Risk analysis in underground tunnel construction with tunnel boring machines using the Best-Worst method and data envelopment analysis

被引:6
|
作者
Koohathongsumrit, Nitidetch [1 ]
Meethom, Warapoj [2 ]
机构
[1] Ramkhamhang Univ, Fac Sci, Dept Stat, 2086 Ramkhamhaeng Rd, Bangkok 10240, Thailand
[2] King Mongkuts Univ Technol North Bangkok, Fac Engn, Dept Ind Engn, 1518 Pracharat 1 Rd, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
关键词
Metro construction; Multiple criteria decision -making; Risk assessment; Tunnel boring machine; Underground work; FUZZY-LOGIC; SUSTAINABILITY; RANKING; CHINA;
D O I
10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23486
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: The use of tunnel boring machines is continuously increasing; however, this activity faces many risks, resulting in negative events.Methods: A novel approach using the best-worst method and a data envelopment analysis model was proposed to analyze the risks of underground tunnel construction with tunnel boring machines. The proposed approach was validated using a realistic case study of metro construction in Thailand.Results: The proposed approach efficiently analyzed the risks and produced more solid findings. The most critical and least affected risks can be identified according to risk scores in descending order. Implication: This study contributes a new method of risk analysis that benefits project managers and stakeholders who design risk management plans to reduce the occurrence and mitigate the severity of metro works.Originality: The new risk analysis can obtain the best compromise ranking of risks based on decision-makers' preferences, probabilities, and various consequences under different circumstances.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Three-Dimensional Modeling and Analysis of Mechanized Excavation for Tunnel Boring Machines
    Mohammadzadeh, Danial S.
    Karballaeezadeh, Nader
    Zahed, Amirhossein Sanaei
    Mosavi, Amir
    Imre, Felde
    ACTA POLYTECHNICA HUNGARICA, 2021, 18 (04) : 213 - 230
  • [22] Numerical Analysis on Influence of Underground Space Construction on Adjacent Tunnel
    Gong, Jianwu
    Wang, Xin
    Sheng, Hao
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 23 : 592 - 595
  • [23] A rough-fuzzy approach integrating best-worst method and data envelopment analysis to multi-criteria selection of smart product service module
    Chen, Zhihua
    Ming, Xinguo
    APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2020, 94
  • [24] Green operations management for sustainable development: An explicit analysis by using fuzzy best-worst method
    Gupta, Priyanshi
    Chawla, V. K.
    Jain, Vineet
    Angra, Surjit
    DECISION SCIENCE LETTERS, 2022, 11 (03) : 357 - 366
  • [25] Interval analysis of underground tunnel structure by optimization method
    Su, Jing-Bo
    Wu, Zhong
    Shi, Quan
    Yantu Lixue/Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2007, 28 (SUPPL.): : 455 - 459
  • [26] Selecting the ''best'' using data envelopment analysis
    Anderson, TR
    Uslu, A
    INNOVATION IN TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - THE KEY TO GLOBAL LEADERSHIP: THE KEY TO GLOBAL LEADERSHIP, 1997, : 789 - 793
  • [27] Preference rationality analysis for the best-worst method and its application to quality assessment
    Lei, Qin
    Wu, Guolin
    Wu, Zhibin
    COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2022, 174
  • [28] Design and analysis of steel structures for back-up installations of tunnel boring machines
    Baumann, Hans Joerg
    Bluemel, Steffen
    Kaelin, Andreas
    STAHLBAU, 2014, 83 (09) : 632 - 637
  • [29] Eliciting preferences for adoption of fully automated vehicles using best-worst analysis
    Shabanpour, Ramin
    Golshani, Nima
    Shamshiripour, Ali
    Mohammadian, Abolfazl
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART C-EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 2018, 93 : 463 - 478
  • [30] Stability analysis of a tunnel using LIDAR data and the keyblock method
    Menendez-Diaz, Agustin
    Arguelles-Fraga, Ramon
    Garcia-Cortes, Silverio
    Ordonez-Galan, Celestino
    BULLETIN OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2016, 75 (02) : 469 - 483