Engineering Geology

Engineering Geology

Prioritizing and Selecting the Best Subsurface Exploration Method in Sabzkooh Water Conveyance Tunnel (Zagros Mountains)

Authors
Masoud Zare Naghadehi
Seyed Davood mohammadi
Mostafa Karimi
10.18869/acadpub.jeg.12.2.293
Abstract
Introduction

The selection of the best subsurface exploration methods corresponding to geotechnical, topographical and economic circumstances of the project is one of the most effective factors in the success of a tunneling project. On the other hand, the development of a decision model and consequently choosing the most suitable alternatives are complex tasks. Therefore, prioritizing and selecting the best subsurface exploration methods, as the main aim of this study, can reduce the economic and social costs associated with the execution of a tunneling project. For this purpose, ten experts from tunneling community have been asked to weigh the chosen criteria of the problem in this research. A methodology utilized in this study is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) which proved useful in engineering decision-making problems. The other method is TOPSIS, one that has continuously been used in decision making in the recent decades. These two techniques have been combined and utilized in this work to rank the aforementioned exploration methods.





Material and methods

The study area is located about 109 km far from Shahrekord city amid the Zagros mountains. The Sabzkooh tunnel development plan has been under evaluation in the time that this research was being done. The geology of the area majorly encompasses sedimentary rocks which have been outcropped as folds, faults, and fractured and altered zones. However, the variety of the lithological units in the tunnel route is high, and units of limestone and shales also exist over the path.

In the first step, geological and topographic maps were produced for the study area, and general information from the tunnel path was collected and examined. Suitable exploration methods were evaluated, and six main methods were chosen to be considered as the alternatives of the study including (a) discontinuities study, (b) Lugeon tests, (c) RQD, (d) Geo-electric, (e) Gravimetry, and (f) Seismic methods. Moreover, nine criteria ranging from “volume of the available information” and “environmental impact” to “cost” and “accuracy” of the employed methods were taken into account. A pairwise comparison matrix was then developed, and the experts were asked to fill it out. The importance of each criterion was then simply calculated through this matrix. Alternatives pairwise comparison matrices were also filled out and, in this manner, the alternatives could be ranked using the AHP technique. Next, the TOPSIS technique was employed for the same purpose using a rather different process.

Results and discussion

Both AHP and TOPSIS techniques show very close results for ranking of the alternatives in this study. They rank the three Seismic, Geo-electric and Discontinuities studies methods as the best ones for the considered tunneling project. The only difference between these two techniques is how they determine the worst method. The AHP ranks the Lugeon as the last rank among the six methods whereas the TOPSIS determines the RQD as the least reliable method of exploration for the Sabzkooh tunnel project.





Conclusion

The prioritization and the subsequent selection of the most reliable exploration methods for an underground excavation project is a crucial task amid technical decisions. In this research, two major multi-criteria decision-making methods including AHP and TOPSIS were considered and applied for the Sabzkooh tunnel in Iran. The results indicate a high agreement between the two methodologies even though these two approaches decide differently on the least reliable methods to be applied.
Keywords
Decision making
Exploration methods
Tunnel excavation
Reliability
1. Saaty T. L., "Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory", 2nd Ed., PA: RWS Pub., Pittsburgh (2000). 2. Omkarprasad V., Sushil K., "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications", European Journal of Operational Research 169 (2004) 1-29. 3. Saaty T. L., "The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980). 4. Chen C., Liu Y., "A methodology for evaluation and classification of rock mass quality on tunnel engineering", Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 22 (4) (2007) 377-387. 5. Liu Y., Chen C., "A new approach for application of rock mass classification on rock slope stability assessment", Engineering Geology 89(1-2) (2007) 129-143. 6. Zare Naghadehi M., Mikaeil R., Ataei M., "The application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran", Expert Systems with Application 36 (2009) 8218-8226. 7. Mikaeil R., Zare Naghadehi M., Sereshki F., "Multifactorial Fuzzy Approach to the Penetrability Classification of TBM in Hard Rock Conditions", Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 500-505. 8. Mikaeil R., Zare Naghadehi M., Ataei M., KhaloKakaie R., "A Decision Support System Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and TOPSIS Approaches for Selection of the Optimum Underground Mining Method", Archives of Mining Sciences 54 (2) (2009) 341-368. 9. Azadeh A., Osanloo M., Ataei M., "A new approach to mining method selection based on modifying the Nicholas technique", Applied Soft Computing 10 (2010) 1040-1061. 10. Mikaeil R., Ataei M., Yousefi R., "Application of a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process to the prediction of vibrat ion during rock sawing", Mining Science and Technology (China) 21 (2011.) 611-619. 11. Azadeh A., Nazari-Shirkouhi S., Hatami-Shirkouhi L., Ansarinejad A., "A unique fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: computer simulation approach for productive operators’ assignment in cellular manufacturing systems with uncertainty and vagueness", The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 56 (2011.) 329-343. 12. Badri A., Nadeau S., Gbodossou A., "A new practical approach to risk management for underground mining project in Quebec", J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26 (2013) 1145-1158. 13. Meng Y., Tang D., Xu H., Li C., Li L., Meng S., "Geological controls and coalbed methane production potential evaluation: A case study in Liulin area, eastern Ordos Basin, China", Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 (2014) 95-111. 14. Kursunoglu N., Onder M., "Selection of an appropriate fan for an underground coal mine using the Analytic Hierarchy Process", Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 48 (2015) 101-109. 15. Ebrahimi M., Abdolshah M., Abdolshah S., "Developing a computer vision method based on AHP and feature ranking for ores type detection", Applied Soft Computing 49 (2016) 179-188. 16. Wang Q., Wang H., Qi Z., "An application of nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in safety evaluation of coal mine", Safety Science 86 (2016) 78-87. 17. Kant R., Sen P., Paul P. S., Kher A. A., "A Review of Approaches used for the Selection of Optimum Stoping Method in Hard Rock Underground Mine", International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 11 (11) (2016) 7483-7490. 18. Gligoric Z., Beljic C., Simeunovic V., "Shaft location selection at deep multiple orebody deposit by using fuzzy TOPSIS method and network optimization", Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2) (2010) 1408-1418. 19. Golestanifar M., Goshtasbi K., Jafarian M., Adnani S., "A multi-dimensional approach to the assessment of tunnel excavation methods", International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 48 (7) (2011) 1077-1085. 20. Pazand K., Hezarkhani A., Ataei M., "Using TOPSIS approaches for predictive porphyry Cu potential mapping: A case study in Ahar-Arasbaran area (NW, Iran)", Computers & Geosciences 49 (2012) 62-71. 21. Yazdani-Chamzini A., Haji Yakhchali S., "Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) selection using fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods", Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 30 (2012) 194-204. 22. Mikaeil M., Ozcelik Y., Yousefi R., Ataei M., Hosseini S. M., "Ranking the sawability of ornamental stone using Fuzzy Delphi and multi-criteria decision-making techniques", International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 118-126. 23. Mahdevari S., Shahriar K., Esfahanipour A., "Human health and safety risks management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS", Science of the Total Environment 488-489 (2014) 85-99. 24. Kusi-Sarpong S., Bai C., Sarkis J., Wang X., "Green supply chain practices evaluation in the mining industry using a joint rough sets and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology", Resources Policy 46(1) (2015) 86-100. 25. Abedi M., Norouzi G. H., "A general framework of TOPSIS method for integration of airborne geophysics, satellite imagery, geochemical and geological data", International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 46 (2016) 31-44. 26. شرکت مهندسین مشاور ایمن سازان، "گزارش مطالعات زمین‌شناسی عمومی پروژه سامانه انتقال آب سبزکوه به چغاخور" (1388). 27. Hashemi M., Moghaddas Sh., Ajalloeian R., "Application of Rock Mass Characterization for Determining the Mechanical Properties of Rock Mass: a Comparative Study", Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 43 (2010) 305-320. 28. Stocklin J., "Structural history and tectonics of Iran: A review", AAPG Bulletin 52 (l968) 1229-1258. 29. Çimren E. B., Çatay E., Budak N., "Development of a machine tool selection system using AHP", International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 35 (2007) 363-376.