سید محمود معصومی نسب

Rock fragmentation can show the quality of blasting. Screen analysis can be also a precise method to determine size distribution of blasted rocks, but it is a difficult undertaking and sometimes impossible that is due to  the time consumed and large volume of crushed rocks. Nowadays, digital image processing is used to evaluate the rocks fragmentation due to its acceptable accuracy and speed. In this research, WipFrag and Split Desktop were compared for evaluation of crushed rocks. Case study was focused on fragmented rock in Jajarm limestone mine. At the first, an image was delimited manually in the both software. Then the results were compared with screen analysis, showing that the results of Split Desktop are closer to the screen analysis results. Maximum difference between screen analysis and results of Split Desktop and WipFrag is equal to 3.59% and 11.38%, respectively. Some comparative modes including the delimitation method effect (automatically and manually), the image rotation effect, and the separation of an image into four quarter images and a combination of the results are investigated. Maximum difference between the automatically and manually delimitation by Split Desktop and WipFrag is equal to 1.28% and 3.79%. Maximum difference for the image rotation effect for Split Desktop and WipFrag is equal to 1.96 perc%ent and 8.09% and Maximum difference for the separation of an image effect for Split Desktop and WipFrag is equal to 3.01 percent and 9.58 percent. Consequently, in all modes investigated the Split Desktop shows more efficient results.