Bull Eng Geol Environ
DOI 10.1007/s10064-017-1100-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A new classification approach for prediction of flyrock throw
in surface mines
Turker Hudaverdi 1 & Ozge Akyildiz 1
Received: 19 December 2016 / Accepted: 10 June 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract A novel classification approach was proposed for
prediction of flyrock throw distance based on the site mea-
surements performed in a sandstone quarry. The classification
approach was created by using multiple discriminant analysis
(MDA) technique. The input parameters of discriminant anal-
ysis are blast design parameters and a rock mass parameter.
The grouping stage of classification was performed consider-
ing a well-known blast regulation for flyrock. Additionally,
multiple regression analysis technique applied to blast data
to create a flyrock prediction equation. By this way, the capa-
bility and differences of the classification approach were in-
vestigated. Model validation was performed on the test blasts.
MDA model successfully estimated the flyrock throw dis-
tance. Unlike the classical prediction models, the MDA model
predicts severity of flyrock throws instead of a numerical val-
ue. MDA model can be easily practiced by the created terri-
torial map. The model does not require any specific software
or training for usage and suitable for practical applications at
mines.
Keywords Blasting . Flyrock . Classification . Discriminant
analysis . Regression analysis
Introduction
Blasting is the main operation of excavation and production
processes in mining. Blasting operation has to be designed to
* Turker Hudaverdi
hudaverdi@itu.edu.tr
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Istanbul Technical University,
Maslak, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey
provide optimum rock fragmentation at minimum cost while
considering environmental concerns. One of the most impor-
tant adverse effects of blasting activities is flyrock. During
blasting, some rock pieces can be thrown and travel to very
long distances. Usually this unexpected projection of rock
pieces is termed as flyrock (Bhandari 1997). Some conse-
quences of flyrock are human response, serious injury or death
to employees, damage to properties and mine closure. Raina
et al. (2015) reported that, based on accident statistics, the 20–
40% of the blasting related accidents are due to flyrock.
Most important cause of flyrock is inappropriate blast de-
sign. Researchers have been studied on prediction of flyrock
throw considering blast design parameters and some geotech-
nical factors. The most well-known investigation was
achieved by the researchers of the Swedish Detonic
Research Foundation (Lundborg et al. 1975). They suggested
a general equation for maximum flyrock throw length based
on hole diameter. Also, size of the flying rock fragments was
calculated. A few years later, a report was prepared for the
United States Bureau of Mines to create a model for the de-
termination of flyrock range as a function of shot conditions
(Roth 1979). Hillier et al. (1999) published another report for
limiting the instance of flyrock from quarry blasting opera-
tions. Some scholars focused on the basics of flyrock and tried
to understand effect of the blast design and geological param-
eters on flyrock phenomena (Schneider 1997; Adhikari 1999).
Several researchers have approached the topic in terms of risk
management. These studies generally rely on analysis of his-
torical flyrock accident data (Mishra and Mallick 2012;
Bajpayee et al. 2004). In recent years, various modeling tech-
niques have been applied to predict flyrock throw distance.
Monjezi et al. (2010, 2012), Rezaei et al. (2011) and Ghasemi
et al. (2012) applied artificial neural network and fuzzy logic
techniques to predict flyrock throw. Amini et al. (2012) uti-
lized a machine learning technique called support vector

machine (SVM). Raina et al. (2011) used a probabilistic ap-
proach for demarcation of flyrock danger zone in an open pit
mine. Generally, all the researchers considered blast design
parameters as the input parameters of prediction models.
In this study, a new classification approach was proposed
for prediction of flyrock throw distance. The model was cre-
ated based on multiple discriminant analysis (MDA). The aim
of the classification approach is to reduce the prediction error
and provide new viewpoints for evaluation of flyrock throw.
Unlike the existing models, classification approach estimates
severity of flyrock throws and uses a regulatory basis.
Formerly, Aler et al. (1996) used multiple discriminant anal-
ysis (MDA) to create a blast fragmentation tool. The measured
blast data were classified into three groups based on the frag-
mentation efficiency. Castro et al. (1998) applied linear dis-
criminant analysis to quarry blasts to create a blasting index.
The index helped the researchers to determine ease or diffi-
culty of blasting operations. Hudaverdi et al. (2012) applied
multiple discriminant analysis to evaluate blast fragmentation
in a quarry. The researchers compared the results of the dis-
criminant analysis model and KuzRam fragmentation model.
In this research, blasting operations and flyrock incidents
were observed in a sandstone quarry. The blast data was
grouped based on a well-known regulation about flyrock oc-
currence in surface mines. Using multiple discriminant analy-
sis (MDA), a predictive model was created for flyrock throw.
Also a prediction equation was developed by multiple regres-
sion analysis. The results of MDA and regression analysis
were compared and the capabilities of MDA were discussed.
In the upcoming part of the paper, the modeling study is ex-
plained step by step.
Site investigation
Site investigation was performed in Kemerburgaz Region lo-
cated in the western part of Istanbul. The regional geological
structure is referred to Trakya formation. The formation sub-
stantially contains sandstone layers. Additionally, thin layered
shale and limestone are observed. Trakya formation consists
of carboniferous aged, fragmented sediments. It was de-
formed, folded and fragmented by joint systems in different
locations during Hercynian and Alpine Orogenesis period.
The thickness of the sediments is between 5 and 50 cm. The
thickness reaches 50 to 100 cm in certain locations, especially
for sandstones (Tugrul and Undul 2006).
There are four quarries operated in the region. Three of
them are neighbor quarries. This research was conducted in
Akdaglar quarry. The production rate of the studied quarry is
4000 tons/day. The produced aggregate is mainly consumed
by concrete and asphalt plants. Tectonic deformations are very
common in the studied quarry. Joints, folding, laminations and
thrust faults are observed in the benches. Andesite and basalt
T. Hudaverdi, O. Akyildiz
dykes are intrusive in weak zones. Main rock structure is light-
colored, thick − bedded sandstone. Rarely thin − bedded and
laminated sandstone is observed in the upper zones of the
quarry. Joint orientations vary by region. Main joints are char-
acterized by a NW-SE orientation. It has a NE-SW orientation,
more rarely. Because of the dense vegetation and structure of
Trakya formation, it is difficult to observe main joint system.
Mean fracture spacing in the blast faces is 1.15 m with a
standard deviation of 0.69 m. Flyrock measurements were
performed at the western benches of the Akdaglar quarry. In
the studied part of the quarry, there was no any significant
variation in the benches in terms of rock structure. The exces-
sive situations that may affect flyrock throw were strictly
monitored.
The rock of the quarry is sandstone that contains 60 %
silicium. The density of the rock is 2.70 g/cm3. The Mohs
hardness value is 5–6. The average porosity is 1.03%. The
average compressive strength is 81 MPa and the average ten-
sile strength is 5.6 MPa. The Young’s modulus is 17 GPa.
In blasting operations, Anfo (blasting agent) and emulsion
explosive (priming) were used. The diameter of the blast holes
is 89 mm in the quarry. The blastholes are initiated by milli-
second electrical detonators. In each blast, between 2 and 4
rows, each of which has 10–40 holes, are detonated. The
number of the holes that are initiated instantaneously changes
between 3 and 6. Totally, 77 blast data were measured to
develop prediction models. A typical bench face in the studied
quarry was presented in Fig. 1.
All main blast design parameters were measured and re-
corded to develop the flyrock prediction models. They are the
Burden (B, m), Spacing (S, m), Bench height (H, m),
Stemming (T, m) Hole diameter (D, m) and Powder factor
(Pf, kg/m3). The most critical and important parameter in sur-
face blast design is burden (Hustrulid 1999). If the burden (B)
is too small, detonation gases escape to the atmosphere.
Escaped gases push the rock fragments and project them un-
controllably. Too large burden may also cause flyrock. The
explosive in the hole cannot break the burden and the gases
vent through the collar of the hole creating crater effect
(Olofsson 1990). Spacing (S) less than burden may induce
premature splitting between holes and early loosening of the
stemming. Both these effects cause rapid release of gases and
excessive flyrock. Too close spacing may cause crushing and
cratering between holes and it also results in increase of
flyrock incidents (Bhandari 1997). Bench height (H) divided
by burden distance (H/B) indicates the stiffness ratio. Konya
and Walter (1990) classifies the bench height based on H/B
ratio. If the H/B ratio less than four and greater than one;
benches are considered as low benches. If the H/B is greater
than four, benches are classified as high benches. H/B ratio
should be more than two for good control of flyrock and
fragmentation. Insufficient stemming (T) can cause premature
release of explosive gases and results in flyrock and poor
A new classification approach for prediction of flyrock throw
Fig. 1 A bench face of the
studied quarry
fragmentation. Conversely, excessive stemming results poor
top breakage. That means large boulders in muckpile and
increase in amount of backbreak (Konya and Walter 1990).
The Powder factor (Pf) was added the model to reflect explo-
sive consumption per broken rock. Most blast fragmentation
formulas, like Kuznetsov (1973) and SVEDOFO
(Ouchterlony 2003) equations, use powder factor as a funda-
mental blast design parameter. Excessive consumption of ex-
plosive causes unnecessary overload. High powder factor
throws the flyrock to longer distances than low powder factor
(Bhandari 1997). The operational blast design parameters ap-
plied in the studied quarry are shown in Fig. 2, modified after
Segarra et al. (2010). Generally, the values of the blast design
parameters vary for each blast in the quarry.
Fig. 2 The measured blast design
parameters in the studied quarry
Since Ash’s (1963) suggestion about blast design ratios,
several blasting researchers have considered blast design pa-
rameters as ratios. In this study, the blast design parameters of
all the blast data are also used as ratios. The ratio of bench
height to drilled burden (H/B), ratio of spacing to burden
(S/B), ratio of burden to hole diameter (B/D) and ratio of
stemming to burden (T/B) are the blast design parameters used
for modeling. The apparent in-situ block size of the bench
faces was added to models to represent rock mass. In-situ
block size (XB) plays an important role in rock blasting oper-
ation and largely influences blasting performance. Rock
blasting is considered to be a transformation from the state
of in situ block size distribution to the state of blasted block
size distribution. The transformation energy is provided by
 T. Hudaverdi, O. Akyildiz

explosive material (Latham and Lu 1999). In addition to con- one discriminant function according to the number of
ventional measurements, WipJoint joint analysis software was groups. The first function maximizes the differences be-
used to determine the discontinuity properties and apparent in- tween the values of the dependent variable (groups). The
situ block size. WipJoint allows users to quantify bench char- second function is uncorrelated with it and maximizes the
acteristics such as joint spacing, orientation, and block size differences between values of the dependent variable, con-
(Hudaverdi et al. 2012). trolling for the first factor. The first function is the most
The on-site observations revealed that maximum flyrock powerful differentiating dimension, but later functions may
distance was due to face burst mechanism. Thus, the maxi- also represent additional significant contributions for dif-
mum horizontal distance between blast face and landed frag- ferentiation (Garson 2012). The discriminant analysis may
ments was considered as flyrock throw distance. Similar mea- be applied for (McLachlan 2004, Garson 2012):
surement technique was also applied by Ghasemi et al. (2012).
Modeling studies appearing in the literature also expect max- & Classification of the cases into the groups
imum throw length in front of the blast face (Richards and & Investigation of the differences between or among groups
More 2004). Flyrock throw distance was determined by using & Determination of the percent of variance in the dependent
tape measure and hand-held GPS (global positioning system). variable explained by the independents
The suggestions of the US Office of Surface Mining & Statistical pattern recognition
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) were followed dur- & Evaluation of the relative importance of the independent
ing GPS measurements (Eltschlager 2004). Only the frag- variables in classifying the dependent variable
ments which had the capacity to cause damage, injury or fa- & Analysis of classification accuracy of the grouped cases
tality were considered. Based on past observation in the stud-
ied quarry and the literature related to flyrock (Little 2007; Flyrock occurrence is controlled by several factors.
Ghasemi et al. 2012); these fragments have the approximate Therefore, a multivariate analysis should be performed to pre-
diameter of 10 cm. The descriptive statistics for the blast de- dict flyrock throw range. MDA is highly suitable for creation
sign parameters, apparent in-situ block size (XB) and mea- of a predictive model for flyrock. It is robust and flexible
sured flyrock throw distance (Ft) are presented in Table 1. technique. Flyrock occurrence may be grouped by severity
and MDA can be used to predict group membership. MDA
creates a practical territorial map. Unlike the existing soft
Multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) computing techniques appearing in the literature, MDA model
can be easily used by site engineers. The classification concept
Multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) is highly related to of MDA has a potential to provide new perspectives on the
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (Tabachnick topic of evaluation of flyrock in surface mines.
and Fidell 2013). MDA is sometimes also named as dis-
criminant factor analysis or canonical discriminant analysis Determination of group membership
(Garson 2012). MDA is performed to classify cases into
the values of a categorical dependent variable (groups for The first step of linear discriminant analysis is the creation of
our case). In discriminant analysis, the existence of the groups. Measured data is divided into groups (sets) and group
groups is known a priori (McLachlan 2004). A discrimi- membership of prospective measurements is determined by
nant function is created as a linear combination of discrim- the discriminant functions. The classification of data is per-
inating (independent) variables. MDA applies more than formed by categorical variables. Fuzzy logic technique also
utilizes data grouping approach based on categorical
(linguistic) variables. There are various approaches to deter-
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for modeling parameters mine group numbers and limits in discriminant analysis and
fuzzy logic. Intuition, inference, rank ordering, neural net-
Min Max Range Median Mode Mean Standard works, inductive reasoning etc. can be used for grouping
Deviation
(McNeill and Thro 1994). Researchers may also utilize spe-
S/B 1.00 1.28 0.28 1.19 1.20 1.18 0.05 cific regulations or limitations to define groups. In this study,
H/B 2.40 4.25 1.85 3.18 3.50 3.18 0.42 one of the most influenced and well-known flyrock regulation
B/D 20.22 28.09 7.87 24.72 28.09 25.17 2.39 was used to group the blast data. The flyrock regulation is a
T/B 0.91 1.67 0.76 27.72 1.00 1.09 0.13 part of the US Code of Federal Regulations Title 30 Mineral
Pf (kg/m3) 0.47 0.96 0.49 1.05 0.69 0.66 0.12 Resources (2016). Section 816.67 (Use of explosives: Control
Xb (m) 0.21 3.11 2.90 1.21 1.24 1.37 0.70 of adverse effects) determines allowable flyrock distance:
Ft (m) 28.0 142.0 114.0 74.0 30.0 79.2 35.7 Bc) Flyrock. Flyrock traveling in the air or along the
ground shall not be cast from the blasting site–
A new classification approach for prediction of flyrock throw

(1). More than one-half the distance to the nearest dwelling
or other occupied structure;
(2). Beyond the area of control required under
Section 816.66(c); or
(3). Beyond the permit boundary.^
The Clause 2 and 3 indicate general restriction for area
security. Clause 1 gives a restrictive and definite descrip-
tion for the limitation of flyrock. It is possible to group
flyrock throw distance (F t) according to the Clause 1
above. In the studied quarry, the distance between blasting
area and nearest occupied structure was around 220 m. If
the flyrock throw distance exceeds 110 m (one-half the
distance to the nearest dwelling), the incident can be de-
fined as an excessive flyrock. In our case, measured
flyrock values were grouped as low, high and extreme
flyrock considering the regulation and the measured actual
data (Table 2). Basic three group classification (low-medi-
um-high, short-medium-tall, low-high-excessive etc.) is
very common in engineering and rock blasting literature.
Hudaverdi et al. (2012) proposed a blast fragmentation
prediction model based on three group classification. The
researchers grouped the blast data as insufficient, moderate
and highly efficient fragmentation based on the site
measurements. A discriminant analysis model was
created to predict the fragmentation efficiency of
measured blasts. Aler et al. (1996) also used three group
classification to create a blast fragmentation model. Table 2
summarizes the classification process for the measured
flyrock throw distance.
Development of the multiple discriminant analysis model
After the determination of the groups, multiple discrimi-
nant analysis (MDA) was performed. Six blast design and
rock parameters are the Bdiscriminating variables^ of the
analysis. The three groups, which are determined based on
flyrock throw distance, are called as Bcriterion variable^.
Discriminant analysis generates two discriminant functions
(DF). The number of discriminant functions is one less
than number of the groups. The discriminant functions
(DF) are created to obtain the combinations of discriminat-
ing variables that maximally separate the groups from each
other (Huberty and Olejnik 2006). The discriminant func-
tions are given by:
 .   . 
DF1 ¼ 16:155  S B −3:105  H B þ 2:376
 .   . 
 B D þ 8:560  T B þ 24:420  ðPf Þ
þ 0:338  ðXB Þ−95:035 ð1Þ
 .   . 
DF2 ¼ 40:936  S B −4:045  H B þ 3:044
 .   . 
 B D þ 15:837  T B þ 55:311
 ðPf Þ−0:435  ðXB Þ−165:512 ð2Þ
Discriminant functions (DF) are similar to regression equa-
tions obtained by multiple linear regressions. It contains dis-
criminant coefficients, discriminating variables and constant.
Unstandardized discriminant coefficients are used to form dis-
criminant functions. The discriminant function coefficients
are partial coefficients, reflecting the individual contribution
of each variable (blast parameters for our case) to the classifi-
cation of the criterion variable (groups). In the 1st discriminant
function (DF1), the discriminant coefficient of the discriminat-
ing variable S/B is 16.155. The constant of DF1 is −95.035.
The classification results are presented in Table 3. Results
of a multiple discriminant analysis are often presented in the
form of a classification table. Briefly, a classification table
explains how the discriminant functions perform (Landau
and Everitt 2004; Ho 2014). As seen in Tables 3, 28 blasts
out of 29 have been classified correctly for Group 1. Only 1
blast was misclassified. The percentage of correct classifica-
tion in Group 1 is 96.6%. For Group 3, 19 blasts out of 21
have been classified correctly. The percentage of correct clas-
sification for all 77 blasts is 90.9%. This classification accu-
racy is the indicator of the success of discriminant analysis.
The high success percentage is also a confirmation for the
Table 3 Classification results
Group Predicted Group Membership Total

1 2 3
Table 2 The classification of the measured flyrock throw distance
Count 1 28 1 0 29
Group no Category Flyrock range Number of
2 2 23 2 27
blasts
3 0 2 19 21
1 Low flyrock throw Ft ≤ 55 m 29 % 1 96.6 3.4 0.0 100.0
2 High flyrock throw 55 m < Ft ≤ 110 m 27 2 7.4 85.2 7.4 100.0
3 Excessive flyrock throw 110 m < Ft 21 3 0.0 9.5 90.5 100.0

accuracy and consistency of the classification of the blasts into
3 groups based on the flyrock throw distance.
Test of equality of group means is presented in Table 4.
Wilks’ Lambda is a test statistic for multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA). Wilks’ Lambda test is also used to
determine dominant discriminating variables on the occur-
rence of the three groups. Lambda values vary between 0
and 1. The decrease of Wilks’ lambda value indicates the
increasing contribution of the variable to the discriminant
functions (Garson 2012). As seen in Table 4, the lowest
Wilks’ Lambda values were obtained for B/D and Pf. The
contribution of the B/D and Pf to the discriminant model is
higher than the other blast design parameters. In other words,
the main differences among the groups are B/D, Pf, S/B and
H/B, respectively.
The territorial map of discriminant analysis in presented in
Fig. 3. Territorial map which is a graphical interpretation of
the analysis is plotted using discriminant function scores
(SPSS Statistics Base 20 2011). The discriminant scores are
obtained applying the discriminant function formulas (Eqs. (1
and 2)) to the data belonging to a given blast. The symbol B⊕^
on the territorial map shows centroids of each groups. The
centroids of the groups may be used to see the mean discrim-
inant scores of the groups on territorial map. The territorial
map, also called canonical plots, is utilized to determine the
group membership of the prospective blasts based on the dis-
criminant scores (Garson 2012). A random sample is present-
ed on Fig. 3 by dashed lines for the 14th measured blast data in
the studied quarry. The measured S/B, H/B, B/D and T/B
values of Blast 14 are 1.14, 2.95, 24.72 and 0.91, respectively.
Pf is calculated as 0.72 kg/m3. Measured XB value is 1.68 m.
Two discriminant functions were applied to the Blast 14. The
calculated discriminant scores are DF1 = −1.08 and
DF2 = −1.97, respectively. The intersections of the two scores
reveal that the Blast 14 is belonging to the Group 2 (Fig. 3).
Multiple regression analysis (MRA)
The multiple linear regression analysis is a powerful analytic
tool. It investigates whether a set of independent variables
explains a proportion of the variance in a dependent variable
Table 4 Tests of Equality of Group Means (MANOVA)
Wilks’ Lambda F df1 df2 Significance
S/B 0.714 14.822 2 74 0.000
H/B 0.717 14.594 2 74 0.000
B/D 0.163 190.312 2 74 0.000
T/B 0.894 4.410 2 74 0.016
Pf 0.231 122.915 2 74 0.000
XB 0.931 2.741 2 74 0.071
T. Hudaverdi, O. Akyildiz
at a significant level. It may be applied for statistical hypoth-
esis testing, prediction, construction of confidence intervals,
and power analysis. Graphical visualization is used for clear
depictions of the data and of the analytic results. Thus, multi-
ple regression analysis (MRA) is a versatile, all-purpose tech-
nique of analyzing the data over a wide range of sciences,
technologies and engineering (Cohen et al. 2003).
Multiple regression analysis (MRA) has been applied for
prediction of environmental adverse effects of rock blasting
(Singh et al. 2008; Ghasemi et al. 2013; Saadat et al. 2014). In
our case, MRA was performed to create a prediction formula
for flyrock throw distance. The aim of regression analysis is to
obtain a set of regression coefficients for the independent var-
iables. By that way, predicted dependent variables from the
equation is bring as close as possible to the dependent vari-
ables obtained by measurement (Tabachnick and Fidell 2013).
Regression equation is formed by coefficents, independent
variables and constant. The six blast design parameters are
the independent variables of the regression analysis.
Measured Flyrock throw distance (Ft) is dependent variable.
Regression equation is given by:
 .   . 
Ft ¼ −33:045  S B þ 18:657  H B −17:664
 .   . 
 B D −42:082  T B −105:316
 ðPf Þ−8:260  ðXB Þ þ 630:554 ð3Þ
Prediction formula is created by using unstandardized re-
gression coefficients. In Eq. (3), the regression coefficient for
independent variable S/B is −33.045. The constant for the
regression equation is 630.554. The constant indicates where
the regression line intercepts the y axis (Value of Ft when all
the blast parameters are zero) (Tabachnick and Fidell 2013).
The model summary for MRA and Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) are presented in Table 5. Obtained R2 value (coeffi-
cient of determination) is very high. Mathematically, R2 equals
the regression sum of squares divided by total sum of squares in
the ANOVA table shown below (Garson 2014). High correlation
(R) also indicates the strength of the regression eq. F test is used
to investigate significance of the model. F value in Table 5 is
obtained by dividing the mean square value of regression row by
the mean square of the residual row. Significance value is lower
than 0.05. In other words; the null hypothesis of no linear rela-
tionship of flyrock throw distance to the blast design parameters
is rejected (Dowdy et al. 2004)
Comparison of the models and the validation
The discriminant analysis model (MDA) and the developed
regression equation were applied to 26 blast data to validate
A new classification approach for prediction of flyrock throw
Fig. 3 Territorial Map
and compare the models. In the first stage, 5 error measures
were used to examine the success of the regression equation
(Table 6). Generally, researchers use a few error measures to
evaluate accuracy of prediction equations in rock blasting.
Absolute errors, especially Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), are very popular in the
blasting literature (Khandelwal 2010; Alipour and Ashtiani
2011). In this study, a percentage error measure (Median
Absolute Percentage Error, MdAPE) and a symmetric error
measure (Symmetric Mean Absolute Percentage Error,
sMAPE) were also considered to provide additional
perspectives. Percentage errors are relative measures that ex-
press errors as a percentage of measured actual data (Table 6).
They provide information about magnitude of the errors.
 T. Hudaverdi, O. Akyildiz

Table 5 Model summary and

analysis of variance for the Model Summary
regression analysis R R2 Adjusted R2 Standard Error Observations
0.918 0.843 0.830 14.7445 77
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance
Regression 81,762.054 6 13,627.009 62.682 0.000
Residual 15,218.024 70 217.400
Total 96,980.078 76

Symmetric errors were suggested to overcome the problem of
asymmetry of percentage errors and its possible influence by
outliers (Makridakis and Hibon 1995). Armstrong and
Collopy (1992) and Makridakis and Hibon (1995) discussed
error measures in detail. Contrary to the other error measures;
the higher the VAF, the better the model performs. For in-
stance, a VAF of 100% means a perfect prediction for flyrock
throw has been achieved.
Figure 4 was created to examine the prediction capability
of MDA and MRA models. Figure 4 also expresses the po-
tential of the classification approach. The model validation
revealed that the MDA is able to accurately classify flyrock
incidents. Correct classification percentage is %92.3. Only
two blasts were misclassified, Blast 9 and 17 (Fig. 4).
Particularly for the Blasts 3, 4, 5, 18 and 26, prediction error
of the regression equation is lower than 5 m. However, for the
blasts 10, 11 and 12, the prediction error exceeds 20 m.
Classification approach (MDA) for flyrock distance is more
flexible than the prediction approach. Classification technique
does not try to predict an exact numerical value for flyrock
throw. MDA is more reliable particularly for the Blasts 8 and
19 (shown by blue arrow in Fig. 4). The measured Ft is 50 m
for Blast 8. The regression equation calculated Ft as 59.6 m,
indicating high flyrock throw. However, MDA was correctly
classified Blats 8 into Group 1, low flyrock throw. The mea-
sured and predicted flyrock throw for Blast 19 are 117 and
106 m, respectively (Fig. 4). Although regression equation
indicates high flyrock throw (55 m < Ft ≤ 110 m); MDA
correctly classified the Blast 19 into Group 3, excessive
flyrock throw (exceeds 110 m).
A brief discussion on rock properties
Variations in rock type and rock mass properties may affect
flyrock incidents. Variation in the grain size distribution of the
rock should be monitored in the studied quarry. Finer grain
size may increase possibility of the flyrock events compared
to coarser grain size. Bench face condition should also be
considered in terms of blast damage and excessive backbreak.
Damaged faces may increase severity of flyrock. Blasting
damage is primarily achieved by stress wave interaction with
free surfaces. Compressive stress waves are reflected in ten-
sion upon encountering a free surface. Fractures occur as a
result of the reflected tensile stress waves (Yugo and Shin
2015). If necessary, site engineers may create site-specific
indexes or charts to evaluate blast damage on bench faces.
The blast damage index proposed by Yu and Vongpaisal

Table 6 Calculated error values

for the regression equation Error Type Formula Calculated Error Value

Mean Absolute Error n 9.92

MAE ¼ 1n ∑ jyi −xi j
i¼1
Root Mean Square Error rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n
ffi 12.01
RMSE ¼ 1n ∑ ðyi −xi Þ 2
i¼1
Median Absolute Percentage Error jyi −xi j
9.47
MdAPE ¼ 100 mediani¼1;n yi
Symmetric Mean Absolute Percentage Error n 13.72
jyi −xi j
sMAPE ¼ 200
n ∑ yi þxi
i¼1
VAF   89.05
ðyi −xi Þ
VAF ¼ 1− varvary 100%
i

yi = Measured flyrock throw (Ft, m), xi = Predicted flyrock throw (Ft, m), n = Case number
A new classification approach for prediction of flyrock throw
Fig. 4 Investigation of the accuracy of MDA and regression analysis
(1996) may be examined to understand important parameters
that influence blast damage. Yu and Vongpaisal (1996) created
a damage index considering the induced stress and damage
resistance. The induced stress is defined as dynamic tensile
stresses, which are caused when compressive strain waves are
reflected at the free face. It is calculated by using vector sum of
peak particle velocity, rock density and compressional wave
velocity of rock mass. The damage resistance was expressed
in the form of the dynamic tensile strength of the rock mass
multiplied by the site quality constant.
Variation in rock mass or extreme conditions may increase
severity of flyrock incidents. Bhandari (1997) indicated that
zone of weakness and voids may cause excessive flyrock. An
unexpected lack of resistance to drill penetration may be a
warning for a mud seam, a zone of weak rock or a void.
Recently, Raina et al. (2014) pointed out the importance of
presence of voids, incompetent beds in competent rock,
known or unknown anomalies in the strata. Incompetent zone
or voids in the bench may be stemmed instead of explosive
charging to prevent flyrock (Olofsson 1990). Persson et al.
(1994) recommended mapping extreme joints and fissures that
can cause problem for drilling and blasting.
Generally, blast researchers suggest revisions for the devel-
oped ground vibration and airblast prediction models
(Kahriman 2004; Giraudi et al. 2009; Hudaverdi 2012 etc.).
Revision is also important for the site-specific flyrock
prediction models. In the future, rock structure may changes
significantly in the different part of the studied quarry. The
developed MDA and MRA models should be updated de-
pending upon the time and progressing of the mine.
Discriminant analysis and regression analysis are non-rigid
and very adaptive techniques. When the need arises, the blast
database can be changed or renewed by adding new blast
measurements. It is possible to add new parameters to the
developed models. MDA and MRA models presented in this
paper can be easily adapted to a particular situation.
Conclusions
A novel multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) model was
created considering blast design parameters and rock mass
parameter. The accuracy of the model was tested on the vali-
dation blasts. MDA model was successfully estimated the
group membership of the blasts. At the same time, a prediction
equation was created by multiple regression analysis. By this
way, the capability and differences of the classification ap-
proach was investigated.
MDA may estimate severity of the flyrock. It does not
provide an exact numerical value for flyrock throw. This
may be helpful for public relations. If a numerical value is
estimated, inaccurate predictions are noticed by the people

more easily. For our case, even though high correlation coef-
ficients were obtained, some predictions of regression equa-
tion deviate more than 10–20 m. It should be kept in view that
flyrock throw length may be presented using categorical var-
iables instead of numerical values.
MDA model relies on a well-known legal regulation for
flyrock. US Code of Federal Regulations for Mineral
Resources were used to determine the groups. By this way,
safe and dangerous flyrock throw distances are decided by
available regulations. Relying on legislations strengthens
hands of miners. MDA is a very flexible technique. Number
of the groups and definition of group limits may be adjusted
according to local requirement. Miners may create new MDA
models considering regional regulations.
Another advantage of the both MDA and regression model
is ease of use. MDA model is easily practiced by a territorial
map and common spreadsheets. Discriminant scores of linear
discriminant functions are calculated by using a spreadsheet.
Then even a slight examination of territorial map may help
miners to estimate severity of possible flyrock incidents.
However, complex modeling techniques appearing in blasting
literature generally requires expertise. For example, a fuzzy or
neural network model cannot be used by untrained miners.
These models also require specific software.
Flyrock is a complex problem and influenced by several
factors. Therefore, prediction of flyrock incorporating all the
relevant factors is an extremely challenging task. There are
various suggested models appearing in the literature to evalu-
ate flyrock throw. Each model contributes the literature and
provides new perspectives. In the future, attempts may be
made to create new multiple discriminant analysis models
considering additional technological and geological parame-
ters in various mining sites. Classification approach intro-
duced in this paper has shown the capability of developing
accurate prediction models for flyrock throw distance.
Acknowledgments This study was partly supported by the Research
Fund of the Istanbul Technical University (project name: ‘The effects of
the variations in blast design and initiation systems on blast induced
ground vibrations. No: 38511). The authors are grateful to the Research
Fund of the Istanbul Technical University for their financial support.
References
Adhikari GR (1999) Studies on flyrock at limestone quarries. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 32:291–301. doi:10.1007/s006030050049
Aler J, Du Mouza J, Arnould M (1996) Evaluation of blast fragmentation
efficiency and its prediction by multivariate analysis procedures. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33:189–196. doi:10.1016/
0148-9062(95)00055-0
Alipour A, Ashtiani M (2011) Fuzzy modeling approaches for the pre-
diction of maximum charge per delay in surface mining. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 48:305–310. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.11.010
T. Hudaverdi, O. Akyildiz
Amini H, Gholami R, Monjezi M, Torabi SR, Zadhesh J (2012)
Evaluation of flyrock phenomenon due to blasting operation by
support vector machine. Neural Comput Applic 21:2077–2085.
doi:10.1007/s00521-011-0631-5
Armstrong JS, Collopy F (1992) Error measures for generalizing about
forecasting methods: empirical comparisons. Int J Forecast 8:69–80.
doi:10.1016/0169-2070(92)90008-W
Ash RL (1963) The mechanics of rock breakage (part 2) – standards for
blast design. Pit Quarry 56:118–122
Bajpayee TS, Rehak TR, Mowrey GL, Ingram DK (2004) Blasting inju-
ries in surface mining with emphasis on flyrock and blast area secu-
rity. J Saf Res 35:47–57. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2003.07.003
Bhandari S (1997) Engineering rock blasting operations. A. A, Balkema
Castro JT, Liste AV, Gonzales AS (1998) Blasting index for exploitation
of aggregates. In: Proceedings of the 7th Mine Planning and
Equipment Selection Calgary, pp. 165–168
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London
Dowdy S, Wearden S, Chilko D (2004) Statistics for research − third
edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken
Eltschlager KK (2004) Blasting applications for GPS. Proceedings of the
Advanced Integration of Geospatial Technologies in Mining and
Reclamation Atlanta, Georgia, In, pp 1–11
Garson GD (2012) Discriminant function analysis −statistical associates
blue book series. Statistical Associates Publishing, Asheboro
Garson GD (2014) Multiple regression − statistical associates blue book
series. Statistical Associates Publishing, Asheboro
Ghasemi E, Sari M, Ataei M (2012) Development of an empirical model
for predicting the effects of controllable blasting parameters on
flyrock distance in surface mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 52:
163–170. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.03.011
Ghasemi E, Ataei M, Hashemolhosseini H (2013) Development of a
fuzzy model for predicting ground vibration caused by rock blasting
in surface mining. J Vib Control 19:755–770. doi:10.1177/
1077546312437002
Giraudi A, Cardu M, Kecojevic V (2009) An assessment of blasting
vibrations: a case study on quarry operation. Am J Environ Sci 5:
467–473. doi:10.3844/ajessp.2009.467.473
Hillier DE, Holywell PD, Jeffries RM, Scott IMB (1999) Limiting the
instance of fly-rock from quarry operations, research report. WS
Atkins Consultants Ltd., Warrington
Ho R (2014) Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis with
IBM SPSS − second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Huberty CJ, Olejnik S (2006) Applied MANOVA and discriminant anal-
ysis −, second edn. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey
Hudaverdi T (2012) Application of multivariate analysis for prediction of
blast-induced ground vibrations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 43:300–308.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.08.002
Hudaverdi T, Kuzu C, Fisne A (2012) Investigation of the blast fragmenta-
tion using the mean fragment size and fragmentation index. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 56:136–145. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.028
Hustrulid WA (1999) Blasting principles for open pit mining−Vol 1 gen-
eral design concepts. A. A, Balkema
IBM SPSS Statistics Base 20 (2011) IBM Corp., Armonk
Kahriman A (2004) Analysis of parameters of ground vibration produced
from bench blasting at a limestone quarry. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:
887–892. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.06.018
Khandelwal M (2010) Evaluation and prediction of blast-induced ground
vibration using support vector machine. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
47:509–516. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.01.007
Konya CJ, Walter EJ (1990) Surface blast design. Prentice Hall Int, USA
Kuznetsov VM (1973) Mean diameter of fragments formed by blasting
rock. Sov Min Sci 9:144–148. doi:10.1007/bf02506177
Landau S, Everitt BS (2004) A handbook of statistical analyses using
SPSS. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton
A new classification approach for prediction of flyrock throw
Latham JP, Lu P (1999) Development of an assessment system for the
blastability of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 36:41–55. doi:10.1016/S0148-9062(98)00175-2
Little TN (2007) Flyrock Risk. In: Proceedings of the EXPLO 2007
Conference Wollongong, Australia. pp. 35–43
Lundborg N, Persson PA, Ladegaard-Pedersen A, Holmberg R (1975)
Keeping the lid on flyrock in opencast blasting. Eng Min J 95–100
Makridakis S, Hibon M (1995) Evaluating accuracy (or error) measures.
INSEAD Working Paper Series. No. 18/TM:1–31. https://sites.
insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=46875
McLachlan GJ (2004) Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recog-
nition. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey
McNeill FM, Thro E (1994) Fuzzy logic: a practical approach. AP
Professional, Cambridge
Mishra AK, Mallick DK (2012) Analysis of blasting related accidents
with emphasis on flyrock and its mitigation in surface mines. In:
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting New Delhi, India. pp. 555–563
Monjezi M, Bahrami A, Yazdian Varjani A (2010) Simultaneous predic-
tion of fragmentation and flyrock in blasting operation using artifi-
cial neural networks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:476–480. doi:10.
1016/j.ijrmms.2009.09.008
Monjezi M, Mehrdanesh A, Malek A, Khandelwal M (2012) Evaluation
of effect of blast design parameters on flyrock using artificial neural
networks. Neural Comput & Applic 23:349–356. doi:10.1007/
s00521-012-0917-2
Olofsson SO (1990) Applied explosives technology for construction and
mining. Applex, Sweden
Ouchterlony F (2003) Influence of blasting on the size distribution and
properties of muckpile fragments, a state-of-the-art review, MinFo
project report P2000–10: energy optimisation in comminution.
Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, Swebrec
Persson PA, Holmberg R, Lee J (1994) Rock blasting and explosives
engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Raina AK, Chakraborty AK, Choudhury PB, Sinha A (2011) Flyrock danger
zone demarcation in opencast mines: a risk based approach. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 70:163–172. doi:10.1007/s10064-010-0298-7
Raina AK, Murthy VMSR, Soni AK (2014) Flyrock in bench blasting: a
comprehensive review. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:1199–1209. doi:
10.1007/s10064-014-0588-6
Raina AK, Murthy VMSR, Soni AK (2015) Flyrock in surface mine
blasting: understanding the basics to develop a predictive regime.
Curr Sci 108:660–665
Rezaei M, Monjezi M, Yazdian Varjani A (2011) Development of a fuzzy
model to predict flyrock in surface mining. Saf Sci 49:298–305. doi:
10.1016/j.ssci.2010.09.004
Richards AB, More AJ (2004) Flyrock Control – By Chance or Design.
In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique New Orleans, Louisiana. pp.1–13
Roth J (1979) A model for the determination of flyrock range as a func-
tion of shot conditions, final report contract no. J03872A2.
Management Science Associates, Los Altos
Saadat M, Khandelwal M, Monjezi M (2014) An ANN-based approach
to predict blast-induced ground vibration of Gol-E-Gohar iron ore
mine, Iran. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6:67–76. doi:10.1016/j.
jrmge.2013.11.001
Schneider L (1997) Back to the basics, flyrock (part 2: prevention). The
Journal of explosives engineering 14:1−14 quarry blasting. Appl
Acoust 71:1169–1176. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.07.008
Segarra P, Domingo JF, López LM, Sanchidrián JA, Ortega MF (2010)
Prediction of near field overpressure from quarry blasting. Appl
Acoust 71:1169–1176. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.07.008
Singh TN, Dontha LK, Bhardwaj V (2008) Study into blast vibration and
frequency using ANFIS and MVRA. Min Technol 117:116–121.
doi:10.1179/037178409X405741
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2013) Using multivariate statistics, Sixth edn.
Pearson, New Jersey
Tugrul A, Undul O (2006) Engineering geological characteristics of
Istanbul greywackes. In: Proceedings of the 10th International
Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment
(IAEG) Congress Nottingham, United Kingdom. Paper no. 395
US Code of Federal Regulations-Title 30 Mineral Resources (2016)
Office of the Federal register national archives and records admin-
istration. U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC
Yu TR, Vongpaisal S (1996) New blast damage criteria for underground
blasting. CIM Bull 89:139–145
Yugo N, Shin W (2015) Analysis of blasting damage in adjacent mining
excavations. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7:282–290. doi:10.1016/j.
jrmge.2014.12.005