Edwards, D J and Holt, G D (2011) Mini-excavator safety: Toward innovative stability testing, procurement, and manufacture. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), pp. 1125-1133. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Mini-excavators (m-excs) are commonly used in construction and allied industries to maximize productivity and reduce costs, but they present considerable health and safety hazards, the greatest of which is arguably their tendency to overturn. Assessment of m-exc stability is not prescribed in recognized standards and is primarily achieved using a "tilt-test". The tilt-test has considerable limitations and its application in practice varies, indicating that procurers have incomplete information on selecting the most stable (i.e., safest) machine. The purpose of this study was to compare three types of m-exc stability tests (i.e., tilt, operational, slewing) and contrast these to determine the most reliable testing regime. From these results, an innovative mini-excavator procurement model is proffered that incorporates the assessment of machine stability and practical selection criteria. The effect of the study to date (and for the future) on encouraging original equipment manufacturers to engender innovative m-exc design and production is presented; and a call for the development of a new stability testing standard is made.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction equipment; innovation; procurement; safety |
| Index terms: | health and safety, testing, productivity, selection criteria, manufacturer, construction equipment, stability |
| Subjects: | tendering, management, health safety and environment, practitioner, structural engineering, construction equipment, professional practice |
| Topics: | Procurement, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Plant and Equipment, Health and Safety, Business Strategy |
| 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