652 JOURNALA.

GEOLOGICAL
ALIPOUR AND OTHERSOF INDIA
SOCIETY
Vol.79, June 2012, pp.652-658

Artificial Neural Network or Empirical Criteria? A Comparative

Approach in Evaluating Maximum Charge per Delay in
Surface Mining - Sungun Copper Mine

A. ALIPOUR1, M. MOKHTARIAN2 and J. ABDOLLAHEI SHARIF 3

1
Department of Mining Engineering, Urmia University of Technology, West Azerbaijan, Iran.
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Urmia University of Technology, West Azerbaijan, Iran.
3
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Urmia, West Azerbaijan, Iran
Email: a.alipour@mie.uut.ac.ir

Abstract: Ground vibration due to blasting causes damages in the existence of the surface structures nearby the mine. The
study of vibration control plays an important role in minimizing environmental effects of blasting in mines. Ground
vibration regulations primarily rely on the peak particle velocity (PPV, mm/s). Prediction of maximum charge weight per
delay (Q, kg) by distance from blasting face up to vibration monitoring point as well as allowable PPV was proposed in
order to perform under control blasting and therefore avoiding damages on structures nearby the mine. Various empirical
predictor equations have proposed to determine the PPV and maximum charge per delay. Maximum charge per delay is
calculated by using PPV predictors indirectly or Q predictor directly. This paper presents the results of ground vibration
measurement induced by bench blasting in Sungun copper mine in Iran. The scope of this study is to evaluate the
capability of two different methods in order to predict maximum charge per delay. A comparison between two ways of
investigations including empirical equations and artificial neural network (ANN) are presented. It has been shown that
the applicability of ANN method is more promising than any under study empirical equations.

Keywords: Blasting, Maximum charge per delay, PPV, Empirical criteria and ANN.

INTRODUCTION Maybe the most important PPV predictor equation has

In recent years the consumption of explosion dramatically
has been increased especially in mining. Unfortunately just
a few part of explosive energy is used to accomplish the
useful works; most of explosive energy is loosed due to
undesirable phenomena such as ground vibration, noise,
air blast and etc. Both of ground vibration and air blast are
a matter of great concern as they cause damages on existing
surface structures in the closer vicinity of the mine (Alipour,
2007).
Now a days some regulations related to structural
damages by ground vibration have been developed. The
regulations are primarily based on the peak particle velocity
resulted from blasting operations. To come out with proper
amounts of maximum charge per delay which produces
limited ground vibration, several empirical equations are
available that can be found in literature (Jimeno and Jimeno,
1995; Dowding, 1996; Ambraseys and Hendron, 1968;
Duvall and Fogelson, 1962). These empirical equations are
normally used for estimating PPV of ground vibration by
blasting.
been established by the United States bureau of mines
(USBM, Duvall and Fogleson ,1962). Some other modified
predictors have been also offered by researchers. Recently
most of PPV-based studies have concentrated on
environmental effects of blasting in mining.
The blast-induced ground vibration measurements is
used in the study of Kahriman (2002) in order to solve the
environmental problem at several stations in the present of
potential damage risks that were available at foundation of
buildings at Can open pit lignite mine in Turkey. Hossaini
and Sen (2004) investigated the effect of ANFO and Slurry
explosives on ground vibration in a coal mine. The ground
vibration of impacts caused by quarry-blasting operation in
the vicinity of buildings and structures has been studied by
Kuzu and Ergin (2005). Singh et al. (2005) have investigated
the roof and pillars of underground opening responses to
the ground vibrations caused by adjacent open-pit blasting.
Kahriman et al. (2006) offered an empirical equation for PPV
as a function of scaled distance to assess the environmental
impacts of bench blasting at Hisarcik Boron open pit mine.

0016-7622/2012-79-6-652/$ 1.00 GEOL. SOC. JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA,

INDIA VOL.79, JUNE 2012
 COMPARATIVE APPROACH IN EVALUATING MAXIMUM CHARGE PER DELAY IN SURFACE MINING
The useful experimental blasting charts to estimate the PPV
values using the maximum charge per delay are offered by
Ozer et al. (2008) in a limestone quarry.
Khandelwal and Singh (2007, 2009), Mohamed (2009)
applied ANN to predict PPV. Dehghani and Ataee-pour (2011)
calculated the blast-induced ground vibration by
incorporating blast design and rock strength by using
artificial neural networks (ANN) and dimensional analysis
techniques. A new formula was developed by employment
of dimensional analysis based on results obtained from the
sensitivity analysis of the ANN consequences.
According to existing empirical predictor equations the
PPV is a function of distance and maximum charge per delay.
Rai et al. (2005) offering shows that when the maximum charge
per delay is calculated using these predictors, the very
accurate value of charge will not be obtained. From where
the nature of these equations is to calculate the PPV values;
therefore it is proposed to directly calculate the maximum
charge per delay (Rai et al. 2005). It seems that there is a
great need for case studies in order to evaluate the efficiency
and credibility of empirical equations for maximum charge
per delay in different investigated cases.
In recent years artificial intelligence has emerged as a
powerful tool for analyzing of rock engineering problems.
Several studies have recently been proposed to predict the
environmental effects of blasting in terms of PPV on the
basis of artificial intelligence (Singh, 2004; Lu, 2005;
Khandelwal and Singh, 2007; Iphar et al. 2007). As a branch
of artificial intelligence, artificial neural network have got
the ability to calculate some logical functions in forms of
non-linear analyzers (Hossaini et al. 2008). In this paper,
both conventional empirical criteria and ANNs method have
been used to predict maximum charge per delay. A
comparison of the results for two methods has been
demonstrated for Sungun copper mine in Iran.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Sungun copper mine is located in the north-west of Iran,
in Azarbayjan-e-Sharqi province. The total ore reserve of
the deposit is more than 384 million tones. However,
probable and possible reserve is 1000 million tones and
average grade of 0.67%. The existing estimation about
effected land of Sungun copper mine is 38.2 square
kilometers which half of it will be completely ruined during
next 30 years. There are some important industrial structures
very close to mine pit limits including industrial site of mine,
concentrating plant, belt conveyors, crushing site and etc
(Kavoshgaran Consulting Engineers, 2003).
Drilling and blasting technique are the most economical
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.79, JUNE 2012
653
method available for loosening and fragmenting of in situ
rock masses in sungun mine. But blast induced ground
vibration as a consequence of environmental effects of
blasting process in the form of repetitive dynamic loading,
has unfavorable effects on nearby structures. Blast induced
ground vibration was studied in Sungun open pit copper
mine in order to control vibration intensity.
The geotechnical studies show that the major fault
systems of the area have WW- SE, N-S and ENE-WSW
strikes. Also the mine area according to geotechnical and
statistical studies of intact rocks and discontinuities has
been divided into six separate blocks. In the mine area the
overall rock mass is extremely broken and fractured due to
the action of these faults (at least 80 major faults) and
volcanic activities. The RMR and GIS rock mass rating
methods that have been used in classifying rock masses
and obtaining related parameters indicate that there are a
rock mass quality range from Poor to Fair in the mine
blocks. The compressive strength tests (point-load, triaxial
and uniaxial) of the intact rock show that the strength of
intact rock increases directly with siliceous and indirectly
with argilic alterations (Kavoshgaran Consulting Engineers,
2003).
BLAST OPERATIONS
In blasting operations of Sungun site, ANFO and Emolan
(blasting agent) are used as explosives for dry and wet blast
holes respectively, gelatin dynamite (priming), and Emolan
cartridge (booster). Initiation system is detonating cord.
Delay was used between rows are 13 m, 20 m, 50 m and
combination of these. In this site drilling equipments and
different type of blasting zones, the regular blasting
parameters which implemented during blast vibration
monitoring are listed in Table 1 according to mine contractor.
Explosive weight of each blast hole was measured carefully.
The amount of gelatin dynamite and Emolan cartridge used
as priming and booster respectively that has been added to
Table 1. Surface blast design parameters during the experimental
Runs at Sungun mine
Parameter Related information
Hole diameter (mm) 90, 127
Hole length (m) 13-15
Bench height (m) 12.5
Burden & spacing (m) 22, 23, 2.53.5, 45
Stemming (m) One third of hole length
Specific charge (gr/m3) 300-800
Blast hole inclination Vertical
Charging configuration Bottom priming, continues charge
654 A. ALIPOUR AND OTHERS

the amount of ANFO depending on their equivalent weight Table 2. Results of ground vibration measurements in Sungun copper
mine
strength. The result of ground vibration measurements of
the 37 events including particle velocity, maximum charge No Distance Charge per Measured
(m) delay (kg) PPV (mm/s)
per delay and distance are shown in Table 2 (Azimi, 2006).
1 917 3313 2.52
Charge per Delay Estimation by Empirical Equations 2 188 133 2.61
3 334 3313 18.35
Empirical equations are versions of the following general
4 509.8 644 2.57
form that typically are used by investigators (Hossaini and 5 46 1209 123.5
Sen, 2004, 2006) 6 58.5 2418 137
7 613 1152 2.72
PPV = K.Ra.Qb 1
8 67.5 943 97.25
Where, PPV =V= Peak Particles Velocity (mm/s), Q = 9 519 1004 1.07
Maximum charge per delay (kg), R = Distance of the 10 77 101 21.4
measuring transducer form the blasting face (m), K, a and b 11 726 503 1.25
are site-constant, which can be determined by multiple 12 425 913 1.27
13 305 503 4.8
regression analysis
14 845 912 1.75
Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) and Duvall and
15 132 503 25.4
Fogelson, USBM (1962) equations are versions of the 16 760 913 1.85
following general form of equations demonstrated in 17 195 700.5 19
Table 3. Also Rai et al. (2005) have proposed maximum 18 331 700.5 10.15
charge per delay predictor for calculation of the maximum 19 40 700.5 122.5
charge per delay directly. The equation is the function of 20 70 700.5 111
PPV and distances and therefore can predict the charge 21 244 645 17.05
precisely. 22 532 1209 5.73
23 300 843 8.5
Q = K [V x R2]B 2 24 554 335 3.74
25 436 843 4.72
The selected empirical equations (Table 3) have been
26 43 335 91.55
employed in order to analyse of data. Table 4 and Figures 1, 27 122 843 49
2 and 3 represent the results of applying the equations to 28 469 334 2.4
the ground vibration data. As seen in Table 4, Ambraseys 29 680 843 2.12
and Hendron (1968) equations fit the data and have greater 30 262 334 6
coefficient of correlation. It should be noted here that the 31 341 243 2.77
resulted correlation coefficient is just for the equations in 32 1179 2418 1.8
the form of offered one. At the end of this paper the 33 601 1152 3.78
34 154 243 17.5
estimation efficiency of the resulted equations for estimation
35 1068 2418 1.52
of maximum charge per delay is discussed on the measured
36 504 1152 3.65
data from Sungun copper mine.
37 653 2418 4.22
250

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK

200
PPV = 302.07(SD) -1.561 Artificial neural network, ANN, as they are known today,
R= 0.948
PPV (mm/s)

150 originate from the work of McCulloch and Pitts (1943), who
demonstrated the ability of interconnected neurons to
100 calculate some logical functions. Hebb (1949) pointed out
the importance of the synoptic connections in the learning
50
process. Later, Rosenblatt (1958) presented the first
operational model of artificial neural network: Perceptron.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Artificial neural network is composed of a great number
SD (USBM) of individual processing elements, named neurons, which
Fig.1. Peak particle velocity versus scaled distance. perform simple tasks. The basic building block of artificial

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.79, JUNE 2012

 COMPARATIVE APPROACH IN EVALUATING MAXIMUM CHARGE PER DELAY IN SURFACE MINING 655

Table 3. List of proposed Predictors equations for calculation of 3500

maximum charge per delay
3000
Name of predictor equation Equations
2500
B
R
USBM (Duvall & Fogelson, 1962) PPV = K 2000

Q
2

Q (kg)
1500

B
R 1000 YsZ

Ambraseys Hendron (1968) PPV = K Z

3 Q 500

[ ]
B
0
Rai et al. (2005)
Q = K V R2 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000
V.R^2

Fig.3. Charge per delay versus V. R2

Table 4. Site constant and coefficient of correlation form different
predictors for Sungun mine
There exists a wide range of network architectures. The
Name of predictor Equation R
equation choice of the architecture depends upon the task to be
performed. For modeling of physical systems, a feed forward
1.56
USBM R layered is usually used. It consists of a layer of input neurons,
PPV = 302.07 0.948
(Duvall and Fogelson, a layer of output neurons and one or more hidden layers.
Q
2
1962) The most versatile learning algorithm for the feed forward
1.58 layered network is back-propagation. Multi-Layer
Ambraseys R
Hendron (1968) PPV = 1810.06 0.958 Perceptron (MLP) is perhaps the best-known type of feed
3 Q forward network. MLP has had generally three layers: an
input layer, an output layer and an intermediate or hidden
Rai et al. (2005)
[
Q = 0.0598 V R 2 ]0.7066 0.710
layer.
Back-propagation searches are established on the error
surface by means of the gradient descent technique in order
neural network technology performs a nonlinear to minimize the error. It is very likely to get stuck in local
transformation of the weighted sum of the entering inputs minima. Various other modifications on back-propagation
to produce the output of the neuron. The input to a neuron to overcome this aspect have been proposed and the
can come from other neurons or from outside the network. Levenberg-Marquardt modification has been found to be a
The nonlinear transfer function can be a threshold, a very efficient algorithm in comparison with the others like
sigmoid, a sine or a hyperbolic tangent function (Hagan et conjugate gradient algorithm or variable learning rate
al. 2002). algorithm (Hagan et al. 2002).

200 Design of the Optimum Artificial Neural Network

Generally, there is no direct and precise method for
150
PPV = 1810.6(SD) -1.58
determining the most appropriate number of neurons to
R= 0.958 include in each hidden layer in the artificial neural network.
PPV (mm/s)

100
This problem becomes more complicated as the number of
hidden layers in the network increases. To establish an
optimal network, one needs to begin with train and test the
50
artificial neural network using a subset of all data sets.
After training, the model is tested by the testing set.
0 Input parameters of this testing set are fed to the model via
0 20 40 60 80 100
input nodes and weighted layer-by-layer from the hidden
SD (A_H) layer(s) to the output layer. Outputs, which in this research
Fig.2. Peak particle velocity versus scaled distance. are predicted maximum charge per delay values from the

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.79, JUNE 2012

656 A. ALIPOUR AND OTHERS

network, are then used to compare with the desired outputs Table 5. Details of optimized artificial neural network model built
for Sungun mine
(measured maximum charge per delay values). If the network
outputs of the pilot experiment are in agreement with the Parameter Related information
measured data as indicated by small differences between Number of training data 31
output and desired/target data, the network is useable for Number of testing data 6
the application. By performing this process, the network ANNs structure 2-20-1
that yields the best agreement in the validation will be Activation function of hidden layer Log_Sig
Activation function of output layer Linear
selected as the optimal neural network.
Training algorithm Levenberg_Marquardt
Performance of the developed models was tested with Number of optimum neurons in 20
the help of coefficient of correlation (R) or coefficient of hidden layer
determination (R2) (Stefen, 1997) and computing mean No. of optimum epochs 27
square error (MSE) using: MAE for train and test data 187.39, 203.67
MSE for train and test data 59562, 116568
1 Q
MSE = ( y x) 2
Q 1
(3)

And computing mean absolute error (MAE) using:
1 Q
MAE = y x
Q 1
Where x is target, y is output and Q is number of test
patterns.
Maximum Charge per Delay Estimation by Artificial
Neural Network
ANN is capable of drawing a relationship between Q
from one hand and distance and PPV from the other hand, if
supplied with adequate vibration data. Distance and PPV
are introduced as inputs of the neural network that is
shown in Fig.4 for the data of Sungun.
Comparison between Applicability of the Two Methods
In this section, a prediction performance comparison is
made between the presently constructed intelligent based
(4)
model and the traditional regression-based model. The
results of applying the three empirical equations are
compared with neural network that has been given in
Table 6. As seen from Table 6, the applicability of neural
network is by far better than any of the equations. Coefficient
of correlation for measured and estimated data obtained
from empirical equations and ANN and is shown in Fig.5.
The maximum values of coefficient of correlation is for ANN.
In addition the values of estimation error for both methods
is given in Table 6, according to Table 6, despite higher
correlation coefficient of Ambraseys and Hendron (1968)
equation the values of MAE and MSE are also higher than
the other empirical equations that are undesirable. The
reason for this, is that, maximum charge per delay estimation

Linear (ANN)

Fig.4. Artificial neural network model used for analyzing Sungun

data.

An optimized model of neural network built after several

executions in MATLAB (1999) environment and tabulated
in Table 5. Coefficient of correlation (R) between real and
estimated values of Q for training and testing groups are
0.98 and .94 respectively. Fig.5. Linear regression analysis of various approaches.

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.79, JUNE 2012

 COMPARATIVE APPROACH IN EVALUATING MAXIMUM CHARGE PER DELAY IN SURFACE MINING 657

Table 6. Comparison of error values of various approaches Considering all the criteria, the result of analysis (see
Model MAE MSE R Table 6 and Fig.7) shows that ANN has the best efficiency
USBM (Duvall & Fogelson, 1962) 387 286200 0.75
in comparison with other methods.
Ambraseys Hendron (1968) 525 598896 0.78
Rai et al. (2005) 402 359362 0.73 CONCLUSIONS
ANN 185 61302 0.95
A number of researches dedicated to study aspects of
blast-induced vibrations. Especially, ground vibration in
100000 terms of PPV has been investigated by researchers and
some empirical equations have proposed to predict PPV.
80000
Q (USBM)
According to common empirical predictor equations the PPV
Q (A_H) is a function of distance and maximum charge per delay.
60000
Q (kg)

Q (Rai et al.) Maximum charge per delay is mostly calculated by using

40000
20000
0 by Rai et al. (2005) besides other proposed empirical
0 200 400 600

Fig.6. Variation of maximum charge per delay with distance based
on 10 mm/s for Sungun mine blasting.
of Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) equation is going to be
high increasingly by increscent in distance in comparison
with other empirical equations. The estimated values for
maximum charge per delay based on 10 mm/s for empirical
equation is illustrated in Fig.6. As it is obvious from Fig.6
by increasing the distance from blasting place, the maximum
charge per delay value for Ambraseys and Hendron (1968)
equation has more ascending trend.
PPV predictors, but recently it has been proposed to
calculate the maximum charge per delay directly.
From this study, it can be inferred that the relation offered
800 1000
equations have the relatively equal effectiveness. Whereas
it is proposed to enrich data set by using data from various
mines to develop the more efficient relation. It should be
note that empirical equations are still more attractive for
their simplicity and their logical outputs.
This paper demonstrated the application of ANN
methodology for maximum charge per delay prediction of
blasting operations. According to the analysis on Sungun
mine vibration data the coefficient of correlation between
predicted and measured charge values (R) are 75, 78 and 73
in the USBM (Duvall & Fogelson, 1962), Ambraseys and
Hendron (1968) and Rai et al. (2005) regression models

3500

Rai et al.
3000
USBM

A_H
2500 Meusured Q

ANN
Q (kg)

2000

1500

1000

500

Number of events
Fig.7. Scatter diagram of estimated versus measured values for Sungun mine data.

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.79, JUNE 2012

658 A. ALIPOUR AND OTHERS
and 0.95 in the ANN model. These facts show that artificial
neural network as a powerful, precise and reliable tool which
References
ALIPOUR, A. (2007) Study of geomechanical parameters on tunnel
blasting results using ANNs. MSc thesis. University of Tehran.
Iran.
AMBRASEYS, N.R. and HENDRON, A.J. (1968) Dynamic behavior of
rock masses in rock mechanics in engineering Practice. John
Wiley and Sons, London, pp.203-207.
AZIMI, Y. (2006) Investigation of seismic wave due to blasting, in
Sungun copper mine. MSc thesis, Amir Kabir University of
Technology. Tehran.Iran.
DEHGHANI, H. and ATAEE-POUR, M. (2011) Development of a model
to predict peak particle velocity in a blasting operation, Internat.
Jour. Rock Mechanics and Mining Sci., v.48(1), pp.51-58.
DOWDING, C.H. (1996) Construction vibration. Prentice Hall Inc.
Englewood Cliffs. NJ. USA, 604 p.
DUVALL, W.I. and FOGELSON, D.E. (1962) Review criteria for
estimating damage to residences from blasting vibration.
USBM-I, 5968p.
H EBB , D.O. (1949) The organization of behavior: A
neuropsychological theory. Wiley. New York.
HOSSAINI, S.M.F. and Sen, G.C. (2004) Effect of explosive type
on particle velocity criteria in ground vibration. Jour Explosive
Engg., USA. v.21(4), pp.34-39.
HOSSAINI, S.M.F. and Sen, G.C. (2006) A study of the influence of
different blasting modes and explosive types on ground
vibrations. Iranian Jour. Sci. Tech., Shiraz, No.29 B3, pp.313-
325.
HOSSAINI, S. M. F. ALIPOUR, A. and Jafari, A. (2008) Neural
network or empirical criteria? A comparative approach in
evaluating ground vibration in Karoune - 3 underground cavern-
SW Iran. 8th Australasian Coal Operators Conference,
Wollongong, NSW. Australia
IPHAR, M., YAVUZ, M. and A K, H. (2007) Prediction of ground
vibrations resulting from the blasting operations in an open-
pit mine by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Environ.
Geol., v.l 56,(1), DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-1143-6.
JIMENO, C. L. and JIMENO, E. L. (1995) Drilling and blasting of
rocks. A A Balkema, Roterdam, 391p.
KAHRIMAN, A. OZER, U. AKSOY, M. KARADOGAN, A. and TUNCER,
G. (2006) Environmental impacts of bench blasting at Hisarcik
Boron open pit mine in Turkey. Environ. Geol., v.50(7),
pp.1015-1023.
KAHRIMAN, A. (2002) Analysis of ground vibrations caused by
bench blasting at open-pit lignite mine in Turkey. Environ.
Geol., v.41(6), pp.653-6__.
KAVOSHGARAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS (2003) Slope stability in
(Received: 19 July 2010; Revised form accepted: 10 May 2011)
can be used to predict Q value better than any available
empirical equations.
Sungun mine (Phase I Report). Second Edition.
KHANDELWAL, M. and SINGH, T.N. (2007) Evaluation of blast induced
ground vibration predictors. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engg.,
pp.116-125.
KHANDELWAL, M. and SINGH, T.N. (2009) Prediction of blast-
induced ground vibration using artificial neural network, Internat.
Jour. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., v.46, pp.1214-1222.
KUZU, C. and ERGIN, H. (2005) An assessment of environmental
impacts of quarry-blasting operation: a case study in Istanbul,
Turkey. Environ. Geol., v.48(2), pp.211-217.
LU, Y. (2005) Underground blast induced ground shock and its
modeling using artificial neural network. Computers and
Geotechnics, v.32(4), pp.164170.
MATLAB, (1999) The language of technical computing. The
Matworks, New York.
MCCULLOCH, W. S. and PITTS, W. (1943) A Logical calculus in the
ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull. Mathematical
Biophysics, v.5, pp.115-133.
MOHAMED, M.T. (2009) Artificial neural network for prediction
and control of blasting vibrations in Assiut (Egypt) limestone
quarry. Internat. Jour. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., pp.426-431
OZER, U. KAHRIMAN, A. AKSOY, M. ADIGUZEL, D. and Karadogan,
A. (2008) The analysis of ground vibrations induced by
bench blasting at Akyol quarry and practical blasting charts.
Environ. Geol., v.54(4), pp.737-743, DOI: 10.1007/s00254-
007-0859-7
RAI, R. SHRIVASTVA, B.K. and SINGH, T. N. (2005) Prediction of
maximum safe charge per delay in surface mining. Mining
Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. - A), v.114, A, pp.227-
231.
ROSENBLATT, F. (1958) The perceptron: A probabilistic model for
information storage and organization in the brain, Psychological
Rev., v.68(6), pp.386-408.
SINGH, P.K. ROY, M.P. and SINGH, R.K. (2005) Responses of roof
and pillars of underground coal mines to vibration induced by
adjacent open-pit blasting. Environ. Geol., v.47(2), pp.205-
214, DOI: 10.1007/s00254-004-1144-7.
SINGH , T. N. (2004) Artificial neural network approach for
prediction and control of ground vibrations in mines. Mining
Technology ((Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. - A), v.113(4), pp.251-
256.
STEFEN, M. (1997) Well log correlation using a back propagation
neural network. Mathematical Geol., v.29(3), pp.413-425.
TARASSENKO, L. (1998) A guide to neural computing application,
Arnold, London.
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.79, JUNE 2012