Baradan, S (2004) Comparative injury risk analysis of building trades. PhD thesis, Wayne State University, USA.
Abstract
Construction is considered inherently dangerous work, consisting of many different, often complex, activities. Most of these activities are performed by different construction trades (e.g.carpenters, roofers, painters). In a typical construction project, activities of the individual trades also differ from each other, and often multiple trades work on a construction site at the same time. As a result, this creates an environment full of hazards and related injury and fatality risks. By knowing nature and magnitude of the risks, it could be possible to reduce the risks on construction sites. However, it is difficult to identify and analyze the risks, because extensive data is required. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes national injury, illness, fatality data through their website. On the other hand, this database is not practical and there is not enough guidance provided to the employers to utilize this data. In this regard, this study develops a methodology to analyze the existing national safety data with an emphasis on the quantification and assessment of risks associated with different construction trades. The methodology introduced in this research includes identifying the high-risk construction trades (mostly engaged in building construction), and ranking them from high-risk to low-risk. Some highlights of the methodology include: integrating risk concepts, such as probability (frequency) and severity into the methodology; using a risk assessment method entitled “Risk Plane” to rank the building trades based on their probability and severity combinations; an attempt to combine fatality and nonfatal injury data; and performing frequency analysis on each trade to highlight the overlooked problem areas. As a result, it was found that roofers and ironworkers are the two building trades that are exposed to risk more than the other building trades. The study also showed that it is possible and feasible to incorporate probability and severity to analyze and determine the risk exposure of a trade. Overall, this study systematically generated detailed information on the safety exposures and accident/injury causal factors of the building trades. Occupational safety and health practitioners can use the information and results presented in this study to target prevention activities to building trades as needed.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Usmen, M A |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | hazards; building trades; construction project; construction site; injury; risk analysis; risk assessment; safety; carpenter; employer; roofer; probability; quantification; risk analysis |
| Index terms: | occupational safety and health, roofer, construction site, building trade, risk assessment, quantification, methodology, prevention, illness, database, carpenter, economic indicator, injury, exposure, risk analysis, practitioner, construction project, building construction |
| Subjects: | data management, health conditions and diseases, practitioner, environmental hazards, data analysis and analytics, building construction, research methods, financial risk, work location, occupational health and safety management, measurement and scaling, public and environmental health, production management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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