# Risk Assessment of Dike Based on Risk Chain Model and Fuzzy Influence Diagram

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Background

## 2. The Risk Chain Model and the Fuzzy Influence Diagram

#### 2.1. The Risk Chain Model

#### 2.2. Fuzzy Set and Membership Function

#### 2.2.1. The Definition of Fuzzy Set and Membership

#### 2.2.2. The Operations on Fuzzy Sets

#### 2.3. The Process of the Fuzzy Influence Diagram

#### 2.3.1. The Calculation of Independent Node Frequency Matrix

#### 2.3.2. The Calculation of the Frequency Matrix of Dependent Nodes

#### 2.3.3. Result Analysis

## 3. The Evaluation Process of the Fuzzy Influence Diagram

#### 3.1. The Construction of the Frequency Fuzzy Set

**f**of the dike risk node can be expressed as follows:

#### 3.2. The Construction of the State Fuzzy Set

#### 3.3. Risk Assessment of One Dike Case

## 4. Summary and Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Ministry of Water Resources, People’s Republic of China. 2019 Statistic Bulletin on China Water Activities; Water and Power Press: Beijing, China, 2019.
- Mouri, G.; Minoshima, D.; Golosov, V.; Chalov, S.; Seto, S.; Yoshimura, K.; Nakamura, S.; Oki, T. Probability assessment of flood and sediment disasters in Japan using the Total Runoff-Integrating Pathways model. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
**2013**, 3, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Marijnissen, R.; Kok, M.; Kroeze, C.; Loon-Steensma, J. Re-evaluating safety risks of multifunctional dikes with a probabilistic risk framework. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2019**, 19, 737–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Balistrocchi, M.; Moretti, G.; Ranzi, R.; Orlandini, S. Failure probability analysis of levees affected by mammal bioerosion. Water Resour. Res.
**2021**, 57, e2021WR030559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Agbaje, S.; Zhang, X.; Ward, D.; Dhimitri, L.; Patelli, E. Spatial variability characteristics of the effective friction angle of Crag deposits and its effects on slope stability. Comput. Geotech.
**2022**, 141, 104532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mao, C.X. Embankment Manual; Water and Power Press: Beijing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, J.B.; Sun, D.Y. Model for analysis on reliability of levee overtopping and its application. Water Resour. Hydropower Eng.
**2011**, 42, 40–45. [Google Scholar] - Sharp, J.A.; Mcanally, W.H. Numerical modeling of surge overtopping of a levee. Appl. Math. Model.
**2012**, 36, 1359–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Yuan, S.Y.; Tang, H.W.; Li, L.; Pan, Y.; Amini, F. Combined wave and surge overtopping erosion failure model of HPTRM levees: Accounting for grass-mat strength. Ocean Eng.
**2015**, 109, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Saladdin, M.; O’Sullivan, J.; Abolfathi, S.; Dong, S.; Pearson, J. Distribution of individual wave overtopping volumes on a sloping structure with a permeable foreshore. Coast. Eng. Proc.
**2020**, 36, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dong, S.; Abolfathi, S.; Salauddin, M.; Pearson, J.M. Spatial distribution of wave-by-wave overtopping at vertical seawalls. Coast. Eng. Proc.
**2020**, 36, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dong, S.; Abolfathi, S.; Salauddin, M.; Pearson, J.M. Spatial distribution of wave-by-wave overtopping behind vertical seawall with recurve retrofitting. Ocean Eng.
**2021**, 238, 109674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dong, S.; Salauddin, M.; Abolfathi, S.; Pearson, J. Wave impact loads on vertical seawalls: Effects of the geometrical properties of recurve retrofitting. Water
**2021**, 12, 2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Salauddin, M.; O’Sullivan, J.J.; Abolfathi, S.; Peng, Z.; Dong, S.; Pearson, J.M. New insights in the probability distributions of wave-by-wave overtopping volumes at vertical breakwaters. Sci. Rep.
**2022**, 12, 16228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, Y.; Zhu, D.; Zhang, F.; Lei, G.H.; Qiu, H.Y. Stability analysis of three-dimensional slopes under water drawdown conditions. Can. Geotech. J.
**2014**, 51, 1355–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yeganeh-Bakhtiary, A.; Houshangi, H.; Hajivalie, F.; Abolfathi, S. A numerical study on hydrodynamics of standing waves in front of caisson breakwaters with WCSPH model. Coast. Eng. J.
**2017**, 59, 1750005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Guo, C.Y.; Li, D.Q.; Cao, Z.J.; Gao, G.H.; Tang, X.S. Efficient reliability sensitivity analysis for slope stability in spatial variable soils. Rock Soil Mech.
**2018**, 39, 2203–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, X.B.; Xia, X.Z.; Zhang, Q. Reliability Analysis on Anti-sliding Stability of Levee Slope Based on Orthogonal Test and Neural Network. J. Yangtze River Sci. Res. Inst.
**2019**, 36, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yeganeh-Bakhtiary, A.; Houshangi, H.; Abolfathi, S. Lagrangian two-phase flow modeling of scour in front of vertical breakwater. Coast. Eng. J.
**2020**, 62, 252–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, Z.F.; Zhang, Z.Q.; Yang, G.S. Risk calculation model for flood levee structure. Shui Li Xue Bao
**1998**, 7, 64–67. [Google Scholar] - Stark, T.D.; Jafari, N.H.; Leopold, A.L.; Brandon, T.L. Soil compressibility in transient unsaturated seepage analyses. Can. Geotech. J.
**2014**, 51, 858–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ni, X.D.; Zhu, C.M.; Wang, Y. Analyzing the behavior of seepage deformation by three-dimensional coupled continuum-discontinuum methods. China Civ. Eng. J.
**2015**, 48, 159–165. [Google Scholar] - Perlea, M.; Ketchum, E. Impact of non-analytical factors in geotechnical risk assessment of levees. In Geo-Risk, Risk Assessment and Management; American Society of Civil Engineers: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2011; pp. 1073–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Z.P.; Guo, D.S.; Xu, T.; Hua, W.X. Risk assessment model in TBM construction based on nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Rock Soil Mech.
**2021**, 42, 1424–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, Y.J.; Zhang, C.H.; Jin, F.; Zhang, W.H.; Wu, C.Y.; Ren, D.C. Research and application of comprehensive safety model and risk judgement system of embankment engineering. J. Nat. Disasters
**2012**, 21, 101–108. [Google Scholar] - Gu, C.S.; Wang, Z.L.; Liu, C.D. Experts’ weight model assessing embankment safety. Rock Soil Mech.
**2006**, 27, 2099–2104. [Google Scholar] - Wang, T.; Liao, B.C.; Ma, X.; Fang, D.P. Using Bayesian network to develop a probability assessment approach for construction safety risk. China Civ. Eng. J.
**2010**, 43, 384–391. [Google Scholar] - Li, W.S.; Qin, X.Y.; Li, F.; Zhou, B. Analysis on probability of Stock Ammunition Accidents Based on FID. China Saf. Sci. J.
**2009**, 19, 62–69. [Google Scholar] - Howard, R.A.; Matheson, J.E. Influence diagrams. Decis. Anal.
**2005**, 2, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, M. EPC Risk Identification and Analysis of Overseas Nuclear Power Project and Based on Risk Chain and Risk Map. Nucl. Sci. Eng.
**2019**, 39, 155–163. [Google Scholar] - Xu, S.Y. Study on Construction Security Risk Assessment for Power Transmission Projection Based on Fuzzy Influence Diagram; Southeast University: Nanjing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Quan, J.; Huang, J.M.; Zhang, S.B.; Zeng, X.Y. Method of Risk Identification and Analysis Based on Risk Chain and Maps: A Case Study of an Overseas EPC Electric Power Project. Energy Constr.
**2014**, 1, 101–108. [Google Scholar] - Quan, J.; Huang, J.M.; Zhang, S.B.; Zeng, X.Y. Method of Risk Qualitative Assessment Based on Risk Chain and Fuzzy Influence Diagrams: A Case Study of an Overseas EPC Electric Power project. South Energy Constr.
**2016**, 3, 63–69. [Google Scholar] - Zhang, K.; Ge, L.; Wang, C.X.; Dai, F. Information Security Risk Assessment Based on Fuzzy Influence Diagram. J. Zhengzhou Univ. (Eng. Sci.)
**2008**, 29, 35–38. [Google Scholar] - Lin, S.; Lin, W.Y. Fuzzy Influence Diagrams Method and Risk Evaluation. J. Tianjin Univ. Technol.
**2005**, 21, 73–77. [Google Scholar] - Cheng, T.X.; Wang, P.; Zhang, W.B. Investigation on Fuzzy Influence Diagrams Evaluation Algorithm. J. Syst. Eng.
**2004**, 19, 177–182. [Google Scholar] - Patt, A.G.; Schrag, D.P. Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim. Change
**2003**, 61, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Probability Range | Descriptive Term |
---|---|

<1% | Extremely unlikely |

1~10% | Very unlikely |

10~33% | Unlikely |

33~66% | Medium likelihood |

66~90% | Likely |

90~99% | Very likely |

>99% | Virtually certain |

Nodes | The Potential Risk State | The Frequency |
---|---|---|

Flooding | big | low |

middle | medium | |

small | high | |

Illegal operation | big | low |

middle | medium | |

small | high | |

Low skills | big | low |

middle | medium | |

small | high | |

Reduced cohesion | big | low |

middle | high | |

small | medium | |

Increase of water content | big | medium |

middle | low | |

small | high | |

Void ratio change | big | low |

middle | medium | |

small | high | |

Friction angle change | big | low |

middle | high | |

small | medium | |

…… | …… | …… |

Relationship between Different Nodes | Relationship Description | |
---|---|---|

The Degree of Change in Disadvantage for the Risk Nodes | The Results Corresponding to the Degree of Change of the Risk Nodes | |

Flooding → higher water level | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Illegal operation → reduced drainage capacity | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Low skills → reduced drainage capacity | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Reduced cohesion → dike body damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Water content → dike body damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Reduced cohesion → dike foundation damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

water content → dike foundation damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Void ratio → dike body damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Friction angel → dike foundation damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Void ratio → dike foundation damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Friction angle → dike foundation damage | big, middle, and small, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Higher water level → overtopping | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Reduced drainage → overtopping | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Damage of dike body → seepage | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Damage of dike foundation → seepage | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Damage of dike body → scouring | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Damage of dike foundation → scouring | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Overtopping → dike failure | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Seepage → dike failure | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Scouring → dike failure | Increase max, medium, min, respectively | Increase max, increase medium, increase min, respectively |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 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**

Wang, X.; Xia, X.; Teng, R.; Gu, X.; Zhang, Q.
Risk Assessment of Dike Based on Risk Chain Model and Fuzzy Influence Diagram. *Water* **2023**, *15*, 108.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010108

**AMA Style**

Wang X, Xia X, Teng R, Gu X, Zhang Q.
Risk Assessment of Dike Based on Risk Chain Model and Fuzzy Influence Diagram. *Water*. 2023; 15(1):108.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010108

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Wang, Xiaobing, Xiaozhou Xia, Renjie Teng, Xin Gu, and Qing Zhang.
2023. "Risk Assessment of Dike Based on Risk Chain Model and Fuzzy Influence Diagram" *Water* 15, no. 1: 108.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010108