Critical comparison of Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC) blast fragmentation models

Blast fragmentation can have a significant impact on the profitability of a mine. An optimum run of mine (ROM) size distribution is required to maximise the performance of downstream processes. If this fragmentation size distribution can be modelled and controlled, the operation will have made a significant advancement towards improving its performance. Blast fragmentation modelling is an important step in Mine to Mill™ optimisation. It allows the estimation of blast fragmentation distributions for a number of different rock mass, blast geometry, and explosive parameters. These distributions can then be modelled in downstream mining and milling processes to determine the optimum blast design. When a blast hole is detonated rock breakage occurs in two different stress regions - compressive and tensile. In the-first region, compressive stress waves form a 'crushed zone' directly adjacent to the blast hole. The second region, termed the 'cracked zone', occurs outside the crush one. The widely used Kuz-Ram model does not recognise these two blast regions. In the Kuz-Ram model the mean fragment size from the blast is approximated and is then used to estimate the remaining size distribution. Experience has shown that this model predicts the coarse end reasonably accurately, but it can significantly underestimate the amount of fines generated. As part of the Australian Mineral Industries Research Association (AMIRA) P483A Mine to Mill™ project, the Two-Component Model (TCM) and Crush Zone Model (CZM), developed by the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), were compared and evaluated to measured ROM fragmentation distributions. An important criteria for this comparison was the variation of model results from measured ROM in the-fine to intermediate section (1-100 mm) of the fragmentation curve. This region of the distribution is important for Mine to Mill™ optimisation. The comparison of modelled and Split ROM fragmentation distributions has been conducted in harder ores (UCS greater than 80 MPa). Further work involves modelling softer ores. The comparisons will be continued with future site surveys to increase confidence in the comparison of the CZM and TCM to Split results. Stochastic fragmentation modelling will then be conducted to take into account variation of input parameters. A window of possible fragmentation distributions can be compared to those obtained by Split . Following this work, an improved fragmentation model will be developed in response to these findings.

Rock fracture mean trace length estimation and confidence interval calculation using maximum likelihood methods

There has been a resurgence of interest in the mean trace length estimator of Pahl for window sampling of traces. The estimator has been dealt with by Mauldon and Zhang and Einstein in recent publications. The estimator is a very useful one in that it is non-parametric. However, despite some discussion regarding the statistical distribution of the estimator, none of the recent works or the original work by Pahl provide a rigorous basis for the determination a confidence interval for the estimator or a confidence region for the estimator and the corresponding estimator of trace spatial intensity in the sampling window. This paper shows, by consideration of a simplified version of the problem but without loss of generality, that the estimator is in fact the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) and that it can be considered essentially unbiased. As the MLE, it possesses the least variance of all estimators and confidence intervals or regions should therefore be available through application of classical ML theory. It is shown that valid confidence intervals can in fact be determined. The results of the work and the calculations of the confidence intervals are illustrated by example. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Stereological and other methods applied to rock joint size estimation - Does Crofton's theorem apply?

A number of authors concerned with the analysis of rock jointing have used the idea that the joint areal or diametral distribution can be linked to the trace length distribution through a theorem attributed to Crofton. This brief paper seeks to demonstrate why Crofton's theorem need not be used to link moments of the trace length distribution captured by scan line or areal mapping to the moments of the diametral distribution of joints represented as disks and that it is incorrect to do so. The valid relationships for areal or scan line mapping between all the moments of the trace length distribution and those of the joint size distribution for joints modeled as disks are recalled and compared with those that might be applied were Crofton's theorem assumed to apply. For areal mapping, the relationship is fortuitously correct but incorrect for scan line mapping.