Predictive Tool for Estimating Accident Risk

Sangyoub Lee1 and Daniel W. Halpin, M.ASCE2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nat Inst Of Const Manage & Research Hyderabad (NICMAR) on 08/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents a predictive tool that uses safety factors to estimate accident risk for processes commonly employed on
construction sites. The tool is demonstrated in the context of the utility-trenching process. Based on expert surveys, preplanning,
supervision, and training are identified as critical safety factors needed to predict accident risk when evaluating safety performance related
to trenching operations. Preplanning has a greater impact on excavation tasks than supervision and training, while conversely, supervision
and training are more important during the pipe installation phase of trenching operations.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2003兲129:4共431兲
CE Database subject headings: Accident prediction; Safety factors; Construction site accidents; Trenching.

Safety Issues in Construction
Though improvements in construction worker safety have been
achieved, the construction industry continues to lag behind most
other industries with regard to safety 共National 1998兲. A dispro-
portionate number of disabling injuries and fatalities occur in the
construction sector 共Hinze 1997兲. Construction accounted for
nearly one-fifth of all industrial fatalities in 2000 共increasing from
one-sixth in 1995兲, which amounts to three times its 6.6% share
of total employment in 2000 共BLS 2001兲. Construction work is
intrinsically hazardous, but inadequate task planning, poor safety
training, lack of safety incentives, and insufficient incident
investigation—that is, poor safety management—play a major
role in this poor level of safety within the construction industry.
Problem Statement
Accident statistics have played an important role in measuring
safety performance 共BLS 1997兲. However, accident statistics are
based on actual accident data and the compilation of postaccident
information. Very little research has been focused on assessment
of accident potential before the fact 共Staley and Foster 1996兲. Ex
post facto data provide factual data about accident frequency, se-
verity, and so on, which are not necessarily helpful in predicting
accidents or assessing accident risk. Lack of an accident does not
mean there is no risk of an accident; rather, there is a need to
estimate the risk level of accidents based on current safety prac-
tices.
1 intendents, and foremen兲 provided field perspective. The group
Research Associate, Division of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette,
IN 47907-1294.
2
Professor and Head, Division of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette,
IN 47907-1294.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on September 4, 2001; approved on June 17, 2002. This
paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, Vol. 129, No. 4, August 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/
2003/4-431– 436/$18.00.
The safety practices encountered on construction sites are as
varied as the sites themselves 共Wilson and Koehn 2000兲, and the
assessment of the risk of accidents is, in most cases, more sub-
jective than objective 共Levitt and Samuelson 1993兲. However, the
contention of this paper is that a priori data can be used to esti-
mate the risk of accidents based on current safety practices and
the performance expected on the proposed project.
An analysis of the risk of accidents at a construction site be-
gins with a determination of the work practices and conditions
that create an unsafe work place 共Gambatese and Stewart 1999兲.
This paper will illustrate a system that identifies the factors af-
fecting site safety and the probability of accidents for particular
work processes 共for example, trenching, slab construction, and so
forth兲.
These safety factors will be used to estimate the probability of
accidents based on a priori analysis. The analysis uses fuzzy
mathematical techniques and input from safety experts to assess
factors that impact field operations and influence accident poten-
tial. The methodology developed for trenching operations demon-
strates a predictive tool that can be used to assess accident prob-
ability before work begins.
Factors Affecting Safety Performance
In this demonstration, factors affecting safety performance are
limited exclusively to those factors applicable to utility trenching.
For identification of the safety factors, 35 experts were consulted:
13 safety directors in corporate construction provided manage-
ment perspectives, and 22 respondents 共project managers, super-
averaged 24.2 years of experience in the construction industry
Table 1. Experience of Experts Consulted for Safety Factor
Identification
Perspectives Management Field Total
Number of experts 13 22 35
Experience
In construction 共years兲 24.3 24.1 24.2
Only in trenching 共years兲 16 19.7 18.3

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2003 / 431

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2003, 129(4): 431-436

 Table 2. Percentage Rates of Factors Table 3. Factors and Related Variables with Linguistic Levels
Management Field Total Adverse
Safety factors 共%兲 共%兲 共%兲 Frequency F consequence Frequency
Condition of condition AC resulting R of
Workers’ experience in trench operations 10.3 9.5 9.8
Factor C of factor C from C accident
Workers’ skills and attitudes 0 6.3 3.9
Training for trenching 28.2 22.2 24.5 Training Good Large Small High
Weather conditions 0 6.3 3.9 Moderate Medium Medium Low
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nat Inst Of Const Manage & Research Hyderabad (NICMAR) on 08/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Soil conditions 10.3 14.3 12.7 Poor Small Severe

Supervision 28.2 23.8 25.5 Preplanning Good Large Small High
Preplanning 23.1 17.5 19.6 Moderate Medium Medium Low
Total 100 100 100 Poor Small Severe
Supervision Good Large Small High
Moderate Medium Medium Low
and 18.3 years of experience in the area of utility-trenching op- Poor Small Severe
erations. A brief profile of the experts participating in the survey
is given in Table 1.
Based on answers provided by the experts, seven preliminary Probability of Accidents—Fuzzy Logic-Based
factors, such as workers’ experience, skills, attitudes, training, and Analysis
so on, were identified 共Table 2兲. Seven factors proved too many to
evaluate reliably, as too many factors preclude thoughtful judg- The probability of accidents is developed on the basis of perfor-
ment when asking the experts to weigh the importance of one mance parameters related to safety factors. These parameters are
versus another. Thus to identify the most critical factors, a second usually defined qualitatively rather than quantitatively. As the per-
survey was conducted to determine the three most important fac- formance levels of the three safety factors—training, supervision,
tors. The second survey identified and preplanning—are subjective, the linguistic measures of the
1. Training; performance levels need to be translated into mathematical terms.
2. Supervision; and As classical reliability theory fails to address variables defined in
3. Preplanning. linguistic terms, this can be achieved by using fuzzy logic sys-
as the most important factors for utility trenching. tems, which can address the imprecision of linguistic input and
Training activities help workers recognize unsafe physical output variables directly by defining them as fuzzy numbers and
conditions and employ proper and safe work methods to achieve fuzzy sets 共Tsoukalas and Uhrig 1997兲. This study adopts a fuzzy
good safety performance 共Hinze 1997兲. The OSHA citation most logic-based analysis to estimate the probability of accidents due
frequently issued following workplace accident investigations is to the total effect of the qualitative performance of safety factors.
related to deficiencies in employer training programs. By estimating the performance level 共for example, good, moder-
Supervision activities seek to review overall safety and health ate, or poor兲 of the variables defining the risk of accidents in
precautions that guard against potential hazards, attempt to gain construction operations, the probability of accidents can be devel-
the necessary worker cooperation in safety matters, and involve oped.
reports to the contractor, conducting inspections, investigating ac-
cidents, and anticipating hazards. Supervision failures can lead to
the absence of a systematic process to identify and mitigate work- Variables Defining Risk of Accidents and Fuzzy
place hazards and unsafe work practices 共OSHA 1995兲. Relations
Preplanning activities analyze the formulation of the construc-
tion plan, method statement, or schedule in relation to the risk of The four linguistic variables relating to the development of the
undesired events that may lead to accidents. Accidents cause in- probability of accidents used in this study are as follows:
jury to construction personnel or the general public and damage 1. C⫽condition of factor 共for example, factors are training, su-
to either property or environment; they can occur due to method pervision, and so on兲;
statement, inadequate structural design of temporary support 2. F⫽frequency of occurrence of C condition for given factor;
structures, inadequate site layout plan, and inadequate site inves- 3. AC⫽adverse consequence or negative impact resulting from
tigation 共Suraji et al. 2001兲. Particularly in trench operations, condition C of given factor; and
many on-the-job accidents are a direct result of inadequate initial 4. R⫽frequency of given accident’s occurrence due to given
planning 共OSHA 1995兲. factor.

Table 4. Fuzzy Membership Function of Variable C

Value 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Very good 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.87 0.97 1.00 1.00
Good 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.75 0.94 1.00 1.00
Fairly good 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.56 0.88 1.00 1.00
Moderate 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.53 0.81 0.88 1.00 0.72 0.25 0.06 0.00
Fairly poor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.68 0.43 0.35 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Poor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.47 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Very poor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.22 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

432 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2003

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2003, 129(4): 431-436

 Table 5. Fuzzy Membership Function of Variable F
Value 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Vary large 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.19 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
Large 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.44 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fairly large 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.66 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00
Medium 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.69 1.00 0.94 0.88 0.59 0.03 0.00 0.00
Fairly small 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nat Inst Of Const Manage & Research Hyderabad (NICMAR) on 08/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Small 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.78 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Very small 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.61 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

This framework of analysis was originally proposed by Ayyub
and Eldukair 共1990兲; the variables are shown in Table 3. For
instance, if the condition C of the training factor is poor and the
frequency F of poor training is large, the adverse consequences
AC of this poor training are severe, leading to an accident fre-
quency R, which is high. Conversely, if the condition C of super-
vision is good and the frequency F is large, the AC is small and
the R is low. The fuzzy relations between the values of these four
variables are given in the appendix.
Data Acquisition
To translate the values of the four linguistic variables into safety
factors, they must be converted to fuzzy mathematical variables,
and a membership function reflecting a grading scale must be
developed. For the acquisition of the data for the grading scale
and the linguistic measure of the variables, a separate set of 35
experts was consulted for an interview survey who had an aver-
age of 22.3 years of experience in the construction industry and
16.6 years of experience in the area of trenching operations.
Grading Scale Development
The survey asked the experts to respond, based on their experi-
ence, as to the condition levels of three factors: training, supervi-
sion, and preplanning. This was done to develop membership
sets. For instance, the expert responded as to what degree training
共in his or her experience兲 is good, moderate, or poor. Similarly,
the expert indicated at what frequency level good training oc-
curred: large 共often兲, medium, and so on. This information was
used to develop membership sets for C, F, AC, and R.
To establish a general numerical guideline for the condition-
related safety factors, poor conditions were given a value of 0 and
extremely good conditions a value of 10. The questionnaire asked
the experts to assign appropriate numerical condition 共C兲 values
as poor-moderate-good. The values small-medium-large were
used for the frequency level of occurrence 共condition兲, small-
medium-severe linguistic parameters were used to indicate ad-
verse consequences, and finally high-low reflected the frequency
level of occurrence 共accident兲. The values of the grading scales
from all survey respondents were analyzed to define the member-
ship functions for the primary values. The defined grading scales
can be extended by the effect of linguistic hedges 共modifiers that
limit or extend the fuzzy values, such as ‘‘Fairly’’ or ‘‘Very’’兲 to
translate high and low levels of linguistic measures. The transla-
tion of linguistic hedges such as Very and Fairly into fuzzy sets
may be assumed to be Very⫽Con(A)⫽ 关 U A (x i ) 兴 2 , and Fairly
⫽Dil(A)⫽ 关 U A (x i ) 兴 1/2, where U(x i ) is the membership function
of the element x i , and Con and Dil are the concentration and
dilation operations, respectively 共Tsoukalas and Uhrig 1997兲. The
fuzzy membership functions developed for the grading measures
of all variables such as C, F, and AC are given in Tables 4 –7.
Linguistic Evaluation of Variables
Utility trenching using a trench shield was considered in order to
quantify the effects of accidents for this study. The interview sur-
vey asked questions designed to linguistically determine the level
of variables 共for example, poor, good, high, low, and so on兲. Con-
dition assessment of the three factors 共training, supervision, pre-
planning兲 as they relate to the trenching operations—excavation
and pipe installation—was developed. The survey asked such
questions as the following: ‘‘When the condition of the safety
factor is very poor, what is the frequency of occurrence for the
very poor condition?’’ 共for example, very large, large, fairly large,
medium, fairly small, small, and very small兲.
Additional questions to determine the level of adverse conse-
quences and frequency were also included in the questionnaire:
‘‘What is the adverse consequence 共that is, negative impact兲 de-
riving from the very poor condition?’’ 共very severe, severe, and so
on兲; or ‘‘What is the frequency level of the occurrence of acci-
dents?’’ 共very high, high, and so on兲.
The most probable values of the associated variables resulting
from the value of the variable C in each factor are presented with

Table 6. Fuzzy Membership Function of Variable AC

Value 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Very severe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.19 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00
Severe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.44 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fairly severe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.31 0.43 0.66 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00
Medium 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.69 1.00 0.91 0.81 0.56 0.16 0.00 0.00
Fairly small 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.83 0.59 0.35 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Small 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.69 0.34 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Very small 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.47 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2003 / 433

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2003, 129(4): 431-436

 the percentages in Tables 8 and 9. As shown in these tables, every
value of variable C for each of the factors has a series of values
consisting of the most probable value in the associated variables
in accordance with the level of variable C. For instance, the most
probable value of a very poor condition of training 共for excava-
tion兲 indicates that 33%⫽most probable value of very large fre-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nat Inst Of Const Manage & Research Hyderabad (NICMAR) on 08/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
quency; 43%⫽most probable value of very severe consequences;
and 57%⫽most probable value of very high frequency of acci-
dents.
Accordingly, the variation in the value of variable C can rep-
resent the variation in the value of the associated variables. These
sets of linguistic values in the four variables are translated using
the grading scales developed earlier into the probability of acci-
dents based on the fuzzy set model described in the following

Table 7. Fuzzy Membership Function of Variable R section.

Value 1.00 0.10 1.0E⫺2 1.0E⫺3 1.0E⫺4 1.0E⫺5 1.0E⫺6
Very high 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fuzzy Probability of Accidents
High 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.38 0.06 0.00 0.00
Fairly high 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.61 0.25 0.00 0.00
Fuzzy set theory translates the subjective measures of the four
Fairly low 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.59 0.85 1.00 1.00
Low 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.34 0.72 1.00 1.00
variables 共C, F, AC, and R兲 associated with the safety factors into
Very low 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.52 1.00 1.00
Table 9. Most Probable Values of Associated Variables in Pipe
Table 8. Most Probable Values of Associated Variables in Excavation Installation
Value C F 共%兲 AC 共%兲 R 共%兲 Value C F 共%兲 AC 共%兲 R 共%兲
Very poor Training Very large Very severe Very high Very poor Training Very large Very severe Very high
共33兲 共43兲 共57兲 共40兲 共50兲 共50兲
Supervision Very large Very severe Very high Supervision Very large Very severe Very high
共37兲 共57兲 共60兲 共37兲 共47兲 共47兲
Preplanning Large Severe Fairly high Preplanning Fairly large Fairly severe Fairly high
共37兲 共33兲 共40兲 共27兲 共27兲 共37兲
Poor Training Large Severe High Poor Training Large Severe High
共33兲 共43兲 共50兲 共43兲 共47兲 共37兲
Supervision Large Severe High Supervision Large Severe High
共33兲 共40兲 共43兲 共43兲 共47兲 共47兲
Preplanning Large Severe High Preplanning Large Fairly severe Fairly high
共33兲 共33兲 共40兲 共27兲 共30兲 共37兲
Fairly poor Training Fairly large Fairly severe Fairly high Fairly poor Training Fairly large Fairly severe Fairly high
共47兲 共57兲 共55兲 共53兲 共40兲 共57兲
Supervision Fairly large Fairly severe Fairly high Supervision Fairly large Fairly severe Fairly high
共30兲 共30兲 共47兲 共53兲 共53兲 共57兲
Preplanning Fairly large Medium Fairly low Preplanning Medium Medium Fairly low
共43兲 共47兲 共43兲 共43兲 共37兲 共47兲
Mode rate Training Medium Medium Fairly low Mode rate Training Medium Medium Fairly low
共47兲 共50兲 共47兲 共47兲 共57兲 共43兲
Supervision Medium Medium Fairly low Supervision Medium Medium Fairly low
共60兲 共60兲 共50兲 共50兲 共53兲 共42兲
Preplanning Medium Medium Fairly low Preplanning Medium Medium Fairly low
共53兲 共67兲 共55兲 共50兲 共47兲 共48兲
Fairly good Training Fairly small Fairly small Fairly low Fairly good Training Fairly small Fairly small Fairly low
共43兲 共40兲 共42兲 共60兲 共40兲 共53兲
Supervision Fairly small Fairly small Fairly low Supervision Fairly small Fairly small Fairly low
共50兲 共50兲 共47兲 共50兲 共43兲 共55兲
Preplanning Fairly small Fairly small Fairly low Preplanning Fairly small Fairly small Fairly low
共37兲 共37兲 共40兲 共33兲 共37兲 共38兲
Good Training Small Small Low Good Training Small Small Low
共40兲 共50兲 共40兲 共57兲 共50兲 共50兲
Supervision Fairly small Small Low Supervision Small Small Low
共33兲 共43兲 共43兲 共47兲 共40兲 共40兲
Preplanning Small Small Very low Preplanning Small Small Low
共33兲 共50兲 共37兲 共43兲 共43兲 共40兲
Very good Training Very small Very small Very low Very good Training Very small Very small Very low
共60兲 共53兲 共57兲 共70兲 共57兲 共60兲
Supervision Very small Very small Very low Supervision Very small Very small Very low
共53兲 共43兲 共63兲 共57兲 共57兲 共57兲
Preplanning Very small Very small Very low Preplanning Very small Very small Very low
共47兲 共57兲 共70兲 共50兲 共57兲 共57兲

434 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2003

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2003, 129(4): 431-436

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nat Inst Of Const Manage & Research Hyderabad (NICMAR) on 08/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Variation of P( f ) in excavation Fig. 2. Variation of P( f ) in pipe installation

fuzzy joint membership functions, integrating the effect of the
four variables. To measure the joint membership value for each
level of probability, the membership value for each level of vari-
able R, P f ⫽10⫺n is developed by evaluating six matrices for the
joint relation. The probability mass function of P f 共Zadeh 1968兲
is used to estimate the fuzzy probability of accidents in utility-
trenching operations. Finally, the mean value of the fuzzy prob-
ability of accidents, P f , can be calculated as
N⫽⫺6⫻ P 共 P f ⫽10⫺6 兲 ⫺5⫻ P 共 P f ⫽10⫺5 兲 ⫺4⫻ P 共 P f ⫽10⫺4 兲
⫺3⫻ P 共 P f ⫽10⫺3 兲 ⫺2⫻ P 共 P f ⫽10⫺2 兲 ⫺1⫻ P 共 P f ⫽10⫺1 兲
In Figs. 1 and 2, the variation in the value of variable C, ⌬C,
doesn’t result in a significant change of P( f ) for either excava-
tion or pipe installation when other factors stay in good or mod-
erate condition. When the other factors stay in poor condition,
however, the variation in P( f ), ⌬ P( f ), shows significant
changes. This means the probability of accidents in utility-
trenching operations with shielding systems is affected more by
the interaction of the performance of all these factors rather than
by one factor, and particularly when all are in poor condition.
Thus the P( f ) value used for the simulation of accident effects is
limited to the case of the varied condition of one factor, ⌬C, with
the others in poor condition, as shown in Table 10.

where N⫽mean value of fuzzy probability of accidents, P f ;

P f ⫽fuzzy membership value for each level of variable R; and
P⫽probability mass function of P f . Therefore the expected
value of the probability of accidents in utility-trenching opera-
tions with shielding system, P( f ), is estimated as 10N , represent-
ing the risk level of accidents. This calculation is discussed in
detail in Lee 共2001兲.
Sensitivity of P „ f …
The sensitivity analysis of P( f ) requires changes in the value of
the variable C for each of the factors and corresponding changes
in the resulting probability of accidents; P( f ) must be measured,
while assuming the other factors remain in poor, moderate, and
good condition, respectively. The sensitivity analysis of P( f ) is
shown in Figs. 1 and 2, where VP, P, FP, M, FG, G, and VG stand
for the conditions of each factor 共very poor, poor, fairly poor,
moderate, fairly good, good, and very good兲. T, S, and PP repre-
sent training, supervision, and preplanning, while the P, M, and G
in parentheses mean that the values of the other factors stay in
poor, moderate, and good condition.
Conclusion
This study introduces a tool that can be used to identify factors
affecting safety performance in utility-trenching operations and to
predict the risk level of accidents by estimating the probability of
accidents due to the fuzzy-based effect of safety factors. Training,
supervision, and preplanning were analyzed as safety factors in
order to evaluate their contribution to the probability of accidents.
It was noted that the probability of accidents in a utility-trenching
operation with a shielding system is affected more by the interac-
tion of all factors than by one factor, even though one factor’s
performance may be very poor. This would indicate that the prob-
ability of an accident is not significantly affected by the perfor-
mance of one factor alone. Research findings indicated that the
risk level of accidents is more significantly affected by preplan-
ning than supervision and training in excavation work. In pipe-
installation activity, risk is more affected by supervision and train-
ing than by preplanning. Therefore, it is concluded that
construction participants need to pay more attention to preplan-
ning in excavation activity, while supervision and training are
more critical in pipe-installation activity.

Table 10. ⌬ P( f ) by ⌬C of One Factor; 共Others in Poor Condition兲

⌬ P( f ) by variation in C 共%兲
Project Value VP P FP M FG G VG
Excavation Training 0.278 0.278 0.270 0.036 0.018 0.019 0.017
Supervision 0.278 0.278 0.270 0.036 0.018 0.020 0.017
Preplanning 0.503 0.278 0.042 0.036 0.018 0.016 0.017
Pipe installation Training 0.432 0.432 0.270 0.042 0.022 0.024 0.023
Supervision 0.432 0.432 0.270 0.042 0.022 0.024 0.023
Preplanning 0.249 0.432 0.025 0.036 0.018 0.016 0.017

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2003 / 435

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2003, 129(4): 431-436

 Future research should address validation of these predictions
using field data surveys. An extensive survey to observe the rela-
tionship between factors’ condition and associated probability of
accidents in a number of construction sites should be conducted.
This field survey activity will be a major effort, but will provide
the foundation for a priori evaluation of accident risk.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nat Inst Of Const Manage & Research Hyderabad (NICMAR) on 08/09/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The writers express their special gratitude to Dr. Lefteri H.
Tsoukalas, professor and head of the School of Nuclear Engineer-
ing at Purdue University for providing review and insight regard-
ing the use of fuzzy mathematics in this paper.
Appendix. Fuzzy Set Operations with Four
Linguistic Variables „C, F, AC, R…
The four linguistic variables that characterize the safety factors—
training, supervision, and preplanning—are
1. Condition of factors affecting safety performance, referred to
as C;
2. Frequency of occurrence of condition C, referred to as F;
3. Adverse consequences resulting from condition C, referred
to as AC; and
4. Frequency of accident occurrence R.
The major linguistic variables are C and F 共Ayyub and Eldu-
kair 1989兲. The total effect of all factors 共training and so on兲 is the
variable E, which is determined by taking the fuzzy union of the
membership function U c⫻ac (c i ,ac j )⫽min关Uc(ci),Uac(ac j)兴, com-
bining the condition C 1 and the adverse consequences AC j .
Similarly, the total effects of the frequency of occurrence of the
C i , T, are also developed by taking the fuzzy union of
U f ⫻r ( f j ,r k ), combining the frequency of occurrence of the C i ,
F j and the frequency level of the accident’s occurrence, R k . The
standard fuzzy relation K, between the adverse consequences AC j
and the frequency level of the accident’s occurrence R k , is devel-
oped based on fuzzy condition statements represented by ‘‘if
AC 1 , then R 1 , else if AC 2 , then R 2 ... else if can, then R n .’’ The
fuzzy composition relation, M, between E and K, U eok (c i ,r k )
⫽max ac j(min关UE(ci ,ac j),UK(ac j ,rk)兴), has been developed. Fi-
436 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2003
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2003, 129(4): 431-436
nally, an estimate of the probability of accidents can be deter-
mined by considering the joint effects of the condition of the
factors and the frequency of occurrence of the condition based on
the joint membership function defined by U M ,T (c i , f j )(r k )
⫽min ci关UM(ci ,rk),UT ( f jrk)兴 共Ayyub and Eldukair 1990兲.
References
Ayyub, B. M., and Eldukair, Z. A. 共1990兲. ‘‘Safety assessment methodol-
ogy for construction operations.’’ Structural safety and reliability, A.
H.-S. Ang, M. Shinozuka, and G. I. Schuëller, eds., ASCE, New York,
771–777.
Bureau of Labor Statistics 共BLS兲. 共1997兲. ‘‘Perils in the workplace com-
pensation and working conditions.’’ Compensation and working con-
ditions, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, Washington, D.C.,
2共3兲.
Bureau of Labor Statistics 共BLS兲. 共2001兲. Census of fatal occupational
injuries summary, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., August 17.
Gambatese, J. A., and Stewart, P. J. 共1999兲. ‘‘Application of risk mapping
to construction project jobsites.’’ Implementation of safety and health
on construction sites, Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. of CIB Working Commis-
sion W99, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 785–792.
Hinze, J. 共1997兲. Construction safety, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
N.J.
Lee, S. 共2001兲. ‘‘Simulation analysis of productivity variation affected by
accident risk in underground construction operations.’’ PhD disserta-
tion, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.
Levitt, R. E., and Samuelson, N. M. 共1993兲. Construction safety manage-
ment, Wiley, New York.
National Safety Council. 共1998兲. Accident facts, Itasca, Ill.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration 共OSHA兲. 共1995兲. OSHA
2226, 1995–revised, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C.
Staley, B. G., and Foster, P. J. 共1996兲. ‘‘Investigating accidents and inci-
dents effectively.’’ Mining Technology, 78共895兲, 67–70.
Suraji, A., Duff, A. R., and Peckitt, S. J. 共2001兲. ‘‘Development of causal
model of construction accident causation.’’ J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
127共4兲, 337–344.
Tsoukalas, L. H., and Uhrig, R. E. 共1997兲. Fuzzy and neural approaches
in engineering, Wiley, New York.
Wilson, Jr., J. M., and Koehn, E. 共2000兲. ‘‘Safety management: Problems
encountered and recommended solutions.’’ J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
126共1兲, 77–79.
Zadeh, L. A. 共1968兲. ‘‘Probability of measure of fuzzy events.’’ J. Math.
Anal. Appl., 23, 421– 427.