See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326969718

Human Error Uncertainties For Structural Detailings in Reinforced Concrete

Buildings

Conference Paper · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 85

2 authors, including:

Ajibola Ibrahim Quadri

Yokohama National University
14 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Academic Lecturers vs Researches View project

Reliability Assessment of concrete structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ajibola Ibrahim Quadri on 10 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

SEET’18
Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of
Engineering & Engineering Technology (SEET), The Federal
University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria, 17-19 July, 2018.
Engineering for Self-Relia nce

HUMAN ERROR UNCERTAITIES FOR STRUCTURAL DETAILINGS IN

REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

H. T. Lateef and A. I. Quadri

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure,
Ondo State, Nigeria.
Email: aiquadri@futa.edu.ng

ABSTRACT
Human errors in construction works have led to collapse of many buildings more than the error
in the planning and design phases as supported by some expert findings. This study reports the
findings of human errors due to reinforcement detailing on some selected reinforced concrete
building projects in Lagos and Osun States, Nigeria. Ten buildings under construction were
visited, physical measurements relating to reinforcement detailing on slabs, beams and columns
were taken, and the differences between the requirements in the structural drawings and the as-
built on the sites were recorded. The probability of error in spacing, sizes and the required
number of reinforcing bars for each of the basic structural elements of a building were
calculated. The results showed that bar spacing formed the major human error in reinforcement
detailing of slabs on all the selected sites. For beams, most of all the sites visited showed
significant error in the required number of bars and the spacing of links. It has been established
that the spacing of links is a general and common human error in the reinforcement detailing of
columns.

Keywords: Structural Element, Reinforcement Detailing, Error Probability, Bayesian Theorem

1. INTRODUCTION
Failure of structures or parts of structures are occurring throughout the world, a world without
failure seems impossible, slips and lapses and gross-errors will always occur. Failure of a
structure is defined as the unsuitability of the structure to serve the intended purpose. Several
surveys on structural failures has been done and reported, a general conclusion from such studies
is that failure without exception occur due to human error. Majority of mistakes are related to
conceptual errors and structural wrong. Incorrect assumptions or insufficient consideration of
loads and actions contributed to a common type of error analyses (Fruhwald et al., 2007). The
occurrence of errors is of the same order of magnitude for design, planning and construction
respectively, with higher frequency for the design phase. Failures due to material deficiencies or
maintenance are relatively uncommon. In Nigeria, building failure has been attributed to so
many factors ranging from the use of substandard materials, poor workmanship, low quality of
blocks, concrete and other factors. Oyewande (1992), stressed that building failures are

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 766

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

attributed to the following causes; design faults (50 %), faults on construction site (40 %) and
product failure (10 %). Failure could occur in the form of partial or total collapse of the
structure. Majority of the researchers attributed most of the structural failures to defect in design
which is caused as a result of human error. An important aspect of failure is that in general,
multiple causes can be identified (CUR, 2010) and that taking away one of these causes usually
mitigates the undesired situation. This study therefore, assessed the level of human imperfection
in detailing of reinforced concrete buildings

Building collapse, though a common phenomenon all over the world, it is more rampant and
devastating in the developing countries, in fact, a major concern in the development of this
nation. The frequencies of occurrence and the magnitude of loss of lives and properties are now
becoming alarming. Failure in building can be described as the inability of the building
components to perform what are normally expected or required of them (Van Herwijnen, 2009).
Failures in building can occur during different stages of construction process as well as after. In
Nigeria, the common causes of building collapse have been traced to bad design, faulty
construction, use of low quality materials, hasty construction, foundation failure, improper
supervision, ineffective enforcement of building codes by the relevant Town Planning
Authorities, lack of proper maintenance among others. (Folagbade, 2001 and Badejo, 2009).
Between 1987 and 2000, over 22 cases of building collapse were reported in Lagos Nigeria
(Kaminetzky, 1999, Kirwan et al., 1997). Figures 1 and 2 show some of the collapsed buildings
in Nigeria caused by human error in spacing of reinforcements and poor quality of materials
used. (Olanitori 2011). Moreover, more cases of collapse have been reported between 2011 and
2015 (Baker et al., 2008). Hence, the rate of structural failures across the country has become a
matter of great concern to both government and the citizens.

Figure 1: Collapsed Two Storey Building in Abuja, Nigeria

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 767

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

Figure 2: Collapse of Hotel Building in Akure, Ondo State

Human error may be defined as an event or process that departs from commonly accepted
competent professional practice. It excludes such unforeseen events, variation in material
properties, etc. Human errors may be categorized as either slips or mistakes (Norman, 1981).
A slip was defined as an unconscious error such as calculation error and a mistake as an error
due to a deliberate or conscious action; selecting an unsuitable design loading combination.
Reason (2000) categorized major elements in the production of an error as; the nature of the
task and its environmental circumstances, the mechanisms governing performance, the nature
of the individual and intention. Another important factor which is described in Hollnagel
(1993) is the distinction between competence and control as separate aspects of performance.

Very little is known on the causes and remedies of human error and its relationship to structural
safety. In order to understand the influence of human error, it is necessary to analyze the process
of design, and the occurrence, consequence, and control of human error. The role of field error
on structural components due to inaccuracies that are rampant on sites have been presented in
this work. It has been suggested that the Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) approach is
suitable for modeling these effects (Swain 1990), This method utilizes event-tree and fault-tree
techniques, which have been extensively used in assessing the safety of nuclear power plants
industry through the development of expert judgment techniques such as Human Error
Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART), Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis
Method (CREAM) and Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP) (Di Mattia et al.,
2005). It is therefore not unexpected that similar methods have been recommended for
evaluating human error effects and quality control strategies for structural engineering tasks.
However, it is recognized that results obtained from HRA models can provide only an
indication of the true nature of the effect of human error. Human Error Probability has been
adopted in this research to check human imperfection in handling arrangement of structural
members.

One of the primary goals of structural engineers is to assure proper levels of safety for the
structures they design. This seemingly simple task is complicated by uncertainties associated

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 768

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

with the materials with which the structure was designed and the loads they must resist, as well
as our inaccuracies in analysis and design. Structural reliability and probabilistic analysis/design
are tools which can be employed to quantify these uncertainties and inaccuracies, and produce
designs and design procedures meeting acceptable levels of safety. Recent researches in the area
of structural reliability and probabilistic analysis have centered on the development of
probability-based design procedures. These include load modelling, ultimate and service load
performance and evaluation of current levels of safety/reliability in design (Farid, 2000;
Afolayan, 1999; Afolayan, 2003; Afolayan and Opeyemi, 2008; Opeyemi, 2009, Quadri and
Afolayan, 2017).

2. COGNITION OF HUMAN ERROR

Cognition is defined as a group of mental processes by which input is transformed, reduced,
elaborated, stored, recovered and used (OED, 2012). One of the questions remaining
unanswered is what the exact nature of human error is. This is not an easy question, simple
design tasks involve experience and insight which are hard to measure.

A psychological definition of human error is given by Reason (1990). Error will be taken as a
generic term to encompass all those occasions in which a planned sequence of mental or
physical activities fails to achieve its intended outcome, and when these failures cannot be
attributed to the intervention of some change agency.

3. METHODOLOGY
The methods adopted for this research work are;
i. visitation to some selected construction sites within Lagos and Osun States
ii. studying the structural drawings/layout of the buildings in the sites
iii. inspecting and comparing physical measurements/details of the reinforcement detailing
on sites to structural layout.
iv. computing the results obtained from the sites using appropriate formulae for human
error probability in slabs, beams and columns
v. estimating human error probability in the slabs, beams and columns
vi. Using Bayesian theorem to calculate the conditional probability, the prior probability
and the posterior probability.

4. ESTIMATION OF HUMAN ERROR PROBABILITY

Human error probability is the ratio of the number of times an error has occurred to the number
of opportunities for that error to occur as given in eqn. (1).

ࢀࢎࢋ࢔࢛࢓࢈ࢋ࢘࢕ࢌ࢚࢏࢓ࢋ࢙ࢇ࢔ࢋ࢘࢘࢕࢘ࢎࢇ࢙࢕ࢉࢉ࢛࢘࢘ࢋࢊ
HEP = (1)
ࢀࢎࢋ࢔࢛࢓࢈ࢋ࢘࢕ࢌ࢕࢖࢖࢕࢚࢛࢘࢔࢏࢚࢏ࢋ࢙ࢌ࢕࢚࢘ࢎࢇ࢚ࢋ࢘࢘࢕࢚࢘࢕࢕ࢉࢉ࢛࢘

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 769

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

This can be done on all the structural elements such as slabs, beams, columns etc., to determine
the frequency of errors in these members.
Simply:
HEP = ࡺࡺࡱ (2)
ࡻ

where;
HEP = Probability of human error involved in a given event
ࡺࡱ = Number of errors observed
ࡺࡻ = Number of observations or opportunities.

4.1 Bayesian Theorem

If B1, B2, B3, …, Bn are mutually exclusive events with P (Bi) ≠ 0, (i = 1, 2, …, n) of a random
experiment then for any arbitrary event A of the sample space of the above experiment with P
(A) > 0, we have:
ࡼሺ࡭ ‫ ࢏࡮ ת‬ሻ ࡼሺ࡮࢏ ሻࡼሺ࡭Ȁ࡮࢏ ሻ ࡼሺ࡮࢏ ሻࡼሺ࡭Ȁ࡮࢏ ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ࡮࢏ Ȁ‫ۯ‬ሻ ൌ  ൌ  ൌൌ  ࢔ ሺ૜ሻ
ࡼሺ࡭ሻ ࡼሺ࡭ሻ σ ࢏ୀ૚ ࡼሺ ࡮࢏ ሻࡼሺ࡭Ȁ࡮࢏ ሻ
Where;
‫۾‬ሺ࡮࢏ Ȁ‫ۯ‬ሻ= Posterior probability
ࡼሺ࡮࢏ ሻ= Prior probability
ࡼሺ࡭Ȁ࡮࢏ ሻ= Likelihood/conditional probability
ࡼሺ࡭ሻ = Normalization

4.1.1 Estimation of Posterior Probability for Slabs

(i) Posterior Probability for Bar Spacing
This can be expressed as:
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ۾܁‬Ȁ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻǤ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬Ȁ‫ ۾܁‬ሻ = ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ۾܁‬ሻ
(4)

(ii) Posterior Probability for Bar Size

‫۾‬ሺ۰‫ ܁‬Ȁ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻǤ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬Ȁ۰‫ ܛ‬ሻ = ‫۾‬ሺ۰‫ ܛ‬ሻ
(5)

4.1.2 Estimation of Posterior Probability for Beams

(i) Posterior Probability for Bar Size
The same as the expression in (5) above

(ii) Posterior Probability for No of Bars

‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܗۼ‬Ȁ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻǤ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬Ȁ‫ ܗۼ‬ሻ = ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܗۼ‬ሻ
(6)

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 770

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 20
018

(iii) Posterior Probability fo

for Links Spacing
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܛۺ‬Ȁ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻǤ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬Ȁ‫ ܛۺ‬ሻ = ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܛۺ‬ሻ
(7)

3.1.3 Estimation of Posterioor Probability for Columns

(i) Posterior Probability fo
for Bar Size
‫۾‬ሺ۰‫ ܋܁‬Ȁ‫ ࢏܁‬ሻǤ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬Ȁ۰‫ ܋ܛ‬ሻ = ‫۾‬ሺ۰‫ ܋ܛ‬ሻ
(8)

(ii) Posterior Probability fo

for No of Bars
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܋ۼ‬Ȁ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻǤ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ࢏܁‬Ȁ‫ ܋ۼ‬ሻ = ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܋ۼ‬ሻ
(9)

(iii) Posterior Probability fo

for Links Spacing
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܋ۺ‬Ȁ‫ ࢏܁‬ሻǤ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܑ܁‬ሻ
‫۾‬ሺ‫ ࢏܁‬Ȁ‫ ܋ۺ‬ሻ = ‫۾‬ሺ‫ ܋ۺ‬ሻ
(10)

4.2 Discussion of ‘Hep’ R Results

From Figs. 3 to 12; for the slaabs, human error probability is almost neglig gible for bar size in all
the sites except site 7. In term
m of bar spacing, the error is high on sites 2, 4,
4 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. For
beams, links spacing error is extremely high in all the sites except siite 3 with beams and
columns having error then folllowed by number of bars while the bar size error e is negligible. For
the columns, only links spacinng has human error probability of 100% whille error due to number
of bars is negligible in all thee sites. The error in bar size is negligible in all
a the sites except site
10.

1 1
1
Human Error Probability

0.8
0.6
0.6

0.4 0.29

0.2
0 0 0 0
0
slab beam ccolumn

Structural Com
mponents

Fig. 3: Human Error Probab

bility in Reinforcement Detailings for Site One

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 771

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 20
018

1 1
Human Error Probability 1

0.8

0.6
0.42
0.35
0.4

0.2
0 0 0 0
0
slab beam ccolumn
Structural Componnents

Fig. 4: Human Error Probab

bility in Reinforcement detailings for Site Two
T

0.35 0.31
Human Error Probability

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05 0 000 000
0
slab beam
m column
Structural C
Components

Fig. 5: Human Error Probab

bility in Reinforcement Detailings for Site Three

1 1 1
1
Human Error Probability

0.8
0.6
0.6

0.4

0.2
0 0 0 0
0
slab beam c
column
Structural Componnents

Fig. 6: Human Error Probab

bility in Reinforcement Detailings for Site Four

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 772

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 20
018

1
1 0.86

Human Error Probability

0.88

0.66
0.43 0.43
0.44

0.22
00 00
0
slab beam column
Structural Components

Fig. 7: Human Errror Probability in Reinforcement Detailing

gs for Site Five

1 1 1
1
Human Error Probability

0.75
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
0 0 0 0
0
slab beam column
Structural Componeents

Fig. 8: Human Error Probab

bility in Reinforcement Detailings for Site Six

1
1
Human Error Probability

0.9
0.8 0.67
0.7
0.6
0.5 0.38 0.40.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 0 0 0
0
slab beam column
Structural Compoonents

Fig. 9: Human Error Probab

bility in Reinforcement Detailings for Site Seven

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 773

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 20
018

1 1
Human Error Probability 1

0.8

0.6
0.38
0.38
0.4 0.25
0.2
0 0 0
0
slab beam column
Structural Compponents

Fig. 10: Human Error Probaability in Reinforcement Detailings for Sitee Eight

1 1
1
Human Error Probability

0.8

0.6
0.35 0.31
0.4
0.13
0.2 0.06
0 0
0
slab beam column
Structural Components

Fig. 11: Human Erroor Probability in Reinforcement Detailingss for Site Nine

1 1 1
1
Human Error Probability

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 0 0 0 0
0
slab beam ccolumn
Structural Componnents

Fig. 12: Human Error Probaability in Reinforcement Detailings for Sitee Ten

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 774

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

4.3 Bayesian Analyses Results

From Fig. 13, it can be deduced that the possibility of bar spacing and bar size errors being
committed in future by the contractors handling the projects on sites 1,2, 3, 9 and 10 is quite
low. However, on sites 4 and 6, there are defects in the bar spacing while the bar size is
excellent. On site 5, there is an equal probability of human error in detailing related to bar
spacing and size. The adopted bar size on site 7 is grossly inadequate as the measured
probability of human error is as high as about 61%

From Fig. 14, the work done by the contractors handling all the sites as far as bar size is
concerned is perfect except for site 10. However, the errors in number of bar and links spacing
are high on sites 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9. On sites 3, 5 and 7, error in number of bars and links spacing is
very low, site 8 has low number of bars error with high links spacing. Site 10 has no number of
bars error.

From Fig. 15, the possibility of committing human error by the contractors handling all the sites
is quite low for bar size and number of bars. However, the error in links spacing is very high for
all the sites except 3 and 5.

Fig. 16 shows the comparison between bar size posterior human error probability for slabs,
beams and columns for all sites. The likelihood of committing bar size error by the contractors
handling all the sites is almost negligible for the columns, also for the beams except site 10. The
error is very high for the slabs on sites 5, 7, 8 and 9.

From Fig. 17, the number of bars posterior human error probability for columns is excellent on
all the sites, however, for the beams, sites 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are better.

Fig. 18 is the comparison between posterior human error probability for links spacing for the
beams and columns on all sites, it can be seen that the error is high for all the sites except 3 and
5.

70
POSTERIOR PROBABILITY

60
50
40
(%)

30 Bar Size
20 Bar Spacin
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SITES

Fig. 13: Posterior Probability for Slabs

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 775

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 20
018

80
POSTERIOR PROBABILITY

60

40 Links Spacing
(%)

No of Bars
20
Bar Size
0
1 3 5 7 9
SITES

Fig. 14: Posterior Probabilitty for Beams

30
PROBABILITY (%)
POSTERIOR

20
Links Spacing
10 No of Bars
Bar Size
0
1 3 5 7 9
SITES

Fig. 15: Posterior Probabilitty for Columns

70
POSTERIOR PROBABILITY

60
50
40
Columns
(%)

30
Beams
20
Slabs
10
0
1 3 5 7 9
SITES

Fig. 16: Posterior Probabilitty for Bar Size

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 776

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 20
018

70
POSTERIOR PROBABILITY (%)

60
50
40
30 Columns
20 Beams
10
0
1 3 5 7 9
SITES

Fig. 17: Posterior Probabilitty for Number of Bars

60
POSTERIOR PROBABILITY

50
40
(%)

30
Columns
20
Beams
10
0
1 3 5 7 9
SITES

Fig. 18: Posterior Probabilitty for Links Spacing

5. CONCLUSION
This study has really necessiitated the interest in studying the role of fieeld errors in structural
components due to the inaccuuracies that are common on the sites. The data d obtained from the
major deviations in the structuural specifications and the as-built on the seleected sites visited were
used to calculate human errror probability. Bayesian analysis was ussed to calculate prior
probability, conditional probaability (likelihood) and the posterior probabiliity. On the basis of the
results of the investigation, thee following conclusions are made:
i. Bar spacing formed thhe major human error in reinforcement detailling of slabs on all the
selected sites.
ii. For beams, most of thhe sites visited showed significant error in th he required number of
bars and the spacing off links.
iii. It was established thatt spacing of links was a general and commo on human error in the
reinforcement detailingg of columns.

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 777

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

iv. In relation to quality assurance of future reinforcement detailing, the contractors that
handled sites 6, 7 and 10 for slabs, beams and columns would be highly disqualified
while site 3 was adjudged the best for all the parameters considered.

REFERENCES
Afolayan, J. O. (2003) “Improved Design Format for Doubly Symmetric Thin-Walled Structural
Steel Beam-Columns”, Botswana Journal of Technology, Vol. 12, No.1, pp. 36 – 43
Afolayan, J. O. and Opeyemi, D.A. (2008) “Reliability Analysis of Static Pile Capacity of
Concrete in Cohesive and Cohesionless Soils”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
Vol.3, No. 5, pp. 407-411.
Afolayan, J.O. (1999) “Economic Efficiency of Glued Joints in Timber Truss Systems”,
Building and Environment: The International Journal of Building Science and its
Application, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 101 – 107.
Badejo, E. (2009). Engineers, Others Urge Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Curb Building
Collapse, The Guardian Newspaper, 13 July, pp 15-17.
Baker, J. W., Schubert, M., & Faber, M. H. (2008). The assessment of robustness. Structural
safety, 30, 253–267.
CUR (Ed.). (2010). Falende constructies. case-onderzoek naar structurele oorzakenn van falen
en maatregelen die dat tegengaan. Gouda: CUR Bouw en Infra. CUR publication C232.
Di Mattia, D. G., Khan, F. I., & Amyotte, P. R. (2005). Determination of human error
probabilities for offshore platform musters. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 18, 488–501.
Farid Uddin, A.K.M. (2000) “Risk and Reliability Based Structural and Foundation Design of a
Water Reservoir (capacity: 10 million gallon) on the top of Bukit Permatha Hill in
Malaysia”, 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural
Reliability.
Folagbade, S. O. (2001). Case Studies of Building Collapse in Nigeria. Proceedings of a
Workshop on Building Collapse, Causes, Prevention and Remedies, The Nigerian
Institute of Building, Ondo State Chapter, 23-24, October.
Fruhwald, E., Serrano, E., Toratti, T., Emilsson, A., and Thelandersson, S. (2007). Design of
safe timber structures- how can we learn from structural failures in concrete steel and
timber? Technical report, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund (Sweden).
Hollnagel, E. (1993). Modelling of cognition: procedural prototypes and contextual control. Le
travail humain, 65(1), 27–51.
Kaminetzky, D. (1991). Design and construction failures: Lessons from forensic investigations.
New York: McGraw-Hill
Kirwan, B., Kennedy, R., Taylor-Adams, S., and Lambert, B. (1997). The validation of three
human reliability quantification techniques- therp, heart and jhedi: Part 2 - results of
validation exercise. Applied ergonomics, 28(1), 17–25.

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 778

 Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the School of Engineering & Engineering Technology, FUTA, 17-19 July, 2018

Norman, D.A. (1981), “Categorization of Action Slips, ”Psychological Review Vol. 88, pp. 1–
15.
OED (2012). Oxford english dictionary. digital version.
Olanitori L.M. (2011) “Cause of Structural failure of Building: Case study of a building at Oba-
Ile Akure” Journal of Building Appraisal, (6)277-284.
Opeyemi, D.A. (2009) “Probabilistic Failure Analysis of Static Pile Capacity for Steel in
Cohesive and Cohesionless Soils”, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol.14, Bund. F, pp. 1-12.
Oyewande, B. (1992). ` A Research for Quantity in the Construction Industry` Builders
Magazine, June/ July Ed., Lagos.
Quadri A.I. and Afolayan J.O. (2017): “Reliability Assessment of Axial Load Effect on Electric
Power Distribution Concrete Poles in Southwest of Nigeria” International Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research. Vol.8, Issue 5, pp358-364 ISSN 2229-5518.
Reason, J. T. (2000). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. London: Ashgate
Swain, A. D. (1990). Human reliability analysis: need, status, trends and limitations. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 29, 301–313.
Van Herwijnen, F. (2009). Leren van instortingen.
Zoetermeer: Bouwen met staal. Vol.17 (4), pp.313-319, SAGE, Surrey, UK.
http://ibe.sagepub.com (August, 2015)

SEET’18 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Page 779

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s