Abstract
The current practice of safety management in bridge construction depends on the voluntary effort of the contractors and relevant government agencies. Due to varying degree of experience and knowledge of the inspectors, results of bridge inspection could not be analyzed in a systematic and consistent way. This study focuses on the use of Fault tree and Bayesian-network to analyze and generate a risk analysis model for falling risk in Precasting Prestressing Segmental Bridges Construction Method. After comparing the risk analysis model with the traditional inspection method, it is found that the risk analysis model is consistent with the traditional inspection method in their ability to predict falling hazards.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Chang, Y.H.: Application of Bayesian networks to evaluation and prognosis of process performance—taking the cathode of CNT-BLU for example. Master’s thesis, Institute of Industrial Engineering and Business Information, Donghai University, Taichung, Taiwan (2007)
Chen, C.T.: Transforming fault tree analysis into Bayesian network-case study: intake point of hydraulic power system. Master’s thesis, Institute of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan (2010)
Chen, F.M.: The risk analysis of the building retained excavation accident. Master’s thesis, Institute of Civil Engineering and Disaster Prevention and Technology, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (2005)
Chen, T.T., Leu, S.S.: Fall risk assessment of cantilever bridge projects using Bayesian network. Saf. Sci. 70, 161–171 (2014)
Chen, T.T., Wang, C.H.: Fall risk assessment of bridge construction using Bayesian network transferring from fault tree analysis. J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 23(2), 273–282 (2015)
Chong, H.G., Walley, W.J.: Rule-based versus probabilistic approaches to the diagnosis of faults in wastewater treatment processes. Artif. Intell. 1, 265–273 (1996)
Doguc, O., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E.: An efficient fault diagnosis method for complex system reliability. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on System Engineering Research 2009 (CSER 2009), Session 12—Systems Assessment & Assurance (2009)
Franke, U., Flores, W.R., Johnson, P.: Enterprise architecture dependency analysis using fault trees and Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Simulation Symposium (ANSS 2009), 22–27 Mar 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 209–216 (2009)
Graves, T.L., Hamada, M.S., Klamann, R., Koehler, A., Martz, H.F.: A fully Bayesian approach for combining multi-level information in multi-state fault tree quantification. J. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92(10), 1476–1483 (2007)
Griffin, C.W.: Fault tree as a safety optimization design tool. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, pp. 64–83 (1973)
Hadipriono, F.C., Wang, H.K.: Analysis of causes of falsework failures in concrete structures. J. Constr. Eng. ASCE 112(4), 120–131 (1986)
Heckerman, D., Breese, J., Rommelse, K.: Decision-theoretic troubleshooting. Commun. ACM 38, 49–56 (1995)
Huang, C.R.: Application of Bayesian network in establishing fall type accident risk assessment model. Master’s thesis, Institute of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan (2009)
Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P.: Safety analysis in process facilities: comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96(8), 925–932 (2011)
Li, J.C., Tao, J.Y., Hu, J.Q., Wen, X.S.: Intelligent fault diagnosis method based on Bayesian network. J. Chin. Inertial Technol. 10(4), 32–40 (2002)
Li, J.C., Tao, J.Y., Hu, J.Q., Wen, X.S.: Bayesian network construction method and fault diagnosis application based on fault tree. Comput. Eng. Appl. 39(24), 13–22 (2003)
Millet, R.A.: Failures: how to avoid them. J. Manage. Eng. 15(5), 32–36 (1999)
MOL: Yearbook of Labor Statistics. Institute of Labor, Occupation Safety and Health, Ministry of Labor, Taiwan. http://www.iosh.gov.tw/IAKP/ReportIndex.aspx?NID=575 (2013)
Morcos, M.S., Singh, G.: Decision support system for reliability assessment of management structures of organizations in the construction industry. Congr. Comput. Civ. Eng. Proc. 2, 1577–1583 (1995)
Ogunyemi, O.I.: Assessing penetrating injury penetrating injury with abductive and geometric reasoning. TranmaSCAN, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1999)
Pan, N.F., Hadipriono, F.C., Duane, J.W.: Assessing reliability of construction systems using failure possibilities. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Engineering Computational Technology, Lisbon, Portugal (2004)
Powers, G.J., Tompkins, F.C.: Fault tree synthesis for chemical processes. AIChE J. 20(2), 376–387 (1974)
Rodak, C., Silliman, S.: Probabilistic risk analysis and fault trees: Initial discussion of application to identification of risk at a wellhead. Adv. Water Resour. 36, 133–145 (2012)
Xiao, L., Haijun, L., Lin, L.: Building method of diagnostic model of Bayesian networks based on fault tree. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering 71272C, 13 Oct 2008, Beijing, China. http://dx.doi.org//10.1117/12.806736 (2008)
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the Ministry of Science and Technology (NSC102-2221-E-507-007), Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Technology funding, the research process can be successfully implemented. We also thank the experts in the field of bridge engineering for providing valuable experience and recommendations for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Checklist of Prior Probabilities for Root Node of BN
HS1 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type | 8 options | Parameters | Upper limit | Lower limit | State probability | ||||
Score | Mean | Alpha | Beta | X1 | X2 | Low | Medium | High | |
Beta | 8 | 0.164 | 0.630 | 3.210 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
Beta | 7 | 0.248 | 1.379 | 4.180 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.83 | 0.13 | 0.04 |
Beta | 6 | 0.332 | 2.268 | 4.564 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.70 | 0.22 | 0.08 |
Beta | 5 | 0.416 | 3.138 | 4.420 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.51 | 0.32 | 0.17 |
Normal | 4 | 0.500 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.30 | ||
Beta | 3 | 0.17 | 0.32 | 0.51 | |||||
Beta | 2 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.70 | |||||
Beta | 1 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.83 | |||||
Beta | 0 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.90 |
HS2, HS3 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type | 10 options | Parameters | Upper limit | Lower limit | State probability | ||||
Score | Mean | Alpha | Beta | X1 | X2 | Low | Medium | High | |
Beta | 10 | 0.164 | 0.630 | 3.210 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
Beta | 9 | 0.231 | 1.217 | 4.056 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.85 | 0.11 | 0.04 |
Beta | 8 | 0.298 | 1.905 | 4.482 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.76 | 0.18 | 0.06 |
Beta | 7 | 0.366 | 2.633 | 4.564 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.63 | 0.26 | 0.11 |
Beta | 6 | 0.433 | 3.332 | 4.361 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.47 | 0.34 | 0.19 |
Normal | 5 | 0.500 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.30 | ||
Beta | 4 | 0.19 | 0.34 | 0.47 | |||||
Beta | 3 | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.63 | |||||
Beta | 2 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.76 | |||||
Beta | 1 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.85 | |||||
Beta | 0 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.90 |
HS4 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type | 16 options | Parameters | Upper limit | Lower limit | State probability | ||||
Score | Mean | Alpha | Beta | X1 | X2 | Low | Medium | High | |
Beta | 16 | 0.164 | 0.630 | 3.210 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
Beta | 15 | 0.206 | 0.988 | 3.800 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.870 | 0.096 | 0.034 |
Beta | 14 | 0.248 | 1.379 | 4.180 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.83 | 0.13 | 0.04 |
Beta | 13 | 0.290 | 1.829 | 4.460 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.77 | 0.17 | 0.06 |
Beta | 12 | 0.332 | 2.268 | 4.564 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.70 | 0.22 | 0.08 |
Beta | 11 | 0.374 | 2.730 | 4.550 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.61 | 0.27 | 0.12 |
Beta | 10 | 0.416 | 3.138 | 4.420 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.51 | 0.32 | 0.17 |
Beta | 9 | 0.458 | 3.573 | 4.203 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 0.24 |
Normal | 8 | 0.500 | 0.413 | 0.587 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.30 | ||
Beta | 7 | 0.24 | 0.35 | 0.41 | |||||
Beta | 6 | 0.17 | 0.32 | 0.51 | |||||
Beta | 5 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.61 | |||||
Beta | 4 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.70 | |||||
Beta | 3 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.77 | |||||
Beta | 2 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.83 | |||||
Beta | 1 | 0.034 | 0.10 | 0.87 | |||||
Beta | 0 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.90 |
Appendix 2: Checklist of Construction Safety Performances
Project: Date of inspection: |
---|
Category (HS1) health and safety training |
Inspection items 1. Holding general H/S training workshop 2. Daily education training before workers enter into job sites 3. Holding H/S training for special operation workers 4. Popularize workers training and keep the training record contact 5. Workers understand and are familiar with H/S regulation and practice 6. Workers are fully aware of the consequences of breaking H/S rules 7. Workers are able to comply with H/S codes of conduct 8. Workers are able to perform their works based on standard operating procedure |
Category (HS2) environmental maintenance |
Inspection items 1. Materials are stacked and organized 2. Job sites are clean and have no water pool 3. Workers are familiar with operating environment 4. Completed construction moving path 5. Clear indication on job sites 6. Good lighting and construction moving path 7. Height over 1.5 m and with hoist device 8. Clean up waste on time 9. Completed safety equipment 10. Functional fire-fighting facilities |
Category (HS3) health and safety planning |
Inspection items 1. Clear H/S objective and feasible policies 2. Sufficient and reasonable H/S budget 3. H/S plans and SOP are developed completely 4. Materials and construction methods are in compliance with the regulation 5. Facilities meet H/S requirement 6. Personal protective equipment meet H/S standard 7. Risk assessments conducted before high risk operation 8. Materials are in place, not causing problems while construction 9. Exact planning of construction moving path 10. Completed emergency response and medical care plan |
Category (HS4) health and safety management |
Inspection items 1. H/S organization develops in accordance with H/S rules 2. Site access control 3. Auto check mechanism 4. Regular workplace inspection 5. Improvement and tracking data 6. H/S management records 7. Workers use helmets and protective equipment 8. Construction scaffolds are set in right place 9. A-type ladder meets the standard 10. Protective measures are taken in open part space on the job site such as safety net 11. Proper approach is taken to prevent objects from falling 12. The pitch and strength of support frame meets the construction code 13. Construction machinery has been inspected and meets the requirement 14. Wires on wet ground are elevated 15. Installation of leakage circuit breakers 16. Reward and punishment system are developed |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hung, YC., Chen, TT., Yue, TY. (2019). Integration of Fault Tree and Bayesian Network for Falling Risk of the Bridge Project—Precasting Prestressing Segmental Construction Method. In: Cheng, WC., Yang, J., Wang, J. (eds) Tunneling in Soft Ground, Ground Conditioning and Modification Techniques. GeoChina 2018. Sustainable Civil Infrastructures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95783-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95783-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95782-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95783-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)