Natural Resources Research ( 2017)

DOI: 10.1007/s11053-017-9338-3

Original Paper

Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–

Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence: A Case Study for
Porphyry-Cu, Farmahin Area, Markazi Province, Iran

Faranak Feizi,1,3 Amirabbas Karbalaei-Ramezanali,2 and Hosein Tusi1

Received 15 December 2016; accepted 9 April 2017

This paper presents an AHP–Shannon Entropy weighting approach as a new hybrid method
for assigning evidential weights in mineral potential mapping. For demonstrating the pro-
posed method, a case study was selected for porphyry-Cu potential mapping in Markazi
Province, Iran. Then, geo-datasets were gathered, and evidence layers were generated for
integration by TOPSIS method (via combination of AHP–Shannon Entropy weighting).
Finally, the output mineral potential map was evaluated by field checking and chemical
analysis of samples. Two outcrops with evidence of a porphyry system were encountered in
areas with high potential values. In addition, there was good correlation between high
potential values and Cu content of samples taken from the field. Hence, the usefulness of the
AHP–Shannon Entropy weighting of evidence for MPM was demonstrated.
KEY WORDS: AHP–Shannon Entropy, TOPSIS, Mineral potential modeling, Porphyry-Cu.

INTRODUCTION of interest (Yousefi and Carranza 2014, 2015a, b, c;

The first step toward discovering new mineral
deposits, as the ultimate purpose of mineral explo-
ration, is to delineate prospective zones within a
region of interest. For mineral potential modeling or
mineral prospectivity mapping (MPM) in the region
of interest, numerous spatial datasets should be
compiled, analyzed and integrated in a geographic
information system or GIS (Bonham-Carter 1994;
Carranza 2008; Abedi et al. 2013; Najafi et al. 2014;
Feizi et al. 2017). MPM is a typical multiple criteria
decision-making (MCDM) function that results in a
predictive model of prospective zones in the region
1
Mining Engineering Department, South Tehran Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2
Young Researchers and Elite Club, South Tehran Branch, Is-
lamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3
To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail:
faranakfeizi@gmail.com
Yousefi et al. 2014).
In MCDM, there are three categories of
weighting methods (Wang et al. 2009): subjective,
objective and combination of subjective and objec-
tive weighting methods. (1) Subjective weighting is
based on expert judgment, for example by using the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1980). (2)
Objective weighting is achieved by solving mathe-
matical models, for example by using the Shannon
Entropy method (Lotfi and Fallahnejad 2010). (3)
When neither subjective nor objective weighting is
suitable, a combination of subjective and objective
weighting methods could be used, for example
AHP–Shannon Entropy as proposed in this paper.
These categories of weighting methods for MCDM
correspond to different types of methods for MPM.
Subjective weighting corresponds to knowledge-
driven MPM whereby evidential class weights
are estimated using expert judgment (e.g.,

 2017 International Association for Mathematical Geosciences


Bonham-Carter 1994; Carranza and Hale 2001;
Rogge et al. 2006). Objective weighting by solving
mathematical models corresponds to data-driven
MPM whereby evidential class weights are calculated
based on locations of known mineral occurrences
(e.g., Bonham-Carter 1994; Porwal et al. 2003). The
combination of subjective and objective weighting
corresponds to hybrid of knowledge- and data-driven
MPM methods (e.g., Porwal et al. 2004, 2006).
Among the various methods for MCDM, the
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a popular one
(Dağdeviren et al. 2009). It is a proper way to
identify a suitable design solution by evaluating
several selected cases. The usefulness of the
TOPSIS method for MPM was demonstrated by
many researchers (e.g., Pazand et al. 2012; Pazand
and Hezarkhani 2015; Abedi and Norouzi 2016;
Asadi et al. 2016). Earlier, applications of the
TOPSIS method for MPM based on subjective
weighting were performed by a group of geo-
science experts as a decision-making team (e.g.,
Pazand et al. 2012; Abedi and Norouzi 2016) or by
using AHP (e.g., Pazand and Hezarkhani 2015;
Asadi et al. 2016).
In this paper, we propose a novel application of
TOPSIS to MPM whereby the Shannon Entropy, as
an objective weighting method, is combined with
AHP, as a subjective weighting method. The Shan-
non Entropy technique was used in various scientific
fields (Lotfi and Fallahnejad 2010), particularly in
spectral analysis (Burg 1972) and mathematics
(Kosko 1986); however, this method has been never
used for weighting in MPM. The accuracy of the
final mineral potential map was evaluated by field
checking and chemical analysis of samples in order
to prove the efficiency of the proposed methodol-
ogy.
METHODS
Assignment of Weights for MPM
The AHP Method
The AHP uses hierarchical structures for solv-
ing a problem and for developing priorities to
alternatives according to the users judgment (Saaty
1980). The AHP involves three steps (Macharis et al.
2004; Najafi et al. 2014; Feizi et al. 2017):
Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi
Table 1. Scales for pairwise comparison. (Saaty 1980)
Preferences expressed in Preferences expressed in
numeric variables linguistic variables
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between
adjacent scale values
1. Construction of hierarchy: A hierarchical
structure is constructed with decision ele-
ments for decomposing the complex issue.
2. Priority setting: The pairwise comparison of
criteria is done by the decision maker using
the comparison scale specified in Table 1. If
C = {Cj|j = 1, 2,…, n} is the set of criteria,
Eq. 1 is an n 9 n evaluation matrix of n cri-
teria for priority setting where aij (i, j = 1,
2,…, n) represents weights of the criteria
(Abedi et al. 2013):
2 3
a11 a12 . . . a1n
6 7
6 a21 a22 . . . a2n 7
6 7
A¼6 6: : : : 7 7;
6 7 ð1Þ
4: : : : 5
an1 an2 . . . ann
aii ¼ 1; a1=ji ¼ 1; aji 6¼ 0:
Thus, normalizing and finding the relative
weights for each matrix are performed. The
relative weights (AW) are calculated by
multiplying the largest eigenvalue (kmax)
with the eigenvector (W); thus,
AW ¼ kmax W: ð2Þ
3. Logical consistency: The quality of the out-
put of the AHP is strictly related to the
consistency of the pairwise comparison
judgments (Abedi et al. 2013). The consis-
tency ratio (CR) is the measurement crite-
rion for the quality of AHP. The final CR is
calculated as the ratio of the consistency in-
dex (CI) and the random index (RI). The CI
is calculated as:
kmax  n
CI ¼ : ð3Þ
n1
The value of RI is chosen for the respective
value of n (Table 2), and the CR is:
Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence

Table 2. Some random inconsistency indices (RI) generated by Saaty (1980)

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

CR ¼
CI
: k ¼ ðlnðmÞÞ1 :
RI
The Shannon Entropy Method
The method of Shannon Entropy originated
when Shannon (1948) first introduced the applica-
tion of entropy in communication theory. In this
method, the distribution of data and the probability
of occurrence of an event are calculated (Kang et al.
2007). The Shannon Entropy has been used for
weighting in many MCDM issues (e.g., Wang and
Lee 2009; Muley and Bajaj 2010). In MCDM, events
are criteria, and the probability of occurrence an
event is the weight of each criterion (Kang et al.
2007; Wang and Lee 2009). This concept is suit-
able for MPM.
The method of Shannon Entropy consists of the
following steps (Wang and Lee 2009):
Step 1: Create a decision matrix. Suppose there
m alternatives Ai (i = 1, 2,…, m) to be evaluated
against n selection criteria Fi (i = 1, 2, …,n). The
decision matrix D = {fij, i = 1,2,…,m; j = 1,2,…,n}
can be expressed as:
ð5Þ
Step 4: Calculate the degree of divergence di of
the intrinsic information of each criterion as:
dj ¼ 1  ej : ð9Þ
The higher dj is, the more important the criterion cj
is for the problem.
Step 5: The objective weight for each criterion
based on Shannon Entropy method can be estimated
as:
dj
w j ¼ Pn : ð10Þ
k¼1 dk
This concept of Shannon Entropy allows combi-
nation with subjective weighting methods (Wang
et al. 2009). The formula for combining Shannon
Entropy weights and subjective weights is (Wang
et al. 2009):
AW dj
w0j ¼ Pn : ð11Þ
k¼1 AW dk
AW is the subjective weight of each criterion. To use
this formula in the proposed methodology, AW is the
weight of each criterion based on AHP (Eq. 2) and
dj is the weight of the same criterion obtained from
Shannon Entropy method (Eq. 10). Thus, w0j is a
hybrid weight obtained through AHP and Shannon
Entropy (AHP–Shannon Entropy weight).

Step 2: Calculate the normalized decision ma- Integration via TOPSIS

trix. In order to determine weights by Shannon
Entropy, the decision matrix should be normalized In the TOPSIS method, which was first
for each criterion Fi (i = 1, 2, …,n) to calculate introduced by Yoon and Hwang (1981), the best
normalized value rij as: alternative has the shortest spacing (or distance)
Xm from the positive-ideal solution and the farthest
rij ¼ fij = f ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n: ð6Þ
i¼1 ij
spacing from the negative-ideal solution. The
‘‘alternative’’ concept in MPM refers to ‘‘cell va-
Step 3: Calculate the entropy values ej as: lue.’’ In the other words, each cell value in spatial
Xn
ej ¼ k r lnðrij Þ: ð7Þ datasets is an alternative. The TOPSIS procedure
j¼1 ij
consists of the following steps (Dagdeviren et al.
where the constant k is defined as: 2009):
 Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi

Step 1: Create a decision matrix as:

mij ¼ w0j rij ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n; i ¼ 1; . . . ; J:
0
where Pwn j is the weight of the ith attribute or criterion
0
and i¼1 j w ¼ 1. To use this formula in the pro-
posed methodology, w0j is the AHP–Shannon En-
ð12Þ tropy weight of each criterion as obtained from
Eq. 11.
Step 4: Determine the positive-ideal and nega-
tive-ideal solutions as:
   
where Ai denotes the alternatives i, i = 1, 2, …, J; Fj Aþ ¼ mþ þ
¼ ðmaxmij ji 2 I 0 Þ; ðminmij ji 2 I 00 Þ :
1 ; . . . ; mn
represents jth criterion or attribute, j = 1, 2, …, n
ð15Þ
relates to ith alternative; and fij is a crisp value
indicating the performance rating of each alternative    
A ¼ m 
1 ; . . . ; mn ¼ ðminmij ji 2 I 0 Þ; ðmaxmij ji 2 I 00 Þ :
Ai with respect to each criterion Fj.
Step 2: Calculate the normalized decision ma- ð16Þ
trix. The normalized value rij is calculated as: where I¢ is associated with benefit criteria and I¢¢ is
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xj associated with cost criteria. In MPM, those cri-
rij ¼ fij = j¼1 ij
f 2 ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n; i ¼ 1; . . . ; J: ð13Þ teria with positive and negative influence on
mineral potential are benefit and cost criteria,
Step 3: Calculate the weighted normalized respectively.
decision matrix. The weighted normalized value mij is Step 5: The separation of each alternative from
calculated as: the positive-ideal solution ðDþ
j Þ is estimated as:

Figure 1. Physiographic tectonic zoning map of Irans sedimentary basins [modified from Arian (2013)] and location of study area.
Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence

Figure 2. Generalized 1:100,000 scale geological map of the study area located in
Markazi Province of Iran.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xn der. The CC of the alternative Ai with respect to A+
2
Dþ
j ¼ i¼1 ij
ðm  mþ i Þ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; J: is defined as:
The separation of each alternative from the nega- D
j
tive-ideal solution ðD CCþ
j ¼ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; J; CCþ
j 2 ½0; 1:
j Þ is estimated as: Dþ
j þ D
J
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xn
D ðm  m 2 ð19Þ
j ¼ i¼1 ij i Þ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; J: ð18Þ
The larger the value of CCjþ , the better the perfor-
Step 6: Calculate the closeness coefficient (CC)
mance of the alternatives.
to the ideal solution and rank the performance or-
 Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi

Figure 3. Intrusive rocks extracted from 1:100,000 scale geological map of the study
area.

THE STUDY AREA breccia, crystal vitric–lithic tuff and trachyan-

Geological Setting
The Farmahin area is situated within the
Urumieh–Dokhtar magmatic arc in central Iran
(Fig. 1). The Urumieh–Dokhtar magmatic arc hosts
the majority of the larger metal deposits (Feizi and
Mansouri 2013a), especially porphyry-Cu deposits.
The Farmahin area is underlain by carbonates,
volcanic and intrusive rocks (Fig. 2). Post-Eocene
micro-monzodiorite to micro-monzogabbro, dior-
ite–quartz diorite and micro-dioritic dykes, dark
gray dibasic, andesitic to basaltic, quartz trachyan-
desitic and andesitic dykes are important intrusive
units in the study area. Gray acidic to basic tuff
desitic–andesitic lavas are important host rocks in
the Farmahin area. Argillic (alunite, kaolinite and
montmorillonite), phyllic zone (illite, muscovite
and quartz) and iron oxide (goethite, hematite, li-
monite and jarosite) alteration types have been
observed to be associated with porphyry-Cu min-
eralization in the study area.
Porphyry-Cu Deposit Model
Porphyry-Cu deposits are genetically and spa-
tially associated with intermediate to felsic por-
phyritic intrusions (Sillitoe 2010). In the study area,
heat sources as well as hosts of porphyry-Cu deposits
Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence

Figure 4. Host rocks extracted from 1:100,000 scale geological map of the study area.

are mainly post-Eocene intermediate intrusive units.
Intrusive rocks of the Farmahin area were formed in
the eastern part of the study area during successive
magmatic activities in post-Eocene. Porphyry-Cu
deposits are distinguished from other granite-related
deposits by their great size and features that reflect
structural control such as porphyry stock, stock-
works, vein sets, veins, fractures and breccias (Silli-
toe 2010). Porphyry-Cu deposits are formed from
post-magmatic fluids (Singer et al. 2005). When
magma solidifies, high-temperature and (often)
mineral-rich fluids are released into its surrounding
host rocks (Sillitoe 2010). The fluids travel through
fractures and cracks, which facilitate the circulation
of hydrothermal fluids and the formation of
hydrothermal alterations in the invaded rocks.
Potassic, phyllic, argillic, propylitic and iron oxide
have been considered as main hydrothermal alter-
ations associated with porphyry-Cu mineralization
in the study area (Feizi and Mansouri 2012). Fault
zones act as channels for deeply sourced magmatic
hydrothermal fluids (Pirajno 2010). Large ring
structures are known to be very important for
reconnaissance exploration of porphyry-Cu deposits
in Iran (Mirzababaei and Shahabpour 2014). Ring
structures are large circular- or elliptical-shaped
features associated with hydrothermal alteration
zones, which are partly recognized on satellite ima-
ges. In porphyry-Cu deposits, magnetic anomalies
reflect the location of alteration zones (Abedi and
Norouzi 2012): weak local magnetic highs occur over
the potassic zone; low magnetic intensity occurs over
the argillic; and magnetic intensities increase grad-
ually over the propylitic zone.

Figure 5. Argillic alterations extracted from processed ASTER data.
Spatial Datasets
In this paper, all evidential layers have been
extracted from satellite imagery, geological map and
airborne geophysical data. These layers were se-
lected based on the experiences derived from prior
porphyry-Cu exploration in the Farmahin area. The
following evidential layers were used as the principal
regional-scale criteria for porphyry-Cu prospecting
in the Farmahin area: heat sources (intrusive rocks),
host rocks, alteration layers of argillic, phyllic and
iron oxide, ring structures and airborne magnetic
anomalies.
The evidential layers of heat sources and host
rock lithology were generated from the geological
map. Micro-monzodiorite to micro-monzogabbro,
diorite–quartz diorite and micro-dioritic dykes, dark
Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi
gray dibasic, andesitic to basaltic, quartz trachyan-
desitic and andesitic dykes were considered as heat
source lithologies (Fig. 3). In addition, gray acidic to
basic tuff breccia, crystal vitric–lithic tuff, trachyan-
desitic–andesitic lavas were introduced as host rock
lithology (Fig. 4).
The alteration layers of argillic, phyllic and iron
oxide were obtained by remote sensing (Figs. 5, 6,
and 7). To separate these alteration layers from
ASTER data, spectral angel mapper (Kruse et al.
1993; Park et al. 2007) and band ratio (Demetriades-
Shah et al. 1990; McFeeters 1996; Doxaran et al.
2002) techniques have been applied (Nouri et al.
2012; Feizi and Mansouri 2012, 2013b; Feizi et al.
2016). In the study area, propylitic alteration layer,
which is significant in porphyry-Cu deposits, was not
used because this kind of alteration was not sepa-
Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence

Figure 6. Phyllic alterations extracted from processed ASTER data.

rated properly from ASTER data in the Farmahin RESULTS

area.
To define magnetic anomalies from airborne
geophysical magnetic data, reduction-to-the-pole
(RTP) technique has been applied (Mansouri et al.
2015; Golshadi et al. 2016) (Fig. 8). Eventually,
large-scale ring structures were extracted from pro-
cessed remote sensing data, geological map and
processed geophysical magnetic data (Mirzababaei
and Shahabpour 2014). A large-scale ring structure
(considering three 30-m-interval buffers) has been
recognized and plotted in the center of study area
(Fig. 9). The weighted classes of evidential layers
are presented in Table 3, and the generated weigh-
ted evidence layers are shown in Figure 10.
Firstly, AHP was applied for weight calculation
based on expert judgment. Next, Shannon Entropy
weights were calculated based. Then, AHP–Shan-
non Entropy weights ðw0j Þ were obtained using
Eq. 11. Finally, the TOPSIS was applied for MPM in
the study area.
Weighting by AHP
Applying the AHP for MPM in the Farmahin
area consists of the following steps (Pazand et al.
2011):

Figure 7. Iron oxide extracted from processed ASTER data.
1. The hierarchical structure used for MPM in
this study is illustrated in Figure 11.
2. Pairwise comparison (Saaty 1980) was fol-
lowed for computing relative importance
weights for the MPM criteria.
3. Determine all of the weights by the pairwise
comparison matrix (PCM).
4. Determine the consistency ratio ( CR) for
the quality of AHP.
A group of economic geologists (who were
familiar with MCDM) determined and decided the
relative importance of each factor for porphyry-Cu
mineralization, then all the opinions have been
analyzed, and finally, the rank of relative importance
Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi
was obtained for each factor (Table 4). For analyz-
ing the opinions of economic geologists, the pro-
posed method of Pazand and Hezarkhani (2015) was
used. In this step, a PCM was formed for deter-
mining the criteria weights. The economic geologists
made individual evaluations exploited the scale
presented in Table 1 for determining the values of
the criteria of PCM. By computing the geometric
mean of the values obtained from individual evalu-
ations, a final PCM on which there is a consensus is
found. Finally, the values of PCM and calculated
weights of the criteria were approved based on the
CR value.
The CR value of the comparison matrix in
Table 4 was lower than 0.1, which means that the
Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence

Figure 8. Airborne magnetic anomalies extracted from processed airborne magnetic

data.

use of the weights was appropriate (Saaty 1980).
Ring structures in Table 4 represent the most
important factor ðAW ¼ 0:3Þ. The next most impor-
tant factor is intrusive rocks ðAW ¼ 0:29Þ, followed
by phyllic alteration ðAW ¼ 0:16Þ:
unique geographical coordinates and unique values).
So, the final matrix included 260,400 rows (Ai) cells
and seven columns (Fi) as depicted in Eq. 5. Then,
the Shannon Entropy method was performed in
MATLAB based on Eqs. 5–10 to determine the
weights of the criteria (Table 5).

Weighting by Shannon Entropy

After weight calculation by AHP, different Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy

weights were obtained by the Shannon Entropy
method. To calculate the weights of each of the se-
ven criteria, a decision matrix should be created.
Firstly, all of the evidential layers were converted to
raster (each raster layer includes 260,400 cells with
Finally, hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy
weights were calculated based on Eq. 11. For
example, the hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy
weight for intrusive rocks was calculated as:
 Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi

Figure 9. Large-scale ring structure extracted from geological map and processed
remote sensing and airborne magnetic datasets.

Table 3. Summary of evidence maps, classes and their corresponding weights for porphyry-Cu prospectivity mapping

Data Evidential layer Class Class score

Geological data Heat source Micro-monzodiorite to micro-monzogabbro, diorite–quartz 10

diorite and micro-dioritic dykes, dark gray dibasic, andesitic
to basaltic, quartz trachyandesitic and andesitic dyke
Host rock Gray acidic to basic tuff breccia, crystal vitric–lithic tuff, 10
trachyandesitic–andesitic lavas
Satellite imagery Argillic alteration The altered zones, argillic 10
Phyllic alteration The altered zones, phyllic 10
Iron oxide The altered zones, iron oxide 10
Geophysical data Airborne magnetic Class 1 10
Class 2 8
Class 3 6
Class 4 4
Class 5 2
Ring structures Buffer (0–30) m 10
Buffer (30–60) m 9
Buffer (60–90) m 8
Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence

Figure 10. Geological evidential layers: (a) heat sources, (b) host rocks. Geophysical evidential layers: (c) airborne magnetic
anomalies; (d) ring structures. Remote sensing evidential layers: (e) argillic; (f) phyllic; (g) iron oxide.
 Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi

w0Intrusive rocks
ð0:164  0:29Þ
¼ :
ð0:164  0:29Þ þ ð0:145  0:3Þ þ ð0:159  0:16Þ þ ð0:082  0:12Þ þ ð0:13  0:07Þ þ ð0:162  0:04Þ þ ð0:158  0:02Þ
ð20Þ

Figure 11. Hierarchy structure of the decision tree for MPM.

Table 4. AHP weights for porphyry-Cu potential modeling

Criteria (Cr = 0.0518) Intrusive Ring Phyllic Airborne Host Argillic Iron oxide Final weight
rocks structures alteration magnetic rocks alteration
anomalies

Intrusive rocks 1 2 4 5 5 5 8 0.29

Ring structures 0.5 1 4 5 6 7 7 0.3
Phyllic alteration 0.25 0.25 1 2 3 5 5 0.16
Airborne magnetic anomalies 0.2 0.2 0.5 1 2 3 5 0.12
Host rocks 0.2 0.16 0.33 0.5 1 2 3 0.07
Argillic alteration 0.2 0.14 0.2 0.33 0.5 1 2 0.04
Iron oxide 0.12 0.14 0.2 0.2 0.33 0.5 1 0.02

Table 5. Shannon Entropy weights for porphyry-Cu potential modeling

Criteria Intrusive rocks Host rocks Argillic alteration Phyllic alteration Iron oxide magnetic anomaly Ring structures

Weight 0.164 0.130 0.162 0.159 0.158 0.082 0.145

Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence

Table 6. Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy weights for porphyry-Cu potential modeling

Criteria Intrusive rocks Host rocks Argillic alteration Phyllic alteration Iron oxide Magnetic anomaly Ring structures

Final weights 0.328 0.062 0.047 0.175 0.026 0.065 0.295

Integration Via TOPSIS

The TOPSIS procedure for MPM was proposed

by Pazand et al. (2012). The steps of the TOPSIS
approach for modeling porphyry-Cu potential in the
study area are presented in Figure 12.
The evidential layers in raster format comprise
a matrix with 260,400 rows (Ai) cells and seven
columns (Fj) as depicted in Eq. 12. For running the
TOPSIS procedure, ranks of relative importance for
each criterion were determined by the hybrid AHP–
Shannon Entropy method (Table 6). The TOPSIS
procedure was performed in MATLAB based on
Eqs. 12–19. Hence, for each alternative (i.e., each
cell), there was a unique value obtained as the result
of TOPSIS method. Finally, the final potential map
for porphyry-Cu deposit was plotted using ArcGIS
software (Fig. 13).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Each method of MPM offers advantages and

Figure 12. Steps of the TOPSIS method for
modeling of porphyry-Cu potential in the study
area [modified from Pazand et al. (2012)].
Table 6 shows the final hybrid AHP–Shannon
Entropy weights of evidential layers for mod-
eling porphyry-Cu potential in the Farmahin
area.
disadvantages (Pazand et al. 2012), and this paper
has demonstrated another method for producing a
mineral potential map. The representation of
information as Shannon Entropy is feasible for the
representation of evidence for mapping of potential
for the presence of mineralization. The Shannon
Entropy method only takes into account the prob-
ability of viewing a particular event, not the
meaning of the events (criteria) themselves (Shan-
non 1948); so this method has disadvantage that
can be remedied by combining with other methods
(which considers the meaning of the events and
criteria). Thus, the AHP–Shannon Entropy combi-
nation was implemented in this paper. The ultimate
test of TOPSIS (via AHP–Shannon Entropy
weighting) for modeling porphyry-Cu potential is
the predictive ability of the potential map (Pazand
et al. 2012). The output potential map was evalu-
ated by field checking and chemical analysis of
samples (Fig. 13). As shown in Table 7, two out-
 Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi

Figure 13. Final potential map for porphyry-Cu mineralization obtained by TOPSIS
(with hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy weighting).

Table 7. Results of Cu (ppm) analysis of samples and final
prospectivity map values
Samples Final prospectivity map values
1 0.9–1
2 0.9–1
3 0.8–0.9
4 0.8–0.9
5 0.5–0.6
6 0.5–0.6
7 0.3–0.4
8 0–0.1
crops with field evidence of a porphyry system
(sample 1 with 17,868 ppm Cu and sample 2 with
Cu (ppm) 5459 ppm Cu) were located in areas with high
potential (0.9–1). Also, there is good correlation
17,868
between the results of Cu chemical analysis and
5459
1845 potential map values (Table 7 and Fig. 13).
2204 Hence, the efficiency of the proposed method is
842 demonstrated. Field study in the Farmahin area
811 indicates the presence of hydrothermal alteration
125
and malachite (as Cu mineralization) on the surface
28
in the central part of the area. There was no any
Mineral Potential Mapping Via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy Weighting of Evidence
reported Cu occurrence in the study area before this
study. Therefore, the application of TOPSIS (via
AHP–Shannon Entropy weighting) is an effective
approach for computing the relative importance of
exploration criteria and for combining evidential
layers for modeling mineral potential.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Dr. Eyvazkhani for
introducing Shannon entropy theory to the authors,
Prof. Carranza, Dr. Yousefi and anonymous referees
for their constructive and valuable comments, which
helped us to improve the quality of our paper.
REFERENCES
Abedi, M., & Norouzi, G. H. (2012). Integration of various geo-
physical data with geological and geochemical data to
determine additional drilling for copper exploration. Journal
of Applied Geophysics, 83, 35–45.
Abedi, M., & Norouzi, G. H. (2016). A general framework of
TOPSIS method for integration of airborne geophysics,
satellite imagery, geochemical and geological data. Interna-
tional Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinfor-
mation, 46, 31–44.
Abedi, M., Torabi, S. A., & Norouzi, G. H. (2013). Application of
fuzzy AHP method to integrate geophysical data in a pro-
spect scale, a case study: Seridune copper deposit. Bollettino
di Geofisica Teorica, 54(2), 145–164.
Arian, M. (2013). Physiographic-Tectonic Zoning of Irans sedi-
mentary basins. Open Journal of Geology, 3, 169–177.
Asadi, H. H., Sansoleimani, A., Fatehi, M., & Carranza, E. J. M.
(2016). An AHP–TOPSIS predictive model for district-scale
mapping of Porphyry Cu–Au potential: A case study from
Salafchegan Area (Central Iran). Natural Resources Re-
search, 25(4), 417–429.
Bonham-Carter, G. F. (1994). Geographic information systems for
geoscientists: Modeling with GIS (p. 398). Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Burg, J. P. (1972). The relationship between maximum entropy
spectra and maximum likelihood spectra. Geophysics, 37(2),
375–376.
Carranza, E.J.M. (2008). Geochemical anomaly and mineral
prospectivity mapping in GIS. In Handbook of exploration
environmental geochemistry (Vol. 11(1)). Amsterdam: Else-
vier, p. 368.
Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2001). Geologically constrained
fuzzy mapping of gold mineralization potential, Baguio dis-
trict, Philippines. Natural Resources Research, 10(2), 125–136.
Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kılınç, N. (2009). Weapon selection
using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environ-
ment. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8143–8151.
Demetriades-Shah, T. H., Steven, M. D., & Clark, J. A. (1990).
High resolution derivative spectra in remote sensing. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 33(1), 55–64.
Doxaran, D., Froidefond, J. M., & Castaing, P. (2002). A
reflectance band ratio used to estimate suspended matter
concentrations in sediment-dominated coastal waters. Inter-
national Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(23), 5079–5085.
Feizi, F., Karbalaei-Ramezanali, A., & Mansouri, E. (2017).
Calcic iron skarn prospectivity mapping based on fuzzy AHP
method, a case Study in Varan area, Markazi province, Iran.
Geosciences Journal, 21(1), 123–136.
Feizi, F., & Mansouri, E. (2012). Identification of alteration zones
with using ASTER data in a part of Qom Province, Central
Iran. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(10),
73–84.
Feizi, F., & Mansouri, E. (2013a). Separation of alteration zones
on ASTER data and integration with drainage geochemical
maps in Soltanieh, Northern Iran. Open Journal of Geology,
3, 134–142.
Feizi, F., & Mansouri, E. (2013b). Introducing the iron potential
zones using remote sensing studies in South of Qom Pro-
vince, Iran. Open Journal of Geology, 3(4), 278–286. doi:10.
4236/ojg.2013.34032.
Feizi, F., Mansouri, E., & Karbalaei-Ramezanali, A. A. (2016).
Prospecting of Au by remote sensing and geochemical data
processing using fractal modelling in Shishe-Botagh, Area
(NW Iran). Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing,
44(4), 539–552.
Golshadi, Z., Karbalaei-Ramezanali, A., & Kafaei, K. (2016).
Interpretation of magnetic data in the Chenar-e Olya area of
Asadabad, Hamedan, Iran, using analytic signal, Euler
deconvolution, horizontal gradient and tilt derivative meth-
ods. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 57(4), 329–
342.
Kang, T., Yun, J., Lee, H., Lee, I., Kim, H., Lee, B., & Han, K.
(2007). A clustering method for energy efficient routing in
wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 6th world
scientific and engineering academy and society (WSEAS)
international conference on electronics, hardware, wireless and
optical communications, Corfu Island, Feb. 16, 1, pp. 133–138.
Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy entropy and conditioning. Information
Sciences, 40(2), 165–174.
Kruse, F. A., Lefkoff, A. B., Boardman, J. W., Heidebrecht, K. B.,
Shapiro, A. T., Barloon, P. J., et al. (1993). The spectral
image processing system (SIPS)—Interactive visualization
and analysis of imaging spectrometer data. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 44(2–3), 145–163.
Lotfi, F. H., & Fallahnejad, R. (2010). Imprecise Shannon entropy
and multi attribute decision making. Entropy, 12(1), 53–62.
Macharis, C., Springael, J., Brucker, K. D., & Verbeke, A. (2004).
PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational syn-
ergies in multicriteria analysis: Strengthening PROMETHEE
with ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 153, 307–317.
Mansouri, E., Feizi, F., & Karbalaei-Ramezanali, A. A. (2015).
Identification of magnetic anomalies based on ground mag-
netic data analysis using multifractal modelling: A case study
in Qoja-Kandi, East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. Nonlinear
Processes in Geophysics, 22(5), 579–587.
McFeeters, S. K. (1996). The use of the Normalized Difference
Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water fea-
tures. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17(7), 1425–
1432.
Mirzababaei, G., & Shahabpour, J. (2014). Large-magnitude Ring
structures as structural precursors for porphyry Cu deposit
formation in Kerman copper belt, Iran. Journal of Tethys,
2(4), 375–394.
Muley, A. A., & Bajaj, V. H. (2010). A comparative FMADM
method used to solve real life problem. International Journal
of Machine Intelligence, 2(1), 35–39.
Najafi, A., Karimpour, M. H., & Ghaderi, M. (2014). Application
of fuzzy AHP method to IOCG prospectivity mapping: A
case study in Taherabad prospecting area, eastern Iran. In-

ternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation, 33, 142–154.
Nouri, R., Jafari, M. R., Arain, M., & Feizi, F. (2012).
Hydrothermal alteration zones identification based on re-
mote sensing data in the Mahin Area, West of Qazvin Pro-
vince, Iran. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, International Journal of Environmental, Chemi-
cal, Ecological, Geological and Geophysical Engineering,
6(7), 382–385.
Park, B., Windham, W. R., Lawrence, K. C., & Smith, D. P.
(2007). Contaminant classification of poultry hyperspectral
imagery using a spectral angle mapper algorithm. Biosystems
Engineering, 96(3), 323–333.
Pazand, K., & Hezarkhani, A. (2015). Porphyry-Cu potential area
selection using the combine AHP-TOPSIS methods: A case
study in Siahrud area (NW, Iran). Earth Science Informatics,
8(1), 207–220.
Pazand, K., Hezarkhani, A., & Ataei, M. (2012). Using TOPSIS
approaches for predictive porphyry Cu potential mapping: A
case study in Ahar-Arasbaran (NW-Iran). Computers &
Geosciences, 49, 62–71.
Pazand, K., Hezarkhani, A., Ataei, M., & Ghanbari, Y. (2011).
Combining AHP with GIS for predictive Cu porphyry
potential mapping: A case study in Ahar Area (NW, Iran).
Natural Resources Research, 20(4), 251–262.
Pirajno, F. (2010). Intercontinental strike-slip faults, associated
magmatism, mineral systems and mantle dynamics: Examples
from NW China and Altay-Sayan (Siberia). Journal of Geo-
dynamics, 50(3), 325–346.
Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2003). Artificial
neural networks for mineral-potential mapping: A case study
from Aravalli Province, Western India. Natural Resources
Research, 12(3), 156–171.
Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2004). A hybrid
neuro-fuzzy model for mineral potential mapping. Mathe-
matical Geology, 36(7), 803–826.
Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2006). A hybrid fuzzy
weights-of-evidence model for mineral potential mapping.
Natural Resources Research, 15(1), 1–14.
Rogge, D. M., Halden, N. M., & Beaumont-Smith, C. (2006).
Application of data integration for shear–hosted Au poten-
tial modelling: Lynn Lake greenstone belt, northwestern
Manitoba, Canada. GIS for the Earth Sciences, 44, 191–
210.
Feizi, Karbalaei-Ramezanali, and Tusi
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning,
priority setting, resources allocation (p. 281). New York:
McGraw.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication.
Bell System technical Journal, Mathematical Reviews, 27, 379–
423.
Sillitoe, R. H. (2010). Porphyry copper systems. Economic Geol-
ogy, 105(1), 3–41.
Singer, D. A., Berger, V. I., & Moring, B. C. (2005). Porphyry
copper deposits of the world: Database, map, grade and
tonnage models. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report,
1(9), 1005–1060.
Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., Zhang, C. F., & Zhao, J. H. (2009).
Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable
energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 13(9), 2263–2278.
Wang, T. C., & Lee, H. D. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS
approach based on subjective weights and objective weights.
Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8980–8985.
Yoon, K., & Hwang, C. L. (1981). TOPSIS (technique for order
preference by similarity to ideal solution)—a multiple attri-
bute decision making. In C. L. Hwang & K. Yoon (Eds.),
Multiple attribute decision making—methods and application, a
State-of-the-Art survey. Lecture Notes in Economics and
Mathematical Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 128–140.
Yousefi, M., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2014). Data-driven index overlay
and Boolean logic mineral prospectivity modeling in green-
fields exploration. Natural Resources Research, 1(1), 3–18.
Yousefi, M., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2015a). Fuzzification of con-
tinuous-value spatial evidence for mineral prospectivity
mapping. Computers & Geosciences, 74, 97–109.
Yousefi, M., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2015b). Prediction–area (P–A)
plot and C–A fractal analysis to classify and evaluate evi-
dential maps for mineral prospectivity modeling. Computers
& Geosciences, 79, 69–81.
Yousefi, M., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2015c). Geometric average of
spatial evidence data layers: A GIS-based multi-criteria
decision-making approach to mineral prospectivity mapping.
Computers & Geosciences, 83, 72–79.
Yousefi, M., Kamkar-Rouhani, A., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2014).
Application of staged factor analysis and logistic function to
create a fuzzy stream sediment geochemical evidence layer
for mineral prospectivity mapping. Geochemistry: Explo-
ration, Environment, Analysis, 14(1), 45–58.