Decision-making under risk assessment involves dealing with the matter of uncertainty, especially in projects such as tunnel construction. Risk control should include not only measures to reduce the possible consequence of incident, but also exploration measures (information collecting measures) to reduce the uncertainty of the incident. The classical risk assessment model in engineering is R = P × C which only takes account of the assessment and decision-making of possible consequences. It cannot provide theoretical guidance for taking exploration measures. The paper presents an advanced methodology to assess the effectiveness of exploration measures in decision-making. The methodology classifies risk into two attributes: hazard (expected value) and uncertainty (entropy). On this basis, a generalized model of decision-making under risk assessment is proposed. This model extends the use of the classical assessment model to a more general case. The reason for taking exploration measures and assessment of such measures' effectiveness could be explained well by this developed model. This model can also serve as a descriptive model for many risk problems and provide a decision-making basis for a variety of risk types. Moreover, the assessment process and calculation method are applied with some case studies.
Abstract:The impact of uncertainty on risk assessment and decision-making is increasingly being prioritized, especially for large geotechnical projects such as tunnels, where uncertainty is often the main source of risk. Epistemic uncertainty, which can be reduced, is the focus of attention. In this study, the existing entropy-risk decision model is first discussed and analyzed, and its deficiencies are improved upon and overcome. Then, this study addresses the fact that existing studies only consider parameter uncertainty and ignore the influence of the model uncertainty. Here, focus is on the issue of model uncertainty and differences in risk consciousness with different decision-makers. The utility theory is introduced in the model. Finally, a risk decision model is proposed based on the sensitivity analysis and the tolerance cost, which can improve decision-making efficiency. This research can provide guidance or reference for the evaluation and decision-making of complex systems engineering problems, and indicate a direction for further research of risk assessment and decision-making issues.
Uncertainty is one of the main sources of risk of geological hazards in tunnel engineering. Uncertainty information not only affects the accuracy of evaluation results, but also affects the reliability of decision-making schemes. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate and control the impact of uncertainty on risk. In this study, the problems in the existing entropy-hazard model such as inefficient decision-making and failure of decision-making are analysed, and an improved uncertainty evaluation and control process are proposed. Then the tolerance cost, the key factor in the decision-making model, is also discussed. It is considered that the amount of change in risk value (R 1) can better reflect the psychological behaviour of decision-makers. Thirdly, common multi-attribute decision-making models, such as the expected utility-entropy model, are analysed, and then the viewpoint of different types of decision-making issues that require different decision methods is proposed. The well-known Allais paradox is explained by the proposed methods. Finally, the engineering application results show that the uncertainty control idea proposed here is accurate and effective. This research indicates a direction for further research into uncertainty, and risk control, issues affecting underground engineering works.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.