Variation in Accident Risk Level by Perspectives: Field and Management

This study identifies the risk level of accidents perceived by construction participants in utility trenching operations, which varies depending on their perspectives towards the risk of accidents. The probabilities of accidents in two major activities of utility trenching operations, “Excavation” a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:KSCE journal of civil engineering 2004-03, Vol.8 (2), p.157-163
1. Verfasser: Lee, Sang-Youb
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study identifies the risk level of accidents perceived by construction participants in utility trenching operations, which varies depending on their perspectives towards the risk of accidents. The probabilities of accidents in two major activities of utility trenching operations, “Excavation” and “Pipe-installation”, are estimated to measure the risk level of accidents based on the fuzzy logic based effect of the performance of the factors affecting safety performance on the risk of accidents. The sensitivity analysis of the probability of accidents by two perspectives of construction participants: field and management indicates that the two groups of perspectives show the same level of the risk of accidents in “Excavation”, while in “Pipe-installation”, the probability of accidents provided by the management perspective has a much higher value than that by the field perspective. This means there is a significant discrepancy between the perceptions of the two perspectives about the level of the accident risk in “Pipe-installation”, which might cause serious problems in implementing the safety programs for injuries and fatalities prevention in construction projects. This study intends to help construction participants make more appropriate decisions to ensure the safety of work activities by resolving the possible discrepancy between their perspectives.
ISSN:1226-7988
1976-3808
DOI:10.1007/BF02829115