Prioritizing Risks of Underground Tunnel Construction with Tunnel Boring Machine Using Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Approach
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study proposed a hybrid multiple criteria decision-making approach for prioritizing risks of underground tunnel construction with a tunnel boring machine (TBM). The proposed approach consisted of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The AHP was employed to determine weights of decision criteria by pairwise comparisons of decision criteria and risks while the TOPSIS was used to prioritize risks of underground construction with TBM. Ranks of the risks were considered by sorting the closeness coefficients in descending order. Finally, the proposed approach was applied to rank risks of underground tunnel construction with TBM in the mass rapid-transit (MRT) orange line project for the east section. The result demonstrated that the proposed approach could rationally prioritize risks by the closeness coefficients, which were calculated by the weights of all the decision-making elements. The benefits of this study are the guidelines to prevent undesired events of the underground tunnel constructions with TBM by considering the most important risks.
Article Details
บทความที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของ วารสารวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี มหาวิทยาลัยอุบลราชธานี
ข้อความที่ปรากฏในบทความแต่ละเรื่องในวารสารวิชาการเล่มนี้เป็นความคิดเห็นส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับมหาวิทยาลัยอุบลราชธานี และคณาจารย์ท่านอื่นๆในมหาวิทยาลัยฯ แต่อย่างใด ความรับผิดชอบองค์ประกอบทั้งหมดของบทความแต่ละเรื่องเป็นของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่าน หากมีความผิดพลาดใดๆ ผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านจะรับผิดชอบบทความของตนเองแต่ผู้เดียว
References
Admiraal, H. and Cornaro, A. 2016. Why underground space should be included in urban planning policy - And how this will enhance an urban underground future. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 55(2): 214-220.
Chen, Y. and et al. 2019. The impact on neighbourhood residential property valuations of a newly proposed public transport project: the Sydney Northwest Metro case study. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 3: 100070.
Zhang, Q., Liu, Z. and Tan, J. 2019. Prediction of geological conditions for a tunnel boring machine using big operational data. Automation in Construction. 100: 73-83.
Huo, J. and et al. 2017. Application of a small-timescale fatigue, crack-growth model to the plane stress/strain transition in predicting the lifetime of a tunnel-boring-machine cutter head. Engineering Failure Analysis. 71: 11-30.
Liu, W. and et al. 2018. Safety risk factors of metro tunnel construction in China: An integrated study with EFA and SEM. Safety Science. 105: 98-113.
Moradi, M.R. and Farsangi, M.A.E. 2014. Application of the risk matrix method for geotechnical risk analysis and prediction of the advance rate in rock TBM tunneling. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 47(5): 1951-1960.
Yazdani-Chamzini, A. 2014. Proposing a new methodology based on fuzzy logic for tunnelling risk assessment. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 20(1): 82-94.
Hyun, K.C. and et al. 2015. Risk analysis using fault-tree analysis (FTA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) applicable to shield TBM tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 49: 121-129.
Chung, H. and et al. 2019. Bayesian networks-based shield TBM risk management system: methodology development and application. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 23(1): 452-465.
Liu, W., Zhai, S. and Liu, W. 2019. Predictive analysis of settlement risk in tunnel construction: a bow-tie-Bayesian network approach. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2019: 2045125.
Chung, H. and et al. 2021. A causal network-based risk matrix model applicable to shield TBM tunneling projects. Sustainability. 13(9): 4846.
Sharafat, A., Latif, K. and Seo, J. 2021. Risk analysis of TBM tunneling projects based on generic bow-tie risk analysis approach in difficult ground conditions. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 111: 103860.
Singh, M. and et al. 2020. MCDM approach for selection of raw material in pulp and papermaking industry. Materials and Manufacturing Processes. 35(3): 241-249.
Nezarat, H., Sereshki, F. and Ataei, M. 2015. Ranking of geological risks in mechanized tunneling by using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP). Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 50: 358-364.
Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Yakhchali, S.H. and Mahmoodian, M. 2013. Risk ranking of tunnel construction projects by using the ELECTRE technique under a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management. 8(1): 1-14.
Yazdani-Chamzini, A. and Yakhchali, S.H. 2012. Tunnel boring machine (TBM) selection using fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 30: 194-204.
Lin, L., Xia, Y. and Wu, D. 2020. A hybrid fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making approach for comprehensive performance evaluation of tunnel boring machine disc cutter. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 149: 106793.
Kengpol, A. and Tuammee, S. 2016. The development of a decision support framework for a quantitative risk assessment in multimodal green logistics: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Research. 54(4): 1020-1038.
Lo, H.W. and et al. 2020. A hybrid MCDM-based FMEA model for identification of critical failure modes in manufacturing. Soft Computing. 24(20): 15733-15745.
Bakioglu, G. and Atahan, A.O. 2021. AHP integrated TOPSIS and VIKOR methods with Pythagorean fuzzy sets to prioritize risks in self-driving vehicles. Applied Soft Computing. 99: 106948.
Zhang, H.J., Zhou, Y. and Gan, Q.H. 2019. An extended PROMETHEE-II-based risk prioritization method for equipment failures in the geothermal power plant. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. 21(8): 2490-2509.
Ghorui, N. and et al. 2021. Identification of dominant risk factor involved in spread of COVID-19 using hesitant fuzzy MCDM methodology. Results in Physics. 21: 103811.
Koohathongsumrit, N. and Meethom, W. 2021. Route selection in multimodal transportation networks: a hybrid multiple criteria decision-making approach. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering. 38(3): 171-185.
Khorramshahgol, R. and Al-Husain, R. 2021. A GP-AHP approach to design responsive supply chains for pareto customers. Operations Research Perspectives. 8: 100172.
Abdel-Basset, M. and et al. 2020. An integrated plithogenic MCDM approach for financial performance evaluation of manufacturing industries. Risk Management. 22(3): 192-218.
Kengpol, A., Rontlaong, P. and Tuominen, M. 2013. A decision support system for selection of solar power plant locations by applying fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: An empirical study. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications. 6(9): 470-481.
Wang, L. and et al. 2020. ISA evaluation framework for security of internet of health things system using AHP-TOPSIS methods. IEEE Access. 8: 152316-152332.
Karahalios, H. 2017. The application of the AHP-TOPSIS for evaluating ballast water treatment systems by ship operators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 52: 172-184.
Sharma, M. and Joshi, S. 2019. Brand sustainability among young consumers: an AHP-TOPSIS approach. Young Consumers. 20(4): 314-337.
Noshad, M., Savari, M. and Roueita, G. 2018. A hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method for prospectively modeling of ultrasound‐assisted osmotic dehydration of strawberry. Journal of Food Process Engineering. 41(8): e12928.
Deng, M. 2018. Challenges and thoughts on risk management and control for the group construction of a super-long tunnel by TBM. Engineering. 4(1): 112-122.
Qiu, W. and et al. 2020. Establishing a sustainable evaluation indicator system for railway tunnel in China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 268: 122150.
Noori, A.M. and et al. 2020. Feasibility of intelligent models for prediction of utilization factor of TBM. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. 38(3): 3125-3143.
Saaty, T.L. 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 48(1): 9-26.
Koohathongsumrit, N. and Meethom, W. 2021. An integrated approach of fuzzy risk assessment model and data envelopment analysis for route selection in multimodal transportation networks. Expert Systems with Applications. 171: 114342.
Wang, Z. and et al. 2020. Failure mode and effects analysis using extended matter-element model and AHP. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 140: 106233.
Balogun, A.L. and et al. 2017. Fuzzy MCDM-based GIS model for subsea oil pipeline route optimization: An integrated approach. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology. 35(7): 961-969.
Chen, T., Lin, Y.C. and Chiu, M.C. 2019. Approximating alpha-cut operations approach for effective and efficient fuzzy analytic hierarchy process analysis. Applied Soft Computing. 85: 105855.
Koohathongsumrit, N. 2019. Application of fuzzy logic system based risk assessment to select an optimal multimodal transportation route. KMUTT Research and Development Journal. 42(4): 353-374. (in Thai)
Hwang, C. and Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey. Berlin: Springer.
Chen, P. 2021. Effects of the entropy weight on TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications. 168: 114186.
dos Santos, B.M., Godoy, L.P. and Campos, L.M.S. 2019. Performance evaluation of green suppliers using entropy-TOPSIS-F. Journal of Cleaner Production. 207: 498-509.
Dehdasht, G. and et al. 2020. A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation. PLoS One. 15(2): e0228746.
Tarei, P.K., Thakkar, J.J. and Nag, B. 2018. A hybrid approach for quantifying supply chain risk and prioritizing the risk drivers. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 29(3): 533-569.
Oz, N.E. and et al. 2018. Risk assessment for clearing and grading process of a natural gas pipeline project: an extended TOPSIS model with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for prioritizing hazards. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 25(6): 1615-1632.
Koohathongsumrit, N. and Meethom, W. 2019. Identifying the key physical characteristics factors of freight transportation routing. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology. 26(4): 454-463.
