Spatial interpolation and radiological mapping of ambient gamma dose rate by using artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic methods

Yesilkanat C. M., Kobya Y., TASKIN H., ÇEVİK U.

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY, cilt.175, ss.78-93, 2017 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 175
  • Basım Tarihi: 2017
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2017.04.015
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.78-93
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Gamma dose rate, Artificial neural network, Fuzzy logic, Radiological risk maps, Interpolation, RADIOACTIVITY, SYSTEMS, ARTVIN, REGION, LEVEL, RIVER, AREA
  • Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

The aim of this study was to determine spatial risk dispersion of ambient gamma dose rate (AGDR) by using both artificial neural network (ANN) and fuzzy logic (FL) methods, compare the performances of methods, make dose estimations for intermediate stations with no previous measurements and create dose rate risk maps of the study area. In order to determine the dose distribution by using artificial neural networks, two main networks and five different network structures were used; feed forward ANN; Multi-layer perceptron (MLP), Radial basis functional neural network (RBFNN), Quantile regression neural network (QRNN) and recurrent ANN; Jordan networks QN), Elman networks (EN). In the evaluation of estimation performance obtained for the test data, all models appear to give similar results. According to the cross-validation results obtained for explaining AGDR distribution, Pearson's r coefficients were calculated as 0.94, 0.91, 0.89, 0.91, 0.91 and 0.92 and RMSE values were calculated as 34.78, 43.28, 63.92, 44.86, 46.77 and 37.92 for MLP, RBFNN, QRNN, JN, EN and FL, respectively. In addition, spatial risk maps showing distributions of AGDR of the study area were created by all models and results were compared with geological, topological and soil structure. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.