Advancing Tunnel Safety Management: A Simple and Adaptable Method for Comprehensive Evaluation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Karaj Urban and Suburban Railway Organization

2 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

3 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Gonabad

Abstract

Unique challenges are presented by tunnel safety, requiring a practical and adaptable evaluation method. To address this need, a comprehensive safety index was developed in this study. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used with a panel of 43 experts to assign evidence-based weights to seven key safety categories. The results show that ‘Traffic Management and Surveillance’ (24%), ‘Emergency and Rescue Management’ (21%), and ‘Tunnel and Road Geometry’ (19%) are the most critical factors. The model was then validated through a case study of the Shohada-ye-Gaza Tunnel in Tehran, which scored 5.85, corresponding to a “Mean” safety level. Specific weaknesses were successfully pinpointed by the evaluation, demonstrating its utility as a diagnostic tool. Furthermore, it was confirmed by a sensitivity analysis that a 30% improvement in the ‘Traffic management and traffic surveillance’ category would raise the tunnel’s classification to “Good.” A validated, straightforward framework is provided by this research, enabling authorities to not only benchmark tunnel safety but also to strategically allocate resources for targeted improvements

Keywords

References

  1. World Road Association. (2001). Safety in Tunnels Transport of Dangerous Goods through Road Tunnels: Transport of Dangerous Goods through Road Tunnels. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
  2. Siang, L. Y., Ghazali, F. E. M., Zainun, N. Y., & Ali, R. (2017). General risks for tunnelling projects: An overview. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1892. doi:10.1063/1.5005730.
  3. Liu, H. (2023). Safety state evaluation method of the highway tunnel structure. Heliyon, 9(6). doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17537.
  4. Calvi, A., De Blasiis, M. R., & Guattari, C. (2012). An Empirical Study of the Effects of Road Tunnel on Driving Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 53, 1098–1108. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.959.
  5. Huang, Z. (2023). Different spatio-temporal dimensions of urban traffic congestion. PhD Thesis, The University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong), Hong Kong, China.
  6. World Road Association. (2023). Transport of Dangerous Goods through road tunnels: Quantitative Risk Assessment Model. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
  7. Meng, Q., Qu, X., Yong, K. T., & Wong, Y. H. (2011). QRA Model-Based Risk Impact Analysis of Traffic Flow in Urban Road Tunnels. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1872–1882. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01624.x.
  8. Domaneschi, M., Casciati, S., Catbas, N., Cimellaro, G. P., Inaudi, D., & Marano, G. C. (2020). Structural health monitoring of in-service tunnels. International Journal of Sustainable Materials and Structural Systems, 4(2/3/4), 268. doi:10.1504/ijsmss.2020.109085.
  9. Qiu, D. H., Qu, C., Xue, Y. G., Zhou, B. H., Li, X., Ma, X. M., & Cui, J. H. (2020). A comprehensive assessment method for safety risk of gas tunnel construction based on fuzzy bayesian network. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 29(6), 4269–4289. doi:10.15244/pjoes/115979.
  10. Zhao, Y., Wang, N., & Liu, Z. (2022). An Established Theory of Digital Twin Model for Tunnel Construction Safety Assessment. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(23), 12256. doi:10.3390/app122312256.
  11. Beard, A. N. (2010). Tunnel safety, risk assessment and decision-making. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 25(1), 91–94. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2009.07.006.
  12. Document 32004L0054. (2004). Directive 2004/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network, Brussels, Belgium.
  13. S. (2013). Standardization and Safety Improvement in the Road Tunnels. Master Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.
  14. Oraee, K., Hosseini, N., & Gholinejad, M. (2009). A new approach for determination of tunnel supporting system using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). 9th Underground Coal Operators' Conference. University of Wollongong, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Wollongong NSW, Australia.
  15. Pyakurel, A., & Adhikari, B. R. (2025). Tunnel safety evaluation in the Nepal Himalaya: a case study of utilising analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for comprehensive risk assessment. Discover Civil Engineering, 2(1), 1–16. doi:10.1007/s44290-025-00221-z.
  16. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2001). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer, New York, United States. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1665-1.
  17. Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108(1), 165–169. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0.
  18. Saaty, T. L. (1979). Optimization by the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Defense Technical Information Center. doi:10.21236/ada214804.
Contributions of Science and Technology for Engineering
Volume 3, Issue 1
February 2026
Pages 20-30

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 July 2025
  • Revise Date: 26 September 2025
  • Accept Date: 08 October 2025
  • First Publish Date: 14 October 2025
  • Publish Date: 12 February 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics