Application of Fuzzy Sets to the Subdivision of Geological Units

  • Marek Kacewicz
Part of the Computer Applications in the Earth Sciences book series (CAES)


An automatic subdivision of the lithologic series into units is difficult because of the complexity of available geological information. Classical algorithms usually are based on the assumption that all values of the considered features are given in the numerical form. It is convenient to simplify the analytical process, but it is connected with associate error. Features described in other forms seem to bring us more information about objects. For example, the subject concerns linguistic form — words or sentences from natural or artificial languages, or new forms of describing of data — that is fuzzy sets. We assume that the geological environment is represented by a given set of features, and three forms of describing of data are allowed: numerical, linguistic, and a fuzzy one. Every sample is characterized by a vector. We introduce distances for the considered types of characters and unify their values by transformation to the unit interval. It enables us to determine a simple formula to calculate distances between samples and as a result an algorithm for subdivision of the investigated lithologic series. The algorithm was programmed in FORTRAN IV language for engineering geology problems.


Membership Function Fuzzy Cluster Geological Environment Linguistic Term Classical Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bezdek, J.C., 1981, Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms: Plenum Press, New York and London, 256 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bugayets, A.N., Zhaumitov, B.Zh., Lobova, O.Y., and Maximienko, L.A., 1979, The software for solving problems of ore deposits: Hornicka Pribram ve Vede a Technice, Pribram, p. 715-721.Google Scholar
  3. Full, W.E., Ehrlich, R.E., and Bezdek, J.C., 1982, FUZZY QMODEL — a new approach for linear unmixing: Jour. Math. Geology, v. 14, no. 3, p. 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fung, L.W., and Fu, K.S., 1975, Axiomatic approach to rational decision making in a fuzzy environment, in Fuzzy sets and their application to cognitive and decision processes: Academic Press, New York, p. 227–256.Google Scholar
  5. Oden, G.C., 1977, Fuzziness in semantic memory: Memory & Cognition Jour., v. 5, no. 2, p. 198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rao, S.V.L.N., and Prasad, J., 1982, Definition of kriging in terms of fuzzy logic: Jour. Math. Geology, v. 14, no. 1, p. 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R., 1973, Numerical taxonomy: W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 572 p.Google Scholar
  8. Tanaka, K., and Mizumoto, M., 1975, Fuzzy programs and their execution, in Fuzzy sets and their application to cognitive and decision processes: Academic Press, New York, p. 41–76.Google Scholar
  9. Yager, R.R., 1979, On the measure of fuzziness and negation. Part 1: Membership in the unit interval: Rept. RRY 79-016, Sch. of Business Administration, New Rochelle, New York, 15 p.Google Scholar
  10. Zadeh, L.A., 1965, Fuzzy sets: Inform, and Control, v. 8, no. 3, p. 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marek Kacewicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Warsaw UniversityPoland

Personalised recommendations