Safety issues have gained vital importance throughout the construction industry. Many construction companies around the world are implementing safety, health, and environmental management systems to reduce injuries, eliminate illness, and to provide a safe work environment in their construction sites. This paper describes an exploratory study of site safety management in construction sites’ environments. It explains a successful, modern safety, health and environmental management system for a leading construction company based in Hong Kong. A typical site-specific safety plan was utilized to provide safety guidance throughout the construction project. A safety management survey was conducted to determine the status of safety in the construction sites. All employees of the company and its subcontractors participated in the survey from 20 construction projects. In total, 1,022 valid records were obtained from the construction sites. The analysis provided useful information on eight aspects of construction safety, including safety policy and standards, safety organization, safety training, inspecting hazardous conditions, personal protection program, plant and equipment, safety promotion, and management behavior. The findings of the survey provide practical knowledge to construction project managers and construction safety practitioners in order to make their sites safer. Insights and discussions are given in this paper.

Peer review of teaching is assumed to be an excellent tool, next to student evaluation, to measure the quality of a professor. This argument builds on the fact that only peers can understand the material of the engineering discipline and are up-to-date with the practice. On the other hand, virtually no engineering professor has had any training in being an educator, never having passed a course in pedagogy or instruction. This paper will first review this inconsistency before introducing the substance of scholarly teaching. The main section, however, discusses a new and dynamic model for a peer review of teaching that introduces a process of constant improvement. It is believed that replacing the old method of peer review is vital in persuading the engineering professoriate to implement the changes called for by many blue-ribbon committees. However, this change has to be framed by an institutional culture that provides the incentives for continuous improvements of teaching by an ongoing increase of the competence level of teachers who, today, lack any significant training in education.

Most of today’s civil engineering students are unaware of the potential use of smart structures technology in the design, construction, and maintenance of civil infrastructure systems. This paper presents recent education development in the area of smart structures technology at Lehigh University. The goal of this education development is to prepare the future engineer of society for this cutting-edge technology, for which they may see broad application in their professional practice. An overview of the smart structures technology in civil engineering applications, from a systems perspective, is first given in the paper. Educational activities incorporating smart structures technology into civil engineering curriculum are next presented in this paper.

There is a need to investigate educational offerings in highway safety available through engineering, public health, and injury prevention programs at universities in the United States. A series of surveys was distributed to universities and transportation engineering research centers throughout the United States from March 2004 to March 2005, requesting information about safety course availability and content (e.g., course outline, syllabus, references, and notes). Of 117 engineering programs contacted, 29 safety courses were identified at 25 universities; of 34 public health programs, only seven indicated traffic safety content. A detailed assessment of course content and syllabi revealed that many use reference materials drawn from other areas of transportation (e.g., design and operations); few use educational references reflecting contemporary scientific analyses of safety. Existing course content was compared with safety core competencies developed by a Transportation Research Board Subcommittee to provide an indication of adequacy of course content. The comparison indicated relative strengths in identifying origins and characteristics of crash data and safety management systems, but persistent weaknesses in describing highway safety as a field with underlying scientific principles, which drive how analysis is conducted and decisions are made. The courses also lacked a systemic multidisciplinary perspective, important for success in today’s safety management field. While safety is a primary responsibility of transportation engineers, there is a lack of complete and consistent coverage of this topic at the university level.

In the United States, requirements in the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) engineering criteria provide a strong incentive to integrate engineering codes and standards into civil engineering undergraduate curricula. Under the current criteria, specifically Criterion 4, appropriate engineering standards must be incorporated into the major design experience. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the current ABET Engineering Criteria requirements with respect to engineering standards and suggest some ways standards can be included in both the technical and nontechnical portions of undergraduate curricula.

The University of Washington’s Department of Construction Management is in the process of developing interdisciplinary research and experiential education in construction engineering and management (CEM) with the creation of the $\mathrm{28,000}{\mathrm{ft}}^2$ Pacific Northwest Center for construction research and education (PNCCRE). In doing so, the department has identified challenges, limitations, and issues centered on bringing industry experience into the classroom and bringing researchers together from diverse disciplines from across the university. The University of Washington envisions the PNCCRE as a place where learners will experience CEM theory and skills firsthand in an interdisciplinary research environment that will foster innovation. This paper focuses on how the Department of Construction Management at the University of Washington is reenvisioning its research and education activities to take advantage of the new PNCCRE facility. In the education front, this paper introduces “the experience learning model,” a new paradigm to support active contextual learning in CEM. In the research context, this paper presents the “interdisciplinary research model,” a new approach to encourage collaborations, as well as appropriate organizational systems and work processes to support researchers and educators with diverse backgrounds, as they work together on mutually intersecting problems. The writers do not see these two models as separate endeavors, but as a coupled program, such that research informs the educational setting, and educational experiences inform research. The writers envision the PNCCRE fulfilling the needs of educators and students, researchers and practitioners, as well as the greater communities of industry and academia, by bringing together interdisciplinary teams to tackle the complex problems we face in CEM—a center where experience fosters curiosity, interdisciplinary collaboration broadens experience, and synergy creates a whirlwind of innovation and education.

The ABET criteria for engineering programs no longer has a requirement for humanities and social sciences but instead requires a general education component that complements the technical component of the curriculum. Achievement of the outcomes called for in the ABET criteria and the ability to apply the constraints listed in ABET Criterion 3 can be facilitated by a well-designed general education component. The old humanities and social science components that many programs still have would probably allow most programs to meet the current criteria but the requirement for general education offers an opportunity to improve the overall educational experience for all civil engineers. One approach to general education for civil engineers would be to incorporate a theme and a case is made that sustainability and sustainable development is a good theme for a civil engineering program.

The engineer’s role in any design project is to design a project that meets the desired purpose, is constructible, and the health, safety, and welfare of the user is protected. Yet engineers do not always recognize the consequences of their designs. Civil engineering is a profession that holds life and death consequences. When engineers design a project, an error or mistake could result in property damage, personal injury, or death. Not understanding a product, while allowing its use, may equate to negligence if injury results. Not reading the product literature may also constitute negligence, should the product’s failure result in injury or damage. When products fail the engineer may be deemed the responsible party. Many engineers do not understand, or appreciate, the differences between reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and the potential for liability when specifying each product. Whereas RCP is a rigid structure that is designed, built, and tested as a structure before it arrives at the construction site, the “structure” of HDPE pipe is actually built and tested in the field. Hence, HDPE pipe is not an “approved equal” substitute for RCP. This paper reviews the critical aspects regarding the decision to specify corrugated HDPE pipe. Know the difference.

Common perceptions of contractual risk allocation are the basis of a harmonious, effective and efficient construction project. This paper explores the extent to which common perceptions of risk allocation exist along the construction supply chain. The results of a survey indicate that differing perceptions are worryingly high in all relationships, but particularly further down the supply chain. The paper indicates the relationships in which this is most likely to occur and the types of risk it is most likely to affect. The results provide important lessons for project managers, negotiators and contract drafters. In particular, by providing a better understanding of where and how differences in risk perceptions are likely to emerge, they help those negotiating and drafting contracts focus their energies more effectively to help minimize the potential for unnecessary loss and dispute. Finally, our results indicate that the key to better managing perceptions of risk is fundamentally one of communication, consultation and involvement in contractual decision-making. The key point is that contractual allocations of risk have little meaning if they are separated from the social and behavioral context in which risk is experienced by those involved in a project.

This paper presents the results of a comprehensive survey of the legal codes of all the 50 states in the United States regarding alternative project delivery systems in transportation projects. In the past decade there has been a surge of legislation allowing state transportation officials much more flexibility regarding the choice of project delivery systems. These delivery systems are usually selected based on a combination of price and quality. Specific delivery systems studied in this paper are Design-Build, Construction Management at Risk, and Public-Private-Partnership. The background and history of the emergence of these new delivery systems are studied in this paper. The research showed that in many states, alternative delivery systems may be allowed but with specific restrictions. For each state, all of these delivery systems have been researched and placed into one of the following distinguishable categories: (1) fully authorized; (2) authorized but needs extra approvals; (3) authorized for a pilot program and/or with some limitations; (4) not authorized. The output of the survey gives valuable snapshots over the status of each delivery system in regards to its legality in different parts of the country as of December 2006. Comparing the results of this survey with the surveys done previously shows that the trend is to allow states more flexibility in the choice of project delivery systems.

The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires that, prior to construction of a highway, the head of the federal agency that is committing funds to the project must evaluate the effect of the project on the human environment; the effect of the project on the habitat of an endangered species, which implicates provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the effect of the project on any historic properties in the vicinity of the project, which implicates provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the effect of the project on minority or low-income populations, called environmental justice, which implicates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this paper, we provide an example guide for transportation planners to follow as they comply with NEPA and the related acts in the beginning planning stages for a highway project.

As federal dollars available for highway projects are tightened and as demand for more highway capacity continues to increase, transportation officials seek more innovative financing methods. One of the more common methods has been to toll new highway projects. Recently, tollways also have been considered for existing, free-access roadways, i.e., nontolled, infrastructure segments. Transportation planners must consider that this so-called “innovative” financing technique, i.e., the decision to toll existing and new roadways, is subject to provisions of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). This renewed interest in tolling mandates that transportation planners revisit the requirements of NEPA, and in this context, its applicability to decisions to toll roads for financing of highway projects. NEPA requires that, prior to construction of a bridge or highway, the head of the federal agency that is committing funds to the project must evaluate the effect of the project on the human environment; the effect of the project on the habitat of an endangered species, which implicates provisions of the Endangered Species Act; the effect of the project on any historic properties in the vicinity of the project, which implicates provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the effect of the project on minority or low-income-populations, called environmental justice, which implicates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this paper, we analyze the requirements of NEPA as they relate to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The interrelation of the two acts now mandates that the transportation planner consider an environmental justice concept in planning for highway and bridge projects. The intent of this paper is to provide some guidance to transportation planners in light of the environmental justice issues implicated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as they begin the planning stages for highway and bridge projects.

Increasing attention is today being focused on the issue of dispute resolution in the Japanese construction sector. Disputes were infrequent under the traditional contract agreement system. However, against the background of a shrinking construction market, owners, contractors, builders, engineers, subcontractors, and suppliers are seeking higher profits and are increasingly asserting their rights, resulting in the creation of an adversarial environment in the industry. It is not generally known outside Japan that the term “claim” has traditionally been used in the nation’s construction industry with an entirely different meaning to its use in other countries. This paper discusses unique characteristics of the implementation of construction work in Japan that are representative of this different use of terminology. These unique characteristics are considered as the result of a business culture that has developed through a combination of historical circumstance and the specific characteristics of Japan’s construction market. The paper also examines the mechanism of dispute resolution, and considers specific details and changing trends in construction disputes using relevant statistical data.

Delay and loss of productivity are the two main types of damage experienced by the contractor when the owner issues a change order. Courts have recognized critical path method schedule analysis as the preferred method of identifying and quantifying critical delays. As for the inefficiency damages, there is no direct way of measuring inefficiency due to its qualitative nature and the difficulty of linking the cause of the productivity loss to the damage. Most of the scholarly work published in this area was based on data supplied by the contractors; and that explains why there are discrepancies between what the contractor asks for and what the owner believes the contractor is entitled to. This study addresses the need for a statistical model to quantify the productivity loss from verifiable site data such as owner’s daily reports, change orders, drawings, and specifications, rather than rely solely on contractor surveys. A model is developed and validated to quantify the productivity loss in pipe work in roadway projects due to the change orders. The productivity loss study analyzed two sets of data that include: (1) variables that predict which of the two parties, the owner and the contractor, contributed to the productivity loss; and (2) variables that predict, from the legal viewpoint, productivity losses which only the owner is responsible for. The study showed the difference between what the contractor asked for and what he/she is actually entitled to. This model can be used by both the owner and the contractor to quantify the productivity loss due to change orders, and to offer an objective approach to reconcile their differences. This study concludes with an example to demonstrate the use of the model.