# Entropy-Based Risk Control of Geological Disasters in Mountain Tunnels under Uncertain Environments

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

_{1}, and the dynamic relationship between them makes risk-control more complicated. By considering these two factors, we constructed a reasonable risk control process (Figure 1).

## 2. Risk Control Considering Uncertainty

_{1}). Only those variables with a larger influence will be considered. This preliminary judgment can improve the efficiency of decision-making and reduce blindness.

**Step 1:**Use entropy to calculate the sensitivity of variables, and narrow the scope of alternatives according to sensitivity, so as to improve decision-making efficiency.

**Step 2:**The necessity of reducing uncertainty.

**Step 3:**Decision-making with different attributes.

## 3. Scheme Selection under Multi-Source Attributes

_{9}) < Var(a) < Var(b

_{1}~b

_{8}), $a$ reasonable decision can be made based on variance.

**The first situation**: $R(a)=R(b)$, the decision result cannot be obtained based on EU-E model. If scheme $a$ is (2, 1/4; 4, 1/4; 6, 1/4; 8, 1/4), then scheme $b$ can be ($0,1/2$; $x,1/2$), ($x=10(1-\frac{0.7\lambda}{1-\lambda})$, $0<\lambda <0.5882$ for $x>0$, $E(a)>E(b)$ and $R(a)=R(b)$). $0<\lambda <0.5882$ indicates that the decision-maker is not absolutely risk-seeking, and is more likely to be conservative or neutral. Assuming that the decision-maker is risk neutral, $\lambda =1/2$, then scheme $b$ is (0, 1/2; 8.6, 1/2). According to the variance: $Var(a)=5<Var(b)=18.5$, we should choose $a$, which is consistent with the attitude to risk of the decision-maker. For the risk-averse, scheme $a$ is more reasonable.

**The second situation**: $R(a)>R(b)$. If scheme $a$ is (2, 1/4; 4, 1/4; 6, 1/4; 8, 1/4), then scheme $b$ can be (0, 1/2; $x$, 1/2), ($0<x<10$, $x>10(1-\frac{0.7\lambda}{1-\lambda})$, $0<\lambda <1$ for $E(a)>E(b)$ and $R(a)>R(b)$). When $0<\lambda <0.5882$, $10(1-\frac{0.7\lambda}{1-\lambda})>0$, then we get $10(1-\frac{0.7\lambda}{1-\lambda})<x<10$; when $0.5882<\lambda <1$, $10(1-\frac{0.7\lambda}{1-\lambda})<0$, then we have $0<x<10$.

**The third situation**: $R(a)<R(b)$. We still let scheme $a$ have (2, 1/4; 4, 1/4; 6, 1/4; 8, 1/4), then scheme $b$ can be (0, 1/2; $x$, 1/2), ($0<x<10(1-\frac{0.7\lambda}{1-\lambda})$, $0<\lambda <0.5882$ for $E(a)>E(b)$ and $R(a)<R(b)$). In such a situation, it is more reasonable for decision-makers who are risk-averse or risk-neutral.

**Problem 1**: Select ${a}_{1}$ or ${b}_{1}$?

**Problem 2**: select ${a}_{2}$ or ${b}_{2}$?

## 4. Case Analysis and Discussion

#### 4.1. Engineering Background

#### 4.2. Engineering Application and Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

- (1)
- Through case analysis, possible defects in the existing entropy-hazard decision model in engineering application are discussed, and an improved model of uncertainty evaluation and control is proposed.
- (2)
- Tolerance cost ${T}_{H}^{\prime}$ is an important factor used to screen plans to improve the efficiency of decision-making. Through analysis, it is found that there are deficiencies in the existing calculation method, and a new calculation model is proposed.
- (3)
- The existing expected utility-entropy model is only valid under certain conditions, and there are limitations to its application. Multiple-attribute decision making problems are classified based on factors such as attitude to risk, uncertainty measures, expected utility, variance, etc., and corresponding decision-making methods are proposed according to different decision types.
- (4)
- By analysing different decision-making issues, it is found that the attitude to risk of the decision-makers exerts an important influence on the decision-making results; attitudes to risk will be influenced by the decision-maker’s own experience and the problem itself. Based on this idea, the well-known Allais paradox is reasonably explained by use of the proposed methods.
- (5)
- Taking the Zhiziyuan tunnel as a research object, the method is applied to a real engineering task. The application results show that the proposed method is effective with regard to decision-making about geological disaster risk control schemes, and that it can remedy the deficiencies in the existing method.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Fraldi, M.; Guarracino, F. Analytical solutions for collapse mechanisms in tunnels with arbitrary cross sections. Int. J. Solids Struct.
**2010**, 47, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yazdani-Chamzini, A. Proposing a new methodology based on fuzzy logic for tunnelling risk assessment. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
**2014**, 20, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ghorbani, M.; Sharifzadeh, M.; Yasrobi, S.; Daiyan, M. Geotechnical, structural and geodetic measurements for conventional tunnelling hazards in urban areas—The case of Niayesh road tunnel project. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2012**, 31, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, Y.G. Application of risk analysis and assessment in tunnel design. Int. J. JCRM
**2014**, 5, 11–18. [Google Scholar] - Siang, L.Y.; Ghazali, F.E.M.; Zainun, N.Y.; Ali, R. General risks for tunnelling projects: An overview. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Global Network for Innovative Technology and AWAM International Conference in Civil Engineering, Penang, Malaysia, 8–9 August 2017. Article No. 080004. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.C.; Wu, J.; Xu, Z.H.; Li, L.P. Unascertained measure model of water and mud inrush risk evaluation in karst tunnels and its engineering application. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
**2017**, 21, 1170–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Špačková, O.; Novotná, E.; Šejnoha, M.; Šejnoha, J. Probabilistic models for tunnel construction risk assessment. Adv. Eng. Softw.
**2013**, 62, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, G.F.; Feng, X.T.; Feng, G.L.; Chen, B.R.; Chen, D.F. A Method for Dynamic Risk Assessment and Management of Rockbursts in Drill and Blast Tunnels. Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
**2016**, 49, 3257–3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Perazzelli, P.; Leone, T.; Anagnostou, G. Tunnel face stability under seepage flow conditions. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2014**, 43, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, J.; Yang, J.; Yang, F.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, X. Upper-Bound Solution for Stability Number of Elliptical Tunnel in Cohesionless Soils. Int. J. Geomech.
**2016**, 17, 06016011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Qian, Q.; Lin, P. Safety risk management of underground engineering in China: Progress, challenges and strategies. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng.
**2016**, 8, 423–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Flyvbjerg, B.; Holm, M.S.; Buhl, S.L. What Causes Cost Overrun in Transport Infrastructure Projects? Transp. Rev.
**2013**, 24, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Park, Y.; Papadopoulou, T.C. Causes of cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects in Asia. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag.
**2012**, 2, 195–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aven, T.; Zio, E. Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
**2011**, 96, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sousa, R.L.; Einstein, H.H. Risk analysis during tunnel construction using Bayesian Networks: Porto Metro case study. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2012**, 27, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Špačková, O.; Šejnoha, J.; Straub, D. Probabilistic assessment of tunnel construction performance based on data. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2013**, 37, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - You, X. Risk Analysis in Tunneling with Imprecise Probabilities. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Dubois, D. Representation, propagation, and decision issues in risk analysis under incomplete probabilistic information. Risk Anal.
**2010**, 30, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mandal, S.; Maiti, J. Risk analysis using FMEA: Fuzzy similarity value and possibility theory based approach. Expert Syst. Appl.
**2014**, 41, 3527–3537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aven, T.; Renn, O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J. Risk Res.
**2009**, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aven, T. Practical implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
**2013**, 115, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hao, Y.; Rong, X.; Ma, L.; Fan, P.; Lu, H. Uncertainty Analysis on Risk Assessment of Water Inrush in Karst Tunnels. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2016**, 2016, 2947628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, B.; Wu, Q.; Duan, X.Q.; Chen, M.Y. Risk Analysis Model of Water Inrush through the Seam Floor Based on Set Pair Analysis. Mine Water Environ.
**2018**, 37, 281–287. [Google Scholar] - Chu, H.; Xu, G.; Yasufuku, N.; Yu, Z.; Liu, P.; Wang, J. Risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels based on two-class fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Arab. J. Geosci.
**2017**, 10, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, Y.; Yin, X.; Geng, F.; Jing, H.; Su, H. Risk Assessment of Water Inrush in Karst Tunnels Based on the Efficacy Coefficient Method. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.
**2017**, 26, 1765–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Li, T.; Yang, X. Risk assessment model for water and mud inrush in deep and long tunnels based on normal grey cloud clustering method. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
**2018**, 22, 1991–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dong, X.; Lu, H.; Xia, Y.; Xiong, Z. Decision-Making Model under Risk Assessment Based on Entropy. Entropy
**2016**, 18, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xia, Y.; Xiong, Z.; Dong, X.; Lu, H. Risk Assessment and Decision-Making under Uncertainty in Tunnel and Underground Engineering. Entropy
**2017**, 19, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shannon, C.E.A. A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev.
**2001**, 5, 3–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saltelli, A. Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment. Risk Anal.
**2002**, 22, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Yazdani, A.; Nicknam, A.; Dadras, E.Y.; Eftekhari, S.N. Entropy-based sensitivity analysis of global seismic demand of concrete structures. Eng. Struct.
**2017**, 146, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saltelli, A.; Chan, K.; Scott, E.M. Sensitivity Analysis; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 1298–1301. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, F.; Nijhuis, M.; Nguyen, P.H.; Gobben, J.F.G. Variance-Based Global Sensitivity Analysis for Power Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2018**, 33, 1670–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Borgonovo, E.; Plischke, E. Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2015**, 248, 869–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Iooss, B.; Lemaître, P. A Review on Global Sensitivity Analysis Methods. Oper. Res./Comput. Sci. Interfaces
**2014**, 59, 101–122. [Google Scholar] - Auder, B.; Iooss, B. Global sensitivity analysis based on entropy. In Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis—Theory, Methods and Applications; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Antucheviciene, J.; Tavana, M.; Nilashi, M.; Bausys, R. Editorial Managing Information Uncertainty and Complexity in Decision-Making. Complexity
**2017**, 2017, 1268980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Antucheviciene, J.; Kala, Z.; Marzouk, M.; Vaidogas, E.R. Solving Civil Engineering Problems by Means of Fuzzy and Stochastic MCDM Methods: Current State and Future Research. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2015**, 2015, 362579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, J.; Qiu, W. A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2005**, 164, 792–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gao, B.; Wu, C.; Wu, Y.; Tang, Y. Expected Utility and Entropy-Based Decision-Making Model for Large Consumers in the Smart Grid. Entropy
**2015**, 17, 6560–6575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Montesarchio, V.; Ridolfi, E.; Russo, F.; Napolitano, F. Rainfall threshold definition using an entropy decision approach and radar data. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2011**, 11, 2061–2074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Yang, J.; Feng, Y.; Qiu, W. Stock Selection for Portfolios Using Expected Utility-Entropy Decision Model. Entropy
**2017**, 19, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fischer, K.; Kleine, A. Remarks on “A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy” by Jiping Yang and Wanhua Qiu (EJOR 164 (2005), 792–799). Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2007**, 182, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xiong, Z.; Guo, J.; Xia, Y.; Lu, H.; Wang, A. 3D Multi-scale geology modeling method for tunnel engineering risk assessment. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2018**, 73, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Serial Number | $\mathit{U}$ | ${\mathit{R}}_{1}$ | Serial Number | $\mathit{U}$ | ${\mathit{R}}_{1}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Small | Small | 3 | Large | Large |

2 | Small | Large | 4 | Large | Small |

Condition 1 | Condition 2 | Condition 3 | Risk Attitude | Suggested Methods |
---|---|---|---|---|

$H(a)=H(b)$ | $E(a)=E(b)$ | $R(a)=R(b)$ | Risk-averse | Variance |

Risk-neutral | Variance | |||

Risk-seeking | If $p{a}_{\mathrm{max}}>q{b}_{\mathrm{max}}$, then choose a, otherwise choose b | |||

$E(a)<E(b)$ ($E(a)>E(b)$) | $R(a)>R(b)$ ($R(a)<R(b)$) | Risk-averse | If $l{a}_{\mathrm{min}}>m{b}_{\mathrm{min}}$, choose a, otherwise choose b | |

Risk-neutral | EU-E model | |||

Risk-seeking | EU-E model | |||

$H(a)>H(b)$ or ($H(a)<H(b)$) | $E(a)=E(b)$ | $R(a)>R(b)$ ($R(a)<R(b)$) | Risk-averse | Variance |

Risk-neutral | Variance | |||

Risk-seeking | If $p{a}_{\mathrm{max}}<q{b}_{\mathrm{max}}$, then choose b, otherwise choose a | |||

$E(a)>E(b)$ ($E(a)<E(b)$) | $R(a)=R(b)$ | Risk-averse | Variance | |

Risk-neutral | Variance | |||

$R(a)>R(b)$ | Risk-averse | Variance | ||

Risk-neutral | There is no uniform criterion, the recommendation is similar to that when risk-averse | |||

Risk-seeking | If $p{a}_{\mathrm{max}}<q{b}_{\mathrm{max}}$, then choose b, otherwise choose a | |||

$R(a)<R(b)$ | Risk-averse | EU-E model | ||

Risk-neutral | EU-E model | |||

$E(a)<E(b)$ ($E(a)>E(b)$) | $R(a)>R(b)$ ($R(a)<R(b)$) | Risk-averse | If $l{a}_{\mathrm{min}}>m{b}_{\mathrm{min}}$, choose a, otherwise choose b | |

Risk-neutral | There is no uniform criterion, the recommendation is similar to that when risk-averse | |||

Risk pursuit | EU or EU-E model |

Schemes | Probability | Consequence | Probability | Consequence | Probability | Consequence |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

${a}_{1}$ | 1 | 1 (million) | - | - | - | - |

${b}_{1}$ | 0.01 | 0 | 0.89 | 1 (million) | 0.1 | 5 (million) |

${a}_{2}$ | 0.89 | 0 | 0.11 | 1 (million) | - | - |

${b}_{2}$ | 0.9 | 0 | 0.1 | 5 (million) | - | - |

Schemes | Expense | Schemes | Expense |
---|---|---|---|

${a}_{1}({x}_{1})$ | 103,000 | ${a}_{4}({x}_{1},{x}_{5})$ | 120,000 |

${a}_{2}({x}_{1})$ | 115,000 | ${a}_{5}({x}_{2},{x}_{5})$ | 98,000 |

${a}_{3}({x}_{1},{x}_{2})$ | 110,000 | ${a}_{6}({x}_{1},{x}_{2},{x}_{5})$ | 135,000 |

Attributes | C_{1} (Economic Cost) | C_{2} (Time Cost) | C_{3} (Environment Impact) | C_{4} (Execution Effect) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Schemes | |||||

${a}_{1}({x}_{1})$ | 0.5829 | (0.5, 30%; 0.75, 60%; 1, 10%) | (0.5385, 20%; 0.3846, 50%; 0.2308, 30%) | (0, 20%; 0.3429, 40%; 0.7143, 40%) | |

${a}_{3}({x}_{1},{x}_{2})$ | 0 | (0, 15%; 0.25, 62%; 0.5, 23%) | (0.3846, 40%; 0.1538, 50%; 0, 10%) | (0.5714, 30%; 0.7143, 50%; 1, 20%) | |

${a}_{5}({x}_{2},{x}_{5})$ | 1 | (0.75, 25%; 0.875, 70%; 1, 5%) | (1, 10%, 0.8462, 50%; 0.6923, 40%) | (0.2857, 28%; 0.5714, 52%; 0.8571, 20%) |

Attributes | C_{1} (Economic Cost) | C_{2} (Time Cost) | C_{3} (Environment Impact) | C_{4} (Execution Effect) | Aggregation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Schemes | |||||||

${a}_{1}({x}_{1})$ | Entropy | 0 | 0.8979 | 1.0297 | 1.0549 | 0.6995 | |

EU | 0.5829 | 0.7 | 0.3692 | 0.4229 | 0.5102 | ||

${a}_{3}({x}_{1},{x}_{2})$ | Entropy | 0 | 0.9190 | 0.9433 | 1.0297 | 0.6727 | |

EU | 0 | 0.27 | 0.2307 | 0.7286 | 0.2689 | ||

${a}_{5}({x}_{2},{x}_{5})$ | Entropy | 0 | 0.7460 | 0.9433 | 1.0184 | 0.6359 | |

EU | 1 | 0.85 | 0.8 | 0.5485 | 0.8197 |

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Xia, Y.; Xiong, Z.; Wen, Z.; Lu, H.; Dong, X. Entropy-Based Risk Control of Geological Disasters in Mountain Tunnels under Uncertain Environments. *Entropy* **2018**, *20*, 503.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e20070503

**AMA Style**

Xia Y, Xiong Z, Wen Z, Lu H, Dong X. Entropy-Based Risk Control of Geological Disasters in Mountain Tunnels under Uncertain Environments. *Entropy*. 2018; 20(7):503.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e20070503

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Xia, Yuanpu, Ziming Xiong, Zhu Wen, Hao Lu, and Xin Dong. 2018. "Entropy-Based Risk Control of Geological Disasters in Mountain Tunnels under Uncertain Environments" *Entropy* 20, no. 7: 503.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e20070503