| Literature DB >> 35354904 |
Ji-Myong Kim1, Junseo Bae2, Hyunsoung Park3, Sang-Guk Yum4.
Abstract
This study aims to generate a deep learning algorithm-based model for quantitative prediction of financial losses due to accidents occurring at apartment construction sites. Recently, the construction of apartment buildings is rapidly increasing to solve housing shortage caused by increasing urban density. However, high-rise and large-scale construction projects are increasing the frequency and severity of accidents occurring inside and outside of construction sites, leading to increases of financial losses. In particular, the increase in severe weather and the surge in abnormal weather events due to climate change are aggravating the risk of financial losses associated with accidents occurring at construction sites. Therefore, for sustainable and efficient management of construction projects, a loss prediction model that prevents and reduces the risk of financial loss is essential. This study collected and analyzed insurance claim payout data from a main insurance company in South Korea regarding accidents occurring inside and outside of construction sites. Deep learning algorithms were applied to develop predictive models reflecting scientific and recent technologies. Results and framework of this study provide critical guidance on financial loss management necessary for sustainable and efficacious construction project management. They can be used as a reference for various other construction project management studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35354904 PMCID: PMC8967902 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09453-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Workflow of the model.
Variable description.
| Variable | Description | Unit | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial information | Loss rate | The loss rate is the amount of loss incurred in the construction project divided by the total construction cost of the construction project | Real number |
| Natural hazard-related information | Elevation | Elevation of the loss-occurring construction site (m) | Real number |
| Tropical cyclone | The tropical cyclone risk class of the construction site is classified into Zone 0–5 (based on the maximum wind speed of the 100-year return period) | Nominal (0–5) | |
| Flash flood | The flash flood risk class of the construction site is categorized into Zone 1–6 | Nominal (1–6) | |
| Season | Seasonal classification at the time of loss | Nominal 0: fall 1: Spring 2: Summer 3: Winter | |
| Construction site and apartment information | Location | Classification according to the location of the construction site where the loss occurred | Nominal 1: Suburban 2: Urban 3: Metropolitan |
| Loss classification | Classification according to the occurrence of loss | Nominal 0: Object 1: Third-party | |
| ENR rank | The rank of Engineering News-Record (ENR) | Numeral | |
| Floor | Number of floors | Natural number | |
| Basement | Number of basement floors | Natural number | |
| Construction type | Classification by type of construction work | Nominal 1: reinforced concrete work 2: steel framework 3: other work | |
| Elevation of the loss-occurring construction site (m) | Real number | ||
| Construction size | Classification according to the total construction cost | Nominal 1: Small-scale sites with less than 2 billion KRW 2: Medium-sized sites with 2–12 billion KRW 3: Large-scale sites with more than 12 billion KRW | |
| Progress rate | Process rate at the time of loss (%) | Real number | |
| Total construction period | The total period of construction work (month) | Real number |
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | N | Mean | Minimum | Maximum | Std. deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratio | 930 | 2.43 | − 2.70 | 7.43 | 1.78 |
| Elevation | 930 | 45.52 | 0.00 | 792.00 | 50.87 |
| ENR rank | 930 | 42.12 | 1.00 | 100.00 | 43.01 |
| Total construction period(month) | 930 | 25.35 | 5.00 | 126.00 | 16.30 |
Figure 2DNN backpropagation algorithm.
Learning results.
| Network structure scenario | Dropout (0) | Dropout (0.2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | RMSE | MAE | RMSE | |
| 5-5-5 | 0.906 | 1.124 | 1.127 | 1.406 |
| 10-10-10 | 0.697 | 0.897 | 0.891 | 1.146 |
| 25-25-25 | 0.558 | 0.672 | 0.720 | 0.855 |
| 50-50-50 | 0.376 | 0.580 | 0.557 | 0.756 |
| 75-75-75 | 0.351 | 0.581 | 0.539 | 0.76 |
| 100-100-100 | 0.350 | 0.505 | 0.534 | 0.675 |
| 200-200-200 | 0.377 | 0.516 | 0.562 | 0.709 |
| 300-300-300 | 0.336 | 0.473 | 0.531 | 0.656 |
| 400-400-400 | 0.331 | 0.448 | 0.529 | 0.625 |
| 500-500-500 | 0.353 | 0.449 | 0.541 | 0.629 |
| 600-600-600 | 0.338 | 0.458 | 0.534 | 0.641 |
| 700-700-700 | 0.353 | 0.465 | 0.536 | 0.641 |
| 800-800-800 | 0.483 | 0.475 | 0.668 | 0.681 |
| 900-900-900 | 0.346 | 0.514 | 0.537 | 0.704 |
| 1000-1000-1000 | 0.354 | 0.493 | 0.538 | 0.671 |
Final network structure and hyper-parameter.
| Set | Configuration | Feature |
|---|---|---|
| Network structure | Node | 3 |
| Layer | 400-400-400 | |
| Hyper parameter | Activation function | Rectified linear unit function |
| Optimizer | Adaptive moment estimation method | |
| Batch size | 5 | |
| Epoch | 1000 | |
| Dropout | 0 |
Model comparison results.
| Model | Validation | Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | RMSE | MAE | RMSE | |
| DNN | 0.402 | 0.349 | 0.535 | 0.456 |
| MRA | 0.912 | 0.844 | ||
| DNN/MRA (%) | − 41.3% | − 46.0% | ||