# A Comprehensive Evaluation Method for the Service Status of Groins in Waterways Based on an AHP-Improved CRITIC Combination Weighting Optimization Model

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Groin Service State Evaluation Index System

#### 2.1. Connotation of Groin’s Service State Evaluation

#### 2.2. Hierarchical Structure of the Evaluation Indicators and Site Description

- (1)
- Function Assurance Degree (FAD)

- (2)
- Appearance Deformation Degree (ADD)

- (3)
- Component Integrity Degree (CID)

- (4)
- Structural Stability Degree (SSD)

#### 2.3. Quantitative and Grading Standard of Factor Layer Indicators

## 3. AHP-Improved CRITIC Combination Weighting Evaluation Model

#### 3.1. Subjective Weight Calculation Method

- (1)
- Construction of judgment matrix

- (2)
- Consistency check

- (3)
- Solving for weights

#### 3.2. Objective Weight Calculation Method

- (1)
- Normalization of the raw data matrix

- (2)
- Calculation of coefficients of variation, correlation coefficients, and independence coefficients of indicators

- (3)
- Calculation of indicator weights

#### 3.3. Weight Assignment of Indicators of Element Layer to the Target Layer

#### 3.4. Combined Weight Optimization Model

#### 3.5. Comprehensive Score Calculation Method

## 4. Case Study

#### 4.1. Project Background

#### 4.2. Evaluation Process

- (1)
- Organize raw data and score the indicators

- (2)
- Calculate the subjective weights of the service status indicators

^{(1)}= (0.15, 0.09, 0.06, 0.03, 0.02, 0.06, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.04, 0.02, 0.10, 0.05, 0.18).

- (3)
- Calculate the objective weights of the service status indicators

^{(2)}= (0.04, 0.07, 0.08, 0.05, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.04, 0.04, 0.06, 0.04, 0.07, 0.02, 0.12, 0.11, 0.14).

- (4)
- Calculate the combination weights of the service status indicators

- (5)
- Calculate the comprehensive score of the service status of the groin

_{j}]

_{1 × 16}= [100, 80, 80, 80, 80, 40, 20, 40, 40, 40, 20, 40, 60, 60, 60, 60].

#### 4.3. Evaluation Results and Discussion

#### 4.3.1. Evaluation Results

#### 4.3.2. Uncertainty Analysis of Qualitative Indicators

#### 4.3.3. Comparison with Single-Weight Assignment Results

#### 4.3.4. Comparison of Evaluation Results Using Traditional Methods

## 5. Conclusions

- (1)
- In view of the influencing factors and functional characteristics of the groin damage in the waterway, a service condition evaluation index system was constructed with FAD, ADD, CID, and SSD as the judging criteria and 16 indicators as the basic elements. At the same time, the measurement methods of the element indexes were provided, and the criteria for rating and assigning values were formulated according to their multi-attribute characteristics. Through a practical test, the evaluation index system showed good applicability to channel groin evaluations and can measure and rate the indexes conveniently and efficiently.
- (2)
- A combined assignment optimization model based on the least squares principle of AHP and the improved CRITIC method was established and solved using the Lagrange multiplier method. Through calculation and comparison, the combined weights of the evaluation indexes reflect both subjective and objective information regarding the service status of groins that is more reasonable and credible than the information provided by the single assignment method. The combined weighting optimization model combines the respective advantages of the subjective and objective weighting methods and makes up for the shortcomings of the single weighting method.
- (3)
- Through example verification, the comprehensive evaluation results of the service status of the validation sample obtained by the new model established in this paper are consistent with the actual situation, and the reliability and applicability of the model are good; through the comprehensive calculation of the service status index scores of 14 groins using subjective weights and combined weights, we found that the new model is more accurate than the traditional evaluation method.
- (4)
- The proposed AHP-improved CRITIC-combined weighting optimization model developed based on the comprehensive evaluation method to determine the service status of waterway groins has obvious advantages and can accurately quantify and comprehensively evaluate the service status and provide a scientific basis for decision-making to maintain the sustainability of the dam’s function.
- (5)
- However, the authors recognize that the work in this paper has some limitations and presents possibilities for future research. First, despite the inclusion of objective weights, the evaluation method proposed in this paper still has some subjectivity, such as in the formulation of the index system, in the collection and scoring of some of the index information, and in the determination of subjective weights, which may lead to the estimation accuracy being distorted; in addition, the proposed evaluation index system includes 16 indicators, which is a large number, and considering the practical application of the evaluation method, for the current service status assessment, collecting basic information/data takes a lot of time and is expensive, and it is necessary to think about how to simplify the task by improving the efficiency. These problems are often unavoidable in the research and implementation of comprehensive evaluation methods; therefore, there is a need for continued optimization and further research on evaluation methods.
- (6)
- In practice, the characteristics of remediation buildings differ in different river basins and river sections, therefore, it may make significant errors if the results of this paper are completely replicated when the model is applied in different river sections. As a result, when engineers and waterway administration authorities use this model, it is necessary to note that the evaluation index set should be adjusted according to the actual situation. The weight coefficients must also be recalculated if the river segment environment differs from that of the upper Yangtze River.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Wehrle, R.; Wiens, M.; Schultmann, F.; Akkermann, J.; Boedefeld, J. Level system for the resilience assessment of critical transport infrastructures using the example of waterways. Bautechnik
**2020**, 97, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hu, X.Y. Waterway Regulation, 2nd ed.; People’s Traffic Press Co.: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.Y.; Yang, C.Y.; Yu, T.; Li, J.; Zang, M.J.; Fu, Z.M. Water Damage Mechanism and Monitoring and Repair Technology of Waterway Improvement Buildings in the Upper Yangtze River, 1st ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.Y.; Yang, C.Y.; Yu, T.; Han, L.F. Study on the Stability of Channel Improvement Buildings in the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River, 1st ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; Zhang, J.; Cheng, C. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation on safety and stability of regulating structures in a channel. J. Hydrodynom.
**2004**, 19, 383–388. [Google Scholar] - Yu, T.; Shi, H.; Wang, P.; Kong, D. Value-at-risk analysis of spur dikes based on range analysis. Eng. J. Wuhan Univ.
**2020**, 53, 667–673. [Google Scholar] - Zhang, L.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, B.; Chen, J. The 3-D morphology evolution of spur dike scour under clear-water scour conditions. Water
**2018**, 10, 1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wen, L.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H. Comprehensive evaluation method for the concrete-face rockfill dams behavior based on the fuzzy recognition model. J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
**2022**, 36, 04022021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, Z.; Xu, B.; Gu, C.; Li, Z. Comprehensive evaluation methods for dam service status. Sci. China Technol. Sci.
**2012**, 55, 2300–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, W.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, W.; Yang, S.; Hu, J. Technical status evaluation of regulation buildings in upper reaches of Yangtze river channel based on fuzzy Bayesian network. J. Chongqing Jiaotong Univ. Nat. Sci.
**2020**, 39, 112–118. [Google Scholar] - Chu, X.; Nie, Z.; Liu, H.; Jiang, Z. Review of mobile measurement research on multiple water and sediment elements of waterway. Hydro-Sci. Eng.
**2022**, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yan, X.; Liu, C. Review and prospect for intelligent waterway transportation system. CAAI Trans. Intell. Syst.
**2016**, 11, 807–817. [Google Scholar] - Chen, Y.; Zhang, M. Predicting the function of spur-dike group restricting rivers based on SVM. Hydro-Sci. Eng.
**2019**, 3, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, Y.; Jin, F.; Zhang, C.; Wang, J.; Hu, Y.; Wang, J. Novel method for groyne erosion stability evaluation. Mar. Georesources Geotechnol.
**2017**, 36, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Han, L.; Wang, P.; Liu, H.; He, Q. Discriminatory analysis of rockfill groins safety based on water-destruction volumetric ratio. Eng. J. Wuhan Univ.
**2014**, 47, 201–206. [Google Scholar] - Paul, A.; Shukla, N.; Paul, S.K.; Trianni, A. Sustainable supply chain management and multi-criteria decision-making methods: A systematic review. Sustainability
**2021**, 13, 7104. [Google Scholar] - Lu, M.; Wudhikarn, R. Using the best-worst method to develop intellectual capital indicators in financial service company. In Proceedings of the 2022 Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, Chiang Rai, Thailand, 26–28 January 2022; pp. 81–86. [Google Scholar]
- Dung, N.B.; Long, N.Q.; Goyal, R.; An, D.T.; Minh, D.T. The role of factors affecting flood hazard zoning using analytical hierarchy process: A review. Earth Syst. Environ.
**2021**, 6, 697–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wudhikarn, R. An approach to enhancing the human capital of enterprises associated with cooperative education. Int. J. Learn. Intellect. Cap.
**2015**, 12, 61–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mousavi, S.M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Heydar, M.; Ebrahimnejad, S. Multi-criteria decision making for plant location selection: An integrated Delphi-AHP-PROMETHEE methodology. Arab. J. Sci. Eng.
**2013**, 38, 1255–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, D.Y.; Kumar, V. A framework for prioritization of intellectual capital indicators in R&D. J. Intellect. Cap.
**2009**, 10, 277–293. [Google Scholar] - Ahmed, F.; Kilic, K. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A performance analysis of various algorithms. Fuzzy Sets Syst.
**2019**, 362, 110–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tesfamariam, S.; Sadiq, R. Risk-based environmental decision-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess.
**2006**, 21, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, C.; Chen, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Yue, K.; Ma, J.; Wang, M.; Zhao, L.; Qi, E. Comprehensive evaluation method of transmission line operating status based on improved combination weighting evaluation model. Energy Rep.
**2022**, 8, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, H.; You, J.; You, X.; Shan, M. A novel approach for failure mode and effects analysis using combination weighting and fuzzy VIKOR method. Appl. Soft Comput.
**2015**, 28, 579–588. [Google Scholar] - Wu, X.; Tang, S. Comprehensive evaluation of ecological vulnerability based on the AHP-CV method and SOM model: A case study of Badong County, China. Ecol. Indic.
**2022**, 137, 108758. [Google Scholar] - Liu, J.; Tan, Y.; Cai, H. The study of the methods of the linear combination weighting for multiple attribute decision-making. J. Natl. Def. Univ. Sci. Technol.
**2005**, 27, 121–124. [Google Scholar] - Mukhametzyanov, I.Z. Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, critic, SD. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng.
**2021**, 30, 76–105. [Google Scholar] - Wang, Y.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, L. Research on the evaluation of science and technological awards based on improved CRITIC method and cloud model. J. Hunan Univ. Nat. Sci.
**2014**, 41, 118–124. [Google Scholar] - Yu, T.; Wang, P.; Chen, L.; Li, H. Local Scour of Spur Dike in Unsteady Flow. J. Sichuan Univ. Eng. Sci. Ed.
**2014**, 46, 31–36. [Google Scholar] - Changjiang Waterway Bureau. Waterway Engineering Manual, 1st ed.; People’s Traffic Press Co.: Beijing, China, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Changjiang Waterway Bureau; East China Sea Navigation Center. Waterway Maintenance Technical Specification; JTS/T 320-2021; People’s Traffic Press Co.: Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Diakoulaki, D.; Mavrotas, G.; Papayannakis, L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Comput. Oper. Res.
**1995**, 22, 763–770. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Common forms of groin structural damage and examples of its regulating functional degradation (the photos in (

**a**,

**c**–

**f**) are from the daily shooting data of the Changjiang Waterway Bureau of China). (

**a**) Dam head damage; (

**b**) dam body damage; (

**c**) dam root damage; (

**d**) dam surface collapse; (

**e**) dam side slope destruction; (

**f**) deterioration of navigable flow patterns.

**Figure 3.**Parameters of scour pits near the groin head. The blue symbol indicates the location of the maximum depth of the scour pit (d15).

**Figure 6.**Distribution of the validation spur dikes and all of the objective samples in the upper Yangtze River channel. The figure shows the locations and numbered names of all of the groin samples selected in the upper Yangtze River for this paper, including 13 groin samples in the objective sample set and 1 validation sample (Tiehmenkan groin). Among them, photos of samples No. 2, No. 5, and the Tiehmenkan groin are shown in the figure (the photos of the groins in the picture are from the daily shooting data of the Changjiang Waterway Bureau of China).

**Figure 7.**Image from the 2021 site inspection of the Tiemenkan, which showed that most of the dam surface has been half-stripped (the photo is from the daily shooting data of the Changjiang Waterway Bureau of China).

**Figure 9.**Comparison of the results of the comprehensive assessment of WGSS using different methods. The horizontal axis is the actual evaluation category of the selected groins determined by the local waterway management department, and the horizontal line in the figure represents the boundaries of the corresponding scoring interval. The red circles mark calculated scores that are outside the actual rating range.

**Table 1.**Classification and assignment standards of service status evaluation indexes of waterway spur dikes.

Evaluation Indicators | Score | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

100 | 80 | 60 | 40 | 20 | |

Minimum water depth in the main channel d1 (%) | >97 | 90~97 | 80~90 | 70~80 | <70 |

Minimum navigable width of the main channel d2 (%) | >97 | 90~97 | 80~90 | 70~80 | <70 |

Flow rate in the rapid flow area d3 (%) | <3 | 3~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | >30 |

Water-surface ratio drop d4 (%) | <3 | 3~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | >30 |

Trend of deteriorating navigable conditions d5 | No change | Slight change that does not affect the navigation | Moderate deterioration that has some impact on navigability | Significant deterioration that has a greater impact on navigation | Dramatic deterioration that makes the area unnavigable |

Length of dam head damaged d6 (%) | <5 | 5~15 | 15~30 | 30~50 | >50 |

Area of dam surface collapse d7 (%) | <5 | 5~10 | 10~20 | 20~40 | >40 |

Height of side slope changes d8 (%) | <5 | 5~10 | 10~20 | 20~40 | >40 |

Depth of dam root gap d9 (%) | <5 | 5~10 | 10~30 | 20~50 | >50 |

Water damage volume of dam head d10 (%) | <5 | 5~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | >30 |

Water damage volume of dam body d11 (%) | <5 | 5~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | >30 |

Water damage volume of dam root d12 (%) | <5 | 5~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | >30 |

Water damage expanding trend d13 | No change | Small changes that do not affect structural stability | Localized changes that may affect structural stability | Significant changes that have a large impact on structural stability | Rapid changes leading to structural instability |

Maximum depth of scour pit d14 (%) | <10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | 30~40 | >40 |

Minimum distance of scour pit from dam d15 (%) | >40 | 30~40 | 20~30 | 10~20 | <10 |

Slope ratio of dam head d16 (%) | <5 | 5~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | >30 |

Scale Value | Meaning |
---|---|

1 | Equally important |

3 | Slightly more important |

5 | Obviously important |

2, 4 | Level of importance between the above three levels |

Sample No. | Building Name | The Waterway Mileage Where the Groin Is Located (km) | Qualitative Description of the Technical Conditions of Groin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Waterway Conditions | Dam Conditions | Scouring Situation near the Dam Head | |||

1 | Xiaojibei #1 submerged groin | 1003.6 | Tight channel scale, smooth flow pattern, high flow velocity | Dam root elevation reduction | Slope ratio slightly steeper |

2 | Youzhaqi upstream groin | 994.0 | Tight channel scale and local flow disturbance | Dam surface stripping damage, side slope steepening | Scouring pit development |

3 | Fengboqi Daodingshun groin | 959.3 | Tight channel scale, smooth flow pattern, high flow velocity | Inflection point overhang damage, side slope steepening | The slope is relatively steep |

13 | Cubingqi groin | 676.2 | Large channel siltation, complex navigable environment | Dam face stripping damage, the top of the dam is vulnerable to continuous damage | Stable |

Sample No. | Indicator Code | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

d1 | d2 | d3 | d4 | d5 | d6 | d7 | d8 | d9 | d10 | d11 | d12 | d13 | d14 | d15 | d16 | |

1 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 100 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 60 |

2 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 20 | 20 | 20 |

3 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 40 | 80 | 60 | 40 | 80 | 60 | 40 | 40 | 40 |

4 | 100 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 40 | 60 | 60 |

5 | 80 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 100 | 80 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |

6 | 100 | 100 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |

7 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 60 |

8 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 60 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 80 |

9 | 100 | 100 | 60 | 60 | 80 | 20 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 20 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 60 | 60 | 40 |

10 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 60 |

11 | 100 | 60 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 100 | 60 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 80 |

12 | 100 | 60 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 80 |

13 | 100 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 100 | 20 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 40 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 80 | 80 |

**Table 5.**Evaluation criteria for the technical conditions of inland waterway improvement buildings in China and the corresponding Z-score interval.

Category Classification | Technical Condition of the Waterway Improvement Buildings | Maintenance Recommendations | Z-Value Range |
---|---|---|---|

I | Good technical condition and normal function | No need for maintenance | (80, 100) |

II | The building has a small amount of deformation, but it does not affect the building stability and remediation function | Suspended maintenance | (60, 80) |

III | Building damage is more obvious and can still play a remediation function, but timely repairs are needed | Maintenance | (40, 60) |

IV | The building is seriously damaged or has obvious defects and has lost or will lose remediation function | Maintenance | (20, 40) |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Zhang, F.; Wang, P.; Mu, P.; Wang, M.; Han, L.; Sun, J.
A Comprehensive Evaluation Method for the Service Status of Groins in Waterways Based on an AHP-Improved CRITIC Combination Weighting Optimization Model. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 10709.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710709

**AMA Style**

Zhang F, Wang P, Mu P, Wang M, Han L, Sun J.
A Comprehensive Evaluation Method for the Service Status of Groins in Waterways Based on an AHP-Improved CRITIC Combination Weighting Optimization Model. *Sustainability*. 2022; 14(17):10709.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710709

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Zhang, Fan, Pingyi Wang, Ping Mu, Meili Wang, Linfeng Han, and Jianle Sun.
2022. "A Comprehensive Evaluation Method for the Service Status of Groins in Waterways Based on an AHP-Improved CRITIC Combination Weighting Optimization Model" *Sustainability* 14, no. 17: 10709.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710709