## 4 Application  
To verify the evaluation and optimization method proposed in this paper, a practical bench blast engineering in a copper deposit was selected as an application case. The photo shot on site is shown in Figure 8. This copper mine is mined by open-pit deep-hole step blasting. A No. 2 rock explosive is selected, and the structure of continuous charge is adopted. The total charge amount in the blasting area is 4392 kg. Detonators are used to detonate explosives. The latest Series IV advanced vibration and overpressure monitors are used for the blasting vibration measurement.  
Figure 6: Histogram of blast effect evaluation by first-level mathematical model: (**a**) blasting safety; (**b**) blasting quality; (**c**) blasting cost.  
Figure 7: Histogram of blast comprehensive evaluation.  
In general, there is visual error between photo measurement and site measurement; therefore, the correction coefficient is necessary. The camera is used to measure the image of the explosive pile particles. The visible area of the blasting pile is selected to shoot in an open direction. The area of each shot is about 40-30 m. The camera should be located in the front of the shooting area, and the elevation angle of the line of sight is within 35 degrees. Insert a pole, which should be located in the middle of the field of view, with an effective visible length of 1-2 m. The image scale coefficient is determined by the size of the post on the image and the actual size of the post. Then, the error of the image measurement method is corrected according to the measured particle size of the explosive pile sample, and the correction coefficient between the image measurement method and the geometric method is obtained. In this study, the coefficient is 0.8 and the rock fragment distribution is shown in Figure 9.  
Figure 8: Muck pile on site.  
Figure 9: Rock fragment distribution: (**a**) histogram; (**b**) gradation chart.  
With the different construction environments, the data ranges and weight values should be changed according to the construction condition. The BEES provides the default data ranges, and also provides the permission to modify the data. In this study, the data ranges are listed in Table 5, and the weight values were not modified (see Table 4).  
The comprehensive blasting effect evaluation has two steps. First, in this study, a representative blasting operation was selected and 11 representative parameter values were obtained (see Table 6). According to the values of the 11 parameters, the BEES evaluates blast effect from blasting safety, quality and cost, respectively, and shows the evaluation results by histogram--as shown in Figure 6, the red column represents the evaluation result of the current index.  
Second, the BEES shows the comprehensive evaluation result--the result is shown by histogram--as shown in Figure 7, the red column represents the comprehensive evaluation result.  
The blasting effect evaluation of this bench blast is between fair and good. The blasting cost evaluation is similar to the blasting effect evaluation. The blasting quality evaluation is between good and very good, but the blasting safety evaluation is poor. So, this blast design is not optimized. The next blast design should focus on burden and row spacing, etc., to control the blasting fly-rock and vibration.