2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00366-018-0578-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proposing of a new soft computing-based model to predict peak particle velocity induced by blasting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Their proposed ANN model results can estimate the ground vibrations more accurately as compared with the various conventional predictor models available. Mokfi et al 41 introduced a group method of data handling (GDMH) NN to estimate the ground vibration conducted quarry in Penang, Malaysia, in 2018. The authors found that the GDMH provides more accurate prediction over other techniques.…”
Section: Summary Of the Previous Investigationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their proposed ANN model results can estimate the ground vibrations more accurately as compared with the various conventional predictor models available. Mokfi et al 41 introduced a group method of data handling (GDMH) NN to estimate the ground vibration conducted quarry in Penang, Malaysia, in 2018. The authors found that the GDMH provides more accurate prediction over other techniques.…”
Section: Summary Of the Previous Investigationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A large number of studies have shown that the vibration velocity and vibration frequency of the particle are closely related to the damage of the building [23][24][25]. It can directly reflect the vibration energy and play an important role in the evaluation of the vibration of building.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years, various advanced techniques and approaches have been developed to predict and reduce the undesirable effects of blast-induced PPV in open-cast [38] ANN 182 R 2 = 0.949 Armaghani et al [39] PSO-ANN 44 R 2 = 0.930; MSE = 10.71 Saadat et al [21] ANN 69 R 2 = 0.957; MSE = 0.000722 Hasanipanah et al [6] SVM 80 R 2 = 0.957; RMSE = 0.340 Amiri et al [40] ANN-KNN 75 R 2 = 0.880; RMSE = 0.540 Hasanipanah et al [41] PSO 80 R 2 = 0.938; RMSE = 0.240 Faradonbeh and Monjezi [42] GEP 115 R 2 = 0.874; RMSE = 6.732 Taheri et al [23] ABC-ANN 89 R 2 = 0.920; RMSE = 0.220 Armaghani et al [43] ICA 73 R 2 = 0.940; RMSE = 0.370 Behzadafshar et al [44] ICA 76 R 2 = 0.939; RMSE = 0.320 Abbaszadeh Shahri and Asheghi [45] ANN 37 R 2 = 0.954; RMSE = 0.157 Mokfi et al [46] GMDH 102 R 2 = 0.911; RMSE = 0.889 Torres et al [47] MLR-Empirical 178 R 2 = 0.898 [26] used random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) algorithms to predict blast-induced PPV; 93 blasting events were used for development of the RF and SVM models in their study. Their results showed that the RF and SVM models were acceptable and the SVM model was better than the RF model throughout the PPV predicted values on the testing dataset.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%