# Detecting Atypical Values and Their Influence on Blast-Induced Seismic Measurement Results
## 3 Results  
After the detection of atypical values, for borehole B1, it is noticeable that the confidence intervals of 97.73% and 99.99% have all measurement points included within the interval lines. Since the results are the same as for full measurement data, they are not included in further analyses. For the remaining two confidence intervals (68.27% and 95.45%) and the full dataset (100.00%) for borehole B1, further analyses were performed in the Instantel application \"Blastware\". After combining all measurement data, a graphical presentation of the regression line with the 95%-line equation, coefficient of determination and standard deviation is presented (Figure 4). Data from the graphical presentation are summarized in the Table 3.  
From each 95%-line equation, the application calculates the permitted charge weight per delay for the required distances from the blasting zone, with a selected maximum PPV according to the category of the surrounding structures and lists them as shown in Figure 5.  
Data from the calculated permitted charge weight per delay for the required distances from the blasting zone with the selected maximum PPV according to the type of surrounding structures for all three cases are summarized in Table 4. Additionally, the ratio was calculated between both confidence intervals (68.27% and 95.45%) and the full measurement dataset. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Borehole**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Remaining Measurement Points after Excluding Outliers for**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Confidence Intervals (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **68.27** & **95.45** & **99.73** & **99.99** & **100.00** \\ \hline B1 & 4/7 & 6/7 & 7/7 & 7/7 & 7/7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The number of measurement points for borehole B1 after the exclusion of atypical values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Borehole** & **Conf. Int. (\%)** & **95\%-Line Equation** & **R\({}^{2}\)** & **Std. Dev.** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{B1} & 68.27 & V = 880.5 \(\times\) (SD)\({}^{-1.421}\) & 0.997 & 0.027 \\  & 95.45 & V = 977.2 \(\times\) (SD)\({}^{-1.450}\) & 0.988 & 0.051 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 100.00 & V = 1160.7 \(\times\) (SD)\({}^{-1.403}\) & 0.952 & 0.096 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Regression line with 95%-line equation, coefficient of determination (R\({}^{2}\)) and standard deviation for borehole B1 for different confidence intervals. Figure 4: Regression line with the 95%-line equation, coefficient of determination and standard deviation for borehole B1: (**a**) confidence interval of 68.27%; (**b**) confidence interval of 95.45%; and (**c**) full dataset (100.00%). Figure 5: “Blastware” printout of the permitted charge weight per delay for the required distances from the blasting zone with the selected maximum PPV of 20 mm/s according to the category of the surrounding structures: (**a**) for a confidence interval of 68.27%; (**b**) for a confidence interval 95.45%; and (**c**) for full dataset (100.00%). The same procedure was conducted for all 17 boreholes with similar results; atypical values are present only with confidence intervals of 68.27% and 95.45% (Sigma 1 and 2), as presented in Table 5.  
Equally, in Table 6, the regression lines with 95%-line equations, coefficients of determination and standard deviations for all 17 boreholes and different confidence intervals are presented.