# Occupational Risk Assessment of Wind Turbines in Bangladesh
## 6 Result and Discussions
### Risk Assessment and Risk Prioritizing
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**No** & **Hazards** & **Scope/Area** & **Hazard Identification** & **Risk Identification** \\ \hline
1 & HIM1 & Turbine Blade & Using long ladder and failing to & Fall from heights \\  & Maintenance & use PPE & & \\
2 & HIM2 & Turbine Blade & Lack of safety signs for & Electric shock by contacting the MV cables \\  & Maintenance & electrical panels & & Risk of fire \\
3 & HIM3 & Turbine Blade & Fire due to the lack of heat control & Risk of fire \\  & Maintenance & Lack of safety signs for & Electric shock \\
4 & HIM4 & Transformer Maintenance & electrical panels & An accident resulting in material damage \\
5 & HIM5 & Transformer Maintenance & Lack of material management & and spreading \\
6 & HIM6 & Transformer Maintenance & Oil spill from an explosion & The explosion resulted in injured personnel \\  & Ring Main Unit & Ring Main Unit & Lack of Maintenance skills safety & Explosion during the maintenance \\
8 & HIM8 & Ring Main Unit & Failure to use PPE & Shock from electricity \\  & Maintenance & Concrete Kiosk & Control panel short circuit & Damage as a result of fire \\
9 & HIM9 & Maintenance & Failure to use PPE & Electric shock \\
10 & HIM10 & Concrete Kiosk & & Fair to use PPE & Electric shock \\  & Maintenance & & & \\
11 & HIM11 & Wind Turbine Area & Entering of unauthorized persons & Theft \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Hazard and risks associated with wind turbine maintenance [6]. Finally, the non-fuzzy weight was calculated by using Equation (4). \[W_{i}=\frac{[(uw_{i}\ -\ lw_{i})+(mw_{i}-lw_{i})]}{3}+lw_{i}\]  
Therefore, \(W_{1}=((0.266\ -0.144)+(0.189\ -0.144))/3+0.144=0.200\). Similarly, \(W_{2}=0.512\) and \(W_{3}=0.320\). The normalized weights of \(C\), \(E\), \(P\) were determined as (0.194, 0.496, 0.310). For the consistency check, \(\lambda_{max}=3.093\), consistency index CI = 0.046 and random consistency index RI = 0.540 were found. The consistency ratio CR = CI/RI = 0.086\", which is below 10%. Therefore, the result is consistent and reliable. The fuzzy-weight of C, E, and P ((0.144, 0.189, 0.266), (0.363, 0.502, 0.671), and (0.228, 0.308, 0.423)) were used for fuzzy-TOPSIS method, and the non-fuzzy weights of \(C\), \(E\), and \(P\) (0.194, 0.496, 0.310) were used for TOPSIS method. Fuzzy-TOPSIS was used to rank the risks in all sections. In this study, the OHS experts evaluated hazards by the linguistic relations presented in Table 12.  
The linguistic evaluations of all sections' hazards by OHS experts in terms of consequence, exposure, and probability are given in Tables 13-16. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Transportation**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Expert Opinion**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Consequence (C)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Exposure (\(E\))**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Probability (\(P\))**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Exp1** & **Exp2** & **Exp3** & **Exp1** & **Exp2** & **Exp3** & **Exp1** & **Exp2** & **Exp3** \\ \hline HIT1 & F & MG & F & MG & G & MG & G & G & G \\ HIT2 & MP & P & P & MG & G & MG & MG & G & MG \\ HIT3 & F & MG & MG & F & F & MG & F & F & MG \\ HIT4 & PR & MP & MP & VP & VP & PR & G & G & MG \\ HIT5 & G & MG & G & MG & F & MG & MP & MP & PR \\ HIT6 & MG & F & MG & PR & PR & VP & G & G & G \\ HIT7 & F & MP & F & G & ET & G & ET & ET & G \\ HIT8 & MG & G & G & G & G & MG & G & G & ET \\ HIT9 & MG & G & MG & G & G & ET & ET & ET & G \\ HIT10 & F & MG & F & ET & ET & G & G & ET \\ HIT11 & G & G & MG & ET & ET & G & PR & VP \\ HIT12 & G & G & MG & MP & PR & MP & MP & MP & F \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Linguistic assessment of hazards associated with wind turbine transportation.