Rock Mech Rock Eng (2010) 43:335350

DOI 10.1007/s00603-009-0029-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering

Classification Systems: An Illustration of the Rock Mass
Excavability Index
Jafar Khademi Hamidi Kourosh Shahriar
Bahram Rezai Hadi Bejari

Received: 14 June 2008 / Accepted: 8 January 2009 / Published online: 7 February 2009
 Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract The characterization of rock masses is one of the

integral aspects of rock engineering. Over the years, many
classification systems have been developed for characterization and design purposes in mining and civil engineering
practices. However, the strength and weak points of such
rating-based classifications have always been questionable.
Such classification systems assign quantifiable values to
predefined classified geotechnical parameters of rock mass.
This results in subjective uncertainties, leading to the misuse
of such classifications in practical applications. Fuzzy set
theory is an effective tool to overcome such uncertainties by
using membership functions and an inference system. This
study illustrates the potential application of fuzzy set theory
in assisting engineers in the rock engineering decision processes for which subjectivity plays an important role. So, the
basic principles of fuzzy set theory are described and then it
was applied to rock mass excavability (RME) classification
to verify the applicability of fuzzy rock engineering classifications. It was concluded that fuzzy set theory has an
acceptable reliability to be employed for all rock engineering
classification systems.
Keywords Fuzzy set theory  Rock engineering
classification  Rock mass excavability (RME) 
TBM performance

J. Khademi Hamidi (&)  K. Shahriar  B. Rezai

Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum
Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology,
Hafez 424, P.O. Box 15875-4413, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: khademi@aut.ac.ir; jafarkhademi@gmail.com
H. Bejari
Department of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics Engineering,
Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

1 Introduction
Since the earliest days of history, man has searched for a
way to describe the properties of rock. For this, he has
always classified and characterized rocks based on features
such as color, shape, weight, hardness, etc. Unlike the
recently developed (multiple-parameter) rock engineering
classifications, they considered only one feature of rock for
its description. Nowadays, rock engineering classification
systems form the backbone of the empirical design
approach and are widely employed in civil and mining
engineering practices. Rock mass classifications, as an
example, have recently been quite popular and are mostly
being used for the preliminary design and planning purposes of a project. According to Bieniawski (1989), a rock
mass classification scheme is intended to classify the rock
masses, provide a basis for estimating deformation and
strength properties, supply quantitative data for support
estimation, and present a platform for communication
between the exploration, design, and construction groups.
So, the role of classification is generally to obtain a
better overview of a phenomenon or set of data in order to
understand them or to take different actions concerning
them. With this task for rock mass classifications, classification is defined as the arrangement of objects into
groups on the basis of their relationship (Bieniawski
1989). According to Stille and Palmstrom (2003), the use
of the term classification in various ways has led to
confusion when the rules and roles of classification are
discussed. They declared that the meaning of classification
is different from what is usually used in rock engineering
and design.
As briefly mentioned by Stille and Palmstrom (2003),
the requirements to build up such a system to be able to
adequately solve rock engineering problems include:

123

336

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

Use of a supervised classification adapted to the

specific project
The reliability of the classes to handle the given rock
engineering problem must be estimated
The classes must be exhaustive and mutually exclusive
(i.e., every object has to belong to a class and no object
can belong to more than one class)
Establish the principles of the division into classes
based on suitable indicators
The indicators should be related to the different tools
used for the design
The principles of division into classes must be flexible,
so that additional indicators can be incorporated
The principles of division into classes have to be
updated to take account of experiences gained during
the construction
The uncertainties or quality of the indicators must be
established so that the probability of mis-classification
can be estimated
The system should be practical and robust, and give an
economic and safe design

In practice, none of the existing classification systems

fulfil the requirements mentioned above for a true classification system for rock engineering problems. This may be
due to the fact which was addressed by Williamson and
Kuhn (1988): no classification system can be devised that
deals with all the characteristic of all possible rock material
or rock masses and/or by Riedmuller and Schubert
(1999): complex properties of a rock mass can not sufficiently be described by a single number. So, rock mass
classification systems are to group rocks in such a way that
those parameters which are of the most universal concern
are clearly dealt with.
Rock mass classification schemes have been developing
for over 100 years since Ritter (1879) attempted to formalize an empirical approach to tunnel design, in
particular, for determining support requirements. Probably,
the first successful attempt of classifying rock masses for
engineering purposes was the rock-load concept, which
was introduced by Terzaghi (1946). He considered the
structural discontinuities of the rock masses and classified
them qualitatively into nine categories, including: (1) hard
and intact; (2) hard, stratified, and schistose; (3) massive to
moderately jointed; (4) moderately blocky and seamy; (5)
very blocky and seamy; (6) completely crushed but
chemically intact; (7) squeezing rock at moderate depth;
(8) squeezing rock at great depth; and (9) swelling rock.
Lauffer (1958) proposed that the stand-up time for an
unsupported tunnel span is related to the quality of the rock
mass in which the active span is excavated. He classified
tunnel rocks into seven groups according to the stand-up
time concept. Lauffers original classification has since

123

been modified by a number of authors, notably Pacher et al.

(1974), and now forms part of the general tunneling approach
known as the new Austrian tunneling method (NATM).
Deere et al. (1967) introduced the rock quality designation (RQD) index for design and characterization
afterwards. The RQD index was developed to provide a
quantitative estimate of rock mass quality from drill logs.
Afterwards, other rock mass classifications (mostly multiple-parameter) have been introduced by other researchers.
Of the existing classification systems, RSR by Wickham
et al. (1972), RMR by Bieniawski (1973, 1974, 1976, 1979,
1989), Q-system by Barton et al. (1974), GSI by Hoek and
Brown (1997), and RMi by Palmstrom (1995) are the most
commonly used in mining and civil fields of application.
It has been experienced repeatedly that, when used
correctly, a rock mass classification can be a powerful tool
in designs. In fact, on many projects, the classification
approach serves as the only practical basis for the design of
complex underground structures.
However, due to the complex nature of the rock masses,
the rock mass classification systems always include some
uncertainties, leading to difficulty in the determination of
rock mass parameters and related ratings used by the systems as definite values. To minimize the uncertainties,
engineering judgment is commonly used by experienced
engineers.
These challenging uncertainties in rock engineering and
design have always been addressed by different researchers.
Karl Terzaghi in his latest years stated that, the geotechnical engineer should apply theory and experimentation but
temper them by putting them into the context of the uncertainty of nature (Palmstrom and Broch 2006). According to
Brekke and Howard (1972), rock masses are so variable in
nature that the chances of ever finding a common set of
parameters and a common set of constitutive equations valid
for all rock masses is quite remote. Nguyen (1985) referred to
the important role of subjective judgment which was normally prominent in the assessment of the stability of
underground excavations, and, in general, many decisionmaking processes in mining geomechanics. Bieniawski
(1989) stated that, unlike other engineering materials, rock
presents the designer with unique problems by being a
complex material varying widely in its properties. Goodman
(1995) declared that, when the materials are natural rock, the
only thing known with certainty is that this material will
never be known with certainty. Alvarez Grima (2000)
expressed that, in comparison to many other civil engineering situations, the uncertainties in underground rock
engineering are high. He, therefore, called rock engineering
classifications complex and ill-defined systems. Swart
et al. (2005) indicated that the rock engineering challenge is
to convince management to minimize the uncertainty by

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering Classification Systems

spending money on geotechnical investigations and by collecting more geotechnical data.

Generally speaking, most geosciences suffer from insufficient data. On the other hand, in most engineering design
and characterization works, the value of the required variables changes frequently in short intervals. These are the
reasons why the ideas of some experts should be taken into
consideration during the design process in most geo-related
practices. In other words, the subjective judgment of the
engineer during characterizing a rock mass or designing a
tunnel support system is risky to accept. These all impose an
uncertainty and imprecision in such engineering fields.
According to Zadeh (2006), uncertainty is an unavoidable
attribute of information. By using the rules of probability,
scientists were capable of dealing with such uncertainties in
information. With fuzzy set theory coming into existence, it
is done better by fuzzy logic. Zadeh (2008), in answering the
question is there a need for fuzzy logic?, believes that,
today, close to four decades after its conception, fuzzy logic
is a precise logic of imprecision and approximate reasoning,
which shows itself to be more effective than an attempt at the
formalization/mechanization of human reasoning capabilities. Fuzzy sets theory, as a soft computing technique, has
established itself as a new methodology for dealing with any
sort of ambiguity and uncertainty. Soft computing, as
introduced by Zadeh (1992), includes approaches to human
reasoning, which try to make use of the human tolerance for
incompleteness, uncertainty, imprecision, vagueness, and
fuzziness in decision-making problems (Jang et al. 1997).
With the spread of fuzzy set applications in many areas
of engineering that are sufficiently modeled by conventional deterministic and probabilistic analyses, it can also
be recognized that there are also many classes of problems
in rock engineering that are suitably receptive to fuzzy set
applications. As was stated by Nguyen (1985), the key to
such application lies in the inevitability of subjective
uncertainty being involved in many decision-making processes, whereas the main advantage of fuzzy set application
is the incorporation of expert knowledge.
This paper proposes the application of fuzzy set theory
in assisting engineers in the rock engineering decision
processes for which subjectivity plays an important role.
Also, as an example, the applicability of fuzzy set theory to
the newly developed rock mass excavability (RME) index
for tunneling technique selection is illustrated.

337

They provide better communication between geologists, designers, contractors, and engineers
Engineers observations, experience, and judgment are
correlated and consolidated more effectively by a
quantitative classification system
Engineers prefer numbers in place of descriptions,
hence, a quantitative classification system has considerable application in an overall assessment of rock
quality
A classification approach helps in the organization of
knowledge

Despite their widespread use, the currently used classification systems have some deficiencies in practical
applications. The most common disadvantages are its
subjective uncertainties resulting from the linguistic input
value of some parameters, low resolution, fixed weighting, sharp class boundaries, etc. Figure 1 illustrates the
procedures for the measurement and calculation of the
RQD. The relationship between RQD and the engineering
quality of rock mass as proposed by Deere (1968) is
given in Table 1. A close examination of the table reveals
that there are some uncertainties on data that are close to
the range boundaries of rock classes. For example, it is
not clear whether a rock having an RQD index of 50%
will be included in Class 2 or 3, leading to subjective
decision-making. The other limitation of this classification
is the decisive length of 10-cm (4-in) core pieces in the
determination of the RQD. For example, suppose a
borehole is drilled in a rock mass with a joint spacing of
9 and 11 cm. The RQD values will be 0 and 100%,
respectively, if other conditions have no contribution to
the formation of core pieces. The RQD is employed

2 Application Potential of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock

Engineering Classification Systems
Classification systems have recently become quite popular
and are widely employed in rock engineering. This may be
due to the following reasons (Singh and Goel 1999):

Fig. 1 Procedure for the measurement and calculation of the rock

quality designation (RQD) (after Deere 1989)

123

338

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

Table 1 Correlation between the rock quality designation (RQD) and

rock mass quality (Deere 1968)
Class no.

RQD (%)

Rock quality

\25

Very poor

2550

Poor

5075

Fair

7590

Good

90100

Excellent

during the determination of some other rock mass classifications, such as RMR and Q.
Sometimes, the problems arise from the rating on each
input parameter being a fixed numerical score for a given
rock class interval. This causes the engineer to apply the
same numerical scores in the regions close to the lower and
upper boundaries of a given class. Table 2 illustrates the
RMR system measured for two rock masses. Upon
assigning such ratings, each input parameter from the
tables were given for the calculation of the RMR
(Bieniawski 1989), and a situation is reached where the
same rock mass class and average stand-up time is attributed for both rock masses. However, from the point of view
of an experienced field engineer, it is expected that the

quality of Rock mass 2 is much more than that of Rock

mass 1.
Another deficiency of such a classification scheme is the
existence of sharp transitions between two adjacent classes.
For example, in Table 3, the determining RMR values
between Rock mass class I and Rock mass class II is 81 and
80, respectively. Consequently, for the rating difference of
only 1 (i.e. 81 - 80), the average stand-up time of 10 years
for a 15-m span is determined for a tunnel roof having a
rock mass rating of 81, while an average stand-up time of
6 months for an 8-m span is determined for a tunnel roof
having a rock mass rating of 80. Such a rating procedure
employing sharp transitions between classes exhibits
uncertainties in the assessment of rock mass classes and
related design parameters, as the transitions between rock
classes are not so sharp but gradational in the field. In such
cases, it is imperative that an engineering judgment be
made for a final decision on subsequent design parameters,
such as the support system.
The above-mentioned uncertainties will be encountered
in the practical application of such rock engineering classification systems. It deserves mention that, although
careful consideration has been given to the precise wording
for each category and to the relative weights assigned to
each combination of involved parameters in rock

Table 2 Comparison between the two different rock masses in terms of RMR according to Bieniawski (1989)
RMR input parameters

Rock mass properties

Ratings

Rock mass 1

Rock mass 2

Rock mass 1

Rock mass 2

Point load index (MPa)

12

12

RQD (%)

51

74

13

13

Spacing of discontinuities (m)

0.22

0.59

10

10

Condition of discontinuities

Rough and slightly weathered,

wall rock surface separation
\1 mm

Rough and slightly weathered,

wall rock surface separation
\1 mm

25

25

Inflow per 10 m tunnel length (l/min)

24

11

Joint orientation adjustment (for tunnel)

Very favorable

Very favorable

RMR

67

67

Table 3 Design parameters and engineering properties of rock mass (Bieniawski 1989)
Properties of rock mass

Rock mass rating (rock class)

10081 (I)

8061 (II)

6041 (III)

4021 (IV)

\20 (V)

Classification of rock mass

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Average stand-up time

10 years for
15-m span

6 months for
8-m span

1 week for
5-m span

10 h for
2.5-m span

30 min for
1-m span

Cohesion of rock mass (MPa)

Angle of internal friction
of rock mass

[0.4
[45

0.30.4
3545

0.20.3
2535

0.10.2
1525

\0.1
15

123

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering Classification Systems

engineering classification systems, their use involves some

subjectivity. For instance, as was addressed by Nguyen
(1985) in the RMR system, the ratings for criteria on discontinuities and groundwater conditions are largely
subjective. Hence, good experiences and sound judgment is
required to successfully employ these rock engineering
classifications. However, this may be considered as a
serious problem, particularly for young engineers with
limited experience.
Over the years, fuzzy set theory has shown itself to be an
appropriate alternative for engineering judgment to cope
with the uncertainties encountered in decision-making
processes. Up to now, many researchers have studied the
potential application of fuzzy set theory to rock engineering classification systems. The first attempt for the
application of fuzzy set theory in rock engineering classification systems after fuzzy theory came into existence was
carried out by Nguyen (1985) and Nguyen and Ashworth
(1985) in rock mass classification based on the minmax
aggregation operation proposed by Bellman and Zadeh
(1970) for multi-criteria decision modeling. This approach,
which aims at the selection of the most likely rock mass
class, was used in the RMR and Q classification systems.
The subjective judgment in the decision-making process
for the design and characterization of geomechanical- and
geotechnical-related projects was addressed as the main
reason for the application of fuzzy theory in mining and
civil engineering fields. Juang and Lee (1990) applied
fuzzy set theory to the RMR system by aggregating the
individual fuzzy ratings of different criteria into an overall
classification rating. Habibagahi and Katebi (1996) also
modified the RMR classification system using fuzzy set
theory. In their model, each of the numerical RMR criteria
(UCS, RQD, and JS) is fuzzified by five trapezoidal
membership functions defined over the universal domain of
the criterion in question. Gokay (1998) applied the fuzzy
logic concept to the weightings of the Q classification
system proposed by Barton et al. (1974). Sonmez et al.
(2003) applied fuzzy set theory to the geological strength
index (GSI), which is used as an input parameter in the
HoekBrown failure criterion to handle the uncertainties
involved in the characterization of rock masses.
A rock mass classification approach was made by
Aydin (2004) based on the concept of partial fuzzy sets
representing the variable importance of each parameter in
the universal domain of rock mass quality. Use of the
partial set concept was shown to be capable of expressing
the variability of rock quality conditions due to all types
of non-random uncertainties or fuzziness in a rock mass
classification process. Iphar and Goktan (2006) applied
fuzzy sets to the diggability index rating method for
surface mine equipment selection. The diggability index
rating method devised by Scoble and Muftuoglu (1984)

339

defines seven rock excavation classes based on four

geotechnical parameters, namely, uniaxial compressive
strength, bedding spacing, joint spacing, and weathering.
More recently, Khademi Hamidi et al. (2007a, b) applied
fuzzy set theory to RME classification. This classification
system is discussed in detail in Sect. 4.
Fuzzy set theory has also been used for the construction of prediction models in engineering geological and
rock mechanics problems. Sakurai and Shimizu (1987)
employed fuzzy set theory for the assessment of rock
slope stability. They proposed a classification for evaluating the stability of slopes on the basis of the fuzzified
factor of safety (FOS), defined as a trapezoidal membership function. They also consider that, in general, many
failed slopes fall into the fair class. Hence, they suggested engineering judgment while interpreting the FOS
fuzzy set. Ghose and Dutta (1987) developed a classification model to assess the cavability of a coal mines roof
using fuzzy set theory. Alvarez Grima and Babuska
(1999) employed a fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial
compressive strength of various rocks, where it was
concluded that the fuzzy model performed better than the
conventional multilinear regression model. Li and Tso
(1999) used a fuzzy classification method to classify the
tool wear states so as to facilitate defective tool replacement at the proper time in drilling. A tool wear estimation
model was also developed by Yao et al. (1999) using
fuzzy logic and a neural network approach by utilizing
data obtained from cutting tests. Wu et al. (1999) suggested a fuzzy probability model to describe the damage
threshold of a rock mass under explosive loads. Finol
et al. (2001) developed a fuzzy model for the prediction
of petrophysical rock parameters. Using a fuzzy rulebased expert system, Klose (2002) constructed a prediction model for short-range seismicity by interpreting those
seismic images. Gokceoglu (2002) developed a fuzzy
triangular chart to predict the uniaxial compressive
strength of the Ankara agglomerates from their petrographic composition. A comparative study was carried out
by Kayabasi et al. (2003) for estimating the deformation
modulus of rock masses through fuzzy and multiple
regression models. They constructed three prediction
models, namely, simple regression, multiple regression,
and fuzzy inference system (FIS), for the indirect estimation of the modulus of deformation of rock masses and
reported that FIS provided more reliable results than those
of the others. Wei et al. (2003) proposed a fuzzy ranking
model to predict the sawability of granites with the use of
petrographic analyses and mechanical property testing.
Lee et al. (2003) developed a fuzzy model to estimate
rock mass properties, including deformation modulus,
cohesion, and friction angle. Gokceoglu and Zorlu (2004)
developed a fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial

123

340

compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity of a

problematic rock. The model includes four inputs,
namely, P-wave velocity, block punch index, point load
index, and tensile strength, and two outputs, namely,
uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity. The comparative study of fuzzy and multiple
regression predictive models showed that the prediction
performances of the fuzzy model are higher than those of
multiple regression equations. Chen and Liu (2007) and
Liu and Chen (2007) combined the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) and the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) for
assessing the ratings of rock mass quality for the cases of
tunnel and rock slope stability analyses. They considered
the rock mass classification as a group decision problem
and applied fuzzy logic theory as the criterion to calculate
the weighting of factors. The results of this analysis
showed that this model can provide a more quantitative
measure of rock mass quality and, hence, minimize
judgmental bias. Recently, Acaroglu et al. (2008) constructed a fuzzy logic model to predict the specific energy
requirement for TBM performance prediction. The model
includes six rock- and machine-related input parameters,
namely, uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian tensile
strength, disc dimensions such as disc diameter and tip
width, and cutting geometry such as spacing and
penetration.
Fuzzy set theory has also been used for the performance
prediction of tunnel and trench excavation machines (Den
Hartog et al. 1997; Deketh et al. 1998; Alvarez Grima and
Verhoef 1999; Alvarez Grima 2000; Alvarez Grima et al.
2000).
The above-mentioned literature indicates that fuzzy set
theory is about to establish itself as a reliable new methodology for dealing with any sort of ambiguity and
uncertainty which can be inevitably found in engineering
geology and rock mechanics-related projects.
This paper discusses the applicability of fuzzy set theory
to rock engineering classification systems, with particular
illustration of the RME index, which was newly developed
based on a rating system similar to other classification
systems. So, first, the basic principles of fuzzy set theory
are described.

3 Fuzzy Set Theory

Fuzzy theory started with the concept of fuzziness and its
expression in the form of fuzzy sets was introduced by
Zadeh (1965). Fuzzy set theory provides the means for
representing uncertainty using set theory. A fuzzy set is an
extension of the concept of a crisp set. A crisp set only
allows full membership or no membership to every element
of a universe of discourse, whereas a fuzzy set allows for

123

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

partial membership. The membership or non-membership

of an element x in the crisp set A is represented by the
characteristic function of lA, defined by:

1 if x 2 A
lA x
0 if x 62 A
Fuzzy sets generalize this concept to partial membership
by extending the range of variability of the characteristic
function from the two-point set {0, 1} to the whole interval
[0, 1]:
lA : U ! 0; 1
where U refers to the universe of discourse defined for a
specific problem. If U is a finite set U = {x1, x2,, xn},
then a fuzzy set A in this universe U can be represented by
listing each element and its degree of membership in the
set A as:
A flA x1 =x1 ; lA x2 =x2 ; . . .; lA xn =xn g
According to the International Society for Rock
Mechanics (ISRM), rocks with uniaxial compressive
strength between 50 and 100 MPa belong to the Hard
Rock class. Figure 2 compares two crisp and fuzzy models
of the hard rock set. As can be followed from Fig. 2, the
belonging of a rock to the fuzzy set of hard rock is quite
different from that of the classical one (crisp set).
3.1 Membership Function
An element of the variable can be a member of the fuzzy
set through a membership function that can take values in
the range from 0 to 1. Membership functions (MF) can
either be chosen by the user arbitrarily, based on the users
experience (MF chosen by two users could be different
depending upon their experiences, perspectives, etc.) or can
also be designed using machine learning methods (e.g.,
artificial neural networks, genetic algorithms, etc.).
There are different shapes of membership functions;
triangular, trapezoidal, piecewise-linear, Gaussian, bellshaped, etc. In this study, triangular and trapezoidal
membership functions are used. Triangular and trapezoidal
MFs are shown in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 3, points a, b, and c in the triangular MF represent the x coordinates of the three vertices of lA(x) in a
fuzzy set A (a: lower boundary and c: upper boundary

40 MPa
55 MPa

120 MPa

120 MPa
40 MPa

80 MPa
95 MPa
70 MPa

80 MPa
55 MPa
95 MPa
70 MPa
110 MPa

110 MPa
30 MPa

30 MPa

Fig. 2 Crisp (left) and fuzzy (right) models of the hard rock set

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering Classification Systems

if x a

0
x a

A ( x) = b a
c x
c b
0

if a < x b

if b < x c

if x > c

0
x a

b a

A ( x) = 1
d x

d c
0

if x a
if
if
if
if

a < x b

b< xc

c < x d

x>d

Fig. 3 Triangular (top) and trapezoidal (bottom) membership

functions

where the membership degree is zero, b: the center where

membership degree is 1).
The belonging of an element to a definite set in the
method of fuzzy membership models (gradual membership
degree) gives the fuzzy sets flexibility in modeling commonly used linguistic expressions, such as the uniaxial
compressive strength of rock is high or low water
inflow, which are frequently used in rock engineering
classification systems.
3.2 Fuzzy ifthen Rules
Like most classical expert systems, fuzzy logic has an
expert and implication logic behind it. This expert system
is constructed by using ifthen rules. The fuzzy rules
provide a system for describing complex (uncertain, vague)
systems by relating input and output parameters using
linguistic variables. A fuzzy ifthen rule assumes the form
if x is A then y is B, where A and B are linguistic values
defined by fuzzy sets on universes of discourse X and Y,
respectively. Often x is A is called the antecedent or
premise, while y is B is called the consequence or
conclusion. Examples of fuzzy ifthen rules are widespread
in daily linguistic expressions in rock engineering designs,
such as if quartz content is high, then disc cutter life is
low.
Each rule in a fuzzy model is a relation such as
Ri = (X 9 Y ? [0, 1]), which is calculated by using the
following equation (Alvarez Grima 2000):
lRi x; y I lAi x; lBi y
where lRi(x, y) is the R relations membership degree of
rule i according to x and y inputs, lAi(x) and lBi(y) are the
membership degrees of x and y inputs, respectively, and I
denotes the AND or OR operator.

341

Most rule-based systems involve more than one rule.

The process of obtaining the overall consequent (conclusion) from the individual consequents contributed by each
rule in the rule base is known as the aggregation of rules. In
determining an aggregation strategy, two simple extreme
cases exist, namely, conjunctive and disjunctive system of
rules by using AND and OR connectives, respectively
(Ross 1995).
3.3 Fuzzy Inference System (FIS)
Fuzzy inference is the process of formulating an input
fuzzy set map to an output fuzzy set using fuzzy logic. In
fact, the core section of a fuzzy system is the FIS part,
which combines the facts obtained from the fuzzification
with the rule base and conducts the fuzzy reasoning
process.
Generally, the basic structure of a FIS consists of three
conceptual components, which are rule base, database, and
reasoning mechanism. A rule base contains a selection of
fuzzy rules and a database defines the membership functions used in the fuzzy rules. A reasoning mechanism
performs the fuzzy reasoning based on the rules and given
facts to derive a reasonable output or conclusion.
There are several FISs that have been employed in
various applications, such as the Mamdani fuzzy model,
TakagiSugenoKang (TSK) fuzzy model, Tsukamoto
fuzzy model, and Singleton fuzzy model. Among different
FISs, the Mamdani algorithm is one of the most used fuzzy
models to apply in complex engineering geological problems, since most geological processes are defined with
linguistic variables or simple vague predicates. The
Mamdani FIS was proposed by Mamdani to control a
steam engine and boiler combination by a set of linguistic
control rules obtained from experienced human operators
(Mamdani and Assilian 1975).
The general ifthen rule structure of the Mamdani
algorithm is given in the following equation:
if x1 is Ai1 and x2 is Ai2 and . . .xr is Air then y is Bi
for i 1; 2; . . .; k
where k is the number of rules, xi is the input variable
(antecedent variable), Air and Bi are linguistic terms or
fuzzy sets which are defined by the membership functions
Air(xr) and Bi, and y is the output variable (consequent
variable).
Figure 4 is an illustration of a two-rule Mamdani FIS
which derives the overall output z when subjected to two
crisp inputs x and y (Jang et al. 1997).
As shown in Fig. 4, the fuzzy output is the aggregation
(max) of the two truncated fuzzy sets. The outputs are
obtained after defuzzification by using the centroid of area
(COA) method.

123

342

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

4 Rock Mass Excavability (RME) Classification System

Fig. 4 Mamdani fuzzy inference system (FIS) scheme (Jang et al.

1997)

3.4 Defuzzification Methods

Defuzzification refers to the way a crisp value is extracted
from a fuzzy set as a representative value. Defuzzification
is the final stage of an FIS. There are five methods of
defuzzifying a fuzzy set A of a universe of discourse Z,
including: centroid of area (COA), bisector of area (BOA),
mean of maximum (MOM), smallest of maximum (SOM),
and largest of maximum (LOM).
Figure 5 shows various defuzzification schemes for
obtaining a crisp output. Among them, the COA is the most
widely used method.
In this study, the COA method is applied for the defuzzification process due to its calculation simplicity. The
COA defuzzification method in a continuous domain is
defined by:
R
l z  zdz

ZCOA
RA
lA zdz
where Z*COA is the crisp value for the z output and lA(z) is
the aggregated output membership function.

Fig. 5 Various defuzzification schemes for obtaining a crisp output

123

Clear understanding of the interaction between rock mass

conditions and the design and performance characteristics
of excavation techniques is of crucial importance in both
classic and mechanized excavations. Based upon this,
terms such as diggability, rippability, drillability, cuttability, boreability, excavability, etc. were introduced to
the mining and civil engineering fields. The key element
in all of these conceptions is the ease of rock excavation.
In other words, it should be determined whether the rock
can be economically excavated by mechanical tools, or if
conventional excavation using drilling and blasting is
necessary (Khademi Hamidi 2008). There are a number of
methods for assessing rock excavability and related
excavation equipment. Due to the complexity of excavation processes and the abundant parameters involved, as
was addressed by Iphar and Goktan (2006), approaches
made for the determination of ease of excavation are
mainly empirical. Franklin et al. (1971) presented a
graphical method which allows the assessment of excavation by using only two parameters, discontinuity
spacing and rock strength. Weaver (1975) developed a
rippability rating chart based on an assessment of seismic
velocity, rock strength, joint strike and dip orientation,
and weathering. Kirsten (1982) developed the excavatability index based on the Q rock mass classification
system originally for tunneling. The input parameters of
the system are uniaxial compressive strength, number of
joint sets, RQD, joint roughness, joint alteration, joint
orientation, and joint spacing. Based on the measured
excavatability index, Kirsten determined five excavation
classes, namely, easy ripping, hard ripping, very hard
ripping, extremely hard ripping, and blasting. The diggability index rating method devised by Scoble and
Muftuoglu (1984) defines five rock classes based on four
geotechnical parameters, namely, uniaxial compressive
strength, bedding spacing, joint spacing, and weathering.
Karpuz (1990) proposed an excavation rating system
utilizing five rock mass and rock material properties relevant to the excavation method and excavator
performance, namely, uniaxial compressive strength, rock
hardness, discontinuity spacing, degree of weathering, and
seismic wave velocity. The proposed rating system helps
in the selection of excavation equipment as well as drilling and blasting requirements. Goktan and Eskikaya
(1991) proposed a rock mass rippability (RMR) index
applicable to sedimentary rocks of surface lignite mines.
More recently, Bieniawski et al. (2006) developed a new
rating system similar to the RMR classification system in
the determination of the RME indicator when faced with
a choice between TBM and drill-and-blast for constructing a tunnel.

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering Classification Systems

343

Table 4 Input rating for the rock mass excavability (RME) index (Bieniawski 2007)
Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock
rC (MPa)

\5

530

3090

90180

[180

Rating

14

25

14

DRI

[80

8065

6550

5040

\40

Rating

15

10

Hours

\5

524

2496

96192

[192

Rating

10

15

25

Liters per s

[100

70100

3070

1030

\10

Rating

Drillability

Stand-up time

Groundwater Inflow

Discontinuities at tunnel face

Homogeneity

Number of joints per meter

Homogeneous
Rating

10

Orientation with respect to tunnel axis

Mixed

04

48

815

1530

[30

Parallel

Oblique

Perpendicular

15

10

The RME index was developed based on case histories

from over 400 tunnel sections and has been updated several
times with more case histories up until now (Bieniawski
et al. 2006, 2007; Bieniawski 2007). As was addressed by
Bieniawski and Barton (2007), the RME was developed
based on the RMR classification, similar to QTBM, which
was developed based on the Q system.
With the RME index, the basis for selecting a tunneling
technique is the quantification of TBM performance
including the average rate of advance (ARA). So, the RME
input parameters are parameters with stronger influence in
the ARA, which includes uniaxial compressive strength of
intact rock, drillability, discontinuities at the excavation
front, stand-up time, and groundwater inflow (Table 4).
After the introduction of the RME index in 2006 (RME06),
modifications, as was addressed by Bieniawski (2007), led
to the fine tuning of the index (adjusting the ratings of
some input parameters). Accordingly, two adjustment
factors including TBM crew effectiveness (FC) and the
tunnel excavated length (FL) were recommended in the
RME index in 2007 (RME07). In this study, the latest
version of the RME system (Bieniawski 2007) is used as
the reference classification structure (Table 4).
The RME index is obtained from the arithmetic summation of the rated values corresponding to the input
parameters and forms the basis for the proposed excavability classification which was correlated with the
different TBM-observed performances. For instance, in the
case of double-shield TBM, the excavability classification
is given in Table 5.

Table 5 Excavability classification for double-shield TBM (after

Bieniawski et al. 2006)
RME

Machine performance

Ease of excavation

[75

Very good

Very easy

5075

Good

Easy

2550

Fair

Moderately difficult

\25

Poor

Difficult

Bieniawski et al. (2007) arrived at the conclusion that,

for a double-shield TBM working in the double-shield
mode, the correlation between RME07 and ARA could be
defined more realistically by considering two ranges of
rock material strength: one for rC \ 45 MPa and one for
rC [ 45 MPa, as follows:
for rC \45 MPa : ARA 0:813RME07  32:56
for rC [ 45 MPa : ARA 0:597RME07  24:88
Choosing the uniaxial compressive strength of 45 MPa
as a separation limit is due to an increasing and decreasing
trend for TBM excavability being observed at this point
(Bieniawski 2007).
The RME index classification was developed based
upon a numerical rating procedure, such as other rock
engineering classification systems. So, the previously
mentioned deficiencies in Sect. 2, such as low resolution,
fixed weighting, and sharp class boundaries for rating
classification schemes, are also valid for the RME index.

123

344

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

To cope with such problems in the practical use of the

RME index, the applicability of fuzzy set theory was discussed in this study.

5 Construction and Application of Fuzzy Sets

to the RME Index Rating Method
5.1 Construction of InputOutput Sets and the FIS
The main elements of a fuzzy algorithm are the inputoutput
sets and ifthen rules. In this study, the Mamdani FIS was
applied to the RME index to select an appropriate tunneling
technique. The model includes seven input variables (uniaxial compressive strength, drilling rate index, homogeneity
of discontinuities, number of joints per meter, orientation of
discontinuities, stand-up time, and groundwater inflow) and
one output variable (ease of excavation) (Fig. 6).
In the model, triangular and trapezoidal membership
functions were developed for the input variables because of
their simplicity. Among the input variables, the homogeneity of discontinuities was selected as a crisp set due to its
qualitative nature and the lack of a sharp boundary for
classification. The graphical illustrations of the membership function are given in Fig. 7 for the input parameters
and Fig. 8 for the output parameter.
The other stage of the FIS is the construction of the if
then rules. As the RME rating system has five main
parameters and the third parameter has three subclasses, the
number of ifthen rules is 18,750 (i.e., 5 9 5 9 2 9 5 9
3 9 5 9 5). However, among them, 9,300 rules that are
not likely to come true due to the nature of rock mass were

Strength
(UCS)
Drilling rate
index (DRI)
Homogeneity
(HOM)
Joint number
(JN)

Ease of Excavation
(EOE)

Orientation
(ORI)
Stand-up time
(ST)
Groundwater
inflow (GW)

Fig. 6 Schematic illustration of the RME fuzzy inference model

123

Fig. 7 Membership functions of the RME input parameters

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering Classification Systems

345

Fig. 8 Membership function of the output parameter

Fig. 10 Membership degrees of the obtained excavation classes

eliminated from the model. For example, if the joint

number per meter in rock is very high and groundwater
inflow is high, it should not be expected that the stand-up
time is medium, high, or very high.

The last stage of the FIS is to select the defuzzification

method. The aggregation of two or more fuzzy output sets
gives a new fuzzy set in the basic fuzzy algorithm. In most
cases, the result in the form of a fuzzy set is converted into

Rules:
1. If (UCS is M) and (DRI is H) and (HOM is H) and (JN is L) and (ORI is Oblique) and (ST is H) and (GW is L) then (EOE is E)
2. If (UCS is M) and (DRI is H) and (HOM is H) and (JN is L) and (ORI is Oblique) and (ST is VH) and (GW is VL) then (EOE is VE)
3. If (UCS is M) and (DRI is H) and (HOM is H) and (JN is VL) and (ORI is Parallel) and (ST is H) and (GW is L) then (EOE is E)
4. If (UCS is M) and (DRI is M) and (HOM is H) and (JN is L) and (ORI is Parallel) and (ST is H) and (GW is L) then (EOE is E)
5. If (UCS is M) and (DRI is M) and (HOM is H) and (JN is L) and (ORI is Oblique) and (ST is VH) and (GW is VL) then (EOE is VE)
6. If (UCS is L) and (DRI is M) and (HOM is H) and (JN is VL) and (ORI is Parallel) and (ST is H) and (GW is VL) then (EOE is E)
7. If (UCS is L) and (DRI is H) and (HOM is H) and (JN is L) and (ORI is Oblique) and (ST is H) and (GW is L) then (EOE is E)
8. If (UCS is M) and (DRI is H) and (HOM is H) and (JN is VL) and (ORI is Parallel) and (ST is VH) and (GW is L) then (EOE is VE)
9. If (UCS is L) and (DRI is H) and (HOM is H) and (JN is L) and (ORI is Parallel) and (ST is H) and (GW is VL) then (EOE is E)
10. If (UCS is L) and (DRI is M) and (HOM is H) and (JN is VL) and (ORI is Oblique) and (ST is H) and (GW is VL) then (EOE is E)
11. If (UCS is L) and (DRI is H) and (HOM is H) and (JN is VL) and (ORI is Oblique) and (ST is H) and (GW is L) then (EOE is E)
12. If (UCS is M) and (DRI is M) and (HOM is H) and (JN is VL) and (ORI is Parallel) and (ST is VH) and (GW is L) then (EOE is E)

Fig. 9 An example calculation for the fuzzy inference model

123

346

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

10-15
5-10

10-20
2.60

Slightly fractured
10-15

10-15
20-30

17-25

5-10
Porosity (%)

Quartz Content (%)

Density (ton/m3)

Layered (thick bedded)

Slightly foliated

10-15
Elastic Modulus
(GPa)

Structure

Sts2-1
Sts1
Eng. Geo. Section

Average
permeability
(m/sec)

Lithology

1.5e-8

Layered, jointed, folded

Structure

Lithology

Brecia tuff, Shale, Sandstone and Siltstone

layered

Gta3

Slightly fractured

2.5e-8
Layered, jointed, folded

Argillaceous limestone and shale

5-15

Gta1
Green tuff, Brecia tuff

Gta2

layered

ML-SH2
SH-ML3
ML-SH2
ML-SH3
ML-SH2
MLSH1
SH-ML1, SH-ML2
Eng. Geo.
Section

Fig. 11 Longitudinal geological profile of the excavated sections of

Nosoud tunnel (lot 2)

123

Complex structural zone

Folded, layered
1e-7
Jointed, layered
1.5e-8

Argillaceous limestone, sandstone and shale

output was translated into a crisp numerical value by means

of the COA defuzzification method, leading to a final index
rating of 68.2. Following the determination of the final
index rating, its membership degree is obtained by using
the fuzzy sets which represent the output variable (Fig. 10).

ML-SH1

MLSH4

Fractured

MLSH5

SH-LS1

SH-LS2

SH-LS3

a crisp result by the defuzzification process. In this study,

therefore, the COA method is employed for defuzzification
process due to the calculation simplicity. A typical example of the developed fuzzy model with 12 ifthen rules for
given input values is illustrated in Fig. 9. The fuzzy set

Fig. 12 Longitudinal geological profile of the excavated sections of

Karaj-Tehran tunnel

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering Classification Systems

347

Table 6 RME input data for the Nosou and Karaj-Tehran tunnels
Tunnel sections

UCS
(MPa)

DRI

Discontinuities at tunnel face

Stand-up
time (h)

Groundwater
inflow (l/s)

SH-ML3

15

75

Homogeneous

ML-SH3
ML-SH5

40
40

65
65

Homogeneous
Homogeneous

5
7

60

125

\10

30
75

130
[192

\10
\10

SH-LS1

25

75

Homogeneous

25

120

\10

SH-LS2

40

75

Homogeneous

16

35

100

\10

Homogeneity

No. of joints
per meter

Joint orientation
()

Nosoud

Karaj-Tehran
Gta1

50

40

Homogeneous

10

30

170

\10

Gta2

75

40

Homogeneous

30

[192

\10

Gta3

100

45

Homogeneous

30

[192

\10

Sts1

120

45

Homogeneous

30

[192

\10

As can be followed from Fig. 10, for a final index rating

of 68.2, the ease of excavation is determined as easy and
very easy with membership degrees of 0.8 and 0.2,
respectively. These membership degrees indicate the
degree with which a rock mass belongs to a certain excavation class. This is one more advantage of fuzzy rock
engineering classifications in comparison with conventional ones.
5.2 Validation of the Developed Fuzzy Model
To assess the practical application of the developed fuzzy
model for the RME classification for tunneling technique
selection, geotechnical field data were collected from some
geological and lithological units along two water transfer
tunnels in Iran, including Nosoud and KarajTehran. The
48-km Nosoud and 30-km Karaj-Tehran tunnels are the
two longest water transfer projects in Iran which are now
being excavated by using 6.73- and 4.6-m diameter doubleshield TBMs, respectively. The Nosoud tunnel passes
through several formations with rock mass conditions
varying from weak to good, with RMR ranging from 17 to
75. Based on the field engineering geological investigations, the main lithological units consist of shale,
limestone, and marl layers. The maximum depth of the
tunnel is 1,000 m, with an average depth equal to 400 m.
The groundwater level varies from 30 to 340 m above the
tunnel crown. The longitudinal geological profile of the
excavated sections of Nosoud tunnel lot 2 is illustrated in
Fig. 11.
From a geological point of view, the Karaj-Tehran
tunnel project passes through different combinations of
sedimentary-volcanic rock of Karaj formation. Based upon
the field engineering geological investigations, the main
lithological units consist of tuff, sandstone, siltstone,

fine-grained conglomerates, and agglomerates. Figure 12

illustrates the longitudinal geological profile of the excavated sections of Karaj-Tehran tunnel lot 1.
The RME of the chosen geological and lithological units
along each tunnel alignment was assessed by introducing
its relevant geotechnical data to the constructed fuzzy
model as the input variables. The required input data for
the calculation of conventional and fuzzy RME indices for
each tunnel section are given in Table 6.
The ARA for each TBM was calculated in accordance
with the relevant formulas (given in Sect. 4) and the two
adjustment factors, namely, TBM crew effectiveness and
the tunnel excavated length. The predicted TBM performance determined from both the excavability rating
(conventional) method and the presently constructed fuzzy
model compared with the measured ARA after excavation
in the field are given in Table 7 and Fig. 13. As can be
followed from Table 7 and Fig. 13, in comparison with the
Table 7 Predicted and measured TBM average rate of advance
(ARA) (m/day)
Tunnel sections

Conventional
RME

Fuzzy
RME

Measured
values

SH-ML3

15.54

14.33

14

ML-SH3
ML-SH5

20
28.27

19.81
21.86

20.5
10.8

SH-LS1

18.64

18.9

19.5

SH-LS2

24.43

19.73

19.4

Gta1

16.39

16.2

17.04

Gta2

19.52

20.05

23.28

Gta3

15.12

19.12

19.2

Sts1

16.93

19.74

24.96

Nosoud

Karaj-Tehran

123

348

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

Conventional

Fuzzy

Measured

30

25

ARA (m/day)

20

15

10

0
SH-ML3 ML-SH3 ML-SH5 SH-LS1 SH-LS2

Gta1

Gta2

Gta3

Sts1

Fig. 13 Comparison of the measured average rate of advance (ARA)

and predicted ARA

in rock engineering. Despite their widespread use, these

systems have some limitations in practical applications
which may result in their misuse. The most important deficiencies of such rating-based classification systems are the
existence of sharp transition boundaries between two adjacent rock classes contrary to the gradational variation nature
of rock and the inclusion of subjective uncertainties which
necessitate an expert judgment. As shown in detail in the
exhaustive literature, fuzzy set theory is an efficient tool to
cope with the limitation of sharp boundaries by membership
functions and the limitation of uncertainties by a rule-based
inference system. In this study, therefore, the applicability of
fuzzy set theory to rock engineering classifications was
illustrated by employing the fuzzy set to the newly developed
rock mass excavability (RME) classification. The results
obtained from the practical application of fuzzy set theory
indicate that the same approach can be followed for all rating-based rock engineering classification systems.

30
Nosoud
25

y=x

References

Karaj-Tehran

Fuzzy RME

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Conventional RME

Fig. 14 Relation between ARA obtained from the fuzzy model and
conventional method

conventional model, the results obtained from the fuzzy

model are closer to the measured ARA values. This is due
to the intrinsic flexibility existing in the fuzzy model,
which increases the precision of the outputs.
The ARA determined from both the conventional and
fuzzy models and their relation is shown in Fig. 14. As can
be followed from Fig. 14, there is good consistency
between the results obtained from the conventional method
and the fuzzy model.

6 Conclusions
Rock engineering classifications have posed themselves as
an integral part of empirical approaches for design purposes

123

Acaroglu O, Ozdemir L, Asbury B (2008) A fuzzy logic model to

predict specific energy requirement for TBM performance
prediction. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23:600608
Alvarez Grima M (2000) Neuro-fuzzy modelling in engineering
geology. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 244 pp
Alvarez Grima M, Babuska R (1999) Fuzzy model for the prediction
of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 36:339349
Alvarez Grima M, Verhoef PNW (1999) Forecasting rock trencher
performance using fuzzy logic. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
36(4):413432
Alvarez Grima M, Bruines PA, Verhoef PNW (2000) Modeling
tunnel boring machine performance by neuro-fuzzy methods.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 15(3):259269
Aydin A (2004) Fuzzy set approaches to classification of rock masses.
Eng Geol 74:227245
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189236
Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 17(4):141164
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock
masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civil Engrs 15:335344
Bieniawski ZT (1974) Geomechanics classification of rock masses
and its application in tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Denver,
Colorado, September 1974, pp 2732
Bieniawski ZT (1976) Rock mass classifications in rock engineering.
In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration for Rock
Engineering, Johannesburg, November 1976, pp 97106
Bieniawski ZT (1979) The geomechanics classification in rock
engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th International
Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol 2, ISRM, Montreux, Switzerland, September 1979, pp 4148
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley,
New York, p 251
Bieniawski ZT (2007) Predicting TBM excavability. Tunnels Tunnel
Int 3235

Application of Fuzzy Set Theory to Rock Engineering Classification Systems

Bieniawski ZT, Barton N (2007) RMR and Q-setting records. Tunn
Tunn Int 2629
Bieniawski ZT, Tamames BC, Fernandez JMG, Hernandez MA
(2006) Rock mass excavability (RME) indicator: new way to
selecting the optimum tunnel construction method. In: ITAAITES World Tunnel Congress and 32nd ITA General Assembly, Seoul, Korea, April 2006
Bieniawski ZT, Celada B, Galera JM (2007) TBM excavability:
prediction and machinerock interaction. In: Proceedings of the
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), Toronto,
Canada, June 2007, pp 11181130
Brekke TL, Howard TR (1972) Stability problems caused by seams
and faults. In: Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference (RETC), pp 2541
Chen C, Liu Y (2007) A methodology for evaluation and classification of rock mass quality on tunnel engineering. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 22:377387
Deere DU (1968) Geological considerations. In: Stagg RG, Zienkiewicz DC (eds) Rock mechanics in engineering practice.
Wiley, New York, pp 120
Deere DU (1989) Rock quality designation (RQD) after 20 years. US
Army Corps Engrs contract report GL-89-1. Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, p 67
Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ (1967) Design of
surface and near surface construction in rock. In: Proceedings of
the 8th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, AIME, New York,
pp 237302
Deketh HJR, Alvarez Grima M, Hergarden IM, Giezen M, Verhoef
PNW (1998) Towards the prediction of rock excavation machine
performance. Bull Eng Geol Environ 57:315
Den Hartog MH, Babuska R, Deketh HJR, Alvarez Grima M, Verhoef
PNW, Verbruggen HB (1997) Knowledge-based fuzzy model for
performance prediction of a rock-cutting trencher. Int J Approx
Reason 16(1):4366
Finol J, Guo YK, Jing XD (2001) A rule based fuzzy model for the
prediction of petrophysical rock parameters. J Pet Sci Eng
29:97113
Franklin JA, Broch E, Walton G (1971) Logging the mechanical
character of rock. Trans Inst Min Metall 80:19
Ghose AK, Dutta D (1987) A rock mass classification model for
caving roofs. Int J Min Geol Eng 5:257271
Gokay MK (1998) Fuzzy logic usage in rock mass classifications. J
Chamb Min Eng Turk 37(4):311 (in Turkish)
Gokceoglu C (2002) A fuzzy triangular chart to predict the uniaxial
compressive strength of the Ankara agglomerates from their
petrographic composition. Eng Geol 66:3951
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 Intell 17:6172
Goktan RM, Eskikaya S (1991) Prediction of ripping machine
performance in terms of rock mass properties. Civil Eng S Afr
31(1):1324
Goodman RE (1995) Block theory and its application. Geotechnique
45(3):383423
Habibagahi G, Katebi S (1996) Rock mass classification using fuzzy
sets. Iran J Sci Technol 20(3):273284
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):11651186
Iphar M, Goktan RM (2006) An application of fuzzy sets to the
Diggability Index Rating method for surface mine equipment
selection. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:253266
Jang JSR, Sun CT, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft
computing. A computational approach to learning and machine
intelligence. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 614 pp
Juang CH, Lee DH (1990) Rock mass classification using fuzzy sets.
In: Proceedings of the 10th Southeast Asian Geotechnical

349

Conference, Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, April 1990, pp 30914
Karpuz C (1990) A classification system for excavation of surface
coal measures. Min Sci Technol 11:157163
Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C, Ercanoglu M (2003) Estimating the
deformation modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 40:5563
Khademi Hamidi J (2008) A model for hard rock TBM performance
prediction. PhD thesis, Amirkabir University of Technology (in
preparation)
Khademi Hamidi J, Shahriar K, Rezai B (2007a) Fuzzy set theory for
selection of tunneling technique using rock mass excavability
(RME) indicator. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on
Underground Excavation for Transportation, Istanbul, November
2007, pp 121127
Khademi Hamidi J, Shahriar K, Shirazi MA, Torkamani A (2007b)
Application of fuzzy set theory to rock mass excavability (RME)
classification system. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Iranian Rock
Mechanics Conference, Tehran, Iran, pp 64752
Kirsten HAD (1982) A classification system for excavation in natural
materials. Civil Eng S Afr 24:293308
Klose CD (2002) Fuzzy rule-based expert system for short-range
seismic prediction. Comput Geosci 28:377386
Lauffer H (1958) Classification for tunnel construction (in German).
Geol Bauwes 24(1):4651
Lee H, Jeon S, Kim J (2003) Development of a fuzzy model to
estimate engineering rock mass properties. In: Proceedings of the
10th Congress of the ISRMTechnology Roadmap for Rock
Mechanics, Sandton City, South Africa, September 2003, S Afr
Inst Min Metall 749752
Li X, Tso SK (1999) Drill wear monitoring based on current signals.
Wear 231:172178
Liu Y, Chen C (2007) A new approach for application of rock mass
classification on rock slope stability assessment. Eng Geol
89:129143
Mamdani EH, Assilian S (1975) An experiment in linguistic synthesis
with a fuzzy logic controller. Int J Man Machine Stud 7(1):113
Nguyen VU (1985) Some fuzzy set applications in mining geomechanics. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 22:369379
Nguyen VU, Ashworth E (1985) Rock mass classification by fuzzy
sets. In: Proceedings of the 26th US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Rapid City, South Dakota, June 1985, pp 937945
Pacher F, Rabcewicz L, Golser J (1974) Zum der seitigen Stand der
Gebirgsklassifizierung in Stollen und Tunnelbau. In: Proceedings
of the XXII Geomechanical Colloquium, Salzburg, Austria, pp
518
Palmstrom A (1995) RMia rock mass characterization system for
rock engineering purposes. PhD thesis, University of Oslo, 400
pp. Home page at: http://www.rockmass.net
Palmstrom A, Broch E (2006) Use and misuse of rock mass
classification systems with particular reference to the Q-system.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21:575593
Riedmuller G, Schubert W (1999) Rock mass modeling in tunneling
versus rock mass classification using rating methods. In:
Proceedings of the 37th US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vail,
Colorado, June 1999
Ritter W (1879) Die Statik der Tunnelgewolbe. Springer, Berlin
Ross TJ (1995) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. McGrawHill, New York, 600 pp
Sakurai S, Shimizu N (1987) Assessment of rock slope stability by
fuzzy set theory. In: Proceedings of the 6th Congress of the
International Society for Rock Mechanics, Montreal, Canada,, pp
503506
Scoble MJ, Muftuoglu YV (1984) Derivation of a diggability index
for surface mine equipment selection. Min Sci Technol 1:305
322

123

350
Singh B, Goel RK (1999) Rock mass classificationsa practical
approach in civil engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 267
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(3):251269
Stille H, Palmstrom A (2003) Classification as a tool in rock
engineering. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 18:331345
Swart AH, Human JL, Harvey F (2005) Rock engineering challenges.
S Afr Inst Min Metall pp 103106
Terzaghi K (1946) Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports. In:
Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports. Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Company, Youngstown, Ohio, pp 1599
Weaver JM (1975) Geological factors significant in the assessment of
rippability. Civil Eng S Afr 17(12):313316
Wei X, Wang CY, Zhoub ZH (2003) Study on the fuzzy ranking of
granite sawability. J Mater Process Technol 139:277280
Wickham GE, Tiedemann HR, Skinner EH (1972) Support determination based on geologic predictions. In: Proceedings of the
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), pp 4364

123

J. Khademi Hamidi et al.

Williamson DA, Kuhn CR (1988) The unified classification system.
In: Rock Engineering Systems for Engineering Purposes, ASTM
STP 984. American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia,
pp 716
Wu C, Hao H, Zhou Y (1999) Fuzzy-random probabilistic analysis of
rock mass responses to explosive loads. Comput Geotech
25:205225
Yao Y, Li X, Yuan Z (1999) Tool wear detection with fuzzy
classification and wavelet fuzzy neural network. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 39:15251538
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338353
Zadeh LA (1992) Fuzzy logic, neural networks, and soft computing.
One-page course announcement of CS 2944, The University of
California at Berkeley
Zadeh LA (2006) Generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU)
principal concepts and ideas. Comput Stat Data Anal 51:1546
Zadeh LA (2008) Is there a need for fuzzy logic? Inf Sci 178:2751
2779