ISSN 1062-7391, Journal of Mining Science, 2013, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 967–975. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013.

______________________________ MINERAL MINING ________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TECHNOLOGY
Selecting the Most Suitable Blasting Pattern Using
AHP–TOPSIS Method: Sungun Copper Mine1
M. Yaria, M. Monjezib, and R. Bagherpoura
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
e-mail: m.yari@mi.iut.ac.ir
b
Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: monjezi@modares.ac.ir
Received June 17, 2013

Abstract—Blasting is one of the most important operations in the mining projects. Implementation of
improper blasting pattern may result in some undesirable phenomena such as poor fragmentation, back
break, flyrock etc., which in turn increase the cost of operation. A pattern can be evaluated as suitable once
it satisfies the objectives (including economical, technical and safety indexes) of the operation that are
defined by the designer. In this way, selection of a blasting pattern from the field experienced patterns can
be considered as a Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) problem. In this paper, blasting patterns of
the Sungun copper mine are ranked using AHP–TOPSIS to find out the most suitable pattern covering the
required level of the concerned attributes. As a result, the blasting pattern with burden of 3 m, spacing of
4 m and stemming of 3.2 m was determined as the most suitable blasting pattern.
Keywords: Blasting pattern, Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM), TOPSIS, Sungun copper mine.

INTRODUCTION
Blasting is one of the most sensitive operations in mining. Incorrect blasting pattern design can
cause many technical, economical and safety problems [1–3]. The operation objectives can be listed
as economical indexes (specific charge and specific drilling), technical factors (fragmentation and
back break) and safety conditions (flyrock). Conventional models for designing blasting pattern are
not applicable in all the cases and should be experimentally evaluated [4]. Considering different
effective parameters and alternatives, it is very difficult to select the most suitable pattern among
several possible patterns. In this situation, employment of decision making methods may be helpful.
The main goal of rock blasting is to acquire a proper fragmentation of materials keeping unfavorable
effects such as ground vibration, back break and flyrock at minimum level [2]. The selected pattern
should also be economic [1, 5, 6]. Safety constraints should be satisfied [1, 3].
In the previous researches, fragmentation is regarded as the most important goal of the blasting
[6–10]. Consequently, fragmentation importance is higher as compared to the other blasting results
such as back break, flyrock, ground vibration, etc.
In the cases where flyrock is of main importance, an attempt has been made to predict this
phenomenon and evaluate blasting patterns accordingly [3, 7, 11–24]. Wherever back break is the
important blasting hazard, it has been regarded as the decision criterion [5, 19, 25–28]. In the same
way, if ground vibration due to blasting is the facing problem, attempts has been made to forecast and
reduce this event [1, 29–37].
By progress of human knowledge and need for more precise and scientific operations, new
decision making methods including MADM can be implemented in the mining engineering problems

1
The article is published in the original.

967
968 YARI et al.

which are intrinsically complicated. There are many applications of MADM methods in the mining
industries reported by various researchers [38–48].
In this paper, TOPSIS method which is one of the decision making models has been used for
evaluating and ranking of the possible blast pattern alternatives with various efficiencies. For this,
blasting specifications of the Sungun copper mine were collected and considered as case study.
2. CASE STUDY
The Sungun copper mine is the largest open pit copper mine in Iran and located in the East
Azerbaijan province, Iran, 125 km North West of Tabriz (Fig. 1). This mine is part of the global
copper belt (Alp-Himalia) and situated in the middle of Qarabagh Mountains with about 2390 altitude
from open sea. Estimated reserves are about 995 million tons of copper ore. Concentration process
carries directly at the mine with a capacity of 170,000 tons of copper concentrates. Drilling and
blasting are usual methods applied for the mine exploitation. The main explosive used for such
operation is ANFO with dynamite as primer.
3. MADM METHODS
Multi attribute decision making means the decisions such as evaluation, prioritization and selection
of the best available alternative. In multi attribute decision making problems; there are some
alternatives which should be analyzed. Any problem has also several attributes which specified for
per alternative and decision maker should define them accurately in the problems [50]. The attributes
in decision matrix are different from each other in terms of scale and unit. Sometimes, attributes have
positive aspect and sometimes, they have negative feature. Therefore, proper alternative will be the
alternative which provides the best state of each attribute [51].
3.1. Evaluating Weights of Attributes
Decision making problem has several attributes with different importance. Therefore, each
attribute is given weight and preference of each index over other attributes is mentioned using these
weights [52]. There are different methods such as Shanon Entropy, Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) and LINMAP for measuring weights of the attributes which AHP method, considering broad
application, has been used.

Fig. 1.
Geological map of East Azerbaijan province [49].

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 SELECTING THE MOST SUITABLE BLASTING PATTERN USING AHP–TOPSIS METHOD 969

AHP method is applied in calculation of attributes comparative priority. Comparative priority is

obtained from taking pairs comparison matrix while overall priority is final rank of each alternative.
Here, main goal of using AHP method is only to calculate weights of the attributes [50].
In order to prioritize attributes, the first stage is taking pairs comparison. In this regard, the arrays
are compared with each other based on one criterion. In process of taking pairs comparison, each
attribute compares with other attributes and their relative importance degree determines with a
number. In order to take pairs, first, a matrix is formed which attributes are written in rows and
columns of that and each index be assessed over another index. In this process, each index receives 1
in relation to itself but other arrays are filled with other numbers upon Table 1. This scoring is done
by the experts [50].
When index a is compared with b , one of the numbers in the Table 1 is allocated to it. But when
index b is compared with index a, reverse value of that number is allocated. Results are recorded in a
matrix which rows and columns are attributes. It is evident that arrays of diameter of this matrix are 1
as fallow [50]:
 1 a12 a13 ... a1n 
 1 
 1 ... ... ... 

a12

. (1)
 1 ... 1 ... ... 
 a13 
 ... ... ... 1 ... 
 1 1 
 ... ... 1 
a1n a2 n
 
In AHP method, weights of the attributes are determined such that the Eq. (2) holds
true [50, 51]:
a11W1+a12W2+ … +a1nWn=λλ. 1
a21W1+a22W2+ … +a2nWn=λλ. 2 , (2)
...
an1W1+an 2W2+ … +annWn=λλ. n

where aij j—preference of i-th element over j-th element; Wi —weight of i-th element; λ —constant.
Considering Eq. (2), weight of each attribute is:
n (3)
Wi = 1 λ  aij w j ;i = 1,2 ,...,n.
j =1
Equation (3) can be written as A × W = λW , where A is taking pairs matrix. According to Eq. (3)
weights of each index can be calculated.
After taking pairs, consistency should be also calculated. In AHP method calculates logical
consistency and priorities of attributes. In case inconsistency number is larger than 0.1, taking pairs
matrix is inconsistent and should be revised in judgments and in case inconsistency is zero, taking
pairs matrix is fully consistent. According to Saaty’s researches, founder of Analytical Hierarchy
process, consistency rate up to 0.1 is acceptable [51].
At last, after calculating weights of the attributes and solving Multi Attribute Decision Making
model one can do final ranking.
Table 1. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) scale [51]
Definition Description Degree
Equally preferred 2 elements are equally preferred 1
Moderately One element is moderately preferred over another element. 3
Strongly preferred One element is strongly preferred over another element. 5
Very strongly One element is very strongly preferred over another element 7
Extremely One element is extremely preferred over another element. 9
The intermediate values are determined with numbers 2, 4, 6, 8 in

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

970 YARI et al.

4. TOPSIS METHOD
Technique for Order Preference Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) model was proposed by
Hwang &Yoon in 1981. This model has broad applications and is one of the best Multi Attribute
Decision Making models. In this method, m alterative evaluates by n attribute and each problem is a
geometrical system including m point in an n-dimensional space. In this technique, the most suitable
alternative with positive ideal solution (the best possible solution) has the shortest distance, and with
negative ideal solution (the worst possible state) has the maximum distance. It is assumed that value
of each index is uniformly increasing or decreasing.
4.1. TOPSIS Method Stages
TOPSIS model includes six stages for solving decision making problem [52]:
1. Converting decision making matrix to a normalized matrix using Eq. (4):
m
nij = aij /  aij2 . (4)
i =1
2. Creating weighted normalized matrix by assuming W vector which is obtained from opinions of the
experts: ND, Wn*n = weighted normalized matrix, where ND is the matrix which scores of attributes
have been normalized and compared; Wn*n is the diagonal matrix which only main diameter is
nonzero (comparative priority of the attributes is on the main diameter relative to each other).
3. Determining positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution: v+ is defined for ideal alternative
and v- is defined for negative ideal alternative calculated as Eqs. (5) and (6):
    
+ . (5)
v + =  max vij j ∈ J'  , min vij j ∈ J'  i = 1,2,....,n  = v1+ ,v 2+ ,......., v j ,......, v n+ 
   
 i  i    

      . (6)
v − =  min vij j ∈ J ',  max vij j ∈ J ' i = 1,2,...., m  = v1− , v − ,......., v −j ,......, vn−
 
 i   i    2 

4. Calculating distance from v+ and v-. Distance between i-th alterative and ideal is as Eqs. (7) and (8)
using Euclidean method:
0.5
n 
d i + =  (vij − v j + ) 2  i = 1, 2,  m, (7)
 j =1 
0.5
n 
d i − =  (vij − v j − ) 2  i = 1, 2,  m. (8)
 j =1 
5. Calculating relative proximity of vi to ideal solution. This relative proximity is defined as Eq. (9):
CLi + = d i − / d i − + d i +  . (8)
It is observed that in case vi = v + then d i+ = 0 and CL+i = 1 and in case vi = v − then d i = 0 and
CL+i = 0 . Therefore, the closer vi to ideal solution generates the closer CL+i the unit.
6. Ranking of aternatives. Based on the descending order of CL+i , one can rank the available
alternatives of the assumed problem.

5. MODEL OF BLASTING PATTERNS EVALUATION IN SUNGUN COPPER MINE USING

TOPSIS METHOD
For selecting the most economical and appropriate blasting pattern in terms of technical concepts
implementing TOPSIS method, in first stage all alternatives and decision attributes are determined.
Table 2 indicates specified decision attributes. Relative comparison of different attributes is illustrated
in Fig. 2.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 SELECTING THE MOST SUITABLE BLASTING PATTERN USING AHP–TOPSIS METHOD 971

Table 2. Determined attributes for selecting most appropriate blasting pattern

This parameter has been shown with PF in the second column in Table 3. It is necessary to note
Powder factor
that since the cost of explosive should be minimized, it is regarded as a negative attribute. It means
that blasting system should be inclined to decrease it.
It is marked with SD in the third column of Table 3. This attribute is regarded as negative index
Specific drilling like PF. Although increase of specific drilling improves fragmentation, drilling expenses are
increased to great extent.
This index has been given in the fourth column of the Table 3. It has been marked with F. The
Flyrock
smaller number indicates suitable arrangement of the pattern.
Back break is the maximum distance of crack propagation in back of last blast row. It is regarded
Back break
as negative attribute and is shown with BB in the fifth column of Table 3.
It is the last index which has been shown with letter K in Table 3. This index is considered as a
Fragmentation negative parameter because the goal is to decrease fragmentation dimensions by aiming at
reduction of the future costs.

Fig. 2. Comparison values of attributes in different patterns: (a) powder factor; (b) specific drilling; (c) flyrock; (d) back
break; (e) fragmentation.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 972 YARI et al.

Hierarchal structure of problem is shown in Fig. 3. In order to solve Multi Attribute Decision
Making problem, it is necessary to form decision making matrix. Table 3 consists of six columns and
28 rows. All attributes expressed as a real numeric value that has been measured in mine
systematically. The first column is number of the operated patterns which should be ranked. Other
columns relate to the attributes including powder factor (column 2), specific drilling (column 3), fly
rock (column 4), back break (column 5) and mean fragmentation size (column 6).
In next step, in order to evaluate weight of the attributes applying AHP method, it is necessary to
take pairs of attributes. This was done by collecting 20 expert’s views and the rest is done in Excel
Software considering large amount of information after recording views and calculating their
consistency rate and synthesizing them logically (Table 4). Weighting diagonal matrix can be
observed as:
0.19 0 0 0 0 
 0 0.31 0 0 0 

Wn* n =  0 0 0.05 0 0  .
 
 0 0 0 0.12 0 
 0 0 0 0 0.33

Pattern 1

Pattern 2 Powder factor

Pattern 3 Specific drilling

Pattern 4
Flyrock Most appropriate blasting pattern
Pattern 5
Back break
Pattern 6
Fragmentation
Pattern 7 . . . 26

Pattern 27

Fig. 3. Hierarchical structure of decision problem.

Table 3. Decision matrix
PF, SD, PF, SD, K,
Pattern F, m BB, m K, cm Pattern F, m BB, m
kg/m3 m/m3 kg/m3 m/m3 cm
Pattern 1 0.36 0.05 72 2.5 31.0 Pattern 15 0.59 0.0 80 5.5 24.7
Pattern 2 0.34 0.05 75 2.0 31.5 Pattern 16 0.40 0.0 75 3.0 30.0
Pattern 3 0.42 0.05 76 3.0 30.0 Pattern 17 0.59 0.0 80 5.0 24.7
Pattern 4 0.43 0.05 76 3.0 31.0 Pattern 18 0.59 0.0 80 5.0 24.6
Pattern 5 0.40 0.05 75 3.0 32.0 Pattern 19 0.59 0.0 82 5.5 24.9
Pattern 6 0.41 0.05 76 3.0 29.0 Pattern 20 0.52 0.0 79 5.0 26.3
Pattern 7 0.38 0.05 75 2.0 30.1 Pattern 21 0.54 0.0 79 5.0 25.7
Pattern 8 0.59 0.07 80 5.0 24.7 Pattern 22 0.34 0.0 73 2.0 31.0
Pattern 9 0.85 0.09 85 9.0 20.8 Pattern 23 0.52 0.0 78 5.0 26.7
Pattern 10 0.37 0.05 74 2.0 30.2 Pattern 24 0.34 0.0 73 2.0 31.6
Pattern 11 0.40 0.05 76 3.0 31.0 Pattern 25 0.52 0.0 79 5.0 26.8
Pattern 12 0.59 0.06 78 5.5 24.7 Pattern 26 0.46 0.0 75 4.0 28.2
Pattern 13 0.59 0.07 81 5.5 24.6 Pattern 27 0.37 0.0 74 2.0 30.0
Pattern 14 0.40 0.05 76 3.0 30.0

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 SELECTING THE MOST SUITABLE BLASTING PATTERN USING AHP–TOPSIS METHOD 973

+
Table 4. Results of TOPSIS model and final ranking considering CLi values
Pattern number Rank Pattern number Rank Pattern number Rank
Pattern 1 8 Pattern 10 3 Pattern 19 26
Pattern 2 9 Pattern 11 12 Pattern 20 16
Pattern 3 11 Pattern 12 21 Pattern 21 17
Pattern 4 13 Pattern 13 24 Pattern 22 5
Pattern 5 14 Pattern 14 7 Pattern 23 18
Pattern 6 4 Pattern 15 25 Pattern 24 10
Pattern 7 2 Pattern 16 6 Pattern 25 19
Pattern 8 23 Pattern 17 20 Pattern 26 15
Pattern 9 27 Pattern 18 22 Pattern 27 1

Fig. 4. Weights of attributes.

Thirdly, decision matrix has been converted to dimensionless matrix as normalized decision matrix
using Eq. (1). Norm method has been used for converting decision matrix to a normalized matrix.
Next step is calculating weighted normalized matrix using calculated weights (Fig. 4). Results show
that fragmentation size and cost of drilling have significant impact on evaluation of blasting patterns.
After applying all mentioned stages of TOPSIS technique on weighted normalized matrix results
show that pattern number 27 with burden of 3 m, spacing of 4 m and stemming rate of 3.2 m is the
most proper blasting pattern for Sungun copper mine.
CONCLUSION
Blasting operation in mines is regarded as one of the most important operation considering
technical, economic and safety effects. Also blasting is impactful operation on all next mining stages.
Necessity of suitable management and design of blasting patterns in attention to all effective factors is
obvious. MADM methods are regarded as the useful methods for evaluating blasting patterns because
it will be very difficult to make decision about the most suitable blasting pattern. This complexity is
due to variety of the operated blasting patterns and the plurality of attributes which have dramatic
effects on evaluation of blasting patterns. Among different patterns, TOPSIS model which is one of
the most applicable methods of MADM has been used to evaluate and rank blasting patterns in
Sungun copper mine. Based on the results of TOPSIS technique, pattern 27 with burden of 3 m,
spacing of 4 m and stemming rate of 3.2 m were selected as the most suitable blasting pattern for
Sungun copper mine.
REFERENCES
1. Hudaverdi, T., Application of Multivariate Analysis for Prediction of Blast-Induced Ground Vibrations,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2012, vol. 43, pp. 300–308.
2. Monjezi, M. and Rezaei, M., Developing a New Fuzzy Model to Predict Burden from Rock
Geomechanical Properties, Expert Systems with Applications, 2011, vol. 38, pp. 9266–9273.
3. Kecojevic, V. and Radomsky, M., Flyrock Phenomena and Area Security in Blasting-Related Accidents,
Safety Science, 2005, vol. 43, pp. 739–750.
4. Inanloo Arabi Shad, H. and Ahangari, K., An Empirical Relation to Calculate the Proper Burden in Blast
Design of Open Pit Mines Based on Modification of the Konya Relation, Int. J. Rock Mechanics Mining
Sciences, 2013, vol. 56, pp. 121–126.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

974 YARI et al.

5. Monjezi, M., Amini Khoshalan, H., and Yazdian Varjani, A., Optimization of Open pit Blast Parameters
using Genetic Algorithm, Int. J. Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences, 2011a, vol. 48, pp. 864–869.
6. Sanchidrián, J., Segarra, P., and López, L., A Practical Procedure for the Measurement of Fragmentation
by Blasting by Image Analysis, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2006, vol. 39, pp. 359–382.
7. Ghasemi, E., Sari, M., and Ataei, M., Development of an Empirical Model for Predicting the Effects of
Controllable Blasting Parameters on Flyrock Distance in Surface Mines, Int. J. Rock Mechanics Mining
Sciences, 2012b, vol. 52, pp. 163–170.
8. Michaux, S. and Djordjevic, N., Influence of Explosive Energy on the Strength of the Rock Fragments and
SAG Mill Throughput, Minerals Engineering, 2005, vol 18, pp. 439–448.
9. Kulatilake, P., Qiong, W., Hudaverdi, T., and Kuzu, C., Mean Particle Size Prediction in Rock Blast
Fragmentation Using Neural Networks, Engineering Geology, 2010, vol. 114, pp. 298–311.
10. Morin, M.A. and Ficarazzo, F., Monte Carlo Simulation as a Tool to Predict Blasting Fragmentation Based
on the Kuz–Ram Model, Computers & Geosciences, 2006, vol 32, pp. 352–359.
11. Stojadinović, S., Pantović, R., and Žikić, M., Prediction of Flyrock Trajectories for Forensic Applications
Using Ballistic Flight Equations, Int. J. Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences, 2011, vol. 48, pp. 1086–1094.
12. Amini, H., Gholami, R., Monjezi, M., Torabi, S.R., and Zadhesh, J., Evaluation of Flyrock Phenomenon
due to Blasting Operation by Support Vector Machine, Neural Computing & Applications, 2011, nos. 1–9.
13. Bajpayee, T., Bhatt, S.K., Rehak, T.R., Engineer, G., Mowrey, G.L., and Ingram, D.K., Fatal Accidents
due to Flyrock and Lack of Blast Area Security and Working Practices in Mining, Journal of Mines,
Metals and Fuels, 2003, vol. 51, pp. 344–349.
14. Bajpayee, T., Rehak, T., Mowrey, G., and Ingram, D., A Summary of Fatal Accidents Due to Flyrock and
Lack of Blast Area Security in Surface Mining, 1989 to 1999, Proc. Annual Conf. Explosives and Blasting
Technique, 2002, pp. 105–118.
15. Bajpayee, T., Rehak, T., Mowrey, G., and Ingram, D., Blasting Injuries in Surface Mining with Emphasis
on Flyrock and Blast Area Security, Journal of Safety Research, 2004a, vol. 35, pp. 47–57.
16. Bajpayee, T., Verakis, H., and Lobb, T., An Analysis and Prevention of Flyrock Accidents in Surface
Blasting Operations, Proc. Annual Conf. Explosives and Blasting Technique, 2004 b, pp. 401–410.
17. Ghasemi, E., Amini, H., Ataei, M., and Khalokakaei, R., Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques
for Predicting the Flyrock Distance Caused by Blasting Operation, Arab. J Geosciences, 2012a,
vol. 7, pp. 1–10.
18. Little, T. and Blair, D., Mechanistic Monte Carlo Mmodels for Aanalysis of Flyrock Risk, Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, 2010, vol. 9, pp. 641–647.
19. Monjezi, M., Amini Khoshalan, H., and Yazdian Varjani, A., Prediction of Flyrock and Backbreak in
Open Pit Blasting Operation: A Neuro-Genetic Approach, Arab. J Geosciences, 2012, vol. 5, pp. 441-448.
20. Monjezi, M., Bahrami, A., Varjani, A.Y., Sayadi, A.R., Prediction and Controlling of Flyrock in Blasting
Operation Using Artificial Neural Network, Arab. J Geosciences, 2011b, vol. 4, pp. 421–425.
21. Ning, K., Prevention Measures for Controlling Flyrock in Engineering Blasting, Blasting, 1999.
22. Rehak, T., Bajpayee, T., Mowrey, G., Ingram, D., Flyrock Issues in Blasting, Proc. ISEE–1999,
2001, pp. 165–176.
23. Rezaei, M., Monjezi, M., and Yazdian Varjani, A., Development of a Fuzzy Model to Predict Flyrock in
Surface Mining, Safety Science, 2011, vol. 49, pp. 298–305.
24. Tota, E.W., Mudge, K., Branson, J.W., Georgiou, P.N., Gavrilovic, M. and Watson, J.D., Method and
Apparatus for Flyrock Control in Small Charge Blasting, Google Patents, 2001.
25. Gate, W., Ortiz, B., and Florez, R., Analysis of Rockfall and Blasting Backbreak Problems, Paper
ARMA/USRMS, Proc. American Rock Mechanics Conf., 2005.
26. Khandelwal, M., and Monjezi, M., Prediction of Backbreak in Open-Pit Blasting Operations Using the
Machine Learning Method, J. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2012, vol 46, pp 389-396.
27. Monjezi, M. and Dehghani, H., Evaluation of Effect of Blasting Pattern Parameters on Back Break Using
Neural Networks, Int. J Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2008, vol. 45, pp. 1446–1453.
28. Monjezi, M., Rezaei, M., and Yazdian, A., Prediction of Backbreak in Open-Pit Blasting Using Fuzzy Set
Theory, Expert Systems with Applications, 2010b, vol. 37, pp. 2637–2643.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 SELECTING THE MOST SUITABLE BLASTING PATTERN USING AHP–TOPSIS METHOD 975

29. Ak, H., Iphar, M., Yavuz, M., and Konuk, A., Evaluation of Ground Vibration Effect of Blasting
Operations in a Magnesite Mine, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2009, vol. 29, pp. 669–676.
30. Shuran, L. and Shujin, L., Applying BP Neural Network Model to Forecast Peak Velocity of Blasting
Ground Vibration, Procedia Engineering, 2011, vol. 26, pp. 257–263.
31. Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., Siamaki, A., and Soltani, S., Design of Blasting Pattern in
Proportion to the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): Artificial Neural Networks Approach, Safety Science,
2012, vol. 50, pp. 1913-1916, (2012).
32. Dehghani, H. and Ataee-Pour, M., Development of a Model to Predict Peak Particle Velocity in a Blasting
Operation, Int. J. Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2011, vol. 48, pp. 51–58.
33. Monjezi, M., Ahmadi, M., Sheikhan, M., Bahrami, A., and Salimi, A., Predicting Blast-Induced Ground
Vibration Using Various Types of Neural Networks, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2010a,
vol. 30, pp. 1233–1236.
34. Guosheng, Z., Jiang, L., and Kui, Z., Structural Safety Criteria for Blasting Vibration Based on Wavelet
Packet Energy Spectra, Mining Science and Technology (China), 2011, vol. 21, pp. 35–40.
35. Ak, H. and Konuk, A., The Effect of Discontinuity Frequency on Ground Vibrations Produced from Bench
Blasting: A Case Study, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2008, vol. 28, pp. 686–694.
36. Iphar, M., Yavuz, M., and Ak, H., Prediction of Ground Vibrations Resulting from the Blasting
Operations in an Open-Pit Mine by Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System, Environ. Geol., 2008,
vol. 56, pp. 97–107.
37. Monjezi, M., Ghafurikalajahi, M., and Bahrami, A., Prediction of Blast-Induced Ground Vibration Using
Artificial Neural Networks, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2011c, vol. 26, pp. 46–50.
38. Bazzazi, A., Osanloo, M., and Karimi, B., A New Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making Model For Open
Pit Mines Equipment Selection, Asia-Pacific J. Operational Research, 2011, vol. 28, pp. 279–300.
39. Bazzazi, A., Osanloo, M., and Soltanmohammadi, H., Loading-Haulage Equipment Selection in Open Pit
Mines Based on Fuzzy-TOPSIS Method, Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi, 2008, vol. 24.
40. Bejari, H., Shahriar, K., Hamidi, J.K., and Shirazi, M.A., Optimal Tunneling Method Selection Using
Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Technique, ISRM Int. Asian Rock Mechanics Symp., 2010.
41. Guoliang, Z. and Sijing, C., The Application of Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation and TOPSIS Approach
to Selection of Optimum Underground Mining Method, 2nd Int. Conf. IEEE, 2010, pp. 6233–6237.
42. Hekmat, A., Osanloo, M., and Shirazi, A., New Approach for Selection of Waste Dump Sites in Open Pit
Mines, Mining Technology, 2008, vol. 117, pp. 24–31.
43. Lashgari, A., Fouladgar, M.M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., and Skibniewski, M.J., Using an Integrated Model
for Shaft Sinking Method Selection, J. Civil Engineering and Management, 2011, vol. 17, pp. 569–580.
44. Lashgari, A., Yazdani, A., and Sayadi, A., Methods for Equipments Selection in Surface Mining:
Review, 2010.
45. Lashgari, A., Yazdani–Chamzini, A., et al., Equipment Selection Using Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision
Making Model: Key Study of Gole Gohar Iron Mine, Engineering Economics, 2012, vol. 23, pp. 125–136.
46. Mikaeil, R., Naghadehi, M.Z., Ataei, M., and KhaloKakaie, R., A Decision Support System Using Fuzzy
Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and TOPSIS Approaches for Selection of the Optimum
Underground Mining Method, Archives of Mining Sciences, 2009, vol. 54, pp. 341–368.
47. Namin, F.S., Shahriar, K., Ataee-pour, M., and Dehghani, H., A New Model for Mining Method Selection
of Mineral Deposit Based on Fuzzy Decision Making, 2008.
48. Yazdani-Chamzini, A. and Yakhchali, S.H., Handling Equipment Selection in Open Pit Mines by Using an
Integrated Model Based on Group Decision Making, Int. J. Industr. Eng., 2012, vol. 3, pp. 907-924.
49. Pazand, K., Hezarkhani, A., and Ataei, M., Using TOPSIS Approaches for Predictive Porphyry Cu
Potential Mapping: A Case Study in Ahar-Arasbaran Area (NW, Iran), Computers & Geosciences, 2012.
50. Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G., Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process, Springer, 2001.
51. Saaty, T.L., Highlights and Critical Points in the Theory and Application of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 1994, vol. 74, pp. 426–447.
52. Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K., Multiple Attribute Decision Maniking Methids and Applications: A State-of-
the-Art Survey, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013