Safety Evaluation of Construction Based on the Improved AHP-Grey Model

  • Guozhong Huang
  • Siheng Sun
  • Dingli Zhang


The construction industry plays a major role in Chinese economy, but associated with a disproportionately high number of injuries and fatalities. In this paper, we proposed a improved AHP-Grey Model which has 4 limitations before. A safety hierarchical framework was established and attributes were identified through reason analysis method of Accident Chain Reaction Theory and 4M Theory; attributes weights were determined by Interval Analytic Hierarchy Process instead of AHP, and the safety checklist was also improved; grey relative Euclid weighted correlation degrees were calculated for safety level ordering instead of Deng’s grey correlation degree. The improved model can better reflect the actual safety condition of the construction.


Construction safety evaluation AHP-Grey Model IAHP Grey relative Euclid weighted correlation degree 



This work was supported by the experts from China Construction Third Building (group) Co. Ltd and Beijing Shuang Yuan Engineering Consultation and Supervision Co. Ltd. Special thanks should be given to the authors of references. Any errors or shortcoming in the paper are the responsibility of the authors.


  1. 1.
    The prediction report of competition situation and investment perspective in China construction industry during 2013–2018. Creative industries reporting network, <>.
  2. 2.
    Hu, J., & Gu, Y. (2013). China construction industry is the decisive source of new job. Construction Times, 4(4).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raheem, A. A., & Hinze, J. W. (2014). Disparity between construction safety standards: A global analysis. Safety Science, 70, 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teo, E. A. L., & Ling, F. Y. Y. (2006). Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites. Building and Environment, 41, 1584–1592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox, S., & Cox, T. (1996). Safety systems and people. London: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhongshan, L., Yang, S., & Yang, S. (2008). Safety assessment model of construction based on grey correlation theory. Journal of Hefei University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2, 262–266.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perlman, A., Sacks, R., & Barak, R. (2014). Hazard recognition and risk perception in construction. Safety Science, 64, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lan, L., & Wang, L. (2003). Research on fuzzy comprehensive Evaluation model of construction. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 11, 49–53.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, Z., & Liu, M. (2006). On fire-safety of high-rises with IAHP-based method. Journal of Safety and Environment, 6(1), 12–15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, J. (2012). Determination the weights in adjusting formula based on IAHP method. Science & Technology Vision, 34, 97–98.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teo, E. A. L., Ling, F. Y. Y., & Chong, A. F. W. (2005). Framework for project managers to manage construction safety. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang, L. (2014). Construction engineering accident reason analysis based on the set theory. Beijing: Capital University of Economics and Business.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xiao, J., Luo, F., Wang, C., & Guo, T. (2004). Weight solving methods of Interval Analytic Hierarchy Process. Electricity System Engineering Journal, 3, 12–16.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney, R. L., & Rafiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade offs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaili, X., & Xie, X. (2013). Research on consistency and priority of interval number complementary judgment matrix. Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics, 4, 162–168.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu, Z. (2007). Safety system engineering (p. 9). Beijing: China Machine Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang, J. (2007). Methods of construction safety hazard evaluation and management. Dalian: Dalian Technology University.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, C., & Zhou, P. (2004). Euclid approach degree-grey relational model application in environmental assessment. Environmental Science and Technology, 27, 25–27.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, Y., & He, J. (2008). Euclid gray relational model and application of safety assessments in rise building fire evacuation. Fire Science, 17(2), 105–110.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fan, K., & Haoying, W. (2002). A new method of determining the coefficient resolution. Wuhan Technology University, 24(7), 86–88.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lv, F. (1997). Research on discrimination coefficient of gray correlation degrees. System Engineering Theory and Practice, 6, 49–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Civil and Resource EngineeringUniversity of Science and Technology BeijingBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations