CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE

D ESIGN FOR S AFETY

Research Summary 101-1

The Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3208 Red River, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78705-2650
(512) 471-4319
FAX (512) 499-8101

Not printed with state funds

 Design for Safety

Prepared by
The Construction Industry Institute
Design for Safety Research Team

Research Summary 101-1

September 1996
© 1996 Construction Industry Institute™.

The University of Texas at Austin.

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at
no cost to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this
work for the internal use provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or

distributed and no modifications made without prior written permission from CII.
Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible
to purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty and students at a college or
university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

 Contents

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction 1

2. Designer’s Role in Construction Safety 3

3. Study Objectives 5

4. Design for Safety Suggestions 7

5. “Design for Construction Safety ToolBox” 13

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 30

References 33

Appendix: Authoring Tool 35

 Executive Summary

Construction worker fatalities occur at a rate of approximately four

per working day, and disabling injuries at a rate exceeding two per
minute per working day. The total direct and indirect costs associated
with these injuries and fatalities are in excess of $17 billion per year.
Owners must realize that incorporating safety measures in the design
phase directly improves safety on the job site, and ultimately leads to
lower total installed cost due to fewer dollars spent on mediating
hazards and acquiring construction insurance.

In its research, the CII Design for Safety Research Team

accumulated a large number of design suggestions that focus on
improving construction worker safety. Many of the design suggestions
are already being implemented, but no general method is available by
which these ideas could be shared among owners, constructors,
designers, and architect/engineers.

In response, the research team has created the “Design for

Construction Safety ToolBox,” an interactive computer program to aid
in planning and designing facilities. The program allows the user to
identify potential safety hazards and offers design suggestions that may
be used either to control or to eliminate the hazards. ToolBox, as it is
called, allows for both the identified hazards and the design
suggestions to be documented in a report format. A project history of
construction safety design issues and actions is automatically
accumulated and can be easily monitored for completeness of review
and status of design decisions.

ToolBox can be an important part of pre-project safety planning.

The successful implementation of ToolBox will provide numerous
benefits, including a reduction of construction worker injuries and
associated costs, as well as a reduction in redesign, rebuild,
maintenance, and operating costs. Success, of course, greatly depends
on owners taking a proactive role to promote safety through design.
ToolBox provides owners and others in construction the ability to
identify hazards before they become costly accidents at the site.

v
 1

Introduction

Safety is a major concern in construction. Compared with other

industries, construction has consistently experienced higher fatality
and disabling injury rates than all other industries except for mining
and agriculture. Increased control of construction site hazards is
needed to lower the level of risk and improve worker safety.

The construction industry has typically looked to the constructor

for improvements in worker safety. The constructor carries the lead role
in worker safety due to the mandate by the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, which places the responsibility for safety on the employer.
Research has shown that safety on the jobsite is affected by the actions
and attitudes of each employee of the general contracting firm (Hinze
and Parker, 1978; Hinze and Gordon, 1979; Hinze and Harrison,
1981). It has also been found that worker safety is affected by a general
contractor’s interaction with subcontractors (Hinze and Tally, 1988).

Owners, realizing that the costs of injuries are ultimately reflected

in the cost of construction, have also greatly expanded their role in
ensuring worker safety. The rising costs of health care and workers’
compensation, as well as the escalation of litigation involving third
parties, are not being ignored by owners. Table 1 (Hinze and
Appelgate, 1991) reveals that these costs are not trivial.

Table 1. Average Cost of Construction Site Injuries

Job Costs
Estimated Total Cost
Type of Injury Direct Indirect Liability Costs to Employer

Medical Only $520 $440 $240 $1,200

Lost Work Day $6,900 $1,600 $16,500 $25,000

1
 Owners’ pre-qualification requirements and the selection of
constructors can be based partly on demonstrated safety performance.
Owners can also influence jobsite safety through their contractual
agreements with constructors. By insisting on addressing safety in the
contract, owners increase the probability that constructors will follow
outlined safety procedures. Lastly, owners who are proactive in
approaching safety on the construction site promote safety awareness
throughout the project team.

Until recently, most regulatory and corporate safety programs have

relied on hindsight (statistics and accident investigations) to determine
where improvements can be made. Although aggressive constructor
and owner safety programs are now making progress in reducing the
number of on-site accidents, continued improvements can and should
be made. The construction industry must now look to other parties
involved in the construction process for additional improvement.
Another party in the typical general contracting relationship is the
design professional. While the constructor and owner have been
involved in addressing and improving worker safety, the designer’s
involvement in construction worker safety has been minimal.
Additional efforts by the designer are needed in order to obtain the
zero accidents objective.

2
 2

Designer’s Role in Construction Safety

Historically, the design profession has not addressed construction

site safety in its scope of work. Designers’ lack of involvement may be
attributed to their education and training, the existing design tools and
standards, the designers’ typical role on the project team, and liability
exposure. Regardless of the type of project, designer education and
training typically focus on safety of the “end user,” such as the office
worker, motorist, or equipment operator. Rarely do designers receive
formal education and training on design approaches that favorably
influence construction worker safety.

Today’s design tools and standards reflect the designers’ education

and training. Design codes, such as the Uniform Building Code,
typically provide standards that target the safety of the structure’s end
user. Facility safety for the period of time between the start of
construction and the transfer of the completed project to the owner is
not specifically addressed in current design resources. No design tools
accessible to the public exist that show how design decisions could or
should be made for the benefit of improved construction worker safety.

The designers’ role in the project team is usually limited to the

preparation of the design documents for use by the constructor. In
many cases the designer is also called on to verify that the completed
work conforms to requirements of the design documents. Although
designers are usually given the authority to stop work that does not
meet design requirements, they rarely are given further control of the
construction site.

Lastly, designers have minimized their involvement in construction

site safety in order to limit their exposure to liability for worker injuries.
Numerous court decisions extending the responsibility for safety to
third parties reveal the courts’ willingness and intention to compensate

3
injured workers for their losses. As a result, and upon subsequent
advice from their legal counsel, many designers have deliberately
excluded from their scope of work any involvement in construction
worker safety.

The construction industry has recently awakened to the need for

designer involvement in construction worker safety. It is becoming
more evident that safety practices implemented solely by the
constructor cannot eliminate all jobsite hazards. Constructors and
safety professionals have realized that design is an underlying facet of
construction site safety. This awareness of the designer’s effect on
worker safety has provided the stimulus for research regarding the
designer’s role in safety.

4
 3

Study Objectives

This study investigated the designer’s role in construction worker

safety and led to the creation of a safety design tool. The specific
objectives for the CII Design for Safety Research Team were to:

• recommend appropriate hazard identification techniques.

• determine planning and design steps to facilitate risk

reduction.

• identify economic evaluation procedures for design

options.

• focus on facility planning and design aspects affecting

safety in the construction phase, allowing future
considerations of start-up, operational, maintenance, and
decommissioning phases during conceptual and detailed
design.

• produce a “tool box” of design ideas to assist design

teams in identifying and mitigating safety hazards.

The research effort began by accumulating design for safety

suggestions. This compilation process continued throughout the
duration of the research. Development of the design tool commenced
with the creation of a prototype at The University of Texas at Austin.
Further development of the prototype into the final working program
was performed at the University of Washington and continued
throughout the research project together with the design suggestion
accumulation process.

Throughout the course of the research, reaction to the research

topic was positive and encouraging. Construction industry personnel
and academic colleagues showed interest in the research and its
potential effect not only on construction site safety, but on the

5
designer’s role in safety. Many individuals remarked about the
favorable and direct effect it will have on improving worker safety.
Numerous calls were received inquiring about the availability of the
design tool and its database of design suggestions. Some individuals
also contacted the research team members to describe and discuss
potential applications of the program within their firm’s project
management and design processes.

6
 4

Design for Safety Suggestions

The accumulation of design suggestions involved searching for

and developing design ideas and recommendations. These suggestions
were to represent current best practices in the industry. A “best
practice” is a design idea which, when used, provides an improvement
in construction safety. In more general terms, best practices can be
seen as the optimum procedures and methods which project teams use
to achieve improved construction safety.

The main goal of this effort was to compile as many design

suggestions as possible. All suggestions applicable to the design phase
of any type and size of project were recorded. Since the relative merits
of each design idea must take into account the specific project
circumstances, design suggestions were not discarded based on their
apparent impact on project cost, schedule, quality, or other design or
construction performance criteria. It was deemed that any efforts to
overlook or eliminate specific design ideas should be conducted by the
designer as specific project objectives are examined.

Design Suggestion Sources

The research effort focused on numerous sources of design
suggestions. Previous research and literature citations have indicated
that many design suggestions have been developed, and some are
routinely implemented by various design firms. An extensive literature
search was conducted to identify existing ideas and to integrate related
research and industry work. The literature search included reviews of
publications from such professional organizations as ASSE, ASCE,
AIChE, and CII.

7
 Many suggestions were collected through interviews with industry
personnel. In order to address all types of construction site hazards, the
interviews focused on personnel in various design and construction
disciplines and those employed on construction projects of various
types and sizes. All of the major parties involved in construction
projects, including owners, designers, constructors, design-builders,
and construction managers, were targeted.

Some design suggestions were developed through reviews of safety

design manuals and checklists. Many large companies, as well as state
and national agencies, use safety design manuals and checklists to
address safety in terms of the “end user,” such as the office worker,
motorist, or plant operator. These sources also emphasize the need to
provide a safe work environment for construction workers. Design
manuals and checklists were collected from various CII member
organizations. A review of these manuals and checklists focused on
taking the techniques used for enhancing end user safety and applying
them to construction phase safety. All design ideas which have an
impact on construction phase safety were noted.

Other design suggestions were developed through the review of

worker safety manuals such as the OSHA regulations and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual.
These documents have been developed to guide the constructor in
minimizing jobsite hazards. In reviewing these documents, design
suggestions were developed which would eliminate the need to apply
the safety measures, especially where significant hazards were noted.

The fourth source for developing design suggestions included the

CII Design for Safety Research Team members. Design suggestions
were developed using their collective design and construction
education and experience to analyze past and current construction
projects for possible safety improvements.

8
Accumulated Design Suggestions
The effort to find and develop design suggestions was successful.
Over 400 design suggestions were accumulated. The number of design
suggestions from the various sources is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Design Suggestion Sources

No. of
Source Suggestions %

1 Safety design manuals and checklists 140 32.6

2 Design for Safety research team members 123 28.6

3 Interviews (telephone, in-person) 81 18.8

4 OSHA (CFR, publications, data) 34 7.9

5 Journal articles 19 4.4

6 Periodicals 14 3.3

7 Public safety courses 8 1.9

8 Other (NIOSH, HBR Constructability Plan) 11 2.6

Total 430 100

The great diversity of the construction industry led to the

accumulation of design suggestions which reflect all types of design
disciplines as shown in Table 3. The structural engineer’s design scope
was most frequently addressed (32.8 percent of the design
suggestions), followed closely by the architectural discipline (29.5
percent). It should be noted that each suggestion may relate to more
than one design discipline. For example, on renovation projects, one
suggestion is that designers should indicate on the drawings the

9
location of shut-off valves and switches for existing utilities. This
allows the contractor to immediately locate the valves and switches in
emergency situations. This suggestion applies to the designers of
mechanical, electrical, and piping/plumbing systems. Thus, although
there are 430 unique recorded suggestions, the various design
disciplines were addressed a total of 641 times.

Table 3. Design Disciplines Addressed by the Design Suggestions

No. of Times % of Recorded

Design Discipline Addressed Suggestions*

1 Structural 141 32.8

2 Architectural 127 29.5

3 Piping/Plumbing 84 19.5

4 Electrical/Instrumentation 69 16.0

5 Mechanical/HVAC 69 16.0

6 Construction Management 62 14.4

7 Civil 48 11.2

8 Tanks/Vessels 17 4.0

9 Traffic/Transportation 16 3.7

10 Geotechnical 5 1.2

11 Coatings/Insulation 3 0.7

Total 641

* Since suggestions may address more than one construction site hazard,
the sum of these numbers (expressed as a % of the 430 recorded
suggestions) exceeds 100.

10
 All types of construction site hazards are addressed in the
accumulated design suggestions. As shown in Table 4, the majority of
the suggestions relate to falls, followed by electrical shock, explosions,
and cave-ins. Similar to Table 3, the results in Table 4 reflect the fact
that each suggestion may relate to more than one construction site
hazard.

Table 4. Construction Site Hazards

Addressed by the Design Suggestions

No. of Times % of Recorded

Design Discipline Addressed Suggestions*

1 Falls 141 32.8

2 Electrical shock 60 14.0
3 Explosions 57 13.3
4 Cave-in 56 13.0
5 Fire 42 9.8
6 Toxic substances 38 8.8
7 Work area 34 7.9
8 Environment/Climate 31 7.2
9 Struck by objects 25 5.8
10 Vehicular traffic 25 5.8
11 Worker issues 21 4.9
12 On-line equipment 20 4.7
13 Obstructions 18 4.2
14 Heavy equipment 13 3.0
15 Confined space 10 2.3
16 Caught in/between 6 1.4
17 Lighting 5 1.2

Total 602

* Since suggestions may address more than one construction site hazard,
the sum of these numbers (expressed as a % of the 430 recorded
suggestions) exceeds 100.

11
 The design suggestions ranged from specific ideas to those with
broad applications. All major phases of construction were addressed.
The following is a sample of the design suggestions compiled.

1. Suggestion: Design components to facilitate pre-fabrication in

the shop or on the ground so that they may be
erected in place as complete assemblies.
Purpose: Reduce worker exposure to falls from elevation and
being struck by falling objects.

2. Suggestion: Design steel columns with holes in the web at 21

and 42 inches above the floor level to provide
support locations for guardrails and lifelines.
Purpose: By eliminating the need to connect special
guardrail or lifeline connections, such fabrication
details will facilitate worker safety immediately
upon erection of the columns.

3. Suggestion: Design beam-to-column double-connections to

have continual support for the beams during the
connection process by adding a beam seat, extra
bolt hole, or other redundant connection point.
Purpose: Continual support for beams during erection will
eliminate falls due to unexpected vibrations,
misalignment, and unexpected construction loads.

4. Suggestion: Minimize the number of offsets in a building plan,

and make the offsets a consistent size and as large
as possible.
Purpose: Prevent fall hazards by simplifying the work area
for construction workers.

5. Suggestion: Allow adequate clearance between the structure

and overhead power lines. Bury, disconnect, or re-
route existing power lines around the project
before construction begins.
Purpose: Overhead power lines which are in service during
construction pose a hazard when operating cranes
and other tall equipment.

12
 5

“Design for Construction Safety ToolBox”

One of the Design for Safety Research Team objectives was to

develop a design tool. Not long ago, it would have been assumed that
the tool proposed by the research team would be a written document,
such as a checklist or reference manual. The research team elected to
develop a design tool in the form of a computer program in an effort to
overcome the setbacks of traditional design tools. It was felt that a
computer program provides a number of advantages, including:

• Efficiency due to control logic. Computer software can

lead a user to pertinent information in a more effective
and efficient manner.

• Ability to serve as a management and recording device.

The data handling capabilities of a computer can be used
to manage and control the safety review process more
effectively.

• Automatic report functions. Data can be quickly gathered

into a formatted report.

• Flexibility and potential to add analytical functions. A

computer program’s capabilities can be customized or
expanded.

Prototype Development
A prototype for the design tool was developed as an initial research
step in this study (Haas, Burleson, Goodrum, 1995). The prototype was
used as the starting point for developing the final version of the design
tool.

13
 Preliminary efforts in the development of the prototype involved
the identification of a software program which could be used to
develop an interactive and comprehensive design tool. A review of the
available software building tools was made which considered expert
systems, multimedia applications, and Macintosh software. A
Windows-based multimedia software program was chosen as the
product which best suited the emerging functional specifications.
Asymetrix Multimedia ToolBook was chosen as the software building
tool. Information about this “parent” software is provided in the
Appendix. After an initial model of the application was developed, a
series of research team reviews led to subsequent revisions of the
prototype until the final product was created.

The efforts to collect design suggestions and to develop the design

tool were conducted simultaneously. In general, the functional
capabilities of the program were established first. Comments on the
software were prioritized based on value added to the program. The
incorporation of the design suggestions was the last major stage in the
program development.

Design Tool Architecture and Features

In order to accommodate projects of various sizes and
complexities, flexibility was incorporated in the program. Some of
these features are:

• Single or multiple occurrences of the same hazard are

recordable.

• Different design suggestions may be used for multiple

occurrences of the same hazard.

• One person may represent one or more design

disciplines.

14
 • Reviews may be conducted from the perspective of
project components (physical and contractual features),
construction site hazards, or project systems (CSI format).

Obviously, a specific design idea that is cost effective on one

project may not be suited for another. A good example would be
extending a parapet to a height of 42 inches above a roof to serve a
dual purpose as a guard rail. This is a particularly good solution for
facilities which have utilities on the roof or other needs for frequent
access after the facility is in use. However, a provision for temporary
guardrails during construction, such as sleeves or lugs for post-
attachments, may be the best practice for roofs that have minimal post-
construction traffic. Thus, the research team required the program to
offer the designer a variety of design suggestions to overcome
particular safety hazards, plus the option of allowing the designer to
devise and record additional design suggestions.

Project managers, designers, safety representatives, and

construction managers should give input during the conceptual
planning phase to establish safety objectives for successful project
execution. Decisions made at this phase regarding site selection,
approximate site layout, and basic design approach can effect the
number and severity of construction hazards that may accrue. As the
project evolves to detailed scope definition, possible hazards that are
identified must be evaluated at locations where they occur, and plans
of action must be prepared.

The Design for Construction Safety ToolBox program facilitates this

process by focusing on specific hazards and recording selected
suggestions to control them, including the location on the jobsite
where the suggestions apply. Recommendations for the design
approach and status notepads are linked to each suggestion.

15
 There were many specific and general features that the research
team desired of ToolBox. Among these were requirements that the
completed software should:

• identify construction hazards.

• provide suggestions to eliminate or reduce the likelihood

of accidents from these hazards.

• document and generate reports and findings in a usable

format.

• provide a variety of approaches to review a project.

• be adaptable to custom design suggestions and lessons

learned.

• be functional for large, small, simple, or complex

projects.

• apply to various types of projects (e.g., heavy,

commercial, industrial).

• be efficient and easy to use.

• facilitate designer thought related to possible hazards and

control selection.

ToolBox is designed to run with Microsoft Windows version 3.0 or

higher.

16
 Table 5 presents the minimum and recommended computer
hardware and software requirements for operating ToolBox.

Table 5. Computer Hardware and Software Requirements for ToolBox

Computer
Software/Hardware Minimum Recommended
Component Requirement Capacity

Disk drive 1.44 MB (3.5") 1.44 MB (3.5")

Processor 80286 80486 DX2 or higher

Random access 1.5 MB 4.0 MB or greater

memory (RAM)

Hard disk space 16.0 MB 16.0 MB

MS-DOS Version 3.1 Version 6.0 or higher

Microsoft Windows Version 3.0 Version 3.1 or higher

Graphics VGA, EGA, 8514, VGA, EGA, 8514,

adapter card Hercules, or Hercules, or
other Windows- other Windows-
compatible compatible
mouse mouse

Pointing device Windows- Windows-

compatible compatible
mouse mouse

17
 The program contains various screens to help identify the user
and the project, focus on a particular topic, input the features of the
project, alert the user to safety concerns, review various design
suggestions, and record design decisions. It also contains screens to
help manage the project, keep track of recorded suggestions, and
create customized reports.

Project information is recorded on the Project Data screen, shown

in Figure 1. This information can be viewed or printed at any time
during a project review. The only project information required to
retrieve a project review file is the file name. Other information is
optional and can be input or modified at any time during the use of the
program.

Figure 1. Project Data Screen

18
 The project number box will appear in all subsequent screens in
the program. This feature allows the user working on numerous
projects to ensure that the items being considered are for the
appropriate project.

The design of a construction project is typically performed by

several design professionals, each representing different specialty
areas. Management of the review status and results with respect to
each design discipline is an important control function. In recognition
of this essential function, ToolBox will prompt the user to identify the
discipline(s) represented at the start of a project review. The
information is not used to limit the scope of the review, but is required
for the Matrix Managers (described later) to operate.

In order to focus the project review on the characteristics of a

particular project or preferences of a particular reviewer, ToolBox
offers three subject paths to drive the review. The subject paths are:

Project Typical components included in construction

Components projects, such as the structure, foundation, roof, or
doors and windows.

Construction Typical construction worker site safety hazards,

Site Hazards such as falls, fires, or electrical shock.

Project Systems Construction project systems, including concrete,

finishes, and mechanical that are based on the CSI
standard format.

Tables 6, 7, and 8 list the topics included within the Project

Components, Construction Site Hazards, and Project Systems
categories.

19
 Table 6. Project Components

General Cond., Special Provisions Piping

Technical Specifications Tank, Vessel
Contract Drawings Door, Window
Work Schedule/Sequence Walkway, Platform
Project Layout Stairs, Ladder, Ramp
Structure Plan/Elevation Handrail, Guardrail
Foundation Furnishings, Finishes
Structural Framing Roads, Paving, Flatwork
Slab-on-Grade, Floor, Roof Earthwork, Sewer, Etc.
Mechanical/HVAC Other - 1
Electrical/Instrumentation Other - 2

Table 7. Construction Site Hazards

Caught In/Between Obstructions

Cave-In On-Line Equipment
Confined Spaces Struck by Objects
Electrical Shock Toxic Substances
Environment/Climate Vehicular Traffic
Explosions Work Area
Falls Worker Issues
Fire Other - 1
Heavy Equipment Other - 2
Lighting

20
 Table 8. Project Systems

1. General Requirements 10. Specialties

2. Sitework 11. Equipment
3. Concrete 12. Furnishings
4. Masonry 13. Special Construction
5. Metals 14. Conveying Systems
6. Wood and Plastics 15. Mechanical
7. Thermal & Moisture Protection 16. Electrical
8. Doors and Windows Other - 1
9. Finishes Other - 2

Once the reviewer chooses a review approach, whether by

component, hazard, or system, the Project Features screen will present
a number of questions regarding the project. The questions address the
unique characteristics of the project and will direct ToolBox’s search
for appropriate safety concerns and design suggestions.

Safety concerns and related design suggestions are presented on

the Concerns and Suggestions screen. An example of the Concerns and
Suggestions screen is shown in Figure 2. The reviewer may choose one
or more of the presented suggestions, or devise a unique suggestion for
inclusion in the “Other Suggestions” box. Any suggestion placed in the
“Other Suggestions” box will be saved by ToolBox and automatically
displayed as a suggestion when subsequent reviews are conducted for
other projects. The other suggestions can be left in place or deleted.
This attribute enables firms to take advantage of lessons learned or to
include preferred methods.

21
 A “tools” bar appears on the Concerns and Suggestions screen just
below the menu selections near the top of the screen (see Figure 2).
The tools bar contains a number of buttons, each with its own icon.
These icons, related to the various screens in ToolBox, enable the user
to quickly navigate throughout the program. The buttons can be used
to review only parts of a project, to edit/view entries already made, or
to access/egress from the project review. The user may elect to use
either the buttons or the conventional menu items for navigating within
the program.

For each suggestion chosen, ToolBox will prompt the reviewer to

enter information in the Design Suggestion Journal. The Design
Suggestion Journal provides a place to accumulate such information as
the location where the suggestion applies, the effected craft/task

Figure 2. Concerns and Suggestions Screen

22
identification, recommendations as to the appropriate course of action,
and the actions/status needed for assignments and progress monitoring.
The Design Suggestion Journal screen is presented in Figure 3. Since
the users of the Design Suggestion Journal are likely to vary
considerably from firm to firm, the form has deliberately been designed
in an “open-ended” fashion.

Figure 3. Design Suggestion Journal Screen

23
 ToolBox lists all of a project’s design suggestions selected by
reviewers in the Suggestion Index. The design suggestions are listed in
chronological order along with the name given to each suggestion. An
example of the Suggestion Index can be seen in Figure 4. As noted on
the left side of the figure, selecting a suggestion from the index will
immediately call up its Design Suggestion Journal page. This feature
provides quick access to update Design Suggestion Journal pages with
completed design information, to check on the status of a suggestion,
or for browsing through design suggestions.

Figure 4. Suggestion Index Screen

Keeping track of whether hazards are identified, if controls are

planned for them, or which design disciplines have performed a safety
review is frequently the duty of the project manager, project engineer,

24
or a safety engineer. To simplify this management function, ToolBox
incorporates a feature called the Matrix Manager, which provides a
quick look at the status of the review in a matrix form. The Matrix
Manager provides automatically updated overviews of the status of the
project review and a reflection of the review results in a simple format.
A Matrix Manager (see Figure 5) exists for each of the three review
subject paths (Project Components, Construction Site Hazards, and
Project Systems). The reviewer’s discipline is always represented by
rows in the matrix. The columns are a function of the subject path
selection.

The Matrix Managers start with empty, white squares in the matrix.
The squares will remain white until the user, representing a design
discipline, has performed a review. As a review is performed, entries
into the Matrix Manager are made automatically according to the
results of the subject path review. Entries in the matrix are seen as G
(green), Y (yellow), and R (red). These codes have the following
meanings:

R (red) At least one concern has been identified but not

addressed.
Y (yellow) Suggestions have been recorded for all concerns
identified.
G (green) No concerns were identified.
(white) Not yet reviewed.

In the example Matrix Manager shown above, the civil engineer

has reviewed all project components except structural framing and
furnishings. Among the components reviewed by the civil engineer, a
suggestion has been recorded for all identified concerns. Structural
framing and furnishings have been reviewed by the architect, who did
not address at least one concern regarding framing, and did not
identify any concerns related to furnishings.

25
 Figure 5. Matrix Manager Screen

Reports
To help record and communicate the results of the project review,
ToolBox offers a variety of printed reports. The contents of the reports
may easily be customized to fit the needs of various organizations and
projects. The Project Data report includes the information on the
Project Data screen. The Current Suggestion report prints information
in the Suggestion Journal which is currently displayed on the screen.
The Project Suggestions reports allow printing of design suggestions
recorded or the safety concerns not addressed. These reports can be
customized according to specific Project Components, Construction
Site Hazards, Project Systems, User Disciplines, or Task#/Trade/Worker
(the responsibility code that can be noted in the Design Suggestion
Journal).

26
Performing a Project Review with ToolBox
The typical flow for a project review is displayed in Figure 6. The
first step is to initiate a file with project data or to select an existing
project file. Next, the user is asked to record the design discipline(s)
being represented and to choose a subject path for the review.
Selection of a design discipline is an optional task, but it is required for
the Matrix Manager to be functional.

After the subject path is selected, the reviewer is asked to select

one or more categories to review. ToolBox will then request
information about project features. The project features selected will
prompt ToolBox to display various construction safety concerns and
associated design suggestions. The reviewer will be requested to select
or provide design suggestions to alleviate these concerns. The
information about the selected suggestion(s) is input into the Design
Suggestion Journal and recorded. This cycle is reiterated until all
features and suggestions have been addressed.

Figure 6. Typical ToolBox Review Flow Chart

27
 The optimum timing of the use of ToolBox and how various
participants use it has been discussed in previous sections.
Implementation of these principles depend on decisions made at the
earliest point in the pre-project planning process. These decisions
should define the timing and personnel who will be using the ToolBox.

Organizations must create project guidelines to address the

following issues for successful implementation of ToolBox:

• Which subject paths to use?

• Who performs the reviews?

• Who monitors the progress and when?

• What information is put in various screen boxes?

• How are project files named, updated, and backed up?

• How does the use of ToolBox change or adapt with

varying project size and complexity?

Developing an operating discipline or user’s guidebook to address

these issues is a critical need for productive implementation of
ToolBox. A good case in point is the Design Suggestion Journal screen.
The type of information recorded in the Design Suggestion Journal
should be standardized to meet the needs of the project, owner, or
design firm (refer to Figure 3). Location definitions may be by
coordinate, grid, floor, equipment number, or other identifier. The
Task#/Trade/Worker box may be left blank or added to indicate the
work breakdown structure number, craft performing or affected by the
suggestion, a CSI classification, design code for the responsible design
discipline, or other identifier. The Recommendations box could be
used to further explain concerns or suggestions, list cost/benefit
considerations, or other information. The Actions/Status box can be
used to keep track of design recommendation implementation issues,
such as who delivers what and when and the percent of work
completed.

28
 Some firms will have their own standard “best practice” to design
for particular construction hazards. New practices may come about as
the result of lessons learned. Either of these items can be incorporated
into ToolBox by creating a skeleton file that contains the desired design
suggestions in the “Other Suggestions” boxes of the Concerns and
Suggestions screens.

29
 6

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions
Construction projects can best benefit by having all team members
participate in safety planning during the pre-project planning stage.
Designers can influence construction site safety by considering how
facilities are constructed and the hazards faced by construction
personnel. Safety planning in the design phase saves money and time
by reducing design rework, liability, and insurance costs. The Design
for Construction Safety ToolBox aids design teams in these efforts by
prompting consideration of hazards, offering suggestions to adapt
designs to control hazards, and maintaining an ongoing record of
design ideas and their status.

ToolBox is easy and efficient to use. It is sufficiently flexible to

apply to projects of any size or complexity. It is also adaptable to
various project and organizational requirements. Organizations can
incorporate lessons learned or standard construction safety design
suggestions into ToolBox. The progress of design for safety reviews and
actions by designers can be readily monitored by the use of the Matrix
Managers and through the custom reports selected from print sort
menus. These features provide control and communication
possibilities to ensure complete safety reviews and to document
choices made and actions taken.

The procedures and methods which organizations use most often

address the basic safety requirements for facilities. All engineers and
designers refer to design codes (UBC, ASME, AISE, etc.) for compliance
with fundamentally sound engineering practice to protect the public
from inadequate design. Many firms use checklists at various times
during design to ensure the safety of facility operations and
maintenance. ToolBox can supplement these resources by encouraging
recognition of construction hazards and offering design suggestions to
manage them.

30
Recommendations
In order to improve construction site safety, design firms should
employ “best practices” to design for safety. “Best practices” include
both the methods used to consider construction site hazards and the
design ideas used to mitigate them. Hazard analysis can be broken
down into four categories: identification of hazards, quantification of
hazards, consequence of hazards, and management of hazards. The
software developed by the research team is primarily developed to
help the designer with the identification and management of hazards.

To quantify hazards, one must consider the probability that the

accident/incident under consideration will occur. This can be done
through documented accident/incident statistics or by collective
judgment using nomographs (graphical analysis). By “designing out”
the hazard being considered, one can reduce the probability (defined
as likelihood of exposure) to zero. Otherwise, alternate design methods
or procedures must be incorporated by the designer to reduce the
probability of the hazard occurrence to an acceptable level. However,
alternative designs to eliminate or control the hazard cannot be
implemented without considering the consequences of hazards.

After identifying and quantifying a hazard, one must determine the

consequences should an incident occur. Again, this could be done
qualitatively or quantitatively. A quantitative approach might be
estimating the number of injuries or the cost (in dollars) of such an
incident occurring. Qualitatively, one could simply list the
consequences as none, moderate, or severe. It is the combination of
this consequence analysis and the possibility of it occurring (as
discussed above) that leads the project team to decide if changes in the
design are warranted.

The decision to utilize qualitative risk analysis needs to be done on

a project by project basis. A qualitative approach will be less costly
and time consuming than a quantitative method. However, the results
will be less accurate and convincing than the quantitative approach.

31
The greater the potential for injuries or damage, the more likely that a
quantitative approach would be used since it is based on injury data
and trends rather than an individual’s perception.

The future inclusion of a risk analysis module in ToolBox would

give designers a better tool for making up-front decisions. Since the
industry-wide data on lost time statistics is constantly improving,
decisions made on a quantitative basis should also improve. Ideally,
key decisions made from ToolBox would become part of individual
corporate and government standards. The adoption and use of such
standards should help reduce injuries during construction activities as
well as reduce the time needed to design the project features.

As the financial backers of projects, owners should realize the

benefit of improved construction safety and take an active role in the
effort to design facilities that are safer to construct. They should insist
on the consideration of construction safety during pre-project
planning. Designing for construction safety has many parallels to the
constructability process. Primarily, the earlier that decisions are made,
the more cost and schedule benefits are realized. Indeed, one of the
four project objectives which constructability seeks to improve is
safety. An approach similar to a constructability program can be used
to design facilities that are safer for construction workers by beginning
safety planning for the project during the pre-project planning phase.

Design for Construction Safety ToolBox is an excellent tool to

facilitate designer thought related to construction hazards. Project
teams should use ToolBox early in the project life cycle to assist safety
communication and avoid design rework.

32
 References

Haas, C., Burleson, R., and Goodrum, P. (1995), “A Multimedia Design

Aid for Project Hazard Identification and Remediation Part 1:
Functional Capabilities and Design of the Design for Safety
Toolbox Prototype,” CII Source Document 107, Austin, Texas.

Hinze, J. (1996), Design for Construction Safety ToolBox User’s

Manual, CII Implementation Resource 101-2, Austin, Texas.

Hinze, J. and Appelgate, L. (1991), “Costs of Construction Injuries,”

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol.
117, No. 3, pp. 537–550.

Hinze, J. and Gambatese, J. (1996), “Addressing Construction Worker

Safety in Project Design,” CII Research Report 101-11, Austin,
Texas.

Hinze, J. and Gordon, F. (1979), “Supervisor-Worker Relationship

Affects Injury Rate,” Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE,
Vol. 105, No. CO3, pp. 253–261.

Hinze, J. and Harrison, C. (1981), “Safety Programs in Large

Construction Firms,” Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE,
Vol. 107, No. CO3, pp. 455–467.

Hinze, J. and Lyneis, P. (1988), “The Liability Crisis,” The National

Utility Contractor, NUCA, Vol. 12, No. 8, pp. 24–27.

Hinze, J. and Parker, H. W. (1978), “Safety: Productivity and Job

Pressures,” Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE, Vol. 104,
No. CO1, pp. 27–35.

Hinze, J. and Tally, D. M. (1988), “Subcontractor Safety as Influenced

by General Contractors on Large Projects,” CII Source Document
39, Austin, Texas.

33
Jeffrey, J. and Douglas, I. (1994), “Safety Performance of the UK
Construction Industry,” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Rinker
International Conference Focusing on Construction Safety and
Loss Control, University of Florida, pp. 233–253.

National Safety Council (1952–1995), “Accident Facts,” N.S.C., Itasca,

Illinois.

Nelson, E. (1993), “Zero Injury Economics,” CII Special Publication

32-2, Austin, Texas.

Stephan, D. E. (1987), “Professional Responsibility — Constructor’s

Role,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
113, No. 4, pp. 311–316.

34
 Appendix

Authoring Tool

Asymetrix Multimedia ToolBook is a computer authoring tool.

Authoring tools are integrated software programs used to create a
variety of applications from interactive information kiosks to expert
systems. Although some of the traditional expert system building tools
provide more sophisticated inference and representation schemes than
those associated with authoring systems, newly developed authoring
tools are considerably easier to learn and use, offer greater ability to
customize the user interface, and offer greater ability to access external
databases.

Authoring tools typically operate on a hypertext system. Hypertext

involves the instant expansion and linking of text. For example,
suppose there is a page of text appearing in a computer program. The
program offers explanations or additional information about
highlighted key words on each page. If the user wishes to view the
additional information available for one of the key words, a click of a
mouse button or a quick series of keystrokes while the cursor is
positioned over the word will open the file. The information associated
with the word or phrase appears on the screen, using the concept of
hypertext to provide a greater level of detail.

Multimedia ToolBook can be used to create applications that run

audio, text, and video. ToolBook, and any application created using it,
is exclusively designed to run in Microsoft Windows. When a
developer wishes to create a stand alone application, a “run-time”
version of the application is created. Finally, ToolBook supports a
variety of report options for application development.

35
Notes

36
Notes

37
 Design for Safety Research Team Membership

Leonard Avdey, Merck & Co., Inc.

**David W. Brown, Dow Chemical U.S.A.
Jordan Ellis, Elf Atochem N.A. Inc.
Mark A. George, MK Ferguson Group
Carl T. Haas, The University of Texas at Austin
**Jimmie W. Hinze, University of Washington
**Peter J. Matuszak, Star Enterprise Port
Donald A. Pittenger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chairman
Craig B. Schilder, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
J. Alan Speegle, Rust International
Glenn S. Tarbox, Bechtel Corp.
Stephen L. Whittier, Tennessee Valley Authority

Past Members
Gerald L. Bissell, Eli Lilly & Co.
N. Colin Harris, John Brown E&C
Jim Pemberton, Arco Exploration and Production Technology,
past Chairman
Peter J. Schappa, Northern States Power Co.
Kamal Shah, John Brown E&C
Garry W. Suenkel, Bechtel Corp.

**Principal author
**Contributing authors

Editor: Rusty Haggard

 Construction Industry Institute
Allegheny Power System
Aluminum Company of America
Amoco Corporation
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Aramco Services Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Champion International Corporation
Chevron Corporation
Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc.
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
DuPont
Eastman Chemical Company
Enron Corporation
Exxon Research & Engineering Company
FMC Corporation
General Electric Corporation
General Motors Corporation
Glaxo Wellcome Inc.
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
Houston Lighting & Power Company
Intel Corporation
James River Corporation
Eli Lilly and Company
Merck & Co., Inc.
Mobil Corporation
Monsanto Company
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Ontario Hydro
Phillips Petroleum Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
Rohm and Haas Company
Shell Oil Company
Sun Company, Inc.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Texaco
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Generating Company
U.S. Steel
Union Carbide Corporation
Weyerhaeuser Paper Company
ABB Lummus Global Inc.
Guy F. Atkinson Company of California
BE&K Construction Company
Bechtel Group, Inc.
Belcan Engineering Group, Inc.
Black & Veatch
BMW Constructors Inc.
Brown & Root, Inc.
Bufete Industrial
Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.
Cherne Contracting Corporation
Cianbro Corporation
Day & Zimmermann International, Inc.
Dillingham Construction Holdings Inc.
Eichleay Holdings Inc.
Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
Fru-Con Corporation
James N. Gray Construction Company, Inc.
Graycor, Inc.
Hilti Corporation
Honeywell, Inc.
International Technology Corporation
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
J. A. Jones Inc.
The M. W. Kellogg Company
Kiewit Construction Group, Inc.
Kvaerner-John Brown
Marshall Contractors, Inc.
McDermott Engineering & Construction Group
Morrison Knudsen Corporation
M. A. Mortenson Company
Murphy Company
North Bros. Company
The Parsons Corporation
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors International
Rust International Corporation
S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd.
Skanska Engineering & Construction Inc.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Sverdrup Corporation
Technology Design & Construction Company
TPA, Inc.
Turner Construction Company
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
H. B. Zachry Company
Bureau of Engineering Research
The University of Texas at Austin