10.57647/ijm2c.2026.1602.09

A Hybrid Nonlinear-OWA Framework for Comprehensive Risk Assessment in Dam Construction: Evidence from the Gotvand Case Study

  1. Department of Mathematics, Isf. C., Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
  2. Departamento de Ingenieria, Industrial y de Sistemas, Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Tarapaca, Arica, Chile

Received: 08-09-2025

Revised: 10-10-2025

Accepted: 18-10-2025

Published in Issue 30-06-2026

Published Online: 12-11-2025

How to Cite

Javam, N., Hadi-Vencheh, A., Jamshidi, A., & Karbassi Yazdi, A. (2026). A Hybrid Nonlinear-OWA Framework for Comprehensive Risk Assessment in Dam Construction: Evidence from the Gotvand Case Study. International Journal of Mathematical Modelling & Computations, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/ijm2c.2026.1602.09

Abstract

Large dam projects pose multifaceted risks spanning environmental, biological, health, and security domains. Conventional multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods often suffer from two critical limitations: fixed or subjective weighting schemes and rigid aggregation rules that cannot capture decision-makers’ optimism or pessimism. This study introduces a novel hybrid framework that integrates a nonlinear optimization model with the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) operator under the minimax disparity approach. The nonlinear model ensures fairness in weighting by deriving closed-form solutions that prevent dominance by individual criteria, while the OWA operator provides flexibility by explicitly incorporating the decision-maker’s attitude through the orness parameter. The framework is applied to the Gotvand Dam in Iran, where 19 risk indicators across four categories were evaluated using expert surveys. Results highlight that ecological and health-related risks, such as pest breeding, vegetation change, and biodiversity threats, consistently rank above structural and security hazards. Importantly, rankings remain stable across moderate optimism levels (-) but change at higher optimism (), demonstrating both robustness and sensitivity to stakeholder perspectives. The main contribution of this work lies in combining analytical tractability with decision-making flexibility, offering a mathematically rigorous yet practical tool for dam risk governance. The findings not only shift attention toward long-term ecological and public health risks but also provide a generalizable framework for large-scale infrastructure risk assessment.

Keywords

  • Dam risk assessment,
  • Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM),
  • Ordered weighted averaging (OWA),
  • Nonlinear optimization,
  • Environmental and ecological risks

References

  1. A.C. Ahmad, I.N.M. Zin, M.K. Othman, N.H. Muhamad, Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC) Accidents at Power Plant, MATEC Web Conf. 66, 2016, 00105, https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600105.
  2. M. Gul, A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions, Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 24 (7) (2018) 1723–1760, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10807039.2018.1424531.
  3. S. Rezaian, S.A. Jozi, N. Zaredar, Environmental risk assessment of a dam during construction phase, Global J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2 (4) (2016) 345–356, https:// doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2016.02.04.004.
  4. R. Fattahi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, M. Khalilzadeh, N. Shahsavari-Pour, R. Soltani, A novel FMEA model based on fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making methods for risk assessment, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 33 (5) (2020) 881–904, https:// doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0282.
  5. P.K. Marhavilas, D. Koulouriotis, V. Gemeni, Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 24 (5) (2011) 477–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.03.004.
  6. M. Gul, M.F. Ak, A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 196 (2018) 653–664, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.106.
  7. N.E. Oz, S. Mete, F. Serin, M. Gul, Risk assessment for clearing and grading process of a natural gas pipeline project: an extended TOPSIS model with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for prioritizing hazards, Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 25 (6) (2019) 1615–1632, https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1495057.
  8. M. Gul, M.F. Ak, A.F. Guneri, Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR-based approach for safety risk assessment in mine industry, J. Saf. Res. 69 (2019) 135–153, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jsr.2019.03.005.
  9. M. Gul, S. Mete, F. Serin, E. Celik, Fine–Kinney occupational risk assessment method and its extensions by fuzzy sets: A state-of-the-art review, in: M. Gul, S. Mete, F. Serin, E. Celik (Eds.), Fine-Kinney-Based Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Occupational Risk Assessment, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2021, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52148-6_1.
  10. S.S. Haghshenas, M.A.L. Neshaei, P. Pourkazem, S.S. Haghshenas, The risk assessment of dam construction projects using fuzzy TOPSIS (case study: Alavian Earth Dam), Civil Eng. J. 2 (4) (2016) 158–167, https://doi.org/10.28991/cej- 2016-00000022.
  11. G.D. Samaras, N.I. Gkanas, K.C. Vitsa. Assessing risk in dam projects using AHP and ELECTRE I, Int. J. Constr. Manag. 14 (4) (2014) 255–266, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15623599.2014.971942.
  12. J.R. Ribas, J.I. P´erez-Díaz, A multicriteria fuzzy approximate reasoning approach for risk assessment of dam safety, Environ. Earth Sci. 78 (16) (2019) 514, https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8526-3.
  13. N. Sadeh, S. Rezaian, Risk management and control of dams based on integrating TOPSIS and RAM-D Techniques (Case Study: Paveh Rood Dam, Iran), Environ. Energy Econ. Res. 1 (4) (2017) 363–372, https://doi.org/10.22097/ eeer.2018.122552.1024.
  14. S. Darvishi, S.A. Jozi, S. Malmasi, S. Rezaian, Environmental risk assessment of dams at constructional phase using VIKOR and EFMEA methods (Case study: Balarood Dam, Iran), Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 26 (4) (2020) 1087–1107, https:// doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1558396.
  15. S. Bid, G. Siddique, Human risk assessment of Panchet dam in India using TOPSIS and WASPAS multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, Heliyon 5 (6) (2019), e01956, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01956.
  16. W. Chen, X. Wang, M. Liu, Y. Zhu, S. Deng, Probabilistic risk assessment of rcc dam considering grey-stochastic-fuzzy uncertainty, KSCE J. Civil Eng. 22 (11) (2018) 4399–4413, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-0765-4.
  17. M. Yucesan, G. Kahraman, Risk evaluation and prevention in hydropower plant operations: a model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP, Energ Policy 126 (2019) 343–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.039.
  18. B. Beiranvand, B. Development of modified fuzzy FMEA method in environmental risk assessment of earth dams. Scientific Reports, 14(1) (2024) 17585
  19. Z. Fu, P. Feng, Z. Luo. Comprehensive assessment of dam safety using a game-theory-based dam safety performance measure. Water, 16(5) (2024), 659.
  20. B. Moradi, R. Akbari, S.R. Taghavi, F. Fardad, A. Esmailzadeh, A., M. Z. Ahmadi, ... & I. Martek. A scenario-based spatial multi-criteria decision-making system for urban environment quality assessment: case study of Tehran. Land, 12(9) (2023), 1659.
  21. R.R. Yager. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 18(1) (1998):183‐190
  22. L. Jin, R. Mesiar, R. Yager. Ordered weighted averaging aggregation on convex posset. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 27(3) (2019):612‐617. 27.
  23. R.R. Yager, N. Alajlan. On characterizing features of OWA aggregation operators. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making.;13(1) (2014) 1‐32.
  24. Y.M. Wang, C. Parkan. A minimax disparity approach for obtaining OWA operator weights. Inf Sci. 175 (2005):20‐29.