HIRA in Construction Sector PDF

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment in Construction Sector
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 1

1. INTRODUCTION
For any industry to be successful it should meet not only the production requirements, but also
maintain the highest safety standards for all concerned. The industry has to identify the hazards,
assess the associated risks and bring the risks to tolerable level on a continuous basis.
Construction sector being a potentially-hazardous operation has considerable safety risk to the
workers associated with it. Unsafe conditions and practices in the site lead to a number of
accidents and causes loss and injury to human lives, damages the property, interrupt
developmental aspects etc. Risk assessment is a systematic method of identifying and
analyzing the hazards associated with an activity and establishing a level of risk for each
hazard. The hazards cannot be completely eliminated, and thus there is a need to define and
estimate an accident risk level possible to be presented either in quantitative or qualitative way.
Because of the existing hazards of construction as an activity and the complexity of

construction machinery and equipment and the associated systems, procedures and methods, it
is not possible to be naturally safe. Regardless of how well the machinery or methods are
designed, there will always be potential for serious accidents. It is not possible for an external
agency to ensure the safety of an organization such as a construction company nor of the
machinery or method it uses. The principal responsibility for the safety of any particular
construction site and the manner in which it is operated rest with the management of that
particular company undertaking the construction activity. It is widely accepted within
industries in general that the various techniques of risk assessment contribute greatly toward
improvements in the safety of complex operations and equipment. In many industries there is
legislative requirement for risk assessment to be undertaken of all hazardous equipment,
machinery and operations taking account of the procedures used for operation, maintenance,
supervision and management.
Hazard identification and risk analysis involves identification of undesirable events that leads
to a hazard, the analysis of hazard mechanism by which this undesirable event could occur and
usually the estimation of extent, magnitude and likelihood of harmful effects.
The objective of hazard and risk analysis is to identify and analyze hazards, the event sequences
leading to hazards and the risk of hazardous events. Many techniques ranging from simple
qualitative methods to advanced quantitative methods are available to help identify and analyze
hazards. The use of multiple hazard analysis techniques are recommended because each has its
own purpose, strengths, and weaknesses. Some of the most commonly used techniques for risk

assessment include: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Hazard and Operability
Studies (HAZOP), Fault-Tree Analysis (FTA), Event-Tree Analysis (ETA) etc.
1.1 NEED FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessments will help the construction workers to identify high, medium and low
risk levels. Risk assessments will help to prioritize risks and provide information on the
probability of harm arising and severity of harm by understanding the hazard, combine
assessments of probability and severity to produce an assessment of risk and it is used in the
assessment of risk as an aid to decision making. In this way, site owners and workers will be
able to implement safety improvements. Different types of approaches for the safety in the site,
various tools and appropriate steps have to be taken to make construction workplace better and
safer.
A Hazard Identification and Risk (HIRA) Analysis is a systematic way to identify and
analyze hazards to determine their scope, impact and the vulnerability of the built environment
to such hazards and its purpose is to ensure that there is a formal process for hazard
identification, risk assessment and control to effectively manage hazards that may occur within
the workplaces.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
Keeping the aforementioned problems in mind, the project work has been planned with the
following objectives
Review of literature on Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
To briefly outline the risks associated in the construction industry and also to analyze
them in order to come out with safety strategies to make the construction site safe in all
aspects.
Study of risk assessment methodologies.
Application of Hazard Identification and Risk analysis for improvement of workplace

safety in construction sector.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The following is the brief review of the work carried out by different researchers in the field
of hazard identification and risk analysis (HIRA).
Qureshi (1987) had done a Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) in which potential
hazards and identified by looking at the design in a dynamic manner
To identify the nature and scale of the dangerous substances;
To give an account of the arrangements for safe operation of the installation, for control
of serious deviations that could lead to a major accident and for emergency procedures
at the site;
To identify the type, relative likelihood and consequences of major accidents that might
occur; and
To demonstrate that the manufacturer (operator) has identified the major hazard
potential of his activities and has provided appropriate controls.
Khan and Abbasi (1995) proposed optimal risk analysis (ORA) which involved the
following:
1. Hazard identification and screening.
2. Hazard analysis using qualitative hazard assessment by optimal hazard and operability
study (opt HAZOP).
3. Probabilistic hazard assessment by modified fault tree analysis (MFTA).
4. Consequence analysis which include development of accident scenarios and damage

potential estimates.
5. Risk estimates.
Carpignano et al. (1998) applied quantitative risk analysis (QRA) for drawing conclusions
concerning serious accidental events with the occurrence frequency and the consequences. The
QRA approach they selected was based on reservoir analysis and management systems
(RAMS) such as Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), Failure Mode Effect and Critical
Analysis (FMECA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Event Tree Analysis (ETA) and Cause
Consequence Analysis and were able
To identify accident initiating events and accidental sequence.

To determine the related consequences with respect to workers, population and the
environments.
Duijm (2001) identified hazards for six different techniques for disposing decommissioned
ammunition. Use has been made of functional modelling as a basis for hazard identification.
Risk levels are estimated based on general accident rates in the chemical industry. The disposal
techniques are “open burning” (OB), “open detonation” (OD), “closed detonation” (CD),
“fluidised bed combustion” (FBC), “rotary kiln (RK) incineration”, “mobile incineration” and
Comparative risk levels for alternative disposal techniques for ammunition have been derived
using hazard identification based on functional modelling of the techniques in combination
with the required manpower to perform the operations.
Khan et al. (2001) developed safety weighted hazard index (SWeHI). In quantitative terms
SWeHI represents the radius area under moderate hazard (50% probability of fatality/ damage).
In mathematical term it is represented
as SWeHI = B/ A
Where B = Quantitative measures of damage that can be caused by unit/ plant.
A= credits due to control measures and safety arrangements.
Lambert et al. (2001) used Hierarchical Holographic Modelling (HHM) for identification and
management of risk source and prioritize the identified source of risk based on their likelihood
and potential consequences and provided with options of risk management in terms of their
costs and potential impacts on the acquisition schedule.
Bell and Glade (2003) have done a risk analysis focusing on risk to life. They calculated land
slide risk and occurrence of potential damaging events as well as the distribution of the
elements at risk and proposed the following approach for risk evaluation:
RISK = HAZARD * CONSEQUENCE * ELEMENT OF RISK
Kecojevic and Radomsky (2004) studied about loader and truck safety and found out the
severity and number of accidents involving loader and trucks are higher when compared to
other operations. They established fatal categories and causes of accidents and control
strategies are discussed and evaluated to increase hazard awareness.

Dziubinski et al. (2006) studied basic reasons for pipeline failure and its probable
consequences taking individual and societal risk into consideration and proposed methodology
of risk assessment for hazards associated with hazardous substance transport in long pipelines.
Taking that methodology as example, subsequent stages of risk analysis were considered
paying special attention to the applied techniques and calculation models. A specific feature of
this methodology was a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques which offer a
possibility of a full risk assessment for long pipelines.
Laul et al. (2006) identified hazards (chemical, electrical, physical, and industrial) and
potential initiators that could lead to an accident. Hazard analysis is used to evaluate identified
hazards. Hazard analysis is done by “what if check list”, Hazard and Operability (HAZOP)
analysis, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Event Tree
Analysis (ETA) and provided methods together with the advantages and disadvantages, for
developing a safety document for chemical, non-nuclear facilities.
Jeong et al. (2007) made a qualitative analysis by Hazard and Operability Method (HAZOP)
to identify the potential hazards and operability problems of decommissioning operations and
concluded that the decommissioning of a nuclear research reactor must be accomplished
according to its structural conditions and radiological characteristics and radiation exposure
must be controlled to within the limitation of the regulation to perform the dismantling work
under the ALARA principle safely.
Frank et al. (2008) carried out a risk assessment using common risk management tools. In
basic tools, they used diagram analysis and risk rating and filtering. In advanced tools they
used fault tree analysis (FTA), Hazard and Operability Analysis (HAZOP), Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Points (HACCP), Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and established
a severity categorization table which divides severity of consequence into noticeable,
important, serious, very serious and catastrophic.
Nor et al. (2008) studied risk related to loaders and dozers and were assessed and ranked.
The hazards “failure to follow adequate maintenance procedure” and “failure of mechanical /
electrical/ hydraulic components” were the most severe and frequent hazards for the loaders
and they fell into the category of high risk.

Hassan et al. (2009) carried out a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) into basic steps
including system definition, Hazard Identification, Frequency Analysis, Consequence
Modelling, Risk calculations and Assessment to determine the safest route for the
transportation of hazardous material.
Kecojevic and Nor (2009) studied reports on equipment related fatal incidents and showed
that underground mining equipment including continuous miners, shuttle cars, roof bolters,
LHD‟s, longwall and hoisting contributed total of 69 fatalities. The study revealed the major
hazards resulting in fatal incidents for continuous mining equipment, shuttle cars, roof bolters,
LHD‟s and hoisting system were due to failure of victim to respect equipment working area,
failure of mechanical component, working under unsupported roof, failure of management to
provide safe working conditions, and failure of mechanical components.
Wang et al. (2009) applied HAZOP analysis to determine if the operation has potential to give
rise to hazardous situation and found the range of hazardous events. They identified the route
by which each of the hazardous events could be realised. After HAZOP analysis they
introduced MO-HAZOP program which calculates probability of an event which is the product
of probabilities of every factor.
Orsulak et al. (2010) presented an application of a risk assessment approach in characterising

the risks associated with safety violations in underground bituminous mines in Pennsylvania
using the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) citation database. In this study
quantitative risk assessment is performed, which allowed determination of the frequency of
occurrence of safety violations (through associated citations) as well as the consequences of
them in terms of penalty assessments.

CHAPTER 3
ASSESSING HAZARDS AND SAFETY IN BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

3. ASSESSING HAZARDS AND SAFETY IN BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
3.1 Chapter outline

The literature review findings on construction hazards and safety assessment methods are
presented in this chapter. Firstly, the nature of occupational accidents in construction is
described, followed by the identification of attributes for assessing hazards in various activities
in building projects. Finally, the factors pertinent to safety-rating of building construction
projects are explored.
3.2 Nature of occupational injuries in construction

Occupational injuries from construction activities in general are classified by Davies and
Tomasin (1996) as:
Danger of physical injury and fatality; and
Damage to health.
Construction accidents resulting in physical injuries and fatalities can be broadly categorised
into the following eight basic groups.
 Falling from heights – involves workers falling from higher floors to lower
floors/ground and falling from ground level to excavation level.
 Struck by falling/moving objects/vehicles – primarily involves workers being struck by
equipment, private vehicles, falling materials, vertically hoisted materials and
horizontally transported materials.
 Excavation related accidents – encompasses accidents due to cave-in, contact with
underground utilities, subsiding of nearby structures, falling of materials/vehicles/
objects onto people working in the excavation as well as fumes, gases and inrushes of
water at the bottom of excavations.
 Accident by operation of machinery/tools – caused by toppling of machinery,
collapsing of the parts of machinery and unsuitable or unsafe hand-held tools.
 Electrocution – caused by contact with electric current from machinery, tools,
appliances or light fixtures, faulty electrical equipment and tools, and contact with
overhead/underground power lines.
 Fire/explosion – accidents resulting from the explosion of pressure vessels or gasoline

pipes and fire due to welding/hot works.

 Failure of temporary structures – accidents owing to the failure of formworks and
scaffoldings.
 Others - e.g. slipping on the same level, oxygen deficiency in confined spaces, lightning
strike, etc.
The nature of health hazards that may be caused to construction workers are shown in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Health damages in construction

Health hazard Cause
1. Skin diseases Contact with cement, slaked lime, paint, varnish
thinner, solvents, strong chemicals, grouts, seals and
adhesives.
2. Hardness of hearing Noise
3. Respiratory disease Inhalation of toxic dusts, vapors and gases
4. Muscular and bone High static stress, unnatural working postures

disease
5. Cancer Carcinogenic materials
6. Mental illness Stress, inhalation of toxic materials affecting brain and
central nervous system
7. Disease caused by Vibration
vibration
(Source: Adapted from King and Hudson ,1985)
Abdelhamid and Everett (2000), and Haslam et al. (2005) intensely analyzed the root causes
of occupational accidents on construction sites and listed them under four clusters, as
described in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Root causes of construction accidents

The working condition is an inherent hazard with the work owing to the scope and location of
the project. The inherent hazard is managed through a safety management system, which can
cause occupational accidents when flaws exist. The negligent attitude of workers to forego
safety standards also causes accidents, although it is less quantifiable. Non-human related
events are beyond control and prediction. Hence, Imriyas et al. (2006b) quoted that the
estimation of occupational injury risks in construction projects should assess two factors:
(1) Project’s inherent hazard level; and
(2) Safety management level.
As portrayed in Figure 3.1, hazards incline the project towards the accident zone while safety
pulls it towards the safety zone. When the safety force is at least equal in magnitude to the
hazard imposed, the project stays in the neutral zone. Safety below hazard level moves the
project towards the accident zone. Hence, the prediction of occupational accidents in a project
entails the assessment and comparison of the project hazard and safety management.
3.3 Assessing project hazards

A list of high hazardous activities in building construction projects for facilitating hazard
assessments are as follows:
1. Demolition works;
2. Excavation works;
3. Scaffolding and ladder works;
4. False works (temporary structures);
5. Roof works;
6. Erection of structural frameworks;

7. Crane use;
8. Construction machinery and tools usage;
9. Works on contaminated sites;
10. Welding and cutting works; and
11. Works in confined spaces.
A particular project may have many of these activities and the degree of hazard inherent in
each activity is attributed to its risk parameters.
3.3.1 Demolition hazards
Demolition is one of the high-risk activities of the construction industry with a fatal and
major injury incidence rate of about 17 times of that for the whole of the construction
industry. Approximately 10% of all fatal accidents each year in the construction field occur
in the demolition sector.
Demolition workers face a variety of hazards viz:
· Falling from heights;
· Being hit or trapped by falling objects;
· Excessive noise from hand-held tools, demolition balls, pneumatic drills, explosives and
falling parts;
· Vibration from hand-held pneumatic tools;
· Respiratory hazards from dust which may contain toxic constituents such as asbestos and
silica;
· Flying particles causing eye and skin injuries; and
· Fires and explosives, especially when demolishing tanks that contained oils or flammable
chemicals.
The risk in demolition works is influenced by four variables, viz:
· Volume/size of demolition;
· Type of structure;
· Method of demolition; and
· Level of site supervision.

3.3.2 Excavation hazards
Davies and Tomasin (1996) categorised excavations into three types: trenches; basements and
wide excavations; and pits/shafts (for pad and pile foundations). They expose workers to
similar hazards and accidents. Workers in the underground construction industry, especially
water, sewer and utility line companies, have traditionally had a higher accident and injury rate
than other workers in the heavy construction industry. According to the OSHA (2002), the
fatality rate for excavation works is 112% higher than the rate for general construction.
Accidents in excavation works occur in one of the following ways (HSE, 2005):
1. Collapse of sides/cave-in: Cave-in is perhaps the most feared and chief cause of accidents
in excavation works. It buries workers and/or cause crushing injuries to survivors.
2. Contact with underground utilities: Works in excavations often encounter obstructions
from intersecting utilities lines that may cause injuries and/or fatalities to workers by:
(1) Electrocution and/or explosion when electrical cables and/or gasoline pipes are
damaged;
(2) Collapse of excavation due to flooding led by damage to water lines and/or sewer lines;
(3) Drowning in floods from damaged water/sewer lines.
3. Dangerous atmospheres: Dangerous atmospheres in excavations may result from oxygen
deficiency as well as the presence of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous fumes and
methane gas, which suffocate workers, kill or cause respiratory problems.
4. Workers being struck by falling materials/objects from top.
5. Workers falling into excavations.
The excavation-related accidents comprises of five hazard rating variables for excavation
works, viz:
· Excavation configuration (depth, width and length);
· Geological condition (soil type and water table);
· Presence of underground utilities (electrical, water and sewer lines);
· Nearby vehicular traffic (vibration and surcharge load); and
· Nearby structures.

3.3.3 Scaffolding and ladder hazards
Scaffolding is the most common way of providing platforms to works at heights. The
following hazards are associated with scaffold use (Davies and Tomasin, 1996):
· Workers falling from the working platform;

· Workers below the working platform being struck by materials falling from it; and
· The scaffold or part of it collapsing and throwing workers off with the collapsed structure
and crushing workers under it or nearby.
Access to scaffolds is provided by ladders. Also, ladders themselves are often used as working
platforms for the performance of light works. Many serious accidents result from the misuse
of ladders because:
(1) Ladders slip when users are climbing or working from them;
(2) Users slip or miss their footing while climbing;
(3) Users overbalance when carrying materials or tools; and
(4) When defective ladders are used, they fracture under the weight of the user.
The ladder-related accidents comprises of two key risk factors:

· Design factors - height of the scaffold/ladder; suitability of the type for the task and height;
and adequacy of design (member size, bracing, guardrails, platform size, and toe board).
· Work environment and conditions – defects in the members of the scaffold/ladder; slippery
condition on the platform; loading of materials and workers on the platform; and the nature
of the platform the scaffold/ladder is rested on.
3.3.4 Falsework hazards

A falsework is defined as a temporary structure used to support a permanent structure during
its construction and until it becomes self-supporting. Falseworks may be required to support
in-situ and pre-cast concrete construction, masonry arches as well as timber and steel
frameworks. Accidents in falseworks occur by two means:
· Total or partial collapse of falseworks leading to workers being thrown off or falling off
from their place of work; and
· Other than the collapse of falseworks, workers slip and fall from falseworks through

unprotected edges and holes of decking, and access ladders.
Davies and Tomasin (1996) identified two causes for falseworks collapses:
Inadequate design – deficiency in falsework design is caused by:
(1) failure to correctly estimate the type and extent of loading;
(2) inadequate foundation;
(3) incorrect choice or use of materials; and/or
(4) lack of provision for lateral stability.
Poor assembly – caused by the failure to inspect the materials (such as struts, planks, etc.),
the soil condition at the foundation and the false work erection.
3.3.5 Roof work hazards
The occupation of roofers has been rated as one of the most dangerous occupations, with a
fatality rate of 29 per 100 000 workers. Roofers are at about six-time higher risk for fatal
occupational injuries than the average worker, with falls being fatal events in 75% of cases.
Falls from roofs constitute the leading cause for work-related fall fatalities and they represent
more than one-fifth of all occupational fatal falls. Analyses of occupational fatality data
between 1994 and 1996 indicate an increasing trend in the number of fatal falls from roofs
during construction. Additionally, falls from roofs are a serious cause of non-fatal injuries in
the construction industry. In 1996, an estimated 2550 serious injuries in the USA were due to
construction-related falls from roofs. The injuries caused by falls from roofs are typically
extremely severe, requiring long periods of treatment and recovery and resulting in substantial
medical costs. King and Hudson (1985) observed a higher proportion of roofing accidents
during maintenance period/activities as well. These include roof edge falls, falls through fragile
roofing materials and falls from the internal structure of roofs.

3.3.6 Hazards in erecting structural frameworks
The most serious accidents that occur during the erection and assembly of structural steel or
pre-cast frameworks are (Davies and Tomasin, 1996):
 Erectors falling from heights when at their places of work, going to or returning from
them;
 The collapse of the whole or part of the framework causing workers to fall or striking
those at lower levels; and
 Workers at lower levels being struck by tools or materials falling or being thrown down.
The hazard level in erection works is dictated by the following variables:

 Height and size of the structure/erection;
 Design and erection method; and
 Provision of a safe workplace such as safe access/egress, safe working platform at
heights, safe tools containers and safety equipment (safety belt, harness, net, etc.)
3.3.7 Crane hazards
Cranes are remarkable and invaluable tools for hoisting and carrying, but they are heavily
represented in the industrial injury and fatality statistics. Most of them occur in the construction
industry. In the US, approximately 30-50 crane fatalities occur in the construction industry per
year, with there being a total of approximately 70 crane fatalities across all industries per year
(OSHA, 1996). MacCollum (1993) estimated that crane hazards are the source of 25-33% of
casualties in construction and maintenance activities. With regards to fatalities only, Ontario
recorded an average of 10% of construction fatalities related to cranes (CSAO, 1994) and the
New South Wales construction industry indicated that approximately 12% of fatalities were
crane-related (AFCC, 1987). Davies and Tomasin (1996) identified five crane-related hazards:
(1) overturning of a crane or the structural failure of its parts; (2) dropping of the suspended
load; (3) electrocution; (4) trapping of people; and (5) accidents during erection and
dismantling as well as loading and unloading.
The causes of different crane failures are shown in Figure 3.2. Davies and Tomasin (1996)
quoted that the overturning of a crane or parts of it occur due to overloading, differential

settlement of the crane support or foundation, operating slope (for mobile cranes) and/or
operating method. Ederer (2006) reported that basic causes of dropping the load are
overloading and improper maintenance of the crane and its parts. Neitzel et al. (2001) criticised
that electrocution and trapping are caused due to lack of communications between the operator,
slingers and flagman/supervisor whereas erection and dismantling injuries are caused by
unsafe work practice of erectors and lack of supervision.
3.3.8 Construction machinery and tools hazards
Of all the construction industry fatalities, 18% occur with construction machinery (Helander,
1991). The types of machinery involved in accidents include excavators and shovels,
earthmoving equipment (i.e. crawler tractors and bulldozers, scrapers and graders), dumpers
and dump trucks, forklift trucks, road rollers and lorries. Accidents in construction machinery
usage occur in one of the following modes (Helander, 1991; Davies and Tomasin, 1996):
· Workers being run-over or struck by machinery moving forward or reversing;
· Collision between machinery or with fixed objects such as falseworks or scaffoldings;
· Overturning of machinery while in operation; and
· Workers falling from machinery.
These accidents are caused by the following major factors:

· Failure of machinery- inoperative back-up alarms, brake failures, etc.;

· Inadequate site planning resulting in poor visibility, inadequate manoeuvre space,
inadequate signboards and poor site traffic control;
· Lack of supervision and training of workers and operators; and
· Construction noise that masks the sound of back-up alarms and the sound of plant.
·
Davies and Tomasin (1996) observed that for 18% of the accidents, the primary external factor
was hand-held tools. They are:
(1) Knife;
(2) Hammer, sledge hammer, etc.;
(3) Grinding/cutting machine;
(4) Jackhammer;
(5) Drill;
(6) Manual saw;
(7) Crowbar, spit, etc.;
(8) Tools for screwing;
(9) Welding equipment – gas;
(10) Axe;
(11) Spade/excavation tools;
(12) Gripping, holding, pinching, pulling tools;
(13) Chain saw;
(14) Nail gun;
(15) Compass saw, hole saw, etc.;
(16) Welding equipment – electrical;
(17) Circular saw;
(18) Cutting tools; and
(19) Other tools.
Use of construction tools cause injuries and fatalities to workers by the following ways
· Eye injuries caused by foreign objects getting into eyes by operations such as grinding,
welding, cutting, drilling and breaking;
· Finger/hand injuries by cut and burns;
· Injuries caused by moving/broken machine parts;
· Electrocution; and

· Vibration from powered hand-held tools, causing a group of diseases. One of them is blood
circulation disturbance known as “vibration white finger”.
Helander, 1991; Davies and Tomasin, 1996 noted that workers of mechanical contractors have
contacted with considerable tools-related hazards, notably those who are involved in:
(1) heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems;
(2) site utilities such as water supply, storm water drainage system, sanitary disposal system
and gas supply systems;
(3) plumbing works - water distribution, water treatment and sanitary facilities;
(4) fire protection; and
(5) specialty systems.
Most of the hazards are the result of faulty tools and/or unsafe handling of tools. Moreover, the
type of tools and duration of use also dictate the hazard.
3.3.9 Hazards on contaminated sites

A contaminated site can have one or many of the following substances, which are harmful to
workers’ health
· Inorganic compounds (e.g. cyanide compounds);
· Oils and tars;
· Pesticides;
· Other organic compounds (e.g. benzene, toluene and polychlorinated biphenyls);
· Toxic, explosive or asphyxiant gases (e.g. methane);
· Combustible substances (e.g. petrol);
· Fibers (e.g. asbestos and synthetic mineral fibers);
· Putrescible or infectious materials (e.g. medical/biological wastes);
· Radioactive wastes; and
· Other harmful wastes (e.g. unexploded ordinance and syringes).
Contamination may be the result of:
(1) Industrial processes carried out on the site previously;
(2) Materials stored or dumped on the site;
(3) Some agricultural processes on the site such as a sheep dip or where farm chemicals were
mixed for application;
(4) Contaminants in imported fill; and/or

(5) Demolition.
Davies and Tomasin (1996) quoted that sites where contamination might be expected include:
(1) Asbestos producers;
(2) Chemical plants and depots;
(3) Dockland areas;
(4) Explosive factories and depots;
(5) Landfill sites of domestic and industrial wastes;
(6) Metal smelting and refining plants;
(7) Metal treatment and finishing works;
(8) Mines and quarries;
(9) Oil production and storage depots;
(10) Paints and graphite factories and depots;
(11) Railway yards;
(12) Scrap yards;
(13) Sewage works;
(14) Steel works; and
(15) Tanning and associated trades.
Short or long term health effects to people exposed to contaminants depend on the following
variables
· The type of contaminants on site;
· The quantity of contaminants present; and
· The duration that the workers are exposed on site.
3.3.10 Welding and cutting work hazards

Welding and cutting works on construction sites expose workers to both injury and health
hazards. Injury hazards due to welding and cutting are:
Fire or explosion due to extreme temperatures (up to 10,000o F) from welding sparks coming
into contact with flammable materials (e.g. coatings of metals, gasoline, oil, paint, thinner,
wood, cardboard, paper, acetylene, hydrogen, etc.);
 Electric shock from excess moisture (e.g. perspiration or wet conditions) and contact
with metal parts which are "electrically hot";
 Injuries due to flying sparks, particles of hot metals, molten metals, liquid chemicals,
acids or caustic liquids, or chemical gases or vapours; and

 Falls during work on ladders, above ground and in confined spaces.

Health hazards due to welding works are:
 Exposure to high noise levels from welding equipment, power sources and processes;
 Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation resulting in skin burns and skin cancer. "Welders
flash" (brief exposure to UV radiation) may result in temporary swelling and fluid
excretion of the eyes or temporary blindness;
 Irritation of lungs due to heat and UV radiation; and
 Exposure to fumes and chemical substances.
The level of hazard in welding and cutting works depends on the following variables:
1. The volume of work;
2. Location of welding and cutting (confined space, underground, on ladders, etc.);
3. The use of safety protective equipment; and
4. Housekeeping.
3.3.11 Hazards in confined spaces
The term “confined space” refers to a space, which by design has limited openings for entry
and exit, unfavorable natural ventilation that could contain or produce dangerous air
contaminants, and is not intended for continuous employee occupancy. Confined spaces
include tanks, process vessels, pits, silos, vats, degreasers, boilers, utility vaults, pipelines,
manholes, box girders and columns. Workers are required to enter confined spaces for tasks
such as repair, inspection and maintenance, and are often exposed to multiple hazards. Of the
803 deaths, 499 (62%) were caused by atmospheric hazards and 223 (28%) were caused by
mechanical suffocation. Eighty-one victims (10%) died from other causes of injury. Fatal
injuries that occur in confined spaces are most likely to be from atmospheric hazards. The types
of atmospheric hazards in confined spaces can be quite varied – some examples are shown in
Table 3.4. Rescue attempts in confined spaces can expose the unprepared rescuer to the risk of
asphyxiation in an atmosphere that is unable to support respiration.

The main characteristics that recognise the level of hazards in a confined space
are as follows (EH&S, 2006):
 Space configuration (i.e. size of the space and size of the ingress/egress);
 Purpose of the confined space (i.e. if it is currently being used);
 Activity to be involved inside the space (i.e. welding, application of solvents/adhesives,
etc.); and
 Level of natural ventilation inside the space.

CHAPTER 4
RISK ASSESSMENT

4. RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk assessment is the process used to determine likelihood that people may be exposed to an
injury, illness or disease in the workplace arising from any situation identified during the
hazard identification process prior to consideration or implementation of control measures.
Risk occurs when a person is exposed to a hazardous situation. Risk is the likelihood that
exposure to a hazard will lead to an injury or a health issue. It is a measure of the probability
and potential severity of harm or loss.
Risk assessment forms crucial early phase in the disaster management planning cycle and is
essential in determining what disaster mitigation measures should be taken to reduce future
losses. Any attempt to reduce the impact of disaster requires an analysis that indicates what
threats exist, their expected severity, who or what they may affect, and why. Knowledge of
what makes a person or a community more vulnerable than another added to the resources and
capacities available determines the steps we can take to reduce their risk.
Risk assessment is carried out in series of related activities which builds up a picture of the
hazards and vulnerabilities which explain disaster events.
4.1. DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH RISK ASSESSMENT
Following are some of the important terminologies involved in hazard identification and risk
analysis:
Harm: Physical injury or damage to the health of peoples either directly or indirectly as a result
of damage to property or to the environment.
Hazard: Hazard is a situation that poses a level of threat to life, health, property or
environment. Most hazards are dormant with only a theoretical risk of harm however once a
hazard becomes active it can create emergency situation.
Hazardous situation: A circumstance in which a person is exposed to a hazard
Hazardous event: A hazardous situation which results in harm.
Accident: An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended eternal

action which occurs in a particular time and place with no apparent and deliberate cause but
with marked effect.

Risk: Risk concerns the deviation of one or more results of one or more future events from
their expected value.
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE of the

harm.
SEVERITY
of the Frequency and duration of exposure.
RISK possible
related to Is a function and
harm that
the of can result Probability of occurrence of
considered from the Hazardous event.
hazard
considered
d hazard Possibility of avoiding or limiting the
Harm.
Figure 4.1: The European Community’s Definition of Risk.
Tolerable risk: Risk which is accepted in a given context based on the current values of
society
Protective measure: The combination of risk reduction strategies taken to achieve at least
the tolerable risk. Protective measures include risk reduction by inherent safety, protective
devices, and personal protective equipment, information for use and installation and training.
Severity: Severity is used for the degree of something undesirable.
Different Forms of Injury
Serious Bodily Injury means any injury which involves the permanent loss of any part
or section of the body or the permanent loss of sight or hearing or any permanent physical
incapability or the facture of any bone or one or more joint or bone of any phalanges of
hand or foot.
Reportable Injury means any injury other than any serious bodily injury, which involves
the enforced absence of injured person from work for a period of 72 hours or more.
Minor Injury means any injury which results in enforced absence from work of the person
exceeding 24hrs and less than 72 hours.
Risk Analysis: A systematic use of available information to determine how often specified
events may occur and the magnitude of their likely consequences.

Risk Assessment: The process used to determine risk management priorities by evaluating and
comparing the level of risk against predetermined standards, target risk levels or other criteria.
Risk Treatment: Selection and implementation of appropriate options for dealing with risk.
4.2 TYPES OF HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ANALYSIS
There are three types of hazard identification and risk assessments:

Baseline Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis;
Issue-based Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis; and
Continuous Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis.
They are all inter-related and form an integral part of a management system. A brief description
of each of the three types of Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis is given below:
Baseline Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis

The purpose of conducting a baseline HIRA is to establish a risk profile or setoff risk profiles. It
is used to prioritize action programs for issue-based risk assessments.
Issue-based Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis

The purpose of conducting an issue-based HIRA is to conduct a detailed assessment study that
will result in the development of action plans for the treatment of significant risk.
Continuous Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis

The purpose of conducting continuous Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis is to:
Identify Operational health and safety hazards with the purpose of immediately treating
significant risks
Gather information to feed back to issue-based Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis
Gather information to feed back to baseline Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis.

4.3 THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TYPES OF HIRA

The relationship between the different types of HIRA is as illustrated in Figure 4.2. The
figure illustrates
1. Risk profiles are used for planning the issue-based HIRA action programme.
2. Provides clear guiding principles for compatibility so that the issue-based HIRA and
continuous HIRA are more effective enabling continuous improvement.
3. Codes of practice, standard procedures and management instructions etc. and new
information from issue-based HIRA can be used to improve on the continuous HIRA and
update the baseline HIRA so that it remains comprehensive.
4. The issue-based HIRA and baseline HIRA draw from the data captured by the continuous
HIRA process to be effective.
5. The risk management process serves management.
Continuous
Risk
Assessment
4 5
2
4
Management
3
5 5
Issue–Based
Baseline Risk
Risk
Assessment 2 1 Assessment
3
Figure 4.2: The Inter-relationship between Different Types of HIRA.

The different steps of risk assessment procedure are as given below (Figure 4.3):
Step 1: Step 2:
Identify the Assess the
Hazard Risks
Step 3:
Step 5:
Evaluate the
Monitor
existing
and Review
controls
Step 4:
Implement
additional
risk controls
Figure 4.3: Steps in Risk Assessment
Step 1 Hazard Identification

The purpose of hazard identification is to identify and develop a list of hazards for each job in the
organization that are reasonably likely to expose people to injury, illness or disease if not
effectively controlled. Workers can then be informed of these hazards and controls put in place to
protect workers prior to them being exposed to the actual hazard.
Step 2 Risk Assessment

Risk assessment is the process used to determine the likelihood that people exposed to injury,
illness or disease in the workplace arising from any situation identified during the hazard
identification process prior to consideration or implementation of control measures.
Risk occurs when a person is exposed to a hazard. Risk is the likelihood that exposure to a hazard
will lead to injury or health issues. It is a measure of probability and potential severity of harm or
loss.

Step 3 Risk Control

Risk control is the process used to identify, develop, implement and continually review all
practicable measures for eliminating or reducing the likelihood of an injury, illness or diseases in
the workplace.
Step 4: Implementation of risk controls

All hazards that have been assessed should be dealt in order of priority in one or more of the
following hierarchy of controls
The most effective methods of control are:
1. Elimination of hazards
2. Substitute something safer
3. Use engineering/design controls
4. Use administrative controls such as safe work procedures
5. Protect the workers i.e. By ensuring competence through supervision and training, etc.
Each measure must have a designated person and date assigned for the implementation of controls.
This ensures that all required safety measures will be completed.
Step 5: Monitor and Review

Hazard identification, risk assessment and control are an on-going process. Therefore regularly
review the effectiveness of your hazard assessment and control measures. Make sure that you
undertake a hazard and risk assessment when there is change to the workplace including when
work systems, tools, machinery or equipment changes. Provide additional supervision when the
new employees with reduced skill levels or knowledge are introduced to the workplace.
4.4 RISK ANALYSIS

The risk assessment portion of the process involves three levels of site evaluation:
1) Initial Site Evaluation,
2) Detailed Site Evaluation,
3) Priority Site Investigations and Recommendations.

The risk assessment criteria used for all levels of site evaluation take into account two basic
factors:
The existing site conditions
The level of the travelling public's exposure to those conditions.
The Initial Site Evaluation and Detailed Site Evaluation both apply weighted criteria to the existing
information and information obtained from one site visit. The Initial Site Evaluation subdivides
the initial inventory listing of sites into 5 risk assessment site groups. The Detailed Site Evaluation
risk assessment is then performed on each of the three highest risk site groups in order of the group
priority level of risk. The result of the Detailed Site Evaluation process is a prioritized listing of
the sites within each of the three highest risk site groups.
Risk analysis is done for

Forecasting any unwanted situation
Estimating damage potential of such situation
Decision making to control such situation
Evaluating effectiveness of control measures

4.5 ACCEPTABLE RISK

Risk that is acceptable to regulatory agency and also to the public is called acceptable risk.There
are no formally recognized regulatory criteria for risk to personnel in the mining industry.
Individual organizations have developed criteria for employee risk and the concepts originally
arising from chemical process industries and oil and gas industries.
Because of the uncertainties linked with probabilistic risk analysis used for quantification of the
risk levels the general guiding principle is that the risk be reduced to a level considered As Low
as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). The risk acceptability criteria are illustrated in Figure 4.4. It
can be seen that there are three tiers:
a. A tolerable region where risk has been shown to be negligible and comparable with everyday
risks such as travel to work.
b. A middle level where it is shown the risk has been reduced to As Low As Reasonably
Practicable level and that further risk reduction is either impracticable or the cost is grossly
disproportionate to the improvement gained. This is referred as the ALARP region.
An intolerable region where risk cannot be justified on any grounds. The ALARP region is kept
sufficiently extensive to allow for flexibility in decision making and allow for the positive
management initiatives which may not be quantifiable in terms of risk reduction.
4.6 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
4.6.1 Hazard and Operability Analysis (HAZOP)

A HAZOP is an organized examination of all possibilities to identify and processes that can
malfunction or be improperly operated.
HAZOP analyses are planned to identify potential process hazards resulting from system
interactions or exceptional operating conditions.
4.6.2 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)
An FMEA is a systematic method for examining the impacts of component failures on system
performance. Basically FMEA focuses on failures of systems and individual components and
examines how those failures can impact facility and processes.

4.6.3 Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)

A fault tree is a detailed analysis using a deductive logic model in describing the combinations of
failures that can produce a specific system failure or an undesirable event. An FTA can model
the failure of a single event or multiple failures that lead to a single system failure.
4.6.4 Event Tree Analysis (ETA)
An ETA is an inductive analysis that graphically models, with the help of decision trees, the
possible outcomes of an initiating event capable of producing a consequence.
identify analyse use result

define the identify the controls and define accident summarize in
system or initiating physical accident sequence results decision
operation events pheomena scenarios outcome making
Figure 4.4: Procedure of Event Tree Analysis
4.6.5 Failure Mode Effect and Critical Analysis (FMECA)

The FMECA is composed of two separate investigations, the FMEA and the Criticality Analysis
(CA). The FMEA must be completed prior to performing the CA. It will provide the added benefit
of showing the analysts a quantitative ranking of system and/or subsystem failure modes. The
Criticality Analysis allows the analysts to identify reliability and severity related concerns with
particular components or systems.

4.7 Hazard Assessment Attributes in Construction sector

The fishbone diagram in Figure 4.5 summarizes the attributes that are pertinent to each hazard
trade for assessing hazard level in building projects. They need to be evaluated individually in the
project’s context for assessing the hazard in a building construction project.
Figure 4.5: Fishbone diagram- building project hazard assessment
4.8 Evaluation of Project Safety Programs

Three key approaches to evaluate the safety programs in construction projects were identified in
the literature, which are accident statistics, workplace inspection and evaluation of documented
safety program. They are,
 Accident Statistics.
 Workplace Inspection.
 Evaluation of documented safety programs.

Accident Statistics:
Accident statistics are the most commonly used measures of safety performance. Occupational
injury rates in terms of frequency and severity over a specific period of man-hours worked provide
a relative measure of the effectiveness of the safety program in place. Nevertheless, injury statistics
only provide a retrospective analysis of injury experience and it is an indicator of how effectively
a safety program was managed.
Workplace Inspection:
Workplace inspection is a more effective mean of evaluating the safety program than relying only
on statistics. Through inspections, the assessor can determine the degree of influence being
exercised over site conditions, the control of hazards, the enforcement of safety standards, the use
of required personal protective equipment and the degree to which safe work practices are being
applied. This approach is also referred to as safety auditing.
Evaluation of documented safety programs:

The contractor of the work site should develop the safety manual in consultation with the client,
each aspect in regard to safety should be dealt in detail in the safety management manual.
4.9 Key elements of a construction safety management system
The following are the key elements to be dealt while understanding the key elements of an effective
safety management system at a construction site,
1. Providing and maintaining a workplace that is safe, without risk to health, and adequate as
regards to facilities and arrangements for the workers’ welfare at work.
2. Ensuring that adequate safety measures are taken in respect of any machinery, equipment, plant,
article or process used by the workers.
3. Ensuring that the workers are not exposed to hazards arising out of the arrangement, disposal,
manipulation, organization, processing, storage, transport, working or use of things in their
workplace or near their workplace under the control of the contractor.

4. Developing and implementing procedures for dealing with emergencies that may arise while the
workers are at work.
5. Ensuring that every work person has adequate instruction, information, training and supervision
as is necessary for that person to perform the work.
6. Giving the workers all necessary information about the way the activities and operations on site
are conducted as might affect their safety or health while they are on site.
4.10 Safety assessment attributes
The following are the safety attributes under each safety aspect which has to be evaluated in any
construction site depending upon the magnitude of the risks involved to life and surrounding
property.
1. Project safety organization
Competency and duties of:
1. Workplace safety and health coordinator

2. Workplace safety and health auditor
3. Workplace safety and health committee
2. Risk assessments and management

Risk management system with:
1. Risk assessment team and responsibilities
2. Risk assessment procedures
3. Reporting procedures to workers of identified risks
4. Control measures for risks identified
4. Safe work practices
Work procedures for:

1. Concrete works
2. Structural steel and pre-cast assembly
3. Erection and dismantling of scaffolds and false works
4. Works at heights
5. Demolition works
6. Excavation works
7. Piling operations
8. Welding and cutting works
9. Works in confined spaces
10. Works in toxic/contaminated environments
11. Use of construction plant such as excavators, trucks, etc.

12. Use of cranes

13. Electrical installation and use
Permit-to-work (PTW) system for:

1. Working at heights
2. Excavation works
3. Working in confined spaces
5. Demolition works
6. Working in toxic/contaminated environments
Personal protective equipment (PPE) for:
1. Concrete works
2. Structural steel and pre-cast assembly
3. Erection and dismantling of scaffolds and false works
4. Works at heights
5. Demolition works
6. Excavation works
7. Piling operations
9. Works in confined spaces
10. Works in toxic/contaminated environments
11. Use of construction plant such as excavators, trucks, etc.
12. Use of cranes
13. Electrical installation and use
4. Safety training and competency of people involved

Certification and safety training of:
1. Crane erector(s)
2. Crane operator(s)
3. Riggers(s)
4. Signal men
5. Scaffold erector(s) and/or suspended scaffold rigger(s)
6. Erectors of hoists and lifts
7. Operators of hoists and lifts
8. Operators of plant like excavators, bull dozer, etc.
9. Construction vehicle drivers
Safety training to:
1. Demolition supervisor(s)
2. Excavation supervisors(s)
3. Piling supervisor(s)
4. Lifting supervisor(s)
5. Scaffold and/or suspended scaffold supervisor(s)
6. False work supervisor(s)
7. Welding and cutting supervisor(s)

8. Confined space work supervisor(s)

9. Toxic/contaminated environment work supervisor(s)
10. Project management team members
In-house safety training to workers on:
1. Site rules & regulations and proper use of PPE
2. Emergency responses for various possible incidents
3. First aid procedures
4. Safe handling of tools and equipment
5. Safety inspection system
Inspection of:
1. Excavation by a competent person on a daily basis and after hazardous events (e.g.
inclement weather)
2. Scaffoldings by a scaffold supervisor on a weekly basis and after inclement weather
3. False works by a PE or other competent person before, during and after casting and after
inclement weather
4. Demolition by a competent person on a daily basis and after inclement weather
5. Material loading platform by a competent person on a regular basis and after inclement
weather
6. Temporary structures such as site office, canteen, site hoardings and concrete batching
plant on a regular basis
7. Specialized structures or operations like use of customized shoring system by a competent
person
8. General site by a safety personnel or site manager
Housekeeping of:
1. Construction worksite
2. Workers’ quarters
3. Toilets and washing facilities
4. Canteen or eating places
5. Site offices
6. Storages for materials, tools & wastes
6. Machinery and tools use and maintenance regime
Test certificates for:

1. Lifting gears (12 monthly)
2. Lifting appliances (12 monthly)
3. Lifting machines (12 monthly)
4. Hoists and lifts (6 monthly)
5. Air receivers (24 monthly)
6. Explosive power tools (36 monthly)
Inspection of:
1. Cranes by crane operators on a daily basis
2. Electrical distribution board by a competent person on a daily basis

3. Electrical equipment and tools by operators or a competent person on a regular basis

(weekly/more frequent)
4. Construction vehicles like trucks, forklift, bull dozer, etc. by drivers or a designated person
on a daily basis
5. Temporary electrical installation by a licensed electrical worker
6. Specialized equipment by a competent person
Maintenance of:
1. Tower crane(s)
2. Mobile crane(s)
3. Gondola(s)
4. Piling machine(s)
5. Passenger hoist(s)
6. Mobile working platform(s)
7. Construction vehicles like truck, forklift, bulldozer, etc.
7. Sub-contractors’ safety systems
Sub-contractors:
1. Safe work procedures
2. Safe use of plant, machinery and tools
3. Safety inspection systems
4. Trained operatives and supervisors
5. Adherence to safety requirements during construction
8. Emergency management system
Emergency response plan for:

1. Fire & explosion
2. Failure & collapse of structures/temporary supports
3. Failure & collapse of heavy machinery & equipment
4. Leakage of hazardous substances
5. Adverse weather & flooding
Emergency response team with:

1. Emergency coordinator(s)
2. Site safety personnel
3. Designated rescuer(s)
4. First-aider(s)
5. Specialist operators(s)
Emergency equipment for:

1. Fire & explosion
2. Failure & collapse of structure/temporary support
3. Failure & collapse of heavy machinery & equipment
4. Leakage of hazardous substances

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

5. CONCLUSION
The first step for emergency preparedness and maintaining a safe workplace is defining and
analyzing hazards. Although all hazards should be addressed, resource limitations usually do not
allow this to happen at one time. Hazard identification and risk assessment can be used to establish
priorities so that the most dangerous situations are addressed first and those least likely to occur
and least likely to cause major problems can be considered later. The assessment of project hazards
and the contractor’s safety management system are two crucial aspects for risk rating. However,
they are complex in nature due to the size, complexity and multi-party involvement in the
construction process. Eleven factors and their respective hazard attributes for building hazards
assessment were identified in this report. This report also encompasses the main eight factors and
their respective attributes for evaluating safety in building projects.
Selection of proper method for assessing the hazards might result in a safety work site for any
construction project. For a successful hazard identification and risk assessment program, it is very
much ideal to consider all the minor aspects which may result in a major accident.
Based on the findings in a particular work place in a construction site, it is necessary to adopt any
of the methods of risk assessment discussed in the earlier chapters in order to derive the respective
risk scores for each activity involved in construction activity.
The risk scores thus obtained by following any of the methods are very much helpful in
understanding the degree of risk involved in any action or activity in construction activity. The
risk scores also helps the contractors or construction firms in taking prior safety measures to avoid
accidents in the work place. Thus the risk scores are very much evident in decision making like
adoption of specific type of operation for the said goal or purpose.

CHAPTER 6
REFERENCES

6. REFERENCES
 Bell, R. and Glade, T., (2003), Quantitative risk analysis for landslides- Examples from
Bildudalur, NW-Iceland, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol.4, pp. 117-131.
 Carpignano, A., Priotti, W. and Romagnoli, R., (1998), Risk analysis techniques applied
to floating oil production in deep offshore environments, International Society of Offshore
and Polar Engineers, Vol.1, pp. 253- 258.
 Duijm, N. J., (2001), Hazard analysis of technologies for disposing explosive waste,
Journal of Hazardous Materials, A90, pp. 123–135.
 Dziubinski, M., Fratczak, M. and Markowski, A. S., (2006), Journal of Loss Prevention in
the Process Industries, Vol. 19, pp 399-408.
 Khan, F. I. and Abbasi, S. A., (1998), Techniques and methodologies for risk analysis in
chemical process industries, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 11,
pp. 261-277.
 Khan, F. I. and Abbasi, S. A., (2001), Risk analysis of a typical chemical industry using
ORA procedure, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 14,pp. 43-59.
 Frank, T., Brooks, S., Creekmore, R., Hasselbalch, B., Murray, K., Obeng, K., Reich, S.
and Sanchez, E., (2008), Quality Risk Management Principles and Construction Industry
Case Studies, pp. 1-9.,
 Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control Procedure, 2008, University of

western Sydney,
http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/12917/Hazard_Identification_Risk_
Assessment_and_control_Procedure_2008.pdf
 Jeong, K., Lee, D., Lee, K. and Lim H., (2008) A qualitative identification and analysis of
hazards, risks and operating procedures for a decommissioning safety assessment of a
nuclear research reactor, Annals of Nuclear Energy 35, pp.1954–1962.
 Jelemenesky, L., Harisova, J. and Markos, J., (2003), Reliable risk estimation in the risk
analysis of chemical industry case study: Ammonia storage pressurized spherical tank,
30th International Conference of the Slovak Society of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 58, pp.
48-54
 Khan, F. I., Husain T., and Abbasi S. A.,( 2001), Safety weighted hazard index (Swehi) -
A new, user-friendly tool for swift yet comprehensive hazard identification and safety
evaluation in construction industries, Institution of Chemical Engineers Transactions, Vol.
79, pp. 65- 80.

 Davies and Tomasin (1996) Perspectives on construction hazard characterization and

analysis process at DOE, pp.6-39.
 Nigam, N. C., Maheshwari, A. K. And Rao, N.P.; Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment,;://www.iffco.nic.in/applications/Brihaspat.nsf/0/c9ffbd6dd9606196652572a
70041a53b/$FILE/Hazard%20Identification%20and%20Ris k%20Assessment.pdf.

HIRA in Construction Sector PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

HIRA in Construction Sector PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment in Construction Sector

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 1

Because of the existing hazards of construction as an activity and the complexity of

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 2

1.1 NEED FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

Study of risk assessment methodologies.

Application of Hazard Identification and Risk analysis for improvement of workplace

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 3

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 4

3. Probabilistic hazard assessment by modified fault tree analysis (MFTA).

4. Consequence analysis which include development of accident scenarios and damage

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 5

RISK = HAZARD * CONSEQUENCE * ELEMENT OF RISK

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 6

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 7

Orsulak et al. (2010) presented an application of a risk assessment approach in characterising

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 8

ASSESSING HAZARDS AND SAFETY IN BUILDING

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 9

3. ASSESSING HAZARDS AND SAFETY IN BUILDING

3.1 Chapter outline

3.2 Nature of occupational injuries in construction

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 10

pipes and fire due to welding/hot works.

Table 3.1: Health damages in construction

4. Muscular and bone High static stress, unnatural working postures

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 11

3.3 Assessing project hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 12

3.3.1 Demolition hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 13

3.3.2 Excavation hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 14

3.3.3 Scaffolding and ladder hazards

· Workers falling from the working platform;

The ladder-related accidents comprises of two key risk factors:

3.3.4 Falsework hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 15

unprotected edges and holes of decking, and access ladders.

3.3.5 Roof work hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 16

3.3.6 Hazards in erecting structural frameworks

The hazard level in erection works is dictated by the following variables:

3.3.7 Crane hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 17

3.3.8 Construction machinery and tools hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 18

· Failure of machinery- inoperative back-up alarms, brake failures, etc.;

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 19

3.3.9 Hazards on contaminated sites

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 20

3.3.10 Welding and cutting work hazards

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 21

 Falls during work on ladders, above ground and in confined spaces.

3.3.11 Hazards in confined spaces

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 22

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 23

Excel College of Engineering & Technology, Pallakapalayam 24

4.1. DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH RISK ASSESSMENT

Hazardous situation: A circumstance in which a person is exposed to a hazard

Hazardous event: A hazardous situation which results in harm.

Accident: An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended eternal