A Hybrid Simulation Approach For Integrating Safety Behaviorinto Construction Planning An Earthmoving Case Study

G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
AAP-3918; No. of Pages 9
Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
A hybrid simulation approach for integrating safety behavior

into construction planning: An earthmoving case study
Yang Miang Goh a, , Mohamed Jawad Askar Ali b
a
Safety and Resilience Research Unit (SaRRU), Department of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore,
4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore
b
Safety and Resilience Research Unit (SaRRU), Department of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore,
4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 April 2015
Received in revised form
18 September 2015
Accepted 23 September 2015
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Hybrid simulation
Construction safety
Safety behavior
Activity planning
Simulation methodology
a b s t r a c t
One of the key challenges in improving construction safety and health is the management of safety
behavior. From a system point of view, workers work unsafely due to system level issues such as poor
safety culture, excessive production pressure, inadequate allocation of resources and time and lack of
training. These systemic issues should be eradicated or minimized during planning. However, there is a
lack of detailed planning tools to help managers assess the impact of their upstream decisions on worker
safety behavior. Even though simulation had been used in construction planning, the review conducted in
this study showed that construction safety management research had not been exploiting the potential
of simulation techniques. Thus, a hybrid simulation framework is proposed to facilitate integration of
safety management considerations into construction activity simulation. The hybrid framework consists
of discrete event simulation (DES) as the core, but heterogeneous, interactive and intelligent (able to
make decisions) agents replace traditional entities and resources. In addition, some of the cognitive
processes and physiological aspects of agents are captured using system dynamics (SD) approach. The
combination of DES, agent-based simulation (ABS) and SD allows a more natural representation of the
complex dynamics in construction activities. The proposed hybrid framework was demonstrated using
a hypothetical case study. In addition, due to the lack of application of factorial experiment approach in
safety management simulation, the case study demonstrated sensitivity analysis and factorial experiment
to guide future research.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The Workplace Safety and Health Institute (2015) in Singapore
highlighted that the construction industry contributed to 57% of all
fatal injuries in the rst half of 2014. This is despite a decrease in
total number of fatalities in all sectors. A total of 311,623 man-days
were lost during the rst half of 2014 due to workplace injuries in
Singapore. Similar alarming trends could be seen throughout the
world, including the United States (Zhang et al., 2015), Hong Kong
(Li et al., 2015), Taiwan (Cheng et al., 2010) and Kuwait (Kartam
and Bouz, 1998). Hence there is heightened interest to improve
construction safety for both humanitarian as well as economic
reasons.
An important aspect of construction safety management is
the quality and depth of safety consideration during construction
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bdggym@nus.edu.sg (Y.M. Goh).
planning. Computer simulation is an established method for

analysis and planning of construction operations and processes
(Martinez, 2010). It had been applied in a wide range of construction contexts, e.g. planning for material laydown yards
(Alanjari et al., 2014), oating caisson fabrication (Pantouvakis and
Panas, 2013), bored piling (Zayed and Halpin, 2001), earthmoving
(Marzouk and Moselhi, 2004) and bridge construction (Said et al.,
2009). The range of problems that construction simulation models
were meant to resolve is very wide, and some of the typical output variables evaluated include completion time, cost, productivity,
number of resources deployed, and resource utilization. However,
safety behavior considerations such as number of safety violations
and diffusion of safety behavior are usually not considered in construction simulation. This is despite the fact that accidents is a
perennial problem in the construction industry (Zhou et al., 2014)
and safety behavior of workers is an important direct cause of construction accidents (Zhang and Fang, 2013). Safety behavior is also
an important indicator of safety culture, which is fundamental to
safety performance of organizations (Choudhry et al., 2007). Even
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.09.015
0001-4575/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Goh, Y.M., Askar Ali, M.J., A hybrid simulation approach for integrating safety behavior into construction
planning: An earthmoving case study. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.09.015
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.M. Goh, M.J. Askar Ali / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2015) xxxxxx
though some of the current construction simulation studies do take

safety into consideration, they are typically limited to basic constraints like space limitations (Marzouk and Ali, 2013) and working
hours restrictions (Alvanchi et al., 2012).
Thus, this study presents a hybrid simulation framework to integrate safety behavior considerations into construction simulation
models. The proposed framework utilizes a combination of discrete event simulation (DES), agent-based simulation (ABS) and
system dynamics (SD) to represent the different components of
a construction activity. In general, DES is used to represent work
processes, ABS is used to model individual agents (e.g. workers
and machines), and SD is used to represent complex variables in
agents. Such approach will facilitate a more balanced view of construction activities, where safety considerations will be considered
earlier. A detailed case study is included to demonstrate the proposed framework. In view of the lack of application of simulation
techniques in construction safety management research, the simulation methodology is presented in detail to guide future research
in this area.
2. Simulation approaches
Even though the range of simulation techniques is very wide,
there are three main approaches: SD, ABS and DES (Pidd, 2004;
Carley, 2009). SD is grounded in systems of differential equations
and a SD model is made up of stocks, ows, and auxiliary variables that are inter-connected (Sterman, 2000). SD is known for its
emphasis on feedback between variables and the delay between
cause and effect. The core of a SD model is the stocks, which vary
at each time step based on the difference between the ow rates in
and out of the stock. A mathematical equation or an ifthen rule is
embedded within each variable or ow rate in the model and the
values are analyzed using numerical methods. Variables are usually continuous and aggregated, where individual entities cannot be
identied. However, the SD approach can be tweaked to track individual entities within the model. The modied approach is known
as agent-oriented SD (e.g. Feola et al., 2012).
In comparison to SD, ABS is focused on the design of individual
agents and the adaptive decisions and actions that they perform.
The ABS approach is also known as the bottom-up approach
(Miller and Page, 2007), which contrasts with the top-down
approach of SD (stipulating high level equations to represent different parts of a system). In ABS, agents can be heterogeneous and
they have the ability to adapt and interact with each other and its
environment in an autonomous fashion. Agents follow certain sets
of rules and system behavior emerge from the interactions among
the agents.
Unlike SD models, DES models advance time from one event to
another, rather than continuously. Each event corresponds to some
signicant change in the model and a queue of events is maintained
in the model. Even though DES can be modeled in different ways,
most DES models take a process view of the world, i.e. the core of
the model is a sequence of steps or a ow chart, e.g. in a production
line. Entities and resources such as material, equipment and people
ow in the processes of a DES. By default, entities and resources are
not able to interact with each other and they do not display adaptive
behaviors as in ABS. DES is the most common form of simulation in
construction research (Martinez, 2010).
Hybrid simulation refers to a combination of two or more simulation approaches in a model. Even though it is possible to model
most real life systems using one of the abovementioned simulation
approaches, increasing level of complexity will often require significant improvisation of the selected simulation approach (Swinerd
and Mcnaught, 2012). When dealing with multi-faceted systems,
it may be advantageous to integrate two or more simulation
approaches so as to enable simple, natural and efcient representations. For instance, many DES would be more representative of
the real world if entities are agents with the ability to adapt to
changes in the model. It is also advantageous to integrate ABS with
established SD decision making models by having the SD models
embedded into the agents.
3. Simulation and safety management
Safety management is the process of planning, implementing,
checking and improving safety risk controls or interventions. Successful construction safety management hinges on detailed and
early planning of construction activities. However, there is a lack of
detailed planning tools to help managers assess the impact of the
construction activities on safety behavior and performance. Due to
its ubiquitous application in other areas of construction planning
and evaluation, simulation appears to be a useful tool to facilitate
safety planning of construction activities. Nevertheless, this study
could not identify a comparable work that uses the full potential of simulation to identify safety interventions in construction
management. As a sample of current safety management simulation studies, six papers were reviewed in detail: (1) Rudolph and
Repenning (2002), (2) Cooke (2003), (3) Cooke and Rohleder (2006),
(4) Salge and Milling (2006), (5) Sharpanskykh and Stroeve (2011)
and (6) Feola et al. (2012). The rst four papers were based on SD,
the fth is based on ABS and the last is based on agent-oriented SD.
The SD models illustrated safety management theories based on
major accidents. The agent-oriented SD model (Feola et al., 2012)
and ABS (Sharpanskykh and Stroeve, 2011) were more practical
and were focused on evaluation of safety interventions. A detailed
review of the six papers can be found in (Goh and Palak, 2014). It
was observed that SD was the most common approach and ABS is
more suited for modeling safety behavior issues. It was noted that
none of the six papers used factorial experimental design, which
is an important analytical technique in simulation studies (Kelton
and Barton, 2003).
4. Hybrid simulation framework
Instead of using the simulation approaches individually, this
study proposes a hybrid simulation framework to integrate safety
behavioral considerations into construction activity planning.
There are different ways to integrate DES, ABS and SD approaches.
et al. (2008) used a SDDES hybrid

For example, Pena-Mora
approach to model both operational and strategic levels in earthmoving activities. In their study, SD is used to model the strategic
level, while DES is used to model the operational level. On the other
hand, Swinerd and Mcnaught (2012) conducted a detailed review
of ABSSD models. Alvanchi et al. (2011) used a combination of SD
and DES in modeling effect of working hours on construction activity. Some possible hybrid simulation frameworks adapted from
Borshchev (2013) are summarized in Table 1.
In this study, a DESABSSD approach was selected. The proposed conceptual model framework is presented in Fig. 1. As
highlighted earlier, even though it is always possible to stretch any
of the simulation approach to cover all the desired features, the
hybrid approach has the advantage of allowing complex problems
to be represented more naturally, leading to improved efciency
and better communication with stakeholders of the simulation
project.
The framework consists of four quadrants, each highlighting a
critical component of the framework. Since the proposed simulation is focused on operational concerns, it is useful to use DES as the
core of the model. DES is widely accepted in the construction simulation literature as the default approach for modeling construction
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Possible hybrid simulation framework for integrating safety behavior into construction activity planning.
Hybrid approach
Description
ABS interact with SD
Humans, machineries and organizations are modeled in ABS and activities and project environment
modeled using SD. The agents decisions are dependent on the variables in the SD simulation. The SD
simulation can be based on established models such as the rework cycle Kun et al. (2011).
Humans, machineries and organizations are modeled in ABS and activities and project environment
modeled using DES. The agents decisions are dependent on the variables in the DES simulation. DES is
very established in construction simulation and can be easily adapted to allow interaction with an ABS
model.
Humans, machineries and organizations are modeled in ABS. SD models are embedded in each agent
to represent the decision making processes in the agents.
The activities and environment are modeled using DES. At least some of the entities or resources in the
DES process are modeled as agents.
ABS interact with DES
ABS with SD in agents

DES with agents as entities and/or resources
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for the proposed hybrid simulation model.
processes and activities (Abourizk, 2010; Martinez, 2010). As highlighted in the framework (Fig. 1), workow or sequence of steps for
production and safety will be captured using DES. Some examples of
safety processes include application for safety permits, site inspections and accident investigation. ABS is used to model human and
machine agents. Unlike the homogeneous entities and resources
in traditional DES, agents in ABS are naturally heterogeneous,
adaptive, have decision making capabilities and they interact with
other agents. Thus, ABS is the most suitable for capturing the safety
behavior of workers (human agents). The range of variables related
to safety behaviors can be very wide; some examples are listed in
the top left quadrant of Fig. 1, but as in the case for the other quadrants, the list is not meant to be comprehensive. The framework
also suggests the use of SD to capture the internal dynamics of each
human agents. SD has established equations and models to represent human decision making processes (Sterman, 2000) that can
be utilized in the agents. In the proposed framework, the machine
agents are essentially entities or resources in traditional DES models. However, when necessary, the entities or resources in DES can
also be programmed to display agent characteristics, e.g. ability to
interact and vary their behaviors. Lastly, the lower right quadrant
highlights the physical and social environment that the processes,
human agents and machine agents operate in. The environment
denes the physical and social relationships among the processes
and agents. It can also contain important environmental factors
such as weather, temperature and humidity.
5. Case study
The aim of this case study is to demonstrate how safety behavior considerations can be incorporated into construction planning
through the proposed DESABSSD framework. In addition, the
case study is also meant to guide future research on the use of

simulation techniques in construction safety management. The
case study was focused on earthmoving operation because it is
a common construction operation that was frequently simulated
(e.g. Smith et al., 1995; Pena-Mora

et al., 2008; Vahdatikhaki and
Hammad, 2014) and most readers should be able to relate to. Furthermore, truck drivers safety behavior is especially important to
the safety performance of the earthmoving operation because the
drivers have direct control over the trucks that they operate. In
view of the focus on safety behavior and the need to keep the case
study comprehensible, variables such as load pass time, number
of passes per load, the different timings involved in the dumping
different soil types, grade resistance and the rolling resistance of
the road were not included. The case study describes the use of
sensitivity analysis and factorial experimental design (Law, 2014)
because it was observed that this is a neglected area in safety
management simulation studies. The case study was implemented
using the simulation software AnyLogicTM (Anylogic Company,
2014).
5.1. Case scenario

In the hypothetical scenario, dump trucks and excavators are to
be deployed to transport a stockpile of soil to a location to facilitate
land reclamation work. However, the earthmoving contractor had
a series of truck-related accidents and they are concerned about the
safety behavior of the truck drivers. Thus, besides aiming to reduce
completion time and minimize the number of plants deployed, the
manager needs to consider ways to reduce the number of unsafe
behaviors. Specically, the contractor is concerned with speeding violations and driving under fatigue. The management levers
include adjusting the number of trucks and excavators, increasing available rest time and conducting intensive safety training to
change the safety attitude of drivers. Even though this case study is
hypothetical, basic parameters such as loading duration, duration
of breaks, capacity of trucks and speed limit were based on actual
data from a cut and cover tunneling project.
By default, the company allocated 10 trucks, 2 excavators, and
75 min of rest time per driver. Safety attitude of drivers is measured
on a scale of 0100 and is represented as a random variable with
a triangular distribution. It is assumed that the manager consulted
his supervisors and estimated the minimum, median and maximum safety attitude of his drivers as 20, 50 and 80 respectively.
Safety climate surveys (e.g. Huang et al., 2013) and questionnaire
developed based on behavioral models such as theory of planned
behavior (e.g. Goh and Saadon, 2015) can be used to help managers
estimate safety attitude more accurately. The default parameters
for the case study are summarized in Table 2. It is assumed that
the manager wants to nd out how he can adjust parameters 1, 2,
7 and 8 in Table 2 to improve the job completion time, minimize
resources deployed and reduce unsafe behaviors.
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
Table 2
Default parameters for hypothetical case study.
No.
Parameters
Values
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of trucksa
Number of excavatorsa
Number of loading ports
Volume of soil to be moved per day
Truck capacity
Haul distance
Rest time per daya
Median safety attitudea
Speed limit
Threshold attention level
10
2
2
2040 m3
18 m3
15 km
75 min
50
60 km/h
50
Adjustable parameter.
Start
Queue
Return
No
Load
Haul
Rest?
Dump
Yes
Rest
Fig. 2. Basic workow for the earthmoving activity.
5.2. Processes DES

Fig. 2 shows the workow for the earthmoving activity. The
trucks queue to enter loading ports where excavator(s) is (are) used
to load soil onto the truck. Once loaded, the trucks haul to the dumping point to unload the soil. Truck drivers can rest at the designated
resting area in the dumping point whenever they want, but they are
allowed to rest for a maximum of 75 min per day. After unloading

or resting, drivers will return to the queue for loading. Fig. 3 shows
the discrete event simulation implementation of Fig. 2 in AnyLogic
7. The simulation ends when all the soil had been re-located and all
the trucks had returned to their base location.
5.3. Truck and human agents ABSSD
The trucks and the drivers are modeled as agents with the ability to alter their behaviors. Each driver starts off with a randomly
assigned safety attitude level. Safety attitude affects the selection
of speed during driving and it can be altered when drivers interact
during rest breaks. Fig. 4 shows the state chart for modeling the
behavior of truck drivers. Within the working state, the driver is
driving and s/he can select the desired driving speed, but it will
never go below 45 km/h or exceed 75 km/h. If the speed exceeds
60 km/h, a speeding violation is recorded in the simulation. The
model keeps track of each drivers fatigue level (measured by attention resource level) and the driver can rest if s/he has not exceeded
the maximum rest time allocated. The driver can only rest at the
dumping point and will have to drive while under fatigue if s/he
runs out of rest time.
The speed selection of the truck driver is modeled based on the
simplied trip disutility concept model suggested by (Tarko, 2009),
which states that the drivers trade-off a portion of their safety for
their time gain. The safety attitude of the driver acts as a speed
deterrent and the perceived value of time gain or the production
pressure acts as speed enforcement. This relationship is in line with
the theory by Fuller (2005), who indicated that drivers adjust their
behavior to maintain the current workload below their capacity.
The speed of the truck in the model depends on the SD Eqs. (1)(3),
Truck Speed = max(l, min(u, l + (Sf + (100 Sa )) (Er R)))
(1)
where u is the upper speed limit of the truck (75 km/h), l the lower
speed limit of the truck (45 km/h), Sf is the default scaling factor
Fig. 3. Discrete event simulation for the earthmoving process.
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Resource Recovery Ratet
= Min [Maximum Resource Recovery

(1 Workload statust ), (100% Attention Resource levelt )
/t + Resource Consumption Ratet ]
(5)
Attention Resource levelt
= Attention Resource leveltt

+(Resource Recovery Ratett
Resource Consumption Ratett ) t
(6)
Once the Attention Resource levelt falls below the threshold

attention level, the truck driver is deem to be in the tired state,
i.e. under fatigue. The driver under fatigue will continue driving
until s/he reaches the resting location (dump point) and only if he
has not exceeded the maximum rest time allocated.
5.4. Social environment
Fig. 4. Truck driver state chart.
(80), Sa is the safety attitude of the driver (triangular (20, 50, 80)),
R is the current rate of work and Er the expected rate of work.
Eq. (1) captures the effect of production pressure on speed selection and how higher (lower) safety attitude can decrease (increase)
the effect of production pressure. The rate of work, R, is calculated
dynamically and at any given point of time, R is determined based
on
R=
total volume of soil moved

time worked
(2)
5.5. Sensitivity analysis
Expected rate of work is given by

N Tc
Er =
t Tn
(3)
where N is the expected total number of hauls, Tc is the capacity of

the truck, t is the total time assigned for the earthmoving operation
and Tn is the total number of trucks assigned.
Fatigue is an important factor inuencing safety performance.
This study uses the SD model of mental fatigue by Alvanchi et al.
(2012), which is based on the Theory of Limited Resources (Eqs.
(4)(6)) to model the mental fatigue of the truck driver during work.
Resource Consumption ratet
= Min[(Resource Consumption Index

Maximum Resource Recovery Rate)
Workload Statust ,
When more than one driver is resting at the resting area, the
drivers interact. It is assumed that whenever two drivers interact, they can potentially inuence each others safety attitude. This
process is based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991),
which indicates that intentional behavior, e.g. safety violation, is
dependent on attitude, subjective norm and/or perceived behavioral control. In this case, the effect of subjective norm is assumed
to be dominant. In the model, when two truck drivers meet, the
driver with the higher absolute deviation from the median safety
attitude is able to inuence the other truck drivers safety attitude.
The affected truck driver will adopt a new level of safety attitude
calculated based on the average of the safety attitude of the two
drivers. As an illustration, two drivers (A and B) met at the rest
point. Driver As safety attitude is 40 point higher than the median
(50), and Driver B is 10 point lower than the median. In this case,
Driver A is the inuencer and Driver Bs new safety attitude is
derived based on the average of the two drivers safety attitude
((90 + 40)/2 = 65).
The nal simulation model is an integration of the DESSDABD
model in which the operational ow of the earthmoving operation
is dened by the DES system. The haul times, the resting decision
and the co-worker inuence of the truck drivers are determined by
the underpinning ABSSD models.
Attention Resource levelt

t
+Resource Recovery Ratet ]
(4)
A simple one-factor-at-a-time (or one-way) sensitivity analysis

(Chua et al., 1997; Goh and Chua, 2013) was conducted to demonstrate how to evaluate the need for more detailed data collection
on selected parameters. In this case study, the sensitivity of the
response variables to changes in the arbitrary constants such as
median safety attitude, scaling factor (Eq. (1)), threshold attention level (see Table 2) and maximum recovery rate (Eq. (4)) were
evaluated. The values of the parameters were increased by 10% of
their base value individually. It is noted that the magnitude of the
increase was arbitrarily chosen to assess the sensitiveness of the
response variables to the factors or independent variables. This is
acceptable as the sensitivity analysis is a preliminary analysis to
guide further data collection. For each variation, the simulation
model was executed 40 times and the percentage change in the
average value of the response variables were captured in Table 3.
Based on Table 3, the maximum recovery rate had the highest
impact on the number of speeding violations and average time in
tired status. Similarly, a 10% increase in the threshold attention
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
Table 3
Sensitivity analysis of the assumed values.
Response variable
Base value
% Change in response due to 10% increase in:

Median safety attitude
Scaling factor
Threshold attention level
Maximum recovery rate
Number of speeding violations

Average time in tired status (min)
Job completion time (min)
4.3
83.3
635.0
10.5%
0.2%
0
+38.5%
2.1%
0
+28%
+ 14.2%
0
97.6%
35.2%
0
Table 4
Factor levels for the four-factor experiment.
Factor No.
Factor
Negative level ()
Positive level (+)
1
2
3
4
Number of trucks
Number of excavators
Resting duration (min)
Median safety attitude
8
1
60
40
10
2
75
60
level leads to more than 10% change in number of speeding violations and average time in tired status. It is observed that only the
number of speeding violations is sensitive to a 10% increase in the
scaling factor. Job completion time is not sensitive to changes in
the variables. However, maximum recovery rate, threshold attention level and scaling factor should be carefully evaluated because
of their impact on number of speeding violations and average time
in tired status. Some methods to increase the credibility of these
variables are calibration based on available response data, comparing with expert opinion and comparing with established models
(Law, 2014).
The sensitivity analysis is a useful rough gauge of the impact
of changes in parameters on the response variables. The results
of the sensitivity analysis can provide guidance on whether more
data should be collected to better represent an input parameter.
However, it does not consider interactions between the different
input parameters.
5.6. Factorial experimental design
While the sensitivity analysis is useful for guiding further
data collection, a more rigorous method for evaluating impact
of changes in input variables is factorial experimental design
(Montgomery and Runger, 1999). A factorial experiment is especially important when the possible combination of interventions to
improve system performance is not clearly stipulated. The factorial
experiment is meant to guide managers in identifying impactful
interventions and the interactions between factors (or controllable

variables). Despite its importance, none of the six safety simulation papers reviewed (Rudolph and Repenning, 2002; Cooke, 2003;
Cooke and Rohleder, 2006; Salge and Milling, 2006; Sharpanskykh
and Stroeve, 2011; Feola et al., 2012) conducted factorial experiments. A 2k factorial design is performed herein to encourage
its usage when utilizing the proposed framework. Table 4 shows
the four key factors that the manager can modify and the two
credible levels (negative and positive) identied by the manager.
Since there are four factors and each can be varied based on the
two levels, there are 16 possible combinations of the factors (see
Table 5). For each of the 16 system congurations, the simulation
was replicated 40 times and the results were analyzed in the statistical software SPSS. The average response values are captured in
Table 5.
The main effect of the factor j is the average change in the
response due to moving the factor j from its level to the +
level while holding all other factors xed. This average is taken
over all the possible combination of factors. For example, the effect
of factor 1, e1v , on the response variable No. of speeding violations
is calculated as
e1v =
(V2 V1 ) + (V4 V3 ) + (V6 V5 ) + + (V16 V15 )

8
(7)
where V1 is the Number of speeding violations corresponding to

design point 1, V2 is the Number of speeding violations corresponding to design point 2 and so on.
Determining the interactions between the factors is one of the
key advantages of conducting a factorial experiment over a sensitivity analysis (varying one variable at a time). Two factors interact
when the effect of a factor is dependent on the value of another factor (Law, 2014). If interaction is ignored, effects can be erroneously
assumed leading to ineffective interventions. As an example, the
effect of the interaction between factor 1 and 2 on the response
Table 5
Experiment design matrix.
Design point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
Factora
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
No. of speeding
violations
Average time in
tired status (min)
Job completion
time (min)
116.4
100.0
95.1
2.2
146.0
128.6
134.1
4.4
124.8
100.9
98.0
2.6
141.0
131.6
131.9
5.4
203.8
181.6
180.5
154.6
147.5
122.4
123.5
93.5
188.5
177.5
175.3
149.8
156.4
117.5
125.9
84.8
711.3
676.9
677.9
632.0
716.5
682.5
687.6
638.2
711.9
677.5
678.8
632.4
712.9
681.6
688.0
639.0
1 number of trucks; 2 number of excavators; 3 rest duration; 4 median safety attitude.
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 5. Main effects and factor interactions.
variable No. of speeding violations is calculated as

e12v
1
=
2
(V V ) + (V V ) + (V V ) + +
(V16 V15 )
7
4
3
8
12
11
4
(V2 V1 ) + (V6 V5 ) + (V10 V9 ) + + (V14 V13 )

4

(8)
Fig. 5 shows a summary of the results of the simulation experiments. As can be observed, even though many of the interactions
are statistically signicant, the actual magnitude of the interactions
diminish as the order of the interaction increases. Thus, the main

effects dominate all the responses.
5.7. Implications
Fig. 6 summarizes the results of the analysis. The manager is
able to adjust the numbers of trucks and excavators, rest time and
median safety attitude to balance activity completion time and
safety performance. Safety performance is represented by the number of speeding violation and average time driven under fatigue,
which are inuenced by production pressure. Production pressure
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
No of Speeding
Violation
Expected
production rate
per driver
-
Target
completion
time
+
Production
+ pressure
+ Completion
time gap
-
No of plants
+
No of trucks
Safety
performance
-
Median safety
attitude
+
Time driving
under fatigue
Actual
completion
+
time
-
Available
production time
-
+
No of excavator
Rest time
Fig. 6. Inuence diagram summarizing inuence of factors on responses.
arise when the expected production rate per driver and/or when
the gap between target completion time and actual completion
time is increased. Actual completion time is decreased when the
numbers of trucks and excavators are decreased. Although increasing rest time will reduce the average time driven under fatigue, it
causes actual completion time to be increased. On the other hand,
median safety attitude helps to reduce the effect of production
pressure, but the effect is minor as compared to the effect of production pressure. Therefore, within the connes of the values stated in
Table 4, increasing the numbers of trucks and excavators from 8 to
10 and 1 to 2 respectively, will help to reduce activity duration, and
reduce production pressure on drivers. This indicates the importance of allocating sufcient plants for the activity. Increasing rest
time and having intensive safety training targeted on improving
safety attitude have effect on safety performance, but these effects
can be easily negated by production pressure arising due to lack of
resources.
In terms of analysis, the effects and interactions derived from the

factorial experiments should be interpreted within the bounds of
the factor levels. Future studies should utilize optimization techniques, such as genetic algorithms, to optimize the controllable
factors automatically.
Even though this study adopted AnyLogicTM to develop the case
study, the conceptual framework and simulation approach can be
implemented in any modeling tool or a general purpose programming language. Using a commercial software has many advantages
in terms of having a more user-friendly development environment
and technical support, but users can be restrained by the user interface and it also prevents collaborations among developers. The
price of AnyLogicTM may also prevent researchers and user from
adopting the proposed approach more willingly. Future research
will explore how the hybrid simulation framework can be implemented in general purpose programming languages like Java or
Python.
6. Limitations and future research
7. Conclusions
The study proposed a hybrid simulation framework for modeling construction activities so that safety behavior can be considered
during planning. The case study showed how the hybrid simulation framework can be implemented. In view of the lack of
application of factorial experimental approach in current safety
management simulation studies, a detailed analysis was demonstrated. The case study was hypothetical and simple in many
aspects, but this limitation does not affect the core purpose of this
paper, which is to present the hybrid simulation framework for
integrating safety behavior considerations into construction simulation models. Future research will implement the framework using
actual data.
One of the key challenges in implementing the framework is
the modeling of the agents. This paper presented some suggested
approaches, but future studies should review a wider range of
fundamental psychological research on risk perception and safety
behavior (e.g. Slovic, 2000, 2010) and select the appropriate model
to represent safety behavior. In addition, more detailed calibration
of assumed variables and comparison with experts and established models should be conducted to validate the simulation
model. A standard agent can be created in the future to standardize the different behavioral, physiological and psychological
aspects important to construction safety and productivity. With the
standard agent, the complexity and effort for developing simulation models will be reduced signicantly.
The construction industry needs to develop new approaches to

improve its safety and health performance. One way to improve
safety and health performance is to encourage early planning of
construction processes and consider the possible impact on safety
behavior. This study proposed a hybrid simulation framework to
integrate safety behavior considerations in construction activity
simulation. The hybrid simulation framework is based on a combination of discrete event simulation (DES), agent-based simulation
(ABS) and system dynamics (SD). Since DES is the most common
simulation approach in the construction industry, it is natural to
use DES as the core of the proposed framework. However, in the
proposed framework, the entities and resources in the DES are
agents that are heterogeneous, able to make decisions and can
interact with other agents. Due to the ability of SD to account
for feedback and delays and its established approaches for modeling complex decision making, SD was used to model agents
decision making and physiological processes. The DESABSSD
framework was demonstrated through a hypothetical earthmoving
case study. A sensitivity analysis and a factorial experiment were
conducted to encourage correct utilization of these analytical methods in construction safety management simulation. The case study
showed how managers can utilize the hybrid simulation model to
select suitable interventions to balance production and safety goals.
In contrast to current construction planning simulation models,
the proposed hybrid simulation approach allows integrates safety
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
behavior issues into the model. This will help to engender a greater
focus on construction safety issues upstream and can potentially
lead to better safety performance during construction.
Acknowledgement
This research is funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education
(grant number: R-296-000-143-133).
References
Abourizk, S., 2010. Role of simulation in construction engineering and
management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 136 (10), 11401153.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50 (2), 179211.
Alanjari, P., Razavialavi, S., Abourizk, S., 2014. A simulation-based approach for
material yard laydown planning. Autom. Constr. 40, 18.
Alvanchi, A., Lee, S., Abourizk, S., 2011. Modeling framework and architecture of
hybrid system dynamics and discrete event simulation for construction.
Comput-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 26 (2), 7791.
Alvanchi, A., Lee, S., Abourizk, S., 2012. Dynamics of working hours in construction.
J. Constr. Eng Manage. ASCE 138 (1), 6677.
Anylogic Company, 2014. Anylogic multimethod simulation software.
Borshchev, A., 2013. The big book of simulation modeling: multimethod modeling
with anylogic 6. AnyLogic North America, New York.
Carley, K.M., 2009. Computational modeling for reasoning about the social
behavior of humans. Comput. Math. Org. Theory 15 (1), 4759.
Cheng, C.-W., Lin, C.-C., Leu, S.-S., 2010. Use of association rules to explore
causeeffect relationships in occupational accidents in the Taiwan
construction industry. Saf. Sci. 48 (4), 436444.
Choudhry, R.A., Fang, D.P., Mohamed, S., 2007. The nature of safety culture: a
survey of the state-of-the-art. Saf. Sci. 45 (10), 9931012.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C., Loh, P.K., Jaselskis, E.J., 1997. Model for construction budget
performance neural network approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 123 (3),
214222.
Cooke, D.L., 2003. A system dynamics analysis of the westray mine disaster. Syst.
Dyn. Rev. 19 (2), 139166.
Cooke, D.L., Rohleder, T.R., 2006. Learning from incidents: from normal accidents
to high reliability. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 22 (3), 213239.
Feola, G., Gallati, J.A., Binder, C.R., 2012. Exploring behavioural change through an
agent-oriented system dynamics model: the use of personal protective
equipment among pesticide applicators in Colombia. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 28 (1),
6993.
Fuller, R., 2005. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Acc. Anal. Prev. 37
(3), 461472.
Goh, Y.M., Chua, D., 2013. Neural network analysis of construction safety
management systems: a case study in Singapore. Constr. Manage. Econ. 31 (5),
460470.
Goh, Y.M., Palak, G., 2014. Evaluating the potential and challenges of utilising
computational simulation to design safety management and culture
interventions. In: CIB W099 International Conference on Achieving Sustainable
Construction Health and SafetyIngvar Kamprad Design Centre (IKDC), Lund,
Sweden.
Goh, Y.M., Saadon, N.F., 2015. Cognitive factors inuencing safety behavior at
height: a multimethod exploratory study. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Publ.
Online.
Huang, Y.H., Zohar, D., Robertson, M.M., Garabet, A., Lee, J., Murphy, L.A., 2013.
Development and validation of safety climate scales for lone workers using
truck drivers as exemplar. Transp. Res. Part F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 17,
519.
Kartam, N.A., Bouz, R.G., 1998. Fatalities and injuries in the Kuwaiti construction
industry. Acc. Anal. Prev. 30 (6), 805814.
Kelton, W.D., Barton, R.R., 2003. Experimental design for simulation: experimental
design for simulation. In: Proceedings of the 35th Conference on Winter
Simulation: Driving Innovation. Winter Simulation Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana, pp. 5965.
Kun, H.U., et al., 2011. Factors inuencing the risk of falls in the construction
industry: a review of the evidence. Construct. Manage. Econ. 29 (4), 397416.
Law, A.M., 2014. Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Li, H., Lu, M., Hsu, S.-C., Gray, M., Huang, T., 2015. Proactive behavior-based safety
management for construction safety improvement. Saf. Sci. 75 (0), 107117.
Martinez, J.C., 2010. Methodology for conducting discrete-event simulation studies
in construction engineering and management. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. ASCE
136 (1), 316.
Marzouk, M., Ali, H., 2013. Modeling safety considerations and space limitations in
piling operations using agent based simulation. Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (12),
48484857.
Marzouk, M., Moselhi, O., 2004. Multiobjective optimization of earthmoving
operations. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130 (1), 105113.
Miller, J.H., Page, S.E., 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to
Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press.
Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C., 1999. Applied Statistics and Probability for
Engineers, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Pantouvakis, J.P., Panas, A., 2013. Computer simulation and analysis framework for
oating caisson construction operations. Autom. Constr. 36, 196207.
Pena-Mora,
F., Han, S., Lee, S., Park, M., 2008. Strategic-operational construction
management: hybrid system dynamics and discrete event approach. J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 134 (9), 701710.
Pidd, M., 2004. Computer Simulation in Management Science. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Rudolph, J.W., Repenning, N.P., 2002. Disaster dynamics: understanding the role of
quantity in organizational collapse. Adm. Sci. Q. 47 (1), 130.
Said, H., Marzouk, M., El-Said, M., 2009. Application of computer simulation to
bridge deck construction: case study. Autom. Constr. 18 (4), 377385.
Salge, M., Milling, P.M., 2006. Who is to blame, the operator or the designer? Two
stages of human failure in the Chernobyl accident. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 22 (2),
89112.
Sharpanskykh, A., Stroeve, S.H., 2011. An agent-based approach for structured
modeling, analysis and improvement of safety culture. Comput. Math. Org.
Theory 17 (1), 77117.
Slovic, P., 2000. The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, Sterling, VA/London.
Slovic, P., 2010. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception.
Earthscan, Washington, DC/London.
Smith, S.D., Osborne, J.R., Forde, M.C., 1995. Analysis of earth-moving systems
using discrete-event simulation. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 121 (4), 388396.
Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World. Irwin/Mac-Graw Hill, Boston.
Swinerd, C., Mcnaught, K.R., 2012. Design classes for hybrid simulations involving
agent-based and system dynamics models. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 25 (0),
118133.
Tarko, A.P., 2009. Modeling drivers speed selection as a trade-off behavior. Acc.
Anal. Prev. 41 (3), 608616.
Vahdatikhaki, F., Hammad, A., 2014. Framework for near real-time simulation of
earthmoving projects using location tracking technologies. Autom. Constr. 42,
5067.
Workplace Safety and Health Institute, 2015. Overall Workplace Injuries and
Fatalities Increase in First Half of 2014. Singapore.
Zayed, T.M., Halpin, D.W.,2001. Construction i: simulation of bored pile
construction. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Winter simulation.
IEEE Computer Society, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 14951503.
Zhang, M., Fang, D., 2013. A cognitive analysis of why Chinese scaffolders do not
use safety harnesses in construction. Constr. Manage. Econ. 31 (3), 207222.
Zhang, S., Sulankivi, K., Kiviniemi, M., Romo, I., Eastman, C.M., Teizer, J., 2015.
Bim-based fall hazard identication and prevention in construction safety
planning. Saf. Sci. 72 (0), 3145.
Zhou, Z., Goh, Y.M., Li, Q., 2014. Overview and analysis of safety management
studies in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 72 (February 2015), 337350.

A Hybrid Simulation Approach For Integrating Safety Behaviorinto Construction Planning An Earthmoving Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Hybrid Simulation Approach For Integrating Safety Behaviorinto Construction Planning An Earthmoving Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Model

AAP-3918; No. of Pages 9

Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention