Prediction of Ground Vibration by Statistical and Artificial

Intelligence Approaches - A Comparative Study

By Gyana Ranjan Tripathy and Prakash K. Palei, Vibration Technology Division, Central Water and Power
Research Station, Pune- 411 024, Maharashtra, India Corresponding Author’s E-mail ID: prakash.palei@gmail.com,
grtripathy@yahoo.co.in

Abstract
Ground vibration is an integral part of the rock blasting process which may cause damages to the
nearby structures located surrounding the blasting area. The peak particle velocity (PPV) associ-
ated with blast-induced ground vibration is the most suitable parameter for correlating damage
potential of blast-induced ground vibration. Thus, its prediction plays important role for smoothly
conducting the blasting operations. The PPV largely depends on quantity of charge weight per de-
lay, distance between the blast and observation points and the properties of the transmitting media.
In this research work, a comparative study has been carried out for prediction of safe charge weight
per delay for various distances by commonly used statistical equations, multiple linear regressions
as well as by ANN technique. The blast data collected from a basaltic region in an urban area has
been used for testing of the model. In the ANN model, the distance from the blasting site to the
monitoring stations, depth of hole and the maximum charge weight per delay were selected as the
input parameters of the constructed model, the output parameter was the PPV as the vibration
indicator. Results indicated that the ANN model with 10-5-1 configuration, sigmoid transfer func-
tion in hidden layer and linear transfer function in output layer gives the best correlation between
predicted and actual values, with overall correlation coefficient (R) of 0.95. It can predict the PPV
with acceptable mean -squared error (MSE) of 0.0029. The results in this study indicated that
ANN is a reliable technique to predict the PPV due to blasting.

Keywords: Ground Vibration, Intelligent technique, Empirical relation, Artificial neural network,
Vibration level

1. Introduction the acceptable level by suitably designing the blast-

Blasting is one of the most widely used methods
for rock excavation in mining and civil engineering
projects. The previously reported results (Ebrahim
et.al.; 2012) suggest that only 20–30% of explosive
energy is utilized for breaking and moving the rock
while the rest causes ground vibration, air blast,
noise, fly rock, back breaks, etc. Ground vibration
is considered as the most important unwanted ef-
fects of blasting having potential to cause damage
surrounding structures and creates annoyances to
people living nearby (Hakan et. al.; 2009). Though
during blasting ground vibrations cannot be com-
pletely eliminated, but it can be controlled within
ing pattern. Since excessive blast-induced ground
vibration has potential to adversely affect the safety
and integrity impact on rock mass as well as nearby
structures, accurate method for prediction of PPV
at different distances from known charge weight
per delay plays very significant role in completing
blasting operation safely in thickly populated ur-
ban areas.
The PPV associated with blast induced ground vi-
brations depends on many factors, which can be
broadly divided into two categories such as con-
trollable and uncontrollable parameters. Control-

Prediction of Ground Vibration by Statistical and

Artificial Intelligence Approaches - A Comparative Study | 1
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
lable parameters can be changed while uncontrol-
lable parameters cannot be changed. Various blast
design parameters like maximum charge weight
per delay, charge per hole, depth of hole, distance
from blast site to the observation point, number of
holes in a blast, total delay in milliseconds, etc. are
considered as controllable parameters, whereas ge-
ology of the site, topography, rock properties, etc.
are considered as uncontrollable parameters (Mo-
hamed, 2009). It is an established fact that ground
vibration is directly related to the maximum quan-
tity of explosive used per delay and inversely to the
distance between the face of the blast to the moni-
toring point (Khandelwal and Singh, 2009).
Peak particle velocity (PPV) has been mostly con-
sidered as the main parameter responsible for caus-
ing damage to the nearby structures. Most of the
available damage criteria are mainly based on the
PPV (mm/s) (Nateghi, 2012). Predicting the blast
induced ground vibration through the ground is an
uphill task due to the complex behavior of the rock.
In spite of these difficulties, reasonable assessments
of blast-induced ground vibration can be made
with some of the empirical, statistical and artificial
intelligent techniques. Several empirical equations
have been developed by various researchers (Duvall
and Fogleson, 1962; Duvall et al., 1963; Langefors
and Kihlstrom, 1963; Birch and Chaffer, 1983;
Davies et al., 1964; Ghosh and Daemen, 1983;
Ambraseys and Hendron, 1968; Bureau of Indian
Standard, 1973 and Siskind et al., 1980) for pre-
diction of PPV. All the predictors estimate the PPV
by using the maximum charge per delay and the
distance between blast face and monitoring point.
There is no uniformity in the predicted result as
they are based on different assumptions. Different
predictors give different values of PPV for same
amount of charge per delays in the same operating
area. Therefore in the past several years, soft com-
puting technique, artificial neural networks (ANN)
have been used by the researchers for the prediction
of ground vibration (Khandelwal, 2010).
ANN is a branch of the artificial intelligence and
has been extensively used for the modeling and
2 | Gyana Ranjan Tripathy and Prakash K. Palei
optimization since 1980s. Due to imprecision and
uncertainties in predicting real world problems,
ANN techniques have become increasingly useful.
ANN model is normally much faster and less com-
plex compared to most of the conventional simula-
tion methodology models (Motevali et al., 2012).
It can model based on no assumptions concerning
the nature of the phenomenological mechanisms,
and understand the mathematical background of
problem (Fathi et al., 2011). This method is ca-
pable of developing the relationship between the
inputs and outputs of a process. This method is
also computationally inexpensive and easy to use.
ANN can also help to overcome the limits of the
empirical equations in predicting the ground vibra-
tion. The neural network approach could predict
the test data consistently with reasonable accuracy.
Recently, ANN has been extensively used to predict
blast induced ground vibrations by several research-
ers (Yong et. al., 2005, Khandelwal et. al., 2007,
Mohammad, 2009, Monjezi et al., 2011, Deh-
ghani and Ataee-pour, 2011, Amnieh et al., 2010,
2012;). Yong et. al. (2005) studied the effect of var-
ious parameters on ground vibration and predicted
the blast-induced ground vibration by applying the
ANN technique. Khandelwal et. al. (2007)  used
ANN technique to predict PPV at a magnesite
mine in India and compared their findings with
commonly used predictors. They also studied blast
vibration and frequency using rock, blast design
and explosive parameters by ANN technique and
compared their findings with multivariate regres-
sion analysis (Khandelwal and Singh, 2006). Mo-
hammad (2009)  used several ANN models and
observed that with the increase in number of input
data the capability of ANN to predict PPV can be
improved. Monjezi et al. (2011) developed an ANN
model to predict PPV at Siahbisheh project in Iran,
using maximum charge per delay, distance from
the blasting face to the monitoring point, stem-
ming length and hole depth as input parameters
and compared their results with empirical models
and multivariate regression analysis. By sensitiv-
ity analysis, they found that the distance from the
blasting face is the most effective and the stemming

is the least effective parameter on the PPV.  Deh-
ghani and Ataee-pour (2011) developed a model to
predict PPV using dimensional analysis.  Monjezi
et al. (2013) proposed an ANN-based solution for
prediction of PPV at Shur River dam, Iran. Several
other researchers also predicted PPV and frequency
based on ANN models (Amnieh et al., 2010, 2012;
Alvarez-Vigil et al., 2012; Mohamadnejad et al.,
2012; Maryam  Amir et. al., 2016) and obtained
better results compared to conventional methods.
Hence, from the above literature survey, it can be
concluded the ANN is a very versatile and efficient
method for the prediction of PPV. Though several
studies have been conducted to predict the ground
vibrations by ANN technique but they are mostly
in the mining areas. However, there are hardly any
reports on the application of ANN technique for
prediction of ground vibration in the construc-
tion projects especially very close to the residential
buildings where the ground vibration characteris-
tics are significantly different from those observed
at mining projects. This is due to the fact that the
ground vibrations observed from mining blasts are
characterized by small amplitude, low frequency
and long duration while those from construction
blasts have comparatively larger amplitude with
very high frequency content, shorter duration of
motion having little potential to produce structural
response amplifications (Tripathy et. al. 2016).
Therefore, in the present study an attempt has
been made to apply ANN technique for predicting
the PPV in a construction project where trenches
have been constructed for providing underground
utilities. The most widely used predictor equations
have also been used to predict the PPV and the
estimated results have been compared with actual
field data. The same input–output data sets have
also been used for the prediction of PPV by ANN
technique. Here, the maximum charge per delay,
depth of hole and distance from blast site to moni-
toring point has been taken as input parameters
and the measured value of PPV as output param-
eter. The main objective of the study was to test the
suitability of the ANN model for the prediction of
PPV over the widely used predictors.
Artificial Intelligence Approaches - A Comparative Studyle | 3
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
2. Site Description and
Data Collection
Ground vibration data was collected for prediction
of safe charge weight per delay for various distances
during development of an integrated residential
township in one of most thickly populated urban
area in India, Mumbai. The township consists of
about 150 multistoried residential buildings. In or-
der to provide underground utilities in this town-
ship, trenches are required to be excavated in the
close proximity of these buildings. The rock forma-
tion at the site being hard basalt, blasting was used
for excavation of trenches. The nearest distance
between the buildings and proposed trenches were
about 3.0 m and longest distances may be about
15.0 m. Fifteen test blasts were conducted at the
site using 33 mm diameter jack hammer holes with
depths varying from 1.2 m (4 ft) to 2.4 m (8 ft). 25
mm diameter and 20 cm long cartridge explosive
each weighing 0.125 kg was used with non-elec-
trical delay detonators with in-hole delay of 450
ms and surface delay of 25 ms for test blasts. The
charge weights used per delay varied from 0.125 kg
to 0.438 kg and total charge per blast varied from
0.75 kg to 10.06 kg. The ground vibrations gener-
ated due to the blasts were recorded near the build-
ing as well as on exposed rock, at different distances
varying from 3 m to 36.3 m. Parameters, such as
hole diameter, hole depth, burden, spacing, charge
length and charge per delay were collected from the
blasting site. Distance from the monitoring point
to blasting face was also measured in the field prior
to blast.
3. Empirical Methods for Prediction
of PPV
In order to compare the amplitude of the ground
vibration produced by blasting, scaled distance
(SD) laws were developed by several investigators
(Duvall and Fogelson, 1962; Langefors–Kihlstrom
1978, Ambraseys–Hendron 1968, Bureau of In-
dian Standard (BIS), (1973)). Table 1 shows the
empirical blast-induced ground vibration predic-
tor equations proposed by various researchers. The
Prediction of Ground Vibration by Statistical and
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Table1. Different predictors along with the values of K and β.

Figure 1. Log–log plots between PPV and scaled distance for various models.

4 | Gyana Ranjan Tripathy and Prakash K. Palei

 Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Figure 2. Graphs between measured and predicted PPV values by various predictors.

values of site constants K and β are calculated by 4. Multiple Linear Regression

plotting the graph between PPV and SD on log–
log scale and are shown in table 1. Figure 1 shows
the log–log plots between PPV and different SDs.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between measured
and predicted values of PPVs by various SD laws.
The higher coefficient of determination for USBM
(The United States Bureau of Mines) and Ambre-
seys–Henderson predictors indicates that these
equations have better prediction capability over
Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) and Langefors–
Kihlstrom predictors.
Analysis
Multiple linear regression (MLR) is an extension of
simple linear regression. MLR is a method which is
mostly used to establish the relationship between a
dependent variable and one or more independent
variables. In MLR, the model is fitted such that
the sum of squares of differences of predicted and
measured values are minimized. In the present case
MLR has been applied for the prediction of PPV.
MLR is given by the following equation (Scheaffer
et al., 2011):

Prediction of Ground Vibration by Statistical and

Artificial Intelligence Approaches - A Comparative Studyle | 5
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
Equation 1.
where Y is the predicted variable, Xi (i= 1, 2, . . .,
n) are the predictors, β0 is called intercept, βi (i=1,
2, . . ., P) is the coefficient on the ith predictor and
e is the error associated with the predictor. The ap-
plication of this method resulted in the following
equation:
Equation 2.
Where D is the hole depth and Q is the charge wt.
per delay and R is the distance between the ob-
servation point and blast face. The coefficient of
determination for predicted and measured values
of PPV is 0.0.31. Figure 3 shows the plot of mea-
sured and predicted PPVs by MLR.
Figure 3. Graph between measured and predicted PPVs by
MLR.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the ANN model.
6 | Gyana Ranjan Tripathy and Prakash K. Palei
5. Overview of Artificial Neural
Network
ANN is a mathematical model which is motivated
by the biological neural networks. It is an informa-
tion-processing system which tries to mimicry the
human brain. Unlike classical Artificial Intelligence
(AI) systems that are aimed at directly imitating
rational and logical reasoning. The information
is processed in ANN by using simple intercon-
nected elements called neurons which are located
in separate layers of the network. Practically, ANN
provides accurate approximation for both linear as
well as non-linear functions (Hendrik et. al. 2005).
A multilayer perceptron (MLP) is a feed forward
back propagation ANN model which maps input
data onto a set of apposite output data. An MLP
consists of at least three layers: input layer, output
layer, and hidden layer(s) (Monjezi et al. 2012b)
with each layer completely connected to the next
layer. The number of hidden layers and neurons in
each layer is decided by the complexity of the prob-
lem to be solved (Monjezi et al., 2011). The lines
between the nodes indicate the flow of information
from one node to the next.
The schematic diagram of the process at each
node is shown in figure 6. It is very much possible
for ANN to learn the behavior of the input data
and consequently make useful decisions despite
the presence of noise or incomplete information.
Typically, a neural network is trained to perform
a particular function by adjusting weight values
between the neurons as shown in figure 4. The

neural network function is mainly determined by
the connections between the elements. ANN can
make accurate predictions by observing the trend
of the data. Unlike MLR and regression method,
the ANN technique has the ability to predict fu-
ture trends.
The execution of the ANN model has been de-
scribed as follows. Prior to interpreting new infor-
mation, the ANN model needs to be trained. Vari-
ous learning algorithms have been recommended
for training of neural networks, out of them Back
Propagation Algorithm (BPA) is the most versatile
and robust technique which provides the most ef-
ficient learning procedure for MLP networks (Ar-
maghani et. al. 2014). BPAs are capable of solving
predictive problems which makes them very pop-
ular (Khandelwal and Singh, 2009). Rumelhart
proposed back propagation algorithm (BPA) for
training of the MLP networks and determination
of weights for the first time in 1986, (Bakhshan-
deh Amnieh et al. 2010). In this technique, the
strengths or weights of the inter neuron connec-
tions are adjusted based on the difference between
the predicted and actual outputs. In a feed-forward
BP algorithm, the signals flow from input layer to
the output layer, called forward pass, then the pre-
Table 2. Prediction of PPV by ANN method with one hidden layer.
Table 3. Prediction of PPV by ANN method with two hidden layers.
Artificial Intelligence Approaches - A Comparative Studyle | 7
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
dicted output is compared to the actual measured
values and the error is calculated. The obtained er-
ror is propagated back through the network to up-
date the individual weights, called backward pass.
In this process, both the training and the testing
errors are reduced. This process is repeated until
the error is converged to a level defined by mean
square error (MSE) or root mean squared error
(RMSE) (Simpson 1990; Kosko 1994; Singh et
al. 2004). This type of ANN technique has been
successfully applied in various types of engineering
problems (Tonnizam Mohamad et al.,2012; Jahed
Armaghani et al., 2014). However, an experimen-
tal database including sufficient number of datasets
is required to train the ANN models.
6. Prediction of PPV by ANN
The prediction performance of ANN method
strongly depends on the architecture of the se-
lected network. Therefore, selecting the optimum
network architecture is very much essential in de-
signing ANN models. In ANN, for network con-
struction, the number of hidden layers and the
number of nodes in each hidden layer should be
determined. However, these numbers are related
to the number of input and output parameters. In
Prediction of Ground Vibration by Statistical and
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
the present case, depth of hole, charge weight per
delay and distance between the monitoring point
and blast face were considered as inputs. For ANN
modeling, all 68 datasets were divided into train-
ing, validation and testing datasets. In this regard,
80% of the datasets (48 datasets) were assigned for
training purposes while the other 10% (10 datas-
ets) were used for testing and 10% (10 data sets)
were used for validation of the of the network. It
is to be noted that, while developing the predic-
tive model, the data were normalized to values be-
tween -1 and 1. In the present study, the network
has been trained with various combinations of
transfer functions as well as number of neurons in
the hidden layers. The results are listed in table 2
Figure 5. Coefficient of correlation for the training, validation, testing and overall data sets.
8 | Gyana Ranjan Tripathy and Prakash K. Palei
and 3. However, better performance was obtained
for the network with two hidden layers and one
output layer. In the hidden layers Sigmoid Tangent
function has been used. A linear transfer function
is used in the output layer. The Levenberg-Mar-
quardt (LM) algorithm technique is more powerful
than the other techniques therefore; LM algorithm
has been used in this network (Kisi & Uncuoğlu,
2005). The layers array of this network is in the
form {10 5 1} showed improved performance. Fig-
ure 5 illustrates the correlation coefficient (R) for
the proposed ANN model for training, test, valida-
tion and overall data.

7. Comparison of Results
Figure 6 illustrates the comparison between the
experimental values of PPV with the predicted one
by different predictors, MLR and ANN method.
Here, the PPV values predicted by ANN closely
match with the measured PPV values whereas the
other predictors fail to predict the values with that
much accuracy. Hence, if the safe charge of explo-
sive is estimated using these predictors, then this
is going to give more trouble in controlling the
ground vibration. It may sometime under estimate
or over estimate the quantity of explosive.
8. Conclusions
In the present research work, peak particle veloc-
ity has been predicted by using ANN and various
widely used predictor equations. It has been ob-
served that prediction capability of ANN is better
than the predictor equations. The most advantage
Figure 6. Comparison of measured and predicted PPVs by various models.
Artificial Intelligence Approaches - A Comparative Studyle | 9
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
of using ANN for prediction of PPV is that it does
not follow the over fitting and under fitting law of
curves as in the case of vibration predictors. The
use of any predictor without validation may invite
further complication for smooth conduct of blast-
ing operations. This study also highlighted that all
predictor equations used in the paper are either
over estimating or under estimating the safe explo-
sive charge to keep the PPV under the safe limit.
Predictions by using both predictor equations and
multiple linear regression analysis are not appropri-
ate for the site where important residential build-
ings are very close to the excavation site. It has been
found that the ANN model with 10-5-1 configu-
ration, sigmoid transfer function in hidden layer
and linear transfer function in output layer gives
the best correlation between predicted and actual
values, with overall correlation coefficient (R) of
0.95. The results in this study indicated that ANN
can be applied to predict the PPV due to blasting
operations.
Prediction of Ground Vibration by Statistical and
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
9. Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Dr (Mrs.) V. V. Bhosekar,
Director, Central Water and Power Research Sta-
tion (CWPRS), Pune for the encouragement and
support to publish the paper. We also thank Shri A.
K. Ghosh, Scientist – D and In-charge, Vibration
Technology Division, CWPRS, Pune for the valu-
able suggestions and guidance during the prepara-
tion of the manuscript.
10. References
E. Ghasemi, M. Ataei and H. Hashemolhossei-
ni, Development of a fuzzy model for predicting
ground vibration caused by rock blasting in surface
mining, J. Vib. & Contl. 2012;:19(5) 755–770.
Hakan Ak, M. Iphar, M. Yavuz, A. Konuk, Evalu-
ation of ground vibration effect of blasting opera-
tions in a magnesite mine, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Engg.,
2009;29: 669–676.
G.R.Tripathy, R.R.Shirke and M.D.Kudale, Safety
of engineered structures against blast vibrations: A
case study, J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Engg., 2016;
8: 248-255.
G.R. Tripathy and I. D. Gupta, Prediction of
Ground Vibrations due to Construction Blasts in
Different Types of Rock, Rock Mech Rock Engg.,
2002; 35: 195.
M.T. Mohammad, Artificial neural network for
prediction and control of blasting vibration in As-
siut (Egypt) limestone quarry, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., 2009; 46(2):426–31
M. Khandelwal and T. N. Singh, Prediction of
blast induced ground vibrations and frequency
in opencast mine: a neural network approach, J.
Sound Vib., 2006; 289(4/5):711–25.
M. Khandelwal and T. N. Singh, Prediction of
blast-induced ground vibration using artificial
neural network, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,
2009;46(7):1214–1222.
10 | Gyana Ranjan Tripathy and Prakash K. Palei
R. Nateghi, Evaluation of blast induced ground
vibration for minimizing negative effects on sur-
rounding structures, Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, 43 (2012):pp.133–138.
A. Ghosh and J. K. Daemen, A simple new
blast vibration predictor (based on wave
propagation laws). In: proceedings of the
24th US symposium on rock mechanics,
Texas, USA, 1983; 151–161.
W. I. Duvall and D. E. Fogleson, Review of criteria
for estimating damage to residences from blasting
vibration, USBM-I, 1962; 5968.
N. R. Ambraseys and A. J. Hendron, Dynamic be-
haviour of rock masses, Rock mech. Engg. Prac-
tices, London: Wiley; 1968; 203–207.
U. Langefors and B. Kihlstrom, The Modern Tech-
nique of Rock Blasting, New York: Wiley, 1963.
Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS), Criteria for safety
and design of structures subjected to underground
blast, ISI Bull; IS-6922; 1973.
C.H. Dowding, Blast Vibration Moni-
toring and Control, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 1985; 297.
M. Khandelwal and T. N. Singh, Evaluation
of blast-induced ground vibration predictors,
Soil Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering,
2007; 27(2):116–25.
M. Monjezi, M. Hasanipanah and M. Khandel-
wal, Evaluation and prediction of blast-induced
ground vibration at Shur River Dam, Iran, by ar-
tificial neural network, Neural. Comput. Appl.,
2013; 22:1637-1643.
M. Ali, A. Ahmad, N. H. Gholam, M. Saeid and
G. Barat, Drying of jujube (zizyphus jujubemill)
fruit: comparison of prediction from mathematical
models and artificial neural networks, AJCS 2012;
6(2):210-218.

M. Fathi, M. Mohebbi, and S. Razavi,. Applica-
tion of image analysis and artificial neural network
to predict mass transfer kinetics and color changes
of osmotically dehydrated kiwifruit, Food and Bio-
process Technology, 2011; 4(8): 1357-1366.
Y. Lu , Underground blast induced ground shock
and its modelling using artificial neural network,
Computers and Geotechnics, 2005; 32( 3), 164-
178.
M. Monjezi, , M.G. kalajahi, A. Bahrami,. Predic-
tion of blast induced ground vibration using arti-
ficial neural networks, Tunnel. Under gr. Sp. Tech-
nol., 2011;26:46–50.
H. Dehghani, M. Ataee-pour, Development of a
model to predict peak particle velocity in a blasting
operation, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 2011; 48,
51-58.
H. B. Amnieh1, A. Mohammadi and M. Mozdian-
fard, Predicting peak particle velocity by artificial
neural networks and multivariate regression analy-
sis - Sarcheshmeh copper mine, Kerman, Iran, J.
Min. Environ., 2013; 4(2), 125-132.
A.E. Alvarez-Vigil, C. Gonzales-Nicieza, F. Lopez
Gayarre, M.I. Alvarez-Fernandez, Predicting blast-
ing propagation velocity and vibration frequency
using artificial neural network, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., 2012; 55, 108-116.
D. J. Armaghani, M. Hajihassani, E. T. Mohamad,
A. Marto, S. A. Noorani, Blasting-induced flyrock
and ground vibration prediction through an expert
artificial neural network based on particle swarm
optimization, Arab J Geosci, 2014; 7, 5383–5396
M. Mohamadnejad, R.Gholami, and M. Ataei, ().
Comparison of intelligence science techniques and
empirical methods for prediction of blasting vibra-
tions. Tunnelling Under gr. Space Technol., 2012;
28, 238-244.
Artificial Intelligence Approaches - A Comparative Studyle | 11
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018
A.T. Edwards and T.D. Northwood Experimental
studies of the effects of blasting on structures, The
Engineer, 1960; 210, 538-546.
J.M. Esteves, Control of vibrations caused by blast-
ing Memoria 409 Laboratorio de Engenharia Civil,
Ministerio de Habitacao e Obras Publicas, Lisbon,
Portugal (1978).
U. Langefors, B. KihlstromThe modern technique
of rock blasting, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1978;
405.
D.E. Siskind, M.S. Stagg, J.W. Koop and C.H.
Dowding, Structure response and damage pro-
duced by ground vibration from surface mine
blasting, US Bureau of Mines, 1980; 74.
H. L. Tolman, V. M. rasnopolsky,, D. V. Chalikov,
Neural network approximations for nonlinear in-
teractions in wind wave spectra: direct mapping for
wind seas in deep water, Ocean Modelling, 2005;
8, 253–278.
M. T. Hagan & M. Menhaj, Training Feed forward
Networks with the Marquardt Algorithm. IEEE
Transaction on Neural Networks, IEEE Trans Neu-
ral Networks, 1994; 5(6), 989-993.
Ö. Kişi & E. Uncuoğlu, Comparison of three
back-propagation training algorithms for two case
studies, Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials
Sciences, 2005; 12, 434-442.
Prediction of Ground Vibration by Statistical and
This page left intentionally blank.