Transcript Engineering Construction Site Safety

Design for Construction Safety
Based on a presentation given with
Prof. John Gambatese at
Safety in Design and Construction: A Lifecycle Approach
Harvard School of Public Health
February 23-27, 2009
and a presentation given at the 2009 North American Steel
Construction Conference, Phoenix, AZ
Mike Toole, PhD, PE
Bucknell University
Overview









Concept
Motivation
Examples
International and U.S. Initiatives
Barriers
Tools
Steel Examples
Trajectories
Moving forward in your
organization
What is Designing for Construction
Safety?


The process of addressing
construction site safety and health in
the design of a project
Designing for safety constructability
Prevention through Design

“Addressing occupational safety and health
needs in the design process to prevent or
minimize the work-related hazards and
risks associated with the construction,
manufacture, use, maintenance, and
disposal of facilities, materials, and
equipment.”
(NIOSH)
What Safety by Design is NOT



Having designers take a role in
construction safety DURING construction.
An endorsement of future legislation
mandating that designers design for
construction safety.
An endorsement of the principle that
designers can or should be held partially
responsible for construction accidents.
Typical Annual Construction
Accidents in U.S.


Nearly 200,000 serious injuries
1,000 deaths
Benefits of DfCS

Reduced site hazards





Fewer injuries and fatalities
Reduced workers compensation premiums
Increased productivity
Fewer delays due to accidents during
construction allow continued focus on quality
Encourages designer-constructor collaboration
Hierarchy of Controls






Eliminate the hazard (Design for Safety)
Reduce the hazard
Isolate the hazard
Use engineering controls
Use administrative controls
Use PPE
Considering Safety During Design
Offers the Most Payoff1
High
Conceptual Design
Detailed Engineering
Ability to
Influence
Safety
Procurement
Construction
Start-up
Low
Project Schedule
1
Szymberski (1987)
Accidents Linked to Design1,2



1
2
22% of 226 injuries that occurred
from 2000-2002 in Oregon, WA, and
CA
42% of 224 fatalities in U.S. between
1990-2003
In Europe, a 1991 study concluded
that 60% of fatal accidents resulted
in part from decisions made before
site work began
Behm, M., “Linking Construction Fatalities to the Design for Construction
Safety Concept” (2005)
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Ethical Reasons for DfCS


National Society of Professional Engineers Code of
Ethics:
 Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public.
American Society of Civil Engineers’ Code of Ethics
 Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety,
health and welfare of the general public are
dependent upon engineering decisions ….
DfCS and Sustainability
Environmental
Equity
Sustainability
Economic
Equity
Social
Equity
Sustainability’s Social Equity Pillar



Do not our duties include minimizing all risks
that we have control over?
Do not we have the same duties for
construction workers as for the “public”?
Is it ethical to create designs that are not as
safe as they could (practically) be?
DfCS
1
Process
• Establish design for
safety expectations
• Include construction and
operation perspective
• Identify design for safety
process and tools
Design
Kickoff
Design
Trade contractor
involvement
1
Hecker et al. (2005)
Internal
Review
• QA/QC
• Crossdiscipline
review
External
Review
• Focused safety
review
• Owner review
Issue for
Construction
Examples: Anchorage Points
Examples: Prefabrication
Bridge
Trusses
www.ultimat
eengineering
.com
Roof
Trusses
PEB
test.jedinstvo.com
www.niconengi
neering.com
Examples: Roofs
Skylights
Upper story windows
and roof parapets
Examples: Clearances
Head Knocker at Catwalk
Fall Hazard at
Catwalk
Plan of Record (POR): Trench below sub-fab
level
OPTION "A"- PLAN OF RECORD
New Fab:
Full basement and taller
basement
1
32"
=1'-0"
DfCS Practices Around the Globe



Designers first required to design for construction
safety in the United Kingdom in 1995
Other European nations have similar
requirements
Australia also leading in DfCS
http://www.ascc.gov.au/ascc/HealthSafety/SafeD
esign/Understanding
National Initiatives

NIOSH



NORA Construction Sector Council CHPtD
Workgroup

Prevention Through Design initiative

Make Green Jobs Safe initiative
OSHA Construction Alliance Roundtable
DfCS Workgroup
ASCE-CI PtD Committee (inactive)
OSHA Construction Alliance DfCS
Workgroup Members










Amer. Society of Civil Engineers-Construction Institute
American Society of Safety Engineers
Independent Electrical Contractors
ADSC: International Association of Foundation Drilling
Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America
Mason Contractors Association of America
National Fire Protection Association
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health
Sealant, Waterproofing and Restoration Institute
Washington Group International
Barriers


Like many good ideas, DfCS
faces a number of barriers
that will likely slow its
adoption.
Potential solutions to these
barriers involve long-term
education and institutional
changes.
Design for Safety Viability Study1

Review of OSHA Standards for Construction
 Identify the OSHA provisions that mention the
involvement of a licensed professional engineer.
 Identify designs that can be implemented to forego
the need to implement temporary, on-site safety
measures required by OSHA.

Interviews:


1
Architects and Engineers (19)
Safety Manager, Construction Attorney, Insurance
Risk Manager
Prof. John Gambatese, Oregon State University and others,
funded by CPWR Small Study No. 01-2-PS
Factors Affecting Implementation
Impacted
by
Implementation
of the Design for
Safety Concept
Impact
on
 Designer knowledge of the concept
 Designer acceptance of the concept
 Designer education and training
 Designer motivation to implement the
concept
 Ease of implementation of the concept
 Availability of implementation tools and
resources
 Competing design/project objectives
 Design criteria/physical characteristics
 Construction worker safety
 Other construction characteristics (cost,
quality, constructability, etc.)
 Completed facility characteristics (design
features, operator safety, operability,
maintainability, etc.)
 Design firm liability, profitability, etc.
Barrier: Designers' Fear of Liability


Barrier: Fear of undeserved liability for worker
safety.
Potential solutions:
 Clearly communicate we are NOT suggesting
designers should be held responsible for
construction accidents.
 Develop revised model contract language
 Propose legislation to facilitate DfCS without
inappropriately shifting liability onto designers.
Barrier: Increased Designer Costs
Associated with DfCS


Barrier: DfCS processes will increase both direct
and overhead costs for designers.
Potential solution:
 Educate owners that total project costs and
total project life cycle costs will decrease
Barrier: Designers' Lack of Safety
Expertise


Barrier: Few design professionals possess
sufficient expertise in construction safety.
Potential solutions:
 Add safety to design professionals’ curricula.
 Develop and promote 10-hour and 30-hour
OSHA courses for design professionals.
 Develop and distribute DfCS tools
Design for Construction Safety Toolbox




Created by
Construction
Industry Institute
(CII)
Interactive
computer program
Used in the design
phase to decrease
the risk of incidents
Over 400 design
suggestions
Safety in Design Checklists
Item
1.0
Description
Structural Framing
1.1 Space slab and mat foundation top reinforcing steel at no more than 6 inches on
center each way to provide a safe walking surface.
1.2 Design floor perimeter beams and beams above floor openings to support lanyards.
1.3 Design steel columns with holes at 21 and 42 inches above the floor level to support
guardrail cables.
2.0
Accessibility
2.1 Provide adequate access to all valves and controls.
2.2 Orient equipment and controls so that they do not obstruct walkways and work
areas.
2.3 Locate shutoff valves and switches in sight of the equipment which they control.
2.4 Provide adequate head room for access to equipment, electrical panels, and storage
areas.
2.5 Design welded connections such that the weld locations can be safely accessed.
Option Evaluation Sheet
Intel D1D Programming
Option Title
Subfab vs Basement Opion #1
Option Description
D1B (Similar) Basement W/ 14' Subfab
Description of Issue:
Evaluation Criteria
FSCS GOALS
Score
wt.
w orse
5-
better
5+
*0
C1 Dollars / Sq Ft
1
C2 Tool Install Cost
1
E1 Energy Conservation
1
E2 Reduce Emissions
1
S1 Support 2 Technology and
1
1
1
1
S3 Improved Life Cycle Safety
1
1
S4 Maximize Reuseability and
1
1
1 1
1
1
total
Comments
-5
11.9 M Impact to Base Build Cost
2
1.9 M Cost Savings
1
-1
added building Volume
1
-1
More materials
3
Move Available space
1
More room for maintenance
2
Ergonomics - Cable Instalation
0
Small Benifet to Electrical
1
1
1
1
5 HVM Generations
S2 Maintain Existing Reliability and
Maintainability
1
1
1
Fungibility
Only adapts to Copy D1b
B FABS
D1 Overall Construction Duration
1
1
1
2 w eeks faster than POR ( Trench)
D2 Consructability
1
1
1
Better than Trench
D3 Tool Install Duration
1
1
2
More space available
5
Total Score
Comments:
1
Websites
Links on
www.designforconstructionsafety.org
Constructability Tips
for Steel Design

Detailing Guide for the Enhancement of Erection
Safety published by the National Institute for Steel
Detailing and the Steel Erectors Association of America

The Erector Friendly
Column



Include holes in
columns at 21” and
42” for guardrail
cables and at higher
locations for fall
protection tie-offs
Locate column
splices and
connections at
reasonable heights
above floor
Provide seats for
beam connections

Avoid hanging
connections

Design
connections to
bear on columns
Column
Splice
Column
Splice 2

Avoid awkward
and dangerous
connection
locations

Avoid tripping
hazards

Eliminate
sharp corners

Provide
enough space
for making
connections

Know
approximate
dimensions of
necessary tools
to make
connections
DfCS in Practice: Design Builders




Jacobs
Parsons
Fluor
Bechtel
Photo credit: Washington Group
Bechtel’s Steel
Design Process




Temporary access
platforms
Lifting lugs
Shop installed vertical
brace ladders
Bolt-on column ladders
& work platforms
Temporary
ladder,
platform and
safety line
Modular
Platforms
Brace Lifting
Clips and Rungs
Owners who are moving towards DfCS
Southern Company
 Intel
 Harvard University
 U.S Army Corps of Engineers

The Future of DfCS



Trajectories: projectile analogy
Trajectories in technological innovation
(Dosi 1992)
Where is DfCS heading?


Five proposed DfCS trajectories
Implications for professions and individual
organizations
Five DfCS Trajectories
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Increased prefabrication
Increased use of less hazardous materials
and systems
Increased application of construction
engineering
Increased spatial investigation and
consideration
Increased collaboration and integration
Increased Prefabrication

Shift site work to safer work site
environment




elevation to ground
underground to grade
confined space to open space
Shift site work to factory


Allows use of safer, automated equipment
Provides safer, engineered environment
Increased Use of Less Hazardous
Materials and Systems


Coatings, sealants,
cleaners
Building systems

Steel, concrete, masonry,
wood
Photo credit: Washington Group
Increased Construction Engineering
Soil retention systems
 Crane lifts
 Temporary loads
 Temporary structures
 Fall protection anchorage points
Why designers increasingly involved
 Growth of design-build
 Their understanding of structure
and site


Photo credit: Washington Group
Increased Spatial Investigation


Communicating site hazards on project
documents
Working distances for each trade





Cranes and powerlines
Excavation dimensions for work within
Steel connections
Raceways and plumbing pipes
Ergonomic issues


Overhead
Awkward angles
Increased Collaboration and
Integration



Communication about risks, costs, time,
quality….
Between owner, AE/DB, CM/GC,
manufacturers and trade contractors
In every phase of project




concept design
detailed design
procurement
construction
Factors Affecting Speed Along
Trajectories

Enablers



Growth of design-build
Growth of IT (web information, simulation,
visualization systems)
Obstacles



Designers’ fear of liability
Designers’ lack of safety expertise
Owners’ facilitation of collaboration
Implications

Designers need knowledge of construction
safety and construction processes



More safety in architectural and engineering
curricula
Engineering licensure requirements
Designers need to become better gatherers
and communicators of project safety
information

For example: existing site utilities, availability
of prefabricated components, likely methods to
be used, working clearances.
Implications for Education of
Design Engineers





Shift in mindset
Holistic view
Exposure to DfCS fundamentals
Training in system-specific DfCS
opportunities
Engineering course-specific DfCS modules
Implications for Contracting



New contract terms needed
Design-Bid-Build typically hinders
collaboration during design
Design-Build, Design-Assist and IPD better
facilitate collaboration
Implications for Use of Information
Technology



IT represents efficient means for providing
designers with information needed to
perform DfCS
Manufacturers must make DfCS
information available
All entities will need IT to facilitate
communication, collaboration, integration
Three Steps towards DfCS
1.
2.
3.
Establish an enabling culture
Establish enabling processes
Secure clients who value lifecycle safety
Culture
Processes
Clients
Establish a Lifecycle Safety Culture



Instill the right safety values
Secure management commitment
Ensure recognition that designing for
construction safety is the smart thing to
do and the right thing to do
1.
2.
Professional Codes of Ethics
Payoff data
Establish Enabling Processes



Provide designers with safety training
Ensure designer-constructor interaction
Provide designers with DfCS tools
Secure Clients who Value
Lifecycle Safety




Design-Builders less dependent on clients’
safety values
International clients favorable
Industrial clients favorable
Negotiated projects in other sectors offer
opportunity to educate clients
Summary







DfCS can improve construction site safety
Ethical and practical reasons to perform
DfCS
U.S. and international initiatives
Significant barriers being slowly resolved
Tools have been created to facilitate the
DfCS process
Great DfCS resource for steel construction
First steps to implementing DfCS
Questions for You





Do engineers and detailers have a ethical
responsibility to consider erector safety if they
are able?
Are the potential benefits of performing safety
by design outweighed by the liability risks?
Should AISC have a policy regarding safety by
design (either for or against)?
Do most engineers and detailers possess the
knowledge needed to perform safety by design?
Should project owners demand safety by design
on their projects?
Thanks for the Invitation

Questions?

For more information:

Comments?
[email protected]