Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Development of a fuzzy model to predict flyrock in surface mining

M. Rezaei, M. Monjezi ⇑, A. Yazdian Varjani
Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Flyrock is one of the most hazardous side effects of blasting operation in surface mining. This phenom-
Received 21 April 2009 enon can be considered as the main cause of casualties and damages. Inaccuracy of the available flyrock
Received in revised form 4 August 2010 prediction empirical methods has caused utilizing of new methods such as fuzzy systems. In this paper a
Accepted 3 September 2010
Mamdani fuzzy model was developed to predict flyrock in the Gol-E-Gohar iron mine of Iran. In this
regard, a database including 490 datasets of the mine blasting operation was prepared from which about
20% was kept for testing the models. Performance of the fuzzy model was compared with that of the con-
Keywords:
ventional statistical method. It was observed that efficiency of the developed fuzzy model is much better
Flyrock
Gol-E-Gohar iron mine
than the statistical model. Also, sensitivity analysis showed that powder factor and rock density are the
Fuzzy model most and least effective parameters on the flyrock, respectively.
Statistical model Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the relevant parameters. Therefore, flyrock prediction may require

As compared to other industries, mining industry is associated
with high rates of occupational injuries and fatalities. To reduce
costs related to the potential hazards remedial measures should
be deemed (Sari et al., 2009). Despite improvement of safety level
in the blasting operation, there are still unpleasant reports to both
the people and structures (Kecojevic and Radomsky, 2005; Verakis
and Lobb, 2003; NIOSH, 2000).
Flyrock, propelled rock fragments by explosive energy beyond
the blast area, is one of the undesirable phenomena in the mining
blasting operation (IME, 1997). Any mismatch between distribu-
tion of the explosive energy, mechanical strength of the rock mass
and charge confinement can be cause of flyrock (Bajpayee et al.,
2004). Other investigations have revealed that the major factors
responsible for flyrock are insufficient burden, improper blasthole
pattern, unsuitable loading charge, geological anomalies, inade-
quate stemming, and inappropriate delay time (Kecojevic and
Radomsky, 2005).
In various researches, Langefors and Kishlstrom (1963), Holme-
berg and Persson (1976), Roth (1979) and Persson et al. (1994)
have explained influential parameters on the flyrock. An empirical
model for predicting flyrock has been developed by Lundborg
(1974, 1981). Further studies on the phenomenon have been per-
formed by Ladegaard-Pederson and Persson (1973), Fletcher and
D’ Andrea (1986), Siskind and Kopp (1995), Shea and Clark
(1998), Bajpayee et al. (2000) and Rehak et al. (2001).
Performance of the available flyrock predictive models is not
satisfactorily due to complicated nature of the problem. These
models mostly have been developed considering only some of
application of the other new methods such as fuzzy system. This
system is one of the most competent artificial intelligence subsys-
tems that can cope with the complicated and ill-defined problems
in a flexible and reliable way.
In the last two decades an increase of the fuzzy system applica-
tions in the field of mining has been observed (Iphar and Goktan,
2006). Chuang (1995) proposed a fuzzy model bridging the dis-
crepancy between the values of the in situ shear strengths of soils
and laboratory test results. Mishnaevsky and Schmauder (1996)
showed that fuzzy set theory could efficiently be applied to exam-
ine the damage evolution in heterogeneous rocks. Also, Habibagahi
and Katebi (1996) employed the method to develop a rock mass
classification based on the Bieniawski classification. Jiang et al.
(1997) applied the approach to characterize roof conditions in long
wall mining. Cebesoy (1997) and Bascetin (1999) used fuzzy tech-
nique for the selection of surface mine equipments. Wu et al.
(1999) employed the method to describe the damage threshold
of a rock mass under dynamic pressure of explosion. A methodol-
ogy for slope stability analysis using fuzzy system was proposed by
Dodagoudar and Venkatachalam (2000). Klose (2002) described a
simple approach for geological interpretation of the seismic data
utilizing fuzzy method. Tzamos and Sofianos (2006) used fuzzy ap-
proach for extending the Q system. In this study, a fuzzy model was
developed to predict flyrock in the Gol-E-Gohar iron mine of Iran.
For validation of the proposed fuzzy model, regression analysis was
performed for the same datasets.
2. Case study

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 82884312. The Gol-E-Gohar iron mine is situated 55 km southwest of Sir-
E-mail address: monjezi@modares.ac.ir (M. Monjezi). jan between 551150E and 551240E longitudes and 29,130 N and

0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.09.004
 M. Rezaei et al. / Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305
29,170 N latitudes at an altitude of 1750 m above sea level. From
geological viewpoint, the mine belongs to the metamorphic rocks
of Paleozoic that consist of three parts (i.e. lower, middle and
upper). The lower part contains successions of gneiss, mica schist,
amphibolite and quartz schist, while the middle part includes se-
quences of marble, mica schist, green schist and graphite schist
and finally and finally the upper part is composed of marble, dolo-
mite and calcite. The deposit is consisted of six separate anomalies
in an extent of approximately 10 km length and 4 km width. The
total ore reserve of the Gol-E-Gohar is 1135 million tones.
In the blasting operation of the mine flyrock is frequently ob-
served. Blast design parameters of the mine are listed in Table 1.
Drilling cuttings are used as stemming material and delay time
between the first and second row is 80 ms whereas it is 50 ms
between the other rows.
3. Fuzzy set theory
Fuzzy set theory was formalized by Zadeh (1965). This theory is
dealing with process of imprecise information. The theory can be
used for developing rule-based models which combine physical in-
sights, expert knowledge and numerical data in a transparent way
that closely resembles the real world. It also provides a systematic
calculus to deal with linguistic information. Moreover it performs
numerical computation by using linguistic labels stipulated by
membership functions (Jang et al., 1997). In this way, contrary to
a classical set in which the elements belong to, or not belong to a
set, in a fuzzy set degree of membership for each element is as-
signed in the unit interval between 0 and 1.
The first step in fuzzy modeling is fuzzification which is defined
as converting numeric values to the fuzzy values using member-
ship functions. The shape of the membership functions can be
either linear (trapezoidal or triangular) or non-linear, depending
on the nature of the problem (Acaroglu et al., 2008).
The fuzzy proposition that allows describing input–output rela-
tionship by fuzzy conditional rules is the second step in the mod-
eling process. A fuzzy conditional rule is generally made up of a
premise and a consequent (IF premise, THEN consequent) for
example ‘‘if x is high then y is low”, where the terms high and
Table 1
Blast design parameters of the Gol-E-Gohar iron ore
mine.
Parameter Description
Explosive type ANFO
Pattern type Staggered
Bench height 15 (m)
Hole diameter 0.203 (m)
Rows per blast 2–7
Holes per row 10–20
Fig. 1. Fuzzy model block diagram.
299
low can be represented by fuzzy sets or more specifically by mem-
bership functions.
The third step of the fuzzy modeling is to select a fuzzy infer-
ence mechanism to aggregate if–then rules (Zadeh, 1973). The re-
sult of aggregation is obtaining outputs from the given rules and
input parameters. There are several fuzzy inference systems such
as Mamdani and Takagi–Sugeno algorithm that have been em-
ployed in various applications. It should be mentioned that the
consequents of fuzzy rules in the inference systems are not same
hence aggregation procedures would also be different (Grima and
Verhoef, 1999; Gokceoglu and Zorlu, 2004; Kayabasi et al., 2003;
Sonmez et al., 2003, 2004). The Mamdani algorithm is widely in
fuzzy models to apply for the complex problems (Acaroglu et al.,
2008). Mamdani and Assilian (1975) showed that the fuzzy sets
can translate an entirely unstructured set of linguistic heuristics
terms into a structured one. This structured set takes the following
form (Iphar and Goktan, 2006):
If X I is AiI . . . and X r is Air then Y is Bi for I ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; K ð1Þ
XI, Xr: input parameters, AiI, Air, Bi: linguistic terms (fuzzy sets),
Y: output parameters, K: number of rules.
There are various fuzzy composition methods in the Mamdani
algorithm. In this study, the most commonly used technique,
max–min composition was utilized (Ross, 1995). In this technique,
aggregation, producing an output from a set of disjunctive rules, is
based on Eq. (2).
lCK ðZÞ ¼ max½min½lAK ðinputðxÞÞ; lBK ðinputðyÞÞ K
¼ 1; 2; . . . r; ð2Þ
WherelCK , lAK and lBK are the membership functions of output ‘‘z”
for rule ‘‘k”, input ‘‘x” and input ‘‘y”, respectively.
Since, the rules are disjunctive, the operation max results in an
aggregated membership function comprised of the outer envelope
of the individual truncated membership forms from each rule.
The last step of the fuzzy modeling is defuzzification in which
fuzzy values are converted to crisp (numeric) values (Ross, 1995).
There exist several defuzzification methods such as centroid of
area (COA), mean of maximum, smallest of maximum. For this
study, COA the most adopted defuzzification method one was se-
lected (Hellendoorn and Thomas, 1993; Grima, 2000). The crisp va-
lue can be obtained from the Eq. (3). Block diagram of the fuzzy
model is shown in Fig. 1.
R
l ðzÞzdz
zCOA ¼ Rz A ; ð3Þ
l ðzÞdz
z A
where zCOA is the crisp value for the ‘‘z” output and lA(z) is the
aggregated output membership function.
300 M. Rezaei et al. / Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305

4. Fuzzy modeling trapezoidal fuzzy set is calculated by the Eqs. (4) and (5),
respectively.
In this study, a fuzzy model based on Mamdani algorithm was h hx  a c  xi i
proposed to predict flyrock in the blasting operation of Gol-E-Go- lA ðxÞ ¼ max min ; ;0 ð4Þ
ba cb
har iron mine. In the following subsections, the process of model-
ing is described.    
xa dx
lA ðxÞ ¼ max min ; 1; ;0 ð5Þ
ba dc
4.1. Input and output parameters
Where lA(x) is a membership function of a fuzzy set; a, b, c and d
To estimate flyrock, burden, spacing, hole depth, specific dril- are the constant. The fuzzy sets of input and output parameters
ling, stemming length, charge per delay, rock density and powder are shown in the Figs. 3–11. Abbreviations such as VVL, M and
factor are used as input parameters. Minimum and maximum val- VVH stand for very very low, medium and very very high,
ues of the involved parameters in the modeling process and their respectively.
respected symbols are given in Table 2. A database including 450
datasets was collected from the blasting operation of the Gol-E-Go-
4.3. If–then rules
har iron mine. Eighty percent of the datasets were used for con-
struction of the rule base and the rest of them were kept for
The fuzzy propositions need to be represented by an implication
testing the model performance. Main structure of the fuzzy model
function. The implication function is called a fuzzy conditional
is shown in Fig. 2.
statement or a fuzzy if–then rule. In the present study, a total of
390 fuzzy if–then rules were utilized. Fig. 12 shows a fuzzy if–then
4.2. Fuzzification of input and output parameters rule editor including nine rules of the model in MATLAB environ-
ment. Fuzzy inference mechanism based on the Mamdani algo-
Normally, fuzzification of input/output parameters is fulfilled rithm was used for aggregating the if–then rules.
by a membership function. Triangular and trapezoidal type of An example of the model application is shown in the Fig. 13. In
membership functions were considered appropriate for the pro- this example, input parameters are B = 5.5 m, S = 6.5 m, K = 17.5 m,
posed model (Habibagahi and Katebi, 1996; Den Hartog et al., SD = 0.028 m/m3, T = 4 m, Cpd = 20.22 kg/ms, D = 4.1 g/cm3 and
1997; Grima, 2000). The membership function of a triangular and Pf = 0.25 kg/ton whereas corresponding predicted output (flyrock)
is 40 m.

Table 2 5. Statistical modeling

Description of the input and output parameters in the fuzzy model.

Type of data Parameter Symbol Min. Max. In rock engineering and engineering geology, statistical method
Inputs Burden (m) B 2 6.5 is employed to establish predictive models between independent
Spacing (m) S 3 8 and dependent variables. From these models, one can obtain the
Hole depth (m) K 5 17.5 predictive variables and determine the relationship between the
Specific drilling (m/m3) SD 0.019 0.061
criterion variable and the predictive variable (Jennrich, 1995;
Stemming (m) T 2 10
Charge per delay (kg/ms) Cpd 14.7 175.5 Eskandari et al., 2004). This method was utilized in different min-
Rock density (g/cm3) D 1.85 4.86 ing fields (Grima and Babuska, 1999; Finol et al., 2001; Gokceoglu
Powder factor (kg/ton) Pf 0.13 0.35 and Zorlu, 2004). In this study, a relationship between flyrock (out-
Output Flyrock (m) F 10 70 put) and the other relevant parameters (inputs) i.e., burden, spac-
ing, hole depth, specific drilling, stemming length, charge per

Fig. 2. Main structure of the fuzzy model.

 M. Rezaei et al. / Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305 301

VVL VL L LM M MH H VH VVH VVL VL L LM M MH H VH VVH

1 1

Membership degree
Membership degree

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0
0
2 4 6 8 10
2 3 4 5 6
Burden (m) Stemming (m)
Fig. 7. Membership function of stemming length.
Fig. 3. Membership function of burden.

VVL VL L LM M MH H VH
VVL VL L LM M MH H VH VVH 1
1
Membership degree

Membership degree
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2
0.2
0
0
3 4 5 6 7 8
50 100 150
Spacing (m)
Charge per delay (kg/ms)
Fig. 4. Membership function of spacing.
Fig. 8. Membership function of charge per delay.

VL L LM M MH H VH
1
L LM M MH H VH
1
Membership degree

0.8
Membership degree

0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Hole depth (m) Density (g/cm3)
Fig. 5. Membership function of hole depth.
Fig. 9. Membership function of rock density.

VVL VL L LM M MH H VH VVH VVVL VVL VL L LM M MH H VH VVH VVVH VVVVH

1 1
Membership degree

Membership degree

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Specific Drilling (m/m3) Powder factor (kg/ton)

Fig. 6. Membership function of specific drilling. Fig. 10. Membership function of powder factor.
302 M. Rezaei et al. / Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305

VVVL VVL VL L LM M MH H VH VVH VVVH As a key performance index (KPI) for model evaluation, the root
1
mean square error (RMSE) were used as follow (Tzamos and Sofi-
anos, 2006):
Membership degree

0.8
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u X n
0.6
RMSEðAÞ ¼ t1=n ðAimeas  Aipred Þ2 ð7Þ
i¼1
0.4
where n is the number of datasets and Aimeas and Aipred is the ith
0.2 measured and predicted element, respectively.
The RMSE for fuzzy and statistical models was equal to 1.98 and
0 8.31, respectively which shows superiority of fuzzy modeling over
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 statistical modeling. Utilization of experts’ experiences and correc-
Flyrock (m) tive rules can probably be the main the cause of higher accuracy of
fuzzy modeling while lower performance of the statistical model
Fig. 11. Membership function of flyrock. can probably be attributed to linearity relationship assumptions
among pertinent parameters.

delay, rock density and powder factor (Eq. (6)). The same database 6.2. Sensitivity analysis
as used for fuzzy modeling is also applied for statistical modeling.

F ¼ 43:9  37:442B þ 30:581S þ 2:614K  119:355SD Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the most effec-
tive parameters on the flyrock using the cosine amplitude method
 6:4T þ 0:144Cpd  2:256D þ 303:787Pf ð6Þ (CAM) (Jong and Lee, 2004). To apply this method, all of the data
pairs are expressed in common X-space. The data pairs are used
to construct a data array X defined as:
6. Results and discussion
X ¼ fX 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 ; . . . ; X m g ð8Þ
6.1. Modeling performance evaluation Each of the elements, Xi, in the data array X is a vector of lengths,
that is:
To compare performance of the proposed fuzzy model with that
X i ¼ fxi1 ; xi2 ; xi3 ; . . . ; xim g1 ð9Þ
of the statistical model, the same testing datasets were used in
both the models. A comparison between predicted flyrock and Strengths of relations (rij) between output and input parameters can
measured flyrock for fuzzy and statistical models are shown in be calculated using Eq. (10).
the Fig. 14 and 15, respectively. Also predictive capability of both vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u m
the models is shown in the Fig. 16. As it can be seen from these fig- X
m uX X m

ures, performance of the fuzzy model in terms of determination rij ¼ xik xjk =t x2ik x2jk ð10Þ
k¼1 k¼1 k¼1
coefficient (R2) is much better.

Fig. 12. Fuzzy if–then rule editor and nine rule of the model.
 M. Rezaei et al. / Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305 303

Fig. 13. Graphical indication of fuzzy reasoning mechanism.

80
80
y = 0.9472x + 1.8625
70 2 y = 0.7032x + 9.3516
R = 0.9845 70
2
Predicted flyrock (m)

Predicted flyrock (m)

60 R = 0.7011
60
50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20
10
10
0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 20 40 60 80
Measured flyrock (m)
measured flyrock (m)
Fig. 15. Comparison between measured and predicted flyrock for the statistical
Fig. 14. Comparison between the measured and predicted flyrock for the fuzzy model.
model.

tor and stemming and therefore special care should be paid to esti-
The rij values are shown in Fig. 17. As it can be seen from this mate these parameters. Furthermore, rock density is the least
figure the most effective parameters on the flyrock are powder fac- effective parameter in this regard.
304 M. Rezaei et al. / Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305

80
Measured Fuzzy model Regression model
70

60

50
Flyrock (m)
40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Pattern number
Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted and measured flyrock.

Bajpayee, T., Rehak, T., Mowrey, G., Ingram, D., 2004. Blasting injuries in surface
1.00 mining with emphasis on flyrock and blast area security. J. Safety Res. 35, 47–
57.
Bascetin, A., 1999. Optimal Equipment Selection in Open-pit Mines. Ph.D. Thesis,
0.95 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul (in Turkish).
0.9330 Cebesoy, T., 1997. Surface mining equipment selection based on multi criteria fuzzy
dominant algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 15th Mining Congress of Turkey,
0.9011 pp. 79–87.
0.90 Chuang, P.H., 1995. Use of fuzzy sets for evaluating shear strength of soils. Comput.
0.8842
0.8761 Geotech. 17 (4), 425–446.
rij 0.8663 0.8666
0.8598 Den Hartog, M.H., Babuska, R., Deketh, H.J.R., Grima, M.A., Verhoef, P.N.W.,
0.85 0.8449 Verbruggen, H.B., 1997. Knowledge-based fuzzy model for performance
prediction of a rock-cutting trencher. Int. J. Approx. Reason 16 (1), 43–66.
Dodagoudar, G.R., Venkatachalam, G., 2000. Reliability analysis of slopes using fuzzy
sets theory. Comput. Geotech. 27, 101–115.
0.80
Eskandari, H., Rezaee, M.R., Mohammadnia, M., 2004. Application of multiple
regression and artificial neural network techniques to predict shear wave
velocity from wireline log data for a carbonate reservoir south-west Iran. CSEG
0.75 Recorder 42, 48.
B S K SD T Cpd D Pf Finol, J., Guo, Y.K., Dong Jing, X., 2001. A rule-based fuzzy model for the prediction of
Input parameter petrophysical rock parameters. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 29, 97–113.
Fletcher, L.R., D’ Andrea, D.V., 1986. Control of flyrock in blasting. In: Proceedings of
the 12th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique.
Fig. 17. Strengths of relation (rij) between the flyrock and each input parameter.
International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, pp. 167–177.
Gokceoglu, C., Zorlu, K., 2004. A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive
strength and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock. Eng. Appl. Artif.
7. Conclusions Intell. 17, 61–72.
Grima, A., Babuska, R., 1999. Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined
compressive strength of rock samples. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36 (3), 339–
In this paper, a new fuzzy model was developed to predict fly- 349.
rock phenomenon in the blasting operation. The model was devel- Grima, A., Verhoef, P.N.W., 1999. Forecasting rock trencher performance using fuzzy
oped on the basis of experts’ knowledge and experience and also logic. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36 (4), 413–432.
Grima, M.A., 2000. Neuro-fuzzy Modeling in Engineering Geology. A.A. Balkema,
the datasets which was obtained from the Gol-E-Gohar iron mine. Rotterdam, p. 244.
Parameters such as burden, spacing, hole depth, stemming length, Habibagahi, G., Katebi, S., 1996. Rock mass classification using fuzzy sets. Iran J. Sci.
and powder factor were considered as the model inputs. Perfor- Technol. Trans. B 20 (3), 273–284.
Hellendoorn, H., Thomas, C., 1993. Defuzzification in fuzzy controllers. J. Intell.
mance of the proposed fuzzy model was compared with the con- Fuzzy Syst. 1, 109–123.
ventional statistical method. Determination coefficient (R2) for Holmeberg, R., Persson, G., 1976. The Effect of Stemming on the Distance of Throw
the fuzzy and statistical methods were 0.984 and 0.701, respec- of Flyrock in Connection with Hole Diameters. Swedish Detonic Research
Foundation, Report DS 1976:1, Stockholm.
tively. Also, root mean square error (RMSE) for the fuzzy and statis- Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), 1997. Glossary of Commercial Explosives
tical models was equal to 1.98 and 8.31, respectively. The Industry Terms. Safety Publication, No. 12, Institute of Makers of Explosives,
comparison shows superiority of the developed fuzzy model over Washington, DC, p. 16.
Iphar, M., Goktan, R.M., 2006. An application of fuzzy sets to the dig-ability index
statistical method. Finally, sensitivity analysis revealed that the
rating method for surface mine equipment selection. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
most effective parameters on the flyrock are the powder factor 43, 253–266.
and stemming length whereas the least effective is rock density. Jang, R.J.S., Sun, C.T., Mizutani, E., 1997. Neuro-fuzzy and Soft Computing. Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River. p. 614.
Jennrich, R.I., 1995. An Introduction to Computational Statistics –Regression
References Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Jiang, Y.M., Park, D.W., Deb, D., Sanford, R., 1997. Application of fuzzy set theory in
Acaroglu, O., Ozdemir, L., Asbury, B., 2008. A fuzzy logic model to predict specific the evaluation of roof categories in longwall mining. Min. Eng. 49 (3), 53–57.
energy requirement for TBM performance prediction. Tunneling Underground Jong, Y.H., Lee, C.I., 2004. Influence of geological conditions on the powder factor for
Space Technol. 600, 608. tunnel blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41(3) (CD-ROM, Elsevier Ltd. Paper
Bajpayee, T.S., Rehak, T.R., Mowrey, G.L., Ingram, D.K., 2000. A summary of fatal 2B 12 — SINOROCK2004 Symposium).
accidents due to flyrock and lack of blast area security in surface mining, 1989– Kayabasi, A., Gokceoglu, C., Ercanoglu, M., 2003. Estimating the deformation
1999. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40,
Technique, vol. I. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, USA. 55–63.
 M. Rezaei et al. / Safety Science 49 (2011) 298–305
Kecojevic, V., Radomsky, M., 2005. Flyrock phenomena and area security in
blasting-related accidents. Saf. Sci. 43, 739–750.
Klose, D., 2002. Fuzzy rule-based expert system for short-range seismic prediction.
Comput. Geosci. 28, 377–386.
Ladegaard-Pedersen, A., Persson, A., 1973. Flyrock in Blasting II, Experimental
Investigation. Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, Report DS 13, Stockholm.
Langefors, U., Kishlstrom, B., 1963. The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Lundborg, N., 1974. The hazards of flyrock in rock blasting. Swedish Detonic
Research Foundation, Reports DS 12, Stockholm.
Lundborg, N., 1981. Risk for flyrock when blasting. Swedish Council for Building
Research, BFR Report R29, Stockholm.
Mamdani, E.H., Assilian, S., 1975. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy
controller. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 7 (1), 1–13.
Mishnaevsky, L.L., Jr., Schmauder, S., 1996. Analysis of rock fragmentation with the
use of the theory of fuzzy sets. In: Barla (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eurock, vol. 96,
pp. 735–740.
NIOSH, 2000. Worker Health Chartbook, US Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication, 2000–2127.
Persson, P., Holmberg, R., Lee, J., 1994. Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering.
CRC Press, New York, NY. pp. 565.
Rehak, T.R., Bajpayee, T.S., Mowrey, G.L., Ingram, D.K., 2001. Flyrock issues in
blasting. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique, vol. I. International Society of Explosives Engineers
Cleveland, pp. 165–175.
Ross, T., 1995. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. McGraw-Hill Inc., New
York. p. 600.
View publication stats
305
Roth, J., 1979. A model for the Determination of Flyrock Range as a Function of Shot
Conditions. US Bureau of Mines Contract J0387242, Management Science
Associates, Los Altos.
Sari, M., Selcuk, A.S., Karpuz, C.B., Duzgun, H.S., 2009. Stochastic modeling of
accident risks associated with an underground coal mine in Turkey. Saf. Sci. 47,
78–87.
Shea, C.W., Clark, D., 1998. Avoiding tragedy: lessons to be learned from a flyrock
fatality. Coal Age 103 (2), 51–54.
Siskind, D.E., Kopp, J.W., 1995. Blasting accidents in mines: a 16 year summary. In:
Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, pp. 224–
239.
Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C., Ulusay, R., 2003. An application of fuzzy sets to the
geological strength index (GSI) system used in rock engineering. Eng. Appl.
Artif. Intell. 16, 251–269.
Sonmez, H., Tuncay, E., Gokceoglu, C., 2004. Models to predict the uniaxial
compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity for Ankara agglomerate.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41, 717–729.
Tzamos, S., Sofianos, A.I., 2006. Extending the Q system’s prediction of support in
tunnels employing fuzzy logic and extra parameters. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
43, 938–949.
Verakis, H.C., Lobb, T.E., 2003. An analysis of surface coal mine blasting accidents.
In: 2003 SME Annual Meeting. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Littleton (Preprint 03-081).
Wu, C., Hao, H., Zhou, Y., 1999. Fuzzy-random probabilistic analysis of rock mass
responses to explosive loads. Comput. Geotech. 25, 205–225.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353.
Zadeh, L.A., 1973. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and
decision processes. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cyber. 1 (1), 28–44.