Safety of technological projects using multi-criteria decision making methods/ Darbuotoju saugos statybvietese sprendiniu daugiatikslis vertinimas.
Dejus, Titas
1. Introduction
In the most general sense, construction is a human activity field
particularly closely related to the environment where the whole humanity
exists. Therefore, there is a natural desire to take care of the
environment creating (construction and building design, construction
stage) and actually using it (maintenance stage) while it is trying to
manage such a way that its elements, including people would be mutually
coherent and defined as harmonious construction development.
The business of construction is rather specific, and this partly
determines the specificity of work safety in enterprises (Dejus 2009a).
Because of specific construction features as a business type, work
safety in construction enterprises is more complex and complicated than
that in other companies.
In general, accidents on construction sites can also be classified
as the rejection of a safety control system of the company determined
applying various criteria--technical, technological, organizational and
other possible factors (Dejus 2007, 2008); any of adverse events on a
building site is associated with construction design in the broadest
sense, particularly with designing construction technology, including
safety in operation.
This article analyzes the construction technology project as a
safety standard document in Lithuania as planning conditions and as a
possibility of applying mathematical methods for safe work to prepare
construction and design stages.
2. Workplace Safety Design in Building Construction
Scientists from various countries pay huge attention to researching
work safety problems and reaching effective solutions.
The level of accidents in a certain sector of national economics is
assessed using the following information: the number of the employees of
the analyzed sector, the number of victims during accidents at work, the
frequency and hardness of accidents (Hola 2007, 2009, 2010).
Most accidents on construction sites occur when raising operations
of a mobile and tower crane. The authors of the article made research
and defined seven reasons for accidents (data of 1997-2003) (Beavers et
al. 2006).
Balance loss, collapse and falling from height are the main reasons
for injuries on residential construction sites in New Zealand (Bentley
et al. 2006). The article of Choudhry and Fang (2007) discusses the
reasons for unsafe work of constructors.
The main reason for all falls including falling from a roof is the
loss of balance. The principle goal of research is to overview the
present knowledge about activities connected with balance control when
working on the roof (working on the roof: roof construction, repair,
renovation, reinforcement). Many reasons for balance loss were defined
while analyzing the acquired information (Hsiao and Simeonov 2001).
The major principle factors of employees' injuries include the
collapse of construction where an employee stands, various slips, the
loss of balance etc. (Paine and McCann 2004; Husberg et al. 2005)
Peculiar dangers and prevention of them depend on a construction
site, constructions types, employees themselves and other factors. The
extension of practical solutions could help with decreasing the risk of
injuries (Spielholz et al. 2006).
Construction business in Singapore has been using Safety Management
System for 10 years (Teo and Ling 2006). However, the system does not
give any results. Therefore, there was a decision to check the
efficiency of the system. Safety Management System includes safety
policy, safety work practice, safety trainings, group meetings, accident
research and analysis, domestic rules of safety, analysis into a hazard
and other similar elements. The article describes the performance and
efficiency of each element.
The papers analyze automatization methods for safety systems
(Giretti et al. 2009), define the peculiarities of a safety system in
Nigeria (Idoro 2008) and road building in Shri-Lanka (Perera et al.
2009). Lithuanian scientists suggest assessing solution, to safety at
work (Liaudanskiene et al. 2009).
The articles by Zavadskas and Vaidogas (2008; 2009), Vaidogas and
Juocevicius (2008, 2009) analyze the peculiarities of industrial
accidents and suggest methods for forecasting accidents; these methods
could be used to conducting investigations into accidents at work and to
preparing project documentation.
Safety problems on construction sites also are studied in other
works by (Abudayyeh et al. 2003; Fredericks et al. 2005; Fung et al.
2008; Hinze et al. 2006; Mohan and Zech 2005).The performed researches
clearly shows that the problems of employee's safety at work are
typical in most countries.
However, the author failed to find the sources that would be
offered specifically for designing construction works; those include
construction planning and preparation of technological cards (TC--is the
main document of a technological project; works on a certain
construction site are performed in accordance with TC; labour safety
decisions are also provided) and the application and use of mathematical
methods to solve safety problems in other range.
To design building construction technology using traditional
methods, it seems to be normal to consider the following tasks: one or
more promising construction technologies and organization options are
selected according to the designer's view; technical and economic
criteria are determined one of which, as a rule, is project cost and
another is the duration of implementation that is always important for
the developer of the project while implementing a "rational"
technological-organizational version of the project; the specification
of the selected "rational" version is either performed or not.
The earlier presented algorithm design is acceptable to prepare a
construction technology project as the main and single safe work in a
particular regulatory document on the construction site and could be
applied if drawing attention to several features of project preparation.
The appendixes of Regulation (STR 1.08.02:2002) provide that the
contractor prepares the technology project of construction before
construction work begins. Project preparation, as mentioned in
Regulation (STR 1.08.02:2002), must be guided by design solutions to a
technical project; also, specific safety assurance solutions must be
submitted, but links or excerpts of occupational safety and health
regulation cannot be used as solutions kinds.
In general, the project of construction technology consists of
notes, a construction scheme of the situation, a site plan, a vertical
cross-section of construction with a crane, a timetable of construction
and technological cards (TC).
Annex 5 of the Rules (DT 5-00) states that specific design
solutions, determining technical means and work methods that ensure
safety and health, must be made in the technology project of
construction. These solutions cannot be replaced by references or
excerpts from safety and health legislation, regulation and technical
documentation referring only to an appropriate design solution.
To prepare design solutions, it is necessary to clarify dangerous
and harmful factors associated with work technology and conditions for
constructions, to specify their operational areas and to identify
hazard.
Changes in building conditions that affect safety and health as
well as the technology project of construction should be modified and /
or adjusted.
From the given information it can be concluded that the safety of
technology solutions to a construction project is very clearly and
unambiguously defined, and all attention on safety at work preparation
is concentrated on five risk factors--a fall from height, falls of
structures and products, injury of mechanisms and prevention from
electrocution and falling soil. These points are completely connected to
concluding (Dejus 2009a) hazard factors.
3. Evaluation Factors of Suggested Safety Solutions on Construction
Sites
As the construction technology project consists of a site plan and
technological cards (these documents indicate safety design solutions),
the criteria making up a comparable set of indicators to evaluate the
site plan, technological cards and the entire project may vary and be
diverse. Therefore, it is clear that project preparation can be
performed successfully only by the salvation of multicriteria
assignments.
Sarka et al. (2008) claims that multi-criteria mathematical methods
in various areas were begun to be regarded in the middle of the 20
century, when the first works were published (Churchman and Ackoff 1954;
Churchman et al. 1957; MacCrimmon 1968; Paelinck 1976; Hwang and Yoon
1981).
The chosen topic by Zavadskas (2008) was developed later (Kaplihski
2008a,b 2009; Peldschus 2008, 2009, 2010).
Next, the known multi-criteria methods were developed and the new
ones were created. The methodology of comparing variants was based on
the known and new multi-criteria methods (Kaklauskas et al. 2010;
Ustinovichius et al. 2007; Zavadskas et al. 2009a, 2009b, 2010;
Zavadskas and Turskis 2010; Brauers and Zavadskas 2010).
The created methods and methodologies in the analyzed articles were
used for engineering solutions to tasks (Zavadskas et al. 2009b;
Antucheviciene et al. 2010). Also, they were applied in various fields
of economy and business such as improving the process of work by
contract arrangement and contractor selection (Ustinovichius et al.
2009; Banaitiene et al. 2008), assessing construction technological
effectiveness or solving efficiency enlargement tasks using
technological and legal aspects (Podvezko et al. 2010; Turskis and
Zavadskas 2010).
The design of a technological project is completed at two stages:
designing a plan of a construction site and designing technological
cards.
When designing the plan of the construction site, danger zones are
determined (in accordance to Regulation (STR 1.08.02:2002), Section
1.1.3 p.) and the areas of hazardous zones are calculated.
Really dangerous areas on the construction site are as follows
(Dejus 2009a):
1. When difference in height is more than 1.3 m, there is the risk
of workers falling from high ceilings (on the whole perimeter), roof
structure around the periphery of stairs on all floors of building
structures (flight and landings around the periphery), openings in
overlays (holes in each floor all around the perimeter) and near
openings in vertical structures (such as doors to a balcony)--horizontal
projection of the length of a dangerous area.
2. There is risk that falling materials and construction can injure
the workers as such zones are about 510 meters width (depending on
building height) all around the building and near the openings of laps.
A danger zone consists of opening width and an additional 3 meters wide
zone of the entire perimeter of opening. The above-mentioned risk can be
controlled by collective security means--roofs, protective overlays or
decks. Therefore, options can be compared both by hazardous areas as
well as by how the area should cover the above-mentioned collective
security means.
3. Working (or moving) construction machinery is the risk of damage
to employees. In this case, an employee can be injured by a directly
moving construction of a mechanism (for example, by a dozer blade or
crane counterweight) or when an employee is injured by a mechanism
affecting the object--lifting load, pushing soil etc.
4. There are variants of the construction plan when there is risk
to injure people working close to a construction site rather than inside
it. In that case, a fence around a construction site is used which means
not only minimal price but also a lower risk of injuries to people who
are near to the construction site.
5. The matter of the offered model (Dejus and Viteikiene 2003) is
that risk is estimated employing only one attribute in the construction
company--finding a dangerous factor in a particular workplace or a means
of how to be protected from it. A comparison of regulations and real
situations is done establishing if means meets safety requirements. If
one requirement is not appropriate, risk is accepted as unacceptably
large, however, there is a way of risk reduction--it is necessary to
perform requirements for the standard mentioned above. In general, the
estimation of any object by one index is not comprehensive, and the
results of this estimation could distort realistically existing setting.
However, if attribute content was completed, the mentioned problems
would be avoided. Thus, professional risk that appears in a construction
company could be estimated by the performance of requirements for safety
standards, i.e. only by one attribute which is the answer to the
question if Law comply with requirements regulating the organization of
safety and its performance on a construction site (further--rate of
standard requirement performance SRPR). The complexity of the attribute
is hidden in the set of safety standard acts, which involves the
absolute majority of activity directions to construction workers.
The application of SRPR also has a disadvantage it is relatively
difficult to select "the most important" requirements for
standard acts and to do work essentially for an appropriate quality of
both construction and safety.
When explaining the concept of "the most important"
standard law requirements, it is possible to use the scheme of safe work
security on the construction site (Dejus 2009a).
6. While evaluating a construction plan from the point of view of
safety, other attributes can be applied (hardness of a construction site
is a quite subjective index because it is evaluated considering points
and can depend on such special factors as the number of working
mechanisms on the construction site, maximum height of means used at one
time, a vertical or horizontal projection of such means, cargo lifting
using two cranes, the used power of electrical tools and equipment,
technological width of cellar floor, the number of different collective
means of safety from falling, movement roads and the length of roads of
construction mechanisms, etc.)
Designing technological cards for construction work takes place
along with the projection of a construction site or follows it and
safety at work problems are considerably solved in the technological
card rather than making a plan for a construction site. At the same
time, there is certainty about technological cards. There should not be
alternative solutions to safety at work. The above mentioned
circumstances mean that for assessing the quality of the technological
card, other attributes of comparison are also available.
In addition, TC are prepared for performing separate works as
construction works are different in their technology and difficulty and,
certainly, in safety at work factors that influence employees at their
work places and workplace preparation peculiarities. Therefore, TC
solutions are made for a certain work place or work area.
The following solutions to safety at work are suggested:
1. The number of safety belts fastening places in one work area
should be as less as possible because while choosing technical safety
equipment, the priority is given for collective means of safety. Safety
belts are kept as an individual means of safety used for defending a
worker from falling from height and are irrational to make a collective
safety means at the place. Safety belts are personal protection measures
to protect a worker from falling from high places where installing
collective protection measures are not rational, the use of security
measures is single or takes only short-term, the risk of being affected
by hazardous agents has only one employee, the installation of
collective protection from a technological point of view is rather
complicated or impossible etc.
2. Technical accuracy of using platforms (ladders, planked floors
etc.) is a complex index because while finding out its significance, it
is necessary to evaluate the maximal number of factors connected with
technical accuracy of equipment--from manufacturer documentation to the
workers instructed at the work place about individual safety means and
work on platforms.
The above mentioned index of technical accuracy is closely related
to the spoilage of the used platform means (including individual and
collective safety means) that should be marked in TC. It is important to
mark certain activities of workers even when there is suspect that the
used equipment is not technically in a good working order.
3. A comparative attribute is expressed by dangerous factors acted
in a certain work area with a number of used technical safety means that
defend from the above mentioned factors. The introduced attribute should
not be less than 1 and should be looked at while choosing a scale of
attribute meanings.
4. The number of electrical and simple tools used at a work area is
an index that could be minimized having in mind that each tool generates
even one dangerous factor. There should be certain safety means for each
of the factors. Thus, in this case, we also use a reasoned principle of
minimization.
5. The evaluation of the safety of a construction plan and prepared
TC quality SRPR are used to finding out TC compliance with legislative
regulations and foreseeing the probability of accidents.
The presentation of prepared TC solutions influences TC realization
on a real construction site. In that case, we should use regulations
(Dejus 2009a) on using a 3D principle representing safety solutions to a
construction work project. 3D should be used when the suggested
solutions are presented on the work place plan where the same work place
layer, the third sketch showing the installation of technical safety
measures, the used element or knot, the image from the other side or
technical documentation (TC) transparency could be one of subjective TC
quality assessment indicators.
The quality of a construction technology project can be evaluated
according to the relationship of TC with the quantity of construction
work in a construction object calendar. Every work must be designed and
done in an appropriate way only after preparing appropriate TC.
Practice shows that a construction technology project or parts of
it are evaluated according to attributes 5-7 as in case there is a
bigger number of attributes. The meaning of each attribute becomes less
(Zavadskas et al. 2007) and influences the formation of a priority line.
The mathematical meanings of the above-mentioned attributes could
be used for making a solution matrix, which would let find out a
rational variant of a construction technology project or parts of it.
4. The Evaluation of the SAW Method for Safety Solutions to
Construction Sites
It is not important what kind of a multi-purpose mathematical
method is used for preparing a construction technology project. Thus, a
mathematical method, which is the most appropriate way for a counter, is
usually used. It means that counting formulas is not difficult as this
process does not require much time; a physical meaning of counting is
easily understandable and the obtained results are quiet reliable.
One of the reliable factors of multi-purpose mathematical methods
is method sensitivity (Zavadskas et al. 2007). Therefore, it is
recommended to use multi-purpose mathematical methods of low
sensitivity.
One of the applied methods is Simple Additive Weighting (SAW)
method (MacCrimmon 1968; Dejus 1992, 2009b) that is quite simple and
easily understandable.
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], (1)
where [[bar.X].sub.ij]--a normalised value of criteria;
[q.sub.j]--the weight of each criteria; i = 1, n--the number of
alternative; j = 1, m--the number of criteria.
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] if optimal is
min; (2)
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] if optimal is
max. (3)
The following condition (4) should be fulfilled:
[n.summation over (j=1)[q.sub.j] = 1. (4)
Three technological cards prescribed for one storey, one hole
building reinforced with concrete ceiling constructions (beams and
ceiling slabs) were prepared and compared.
In TC, work safety solutions including employees' fall from
height were produced.
Different schemes for three technological cards are designed. The
schemes are different not only because of work organization factors
(constructions are installed considering one, two and four positions of
a crane) but also due to employees' safety factors--the length of
barriers, the efficiency of raising equipment (from the work safety
point of view), sizes of hazardous zones, etc.
The evaluated criteria along with their numbers and meanings are
usually chosen by a decision maker; in this case, it is the author of
the article, though it is possible to apply experts' assessments.
Solution matrix X is made while dealing with the example presented
in Table 1.
The matrix of solutions is normalized according to appropriate
formulas and normalized matrix X is made and presented in Table 2.
For the rationality of the variant, the members of normalized
matrixes are multiplied by their meanings and summed up:
[A.sub.1] = 1 x 0.1 + 1 x 0.25 + 1 x 0.2 + 0.598 x 0.15 + 1 x 0.3 =
0.9397.
[A.sub.2] = 0.5 x 0.1 + 0.875 x 0.25 + 0.66 x 0.2 + 0.912 x 0.15 +
0.948 x 0.3 = 0.822.
[A.sub.3] = 0.5 x 0.1 + 0.43 x 0.25 + 0.66 x 0.2 + 1 x 0.15 + 0.886
x 0. 3 = 0.7055.
Counting discloses that the priority line is as follows: [A.sub.1],
[A.sub.2], [A.sub.3]. A rational variant is [A.sub.1].
5. Conclusions
In order to secure the safety of workers on a construction site it
is suggested:
1. To use different construction technology projects, start
evaluating the quality of safety in construction technology projects and
apply multi-criteria decision making methods.
2. When applying multi-criteria methods, use the suggested
efficiency attributes of solutions to work safety, including regulations
on acting norms (SRPR), the length of dangerous zones, the width of
zones where risk to be injured by several operating mechanisms may occur
and the width of zones that should be covered with collective security
measures protecting workers from the injuries caused by falling
substances or small structures.
3. When assessing the quality of a construction site plan
considering safety position, the indicators such as the area of the
building or construction that involve workers simultaneously working in
one vertical separated by a single ceiling slab and the number of
self-propelled machinery concurrently working on the construction site
are applied.
4. For the evaluation of solutions to work safety projected in TC,
the following attributes are used: the number of places along with
fitting safety belts in one work area, technical accuracy of platforms
(complex attribute) and the number of electrical and simple tools used
in a work area.
doi:10. 3846/13923730.2011.576809
References
Abudayyeh, O.; Federicks, T.; Palmquist, M.; Torres, H. N. 2003.
Analysis of occupational injuries and fatalities in electrical
contracting industry, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
ASCE 129(2): 152-158. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(152)
Antucheviciene, J.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Zakarevicius, A. 2010.
Multiple criteria construction management decisions considering
relations between criteria, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 16(3): 109-125. doi:10.3846/tede.2010.07
Banaitiene, N.; Banaitis, A.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.
2008. Evaluating the life cycle of building: A multivariant and multiple
criteria approach, Omega 36(3): 429-141. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2005.10.010
Beavers, J. E.; Moore, J. R.; Rinehart, R.; Schriver, W. R. 2006.
Crane-Related Fatalities in the Construction Industry, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 132(9): 901-910.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:9(901)
Bentley, T. A.; Hide, S; Tappin, D; Moore, D; Legg, S; Ashby, L;
Parker, R. 2006. Investigating risk factors for slips, trips and falls
in New Zealand residential construction using incident-centred and
incident-independent methods, Ergonomics 49(1): 62-77.
doi:10.1080/00140130612331392236
Brauers, W. K. M.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2010. Project management by
MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies, Technological and
Economic Development of Economy 16(1): 5-24. doi:10.3846/tede.2010.01
Choudhry, R. M; Fang, D. 2007. Why operatives engage in unsafe work
behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites, Safety Science
46(4): 566-584.
Churchman, C. W; Ackoff, R. L. 1954. An approximate measure of
value, Operations Research 2(2): 172-187. doi:10.1287/opre.2.2.172
Churchman, C. W; Ackoff, R. L; Arnoff, J. 1957. Introduction to
operations research. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 645 p.
Dejus, T. 1992. Gamybiniu pastatu montavimo daugiakriterine
selehonovacija [The multi-criteria evaluation of construction of
industry structures]. PhD Dissertation. Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University. 194 p.
Dejus, T. 2007. Accidents on construction sites and their reasons,
in Proc. of the 9th International Conference "Modern Building
Materials, Structures and Techniques", Vilnius, Lithuania, 16-18
May, 2007. Vilnius: Technika, 241-247.
Dejus, T. 2008. Stazuotes ataskaita [Intership report]. Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania. 138 p.
Dejus, T.; Viteikiene, M. 2003. The analysis of work safety systems
in construction companies, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 9(3): 116-122.
Dejus, T. 2009a. Pavojingi statybos konstrukciju irengimo veiksniai
ir priemones nepageidaujamam ju poveikiui mazinti [Dangerous actions
while installing building constructions and means to decrease their
undesirable influence], Engineering Structures and Technologies 1(2):
111-121.
Dejus, T. 2009b. Statybos procesu technologija: aiskinamasis
uzdavinynas [Construction technology. Explanatory task book]. Vilnius:
Technika. 209 p.
DT 5-00 Saugos ir sveikatos taisykles statyboje [Safety rules].
Approved by Labour Inspector Order No. 2000-12-22. 346 (with annexes).
2000.
Fredericks, T. K.; Abudayyeh, O.; Choi, S. D.; Wiersma, M.;
Charles, M. 2005. Occupational injuries and fatalities in the roofing
contracting industry, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
ASCE 131(11): 1233-1240. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:11(1233)
Fung, I. W. H.; Tam, V. W. Y.; Tam, C. M.; Wang, K. 2008. Frequency
and continuity of work-related musculoskeletal symptoms for construction
workers, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 14(3): 183-187.
doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.15
Giretti, A.; Carbonari, A.; Naticchia, B.; DeGrassi, M. 2009.
Design and first development of an automated real-time safety management
system for construction sites, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 15(4): 325-336. doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.325-336
Hinze, J.; Devenport, J. N.; Giang, G. 2006. Analysis of
construction worker injuries that do not result in lost time, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 132(3): 321-326.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:3(321)
Hola, B. 2007. General Model of Accident Rate Growth in the
Construction Industry, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
13(4): 255-264.
Hola, B. 2009. Methodology of estimation of accident situation in
building industry, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 9(1):
29-46.
Hola, B. 2010. Methodology of hazards identification in
construction work course, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
16(4): 577-585. doi:10.3846/jcem.2010.64
Hsiao, H.; Simeonov, P. 2001. Preventing falls from roofs: a
critical review, Ergonomics 44 (5): 537-561.
doi:10.1080/00140130110034480
Husberg, B. J.; Fosbroke, D. E.; Conway, G. A.; Mode, N. A. 2005.
Hospitalized nonfatal injuries in the Alaskan construction industry,
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 47(5): 428-133.
doi:10.1002/ajim.20158
Hwang, C. L.; Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making:
Methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. Springer Verlag,
Berlin. 259 p.
Idoro, G. I. 2008. Health and safety management efforts as
correlates of performance in the Nigerian construction in dustry,
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 14(4): 277-285.
doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.27
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Naimaviciene, J.; Krutinis, M.;
Plakys, V.; Venskus, D. 2010. Model for a complex analysis of
intelligent built environment, Automation in Construction 19(3):
326-340. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.006
Kaplinski, O. 2008a. Usefulness and credibility of scoring methods
in construction industry, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
14(1): 21-28.
Kaplinski, O. 2008b. Development and usefulness of planning
techniques and decision making foundations on the example of
construction enterprises in Poland, Technological and Economic
Development of Economy 14(4): 492-502.
Kaplinski, O. 2009. Information technology in the development of
the Polish construction industry, Technological and Economic Development
of Economy 15(3): 437-452.
Liaudanskiene, R; Ustinovicius, L; Bogdanovicius, A. 2009.
Evaluation of Construction Process Safety Solutions Using the TOPSIS
Method, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics (4): 32-40.
MacCrimmon, K. R. 1968. Decision making among multipleattribute
alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach, RAND Memorandum,
RM-4823-ARPA. 70 p.
Mohan, S.; Zech, W. 2005. Characteristics of worker accidents on
NYSOD construction project, Journal of Safety Research 36(4): 353-360.
Paelinck, J. H. P. 1976. Qualitative multiple criteria analysis,
environmental protection and multiregional development, Papers in
Regional Science 36(1): 59-74. doi:10.1007/BF01944375
Paine, D. M.; McCann, M. 2004. Evaluation of a Decking Fall
Protection System, Professional Safety 49(6): 40-43.
Peldschus, F. 2008. Experience of the game theory application in
construction management, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 14(4): 531-545. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.531-545
Peldschus, F. 2009. The analysis of the quality of the results
obtained with the methods of multi-criteria decisions, Technological and
Economic Development of Economy 15(4): 580-592.
doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.580-592
Peldschus, F.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J.
2010. Sustainable assessment of construction site by applying game
theory, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics 21(3): 223-237.
Perera, B.A.K.S.; Dhanasinghe, I.; Rameezdeen, R. 2009. Risk
management in road construction: the case of Sri Lanka, International
Journal of Strategic Property Management 13(2): 87-102.
doi:10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.87-102
Podvezko, V.; Mitkus, S.; Trinkuniene, E. 2010. Complex evaluation
of contracts for construction, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 16(2): 287-297. doi:10.3846/jcem.2010.33
Spielholz, P.; Davis, G.; Griffith, J. 2006. Physical Risk Factors
and Controls for Musculoskeletal Disorders in Construction Trades,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 132(10):
1059-1068. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1059)
STR 1. 08.02:2002. Statybos techniniai reglamentai [TC
regulations]. Organizacinis tvarkomasis reglamentas. Statybos darbai,
patvirtintas LR aplinkos ministro 2002-04-30 isakymu Nr. 211 (su
pakeitimais ir papildymais) [Organizing Steering regulation. Building
works. Approved by the Minister of Environment Order No. 2002-04-30. 211
(with improvements and additions)]. 2002.
Sarka, V.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Ustinovicius, L.; Sarkiene, E.;
Ignatavicius, C. 2008. System of project multicriteria decision
synthesis in construction, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 14(4): 546-565. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.546-565
Teo, E. A. L.; Ling, F. Y. Y. 2006. Developing a model to measure
the effectiveness of safety management systems of constructions sites,
Building and Environment 41(11): 1584-1592.
Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2010. A novel method for multiple
criteria analysis: grey additive ratio assessment (ARAS-G) method,
Informatica 21(4): 597-610.
Ustinovichius, L.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Podvezko, V. 2007. Application
of a quantitative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM-1) approach to
the analysis of investments in construction, Control and Cybernetics
36(1): 251-268.
Ustinovicius, L.; Barvidas, A.; Vishnevskaja, A.; Ashikhmin, I. V.
2009. Multicriteria verbal analysis for the decision of construction
problems, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 15(2):
326-340. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.326-340
Vaidogas, E. R.; Juocevicius, V. 2008. Sustainable development and
major industrial accidents: the beneficial role of risk oriented
structural engineering, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 14(4): 612-627. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.612-627
Vaidogas, E. R.; Juocevicius, V. 2009. Assessment of structures
subjected to accidental actions using crisp and uncertain fragility
functions, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 15(1): 95-104.
doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.95-104
Zavadskas, E. K. 2008. History and evolving trends of construction
colloquia on sustainability and operational research, Technological and
Economic Development of Economy 14 (4): 578-592.
doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.578-592
Zavadskas, E. K.; Vaidogas, E. R. 2009. Multiattribute selection
from alternative designs of infrastructure components for accidental
situations, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 24(5):
346-358.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2010. A new additive ratio assessment
(ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making, Technological and
Economic Development of Economy 16(2): 159-172. doi: 10.10.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J.
2009a. Multi-attribute decision-making model by applying grey numbers,
Informatica 20(2): 305-320.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Vilutiene, T. 2009b. Multic
riteria evaluation of apartment blocks maintenance contractors:
Lithuanian case study, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management 13(4): 319-338. doi:10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.319-338
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Dejus, T; Viteikiene, M. 2007.
Sensitivity analysis of a simple additive weight method, International
Journal of Management and Decision Making 8(5-6): 555-574.
doi:10.1504/IJMDM.2007.013418
Zavadskas, E. K.; Vaidogas, E. R. 2008. Bayesian Reasoning in
Managerial Decisions on the Choice of Equipment for the Prevention of
Industrial Accidents, Inzinerine Ekonomika--Engineering Economics (5):
32-10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2009.00593.x
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Vilutiene, T. 2010. Multiple
criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying
additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method, Archives of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering 10(3): 123-141.
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail:
[email protected]
Received 8 Mar. 2010; accepted 9 Febr. 2011
Titas DEJUS. Doctor, Associate Professor. Dept of Construction
Technology and Management. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania. PhD degree in 1991.
Reseach interests: the theory of multiple criteria decision-making in
practise, occupational safety at building sites, improvement of study
process. Author and co-author of more than 30 papers.
Table 1. Solution matrix X
[X.sub.1] [X.sub.2] [X.sub.3] [X.sub.4] [X.sub.5]
[A.sub.1] 1 7 2 346 97
[A.sub.2] 2 6 3 227 92
[A.sub.3] 2 3 3 207 86
q 0.1 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.3
Optimization min max min min max
direction
[X.sub.1]--the number of fitting places for safety belts;
[X.sub.2]--an evaluative coefficient of technical accuracy
for elevation means;
[X.sub.3]--the number of used equipment;
[X.sub.4]--the width of the danger zone of a crane, [m.sup.2];
[X.sub.5]--SRPR, marks until 100;
[A.sub.1], [A.sub.2], [A.sub.3]--alternatives/variant numbers;
q--weights of criteria.
Table 2. Normalized matrix [bar.X]
[[bar.X].sub.1] [[bar.X].sub.2] [[bar.X].sub.3]
[A.sub.1] 1 1 1
[A.sub.2] 0.5 0.875 0.66
[A.sub.3] 0.5 0.43 0.66
[[bar.X].sub.4] [[bar.X].sub.5]
[A.sub.1] 0.598 1
[A.sub.2] 0.912 0.948
[A.sub.3] 1 0.886