Evaluation of Floor Water Inrush based on Fractal Theory and an Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process

Wang, Xinyi; Wang, Tiantian; Wang, Qi; Liu, Xiaoman; Li, Renzheng; Liu, BaoJin

doi:10.1007/s10230-016-0407-3

Cited by 36 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Determining the weight value of each index factor is the key to evaluate the degree of karst development, and the selection of the most appropriate methodology is crucial for ensuring the accuracy of the identification results. At present, the methods commonly used to determine weights are the analytic hierarchy process and the entropy weight method [25][26][27].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Evaluation of Karst Developmental Differences Based on Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multidimensional Extension Matter Element Model

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, limestone solubility, rock thickness, burial depth, hydrodynamic cycle, and geological tectonic of mine No. 13 in the Pingdingshan coalfield (China) were selected to evaluate the degree of karst development. The weight of each index factor to the karst development was determined by using the improved analytic hierarchy process. The multidimensional extensional matter model was used to determine the degree of karst development of the four mining areas (named 1st to 4th) of the Pingdingshan mine No. 13. The results show that the degree of karst development differs zonally, with 1st and 2nd mining areas presenting the lowest degree of karst development (grade II-IV, for an average quantification value of 3.0) and 4th mining area having the highest degree (grade IV-V, for an average quantification value of 4.7). In the vertical direction, the development degree of the vertical layer L1-L4 karst in the Carboniferous Taiyuan Formation is grade IV-V, with an average quantitative value of 4.5, whereas the layers L5-L7 in the Taiyuan Formation had a III-V grade, with an average quantitative value of 3.75, and the Cambrian limestone grade was II-IV, for an average quantitative value of 2.75, i.e., the development degree of karst gradually decreases from shallow to deep.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Evaluation of Karst Developmental Differences Based on Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multidimensional Extension Matter Element Model

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The more complex the geological structure, the more developed the fractures, and the better the groundwater potential. Geological structural complexity can be quantified by the fractal dimensions of faults and folds, which are synthetic indices that characterise scale, number and dynamic mechanism (Wang et al 2016). There were 116 samples in the study area.…”

Section: Evaluation Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

An attribute recognition model to predict the groundwater potential of sandstone aquifers in coal mines

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The groundwater potential prediction of sandstone aquifers is an important prerequisite for the implementation of reasonable and effective measures to prevent mine water inrush disasters. In this study, an attribute recognition model was combined with entropy weighting to predict the groundwater potential of sandstone aquifers in coal mines. Five evaluation indices were selected to predict groundwater potential, such as sandstone thickness, sandstone lithology coefficient, flushing fluid consumption, fracture fractal dimension and fold fractal dimension. On the basis of data analysis, the groundwater potential was classified into four levels. Confidence and improved score criteria were applied to attribute recognition. The main advantages of this model are that it enables both the prediction and quantification of the groundwater potential of sandstone aquifers. The model's results were compared with those from a comprehensive geographic information system evaluation. The final model results were in good agreement with the observed results, proving that this attribute recognition model is accurate and effective for groundwater potential prediction.

show abstract

“…Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a common method in geological environment quality evaluation [15][16][17][18][19]. This paper determines the weight of each evaluation factor by expert scoring, and uses the evaluation module developed by MapGIS platform to make the geological environment quality evaluation result more scientific and reasonable.…”

Section: Ahp-based Geological Environment Quality Assessment Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geo-environmental Quality Evaluation Based on GIS in Shiyan-Wudang Mountain Area

Wang¹

2019

IJEPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Shiyan-Wudang Mountain area is located in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Area, the upper reaches of the Han River, the hinterland of the Qinba Mountain Range. The main geological environmental problems in the region include collapse, landslides, debris flow, ground collapses, and ground fissures, which seriously restrict local economic development. Based on the analysis and summary of the distribution, development characteristics, formation conditions and influencing factors of geological disasters in this area, the multiple comparisons is used to select the formation complex, slope, distance from the fault zone, water yield property, distance from surface water system, average annual rainfall, mountain disaster point density, soil erosion, and human engineering activity intensity as the evaluation indicators, the geological environment quality evaluation index system of Shiyan-Wudang Mountain area was established; Geographic information system (GIS) technology is used to carry out hierarchical management of basic maps, and establish a spatial database of geological environment conditions. The analytic hierarchy process is used to determine the weight of the index system. The evaluation module developed by MapGIS platform is used to evaluate the geological environment quality of the study area. Respectively, the area of geological environment with best quality, good, poor and worst areas accounted for 56.805%, 22.800%, 16.474%, and 3.921%. The results show that the geological environment quality of the study area is generally good, and some areas are poor, and very few are bad. The calculated evaluation map is compared with the current geological disaster points, and the results verify the accuracy and scientificity of the evaluation process and results. The research results of this paper can provide a basis for regional geological environment management, planning, disaster prevention and mitigation.

show abstract

Evaluation of Floor Water Inrush based on Fractal Theory and an Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process

Cited by 36 publications

References 14 publications

Quantitative Evaluation of Karst Developmental Differences Based on Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multidimensional Extension Matter Element Model

Quantitative Evaluation of Karst Developmental Differences Based on Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multidimensional Extension Matter Element Model

An attribute recognition model to predict the groundwater potential of sandstone aquifers in coal mines

Geo-environmental Quality Evaluation Based on GIS in Shiyan-Wudang Mountain Area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About