Perttula, P; Korhonen, P; Lehtelä, J; Rasa, P L; Kitinoja, J P; Mäkimattila, S and Leskinen, T (2006) Improving the safety and efficiency of materials transfer at a construction site by using an elevator. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), pp. 836-843. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare materials transfer at a construction site, either by carrying manually or by using an elevator. Data were collected at a construction site by using two methods: continuous automatic collection of data on the use of the elevator, and measuring and observing the transportation of some products when different delivery systems were used. Health and safety risks were at their highest when transporting products manually at construction sites. Risks decrease when vertical (an elevator) and horizontal (a wheeled device) transportation tools are used. A similar improvement as in health and safety risks can be seen in efficiency results: The working time needed with the elevator was 41% of the purely manual handling time. When wheeled devices were used, the transportation time was decreased to 16%. The early use of a permanent elevator succeeded well and its capacity was large enough. The effective use of the elevator and wheeled devices require that pathways are in better condition than normally.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; construction materials; elevators; health hazards; logistics; safety |
| Index terms: | health and safety, health hazard, efficiency, construction material, construction site |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, environmental hazards, work location, performance management, building materials |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Health and Safety, Site Management, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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