Kashwani, G A (2017) Enhancing the implementation of safety engineering systems in oil and gas construction projects in the UAE. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
Abstract
Risk assessment is one of the most critical methodologies used in the safety engineering system in oil and gas construction projects that require high levels of precaution in construction activities such as pilling, materials fabrication, and structure installation. The main purpose of risk assessment is to provide full protection to the four main elements that are crucial to the oil industry: People, Environment, Assets and Reputation (PEAR). Any failure or defect in the risk assessment implementation can potentially lead to catastrophes not only during the construction stage but also in the advanced stages such as operation and productions. Historically, in oil and gas construction projects many oil spills and blow outs occurred due to lack of efficient risk assessment in the construction phase, resulting in financial loss and human capitals. The aim of this research is to enhance the implementation of safety engineering systems in the oil and gas industry construction projects through risk assessment application in the UAE. Firstly, the aim is achieved via conducting a questionnaire to determine the current defects in the risk assessment applied methodology in the safety engineering system. Secondly, interviews are conducted with safety construction professionals to examine top risk factors in UAE oil and gas construction projects. After that, a framework to enhance the application of risk assessment and optimize safety engineering system is proposed based on the results found during the questionnaire and interviews phases. Finally, qualitative and quantitative validation of the proposed framework is applied to strengthen its feasibility and mechanism. This research study contributes to construction safety knowledge by studying behavioral safety performance and its critical role in risk assessment implementation. The main outcomes of this research study expose a gap in the understanding and the practices of risk assessment methods between management and workers, especially with regard to human factors effects on safety performance. In addition, this study recommends using proactive KPIs to measure the safety culture in the construction site in which it gives the chance to conduct early correction actions before the occurrence of the incidents.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Nielsen, Y |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction safety; construction site; construction stage; fabrication; interview; safety; UAE |
| Index terms: | safety performance, human factor, construction safety, validation, questionnaire, methodology, construction project, construction site, interview, fabrication, implementation, oil and gas, construction phase, risk factor, construction professional, risk assessment, construction activity, human capital, safety engineering, safety culture |
| Subjects: | work location, project delivery, data collection methods, occupational health and safety management, environmental health, industry analysis, economics, professional development, contractual arrangements, construction operations, environmental hazards, research methods, manufacturing engineering, financial risk, production management, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Site Management, Cost Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Sustainability, Procurement, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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