*b correlates well with
Following JKMRC (Napier-Munn et al., 1999), most ores produce maximum t10 values in
In the present study, the results of drop weight test were statistically fitted with functions
included in scientific graphing and analysis software OriginPro 7.5 Student Version
developed by OriginLab Corporation. The coefficient of correlation (R2) for each fitting
has been provided by the same software. A typical fit is shown in Figure 4.3.
36
Figure 4.3 Effect of specific energy, Eis on the Breakage Index, t10
37
CHAPTER 5
A Bond Ball Mill Work Index (BMWI) test is a standard test for determining the Ball Mill
Work Index of a sample of ore. The BMWI test was developed by Fred C. Bond in 1952
and was modified in 1961. The BMWI test has been used all around the world in
designed or operating plant performance. The Bond Work Index provides an idea of how
much energy is required to grind a sample of ore in a ball mill. The BMWI is used to
determine the energy required for a ball mill process. According to JKMRC (Year 2005
The Bond mill used in the grindability tests of the present work was a Bico-Braun
laboratory ball mill (Model 395-50) as shown in Figure 5.1. The standard feed size for the
ball mill BWI test is material that has been crushed to minus 6 mesh (3.36 mm), which
makes the size similar to the product of the drop weight test. An initial volume of 700 cc
38
of the sample is milled and the minus 65 mesh (212m) fraction is screened out. The
mass of the minus 65 mesh fraction is replaced with fresh feed to keep the mass of the
mill feed constant. This cycle is repeated until the net mass of minus 65 mesh material
produced per mill revolution attains equilibrium with a circulating load of 250 %. Then
the undersize product from the last cycle and the circulating load are screen analyzed, and
the last three cycles net gram per revolution production is taken as the ball mill
The laboratory procedure implemented was the one found in the MINE 331
undergraduate laboratory manual (Yen, 1997).
39
5.2 Calculations for Bond Work Index Testing
The Bond Work Index was calculated using the equation (Bond, 1961):
44.5
Wi = (5.1)
1 1
(P1 ) (Gbp ) 10
0.23 0.82
P F2
2
where Wi is the work index, P1 is the screen test size in microns, Gbp is the net grams
undersize per revolution, P2 is the 80% product passing size in microns and F2 is the 80%
Mosher and Tague (2001) conducted the evaluation of the comminution energy
requirements of ores using the Bond Work Index Test and suggested that the precision of
the BWI is between 4~13 %. Their study focused on test reproducibility (indicating
repeat tests within the same lab), and the two numbers stand for indicated differences
between maximum and minimum values.
Napier-Munn et al. (1999) related rock mechanics parameters to the Bond Work Index to
provide a relationship between the two. Table 5.1 shows expected values of the
parameters for four types of rock. Thus the expected work index values of the rock
samples of the present work are between 9-14 kWh/t. However the range is rather wide.
Previous measurements of the strength of rocks after blasting (Katsabanis, 2003) have
shown that the P- and S- wave velocities and the density of the rock have decreased to
0.61 in damaged materials. It is questionable however that a change can be significant
enough to place the rock in a different category.
40
Table 5.1 Relationship between UCS and Bond Work Index (Napier-Munn et al., 1999)
Total power requirements (work input in kWh/t) for a ball mill can be calculated using the
1 1
W =10Wi (5.2)
P F80
80
and
P = T W (5.3)
where,
41
In the case of autogenous and semi-autogenous milling, power draw can be calculated on
the basis of the Bond Work Index and the mill size. The mill size can be determined
based on throughput.
42
CHAPTER 6
FACTORS
detonating cord at powder factors (q) of 0.391, 0.782, and 1.173 kg of PETN/m3.
The explosive charges consisted of one (powder factor, q=0.391 kg/m3), two (q=0.782
kg/m3), and three (q=1.173 kg/m3) strands of 5.3 g/m (25 grain/ft) PETN (Pentaerythritol
tetranitrate, also know as penthrite) detonating cord, which were taped together along
their length and inserted in the drilled boreholes. Water was used as the coupling medium.
A detonator, which was positioned outside of the block, was used to initiate all charges
simultaneously (Figure 6.1.). To prevent secondary breakage when fragments impact the
wall of the chamber within which blasting took place, the inside walls of the chamber
The amount of explosives used is shown in Table 6.1. For charge distribution tests,
waxed RDX (Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) was used with a mass that was adjusted to
have the same energy as the PETN of the detonating cord. Detailed calculations can be
found in APPENDIX B.
43
Table 6.1 Amount of explosives used in this study
The rock fragments created by blasting were sieved and weighed to get the corresponding
size distribution curve. Fractions were sized using 23 stages from +127 mm to -0.30 mm,
employing square sieves with 2 size intervals to get a single size range. The +127 mm
fragments were sorted by passing them individually through a square wooden frame form
by hand. Fragments smaller than the 4.75 mm sieve were screened using a vibrating
shaker.
The sieved rock fragments formed samples for the determination of grinding performance
44
Figure 6.1 Explosives charge for test blasting (q=0.391 kg/m3)
45
6.2 Test Results
After blasting, all fragments were collected and screened using U.S.A. Standard Sieves
(mesh size from -127 mm to -0.3 mm) as shown in Figures 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5. All detailed
Table 6.2 shows the 50% and 80% cumulative passing sizes of each sample.
Table 6.2 50% and 80% cumulative passing sizes for different powder factors (in mm)
The trends of 50% and 80% passing sizes show powder factors have a significant effect
on size distribution after blasting. Increasing powder factors resulted in smaller fragment
sizes; however the 50% passing sizes are similar regardless of rock types.
Fragmentation results do not show the creation and propagation of micro-cracks inside
fragments. As explained in the previous chapter analysis, using the drop weight test may
46
Size Distribution Analysis
(Stanstead Granite)
100
90
80 q = 0.391
Cumulative % Passing
70
q = 0.781
60
50 q = 1.173
40
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
80
q = 0.391
Cumulative % Passing
70
60 q = 0.781
50
q = 1.173
40
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
47
Size Distribution Analysis
(Barre_Before Drop Weight)
100
90
80 q = 0.391
70 q = 0.781
Cumulative % Passing
60
q = 1.173
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Screen Size (mm)
48
6.2.2 Results of Drop Weight Test
energies. All procedures were introduced in Chapter 4. Figures 6.6~6.8 show the
relationship between applied impact energy and t10 of the three different granite samples.
The breakage parameters A, b and A*b are given in Tables 6.3-6.5. Parameter A*b was
increased by blasting although the effect of powder factor is not always clear. Stanstead
and Barre granites showed increased weakening with powder factor while, in the case of
Laurentian granite, the trend appears to be diminishing at the higher powder factors.
The actual drop weight energies that were applied to the samples are listed in
APPENDIX D.
49
(a) Unblasted (b) q = 0.391 kg/m3
Figure 6.6 Breakage Parameters and t10 fittings for Stanstead granite
50
(a) Unblasted (b) q = 0.391 kg/m3
Figure 6.7 Breakage Parameters and t10 fittings for Laurentian granite
51
(a) Unblasted (b) q = 0.391 kg/m3
Figure 6.8 Breakage Parameters and t10 fittings for Barre granite
52
Table 6.3 Breakage Parameter changes for Stanstead granite
Breakage Parameter
A b
A* b
Unblasted 86.56 0.504 43.62
Breakage Parameter
A b
A* b
Unblasted 1838.86 0.012 22.01
Breakage Parameter
A b
A* b
Unblasted 122.16 0.25 31.09
53
6.2.3 Results of Bond Work Index Test
As in the case of the drop weight tests, testing to determine the Bond Work Index was
conducted on both unblasted and blasted samples. To prepare unblasted samples, the rock
particles left after cutting the cubes for the drop weight test were crushed by jaw and
The blasted rock fragments were designated as smaller (s) if the particle size was below
approximately 19 mm and larger (b) if above approximately 63 mm. Table 6.6 provides
the rock sizes for the various granites. As mentioned in Chapter 3, it was expected that
larger fragments would be less influenced by the blast and therefore they may develop a
smaller number of microfractures. This would be reflected in their work index values.
Selected samples were crushed and sized to between #6 (3.36 mm) and #65 (0.212 mm)
mesh and used for the Work Index determinations. The tests were conducted according to
the standard procedure developed by Bond (1952, 1960) and also followed the
Laboratory Manual and Course Notes, written by Yen (1997) for the standard ball mill of
the laboratory.
54
Table 6.6 Size selections for the Bond Work Index Test
All results from the Bond Work Index Tests for each type of granite sample were
The results show some trends with increasing powder factors. The trends may be useful
but they do not appear to be the same from rock to rock. A change from the unblasted
rock is always evident; however changes caused by different powder factors are not
55
Table 6.7 Results of the Bond Work Index test for Stanstead granite
Avg. Average
P1 Gbp P80 F80 Wi
Powder Factor Gbp Wi
[m] [m] [m]
[net g/revolution] [kWh/t]
unblasted 212 2.0709 2.071 172.45 2691.10 12.56 12.565
q=0.391 small 212 2.2985 169.80 2343.20 11.70
2.354 11.578
q=0.391 large 212 2.4086 171.10 2193.90 11.46
q=0.782 small 212 2.4314 170.70 2058.60 11.50
2.416 11.592
q=0.782 large 212 2.4000 173.10 2096.70 11.69
q=1.173 small 212 2.4931 170.30 2342.70 10.97
2.480 11.226
q=1.173 large 212 2.4675 172.80 2031.70 11.49
Table 6.8 Results of the Bond Work Index test for Laurentian granite
Avg. Average
P1 Gbp P80 F80 Wi
Powder Factor Gbp Wi
[m] [m] [m]
[net g/revolution] [kWh/t]
unblasted 212 2.3810 2.381 176.99 2490.06 11.5610 11.561
q=0.391 small 212 2.4632 176.75 2452.15 11.2648
2.448 11.234
q=0.391 large 212 2.4331 173.72 2504.57 11.2027
q=0.782 small 212 2.4710 174.50 2647.75 10.9873
2.471 10.986
q=0.782 large 212 2.4713 175.27 2696.65 10.9842
q=1.173 small 212 2.6249 174.08 2336.63 10.6768
2.630 10.619
q=1.173 large 212 2.6360 177.69 2629.54 10.5608
Table 6.9 Results of the Bond Work Index test for Barre granite
Avg. Average
P1 Gbp P80 F80 Wi
Powder Factor Gbp Wi
[m] [m] [m]
[net g/revolution] [kWh/t]
unblasted 212 2.5300 2.530 182.71 1710.00 12.1965 12.196
q=0.391 small 212 2.6100 183.78 1700.00 11.9385
2.690 11.753
q=0.391 large 212 2.7600 185.36 1639.30 11.5679
q=0.782 small 212 2.3700 162.42 2102.44 11.2827
2.620 11.432
q=0.782 large 212 2.8600 185.84 1478.32 11.5823
q=1.173 small 212 2.3300 175.86 2811.60 11.4723
2.550 11.614
q=1.173 large 212 2.7600 184.35 1519.78 11.7564
56
13.0
12.5
Work index, kWh/t
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
un-blasted q=0.391s q=0.391l q=0.782s q=0.782l q=1.173s q=1.173l
Sample
14
index
% decrease
12
Bond Work Index / % decrease
10
% decrease
8
0
unblasted q=0.391 q=0.782 q=1.173
Sample
Figure 6.10 Average Work Indices of Stanstead granite at various powder factors and the
percentage decrease in Work Index with increase in powder factor
57
Bond Work Index (kWhr/t) 12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
unblasted q=0.391s q=0.391l q=0.782s q=0.782l q=1.173s q=1.173l
Sample
14
index
% decrease
12
Bond Work Index (kWh/t)
10
% decrease
8
0
unblasted q=0.391 q=0.782 q=1.173
Sample
Figure 6.12 Average Work Indices of Laurentian granite at various powder factors and
the percentage decrease in Work Index with increase in powder factor
58
13.0
12.5
Bond Work Index, kWhr/t
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
unblasted q=0.391s q=0.391l q=0.782s q=0.782l q=1.173s q=1.173l
Sample
14
index
% decrease
12
10
Bond Work Index
8 % decrease
0
unblasted q=0.391 q=0.782 q=1.173
Sample
Figure 6.14 Average Work Indices of Barre granite at various powder factors and
the percentage decrease in Work Index with increase in powder factor
59
6.2.4 Result Comparison between Drop Weight Test and Bond Work Index Test
Summarized results of breakage parameters versus BWi are provided in Tables 6.10~12.
The results of the Bond Ball Mill test showed a small drop of the Work Index between
the unblasted and blasted samples. They also show an expected trend of reduction of the
Work Index with powder factor, although scatter and small changes make the observation
questionable. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a significant change between the
results of the smaller and larger samples. Apparently the effect of distance from the
explosive source was not very pronounced in the cases, distance and scale tested.
60
Table 6.10 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for Stanstead granite
Average
A b A* b BWi [kWh/t]
BWi
Unblasted 86.56 0.504 43.62 12.56
Smaller 11.70
q = 0.391 67.20 1.86 124.99 11.58
Larger 11.46
Smaller 11.50
q = 0.782 69.12 2.11 145.84 11.60
Larger 11.69
Smaller 10.97
q = 1.173 66.03 2.45 161.77 11.23
Larger 11.49
Table 6.11 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for Laurentian granite
Average
A b A* b BWi [kWh/t]
BWi
Unblasted 1838.86 0.012 22.01 11.56
Smaller 11.26
q = 0.391 61.92 0.75 46.44 11.23
Larger 11.20
Smaller 10.99
q = 0.782 54.73 1.22 66.77 10.99
Larger 10.98
Smaller 10.68
q = 1.173 69.37 0.86 59.66 10.62
Larger 10.56
Table 6.12 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for Barre granite
Average
A b A* b BWi [kWh/t]
BWi
Unblasted 122.16 0.25 31.09 12.20
Smaller 11.94
q = 0.391 63.18 0.95 60.16 11.75
Larger 11.57
Smaller 11.28
q = 0.782 57.43 1.29 74.37 11.43
Larger 11.58
Smaller 11.47
q = 1.173 58.94 1.33 78.48 11.61
Larger 11.76
61
The relationships between impact breakage parameters and powder factor are shown in
Figure 6.15, showing a logarithmic relationship. The slopes of Laurentian and Barre
granites are showing quite similar trends; however Stanstead granite shows significant
weakening with increasing powder factors. As shown in Tables 3.1-3.3, which present the
physical properties of the rocks tested, Stanstead granite is relatively weaker compared to
the other granites tested. As well, Stanstead granite has q relatively larger grain size of
feldspar and biotite probably resulting in longer micro cracks due to blasting.
As shown in Figure 6.16, the relationship between Bond Work Index and Powder Factor
Figure 6.17 shows the relationship between impact breakage parameter and Bond Work
Index. The same relationship has been suggested by Napier-Munn (1999). From this
relation between the Bond Ball Mill tests and the drop weight tests, one can use drop
weight tests as an alternative method to Bond Ball Mill Tests. For blasting optimization
purposes, drop weight tests might be more reliable to verify the effect of blasting, not
limited by the set final product size but depending on the disintegration of particles due to
a single impact.
62
Impact Parameter vs. Powder Factors
200 Stanstead
y = 61.204Ln(x) + 47.845
180 Laurentian
R2 = 0.9827
Barre
160 Log. (Stanstead)
Impact Parameter (A*b) Log. (Barre)
140 Log. (Laurentian)
120
y = 25.124Ln(x) + 31.793
R2 = 0.9924
100
80
60
y = 22.054Ln(x) + 23.061
40 R2 = 0.9062
20
0
91
82
73
ed
.3
.7
.1
st
=0
=0
=1
la
nb
PF
PF
PF
U
3
Powder Factor (kg/m )
y = 12.164x-0.0302
12 R2 = 0.8514
Bwi (kWh/t)
11.5
11
Stanstead
Laurentian
10.5 Barre y = 11.625x-0.0401
Power (Barre) R2 = 0.9101
10 Power (Stanstead)
Power (Laurentian)
9.5
91
82
73
ed
.3
.7
.1
st
=0
=0
=1
la
nb
PF
PF
PF
U
63
180
Stanstead
160 y = -90.358x + 1180.1 Laurentian
R 2 = 0.9655 Barre
140 Linear (Stanstead)
Linear (Barre)
120
Linear (Laurentian)
y = -62.208x + 791.81
100
A*b
R2 = 0.9101
80
60
40
y = -42.08x + 515.81
R 2 = 0.7164
20
0
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13
BWi (kWh/t)
64
CHAPTER 7
CHARGING METHOD
Four different shots with different charging methods were conducted with the same
Cubic samples of Barre granite were fragmented using a high powder factor of 1.173
kg/m3 to examine whether changes of the distribution of charge in the blast would affect
grindability. Thus, in addition to the previous method of using detonating cord in several
blastholes, concentrated charges were used at the centre of each block. Since air decking
has been proven to enhance secondary loading of the rock by stress waves (Liu and
Katsabanis, 1993), it was also examined in the same series of experiments. The rock
fragments were designated as smaller (s) if the particle size was below 19 mm and
larger (b) if they were above 63 mm, as in the previous chapter. Detailed sectional
The main purpose of these experiments was to examine the difference between column
charge and spherical charge (concentrated charge) as well as to examine the effect of
stemming on grindability.
65
After blasting, all analysis procedures were exactly the same as the procedures followed
66
Plan View
Section A-A
25 cm
23 cm
((a) Column Charge, (b) Air-Deck Charge, (c) Spherical Charge with Stemming,
(d) Centre Charge without Stemming, and (e) Bottom Charge without Stemming)
67
7.2 Test Results
Blast fragment screening results are shown in Figure 7.2, where the results of the column
charge are included for comparison. Geometry as well as boundary effects played a role
as in all experiments with blocks. However pairs of blasts can be examined. Thus, from
the comparison between the airdecked charge and the bottom charge without stemming,
the beneficial effect of air-decking in reducing fragment size can be observed. Similarly
the spherical charge benefitted from stemming, suggesting that gas penetration plays a
90 Column
Charge
80 Air Decking
with
Stemming
70 Bottom Charge
without
Stemming
Cumulative % Passing
60 Spherical Charge
with
Stemming
50
Spherical Charge
without
Stemming
40
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
Figure 7.2 Blast fragment screening results for different charge method
68
Table 7.1 shows the 50 % and 80 % cumulative passing sizes of each sample.
Table 7.1 50% and 80% cumulative passing sizes for different charge method
The spherical charge with stemming samples showed the best fragmentation. The column
charge with stemming and air-deck charge samples showed the next best fragmentation.
Blasted samples without stemming have shown poorer fragmentation than samples with
stemming.
The overall appearance of fragmentation does not show the exact effect of blasting as the
69
7.2.2 Results of Drop Weight Test
In order to check the effect of micro fracturing inside the fragments, drop weight tests
Breakage Parameter
Charge Method A b
A*b
Column 58.94 1.33 78.48
According to Table 7.2, the column charge sample showed the highest breakage
parameter (A*b). Apart from this, stemming had some moderate influence, as the
difference between stemmed and unstemmed charges with spherical charge indicates.
Surprisingly air-decking did not appear to have a significant effect as the breakage
parameter A*b is almost the same for both unstemmed and air-decked cases with a minor
waves in the deck of air above the charge. This creates a secondary loading in the
surrounding area, which is known to increase damage in the stemming area (Liu and
70
Katsabanis, 1996; Fourney, 1983). The experimental results demonstrate that the
distribution of blasting energy throughout the sample has an effect on grindability while
stemming appears to have a smaller effect. Certainly, more testing is needed to determine
whether the differences between the results of the concentrated charge methods are
significant.
Figure 7.3 shows the calculated breakage parameters and t10 fittings for all different
71
(a) Column Charge (b) Air-Deck Charge
(c) Spherical Charge with Stemming (d) Centre Spherical without Stemming
Figure 7.3 Breakage parameters and t10 fittings for charge method
(Barre granite, q = 1.173 kg/m3)
72
7.2.3 Results of Bond Work Index Test
The Bond Work Index was determined for the various charge configurations. Size
Collections for all the Bond Work Index tests were as follows.
Smaller: -11.2 mm
Larger: +63.0 mm
In this application similar amount of blasted fractions for each size interval were achieved
because the same powder factor was used for all cases.
All results from the Bond Work Index tests for different charge methods are summarized
Table 7.3 Results of Bond Work Index test for charge method
Avg. Average
Charge P1 Gbp P80 F80 Wi
No. Gbp Wi
Method [m] [m] [m]
[net g/revolution] [kWh/t]
1 Column small 212 2.33 175.86 2812 11.4723
2.55 11.614
2 Column large 212 2.76 184.35 1520 11.7564
3 Air-Deck small 212 2.86 185.85 1250 12.1676
2.83 11.963
4 Air-Deck large 212 2.79 181.03 1400 11.7578
Spherical Charge
5 with Stem small
212 2.28 182.77 2200 12.5568
Spherical Charge
2.29 12.534
6 with Stem large
212 2.29 182.46 2160 12.5122
Centre Spherical
7 w/o Stem small
212 2.71 183.83 1330 12.3624
Centre Spherical
2.65 12.385
8 w/o Stem large
212 2.58 182.49 1480 12.4078
Bottom Spherical
9 w/o Stem small
212 2.72 182.99 1160 12.8111
Bottom Spherical
2.66 12.918
10 w/o Stem large
212 2.60 183.70 1250 13.0247
73
7.2.4 Result Comparison between Drop Weight Test and Bond Work Index Test
Comparison of the drop weight tests and Bond Work Index tests results are provided in
Table 7.4 and Figure 7.4. It appears that the distributed charge resulted in the largest
In this chapter, the same powder factor of 1.173 kg/m3 was applied for all samples,
meaning that all samples were subjected to the same amount of blast energy. However
stress wave propagation is different in the various tests, meaning that its effects, such as
microfracturing, may be different. On the other hand boundary effects play a role and the
effects of stress wave propagation may be masked by the effect of the multiple reflections
caused at the boundaries. Furthermore the Bond Work Index test may not be as sensitive
to minor changes in the microfracture density. As a result the difference in the Bond
74
Table 7.4 Comparison of breakage parameters vs. BWi for charge method
90 90
85 85
Breakage Parameter
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
60 60
55 55
50 50
Bond Work Index
12.5 12.5
10 10
1 2 3 4 5
Charge Method
75
CHAPTER 8
In the previous chapters, all experiments with detonating cord were conducted with
simultaneous initiation of all five charges. It has been supported that fragmentation
have been proposed to enhance blast damage in the rock. Typically such damage is
concentrated close to the collision area, although its extent may be limited (Katsabanis et
al. (1995)).
The next series of experiments were conducted to examine the influence of delay timing
For the in-hole collision tests, five breakthrough holes were drilled in each granite sample.
Conceptual views of the in-hole collision blasting process are presented in Figure 8.1.
For delayed samples, an initiation order was followed as shown in Figure 8.2. Delay
timing was adjusted by modifying the length of detonating cord outside each hole, to
establish a certain delay pattern. Instantaneous column charge results from the previous
chapters were used for comparison of the in-hole collision and delay timing. Delay
76
granite were tried. These correspond to very fast initiation times; experimental evidence
under similar small scale conditions (Katsabanis, 2005) has suggested that fragmentation
is very coarse when zero delay is used but the average fragment size does not change
much once small delays are used. In all cases the powder factor was 1.173 kg/m3.
77
Figure 8.1 Basic concept of in-hole collision blasting
78
Figure 8.2 Initiation order for delayed sample
79
8.2 Test Results
The results for Stanstead granite are shown in Figure 8.3. Fragmentation was improved
when a short delay of 10 s was used. In-hole Collision blasting, obtained with a powder
factor of 1.173 kg/m3, showed fragmentation inferior to that obtained with simultaneous
initiation.
The results for Laurentian granite are shown in Figure 8.4. In-hole collision blasting did
improved fragmentation.
For Barre granite, in-hole collision blasting showed an insignificant effect on the
Table 8.1 shows the 50 % and 80 % cumulative passing sizes for the series of
80
Size Distribution Analysis
(Stanstead_Before Drop Weight)
100
90
Simultaneous
80
10 ms delay
70
PF = 0.391
Cumulative % Passing
60
PF = 0.782
50
PF = 1.173
40
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
P.F = 0.391
90
80 P.F = 0.781
70 P.F = 1.173
Cumulative % Passing
60 Collision
Simultaneous
50 10ms Delayed
40 20 ms Delayed
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
81
Size Distribution Analysis
(Barre_Before Drop Weight)
100
Column
Charge
90
80 Air Decking
with
Stemming
70
Bottom Charge
without
Stemming
60
Cumulative % Passing
Spherical Charge
with
50 Stemming
Spherical Charge
40 without
Stemming
30 Simultaneous
Collision
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
82
Table 8.1 50 % and 80 % cumulative passing sizes for in-hole collision and delayed
Laurentian
Blasting Stanstead Granite Barre Granite
Granite
Condition
50 % 80 % 50 % 80 % 50 % 80 %
83
8.2.2 Results of Drop Weight Test
In order to examine the effect of micro fracturing inside the fragments, drop weight tests
were conducted for selected single fragments. All procedures were introduced in Chapter
4. Figures 8.6-8.8 show the relationship between applied impact energy and t10 of three
The results of breakage parameters changes are given in Tables 8.2 8.4.
Unlike the previous Table 8.1, Stanstead and Barre granites showed almost the same
Laurentian granite produced interesting results in the drop weight tests indicating that in-
hole collision blasting resulted in significantly higher breakage parameters while a small
delay time improved grindability compared to the case of the simultaneous initiation of
column charges. Future work will indicate whether these results are due to scatter or due
to the nature of the rock (harder with smaller grain size). It is worth noting that the
experiment with the delay time of 20 s was repeated and the fragmentation results were
identical.
84
(a) Column Charge (b) Simultaneous Collision
(c) 10 s delayed
Figure 8.6 Breakage parameters and t10 fittings for Stanstead granite
85
(a) Column Charge (b) Simultaneous Collision
Figure 8.7 Breakage parameters and t10 fittings for Laurentian granite
86
(a) Column Charge (b) Simultaneous Collision
Figure 8.8 Breakage parameters and t10 fittings for Barre granite
87
Table 8.2 Breakage parameter changes for Stanstead granite
Breakage Parameter
Blasting Condition A b
A*b
Column Charge 69.03 2.45 161.99
Breakage Parameter
Blasting Condition A b
A*b
Column Charge 69.37 0.86 59.86
Breakage Parameter
Blasting Condition A b
A*b
Column Charge 58.94 1.33 78.48
88
CHAPTER 9
9.1 Discussion
The experimental work of this thesis attempted to examine the effect of powder factor
and charge distribution on grindability of specific rock materials. In the process, the Bond
Work Index and impact breakage parameters of these specific rock types were obtained,
As far as the Bond Work Index results are concerned, the differences between the work
indices of fragments obtained by different powder factors were so small that they may be
reduction of the work index of the material by 5-11%, compared to material which had
not been blasted. The change of the A*b parameter, obtained by the analysis of the drop
weight test, suggests that there is some softening of the rock due to blasting.
The above may seem to contradict previous findings by Nielsen (1996), who suggested
that more significant changes occurred due to blasting. However, Nielsens results on the
work index were based on relative tests, instead of the standard methodology used in this
thesis. One cannot dispute that in both cases softening of the rock due to blasting was
standard tests. For example, fine grinding is related to work index, while parameter A*b,
89
obtained using the effect of impact energy on t10, has been related to the performance of
SAG mills.
Effects of blasting on SAG mill performance are worth pursuing due to the investment
associated with their installation and the energy requirements in running them. It is worth
pointing out that the drop weight test is representative for size reduction occurring by
impact; thus the relationship between parameter (A*b) and SAG performance, where
breakage occurs due to impact as well as abrasion, is not straight forward. Nevertheless,
simulations of mill operations use the breakage parameters obtained by the analysis of t10
The Breakage Index, t10, was used as a sole indicator of softening by blasting. This is
supported by work of others (JKMRC, etc.). However, complete size distribution curves
have been developed by the experiments of this thesis, permitting further analysis in the
future. It is worth noting that t10 is only one point in the size distribution. Whether this
Impact crushing occurs in a variety of size reduction operations. Thus, the modification
of impact breakage parameters means that there are energy savings in the size reduction
operations resulting from increased powder factors in blasting. The stage at which the
is not clear yet. This thesis has suggested that impact breakage parameters of rock
90
fragments are affected by blasting. It is also pointed out that there appear to be
diminishing returns by increasing powder factors. Since the energy cost of grinding is so
high, it could be significantly economical if energy used for grinding was strategically
distributed into blasting and crushing, as mentioned by Bilodeau et al. (2008). Close
monitoring of both fragmentation operations and crushing and grinding performance can
There is a general trend between breakage parameter (A*b) and work index (Napier-
Munn, 1996), suggesting that work index decreases as A*b increases. It is experimentally
easier to obtain A*b than the work index and it was considered prudent to concentrate our
A wealth of data regarding breakage of single particles was produced by small scale blast
experiments. It is recognised that the small scale blasting experiments of this work are not
identical to mine blasts, since they had more free faces than a blast and the distribution of
the charge, as well as the type of charge, are different. However, the tests are valid on a
relative, comparative basis. Furthermore, they are not plagued by the heterogeneity of the
material, which is typical in large scale blasting experiments. Thus, small scale tests offer
more control of geometry and materials at the expense of a complex interaction between
the waves and the multiple reflecting surfaces, which creates additional factors that
91
Energy distribution using different charge methods was examined in limited tests. The
results suggest that distributed charges may offer advantages in grinding. This needs to be
examined further, in larger scale, where the distribution of the charges can be modified
by the use of different borehole diameters and/or different mining methods. The effect
Timing was examined in this study. Since electronic detonators are finding acceptance in
the industry, there may be significant advantages from precise initiation, As far as
fragmentation and the importance of timing are concerned, there have been several
studies, which do not always point in the same direction. In this study, it was attempted to
number of tests shows that timing may have an effect for harder rocks. Our timing was
short compared to the millisecond (ms) blasting used in practice. This was done to enable
interaction between stress waves in the specimen. However interaction of stress waves
with free faces in the block also played a role, suggesting that the geometry of the sample
and the small scale nature of the test most likely affected the final result. In any case,
difference of the final results indicates that timing, leading to stress wave interaction, is
92
Blasting is an application of energy and energy distribution. Powder factor, distribution
and timing should affect the outcome. In the following these effects, as related to the
As shown in Tables 9.1 and 9.2, the powder factor was the most important parameter
The relationship between the 50% passing size and explosive concentration is:
where x50 is the 50% passing size (mm) and q is the explosive charge concentration
(kg/m3).
expected. The exponent -0.85 in the previous relationship is not significantly different
from Kuznetsovs exponent of -0.8 in the well known equation used in the Kuz Ram
In practice, powder factor can range within certain limits. A very low powder factor
results in poor breakage and poor diggability, while a very high powder factor results in
increased damage, throw, vibration and air blast problems. The present work shows that
breakage parameters do not increase indefinitely but there are decreasing gains to the
93
application of excess explosive energy. Thus there is a powder factor above which
calculated annual savings close to $700,000 for an operation crushing 40 million tons of
taconite based on an assumed 8% decrease of the work index with doubling of the
powder factor and an explosive cost of $0.56/kg. He suggested that the savings would be
twice as large in the case of an explosive cost of $0.45/kg. Cleary the savings could
In the present work, the breakage parameter was increased by increased powder factors
while there was a small change of work index. Stanstead and Barre granites were clearly
softened as powder factors increased. In the case of Stanstead granite, which was
considered soft initially, the changes were significant. Unlike Stanstead and Barre
granites, Laurentian granite did not show an increasing breakage parameter trend for
increasing powder factor of 0.782 kg/m3 to 1.173 kg/m3. The reason for Laurentian
The Bond Work Index showed a small decrease as a function of powder factor, which can
The case of Barre granite was used to examine the influence of charge distribution on
grindability. It was clear that the largest value of the parameter A*b was obtained when
94
the charge was distributed in many boreholes. Practically this means use of smaller
diameter holes and smaller burden and spacing. However this typically increases the cost
The use of concentrated charges decreased the value of (A*b) and occasionally resulted
in inferior fragmentation, thus decked or short charges are not very effective in improving
grindability. This suggests that there may be benefits in longhole stoping mining methods
obtained in the case of stemmed charges. Energy losses through stemming ejections
appear to improve when stemming was used. This is not surprising since grindability is
related to the propagation of stress waves rather than the sustained action of the
detonation gases on the wall of the borehole. However the cause of fragmentation by
products.
95
The effect of the delay time on fragmentation is an issue that has created much debate in
the blasting community (Vanbrabant et al. (2006), Rossmanith (2002), Katsabanis et al.
(2006)).
The purpose of the present work was to find whether drastic changes could occur in the
grindability of fragments when the delay changed. In the process, it became apparent that
not observed in the limited number of tests which were conducted. In-hole collisions of
detonation waves had a detrimental effect on the fragmentation of Barre and Stanstead
expected, influenced the fragmentation of Stanstead and Laurentian granites and the
coarsest fragmentation was achieved with simultaneous initiation of all charges. The
optimum time, which may be affected by the small scale nature of the test, was not
obtained in this study. As far as effects on impact breakage are concerned, it appears that
wave interactions did not influence the (A*b) parameter in any significant fashion in the
cases of Barre and Stanstead granite, while the effect of shock wave collisions on
Laurentian granite was significant. Timing, in the case of Laurentian, played a role in the
case of the 10 s delay, where the rock fragments were significantly weaker than the rock
fragments resulting from instantaneous initiation. The 20 s delay does not appear to
have as much an effect, suggesting that the 20 s delay may have been too long for
grindability improvements.
96
In experimental work done by Bilodeau et al. (2008), the electronic detonators could
achieve a reduction of the run-of-mine size distribution of about 15%, which includes 5%
increased production at the quarry and 10% energy and operating cost reductions at the
primary crusher. Thus one can say that the accuracy of detonators plays an important role
in mining operations.
97
Table 9.1 50 % and 80 % cumulative passing sizes for blasting methods studied (in mm)
Column
25.5 61.5 29.2 71.5 26.6 69.7
Charge
Simultaneous
42.5 76.0 28.7 61.0 51.4 80.3
(Collision)
Air-Deck
- - - - 36.0 91.5
Charge
Spherical
Charge with - - - - 22.5 55.9
Stemming
Centre
Spherical w/o - - - - 42.8 87.6
Stemming
Bottom
Spherical w/o - - - - 64.0 141.7
Stemming
98
Table 9.2 Breakage parameter (A*b) for blasting methods studied
Column
161.77 59.66 78.48
Charge
Simultaneous
161.00 102.08 78.45
(Collision)
20 s delayed - 67.17 -
q = 1.173
Air-Deck
- - 58.43
Charge
Spherical
Charge with - - 63.31
Stemming
Centre
Spherical w/o - - 56.68
Stemming
Bottom
Spherical w/o - - 56.60
Stemming
99
9.2 Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Work
9.2.1 Conclusions
Results of this study showed that powder factor influences the impact breakage of rocks,
determined by the analysis of the drop weight test, thus affecting the cost of downstream
size reduction, as well as the fragmentation itself. The study showed that the initial slope
of the t10 (impact energy relationship) increases with powder factor, although this study
suggested that at higher powder factors such increases may be smaller than at lower
factor, where the best fragmentation and highest initial slope of the t10 impact energy
curve were obtained for the distributed charge. In-hole collision appeared to be effective
only in the case of Laurentian granite while delay timing appears to be a factor
blasting. The effect of blasting on the Bond Work Index was not as large as for previous
work, based on non-standard tests, had indicated, while there was a clearer effect when
The present work did not examine the effects of gas penetration. The majority of the
experiments involved unstemmed boreholes detonating at exactly the same time. The
focus of the present research was not to shed light on the debate of what causes
100
fragmentation, but on the examination of the role of stress waves on the formation of
microcracks. The thrust behind this was to evaluate methods to increase the grindability
of rocks with blasting, which can lead to significant savings at the mill.
The t10 analysis is based on using the t10 as an indicator of grindability assuming that t10
can be used to obtain the other fractions (tn); these are based on standard appearance
fraction data used by JKMRC. They claim that these are the same for the majority of
rocks. The present work has generated a wealth of data to generate new appearance
function data for blasted rock. A major contribution of the work is to generate vast
This was a small scale study. The results are correct relatively speaking as the boundaries
had the same effect on all tests conducted. Therefore blasting operations in the mining
industry should be designed and optimized in order to obtain the lowest overall
The following work is suggested to utilise the findings, clarify some of the issues which
emerged from this work and enhance the energy efficiency of comminution:
101
Simulation of typical comminution circuits based on the breakage parameters and
distribution of charge (the parameters that influence the results the most) should
be conducted. These would examine changes that can occur in practice with
significant issue, which will increase the scatter of the observed results, one
undertaken to enable the industry to evaluate the effects of the present findings in
102
REFERENCES
Archibald, J.F., 2002, Applied Rock Mechanics and Laboratory, MINE 325 Course Notes,
Bearman, R.A., Briggs, C.A., and Kojovic, T., 1997, The Application of Rock Mechanics
Bilodeau, M., Labrie, D., Boisclair, M., Beaudoin, R., Roy, D., and Caron, G., 2008,
Mineral & Metallurgical Processing, Feb. 2008, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 32-40.
Bohloli, B., Gustafson, G., and Tonge, B., 2001, A Laboratory Study on Reducing the
Quantity of Rock Fines at Failure: Application to Rock Blasting and Crushing, Bull Eng
Bond, F. C., 1952, The third theory of comminution. Mining Engineering, AIME
Bond, F. C., 1961, Crushing and grinding calculations (Part I and II), Allis-Chalmers
103
Cceres, J.A., Katsabanis, P.D., Pelley, C.W. and Kelebek, S., 2006, Maximizing NPV
years on, Trans. 1st Int. Symp. Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Colorado, pp. 475-487.
Effects, Proc. on Explosives and Blasting technique, Holmberg, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
123-128.
Deister, R.J., 1987, How to determine The Bond Work Index using lab ball mill
grindability tests, Engineering and Mining Journal, February 1987, pp. 42-45.
Dirige, A.P.E., 2003, Engineering design of paste backfill systems, Ph. D. thesis,
Ethier, R., Levaque, J.-G., and Wilson, M., 1999, Achieving finer fragmentation and
proving the cost benefits, Fragblast 1999, Johannesburg, South Africa Institute of Mining
104
Eloranta, J., 1995, Selection of Powder Factor in Large Diameter Blastholes, General
Proceeding & 21st Annual Conference, International Society of Explosives Engineers, pp.
68-77.
Eloranta, J., 1997, The Efficiency of Blasting Verses Crushing and Grinding, General
Proceeding & 23rd Annual Conference, International Society of Explosives Engineers, pp.
157-163.
Gktan, R. M., 1991, Brittleness and Micro-Scale Rock Cutting Efficiency, Mining
Hikita. D., 2008, The Influence of Blasting on Kemess Hypogene Ore Milling,
122-125.
Services/Comminution-Testing/JK-Drop-Weight-Test/detail.htm
Services/Comminution-Testing/Bond-Ball-Mill-Index-Test-(BBMWI)/
Kanchibotla, S.S., 2003, Optimum Blasting? Is it Minimum Cost Per Broken Rock or
Maximum Value Per Broken Rock?, Fragblast 2003, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 35-48.
105
Katsabanis, P.D., Liu, L., Steeves, K. and Dombrowski, D., 1995, Blast control using
Katsabanis, P.D., Gregersen, S., Kelebek, S. and Pelley, C., 2003, Small scale study of
damage due to blasting and implications on Crushing and Grinding, 29th Annual
Katsabanis, P.D., Kunzel, G., Pelley, C. and Kelebek, S., Damage development in small
Katsabanis, P.D., Gregersen, S., Kunzel, G., Pollanen, M., Pelley, C. and Kelebek, S.,
2003, Effects of Blasting on Damage and Grindability of Impacted Rock, the 105th
Annual General Meeting of CIM, Montreal, Quebec, May 4-7, pp. 1272-1287.
Katsabanis, P.D., Kelebek, S., Pelley, C. and Pollanen, M., 2004, Blasting Effects on the
106
Katsabanis, P.D., Tawadrous, A., Braun, C. and Kennedy, C., 2006, Timing Effects on
Katsabanis, P.D., Kim, S., Tawadrous, A., Sigler, J., 2008, Effect of powder factor and
timing on the impact breakage of rocks, 34th Annual Conference on Explosives and
Liu, Q. and Katsabanis, P.D., 1993, A theoretical approach to the stress waves around a
borehole and their effect on rock crushing, Fourth International Symposium on Rock
Proceeding & 23rd Annual Conference, International Society of Explosives Engineers, pp.
101-109.
Rock Types, 1996 Proceeding of the Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Mosher, J.B. and Tague, C.B., 2001, Conduct and Precision of Bond Grindability Testing,
107
Napier-Munn, T.J., Morrell, S., Morrison, R.D., Kojovic, T., 1999, Mineral Comminution
Circuits; Their Operation and Optimisation (Book), JKMRC Monograph Series in Mining
and Mineral Processing 2, The University of Queensland, pp. 57-66, 71-73, 76-94.
Nasseri, M.H.B., Mohanty, B., and Robin, P-Y.F., 2005, (Technical Note)
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Science, 42, pp. 450-460.
Nielsen, K., 1999, Economic effects of blasting on the crushing and grinding of ores,
Fragblast 1999, Johannesburg, South Africa Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 251-
256.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Science, 38, pp. 671-682.
108
Rossmanith, H.P., 2002. The use of Lagrange diagrams in precise initiation blasting. Part
Vanbrabant, F., and Espinosa, A., 2006, Impact of short delays sequence on
Yen, W.T., 1997, Physical Methods of Mineral Extraction, MINE 331 Laboratory
Manual and Course Notes, Department of Mining Engineering, Queens University, pp.
109
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
110
111
Table A.2 Brazilian Tensile Tests results of Stanstead Graite
TABLE OF ROCK PROPERTY DATA : Brazilian Test
Rock Type : Stanstead Granite
Size of Specimen Load at Tensile
Plane Sample Diameter Thickness Failure Strength Remarks
(mm) (mm) (kN) (MPa)
1 50.77 10.23 6.97 8.5
2 50.75 9.80 6.01 7.7
3 50.75 10.36 6.68 8.1
4 50.75 8.42 4.15 6.2
5 50.77 9.25 5.3 7.2 Loading
XY
Direction
(Z- 6 50.79 9.46 5.96 7.9
=>
Axis) 7 50.79 9.76 6 7.7 X - Axis
8 50.81 9.76 5.56 7.1
9 50.77 10.11 6.31 7.8
Average 50.77 9.68 5.88 7.58
St.Dev. 0.02 0.59 0.83 0.68
1 50.69 10.91 6.78 7.8
2 50.70 10.62 5.97 7.1
3 50.65 10.54 5.55 6.6
4 50.64 10.59 6.46 7.7
5 50.71 10.49 5.79 6.9 Loading
XZ
Direction
(Y- 6 50.72 10.97 7.08 8.1
=>
Axis) 7 50.74 10.43 6.79 8.2 Z - Axis
8 50.72 10.53 6.19 7.4
9 50.73 10.70 6.04 7.1
Average 50.70 10.64 6.29 7.42
St.Dev. 0.03 0.19 0.51 0.54
1 50.78 10.48 6.24 7.5
2 50.74 10.92 6.92 8.0
3 50.84 10.83 6.37 7.4
4 50.75 11.26 7.03 7.8
5 50.76 11.38 6.01 6.6 Loading
YZ
Direction
(X- 6 50.78 11.30 6.76 7.5 =>
Axis) 7 50.79 10.77 6.22 7.2 Y Axis
8 50.74 11.40 7.19 7.9
9 50.74 10.42 6.42 7.7
Average 50.77 10.97 6.57 7.51
St.Dev. 0.03 0.38 0.41 0.42
112
113
Table A.4 Brazilian Tensile Tests results of Laurentian Graite
TABLE OF ROCK PROPERTY DATA : Brazilian Test
Rock Type : Laurentian Granite
Size of Specimen Load at Tensile
Plane Sample Diameter Thickness Failure Strength Remarks
(mm) (mm) (kN) (MPa)
1 50.76 10.60 11.06 13.1
2 50.70 9.44 8.43 11.2
3 50.83 9.40 8.96 11.9
4 50.70 10.63 11.59 13.7
5 50.71 10.79 11.21 13.0 Loading
XY
Direction
(Z- 6 50.74 8.92 9.26 13.0
=>
Axis) 7 50.71 9.26 9.81 13.3 X - Axis
8 50.71 9.72 9.67 12.5
9 50.72 10.45 9.97 12.0
Average 50.73 9.91 10.00 12.64
St.Dev. 15.48 0.71 1.08 0.79
1 50.77 8.32 7.21 10.9
2 50.79 9.32 9.64 13.0
3 50.76 9.28 9.27 12.5
4 50.86 8.43 7.72 11.5
5 50.76 8.95 9.46 13.3 Loading
XZ
Direction
(Y- 6 50.78 8.59 8.67 12.7
=>
Axis) 7 50.81 10.01 10.67 13.4 Z - Axis
8 50.76 10.18 10.33 12.7
9 50.76 9.74 8.32 10.7
Average 50.78 9.20 9.03 12.28
St.Dev. 0.03 0.68 1.15 1.01
1 50.75 8.26 6.64 10.1
2 50.75 9.97 8.42 10.6
3 50.75 9.82 8 10.2
4 50.75 10.30 9.92 12.1
5 50.75 9.98 9.98 12.5 Loading
YZ
Direction
(X- 6 50.88 9.82 8.69 11.1
=>
Axis) 7 50.78 10.22 9.93 12.2 Y - Axis
8 50.74 10.05 9.71 12.1
9 50.75 9.83 10.11 12.9
Average 50.77 9.81 9.04 11.53
St.Dev. 0.04 0.60 1.19 1.05
114
115
Table A.6 Brazilian Tensile Tests results of Barre Graite
TABLE OF ROCK PROPERTY DATA : Brazilian Test
Rock Type : Barre Granite
Size of Specimen Load at Tensile
Plane Sample Diameter Thickness Failure Strength Remarks
(mm) (mm) (kN) (MPa)
1 50.50 10.89 8.31 9.6
2 50.44 11.71 9.17 9.9
3 50.41 11.84 9.87 10.5
4 50.41 10.64 9.01 10.7
5 50.43 10.18 9.8 12.2 Loading
XY
Direction
(Z- 6 50.40 10.65 8.77 10.4
=>
Axis) 7 50.45 11.01 8.46 9.7 X - Axis
8 50.42 9.81 8.03 10.3
9 50.41 10.72 9.56 11.3
Average 50.43 10.83 9.00 10.51
St.Dev. 0.03 0.65 0.66 0.81
1 50.52 10.53 10.73 12.8
2 50.57 11.71 11.13 12.0
3 50.64 11.84 9.67 10.3
4 50.57 10.64 10.07 11.9
5 50.59 10.18 10.83 13.4 Loading
XZ
Direction
(Y- 6 50.64 10.65 11.4 13.5
=>
Axis) 7 50.68 11.01 10.16 11.6 Z - Axis
8 50.77 9.81 9.87 12.6
9 50.66 10.72 8.77 10.3
Average 50.63 10.79 10.29 12.04
St.Dev. 0.07 0.66 0.82 1.19
1 50.41 12.18 9.78 10.1
2 50.64 10.75 10.18 11.9
3 50.50 11.73 11.44 12.3
4 50.41 12.28 11.68 12.0
5 50.59 9.34 7.64 10.3 Loading
YZ
Direction
(X- 6 50.56 11.18 9.83 11.1
=>
Axis) 7 50.17 10.33 8.45 10.4 Y - Axis
8 50.31 10.62 7.82 9.3
9 50.31 12.37 10.91 11.2
Average 50.43 11.20 9.75 10.95
St.Dev. 0.15 1.03 1.50 1.00
116
APPENDIX B
117
Barre Granite
Powder Factor
Item Weight (kg)
(kg/m3)
Unblasted - N/A Powder Factor
Calculated
Blasted 1 43.20 0.391 As a
Blasted 2 43.30 0.782
Equivalent
Blasted 3 43.44 1.173 PETN
118
Barre Granite (Additional Air-Decking Charge)
Date : September 19, 2005 (Monday)
Location : Queens Explosives Test Facility
Powder Factor
Item Weight (kg)
(kg/m3)
Blasted 3-1 44.96 1.173 Powder Factor
Calculated
As a
3.66735 gram of cord * 0.92 = 3.38 gram of RDX is needed.
(Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) Equivalent
PETN
R.D.X. : 2.5 cm
Capping : 2.5 cm
Air-Decking : 17.5 cm
119
Barre Granite (Additional Spherical Charge)
Date : March 30th , 2006 (Thursday)
Location : Queens Explosives Test Facility
Powder Factor
Item Weight (kg)
(kg/m3)
Blasted 3-2 46.86 1.173 Powder Factor
Calculated
As a
4.1196 gram of cord * 0.92 = 3.79 gram of RDX is needed.
(Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) Equivalent
PETN
120
APPENDIX C
121
Stanstead Granite
90
Simultaneous 10 ms Delay
(PF = 1.173) (PF = 1.173)
80
70
PF = 0.391 PF = 0.782
Cumulative % Passing
60
50 PF = 1.173
40
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
122
Laurentian Granite
Collision 10 s 20 s
Screen Size (mm) P.F = 0.391 P.F = 0.781 P.F = 1.173 Simultaneous Delayed Delayed
(PF = 1.173) (PF = 1.173) (PF = 1.173)
127.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
90.00 72.53 84.56 94.55 100.00 90.03 88.61
63.00 42.38 69.79 72.08 81.21 82.80 81.73
53.00 32.11 59.21 66.97 76.12 77.32 79.66
45.00 24.07 50.83 64.32 67.61 73.51 75.30
37.50 18.49 42.01 57.58 58.43 68.19 72.45
31.50 15.59 35.85 51.33 52.62 62.42 67.95
26.50 13.73 32.23 48.05 47.49 57.04 62.67
22.40 10.59 28.33 42.22 41.25 50.88 55.88
19.00 9.00 25.16 38.74 36.91 46.58 50.74
16.00 7.42 20.76 33.01 31.76 41.14 43.84
13.20 6.36 18.15 29.27 28.01 36.94 38.46
11.20 5.20 15.00 24.96 24.10 32.65 33.27
8.00 3.59 10.75 19.12 18.54 25.86 25.65
6.70 2.98 9.11 16.10 15.96 22.24 21.64
4.75 2.16 6.67 11.96 12.29 18.01 16.36
3.36 1.60 4.97 9.12 9.63 14.56 12.57
2.38 1.32 4.09 7.83 7.45 11.32 9.56
1.70 0.93 2.90 5.69 5.96 9.52 7.52
1.18 0.75 2.29 4.58 4.84 7.88 5.94
0.85 0.61 1.84 3.75 3.98 6.60 4.87
0.60 0.49 1.46 3.00 3.13 5.25 3.85
0.30 0.30 0.80 1.66 1.62 2.80 2.04
Pan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
90 P.F = 0.391
80 P.F = 0.781
70
Cumulative % Passing
P.F = 1.173
60
Collision
50 Simultaneous
(PF = 1.173)
10s Delayed
40
20s Delayed
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
123
Barre Granite, Powder Factor
P.F = 1.173
Screen Size (mm) P.F = 0.391 P.F = 0.781 P.F = 1.173
(Air Deck)
127.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
90.00 75.33 88.16 94.85 79.10
63.00 32.97 69.10 74.52 68.19
53.00 28.80 62.28 69.97 60.45
45.00 20.91 51.85 65.73 55.29
37.50 14.49 47.98 62.31 50.89
31.50 11.50 41.62 54.77 46.41
26.50 9.71 36.10 49.91 43.40
22.40 8.02 30.45 44.18 39.15
19.00 7.06 25.72 39.51 36.54
16.00 5.57 20.87 33.33 33.38
13.20 4.60 17.88 28.34 29.96
11.20 3.87 14.61 23.55 26.34
8.00 2.97 10.88 17.73 21.67
6.70 2.50 9.21 14.95 19.15
4.75 1.98 6.99 11.45 15.45
3.36 1.62 5.54 9.07 12.43
2.38 1.36 4.61 7.57 9.91
1.70 1.01 3.38 5.47 8.00
1.18 0.82 2.72 4.38 6.44
0.85 0.66 2.21 3.51 5.20
0.60 0.53 1.73 2.82 4.08
0.30 0.30 1.00 1.63 2.31
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
90 P.F = 0.391
80 P.F = 0.781
Cumulative %Passing
70 P.F = 1.173
60 P.F = 1.173
(Air Deck)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
124
Barre Granite, Charge Method + Collision
Column
Charge
90
Air Decking
80
with
Stemming
70
BottomCharge
without
Stemming
Cumulative %Passing
60
Spherical Charge
with
Stemming
50
Spherical Charge
40 without
Stemming
30 Simultaneous
Collision
20
10
0
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Screen Size (mm)
125
APPENDIX D
126
Stanstead Granite, Powder Factor
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.10 0.35 0.25 1.00 2.00 2.50
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 56 41 26 5 3 4
2 55 44 31 14 2 3
3 56 41 28 5 1 3
4 56 42 30 22 2 4
5 55 43 30 16 2 4
6 56 40 27 20 2 3
7 57 40 30 5 1 3
8 57 41 25 15 1 3
9 56 43 31 23 2 2
10 58 45 31 8 2 2
Actual
Eis Energy 0.09 0.34 0.23 0.98 1.99 2.49
(kwh/t)
127
Screening Results (Stanstead, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
0.10 0.35 0.25 1.00 2.00 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Actual
0.09 0.34 0.23 0.98 1.99 2.49
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.34) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49)
128
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Unblasted, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 16-5-05 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
0.20 0.25 1.00 1.00 2.00 5.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 66 41 26 6 2 2.5
2 59 40 35 5 1 2
3 56 38 25 2 1 2
4 56 41 11 11 2 -
5 57 45 8 6 2 1.5
6 57 39 13 11 1 1.5
7 56 45 25 7 2 2
8 2 42 29 21 2 2
9 58 42 6 21 1 3
10 58 41 - 7 1 -
Actual
Eis Energy 0.19 0.24 0.98 0.98 1.99 4.99
(kwh/t)
* White Blank Cell : too high - omitted until twisting problem is fixed
129
Screening Results (Stanstead, Unblasted, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.2 0.25 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0
Actual
0.19 0.24 0.98 0.98 1.99 4.99
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.19) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 4.99)
130
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Unblasted, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 16-5-05 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.10 0.50 2.00 1.00
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 47 23 2 7
2 - 44 29 5 7
3 - 43 23 5 5
4 - 48 24 5 12
5 - 46 24 3 6
6 - 45 24 4 5
7 - 44 28 4 7
8 - 45 24 5 7
9 - 44 22 5 5
10 - 43 25 4 13
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.09 0.48 1.99 0.97
(kwh/t)
131
Screening Results (Stanstead, Unblasted, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
0.00 0.10 0.50 2.00 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Actual
#DIV/0! 0.09 0.48 1.99 0.97
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
-63 +53 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 0.97)
132
Product Size Distribution
(Stanstead, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
-63 +53 mm
60 (Eis = 0.19)
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
-19 +16 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 4.99)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
100
Cumulative Percent Passing (%)
80
60 -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.09)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
40 (Eis = 0.48)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 0.97)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
133
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: May 9th ~ May 26th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 790.3 453.8 314.4 215.0 135.9 71.2 42.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 79.0 45.4 31.4 21.5 13.6 7.1 4.3
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 12.0 9.7 7.1 3.5 0.7 1.2
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.1 0.6 1.00 0.25 0.224 0.5 0.25
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 151.5 522.0 602.8 103.1 58.4 68.2 20.5
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 13 9 6 10 8 6 9
2 - - - 17 8 5 8 10 6 8
3 - - - 34 8 7 10 9 7 11
4 - - - 33 7 14 13 11 8 6
5 - - - 23 11 8 12 12 7 10
6 - - - 15 13 6 10 8 8 7
7 - - - 17 6 7 9 10 5 10
8 - - - 13 10 10 16 15 6 8
9 - - - 16 9 7 10 14 6 5
10 - - - 14 13 7 10 11 7 8
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.09 0.59 0.99 0.22 0.18 0.46 0.15
(kwh/t)
134
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53 - - -
45 - - -
31.5 - - - 220.76
26.5 - - - 157.16
22.4 - - - 65.41
135
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: May 9th ~ May 26th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1040.1 569.7 317.9 240.6 154.4 87.3 47.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 104.0 57.0 31.8 24.1 15.4 8.7 4.8
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 13.6 7.7 9.5 4.1 2.1 1.1
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.60 1.12 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1196.6 1223.3 1219.2 461.2 296.0 167.3 91.5
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 16 7 5 13 11 6 5
2 - - - 11 7 11 8 6 7 7
3 - - - 14 6 6 7 8 5 6
4 - - - 12 7 6 10 6 8 7
5 - - - 25 5 5 8 7 5 5
6 - - - 12 8 5 11 6 5 6
7 - - - 11 10 5 7 6 7 6
8 - - - 15 11 6 7 9 7 5
9 - - - 9 7 5 8 3 6 4
10 - - - 12 6 4 9 5 6 4
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 1.11 1.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.94
(kwh/t)
136
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53 - - -
45 - - -
31.5 - - -
26.5 - - - 58.90
22.4 - - - 14.46
19 - - - 7.50
137
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: May 9th ~ May 26th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 230.1 172.5 69.1 52.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 23.0 17.2 6.9 5.3
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 4.0 0.8 2.2
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1102.9 826.7 331.2 252.1
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - - - - 4 5 3 4
2 - - - - - - 5 4 4 5
3 - - - - - - 3 4 4 5
4 - - - - - - 6 6 3 4
5 - - - - - - 3 5 3 4
6 - - - - - - 5 5 5 3
7 - - - - - - 4 4 4 3
8 - - - - - - 4 5 5 2
9 - - - - - - 5 5 4 3
10 - - - - - - 4 3 3 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2.49 2.49 2.44 2.46
(kwh/t)
138
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2
11.2
139
Product Size Distribution
(Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
80
60
-45 +37.5 mm
-37.5 +31.5mm
40
-31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
-22.4 +19 mm
20
-19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
-45 +37.5 mm
-37.5 +31.5mm
40 -31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
-22.4 +19 mm
20 -19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
40
-26.5 +22.4 mm
-22.4 +19 mm
20 -19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
140
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 2nd ~ June 6th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2087.2 1845.1 1018.0 436.1 300.7 182.2 113.2 76.6 48.3
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 260.9 184.5 101.8 48.5 30.1 18.2 11.3 7.7 4.8
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 122.4 46.3 23.8 21.3 5.7 3.7 2.1 2.3 0.8
Num. Particles - 8 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1000.4 707.5 195.2 232.2 288.3 87.3 54.3 73.4 46.3
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 14 25 30 9 10 17 9 11 7
2 - 19 27 32 11 8 11 9 8 8
3 - 16 30 21 9 17 10 9 8 7
4 - 42 14 26 13 8 9 7 8 7
5 - 45 10 21 16 10 9 14 7 8
6 - 25 35 24 12 9 8 12 6 9
7 - 34 31 20 10 7 13 9 7 5
8 - 19 23 27 10 7 8 9 9 8
9 - - 16 25 12 9 8 13 8 7
10 - - 33 24 - 10 14 10 7 8
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.24 0.48 0.22 0.20 0.45 0.42
(kwh/t)
141
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53 -
45 - 429.40
6.73 - 67.65 64.55 20.42 41.35 26.75 15.79 10.62 3.10 1.54
4.75 - 87.70 79.26 34.08 45.67 34.41 23.76 14.61 12.58 7.71
3.35 - 70.60 64.72 19.96 35.25 33.11 17.08 11.56 9.63 5.90
2.36 - 53.11 40.76 13.62 16.00 24.03 14.93 9.69 8.42 5.15
1.7 - 73.11 79.16 25.69 35.10 19.46 10.59 7.00 12.44 7.90
1.18 - 43.94 45.00 14.24 17.55 16.16 8.41 5.07 6.28 3.86
0.85 - 34.24 33.35 10.36 14.60 12.61 5.96 3.46 4.28 3.23
0.6 - 32.97 33.28 10.18 13.27 12.31 5.42 3.32 3.95 2.76
0.425 - 13.37 19.19 5.20 12.58 23.68 5.25 3.27 1.85 1.77
0.3 - 38.09 26.46 10.28 9.22 7.94 3.37 2.15 4.57 2.66
Total Mass: 2078.11 1840.54 1018.49 438.13 311.14 182.12 112.46 75.62 47.73
Before Sieving 2079.50 1842.65 1016.08 434.84 300.09 181.98 113.14 76.15 47.88
After Sieving 2076.15 1840.50 1015.46 436.21 298.82 181.60 112.38 75.62 47.72
142
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 2nd ~ June 6th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1488.3 938.8 523.4 235.5 182.1 119.9 66.9 51.4
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 148.8 93.9 58.2 23.5 18.2 12.0 6.7 5.1
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 41.9 28.8 29.3 4.3 4.4 1.7 1.9 1.0
Num. Particles - - 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.40 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1141.4 900.0 557.5 451.5 349.2 229.9 128.3 98.6
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - 16 13 14 6 8 5 4 5
2 - - 16 9 9 6 8 5 6 4
3 - - 16 9 11 5 7 7 6 5
4 - - 14 9 8 5 10 8 6 6
5 - - 23 8 16 8 7 6 7 6
6 - - 11 10 15 5 6 7 7 5
7 - - 13 8 16 6 8 6 5 4
8 - - 11 13 11 5 8 5 7 7
9 - - 11 21 9 6 8 6 6 7
10 - - 20 9 - 7 8 7 6 5
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.39 0.49 0.49 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.95
(kwh/t)
143
(Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
- 57.95
- 29.25 0.00
- 68.47 0.00
- 63.66 0.00
144
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 2nd ~ June 6th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 552.1 281.7 171.4 130.6 82.4 46.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 61.3 28.2 17.1 13.1 8.2 4.7
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 7.9 3.5 2.5 1.1 1.0
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
1.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1176.1 1080.3 821.6 626.2 395.0 224.1
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - - 7 4 2 5 4 4
2 - - - - 8 4 4 4 4 3
3 - - - - 6 3 5 5 3 3
4 - - - - 11 5 5 5 3 3
5 - - - - 12 5 6 6 3 3
6 - - - - 8 7 5 6 5 4
7 - - - - 7 6 6 4 3 3
8 - - - - 11 2 5 6 2 4
9 - - - - 9 5 4 5 3 4
10 - - - - - 4 6 4 2 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.99 1.99 2.49 2.48 2.48 2.46
(kwh/t)
145
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2
11.2 7.50
8 43.75 4.99
146
Product Size Distribution
(Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm
-53 +45 mm
-45 +37.5 mm
40 -37.5 +31.5mm
-31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
20 -22.4 +19 mm
-19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
-53 +45 mm
-45 +37.5 mm
-37.5 +31.5mm
40
-31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
-22.4 +19 mm
20 -19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
40 -37.5 +31.5mm
-31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
-22.4 +19 mm
20 -19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
147
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 7th ~ June 10th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2239.7 1474.4 1032.8 629.8 338.3 205.3 129.6 86.4 53.4
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 224.0 147.4 103.3 63.0 33.8 20.5 13.0 8.6 5.3
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 40.7 26.7 22.5 18.4 8.7 4.6 2.3 1.5 1.1
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.5
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1073.6 706.7 198.0 120.7 162.2 98.4 62.1 54.6 51.2
148
Final Drop Heights (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 14 15 21 21 11 10 12 8 5
2 - 18 9 18 16 10 10 9 8 7
3 - 34 23 29 31 14 9 12 7 6
4 - 22 11 19 25 15 13 12 7 7
5 - 16 15 14 20 16 9 12 8 7
6 - 16 18 31 15 11 10 12 10 11
7 - 27 21 20 15 15 9 9 14 8
8 - 19 19 22 18 5 12 13 8 8
9 - 15 10 24 28 13 16 9 11 7
10 - 20 18 18 29 11 12 8 6 5
Average: #DIV/0! 20 16 22 22 12 11 11 6 7
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.25 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.29 0.43
(kwh/t)
149
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53 -
45 - 177.82
6.73 - 109.75 94.53 45.00 24.38 25.16 15.50 13.63 6.46 1.01
4.75 - 169.30 118.81 54.04 29.34 42.14 25.21 17.61 16.05 8.26
3.35 - 124.90 91.44 41.16 21.74 27.68 22.15 12.99 13.37 8.50
2.36 - 108.75 77.37 35.90 16.74 24.12 16.15 11.15 9.14 7.70
1.7 - 87.47 62.88 25.95 12.47 18.13 12.89 7.43 6.78 6.28
1.18 - 71.62 50.32 21.87 10.29 14.06 9.51 5.85 5.33 4.29
0.85 - 59.48 40.25 16.58 7.50 10.73 7.66 4.12 4.07 3.39
0.6 - 52.62 36.39 15.15 7.51 10.08 6.87 4.41 3.59 2.96
0.425 - 47.07 32.40 13.17 7.66 10.10 6.55 4.07 3.70 2.88
0.3 - 33.16 24.40 9.35 5.04 6.84 4.47 2.88 2.57 2.00
Total Mass: 2229.91 1468.68 1030.19 628.02 337.09 204.41 128.40 85.89 53.24
Before Sieving 2227.85 1469.15 1027.30 627.04 336.60 204.21 127.71 85.13 53.06
After Sieving 2224.10 1467.95 1027.74 626.08 335.76 204.31 128.58 86.71 52.96
150
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 7th ~ June 10th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1004.8 664.0 356.8 209.7 126.1 86.5 51.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 100.5 66.4 35.7 21.0 12.6 8.7 5.2
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 12.6 9.1 5.7 2.4 1.1 0.6
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.66 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 481.6 840.3 410.5 402.0 241.7 165.8 99.5
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 16 11 8 9 5 5 5
2 - - - 15 15 10 8 7 6 6
3 - - - 19 9 12 5 7 5 4
4 - - - 14 14 8 4 7 7 5
5 - - - 12 7 9 4 5 7 7
6 - - - 8 11 12 6 7 6 4
7 - - - 13 9 8 5 6 4 6
8 - - - 26 8 10 8 6 5 5
9 - - - 19 8 10 8 8 6 5
10 - - - 17 8 12 7 7 6 4
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.24 0.65 0.59 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.95
(kwh/t)
151
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53 -
45 -
31.5 -
26.5 -
22.4 - 52.50
19 - 84.14
152
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granodiorite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 7th ~ June 10th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 938.3 503.4 332.3 197.1 110.4 84.4 45.3
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 93.8 50.3 33.2 19.7 11.0 8.4 4.5
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 15.0 8.2 4.4 2.0 2.0 0.7
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.60 1.20 1.20 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1079.5 1158.1 764.6 944.9 529.0 404.5 217.3
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 9 7 5 6 3 4 3
2 - - - 10 8 7 4 3 4 1
3 - - - 10 7 7 5 4 3 2
4 - - - 13 7 9 6 3 2 2
5 - - - 10 9 8 7 5 3 2
6 - - - 9 7 7 4 3 3 3
7 - - - 10 6 6 5 2 2 3
8 - - - 8 7 6 5 3 4 2
9 - - - 9 7 7 5 5 2 2
10 - - - 15 8 6 4 5 3 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 1.19 1.19 2.49 2.48 2.48 2.47
(kwh/t)
153
Screening Results (Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
154
Product Size Distribution
(Stanstead, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm
-53 +45 mm
-45 +37.5 mm
40 -37.5 +31.5mm
-31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
20 -22.4 +19 mm
-19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
-45 +37.5 mm
40 -37.5 +31.5mm
-31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
-22.4 +19 mm
20 -19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
-45 +37.5 mm
40 -37.5 +31.5mm
-31.5 +26.5 mm
-26.5 +22.4 mm
-22.4 +19 mm
20
-19 + 16 mm
-16 +13.2 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
155
Laurentian Granite, Powder Factor
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 28-6-05 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
0.1 0.1 0.25 0.5 2.0 0.5
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 57 41 27 21 2 14
2 10 43 30 20 2 14
3 57 43 30 19 2 14
4 59 42 30 23 2 15
5 57 42 27 19 2 13
6 57 43 29 20 1 13
7 56 41 31 21 1 15
8 84 41 32 14 1 16
9 56 41 27 21 3 15
10 56 42 25 20 2 16
Actual
Eis Energy 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.46 1.99 0.43
(kwh/t)
156
Screening Results (Laurentian, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.1 0.1 0.25 0.5 2.0 0.5
Actual
0.09 0.09 0.23 0.46 1.99 0.43
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 0.43)
53 4886.05
45 196.80
157
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Unblasted, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 28-6-05 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.20 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 1.00
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 56 43 28 20 2 16
2 56 41 30 6 1 10
3 57 41 30 19 2 11
4 58 39 28 20 1 7
5 57 42 21 13 2 14
6 57 44 27 20 3 12
7 64 42 27 8 1 15
8 57 43 32 11 2 12
9 57 41 30 9 1 12
10 56 41 29 21 3 9
Actual
Eis Energy 0.19 0.24 0.48 0.97 1.99 0.94
(kwh/t)
158
Screening Results (Laurentian, Unblasted, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.20 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 1.00
Actual
0.19 0.24 0.48 0.97 1.99 0.94
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.19) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.97) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 0.94)
53 4513.45
45 203.19
159
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Unblasted, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 28-6-05 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.35 1.00 2.50 2.50
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 41 41 7 7
2 43 29 5 5
3 47 29 3 3
4 34 28 5 3
5 43 28 6 4
6 43 33 4 4
7 39 29 5 3
8 32 16 8 5
9 39 30 3 5
10 40 29 3 6
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.34 0.98 2.49 2.48
(kwh/t)
160
Screening Results (Laurentian, Unblasted, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.00 0.35 1.00 2.50 2.50
Actual
#DIV/0! 0.34 0.98 2.49 2.48
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
-63 +53 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.34) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48)
53
45
31.5 1496.85
19 41.56 0.00
161
Product Size Distribution
(Laurentian, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
100
-63 +53 mm
60 (Eis = 0.09)
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.09)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
40 (Eis = 0.23)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.46)
-19 +16 mm
20 (Eis = 1.99)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 0.43)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
-63 +53 mm
(Eis = 0.19)
60 -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.48)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.97)
-19 +16 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
-16 +13.2 mm
20
(Eis = 0.94)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.34)
40 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
162
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 14th ~ June 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 890.9 575.4 0.0 198.0 114.9 74.2 54.2
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 89.1 57.5 #DIV/0! 19.8 11.5 7.4 5.4
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 12.2 0.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 1.7
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.1 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 170.8 110.3 #DIV/0! 94.9 55.1 71.1 51.9
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 28 17 - 7 15 10 8
2 - - - 26 15 - 13 14 11 6
3 - - - 31 21 - 8 12 13 6
4 - - - 30 29 - 17 7 8 8
5 - - - 29 14 - 16 8 6 9
6 - - - 18 22 - 21 9 7 8
7 - - - 32 29 - 17 12 9 7
8 - - - 30 23 - 8 13 15 7
9 - - - 26 19 - 12 12 15 7
10 - - - 16 24 - 14 14 5 7
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.08 0.08 #DIV/0! 0.21 0.20 0.43 0.43
(kwh/t)
163
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.21) (Eis = 0.20) (Eis = 0.43) (Eis = 0.43)
53 - - - -
45 - - - -
164
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 14th ~ June 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 806.3 566.0 0.0 177.6 130.7 87.1 60.1
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 80.6 56.6 #DIV/0! 17.8 13.1 8.7 6.0
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 13.5 0.0 7.2 4.6 2.0 0.9
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.60 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 927.6 735.8 #DIV/0! 340.5 250.5 167.0 115.2
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 14 19 - 7 13 8 8
2 - - - 20 12 - 11 6 7 8
3 - - - 15 12 - 4 10 9 8
4 - - - 11 11 - 8 6 6 7
5 - - - 16 17 - 7 8 9 7
6 - - - 18 11 - 10 8 6 5
7 - - - 13 10 - 8 5 5 7
8 - - - 12 17 - 13 12 8 4
9 - - - 17 13 - 7 11 6 11
10 - - - 12 14 - 7 7 10 7
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 0.67 #DIV/0! 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.94
(kwh/t)
165
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.59) (Eis = 0.67) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 0.97) (Eis = 0.96) (Eis = 0.94)
53 - - - -
45 - - - -
31.5 - - - -
26.5 - - - -
22.4 - - - 49.66 -
19 - - - 8.24 -
166
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 14th ~ June 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.4 107.4 79.3 41.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 18.7 10.7 7.9 4.2
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.1 2.5 0.7
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
2.50 0.27 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 898.3 55.6 380.2 201.0
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - - - - 6 10 9 4
2 - - - - - - 7 9 4 2
3 - - - - - - 7 9 3 3
4 - - - - - - 4 11 3 2
5 - - - - - - 2 15 3 5
6 - - - - - - 7 18 3 4
7 - - - - - - 8 7 9 4
8 - - - - - - 8 16 3 3
9 - - - - - - 6 13 4 4
10 - - - - - - 7 12 3 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2.48 0.21 2.47 2.46
(kwh/t)
167
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2 29.58
11.2 11.98
8 3.38 19.90
168
Product Size Distribution
(Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.59)
60 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.67)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.97)
-19 + 16 mm
20 (Eis = 0.96)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 0.94)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.21)
-19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 2.47)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.46)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
169
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 29th ~ July 6th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2724.0 1331.8 989.9 434.6 342.0 229.7 131.2 92.3 59.0
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 272.4 133.2 99.0 43.5 34.2 23.0 13.1 9.2 5.9
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 66.9 31.1 32.0 12.7 9.6 4.4 4.0 2.6 1.3
Num. Particles - 8 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 522.3 255.3 189.8 208.3 327.9 110.1 125.8 88.5 56.5
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 40 22 19 14 11 18 8 8 9
2 - 22 29 20 13 11 13 7 7 10
3 - 41 38 20 14 8 10 8 9 9
4 - 35 14 29 16 10 13 10 5 5
5 - 30 34 23 15 14 13 7 12 4
6 - 37 18 18 17 9 9 13 9 8
7 - 53 27 30 12 9 17 10 6 7
8 - 21 33 29 16 11 9 7 12 6
9 - 26 28 33 14 11 12 9 8 8
10 - 36 19 35 11 15 18 13 9 5
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.48 0.22 0.46 0.45 0.44
(kwh/t)
170
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis =0.23) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 0.45) (Eis = 0.44)
53 -
45 - 518.76
6.73 - 48.78 17.68 14.55 24.36 30.53 14.92 10.96 11.27 7.53
4.75 - 69.22 18.36 14.14 32.53 54.50 18.20 22.00 18.36 13.34
3.35 - 34.90 14.73 11.07 24.30 34.55 11.52 14.17 9.04 7.35
2.36 - 17.65 24.61 5.20 14.00 20.26 7.61 8.44 6.09 9.22
1.7 - 32.81 31.00 9.04 10.63 22.91 4.78 9.10 3.69 2.30
1.18 - 14.08 35.97 4.11 7.64 12.32 3.45 4.43 2.75 1.41
0.85 - 9.87 39.90 2.58 5.44 8.13 2.30 2.58 2.01 1.41
0.6 - 9.58 3.21 2.40 4.50 6.79 2.12 3.04 1.67 1.40
0.425 - 8.82 2.74 2.31 4.00 7.09 1.94 2.80 1.41 1.42
0.3 - 6.72 2.33 1.88 3.03 5.46 1.66 2.07 1.10 1.09
Total Mass: 2721.00 1436.27 987.33 433.66 340.66 229.36 130.67 91.69 59.82
Before Sieving 2722.30 1339.65 982.30 433.81 340.97 229.42 130.78 91.89 58.54
After Sieving 2720.50 1329.90 987.24 433.63 340.60 229.35 130.77 91.69 58.55
171
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 29th ~ July 6th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2351.0 1483.0 739.0 505.7 338.5 157.3 124.9 84.0 57.2
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 235.1 148.3 73.9 50.6 33.9 15.7 12.5 8.4 5.7
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 86.4 25.8 23.4 19.2 7.4 4.3 2.7 2.0 1.1
Num. Particles - - 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.40 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1126.9 1137.3 354.2 484.8 649.1 301.5 239.5 241.6 164.4
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 19 26 14 13 9 8 4 6 6
2 - 16 13 15 11 10 6 7 5 7
3 - 34 18 19 9 8 7 6 5 3
4 - 37 12 19 9 11 7 8 5 4
5 - 24 17 23 9 10 13 8 4 4
6 - 24 30 12 13 7 7 10 5 6
7 - 13 25 12 10 9 7 5 6 3
8 - 21 13 20 11 9 6 6 5 6
9 - 19 12 28 11 10 9 6 4 4
10 - 26 16 23 19 9 10 9 5 6
Average: #DIV/0! 23 18 19 12 9 8 7 5 5
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.39 0.24 0.49 0.99 0.97 0.97 1.47 1.46
(kwh/t)
172
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.39) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.97) (Eis = 0.97) (Eis = 1.47) (Eis = 1.46)
53 -
45 - 170.01
4.75 - 100.92 99.70 42.88 64.51 60.63 15.52 25.33 7.28 6.74
3.35 - 74.00 78.79 28.02 37.34 38.51 28.47 19.86 11.72 7.90
2.36 - 52.77 58.90 20.66 23.97 26.81 27.89 11.06 13.89 5.18
1.7 - 36.82 41.12 12.97 17.87 19.35 19.38 13.00 9.81 10.61
1.18 - 27.00 28.54 9.81 12.75 14.12 12.49 6.30 6.74 4.64
0.85 - 21.32 21.97 6.94 9.74 10.59 9.68 4.38 4.79 2.82
0.6 - 17.97 18.98 5.81 8.81 9.84 9.29 3.91 4.35 2.92
0.425 - 17.03 18.07 5.16 8.00 8.60 8.31 3.76 3.90 3.00
0.3 - 11.74 13.25 3.98 4.75 6.41 5.83 3.00 2.80 2.25
Total Mass: 2347.12 1479.55 736.89 503.87 336.31 181.39 123.84 82.94 56.48
Before Sieving 2348.60 1480.95 737.38 504.12 336.97 181.71 124.45 83.45 56.81
After Sieving 2347.00 1479.40 736.88 503.86 336.20 181.41 123.81 82.96 56.48
173
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 29th ~ July 6th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 896.8 464.2 369.3 182.4 122.6 94.9 53.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 89.7 46.4 36.9 18.2 12.3 9.5 5.4
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 10.0 8.9 3.4 2.7 2.5 1.4
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.60 1.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1031.7 890.0 1416.2 874.2 587.5 454.9 257.1
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 11 8 3 5 2 2 3
2 - - - 17 13 7 4 4 4 3
3 - - - 13 9 3 5 5 3 3
4 - - - 13 9 7 7 3 2 2
5 - - - 12 7 4 6 4 4 2
6 - - - 14 8 5 6 4 5 3
7 - - - 12 8 5 3 3 4 3
8 - - - 19 11 6 4 2 2 7
9 - - - 13 7 6 4 5 3 2
10 - - - 21 14 6 5 6 2 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 0.99 1.99 2.49 2.48 2.48 2.47
(kwh/t)
174
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Retained) (Eis =0.59) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48) (Eis = 2.48) (Eis = 2.47)
53 - - -
45 - - -
31.5 - - -
26.5 - - -
22.4 - - - 27.90
19 - - - 52.16
175
Product Size Distribution
(Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
-53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.39)
80 -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.49)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.97)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.97)
-19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 1.47)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.46)
-63 +53 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
-37.5 +31.5mm
80 (Eis = 0.99)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
60 -26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
40 -19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.47)
20
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis =0.59)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
176
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 29th ~ July 11th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 1782.0 1217.4 896.3 453.0 336.0 199.6 150.7 83.5 59.5
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 178.2 121.7 89.6 45.3 33.6 20.0 15.1 8.3 5.9
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 38.1 30.5 13.8 9.7 7.8 3.9 4.2 2.8 1.1
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 854.2 583.5 171.8 86.9 322.1 95.7 72.2 80.0 57.0
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 18 15 15 13 16 12 11 10 12
2 - 15 26 14 28 13 11 15 10 5
3 - 16 22 7 16 8 13 17 13 8
4 - 20 16 7 18 16 13 12 10 7
5 - 40 23 14 24 19 15 9 7 8
6 - 16 21 8 21 13 14 9 7 7
7 - 20 14 6 16 11 14 17 8 11
8 - 29 17 17 13 9 13 16 7 8
9 - 20 12 9 19 10 9 12 11 11
10 - 20 20 14 16 13 9 7 8 6
Average: #DIV/0! 21 19 11 18 13 12 13 6 8
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.48 0.22 0.21 0.46 0.43
(kwh/t)
177
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.21) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 0.43)
53 -
45 - 77.47
11.2 - 161.00 57.17 28.19 34.05 35.55 30.55 27.06 3.12 2.24
6.73 - 68.68 42.88 17.71 9.47 28.96 14.33 19.24 8.80 10.38
4.75 - 108.37 58.35 21.73 12.08 40.03 18.10 16.86 16.77 14.54
3.35 - 60.40 40.05 14.75 6.77 30.43 10.77 7.21 9.31 7.92
2.36 - 43.06 26.67 9.78 4.50 20.23 7.43 4.75 6.15 4.16
1.7 - 30.04 18.88 16.71 3.18 13.14 4.71 3.19 3.79 3.42
1.18 - 22.64 14.78 4.70 2.26 9.71 3.26 2.19 2.57 2.11
0.85 - 17.10 10.87 3.41 1.65 7.40 2.36 1.49 1.90 1.52
0.6 - 14.17 8.50 3.00 1.45 6.60 1.90 1.34 1.63 1.34
0.425 - 15.10 9.22 2.88 1.28 5.85 0.72 0.94 1.43 1.04
0.3 - 10.75 7.10 2.25 1.00 4.85 2.01 1.03 1.00 0.86
Total Mass: 1777.51 1213.96 904.84 452.80 334.34 199.24 150.35 83.04 60.43
Before Sieving 1787.30 1215.35 896.00 452.79 335.45 199.43 150.62 83.22 59.92
After Sieving 1777.30 1213.90 897.96 452.62 334.50 199.17 150.33 82.97 59.65
178
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 29th ~ July 11th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 804.2 424.7 293.7 197.2 138.7 72.3 55.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 80.4 42.5 29.4 19.7 13.9 7.2 5.6
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 6.6 7.2 4.5 3.9 1.5 1.6
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 770.9 407.2 563.2 378.1 398.8 138.7 106.8
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 18 12 8 9 5 7 9
2 - - - 13 11 9 9 9 5 7
3 - - - 18 11 7 8 8 4 5
4 - - - 16 10 8 6 5 6 6
5 - - - 12 10 9 7 5 7 4
6 - - - 12 11 8 7 8 8 4
7 - - - 12 12 8 7 7 3 8
8 - - - 22 11 8 9 5 8 9
9 - - - 11 9 7 6 3 7 7
10 - - - 13 16 9 6 7 6 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.49 0.99 0.98 1.48 0.96 0.94
(kwh/t)
179
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.48) (Eis = 0.96) (Eis = 0.94)
53 - - -
45 - - -
31.5 - - -
26.5 - - -
22.4 - - - 48.07
19 - - - 42.59
180
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 29th ~ July 11th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 778.3 445.4 327.1 173.8 123.8 70.9 48.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 77.8 44.5 32.7 17.4 12.4 7.1 4.9
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 8.5 7.1 4.8 1.4 1.1 0.8
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.80 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1193.7 1280.9 1254.4 666.3 593.6 339.9 233.5
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 15 8 9 7 5 3 2
2 - - - 14 5 5 5 4 2 5
3 - - - 7 7 3 5 6 2 3
4 - - - 7 6 8 6 4 3 4
5 - - - 14 7 3 3 4 4 3
6 - - - 8 9 8 2 7 2 3
7 - - - 6 6 7 7 4 2 2
8 - - - 17 9 4 2 3 2 2
9 - - - 9 10 6 3 5 3 3
10 - - - 14 7 5 3 4 2 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.79 1.49 1.99 1.99 2.48 2.48 2.47
(kwh/t)
181
Screening Results (Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.79) (Eis = 1.49) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.48) (Eis = 2.48) (Eis = 2.47)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2 98.95
11.2 73.31
182
Product Size Distribution
(Laurentian, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.24)
-45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
40
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08)
-31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.22)
20 -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 0.21) (Eis = 0.46)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 0.43)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.49)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
40 (Eis = 0.98)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
-19 + 16 mm
20 (Eis = 0.96)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 0.94)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.79)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.49)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
-19 + 16 mm
20 (Eis = 2.48)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.47)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
183
Barre Granite, Powder Factor
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 25/07/2005 ~30/07/2005 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.15 0.10 0.25 0.50 2.00 1.00
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 54 42 30 22 2 6
2 56 43 29 22 2 13
3 58 43 29 24 2 7
4 58 41 30 18 2 5
5 55 42 29 26 1 4
6 56 44 35 24 1 7
7 56 41 30 23 2 5
8 56 40 35 23 2 5
9 56 43 32 22 1 6
10 57 39 30 26 1 3
Actual
Eis Energy 0.14 0.09 0.23 0.46 1.99 0.97
(kwh/t)
184
Screening Results (Barre, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.15 0.1 0.25 0.5 2 1
Actual
0.14 0.09 0.23 0.46 1.99 0.97
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.14) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 0.97)
53 3980.15
45 0.00
185
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Unblasted, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 25/07/2005 ~30/07/2005 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 80 44 36 19 1 1
2 58 41 35 6 2 2
3 58 42 29 21 2 5
4 58 46 34 8 1 2
5 58 45 22 8 2 2
6 56 44 32 8 2 1
7 58 40 35 7 2 5
8 58 41 21 17 2 3
9 58 40 25 23 1 2
10 58 43 32 12 1 3
Actual
Eis Energy 0.24 0.24 0.48 0.98 1.99 2.49
(kwh/t)
186
Screening Results (Barre, Unblasted, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.50
Actual
0.24 0.24 0.48 0.98 1.99 2.49
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49)
53 3619.05
45 338.37
187
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Unblasted, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (m/s2) = 9.36
Date of test: 25/07/2005 ~30/07/2005 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Tested By: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.40 0.90 2.00 2.50
Size Class -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Size Class
Particle -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 5 16 3 4
2 38 29 2 3
3 52 23 4 3
4 45 17 5 2
5 44 7 5 3
6 42 9 3 3
7 35 29 3 2
8 57 17 2 2
9 42 9 2 2
10 46 30 3 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.39 0.89 1.99 2.48
(kwh/t)
188
Screening Results (Barre, Unblasted, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Mass Retained U.S.A. Standard Sieve Series
Nominal
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
0.40 0.90 2.00 2.50
Actual
0.39 0.89 1.99 2.48
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
-63 +53 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.39) (Eis = 0.89) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.48)
53
45
19 33.28 0.00
189
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, Unblasted, Batch # 1)
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -63 +53 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.48)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40 -19 +16 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
60
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.39)
40 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.89)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
190
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ August 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 1787.7 1433.7 970.3 637.9 203.8 164.0 125.5 92.9 47.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 255.4 143.4 97.0 63.8 22.6 16.4 12.5 9.3 4.8
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 135.6 51.3 33.2 27.7 10.2 6.7 2.6 3.1 1.4
Num. Particles - 7 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.1 0.1 0.0857 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1224.1 274.9 186.0 104.8 108.5 78.6 120.3 89.0 45.6
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 19 34 19 21 13 16 11 8 8
2 - 25 26 40 18 13 8 12 10 7
3 - 18 24 13 18 9 12 9 11 6
4 - 31 25 28 21 13 9 9 7 6
5 - 30 20 33 20 12 8 9 8 5
6 - 28 25 30 17 7 7 10 11 5
7 - 29 32 12 11 11 20 8 6 9
8 - 25 31 28 21 13 6 7 5
9 - 21 21 31 8 7 6 6 5
10 - 29 19 17 - 12 9 3 4
Average: #DIV/0! 26 26 25 20 12 11 9 8 6
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.22 0.21 0.46 0.46 0.43
(kwh/t)
191
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.07) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.21) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 0.43)
53 -
45 - 236.33
6.73 - 51.87 15.04 8.05 7.58 12.55 12.90 15.97 9.15 10.35
4.75 - 59.90 22.75 19.04 8.90 17.82 11.55 22.65 13.98 9.10
3.35 - 36.62 14.22 10.70 6.57 10.29 7.05 13.49 11.19 7.35
2.36 - 38.52 14.99 9.19 5.96 7.60 4.58 8.70 7.25 4.63
1.7 - 26.60 9.02 5.55 3.59 5.50 3.52 5.77 4.82 3.36
1.18 - 20.85 7.46 4.64 2.59 3.85 2.53 4.45 3.73 2.49
0.85 - 17.09 5.86 3.60 1.75 2.67 1.79 3.52 2.48 1.75
0.6 - 14.00 4.72 3.20 1.81 2.61 2.00 2.90 2.52 1.67
0.425 - 12.60 4.65 2.62 1.40 2.58 1.79 2.82 2.37 1.74
0.3 - 11.24 3.81 2.60 1.40 1.85 1.33 2.35 1.90 1.30
Total Mass: 1781.90 1430.28 969.36 636.43 202.60 163.59 125.10 92.30 47.82
Before Sieving 1784.10 1431.45 969.76 637.00 203.50 163.85 125.26 92.49 47.95
After Sieving - 1430.00 969.06 637.45 202.64 163.67 125.04 92.15 47.83
192
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ August 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1649.8 946.1 547.5 262.6 174.8 113.7 89.4 49.4
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 165.0 94.6 54.8 29.2 17.5 11.4 8.9 4.9
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 66.3 51.0 25.8 11.9 7.8 3.5 1.8 1.8
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 790.8 907.0 1049.8 559.3 335.2 218.0 257.0 142.2
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - 19 9 8 14 5 7 6 3
2 - - 21 25 9 9 11 12 5 5
3 - - 36 14 7 11 7 7 7 3
4 - - 17 38 12 8 8 9 6 6
5 - - 32 13 6 17 8 9 6 6
6 - - 26 10 21 9 14 2 7 2
7 - - 24 8 17 7 7 7 4 5
8 - - 14 17 11 8 6 6 4 3
9 - - 13 12 9 11 6 4 5 3
10 - - 29 26 8 - 9 6 5 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.24 0.49 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97 1.47 1.46
(kwh/t)
193
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 0.97) (Eis = 1.47) (Eis = 1.46)
53 - -
45 - -
Total Mass: 1645.91 943.55 545.75 261.62 199.05 113.16 89.67 48.79
Before Sieving 1647.30 944.70 546.32 262.14 194.36 113.32 89.00 49.22
After Sieving 1645.70 943.50 545.62 261.41 194.08 113.02 89.61 48.76
194
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ August 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 810.7 0.0 251.6 194.1 105.6 92.0 46.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 81.1 #DIV/0! 28.0 19.4 10.6 9.2 4.7
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 0.0 13.8 6.3 1.5 2.8 1.0
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.80 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1243.5 #DIV/0! 1072.1 744.3 506.1 441.0 223.8
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 27 - 5 3 5 3 2
2 - - - 15 - 4 4 3 4 3
3 - - - 14 - 4 6 3 2 2
4 - - - 9 - 4 5 5 3 3
5 - - - 8 - 11 4 3 3 3
6 - - - 16 - 3 7 5 2 3
7 - - - 13 - 6 6 4 1 4
8 - - - 16 - 7 7 6 2 2
9 - - - 11 - 7 8 4 3 3
10 - - - 10 - - 8 2 3 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.79 #DIV/0! 1.99 1.98 2.48 2.49 2.47
(kwh/t)
195
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.79) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 2.48) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.47)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19 20.55
13.2 86.52
196
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.391 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
-63 +53 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
-53 +45 mm
80 -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.49)
60 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40 -26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.97)
20 -19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 1.47)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.46)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.79)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
-19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.47)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
197
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ Aug 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2751.6 1463.4 874.6 571.8 279.5 225.7 138.3 91.9 45.0
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 305.7 162.6 97.2 57.2 27.9 22.6 13.8 9.2 4.5
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 55.7 49.3 29.4 14.4 6.3 5.9 3.0 2.3 0.9
Num. Particles - 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.80
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1172.4 311.8 186.3 109.6 134.0 108.2 132.6 88.1 68.9
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 29 26 14 20 13 12 5 7 5
2 - 42 27 23 23 14 13 9 8 3
3 - 29 40 16 22 13 8 11 10 5
4 - 13 18 32 13 13 10 8 7 6
5 - 18 30 19 30 12 9 7 6 8
6 - 26 26 29 24 15 14 10 9 5
7 - 28 18 16 15 14 10 8 12 4
8 - 28 25 34 9 9 14 8 5 4
9 - 19 46 34 20 13 19 7 9 5
10 - 28 12 11 6 10 7
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.47 0.45 0.74
(kwh/t)
198
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.20) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis =0.08) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.45) (Eis = 0.74)
53 -
45 - 358.48
6.73 - 68.01 24.05 15.69 14.34 26.93 17.33 12.06 12.35 1.63
4.75 - 87.64 30.25 15.19 15.15 28.50 20.03 27.72 14.25 7.34
3.35 - 68.00 20.61 11.81 7.56 14.86 13.47 19.42 13.10 9.47
2.36 - 54.68 15.10 8.00 6.00 11.70 9.11 11.40 7.77 6.95
1.7 - 41.87 11.85 5.90 3.81 8.36 5.46 7.43 5.14 4.16
1.18 - 32.02 9.36 5.00 3.26 6.44 4.41 5.98 4.20 3.05
0.85 - 27.85 7.27 3.94 2.61 4.85 3.36 4.26 3.25 2.08
0.6 - 24.55 5.95 3.14 2.20 4.06 2.66 3.69 2.71 1.83
0.425 - 20.06 5.31 3.03 1.86 3.51 2.80 3.63 2.13 1.78
0.3 - 17.26 4.64 2.68 1.69 3.15 2.28 3.11 2.20 1.58
Total Mass: 2744.74 1461.29 872.25 570.93 278.51 225.15 147.41 91.99 44.66
Before Sieving 2747.35 1470.50 874.00 571.30 278.83 225.42 137.87 91.98 44.75
After Sieving - 1461.05 873.14 570.77 278.26 225.10 137.51 91.85 44.64
199
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ Aug 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1090.5 760.2 544.9 376.7 232.9 184.3 92.7 43.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 155.8 84.5 54.5 37.7 23.3 18.4 9.3 4.4
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 29.3 32.4 12.1 10.1 6.3 4.8 1.6 0.7
Num. Particles - - 7 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.27 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 797.5 1619.5 522.4 722.3 446.6 706.6 266.6 125.5
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - 17 10 13 9 13 5 5 4
2 - - 13 10 13 8 6 10 5 2
3 - - 14 9 22 6 7 6 4 2
4 - - 15 8 14 6 8 4 4 3
5 - - 17 8 11 7 10 4 3 4
6 - - 19 9 9 9 7 6 6 2
7 - - 19 8 12 9 6 5 6 2
8 - - 8 12 9 7 5 5 2
9 - - 17 15 10 7 8 3 3
10 - - 23 11 7 6 6 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.26 0.99 0.49 0.99 0.98 1.98 1.47 1.47
(kwh/t)
200
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.26) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 1.47) (Eis = 1.47)
53 - -
45 - -
31.5 - -
26.5 - -
19 - - 83.41 14.21
Total Mass: 1089.93 757.01 542.31 375.39 240.59 183.32 92.27 43.68
Before Sieving 1108.34 758.60 543.66 375.55 232.15 183.40 92.58 43.45
After Sieving 1089.38 757.00 541.72 374.99 231.65 183.25 92.31 43.23
201
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ Aug 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1402.0 0.0 573.3 329.5 253.2 136.3 78.2 39.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 175.3 #DIV/0! 57.3 33.0 25.3 13.6 7.8 4.0
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 87.8 0.0 17.5 8.3 5.0 4.8 1.0 0.5
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1680.1 #DIV/0! 1099.2 1263.6 970.9 653.5 374.6 191.3
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - 27 - 13 9 7 5 3 1
2 - - 15 - 9 6 6 4 2 2
3 - - 16 - 12 7 6 4 3 2
4 - - 9 - 6 6 4 2 2 2
5 - - 21 - 13 10 5 4 3 2
6 - - 16 - 10 6 6 2 3 1
7 - - 28 - 11 6 6 3 3 1
8 - - 13 - 11 5 7 4 3 2
9 - - - 10 6 8 6 2 1
10 - - - 11 6 4 2 2 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 #DIV/0! 0.99 1.99 1.99 2.49 2.48 2.48
(kwh/t)
202
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -53 +45 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -45 +37.5 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48) (Eis = 2.48) (Eis = 2.47)
53 - - -
45 - - -
31.5 - - 66.77 -
26.5 - - 118.74 -
19 - - 40.43 - 0.00
203
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, Blasted, PF= 0.782 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
-53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.26)
80 -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.49)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
40 (Eis = 0.98)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
-19 + 16 mm
20 (Eis = 1.47)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.47)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
-37.5 +31.5mm
80 (Eis = 0.99)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
60 -26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
40 -19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.47)
20
-53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
204
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ August 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 1731.3 1208.0 768.4 518.0 356.0 235.2 139.6 97.3 61.0
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 216.4 120.8 76.8 51.8 35.6 23.5 14.0 9.7 6.1
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 60.1 24.3 20.6 19.1 7.9 4.1 2.7 2.3 1.2
Num. Particles 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.21 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 863.0 1158.0 147.3 99.3 170.6 112.7 133.8 93.2 117.0
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 18 14 21 29 9 19 9 6 2
2 - 24 14 17 13 11 12 6 5 5
3 - 38 15 33 17 14 15 8 6 3
4 - 36 11 16 14 15 12 7 9 6
5 - 16 23 19 19 11 13 5 6 6
6 - 21 17 28 12 13 14 6 9 5
7 - 16 13 18 13 11 9 8 7 3
8 - 33 17 29 17 12 14 9 7 7
9 - 10 19 19 14 14 12 6 3
10 - 15 18 28 10 17 11 7 2
Average: #DIV/0! 25 15 22 18 12 14 8 7 4
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.20 0.49 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.47 0.46 0.96
(kwh/t)
205
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.20) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.96)
53 -
45 -
6.73 - 58.87 86.28 17.31 16.55 28.06 21.87 27.36 27.36 2.81
4.75 - 58.99 112.35 21.25 11.44 29.02 18.17 22.35 15.74 6.06
3.35 - 47.24 75.86 11.99 8.77 19.92 10.75 37.19 13.76 12.22
2.36 - 34.80 59.80 8.66 6.43 14.24 6.64 11.94 8.96 8.08
1.7 - 26.24 45.22 6.61 4.55 10.95 5.74 8.29 3.58 6.16
1.18 - 21.07 34.95 4.65 3.55 7.66 4.07 5.64 6.75 4.39
0.85 - 16.28 29.00 4.06 2.67 6.01 3.15 4.75 5.01 3.40
0.6 - 15.14 24.47 3.56 2.59 5.77 3.35 4.12 3.11 3.14
0.425 - 12.45 12.39 2.85 2.01 4.25 2.50 3.51 2.64 1.99
0.3 - 11.98 30.54 2.78 2.03 4.33 2.55 3.50 2.53 3.18
Total Mass: 1728.10 1203.88 766.82 513.82 354.46 235.67 139.15 97.18 60.18
Before Sieving 1730.13 1206.65 767.08 518.35 354.92 234.20 139.44 97.31 60.24
206
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ August 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 685.5 456.0 307.4 190.7 148.5 91.6 47.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 76.2 45.6 30.7 19.1 14.8 9.2 4.8
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 11.1 9.9 5.5 2.6 2.2 1.0
Num. Particles 0 0 0 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 730.2 437.2 589.3 365.7 569.3 263.4 137.2
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 12 9 12 9 4 4 2
2 - - - 12 8 6 5 4 2 3
3 - - - 12 14 9 9 4 3 2
4 - - - 11 17 8 10 3 3 1
5 - - - 15 11 10 7 3 3 2
6 - - - 14 12 9 9 3 5 3
7 - - - 12 16 7 5 5 5 3
8 - - - 11 17 13 7 5 1 3
9 - - - 14 12 8 7 5 3 1
10 - - - 10 8 10 5 4 1
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.49 0.98 0.98 1.99 1.48 1.48
(kwh/t)
207
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.48) (Eis = 1.48)
53 - - -
45 - - -
31.5 - - -
26.5 - - -
22.4 - - -
19 - - - 25.33
208
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 15th ~ August 20th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 461.9 255.3 176.7 129.6 84.6 41.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 46.2 25.5 17.7 13.0 8.5 4.2
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 5.9 6.4 3.5 2.9 0.9
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
1.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 885.6 978.9 677.7 621.1 405.3 200.6
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - - 17 8 5 4 4 1
2 - - - - 7 7 6 5 1 1
3 - - - - 10 6 5 1 2 2
4 - - - - 8 8 5 1 2 2
5 - - - - 9 7 2 6 2 2
6 - - - - 11 5 4 4 1 1
7 - - - - 8 7 5 2 1 1
8 - - - - 11 6 5 5 2 2
9 - - - - 9 5 8 4 1 1
10 - - - - 10 4 6 4 2 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.99 1.99 1.98 2.49 2.49 2.48
(kwh/t)
209
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2 14.87
11.2 19.68
210
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, Blasted, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.20) (Eis = 0.49)
-45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
40
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08)
-31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.22)
20 -22.4 +19 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.47)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 0.96)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.49)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
-19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
60
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
-19 + 16 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
211
Air-Deck Charge, Barre Granite
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted(Air-Deck), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: October 15th ~ October 28th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2394.6 1595.2 920.6 599.3 371.8 216.8 126.2 0.0 49.3
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 239.5 159.5 102.3 59.9 37.2 21.7 12.6 #DIV/0! 4.9
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 44.0 34.2 22.3 21.6 7.1 4.4 2.0 #DIV/0! 0.9
Num. Particles 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1147.8 1529.3 196.1 114.9 178.2 103.9 121.0 #DIV/0! 94.4
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 39 21 27 12 18 11 7 5
2 - 48 25 20 12 15 9 9 9
3 - 26 14 23 28 19 9 11 3
4 - 29 18 25 21 10 14 8 6
5 - 18 19 29 16 16 11 7 6
6 - 28 20 27 20 12 16 6 8
7 - 36 27 26 26 14 17 10 6
8 - 20 20 19 27 22 11 9 3
9 - 38 13 31 25 14 14 7 4
10 - 28 12 13 22 12 9 6
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.49 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.47 #DIV/0! 0.94
(kwh/t)
212
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted(Air-Deck), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.94)
53 -
45 - 283.59
Total Mass: 2391.01 1588.80 920.51 599.41 370.15 216.38 125.37 0.00 48.64
213
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted(Air-Deck), PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: October 15th ~ October 28th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1012.0 625.9 391.5 216.9 120.4 0.0 45.1
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 112.4 62.6 39.2 21.7 12.0 #DIV/0! 4.5
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 20.1 9.8 6.4 3.0 #DIV/0! 0.8
Num. Particles 0 0 0 9 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1077.9 1200.1 750.7 415.8 461.5 #DIV/0! 129.7
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 10 8 10 7 4 2
2 - - - 21 9 14 7 5 2
3 - - - 9 23 8 8 5 3
4 - - - 18 14 8 8 3 3
5 - - - 15 9 12 8 5 5
6 - - - 33 9 5 6 5 4
7 - - - 13 10 9 10 3 3
8 - - - 13 11 10 7 4 4
9 - - - 14 13 10 10 4 2
10 - - - 9 7 8 3 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.98 #DIV/0! 1.47
(kwh/t)
214
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted(Air-Deck), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 1.47)
53 - - -
45 - - -
31.5 - - -
26.5 - - - 106.84
19 - - - 26.45 21.95
215
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted(Air-Deck), PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: October 15th ~ October 28th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 534.4 421.2 229.2 134.4 0.0 44.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 53.4 42.1 22.9 13.4 #DIV/0! 4.5
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 12.1 5.0 2.8 #DIV/0! 0.8
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1536.9 1615.3 1098.7 644.2 #DIV/0! 215.0
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - - 7 6 4 4 2
2 - - - - 9 8 2 3 2
3 - - - - 9 6 4 4 2
4 - - - - 7 5 5 2 2
5 - - - - 8 10 4 5 2
6 - - - - 7 9 5 2 2
7 - - - - 12 5 6 5 2
8 - - - - 7 5 8 6 2
9 - - - - 8 7 6 4 2
10 - - - - 7 5 4 3 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.49 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.48
(kwh/t)
216
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted(Air-Deck), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.49) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48)
53 - - - -
45 - - - -
31.5 - - - -
26.5 - - - -
22.4 - - - -
19 - - - -
13.2 - - - - 14.90
217
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, Blasted(Air-Deck), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
60
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
40 (Eis = 0.98)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.47)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.49)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
218
Spherical Charge with Stemming, Barre Granite
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted(Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: May 2nd ~ 5th, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2524.7 1740.0 1046.8 577.6 439.9 239.8 137.7 0.0 56.4
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 280.5 174.0 104.7 57.8 44.0 24.0 13.8 #DIV/0! 5.6
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 96.1 51.0 33.0 10.5 10.6 6.0 3.0 #DIV/0! 0.9
Num. Particles 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1344.6 1668.0 200.7 110.7 210.9 115.0 132.0 #DIV/0! 108.2
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 43 9 25 19 16 11 7 3
2 - 34 23 28 17 17 16 10 3
3 - 36 12 15 14 8 12 12 4
4 - 30 19 15 26 16 15 12 5
5 - 24 16 26 32 23 13 7 4
6 - 16 23 39 28 12 17 11 3
7 - 32 15 24 23 15 12 13 5
8 - 23 12 28 15 14 6 11 3
9 - 20 28 21 14 15 13 7 6
10 - 14 28 14 19 12 12 5
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.49 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.46 #DIV/0! 0.96
(kwh/t)
219
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted(Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 0.96)
Total Mass: 2521.40 1735.92 1047.04 576.53 438.85 239.27 137.37 0.00 55.65
Before Sieving 2523.00 1710.13 1040.86 578.35 441.60 239.51 137.41 56.31
After Sieving 2520.10 1711.95 1040.44 577.81 440.86 239.17 137.40 55.70
220
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted(Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: May 2nd ~ 5th, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 932.1 655.7 341.6 200.0 131.1 0.0 56.1
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 93.2 65.6 34.2 20.0 13.1 #DIV/0! 5.6
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 12.3 3.8 4.5 2.4 #DIV/0! 1.0
Num. Particles 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 893.6 1257.2 655.0 383.4 502.8 #DIV/0! 161.4
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 19 14 10 9 6 3
2 - - - 19 9 8 6 4 2
3 - - - 18 12 10 10 4 2
4 - - - 13 10 9 9 4 3
5 - - - 19 12 9 8 5 3
6 - - - 20 11 11 6 5 2
7 - - - 22 14 11 7 5 2
8 - - - 16 10 8 8 6 2
9 - - - 14 8 10 8 5 2
10 - - - 9 13 9 6 4 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.98 #DIV/0! 1.48
(kwh/t)
221
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted(Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 1.48)
222
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Blasted(Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: May 2nd ~ 5th, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 549.0 349.8 221.0 119.8 0.0 65.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 54.9 35.0 22.1 12.0 #DIV/0! 6.6
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 6.6 3.9 1.9 #DIV/0! 1.5
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1579.0 1341.2 1059.5 574.3 #DIV/0! 315.0
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - - 9 8 5 2 1
2 - - - - 10 2 3 2 1
3 - - - - 8 5 3 5 2
4 - - - - 6 8 6 4 2
5 - - - - 6 9 4 3 2
6 - - - - 9 6 2 3 2
7 - - - - 5 7 4 5 1
8 - - - - 9 10 5 3 2
9 - - - - 11 3 5 3 1
10 - - - - 10 5 6 3 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.49 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.49
(kwh/t)
223
Screening Results (Barre, Blasted(Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.49) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49)
224
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, Blasted(Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
60
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
40 (Eis = 0.98)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.49)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
225
Centre Spherical Charge without Stemming, Barre Granite
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o Stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 12 ~ 19, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2047.5 1499.4 1000.0 664.6 305.3 190.3 153.4 0.0 39.1
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 204.7 149.9 100.0 66.5 30.5 19.0 15.3 #DIV/0! 3.9
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 49.1 35.9 25.0 24.6 8.4 4.2 3.8 #DIV/0! 0.7
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 981.4 718.7 191.7 127.4 146.3 91.2 147.1 #DIV/0! 74.9
Final Drop Heights (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o Stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 28 13 38 25 11 14 7 2
2 - 30 34 23 24 8 15 8 2
3 - 28 25 26 24 17 12 11 5
4 - 40 23 27 21 13 17 10 4
5 - 34 23 29 26 21 16 13 5
6 - 32 18 23 23 15 12 9 3
7 - 37 28 16 33 16 8 7 2
8 - 17 24 18 18 17 14 12 1
9 - 23 14 18 19 9 16 13 2
10 - 24 15 35 17 25 13 10 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.22 0.21 0.47 #DIV/0! 0.96
(kwh/t)
226
Screening Results (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o Stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.21) (Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.96)
Total Mass: 2045.41 1495.44 998.49 663.25 303.88 190.25 152.83 0.00 38.60
Before Sieving 2047.46 1499.37 1000.01 664.62 305.30 190.28 153.43 39.06
After Sieving 2045.41 1495.44 998.49 663.25 303.88 190.25 152.83 38.60
227
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 12 ~ 19, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1279.0 1159.8 623.8 394.7 232.4 144.7 0.0 42.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 127.9 116.0 62.4 39.5 23.2 14.5 #DIV/0! 4.3
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 27.2 26.6 22.7 9.9 5.2 5.1 #DIV/0! 0.7
Num. Particles 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1226.2 1111.9 598.0 756.8 445.7 554.7 #DIV/0! 123.1
Final Drop Heights (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - 16 28 9 10 11 5 3
2 - - 21 24 18 13 8 3 1
3 - - 14 18 26 16 7 2 2
4 - - 19 18 11 11 11 3 1
5 - - 20 19 13 11 9 11 1
6 - - 25 15 23 6 6 3 3
7 - - 14 17 10 13 6 4 1
8 - - 12 26 14 9 11 3 3
9 - - 20 22 15 8 5 5 1
10 - - 14 18 24 11 7 3 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.99 0.98 1.98 #DIV/0! 1.48
(kwh/t)
228
Screening Results (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 1.48)
Total Mass: 1275.42 1156.93 621.72 393.09 231.74 143.85 0.00 42.29
229
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 12 ~ 19, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 863.4 611.4 386.5 189.6 138.2 0.0 39.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 86.3 61.1 38.7 19.0 13.8 #DIV/0! 4.0
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 9.0 9.2 3.6 3.9 #DIV/0! 1.1
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
0.80 1.20 1.80 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1324.4 1406.8 1334.0 909.0 662.2 #DIV/0! 190.8
Final Drop Heights (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 17 14 8 4 4 1
2 - - - 13 9 6 5 2 1
3 - - - 24 10 4 5 4 1
4 - - - 19 9 4 6 4 2
5 - - - 14 8 3 3 2 1
6 - - - 10 7 11 6 3 2
7 - - - 11 9 10 5 1 2
8 - - - 13 9 7 6 3 1
9 - - - 19 12 4 4 3 2
10 - - - 14 8 5 4 5 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.79 1.19 1.79 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.48
(kwh/t)
230
Screening Results (Barre, Centre Spherical w/o stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.79) (Eis = 1.19) (Eis = 1.79) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48)
231
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, Centre Spherical w/o stem, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.24)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.49)
60 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
20 -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.19)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.79)
60
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
20
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.79)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
232
Bottom Spherical without Stemming
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, ( BottomSpherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 1st ~ 6th, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 1932.2 1382.0 667.2 562.0 297.7 239.8 102.0 0.0 60.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 241.5 138.2 83.4 56.2 29.8 24.0 10.2 #DIV/0! 6.1
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 49.6 31.6 18.7 12.1 8.3 3.7 2.9 #DIV/0! 1.5
Num. Particles 8 10 8 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1157.7 1324.9 159.9 107.7 142.7 115.0 97.8 #DIV/0! 116.6
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - 33 15 30 21 6 12 8 8
2 - 23 20 20 18 9 14 15 3
3 - 35 17 29 23 13 13 10 5
4 - 17 10 21 21 19 17 7 3
5 - 37 17 27 24 7 13 9 9
6 - 23 25 27 23 13 15 6 3
7 - 19 16 25 20 9 12 7 3
8 - 28 10 22 19 18 14 9 9
9 - 17 15 13 11 5 3
10 - 18 21 14 13 7 3
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.49 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.46 #DIV/0! 0.96
(kwh/t)
233
Screening Results (Barre, ( BottomSpherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.46) (Eis = 0.96)
Total Mass: 1922.46 1377.43 666.11 560.40 296.86 239.23 101.07 0.00 60.45
Before Sieving 1932.21 1382.03 667.19 561.97 297.66 239.83 102.00 0.00 60.83
After Sieving 1922.46 1377.43 666.11 560.40 296.86 239.23 101.07 0.00 60.45
234
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, ( BottomSpherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 1st ~ 6th, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 635.9 627.4 422.7 214.0 145.2 0.0 74.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 79.5 62.7 42.3 21.4 14.5 #DIV/0! 7.5
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 13.8 11.7 7.7 4.0 #DIV/0! 1.8
Num. Particles 0 0 0 8 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 762.1 1202.9 810.4 410.3 556.9 #DIV/0! 215.0
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - 17 9 13 12 6 2
2 - - - 17 10 13 7 5 3
3 - - - 18 8 12 7 4 2
4 - - - 19 13 11 9 3 3
5 - - - 16 11 8 14 4 3
6 - - - 17 9 7 9 3 4
7 - - - 14 13 9 8 4 3
8 - - - 11 10 8 7 4 3
9 - - - 12 7 7 4 2
10 - - - 11 8 6 3 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.99 #DIV/0! 1.48
(kwh/t)
235
Screening Results (Barre, ( BottomSpherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.48)
236
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, (Bottom Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 1st ~ 6th, 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Seokjoon Kim
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 349.3 208.4 128.8 0.0 59.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 34.9 20.8 12.9 #DIV/0! 6.0
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 5.1 3.0 #DIV/0! 1.1
Num. Particles 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1339.3 998.8 617.3 #DIV/0! 287.2
Final Drop Heights (Barre, (Bottom Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
1 - - - - - 4 4 3 2
2 - - - - - 5 4 2 2
3 - - - - - 8 5 2 1
4 - - - - - 6 4 3 2
5 - - - - - 4 6 4 2
6 - - - - - 7 6 2 2
7 - - - - - 7 4 2 1
8 - - - - - 8 6 2 2
9 - - - - - 8 5 3 1
10 - - - - - 7 5 3 2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.49
(kwh/t)
237
Screening Results (Barre, (Bottom Spherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49)
238
Product Size Distribution
(Barre, (BottomSpherical), PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.08)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
60
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
40 (Eis = 0.98)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
60 -26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
239
Simultaneous Collision, Stanstead (Additional)
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Collision, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 2nd ~ June 13th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 3075.1 1563.5 922.5 569.4 329.5 194.5 140.1 0.0 50.4
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 307.5 156.4 92.3 56.9 33.0 19.4 14.0 #DIV/0! 5.0
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 85.4 42.4 30.1 21.9 3.2 6.2 3.0 #DIV/0! 1.4
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1474.0 1498.9 176.9 109.2 157.9 93.2 134.3 #DIV/0! 96.6
Final Drop Heights (Stanstead, Collision, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! 23.10 13.20 25.50 20.30 12.60 11.80 8.10 #DIV/0! 1.45
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.25 0.50 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.47 #DIV/0! 0.98
(kwh/t)
240
Screening Results (Stanstead, Collision, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.25) (Eis = 0.50) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.98)
53 0.00
45 0.00
Total Mass: 3039.46 1549.13 917.22 567.36 329.15 192.47 138.83 0.00 50.07
Before Sieving 3051.55 1552.45 919.46 567.90 329.36 192.99 139.37 50.48
(Envelope
included)
After Sieving 3048.65 1550.75 918.86 567.53 329.09 192.65 138.96 50.31
241
DW Test Information Sheet Stanstead Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 2nd ~ June 13th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2108.7 1354.1 1021.7 592.4 290.2 232.5 101.3 0.0 45.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 234.3 150.5 102.2 59.2 29.0 23.2 10.1 #DIV/0! 4.6
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! 116.2 49.7 35.8 23.1 8.2 6.4 2.1 #DIV/0! 1.6
Num. Particles 0 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.10 0.23 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 449.2 649.0 979.4 1135.8 556.4 445.7 388.5 #DIV/0! 131.2
Final Drop Heights Stanstead Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! 31.56 21.44 19.60 9.20 7.30 7.20 2.20 #DIV/0! 1.20
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.09 0.22 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.99 #DIV/0! 1.49
(kwh/t)
242
Screening Results Stanstead Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.49)
53 475.07
45 95.45
Total Mass: 2104.05 1368.97 1016.90 586.09 286.96 229.68 99.34 0.00 44.97
Before Sieving 2105.80 1350.45 1018.64 587.50 287.87 230.45 100.13 45.21
After Sieving 2105.00 1349.40 1017.01 585.75 287.02 229.87 99.81 45.09
243
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 2nd ~ June 13th Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 467.5 350.9 201.6 133.5 0.0 49.5
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 46.7 35.1 20.2 13.3 #DIV/0! 4.9
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 10.3 11.1 5.0 5.1 #DIV/0! 1.6
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1344.4 1345.7 966.1 639.7 #DIV/0! 237.1
Final Drop Heights (Stanstead, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6.30 4.60 3.60 3.50 #DIV/0! 0.75
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.49 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.49
(kwh/t)
244
Screening Results (Stanstead, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.49) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2
11.2 10.41
8 30.27 3.58
245
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Additional)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: 16-6-06 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 321.0 200.4 139.7 0.0 0.0
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 32.1 20.0 14.0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 7.6 3.3 2.5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Num. Particles 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
0.50 0.50 0.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 307.7 192.1 133.9 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Final Drop Heights (Stanstead, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Additional)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 10.00 8.00 5.60 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.48 0.48 0.48 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
(kwh/t)
246
Screening Results (Stanstead, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Additional)
All masses in grams
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
80
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.48)
60
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.48)
40
20 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 0.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
247
Product Size Distribution
(Stanstead, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.25) (Eis = 0.50)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08)
80
60
40
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.49)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
248
Simultaneous Collision, Laurentian
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 10 - July 20 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2279.3 1084.3 1170.1 747.1 365.3 261.1 160.7 102.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 227.9 108.4 117.0 74.7 36.5 26.1 16.1 10.3
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! 46.5 18.6 15.5 15.1 8.9 4.1 2.7 2.6
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1092.6 1039.5 224.3 143.2 175.1 125.2 154.1 196.6
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! 22.3 13.3 26.5 18.5 12.7 11.4 5.9 4.2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.24 0.49 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.48 #DIV/0! 0.98
(kwh/t)
249
Screening Results (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.98)
53
45
Total Mass: 2267.44 1076.36 1167.63 745.65 358.70 258.24 159.01 0.00 101.06
Before Sieving 2268.05 1077.92 1168.00 746.24 363.63 259.13 159.15 101.28 101.28
(Envelope
included)
After Sieving 2267.40 1076.30 1167.44 745.82 360.98 258.73 158.87 100.99 100.99
250
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 10 - July 20 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1554.1 1009.8 566.9 297.0 220.2 123.2 0.0 95.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 155.4 101.0 56.7 29.7 22.0 12.3 #DIV/0! 9.6
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 21.2 15.0 11.3 4.4 3.5 1.8 #DIV/0! 2.0
Num. Particles 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 744.9 968.1 1087.0 569.5 422.3 472.4 #DIV/0! 274.9
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 19.8 13.9 6.6 8.4 6.7 3.6 #DIV/0! 3.2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.24 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.98 #DIV/0! 1.48
(kwh/t)
251
Screening Results (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 1.48)
53
45
31.5
26.5 96.29
19 133.44 31.82
Total Mass: 1545.72 1002.58 562.17 293.57 217.90 121.54 0.00 94.75
252
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 10 - July 20 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 752.9 430.1 252.7 149.2 100.7 0.0 58.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 75.3 43.0 25.3 14.9 10.1 #DIV/0! 5.9
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 12.5 7.7 6.6 4.5 1.9 #DIV/0! 1.4
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 360.9 1237.0 969.0 715.2 482.8 #DIV/0! 282.1
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 18.8 5.0 5.3 3.3 2.7 #DIV/0! 2.2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.24 1.49 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.48
(kwh/t)
253
Screening Results (Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 1.49) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48)
53
45
31.5
26.5 44.86
22.4 102.56
19 63.83
254
Product Size Distribution
(Laurentian, Collision Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09)
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.49)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
20
-53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
-37.5 +31.5mm
80
(Eis = 1.49)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
60
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
-22.4 +19 mm
40
(Eis = 2.49)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
20
-45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
255
Simultaneous Collision, Barre Granite
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 26 - July 6 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2414.7 1284.2 1068.5 808.5 476.8 306.7 213.0 0.0 74.9
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 241.5 128.4 106.8 80.9 47.7 30.7 21.3 #DIV/0! 7.5
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 56.1 19.0 25.1 13.6 4.3 6.1 5.9 #DIV/0! 2.0
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1157.4 1231.1 204.9 155.0 228.5 147.0 204.2 #DIV/0! 143.6
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! 19.0 15.6 23.5 22.7 14.6 12.5 8.7 #DIV/0! 2.5
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.25 0.49 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.48 #DIV/0! 0.98
(kwh/t)
256
Screening Results (Barre, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.25) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.98)
53 -
45 -
Total Mass: 2402.36 1275.41 1065.47 805.92 475.00 304.41 211.75 0.00 73.13
257
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 26 - July 6 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1542.7 825.1 533.6 372.7 207.7 136.5 0.0 64.1
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 154.3 82.5 53.4 37.3 20.8 13.6 #DIV/0! 6.4
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 26.0 13.8 6.8 4.0 4.1 3.7 #DIV/0! 1.7
Num. Particles 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 739.4 791.0 1023.1 714.5 398.3 523.4 #DIV/0! 184.2
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 27.7 14.2 9.8 7.4 6.5 4.3 #DIV/0! 2.7
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.24 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.98 #DIV/0! 1.48
(kwh/t)
258
Screening Results (Barre, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.98) (Eis = 1.98) (Eis = 1.48)
53
45
31.5 485.62
26.5 116.41
22.4 68.51
19 145.71 10.63
Total Mass: 1534.70 821.22 529.62 368.62 204.84 134.36 0.00 63.22
259
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Barre, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Barre Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: June 26 - July 6 2006 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 452.0 266.9 172.2 109.8 0.0 50.1
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 45.2 26.7 17.2 11.0 #DIV/0! 5.0
Stdev Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 8.0 5.3 4.0 2.3 #DIV/0! 1.4
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1299.8 1023.5 825.2 526.4 #DIV/0! 240.0
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6.5 5.4 4.2 2.8 #DIV/0! 1.5
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.49 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.48
(kwh/t)
260
Screening Results (Barre, Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.49) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.48)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2
261
Product Size Distribution
(Barre Simultaneous, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.25) (Eis = 0.49)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.98)
40 -22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.98)
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.48)
20
-53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.24)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.49)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.48)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
262
10 s Delayed, Stanstead Granite
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 21 - July 28 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1648.1 968.0 748.0 395.0 254.6 149.9 0.0 106.3
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 164.8 96.8 74.8 39.5 25.5 15.0 #DIV/0! 10.6
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 27.1 19.6 21.1 4.8 5.0 3.0 #DIV/0! 3.6
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1580.0 185.6 143.4 189.3 122.0 143.7 #DIV/0! 203.7
Final Drop Heights (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 12.8 20.9 17.7 11.7 10.8 4.3 #DIV/0! 2.4
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.50 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.49 #DIV/0! 0.99
(kwh/t)
263
Screening Results (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.50) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99)
53
45
Total Mass: 1631.94 963.58 746.17 393.50 253.94 148.46 0.00 105.61
264
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 21 - July 28 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 989.2 496.1 339.5 228.5 111.5 0.0 81.0
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 98.9 49.6 34.0 22.9 11.2 #DIV/0! 8.1
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 23.7 10.5 6.7 7.4 2.2 #DIV/0! 1.9
Num. Particles 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 948.3 951.1 651.0 438.2 427.6 #DIV/0! 233.1
Final Drop Heights (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 12.1 5.3 6.2 4.8 1.9 #DIV/0! 1.6
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.99 #DIV/0! 1.49
(kwh/t)
265
Screening Results (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.49)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4 36.03
19 14.80
13.2 56.44
266
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Stanstead Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: July 21 - July 28 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 500.2 239.5 128.3 103.2 0.0 62.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 50.0 24.0 12.8 10.3 #DIV/0! 6.3
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 11.3 4.7 2.9 1.5 #DIV/0! 1.6
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1438.5 918.5 614.9 494.7 #DIV/0! 300.1
Final Drop Heights (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.0 3.2 2.1 1.7 #DIV/0! 1.2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.50 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.49
(kwh/t)
267
Screening Results (Stanstead, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.50) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2
11.2 4.07
8 22.64 1.34
268
Product Size Distribution
(Stanstead, Collision 10 s, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.50) (Eis = 0.09)
40 -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.23)
-45 +37.5 mm
80 (Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
60
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
40 (Eis = 0.99)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
20 -16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.50)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
269
10 s Delayed, Laurentian Granite
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: August 14 - August 18 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 2231.3 1482.1 1186.0 831.7 493.1 269.9 178.4 0.0 110.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! 223.1 148.2 118.6 83.2 49.3 27.0 17.8 #DIV/0! 11.1
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! 50.3 37.0 22.7 27.5 14.5 4.2 3.6 #DIV/0! 3.2
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.25 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! 1069.5 1420.9 227.4 159.5 236.4 129.4 171.0 #DIV/0! 212.3
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! 16.1 12.1 28.6 22.2 12.8 14.2 8.2 #DIV/0! 5.1
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! 0.25 0.50 0.09 0.09 0.24 0.22 0.48 #DIV/0! 0.98
(kwh/t)
270
Screening Results (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.25) (Eis = 0.50) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.24) (Eis = 0.22) (Eis = 0.48) (Eis = 0.98)
53
45 147.54
Total Mass: 2218.03 1472.49 1183.34 830.00 490.62 268.48 176.96 109.51
Before Sieving 2221.50 1475.25 1184.96 830.52 491.90 269.86 177.48 110.19
After Sieving 2219.00 1472.85 1183.36 830.44 491.38 269.15 176.97 109.93
271
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: August 14 - August 18 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 811.2 664.1 314.9 192.1 149.0 0.0 77.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 81.1 66.4 31.5 19.2 14.9 #DIV/0! 7.8
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 11.0 6.3 5.3 3.8 3.4 #DIV/0! 1.6
Num. Particles 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 777.7 1273.3 603.7 368.3 571.3 #DIV/0! 223.1
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 11.2 8.3 6.8 4.9 2.8 #DIV/0! 2.2
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.99 #DIV/0! 1.49
(kwh/t)
272
Screening Results (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.49) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.49)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19 18.31
273
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: August 14 - August 18 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 537.3 241.0 132.5 90.4 0.0 66.6
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 53.7 24.1 13.2 9.0 #DIV/0! 6.7
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 13.2 4.8 1.7 1.5 #DIV/0! 1.1
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1545.2 924.0 635.0 433.5 #DIV/0! 319.4
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.6 3.8 2.3 2.0 #DIV/0! 1.4
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.50 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.49
(kwh/t)
274
Screening Results (Laurentian, 10s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.50) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2 7.60
11.2 3.64
8 36.37 7.83
275
Product Size Distribution
(Laurentian Delayed 10 s, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm
(Eis = 0.25) (Eis = 0.50)
40 -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.09)
80 -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.49)
-37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
60
-31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
40 -26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.50)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
276
20 s Delayed, Laurentian Granite
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 1)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: September 11 - September 18 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 1547.8 1035.3 611.0 418.0 288.7 178.8 0.0 124.4
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 154.8 103.5 61.1 41.8 28.9 17.9 #DIV/0! 12.4
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 27.4 20.0 7.7 4.9 6.3 2.6 #DIV/0! 3.1
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
0.50 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1483.8 198.5 117.2 200.4 138.4 171.4 #DIV/0! 238.6
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 12.6 24.1 22.7 14.1 13.7 9.2 #DIV/0! 4.1
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.50 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.47 #DIV/0! 0.98
(kwh/t)
277
Screening Results (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.50) (Eis = 0.09) (Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.23) (Eis = 0.47) (Eis = 0.98)
53
45
Total Mass: 0.00 1539.38 1034.77 610.52 417.84 287.00 178.31 0.00 123.71
278
3
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m , Batch # 2)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: September 11 - September 18 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 509.1 358.8 216.9 148.1 0.0 83.8
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 50.9 35.9 21.7 14.8 #DIV/0! 8.4
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 8.7 7.0 5.3 2.5 #DIV/0! 1.5
Num. Particles 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 10
Nominal
1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 976.1 687.9 415.9 567.9 #DIV/0! 241.1
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 7.9 8.1 4.5 2.8 #DIV/0! 2.1
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.99 #DIV/0! 1.49
(kwh/t)
279
Screening Results (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 2)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 0.99) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 1.49)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
280
DW Test Information Sheet (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
Single Batch
Constants
Sample: Laurentian Granite g (const) = 9.36
Date of test: September 11 - September 18 Dm (kg) = 20.06
Technician: Jacob Sigler
Filename
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Weight (g) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 459.5 201.0 139.5 96.9 0.0 60.7
Average Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 45.9 20.1 14.0 9.7 #DIV/0! 6.1
Stdev Weight (g) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6.9 4.9 3.0 2.1 #DIV/0! 1.5
Num. Particles 10 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal
1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50
Eis Energy (kwh/t)
Size Class +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Drop Height (mm) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1321.4 770.8 668.7 464.6 #DIV/0! 290.9
Final Drop Heights (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All Heights in millimeters
Size Class
Particle +63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -37.5 +31.5 mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -19 +16 mm -16 +13.2 mm
Average: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6.6 4.8 2.1 2.2 #DIV/0! 1.5
Actual
Eis Energy #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.49 1.99 2.49 2.49 #DIV/0! 2.49
(kwh/t)
281
Screening Results (Laurentian, 20s Delay, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 3)
All masses in grams
Screen Size -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm -26.5 +22.4 mm -22.4 +19 mm -16 +13.2 mm
+63 mm -63 +53 mm -53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm -19 + 16 mm
(Retained) (Eis = 1.49) (Eis = 1.99) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49) (Eis = 2.49)
53
45
31.5
26.5
22.4
19
13.2
282
Product Size Distribution
(Laurentian Delayed 20 s, PF= 1.173 kg/m3, Batch # 1)
100
60
-53 +45 mm -45 +37.5 mm
(Eis = 0.50) (Eis = 0.09)
40 -37.5 +31.5mm -31.5 +26.5 mm
(Eis = 0.08) (Eis = 0.23)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 0.99)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 0.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 0.99)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 1.99)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 1.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
80 -37.5 +31.5mm
(Eis = 1.49)
-31.5 +26.5 mm
60 (Eis = 1.99)
-26.5 +22.4 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
40
-22.4 +19 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
20
-16 +13.2 mm
(Eis = 2.49)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Particle Size (mm)
283
APPENDIX E
(INCLUDED
PF=0.391 smaller -22.4 -1.18)
bigger +63
(EXCLUDED
Laurentian PF=0.782 smaller -22.4 -1.18)
bigger +63
(EXCLUDED
PF=1.173 smaller -13.2 -1.18)
bigger +63
284
Stanstead Granite, Powder Factor
<UNBLASTED>
UNBLASTED
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
285
<P.F. = 0.391>
PF 0.391 (SMALLER)
PF 0.391 (BIGGER)
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
286
<P.F. = 0.782>
PF 0.782 (SMALLER)
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
287
PF 0.782 (BIGGER SIZE FRACTION)
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
288
<P.F. = 1.173>
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
289
PF 1.173 (BIGGER SIZE FRACTION)
OVERSIZE
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
290
Laurentian Granite, Powder Factor
<UNBLASTED>
seive size feed last three rounds of product ave of product
% of total cum % passing
4 5 6 feed product feed product
3360 0 0 100
2360 83.32 22.99 77.01
1700 79.61 21.97 55.04
1180 51.29 14.15 40.89
850 36.88 10.18 30.71
600 32 8.83 21.88
425 30.23 8.34 13.54
300 25.86 7.14 6.4
212 23.24 6.41 0 100
150 362.43 124.83 112.53 118.8 118.72 35.42 64.58
106 63.7 63.2 63.44 63.45 18.93 45.65
75 49.39 47.47 44.72 47.19 14.08 31.57
53 40.77 53.3 44.03 46.03 13.73 17.84
38 48.69 41.3 55.37 48.45 14.46 3.38
0 18.4 8.13 7.53 11.35 3.39 0
335.20
seive size cum % passing
feed product
3360 100
2360 77.01 100
1700 55.04
1180 40.89
850 30.71 80
600 21.88
425 13.54
Cum % passing
300 6.4
60
212 0 100
150 64.58
106 45.65
75 31.57 40
53 17.84
38 3.38
0 0 20 feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
291
<P.F. = 0.391>
SMALLER FRACTIONS
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
292
BIGGER FRACTIONS
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
293
<P.F. = 0.782>
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
294
LARGER SIZE FRACTION
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
295
<P.F. = 1.173>
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
296
LARGER SIZE FRACTION
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
297
Barre Granite, Powder Factor
<UNBLASTED>
100.00
80.00
Cum % passing
60.00
100.00
57.66
44.04
31.70 40.00
19.04
5.41
0.00 20.00
feed
product
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
298
<P.F. = 0.391>
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
299
PF=0.391 BIGGER FRACTIONS
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
300
<P.F. = 0.782>
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
301
PF=0.782 LARGER SIZE FRACTION
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
302
<P.F. = 1.173>
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
303
PF=1.173 LARGER SIZE FRACTION
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
304
Air-Deck Charge, Barre Granite
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
305
PF=1.173 (Air-Deck) LARGER SIZE FRACTION
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
306
Spherical Charge with Stemming, Barre Granite
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
307
(Spherical Charge) LARGER SIZE FRACTION
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
308
Centre Spherical Charge without Stemming, Barre Granite
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
309
(Centre Spherical w/o stem) June 27th, 2006
LARGER SIZE FRACTION
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
310
Bottom Spherical without Stemming
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
311
(Bottom Spherical w/o stem) June 27th, 2006
LARGER SIZE FRACTION
100
80
Cum % passing
60
40
20
feed
product
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Nominal sieve size, microns
312