Bull Eng Geol Environ (2014) 73:23–35
DOI 10.1007/s10064-013-0497-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Predicting penetration rate of hard rock tunnel boring machine
using fuzzy logic
Ebrahim Ghasemi • Saffet Yagiz • Mohammad Ataei
Received: 14 June 2012 / Accepted: 4 July 2013 / Published online: 24 November 2013
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Predicting the penetration rate of a tunnel
boring machine (TBM) plays an important role in the
economic and time planning of tunneling projects. In the
past years, various empirical methods have been developed
for the prediction of TBM penetration rates using tradi-
tional statistical analysis techniques. Soft computing tech-
niques are now being used as an alternative statistical tool.
In this study, a fuzzy logic model was developed to predict
the penetration rate based on collected data from one hard
rock TBM tunnel (the Queens Water Tunnel # 3, Stage 2)
in New York City, USA. The model predicts the penetra-
tion rate of the TBM using rock properties such as uniaxial
compressive strength, rock brittleness, distance between
planes of weakness and the orientation of discontinuities in
the rock mass. The results indicated that the fuzzy model
can be used as a reliable predictor of TBM penetration rate
for the studied tunneling project. The determination coef-
ficient (R2), the variance account for and the root mean
square error indices of the proposed fuzzy model are
0.8930, 89.06 and 0.13, respectively.
Keywords Tunnel boring machine (TBM)  Rate
of penetration (ROP)  Rock properties  Fuzzy logic
E. Ghasemi (&)  M. Ataei
Department of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics Engineering,
Shahrood University of Technology, Daneshgah Blvd.,
P.O. Box 3619995161, Shahrood, Iran
e-mail: ebrahim62.gh@gmail.com; e.ghasemi@shahroodut.ac.ir
S. Yagiz
Department of Geological Engineering, Pamukkale University,
20020 Denizli, Turkey
Introduction
Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) have found widespread
application in tunnel construction and are used for exca-
vating tunnels in nearly all types of rock masses and geo-
logical conditions. The successful application of TBM
technology is directly related to an accurate estimation of
performance, which is critical for project schedule and
cost. Error in performance estimation can result in project
delays and cost over runs as seen in many case histories.
The TBM performance prediction requires estimating the
rate of penetration (ROP), machine advance rate (AR) and
machine utilization (Sapigni et al. 2002). During rock
excavation processes, many parameters including machine
parameters, geological conditions and site-specific condi-
tions affect the machine performance level. The complex
relationship between these parameters makes predicting the
performance of the machine very difficult.
Since the first TBM machine was built, the performance
prediction of the machines have been the ultimate goals of
many studies and numerous predictive models have been
developed. These performance prediction models can be
generally classified as theoretical, semi-theoretical and
empirical models (Zhao and Hassanpour 2011). The theo-
retical and semi-theoretical models are based on the ana-
lysis of the forces or the specific energy required to
excavate a unit volume of rock, which are related to the
intact rock and rock mass properties such as rock material
compressive, tensile and shear strength, rock quality des-
ignation (RQD) or joint spacing and so on. Examples of
theoretical and semi-theoretical models can be found in
Roxborough and Phillips (1975), Fowel and McFeat-Smith
(1976), Ozdemir (1977), Farmer and Glossop (1980), Sanio
(1985), Sato et al. (1991) and Rostami (1997). The
empirical performance prediction models are mainly based
123
24
on the past experiences and the statistical interpretations of
the previously recorded field data in various ground con-
ditions. Empirical approaches are the most widely used in
the tunneling industry. One outstanding example of an
empirical model is the Norwegian hard rock prognosis
system developed by Blindheim (1979) and later updated
by Bamford (1984), Lislerud (1988) and Bruland (1999).
Tarkoy (1973), Cassinelli et al. (1982), Innaurato et al.
(1991), Barton (1999), Nelson et al. (1985, 1999), Alber
(1996, 2000), Grima et al. (2000), Yagiz (2002, 2008),
Sapigni et al. (2002), Ribacchi and Lembo-Fazio (2005),
Benardos and Kaliampakos (2004), Ramezanzadeh (2005),
Bieniawski et al. (2006), Zhao et al. (2007), Yagiz et al.
(2009), Gong and Zhao (2009), Gholamnejad and Tayarani
(2010), Hassanpour et al. (2009, 2010, 2011), Khademi
Hamidi et al. (2010a) and Farrokh et al. (2012) introduced
other types of empirical models. Intact and mass rock
properties, rock mass classifications, machine and opera-
tional parameters were used for developing these empirical
models.
The main output in most performance prediction models
is ROP. ROP is defined as the distance excavated divided
by the operating time during a continuous excavation phase
(Sapigni et al. 2002). In tunneling projects, a reliable
estimation of ROP is needed for time planning and cost
control. The literature contains a considerable number of
empirical predictor models obtained from conventional
statistical techniques. In recent years, some new soft
computing techniques such as artificial neural networks,
fuzzy inference systems, evolutionary computation, etc.
and their hybrids have been successfully employed for
developing predictive models. These techniques have
attracted more attention in many research fields, because
they can tolerate a wide range of uncertainty. Soft com-
puting techniques are now being used as an alternative
statistical tool. The fuzzy logic (FL) technique is a branch
of soft computing and has been developed since the 1960s.
FL is considered to be the most intelligent tool for simu-
lating complex problems. In recent years, an increase in the
FL applications in the field of tunneling, mining, rock
mechanic and engineering geology has been observed. For
example, Sonmez et al. (2003) and Aydin (2004) used
fuzzy approaches for rock mass classification. Deb (2003)
and Ghasemi and Ataei (2012) evaluated the performance
of the roof in coal mines using fuzzy set theory. Karadogan
et al. (2008) applied fuzzy set theory for the selection of
underground mining method. Grima et al. (2000), Acaroglu
et al. (2008), Khademi Hamidi et al. (2010b) and Acaroglu
(2011) employed fuzzy set theory for the prediction of
TBM performance and trench excavation machines. Dod-
agoudar and Venkatachalam (2000) employed fuzzy set
theory for the assessment of rock slope stability. Tzamos
and Sofianos (2006) applied the fuzzy logic concept to the
123
E. Ghasemi et al.
prediction of support systems in tunnels. Fisne et al.
(2011), Monjezi et al. (2010), Rezaei et al. (2011) and
Ghasemi et al. (2012) developed fuzzy models for the
analysis and prediction of the effects of blasting operations
such as ground vibration, flyrock and backbreak. Li et al.
(2010) applied fuzzy models to the analysis of rock dis-
placement and ground subsidence due to underground
mining. Azimi et al. (2010) applied fuzzy sets to predict the
blastability of rock masses. Iphar and Goktan (2006)
developed a fuzzy model to predict rock mass diggability
for surface mine equipment selection. Ataei et al. (2009)
used fuzzy logic for the determination of coal mine
mechanization. Fuzzy set theory has been used for the
prediction of rock properties such as uniaxial compressive
strength, modulus of elasticity and brittleness by Grima and
Babuska (1999), Gokceoglu (2002), Kayabasi et al. (2003),
Gokceoglu and Zorlu (2004), Sonmez et al. (2004) and
Yagiz and Gokceoglu (2010). In this study, an effort has
been made to predict ROP with the help of a FL approach.
In fact, the main aim of this study is to find the suitability
of the application of FL to predicting TBM performance.
Based on studies performed by Yagiz (2008), Gong and
Zhao (2009) and Hassanpour et al. (2011), the most
important parameters affecting TBM penetration rates are
rock properties including the compressive strength and
tensile strength of the rock material, brittleness and the
frequency of the rock joints. In this study, using Queens
Water Tunnel database compiled by Yagiz (2008), a fuzzy
model is presented for the prediction of TBM penetration
rates. The database is composed of intact rock properties
including uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian
tensile strength (BTS) and brittleness index (BI) and also
rock mass properties including distance between planes of
weakness (DPW) and the alpha angle (a) [the angle
between plane of weakness and TBM-driven direction]
together with actual measured TBM penetration rates in the
tunnel site. This database was collected from about 7.5 km
of tunnel excavated in various hard rocks.
Background of fuzzy logic
Most of the world’s knowledge is uncertain and imprecise
and thus the description of all actual systems inherently
contains incomplete and imprecise information. In order to
deal with such situations, a fuzzy approach based on FL
seems to be the most appropriate. The details of FL can be
found in numerous papers (Zadeh 1965; Ross 1995). The
FL is a matter of the fuzzy set theory that is particularly
used to deal with subjects having ambiguities and uncer-
tainties. Fuzzy set theory was first formulized by Zadeh
(1965) as a mathematical way to represent linguistic
vagueness. A fuzzy set is an extension of a crisp set but
Predicting penetration rate 25

does not have any sharp and precise boundaries, unlike a performance Robbins TBM (235–282) that was equipped
crisp set. with both 48.2 cm (19 in.) disc cutters and a rated load
A block diagram of a typical FL system is presented in capacity of 30 tons (70,000 lb) per cutter was used to
Fig. 1. As outlined in Fig. 1, a fuzzy rule-based system excavate this tunnel (Fig. 3). The basic specifications of
consists of four parts: fuzzifier, knowledge base, fuzzy this TBM are summarized in Table 1.
inference system and defuzzifier. The fuzzifier converts The tunnel is one of the most complex engineering
crisp input to fuzzy values or linguistic information using projects in the world due to the type of geological con-
membership functions. The main part of the fuzzy system ditions encountered. The construction area along the
is the knowledge base in which both rule base and database tunnel is obstructed by geological conditions, including
are jointly referred. The database defines the membership unexpected lithology and rock fabric orientation, a zone
functions of the fuzzy sets used in the fuzzy rules whereas of crosscutting dikes and brittle faults. The geological
the rule base contains a number of fuzzy if–then rules. The complexity in the studied area includes variable high-
if–then rules, also known as the fuzzy rules, provide a grade granitic gneiss, amphibolite, orthogneiss, gneiss/
system for describing complex systems by relating input
and output parameters using linguistic variables. The fuzzy
inference system (FIS), also known as the decision making
unit, performs the inference operations on the rules. There
are several FISs that have been employed in various
applications and the most commonly used include: the
Mamdani fuzzy model, the Takagi–Sugeno–Kang (TSK)
fuzzy model, the Tsukamoto fuzzy model and the Singleton
fuzzy model. The differences between these FISs lie in the
consequences of their rules, and thus aggregation and de-
fuzzification procedures differ accordingly. The defuzzifer
converts fuzzy outcome to a crisp one. There are a number
of defuzzifer methods in the literature such as centroid of
area (COA) or center of gravity, mean of maximum
(MOM), smallest of maximum (SOM), largest of maxi-
mum (LOM) and bisector of area (BOA).

Site description and database

The purpose of this study is to construct an FL model for

predicting ROP. To do this, the database compiled by Fig. 2 The location map of Queens Water Tunnel # 3, stage 2 (Yagiz
et al. 2009)
Yagiz (2008) from one hard rock TBM tunnel (the Queens
Water Tunnel # 3, Stage 2) was used. The Queens Water
Tunnel # 3, stage 2 was constructed between 1997 and
2000 in order to improve the fresh water distribution
throughout New York City, USA. The tunnel being about
7.5 km long and 7 m in diameter was excavated beneath
Brooklyn and Queens at an average depth of 200 m below
sea level in West-central Queens County (Fig. 2). A high

Fig. 3 The front cutterhead and thrust assembly of the Queens TBM
Fig. 1 The structure of a typical fuzzy logic system (Merguerian and Ozdemir 2003)

123
26 E. Ghasemi et al.

Table 1 Main specifications of Queens TBM (Yagiz 2008)

Parameter Value

Machine diameter 7.06 m

Diameter range 6.5–8.5 m
Cutters Series 19, 48.2 cm
Number of disk cutters 50
Recommended individual cutter load 35 short tons (nominal)
Max. operating cutterhead thrust 1,750 tons (nominal)
Cutterhead power 4,220 hp
Cutterhead speed 8.3 rpm
Cutterhead torque 1,335 short tons (nominal)
Thrust cylinder stroke 1.83 m Fig. 4 Distribution of rock types along the tunnel based on the field
Conveyor capacity (approx.) 18.4 m3/min study (Yagiz and Karahan 2011)
TBM weight (approx.) 640 tons
Table 2 Basic descriptive statistics for the original database (Yagiz
et al. 2009)
schist complex and rhyodacite dikes. Rock types exca-
Parameter (unit) Min. Avg. Max. SD Var.
vated along the tunnel alignment are categorized by
percentage in Fig. 4. UCS (MPa) 118.3 150.1 199.7 22.2 492.4
The Queens Water Tunnel was studied in both field and BTS (MPa) 6.7 9.5 11.4 0.9 0.8
laboratory in order to establish the database used for the BI (kN/mm) 25.0 34.6 58.0 8.5 71.6
development of ROP predictive models. The first part of DPW (m) 0.05 1.02 2.00 0.64 0.42
the database was established by performing intact rock Alpha (°) 2.0 44.7 89.0 23.3 541.9
tests including uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Bra- Measured ROP (m/h) 1.27 2.04 3.07 0.36 0.13
zilian tensile strength (BTS) and rock brittleness (BI) in
Total number of data points is 151
accordance with the ASTM standard at the Earth
Mechanics Institute of Colorado School of Mines in the systems in the science and engineering fields during the
USA. The second part was established in the field. In this past two decades. ROP is one of these complex problems.
section, the alpha angle was computed and the distance In this section, a fuzzy model is introduced for the pre-
between planes of weakness (DPW) and the ROP in stroke diction of ROP. This fuzzy model was implemented on
base was measured. The ranges of input parameters in the fuzzy logic toolbox of MATLAB ver. 7.11 (R2010b)
database, including 151 cases, and their basic descriptive software package. The model includes four input variables
statistics are given in Table 2. and one output variable. Figure 5 shows input and output
Yagiz (2008) and Yagiz et al. (2009) performed a series variables, where UCS, BI, DPW and alpha angle are
of simple and multiple regression analyses on this database referred to as input and ROP is referred to as output.
and found that each rock engineering property has a signi- In order to develop the fuzzy model, four steps were
ficant effect on the ROP in certain percentages but herein performed, which are described in the following sections.
the BTS was excluded due to its insignificant effect on the
rate of penetration. Thus, in the following, a fuzzy model is Fuzzification of input and output variables
developed for predicting ROP using the UCS, BI, DPW and
Alpha angle parameters. It should be noted that in this Triangular membership functions were adopted for
study, the database was divided into two groups randomly: describing input and output variables because of their
one group for training and developing the fuzzy model simplicity and computational efficiency. The triangular
including 80 % of the datasets (i.e., 121 datasets) and the membership function as described in Eq. (1) is used to
other group including the rest of the datasets (i.e., 30 convert the linguistic values in the range of 0–1.
datasets) for testing the model performance. 8 9
>
> 0 if x  a >
>
< xa =
if a  x  b
lðxÞ ¼ bacx ð1Þ
>
> if b  x  c >
>
Fuzzy model to predict TBM penetration rate : cb ;
0 if c  x
FL has been successfully applied to many real-world where a, b, c are the parameters of the linguistic value
problems especially in modeling complex and imprecise and x is the range of the input parameters. The graphical

123
Predicting penetration rate
Fig. 5 Input and output
variables of the fuzzy model
Fig. 6 Fuzzy representation of input and output variables: a UCS; b BI; c DPW; d alpha angle; e ROP
representations of the membership functions of different
input and output variables are shown in Fig. 6. In this
figure, VVL stands for very very low, VL for very low, L
for low, M for medium, H for high, VH for very high,
VVH for very very high. Also, Table 3 shows the lin-
guistic variables, their linguistic values and associated
parameters.
27
Design of fuzzy inference system
Mamdani fuzzy inference system was chosen in this study.
The Mamdani algorithm has become one of the most
common and widely used algorithms for solving many
real-world problems, because of its simplicity. The Mam-
dani FIS was proposed by Mamdani to control a steam
123
28 E. Ghasemi et al.

engine and boiler combination by the set of linguistic variables. In this study, a total of 272 rules were utilized for
control rules obtained from experienced human operators constructing the rule base of the fuzzy model. These rules
(Mamdani and Assilian 1975). The Mamdani fuzzy model were made based on training datasets and cover all possible
takes the following form: manners. Table 4 presents some samples of fuzzy if–then
If x1 is Ai1 and x2 is Ai2 and . . . xr is Air rules in the model.
then y is Bi ðfor i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; kÞ ð2Þ
Defuzzification process
where k is the number of rules, xi is the input variable, Air
and Bi are the linguistic terms and y is the output variable. In the last stage, each result in the form of a fuzzy set is
converted into a crisp (real output) value by the de-
Design of rule base fuzzification process. In this model, the COA method,
that is a commonly used method of defuzzification, was
The next stage in designing the fuzzy model is the con- employed for the defuzzification process (Grima and
struction of the if–then rules, which are used to represent Babuska 1999).
the fuzzy relationships between input and output fuzzy The developed fuzzy model can provide an estimation of
ROP when proper and acceptable input data are entered
into the model. For example, as can be seen in Fig. 7, when
Table 3 Representation of membership functions and their
parameters input parameters are UCS = 182.4 MPa, BI = 39 kN/mm,
DPW = 0.8 m and alpha angle = 66°, the predicted output
Variables Linguistic Linguistic Parameters
variables values
ROP is 1.97 m/h (whereas according to Table 5 actual
ROP is 2 m/h).
Inputs UCS Very low [118.3 118.3
132.8]
Table 4 Samples of if–then rules
Low [129.5 137.4
146.5] Description of if–then rules
Medium [142.5 152.8
162.9] IF UCS is VH and BI is VH and DPW THEN ROP is H
is M and Alpha is L
High [158.2 165.7
176.5] IF UCS is VH and BI is VH and DPW THEN ROP is M
is H and Alpha is L
Very high [172.4 199.7
199.7] IF UCS is H and BI is VH and DPW THEN ROP is H
is H and Alpha is M
BI Very low [25 25 33]
IF UCS is VH and BI is VH and DPW THEN ROP is VVH
Low [30 33 38]
is L and Alpha is H
Medium [35 40 45]
IF UCS is M and BI is H and DPW THEN ROP is M
High [42 46 55] is H and Alpha is H
Very high [53 58 58] IF UCS is H and BI is H and DPW THEN ROP is M
DPW Very low [0.05 0.05 0.35] is M and Alpha is L
Low [0.25 0.40 0.75] IF UCS is L and BI is M and DPW THEN ROP is VH
Medium [0.55 0.80 1.45] is VL and Alpha is VH
High [1.20 1.60 1.80] IF UCS is L and BI is H and DPW THEN ROP is H
is H and Alpha is VH
Very high [1.70 2.00 2.00]
IF UCS is L and BI is L and DPW THEN ROP is L
Alpha angle Very low [2 2 14] is H and Alpha is VL
Low [11 20 31] IF UCS is VL and BI is L and DPW THEN ROP is VL
Medium [27 36 47] is H and Alpha is L
High [43 55 68] IF UCS is M and BI is L and DPW THEN ROP is M
Very high [65 89 89] is M and Alpha is H
Output ROP Very very low [1.27 1.27 1.55] IF UCS is M and BI is L and DPW THEN ROP is L
is M and Alpha is H
Very low [1.49 1.61 1.76]
IF UCS is M and BI is L and DPW THEN ROP is M
Low [1.71 1.81 2.00]
is VL and Alpha is M
Medium [1.94 2.10 2.23]
IF UCS is H and BI is L and DPW THEN ROP is H
High [2.16 2.30 2.53] is VL and Alpha is VH
Very high [2.41 2.65 2.90] IF UCS is VH and BI is VL and DPW THEN ROP is L
Very very high [2.81 3.07 3.07] is M and Alpha is M

123
Predicting penetration rate
Fig. 7 Fuzzy rule viewer for proposed fuzzy model
Performance of fuzzy model
As mentioned before, 30 datasets, which were not incor-
porated in the model, were used for testing and validating
the model. To evaluate the performance of the model, the
predicted ROP values were compared with the measured
ones, which can be seen in Table 5.
The coefficient of determination (R2) between the mea-
sured and predicted values is a good indicator to check the
prediction performance of each model. Furthermore, in this
study, variance account for (VAF; Eq. (3)) and root mean
square error (RMSE; Eq. (4)) indices were calculated to
control the prediction performance of the model. When R2
is 1, VAF is 100 and RMSE is 0, then the model is excellent.
 
varðAi  Pi Þ
VAF ¼ 1   100 ð3Þ
varðAi Þ
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N
u1 X
RMSE ¼ t ðAi  Pi Þ2 ð4Þ
N i¼1
where Ai and Pi are the measured (actual) and predicted val-
ues, respectively, and N is the number of testing samples.
29
The VAF and the RMSE indices for the proposed fuzzy
model were 89.06 and 0.13, respectively. Also, determi-
nation coefficient (R2) of the model is 0.8930. Evidently,
the obtained indices indicate that the proposed FL model
can provide a good prediction for ROP.
Figure 8 illustrates the effects of each input parameter
on ROP based on the results obtained from different runs of
the FL model. It can be concluded from Fig. 8 that the
proposed fuzzy model can efficiently predict the ROP in all
ranges within the database. The relationship between UCS
and ROP is approximately linear and increasing UCS leads
to a gradual decrease in ROP. Furthermore, the relationship
between BI and ROP is linear and increasing BI leads to a
gradual increase in ROP (Fig. 8a, b). DPW shows a non-
linear relationship with ROP. As the DPW drops to 45 cm
or less, ROP decreases. Because in this condition, the
operator may change the TBM operational parameters (for
example, the machine thrust can be decreased), so ROP is
subsequently decreased. However, when the DPW is
between 45 and 80 cm, the ROP increases. Furthermore,
when the DPW is higher than 80–100 cm, then, it has no
effect on the ROP, because the TBM does not see the
123
30 E. Ghasemi et al.

Table 5 The comparison

No. UCS BI (kN/ DPW Alpha angle Measured ROP Predicted ROP (m/h)
between measured ROP and
(MPa) mm) (m) (deg.) (m/h)
predicted ROP values by LMR NLMR PSO FL
different predictive models
1 168.3 58 1.6 41 2.37 2.62 2.83 2.54 2.33
2 174.1 58 2 35 2.34 2.49 2.68 2.42 2.34
3 184.1 57 0.4 49 3.07 2.84 3.06 2.77 2.97
4 194.5 52 0.4 33 2.3 2.59 2.78 2.52 2.34
5 182.4 39 0.8 66 2 2.30 2.54 2.18 1.97
6 164.1 46 0.8 19 2.09 2.32 2.46 2.25 2.09
7 140 43 0.1 46 2.46 2.62 2.86 2.67 2.65
8 125 27 1.6 83 2.21 1.99 2.27 1.93 1.84
9 134.2 34 2 41 2.17 1.94 2.17 1.91 2.23
10 130 32 1.6 15 1.87 1.79 1.91 1.76 1.72
11 138.6 31 0.4 58 2.43 2.26 2.51 2.23 2.3
12 138.8 31 0.8 55 2.13 2.16 2.41 2.10 2.34
13 137.2 30 0.8 67 1.88 2.17 2.44 2.11 1.85
14 133.3 30 0.8 47 2.14 2.12 2.36 2.07 1.85
15 134.3 32 0.4 40 2.42 2.23 2.46 2.22 2.33
16 143.4 33 1.6 33 2.28 1.93 2.14 1.88 2.34
17 145.5 38 0.8 52 2.35 2.33 2.57 2.27 2.3
18 159.3 36 0.8 78 2.61 2.31 2.57 2.21 2.65
19 157.9 33 1.6 10 1.51 1.66 1.18 1.59 1.5
20 173.1 31 0.8 33 1.84 1.96 2.16 1.88 1.93
21 176 30 2 71 1.6 1.81 2.06 1.71 1.62
22 176.8 30 1.6 77 1.88 1.91 2.16 1.79 1.85
23 144.8 29 2 70 1.84 1.87 2.13 1.81 1.74
24 123.1 29 0.8 10 1.46 1.83 1.35 1.79 1.38
25 120.7 29 0.8 68 1.94 2.20 2.47 2.15 2.09
26 119.7 29 0.2 60 1.97 2.31 2.57 2.33 1.97
27 125.1 28 1.6 25 1.65 1.79 1.98 1.76 1.84
28 136.2 26 1.6 62 1.56 1.87 2.13 1.81 1.49
29 139.3 26 2 11 1.27 1.45 1.43 1.41 1.39
30 155.9 25 1.6 45 1.8 1.72 1.95 1.65 1.85

fractures or weakness after some point (about a meter) as
seen in Fig. 8c. The alpha angle has a polynomial rela-
tionship with the ROP (Fig. 8d). When the alpha angle is
less than about 50°, the ROP increases and the maximum
ROP occurs between 50 and 65°. When the alpha angle
exceeds 65°, the ROP decreases. All these results show
good conformity with published researches (Bruland 1999;
Yagiz 2002, 2008; Gong and Zhao 2009).
Comparison of fuzzy model performance with previous
models
Yagiz (2008), Yagiz et al. (2009) and Yagiz and Karahan
(2011) have presented three equations for predicting ROP
based on the Queens Water Tunnel database. These
equations were developed using linear multivariate
regression (LMR) analysis (Eq. 5), nonlinear multivariate
regression (NLMR) analysis (Eq. 6) and particle swarm
optimization (PSO) techniques (Eq. 7).
ROP ¼ 1:093  0:003 UCS þ 0:029 BI  0:219 DPW
þ 0:437 LogðaÞ ð5Þ
ROPn ¼ 0:076  0:139 UCSn þ 0:524 BIn  0:234 DPWn
þ 0:634 a0:205
n ð6Þ
ROP ¼ 2:827  0:0041 UCS þ 0:029 BI
 0:4016 DPW0:584  1:6756a0:217 ð7Þ
In Eq. (6), the subscript n indicates normalized
parameters.
In this section, the performance of these equations is
compared with the proposed FL model. To do this, 30

123
Predicting penetration rate 31

datasets, which were used for testing the FL model in the

previous section, are used. The comparison between the
predicted ROP using LMR, NLMR and PSO equations and
the measured ROP values can be found in Table 5. Fur-
thermore, the differences between the predicted values by
the FL, MLR, NLMR and PSO models from the measured
values are presented graphically in Fig. 9. These plots
indicate that the deviation intervals (-0.21 to ?0.37) of the
predicted values for FL are smaller than the deviation
intervals of MLR (-0.37 to ?0.35), NLMR (-0.60 to
?0.33) and PSO (-0.36 to ?0.40).
The performance indices (R2, VAF and RMSE) for all
predictive models were listed in Table 6. Furthermore, the
relationship between measured ROP and the corresponding
values predicted by the FL, MLR, NLMR and PSO models
were given in Fig. 10. According to the RMSE, VAF and
R2 values, the performance of the MLR, NLMR and PSO
models is nearly the same whereas the constructed FL
model shows a higher prediction performance in compar-
ison with them.

Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of the study was to develop a fuzzy model for

the prediction of the ROP in hard rock tunnels. The fuzzy
model considers the intact and mass rock properties
including UCS, BI, DPW and alpha angle as input
parameters. The model was trained with experimental data
obtained from the Queens Water Tunnel using the fuzzy
logic toolbox of MATLAB. Mamdani algorithm and tri-
angular fuzzy membership functions were used to predict
the ROP. Also, the use of the trapezoidal membership
function for marginal conditions was examined but no
change was observed in the obtained results. Furthermore,
the proposed model was constructed based on 272 if–then
fuzzy rules and the COA method for defuzzification. The
most important findings of this study are as follows:
1. The results of different predictive models for ROP
showed that the LMR, NLMR and PSO equations have
Fig. 8 The effect of each individual input parameter on ROP: a ROP
versus UCS; b ROP versus BI; c ROP versus DPW; d ROP versus lower prediction performance in comparison with a FL
alpha angle model.

123
32 E. Ghasemi et al.

Fig. 9 The difference of the 0.4

predicted values by FL, MLR, FL
LMR
NLMR and PSO models with 0.3
NLMR

Residual error of ROP (m/h)

the measured values 0.2 PSO

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sample NO.

Table 6 Performance indices (R2, VAF and RMSE) for models 3. The outcome of the proposed fuzzy model can be
2 considered as a preliminary estimation of ROP and
Model R VAF (%) RMSE
based on it, the time-scheduling can be more efficient
FL 0.8930 89.06 0.13 and consequently the project costs decreased.
LMR 0.7039 70.39 0.22 4. Based on the obtained results, the use of fuzzy logic
NLMR 0.6952 61.37 0.34 is a useful and powerful means to assist engineering
PSO 0.6968 69.64 0.21 geologists and tunneling experts in coping with the
complexity of geo-related problems such as TBM
penetration rates.
5. Based on different runs of the FL model, it was
2. It was concluded that the proposed FL model was a observed that the UCS and BI have linear relationships
suitable and practical technique that can be effectively with ROP while DPW and Alpha indicate nonlinear
used in the prediction of ROP with acceptable error relationships with ROP.
rates. The major advantage of fuzzy model in 6. Finally, it should be mentioned that the proposed
comparison with other models is that human judgment fuzzy model has been developed based on data from
and intuition can be effectively used for the prediction the database of the Queens Water Tunnel and it
of ROP, which helps in field applications. should not be used directly for ROP prediction in

123
Predicting penetration rate 33

(a) 3.2 (b) 3.2

R-squared = 0.8930 R-squared = 0.7039
3 3

2.8 2.8
Predicted ROP (m/h)

2.6 2.6

Predicted ROP (m/h)

2.4 2.4
2.2 2.2

2 2

1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4
Data points Data points
1.2 1.2 Best linear fit
Best linear fit
1 1
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Measured ROP (m/h) Measured ROP (m/h)

(c) 3.2 (d) 3.2

3 R-squared = 0.6952 3 R-squared = 0.6968

2.8 2.8
2.6
Predicted ROP (m/h)

2.6
Predicted ROP (m/h)

2.4 2.4

2.2 2.2

2 2

1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4
Data points Data points
1.2 1.2 Best linear fit
Best linear fit
1 1
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Measured ROP (m/h) Measured ROP (m/h)

Fig. 10 The relationship between the measured and predicted ROP by: a FL; b MLR; c NMLR; d PSO; models with their coefficient of
determination

other tunnels. It is clear that this model can be
improved using more data from other tunneling
projects over time.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their thanks
to the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and con-
structive suggestions. The authors are also very much grateful to Mrs.
I. Mahboobi for her kind help during the preparation of manuscript.
References
Acaroglu O (2011) Prediction of thrust and torque requirements of
TBMs with fuzzy logic models. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
26:267–275
Acaroglu O, Ozdemir L, Asbury B (2008) A fuzzy logic model to
predict specific energy requirement for TBM performance
prediction. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23:600–608
Alber M (1996) Prediction of penetration, utilization for hard rock
TBMs. In: Proceedings of the international conference of Eurock
‘96, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 721–725
Alber M (2000) Advance rates of hard rock TBMs and their effects on
project economics. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 15:55–64
Ataei M, Khalokakaei R, Hossieni M (2009) Determination of coal
mine mechanization using fuzzy logic. Min Sci Technol
19:149–154
Aydin A (2004) Fuzzy set approaches to classification of rock masses.
Eng Geol 74:227–245
Azimi Y, Osanloo M, Aakbarpour-Shirazi M, Aghajani Bazzazi A
(2010) Prediction of the blastability designation of rock masses
using fuzzy sets. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:1126–1140
Bamford WF (1984) Rock test indices are being successfully
correlated with tunnel boring machine performance. In: Pro-
ceedings 5th Australian tunneling conference, Melbourne, vol 2,
pp 9–22

123
34
Barton N (1999) TBM performance estimation in rock using Qtbm.
Tunn Tunn Int 31:41–48
Benardos AG, Kaliampakos DC (2004) Modelling TBM performance
with artificial networks. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
19:597–605
Bieniawski ZT, Tamames BC, Fernandez JMG, Hernandez MA
(2006) Rock mass excavability (RME) indicator: new way to
selecting the optimum tunnel construction method. ITA-AITES
World Tunnel Congress & 32nd ITA General Assembly, Seoul,
Korea
Blindheim OT (1979) Boreabilty predictions for tunneling. PhD
Thesis. Department of geological engineering. The Norwegian
Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Bruland A (1999) Hard rock tunnel boring: advance rate and cutter
wear. The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim,
Norway
Cassinelli F, Cina S, Innaurato N, Mancini R, Sampaolo A (1982)
Power consumption and metal wear in tunnel-boring machines:
analysis of tunnel boring machine operation in hard rock. In:
Proceedings Tunneling’82, London, Inst Min Metall, pp 73–81
Deb D (2003) Analysis of coal mine roof fall rate using fuzzy
reasoning techniques. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:251–257
Dodagoudar GR, Venkatachalam G (2000) Reliability analysis of
slopes using fuzzy sets theory. Comput Geotech 27:101–115
Farmer IW, Glossop NH (1980) Mechanics of disc cutter penetration.
Tunn Tunn Int 12:22–25
Farrokh E, Rostami J, Laughton C (2012) Study of various models for
estimation of penetration rate of hard rock TBMs. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.012
Fisne A, Kuzu C, Hudaverdi T (2011) Prediction of environmental
impacts of quarry blasting operation using fuzzy logic. Environ
Monit Assess 174:461–470
Fowel RJ, McFeat-Smith I (1976) Factors influencing the cutting
performance of a selective tunneling machine. In: Proceedings
Tunneling’76, London, Inst Min Metall, pp 3–11
Ghasemi E, Ataei M (2012) Application of fuzzy logic for predicting
roof fall rate in coal mines. Neural Comput Appl. doi:10.1007/
s00521-012-0819-3
Ghasemi E, Ataei M, Hashemolhosseini H (2012) Development of a
fuzzy model for predicting ground vibration caused by rock
blasting in surface mining. J Vib Control. doi:10.1177/
1077546312437002
Gholamnejad J, Tayarani N (2010) Application of artificial networks
to the prediction of tunnel boring machine penetration rate. Min
Sci Technol 20:727–733
Gokceoglu C (2002) A fuzzy triangular chart to predict the uniaxial
compressive strength of Ankara agglomerates from their petro-
graphic composition. Eng Geol 66:39–51
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 17:61–72
Gong QM, Zhao J (2009) Development of a rock mass characteristics
model for TBM penetration rate prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 46:8–18
Grima MA, Babuska R (1999) Fuzzy model for the prediction of
unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 36:339–349
Grima MA, Bruines PA, Verhoef PNW (2000) Modelling tunnel
boring machine performance by neuro-fuzzy methods. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 15:259–269
Hassanpour J, Rostami J, Khamehchiyan M, Bruland A (2009)
Development new equations for performance prediction. Geo
Mech Geoeng Int J 4:287–297
Hassanpour J, Rostami J, Khamehchiyan M, Bruland A, Tavakoli HR
(2010) TBM performance analysis in pyroclastic rocks, a case
123
E. Ghasemi et al.
history of Karaj Water Conveyance Tunnel (KWCT). Rock
Mech Rock Eng 4:427–445
Hassanpour J, Rostami J, Zhao J (2011) A new hard rock TBM
performance prediction model for project planning. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 26:595–603
Innaurato N, Mancini R, Rondena E, Zaninetti A (1991) Forecasting
and effective TBM performances in a rapid excavation of a
tunnel in Italy. In: Proceedings of the seventh international
congress ISRM, Aachen, Germany
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 43:253–266
Karadogan A, Kahriman A, Ozer U (2008) Application of fuzzy set
theory in the selection of underground mining method. J S Afr
Inst Min Metall 108:73–79
Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C, Ercanoglu E (2003) Estimating the
deformation modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 40:55–63
Khademi Hamidi J, Shahriar K, Rezai B, Rostami J (2010a)
Performance prediction of hard rock TBM using Rock Mass
Rating (RMR) system. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
25:333–345
Khademi Hamidi J, Shahriar K, Rezai B, Bejari H (2010b)
Application of fuzzy set theory to rock engineering classification
systems: an illustration of the rock mass excavability index.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:335–350
Li W, Liu L, Dai L (2010) Fuzzy probability measures (FPM) based
non-symmetric membership function: engineering examples of
ground subsidence due to underground mining. Eng Appl Artif
Intell 23:420–431
Lislerud A (1988) Hard rock tunnel boring: prognosis and costs. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 3:9–17
Mamdani EH, Assilian S (1975) An experiment in linguistic synthesis
with a fuzzy logic controller. Int J Man Mach Stud 7:1–13
Merguerian C, Ozdemir L (2003) Rock mass properties and hard rock
TBM penetration rate investigations, Queens tunnel complex,
NYC water tunnel #3, stage 2. In: Proceedings of rapid
excavation and tunneling conference, pp 1019–1036
Monjezi M, Rezaei M, Yazdian A (2010) Prediction of backbreak in
open-pit blasting using fuzzy set theory. Expert Syst Appl
37:2637–2643
Nelson PP, Ingraffea AR, O’Rouke TD (1985) TBM performance
prediction using rock fracture parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci Geomech Abstr 22:189–192
Nelson PP, Al-Jalil YA, Laughton C (1999) Improved strategies for
TBM performance prediction and project management. In:
Proceedings, rapid excavation and tunneling conference (RETC),
pp 963–979
Ozdemir L (1977) Development of theoretical equations for predict-
ing tunnel borability. PhD Thesis, Colorado School of Mines,
Golden, Colorado, USA
Ramezanzadeh A (2005) Performance analysis and development of
new models for performance prediction of hard rock TBMs in
rock mass. PhD Thesis, INSA, Lyon, France
Rezaei M, Monjezi M, Varjani AY (2011) Development of a fuzzy
model to predict flyrock in surface mining. Saf Sci 49:298–305
Ribacchi R, Lembo-Fazio A (2005) Influence of rock mass param-
eters on the performance of a TBM in a gneissic formation
(Varzo Tunnel). Rock Mech Rock Eng 38:105–127
Ross TJ (1995) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. McGraw-
Hill, New York
Rostami J (1997) Development of a force estimation model for rock
fragmentation with disc cutters through theoretical modeling and
physical measurement of crushed zone pressure. PhD Thesis,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA
Predicting penetration rate
Roxborough FF, Phillips HR (1975) Rock excavation by disc cutter.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 12:361–366
Sanio HP (1985) Prediction of the performance of disc cutters in
anisotropy rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
22:153–161
Sapigni M, Berti M, Bethaz E, Busillo A, Cardone G (2002) TBM
performance estimation using rock mass classifications. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 39:771–788
Sato K, Gong F, Itakura K (1991) Prediction of disc cutter
performance using a circular rock cutting ring. In: Proceed-
ings of the 1st international mine mechanization and
automation symposium, Colorado school of mines, Golden
Colorado, USA
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R (2003) An application of fuzzy
sets to the Geological Strength Index (GSI) system used in rock
engineering. Eng Appl Artif Intell 16:251–269
Sonmez H, Tuncay E, Gokceoglu C (2004) Models to predict the
uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity for
Ankara Agglomerate. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:717–729
Tarkoy PJ (1973) Predicting TBM penetration rates in selected rock
types. In: Proceedings of the 9th Canadian rock mechanics
symposium, Montreal
Tzamos S, Sofianos AI (2006) Extending the Q system’s prediction of
support in tunnels employing fuzzy logic and extra parameters.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:938–949
35
Yagiz S (2002) Development of rock fracture and brittleness indices
to quantify the effects of rock mass features and toughness in the
CSM Model basic penetration for hard rock tunneling machines.
PhD Thesis, Department of Mining and Earth Systems Engi-
neering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA
Yagiz S (2008) Utilizing rock mass properties for predicting TBM
performance in hard rock condition. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 23:326–339
Yagiz S, Gokceoglu C (2010) Application of fuzzy inference system
and nonlinear regression models for predicting rock brittleness.
Expert Syst Appl 37:2265–2272
Yagiz S, Karahan H (2011) Prediction of hard rock TBM penetration
rate using particle swarm optimization. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
48:427–433
Yagiz S, Gokceoglu C, Sezer E, Iplikci S (2009) Application of two
non-linear prediction tools to the estimation of tunnel boring
machine performance. Eng Appl Artif Intell 22:808–814
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
Zhao J, Hassanpour J (2011) TBM performance models and
influences of rock mass characteristics. In: Proceedings of the
1st Asian and 9th Iranian tunneling symposium, November,
Tehran, Iran
Zhao Z, Gong QM, Zhang Y, Zhao J (2007) Prediction model of
tunnel boring machine performance by ensemble neural net-
works. Geo Mech Geoeng Int J 2:123–128
123