Stewart, M G (1993) Modeling human performance in reinforced concrete beam construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(1), pp. 6-22. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A significant portion of performance failures are due to human error in the construction stage of a structural engineering project. Statistical studies indicate that the construction of in-situ reinforced concrete elements is most prone to error, and that most errors are committed by contractors (either site staff or workmen). Results are reported herein of a survey investigating the error rate and error magnitude of contractor construction errors, and the frequency of engineering inspections and their influence on construction errors. The survey recipients were practicing structural engineers. Probabilistic models have been proposed for the distribution of error rates and error magnitudes, and include within them the influence of inspections. It was found that engineering inspections reduced the initial on-site construction error content by approximately two orders of magnitude. The models provide construction task performance information that can be incorporated into a probabilistic risk analysis of reinforced-concrete construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | reinforced concrete, concrete construction, structural engineer, risk analysis, survey, in-situ, human-performance, site staff, modelling, inspection, reinforced concrete beam |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, quality assurance, building construction, analytical methods, building materials, practitioner, human factors and perception, data collection methods, profession |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here