Virtually real construction site processes: hazard identification and accident precaution planning using design-for-safety-process (DFSP) tool

Hadikusumo, B H W (2001) Virtually real construction site processes: hazard identification and accident precaution planning using design-for-safety-process (DFSP) tool. PhD thesis, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Abstract

Safety hazard identification is one of the important stages in safety planning. Failure to identify a safety hazard, which occurs in a construction site, can cause an accident to workers. If a safety hazard is not identified, a necessary action to remove, reduce or control the hazard cannot be undertaken. In the traditional approach, safety hazard identification is undertaken during the construction stage using two-dimensional (2D) drawings and site inspections. This approach has several limitations: • 2D drawings are difficult to interpret. The drawing contains several types of lines (solid and dashed) that need to be interpreted in order to develop a 3D mental picture. The safety hazard identification is conducted by imagining the 3D mental picture. Alternatively, a site inspection can be done to see the real situation, but this can only be conducted during the construction stage. Identifying safety hazards prior to the construction stage can provide for better safety planning. • 2D drawings only provide static representations of designs. The drawings do not represent any of the dynamics of construction, i.e. a construction process, which has inherent safety hazards In this research, the Design-For-Safety-Process (DFSP) tool approach is proposed to overcome the problems above. This tool is a kind of Design for X-ability (DFX) tool that has been successfully developed in the manufacturing sector to consider the X factor, such as quality, and ease and time of assembly, in a product design. The DFSP tool model proposed consists of two main components: a virtual world and a safety database. The virtual world consists of virtually real construction components and processes. Representing the construction components and processes in VR can solve the problems of the 2D drawing. Since the virtual world is able to represent the static and dynamic elements of design and construction, a virtual site inspection can be done to identify safety hazards. The advantage of this virtual site inspection is that it can be conducted at any time after the design has been completed (or before the construction stage is commenced). For the safety hazard identification purpose, the DFSP tool is equipped with a safety database. This safety database is used to assist a user in identifying safety hazards inherent within virtually real construction components and processes. The advantage of the DFSP tool approach may result in better safety planning since several alternative actions can be offered, such as (a) removing a safety hazard by changing the design of construction components and processes, or (b) reducing a safety hazard by installing accident precautions. In this research, the DFSP tool model developed was tested in order to verify whether it can be used to assist a user in identifying safety hazards inherent within virtually real construction components and processes. The results of the tests showed that the DFSP tool has potential to be used for this purpose.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: failure; hazards; construction site; manufacturing; safety; inspection
Index terms: drawing, product design, database, construction site, construction process, design and construction, hazard identification, inspection, design for x-ability, dynamics
Subjects: quality assurance, contractual arrangements, data management, building construction, systems engineering, innovation and technology management, work location, financial risk, technical documentation, design process
Topics: Cost Management, Site Management, Design Practice, Quality Management, Procurement, Digital Applications, Engineering Principles
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