Skip to main content
Log in

Integration and fusion of geological exploration data: a theoretical review of fuzzy logic approach

  • Published:
Geosciences Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A geological survey project, including the exploration of nonrenewable resources, typically includes the following steps: planning of the survey, field mapping, acquisition of data, achieving of data, processing and fusion of all relevant information, which are closely followed by an interpretation of the final survey results. In this process, important spatial data layers are topographic map, often digital elevation model (DEM), geological map, several sets of geochemical and geophysical survey maps, airborne or space-borne remote sensing data and, sometimes, old archived data. Each of these multiple layers of geological exploration data can first be preprocessed, and input into a chosen geographic information systems (GISs). This will be followed by information representation and fusion steps for the final imaging of the processed and fused information. Most commercially available GISs however do not have information fusion and focusing capabilities. Users of the slected GIS must first be able to represent the preprocessed geological survey information with respect to the target geological hypothesis. In the case of mineral exploration, the target hypothesis can be a specific mineral deposit(s) being explored.

Compared to the model driven exploration approach, the data driven geological exploration utilizes multiple sets of exploration data and there are several mathematical tools available for information representation and fusion. Some of these include the traditional probability approach, evidential belief function methods, AI/Expert systems and the fuzzy logic approach.

In this paper, the fuzzy logic approach of quantifying the exploration information with respect to the target hypothesis, and several of the fuzzy operators which are frequently used for geological resource exploration are critically reviewed. Although our understanding of the fuzzy information representation and fuzzy operators is still incomplete, many case studies of applying fuzzy logic approaches to various exploration projects have concluded that the final fuzzy membership function maps or the final fuzzy theme maps are considerably more accurate than the results obtained using any conventional intuitive approach, including the brute stack of the exploration (spatial) data using a GIS. In general, the efficiency and accuracy of the final fused information with respect to the target hypothesis increases with the increasing number of geological exploration data layers.

If a specific Earth system model is available, or a mineral deposit model in the case of mineral exploration projects, is available or is known a priori, fuzzy logic approach can easily be combined with currently popular machine-reasoning processes such as the neural network approach. In this type of quantitative spatial reasoning and fuzzy logic information fusion, uncertainty and error analysis is also important. In most cases, propagation of errors and uncertainties can be handled and estimated in the same manner as the processing and fusion of main exploration data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • An, P., 1992, Spatial Reasoning and Integration Techniques for Geophysical and Geological Exploration Data. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 280 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • An, P., Moon, W.M. and Rencz, A., 1991, Integration of geological, geophysical and remote sensing data using fuzzy logic. Journal of Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 27, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • An, P., Moon, W.M. and Bonham-Carter, G.F., 1994, Uncertainty management of exploration data using the Belief Function. Nonrenewable Resources, 3, 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benediktsson, J.A., Ingimundarson, J.I. and Sveinsson, J.R., 1997, Classification and feature extraction of hyperdimensional data using LOOC covariance estimation. IGARSS'97 (Proceedings), Singapore, August, p. B10.03.

  • Bonham-Carter, G.F., 1994, Geographic Information Systems for Geoscientists, Pergamon Press, Kidlington, 398 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrough, P.A., 1986, Principles of Geographic Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 194 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goguen, J.A., 1967, L-fuzzy sets. Journal of Mathematical Association of America, 18, 145–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goguen, J.A., 1969, The logic of inexact concepts. Syntheses, 19, 325–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauptmann, W. and Heesche, K., 1995, A neural net topology for bidirectional fuzzy-neuro transformation. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (Proceedings, Vol. 3), Yokohama, March, 1995, p. 1511–1518.

  • Ishibuchi, H., Morisawa, T. and Nakashima, T., 1996, Voting schemes for fuzzy-rule-based classification systems. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy System (Proceedings, Vol. 1), New Orleans, September, p. 614–620.

  • Iyanaga, S. and Kawada, Y., eds., 1980, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics. MIT Press, Cambridge, p. 1167–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, W.W., Moon, W.M. and Feng, L.N., 1997, Data fusion Research for Mineral Exploration Data from Hwanggang-ri Region, Korea. Technical Report #17, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 62 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klement, E.P., 1980, Fuzzy measures by classical measures. In: Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets. Plenum Press, New York, p. 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathai, A.M. and Rathie, P.N., 1975, Information Theory and Statistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 137 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, W.M., 1990, Integration of multiple sets of geophysical information using evidential belief function. IEEE Transaction of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 28, 272–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, W.M., 1993, Mathematical basis for geophysical information representation and integration. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 19, 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, W.M., 1995, Information representation and integration of multiple sets of spatial geoscience data. IGARSS'95 (Proceedings), Florence, August, 1995, p. 1021–1022.

  • Moon, W.M. and Jiang, W.W., 1995, Integrated Exploration of Base Metal Deposits in East Java, Indonesia, Technical Report #14, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 34 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, W.M., Jiang, W.W., Yun, S.G. and So, C.S., 1998, Data fusion modeling of the Hwanggang-ri mineralization zone. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing. Remote Sensing. (submitted)

  • Pawlak, Z., 1996, Why rough sets? IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy System (Proceedings, Vol. 2), New Orleans, September, p. 738–743.

  • Shannon, C.E., 1948, A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technology Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takagi, H. and Hayashi, I., 1991, NN-driven fuzzy reasoning. Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 5, 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K., eds., 1980, Fuzzy Sets. Plenum Press, New York, 413 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R.R., 1992, Implementing fuzzy logic controllers using a neural network framework. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 48, 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, C.C. and Kuo, Y.H., 1996, A fuzzy neural network model with three-layered structure. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy System (Proceedings, Vol. 3), New Orleans, September, p. 1503–1510.

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1965, Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1968, Probability measures of fuzzy events. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Application, 23, 421–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1987, Fuzzy sets. In: Yager, R.R., Ovichinikov, S., Tong, R.M. and Nguyon, H.T. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets and Applications. John-Wiley, New York, p. 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1987, Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. In: Yager, R.R., Ovichinikov, S., Tong, R.M. and Nguyon, H.T. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets and Applications. John-Wiley, New York, p. 193–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1987, A theory of approximate reasoning. In: Yager, R.R., Ovichinikov, S., Tong, R.M. and Nguyon, H.T. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets and Applications. John-Wiley, New York, p. 368–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H.J., 1984, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, 357 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H.J. and Zysno, P., 1980, Latent connectives in human decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 4, 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moon, W.M. Integration and fusion of geological exploration data: a theoretical review of fuzzy logic approach. Geosci J 2, 175–183 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02910163

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02910163

Key words

Navigation