Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227 – 245

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Fuzzy set approaches to classification of rock masses

A. Aydin *
Department of Earth Sciences, James Lee Science Building, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
Received 4 November 2003; accepted 30 March 2004
Available online

Abstract

Rock mass classification is analogous to multi-feature pattern recognition problem. The objective is to assign a rock mass
to one of the pre-defined classes using a given set of criteria. This process involves a number of subjective uncertainties
stemming from: (a) qualitative (linguistic) criteria; (b) sharp class boundaries; (c) fixed rating (or weight) scales; and (d)
variable input reliability. Fuzzy set theory enables a soft approach to account for these uncertainties by allowing the expert to
participate in this process in several ways. Hence, this study was designed to investigate the earlier fuzzy rock mass
classification attempts and to devise improved methodologies to utilize the theory more accurately and efficiently. As in the
earlier studies, the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system was adopted as a reference conventional classification system because
of its simple linear aggregation.
The proposed classification approach is based on the concept of partial fuzzy sets representing the variable importance or
recognition power of each criterion in the universal domain of rock mass quality. The method enables one to evaluate rock
mass quality using any set of criteria, and it is easy to implement. To reduce uncertainties due to project- and lithology-
dependent variations, partial membership functions were formulated considering shallow ( < 200 m) tunneling in granitic rock
masses. This facilitated a detailed expression of the variations in the classification power of each criterion along the
corresponding universal domains. The binary relationship tables generated using these functions were processed not to derive
a single class but rather to plot criterion contribution trends (stacked area graphs) and belief surface contours, which proved
to be very satisfactory in difficult decision situations. Four input scenarios were selected to demonstrate the efficiency of the
proposed approach in different situations and with reference to the earlier approaches.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuzzy set theory; Multi-criteria classification; RMR; Rock mass classification; Subjective uncertainty; Partial fuzzy sets

1. Introduction terms to facilitate communication of information,

The main goal of classification systems is to
group objects or events using common scales and
* Fax: +852-2517-6912.
E-mail address: aaydin@hku.hk (A. Aydin).
guide detailed investigations, predict their properties
and behavior or establish relationships. Rock mass
classifications serve two purposes: characterization
and empirical design (Fig. 1). Useful summaries of
these classifications and their extensions can be
found in Bieniawski (1989) and Singh and Goel
(1999). Of the existing classification systems, Rock

0013-7952/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.03.011
228 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
Fig. 1. Classification of rock mass classification systems according to their functions (purposes) and contents (modified from Russo et al., 1998).
Mass Rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, 1973) and Q
(Barton et al., 1974) are the most commonly used.
These are multi-parameter classification systems
based on the analyses of tunneling case histories.
They employ similar sets of linguistic and/or numer-
ical criteria recognized to influence behavior of rock
masses and stability of rock structures. The relative
contributions of each criterion to the engineering
quality of rock masses are expressed in the form of
rating factors, over arithmetic (RMR) or logarithmic
scales (Q).
Because the dominance and interaction of each
criterion (or parameter) vary with specific applica-
tion (characterized by purpose, dimensions, depth
and loading mechanisms), engineering geological
environment (characterized by litho-structural and
geotechnical properties, and hydrogeological, geo-
morphological and geodynamic settings) and rock
mass quality (or class), devising a universally valid
classification system is not a realistic goal. The
growing number of rock mass classifications mod-
ified from existing ones or newly formulated for
different applications (such as slope stability, foun-
dation bearing capacity, excavatibility and grouting)
and specific rock types shows universal recognition
of the variations in the type and importance (rating)
of classification parameters with project/purpose and
geology.
Like many other classification systems in use in
engineering geological practice, rock mass classifi-
cations often involve criteria whose values are
assigned in linguistic terms. Practitioners and edu-
cators are familiar with the difficulty of capturing
and communicating the experience and underlying
assumptions of experts in expressing various states
or levels of a classification criterion in linguistic
terms. What do experts exactly mean when they use
these terms that relate to approximation and possi-
bility? How can we ensure that these terms mean
the same thing in every case and to every practi-
tioner or expert? How can we utilize this fuzziness
in expert opinion and the decision process? Fuzzy
set approach reveals not only the basis for experts’
evaluations but also makes them more objective,
particularly through the process of setting functional
expressions (i.e., construction of membership func-
tions) of their perception, belief, support or confi-
dence in the values assigned.
In rock mass classification processes, subjective
(or non-random) uncertainties result from: (a) use of
qualitative (linguistic) terms (as input value of some
criteria) whose meanings vary from one expert to
the other; (b) predetermined and sharp class bound-
aries, whereas the rock mass quality is gradational
in nature; (c) prescribed rating (or weighting) scales
representing contribution (importance) of each crite-
rion to the overall quality (assuming the overall
quality is characterized perfectly by the used crite-
ria, and in all geological settings and applications);
and (d) reliability of input value (quantitative and
linguistic) of each criterion. Fuzzy set theory ena-
bles a soft classification approach to account for
these uncertainties by allowing the expert (of a rock
engineering project and/or a particular engineering
geological environment) to participate in this pro-
cess in several ways.
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
This paper was designed to investigate the earlier
attempts (at engineering classification of rock
masses) based on the fuzzy set theory and to devise
improved methodologies to utilize the theory more
accurately and efficiently. As in the earlier studies,
the RMR system was adopted also in this study as a
reference conventional classification system because
of its simple linear aggregation operator.
2. Rock Mass Rating system
In this study, the latest version of the Rock Mass
Rating system (Bieniawski, 1989) was used as the
reference classification structure (Table 1). RMR
system is based on five main parameters: The arith-
metic sum of the ratings corresponding to the input
values of these parameters is referred to as ‘‘the basic
RMR’’ (Fig. 2). The engineering quality or class of
the rock mass is represented by ‘‘the total RMR’’,
obtained by adjusting ‘‘the basic RMR’’ for the
influence of joint orientation for a specific excavation
face (Fig. 2).
3. Basics of fuzzy set theory
Fuzzy set theory is a generalization of ordinary or
classical set theory; it consists of mathematical tools
developed to model and process incomplete and/or
gradual information, ranging from interval-valued
numerical data to symbolic and linguistic expressions
(Dubois and Prade, 2000). The concepts and defini-
tions of the fuzzy set theory (Dubois and Prade, 1980;
Ross, 1995; Klir et al., 1997) are briefly summarized
below to facilitate the discussion on fuzzy rock mass
classifications.
3.1. Fuzzy set and its membership function
Unlike crisp (or ordinary) sets, fuzzy sets have
no sharp or precise boundaries (Fig. 3). As a result,
the degree of membership lA(x) of elements x to a
fuzzy set A depends on their positions (or compat-
ibility) with respect to the centre (or the central
concept). An element’s position within a fuzzy set
is determined by the degree of belief (or support)
that the element belongs to that set. Thus, a fuzzy
229
set is uniquely characterized by a membership
function expressing this support between 0 and 1
(Fig. 3).
A fuzzy subset A of a universal set X (= [x]) can be
represented as a set of ordered pairs of discrete values
of the domain variable x and the corresponding
membership values lA(x):
A ¼ ½x; lA ðxÞ x a A; AoX ð1Þ
In fuzzy set grammar, linguistic variables (e.g.,
descriptive qualifiers commonly used in engineering
geology such as ‘‘extremely strong’’, ‘‘highly weath-
ered’’, ‘‘widely spaced’’, ‘‘very tight’’ and ‘‘very
wet’’) are replaced by fuzzy sets. Assuming symmet-
ric triangular membership distribution (as in Fig. 3)
within UCS (MPa) interval [200, 400], the fuzzy set
expressing ‘extremely strong rock’ can be represented
in vector form as:
A ¼ ½0=200; 0:5=250; 1:0=300; 0:5=350; 0=400 ð2Þ
where 0, 0.5 and 1.0 are the membership grades
corresponding to the selected UCS values and ‘‘/’’ is
a delineator.
Various segments of a membership function rep-
resent the limits of our expectation that an object (or
variable) belongs to the corresponding fuzzy set. The
relevant terms are shown in Fig. 4 for a trapezoidal
membership function. The fuzzy sets presented
above are normal and convex sets that: (a) satisfy
h(A) = max{lA(x)} = 1; and (b) display strictly mono-
tonic increase and/or decrease of its membership
values lA(x) with increasing values of its elements
x, respectively.
The definition of a fuzzy set depends on the
situation (or context) that modifies our perception or
expectation of the meaning of the linguistic vari-
able. For example, the intact rock weathering clas-
sification by GSL (1995) suggests that ‘‘large pieces
of highly weathered (Grade IV) rock can be broken
by hand’’: Fuzzy sets constructed using this criteri-
on to represent Grade IV rock may differ for
different people and rock types (Fig. 5a). Similarly,
quantitative data may sometimes be imprecisely
described due to non-random uncertainties: UCS
of ‘‘about 40 MPa’’ implies different magnitude of
variations if it is determined indirectly by point load
230 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245

Table 1
The rock mass rating system (after Bieniawski, 1989)
(A) Classification parameters and their ratings
Parameters Range of values
1 Intact rock PLI (MPa) >10 4 – 10 2–4 1–2 PLI is not preferred
strength UCS (MPa) >250 100 – 250 50 – 100 25 – 50 5 – 25 1 – 5 < 1
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
2 Drill core 90 – 100 75 – 90 50 – 75 25 – 50 < 25
quality in
RQD (%)
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
3 Spacing of >2 m 0.6 – 2 m 200 – 600 60 – 200 < 60
discontinuities mm mm mm
Rating 20 15 10 8 5
4 Condition of Very Slightly Slightly Slickensided or
discontinuities rough rough rough gouge < 5 mm
(see E for details) or separation
< 1 – 5 mm
Not Soft gouge>5 mm
continuous or separation>5 mm
No Separation Separation
separation < 1 mm < 1 mm
Unweathered Slightly Highly Continuous Continuous
weathered weathered
Rating 30 25 20 10 0
5 Groundwater Inflow per None < 10 10 – 25 25 – 125 >125
condition 10 m tunnel
length (l/m)
Joint water 0 < 0.1 0.1 – 0.2 0.2 – 0.5 >0.5
pressure/major
principal
stress
General Completely Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
conditions dry
Rating 15 10 7 4 0

(B) Rating adjustment for discontinuity orientations

Strike and dip orientations Very favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable Very unfavorable
Rating
Tunnels and mines 0 2 5  10  12
Foundations 0 2 7  15  25
Slopes 0 5  25  50  60

(C) Rock mass classes determined from total ratings

Total rating 100 p 81 80 p 61 60 p 41 40 p 21 < 21
Class number I II III IV V
Description Very good rock Good rock Fair rock Poor rock Very poor rock

(D) Meaning of rock classes

Class number I II III IV V
Average stand-up time 20 years for 15 m span 1 year for 10 m span 1 week for 5 m span 10 h for 2.5 m span 30 min for 1 m span
Cohesion of rock >400 300 – 400 200 – 300 100 – 200 < 100
mass (kPa)
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245 231

Table 1 (continued)
(D) Meaning of rock classes
Class number I II III IV V
Friction angle of >45 35 – 45 25 – 35 15 – 25 < 15
rock mass (j)

(E) Guidelines for classification of discontinuity conditions

Rating
Discontinuity <1 m 6 1–3 m 4 3 – 10 m 2 10 – 20 m 1 >20 m 0
length
(persistence)
Separation None 6 < 0.1 mm 5 0.1 – 1.0 4 1 – 5 mm 1 >5 mm 0
(aperture) mm
Roughness Very 6 Rough 5 Slightly 3 Smooth 1 Slickensided 0
rough rough
Infilling None 6 Hard 4 Hard filling 2 Soft 2 Soft filling 0
(gouge) filling >5 mm filling >5 mm
< 5 mm < 5 mm
Weathering Unweathered 6 Slightly 5 Moderately 3 Highly 1 Decomposed 0
weathered weathered weathered

index apparatus or directly from laboratory testing
(Fig. 5b).
3.2. Analytical representation of membership
functions
Membership functions can be represented by
different methods. Of these methods, analytical
representation is used when a fuzzy set is defined
over a continuous domain, such as real numbers or
gradational classes of objects, which makes it im-
possible to represent all the elements x with their
membership functions lA(x) in any other form. In
analytical method trapezoidal membership functions
can be characterized by the height and four distinct
elements of the fuzzy set interval. The generic

Fig. 2. RMR classification for characterization and design purposes. Fig. 3. Pictorial definitions of crisp and fuzzy sets.
232 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245

The fuzzy relation R between two fuzzy sets A = [x/

lA(x)] and B = [ y/lB( y)] is a fuzzy set with dual
membership in both sets:
Z
R¼ ½ðx; yÞ=lR ðx; yÞ ð5Þ
AB

where the degree of dual membership is given by:

Fig. 4. Pictorial definition of the segments of a (trapezoidal)

lR ðx; yÞ ¼ ½lA ðxÞ ^ lB ðyÞ ¼ min½lA ðxÞ; lB ðyÞ ð6Þ
membership function, encapsulating variations in our subjective
judgment over the fuzzy set domain. (B: boundary of support zone). 3.4. Fuzzy arithmetic operations

Of the four basic fuzzy arithmetic operations, fuzzy

analytical expressions and the corresponding graph- addition and subtraction (Fig. 8) are calculated
ical representation are given Fig. 6. Taking b = c, according to (Kaufmann and Gupta, 1991):
these expressions reduce to those of triangular
membership functions. lAðþÞB ðzÞ ¼ _flA ðxÞ ^ lB ðyÞg

3.3. Fuzzy set operations z ¼ x þ y@lA ðxÞ ¼ lB ðyÞ ð7Þ

Three basic fuzzy set operations mentioned in this

paper are summarized below: lAðÞB ðzÞ ¼ _flA ðxÞ ^ lB ðyÞg
The union (A[B) and intersection (A\B) of two z ¼ x  y@lA ðxÞ ¼ lB ðyÞ ð8Þ
fuzzy sets A and B are given, respectively by (Fig. 7):
where A and B are fuzzy numbers (i.e., normal fuzzy
lA[B ðxÞ ¼ ½lA ðxÞ _ lB ðxÞ ¼ max½lA ðxÞ; lB ðxÞ ð3Þ sets) of the same universe, i.e., A, BoX and x, y,
z a X. The same rules apply for multiplication
(z = x  y) and division (z = x/y).
lA\B ðxÞ ¼ ½lA ðxÞ ^ lB ðxÞ ¼ min½lA ðxÞ; lB ðxÞ ð4Þ
3.5. a-cuts of fuzzy sets

The symbols _ and ^ represent fuzzy union and In fuzzy set theory, the notion of a-cuts represents
intersection operations, respectively. the intervals (support range) corresponding to selected

Fig. 5. Context dependency in constructing fuzzy sets: (a) changing definitions of Grade IV rock by two people according to the breakability
criterion; (b) influence of the reliability of test procedures on the expected range of deviations implied by the qualifier ‘‘about’’.
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
Fig. 6. Five elements of a trapezoidal membership function used for its analytical representation.
membership values in [0,1]. The a-cut of a fuzzy set A
(denoted as aA) is a crisp set:
a
A ¼ fxAAðxÞ z ag
Accordingly, the a-cuts of the trapezoidal function
in Fig. 6 can be written in generic form as:
a Defuzzification is a process of reducing an aggre-
A ¼ ½ða þ ðb  aÞaÞ; ðd  ðd  cÞaÞ
At a = 0.5, the fuzzy set represented by Eq. (2) will
have the following interval:
0:5
A ¼ ½250; 350 ¼ ½0=200; 1=250; 1=350; 0=400
3.6. Fuzzy weighted average (FWA) algorithm
This computational algorithm (Dong and Wong,
1987) is an aggregation procedure developed for
cases where both the meaning and importance (or
weights) of the criteria are fuzzy. The algorithm is
based on the a-cut representation of fuzzy sets and
interval analysis. Unlike other numerical aggregation
procedures, the membership values rather than sup-
port domain are discretized. Fig. 9 presents a
summary of the method for the simple case of
Fig. 7. Union and intersection of two fuzzy sets A and B.
233
two fuzzy sets (N = 2). As the procedure involves
calculation of FWA for 2N permutations at each
ð9Þ selected a-cut, it becomes a bulky task for more
than a few fuzzy sets.
3.7. Defuzzification methods
ð10Þ
gated (or clipped) fuzzy set into a crisp number,
presumably the most representative value of that
fuzzy set interval. The two methods mentioned in this
paper are described below.
ð11Þ 3.7.1. Centre of area method
The centre of area (or centroid) method is the most
commonly used defuzzification method, despite its
complexity. The method aims to determine the point
zc at which the area under the clipped membership
function lC is equally divided:
zc ¼ ½jzlC ðzÞdz=½jlC ðzÞdz ð12Þ
3.7.2. Ranking index method
The ranking index (Juang et al., 1987) evaluates
the position of a fuzzy set in the universal domain, i.e.,
the interval including the entire spectrum of classes of
objects or qualities. The procedure is explained in Fig.
10. This method is limited to cases where h(A) = 1 and
cannot be used for clipped fuzzy sets.
4. Earlier fuzzy rock mass classification
approaches
The use of fuzzy set theory in multi-criteria
classifications is uniquely effective, as it enables
234 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245

Fig. 8. Fuzzy arithmetic operations: (a) addition; and (b) subtraction (after Kaufmann and Gupta, 1991).

incorporation of expert’s knowledge as well as is discussed, earlier fuzzy rock mass classification
quantification of qualitative information while retain- methods are briefly introduced. Particular note is
ing the imprecise nature of the criteria. Before the taken of their consistency with the theory and their
fuzzy classification approach proposed in this paper mutual differences.

Fig. 9. Application of FWA algorithm (based on Dong and Wong, 1987).

 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245 235

Fig. 10. Ranking index defuzzification method (based on Juang and Lee, 1990).

4.1. Nguyen’s (1985) approach
Nguyen (1985) and Nguyen and Ashworth (1985)
proposed the first fuzzy rock mass classification ap-
proach based on min – max aggregation operation pro-
posed by Bellman and Zadeh (1970) for multi-criteria
decision modeling. This approach aims at the selection
of most likely rock mass class as summarized in Fig.
11. Membership functions lij for each criterion j at each
rock class i are constructed based on subjective judg-
ment. With this type of membership function, a rock
mass usually belongs to all five classes with different
degrees of belief or support. Membership values
corresponding to input are listed in the form of a fuzzy
binary relation (Aj  Bi) table. The min – max operation
on this table reveals the most likely class and member-
ship degree of the evaluated rock mass to that class.
The type of fuzzy membership function proposed
by Nguyen implies that if the input value of a criterion
is at the centre of any of its RMR class ranges, then
the rock mass fully belongs to that class. Subsequent-
ly, this expert opinion of strong support is discarded
during the aggregation process as the criterion with
the weakest support is retained for final selection.
Moreover Nguyen suggested that the degree of mem-
bership of a rock mass with RQD = 77 to RMR Class
II, i.e., lII,RQD, can also be calculated by dividing the
input value (77) to the central value of that class range
(82.5). This method is not consistent with the graph-
ical example, and does not produce the values given

Fig. 11. Nguyen’s (1985) rock mass classification approach.

236 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
in the binary relation table shown in Fig. 11. Another
shortcoming of this approach is that the fuzzy min –
max operation: (a) is appropriate for systems with
non-interactive criteria (Dubois and Prade, 1980),
whereas criteria in rock mass classification systems
are inevitably interactive and have different impor-
tance or weights; (b) is conservative in class selection,
which can be avoided by mean – max operation; and
(c) fails when two or more similar values emerge from
the min operation.
4.2. Juang and Lee’s (1990) approach
This fuzzy classification method is based on Dong
and Wong’s (1987) FWA algorithm (Fig. 9) and
aggregates the individual (fuzzy) ratings of different
criteria into an overall classification rating. The se-
lected classification structure is a modified version of
RMR system (Fig. 12), but lumps JS and JC together
as JCS, presumably to limit the number of criteria to a
manageable five (FWA becomes too tedious with
more). The fuzzy subsets for the rating (Rt) and
Fig. 12. Juang and Lee’s (1990) rock mass classification approach (input and RMR ratings from Hoek and Brown, 1982).
weighting (W) scales are both represented by five
triangular membership functions (labeled A to E) in
both the universal rock mass quality domain (includ-
ing all possible fuzzy sub-sets of rock quality classes)
and in the universal domain of importance (or
weights). Both universal domains are discretized into
17 elements (1– 17) for simpler implementation of the
proposed methodology. Then a fuzzy rating subset is
assigned to each criterion according to its input value
relative to corresponding RMR class intervals. After
this, an FWA algorithm is utilized to obtain overall
ratings, first for JCS and finally for the rock mass.
This final fuzzy set is defuzzified into a rock mass
classification index (RMCI) using Juang et al.’s (1987)
ranking index method.
It is not clear how the criteria weights were
assigned in this approach. An important shortcoming
of the approach is the assignment of a single fuzzy set
to each numerical criterion regardless of its input
value position on the corresponding class interval
range. Dual membership is not considered, with an
inevitable loss of quantitative information.
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245 237

4.3. Habibagahi and Katebi’s (1996) approach
In this approach, 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. Fuzzi-
fication of numerical criteria could be useful only to
account for uncertainty in assigned ratings due to
gradational boundaries. In constructing these func-
tions, the support base of each interval (of quantita-
tive criteria) extends into the neighboring class
intervals such that the intersections of sets are all
at l = 0.5. This ensures that dual membership is
obtained, for a given input value of a criterion.
The largest product of RMR rating (corresponding
to each fuzzy set) and membership grade is taken as

Fig. 13. Habibagahi and Katebi’s (1996) rock mass classification approach. Refer to Fig. 14 for the evaluation of reliability parameters.
238 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
the fuzzy rating. This process of obtaining so-called
‘‘refined ratings’’ obviously alters the ordered struc-
ture of ratings as a lower rating may be obtained for
a higher input value. For example, for UCS = 100,
fuzzy rating = lA  RMR rating = 6.0; whereas for
UCS = 75, fuzzy rating = 7.0.
The class intervals for each of the remaining RMR
criteria (JC, GW, JO) (input given mostly in descriptive
terms) are expressed by five triangular membership
functions plotted in the domain of corresponding RMR
ratings. However, fuzzy ratings for these criteria were
selected at the maximum membership level (i.e., l = 1).
In other words, fuzzy sets for linguistic criteria were
used only symbolically. Because all the so-called fuzzy
ratings are in crisp numbers, the aggregation process to
obtain the total rating is exactly the same as in RMR
system. The total rating is mapped onto the fuzzy sets
of rock mass classes represented by trapezoidal mem-
bership functions (Fig. 13) constructed using the same
universal domain and the central values of each class
interval as in RMR. The centroid method of defuzzi-
fication is employed to find a final rock mass rating.
Habibagahi and Katebi also deduced a rating
scheme for the reliability of classification using the
arithmetic weighted average of the product of reliabil-
ity [0,1] of each criterion and corresponding weight
Fig. 14. An evaluation of reliability of fuzzy classification of rock
masses (based on Habibagahi and Katebi, 1996). Refer to Fig. 13
for Rei, rri and Wi values.
(or importance) [0,1] of that criterion (Fig. 14). The
data are assigned reliability levels based on the
confidence in factors such as method of measure-
ments, field experience, and total number of measure-
ments, while the weight of each criterion for reliability
evaluation is assigned from subjective judgment.
5. Proposed fuzzy rock mass classification
approach
The proposed approach is based on the concept of
partial fuzzy sets representing the variable importance
or recognition power of each criterion in the universal
domain of rock mass quality. The method enables
evaluation of rock mass quality using any set of
criteria, and is easy to implement.
5.1. Construction of partial fuzzy sets
In a multi-criteria classification system in which
criteria have variable and imprecise importance in the
universal domain of rock mass quality, fuzzy sets to
represent their importance are necessarily partial, in
that a single criterion does not have the power to fully
classify the object in the entire domain. This is
different from the partial membership concept where
the total membership is 1 at any point in the universal
domain. In previous fuzzy rock mass classification
attempts, the class memberships corresponding to
input values of each parameter are represented by
fuzzy sets with full support for at least one value on
the interval, whereas the importance of parameters is
taken into account in the form of crisp weighting
coefficients. This ignores fuzziness in the importance
of the parameters, which is further complicated by
their dependency on the specific application, engi-
neering geological environment and rock mass class.
In accordance with these observations, the partial
fuzzy sets (Fig. 15) were formulated to reflect each
parameter’s classification power of each class, by
combining fuzzy importance and multi-class member-
ship concepts. The aggregation of these partial sets
corresponding to input directly produces the level of
support for each class. The sixth parameter of the
RMR system (joint orientation) was not considered in
this method, as it is not a characterization criterion,
but can be easily incorporated into the proposed
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
Fig. 15. Partial fuzzy sets representing the recognition power of
RMR criteria.
239
method. The partial membership functions answer the
question ‘‘what are the possibilities (expressed in
terms of degree of belief in recognition power of each
criterion) for a rock mass to belong to each quality
class if it is characterized only by a single criterion?’’
Fig. 15 suggests that, except for extremely low values
of UCS, RQD and JS, a rock mass cannot be fully
characterized by a single criterion, and thus the rock
mass belongs to multiple classes with variable degrees
of memberships.
To reduce uncertainties due to project- and lithol-
ogy-dependent variations, the partial membership
functions were formulated considering shallow
( < 200 m) tunneling in granitic rock masses. Such
a restricted definition of the applicability range of the
classification facilitated a detailed expression of the
variations in the classification power of each param-
eter. For example, when UCS is very low, then the
granitic rock mass is likely either highly or com-
pletely weathered or involves a fault gouge, and
consequently is very likely of Class V quality. On
the other hand, a very high UCS does not guarantee
Class I quality as the structural parameters become
more decisive. Similarly, a low RQD value provides
more specific information than a high RQD value
because by definition RQD considers all core pieces
whose axial lengths are longer than 10 cm. Average
JS is more informative, especially for large values,
but it is insufficiently trustworthy to be used alone.
JC characterizes shear strength and permeability of
joints. Because the number of joint sets is not
explicitly included as a parameter in RMR, assess-
ment of block size and removability, which signifi-
cantly influences the structural quality of rock mass,
is not accounted for, and this increases the uncer-
tainty interval (i.e., the spread of the fuzzy sets).
Though GW condition is not an intrinsic quality
parameter, it was included in the original definition
of basic RMR. In shallow tunneling operations,
adverse GW conditions severely degrade the quality
of rock masses as construction media, but workabil-
ity and stability are not fully determined by GW
alone.
It is worth noting that universal domains of de-
scriptive terms can be numerically expressed by an
equally divided unit interval [0,1]. Similarly, partial
fuzzy sub-sets defined over a descriptive domain can
easily be translated onto the corresponding numerical
240 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
domain, where numerical input is available. Because
descriptive terms do not in general correspond to
equal numerical ranges, each interval should be scaled
independently.
5.2. Classification and visual interpretation
In general, the classification criteria do not uni-
formly support the same rock class, and any given
rock mass volume belongs to multiple classes with
different degrees of memberships. Moreover, stron-
gest support levels are not always available to con-
tiguous classes, resulting in multiple isolated peaks.
Numerous trials with different aggregation operators
(e.g., min – max, min –mean, etc.) for different input
scenarios showed that a universal operator could not
be formulated for this evaluation structure. The ag-
gregation process itself was leading to the loss of
valuable information about the rock mass quality
variations and the responsible criteria.
Fig. 16. Classification performance of the proposed approach for the selected input scenarios (Cases 1 – 4).
The alternative was to use graphical tools as
visual identification or decision aids. Plotting param-
eter contribution trends and belief surface contours
proved to be very satisfactory in difficult decision
situations, particularly when used together. To dem-
onstrate the efficiency of this approach, four input
scenarios were selected: the input and graphical
results are presented in Fig. 16. For each input data
set, a matrix of ratings was prepared (Fig. 16) by
reading the corresponding membership values or
support directly from the partial fuzzy sets (Fig.
15). The key advantage of this system is that it is
able to preserve all the information used to evaluate
the rock mass quality, which is usually lost due to
the application of different aggregation and/or defuz-
zification processes.
To maintain the clarity and consistency of the
discussion, the results are presented according to:
(a) degree of cumulative support; (b) degree of
difference d between the supports for other classes;
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
and (c) degree of uniformity of support. Cumulative
support may imply simple addition of independent
parameters. The trend surface graphs could be re-
duced to a crisp value using centroid defuzzification
method, if necessary.
On the other hand, an acceptability threshold for
dual membership should be assigned to distinguish
cases where, despite high degree of support, no single
class can be declared to represent the rock mass
quality according to the graphs. This threshold was
assumed to be d = 0.2 to account for fuzziness in
assigned interval boundaries at all a-cut levels (i.e.,
type 2 fuzzy sets). Lastly, the relative uniformity of
support or contribution of each parameter was used to
help visual identification of the most likely class. Each
of the investigated cases (Fig. 16) is evaluated in the
following paragraphs.
Case 1 (from Nguyen, 1985)
(a) highest cumulative support: 2.6 for Class III
(b) difference from the nearest highly supported class:
d(2.6 –1.79)>0.2 from Class IV
(c) degree of support uniformity: Class III more
regularly supported than all the other classes
Decision: Class III (lIII = 2.6/5); only Class IV may be
encountered locally.
Case 2 (from Nguyen, 1985)
(a) highest cumulative support: 2.02 for Class II
(b) difference from the nearest highly supported class:
d(2.02 –1.85) < 0.2 from Class III
(c) degree of support uniformity: highly irregular;
Class III not supported by JS
Decision: Class II (lII = 2.1/5); high degree of possi-
bility of encountering other classes.
Case 3 (from a drillhole in a granitic rock mass;
depth interval: 39.5– 43.0 m)
(a) highest cumulative support: 2.68 for Class III
(b) difference from the nearest highly supported class:
d(2.68 –2.55) < 0.2 from Class IV
(c) degree of support uniformity: Class III more
uniformly supported than Class IV
241
Decision: Class III –IV (lIII – IV = 2.68/5); dual mem-
bership; high possibility of mixed Class III and Class
IV conditions.
Case 4 (from the same drillhole; depth interval:
81.0– 84.5 m)
(a) highest cumulative support: 2.70 for Class IV
(b) difference from the nearest highly supported class:
d(2.70 –2.30)>0.2 from Class III
(c) degree of support uniformity: Class III and IV both
non – -uniformly supported. Class III is not
supported by UCS
Decision: Class IV (lIV = 2.7/5); high possibility of
encountering Class III condition.
A study of these cases confirms that this approach
avoids the pitfalls and shortcomings of the earlier
fuzzy classification approaches, and also enhances the
reliability and usefulness of classification process. It
provides a simple and straightforward procedure for
evaluating rock mass quality.
5.3. Comparison with earlier fuzzy rock mass
classifications
To compare the existing and proposed fuzzy rock
mass classification approaches, the structures of all
classification approaches were standardized. For ex-
ample, JS was taken as one of the main parameters in
Juang and Lee’s method, instead of as a sub-parameter
of Joint Condition and Spacing (JCS).
Because the membership functions of each param-
eter for each rock class in Nguyen’s (1985) approach
are not known, the min – max method could be direct-
ly compared only for the two examples given in his
paper. For the other cases, the partial membership
values as used in the proposed approach were utilized
to establish the binary relation table of min – max
aggregation method. Similarly, the criteria weights
in Juang and Lee’s (1990) approach were assigned
subjectively. The overall FWA was therefore calculat-
ed assuming equal importance of the criteria.
To establish the distribution of cumulative mem-
berships of each criterion over five rock classes,
defuzzification methods were avoided in this compar-
ison process. The distribution of classes for Nguyen’s
 242
A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
Fig. 17. Comparison of existing rock mass classification approaches for the cases evaluated in Fig. 16.
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
(1985) approach was presented as a histogram taking
the minimum membership values along each of the
five columns of rock classes and without evaluating
the maximum of the minimum values, which is
obvious from the histogram representation. The class
distribution for Juang and Lee’s approach was shown
as a fuzzy set in which the final FWA was converted
from a range of 1– 17 to a range of 0 –100. On the
other hand, to compare the fuzzy approaches with the
RMR, the class distribution was illustrated as stacked
columns taking equal height (or equal membership)
for each parameter’s contribution to the corresponding
rock class.
A comparison of the results for the same cases
evaluated in Fig. 16 are summarized below (Fig. 17):
Case 1. The rock mass is generally agreed to be of
Class III quality, but Habibagahi and Katebi’s system
strongly suggested Class II. This general agreement is
not unexpected, because of RMR’s inclination
towards Class III.
Case 2. The rock mass is generally agreed to belong
to Class II, but Nguyen (with his own values)
suggested Class III quality with a degree of support
of 0.60. When the values of the binary relation table
are derived from the proposed partial fuzzy sets, the
min – max aggregation yields Class II with a very low
support of 0.12. This observation confirms the over-
conservatism of this method.
Case 3. The proposed approach predicts mixed Class
III – IV conditions, whereas all other approaches
indicate Class III quality rock mass. Despite the basic
RMR value of >60, its stacked column representation
agrees with the other fuzzy approaches.
Case 4. The proposed approach indicates Class IV
with a strong possibility of better (Class III)
conditions, a result distinct from the other approaches.
Interestingly, stacked column representation of the
RMR suggests mixed Class II – IV conditions, while
the basic RMR indicates Class II – III boundary.
In general, the support ranges in the results of the
proposed approach usually coincide with the entire
universal domain of rock mass quality. This is a
natural consequence of the interpretation of the inter-
actions between the selected criteria in constructing
the partial fuzzy sets, and the fact that moderate input
values of any criterion used in the RMR’s classifica-
243
tion structure cannot produce strong evidence to
support a particular class. Therefore, the proposed
approach successfully retains all the inherent uncer-
tainty in the system, while enabling at the same time
derivation of a crisp number (by using the centroid
method) if required for numerical analysis or design
purposes. Finally, it should be remembered that the
results are strongly controlled by the membership
functions designed by the subjective judgment of the
expert and for a specific geological setting.
5.4. Reliability of input values of criteria
Reliability in fuzzy classification context is a
function of belief in the accuracy and/or representa-
tiveness of input values, and as such should have an
effect on fuzziness in classification. A low degree of
input reliability should result in upper and lower
bounds of the overall quality. Reliability in this
context depends on site investigation team, methods
and conditions, density and type of data, geological
heterogeneities and other factors. For instance, deter-
mining RQD and JS only by vertical drillholes results
in low reliability in input values of these criteria. On
the other hand, the classifier’s sense of reliability also
varies, particularly with experience. Therefore, reli-
ability of input is a source of uncertainty that should
be directly included in the classification process,
unlike in Habibagahi and Katebi’s (1996) independent
assessment approach (Fig. 14). It is suggested that this
can be readily incorporated into the proposed ap-
proach by using type-2 fuzzy sets (Mendel, 2001).
6. Discussion and conclusions
6.1. Conventional classifications
Bieniawski (1989) introduced a series of rating
curves for the numerical criteria to refine the rating
selection procedure in RMR. Ratings for the input
values were no longer taken as the central value or
assigned from linear interpolation. The use of these
rating curves significantly reduces uncertainty due to
the prescribed class boundaries of the numerical
criteria. These curves can easily be translated into
fuzzy membership functions that enable a site-specific
formulation and incorporation of other aspects of
244 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
fuzziness as proposed by the partial fuzzy set concept.
Obviously, where the data is in the form of linguistic
variables, subjective uncertainty is still valid.
Conventional classification approaches reduce var-
iability in ‘‘relatively uniform’’ rock mass domains to
a single (crisp) value. Perhaps the weakest link in the
classification process is the subjectivity involved in
the selection of such domains over natural exposures
and excavation faces, and along boreholes. Levels and
aspects of required uniformity may change with the
project and engineering geological environment,
while subtle litho-structural changes between adjacent
areas or intervals often become a decisive factor.
Consequently, relevant details are overlooked and
practical applications of these classifications (e.g.,
support selection) are based on a single number.
Furthermore, the required support system usually
differs from that predicted by conventional classifica-
tions using pre-excavation data, and may involve
many different combinations of rock mass re-qualifi-
cation, reinforcement and external support options.
Thus, presenting variable degrees of belief for the
possibility of encountering different rock mass classes
during excavation within the classified domain is
necessary to help reduce significant departures from
the predicted (single-class) conditions. It is recom-
mended that ‘‘uniformity’’ of rock mass domains be
defined on the basis of site-specific criteria, and be
presented in the form of fuzzy sets to clearly commu-
nicate the rules and assumptions involved.
6.2. Fuzzy approaches
The earlier fuzzy classification approaches demon-
strated the potential of the soft modeling tools of the
fuzzy set theory. These approaches are based on
different modifications of RMR classification struc-
ture, universal domains and class intervals, member-
ship functions, and aggregation and defuzzification
procedures. However, these procedures are cumber-
some to put into practice, and are not always based on
sound assumptions. This probably explains their fail-
ure to gain support as practical tools.
Unlike the earlier approaches, the proposed ap-
proach addresses the issue of relevance and sufficien-
cy of RMR criteria by constructing partial fuzzy sets
specifically for granitic rock masses at shallow
depths. The partial fuzzy set concept was shown to
be capable of expressing variability of rock quality
conditions due to all types of non-random uncertain-
ties or fuzziness in a rock mass classification process.
In conclusion, the proposed partial fuzzy set concept
is a practical and generic fuzzy rock mass classifica-
tion structure capable of being adapted to different
geological and engineering environments and of
tackling inherent uncertainties in the classification
process.
Membership functions can be viewed as concise
and quantitative expressions of our degree of expec-
tation (or belief) in respect of a great number of ‘‘IF –
THEN’’ statements, and this degree of expectation
forms the basis of fuzzy reasoning. For example, the
statement ‘‘IF RQD is about 35, THEN rock mass
quality is very likely poor’’ is presented by the Class
IV membership function on Fig. 14. In this statement,
the possibility qualifier ‘‘very likely’’ can be replaced
by a truth (‘‘very true’’) or a certainty (‘‘almost
certainly’’) qualifier. Aggregation of these statements
for a specific set of conditions (i.e., input values) is
the fuzzy inference process.
Fuzzy set theory also offers various means of
quantifying the efficiency of classification structure
based on fuzzy measures. However, as these require
discussion of a rather different theoretical back-
ground, the use of fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals
in assessment of classification structure and rock mass
classification will be presented in another paper.
Acknowledgements
The study is funded by the CRCG of The
University of Hong Kong. The author would like to
thank Ms. K. Battacharrya for her assistance in
carrying out the tedious calculations involved in the
comparison of the existing fuzzy approaches.
References
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics 6,
189 – 236.
Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A., 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy
environment. Management Science 17 (4), B141 – B164.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock
masses. Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil
Engineers 15, 335 – 344.
 A. Aydin / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 227–245
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications.
Wiley, New York, p. 251.
Dong, W.M., Wong, F.S., 1987. Fuzzy weighted averages and im-
plementation of the extension principle. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
21, 183 – 199.
Dubois, D., Prade, H., 1980. Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and
Applications. Academic Press, New York, p. 393.
Dubois, D., Prade, H. (Eds.), 2000. Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets.
Kluwer, Norwell, MA, p. 647.
GSL, 1995. The description and classification of weathered rocks
for engineering purposes. Geological Society Engineering
Group Working Party Report. QJEG, 28, 207 – 242.
Habibagahi, G., Katebi, S., 1996. Rock mass classification using
fuzzy sets. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology 20 (3),
273 – 284.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1982. Underground Excavations in Rock.
E & FN Spon, London, p. 527.
Juang, C.H., Lee, D.H., 1990. Rock mass classification using
fuzzy sets. Tenth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference.
Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Taipei,
pp. 309 – 314.
Juang, C.H., Burati, J.L., Kalidindi, S.N., 1987. A fuzzy system for
bid proposal evaluation using microcomputers. Civil Engineer-
ing Systems 4, 124 – 130.
245
Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M., 1991. Introduction to Fuzzy Arithme-
tic: Theory and Applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, p. 361.
Klir, G.J., Clair, U.S., Yuan, B., 1997. Fuzzy Set Theory: Founda-
tions and Applications. Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey, p. 245.
Mendel, J.M., 2001. Uncertain Rule-Based Fuzzy Logic Systems:
Introduction and New Directions. Prentice Hall PTR, New
Jersey, p. 555.
Nguyen, V.U., 1985. Some fuzzy set applications in mining geo-
mechanics. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Min-
ing Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 22 (6), 369 – 379.
Nguyen, V.U., Ashworth, E.A., 1985. Rock mass classification by
fuzzy sets. In: 26th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid
City, SD, pp. 937 – 945.
Ross, T.J., 1995. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications.
McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 600.
Russo, G., Kalamaras, G.S., Grasso, P., 1998. A discussion on the
concepts of geomechanical classes, behavior categories, and
technical classes for an underground project. Gallerie e Grandi
Opere Sotterranee 54, 41 – 51.
Singh, B., Goel, R.K., 1999. Rock Mass Classification—A Practical
Approach in Civil Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 267.