Prediction of Mean Fragmentation Size in Open-Pit Mine Blasting Operations Using Histogram-Based Gradient Boosting and Grey Wolf Optimization Approach
Source abstract
Abstract
Blast-induced rock fragmentation plays a critical role in mining and civil engineering. One of the primary objectives of blasting operations is to achieve the desired rock fragmentation size, which is a key indicator of the quality of the blasting process. Predicting the mean fragmentation size (MFS) is crucial to avoid increased production costs, material loss, and ore dilution. This study integrates three tree-based regression techniques—gradient boosting regression (GBR), histogram-based gradient boosting machine (HGB), and extra trees (ET)—with two optimization algorithms, namely, grey wolf optimization (GWO) and particle swarm optimization (PSO), to predict the MFS. The performance of the resulting models was evaluated using four statistical measures: coefficient of determination (R2), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). The results indicate that the GWO-HGB model outperformed all other models, achieving R2, RMSE, MAE, and MAPE values of 0.9402, 0.0251, 0.0185, and 0.0560, respectively, in the testing phase. Additionally, the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME), and neural network-based sensitivity analyses were applied to examine how input parameters influence model predictions. The analysis revealed that unconfined compressive strength (UCS) emerged as the most influential parameter affecting MFS prediction in the developed model. This study provides a novel hybrid intelligent model to predict MFS for optimized blasting operations in open-pit mines.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Rock Mechanics and Modeling · Mineral Processing and Grinding · Tailings Management and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
State Key Laboratory of Precision Blasting, Jianghan University, Wuhan 430056, China
Hubei Key Laboratory of Blasting Engineering, Jianghan University, Wuhan 430056, China
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Funding
State Key Laboratory of Precision Blasting and Hubei Key Laboratory of Blasting Engineering, Jianghan University · National Major Science and Technology Project of China
References (76)
Show source-provided references
1. Effects of Axial Air Deck on Blast-Induced Ground Vibration10.1007/s00603-021-02676-9 ↗
2. A new horizontal rock dam foundation blasting technique with a shock-reflection device arranged at the bottom of vertical borehole10.1080/19648189.2017.1399168 ↗
3. Dynamic response of road tunnel subjected to internal Boiling liquid expansion vapour explosion (BLEVE)10.1016/j.tust.2022.104363 ↗
4. Novel approach to evaluate rock mass fragmentation in block caving using unascertained measurement model and information entropy with flexible credible identification criterion10.1007/s00366-020-01230-5 ↗
5. Multiple regression, ANN and ANFIS models for prediction of backbreak in the open pit blasting10.1007/s00366-012-0298-2 ↗
6. Nguyen, H., Choi, Y., Bui, X.-N., and Nguyen-Thoi, T. (2019). Predicting blast-induced ground vibration in open-pit mines using vibration sensors and support vector regression-based optimization algorithms. Sensors, 20.10.3390/s20010132 ↗
7. A Novel Artificial Intelligence Approach to Predict Blast-Induced Ground Vibration in Open-Pit Mines Based on the Firefly Algorithm and Artificial Neural Network10.1007/s11053-019-09503-7 ↗
8. Comparative study of WipFrag image analysis and Kuz-Ram empirical model in granite aggregate quarry and their application for blast fragmentation rating10.1080/17486025.2020.1720830 ↗
9. Overbreak prediction and optimization in tunnel using neural network and bee colony techniques10.1007/s00366-018-0658-7 ↗
10. Blasting-induced flyrock and ground vibration prediction through an expert artificial neural network based on particle swarm optimization10.1007/s12517-013-1174-0 ↗
11. Prediction and optimization of back-break and rock fragmentation using an artificial neural network and a bee colony algorithm10.1007/s10064-015-0720-2 ↗
12. Prediction of blasting mean fragment size using support vector regression combined with five optimization algorithms10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.07.013 ↗
13. Raina, A.K., Vajre, R., Sangode, A., and Chandar, K.R. (2024). Application of artificial intelligence in predicting rock fragmentation: A review. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-443-18764-3.00003-5 ↗
14. Proposing a novel hybrid intelligent model for the simulation of particle size distribution resulting from blasting10.1007/s00366-018-0582-x ↗
15. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock10.1007/BF02506177 ↗
16. Holmberg, R., and Rustan, A. (1983). The Kuz-Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå University of Technology.
17. Cunningham, C. (2005). The Kuz-Ram fragmentation model–20 years on. Brighton Conference Proceedings, European Federation of Explosives Engineer.
18. Hekmat, A., Munoz, S., and Gomez, R. (2019). Prediction of Rock Fragmentation Based on a Modified Kuz-Ram Model, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-99220-4_6 ↗
19. A review of the development of better prediction equations for blast fragmentation
20. The Swebrec© function: Linking fragmentation by blasting and crushing10.1179/037178405X44539 ↗
21. A distribution-free description of fragmentation by blasting based on dimensional analysis10.1007/s00603-016-1131-9 ↗
22. Modified Kuz—Ram fragmentation model and its use at the Sungun Copper Mine10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.003 ↗
23. Model rock blasting—Effect of explosives properties and other variables on blasting results10.1016/0148-9062(73)90007-7 ↗
24. Larsson, B. (1974). Report on blasting of high and low benches–fragmentation from production blasts. Proceedings of Discussion Meeting BK74, Swedish Rock Construction Committee.
25. The Influence of Explosive and Rock Mass Properties on Blast Damage in a Single-Hole Blasting10.3390/mining4010011 ↗
26. Aler, J., and Du Mouza, J. (2018). Predicting blast fragmentation efficiency using discriminant analysis. Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, Routledge.10.1201/9780203747919-29 ↗
27. Ouchterlony, F. (2003). Influence of Blasting on the Size Distribution and Properties of Muckpile Fagments: A State-of-the-Art Review, Swedish Rock Blasting Research Centre, Swebrec at LTU.
28. Kumar, M., Kumar, V., Biswas, R., Samui, P., Kaloop, M.R., Alzara, M., and Yosri, A.M. (2022). Hybrid ELM and MARS-based prediction model for bearing capacity of shallow foundation. Processes, 10.10.3390/pr10051013 ↗
29. Determination of compressive strength using relevance vector machine and emotional neural network10.1007/s42107-019-00171-9 ↗
30. Application of several optimization techniques for estimating TBM advance rate in granitic rocks10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.01.002 ↗
31. Support vector machines approach to mean particle size of rock fragmentation due to bench blasting prediction10.1016/S1003-6326(11)61195-3 ↗
32. Application of PCA, SVR, and ANFIS for modeling of rock fragmentation10.1007/s12517-014-1677-3 ↗
33. Developing GPR model for forecasting the rock fragmentation in surface mines10.1007/s00366-017-0544-8 ↗
34. Predicting the average size of blasted rocks in aggregate quarries using artificial neural networks10.1007/s10064-018-1270-1 ↗
35. Application of soft computing in predicting rock fragmentation to reduce environmental blasting side effects10.1007/s12517-012-0770-8 ↗
36. Optimization of flyrock and rock fragmentation in the Tajareh limestone mine using metaheuristics method of firefly algorithm10.1007/s00366-017-0535-9 ↗
37. Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neural network10.1007/s00366-010-0187-5 ↗
38. Rock fragmentation prediction through a new hybrid model based on imperial competitive algorithm and neural network
39. Feasibility of PSO–ANFIS model to estimate rock fragmentation produced by mine blasting10.1007/s00521-016-2746-1 ↗
40. Prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting in Gol-E-Gohar iron mine using fuzzy logic10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.005 ↗
41. Performance evaluation of hybrid FFA-ANFIS and GA-ANFIS models to predict particle size distribution of a muck-pile after blasting10.1007/s00366-019-00822-0 ↗
42. A comparative study on the application of various artificial neural networks to simultaneous prediction of rock fragmentation and backbreak10.1016/j.jrmge.2013.05.007 ↗
43. Mean particle size prediction in rock blast fragmentation using neural networks10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.05.008 ↗
44. A systematic survey of hybrid ML techniques for predicting peak particle velocity (PPV) in open-cast mine blasting operations10.1007/s10462-025-11156-3 ↗
45. Automated intelligent hybrid computing schemes to predict blasting induced ground vibration10.1007/s00366-021-01444-1 ↗
46. A novel modified bat algorithm to improve the spatial geothermal mapping using discrete geodata in Catalonia-Spain10.1007/s40808-024-01992-7 ↗
47. A modified firefly algorithm applying on multi-objective radial-based function for blasting10.1007/s00521-021-06544-z ↗
48. A new enhanced grey wolf optimizer to improve geospatially subsurface analyses10.1007/s40808-024-02207-9 ↗
49. A novel ensemble machine learning model to predict mine blasting–induced rock fragmentation10.1007/s10064-023-03138-y ↗
50. Zhang, Y., Liu, J., and Shen, W. (2022). A Review of Ensemble Learning Algorithms Used in Remote Sensing Applications. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12178654 ↗
51. Establishment of blasting design parameters influencing mean fragment size using state-of-art statistical tools and techniques10.1016/j.measurement.2016.10.047 ↗
52. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 ↗
53. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
54. Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu, T.-Y. (2017, January 4–9). Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA. Advances in neural information processing systems.
55. Predicting compressive strength of concrete using histogram-based gradient boosting approach for rapid design of mixtures
56. Mean Block Size Prediction in Rock Blast Fragmentation Using TPE-Tree-Based Model Approach with SHapley Additive exPlanations
57. Extremely randomized trees10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 ↗
58. Computational intelligence modeling of hyoscine drug solubility and solvent density in supercritical processing: Gradient boosting, extra trees, and random forest models10.1038/s41598-023-37232-8 ↗
59. Online Extra Trees Regressor10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3212859 ↗
60. Mame, M., Huang, S., Li, C., and Zhou, J. (2025). Application of Extra-Trees Regression and Tree-Structured Parzen Estimators Optimization Algorithm to Predict Blast-Induced Mean Fragmentation Size in Open-Pit Mines. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15158363 ↗
61. Grey wolf optimizer10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007 ↗
62. Review of the grey wolf optimization algorithm: Variants and applications10.1007/s00521-023-09202-8 ↗
63. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs10.1139/z99-099 ↗
64. Wolf-pack (Canis lupus) hunting strategies emerge from simple rules in computational simulations10.1016/j.beproc.2011.09.006 ↗
65. Reynolds, C.W. (1987, January 27–31). Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Anaheim, CA, USA.10.1145/37401.37406 ↗
66. Particle swarm optimization algorithm and its applications: A systematic review10.1007/s11831-021-09694-4 ↗
67. Particle swarm optimization algorithm: An overview10.1007/s00500-016-2474-6 ↗
68. A novel approach to explain the black-box nature of machine learning in compressive strength predictions of concrete using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP)
69. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in auditing10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100572 ↗
70. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. arXiv.
71. The Future of Sensitivity Analysis: An essential discipline for systems modeling and policy support10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104954 ↗
72. Random forests for global sensitivity analysis: A selective review10.1016/j.ress.2020.107312 ↗
73. Comparison of local and global sensitivity analysis methods and application to thermal hydraulic phenomena10.1016/j.pnucene.2023.104612 ↗
74. Insights into sensitivity analysis of Earth and environmental systems models: On the impact of parameter perturbation scale10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.031 ↗
75. Handling the impact of feature uncertainties on SVM: A robust approach based on Sobol sensitivity analysis10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115691 ↗
76. An improved sobol sensitivity analysis method10.1088/1742-6596/2747/1/012025 ↗