Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 202e207

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Technical Note

Modified scaled distance regression analysis approach for prediction of

blast-induced ground vibration in multi-hole blasting
Hemant Agrawal*, A.K. Mishra
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, India

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

Article history: The blast-induced ground vibration prediction using scaled distance regression analysis is one of the
Received 10 May 2018 most popular methods employed by engineers for many decades. It uses the maximum charge per delay
Received in revised form and distance of monitoring as the major factors for predicting the peak particle velocity (PPV). It is
2 July 2018
established that the PPV is caused by the maximum charge per delay which varies with the distance of
Accepted 23 July 2018
Available online 30 October 2018
monitoring and site geology. While conducting a production blasting, the waves induced by blasting of
different holes interfere destructively with each other, which may result in higher PPV than the predicted
value with scaled distance regression analysis. This phenomenon of interference/superimposition of
Keywords:
Peak particle velocity (PPV)
waves is not considered while using scaled distance regression analysis. In this paper, an attempt has
Blast-induced ground vibration been made to compare the predicted values of blast-induced ground vibration using multi-hole trial
Scaled distance regression analysis blasting with single-hole blasting in an opencast coal mine under the same geological condition. Further,
Wave superimposition the modified prediction equation for the multi-hole trial blasting was obtained using single-hole
Single-hole blasting regression analysis. The error between predicted and actual values of multi-hole blast-induced ground
vibration was found to be reduced by 8.5%.
Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The most popular and frequently used methods and procedures
for vibration forecast are empirical and based on simplified corre-
lations. Scaled distance regression analysis is the handiest and less
complicated method used by engineers for many decades. The
scaled distance is a concept put forward by using the amount of
explosive energy in air shock and seismic waves, while considering
the effects of distance. The scaled distance is derived from
combining the distance between the source and measurement
points, and the maximum charge per delay. Although the approach
is well accepted due to its ease of use, it is merely an empirical
approach which does not consider the inevitable phenomenon of
blast wave superimposition. Many attempts have been made by
researchers to obtain the actual charge per delay which will
contribute to the superimposed waveforms resulting from pro-
duction blasting. Many different numerical methods, such as
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hemant.ism@gmail.com (H. Agrawal).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
artificial neural network (ANN) (Sayadi et al., 2013; Amnieh and
Bahadori, 2014; Trivedi et al., 2014; Saadat et al., 2014), genetic
algorithm (GA), neural fuzzy technique (NFT) (Rao, 2012), random
forest algorithm and support vector machine (Dong et al., 2011),
have been employed to improve the accuracy of vibration predic-
tion. Modeling and simulation using signature hole analysis is
designed, where the signature waveform is taken, and through
simulation technique, the linear superimposition behavior of wave
is modeled for better prediction of peak particle velocity (PPV) and
dominant frequency (Birch et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2010; Yang and
Lownds, 2011). Also, attempts have been made to generate PPV
models considering the effect of rock discontinuities, rock types,
rock formation, rock joints and their orientation, presence of water
table, soil-rock interface, acoustic behavior, etc. (Kumar et al., 2016;
Agrawal and Mishra, 2018). Due to widely varying nature of rocks,
geological structure and explosive materials, blast design parame-
ters are optimized by field testing. Monitoring of blast vibrations
during actual excavation helps to ensure the safety of the con-
cerned structures as well as to provide necessary data to improve
the blasting patterns if required (Tripathy et al., 2016).
All the modern techniques require the use of computer program
which is time-consuming and complicated for a field blasting en-
gineer. Whereas different PPV predictor empirical equations are

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.07.004
1674-7755 Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 H. Agrawal, A.K. Mishra / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 202e207
generated using field data, the effect of superimposition of waves is
not yet incorporated in the empirical equation.
In this paper, we try to incorporate the effect of interference/
superimposition of waves in the scaled distance regression analysis
equation to predict more precise result of PPV.
2. Blast-induced ground vibration prediction using scaled
distance regression analysis
The most acceptable concept of vibration prediction is of scaled
distance given by the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) (Duvall
and Fogelson, 1962). It uses the amount of explosive energy in
shock and seismic waves, while considering the effects of distance
(Siskind et al., 1980, 1994). The scaled distance is derived by
combining the distance between the source and measurement
points, and the maximum charge per delay. This scaled distance is
defined as follows:
.pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
SD ¼ D Wd
where SD is the scaled distance (m/kg0.5), D is the absolute distance
between the shot and the station (m), and Wd is the maximum
explosive charge per delay (kg).
The peak level of ground motion at any given point is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance from the shot point
(Siskind et al., 1980). The PPV is given by the following equation:
PPV ¼ KðSDÞn
where K and n are the site and geological constant factors,
respectively. The site factors are determined by a logarithmic plot of
PPV versus scaled distance. The straight-line best representing the
data has a negative slope n, and an intercept K (Dowding, 1999). The
concept behind the scaled distance regression analysis involves the
variation of PPV with scaled distance and constants K and n are
used depending on site-specific geological condition. Here, the
superimposition of waves is not at all considered.
Fig. 1. Satellite map of Gondudih opencast coal mine, BCCL, India.
203
3. Experimentation and analysis
3.1. Methodology
The PPV values are recorded during single-hole blasting
conducted with a varying charge per delay at different distances.
The single-hole blasting will generate the vibration waves, where
no superimposition of vibration waves will occur. With the data
of single-hole blasting conducted, regression is performed to find
out the scaled distance equation. After that, using the same
equation obtained with single-hole blasting data, the values of
PPV are predicted for production blasting. The predicted PPV
value is lower compared to actual production blasting value, as
the superimposition of vibration waves is not considered. The
actual PPV value recorded for production blasting was then
compared to predicted one using single-hole scaled distance
equation. The correlation obtained between the actual and pre-
dicted PPV values is used to find out the factor to be added to
minimize the errors occurring due to superimposition of vibra-
(1) tion waves. The correction factor found is then incorporated in
the final prediction equation for precise prediction of production
blasting PPV.
3.2. Location of Gondudih opencast coal mine
The study site was an opencast coal mine, Gondudih in Kusunda
Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), a subsidiary of Coal India
(2) Limited. The Gondudih opencast coal mine is located in eastern-
central part of Jharia Coalfield in Dhanbad District of Jharkhand,
India. The satellite map of the mine is shown in Fig. 1. The global
coordinates of mine are 23.796685 N latitude and 86.382011 E
longitude. In Jharia Coalfields, many of the mines are located near
the human habitat and other sensitive structures. There are situa-
tions often arising that there is a face-off between the mine man-
agement and the local people. This often leads to losses as it stops
the work of the mines. The precise methods for blast-induced
ground vibration prediction and control are required.
204 H. Agrawal, A.K. Mishra / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 202e207

3.3. Geological condition of mine
The mine area is covered by various types of rocks belonging to
Barakar formation of Lower Gondwana group under a moderately
thick cover of soil, alluvium and sandy soil. The major portion of the
cluster is covered by alluvium and sandy soil of recent age, which
ranges in thickness from 1.6 m to 1.8 m and occupies lower grounds.
Metamorphic rocks cap the higher grounds, mainly in the northern
part of the block. The thickness of the top formation up to the
weathered mantle varies from 0 to 11.6 m made up of alluvium,
sandy soil with consolidated weathered Barakar sandstone and is
underlain by the coal-bearing rocks of Barakar formation. Barakar
formation, occurring below the soil covers, consists of sandstone,
argillaceous sandstone, arenaceous shale, carbonaceous shale, gray
shale and coal seams. The mine is worked on fully hiring basis using
PC-dumper combination for removal of overburden (OB), extrac-
tion and transportation of coal (Fig. 2).
Blast-induced ground vibration was measured by three Mini-
mate Plus (Instantel Inc., Canada) vibration monitors. These in-
struments are a microprocessor-based unit having triaxial
transducers. The instrument records blast waves in three mutually
perpendicular directions, i.e. longitudinal, transversal and vertical
along with respective frequencies and particle velocities (Fig. 3).
The PPV value with its dominant frequency is obtained using
BlastwareÔ software.
BlastwareÔ is a software for the Instantel Inc., Canada, vibration
monitoring instruments. It offers powerful, easy-to-use features for
event management, compliance reporting and advanced data
analysis. This software is designed to perform several tasks to assist
with monitoring operations. The software can be used to monitor
and manage recorded events, remotely control monitors, as well as
customize report content, language, frequency standard and others.
It also can generate fast Fourier transform (FFT) to find out the
dominant frequency wave out of recorded waves.
Single-hole blasts were conducted with a varying charge per
delay, and the vibrations were recorded at different distances using
Minimate Plus (Instantel Inc., Canada). Also, the vibrations were
recorded at different distances for production blasting with varying
blast design parameters and charge per delay. The single-hole
blasting data collected are summarized in Table 1.
Data of PPV recorded with single-hole blasting at different dis-
tances with a varying charge per delay are then plotted on PPV
versus scaled distance curve to find out the single-hole scaled
distance (SHSD) regression equation (Fig. 4). The SHSD regression
equation is the result of vibrations obtained without any super-
imposition of vibration waves and with a very well-known charge
per delay, which can be written as follows:
PPVSH ¼ 682:4ðSDÞ1:896 (3)

where PPVSH is the PPV value for single-hole blasting.

Table 1
Vibration data recorded for single-hole blasting at Gondudih mine, BCCL.

Blast Number Hole Depth Maximum Distance of Scaled Actual

No. of hole diameter of hole charge per monitoring distance PPV
(mm) (m) delay (kg) (m) (m/kg0.5) (mm/s)

1 1 150 5.8 48 50 7.217 12.9

2 1 150 5.4 50 50 7.071 12.92
3 1 150 5.6 48 100 14.434 7.62
4 1 150 5.4 50 80 11.314 14.99
5 1 150 5.8 48 150 21.651 3.937
6 1 150 5.4 50 120 16.971 3.937
7 1 150 5.8 55 60 8.09 9.813
8 1 150 5.8 55 80 10.787 7.112
Fig. 2. A view of Gondudih opencast coal mine, BCCL, India. 9 1 150 5.8 55 100 13.484 5.588
10 1 150 5.4 48 140 20.207 1.679
11 1 150 5.6 55 90 12.136 4.359
12 1 150 5.4 48 200 28.868 1.08
13 1 150 5.4 48 180 25.981 1.143
14 1 150 5.6 55 200 26.968 0.699

100

y = 682.4x-1.896
R² = 0.8253
10
PPV (mm/s)

1
1 10 100
Scaled distance (m/kg0.5)

0.1

Fig. 3. Recording of blast-induced ground vibration using Minimate Plus vibration Fig. 4. Plot between PPV recorded during single-hole blasting and its scaled distance
monitoring instrument. conducted at Gondudih, BCCL.
 H. Agrawal, A.K. Mishra / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 202e207 205

Table 2
Blast design parameters for production blasting with predicted PPV using SHSD equation and actual PPV recorded.

Blast Number Hole Blast design parameters Maximum charge per Distance of Scaled distance PPV (mm/s)
No. of holes diameter delay (kg) monitoring (m) (m/kg0.5)
Depth of hole Burden Spacing Predicted Actual
(mm)
(m) (m) (m)

1 60 150 4 3 3.5 28 50 9.449 9.65 16.4

2 102 150 5.8 3 3.5 48 50 7.217 16.09 21.6
3 80 150 5.8 3.5 4 55 120 16.181 3.48 3.909
4 14 150 5.4 3.5 4 50 60 8.485 11.84 13.26
5 120 150 5.4 3.5 4 50 50 7.071 16.73 23.42
6 65 150 5.5 3 4 48 80 11.547 6.6 7.086
7 90 150 5.4 4.5 4 45 50 7.454 15.14 20.89
8 57 150 5.6 3.5 3 50 100 14.142 4.49 8.378
9 60 150 4 3 3.5 28 150 28.347 1.2 3.048
10 102 150 5.8 3 3.5 48 100 14.434 4.32 10.92
11 80 150 5.8 3.5 4 55 200 26.968 1.32 0.699
12 14 150 5.4 3.5 4 50 100 14.142 4.49 9.652
13 120 150 5.4 3.5 4 50 120 16.971 3.18 6.668
14 65 150 5.5 3 4 48 120 17.321 3.06 3.112
15 90 150 5.4 4.5 4 45 120 17.889 2.88 3.556
16 57 150 5.6 3.5 3 50 170 24.042 1.64 1.778
17 60 150 4 3 3.5 28 150 28.347 1.2 4.445
18 102 150 5.8 3 3.5 48 200 28.868 1.16 2.413
19 80 150 5.8 3.5 4 55 200 26.968 1.32 1.016
20 14 150 5.4 3.5 4 50 180 25.456 1.47 3.302
21 120 150 5.4 3.5 4 50 120 16.971 3.18 6.35
22 65 150 5.5 3 4 48 150 21.651 2 1.397
23 90 150 5.4 4.5 4 45 120 17.889 2.88 6.096
24 57 150 5.6 3.5 3 50 160 22.627 1.84 3.937
25 40 150 5.3 3 3.6 45 140 20.87 2.15 4.191
26 28 150 5.8 3 3.5 55 80 10.787 7.51 10.85
27 64 150 5.5 3 4 48 50 7.217 16.09 25.53
28 28 150 5.8 3 3.5 55 100 13.484 4.92 8.89
29 64 150 5.5 3 4 48 70 10.104 8.5 11.18
30 28 150 5.8 3 3.5 55 100 13.484 4.92 8
31 64 150 5.5 3 4 48 90 12.99 5.28 8.255
32 95 150 5.9 3.5 4 56 150 20.045 2.32 2.081
33 30 150 5.4 3.5 4 48 160 23.094 1.77 1.963
34 108 150 5.6 3.5 4 55 100 13.484 4.92 6.376
35 95 150 5.9 3.5 4 56 200 26.726 1.34 1.842
36 30 150 5.4 3.5 4 48 150 21.651 2 2.667
37 95 150 5.9 3.5 4 56 250 33.408 0.88 1.397
38 30 150 5.4 3.5 4 48 180 25.981 1.42 2.032
39 108 150 5.6 3.5 4 55 160 21.574 2.02 1.016

Eq. (3) is then further used to predict the PPV values for the In Fig. 5, a relation between predicted and actual PPV values is
production blasting. The PPV values obtained are lower than the found with the coefficient of determination equal to 0.932. The
actual ones which were expected due to no superimposition of modified PPV prediction equation in consideration of superimpo-
vibration waves of different holes (Table 2). The PPV values pre- sition of vibration waves can be written as
dicted by Eq. (3) are then plotted with actual PPV values recorded
for the blast at varying scaled distance (Fig. 5). PPV ¼ 1:3855PPVSH þ 0:5173 (4)

30

y = 1.3855x + 0.5173
100
25
R² = 0.932
y = 1018x-1.909
Actual PPV (mm/s)

20 R² = 0.8037

15 10
PPV (mm/s)

10

5 1
5 50
0 Scaled distance (m/kg0.5)
0 5 10 15 20
Predicted PPV (mm/s) 0.1

Fig. 5. Plot between predicted PPV values using Eq. (1) and actual values recorded at Fig. 6. Curve plotted between actual PPV and scaled distance recorded for production
Gondudih mine, BCCL. blasting.
206 H. Agrawal, A.K. Mishra / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 202e207

Table 3
The actual PPV values, and predicted PPV values using Eqs. (5) and (7). Error in this PPV ¼ KðSDÞn þ S (6)
table represents the difference between predicted and actual PPV values.

Blast Actual Predicted PPV (mm/s) Error (mm/s) where S is the superimposition factor of vibration waves (mm/s),
No. PPV which can be positive or negative depending upon the observed
Production Multi-hole Production Multi-hole
(mm/s) data at the mine site.
blasting, blasting, blasting, blasting,
Eq. (5) Eq. (7) Eq. (5) Eq. (7) Verification of results was done between the PPV values pre-
1 16.4 13.89 13.99 2.51 2.41
dicted using Eq. (5) and the conventional scaled distance regression
2 21.6 22.81 23.4 1.21 1.8 analysis. The vibration data recorded for production/multi-hole
3 3.909 5.34 5.01 1.43 1.1 blasting were plotted against the scaled distance, and the con-
4 13.26 16.92 17.18 3.66 3.92 ventional scaled distance regression equation is obtained (Fig. 6):
5 23.42 23.69 24.33 0.27 0.91
6 7.086 9.66 9.54 2.58 2.45
7 20.89 21.49 22 0.6 1.11 PPV ¼ 1018ðSDÞ1:909 (7)
8 8.378 6.74 6.48 1.63 1.9
9 3.048 2.18 1.72 0.86 1.33
Using Eq. (7), the PPV values are then predicted. The PPV values
10 10.92 6.51 6.23 4.41 4.69 predicted using Eqs. (5) and (7) are compared and the errors are
11 0.699 2.35 1.89 1.65 1.19 listed in Table 3.
12 9.652 6.74 6.48 2.91 3.17 To validate Eq. (5), three groups of multi-hole trial blasting were
13 6.668 4.92 4.57 1.74 2.09
conducted at the mine site and the blast-induced ground vibration,
14 3.112 4.76 4.4 1.64 1.29
15 3.556 4.51 4.14 0.95 0.58 i.e. PPV value, was recorded at different distances using three
16 1.778 2.79 2.35 1.02 0.57 Minimate plus (Instantel Inc., Canada) vibration monitors. Also, the
17 4.445 2.18 1.72 2.26 2.73 PPV is predicted using Eq. (5). The blast details along with recorded
18 2.413 2.13 1.66 0.29 0.75 and predicted PPV values are listed in Table 4.
19 1.016 2.35 1.89 1.33 0.87
20 3.302 2.56 2.11 0.74 1.19
21 6.35 4.92 4.57 1.43 1.78 4. Discussion
22 1.397 3.29 2.87 1.9 1.48
23 6.096 4.51 4.14 1.59 1.96 The errors between predicted PPV values obtained using Eqs. (5)
24 3.937 3.07 2.64 0.87 1.3
and (7) and actual PPV values have been plotted in Fig. 7. The PPV
25 4.191 3.49 3.08 0.7 1.11
26 10.85 10.92 10.86 0.07 0.01 values predicted using modified scaled distance regression analysis
27 25.53 22.81 23.4 2.72 2.13 (Eq. (5)) are found more precise with fewer errors from actual PPV
28 8.89 7.33 7.09 1.56 1.8 values than those predicted using scaled distance regression anal-
29 11.18 12.3 12.31 1.12 1.13 ysis (Eq. (7)). Also, the error calculated between PPV values pre-
30 8 7.33 7.09 0.67 0.91
31 8.255 7.83 7.62 0.42 0.64
dicted using Eq. (5) and actual PPV values is 1.59 mm/s, whereas the
32 2.081 3.73 3.33 1.65 1.25 error calculated between PPV values predicted using Eq. (7) and
33 1.963 2.97 2.54 1.01 0.58 actual PPV values is 1.73 mm/s. This implies that a significant
34 6.376 7.33 7.09 0.96 0.72 reduction in errors of about 8.5% occurs when using Eq. (5). Also,
35 1.842 2.38 1.92 0.54 0.08
Eq. (5) is validated by conducting three multi-hole trial blasts. The
36 2.667 3.29 2.87 0.63 0.21
37 1.397 1.74 1.26 0.34 0.14 PPV values predicted using Eq. (5) are found to be very close to the
38 2.032 2.48 2.03 0.45 0 actual PPV values recorded (Table 4).
39 1.016 3.31 2.89 2.3 1.88 The single-hole scaled distance equation (Eq. (3)) was obtained
with the accurate value of maximum charge per delay and PPV, as
there was no superposition of blast waves during single-hole
Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (4) yields the modified scaled dis- blasting. While, in multi-hole blasting due to spatial charge dis-
tance equation: tribution, time delay and superimposition of vibration waves, the
accurate maximum charge per delay value was unknown. The
single-hole scaled distance equation (Eq. (3)) and multi-hole scaled
PPV ¼ 945:46ðSDÞ1:896 þ 0:5173 (5)
distance equation (Eq. (5)) are empirically evaluated and a new
Hence, the general modified scaled distance equation can be factor called “superimposition factor (S)” is added in the modified
written as scaled distance approach (Eq. (6)). This superimposition factor (S)

Table 4
Blast design parameters for a testing blast with predicted PPV values using Eq. (5) and actual PPV values recorded.

Blast Number of Hole diameter Blast design parameters Maximum charge per Distance of Scaled distance PPV (mm/s)
No. holes (mm) delay (kg) monitoring (m) (m/kg0.5)
Depth of hole Burden Spacing Predicted Actual
(m) (m) (m)

1 80 150 4 3 3.5 55 80 10.787 10.922 10.865

2 60 150 5.8 3 3.5 49 80 11.429 9.843 9.56
3 28 150 5.8 3.5 4 45 80 11.926 9.12 8.98
4 80 150 4 3 3.5 55 120 16.181 5.341 5.46
5 60 150 5.8 3 3.5 49 120 17.143 4.841 4.367
6 28 150 5.8 3.5 4 45 120 17.889 4.505 3.98
7 80 150 4 3 3.5 55 180 24.271 2.753 2.67
8 60 150 5.8 3 3.5 49 180 25.714 2.522 2.89
9 28 150 5.8 3.5 4 45 180 26.833 2.366 2.065
 H. Agrawal, A.K. Mishra / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 202e207
10.00
Modified SD
5.00
PPV error (mm/s)
0.00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
-5.00
Blast number
-10.00
Fig. 7. Errors between predicted and actual PPV values.
was obtained empirically with the practical data which in-
corporates all the influencing parameters. Hence, the PPV predic-
tion using Eq. (5) is more precise compared with the conventional
scaled distance equation without superimposition factor (Eq. (7)).
5. Concluding remarks
The modified scaled distance regression analysis approach (Eq.
(5)) predicts the PPV of blast-induced ground vibration more pre-
cisely. The proposed method has been verified and tested using
practical data from an opencast coal mine. It also shows that by
using the modified scaled distance regression analysis approach,
the errors between predicted and actual PPV values are reduced by
8.5%. The proposed method is a modified form of scaled distance
regression analysis approach, which is empirical and handy and
will help field blasting engineers to have better control over
blasting by predicting the blast-induced ground vibration more
precisely.
Conflicts of interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication and there has been no significant
financial support for this work that could have influenced its
outcome.
References
Agrawal H, Mishra AK. Evaluation of initiating system by measurement of seismic
energy dissipation in surface blasting. Arabian Journal of Geosciences
2018;11(13):345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3683-3.
Amnieh HB, Bahadori M. Safe vibrations of spilling basin explosions at “Gotvand
Olya Dam” using artificial neural network. Archives of Mining Sciences
2014;59(4):1087e96.
Birch W, White T, Hosein S. Electronic detonators: a step forward in blast vibration
control. In: Proceedings of the 15th extractive industry geology conference;
2010.
Dong L, Li X, Xu M, Li Q. Comparisons of random forest and support vector machine
for predicting blasting vibration characteristic parameters. Procedia Engineer-
ing 2011;26:1772e81.
207
Dowding CH. Blast vibration monitoring and control: a thirty year perspective. In:
Proceedings of the 37th US symposium on rock mechanics. Taylor & Francis;
1999. p. 45.
Duvall WI, Fogelson DE. Review of criteria for estimating damage to residences from
SD blasting vibrations. Technical Report. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines; 1962.
Kumar R, Choudhury D, Bhargava K. Determination of blast-induced ground vi-
bration equations for rocks using mechanical and geological properties. Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2016;8(3):341e9.
Rao YS. Prediction of ground vibrations in opencast mine using nonlinear regression
analysis. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
2012;4(9):4111e8.
Saadat M, Khandelwal M, Monjezi M. An ANN-based approach to predict blast-
induced ground vibration of Gol-E-Gohar iron ore mine, Iran. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2014;6(1):67e76.
Sayadi A, Monjezi M, Talebi N, Khandelwal M. A comparative study on the appli-
cation of various artificial neural networks to simultaneous prediction of rock
fragmentation and backbreak. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering 2013;5(4):318e24.
Siskind DE, Stagg MS, Kopp JW, Dowding CH. Structure response and damage
produced by ground vibration from surface mine blasting. Technical Report. US
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines; 1980.
Siskind DE, Stagg MS, Wiegand JE, Schulz DL. Surface mine blasting near pressur-
ized transmission pipelines. Technical Report. US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines; 1994.
Tripathy GR, Shirke RR, Kudale MD. Safety of engineered structures against blast
vibrations: a case study. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
neering 2016;8(2):248e55.
Trivedi R, Singh TN, Mudgal K, Gupta N. Application of artificial neural network for
performance evaluation of vertical axis wind turbine rotor. International Jour-
nal of Ambient Energy 2014;3(5):564e74.
Yang R, Lownds M. Modeling the effect of delay scatter on peak particle velocity of
blast vibration using a multiple seed waveform vibration model. Blasting and
Fragmentation 2011;5:31e46.
Yang R, Scovira DS, Patterson NJ. An integrated approach of signature hole vibration
monitoring and modeling for quarry vibration control. In: Proceedings of the
9th international symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting. Taylor &
Francis Group; 2010. p. 597e605.
Hemant Agrawal received M.tech and B.tech degrees in
Mining Engineering from Indian School of Mines, Dhan-
bad, India, in 2012. After his postgraduation, he worked as
deputy manager in Coal India Limited for 6 years. Now, he
works at Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of
Mines), Dhanbad, as a research scholar. His current
research interests include mine blasting, blast-induced
ground vibration, controlled blasting technique, initiation
systems and opencast mining.
Prof. A.K. Mishra received his PhD degree in Mining En-
gineering from Indian School of mines, Dhanbad, India.
Now, he works as Professor at Indian Institute of Tech-
nology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad. His current
research interest includes explosive engineering, rock
blasting technology, rock excavation engineering, and
opencast mining.