Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoderma
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / g e o d e r m a

Application of a fuzzy rule-based method for the determination of clay dispersibility

Ismail Zorluer a,, Yilmaz Icaga a, Saban Yurtcu a, Hasan Tosun b
a b

Department of Construction Education, University of Afyon Kocatepe, ANS Campus, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey Department of Civil Engineering, University of Osmangazi, Meselik Campus, Eskisehir, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Some clay soils are highly susceptible to erosion and piping because of dispersion or deocculation in pore water. These soils, called dispersive clay soil in geotechnical engineering, are structurally unstable, easily dispersive and, thus, highly erodible. There are many tests to determine dispersibility both physically and chemically. However, these tests can give different results for the same soil sample. Therefore, more than one test should be used to identify dispersive soils more accurately. In previous research, the discriminant method was used to combine these test results. In this study, a fuzzy logic approximation method was developed to combine the different results of the double hydrometer, pinhole, Na(%)TDS and ESPCEC methods into a single value. This new method was applied to the dispersibility test results of 29 samples, and it gave more reliable and objective results for identifying the dispersibility of the clay soil. 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 9 September 2009 Received in revised form 30 August 2010 Accepted 19 September 2010 Available online 16 October 2010 Keywords: Dispersive clay Double hydrometer Pinhole ESPCEC Na(%)TDS Fuzzy logic

1. Introduction Some soils have a dispersive tendency when subjected to water. These soils are known as dispersive clay or dispersive soil. These soils are considered problematic with respect to erosion and piping because they are unstable, easily dispersive, and highly erodible. The dispersibility of clay depends on the clay's mineralogy, chemical texture, dissolved salt content, and quality of soil voids in the pore water (Zorluer, 2003). Dispersion occurs in cohesive soils when the repulsive forces among the clay particles exceed the attractive forces. In the presence of pore water, the particles repel each other to form a colloidal suspension (Bell and Bruyn, 1997; Bell and Walker, 2000). Clay particles in the suspension are removed by water, creating internal erosion (Tosun, 1994). The main difference between dispersive and nondispersive clays is the amount and type of cations. The lower the content of dissolved salts in the water, the greater the susceptibility of sodium saturated clays to dispersion. The presence of exchangeable sodium is an important chemical factor contributing toward dispersive behavior in soil (Bell and Walker, 2000). Another property that enhances the susceptibility of clay soils to dispersion is total dissolved salts (TDS) in the pore water. In other words, sodium saturated clays are more susceptible to dispersion as the dissolved salt concentration in the pore water decreases (Bell and Bruyn, 1997). If dispersive clay soils are used in earthll dams or road embankments, they should be accurately identied. Otherwise, serious engineering problems may occur, leading to dam failure
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 90 272 2281311/339; fax: + 90 272 2281319. E-mail addresses: izorluer@aku.edu.tr (I. Zorluer), yicaga@aku.edu.tr (Y. Icaga), syurtcu@aku.edu.tr (S. Yurtcu), htosun@ogu.edu.tr (H. Tosun). 0016-7061/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.09.017

(Tosun, 1997). Dispersive clay soils cannot be identied with ordinary soil mechanics tests. The most commonly used dispersibility determination tests consist of chemical and physical measurement techniques, including the pinhole test, the double hydrometer test and the crumb test. Chemical data, which are obtained from standard chemical tests, are used directly or indirectly through their relations with each other to determine dispersibility. Examples include the values of sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and cation exchange capacity (CEC), electrical conductivity (EC), and pH as well as exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), total dissolved salts (TDS) and sodium percentage (Na%) (Zorluer, 2003). The results of dispersibility tests may show differences for the same soil sample. For this reason, the results of several tests are usually evaluated together. Craft (1986) and Bell and Walker (2000) applied discriminant analysis to dispersion test results to make the dispersibility evaluations more efcient. Craft (1986) used 28 soil samples from Oklahoma for dispersion tests. A discriminant function derived from discriminant analysis was applied to the data of these samples. Similarly, Bell and Walker (2000) used 94 samples from Natal in Southern Africa. After a series of physical and chemical tests to assess dispersibility, they made a discriminate analysis to ensure the reliability of the test results. Fuzzy logic can be viewed as a language that allows one to translate sophisticated statements from natural language into a mathematical formalism (McNeil and Thro, 1994). In most applications, fuzzy logic can deal with highly variable, linguistic, vague, and uncertain data or information to allow for logical, reliable and transparent information (Adriaenssens et al., 2004). Fernndez et al. (2009) worked with fuzzy rules based on classication systems using a preprocessing step to deal with class imbalance. Their aim was to analyze the behavior of fuzzy

190

I. Zorluer et al. / Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

rule-based classication systems in the framework of imbalanced datasets through the application of an adaptive inference system with parametric conjunction operators. The empirical results showed that the use of these parametric conjunction operators resulted in a higher performance for all datasets with different imbalanced ratios. WenXiu and Hai-Ning (2009) developed a fuzzy system model for the movement and deformation of rock mass based on the assumption that the displacement and deformation of rock mass was a fuzzy event. From this model, theoretical formulas were derived for calculating the rock mass displacement due to underground excavation. They concluded that the fuzzy system model was satisfactory and that the obtained formulas were valid and could be effectively used to predict displacements and deformations due to underground mining in soft rock strata and to evaluate the safety of buildings on the ground surface. Kevin and Liu (2009) proposed an integrated decision-support framework that combined fuzzy logic and fuzzy analytic network processes to assist decision makers in environmental impact assessment. This framework also considered decision makers' risk attitude. Qi et al. (2006) used fuzzy soil mapping based on prototype category

theory. They stated that natural soils exist as a continuum in both the spatial and attribute domains and often cannot be tted into discrete categories without introducing errors or at least over-simplication. The researchers developed a single approach to mitigate this problem in digital soil mapping by combining fuzzy logic-based class assignment with a raster GIS representation model. This raster GIS model allowed the continuous spatial variation of soils to be expressed in much greater detail than a conventional (analog) soil survey. They claimed that their approach created maps that were more accurate in terms of both soil series prediction and soil texture estimation than either the traditional soil survey or the case-based reasoning approach. The aim of this study is to combine the results of several dispersibility tests for the same samples under a common index value by using fuzzy logic to ensure a more reliable identication of dispersibility. In particular, the study uses the results of four tests for 29 samples obtained from different places in the Western Anatolia region. The study develops an index value for each sample using the fuzzy logic toolbox of MATLAB software (Matlab 7.0). The same test results are also used in the discriminant method using the IBM SPSS Statistics 18 software, and the results of the two methods are compared.

2. Methodology 2.1. Tests 2.1.1. Pinhole The pinhole test is widely considered one of the most reliable physical tests for determining dispersibility because it simulates the action of water draining through a pipe in soil. In the pinhole test, distilled water is allowed to percolate through a hole that is 1 mm in diameter. The hole is punched through a compacted soil specimen under heads of 50, 180 and 380 mm (Sherard et al., 1976a). The water ow through the pinhole in the soil sample is similar to the water ow from the intransitive core of a dam or from cracks in other structures (Tosun, 1997). The ow rate, efuent turbidity and size of the hole at the end of each test are recorded. If the efuent remains clear and the hole unenlarged, the soil is considered nondispersive. In contrast, if the efuent is highly turbid and the hole is enlarged, the soil is considered dispersive. In the identication of dispersibility, the diameter of the hole at the end of the test has proved to be the most reliable factor. For highly dispersive soils, the pinhole should enlarge to more than 2 mm in 5 min under a 50-mm head, whereas for dispersive soils it should enlarge to about 2 mm. The hole erodes more slowly for slightly dispersive soils, reaching a diameter between 1.5 and 2 mm in 10 min. For nondispersive soils, the hole remains unenlarged throughout the test, even under higher hydraulic heads (Bell and Walker, 2000). The pinhole test in this study was performed according to USBR 5410-89 (1989). 2.1.2. Double hydrometer The double hydrometer test consists of standard and non-standard hydrometer tests. The standard hydrometer test is performed to obtain the distribution of sizes for silt and clay particles. The non-standard test is run with no chemical dispersant and no mechanical agitation of the solution. The dispersion is identied as the ratio of 5-micrometer particles from the parallel test to the same sized particles in the standard hydrometer test. If the ratio is greater than 50%, the soil is classied as dispersive; if it is between 30% and 50%, the soil is moderately dispersive; and if it is less than 30%, the soil is considered nondispersive. The percentage of dispersion indicates the amount of clay that is naturally dispersed in distilled water (Bell and Walker, 2000). The double hydrometer test used in this study was performed according to USBR 5405-89 (1989).

2.1.3. Chemical methods If water quality is not taken into account or if the solution contains soluble free salts, the results of the physical tests, such as the pinhole, double hydrometer and crumb tests, will be invalid due to the dispersive inuences of the free salts in the soil and water. Several factors, such as clay mineral composition, clay content, ESP and the presence or absence of free salts in the soil solution, determine the susceptibility of a soil to dispersion (Gerber and Harmse, 1987). Dispersive soils contain a higher content of dissolved sodium in their pore water than ordinary soils (Bell and Bruyn, 1997). Chemical data obtained from standard chemical tests are used directly or indirectly to determine dispersibility. The ESP is determined from the exchangeable cations (Eq. (1)), where the units are given in meq/100 g of dry clay. exchangeable sodium 100 CEC

ESP =

In this study, two charts were used for dispersibility from these chemical data: the sodium percentage vs. total dissolved salts (Na%TDS) chart (Fig. 1), designed by Sherard et al. (1976b); and the plotted exchangeable sodium percentage vs. cation exchange capacity (ESPCEC) chart (Fig. 2), designed by Gerber and Harmse (1987). Both charts were used to determine the degree of dispersibility or the dispersibility class.

I. Zorluer et al. / Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

191

Fig. 1. Specimens according to relations between total dissolved salts and sodium percentage.

2.2. Analysis techniques for evaluation of dispersibility 2.2.1. Discriminant analysis Discriminant analysis is a statistical tool used to sort data into separate groups. It is necessary to determine one or more functions of quantitative measurements that help discriminate among the groups. Discriminant analysis is a useful tool for checking groups or classes of variability in soil (Bell and Walker, 2000). The dispersibility test data for discriminant analysis should be numerical and should belong to at least two separate populations possessing their own particular characteristics. The populations in this study were physical tests (pinhole and double hydrometer) and chemical tests (CECESP and Na(%)TDS). The inclusion of both physical and chemical factors allowed several aspects of dispersibility to be taken into account. The weightings assigned to each test corresponded to the statistically determined reliability of the tests. The pinhole test appeared to offer the best physical indication of dispersibility. Therefore, the pinhole test was given the highest rating (5) for highly dispersive soils. The CECESP chart provided the best chemical indication of dispersibility, and it was given rating of 4 for high dispersibility. A rating of 2 was given to the double hydrometer and sodium percentagetotal dissolved salts tests. The ratings of the other dispersibility degrees are shown in Table 1. 2.2.2. Fuzzy logic The concept of fuzzy logic, a superset of Boolean logic that was extended to handle uncertainty in data, was conceived by Zadeh in 1965 (Sen, 2001; Elmas, 2003). Fuzzy logic incorporates a simple, rule-based IF X AND Y THEN Z approach to solve a control problem rather than model a system mathematically. The fuzzy logic model is empirically-based, relying on an operator's experience rather than their technical understanding of the system. Fuzzy logic usually contains fuzzication, an application of the rule base to fuzzy data, the inference of fuzzy results and the defuzzication of fuzzy results stages. Fuzzication is a process that transforms the observed (real) data to a fuzzy form using the membership function that dened the

Fig. 2. Specimens at the evaluation of exchangeable sodium percentagecation exchange capacity.

192 Table 1 Proposed ratings for dispersive soils. Dispersive Pinhole test CECESP Double hydrometer TDSNa(%) Total 5 4 2 2 11

I. Zorluer et al. / Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

Moderately dispersive 3 3 1 1 107

Slightly dispersive 1 1

Nondispersive 0 0 0 0 3

64

CEC: cation exchange capacity, ESP: exchangeable sodium percentage, TDS: total dissolved salts, Na(%): sodium percentage.

problem features. The rule base denes the relationships among the membership functions, and it forms the resulting membership function. Defuzzication provides the real (model estimation) value from the resulting membership function (McNeil and Thro, 1994; Bandemer and Gottwald, 1996; Sen, 2001; Elmas, 2003).

2.3. Development of a fuzzy rule-based model for dispersibility The results of the pinhole, double hydrometer, sodium percentagetotal dissolved salts (Na(%)TDS) and exchangeable sodium percentage cation exchange capacity (ESPCEC) tests were used in our model to obtain a fuzzy decision. In the model, the ESPCEC method included the four classes nondispersive, slightly dispersive, moderately dispersive and highly dispersive, while the Na(%)TDS and double hydrometer methods included the rst three of the same classes (Table 2). However, the pinhole method comprised different water heads and time intervals. Therefore, the membership functions of this method were grouped into four types: PH380, PH180, PH50-5, and PH50-10. PH380 included two classes under a 380-mm water head (WH); PH180 included one class under a 180-mm WH; PH50-5 included one class under a 50-mm WH for 5 min; and PH50-10 included two classes under a 50-mm WH for 10 min (Table 2). The model was applied in two stages (Fig. 3). Each stage contained fuzzication of the data and provided an index value in the 0100 interval using the Mamdani approach. In the rst stage, the index values were obtained from the pinhole, double hydrometer and Na(%)TDS tests. The index for pinhole was obtained from the membership functions in Fig. 4. The pinhole experiment had four categories that were determined on the basis of the water level and experiment time with one or two classes. The results were transformed to a value in the 0100 interval with respect to each category. The index for double hydrometer and Na(%)TDS was obtained from the membership functions in Fig. 5. The double

Table 2 Dispersibility results of specimens. Sample no Na (%) TDS Double hydrometer ESPCEC Pinhole 380 180 5010 505 Results Discriminant Fuzzy % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 21.60 13.40 14.60 33.22 15.43 12.70 19.52 53.36 20.83 11.19 12.53 9.28 11.22 32.97 21.63 53.83 15.96 22.56 19.48 15.16 9.63 9.62 12.63 11.08 13.15 13.45 95.91 67.84 45.08 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND MD MD SD 0 0 0 5.5 0 34.7 51.9 11.4 0 3.2 1.1 2.8 0 3.6 30 74.5 7.1 1.4 14.5 63.5 29.2 22.7 42.0 11.9 33.5 0 82.0 41.4 15.0 ND ND ND ND ND MD D ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND D ND ND ND D ND ND MD ND MD ND D MD ND 41.06 20.2 19 47.33 29.625 33.325 47.112 64.125 23.32 22.35 22.28 20.65 20.65 56.32 40 75.625 22.21 21.81 25 20.62 14.2 11.66 16.66 11.66 16.66 7.57 81.71 53.37 27.25 SD ND ND SD SD SD SD MD ND ND ND ND ND MD SD HD ND ND SD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND HD MD SD 1.72 1 1.8 1.23 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.1 0.4 2 1.2 0.4 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.2 2.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.5 1.4 1.2 1 1.2 2.2 0.8 ND ND ND SD ND MD SD SD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND MD SD SD ND ND ND ND ND SD SD MD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND MD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND HD MD ND 26.2 23.9 23.9 37.5 26.1 49.2 37.5 42.7 23.9 23.3 23.9 23.9 23.3 42.4 37.5 51.3 23.9 13.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.9 25.1 23.9 25.2 23.9 64.4 62.5 37.5 SD ND ND SD SD SD SD SD ND ND ND ND ND SD SD MD ND ND ND ND ND ND SD ND SD ND MD MD SD

ND: nondispersive, SD: slightly dispersive, MD: dispersive, HD: highly dispersive, %: Fuzzy results as percent. CEC: cation exchange capacity, ESP: exchangeable sodium percentage, TDS: total dissolved salts, Na(%): sodium percentage.

I. Zorluer et al. / Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

193

Stage 1:

Pinhole

Double Hydrometer

Na%-TDS

Stage 2:

Index 1

Index 2

ESP-CEC

Result
Na%: sodium percentage, TDS: total dissolved salts, ESP: exchangeable sodium percentage, CEC:cation exchange capacity

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the fuzzy method.

hydrometer test result was used in the membership function, and the Na(%)TDS method result was obtained from Fig. 1. The calculation was performed as follows: the results of the Na(%)TDS method, which included three classes, were classied as Na(%) and TDS values; the proximity of the Na(%)TDS value to the class limits in the graph was used as the input for the fuzzication (Fig. 1); in the measurement process of the Na(%)TDS test, which had three classes, the classes were graded from 0 to 100 (Table 3). According to this grade, the input values for the fuzzy method calculated with the distance of the test result to the lower limit were calculated with
i

Input Value = j +
j=1

lc l i

where is the assigned class interval; j is the class number (j = 1, 2,, i), i is the class number of the considered class; lc is the measured distance; and l is the interval distance. In the second stage, index 1, index 2 and the ESPCEC method results were used in the membership function to calculate a common index value, which indicated the dispersibility of the sample (Fig. 2). The ESPCEC method result was not suitable for the membership function in Fig. 6. Therefore, the ESPCEC test result was calculated from Fig. 2. In this method, the very dispersive and completely nondispersive classes were not

Fig. 4. Index values for pinhole.

194

I. Zorluer et al. / Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

Fig. 5. Index values for double hydrometer and sodium percentagetotal dissolved salts.

used. Therefore, the ESPCEC had four classes in the chart. In the ESPCEC test, the input value was measured from Fig. 2. The measurement method was similar to the Na%TDS method, but this test contained four classes, and the class interval was 25 (Table 3). The fuzzy rule bases of the rst stage of the indices are presented in Eqs. (3) and (4). 8 > PH505 > > > PH180 > > < PH380 IF > > PH380 > > PH5010 > > : PH5010 9 = MD > > > = ND > > > = = ND THEN OUTPUT = SD > > > > = SD > > ; = MD 9 8 > = MD > > > > > > = ND > > > > > = < = ND = SD > > > > > > > = SD > > > > > ; : = MD

8 9 8 9 8 9 < = ND = < = ND = < = ND = IF Na%&TDS = SD AND DOUBLE HYDROMETER = SD THEN OUTPUT = SD : ; : ; : ; = MD = MD = MD

where ND is nondispersive, SD is slightly dispersive, MD is dispersive, and HD is highly dispersive. In the second stage, the two derived indices and ESPCEC were transformed to a common index value (output) indicating the dispersibility of the sample (Fig. 6). The fuzzy rule bases of the second stage are presented in Eq. (5). 2 39 8 = ND > > > > > 6 = SD 7 > > > > INDEX 1 6 7> > > > 4 = MD 5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 = HD 3 > > > > = ND > > > > > < 6 = SD 7 = 6 7 INDEX 2 4 5 > = MD > > > > > > > > > 2 = HD > 3 > > > > > > > = ND > > > > > > > > ESP&CEC 6 = SD 7 > 6 7 > > > > 4 = MD 5 > > > > > ; : = HD

IF

THEN

OUTPUT

9 8 > = ND > > > = < = SD > > > = MD > ; : = HD

Table 3 Lower and upper limits for sodium percentage - total dissolved salts and exchangeable sodium percentagecation exchange capacity. Test Classes Lower limit 0 33 67 0 25 50 75 Upper limit 33 67 100 25 50 75 100 Classes number (j) 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Class interval () 33

Na(%)TDS

ESPCEC

Nondispersive Intermediate Dispersive Nondispersive Marginally dispersive Dispersive Highly dispersive

25

CEC: cation exchange capacity, ESP: exchangeable sodium percentage, TDS: total dissolved salts, Na(%): sodium percentage.

I. Zorluer et al. / Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

195

Fig. 6. Membership functions of dispersibility results from the two indices and exchangeable sodium percentagecation exchange capacity.

3. Case study The data used in this study were taken from a previous study conducted by the rst author (Zorluer, 2003). In the study, 29 specimens were sampled from 12 dams in Western Anatolia. After soil classication and compaction tests were performed for these specimens, the pinhole, double hydrometer, and chemical methods (Na(%) TDS and ESPCEC) were performed. The results of these tests are given in Table 2.

3.1. Results Discriminant analyses for different specimens (20 and 29) were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 18 software. The results are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 7.

The results from the pinhole test were used as an input value in fuzzication according to their proximity to the limits of the related category. In the double hydrometer test, the results were divided into three classes, and the limits were determined as 030, 3050, and equal to or greater than 50. The results of the Na(%)TDS test, which included three classes, were classied as Na(%) and TDS values. The membership functions were designed for TDS N 1. The proximities of the Na(%) and ESPCEC test values to the class limits in the graph were used as input for the fuzzication (Table 1). The fuzzy results and discriminant analysis results are given in Table 2 for 4 dispersibility tests for 29 samples. Except for the pinhole test, the tests in Table 2 were separated into two columns. These columns include the dispersibility test results and the dispersibility classes. The pinhole test was divided into four columns. Columns 380, 180, and 50 show the water heads, while columns 10 and 5 show the test time in minutes.

Fig. 7. Discriminant analyses results.

196

I. Zorluer et al. / Geoderma 160 (2010) 189196

3.2. Discussion The following letters show the dispersibility results of the 29 samples according to the different dispersibility methods (Table 2). For the 29 specimens, the results are as follows:

4. Conclusion There are numerous dispersibility determination tests, both physical and chemical. Among the physical tests, the double hydrometer and pinhole tests are the most commonly used. The Na(%)TDS and the ESP CEC tests are among the chemical methods. These tests can give different results for the same soil sample. Therefore, more than one test should be used to identify dispersive soils. In this study, a fuzzy logic approximation was developed to integrate the different results of four dispersibility determination tests, combining their results into one index value. Because of the limits of dispersibility classes, the fuzzy method gives more reliable and objective results than the discriminant method. First, the results of the discriminant method change with the data number. Second, the specimens in different locations are evaluated together because recurrent tests do not generally perform in the same location. Therefore, the discriminant analysis results are affected by the specimens of the other locations. Furthermore, the discriminant analysis results may change when using specimens that have different features. Finally, the discriminant method needs a higher number of test results, whereas the fuzzy method denes dispersibility using only one specimen. The fuzzy method, therefore, is more useful, easier to use, and more economical. References
Adriaenssens, V., De Baets, B.B., Goethals, P.L.M., De Pauw, N., 2004. Fuzzy rule-based models for decision support in ecosystem management. The Science of the Total Environment 319, 112. Bandemer, H., Gottwald, S., 1996. Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic fuzzy methods with applications. John Wiley& Sons, Chichester. Bell, F.G., Bruyn, A., 1997. Sensitive, expansive, dispersive and collapsive soils. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology 56, 1938 (Oct.). Bell, F.G., Walker, D.J.H., 2000. A further examination of the nature of dispersive soils in Natal, South Africa. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 33, 187199. Craft, D., 1986. The application of multivariate statistics and saturation extract data to identify dispersive clay soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal 9, 3437 (GTJODJ). Elmas, C., 2003. Fuzzy logic inspections (theory, application, neural fuzzy logic) (in Turkish). Seckin, Ankara, Turkey. Fernndez, A., Jesus, M.J., Herrera, F., 2009. On the inuence of an adaptive inference system in fuzzy rule based classication systems for imbalanced data-sets. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 98059812. Gerber, A., Harmse, H.J., 1987. Proposed procedure for identication of dispersive soils by chemical testing. The Civil Engineer in South Africa 29, 397399. IBM SPSS Statistics 18, 233S. Wacker Drive, 11th oor Chicago, Illinois. Kevin, F.R., Liu, J.H.L., 2009. Decision-support for environmental impact assessment: a hybrid approach using fuzzy logic and fuzzy analytic network process. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 51195136. McNeil, F.M., Thro, E., 1994. Fuzzy Logic a Practical Approach. AP Professional, Boston, USA. Qi, F., Zhu, A., Harrower, M., Burt, J.E., 2006. Fuzzy soil mapping based on prototype category theory. Geoderma 136, 774787. Sen, Z., 2001. Fuzzy Logic and Modeling Principles (in Turkish). Bilge Culture Art, Istanbul, Turkey. Sherard, J.L., Dunnigan, L.P., Decker, R.S., 1976a. Identication and nature of dispersive soils. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 102, 287301. Sherard, J.L., Dunnigan, L.P., Decker, R.S., Steele, E.F., 1976b. Pinhole test for identifying dispersive soils. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 102, 6985. Tosun, H., 1994. Dispersive clays dependent on earthll dams and studies of DSI. 5th National Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Congress, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 98110. Tosun, H., 1997. Comparative study on physical tests of dispersibility of soils used for earthll dams in Turkey. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal 242251 (GTSODS, 20.2). USBR 5405-89, 1989. Determining dispersibility of clayey soils by the double hydrometer test method. Earth Manual II. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, pp. 419424. USBR 5410-89, 1989. Determining Dispersibility of clayey soils by the pinhole test method. Earth Manual II. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, pp. 425437. Wen-Xiu, L., Hai-Ning, L., 2009. Fuzzy system models (FSMs) for analysis of rock mass displacement caused by underground mining in soft rock strata. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 46374645. Zorluer, I., 2003. Dispersive clays in terms of earthll dams and comparison of denition of methods. Ph. D. Thesis, Osmangazi University Civil Engineering Department, Eskisehir, Turkey.

For For For For

pinhole double hydrometer Na (%)TDS ESPCEC

ND: ND: ND: ND:

22, 21, 24, 16,

SD: 5, SD: 0, SD: 3, SD: 8,

MD: MD: MD: MD:

2, 8, 2, 3,

HD: 0 HD: 0 HD: 0 HD: 2

The results show that the methods and tests can give different results, as in the previous studies (Gerber and Harmse, 1987; Bell and Walker, 2000). The discriminant method classies variables by dening their relationships. In this method, when the data numbers are changed, the functions can be changed. Bell and Walker (2000) suggested discriminant analysis to provide a greater certainty of prediction, whereas Craft (1986) stated that discriminant analysis represents an interim solution. To observe the weakness of the discriminant method, the specimen number was decreased from 29 to 20, then the discriminant method was applied. It can be easily seen that the discriminant analysis result for the 29 data was different than for the 20 data (Fig. 1). When the discriminant results for 29 specimens are compared with the fuzzy results, the following can be stated: 15 out of the 29 test results gave the same results as ND; 3 specimens were MD; 11 specimens were SD; but no specimens were dened as HD on the basis of the fuzzy decision model (Table 2). Out of 29 specimens (65.5%), 19 had the same results in the discriminant analysis and fuzzy models. The rest had values closer to the limit values. For example, the fuzzy results of specimens 1, 5, 24 and 26 were SD, whereas the discriminant results were ND. However, the percentages of the fuzzy results were close to the ND and SD limits. Also, while the discriminant results were ND for 8 specimens, the fuzzy results were SD. A specimen in the MD class in the discriminant analysis was changed to SD in the fuzzy result, while another specimen in the HD class was changed to MD. These differences resulted from the discriminant method, which did not consider the degree (membership) of the test results. For example, in the Na(%)TDS test, the intervals of 0% and 40% were dened as ND, and the discriminant method considered all values in the interval as one value. In the fuzzy method, all of the values in the interval were considered as a membership degree, so the results of the fuzzy methods become more reliable than the discriminant method. The fuzzy method can be used in the evaluation of clay dispersibility given that 65.5% of the total fuzzy and discriminant method results were the same. Furthermore, the fuzzy method evaluated every sample separately, whereas the discriminant analysis evaluated all of the results together. This may be considered a weakness of the discriminant method because the results of the discriminant analysis were changeable with the specimen number and/or specimen features. A comparison with the discriminant analysis method applied by Craft (1986) reveals that the method needs many test results for grouping. Therefore, the test results of different sample locations are considered together, whereas the fuzzy method presented here does not need many test results and can be used with the test results of only one specimen.