| Literature DB >> 29710824 |
Xiao Fu1,2,3, Chong-Shi Gu4,5,6, Huai-Zhi Su7,8,9, Xiang-Nan Qin10,11,12.
Abstract
Earth-rock dams make up a large proportion of the dams in China, and their failures can induce great risks. In this paper, the risks associated with earth-rock dam failure are analyzed from two aspects: the probability of a dam failure and the resulting life loss. An event tree analysis method based on fuzzy set theory is proposed to calculate the dam failure probability. The life loss associated with dam failure is summarized and refined to be suitable for Chinese dams from previous studies. The proposed method and model are applied to one reservoir dam in Jiangxi province. Both engineering and non-engineering measures are proposed to reduce the risk. The risk analysis of the dam failure has essential significance for reducing dam failure probability and improving dam risk management level.Entities:
Keywords: ETA method; dam failure probability; earth-rock dam; fuzzy set theory; life loss; risk analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29710824 PMCID: PMC5981925 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15050886
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Several famous large dam failure events and deaths in the world.
| Dam Name | Country | Year of Accident | Dam Type | Reservoir Volume (×106 m3) | Deaths |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohne Dam | German | 1943 | Gravity dam | 134.0 | 1200 |
| Malpasset Dam | France | 1959 | Arch dam | 15.0 | 421 |
| Vaiont Dam | Italy | 1963 | Arch dam | 169.0 | 2000 |
| Buffalo Creek Dam | USA | 1972 | Tailings dam | 49.8 | 125 |
| Machhu II Dam | India | 1979 | Earth dam | 101.0 | 3000 |
| Shakidor Dam | Pakistan | 2005 | Earth-rock dam | - | 135 |
| Situ Gintung Dam | Indonesia | 2009 | Earth-rock dam | 2.0 | 100 |
Several large dam failure events and deaths in China.
| Dam Name | Location | Date | Dam Type | Reservoir Volume (106 m3) | Deaths |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longtun Dam | Suizhong, Liaoning province | 1959.7.22 | Clay sloping core dam | 30.0 | 707 |
| Liujiatai Dam | Yixian, Hebei province | 1963.8.8 | Clay core wall dam | 40.5 | 943 |
| Hengjiang Dam | Jiexi, Guangdong province | 1970.9.15 | Homogeneous earth dam | 78.8 | 941 |
| Lijiaju Dam | Zhuanglang, Gansu province | 1973.4.29 | Homogeneous earth dam | 1.1 | 580 |
| Banqiao Dam | Luoyang, Henan province | 1975.8.8 | Clay core wall dam | 492.0 | 22,564 |
| Shimantan Dam | Wugang, Henan province | 1975.8.8 | Homogeneous earth dam | 91.8 | |
| Gouhou Dam | Gonghe, Qinghai province | 1993.8.27 | Concrete-faced rock-fill dam | 3.0 | 400 |
Figure 1Statistics of dam types of the world (excluding China) and China.
Figure 2Several failure modes of earth-rock dams.
Figure 3Event tree analysis of dam failure.
Fuzzy numbers and corresponding -cut sets of fuzzy language.
| Fuzzy Language | Fuzzy Number | |
|---|---|---|
| Extremely unlikely | ||
| Very unlikely | ||
| Less likely | ||
| Uncertain | ||
| Likely | ||
| Very likely | ||
| Extremely Likely |
Figure 4Membership function of fuzzy language.
Criteria for determining the credibility of an expert.
| Doctor | Master | Bachelor | Senior | Medium-grade | Junior | |
| Scoring range | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ |
| Hydraulic structure engineering | Hydropower engineering | Civil Engineering | >20a | 10a~20a | <10a | |
| Scoring range | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ |
Risk mortality rate suitable for China f.
| Recommended Average | Recommended Range | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | <0.25 | Fuzzy | 0.7500 | 0.3000~1.0000 |
| Explicit | 0.2500 | 0.1000~0.5000 | ||
| 0.25~1.0 | Fuzzy | 0.2000 | 0.0500~0.4000 | |
| Explicit | 0.0100 | 0.0050~0.0200 | ||
| >1.0 | Fuzzy | 0.1800 | 0.0100~0.3000 | |
| Explicit | 0.0005 | 0.0000~0.0010 | ||
| Medium | <0.25 | Fuzzy | 0.5000 | 0.1000~0.8000 |
| Explicit | 0.0750 | 0.0200~0.1200 | ||
| 0.25~1.0 | Fuzzy | 0.1300 | 0.0150~0.2700 | |
| Explicit | 0.0008 | 0.0005~0.0020 | ||
| >1.0 | Fuzzy | 0.0500 | 0.0100~0.1000 | |
| Explicit | 0.0004 | 0.0002~0.0010 | ||
| Low | <0.25 | Fuzzy | 0.0300 | 0.0100~0.0500 |
| Explicit | 0.0100 | 0.0000~0.0200 | ||
| 0.25~1.0 | Fuzzy | 0.0070 | 0.0000~0.0150 | |
| Explicit | 0.0006 | 0.0000~0.0010 | ||
| >1.0 | Fuzzy | 0.0003 | 0.0000~0.0006 | |
| Explicit | 0.0002 | 0.0000~0.0004 | ||
Figure 5Layout plan of the reservoir project.
Figure 6Typical cross-section structure dimensions of the dam.
Figure 7Piping of auxiliary dam shoulder event tree in the flood season.
Experts’ judgments of piping of auxiliary dam shoulder in the flood season.
| E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Uncertain | Likely | Uncertain | Likely | Uncertain |
| D2 | Likely | Uncertain | Uncertain | Likely | Uncertain |
| D3 | Uncertain | Uncertain | Uncertain | Likely | Less likely |
| D4 | Likely | Uncertain | Likely | Uncertain | Uncertain |
| D5 | Likely | Likely | Very likely | Likely | Uncertain |
| D6 | Less likely | Uncertain | Uncertain | Less likely | Uncertain |
| D7 | Uncertain | Less likely | Less likely | Less likely | Less likely |
| D8 | Less likely | Very unlikely | Very unlikely | Very unlikely | Very unlikely |
Judgment matrix of experts.
| Experts | E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | Weight Coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1/2 | 0.283 |
| E2 | 1/3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1/3 | 0.168 |
| E3 | 1/4 | 1/2 | 1 | 3 | 1/2 | 0.123 |
| E4 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/3 | 0.073 |
| E5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0.353 |
Probabilities of each accident of the auxiliary dam shoulder.
| Event | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.536 | 0.553 | 0.458 | 0.561 | 0.616 | 0.447 | 0.392 | 0.295 | |
| 0.474 | 0.486 | 0.387 | 0.491 | 0.539 | 0.379 | 0.307 | 0.214 | |
| 0.598 | 0.621 | 0.529 | 0.631 | 0.692 | 0.514 | 0.478 | 0.377 |
Figure 8Piping of main dam foundation event tree in the non-flood season.
Figure 9Piping of auxiliary dam foundation event tree in the non-flood season.
Figure 10Piping of auxiliary dam shoulder event tree in the non-flood season.
Figure 11Piping of main dam foundation event tree in the flood season.
Figure 12Piping of auxiliary dam foundation event tree in the flood season.
Figure 13Piping of auxiliary dam shoulder event tree in the flood season.
Figure 14Piping of sloping core event tree in the flood season.
Figure 15Failure of spillway structure core event tree in the flood season.
Dam failure probabilities summary.
| Load | Failure Mode and Parts | Frequency | Failure Probability | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| non-flood season (220.00 m) | Piping of main dam foundation | 100% | 4.00 × 10−5 | 4.00 × 10−5 | 34.54% |
| Piping of auxiliary dam foundation | 100% | 1.88 × 10−5 | 1.88 × 10−5 | 16.23% | |
| Piping of auxiliary dam shoulder | 100% | 1.32 × 10−5 | 1.32 × 10−5 | 11.40% | |
| flood season (233.70 m) | Piping of main dam foundation | 0.02% | 6.38 × 10−2 | 1.28 × 10−5 | 11.05% |
| Piping of auxiliary dam foundation | 0.02% | 5.93 × 10−2 | 1.18 × 10−5 | 10.28% | |
| Piping of auxiliary dam shoulder | 0.02% | 5.03 × 10−2 | 1.01 × 10−5 | 8.72% | |
| Piping of sloping core | 0.02% | 1.11 × 10−2 | 2.21 × 10−6 | 1.91% | |
| Failure of spillway structure | 0.02% | 3.40 × 10−2 | 6.80 × 10−6 | 5.87% | |
| Total | 1.16 × 10−4 | ||||
PAR of the submerged area.
| Administrative Region | Households | Population | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fujiang township | 1261 | 4727 | 2363 | 3782 |
| Nan’an town | 18,727 | 65,735 | 32,868 | 52,588 |
| Total | 19,988 | 70,462 | 35,232 | 56,370 |
Average D × V value and corresponding S.
| Administrative Region | ||
|---|---|---|
| Fujiang township | 14.48 | High |
| Nan’an town | 11.26 | High |
Understanding of P to S (U).
| Warning Time | 0~0.25 h | 0.25~1.0 h | >1.0 h |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daytime | Fuzzy | Explicit | Explicit |
| Night | Fuzzy | Fuzzy | Explicit |
Corresponding correction coefficient .
| Warning Time | 0~0.25 h | 0.25~1.0 h | >1.0 h |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daytime | 0.80 | 0.60 | 0.40 |
| Night | 0.80 | 0.65 | 0.50 |
Estimated dam failure loss of life when W = 0~0.25 h.
| Administrative Region | Fujiang Township | Nan’an Town | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14.48 | 11.26 | ||
| High | High | ||
| 0~0.25 h | 0~0.25 h | ||
| Daytime | 2363 | 32,868 | |
| Fuzzy | Fuzzy | ||
| 0.30 | 0.30 | ||
| 0.80 | 0.80 | ||
| 567 | 7888 | ||
| Night | 3782 | 52,588 | |
| Fuzzy | Fuzzy | ||
| 0.70 | 0.70 | ||
| 0.80 | 0.80 | ||
| 2118 | 29,449 | ||
Estimated dam failure loss of life when W = 0.25~1.0 h.
| Administrative Region | Fujiang Township | Nan’an Town | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14.48 | 11.26 | ||
| High | High | ||
| 0.25~1.0 h | 0.25~1.0 h | ||
| Daytime | 2363 | 32,868 | |
| Explicit | Explicit | ||
| 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| 0.6 | 0.6 | ||
| 14 | 197 | ||
| Night | 3782 | 52,588 | |
| Fuzzy | Fuzzy | ||
| 0.2 | 0.2 | ||
| 0.65 | 0.65 | ||
| 492 | 6836 | ||
Estimated dam failure loss of life when W > 1.0 h.
| Administrative Region | Fujiang Township | Nan’an Town | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14.48 | 11.26 | ||
| High | High | ||
| >1.0 h | >1.0 h | ||
| Daytime | 2363 | 32,868 | |
| Explicit | Explicit | ||
| 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
| 0.4 | 0.4 | ||
| 1 | 13 | ||
| Night | 3782 | 52,588 | |
| Explicit | Explicit | ||
| 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
| 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
| 2 | 26 | ||
Estimated dam failure loss of life.
| 0~0.25 h | 0.25~1.0 h | >1.0 h | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daytime | 8455 | 211 | 14 | |
| Night | 31,567 | 7328 | 28 | |
Possible loss of life of the dam failure estimated.
| 0~0.25 h | 0.25~1.0 h | >1.0 h | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daytime | 9.79 × 10−1 | 2.44 × 10−2 | 1.62 × 10−3 | |
| Night | 3.66 | 8.49 × 10−1 | 3.24 × 10−3 | |