2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25121-9_8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic Profiling of the Seabottoms for Shallow Geological and Geotechnical Investigations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 3 shows the considered decision variants against the background of the remaining areas for which permits for the construction and use of artificial islands, structures and facilities for offshore wind farms have been issued [55]. Additionally, Figures 4-8 present the decision variants in the context of the quality of the seabed (Figure 4) [56], fishing areas ( Figure 5) [57], fishing routes ( Figure 6) [57], shipping density ( Figure 7) [58] and protected areas (Figure 8) [57]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 3 shows the considered decision variants against the background of the remaining areas for which permits for the construction and use of artificial islands, structures and facilities for offshore wind farms have been issued [55]. Additionally, Figures 4-8 present the decision variants in the context of the quality of the seabed (Figure 4) [56], fishing areas ( Figure 5) [57], fishing routes ( Figure 6) [57], shipping density ( Figure 7) [58] and protected areas (Figure 8) [57]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assessment of alternatives in terms of individual criteria was carried out linguistically and numerically by experts and based on commonly available numerical data. Figure 3 presents information on the locations provided for the considered wind farms in the scope of: (a) wind speed [38], (b) shipping density [39], (c) fishing density [40], (d) geotechnical conditions [41], (e) proximity to hydrocarbon reserves [42], (f) proximity to protected areas [39]. Based on the information presented graphically in Figure 3, the three field experts linguistically assessed the alternatives against the C2-C6 criteria and the assigned numerical TFNs values for C1 criterion.…”
Section: Model Of the Decision Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%