Chen, D; Zhou, J; Duan, P and Zhang, J (2023) Integrating knowledge management and BIM for safety risk identification of deep foundation pit construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(8), pp. 3242-3258. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has posed severe challenges to infrastructure construction in China. Particularly, the complex technology and high process uncertainty of deep foundation pit construction make its safety risk identification a challenging issue of general concern. To address these challenges, Building Information Modeling (BIM) can be used as an important tool to enhance communication and decision-making among stakeholders during the pandemic. The purpose of this study is to propose a knowledge management and BIM-integrated safety risk identification method for deep foundation pit construction to improve the management efficiency of project participants. Design/methodology/approach: This paper proposes a risk identification method that integrates BIM and knowledge management for deep foundation pit construction. In the framework of knowledge management, the topological relationships between objects in BIM are extracted and visualized in the form of knowledge mapping. After that, formal expressions of codes are established to realize the structured processing of specification provisions and special construction requirements. A comprehensive plug-in for deep foundation pit construction is designed based on the BIM software. Findings: The proposed method was verified by taking a sub-project in deep foundation pit project construction as an example. The result showed the new method can make full use of the existing specification and special engineering requirements knowledge. In addition, the developed visual BIM plug-in proves the feasibility and applicability of the proposed method, which can help to increase the risk identification efficiency and refinement. Originality/value: The deep foundation pit safety risk identification is challenged by the confusion of deep foundation pit construction safety knowledge and the complexity of the BIM model. By establishing the standardized expression of normative knowledge and special construction requirements, the efficiency and refinement of risk identification are improved while ensuring the comprehensiveness of results. Moreover, the topology-based risk identification method focuses on the project objects and their relations in the way of network, eliminating the problem of low efficiency from the direct BIM-based risk identification method due to massive data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BIM; deep foundation pit; knowledge base; pandemic; safety risk identification |
| Index terms: | topology, knowledge management, complexity, construction safety, infrastructure construction, China, methodology, decision-making, mapping, risk identification, specification, knowledge base, COVID-19, outbreak, pandemic, building information modelling, efficiency |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, environmental health, information systems, decision analysis, Geography, contractual condition, financial risk, professional development, health risk and incident analysis, civil engineering, performance management, research methods, geometry and topology, spatial and geospatial analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Risk Management, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here