XG Boost Algorithm to Simultaneous Prediction of Rock Fragmentation and Induced Ground Vibration Using Unique Blast Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The data presented in the article are very interesting from a scientific point of view and the results presented could be of importance for practical application in blasting.

Below are some comments for better understanding and improving the quality of the article.

 

 

The main problem is that the model uses only the total amount of explosives, while the most important factor for PPV is the maximum charge per delay. What happens if you blast the total amount of explosives in one or two time delays? Please explain.

 

Table 1. please add the maximum charge per delay for all blasts as the most important factor affecting PPV.

Could you also please indicate which connectors were used in the blasting patterns.

 

General comment: the article contains too many iFigure. Please reconsider the number of figures. For example, Figures 8, 9, and 10 can be a single figure.

Fig. 24 and Fig. 25 are out of focus. Please correct

 

The conclusion is not well-formatted, the software is O-Pitblast, please correct it. Also, the conclusion only says the total amount of explosives, which may lead to an incorrect conclusion. Please take this into account and note that the model can only be used if the amount of explosive per delay is similar.

 

Author Response

Sir, Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

Greetings

In this manuscript, the authors presented an XG boot algorithm to prediction of rock fragmentation during blasting.  After reviewing the manuscript, I should say that I recommend this paper for publication in Applied science journal after revising it based on the following comments.

• The language must be checked again.
• The quality of some Figures and Graphs are so low. Hence, they must be improved.
• The authors must put an appropriate figure to understand the location of project in India.
• Geological and geotechnical properties of geomaterial in the project must be described in a specified section.
• The literature review section must be improved.

 

Regards

 

Author Response

Sir, Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

Greetings

The manuscript has been revised based on my comments, hence I recommend it for publication.

It should be noted that, the authors must correct the units of density (g/cm3) and Gpa , Mpa to GPa and MPa in the Table of geotechnical section.

 

The best

Author Response

Sir, Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.