Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278
DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-1477-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Investigation of the effects of blasting design parameters
and rock properties on blast-induced ground vibrations
Kazım Görgülü & Ercan Arpaz & Önder Uysal &
Y. Selim Durutürk & A. Gürkan Yüksek & Arzu Koçaslan &
M. Kürşat Dilmaç
Received: 10 December 2013 / Accepted: 19 May 2014 / Published online: 31 May 2014
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2014
Abstract This study addresses the effects of rock character-
istics and blasting design parameters on blast-induced vibra-
tions in the Kangal open-pit coal mine, the Tülü open-pit
boron mine, and the Kırka open-pit boron mine. In this study,
multiple vibration measurements have been conducted, and
the related data have been analyzed and evaluated. Several
artificial neural network (ANN) and regression models based
on the same blasting design parameters, resistivity, and P-
wave and S wave velocities of the surrounding rocks have
been constructed to estimate the peak particle velocities and
the frequencies of related blast-induced vibrations. The data
derived from these models and the classical evaluations indi-
cate that ANNs provide more reliable results than the other
methods.
K. Görgülü (*) : Y. S. Durutürk : M. K. Dilmaç
Mining Engineering Department, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas,
Turkey
e-mail: kazimgorgulu@gmail.com
E. Arpaz
Kocaeli Vocational School, Kocaeli University, Izmit, Kocaeli,
Turkey
Ö. Uysal
Mining Engineering Department, Dumlupınar University, Kütahya,
Turkey
A. G. Yüksek
Computer Engineering Department, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas,
Turkey
A. Koçaslan
Insurance and Risk Administration, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas,
Turkey
M. K. Dilmaç
Mining Engineering Department, Atatürk University, Erzurum,
Turkey
Keywords Blasting . Ground vibrations . Rock properties .
Artificial neural networks
Introduction
The intensity of ground vibration caused by detonation of
explosives is affected by parameters such as the physical and
mechanical properties of the rock mass, the characteristics of
the explosive, and the blast design (Wiss and Linehan 1978).
Design parameters, such as maximum charge per delay, delay
time, burden, spacing, charge length, firing order and primer
type, and its location, significantly affect the distribution of the
seismic energy in the related rock mass (Pal 2005).
Laws regulating blasting practice and scientific research of
blast-induced ground vibrations use the peak particle velocity
(PPV) values as standard base parameters. The PPV value is
defined as the maximum values of the transverse and vertical
and longitudinal velocities of the propagating wave. To esti-
mate the PPV, researchers have proposed various approaches
that are based on the maximum charge per delay and the
distance between the measurement point and the blasting point
(Duvall and Petkof 1959; Davies et al. 1964; Ambraseys and
Hendron 1968; Nicholls et al. 1971; ISI 1973; Langefors and
Kihlström 1978; Ghosh and Daemen 1983; Gupta et al. 1987,
1988; Roy 1991; Ak 2006). In these studies, other factors that
may influence the formation and development of blast-induced
vibrations are included as site-specific constants that represent
the propagation and damping properties of the ground vibra-
tions at each site. This may increase the uncertainty under
certain conditions. When the velocity equations based on field
measurements are examined, different parameters were derived
for the same excavation site, resulting in different values of
PPV for the safe charge per delay (Arpaz et al. 2012).
If controlled blasting techniques are to be applied in the
field, a large number of blasting data points should be obtain-
ed from the area surrounding the blasting point and the related
4270
site-specific constants determined to make appropriate evalu-
ations (ISRM 1992; Arpaz 2000). However, in some areas, the
data obtained are widely scattered and have a low correlation
coefficient; hence, the obtained equations based on the eval-
uation of these data have low reliability. Such unreliable
results are often caused by directional variation in the site-
specific constants (Ak 2006; Arpaz 2000; Blair and Spathis
1982; Jimeno et al. 1995; Aldaş 2002).
In recent years, artificial neural network (ANN) models
based on the PPV properties of rocks have been applied in
frequency estimations of various design parameters of rock
blasting (Khandelwal and Singh 2006, 2009; Mohamed 2009;
Monjezi et al. 2010; Amnieh et al. 2010; Kamalı and Ataei
2010; Alvarez-Vigil et al. 2012). These studies show that the
estimation of the PPV and frequency using ANN gives quite
satisfactory results compared with the classical PPV
prediction. Khandelwal and Singh (2006, 2009) noted that
the models obtained from multiple regression analysis could
not be used because of the high error margins.
The studies mentioned above used data that had been
obtained from a single field for an ANN and multiple regres-
sion analysis. In addition, these studies were based typically
on the input parameters of the blasting design parameters.
Furthermore, the input parameters for the ANN models and
the multiple regression analysis were not the same data type.
Unlike previous studies, this research work bases its ap-
proaches on the data obtained from three different mining
areas. The input parameters for the ANN model and the
multiple regression analysis designed to predict the PPV and
frequency values are based on blasting design parameters with
resistivity and P-wave and S wave velocities obtained from in
situ field measurements. The input parameters for the ANN
model and the multiple regression analysis are of the same
type. We aim to achieve a reliable estimate of PPV and
frequency from blast-induced vibrations.
Study areas
In this study, comprehensive field measurements of blast-
induced ground vibrations were performed and evaluated in
the Electricity Generation Company’s Kangal open-pit coal
mine, Eti Mine’s Tülü open-pit boron mine, and Eti Mine’s
Kırka open-pit boron mine (Fig. 1).
The Kangal open-pit coal mine is located in the eastern part
of the Central Anatolian Region of Turkey. The site produces
4.5–6 million tons/year of coal with a calorific value of 600–
1,500 kcal/kg. This coal is excavated via open-pit methods
and feeds a nearby thermal power plant with a 457 MW
capacity. Coal production at this site utilizes truck-excavator/
dragline methods. The overburden removal amounts to 9–18
million m3/year. Blasting shots at the site are largely used for
loosening objectives. Drill bits with diameters of 22 cm are
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278
used for drilling operations. The lengths of the holes are
approximately 12–25 m, depending on the bench height.
The burden is in the range of 6–14 m. The spacing varies
between 6.75–12.35 m. Generally, 200–450 kg of explosives
per delay was used in the blasting operations during our
measurement activities.
The Tülü Boron open-pit mine is located in western Tur-
key. Production and overburden removal in this field are
performed by means of open-pit mining based on truck-
shovel methods. All of the blasting work for this study was
performed for the overburden removal of different formations.
Drill bits of 17 cm in diameter are used for drilling operations.
The lengths of the holes are approximately 8–10 m, depending
on the bench height. The burden is in the range of 2.40–
11.78 m. The spacing varies between 2.40 and 11.80 m.
Generally, 55–75 kg of explosives per delay was used in the
blasting operations during this study.
The Eti Kırka Boron Mining Enterprise is located in the
western part of the Central Anatolian Region of Turkey. Open-
pit mining at the site is based on the use of truck excavators.
Annual production varies between 1 and 1.5 million tons,
while the amount of overburden is 4.5 million m3. Blasting
is performed at the site as part of borax production. Drills bits
with diameters of 10 and 16 cm are used for drilling opera-
tions. The lengths of the holes were approximately 3–12 m,
depending on the bench height. The burden varies in the range
of 2.5–6.5 m. The spacing is approximately 5.0–7.5 m. Gen-
erally, 100–975 kg of explosives per delay was used in the
blasting experiences. In all three of the open-pit mines men-
tioned above, ANFO is the primary explosive substance.
Materials and methods
Data acquisition and processing
The particle velocity of ground motions was measured by
seven particle velocity instruments (five Instantel Minimate
Blaster units, B1–B5; one Instantel Minimate Plus unit, B6;
and one double-channel Instantel Blastmate III unit, B7-1 and
B7-2, all from Instantel, Ottawa, ON, Canada). These instru-
ments record triaxial (longitudinal, transverse, and vertical)
ground motion measurements in the related area.
For the classical evaluations, the model of Nicholls et al.
(1971) was used to calculate the PPV and the related field
constants, as given below:
 .pffiffiffiffiffi−β
PPV ¼ K* R W ð1Þ
where PPV is the peak particle velocity (mm/s), R is the
distance between the measurement point and the blasting
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278
Fig. 1 Map of the research areas in Turkey
point (m), W is the maximum explosive quantitypper ffiffiffiffiffi delay
(kg), K and β are the site-specific constants, and R= W is the
scaled distance (SD).
Additionally, electric field tomography, vertical electrical
sounding, and artificial seismic (refraction and MASW) mea-
surements were conducted, and the results were interpreted
with reference to cross sections from previous surveys. The
resistivity and seismic velocity values were determined for
each formation unit layer.
Fig. 2 Schematic illustration of
basic cell function in an ANN
4271
Artificial neural networks and the backpropagation method
Modeling studies have been conducted with ANNs to predict
the PPV and frequency values of blast-induced ground vibra-
tions. ANN models are software models based on the neural
structure of the brain. A neural network is an interconnected
assembly of simple processing elements, units, or nodes,
whose functionality is loosely based on the animal neuron.
The processing ability of the network is stored in the interunit
4272 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278

Fig. 3 Regions, measurement

points, and device codes in
Kangal

connection strengths, or weights, obtained by a process of hardware, an ANN is composed of electronic circuits that
adaptation to, or learning from, a set of training patterns run computer programs. The ANN cell is based on a very
(Gurney 1997). An ANN is made up of artificial neuron cells basic form of the biological cell; the basic principle of a
arranged in a pattern that has different layers. In terms of neuron’s function is illustrated in Fig. 2. Data from an external

Fig. 4 Regions, measurement

points, and device codes in Tülü
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278
Fig. 5 Regions, measurement
points, and device codes in Kırka
source enter the neuron and are assigned weights that deter-
mine the effect of the related input. The inputs are multiplied
by their weights and then combined via the collecting func-
tion. The activation function then processes the net output.
Usually, the activation function is a nonlinear function
(Fausett 1994; Fine 1999).
The backpropagation algorithm is a common algorithm
used in ANN applications. It is easily understood and is a
proven self-learning algorithm. This algorithm works to re-
duce the error backward from the output to the input. There
are three basic functions of the trained network that use the
backpropagation learning algorithm: forward feeding of the
training input data, computing the error, and propagating it
back and updating the weights (Fausett 1994; Fine 1999).
A general backpropagation algorithm can be used for
forward-feeding neural network learning with varying inputs.
A typical multilayer backpropagation network has an input
layer, an output layer, and at least one hidden layer. Theoret-
ically, there are no restrictions on the number of hidden layers.
By finding the error signal between the inputs and outputs, the
weights are updated using the error signal e(i), which is the
difference between the desired output t(i) and the neural
network output y(i):
eðiÞ ¼ t ðiÞ − yðiÞ; i ¼ 1; …; m: ð2Þ
In this study, we used the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm,
which minimizes the sum of the squared error functions and
4273
produces a digital solution to the mathematical problem. Nor-
mally, this problem is a nonlinear function. In our study, it is
related to the parametric value groups, which are based on the
blasting design parameters with resistivity and P-wave and S
wave velocities directly measured in situ. The Levenberg–
Marquardt algorithm was designed to approach second-order
training speed without having to compute the Hessian matrix.
When the performance function has the form of a sum of
squares (as is typical in training feed-forward networks), then
the Hessian matrix can be approximated and the gradient can
be computed as
H ¼ JT J ð3Þ
and
g ¼ J T ¼ e; ð4Þ
where J is the Jacobian matrix that contains the first deriva-
tives of the network errors with respect to the weights and
biases and e is a vector of the network errors. The Levenberg–
Marquardt algorithm uses this approximation to the Hessian
matrix in the following Newton-like updating formula:
 −1
X kþ1 ¼ X k J T J þ μI J T e: ð5Þ
4274 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278

Table 1 Region classification based on rock parameters from geophysical measurements

Area Regions Formation Thickness (m) S wave velocity (Vs, m/s) P-wave velocity (Vp, m/s) Resistivity (Ωm)

Kangal 1 Alluvium 1–3 280–350 400–510 54.4–57.5

Clay limestone 13–17 220–250 590–680 40.8–44.9
Limestonea 20–35 410–430 890–980 175–182
2 Alluvium 0.2–1 300–350 600–700 54.8–57.9
Limestone 10–15 230–280 775–890 238–247
Marl 8–12 470–490 950–1,125 99–105
Limestonea 12–32 630–690 1,300–1,320 432–440
3 Alluvium 2.5–3.5 300–380 450–570 58.5–64.5
Clay limestone 9–13 260–290 525–700 40.6–41.3
Limestonea 13–31 500–550 1,000–1,050 511–529
Tülü 1 Alluvium 1.5–3 100–175 250–370 1–30
Clay limestone 11–20 300–450 1,000–1,220 10–30
Tuff 5–15 500–750 1,650–1,900 33.2–66.5
Limestonea 10–30 650–850 2,400–2,670 100–200
2 Alluvium 0.3–0.75 100–220 370–520 1–30
Tuff 10–22 350–570 1,500–1,750 33.2–66.5
Limestonea 20–35 500–780 2,000–2,250 201–668
3 Alluvium 3–7 100–140 180–220 1–30
Clay limestone 5–20 270–300 800–1,000 10–30
Tuff 2–6.5 490–610 1,200–1,700 33.2–66.5
Limestonea 17–38 650–800 2,700–3,000 201–668
Kırka 1 Alluvium 0.5–1 250–300 460–547 1.19
Marl 12–18 975–1,200 1,450–1,800 13.2
Borona 25–58 1,175–1,336 2,055–3,527 3.71
2 Alluvium 0.7–1 300–460 450–560 3.5
Borona 29–55 600–930 1,265–1,947 19.6
3 Alluvium 1–1.5 560–796 1,023–1,352 7.5
Clay stone 15–20 865–1,029 2,181–2,387 2.8
Borona 24–46.5 1,124–1,290 2,940–3,890 12.9
a
Drilling logs and field observation

Table 2 Relationship of particle velocity components, scaled distance, and field constants of all blasting shots

Area Field constants  −β

PPV ¼ K* pRffiffiffiffi (mm/s)
W

Transverse (PPVT) Vertical (PPVV) Longitudinal (PPVL) Resultant (PVS) Maximum (PPV)

Kangal K 404.55 480.32 1,046.37 864.46 724.63

β −1.18 −1.18 −1.47 −1.30 −1.27
R2 0.59 0.67 0.76 0.73 0.70
Tülü K 215.70 577.42 417.79 798.40 502.15
β −1.16 −1.40 −1.28 −1.38 −1.29
R2 0.34 0.64 0.48 0.60 0.55
Kırka K 710.60 628.14 835.78 978.14 719.91
β −1.87 −1.76 −1.80 −1.79 −1.72
R2 0.68 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.66

PPV peak particle velocity, PVS peak vector sum

Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278 4275

When the scalar μ is zero, Eq. (5) denotes Newton’s meth-

od, using the approximate Hessian matrix. When μ is large, it
becomes a gradient descent with a small step size (Demuth
et al. 2007). In the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm, the error
function is a summation of the squared errors:

1X 1X 2
n n
ετ ¼ ðyi −t i Þ2 ¼ e: ð6Þ
2 i¼1 2 i¼1 i

Measurement results and evaluation

Based on geophysical measurements, drilling data and field

observations, the working areas in which the blasting mea-
surements were performed, were divided into different re-
gions. The approximate position of every region and PPV
measurement points are shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. Addition-
ally, the results obtained from the formations of these regions
and geophysical measurements are given in Table 1.
To evaluate the blast-induced ground vibrations, 10
blasting shots were monitored and the instruments recorded
69 vibration datasets in the Kangal open-pit coal mine, 36
blasting shots were monitored and the instruments recorded
259 vibration datasets in the Tülü boron open-pit mine, and 32
blasting shots were monitored and 103 vibration datasets were
recorded in the Kırka boron open-pit mine during this study.
The data obtained from the measurements performed in
each mine area have been evaluated on the basis of the model
given in Eq. (1), and the related results in the form of PPV
components are given in Table 2. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the
Fig. 7 Relationship of PPV and scaled distance in all blasting shots
(Tülü)
PPV values based on the same measurements. The correlation
coefficients (R2) of PPV-scaled distance values for each min-
ing area vary between 0.55 and 0.70, as given in Table 2 and
Figs. 6, 7, and 8.
In addition to classical evaluation, the input parameters for
the ANN model and multiple regression analysis were de-
signed to predict the PPV and frequency values. To create an
ANN model for the parameter analysis, an appropriate net-
work model is selected using different training algorithms and

Fig. 6 Relationship of PPV and scaled distance in all blasting shots Fig. 8 Relationship of PPV and scaled distance in all blasting shots
(Kangal) (Kırka)
4276 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278

Fig. 9 Input and output

parameters for backpropagation
neural network

parameters. Models can be formed with different node num-
bers and one or two hidden layer structures. In the one-layer
proposed model trials, a feed-forward neural network with 10
hidden neurons, 10 input parameters, two output parameters,
and a total error of 0.01 was chosen as constant values. The
input parameters for the ANN model designed to predict the
PPV and frequency values are based on the blasting design
parameters, such as distance from blasting point, maximum
charge per delay, number of holes, hole depth, stemming,
spacing, burden with resistivity, and P-wave and S wave
velocities directly measured in situ (Fig. 9, Table 3).
Using these input parameters, we obtained output param-
eters calculated by the model that feature very high cor-
relations between the measured parameters (R2 = 0.83–
0.98) (Figs. 10, and 11).
Using the same data as the ANN input–output parameters,
multiple regression analyses have been conducted and obtain-
ed Eqs. (7–8). The correlation coefficients related to these
analyses are extremely low for the frequency (R2 =0.17) and
for the PPV values (R2 =0.45).

Table 3 Example dataset for an ANN model and a multiple regression analysis

Area Device Distance Maximum Resistivity S wave P-wave Number Hole Stemming Spacing Burden Measured Measured
codes (m) charge per (Ωm) velocity velocity of holes depth (m) (m) (m) PPV frequency
delay (kg) (m/s) (m/s) (m) (mm/s) (Hz)

Kangal B1 140 270 69.9 282 517 10 13.5 4.5 8.47 9.30 27.60 4
B2 151 350 228.6 452 1,017 4 18 9.3 8.53 6.10 37.10 8.4
B6 284 450 227.1 502 1,025 10 19 8.0 6.75 8.60 26.40 11
B3 383 270 152.9 434 818 5 13 5.5 9.50 10.0 22.20 37
B5 220 350 69.6 465 792 4 18 9.3 8.53 6.10 27.40 7.3
B4 471 255 218.4 593 1,162 3 11.5 5.5 12.35 7.90 7.24 3.7
Tülü B1 144 60 19.7 530 1,425 76 8 4.8 4.66 5.18 16.90 14
B2 98 60 55.8 490 1,965 68 8 4.8 11.75 6.53 23.70 11
B6 148 60 49.6 430 1,505 54 8 4.7 4.97 5.95 7.62 4.2
B3 476 60 17.5 489 1,435 11 8 4.7 11.80 2.77 4.70 11
B5 287 55 59.1 580 1,659 63 8 5.0 7.76 4.66 3.94 6.2
B4 309 55 37.2 491 1,501 63 8 5.0 4.60 6.20 2.92 27
Kırka B1 113 175 13.8 750 2,000 15 5.6 1.6 6.54 5.20 39.20 100
B2 187 315 10.9 550 1,925 4 8.08 2.5 6.19 3.91 41.40 100
B6 436 250 12.7 610 1,984 4 5.04 1.6 6.19 4.90 2.92 9
B3 185 313 9.4 1,227 2,347 21 8.14 2.5 7.44 4.72 16.30 32
B5 364 235 5.4 1,138 1,800 25 8.5 2.2 6.21 4.78 3.30 16
B4 271 695 6.1 1,196 2,221 87 6.39 1.2 5.54 5.63 3.81 22

PPV peak particle velocity

Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278 4277

of this intensity account mostly for explosive amounts and

distances from the blasting point, and the related models for
ground vibrations also consider these two parameters. The
empirically developed equations for the formation and devel-
opment of blast-induced ground vibrations express the effects
of other factors, in the form of constants specific to the related
regions. Therefore, it is well known that different empirical
formulas produce different values of safe PPV for the same
excavation area and the same charge amount per delay. How-
ever, the intensity of blast-induced ground vibrations varies
depending on the direction relative to the blasting point away.
This observation casts doubt on the reliability of the classical
evaluations.
Fig. 10 Measured and predicted PPV estimated by the ANN method This research work aims to investigate the effects of the
properties of the surrounding rock mass on the blast-induced
ground vibration and to develop estimation models with
PPV ¼ 11:064−0:054R þ 0:014W higher reliability for the evaluation of these vibrations. To this
þ 0:007ρ−0:004V s   end, three different open-pit mines have been taken into
R2 ¼ 0:45
þ 0:003V p −0:137DS þ 0:827H consideration, and multiple measurements have been conduct-
þ 0:81SB þ 0:472S þ 0:276B ed to estimate the PPV and frequency values more reliably.
ð7Þ The model approaches are based on input data, including
distance from blasting point, explosive amount per delay,
number of drill holes, distance between holes, burden and
stemming, resistivity, P-wave and S wave velocities, etc.
f ¼ 30:837−0:027R þ 0:007W −0:079ρ The use of these data in multiple regression analysis has given
 
þ 0:012V s þ 0:002V p −0:162DS−0:331H R2 ¼ 0:17 unsatisfactory results expressed in the form of correlation
þ 0:3SB−0:042S þ 0:426B coefficients. In contrast, the ANN models, developed on the
ð8Þ basis of the same data, have produced results with higher
correlation coefficients (R2 =0.83–0.98). These results indi-
cate that the ANN models are preferable for the estimation
Conclusions and evaluation of the intensity of blast-induced ground vibra-
tions compared to the regression analysis models.
The intensity of blast-induced ground vibrations is a function
of the physical–mechanical properties of surrounding rocks, Acknowledgments This study is supported by The Scientific and
explosive characteristics, and blasting design parameters. In Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) project No.
general, the approaches for the determination and evaluation 110 M294. The authors would also like to thank the staff of the Electricity
Generation Company, Demir Export, and Eti Mine for their assistance
during the field work.

References

Ak H (2006) The investigation of directional changes of the blast-induced

ground vibration. Ph.D. Dissertation, Eskisehir Osmangazi
University, Eskisehir, pp. 281 (in Turkish)
Aldaş GGU (2002) Effect of some rock mass properties on blasting
induced ground vibration wave characteristics at Orhaneli surface
coal mine. Ph.D. Dissertation, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara
Alvarez-Vigil AE, Gonzalez-Nicieza C, Gayarre Lopez F, Alvarez-
Fernandez MI (2012) Predicting blasting propagation velocity and
vibration frequency using artificial neural network. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 55:108–116
Fig. 11 Measured and predicted frequency estimated by the ANN Ambraseys NR, Hendron AJ (1968) Dynamic behaviour of rock masses.
method Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practices, Wiley-London
4278
Amnieh HB, Mozdianfard MR, Siamaki A (2010) Predicting of blasting
vibrations in Sarcheshmeh copper mine by neural network. Saf Sci
48:319–325
Arpaz E (2000) Monitoring and evaluation of blast induced vibrations in
some open-pit mines in Turkey. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cumhuriyet
University, Sivas (in Turkish)
Arpaz E, Uysal Ö, Tola Y, Görgülü K, Çavuş M (2012) Comparison of
blast-induced ground vibration predictors in Seyitomer coal mine.
In: 12th Rock Mechanic Symposium, Beijing, pp. 1161-63
Blair DP, Spathis AT (1982) Attenuation of explosion-generated pulse in
rock masses. J Geophys Res 87(5):3885–3892
Davies B, Farmer IW, Attewell PB (1964) Ground vibration from shallow
sub-surface blast. Engineering 217:553–559
Demuth H, Beale M, Hagan M (2007) Neural network toolbox 5 User’s
Guide, The MathWorks.
Duvall WI, Petkof B (1959) Spherical propagation of explosion generated
strain pulses in rock. USBM Rep Investig 5483:21–22
Fausett L (1994) Fundamentals of neural networks. NJ Prentice Hall pp.
300
Fine TL (1999) Feedforward neural network methodology. Springer,
New York, p 340
Ghosh A, Daemen JK (1983) A simple new blast vibration predictor. In:
Proceedings of the 24th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
College Station, Texas pp. 151–161
Gupta RN, Roy PP, Bagachi A, Singh B (1987) Dynamic effects in
various rock mass and their prediction. J Min Met Fuels, 455–
462
Gupta RN, Roy PP, Singh B (1988) On a blast induced blast vibration
predictor for efficient blasting. Proceedings of the 22nd International
Conference of Safety in Mines, Beijing, pp. 1015-1021
Gurney K (1997) An introduction to neural networks. CRC Press, p 234
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:4269–4278
ISI (1973) Criteria for safety and design of structures subjected to under-
ground blast. Indian Standard Institute, ISI Bull 6922
ISRM (1992) Suggested method for blast vibration monitoring. Int J
Rock Mech Min Geomech Abstr 29:143–156
Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL, Carcedo FJA (1995) Drilling and blasting of
rocks. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Brookfield-Rotterdam, p 390
Kamalı M, Ataei M (2010) Prediction of blast induced ground vibrations
in Karoun III Power Plant and Dam: a neural network. J South Afr
Inst Min Metall 110:481–490
Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2006) Prediction of blast induced ground
vibrations and frequency in opencast mine: a neural network ap-
proach. J Sound Vib 289:711–725
Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2009) Prediction of blast-induced ground
vibration using artificial neural network. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
46:1214–1222
Langefors U, Kihlström B (1978) The modern technique of rock blasting,
3rd edn., Almqvist & Wiksell Forlag AB, Stockholm-Sweden
Mohamed MT (2009) Artificial neural network for prediction and control
of blasting vibrations in Assiut (Egypt) limestone quarry. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 46:426–431
Monjezi M, Amiri H, Farrokhi A, Goshtasbi K (2010) Prediction of rock
fragmentation due to blasting in Sarcheshmeh copper mine using
artificial neural networks. Geotech Geol Eng 28:423–430
Nicholls HR, Johnson CF, Duvall WI (1971) Blasting vibrations and their
effects on structures. United States Department of Interior, USBM
Bulletin 656
Pal RP (2005) Rock blasting. IBH Publishing, New Delhi
Roy PP (1991) Vibration control in an opencast mine based on improved
blast vibration predictors. Min Sci Technol 12:157–165
Wiss JF, Linehan PW (1978) Control of vibration and air noise from
surface coal mines. III. US Bureau of Mines Report OFR103 pp. 623