Study into blast vibration and frequency using

ANFIS and MVRA

T. N. Singh*, L. K. Dontha and V. Bhardwaj
Blast induced ground vibration is a crucial parameter in determining safe charge levels and
minimising the damage to the surrounding structures. A number of empirical equations have been
proposed for prediction of peak particle velocity (PPV), but no empirical formula has yet been
established for the prediction of frequency. In order to minimise the blast damage and the
blasting related loss, it is important to study the parameters influencing blasting. In the present
case, the adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface system (ANFIS) model was used to predict the PPV and
frequency using blast design, rock properties and explosive parameters from the Northern Coal
Field open pit mine in MP, India. Results were also compared using multivariable regression
analysis (MVRA) to further prove prediction capability. The ANFIS approach shows very good
prediction capability for PPV and frequency. The coefficients of correlation between predicted
and measured PPV and frequency are 0?9986 and 0?9988 respectively.
Keywords: Frequency, ANFIS, MVRA, PPV

Introduction inference system (ANFIS) and the results have been

The demand for coal and other economic minerals has
increased manyfold due to rapid industrial development
of mineral based industries. Therefore, to bridge the gap
between demand and supply, the production from
surface mines is increasing at an unprecedented pace in
India. As drilling and blasting is still considered to be the
most economical and effective method to excavate the
rock mass there is a huge increase in the consumption of
explosives. When an explosive charge is detonated in a
blast hole, an enormous amount of energy is liberated in
the form of heat, gas, pressure and stress waves. This
explosive energy is not fully converted into mechanical
energy to fragment the rock mass into its desired size.
Only 25–30% of explosive energy is utilised for useful
work and the rest is wasted in the form of ground
vibrations, air blasts, back breaks, noise and fly rock,
etc. (Khandelwal et al., 2005; 2006; 2007). Among these,
the ground vibrations have the most detrimental effect
on the nearby structures like buildings, dams, roads
and natural slopes. Owing to environmental and safety
concern, various statutory measures have been suggested
to prevent or minimise the damages induced due to the
blast vibration. Frequency and peak particle velocity
(PPV) are considered and also accepted as the most
appropriate and accurate indicators for the assessment
of damages. In this paper, the effect of different blasting
parameters on ground vibration at different radial
distances has been analysed using adaptive neuro-fuzzy
Earth Sciences, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400076, India
*Corresponding author, email tnsingh@iitb.ac.in
compared using a widely used statistical method.
There are a number of predictors available to
calculate the PPV for a given geomining condition
(Table 1). These equations are mainly based on empiri-
cal relationship. In the statistical analysis, data sets are
analysed along a particular geometry, which may or may
not be favourable to understand the non-linearity
existing among various input parameters. By these
equations, good formulations among different blasting
parameters are achieved, but a unified solution where all
blasting parameters can be taken into account is yet to
be achieved. The frequency generated by the blast is
equally important for the assessment of damage to any
nearby structures. To date, no empirical formula is
available for the prediction of frequency induced due to
blasting.
The blast design parameters such as the ratio of
burden and spacing, explosive blasted per delay,
horizontal distance to the blast point, Young’s modulus,
P-wave velocity and velocity of detonation (VOD) are
taken as input parameters to predict the PPV and
frequency. A statistical relationship was established
among these parameters using multivariate regression
for the calculation of PPV and frequency and then was
compared with the results obtained by an ANFIS.
Ground vibration mechanism
Massive dynamic stresses are liberated when an explo-
sive charge is detonated in a blast hole. Generally, the
rock mass experiences an almost instantaneous accel-
eration due to the detonating pressure around the blast
hole. The stress wave transmitted to the surrounding
rock mass develops a wave motion in the ground. At
some distance from the explosion source, the inelastic

ß 2008 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 9 June 2007; accepted 4 January 2009
116 DOI 10.1179/037178409X405741 Mining Technology 2008 VOL 117 NO 3

processes and elastic effect are initiated. Only a part of
the total chemical energy released is converted into
mechanical energy or an elastic form. The elastic
disturbances which propagate away from the source
are termed seismic waves (Duvall and Petkof, 1959).
Seismic waves are mainly of two types, i.e. body waves
and surface waves. Body waves travel through the rock
mass and are further divided into primary or P-waves,
and secondary or S-waves. While surface waves travel
along the surface and are further divided into Rayleigh
or R-waves, Love or Q-waves and coupled waves. The
P-wave is a compression wave which alters the volume
of the body without altering its shape. Most blasts are
detonated as a series of smaller explosions which are
delayed by milliseconds and differences in travel path
and delay time result in overlapping of the arrival of
wave fronts and wave types (Bhandari, 1997). These
vibrations may induce a resonance in a structure where
the amplitude of resonance may exceed the amplitude of
the initial ground vibrations. McKenzie (1990) suggested
that the relative amplitude of ground vibration and
induced structural vibrations depend largely on the
match between frequency of the ground vibration and
the natural frequency of the structure. The resonance
generated in any structure would cause damage.
A number of factors influence the development, pro-
pagation, and intensity of ground vibrations. Broadly
these factors can be classified into two categories,
controlled and uncontrolled parameters. The most
important controllable parameters associated with the
characteristics of ground vibration are described by Wiss
and Linehan (1978). Uncontrollable parameters are
mainly geology, structural discontinuity and distance
to any structure from the blast site.
Ground vibrations
Ground vibration is directly related to the blast
geometry, rock properties and existing structure.
Burden is one of the most important factors which can
affect ground vibrations. Excessive burden is known to
increase ground vibration since explosive energy which
does not fragment rock may then generate ground
vibrations. Spacing, the distance between any two
adjacent blast holes in the same row, controls mutual
stress effects between those charges. It is generally
accepted that a burden to spacing ratio of more than one
increases fragmentation and decreases ground vibration
as explosive energy is mainly utilised in fragmentation
(Singh et al., 2004).
Explosive blasted per delay
Explosive blasted per delay is one of the most important
parameters relating to ground vibration. The ground
Table 1 Blast vibration predictor equations
Predictor equation Equations*
Duvall and Fogleson (1962) V5K(R/Qmax1/2)–B
Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) V5K(R/Qmax1/3)–B
Indian Standard predictor (1973) V5K(Qmax /R2/3)B
Ghosh and Daemen 1 (1983) V5K(D/Q1/2)–b e–rD
Ghosh and Daemen 2 (1983) V5K(D/Q1/3)–b e–rD
Rai and Singh (2004) V5KR–BQmaxe–a
*V5 PPV (mm s21); D, R5distance between blast site and
structure (m); Q5maximum safe charge in kg per delay; B, b, K
and r are empirical constants; a5energy factor.
Singh et al. Study into blast vibration and frequency using ANFIS and MVRA
vibration characteristics depend on maximum charge
per delay in any one of the delay intervals, instead of the
total charge used in the blast (Nicholls et al., 1971).
Velocity of detonation
The intensity of vibration level is directly proportional
to the VOD of the explosive (Ghosh, 1993). Explosives
having higher VODs generate considerable vibration
levels compared to low VOD explosives. Ground
vibration level can be reduced using low density and
lower VOD explosive (Hagan and Kennedy, 1977).
Distance
Distance from blast site to nearby structures is usually
not variable. The magnitude of seismic waves decreases
with increase in distance. The Earth’s crust is considered
as a low pass filter, hence the higher frequency vibration
component attenuates more rapidly than the lower
frequency. Therefore, at larger distances from the blast,
ground vibration will be in the low frequency domain
(Singh, 1995, Singh and Singh, 2005).
P-wave velocity
A primary or P-wave is a body wave which travels
through the rock mass. This is a compression wave
which alters the volume of the body without altering its
shape. Higher P-wave velocity generates more ground
vibration. The P-wave moves radially from the blast
hole in all directions at velocities characteristic of the
material being travelled through (Singh, 2006).
Young’s modulus
Young’s modulus is the measure of stiffness of a rock. If
the Young’s modulus of the material is high then less
attenuation and loss of energy occurs, thus ground
vibration increases.
Geology of study area
The area of Northern Coalfield Singrauli, MP lies
geographically between latitudes from 24u09 to 24u129
and longitudes from 82u309 to 82u459. The geological
formations belong to Gondwana supergroup.
In this coalfield, coal seams are confined to the
Barakar and Raniganj formations. The boundary
between Barakar and Raniganj formations is not,
however, clear cut here. The dip of the strata varies
from 2 to 5u. The area contains no major fault along the
boundary of the basin.
The characteristic of this field is the absence of any
fault even along the boundary. In the eastern part of the
coalfield, in Mohar area (Barakar formation), there are
four coal producing seams designated as Kota seam,
Turra seam, Lower Purewa and Upper Purewa seam.
Turra and Purewa coal seams vary in thickness from
15 to 30 m. Sandstones overlay and underlay the coal
seams. These are coarse, medium and fine grained
sandstones, followed by carbonaceous shaley intercala-
tion of sandy shales. These mines are mechanised,
producing 5–10 Mt of coal annually with approximately
three times of the production as overburden. Drilling
and blasting are the main tools for removal of the
overburden as well as coal. The mines utilise dragline
and shovel dumper combinations, and consume huge
quantity of explosive per year for achieving the target
of coal production. The mine area is surrounded
by villages, thermal power plants and a huge water
reservoir. Therefore, it needs proper attention for safety,
Mining Technology 2008 VOL 117 NO 3 117
Singh et al. Study into blast vibration and frequency using ANFIS and MVRA
1 View of blasting at NCL
good fragmentation and production of coal. Ground
vibration poses a serious threat to the surrounding
population, leading to confrontation with mine manage-
ment. The data sets used in this study were obtained
from the Jayant open cast mine. A view of a blasting
operation is shown in Fig. 1.
Neuro-fuzzy systems
Neuro-fuzzy systems integrate fuzzy logic (FL) and
artificial neural networks (ANN). Artificial neural net-
works have the functions of a distributed storage, self-
organisation, self-adaptation and self-learning. Thus,
they are applied in the modelling of non-linear multi-
variate problems. Fuzzy logic reduces the difficulties in
modelling and analysis of complex data. Also, it is
appropriate for incorporating the qualitative aspects of
human experience within its mapping rules, which are to
provide a way of catching information. Therefore, ANN
and FL are integrated together to take the advantage of
learning capabilities of ANN and superior modelling of
FL, a system referred to as ANFIS.
ANFIS is a multilayer adaptive network based fuzzy
inference system (Jang, 1993). In ANFIS, a given data set
is used for constructing a fuzzy inference system (FIS)
whose membership function parameters are then fine
tuned (adjusted) using a back-propagation algorithm
alone, or in combination with a least squares method. The
system consists of five layers for the implementation of
node functions. A hybrid learning mode is employed for
learning and fine tuning of parameters in FIS.
ANFIS has a five layer feedforward neural network.
The first layer has some adaptive nodes. Their outputs
are composed of the fuzzy membership grades of the
inputs, which are given by Alvarez (2000)
Oi 1 ~mA (x), i~1, 2; Oi 1 ~mB i{2 (y), i~3, 4
where mA(x) and mBi22(y) are able to adopt any fuzzy
membership function.
The bell shaped member function is employed here
and is expressed as
1
mAi (x)~ h
ii
1z x{ci
bi
ai
118 Mining Technology 2008 VOL 117 NO
where ai, bi and ci are the membership function
parameters.
In the second layer, a numbers of nodes are fixed, and
used as multipliers. The output of the layer is given as
follows
Oi 2 ~Wi ~mA (x)~mBi (y) i~1,2 (3)
In the third layer, the output of the second layer is
normalised. The output of the third layer is given by
Wi
O3i ~Wi ~ i~1,2 (4)
W1 zW2
In the fourth layer, there are adaptive nodes, which are
first order Sugeno type polynomials. The output of this
layer is expressed as
O4i ~Wi fi ~Wi (pi xzqi yzri ), i~1,2 (5)
The last layer has a fixed node and its output has crisp
characteristics. Its output is given as follows
X2 P2
Wi fi
O5i ~ Wi fi ~ i~1 (6)
i~1
W 1 zW 2
In the model, ai, bi and ci are the premise parameters and
pi, qi and ri are consequent parameters which are
important for the learning algorithm in which each
parameter is set to an appropriate value to match the
output data of the training data. As soon as the values of
the premise parameters are determined, the output of the
model is expressed as
W1 W2
f~ z (7)
W1 zW2 W1 zW2
By substituting equation (4) into equation (7)
f ~W1 f1 zW2 f2 (8)
Therefore, the model output can be rearranged using the
fuzzy if–then rules as
f ~(W1 x)p1 z(W1 y)q1 z(W1 )r1 z
(W2 x)p2 z(W2 y)q2 z(W2 )r2 (9)
ANFIS GRID
The ANFIS GRID inference system combines
grid partition and ANFIS. Grid partition divides the
data space into rectangular subspaces using axis
parallelled partition based on a predefined number
of membership functions and their types in each
dimension.
Premise fuzzy sets and parameters are calculated using
the least squares estimate method based on partition and
membership function types. When constructing the
fuzzy rules, consequent parameters in the linear output
MF are set to zero. Hence, it is required to identify and
(1) refine parameters using ANFIS. The wider applications
of ANFIS GRID are hindered by the course of
dimensions, which means that the number of fuzzy rules
increases exponentially when the number of input
variables increases.
In the present study, the ANFIS editor with a hybrid
learning algorithm under the Matlab 7?0 Fuzzy Logic
(2) Toolbox was employed (Schurter and Roschke, 2000,
and 2001) for the prediction of PPV and frequency.
3
 Singh et al. Study into blast vibration and frequency using ANFIS and MVRA

Table 2 Results predicted by MVRA

Predicted Prediction
Burden/ Explosive/ Young’s P-wave PPV by of PPV by
spacing delay Distance modulus velocity, VOD, Measured ANFIS, Error, MVRA,
(B) (E) (D), m (Y), GPa (m s21) km s21 PPV, mm s21 mm s21 % mm s21 Error, %

0.75 175 700 2743 7.3 4.17 0.5 0.53 26 18.31 23562.55
0.77 5600 1000 3118 7.68 3.38 6.57 6.58 20.15 23.58 2259.04
0.84 3420 1080 2869 8.23 3.83 27.4 27.4 0 19.61 28.42
0.85 5200 1450 2451 8.31 3.92 4.03 4.06 20.74 20.69 2413.62
0.85 3200 445 2257 8.1 4.12 16.99 17 20.05 20.94 223.27
0.95 63 115 3118 7.68 3.38 14.51 14.2 2.13 15.28 25.36
1 37.5 150 3118 7.68 3.38 9.5 8.96 5.68 13.85 245.89
1 62.5 150 3046 7.56 4.24 7.75 8.23 26.19 12.78 264.97
1 43.75 200 3254 6.2 4.98 6.86 7.23 25.39 10.20 248.76
1 169 37 2741 8.5 4.8 50.7 48.2 4.93 13.73 72.90
1 169 68 2555 10.3 4.36 20.9 21.2 21.43 16.05 23.16
1 183.56 73 3654 8.75 4.37 40 39.3 1.75 13.14 67.12
1 1800 950 1894 8.23 5.23 4.03 4.08 21.24 13.55 2236.38
1 300 203 3806 11.6 5.1 8.8 8.81 20.11 14.29 262.48
1.02 43.75 150 3654 8.75 4.37 16.3 17 24.29 12.04 26.10
1.02 43.75 166 1894 8.23 5.23 14.59 14.5 0.61 12.91 11.4838
1.2 181.5 220 1853 10.2 3.67 2.32 2.29 1.29 12.21 2426.43
1.2 181.5 250 3416 8.75 5.04 1.97 1.93 2.03 6.92 2251.56

Multivariate regression analysis
The purpose of multivariate regression analysis
(MVRA) is to learn more about the relationship among
several independent or predictor variables and a
dependent or criterion variable. The goal of regression
analysis is to determine the values of parameters for a
function that causes the function to best fit a set of data
observations provided. In linear regression, the function
behaves linearly. When there is more than one indepen-
dent variable, then MVRA is used to obtain the best
fit equation. MVRA solves data sets by performing a
least squares fitting method. It constructs and solves
simultaneous equations by forming the regression
matrix and solving for the coefficient using the backslash
operator.
Results and discussion
Initially, data sets were used for establishing a relation-
ship among all the parameters to develop statistical
relations for PPV and frequency. These relationships
were used to predict the new values of PPV and
frequency for different inputs. The same data sets were
used to train the ANFIS. Then, the same inputs were
presented to the system for prediction and regression
studies were conducted for both approaches to compare
their degree of authenticity and accuracy.
Owing to their less complex nature and easy applica-
tion, statistical methods are popular approaches to
analyse data, though in the case of high non-linearity
these methods are not very accurate. In this paper,
equations (10) and (11) are obtained by MVRA to
calculate PPV and frequency for various parameters like
ratio of burden and spacing, explosive per delay,
distance, Young’s modulus, P-wave velocity and VOD.
The 174 data sets were used to train the network, and 18
data sets were used for testing and validation of the
network. The same data sets were used for the multi-
variate regression method also. The results are given in
Tables 2 and 3.
The equations obtained are
PPV (mm s{1 )~42:3270{26:1928B{0:0026Dz
0:001E{0:8788P{1:2751V {0:0014Y (10)

Table 3 Results predicted by ANFIS

Predicted Predicted
P-wave Measured frequency frequency
velocity, VOD, frequency, by ANFIS, by MVRA,
B E, t m23 D, m Y, GPa m s21 km s21 Hz Hz Error, % Hz Error, %

1 169 37 2741 8.5 4.8 5 5.24 24.8 17.23 2244.73

1 169 68 2555 10.3 4.36 13 13.4 23.07 16.94 230.33
1.2 181.5 220 1853 10.2 3.67 24 24 0 12.74 46.88
0.77 5600 1000 3118 7.68 3.38 20 20 0 9.51 52.44
1 300 203 3806 11.6 5.1 5 5.14 22.8 17.59 2251.83
1.02 43.75 150 3654 8.75 4.37 17 18.2 27.05 17.28 21.68
0.85 5200 1450 2451 8.31 3.92 5 5.1 22 8.32 266.47
0.85 3200 445 2869 8.7 3.83 5 5.12 22.4 13.24 2164.57
1 43.75 200 3254 6.2 4.98 32 31.3 2.18 17.69 44.70
1.02 43.75 166 1894 8.23 5.23 29 29 0 16.52 43.02
1 183.56 73 3654 8.75 4.37 20 19 5 17.57 12.14
0.84 3420 400 2279 8.6 3.79 37 36.9 0.27 12.79 65.43
1 37.5 150 3118 7.68 3.38 43 42.7 0.69 17.10 60.22
1 1800 950 1894 8.23 5.23 5 4.98 0.4 12.96 2159.21
0.75 175 700 2743 7.3 4.17 2 2.63 231.5 20.61 2930.66
1.2 181.5 250 3416 8.75 5.04 20 20 0 14.14 29.28
0.95 63 115 3118 7.68 3.38 19 18.9 0.52 17.92 5.64

Mining Technology 2008 VOL 117 NO 3 119

Singh et al. Study into blast vibration and frequency using ANFIS and MVRA

2 Comparison between measured PPV and predicted 5 Comparison between measured frequency and pre-
PPV by ANFIS dicted frequency obtained by MVRA

3 Comparison between measured frequency and pre-

6 Comparison between observed PPV and predicted PPV
dicted frequency by ANFIS
by ANFIS and by equation respectively

4 Comparison between measured PPV and predicted

PPV by MVRA 7 Comparison between observed frequency and pre-
dicted frequency by ANFIS and equation
Dominant frequency (Hz)~31:058{16:84B{
0:0009D{0:0019Ez0:0228Pz0:3571V z
0:0006Y (11)

the symbols are as defined in Table 2.

The results obtained from ANFIS are mainly based on
the learning capacity of ANN and the modelling of FL.
These methods are fast and predict accurate results. The
same data set was presented to the system for training
and prediction. Figures 2 and 3 compare the measured
and predicted values of PPV and frequency from ANFIS
and it can be seen that the predicted values are very close 8 Relationship between observed PPV and predicted PPV
to the measured values. Figures 4 and 5 compare the using ANFIS
measured value and predicted value of PPV and frequency
using MVRA. The predicted values in both cases show ANFIS ranges from 0 to 6% while for frequency it
significant deviation from the measured values. ranges between 0 and 31?5%. The percentage error in the
A comparison of measured values and predicted prediction of PPV and frequency using MVRA is very
values using ANFIS and statistically calculated value high and reflects enormous difference from the field
is shown in Figs. 6 and 7. It is observed that ANFIS data.
provides better correlation among different data sets. Figure 8 shows the graph between observed PPV and
The MVRA shows a wide range of errors. The predicted PPV using ANFIS. The graph between
percentage error in the prediction of PPV using measured frequency and predicted frequency using

120 Mining Technology 2008 VOL 117 NO 3


9 Relationship between observed PPV and predicted PPV
using MVRA
10 Relationship between observed frequency and pre-
dicted frequency using ANFIS
11 Relationship between observed frequency and pre-
dicted frequency using MVRA
ANFIS is given in Fig. 9. Ideally the plot should have a
1 : 1 slope and pass through the origin (y5x). The results
clearly indicate that PPV and frequency values predicted
using ANFIS are close to the measured values.
Figure 10 exhibits the graph between observed PPV
and predicted PPV. The graph between measured
frequency and predicted frequency using ANFIS is
shown in Fig. 11.
Conclusion
The present study provides very encouraging results
in predicting blast induced ground vibrations and
frequency, using the numerical system ANFIS. It gives
very low error compared to MVRA, and is very close to
the field data sets except for a single instance. The blast
design, explosive and rock parameters affect vibration as
well as frequency during a blast operation. In empirical
Singh et al. Study into blast vibration and frequency using ANFIS and MVRA
equations, two parameters were normally used which
may not represent actual field conditions. As the method
is linear, most results predicted are not representative of
field data; however, ANN works on Bayesian regulation
which avoids overfitting and underfitting of data. Thus,
the use of ANN for prediction of frequency and PPV
can save time, cost and degradation of surrounding
environment in mining areas.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research, New Delhi for providing financial
assistance and Professor Vishwanathan and Dr M.
Khandelwal for technical support in preparation of the
manuscript.
References
N. R. Ambraseys and A. J. Herndon: in ‘Rock mechanics in
engineering practices’, 203–207; 1968, London, John Wiley and
Sons.
M. Alvarez Grima: ‘Neuro-fuzzy modelling in engineering geology’,
224; 2000, Rotterdam, A. A. Balkama.
S. Bhandari: ‘Engineering rock blasting operations’, 285; 1997,
Rotterdam, A. A. Balkema.
W. I. Duvall and B. Petkof: ‘Spherical propagation of explosion of
generated strain pulses in rocks’, USBM RI 5483, Bureau of Mines,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC, USA,
1959.
W. I. Duvall and D. E. Fogleson: ‘Review of criteria for estimating
damage to residences from blasting vibration’, USBM-I 5968,
Bureau of Mines, United States Department of the Interior,
Washington DC, USA, 1962.
A. Ghosh: ‘A new analytical predictor of ground vibration induced due
to blasting’, MS thesis, University of Arizona, AZ, USA, 1983.
A. Ghosh and J. K. Daemen: Proc. 24th US Symp. on ‘Rock
mechanics’, College Station, TX, USA, June 1983, Texas A&M
University, 151–161.
T. N. Hagan and B. J. Kennedy: Aust. Min., 1977, 69, 38–46.
Indian Standard Institute: ‘Criteria for safety and design of structures
subjected to underground blast’, IS-6922, ISI, 1973.
J. R. Jang: IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 1993, 23, (3), 665–685.
M. Khandelwal, T. N. Singh and S. Kumar: Indian Min. Eng. J., 2005,
44, (7), 23–29.
M. Khandelwal and T. N. Singh: J. Sound Vib., 2006, 289, (4–5), 711–
725.
M. Khandelwal and T. N. Singh: Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 2007, 27,
(2), 116–125.
C. Mckenzie: ‘Quarry blast monitoring technical and environmental
prespective’, Quarry Manage., 1990, 23–29.
H. R. Nicholls, C. F. Johnson and W. I. Duvall: ‘Blasting vibrations
and their effects on structures’, USBM, RI 656, Bureau of Mines,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC, USA,
1971.
R. Rai and T. N. Singh: Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci., 2004, 11, 178–184.
K. C. Schurter and P. N. Roschke, 2000, IEEE International
conference on fuzzy system, 1, 122–127.
K. C. Schurter and P. N. Roschke: Proc. American Control Conf., the
Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, Arlington, VA, USA, June 2001,
AACC, 25–27.
T. N. Singh: in ‘Indian cement industry desk book’, 169–175; 1995,
Maharashtra, Commercial Pub.
T. N. Singh, R. Kanchan and A. K. Varma: Noise Vib. Worldwide,
2004, 35, (11), 7–15.
T. N. Singh and V. Singh: Geotech. Geol. Eng., 2005, 23, 249–262.
T. N. Singh: Noise Vib. Worldwide, 2006, 37, 21–25.
J. F. Wiss and P. W. Linehan: ‘Control of vibration and air noise from
surface coal mines – III’, Report no. OFR 103 (3)–79, Bureau of
Mines, United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC,
USA, 1978.
Mining Technology 2008 VOL 117 NO 3 121