Advertisement

Quantitative Analysis of Close Call Events

  • Olga Golovina
  • Manuel Perschewski
  • Jochen TeizerEmail author
  • Markus König
Conference paper
  • 1.7k Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10863)

Abstract

Construction safety is a big problem according to official statistics. In many of the developed countries about 15–25% of all fatal construction workplace accidents relate to too close proximity of pedestrian workers to construction equipment or hazardous materials. Extracting knowledge from data to near hits (aka. close calls) might warrant better understanding on the root causes that lead to such incidents and eliminate them. While a close call is a subtle event where workers are in close proximity to a hazard, its frequency depends – amongst other factors – on poor site layout, a worker’s willingness to take risks, limited safety education, and pure coincidence. Some pioneering organizations have recognized the potential on gathering and analyzing leading indicator data on close calls. However, mostly manual approaches are infrequently performed, subjective due to situational assessment, imprecise in level of detail, and importantly, reactive or inconsistent in effective or timely follow-ups by management. While existing predictive analytics research targets change at strategic levels in the hierarchy of organizations, personalized feedback to strengthen an individual worker’s hazard recognition and avoidance skill set is yet missing. This study tackles the bottom of Heinrich’s safety pyramid by providing an in-depth quantitative analysis of close calls. Modern positioning technology records the trajectory data of personnel, equipment, and materials. Computational algorithms then automatically generate previously unavailable details to close call events. The derived information is embedded in simplified geometric information models that users on a construction site can retrieve, easily understand, and adapt in existing preventative hazard recognition and control processes. Results from scientific and field experiments demonstrate that the developed system works successfully under the constraints of currently available positioning technology.

Keywords

Construction safety Close calls Predictive analytics 

References

  1. 1.
    Bird, F.E., Germain, G.L., Bird Jr., F.E.: Practical Loss Control Leadership. Revised edn. Intl. Loss Control Inst. (1996). ISBN-13: 978-0880610544Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cavalieri, S., Ghislandi, W.M.: A conceptual structure for the use of near-misses properties. IFAC 39(3), 81–86 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NIOSH homepage. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/inhouse.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  4. 4.
    Teizer, J.: Right-time vs. real-time pro-active construction safety and health system architecture. Constr. Innov. Inf. Process Manag. 16(3), 253–280 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marks, E., Teizer, J.: Method for testing proximity detection and alert technology for safe construction equipment operation, construction management and economics. Occup. Health Saf. Constr. Ind. 31(6), 636–646 (2013). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01446193.2013.783705. Taylor & Francis, Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CII: Near Miss Reporting to Enhance Safety Performance, The University of Texas at Austin (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cambraia, F.B., Saurin, T.A., Formoso, C.T.: Identification, analysis and dissemination on near misses: a case study in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 48, 91–99 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heinrich, H.W.: Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (1931)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smallwood, J., Emunze, F.: Towards zero fatalities, injuries and disease in construction. Procedia Eng. 164, 453–460 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gnoni, M.G., Lettera, G.: Near-miss management systems: a methodological comparison. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 25, 609–616 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gnoni, M.G., Saleh, J.H.: Near-miss management systems and observability-in-depth: handling safety incidents and accident precursors in light of safety principles. Saf. Sci. 91, 154–167 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raviv, G., Fishbain, B., Shapira, A.: Analyzing risk factors in crane-related near-miss and accident reports. Saf. Sci. 91, 192–205 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teizer, J., Cheng, T.: Proximity hazard indicator for workers-on-foot near miss interactions with construction equipment and geo-referenced hazard areas. Autom. Constr. 60, 58–73 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu, M., Cheung, C.M., Li, H., Hsu, S.: Understanding the relationship between safety investment and safety performance of construction projects through agent-based modeling. Accid. Anal. Prev. 94, 8–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, H., Lu, M., Hsu, S.-C., Gray, M., Huang, T.: Proactive behavior-based safety management for construction safety improvement. Saf. Sci. 75, 107–117 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hilfert, T., Teizer, J., König, M.: First person virtual reality for evaluation and learning of construction site safety. In: 33rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Auburn, Alabama, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu, W., Yang, H., Chew, D.A.S., Yang, S., Gibb, A.G.F., Li, Q.: Towards an autonomous real-time tracking system of near-miss accidents on construction sites. Autom. Constr. 19, 134–141 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teizer, J., Cheng, T., Fang, Y.: Location tracking and data visualization technology to advance construction ironworkers’ education and training in safety and productivity. Autom. Constr. 35, 53–68 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rozenfeld, O., Sacks, R., Rosenfeld, Y., Baum, H.: Construction job safety analysis. Saf. Sci. 48, 491–498 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, S., Teizer, J., Lee, J.-K., Eastman, C., Venugopal, M.: Building information modeling (BIM) and safety: automatic safety checking of construction models and schedules. Autom. Constr. 29, 183–195 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, S., Boukamp, F., Teizer, J.: Ontology-based semantic modeling of construction safety knowledge: towards automated safety planning for job hazard analysis (JHA). Autom. Constr. 52, 29–41 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lu, Y., Li, Q., Zhou, Z., Deng, Y.: Ontology-based knowledge modeling for automated construction safety checking. Saf. Sci. 79, 11–18 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwabe, K., König, M., Teizer, J.: BIM applications of rule-based checking in construction site layout planning tasks. 33rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Auburn, Alabama, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, S., Teizer, J., Pradhananga, N., Eastman, C.M.: Workforce location tracking to model, visualize and analyze workspace requirements in building information models for construction safety planning. Autom. Constr. 60, 74–86 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Golovina, O., Teizer, J., Pradhananga, N.: Heat map generation for predictive safety planning: preventing struck-by and near miss interactions between workers-on-foot and construction equipment. Autom. Constr. 71, 99–115 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pradhananga, N., Teizer, J.: Automatic spatiotemporal analysis of construction site equipment operations using GPS data. Autom. Constr. 29, 107–122 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vasconcelos, B., Barkokébas Jr., B.: The causes of work place accidents and their relation to construction equipment design. Procedia Manuf. 3, 4392–4399 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hinze, J.W., Teizer, J.: Visibility-related fatalities related to construction equipment. Saf. Sci. 49, 709–718 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ranney, J.M., Zuschlag, M.K., Morell, J., Coplen, M.K., Multer, J., Raslear, T.G.: Evaluations of demonstration pilots produce change: fourteen years of safety-culture improvement efforts by the federal railroad administration. TR News – Railroads Res. Shar. Track 286, 28–36 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hallowell, M.R., Hinze, J.W., Baud, K.C., Wehle, A.: Proactive construction safety control: measuring, monitoring, and responding to safety leading indicators. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 139, 04013010 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheng, T., Venugopal, M., Teizer, J., Vela, P.A.: Performance evaluation of ultra wideband technology for construction resource location tracking in harsh environments. Autom. Constr. 20(8), 1173–1184 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siebert, S., Teizer, J.: Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system. Autom. Constr. 41, 1–14 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim, C., Haas, C.T., Liapi, K.A., McLaughlin, J., Teizer, J., Bosche, F.: Rapid human-assisted, obstacle avoidance system using sparse range point. In: Proceedings of the 9th Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, League City, Houston, Texas, pp. 115–122 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Teizer, J.: Safety 360: surround-view sensing to comply with changes to the ISO 5006 earth-moving machinery - operator’s field of view - test method and performance criteria. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Oulu, Finland (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    BG Bau homepage. http://www.bgbau-medien.de/struktur/inh_baus.htm. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
  36. 36.
    OSHA homepage: Evaluation of what is considered a safe speed to operate a powered industrial truck, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24995. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
  37. 37.
    Kamat, V.R., Martinez, J.C.: Visualizing simulated construction operations in 3D. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 15(4), 329–337 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krepp, S., Jahr, K., Bigontina, S., Bügler, M., Borrmann, A.: BIMsite - towards a BIM-based generation and evaluation of realization variants comprising construction methods, site layouts and schedules. In: Proceedings of the EG-ICE Workshop on Intelligent Computing in Engineering, Krakow, Poland (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yang, J., Vela, P.A., Teizer, J., Shi, Z.K.: Vision-based crane tracking for understanding construction activity. ASCE J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 28(1), 103–112 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cheng, T., Teizer, J.: Modeling tower crane operator visibility to minimize the risk of limited situational awareness. ASCE J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 28(3), 04014004 (2014). http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Teizer, J., Allread, B.S., Fullerton, C.E., Hinze, J.: Autonomous pro-active real-time construction worker and equipment operator proximity safety alert system. Autom. Constr. 19(5), 630–640 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Luo, X., Li, H., Huang, T., Rose, T.: A field experiment of workers’ responses to proximity warnings of static safety hazards on construction sites. Saf. Sci. 84, 216–224 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang, K., Ahn, C.R., Vuran, M.C., Aria, S.S.: Semi-supervised near-miss fall detection for ironworkers with a wearable inertial measurement unit. Autom. Constr. 68, 194–202 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Golovina
    • 1
  • Manuel Perschewski
    • 1
  • Jochen Teizer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus König
    • 1
  1. 1.Ruhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations