SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Karaelmas Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3

An Alternative Approach to Burden Estimation Based on Targeted Mean Fragment Size Using Rock Fragmentation Models

Kaya Parçalanma Modellerini Kullanarak Hedeflenen Ortalama Parça Boyutuna Dayalı Yük Tahminine Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım

Özgür Yılmaz(ZONGULDAK BÜLENT ECEVİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4706-6723
Pages
36–43
Publication Date
2024-11-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

After this, simplified equations were derived for the optimal burden depending on the rock factor, the intended mean fragment size, the bench height and the density of the explosive.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the mining industry, bench blasting efficiency is determined by rock fragmentation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, it is crucial to predict the result of rock fragmentation before blasting.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:After this, simplified equations were derived for the optimal burden depending on the rock factor, the intended mean fragment size, the bench height and the density of the explosive.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yük mesafesi · parçalanma boyutu · kuz-ram modeli

Abstract

In the mining industry, bench blasting efficiency is determined by rock fragmentation. Therefore, it is crucial to predict the result of rock fragmentation before blasting. It is widely accepted that empirical fragmentation models like Kuz-Ram and Chung and Katsabanis (C&K) are the most reliable tools for predicting the size distribution of rock fragments following blasting. The main aim of this study is to provide an approach to estimating the optimal burden according to the intended mean fragment size using rock fragmentation models. It is necessary to determine or know the rock factor used in the mentioned models in attempting to apply the method proposed in this study. Initially, studies were conducted to determine the most appropriate burden according to the intended mean fragment for a quarry where the rock factor is known. After this, simplified equations were derived for the optimal burden depending on the rock factor, the intended mean fragment size, the bench height and the density of the explosive.

Özet

Madencilik sektöründe, basamak patlatmalarının verimliliği kaya parçalanma derecesine göre belirlenmektedir. Bu nedenle, patlatma öncesinde kaya parçalanma derecesinin tahmin edilmesi oldukça önem taşımaktadır. Kuz-Ram ve Chung ve Katsabanis (C&K) gibi görgül parçalanma modellerinin, patlatma sonrasındaki kaya parçalarının boyut dağılımının tahmin edilmesinde en güvenilir yöntemler olduğu yaygın olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, kaya parçalanma modellerini kullanarak istenilen ortalama parça boyutuna göre en uygun yük mesafesinin tahmin edilmesine yönelik bir yaklaşım sağlamaktır. Bu çalışmada önerilen yöntemin uygulanabilmesi için söz konusu modellerde kullanılan kaya faktörünün belirlenmesi veya bilinmesi gerekmektedir. İlk olarak, kaya faktörünün bilindiği bir ocak için istenilen ortalama parça boyutuna göre en uygun yük mesafesinin belirlenmesine yönelik çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Bundan sonra ise, kaya faktörüne, amaçlanan ortalama parça boyutuna, basamak yüksekliğine ve patlayıcının yoğunluğuna bağlı olarak en uygun yük mesafesinin belirlenmesine yönelik basitleştirilmiş denklemler türetilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, Ö. (2024). An Alternative Approach to Burden Estimation Based on Targeted Mean Fragment Size Using Rock Fragmentation Models. Karaelmas Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.7212/karaelmasfen.1457424

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Cardu, M., Godio, A., Oggeri, C., Seccatore, J. 2022. The influence of rock mass fracturing on splitting and contour blasts. Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 17:3, 822-833, https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025. 2021.1890234
  2. Cho, H.S., Nishi, M., Yamamoto. M, and Kaneko. K. 2003. Fragment Size Distribution in Blasting. Materials Transactions, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 951-956.
  3. Chung, S.H., Katsabanis, P.D. 2000. Fragmentation prediction using improved engineering formulae. Fragblast 4 (3-4) 198-207.
  4. Costamagna, E., Oggeri, C., Vinai, R. 2021. Damage and contour quality in rock excavations for quarrying and tunnelling: Assessment for properties and solutions for stability. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 833(1), 012137. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/833/1/012137
  5. Cunningham, C.V.B. 1983. The Kuz–Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. In: Holmberg R & Rustan A (eds) Proceedings of First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå, pp 439–454.
  6. Cunningham, C.V.B. 1987. Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz–Ram model–four years on. In: Fourney W (ed) Proceedings of Second International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, Colorado, pp 475–487.
  7. Cunningham, C.V.B. 2005. The Kuz-Ram Fragmentation Model – 20 Years On. In: Proceedings of the EFEE 5th World Conference on Explosives and Blasting, European Federation of Explosives Engineers, Brighton, pp 201-210.
  8. Esen, S. and Bilgin, H.A. 2000. Effect of explosive on fragmentation. In: The 4th Drilling and Blasting Symposium. Ankara, Turkey.
  9. Gheibie, S., Aghababaei, H., Hoseinie, S.H., Pourrahimian, Y. 2009. Modified Kuz—Ram fragmentation model and its use at the Sungun Copper Mine. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46. 967–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.003
  10. Gustafsson, R. 1973. Swedish Blasting Technique. Published by SPI, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  11. Hu, H., Lu, W., Yan, P., Chen, M., Gao, Q., Yang, Z. 2020. A new horizontal rock dam foundation blasting technique with a shock-reflection device arranged at the bottom of vertical borehole. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 24 (4), pp. 481-499.
  12. Konya, C.J. and Walter, E.J. 1990. Controlled Blasting. Surface Blast Design, Prentice-Hall, USA.
  13. Kuznetsov, V.M. 1973.The mean diameter of fragments formed by blasting rock. Sov. Min. Sci. 9. 144–148.
  14. Langefors, V. and Kihlsröm, B. 1963. The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting. Halsted press, Wiles and Sons.
  15. Li, E., Yang, F., Ren, M., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., Khandelwal, M. 2021. Prediction of blasting mean fragment size using support vector regression combined with five optimization algorithms. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13, 1380-1397.
  16. Lilly, P.A. 1986. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In: Davidson JR (ed) Proceedings of the Large Open Pit Mining Conference, The Aus IMM, Parkville, Victoria. pp 89-92.
  17. Olofsson, O.S. 1988. Applied Explosives Technology for Construction and Mining. Sweden.
  18. Ouchterlony, F. 2003. Influence of Blasting on the Size Distribution and Properties of Muckpile Fragments. A State-of-the-art Review. Luela University of Technology.
  19. Ouchterlony, F. and Sanchidrian, J.A. 2019. A review of development of better prediction equations for blast fragmentation. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 11. 1094-1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.03.001
  20. Rosin, R. and Rammler, E. 1933. Laws governing the fineness of coal. J Inst Fuels 7:29–36.
  21. Salmi, E.F. and Sellers, E.J. 2021. A review of the methods to incorporate the geological and geotechnical characteristics of rock masses in blastability assessments for selective blast design. Engineering Geology 281. 2021: 105970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105970
  22. Sanchidrian, J.A. and Ouchterlony, F. A. 2017. A Distribution-Free description of fragmentation by blasting based on dimensional analysis. Rock Mech Rock Eng (2017) 50:781–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-1131-9