A Risk Analysis and Ranking Application for Lifting Vehicles Used in Construction Sites with Integrated AHP and Fine-Kinney Approach

• Autorzy: Yilmaz Fatih , Ozcan Mehmet Selim

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12913/22998624/111779

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Risk scoring methods applied in risk assessments used in Turkey, differ from each other in terms of analysis methods, scoring the risks, presumption and sensitivity levels. This article aims to eliminate the effects of divergent results of different risk analyses of lifting equipments used in the building industry and develop a practical hybrid risk analysis and ranking method. In this study risks of lifting equipments used in the building industry were scored by conventional Fine-Kenney risk analysis method first. Secondly, with the experience of previous accidents on construction sites, the reasons of accidents were sorted into 7 main criteria, which being ‘Demographic’, ‘Behavioral’, ‘Machine Related’, ‘Working Environment Related’, ‘Economical’, ‘Administrative’ and ‘Organizational’ criteria and related sub-criteria. Developing these criteria was supported by the experience of inspections carried out by labour inspectors. The weighted scores of these criteria were calculated by AHP method using a questionnaire applied to 14 experienced labor inspectors. The weighted scores obtained by the analytical hierarchy process method (AHP) were multiplied by the scores obtained by Fine-Kinney risk assessment method and a new integrated risk assessment and ranking application was introduced. With this application, a different priority rank was created and which risk to be eliminated primarily was determined. Keywords: analytical hierarchy process, lifting equipments, fine-kinney, occupational health and safety, integrated risk analysis, ranking method

Słowa kluczowe

EN

analytical hierarchy process; lifting equipment; fine-kinney; occupational health and safety; integrated risk analysis; ranking method

PL

proces hierarchii analitycznej; urządzenia dźwigowe; sprzęt; bezpieczeństwo i higiena pracy; zintegrowana analiza ryzyka; metoda rankingu

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology ; Polish Society of Ecological Engineering (PTIE), Branch of PTIE in Lublin
• Czasopismo: Advances in Science and Technology. Research Journal
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 13, no 3
• Strony: 152--161
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 26 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Yilmaz Fatih

• Department of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Merkez Yerleske, 10200, Balikesir, Turkey

autor

Ozcan Mehmet Selim

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Besiktas, 34349, Istanbul, Turkey

Bibliografia

• 1. Abdelgawad M. and Fayek A. R. Risk management in the construction industry using combined fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE, 136(9), 2010, 1028-136.
• 2. Ahmadi M., Behzadian K., Ardeshir A. and Kapelan, Z. Comprehensive risk management using fuzzy fmea and mcda techniques in highway construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(2), 2017, 300-310.
• 3. Alkoc A. and Yilmaz F. Analysis of the risk arising from fire installations in manufacturing facilities by ranking method. Karaelmas Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 2 (1), 2018, 1-11.
• 4. Ardeshir A. and Mohajeri M. Assessment of safety culture among job positions in high-rise construction: a hybrid fuzzy multi criteria decision-making (FMCDM) approach. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 25(2), 2018, 195-206.
• 5. Fine W. T. Mathematical evaluation for controlling hazards. Journal of Safety Research, 3(4), 1971, 157-166.
• 6. Guozhong Z., Neng Z., Zhe T., Ying C. and Bingul S. Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and humid environments. Safety Science, 50, 2012, 228-239.
• 7. Gul M. and Celik E. Fuzzy rule-based Fine–Kinney risk assessment approach for rail transportation systems. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 24(7), 2018, 1786-1812.
• 8. Gul M., Guven B. and Guneri A.F. A new Fine- Kinney-based risk assessment framework using FAHP-FVIKOR incorporation. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 53, 2017, 3-16.
• 9. Gulsun B. and Yilmaz F. Calisma ortamina uygun zemin yapisinin cok kriterli karar verme yontemi (AHP) ile secimi. Uluslararası Hakemli İs Guvenligi ve Calisan Sagligi Dergisi, 1, 2016, 39-54.
• 10. Gurcanli E.G. and Mungen, U. An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 2009, 371-387.
• 11. Jovcić S., Prusa P. and Nikolicic S. Evaluation criteria of the belt conveyor using the AHP method and selection of the right conveyor by Hurwitz method. Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal, 12(2), 2018, 137-143. DOI: 10.12913/22998624/92092
• 12. Huang Y. F., Hsu K. H., Chein P. S. and Dong S. H. Discussing performance index of human resource valuation with AHP-occupational safety section in T company in Taiwan as the case study. Information Technology Journal, 10, 2011, 549-556.
• 13. Kim D. I., Yoo W. S., Cho H. and Kang K. I. A fuzzy AHP-based decision support model for quantifying failure risk of excavation work. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18, 2014, 1966-1976.
• 14. Kinney G. F. and Wiruth A. D. Practical risk analysis for safety management. Kaliforniya Naval Weapons Centre Technical Publication, 1976.
• 15. Kokangul A., Polat U. and Dagsuyu C. A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Safety Science, 91, 2017, 24-32.
• 16. Kuo Y.C. and Lu S.T. Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(4), 2013, 602–614.
• 17. Liu H.T. and Tsai Y. A fuzzy risk assessment approach for occupational hazards in the construction industry, Safety Science, 50, 2012, 1067-1078.
• 18. Pinto A., Nunes I.L. and Riberio R.A. Occupational risk assessment in construction industry – Overview and reflection. Safety Science, 49, 2011, 616-624.
• 19. Raviv G., Shapira A. and Fishbain B. AHP-based analysis of the risk potential of safety incidents: Case study of cranes in the construction industry. Safety Science, 91, 2016, 298-309.
• 20. Saaty L. T. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 1990, 9-26.
• 21. Saaty L.T. Multi criteria decision making: the analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
• 22. Sousa V., Almeida N.M. and Dias L.A. Risk-based management of occupational safety and health in the construction industry–Part 2: Quantitative model. Safety Science, 74, 2015, 184–194.
• 23. Taylan O., Bafail A.O., Abdulaal R.M. and Kabli M.R. Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 2014, 105–116
• 24. Yilmaz F. and Alp S. Underlying factors of occupational accidents: the case of Turkey. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 6, 2016, 1-10.
• 25. Wang W., Liu X. and Qin Y. A fuzzy Fine-Kinney-based risk evaluation approach with extended MULTIMOORA method based on Choquet integral. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 125, 2018, 111-123.
• 26. Zhao C.M., Lo S.M., Lu J.A. and Fang Z. A simulation approach for ranking of fire safety attributes of existing buildings. Fire Safety Journal, 39, 2004, 557–579.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).