Assessing the Risk of Damage to Underground Utilities Caused by Spatial Data Quality with Fuzzy Logic
Source abstract
Abstract
One of the sources of risk inherent to construction projects is the quality of spatial data. Damage to buried pipes and cables often causes accidents, delays, or stoppages of construction works. Fuzzy logic is a method for studying the risk. It is employed to describe complex or poorly defined phenomena that can hardly be characterised with probabilistic methods. The article proposes a method for assessing the risk of damaging underground utilities based on a fuzzy inference engine. The author first defined linguistic variables and assigned them values based on risk factors. The membership functions for the linguistic variables were modelled using expert judgement. Then, the author determined qualitative fuzzy sets with the rule base. Finally, the values were converted into crisp values. The defuzzification technique employed was the centre of gravity. The proposed method can assess the risk of damage to underground utilities for spatial data exhibiting diverse quality classes. It will be employed to generate large-scale risk maps. The proposed fuzzy logic solution is an effective and appropriate tool for assessing the risk of damage to underground utilities arising from the quality of subsurface data. It should not be regarded as a universal substitute for PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) but as a complementary methodology that is particularly well-suited to risk assessment in data-poor environments characterised by epistemic uncertainty and reliance on qualitative expert judgement.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Underground infrastructure and sustainability · Geographic Information Systems Studies · Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Geodesy, Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Geodesy, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Mickiewicza 21 Street, 31-120 Krakow, Poland
Department of Integrated Geodesy and Cartography, Faculty of Mining Surveying and Environmental Engineering, Krakow AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicza 30 Street, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Gleim, I.N. (2004). CIA Review—Part I—The Internal Audit Activity’s Role in Governance, Risk and Control, Certified Internal Auditor, Gleim Publications Inc.
2. On the quantitative definition of risk10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x ↗
3. Fayaz, M., Ahmad, S., Ullah, I., and Kim, D. (2018). A Blended Risk Index Modeling and Visualization Based on Hierarchical Fuzzy Logic for Water Supply Pipelines Assessment and Management. Processes, 6.10.3390/pr6050061 ↗
4. Fayaz, M., Ahmad, S., Hang, L., and Kim, D. (2019). Water Supply Pipeline Risk Index Assessment Based on Cohesive Hierarchical Fuzzy Inference System. Processes, 7.10.3390/pr7040182 ↗
5. Fayaz, M., Ullah, I., Park, D.-H., Kim, K., and Kim, D. (2017). An Integrated Risk Index Model Based on Hierarchical Fuzzy Logic for Underground Risk Assessment. Appl. Sci., 7.10.3390/app7101037 ↗
6. A novel fuzzy approach to gas pipeline risk assessment under influence of ground movement10.1007/s40789-022-00511-2 ↗
7. Fayaz, M., Pham, Q.B., Linh, N.T.T., Nhi, P.T.T., Khoi, D.N., Qureshi, M.S., Shah, A.S., and Khalid, S. (2020). A Water Supply Pipeline Risk Analysis Methodology Based on DIY and Hierarchical Fuzzy Inference. Symmetry, 12.10.3390/sym12010044 ↗
8. Zhang, P., Qin, G., and Wang, Y. (2019). Risk Assessment System for Oil and Gas Pipelines Laid in One Ditch Based on Quantitative Risk Analysis. Energies, 12.10.3390/en12060981 ↗
9. Fu, X., Gu, C.-S., Su, H.-Z., and Qin, X.-N. (2018). Risk Analysis of Earth-Rock Dam Failures Based on Fuzzy Event Tree Method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 15.10.3390/ijerph15050886 ↗
10. Zhang, H., Li, Z., Li, W., Song, Z., Ge, W., Han, R., and Wang, T. (2021). Risk Analysis of Instability Failure of Earth–Rock Dams Based on the Fuzzy Set Theory. Water, 13.10.3390/w13213088 ↗
11. Topal, S., and Atasoylu, E. (2022). A Fuzzy Risk Assessment Model for Small Scale Construction Work. Sustainability, 14.10.3390/su14084442 ↗
12. Zhang, W., Huang, Z., Zhang, J., Zhang, R., and Ma, S. (2022). Multifactor Uncertainty Analysis of Construction Risk for Deep Foundation Pits. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12168122 ↗
13. Jin, H., and Goodrum, P.M. (2021). Optimal Fall Protection System Selection Using a Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Construction Sites. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11115296 ↗
14. A Novel Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Method Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning Rules10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2934495 ↗
15. Heidary Dahooie, J., Vanaki, A.S., Firoozfar, H.R., Zavadskas, E.K., and Čereška, A. (2020). An Extension of the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis with Hesitant Fuzzy Sets to Assess the Occupational Hazards in the Construction Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17.10.3390/ijerph17041442 ↗
16. A Fuzzy-Based Risk Assessment Methodology for Construction Projects Under Epistemic Uncertainty10.1007/s40815-018-00602-w ↗
17. Landslide Risk Assessment Using Granular Fuzzy Rule-Based Modeling: A Case Study on Earthquake-Triggered Landslides10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3116869 ↗
18. Cárdenas, G.J.R., Nebot, À., and Mugica, F. (2020). Integral Seismic Risk Assessment through Fuzzy Models. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10093017 ↗
19. Bianchini, S., Solari, L., Del Soldato, M., Raspini, F., Montalti, R., Ciampalini, A., and Casagli, N. (2019). Ground Subsidence Susceptibility (GSS) Mapping in Grosseto Plain (Tuscany, Italy) Based on Satellite InSAR Data Using Frequency Ratio and Fuzzy Logic. Remote Sens., 11.10.3390/rs11172015 ↗
20. Uzhga-Rebrov, O., and Grabusts, P. (2023). Methodology for Environmental Risk Analysis Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Values. Risks, 11.10.3390/risks11050088 ↗
21. A fuzzy-based model for risk assessment of routes in oil transportation10.1007/s13762-018-2078-z ↗
22. Zhou, H., Yue, X., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., and Gong, G. (2023). Comprehensive Environmental and Health Risk Assessment of Soil Heavy Metal(loid)s Considering Uncertainties: The Case of a Typical Metal Mining Area in Daye City, China. Minerals, 13.10.3390/min13111389 ↗
23. Lisboa, É.G., Mendes, R.L.R., Figueiredo, M.M.P., and Bello, L.A.L. (2020). Fuzzy-Probabilistic Model for a Risk Assessment of Groundwater Contamination: Application to an Urban Zone in the City of Belém, Pará, Brazil. Water, 12.10.3390/w12051437 ↗
24. Ramirez, R., Martí, V., and Darbra, R.M. (2022). Environmental Risk Assessment of Silver Nanoparticles in Aquatic Ecosystems Using Fuzzy Logic. Water, 14.10.3390/w14121885 ↗
25. Status, fuzzy integrated risk assessment, and hierarchical risk management of soil heavy metals across China: A systematic review10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147180 ↗
26. Wijitkosum, S., and Sriburi, T. (2019). Fuzzy AHP Integrated with GIS Analyses for Drought Risk Assessment: A Case Study from Upper Phetchaburi River Basin, Thailand. Water, 11.10.3390/w11050939 ↗
27. Li, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, X., and Shen, C. (2023). A Multiple Model Approach for Flood Forecasting, Simulation, and Evaluation Coupling in Zhouqu County. Water, 15.10.3390/w15244246 ↗
28. Development of optimal water supply plan using integratedfuzzy Delphi and fuzzy ELECTRE III methods—Case study of the Gamasiab basin10.1111/exsy.12568 ↗
29. Chen, H., Xu, Z., Liu, Y., Huang, Y., and Yang, F. (2022). Urban Flood Risk Assessment Based on Dynamic Population Distribution and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19.10.3390/ijerph192416406 ↗
30. Flood susceptibility mapping using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis: A case of Dodoma region, central Tanzania
31. Noori, A., and Bonakdari, H. (2023). A GIS-Based Fuzzy Hierarchical Modeling for Flood Susceptibility Mapping: A Case Study in Ontario, Eastern Canada. Environ. Sci. Proc., 25.10.3390/ECWS-7-14242 ↗
32. Wang, G., Liu, Y., Hu, Z., Lyu, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, J., Liu, Y., Gu, Y., Huang, X., and Zheng, H. (2020). Flood Risk Assessment Based on Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Method in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Metropolitan Area, China. Sustainability, 12.10.3390/su12041451 ↗
33. Zhou, C., Chen, M., Chen, J., Chen, Y., and Chen, W. (2024). A Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment Model for a Road Network Based on Neural Networks and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation. Sustainability, 16.10.3390/su16062429 ↗
34. Rodríguez-Pérez, Á.M., Rodríguez, C.A., Márquez-Rodríguez, A., and Caparros Mancera, J.J. (2023). Viability Analysis of Tidal Turbine Installation Using Fuzzy Logic: Case Study and Design Considerations. Axioms, 12.10.3390/axioms12080778 ↗
35. Rodríguez Pérez, Á.M., Rodríguez, C.A., Olmo Rodríguez, L., and Caparros Mancera, J.J. (2024). Revitalizing the Canal de Castilla: A Community Approach to Sustainable Hydropower Assessed through Fuzzy Logic. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14051828 ↗
36. Oort, P. (2005). Spatial Data Quality: From Description to Application, Netherlands Geodetic Commission. Publications on Geodesy 60.10.54419/z03vb5 ↗
37. Zadeh, L.A., and Aliev, R.A. (2018). Fuzzy Logic Theory and Applications: Part I and Part II, World Scientific Publishing Company.10.1142/10936 ↗
38. Carter, J., Chiclana, F., and Khuman, A.S. (2021). Fuzzy Logic: Recent Applications and Developments, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-66474-9 ↗
39. Ross, T.J. (2016). Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, Wiley.
40. Piegat, A. (2014). Fuzzy Modeling and Control, Springer.
41. Characterization of risk function in the analysis and assessment of water supply systems safety