Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stability Assessment of Open Spans in Underground Entry-Type Excavations by Focusing on Data Mining Methods

  • Published:
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Entry-type mining methods, such as cut and fill method, play a significant role in underground mining, and they are still suitable methods for extracting deposits with irregular shapes and with weak host rocks. In these mining methods, the stability of the open spans is important for improving worker safety and increasing ore recovery. This study focuses on the application of six data mining classification methods, namely multinomial logistic regression (MLR), classification and regression trees (CART), logistic model tree (LMT), decision tree (J48), multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS), and gene expression programming (GEP), in order to develop predictive models for stability assessment of underground entry-type excavations. For this purpose, a database containing 399 case histories of entry-type excavations from seven Canada underground mines was used. These models predict the stability status of entry-type excavations based on two input parameters, dimensions of the span and rock mass rating (RMR). The performance of developed models was evaluated using six performance metrics namely accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SE), precision (PR), Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC), area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and performance index (PI). The results showed that all developed models can be used to predict the excavation stability, but the comparison of models indicated that the J48 model provides the highest performance with ACC = 0.900, SE = 0.869, PR = 0.922, MCC = 0.835, AUC = 0.891, and PI = 4.417. Thus, the proposed J48 model can be applied to identify the susceptibility of span instability in the entry-type mining, and if instability has been predicted, the necessary measures, including the use of suitable support systems, can be considered to reduce the casualties resulting from span instability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.

References

  1. García-Gonzalo E, Fernández-Muñiz Z, Nieto PJG et al (2016) Hard-rock stability analysis for span design in entry-type excavations with learning classifiers. Materials (Basel) 9:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9070531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhou J, Huang S, Qiu Y (2022) Optimization of random forest through the use of MVO, GWO and MFO in evaluating the stability of underground entry-type excavations. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2022.104494

  3. Goh ATC, Zhang Y, Zhang R et al (2017) Evaluating stability of underground entry-type excavations using multivariate adaptive regression splines and logistic regression. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 70:148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lang BDA (1994) Span design for entry-type excavations. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. MSc thesis

  5. Kumar P (2003) Development of empirical and numerical design techniques inburst prone groundat the Red Lake Mine. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. MSc thesis

  6. Wang M, Cai M (2022) Numerical modeling of stand-up time of tunnels considering time-dependent deformation of jointed rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 55:4305–4328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-022-02871-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of rock support. Rock Mech 6:189–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01239496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bieniawski ZT (1976) Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. In: proceedings of the symposium on exploration for rock engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp 97–106

  9. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for engineers and geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Potvin Y (1988) Empirical open stope design in Canada. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. PhD thesis

  11. Laubscher DH (1990) A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 90:257–273

    Google Scholar 

  12. Molinda GM, Mark C (1993) The coal mine roof rating (CMRR)-a practical rock mass classification for coal mines. In: proceedings of the 12th international conference on ground control in mining, Morgantown, WV, pp 92–103

  13. Ghasemi E, Gholizadeh H (2019) Prediction of squeezing potential in tunneling projects using data mining-based techniques. Geotech Geol Eng 37:1523–1532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0705-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang J, Wang Y, Sun Y, Li G (2020) Strength of ensemble learning in multiclass classification of rockburst intensity. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 44:1833–1853. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.3111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kadkhodaei MH, Ghasemi E, Mahdavi S (2023) Modelling tunnel squeezing using gene expression programming: a case study. Proc Inst Civil Eng-Geotech Eng 176:567–581. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.22.00151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guo D, Chen H, Tang L et al (2022) Assessment of rockburst risk using multivariate adaptive regression splines and deep forest model. Acta Geotech 17:1183–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01299-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ghasemi E, Kalhori H, Bagherpour R (2017) Stability assessment of hard rock pillars using two intelligent classification techniques: a comparative study. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 63:32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.05.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Adoko AC, Saadaari F, Mireku-Gyimah D et al (2022) A feasibility study on the implementation of neural network classifiers for open stope design. Geotech Geol Eng 40:677–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01915-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhao X, Niu J (2020) Method of predicting ore dilution based on a neural network and its application. Sustainability 12(4):1550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang J, Milne D, Pakalnis R (2002) Application of a neural network in the empirical design of underground excavation spans. Inst Min Metall Trans Sect A Min Technol 111. https://doi.org/10.1179/mnt.2002.111.1.73

  21. Ouchi AM (2008) Empirical design of span openings in weak rock. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. MSc thesis

  22. Zhou J, Huang S, Tao M et al (2022) Stability prediction of underground entry-type excavations based on particle swarm optimization and gradient boosting decision tree. Undergr Sp. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2022.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Abdel-Kader FH (2011) Digital soil mapping at pilot sites in the northwest coast of Egypt: a multinomial logistic regression approach. Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci 14:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2011.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rahmani SR, Libohova Z, Ackerson JP, Schulze DG (2023) Estimating natural soil drainage classes in the Wisconsin till plain of the Midwestern U.S.A. based on lidar derived terrain indices: Evaluating prediction accuracy of multinomial logistic regression and machine learning algorithms. Geoderma Reg 35:e00728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2023.e00728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Madani N, Maleki M, Soltani-Mohammadi S (2022) Geostatistical modeling of heterogeneous geo-clusters in a copper deposit integrated with multinomial logistic regression: an exercise on resource estimation. Ore Geol Rev 150:105132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2022.105132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Witten I, Frank E (2005) Practical machine learning tools and techniques, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  28. Breiman L, Freidman J, Olshen R, Stone C (1984) Classification and regression trees. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Salimi A, Faradonbeh RS, Monjezi M, Moormann C (2018) TBM performance estimation using a classification and regression tree (CART) technique. Bull Eng Geol Environ 77:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0969-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hasanipanah M, Faradonbeh RS, Amnieh HB et al (2017) Forecasting blast-induced ground vibration developing a CART model. Eng Comput 33:307–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-016-0475-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ghasemi E, Amnieh HB, Bagherpour R (2016) Assessment of backbreak due to blasting operation in open pit mines: a case study. Environ Earth Sci 75:552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5354-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rutkowski L, Jaworski M, Pietruczuk L, Duda P (2014) The CART decision tree for mining data streams. Inf Sci 266:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. IBM Crop (2015) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows Version 23.0. IBM Crop, Armonk

  34. Kaur G, Chhabra A (2014) Improved J48 classification algorithm for the prediction of diabetes. Int J Comput Appl 98:13–17. https://doi.org/10.5120/17314-7433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Amirkiyaei V, Ghasemi E (2022) Stability assessment of slopes subjected to circular-type failure using tree-based models. Int J Geotech Eng 16:301–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2020.1862538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Landwehr N, Hall M, Frank E (2005) Logistic model trees. Mach Learn 59:161–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-005-0466-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tien Bui D, Tuan TA, Klempe H et al (2016) Spatial prediction models for shallow landslide hazards: a comparative assessment of the efficacy of support vector machines, artificial neural networks, kernel logistic regression, and logistic model tree. Landslides 13:361–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0557-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen W, Xie X, Wang J, Pradhan B, Hong H, Tien Bui D, Duan Z, Ma J (2017) A comparative study of logistic model tree, random forest, and classification and regression tree models for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility. CATENA 151:147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.11.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kadkhodaei MH, Ghasemi E (2022) Development of a semi-quantitative framework to assess rockburst risk using risk matrix and logistic model tree. Geotech Geol Eng 40:3669–3685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02122-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19:1–67

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang W (2020) MARS applications in geotechnical engineering systems. Springer, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang W, Goh ATC, Zhang Y (2016) Multivariate adaptive regression splines application for multivariate geotechnical problems with big data. Geotech Geol Eng 34:193–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9938-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zabihi M, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Behzadfar M (2016) GIS-based multivariate adaptive regression spline and random forest models for groundwater potential mapping in Iran. Environ Earth Sci 75:665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5424-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang WG, Goh ATC (2013) Multivariate adaptive regression splines for analysis of geotechnical engineering systems. Comput Geotech 48:82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Naser AH, Badr AH, Henedy SN et al (2022) Application of multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) approach in prediction of compressive strength of eco-friendly concrete. Case Stud Constr Mater 17:e01262

    Google Scholar 

  46. Park S, Hamm S-Y, Jeon H-T, Kim J (2017) Evaluation of logistic regression and multivariate adaptive regression spline models for groundwater potential mapping using R and GIS. Sustainability 9(7):1157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sirimontree S, Jearsiripongkul T, Lai VQ, Eskandarinejad A, Lawongkerd J, Seehavong S, Thongchom C, Nuaklong P, Keawsawasvong S (2022) Prediction of penetration resistance of a spherical penetrometer in clay using multivariate adaptive regression splines model. Sustainability 14(6):3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. StatSoftInc (2014) STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System) Version 12. StatSoft Inc, Oklahoma

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ferreira C (2001) Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving problems. Complex Syst 13:87–129

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. Ferreira C (2006) Gene expression programming: mathematical modeling by an artificial intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Kadkhodaei MH, Ghasemi E (2019) Development of a GEP model to assess CERCHAR abrasivity index of rocks based on geomechanical properties. 10:917–928. https://doi.org/10.22044/jme.2019.8141.1684

  52. Shirani Faradonbeh R, Taheri A (2019) Long-term prediction of rockburst hazard in deep underground openings using three robust data mining techniques. Eng Comput 35:659–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0624-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gullu H (2012) Prediction of peak ground acceleration by genetic expression programming and regression: a comparison using likelihood-based measure. Eng Geol 141–142:92–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hajihassani M, Abdullah SS, Asteris PG, Armaghani DJ (2019) A gene expression programming model for predicting tunnel convergence. Appl Sci 9:4650. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Özbek AB, Unsal M, Dikec A (2013) Estimating uniaxial compressive strength of rocks using genetic expression programming. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 5:325–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2013.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Naghadehi MZ, Samaei M, Ranjbarnia M, Nourani V (2018) State-of-the-art predictive modeling of TBM performance in changing geological conditions through gene expression programming. Measurement 126:46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.05.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Baykasoğlu A, Güllü H, Çanakçı H, Özbakır L (2008) Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming. Expert Syst Appl 35:111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Faradonbeh RS, Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB et al (2018) Development of GP and GEP models to estimate an environmental issue induced by blasting operation. Environ Monit Assess 190:351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6719-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gepsoft (2014) GeneXpro Tools 5.0. Gepsoft, Capelo, Portugal

  60. Yilmaz AE, Demirhan H (2023) Weighted kappa measures for ordinal multi-class classification performance. Appl Soft Comput 134:110020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/39.4.561

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 8415683111, Iran

    Mosareza Jalilian, Ebrahim Ghasemi & Mohammad Hossein Kadkhodaei

Authors
  1. Mosareza Jalilian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ebrahim Ghasemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Hossein Kadkhodaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebrahim Ghasemi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jalilian, M., Ghasemi, E. & Kadkhodaei, M.H. Stability Assessment of Open Spans in Underground Entry-Type Excavations by Focusing on Data Mining Methods. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 41, 843–858 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-024-00945-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-024-00945-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation