Abstract
Drilling and blasting is the predominant rock excavation method in mining and tunneling projects. Back-break (BB) is one of the most undesirable by-products of blasting and causing rock mine wall instability, increasing blasting cost as well as decreasing performance of the blasting. In this research work, a practical new hybrid model to predict the blast-induced BB is proposed. The model is based on particle swarm optimization (PSO) in combination with adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). In this regard, a database including 80 datasets was collected from blasting operations of the Shur river dam region, Iran, and the values of four effective parameters on BB, i.e., burden, spacing, stemming and powder factor were precisely measured. In addition, the values of the BB for the whole 80 blasting events were measured. The accuracy of the proposed PSO-ANFIS model was also compared with the multiple linear regression (MLR). Median absolute error, coefficient of determination (R 2) and root mean squared error, as three statistical functions, were used to evaluate the performance of the predictive models. The results achieved indicate that the PSO-ANFIS model has strong potential to indirect prediction of BB with high degree of accuracy. The R 2 equal to 0.922 suggests the superiority of the PSO-ANFIS model in predicting BB, while this value was obtained as 0.857 for MLR model.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Blasting operation is one of the most widely methods to remove the rock mass in open-cast mines. Although, the main goal of blasting is rock fragmentation, only 20–30 % of the produced energy is applied for this goal and the remained energy is dissipated to create environmental side effects such as ground and air vibration, back-break (BB) and flyrock [1–6]. BB has several adverse effects such as rock mine wall instability, poor fragmentation and high dilution [7–9]. Therefore, precise prediction of BB is an important criterion for restricting the environmental effects of blasting. Based on literature, the effective parameters on the BB can be divided into two main groups: blast design parameters and rock mass properties. Blast design parameters or controllable parameters can be changed by the blasting engineers [10–13]. The burden, spacing, stemming, type of explosive material, blast-hole diameter and depth, powder factor and sub-drilling are all controllable parameters. Some of the controllable parameters are displayed in Fig. 1. In the second group, rock mass properties or uncontrollable parameters, such as tensile and compressive strength of rock, cannot be changed by the blasting engineers [14, 15]. Based on previous relative surveys, various models e.g., the genetic programing (GP), the artificial neural network (ANN), the support vector machine (SVM), the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), the multiple regression (MR) and the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation were developed to predict blast-induced BB. Esmaeili et al. [9] developed ANN, ANFIS and MR to predict blast-induced BB in Sangan iron mine, Iran. They indicated that ANFIS can is a more precise model than ANN and MR. A comprehensive study for the prediction of BB in Soungun iron mine, Iran, was presented by Khandelwal and Monjezi [10] using SVM and multivariate regression analysis (MVRA). Based on their results, the SVM with R 2 = 0.98 can predict BB better than MVRA with R 2 = 0.89. In the other study, ANN and regression model were established to predict BB in the study conducted by Monjezi et al. [11]. They used ten parameters, i.e., burden, spacing, bench height, uniaxial compressive strength, powder factor, water content, blast-hole diameter, charge per delay, stemming, and specific drilling as input parameters. Their results demonstrated capability of the ANN in predicting the BB compared to regression model. Also, they concluded that the burden was the most influencing parameter in the studied case. Ghasemi et al. [16] employed ANFIS and regression tree (RT) for BB prediction. Their datasets were collected from Sungun Copper Mine (SCM), in Iran. Finally, it was found that the ANFIS can be performed for the BB prediction with greater degree of confidence in comparison with RT. In the other research at Sungun copper mine, Shirani Faradonbeh et al. [13] proposed GP and non-linear multiple regression to predict BB. Based on their results, GP can be introduced as a powerful tool in the field of BB prediction. Table 1 gives recently developed models and their input parameters for estimating BB. In this paper, a new combination of ANFIS and particle swarm optimization (PSO) is proposed to develop a powerful model for prediction of BB at Shur river dam, Iran. To demonstrate applicability of the proposed PSO-ANFIS model, multiple linear regression (MLR) was also developed and then, a comparison was made between the obtained results. Note that, the PSO-ANFIS model has been proposed for predicting aims in several areas of research (e.g. [17, 18]). Nevertheless, as far as authors know, the PSO-ANFIS is a new predictor in the field of BB prediction.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 ANFIS model
The ANFIS, as a unified prediction model, was first introduced by Jang [19] and utilizes benefits of both ANN and fuzzy inference system (FIS) techniques in a hybrid model. The advantage of FIS are capability of decision-making, despite the dominant uncertainty, incomplete and inaccuracy of real-world problems [20, 21]. Also, ANN algorithm is capable to adapt its abilities of learning. The ANFIS applies a hybrid learning model including gradient descent and least-squares algorithms. The application of ANFIS model to estimate the environmental side effects induced by mine blasting, is investigated in some studies [22–27]. The results demonstrated that the ANFIS is an acceptable and reliable model in this field.
Figure 2 shows the ANFIS architecture with two inputs and five layers. In this structure, the Sugeno fuzzy type is used as FIS. Two rules of fuzzy “if–then” can be presented as follows [28]:
where \( p_{1} ,\;q_{1} ,\;r_{1} ,\; p_{2} ,\;q_{2} ,\;r_{2} \) are the function parameters of output (f). Also, A and B are specified as the membership functions for inputs (x and y). As it can be seen that in Fig. 2, a five-layer ANFIS with one output and two inputs can be explained in the following lines [29–31]:
Layer 1 (fuzzification layer) all nodes are considered as an adaptive node.
Layer 2 (product layer) calculation of the firing strength.
Layer 3 (normalized layer) the normalization is done according to Eq. 3.
Layer 4 (defuzzification layer) each node is an adjustable node with the following node function:
In Eq. 4, \( w_{i} \) is output of the third layer. Also, {p i , q i , r i } are the parameter sets of \( \bar{w}_{i} \)’s node.
Layer 5 (output layer): system output is generated through sum of the incoming signals (see Eq. 5). As shown in Fig. 1, there is only one node in this structure.
2.2 Particle swarm optimization (PSO)
Particle swarm optimization as a population based algorithm, was introduced by Kennedy and Eberhart [32]. The principal of the PSO are the social behavior and cognitive of swarm. The PSO has some advantages, namely the following [33–37].
-
1.
Particle swarm optimization is a fast and easy algorithm to understand and implement.
-
2.
Particle swarm optimization is an efficient optimization technique to maintain the diversity of the swarm.
-
3.
In PSO, there are fewer parameters to adjust.
The PSO consists of a swarm of particles that search for the best position, including the best personal (p best) and global (g best) positions, based on its best solution [38, 39]. In the other words, during each iteration, each particle moves in the direction of its best p best and g best positions.
The velocity and position of a particle during its moving process can be formulated as follow:
-
\( V \) and \( X \) represent current velocity and position of particles, respectively.
-
\( V_{\text{new}} \) and \( X_{\text{new}} \) represent new velocity and position of particles, respectively.
-
\( C_{1} \) and \( C_{2} \) are two positive acceleration constants.
-
\( w \) represents the inertial weight
-
\( r_{1} \) and \( r_{2} \) represent the random numbers in (0, 1)
Learn more about the PSO can be found in many studies (e.g. [40, 41]). In the past few years, many attempts have been done to highlight the application of PSO for solving problems of rock and geotechnical engineering. Day by day the number of researches being interested in PSO increases rapidly. For instance, Kalatehjari et al. [42] used PSO and conventional methods to predict slope stability. They concluded that the PSO could perform better than the conventional methods individually. A combination of PSO and ANN for prediction of the ultimate bearing capacity (Q u) was proposed by Jahed Armaghani et al. [43]. They indicated the proposed PSO-ANN model can be used successfully for prediction of Q u. Tonnizam Mohamad et al. [44] developed PSO-ANN model to predict the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of soft rocks. Their result showed that the PSO can be used as a powerful algorithm to optimize the ANN.
3 Case study
The field study was conducted at Shur river dam region in Iran which situated near Sarcheshmeh copper mine. The Shur river dam is situated in the south of province Kerman, between 30°1′48″ latitudes and 55°51′47″ longitudes (see Fig. 3). Two mines, i.e., main and second mines were extracted to construct the Shur river dam. The mentioned mines were in the vicinity of the dam and drilling and blasting method was used in the extracting process. Wagon Drill Machine and ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) were used for drilling and blasting processes, respectively. In addition, the blast-holes were stemmed with fine gravels. As suggested above, BB is one of the most undesirable by-products of blasting. So, an extensive research program was carried out to predict blast-induced BB in the Shur river dam. In this regard, a total number of 80 blasting events were considered and the values of BB were measured. IN addition, the values of several influential parameters on the BB, i.e., burden (B), spacing (S), stemming (ST) and powder factor (PF) were measured. In this regard, B, S and ST were measured by a tape meter. The PF was also obtained by division of the mean charge per blast-hole on the blast volume (burden × spacing × bench height) [12, 14]. To measure the BB, the horizontal distance between the pre-blast surveyed position of the last row of blast-holes and the crack with the maximum separation (critical crack) was considered as the BB, as suggested by Sari et al. [12]. Table 2 summarizes the range of measured parameters in this study. Furthermore, Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 depict the frequency distributions of the B, S, ST, PF and BB, respectively.
4 Prediction of BB
To develop the PSO-ANIFS and MLR models, the datasets have been divided into the following two groups: (1) training datasets. This is used to develop the mentioned models. In this study, 80 % of whole datasets (64 of 80 datasets) were used as training dataset; (2) testing dataset. This is used to verify the developed models. The remaining 16 datasets have used as testing dataset. Using 80 and 20 % of whole datasets was recommended by Swingler [45] for training and testing purposes, respectively. In modeling, four effective parameters on the BB i.e., B, S, ST and PF were set as model inputs, while BB was set as model output.
4.1 Prediction of BB using PSO-ANFIS
In this section, a new soft computing-based predictive model for predicting the BB is proposed. The proposed model is based on PSO and ANFIS models. In fact, the PSO optimizes values of ANFIS parameters using a population-based search. Hence, PSO was applied to train ANFIS for determining the optimal values of the ANFIS parameters. In the other words, the ANFIS provides the search space and employs PSO for finding the best solution by tuning the membership functions required to achieve lower error. For this goal, root mean square error (RMSE) is utilized as fitness function. The proposed PSO-ANFIS model was performed by writing a MATLAB code. In the modeling, B, S, ST and PF were set as model inputs, while BB was set as model output. Also, 64 and 16 datasets were used for training and testing aims. One of the most important tasks in the PSO-ANFIS modeling is to select the type of membership functions. In the current paper, the Gaussian membership function which has been widely used in many studies, was employed. As suggested by many researchers, the main PSO parameters include maximum number of particles and iterations, initial (W min) and final (W max) inertia weight, Cognitive (C 1) and Social (C 2) acceleration. To determine the optimum values for the mentioned parameters, trial and error method was performed in this study. Based on the obtained results of trial and error method, the values of 50, 1000, 2, 2, 0.9 and 0.5 for the maximum number of particles, maximum number of iterations, C 1, C 2, W min and W max, respectively, were the best among other utilized values. More discussions regarding the proposed PSO-ANFIS model is given in the Sect. 5.
4.2 Prediction of BB using MLR
The MLR is one of the most well-known methods to fit a linear equation between one or more independent variables and one dependent variable. The MLR is widely utilized to predict some problems in the field of mining [46, 47]. For instance, the application of MLR for BB prediction was investigated by Esmaeili et al. [9]. Based on their results, the coefficient of determination (R 2) between measured and predicted values of BB by MLR was 0.798 that indicated an acceptable performance for the MLR. Generally, the MLR model can be formulated as follows:
where, \( X_{i} \left( {i = 1, \ldots ,n} \right) \) and \( Y \) denote independent and dependent variables, respectively. In addition, \( P_{i} \left( {i = 0,1, \ldots , n} \right) \) denote regression coefficients. In the present paper, MLR was developed to predict BB using the same training and testing datasets considering in PSO-ANFIS model. The developed MLR for BB prediction is shown in Eq. 9. It is worth mentioning that the presented Eq. 9 was developed using training datasets. Afterwards, the performance of the developed equation can be determined using testing datasets.
where PF is in terms of \( {\text{gr/cm}}^{ 3} \). Also, B, S and ST are in terms of m. Additionally, Table 3 summarizes statistical information regarding the constructed MLR model. More discussions regarding the developed MLR equation is given in the next section. Note that, MLR was performed using statistical software package, Microsoft Excel 2013.
5 Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this study is to predict the BB induced by blasting operations in the Shur river dam region, Iran, using PSO-ANFIS and MLR models. For this aim, 80 blasting events were considered and the values of B, S, ST and PF, as the most effective parameters on the BB, were measured. In the present paper, 80 and 20 % (64 and 16 datasets) of the whole datasets were used as training and testing datasets, respectively. In the other words, 64 datasets were used to train/construct the predictive models, while, the remained 16 datasets were used to test the constructed models. In the PSO-ANFIS modeling, the ANFIS is optimized by PSO to improve the performance of ANFIS. In the current study, the optimum values of PSO parameters were determined by trial and error method, as given in Table 4. The Gaussian shaped was also considered as the membership functions. Performance of models established was evaluated using RMSE, coefficient of determination (R 2) and median absolute error (MEDAE).
where, n denotes number of datasets, \( x_{p} \) and \( x_{i} \) denote the predicted and measured PPV values, respectively. The RMSE, R 2 and MEDAE equal to 0, 1 and 1 indicate the best approximation, respectively. The results of statistical indicators for the MLR and PSO-ANFIS models are summarized in Table 5. According to Table 5, When considering the obtained results of the R 2 for the MLR model, the values of 0.88 and 0.85 were observed for training and testing datasets, respectively, while, the values of R 2 for PSO-ANFIS model were 0.95 and 0.92 for training and testing datasets, respectively. These values demonstrate higher conformity of PSO-ANFIS model. On the other hand, when considering the obtained results of the RMSE for the MLR model, the values of 0.11 and 0.16 were observed for training and testing datasets, respectively, while, the values of RMSE for PSO-ANFIS model were 0.06 and 0.13 for training and testing datasets, respectively. These values reveal a higher accuracy of PSO-ANFIS model. In addition, Figs. 9 and 10 show the scatter plots of BB predicted by the MLR and PSO-ANFIS models for both training and testing data sets. To have a better comparison, the values of predicted and measured BB are also plotted for all 80 datasets, as shown in Fig. 11. From Table 5 and Figs. 9, 10, 11, it can be seen that the PSO-ANFIS model predict the blast-induced BB more reliably than MLR model. It is worth mentioning that developed models in the current paper are specific to Shur river dam. The application of these models directly in other surface mines is not recommended and some modifications are necessary based on blasting and mining conditions.
References
Monjezi M, Hasanipanah M, Khandelwal M (2013) Evaluation and prediction of blast-induced ground vibration at Shur River Dam, Iran, by artificial neural network. Neural Comput Appl 22:1637–1643
Amiri M, Amnieh HB, Hasanipanah M, Khanli LM (2016) A new combination of artificial neural network and K-nearest neighbors models to predict blast-induced ground vibration and air-overpressure. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-016-0442-5
Hasanipanah M, Armaghani DJ, Monjezi M, Shams S (2016) Risk assessment and prediction of rock fragmentation produced by blasting operation: a rock engineering system. Environ Earth Sci 75:808
Armaghani DJ, Mahdiyar A, Hasanipanah M, Faradonbeh RS, Khandelwal M, Amnieh HB (2016) Risk assessment and prediction of flyrock distance by combined multiple regression analysis and monte carlo simulation of quarry blasting. Rock Mech Rock Eng. doi:10.1007/s00603-016-1015-z
Hasanipanah M, Armaghani DJ, Amnieh HB, Majid MZA, Tahir MMD (2016) Application of PSO to develop a powerful equation for prediction of flyrock due to blasting. Neural Comput Appl. doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2434-1
Fouladgar N, Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB (2016) Application of cuckoo search algorithm to estimate peak particle velocity in mine blasting. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-016-0463-0
Mohammadnejad M, Gholami R, Sereshki F, Jamshidi A (2013) A new methodology to predict backbreak in blasting operation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:75–81
Ebrahimi E, Monjezi M, Khalesi MR, Armaghani DJ (2015) Prediction and optimization of back-break and rock fragmentation using an artificial neural network and a bee colony algorithm. Bull Eng Geol Environ. doi:10.1007/s10064-015-0720-2
Esmaeili M, Osanloo M, Rashidinejad F, Bazzazi AA, Taji M (2014) Multiple regression, ANN and ANFIS models for prediction of backbreak in the open pit blasting. Eng Comput 30:549–558
Khandelwal M, Monjezi M (2013) Prediction of backbreak in openpit blasting operations using the machine learning method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(2):389–396
Monjezi M, Ahmadi Z, Varjani AY, Khandelwal M (2013) Backbreak prediction in the Chadormalu iron mine using artificial neural network. Neural Comput Appl 23:1101–1107
Sari M, Ghasemi E, Ataei M (2014) Stochastic modeling approach for the evaluation of backbreak due to blasting operations in open pit mines. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(2):771–783
Faradonbeh RS, Monjezi M, Armaghani DJ (2015) Genetic programing and non-linear regression techniques to predict backbreak in blasting operation. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-015-0404-3
Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL, Carcedo FJA (1995) Drilling and blasting of rocks. Balkema, Rotterdam
Ghasemi E (2016) Particle swarm optimization approach for forecasting backbreak induced by bench blasting. Neural Comput Appl. doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2182-2
Ghasemi E, Amnieh HB, Bagherpour R (2016) Assessment of backbreak due to blasting operation in open pit mines: a case study. Environ Earth Sci 75:552
Pousinhoa HMI, Mendesb VMF, Catalão JPS (2011) A hybrid PSO–ANFIS approach for short-term wind power prediction in Portugal. Energ Convers Manage 52:397–402
Rini DP, Shamsuddin SM, Yuhaniz SS (2016) Particle swarm optimization for ANFIS interpretability and accuracy. Soft Comput 20:251–262
Jang JSR (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23:665–685
Rini DP, Shamsuddin SM, Yuhaniz SS (2016) Particle swarm optimization for ANFIS interpretability and accuracy. Soft Comput 20:251–262
Buragohain M (2008) Adaptive network based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) as a tool for system identification with special emphasis on training data minimization. PhD Thesis, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, 781 039, India
Mohammadi SS, Amnieh HB, Bahadori M (2011) Prediction ground vibration caused by blasting operations in Sarcheshmeh copper mine considering the charge type by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Arch Min Sci 56(4):701–710
Ataei M, Kamali M (2013) Prediction of blast-induced vibration by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in Karoun 3 power plant and dam. J Vib Contr 19(12):1906–1914
Jahed Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Monjezi M, Mohamad ET, Marto A, Moghaddam MR (2015) Application of two intelligent systems in predicting environmental impacts of quarry blasting. Arab J Geosci 8:9647–9665
Armaghani DJ, Momeni E, Abad SVANK, Khandelwal M (2015) Feasibility of ANFIS model for prediction of ground vibrations resulting from quarry blasting. Environ Earth Sci 74:2845–2860
Trivedi R, Singh TN, Gupta NI (2015) Prediction of blastinduced flyrock in opencast mines using ANN and ANFIS. Geotech Geol Eng 33:875–891
Hasanipanah M, Armaghani DJ, Khamesi H, Amnieh HB, Ghoraba S (2015) Several non-linear models in estimating air-overpressure resulting from mine blasting. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-015-0425-y
Mahapatra S, Daniel R, Dey DN, Nayak SK (2015) Induction motor control using PSO-ANFIS. Procedia Computer Science 48:754–769
Pousinhoa HMI, Mendesb VMF, Catalão JPS (2011) A hybrid PSO–ANFIS approach for short-term wind power prediction in Portugal. Energ Convers Manage 52:397–402
Jang RJS, Sun CT, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 614
Iphar M, Yavuz M, Ak H (2008) Prediction of ground vibrations resulting from the blasting operations in an open-pit mine by adaptive neurofuzzy inference system. Environ Geol 56:97–107
Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks. Perth, Australia, pp 1942–1948
Eberhart RC, Shi Y (2001) Particle swarm optimization: developments, applications and resources. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, pp 81–86
Zhang JR, Zhang J, Lok TM, Lyu MR (2007) A hybrid particle swarm optimization–back-propagation algorithm for feedforward neural network training. Appl Math Comput 185(2):1026–1037
Hajihassani M, Armaghani DJ, Sohaei H, Mohamad ET, Marto A (2014) Prediction of airblast-overpressure induced by blasting using a hybrid artificial neural network and particle swarm optimization. Appl Acoust 80:57–67
Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Bejarbaneh BY, Marto A, Mohamad ET (2014) Indirect measure of shale shear strength parameters by means of rock index tests through an optimized artificial neural network. Measurement 55:487–498
Momeni E, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Amin MFM (2015) Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of rock samples using hybrid particle swarm optimization-based artificial neural networks. Measurement 60:50–63
Davies B, Farmer IW, Attewell PB (1964) Ground Vibrations from Shallow Sub-surface Blasts, vol 217. The Engineer, London, pp 553–559
Liang Q, An Y, Zhao L, Li D, Yan L (2011) Comparative study on calculation methods of blasting vibration velocity. Rock Mech Rock Eng 44:93–101
Singh R, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2012) Estimation of elastic constant of rocks using an ANFIS approach. Appl Soft Comput 12:40–45
Yagiz S, Gokceoglu C, Sezer E, Iplikci S (2009) Application of two non-linear prediction tools to the estimation of tunnel boring machine performance. Eng Appl Artif Intell 22:808–814
Kalatehjari R, Ali N, Kholghifard M, Hajihassani M (2014) The effects of method of generating circular slip surfaces on determining the critical slip surface by particle swarm optimization. Arab J Geosci 7(4):1529–1539
Armaghani DJ, Raja RSNSB, Faizi K, Rashid ASA (2015) Developing a hybrid PSO–ANN model for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of rock-socketed piles. Neural Comput Appl. doi:10.1007/s00521-015-2072-z
Mohamad ET, Armaghani DJ, Momeni E, Abad SVANK (2015) Prediction of the unconfined compressive strength of soft rocks: a PSO-based ANN approach. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74:745–757
Swingler K (1996) Applying neural networks: a practical guide. Academic, New York
Hasanipanah M, Naderi R, Kashir J, Noorani SA, Qaleh AZA (2016) Prediction of blast-produced ground vibration using particle swarm optimization. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-016-0462-1
Hasanipanah M, Shahnazar A, Amnieh HB, Armaghani DJ (2016) Prediction of air-overpressure caused by mine blasting using a new hybrid PSO–SVR model. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-016-0453-2
Monjezi M, Khoshalan HA, Varjani AY (2012) Prediction of flyrock and backbreak in open pit blasting operation: a neurogenetic approach. Arab J Geosci 5(3):441–448
Sayadi A, Monjezi M, Talebi N, Khandelwal M (2013) A comparative study on the application of various artificial neural networks to simultaneous prediction of rock fragmentation and backbreak. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 5(4):318–324
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hasanipanah, M., Shahnazar, A., Arab, H. et al. Developing a new hybrid-AI model to predict blast-induced backbreak. Engineering with Computers 33, 349–359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-016-0477-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-016-0477-7