Loading [MathJax]/extensions/TeX/boldsymbol.js
Research article Special Issues

Geology and engineering properties of sensitive Boston Blue Clay at Newbury, Massachusetts

  • This paper describes the geology and geotechnical engineering properties of a sensitive marine clay deposit at a research site located in Newbury, Massachusetts (MA) in the northeast USA. Results from in situ testing, soil sampling, and laboratory testing are presented. The clay is locally known as Boston Blue Clay (BBC) which is a glacial marine clay that was deposited approximately 14,000 years ago in the greater Boston, MA area during retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The thickness, stress history, and soil properties of BBC can vary significantly depending on location. At the Newbury research site, the BBC deposit consists of a shallow thin desiccated crust underlain by a 12-meter thick low plasticity clay with an overconsolidation ratio ranging from 2 to 3. Sensitivity of the clay ranges from approximately 10 to 30, based on field vane and fall cone measurements. In situ testing performed at the site included seismic piezocone and field vane. Soil sampling was performed using a variety of samplers including Sherbrooke block, fixed piston thin-walled Shelby tube, and a thick-walled drive sampler. A full suite of advanced laboratory tests was performed on the various quality samples collected, which ranged from very poor (thick-walled drive sampler) to excellent (Sherbrooke block), including constant rate of strain consolidation, consolidated undrained triaxial and direct simple shear. The efficacy of the Recompression and SHANSEP procedures to mitigate sample disturbance was evaluated using results from the advanced laboratory test program. The paper presents data from these advanced tests as well as other soil classification, index, and engineering properties based on in situ measurements and laboratory test results. A synopsis of constructed facilities built on and in BBC within the greater Boston area is also presented.

    Citation: Don J. DeGroot, Melissa E. Landon, Steven E. Poirier. Geology and engineering properties of sensitive Boston Blue Clay at Newbury, Massachusetts[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(3): 412-447. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.412

    Related Papers:

    [1] Chuang Ma, Helong Xia . A one-step graph clustering method on heterogeneous graphs via variational graph embedding. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2772-2788. doi: 10.3934/era.2024125
    [2] Meng Gao, Xiaohui Ai . A stochastic Gilpin-Ayala nonautonomous competition model driven by mean-reverting OU process with finite Markov chain and Lévy jumps. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(3): 1873-1900. doi: 10.3934/era.2024086
    [3] Wenbin Zheng, Jinjin Li, Shujiao Liao . Decision self-information based on parameterized fuzzy β neighborhood and its application in three-way multi-attribute group decision-making. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(12): 4553-4573. doi: 10.3934/era.2022231
    [4] Yong Zhao, Shanshan Ren . Synchronization for a class of complex-valued memristor-based competitive neural networks(CMCNNs) with different time scales. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(5): 3323-3340. doi: 10.3934/era.2021041
    [5] Zhefeng Xu, Xiaoying Liu, Luyao Chen . Hybrid mean value involving some two-term exponential sums and fourth Gauss sums. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(3): 1510-1522. doi: 10.3934/era.2025071
    [6] Léo Girardin, Danielle Hilhorst . Spatial segregation limit of traveling wave solutions for a fully nonlinear strongly coupled competitive system. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(5): 1748-1773. doi: 10.3934/era.2022088
    [7] Shi Wang, Sheng Li, Hang Yu . A power generation accumulation-based adaptive chaotic differential evolution algorithm for wind turbine placement problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(7): 4659-4683. doi: 10.3934/era.2024212
    [8] Wenbin Zhong, Yuting Ding . Spatiotemporal dynamics of a predator-prey model with a gestation delay and nonlocal competition. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(4): 2601-2617. doi: 10.3934/era.2025116
    [9] Shirali Kadyrov, Farkhod Haydarov, Khudoyor Mamayusupov, Komil Mustayev . Endemic coexistence and competition of virus variants under partial cross-immunity. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 1120-1143. doi: 10.3934/era.2025050
    [10] Hui Yang, Futao Ma, Wenjie Gao, Yuzhu Han . Blow-up properties of solutions to a class of p-Kirchhoff evolution equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2663-2680. doi: 10.3934/era.2022136
  • This paper describes the geology and geotechnical engineering properties of a sensitive marine clay deposit at a research site located in Newbury, Massachusetts (MA) in the northeast USA. Results from in situ testing, soil sampling, and laboratory testing are presented. The clay is locally known as Boston Blue Clay (BBC) which is a glacial marine clay that was deposited approximately 14,000 years ago in the greater Boston, MA area during retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The thickness, stress history, and soil properties of BBC can vary significantly depending on location. At the Newbury research site, the BBC deposit consists of a shallow thin desiccated crust underlain by a 12-meter thick low plasticity clay with an overconsolidation ratio ranging from 2 to 3. Sensitivity of the clay ranges from approximately 10 to 30, based on field vane and fall cone measurements. In situ testing performed at the site included seismic piezocone and field vane. Soil sampling was performed using a variety of samplers including Sherbrooke block, fixed piston thin-walled Shelby tube, and a thick-walled drive sampler. A full suite of advanced laboratory tests was performed on the various quality samples collected, which ranged from very poor (thick-walled drive sampler) to excellent (Sherbrooke block), including constant rate of strain consolidation, consolidated undrained triaxial and direct simple shear. The efficacy of the Recompression and SHANSEP procedures to mitigate sample disturbance was evaluated using results from the advanced laboratory test program. The paper presents data from these advanced tests as well as other soil classification, index, and engineering properties based on in situ measurements and laboratory test results. A synopsis of constructed facilities built on and in BBC within the greater Boston area is also presented.


    Strategic decision-making tools, clustering analysis, medical diagnosis, pattern recognition, computer networking systems, and shortest path dilemmas are massive valuable fields of genuine scenarios where awkward sort of situations are involved. In such sort situations, the mathematical representation of the fuzzy set (FS) [1] has a massively valuable and beneficial tool as compared to crisp sets. In these ways, where there is ambiguity, there is the class for an FS and their expansions to address such dilemmas, to describe various genuine life troubles effectively, involved awkward data, the main theory of intuitionistic FS (IFS), diagnosed by Atanassov [2] in 1983. An IFS plays a beneficial role in the environment of different valuables fields. The fixed and basic tool of IFS is described: 0μ(t)+ν(t)1. If someone from group of experts gives (0.6,0.5) for truth and falsity grades, then using the tool of IFS, we get 0.6+0.5=1.1>1 has been unsuccessful. For this, the major idea of Pythagorean FS (PyFS), invented by Yager [3] by putting the mathematical tool: 0μ2(t)+ν2(t)1. Yet again situation are massive awkward, because various practical examples are existing, if a person give (0.9,0.8) for duplet, then the principles of Atanassov-IFS and Yager-PyFS have been neglected i.e., 0.9+0.8=1.7>1 and (0.9)2+(0.8)2=0.81+0.64=1.45>1. To completely and accurately illustrated the above dilemmas, the major scenario of q-rung orthopair FS (QROFS), exposed by Yager [4] suggested a new tool: 0μq(t)+νq(t)1,q1. In the presence of its powerful and effective structure, different scholars have employed the principle of QROFS in the environment of separated regions, for instance, Ali [5] diagnosed the well-known and dominant technique of complex QROFSs, Liu and Wang [6] invented the aggregation operators for QROFSs using t-norm and t-conorm, Wang et al. [7] stated the different from of measures using QROFSs, Wei et al. [8] explored the Heronian mean operators, Riaz and Hashmi [9] proved linear Diophantine FS, and the mathematical form of N-soft topology was invented by Riaz et al. [10]. QROF information is also utilized in strategic decision-making tools [11,12].

    The principle of FS has to deal with only one-dimension information in the form of [0,1]. Ramot et al. [13] invented the complex FS (CFS) is to modify the TG by including the two-dimension information instead of one-dimension information in fuzzy TG to manage inconsistent information. Further, Alkouri and Salleh [14] tried to modify the major form of CFS, to diagnose the fundamental theory of complex IFS (CIFS) with 0μW(t)+νW(t)1 and 0θW(t)+ϑW(t)1. Additionally, Ullah et al. [15] diagnosed the complex PyFS (CPyFS) with 0μ2W(t)+ν2W(t)1 and 0θ2W(t)+ϑ2W(t)1. Still, there were certain troubles, if an experts give 0.9ei2π(0.9) for TG and 0.8ei2π(0.8) for FG, then the principle of CIFS and CPyFS have been neglected i.e., 0.9+0.8=1.7>1.0.9+0.8=1.7>1 and (0.9)2+(0.8)2=0.81+0.64=1.45>1,(0.9)2+(0.8)2=0.81+0.64=1.45>1. To completely and accurately illustrated the above dilemmas, the major scenario of complex QROFS (CQROFS), elaborated by Liu et al. [16,17]. The prominent characteristic of CQROFS is described: 0μqW(t)+νqW(t)1 and 0θqW(t)+ϑqW(t)1. Due to its structure, the different individual has employed the principle of CIFSs, CPyFSs, and CQROFS in the environment of decision-making tool [18], aggregation operators [19], complex intuitionistic fuzzy graph [20], complex interval-valued IFSs [21]. Further, [22] and [23] included the complex Pythagorean fuzzy planar graphs, [24] contained the competition graph for CPyFSs, [25] contained operators for CQROFSs, [26] diagnosed the complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy 2-tuple linguistic sets, and Maclaurin symmetric mean diagnosed in [27].

    The mathematical shape of fuzzy graph (FG) [28] covers two basic terms, called nodes and edges in the shape of TGs. There were a few situations where the FG should be utilized alongside TG and the hypothesis of FG could not adapt to such issues. To manage such complicated sorts of troubles, the principle of the intuitionistic FG (IFG) [29] are massively modified than the FG, which includes the FG in the environment of FG. The hypothesis of IFGs is massively powerful and extensive flexible than FGs to survive with awkward and inconsistent information in practical dilemmas. Various implementations of the above existing work in the environment of decision-making are described in [30]. Davvaz et al. [31] utilized the idea of IFGs in n-type of IFGs and gave an application on the social network. Additionally, Akram et al. [32] again modified the rule of IFG is to initiate the Pythagorean FG (PyFG) with 0μɎ2(Λ,ζ)+νɎ2(Λ,ζ)1, θɎ(Λ,ζ), ϑɎ(Λ,ζ) [0,2π] ,Λ,ζŬ. Still, there were certain troubles, if an expert give 0.9 for TG and 0.8 for FG, then the principle of IFG and PyFG have been neglected i.e., 0.9+0.8=1.7>1 and (0.9)2+(0.8)2=0.81+0.64=1.45>1. For this, the principle of q-rung orthopair FGs (QROFGs), initiated by Habib et al. [33], by improving the rule: 0μɎq(Λ,ζ)+νɎq(Λ,ζ)1, θɎ(Λ,ζ), ϑɎ(Λ,ζ) [0,2π] ,Λ,ζŬ. Due to its structure, the different people has employed the principle of QROFG in the environment of separated regions [34].

    Complex FG (CFG), explored by Thirunavukarasu et al. [35], covers the degrees of truth explained using complex numbers instead of real values from [0,1]. There were a few situations where the FG should be utilized alongside TG and the hypothesis of CFG could not adapt to such issues. To manage such complicated sorts of troubles, the principle of complex IFG (CIFG) was utilized by Anwar and Chaudhry [36]. Moreover, Akram and Naz [37] initiated the complex PyFG (CPyFG). Sahoo and Pal [38] utilized the concepts of CG in the framework of intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs). Due to its structure, many researchers have employed the principle of CPyFG in the environment of separated regions [37,39,40]. Keeping the beneficial and valuable terms and conditions of prevailing theories, various scholars have diagnosed various theories, for instance, Samanta and Pal [41] initiated fuzzy planer graph, Pramanik et al. [42] developed the interval-valued fuzzy graph, Samanta et al. [43] proposed the new concept of fuzzy planer graph, Alshehri et al. [44] elaborated the intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, and Akram et al. [45] proposed the planer graph for PyFSs. The idea of planarity is likewise examined in a few different systems remembering CPyFGs for [46]. There are a few issues that cannot be settled by utilizing CPyFG, for example, if a leader gives data that cannot be taken care of by CPyFG because of its limitation the amount of the squares of the two grades can't surpass the unit span.

    In the consideration of the above-cited data, we noticed that existing theories of FG, IFG, PyFS, CIFG, and CPyFG have a lot of weaknesses and complexities. Therefore, the main concept of complex QROFG (CQROFG) is more flexible and massive feasible for managing awkward data. The major consideration of this script is prearranged here:

    1) To analyze the well-known and massive idea of CG in the presence of a new and dominant technique of CQROF setting. The mathematical form of the CQROF setting is more flexible and massive consistent for demonstrating the beneficial option from the collection of objectives during the decision-making process.

    2) The major concept of in-neighbourhood and out-neighbourhood using CQROFDG are also invented to enhance the quality of the diagnosed approach.

    3) The fundamental theory of CQROF k-competition, CQROF p-competition, CQROF neighbourhood and m-step CQROF neighbourhood graphs are also explored. In the availability of the above-described theories, the basic and significant results for the presented work are obtained to show the compatibility and worth of the invented approaches.

    4) To show the practicality of the developed approach, we try to verify the proposed work with the help of various examples.

    5) To describe the validity and practicality of the invented work, we diagnosed an application using presented approaches based on the CQROF setting is to enhance the major weakness of the existing approaches.

    6) In the availability of the invented ideas, we discussed the sensitivity analysis of the described approaches.

    The manuscript is organized as follows; In Section 2, we briefly also discuss CG, FCDG, CPyFS, CQROFS, CQROFR, CPyFG, CQROFG and CPyFDG. In Section 3, the CQROFCG and their examples are elaborated. Section 4 is based on generalized the concept of CQROFG in the CQROF k-competition graph (CQROF k-competition graph) and a few results which are related to the following graphs. In Section 5, we will increase the radius of CQROFCG and discussed it for p-competition of (CQROFPCG). In Section 6, the complex q- rung orthopair fuzzy open and close neighbourhood of nodes and explained with the help of examples. In Section 7, we define them-step (CQROFDG). So, we explain CQROF m- step out-neighborhood CQROF m-step in- neighbourhood of the nodes and m-step (CQROFCG). In Section 8, to show the practicality of the developed approach, we try to verify the proposed work with the help of various examples. To describe the validity and practicality of the invented work, we diagnosed an application using presented approaches based on the CQROF setting is to enhance the major weakness of the existing approaches. In the availability of the invented ideas, we discussed the sensitivity analysis of the described approaches. Finally, the concluding remarks are in Section 9.

    In this Section, we comprehensively discuss basic definitions and notations that are more useful for further development.

    A graph is a pair G=(Ҳ,Ɏ) in which Ҳ represent the vertices and Ɏ represent the edges. In a graph, every edge is incident with one or more vertices. A graph in which each edge has a specific direction is known as a digraph Ģ and a diagraph is denoted by Ģ=(Ҳ,Ɏ). In which Ɏ represent the edges uv for all u,vҲ. A sequence of nodes and edges in a graph G is called a walk such as E=v0,e1,v1,e2,...,en,vn, for j=1,2,...,n the nodes vj1 and vj are the endpoints of the edge ej. A walk-in which edge ej is directed from vj1 to vj is called a directed walk.

    A walk-in in which no edge occurs more than one time is called a trail. A trail in which no internal vertex is occur more than one time is known as a path. A closed path of length at least one known as a cycle. N+(u)={vҲ{u}:uvɎ} and N(u)={vҲ{u}:uvɎ} represents the out-neighbourhood and in-neighbourhood [33] of a node u in Ģ respectively.

    Definition 1: [47] The CG of a digraph Ģ=(Ҳ,Ɏ) is unidirectional graph G=(Ҳ,Ɏ) which has the same vertex set Ҳ and has an edge between two distinct vertices Λ,ζҲ if there exist a vertex xҲ and edges Λx,ζxɎ in Ģ,Λ,ζŬ.

    Definition 2: [42] Let a fuzzy diagraph (FDG) is Ģ=(Ҳ,Ɏ) and a fuzzy competition graph (FCG) C(Ģ) of Ģ is an undirected graph G=(Ҳ,Ɏ) that contains be the family of similar fuzzy node in Ģ and an edge exists among two different vertices Λ,ζŬ in C((Ģ) if and only if (iff) N+(Λ)N+(ζ) in Ģ and the TG of the edge (Λ,ζ) in C(Ģ) is in the form:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)=(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))H(N+(Λ)N+(ζ))

    Definition 3: [23] A CPyFS on Ŭ is the form of:

    W={(t,μW(t)ei2πθW(t),νW(t)ei2πϑW(t)):tŬ}

    where i=1, ,tŬ,0(μW(t))2+(νW(t))21 and 0(θW(t))2+(ϑW(t))21 ,tŬ.

    Definition 4: [14] A CQROFS on Ŭ is the form of:

    W={(t,μW(t)ei2πθW(t),νW(t)ei2πϑW(t)):tŬ}

    where i=1, ,tŬ,0(μW(t))q+(νW(t))q1 and 0(θW(t))q+(ϑW(t))q1 ,qZ+,tŬ.

    Definition 5: [48] A CQROF relation R(A,B) is explained as the subset of A×B is characterized by the TG and FG such as:

    R(A,B)={((Λ,ζ),μR(Λ,ζ)ei2πθR(Λ,ζ),νR(Λ,ζ)ei2πϑR(Λ,ζ)):(Λ,ζ)A×B}

    That is i=1,μR(Λ,ζ),νR(Λ,ζ)[0,1],θR(Λ,ζ),ϑR(Λ,ζ)[0,2π] and 0μqR(Λ,ζ)+νqR(Λ,ζ)1, ,qZ+,(Λ,ζ)A×B.

    Definition 6: [47] A CPyFG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) in which Ҳ and Ɏ are CQROFS and CQROFR on Ŭ respectively such that:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ)
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ)
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)θҲ(Λ)θҲ(ζ)
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)ϑҲ(Λ)ϑҲ(ζ)

    and

    0μɎ2(Λ,ζ)+νɎ2(Λ,ζ)1, θɎ(Λ,ζ), ϑɎ(Λ,ζ) [0,2π] ,Λ,ζŬ.

    Definition 7: [48] A CQROFG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) in which Ҳ and Ɏ are CQROFS and CQROFR on Ŭ respectively such that:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ)
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ)
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)θҲ(Λ)θҲ(ζ)
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)ϑҲ(Λ)ϑҲ(ζ)

    and

    0μɎq(Λ,ζ)+νɎq(Λ,ζ)1, θɎ(Λ,ζ), ϑɎ(Λ,ζ) [0,2π] ,Λ,ζŬ,qZ+.

    Definition 8: [24] A complex Pythagorean fuzzy diagraph Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) in which Ҳ and Ɏ are CQROFS and CQROFR on Ŭ respectively such that:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ)
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ)
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)θҲ(Λ)θҲ(ζ)
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)ϑҲ(Λ)ϑҲ(ζ)

    and 0μɎ2(Λ,ζ)+νɎ2(Λ,ζ)1, θɎ(Λ,ζ),ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)[0,2π] ,Λ,ζŬ.

    Definition 9: A CQROFDG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) in which Ҳ and Ɏ are CQROFS and CQROFR on Ŭ respectively such that:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ)
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ)
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)θҲ(Λ)θҲ(ζ)
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)ϑҲ(Λ)ϑҲ(ζ)

    and 0μɎq(Λ,ζ)+νɎq(Λ,ζ)1, θɎ(Λ,ζ),ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)[0,2π] ,Λ,ζŬ,qZ+.

    First of all, we define CQROF-out-neighborhood of the node, CQROF-in-neighborhood of the node, intersection of two CQROFSs, height and cardinality of CQROFS which will be biased for the further devolvement. After this, we will discuss CQROFCGs.

    Definition 10: A CQROF out-neighbourhood of a nodes Λ of a CQROFDG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) is a CQROFS explained by:

    Ξp(s)=(Sq,μqeiφq,νqeiψq)

    That is Sq={ζ:μɎ(Λ,ζ)>0orνɎ(Λ,ζ)>0} s.t μq:Sq[0,1] explained by μq(ζ)=μɎ(Λ,ζ),φq:Sq[0,2π] explained by φq(ζ)=θ Ɏ(Λ,ζ),νq:Sq[0,1] explained by νq(ζ)=νɎ(Λ,ζ) and ψq:Sq[0,2π] defined by ψq(ζ)=ϑɎ(Λ,ζ).

    Definition 11: A CQROF in-neighbourhood of a nodes Λ of a CQROFDG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) is a CQROFS explained by:

    Ξƞ(s)=(Sƞ,μƞeiφƞ,νƞeiψƞ)

    That is Sƞ={ζ,μɎ(ζ,Λ)>0orνɎ(ζ,Λ)>0} Such that μƞ:Sƞ[0,1] explained by μƞ(ζ)=μɎ(ζ,Λ),φƞ:Sƞ[0,2π] explained by φƞ(ζ)=θɎ(ζ,Λ),νƞ:Sƞ[0,1] explained by νƞ(ζ)=νɎ(ζ,Λ) and ψƞ:Sƞ[0,2π] defined by ψƞ(ζ)=ϑɎ(ζ,Λ).

    Example 1: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG for q=3 shown in following Figure 1.

    Ҳ=((a0.49ei1.39π,b0.79ei1.59π,c0.69ei1.79π,d0.39ei1.19π,e0.79ei1.79π)(a0.61ei0.81π,b0.31ei1.21π,c0.41ei0.61π,d0.31ei1.01π,e0.51ei0.61π))
    Ɏ=(((a,b)0.49ei1.19π,(b,c)0.59ei0.79π,(c,d)0.39ei0.59π,(e,d)0.39ei1.19π,(a,e)0.69ei0.59π,(b,e)0.59ei1.59π,(e,c)0.29ei0.99π)((a,b)0.61ei1.01π,(b,c)0.21ei1.01π,(c,d)0.21ei0.81π,(e,d)0.61ei0.41π,(a,e)0.41ei1.01π,(b,e)0.41ei0.61π,(e,c)0.41ei0.81π))
    Figure 1.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy diagraph.

    Following Table 1 shows that CQROF out-neighborhood of the vertex and CQROF in-neighbourhood of the vertex.

    Table 1.  The CQROF out-neighborhood of the vertex and CQROF in-neighborhood of the vertex.
    X Ξq(Λ) Ξƞ(Λ)
    A {b,(0.49ei1.19π,0.61ei1.01π)}
    {e,(0.69ei0.59π,0.41ei1.01π)}
    B {c,(0.59ei0.79π,0.21ei1.01π)}
    {e,(0.59ei1.59π,0.41ei0.61π)}
    {b,(0.49ei1.19π,0.61ei1.01π)}
    C {d,(0.39ei0.59π,0.21ei0.81π)} {e,(0.69ei0.59π,0.41ei1.01π)}
    {b,(0.49ei1.19π,0.61ei1.01π)}
    D {c,(0.59ei0.79π,0.21ei1.01π)}
    {e,(0.59ei1.59π,0.41ei0.61π)}
    E {c,(0.29ei0.99π,0.41ei0.81π)}
    {d,(0.39ei0.59π,0.61ei0.41π)}
    {e,(0.69ei0.59π,0.41ei1.01π)}
    {e,(0.59ei1.59π,0.41ei0.61π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Definition 12: Suppose that W1 and W2 are both CQROSs on Z that is:

    W1={(t,μW1(t)eiθW1(t),νW1(t)eiϑW1(t)):tZ}
    W2={(t,μW2(t)eiθW2(t),νW2(t)eiϑW2(t)):tZ}

    W1W2, be the intersection of W1 and W2 of CQROF in the following specific way:

    W1W2={(t,μW1W2(t)eiθW1W2(t),νW1W2(t)eiϑW1W2(t)):tZ}

    where:

    μW1W2(t)eiθW1W2(t)=min(μW1(t),μW2(t))eimin(ϑW1(t),θW2(t))
    νW1W2(t)eiϑW1W2(t)=max(νW1(t),νW2(t))eimax(ϑW1(t),ϑW2(t))

    Definition 13: Suppose that a CQROFS W={(t,μW(t)eiθW(t),νW(t)eiϑW(t):tZ)} and the cardinality of CQROFS W is represented by |W|=(|W|μei|W|θ,|W|νei|W|ϑ) is the sum of TG and FG value of objects of Z in the form of:

    |W|=(tiZμW(ti)eitiZθW(ti),tiZνW(ti)eitiZϑW(ti))=(|W|μei|W|θ,|W|νei|W|ϑ),titZ

    Definition 14: Suppose that a CQROFS W=(t,μW(t)eiθW(t),νW(t)eiϑW(t):tZ) and the height of CQROFS W is represented by ĥ(W)=(ĥμ(W)eiˆhθ(W),ĥν(W)eiˆhϑ(W)) is explained:

    ˆh(W)=(max(μW(t))eimaxθW(t),min(νW(t))eiminϑW(t))=(ˆhμ(W)eiˆhθ(W),ĥν(W)eiˆhϑ(W))

    A (CQROFCG) is defined below.

    Definition 15: Suppose that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG. Then CQROFCG C(Ģ) of a CQROFDG Ģ is an undirected CQROFG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) in which set of nodes of C(Ģ) is similar in Ģ and a CQROF edge exists between two different vertices Λ,ζҲ in C(Ģ) iff the CQROFS Ξq(Λ)Ξq(Λ)= in Ģ. The values of TG and FG of edges (Λ,ζ) in C(Ģ) are explained in the form:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)=(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))׈hμ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)=(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ))׈hν(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)=2π[(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)׈hθ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))2π]
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)=2π[(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)׈hϑ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))2π]

    Example 2: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG for q=3 in the following Figure 2, explained as:

    Ҳ=((a0.79ei1.19π,b0.49ei1.39π,c0.39ei0.79π,d0.39ei0.89π,e0.99ei0.99π,f0.79ei1.09π)(a0.31ei1.01π,b0.61ei0.1π,c0.71ei0.1π,d0.31ei1.01π,e0.81ei1.11π,f0.51ei1.01π))
    Ɏ=(((b,a)0.49ei0.99π,(b,c)0.29ei0.69π,(b,e)0.49ei1.091π,(b,f)0.49ei0.99π,(c,e)0.39ei0.79π,(d,c)0.29ei0.69π,(e,d)0.39ei0.79π,(e,f)0.39ei0.89π,(f,a)0.79ei0.99π,(f,c)0.39ei0.79π)((b,a)0.51ei0.91π,(b,c)0.61ei0.91π,(b,e)0.71ei1.01π,(b,f)0.51ei0.91π,(c,e)0.81ei1.01π,(d,c)0.51ei1.01π,(e,d)0.51ei1.01π,(e,f)0.61ei1.11π,(f,a)0.41ei1.01π,(f,c)0.61ei0.91π))
    Figure 2.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy diagraph.

    The CQROF out-neighbourhood of the vertices are shown in Table 2. The CQROFS Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ) and ˆh(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ) evaluated in Table 3. We observe the edges b and c,b and f,b and a,b and f,b and e by using Table 3, which is an illustration of Figure 3 for the CQROFG.

    Table 2.  The out neighborhood of the vertices.
    X Ξq(t)
    a
    b {a,(0.49ei0.99π,0.51ei0.91π)}
    {c,(0.29ei0.69π,0.61ei0.91π)}
    {e,(0.49ei1.091π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    {f,(0.49ei0.99π,0.51ei0.91π)}
    c {e,(0.39ei0.79π,0.81ei1.01π)}
    d {c,(0.29ei0.69π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    e {d,(0.39ei0.79π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    {f,(0.39ei0.89π,0.61ei1.11π)}
    f {a,(0.79ei0.99π,0.41ei1.01π)}
    {c,(0.39ei0.79π,0.61ei0.91π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  The Ňq(ŝ)Ňq(ŵ) and ĥ(Ňq(ŝ)Ňq(ŵ)).
    s w Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ) ˆh(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))
    a b
    a c
    a d
    a e
    a f
    b c {e,(0.39ei0.79π,0.81ei1.01π)} {(0.39ei0.79π,0.81ei1.01π)}
    b d {c,(0.29ei0.69π,0.61ei1.01π)} {(0.29ei0.69π,0.61ei1.01π)}
    b e {f,(0.39ei0.89π,0.61ei1.11π)} {(0.39ei0.89π,0.61ei1.11π)}
    b f {c,(0.29ei0.69π,0.61ei0.91π)} {(0.29ei0.69π,0.61ei0.91π)}
    c
    c e
    c f
    d e
    d f {c,(0.29ei0.69π,0.61ei1.01π)} {(0.29ei0.69π,0.61ei1.01π)}
    e f

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 3.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy competition graph.

    Definition 16: Suppose that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFG. So, an edge (Λ,ζ) in a CQROFG be strong if it satisfies the following conditions:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)>12(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)<12(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ))
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)>12[2π(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)]
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)<12[2π(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)]

    ,Λ,ζŬ.

    Theorem 1: Suppose that a CQROFDG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ). A CQROFS having one element Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ) and the edge (Λ,ζ) of C(Ģ) is strong if satisfy the following conditions:

    Ⅰ. |Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)|μ>12, and |Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)|ν<12.

    Ⅱ. |Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)|θ>1π and |Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)|ϑ<1π.

    The proof of this Theorem 1, discussed in Appendix.

    In this section, we generalized the concept of (CQROFG) in the CQROF k-competition graph (CQROF k-competition graph) and a few results which are related to the following graphs.

    Definition 17: Suppose that a complex number represented by k=aeiɣ and Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)=(aeiɣ,beiη). The CQROFKCG Ck(Ģ) of Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) is an undirected CQROFG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) i.e., CQRO the CQROF family of nodes is Ck(Ģ) iff a>a,ɣ>ɣ for TG and b>a,η>ɣ for the FG. The TG and FG values of the edges (Λ,ζ) in Ck(Ģ) in the following form:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)=aaa(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))׈hμ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)=bab(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ))׈hν(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)=2π[ɣɣɣ(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)׈hθ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))2π]
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)=2π[ηɣη(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)׈hϑ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))2π]

    Example 3: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG for q=3 as in Figure 4 and explained as:

    Ҳ=((a0.39ei1.59π,b0.29ei1.39π,c0.49ei1.19π,d0.89ei1.39π,e0.79ei1.39π,f0.59ei1.59π)(a0.71ei1.21π,b0.81ei1.01π,c0.61ei0.61π,d0.21ei0.21π,e0.31ei1.01π,f0.51ei1.21π))
    Ɏ=(((a,b)0.19ei1.29π,(a,c)0.29ei1.19π,(b,d)0.29ei0.099π,(d,c)0.39ei0.99π,(e,a)0.39ei0.99π,(e,b)0.29ei0.99π,(e,f)0.49ei1.19π,(f,c)0.39ei1.09π,(f,d)0.29ei1.19π)((a,b)0.81ei1.21π,(a,c)0.61ei1.01π,(b,d)0.51ei0.1π,(d,c)0.51ei0.71π,(e,a)0.51ei1.11π,(e,b)0.71ei1.01π,(e,f)0.41ei1.01π,(f,c)0.61ei1.01π,(f,d)0.41ei1.01π))
    Figure 4.  Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy diagraph.

    The CQROF out-neighbourhood of the nodes are shown in Table 4.

    Table 4.  Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy out neighborhoods of the family of nodes.
    X Ξq(Λ)
    a {b,(0.19ei1.29π,0.81ei1.21π)}
    {c,(0.29ei1.19π,0.61ei1.01π)}
    b {d,(0.29ei0.099π,0.51ei0.1π)}
    c
    d {c,(0.39ei0.99π,0.51ei0.71π)}
    e {a,(0.39ei0.99π,0.51ei1.11π)}
    {b,(0.29ei0.99π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    {f,(0.49ei1.19π,0.41ei1.01π)}
    F {c,(0.39ei1.09π,0.61ei1.01π)}
    {d,(0.29ei1.19π,0.41ei1.01π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The CQROFSs Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ) and ˆh(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)) calculated in Table 5.

    Table 5.  The Ňq(ŝ)Ňq(ŵ), ĥ(Ňq(ŝ)Ňq(ŵ)) and cardinality of CQROFS.
    Λ W Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ) ˆh(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)) |Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)|
    A b
    A c
    A d {c,(0.29ei0.99π,0.61ei1.01π)} (0.29ei0.99π,0.61ei1.01π) (0.29ei0.99π,0.61ei1.01π)
    A e {b,(0.19ei0.99π,0.81ei1.21π)} (0.19ei0.99π,0.81ei1.21π) (0.19ei0.99π,0.81ei1.21π)
    A f {c,(0.29ei1.09π,0.61ei1.01π)} (0.29ei1.09π,0.61ei1.01π) (0.29ei1.09π,0.61ei1.01π)
    b c
    b d
    B E
    B f {d,(0.29ei0.99π,0.51ei1.01π)} (0.29ei0.99π,0.51ei1.01π) (0.29ei0.99π,0.51ei1.01π)
    C d
    C e
    C f
    d e
    d f {c,(0.39ei0.99π,0.61ei1.01π)} (0.39ei0.99π,0.61ei1.01π) (0.39ei0.99π,0.61ei1.01π)
    E f

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Let k=0.25ei0.70π then CQROFCG 0.25ei0.70π has edges.

    |Ξq(a)Ξq(d)|μ=0.29>0.25|Ξq(a)Ξq(d)|ν=0.61>0.25
    |Ξq(a)Ξq(d)|θ=0.99>0.70|Ξq(a)Ξq(d)|ϑ=1.01>0.70
    |Ξq(a)Ξq(f)|μ=0.29>0.25|Ξq(a)Ξq(f)|ν=0.61>0.25
    |Ξq(a)Ξq(f)|θ=0.99>0.70|Ξq(a)Ξq(f)|ϑ=1.01>0.70
    |Ξq(d)Ξq(f)|μ=0.39>0.25|Ξq(d)Ξq(f)|ν=0.61>0.25
    |Ξq(d)Ξq(f)|θ=0.99>0.70|Ξq(d)Ξq(f)|ϑ=1.01>0.70
    |Ξq(b)Ξq(f)|μ=0.29>0.25|Ξq(b)Ξq(f)|ν=0.51>0.25
    |Ξq(b)Ξq(f)|θ=0.99>0.70|Ξq(b)Ξq(f)|ϑ=1>0.70

    The Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy k=0.25ei0.70π-competition graph is displayed in Figure 5.

    Figure 5.  The Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy k-competition graph.

    Theorem 2: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG. If ˆh(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))=(1ei2π,1ei2π) and a>2a,ɣ>2ɣ, b<2a and η<2ɣ. Then edges (Λ,ζ) is strong in Ck(Ģ) such that:

    |(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)|=(aeiɣ,beiη).

    The proof of this Theorem 2, discussed in Appendix.

    Now we will increase the radius of CQROFCG and discussed it for p-competition of (CQROFPCG). Firstly, we will explain the support of CQROFS in the following form:

    Definition 18: Considered that W={(t,μW(t)eiθW(t),νW(t)eiϑW(t):tZ)} be a CQROFS. So, support of CQROFS of WWo of Z.

    Wo={tZ:μW(t)0,νW(t)0}

    Definition 19: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) a CQROFDG. The p- competition of CQROFG Cp(Ģ) of the CQROFDG Ģ is an undirected CQROFG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) that is the CQROF family of nodes Cp(Ģ) is equal to Ģ and CQROF edges exist between two different vertices (Λ,ζ)Ŭ in CpĢ iff |supp(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))|p. The TG and FG values of the edges (Λ,ζ) are in the following form:

    μɎ(Λ,ζ)=(up)+1u[μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ)]׈hμ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))
    νɎ(Λ,ζ)=(up)+1u[νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ)]׈hν(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))
    θɎ(Λ,ζ)=2π[(up)+1u(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)׈hθ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))2π]
    ϑɎ(Λ,ζ)=2π[(up)+1u(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)׈hϑ(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))2π]

    Since u=|Λupp(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))|.

    Theorem 3: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG. If ˆh(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))=(1ei2π,0eiπ) in C|t|2(Ģ) then the edges (Λ,ζ) is strong, in which t=|Λupp(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ))|.

    The proof of this Theorem 3, discussed in Appendix.

    Example 4: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG for q=3 in the following Figure 6, explained as:

    Ҳ=((v10.81ei1.61π,v20.41ei1.41π,v30.71ei1.81π,v40.61ei1.61π,v50.71ei1.41π,v60.51ei1.01π)(v10.29ei1.19π,v20.79ei1.09π,v30.59ei0.59π,v40.79ei0.79π,v50.69ei0.89π,v60.79ei0.99π))
    Ɏ=(((v1,v4)0.61ei1.61π,(v1,v5)0.71ei1.41π,(v1,v6)0.41ei0.91π,(v2,v4)0.41ei1.21π,(v2,v5)0.31ei1.01π,(v2,v6)0.41ei1.01π,(v3,v4)0.51ei1.21π,(v3,v5)0.51ei1.21π)((v1,v4)0.49ei0.99π,(v1,v5)0.49ei0.99π,(v1,v6)0.59ei1.09π,(v2,v4)0.59ei1.09π,(v2,v5)0.69ei0.99π,(v2,v6)0.79ei0.89π,(v3,v4)0.69ei0.89π,(v3,v5)0.69ei0.89π))
    Figure 6.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy diagraph.

    The CQROF out-neighbourhood of the nodes which are shown in Table 6. Table 7 shows that the height, support, and carnality of support of CQROFS (Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)),Λ,ζŬ. For p=2 the correspondence C2(Ģ) shown in Figure 7.

    Table 6.  The CQROF out-neighborhood of the nodes.
    Ξq(x) Ҳ
    {v4,(0.61ei1.61π,0.49ei0.99π)}
    {v5,(0.71ei1.41π,0.49ei0.99π)}
    {v6,(0.41ei0.91π,0.59ei1.09π)}
    v1
    {v4,(0.41ei1.21π,0.59ei1.09π)}
    {v5,(0.31ei1.01π,0.69ei0.99π)}
    {v6,(0.41ei1.01π,0.79ei0.89π)}
    v2
    {v4,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei0.89π)}
    {v5,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei0.89π)}
    v3
    v4
    v5
    v6

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  The height, support and carnality of CQROFS.
    Λ W Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ) Ξ=ˆh(Ξq(Λ)Ξq(ζ)) t=Supp(Ξ) |t|
    v1 v2 {v4,(0.39ei1.21π,0.61ei1.11π)}
    {v5,(0.29ei0.99π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    {v5,(0.39ei0.89π,0.81ei1.11π)}
    (0.39ei1.19π,0.61ei1.01π) {(v4,v5,v6)} 3
    v1 v3 {v4,(0.59ei1.19π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    {v5,(0.49ei1.19π,0.71ei1.91π)}
    (0.59ei1.19π,0.71ei0.91π) {(v4,v5,v6)} 2
    v1 v4
    v1 v5
    v1 v6
    v2 v3 {v4,(0.39ei1.19π,0.71ei1.11π)}
    {v5,(0.29ei0.99π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    (0.39ei1.19π,0.71ei1.01π) {(v4,v5)} 2
    v2 v4
    v2 v5
    v2 v6
    v3 v4
    v3 v5
    v3 v6

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 7.  The 2-competition complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy graph.

    Now, will discuss the complex q- rung orthopair fuzzy open and close neighbourhood of nodes. After that CQROF open and close neighbourhood graph is explained in the following form:

    Definition 20: CQROF open neighbourhood of a node v of a CQROFG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) is a CQROFS in the form:

    Ξ(Λ)=(SΛ,tΛeiϕΛ,fΛeiωΛ)

    where SΛ={ζ:μɎ(Λ,ζ)>0,orνɎ(Λ,ζ)>0}, Such that: tΛ:SΛ[0,1] explain in the form tΛ(ζ)=μɎ(Λ,ζ),ϕΛ:SΛ[0,2π] explain in the form ϕΛ(ζ)=θɎ(Λ,ζ),fΛ:SΛ[0,1] explain by fΛ(ζ)=νɎ(Λ,ζ) and ωΛ:SΛ[0,2π] explain by ωΛ=ϑɎ(Λ,ζ).

    ,ΛŬ. CQROF singleton set in the form:

    AΛ=({Λ},μAeiθA,νAeiϑA)

    Such that: μA:{Λ}[0,1] explain in the form μA(Λ)=μA(Λ),θA:{Λ}[0,2π] explain in the form θA(Λ)=θA,νA:{Λ}[0,1] explain by νA(Λ)=νA(Λ) and ϑA:{Λ}[0,2π] explain in the form ϑA(Λ)=ϑA(Λ). The complex fuzzy closed neighbourhood of a node Λ in the following form:

    Ξ[Λ]=Ξ(Λ)AΛ

    Definition 21: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) the CQROFG. The CQROFONG of Ģ is a CQROFG N(Ģ)=(Ŭ,Ҳ,D) in which family of nodes of CQROF is equal in Ģ and a CQROF edge exist between two different vertices Λ,ζŬ in N(Ģ) iff the CQROFS Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ) in Ģ. The TG and FG values of the edge (Λ,ζ) in NĢ in the following form:

    μD(Λ,ζ)=(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))׈hμ(Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ))
    νD(Λ,ζ)=(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ))׈hν(Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ))
    θD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)׈hθ(Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ))2π]
    ϑD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)׈hϑ(Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ))2π]

    Definition 22: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) the CQROFG. The CQROFCNG of Ģ is a CQROFG N[Ģ]=(Ŭ,Ҳ,D) in which family of nodes of CQROF is equal in Ģ and a CQROF edge exist between two different vertices Λ,ζŬ in N[Ģ] iff the CQROFS Ξ[s]Ξ[w] in Ģ. The TG and FG values of the edges (Λ,ζ) in N[Ģ] in the following form:

    μD(Λ,ζ)=(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))׈hμ(Ξ[s]Ξ[ζ])
    νD(Λ,ζ)=(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ))׈hν(Ξ[s]Ξ[ζ])
    θD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)׈hθ(Ξ[s]Ξ[ζ])2π]
    ϑD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)׈hϑ(Ξ[s]Ξ[ζ])2π]

    Theorem 4: Each edge of CQROFG Ģ in which there exists just one edge in N[Ģ].

    The proof of this Theorem 4, discussed in Appendix.

    Example 5: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFG for q=3 in the following Figure 8, explained as:

    Ҳ=((x10.81ei1.61π,x20.71ei1.41π,x30.51ei1.11π,x40.81ei1.61π,x50.71ei1.41π,x60.61ei1.61π)(x10.59ei1.19π,x20.59ei1.19π,x30.69ei1.39π,x40.29ei0.79π,x50.69ei0.89π,x60.79ei1.19π))
    Ɏ=(((x1,x2)0.61ei1.21π,(x1,x3)0.41ei1.01π,(x1,x5)0.61ei1.21π,(x1,x6)0.51ei1.21π,(x2,x3)0.41ei1.01π,(x3,x4)0.41ei1.01π,(x4,x5)0.51ei1.41π,(x5,x6)0.61ei1.91π)((x1,x2)0.59ei1.19π,(x1,x3)0.69ei1.29π,(x1,x5)0.69ei1.09π,(x1,x6)0.69ei1.09π,(x2,x3)0.49ei0.99π,(x3,x4)0.39ei1.29π,(x4,x5)0.59ei0.89π,(x5,x6)0.79ei0.99π))
    Figure 8.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy digraph.

    Table 8 contains the family of open and close vertex of CQROF. Table 9 contained the CQROFS (Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ)) and ˆh(Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ)),Λ,ζŬ and Figure 9 illustrates CQROFONG. Table 10 contains the CQROFS (Ξ[Λ]Ξ[ζ]) and ˆh(Ξ[Λ]Ξ[ζ]),Λ,ζŬ and Figure 10 show the CQROFCNG.

    Table 8.  The CQROF open and close neighborhood.
    Λ Ξ(Λ) Ξ[Λ]
    x1 {x2,(0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x6,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x2,(0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)
    {x5,(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)
    {x6,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x1,(0.81ei1.61π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    x2 {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    {x2,(0.71ei1.41π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    x3 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {x2,(0.41ei1.01π,0.49ei0.99π)}
    {x4,(0.41ei1.01π,0.39ei1.29π)}
    {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {x2,(0.41ei1.01π,0.49ei0.99π)}
    {x4,(0.41ei1.01π,0.39ei1.29π)}
    {x3,(0.51ei1.11π,0.69ei1.39π)}
    x4 {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.39ei1.29π)}
    {x5,(0.51ei1.41π,0.59ei0.89π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.39ei1.29π)}
    {x5,(0.51ei1.41π,0.59ei0.89π)}
    {x4,(0.81ei1.61π,0.29ei0.79π)}
    x5 {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x4,(0.51ei1.41π,0.59ei0.89π)}
    {x6,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)}
    {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x4,(0.51ei1.41π,0.59ei0.89π)}
    {x6,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)}
    {x5,(0.71ei1.41π,0.69ei0.89π)}
    x6 {x1,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x5,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)}
    {x5,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)}
    {x1,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x6,(0.61ei1.61π,0.79ei1.19π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 9.  The CQROFSs Ňq(ŝ)Ňq(ŵ) and ĥ(Ňq(ŝ)Ňq(ŵ)).
    Λ ζ Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ) ˆh(Ξ(Λ)Ξ(ζ))
    x1 x2 {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)} (0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)
    x1 x3 {x2,(0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.19π)} (0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.19π)
    x1 x4 {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {x5,(0.51ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    (0.51ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)
    x1 x5 {x6,(0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei1.09π)} (0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei1.09π)
    x1 x6 {x5,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei1.09π)} (0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei1.09π)
    x2 x3 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)} (0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)
    x2 x4 {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.49ei1.29π)} (0.41ei1.01π,0.49ei1.29π)
    x2 x5 {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)} (0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)
    x2 x6 {x1,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)} (0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)
    x3 x4
    x3 x5 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {(0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.29π)}
    (0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.29π)
    x3 x6 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)} (0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)
    x4 x5
    x4 x6 {x5,(0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)} (0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)
    x5 x6 {x1,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)} (0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 9.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy open neighborhood graph.
    Table 10.  The CQROFSs Ň[ŝ]Ň[ŵ] and ˆh(Ň[ŝ]Ň[ŵ]).
    Λ ζ Ξ[Λ]Ξ[ζ] ˆh(Ξ[Λ]Ξ[ζ])
    x1 x2 {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    {x2,(0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    (0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.19π)
    x1 x3 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {x2,(0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.39π)}
    (0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.19π)
    x1 x4 {x2,(0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.09π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {x5,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    (0.61ei1.21π,0.59ei1.09π)
    x1 x5 {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)}
    {x5,(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x6,(0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei1.09π)}
    (0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)
    x1 x6 {x1,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)}
    {x5,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei1.09π)}
    {x6,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)}
    (0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)
    x2 x3 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {x2,(0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.19π)}
    {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.39π)}
    (0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.19π)
    x2 x4 {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.49ei1.29π)} (0.41ei1.01π,0.49ei1.29π)
    x2 x5 {x1,(0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)} (0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)
    x2 x6 {x1,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)} (0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.19π)
    x3 x4 {x3,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.39π)}
    {x4,(0.41ei1.01π,0.39ei1.29π)}
    (0.41ei1.01π,0.39ei1.29π)
    x3 x5 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)}
    {x4,(0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.29π)}
    (0.41ei1.01π,0.59ei1.29π)
    x3 x6 {x1,(0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)} (0.41ei1.01π,0.69ei1.29π)
    x4 x5 {x5,(0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)} (0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)
    x4 x6 {x5,(0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)} (0.51ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)
    x5 x6 {x1,(0.51ei1.21π,0.69ei1.09π)}
    {x5,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei0.99π)}
    {x6,(0.61ei0.91π,0.79ei1.19π)}
    (0.61ei1.21π,0.69ei0.99π)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 10.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy close neighborhood graph.

    If prey is assailed by the predator c then the association between them can be represented by an edge (c,d) in a CQROFDG. But if the predator needs the support of numerous mediators (c1,c2,c3,,cm1) then the connection among them is represented by CQROFDP Pm(c,d) in a CQROFDG. In this segment, first, we define the m-step (CQROFDG). So, we explain CQROF m- step out-neighbourhood CQROF m-step in- neighbourhood of the nodes and m-step (CQROFCG).

    Definition 23: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) the CQROFDG. The m- step CQROFDG of Ģ is represented by Ģm=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) which has an equal family of nodes Ģm of CQROF and a CQROF edges among two different vertices Λ and ζ in Ģm if there happen a CQROF directed path (CQROFDP) of interval m from Λ to ζ so Pm(Λ,ζ) in Ģ.

    Definition 24: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be CQROFDG. The CQROFDG (m-step out neighbourhood) of a node Λ of a CQROFDG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFS:

    Ξqm(Λ)=(SqΛ,tqΛeiϕqΛ,fqΛeiωqΛ)

    Such that: {SqΛ=ζ: is a CQROFDP of distance m from Λ to ζ Pm(Λ,ζ)}.

    So, tqΛ:SqΛ[0,1] explain in the form tqΛ(ζ)={minμҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ),ϕqΛ:SqΛ[0,2π]} explain in the form ϕqΛ(ζ)={minθҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ)} fqΛ:SqΛ[0,1] explain fqΛ(ζ)={maxυҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ),ωqΛ:SqΛ[0,2π]} explain in the form ωqΛ(ζ)={maxϑҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ)}.

    Definition 25: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be CQROFDG. Then CQROF m-step in- neighbourhood of a node Λ of a CQROFDG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) is CQROFS:

    Ξnm(Λ)=(SnΛ,tnΛeiϕnΛ,fnΛeiωnΛ)

    Such that: SnΛ=ζ: is a CQROFDP of length m from ζ to Λ Pm(ζ,s).

    So, tnΛ:SnΛ[0,1] explain in the form tnΛ(ζ)={minμ Ҳ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ),ϕnΛ:SnΛ[0,2π]} explain in the form ϕnΛ(ζ)={minθ Ҳ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ)} fnΛ:SnΛ[0,1] explain fnΛ(ζ)={maxυ Ҳ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ)} and ωnΛ(ζ):SnΛ[0,2π] explain in the form ωnΛ(ζ)={maxϑ Ҳ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ)}.

    Example 6: Suppose Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG for q=3 in Figure 11, explained as:

    Ҳ=((t10.81ei1.21π,t20.51ei1.41π,t30.41ei1.51π,t40.61ei1.41π)(t10.51ei1.01π,t20.61ei.1π,t30.71ei0.1π,t40.31ei1.01π))
    Ɏ=(((t1,t2)0.46ei1.11π,(t1,t3)0.41ei0.31π,(t1,t4)0.56ei1.31π,(t3,t4)0.36ei1.01π,(t4,t2)0.51ei0.71π)((t1,t2)0.56ei0.81π,(t1,t3)0.61ei0.91π,(t1,t4)0.46ei1.01π,(t3,t4)0.67ei0.1π,(t4,t2)0.51ei0.1π))
    Figure 11.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy diagraph.

    Table 11 shows that out and in the neighbourhood of the nodes of CQROF.

    Table 11.  The CQROF 2-steps neighborhood.
    y Ξq2(y) Ξn2(y)
    t1 {t4,(0.41ei0.31π,0.61ei0.91π)}
    {t2,(0.36ei1.01π,0.67ei0.1π)}
    t2 (0.36ei1.01π,0.67ei0.1π)
    t3 {t2,(0.36ei1.01π,0.67ei0.1π)}
    t4 (0.51ei0.71π,0.51ei0.1π)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Definition 26: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be CQROFDG. Then m-step CQROFCG of Ģ is represented by Cm(Ģ)=(Ŭ,Ҳ,D) i.e., The CQROF family of nodes of Cm(Ģ) equal to Ģ and a CQROF edge exists between two different vertices Λ and ζ in Cm(Ģ) iff (Ξmq(Λ)Ξmq(ζ)0 in CQROFDG. The TG and FG values of (Λ,ζ) in the following form:

    μD(Λ,ζ)=(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))׈hμ(Ξmq(Λ)Ξmq(ζ))
    νD(Λ,ζ)=(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ))׈hν(Ξmq(Λ)Ξmq(ζ))
    θD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)׈hθ(Ξmq(Λ)Ξmq(ζ))2π]
    ϑD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)׈hϑ(Ξmq(Λ)Ξmq(ζ))2π]

    Example 7: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG for q=3 in the following Figure 12, explained as:

    Ҳ=((a10.81ei1.21π,a20.71ei1.01π,a30.51ei1.41π,a40.41ei1.41π,a50.51ei1.81π,a60.81ei1.31π,a70.81ei1.21π)(a10.61ei1.11π,a20.71ei1.31π,a30.61ei1.21π,a40.71ei0.91π,a50.71ei0.51π,a60.41ei1.01π,a70.61ei1.11π))
    Ɏ=(((a1,a2)0.71ei1.01π,(a1,a3)0.41ei1.01π,(a2,a3)0.51ei0.91π,(a4,a2)0.31ei0.91π,(a4,a3)0.41ei1.21π,(a5,a4)0.31ei1.21π,(a5,a6)0.41ei1.21π,(a6,a4)0.31ei1.21π,(a7,a4)0.31ei1.01π)((a1,a2)0.71ei1.21π,(a1,a3)0.61ei1.21π,(a2,a3)0.71ei1.11π,(a4,a2)0.71ei1.21π,(a4,a3)0.61ei1.91π,(a5,a4)0.71ei0.91π,(a5,a6)0.41ei1.01π,(a6,a4)0.51ei1.01π,(a7,a4)0.61ei1.01π))
    Figure 12.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy diagraph.

    Table 12 contains the family of out- neighbourhood of nodes of CQROF 2-step.

    Table 12.  The family of out-neighborhood of nodes for CQROF 2-steps.
    K Ξq2(k)
    a1 {a3,(0.51ei0.91π,0.71ei1.11π)}
    a2
    a3
    a4 {a3,(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    a5 {a4,(0.31ei1.21π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    {a2,(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    a6 {a2,(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    a7 {a3,(0.31ei1.01π,0.61ei1.01π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Now

    Ξq2(a1)Ξq2(a7)={a3(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    Ξq2(a1)Ξq2(a4)={a3(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    Ξq2(a4)Ξq2(a7)={a3(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}

    and

    Ξq2(a5)Ξq2(a6)={a2(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}.

    Therefore

    ˆh(Ξq2(a1)Ξq2(a4))={(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    ˆh(Ξq2(a4)Ξq2(a7))=( Ξq2(a1)(a7))={(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}

    and

    ˆh(Ξq2(a5)Ξq2(a2))={(0.31ei0.91π,0.71ei1.21π)}.

    By using this draw Figure 13. for 2-step CQROFCG.

    Figure 13.  The 2-step complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy competition graph.

    Theorem 5: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be CQROFDG and if m>|Ŭ| then family of the edge of Cm(Ģ) is empty.

    The proof of this Theorem 5, discussed in Appendix.

    Definition 27: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be CQROFG. Then CQROF m-step neighbourhood of nodes Λ of a CQROFG Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) is CQROFS:

    Ξm=(SΛ,tΛeiϕΛfΛeiωΛ)

    Such that: SΛ=ζ: is a CQROFDP of interval m from Λ to ζ Pm(Λ,ζ).

    So, tΛ:SΛ[0,1] explain in the form tΛ(ζ)={minμҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ),ϕΛ:SΛ[0,2π]} explain in the form ϕΛ(ζ)={minθҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ)} fΛ:SΛ[0,1] explain fΛ(ζ)={maxυҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ),ωΛ:SΛ[0,2π]} explain in the form of ωΛ(ζ)={maxϑҲ(d,g),(d,g)iΛanedgeofPm(Λ,ζ)}.

    Definition 28: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be CQROFG. Then m-step CQROFNG of Ģ is represented by Nm(Ģ)=(Ŭ,Ҳ,D) i.e., The CQROF family of nodes of Nm(Ģ) is equal to Ģ and a CQROF edge exist between two different nodes Λ and ζ in Nm(Ģ) iff (Ξm(Λ)Ξm(ζ)0 in CQROFG. We calculate the TG and FG values of the edges (Λ,ζ) in the following way:

    μD(Λ,ζ)=(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ))׈hμ(Ξm(Λ)Ξm(ζ))
    νD(Λ,ζ)=(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ))׈hν(Ξm(Λ)Ξm(ζ))
    θD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(θҲ(Λ)2πθҲ(ζ)2π)׈hθ(Ξm(Λ)Ξm(ζ))2π]
    ϑD(Λ,ζ)=2π[(ϑҲ(Λ)2πϑҲ(ζ)2π)׈hϑ(Ξm(Λ)Ξm(ζ))2π]

    Example 8: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFG for q=3 in the following Figure 14, explained as:

    Ҳ=((t10.56ei1.21π,t20.67ei1.01π,t30.71ei1.31π,t40.91ei1.51π,t50.51ei1.01π,t60.71ei0.91π)(t10.81ei1.31π,t20.51ei0.91π,t30.71ei0.91π,t40.31ei1.01π,t50.61ei1.01π,t60.71ei1.31π))
    Ɏ=((((t1,t2)0.51ei1.01π,(t2,t3)0.66ei0.81π,(t3,t4)0.66ei1.11π,(t4,t5)0.46ei1.01π,(t4,t6)0.61ei0.81π,(t6,t1)0.41ei0.91π)((t1,t2)0.61ei1.21π,(t2,t3)0.71ei0.91π,(t3,t4)0.51ei1.01π,(t4,t5)0.46ei0.81π,(t4,t6)0.61ei1.21π,(t6,t1)0.81ei1.31π)))
    Figure 14.  The complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy graph.

    The CQROF 2-step neighbourhood of the family of nodes which are shown in Table 13. The CQROFS (Ξ2(Λ)Ξ2(ζ)) and ˆh(Ξ2(Λ)Ξ2(ζ)) are shown in Table 14 and their graphical representation is shown in Figure 15.

    Table 13.  The CQROF 2-step neighborhood of family of nodes.
    y Ξ2(y)
    t1 {t3,(0.51ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    {t4,(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)}
    t2 {t4,(0.66ei0.81π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    {t6,(0.41ei0.91π,0.81ei1.31π)}
    t3 {t1,(0.51ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    {t5,(0.46ei1.01π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    {t6,(0.61ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}
    t4 {t1,(0.51ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}
    {t5,(0.66ei0.81π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    t5 {t3,(0.46ei1.01π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    {t6,(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}
    tt {t2,(0.41ei0.91π,0.81ei1.31π)}
    {t3,(0.61ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}
    {t5,(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 14.  The (Ŋ2(s)Ŋ2(w)) and h(Ŋ2(s)Ŋ2(w)) of CQROFSs.
    Λ Z (Ξ2(Λ)Ξ2(ζ)) ˆh(Ξ2(Λ)Ξ2(ζ))
    t1 t2 {t4,(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)} {(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)}
    t1 t3
    t1 t4
    t1 t5 {t3,(0.46ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)} {(0.46ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    t1 t6 {t3,(0.51ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)} {(0.51ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    t2 t3 {t6,(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)} {(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)}
    t2 t4
    t2 t5 {t6,(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)} {(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)}
    t2 t6
    t3 t4 {t1,(0.51ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)} {(0.51ei0.81π,0.71ei1.21π)}
    t3 t5 {t5,(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)} {(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}
    t3 t6 {t6,(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)} {(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}
    t4 t5
    t4 t6 {t2,(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)} {(0.41ei0.81π,0.81ei1.31π)}
    t5 t6 {t3,(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)} {(0.46ei0.81π,0.61ei1.21π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 15.  The 2-step complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy neighborhood graph.

    Definition 29: Consider that Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be CQROFDG. Suppose that joint node of m-step out- neighbourhoods of nodes t1,t2,t3,,tnr.

    Consider μҲ(q1,ζ1)eiθҲ(q1,ζ1),μҲ(q2,ζ2)eiθҲ(q2,ζ2),μҲ(q3,ζ3)eiθҲ(q3,ζ3),,μҲ(qn,ζn)eiθҲ(qn,ζn) show the lower TG values of the edge of a path Pm(t1,r),Pm(t2,r),Pm(t3,r),,Pm(tn,r) and νҲ(q1,ζ1)eiϑҲ(q1,ζ1),νҲ(q2,ζ2)eiϑҲ(q2,ζ2),νҲ(q3,ζ3)eiϑҲ(q3,ζ3),,νҲ(qn,ζn)eiϑҲ(qn,ζn) show that the high TG values of the edge of a path Pm(t1,r),Pm(t2,r),Pm(t3,r),,Pm(tn,r) respectively.

    The m-step nodes rŬ is heavy if μҲ(qk,ζk)>12 and θҲ(q2,ζ2)>1π for TG and νҲ(qk,ζk)<12 and ϑҲ(q2,ζ2)<1π for FG values ,k=1,2,3,,n. (SŢ(r),SF(r)), represent the strength of prey r, s.t SŢ(r):Ŭ{y:yC:|y|1} and SF(r):Ŭ{y:yC:|y|1} in the following form:

    SŢ(r)=nk=1μҲ(qk,ζk)neink=1θҲ(qk,ζk)n,
    SF(r)=nk=1νҲ(qk,ζk)neink=1ϑҲ(qk,ζk)n,

    Example 9: Consider Ģ=(Ŭ,Ҳ,Ɏ) be a CQROFDG for q=3 as shown in Figure 16 and explained as:

    Ҳ=((d10.81ei1.21π,d20.71ei1.11π,d30.61ei1.21π,d40.71ei1.61π,d50.81ei1.41π,d60.66ei1.11π,d70.81ei1.21π)(d10.41ei1.11π,d20.51ei1.31π,d30.51ei1.51π,d40.51ei1.01π,d50.56ei1.01π,d60.36ei1.31π,d70.41ei1.11π))
    Ɏ=(((d1,d3)0.61ei1.11π,(d2,d4)0.51ei1.01π,(d2,d5)0.51ei1.11π,(d3,d2)0.61ei1.11π,(d4,d1)0.51ei0.91π,(d5,d7)0.61ei0.81π,(d6,d2)0.61ei1.11π,(d7,d6)0.51ei1.01π)((d1,d3)0.31ei0.71π,(d2,d4)0.31ei1.01π,(d2,d5)0.31ei1.21π,(d3,d2)0.31ei0.91π,(d4,d1)0.21ei0.91π,(d5,d7)0.21ei0.91π,(d6,d2)0.31ei0.81π,(d7,d6)0.21ei0.71π))
    Figure 16.  The Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy diagraph.

    Now we discuss the strength of the node d2 from Figure 16.

    SŢ(d2)=0.61+0.512ei1.11π+1.01π2=0.56ei1.06π
    SF(d2)=0.31+0.312ei0.91π+0.812=0.31ei0.86π

    So, the node d2 is heavy for 2- steps if 0.56>12 and 1.06>1π for TG and 0.31<12 and 0.86<1π for FG values.

    Theorem 6: If all the nodes in CQROFDG Ģ are heavy. Then in Cm(Ģ):

    Ⅰ. μD(Λ,ζ)>12(μҲ(Λ)μҲ(ζ)) and θD(Λ,ζ)>12(θҲ(Λ)θҲ(ζ))

    Ⅱ. νD(Λ,ζ)<12(νҲ(Λ)νҲ(ζ)) and ϑD(Λ,ζ)<12(ϑҲ(Λ)ϑҲ(ζ))

    ,Λ,ζŬ.

    The proof of this Theorem 6, discussed in Appendix.

    Theorem 7: Let r be the strong node of Ģ then in strength of r:

    Ⅰ. nk=1μҲ(qk,ζk)n>12, and nk=1νҲ(q3,ζ3)n>1π, ,Ţ,F,ϵ(r)

    Ⅱ. nk=1θҲ(q3,ζ3)n<12 and nk=1ϑҲ(q3,ζ3)n<1π, ,Ţ,F,ϵ(r)

    The proof of this Theorem 7, discussed in Appendix.

    The FCGs have become considerable as they may be relevant to many regions in which there may be competition between different real global units. However, there are some competitions of actual international which can't be characterized through those graphs.

    To characterize all the competitions, we endorse CPyFCGs that have the higher capability to show all of the competitions of real global. To fully appreciate the idea of CQROFCGs. We construct claim of competition graphs of CQROF surroundings with an algorithm underneath.

    Now we explain through an example consider that eight candidates competing for designations in public institute School education department. Suppose that family of employees {Jasper, Lewis, Luca, Rex, Trevor, Edward, Giles, Harvey} and post filled according to a few certain designations in the education department {CEO, DEO, Dy-DEO, AEO, HD}. The real part of the TG and FG values of each person shows the value of honesty and dishonesty according to his designation. The imaginary part of the TG and FG values of each employee shows the value of satisfying and being unsatisfied with the work assigned from the higher authority and fulfilling their goals. In the same way, the TG and FG values for each post show the value of how much designation is appropriate and inappropriate for the employee. The imaginary part of the TG and FG values for each post shows the value for available and unavailable. So, the TG and FG values for employee and designation are shown in the following Table 15.

    Table 15.  The TG and NG values of the nodes.
    Name of employee CQROF grade Name of designation CQROF grade
    Jasper (0.81ei1.21π,0.61ei1.11π) CEO (0.91ei1.21π,0.31ei1.01π)
    Harvey (0.51ei0.81π,0.71ei1.31π) DEO (0.51ei1.21π,0.61e0.91π)
    Giles (0.41ei1.21π,0.81ei0.91π) Dy-DEO (0.71ei1.31π,0.31ei0.81π)
    Trevor (0.51ei1.11π,0.71ei1.01π) AEO (0.71ei1.01π,0.51ei0.91π)
    Edward (0.31ei1.21π,0.81ei1.01π) HD (0.81ei1.81π,0.41ei0.21π)
    Lewis (0.41ei1.31π,0.61ei0.91π) - -
    Luca (0.71ei1.51π,0.41ei0.71π) - -
    Rex (0.91ei1.81π,0.41ei1.31π) - -

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The real part of the TG function of each direct edge between employee and designation shows the verified and un-verified degrees of the employee for a certain post. In the same way, the imaginary part of the TG and FG of each direct edge between employee and designation shows the values of experience of his previous work and unexperienced having no past work according to his present post. The CQROFDG is shown in Figure 17. In this figure, we take employees and their designation as nodes and the relation between them show as a direct edge which is seen in Figure 17 and the CQROF out- neighbourhood of the nodes shown in Table 16. CQROFSs ( Ŋq(s) Ŋq(w)) and h(( Ŋq(s) Ŋq(w)) are shown in Table 17.

    Figure 17.  The Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy competition graph.
    Table 16.  The CQROF out-neighborhood of nodes.
    Employees ˜Ξq(employees)
    Jasper {CEO,(0.71ei1.01π,0.51ei1.01π)}
    {DEO,(0.41ei0.91π,0.56ei1.11π)}
    Rex {DEO,(0.36ei0.81π,0.66ei1.31π)}
    {HD,(0.46ei0.71π,0.61ei0.91π)}
    Lewis {CEO,(0.36ei1.01π,0.56ei0.91π)}
    Trevor {CEO,(0.41ei1.01π,0.71ei1.01π)}
    {AEO,(0.46ei1.11π,0.46ei0.81π)}
    {{HD,(0.36ei0.91π,0.66ei1.01π)}
    Harvey {DyDEO,(0.76ei1.51π,0.41ei0.51π)}
    Luca {DEO,(0.36ei1.01π,0.56ei0.81π)}
    {DyDEO,(0.31ei1.21π,0.61ei0.71π)}
    Edward {AEO,(0.21ei1.01π,0.21ei0.81π)}
    Giles {DEO,(0.31ei1.01π,0.76ei1.01π)}
    {AEO,(0.21ei1.01π,0.21ei0.81π)}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 17.  CQROFSs ( Ŋq(s) Ŋq(w)) and h(( Ŋq(s) Ŋq(w)).
    \boldsymbol{s} \boldsymbol{w} \left({{\widetilde {\bf{{{\Xi}} }}}}_{2}\left(\boldsymbol{s}\right)\cap {{\widetilde {\bf{{{\Xi}} }}}}_{2}\left(\boldsymbol{w}\right)\right) \mathfrak{h}\left({{\widetilde {\bf{{{\Xi}} }}}}_{2}\left(\boldsymbol{s}\right)\cap {{\widetilde {\bf{{{\Xi}} }}}}_{2}\left(\boldsymbol{w}\right)\right)
    Jasper Rex \left\{DEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }, 0.66{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.81\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }, 0.66{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.81\pi }\right)\right\}
    Jasper Lewis \left\{CEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.56{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{CEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.56{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\}
    Jasper Trevor \left\{CEO, \left(0.41{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.71{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{CEO, \left(0.41{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.71{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\}
    Jasper Harvey \varnothing \varnothing
    Jasper Luca \left\{DEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.91\pi }, 0.56{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.11\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.91\pi }, 0.56{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.11\pi }\right)\right\}
    Jasper Edward \varnothing \varnothing
    Jasper Giles \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.91\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.11\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.91\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.11\pi }\right)\right\}
    Rex Lewis \varnothing \varnothing
    Rex Trevor \left\{HD, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.71\pi }, 0.66{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.11\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{HD, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.71\pi }, 0.66{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.11\pi }\right)\right\}
    Rex Harvey \varnothing \varnothing
    Rex Luca \left\{DEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }, 0.66{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.31\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }, 0.66{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.31\pi }\right)\right\}
    Rex Edward \varnothing \varnothing
    Rex Giles \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.31\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.31\pi }\right)\right\}
    Lewis Trevor \left\{CEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.71{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{CEO, \left(0.36{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.71{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\}
    Lewis Harvey \varnothing \varnothing
    Lewis Luca \varnothing \varnothing
    Lewis Edward \varnothing \varnothing
    Lewis Giles \varnothing \varnothing
    Trevor Harvey \varnothing \varnothing
    Trevor Luca \varnothing \varnothing
    Trevor Edward \left\{AEO, \left(0.21{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.46{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{AEO, \left(0.21{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.46{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }\right)\right\}
    Trevor Giles \left\{AEO, \left(0.21{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.46{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.81\pi }\right)\right\} \varnothing
    Harvey Luca \left\{DY-DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.21\pi }, 0.61{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.71\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DY-DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.21\pi }, 0.61{\mathcal{e}}^{i0.71\pi }\right)\right\}
    Harvey Edward \varnothing \varnothing
    Harvey Giles \varnothing \varnothing
    Luca Edward \varnothing \varnothing
    Luca Giles \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\}
    Edward Giles \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\} \left\{DEO, \left(0.31{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }, 0.76{\mathcal{e}}^{i1.01\pi }\right)\right\}

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Figure 18 shows two sets of dotted and solid lines. Solid lines represent the competition between the person who has applied for a particular post and dotted lines represent competition between candidates and a particular post. We observe from the previous Figure in which seen that competition of 5-persons with Jasper, namely, Rex, Lewis, Trevor, Luca, and Giles. In the same way, competition four candidates have with Rex, namely, Trevor, Luca, Giles and Jasper, and Lewis having a competition with Trevor. Similarly, competition has between Trevor and Edward, Trevor and Giles, Harvey and Luca, Harvey and Giles, Luca and Giles and the last one are Edward with Giles. For this, we use Table 18. For explaining our application.

    Figure 18.  Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy competition graph.
    Table 18.  Algorithm steps.
    Step 1. Allocation for the TG s and FGs of the set of candidates and designations.
    Step 2. If {a}_{i} and {a}_{j} be any vertices, {\mu }_{Ɏ}\overrightarrow{\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)} > 0, {\nu }_{Ɏ}\overrightarrow{\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)} > 0 ,
    Then \left({{a}_{j}, \mu }_{Ɏ}\overrightarrow{\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)}{e}^{{i\theta }_{Ɏ}\overrightarrow{\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)}}, {\nu }_{Ɏ}\overrightarrow{\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)}{e}^{{i\vartheta }_{Ɏ}\overrightarrow{\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)}}\right)\in {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right).
    Step 3. Calculate the CQROF out- neighbourhoods {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right) for all nodes of {a}_{i}, {a}_{j} by using the above Step 2.
    Step 4. Calculate the CQROF {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right)
    Step 5. Calculate the CQROF {\widehat {\rm{h}}}\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right)\right)
    Step 6. If {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{p}\left({a}_{i}\right)\ne \varnothing then draw an edge \left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right).
    Step 7. All the above steps are repeated for the different nodes of the CQROFDG.
    Step 8. Allocate the TG and FG by satisfying the following axioms:
    {\mu }_{Ɏ}\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)=\left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{i}\right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{i}\right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)
    {\nu }_{Ɏ}\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)=\left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{i}\right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{i}\right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)
    and
    {\theta }_{Ɏ}\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)=2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{i}\right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{j}\right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right]
    {\vartheta }_{Ɏ}\left({a}_{i}, {a}_{j}\right)=2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{i}\right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({a}_{j}\right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Competition graphs are more effective in the field of competition in which different objects are compared with the different real-world objects. Sahoo and Pal [38] utilized the concepts of CG in the framework of intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs). But some competitions have two-dimensional or periodic information for the objects. In 2019, Habib et al. [33] proposed work on QROFCGs which discuss how we deal with the uncertain and incomplete information about the nodes and edges. After this Akram et al. [47] worked on CG in the environment of complex PyF (CPyF) information. All previously existing research works have a large ability to deal with uncertain and vague information of a graph. To increase the ability to deal with uncertain data of graphs, we used the CG under the CQROF information and its several numerical examples in different fields of life. We also discussed an application of CQROFSs under CGs with the help of numerical example for q = 3 . Suppose that a family of employees {Jasper, Lewis, Luca, Rex, Trevor, Edward, Giles, Harvey} competing for a few certain designations in the public education department {CEO, DEO, Dy-DEO, AEO, HD}. Consider TG and FG of candidates denote the value of loyalty and disloyalty of candidates for particular designations while the TG and FG of designations show the availability and non-availability of designations. A lot of public and private offices may change our selection policy to fulfil their vacant posts based on experience according to the designations. So, the given information about the candidates and designations is not enough. In the same way, candidates are unable to know by using the given information that how much the job is suitable. We utilized a new model of CQROFCG to deal with two-dimensional data. CQROFCGs have larger potential and play an important role to deal with two-dimensional information. The capability of these graphs for addressing two-dimensional phenomena makes it better than handling vague and uncertain data. Finally, the statistical comparison of the invented work is described in the shape of Table 19.

    Table 19.  Comparative analysis of the proposed and existing theories.
    Methods Membership Membership and Non-membership One-dimension information Two-dimension information Power q Contains relations
    Fuzzy sets \surd \times \surd \times \times \times
    Intuitionistic fuzzy sets \surd \surd \surd \times \times \times
    Pythagorean fuzzy sets \surd \surd \surd \times \times \times
    q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets \surd \surd \surd \surd \times
    Complex fuzzy sets \surd \times \surd \surd \times \times
    Complex intuitionistic fuzzy sets \surd \surd \surd \surd \times \times
    Complex Pythagorean fuzzy sets \surd \surd \surd \surd \times \times
    Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets \surd \surd \surd \surd \surd \times
    Fuzzy graph \surd \surd \times \times \surd
    Intuitionistic fuzzy graph \surd \surd \surd \times \times \surd
    Pythagorean fuzzy graph \surd \surd \surd \times \times \surd
    q-rung orthopair fuzzy graph \surd \surd \surd \times \surd \surd
    Complex fuzzy graph \surd \surd \surd \times \surd
    Complex intuitionistic fuzzy graph \surd \surd \surd \surd \times \surd
    Complex Pythagorean fuzzy graph \surd \surd \surd \surd \times \surd
    Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy graph \surd \surd \surd \surd \surd \surd

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In Table 19, the notation \surd , is used for hold and the symbol \times , is used for not holding. From the above table, it is clear that the suggested work based on CQROFG is more powerful than the existing approaches.

    This manuscript aims summarized below:

    1) We analyzed the well-known and massive idea of CG in the presence of a new and dominant technique of CQROF setting. The mathematical from of CQROF setting is more flexible and massive consistent for demonstrating the beneficial option form the collection of objectives during decision-making process.

    2) The major concept of in-neighbourhood and out-neighbourhood using CQROFDG are also invented to enhance the quality of the diagnosed approach.

    3) The fundamental theory of CQROF k-competition, CQROF p-competition, CQROF neighbourhood and m-step CQROF neighbourhood graphs are also explored.

    4) In the availability of the above-described theories, the basic and significant results for presented work are obtained to show the compatibility and worth of the invented approaches. To show the practicality of the developed approach, we try to verify the proposed work with the help of various examples.

    5) We described the validity and practicality of the invented work; we diagnosed an application using presented approaches based on CQROF setting is to enhance the major weakness of the existing approaches. Finally, in the availability of the invented ideas, we discussed the sensitivity analysis of the described approaches.

    In the presence of various issues occurred in genuine life troubles, some limitations of the invented approaches are described below.

    1) When expert suggested information \left(0.4{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.3\right)}, 0.3{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.2\right)}, 0.2{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.1\right)}\right) for support, abstinence, and support against, then the scenario of CQROFG has been unreliable, for this, we have required to investigate the complex picture fuzzy graph.

    2) When expert suggested information \left(0.6{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.3\right)}, 0.5{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.7\right)}, 0.2{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.1\right)}\right) for support, abstinence, and support against, then the scenario of CQROFG has been unreliable, for this, we have required to investigate the complex spherical fuzzy graph.

    3) When expert suggested information \left(0.9{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.8\right)}, 0.8{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.7\right)}, 0.7{\mathcal{e}}^{i2\pi \left(0.6\right)}\right) for support, abstinence, and support against, then the scenario of CQROFG has been unreliable, for this, we have required to investigate the complex T-spherical fuzzy graph.

    In future we will extend our proposed in the environment of complex picture fuzzy graphs [49] and generalized our proposed work in the framework of interval valued fuzzy graph, neutrosophic graph [50] and decision-making techniques [51,52,53].

    This research was supported by the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2022R476), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data Availability: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Proof of Theorem 1: Since \overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}} = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, \overrightarrow{Ɏ}\right) be a CQROFDG. Let {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right) = \left(c, r{e}^{i\alpha }, ş{e}^{i\beta }\right) i.e., r{e}^{i\alpha } and ş{e}^{i\beta } are TG and FG values ({\mathit{\Lambda}}, c) or (\zeta, c) . So {\widehat {\rm{h}}}({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right) = \left(r{e}^{i\alpha }, {\mathit{\Lambda}} {e}^{i\beta }\right) = {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right) .

    So:

    {\left|{{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right|}_{\mu } = r = {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\left|{{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right|}_{\nu } = ş = {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\left|{{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right|}_{\theta } = \alpha = {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\left|{{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right|}_{\vartheta } = \beta = {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)

    By using the previous definition 16. The TG and FG values of the edges \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in CQROFCG in the following form:

    {\mu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)) = \left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times r
    {\nu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)) = \left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times ş
    {\theta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right] \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;= 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\right]
    {\vartheta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right]\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{\beta }{2\pi }\right]

    So, \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) is a strong edge if satisfy \zeta > \frac{1}{2}, ş < \frac{1}{2}, \alpha > \pi and \beta < \pi .

    Proof of Theorem 2: Suppose that \overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}} = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, \overrightarrow{Ɏ}\right) be a CQROFDG. Consider {\mathbb{C}}_{k}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) be the correlative k- competition graph. By the given condition if {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = 1 for real terms and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = 2\pi for the imaginary terms of the TG values. Now if we see definition 17, then TG values of the edge \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in correspondence CQROFKCG {\mathbb{C}}_{k}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) .

    {\mu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \frac{{a}^{'}-a}{{a}^{'}}\left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = \frac{{a}^{'}-a}{{a}^{'}}\left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\theta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\frac{{ɣ}^{'}-ɣ}{{ɣ}^{'}}\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathrm{ƞ}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right] \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;2\pi \left[\frac{{ɣ}^{'}-ɣ}{{ɣ}^{'}}\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{2\pi }{2\pi }\right]

    So, {\mu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) > \frac{1}{2}\left[2\pi \left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\right] as \frac{{a}^{'}-a}{{a}^{'}} > \frac{1}{2} and {\theta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) > \frac{1}{2}\left[2\pi \left({\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\right] as \frac{{ɣ}^{'}-ɣ}{{ɣ}^{'}} > \frac{1}{2} .

    Similarly, if {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = 1 for real terms and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = 2\pi for the imaginary terms of the TG values. Now if we see the definition 17, then TG values of the edge \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in correspondence CQROFKCG {\mathbb{C}}_{k}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) .

    {\nu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \frac{{b}^{'}-a}{{b}^{'}}\left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; = \frac{{b}^{'}-a}{{b}^{'}}\left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\vartheta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left(\frac{{\eta }^{'}-ɣ}{{\eta }^{'}}\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathrm{ƞ}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right)\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; = 2\pi \left[\frac{{\eta }^{'}-ɣ}{{\eta }^{'}}\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{2\pi }{2\pi }\right]

    So, {\nu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) < \frac{1}{2}\left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right) as \frac{{b}^{'}-a}{{b}^{'}} < \frac{1}{2} and {\vartheta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) < \frac{1}{2}\left({\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right) as \frac{{\eta }^{'}-ɣ}{{\eta }^{'}} < \frac{1}{2} .

    Since the edges ({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta) is strong

    Proof of Theorem 3: Suppose that \overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}} = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, \overrightarrow{Ɏ}\right) be a CQROFDG and \mathrm{Ģ} = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, Ɏ\right) be the corresponding \frac{\left|t\right|}{2} -competition CQROFG. By the given if {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = 1 and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = 2\pi in {\mathbb{C}}^{\frac{\left|t\right|}{2}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) then the TG values of the edge \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in {\mathbb{C}}^{\frac{\left|t\right|}{2}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) in the following form:

    {\mu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left[{\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right]\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; = \frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left[{\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right]\times 1
    {\theta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{e2\pi }\right] \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; = 2\pi \left[\frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{2\pi }{2\pi }\right]

    So {\mu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) > \frac{1}{2}\left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right) , {\theta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) > \frac{1}{2}\left[2\pi \left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\right] and \frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u} > \frac{1}{2} . In the same way if {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = 0 and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right) = 0 in in {\mathbb{C}}^{\frac{\left|t\right|}{2}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) then FG values of the edge \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in {\mathbb{C}}^{\frac{\left|t\right|}{2}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) in the following form:

    {\nu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left[{\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right]\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; = \frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left[{\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right]\times 0
    {\nu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left[{\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right]\times 0
    {\vartheta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{\mathit{\Xi}} }^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right] \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; = 2\pi \left[\frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{0}{2\pi }\right] \\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; = 2\pi \left[\frac{\left(u-p\right)+1}{u}\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times 0\right]

    {\nu }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) < \frac{1}{2}\left[{\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right] and {\vartheta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) < \frac{1}{2}\left[2\pi \left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\right], 0 < \frac{1}{2} .

    Proof of Theorem 4: Consider that \mathrm{Ģ} = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, Ɏ\right) the CQROFG and \mathbb{N}\left[\mathbb{Ģ}\right] = \left(\mathbb{Ŭ}, \mathbb{Ҳ}, \mathbb{Ɏ}\mathbb{'}\right) be the CQROFCNG. Suppose \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) be an edge of CQROFG \mathrm{Ģ} . Then {\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \in {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right] and {\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \in {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right] . Thus {\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \in {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right] . So, {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{s}\right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)\ne 0 and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{s}\right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)\ne 0 . By using the definition 22, the TG value of the edges \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in \mathbb{N}\left[\mathbb{Ģ}\right] in the following form:

    {\mu }_{{Ɏ}^{'}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)\ne 0
    {\theta }_{{Ɏ}^{'}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)}{2\pi }\right]\ne 0

    In the same way {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)\ne 0 and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)\ne 0 for the height of FG value of functions:

    {\nu }_{{Ɏ}^{'}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)\ne 0
    {\vartheta }_{{Ɏ}^{'}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({\mathit{\Xi}} \left[{\mathit{\Lambda}} \right]\cap {\mathit{\Xi}} \left[\mathrm{\zeta }\right]\right)}{2\pi }\right]\ne 0

    So, \forall, \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in \mathrm{Ģ} therefore an edge \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in \mathbb{N}\left[\mathbb{Ģ}\right] .

    Proof of Theorem 5: Consider \overrightarrow{\mathbb{Ģ}} = \left(\mathbb{Ŭ}, \mathbb{Ҳ}, \overrightarrow{\mathbb{Ɏ}}\right) be CQROFDG and {\mathbb{C}}_{\mathrm{m}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, D\right) be the corresponding m-step CQROFCG. By using definition 26, the TG and FG grades of the edge \left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) in {\mathbb{C}}_{\mathrm{m}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) form as:

    {\mu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\nu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\theta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right]
    {\vartheta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right]

    \forall, ({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta)\in Ŭ . If the \mathcal{m} > \left|\mathcal{Ŭ}\right| then there does not exist any CQROFDP of interval \mathcal{m} in \overrightarrow{\mathcal{Ģ}} . So the CQROFS \left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) = \varnothing . Therefore, {\mu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) = 0 , {\theta }_{Ɏ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) = 0 for the TG value and {\nu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) = 0, {\vartheta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) = 0 for the FG value. So {\mathbb{C}}_{\mathrm{m}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) having without edge.

    Proof of Theorem 6: Consider that \overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}} = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, \overrightarrow{Ɏ}\right) be CQROFDG and let all vertices of \overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}} be the strong and {\mathbb{C}}_{\mathrm{m}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, D\right) be the corresponding m-step CQROFCG. We explain it in two different steps.

    Step 1: Consider \left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\ne 0 So that having no edge between two {\mathit{\Lambda}} and \zeta in {\mathbb{C}}_{\mathrm{m}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) .

    Step 2: Let a non-empty set \left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) . All the nodes are strong if there is {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) > \frac{1}{2} and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) > \frac{1}{2} . So, the TG values of the edges ({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta) in {\mathbb{C}}_{\mathrm{m}}\left(\overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}}\right) in the following form:

    {\mu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\mu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) > \left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times \frac{1}{2}
    {\theta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right]
    {\theta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) > 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{1\pi }{2\pi }\right]

    So, {\mu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) > \frac{1}{2}\left({\mu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\wedge {\mu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right) and {\theta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) > \frac{1}{2}\left[2\pi \left(\frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\wedge \frac{{\theta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\right] as {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\mu }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) > \frac{1}{2} and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\theta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) > \frac{1}{2} . In the same way {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) < \frac{1}{2} and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) < \frac{1}{2} . Therefore, FG values of the edge ({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta) in the following form:

    {\nu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = \left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\nu }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)
    {\nu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) < \left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\times \frac{1}{2}
    {\vartheta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) = 2\pi \left[\left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{{{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right)}{2\pi }\right]
    {\vartheta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} , \zeta \right) < \left[2\pi \left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\times \frac{1\pi }{2\pi }\right]

    So, {\nu }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) < \frac{1}{2}\left({\nu }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\vee {\nu }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)\right) and {\vartheta }_{D}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}}, \zeta \right) < \frac{1}{2}\left[2\pi \left(\frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)}{2\pi }\vee \frac{{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\left(\zeta \right)}{2\pi }\right)\right] as {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) < \frac{1}{2} and {{\widehat {\rm{h}}}}_{\vartheta }\left({{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left({\mathit{\Lambda}} \right)\cap {{{\mathit{\Xi}} }_{\mathcal{m}}}^{\mathfrak{q}}\left(\zeta \right)\right) < \frac{1}{2} .

    Proof of Theorem 7: Consider that \overrightarrow{\mathrm{Ģ}} = \left(Ŭ, Ҳ, \overrightarrow{Ɏ}\right) be CQROFDG. Suppose that joint node of m-step out- neighbourhood of nodes {t}_{1}, {t}_{2}, {t}_{3}, \dots, {t}_{n}\in r .

    Consider {\mu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{1}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{1}\right)}{e}^{i{\theta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{1}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{1}\right)}}, {\mu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{2}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{2}\right)}{e}^{i{\theta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{2}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{2}\right)}}, {\mu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{3}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{3}\right)}{e}^{i{\theta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{3}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{3}\right)}}, \dots, {\mu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{n}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{n}\right)}{e}^{i{\theta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{n}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{n}\right)}} show the lower TG values of the edge of a path {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{1}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}}, {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{2}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}}, {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{3}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}}, \dots, {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{n}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}} and {\nu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{1}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{1}\right)}{e}^{i{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{1}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{1}\right)}}, {\nu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{2}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{2}\right)}{e}^{i{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{2}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{2}\right)}}, {\nu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{3}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{3}\right)}{e}^{i{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{3}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{3}\right)}}, \dots, {\nu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{n}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{n}\right)}{e}^{i{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{n}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{n}\right)}} show that the high TG values of the edge of a path {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{1}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}}, {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{2}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}}, {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{3}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}}, \dots, {\overrightarrow{\mathcal{P}}}_{({t}_{n}, r)}^{\mathcal{m}} respectively.

    If node r\in Ŭ is heavy if {\mu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)} > \frac{1}{2} and {\theta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{2}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{2}\right)} > 1\pi for TG and {\nu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)} < \frac{1}{2} and {\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{2}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{2}\right)} < 1\pi for FG values \forall, k = \mathrm{1, 2}, 3, \dots, n .

    {\mathbb{S}}_{\mathbb{Ţ}}\left(r\right) = \frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\mu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n}{e}^{i\frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\theta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n}}

    i.e., \frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\mu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n} > \frac{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}, \dots, \left(n-time\right)+\frac{1}{2}}{n} > \frac{1}{2},

    \frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\theta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n} > \frac{1\pi +1\pi +1\pi , \dots , \left(n-time\right)+1\pi }{n} > 1\pi

    In the same way,

    {\mathbb{S}}_{\mathcal{F}}\left(r\right) = \frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\nu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n}{e}^{i\frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n}}

    i.e., \frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\nu }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n} < \frac{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}, \dots, \left(n-time\right)+\frac{1}{2}}{n} < \frac{1}{2}

    \frac{{\sum }_{k = 1}^{n}{\vartheta }_{Ҳ}\overrightarrow{\left({\mathcal{q}}_{k}, {\mathrm{\zeta }}_{k}\right)}}{n} < \frac{1\pi +1\pi +1\pi , \dots , \left(n-time\right)+1\pi }{n} < 1\pi .


    [1] Paikowsky SG, Chen YL (1998) Field and Laboratory Study of the Physical Characteristics and Engineering Parameters of the Subsurface at the Newbury Bridge Site. Res Rpt, Dept of Civil and Environ. Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell.
    [2] Poirier SE (2005) Evaluation of Soil Suction as an Indicator of Sample Quality for a Soft Saturated Marine Clay. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [3] Jakubowski J (2005) Use of Seismic CPTU for Site Characterization in Soft Clays. Masters of Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [4] Landon MM (2007) Development of Non-Destructive Sample Quality Assessment Method for Soft Clays. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [5] Ryan R (2011) Incremental Loading and Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation of Clays Using Block Samples. Master of Science Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [6] Hein CJ, Fitzgerald DM, Buynevich IV, et al. (2014) Evolution of paraglacial coasts in response to changes in fluvial sediment supply, Martini IP, Wanless HR (eds), Sedimentary Coastal Zones from High to Low Latitudes: Similarities and Differences, Geological Society, London, Special Publications 388, 247–280.
    [7] Hein CJ, FitzGerald DM, Carruthers EA, et al. (2012) Refining the model of barrier island formation along a paraglacial coast in the Gulf of Maine. Mar Geol 307–310: 40–57.
    [8] Oldale RN, Colman SM, Jones GA (1993) Radiocarbon ages from two submerged strandline features in the western Gulf of Maine and a sea-level curve for the northeastern Massachusetts Coastal Region. Quat Res 40: 38–45. doi: 10.1006/qres.1993.1054
    [9] Kenney TC (1964) Sea-level movements and the geologic histories of the post-glacial marine soils at Boston, Nicolet, Ottawa, and Oslo. Géotechnique 14: 203–230. doi: 10.1680/geot.1964.14.3.203
    [10] Barosh PJ, Woodhouse D (2012) A City Upon a Hill: The Geology of the City of Boston & Surrounding Region. Civil Engineering Practice. J Boston Soc Civ Eng Sect/ASCE 26 & 27: 480.
    [11] ASTM (2005) Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 4.08, Soil and Rock (I): D421-D5876 and Vol. 4.09, Soil and Rock (II): D5878-latest. West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
    [12] Lefebvre G, Poulin C (1979) A new method of sampling in sensitive clay. Can Geotech J 16: 226–233. doi: 10.1139/t79-019
    [13] DeGroot DJ, Lunne T, Sheahan TC, et al. (2003) Experience with downhole block sampling in soft clays. Proceedings 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Cambridge, MA, 521–526.
    [14] Dreimanis A (1962) Quantitative Gasometric Determination of Calcite and Dolomite by Using Chittick Apparatus. J Sediment Petrol 32: 520–529.
    [15] Landon MM, DeGroot DJ, Sheahan TC (2007) Non-Destructive sample quality assessment of a soft clay using shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 133: 424–432. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(424)
    [16] Poirier SE, DeGroot DJ (2010) Development of a portable probe for field and laboratory measurement of low to medium values of soil suction. Geotech Test J 33: 3.
    [17] Stone BD, Stone JR, McWeeney LJ (2004) Where the glacier met the sea: Late Quaternary geology of the northeast coast of Massachusetts from Cape Ann to Salisbury, In: Hanson L (Ed.), New England Intercollegiate Geological Conference, Salem, Massachusetts, Trip B-3, 25.
    [18] Schnitker D, Belknap DF, Bacchus TS, et al. (2001) Deglaciation of the Gulf of Maine, Deglacial history and relative sea-level changes, northern New England and adjacent Canada, Thomas K. Weddle, Michael J. Retelle, 9–34.
    [19] Ridge JS, Canwell BA, Kelly MA, et al. (2001) Atmospheric 14C chronology for late Wisconsinan deglaciation and sea-level change in eastern New England using varve and paleomagnetic records, In: Thomas K. Weddle, Michael J. Retelle, eds., Deglacial history and relative sea-level changes, northern New England and adjacent Canada, 171–189.
    [20] Kaye CA (1961) Pleistocene stratigraphy of Boston, Massachusetts. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 424-B, 73–76.
    [21] Kaye CA (1982) Bedrock, and quaternary geology of the Boston area, Massachusetts. U.S.A. Geol Surv Am Rev Eng Geol 5: 25–40.
    [22] Mesri G, Ali S (1999) Undrained shear strength of a glacial clay overconsolidated by desiccation. Géotechnique 49: 181–198. doi: 10.1680/geot.1999.49.2.181
    [23] Johnson EG (1989) Geotechnical characteristics of the Boston area. Civ Eng Pract 4: 53–64.
    [24] Hein CJ, FitzGerald DM, Barnhardt WA, et al. (2010) Onshore-offshore surficial geologic map of the Newburyport East Quadrangle, Massachusetts, State Map Preliminary Map, 1 sheet.
    [25] Paikowsky SG, Hajduk EL (2004) Design and construction of three instrumented test piles to examine time dependent pile capacity gain. Geotech Test J 27: 515–531.
    [26] Holtz RD, Kovacs WD, Sheahan TC (2011) An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. 2nd Edition, Pearson, New Jersey.
    [27] Burland JB (1990) On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Géotechnique 40: 329–378. doi: 10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.329
    [28] Chandler RJ (2000) Clay sediments in depositional basins: the geotechnical cycle. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 33: 7–39. doi: 10.1144/qjegh.33.1.7
    [29] Nagaraj TS, Miura N (2001) Soft Clay Behaviour. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
    [30] DeGroot DJ, Landon MM, Lunne T (2008) Synopsis of recommended practice for sampling and handling of soft clays to minimize sample disturbance. Proceedings of 3 rd International Conference on Site Characterization, Taipei, Taiwan, CD, 6.
    [31] Ladd CC, DeGroot DJ (2003) Recommended practice for soft ground site characterization: Arthur Casagrande Lecture. Proceedings 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Boston, MA, 3–57.
    [32] Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests-a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46: 1337–1355. doi: 10.1139/T09-065
    [33] Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27: 151–158. doi: 10.1139/t90-014
    [34] Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Gillespie D, et al. (1986) Seismic CPT to measure in situ shear wave velocity. J Geotech Eng 112: 791–803. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:8(791)
    [35] Campanella RG, Stewart WP (1992) Seismic cone analysis using digital signal processing for dynamic site characterization. Can Geotech J 29: 477–486. doi: 10.1139/t92-052
    [36] Landon MM, DeGroot DJ (2006) Measurement of small strain shear modulus anisotropy on unconfined clay samples using bender elements. Proceedings GeoCongress '06: Geotechnical Engineering in the Information Technology Age, ASCE Geo-Institute, CD, 6.
    [37] Jamiolkowski R, Lancellotta R, Lo Presti DCF (1995) Remarks on the stiffness at small strains of six Italian clays. Developments in Deep Foundations and Ground Improvement Schemes: Symp on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Other Geosynthetics in Ground Improvement, 197–216.
    [38] Pennington DS, Nash DFT, Lings ML (1997) Anisotropy of G 0 shear stiffness in Gault clay. Géotechnique 47: 391–398. doi: 10.1680/geot.1997.47.3.391
    [39] DeGroot DJ, Landon MM, Ryan RM (2007) Objective evaluation of preconsolidation stress for soft clays from constant rate of strain pore pressure data. Adv Meas Model Soil Behav.
    [40] Lunne T, Berre T, Andersen KH, et al. (2006) Effects of sample disturbance and consolidation procedures on measured shear strength of soft marine Norwegian clays. Can Geotech J 43: 726–750. doi: 10.1139/t06-040
    [41] Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 549.
    [42] Becker DE, Crooks JH, Been K, et al. (1987) Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in clays. Can Geotech J 24: 549–564. doi: 10.1139/t87-070
    [43] Mesri G, Feng TW (1992) Constant rate of strain consolidation testing of soft clays. Proceedings Marsal Symp, Mexico City, 49–59.
    [44] Mesri G, Lo DOK, Feng TW (1994) Settlement of embankments on soft clays. Proceedings of ASCE conference on vertical and horizontal deformations of foundations and embankments, College Station, Texas, 1: 8–56.
    [45] Leroueil S (1996) Compressibility of clays: fundamental and practical aspects. J Geotech Eng 122: 534–543. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:7(534)
    [46] Jamiolkowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine JT, et al. (1985) New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. Proceedings 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng, San Francisco, 1: 57–154.
    [47] Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone Penetration Testing In Geotechnical Practice. Spoon Press, London.
    [48] Mayne PW (2007) Cone Penetration Testing: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 368. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
    [49] Menzies BK (1988) A computer controlled hydraulic triaxial testing system. Donaghe RT, Chaney RC, Silver ML, Eds., Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 82–94.
    [50] Wissa AEZ, Christian JT, Davis EH, et al. (1971) Consolidation at constant rate of strain. J Soil Mech Found Div 97: 1393–1413.
    [51] Mesri G, Hayat TM (1993) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Can Geotech J 30: 647–666. doi: 10.1139/t93-056
    [52] Sandbækken G, Berre T, Lacasse S (1986) Oedometer testing at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Consolidation of Soils: Testing and Evaluation, ASTM STP 892: 329–353
    [53] Tavenas R, Jean P, Leblond P, et al. (1983) The permeability of natural soft clays, Part II: permeability characteristics. Can Geotech J 20: 645–660. doi: 10.1139/t83-073
    [54] Baligh MM, Levadoux JN (1986) Consolidation after undrained piezocone penetration, II Interpretation. J Geotech Eng 112: 727–745. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:7(727)
    [55] Germaine JT, Ladd CC (1988) State-of-the-Art: Triaxial testing of saturated cohesive soils. Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977: 421–459.
    [56] Lacasse S, Berre T (1988) State-of-the-Art: Triaxial testing methods for soils. Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977: 264–289.
    [57] Bjerrum L (1973) Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays. Proceedings 8th International Conference Soil Mech and Found Eng, Moscow, 3: 111–159.
    [58] Bjerrum L, Landva A (1966) Direct simple shear tests on Norwegian quick clay. Géotechnique 16: 1–20. doi: 10.1680/geot.1966.16.1.1
    [59] DeGroot DJ, Ladd CC, Germaine JT (1992) Direct Simple Shear Testing of Cohesive Soils, Research Report No. R92-18, Center for Scientific Excellence in Offshore Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
    [60] Ladd CC (1991) Stability evaluation during staged construction (22nd Terzaghi Lecture). J Geotech Eng 117: 540–615. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:4(540)
    [61] Mesri G (2001) Undrained shear strength of soft clays from push cone penetration test. Géotechnique 51: 167–168. doi: 10.1680/geot.2001.51.2.167
    [62] Baligh MM, Azzouz AS, Chin CT (1987) Disturbances due to ideal tube sampling. J Geotech Eng 113: 739–757. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:7(739)
    [63] Clayton CRI, Siddique A, Hopper RJ (1998) Effects of sampler design on tube sampling disturbance-numerical and analytical investigations. Géotechnique 48: 847–867. doi: 10.1680/geot.1998.48.6.847
    [64] Hight DW (2003) Sampling effects in soft clay: An update on Ladd and Lambe (1963). Soil Behav Soft Ground Constr, 86–122.
    [65] DeGroot DJ (2003) Laboratory measurement and interpretation of soft clay mechanical behavior. Soil Behav Soft Ground Constr, 167–200.
    [66] Tanaka H, Sharma P, Tsuchida T, et al. (1996) Comparative study on sample quality using several types of samplers. Soils Found 36: 57–68.
    [67] Hight DW, McMillan F, Powell JJM, et al. (2003) Some Characteristics of London Clay. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Singapore, 2: 851–907.
    [68] Donohue S, Long M (2010) Assessment of sample quality in soft clay using shear wave velocity and suction measurements. Géotechnique 60: 883–889. doi: 10.1680/geot.8.T.007.3741
    [69] Berman DR, Germaine JT, Ladd CC (1993) Characterization of engineering properties of Boston blue clay for the MIT campus. Research Rep. 93-16, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
    [70] Ladd CC, Whittle AJ, Legaspi DE (1994) Stress-deformation behavior of an Embankment on Boston Blue Clay. Proceedings of ASCE conference on vertical and horizontal deformations of foundations and embankments, College Station, Texas, 2: 1739–1759.
    [71] Ladd CC, Young GA, Kraemer SR, et al. (1999) Engineering properties of Boston blue clay from special testing program. Proceedings Special Geotechnical Testing: Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–24.
    [72] Koutsoftas DC, Ladd CC (1985) Design strengths for an offshore clay. J Geotech Eng 111: 337–355. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(337)
    [73] Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Report No. EL‐6800, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 306.
    [74] Mitchell TJ, DeGroot DJ, Lutenegger AJ, et al. (1999) Comparison of CPTU and laboratory soil parameters for bridge foundation design on fine grained soils: A case study in Massachusetts. Transp Res Rec 1675: 24–31. doi: 10.3141/1675-04
    [75] Vaghar S, Bobrow DJ (1998) Comparison of two excavation support systems in clay: Central Artery Tunnel, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri.
    [76] Hashash YMA, Whittle AJ (1996) Ground movement prediction for deep excavations in soft clay. J Geotech Eng 122: 474–486. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:6(474)
    [77] Orazalin ZY, Whittle AJ, Olsen MB (2015) Three-dimensional analyses of excavation support system for the Stata Center basement on the MIT campus. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 141: 05015001. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001326
    [78] Whittle AJ, Hashash YMA, Whitman RV (1993) Analysis of deep excavation in Boston. J Geotech Eng 119: 69–90. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:1(69)
    [79] Whittle AJ, Corral G, Jen LC, et al. (2015) Prediction and Performance of Deep Excavations for Courthouse Station, Boston. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 141: 04014123. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001246
    [80] Hagerty D, Peck R (1971) Heave and Lateral Movements due to Pile Driving. J Soil Mech Found Div 97: 1513–1531.
    [81] Dugan Jr JP, Freed DL (1984) Ground Heave Due to Pile Driving. 1st International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri.
    [82] Abedi H, Risitano J, Yamane D, et al. (1993) Performance of Wick Drains in Bon Blue Clay. 3rd International Conference on Casoste Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain, Rifaqat Ali, Jan Awrejcewicz, Imran Siddique, Fahd Jarad, Aiyared Iampan, Some Einstein Geometric Aggregation Operators for q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Soft Set With Their Application in MCDM, 2022, 10, 2169-3536, 88469, 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3199071
    2. Nazakat Nazeer, Muhammad Imran Asjad, Muhammad Khursheed Azam, Ali Akgül, Study of Results of Katugampola Fractional Derivative and Chebyshev Inequailities, 2022, 8, 2349-5103, 10.1007/s40819-022-01426-x
    3. Abrar Hussain, Shi Yin, Kifayat Ullah, Muhammad Waqas, Tapan Senapati, Domokos Esztergár-Kiss, Sarbast Moslem, Enhancing renewable energy evaluation: Utilizing complex picture fuzzy frank aggregation operators in multi-attribute group decision-making, 2024, 116, 22106707, 105842, 10.1016/j.scs.2024.105842
    4. Abrar Hussain, Sajid Latif, Kifayat Ullah, Harish Garg, Ashraf Al-Quran, Pythagorean fuzzy Aczel Alsina Hamy mean aggregation operators and its applications to multi-attribute decision-making process, 2023, 10641246, 1, 10.3233/JIFS-232691
    5. Juanjuan Lu, Linli Zhu, Wei Gao, Remarks on bipolar cubic fuzzy graphs and its chemical applications, 2023, 1, 2956-7068, 1, 10.2478/ijmce-2023-0001
    6. Abrar Hussain, Yu Liu, Kifayat Ullah, Alina Amjad, Amrullah Awsar, Decision-Making With Unknown Weights for the Performance of Digital Devices in Healthcare Systems Based on Interval Valued T-Spherical Fuzzy Information, 2024, 12, 2169-3536, 13601, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3322300
    7. Asima Razzaque, Ibtisam Masmali, Laila Latif, Umer Shuaib, Abdul Razaq, Ghaliah Alhamzi, Saima Noor, On t-intuitionistic fuzzy graphs: a comprehensive analysis and application in poverty reduction, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-43922-0
    8. Abrar Hussain, Kifayat Ullah, Tapan Senapati, Sarbast Moslem, A Robust Decision-Making Approach for Supplier Selection Using Complex Picture Fuzzy Information Involving Prioritization of Attributes, 2023, 11, 2169-3536, 91807, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3308030
    9. Hainan Zhang, Jianhou Gan, Wei Gao, Fuzzy fractional factors in fuzzy graphs-II, 2024, 2, 2956-7068, 155, 10.2478/ijmce-2024-0012
    10. S. N. Suber Bathusha, Ganesh Ghorai, Mufti Mahamud, S. Angelin Kavitha Raj, On signless Laplacian energy of inverse dominating complex interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy graph with application, 2024, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-024-02319-6
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(12790) PDF downloads(2658) Cited by(11)

Figures and Tables

Figures(27)  /  Tables(5)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog