4.7 Article

Towards the development of a comprehensive hybrid fuzzy-based occupational risk assessment model for construction workers

Journal

SAFETY SCIENCE
Volume 115, Issue -, Pages 294-309

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.018

Keywords

Construction workers risks assessment; Interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers; Delphi technique; Multi-criteria decision-making method; Fuzzy best worst method; Risk decision matrix

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71472052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although some studies have focused on assessing the related risks to the workers involved in the construction activities, the developed models hitherto are tangled with some shortfalls, including unstructured ways of risks identification, low consistency and accuracy of the used analysis methods, and paucity of prudent evaluation strategies. These shortcomings lead to taking imprudent and inappropriate mitigative actions. As such, a Comprehensive Hybrid Fuzzy-based Occupational Risk Assessment Model (CHFORAM) is developed in this paper to systematically identify, analyze, and evaluate the risks to which the construction workers are exposed. The application of the developed CHFORAM to a real-life case study was observed to have the following contributions: obtaining a detailed list of critical risks posing danger to the workers in a stepwise manner, obviating the need for having statistical data associated with incompletion and uncertainty, analyzing the identified risks with improved consistency and accuracy, proposing the effective treatment strategies to deal with the risks, and providing future plans for dealing with the risks at post-treatment stage. The application of CHFORAM to any projects can guide the safety inspectors and managers in taking the further jauntier mitigative actions, leading to the improvement in safety and health of the involved workers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available