Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 8562–8577 | Cite as

Assessment of groundwater vulnerability using supervised committee to combine fuzzy logic models

  • Ata Allah NadiriEmail author
  • Maryam Gharekhani
  • Rahman Khatibi
  • Asghar Asghari Moghaddam
Research Article

Abstract

Vulnerability indices of an aquifer assessed by different fuzzy logic (FL) models often give rise to differing values with no theoretical or empirical basis to establish a validated baseline or to develop a comparison basis between the modeling results and baselines, if any. Therefore, this research presents a supervised committee fuzzy logic (SCFL) method, which uses artificial neural networks to overarch and combine a selection of FL models. The indices are expressed by the widely used DRASTIC framework, which include geological, hydrological, and hydrogeological parameters often subject to uncertainty. DRASTIC indices represent collectively intrinsic (or natural) vulnerability and give a sense of contaminants, such as nitrate-N, percolating to aquifers from the surface. The study area is an aquifer in Ardabil plain, the province of Ardabil, northwest Iran. Improvements on vulnerability indices are achieved by FL techniques, which comprise Sugeno fuzzy logic (SFL), Mamdani fuzzy logic (MFL), and Larsen fuzzy logic (LFL). As the correlation between estimated DRASTIC vulnerability index values and nitrate-N values is as low as 0.4, it is improved significantly by FL models (SFL, MFL, and LFL), which perform in similar ways but have differences. Their synergy is exploited by SCFL and uses the FL modeling results “conditioned” by nitrate-N values to raise their correlation to higher than 0.9.

Keywords

Ardabil aquifer Fuzzy logic Supervised committee fuzzy logic (SCFL) Vulnerability index 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge gratefully the provision of data by the Ardabil Regional Water Authority.

References

  1. Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. EPA 600/2–87-035. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anane M, Abidi B, Lachaal F, Limam A, Jellali S (2013) GIS-based DRASTIC, pesticide DRASTIC and the susceptibility index (SI): comparative study for evaluation of pollution potential in the Nabeul-Hammamet shallow aquifer, Tunisia. Hydrogeol J 21(3):715–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE Task Committee on Application of Artificial Neural Networks in Hydrology (2000) Artificial neural network in hydrology. I: preliminary concepts. J Hydrol Eng 5:2(115):115–123. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084–0699(2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asadi S, Hassan M, Nadiri A, Heather D (2014) Artificial intelligence modeling to evaluate field performance of photocatalytic asphalt pavement for ambient air purification. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:8847. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-2821-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baghapour MA, Nobandegani AF, Talebbeydokhti N, Bagherzadeh S, Nadiri AA, Gharekhani M, Chitsazan N (2016) Optimization of DRASTIC method by artificial neural network, nitrate vulnerability index, and composite DRASTIC models to assess groundwater vulnerability for unconfined aquifer of Shiraz plain, Iran. J Environ Health Sci Eng 2016 14:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bai LP, Wang YY, Meng FS (2012) Application of DRASTIC and extension theory in the groundwater vulnerability evaluation. J. Water Environ 26:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bárdossy A, Disse M (1993) Fuzzy rule-based models for infiltration. Water Resour Res 29(2):373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bezdec JC (1981) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bezdek KT, Hathaway R (1988) Optimally test for fixed points of the fuzzy c-mean algorithm. Pattern Recogn 21:651–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen CH, Lin ZS (2006) A committee machine with empirical formulas for permeability prediction. J. Comput Geosci 32:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen MS, Wang SW (1999) Fuzzy clustering analysis for optimizing fuzzy membership functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst 103(2):239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chitsazan N, Nadiri AA, Tsai F, Moghaddam, A (2014) Bayesian artificial intelligence model averaging for hydraulic conductivity estimation J. Hydrol. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) HE.1943–5584.0000824, 520–532.
  13. Chiu S (1994) Fuzzy model identification based on cluster estimation. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 2:267–278Google Scholar
  14. de Martonne E (1925) Trait’e de G’eographie Physique: 3 tomes, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon B (2004) Prediction of groundwater vulnerability using integrated GIS-based neuro-fuzzy techniques. J Spatial Hydrology 4(2):1–38Google Scholar
  16. Dixon B (2005) Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and fuzzy rule based integrated tool. Appl Geogr 25:327–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emberger L (1930) Sur une formule applicable en g’eographie botanique. Cah Herb Seanc Acad Sci 191:389–390Google Scholar
  18. Fijani E, Nadiri AA, Asghari Moghaddam A, Tsai F, Dixon B (2013) Optimization of DRASTIC method by supervised committee machine artificial intelligence to assess groundwater vulnerability for Maragheh-Bonab plain aquifer Iran. J Hydrol l530:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gemitzi A, Petalas C, Tsihrintzis VA, Pisinaras V (2006) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a combination of GIS, fuzzy logic and decision making techniques. Environ Geol 49:653–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grande J, Andújar J, Aroba J, Beltrán R, de la Torre M, Cerón J, Gómez T (2010) Fuzzy modeling of the spatial evolution of the chemistry in the Tinto River (SW Spain). Water Resour Manag 24(12):3219–3235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huan H, Wang J, Teng Y (2012) Assessment and validation of groundwater vulnerability to nitrate based on a modified DRASTIC model: a case study in Jilin City of northeast China. Sci Total Environ 440:14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Javadi S, Kavehkar N, Mohammadi K, Khodadi A, Kahawita K (2011) Calibration DRASTIC using field measurements, sensitivity analysis and statistical method to assess groundwater vulnerability. Water Int 36:719–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kadkhodaie-Ilkhchi A, Rezaee MR, Rahimpour-Bonab H, Chehrazi A (2009) Petrophysical data prediction from seismic attributes using committee fuzzy interference system. Computer and Geosciences 35:2314–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim YJ, Hamm S (1999) Assessment of the potential for groundwater contamination using DRASTIC/EGIS technique, Cheongju area, South Korea. Hydrogeol J 7(2):227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kord M, Asghari Moghaddam A (2013) Spatial analysis of Ardabil plain aquifer potable groundwater using fuzzy logic. J. King Saud University – Science. 1–12Google Scholar
  26. Kord M, Asghari Moghaddam A, Nakhaeei M (2013) Investigation of hydrogeological characteristics of Ardabil plain aquifer. ISESCO JOURNAL of Science and Technology 9(15):63–69Google Scholar
  27. Labani MM, Kadkhodaie-Ilkhchi A, Salahshoor K (2010) Estimation of NMR log parameters from conventional well log data using a committee machine with intelligent systems: a case study from the Iranian part of the South Pars Gas Field. Persian Gulf Basin Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 72:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larsen PM (1980) Industrial application of fuzzy logic control. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 12:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee KH (2004) First course on fuzzy, theory and applications. Springer, Berlin, 335pGoogle Scholar
  30. Li H, Philip CL, Huang HP (2001) Fuzzy neural intelligent systems: mathematical foundation and the applications in engineering. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  31. Mamdani EH (1976) Advances in the linguistic synthesis of fuzzy controllers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 8:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mamdani EH, Assilian S (1975) An experimental in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic control. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 7:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Misstear BDR, Brown L, Daly D (2009) A methodology for making initial estimates of groundwater recharge from groundwater vulnerability mapping. Hydrogeol J 17(2):275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohammadi K, Niknam R, Majd VJ (2009) Aquifer vulnerability assessment using GIS and fuzzy system: a case study in Tehran-Karaj aquifer. Iran Environ Geol 58:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nadiri AA (2015) Application of artificial intelligence methods in geosciences and hydrology. OMICS International Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Nadiri AA, Fijani E, Tsai FT-C, Asghari Moghaddam AA (2013) Supervised committee machine with artificial intelligence for prediction of fluoride concentration. J Hydroinf 15(4):1474–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nadiri AA, Gharekhani M, Khatibi R, Sadeghfam S, Asgari Moghaddam A (2017) Groundwater vulnerability indices conditioned by supervised intelligence committee machine (SICM). Sci Total Environ 574:691–706 (In press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nadiri AA, Marwa H, Asadi S (2015) Supervised intelligence committee machine to evaluate field performance of photocatalytic asphalt pavement for ambient air purification. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2528:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naftaly U, Intrator N, Horn D (1997) Optimal ensemble averaging of neural networks. Comput Neural Syst 8:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neshat A, Pardhan B (2014) An integrated DRASTIC model using frequency ratio and two new hybrid methods for groundwater vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1503-y Google Scholar
  41. Newton SC, Pemmaraju S, Mitra S (1992) Adaptive fuzzy leader clustering of complex data sets in pattern recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 5:794–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nourani V, Asgharimoghaddam A, Nadiri AA (2008b) Forecasting spatiotemporal water levels of Tabriz aquifer. Trends in Applied Sciences Research 3(4):319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nourani V, Mogaddam AA, Nadiri AA (2008a) An ANN-based model for spatiotemporal groundwater level forecasting. Hydrol Process 22(26):5054–5066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Panagopoulos GP, Antonakos AK, Lambrakis NJ (2006) Optimization of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical method and GIS. Hydrogeol J 14(6):894–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rahimzadeh F, Babakhani AR (1987) Geological map of Ardabil (1:250,000). Geological Survey of IranGoogle Scholar
  46. Rezaei F, Safavi HR, Ahmadi A (2013) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using fuzzy logic: a case study in the Zayandehrood aquifers, Iran. J Environmental Management 51:267–277Google Scholar
  47. Sadeghfam S, Hassanzadeh Y, Nadiri AA, Zarghami M (2016) Localization of groundwater vulnerability assessment using catastrophe theory. Water Resour Manag 30(13):4585–4601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scanlon B, Healy R, Cook P (2002) Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrology Journal 10(1):18–39Google Scholar
  49. Sener E, Davraz A (2013) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability based on a modified DRASTIC model, GIS and an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method: the case of Egirdir Lake basin (Isparta, Turkey). J Hydrogeology 21:701–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sener E, Sener S, Davraz A (2009) Assessment of aquifer vulnerability based on GIS and DRASTIC methods: a case study of the Senirkent-Uluborlu Basin (Isparta, Turkey). Hydrogeol J 17:2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Şener E, Şener Ş (2015) Evaluation of groundwater vulnerability to pollution using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method. Environmental Earth Sciences 73:8405–8424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Su XS, Xu W, Du SH (2014a) Responses of groundwater vulnerability to artificial recharge under extreme weather conditions in Shijiazhuang City. China J Water Suppl: Res Technol–Aqua 63:224–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sugeno M (1985) Industrial application of fuzzy control. North-Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Tayfur G, Nadiri A, Moghaddam A (2014) Supervised intelligent committee machine method for hydraulic conductivity estimation. Water Resour Manag 28(4):1173–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. USEPA (2009) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA816-F-09-004Google Scholar
  56. WHO (2009). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Word Health Organization.Google Scholar
  57. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ata Allah Nadiri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maryam Gharekhani
    • 1
  • Rahman Khatibi
    • 2
  • Asghar Asghari Moghaddam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Natural SciencesUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  2. 2.GTEV-ReX LimitedSwindonUK

Personalised recommendations