Characterising Rock Mass

Properties for Fragmentation

Modelling
Andrew Scott and Italo Onederra
Fragblast 11 - 25th August, 2015
What is it all about?
Current basis of blast design?
Current blast fragmentation models
The rock mass data on which these depend
Sources of data
Exploration
Operating mines
Other disciplines
Emerging technologies
Dealing with variability
Extending models for specific breakage
characteristics.
 Basic blast design Rock Factor
Explosive
Most blast design rules target satisfactory Density

blast performance!
There are myriad qualitative blast design rules
that influence the geometry of a design
The rock mass has little prominence in most Diameter Burden

of these design rules the ranges in Spacing (S)

suggested factors range from Very Hard to Large diameter ANFO
S = (24 to 33) D (Very hard to low strength rocks)
Low Strength rock. S/B = (1.14 to 1.18 ) B
Free Large diameter Emulsion
Face
S = (34 to 45) D (Very hard to low strength rocks)
Stemming S/B = (1.13 to 1.18 ) B
Small diameter
Burden B B
B = (38 to 51) D (Very hard to low strength rocks)
Hole
Bench
Height Free
S/B = (1.15 to 1.31 ) B
Length Face S Staggered pattern S = 1.15B
Common S = (1 to 2) B
S/B = 1.15 recommended for broad shallow blasts where the
free face is the surface
Sub-drill S/B > 1.15 is preferred where a free face can be utilised for
relief
How to predict blast fragmentation
We need a model!
How to predict blast fragmentation
We need a model!
A model is a quantitative framework
that presents a simplified version of
reality that allows the relationships
between cause and effect to be
understood
Two development paths
An empirical or engineering approach
A mechanistic or fundamental approach
Mechanistic approaches
Attempt to simulate the dynamic
fracture processes
Fracture mechanics, hydro-dynamics,
physics, chemistry, ..sophistry..
Data describing dynamic rock behavior
requires sophisticated tests
Computing requirements are intensive
and it is not yet possible to routinely
model practical field problems using
these tools.
Onederra et al (2010)
Mechanistic model parameters
Development of empirical fragmentation models
The Kuz-Ram development path
 Some observations
The data provided for modelling must suit the
assumptions relied upon in the model
Avoid using nominal values for rock mass
properties to represent large volumes of rock
Acknowledge the variability found in rock mass
properties
Ensure an adequate description of rock mass
structure ensure that the structures that control
breakage have been included.
Draw on data from other disciplines geology,
metallurgy, geotech
 Exploration
Take advantage of guidance
from available surface
geological mapping, aerial
geophysics etc.
Vast majority of useful data will
come from drill core
supplemented by chip drilling
Drilling is controlled by
resource geologists who also
allow metallurgists and
geotechnical engineers some
access to the core the
blasting engineer is well down
the pecking order!
Rock Strength
Dynamic properties are really needed but are not easy to
measure and we dont have the design formulae to use them!
Static strength parameters are normally used in empirical
blasting models
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Often biased to high values
Limited statistical representation
Point Load Strength
Easy to measure but greater variability
Relates well to energy - breakage data
Field indices
Can vary in interpretation from person to person
Often represented as measured data in data bases
Need to seek relationships between strength data and other rock mass
properties (lithology, alteration, geophysical properties, etc) to
extrapolate data beyond sample locations.
Structure
Ideally we want to know the in-situ size
distribution of the intact rock mass
This is very complex!
What does it mean to blast these materials?
What is their RQD?
What is their Fracture Frequency?
What is their in-situ size distribution?
Presentation of data and statistics
The presentation of data needs to Strength - Augite Basalt

ensure that it will be interpreted 50%

correctly. 40%

Frequency
30%

An average rock strength of 75 20%

MPa will actually have a

10%

0%

distribution of strengths. < 25 25 - 49 50-74 75-99

UCS MPa
100-149 >150

The actual strength will vary with

location (lithology, alteration etc)
and may need to be represented
on a spatial basis.
A range of strengths will result in a range of
blasting results:
Most rock will blast like 75 MPa rock
12% will blast like 125 MPa rock
10% will blast like 20 MPa rock
Interpreting in-situ structure
HMD HBM PH FR ABOVE FT HMD HBM PO FR BELOW
40% 70%
35% 60%
30% 50%
25%
40%
20%
30%
15%
10% 20%

5% 10%
0% 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 >20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 >20
Fracture Frequency Fracture Frequency

135XC08 - Fracture Frequency

25
Fractures per metre

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Depth - m
Data Acquisition
Data acquisition techniques are required that are:
Less dependent on personal effort
Remote
Capture variability as well as spot values
Examples of emerging technologies for this purpose include:
Blast hole drill monitoring
Photogrammetry and laser based survey and mapping techniques.
Down-hole and surface geophysics

Ramos, Hatherly and Montiero, ACFR, 2009

Strata Characterisation While Drilling
Has been technically feasible for many
years, but only now being used routinely in
a few operations.

SMCS
Remote Structural Mapping
Systems work, but current
developments focus on making
the process less technically
demanding in both the field and
office.

Appropriate analytical tools are

needed to interpret the data and
present it in a suitable form for blast
design.
Fine Breakage Behaviour
Rock breaks in distinctive patterns when the fragments are unaffected by
macro-structures
Michaux demonstrated self-similar behaviour between crushing, small
scale blasting and production blasting for the same rock
Michaux argues that results from fine crushing tests can be used to extend
fragmentation curves below 1 mm in size.

Michaux developed a
crushing test
procedure to
characterise this fine
breakage behaviour
Model extended to cover dust
Fines from inherent clays
Cerro Colorado mine in Chile had
excessive fines in their copper heap
leach
Clay minerals were bound within the
rock matrix and liberated with rock
breakage
Dean David Index (DDI) developed
from a specific crushing test to quantify
the clay generated during blasting
DDI was incorporated into the
fragmentation and crushing models to
guide changes to practice to limit fines
generation.
Conclusions
Best fragmentation model is one formulated to specifically address
the problem being studied
Essential that the rock mass properties used are consistent with the
underlying assumptions relied on by the model
Rock mass data needs to be shared between disciplines
Important to adequately account for variability
All models need to be calibrated and checked for reality
Established models can be extended to account for properties or
mechanisms not usually addressed.