Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction

Direct tension indicators have been in use for several years and a brief refresher on their application would be useful to those who may be unfamiliar with them. This is the start of our seventh year and I truly believe that our readers need to become more enthusiastic about writing short articles relating “real world” experiences to their colleagues. Our continued success depends on long-term reader interest in the information published. We need letters and articles from our readers to maintain this flow of interest. Remember that only one positive review from an editorial board member is necessary for publication. Please send Structural Design Forum articles directly to me at the address above to ensure consideration for our next issue.

The standards and policies set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the construction industry are for the most part directed at the constructor. As the traditional employer of the construction workers, the constructor is given the primary responsibility for their safety. As a result, other parties to the construction project, such as the design professional, are typically unfamiliar with the safety standards. Given the trend to hold design professionals responsible to some extent for safety and the expanded role of professional engineers in the construction phase an understanding of the OSHA safety standards is worthwhile for design professionals. This paper summarizes the aspects of OSHA and the safety standards that are of significance to professional engineers. Provided are a general description of the OSHA standards for construction, a synopsis of OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, and an outline of the safety standards that involve professional engineers. With background knowledge of their prescribed involvement in safety, professional engineers may more effectively assist constructors in providing a safe worksite and, ultimately, reduce construction site injuries and fatalities.

This paper discusses the need for a Site-Specific Safety Plan. Included are reasons for maintaining control of your project through planning as well as forms and examples that illustrate how planning can help the contractor maintain control of the job-site through planning.

Two types of accidents occur in highway work zones: those that involve construction workers, which account for 30% of the accidents; and those that involve motorists outside the construction area, which account for 70% of the accidents. Construction/maintenance workers suffer approximately 27,000 first-aid injuries and 26,000 lost-time injuries per year at a total annual cost of $2.46 billion, and motorists suffer approximately 700 fatalities, 40,000 injuries, and 52,000 property-damage-only accidents, at a total cost of $6.2 billion per year. Highway work zone fatalities per billion dollars spent cost at least four times more than in total U.S. construction. This paper presents brief details of the various injury types and their cost estimates. While the highway traffic fatality rate has been declining by approximately 3.3 per year since 1960, and construction fatalities have been decreasing by approximately 6% per year since 1970, work zone fatalities have stayed constant at around 700 deaths per year. Using available databases, it was found that (1) the average direct cost of a motorist’s injury is estimated at $3,687; and (2) an overturned vehicle has the largest average cost of $12,627, followed by a rear-end collision averaging $5,541. Analysis of the causes of these traffic accidents showed that driver error was the most expensive precrash activity, with an average cost of $7,676, and rear-end collisions are the most common (31%) vehicle crashes, followed by “hit-small-object” collisions at 11% of the total motor vehicle crashes.

Facilities management programs at public schools covering capital improvement projects and facility operations and maintenance functions need comprehensive safety programs to ensure that workers, school staff, and students are provided a safe and healthy environment during all related activities. This paper reviews the elements of a school safety program and discusses program implementation issues to make it successful. Program guidelines are provided for safe construction, operations, maintenance, and design in the context of school facilities.

Safety incentives have been employed for many years as a means of keeping worker injuries under control. There are many ways that incentives can be implemented, and little is known about which are most effective. This paper reports on the results of a study in which information was obtained on incentives. The safest firms are not necessarily those using safety incentives. Firms that use incentives with greater success tend to use incentives of low value, but give the awards on a frequent basis. They also emphasize the recognition that goes with the receipt of incentives, and they tend to award entire crews for safe performance, rather than individual workers.

Construction safety is gaining recognition as a keystone of the construction process. The increase in both insurance costs and workers’ compensation makes it necessary to eliminate worksite accidents. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was established to provide guidelines for safe worksite practices and to ensure the safety of the workers. Often, the citations that are issued to the employers by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance officers are disputed and brought before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) to decide if the citations were representative of actual violations. This process results in lengthy court cases and increased cost due to the cumulative costs of legal and other services. Two hundred fifty-five OSHA citations were decided by the OSHRC during the years 1991–1993. These 255 cases included 884 violations of OSHA Standards 29 CRF 1926. Out of these 884 violations, 56% were affirmed, 18% were modified, and 26% were vacated by the OSHRC. The most frequently contested violations belonged to Subpart D—Occupational Health and Environmental Controls (118 violations), Subpart P—Excavations (103 violations), and Subpart K—Electrical (90 violations). In the majority of cases, the arguments centered around the vagueness in the interpretation of OSHA standards. Several standards, for example, simply read that the employer must provide safety equipment. While the employer interpreted this to mean “make available,” OSHA interpreted it to mean “require use of.” Also, the large size of each of the standards makes it very difficult for middle managers who supervise safety at worksites to study and comply with each and every standard. In spite of the best worksite safety program provided by the employers, it is highly unlikely that an OSHRC compliance officer would depart any given worksite without citing a minimum of three violations. This statistic makes employers wary of the visiting OSHRC compliance officer. The research conducted at the Construction Safety and Health Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo, has analyzed three consecutive years of OSHRC decisions, with the following objectives: (1) guiding the employers in interpreting OSHA standards as OSHA and OSHRC see them; (2) providing a convincing discussion on the fact that OSHA should revisit its standards with an aim toward clarity; and (3) establishing a decision model that can be used by the contesting parties to avoid OSHA citations.

This paper compares the new ASCE policy on construction site safety with the policies held by the American Institute of Architects and the Associated General Contractors of America, and also with the standards and policies issued by the federal government with regard to the site safety roles ascribed to owners, architect/engineers, general contractors, and subcontractors. It is found that ASCE is unique in that it issues a separate policy on site safety policies and explicitly assigns some safety responsibilities to owners and to design professionals. It is also found that the safety policy documents issued by all three trade organizations assign primary responsibility for safety on the site to the general contractor, whereas the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards assign primary responsibility to the employers of the employees exposed to hazards.