Comparative Risk Analysis for Reconstruction of a Partially Failed Dike System
Publication: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 16, Issue 3
Abstract
A sudden and catastrophic failure occurred at a newly constructed dike facility, designated Dikes 19 and 20, along the east side of the Dead Sea shoreline in the Middle East. The failure occurred at approximately 4:30 p.m. on March 22, 2000, resulting in the release of approximately 55 million cubic meters (approximately 72 million cubic yards) of brine and the washing out into the Dead Sea of a 2.6 km (1.6 mi) section of Dike 19. After the engineering assessment of the failure was completed, the owner decided to move forward with a reconstruction plan, reinstating the failed section and rehabilitating the section that did not fail. Accordingly, three viable conceptual reconstruction alternatives were developed for further evaluation. A judgmental risk-based analysis was performed to evaluate the proposed alternatives. Subsequently, a decision tree analysis was performed to assist the owner in making the final decision for the alternative with the lowest risk and reasonable cost. The purpose of the risk analysis was only to determine which reconstruction method would have the lowest comparative risk level. The risk analysis was not intended to simulate the actual cause of failure. This article discusses the decision-making approach based on a fault tree analysis and the comparative risk of failure estimated for the three reconstruction alternatives designated as Alternatives I, II-A, and II-B. The overall risk of failure for each alternative was quantified and compared. Alternative II-B was found to have the lowest risk indicator. In addition, on the basis of risk indicators and construction cost, a decision tree was developed, and Alternative II-B was found to offer the most favorable option for the reconstruction of the failed portion of the dike.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The support, constructive review, and valuable contribution of owner representative firms and Dr. Philippe P. Martin, independent consultant, during the course of the risk study and preparation of this article are greatly appreciated.
Also, many thanks to Ms. Nedda Djavid and Mr. Amir Djavid for their assistance in the preparation of the tables and figures of this article.
References
Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H. (1984). Probability concepts in engineering planning and design, Vol. II: Decision, risk and reliability, Wiley, New York.
Høeg, K. (1996). “Performance evaluation, safety assessment and risk analysis for dams.” Int. J. Hydropower Dams, 3(6), 51–58.
International Committee on Large Dams (ICOLD). (1995). “Dam failures statistical analysis.” Bulletin 99, Paris.
International Committee on Large Dams (ICOLD). (2001a). “Draft bulletin on risk assessment.” Paris.
International Committee on Large Dams (ICOLD). (2001b). “Question 76—The use of risk analysis to support dam safety decisions and management.” Proc., 20th Congress on Large Dams, Paris.
Khisty, C. J., and Mohammadi, J. (2001). Fundamentals of systems engineering with economics, probability and statistics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Mohammadi, J., Longinow, A., and Williams, T. A. (1991). “Evaluation of system reliability using expert opinion.” Struct. Saf., 9(3), 227–241.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 29, 2009
Accepted: Oct 27, 2010
Published online: Jul 15, 2011
Published in print: Aug 1, 2011
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.