Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site.
Dejus, Titas ; Antucheviciene, Jurgita
Introduction
Assessment of occupational hazards as well as assurance of
occupational safety at a construction site is an extremely important
question to be analysed. It has been estimated that every third
occupational fatality or injury occurs at a construction site. Also, in
comparison to other areas of economic activities, many more violations
of regulatory enactments on health and safety are registered in the
construction sector (Naujalis 2009; Mitropoulos, Memarian 2012).
Scientific and legal literature largely focuses on solutions to
different issues pertaining to health and safety at work. Mitropoulos
and Memarian (2012) emphasise teamwork as the key strategy for accident
prevention in construction crews. Inyang et al. (2012) analyse ergonomic
aspects of workers executing daily construction tasks. Silva and Jacinto
(2012) analyse the occupational accident patterns and propose the
strategies for improving safety. It is emphasised that more
investigations should be undertaken to reveal options for improving
education and training effectiveness of construction workers in the area
of health and safety (Houtman, Bakker 1991; Tartilas 2008; Choudhry
2012).
In general, accidents at construction sites could be qualified as
defects of the health and safety management system, which occur due to a
number of aspects, including technical, technological, organisational
and other types of factors (Dejus 2007, 2011). Such multiple criteria
aspects of risk and safety in construction or reconstruction works have
been analysed by Bitarafan et al. (2012) and Fouladgar et al. (2012).
Besides, any unwanted construction event is usually related to health
and safety solutions established in technological work cards of the
construction technology project.
This article addresses the reasons of accidents at construction
sites and possible preventive measures. First, discussion on health and
safety training (learning) for construction workers is presented. Next,
a number of real construction accidents as well as their reasons are
investigated. Strengths and weaknesses of a number of typical (or
repeated) occupational safety solutions are discussed. It is suggested
to select the optimal solution for every particular case, assessing
several possible typical solutions considering a number of criteria and
applying the entropy method for determining relative significances of
these criteria as well as Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment
(WASPAS) method for multiple criteria ranking of alternatives.
1. Survey on the health and safety training (learning) for
construction workers
Usually, there are two main reasons behind unsafe behaviour at
work: (1) insufficient information regarding safety ('I don't
know') and (2) careless attitude towards safety ('I don't
care'). Consequently, the number of accidents at work may be
reduced with increased health and safety awareness of employees, i.e.
with the help of training (Teo et al. 2005; Yang, Ju 2012).
Fundamental reasons that diminish occupational safety in the
construction sector are first and foremost related to attitude of
workers and inappropriate behaviour, followed by relative or supposed
lack of funds, inappropriate equipment that fails to correspond to
health and safety requirements, unfit construction management model and
choice of inadequate subcontractors (Liaudanskiene et al. 2010).
Health and safety should be monitored in a much stricter manner;
all construction workers should be instructed on workplace related
occupational hazards and outcomes at all times. Even before construction
works start, workers should be instructed on the current situation and
possible hazards (Stankiuviene et al. 2008).
Following the applicable regulatory enactments on occupational
health and safety, formal training is organised for construction workers
in Lithuania (Law on Safety and Health at Work of the Republic of
Lithuania 2003). The course involves training and certification on
occupational health and safety, namely, students of higher and advanced
vocational education and training schools are trained on occupational
health and safety requirements in accordance to their speciality and
occupation. Considering the attention given by the government on
occupational safety, construction workers should be well trained on
occupational safety issues. Consequently, the growing number of
accidents at work suggests the inefficiency of training rather than its
insufficiency (Dejus 2007).
Some countries encourage workers to participate in a variety of
training programmes. Numerous methods exist for occupational safety
training learning (Xie et al. 2012): reading (text, diagrams and
figures); listening to live lectures on occupational safety; watching
video recordings concerned with assurance of industrial safety; and
participating in distance learning classes (which are becoming
especially effective nowadays).
A survey undertaken in Kentucky (USA) demonstrated the relevance of
simulation exercises in small construction companies with less than 10
workers, imitating traumas that can occur at a construction site (Wojcik
2003). Narrative simulations are reality-based exercises that allow
experiencing a certain situation. Participants have to respond to
questions about the course of events or probable causes and effects.
This method is more effective than didactic teaching as it requires fast
response and an appropriate solution. Simulations are capable of
changing human behaviour much more effectively than the didactic
teaching of the same material.
A group of researchers from Taiwan (Jan et al. 2008) presented a
study on a novel system called Construction Safety-based E-learning
Management (Con-SEM). The system was used for construction processes
accelerating information sharing regarding construction safety learning
as well as responding to project-related safety information through the
Internet. Essentially, the study aimed to develop safe construction
environment based on the e-learning system Con-SEM.
Hung et al. (2013) explored training needs through interviews among
subcontractors and suggested the need for informal jobsite safety
training to complement what had been covered during the formalised
safety training.
In summary, the aforementioned experience suggests the need to
increase the efficiency of training. Improvements to health and safety
training of construction specialists should consider the content of
specific training programmes, which should be focused on solutions for
completely realistic and exceptionally practical tasks. Training should
be built on methodologies with interactive teaching methods, modelling
of situations, visualisation techniques, including databases and
catalogues of repeatedly used solutions for occupational safety.
2. Occupational safety solutions for road construction cases
Occupational safety solutions for road construction cases are
discussed as a possible example of repeatedly used solutions. Usually,
work zones have to be established and set up for maintenance projects in
order to avoid traffic interruptions in situations with some lanes
closed and others still in operation (Huang, Shi 2008). In a two-lane
two-way segment, one lane gets closed at a time while another continues
to be used for traffic, alternating directions through the work zone and
ensuring continuous traffic. First, vehicles from one side of the road
get to pass through the work zone for a certain period of time and are
then blocked while vehicles from the other direction are allowed to pass
through the work zone for some period of time and the process gets
repeated again. This allows vehicles from both sides alternately to pass
through the work zone. This situation is similar to the cycles at
signalised intersections.
Inevitably, this process results in queuing delays in both
directions; however, such work zone properties are particular in road
segments of the kind.
A diagram for works undertaken in the centre of a road (with the
need to ensure a two-way traffic with 35 mph or less) is provided in
Figure 1 (Transportation Information Center 2013). Similar diagrams are
offered by Gannapathy et al. (2009) also in Instructions on Fencing of
Road Worksites and Traffic Control TDVAER 12 (2012).
In principle, the purpose of the aforementioned diagrams is to
organise traffic during road works rather than protect workers from
possible hazards. It should be noted that traffic control based on
typical diagrams impacts on traffic safety; however, they mostly focus
on safety of third parties--drivers and passengers--rather than road
maintenance workers.
Furthermore, it should be underlined that the diagrams do not
indicate or discuss the priority or order of their implementation; thus,
a possibility exists for workers to suffer from accidents during the
preparatory stage, namely, while mounting road signs or other technical
devices.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The aforementioned diagrams help protecting road workers from
passing vehicles; although, technical devices indicated on diagrams do
not guarantee complete restriction of vehicles from accessing the work
zone with workers but rather diminish the possible risk.
It should also be noted that the aforementioned diagrams do not
provide information on technical measures that should protect road
workers from hazards existing on the site, such as road construction
mechanisms or vehicles carrying construction materials as a significant
share of accidents at road construction sites occur due to workers
coming into contact with machinery.
3. Occupational safety solutions for general construction works
Usually, several technological processes may take place at a
construction site at the same time, which results in overlapping hazard
zones where accidents may occur due to a number of operating machines
(Dejus 2009).
Technological work cards are designed for delivery of separate
works as construction processes differ in terms of technology,
complexity of health and safety solutions, and most importantly--hazard
that impacts on workers at a site as well as specifics related to set-up
of workplaces. Thus, solutions for occupational safety are prepared
separately for each specific workplace or field of work; while for
another field of work, the designed solutions could be adjusted
considering specific differences of a workplace (Dejus 2011).
Implementation of specific solutions at a real construction site may
depend on the way they are presented. It is best to follow the 3S
principle (Dejus 2009), which suggests depicting solutions for
occupational safety on the construction site plan, in the section of a
particular workplace as well as on the third drawing, which provides an
element or component of a technical protection measure to be mounted or
used or the view from the opposite side. In terms of technological work
cards, comprehensibility might be regarded as one of quality assessment
criteria.
As an example, data on occupational accidents at construction sites
of Lithuania due to trench cave-in are provided. Construction accidents
that occurred during the period 2002-2012 were randomly selected. The
investigation focused on the total of 22 occupational accidents related
to excavation of soil. However, two accidents were rejected from farther
analysis as they occurred due to inappropriate trench shoring, while in
the remaining cases no such systems were used. In the latter cases,
stability of trenches was secured by required sloping. In each specific
case, the required sloping angle may be described by the ratio of the
actual width of a trench at the top and the projected width.
Data provided in Figure 2 show that in all 20 cases that were
investigated, the actual widths at the top were less than the projected
standard value, while their actual values ranged from 84 to 17% of the
projected trench width. It should be underlined that only 20% of
investigated cases had the trench width at the top, which was more than
half of the projected width; this being too narrow and causing injuries
and frequent fatalities of workers.
Investigations of accidents revealed that in all cases, appropriate
solutions for occupational safety were not prepared in construction
technology projects (or the projects were not designed at all), although
use of such solutions during management and delivery of trench
excavation works would have created organisational preconditions that
would have allowed avoiding accidents and significantly reducing the
hazard levels. In such cases, stability of trench slopes is ensured
without additional boxing or shoring equipment as slopes are
sufficiently shallow and the cave-in hazard is eliminated by removing
the soil for safe keeping next to the trench at the initial stage of
excavation. Consequently, the design and use of such relatively simple
solution (which could be easily and comprehensively depicted) can fully
guarantee safe trench operation and avoid situations when a trench
caves-in or workers get trapped under soil.
4. Repeatedly used solutions for occupational safety and principles
for systemising/cataloguing
As it was stated in previous sections of the paper, application of
systemised repeated solutions could be helpful when increasing
occupational safety at a construction site. Accordingly, principles for
systemising potential solutions and selecting the optimal one are
proposed and described next.
Annex 1 of the Technical Construction Regulation STR 1.08.02:2002
'Construction works' of the Republic of Lithuania (2002)
establishes that construction works are grouped into general and
specialised. In Zavadskas et al. (2006), technological construction
processes are grouped into more detailed categories. Therefore, should
solutions for occupational safety be prepared for each and every
technological process and all construction-site related hazards, the
number of typical solutions might amount to a relatively large set.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Such set of solutions for occupational safety seems very similar to
a usual set of project solutions, which serves as the point of departure
for comparison and assessment of all project alternatives. Thus,
Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods could also be
successfully used when planning solutions for occupational safety.
In real cases, the aforementioned set of solutions may be limited
through reduction of the number of technological processes (as not all
construction sites involve the entire set of technological processes),
this way limiting the number of related hazards as suggested in Annex 5
of the Instructions on Health and Safety at Construction Sites (2000),
i.e. focusing all preventive measures on five hazards--falls, struck by
constructions or products, caught in or between mechanisms, cave-in and
electrocution--which corresponds to conclusions (Dejus 2009) on
identification of possible exposure to risk.
Although even with aforementioned limitations, the number of
solutions remains considerably large as each construction site as well
as each workplace involves different construction processes and factors
as well as diverse technologies required to perform the same tasks, for
example, workplaces can be located at different heights and depths;
scope of work may vary; hydrogeological and meteorological work
conditions may be dissimilar; different constriction materials and
building or structural solutions can be used; as well as opportunities
of contractors to use as wide and varied arsenal of technical safety
measures.
Figure 3 illustrates an example of a possible typical occupational
safety solution that is suggested for fall-off and elevator shaft fall
hazards.
If workers can access a dangerous zone in front of the elevator
shaft (Fig. 3) while mounting the protective fencing, which should be
started from the top element, workers must appropriately use P-30
harness and fall prevention device ROLEX.
In relation to Figure 3, it should be underlined that the same
workplace may have a number of solutions for occupational safety planned
to protect workers from the same most dangerous factor yet using
different technical protection measures.
The system of aforementioned solutions comprises the database,
which is continuously populated and serves as a basis for the system of
typical repeated solutions, which might also be referred to as a
catalogue.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The suggested catalogue of typical/repeated solutions may be used
in a specific construction company. The system of typical solutions
could help designing technological work cards or training future
construction specialists in design of construction technology projects.
The fundamental advantages of the designed system are as follows:
only tested safety solutions are used, and they can be further improved
with each next project, considering relevant specific technical
measures; construction companies may exchange catalogued information and
this way reduce the time required to design solutions for occupational
safety; typical solutions for occupational safety can be made available
in digital format, thus easily changed and adjusted for each particular
building, considering the architectural-design solution and
possibilities of a contractor to procure and use certain technical
protection measures; in terms of workers, effectiveness of solutions for
occupational safety depends on the level of detail and clarity of
information, meanwhile the catalogue of typical solutions for
occupational safety provides exceptional opportunities to improve each
following alternative in terms of specificity and comprehensiveness; the
catalogue may be used for health and safety training of specialists as
well as workers.
The most rational alternative for a particular case can be selected
from the catalogue using MCDM techniques.
5. Entropy and WASPAS for multiple criteria assessment of solutions
for occupational safety
The main idea of the suggested methodology for assessment and
selection of solutions for occupational safety is that alternative
solutions should be evaluated in terms of multiple criteria.
The existing situation corresponds to the minimalistic conception
of assessment with the rational solution identified on the basis of one
criterion, namely, the price for use/realisation/implementation of the
solution. Basically, this corresponds to the provision established in
the Law on Public Procurement of the Republic of Lithuania (2005)
regarding the priority given to the alternative with the least price.
The proposed innovative approach involves mathematical methods;
this way allowing the assessment of solutions on the basis of any
criteria, any number of criteria and using objective assessment.
It should also be considered that the set of solutions for
occupational safety, from which a rational solution is selected, is
basically comprised of typical solutions. Consequently, real
preconditions are created to not only assess rational solutions but also
ensure the quality of the selected alternative.
As a number of criteria are involved, it is proposed to apply the
entropy method for determining relative significances of criteria. Next,
it is proposed to apply the newly developed precise Weighted Aggregated
Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method for ranking of alternatives.
The summarised graphic representation of the suggested model for
assessment of solutions for occupational safety is provided in Figure 4.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
5.1. Methodology for determining weights of criteria by means of
Entropy
Shannon (1948) initiated the use of entropy in theory of
information. Later, entropy was introduced in determination of criteria
weights for multiple criteria problems (Ye 2010; Kildiene et al. 2011;
Liu, Zhang 2011; Shemshadi et al. 2011; Susinskas et al. 2011; Chen et
al. 2012).
Let us suppose that a problem is defined on m alternatives and n
decision criteria. The variable [x.sub.ij] stands for the performance
value of alternative i when it is evaluated in terms of criterion j.
Linear normalisation of initial criteria values [x.sub.ij] is
applied and dimensionless values [[bar.x].sub.ij] are obtained:
[[bar.x].sub.ij] = [x.sub.ij]/[max.sub.i] [x.sub.ij], (1)
if [max.sub.i] [x.sub.ij] value is preferable or
[[bar.x].sub.ij] = [min.sub.i] [x.sub.ij]/[x.sub.ij], (2)
if [min.sub.i] [x.sub.ij] value is preferable.
The level of entropy [E.sub.j] of each criterion is determined as
follows:
[E.sub.j] = -[1/ln m][m.summation over
(i=1)][[bar.x].sub.ij]([[bar.x].sub.ij]). (3)
The variability level of [x.sub.j] criterion is determined by:
[d.sub.j] = 1 - [E.sub.j]. (4)
The relative importance of criteria or weights wj is determined as
follows:
[w.sub.j] = [d.sub.j]/[[summation].sup.n.sub.j=1][d.sub.j]. (5)
5.2. WASPAS
The joint criterion of optimality called WASPAS is based on two
well-known criteria of optimality
The first criterion of optimality, i.e. criterion of a
mean-weighted success is similar to the well-known Weighted Sum Model
(WSM). The relative importance of alternative i, denoted as
[Q.sup.(1).sub.i], is defined as follows (MacCrimon 1968;
Triantaphyllou, Mann 1989):
[Q.sup.(1).sub.i] = [n.summation over
(j=1)][[bar.x].sub.ij][w.sub.j], (6)
where linear normalisation of initial criteria values is applied
according to Eqns (1) and (2).
The second criterion of optimality, namely, multiplicative
exponential generalised criterion, in general coincides with Weighted
Product Model (WPM). The relative importance of alternative i, denoted
as [Q.sup.(2).sub.i], is defined as follows (Miller, Starr 1969;
Triantaphyllou, Mann 1989):
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (7)
The third joint generalised criterion of weighted aggregation of
additive and multiplicative methods was proposed by Saparauskas et al.
(2010, 2011):
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (8)
As particular methods can produce different ranking results
(Antucheviciene et al. 2011, 2012), increasing the ranking accuracy and
the effectiveness of decisions is important. Accordingly, methodology
for optimisation of weighted aggregated function was proposed and the
WASPAS method for ranking of alternatives was presented (Zavadskas et
al. 2012):
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (9)
Optimal values of [[lambda].sub.i] can be found when searching the
extreme of the function:
[[lambda].sub.i] =
[[sigma].sup.2]([Q.sup.(2).sub.i])/[[[sigma].sup.2]([Q.sup.(1).sub.i]) +
[[sigma].sup.2]([Q.sup.(2).sub.i])]. (10)
The variances [[sigma].sup.2]([Q.sup.(1).sub.i]) and
[[sigma].sup.2]([Q.sup.(2).sub.i]) ishould be calculated as follows:
[[sigma].sup.2]([Q.sup.(1).sub.i]) = [n.summation over
(j=1)][w.sup.2.sub.j][[sigma].sup.2]([[bar.x].sub.ij]); (11)
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (12)
In the case of normal distribution of initial data with the
credibility q = 0.05, estimates of variances of normalised criteria
values are calculated as follows:
[[sigma].sup.2]([[bar.x].sub.ij]) = [(0.05[[bar.x].sub.ij]).sup.2].
(13)
See Zavadskas et al. (2012) for detailed explanation of Eqns
(10)-(13). The simplified application of WASPAS for building
modernisation problem can be found in Staniunas et al. (2013).
5.3. Case study
An example of the use of the suggested model is provided below. Six
typical solutions for occupational safety--all of which correspond to
occupational safety requirements established in regulatory
enactments--are analysed that could be used to protect workers from
falls into an elevator shaft during installation works (alternatives
[a.sub.i], i = 1, ... 6). In the investigated case, safety was ensured
with the help of protective fencing. One of solution alternatives
([a.sub.1]) is depicted in Figure 3. The other five alternatives have
slightly different technological and economic characteristics (Table 1).
The price for fencing materials of analysed solutions range from
LTL 8.88 to 156.80 (EUR 1 = LTL 3.4528). However, the price is not the
single criterion when selecting the best solution. Alternatives are
evaluated in terms of five criteria: [x.sub.1]--costs for installation
of the protective fencing, in man hours; [x.sub.2]--price for fencing
materials for one operational cycle, in LTL; [x.sub.3]--repeated use of
the protective fencing, in cycles; [x.sub.4]--area fenced, in [m.sup.2]
and [x.sub.5]--number of protective fencing elements, in units.
The initial decision matrix with data on all six solutions for
occupational safety is provided in the Table 1. Normalised
decision-making matrix (applying Eqns (1) and (2)) is presented in Table
2. Calculation of criteria weights according to Eqns (3)-(5) is provided
in Table 3.
Calculation steps when searching the optimal values of
[[lambda].sub.i] applying Eqns (10)-(13) are presented in Table 4.
Established relative significances [Q.sup.*.sub.i] (Eqn. 9) and
ranking order of alternatives are provided in Table 5.
Searching the increase of ranking accuracy and the effectiveness of
decisions, six typical solutions for occupational safety during elevator
shaft installation works were assessed applying WASPAS. Once the optimal
[[lambda].sub.i] values are determined, the availability as well as the
application in real life situations of six analysed alternatives should
be as follows: [a.sub.4] [??] [a.sub.1] = [a.sub.6] [??] [a.sub.2] [??]
[a.sub.3] [??] [a.sub.5].
Conclusions
When analysing occupational hazards and occupational safety at a
construction site, first, health and safety training of construction
workers was studied. It was stated that the growing number of accidents
at work is caused by the inefficiency of training rather than its
insufficiency.
The authors suggest improving health and safety training of all
construction workers and suggest using analysis of the catalogue of
typical solutions for occupational safety as an effective method.
Selection of a rational typical solution should be ensured. The
investigation revealed that typical solutions for occupational safety
are used in the field of road construction; however, they are intended
to protect third persons from accessing dangerous zones next to a
construction site rather than ensure health and safety of workers.
The importance of the appropriate use of safety solutions was
demonstrated when analysing occupational accidents related to excavation
of soil. The collected data revealed that cave-in cases in neither boxed
nor shored trenches usually occurred due to inappropriately excavated
trench slopes, which were too upright in comparison to standards, and
trench widths, which were about 20-80% less at the top in comparison to
standard/projected ones.
Construction companies are suggested to use catalogues of typical
solutions for occupational safety as they have a number of advantages,
including only tested safety solutions are used, and they can be further
improved with each next project, considering specific technical
protection measures used; construction companies may exchange catalogued
information and this way reduce the time required to design solutions
for occupational safety during preparation or adjustment of the
construction technology project.
It is suggested to select the optimal solution for every particular
case assessing several possible typical solutions and considering a
number of criteria and applying the entropy method for determining
relative significances of these criteria as well as WASPAS method for
multiple criteria ranking of alternatives.
A case study for selection of the optimal occupational safety
solution for fall-off and elevator shaft fall hazards is presented. The
best solution from six possible ones is selected considering a number of
important criteria.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3846/13923730.2013.812578
References
Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2011.
Measuring congruence of ranking results applying particular MCDM
methods, Informatica 22(3): 319-338.
Antucheviciene, J.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Zakarevicius, A. 2012.
Ranking redevelopment decisions of derelict buildings and analysis of
ranking results, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies
and Research 46(2): 37-62.
Bitarafan, M.; Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Arefi, S. L.; Zavadskas, E.
K. 2012. Evaluating the construction methods of cold-formed steel
structures in reconstructing the areas damaged in natural crises, using
the methods AHP and COPRAS-G, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 12(3): 360-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.06.015
Chen, L.-H.; Hung, C.-C.; Tu, C.-C. 2012. Considering the decision
maker's attitudinal character to solve multicriteria
decision-making problems in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment,
Knowledge-Based Systems 36: 129138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.knosys.2012.06.012
Choudhry, R. M. 2012. Implementation of BBS and the impact of
site-level commitment, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice 138(4): 296-304.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000111
Dejus, T. 2007. Accidents on construction sites and their reasons,
in Proc. of the 9th International Conference on "Modern Building
Materials, Structures and Techniques", 16-18 May, 2007, Vilnius,
Lithuania, 241-247.
Dejus, T. 2009. Dangerous factors while installing building
constructions and means to decrease their undesirable influence,
Engineering Structures and Technologies 1(2): 111-121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/skt.2009.14
Dejus, T. 2011. Safety of technological projects using
multicriteria decision making methods, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 17(2): 177-183.
Fouladgar, M. M.; Yazdani-Chamzini, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2012. Risk
evaluation of tunnelling projects, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 12(1): 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.03.008
Gannapathy, V. R.; Subramaniam, S. K.; Mohamad Diah, A. B.; Suaidi,
M. K.; Hamidon, A. H. 2009. Risk factors in a road construction site,
International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 4(8): 622-625.
Houtman, I. L. D.; Bakker, F. C. 1991. Individual differences in
reactivity to and coping with the stress of lecturing, Journal of
Psychosomatic Research 35(1): 11-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(91)90003-7
Huang, Q.; Shi, J. 2008. Optimizing work zones for two-lane urban
road maintenance projects, Tsinghua Science and Technology 13(5):
644-650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1007-0214(08)70103-2
Hung, Y. H.; Winchester, W W. III; Smith-Jackson, T. L.; Kleiner,
B. M.; Babski-Reeves, K. L.; Mills, T. H. III. 2013. Identifying
fall-protection training needs for residential roofing subcontractors,
Applied Ergonomics 44(3): 372-380.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.09.007
Instructions on Fencing of Road Worksites and Traffic Control
TDVAER 12. 2012. Lithuanian Road Administration under the Ministry of
Transport and Communications (in Lithuanian).
Instructions on Health and Safety at Construction Sites. 2000.
Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Lithuania (in Lithuanian).
Inyang, N.; Al-Hussein, M.; El-Rich, M.; Al-Jibouri, S. 2012.
Ergonomic analysis and the need for its integration for planning and
assessing construction tasks, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management ASCE 138(12): 1370-1376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000556
Jan, S. H.; Ho, P.; Tserng, H. P. 2008. Developing construction
safety-based e-learning management system, in Proc. of CIB W99
International Conference Evolution of and Directions in Construction
Safety and Health, 9-11 March, 2008, Gainesville, Florida, 311-319.
Kildiene, S.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2011. COPRAS based
comparative analysis of the European country management capabilities
within the construction sector in the time of crisis, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 12(2): 417-434.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.575190
Law on Public Procurement of Republic of Lithuania. No. X-471 of 22
December 2005.
Law on Safety and Health at Work of Republic of Lithuania. No.
IX-1672 of 1 July 2003.
Liaudanskiene, R.; Varnas, N.; Ustinovichius, L. 2010. Modelling
the application of workplace safety and health act in Lithuanian
construction sector, Technological and Economic Development of Economy
16(2): 233-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.15
Liu, P.; Zhang, X. 2011. Research on the supplier selection of a
supply chain based on entropy weight and improved ELECTRE-III method,
International Journal of Production Research 49(3): 637-646.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540903490171
MacCrimon, K. R. 1968. Decision making among multiple attribute
alternatives: a survey and consolidated approach. Rand Memorandum,
RM-4823-ARPA.
Miller, D. W.; Starr, M. K. 1969. Executive decisions and
operations research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 446 p.
Mitropoulos, P.; Memarian, B. 2012. Team processes and safety of
workers: cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes of construction
crews, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 138(10):
1181-1191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000527
Naujalis, J. 2009. Review of occupational health and safety in
2005-2008. Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Lithuania (in
Lithuanian).
Saparauskas, J.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2010. Evaluation of
alternative building designes according to the three criteria of
optimality, in Proc. of 10th International Conference "Modern
Building Materials, Structures and Techniques",19-21 May, 2010,
Vilnius, Lithuania, 519-523.
Saparauskas, J.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2011. Selection of
facade's alternatives of commercial and public buildings based on
multiple criteria, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management 15(2): 189-203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2011.586532
Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication, The
Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-432.
Shemshadi, A.; Shirazi, H.; Toreihi, M.; Terokh, M. J. 2011. A
fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for
objective weighting, Expert Systems with Applications 38(10):
12160-12167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.027
Silva, J. F.; Jacinto, C. 2012. Finding occupational accident
patterns in the extractive industry using a systematic data mining
approach, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 108: 108-122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.07.001
Staniunas, M.; Medineckiene, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Kalibatas, D.
2013. To modernize or not: ecologicaleconomical assessment of
multi-dwelling houses modernization, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 13(1): 88-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.11.003
Stankiuviene, A.; Cyras, P.; Vakriniene, S. 2008. Risk
identification in technical regulation, in Proc. of 7th International
Conference on "Environmental Engineering, 22-23 May, 2008, Vilnius,
Lithuania, 341 349.
STR 1.08.02:2002 Technical Construction Regulation
"Construction Works of Republic of Lithuania. 2002 (in Lithuanian).
Susinskas, S.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2011. Multiple
criteria assessment of pile-columns alternatives, Baltic Journal of Road
and Bridge Engineering 6(3): 145-152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2011.19
Tartilas, J. 2008. A critical approach to the labour safety
legislation, Jurisprudence 8: 13-17.
Teo, E. A. L.; Ling, F. Y. Y.; Ong, D. S. Y. 2005. Fostering safe
work behaviour in workers at construction sites, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management 12(4): 410-422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980510608848
Transportation Information Center. 2013. Work zone safety [online].
Guidelines for construction, maintenance, & utility operations,
University of Wisconsin-Madison [cited 2 January 3013]. Available from
Internet: http://epdfiles.engr.wisc.edu/pdf_web_files/tic/hand
books/WorkZoneSafety.pdf
Triantaphyllou, E.; Mann, S. H. 1989. An examination of the
effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a
decision-making paradox, Decision Support Systems 5(3): 303-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(89)90037-7
Wojcik, S. M. 2003. Performance and evaluation of small
construction safety training simulations, Occupational Medicine 53(4):
279-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqg068
Xie, H.; Tudoreanu, M. E.; Shi, W. 2012. Development ofa virtual
reality safety-training system for construction workers [online], [cited
27 November 2012]. Available from Internet:
http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/ff9b.content.00092.pdf
Yang, G. S.; Ju, J. 2012. The statistical analysis of safe behavior
habits culturing methods on construction workers, Applied Mechanics and
Materials 256-259: 3043-3048.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.256 259.3043
Ye, J. 2010. Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method using
entropy weights-based correlation coefficients of interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Applied Mathematical Modelling 34(12):
3864-3870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.03.025
Zavadskas, E. K.; Karablikovas, A.; Malinauskas, P.; Miksta, P.;
Nakas, H.; Sakalauskas, R. 2006. Technology of construction processes.
Vilnius: Technika. 547 p. (in Lithuanian).
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A.
2012. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment,
Electronics and Electrical Engineering 122(6): 3-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
Titas DEJUS, Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE
Department of Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT 10223 Vilnius,
Lithuania
Received 3 Jan. 2013; accepted 22 May 2013
Titas DEJUS. Doctor, Associate Professor at the Department of
Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University, Lithuania, and expert in occupational safety. Research
interests: occupational safety at building sites, the theory of multiple
criteria decision-making in practice and improvement of study process.
Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE. Doctor, Associate Professor at the
Department of Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University, Lithuania. Research interests: sustainable
development, construction business management and investment, multiple
criteria analysis, decision-making theories and decision support
systems.
Corresponding author: Jurgita Antucheviciene
E-mail:
[email protected]
Table 1. Initial decision-making matrix
Criteria [x.sub.1] [x.sub.2] [x.sub.3]
Optimum min min max
Alternatives [a.sub.1] 0.51 3.21 12
[a.sub.i] [a.sub.2] 0.24 4.57 4
[a.sub.3] 0.49 16.51 2
[a.sub.4] 0.12 0.74 60
[a.sub.5] 3.76 52.27 3
[a.sub.6] 0.06 4.44 2
Criteria [x.sub.4] [x.sub.5]
Optimum min min
Alternatives [a.sub.1] 0.96 9
[a.sub.i] [a.sub.2] 1.92 5
[a.sub.3] 3.52 7
[a.sub.4] 3.00 3
[a.sub.5] 13.02 22
[a.sub.6] 0.42 9
Table 2. Normalised decision-making matrix
Criteria [x.sub.1] [x.sub.2] [x.sub.3]
Alternatives [a.sub.1] 0.12 0.23 0.20
[a.sub.i] [a.sub.2] 0.25 0.16 0.07
[a.sub.3] 0.12 0.04 0.03
[a.sub.4] 0.50 1.00 1.00
[a.sub.5] 0.02 0.01 0.05
[a.sub.6] 1.00 0.17 0.03
Criteria [x.sub.4] [x.sub.5]
Alternatives [a.sub.1] 0.44 0.33
[a.sub.i] [a.sub.2] 0.22 0.60
[a.sub.3] 0.12 0.43
[a.sub.4] 0.14 1.00
[a.sub.5] 0.03 0.14
[a.sub.6] 1.00 0.33
Table 3. Determining of weights by means of entropy
Criteria [x.sub.1] [x.sub.2] [x.sub.3]
Level of entropy 0.71 0.63 0.49
[E.sub.j]
Variability level 0.29 0.37 0.51
[d.sub.j]
Criteria weights 0.20 0.25 0.34
[w.sub.j]
Criteria [x.sub.4] [x.sub.5]
Level of entropy 0.74 0.93
[E.sub.j]
Variability level 0.26 0.07
[d.sub.j]
Criteria weights 0.17 0.04
[w.sub.j]
Table 4. Searching the extreme of the function
Variances and [[sigma].sup.2] [[sigma].sup.2]
optimal values ([Q.sup.(1).sub.i]) ([Q.sup.(2).sub.i])
Alternatives [a.sub.1] 3.57E-05 2.95E-05
[a.sub.i] [a.sub.2] 1.66E-05 1.31E-05
[a.sub.3] 4.01E-06 2.57E-06
[a.sub.4] 4.74E-04 2.40E-04
[a.sub.5] 9.51E-07 4.99E-07
[a.sub.6] 1.74E-04 2.27E-05
Variances and [[lambda].sub.1]
optimal values
Alternatives [a.sub.1] 0.45
[a.sub.i] [a.sub.2] 0.44
[a.sub.3] 0.39
[a.sub.4] 0.34
[a.sub.5] 0.34
[a.sub.6] 0.12
Table 5. Relative significances and ranking order of
alternatives
Alternatives Optimal Relative Ranking
[[lambda].sub.i] significances order
[Q.sup.*.sub.i]
[a.sub.1] 0.45 0.23 2
[a.sub.2] 0.44 0.16 4
[a.sub.3] 0.39 0.07 5
[a.sub.4] 0.34 0.67 1
[a.sub.5] 0.34 0.03 6
[a.sub.6] 0.12 0.22 3
