International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

A fuzzy logic model to predict the out-of-seam dilution in longwall

mining
Ali Bahri Najafi, Mohammad Ali Ebrahimi Farsangi ⇑, Golam Reza Saeedi
Mining Engineering Department, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman 7618849381, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The longwall mining method is often affected by the out-of-seam dilution (OSD). Therefore, predicting
Received 2 March 2014 and controlling of dilution are important factors for reducing mining costs. In this study, the fuzzy set
Received in revised form 15 April 2014 theory and multiple regression models with parameters, including variation in seam thickness, dip of
Accepted 15 July 2014
seam, seam thickness, depth of seam, and hydraulic radius as inputs to the models were applied to pre-
Available online 7 February 2015
dict the OSD in the longwall coal panels. Field data obtained from Kerman and Tabas coal mines, Iran
were used to develop and validate the models. Three indices including coefficient of determination
Keywords:
(R2), root mean square error (RMSE) and variance account for (VAF) were used to evaluate the perfor-
Out-of-seam dilution
Longwall coal mining
mance of the models. With 10 randomly selected datasets, for the linear, polynomial, power, exponential,
Regression modeling and fuzzy logic models, R2, RSME and VAF are equal to (0.85, 4.4, 84.4), (0.61, 7.5, 59.6), (0.84, 4.5, 72.7),
Fuzzy set theory (0.80, 4.1, 79.6), and (0.97, 2.1, 95.7), respectively. The obtained results indicate that the fuzzy logic
Kerman and Tabas coal mines model predictor with R2 = 0.97, RMSE = 2.1, and VAF = 95.7 performs better than the other models.
Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

1. Introduction
In mining, mixing ore with waste rock is described as dilution. It
significantly reduces the grade of ore, increases the total costs of
mining and may endanger the financial achievements of a project
[1]. Hence, in order to reduce mining costs, controlling dilution is
an important issue in mining operations.
Many investigators have devoted a part of their studies to min-
ing dilution. Planeta et al. evaluated the impact of rock dilution on
underground mining [1]. Annels estimated the dilution on basis of
the field data at Stillwater mine in Montana [2]. Further, Clark
studied minimizing dilution in open stope mining with focus on
stope design and narrow vein longhole blasting [3]. Moreover, Suo-
rineni et al. applied the equivalent liner overbreak-slough (ELOS)
concept to quantify the dilution [4]. Also, a research work on the
measurement and control of dilution in an underground coal oper-
ation was carried out by Noppe [5]. Further, Wang studied the
influence of stress, undercutting, blasting, and time on the open
stope stability and dilution [6]. At the same time, Chugh et al.
evaluated the effect of out-of-seam dilution on coal utilization
[7]. Further, a study on the dilution in an underground coal mine
in the USA was carried out by Chugh et al. to understand the
impacts on production, processing and waste disposal [8]. Also,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 34 32112764.
E-mail address: maebrahimi@uk.ac.ir (F. Mohammad Ali Ebrahimi).
Henning and Mitri carried out numerical modeling of the ore dilu-
tion in blasthole stoping [9]. Further, the level of out-of-seam dilu-
tion (OSD) for the longwall mining method in the Tabas coal mine
was quantified by Saeedi et al. [10]. In another attempt, numerical
modeling of the OSD in longwall retreat mining was carried out by
Saeedi et al. [11].
The objective of this paper is to develop a fuzzy logic model to
predict the OSD in longwall mining. The field data from Tabas and
Kerman coal mines, Iran are used to evaluate the performance of
the proposed fuzzy model. Also, multiple regression models are
developed based on the field data from the same mines.
2. Out-of-seam dilution in longwall coal mining
In general, any waste material within the mining block is
referred as the term ‘‘dilution’’ [9]. The sources of OSD in the long-
wall mining method may be divided into three main classes: pri-
mary, secondary, and tertiary dilution [5]. Primary dilution
includes cutting of the rock floor or roof by the longwall shearer
machine. Secondary dilution is slabbing or break-up of the roof
or floor during mining and trimming. Tertiary dilution includes
waste material loaded with the coal during section-cleaning
operations.
The most important contributing parameters affecting the OSD,
excluding the human element, are including the variation in seam
thickness ((variation in seam thickness/seam thickness)  100)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2014.12.002
2095-2686/Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
92 N. Ali Bahri et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98

OSDð%Þ ¼ ðW=ðO þ WÞÞ  100 ð2Þ

Caspian
sea where, W is the tons waste mined; and O the tons ore mined.

3. Data collection
Tabas coal
mines Kerman
coal mines The field data (35 datasets), from Kerman and Tabas longwall
Yazd
coal mines, Iran (Fig. 1), were obtained to establish a database
Kerman for model development. These data are including variation in seam
thickness, seam thickness, dip of seam, cutting method (e.g., pick,
machine, and blasting), roof quality, floor quality, depth of seam,
Persian hydraulic radius, and the OSD.
gulf Oman sea
Variation in seam thickness, seam thickness, dip of seam, depth
of seam and hydraulic radius were obtained through the geological
Fig. 1. Location of Kerman and Tabas coal mines.
survey and field observations. The roof and floor quality were
determined based on the rock mass rating (RMR) classification.
Table 1 Furthermore, the OSDs for 35 datasets were calculated by using
Descriptive statistics for 35 sets of data from Kerman and Tabas coal mines. Eq. (2). Descriptive statistics of the data are shown in Table 1. Also,
samples of data can be seen in Table 2.
Parameter Symbol Range Mean Standard deviation
Variation in seam thickness (%) VST 3.8–80 39.83 23.63
Seam thickness (m) t 0.4–2.6 1.36 0.58
4. Regression and fuzzy logic modeling
Dip of seam (°) a 5–43 26.42 9.29
Cutting method CM 4.1. Input and output parameters
Roof quality (RMR) RQ 15–70 42.43 21.73
Floor quality (RMR) FQ 15–80 62.16 26.36
Based on the existing reviewed literature [7], eight parameters
Depth of seam (m) H 146–900 348 209.47
Hydraulic radius (m) HR 0.1–2.7 0.75 0.55 given in Table 1 represent the most effective parameters on the
Out-of-seam dilution (%) OSD 7.8–44.2 17.9 9.82 occurrence of OSD. Among these parameters, parameter cutting
method was excluded as it is a descriptive parameter and cannot
be considered as input in the regression and fuzzy modeling. Also,
in order to have a simpler modeling and in particular to reduce the
Table 2 number of rules in the fuzzy modeling, a number of effective
Samples of data from Kerman and Tabas coal mines. parameters were removed based on their weight on the OSD. For
No VST (%) t (m) a (°) CM RQ FQ H (m) HR (m) OSD (%) this purpose, the rock engineering systems (RES) was used.
1 9.09 2.2 20 1 22.5 45 350 0.52 23.1
2 16.67 1.8 18 2 30 65 345 0.35 17.4 4.2. Rock engineering systems
3 38.46 1.3 30 2 30 30 300 0.7 15.5
4 11.11 1.8 20 1 22 65 220 0.5 22.3 The RES methodology, first introduced by Hudson [13], was
5 26.67 1.5 33 2 30 30 600 0.6 29.5
used to address and quantify the interactions among the parame-
ters that affect to different degrees the outcome of a rock engineer-
ing system. In this methodology, the ‘‘interaction’’ matrix
(VST), seam thickness (t), dip of seam (a), cutting method (CM), constitutes the foundation of the methodology.
roof quality (RQ), floor quality (FQ), depth of seam (H), and hydrau- In the interaction matrix, all parameters affecting the system
lic radius (ratio of the area of exposed roof of longwall face to the are located along the leading diagonal of the matrix, and the off-
perimeter of exposed roof of longwall face) (HR) [7]. diagonal positions are assigned with values, which describe the
Different definitions for the OSD are used here. Eqs. (1) and (2) degree of the influence of one parameter on the other parameters
are used worldwide to determine dilution [12]. (Fig. 2).
Assigning numerical values to the interaction boxes (i, j) and (j,
OSDð%Þ ¼ ðW=OÞ  100 ð1Þ
i) is referred to as coding the matrix. There are three procedures:

Interaction Iij in off-diagonal boxes

Main parameters Pi along leadig diagonal Column j:

Influence of
other
Parameter Iij parameters
on Pi
A Influence
A on B
Pi
(Cause) ∑ I ij = CPi
Iji Row i:
Influence B Influence of
B on A Pi on other
parameters

(Effect) ∑ I ij = EPi

(a) Interaction matrix of two parameters (b) General illustration of the coding of interaction matrix

Fig. 2. Interaction matrix in rock engineering systems [13].

 N. Ali Bahri et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98 93

Table 3 where Ci is the cause of the ith parameter; Ei the effect of the ith
Interaction matrix for the parameters affecting the OSD. parameter; and i the number of principal parameters.
VST 0 1 1 1 0 0 In the case of OSD and in the interaction matrix, the eight prin-
0 t 0 0 0 0 1 cipal parameters affecting the OSD were located along the leading
2 0 a 0 0 2 2 diagonal of the matrix and the effects of each individual parameter
0 0 0 RQ 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 FQ 0 2
on any other parameter (interactions) were placed on the off-diag-
2 2 1 2 2 H 3 onal cells. The assignment of values of the off-diagonal cells in the
0 0 0 0 0 0 HR coding matrix was carried out by using the ESQ coding method,
which is proposed by Hudson [13]. Based on the views of three
experts who have been working in the field of underground coal
mining for many years, the interaction matrix for the parameters
Table 4
Weighting of the principal parameters of the OSD.
affecting the OSD was obtained, as shown in Table 3.
Table 4 represents the parameters affecting the OSD, including
Parameter Ci Ei C+E ai (%)
the cause (C), effect (E), interactive intensity (C + E), and weight
VST 3 4 7 12.96 of each parameter (ai). As it can be seen in Table 4, VST, a, H, and
t 1 2 3 5.56 HR have the highest weights in the system, therefore, they were
a 6 2 8 14.81
RQ 3 3 6 11.11
taken as inputs with the OSD as output.
FQ 2 3 5 9.26
H 12 2 14 25.93 4.3. Regression analysis
HR 0 11 11 20.37
Sum 27 27 54 100
For regression analysis, four independent parameters, VST, a, H
and HR, were selected and the OSD was defined as dependent
‘‘binary approach’’, ‘‘expert semi-quantitative’’ (ESQ) method [13] parameter.
and ‘‘continuous quantitative coding’’ (CQC) method [14] that can
be used to perform this task. Among these methods, the ESQ 4.3.1. Multiple linear regression analysis
method is the most well-known. According to this method, the A multiple linear regression analysis was carried out between
interaction between the parameters is ranked on a scale of 0 to VST, a, H, and HR as independent variables and the OSD as
4: 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 representing ‘‘no interaction’’, a ‘‘weak’’, a ‘‘med- dependent variable, using the commercial software packages for
ium’’, a ‘‘strong’’ and a ‘‘critical’’ interaction, respectively. standard statistical analysis (SPSS). Based on the regression analy-
After the interaction matrix is coded, the relative importance of sis, the predictive model is as follows:
each parameter can be quantified. The sum of each row in the
interaction matrix represents the way in which a parameter (Pi) OSD ¼ 5:558 þ 0:267ðaÞ þ 0:133ðVSTÞ  4:617ðHRÞ
affects the rest of the system, and is termed as ‘‘cause’’ (C). On þ :038ðHÞ ð4Þ
the other hand, the sum of each column in the interaction matrix
is termed the ‘‘effect’’ and denoted by E. It shows the effect which A multicollinearity analysis was carried out to check whether two
the rest of the system has on that parameter. or more independent variables are highly correlated. In the case
The interactive intensity value of each parameter is denoted as of multicollinearity, redundancy of the independent variables could
the sum of the C and E values, (C + E), and it can be applied as an be expected, which can lead to erroneous results. One of the most
indicator of a parameter’s significance in the system. The percent- common tools for representing the degree of multicollinearity is
age value of (C + E) can be used as the parameter’s weighting factor the variance inflation factor (VIF) [15]. It has a range of one to infin-
(ai), as shown in Eq. (3): ity. Generally, if the calculated VIF is greater than 10, there may be a
C i þ Ei problem with multicollinearity [16]. The VIF values of the indepen-
ai ¼ Pn Pn  100 ð3Þ dent variables in Eq. (4) were calculated, as shown in Table 5. It was
i¼1 c i þ i¼1Ei

Table 5
Multiple linear regression coefficients and collinearity statistics for Eq. (4).

Independent variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients 95% Confidence interval for B t Values Colinearity statistics
B Standard deviation error Beta Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF
Constant 5.558 4.934 15.850 4.734 1.126
VST 0.133 0.053 0.347 0.023 0.243 2.530 0.442 2.265
a 0.267 0.116 0.264 0.025 0.510 2.299 0.630 1.587
HR 4.617 1.849 0.308 8.475 0.759 2.496 0.546 1.832
H 0.038 0.005 0.887 0.027 0.049 7.166 0.542 1.845

Table 6
Regression statistics obtained for Eq. (4).

R R2 Adjusted R2 Standard deviation error of the Estimate Observations

0.913 0.834 0.801 4.49999 25
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance
Regression 2036.460 4 509.115 25.142 0.000
Residual 404.999 20 20.250
Total 2441.458 24
94 N. Ali Bahri et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98

concluded that VIFs of VST, a, H, and HR were less than 10 and can- ηA
not suffer from multicollinearity. 1
The regression statistics, model summary and analysis of vari- Crisp set
ance (ANOVA) are shown in Table 6. The model statistic value F x1
η A ( x1 ) = η A ( x2 ) = η A ( x3 ) = 1 x
0
x2
and significance (Sig.) were used to provide enough evidence to x3
x4 η A ( x4 ) = 0
reject the hypothesis of ‘‘no effect’’. From Table 6, F of 25.14 and ηA
Significance of 0.00 (less than 0.05) were obtained, which showed 1
that the null hypothesis should be rejected. It means that at least
Fuzzy set
one of the input parameters significantly affected the OSD. x1 0 x
x2 η A ( x1 ) η A ( x2 ) η A ( x3 )
x3
x4 η A ( x4 ) = 0
4.3.2. Multiple non-linear regression analysis
Polynomial, power, and exponential models, with the same
Fig. 3. Definitions for crisp and fuzzy sets [18].
independent and dependant variables were used to carry out
non-linear regression modeling. The mathematical equation
obtained for polynomial model with R2 = 0.76 is shown in Eq. (5).
Fuzzy rule base
OSD ¼ 8:366  2:042ðHRÞ þ 0:008ðaÞ2 þ 0:000005052ðVSTÞ3
Inference
þ 0:00000000003739ðHÞ4 ð5Þ Input Fuzzification operation Defuzzification Output

Fig. 4. A general fuzzy system.

The power relation with R2 = 0.87 is described as Eq. (6).

OSD ¼ 10ð0:684þ0:007ðaÞþ0:002ðVSTÞ0:081ðHRÞþ0:001ðHÞÞ ð6Þ

‘‘if-then’’ rule structure of the Mamdani algorithm is given in
Finally, the exponential relation for regression modeling with
the following equation:
R2 = 0.87 is presented in Eq. (7).
Ri : If \
x"1 is \ A"i1 and \
x"2 is \ A "
i2 and :::\ x"r is \
A"ir
OSD ¼ exp ½1:575 þ 0:017ðaÞ þ 0:006ðVSTÞ  0:187ðHRÞ þ 0:002ðHÞ
then \
y "
is \
B"i ðfor i ¼ 1; 2; :::; kÞ ð10Þ
ð7Þ
where k is the number of rules; xi the input variable; and y the out-
put variable.
4.4. Fuzzy systems
There are several composition methods used on the fuzzy rela-
tions, such as min-max, max-max, min-min and max-min. How-
The concept of fuzzy set theory, introduced by Zadeh [17], is a
ever, the max-min is the most commonly used [22]. Finally, the
mathematical way to represent linguistical vagueness. In contrary
result of the inference system (i.e., fuzzy output value) is defuzz-
to a classical set (crisp set) in which the membership of an element
ified to a crisp output value. There are different defuzzfication
is crisp [0, 1] (Eq. (8)), the fuzzy set allows the degree of member-
methods such as centroid of area (COA), center of gravity, mean
ship for each element to range over the unit interval of [0 to 1] (Eq.
of the maximums and smallest of the maximums. The most widely
(9)).
adopted defuzzification method is the COA method [23].

1 ifx 2 A A two-rule Mamdani FIS, which derives the overall output ‘‘z’’,
lA ðxÞ ¼ ð8Þ which is subjected to two crisp inputs ‘‘x’’ and ‘‘y’’, is illustrated
0 ifx R A
in Fig. 5 [24].
where A is a crisp set and lA is membership of an element x in the Many researchers used fuzzy logic modeling in the field of min-
crisp set A. ing and geomechnics. Samples of the existing works are as follows:
  Grima and Babuska employed fuzzy model for the prediction of
A ¼ x; lA ðxÞjx 2 U ð9Þ
unconfined compressive strength of rock samples [25]. Also, fore-
where U refers to the universe of discourse defined for a particular casting rock trencher performance by using fuzzy logic was carried
problem; and lA(x) the membership degree of the variable out by Grima and Verhoef [26]. Further, Grima et al. used nero-
x(lA(x) ? [0, 1]). Definitions for crisp and fuzzy sets are illustrated fuzzy method for modeling TBM performance [21]. Also, Gokceoglu
in Fig. 3.
Mostly, fuzzy systems are composed of four elements: fuzzifica-
tion of crisp values, fuzzy rule base, fuzzy inference systems, and Minimum
defuzzification of fuzzy values (Fig. 4). μ A1 μ B1 μ C1
C′1
In the fuzzification process, crisp input values are changed to and then
fuzzy values by defining membership functions. Depending on
the nature of problem, either linear (triangular, trapezoidal) or X Y Z
μ A2 μ B2 μ C2
non-linear forms of membership functions can be used [19]. The C′2
and
description of the input-output relationships is carried out by if- then
then rules of fuzzy rule base. The fuzzy inference system (FIS)
X Y Z
maps an input to output by fuzzy if-then rules and fuzzy reason- Aggregation Maximum
ing. Different FISs such as Mamdani, Takagi-Sugeno-Kang (TSK), μ
Rule 1. If x is A1 and y
Tsukamoto and Singeleton models are applied in different fields. B1 then Z is C1
However, Mamdani algorithm is widely used because this algo- Rule 2. If x is A2 and y
rithm is easier to interpret and analyze when compared with Z
B2 then Z is C2 Defuzzification
the others [20]. It is perhaps the most appealing FIS to be
employed in engineering geological problems [21]. The general Fig. 5. A two-rule Mamdani FIS [24].
 N. Ali Bahri et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98 95

developed a fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive

Degree of membership
M H V.H
1.0 L
strength and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock [27].
Iphar and Goktan introduced an application of fuzzy sets to the
Diggability Index Rating Method for surface mine equipment 0.5
selection [20]. Tzamos and Sofianos applied fuzzy logic to extend
the Q system’s prediction of support in tunnels [28]. Acaroglu
et al. proposed a fuzzy logic model to predict specific energy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
requirement for TBM performance prediction [19]. Jian et al. Variation in seam thickness (%)
applied fuzzy neural network for predicting the risk of rock burst
Fig. 7. Membership functions of variation in seam thickness.
[29]. Monjezi et al. showed that fuzzy logic modeling can be used
for prediction of rock fragmentation due to blasting [30]. Ataei
et al. addressed the application of fuzzy logic to determine coal
mine mechanization [31]. An application of fuzzy set theory to

Degree of membership
L M H
rock engineering classification systems: an illustration of the rock 1.0
mass excavability index was introduced by Khademi and Shahriar
[32]. Further, fuzzy logic modeling for prediction of the blastabil- 0.5
ity designation of rock masses was employed by Azimi et al. [33].
Monjezi et al. used fuzzy set theory to predict backbreak in open-
pit blasting [34]. Further, Yagiz and Gokceoglu applied fuzzy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
inference system and nonlinear regression models for predicting Dip (°)
rock brittleness [35]. Also, Rezaei et al. used a fuzzy model to pre-
dict flyrock in surface mining [36]. Furthermore, Monjezi and Fig. 8. Membership functions of seam dip.
Rezaei developed a new fuzzy model to predict burden from rock
geomechanical properties [37]. Further, Mikaeil et al. applied
fuzzy analytical hierarchy process to the prediction of vibration

Degree of membership
due to rock blasting [38]. Moreover, Adoko et al. developed a 1.0
V.L L M H V.H
knowledge-based and data-driven fuzzy modeling for rockburst
prediction [39]. Further, Razani et al. used a novel fuzzy inference
system for predicting roof fall rate in underground coal mines 0.5
[40]. Also, prediction of rock mass rating using fuzzy logic and
multi-variable RMR regression models was carried out by Jalalifar
0 200 400 600 800
et al. [41]. These works confirm the good performance of the fuzzy
Depth (m)
modeling applications in the rock engineering fields.
Fig. 9. Membership functions of seam depth.

4.4.1. Fuzzy logic model to predict the OSD

In the new fuzzy logic model, with selected input and output
parameters, the linear membership functions (triangular or trape-
Degree of membership

zoidal) were chosen to define membership functions. Furthermore, 1.0

LM H
the Mamdani fuzzy inference system was selected as it is one of
the most common algorithms used in geological problems, since
0.5
most geological processes are defined with linguistic variables or
simple vague predicates [19]. Also, the COA was adopted as defuzz-
ification method, since it is the most widely used.
0 1 2 2.5
Parameters including variation in the seam thickness ratio, dip
Hydraulic radius (m)
of seam, depth of seam, and hydraulic radius were taken as inputs
and the OSD as output. And fuzzy modeling was carried out by Fig. 10. Membership functions of hydraulic radius.
using MATLAB environment. The main structure of fuzzy modeling
for the OSD prediction is shown in Fig. 6. Also, the membership
functions for variation in the seam thickness ratio, dip of
Degree of membership

seam, depth of seam, hydraulic radius, and the OSD are shown in V.L L M H V.H
1.0
Figs. 7–11, respectively.
A total of 240 fuzzy if-then rules were used for the OSD. Sam-
ples of the fuzzy if-then rules for the OSD are illustrated in Fig. 12. 0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Variation in seam OSD (%)
thickness (%)
Fig. 11. Membership functions of the OSD.
Dip (°)
FIS
(Mamdani) OSD (%) A graphical indication of the fuzzy reasoning mechanism for the
Depth (m) OSD is shown in Fig. 13 and an example of the model application is
also shown in Fig. 13. In this example, input parameters are:
Hydraulic
radius (m) depth = 600 m; hydraulic radius = 0.6 m; dip of seam = 33°; and
variation in seam thickness = 26.7%, and the corresponding pre-
Fig. 6. Main structure of the fuzzy predictive model for the OSD prediction. dicted OSD is 29.8%.
96 N. Ali Bahri et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98

Rule number Description of if-then rules

1 If (Depth is V.H) and (H.R is H) and (Dip is L) and (Variation is V.H) then (OSD is V.H) (1)
2 If (Depth is H) and (H.R is L) and (Dip is M) and (Variation is M) then (OSD is M) (1)
3 If (Depth is V.L) and (H.R is V.L) and (Dip is H) and (Variation is L) then (OSD is V.L) (1)
4 If (Depth is M) and (H.R is M) and (Dip is L) and (Variation is V.H) then (OSD is M) (1)
5 If (Depth is L) and (H.R is H) and (Dip is H) and (Variation is L) then (OSD is L) (1)
6 If (Depth is V.H) and (H.R is M) and (Dip is M) and (Variation is H) then (OSD is H) (1)
7 If (Depth is H) and (H.R is H) and (Dip is H) and (Variation is L) then (OSD is M) (1)
8 If (Depth is V.L) and (H.R is L) and (Dip is H) and (Variation is M) then (OSD is L) (1)
9 If (Depth is M) and (H.R is V.L) and (Dip is M) and (Variation is L) then (OSD is V.L) (1)
10 If (Depth is L) and (H.R is M) and (Dip is L) and (Variation is V.H) then (OSD is M) (1)

Fig. 12. A few of the OSD fuzzy if-then rules.

Depth=600 m H.R=0.6 m Dip=33° Variation=26.7% OSD=29.8%

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

Fig. 13. Graphical indication of fuzzy reasoning mechanism for the OSD.

35 50
Predicted OSD (%)

Predicted OSD (%)

30 y=0.815x+0.851 y=1.150x2.689
40
25 R2=0.86 R2=0.84
20 30
15 20
10
5 10

0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Measured OSD (%) Measured OSD (%)

Fig. 14. Comparison between measured and predicted OSD for multiple linear Fig. 16. Comparison between measured and predicted OSD for power model.
regression model.

40
35
Predicted OSD (%)

y=0.901x+0.715
Predicted OSD (%)

30 y=0.510x+4.895 30 R2=0.81
25 R2=0.61
20 20
15
10 10
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Measured OSD (%)
Measured OSD (%)
Fig. 17. Comparison between measured and predicted OSD for exponential model.
Fig. 15. Comparison between measured and predicted OSD for polynomial model.

5. Performance evaluation of the generated models
Performance evaluation of the fuzzy logic and multiple regres-
sion models were carried out by using 10 randomly chosen sets
of data (out of 35 data sets). For these data, the comparison was
made between the predicted and measured OSD for different mod-
els, and the corresponding coefficient of determination (R2) was
obtained by using Eq. (11), as shown in Figs. 14–18.
Furthermore, the predicted OSD from the fuzzy logic and multi-
ple regression models for 10 datasets were compared with the
measured OSD, as shown in Fig. 19.
Also, further performance evaluation of the models were carried
out by using two indices, root mean square error (RMSE) and var-
iance account for (VAF), and the results are shown in Table 7. The
VAF index shows the degree of difference between the variances of
the measured and predicted parameter. The values of VAF close to
 N. Ali Bahri et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98 97

40 predict the OSD in longwall panels. Based on the existing reviewed

Predicted OSD (%)

y=0.945x+1.417 literature, eight parameters represent the most effective parame-
30 R2=0.97
ters on the occurrence of OSD. In order to have a simpler modeling
20 and in particular to reduce the number of rules in the fuzzy mod-
eling, a number of effective parameters were removed based on
10
their weight on the OSD. For this purpose, the rock engineering
systems (RES) was used.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Parameters, including variation in seam thickness, dip of seam,
Measured OSD (%)
seam thickness, depth of seam, and hydraulic radius, were consid-
Fig. 18. Comparison between measured and predicted OSD for fuzzy logic model. ered as inputs to the models and the OSD as output. The data from
35 longwall panels, Kerman and Tabas coal mines, Iran were used
to develop the OSD predictive models.
Out of 35 sets of data collected, 10 sets of randomly selected
50 OSD measured
Linear model data and the indices including R2, RMSE, and VAF were used to
40 Exponential model evaluate the performance of models. The results show that for 10
Power model
Fuzzy model sets of randomly selected data, the fuzzy logic model, with
OSD (%)

30 Polynomial model R2 = 0.97, RMSE = 2.10, and VAF = 95.7, performs better than the
20 multiple regression models and may be used for the OSD estima-
10 tion in the longwall panels.

0 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of dataset References
Fig. 19. Comparison between measured and predicted OSD for fuzzy logic and
[1] Planeta S, Bourgoin C, Laflamme M. The impact of rock dilution on
multiple regression models.
underground mining: operational and financial considerations. In:
Proceedings of the 92nd CIM annual general meeting. Ottawa; 1990.
[2] Annels AE. Mineral deposit evaluation a practical approach. London: Chapman
and Hall; 1996.
Table 7 [3] Clark LM. Minimizing dilution in open stope mining with a focus on stope
Performance analysis of different models. design and narrow vein longhole blasting. Vancouver: University of British
Columbia; 1998.
Model R2 VAF RMSE Observations
[4] Suorineni FT, Tannant DD, Kaiser PK. Determination of fault-related sloughage
Linear 0.85 84.4 4.4 10 in open stopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36(7):891–906.
Polynomial 0.61 59.6 7.5 10 [5] Noppe M. The measurement and control of dilution in an underground coal
Power 0.84 72.7 4.5 10 operation. In: Proceedings of the 5th mining geology conference. Bendigo;
Exponential 0.80 79.6 4.1 10 2003.
Fuzzy 0.97 95.7 2.1 10 [6] Wang J. Influence of stress, undercutting, blasting, and time on open stope
stability and dilution. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan; 2004.
[7] Chugh Y, Moharana A, Patwardhan A. An analysis of the effect of out-of-seam
dilution on coal utilization. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference
on clean technologies for the mining industry. Chile; 2004. p. 18–21.
100% show small variability and consequently better prediction [8] Chugh Y, Moharana A, Patwardhan A. Dilution in underground coal mining in
capability. The RMSE index represents the error between the USA impacts on production, processing and waste disposal. In: Proceedings of
measured and predicted parameter. The lower RMSE indicates the international seminar on mineral processing technology. New Delhi; 2005.
[9] Henning JG, Mitri HS. Numerical modeling of ore dilution in blasthole stoping.
the better performance of the model. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2007;44(5):692–703.
2 3 [10] Saeedi G, Rezai B, Shahriar K, Oraee K. Quantifying level of out-of-seam
 Pn   2 dilution for longwall mining method and its impact on yield of coal washing
6 x ipred  
x ipred ð x imeas  
x imeas Þ 7
R2 ¼ 1004qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
i¼1
5 ð11Þ plant in Tabas coal mine. In: Proceedings of the international seminar on
2 Pn 2 mineral processing technology. Trivandrum; 2008.
ðx
i¼1 ipred  
x ipred Þ ðx
i¼1 imeas  
x imeas Þ [11] Saeedi G, Rezai B, Shahriar K, Karpuz C. Numerical modeling of out-of-seam
dilution in longwall retreat mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2010;47:533–43.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi [12] Pakalnis RC, Poulin R, Hadjigeorgiou J. Quantifying the cost of dilution in
1 Xn underground mines. Min Eng 1995;47(12):1136–41.
RMSEðxÞ ¼ ðx
i¼1 imeas
 xipred Þ2 ð12Þ [13] Hudson JA. Rock engineering systems: theory and practice. Chichester: Ellis
n
Horwood; 1992.
[14] Lu P, Latham JP. A continuous quantitative coding approach to the interaction
v arðximeas  xipred Þ matrix in rock engineering systems based on grey systems approaches. In:
VAF ¼ 100ð1  ð13Þ
v arðximeas Þ Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of IAEG. Lisboa; 1994. p. 4761–
70.
[15] Montgomery DC, Peck EA, Vining GG. Introduction to linear regression
where var() denotes the variance; ximeas the ith measured element;
analysis. Wiley; 1992.
xipred the ith predicted element; and n the number of datasets. [16] Acaroglu O. Prediction of thrust and torque requirements of TBMs with fuzzy
The obtained results show that the fuzzy logic model, with R2 of logic models. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2010;26(2):267–75.
[17] Zadeh AL. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1965;8:338–53.
0.97, RMSE of 2.1, and VAF of 95.7, presents a better performance
[18] Aydin A. Fuzzy set approaches to classification of rock masses. Eng Geol
than the multiple regression models. 2004;74(3–4):227–45.
[19] Acaroglu O, Ozdemir L, Asbury B. A fuzzy logic model to predict specific energy
requirement for TBM performance prediction. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech
6. Conclusions 2008;23(5):600–8.
[20] Iphar M, Goktan RM. An application of fuzzy sets to the Diggability Index
Rating Method for surface mine equipment selection. ⁄⁄⁄Int J of Rock Mech
In coal mining, the out-of-seam dilution (OSD) often affects the
Min 2006;43:253–66.
longwall mining operation and increases the cost of coal mined. [21] Grima MA, Bruines PA, Verhoef PNW. Modeling tunnel boring performance by
Therefore, prediction of the level of OSD is of prime importance nero-fuzzy methods. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2000;15:259–69.
prior to starting of a longwall face. [22] Ross T. Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc;
1995.
In this study, fuzzy logic and multiple regression models (multi- [23] Grima MA. Nero-fuzzy modeling in engineering geology. Leiden: A A Balkema
ple linear, polynomial, power, and exponential) were applied to Publishers; 2000.
98 N. Ali Bahri et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (2015) 91–98
[24] Jang RJS, Sun CT, Mizutani E. Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice-Hall; 1997.
[25] Grima MA, Babuska R. Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined
compressive strength of rock samples. Int J Rock Mech Min 1999;36:
339–49.
[26] Grima MA, Verhoef PNW. Forecasting rock trencher performance, using fuzzy
logic. Int J Rock Mech Min 1999;36:13–32.
[27] Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K. A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive
strength and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock. Eng Appl Artif
Intell 2004;17:61–72.
[28] Tzamos S, Sofianos AI. Extending the Q system’s prediction of support in
tunnels employing fuzzy logic and extra parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min
2006;43:938–49.
[29] Jian J, Lian GW, Hua LZ, Yi FS. Application of fuzzy neural network in predicting
the risk of rock burst. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 2009;1:536–43.
[30] Monjezi M, Rezaei M, Yazdani Varjani A. Prediction of rock fragmentation due
to blasting in Gol-E-Gohar iron mine using fuzzy logic. Int J Rock Mech Min.46
2009:1273–80.
[31] Ataei M, Khalokakaei R, Hossieni M. Determination of coal mine
mechanization using fuzzy logic. Int J Min Sci Tech 2009;19:0149–54.
[32] Khademi HJ, Shahriar K. Application of fuzzy set theory to rock engineering
classification systems: an illustration of the rock mass excavability index. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 2010;43:335–50.
[33] Azimi Y, Osanloo M, Akbarpour-Shirazi M, Bazzazi AA. Prediction of the
blastability designation of rock masses using fuzzy sets. Int J Rock Mech Min
2010;47(7):1126–40.
[34] Monjezi M, Rezaei M, Yazdian A. Prediction of backbreak in open-pit blasting
using fuzzy set theory. Int J Expert Systems with Applications
2010;37(3):2637–43.
[35] Yagiz S, Gokceoglu C. Application of fuzzy inference system and nonlinear
regression models for predicting rock brittleness. Expert Systems with
Applications 2010;37(3):2265–72.
[36] Rezaei M, Monjezi M, Varjani YA. Development of a fuzzy model to predict
flyrock in surface mining. Safety Sci 2011;49(2):298–305.
[37] Monjezi M, Rezaei M. Developing a new fuzzy model to predict burden from
rock geomechanical properties. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38(8):9266–73.
[38] Mikaeil R, Ataei M, Yousefi R. Application of a fuzzy analytical hierarchy
process to the prediction of vibration during rock blasting. Int J Min Sci Tech
2011;21:611–9.
[39] Adoko AC, Gokceoglu C, Wu L, Zuo QJ. Knowledge-based and data-driven fuzzy
modeling for rockburst prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2013;61:86–95.
[40] Razani M, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Haji YS. A novel fuzzy inference system for
predicting roof fall rate in underground coal mines. Saf Sci 2013;55:26–33.
[41] Jalalifar H, Mojedifar S, Sahebi AA. Prediction of rock mass rating using fuzzy
logic and multi-variable RMR regression model. Int J Min Sci Tech
2014;24(2):237–44.