Skip to main content

Engineering application of fuzzy evaluation based on comprehensive weight in the selection of geophysical prospecting methods

Abstract

Faced with complex engineering geological problems, the application of comprehensive geophysical prospecting technologies allows for various technical achievements to complement each other, verify each other, reduce the ambiguity in geophysical prospecting results, and improve the accuracy of geophysical prospecting interpretations. At present, comprehensive geophysical prospecting is predominantly a simple synthesis of quantification, lacks effective intelligent decision-making methods, and cannot maintain pace with the development direction of future intelligent geophysical prospecting technologies. Therefore, this study proposes a geophysical prospecting selection evaluation method based on comprehensive weights to realize the transformation from empirical to scientific decision-making. In the proposed method, four criteria—specifically, detection accuracy, technical reliability, economic rationality, and data richness level—are first selected to establish an evaluation index system. Then, analytical hierarchy process and entropy weight method are used to combine subjective experience with objective data to form a comprehensive weight for the evaluation of geophysical prospecting selection through the fuzzy evaluation method. The efficacy of the proposed method was evaluated through application to karst exploration in the limestone mining area of the Hepu in Guangxi, for which an optimal geophysical prospecting scheme, composed of electrical resistivity tomography, microtremor survey method, and cross-hole resistivity computed tomography, was obtained. The scheme realizes the asymptotic detection of karst development from coarse to fine and improves the timeliness and economics of disaster management. These results verify the effectiveness and scientific soundness of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

References

  1. Abdullah L, Zulkifli N (2015) Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: an application to human resource management. Expert Syst Appl 42(9):4397–4409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Afshar A, Abedi M, Norouzi GH (2015) Geophysical investigation of underground water content zones using electrical resistivity tomography and ground penetrating radar: a case study in Hesarak-Karaj, Iran. Eng Geol 196:183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asadi M, Bagheripour MH, Eftekhari M (2013) Development of optimal fuzzy models for predicting the strength of intact rocks. Comput Geosci-UK 54:107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bao F, Li ZW, Tian BF (2019) Sediment thickness variations of the Tangshan fault zone in North China from a dense seismic array and microtremor survey. J Asian Earth Sci 185

  5. Braitenberg C, Sampietro D, Pivetta T (2016) Gravity for detecting caves: airborne and terrestrial simulations based on a comprehensive karstic cave benchmark. Pure Appl Geophys 173(4):1243–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carrière SD, Chalikakis K, Sénéchal G (2013) Combining electrical resistivity tomography and ground penetrating radar to study geological structuring of karst unsaturated zone. J Appl Geophys 94:31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Confalonieri R, Bregaglio S, Bocchi S (2010) An integrated procedure to evaluate hydrological models. Hydrol Process 24(19):2762–2770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Danielsen JE, Auken E (2003) The application of the transient electromagnetic method in hydrogeophysical surveys. J Appl Geophys 53(4):181–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis JL, Annan AP (2010) Ground-penetrating radar for high-resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophys Prospect 37(5):531–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Deceuster J, Delgranche J, Kaufmann O (2006) 2D cross-borehole resistivity tomographies below foundations as a tool to design proper remedial actions in covered karst. J Appl Geophys 60(1):68–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dyer JS (2011) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 36(3):249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Feizizadeh B, Roodposhti MS, Jankowski P (2014) A GIS-based extended fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation for landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput Geosci-UK 73:208–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fu YV, Gao Y, Li AB (2016) The anisotropic structure in the crust in the northern part of North China from ambient seismic noise tomography. Geophys J Int 204(3):1649–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gao CL (2017) The risk assessment of tunnels based on Grey correlation and entropy weight method. Geotech Geol Eng 36(3):1621–1631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gómez-Ortiz D, Martín-Crespo T (2012) Assessing the risk of subsidence of a sinkhole collapse using ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity tomography. Eng Geol 149:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huang HD, Zhao D, Zhang RW (2010) Seismic attribute optimization method based on grey relational analysis and genetic algorithm. Oil Geophys Prospect 45(3):381–383

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jamshidi-Zanjani A, Rezaei M (2017) Landfill site selection using combination of fuzzy logic and multi-attribute decision-making approach. Environ Earth Sci 76(13)

  18. Jeannin PY, Malard A, Rickerl D (2015) Assessing karst-hydraulic hazards in tunneling-the Brunnmuhle spring system-Bernese Jura, Switzerland. Environ Earth Sci 74(12):7655–7670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jenifer MA, Jha MK (2017) Comparison of analytic hierarchy process, catastrophe and entropy techniques for evaluating groundwater prospect of hard-rock aquifer systems. J Hydrol 548:605–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kai L (2011) Progress of surface wave exploration technology in engineering exploration. Chin J Eng Geophys 8(01):97–104

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lan JB, Xu Y, Huo LA (2006) Research on weight of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Syst Eng Theory Pract 09:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  22. Li TB, Meng LB, Zhu J (2009) Comprehensive analysis method of tunnel advanced geological prediction. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 28(12):2429–2436

    Google Scholar 

  23. Liu Z, Shao J, Xu W (2014) Comprehensive stability evaluation of rock slope using the cloud model-based approach. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(6):2239–2252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu B, Liu ZY, Li SC (2017) Comprehensive surface geophysical investigation of karst caves ahead of the tunnel face: a case study in the Xiaoheyan section of the water supply project from Songhua River, Jilin, China. J Appl Geophys 144:37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lv ZF, Pu SM, Wang SX (2015) Application of comprehensive geophysical prospecting method in landslide stability evaluation. Chin J Geotech Eng 37:142–147

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ma FS, Di QY, Li KP (2016) Application of high-density resistivity method in detecting water bearing structures at a seabed gold mine. Chin J Geophys 59(6):717–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ma F, He J, Ma J (2017) Evaluation of urban green transportation planning based on central point triangle whiten weight function and entropy-AHP. Transp Res Proc 25:3638–3648

    Google Scholar 

  28. Martínez-Moreno FJ, Galindo-Zaldívar J, Pedrera A (2014) Integrated geophysical methods for studying the karst system of Gruta de las Maravillas (Aracena, Southwest Spain). J Appl Geophys 107:149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Newman GA (2010) Deep transient electromagnetic soundings with a grounded source over near-surface conductors. Geophys J Int 98(3):587–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Oh HJ, Pradhan B (2011) Application of a neuro-fuzzy model to landslide-susceptibility mapping for shallow landslides in a tropical hilly area. Comput Geosci-UK 37(9):1264–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Orlando L, Cardarelli E, Cercato M (2017) Pavement testing by integrated geophysical methods: feasibility, resolution and diagnostic potential. J Appl Geophys 136:462–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pace F, Godio A, Santilano A (2019) Joint optimization of geophysical data using multi-objective swarm intelligence. Geophys J Int 218(3):1502–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B (2013) Application of weights-of-evidence and certainty factor models and their comparison in landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Arab J Geosci 6(7):2351–2365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sener E, Sener S (2015) Evaluation of groundwater vulnerability to pollution using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method. Environ Earth Sci 73(12):8405–8424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Su MX, Qian QH, Li SC (2011) An advance geology prediction method of urban subway under karst geological conditions. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 30(7):1428–1434

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sun TX, Hao JX, Niu JX (2013) The application of Ture reflection tomography and drilling comprehensive advanced geological forecast technology to the mine. Chin J Eng Geophys 10(01):123–126

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sun HF, Cheng M, Su CX (2017) Characterization of shallow karst using electrical resistivity imaging in a limestone mining area. Environ Earth Sci 76(22)

  38. Theodoridou PG, Varouchakis EA, Karatzas GP (2017) Spatial analysis of groundwater levels using fuzzy logic and geostatistical tools. J Hydrol 555:242–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang J (2012) The application of seismic wave exploration method to the detection of goaf in small coal mine. Geophys Geochem Explor 36(135):124–127

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wang XH, Yang ZH, Hong DJ (2019) Comprehensive geophysical interpretation of the deep geological structure in northern Nanjing-Wuhu basin. J Geol 43(02):288–295

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilken D, Rabbel W (2012) On the application of particle swarm optimization strategies on Scholte-wave inversion. Geophys J Int 190(1):580–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Xu PF, Ling SQ, Li CJ (2012) Mapping deeply-buried geothermal faults using microtremor array analysis. Geophys J Int 188(1):115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Xu S, Xu D, Liu L (2019) Construction of regional informatization ecological environment based on the entropy weight modified ahp hierarchy model. Sustain Comput 22:26–31

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yang JQ, Qian RY, Deng GL (2012) Applied research Rayleigh wave refraction tomography and cross-borehole seismic CT exploration in survey of Bedrock foundation. Chin J Eng Geophys 9(02):231–237

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang K, Tannant DD, Zheng W (2018) Prediction of karst for tunnelling using fuzzy assessment combined with geological investigations. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 80:64–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Much of the work presented in this paper was supported by the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (grant number ZR2014EEM028), National Natural Science Foundations of China (grant numbers 41877239, 51379112, 51422904, 40902084), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant number 2018JC044), and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (grant number 2019GSF111028 and JQ201513). We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.cn) for English language editing.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiguo Xue.

Ethics declarations

Accompanied statements

All authors agree with the submission. The work has not been published elsewhere, either completely, in part, or in another form. The manuscript has not been submitted to another journal.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Communicated by: H. Babaie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, M., Li, C., Xue, Y. et al. Engineering application of fuzzy evaluation based on comprehensive weight in the selection of geophysical prospecting methods. Earth Sci Inform (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-021-00701-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Comprehensive geophysical prospecting
  • Comprehensive weight
  • Analytical hierarchy process
  • Entropy weight method
  • Fuzzy evaluation