• Home
  • Selection of the Strategies for Responding the Environmental Risks of Construction Projects by Metaheuristic Algorithms (Case Study: Saba Construction Complex Project)

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : 14563 Visit : 237 Page: 61 - 76

10.22034/jest.2019.14563

Article Type: Original Research

Selection of the Strategies for Responding the Environmental Risks of Construction Projects by Metaheuristic Algorithms (Case Study: Saba Construction Complex Project)

Subject Areas : ارزیابی پی آمدهای محیط زیستی

Esmail cheraghi 1 * , Mohammad Khalilzadeh 2 , Amir Pooya Cheraghi 3 , Yaser Rahimi 4

1 - 1- PhD of Industrial Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. * (Corresponding Author)
2 - Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.
4 - 4- PhD of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Received: 2017-08-31 Accepted : 2017-11-22 Published : 2019-06-22

Keywords: Environmental risk management, Risk detection, Response to risk, Metaheuristic algorithm,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: Usually uncertainty and risk are the inherent characteristics of implementing large projects. This uncertainty leads to a significant failure of most of the country's projects in achieving their predetermined goals. Most of the previous studies have addressed environmental risk assessment. in this study a problem is proposed in the form of a linear integer programming optimization model to select appropriate risk responses to project risk with an environmental approach. Failure in accurately identifying the risks of construction projects, in addition to increasing the time and cost of final projects, leads to social, environmental and human damages. The aim of this study is to present a mathematical model for selecting the strategies to respond the environmental and occupational health risks according to IS0 14001-OHSAS 18001 standard of construction projects. Method: All environmental risks of the project are detected and a solution process is proposed using a mathematical model and NSGAII metaheuristic algorithm to obtain a more favorable strategy for responding the environmental risks of a building construction project with respect to time, cost and quality. Findings: The results showed that the appropriate strategies for responding the risks were chosen optimally and the risk management system in this project was properly implemented by applying the proposed mathematical model to the 10 significant environmental risks in the project identified by the FMEA method and the ISO 31000 standard which is related to 8 important and critical activities of the project based on the failure structure. Discussion and Conclusion: Selection of appropriate strategies for responding the risks of construction projects is one of the concerns of project stakeholders. For the first time, a metaheuristic algorithm was used to select the strategies for responding the HSE risk of construction projects. In Saba Tower, as a case study, all the risks affecting the environmental and occupational health debate were identified and appropriate risk response strategies were provided for each risk.  

References:

 

  1. Zuo J, Rameezdeen R, Hagger M, Zhou Z, Ding Z. Dust pollution control on construction sites: Awareness and self-responsibility of managers. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017 Nov 10; 166:312-20.
    2.
  2. Zayed, Tarek, Amer, Mohamed. and Pan, Jiayin. (2008). “Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP.” International Journal of Project Management, 26, 408–419.
    3.
  3. Zeng J, an M, Chan AHC. (2005). “A fuzzy reasoning decision making approach based multi-expert judgment for construction project risk analysis.” Proceedings of the twentyfirst annual conference. Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM). London, UK; pp. 841–52.
    4.
  4. Zeng, J., an, M., & Smith, N. J. (2007). “Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment.” International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 589–600.
    5.
  5. Zhang, Y. Fan, Z. (2013). An optimization method for selecting project risk response strategies, International journal of project management, vol XX, P X - X.
    6.
  6. Taylan, O, Bafail, A. O, Abdulaal, R. M, & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies, Applied Soft Computing, vol 17, P 105 – 116
    7.
  7. Seyedhoseini, S. M., Noori, S., and Hatefi, M. A. (2009). An integrated methodology for assessment and selection of the project risk response actions. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 752-763.
    8.
  8. Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2003). Project risk management: processes, techniques, and insights. Wiley.
    9.
  9. Miler, J. (2005). A method of software project risk identification and analysis. Technology. Gdansk University of Technology.
    10.
  10. Conrow, E. H. (2003). Effective risk management: Some keys to success. Aiaa.
    11.
  11. Hillson, D. (1999, October). Developing effective risk responses. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium (pp. 10-16).
    12.
  12. Boehm, B. W. (1991). Software risk management: principles and practices. IEEE software, 8(1), 32-41.
    13.
  13. Hillson, D. (2001, November). Effective strategies for exploiting opportunities. In Proceendings of Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium.
    14.
  14. Cooper, D. F. (2005). Project risk management guidelines: Managing risk in large projects and complex procurements. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    15.
  15. Wenxi, Z., & Danyang, C. (2009, October). Expressway management risk evaluation based on fuzzy neural networks. In Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, 2009. ICICTA'09. Second International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 700-703). IEEE.
    16.
  16. Zolfani SH, Pourhossein M, Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK. Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2017 Jan 13.
    17.
  17. Fan, M., Lin, N. P., & Sheu, C. (2008). Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: An analytical model. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 700-713.
    18.
  18. Zhang, Y., & Fan, Z. P. (2014). An optimization method for selecting project risk response strategies. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 412-422.
    19.
_||_

 

Reference

  1. Zuo J, Rameezdeen R, Hagger M, Zhou Z, Ding Z. Dust pollution control on construction sites: Awareness and self-responsibility of managers. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017 Nov 10; 166:312-20.
    2.
  2. Zayed, Tarek, Amer, Mohamed. and Pan, Jiayin. (2008). “Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP.” International Journal of Project Management, 26, 408–419.
    3.
  3. Zeng J, an M, Chan AHC. (2005). “A fuzzy reasoning decision making approach based multi-expert judgment for construction project risk analysis.” Proceedings of the twentyfirst annual conference. Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM). London, UK; pp. 841–52.
    4.
  4. Zeng, J., an, M., & Smith, N. J. (2007). “Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment.” International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 589–600.
    5.
  5. Zhang, Y. Fan, Z. (2013). An optimization method for selecting project risk response strategies, International journal of project management, vol XX, P X - X.
    6.
  6. Taylan, O, Bafail, A. O, Abdulaal, R. M, & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies, Applied Soft Computing, vol 17, P 105 – 116
    7.
  7. Seyedhoseini, S. M., Noori, S., and Hatefi, M. A. (2009). An integrated methodology for assessment and selection of the project risk response actions. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 752-763.
    8.
  8. Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2003). Project risk management: processes, techniques, and insights. Wiley.
    9.
  9. Miler, J. (2005). A method of software project risk identification and analysis. Technology. Gdansk University of Technology.
    10.
  10. Conrow, E. H. (2003). Effective risk management: Some keys to success. Aiaa.
    11.
  11. Hillson, D. (1999, October). Developing effective risk responses. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium (pp. 10-16).
    12.
  12. Boehm, B. W. (1991). Software risk management: principles and practices. IEEE software, 8(1), 32-41.
    13.
  13. Hillson, D. (2001, November). Effective strategies for exploiting opportunities. In Proceendings of Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium.
    14.
  14. Cooper, D. F. (2005). Project risk management guidelines: Managing risk in large projects and complex procurements. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    15.
  15. Wenxi, Z., & Danyang, C. (2009, October). Expressway management risk evaluation based on fuzzy neural networks. In Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, 2009. ICICTA'09. Second International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 700-703). IEEE.
    16.
  16. Zolfani SH, Pourhossein M, Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK. Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2017 Jan 13.
    17.
  17. Fan, M., Lin, N. P., & Sheu, C. (2008). Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: An analytical model. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 700-713.
    18.
  18. Zhang, Y., & Fan, Z. P. (2014). An optimization method for selecting project risk response strategies. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 412-422.
    19.

Related articles

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2025

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]