Abstract
Although many approaches have been proposed for flood risk assessment in urban areas, an equivalent methodology for remote mine sites with poor hydrological data records is still needed. This paper provides a fuzzy methodology based on calculating the hydrological return period discharge and the resistance-load theory for embankment failure risk assessment of an existing drainage storage system (lake) at the Golgohar mine site. The uncertainty of the two uncertain components, load and resistance, were endowed with triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) describing possible values the two components may have. First, based on a comparison of two consecutive Sentinel-2A images and the model water volume, a new manual storm water management model (SWMM) calibration technique was introduced. Then, three well-known synthetic rainfall hyetograph generation methods based on a single point of the rainfall curve were input into the calibrated SWMM model. Second, the BRCH-J model was used to calculate the maximum water level in the lake if an embankment breach occurs in two scenarios, with an unprotected and a fully riprap-protected downstream face. Afterward, the SWMM and BRCH-J outputs were used to define the TFN parameters representing the load (surface flow) and resistance (lake capacity). Finally, on the basis that both TFNs must match, a fuzzy risk product with alpha-cut principles was defined, as was the difference between the TFNs representing the load and resistance. The result indicates that the available stormwater storage volume exceeded the expected capacity; the risk of embankment failure was 0.15%, which was less than the design risk (1%, based on the hydrological return period concept).
Zusammenfassung
Obwohl viele Ansätze für die Bewertung des Hochwasserrisikos in städtischen Gebieten vorgeschlagen wurden, ist eine gleichwertige Methodik für abgelegene Minenstandorte mit unzureichenden hydrologischen Daten noch nicht vorhanden. In diesem Beitrag wird eine Fuzzy-Methode vorgestellt, die auf der Berechnung der hydrologischen Wiederkehrperiode des Abflusses und der Widerstandslasttheorie für die Bewertung des Deichversagensrisikos eines bestehenden Abflussspeichersystems (See) in der Golgohar-Mine basiert. Die Ungewissheit der beiden unsicheren Komponenten, Last und Widerstand, wurde mit dreiseitigen Fuzzy-Zahlen (TFNs) versehen, welche die möglichen Werte der beiden Komponenten beschreiben. Zunächst wurde auf der Grundlage eines Vergleichs von zwei aufeinanderfolgenden Sentinel-2A-Bildern und dem Modellwasservolumen ein neues manuelles Kalibrierungsverfahren für das Regenwasserbewirtschaftungsmodell (SWMM) eingeführt. Anschließend wurden drei bekannte Methoden zur Erzeugung synthetischer Niederschlagshyetogramme auf der Grundlage eines einzigen Punktes der Niederschlagskurve in das kalibrierte SWMM-Modell eingegeben. Zweitens wurde das BRCH-J-Modell verwendet, um den maximalen Wasserstand des Sees bei einem Dammbruch in zwei Szenarien zu berechnen, und zwar mit einer ungeschützten und einer vollständig durch Steinabdeckung geschützten flussabwärts geneigten Dammböschung. Anschließend wurden die Ergebnisse von SWMM und BRCH-J verwendet, um die TFN-Parameter zu definieren, welche die Belastung (Oberflächenabfluss) und den Widerstand (Kapazität des Sees) darstellen. Auf der Grundlage, dass beide TFNs übereinstimmen müssen, wurde schließlich ein Fuzzy-Risikoprodukt mit Alpha-Cut-Prinzipien definiert, ebenso wie die Differenz zwischen den TFNs, die die Belastung und den Widerstand darstellen. Das Ergebnis zeigt, dass das verfügbare Regenwasserspeichervolumen die erwartete Kapazität übersteigt; das Risiko eines Dammversagens beträgt 0,15 % und liegt damit unter dem Bemessungsrisiko (1 %, basierend auf dem Konzept der hydrologischen Wiederkehrperiode).
Resumen
Aunque se han propuesto muchos enfoques para la evaluación del riesgo de inundación en zonas urbanas, sigue siendo necesaria una metodología equivalente para los emplazamientos mineros remotos con escasos registros de datos hidrológicos. Este trabajo proporciona una metodología de lógica difusa basada en el cálculo de la descarga del período de retorno hidrológico y la teoría de la carga-resistencia para la evaluación del riesgo de fallo del terraplén de un sistema de almacenamiento de drenaje existente (lago) en el emplazamiento minero de Golgohar. La incertidumbre de los dos componentes inciertos, la carga y la resistencia, se dotó de números difusos triangulares (TFN) que describen los posibles valores que pueden tener los dos componentes. En primer lugar, basándose en la comparación de dos imágenes consecutivas de Sentinel-2A y el volumen de agua del modelo, se introdujo una nueva técnica de calibración manual del modelo de gestión de aguas pluviales (SWMM). A continuación, se introdujeron en el modelo SWMM calibrado tres métodos conocidos de generación de hietógrafos de precipitación sintética basados en un único punto de la curva de precipitación. En segundo lugar, se utilizó el modelo BRCH-J para calcular el nivel máximo de agua en el lago en caso de que se produjera una ruptura del dique en dos escenarios, con una cara aguas abajo sin protección y con una cara aguas abajo con protección total de ripio. A continuación, se utilizaron los resultados del SWMM y del BRCH-J para definir los parámetros del TFN que representan la carga (flujo superficial) y la resistencia (capacidad del lago). Por último, partiendo de la base de que ambos TFN deben coincidir, se definió un producto de riesgo difuso con principios de corte alfa, así como la diferencia entre los TFN que representan la carga y la resistencia. El resultado indica que el volumen de almacenamiento de aguas pluviales disponible superaba la capacidad prevista; el riesgo de ruptura del dique era del 0,15%, inferior al riesgo de diseño (1%, basado en el concepto de período de retorno hidrológico).
摘要
市区洪水风险评估的方法有多种,但欠缺适用于水文数据记录不足的偏远矿区的等效方法。本文提供了一种基于计算水文重现期流量和阻力荷载理论的模糊方法,并用于 Golgohar 矿现有排蓄水系统(湖)堤坝破坏风险评估。通过三角模糊数值 (TFN)来描述负载和阻力两个分量的不确定性。首先,比较两分量的连续 Sentinel-2A 图像和模型水量,引入一种新的地表径流管理模型 (SWMM) 校对方法,将三种常用的基于降雨曲线单点的合成雨量图生成方法输入到校准后的 SWMM 模型中。第二,用BRCH-J 模型计算下游面无保护和有保护石块两种情况下发生堤坝破裂时湖中的最高水位,用SWMM 和 BRCH-J 的计算结果确定代表负荷(地表流量)和阻力(湖泊容量)的 TFN 参数。最后,在两个 TFN 必须匹配的基础上,利用 alpha 切割原则进行模糊风险评价并确定代表负载和阻力的 TFN 的差异。计算结果表明可用的蓄水量超出了预期容量;堤坝破坏的风险为 0.15%,小于设计风险 (1%,基于水文重现期概念)。
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article. The available data is listed in Table 1.
References
Barco J, Wong KM, Stenstrom MK (2008) Automatic calibration of the US EPA SWMM model for a large urban catchment. J Hydraul Eng 134(4):466–474. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:4(466)
Behrouz MS, Zhu Z, Matott LS, Rabideau AJ (2020) A new tool for automatic calibration of the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). J Hydrol 581:124436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124436
Caradot N, Granger D, Chapgier J, Cherqui F, Chocat B (2011) Urban flood risk assessment using sewer flooding databases. Water Sci Technol 64(4):832–840. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.611
Chaira T (2019) Fuzzy set and its extension. Wiley Online Library
Cheng WM, Huang CL, Hsu NS, Wei CC (2017) Risk analysis of reservoir operations considering short-term flood control and long-term water supply: a case study for the Da-Han Creek Basin in Taiwan. Water J 9(6):424. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060424
Chow VT, Maidment D, Mays LW (1988) Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill
Dent S, Hanna RB, Wright LT (2004) Automated calibration using optimization techniques with SWMM RUNOFF. J Water Manag Model 32:45–52. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.R220-18
Flatley A, Markham A (2021) Establishing effective mine closure criteria for river diversion channels. J Environ Manage 287:112287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112287
Fu X, Tao T, Wang H, Hu T (2013) Risk assessment of lake flooding considering propagation of uncertainty from rainfall. J Hydrol Eng 18(8):1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE1943-5584.0000700
Gupta HV, Kling H, Yilmaz KK, Martinez GF (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 377(1–2):80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2009.08.003
Hartman HL, Mutmansky JM (2002) Introductory mining engineering. John Wiley & Sons
ISO (2009) Risk management: principles and guidelines. International Standards Organization, Geneva, p 24
Jahanshahi R, Zare M (2017) Delineating the origin of groundwater in the Golgohar mine area of Iran using stable isotopes of 2H and 18O and hydrochemistry. Mine Water Environ 36(4):550–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-017-0444-6
Keifer CJ, Chu HH (1957) Synthetic storm pattern for drainage design. J Hydraul Eng 83(4):1332. https://doi.org/10.1061/JYCEAJ.0000104
Lee KT, Ho JY (2008) Design hyetograph for typhoon rainstorms in Taiwan. J Hydrol Eng 13(7):647–651. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:7(647)
Lee EH, Kim JH (2019) Development of a reliability index considering flood damage for urban drainage systems. KSCE J Civ Eng 23(4):1872–1880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-0408-4
Mancipe-Munoz NA, Buchberger SG, Suidan MT, Lu T (2014) Calibration of rainfall-runoff model in urban watersheds for stormwater management assessment. J Water Resour Plan Manag 140(6):05014001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000382
Manero A, Kragt M, Standish R, Miller B, Jasper D, Boggs G, Young R (2020) A framework for developing completion criteria for mine closure and rehabilitation. J Environ Manage 273:111078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111078
Maus V, Giljum S, Gutschlhofer J, da Silva DM, Probst M, Gass SL, Luckeneder S, Lieber M, McCallum I (2020) A global-scale data set of mining areas. Sci 7(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12594248
Rezazadeh Baghal S, Khodashenas SR (2022a) Fuzzy number linear programming technique for design of rectangular canals. J Irrig Drain Eng 148(8):04022027. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.00001685
Rezazadeh Baghal S, Khodashenas SR (2022b) Risk assessment of storm sewers in urban areas using fuzzy technique and monte carlo simulation. J Irrig Drain Eng 148(8):04022028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001696
Ritter A, Munoz-Carpena R (2013) Performance evaluation of hydrological models: statistical significance for reducing subjectivity in goodness-of-fit assessments. J Hydrol 480:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.004
Rossman LA (2010) Storm water management model user, s manual version 5.0. National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Salah A, Moselhi O (2015) Contingency modelling for construction projects using fuzzy-set theory. Eng Constr Archit Manag 22(2):214–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2014-0039
Salas JD, Heo JH, Lee DJ, Burlando P (2013) Quantifying the uncertainty of return period and risk in hydrologic design. J Hydrol Eng 18(5):518–526. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000613
Sangal S, Bonema SR (1994) A methodology for calibrating SWMM models. J Water Manag Model. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.Rl76-24
Shahba S, Arjmandi R, Monavari M, Ghodusi J (2017) Application of multi-attribute decision-making methods in SWOT analysis of mine waste management (case study: Sirjan’s Golgohar iron mine, Iran). Resour 51:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.11.002
Shamsi UMS, Koran J (2017) Continuous calibration. J Water Manag Model 25:1–9. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.C414
Shrestha B, Reddy R, Duckstein L (1990) Fuzzy reliability in hydraulics. Proceedings 1st International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis. IEEE, College Park, pp 167–172
Singh V (1996) Dam breach modeling technology. Springer Science & Business Media
Su H, Wen Z (2013) Interval risk analysis for gravity dam instability. Eng Fail Anal 33:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.04.027
Sun S, Fu G, Djordjević S, Khu ST (2012) Separating aleatory and epistemic uncertainties: probabilistic sewer flooding evaluation using probability box. J Hydrol 420:360–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.027
Ursino N (2015) Risk analysis of sustainable urban drainage and irrigation. Adv Water Resour 83:277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.06.011
Worldwide (2010) Guidebook for evaluating mining project EIAs. Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide, Eugene
Yang X, Zhao S, Qin X, Zhao N, Liang L (2017) Mapping of urban surface water bodies from Sentinel-2 MSI imagery at 10 m resolution via NDWI-based image sharpening. Remote Sens 9(6):596. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9060596
Zadeh LA (1973) Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3(1):28–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.5408575
Zha Y, Gao J, Ni S (2003) Use of normalized difference built-up index in automatically mapping urban areas from TM imagery. Int J Remote Sens 24(3):583–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160304987
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and valuable comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Rezazadeh Baghal, S., Khodashenas, S.R. Fuzzy Risk Assessment of a Stormwater Storage System in a Poorly Gauged Mine Site: The Case of the Golgohar Mine Site. Mine Water Environ 42, 134–145 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-022-00911-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-022-00911-5