Search results for: grade uncertainty

Authors: Joyjit Dey, Souvik Sen

Abstract:

Middle Permian Barakar formation is the major economic coal bearing unit of vast east-west trending Damodar Valley basin of Gondwana coalfield. Primary sedimentary structures were studied from the core holes, which represent majorly four facies groups: sandstone dominated facies, sandstone-shale heterolith facies, shale facies and coal facies. Total eight major coal seams have been identified with the bottom most seam being the thickest. Laterally, continuous coal seams were deposited in the calm and quiet environment of extensive floodplain swamps. Channel sinuosity and lateral channel migration/avulsion results in lateral facies heterogeneity and coal splitting. Geophysical well logs (Gamma-Resistivity-Density logs) have been used to establish the vertical and lateral correlation of various litho units field-wide, which reveals the predominance of repetitive fining upwards cycles. Well log data being a permanent record, offers a strong foundation for generating log based property evaluation and helps in characterization of depositional units in terms of lateral and vertical heterogeneity. Low gamma, high resistivity, low density is the typical coal seam signatures in geophysical logs. Here, we have used a density cutoff of 1.6 g/cc as a primary discriminator of coal and the same has been employed to compute various coal assay parameters, which are ash, fixed carbon, moisture, volatile content, cleat porosity, vitrinite reflectance (VRo%), which were calibrated with the laboratory based measurements. The study shows ash content and VRo% increase from west to east (towards basin margin), while fixed carbon, moisture and volatile content increase towards west, depicting increased coal quality westwards. Seam wise cleat porosity decreases from east to west, this would be an effect of overburden, as overburden pressure increases westward with the deepening of basin causing more sediment packet deposited on the western side of the study area. Coal is a porous, viscoelastic material in which velocity and strain both change nonlinearly with stress, especially for stress applied perpendicular to the bedding plane. Usually, the coal seam has a high velocity contrast relative to its neighboring layers. Despite extensive discussion of the maceral and chemical properties of coal, its elastic characteristics have received comparatively little attention. The measurement of the elastic constants of coal presents many difficulties: sample-to-sample inhomogeneity and fragility and velocity dependence on stress, orientation, humidity, and chemical content. In this study, a conclusive empirical equation VS= 0.80VP-0.86 has been used to model shear velocity from compression velocity. Also the same has been used to compute various geomechanical moduli. Geomech analyses yield a Poisson ratio of 0.348 against coals. Average bulk modulus value is 3.97 GPA, while average shear modulus and Young’s modulus values are coming out as 1.34 and 3.59 GPA respectively. These middle Permian Barakar coals show an average 23.84 MPA uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) with 4.97 MPA cohesive strength and 0.46 as friction coefficient. The output values of log based proximate parameters and geomechanical moduli suggest a medium volatile Bituminous grade for the studied coal seams, which is found in the laboratory based core study as well.

Keywords: core analysis, coal characterization, geophysical log, geo-mechanical moduli

Procedia PDF Downloads 220

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 580