Safety in Design and Construction: A Lifecycle Approach

Design for Construction Safety in the U.S.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

T. Michael Toole, PhD, PE

Associate Professor

Bucknell University

John Gambatese, PhD, PE

Associate Professor

Oregon State University

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Learning Objectives

By the end of this session, participants should be able to:

Provide several examples of designing for safety Name several large firms who have design for

safety programs Identify sources of design for safety tools List several potential barriers to having design for

safety performed on your projects Summarize three steps for implementing design

for safety in your organization

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Overview

Safe Design Examples Tools and Processes Barriers Initiatives Trajectories and Implications Moving forward in your

organization

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Ethical Reasons for DfCS

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,

health, and welfare of the public.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Code of Ethics: Engineers shall recognize that the lives,

safety, health and welfare of the general public are dependent upon engineering decisions ….

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Example of the Need for DfCS

Design spec: Dig groundwater monitoring wells at

various locations. Wells located directly under overhead

power lines. Accident:

Worker electrocuted when his drill rig got too close to overhead power lines.

Engineer could have: specified wells be dug away from power

lines; and/or better informed the contractor of

hazard posed by wells’ proximity to powerlines through the plans, specifications, and bid documents.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS Examples: Anchorage Points

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS Examples: Roofs and Perimeters

Skylights

Upper story windows

Parapet Walls

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Head Knocker at Catwalk

Fall Hazard at Catwalk

DfCS Examples: Clearances

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS Examples: Microchip Fabrication Plant

Plan of Record (POR): Trench

below sub-fab level

OPTION "A"- PLAN OF RECORD1

32" =1'-0"

OPTION "C"1

32" =1'-0"

New Fab: full basement and taller basement

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS Examples: Prefabrication

Steel Stairs

Concrete Wall Panels

Concrete Segmented Bridge

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Prefabrication and Modularization

Construction Drives Design

Bechtel Solar BoilerURS/WGI USACE

DamURS/WGI Power Plant

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Photos courtesy of URS, Washington Division

Modularization at a Power Plant

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Modularization: Module on Ground

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Modularization: Stair Tower

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Detailing Guide for the Enhancement of Erection Safety Published by the National Institute for Steel

Detailing and the Steel Erectors Association of America

Constructability Tips for Steel Design

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

The Erector Friendly Column Include holes in

columns at 21” and 42” for guardrail cables and at higher locations for fall protection tie-offs

Locate column splices and connections at reasonable heights above floor

Provide seats for beam connections

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Avoid hanging connections Design

connections to bear on columns

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Avoid awkward and dangerous connection locations

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Avoid tripping hazards

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Eliminate sharp corners

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Provide enough space for making connections

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Know approximate dimensions of necessary tools to make connections

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Checking in: Do we have a good idea of what design for safety is about?

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS Process

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Design for Construction Safety Toolbox

Created by Construction Industry Institute (CII)

Interactive computer program

Used in the design phase to decrease the risk of incidents

Over 400 design suggestions

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Safety in Design ChecklistsItem Description

1.0 Structural Framing

1.1 Space slab and mat foundation top reinforcing steel at no more than 6 inches on center each way to provide a safe walking surface.

1.2 Design floor perimeter beams and beams above floor openings to support lanyards.

1.3 Design steel columns with holes at 21 and 42 inches above the floor level to support guardrail cables.

2.0 Accessibility

2.1 Provide adequate access to all valves and controls.

2.2 Orient equipment and controls so that they do not obstruct walkways and work areas.

2.3 Locate shutoff valves and switches in sight of the equipment which they control.

2.4 Provide adequate head room for access to equipment, electrical panels, and storage areas.

2.5 Design welded connections such that the weld locations can be safely accessed.

HARVARD UNIVERSITYOption Evaluation Sheet Intel D1D Programming

Option Title Subfab vs Basement Opion #1

Option Description D1B (Similar) Basement W/ 14' SubfabDescription of Issue:

Evaluation Criteria ScoreFSCS GOALS wt. worse better total Comments

5- *0 5+

C1 Dollars / Sq Ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 -5 11.9 M Impact to Base Build Cost

C2 Tool Install Cost 1 1 1 2 1.9 M Cost Savings

E1 Energy Conservation 1 1 -1 added building Volume

E2 Reduce Emissions 1 1 -1 More materials

S1 Support 2 Technology and 1 1 1 1 3 Move Available space5 HVM Generations

S2 Maintain Existing Reliability and 1 1 1 More room for maintenanceMaintainability

S3 Improved Life Cycle Safety 1 1 1 2 Ergonomics - Cable Instalation

S4 Maximize Reuseability and 1 1 1 0 Small Benifet to ElectricalFungibility Only adapts to Copy D1b

B FABSD1 Overall Construction Duration 1 1 1 2 weeks faster than POR ( Trench)

D2 Consructability 1 1 1 Better than Trench

D3 Tool Install Duration 1 1 1 2 More space available

5 Total Score

Comments:

Multi-criteria alternative analysis tools

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

CHAIR Safety in Design Tool

Begin Concept Design

Commence Construction

CHAIR-2

CHAIR-3

Project Phase

CHAIR-1

Review of Concept Design

Review of Detailed Design

Construction Hazard Assessment and Implication Review (CHAIR)

(Source: NSW WorkCover, CHAIR Safety in Design Tool, 2001)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

CHAIR Safety in Design Tool

No. Guideword Risk Issue Causes Consequence

sSafeguard

s Action Person Resp.

GENERIC

1. Size

2. Heights / Depths

3. Position / Location

4. Poor Ergonomics

5. Movement / Direction

6. Load / Force

7. Energy

Project: Element: Date:

Drawing(s): Revision:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Websites

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Links on www.designforconstructionsafety.org

OSHA Construction Alliance Roundtable NIOSH's PtD Webpage Information about OSHA’s Alliance Program Homepage for the United Kingdom’s Law Requiring Designing fo

r Safety The Actual Text of the UK Law Design Best Practice Australia's Safe Design Webpage Singapore's Workplace Safety & Health Council webpage SaferDesign.org Federal OSHA Standards for Construction Department of Labor Accident Data

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS in Practice: Design-Builders

ParsonsURSJacobsBechtel

Photo credit: URS, Washington Div.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

URS/Washington Group Int’l DfCS Process

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Bechtel’s Influence Curves

High

Low

Preliminary Design

Front-End Design

Startup

Infl

uen

ce

Maxim

um

re

turn

on

eff

ort

s

Maxim

um

resou

rce

deplo

ym

en

t

I nitiation

Engineering

I nfluence

Management of Change

Detailed Design

Costs

Res

ourc

es

Dep

loye

d

Construction

High

Low

Preliminary Design

Front-End Design

Startup

Infl

uen

ce

Maxim

um

re

turn

on

eff

ort

s

Maxim

um

resou

rce

deplo

ym

en

t

I nitiation

Engineering

I nfluence

Management of Change

Detailed Design

Costs

Res

ourc

es

Dep

loye

d

Construction

High

Low

Preliminary Design

Front-End Design

Startup

Infl

uen

ce

Maxim

um

re

turn

on

eff

ort

s

Maxim

um

resou

rce

deplo

ym

en

t

I nitiation

Engineering

I nfluence

Management of Change

Detailed Design

Costs

Res

ourc

es

Dep

loye

d

Construction

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Bechtel’s Steel Design Process

Temporary access platforms

Lifting lugsShop installed

vertical brace ladders

Bolt-on column ladders and work platforms

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Temporary ladder, platform and safety line

Photos courtesy Bechtel Corp.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Modular Platforms

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Brace Lifting Clips and Rungs

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS in Practice: Owners

Southern Co.BHP BillitonUSACEIntel

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BHP Billiton Courses

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

National Initiatives and Activities

NIOSH PtD National Initiative

PtD Workshops: July 2007 and August 2011

NORA Construction Sector Council CHPtD Workgroup

OSHA Construction Alliance Roundtable

ASCE-CI PtD Committee (terminated 2009)

ASSE PtD Standard Z790

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Checking in: Do you sense that big organizations are pursuing DfCS?

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DfCS Barriers

Like many good ideas, DfCS faces a number of barriers that can slow its adoption.

Potential solutions to these barriers involve long-term education and institutional changes.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Barrier: Designers' Fear of Liability

Barrier: Fear of undeserved liability for worker safety.

Potential solutions: Clearly communicate we are NOT

suggesting designers should be held responsible for construction accidents.

Develop revised model contract language Propose legislation to facilitate DfCS

without inappropriately shifting liability onto designers.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Barrier: Increased Designer Costs

Barrier: DfCS processes will increase both direct and overhead costs for designers.

Potential solution: Educate owners that total project costs

and total project life cycle costs will decrease.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Barrier: Designers' Lack of Safety Expertise

Barrier: Few design professionals possess sufficient expertise in construction safety.

Potential solutions: Add safety to design professionals’

curricula. Develop and promote 10-hour and 30-

hour OSHA courses for design professionals.

Utilize IPD to allow for constructor input.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

The Future of DfCS

Trajectories in technological innovation (Dosi 1992)

Where is DfCS heading? Five proposed DfCS trajectories Implications for professions and

individual organizations

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Five DfCS Trajectories

1. Increased prefabrication2. Increased use of less hazardous

materials and systems3. Increased application of construction

engineering4. Increased spatial investigation and

consideration5. Increased collaboration and

integration

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Increased Prefabrication

Shift site work to safer work site environment elevation to ground underground to grade confined space to open space

Shift site work to factory Allows use of safer, automated equipment Provides safer, engineered environment

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Increased Collaboration and Integration

Communication about risks, costs, time, quality….

Between owner, AE/DB, CM/GC, manufacturers, and trade contractors

In every phase of project concept design detailed design procurement construction

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Implications for Contracting

New contract terms neededDesign-Bid-Build project delivery

method typically hinders collaboration during design

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods, such as Design-Build and Design + Negotiated construction, better facilitate collaboration

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Sutter Health IPD Process

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) facilitates collaboration of design and construction professionals during design Co-located Processes and norms for candid feedback Trust Sufficient time Life cycle costing criteria Common success criteria

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Three Steps towards DfCS

1. Establish a lifecycle safety culture2. Establish enabling processes3. Team with organizations who value

lifecycle safety

Culture Processes Partners

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Establish a Lifecycle Safety Culture

Instill the right safety values Secure management commitment Ensure recognition that designing for

construction safety is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do1. Professional Codes of Ethics2. Payoff data

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Establish Enabling Processes

Provide designers with safety training

Ensure designer-constructor interaction

Provide designers with DfCS tools

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Team with Organizations Who Value Lifecycle Safety

Design-Builders less dependent on clients’ safety values

International clients favorableIndustrial clients favorableNegotiated projects in other sectors

offer opportunity to educate clients

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Summary

Successful owners and design-builders have implemented DfCS

Keys to designing for construction safety: Collaboration between all project team members Designers knowledgeable of construction practices,

site safety principles and safe designs Use of DfCS tools and guidelines

Three first steps to implementing DfCS Culture, Processes, Clients

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Are you feeling more comfortable about having design for safety occur in your organization?

Thanks for listening!

mike.toole@bucknell.edujohn.gambatese@oregonstate.edu