Citation :

Pradeep Piplotiya, Vijay Shankul, "Multi-Criteria Decision Approach for Evaluating Fire Safety Strategies in Hazardous Material Intermodal Transfers," International Journal of Industrial Engineering, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 24-36, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23499362/IJIE-V13I2P103

Abstract

Current scenario gives a major challenge that arises during fire safety frameworks, which is the transportation and transfer of hazardous materials across intermodal facilities transparent. This research represents an integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach for the evaluation and selection of fire safety strategies in hazardous materials. The study majorily focuses on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution TOPSIS), and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHE) methodology to establish an effective decision support framework for safety. In fact, the identification of twelve primary fire safety evaluation it organized across four hierarchical categories: facility infrastructure, operational protocols, emergency response capability, and regulatory compliance. The evaluation enables the terminal managers and safety engineers to prioritize fire safety interventions with empirical accuracy. The application of blurred logic extensions to the AHP framework recognizes the uncertainty inherent in expert judgment and the real-world operational. Comparative analysis across the different levels of fire safety strategy alternatives determines that integrated MCDM approaches are superior in terms of ranking consistency and actionable insights related to traditional single-criterion assessment methods. The findings underscore the efficiency of systematic, multidimensional evaluation frameworks in hazardous material transfer operations where catastrophic events relate to the high consequences extended across the human safety, environmental impact, and operational continuity dimensions.

Keywords

AHP, Fire Safety, Hazardous Material, Intermodal Transfer, Promethee, Topsis.

References

1. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.
   [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Hazardous Waste Management System,” Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
   [Publisher Link]
3. Thomas L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
   [Publisher Link]
4. Ching-Lai Hwang, and Kwangsun Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications a State-of-the-Art Survey, 1^st ed., Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
5. J. Aczél, and T.L. Saaty, “Procedures for Synthesizing Ratio Judgments,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 93-102, 1983.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
6. Jean-Pierre Brans, and Ph. Vincke, “Note - A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision Making,” Management Science, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 647-656, 1985.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
7. James J. Buckley, “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 233-247, 1985.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
8. Jean-Pierre Brans, Bertrand Mareschal, and Ph. Vincke, “How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The Promethee Method,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228-238, 1986.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
9. Da-Yong Chang, “Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649-655, 1996.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
10. Jutta Geldermann, Thomas Spengler, and Otto Rentz, “Fuzzy Outranking for Environmental Assessment. Case Study: Iron and Steel Making Industry,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 45-65, 2000.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
11. International Maritime Organization, The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/dangerousgoods-default.aspx
12. Watchara Sattayaprasert et al., “Creating a Risk-based Network for Hazmat Logistics by Route Prioritization with AHP: Case Study: Gasoline Logistics in Rayong, Thailand,” IATSS Research, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 74-87, 2008.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
13. Deborah Blum, The Poisoner's Handbook, Penguin Press, 2010.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
14. Ozcan Kilincci, and Suzan Aslı Onal, “Fuzzy AHP Approach for Supplier Selection in a Washing Machine Company,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 9656-9664, 2011.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
15. Majid Behzadian et al., “A State-of the-Art Survey of TOPSIS Applications,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 13051-13069, 2012.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
16. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Chemical Safety and Biosafety, Paris, France, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/chemical-safety-and-biosafety.html
17. Mohammad Noureddine, and Milos Ristic, “Route Planning for Hazardous Materials Transportation: Multicriteria Decision Making Approach,” Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 66-85, 2019.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
18. World Health Organization, WHO Human Health Risk Assessment Toolkit: Chemical Hazards. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/human-health-risk-assessment-toolkit.pdf
19. Yijie Wang et al., “A Novel Fire Risk Assessment Approach for Large-Scale Commercial and High-Rise Buildings based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Coupling Revision,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 1-30, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
20. Jian Guo, and Cheng Luo, “Risk Assessment of Hazardous Materials Transportation: A Review of Research Progress in the Last Thirty Years,” Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 571-590, 2022.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
21. Liping Liu et al., “Risk Assessment of Hazmat Road Transportation Considering Environmental Risk under Time-Varying Conditions,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 18, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
22. Wirachchaya Chanpuypetch et al., “An Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Bamboo Product Evaluation and Selection in Rural Communities,” Decision Analytics Journal, vol. 12, pp. 1-18, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
23. Fire Engineering, Haz-Mat Emergencies Involving Intermodal Containers, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://www.fireengineering.com/firefighter-training/haz-mat-emergencies-involving-intermodal-containers
24. Association of American Railroads, Freight Rail Hazmat Safety, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.aar.org/issue/freight-rail-hazmat-safety/
25. Identec Solutions, Dangerous Goods Transport: Ensuring Safety in Container Shipping, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.identecsolutions.com/news/dangerous-goods- transport-ensuring-safety-in-container-shipping
26. Ade Gafar Abdullah, “Prioritizing Safety Aspects: Advanced Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection in Indonesia,” Journal of Sustainable Development and Environmental Welfare, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1-20, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
27. Afolabi Banu, Seyed Mojtaba Hoseyni, Joan Cordiner, “Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methodologies Applied to Hazard and Operability Studies in High-Hazard Industries,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 774-792, 2026.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]