Lyu, H M; Sun, W J; Shen, S L and Zhou, A N (2020) Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3): 04019112, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) is an effective risk assessment method in which a questionnaire is used to collect experts' responses. However, determining fuzzy numbers and establishing a consistent judgment matrix are difficult in the FAHP. This study proposes a new consulting process for solving the previously mentioned problems in the triangular FAHP. The proposed consulting process consists of a newly designed questionnaire and a new approach for determining fuzzy numbers. Experts' responses collected from the questionnaire are employed to determine fuzzy numbers and establish a consistent judgment matrix. The proposed method has been applied to the Jinan metro tunnel construction to demonstrate its validity. Both the traditional questionnaire and the new questionnaire are used to establish the judgment matrix in the case study. The results show that the judgment matrix determined from the new questionnaire can determine triangular fuzzy numbers and establish a consistent judgment matrix. Compared with the traditional questionnaire, the proposed questionnaire can be used to collect experts' opinions with greater convenience and in less time.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy analytical hierarchy process; new consulting process; risk assessment; triangular fuzzy number |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, risk assessment, analytical hierarchy process, judgment, case study, tunnel construction, validity |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, decision-making and optimization, financial risk, civil engineering |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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