IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i5p1714-d328887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid PSO–SVM Model Based on Safety Risk Prediction for the Design Process in Metro Station Construction

Author

Listed:
  • Ping Liu

    (School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China)

  • Mengchu Xie

    (School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China)

  • Jing Bian

    (School of Management Science and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China)

  • Huishan Li

    (School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China)

  • Liangliang Song

    (Institute of Engineering Management, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

Abstract

Incorporating safety risk into the design process is one of the most effective design sciences to enhance the safety of metro station construction. In such a case, the concept of Design for Safety (DFS) has attracted much attention. However, most of the current research overlooks the risk-prediction process in the application of DFS. Therefore, this paper proposes a hybrid risk-prediction framework to enhance the effectiveness of DFS in practice. Firstly, 12 influencing factors related to the safety risk of metro construction are identified by adopting the literature review method and code of construction safety management analysis. Then, a structured interview is used to collect safety risk cases of metro construction projects. Next, a developed support vector machine (SVM) model based on particle swarm optimization (PSO) is presented to predict the safety risk in metro construction, in which the multi-class SVM prediction model with an improved binary tree is designed. The results show that the average accuracy of the test sets is 85.26%, and the PSO–SVM model has a high predictive accuracy for non-linear relationship and small samples. The results show that the average accuracy of the test sets is 85.26%, and the PSO–SVM model has a high predictive accuracy for non-linear relationship and small samples. Finally, the proposed framework is applied to a case study of metro station construction. The prediction results show the PSO–SVM model is applicable and reasonable for safety risk prediction. This research also identifies the most important influencing factors to reduce the safety risk of metro station construction, which provides a guideline for the safety risk prediction of metro construction for design process.

Suggested Citation

  • Ping Liu & Mengchu Xie & Jing Bian & Huishan Li & Liangliang Song, 2020. "A Hybrid PSO–SVM Model Based on Safety Risk Prediction for the Design Process in Metro Station Construction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1714-:d:328887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1714/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1714/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhongxin Chen & Feng Zhao & Jun Zhou & Panling Huang & Xutao Zhang, 2019. "Fault Diagnosis of Loader Gearbox Based on an ICA and SVM Algorithm," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    3. Shihang Wang & Zongmin Li & Yuhong Wang & Qi Zhang, 2019. "Machine Learning Methods to Predict Social Media Disaster Rumor Refuters," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    4. García Nieto, P.J. & García-Gonzalo, E. & Sánchez Lasheras, F. & de Cos Juez, F.J., 2015. "Hybrid PSO–SVM-based method for forecasting of the remaining useful life for aircraft engines and evaluation of its reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 219-231.
    5. Lu Bai & Jianzhou Wang & Xuejiao Ma & Haiyan Lu, 2018. "Air Pollution Forecasts: An Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-44, April.
    6. Ping Liu & Qiming Li & Jing Bian & Liangliang Song & Xiaer Xiahou, 2018. "Using Interpretative Structural Modeling to Identify Critical Success Factors for Safety Management in Subway Construction: A China Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Chen, Shuixia & Wang, Jian-qiang & Zhang, Hong-yu, 2019. "A hybrid PSO-SVM model based on clustering algorithm for short-term atmospheric pollutant concentration forecasting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-54.
    8. Juntao Fan & Mengdi Li & Fen Guo & Zhenguang Yan & Xin Zheng & Yuan Zhang & Zongxue Xu & Fengchang Wu, 2018. "Priorization of River Restoration by Coupling Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) Models in the Taizi River Basin, Northern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Zhou, Zhifang & Xiao, Tian & Chen, Xiaohong & Wang, Chang, 2016. "A carbon risk prediction model for Chinese heavy-polluting industrial enterprises based on support vector machine," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 304-315.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ping Liu & Yu Wang & Tongze Han & Jiaming Xu & Qiangnian Li, 2022. "Safety Evaluation of Subway Tunnel Construction under Extreme Rainfall Weather Conditions Based on Combination Weighting–Set Pair Analysis Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Knabke & Sebastian Olbrich, 2018. "Building novel capabilities to enable business intelligence agility: results from a quantitative study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 493-546, August.
    2. Sunder Shyam, 2011. "Imagined Worlds of Accounting," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    4. Chih‐Hsuan Wang & Chia‐Rong Chang, 2023. "Forecasting air quality index considering socioeconomic indicators and meteorological factors: A data granularity perspective," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(5), pages 1261-1274, August.
    5. Basile, Luigi Jesus & Carbonara, Nunzia & Pellegrino, Roberta & Panniello, Umberto, 2023. "Business intelligence in the healthcare industry: The utilization of a data-driven approach to support clinical decision making," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Loris Gaio, 2005. "A diversity-based approach to requirements tracing in new product development," ROCK Working Papers 031, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 13 Jun 2008.
    7. B. A. Huberman & N. S. Glance, "undated". "Diversity and Collective Action," Working Papers _001, Xerox Research Park.
    8. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    9. David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Voting Decisions Exploring a 160-Year Period," Working Papers 2012.70, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    11. H. Christopher Frey & Sumeet R. Patil, 2002. "Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 553-578, June.
    12. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Michel Gutsatz, 2000. "Managerial Competencies for Organizational Flexibility: The Luxury Goods Industry between Tradition and Postmodernism," Post-Print hal-01892018, HAL.
    13. Rennard, Jean-Philippe, 2006. "Artificiality in Social Sciences," MPRA Paper 1458, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    15. Dalila Cisco Collatto & Aline Dresch & Daniel Pacheco Lacerda & Ione Ghislene Bentz, 2018. "Is Action Design Research Indeed Necessary? Analysis and Synergies Between Action Research and Design Science Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 239-267, June.
    16. Nadia Fiorino & Emma Galli & Ilde Rizzo & Marco Valente, 2023. "Public procurement and reputation. An agent‐based model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 806-832, November.
    17. Olivier L. de Weck & Marshall B. Jones, 2006. "Isoperformance: Analysis and design of complex systems with desired outcomes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 45-61, March.
    18. Hippel, Eric von., 1992. "Adapting market research to the rapid evolution of needs for new products and services," Working papers 3374-92., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    19. Konstantinos S. Boulas & Georgios D. Dounias & Chrissoleon T. Papadopoulos, 2023. "A hybrid evolutionary algorithm approach for estimating the throughput of short reliable approximately balanced production lines," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 823-852, February.
    20. Richard Fellows & Anita M.M. Liu, 2012. "Managing organizational interfaces in engineering construction projects: addressing fragmentation and boundary issues across multiple interfaces," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(8), pages 653-671, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1714-:d:328887. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.