Systematic Review of Quantitative Risk Quantification Methods in Construction Accidents

被引:1
|
作者
Kumi, Louis [1 ]
Jeong, Jaewook [1 ]
Jeong, Jaemin [2 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Safety Engn, 232 Gongneung Ro, Seoul 01811, South Korea
[2] Univ Toronto, Dept Civil & Mineral Engn, 27 Kings Coll Cir, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
construction safety; accident risk analysis; quantitative methods; risk assessment; systematic review; artificial intelligence; SAFETY; MANAGEMENT; MODEL; INDUSTRY; CLASSIFICATION; INCIDENTS; BEHAVIOR; EVENTS; HEALTH;
D O I
10.3390/buildings14103306
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Construction accidents pose significant risks to workers and the public, affecting industry productivity and reputation. While several reviews have discussed risk assessment methods, recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and real-time decision support systems have created a need for an updated synthesis of the quantitative methodologies applied in construction safety. This study systematically reviews the literature from the past decade, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A thorough search identified studies utilizing statistical analysis, mathematical modeling, simulation, and artificial intelligence (AI). These methods were categorized and analyzed based on their effectiveness and limitations. Statistical approaches, such as correlation analysis, examined relationships between variables, while mathematical models, like factor analysis, quantified risk factors. Simulation methods, such as Monte Carlo simulations, explored risk dynamics and AI techniques, including machine learning, enhanced predictive modeling, and decision making in construction safety. This review highlighted the strengths of handling large datasets and improving accuracy, but also noted challenges like data quality and methodological limitations. Future research directions are suggested to address these gaps. This study contributes to construction safety management by offering an overview of best practices and opportunities for advancing quantitative risk assessment methodologies.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A Comparative Study on Tobacco Cessation Methods: A Quantitative Systematic Review
    Heydari, Gholamreza
    Masjedi, Mohammadreza
    Ahmady, Arezoo Ebn
    Leischow, Scott J.
    Lando, Harry A.
    Shadmehr, Mohammad Behgam
    Fadaizadeh, Lida
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2014, 5 (06) : 673 - 678
  • [22] The use of antimicrobials in global pig production: A systematic review of methods for quantification
    Lekagul, Angkana
    Tangcharoensathien, Viroj
    Yeung, Shunmay
    PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2018, 160 : 85 - 98
  • [23] REVIEW OF THE METHODS OF QUANTIFICATION
    TANAKA, Y
    ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 1979, 32 (OCT) : 113 - 123
  • [24] Risk and misfortune: A social construction of accidents.
    Gusfield, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 1998, 104 (02) : 589 - 590
  • [25] Risk and misfortune: The social construction of accidents.
    Lai, OK
    DISCOURSE & SOCIETY, 1998, 9 (02) : 284 - 286
  • [26] Risk assessments of contemporary accidents in construction industry
    Kraus, Michal
    9TH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BUILDING DEFECTS (BUILDING DEFECTS 2017), 2018, 146
  • [27] Analysis of Risk of Accidents of Construction in a Shopping Center
    Souza, Milena R.
    Vasconcelos, Bianca Ma
    Barkokebas, Beda, Jr.
    OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HYGIENE - SHO2013, 2013, : 522 - 524
  • [28] Risk and misfortune: the social construction of accidents.
    Bellaby, P
    SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS, 1998, 20 (01) : 112 - 113
  • [29] Survey of quantitative methods in construction
    Briskorn, Dirk
    Dienstknecht, Michael
    COMPUTERS & OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2018, 92 : 194 - 207
  • [30] Uncertainty Assessment in the Quantification of Risk Rates of Occupational Accidents
    Papazoglou, Ioannis A.
    Aneziris, Olga
    Bellamy, Linda
    Ale, B. J. M.
    Oh, Joy I. H.
    RISK ANALYSIS, 2015, 35 (08) : 1536 - 1561