4.7 Article

Prediction of ground vibration induced by blasting operations through the use of the Bayesian Network and random forest models

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106390

关键词

Blasting; Ground vibration; Random forest; Bayesian network; Feature selection; Machine learning

资金

  1. Innovation-Driven Project of Central South University [2020CX040]
  2. Shenghua Lieying Program of Central South University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study aims to compare the performance of two machine learning techniques that can unveil the relationship between the input and target variables and predict the ground vibration (peak particle velocity, PPV) due to quarry blasting. To this end, a Random Forest (RF) model and a Bayesian Network (BN) model were developed. Before developing these models, and in order to illustrate the necessity of proposing new intelligent systems, a new empirical equation is proposed, using maximum charge per delay and distance from the blastface. The results confirm that there is indeed a need to develop intelligent systems with more input parameters. Thus, a Feature Selection (FS) model is applied to decrease the dimensionality of data and remove the irrelevant data. The outputs of this technique set five parameters, hole depth, power factor, stemming, maximum charge per delay and distance from the blast-face, as the most important model inputs necessary to predict PPV. After constructing FS-BN and FS-RF models and comparing them under different conditions (i.e., computational cost, accuracy and robustness), it is found that the developed FS-RF model can be introduced as a new model in the field of blasting environmental issues. The accuracy level of the FS-RF model is quite high; 92.95% and 90.32% for the train and test stages, respectively, while 92.95% and 87.09% accuracy is calculated for train and test of the FS-BN model. Thus, both developed hybrid models can effectively unveil the relationships between the input and target variables.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据