International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, 1987, 5, 257-271

A rock mass classification model for caving roofs

A. K. G H O S E and D. D U T T A
Department of Mining Engineering,Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, 826004,India

Received 4 January 1987

Summary

Evaluation of the caving behaviour of longwall roof rocks has thus far been based on a pot-pourri of
classificationsystems,which ignore basic caving criteria. The paper outlines a new classificationmodel of
roof strata namely cavability using fuzzy set methodology and linguistic variables to assign ratings for
individual roof beds. A microcomputer program has been developed to evaluate the decision ratings for
cavability and the model applied to ten longwall case-historiesfrom Indian coalfields.The classification
model has excellentpotential for being used as a standard tool for the evaluation of caving behaviour of
longwall roof rocks.
Keywords: Longwall mining; caving; fuzzy set; rock mass classification;longwall support

Introduction

Many approaches are currently available for the prediction of roof stability. These approaches
can be categorized (Bieniawski et al., 1980) into four groups of analytical, geological,
observational, and empirical methods. Of the four approaches, the empirical methods, typified
by the rock mass classification systems and originally developed for tunnels (Wickham et aI.,
1972; Bieniawski, 1974), have been successfully modified for use in hard rock mines (Laubscher,
1977; Kendorski et al., 1983). Classification systems for application to underground coal mines
have been suggested by Ghose and Raju (1981) and others (Bieniawski et al., 1980; Seegmiller,
1983; Unal, 1983; Thill, 1984; Karmis and Kane, 1984).
The concept of classification systems to describe rock mass strength considers two groups of
parameters that control rock mass stability underground. The first group of these controlling
parameters are symbolized through real numbers of certain interval and determined by
quantitative analysis. Uniaxial compressive strength, RQD, number ofjoints etc. belong to this
group and hence these can be termed as interval parameters. The second group of parameters,
called the nominal parameters, are determined by qualitative measures. Condition of
discontinuities, joint roughness number etc. belong to this group, While RQD is symbolized
through closed interval of [0, t00]; compressive strength, joint spacing etc. are theoretically
symbolized through closed-open interval whose lower limit is zero and the upper bound is
0269-0136/87 $03.00+.12 © 1987Chapmanand Hall Ltd.
258 Ghose and Dutta

indeterminate. But for practical engineering purposes, the upper bound can be fixed considering
the application area of the classification system.
Basically, there are three controlling parameters of rock mass strength: mechanical strength
of the strata, the structure and the stress conditions. The generalized basis of a classification
system is to consider four or five parameters, of which one or two are nominal, that account for
all the basic controlling parameters as discussed above. These parameters are divided into
groups, generally five, by inserting bound points in the interval in case of interval parameters,
and in the case of nominal parameters, qualifying adjectives are used to divide the parameters
into groups. After statistical analysis of historical realities, numerical rating is assigned to each
parameter for each group. A total rating is obtained that serves a dual purpose. First, it relates a
particular rock mass to the classification group described by such adjectives as 'good', 'poor',
etc. This total rating also serves as a quantitative index for rock load determination.
The above mentioned broad concept of rock mass classification is retained in preparing a
cavability model based on the fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965) and linguistic modelling (Zadeh,
1975). Fuzzy set theory is a mathematical tool used for decision making that involves imprecise
and subjective information (Bellman and Zadeh, 1970; Zadeh, 1976). Impreciseness and
subjectivity rule large in the realm of geomechanics (Nguyen, 1985). Subjectivity arises due to
the use of such adjective as 'good', 'poor' etc. for describing the strength quality of the rock mass,
and some degree of impreciseness creeps into the determination of physico-mechanical
parameters due to the wide dispersion of their values and inaccurate test results.

Cavability--the fuzzy set model

Cavability of roof rocks bears a functional relation with the mechanical strength of the strata,
the structure and the stress conditions besides the geometrical parameters of length of face and
seam thickness. Whether the caving of roof strata behind a longwall face is assumed to be
controlled by rock plate theory or rock-beam theory, the flexural rigidity of the strata is
determined by its thickness. The influence of thickness on the caving nature is again determined
by the structure of the rocks, for no rock behaves as a perfectly elastic, isotropic and
homogeneous material.
Three statements are proposed concerning the rock mass strength that control the caving
behaviour of roof rocks.
sl ='high mechanical strength' is indicative of high rock mass strength
s2 = 'good structure' increases rock mass strength,
s3 ='low stresses' cannot induce fractures in the roof rock and, thus, contribute to rock mass
strength.
The three phrases 'high mechanical strength', 'good structure' and 'low stress' can be
modelled as three linguistic variables and can thus be represented by three fuzzy sets $1, $2, and
$3, respectively.
The proposition's' obtained by the conjunction of sl, s2 and s3 can be stated as:
s ='high rock mass strength' results due to 'high mechanical strength', 'good structure' and
A rock mass classification model for caving roofs 259

'low stresses'. The true value of 's' will be true only when sl, s2 and s3 are
true. Thus,
s = (sl A S2 A S3) (1)
If the phrase 'high rock mass strength' is represented by a fuzzy set S, then from equation 1:
S = SI ~ $ 2 n S 3 (2)
Let V be the fuzzy set representing 'massive' strata and the statement v reads as:
'massive strata makes the roof difficult to cave'.
The sentences s and v are conjuncted to get a proposition 'c' where,
c ='high rock mass strength' and 'massive strata' result in 'difficult caving roof' or 'low
cavability'.
If the phrase 'low cavability' is modelled by the linquistic variable C, then
c = sn v (3)

Let R be a set of values (or ratings) as follows:

R = (1, 2, 3 . . . . . 100)
Let the fuzzy sets S1, $2, $3 and Vbe subsets of R and they contain R. This implies that each
fuzzy set has elements as values from 1 to 100 with their respective membership grades. Thus,
S1 = {[r, psi(r)]}
S2 = {Jr, p~2(r)]}
s 3 = {It,

V= {Jr, #~(r)]}
and reR. #(r) is the membership grade.
S1, $2, $3 and V have different degrees of influence on caving behaviour. Hence, the
membership grades of each fuzzy set are to be weighted suitably (Dubois and Prade, 1980).
Let wl, w2, w3 and w be the weight assigned to S1, $2, $3 and t1",respectively. Hence from
Equation 2:
S = {[r, ps~(r)WX]}~{Er, ~2(r)W2]}~{[, ", ~3(r)~3]}
or

s = {[r, ^ s2(r) "2 ^

or
S = {[r, min(#~l(r) wa, #sz(r) w2, #s3(r)W3)]}
or
#~(r) = min (l~sl(r) wl, /~s2(r)w2' i~s3(r)wa)
26O Ghose and Dutta

and
S = {[r, ~s(r)]}
If w' is the weight assigned to S, then from Equation 3
C= {jr, ~s(r)W']}~{[r,p~(r)~]}
or
C = {It, min (ps(r) w', $g(r)W)]}
or
pc(r)=min(m(r) w', pv(r) ~ )
and
C= {[r, pc(r)]}
This suggests that the cavability C has values as elements of set R, and each value is described
by its membership grade.
The decision rating or the cavability value is the clement reR which is associated with the
supremum of the set C. Thus,
r-~ V[/~(r)]

or

r--rmax [/4(r)]

Application of the model

For possible application of this model, a four-parameter and five-group classification chart is
drawn up first (Table 1). The classification of compressive strength is taken from Ghose and
Raju's (1981) rock mass classificiation system developed for Indian Coal Mines. However, the
open upper bound is closed arbritarily at a value of 125 MPa., based on available data of
strength of coal measure rocks.

Table 1. Four-parameter and five-group classification chart

Parametric values for Groups I--V*
Parameters I II III IV V
Uniaxial compressive strength
(MPa) 0-10 10-30 30-60 60-90 90-125
Average core size (ram) 0-50 50-90 90-130 130-160 160-200
Thickness (m) 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-2 2-3 3-6
Depth (m) 1000-720 720-480 480-240 240-80 80-43
*From Groups I to V, cavability values increase.
A rock mass classification model for caving roofs 261

Though RQD has been in use as an ostensible measure of discontinuity spacing since 1964,
doubts have been cast about its robustness as an indicator of rock quality in terms of its
structure in recent literature (Bikerman and Mahtab, 1986). Hence, the average core size
defined as that length of core size at which 50% core recovery is made, is taken as an indicator of
structure. Over 100 beds of different lithotypes and strengths were analysed to determine the
RQD and average core size of each bed. The RQD and average core size (ACS, mm) were
related by the regression equation:
Log (ACS)= 3.75 +0.015 (RQD)
This equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.82. Boundary points of Deere's (1964) RQD
classification were converted to the ACS by using the above relation, with approximate
modification for extreme values. The thickness boundaries are fixed by heuristic reasoning, so
also the boundaries of depth.
In each group of the classification chart, 19 equal spaced bound points are inserted such that
the closed interval of each parameter is divided into 100 intervals. Thus,
¢°~[a,<ai+1]
where, a i = bound points.
Membership grade of each parameter associated with the elements of R is determined from
the formula:

L_°°[#,(r)] = i -
]
Where, a = parametric value
As the assignment of weightages to the fuzzy sets is the most critical aspect of this model, some
experts' knowledge is incorporated along with heuristic reasoning so as to assign values to wl,
w2, w3, w and w'.
It has been observed that the development of induced fracture in the immediate roof strata
does not occur below a cover of 300 m in Indian coal measures (Sarkar and Singh, 1985). Hence,
w3 is assigned the following values: Depth ~<300 w3=0.1, else w3=0.7. For assigning
weightages to strata strength and its structure, the following relationship between vertical
pressure (av, MPa) and depth (D, m) is used:
a~ = 0.025D
The condition for induced fracture is assumed when the front abutment stress (4 ~ 5a~) exceeds
the uniaxial compressive strength (ao) of the strata. Heuristically, therefore, following values are
assigned to wl and w2:
ao>~0.125D, wl=0.7, w2=0.99
a~<0.125D, w1=0.99, w2=0.7
For a highly fractured strata, thickness has very little influence on the caving behaviour,
whereas the influence of thickness increases as fissile planes in the strata decrease. RQD is taken
as an ostensible measure of fissile planes and various values of w are selected depending on
262 Ghose and Dutta

READBN A N D COMPACS,/
,
RQDB
, THKOFEACHBED/
FROMROOFUPWARDS /
/ REAOWO.KINGDEPT. /
½
I INSERT19EQUALSPACED I
BOUNDPOINTSINEACHCLASS
OF THE CLASSIFICATION
CHART
COMPUTEMEMBERSHPI GRADES
OF$I,$2,$3 ANDV

YES

~L
~ L NO ~ ,

[ ~OMPUTEMEMBERSHIPG.ADESOFSr

IN
, CREMENTBEDCOUNTER
1 ISELECTVALUEOFW
I~ASS,GNWF,G.TW TO '~V I
C
,I OMPUTEMEMBERSHP
I GRADESOFCI
A rock mass classification model for caving roofs 263

® -I RATINGOFEACHBED
1
I DETERMINEHIGHESTRATING1
IN THE ROOF SUITE I

ICAVINCGR,,EaiA'-L--- @
~UL~,NG FACTOR F
~ES NO I CAVINGCRITERIA-'-""I
-'-[ PARTINGPLANES

LOCATE STRONGEST j
BEDIN THE ROOF

PRINTBN,CONP,ACS,RQD, I I
/ BTHK,DECISIONRATINGOF
"/ EACHuPwARDsBEDFROMROOF / -

AND LOCATION OF
STRONGEST BED

+
Fig. 1. Program flow chart to determine decision rating (BN = No. of beds; comp = uniaxial
compressive strength; ACS = average core size; BTHK = bed thickness)

Deere's R Q D classification. These are:

RQD W
0-25 0.1
26-50 0.25
51-75 0.35
76-90 0.80
91-100 0.95
w' is taken to be 1 for all cases.
A microcomputer program has been developed to determine the decision rating (r) for each
bed from the roof onwards. It locates the highest rating or the strongest strata within three to
five times the seam thickness. This rating is taken to be the cavability value of the roof rocks in
question. A flow chart of the program is given in Fig. 1.
264 Ghose and Dutta

The application pre-supposes a classification system and starts with the deterministic and
fixed parametric values of each bed. It is assumed that a more rational method may be evolved
for determining S1 from mechanical strength of each core piece tested in the laboratory, and by
analysing a multitude of factors like percentage recovery, core piece length and number of core
pieces in different zones of the roof rocks, $2 may be determined.

Quasi-empirical verification

The first fall is the goaf presages breaking off the roof strata above and this can be approximated
as the breakage of a simply supported rectangular plate clamped on its four sides. The
maximum outer fibre tensile stress (at) in such a plate is given by the equation:
a t = ~qa 2

where, fl = factor that depends on the rectangularity of the plate i.e. b/a ratio.
q = uniformly distributed load
a = smaller plate dimension
b = larger plate dimension
When b/a > 3, fl tends to a constant value fl' (Timoshenko and Woinewsky-Kreiger, 1959).
If a is the first roof caving span, the equivalent roof caving span (Seq) of an infinitely long face
when fall would occur can be given as:
S¢q = (fl'/fl')l/Za
or

Seq ---~~a
Where, the multiplier ~ for different rectangularity is obtained from the plot in Fig. 2
(Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Kreiger, 1959).

1-01

CC 0"8

0"7

0.6 , ,
2 3
Rectongulority blo

Fig. 2. Rectangularity multiplier for equivalent caving span

A rock mass classification model for caving roofs 265

For quasi-empirical verification of the cavability value obtained from the fuzzy set model,
linear regression equation is obtained by relating equivalent roof caving span and the cavability
value (r). Following equation is obtained:
Seq = A + Br (4)
where, A = -10.1496 and B=0.870338.
The high correlation coefficient (0.944) of the above equation validates the proposed method
of determining cavability value.

Case studies

Postmortem alaysis of ten longwall faces from different coalfields of India was undertaken for
validation of the model proposed, the assumptions made in the model and evaluation of a
cavability classification system based on the cavability values. Physico-mechanical properties
of roof strata along with cavability values for the ten faces under study are given in Table 2,
together with the face parameters and the caving behaviour as observed in these faces.
The following observations are made about the caving behaviour namely the cavability value.
The entire roof suite of Godavari Khani, Banki and Surakachar consist of strata whose
cavabitity values are less than 45. This class of roof is very weak and caving in this type of roof
rocks is controlled essentially by a bulking factor.
Roof rocks of East Katras consist of a strong strata located at a height of 0.2 m from the seam
and the cavability value of this strata is 51. This strata could contribute to overhang and
consequent periodic weightings.
In case of Seetalpur, the strongest strata whose cavability value is 61 is located 2 m above the
seam. Though the cavability value is high, but the strata is only of 3 m thickness and above the
strongest strata are located multiple weakness zones whose cavability values are less than 60.
This weakness zone provides weak parting planes along which bed separation should take place
easily. Hence, no problem is expected, namely the propensity to caving, if powered supports of
adequate capacity are used; and the caving characteristics as observed conform to the above.
In the case of Dhemomain, 4 to 5 m of roof rocks are expected to cave in easily but this
thickness is not sufficient to fill up the void created due to the extraction of a height of 3 m. A 3 m
thickness strata of cavability value more than 70 overhangs and fracturing of this strata might
have caused severe weightings as was observed in practice. Similar experiences have been gained
in the case of Khottadih where around 6 m thick strong strata caused violent weightings.
Massive strata of Patherkhera and Bijuri whose cavability values are more than 70 are
difficult to cave unless high capacity powered supports are used.
Table 3 shows cavability classification of roof strata, based on cavability values, the expected
caving behaviour and tentative support guidelines.
Table 4 lists observed equivalent span of ten faces under study along with theoretical
equivalent span calculated from Equation 4 and roof class as obtained from cavability
classification. It is observed that the theoretical span approximates the actual span and also the
caving behaviour expected from the classification system matched closely actual caving
behaviour.
From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that the strongest strata in the roof does influence
266 Ghose and Dutta

Table 2. Physicomechanical properties, geometry and caving behaviour of roof rocks of longwall case
histories in India.
Uniaxial Average Location
Mine compressive core size of bed
(seam) Bed strength (MPa) (ram) RQD in the roof (m)
Dhemomain Shale 33 20 10 13-1.5
(Barachak) Coal 44 20 5 1.5-1.75
Shale 49 20 10 1.75-2,05
Shaly sandstone 67 45 59 2.05°°3.5
Sandstone 71 55 50 35-4.05
Coal 42 80 56 4.05-4.35
Alternating layers of shale and sandstone 59 90 66 4.8 a5,8
Sandy shale 76 150 82 6.8-9,8
Banki (G-III) Medium grained sandstone 11 28 10 0~),6
Shale 34 62 47 0.6-1.2
Alternating bands of shale and sandstone 29 46 18 1.2-3,6
Coarse grained sandstone 6 61 42 3.64.36
Shale 31 63 76 4.36-451
Coarse grained sandstone 4 68 9 4.51-9.31
Seetalpur Sandy shale 53 80 58 0-2
(Hatnal) Shaly sandstone 99 100 70 2-5.05
Alternating layers of sandstone & shale 93 25 54 5.05-8A
Sandyshale with coat bands 59 54 7 8.9-10.35
Shaly sandstone 75 96 79 10.35-13.1
Shale with coal bands 66 63 21 13.1-14
Bijuri Sandstone 12 200 94 0-9.5
(Bijuri A) Sandstone 24 190 90 9.5-17
Surakachar Carbonaceous shale 27 55 10 0-0.6
(G III) Coal 10 42 10 0.6-0,8
Shale 26 56 5 0.8-3,5
Coarse grained sandstone 10 60 30 3.5-4A
Alternating bands of shale and sandstone 16 78 t0 4.4-5.4
Coarse grained sandstone 3 58 2 5.4-11
Patherkhera Sandy shale 33 60 51 0~q.7
(Upperworkable) Medium to coarse grained sandstone 35 180 80 0.7-6,25
Coarse grained sandstone 36 200 89 6.25-9,3
Dhemomain Shale 55 94 64 0-9.4
(Raghunathbati) Medium grained sandstone 88 186 83 0.4-2.6
Intercalation of sandstone & shale 34 80 36 2.6-2.95
Shale 98 160 89 2.95-3,65
Intercalation of sandstone & shale 68 152 84 3.65--4.85
Shale 45 99 63 4,85-5.45
Fine grained sandstone 84 162 75 5.45-6.25
Alternating layers of sandstone & shale 73 126 74 6.25-8,45
Khottadih Shale 27 55 30 0-0.6
(Samla) Medium grained sandstone 28 200 96 0,6-4,6
Medium grained sandstone with shale 21 190 100 4.6-10.5
striations
Medium grained sandstone 52 160 95 10.5.-11,5
Medium grained sandstone with shale 50 140 92 11.5-15.3
striations
East Katras Shale 57 40 55 0-0.2
(IX Spl. seam) Fine grained sandy shale 87 60 72 0.2-1.2
Shale 44 50 80 1.2-3.25
Fine grained sandy shale 66 52 63 3.25-5,25
Godavari khani, Coal 47 40 5 0-1.96
No. 7 Carbonaceous shale 32 35 5 1.964,21
(No. 3 seam) Coal 20 23 5 4.21-4,74
Shale 28 17 10 4.74~ 5,85
Coal 36 15 10 5,85-7,18
Medium grained sandstone 2I 60 10 7.18-7.68
Fine grained sandstone 40 81 54 7.68-8.48
Coarse grained sandstone 5 75 22 8.48-11.38
Fine grained sandstone 34 61 9 i1.38-13.68
A rock mass classification model for cavin9 roofs 267

Cavabitity Face First

decision Depth length Extraction caving Actual caving behaviour and
rating (m) (in) Height (m) interval supports at the face
19 130 155 3 61 Regular caving of 4 to 5 m of roof rocks, Considerable
23 difficulty in caving of the overhang, During periodic weight-
26 ing few chocks got closed. Periodic weighting interval
40 10-20 m. 360T chock shield. Yield pressure 38.9 MPa,
44 setting pressure 17.2-20,7 MPa
41
49
75
19 120 120 2-L2 14 Mild first weight. Roof deteriorated due to heavy water
33 influx. 40"1"friction props.
26
24
28
28
47 550 t20 1,6-1,9 45 No problem of caving, Periodic weighting interval 10-17 m.
61 240T chocks. Yield pressure 33.5 MPa, setting pressure
44 10.3-13,8 MPa
46
53
50
80 66 80 1.8 -- Extreme dilficulty in caving. Goal blasting done. No sub-
83 stantial caving till 60 m of face advance. Face abandoned.
40T friction props (1.2 x 0.8 m z)
28 120 80 1.62 32 Roof deterioration due to water percolation. Major roof fall
24 at slip crossing, 40T friction props
28
27
33
32
32 110 105 1.5 75 Roof extremely difficult to cave. Induced caving resorted to
82 before first weight. Periodic weighting interval 18-22 m,
72 240T chocks, yield pressure 46.5 MPa
49 300 80 1,4 -- Regular caving of the immediate roof of shale and weak
78 sandstone. No substantial caving till 60 m of face advance.
46 Face abandoned
64
61
50
60
63
42 270 120 2.4 79 Extremely difficult caving roof. Induced caving resorted to.
64 Periodic weighting interval 20-30 m reinforced by inclined
76 props
60
59
35
51 50 90 1.4 35 Poor caving till first weighting. Induced caving resorted to.
36 Periodic weight interval 7-14 m, 40T friction props (1.2 ×
42 0.8 m2), goaf edge reinforced by inclined props
31 90 90 3 18 Not much manifestation of weighting. Regular caving after
24 support advancement. 325T shields, Yield pressure 35 MPa,
16 setting pressure 12A-18.6 MPa
16
31
30
41
24
33
268 Ghose and Dutta

Table 3. Cavability classification of roof strata

Cavability
decision
Class Cavabitity rating Caving behaviour and tentative support guide-
lines
I Extremely high 0-30 Extremely weak and easy caving strata. Caving is
controlled by bulking factor. Prompt support is
required close to face. Shield or chock shield is
necessary to prevent goaf waste flushing
II High 31-45 Easy caving strata. Caving is controlled by bulk-
ing factor. Props can be used for heights up to
2.5m
III Moderate 46760 Moderately caving strata. Caving is poor and in
big blocks. Periodic weightings may occur due to
overhang. Preferably, powered supports should
be used
IV Low 61-70 Difficult caving roof that overhands for consider-
able length. At higher cavability values, violent
weightings may result. Goaf blasting may be
required before first weighting. High capacity
shields are required
V Extremely low 71-100 Extremely difficult caving roof. Large overhang
and violent weightings. High capacity shields
with rapid-yield valve systems, if warranted

roof caving behaviour but the thickness of this strata, its location in the roof suite, weakness
zones above this strata, easy caving roof rocks in between the strongest strata and the seam and
the geometrical parameters of the face also contribute to the global caving characteristic.

Conclusions

The paper has sought to address the application of fuzzy set methodology to evolve a purposive
rock mass classification for predicting the caving behaviour of coal measure rocks. The
proposed methodology has been validated using case histories from Indian longwall faces. The
methodology holds promise in evaluating longwall sites namely caving behaviour and support
selection. Hopefully, the approach would be further refined with larger number of case
applications so that it could emerge as a useful tool in longwall ground control practice.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a S & T Project sponsored by the Department of Coal, Government of
India to Indian School of Mines. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the Director, Indian
 c~

r~

Table 4. Cavability values and equivalent first caving span of longwall case studies in India
Face Calculated
Face caving equivalent
S1. length interval Equivalent Cavability span (m)
No. Mine b (m) a (m) b/a o~ span (m) value Equation 4 Cavability
1. Dhemomain 155 61 2.54 0.95 58 75 55 Extremely low
(Barachak)
2, Banki 120 14 8.57 0.98 14 33 t9 High
3. Seetalpur 120 45 2.67 0.96 43 61 43 Low %
4. Bijuri 80 60* 1.33 0.75 45* 83 62* Extremely low
5. Surakachar 80 32 2.5 0.95 30 33 t9 High
~. Patherkhera 105 75 1,4 0.78 59 82 61 Extremely low
7. Dhemomain 80 60* 1.33 0,75 45* 78 58* Extremely low
(Raghunath bati)
8. Khottadih 120 79 1.52 0.81 64 76 56 Extremely low
9. East Katras 90 36 2.5 0.96 35 51 34 Moderate
10. Godavari Khani 90 18 5 0.98 18 41 26 High
No. 7
*Roof did not cave

bo
270 Ghose and Dutta

School of Mines, Dhanbad, for according facilities for the study. Thanks are also due to
colleagues in the S & T Project team and in particular to Professor B.K. Kejriwal for helpful
discussions.

References

Bellman, R.E. and Zadeh, L.A. (1970) Decision making in a fuzzy environment, Management Science 17,
(4) B141-B164.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1974) Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunnelling, in
Proceedings of the Third International Congress in Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Denever, Volume 11A,
pp. 27-32.
Bieniawski, Z.T., Rafia, F. and Newman, D.A. (1980) Ground control investigations for assessment of roof
conditions in coal mines, in Proceedings of the 21st. US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rolla, MO,
pp. 691-700.
Bikerman, D.J. and Mahtab, M.A. (1986) Use and abuse of RQD in underground mine design, in
Proceedings of Mining Latin America Conference, Santiago, Chile, Nov, IMM, London, pp. 51-56.
Deere, D.U. (1964) Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes, Rock Mechanics and
Engineering Geology 1, 1, 17-22.
Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1980) Fuzzy sets and systems theory and applications, Academic Press, New
York, p. 393.
Dutta, D., Bhattacharya, J., De, P., Ghosh, A.K., and Ghose, A.K. (1986) Longwall face support
design--a micro-computer model, Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuel, March, 97-107.
Ghose, A.K. and Raju, N.M. (1981) Characterization of rock mass vis-a-vis application of rock bolting-
modelling of Indian coal mines, in Proceedings of the 22nd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, MIT,
Boston, MA, pp. 1-6.
Karmis, M. and Kane, W. (1984) An analysis of the geomechanical factors influencing coat mine roof
stability in Appalachia, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Stability in Underground
Mining, Lexington, pp. 311-25.
Kendorski, F.S., Cummings, R.A., Bieniawski, Z.T. and Skinner, E.H. (I983) Rock mass classification for
block caving mine drift support, in Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Rock Mechanics,
ISRM, Melbourne, p. 13.
Laubscher, D.H. (1977) Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses-mining applications,
Transactions Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 86, 183--203.
Nguyen, V.U. (1985) Some fuzzy set applications in mining geomechanics, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics Mining Sciences and Geomeehanics Abstracts 6, 22, 369-79.
Sarkar, S.K. and Singh B. (1985) Longwall Mining in India, Mrs. Sunanda Sarkar, CMRS, Dhanbad,
237p.
Seegmiller, B.L. (1983) Geotechnical and stability requirements for future coal mines, Rock Mechanics and
the Design of Structures in Rock, Willey Interscience, New York, pp.650.
Thi11,R.E. (1984) Coal and rock properties for premise planning and mine design, in Proceedings of USBM
Mine Ground Control Technology Transfer, USBMIC 8973, pp. 15-35.
Timoshenko, S. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959) Theory of Plates and Shells, Kogakusha, Tokyo,
pp.120.
Unal, E. (1983) Design guidelines and roof control standards for coal mine roofs PhD thesis, The
Pennsylvania State University, 355p.
A rock mass classification modelJor caving roofs 271

Wickham, G.E., Tiedemann, H. and Skinner, E.H. (1972) Support determinations based on geologic
predictions, in Proceedings of the 1st Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Converence, Vol. 1, Chicago
(edited by K.S. Lane and L.A. Garfield), AIME, New York, pp. 43-64.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965) Fuzzy sets, Information Control 8, 338-353.
Zadeh, L.A. (1975) The concepts of linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, Part
1, 2 and 3, Information Science 8, 199-249; 8, 301-357; 9, 43-80.
Zadeh, L.A. (1976) A fuzzy algorithmic approach to the definition of complex and imprecise concepts,
International Journal of Man Machine Study 8, 249-291.