The Swebrec

function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram and CZM/TCM

models, the NBC and crusher breakage, it all ties together.
Finn Ouchterlony, Swebrec
Swedish Blasting Research Centre at Lule University of Technology
Box 47047, S-10074 Stockholm, Sweden
tel: +46-8-6922293, fax: +46-8-6511364
e-mail: finn.ouchterlony.swebrec@ltu.se
Date received: 2004- accepted on:
Abstract
A new three-parameter fragment size distribution function has been found which ties together
rock fragmentation by blasting and crushing. The new Swebrec

function gives excellent fits

to hundreds of sets of sieved fragmentation data with correlation coefficients of usually r
2
=
0,995 or better over a range of fragment sizes of 2-3 orders of magnitude. A five-parameter
version reproduces sieved fragmentation curves all the way into the 100 micron range and
also handles ball mill grinding data.
The Swebrec

function further;
plugs right into the Kuz-Ram model and removes two of its drawbacks, the poor predictive
capacity in the fines range and the upper limit cut-off to block sizes,
reduces the JKMRCs one-family description of crusher breakage functions based on the
t
10
concept to a minimum and
establishes a new family of natural breakage characteristic (NBC) functions with a realistic
shape that connects blast fragmentation and mechanical comminution and offers new
insight into the working of the Steiners OCS sub-circuits of mechanical comminution.
It is suggested that the extended Kuz-Ram model, with the Swebrec

function replacing the

Rosin-Rammler function, be called the KCO model.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 1
Blast fragmentation
In an area as difficult as rock fragmentation by blasting, Cunninghams Kuz-Ram model
1,2,3
has for 20 years done an invaluable job in fostering a structured approach to what can be done
to change the fragmentation. Much experience has gone into the equations that describe the
defining parameters, the median or 50 % passing size x
50
and the uniformity exponent n of the
underlying Rosin-Rammler cumulative fragment size distribution in Figure 1
P(x) = 1-e
-ln2(x/x
50
)
n
= 1-2
-(x/x
50
)
n
. (1)
The Kuz-Ram model doesnt cover all aspects of blasting and it was never meant to. Timing
is one such area, the fines part of the muckpile another. On a more detailed level the effect of
single row blasts is included by a constant prefactor 1,1 and the finite boulder limit is taken
care of by a cut-off in the infinite distribution.
The defining equations x
50
= h
1
(rock mass, scale, explosive and specific charge) and n =
h
2
(geometry) decouple geometry from the other quantities that describe the blast, which is
pedagogically attractive. A recent finding
4
suggests however that x
50
expression should
involve the prefactor (ln2)
1/n
/(1+1/n), where is the gamma function. Its effect is to raise the
predicted amount of fine material in well-graded muckpiles, i.e. when n is small.
It has gradually become clear that very few sieved fragment size distributions follow (1),
especially in the fines range. The JKMRC has come up with two models that address this
matter, the crush zone model
5
(CZM) and the two-component model
6
(TCM).
In the CZM, the fragment size distribution is made up of two parts, a coarse one given by the
Kuz-Ram model that corresponds to tensile fracturing and a fines part that is derived from the
compressive crushing around a blast-hole. The fines distribution is also of Rosin-Rammler
type but with different values primarily for n and the characteristic size x
c
(x
50
now refers to
the combined fine and coarse parts).
The two parts are mutually exclusive so the resulting fragment size distribution has a knee at
the grafting point, see Figure 2, and the CZM refers all 1 mm fines to the blast-hole region.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 2
In this way the effects of quantities like the rocks compressive strength, blast-hole pressure
and VOD enter the prediction equations.
In the TCM
6
, the fragment size distribution is also made up of two Rosin-Rammler
distributions that represent the tensile and compressive fracture modes. The two populations
coexist over the whole range so the result is a smooth curve, see Figure 2. Again the Kuz-Ram
model gives the coarse part but the fines part is obtained e.g. from scaled up model blasts.
The effect is that the TCM is a five-parameter model; two sets of x
c
and n and one parameter
that determines the ratio of the two populations. The CZM is a four-parameter model. This
makes their predictions more realistic than the Kuz-Rams at the price of complexity. The
JKMRC prefers the CZM and they have used it successfully in a number of fragmentation
projects related to their Mine-to-mill concept
7,8
.
Meanwhile experimental evidence has emerged
9
that clearly contradicts the idea that in
massive rock all but a negligible amount of fines are generated in a crushed zone around a
blast-hole. In one case
10
300-mm, 100-kg mortar specimens with concentric coloured layers
were shot. 2 kg of 1 mm fines were produced, 1 kg from the -120 mm inner layer and as
much from the outer layer. The percentage of fines is of course higher in the inner layer but
what matters in practice is the total amount. More evidence to this effect is provided in the
work of Moser et al.
11,12
.
Crushing fragmentation
Traditionally a quarry or mine produces rock on the ground for a plant to process. An eye is
kept on hauling and oversize with much less focus on the rest of the blasted fragment size
distribution. This is changed with the Mine-to-mill or drill-to-mill approaches. Still, what
blasting and crushing fragmentation or comminution have in common has been neglected.
Steiners
13,14
approach to mechanical comminution is based on the concept that a material
which is fractured under pure conditions exhibits a material specific Natural breakage
characteristic (NBC). Some of the tenets are that
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 3
Rock broken in the crushing and grinding sub-circuits of an Optimum comminution
sequence (OCS) has the steepest possible cumulative fragmentation curve P
NBC
(x).
When the sub-circuit product streams are classified, the fragmentation curves are shifted
vertically upward as the comminution progresses.
When plotted in log-log space this basically becomes a parallel shift so that the local slope
depends only on the fragment size. See Figure 3.
Steiners approach also contains the energy register concept, which says that when the
specific surface (m
2
/kg) created by an OCS is plotted versus the energy consumed (J/kg), the
points fall more or less on a material specific straight line. The slope R (m
2
/J) is equal to the
Rittinger coefficient of comminution. See Figure 4. Points that represent practical
comminution circuits tend to fall below this line.
This concept was recently expanded to cover model scale blasting with different specific
charges
15
, with further support coming from the work in the Less Fines project
16
, Figure 5. It
may even carry over to boulder blasting and full-scale bench blasts
17,18
, Figure 6.
The JKMRC
19
engineering oriented approach to crushing fragmentation describes
comminution circuits and associated individual crushing and grinding breakage functions.
They use a matrix description of the product flow through the system and a one-family
description of breakage functions based on the t
10
concept. t
10
is that part of a given size
fraction of material subjected to a drop weight crushing test, which afterwards is smaller than
1/10 of the original feed materials size.
An exponential curve with two material parameters relates the measure t
10
to the drop energy.
This is in principle equivalent to the Kuz-Ram model equation, which equates x
50
with the
explosive charge as a source of fragmentation energy. The family of breakage functions is
usually plotted as in Figure 7 but from vertical lines of constant t
10
values the associated
fragment size distributions may be extracted, Figure 8.
The shape of the curves in Figure 8 look pretty much like the curves for model blasting tests
and full scale blasting in Figures 5 and 6, apart from the dips of the latter in the 500 micron
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 4
range. The NBC crushing curves in Figures 3 and 5 have a different character in that they do
not approach the 100 % level smoothly at a tangent.
How does all this tie together?
The Swebrec

function
When analysing the data of the Less Fines project
16
, it was realised that the following
fragment size distribution does a very good job of fitting sieved fragmentation data
20
. The
transformation
P(x) = 1/[1+f(x)] with f(x
max
) = 0, f(x
50
) = 1 (2a)
ensures that x
max
and x
50
are fixed points on the curve and a suitable choice for f(x) is
f(x) = [ln(x
max
/x)/ln(x
max
/x
50
)]
b
. (2b)
Like the Rosin-Rammler function it uses the median or 50 % passing value x
50
as the central
parameter but it also introduces an upper limit to the fragment size, x
max
. The third parameter
b is a curve undulation parameter. Unlike the Rosin-Rammler or the CZM/TCM functions the
asymptotic properties of f(x) for small fragments is logarithmic, not a simple power of x.
Figure 9 shows sieved data from a 500 ton bench blast with 51-mm blast-holes on a 1,82,2
m pattern and a specific charge of about 0,55 kg/m
3
. At the Brarp
17,18
dimensional stone
quarry, 7 single row test rounds with constant specific charge and an accurate EPD inter-hole
delay of 25 ms were shot. The hole diameters ranged from 38-76 mm. The muckpiles were
sieved in three steps, all of the 25-500 mm material and quartered lab-samples 0,063-22,4
mm. Figure 9 shows round 4. The 1000-mm value is a boulder counting estimate.
The Swebrec function fit is excellent in the range 0,5-500 mm. The average goodness of fit is
r
2
= 0,9970,001 (meanstd deviation). The parameter statistics became x
50
= 49070 mm,
x
max
= 1720440 mm and b=2,460,45, see Table 1. (So high an x
50
-value would probably
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 5
give hard digging in an aggregate quarry but this was a 500 ton test blast). The corresponding
Rosin-Rammler fits have a goodness of fit of about 0,98 and the curves start to deviate from
the data already for 20 mm fragments.
Interestingly, the coarse fractions seem to contain information about the fines. Using the +90
mm data and fitting a Rosin-Rammler function gives entirely different results than fitting the
Swebrec function, Figure 10. The filled symbols denote the data used for the fitting. For a
typical Swedish aggregate quarry with marketing problems for 4 mm material e.g., the
Rosin-Rammler fit to the +90 mm material predicts 0,3-0,4 % of fines, the Swebrec function
predicts 2 %, which is much closer to the actually measured value 2,5 %.
The Swebrec and Rosin-Rammler curves run very close for fragment sizes around x
50
.
Equating the slopes at x
50
makes it possible to compare the parameter values
n
equiv
b/[2ln2ln(x
max
/x
50
)]. (3)
Furthermore the Swebrec function has an inflection point in logP versus logx space at
x/x
max
= (x
50
/x
max
)
(b-1)
1/b
or x/x
50
= (x
50
/x
max
)
(b-1)
1/b
-1
(4)
When b 1, the inflection point tends to x = x
max
. For increasing values it moves towards x
= x
50
, which is reached when b = 2. When b increases further, the inflection point moves to
smaller values of x and then moves back towards x = x
50
. The inflection point and hence the
undulating character of the Swebrec function is always there and this makes it possible to pick
up the fines behaviour already from the coarse fractions data.
Start instead with a sieved sample with fragments in the range 1-22,4 mm from Brarp round
4. This data set was obtained after quartering of the 25 mm fraction from an Extec sizer,
which sieved all 200 mm material. If we know the percentage of the 22,4 mm fraction and
make the guess that x
max
B = 1800 mm because the rock is massive then a curve fit with the
Swebrec function yields the result in Figure 11. The filled symbols again denote the data used
for the fitting.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 6
The curve runs remarkably well through the missing coarse fraction data and provides an
excellent estimate of x
50
. It seems that limited portions of the fragment size distribution
contain relatively accurate information about the missing mass fractions.
Taking samples from a crusher product stream where the percentage of say 22,4 mm fines is
better known than in a muckpile and using the closed-side setting and fragments shape to
estimate x
max
is another example of where missing mass fractions might be successfully
determined. Figure 12 gives an example from a granite quarry where the fines percentage was
known to be 18-20 % and the largest crushed pieces were 250-300 mm.
The final dip in the Brarp round 4 fragment size distribution in the 500 micron range in
Figure 9 may be taken care of by adding a second term to f(x) in the Swebrec function
f(x) = a[ln(x
max
/x)/ln(x
max
/x
50
)]
b
+ (1-a)[(x
max
/x-1)/(x
max
/x
50
-1)]
c
. (5)
See Figure 13. This extended Swebrec function has 5 parameters and is able to fit most
fragment size distributions with extreme accuracy.
The Swebrec function has been fitted to hundreds of sets of sieved blasting, crushing and
grinding data from a large number of sources
20
, e.g.
Brarp full-scale and model blasts
17,18
Less Fines project model blasts on 5 types of limestone and an amphibolite
16
Norwegian model and full scale bench blasts in different rocks with different explosives
25
Bench blast samples before and after crushing of gneiss and dolerite
Blasting of iron ore oversize
South African reef and quarry blasts
US bench blasts in dolomite
Blasting of magnetite concrete models
Blasting of layered mortar models
10
Feed and product streams from gyratory, cone and impact crushing of andesite
Product stream samples from roller crushing of limestone
Single particle roll mill crushing
Ball mill grinding of limestone
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 7
HECT (high energy crushing test) crushing of seven rock types
Drill cuttings from the Christmas mine
Two examples of crusher product size distributions are shown in Figures 14 and 15. For
nearly all these sets of sieved data, the 3-parameter Swebrec function gives a better fit that the
Rosin-Rammler function.
The experience
20
is that good to excellent fits to different kinds of fragmentation data is
obtained with correlation coefficients of usually r
2
= 0,995 or better over a range of fragment
sizes of 2-3 orders of magnitude. This range is at least one order of magnitude larger than
what the Rosin-Rammler function covers.
Of the three parameters the central median measure, i.e. the size of 50 % passing x
50
shows
the most stable behaviour. The maximum fragment size x
max
will be physically related to the
block size in-situ in blasting but as a fitting parameter it varies quite much. On the other hand
in crushing, it is more or less given by the closed-side setting. Fixing the value of x
max
hardly
changes the goodness of fit or the value of x
50
at all and the value of b comparatively little,
see Table 2.

The parameter b normally accepts values in the range 1-4. Only in special cases, like model
blasting near the critical burden, does the fitting give a value of b < 1. When the sieved
fragmentation curve becomes Rosin-Rammler like, both b and x
max
tend to drift during the
fitting procedure and can become unnaturally large. This tendency may be suppressed by
choosing a pair of coupled b and x
max
values that are related through the expression (3) for
n
equiv
. In these cases the value of n
equiv
tends to vary less than the b-value. Otherwise, in the
majority of cases b is more constant than n
equiv
.

Many times b is quite constant for a given material even when the fragmentation conditions
do change. A couple of data sets show however that b also depends on the explosive used, see
Table 3, on the charge concentration and on the size of blast (model scale or full-scale e.g.).
There is thus no basis for considering b as a material property or as depending only on the
specimen geometry as the Kuz-Ram model suggest be the case for the uniformity index n.

Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 8
The Swebrec function is an improvement over the CZM and the TCM models too. Both
JKMRC models show linear behaviour in the fines range in log-log space where a vast
majority of the data sets are clearly non-linear. The Swebrec function doesnt rest on an
assumption of the origin of the blasting fines that has been disproved by tests.

The extended Swebrec function with 5 parameters shows capacity of reproducing sieved
fragmentation curves all the way into the super fines range, x < 0,1 mm and also of
reproducing laboratory ball mill grinding data, Figure 16.

It could thus be said that the Swebrec function gives the fragment size distributions from
blasting and crushing a common form.


The crusher breakage and NBC connections
A comparison of Figure 8 and the presented size distributions from blasting and crushing
shows that the general curve-forms look alike. Some mass passing versus non-dimensional
fragment size data for crusher and AG/SAG mill breakage functions from the JKMRC
19
were
matched against the non-dimensional version of the Swebrec function
P() = 1/{1+[ln()/ln(
50
)]
b
} with = x/t and
max
= 1. (6)
One example from the data sets behind Figures 7 and 8 is given in Figure 17. In fact the
whole t
10
family of crusher curves of Table 6:1
19
may be reduced to the following equation
t
n
= 100/{1+ (100/t
10
1)[log(n)]
b(
t
10)
}. (7)

Here n is the size reduction ratio. When n = 10 e.g., log(n) = 1 and (7) reduces to the straight
line t
n
= t
10
as it should. An approximate expression for b(t
10
) was obtained from the data
fitting
20

b = 1,616+0,02735 t
10
, (8)
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 9
and the results are plotted in Figure 18. The full lines were obtained using (8), the dashed
ones for n = 2 and 75 using the value b = 2,174 valid for t
10
= 20 %. It is seen that the
variations in the b-value do make a difference. The data are well represented by the isolines,
differing by at most 3-4 %.
Excellent fits were also obtained to the data in Tables 4:7 and 4:9
19
. This is an indication that
the whole set of spline functions used to describe the breakage functions could be replaced by
two simple equations, (7) and one like (8).
The connection with the NBC theory rests on an observation of the asymptotic behaviour of
the Swebrec function. The parallel shift property in logP versus logx space reduces to the
statement that P(x)/P(x) = constant, independent of some parameter that describes the shift.
This is not met by the Swebrec function itself but the behaviour when x 0,

P(x) 1/f(x) yields P(x)/P(x) -f(x)/f(x) = b/[xln(x
max
/x)],

which is independent of x
50
. To retain the meaning of x
max
as the maximum allowable and x
50
as the median fragment size, make the substitutions x
max
x
c
and x
50
x
max
. Now x
c
denotes
a characteristic size value for the distribution, which lies outside the acceptable range of x-
values, 0 - x
max
.
Then the following function has NBC properties

P
NBC
(x) = [ln(x
c
/x
max
)/ln(x
c
/x)]
b
with x
50
= x
max
/(x
c
/x
max
)
2
1/b
-1
. (9)
It describes a set of parallel shifted curves when the value of x
max
is changed but x
c
and b are
kept constant. P
NBC
(x) is always concave upwards when x < x
max
, which is the behaviour of
the OCS sub-circuit curves in Figure 3 except in the super fines range.
The simplest description of an OCS sub-circuit is a sharp sieve that lets the fines bypass the
comminution chamber, which in turn processes the coarse material retained by the sieve.
When the derivative of P
NBC
(x) is used to describe the breakage function of the chamber, the
following results emerge

for the combined product stream
20
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 10
1. If the entire feed stream passes the chamber, then the product stream has NBC properties
irrespective of the feed stream properties.
2. If parts of the feed stream bypass chamber then if the bypass stream has NBC properties
then so does the combined product stream.
Otherwise the combined product stream doesnt have NBC properties.
This has a direct bearing on the interpretation of Figures 3 and 5. As long as the size reduction
ratio in an OCS sub-circuit is large enough to make the bypass flow have NBC properties,
then the product stream has NBC properties no matter what the size distribution of the
processed part looked like beforehand.
The fragment size distributions for OCS crushed or milled rock and rock models blasted with
different levels of specific charge look pretty much the same in the 20 mm range in Figure 5.
Hence we may conclude that if the NBC curve from mechanical comminution indeed is
material specific, then the model blasting tests produce material specific results too in that
range. The relation between the blasting curve and the NBC curve is
P(x) = 1/[1+1/P
NBC
(x)]. (10)

Similarly (10) contains a potential correspondence between the OCS sub-circuits and the
JKMRC crusher models.
The Kuz-Ram connection
In connection with the Kuz-Ram model, (3) offers the possibility of simply replacing the
original Rosin-Rammler function in (1) with the Swebrec function of (2a-b). Thus we arrive at
an extended Kuz-Ram model (or KCO model, see below) based on the following prediction
formulas
P(x) = 1/{1+[ln(x
max
/x)/ln(x
max
/x
50
)]
b
}
x
50
= g(n)AQ
1/6
(115/s
ANFO
)
19/30
/q
0,8
with g(n) = 1 or (ln2)
1/n
/(1+1/n)
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 11
b = [2ln2ln(x
max
/x
50
)]n =
= 2ln2ln(x
max
/x
50
)(2,2-0,014B/
h
)(1-SD/B)[(1+S/B)/2][|L
b
-L
c
|/L
tot
+0,1]
0,1
(L
tot
/H)
x
max
= min(in-situ block size, S or B). (11a-d)
Here
x
50
= median or size of 50 % passing in cm!
Q = charge weight per hole (kg)
q = specific charge (kg/m
3
)
s
ANFO
= explosives weight strength relative to ANFO (%)
B = blast-hole burden (m)
S = spacing (m)

h
= drill-hole diameter (m)
L
b
= length of bottom charge (m)
L
c
= length of column charge (m)
L
tot
= total charge length, possibly above grade level (m)
H = bench height or hole depth (m)
SD = standard deviation of drilling accuracy (m).
The factor g(n) = (ln2)
1/n
/(1+1/n) essentially shifts the fragment size distribution to smaller
values of x
50
or to predicting more fines
4
. For expedience call the original Kuz-Ram model
with g(n) added the shifted Kuz-Ram model. The shifting factor g(n) could be incorporated
into the extended model too, if experience proves that this is an advantage.
Further the rock mass factor A is given by
A = 0,06(RMD+JF+RDI+HF) where (11e)
RMD = Rock mass description = 10 (powdery/friable), JF (if vertical joints)
or 50 (massive)
JF = Joint Factor = JPS + JPA = Joint Plane Spacing + Joint Plane Angle
JPS = 10 (average joint spacing S
J
< 0,1 m), 20 (0,1 m-oversize x
O
) or 50 (> oversize)
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 12
JPA = 20 (dip out of face), 30 (strike

face) or 40 (dip into face)

RDI = Rock density influence = 0,025(kg/m
3
) 50
HF = Hardness factor, uses compressive strength
c
(MPa) & Youngs modulus E(GPa)
HF = E/3 if E < 50 and
c
/5 if E > 50.
The CZM
5
and TCM
6
models have slightly different algorithms for determining A and n and
Cunningham
21
has a new version of A as well. As the Swebrec function has a built in fines
bias, it remains to be seen whether the factor g(n) in the x
50
expression is really needed. The
expression for x
max
is tentative and would be replaced when a better description of blasting in
a fractured rock mass becomes available.
Despite these uncertainties, the extended Kuz-Ram or KCO model overcomes two important
drawbacks of the previous version, the poor predictive capacity in the fines range and the
infinite upper limit to block sizes.
Use Brarp round 4 as an illustration
17,18
. The rock is hard and weakly fissured so we may try
A = 13
1,2
to make things simple. For the determination of x
50
we further need Q = 9,24 kg, q =
0,55 kg/m
3
and s
ANFO
= 704/4,5 = 62,2 %. Insertion into (11b) yields x
50
= 44,8 cm or 448
mm, which is very close to the 459 mm given in Table 1.
For the determination of n we need the geometry of the blast: = 51 mm, B = 1,8 m, S = 2,2
m, H = 5,2 m, L
tot
= 4,2 m or 3,9 m above grade, L
b
= L
tot
and L
c
= 0 and SD 0,25 m.
Insertion into (11c) yields n = 1,17. The shifting factor g(n) = 0,659. Using the estimate x
max
=
BS 2,0 m = 2000 mm yields b = 2,431, which is also close to the value 2,238 given in
Table 1.
Figure 19 shows the sieved data together with the three prediction equations in logP versus
logx space. Figure 20 does the same in P versus logx space. Since the original x
50
prediction
incidentally was nearly exact, the shifting adds nothing in this case. It may well in other cases
but neither the original nor the shifted Kuz-Ram model captures the real behaviour of the
fragment size distribution in the fines range like the extended Kuz-Ram or KCO model does.
Figure 20 focuses the perspective more on the coarse fractions. The slope equivalence
between the Rosin-Rammler function and the Swebrec function at x
50
, which is expressed by
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 13
(3), is clear. There is only one data point for x > x
50
in Figure 20. Figure 9 contains a value for
x = 1000 mm. The value P(1000 mm) = 98,3 % obtained from boulder counting is not very
accurate but it lies closer to the Swebrec function curve than to the Rosin-Rammler one
though. The P(1000 mm) values for the other Brarp rounds range from 75 to 99 %.
The final judgement of whether the Swebrec function or the Rosin-Rammler function does a
better fitting job for the coarse fractions is left open till sufficient sieved muckpile data from
full-scale blasts have been studied. The general experience in fitting the Swebrec function to
sieved data sets is that it is fully capable of reproducing both the fines and the coarse
fractions.
It is hoped that the implementation of the Swebrec function into the Kuz-Ram model will
sharpen the tools of blasting engineers and researchers. Since the underlying size distribution
is no longer the Rosin-Rammler function the name might be changed to the KCO (Kuznetsov-
Cunningham-Ouchterlony) model.
To describe the effects of initiation delay between blast-holes on fragmentation remains
though. To do this properly and to account for systematic variations in rock mass properties
e.g. we are forced to wait until good numerical models emerge. Model complexity and
computation speed are two factors that for the time being limit development of such models.
Until that is overcome the KCO model has a role to play.
Conclusion
A new fragment size distribution function has been found, which ties together rock
fragmentation by blasting and crushing, the Kuz-Ram, CZM and TCM models of rock
blasting, the JKMRC approach to describing crusher circuits and the original NBC concept of
material specific size distribution curves in comminution.
The new Swebrec

function has three parameters and gives good to excellent fits to different
kinds of fragmentation data with correlation coefficients of least r
2
= 0,995 or better over a
range of fragment sizes of 2-3 orders of magnitude. Hundreds of sets of sieved data from
crushing and blasting have been analysed with excellent results.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 14
The inherent curvature of sieved fragment size distributions is captured by the Swebrec

function. Using coarse fractions data to extrapolate into the fines range has the potential of
giving accurate fines predictions. Similarly using samples of fine material from a muckpile or
crusher products on a belt and an estimate of x
max
has the potential to give accurate estimates
of the coarser fractions.
The extended Swebrec

function with 5 parameters shows capacity of reproducing sieved

fragmentation curves all the way into the super fines range, x < 0,1 mm and also of
reproducing laboratory ball mill grinding data.
The Swebrec

function further gives the following advantages;

1. It plugs right into the Kuz-Ram model and removes two of its drawbacks, the poor
predictive capacity in the fines range and the upper limit cut-off of block sizes.
2. It reduces the JKMRCs one-family description of breakage functions based on the t
10
concept to a minimum.
3. It establishes a new family of NBC functions with a realistic shape that connects
mechanical and blasting comminution and offers new insight into the working of
Steiners OCS sub-circuits of mechanical comminution.
In analogy with the origin of the Kuz-Ram name it is suggested that the extended Kuz-Ram
model be called the KCO (Kuznetsov-Cunningham-Ouchterlony) model. Summing up it may
be said that the Swebrec

function helps give a much less fragmented description of rock

fragmentation than present models do.
On a more philosophical note, why is such a simple function as the Swebrec

function so
successful? The 3-parameter Swebrec

function does a better job than other functions with

four or five parameters. This should probably not be taken as evidence that these three
parameters are physically more relevant. It should give an impulse to deeper thinking though.
Tests reported here show that geometrically separate regions can not be assigned separate
fragment sizes. Assigning such regions separate fracturing modes is misleading too. It is
probably also misleading to take the fact that a two term function or bimodal distribution
gives a good fit as evidence of two separate fracturing modes. The reverse might be true
however. If two separate fracturing modes were identified and the two associated distribution
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 15
functions determined, then their merging would yield a compound bimodal fragmentation
function. This merger would not be a simple matter if the fracturing modes interact.
The way to go in investigating different fracturing modes could very well be computational
physics work
22,23
. A postulated generic fragmentation model with two distinct mechanisms, a
crack branching-merging process that creates a scale-invariant size distribution in the super
fines range and a Poisson process that creates an exponential cut-off at system dependent
length scale, yields good agreement with our blasting fines data
24
. Still lacking are the
relationships between the model parameters and the microscopic properties of different rock
types plus taking the rock mass jointing properly into account.
Acknowledgement
The author appreciates the generous help from his colleagues in providing data and for discussions
going into this document, Ingvar Bergqvist of Dyno Nobel, Claude Cunningham of AEL, Andreas
Grasedieck at Montan-universitt (MU) Leoben, Jan Kristiansen of Dyno Nobel, Cameron McKenzie
of Blastronics, Mats Olsson at Swebrec and Agne Rustan, formerly of Lule University. Alex Spathis
of Orica kindly provided his unpublished manuscript. Professor Peter Moser, MU Leoben finally is
thanked for our continuing co-operation about all aspects of rock fragmentation.
Part of this work was financed by the EU project GRD-2000-25224 entitled Less Fines production in
aggregate and industrial minerals industry. The Less Fines partnership includes, MU Leoben with
ballast producer Hengl Bitustein, Austria, the CGES & CGI laboratories of Armines/ENSMP, France
and Universidad Politcnica de Madrid (UPM) with the explosives manufacturer UEE and Cementos
Portland, Spain. The Nordic partners Nordkalk Storugns, Dyno Nobel and SveBeFo.
Swebrec, the Swedish Blasting Research Centre at Lule University of Technology, was formed on
Feb 1
st
, 2003 by the blasting group from SveBeFo, Swedish Rock Engineering Research and has since
then worked on the Less Fines project on SveBeFo:s behalf.
References
1. Kuznetsov, V M. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Soviet Mining
Sciences 9, no 2, pp 144-148. 1973.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 16
2. Cunningham, C V B. The Kuz-Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. In Proc
1
st
, R Holmberg & A Rustan eds, pp 439-453. Lule University of Technology, Sweden. 1983.
3. Cunningham, C V B. Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz-Ram model four years on. In Proc
2
nd
Int Symp on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, W L Fourney & R D Dick eds, pp 475-487.
SEM, Bethel CT. 1987.
4. Spathis, A T. An error relating to the analysis of the original Kuz-Ram model. Submitted to Int J
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. 2004.
5. Kanchibotla, S S, W Valery & S Morell. Modelling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on
crushing and grinding. In Proc Explo 1999 Conference, C Workman-Davies ed, pp 137-144.
AusIMM, Carlton, VIC. 1999.
6. Djordjevic, N. Two-component model of blast fragmentation. In Proc 6
th
Int Symp on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, pp 213-219. Symposium series S21. SAIMM, Johannesburg. 1999.
7. Grundstrom, C, S M Kanchibotla, A Jankovich & D Thornton. Blast fragmentation for
maximising the SAG mill throughput at Porgera gold mine. In Proc ISEE 27
th
Ann Conf Expl &
Blasting Techn, vol 1, pp 383-399. ISEE, Cleveland OH. 2001.
8. Paley, N & T Kojovic. Adjusting blasting to increase SAG mill throughput at the Red Dog mine.
In Proc ISEE 27
th
Ann Conf Expl & Blasting Techn, pp 65-81. ISEE, Cleveland OH. 2001.
9. Ouchterlony, F. Influence of blasting on the size distribution and properties of muckpile
fragments, a state-of-the-art review. Report MinFo project P2000-10. Swedish Industrial Minerals
Association, Stockholm. 2003.
10. Svahn, V. Generation of fines in bench blasting. Licentiate thesis, Dept of geology publ A104,
Chalmers University of Techn, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2003.
11. Moser, P, A Grasediek, V Arsic & G Reicholf. Charakteristik der Korngrssenverteilung von
Sprenghauwerk im Feinbereich. Berg- und Httenmnnische Monatshefte 148, pp 205-216. 2003.
12. Miklautsch, A. Experimental investigation of the blast fragmentation behaviour of rock and
concrete. Diploma work, Institut fr Bergbaukunde, Bergtechnik und Bergwirtschaft,
Montanuniversitt Leoben, Austria. 2002.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 17
13. Steiner, H J. The significance of the Rittinger equation in present-day comminution technology. In
Proc XVII Int Min Proc Congr, Dresden, vol I, pp 177-188. 1991.
14. Steiner, H J. Zerkleinerungstechnische Eigenschaften von Gesteinen. Felsbau vol 16, pp 320-325.
1998.
15. Moser, P, N Cheimanoff, R Ortiz & R Hochholdinger. Breakage characteristics in rock blasting. In
Proc EFEE 1
st
Conf on Explosives & Blasting Technique, R Holmberg ed, pp 165-170. Balkema,
Rotterdam. 2000.
16. Moser, P. Less Fines production in aggregate and industrial minerals industry. In Proc EFEE 2
nd
World Conf on Expl & Blasting , R Holmberg ed, pp 335-343. Balkema, Rotterdam. 2003.
17. Olsson, M & I Bergqvist. Fragmentation in quarries. In Proc Disc Meeting BK 2002, pp 33-38.
Swedish Rock Constr Comm, Stockholm. In Swedish. 2002.
18. Moser, P, M Olsson, F Ouchterlony & A Grasediek. Comparison of the blast fragmentation from
lab-scale and full-scale tests at Brarp. In Proc EFEE 2
nd
World Conf on Expl & Blasting , R
Holmberg ed, pp 449-458. Balkema, Rotterdam. 2003.
19. Napier-Munn, T J, S Morrell, R D Morrison & T Kojovic. Mineral comminution circuits Their
operation and optimisation. JKMRC Monograph Series in Mining and Mineral Processing.
JKMRC, Brisbane QLD. 1996.
20. Ouchterlony, F. Bend it like Beckham or a wide-range yet simple fragment size distribution for
blasted and crushed rock. Internal technical rpt no. xxx, EU project GRD-2000-25224. 2003.
21. Cunningham, C V B. Personal communication, 2003.
22. Kun, F & H J Herrmann. A study of fragmentation processes using a discrete element method,
Comp Meth in Appl Mech Eng vol 138, pp 3-18. 1996.
23. strm, J A, B L Holian & J Timonen. Universality in fragmentation. Phys Rev Letters vol 84, pp
3061-3064. 2000.
24. strm, J A, F Ouchterlony, R P Linna & J Timonen. Universal fragmentation in D dimensions.
Submitted to Physical Rev Letters, 2003.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 18
25. Kristiansen, J. A study of how the velocity of detonation affects fragmentation and the quality of
fragments in a muckpile. In Proc Explo95 Conference, pp 437-444. Publication series no. 6/95.
AusIMM, Carlton VIC. 1995.
26. Kojovic, T, S Michaux & C M McKenzie. Impact of blast fragmentation on crushing and
screening operations in quarrying. In Proc Explo95 Conference, pp 427-436. Publication series
no 6/95. AusIMM, Carlton VIC. 1995.
27. Bhm, A.& Mayerhofer, R.: Mechanical fragmentation tests- optimized comminution sequence-
energy register function. Internal technical rpt no.22, EU project GRD-2000-25224. 2002.
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 19
Tables
Table 1: Curve fit data for Brarp rounds
17,18
.
Round
no.
Blast-hole
mm
x
50
mm
x
max
mm
b
Range
mm
r
2
Residuals
% of scale
1 51 468 1090 1,778 0,5-500 0,9966 < 2,4
2 51/76 629 2011 2,735 0,5-500 0,9976 < 0,9
3 76 529 2346 3,189 0,5-500 0,9969 < 1,8
4 51 459 1497 2,238 0,5-500 0,9973 < 1,8
5 38 414 1517 2,398 0,5-500 0,9977 < 2,2
6 64 422 2076 2,651 0,5-500 0,9977 < 2,2
7 76 511 1509 2,261 0,5-500 0,9968 < 1,9
Table 2: Curve fit data for crusher product samples at Nordkalk
16
, x
max
free or fixed.
Sample
number
x
50
mm
x
max
mm
b
Range
mm
r
2
Residuals
% of scale
Free x
max
2-01 75,9 300 2,558 8-300 0,9990 < 1,9
2-02 64,9 508 2,479 8-300 0,9950 < 3,3
2-03 86,7 300 2,211 8-300 0,9997 < 0,9
2-04 48,5 376 2,712 8-300 0,9995 < 1,2
2-05 82,8 300 2,178 8-300 0,9992 < 1,6
2-06 57,3 488 2,681 8-300 0,9987 < 1,9
2-07 84,7 320 2,195 8-300 0,9998 < 0,6
2-08 78,4 300 2,297 8-300 0,9998 < 0,6
2-09 75,7 377 2,218 8-300 0,9985 < 1,5
2-10 86,8 345 2,518 8-300 0,9995 < 1,3
2-11 95,9 300 2,198 8-300 0,9986 < 2,0
2-12 76,3 360 2,142 8-300 0,9991 < 1,1
2-13 64,9 300 2,333 8-300 0,9995 < 1,0
meanstd 75,313,2 35272 2,360,20 0,9989
Fixed x
max
2-01 75,9 315 2,625 8-300 0,9989 < 1,9
2-02 66,0 315 1,984 8-300 0,9930 < 3,2
2-03 86,8 315 2,270 8-300 0,9997 < 0,9
2-04 48,9 315 2,497 8-300 0,9993 < 1,7
2-05 82,8 315 2,234 8-300 0,9992 < 1,6
2-06 58,2 315 2,200 8-300 0,9977 < 2,8
2-07 84,7 315 2,175 8-300 0,9998 < 0,6
2-08 78,4 315 2,356 8-300 0,9997 < 0,7
2-09 75,9 315 2,027 8-300 0,9982 < 1,4
2-10 86,7 315 2,400 8-300 0,9994 < 1,4
2-11 96,1 315 2,254 8-300 0,9985 < 2,0
2-12 76,4 315 2,002 8-300 0,9989 < 1,3
2-13 64,9 315 2,386 8-300 0,9994 < 1,1
meanstd 75,513,0 2,260,19 0,9986
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 20
Table 3: Curve fit data for block samples blasted with different explosives
25
.
Explosive
x
50
mm
x
max
mm
b
Range
mm
r
2
Residuals
% of scale
Syenite
Extra Dynamite 32,9 113 2,441 0,5-100 0,9976 < 2,0
Extra Dynamite 33,2 135 2,635 0,5-100 0,9969 < 2,0
Extra Dynamite 33,8 124 2,437 0,5-100 0,9970 < 2,0
Dynamite 62,9 167 2,053 0,5-150 0,9955 < 3,1
Dynamite 76,1 168 1,813 0,5-150 0,9938 < 2,8
Dynamite 72,1 184 1,976 0,5-150 0,9936 < 4,6
Granite
Extra Dynamite 49,9 143 2,233 1-125 0,9984 < 0,8
Extra Dynamite 50,5 136 2,102 1-125 0,9994 < 1,5
Extra Dynamite 46,6 142 2,198 1-100 0,9996 < 0,6
Dynamite 66,1 127 1,657 1-125 0,9996 < 0,8
Dynamite 74,2 131 1,607 1-125 0,9994 < 1,6
Dynamite 78,1 133 1,592 1-125 0,9988 < 2,0
Gneiss
Extra Dynamite 60,8 161 2,465 1-125 0,9990 < 2,1
Extra Dynamite 62,5 146 2,279 1-125 0,9988 < 1,6
Extra Dynamite 66,8 168 2,537 1-125 0,9958 < 5,1
Dynamite 95,3 330 2,939 1-100 0,9985 < 0,9
Dynamite 103 464 3,559 1-100 0,9995 < 0,4
Dynamite 106 408 3,261 1-100 0,9989 < 0,7
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 21
Figures
Figure 1: Fragment size distribution of blasted hornfels from Mt Coot-tha quarry
26
with
Rosin-Rammler curve fit
20
. Data range 0,35-2000 mm. Curve fit parameters x
50
=
115,8 mm, n = 0,572. Coefficient of correlation r
2
= 0,9958.
Figure 2: Comparison of fragment size distributions in CZM
5
and TCM
6
models. Note
different characters of curves but same linear behaviour in logP versus logx space
in fines range.
0.2 2 20 200 2000
Mesh size, mm
1
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
1
10
-2.5
5
-2.5
5
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
0.1 1 10 100
Mesh size, mm
0.1
1
10
100
Mass passing, %
CZM fines part with
crushed zone estimate
TCM model has
smooth curve
CZM grafting point
at x
50
or larger
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 22
Figure 3: Fragmentation curves from crushing and grinding of amphibolite in OCS sub-
circuits
11, 27
.
Figure 4: Energy register curves
16, 27
for limestones and the Hengl amphibolite of Figure 3.
NBC Amphibolit
0,1
1,0
10,0
100,0
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Maschenweite, [mm]
D
u
r
c
h
g
a
n
g
,




[
%
]
Strom 1 Strom 4 Strom 7 Strom 10 Strom 13
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Cumulative Net Energy Consumption [J/g]
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
c
m

/
g
]
Hengl CP NK Type R
NK Type S NK Type K NK Type F
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 23
Figure 5: Comparison of fragmentation curves from OCS comminution in Figure 3 and
model-scale blasts on same amphibolite
16
.
Figure 6: Comparison of fragmentation curves from model- and full-scale blasts of Brarp
granitic gneiss
18
.
g p
0,1
1,0
10,0
100,0
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Screen size [mm]
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
[
%
]
BIT 2B (190/4)
BIT 66 (190/4)
BIT 3 (190/5)
BIT 79 (190/5)
BIT 2A (240/5)
BIT 21 (240/5)
BIT 8 (290/5)
BIT 78 (290/5)
BIT 73A (100/5)
BIT 73B (100/5)
Comminution
Curves
BIT 2B (190/4)
BIT 66 (190/4)
BIT 3 (190/5)
BIT 79 (190/5)
BIT 2A (240/5)
BIT 21 (240/5)
BIT 8 (290/5)
BIT 78 (290/5)
BIT 73A (100/5)
BIT 73B (100/5)
Comminution
Curves
Blasting
C
o
m
m
i
n
u
t
i
o
n
0,1
1
10
100
0,01 0,1 1 10 100 1000
Screensize (mm)
P
a
s
s
i
n
g

(
%
)
Blast 1 51 mm
Blast 2 51/76 mm
Blast 3 76 mm
Blast 4 51 mm
Blast 5 38 mm
Blast 6 64 mm
Blast 7 76mm
BA 1-2 (192/5)
BA 10-1 (102/5)
BA 10-2 (102/5)
BA 2-1 (192/5)
BA 2-2 (192/5)
BA 9 (289/5)
BA1-1 (242/5)
180g/t
210g/t
214g/t
202g/t
210g/t
Fullscale Blasts:
Model Blasts:
specific charge
full scale blasts
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 24
Figure 7: Family of breakage functions for crusher based on the t
10
concept
19
.
Figure 8: Fragment size distributions extracted from the family of breakage functions in
Figure 7.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Breakage index t
10
, %
0
20
40
60
80
100
t
n
, % passing
t
4
t
2
t
10
t
25
t
50
t
75
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
inverse size reduction ratio 1/n
0.1
1
10
100
Mass passing, %
t
10
= 10 %
t
10
= 20 %
t
10
= 30 %
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 25
Figure 9: Fragment size distribution for Brarp round 4 with best fit Swebrec function
20
.
Data range 0,5-500 mm. Curve fit parameters: x
50
= 459 mm, x
max
= 1497 mm and
b = 2,238 (Table 1). x = 1000 mm is based on oversize counting, not a sieved value.
Figure 10: Comparison of Swebrec and Rosin-Rammler fits to coarse fraction data +90 mm
and extrapolation to fines range.
0.02 0.2 2 20 200 2000
Mesh size, mm
0.1
1
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
0.1
1
10
-1
0.5
2
-1
0.5
2
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 26
Figure 11: Using Brarp sample data in range 1-22,4 mm plus estimate of x
max
to make
Swebrec prediction of x
50
and coarse fractions.
0.05 0.5 5 50 500
Mesh size, mm
0.1
1
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
0.1
1
10
-0.1
0.2
-0.1
0.2
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

Figure 12: Using 0,5-22,4 mm fraction data from jaw crusher sample of granite plus closed-
side setting estimate of x
max
300 mm to predict missing fractions. Curve fit
parameters: x
50
= 77 mm and b = 2,33.
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Mesh size, mm
0.1
1
10
100
Mass passing, %
Swebrec function: x
50
= 460 mm
x
max
= 1800 mm and b = 2,41
x
50
50
x
max
= B
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 27
Figure 13: Brarp round 4 data with best fit extended Swebrec function
20
. Data range 0,075-
500 mm. Curve fit parameters: x
50
= 459 mm, x
max
= 1480 mm, b = 2,224, a =
0,99999812 and c = 2,0. r
2
= 0,9976. Note magnitude of prefactor (1-a) in (3).
Figure 14: Fragment size distribution for gyratory crusher product 2 (CSS = 1,5) of
andesite with Swebrec fit
20
. Data range 0,425-63 mm. Curve fit parameters: x
50
= 35,6 mm, x
max
= 68 mm and b = 1,531. r
2
= 0,9961.
0.02 0.2 2 20 200 2000
Mesh size, mm
0.1
1
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
0.1
1
10
-1
0.5
2
-1
0.5
2
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
0.1 1 10 100
Mesh size, mm
1
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
1
10
-1
3
-1
3
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 28
Figure 15: Fragment size distribution for belt sample 2-04 of Nordkalk limestone
20
.
Swebrec function fit with fixed x
max
= 315 mm. Data range 0,25-300 mm.
Parameters: x
50
= 48,8 mm and b = 2,451. r
2
= 0,9994 (Table 2).
Figure 16: Laboratory ball mill data for limestone after 6 min grinding with extended
Swebrec function fit
20
. Data range 0,063-3,36 mm. Curve fit parameters: x
50
=
1,00 mm, x
max
= 3,36 mm, b = 1,010, a = 0,9911 and c = 1,753. r
2
= 0,9995.
0.05 0.5 5 50 500
Mesh size, mm
0.1
1
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
0.1
1
10
-0.5
1
-0.5
1
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

0.05 0.5 5
Mesh size, mm
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
10
-0.5
0.25
-0.5
0.25
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 29
Figure 17: JKMRC breakage function for crusher
19
at t
10
= 30 %, with Swebrec function
20
.
Data range 0,025-1. Curve fit parameters:
50
= 0,197,
max
= 1,0 and b = 2,431.
r
2
= 0,9985.
Figure 18: Mass passing isolines for constant degrees of size reduction, plotted as function of
the breakage index t
10
. Full lines denote predictions by (5) and (6).
0.01 0.1 1
Size fraction
1
10
M
a
s
s

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%
1
10
-2
1
-2
1
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
0 10 20 30 40 50
Breakage index t
10
, %
0
20
40
60
80
100
t
n
, % passing
t
10
t
2
t
4
t
25
t
50
t
75
b = 1,616+0,02735
.
t
10
b = 2,174
Finn Ouchterlony: The Swebrec function, blast fragmentation, the Kuz-Ram etc 30
Figure 19: Comparison of three model predictions of the fragment size distribution of the
Brarp round 4 muckpile with actual data in logP versus logx space.
Figure 20: Comparison of three model predictions of the fragment size distribution of the
Brarp round 4 muckpile with actual data in P versus logx space.
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Mesh size, mm
0.1
1
10
100
Mass passing, %
extended Kuz-Ram or KCO model:
x
50
= 448 mm, x
max
= 2000 mm and b = 2,43
x
50
50
Kuz-Ram model:
x
50
= 448 mm and n = 1,17
shifted
Kuz-Ram
0 1 1 10 100 1000
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mass passing, %
extended Kuz-Ram
or KCO model
50
Kuz-Ram
model
shifted
Kuz-Ram