Arabian Journal of Geosciences

, Volume 6, Issue 9, pp 3319–3329 | Cite as

Efficiency of standardized image processing in the fragmentation prediction in the case of Sungun open-pit mine

  • Mostafa Badroddin
  • Ezzeddin Bakhtavar
  • Hasan Khoshrou
  • Bahram Rezaei
Original Paper


The paper proposes a standardized image-processing procedure with the use of sieve analysis results for calibration which is utilized to measure the size distribution of fragmentation at Sungun mine. Through this procedure, a number of 19 bench blasting in various levels have been initially selected as the target of the study for each, multiple photos were taken immediately after blast from suitable perspectives and locations of the muckpiles surfaces. The number of image sampling was chosen adequately high to achieve further reliability of the whole photography procedure. Then fragments of each muckpile were separately mixed by a loader, where another image sampling from these new muckpiles, bucket of loaders, and haulage trucks was performed. For the purpose of sieve analysis, seven sieves with the mesh sizes between 1.27 cm (0.5 in) and 25.4 cm (10 in) were designed, manufactured, and then installed at Sungun semi-industrial laboratory. Additionally, three mass samples of the mixed fragments were randomly chosen among the 19 muckpiles for sieving. During image analysis stage, “sieve shift” and “mass power” factors, required to obtain standardized size distribution, were precisely assigned when the results obtained by the image analysis software was in accordance with the sieving results. In order to validate the reliability of the image processing, a comparative analysis of the achieved results was made with the results of the original Kuz–Ram model [Cunningham (1983) The Kuz–Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting, Lulea, Sweden, pp 439–454]. Finally, the image-processing procedure was found to be more efficient, with results close-matched to the real results of the sieve analysis.


Blasting Rock fragmentation Sieve analysis Standardized image processing Size distribution 


  1. Bahrami A, Monjezi M, Goshtasbi K, Ghazvinian A (2010) Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neural network. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-010-0187-5
  2. Chakraborty AK, Raina AK, Ramulu M, Choudhury PB, Haldar A, Sahu P, Bandopadhyay C (2004) Parametric study to develop guidelines for blast fragmentation improvement in jointed and massive formations. Eng Geol 73:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chung SH, Katsabanis PD (2000) Fragmentation prediction using improved engineering formulae. Int J Blasting Fragment (Fragblast) 4:198–207Google Scholar
  4. Cunningham CVB (1983) The Kuz–Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting, Lulea, Sweden, pp 439–54Google Scholar
  5. Cunningham CVB (1987) Fragmentation estimations and Kuz–Ram model—four years on. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Keystone, Colorado, pp 475–487Google Scholar
  6. Cunningham CVB (2005) The Kuz–Ram fragmentation model—20 years on. In: Proceedings 3rd EFEE world conference on explosives and blasting, England, pp 201–210Google Scholar
  7. Gheibie S, Aghababaei H, Hoseinie SH, Pourrahimian Y (2009) Modified Kuz–Ram fragmentation model and its use at the Sungun copper mine. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 46:967–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golder Associates (1997) Gold size 2.0 an interactive system for blast fragmentation analysis and optimization. Product catalogueGoogle Scholar
  9. Grundstrom C, Kanchibotla S, Jankovic A, Thornton DM (2001) Blast fragmentation for maximizing the SAG mill throughput at Porgera goldmine. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on explosives and blasting technique, Orlando, FL, pp 383–399Google Scholar
  10. Hall J, Brunton I (2002) Critical comparison of Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC). Int J Blasting Fragment (Fragblast) 6(2):207–220Google Scholar
  11. Kanchibotla SS, Valery W, Morrell S (1999) Modeling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on crushing and grinding. In: Proceedings of the Explo-99 conference, Kalgoorlie, Australia, pp 137–144Google Scholar
  12. Kulatilake PHSW, Qiong Wu, Hudaverdi T, Kuzu C (2010) Mean particle size prediction in rock blast fragmentation using neural networks. Eng Geol 114:298–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Latham JP, Meulen JV, Dupray S (2006) Prediction of fragmentation and yield curves with reference to armourstone production. Eng Geol 87:60–74Google Scholar
  14. Lilly PA (1986) An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In: Proceedings of the large open pit planning conference, Parkville, Victoria, Australian IMM, pp 89–92Google Scholar
  15. Monjezi M, Rezaei M, Yazdian Varjani A (2009) Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting in Gol-E-Gohar iron mine using fuzzy logic. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 46:1273–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Monjezi M, Amiri H, Farrokhi A, Goshtasbi K (2010) Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting in Sarcheshmeh copper mine using artificial neural networks. Geotech Geol Eng 28:423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morin MA, Ficarazzo F (2006) Monte Carlo simulation as a tool to predict blasting fragmentation based on the Kuz–Ram model. Comput Geosci 32:352–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ouchterlony F (2005) The Swebrec function: linking fragmentation by blasting and crushing. Mining Technol Trans Inst Min Metall A 114:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ozkahraman HT (2006) Fragmentation assessment and design of blast pattern at Goltas limestone quarry, Turkey. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 43:628–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosin P, Rammler E (1933) The laws governing the fineness of powdered coal. J Inst Fuel 7:29–36Google Scholar
  21. Sanchidrian JA, Segarra P, Lopez LM (2006) A practical procedure for the measurement of fragmentation by blasting by image analysis. Rock Mech Rock Eng 39(4):359–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spathis AT (2004) A correction relating to the analysis of the original Kuz–Ram model. Int J Blasting Fragment Fragblast 8(4):201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mostafa Badroddin
    • 1
  • Ezzeddin Bakhtavar
    • 2
  • Hasan Khoshrou
    • 1
  • Bahram Rezaei
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringUrmia University of TechnologyUrmiaIran

Personalised recommendations