4.2 Article

Evaluation of rock burst intensity based on annular grey target decision-making model with variable weight

期刊

ARABIAN JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCES
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s12517-018-4193-z

关键词

Rock burst; Annular grey target decision-making method; Variable weight; Bull's eye distance

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [185208001]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51609184]
  3. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0804600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rock burst is a dynamic and complex phenomenon caused by numerous factors in underground excavating. It is very difficult to make evaluations accurately, especially under incomplete information. In this paper, a methodology for rock burst intensity evaluation is proposed based on grey target decision-making theory and variable weight synthesis thought. Some main factors that influence rock burst intensity are systematically analyzed to establish the evaluation index system. A balance function is introduced to investigate the variability of attribute weight, and then the weights of contribution factors are determined by utilizing variable weight synthesis, in conjunction with grey entropy algorithm. With respect to incomplete information in reality, the annular grey target theory is first proposed to address risk level of rock burst. Different distribution sets of bull's eye distance are constructed to quantitatively represent corresponding intensity degree. Eventually, the application and performance comparison are carried out to demonstrate the feasibility and precision of the proposed model. It is demonstrated that the outcomes of the proposed model completely coincide with actual states. Compared with rough set theory and Russenes criterion, the proposed model can efficiently reduce decision ambiguity and produce a distinct risk measurement. It provides a new resolution for the research of rock burst evaluation under limited data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据