Spatial multi criteria analysis of ground conditions in early stages railway planning using analytical hierarchy process applied to viaduct-type rail in Southern Sweden.

IF 8.4 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL Engineering Geology Pub Date : 2025-03-27 Epub Date: 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1016/j.enggeo.2025.107962
Joakim Robygd , Lars Harrie , Tina Martin
{"title":"Spatial multi criteria analysis of ground conditions in early stages railway planning using analytical hierarchy process applied to viaduct-type rail in Southern Sweden.","authors":"Joakim Robygd ,&nbsp;Lars Harrie ,&nbsp;Tina Martin","doi":"10.1016/j.enggeo.2025.107962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study applies a spatial multi-criteria analysis to assess ground suitability for pier-supported viaduct railways using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). By integrating expert judgments, the analysis evaluates six key geotechnical categories—soil type, soil depth, rock type, slope, wetness index, and groundwater occurrence—to map ground suitability. Three weight normalisation methods were tested to explore how different normalisation approaches affect the resulting suitability assessments. The results reveal significant variations in suitability maps, highlighting how different expert weighting strategies can influence decision-making during early-stage railway planning. Uncertainty maps were generated and used to identify areas requiring further investigation. The methodology is applied to an area in Southern Sweden, between the cities of Lund and Hässleholm to compare the weighting strategies over a relevant and geologically diverse area. A practical application comparing foundation types along identified routes showed that AHP-guided pathfinding achieved a clear preference for ground conditions suitable for non-piled foundations compared to a reference line. The method provides a systematic framework for preliminary geotechnical evaluations in railway planning, enabling more focused site investigations and supporting industrialized construction approaches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11567,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Geology","volume":"348 ","pages":"Article 107962"},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Geology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795225000584","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study applies a spatial multi-criteria analysis to assess ground suitability for pier-supported viaduct railways using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). By integrating expert judgments, the analysis evaluates six key geotechnical categories—soil type, soil depth, rock type, slope, wetness index, and groundwater occurrence—to map ground suitability. Three weight normalisation methods were tested to explore how different normalisation approaches affect the resulting suitability assessments. The results reveal significant variations in suitability maps, highlighting how different expert weighting strategies can influence decision-making during early-stage railway planning. Uncertainty maps were generated and used to identify areas requiring further investigation. The methodology is applied to an area in Southern Sweden, between the cities of Lund and Hässleholm to compare the weighting strategies over a relevant and geologically diverse area. A practical application comparing foundation types along identified routes showed that AHP-guided pathfinding achieved a clear preference for ground conditions suitable for non-piled foundations compared to a reference line. The method provides a systematic framework for preliminary geotechnical evaluations in railway planning, enabling more focused site investigations and supporting industrialized construction approaches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于层次分析法的瑞典南部高架桥型铁路规划早期地基条件空间多准则分析
本研究采用层次分析法(AHP)对桥墩式高架桥铁路的地基适宜性进行空间多准则分析。通过综合专家判断,该分析评估了六个关键岩土工程类别——土壤类型、土壤深度、岩石类型、坡度、湿度指数和地下水发生——以绘制地面适宜性图。测试了三种权重归一化方法,以探索不同的归一化方法如何影响结果的适用性评估。结果揭示了适宜性图的显著差异,突出了不同的专家权重策略如何影响早期铁路规划决策。生成了不确定性图,并用于确定需要进一步调查的区域。该方法应用于瑞典南部隆德市和Hässleholm市之间的一个地区,以比较相关和地质多样性地区的加权策略。通过对已确定路线沿线基础类型进行比较的实际应用表明,与参考线相比,ahp引导的寻路方法明显优先选择适合无桩基础的地基条件。该方法为铁路规划中的初步岩土工程评估提供了一个系统框架,使现场调查更加集中,并支持工业化施工方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Engineering Geology
Engineering Geology 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
12.20%
发文量
327
审稿时长
5.6 months
期刊介绍: Engineering Geology, an international interdisciplinary journal, serves as a bridge between earth sciences and engineering, focusing on geological and geotechnical engineering. It welcomes studies with relevance to engineering, environmental concerns, and safety, catering to engineering geologists with backgrounds in geology or civil/mining engineering. Topics include applied geomorphology, structural geology, geophysics, geochemistry, environmental geology, hydrogeology, land use planning, natural hazards, remote sensing, soil and rock mechanics, and applied geotechnical engineering. The journal provides a platform for research at the intersection of geology and engineering disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Green selective retention infrastructures for debris avalanche mitigation Structural effects on hydro-mechanical behavior of unsaturated Q3 loess: Integrated oedometer-CT analysis Integrating susceptibility, vulnerability and exposure for screening level sinkhole risk mapping in Metropolitan Rome (Italy) A 3D micromechanical multiscale fracture model for fluid flow in coupled fracture-matrix system Evaluation of in situ shear wave velocity anisotropy in clayey ground using multicomponent surface wave measurements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1