Identifies and prioritizes measures to enhance safety in asymmetric tandem lifting operations, suggesting effective protocols for reducing crane risks.
Asymmetric tandem lifting (ATL) of superheavy structures in large industries poses significant risks, primarily crane overturning, leading to casualties and equipment loss. Despite these severe consequences, limited research has addressed crane overturning in asymmetric tandem lifts, exposing a critical gap in safety literature. This study aims to bridge this gap by systematically identifying and prioritizing preventive measures to enhance ATL safety. To achieve this objective, an integrated fuzzy approach was applied, combining the fuzzy house of quality (FHOQ) and the fuzzy weighted aggregated sum product assessment (FWASPAS). Experts’ opinions were gathered to identify preventive measures against crane overturning. FWASPAS was used to rank crane overturning risk factors based on occurrence, severity, and detection, offering a robust evaluation under uncertainty. These results were subsequently incorporated into the FHOQ to prioritize preventive measures according to their implementability and effectiveness, thereby improving decision-making efficiency and consistency. Among the 12 identified and prioritized preventive measures, “obtaining a weather forecast report” and “establishing a work permit system” are the most implementable, whereas “monitoring and control/inspection” and “complying with up-to-date national and international laws, requirements, and manufacturer manuals” are the most effective. The results highlight the practical applicability of the identified and prioritized preventive measures in industrial settings, particularly in high-risk environments like construction sites, to mitigate crane overturning risks in ATL. This study provides a structured and systematic approach for prioritizing preventive measures, offering valuable insights for industry practitioners and policymakers to enhance safety protocols in ATL operations and reduce accident risks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jamalizadeh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: