Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Determining the fragmented rock size distribution using textural feature

extraction of images
Hadi Yaghoobi a, Hamid Mansouri a,⁎, Mohammad Ali Ebrahimi Farsangi a, Hossein Nezamabadi-Pour b
a
Mining Engineering Department, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fragmented rock size distribution is one of the most important parameters in open pit blasting that can affect the
Received 8 April 2018 mining and the mineral processing efficiency. For evaluating fragmentation by blasting, digital image analysis is a
Received in revised form 28 September 2018 fast and reliable indirect technique. In this study, based on the neural network and features extraction methods,
Accepted 1 October 2018
an algorithm was proposed to determine the size distribution of fragmented rocks. For this purpose, 226 images
Available online 9 October 2018
of fragmented rocks from various blasts, carried out at Gole-Gohar iron ore mine, Iran were used to prepare a
Keywords:
dataset. To extract visual features of these images, Fourier transforms, Gabor, wavelet methods and their combi-
Rock fragmentation nations were used and features extracted considered as the input vectors of neural network. Also, for these im-
Size distribution ages, using the manual mode of Split-Desktop software, F10 to F100 were determined (as the target data of
Image processing neural network). Then, the results of features extraction methods for 26 test images were compared with the re-
Visual feature extraction sults of auto mode of Split-Desktop. The results obtained showed improvements in the estimation of fragmented
rock size distribution using Fourier transform, Gabor and Fourier–wavelet methods with the value of 67%, 57%,
and 48%, respectively. Also, the estimation of fragmented rock size distribution has higher MRE in fine to medium
particles (F10-F50). Moreover, for F10-F50 the most improvements with the values of 52%, 40%, and 32%, are corre-
sponding to Fourier transform, Gabor and Fourier-Gabor methods, respectively. Also, all of the suggested features
extraction methods for estimating uniformity coefficient give better results than auto mode of Split-Desktop.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In open pit mining, rock fragmentation by blasting can affect differ-
ent stages of the production cycle [1,2]. Optimal fragmentation can con-
tribute to control and minimize the loading, hauling, crushing, grinding,
and processing costs in the mining industry [3–5]. Therefore, it is an im-
portant to minimize the costs of production [6].
Extensive studies were carried out on the methods of determining
the rock fragmentation by blasting. These methods include direct (siev-
ing) [1] and indirect methods (counting large particles, consumption of
explosives in secondary blasting, efficiency of loading machine, delays
caused by bridging in the crusher, visual analysis, photogrammetry,
and image processing methods) [7–9]. Among these methods, sieving
is the most accurate one, but it is costly and time consuming that can
also disturb the production cycle [8,9].
One of the common methods in determining the size distribution of
fragmented rocks is digital image processing technique [7–9]. The
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hmansouri@uk.ac.ir (H. Mansouri), maebrahimi@uk.ac.ir
(M.A. Ebrahimi Farsangi), Nezam@uk.ac.ir (H. Nezamabadi-Pour).
results of this indirect method are closer to the reality than the other
methods [10]. In this method, images are captured from the surface of
the muck-pile and then manually or by computer, distribution of
fragmented rocks is determined. The main advantage of this method is
that it can be used in a wide range without disturbing the production
cycle [11].
Image processing, as a technique of measuring fragmented rock size,
has been developed by Maerz since 1987 [12]. The earliest image pro-
cessing system is introduced by Gallagher [13]. In this research work
the size distribution of the fragmented particles is determined using a
system set up on a conveyor belt. The size distribution of the fragments
then evaluates by delineating the particles' edges using a chord sizing
method. Nyberg [14] presents an image system scan ning chord size
on an edge of the fragmented rock image in a muck-pile. Lin et al. [15]
use edge detection methods for identification of particles and find an es-
timate of the sieve size distribution of measured chord lengths taken
across the particle. Kemeny [16] applies elliptical approximation to im-
ages of rock fragments after using edge detection. Koizumi et al. [17] in-
vestigate the problem of partially obscured particles where spherical
polymer particles were delineated and circular approximations were
fitted on the two-dimensional projections of the detected particles'

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2018.10.006
0032-5910/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641
edges. Yen et al. [18] develop a method based on a watershed segmen-
tation algorithm. The segmentation result was not that very satisfactory
even to well sorted particles with a good background.
Since 1997, image processing of fragmented rock particles has be-
come a hot topic of research and a number of algorithms have been de-
veloped for measuring the size of rock fragments in different
applications such as gravitational flows, conveyor, muck-pile and labo-
ratory. Crida and Jager [19] develop a machine vision system for rock
fragmentation in which the image processing was based on the
human visual system (HVS). HVS has a pre-attentive stage and incorpo-
rates an attention focus stage. In spite of the highly insightful results,
computation time was approximately 10 min. Wang et al. study the
split of touched rock particles [20,21]. This algorithm firstly tries to
find a pair of cut points (start and end points) on the boundaries of
fragmented rock particles and then identifies a desired cutting path or
a split path using a cost function. Al-Thyabat and Miles [22] use images
of separated rock particles to evaluate the efficiency of measuring two
different dimensions of the particles, resulting in particle size distribu-
tion. Also, in order to separate touched particles in images, the water-
shed algorithm was utilized. Thurley [23] employs a morphological
edge detection strategy to draw the boundary of limestone particles
on a conveyor belt using 3D data. Obara et al. [24] apply mathematical
morphology in order to segmentation of micro-cracks. Zelin et al. [25]
apply a series of pre-analyzing steps on the images to solve the overlap-
ping problem for coal particles on the conveyor belt. In the first step, the
primary image was enhanced using Otsu method. Also, exponential
high pass filter and Fourier transform were used in order to improve
the images; and then the edges of particles in image were detected by
morphological edge detection. Chimi et al. [26] use a method based on
a watershed segmentation method in order to detect clods in the soil;
that is also applicable for remote sensing. In 2006, Al-Thyabt et al. [27]
focus on the difficulties occurred in analyzing the images of coal parti-
cles on a moving conveyor belt, such as, camera location, overlapping
of particles, image blurring, conveyor belt speed, dust generation, and
the treatment. After image analysis and using a Gaussian filter for the
image enhancement, the coal particles' boundary was determined man-
ually. Sereshki et al. [7] propose an algorithm for automated determina-
tion of the rock particles' boundary using a Sobel filter and
mathematical morphology.
The aforementioned studies were based on edge detection of parti-
cles to determine the size distribution of fragmented rocks.
Another approach is based on neural network and pattern recogni-
tion (machine learning) [28]. The major obstacle in applying neural net-
works for pattern recognition is the excessive number of inputs [29].
Luerkens [30] and Plansky et al. [31] reduce the number of inputs to
the neural network by taking the Bessel Fourier transform of digitized
images. Bootlenger et al. proposed the problem of rotational invariance
by averaging the concentric “rings” of two-dimensional Fourier trans-
formation. Averaged Fourier coefficients were used as inputs to a neural
network to determine the size distribution of particles of digitized im-
ages. Hand- sorting and sizing of fragmented rocks gave the training
sets [32]. Barron et al. propose a simulated neural network to recognize
fragmented rock size classes from muck-piles images in a large open pit
mine. Features were extracted from the digitized image using two di-
mensional Fast Fourier transformation coefficients. A back propagation
algorithm was used to train the neural network. Inputs and outputs of
neural networks were ring cut profiles of Fourier transforms and class
size distribution, respectively [29]. Jones and Maxwell [33] investigate
the use of neural networks to predict the size distribution of rock frag-
ments. In this case, profiles of fragments were processed and reduced
to a feature vector using fractal geometry information. Parkin and Calkin
[34] use a laser system to map edge features of particles as they fall be-
hind a sensor plane in order to determine the particle shape and to es-
timate size distributions. In order to determine shape descriptions,
geometric and fractal features of the digitized edge profile were used
as input to a neuro-fuzzy classifier. While this investigation improved
631
overall particle characterization, the system requires particles to be
sorted into controllable sizes, typically b75 mm. Petersen et al. [35]
use a textural approach based on the use of the variance and range op-
erators to estimate the average particle size and identify ore type on in-
dustrial ore feed systems. Tessier et al. [36] present an online automatic
ore composition estimator mounted on a conveyor belt in a laboratory.
Color and texture features based on wavelets and principal component
analysis (PCA) was used for training three different support vector ma-
chines (SVM) to classify five rock types into three different classes.
Murtagh and Starck use up to fourth order moments of wavelet trans-
forms to classify images of mixture aggregate [37]. Goncalves et al.
[38] present a study for classification of macroscopic rock texture
based on a hierarchical neuro-fuzzy model.
Chatterjee et al. select a segmentation algorithm from several tests
and then applied morphological, textural, and color feature extraction.
PCA was applied to reduce the feature vector and a neural network
was used for classification [39,40]. Singh et al. develop an application
of image processing on classification of basalt rock samples where
parameters are inputs to a neural network for classification [41].
Also, estimation of muck-pile size distribution is investigated by
[11,22,35,42].
Perez et al. propose a method to improve rock classification using
digital image analysis and feature selection based on mutual informa-
tion and a voting process to take into account boundary information.
Their proposed method includes feature selection and texture and
rock color feature extraction and uses SVM for classification. The origi-
nal image was divided into sub-images that are assigned to one class
based on the selected color and texture features using a set of classifiers
in cascade. Post-processing step included rock segmentation based on
the watershed algorithm; and a voting process based on this informa-
tion that enhanced rock classification [43]. A neural network based
soft sensor using image analysis was proposed by Ko et al. [44]. Based
on the captured surface images of muck-piles, the uniformity was char-
acterized and the neural network models for particle sizes were gener-
ated using the uniformity and an initial estimate of particle size from
software WipFrag. A nonlinear model was built to provide improved ac-
curacy in particle size estimation. The neural network was trained using
the Levenberg Marquardt (LM) algorithm. Hamzeloo et al. [45] extract a
number of the most frequently used size features from the segmented
images to estimate the particle size distribution on an industrial con-
veyor belt in crushing circuit of a copper concentrator using PCA and
neural network techniques. An investigation for remote rock lithological
classification is proposed by Perez et al. [46]. The proposed method was
based on dividing the image into sub-images and Gabor feature extrac-
tion using five different spatial scales with eight orientations applied to
each sub-image. Then, each sub-image was classified using an SVM clas-
sifier. Each rock was classified using contour information making all
sub-images that fall within the contour vote for the rock class.
In many cases, an extracted feature alone cannot have acceptable
performance. Therefore, another approach is based on Feature fusion
techniques. Feature fusion is the process of combining the specific ex-
tracted feature vectors to obtain a single feature vector, which is more
discriminative than any of the input feature vectors [47]. Sudha et al.
[48] study feature extraction using 2-D fast Fourier transform, DWT,
the Local Binary Pattern (LBP) and features fusion techniques for Iris.
A design-based texture feature fusion using Gabor filters and co-
occurrence probabilities is proposed by Clausi and Deng [49].
An investigation on data fusion, feature extraction, feature selection
and neural network classification for multi-source remote sensing and
geographical data is proposed by Ulfarsson et al. [50]. The considered
feature extraction method is based on the discrete wavelet transforma-
tion (DWT) [50].
A summary of these studies are presented in Table 1.
Based on the above studies, the advantages and disadvantages of
edge detection and machine learning based methods are summarized
in Table 2.
632 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641

Table 1
A summary of the presented studies in the field of fragmented rock size distribution, lithological classification, and ore grade estimation.

Reference Year Material Application Location Method Main results and comments

Gallagher 1976 Fragmented rock Size distribution Conveyor Delineating the particles' edges using a chord Not reported
belt sizing method
Nyberg 1982 Fragmented rock Size distribution Muck-pile An image system scanned chord-length on edge Instead of segmenting, this method used to
of fragmented rock simplify the analysis to meet speed and memory
limitations
Luerkens 1986 Fragmented rock Size distribution Muck-pile Reduced the number of inputs to the neural network by taking the Bessel Fourier transform
Norbert 1988 Fragmented rock Size distribution Muck-pile Particles were segmented, then used a number of reconstruction techniques to further delineate
et al. particles, which are only partly outlined during the first step
Bootlinger 1992 Fragmented rock Size distribution Muck-pile Rotational invariance by averaging the Computational advantages in solution speed.
concentric “rings” of two-dimensional Fourier Neural networks were trained and accuracy was
transformation 98%
Lin et al. 1993 Fragmented rock Size distribution Muck-pile Edge detection methods and measuring chord The chord lengths are statistically related to
lengths taken across the particle stereological probabilities, which yield
dimensional results
Barron 1994 Fragmented rock Size distribution Open pit Takes two dimensional FFT, takes “ring” cuts as The neural network was able to generalize and
et al. mining input nodes or pattern recognition features, identify the size classification with 97% of
trains the neural networks accuracy
Kemeny 1994 Fragmented rock Size distribution Muck-pile Elliptical approximation was applied to images Size estimation of partially obscured particles
of rock fragments after using edge detection shows good agreement with size measured by
the sieve analysis
Yen et al. 1998 Fragmented rock Size distribution Muck-pile A method based on watershed segmentation The segmentation result was not that
algorithm satisfactory even to well sorted particles with a
good background
Petersen 1998 Alumina-Silicate Ore type Industrial A textural approach (the use of variance and Average error of 7.1% in the estimation of mean
Geopolymer, Gold characterization conveyor range operators) was investigated particle size
and particle size belts
estimation
Wang 1998 Turmaline Breccia, Split and Conveyor Polygonal approximation; classifies concave Error of 10% in splitting and identifying touched
Porphyritic Dykes identify touched belt points; split large clusters into simple clusters; rock particles
Dacitic Diatreme rock particles finds the candidates of start and end points; use
Granodiorites a supplementary cost function
Andesite
Casali 2001 Fragmented rock Lithological On the Segmentation, feature extraction, feature For the testing set, the resulting error is smaller
classification conveyor selection by genetic algorithms, neural network than 3%
belt classificatory
Lepisto 2005 Natural rock images Rock – Applies Gabor filtering to different color spaces Improvement of the classification of natural rock
classification for the classification of natural rock images that texture images by combining the color
are used in bed rock investigations information to the texture description
Singh and 2006 Ferruginous Indian Rock Muck-pile Histogram analysis in the RGB color space, Not reported
Rao manganese ores classification combined with textural analysis, based on the
gray level co-occurrence matrix and edge
detection
Linek 2007 Basalt, lapilli tuff and Rock Borehole Combined Haralick features and wavelet The combined classification based on Haralick
breccia classification wall analysis based on resistivity patterns features and WTA improved classification up to a
images level of 98%.
Kaartinen 2008 Pyhäsalmi mine in Non-invasive Standard Based on a combination of a belt weighed and a The average error is around 3%.
and Finland particle size conveyor 3D laser scanner
Tolonen analyses belt
Murtagh 2008 Fragmented rock Aggregate In the Up to fourth order moments of wavelet Taking the second, third, and fourth moments as
and mixture grading laboratory transforms was used features, at multiple resolution scales, may
Starck enhance the discrimination between images
Goncalves 2009 Gneiss, basalt, Classification of In the NFHB-classa For all rock classes, the NFHB-class method
diabase, and rhyolite macroscopic laboratory achieved a percentage of correct hits over 73%
rock texture
Singh 2010 Thin sections of Classification of In the 27 extracted numerical parameters are inputs to 92.22% accuracy of automatically identification
different basalt rock textures laboratory a neural network
Thurley 2011 Limestone particles Coarse particle On a A morphological edge detection strategy was Overestimates the amount of b40 mm size class
size distribution conveyor employed to draw the boundary of limestone in the 40–70 mm products by about 10%, and
belt particles on a conveyor belt using 3D data underestimates the cumulative amount in the
20–40 mm product by about 25%
Perez 2011 Nickel mine contain Ore grade Conveyor Extract and select features based on rock color The RMSEb on rock composition classification
five ore types estimation belt and texture, and using rock boundary decreased 8.8% by using voting method with the
information to improve classification automatic segmentation with respect to direct
performance by a sub-image voting scheme and sub-image classification. The RMSE decreased
use of SVM 29.5% using a mixture of dry and wet rocks
Koand 2011 Ore particles from Particle size Randomly The uniformity of particles was characterized R2 of the model prediction for D50 is 79.59%,
Shang nickel mine distribution distributed and the neural network models were generated lower than those for D75 and D90
over a flat (using the uniformity and an initial estimate of
tray particle size from WipFrag©)
Tafesse 2012 Gravel and cobble, 3D size Non-touch The size and shape of the particles were Not reported
size varies from 2 to distribution and particles processed using GIDc program. This image
20 cm shape of coarse analysis program produced different kinds of
particles output images
Hamzeloo 2014 Copper Size distribution Industrial Extraction a number of the most frequently used There were substantial differences between size
concentration conveyor size features from the segmented images using distributions obtained from various size
 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641 633

Table 1 (continued)

Reference Year Material Application Location Method Main results and comments

belt in PCA and neural network measured

crushing
Perez 2015 Dry and wet rock Rock lithological On a Gabor filters were used to extract features from Improvements in classification accuracy,
et al. (nickel and copper) classification conveyor each sub-image. Each sub-image was classified between 8.3% and 26%, relative to previously
belt into a lithological class using SVM published results
Sereshki 2016 Fragmented rock Size distribution In the Sobel filter and mathematical morphology Error of 30% in estimation D80
et al. laboratory
a
Neuro-fuzzy hierarchical class model based on binary space partitioning (NFHB-class).
b
Root mean square error.
c
Glow in the dark (GID).

In this research, based on Feature fusion techniques and neural net-
works, a new algorithm is developed to determine fragmented rock size
distribution.
2. The fragmented rock size distribution software packages
Digital image processing algorithms and software packages have
been developed to determine the size distribution of rock particles
since 1990 and have actually found a world acceptance in the mining
and mineral processing industries.
In rock engineering, many computer software packages have been
developed based on image processing, which make a rapid blast frag-
mentation distribution assessment [7,9,51]. Some of these 2D image
processing software packages are IPACS, TUCIPS, FragScan, CIAS,
GoldSize, WipFrag, Split-Desktop, PowerSieve and Fragalyst [7–9].
Split-Desktop, WipFrag, FragScan, and GoldSize are the most popular
software packages for performing the size distribution analysis of the
rock particles [7,9,52].

Table 2
Advantages and disadvantages of edge detection and machine learning based methods.
Method Advantages
Based on No need for comprehensive
edge training sets
detection
Based on The potential of developing
machine image processors based on
learning neural networks that recognize
the size distribution in real-time
Neural networks can be quickly
trained to recognize size
distribution
Reducing the number of inputs to
the neural network will lead to a
large increase in the
computational speed
Highly accurate results if used
with comprehensive training set
2.1. Split-Desktop software
Disadvantages
Split-Desktop is the most commonly used software in determining
Often these methods deal with
some problems such as shadow,
fragmented rock size distribution and is based on the 2D image process-
dust, overlapping of particles, ing. It uses images captured with two objects that are used as scale. After
and the level of light reflected in the scaling process, the software delineates grayscale images automati-
particles of rock fragments cally with an image filter; and then size distribution of fragmented rock
In most cases, the segmentation
is determined [7,16,53]. Girdner describe steps of fragmented rock
results are not that satisfactory
due to the fact that the edge image analyses as equalizing the gray levels, Sobel edge detection, bi-
particles are not closed curves nary conversion using threshold, the distance transform on the edge
and therefore wrong edges are of the binary image, and modifying the watershed segmentation
formed [54,55]. Split-Desktop creates the best-fitted elliptical on the detected
Common algorithms cannot be
used to separate the rock
area and calculates the size of each particle. Then, small and large ellip-
particles that are being touched tical diameters are considered as an input to a correction function [53].
with each other
A neural network can only detect
the size distribution of rock Sampling
particles in images, based on the
closest distribution of size used
in the training sets Image Acquisition (Representative of Muck-pile)
The accuracy of the results
depends on the size of the
comprehensive training sets, Digital Image Processing Including:
which includes all the
distributions of probable
dimensions that may be Preprocessing and Image Enhancement
observed on the field
Limitation of the number of
inputs to the neural network Extraction of Scales, Elimination of Perspective
Distortion, Normalization
Need to sort and determine the
boundary of fragmented rock
Feature Extraction and Construction Feature Vectors
particles to provide training sets
There are no specific rules or
instructions for network design Assigning Feature Vectors as Inputs to Neural
for an optional use
With regard to modeling issues,
it is simply not possible to Training, Validation, and Test of Network (Compare
understand the physics by using with Manual Edged Images)
the neural network
Network training may be difficult
or even impossible Determine the Size Distribution of Fragmented Rock
It is simply not possible to
predict the future function of the
Fig. 1. The structure of the proposed algorithm to determine the fragmented rock particles'
network (generalization)
size distribution.
634 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641

In this software, delineation of images can be done manually or auto-

matically. However, both modes have the same algorithm. In manual
mode, the boundary between rock particles is determined by the user;
while in automatic mode, due to the contrast in the image, the boundary
is automatically [9] recognized by software. In the automatic mode, the
processing speed is higher while in the manual mode, the precision is
greater [7].

3. The proposed algorithm

The proposed algorithm is based on pattern recognition and ma-

chine learning techniques. The main purpose is the extraction of appro-
priate and discriminator features and then applying neural networks to
determine the fragmented rock size distribution. The structure of the
proposed algorithm is shown in Fig. 1. In this algorithm, the steps of
sampling, image acquisition, preprocessing and image enhancement,
extraction of scales, elimination of perspective and normalization are
similar to classical image analysis algorithms.
3.1. Visual features extraction
When the input data to an algorithm is too large to be processed and
it is suspected to be redundant, then it can be transformed into a re-
duced set of features (also named a feature vector) [56,57]. For example,
an image with dimensions of 800 × 900 pixels is considered; If all pixels
to be included in the calculations, 720,000 pixels must be processed, but
by extracting representative features, it can be presented by a vector
1 × n, where n is usually a number b100 and subsequent calculations
are carried out on this vector.
In this section, features of muck-pile images are extracted and fea-
ture vectors are obtained by various methods. The more discriminant
extracted feature is preferred.
3.1.1. Fourier transform
The discrete Fourier transform of a function (image) f (x, y) of size M
× N and its inverse is given as follows [48,58]:
X NX
1 M−1 −1
f ðx; yÞe− j2π ð M þ N Þ
ux vy
Fðu; vÞ ¼
MN x¼0 y¼0
X NX
1 M−1 −1
Fðu; vÞe− j2π ð M þ N Þ
ux vy
f ðx; yÞ ¼
MN u¼0 v¼0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where j= −1, u, x = 0, 1, 2… M-1 and v, y = 0, 1, 2… N-1.
Fig. 3. The logarithm of the mean of each concentric ring in Fourier transformed image.
To extract the feature vector of fragmented rocks image in frequency
domain using Fourier transform, at the first, the image is resized to
equal size (800 × 800), then the Fourier amplitude is extracted and
image is divided into 20 rings, using concentric circles. Then the mean
and standard deviation are calculated in each ring [30,31]. The FV feature
vector with 40 members for each image is extracted as follows:
FV ¼ ½μ 1 ; …; μ 20 ; σ 1 ; …; σ 20  ð3Þ
where μi and σi are mean and standard deviations of the Fourier coeffi-
cients amplitude in ring i. If the obtained feature is more unique, the
ability to recognize images is more. The feature vectors of all images
in dataset (200 images) were extracted. An example of the concentric
rings on the Fourier transformed image is shown in Fig. 2. The logarithm
of the mean of each concentric ring in Fourier transformed image is
shown in Fig. 3.
3.1.2. Wavelet transform
Wavelet is a wavelike with limited time and zero mean and an un-
usual and asymmetric waveform. In the wavelet analysis, the desired
ð1Þ
signal decomposes to shift and scaled signals of main wavelet signal.
Changing the scale means the press or stretch the signal. To describe
changes in scale, a coefficient called scale factor is used. Smaller scale
ð2Þ factor, causes more compaction of wavelet signal. Shifting signal also
can be expressed by the delay or acceleration of signal. For the larger
scale factor, wavelet signal is longer, changes of details are slow and fre-
quency is low and vice versa. In most signals, low frequencies have often
an important part of signal information and this part of the signal, in
fact, is the identity of the signal. The high frequencies, also, express
the detailed information and minor changes of signal. The wavelet anal-
ysis includes approximation and details. The approximation is included

Fig. 2. An example of the concentric rings on the Fourier transformed image. Fig. 4. Wavelet decomposition tree [73].
 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641 635

in large-scale and low -frequency signal components and details are in-
cluded in small-scale and high-frequency signal components. In the ini-
tial stage of filtering, the original signal passes through two
complementary filters, being decomposed into two signals. Decomposi-
tion can be done in the form of consecutive stages [48,58]. This process
is shown in Fig. 4. The result will be as a tree, named wavelet decompo-
sition tree. Theoretically, consecutive stages of decomposition can be in-
finitely done, but in reality the decomposition continues until obtaining
specific details of the signal; and the number of steps is determined
based on the nature of the signal and the criteria such as entropy.
Extensive works have been carried out on wavelet analysis and var-
ious forms of wavelet were proposed through studies such as Haar,
Daubechies, Biorthogonal, Coiflets, Symlet, Morlet, Mexican Hat, and
Meyer [58].
Discrete wavelet transform of a signal f (t) can be derived from a
continuous wavelet transform. The scales and positions are discretized

Fig. 5. a. The components of details and approximations of wavelet decomposition in five levels, for a fragmented rock image, b. Histogram plots of original image, details and
approximations.
636 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641

Fig. 6. Two-dimensional Gabor function [73].

decomposition was performed up to the fifth level. Then, using wavelet

analysis, the mean and standard deviation of horizontal, vertical, and di-
agonal details and the mean and standard deviation of the entire image
were calculated as a feature vector with 32 members. The components
of details and approximations of wavelet decomposition in five levels
and histogram plots of original image, details and approximations, for
a fragmented rock image are shown in Fig. 5.

3.1.3. Gabor filters

In image processing, a Gabor filter, named after Dennis Gabor, is a
linear filter used for texture analysis. It means that it basically analyses
whether there are any specific frequency content in the image in spe-
cific directions in a localized region around the point or region of analy-
sis. Frequency and orientation representations of Gabor filters are
claimed by many contemporary vision scientists to be similar to those
of the human visual system. It has been found that this filter is particu-
larly appropriate for texture representation and discrimination. In the
Fig. 7. Gabor wavelets created by expansion and rotation of the main wavelet [73]. spatial domain, a 2D Gabor filter is a Gaussian kernel function modu-
lated by a sinusoidal plane wave. A set of Gabor filters with different fre-
quencies and orientations may be helpful for extracting useful features
based on powers of two while the signal is also discretized. The resulting from an image [48,58].
expression is shown in the Eqs. (4) and (5) [58]. The two-dimensional (2D) Gabor function and its Fourier transform
" # are calculated as follows58:
1 X ∞
n−kb0 aoj
DWTψf ð j; kÞ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffi f ðnÞψ ð4Þ    
a0j n¼−∞ a0j 1 1 x2 y2
f ðx; yÞ ¼ expð‐ þ cosð2πu0 xÞ ð6Þ
2πsx sy 2 sx 2 sy 2
 
1 t−b ( " #)
ψab ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ψ a; b∈ℜ; a≠0 ð5Þ
a a 1 1 ðu‐u0 Þ2 υ2
Fðu; υÞ ¼ f exp − þ
2 2 s2u s2υ
where j, k, n∈Z and a0 N 1 and ψ is the mother wavelet with two charac- ( " #)
2
1 ðu þ u0 Þ υ2
teristic parameters, namely, dilation (a) and translation (b). þ exp − þ ð7Þ
2 s2u s2υ
In this study, considering previous works carried out in the field of
wavelet analysis of rock images, Haar wavelet type was used and
1 1
su ¼ ; sυ ¼ ð8Þ
Table 3 2πsx 2πsy
Extracted feature vectors (single and combination of features) as inputs to the neural
network.
where u0 is the central frequency of sinusoidal wavelet in x direction, sx
Feature Data type Number of and sy are the standard deviation of Gaussian function in x and y direc-
extraction features
method
tions and su and sν are the standard deviation of Gaussian function in u
and ν directions. Gabor filters are obtained by expansion (scale) and
Fourier Mean and standard deviation of each ring 40
transform
Wavelet Mean and standard deviation of horizontal, 30 + 2 Table 4
vertical, Type of fragmented rocks and number of images for each type.
and diagonal details and the mean and standard
deviation of the entire image Number of Images Rock Type
Gabor Mean and standard deviation of 30 filters (five 60 + 2 75 Hematite
scales and six directions), and the mean and 4 Hematite and magnetite
standard deviation of the entire image 56 Magnetite
Fourier - Combine two features 72 13 Amphibole
Wavelet 52 Quartz schist
Fourier - Gabor 102 18 Gneiss
Wavelet -Gabor 94 8 Sand and gravel
 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641 637

Table 5
Basic descriptive statistics of F10 to F100 of dataset.

Passing (%) Minimum (in) Maximum (in) Mean (in) St-Dev (in)a Variance (in) C-variation (in) Median (in) Skewness (in)

F10 0.01 19.7 2.0 2.67 7.1 132.5 1.2 3.4

F20 0.01 32.3 4.2 5.2 26.6 123.9 2.3 3.2
F30 0.01 58.1 6.1 7.3 53.8 120.4 3.7 3.6
F40 0.02 65.6 8.0 8.8 76.6 109.8 5.3 3.2
F50 0.01 71.7 9.8 10.1 101.1 103.0 7.0 2.9
F60 0.03 77.2 11.7 11.5 131.1 98.2 8.7 2.7
F70 0.2 82.4 13.6 12.8 164.7 94.2 10.3 2.5
F80 0.9 87.7 15.9 14.4 206.3 90.3 11.8 2.4
F90 2.5 93.0 18.9 16.2 261.8 85.6 14.2 2.3
F100 5.1 103.6 24.5 18.7 350.6 76.5 19.1 2.1
a
Standard deviation.

In this filter bank, to create a two-dimensional Gabor filter with 800

× 800, five scales (0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 and 0.025) and six directions (0,
Histogram of Fines Factor
Lognormal 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150) are used and a, su and sν are 0.5, 0.65 and
60
Loc 2.499
0.35. Therefore, an array with 6 × 5 elements is created. By applying
Scale 0.8925 any of the Gabor filters (with 4 × 4 down sampling factor in the rows
N 200
50 and columns) on images, the filtered image was obtained [59]. For
each of the filtered images, mean and standard deviation were calcu-
40
lated and with the mean and standard deviation of the entire image, a
Frequency

30
feature vector with 62 × 1 members was extracted from the image as
follows:
20

10 μ mn ¼ ∬ j f mn ðx; yÞjdxdy ð13Þ

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 qffiffiffiffiffi
Fines Factor σ mn ¼ ∬ð j f mn ðx; yÞ j −μ mn Þ2 dxdy ð14Þ

Fig. 8. Histogram plot of fines of all dataset images.

3.1.4. Features combination

rotation (direction) of the main wavelet (f (x, y)), as below [58]: Data fusion technology is one of the emerging technologies of data
processing. The three levels of information fusion are pixel level (low-
f mn ðx; yÞ ¼ a‐m f ðx0 ; y0 Þ; aN1; m; n ¼ integer ð9Þ level fusion), feature level (intermediate-level fusion), and decision
level (high-level fusion) [60].
x0 ¼ a‐m ðxcos q þ ysin qÞ ð10Þ The advantage of the feature level fusion is obvious. Different feature
vectors extracted from the same pattern always reflects the different
y0 ¼ a‐m ð‐x sinq þ ycos qÞ ð11Þ
characteristic of patterns. By optimizing and combining these different
nπ features, it not only keeps the effective discriminant information of
q¼ n ¼ 0; 1; …; k−1 m ¼ 0; 1; …s−1 ð12Þ multi-feature, but also eliminates the redundant information to certain
k
degree. This is especially important to classification and recognition
where fmn, is scaled and rotated f(x, y), a, is scale coefficient, k, is number [60–63].
of rotations, s, is number of scales and x´ and y´ are scaled and rotated In this research the combination of before mentioned extracted fea-
coordinates.. A 2D Gabor function is shown in Fig. 6. tures was used. In Table 3, extracted feature vectors (single and combi-
Gabor wavelets created by 4 expansion and 6 rotation of the main nation of features) are presented, which were used as inputs to the
wavelet are shown in Fig. 7. neural network.
In this research, the images are resized to 800 × 800 pixels, then fil- After extracting the visual features of images and obtaining the fea-
ters of Gabor filter bank that already has been made, applied to images. ture vectors, the images dataset is prepared.

Fig. 9. a. An image of fragmented rock, b. Delineated image by manual mode of Split-Desktop software.
638 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641

Fig. 10. The corresponding distribution curve of image in Fig. 9.

3.2. Dataset of images
226 images of fragmented rocks from various blasts, carried out at
Gole-Gohar iron ore mine, Iran were used to prepare a dataset. The
rock type and number of images for each type are presented in Table 4.
For these images, using different types of feature extraction
methods, the feature vectors were extracted and considered as inputs
of the supervised neural network. Also, for these images, using the man-
ual mode of Split-Desktop software, F10 to F100 were determined (as tar-
get data of neural network). Basic descriptive statistics of F10 to F100 are
given in Table 5. Also, the lognormal histogram plot of fine factors (per-
centage of fine particles) of F10 to F100 of images is shown in Fig. 8. This
graph shows the frequency of occurrence of fine particles in images and
represents the combination of images in terms of fine and large parti-
cles. Lognormal distribution has been widely used in many fields. It is
suitable to describe the distributions with skewed curves (also called
skew distribution) [64].
An example of an image of fragmented rocks and delineated image
by manual mode of Split-Desktop software are shown in Fig. 9. Also,
the corresponding distribution curve is presented in Fig. 10.
3.3. MLP neural network to determine fragmented rock size distribution
In this study, feed forward neural network (supervised) with back
propagation learning algorithm was used to determine fragmented
rock size distribution. LM learning function, using 200 image dataset
for which features extracted by different methods were used as inputs
and F10-F100 as outputs, was applied to train the network. To achieve
the best possible results, neural network was formed and tested with
a number of different neurons for input, hidden and output layers, and

Table 6
Examples of the networks examined.

No Transfer function (hidden layer1,2, output layer) Model RMSE

1 TANSIG- TANSIG- TANSIG 40-15-10-10 1.628

2 LOGSIG- TANSIG- TANSIG 40-15-10-10 2.27
3 LOGSIG- LOGSIG- TANSIG 40-15-10-10 2.65
4 TANSIG- LOGSIG- TANSIG 40-15-10-10 2.54
5 TANSIG- TANSIG- PURELIN 40-15-10-10 3.13
6 LOGSIG- LOGSIG- LOGSIG 40-15-10-10 5.51
7 PURELIN- TANSIG- PURELIN 40-15-10-10 7.56
8 TANSIG – TANSIG- TANSIG 40-10-10-10 2.504
9 LOGSIG- TANSIG- TANSIG 40-10-10-10 2.72
10 LOGSIG- LOGSIG- LOGSIG 40-10-10-10 6.32
11 TANSIG- TANSIG 40-10-10 3.61
12 TANSIG- TANSIG 40-15-10 3.36
Fig. 11. The structure of MLP network.
 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641 639

Fig. 12. Size distribution curves of fragmented rock, using different methods of visual features extraction.

different number of hidden layers. The number of hidden layers and To compare the results of suggested methods with the results of
neurons in the hidden layers change according to the problem to be Auto mode of Split-Desktop, the Eq. (17) was used.
solved. The number of input and output neurons is the same as the
number of input and output variables. In this research, multi-layer net-
S−M
work architecture with two hidden layers between input and output IM ¼  100 ð17Þ
S
units was applied. In order to train, validate, and test the neural net-
work, the data portions are 70%, 15%, and 15%, respectively. To reach
an appropriate architecture, MLP networks were examined for all of where, IM is improvement in the results (%), S and M are the average
the suggested features extraction methods and optimum model for value of MRE of Split-Desktop auto mode and the suggested methods
each method was determined. The structure of MLP network is shown respectively.
in Fig. 11.
To determine the optimum network, RMSE was calculated for vari-
ous models as follows [58]: Table 7
The MRE for test images for different features extraction methods and auto mode of Split-
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Desktop.
u N
u1 X
RMSE ¼ t ðTi‐OiÞ2 ð15Þ Image Fourier Gabor Fourier Wavelet Auto Gabor- Fourier
N 1 No. transform -Wavelet Split- Wavelet -Gabor
Desktop

1 0.5 0.47 0.3 0.41 0.213 0.5 0.5

where Ti, Oi and N represent the target, the predicted output and the
2 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.19 0.444 0.4 0.6
number of output data respectively. Examples of the networks exam- 3 0.6 0.68 0.3 3 0.184 2.8 1.5
ined are shown in Table 6. 4 0.5 0.29 0.3 0.23 0.447 0.3 0.6
After establishing and implementing the neural network, out of 226 5 0.7 0.15 0.3 0.24 0.745 1.5 0.6
image datasets, 26 images were used as test data and the results were 6 0.7 0.63 1.3 0.24 0.525 2 0.2
7 0.3 0.27 0.3 0.62 0.859 1.3 1.2
evaluated. An example of cumulative size distribution curves of
8 1.2 4.31 4.2 8.07 7.117 0.9 3.9
fragmented rocks, using different methods of visual feature extraction 9 0.6 0.12 0.2 0.13 0.151 0.3 0.4
for an image of dataset, is shown in Fig. 12. 10 0.3 0.22 0.4 0.32 0.813 0.5 0.4
11 0.5 0.26 0.7 1.99 4.852 2.6 0.6
12 0.4 0.28 1.3 0.63 0.383 0.3 0.2
4. Evaluation of results
13 0.1 0.64 0.5 0.45 2.066 0.8 0.4
14 0.7 0.61 0.4 0.44 0.628 0.4 0.5
Mean relative error (MRE) (Eq. (16)) was used to compare the re- 15 1.2 2.96 5.4 6.81 12.32 3 3.1
sults of different methods of visual feature extraction with the results 16 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.21 0.226 0.1 0.4
obtained, using the manual mode of Split-Desktop software [65]. 17 0.5 0.19 0.2 0.35 1.069 0.4 0.3
18 0.5 0.74 0.2 0.71 0.47 1.5 1.8
    19 0.2 0.34 0.3 0.18 0.099 0.4 0.8
100 n At − Ft
MRE ¼ ∑t¼1 ð16Þ 20 0.6 0.68 0.9 0.7 1.273 0.6 0.6
n At 21 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.19 2.04 0.3 1.5
22 0.7 0.82 0.6 0.21 0.481 0.1 0.2
23 0.7 0.32 0.4 0.1 0.234 0.5 1
where, At is the actual value (F10 to F100 in the manual mode of Split-
24 0.1 0.14 0.2 0.18 0.526 0.2 0.2
Desktop), Ft is the obtained value (F10 to F100 in the proposed features 25 0.2 0.31 0.3 0.24 0.418 0.5 0.1
extraction methods and auto mode of Split-Desktop) and n is number 26 0.2 0.75 0.5 0.31 0.455 0.6 0.5
of sizes (here n = 10). The MRE for 26 test images for different features Mean 0.50 0.65 0.79 1.08 1.50 0.87 0.84
extraction methods and auto mode of Split-Desktop are shown in St-Dev 0.29 0.93 1.23 1.98 2.71 0.85 0.9
IM (%) 67 57 48 28 – 42 44
Table 7.
640 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641

Fig. 13. Comparing the MRE of different features extraction methods with auto mode of Split-Desktop for F10 to F100.

compared with the manual mode of Split-Desktop values. where, F50

Table 8 and F80 are the sizes at which the passing percent is 50% and 80%,
The improvements in the estimation of fragmented rock size distribution using different respectively.
features extraction methods for F10 to F50.
The average MRE of uniformity coefficient estimations for different
Method Results improvement (%) feature extraction methods and auto mode of Split-Desktop are given
F10 F20 F30 F40 F50 Mean in Table 9.
As it can be seen in Table 9, all of the suggested features extraction
Fourier transform 88 76 57 34 3 52
Gabor 76 65 41 18 1 40 methods for estimating n, give better results than auto mode of Split-
Wavelet 39 27 18 19 0 20 Desktop.
Wavelet- Fourier 71 58 26 0 0 25
Gabor -Wavelet 83 52 27 0 0 11
Fourier- Gabor 64 70 47 9 0 32 5. Conclusions

In this study, based on the neural network and features extraction

As it can be seen in Table 7, the most improvements in the estima- methods, an algorithm was proposed to determine the size distribution
tion of fragmented rock size distribution are achieved for the Fourier of fragmented rocks. The results obtained showed that the most im-
transform, Gabor and Fourier–wavelet methods with the value of 67%, provements in the estimation of fragmented rock size distribution
57%, and 48%, respectively. were achieved, using Fourier transform, Gabor, and Fourier-wavelet
Also, the MRE for F10 to F100 of test images were compared as shown methods with the value of 67%, 57%, and 48%, respectively. Also, the es-
in Fig. 13. timation of fragmented rock size distributions has higher MRE in fine to
As it can be observed from Fig. 13, the estimated fragmented rock medium particles (F10-F50). Furthermore, for fine to medium particles
size distributions have higher MRE in fine to medium particles (F10- F10-F50, Fourier transforms, Gabor, and Fourier -Gabor methods with
F50). Also, the improvements in the estimation of fragmented rock size the values of 52%, 40%, and 32%, respectively, have the most improve-
distribution using different features extraction methods relative to ments in the estimation of the fragmented rock size distribution. Also,
auto mode of Split-Desktop for F10-F100 are given in Table 8. As it can all of the suggested features extraction methods for estimating unifor-
be seen, for F10-F50 the most improvements of estimations are achieved mity coefficient give better results than auto mode of Split-Desktop.
for the Fourier transform, Gabor, and Fourier-Gabor methods with the
value of 52%, 40%, and 32%, respectively.
References
Also, using suggested model by Chung and Katsabanis (CK model)
[66,67] (Eq. (18)), uniformity coefficient (n) for different feature extrac- [1] F.I. Siddiqui, S.M. Ali Shah, M.Y. Behan, Measurement of size distribution of blasted
tion methods and auto mode of Split-Desktop was calculated and rock using digital image processing, JKAU: Eng. Sci. 20 (2) (2009) 81–93.
[2] J.A. Sanchidrián, F. Ouchterlony, P. Moser, P. Segarra, L.M. Lopez, Performance of
some distributions to describe rock fragmentation data, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Table 9 53 (2012) 18–31.
[3] T. Hudaverdi, C. Kuzu, A. Fisne, Investigation of the blast fragmentation using the
The average MRE of uniformity coefficient estimations for different methods and auto
mean fragment size and fragmentation index, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 56
mode of Split-Desktop.
(2012) 136–145.
Method Average MRE of n IM (%) [4] F. Faramarzi, H. Mansouri, M.A. Ebrahimi Farsangi, A rock engineering systems
based model to predict rock fragmentation by blasting, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Fourier transform 0.29 51 60 (2013) 82–94.
Gabor 0.26 56 [5] J.A. Sanchidrián, F. Ouchterlony, P. Segarra, M. Moser, Size distribution functions for
Wavelet 0.4 34 rock fragments, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 71 (2014) 381–394.
Fourier - Gabor 0.31 48 [6] C. Igathinathane, U. Ulusoy, L.O. Pordesimo, Comparison of particle size distribution
Fourier -Wavelet 0.23 61 of celestite mineral by machine vision ∑volume approach and mechanical sieving,
Gabor-Wavelet 0.37 39 Powder Technol. 251-216 (2012) 137–146.
[7] F. Sereshki, S.M. Hoseini, M. Ataei, Blast fragmentation analysis using image process-
Auto Split- Desktop 0.6 –
ing, Int. J. Min. & Geo-Eng. 2 (2016) 211–218.
 H. Yaghoobi et al. / Powder Technology 342 (2019) 630–641
[8] J. Sudhakar, G.R. Adhikari, R.N. Gupta, Comparison of fragmentation measurements
by photographic and image analysis techniques, Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 39 (2)
(2006) 159–168.
[9] J.H. Han, J.J. Song, Statistical estimation of blast fragmentation by applying
stereophotogrammetry to block piles, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 68 (2014)
150–158.
[10] J.A. Sanchidrián, P. Segarra, F. Ouchterlony, L.M. Lopez, On the accuracy of fragment
size measurement by image analysis in combination with some distribution func-
tions, Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 42 (2009) 95–116.
[11] G.C. Hunter, C. McDermott, N.J. Miles, A. Singh, M.J. Scoble, A review of image anal-
ysis techniques for measuring blast fragmentation, Min. Sci. Tech. 11 (1) (1990)
19–36.
[12] N.H. Maerz, J.A. Franklin, D.L. Coursen, Fragmentation measurement for exprimental
blasting in Virginia, Proceedings of 3th Mini-symposium on Explosives and Blasting
Research, 1987.
[13] E. Gallagher, Optoelectronic Coarse Particle Size Analysers for Industrial Measure-
ment and Control, Ph.D. thesis University of Queensland, Queensland, 1976.
[14] L. Nyberg, O. Carlsson, B. Schmidtbauer, Estimation of the size distribution of
fragmented rock in ore mining through automatic image processing, Proceedings
of IMEKO 9th World Congress, 1982.
[15] C.L. Lin, Y.K. Ken, J.D. Miller, Evaluation of a PC, image-based, on-line coarse particle
size analyser, Proceedings of Emerging Computer Techniques for the Mineral Indus-
try Symposium, Utah, 1993.
[16] J. Kemeny, Practical technique for determining the size distribution of blasted
benches, waste dumps and heap leach sites, Min. Eng. (1994) 1281–1284.
[17] F. Koizomi, E. Kunugita, H. Nishitani, Image Processing for Quality/ Process Control
of Polymer Process, in: Proceedings of Process Systems Engineering, 1994.
[18] Y.K. Yen, C.K. Lin, J.D. Miller, Particle overlap and segregation problems in on-line
coarse particle size measurement, Powder Technol. 98 (1) (1998) 1–12.
[19] R. Crida, G. Jager, An approach to rock size measurement based on a model of the
human visual system, Miner. Eng. 10 (10) (1997) 1085–1093.
[20] W.X. Wang, Binary image segmentation of aggregates based on polygonal approxi-
mation and classification of concavities, Pattern Recogn. 31 (10) (1998) 1503–1524.
[21] W.X. Wang, Particle size estimation based on edge density, Electron. Sci. Technol.
China 4 (3) (2005) 100.
[22] S. Al-Thyabat, N.J. Miles, T.S. Koh, Estimation of the size distribution of particles
moving on a conveyor belt, Miner. Eng. 20 (1) (2006) 72–83.
[23] M.J. Thurley, Automated online measurement of limestone particle size distributions
using 3D range data, J. Process Control 21 (2011) 254–262.
[24] B. Obara, A. Kozusnikova, J. Scucka, Automatic identification of microcracks observed
on microscopic images of coarse-grained sandstone, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48
(2011) 681–686.
[25] Z. Zelin, Y. Jianguo, Estimation of coal particle size distribution by image segmenta-
tion, Int. J Min. Sci. Tech. 22 (2012) 739–744.
[26] C.O. Chimi, M.S. Hegarat, E. Vannier, O. Taconet, R. Dusseaux, Automatic clod detec-
tion and boundary estimation from digital elevation model images using different
approaches, Catena 118 (2014) 73–83.
[27] S. Al-Thyabat, N.J. Miles, An improved estimation of size distribution from particle
profile measurements, Powder Technol. 166 (2006) 152–160.
[28] P.D. Waserman, Nural Computing: Theory and Practice, New York, van nostrand
reinhold, 1989.
[29] L. Baron, M.L. Smith, K. Prisbrey, Neural network pattern recognition of blast frag-
ment size distributions, Part. Sci. Technol. 12 (3) (2007) 235–242.
[30] D.W. Luerkens, Surface representation derived from a variational principle 1: the
gray level function, Part. Sci. Technol. 4 (1986) 361.
[31] L.E. Plansky, D. Amick, K.A. Prisbrey, Neural Networks Based Optical Sensors for
Metal Welds, Emerging Computer Techniques for the Minerals Indestry, Scheiner,
Stanley and Kare, SME, Littleton, Colorado, 1993 291.
[32] M. Bottlinger, R. Kholus, Characterizing Particle Shapes and Knowledge Based Image
Analysis of Particle Samples, Deutsches Institut fur lebensmitteltechik. e. v. 4750,
Quavkenbruck, F.D.R 1992.
[33] T.F. Jones, A.P. Maxwell, Information from bulk particulate profiles, Proceedings of
the 8th IFAC International Symposium on Automation in Mining, Mineral and
Metal Processing. Sun City, South Africa, 28(17), 1995, pp. 1–439.
[34] R.M. Parkin, D.W. Kalkin, Intelegent optomechatronic instrumentation for on-line in
spection of crushed rock aggregates, Miner. Eng. 8 (1995) 1143–1150.
[35] K.R. Petersen, C. Aldrich, J.S. Van Deveter, Analysis of ore particles based on textural
pattern recognition, Miner. Eng. (10) (1998) 959–977.
[36] J. Tessier, C. Duchesne, C. Bartolacci, A machine vision approach to on-line estima-
tion of run-of-mine ore composition on conveyor belts, Miner. Eng. 20 (12)
(1998) 1129–1144.
[37] F. Murtagh, J.L. Starck, Wavelet and curveletmoments for image classification: appli-
cation to aggregate mixture grading, Patt. Recog. Lett. 29 (10) (2008) 1557–1564.
[38] L.B. Goncalves, F.R. Leta, S.C. De Valente, Macroscopic rock texture image classifica-
tion using an hierarchical neuro-fuzzy system, Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP). Chalkida, Greece
June 2009, pp. 1–5.
641
[39] S. Chatterjee, S. Bandopadhyay, D. Machuca, Ore grade prediction using a genetic al-
gorithm and clustering based ensemble neural network model, Math. Geosci. 42 (3)
(2010) 309–326.
[40] S. Chatterjee, A. Bhattacherjee, B. Samanta, S.K. Pal, Image-based quality monitoring
system of limestone ore grades, Comput. Ind. 16 (5) (2010) 391–408.
[41] N. Singh, T.N. Singh, A. Tiwary, K.M. Sarkar, Textural identification of basaltic rock
mass using image processing and neural network, Comput. Geosci. 14 (2) (2010)
301–310.
[42] R.A. Salinas, U. Raff, C. Farfan, Automated estimation of rock fragment distributions
using computer vision and its application in mining, IEE Proc. Vision Image Signal
Process. 152 (1) (2005) 1–8.
[43] C.A. Perez, P.A. Estévez, P.A. Vera, L.E. Castillo, C.M. Aravena, Ore grade estimation by
feature selection and voting using boundary detection, Int. J Miner. Proc. 101 (2011)
28–36.
[44] Y.-D. Ko, H. Shang, A neural network-based soft sensor for particle size distribution
using image analysis, Powder Technol. 212 (2011) 359–366.
[45] E. Hamzeloo, M. Massinaei, M. Mehrshad, Estimation of particle size distribution on
an industrial conveyor belt using image analysis and neural networks, Powder
Technol. 261 (2014) 185–190.
[46] C.A. Perez, J.A. Saravia, C.F. Navarro, D.A. Schulz, C.M. Aravena, F.J. Galdames, Rock
lithological classification using multi-scale Gabor features from sub-images, and
voting with rock contour information, Int. J Miner. Proc. 144 (2015) 56–64.
[47] M. Haghighat, M. Abdel-Mottaleb, W. Alhalabi, Fully automatic face normalization
and single sample face recognition in unconstrained environments, Expert Syst.
Appl. 47 (2016) 23–34.
[48] V.K. Sudha, M. Ramakrishna, Comparative study of features fusion techniques, Proc.
Int. Conf. Recent Adv. Electron. Commun. Technol. (2017) 235–239 (Bangalore,
India 16-17 March 2017).
[49] D.A. Clausi, H. Deng, Design-based texture feature fusion using gabor filters and co-
occurrence probabilities, IEEE Trans. Image Process. 14 (7) (2005).
[50] M.O. Ulfarsson, J.A. Benediktsson, J.R. Sveinsson, Data fusion and feature extraction
in the wavelet domain, Int. J. Remote Sens. 24 (20) (2003) 3933–3945.
[51] J. Han, J.J. Song, Block delineation algorithm for rock fragmentation analysis, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 82 (2016) 48–60.
[52] Q. Liu, H. Tran, Validation of frag scan, WipFrag, split, in: J. Franklin, T. Katsabanis
(Eds.),Proceedings of the Fragblast-5 Workshop on Measurement of Blast Fragmen-
tation, Montreal 23–24 August 1996, pp. 151–155.
[53] D. Larosa, K. Girdner, W. Valery Jnr., S. Abramson, Recent applications of the Split-
Online image analysis system, Proceedings of the Southern Hemisphere Meeting
on Mineral Technology. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 1 2001, pp. 15–19.
[54] K. Girdner, J. Kemeny, A. Srikant, R. McGill, The split system for analyzing the size
distribution of fragmented rock, J. Franklin, T. Katsabanis, Proceedings of the
Fragblast-5 Workshop on Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, Montreal 23–24
August 1996, pp. 101–108.
[55] J.A. Franklin, J.M. Kemeny, K.K. Girdner, Evolution of measuring systems: a review,
in: J. Franklin, T. Katsabanis (Eds.),Proceedings of the Fragblast-5 Workshop on Mea-
surement of Blast Fragmentation, Montreal 23–24 August 1996, pp. 47–52.
[56] S.T. Bow, Pattern Recognition and Image Processing, Secend ed. Northern Illinois
University, De Kalb, Illinois, U.S.A, 2002.
[57] E. Alpaydin, Introduction to Machine Learning, Secend ed. The MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, London, 2010.
[58] R.C. Gonzalez, R.E. Woods, S.L. Eddins, Digital Image Processing Using MATLAB, Pear-
son Prentice Hall, 2004.
[59] E. Rashedi, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, S. Saryazdi, Long term learning in image retrieval
systems using case based reasoning, Eng. Appl. Art. Intell. 35 (2014) 26–37.
[60] Q.S. Sun, S.G. Zeng, Y. Liu, P.A. Heng, D.S. Xia, A new method of feature fusion and its
application in image recognition, Pattern Recogn. 38 (2005) 2437–2448.
[61] U.G. Mangai, S. Samanta, S. Das, P.R. Chowdhury, A survey of decision fusion and fea-
ture fusion strategies for pattern classification, IETE Tech. Rev. 27 (4) (2010)
293–307.
[62] J. Yang, J.-Y. Yang, Generalized K-L transform based combined feature extraction,
Pattern Recogn. 35 (1) (2002) 295–297.
[63] J. Yang, J.Y. Yang, D. Zhang, J.F. Lu, Feature fusion: parallel strategy vs. serial strategy,
Pattern Recogn. 36 (6) (2003) 1369–1381.
[64] P. Gao, T.S. Zhang, X.J. Wei, Q.J. Yu, Evaluation of RRSB distribution and lognormal
distribution for describing the particle size distribution of graded cementitious ma-
terials, Powder Technol. 331 (2018) 137–145.
[65] C. Tofallis, A better measure of relative prediction accuracy for model selection and
model estimation, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 66 (2015) 1352–1362.
[66] S.H. Chung, P.D. Katsabanis, Fragmentation prediction using improved engineering
formulae, Fragblast -Int, J. Blast. Fragm. 4 (2) (2000) 198–207.
[67] S. Gheibie, H. Aghababaei, S.H. Hoseinie, Y. Pourrahimian, Modified Kuz—Ram frag-
mentation model and its use at the Sungun Copper Mine, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
46 (6) (2009) 967–973.