Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Decision-Making Framework, Enhanced by Mutual Inspection for First-Stage Dam Construction Diversion Scheme Selection

  • 28 Accesses

Abstract

Construction diversion is necessary for damming, and First-Stage Diversion Scheme Selection (FDSS) is of significance in damming process control. To effectively select the first-stage diversion scheme, a theoretical Decision-Making Framework (DMF) is presented and its decision-making basis includes diversion risk, costs, social attitudes and duration. With multiple aspects of concerns, the FDSS can be solved by Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) methods and the complex diversion risk assessment can be achieved by the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). Mutual Inspection (MI) is based on a MADM feature of Partially Different Results (PDR), which should involve different MADM methods in solving the same problem and can reduce method difference-derived error within MADM results by mutually contrasting the PDR and refining ranking messages. Basing on these theoretical studies, the DMF for FDSS is developed, which contains two parts, the Risk Detector that assesses diversion risk of alternatives through MCS and the Decision Solver that undertakes decision-making preliminary and MADM enhanced by MI for solving FDSS. To demonstrate the DMF with MI, a case study that applies suitable MADM methods (viz. TOPSIS and ELECTRE I) for carrying out MI is conducted. Case results show that the DMF can solve the FDSS as it selects the optimal (S6) among six alternatives, the MI can enhance the DMF as it refines ranking messages about alternatives in the final MADM results. The DMF with MI can benefit the damming industry and contribute to the overall water resources management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data Availability

Data involved in this study is shown in the supplemental material and is available from the corresponding author by request.

References

  1. Afshar A, Barkhordary A, Marino MA (1994) Optimizing river diversion under hydraulic and hydrologic uncertainties. J Water Resour Plan Manag 120:36–47. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)0733-9496(1994)120:1(36)

  2. Anojkumar L, Ilangkumaran M, Sasirekha V (2014) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry. Expert Syst Appl 41:2964–2980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.028

  3. Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200:198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021

  4. Bozorg-Haddad O, Orouji H, Mohammad-Azari S, Loáiciga HA, Marino MA (2016) Construction risk management of irrigation dams. J Irrig Drain Eng 142:04016009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)Ir.1943-4774.0001001

  5. Brankovic JM, Markovic M, Nikolic D (2018) Comparative study of hydraulic structures alternatives using promethee II complete ranking method. Water Resour Manag 32:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2001-x

  6. Bureau of Reclamation US (1987) Design of small dams. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC

  7. Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2009) Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng 24:432–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2009.00599.x

  8. Chen J, Shi H, Sivakumar B, Peart MR (2016) Population, water, food, energy and dams. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 56:18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.043

  9. Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011

  10. Dai HC, Cao GJ, Su HZ (2006) Management and construction of the Three Gorges Project. J Constr Eng Manag 132:615–619. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)0733-9364(2006)132:6(615)

  11. Ezbakhe F, Perez-Foguet A (2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis under uncertainty: two approaches to incorporating data uncertainty into water. Sanit Hyg Plan Water Resour Manag 32:5169–5182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2152-9

  12. Feng Y, Fanghui Y, Li C (2019) Improved entropy weighting model in water quality evaluation. Water Resour Manag 33:2049–2056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02227-6

  13. Google Maps (2019) Satellite Photo of a first-stage diversion project. http://www.google.cn/maps/place/26°19'10.6"N+102°38'10.8"E

  14. Govindan K, Jepsen MB (2016) ELECTRE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 250:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.019

  15. Haghshenas SS, Neshaei MAL, Pourkazem P, Haghshenas SS (2016) The risk assessment of dam construction projects using fuzzy TOPSIS (Case Study: Alavian Earth Dam). Civ Eng J 2:158–167

  16. Hatamimarbini A, Tavana M (2011) An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega 39:373–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.09.001

  17. Hu Z, Fan X-E, Liu Q, Huang H (2006) Design of integrated risk distribution mechanism of construction diversion system. J Hydraul Eng 37:1270–1277. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0559-9350.2006.10.020 (in Chinese)

  18. Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications; A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer, Berlin

  19. ISO IOFS (2009) ISO 31000:2009 risk management – principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  20. Lee H-C, Chang C-T (2018) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 92:883–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007

  21. Marengo H (2006) Case study: dam safety during construction, lessons of the overtopping diversion works at Aguamilpa Dam. J Hydraul Eng 132:1121–1127. https://doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)0733-9429(2006)132:11(1121)

  22. Marengo HH, Arreguin FI, Aldama AA, Morales V (2013) Case study: risk analysis by overtopping of diversion works during dam construction: the La Yesca hydroelectric project. Mexico Struct Saf 42:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.01.005

  23. Ministry of Water Resources PRC (2017) SL 303–2017 specifications for construction planning of water resources and hydropower projects. Water&Power Press, Beijing

  24. Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00020-1

  25. Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178:514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020

  26. Ozcan T, Celebi N, Esnaf Ş (2011) Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Syst Appl 38:9773–9779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022

  27. Rasekh A, Afshar A, Afshar MH (2010) Risk-cost optimization of hydraulic structures: methodology and case study. Water Resour Manag 24:2833–2851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9582-3

  28. Shi H, Chen J, Liu S, Sivakumar B (2019) The role of large dams in promoting economic development under the pressure of population growth. Sustainability 11:2965

  29. Siciliano G, Urban F, Kim S, Lonn PD (2015) Hydropower, social priorities and the rural–urban development divide: the case of large dams in Cambodia. Energy Policy 86:273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.009

  30. Song Z, Liu Q, Hu Z, Li H, Xiong J (2018) Assessment of sediment impact on the risk of river diversion during dam construction: a simulation-based project study on the Jing River, China. Water 10:217. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020217

  31. Su H-T, Tung Y-K (2012) Flood-damage-reduction project evaluation with explicit consideration of damage cost uncertainty. J Water Resour Plan Manag 139:704–711. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000291

  32. Yazdi J, Moridi A (2018) Multi-objective differential evolution for design of cascade hydropower reservoir systems. Water Resour Manag 32:4779–4791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2083-5

  33. Yuan G, Hu Z (2009) Water conservancy construction. 5th edn. Water & Power Press, Beijing

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51779195 and Grant No. 51379164) and received suggestions from Zijun Cao, which are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Correspondence to Quan Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

none.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 194 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, Z., Liu, Q. & Hu, Z. Decision-Making Framework, Enhanced by Mutual Inspection for First-Stage Dam Construction Diversion Scheme Selection. Water Resour Manage 34, 563–577 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02461-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Water resources development
  • Damming
  • First-stage diversion
  • Scheme selection
  • Multi-attribute decision making enhancement