Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 29, Issue 9, pp 619–629 | Cite as

Airblast prediction through a hybrid genetic algorithm-ANN model

  • Danial Jahed Armaghani
  • Mahdi Hasanipanah
  • Amir Mahdiyar
  • Muhd Zaimi Abd Majid
  • Hassan Bakhshandeh Amnieh
  • Mahmood M. D. Tahir
Original Article


Air overpressure is one of the most undesirable destructive effects induced by blasting operation. Hence, a precise prediction of AOp has vital importance to minimize or reduce the environmental effects. This paper presents the development of two artificial intelligence techniques, namely artificial neural network (ANN) and ANN based on genetic algorithm (GA) for prediction of AOp. For this purpose, a database was compiled from 97 blasting events in a granite quarry in Penang, Malaysia. The values of maximum charge per delay and the distance from the blast-face were set as model inputs to predict AOp. To verify the quality and reliability of the ANN and GA-ANN models, several statistical functions, i.e., root means square error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R 2) and variance account for (VAF) were calculated. Based on the obtained results, the GA-ANN model is found to be better than ANN model in estimating AOp induced by blasting. Considering only testing datasets, values of 0.965, 0.857, 0.77 and 0.82 for R 2, 96.380, 84.257, 70.07 and 78.06 for VAF, and 0.049, 0.117, 8.62 and 6.54 for RMSE were obtained for GA-ANN, ANN, USBM and MLR models, respectively, which prove superiority of the GA-ANN in AOp prediction. It can be concluded that GA-ANN model can perform better compared to other implemented models in predicting AOp.


Blast-induced air overpressure ANN GA GA-ANN 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2007) Evaluation of blast-induced ground vibration predictors. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dindarloo SR (2015) Prediction of blast-induced ground vibrations via genetic programming. Int J Min Sci Technol 25:1011–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shirani Faradonbeh R, Jahed Armaghani D, Abd Majid MZ, Tahir MMD, Ramesh Murlidhar B, Monjezi M, Wong HM (2016) Prediction of ground vibration due to quarry blasting based on gene expression programming: a new model for peak particle velocity prediction. Int J Environ Sci Technol. doi: 10.1007/s13762-016-0979-2 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh PK, Sinha A (2013) Rock fragmentation by blasting, Fragblast 10. Taylor & Francis Group, London, p 427Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2005) Prediction of blast induced air overpressure in opencast mine. Noise Vib Control Worldw 36:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khandelwal M, Kankar PK (2011) Prediction of blast-induced air overpressure using support vector machine. Arab J Geosci 4:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dindarloo SR (2015) Peak particle velocity prediction using support vector machines: a surface blasting case study. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 115:637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amiri M, Bakhshandeh Amnieh H, Hasanipanah M, Mohammad Khanli L (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 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siskind DE, Stachura VJ, Stagg MS, Koop JW (1980) Structure response and damage produced by airblast from surface mining. Report of investigations, vol 8485. United States Bureau of Mines, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hustrulid WA (1999) Blasting principles for open pit mining: general design concepts. Balkema, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuzu C, Fisne A, Ercelebi SG (2009) Operational and geological parameters in the assessing blast induced airblast-overpressure in quarries. Appl Acoust 70:404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jahed Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Sohaei H, Mohamad ET, Marto A, Motaghedi H, Moghaddam MR (2015) Neuro-fuzzy technique to predict air-overpressure induced by blasting. Arab J Geosci 8(12):10937–10950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jahed Armaghani D, Hasanipanah M, Mohamad ET (2016) A combination of the ICA-ANN model to predict air-overpressure resulting from blasting. Eng Comput 32(1):155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohamad ET, Jahed Armaghani D, Hasanipanah M, Ramesh Murlidhar B, Asmawisham Alel MN (2016) Estimation of air-overpressure produced by blasting operation through a neuro-genetic technique. Environ Earth Sci 75:174. doi: 10.1007/s12665-015-4983-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verma AK, Singh TN (2009) A Neuro-Genetic approach for prediction of compressional wave velocity of rock and its sensitivity analysis. Int J Earth Sci Eng 2(2):81–94Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verma AK, Singh TN, Monjezi M (2010) Intelligent prediction of heating value of coal. Iran J Earth Sci 2:32–38Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh TN, Verma AK (2010) Sensitivity of total charge and maximum charge per delay on ground vibration. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 1(3):259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh R, Vishal V, Singh TN (2012) Soft computing method for assessment of compressional wave velocity. Sci Iran 19(4):1018–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verma AK, Singh TN (2012) Comparative analysis of intelligent algorithms to correlate strength and petrographic properties of some schistose rocks. Eng Comput 28:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh R, Vishal V, Singh TN, Ranjith PG (2013) A comparative study of generalized regression neural network approach and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems for prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rocks. Neural Comput Appl 23(2):499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sawmliana C, Roy PP, Singh RK, Singh TN (2007) Blast induced air overpressure and its prediction using artificial neural network. Min Technol 116(2):41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohamed MT (2011) Performance of fuzzy logic and artificial neural network in prediction of ground and air vibrations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:845–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hasanipanah M, Jahed Armaghani D, Khamesi H, Bakhshandeh Amnieh H, Ghoraba S (2015) Several nonlinear models in estimating air-overpressure resulting from mine blasting. Eng Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00366-015-0425-y Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jadav K, Panchal M (2012) Optimizing weights of artificial neural networks using genetic algorithms. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci Electron Eng 1:47–51Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Momeni E, Nazir R, Jahed Armaghani D, Maizir H (2014) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using a hybrid genetic algorithm-based ANN. Measurement 57:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garrett J (1994) Where and why artificial neural networks are applicable in civil engineering. J Comput Civ Eng 8:129–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simpson P (1990) Artificial neural system: foundation, paradigms, applications and implementations. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dreyfus G (2005) Neural networks: methodology and application. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chipperfield A, Fleming P, Pohlheim H (2006) Genetic algorithm toolbox for use with MATLAB User’s guide, version 1.2. University of Sheffield, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simpson AR, Dandy GC, Murphy LJ (1994) Genetic algorithms compared to other techniques for pipe optimization. J Water Res PL-ASCE 120:423–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee Y, Oh S-H, Kim MW (1991) The effect of initial weights on premature saturation in back-propagation learning. In: Proceedings of the Seattle international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN-91), vol 1. IEEE, pp 765–770Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Majdi A, Beiki M (2010) Evolving neural network using a genetic algorithm for predicting the deformation modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    TingXiang L, ShuWen Z, QuanYuan W et al. (2012) Research of agricultural land classification and evaluation based on genetic algorithm optimized neural network model. In: Wu Y (ed) Software engineering and knowledge engineering: theory and practice. Springer, Berlin, pp 465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rashidian V, Hassanlourad M (2013) Predicting the shear behavior of cemented and uncemented carbonate sands using a genetic algorithm-based artificial neural network. Geotech Geol Eng 2:1–18Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chambers LD (2010) Practical handbook of genetic algorithms: complex coding systems. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rajasekaran S, Vijayalakshmi Pai GA (2007) Neural networks, fuzzy logic, and genetic algorithms, synthesis and applications. Prentice-Hall of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hagan MT, Menhaj MB (1994) Training feed forward networks with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 5:861–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saemi M, Ahmadi M, Varjani AY (2007) Design of neural networks using genetic algorithm for the permeability estimation of the reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 59:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hopler RB (1998) Blasters’ handbook. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, OHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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. doi: 10.1007/s12517-015-1908-2 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Khamesi H, Torabi S, Mirzaei-Nasirabad H, Ghadiri Z (2015) Improving the performance of intelligent back analysis for tunneling using optimized fuzzy systems: case study of the Karaj Subway Line 2 in Iran. J Comput Civ Eng 29(6):05014010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Swingler K (1996) Applying neural networks: a practical guide. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Looney CG (1996) Advances in feed-forward neural networks: demystifying knowledge acquiring black boxes. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 8(2):211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nelson M, Illingworth WT (1990) A practical guide to neural nets. Addison-Wesley, Reading MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hush DR (1989) Classification with neural networks: a performance analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems engineering, Dayton, pp 277–280Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Maulenkamp F, Grima MA (1999) Application of neural networks for the prediction of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) from Equotip hardness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw 2:359–366CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A (2006) Estimation of rock modulus: for intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical equation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:224–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hecht-Nielsen R (1987) Kolmogorov’s mapping neural network existence theorem. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE international conference on neural networks, San Diego, pp 11–14Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ripley BD (1993) Statistical aspects of neural networks. In: Barndoff-Neilsen OE, Jensen JL, Kendall WS (eds) Networks and chaos-statistical and probabilistic aspects. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 40–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Paola JD (1994) Neural network classification of multispectral imagery, M.Sc. thesis. The University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang C (1994) A theory of generalization in learning machines with neural application, Ph.D. thesis. The University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Masters T (1994) Practical neural network recipes in C++. Academic Press, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kaastra I, Boyd M (1996) Designing a neural network for forecasting financial and economic time series. Neurocomputing 10:215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kanellopoulas I, Wilkinson GG (1997) Strategies and best practice for neural network image classification. Int J Remote Sens 18:711–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rezaei M, Monjezi M, Yazdian Varjani A (2011) Development of a fuzzy model to predict flyrock in surface mining. Saf Sci 49:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tripathy A, Singh TN, Kundu J (2015) Prediction of abrasiveness index of some Indian rocks using soft computing methods. Measurement 68:302–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    SPSS Inc (2007) SPSS for Windows (version 16.0). SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danial Jahed Armaghani
    • 1
  • Mahdi Hasanipanah
    • 2
  • Amir Mahdiyar
    • 3
  • Muhd Zaimi Abd Majid
    • 4
  • Hassan Bakhshandeh Amnieh
    • 5
  • Mahmood M. D. Tahir
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)SkudaiMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of KashanKashanIran
  3. 3.Department of Structure and Material, Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)SkudaiMalaysia
  4. 4.UTM Construction Research Centre, Institute for Smart Infrastructure and Innovative Construction (ISIIC), Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudaiMalaysia
  5. 5.School of Mining, College of EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations