Zhang, R P; Cheung, C M and Lei, H (2019) Applications of visualisation technology in construction safety training: A preliminary review. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
The construction industry is a hazardous industry and characterised by high number of workplace injuries and fatalities. Existing construction accident causation models have identified that risk factors such as a lack of trade knowledge and skills, inadequate understanding of risk controls, and low level of safety awareness may contribute to workplace accidents. This highlights the importance of training and upskilling in assuring that workers competently perform work tasks by adhering to health and safety requirements. The main and conventional way of developing safety knowledge and compliant skills is to attend classroom-based training on safety regulations and related codes of practice. However, such a training approach has long been questioned about its effectiveness due to low level of engagement and innovation and lack of opportunities to practice in a real site scenario. Emerging visualisation technologies such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and gaming environments seem promising to overcome the limitations of traditional training approach. Existing research shows that researchers have made considerable efforts in developing a variety of VR and AR technologies or systems in enhancing safety training effectiveness. Some studies have also attempted to review and compare those technologies and systems in terms of technology characteristics, application domains, training outcomes, etc. However, those studies do not adequately inform whether VR and AR technologies should be used differently to facilitate safety training by considering task complexity, work environment, project types, workers' individual difference, etc. This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive literature review and develop a taxonomy of VR and VR applications in relation to application scenarios, nature of work tasks, project and work environment characteristics, and worker personal factors. It is expected that the taxonomy will inform the better ways of using visualisation technology in supporting safety training.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | safety training; visualisation technology; worker skills; review |
| Index terms: | complexity, construction safety, fatalities, construction industry, taxonomy, safety training, visualization, work environment, augmented reality, regulation, risk factor, construction accident, effectiveness, classroom, codes of practice, virtual reality, literature review, gaming, low level, injury, health and safety |
| Subjects: | virtual reality, construction type, data analysis and analytics, visualization, health safety and environment, performance management, decision-making and reasoning, design practice, health risk and incident analysis, management, systems engineering, political science, environmental hazards, environmental health, regulatory law, industry analysis, measurement and scaling, health conditions and diseases, occupational health and safety management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Governance, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| 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