See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257678038

Risk evaluation of tunneling projects

Article  in  Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering · March 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.acme.2012.03.008

CITATIONS READS

80 1,121

3 authors, including:

Abdolreza Yazdani Chamzini Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

Tarbiat Modares University Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
56 PUBLICATIONS   1,135 CITATIONS    748 PUBLICATIONS   18,939 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques for Improvement Sustainability Engineering Processes" View project

Special Issue "Solution Models based on Symmetric and Asymmetric Information" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdolreza Yazdani Chamzini on 09 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/acme

Risk evaluation of tunneling projects

M.M. Fouladgara, A. Yazdani-Chamzinia, E.K. Zavadskasb,n

a
Fateh Research Group, Department of Strategic Management, Milad Building, Mini city, Aghdasieh, Tehran, Iran
b
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

art i cle info ab st rac t

Available online 23 March 2012

Tunneling industry has seen great advancements in underground construction projects.
Keywords: Now, it has significant difference with the last two decades. In many times, tunneling
Tunneling projects find themselves involved in the situation where unexpected conditions threaten
Risk evaluation the continuation of project. Managers always look for a reliable technique to overcome
Fuzzy TOPSIS limitations of finance and time. TOPSIS method is widely used to solve multi criteria
Ghomroud water conveyance tunnel decision making (MADM) problems. This technique assigns the best alternative among a
pool of feasible alternatives. Furthermore, due to inherent uncertainties in tunneling, using
fuzzy logic in order to take into account these uncertainties can be useful. In addition, new
factors are introduced to promote the accuracy of risk analysis. Finally, a real world case
study is presented to show the effectiveness and the accuracy of the new risk evaluation
model. The results demonstrated that collapse is the riskiest parameter in Ghomroud
water conveyance tunneling project.
& 2012 Politechnika Wroc"awska. Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z.o.o. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction Risk evaluation is a part of risk management which can help

Nowadays, the world is witnessing an ever-increasing need
for tunnels because of their unique characteristics and
potential applications. Tunnels are artificial underground
space in order to provide a capacity for particular goals such
as storage, underground transportation, mine development,
power and water treatment plants, civil defense, and other
activities. Therefore, tunneling is a key activity in infrastruc-
ture projects. Tunneling impose risks on all parties involved
as well as on those not directly involved in the project [1].
These risks may dramatically impact on operation requiring
an unexpected time for renovation resulting in major cost
and time delays. To avoid such problems, managers are
obliged to carry out a risk management program. Risk
management involves a number of approaches, including
the identification, evaluation, and control of risk.
decision makers to rank the existing risks, and finally, the
appropriate reaction is accomplished [2]. There are various
techniques for evaluating risk such as Monte Carlo Simulation
[3–11], Event Trees [12–16], Fault Trees [17–22], Failure mode
and Effective Analysis [23–29], Fuzzy set [30–51], game theory
[52,53], multicriteria verbal analysis [54], Grey Systems [55,56].
Risk evaluation in tunneling is because of the following
reasons [57]: (i) to reduce the risk to project goals and
objectives, (ii) to demonstrate that options were comprehen-
sively and rationally evaluated, (iii) the process will reveal
useful information even if threats do not eventuate, (iv) to
clarify internal project goals, objectives and priorities and
focus the project team, and (v) Probable ranges of cost and
schedule can be estimated. Due to the critical importance of
risk in underground construction, different researches are
accomplished in order to evaluate and assess risk.

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Edmundas.Zavadskas@Vgtu.Lt (E.K. Zavadskas).

1644-9665/$ - see front matter & 2012 Politechnika Wroc"awska. Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z.o.o. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.03.008
2 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12
Sari et al. [58] proposed a methodology towards develop-
ment of an uncertainty model that includes randomness in
the occurrence of days-lost accidents in a coal mine. Their
study showed that stochastic model estimates that although,
there would be substantial reduction in the expected number
of accidents in the near future, the higher level of risks still
should be a concern for the mine management.
Durrheim et al. [59] investigated risk of rock burst in mining
projects. Yoo et al. [60] presented the development and
implementation of an information technology (IT)-based tun-
neling risk assessment system (IT-TURISK). This system has
been developed in a geographic information system (GIS)
environment with a capability of performing first-order assess-
ment of tunneling induced third party impact on surrounding
environment within the framework of artificial intelligence (AI)
technique.
A recently developed risk-based method for the estimation
and management of cost for complex, infrastructure projects
was presented by Reilly and Brown [57]. They stated Cost
Estimate Validation Process (CEVP) uses risk and uncertainty
methods to modify the normal cost estimate to produce a
‘‘range of probable cost’’.
Reilly [61] described the cost estimation problems and
proposed a suggested solution which was subsequently im-
plemented by the Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT). Kim [62] proposed a new risk analysis system for
estimating the risk factors in tunneling in consideration of the
complex effect in tunnel construction and stated that various
risk factors can be expressed by stability and environment index
using numerical and statistical analysis. Jian et al. [63] developed
application of fuzzy neural network in order to predict the risk of
rock burst. Grayson et al. [64] proposed an approach for
analyzing the risks for fires and explosions based on the Mine
Safety and Health Administration citation database.
Meng et al. [65] proposed a quantitative risk assessment
(QRA) model to effectively and efficiently evaluate the risks
for non-homogeneous urban road tunnels. They segmented
urban road tunnels into a number of homogeneous sections
and the section based QRA models are built for each
individual section, then risk indices for the entire road tunnel
are integrated by pessimistic principle and average principle.
Duzgun and Einstein [66] proposed a risk and decision analysis
methodology for the assessment and management of risk
associated with mine roof falls in underground coal mines.
In this paper, risk assessment is calculated based on three
parameters probability, possible consequences and cost of con-
sequences. An analysis of roof fall hazards and risk assessment
for Zonguldak coal basin underground mines was presented
by Düzgün [67]. Nývlt et al. [68] proposed a methodology that
enables building and refurbishing costs minimization subject to
preservation of satisfactory safety level. Eskesen et al. [1]
prepared guidelines for tunneling risk management. Their
guidelines show how risk management may be used throughout
the phases of a project implementation.
A major part of the above mentioned research applied two
parameters consequences and likelihood as effective factors
on risk evaluation. Whereas, there are other factors that can
be affected on risk evaluation. We extended the number of
influence parameters, so that; some of them were in conflict
with each other. Therefore, we faced with a multi criteria
decision making (MCDM) problem. Technique for Order
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is one of
the most widely used in the MCDM issues [69–75].
This technique is applied for the following reasons [76]:
(i) TOPSIS logic is rational and understandable; (ii) the computa-
tion processes are straightforward; (iii) the concept permits the
pursuit of best alternatives for each criterion depicted in a
simple mathematical form, and (iv) the importance weights are
incorporated into the comparison procedures. However, TOPSIS
is often criticized for its inability to deal with vague and
uncertain problems [77], so that; without considering the
inherent random uncertainty and/or imprecision of the para-
meter, which is unrealistic and could result in unreliable
assessment. There is a close relationship between complexity
and uncertainty [78]: as complexity increases, certainty decreases.
Fuzzy sets are able to model the existing uncertainty. According
to projects resources usually limit managers to take into account
solutions against all risks equally, in this paper, we employed
fuzzy TOPSIS for obtaining the performance ratings of the
feasible risks in linguistic terms parameterized with triangular
fuzzy numbers. To show the capabilities and effectiveness of the
proposed methodology, a real world case study is reported.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2,
some basic concepts of fuzzy sets, including fuzzy set theory,
fuzzy numbers, and fuzzy linguistic variable are presented. The
theory of the FTOPSIS (Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution) method is explained in Section 3. In
Section 4, probability–impact (P–I) matrix is described. New
criteria are defined and explained in Section 5. A case study
(Ghomroud Water Conveyance Tunnel) is summarized in
Section 6. In Section 7, the proposed model for tunneling is
summarized and a real world case study using the proposed
model is implemented in order to illustrate their potential
applications in tunneling projects. Finally, the conclusions of
the paper are discussed in Section 8.
2. Fuzzy sets
2.1. Fuzzy set theory
Although the definition of states by crisp sets is mathema-
tically correct, in many cases, it is unrealistic in the face of
unavoidable measurement errors [79]. Fuzzy is able to model
the qualitative aspect of complexity by means of their
linguistic modeling and approximate reasoning capabilities
[80]. The concept of fuzzy theory was first introduced by
Zadeh [81]. The theory aims to solve uncertain or vague
information. A fuzzy subset A of U is defined by its member-
ship function that can be any number between zero and one.
Membership of 0 means that the value does not belong to set
A, membership of 1 means that the value belong to the set
under consideration, and membership anywhere between 0
and 1 determines the degree of membership.
A membership function of fuzzy number A ~ on R is
described as mA~ ðxÞ : R-½0,1, which has the following char-
acteristics [82]:
mA~ ðxÞ is piecewise continuous;
mA~ ðxÞ is convex fuzzy subset.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12 3

2.2. Fuzzy number The vertex method to calculate the distance between
~ and B~ is defined as follows [83]:
A
A fuzzy number A ~ can be shown as A ~ ¼ ða,b,cÞ that A ~ is rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
defined as a triangular fuzzy number (TFN). Where a, b, and c ~ BÞ
~ ¼ 1 
dðA, ða1 a2 Þ2 þ ðb1 b2 Þ þ ðc1 c2 Þ ð6Þ
are crisp numbers and aZbZc, so that; a and c represent fuzzy 3
probabilities between the lower and upper boundaries of
evaluation information. 2.3. Fuzzy linguistic variable
If assume two TFNs A ~ ¼ ða1 ,b1 ,c1 Þ, B~ ¼ ða2 ,b2 ,c2 Þ then math-
ematical operations are described as follows: The fuzzy linguistic variable is a variable that whose values
are words or sentences in a natural language. It helps experts
~  B~ ¼ ða1 ,b1 ,c1 Þ  ða2 ,b2 ,c2 Þ ¼ ða1 þ a2 ,b1 þ b2 ,c1 þ c2 Þ
A ð1Þ to evaluate the importance of the criteria and to rate the
alternatives with respect to various criteria. These variables
can be divided into miscellaneous linguistic criteria. We
~  B~ ¼ ða1 ,b1 ,c1 Þ  ða2 ,b2 ,c2 Þ ¼ ða1 a2 ,b1 b2 ,c1 c2 Þ
A
deliberately select a 5-point scale for defining the importance
for a1 ,a2 40; b1 ,b2 40; c1 ,c2 40 ð2Þ of evaluation criteria and rating the alternatives as presented
~ B~ ¼ ða1 ,b1 ,c1 Þða2 ,b2 ,c2 Þ ¼ ða1 c2 ,b1 b2 ,c1 a2 Þ
A ð3Þ in Table 1. Figs. 1 and 2 show linguistic variables used for
ACB~ ¼ ða1 ,b1 ,c1 ÞCða2 ,b2 ,c2 Þ ¼ ða1 =c2 ,b1 =b2 ,c1 =a2 Þ
~ ð4Þ importance weight of each criterion and preference rating of
A~ 1 ¼ ða1 ,b1 ,c1 Þ1 ¼ ð1=c1 ,1=b1 ,1=a1 Þ for a1 40; b1 40; c1 40 ð5Þ each alternative in decision process, respectively.

Table 1 – Membership function of linguistic scale.

Importance Rating

Linguistic value Fuzzy number Linguistic value Fuzzy number

Very low (VL) (0.00,0.10,0.25) Very poor (VP) (0.0,1.0,2.5)

Low (L) (0.15,0.30,0.45) Poor (P) (1.5,3.0,4.5)
Medium (M) (0.35,0.50,0.65) Fair (F) (3.5,5.0,6.5)
High (H) (0.55,0.70,0.85) Good (G) (5.5,7.0,8.5)
Very high (VH) (0.75,0.90,1.00) Very good (VG) (7.5,9.0,10)

Fig. 1 – Linguistic variables for importance weight of each criterion.

Fig. 2 – Linguistic variables for preference rating of each alternative.

4 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12

calculated using the following equation:

3. Fuzzy TOPSIS
X
n
dþ
i ¼ dðv~ ij , v~ þ
j Þ, i ¼ 1,2,. . .,m ð12Þ
TOPSIS is an appropriate technique for prioritizing and j¼1

selecting one or more alternatives from a pool of feasible

X
n
alternatives based on a set of different criteria. TOPSIS is d dðv~ ij , v~  i ¼ 1,2,. . .,m
i ¼ j Þ, ð13Þ
developed by Hwang and Yoon [84]. The basic concept of j¼1

TOPSIS is that the chosen alternative should have the

shortest distance from the positive-ideal solution and the Step 5. Calculate the closeness coefficient. This step solves
farthest distance from the negative-ideal solution [85,86]. the closeness coefficient by the following equation:
The existing uncertainty in decision making due to the lack
d
of information or incomplete information caused an inte- CCi ¼ i
ð14Þ
d þ dþ
grated model of fuzzy and TOPSIS has been developed that i i

is called as fuzzy TOPSIS. This technique was applied to

different applications [87–98]. Fuzzy TOPSIS solves a problem Step 6. Rank preference order. Choose an alternative with
with m alternatives A1, A2, A3, y, Am, evaluated based on n respect to maximum CCi.
dimensions, C1, C2, y, Cn. To form fuzzy TOPSIS matrix, first a
judgment matrix is constructed as
C1 C2 ... Cn 4. Probability–impact (P–I) matrix
2~ 3
x 11 x~ 12    x~ 1n A1
6 x~ 21 x~ 22    x~ 2n 7
6 7 A2 Probability–impact (P–I) matrix is defined as the combination
6 7
4^ ^ & ^ 5 ^ of probability and impact that helps to determine which risks
x~ m1 x~ m2 x~ mn Am need detailed risk response plans [99]. P–I matrix is used to
W ¼ ½w ~ 1,w
~ 2 ,. . ., w
~ n ð7Þ assess the relative importance of risks. P–I scores are derived
where x~ ij , i ¼1, 2, y, m; j ¼ 1, 2, y, n and w ~ j , j ¼1, 2,y, n for each risk by multiplying their probability scores by their
are linguistic triangular Fuzzy numbers, x~ ij ¼ ðaij ,bij ,cij Þ and impact scores [100]. Therefore, risk rating can be determined
w~ j ¼ ðwj1 ,wj2 ,wj3 Þ. Note that x~ ij is the performance rating of the through the following equation:
ith alternative, Ai, with respect to the jth criterion, Cj and w ~j Probability  Impact ¼ Risk rating ð15Þ
represent the weight of the jth criterion, Cj.
The normalized Fuzzy decision matrix denoted by R~ is The risks with lower probability and impact are a less
shown as the following equation: serious hazard to project goals than the risks with higher
probability and impact. The root of risks that can lead to
R~ ¼ ½r~ ij mn ð8Þ events to project should be determined and appropriate
The weighted normalized Fuzzy decision matrix is shown reaction to reduce or limit these factors should be considered.
as follows:
2~ 3 2 3
v 11 v~ 12  v~ 1n w1 r~ 11 w2 r~ 12  wn r~ 1n
5. Definition of new criteria
6 v~ 21 v~ 22    v~ 2n 7 6 w1 r~ 21 w2 r~ 22    wn r~ 2n 7
6 7 6 7
V~ ¼ 6 7¼6 7
4^ ^ & ^ 5 4^ ^ & ^ 5 Risk is one of the most critical factors in project management,
v~ m1 v~ m2 v~ mn w1 r~ m1 w2 r~ m2 wn r~ mn so that; consideration of risk must be at the heart of the
ð9Þ design process [101]. Risk is usually calculated based on two
Fuzzy TOPSIS is summarized as follows: parameters consequence and likelihood in order to determine
the level of project risk, whereas these two criteria are not
able to cover all aspects of project risks. On the other hand,
Step 1. Choose the linguistic rating, x~ ij : i¼ 1, 2, y,m; j¼ 1, 2,
fuzzy multi criteria decision making methods give an
y, n for alternatives with respect to criteria and the proper
opportunity to take advantage of exact and appropriate
linguistic variables w~ j : j¼ 1, 2, y, n for weight of the criteria.
criteria to increase the precision of final risks’ ranking [102].
Step 2. Form the weighted normalized fuzzy decision
This paper presents new criteria in a framework of risk
matrix v~ by Eq. (9).
analysis in order to obtain more precise results. The proposed
Step 3. Identify the positive ideal solution Aþ and the
criteria can be described as follows:
negative ideal solution A. The fuzzy positive ideal
Risk is a function f dependent on the parameters likelihood,
solution (FPIS) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS)
consequence, and the reaction against an event which can be
can be obtained through Eqs. (10) and (11).
formulated as follows:
1 , v 2 , v 3 ,. . ., v n Þ ¼ fmax vij 9ði ¼ 1,2,. . .,nÞg
Aþ ¼ ðv~ þ ~þ ~þ ~þ ð10Þ
i Risk ¼ f ðlikelihood,consequence,reactionÞ

1 , v 2 , v 3 ,. . ., v n Þ ¼ fmin vij 9ði ¼ 1,2,. . .,nÞg

A ¼ ðv~ þ ~þ ~þ ~þ ð11Þ Likelihood is defined as probability of occurrence an event
i
which can be calculated based on two factors vulnerability
and detectability as follows:
Step 4. The distance of each alternative from the positive
ideal solution Aþ and the negative ideal solution A can be Likelihood ¼ f ðvulnerability,detectabilityÞ
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12 5

Vulnerability is any weakness that can convert a potential
hazard into an active hazard. Vulnerabilities can be due to,
but are not limited to, weaknesses in current management
practices, inappropriate designing or neglected regulations.
This criterion, in this case, addresses how tunnel is vulner-
able against each risk.
Detectability is defined as identification and elimination of
the weakness. If the hazard is easy to identify, it is a low risk.
Vice versa, if the hazard is difficult to recognize, it maximizes
the risk of dissatisfaction.
Consequence is defined as the effect of an event.
Consequence could go wrong range from an increase in
monetary costs to the possibility of bringing down the entire
network. Consequences can include casualties, damage,
and loss.
Reaction against an event is described as capability of an
appropriate response in order to reduce or limit the effect of
an event after happening or prevent against the development
of casualties, damage, and loss. This criterion expresses what
decision maker can carry out after happening.
6. Ghomroud water conveyance tunnel
The function of the water conveyance tunnels is to induct
water from a special location to other one in order to
distribute the water for different objects, including agricul-
ture, drinking, and industrial applications. Recently, manage-
ment of water resources has focused its attention on national
development plans of Iran. The Ghomroud water conveyance
tunnel is one of the most important water projects in central
Iran. This tunnel is planned to transfer water from the high
elevations in Zagross Mountains to dry plains of Central Iran.
For achieving the aim, it is planned to be 36 km in length. This
tunnel connects the Dez River to the Golpayegan Reservoir as
depicted in Fig. 3 [103]. This tunnel is located in the

Fig. 3 – Geographical location of the Ghomroud tunnel [103].

Fig. 4 – Longitudinal geological and petrological section along the tunnel [104].
6 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12
Sannandaj-Sirjan geological zone of the famous geological
divisions of central Iran, which comprises a set of asymmetric
foldings and faults. Bedrock along the tunnel consists of
limestone, dolomite, slate, schist, shale, and sandstone rocks.
The former two rocks are in connected with the Cretaceous
formation. The later four rocks are related to the Jurassic
formation. The description of anticipated geological and
petrological condition along the tunnel is shown in Fig. 4.
This tunnel will be excavated at a grade of 0.134% and
finished with a diameter of 4.5 m [103].
The rock types along tunnel alignment are classified into
four major categories as follows [104]: (i) Highly foliated and
schistose rock types (schist, slate), which cover more than
70% of the tunnel length. (ii) Massive rock types (limestone
and sandstone rocks). (iii) Quartzite and quartz veins, which
can be identified randomly in different parts of Jurassic
formations. (iv) Crushed rocks (shear zones).
7. The implement of proposed model
The proposed model includes the following activities:
1. Identify and characterize the existing hazards against
operations continuity.
2. The hierarchical structure of problem.
3. Evaluate and rank the risk of the hazards using fuzzy
TOPSIS.
4. Compare with probability–impact (P–I) matrix
7.1. Risk identification
Risk management includes three stages: (i) identification, (ii)
evaluating, and (iii) ranking and control programs. In the risk
identification phase, potential risks are identified. A tunneling
project is formed from several major phases and it has a
critical importance to identify risk in these phases in order to
reduce risk. The major phases of the tunnel are the following
[105]: (1) excavation and primary support, (2) final lining and
Fig. 5 – The structure of decision.
permanent support, and (3) drainage treatment, electrome-
chanical installation, paving and signing. Each phase can be a
potential source of miscellaneous risks.
One of the simplest methods of identifying and analyzing
the risks in a tunneling project is by asking questions such as
what can lead to a event, what are the probabilities of the
event happening, what can be done to prevent it from
happening, what are the weaknesses of system, what can
be done to prevent an event from developing, and getting the
right answers. Project risk evaluation is usually affected by
numerous factors. During this process, we extracted 11 major
dimensions of risks associated with tunneling. We divided
these factors in a HSE (Health, Safety, and Environmental)
framework as follows:
Health: dust (A1) and noise (A2).
Safety: fire (A3), rock burst (A4), flooding (A5), collisions
(A6), earthquake (A7), mud rush (A8), collapse (A9),
Environmental: subsidence (A10) and ecosystem (A11).
7.2. The hierarchical structure of problem
The hierarchical structure of the decision model of the paper
with the alternatives and the criteria is presented in Fig. 5. The
decision problem consists of four levels: the objective of the
problem is situated at the highest level, while in the second
level, the criteria are presented, and in the third level, the sub-
criteria are listed; the last level belongs to the alternatives.
7.3. Evaluate and rank the risk of the hazards using
fuzzy TOPSIS
After building the hierarchy of decision problem, a team 7
people was formed comprised of senior managers and
tunneling experts. The method of calculating the priority of
alternatives is discussed following part.
The first step is to determine the linguistic weighting of
each criterion. For this aim, a questionnaire for the compar-
ison of the importance and preference of each main criterion
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12 7

Table 2 – The importance of criterion.

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7

Criteria Reaction L L M L L M H
Likelihood H M M H M L M
Consequence H H VH H M H VH

Sub-criteria Detectability M M L M H H H
Vulnerability M H H M M VH H

Table 3 – The value of main criteria and sub-criteria.

Criteria Sub-criteria Local weights Global weights

Reaction (C1) 0.245 0.245

Likelihood 0.318 Detectability (C2) 0.465 0.148

Vulnerability (C3) 0.534 0.170

Consequence (C4) 0.436 0.436

Table 4 – Fuzzy decision matrix.

C1 C2 C3 C4

A1 4.86 6.36 7.86 5.14 6.64 8.14 3.32 4.82 6.32 2.85 4.35 5.85
A2 6.32 7.82 9.32 4.67 6.17 7.67 2.92 4.42 5.92 3.26 4.76 6.26
A3 3.12 4.62 6.12 5.89 7.39 8.89 1.21 2.71 4.21 4.73 6.23 7.73
A4 0.23 1.73 3.23 1.18 2.68 4.18 0.93 2.14 3.64 4.59 6.09 7.59
A5 0.74 2.24 3.74 3.22 4.72 6.22 2.68 4.18 5.68 3.14 4.64 6.14
A6 3.31 4.81 6.31 2.67 4.17 5.67 5.13 6.63 8.13 3.42 4.92 6.42
A7 1.26 2.76 4.26 1.88 3.38 4.88 0.94 2.44 3.94 4.66 6.16 7.66
A8 5.17 6.67 8.17 3.31 4.81 6.31 1.32 2.82 4.32 0.84 2.34 3.84
A9 1.21 2.71 4.21 2.79 4.29 5.79 5.34 6.84 8.34 4.57 6.07 7.57
A10 0.96 2.46 3.96 1.15 2.65 4.15 2.56 4.06 5.56 1.29 2.79 4.29
A11 4.67 6.17 7.67 5.32 6.82 8.32 3.17 4.67 6.17 3.36 4.86 6.36

and sub-criterion was provided. Experts were also asked to based on linguistic variable for rating importance of alter-
construct fuzzy evaluation matrix by linguistic variables natives with respect to each criterion by a linguistic variable.
presented in Table 1 and Fig. 1. Seven decision makers have Various techniques are used to compute the final fuzzy
presented their assessment based on linguistic variable for weights, such as, computation of the eigenvector, arithmetic
importance of each criterion by a linguistic variable as mean, geometric mean, etc. [106]. The importance of the
presented in Table 2. In a group decision environment with rating of alternatives with respect to each criterion can be
K persons, the importance of the criteria can be calculated as calculated as the following equation:
the following equation: 1h 1 i
x~ ij ¼ x~ ij þ x~ 2ij þ . . . þ x~ kij ð18Þ
1h 1 i K
w~ ij ¼ ~ 2ij þ    þ w
~ ij þ w
w ~ kij ð16Þ
K The ratings of the alternatives are computed as presented
This research for transforming the fuzzy weights into the in Table 4.
crisp weights applies the center of area method which is a After determining the importance ratings of alternatives,
simple and practical method to compute the best nonfuzzy normalization of these values is made by the following
performance (BNP) value of the fuzzy weights of each equations [107,98]:
dimension. The BNP value of the fuzzy number R~ i can be ½xij minfxij g
found using the following equation: The larger, the better type rij ¼ , ð19Þ
½maxfxij gminfxij g
½ðURi LRi Þ þ ðMRi LRi Þ
BNPi ¼ þ LRi ð17Þ ½maxfxij gxij 
3 The smaller, the better type rij ¼ , ð20Þ
½maxfxij gminfxij g
The total values of main criteria and sub-criteria are
obtained and given in Table 3. In this problem, in order to obtain the riskiest parameter,
After determining the weights of the criteria, according to reaction and detectability are cost criteria whereas vulner-
Table 1 and Fig. 2, experts have presented their assessment ability and consequence are benefit criteria.
8 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12

Table 5 – The weighted normalized decision matrix.

C1 C2 C3 C4

A1 0.039 0.080 0.120 0.014 0.043 0.072 0.055 0.089 0.124 0.127 0.222 0.317
A2 0.000 0.040 0.081 0.023 0.052 0.081 0.046 0.080 0.115 0.153 0.248 0.343
A3 0.086 0.127 0.167 0.000 0.029 0.057 0.006 0.041 0.075 0.246 0.341 0.436
A4 0.164 0.205 0.245 0.090 0.119 0.148 0.000 0.028 0.062 0.237 0.332 0.427
A5 0.151 0.191 0.232 0.051 0.080 0.109 0.040 0.075 0.109 0.146 0.241 0.336
A6 0.081 0.122 0.162 0.062 0.090 0.119 0.097 0.131 0.166 0.163 0.258 0.353
A7 0.137 0.177 0.218 0.077 0.105 0.134 0.000 0.035 0.069 0.242 0.337 0.432
A8 0.031 0.072 0.112 0.049 0.078 0.107 0.009 0.043 0.078 0.000 0.095 0.190
A9 0.138 0.178 0.219 0.059 0.088 0.117 0.101 0.136 0.170 0.236 0.331 0.426
A10 0.145 0.185 0.226 0.091 0.119 0.148 0.037 0.072 0.106 0.028 0.123 0.218
A11 0.045 0.085 0.126 0.011 0.040 0.068 0.052 0.086 0.120 0.160 0.254 0.349

Table 6 – The rank of alternatives.

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11

dþ
i
3.571 3.584 3.468 3.320 3.419 3.404 3.352 3.717 3.273 3.505 3.540
d
i 0.465 0.454 0.568 0.709 0.610 0.623 0.678 0.335 0.751 0.533 0.494
CCi 0.115 0.113 0.141 0.176 0.151 0.155 0.168 0.083 0.187 0.132 0.122
Rank 9 10 6 2 5 4 3 11 1 7 8

Fig. 6 – Rankings of risks according to CCi values.

Then, by multiplying each value with their weights,
weighted normalized matrix is formed as depicted in Table 5.
We define the FPIS and the FNIS as: Aþ ¼ ð1,1,1Þ,
1
A ¼ ð0,0,0Þ. Then the distance of each risk from FPIS and
FNIS with respect to each criterion are calculated with the
help of Eqs. (12) and (13). The results have been depicted in
Table 6. Applying Eq. (14), the closeness coefficient obtained
and the results are presented in Table 6.
Finally, alternatives are ranked in descending order as
depicted in Table 6. According to CCi values, the ranking of
the alternatives in descending order are A9, A4, A7, A6, A5,
A3, A10, A11, A1, A2, and A8. Proposed model results indicate
that Collapse (A9) is the riskiest parameter with CC value
of 0.187. Rankings of risks according to CCi values are depicted
in Fig. 6.
7.4. Compare with probability–impact (P–I) matrix
The traditional probability–impact matrix approach uses a
combination of probability (P) and possible impact (I) in order
to obtain the value of risk. In the proposed method, criteria
are developed and the evaluation of risk is based on fuzzy
TOPSIS approach. To analyze the appropriateness of the
proposed model, we calculated the existing risks using the
PI matrix method to compare with the proposed model. An
evaluation scale characterized by five judgments {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
was used, where 1 means minimum judgment level and 5
represents the maximum.
The evaluation of risk parameters was executed by the
experts responsible based on popular compromise. According
to Eq. (15), the value of all risks is calculated and is listed in
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12 9

Table 7 – Ranking of the P–I matrix. was compared with probability–impact (P–I) matrix. The
investigations show that the proposed model outperforms
Risk Impact Probability Risk Rank
the PI matrix. The results demonstrate collapse is the riskiest
parameters (I) (P) index
factor in this case.
A1 4 3 12 7
A2 3 3 9 10
A3 5 3 15 4
A4 5 4 20 2
A5 5 3 15 4
Acknowledgments
A6 4 5 20 2
A7 5 3 15 4 The authors would like to thank all the tunneling experts and
A8 2 3 6 11 senior managers who took part in our research. This research
A9 5 5 25 1 is partly a result of the research project entitled ‘Evaluation
A10 3 4 12 7 and Priority of Risks in Underground Construction Projects’,
A11 4 3 12 7
which was supported by Fateh Research Group.

Table 7. As seen in Table 7, the final rankings obtained by

using P–I matrix in Ghomroud tunneling project is listed in
the last column. Based on risk index, the ranking of the
alternatives in descending order are A9, A4¼ A6, A3¼A7¼ A5,
A10¼A11¼A1, A2, and A8.
As presented in Table 6, the risk index belongs to the set
{9, 12, 15, 20, 25} and it neglect values such as 7, 11, 13, 14, 17,
18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Therefore, from a computational
point of view, this limitation imposes a reduction in the
capability of the classical risk evaluation matrix to determine
a precise and suitable rank. Furthermore, P and I are not able
to cover all aspects of project risks. As well as, the relative
importance P and I is not taken into consideration, so that;
different values of P and I ratings produce exactly the same
value of risk index, but their hidden risk implications may be
totally different. For example, two different events with
values of 3, 5 and 5, 3 for P and I, respectively, will have the
same risk index value of 15. The main aim of the risk
evaluation is to rank project risks to find their priorities for
further measures. Whereas, the traditional P–I matrix present
the same value for often risks, so that; A4 is equal to A6 at the
highest rank, likewise is A1 equal to A10 and A11 or A3 is
equal to A5 and A7.
8. Conclusion
The main purpose of this paper is to propose a risk evaluation
approach of the problems that might be encountered during
tunneling operation. According to traditional risk evaluation
methods only considered consequence and likelihood as
influence parameters in modeling risk, and these two
parameters are not able to cover all aspects of project risks,
the authors suggested a new framework in order to evaluate
risk that includes consequence, detectability, vulnerability,
and reaction in contrast with an event. Based on inherent
complexity and problems connected with assigning a precise
performance rating to alternatives due to less information
and/or even lack of information and lack of clarity, a multi
criteria decision making methodology based on the fuzzy
logic theory is also employed in such a way as to guarantee
evaluation coherence. To show the capability of the risk
evaluation model proposed in this paper, an application to a
real world case is described, and then the proposed model
r e f e r e nc e s
[1] S.D. Eskesen, P. Tengborg, J. Kampmann, T.H. Veicherts,
Guidelines for tunnelling risk management: International
Tunnelling Association, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 19 (3) (2004) 217–237.
[2] N. Banaitiene,_ A. Banaitis, A. Norkus, Risk management in
projects: peculiarities of Lithuanian construction compa-
nies, International Journal of Strategic Property Manage-
ment 15 (1) (2011) 60–73.
[3] M. Schuhmacher, M. Meneses, A. Xifró, J.L. Domingo, The
use of Monte-Carlo simulation techniques for risk assess-
ment: study of a municipal waste incinerator, Chemosphere
43 (4–7) (2001) 787–799.
[4] K. Rezaie, M.S. Amalnik, A. Gereie, B. Ostadi, M. Shakhse-
niae, Using extended Monte Carlo simulation method for
the improvement of risk management: Consideration of
relationships between uncertainties, Applied Mathematics
and Computation 190 (2) (2007) 1492–1501.
[5] S.K. Au, Z.H. Wang, S.M. Lo, Compartment fire risk analysis
by advanced Monte Carlo simulation, Engineering Struc-
tures 29 (9) (2007) 2381–2390.
[6] E.R. Vaidogas, J. Sakenaite, Protecting built property against
fire disasters: multi attribute decision making with respect
to fire risk, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management 14 (4) (2010) 391–407.
[7] Y.F. Wu, Correlated sampling techniques used in Monte
Carlo simulation for risk assessment, International Journal
of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (9) (2008) 662–669.
[8] Y. Carmel, Sh. Paz, F. Jahashan, M. Shoshan, Assessing fire
risk using Monte Carlo simulations of fire spread, Forest
Ecology and Management 257 (1) (2009) 370–377.
[9] S.H. Stroeve, H.A.P. Blom, G.J. Bakker, Systemic accident risk
assessment in air traffic by Monte Carlo simulation, Safety
Science 47 (2) (2009) 238–249.
[10] J.H. Smid, D. Verloo, G.C. Barker, A.H. Havelaar, Strengths
and weaknesses of Monte Carlo simulation models and
Bayesian belief networks in microbial risk assessment,
International Journal of Food Microbiology 139 (1) (2010)
S57–S63.
[11] B. Amigun, D. Petrie, J. Görgens, Economic risk assessment
of advanced process technologies for bioethanol production
in South Africa: Monte Carlo analysis, Renewable Energy 36
(11) (2011) 3178–3186.
[12] E. Linder, G.P. Patil, D.S. Vaughan, Application of event tree
risk analysis to fisheries management, Ecological Modelling
36 (1–2) (1987) 15–28.
[13] A.F. Meloy, Arenal-type pyroclastic flows: a probabilistic
event tree risk analysis, Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research 157 (1–3) (2006) 121–134.
10 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12
[14] A. Neri, W.P. Aspinall, R. Cioni, A. Bertagnini, P.J. Baxter, G.
Zuccaro, D. Andronico, S. Barsotti, P.D. Cole, T. Esposti
Ongaro, T.K. Hincks, G. Macedonio, P. Papale, M. Rosi, R.
Santacroce, G. Woo, Developing an event tree for probabil-
istic hazard and risk assessment at Vesuvius, Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 178 (3) (2008)
397–415.
[15] E.S. Hong, I.M. Lee, H.S. Shin, S.W. Nam, J.S. Kong,
Quantitative risk evaluation based on event tree analysis
technique: application to the design of shield TBM, Tunnel-
ling and Underground Space Technology 24 (3) (2009)
269–277.
[16] J.A. Vı́lchez, V. Espejo, J. Casal, Generic event trees and
probabilities for the release of different types of hazardous
materials, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process In-
dustries 24 (2011) 281–287.
[17] A. Lindhe, L. Rosen, T. Norberg, O. Bergstedt, Fault tree
analysis for integrated and probabilistic risk analysis of
drinking water systems, Water Research 43 (6) (2009)
1641–1653.
[18] R. Ferdous, F. Khan, B. Veitch, P.R. Amyotte, Methodology for
computer aided fuzzy fault tree analysis, Process Safety and
Environmental Protection 87 (4) (2009) 217–226.
[19] J.K. Vaurio, Ideas and developments in importance mea-
sures and fault-tree techniques for reliability and risk
analysis, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 95 (2)
(2010) 99–107.
[20] C. Rodak, S. Silliman, Probabilistic risk analysis and fault
trees: Initial discussion of application to identification of
risk at a wellhead, Advances in Water Resources 36 (2011)
133–145.
[21] R. Farret, P. Gombert, F. Lahaie, A. Cherkaoui, S. Lafortune,
P. Roux, Design of fault trees as a practical method for risk
analysis of CCS: application to the different life stages of
deep aquifer storage, combining long-term and short-term
issues, Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 4193–4198.
[22] A. Mentes, I.H. Helvacioglu, An application of fuzzy fault tree
analysis for spread mooring systems, Ocean Engineering
38 (2–3) (2011) 285–294.
[23] B. Carlsson, Chapter 4.2—initial risk analysis of potential
failure modes, Performance and Durability Assessment
(2004) 147–157.
[24] R. Gowland, The accidental risk assessment methodology
for industries (ARAMIS)/layer of protection analysis (LOPA)
methodology: a step forward towards convergent practices
in risk assessment?, Journal of Hazardous Materials 130
(2006) 307–310.
[25] Y.M. Wang, K.S. Chin, G.K.K. Poon, J.B. Yang, Risk evaluation
in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted
geometric mean, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2)
(2009) 1195–1207.
[26] J.F. Leeuwen, M.J. Nauta, D. Kaste, Y.M.C.F. Odekerken-
Rombouts, M.T. Oldenhof, M.J. Vredenbregt, D.M. Barends,
Risk analysis by FMEA as an element of analytical valida-
tion, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 50
(5) (2009) 1085–1087.
[27] A.H. Hu, C.W. Hsu, T.C. Kou, W.C. Wu, Risk evaluation of
green components to hazardous substance using FMEA
and FAHP, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009)
7142–7147.
[28] N. Xiao, H.Z. Huang, Y. Li, L. He, T. Jin, Multiple failure modes
analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in
FMEA, Engineering Failure Analysis 18 (4) (2011) 1162–1170.
[29] Z. Zhang, X. Chu, Risk prioritization in failure mode and
effects analysis under uncertainty, Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (1) (2011) 206–214.
[30] K.B. Misra, G.G. Weber, Use of fuzzy set theory for level-I
studies in probabilistic risk assessment, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 37 (2) (1990) 139–160.
[31] H.M. Lee, Group decision making using fuzzy sets theory for
evaluating the rate of aggregative risk in software develop-
ment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 80 (3) (1996) 261–271.
[32] Sh.J. Chen, Sh.M. Chen, Fuzzy risk analysis based on
measures of similarity between interval-valued fuzzy num-
bers, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 55 (8)
(2008) 1670–1685.
[33] A.S. Markowski, M.S. Mannan, Fuzzy risk matrix, Journal of
Hazardous Materials 159 (1) (2008) 152–157.
[34] L.W. Lee, Sh.M. Chen, Fuzzy risk analysis based on fuzzy
numbers with different shapes and different deviations,
Expert Systems with Applications 34 (4) (2008) 2763–2771.
[35] Sh.H. Wei, Sh.M. Chen, A new approach for fuzzy risk
analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy
numbers, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (1) (2009)
589–598.
[36] Sh.H. Wei, Sh.M. Chen, Fuzzy risk analysis based on
interval-valued fuzzy numbers, Expert Systems with Appli-
cations 36 (2) (2009) 2285–2299.
[37] Sh.M. Chen, Ch.H. Wang, Fuzzy risk analysis based on
ranking fuzzy numbers using a-cuts, belief features and
signal/noise ratios, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3)
(2009) 5576–5581.
[38] A.S. Markowski, M.S. Mannan, Fuzzy logic for piping risk
assessment (pfLOPA), Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries 22 (6) (2009) 921–927.
[39] Sh.M. Chen, J.H. Chen, Fuzzy risk analysis based on ranking
generalized fuzzy numbers with different heights and
different spreads, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3)
(2009) 6833–6842.
[40] Sh.M. Chen, J.H. Chen, Fuzzy risk analysis based on
similarity measures between interval-valued fuzzy num-
bers and interval-valued fuzzy number arithmetic opera-
tors, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3) (2009)
6309–6317.
[41] L.H. Feng, G.Y. Luo, Analysis on fuzzy risk of landfall
typhoon in Zhejiang province of China, Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation 79 (11) (2009) 3258–3266.
[42] J.F. Balmat, F. Lafont, R. Maifret, N. Pessel, MAritime RISk
Assessment (MARISA), a fuzzy approach to define an
individual ship risk factor, Ocean Engineering 36 (15–16)
(2009) 1278–1286.
[43] T. Elsayed, Fuzzy inference system for the risk assessment
of liquefied natural gas carriers during loading/offloading at
terminals, Applied Ocean Research 31 (3) (2009) 179–185.
[44] Zh. Xu, Sh. Shang, W. Qian, W. Shu, A method for fuzzy risk
analysis based on the new similarity of trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (3) (2010)
1920–1927.
[45] Nieto-Morote, F. Ruz-Vila, A fuzzy approach to construction
project risk assessment, International Journal of Project
Management 29 (2) (2011) 220–231.
[46] S.R. Hejazi, A. Doostparast, S.M. Hosseini, An improved
fuzzy risk analysis based on a new similarity measures of
generalized fuzzy numbers, Expert Systems with Applica-
tions 38 (8) (2011) 9179–9185.
[47] Sh.M. Chen, K. Sanguansat, Analyzing fuzzy risk based on
similarity measures between interval-valued fuzzy num-
bers, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (7) (2011)
8612–8621.
[48] Sh.M. Chen, K. Sanguansat, Analyzing fuzzy risk based on a
new fuzzy ranking method between generalized fuzzy
numbers, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (3) (2011)
2163–2171.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12
[49] A. Idrus, M.F. Nuruddin, M.A. Rohman, Development of
project cost contingency estimation model using risk
analysis and fuzzy expert system, Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (3) (2011) 1501–1508.
[50] C. Kahraman, I. Kaya, Investment analyses using fuzzy
probability concept, Technological and Economic Develop-
ment of Economy 16 (1) (2010) 43–57.
[51] E.C.M. Hui, O.M.F. Lau, K.K. Lo, A fuzzy decision making
approach for portfolio management with direct real estate
investment, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management 13 (2) (2009) 191–204.
[52] X. Miao, B. Yu, B. Xi, Y.-H. Tang, Modeling of bilevel games and
incentives for sustainable critical infrastructure system,
Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16 (3)
(2010) 365–379.
[53] Z. Turskis, E.K. Zavadskas, F. Peldschus, Multi-criteria
optimization system for decision making in construction
design and management, Inzinerine_ Ekonomika—Engineering
Economics 1 (61) (2009) 7–17.
[54] L. Ustinovichius, A. Barvidas, A. Vishnevskaja, I.V. Ashikhmin,
Multicriteria verbal analysis for the decision of construction
problems, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 15 (2) (2009) 326–340.
[55] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene, Risk assessment
of construction projects, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 16 (1) (2010) 33–46.
[56] E.K. Zavadskas, T. Vilutiene, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene,
Contractor selection for construction works by applying
SAW-G and TOPSIS grey techniques, Journal of Business
Economics and Management 11 (1) (2010) 34–55.
[57] J. Reilly, J. Brown, Management and control of cost and risk
for tunneling and infrastructure projects, in: Proceedings of
International Tunneling Conference, Singapore, 2004,
pp. 1–8.
[58] M. Sari, A.S. Selcuk, C. Karpuz, H.S.B. Duzgun, Stochastic
modeling of accident risks associated with an underground
coal mine in Turkey, Safety Science 47 (1) (2009) 78–87.
[59] R.J. Durrheim, S.M. Spottiswoode, M.K.C. Roberts, A.Z. Brink,
Comparative seismology of the witwatersrand Basin and
Bushveld Complex and emerging technologies to manage
the risk of rockbursting, The Journal of The South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 105 (2005) 409–416.
[60] Ch. Yoo, Y.W. Jeon, B.S. Choi, IT-based tunnelling risk
management system (IT-TURISK)—development and imple-
mentation, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
21 (2) (2006) 190–202.
[61] J.J. Reilly, Cost estimating and risk—management for under-
ground projects, in: Proceedings of International Tunneling
Association Conference, Istanbul, 2005, pp. 1–9.
[62] Y.G. Kim, Application of risk analysis and assessment in
tunnel design, International Journal of the Japanese Com-
mittee for Rock Mechanics 5 (1) (2009) 11–18.
[63] S. Jian, W. Lian-guo, Zh. Hua-lei, Sh. Yi-feng, Application of
fuzzy neural network in predicting the risk of rock burst,
Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 1 (1) (2009) 536–543.
[64] R.L. Grayson, H. Kinilakodi, V. Kecojevic, Pilot sample risk
analysis for underground coal mine fires and explosions using
MSHA citation data, Safety Science 47 (10) (2009) 1371–1378.
[65] Q. Meng, X. Qu, X. Wang, V. Yuanit, S.Ch. Wong, Quantitative
risk assessment modeling for nonhomogeneous urban road
tunnels, Risk Analysis 31 (3) (2011) 382–403.
[66] H.S.B. Duzgun, H.H. Einstein, Assessment and management
of roof fall risks in underground coal mines, Safety Science
42 (2004) 23–41.
[67] H.S.B. Düzgün, Analysis of roof fall hazards and risk
assessment for Zonguldak coal basin underground mines,
International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (1–2) (2005) 104–115.
11
[68] O. Nývlt, S. Prı́vara, L. Ferkl, Probabilistic risk assessment of
highway tunnels, Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech-
nology 26 (2011) 71–82.
[69] V. Podvezko, S. Mitkus, E. Trinkuniene, Complex evaluation
of contracts for construction, Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management 16 (2) (2010) 287–297.
[70] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Zakarevičius, J. Antucheviciene, Evalua-
tion of ranking accuracy in multiple-criteria decision,
Informatica 17 (4) (2006) 601–618.
[71] L. Tupenaite, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, Z. Turskis, M.
Seniut, Multiple criteria assessment of alternatives for built
and human environment renovation, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 16 (2) (2010) 257–266.
[72] Z. Han, P. Liu, A fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making
method under risk with unknown attribute weights, Tech-
nological and Economic Development of Economy 17 (2)
(2011) 246–258.
[73] J. Antuchevičiene, _ E.K. Zavadskas, A. Zakarevičius, Multiple
criteria construction management decisions considering
relations between criteria, Technological and Economic
Development of Economy 16 (1) (2010) 109–125.
[74] P. Liu, Multi attribute decision making method research
based on interval vague set and TOPSIS method, Technolo-
gical and Economic Development of Economy 15 (3) (2009)
453–463.
[75] D. Kalibatas, E.K. Zavadskas, D. Kalibatiene, The concept of
the ideal indoor environment in multi-attribute assessment
of dwelling-houses, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 11 (1) (2011) 89–101.
[76] T.Ch. Wang, T.H. Chang, Application of TOPSIS in evaluating
initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment, Expert
Systems with Applications 33 (2007) 870–880.
[77] X. Yu, Sh. Guo, J. Guo, X. Huang, Rank B2C e-commerce
websites in e-alliance based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS,
Expert Systems with Applications 38 (4) (2011) 3550–3557.
[78] G.T. Friedlob, L.L.F. Schleifer, Fuzzy logic: application for
audit risk and uncertainty, Managerial Auditing Journal 14
(3) (1999) 127–137.
[79] A. Pillay, J. Wang, Modified failure mode and effects analysis
using approximate reasoning, Reliability Engineering and
System Safety 79 (1) (2003) 69–85.
[80] A. Gegov, Complexity Management in Fuzzy Systems: A
Rule Base Compression Approach, Heidelberg, Berlin, 2007.
[81] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information Control 8 (1965) 338–353.
[82] B. Chang, Ch.W. Chang, Ch.H. Wu, Fuzzy DEMATEL method
for developing supplier selection criteria, Expert Systems
with Applications 38 (2011) 1850–1858.
[83] F. Torfi, R.Z. Farahani, Sh. Rezapour, A.H.P. Fuzzy, to
determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and
Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives, Applied Soft Com-
puting 10 (2010) 520–528.
[84] C.L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making
Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.
[85] T.Y. Chen, Ch.Y. Tsao, The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS
method and experimental analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
159 (11) (2008) 1410–1428.
[86] B. Ashtiani, A. Haghighirad, G. Makui, A. Montazer, Exten-
sion of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval-valued fuzzy
sets, Applied Soft Computing 9 (2) (2009) 457–461.
[87] K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, Evaluation of buildings’
redevelopment alternatives with an emphasis on the multi-
partite sustainability, International Journal of Strategic
Property Management 8 (2) (2004) 121–128.
[88] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, Development of an
indicator model and ranking of sustainable revitalization
alternatives of derelict property: a Lithuanian case study,
Sustainable Development 14 (5) (2006) 287–299.
12 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 1–12
[89] T.Ch. Wang, H.D. Lee, Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach
based on subjective weights and objective weights, Expert
Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 8980–8985.
[90] V.F. Yu, K.J. Hu, An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria approach
for the performance evaluation of multiple manufacturing
plants, Computers and Industrial Engineering 58 (2010)
269–277.
[91] Ch.Ch. Sun, A performance evaluation model by integrating
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods, Expert Systems with
Applications 37 (2010) 7745–7754.
[92] S. Sadi-Nezhad, K.Kh. Damghani, Application of a fuzzy
TOPSIS method base on modified preference ratio and fuzzy
distance measurement in assessment of traffic police
centers performance, Applied Soft Computing 10 (2010)
1028–1039.
[93] R.A. Krohling, V.C. Campanharo, Fuzzy TOPSIS for group
decision making: a case study for accidents with oil spill in
the sea, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (4) (2011)
4190–4197.
[94] B. Vahdani, S.M. Mousavi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, Group
decision making based on novel fuzzy modified TOPSIS
method, Applied Mathematical Modelling 35 (9) (2011)
4257–4269.
[95] A. Kelemenis, K. Ergazakis, D. Askounis, Support managers
selection using an extension of fuzzy TOPSIS, Expert
Systems with Applications 8 (3) (2011) 2774–2782.
[96] A. Awasthi, S.S. Chauhan, H. Omrani, A. Panahi, A hybrid
approach based on SERVQUAL and fuzzy TOPSIS for
evaluating transportation service quality, Computers &
Industrial Engineering 61 (2011) 637–646.
[97] G. Torlak, M. Sevkli, M. Sanal, S. Zaim, Analyzing business
competition by using fuzzy TOPSIS method: an example of
Turkish domestic airline industry, Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (4) (2011) 3396–3406.
View publication stats
[98] M.M. Fouladgar, A. Yazdani-Chamzini, E.K. Zavadskas, An
integrated model for prioritizing strategies of the Iranian
mining sector, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 17 (3) (2011) 459–484.
[99] K. Heldman, C. Baca, P. Jansen, PMP: Project Management
Professional Exam Study Guide, 2nd ed., Wiley Publishing,
2007.
[100] T. Merna, F.F. Al-Thani, Corporate Risk Management: An
Organisational Perspective, John Wiley and Sons Ltd,
London, 2005.
[101] M. Wood, Tunnelling: Management by Design, London, 2000.
[102] S. Ebrahimnejad, S.M. Mousavi, S.M.H. Mojtahedi, A fuzzy
decision-making model for risk ranking with an application
to an onshore gas refinery, International Journal Business
Continuity and Risk Management 1 (1) (2009) 38–66.
[103] E. Farrokh, J. Rostami, Correlation of tunnel convergence
with TBM operational parameters and chip size in the
Ghomroud tunnel, Iran, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 23 (2008) 700–710.
[104] E. Farrokh, J. Rostami, Effect of adverse geological condition
on TBM operation in Ghomroud tunnel conveyance Project,
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009)
436–446.
[105] O.N. Aneziris, I.A. Papazoglou, D. Kallianiotis, Occupational
risk of tunneling construction, Safety Science 48 (2010)
964–972.
[106] S. Tesfamariam, R. Sadiq, Risk-based environmental deci-
sion-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP),
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
21 (2006) 35–50.
[107] T. Yang, C.C. Hung, Multiple attribute decision making
methods for plant layout design problem, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (1) (2007) 126–137.