Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

İnşaat Sektöründe Yeni Bir Risk Analiz Yöntemi: HES

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 508 - 519, 28.07.2025

Abstract

İnşaat sektöründe hem proje planlama hem de uygulama aşamalarında tehlikeli ortamlar sıkça görülmekte ve her aşamada farklı riskler ortaya çıkmaktadır. İş kazalarını azaltmaya yönelik çeşitli risk değerlendirme yöntemleri bulunsa da sektör genellikle değişken şantiye koşullarına uyum sağlayabilen ve kolay uygulanabilir teknikleri tercih etmektedir. Bu çalışma, Tehlike Değerlendirme Sistemi (HES) matris yönteminin etkinliğini, geleneksel X-tipi ve L-tipi matris yöntemleriyle karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. HES yöntemi, çalışan eğitimi, yaş, şiddet ve olasılık gibi insan faktörlerini dikkate alarak daha kapsamlı bir değerlendirme sunmaktadır. Ülkedeki iş kazalarının %88’inin insan kaynaklı olması, bu yöntemin önemini artırmaktadır. Araştırma, Antalya ili Demre ilçesindeki bir inşaat projesinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, HES yönteminin daha pratik ve güvenilir olduğunu, proje güvenliğini artırdığını ve ekonomik faydalar sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır.

References

  • Ak, M. A. (2020). Comparison of risk assessment methods in the context of occupational safety in the construction sector, European Journal of Science and Technology, Volume: 18, Pages: 272-282.
  • Aytekin, O. & Kaya, M.Ü. & Kuşan, H. (2015). Suggestions for Selecting an OHS Risk Assessment Method Suitable for Project Type and Work Data in Construction Works, 5th Worker Health and Occupational Safety Symposium, Izmir, Turkey, pp.127-136.
  • Bilir, S. & Gürcanlı, G. E. (2014). Activity-Based Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment on Construction Projects, 11P thP International Congress on Advance in Civil Engineering, İstanbul. (Oral Presentation).
  • Bilir, S. & Gürcanlı, G. E. (2015). Applicability of The Hazard Rating Number System in The Construction Industry. The XXVIIth Annual Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference”, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. (Oral Presentation).
  • Dizdar, E.N. (2000). Occupational Safety, Alver Publishing. October, Ankara.
  • Fine W.T. (1974). Mathematical evaluations for controlling hazards. Journal of Safety Research. 3, 157- 166.
  • Gürcanli, G. E. (2008). Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment, ITUSEM Occupational Safety Certification Program in the Construction Sector, Construction Site Occupational Safety Course Notes 3, Istanbul.
  • Gül, M. & M, Ak. (2018). Comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment, Elsevier, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 196: 653-664.
  • ILO. (2020). Safety and Health at Work.
  • Kinney, G. F. & Wiruth, A. D. (1976). Practical Risk Analysis For Safety Management. NWC Technical Publication 5865, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake CA, USA.
  • Korkmaz, A. V. (2020). Evaluation of large-scale construction sites in terms of occupational health and safety. TÜBAV Science Journal, 13(1), 1-16.
  • Külekçi, G. & Güvendi, A. (2023). Solid Waste Management and Solid Waste Recycling Facility in Gümüşhane Province. II. International Korkut Ata Scientific Researches Conference, 642-647.
  • Özkılıç, Ö. (2005). Occupational Health and Safety, Management Systems, and Risk Assessment Methodologies. Turkish Confederation of Employers' Associations (TİSK), Ankara, p.219.
  • Şahin, M. & Gürcanlı, G. E. (2011). Comparative Analysis of Occupational Safety Risks in Reinforced Concrete, Steel, and Light Steel Buildings, 3rd Worker Health and Occupational Safety Symposium. Pages 201-212.

A New Risk Analysis Method in The Construction Sector: HES

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 508 - 519, 28.07.2025

Abstract

Hazardous environments are frequently present in the construction industry during both the project planning and implementation phases, with different risks emerging at each stage. Although various risk assessment methods are available to reduce workplace accidents, the industry prefers techniques that are adaptable to changing site conditions and easy to apply. This study examines the effectiveness of the Hazard Evaluation System (HES) matrix method compared to the traditional X-type and L-type matrix methods. The HES method provides a more detailed and comprehensive assessment by incorporating human factors such as employee training, age, severity, and probability. Since 88% of workplace accidents in the country are human-related, focusing on these elements allows for better risk mitigation. The study was carried out on a construction project in the Demre District of Antalya Province. Findings reveal that the HES method is more practical and reliable than traditional methods, while also improving project safety, enhancing efficiency, and generating economic advantages in construction operations.

References

  • Ak, M. A. (2020). Comparison of risk assessment methods in the context of occupational safety in the construction sector, European Journal of Science and Technology, Volume: 18, Pages: 272-282.
  • Aytekin, O. & Kaya, M.Ü. & Kuşan, H. (2015). Suggestions for Selecting an OHS Risk Assessment Method Suitable for Project Type and Work Data in Construction Works, 5th Worker Health and Occupational Safety Symposium, Izmir, Turkey, pp.127-136.
  • Bilir, S. & Gürcanlı, G. E. (2014). Activity-Based Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment on Construction Projects, 11P thP International Congress on Advance in Civil Engineering, İstanbul. (Oral Presentation).
  • Bilir, S. & Gürcanlı, G. E. (2015). Applicability of The Hazard Rating Number System in The Construction Industry. The XXVIIth Annual Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference”, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. (Oral Presentation).
  • Dizdar, E.N. (2000). Occupational Safety, Alver Publishing. October, Ankara.
  • Fine W.T. (1974). Mathematical evaluations for controlling hazards. Journal of Safety Research. 3, 157- 166.
  • Gürcanli, G. E. (2008). Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment, ITUSEM Occupational Safety Certification Program in the Construction Sector, Construction Site Occupational Safety Course Notes 3, Istanbul.
  • Gül, M. & M, Ak. (2018). Comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment, Elsevier, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 196: 653-664.
  • ILO. (2020). Safety and Health at Work.
  • Kinney, G. F. & Wiruth, A. D. (1976). Practical Risk Analysis For Safety Management. NWC Technical Publication 5865, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake CA, USA.
  • Korkmaz, A. V. (2020). Evaluation of large-scale construction sites in terms of occupational health and safety. TÜBAV Science Journal, 13(1), 1-16.
  • Külekçi, G. & Güvendi, A. (2023). Solid Waste Management and Solid Waste Recycling Facility in Gümüşhane Province. II. International Korkut Ata Scientific Researches Conference, 642-647.
  • Özkılıç, Ö. (2005). Occupational Health and Safety, Management Systems, and Risk Assessment Methodologies. Turkish Confederation of Employers' Associations (TİSK), Ankara, p.219.
  • Şahin, M. & Gürcanlı, G. E. (2011). Comparative Analysis of Occupational Safety Risks in Reinforced Concrete, Steel, and Light Steel Buildings, 3rd Worker Health and Occupational Safety Symposium. Pages 201-212.
There are 14 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Building (Other)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Nurettin Koç 0009-0001-4191-3776

Redvan Ghasemlounıa 0000-0003-1796-4562

Publication Date July 28, 2025
Submission Date May 9, 2025
Acceptance Date July 1, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 10 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Koç, N., & Ghasemlounıa, R. (2025). A New Risk Analysis Method in The Construction Sector: HES. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 10(1), 508-519. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1696003