Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 4079–4101 | Cite as

Risk Assessment of Agricultural Water Conveyance and Delivery Systems by Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis Method

  • Morteza Babaei
  • Abbas Roozbahani
  • S. Mehdy Hashemy Shahdany
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Improving the efficiency of main Agricultural Water Conveyance and Delivery Systems (AWCDS) has a significant impact on improving water productivity in agriculture. Therefore, risk assessment of mentioned systems is necessary to increase reliability of operational performance. Accordingly, this study for the first time presents a unique framework to assess the adequacy, equity, and efficiency of agricultural water distribution and delivery risk assessment within AWCDS. In this way, the Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) technique is employed for risk assessment of “undesirability of supply and delivery”. The west Dez main irrigation canal in Khuzestan province of Iran was determined as the case study of the research. A set of questionnaires filled up by managers and experts of this irrigation district, the failure probabilities of the basic events are gathered in the form of linguistic terms. Due to the uncertainty in these terms, the system’s risk assessment to determine the failure probability of the top event was performed based on Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis method (FFTA). The results of the study showed that the failure probability in the fuzzy approach is 0.55 which is roughly 0.15 more than crisp approach. Also, the rating of the basic events based on their contribution to the occurrence of the top event was carried out using importance measures. Five major events were identified with an emphasis on operational and socio-economic issues related to distribution and delivery of water. Comparing the results of risk assessment with the mathematical model reveals that the latter’s failure probability will be less than the system’s FTA due to non-consideration of some important factors.

Keywords

FFTA Risk assessment Irrigation canals Adequacy Equity Efficiency 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

  1. Beauchamp N, Lence BJ, Bouchard C (2010) Technical hazard identification in water treatment using FTA. Can J Civ Eng 37(6):897–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burt CM (2011) Chairman of the Board, Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC). G. Marks, & E. Wilcox, Interviewers), San Luis Obispo, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Ching J, Leu SS (2009) Bayesian updating of reliability of civil infrastructure facilities based on condition-state data and fault-tree model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(12):1962–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clemmens AJ (1991) Irrigation uniformity relationships for irrigation system management. J Irrig Drain Eng 117(5):682–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fares H, Zayed T (2010) Hierarchical fuzzy expert system for risk of failure of water mains. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 1(1):53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fele F, Maestre JM, Hashemy SM, de la Peña DM, Camacho EF (2014) Coalitional model predictive control of an irrigation canal. J Process Control 24(4):314–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FEMA-452 (2005) Risk assessment: a how-to guide to mitigate potential terrorist attacks against buildings. FEMA risk management series, Washington, DC, pp 1–1Google Scholar
  8. Ferdous F, Miao H, Leaird DE, Srinivasan K, Wang J, Chen L, Varghese LT, Weiner AM (2011) Spectral line-by-line pulse shaping of on-chip microresonator frequency combs. Nat Photonics 5(12):770–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jian HU, Junying C, Jiahong L, Dayong Q (2011) Risk identification of sudden water pollution on FFTA in beibu-gulf economic zone. Procedia Environ Sci 10:2413–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lavasani S, Wang J, Yang Z, Finlay J (2012) Application of MADMin a fuzzy environment for selecting the best barrier for offshore wells. Expert Syst Appl 39:2466–2478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liang GS, Wang MJJ (1991) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for facility site selection. Int J Prod Res 29(11):2313–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindhe A, Rosén L, Norberg T, Bergstedt O (2009) FTA for integrated and probabilistic risk assessment of drinking water systems. Water Res 43(6):1641–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindhe A, Norberg T, Rosen L (2012) Approximate dynamic FTA calculations for modelling water supply risks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 106:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Litrico X, Fromion V (2009) Modeling and control of hydrosystems. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahmood NH, Lim PC, Mazalan SM, Razak MAA (2013) Blood cells extraction using color based segmentation technique. Int J Life Sci Biotechnol Pharma Res 2(2):2250–3137Google Scholar
  16. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D, Gemeni V (2011) Risk assessment and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24(5):477–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Molden DJ, Gates TK (1990) Performance measures for evaluation of irrigation-water-delivery systems. J Irrig Drain Eng 116(6):804–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pan ZJ, Tai YC (1988) Variance importance of system components by Monte Carlo. IEEE Trans Reliab 37(4):421–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sadiq R, Kleiner Y, Rajani B (2007) Water quality failures in distribution networks—risk assessment using fuzzy logic and evidential reasoning. Risk Assess 27(5):1381–1394Google Scholar
  20. Schuurmans J, Hof A, Dijkstra S, Bosgra OH, Brouwer R (1999) Simple water level controller for irrigation and drainage canals. J Irrig Drain Eng 125(4):189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shahdany SH, Maestre JM, Van Overloop PJ (2015) Equitable water distribution in main irrigation canals with constrained water supply. Water Resour Manag 29(9):3315–3328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shi B, Jiang J, Liu R, Ullah Khan A, Wang P (2017) Engineering risk assessment for emergency disposal projects of sudden water pollution incidents. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(17):14819–14833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suresh PV, Jayanti S, Deshpande AP, Haridoss P (2011) An improved serpentine flow field with enhanced cross-flow for fuel cell applications. Int J Hydrog Energy 36(10):6067–6072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taheriyoun M, Moradinejad S (2015) Reliability analysis of a wastewater treatment plant using FTA analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Environ Monit Assess 187:4186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Torres J, Brumbelow K, Guikema S (2009) Risk classification and uncertainty propagation for virtual water distribution systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(8):1259–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vesely WE, Goldberg FF, Roberts NH, Haasl DF (1981) Fault tree handbook (No. NUREG-0492). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Yager RR (1981) A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Inf Sci 24(2):143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yetton P, Bottger P (1983) The relationships among group size, member ability, social decision schemes, and performance. Org Behav Human Perform 32(2):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yuhua D, Datao Y (2005) Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by FFTA analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 18(2):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Aburaihan CampusUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations