Evaluating Tower Crane Safety Factors for a Housing Project through AHP 61

Evaluating Tower Crane Safety Factors

for a Housing Project through AHP
Debasis Sarkar* and Shreya Shah**

Abstract : Tower cranes have become one of the most important construction
equipments with rapid growth of real estate projects. Due to their
application flexibility, tower cranes can be used in complex construction
projects with ease. Use of this equipment increases the safety risk on
sites. This paper is an attempt to implement Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) tool to elicit knowledge from experts and formalize it into a set
of weighted safety factors. Evaluation of the safety factors and their
quantitative measurement would help in improving safety standards on
site. The case study addressed is a housing project site in Ahmedabad
developed by a renowned private developer. According to the analysis
by AHP for evaluation of safety factors for tower crane operations
environmental factors appears to be the most important factor affecting
the tower crane operations followed by safety management conditions,
human factors, and project conditions.

Keywords : Tower Cranes, Safety, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Housing Project

INTRODUCTION quantifying the safety hazards on construction site.

Tower cranes are powered electrically for noiseless
operation and suitable for congested urban
construction sites of both low and high-rise
structures. Contractors who were traditionally using
mobile cranes have started using tower cranes
increasingly on their sites. Therefore the need
arises to address safety issues concerning tower
crane operations as no such methods and tools
are developed to deal with them.
Most of the published literature addresses primarily
mobile cranes and only very little of it refers to
tower cranes. Kendrick (2010) stated that
knowledge of the potential risk serves as the first
and the best defense against problem and success
of the project. The safety risk assessment of project
provides concrete justification for necessary
changes in the project. Shapira and Simcha (2009)
used Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for
*Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction & Project Management, Faculty of Technology and **M.Tech Student, CEPT
University, Ahmedabad. Email : dsarkar@cept.ac.in
Sawhney and Mund (2001) used intellicrane
software for crane type selection and model
selection. This paper aims at evaluating the safety
factors affecting the tower crane operation for
housing projects in an urban locality like
Ahmedabad through AHP. Safety factors can also
be evaluated through Factor Comparison Method
(FCM) of value engineering. FCM is a method
for multi criteria decision making. Final decision
about the ranking of the factors under analysis
can be obtained from the decision matrix. Further,
Fuzzy AHP methodology can be applied to evaluate
the factors more precisely, which is a future scope
of this study.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Solving a problem through AHP comprises
following six steps.
62 NICMAR-Journal of Construction Management, Vol. XXVII, No. 2&3, April-June & July-Sept. 2012
(1) Identify The Problem And Goal Of The
Analysis
Shapira and Simcha (2009) identified the problem
as site safety due to tower crane operation.
(2) Hierarchy Construction
In this step, a list of attributes is generated. The
attributes are organized in a hierarchy-type structure
that reflects their mutual relationships. The highest
level of the structure consists of the primary goal
of the problem. A second-level attribute set includes
all of the secondary goals that together contribute
to achieving the primary goal. The second level
attributes are directly affected by all of the attributes
in the set located one level lower. Attributes with
no other attributes under them in the hierarchy
structure are termed as leaf attributes.
(3) Pair-wise Comparison
After mapping interrelationship between attributes
by the hierarchy, relative weights of the attributes
are determined by comparing them in pairs,
separately for each set in the hierarchy. The results
for each set are recorded in a separate comparison
matrix. When comparing attribute pairs, the
following must be determined:
Importance of two attributes is compared by giving
them numbers on a scale. Shapira and Simcha
(2009) used 1-9 scale as developed by Satty (1980)
to convert qualitative equations into quantitative
ones. Integers in comparison matrices that are
greater than 1 represent a higher degree of
importance attributed to the attribute in the row
relative to the attribute in the column. The
number 1 means that the two attributes compared
have equal importance.
(4) Synthesized Matrix
This matrix is obtained from the pair wise
comparison matrix. Each element of the
synthesized matrix is obtained by dividing the value
of the element of the pair wise comparison matrix
by their respective column total.
(5) Priority Vectors
The outcomes of synthesized matrix are priority
vectors. These are obtained by summing up the
elements in each row of the synthesized matrix
and then dividing by the number of elements in
that row. The highest value of the vector is given
the maximum priority.
(6) Relative Weight Computation
Several approximation methods can be used to
compute the eigenvector, of the comparison matrix,
of which the Average of Normalized Columns
(ANC) method is the most accurate. ANC
computation of vector Wi, the relative weight of
the attribute in row i which is an element of the
eigenvector w, for a reciprocal n x n matrix, is
as follows:
…… (1)
Where;
n = Number of rows or columns in a square
matrix
Wi = The relative weight of the attribute in
row i
aij = Element located in row i and column j
of the comparison matrix
akj = Element located in row k of any normalized
column i, j, k = 1,2,.. n
(7) Weighted Sum Matrix
The weighted factor elements of the weighted sum
matrix are obtained by multiplying each element
of the pair wise comparison matrix by their
respective priority vector. The weighted sum is
the summation of the elements row wise. The
Eigen Values (ë) are obtained from the following
relationship:
Eigen Value (ë) = Weighted Sum / Priority Vector
.........(2)
Evaluating Tower Crane Safety Factors for a Housing Project through AHP 63

ë max is considered as the mean of the values
as obtained from equation .......(2)
(8) Consistency Index (CI)
Consistency index is obtained from the following
relationship
Consistency index (CI) = (ë max - n) / (n-1) .... (3)
Where;
n = number of attributes
(9) Consistency Ratio (CR)
The consistency ratio CR is a measure for
controlling the consistency of pair wise
comparisons. Consistency Ratio (CR) is to measure
how consistent the judgments have been relative
to large samples of purely random judgments.
Value of consistency ratio should be less than 0.2
for more consistent judgments Byun (2000).
CR = CI / RC ……(4)
Where;
RC is the Random Consistency Index
(Appendix 1)
Mustafa and Al-Bahar (1991) in their research of
project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy
process stated the limitation of AHP that most
of the elements in the AHP model are intangibles
measured through judgment. As there is no other
way for their calibration, a fundamental way to
check the soundness of judgments elicited from
various experts is to calculate their consistency.
Another limitation of the AHP is that it only works
because the matrices are of the similar
mathematical form which is known as a positive
reciprocal matrix.
CASE STUDY
Case study considered for this research is a housing
complex in Ahmedabad developed by a private
developer. The project falls within Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation (AMC) limits and is easily
accessible from any part of the city. The project
is divided into three phases. Phase I consists of
19 towers with 12 floors in each tower. The tower
consists of 2 bedroom hall kitchen (BHK) of
approximately 1270 sq. ft, 3 BHK of approximately
2211 sq. ft and 3BHK + study room of
approximately 2253 sq. ft. apartments. Phase II
consists of total of 28 towers with 12 floors in
each tower and Phase III consists of 12 towers with
22 floors in 3 towers and 12 floors in remaining
9 towers. The tower height ranges from a
minimum height of 48 m and maximum of 88
m. Details of Phase wise distribution of towers
are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 : Phasewise Distribution of Towers of Housing Project

Name of Tower Number of Towers Type of Appartments

Phase I Phase II Phase III Total
ABC 4 nos of 2BHK + 3 nos. of
(12 floors per tower) 2 3 2 7 3BHK (2 BHK = 1270 Sq ft.,
3BHK = 2211 Sq.ft.)
DEF - - 3 3 3 nos of 3 BHK + Study
(22 floors per tower) room (2253 Sq. ft.)
PQR 13 - - 13 7 nos of 2BHK + 6 nos. of
(12 floors per tower) 3BHK
LMN - 6 7 13 7 nos of 2BHK + 6 nos. of
(12 floors per tower) 3BHK
XYZ 4 19 - 23 13 nos of 2BHK + 10 nos. of
(12 floors per tower) 3BHK
64 NICMAR-Journal of Construction Management, Vol. XXVII, No. 2&3, April-June & July-Sept. 2012

There are four numbers of tower cranes erected

A8 Sight distance and angle
on the site from different manufacturers. Model
of one crane is MC 115B, Potain (Manitowac) A9 Inconvenient work
conditions in
make, with installed height of 44m under the hook
operator’s cabin
and can be extended upto 146 m. The jib length
A10 Length of work shift
is 55m and load carrying capacity ranges from
A11 Poor ground condition
1.6 T to 6T. Two cranes are of model E2 18 B,
A12 Management condition
Potain (Manitowac) make, with installed height
A13 Project supervision
of 34.4 m under the hook and can be extended
A14 Operator Aids
upto 200m. The jib length is 45m and load carrying
capacity ranges from 1.8 T to 8 T. The fourth A15 Type of load and rigging
method
crane is 132 EC-H model, Liebherr make with
B Environmental Factors
installed height of 50.5 m under the hook and
B1 Wind Velocity
can be extended upto 200m. The jib length is
55m and load carrying capacity ranges from 1.45 B2 Weather
T to 8 T. B3 Visibility
B4 Temperature
Data was collected primarily from experts working
B5 Sand storm
on a housing project in the city of Ahmedabad.
B6 Seasonal rain
The project proposes to house over 13,000
B7 Unforeseen heavy rain
apartments and villas, large scenic landscaping,
open areas and vast commercial spaces. With the C Safety Management Conditions
help of knowledge elicitation from experts, C1 Presence of Health, safety
and environment
following factors affecting tower crane operation
department
were identified.
C2 Organization’s strict
safety policy
Table 2 : Factors Affecting Safety On Construction
Sites With Tower Cranes C3 Proper PPE
C o d e Factors Sub Factors C4 Site layout as per
affecting (Level 2) safety standards
Safety C5 Tool box meeting
(Level 1) C6 Certified lifting
supervisors
A Project Conditions
C7 Presence of safety
A1 Project Location
engineers and stewarts
A2 Project Duration C8 Safety training
A3 Project Cost programmes for crane
A4 Presence of obstacles operators
on site C9 Safety training
A5 Congestion in the programmes for signal
project site man and riggers
A6 Presence of power lines C10 Regular inspection of
A7 Presence of lifting devices like slings,
overlapping cranes shackles etc.
Evaluating Tower Crane Safety Factors for a Housing Project through AHP 65

C11 Inspection of crane by Knowledge elicitation by personal interviews was

third party favored over mailed questionnaires. As in case
C12 Permits before starting of of mailed questionnaires, the respondents conduct
crane operations only the minimum number of pair wise
C13 Crane inspection check comparisons to get perfect consistency ratio. For
lists example if the respondent determined that A=3B
C14 Integrity of crane safety and B=2C, it is assumed that he/she would also
devices such as load
determine that A=6C. The consistency ratio
indicator, angle indicator,
limit switches etc obtained in this way is not genuine. Therefore
C15 Adequate lighting during
a face to face interview was preferred.
the night shift Since the interviews were already lengthy due to
C16 Safety measures during the considerable number of comparisons required,
dismantling questionnaire was prepared in sets. The
C17 Failure of structural interviewees were asked to fill those sets first where
components of a crane their work profile matches. For example, the set
such as jib, connections
of “Safety Management Conditions” was used first
(bolts, pins) etc
for safety managers for better understanding.
C18 Preventive maintenance
management
Table 3 : 1 to 9 Scale Used For Comparisons Of
D Human Factors The Attributes (Satty, 1980)
D1 Crane operator’s license
validity Sr. Description Relative
No. Importance
D2 Crane operator’s
experience and proficiency 1 Equal importance 1
D3 Crane operator’s 2 Between equal
behavioral patterns and to moderate 2
mental capacity 3 Moderate importance 3
D4 Source of employment 4 Between moderate
(Permanent / Contractual to strong 4
employee) of the crane 5 Strong importance 5
operator
6 Between strong to
D5 Proficiency of the lifting very strong 6
supervisor
7 Very strong importance 7
D6 Proficiency of riggers
8 Between very strong
D7 Proficiency of signalman to extreme 8
D8 Use of multiple languages 9 Extreme importance 9
All the experts who filled the questionnaire were
ANALYSIS
experienced professionals. All were exposed to
extensive work with tower cranes throughout their An excel spread sheet was used for implementation
career. The company is recognized for its well- of AHP methodology. The computerized method
developed planning and management culture, and provided a platform for pair wise comparisons and
over the years has built the most ambitious building for all subsequent computations like priority
and engineering projects in the country. vectors, consistency ratios, aggregation of relative
66 NICMAR-Journal of Construction Management, Vol. XXVII, No. 2&3, April-June & July-Sept. 2012

weights, and final weights. Table 4 represents the Conditions” (A). Thus, the value of AB is inverse
pair wise comparison for safety factors A,B,C and of 4 or 1/4 = 0.25. Similar methodology is applied
D (Refer Table 2). to compute the other elements of the pair wise
comparison matrix. The synthesized matrix is
Table 4 : Pair Wise Comparison Matrix
obtained by dividing each element of the
For Safety Factors
comparison matrix by their respective column totals
A B C D (Refer Table 4). The first element (AA) of the
A 1.000 0.250 4.000 2.000 synthesized matrix has a value of 1/5.750 = 0.174,
the second element (AB) has a value of 0.25 /
B 4.000 1.000 7.000 5.000
1.593 = 0.157. Similar methodology is applied for
C 0.250 0.143 1.000 0.143 computation of the other elements of the matrix.
D 0.500 0.200 7.000 1.000 The priority vector of the synthesized matrix is
obtained by adding all the row elements and then
Column 5.750 1.593 19.000 8.143 dividing by the number of elements. The priority
Total vector of A = (0.174 +0.157+0.211+0.246) /4 =
The pair wise comparison matrix presented in 0.197. Similarly the priority vector of the other
Table 4 is an example outcome of pair wise elements B,C and D are computed. The score of
comparisons conducted by one interviewee for the priority vector gives an indication of the
factors in level 1 through questionnaire survey. importance of one element over other. The
The analysis for this paper is based on 25 responses element B (environmental factors) has a score of
each from Phase I, II and III of the project. The 0.577 which is highest and hence should be given
mean of 75 responses has been considered for the highest priority while formulating the risk
evaluating the safety factors through AHP. The mitigation measures. The synthesized matrix is
respondents were professionals associated with presented in Table 5.
tower crane operations and having adequate The elements of weighted sum matrix shown in
knowledge about safety practices in construction Table 6 are obtained by multiplying each element
sites. Four categories or factors making up the of the pair wise comparison matrix (Table 4) by
set at level 2 of the hierarchy were compared with their respective priority vector (Table 5). The first
respect to the primary goal level 2. As evident element AA is 1 x 0.197 = 0.197, the second
from the matrix, the interviewee has given element AB is 0.25 x 0.577 = 0.144. Similar
weightage of 4 (Degree of relative importance is methodology is applied for computation of the
between moderate to strong, Table 3) to other elements. Weighted sum is the summation
“Environmental Factors” (B) over “Project of the elements row wise. The weighted sum for

Table 5 : Synthesized Matrix For Safety Factors

A B C D Priority Vector
A 0.174 0.157 0.211 0.246 0.197

B 0.696 0.628 0.368 0.614 0.577

C 0.043 0.090 0.053 0.018 0.051

D 0.087 0.126 0.368 0.123 0.176

Evaluating Tower Crane Safety Factors for a Housing Project through AHP 67

Table 6 : Weighted Sum Matrix For Safety Factors

Eigen value ( ë ) =
Weighted
ë max Weighted Factors Weighted Sum /
Sum
Priority Vector

0.197 0.144 0.204 0.352 0.897 4.553

0.788 0.577 0.357 0.880 2.602 4.509
4.341 0.049 0.082 0.051 0.025 0.207 4.058
0.099 0.115 0.357 0.176 0.747 4.244
n 4
CI 0.114
RI 0.900
CR 0.127 < 0.2 O.K.

the first row (A) is 0.197 + 0.144 + 0.204 + 0.352
= 0.897. The Eigen values (ë) are obtained from
the following relationship as per equation (2).
Eigen Value (ë) for A is 0.897 / 0.197 = 4.553.
ë max is 4.341 which is considered as the mean of
4.553, 4.509, 4.058 and 4.244. The number of
attributes (n) being 4, the Consistency Index (CI)
is (4.341 – 4) / (4 – 1) = 0.114 (equation 3). Value
of random consistency index (RC) for n = 4 as
per Appendix 1 is 0.90. Thus, value of Consistency
Ratio (CR) as per equation (4) is 0.114 / 0.90 =
0.127 which is less than 0.2 and hence considered
as acceptable.
Table 7 shows the final weightage and rank given
to each factor and sub factors (Level 1 and 2)
depending upon the mean weights as obtained
from the analysis of responses from 25
questionnaires each from Phase I, II and III
respectively.
CONCLUSION
According to the analysis by AHP for evaluation
of safety factors for tower crane operations
Environmental Factors (B) appears to be the most
important factor affecting the tower crane
operations followed by Safety Management
Conditions (C), Human Factors (D) and Project
Conditions (A). The relative weightages of these
factors are 28.13%, 25.82%, 23.91% and 22.14%
respectively. Evaluation of the safety factors and
their quantitative measurement would help in
improving safety standards on site. Amongst the
environmental factors, wind velocity, occurrence
of sand storm, visibility during the tower crane
operations, seasonal and unforeseen rains, adverse
weather conditions and temperature need to be
taken care for smooth and safe tower crane
operations. Safety management condition factors
like presence of safety department, organization’s
strict safety policy, providing PPE, precautions
against failure of structural components, preventive
maintenance and permits before starting of crane
operations appear to be most important. Amongst
the human factors, the project authorities should
focus more on the proficiency of the riggers,
language and communication problem, crane
operator’s efficiency, validity of the license of the
crane operator, proficiency of the signalman and
proficiency of lifting supervisor. Amongst the
factors affecting the project conditions, the
presence of power lines, presence of overlapping
cranes and poor ground conditions should be given
utmost care. Though project location, cost and
duration have obtained relatively lesser weightages,
68 NICMAR-Journal of Construction Management, Vol. XXVII, No. 2&3, April-June & July-Sept. 2012

Table 7: Final Weightage And Their Ranks For Tower Crane Safety Factors

Average
Code Description Weightage Rank
(%)
B Environmental factors 28.13 1
C Safety management conditions 25.82 2
D Human factors 23.91 3
A Project conditions 22.14 4
A6 Presence of power lines 10.73 1
A7 Presence of overlapping cranes 10.51 2
A11 Poor ground condition 8.74 3
A13 Project supervision 8.49 4
A8 Sight distance and angle 7.54 5
A9 Inconvenient work conditions in operator’s cabin 7.45 6
A15 Type of load and rigging method 6.90 7
A14 Operator aids 6.85 8
A5 Congestion in the project site 6.67 9
A4 Presence of obstacles on site 6.03 10
A12 Management condition 5.25 11
A10 Length of work shift 5.19 12
A1 Project location 3.50 13
A3 Project cost 3.12 14
A2 Project duration 3.07 15
B1 Wind velocity 25.20 1
B5 Sand storm 18.76 2
B3 Visibility 17.05 3
B6 Seasonal rain 13.97 4
B7 Unforeseen heavy rain 12.70 5
B2 Weather 8.21 6
B4 Temperature 4.11 7
C1 Presence of health, safety and environment dept. 12.16 1
C2 Organization’s strict safety policy 9.71 2
C3 Provide personal protective equipments (PPE) 8.81 3
C17 Failure of structural components of a crane such as jib,
connections (bolts, pins) etc. 8.69 4
C18 Preventive maintenance management 7.86 5
C12 Permits before starting of crane operations 6.66 6
C13 Crane inspection checklists 6.57 7
Evaluating Tower Crane Safety Factors for a Housing Project through AHP 69

Table 7: Final Weightage And Their Ranks For Tower Crane Safety Factors (Contd...)

C6 Certified lifting supervisor 5.62 8

C11 Inspection of crane by third party 5.05 9
C14 Integrity of crane safety devices such as load Indicator,
angle indicator, limit switches etc. 4.97 10
C15 Adequate lighting during night shift 3.93 11
C10 Regular inspection of lifting devices like slings, Shackles etc. 3.78 12
C8 Safety training programs for crane operators 3.55 13
C9 Safety training programs for signal man and riggers 2.92 14
C5 Tool box meeting 2.74 15
C16 Safety measures during dismantling 2.64 16
C7 Presence of safety engineers and stewarts 2.30 17
C4 Site layout as per safety standards 2.04 18
D6 Proficiency of riggers 25.12 1
D8 Use of multiple languages 15.05 2
D4 Source of employment (Permanent / Contractual Employee)
of the crane operator 12.15 3
D2 Crane operator’s experience and proficiency 11.25 4
D3 Crane operator’s behavioral patterns and mental capacity 10.08 5
D1 Crane operator’s license validity 9.15 6
D7 Proficiency of signalman 9.05 7
D5 Proficiency of the lifting supervisor 8.15 8

but these factors should not be ignored. Also the REFERENCES

value of consistency ratio as obtained from the
analysis is 0.127 which is less than 0.2, hence the
model is considered to be acceptable.
SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
As the concept is generic, similar AHP models
can be developed for evaluation of safety and
operating factors for other construction
equipments. Further, evaluation of operating
factors and safety factors for tower cranes, mobile
cranes and other construction equipments can be
carried out more precisely with integrated fuzzy
AHP methodology.
Al-Harbi, K., “Application of the AHP in Project
Management”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 19-27, 2001.
Byun, D., “The AHP Approach for Selecting an
Automobile Purchase Model” Information &
Management, Vol. 38, pp. 289-297, 2000.
Kendrick, T., Identifying and Managing Project Risk,
2 nd Edition, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, 2010.
Mustafa, M. and Al-Bahar, J., “Project Risk Assessment
Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.
38, No. 1, pp. 46-52, 1991.
70 NICMAR-Journal of Construction Management, Vol. XXVII, No. 2&3, April-June & July-Sept. 2012

Saaty, T., “The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, 1st Shapira, A. and Simcha, M., “Measurement and
Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980. Risk Scales of Crane-Related Safety Factors
Sawhney, A. and Mund, A., “IntelliCranes: An on Construction Sites” Journal of Construction
Integrated Crane Type and Model Selection Engineering and Management, Vol. 135,
System” Construction Management and Economics, No. 10, pp. 979-989, 2009
Vol. 19, 2, pp. 227-237, 2001.
Shapira, A. and Simcha, M., “AHP-based Weighting
of Factors Affecting Safety on Construction
Sites with Tower Cranes” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 135,
No. 4, pp. 307-318, 2009.

Appendix 1 : Random Consistency Index (RC)

No. of Attributes Random Consistency Index

(n) (RC)
1 0.00
2 0.00
3 0.58
4 0.90
5 1.12
6 1.24
7 1.32
8 1.41
9 1.45
10 1.49
11 1.51
12 1.48
13 1.56
14 1.57
15 1.59