See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273886493

Evaluation and prediction of flyrock resulting

from blasting operations using empirical and
computational methods

Article in Engineering With Computers · March 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s00366-015-0402-5

CITATIONS READS

17 248

6 authors, including:

Danial Jahed Armaghani Edy Tonnizam

Amirkabir University of Technology Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
98 PUBLICATIONS 927 CITATIONS 57 PUBLICATIONS 503 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohsen Hajihassani Aminaton Marto

Urmia University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
44 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 613 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

slope stability. View project

Three-Dimensional Slope Stability Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Danial Jahed Armaghani on 23 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Engineering with Computers
DOI 10.1007/s00366-015-0402-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Evaluation and prediction of flyrock resulting from blasting

operations using empirical and computational methods
D. Jahed Armaghani1 · E. Tonnizam Mohamad1 · M. Hajihassani2 ·
S. V. Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad1 · A. Marto1 · M. R. Moghaddam3,4 

Received: 18 December 2014 / Accepted: 13 March 2015

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Abstract  Mines, quarries and construction sites face
environmental impacts, such as flyrock, due to blasting
operations. Flyrock may cause damage to structures and
injury to human. Therefore, flyrock prediction is required
to determine safe blasting zone. In this regard, 232 blast-
ing operations were investigated in five granite quarries,
Malaysia. Blasting parameters comprising maximum
charge per delay and powder factor were prepared to pre-
dict flyrock using empirical and intelligent methods. An
empirical graph was proposed to predict flyrock distance
for different powder factor values. In addition, using the
same datasets, two intelligent systems, namely artificial
neural network (ANN) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system (ANFIS) were used to predict flyrock. Considering
some model performance indices including coefficient
of determination (R2), value account for and root mean
squared error and also using simple ranking procedure, the
best flyrock prediction models were selected. It was found
that the ANFIS model can predict flyrock with higher per-
formance capacity compared to ANN predictive model. R2
values of testing datasets are 0.925 and 0.964 for ANN and
ANFIS techniques, respectively, suggesting the superiority
of the ANFIS technique in predicting flyrock.
Keywords  Blasting · Flyrock · Empirical graph ·
Artificial neural network · Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system

1 Introduction
* D. Jahed Armaghani
danialarmaghani@yahoo.com
The most effective tool for excavating rock mass is still the
E. Tonnizam Mohamad
blasting technique. Whenever explosives in a blast-hole are
edy@utm.my
detonated, huge energy is created in the form of waves and
M. Hajihassani
gas in the air and in the earth [1]. Only 20–30 % of the pro-
mohsen_hajihassani@yahoo.com
duced energy is utilized for fragmentation and movement
S. V. Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad
of the rock mass and the rest of this energy is wasted and
vankaseyed2@live.utm.my
creates undesirable environmental impacts, such as air and
A. Marto
ground vibrations, flyrock and dust [2–4]. Among them,
aminaton@utm.my
flyrock is recognized as the main cause of human injury,
M. R. Moghaddam
fatalities and structural damage [1, 5, 6]. Flyrock refers to
m110_erfan@yahoo.com
the uncontrolled dispersion of rock fragments from blast
1
Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, Faculty areas caused by explosive energy [7]. There is an effective
of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM, relationship among three factors, distribution of explosive
81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
energy, mechanical strength of the rock mass and charge
2
Construction Research Alliance, Universiti Teknologi confinement [8–12]. Any mismatch between these factors
Malaysia, UTM, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
may produce flyrock [8]. When this happens, much of the
3
South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran explosive energy is used to throw rock rather than create
4
Saman Zamin Hamgam Engineering Company, Tehran, Iran fragmented rock [5].

13

Several empirical equations have been suggested for
the prediction of flyrock distance arising from blasting
[13–17]. These equations just consider limited numbers
of parameters having influence on flyrock. Their perfor-
mances are not satisfactory due to the complex nature of
the flyrock problem, whereas exact prediction of the fly-
rock distance is essential to determine the blast safety area
[18, 19]. Therefore, prediction of flyrock is required using
other new predictive techniques.
Artificial intelligence methods such as artificial neural
network (ANN) can be used to solve the complex and non-
linear problems in the field of geotechnical engineering as
reported by many scholars (e.g. [20–25]). This is because
of the fact that intelligence-based predictive models take
advantage of flexible nature where the models can be
easily calibrated when new data become available. This
advantage makes them powerful tools in solving prob-
lems more specifically when they are highly non-linear
and the contact natures between input and output variable
are unknown [26]. In this study, ANN and adaptive neuro-
fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) were applied predict fly-
rock distance using the datasets obtained from five granite
quarry sites in Malaysia. In addition, using the same data-
sets, an empirical graph was proposed to predict flyrock
distance.
2 Methods for prediction of flyrock
Undesirable projection of rock fragments due to blasting
operations is defined as flyrock [6]. Flyrock is an unwanted
environmental impact which is induced by the propelling
of rock fragments due to the creation of explosive energy
during blasting works [27]. The flyrock mechanism pro-
duces an effective relationship among the distribution of
the explosive energy, the strength properties of the rock
mass and charge confinement. Therefore, flyrock can occur
as a result of any incongruity among these parameters [8].
In such a case, an abundant amount of the explosive energy
is consumed not in producing fragmented rock but in pro-
jecting the rock [5].
Flyrock accidents occur for several reasons, including
abnormalities in the blast pattern, the use of explosives and
uncertain conditions in the rock mass [28, 29]. Fletcher
and D’Andrea [30] stated that much explosive energy,
insufficient stemming and venting of the explosive energy
through a weak plane can cause excessive flyrock beyond
the blast safety area. According to Bhandari [7] and Hemp-
hill [9], the main reasons for flyrock occurrence are insuf-
ficient burden and spacing, insufficient stemming, incorrect
drilling, hole overload, an immoderate powder factor and
undesirable geological conditions.
13
Engineering with Computers
In order to predict flyrock distance, some researchers
have proposed empirical equations. An empirical model
was established by Lundborg et al. [13] based on hole and
rock diameters as follows:
Lm = 260 × D2/ 3 (1)
Tb = 0.1 × D2/3 , (2)
where Lm is the maximum rock projection in metres, D is
the hole diameter in inches and Tb is the size of rock frag-
ment in metres. Gupta [16] suggested an empirical equa-
tion to predict flyrock distance based on stemming length
and burden as follows:
L = 155.2 × d −1.37 , (3)
where L is the ratio of stemming length to burden and d is
the distance travelled by the rocks in metres. A model was
established by Raina et al. [31] to determine the horizontal
(FSH) and vertical (FSV) safety factors of flyrock/projection
in open-pit mines. The required parameters selected to ascer-
tain the safety factor were very simple and related to the rock
mass and blast design parameters. The safety factor, as a
dimensionless quantity, was developed utilizing blast design
parameters with correction factors for various conditions of
the field and the explosive. A factor of 1.5 was considered to
be safe for flyrock. McKenzie [32] proposed equations for the
prediction of the maximum range of flyrock, and the particle
size (achieving the maximum range) in blasting using density,
hole diameter, explosive density and confinement state. This
study significantly determined the danger zone of blasting.
Trivedi et al. [33] proposed an equation to predict flyrock dis-
tance using multi-variate regression analysis. They monitored
95 blasting operations of four opencast limestone mines in
India and relevant blasting parameters were recorded. Pro-
posed equation for flyrock prediction is as follows:
105.1 qI0.51 q0.14
Flyrock = , (4)
B0.93 ST0.64 σc0.75 RQD0.93
where qI is linear charge concentration, q is specific charge,
σc is unconfined compressive strength, ST is stemming
length, B is burden and RQD is rock quality designation. R2
of 0.815 was obtained for their developed model. Another
empirical equation was developed by Ghasemi et al. [34]
for flyrock prediction utilizing dimensional analysis. The
equation is as follows:
 
Fd = 6946.547 B−0.796 S 0.783 St1.994 H 1.649 D1.766 (P/Q)1.465 ,
(5)
where B is burden, S is spacing, St is stemming, H is hole
length, D is diameter of blast-hole, P is powder factor and
Engineering with Computers

Table 1  Recent studies on flyrock prediction using soft computation techniques

References Technique Input parameter No. of dataset R2

Monjezi et al. [18] ANN HD, BS, ST, PF, SD, N, C, RD 250 R2 = 0.98
Rezaei et al. [3] FIS HD, S, B, ST, PF, SD, RD, C 490 R2 = 0.98
Monjezi et al. [37] ANN HD, BS, ST, PF, D, SD, C, B 192 R2 = 0.97
Monjezi et al. [36] ANN-GA HD, S, B, ST, PF, SD, D, C, RMR 195 R2 = 0.89
Amini et al. [38] SVM, ANN HL, S, B, ST, PF, SD, D 245 R2ANN = 0.92
R2SVM = 0.97
Jahed Armaghani et al. [19] ANN-PSO HD, S, B, ST, PF, C, D, N, RD, SD 44 R2 = 0.94
Monjezi et al. [39] ANN HD, S, B, D, C 310 R2 = 0.98
Khandelwal and Monjezi [1] SVM HL, S, B, ST, PF, SD 187 R2 = 0.95
Ghasemi et al. [35] ANN, FIS HL, S, B, ST, PF, C 230 R2ANN = 0.94
R2FIS = 0.96
Marto et al. [40] ANN-ICA RD, HD, BS, ST, PF, C, Rn 113 R2 = 0.98
This study ANN, ANFIS C, PF 232 R2ANN = 0.92
R2ANFIS = 0.98

HL hole length, S spacing, B burden, ST stemming, PF powder factor, SD specific drilling, SVM support vector machine, C charge per delay, D
hole diameter, HD hole depth, RD rock density, BS burden to spacing, N number of row, B blastability index, GA genetic algorithm, RMR rock
mass rating, PSO particle swarm optimization, SD subdrilling, ICA imperialist competitive algorithm

Q is mean charge per blast-hole. The coefficient of determi-
nation (R2) equal to 0.83 indicates the high prediction per-
formance of the proposed equation.
In addition to empirical methods, several researchers
have been using soft computing techniques in order to pre-
dict flyrock distance. Monjezi et al. [18] employed artificial
neural network (ANN) to predict flyrock distance caused
by blasting operations. They used 192 datasets to train
ANN simulations and showed the high performance of the
ANN model in flyrock prediction. The results of their study
revealed that the most effective parameters on flyrock dis-
tance are blast ability index, charge per delay, hole diam-
eter, stemming length and powder factor. A fuzzy interface
system (FIS) was applied by Rezaei et al. [3] to predict
flyrock. They compared the FIS results with conventional
statistical models and showed the higher efficiency of the
developed FIS model compared to statistical models. Two
models, namely ANN and FIS, were used to predict flyrock
by Ghasemi et al. [35]. They demonstrated the capability
of both models in predicting flyrock distance, but the FIS
model produced higher performance compared to the ANN
model. Monjezi et al. [36] applied a neuro-genetic model
to predict flyrock and back-break. They found that the
most influential parameters on flyrock are stemming and
powder factor. Khandelwal and Monjezi [1] used Support
vector machine (SVM) and MLR techniques to estimate
flyrock of Soungun Copper Mine, Iran. After comparison
of these methods, they introduced SVM as a better option
for close flyrock prediction. In other research, Jahed Arma-
ghani et al. [19] predicted flyrock distance using hybrid
particle swarm optimization (PSO) and ANN. PSO was
used because it can improve the performance of the ANN
in predicting flyrock induced by blasting in granite quarry
sites. Finally, their results indicated the applicability of
the proposed model in predicting flyrock distance. Several
recent works on the prediction of flyrock and their perfor-
mance are presented in Table 1.
3 Artificial neural network
The ANN is a soft computation technique inspired by the
human-brain information process. A typical ANN consists
of three main constituents, namely learning rule, network
architecture and transfer function [41]. There are two
major types of ANN: recurrent and feed-forward. Shahin
et al. [42] recommend that if there is no time-dependent
parameter in the ANN, the feed-forward (FF) ANN can be
employed. The multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural net-
work is one of the most well-known FF-ANNs [43]. MLP
consists of a number of nodes or neurons in three layers
(input, hidden and output) linked to each other by weights.
Du et al. [44] and Kalinli et al. [45] reported on the high
efficiency of MLP-ANNs in approximating various func-
tions in high-dimensional spaces. Nevertheless, the ANN
needs to be trained before interpreting the results. Among
many kinds of learning algorithms to train MLP-FF, the
back-propagation (BP) algorithm is the most extensively
utilized [46, 47]. In a BP-ANN, the imported data in the
input layer start to propagate to hidden neurons through
connection weights [48]. The input from each neuron in
the previous layer, Ii, is multiplied by an adjustable connec-
tion or weight, Wij. At each node, the sum of the weighted
input signals is computed and then this value is added to a

13

Fig.  1  a Sugeno fuzzy model
with two rules, b equivalent
ANFIS architecture [49]
threshold value known as the bias value, Bij (see Eq. 6). To
create the output of the neuron, the combined input, Ji, is
passed through a non-linear transfer function f (Jj), such as
a sigmoidal function (see Eq. 7). However, in general, the
output of each neuron provides the input to the next layer
neuron. This procedure is continued until the output is gen-
erated. To achieve the error, the created output is checked
against the desired output. The BP training can change the
weights between the neurons iteratively in a way that mini-
mizes the root mean square error (RMSE) of the system.
More details of the BP algorithm can be seen in the classic
artificial intelligence books [48, 49].
Jj = (wij Ii ) + Bj (6)
yi = f (Jj ). (7)
13
Engineering with Computers
4 Adaptive neuro‑fuzzy inference system
Jang [50] developed ANFIS based on the Takagi–Sugeno
FIS. ANFIS is a universal estimator that is able to estimate
any real continuous functions [51]. It takes advantage of
both ANN and FIS principles and presents all the advan-
tages of both in a single framework. An adaptive ANN con-
sists of a number of nodes connected by directional links,
where each node is described using a node function with
fixed or changeable parameters. In this kind of network,
when the FIS is initialized ANN is used to determine the
unknown relationship between the parameters. This opti-
mization process is named “adaptive”. Figure 1a shows an
adaptive ANN which consists of a premise and the conse-
quent parts. This network is equal to the FIS, see Fig. 1b.
Based on the applicability of ANFIS in determining the
non-linear relationship between input and target data, it has
Engineering with Computers

been widely utilized in different engineering applications Table 2  Description of granite quarry sites used in this study
(e.g. [22, 52–54]). Quarry name Distance to Johor (km) Latitude Longitude
To describe the procedure of ANFIS easily, it is sup-
posed that the FIS under consideration is composed of two Hanson 20 1°48′12″N 103°88′02″E
inputs (x, y) and one output (f) and the rule base includes Taman Bestari 17 1°60′41″N 103°78′32″E
two fuzzy rule sets “if–then” as below: Trans Crete 30 1°31′21″N 103°52′60″E
Rule I: if x is A1 and y is B1, then f1 = p1x + q1y + r1 Kulai Batu 32 1°64′00″N 103°58′11″E
Rule II: if x is A2 and y is B2, then f2 = p2x + q2y + r2, Seri Alam 22 1°28′58″N 103°41′21″E
where pi, qi and ri are the consequent parameters to be
settled. According to Jang [50] and Jang et al. [51], an
ANFIS model with two inputs, one output, five layers and
two rules might be described as follows:
Each node i in layer 1 produces a membership grade of a
linguistic label and the node function of the ith node is

1
Qi1 = µAi (x) = 2 bi
(8)

x−vi
1+ σ1

where Q1i is the membership function and x is the input

to node i. Ai is the linguistic label assigned to node i and
σ1,  vi,  bi are parameters that make changes in the figure
to the membership function. The existing parameters in
this layer are related to the premise part (see Fig. 1a). Each
node in layer 2 computes the firing strength of each rule
via multiplication and the ratio of firing strength of the ith
rule to the sum of firing strengths of all rules is calculated Fig. 2  Residential area which is located near Seri Alam quarry site
in layer 3.
Qi2 = wi = µAi (x).µBi (y) i = 1, 2 (9)
wi
Qi3 = Wi = 2 i = 1, 2 (10)
j=1 wj

Every node i in layer 4 is a node function, whereas Wi is the

output of layer 3. The parameters of layer 4 are related to
the consequent part.
Qi4 = Wi fi = Wi (pi x + qi y + ri ) (11)
Finally, the incoming signals are summed in layer 5 and
produce the overall output.

5
 wi fi
Qi = Overall Output = W i fi =  . (12)
wi
5 Site investigations and data collection
Fig. 3  A view of the Seri Alam quarry site
To provide a sufficient number of datasets for the predic-
tion of flyrock induced by blasting, five granite quarry sites
were studied in the Johor area, Malaysia. Related descrip- weathering in these sites are mainly classified into grades
tions for these quarries are described in Table 2. The pur- III–V. Rock quality designation (RQD) values are meas-
pose of the blasting operations in these sites is to produce ured only in Kulai Batu and Seri Alam quarries and their
130,000–320,000 tons of aggregate per month. In each results are achieved in the range of 30–65 %. In addition,
month, 6–12 blasting operations are conducted in these minimum and maximum Schmidt hammer rebound values
quarries depending on the weather conditions. The mass are obtained as 19 and 37, respectively. Moreover, limited

13

Table 3  Summary of parameters used in this study
Parameter Symbol Category Min Max Mean
Maximum charge per C Input 47.713 572.555 237.057
delay (kg)
Powder factor (kg/m3)PF Input 0.45 1.1 0.769
Flyrock distance (m) – Output 71 410 199.591
a number of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) tests
are conducted on the samples in laboratory and values of
30 MPa and 75 MPa are obtained as minimum and maxi-
mum UCS results, respectively. It should be mentioned that
all observations and tests in this study are performed in
accordance with ISRM [55] standard.
Since the blasting operations in the mentioned quarry
sites are conducted close to the location of existing facili-
ties and equipment, flyrock is an important problem in
these quarries. In addition, factories and residential areas
are close to the location of blasting works in these sites.
As an example, there is only 600 m distance between Seri
Alam quarry site and surrounding residential area as illus-
trated in Fig. 2. Therefore, flyrock is a significant prob-
lem in this site. In addition, a view of Seri Alam quarry is
shown in Fig. 3.
A total number of 232 blasting works were investigated
and their blasting parameters were measured. In each blast-
ing, several blasting parameters including burden, spac-
ing, stemming length, hole diameter, hole depth, maxi-
mum charge per delay and powder factor were recorded.
Hole diameters of 75, 89, 115 and 150 mm were used in
the blasting operations of these sites. The range of powder
Fig. 4  Empirical model for prediction of flyrock using maximum charge per delay and powder factor
13
Engineering with Computers
factors in these operations was observed between 0.45 and
1.1 kg/m3. The maximum and maximum measured stem-
ming length was 1 and 4.5 m, respectively. In addition,
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) and dynamite were
used as the main explosive material and initiation, respec-
tively. The blast-holes were stemmed using fine gravels.
To measure the flyrock distances in these sites, their bench
surfaces were coloured and two video cameras were put in
place to monitor the flyrock projections. After each blast-
ing, the relevant videos were reviewed to find the locations
of the maximum rock projections.
In order to select the input parameters for prediction
of flyrock, many well-established studies were reviewed.
According to many researches of flyrock prediction (e.g.
[3, 18, 19, 34, 36, 38]), maximum charge per delay and
powder factor are the most influential parameters on fly-
rock distance. Hence, among all recorded blasting parame-
ters, results of maximum charge per delay and powder fac-
tor parameters were selected as input parameters for both
empirical and computational prediction. A summary of the
data used in this study is shown in Table 3.
6 Empirical model for flyrock prediction
Although empirical approaches in predicting flyrock are
not accurate, these methods are of interest due to their
ease of use. In this study, to propose a new empirical graph
for flyrock prediction, the results of maximum charge per
delay and powder factor obtained from 232 blasting opera-
tions were utilized. In this regard, a series of analyses were
undertaken and a graphical model was proposed to predict
flyrock distance as shown in Fig. 4. Based on this graph,
Engineering with Computers
flyrock distance can be predicted using maximum charge
per delay values ranging from 69 to 551 kg and values of
powder factor ranging from 0.5 to 1.1 kg/m3. To construct
this model, for each powder factor, the best-fit equation
was achieved to predict flyrock. The maximum, minimum
and average R2 of these equations were obtained 0.953,
0.831 and 0.901, respectively. Moreover, their RMSE val-
ues were obtained 29.231, 15.024 and 22.445, respectively.
The overall RMSE of 22.445 indicates that the proposed
empirical model can predict flyrock with a suitable degree
of accuracy. In addition, employing this model is of interest
due to its ease of use. This graph can be used as a primary
design to predict flyrock before blasting operations in gran-
ite quarries.
7 Application of intelligent systems for prediction
of flyrock
To predict Flyrock induced by quarry blasting, two intelli-
gent systems, namely ANN and ANFIS were developed. As
mentioned earlier, maximum charge per delay and powder
factor were considered as model inputs. The modelling pro-
cedures of the ANN and ANFIS techniques are described in
the following sections.
7.1 ANN model to predict flyrock
An attempt was made to predict flyrock using ANN tech-
nique. To do this, all 232 datasets were normalized in the
range of (0,1) using the following equation:
   
Xnorm = X − Xmin / Xmax − Xmin , (13)
where X is the measured value, Xnorm represents the normal-
ized value of the measured parameter and Xmin and Xmax are
the minimum and maximum values of the measured param-
eters in the dataset. The performance of the ANN models
depends strongly on the suggested architecture of the net-
work as mentioned in the studies by Hush [56] and Kanel-
lopoulas and Wilkinson [57]. Therefore, determination
of the optimal architecture is required to design an ANN
model. The network architecture is defined as the number
of hidden layer(s) and the number of nodes in each hidden
layer(s). According to various researchers (e.g. [58–60]),
one hidden layer can solve any complex function in a net-
work. Hence, in this study, one hidden layer was selected to
construct the ANN models. In addition, determining neuron
number(s) in the hidden layer is the most critical task in the
ANN architecture as mentioned by Sonmez et al. [61] and
Sonmez and Gokceoglu [62]. Table 4 tabulates some equa-
tions related to determination of number of neuron pro-
posed by several scholars. Based on this table, the number
Table 4  The proposed number of neuron for hidden layer
Heuristic References
≤ 2 × Ni + 1 Hecht-Nielsen [58]
3Ni Hush [56]
(Ni + N0)/2 Ripley [63]
2+N0 ×Ni +0.5N0 × N02 +Ni −3 Paola [64]
Ni +N0
2Ni/3 Wang [65]
√
Ni × N0 Masters [66]
2Ni Kaastra and Boyd [67]
Kanellopoulas and Wilkinson [57]
Ni number of input neuron, N0 number of output neuron
of hidden neuron in the range of 1–6 should be used for
flyrock prediction (using 2 inputs and 1 output).
In this study, all datasets were divided randomly to
training and testing datasets. The idea behind using some
data for testing is to check the performance capacity of
the developed model. In the studies by Swingler [68] and
Looney [69], testing dataset was recommended as 20
and 25 % of whole dataset, respectively, while a range of
20–30 % of whole data was suggested for testing in the
study by Nelson and Illingworth [70]. Considering these
recommendations, 20 % (46 datasets) of whole datasets
(232 datasets) was selected randomly as testing datasets,
whereas the remaining 186 datasets were used for train-
ing the system. In order to determine the optimum num-
ber of neurons in the hidden layer, several ANN models
were constructed using one hidden layer and mentioned
number of hidden neurons for prediction of flyrock as pre-
sented in Table 5. In this table, five iterations were mod-
elled for each hidden neuron and average results of these
iterations were presented. According to average results,
considering R2 values of both training and testing data-
sets, model No. 5 with 5 hidden neurons outperforms the
other ANN models. Hence, in construction of ANN mod-
els, value of 5 was selected as number of hidden neuron to
predict flyrock.
In the next step of ANN modelling, five different data-
sets were selected randomly to develop ANN model. Ran-
dom selection of datasets for proposed models in this study
was performed utilizing the ANN code written by authors.
Using the suggested ANN structure and considering five
different randomly selected datasets, 5 ANN models were
constructed for flyrock prediction (see Table 6). The test-
ing datasets were also simulated for each train as shown in
Table 6. It should be noted that in constructing ANN mod-
els in this study, using trial-and-error procedure and recom-
mended values in different studies [52, 71], the learning
rate and momentum coefficient were considered as 0.1 and
0.9, respectively.
13
 Engineering with Computers

Table 5  R2 of trained ANN models to predict flyrock

Model No. Nodes in hidden layers Network result
Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Iteration 5 Average
2 2 2 2 2
R R R R R R2
Train Test Train Test Train Test Train Test Train Test Train Test

1 1 0.885 0.906 0.886 0.905 0.891 0.887 0.889 0.895 0.876 0.921 0.885 0.903
2 2 0.899 0.910 0.897 0.870 0.899 0.911 0.896 0.867 0.906 0.874 0.899 0.886
3 3 0.914 0.882 0.901 0.921 0.918 0.889 0.916 0.850 0.921 0.919 0.914 0.892
4 4 0.912 0.899 0.918 0.897 0.920 0.876 0.923 0.929 0.918 0.927 0.918 0.906
5 5 0.931 0.895 0.919 0.925 0.922 0.926 0.927 0.906 0.933 0.918 0.926 0.914
6 6 0.922 0.891 0.912 0.927 0.918 0.902 0.920 0.911 0.916 0.899 0.918 0.906

Table 6  Performance indices Method Model R2 RMSE VAF Rating for R2 Rating for RMSE Rating for VAF Rank value
of each model and their rank
values in predicting flyrock ANN Train 1 0.921 0.056 92.090 2 3 1 6
Train 2 0.928 0.052 92.787 5 5 5 15
Train 3 0.923 0.055 92.309 3 4 2 9
Train 4 0.926 0.055 92.587 4 4 3 11
Train 5 0.926 0.056 92.599 4 3 4 11
Test 1 0.923 0.063 92.074 3 4 3 10
Test 2 0.918 0.070 91.820 2 2 2 6
Test 3 0.927 0.063 92.224 5 4 4 13
Test 4 0.905 0.065 90.449 1 3 1 5
Test 5 0.925 0.055 92.336 4 5 5 14
ANFIS Train 1 0.979 0.029 97.925 5 5 5 15
Train 2 0.964 0.035 96.383 2 2 1 5
Train 3 0.967 0.034 96.737 3 3 3 9
Train 4 0.975 0.029 97.552 4 5 4 13
Train 5 0.967 0.031 96.736 3 4 2 9
Test 1 0.964 0.042 95.516 4 4 3 11
Test 2 0.966 0.034 96.622 5 5 5 15
Test 3 0.953 0.051 95.287 1 3 2 6
Test 4 0.955 0.052 95.160 2 2 1 5
Test 5 0.961 0.051 96.102 3 3 4 10

7.2 Prediction of PPV, AOp and flyrock using ANFIS
To develop a predictive ANFIS model in predicting flyrock,
232 quarry blasting operations were investigated. In ANFIS
analyses, similar to ANN modelling, the best architecture
should be determined. To this aim, using a trial-and-error
procedure, several ANFIS models were built to determine
the number of fuzzy rules. The Gaussian membership func-
tion, as a well-known membership function in fuzzy sys-
tems, was employed in the modelling of ANFIS [52]. Even-
tually, each input parameter with 7 fuzzy rules outperforms
the other ANFIS models; therefore, a number of 49 fuzzy
rules (7 × 7) indicate the best performance for flyrock pre-
diction. It should be noted that in determining the number
of fuzzy rules, the results of RMSE were only considered.
The linguistic variables were set as very very low (VVL),
very low (VL), low (L), medium (M), high (H), very high
(VH) and very very high (VVH) in this study.
In the next step, considering the suggested ANFIS struc-
ture, using the same selected datasets in ANN modelling,
5 ANFIS models were constructed and their results are
shown in Table 6. In addition, these models were checked
using the data assigned for testing datasets. Figures 5 and
6 show the normalized membership functions of input
parameters for the best ANFIS model in predicting flyrock.
The presented membership functions were assigned after
training the system. Furthermore, for the output (flyrock), a
linear type of membership function was utilized. It is worth

13
Engineering with Computers

Fig. 5  Membership functions assigned for maximum charge per delay

Fig. 6  Membership functions assigned for powder factor

noting that, in the best model, the RMSE results were not
decreased after epoch number of 16. In this study, all ANN
and ANFIS models were constructed using MatLab version
7.14.0.739 [72].
were randomly divided into five different datasets (training
and testing) for development of intelligent models. Some
performance indices including R2, amount of value account
for (VAF) and RMSE were computed to check the capacity
performance of all predictive models:

8 Results and discussion
N
(y − y′ )2
R2 = 1 − i=1
N (14)
2
i=1 (y − ỹ)
In this research, two intelligent techniques, namely ANN
var(y − y′ )
 
and ANFIS were developed to predict flyrock distance. VAF = 1 − × 100
During the modelling process of this study, all 232 datasets var(y) (15)

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table 7  Results of total rank for all predictive techniques obtained prediction for ANN and ANFIS techniques, respectively.
from five randomly selected datasets Based on the presented results, considering both train-
Method Model Total rank ing and testing datasets, the prediction performance of the
ANFIS models is higher than the performance of the ANN
ANN 1 16
models. It should be mentioned that the presented results
2 21
of RMSE in Table 6 were obtained for normalized datasets.
3 22
The graphs of predicted flyrock using the best ANN and
4 16
ANFIS models against their measured values for training
5 25 and testing datasets are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respec-
ANFIS 1 26 tively. As shown in these figures, the ANFIS model can
2 20 provide higher performance capacity in prediction of fly-
3 15 rock in comparison to ANN predictive model. In these fig-
4 18 ures, R2 values of testing datasets equal to 0.925 and 0.964
5 19 for ANN and ANFIS techniques, respectively, suggest the
superiority of the ANFIS technique in predicting flyrock. In
addition, RMSE values of 0.055 and 0.042 for testing data-
 sets of ANN and ANFIS approaches, respectively, reveal
1 N
RMSE =
′
(y − y )2 , (16) that ANFIS can provide higher performance capacity for
N i=1
prediction of flyrock compared to ANN. According to these
where y, y′ and ỹ are the measured, predicted and mean of results, although both intelligent techniques can predict fly-
the y values, respectively, N is the total number of data and rock with high level of accuracy, ANFIS can be used when
P is the number of predictors. Theoretically, the model will more accurate prediction is required to estimate flyrock.
be excellent if the VAF is 100 and RMSE is zero. Results
of model performance indices (R2, RMSE and VAF) for all
randomly selected datasets based on training and testing are 9 Summary and conclusions
presented in Table 6. High performances of the train dataset
indicate that the learning step of the models is successful if In this study, five granite quarries in Johor, Malaysia, were
the test dataset reveals that the model generalization abil- investigated to propose empirical and intelligent models
ity is satisfactory. As it can be seen from Table 6, select- for flyrock prediction. In this regard, blasting parameters,
ing the best models is too difficult. To overcome this diffi- namely maximum charge per delay and powder factor of
culty, a simple ranking procedure suggested by Zorlu et al. 232 blasting operations, were taken into consideration.
[73] was used to select the best models. A ranking value Using the mentioned parameters, an empirical graph was
was calculated and assigned for each training and testing proposed to predict flyrock distance for different powder
dataset separately (see Table 6). Total ranking of training factors ranging from 0.5 to 1.1 kg/m3. Overall RMSE of
and testing datasets for two intelligent systems in predict- 22.445 shows the proposed empirical model can provide
ing flyrock are shown in Table 7. According to this table, a suitable prediction capacity for estimation of flyrock. In
models No. 5 and 1 showed the best performance of flyrock addition, using the same datasets, ANN and ANFIS models

Fig. 7  R2 of measured and

predicted values of flyrock for
training and testing datasets
using ANN

13
Engineering with Computers
Fig. 8  R2 of measured and
predicted values of flyrock for
training and testing datasets
using ANFIS
were applied to develop two intelligent systems for fly-
rock prediction. To this aim, five different datasets from
all 232 datasets were selected randomly for training and
testing. Using changeable parameters, several ANN and
ANFIS models were constructed and relevant performance
indices (i.e. R2, RMSE and VAF) were computed for five
datasets. Considering these performance indices and using
simple ranking method proposed by Zorlu et al. [73], the
best models of ANN and ANFIS were selected among all
built models. The results indicated that the ANFIS model
can perform better in predicting flyrock compared to ANN
model. R2 values of 0.925 and 0.964 for testing datasets of
the best ANN and ANFIS techniques, respectively, sug-
gest the superiority of the ANFIS in predicting flyrock.
Although all proposed models in this study are applicable
for prediction of flyrock, they can be used depending on
the condition. When high accuracy of flyrock prediction is
required, the ANFIS model would be the proper alternative.
Acknowledgments  The authors would like to extend their apprecia-
tion to the Government of Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malay-
sia for the FRGS Grant No. 4F406 and for providing the required
facilities that made this research possible.
References
1. Khandelwal K, Monjezi M (2013) Prediction of flyrock in open
pit blasting operation using machine learning method. Int J Min
Sci Technol 23(3):313–316
2. Singh TN, Singh V (2005) An intelligent approach to predic-
tion and control ground vibration in mines. Geotech Geolog Eng
23:249–262
3. Rezaei M, Monjezi M, Yazdian Varjani A (2011) Development
of a fuzzy model to predict flyrock in surface mining. Safety Sci
49(2):298–305
4. Hajihassani M, Jahed Armaghani D, Sohaei H, Tonnizam
Mohamad E, Marto A (2014) Prediction of airblast-overpressure
induced by blasting using a hybrid artificial neural network and
particle swarm optimization. Appl Acoust 80:57–67
5. Roy PP (2005) Rock blasting effects and operations. Taylor &
Francis, Boca Raton
6. Raina AK, Murthy VMSR, Soni AK (2014) Flyrock in bench
blasting: a comprehensive review. Bull Eng Geol Environ.
doi:10.1007/s10064-014-0588-6
7. Bhandari S (1997) Engineering rock blasting operations. Taylor
& Francis, Boca Raton
8. Bajpayee TS, Rehak TR, Mowrey GL, Ingram DK (2004) Blast-
ing injuries in surface mining with emphasis on flyrock and blast
area security. J Safety Res 35(1):47–57
9. Hemphill GB (1981) Blasting operations. McGraw-Hill, New York
10. Koop JW (1994) Observation of flyrock of several mines and
quarries. In: Proceeding of 20th Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique Austin Texas, 30 January–3 February. Cleve-
land International Society of Explosives Engineers, pp 75–81
11. Kecojevic V, Radomsky M (2005) Flyrock phenomena and area
security in blasting-related accidents. Safety Sci 43:739–750
12. Workman JL, Calder PN (1994) Flyrock prediction and control
in surface mine blasting. In: Proceeding of 20th Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique. Austin, Texas, 30 January–3
February. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleve-
land, pp 59–74
13. Lundborg N, Persson N, Ladegaard-Pedersen A, Holmberg R
(1975) Keeping the lid on flyrock in open pit blasting. Eng Min J
176:95–100
14. Roth JA (1979) A model for the determination of flyrock range
as a function of shot condition. US department of commerce.
NTIS report no. PB81222358
15. Chiapetta RF, Bauer A, Dailey PJ, Burchell SL (1983) The use of
high-speed motion picture photography in blast evaluation and
design. Proceedings of 9th conference on explosives and blasting
techniques. Dallas, USA, pp 31–40
16. Gupta RN (1980) Surface blasting and its impact on environ-
ment. In: Trivedy NJ, Singh BP (eds) Impact of mining on envi-
ronment. Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 23–24
17. Roy PP (1993) Putting ground vibration predictors into practice.
Colliery Guardian 241:63–67
18. Monjezi M, Bahrami A, Yazdian Varjani A (2010) Simultane-
ous prediction of fragmentation and flyrock in blasting opera-
tion using artificial neural networks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
47(3):476–480
19. Jahed Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Tonnizam Mohamad E,
Marto A, Noorani SA (2014) Blasting-induced flyrock and
ground vibration prediction through an expert artificial neural
network based on particle swarm optimization. Arab J Geosci
7:5383–5396
13

20. Bahrami A, Monjezi M, Goshtasbi K, Ghazvinian A (2011) Pre-
diction of rock fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neu-
ral network. Eng Comput 27(2):177–181
21. Khandelwal M, Kumar DL, Yellishetty M (2011) Application of
soft computing to predict blast-induced ground vibration. Eng
Comput 27(2):117–125
22. Iphar M, Yavuz M, Ak H (2008) Prediction of ground vibrations
resulting from the blasting operations in an open-pit mine by
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Environ Geol 56:97–107
23. Singh TN, Verma AK (2012) Comparative analysis of intelligent
algorithms to correlate strength and petrographic properties of
some schistose rocks. Eng Comput 28(1):1–12
24. Hajihassani M, Jahed Armaghani D, Marto A, Tonnizam
Mohamad E (2014) Ground vibration prediction in quarry blast-
ing through an artificial neural network optimized by imperial-
ist competitive algorithm. Bull Eng Geol Environ. doi:10.1007/
s10064-014-0657-x
25. Gordan B, Jahed Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Monjezi M
(2015) Prediction of seismic slope stability through combination
of particle swarm optimization and neural network. Eng Comput.
doi:10.1007/s00366-015-0400-7
26. Garret JH (1994) Where and why artificial neural networks are
applicable in civil engineering. J Comput Civil Eng 8:129–130
27. Stojadinovic S, Pantovic R, Zikic M (2011) Prediction of flyrock
trajectories for forensic applications using ballistic flight equa-
tions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:1086–1094
28. Mandal SK (1997) Causes of flyrock damages and its remedial
measures. Course on: recent advances in blasting techniques
in mining and construction projects, HRD-CMRI Dhanbad, pp
130–136
29. Adhikari GR (1999) Studies on flyrock at limestone quarries.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 32(4):291–301
30. Fletcher LR, D’Andrea DV (1987) Reducing accident through
improved blasting safety. USBM IC, 9135. In: Proceedings of
bureau of mines technology transfer sem, Chicago, pp 6–18
31. Raina AK, Chakraborty AK, More R, Choudhury PB (2006)
Design of factor of safety based criterion for control of flyrock/
throw and optimum fragmentation. J Inst Eng India 87:13–17
32. McKenzie CK (2009) Flyrock range and fragment size prediction.
http://docs.isee.org/ISEE/Support/Proceed/General/09GENV2/
09v206g.pdf
33. Trivedi R, Singh TN, Raina AK (2014) Prediction of blast-
induced flyrock in Indian limestone mines using neural net-
works. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6(5):447–454
34. Ghasemi E, Sari M, Ataei M (2012) Development of an empiri-
cal model for predicting the effects of controllable blasting
parameters on flyrock distance in surface mines. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 52:163–170
35. Ghasemi E, Amini H, Ataei M, Khalokakaei R (2014) Appli-
cation of artificial intelligence techniques for predicting the
flyrock distance caused by blasting operation. Arab J Geosci
7(1):193–202
36. Monjezi M, Khoshalan HA, Varjani AY (2012) Prediction of
flyrock and backbreak in open pit blasting operation: a neuro-
genetic approach. Arab J Geosci 5(3):441–448
37. Monjezi M, Bahrami A, Varjani AY, Sayadi AR (2011) Predic-
tion and controlling of flyrock in blasting operation using artifi-
cial neural network. Arab J Geosci 4:421–425
38. Amini H, Gholami R, Monjezi M, Torabi SR, Zadhesh J (2012)
Evaluation of flyrock phenomenon due to blasting operation by
support vector machine. Neural Comput Appl 21(8):2077–2085
39. Monjezi M, Mehrdanesh A, Malek A, Khandelwal M (2013)
Evaluation of effect of blast design parameters on flyrock using
artificial neural networks. Neural Comput Appl 23(2):349–356
40. Marto A, Hajihassani M, Jahed Armaghani D, Tonnizam
Mohamad E, Makhtar AM (2014) A novel approach for
13
Engineering with Computers
blast-induced flyrock prediction based on imperialist competitive
algorithm and artificial neural network. Sci World J (Article ID
643715)
41. Simpson PK (1990) Artificial neural system: foundation, para-
digms, applications and implementations. Pergamon, New York
42. Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB (2002) Predicting settlement
of shallow foundations using neural networks. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 128(9):785–793
43. Haykin S (1999) Neural Networks, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs
44. Du KL, Lai AKY, Cheng KKM, Swamy MNS (2002) Neural
methods for antenna array signal processing: a review. Signal
Process 82:547–561
45. Kalinli A, Acar MC, Gunduz Z (2011) New approaches to deter-
mine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations based
on artificial neural networks and ant colony optimization. Eng
Geol 117:29–38
46. Engelbrecht AP (2007) Computational intelligence: an introduc-
tion. Wiley, New York
47. Dreyfus G (2005) Neural Networks: methodology and applica-
tion. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
48. Kosko B (1994) Neural networks and fuzzy systems: a dynami-
cal systems approach to machine intelligence. Prentice Hall,
New Delhi
49. Fausett LV (1994) Fundamentals of neural networks: architecture,
algorithms and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
50. Jang RJS (1993) Anfis: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference
system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23:665–685
51. Jang RJS, Sun CT, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft
computing. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 614
52. Jahed Armaghani D, Tonnizam Mohamad E, Momeni E, Naraya-
nasamy MS, Mohd Amin MF (2014) An adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system for predicting unconfined compressive strength
and Young’s modulus: a study on main range granite. Bull Eng
Geol Environ. doi:10.1007/s10064-014-0687-4
53. Ataei M, Kamali M (2012) Prediction of blast-induced vibration
by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in Karoun 3 power
plant and dam. J Vib Control 22:1–9
54. Singh R, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2012) Estimation of elastic
constant of rocks using an ANFIS approach. Appl Soft Comput
12(1):40–45
55. ISRM (2007) In: Ulusay and Hudson (eds) The complete ISRM
suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and moni-
toring: 1974–2006. Suggested methods prepared by the com-
mission on testing methods. International Society for Rock
Mechanics
56. Hush DR (1989) Classification with neural networks: a perfor-
mance analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE International Confer-
ence on Systems Engineering. Dayton, USA, pp 277–280
57. Kanellopoulas I, Wilkinson GG (1997) Strategies and best prac-
tice for neural network image classification. Int J Remote Sens-
ing 18:711–725
58. Hecht-Nielsen R (1987) Kolmogorov’s mapping neural network
existence theorem. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Neural Networks, San Diego, CA, USA, pp
1–14
59. Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feedfor-
ward networks are universal approximators. Neural Networks
2:359–366
60. Baheer I (2000) Selection of methodology for modeling hyster-
esis behavior of soils using neural networks. J Comput Aid Civil
Infrastruct Eng 5(6):445–463
61. Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A (2006)
Estimation of rock modulus: for intact rocks with an artificial
neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical equa-
tion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:224–235
Engineering with Computers
62. Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2008) Discussion on the paper by H.
Gullu and E. Ercelebi A neural network approach for attenuation
relationships: an application using strong ground motion data
from Turkey. Eng Geol 97:91–93
63. Ripley BD (1993) Statistical aspects of neural networks. In:
Barndoff-Neilsen OE, Jensen JL, Kendall WS (eds) Networks
and chaos-statistical and probabilistic aspects. Chapman & Hall,
London, pp 40-123
64. Paola JD (1994) Neural network classification of multispectral
imagery. MSc thesis, The University of Arizona, USA
65. Wang C (1994) A theory of generalization in learning machines
with neural application. PhD thesis, The University of Pennsyl-
vania, USA
66. Masters T (1994) Practical neural network recipes in C ++.
Academic Press, Boston
67. Kaastra I, Boyd M (1996) Designing a neural network for fore-
casting financial and economic time series. Neurocomputing
10:215–236
View publication stats
68. Swingler K (1996) Applying neural networks: a practical guide.
Academic Press, New York
69. Looney CG (1996) Advances in feed-forward neural networks:
demystifying knowledge acquiring black boxes. IEEE Trans
Knowl Data Eng 8(2):211–226
70. Nelson M, Illingworth WT (1990) A practical guide to neural
nets. Addison-Wesley, Reading
71. Yagiz S, Gokceoglu C, Sezer E, Iplikci S (2009) Application of
two non-linear prediction tools to the estimation of tunnel boring
machine performance. Eng Appl Artif Intel 22(4):808–814
72. Demuth H, Beale M, Hagan M (2009) MATLAB Version
7.14.0.739; Neural Network Toolbox for Use with Matlab. The
Mathworks
73. Zorlu K, Gokceoglu C, Ocakoglu F, Nefeslioglu HA, Acikalin S
(2008) Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of sandstones
using petrography-based models. Eng Geol 96(3):141–158
13