• Franco OboniEmail author
  • Cesar Oboni


This chapter explains how to consider the multidimensional aspect of hazard consequences. The consequences to be studied are generally perceived as mainly dependent on the target readership of the risk assessment: insurance companies, interested in some specific loss type; owners wanting to perform RIDM on mitigation; politicians looking to understand comparative risks of various energy sources; authorities wanting to assess societal risk and cover public protection issues (Darbre 1998).


  1. [AGSLT 2007] Australian Geomechanics Society Landslide Taskforce (2007) Practice Note Guidelines For Landslide Risk Management, Landslide Practice Note Working Group, Journal and News of the Australian Geomechanics SocietyGoogle Scholar
  2. Azam S, Li Q (2010) Tailings Dam Failures: A Review of the Last One Hundred Years, Waste Geo TechnicsGoogle Scholar
  3. Darbre G (1998) Dam risk analysis. Report, Federal Office for Water and Geology. Dam Safety, BienneGoogle Scholar
  4. Franca MJ, Almeida AB (2004) A computational model of rockfill dam breaching caused by overtopping (RoDaB), Journal of Hydraulic Research 42(2): 197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Julien PY (2010). Erosion and Sedimentation, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Larrauri Concha P, Lall U (2018) Tailings Dams Failures: Updated Statistical Model for Discharge Volume and Runout Environments 5(2), 28; Scholar
  7. Morris, M. W. (2005) IMPACT: Final technical report, Proc. of the 1st IMPACT Workshop, HR Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Nourani, V, Mousavi, S (2013) Evaluation of Earthen Dam-Breach Parameters and Resulting Flood Routing Case Study: Aidoghmosh Dam, International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, Volume 1, Issue 4, ISSN (Online) 2319–1473Google Scholar
  9. Oboni C, Oboni F (2013) Factual and Foreseeable Reliability of Tailings Dams and Nuclear Reactors -a Societal Acceptability Perspective, Tailings and Mine Waste 2013, Banff, AB, November 6 to 9, 2013Google Scholar
  10. O’Brien J, Gonzalez-Ramirez N, Tocher R, Chao K, Overton D (2016) Predicting Tailings Dams Breach Release Volumes for Flood Hazard Delineation. Annual conference proceedings/Association of State Dam Safety Officials, vol. 1, pp. 207–224Google Scholar
  11. Rico M, Benito G, Diez-Herrero A (2008) Floods from tailings dam failures. J. Hazard. Mater. 154(1–3):79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rourke H, Luppnow D (2015) The Risks of Excess Water on Tailings Facilities and Its Application to Dam-break Studies. Tailings and Mine Waste Management for the 21st Century, Sydney, NSW
  13. Rosenblueth E (1975) Point Estimates for Probability Moments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNAS 72(10): 3812–3814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith GP, Davey EK, Cox RJ (2014) Flood Hazard, WRL Technical Report 2014/07, UNSW Water Research Laboratory
  15. [USBR 1988] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1988) Downstream hazard classification guidelines, ACER Technical Memorandum No. 11, Assistant Commissioner-Engineering and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  16. Zagonjolli M, Mynett AE (2005) Dam breach analysis: A comparison between physical, empirical and data mining models, Proc. of the 29th IAHR Congress Seoul, South Korea, 753–754Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oboni Riskope Associates Inc.RiskopeVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations