SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA

Preprint 12-030
RISK RANKING IN TUNNELING PROJECTS WITH FUZZY ELECTRE METHOD
A. Yazadni-Chamzini, Islamic Azad Univ., Tehran, Iran

J. Brown, J. Reilly (2004) applied the cost and risk control for
tunneling and infrastructure projects. They identified the different kinds
of the risks as follows [2]:

ABSTRACT
Risk ranking of projects is one of the importance parts of the
complicated risk management procedure. Recognizing the riskiest
criteria enable the managers to plan for risk reduction. The first stage
for meeting this aim is defining the risky parameters and then working
to establish order between them. There are variety methods for risk
ranking. The ELECTRE method is one of the best among the multi
criteria decision making methods. In this paper with implementing the
fuzzy ELECTRE, The risky criteria in the Tehran Subway project are
being ranked. The result of this research presents damage and
accident of machineries as well as the lack of labor and equipment
safety is located in the first order. Collapse factors and local prices are
in second rank. Also wrong design, pollution, urban facilities
damageable are in third to fifth respectively. Delay and are located
in the last positions.

1234-

Damage risks with the potential of death and injury,

equipment and economical risks.
Lack of standards for designing operations, equipment and
quality.
The risk of a substantial delay in project expenditures.
The risk of major increasing in project expenditures.
Correspond E.h. Martin Herrenknecht, K. Bappler (2006)
evaluated the principal risks in merchandized tunneling in
the urban with complicated ground conditions [3]. K.
Shahriar et al (2008) assessed the forecasting of
geotechnical risk for selecting of TBM machine in hard
ground conditions [4].

M. M. Merad et al (2004) worked on the use of multi criteria

decision making for risky mining area [5].

INTRODUCTION
At present, there are few approaches which solve the group
ranking problem with multiple criteria in a widely acceptable way.
Often, they rest on a poor heuristic which makes a decision about
consensus ranking difficult to support. The ELECTRE III multicriteria
outranking methodology may assist a group of decision makers with
different value systems to achieve a consensus on a set of possible
alternatives.

Chungsik Yoo et al (2006) developed an IT based tunneling risk

management method (IT-TURISK); they employed the GIS and
artificial intelligent [6]. However the GIS is dominated in their work for
forecasting the tunneling risk. This system used in development of
Seoul Metro project.
H. H. Einstein (1996) analyzed risk in rock engineering [7]. Based
is on three applications: slope design, flow through fractured media
and tunneling. Heinz Duddeck (1987) worked of the risk forecasting
and its role in tunneling [8]. Three categories (function, structural and
contracting) and relationship between designing and engineering of
underground sub ways were employed in his work. The result was few
suggestion in the forecasting of risk to international tunneling society.

A large number of ``external'' variables plays a role in orienting

decision making. Some of these can be handled by numerical models
(economic cost-benefit analyses, market penetration strategies,
environmental impacts). Other aspects, concerning social and cultural
impact, political drawbacks, aesthetic aspects, etc., can be analyzed
only in a qualitative way, or are subjected to a not-objective judgment.
This paper aims of introducing a methodological tool able to
``organize'' and ``synthesize'' the large set of variables coming from
several specific judgments (or assessments) helping the ``decision
maker'' to read the complex problem, understand it and make choices
[1].

Yoo, Kim (2003) presented a web based system for forecasting

the tunneling risk impacts (TURISK) [9]. Via this the ground movement
and its impact on the neighborhood buildings have been analyzed.
This system has been developed for Daegu Metro. The result of this
study presents the web based TURISK enable to be employed as a
practical device for risk management in urban tunneling projects.

For the outranking relation theory, the ELECTRE methods are

one of the most extensively used outranking methods. To measure the
degree of agreement and the degree of disagreement of the
proposition one alternative outranks another alternative, the
concordance and discordance relations are usually associated with the
outranking relation .Instead of the traditional single-layer perceptron
(SLP) developed according to the multiple-attribute utility theory,

In many of the former studies for risk evaluation, only two criteria
were employed. In the other hand, since there is uncertainty in the
collected information, this risk should be taken into account.
Consequently fuzzy approach needed to meet this complicity. Due to
existing different criteria involved in risk ranking. It is a complicated
procedure.

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is one of the most widely

used decision methodologies in the sciences, business, government
and engineering worlds. MCDM methods can help to improve the
quality of decisions by making the decision-making process more
explicit, rational, and efficient.[1-2]

Since there are variety constrains in the projects because of

existing different sources such as labor, financial affairs, time and the
project managers are unable to overcome the risks involved. So,
before and during of the exercising the project they should be able to
identify and recognize the major risks and also omit the minor risks. In
this paper the fuzzy ELECTRE method has been applied to a real
case, Line 7 of Tehran Subway project.

Risk management is a systematic procedure that comprises

knowing the risk impacts, understanding the potential of damages
involved and sorting the importance of these impacts.

FUZZY APPROACH

The followings present different projects regarding to managing

the risks.

Fuzzy set was introduced by Zadeh in 1965 [10]. Fuzzy set theory
is a powerful tool to handle imprecise data and fuzzy expressions that
are more natural for humans than rigid mathematical rules and
equations [11].Since the decision makers are unable to determine the

Copyright 2012 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
exact weights of criteria and alternatives, they always face with the
uncertainty.

operationally [16]. These methods are one of the most extensively

used outranking methods [26,27].

Consequently using the fuzzy method is inevitable. One of the

kinds of fuzzy number is the triangle fuzzy number. That is shown as
follows:

There are two main parts to an ELECTRE application[28]: first the

construction of one or several outranking relations, which aims at
comparing in a comprehensive way each pair of actions; second, an
exploitation procedure that elaborates on the recommendations
obtained in the first phase. The nature of the recommendation depends
on the problem being addressed: choosing, ranking or sorting.

A% = (a ,a ,a )
1

Where a1<a2<a3 and a1, a2, a3 are crisp numbers, Figure (1) show
triangular fuzzy number. As usual fuzzy numbers define by their
membership function. The membership function is a fuzzy number
between Zero and One. The membership function of a number such as
A% is as following:
0,

( x a1 ) / ( a2 a1 ) ,
f ( x) =
( a3 x ) / ( a3 a2 ) ,
0,

AHP METHOD
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi attribute decisionmaking (MADM) technique [29]. The AHP method was first developed
by Saaty [30]. The AHP represents a potentially powerful and flexible
decision-making process to help set priorities and make the best
decision when both qualitative and quantitative aspects of a decision
need to be considered [31].

x< a
a1 < x < a2
a2 < x < a3

(1)

In a decisional process the making of choices derives from

complex hierarchical comparisons among alternative options, which
are often based on conflictual criteria [32]. The primary objective of
AHP is to identify an alternative out of a set of alternatives that best
satisfies a set of criteria. The criteria can be divided into subcriteria,
thus forming a hierarchical decision tree. In this manner, objectives
and alternatives are compared in a natural and pairwise manner.
Individual preferences are converted into ratio-scale weights that are
combined into linear additive weights for associated alternatives.
Decision makers can then use the resultant weights to rank
alternatives or forecast an outcome.

x > a3

In a multi criteria decision making problem with n criteria and m

alternatives, the ranking stages with fuzzy ELECTRE is defined as:
Step 1- Constructing a decision matrix
Figure 1. Showing a triangular fuzzy number.

The matrix is constructed as following:

Let A% =(a1,a2,a3) , B% =(b1,b2,b3) be two fuzzy numbers, so their

mathematical relations between expressed as:
A% (+) B% = (a1,a2,a3) (+) (b1,b2,b3)= (a1+ b1, a2+ b2, a3+ b3)
A% (-) B% = (a1,a2,a3) (-) (b1,b2,b3)= (a1- b3, a2- b2, a3- b1)
A% () B% = (a1,a2,a3) () (b1,b2,b3)= (a1b1, a2b2, a3b3)
A% () B% = (a1,a2,a3) () (b1,b2,b3)= (a1/ b3, a2/ b2, a3/ b1)

C1

C2

x%11
x%
21
D% = .

.
x%m1

x%12
x%22
.
.
x%m 2

. .

. Ck

. . . x%1n
. . . x%2 n
. . . .

. . . .
. . . x%mn

A1
A2
.
(2)

.
Am

i= 1,2, , m; j=1,2, , k

FUZZY ELECTRE METHOD

w% = [ w%1 , w% 2 ,..., w% k ] , j= 1, 2, , k

The Elimination et Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) method

was introduced by Benyamin et al (1966) [12]. The ELECTRE method
is a highly developed multi-criteria analysis model which takes into
account the uncertainty and vagueness in the decision process [13]. It
is based on the axiom of partial comparability [14]. The method uses
the concept of an outranking relations[15,16]. Outranking approaches
are not based on an underlying value function. The output of an
outranking analysis is not a value for each alternative but an
outranking relation specific to the set of alternatives. These methods
are applicable to discrete choice problems and they focus on pairwise
comparisons of alternatives [17].

Where

x%ij

w% j

is alternative score of A to C criteria, and

weight of J th criteria. So the language variables

x%ij

and

is

w% j are fuzzy

numbers.
Step 2- Normalization of fuzzy decision matrix (

N%

).

In this stage the items of decision matrix are normalized by fuzzy

method as follow:

The method uses concordance and discordance indexes to

analyze the outranking relations among the alternatives [18]. An
important advantage of using outranking methods (e.g., LECTRE
methods) is that they are able to take purely ordinal scales into
account [19], without needing to convert the original scales into
abstract ones with an arbitrary imposed range, thus maintaining the
original concrete verbal meaning.
The ELECTRE methods have a high potential for solving material
selection problems. The ELECTRE methods are included as the
follows:

xij min { xij }

rij =

max { xij } min { xij }

rij =

max { xij } min { xij }

min { xij } xij

The larger the better type

(3)

The smaller the better type

(4)

Step 3- construction of the weighted fuzzy decision matrix:

% matrix and the following equation the weighted

By using the w
fuzzy decision matrix is formed:

ELECTRE I [20], ELECTRE II [21], ELECTRE III [22], ELECTRE

IV [23], ELECTRE IS [24]. ELECTRE TRI [25]. However, all these
versions are based on the same fundamental concepts but differ

Copyright 2012 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
V% = N% W%

(5)

The agree domination matrix (

threshold amount that members of it determinate on base this relation:

Step 4 - Construction of concordance and non concordance

alternatives sets:

1
f ke =
0

In this step with having the weighted fuzzy decision matrix, and by
pair comparison of the alternatives this sets are constructed.
The concordance set (Ske) is a set of criteria in which the
alternative k is preferred to alternative e, and its complement set is non
concordance set (Ike). This formulated as follows:

%ej }

Ike = {j%kj

p %ej }
%ej }

Ike = {j%kj

f %ej }

k =1 e =1
k e e k

1
g ke =
0

(8)

hke = f ke .g ke

max %kj %ej

(14)

(15)

Step 10- Outranking relationships between alternatives

Superiority determinant matrix defines preferred alternatives. For
example if hke =1 it means, in both cases of concordance and
discordance, the alternative k is preferred to alternative e. However k
has chance to be preferred by other alternatives. Consequently, by
preferring the superior alternative than inferior one, the most
appropriated alternative is selected.

(9)

LINE 7 TEHRAN SUBWAY TUNNEL

Now a day with increasing the population and urban development,
the underground transportation system plays central role constructing
subways in the urban area are very critical and important comparison
with the other area.

max %kj %ej

jI ke

, d%ke d%

, d%ke < d%

The final domination matrix (h) yield multiplication one to one

components of the agree domination matrix in the disagreeing
domination matrix, it is as following:

Each element of the discordance is identified as follow:

d%ke =

g ke ) form with regard to the

Step 9- formatting the final domination matrix.

The discordance matrix defines as follow:

D=

(13)

agreement threshold amount that member of it determinate on base

this relation:

Step 6- Forming the discordance matrix

d%12 L d%1m

d%21 L d%2 m
M
M
M

d%
%

m1 d m 2

d%ke
m(m 1)

The disagreeing domination matrix (

(7)

The index of concordance is sum of weighted alternatives in the

set. So each element of the set is defined as the fuzzy sum of all
alternatives in the concordance set. This matrix is:

C=

D% =

(6)

Step 5- Constructing the concordance matrix:

c%12 L c%1m
%

c21 L c%2 m
M
M
M

c%m1 c%m 2

(12)

The disagreeing domination matrix also account by a threshold

amount to judge about the best priority. The threshold amount is
average of the disagreeing matrix elements. It is as following:

With negative index:

Ske = {j%kj

, c%ke c%

, c%ke < c%

Step 8- formatting the disagreeing domination matrix.

With positive index:

Ske = {j%kj

f% ) form in order to the agreement

The line 7 underground in Tehran is one of the most important

routs in Tehran. The line 7 of Tehran Metro is starting from Amir-olmoemenin area in Tehran east and then in Navab highway its direction
change on the north-south direction and this direction continue to Kaj
square. Can the line 7 of this tunnel divide to two parts east-west and
north-south (figure 2)

(10)

jJ

Step 7- formatting the agree domination matrix.

In order to format the agree domination matrix should account the
agree values with regard to a threshold amount for the most priority put
under the judge. The threshold amount is the average of agree matrix
elements. In other hand:
m

C% =
k =1 e =1
k e ek

c%ke
m(m 1)

(11)

Figure 2. Line 7 tunnel of Tehran metro.

Copyright 2012 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
In this research for identifying the risk involved in this project, the
brain storming method used via FEMA (Failure Modes and Effect
Analysis) forms. The number of 55 risks that could effect on the project
was recognized. Among these the 9 main risks (collapse, delay, wrong
design, lack of safety, accident and breaking down, local prices,
environmental pollution, equipment damage, urban installations) that
could have a substantial impact on the project were selected Via the
expert views.

Table 6. Agree and disagree sets.

The results presented in the table 1 (see Appendix). In this

ranking the four uncertainty indices, the uncertainty (with positive
effect), the effect on the project aim (with negative effect), possibility
(with negative effect) and reaction (with positive effect) were employed
for ranking the 9 risk parameters. Figure 3 shows analytical hierarchy
of problem. For determining the weight and importance factor of each
alternatives have been used the opinions of expert.

Figure 3. Formation of decision hierarchy.

For obtaining the credibility indices and showing the strength of
outranking relation under which the specified alternative outranks the
other alternatives, a questionnaire form designed and handed in to the
some experts. One of these forms presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Sample of filled questionnaire by an expert.
Risk
A1 A2 A3 A4
A5
A6
A7
Criteria

A8

A9

VH

VH

VH

Uncertainty (%) M

Ability

VL

VH

VH

Effect on
project goal

VH

VH

VH

Possibly (%)

Relation

Disagree

Agree

Relation

Disagree

Agree

A1 TO A2
A1 TO A3
A1 TO A4
A1 TO A5
A1 TO A6
A1 TO A7
A1 TO A8
A1 TO A9
A2 TO A1
A2 TO A3
A2 TO A4
A2 TO A5
A2 TO A6
A2 TO A7
A2 TO A8
A2 TO A9
A3 TO A1
A3 TO A2
A3 TO A4
A3 TO A5
A3 TO A6
A3 TO A7
A3 TO A8
A3 TO A9
A4 TO A1
A4 TO A2
A4 TO A3
A4 TO A5
A4 TO A6
A4 TO A7
A4 TO A8
A4 TO A9
A5 TO A1
A5 TO A2
A5 TO A3
A5 TO A4

{1,2}
{3}
{3,4
{3,4
{4
{}
{}
{1,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{4}
{1,4}
{1,4}
{1,2}
{3,4}
{1,4}
{4}
{4}
{4}
{1,4}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1}
{1}
{2}
{1}
{1}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{2}
{2,3}

{ 3,4}
{1,2,4}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2,3}
{1,2,3,4}
{1,2,3,4}
{2,3}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2,3}
{2,3}
{3,2}
{3,4}
{1,2}
{2,3}
{1,2,3}
{1,2,3}
{1,2,3}
{2,3}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{2,3,4}
{2,3,4}
{1,3,4}
{2,3,4}
{2,3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{1,4,3}
{1,4}

A5 TO A6
A5 TO A7
A5 TO A8
A5 TO A9
A6 TO A1
A6 TO A2
A6 TO A3
A6 TO A4
A6 TO A5
A6 TO A7
A6 TO A8
A6 TO A9
A7 TO A1
A7 TO A2
A7 TO A3
A7 TO A4
A7 TO A5
A7 TO A6
A7 TO A8
A7 TO A9
A8 TO A1
A8 TO A2
A8 TO A3
A8 TO A4
A8 TO A5
A8 TO A6
A8 TO A7
A8 TO A9
A9 TO A1
A9 TO A2
A9 TO A3
A9 TO A4
A9 TO A5
A9 TO A6
A9 TO A7
A9 TO A8

{2}
{2}
{2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,2,3}
{2,3,4}
{1,3,4}
{2}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,3,4}
{1,2}
{1,3}
{3,4}
{1,3,4}
{1,3,4}
{1}
{1}
{1,2,3,4}
{1,2,3}
{1,2,3}
{2,3,4}
{1,3,4}
{3,4}
{2,3}
{1,2,3}
{2,3}
{2,3}
{2,3}
{2,3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{2,3}
{}

{1,3,4}
{1,3,4}
{1,3,4}
{3,4}
{4,3}
{3,4}
{4}
{1}
{2}
{1,3,4}
{3,4}
{3,4}
{2}
{3,4}
{4,2}
{2,1}
{2}
{2}
{2,3,4}
{2,3,4}
{}
{4}
{4}
{1}
{2}
{1,2}
{1,4}
{4}
{1,4}
{1,4}
{1,4}
{1}
{1,2}
{1,2}
{1,4}
{1,2,3,4}

Step 5: the agreement matrix. Total weight for this purpose with
the criteria that have been agreed in the collection, Matrix agreed to be
the result. The resulting agreement matrix as Table7 (see Appendix) is
obtained
Step 6: The opposite matrix. The resulting matrix against is given
in Table 8.

Step 1: Form the decision matrix that is represented as fuzzy has

been showed in Table 3 (see Appendix).

Table 8. The opposite matrix.

% ). At this stage, using

Step 2: Normalize fuzzy decision matrix ( N
a normal phase normal by making the decision matrix and the result I
paid a table 4 is presented.
Step 3: determine the fuzzy decision matrix significant weight.
Weight standards with the result that the experts of the following:

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A1

0.00

0.05

0.65

1.00

1.00

0.75

0.00

0.00

0.42

A2

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

A3

1.00

0.25

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.68

0.38

0.43

A4

0.41

0.23

0.17

0.00

0.67

0.08

0.03

0.08

0.41

(WC1=0.123, WC2=0.061, WC3=0.35, WC4=0.46)

A5

0.40

0.11

0.16

1.00

0.00

0.08

0.25

0.05

0.32

By multiplying weight in normalized fuzzy matrix, fuzzy weighted

decision matrix is obtained (Table 5, see Appendix).

A6

1.00

0.22

0.49

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.35

0.08

0.82

A7

1.00

0.35

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.24

1.00

Step 4: The collection and opposition agreed criteria. In this

stage, having the weighted fuzzy decision matrix to compare the two
options until both agree to set and opposed to the result (Table 6).

A8

1.00

0.33

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

A9

1.00

0.21

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.65

0.00

0.00

Copyright 2012 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
Step 7: The dominated agree matrix (Table 9).

fuzzy method is unavailable. In this paper with implementation of the

conventional fuzzy ELECTRE method the risks involved in the tunnel 7
project is being ranked. This research presents two agents the
breaking down and vehicle accidents and unsafe of labor and
equipment should locate in the managers agenda to reduce their
effect.

Table 9. The dominated agree matrix.

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9

A1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1

A2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1

A3
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

A4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

A5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

A6
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0

A7
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

A8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

A9
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
-

REFERENCES
[1]

Beccali. M., Cellura, M., Ardente, D., (1998), Decision making in

energy planning: the ELECTRE multicriteria analysis approach
compared to a fuzzy-sets methodology, Energy Convers. Mgmt,
Vol. 39, pp. 1869-1881.

[2]

Reilly, J., Brown, J. (2004), Management and control of cost and

risk for tunneling and infrastructure projects, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 19, 330.

[3]

Herrenknecht, E.h.M., Bappler, K. (2006), Mastering risks during

mechanized excavation in urban centers with highly complex
ground conditions, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 21, 260.

[4]

Shahriar. K., Sharifzadeh, M., Hamidi, J.Kh., (2008), Geotechnical

risk assessment based approach for rock TBM selection in
difficult ground conditions, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 23, 318325.

[5]

Merada, M.M., Verdel, T., Roy, B., Kouniali, S., (2004), Use of
multi-criteria decision-aids for risk zoning and management of
large area subjected to mining-induced hazards, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 19, 125138.

[6]

Yoo, Ch., Kim, J.H., (2003), A web-based tunneling-induced

building /utility damage assessment system: TURISK, Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 18, 497511.

Step 9: the final dominance matrix. By multiplying the opposition

and dominate the agree dominance matrix, the matrix dominated the
final Table 11 are obtained.

[7]

Einstein, H.H. (1996), Risk and risk analysis in rock engineering,

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Volume 11,
Issue 2, pp. 141-155.

Table 11. The final dominance matrix.

[8]

Duddeck, H., (1987), Risk assessment and risk sharing in

tunnelling, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages 315-317.

[9]

Chungsik Yoo, Jeon, Y.W., Choi, B.S., (2006), IT-based tunnelling

risk management system (IT-TURISK) Development and
implementation, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
21, pp. 190202.

Step 8: The dominated opposition matrix (Table 10).

Table 10. The dominated opposition matrix.

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9

A1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

A1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

A2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

A2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1

A3
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0

A3
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

A4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

A4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

A5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

A5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

A6
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0

A6
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0

A7
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0

A7
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0

A8
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

A8
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

A9
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
-

A9
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
-

[10] Zadeh, L. A (1965), Fuzzy set, Information and control, 8: 338353.

[11] Vahdani, B., Hadipour, H., (2010), Extension of the ELECTRE
method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets, Soft Comput.
[12] Papadopoulos, A., Karagiannidis, A. (2008).Application of the
multicriteria analysis method Electre III for the optimisation of
decentralised energy systems, Omega, Vol 36, Issue 5, pp. 766776.

Step 10: Select the best option. According to the matrix

dominated the final option to failure and accident risk of machinery and
safety of workers and equipment located in the first rank. Options
related to hair loss and price - the second local options to have the
wrong design, environmental pollution, and damage to urban facilities,
respectively the third and fifth priorities are. Options of late and
equipment failures are located in the last priority.

[13] Chen, C.T., Hung, W.Z., (2008), Applying Fuzzy Linguistic

Variable and ELECTRE Method in R&D project Evaluation and
Selection, IEEE, pp. 999-1003.
[14] Roy, B., Vanderpooten, D., (1997). An overview on "The
European school of MCDA: Emergence, basic features and
current works", European Journal of Operational Research, vol.
99 , pp. 26-27.

CONCLUSION
Managing the risk in the projects with high level of investment
such as tunneling projects plays a central role. One of the main steps
in risk management is the evaluating the risk. Also ranking of risks is
one of the most important parts of risk evaluation.

[15] Selection of a Machine Tool for FMS Using ELECTRE III A Case
Study. The 5th Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science
and Engineering. Bangalore, India, August 22-25, 2009 pp 171176

In fact the aim of risks ranking is dealing with the most important
risk among them because of limitation of financial resources. The multi
branches decision methods are the well known methods for ranking
the criteria. Also due to existence the uncertainties in ranking of
alternatives and criteria by decision makers as well as considering the
high ability of fuzzy approach facing with uncertainties, the using of

[16] Cavallaro, F., (2010). A comparative assessment of thin-film

photovoltaic production processes using the ELECTRE III
method. Energy Policy 38: 463474.

Copyright 2012 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
[17] Almeida, A.T., (2007), Multicriteria decision model for
outsourcing contracts selection based on utility function and
ELECTRE method, Computers & Operations Research , vol. 34,
pp. 3569 3574.

[24] Yu, W., (1992). Electre Tri, Aspects Methodologiques et Manuel

d,Utilisation, Document du Lamsade 74, Universite Paris
Dauphine.
[25] Doumpos, M., Zopounidis, C., (2002). Multicriteria Decision Aid
Classification Methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

[18] Martel, J.M., Roy, B., (2006). Analyse de la signifiance de

diverses procdures dagrgation multicritre. INFOR 44 (3),
119215.

[26] Yoon, K.P., Hwang, C.L., (1995). Multiple Attribute Decision

Making: An Introduction, Sage Publications, London.

[19] Roy, B., (1968), Classement et choix en prsence de points de

vue multiples (la method ELECTRE), R.I.R.O., 8: 5775.

[27] Sawadogo, M., Anciaux, D., (2009). Intermodal transportation

within the green supply chain: an approach based on the
ELECTRE method. IEEE 2009, pp. 839-844

[20] Roy, B., Bertier, P., (1973), La mthode ELECTRE II Une

application au media- planning, M. Ross (Ed.), OR 72, 291-302,
North Holland, Amsterdam.

[28] Alpay, S., Yavuz, M., (2009). Underground mining method

selection by decision making tools. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology 24: 173184.

[21] Roy, B., (1978), ELECTRE III: algorithme de classement bas sur
une reprsentation floue des prfrences en prsence des
critres multiples, Cahiers du CERO, 20: 3-24

[29] Kazakidis, V.N., Mayer, Z., Scoble, M.J., (2004). Decision making
using the analytic hierarchy process in mining Engineering.
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) Vol. 113, pp. 3042.

[22] Roy, B., Hugonnard, J.C., (1982), Ranking of suburban line

extension projects on the Paris metro system by a multicriteria
method, Transportation Research Part A: General, 16(4): 301
312.

[30] Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Mistretta, M. (2003). Decision-making in

energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional
level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renewable
Energy 28: 20632087.

[23] Roy, B., Skalka, J., (1984). Electre IS, Aspects Methodologiques
et Guide d,Utilisation. Document du Lamsade 30, Universite Paris
Dauphine.

[31] Saaty, T.L., (1980), Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,

New York.

Copyright 2012 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
APPENDIX
Table 1. Probably risks and signs.
Ground
Financial
Conditions
stability
operations
problem
Procedure error
Collapse
Delay
status
Risk number
A1
A2
Table 3. Fuzzy decision matrix.
A1
A2
C1 0.41 0.56 0.71 0.35 0.50
C2 0.47 0.63 0.78 0.55 0.70
C3 0.35 0.50 0.65 0.55 0.70
C4 0.61 0.76 0.90 0.20 0.36

Local and physical problems Accidents and Break downs

Contractor

Wrong
Design
A3

Lack of labor and Accidents and

equipment safety Break downs
A4
A5

Local
prices
A6

Environmental
pollution
A7

Equipments
break down
A8

Utilities
Damage
A9

0.70
0.63
0.30
0.56

0.85
0.78
0.45
0.71

A4
0.75
0.41
0.00
0.75

0.90
0.56
0.10
0.90

1.00
0.71
0.25
1.00

A5
0.47
0.00
0.15
0.75

0.63
0.21
0.30
0.90

0.78
0.37
0.45
1.00

A6
0.68
0.15
0.35
0.68

0.83
0.30
0.50
0.83

0.95
0.45
0.65
0.95

A7
0.75
0.47
0.47
0.55

0.90
0.63
0.63
0.70

1.00
0.78
0.78
0.85

A8
0.61
0.20
0.75
0.55

0.76
0.36
0.90
0.70

0.90
0.51
1.00
0.85

A9
0.15
0.35
0.68
0.55

0.30
0.50
0.83
0.70

0.45
0.65
0.95
0.85

Table 4. Normalized fuzzy decision matrix.

A1
A2
A3
C1 0.30 0.48 0.66 0.24 0.41 0.59 0.47 0.65
C2 0.56 0.74 0.91 0.65 0.82 1.00 0.56 0.74
C3 0.35 0.50 0.65 0.55 0.70 0.85 0.15 0.30
C4 0.51 0.70 0.87 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.26 0.45

0.82
0.91
0.45
0.64

A4
0.71
0.48
0.00
0.69

0.88
0.66
0.10
0.88

1.00
0.84
0.25
1.00

A5
0.38
0.00
0.15
0.69

0.56
0.24
0.30
0.88

0.74
0.44
0.45
1.00

A6
0.62
0.18
0.35
0.60

0.80
0.35
0.50
0.78

0.94
0.53
0.65
0.93

A7
0.71
0.56
0.47
0.44

0.88
0.74
0.63
0.63

1.00
0.91
0.78
0.81

A8
0.54
0.23
0.75
0.44

0.72
0.42
0.90
0.63

0.88
0.60
1.00
0.81

A9
0.00
0.41
0.68
0.44

0.18
0.59
0.83
0.63

0.35
0.76
0.95
0.81

Table 5. Weighted decision matrix.

A1
A2
C1 0.05 0.14 0.30 0.04 0.12 0.26
C2 0.00 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.08 0.25
C3 0.19 0.35 0.55 0.30 0.49 0.72
C4 0.38 0.63 0.87 0.00 0.18 0.39

A3
0.07
0.00
0.08
0.19

0.19
0.07
0.21
0.40

0.37
0.23
0.38
0.64

A4
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.52

0.26
0.07
0.07
0.79

0.45
0.21
0.21
1.00

A5
0.06
0.00
0.08
0.52

0.17
0.02
0.21
0.79

0.33
0.11
0.38
1.00

A6
0.09
0.00
0.19
0.45

0.24
0.04
0.35
0.71

0.42
0.13
0.55
0.93

A7
0.11
0.00
0.26
0.33

0.26
0.07
0.44
0.56

0.45
0.23
0.66
0.81

A8
0.08
0.00
0.41
0.33

0.22
0.04
0.63
0.56

0.40
0.15
0.85
0.81

A9
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.33

0.05
0.06
0.58
0.56

0.16
0.19
0.81
0.81

Table 7. The agreement matrix.

A1
A2
A1
- 0.65 0.80 0.93
A2 0.08 0.20 0.35 A3 0.28 0.40 0.55 0.65 0.80 0.93
A4 0.65 0.80 0.93 0.65 0.80 0.93
A5 0.65 0.80 0.93 0.65 0.80 0.93
A6 0.65 0.80 0.93 0.65 0.80 0.93
A7 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.65 0.80 0.93
A8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.45 0.50
A9 0.45 0.60 0.73 0.45 0.60 0.73

A3
0.45
0.08
0.65
0.73
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.45

0.65
0.20
0.80
0.95
0.45
0.50
0.45
0.60

0.85
0.35
0.93
1.15
0.50
0.63
0.50
0.73

A4
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.45
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08

0.20
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.15

0.35
0.35
0.35
0.73
0.23
0.35
0.23
0.23

A5
0.08
0.08
0.28
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08

0.20
0.20
0.40
0.85
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.20

0.35
0.35
0.55
1.05
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.35

A6
0.35
0.08
0.35
0.65
0.73
0.00
0.08
0.08

0.55
0.20
0.55
0.85
0.95
0.05
0.20
0.20

0.78
0.35
0.78
1.05
1.15
0.13
0.35
0.35

A7
0.73
0.08
0.35
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.45
0.45

1.00
0.20
0.55
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.60
0.60

1.28
0.35
0.78
1.15
1.15
1.15
0.73
0.73

A8
0.73
0.35
0.35
0.65
0.73
0.65
0.65
0.73

1.00
0.55
0.55
0.85
0.95
0.80
0.85
1.00

1.28
0.78
0.78
1.05
1.15
0.93
1.05
1.28

A9
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.38
-

0.40
0.40
0.40
0.85
0.80
0.80
0.85
0.45
-

0.55
0.55
0.55
1.05
0.93
0.93
1.05
0.50
-

0.65
0.85
0.85
0.51

A3
0.55
0.47
0.15
0.41

Groups involved in Project

Designer

Copyright 2012 by SME