Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared by
The Construction Industry Institute
Design for Safety Research Team
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at
no cost to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this
work for the internal use provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible
to purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty and students at a college or
university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.
Executive Summary v
1. Introduction 1
3. Study Objectives 5
References 33
v
1
Introduction
Job Costs
Estimated Total Cost
Type of Injury Direct Indirect Liability Costs to Employer
1
Owners’ pre-qualification requirements and the selection of
constructors can be based partly on demonstrated safety performance.
Owners can also influence jobsite safety through their contractual
agreements with constructors. By insisting on addressing safety in the
contract, owners increase the probability that constructors will follow
outlined safety procedures. Lastly, owners who are proactive in
approaching safety on the construction site promote safety awareness
throughout the project team.
2
2
3
injured workers for their losses. As a result, and upon subsequent
advice from their legal counsel, many designers have deliberately
excluded from their scope of work any involvement in construction
worker safety.
4
3
Study Objectives
5
designer’s role in safety. Many individuals remarked about the
favorable and direct effect it will have on improving worker safety.
Numerous calls were received inquiring about the availability of the
design tool and its database of design suggestions. Some individuals
also contacted the research team members to describe and discuss
potential applications of the program within their firm’s project
management and design processes.
6
4
7
Many suggestions were collected through interviews with industry
personnel. In order to address all types of construction site hazards, the
interviews focused on personnel in various design and construction
disciplines and those employed on construction projects of various
types and sizes. All of the major parties involved in construction
projects, including owners, designers, constructors, design-builders,
and construction managers, were targeted.
8
Accumulated Design Suggestions
The effort to find and develop design suggestions was successful.
Over 400 design suggestions were accumulated. The number of design
suggestions from the various sources is shown in Table 2.
No. of
Source Suggestions %
6 Periodicals 14 3.3
9
location of shut-off valves and switches for existing utilities. This
allows the contractor to immediately locate the valves and switches in
emergency situations. This suggestion applies to the designers of
mechanical, electrical, and piping/plumbing systems. Thus, although
there are 430 unique recorded suggestions, the various design
disciplines were addressed a total of 641 times.
3 Piping/Plumbing 84 19.5
4 Electrical/Instrumentation 69 16.0
5 Mechanical/HVAC 69 16.0
7 Civil 48 11.2
8 Tanks/Vessels 17 4.0
9 Traffic/Transportation 16 3.7
10 Geotechnical 5 1.2
11 Coatings/Insulation 3 0.7
Total 641
* Since suggestions may address more than one construction site hazard,
the sum of these numbers (expressed as a % of the 430 recorded
suggestions) exceeds 100.
10
All types of construction site hazards are addressed in the
accumulated design suggestions. As shown in Table 4, the majority of
the suggestions relate to falls, followed by electrical shock, explosions,
and cave-ins. Similar to Table 3, the results in Table 4 reflect the fact
that each suggestion may relate to more than one construction site
hazard.
Total 602
* Since suggestions may address more than one construction site hazard,
the sum of these numbers (expressed as a % of the 430 recorded
suggestions) exceeds 100.
11
The design suggestions ranged from specific ideas to those with
broad applications. All major phases of construction were addressed.
The following is a sample of the design suggestions compiled.
12
5
Prototype Development
A prototype for the design tool was developed as an initial research
step in this study (Haas, Burleson, Goodrum, 1995). The prototype was
used as the starting point for developing the final version of the design
tool.
13
Preliminary efforts in the development of the prototype involved
the identification of a software program which could be used to
develop an interactive and comprehensive design tool. A review of the
available software building tools was made which considered expert
systems, multimedia applications, and Macintosh software. A
Windows-based multimedia software program was chosen as the
product which best suited the emerging functional specifications.
Asymetrix Multimedia ToolBook was chosen as the software building
tool. Information about this “parent” software is provided in the
Appendix. After an initial model of the application was developed, a
series of research team reviews led to subsequent revisions of the
prototype until the final product was created.
14
• Reviews may be conducted from the perspective of
project components (physical and contractual features),
construction site hazards, or project systems (CSI format).
15
There were many specific and general features that the research
team desired of ToolBox. Among these were requirements that the
completed software should:
16
Table 5 presents the minimum and recommended computer
hardware and software requirements for operating ToolBox.
Computer
Software/Hardware Minimum Recommended
Component Requirement Capacity
17
The program contains various screens to help identify the user
and the project, focus on a particular topic, input the features of the
project, alert the user to safety concerns, review various design
suggestions, and record design decisions. It also contains screens to
help manage the project, keep track of recorded suggestions, and
create customized reports.
18
The project number box will appear in all subsequent screens in
the program. This feature allows the user working on numerous
projects to ensure that the items being considered are for the
appropriate project.
19
Table 6. Project Components
20
Table 8. Project Systems
21
A “tools” bar appears on the Concerns and Suggestions screen just
below the menu selections near the top of the screen (see Figure 2).
The tools bar contains a number of buttons, each with its own icon.
These icons, related to the various screens in ToolBox, enable the user
to quickly navigate throughout the program. The buttons can be used
to review only parts of a project, to edit/view entries already made, or
to access/egress from the project review. The user may elect to use
either the buttons or the conventional menu items for navigating within
the program.
22
identification, recommendations as to the appropriate course of action,
and the actions/status needed for assignments and progress monitoring.
The Design Suggestion Journal screen is presented in Figure 3. Since
the users of the Design Suggestion Journal are likely to vary
considerably from firm to firm, the form has deliberately been designed
in an “open-ended” fashion.
23
ToolBox lists all of a project’s design suggestions selected by
reviewers in the Suggestion Index. The design suggestions are listed in
chronological order along with the name given to each suggestion. An
example of the Suggestion Index can be seen in Figure 4. As noted on
the left side of the figure, selecting a suggestion from the index will
immediately call up its Design Suggestion Journal page. This feature
provides quick access to update Design Suggestion Journal pages with
completed design information, to check on the status of a suggestion,
or for browsing through design suggestions.
24
or a safety engineer. To simplify this management function, ToolBox
incorporates a feature called the Matrix Manager, which provides a
quick look at the status of the review in a matrix form. The Matrix
Manager provides automatically updated overviews of the status of the
project review and a reflection of the review results in a simple format.
A Matrix Manager (see Figure 5) exists for each of the three review
subject paths (Project Components, Construction Site Hazards, and
Project Systems). The reviewer’s discipline is always represented by
rows in the matrix. The columns are a function of the subject path
selection.
The Matrix Managers start with empty, white squares in the matrix.
The squares will remain white until the user, representing a design
discipline, has performed a review. As a review is performed, entries
into the Matrix Manager are made automatically according to the
results of the subject path review. Entries in the matrix are seen as G
(green), Y (yellow), and R (red). These codes have the following
meanings:
25
Figure 5. Matrix Manager Screen
Reports
To help record and communicate the results of the project review,
ToolBox offers a variety of printed reports. The contents of the reports
may easily be customized to fit the needs of various organizations and
projects. The Project Data report includes the information on the
Project Data screen. The Current Suggestion report prints information
in the Suggestion Journal which is currently displayed on the screen.
The Project Suggestions reports allow printing of design suggestions
recorded or the safety concerns not addressed. These reports can be
customized according to specific Project Components, Construction
Site Hazards, Project Systems, User Disciplines, or Task#/Trade/Worker
(the responsibility code that can be noted in the Design Suggestion
Journal).
26
Performing a Project Review with ToolBox
The typical flow for a project review is displayed in Figure 6. The
first step is to initiate a file with project data or to select an existing
project file. Next, the user is asked to record the design discipline(s)
being represented and to choose a subject path for the review.
Selection of a design discipline is an optional task, but it is required for
the Matrix Manager to be functional.
27
The optimum timing of the use of ToolBox and how various
participants use it has been discussed in previous sections.
Implementation of these principles depend on decisions made at the
earliest point in the pre-project planning process. These decisions
should define the timing and personnel who will be using the ToolBox.
28
Some firms will have their own standard “best practice” to design
for particular construction hazards. New practices may come about as
the result of lessons learned. Either of these items can be incorporated
into ToolBox by creating a skeleton file that contains the desired design
suggestions in the “Other Suggestions” boxes of the Concerns and
Suggestions screens.
29
6
Conclusions
Construction projects can best benefit by having all team members
participate in safety planning during the pre-project planning stage.
Designers can influence construction site safety by considering how
facilities are constructed and the hazards faced by construction
personnel. Safety planning in the design phase saves money and time
by reducing design rework, liability, and insurance costs. The Design
for Construction Safety ToolBox aids design teams in these efforts by
prompting consideration of hazards, offering suggestions to adapt
designs to control hazards, and maintaining an ongoing record of
design ideas and their status.
30
Recommendations
In order to improve construction site safety, design firms should
employ “best practices” to design for safety. “Best practices” include
both the methods used to consider construction site hazards and the
design ideas used to mitigate them. Hazard analysis can be broken
down into four categories: identification of hazards, quantification of
hazards, consequence of hazards, and management of hazards. The
software developed by the research team is primarily developed to
help the designer with the identification and management of hazards.
31
The greater the potential for injuries or damage, the more likely that a
quantitative approach would be used since it is based on injury data
and trends rather than an individual’s perception.
32
References
33
Jeffrey, J. and Douglas, I. (1994), “Safety Performance of the UK
Construction Industry,” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Rinker
International Conference Focusing on Construction Safety and
Loss Control, University of Florida, pp. 233–253.
34
Appendix
Authoring Tool
35
Notes
36
Notes
37
Design for Safety Research Team Membership
Past Members
Gerald L. Bissell, Eli Lilly & Co.
N. Colin Harris, John Brown E&C
Jim Pemberton, Arco Exploration and Production Technology,
past Chairman
Peter J. Schappa, Northern States Power Co.
Kamal Shah, John Brown E&C
Garry W. Suenkel, Bechtel Corp.
**Principal author
**Contributing authors