DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Prioritization of Potential Technology for Establishing a Safe Work Zone Environment

안전한 도로 공사구간 환경 구축에 필요한 기술의 우선순위 선정

Kim, Jin Guk;Yang, Choong Heon;Yun, Duk Geun
김진국;양충헌;윤덕근

  • Received : 2015.08.26
  • Accepted : 2015.11.24
  • Published : 2015.12.15

Abstract

PURPOSES : This study prioritizes potential technology for establishing a safe work zone environment on roadways. We consider almost all conceivable technologies that enable mitigation of unexpected accidents for both road workers and drivers. METHODS : This study suggests a methodology to set the priority of potential technology for establishing a safe work zone environment by using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). For this purpose, the AHP structure was first developed. Thereafter, a web-based survey was conducted to collect experts' opinions. Based on the survey results, weights associated with the relevant criteria of the developed structure were estimated. With the consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR), we verified the estimated weights. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm whether the estimated weights were reliable. We finally proposed the priority for potential technology for establishing a safe work zone environment on roadways. RESULTS : In the first level, safety technology has the highest priority, and real-time information delivery for work zone, hazard warning for drivers, and temporal automated operation for traffic facilities were selected in the second level of hierarchy. CONCLUSIONS : The results imply that establishing the priority will be useful to establish a future road map for improving the work environment for road workers and drivers by employing appropriate protection facilities and developing safety systems.

Keywords

road work technology;work zone;analytical hierarchy process;priority;normalization;sensitivity analysis

References

  1. Ahmed Elmarakbi, Niki Fielding (2009). New Design of Roadside Pole Structure: Crash Analysis of Different Longitudinal Tubes using LS-DYNA. In the 7th European LS-DYNA Conference.
  2. Alberta Transportation (2007). Roadside Design Guide, Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation.
  3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1993). NCHRP Report 350.
  4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2002). Roadside Design Guide, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Washington, D. C.
  5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2010). Highway Safety Manual.
  6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2011). Roadside Design Guide 4th Edition.
  7. Byun et al. (2011), The Study on U-Service Priority for Low-Income People Using AHP, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 10, No. 1.
  8. CEN (2006). EN 1991-1-7 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part1-7.
  9. CEN (2006). EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part2:Traffic loads on bridges.
  10. CEN. (2007). Passive safety of support structures for road equipment requirements, EN 12767, European Committee for Standardization.
  11. Choi et al. (2009), Selection of Expressway Ramp Metering Sites and Priority Making, Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 29, No. 5D.
  12. Elmarakbi A., Sennah K., Samaan M. and Siyira P (2006). Crashworthiness of motor vehicle and traffic light pole in frontal collision. The ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132(9):722-733. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2006)132:9(722)
  13. Holguin-Veras (1995), Comparative Assessment of AHP and MAV in Highway Planning : CASE STUDY, Journal of Transportation engineering, Vol. 121, No. 2, pp. 191-200. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1995)121:2(191)
  14. Kim, K. and V. Bernardin (2000), Application of an Analytical Hierarchy Process at the Indiana Department of Transportation for Prioritizing Major Highway Capital Investments, Proceeding of the 7th TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, pp. 266-278.
  15. Kim et al. (2010), Methodology for Selecting Traffic Safety Warning Messages Using Analytical Hierarchical Process(AHP)-based Multi-Criteria Value Function, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 9, No. 4.
  16. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport(MOLIT). (2012). Manual for Traffic Management on Work Zone.
  17. Oh et al. (2005), Application of AHP to Select for Priority of Permanent Traffic Volume Survey Site, Korean Society of Road Engineers, Vol. 7, No. 4.
  18. Park et al.(2013), The Decision of Order Priority of HUD Contents for Public Transit, International J. Highw. Engineering Vol. 15 No. 1.
  19. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York.
  20. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1) : 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
  21. The national policy agency (2014). Statistics on Traffic Accidents in 2014 year.
  22. Yang et al. (2001), On Application of the GSIS and AHP in Determination of the Optimum Route, Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 21, No. 2D.
  23. Yang et al. (2012), Evaluation for Operational Efficiency of Road Management Equipment using Analytical Hierarchy Process, Korean Society of Road Engineers, Vol. 14, No. 5.
  24. Yang et al. (2013), Methodology for effective operation of road management equipment, Transport Policy, 30, pp. 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.09.008

Cited by

  1. Safety Performance Evaluations for the Vehicle Based Movable Barriers Using Full Scale Crash Tests vol.124, pp.2261-236X, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201712404002

Acknowledgement

Grant : 도로변 수직구조물 충돌사고 및 도로작업자 위험도 경감기술 개발 (1차년도)

Supported by : 국토교통부