IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11443-d913258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment of Water Inrush in Tunnels: A Case Study of a Tunnel in Guangdong Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Weifeng Zhang

    (College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Xuemin Zhou

    (College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Wei Wei

    (College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Xiaoyong Cheng

    (Guangdong Communication Planning & Design Institute Group Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510507, China)

Abstract

Fractured tectonic zones with developed groundwater are one of the major causes of water inrush in the construction of igneous tunnels; thus, it is highly important to assess the risk of water inrush. In this study, a total of six evaluation attributes, groundwater level, amount of inrush water, permeability coefficient, strength of the surrounding rock, rock integrity, and width of the jointed and fault fracture zone, were selected for the risk assessment of water inrush, and fuzzy theory was applied to the treatment of the uncertainty in the evaluation attributes. On this basis, the MULTIMOORA (multiple multi-objective optimization by ration analysis) and the model of nearness degree of incidence were combined to obtain the new model of MULTIMOORA–nearness degree of incidence for the risk assessment of water inrush. A deep-underground, extra-long tunnel under construction in southern China was used as an example for validation. The six tunnel sections assessed on site were ZK91 + 195~236, K91 + 169~186.5, K91 + 203~238, ZK94 + 238~198, K94 + 112~82, and K94 + 076~034. K94 + 112~82 was assessed at risk Level III, while the remainder were assessed at risk Level IV. The site conditions were also Level III for section K94 + 112~82 and Level IV for the remainder. The assessment results for the above six tunnel sections are consistent with the field conditions, which verified the validity of the model of the MULTIMOORA–nearness degree of incidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Weifeng Zhang & Xuemin Zhou & Wei Wei & Xiaoyong Cheng, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Water Inrush in Tunnels: A Case Study of a Tunnel in Guangdong Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11443-:d:913258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11443/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11443/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Yiming Liu & Yuanpu Xia & Hao Lu & Ziming Xiong, 2019. "Risk Control Technology for Water Inrush during the Construction of Deep, Long Tunnels," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-21, September.
    3. Aijun Liu & Yaxuan Xiao & Xiaohui Ji & Kai Wang & Sang-Bing Tsai & Hui Lu & Jinshi Cheng & Xinjun Lai & Jiangtao Wang, 2018. "A Novel Two-Stage Integrated Model for Supplier Selection of Green Fresh Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Yiqing Hao & Xiaoli Rong & Linjian Ma & Pengxian Fan & Hao Lu, 2016. "Uncertainty Analysis on Risk Assessment of Water Inrush in Karst Tunnels," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2016, pages 1-11, December.
    5. Wan, Shu-Ping & Li, Deng-Feng, 2013. "Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 925-940.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shuli Liu & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 749-774, July.
    2. Pushparenu Bhattacharjee & Syed Abou Iltaf Hussain & V. Dey & U. K. Mandal, 2023. "Failure mode and effects analysis for submersible pump component using proportionate risk assessment model: a case study in the power plant of Agartala," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(5), pages 1778-1798, October.
    3. Dengsheng Wu & Xiaoqian Zhu & Jie Wan & Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li, 2019. "A Multiobjective Optimization Approach for Selecting Risk Response Strategies of Software Project: From the Perspective of Risk Correlations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 339-364, January.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2010. "Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 195-201.
    5. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    6. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    7. Grzegorz Drozdowski, 2021. "Economic Calculus Qua an Instrument to Support Sustainable Development under Increasing Risk," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    8. Jibin Baby & Dae-Young Kim, 2024. "Sustainable Agritourism for Farm Profitability: Comprehensive Evaluation of Visitors’ Intrinsic Motivation, Environmental Behavior, and Satisfaction," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje, 2015. "Adaptive risk management using new risk perspectives – an example from the oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 75-82.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    11. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    12. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    13. Kemp, Deanna & Worden, Sandy & Owen, John R., 2016. "Differentiated social risk: Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 19-26.
    14. Per Becker, 2017. "Dark Side of Development: Modernity, Disaster Risk and Sustainable Livelihoods in Two Coastal Communities in Fiji," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Pengyun Chong & Hui Yin & Chaofeng Wang & Pengcheng Wang & Linqing Li & Di Wu & Jingwei Li & Dong Ding, 2022. "Evaluation of Social Stability Risk of Adjusting Goods Vehicle Calculation Method Based on Optimal Combination Weighting—Cloud Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Hatem Elleuch & Wafik Hachicha & Habib Chabchoub, 2014. "A combined approach for supply chain risk management: description and application to a real hospital pharmaceutical case study," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 641-663, May.
    17. Peng Hou & Xiaojian Yi & Haiping Dong, 2020. "A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    19. Junxia Miao & Dechun Huang & Zhengqi He, 2019. "Social Risk Assessment and Management for Major Construction Projects in China Based on Fuzzy Integrated Analysis," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-17, November.
    20. Grzegorz Drozdowski & Joanna Rogozińska-Mitrut & Jacek Stasiak, 2021. "The Empirical Analysis of the Core Competencies of the Company’s Resource Management Risk. Preliminary Study," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11443-:d:913258. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.