See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369172234

A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and

Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony Models on Small and Large Diameter
Drill-Hole Blasts

Article in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering · March 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s00603-023-03280-9

CITATIONS READS

3 1,260

2 authors:

Adeyinka O. Omotehinse Blessing Olamide Taiwo

Federal University of Technology, Akure WipWare Inc.
23 PUBLICATIONS 138 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 143 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adeyinka O. Omotehinse on 08 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03280-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram

and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony Models on Small and Large
Diameter Drill‑Hole Blasts
Adeyinka Oluwayomi Omotehinse1,2 · Blessing Olamide Taiwo1

Received: 3 July 2022 / Accepted: 20 February 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
A comparative analysis on the performance of the modified Kuz–Ram model (MKM) and the Kuznetsov–Cunningham–
Ouchterlony (KCO) model on a small diameter drill-hole dolomite quarry and large diameter granite quarry blasting opera-
tion was carried out. Blast data set for the quarries was collected and analysed using MKM and KCO models to ascertain
the pre-blast particle-size distribution. The blast images were analysed and interpreted using the WipFrag software. The
mean fragmentation size and percentage-passing sizes were calculated and the prediction accuracy of the two models’ blast
was compared with the measured results from WipFrag analysis to determine the prediction accuracy using four model
performance indicators. Performance indices, such as variance account for (VAF), root-mean-square error (RMSE), mean
absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2), were used to check the prediction capacity of the models. The
percentage-passing results showed that for both fines and the materials of desired range in Q1 and for fines in Q2, the MKM
predicted values are closer to the WipFrag than the KCO model. For the materials of desired range in Q2, the KCO model
predicted values are closer to the WipFrag measured values. There were no boulder predictions by both models for both Q1
and Q2. The error checkers of the particle mean size (­ X50) revealed that the KCO model is more efficient in predicting Q1
blast particle size as compared to Q2, while the MKM predicts more accurately than KCO model for Q2 blast rounds. A new
modified Kuz–Ram model was developed for both Q1 and Q2 and the results are more closer to the results from the WipFrag
image analysis and it also has higher coefficient of correlation as compared to Kuz–Ram model and existing MKM model.

Highlights

• Comparative analysis on the performance of modified Kuz–Ram model and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony model
on small and large diameter drill-hole blasts was carried out.
• The predicted values of both fines and materials of desired range from the percentage-passing distribution by the modified
Kuz–Ram model are closer to the WipFrag values for small diameter drill holes.
• For fines, the modified Kuz–Ram model predicted values are closer to WipFrag values, and for the materials of desired
range, the Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony model predicted values are closer to WipFrag values for the large
diameter drill holes.
• The error values for means size predictions show that Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony model has a lower error rate
in predicting mean size distribution for small diameter, while modified Kuz–Ram model is better for large diameter.
• The new modified Kuz–Ram model values for both the small and large diameter drill hole are more closer to the results
from the WipFrag image analysis and have higher coefficient of correlation with lower error analysis values.

* Adeyinka Oluwayomi Omotehinse

Omotehinseadeyinka@gmail.com
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Federal University
of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
2
USP Center for Responsible Mining, Universidade de Sao
Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Keywords Comparative analysis · Blast fragmentation models · WipFrag · Modified Kuz–Ram model (MKM) ·
Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony (KCO) model · Blast image analysis
1 Introduction
Blasting is a major excavation operation in quarries and
open-pit mines. It can be defined as a process of detonat-
ing blast/drill holes using explosives, thereby breaking the
rock formation into smaller fragments for appropriate use
(Kansake et al. 2016). The blast design is a major factor
that influences the achievement of desired fragment size
(Kansake et al. 2016). A suitable particle-size distribution
of muck piles eliminates the need for secondary blasting
of oversize materials (boulders) as some undersized mate-
rials (fines) are undesirable, while large boulders can be
wasteful and underutilized (Hüdaverdi and Akyildiz 2020;
Enayatollahi et al. 2014; Mackenzie 1996)).
Blast efficiency is considered a very important factor
in mining as it affects operations from stripping to drill-
ing and blasting, to processing and sale thereby saving
costs (Amoako et al. 2022). Therefore, it is important that
fragmentation of the blasted rock is optimum and eco-
nomically viable for downstream processes (Coy 2017;
Singh et al. 2019; Hüdaverdi and Akyildiz 2020). Fac-
tors that influence fragmentation include blast design
parameters (i.e., burden, spacing, bench height, stemming
height, etc.), explosive properties, and rock mass prop-
erties (Hüdaverdi and Akyildiz 2020; Enayatollahi et al.
2014) and various adjustments have been made on blast-
ing factors to control mine cost effects on the downstream
operation (Rorke 2012; Grundstrom et al. 2001). To obtain
the required fragmentation, mining engineers use different
techniques and models to improve their blasts to produce
a muck pile of desired fragment size for aggregation pur-
poses or mill feed (Coy 2017; Singh et al. 2019; Hüdaverdi
and Akyildiz 2020).
Methods for assessing blast fragmentation can be cat-
egorised as either direct or indirect methods. Screening
or sieving is the only direct method known and it is said
to be the most accurate method, but it is expensive, time-
consuming and requires stoppage in the production cycle
of a mine (Bakhtavar et al. 2015; Siddiqui et al. 2009). The
indirect method includes visual analysis, image analysis and
empirical models, etc. Each of the methods has its intrinsic
advantages and disadvantages.
Various researchers have worked on different techniques
and models required to improve blasts to produce muck piles
of desired fragment. Shehu et al. (2022) carried out a com-
parative study of WipFrag image analysis and Kuz–Ram
empirical model and their application for blast fragmenta-
tion rating. The study showed that the results from WipFrag
are in a very close range and the minor differences were
13
A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo
attributed to the non-homogeneity of structural features and
human errors, while the results from the Kuz–Ram model
indicated significant variations from that of the WipFrag.
The disparities were attributed to the variations in the
structural properties of the rock mass. Mutinda et al. (2021)
researched on the prediction of rock fragmentation using
the KCO model on some quarries and concluded that the
model gives a reliable guide to blast fragment particle-size
distribution, and depending on the geology, choice of explo-
sives, and blast design applied, the desired fragment size
can be gotten, hence optimizing the cost. Biessikirski et al.
(2019) did a comparative analysis of muck pile fragmenta-
tion obtained through the photogrammetry method and on
the Kuz–Ram model. From the result, the achieved shape
of the cumulative size distribution curve gotten from the
Kuz–Ram model and the photogrammetry software showed
that the Kuz–Ram model was not subjected to additional
modifications. The authors stated that due to the lack of an
actual scan, the Kuz–Ram model was designed for a per-
fectly even sidewall and that the impact of sidewall shape
and the actual geometric parameters of the blast holes con-
tributed to a greater similarity between the output size dis-
tribution and the results of photogrammetric analysis.
The aim of this research is to determine the most appro-
priate model for quarrying blast improvement and examine
the impact of rock strength difference and drill-hole size
in the performance of available fragmentation models. The
objectives are to compare the performance accuracy of the
KCO and MKM models on both small hole (Q1) and large
hole (Q2) diameters’ blast fragmentations using the Wipfrag
software, to check the prediction performance of MKM and
KCO models using four model performance checkers, and
to modify Kuz–Ram model for Q1 and Q2 based on site
specifications.
2 Rock Fragmentation Models
2.1 The Empirical Models
The empirical models for blast optimization had been in use
for many decades, and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchter-
lony (KCO) model and modified Kuz–Ram model (MKM)
are the most utilized blast fragmentation models (Amoako
et al. 2022; Ouchterlony and Sanchidrián, 2019; Cunning-
ham 2005). These empirical models give a predicted value
for blast fragmentation size distribution, uniformity index,
and other parameters to bring about the ideal fragment size.
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…

2.1.1 The Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony (KCO)
Model
The KCO model has been one of the most applicable pre-
diction models that was developed through further works
from the existing Kuz–Ram model to improve the prediction
result accuracy (Mutinda et al. 2021). The new proposed
KCO model was first implemented in 2005 (Ouchterlony
and Sanchidrián, 2019; Cunningham 2005). One of the new
variables adopted in KCO model was the Swebrec function
to efficiently predict the fragmentation sizes. The major limi-
tation associated with Kuz–Ram prediction result was the
poor prediction ability for fragments with high fines content
and the upper limit cut-off of block sizes, which increases
the demand for the development of KCO model (Bhandari
2012; Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony 2017)
1 20, when striking perpendicular to the face, JPA value is
P(x) = [ ( ) ]b
, assigned value 30, and when the joints dip into the face it
In Xmax
X (1)
1+
( )
In Xmax
X50
where HF indicates the hardness factor and RMD is the rock
mass description. When rock is powdery and friable RMD
is equal to 10, when joints are vertical RMD is assigned the
same value as JF; when the rocks mass is massive, RMD is
50. JF is the joint factor, calculated using Eq. (6)
JF = (JCF × JPS) + JPA, (6)
where JCF depicts joint condition factor to which 1 is
assigned for tight joints, 1.5 for relaxed joints, and 2 for
gouge-filled joints (Mutinda et al. 2021). JPS denotes the
vertical joint plane spacing; Mutinda et al. (2021) indicated
that JPS is 10 when Sj < 0.1 m, 20 if Sj is assigned value
between 0.1 and 0.3 m, 50 if Sj is assigned value between
0.3 and 0.95 √BS, and 80 if Sj > √BS. JPA represents
joint plane angle; Mutinda et al. (2021) noted that the value
of JPA when the joints dip out-of-face is assigned value
assigned value 40. RDI depict the rock density influence in
kg/m3, defined by Eq. (7)

where P(x) denotes the percentage fraction of fragments RDI = (25 × 𝛾) − 50, (7)
passing sieve size X, and b signifies the curve undulation where γ denotes the rock density in kg/m3.
parameter. XMaxis the minimum (in-situ block size; S or B)
Xmax
[ ( ( ))]
B = 2In2 In n, (2) 2.1.2 The Modified Kuz–Ram (MKM) Model
X50
where n is the uniformity index calculated using Eq. (3) Although the Kuz–Ram model (Cunningham 2005) is one
( ))]0.5 [
B S W BCL − CCL L (3)
[ ][ ( ( )][ ( ) ] [( )]
n = 2.2 − 14( ) 0.5 1 + 1− abs + 0.1 0.1 ,
D B B L H

where B denotes the burden (m), S depicts the spacing (m),
D indicates the hole diameter (mm), W denotes the standard
deviation of drilling accuracy (m), BCL means the bottom
charge length (m), CCL means the column charge length
(m), L depicts the total length of the drilled hole (m), and H
means the bench height (m). Equation 4 shows the general
Kuznetsov equation
115 19∕30
( )
X50 = AK − 0.8 × Q1∕6 , (4)
REE
where A is the rock factor calculated using Eq. (5), Q is
that the mass of explosive been utilized in kg, K is that the
powder factor (specific charge) in kg/m3, and REE is that
the relative effective energy of the explosive; this is often
derived by dividing absolutely the weight strength of the
explosive in use by absolutely the weight strength of ANFO
and multiply by 100%
A = 0.06(RMD + RDI + HF), (5)
of the most widely used empirical fragmentation prediction
models, it has several drawbacks, which subsequent mod-
els sought to address. A major weakness is that it under-
estimates the quantity of fines produced from a blast. To
address this weakness, the uniformity index used in the
Rosin–Rammler equation (Eq. 2) was modified using Cun-
ningham’s uniformity index (Eq. 10) and blastability index
(Eq. 8). This, together with a modification in the Kuz–Ram
model equation (Eq. 9), resulted in the modified Kuz–Ram
model (Gheibie et al. 2009; Kansake et al. 2016).
The MKM model comprises of articulation connected
with the first Kuz–Ram model; however, the Kuznetsov con-
dition was adjusted by an extra component of 0.073 included
in the mean fragment size formula (Gheibie et al. 2009).
This is because joint aperture is considered an effective
parameter. The uniformity index of the Kuz–Ram model was
also replaced by a modified uniformity index, which is based
on the original uniformity index equation proposed by Cun-
ningham and a blastability index (BI). The MKM impedi-
ment lies in the way that it does not put into consideration

13

the effect of blast initiation timing on fragmentation and has
no further cut-off for sizes.
The Cunningham’s uniformity index in Eq. (3) is kept
up with as in the first Kuz–Ram model. Gheibie et al.
(2009) provide Eqs. (8–10) for the calculation of the mean
fragment size and blastability values are obtained and
Rosin–Rammler’s equation for percentage passing is deter-
mined using Eq. (8). Faramarzi et al. (2013) also noted
that Eq. (8) is important in characterizing muck pile size
distribution
X n
( )
Rx = [−0.693 ] (8)
Xm
)0.8
SANFO −19∕30
(
Vo
( )
Xm = 0.073BI × Qe1∕6 (9)
Qe 115
n} = 1.88 × n × BI−0.12 (10)
BI = 0.5(RMD + JPS + JPA + RDI + HF), (11)
where Xm denotes the mean fragment size, cm; BI depicts
the blastability index, Vo means the volume of rock broken
by one blast hole, ­m3, Qe represents the mass of explosive
in each hole, kg; ­SANFO denotes the relative weight strength
of the explosive to ANFO, n means the uniformity index, n`
represents the modified uniformity index and RMD, JPS,
JPA, RDI, and HF have the same meanings as defined in
Eqs. (5–6).
The volume of the rock broken by one blast hole Vo ­(m3)
can be found by Eq. (12)
Vo = B × S × H. (12)
Modified Kuz–Ram, Kuz–Ram, and KCO implementa-
tion had been focused on large diameter drill holes and sin-
gle empirical models and neglecting the small-scale mines
(Gheibie et al. 2009; Ouchterlony and Sanchidrián, 2019;
Mutinda et al. 2021).
2.2 The Image Analysis Techniques
Image analysis is as a result of advancement in technology
and has become the most commonly used indirect approach
for evaluating blast fragmentation (Bamford et al. 2017).
Image analysis makes use of computer software or programs
and was developed in the 1990s. It is widely accepted in the
mining industries based on some of its advantage, which
include the continuous usage without interrupting the pro-
duction cycle (Shehu et al. 2022; Siddiqui et al. 2009), no
restrictions on the size of samples that can be analysed and
are highly affordable (Shehu et al. 2022). The predicted
size distribution of rock fragments from this approach is
13
A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo
considered more accurate than the empirical models (Lawal
2021). The image analysis techniques, which include Wip-
frag, FragScan, Split Desktop, GoldSize, Split Desktop, etc.
(Tavakol and Hosseini 2017), were also developed for the
determination of blast fragmentation size distribution and
the WipFrag software is one of the most widely used tech-
niques (Shehu et al. 2022; Tiile 2016).
2.2.1 WipFrag Software
Wipfrag software approach transforms and reconstructs the
obtained blast images in two-dimensional (2D) net surface
assemblage blocks into a three-dimensional (3D) block size
distribution using principles of geometric probability (Maerz
1996). WipFrag software was adopted for this study, because
the software utilizes automatic algorithms to recognize dis-
tinct blocks, and create an outline mesh or netting using
state-of-the-art boundary or edge identification method as
explained (Shehu et al. 2022).
WipFrag is an auto-image generated-based granulometry
software and uses digital images to evaluate size distribu-
tions of fragments (Shehu et al. 2022; Maerz 1996). WipFrag
utilizes automatic algorithms to recognize distinct blocks,
and create an outline mesh or netting using state-of-the-
art boundary or edge identification method. Essentially, it
measures the two-dimensional (2D) net of the surface of an
assemblage of blocks, transforms and reconstructs a three-
dimensional (3D) block size distribution using principles
of geometric probability (Shehu et al. 2022; Maerz 1996).
3 Materials and Methods
3.1 Description of Study Area
Two study areas were used for this research, the first one is
a dolomite quarry (Q1) (Fig. 1) with latitude of 7­ 0 10′20″ N
and longitude of ­60 11′12″ E, located in Ikpeshi, Akoko-Edo,
Edo state, Nigeria. The other is a granite quarry (Q2) (Fig. 2)
with latitude ­0 7 o 22′49″N and longitude 5°22′10.1″E,
located in Itaogbolu, Akure North, Ondo state, Nigeria.
Q1 location is a part of the major lithology component
that makes up the geology of Nigeria, and the basement
rocks are about four major groups in this area. According to
Odeyemi (1992), the rock groups are migmatite–gneiss com-
plex, the metasediments (schists, calc-silicate rock, quartz-
ites, marble, and metaconglomerates), the porphyritic older
granite which are discordant and the non-metamorphosed
syenite dyke. Q2 location falls within the basement com-
plex of South-West part of Nigeria, which consist of granite,
gneisses, magnetite, quartzite, and schist deposits. Undif-
ferentiated gneisses and magnetite dominate the basement
complex in the Q2 area. Okpoli (2019) indicated that the old
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…

Fig. 1  Geological map of Edo State showing the location of the dolomite quarry

Fig. 2  Geological map of Ondo State showing the location of the granite quarry

13
 A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo

granite and metamorphic rocks in the area consist mainly
granite, amphibolites, and gneisses.
Q1 is a small diameter hole quarry, which uses a pneu-
matic handheld jackhammer drill, while Q2 is a large diam-
eter hole quarry, which uses a wagon-drilling machine. The
properties of each quarry are presented in Table 1.
3.2 Methodology
The methodology used in this research is as follows: First,
the geological information was gathered with blast design
properties from Q1 and Q2. The second step includes cap-
turing the blast images and analyzing it using the WipFrag
software and they were interpreted. The third step involved
calculating the mean fragmentation size and percentage-
passing size using MKM and KCO models. Finally, the pre-
diction accuracy of the two models blast result prediction
(percentage passing and mean particle size X50) for Q1 and
Q2 was compared with the measured results from WipFrag
analysis using the root-mean-square error (RMSE), Pearson
correlation coefficient (R2), mean normal mistake (MAE),
and value account for (VAF).
3.2.1 Fragment Size Distribution Using Empirical Models
The procedure included collection of blast parameters’ data
set from Q1 and Q2. The data set collected include blast
images, discontinuity mapping to determine pre-existing dis-
continuities, and their properties and explosive parameters
for each five blasts monitored in the Q1 and Q2, respectively
(Table 2). The blast design data set collected from the two
quarries and was imputed into KCO and MKM [Eqs. (1–12)]
to predict the mean size and percentage-passing size for each
five blast.
3.2.2 Fragment Size Distribution Using WipFrag Software
The procedure for the image analysis using the WipFrag
software as explained below involved five processing steps,
which are the openings of the specific image of the muck pile
to be analysed; setting of the scale; generation of nets; edge
detection adjustment; and sieving. The five blast images of
the muck pile captured with a digital camera (Maerz 1996)
from each quarry were uploaded into the WipFrag software
in a computer. The processing algorithms of the software
identified the rock samples image and was scaled, and the
nets were generated which helps to determine measured rock
size distribution for each image using the automatic edge

Table 1  Case study quarry Quarry properties Dolomite quarry (Q1) Granite quarry (Q2)
properties
Pit bench 1.5 m 10 m
Bench depth 30 m 22.5 m
RMR rating (Bieniawski 1989) 65 55
Explosive type Emulsion gel and ANFO Emulsion gel and ANFO
Drilling pattern Staggered Staggered
Blasting type NONEL NONEL
Explosive VOD 6800 m/s 6800 m/s
Rock density 2700 kg/m3 2800 kg/m3
Rock UCS (ISRM 1981, 2007) 131–163 MPa 35–44.39 MPa

Table 2  Blast parameter and explosive charge properties for the Q1 and Q2
Parameters Q1 Q2
Blast 1 Blast 2 Blast 3 Blast 4 Blast 5 Blast 1 Blast 2 Blast 3 Blast 4 Blast 5

Diameter (mm) 40 40 40 40 40 100 100 100 100 100

Burden (m) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Spacing (m) 0.95 0.95 1 1.1 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Stemming (m) 1.24 1.2 1.25 1.1 1.2 2 2 2 2 2
Drill length (m) 1.34 1.3 1.35 1.2 1.3 10 10 10 10 10
Charge length (m) 0.69 0.4 0.7 0.72 0.66 8 8 8 8 8
Bottom charge length (m) 0.33 0.22 1.25 0.46 0.46 6 6 6 6 6
Column charge length (m) 0.36 0.18 0.36 0.26 0.2 2 2 2 2 2
Rock density (kg/m3) 2800 2790 2760 2804 2804 2700 2700 2700 2700 2700

13
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…

detection default menu. The edge detection parameters were
adjusted manually to ensure accurate results. A virtual sieve
was then carried out to generate percentage-passing curve
of the fragment distribution and cumulative size table for
each analysed image. The processes were repeated for other
images from the same muck pile and the results were merged
for better accuracy. Figures 3 and 4 show analysis for one of
the blast image obtained from Q1 and Q2.
The mean size and percentage-passing size distribution
for the ten blasts obtained from WipFrag software were used
as standard to determine the accuracy of the KCO and MKM
models. The models predicted mean sizes were compared
with WipFrag software actual mean size using person cor-
relation and two non-parametric (Kendall’s tau-b and Spear-
man’s rho) two-tailed correlations. The performances of
the two models’ fragmentation size prediction results were
examine by four different model evaluator using the Wipfrag
result as the base standard.
3.3 Model Performance Indicators’ Use
To determine the MKM and KCO models prediction accu-
racy, the root-mean-square error (RMSE), Pearson correla-
tion coefficient (R2), mean average error (MAE), and value
account for (VAF) were utilized to clarify the relationship
between the prescient and the measured values for Q1 and
Q2 blast.
RMSE is an applied statistical index that shows the fit-
ted standard deviation of the variation between two values
obtained from different models, which was calculated using
(Eq. 13)

Fig. 3  Blast result image (left) and result with scaling objects (right) for Q1

Fig. 4  Blast result image (left) and result with scaling objects (right) for Q2

13
 A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo

calculation of mean size and particle-size appropriation

�
∑N
(PVi − MVi)2
RMSE = i=1
. (13) of the MKM and KCO models show that each of the rock
N parameter affects the prediction value for the two models.
The result showed that the increase in the RMD, JPS, and
R2 depicts a quantity index used to evaluate how strong
JPA, HF sway the predicted fragmentation sizes. The two
the correlation is between two variables (Eq. 14) (Guo et al.
quarries formation shows almost similar RMD, JPS, JPO,
2021)
and HF due to the rock properties which was observed to
∑N 2 be massive rock and have a dip out face discontinuities with
i=1 (MVi
− PVi)
R2 = [1 − ∑ ], (14) average joint set lesser than 1.5 m. The Q1 shows higher RDI
2
N
i=1 (MVi − Me)
due to its higher density property.
The mine face and blast pattern for the each quarry are
MAE is a widely adopted indicator measure for model shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
evaluations, and it expresses the mean of the absolute error,
which gives close reflection of the exact predictive value 4.1 Performance Accuracy of MKM and KCO Models
relationship with the actual value. It is calculated using on Blasts
Eq. (15)
∑N Figures 7 and 8 show the percentage-passing size distribu-
MAE =
i=1
(Me − PVi). (15) tion for the ten blasts using the Wipfrag software as standard
to determine the accuracy of the KCO and MKM models.
VAF is one of the indexes use in comparing predicted The percentage-passing distribution size for the five blast
and measured value as applied by (Guo et al. 2021) (Eq. 16) rounds at Q1 is presented in Table 4 and for Q2 is presented
[
var(PVi − MVi)
] in Table 5.
VAF = 1 − × 100, (16)
var(FVi)
4.1.1 Comparison of the Prediction Performance
where Me is the mean of predicted value, ­Mvi indicates the of the Image Analysis (Wipfrag) with the Empirical
predicted value, and P
­ vi indicates the actual value (Guo et al. (KCO and MKM) Models on Q1 Blast
2021).
Figure 7a–e shows the percentage-passing size distribution
curves of Q1 blast from MKM and KCO models as com-
pared with the Wipfrag software. The primary crusher can
4 Results and Discussion handle a fragment of maximum allowable size of 1000 mm,
which is the crusher gape and any material below 100 mm
Table 3 presents the rock characteristics and model param- is considered as fines.
eters for the two quarries’ blasts. The parameters are cal- For Blast 1, KCO predicted 3.16% as fines and MKM
culated using Eqs. (5–7) and were used as the independ- 6.43% as fines (Table 4). The measured fines’ fragment size
ent variables in Eqs. (4) and (8) for computing KCO model by the WipFrag model is 7.78%; hence, both the KCO and
and MKM mean size and percentage passing, respectively. MKM models underpredicted the amount of fines produced
The results from the excel sheet that was created for the for Blast 1. The fines’ prediction errors for KCO and MKM

Table 3  Rock characteristics and model parameters for Q1 and Q2

Parameters Q1 Q2
Blast 1 Blast 2 Blast 3 Blast 4 Blast 5 Blast 1 Blast 2 Blast 3 Blast 4 Blast 5

Rock density influence (RDI) 20 19.75 19 20.1 20.1 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5
Rock mass description (RMD) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Join plane spacing (JPS) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Join plane angle (JPA) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Hardness factor (HF) 34 34 34 34 34 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5
Blastability index (BI) 67 66.875 66.5 67.05 67.05 66 66 66 66 66
Volume of rock broken by one blast (Vo) 0.8911 0.8645 0.945 1.056 1.04 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5
Explosive charge per hole (Qe) 0.86 0.72 0.51 0.87 0.956 112.6 110.4 157.17 124.67 112.4
Uniformity index (N) 1.74 2.01 1.81 2.16 1.9 1.657 1.657 1.657 1.657 1.657

13
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…
Fig. 5  Q1 plan view (left) and its drill-hole pattern (right)
Fig. 6  Q2 face mapping (left) and its drill-hole pattern (right)
models for Blast 1 are 146.2 and 20.99%, respectively. Simi-
larly, for Blasts 2, 3, and 5, the quantity of fines predicted
to be produced was less than the measured amount of fines
from these Blasts, this implies that the KCO and MKM mod-
els underpredicted the amount of fines produced. For blast
4, the KCO model underpredicted the amount of fines and
MKM model overpredicted the amount of fines produced
(Table 4).
The materials within the desired range (100 and
1000 mm) that was predicted for Blast 1 were 60.86% for
KCO and 54.25% for MKM as presented in Table 4. The
measured fragment size by the WipFrag model is 48.24%,
and therefore, both the KCO and MKM models over-
predicted the materials of desired range. The prediction
errors for KCO and MKM models are 20.74 and 11.08%,
respectively. Similarly, the quantity of materials predicted
to be produced was greater than the measured amount of
fines from these Blasts, and this implies that the KCO and
MKM models overpredicted the materials produced for
Blasts 4 and 5. However, the quantity of materials pre-
dicted to be produced was less than the measured amount
of materials from these Blasts; this implies that the KCO
and MKM models underpredicted the materials produced
for Blasts 2 and 3. There were no boulders produced
from any of the blasts, since there were no fragment sizes
greater than 1000 mm implying insignificant boulder pro-
duction or no boulders.
For both the fines and the materials of desired range, the
MKM model predicted values are closer to the WipFrag
than the KCO model predicted values.
13
 A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo

KCO %passing MKM %passing KCO %passing MKM %passing

WipFrag %Passing
WipFrag %Passing
70
70
60
60
50
50

%passing
40
%Passing

40
30
30
20 20

10 10
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Size (mm) Size (mm)
(a) (b)

KCO %passing MKM %passing KCO %passing MKM %passing

WipFrag %Passing
WipFrag %Passing
60
100
50
80
40
% Passing

60 30
%Passing

40 20
20 10

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-20 Size (mm)
Size (mm)
(c) (d)

KCO %passing MKM %passing WipFrag %Passing

60
50
40
%Passing

30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Size (mm)
(e)
Fig. 7  Relationship between the blast predicted and actual % passing for Q1: a blast 1; b blast 2, c blast 3, d blast 4, and e blast 5

13
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…

KCO MKM WIPFRAG KCO MKM WIPFRAG

120 120
100 100
80

%Passing
80
%Passing

60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Size mm Size mm
(a) (b)
KCO MKM WIPFRAG KCO MKM WIPFRAG
120 120
100 100
80 80
%Passing

%Passing
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 200 400 600
Size mm Size mm
(c) (d)
KCO MKM WIPFRAG
120
100
80
% Passing

60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Size mm
(e)
Fig. 8  Relationship between the blast predicted and actual % passing for Q2: a blast 1, b blast 2, c blast 3, d blast 4, and e blast 5

4.1.2 Comparison of the Prediction Performance
of the Image Analysis (Wipfrag) with the Empirical
(KCO and MKM) Models on Q2 Blast
The percentage-passing size distribution for the five blast
rounds at Q2 is presented in Table 5.
The percentage-passing size distribution curves for MKM
and KCO models as compared with the Wipfrag software
for Q2 are shown in Fig. 8a–e. The primary crusher can
handle a fragment of maximum allowable size of 900 mm,
which is the crusher gape and any material below 100 mm
is considered as fines.

13
 Table 4  Fragmentation size distribution for Q1
Size (mm) KCO% passing MKM% passing WipFrag% passing Size (mm) KCO% passing MKM% passing WipFrag% Passing

13
Blast 1 Blast 2
500 64.02 60.68 56.02 500 53.56 55.82 63.02
450 63.79 60.13 55.59 450 53.08 55.56 62.96
400 57.17 52.70 53.3 400 52.91 46.27 60.12
350 49.21 44.73 48.61 350 43.78 40.26 57.88
300 39.88 36.42 41.62 300 33.39 32.3 55.79
250 29.51 28.07 36.18 250 22.68 24.47 51.31
100 3.16 6.43 7.78 100 1.48 5.22 18.54
75 1.31 3.94 4.06 75 0.53 3.14 11.54
50 0.34 1.96 1.45 50 0.11 1.52 4.18
25 0.024 0.59 0.27 25 0.01 0.44 0.67
20 0 0.4 0.05 20 0 0.29 0.21
Blast 3 Blast 4
500 54.12 54.88 84.12 500 51.86 45.88 34.12
450 53.36 54.56 83.46 450 51.03 45.25 33.83
400 45 35.97 76.37 400 36.06 43.55 29.6
350 36.81 34.68 80.2 350 27.13 29.88 24.33
300 35.52 27.13 70.8 300 18.57 23.28 19.3
250 25.41 19.03 63.25 250 11.16 17.1 15.09
100 2.31 2.71 27.35 100 0.46 3.24 1.36
75 0.92 1.44 18.06 75 0.14 1.89 0.64
50 0.22 0.59 7.84 50 0.02 0.88 0.27
25 0.01 0.13 1.05 25 0.01 0.24 0.11
20 0 0.08 0.3 20 0 0.16 0
Blast 5
500 44.84 50.1 45.36
450 44.55 49.91 45.19
400 35.61 34.18 43.2
350 36.12 34.45 37.21
300 27.2 26.82 33.38
250 18.42 19.62 29.04
100 1.37 3.56 9.08
75 0.52 2.04 4.91
50 0.12 0.93 1.75
25 0.01 0.24 0.3
20 0 0.15 0.13
A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo
 Table 5  Fragmentation size distribution for Q2
Size (mm) KCO% passing MKM% passing WipFrag% passing Size (mm) KCO% passing MKM% passing WipFrag% passing

Blast 1 Blast 2
450 91.47 99.26 100 450 93.16 99.74 100
350 87.15 96.09 100 350 89.75 98.04 94.39
300 83.51 91.88 100 300 86.86 95.25 90.39
250 77.97 84.37 92.4 250 82.4 89.47 82.68
200 69.13 72.26 82.65 200 75.06 78.89 73.13
150 54.48 54.89 67.26 150 62.19 61.92 56.67
100 31.4 33.41 46.83 100 39.42 38.93 43.08
75 17.78 22.31 31.13 75 24 26.37 34.58
50 6.29 12.1 18.67 50 9.28 14.48 19.95
25 0.6 4.01 8.58 25 0.97 4.84 10.09
20 0.23 2.78 7.32 20 0.4 3.37 8.79
15 0.06 1.74 6.08 15 0.106 2.1 7.82
10 0.01 0.89 5.37 10 0.011 1.08 7.24
Blast 3 Blast 4
450 94.21 99.94 100 450 94.21 99.9 100
350 91.38 99.26 91.74 350 91.38 98.96 94.12
300 89.83 97.75 82.79 300 88.97 97.09 89.39
250 86.38 93.95 76.73 250 85.23 92.68 80.96
200 80.61 85.61 74.04 200 78.97 83.57 69.36
150 69.98 69.99 60.33 150 67.62 67.41 57.45
100 48.96 45.92 44.4 100 45.91 43.6 36.78
75 32.45 31.72 35.07 75 29.62 29.92 27.09
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…

50 14.02 17.71 22.01 50 12.33 16.61 15.81

25 1.7 5.99 11.16 25 1.43 5.6 5.76
20 0.72 4.18 9.45 20 0.6 3.9 4.09
15 0.20 2.62 8.33 15 0.166 2.44 2.75
10 0.02 1.34 7.74 10 0.018 1.25 1.9
Blast 5
450 93.22 99.75 100
350 89.85 98.1 94.94
300 86.98 95.35 90.39
250 82.55 89.65 82.99
200 75.27 79.14 74.39
150 62.49 62.2 60
100 39.75 39.16 42.51

13
75 24.29 26.54 31.94
 A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo

The fines predicted for Blast 1 by the KCO model is

WipFrag% passing 31.4% and by the MKM model 33.41% (Table 5). The meas-
ured fines’ fragment size by the WipFrag model is 46.83%;
hence, the KCO and MKM models underpredicted the
amount of fines produced for Blast 1. The fines’ prediction
errors for KCO and MKM models for Blast 1 are 49.14%
and 40.17%, respectively. Similarly, for Blasts 2 and 5, the
quantity of fines predicted to be produced was less than the
measured amount of fines from these Blasts; this implies that
the KCO and MKM models underpredicted the amount of
MKM% passing

fines produced. However, for Blast 3 and 4, the quantity of

fines predicted to be produced was greater than the meas-
ured amount of fines from these Blasts; this implies that the
KCO and MKM models overpredicted the amount of fines
produced.
The materials, which are within the desired range (100
KCO% passing

and 900 mm), were predicted for Blast 1 as 60.07% for KCO
and 65.85% for MKM, as presented in Table 5. The meas-
ured fragment size by the WipFrag model is 53.17%, and
therefore, both the KCO and MKM models overpredicted
the materials of desired range for Blast 1. The prediction
errors for the KCO and MKM models are 11.49 and 19.26%,
respectively. However, for Blasts 3 and 4, the quantity of
materials predicted to be produced was less than the meas-
Size (mm)

ured amount of materials from these Blasts; this implies that

the KCO and MKM models underpredicted the materials
produced. For Blasts 2 and 5, the KCO model underpre-
dicted the materials, while the MKM model overpredicted
the materials produced. There was no boulder produced from
WipFrag% passing

any of the blasts, since the fragment sizes of the materials

produced did not exceed the crusher gape (900 mm) imply-
ing insignificant boulder production or no boulders.
19.03
8.85
7.36

5.52
6.2

For the fines, the MKM model predicted values are closer
to the WipFrag than the KCO model predicted values. For
the materials of desired range, the KCO model predicted
values are closer to the WipFrag than the MKM model pre-
MKM% passing

dicted values.
It was observed that the change in rock type, strength,
drill-hole size, and length reflect on the performance of
14.58
4.87
3.39
2.12
1.09

both models in predicting rock fragmentation size (Prasad

et al. 2017; Mutinda et al. 2021). The result shows that the
dimension and parametric variables (majorly the control-
lable parameter difference in Q1 and Q2) affect the model
KCO% passing

performance of the two blast holes. The models perform

better with Q2 as compared to Q1 blast parameters. The
two models have high percentage-passing prediction perfor-
9.41
0.99

0.11
0.01
0.4

mance for Q2 blasting and can be concluded that the model

prediction accuracy highly depends on blast parameter size
Table 5  (continued)

increment.
Size (mm)

50
25
20
15
10

13
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…

600 600 R² = 0.792

WipFrag X50 predicted

WipFrag X50 predicted
R² = 0.862 500
400 400

(mm)
300
(mm)
200
200
0 100
0 200 400 600 0
KCO X50 predicted (mm) 0 200 400 600
MKM X50 predicted (mm)

Fig. 9  WipFrag mean size relationship graph for Q1 blast using KCO (left) and MK (right) models

150 140

WipFrag X50 Predicted

Wipfrag X50 Predicted

120
100 R² = 0.394
100 R² = 0.401 80
60
(mm)

(mm)
50 40
20
0
0
0 50 100 150
0 50 100 150
MKM X50 predicted (mm)
KCO X50 Predicted (mm)

Fig. 10  WipFrag mean size relationship graph for Q2 blast using KCO (left) and MK (right) models

4.2 Comparative Analysis of Models Predicted
Mean Sizes ­(X50) with WipFrag Software Actual
Mean Size ­(X50)
Figures 9 and 10 show the relationship between the pre-
dicted mean size values result of MKM and KCO models,
respectively, for Q1 and Q2 as compared with the Wipfrag
software predicted mean size. The performance of MKM
and KCO models on Q1 and Q2 blast round mean size pre-
diction was evaluated using coefficient of determination.
The coefficient of determination of the mean size measured
by WipFrag and the predicted size by MKM for the Q1 and
Q2 blasts are 79.2 and 39.4%, respectively. The coefficient
of determination of the mean size measured by WipFrag
and the predicted size by KCO model for the Q1 and Q2
blasts are 86.2 and 40.1%, respectively. For Q1 blast, both
MKM and KCO models predicted mean sizes show strong
positive correlation as compared with the actual prediction
values from Wipfrag software. For Q2 blast, both KCO
and MKM predicted mean size values show weak nega-
tive correlation as compared with the actual predicted val-
ues from Wipfrag software. This implies that both KCO
and MKM models perform poorly in predicting Q2 blast
fragmentation. The fragmentation mean size predicted by
the two fragmentation prediction models for Q1 blast has
high prediction accuracy as compared with the prediction
result for the Q2 blast rounds. Comparing the individual
model performance on the means size ­(X50) prediction for
Q1 and Q2, the KCO model has the highest accuracy irre-
spective of the change in blast hole size. The high relapse
esteems by the KCO model result demonstrate that the
predictions from the KCO model as applied to the two case
study quarries relate better with the WipFrag result from
the blasts result measured.
4.3 Validation of the Accuracy of MKM and KCO
Model Predictions
Four different model error analysis checkers or performance
indices, namely, variance account for (VAF), root-mean-
square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and
coefficient of determination (R2), were used to evaluate the
overall prediction accuracy of MKM and KCO models on
Q1 and Q2. Tables 6 and 7 present the error analysis result
for the two models.

13
 A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo

Table 6  Calculated error values Blasts RSME MAE R2 VAF Best predictor
for prediction for Q1
MKM KCO MKM KCO MKM KCO MKM KCO

1 3.73 4.52 2.28 2.91 97.6 98 97.99 97.58 MKM

2 13.94 14.11 9.31 9.59 90.8 90.3 88.88 85.78 KCO
3 30.44 27.52 21.66 19.93 86 92.2 72.82 49.48 KCO
4 6.87 7.85 4.05 3.89 98.8 96.2 87.81 88.98 KCO
5 5.27 5.15 3.58 3.14 97.6 99.2 94.53 96.30 MKM

Table 7  Calculated error values Blasts RSME MAE R2 VAF Best predictor
for prediction for Q2
MKM KCO MKM KCO MKM KCO MKM KCO

1 7.79 11.81 6.94 11.25 99.1 99.4 99.17 99.03 MKM

2 5.45 6.90 5.15 6.16 99.3 98.8 97.66 98.41 MKM
3 8.61 7.31 7.13 6.79 98.3 97.9 93.85 96.44 KCO
4 6.66 5.53 4.64 4.65 98.9 98.9 98.16 97.95 KCO
5 4.25 5.73 3.97 5.04 99.6 99.3 98.62 99.12 MKM

4.3.1 Model Validation Using Error Checkers on Q1
Table 6 shows calculated error values for × 50 predictions.
The predictions of MKM and KCO fragmentation models
were compared to WipFrag measurements. The errors of
the MKM are lower than the KCO model for blasts 1 and 5,
especially the RMSE value of MKM is very low (3.73%).
RMSE and MAE values of MKM are better than the KCO
model; however, according to R2 and VAF error values, KCO
model performed better for blast 2. For blasts 3 and 4, the
performance of the KCO model is better than the MKM,
although with very slight difference. The RMSE values for
both models are almost the same. For R2, the MKM has
lower value. For VAF and MAE, the KCO has a lower value.
According to this, the KCO model has a lower prediction
error and it is therefore better for the prediction of blast
mean size distribution.
4.3.2 Model Validation Using Error Checkers on Q2
Table 7 shows calculated error values for × 50 predictions on
Q2. The predictions of MKM and KCO fragmentation mod-
els were compared to WipFrag measurements. The errors of
the MKM are lower than the KCO model for blasts 1, 2, and
5, especially for blast 5, the MAE value is very low (4.65%).
For blast 4, the performance of the KCO model is better
than the MKM. RMSE, MAE, and R2 values of KCO model
are better than the MKM for blast 3. The RMSE and MAE
value for the MKM is lower. For R2, KCO has lower value.
For VAF, the MKM has a lower value. According to this, the
MKM has a lower prediction error and it is therefore better
for the prediction of blast mean size distribution.
4.4 Developed Modified Kuz–Ram Model for Q1
and Q2
The Kuz–Ram model has some deficiencies and the pro-
posed study is intended to improve the performance of the
Kuz–Ram model by modifying its rock factor component.
The Kuznetsov (Kuznetsov 1973) proposed formula for
relating rock mass between the explosive amount and the
average size is
Xm = AK −4∕5 Q1∕6 , (17)
where Xm is the mean particle size in cm, K is the powder
factor in kg/m3, A is the rock factor, and Q is mass in kg
of the nitroglycerine-based explosive used per hole. The
mean fragment size presented in Eq. (17) is for nitroglyc-
erine-based explosives which have high detonation veloc-
ity. Hence, Eq. (17) was corrected with respect to the com-
monly used explosive (ANFO) which is less powerful than
the nitroglycerine-based explosive, as follows:
Xm = AK −4∕5 Q1∕6 (115∕SANFO )19∕30 , (18)
where ­SANFO is the relative weight strength of the explosive
to ANFO. (ANFO ≅ 100), and the rock factor A is assumed
by Kuznetsov to vary between 7 and 13).
Cunningham corrected the rock factor and the formula
proposed was related to the blastability index of rock mass
as proposed by Lilly in Eq. (19). The variables used and
definitions can be found in (Lawal 2021)
A = 0.06(RMD + JF + RDI + HF). (19)

13
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…

Fig. 11  Comparison of the 600

new modified Kuz–Ram model
(NMKM) with WipFrag and
KCO for Q1 500

400
WipFrag
300
KCO
200 NMKM
100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The coefficient 0.06 proposed by Lilly (1986) was deter-

mined as a land coefficient and has been identified as one of
the major causes of the deficiencies in the Kuz–Ram model
and was changed to 0.071 in the modified Kuz–Ram model
proposed by (Gheibie et al. 2009), but this has not totally
corrected the limitations in the Kuz–Ram model.
In this study, the proposed modified Kuz–Ram model by
Lawal, (2021), which was developed by modifying the land
coefficient associated with the rock factor using the New-
ton’s method, was used. The author stated that the major
advantage of the proposed modification over the existing
model was the combination of elements from the image
analysis and the empirical model, thereby giving a more
accurate prediction of the fragment size (Lawal 2021). The
following steps were used in modifying the existing model.
The Kuz–Ram model presented in Eq. (18) was divided
into two using the rock mass characteristics and the blasting
parameters as presented as follows:
( )19∕30
115
X50= 0.06(RMD + JF + RDI + HF)K −0.8 Q1∕6
SANFO
new
X50 = kK R1 KR2 ,
where k is an unknown constant which is to be determined,
and KR1 and KR2 can be expressed as follows:
KR1 = (RMD + JF + RDI + HF)
( )19∕30
115
KR2= K −0.8 Q1.6 . (23)
SANFO
The unknown constant in Eq. (21) was determined using
the least square method of error minimization as presented
in Eq. (8)
∑
new 2
Fobj = (IA − X50 ), (24)
where IA is the actual mean size obtained from image analy-
sis results from the obtained Q1 and Q2 blast images and
the new mean fragment size X50 new
as presented in Eq. (21).
Equation 24 was adopted from Lawal (2021) to evaluate the
unknown constant (R) that gives the lowest objective function
using Newton's method on MATLAB. For the small diameter
hole quarry blasting (Q1), the convergent solution obtained for
the unknown variable R is 0.9911. Hence, Kuz–Ram model
can be re-written as in Eq. 25 for dolomite quarry blasting
115 19∕20
( )
X50 = 0.059466AK − 0.8 × Q1∕6 . (25)
REE
For the large diameter hole quarry blasting (Q2), the con-
vergent solution obtained for the unknown variable R is 0.963.
Hence, Kuz–Ram model can be re-written as in Eq. 25 for
granite quarry blasting
115 19∕20
( )
X50 = 0.05788AK − 0.8 × Q1∕6 . (26)
REE
(20)
Figures 11 and 12 show the results of the new modified
(21) Kuz–Ram model, the KCO model, and the image analy-
sis. From the results presented, it can be seen that the pro-
posed model’s results are very close to the actual values
from the WipFrag image analysis results. The new modi-
(22) fied Kuz–Ram model proposed for the prediction of Q1
and Q2 has higher coefficient of correlation (Q1 = 89.1%,
Q2 = 81.45%) (Table 9) as compared to Kuz–Ram model
(Q1 = 86.2%, Q2 = 40.1%) and existing MKM (Q1 = 79.6%),
Q2 = 39.4%) (Figs. 9 and 10).
The new modified Kuz–Ram model error analysis result
presented in Table 9 shows low RSME, MAE with high
VAF. The analysis shows that the new modified model has
good prediction accuracy and can be utilized for blast frag-
mentation prediction for practical purpose.

13
 A. O. Omotehinse, B. O. Taiwo

Fig. 12  Comparison of the 160

new modified Kuz–Ram model
(NMKM) with WipFrag and 140
KCO for Q2
120
100
WipFrag
80
KCO
60
NMKM
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 9  Prediction error Model evalu- Q1 Q2 WipFrag image analysis and it also has higher coefficient
evaluation for the newly ator indices of correlation as compared to Kuz–Ram model and exist-
proposed NMKM
ing MKM. The error analysis result of the new modified
R2 0.891 0.814
Kuz–Ram model shows low RSME, MAE values. From this
RSME 7.61 9.44
analysis, it can be concluded that the new modified model
MAE 3.92 3.97
has a better prediction accuracy than others and can be uti-
VAF 90.1 36.7
lized for blast fragmentation prediction for practical purpose.

5 Conclusion
In this research, a comparative analysis of the prediction
performance of the Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony
(KCO) model and modified Kuz–Ram (MKM) for small
diameter blast parameters (Q1) and large diameter param-
eter (Q2) blast results was carried out. It was concluded that
for both fines and the materials of desired range in Q1, the
MKM model predicted values are closer to the WipFrag than
the KCO model predicted values. For the fines in Q2, the
MKM model predicted values are closer to the WipFrag than
the KCO model predicted values and for the materials of
desired range in Q2, and the KCO model predicted values
are closer to the WipFrag than the MKM model predicted
values. There were no boulder predictions by both models in
both Q1 and Q2. The fragmentation mean size predicted by
both models for Q1 blast has a high prediction accuracy as
compared with the prediction result for the Q2 blast rounds.
The four adopted model performance indicators or error
checkers of the particle mean size (X50) revealed that the
KCO model is more efficient in predicting Q1 blast particle-
size distribution as compared to Q2 blast prediction, while
the MKM predicts the mean size blast fragmentation more
accurately than KCO model for Q2 blast rounds.
Finally, the results from the new Modified Kuz–Ram
model for Q1 and Q2 are more closer to the results from the
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval The authors state that the research was conducted
according to ethical standards.
References
Amoako R, Jha A, Zhong S (2022) Rock fragmentation prediction
using an artificial neural network and support vector regression
hybrid approach. Mining 2(2):233–247
Bakhtavar E, Khoshrou H, Badroddin M (2015) Using dimensional-
regression analysis to predict the mean particle size of fragmen-
tation by blasting at the Sungun copper mine. Arab J Geosci
8(4):2111–2120
Bamford T, Esmaeili K, Schoellig AP (2017) A real-time analysis of
post-blast rock fragmentation using UAV technology. Int J Min
Reclam Environ 31(6):439–456
Bhandari S (2012) Fines and dust generation and control in rock frag-
mentation by blasting, rock fragmentation by blasting. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp 511–520
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. A com-
plete manual for engineers and geologists in mining civil and
petroleum engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto
Biessikirski A, Dworzak M, Twardosz M, Pyra J, Barański K (2019)
Comparison analysis of muck pile fragmentation obtained through
the photogrammetry method and based on the Kuz–Ram empirical
model. Inżynieria Mineralna 21:259–266
Coy MK (2017) The influence of caprock on blast fragmentation distri-
bution. Missouri University of Science and Technology

13
A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of Modified Kuz–Ram and Kuznetsov–Cunningham–…
Cunningham CVB (2005) The Kuz–Ram fragmentation model—20
years on. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European federation of explo-
sives engineers world conference on explosives and blasting. Vol-
ume 4. Brighton. pp 201–210.
Enayatollahi I, Aghajani Bazzazi A, Asadi A (2014) Comparison
between neural networks and multiple regression analysis to pre-
dict rock fragmentation in open-pit mines. Rock Mech Rock Eng
47(2):799–807
Faramarzi F, Mansouri H, Farsangi MA (2013) A rock engineering
system based model to predict rock fragmentation by blasting. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 60(1):82–94
Gheibie S, Aghababaeia H, Hoseinieb SSH, Pourrahimianc Y (2009)
Modified Kuz–Ram fragmentation model and its use at the Sun-
gun copper mine. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(6):967–973
Grundstrom C, Kanchibotla S, Jankovich A, Thornton D, Pacific
DDNA (2001) Blast fragmentation for maximizing the sag mill
throughput at Porgera Gold Mine. In: Proceedings of the annual
conference on explosives and blasting technique, Porgera, pp
383–400
Guo H, Nguyen H, Bui XN, Armaghani DJ (2021) A new technique to
predict fly-rock in bench blasting based on an ensemble of sup-
port vector regression and GLMNET. Eng Comput 37(1):421–435
Hüdaverdi T, Akyildiz Ö (2020) Investigation of blast fragmenta-
tion models in a sandstone quarry. Bilimsel Madencilik Dergisi
59(3):145–156
ISRM (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. In: Brown
ET (ed) ISRM suggested methods. Commission on testing meth-
ods, international society for rock mechanics (ISRM). Pergam on
Press, Oxford, UK, pp 75–105
ISRM (2007). In: Ulusay R, Judson JA (eds) The ISRM suggested
method for rock characterization testing and monitoring. IRSM,
pp 1974–2006
Kansake BA, Temeng VA, Afum BO (2016) Comparative analysis of
rock fragmentation models–a case study. In: 4th UMaT Biennial
international mining and mineral conference. pp 1–11.
Kuznetsov VM (1973) The mean diameter of the fragments formed by
blasting rock. Sov Min Sci 9:144–148
Lawal AI (2021) A new modification to the Kuz–Ram model using
the fragment size predicted by image analysis. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 138:104595
Lilly PA (1986) An empirical method of assessing rock mass blasta-
bility. Proceedings of large open pit mine conference, vol 1986.
Newman, pp 89–92
Mackenzie AS (1996) Cost of explosive do you evaluate it properly?
Mining congress journal. Stanford University, pp 32–41
Maerz NH (1996) Image sampling techniques and requirements for
automated image analysis of rock fragments. In: Proceedings
of ISRM/fragblast workshop and short course on fragmentation
measurement. AA Balkema, Montreal
M u t i n d a E K , A l u n d a BO , M a i n a D K , K a s o m o R M
(2021) Prediction of rock fragmentation using the
View publication stats
Kuznetsov–Cunningham–Ouchterlony model. J South Afr Inst
Min Metall. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17159/​2411
Odeyemi IB (1992) The petrology of a Pan-African pluton in Igarra
area, Southwestern Nigeria. Nigerian J Sci 24(142):181–193
Okpoli CC (2019) High resolution magnetic field signatures over
akure and its environs, southwestern Nigeria. Earth Sci Malays
3(1):9–17
Ouchterlony F, Sanchidrián JA (2019) A review of development of
better prediction equations for blast fragmentation. J Rock Mech
Geotech Eng 11(5):1094–1109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrmge.​
2019.​03.​001
Prasad S, Choudhary BS, Mishra AK (2017) Effect of stemming to
burden ratio and powder factor on blast induced rock fragmenta-
tion—a case study. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1088/​1757-​899x/​225/1/​012191
Rorke T (2012) The true costs of poor drilling. Mining Mirror
Magazine
Sanchidrián JA, Ouchterlony F (2017) A distribution-free description
of fragmentation by blasting based on dimensional analysis. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 50(4):781–806
Shehu SA, Yusuf K, Hashim M (2022) Comparative study of WipFrag
image analysis and Kuz–Ram empirical model in granite aggre-
gate quarry and their application for blast fragmentation rating.
Geomech Geoeng 17:197–205
Siddiqui FI, Ali Shah SM, Behan MY (2009) Measurement of size
distribution of blasted rock using digital image processing. Eng
Sci 20(2):81–93
Singh BK, Mondal D, Shahid M, Saxena A, Roy PNS (2019) Applica-
tion of digital image analysis for monitoring the behavior of fac-
tors that control the rock fragmentation in opencast bench blast-
ing: a case study conducted over four opencast coal mines of the
Talcher coalfields. India J Sust Min 18(4):247–256
Tavakol Elahi A, Hosseini M (2017) Analysis of blasted rocks frag-
mentation using digital image processing (case study: limestone
quarry of Abyek cement company). Int J Geo-Eng 8(1):1–11
Tiile RN (2016) Artificial neural network approach to predict blast-
induced ground vibration, airblast and rock fragmentation. Mas-
ters Theses missouri university of science and technology. Faculty
of the Graduate School, Department of Mining Engineering, Mis-
souri, p 7571
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13