Analysis of heavy construction equipment related fatalities

bedford_j ( .pdf )

bedford_jpage_Page_45.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_46.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_49.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_47.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_59.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_58.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_35.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_30.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_09.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_53.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_04.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_37.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_44.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_27.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_36.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_05.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_26.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_43.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_34.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_03.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_08.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_15.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_22.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_14.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_06.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_50.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_25.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_07.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_13.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_24.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_29.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_01.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_56.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_40.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_42.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_38.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_51.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_57.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_12.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_18.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_11.txt

bedford_j_pdf.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_02.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_54.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_48.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_32.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_62.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_61.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_39.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_16.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_33.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_23.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_19.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_41.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_52.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_17.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_10.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_55.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_21.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_60.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_31.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_28.txt

bedford_jpage_Page_20.txt

ANALYSIS OF HEAVY
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
RELATED FATALITIES
















By

JONATHAN M BEDFORD


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006


































Copyright 2006

By

Jonathan Bedford
































To my family who have supported me throughout my schooling with their love.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Jimmie Hinze for his guidance,

support, and time throughout this whole process. In addition, I would like to thank all my

friends and family who have supported me throughout my pursuits at the University of

Florida.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................. ........... ............................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... .. ......... ............................ ix

A B S T R A C T ........................................................................................................ ........ .. x

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ........ .. ......................................... ..........................................1.

Overview of the Construction Industry ..................................................................
T he Im portance of Safety ................................................................................. 1...
Changing Perceptions ............................ .. .......... .............................2
P u rp o se ...................................................................................................... ........ .. 3

2 LITER A TU RE REV IEW .................................................................... ...............4...

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ..................... 8

Introduction ................................................................................ ..........................8
O b tain in g th e D ata ................................................................................................. .. 8
F iltering R elevant Inform ation ....................................... ...................... ...............9...
D discussion of the C categories ....................................... ....................... ............... 10
E quipm ent Type .............. ................. ..... ............................. 10
N ature of A accident ................ .............. ................................................ 11
T ask T ype .............. ....................................................................... . 11
O p erato r E rro r ..................................................................................................... 12
Victim Type ................. .. ...... ... ..................... 13
G general Exclusions and Special Cases ........................................... ................ 13
D ata A n aly sis .............................................................................................................. 14

4 R E S U L T S ................................................................................................................. .. 1 5

General Observations...................................................................... 15
R e su lts b y D ate ........................................................................................................... 15
R results by V ictim G ender.......................................... ......................... ............... 16



v









R results by V ictim A ge ....................................................................... ............... 17
R results by N ature of A ccident...................................... ...................... ............... 17
Results by Task Type...................................................................... 17
R results by O operator E rror.......................................... ......................... ............... 18
R results by V ictim T ype .. .................................................................... ............... 19
R results by E quipm ent Type..................................... ........................ ............... 19
F further Inv estigation s ........................................................ ..... ............ ................ 20
Further Investigations: Cranes and Crane Booms.........................................20
Further Investigations: Lifting Equipment .....................................................21
Further Investigations: Excavating Equipment .............................................23
L o a d e r s ......................................................................................................... 2 3
E xcavator and B ackhoes .............. ........................................... ................ 23
Further Investigations: Hauling Equipment .............. ....................................24
D um p T rucks .................................................................... ............... 24
T ru ck s ....................................................................................... .... .. .. ............ 2 5
Further Investigations: Earthmoving and Compaction Equipment..................25
C o m p acto r .................................................................................................... 2 5
D o z e rs ........................................................................................................... 2 6

5 C O N C L U SIO N S .................................................. .............................................. 42

Limitations of the Data .................................................................................... 42
L im stations of the R research ..................................... ........................ ................ 42
C o n c lu sio n s................................................................................................................ 4 3

6 R E C O M M E N D A TIO N S........................................... ......................... ................ 45

R enforcing pre-exiting ideas ......................................................... ................ 45
N ew Id ea s ................ .................................................................................... 4 5
Suggestions for future research ...................................................... ................ 46

GLOSSARY OF EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 47

L IST O F R EFE R E N C E S .... ....................................................................... ................ 50

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .....................................................................................51















LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4-1 Accidents by year of occurrence, volume of construction, and frequency to volume
ratio ......................................................................................................... ......... 3 1

4-2 Accidents by gender ........................ ........... ............................. 1

4-3 N nature of accident ............ .. .................. .................. ............ ........ .... ............... 32

4-4 A accidents by task type.. ....................................................................... ................ 33

4-5 Frequency Table of Accident by Type of Equipment ...........................................34

4-6 Crane accidents by nature of accidents................................................... ................ 34

4-7 C rane accidents by victim position......................................................... ................ 35

4-8 Crane boom accidents by nature of accident..........................................................35

4-9 Crane boom by victim position ......................................................... 35

4-10 C rane boom by task type .......................................... ......................... ................ 35

4-11 Boom truck accidents by nature of accident.........................................................35

4-12 B oom truck accidents by task type....................................................... ................ 35

4-13 Forklift accidents by nature of accident ............................................... ................ 36

4-14 F orklift accidents by task type.............................................................. ................ 36

4-15 Forklift accidents by victim position.................................................... ................ 36

4-16 A erial lift accidents by nature of accident............................................ ................ 36

4-17 A erial lift accidents by task type .......................................................... ................ 36

4-18 A erial lift accidents by victim position................................................. ................ 37

4-19 Scissor lift accidents by task type......................................................... ................ 37









4-20 Scissor lift accidents by nature of accident ..........................................................37

4-21 Scissor lift accidents by victim position...............................................................37

4-22 Excavator accidents by task type..........................................................................37

4-23 Excavator accidents by victim position............................................................... 37

4-24 B ackhoe accidents by task type ............................................................ ................ 38

4-25 Backhoe accidents by nature of accident..............................................................38

4-26 Backhoe accidents by victim position ..................................................................38

4-27 Trailer accidents by nature of accident.....................................................38

4-28 Trailer accidents by victim position ...................................................38

4-29 Trailer accidents by task type ...................................... ...................... ................ 38

4-30 Dump truck accidents by task type.......................................................................39

4-31 Dump truck accidents by nature of accident ........................................................39

4-32 Dump truck accidents by victim position.............................................................39

4-33 Truck accidents by task type ...................................... ....................... ................ 39

4-34 Truck accidents by nature of accident..................................................................39

4-35 Truck accidents by victim position....................................................... ................ 39

4-36 Compactor and roller accidents by task type ................ ....................................40

4-37 Compactor and roller accidents by nature of accident ........................................40

4-38 Compactor and roller accidents by victim position..............................................40

4-39 D ozer accidents by task type ....................................... ...................... ................ 40

4-40 Dozer accidents by nature of accident..................................................................40

4-41 D ozer accidents by victim position ...................................................... ................ 41

4-42 Dozer accidents by age (banded)......................................................................41







viii
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

4-1 Distribution of accidents by year of occurrence..................................... ................ 26

4-2 D distribution of accidents by m onth ........................................................ ................ 27

4-3 O ccurrence of accident by tim e of day ................................................... ................ 27

4-4 Fatality count by age........................... .......... ........................ 28

4-5 Frequency of operator error......................................... ........................ ................ 28

4-6 Frequency by victim type ................................................................... ................ 29

4-7 Frequency of accidents by heavy equipment type..................................................30















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science in Building Construction

ANALYSIS OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT

RELATED FATALITIES IN CONSTRUCTION

By

Jonathan M. Bedford

December 2006

Chair: Jimmie Hinze
Cochair: Ian Flood
Major Department: Building Construction

Much can be learned by analyzing Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) fatality investigation reports for information that identifies issues or conditions

that may link types of injuries to specific related factors. This can be done by careful

analysis of OSHA injury/fatality investigation reports that are publicly available.

Information on causal or related factors may be useful in preventing future injuries and

fatalities.

A study was conducted on those serious injuries and fatalities in which heavy

equipment was involved in the incident. Observable injury and heavy equipment

relationships may serve as important findings in formulating safer jobsite activities and

maybe even safer, better heavy equipment designs. Other possible implications are that

these findings could help construction companies pinpoint where, when, and how most

equipment-related injuries are likely to occur. Thus, these companies could commit extra









effort in making dangerous activities safer and thereby improving their safety records and

also reducing their insurance premiums.

In terms of data collection and analysis, the two primary topics of interest were the

types of injuries and types of heavy equipment. The types of accidents were initially

examined by the part of the body affected in the accidents. The types of heavy

equipment involved with these injuries were subdivided by type and by the functionality

of the particular pieces of equipment.

In an industry where deadlines are vital, reducing injuries could reduce downtime

and keep worker productivity high. So, a better understanding of OSHA recordable

injuries with an emphasis on heavy equipment could help the industry reduce injuries by

correcting unsafe practices.

The most evident conclusion was that fatalities involving heavy equipment in

construction continue to be a major problem. This analysis identified when, where, and

how fatal accidents occurred, not whether OSHA regulations were followed. Overall,

there is still many areas were better design, planning, and communication could be used

to reduce future accidents. Pertaining to all pieces of heavy construction equipment,

inexperienced or unqualified operators were responsible for many accidents.

Misjudgments of the work area, improper equipment operation, and improper equipment

maintenance were common reason for operator error.

The recommendations were to continue to reinforce ideas like operators wearing

seat belts, having proper licensing and safety certification requirements. New ideas

recommended were to have OSHA adopt the categories used in this research, to have a

greater emphasis on design for safety, and having great owner involvement in safety.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Overview of the Construction Industry

There are several reasons why it is important to pay close attention to the

construction industry from a macroeconomic perspective. Construction is the only goods-

producing sector; specifically roads, bridges, and buildings, in which employment is

projected to grow in the next ten years (US Dept. Labor Stats Feb 2006). It is an

industry-wide goal to make jobsites safer to reduce worker injuries.

Construction employs approximately 6.9 million individuals annually. About 80%

of the construction firms have fewer than 10 employees, only 1% employ 100 or more

and 0.1% of the construction firms employ over 500 individuals. From June 2003 to June

2004 the construction industry added 193,000 employees nearly one out of seven new

non-farming jobs. Within the next 10 years. 58.4% of the newly created jobs in the U.S.

will be construction related (U.S. Dept. Labor Stats Feb 2006). The construction industry

is the second largest employer in the U.S., next to the U.S. government, including

employees in the armed forces. It was estimated that the value added to the U.S. Gross

Domestic Product (GDP) in 2005 was $1,050.5 billion and the construction industry was

a key contributor (U.S. Dept. Labor Stats Feb 2006).

The Importance of Safety

"Why be safe? Accidents hurt, cost money, and can be avoided" (CIMA 1978).

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has released national data that, of the

4.3 million nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in 2004, 4.0 million were work









related injuries. Of these 4.0 million injuries, 1.3 million or 32% occurred in the goods

producing industry, while 2.7 million or 68% occurred in the service industry.


In terms of the construction industry:

The incidence rate of injuries and illnesses in this industry sector declined
significantly in 2004 to 6.4 cases per 100 full-time workers, down from 6.8 cases a
year earlier. The rates for cases involving days away from work, job transfer, or
[work] restriction, cases with days away from work, cases with job transfer or
restriction, and injury cases also declined significantly in 2004. These declines
were driven by changes among specialty trades contractors (NAICS 238), whose
total recordable case incidence rate declined from 7.3 to 6.8 cases per 100 full-time
workers in 2004. (Specialty trades contractors are defined as those establishments
whose primary activity is performing specific functions involved in building
construction, such as masonry, roofing, electrical, plumbing, and painting).


The rates for cases involving days away from work, job transfer, or [work]
restriction and for [other] injury cases also declined significantly. As with
construction as a whole, the number of cases for specialty trades contractors
remained relatively unchanged. Specialty trades contractors accounted for a
majority of employment (64%) and cases (67%) in the construction sector (OSHA
Feb 2006).

Changing Perceptions

Industry perceptions, along with federal and state regulations, about accidents have

been changing over recent decades. In earlier decades, accidents were perceived as a

normal occurrence, almost unavoidable. However, due to better research in the area of

construction safety, higher costs incurred by lost-time and workers' compensation, and an

increased effort on education safety throughout the industry, perceptions on accidents

have changed. Now, many believe that accidents are preventable through education,

better job-site layout, increased activity planning, and safer equipment designs. In order

to create a safer jobsite, construction managers must utilize not only state and federal

safety requirements and safety guides from equipment manufacturers, but also an









effective, company specific safety program to educate the workforce so that they can

protect themselves.

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to analyze data about heavy-machinery-related

injuries and fatalities in construction and to evaluate them by type of equipment used in a

given activity and other contributing factors. Specifically, the focus is on larger

mechanized equipment, excluding hand tools, scaffolding, floor and wall openings and all

types of formwork paneling. Furthermore, the goal is to achieve a better understanding

about where, when, and how the injuries are occurring, what pieces of equipment need to

be used more safely and to aid in designing safer construction sites, activities, and pieces

of equipment. In summary, this research aims to identify information related to accident

causation involving heavy equipment, from which means can be devised to reduce safety

hazards; thus, making the construction industry safer for workers.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The United States federal government has passed several important construction

safety laws, including the Williams-Steiger Act of 1970 that changed construction in the

US forever. The Williams-Steiger Act, predominantly known as the Occupational Safety

and Health Act (OSHAct), created an agency responsible for the development of a

comprehensive set of standards to apply to all industries. Specifically, as they pertain to

construction, these standards were prescriptive guidelines to follow when performing

specific construction activities. These standards also included having workplace and

jobsite inspections and the law established penalties for safety violations, which are

enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Listed below are other available standards for construction safety (Thomas 1996):

1. OSHA 29 CFR 1926 (described above)

2. US Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual, 1992

3. US Bureau of Reclamation Construction Safety Standards, 1987

4. US Department of Energy Construction Projects Safety and Health Management
Order 5480.9

5. The American National Standards Institute of Basic Elements of an Employer
Program to Provide a Safe and Healthful Work Environment (ANSI A10.33), 1991

6. American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations-Safety
and Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects (ANSI A10.33),
1992

7. The Associated General Contractors Manual of Accident Prevention in
Construction, 1992









8. The International Labor Organization Code of Practice, Safety and Health In
Construction, 1992

9. The Council of the European Communities Directive 92/57/EEC,
Implementation of Minimum Safety and Health Requirements at Temporary
Mobile Construction Sites, 1992.

The construction industry researcher, D.J. McVittie, conducted a study on the

major problems in construction, and he identified strategies to reduce the incidences of

"Fatalities and Serious Injuries" in the industry.

The research compared the distribution of fatal and serious accidents occurring in

construction in Ontario from 1981 to 1992 and the United States from 1984 to 1989. The

database for Ontario was based on 146 fatalities and 359,765 nonfatal injuries for the

respective periods. The research included all workplace trades and categorized the

accidents by accident types: falls, electrocution, contact with equipment, caught

in/between, struck by and cave-ins.

The study by McVittie found that "struck-by" or "caught in/between" categories

were the most prevalent fatal accidents involving equipment. These accounted for about

58% of all construction injuries from 1981-1992 but the study did not discriminate

between occupation, trade, project type, or activity. Furthermore, McVittie found that

68% of the "struck by" and "caught in/between" categories involved the reversing dump

trucks. Other findings included housekeeping problems that were the culprit in 25% of

the serious-injury accidents, followed by material handling, direct installation activities,

and on site transit activities. Subsequently, McVittie recommended better site

management, training, improved practices, and changes in materials, tools, or equipment

(Thomson 1996).









A study administered by Jimmie Hinze et al. (2005) further expanded on "The

Nature of Struck-by Accidents." OSHA classifies types of construction injury into five

categories. These include: falls from a higher elevation, electrical shocks, caught

in/between, struck-by, and others. Their research examined causal relationships that exist

in struck-by accidents to hopefully prevent new accidents. In data collected from 1985 to

1990, struck-by injuries accounted for approximately 22% of the fatalities investigated by

OSHA. Furthermore, struck-by injuries include some cave-in accidents, or being struck

by materials or equipment. In order to keep track of all recordable injuries, OSHA

developed the Integrated Management Information System, or IMIS, database which

includes an abstract that accompanies the category and date of the injury. A review of

information contained in the abstracts provided the basis for the most of the findings.

What was discovered from that research was that the main factors associated with the

more frequent incidents of struck-by injuries and fatalities were: the employees were

typically in their thirties; construction work involved wood assemblies, block walls,

soil/rock, and steel/rebar/pipe; and most construction work involved trucks, private

vehicles, or cranes. In addition, the human factors were those involving misjudgment,

insufficient/lack of protective work clothing or equipment, and insufficient/lack of

engineering controls; and environmental factors involving overhead/falling object action.

Many of the struck-by injuries and fatalities were the direct result of the failure to

comply with OSHA regulations. The researchers concluded that more effort is needed in

the field of education for crane operators and rigging safety, especially in highway

construction (Hinze et al. 2005).









Bernadine I. Thomson (1996) found that 70-90% of the accidents identified could

have been prevented if established standards were adhered to (Thomson 1996).

A 1997 study by Jimmie Hinze, et al., concluded that while construction worker

safety continues to be a major industry goal, and while improvements have been made

over the decades, designers have not contributed appreciably to these improvements.

Reasons given include that they did not have sufficient training in construction site safety

and also that they assume that they limit their liability exposure by not addressing safety

in their designs. Furthermore, a study was carried out by the Construction Industry

Institute (CII 2006) to identify practices that can be implemented in a project's design to

minimize or eliminate construction site hazards. The major focus of that research was to

develop a computer program, entitled "Design for Construction Safety Toolbox," to give

designers a tool to help them to identify project-specific hazards and to implement their

ideas in a project's design. Basically, the program offers a link between the design and

construction phases of a project to improve construction worker safety. This program

would thus serve to reduce the gap that exists between designers and constructors.

In conclusion, the information available on fatalities from heavy construction

equipment has been minimal. The federal government has tried to manage safety in

construction by developing guidelines in the form of OSHA standards. However,

research on the causal information of why fatalities with heavy construction equipment

occur has only begun.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding of heavy construction

equipment- related injuries and fatalities by analyzing the data available from 1996 to

2004.This methodology was piloted by Bernadine I. Thomson's 1996 thesis, in which the

same IMIS database that was used for this study, was used to analyze incidents but for

years previous to this analysis.

Obtaining the Data

The data were provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

IMIS which contains an official record of OSHA inspections related to injuries, along

with an abstract on causation and other observations made during the OSHA

investigation of each accident. Information was also provided on the age of the worker

(victim), position/title of the worker, company involved, date of accident, time of the

accident, region in the country, task involved, type of injury, violations and penalties

incurred, and whether the accident involved human error.

Data from OSHA were provided in two portions, the first included investigation

information from 1996-2001 and the second portion was from 2001-2004. Both portions

had been sent via email attachments to Jimmie Hinze of the University of Florida, Rinker

School of Building Construction in Excel formatted spreadsheets. While OSHA data like

this are publicly available on the Internet, this information was different as it was more

extensive. For example, the Internet data cannot be retrieved directly in MS Excel format.









Thus, the data received via email were more useful. Also, the internet database is not

updated frequently and does not contain much of the information that was used for this

study.

Filtering Relevant Information

Filtering the relevant data from the available data was the most challenging activity

to perform. The goal of filtering the data was to extract pertinent information that could

then be analyzed to observe possible trends in heavy construction equipment accidents.

Since there was a plethora of fields to help manipulate these data, the first

important item was to sort the data by reading each individual abstract. Specifically, the

cases of interest were selected from the 6,216 cases initially provided. Note that accidents

not involving heavy construction equipment were not being considered in this research.

Accidents of interest were those involving a piece of heavy equipment during the

performance of a construction activity. Vehicle traffic accidents occurring after work

were not examined.

An effective method used to group common pieces of heavy construction

equipment was to sort by alphabetical order of their included IMIS title. Next,

extraneous cases were deleted. For example, cases that did not mention a piece of

equipment (such as heart attacks, drowning, falls from ladders, chemical poisoning, and

burns) were excluded from further evaluation. Next, each pertinent accident case was

further sorted, by manually inputting the data, into the following categories:

* Heavy machinery type
* Type of accident
* Task being performed
* Severity of injury
* Nature of accident
* Victim age









* Victim gender
* Victim position
* Time of day of accident
* Date of accident

Note that most of the information to identify these categories was only available by

extracting it from the abstracts provided in the incident cases. Even so, not all of the

abstracts were consistent in the amount of detail and general information that would serve

this analysis. Also, included in the appendix is a glossary to help clarify terms used

throughout this research. Each subcategory was designated by numerical values so that

later analysis could be performed.

Again, the emphasis was on the heavy construction equipment mentioned, but only

when the equipment was directly involved in the accident occurrence. To reiterate, the

key was to carefully read each investigation report abstract in order to extract the

information needed for each category.

Discussion of the Categories

Clarity of the results received from the investigation reports was a significant factor

in this investigation. The following sections will further describe the boundaries and

assumptions made for each main category analyzed.

Equipment Type

The type of heavy equipment included in this research was determined by

information provided in the data. In all, twenty three different types of heavy equipment

were examined. Since this research was to observe trends involving equipment, little

could be concluded when a particular type of equipment was involved in only one or two

accidents. See the glossary, in Appendix A for further definitions on equipment types.









Nature of Accident

The Nature of Accident category pertains to the most basic action that directly

caused the fatality in each accident. For example, a worker who lost his/her balance on

an aerial lift and fell 30 feet and was fatally injured would be classified as a fall. Listed

below are the ten identified sub-categories for Nature of Accident

* Caught in/between: rollover & run-offs (including equipment that tipped over)
* Caught in/between: component & object
* Struck by: equipment
* Struck by material: horizontal motion, cave in
* Struck by material: vertical motion (dropped)
* Struck by: detached equipment parts
* Electrocution from power line
* Burns and explosions
* Fall
* Health reasons

Task Type

Task type described the precise activity being performed at the time of the accident.

If insufficient information was provided in the abstract, then the general activity was used

to categorize the accident. For example, if an abstract described that an excavator tipped

over and fatally injured the operator, then the task given would be "Excavating, Drilling,

Trench, Backfilling" since there was no specific activity. However, if that same abstract

described that while turning on the excavator to movie it towards a new area of work in

the morning, the excavator tipped over and crushed the operator, it would be more

appropriately categorized as mobilizing since no activity was being performed.

This category included twenty three tasks commonly performed during an

accident.

1. Clearing & earthmoving
2. Hoisting
3. Excavating, drilling, trench, backfilling,









4. Grading and compacting
5. Loading, unloading, dumping
6. Moving items (usually items lifted)
7. Demobilizing and dismantling
8. Mobilizing and positioning
9. Pouring concrete
10. Transporting items
11. Painting
12. Installing and repairing (not repairing equipment)
13. Demolishing
14. Pile driving
15. Work zone activities (most pertaining to road work)
16. Servicing equipment (includes repairing)
17. Pipe laying
18. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work
19. Metal work: welding and bolting
20. Cleaning
21. Lowboy loading equipment
22. Lowboy unloading equipment
23. Hauling

Operator Error

There were three types of operator error included, mainly not evident from the

description, operator at error, and operator not at error. The purpose of this coding was to

assess misjudgment on the part of the operator. However, many times there was

insufficient information or lack of evidence to determine this. Also, sometimes the cause

was equipment failure, not operator error, but that was not accounted for in this study. If

equipment was not in working order, it did not necessarily mean that it was the operator's

fault, since the company could also be to blame.









Victim Type

The positions or trades of the victims in the accidents were also examined in this

research. This information could be helpful in identifying the parties who are most at risk

when performing specific tasks and/or when working with certain types of equipment.

There were seven identified sub-categories or trades for victim type.

* Operator
* Rigger and connector
* Spotter and flagger
* Same task co-worker
* Non-task co-worker
* Civilian
* Manager and owner


"Same task co-worker" means that the victim was working on the same task as the

operator. Note that it was assumed there was a non-task (not related to the equipment

task) co-worker/ victim if this information was left unclear by the description of the

incident. Also, overlaps could occur; for example, when the operator was also the

manager/superintendent. The owner under "Manager and Owner" is literally any owner

with vested interests in that construction project where the accident took place. Finally,

the connector under "Rigger and Connector" is a worker who receives material from a

crane, such as an I-beam, and literally connects two pieces of steel (or metal)

General Exclusions and Special Cases

Some types of equipment were specifically excluded from the data. For example,

power tools were not considered to be heavy construction equipment. Other exclusions

consisted of the following:

* Any traffic vehicles hitting people. This may include semi-trailers hitting a road
work employee picking up cones.









* All other accidents: falls, electrocutions, and health ailments that did not directly
involve a piece of heavy equipment.

Data Analysis

All of the analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS 12.0 for

Windows and are presented in tabular and graphical format. Microsoft Excel's

spreadsheets contained all information provided by the IMIS reports. Then, Excel's

functions were used to the sort, group, and numerically label each case by all the

categories. Again, cases that were not relevant were deleted. Next, the numeric coding

that represented each accident case was plugged into SPSS, a program specifically used

to interpret data, to create statistical outputs such as descriptive statistics (mean, median,

and mode) and frequencies (both tabular and graphical).

SPSS proved effective in extracting the frequency distributions of variables and the

computation of the mean, median, mode, number of population, range, variance, and

standard deviation to characterize the accident causation factors and related variables.

These statistical functions were tools used to find out what types of heavy

construction equipment was most prevalent in accidents, the exact number of those

accidents, the distribution of fatalities among all types heavy equipment, and whether

there was any statistical significance between the type of heavy equipment and any of the

above fields used to filter the data sets.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

General Observations

Of the 6,216 cases analyzed, there were a total of 1,396 cases that involved heavy

construction equipment. Moreover, all of the cases studied included at least one fatality

per incident report. Thus, this study analyzed only heavy equipment incidents resulting

in fatalities. Note that some assumptions were made when the categories were derived,

as discussed in the methodology. It is evident that OSHA does not investigate all

construction fatalities; however, that is the mandate that every fatality be investigated.

For example, construction worker deaths number about 1,200 to 1,300 per year, but the

OSHA database includes only about 700 per year.

Several generalities were observed in the data analysis. First, many equipment-

related accidents occurred on highway/heavy construction projects, as opposed to

residential construction projects. Residential construction included accidents that did not

include heavy equipment, such as falls from ladders.

Results by Date

Of the 1,396 fatality cases, it is observed that 2002 had the greatest number of

accidents involving heavy equipment with 207 cases or 14.8%. The second most

frequent number of equipment-related fatalities occurred in 2001 with 179 cases or

12.8%. Note that 2004, which appears to be an outlier for the data set, included only data

from the first four months of the year. There were fluctuations in the frequency of

fatalities from year to year (see Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1).









In order to a have level discussion, a ratio was used that divided the frequency of

fatalities by year, by the volume of construction in current dollars (2006). The purpose

was that it showed that the highest frequency of fatalities when adjusted to the

construction dollar volume was in 1996.

When examined by month of occurrence the data showed that the greatest

frequency of accidents occurred in October with 146 accidents, followed by July with

140 accidents, and then May with 135 accidents (see Figure 4-2). It could be speculated

that the summer months represent the time when the most work is being done. The peak

occurrence of fatalities in October has been noted in other studies, also without

explanation (Hinze & Bren, 1996). It was attempted to compare these findings to volume

of construction by month from 1996 thru 2004, but it was not available.

When time of day of accident was examined, a morning peak was observed

between 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Accidents then decreased around lunch time (noon) and

peaked shortly after lunch (1 p.m. to 2 p.m.), after which accidents tailed off downward

throughout the end of the day (see Figure 4-3).

Results by Victim Gender

Part of identifying what occurred in a heavy equipment accident is to know who

was involved. Gender was a field already provided in IMIS investigation reports.

However, since only 908 cases mentioned gender, this category was incomplete with 488

missing. About 3% of the cases involved females being fatally injured; with 97% being

male-related accidents (see Table 4-2). While few females were involved in accidents,

no significance can be drawn from it largely because few women work in the

construction industry.









Results by Victim Age

Capturing each victim's age was helpful in understanding the age profile of who

was getting fatally injured. As with the gender category, the IMIS information was

incomplete and provided the victims age in 908 reports. It was observed that workers

from the age of 21 to about 40 years old were in the greatest danger of being involved in

a fatal accident (see the Figure 4-4). The age group with the most fatalities was 31 to 40

years. The victim ages ranged from 16 to 80, with a mean of 39 (see Figure 4-4).

Note that this distribution may or may not reflect the distribution of the ages of

workers in the construction industry and that it is not a reflection of the age group which

is at a greatest risk. There was no information available that enabled a comparison

between actual fatalities by age from 1996 to 2004 and the age distribution for

construction workers from that same time period.

Results by Nature of Accident

The nature of the accident category attempted to identity the physical manner in

which victims were fatally wounded. "Struck-by: Equipment" was the most frequent

Nature of Accident involving 27.5% of all the accidents, specifically 384 occurrences.

Several workers were run over by equipment, especially when operating in reverse.

Additionally, "Caught-in/between: Rollover & Run-offs" were noted with 221

occurrences. This was followed by "Caught-in/between: Component & Object" with 193

occurrences and "Electrocution from Powerline" with 169 occurrences (see Table 4-3).

Results by Task Type

The data revealed that there were many different tasks that were being performed at

the time when heavy equipment accidents occurred. However, there were certain task

types that were mentioned more than others.









The frequency of occurrence by task was dominated by "Mobilizing and

Positioning," "Hoisting," and "Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling" (see Table

4-4). "Struck-by accidents" were most common during mobilization of the heavy

equipment. Also, cranes often had materials dropped or strike an employee during a

hoisting activity. "Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling" was a common activity

that utilized heavy equipment for a large part of the work. Moreover, working in the

confinement of trenches often led to loads being dropped, equipment striking employees,

and equipment rollovers. Note that many of the task types involving "Installing and

Positioning" could overlap with other options, so discretion was used in assigning the

task.

The most diverse array of task types observed was from aerial lifts which included

"Moving Items," "Mobilizing and Positioning," "Painting," "Installing and Repairing,"

"Demolition," "Servicing Equipment," "Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Work,"

"Metal Work: Welding and Bolting," and "Cleaning."

Results by Operator Error

The assessment of operator error could help assign causation to heavy equipment

accidents. This category was the most subjective assessment made. The abstracts were

never consistent with the discussion of each accident, and it was often impossible to

assign blame to a particular individual. For example, for some accidents there were no

witnesses. The assumption was that if it was not clearly described, then blame for the

accident was not assigned. If it was obvious, then the designation of operator error or

operator not at fault was given. Other issues encountered were that sometimes it was

impossible to tell whether the company policies or the supervisor was at fault for a hazard

that led to an accident. An example of this lack of clarity was observed in this excerpt:









On April 4, 2002, at approximately 8:40 am, an employee preparing the upper area
of a steel caisson for welding was struck several times by a track mounted drill rig,
which had been operating within several feet of the worker and had no swing radius
guard (OSHA 1990-2006).

A majority (61%) of the occurrences were deemed "Not Evident," followed by

(28%) that were not caused by operator error (see Figure 4-5).

Results by Victim Type

Victim type is important to identity because this investigation will help pinpoint

who is exposed to being fatally injured. This category was broken up into seven sub-

categories. However, data analyzed showed that there was a heavy concentration with

same task co-workers with 487 occurrences or 34.9% of the total population. The next

largest was 367 cases involving the operator, followed by non-task co-workers with 307

cases. The two sub-categories rarely mentioned were civilians and manager/owner (see

Figure 4-6).

Results by Equipment Type

The purpose of this section is to highlight the types of accidents involving specific

types of equipment. General comments about all the equipment types will be given

followed by a further investigation of all the pieces of equipment with a fatality count of

forty or more occurrences. In terms of heavy equipment, the larger pieces of equipment

used in road construction tended to rollover on a sloped grade. Most accidents involved

cranes with 169 accidents, backhoes with 143, and aerial lifts with 140. It is worth

mentioning that dump trucks, forklifts and trucks were all involved with over 100

accidents. The least amount of accidents was observed with paving machines and

milling/post hole digging machines, with four each (see Figure 4-4-7 and Table 4-5).









Information was not available that would have allowed to compare equipment type

fatality frequencies by the actually equipment usage in hours from 1996 to 2004. The

intent was to expose which equipment had the most accidents by usage of equipment.

Further Investigations

In order to have a more focused discussion, tables were developed to highlight the

most frequent accident occurrences for selected categories An "Other" subcategory was

created to combine all the less frequent occurrences, thus, it presented a clearer

representation of the in depth investigation. Refer to the "Methodology" chapter under

the "Discussion of Categories" subheading for a complete listing of accident types

included in "Other."

Further Investigations: Cranes and Crane Booms

The most frequent occurring accident with cranes was a result of

improper/defective rigging resulting in struck by accidents when material were dropped

(see Table 4-6). The second most frequent cause was crane contacts with power lines,

however operator error was difficult to assign. The reason for that was because one does

not always know if the operator was aware of everything (obstructions, etc.) or if the

operator solely followed directions from a signal person. An example of "Other" for

Nature of Accidents was caught in/between fatalities (see Table 4-6).

The task most involved in crane accidents was hoisting materials with an

occurrence level of 211 or 71.6%. The "same task co-workers" and "non-task co-

workers" were the two most frequent types of victims (see Table 4-7). Examples of

victim classified as "Other" include operator, rigger and connector, spotter and flagger,

civilian, and manager and owner (see Table 4-7).









In some cases, the booms broke, leading to loads being dropped. Another common

reason for workers being crushed was when a crane boom would fall during

dismantlement. A total of 52.8% of all the crane boom accidents were caused by

detached equipment parts that struck employees (see Table 4-8) and the "same task co-

worker" was the most frequent victim (see Table 4-9). The tasks involved included

hoisting with 41.5%, followed by demobilization and dismantling with 30.2% (see Table

4-10). Examples of "Other" for Nature of Accident include caught in/betweens, struck

by equipment, fall, etc (see Table 4-8). Examples of "Other" for Victim Position include

rigger and connector, spotter and flagger, civilian, and manager and owner (see Table 4-

9). Examples of "Other" for Task Type include everything from moving items to

cleaning (see Table 4-10).

Boom trucks were involved in 47 accidents over the period of time investigated.

Upon a further investigation, it was found that the most common victims with this piece

of equipment were those involved with hoisting with 21 occurrences or 44.7% of all

accidents by task (see Table 4-12). Electrocutions were the most common Nature of

Accident (see Table 4-11). Examples of "Other" for Nature of Accident were falls and

struck by accidents involving boom trucks (see Table 4-11). Examples of "Other" for

Task Type are a number of items including paint, transporting items, metal work, and

cleaning (see Table 4-12).

Further Investigations: Lifting Equipment

Rollovers were the most frequent Nature of Accident among forklifts (36%) where

the operator would generally become fatally pinned. Falls from forklifts, with 18.9%,

occurred when workers fell from forklift pallets used as work platforms (see Table 4-13).

Moving, and lifting items was the most frequent task type (see Table 4-14). The operator









was the most frequent victim with 35.1%, followed closely by same task co-worker (see

Table 4-15). Examples of "Other" for Nature of Accident include health reasons, caught

in/between: component & object, struck by: detached equipment parts, etc, (see Table 4-

13). Examples of "Other" for Task Types that were not usually associated with a forklift

included painting and cleaning (see Table 4-14). An example of "Other" for Victim

Position is spotter and flagger (see Table 4-15).

Aerial Lifts were involved in 140 accidents from 1996 to 2004. Electrocution from

contact with powerlines, and falls, accounted for 68.6% of all the accidents (see Table 4-

16). The top two types of tasks involved in aerial lift accidents were mobilizing and

positioning with 33.6%, followed by mechanical, electrical and plumbing work with

31.4% (see Table 4-17). Finally, the same task co-worker was overwhelmingly the most

common victim with 89.3% (see Table 4-18). Examples of "Other" for Nature of

Accident were caught in/between: rollovers (see Table 4-16), while painting might have

been an example of a Task Type (see Table 4-17), and non-task co-worker could have

been the Victim Type (see Table 4-18).

Scissor lifts were involved in 40 accidents in this investigation and the tables

highlight the most frequent occurrences in each category.

Mobilizing and positioning was the prime task at the time of accidents occurrence

with 47.5% (see Table 4-19). The most common Nature of Accident included falls with

57.5% of the cases (see Table 4-20). The operator suffered the largest proportion of

those accidents (see Table 4-21). Examples of "Other" for Task Type include painting

(see Table 4-19); for Nature of Accident it was electrocution from powerline (see Table

4-20); and for Victim Position it was manager and owner (see Table 4-21).









Further Investigations: Excavating Equipment

Loaders

Though loaders were only involved in 31 accidents, several accidents occurred

when operators left the cab without putting the equipment in neutral and/or without the

brake being properly set. Consequently, the operator would step out of the cab and be

crushed by the loader. Also, employees riding in buckets got flung out and were

subsequently run over during transport/relocation.

Excavator and Backhoes

The trend observed with excavators and backhoes was that many accidents

occurred in trenches where heavy construction equipment would experience a rollover,

pinning the operator. The other common situation was that the bucket struck a co-worker

often in the trench (see Table 4-22). The most common victim in excavator accidents

were operators and same task co-workers (see Table 4-23). "Other" for Task Type

included clearing and earthmoving, and demolishing and dismantling (see Table 4-22).

"Other" for Victim Position included non-task co-workers (see Table 4-23).

Backhoes were involved in 143 accidents between 1996 and 2004. Backhoes were

disproportionately involved in accidents involving excavating, drilling, trenching, and

backfilling (see Table 4-24). Note that some backhoes were used as a hoisting device and

would hit power lines, thus electrocuting workers. Additionally, vibrations from pieces

of heavy equipment were repeatedly mentioned as a contributing factor in a trench

collapse. This was especially true if the trench was not properly secured as per OSHA

regulations. Struck by equipment was the most prevalent Nature of Accident with 30.1%

(see Table 4-25). The most common victims were the operator (34.3%) and same task

co-workers (30.8%) (see Table 4-26). Examples of "Other" of Task Type included pipe









laying, loading, unloading, dumping, and installing & repairing (see Table 4-24). An

example of "Other" for Nature of Accident included struck by material: vertical motion

(see Table 4-25), while an example for Victim Position was non-task co-worker (see

Table 4-26).

Further Investigations: Hauling Equipment

In terms of vehicles that transport equipment and materials, trailers, dump trucks,

and trucks were often involved. With trailers, lowboy rigging was often not done

properly for safe hauling. Thus, during the loading and off-loading procedure the

equipment would rollover and pin the operator or the rigger. Additionally, when a piece

of equipment rolled off a trailer and killed the operator, it was considered an accident

involving of that particular piece of equipment and not of the trailer since it did not inflict

the fatal blow. However, the most common Nature of Accident was caught in/between a

component and an object with 21.2% of the total occurrences (see Table 4-27). Same

task co-workers were the most common victim (see Table 4-28). Finally, "transporting

items" was the most common task (see Table 4-29). An example of "Other" for Nature

of Accident included caught in/between: rollover & run-offs (see Table 4-27), an

example of Victim Position was rigger & connector (see Table 4-28), and an example of

Task Type was mobilizing & positioning (see Table 4-29).

Dump Trucks

Note that with dump trucks and regular trucks, most of the accidents involved

reversing, basically mobilizing to haul a load (see Table 4-30). Specifically, most dump

truck accidents involved struck-by accidents during hauling or mobilizing/positioning.

Non-task co-workers were the most common victim with 55 accidents (See Table 4-32).

Also, in falls from trucks most victims where employees in the truck bed, and the









operators were deemed to be at fault for being responsible for the unsafe hazard. An

Example of "Other" for Task was demobilizing & dismantling (see Table 4-30), an

example for Nature of Accident was struck by: material (see Table 4-31), and an example

of Victim Position was operator (see Table 4-32).

Trucks

Trucks were involved in 108 accidents in this investigation. Most truck accidents

involved mobilizing and positioning with 36 occurrences, followed by work zone

activities with 23 occurrences (see Table 4-33). Additionally, non-task co-workers were

the most common victims, which seems to suggest that they were struck by trucks when

the drivers were not aware of their surrounding areas (see Table 4-35). An example of

"Other" for Truck accidents by Task Type was transporting items (see Table 4-33), an

example for Nature of Accident was caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs (see Table

4-34), and an example of Victim Position was manager & owner (see Table 4-35).

Further Investigations: Earthmoving and Compaction Equipment

Compactor

Compactors were involved in 52 accidents, with the majority being concentrated

between grading and compaction, with 36 occurrences, and serving equipment, with 6

occurrences (see Table 4-36).Clearly, the majority was concentrated in grading and

compaction with 69.2%. Caught in/between: rollover and run-offs accounted for half of

the total Nature of Accidents (see Table 4-37). Operators were most frequently fatally

injured as a consequence of this type of heavy equipment accident (see Table 4-38). An

example of "Other" for Task Type lowboy loading or unloading of equipment (see Table

4-36), an example for Nature of Accident was Struck by: Material (see Table 4-37), and

an example for Victim Position was non-task co-worker (see Table 4-38).









Dozers

Dozers were involved in 55 accidents during the period studied in this

investigation. There were various tasks that involved dozer accidents, led by clearing and

earthmoving with 13 occurrences (see Table 4-39). In terms of Nature of Accident,

struck by equipment was most prevalent (see Table 4-40). The most frequent victim was

the operator with 54.5% of the total accidents (see Table 4-41). Finally, there was a large

concentration of victims between the ages of 21-30 and 31-40, though there were 16

accidents missing information on victim age (see Table 4-42).

An example of "Other" for dozer by Task Type was lowboy loading equipment

(see Table 4-39), an example for Nature of Accident was caught in/between component

& object (see Table 4-40), and an example of Victim Position was spotter & flagger (see

Table 4-41)


250


200


150


100


50


0


4-1 Distribution of accidents by year of occurrence


207
1 t/ 179
165 162 157 150 155






44



1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004












160
140
120
100
80
I 60
40
20
0


i i i Z

.?
.2 ~


Month


4-2 Distribution of accidents by month


150-






100-


Time of Day (Military Time)


4-3 Occurrence of accident by time of day


116
135 140 137 133
114 111
96 99
76


0) o


Co


-o


-0
0











300

250 230 240
212
200

3 1501
150 135

100
50 42 45
50
Im H 4
0-
16-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80
Age of Worker (Banded)


4-4 Fatality count by age


Operator Error


Not Evident
61%


4-5 Frequency of operator error







600

500 -487

400-
-- 307
=300 -

200 -
128
100 42

0 II 3
Same Task Operator Non Task Spotter & Rgger & Manager & Civilian
Co-w worker Co-w orker Flagger Connector Owner
Victim Position


4-6 Frequency by victim type











Crane 169

Backhoe 43

Aerial Lift 140

Dump Truck 132

Forklift 1 1 1

Truck 108

Excavator 70

Dozer 55

Crane Boom 53

Compactor & Roller 52

Trailer 52

Truck/Boom Crane 47

Scissor Lift 40

Front-end Loader 33

Loader 31

Grader 28

Tractor 26

Concrete Pump/Delivery.. 26

Bobcat 24

Scraper 19

Truck Mounted Drill Rigger 15

Motor Grader 14

Milling/Post Hole Digging 4

Pavine Machine 4

0 50 100 150 200
Count


4-7 Frequency of accidents by heavy equipment type











4-1 Accidents by year of occurrence, volume of construction, and frequency to volume
ratio







Volume of
Construction in
Accident Current Dollars (in Ratio (Freq./$
Year Frequency Percent Millions of $) Volume)
1996
165 11.8 $615,900 0.000268
1997
162 11.6 $653,429 0.000248
1998
157 11.2 $705,685 0.000222
1999
177 12.7 $766,062 0.000231
2000
150 10.7 $828,768 0.000181
2001
179 12.8 $852,553 0.000210
2002
207 14.8 $860,923 0.000240
2003
155 11.1 Not Available Not Available
2004
44 3.2 Not Available Not Available
Total
1396 100
4-2 Accidents by gender





Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Male
881 63.1 63.1

Female
27 1.9 65.0

Total
908 65.0 65.0

Missing
488 35.0 100.0

Total
1396 100.0 100.0











4-3 Nature of accident






Cumulative
Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Percent
Struck by: Equipment


27.5


27.5


Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-
offs


43.3


Caught in/between:
Component & Object


Electrocution from Powerline



Fall


Struck by Material: Dropped





Struck by: Detached Equipment Parts


Struck by Material:
Horizontal Motion; Cave-in




Burns & Explosions



Health Reasons



Total


69.2


88.3


98.8


100.0


100.0











4-4 Accidents by task type




Cumulative
Task Type Frequency Percent Percent
Mobilizing & Positioning 262 18.8 18.8

Hoisting 176 12.6 31.4

Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling 127 9.1 40.5

Moving, Lifting Items 107 7.7 48.2
Servicing Equipment 98 7.0 55.2

Grading & Compaction 83 5.9 61.1

Loading,
Depositing, 70 5.0 66.1
Dumping
Work Zone Activities 67 4.8 70.9
Hauling 66 4.7 75.6

Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing Work 61 4.4 80.0
61 4.4 80.0
Demobilization & Dismantling 52 3.7 83.7

Installing & Repairing 50 3.6 87.3

Clearing & Earthmoving 39 2.8 90.1

Pouring Concrete 21 1.5 91.6

Pipe Laying 21 1.5 93.1

Welding & Bolding 18 1.3 94.4

Transporting Items 18 1.3 95.7

Lowboy Loading Equipment 15 1.1 96.8

Painting 14 1.0 97.8
Cleaning 12 .9 98.7

Demolition
11 .8 99.5

Pile Driving 4 .25 99.8

Lowboy Un-loading Equipment 4 .25 100.0

Total 1396 100.0











4-5 Frequency table of accident by type of equipment


Type of Equipment Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Crane 169 12.1 12.1
Backhoe 143 10.2 22.3
Aerial Lift 140 10.0 32.3
Dump Truck 132 9.5 41.8
Forklift 111 8.0 49.8
Truck 108 7.7 57.5
Excavator 70 5.0 62.5
Dozer 55 3.9 66.4
Crane Boom 53 3.8 70.2
Trailer 52 3.7 73.9
Compactor & Roller 52 3.7 77.6
Boom Trucks 47 3.4 81.0
Scissor Lift 40 2.9 83.9
Front-end Loader 33 2.4 86.3
Loader 31 2.2 88.5
Grader 28 2.0 90.5
Tractor 26 1.9 92.4
Concrete Pump/Delivery Truck

Bobcat 24 1.7 96.0
Scraper 19 1.4 97.4
Truck Mounted Drill Rigger 15 1.1 98.5
Motor Grader 14 1.0 99.5
Milling/Post Hole Digging Machine
4 .25 99.75

Paving Machine 4 .25 100
Total 1396 100.0


4-6 Crane accidents by nature of accidents


Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Struck by Material: Dropped 47 27.8
Electrocution from Powerline 38 22.5

Fall 27 16.0

Struck by: Horizontal Motion; Cave in 18 10.7

Other 39 23.0

Total 169 100.0










4-7 Crane accidents by victim position

Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Same Task Co-worker 54 32.0
Non-task Co-worker 39 23.1
Other 76 44.9
Total 169 100

4-8 Crane boom accidents by nature of accident

Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Struck by: Detached Equipment Parts 28 52.8
Electrocution from Powerline 8 15.1
Other 17 32.0
Total 53 100.0


4-9 Crane boom by victim position


4-10 Cran


Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Same Task Co-worker 21 39.6
Non-task Co-worker 15 28.3
Operator 9 17.0
Other 8 15.1
Total 53 100.0


e boom by task type

Type of Task Frequency Percent
Hoisting 22 41.5

Demobilization & Dismantling 16 30.2

Other 15 28.3
Total 53 100.0


4-11 Boom truck accidents by nature of accident

Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Electrocution from Powerline 28 59.6
Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 6 12.8
Other 13 27.6
Total 47 100.0


4-12 Boom truck accidents by task type

Type of Task Frequency Percent
Hoisting 21 44.7

Mobilizing & Positioning 5 10.6
Other 21 44.7
Total 47 55.3












4-13 Forklift accidents by nature of accident

Type of Nature of Accident
Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs
Fall
Struck by: Equipment
Struck by Material: Dropped
Other
Total


4-14 Forklift accidents by task type


Type of Task
Moving, Lifting Items
Mobilizing & Positioning
Other
Total


4-15 Forklift accidents by victim position


Type of Victim Position
Operator
Same Task Co-worker
Non-task Co-worker
Other
Total

4-16 Aerial lift accidents by nature of accident


Type of Nature of Accident
Electrocution from Powerline
Fall
Other
Total


4-17 Aerial lift accidents by task type


Frequency Percent
40 36.0
21 18.9
16 14.4
16 14.4
18 16.3
111 100.0





Frequency Percent
61 55.0
26 23.4
24 21.6
111 100.0





Frequency Percent
39 35.1
35 31.5
23 20.7
14 12.7
111 100.0




Frequency Percent
50 35.7
46 32.9
44 31.4
140 100.0


Type of Task Frequency Percent
Mobilizing & Positioning 47 33.6

Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing Work 44 31.4

Other 49 35.0
Total
140 100.0












4-18 Aerial lift accidents by victim position

Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Same Task Co-worker 125 89.3
Other 15 10.7
Total 140 100.0

4-19 Scissor lift accidents by task type

Type of Task Frequency Percent
Mobilizing & Positioning 19 47.5
Installing & Repairing 7 17.5
Metal Work: Welding & Bolting 5 12.5
Other 9 22.5
Total 40 100.0


4-20 Scissor lift accidents by nature of accident


4-21 Sci:


Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Fall 23 57.5
Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 9 22.5
Other 8 20.0
Total 40 100.0


ssor lift accidents by victim position


Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Operator 23 57.5
Same Task Co-worker 13 32.5
Other 4 10.0
Total 40 100.0


4-22 Excavator accidents by task type


Type of Task Frequency Percent
Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling 34 48.6
Other 36 51.4
Total 70 100.0


4-23 Excavator accidents by victim position

Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Operator 24 34.3
Same Task Co-worker 20 28.6
Other 26 37.1
Total 70 100.0












4-24 Backhoe accidents by task type

Type of Task
Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Ba
Moving, Lifting Items
Mobilizing & Positioning
Other
Total

4-25 Backhoe accidents by nature of accident

Type of Nature of Accident
Struck by: Equipment
Caught in/between: Component &
Other
Total


4-26 Backhoe accidents by victim position


Type of Victim Position Fr
Operator
Same Task Co-worker
Other
Total


4-27 Trailer accidents by nature of accident


Frequency Percent
ckfilling 62 43.4
15 10.5
19 13.3
47 32.8
143 100.0




Frequency Percent
43 30.1
Object 29 20.3
71 49.6
143 100.0





equency Percent
49 34.3
44 30.8
50 34.9
143 100.0


4-28 Trailer accident n


4-29 Trailei


Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Same Task Co-worker 18 34.6
Non-task Co-worker 13 25.0
Other 21 40.4
Total 52 100.0


r accidents by task type

Type of Task Frequency Percent
Transporting Items 12 23.1
Loading, Depositing, Dumping 9 17.3
Other 31 59.6
Total 52 100.0


Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Struck by: Equipment 18 34.6
Caught in/between: Component & Object 11 21.2
Struck by Material: Dropped 6 11.5
Other 17 32.7
Total 52 100.0












4-30 Dump truck accidents by task type


Hauling 37 28.0
Mobilizing & Positioning 30 22.7
Work Zone Activities 21 15.9
Loading, Depositing, Dumping 20 15.2
Servicing Equipment 18 13.6
Other 6 4.6
Total 132 100.0

4-31 Dump truck accidents by nature of accident

Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Struck by: Equipment 88 66.7
Caught in/between: Component & Object 25 18.9
Other 19 14.4
Total 132 100.0


4-32 Dump truck accidents by victim position


Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Non-task Co-worker 55 41.7
Same Task Co-worker 31 23.5
Other 46 34.8
Total 132 100.0


4-33 Truck accidents by task type

Type of Task Frequency Percent
Mobilizing & Positioning 36 33.3
Work Zone Activities 23 21.3
Other 49 45.4
Total 108 100.0

4-34 Truck accidents by nature of accident

Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Struck by: Equipment 66 61.1
Other 42 38.9
Total 108 100.0

4-35 Truck accidents by victim position

Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Non-task Co-worker 47 43.5
Same Task Co-worker 31 28.7
Other 30 27.8
Total 108 100.0


Freauencv Percent


Tvoe of Task












4-36 Compactor and ro e


4-37 Con









4-38 Con


4-39 Doz











4-40 Doz


Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Struck by: Equipment 26 47.3

Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 18 32.7
Other 11 20.0

Total 55 100.0


Type of Task Frequency Percent
Grading & Compaction 36 69.2
Servicing Equipment 6 11.5
Other 10 19.3
Total 52 100.0

ipactor and roller accidents by nature of accident

Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent
Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 26 50.0
Struck by: Equipment 15 28.8
Other 11 21.2
Total 52 100.0


ipactor and roller accidents by victim position


Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Operator 33 63.5

Other 19 36.5
Total 52 100.0


er accidents by task type

Type of Task Frequency Percent
Clearing & Earthmoving 13 23.6
Grading & Compaction 9 16.4
Mobilizing & Positioning 9 16.4
Demobilizing & Dismantling 7 12.7
Other 17 30.9
Total 55 100.0

er accidents bv nature ofi accident












4-41 Dozer accidents n


4-42 Doz(


Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent
Operator 30 54.5
Non-task Co-worker 14 25.5
Other 11 20
Total 55 100.0


er accidents by age (banded)

Type of Age (Banded) Frequency Percent
21 -30 15 27.3
31 -40 10 18.2
Missing 16 29.1
Other 14 25.4
Total 55 100.0














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the Data

The level of detail varies in each abstract recorded, thus, there were many

inconsistencies observed in the descriptions of over 6,200 accident abstracts. The length

of each abstract could vary from one sentence to one page. Another challenge

encountered was the vagueness of some of the abstracts. At points it was difficult to

assess the operator error, victim type, and task being performed during the accident, and

even the equipment involved. Additionally, common construction jargon describing a

piece of equipment by its manufacturer instead of its actual model name made labeling

difficult. For example, "CAT" was used for Caterpillar, which makes several different

types of heavy equipment. So, when labels were too vague to distinguish exactly the type

of equipment, the accident was not considered in this research, e.g. "employee was run

over by CAT heavy equipment."

Limitations of the Research

The first limitation of the research was that it only accounted for one casualty per

accident and only one piece of heavy equipment. Second, some overgeneralizations

occurred when subcategories under "Nature of Accident" and "Task Type" were

combined to limit the total number of sub-categories. For example, "Excavating,

Backfilling, Trenching" were all combined even though they are not the same task.









Another case was "Mobilizing and Positioning." Mobilizing entails transporting a

piece of equipment to a work site, while positioning is physically moving the piece of

equipment into a precise position so that it allows a worker to perform the task.

Conclusions
Pertaining to all pieces of heavy construction equipment, inexperienced or

unqualified operators were responsible for many accidents. Misjudgment of the work

area, improper equipment operation, and improper equipment maintenance were common

types of operator errors.

In terms of the frequency by year, there was no clear trend of the accidents from

1996 to 2004. Frequency by month seemed to denote that a greater concentration of

accidents occurred in the warmer months, from May to October. This timing could

simply reflect the increased construction activity in the summer months. Accidents by

victim's age peaked between 31 to 40 years.

The pieces of heavy equipment most involved in fatal accidents were cranes,

backhoes, forklifts, aerial lifts, and dump truck. They were involved in approximately

49.8% of the total accidents

The most prevalent Nature of Accident was "struck by equipment" with 27.5%,

followed by "caught in/between", then "electrocutions", and "falls." These results

generally re-affirm McVittie's research findings that "struck-by" or "caught in/between"

categories were the most prevalent. However, this study's category breakdowns are not

exactly the same as McVittie's in terms of the designations of sub-categories.

The only two task types that capture over 10% of the total population were

"Mobilizing and Positioning" and "Hoisting" which could indicate that those activities

should be performed with more caution. Operator Error was the category that was least









defined. In 61% of the cases, it was not evident if it was operator error because of the

way the abstract was written. Victim by gender showed that 97% of the victims were

men. Victim by position showed that "same task co-workers" were most often involved,

followed by the "operator", and the "non-task co-worker." All together, they accounted

for 83.2% of the victims.

The most evident conclusion is that fatalities involving heavy equipment in

construction continue to be a major problem that needs to keep being addressed in the

industry. This analysis identified when, where, and how fatal accidents occurred, not

whether OSHA regulations were followed. However, lack of OSHA compliance appeared

to be a contributing factor, according to the OSHA investigation reports. Overall, there

are still many areas where better design, planning, and communication could be used to

reduce future accidents. It was clear while reading each investigation report that most of

fatal accidents could have been prevented by applying simple safety measures. Finally, it

is this researcher's belief that only with greater awareness about accidents involving

heavy equipment in construction, can future fatalities be avoided. Studies like this one

should help accomplish this objective.














CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS

There are three main recommendations from this study of fatalities involving heavy

equipment in construction. The first recommendation is to reinforce common practices

used in the construction industry. Secondly, new ideas could be adopted by the

construction industry. Lastly, suggestions are offered for future research.

Reinforcing Pre-Exiting Ideas

* Seat belts should always be worn by operators. Operators had a tendency of being
pinned by the equipment that they fell out of during a rollover. For example, "The
excavator was equipped with a rollover protective structure (ROPS) and a seat belt.
The deceased was not wearing the seat belt. But the operator continued by jumping
out of the cab instead of just trusting the piece of equipment."

* Design for safety. Efforts to design for safety involve the entire project team. In
other words, the owner, architect, engineers, and contractor should take an active
role in safety during the project design. Whenever possible safety should be a topic
at official Owner-Architect-Contractor meetings during the design phase.

* Be aware of work surroundings. Several of the "struck by equipment" accidents
resulted from co-workers being run-over during reversing. This is an example of an
accident that can easily be avoided.

* Follow proper equipment certification requirements and maintenance guidelines. A
number of accidents involved workers being pinned by pieces of the equipment
during maintenance or servicing.

* Proper operator licensing and safety training certification requirements. This is to
ensure that the best operator is employed during construction.

* Compliance with OSHA's established safety and maintenance standards. See
appendix C.

New Ideas

* Suggest that OSHA adopt the categories and subcategories (found in this research)
when filling out the initial incident report. These include Date, Time of Day, Task









Type, Equipment Type, Operator Error, Nature Of Accident, and Victim Position.
That would greatly reduce the time involved in assessing the abstracts.

* Greater owner involvement with safety. Owner participation in safety will filter
down to the contractor and the subcontractors. This leads to safer sites that get
completed on time and within budget. Also, the contractor pays less insurance on
the job by having less recordable incidents.

* Design for Safety. By using the findings of this analysis, designers/engineers can
get a better idea of what products, need to be designed safer for specific activities.
Some ideas include:

o Use sensors to tell operators that equipment is out of balance to avoid
rollover accidents.

o Use video cameras or at least strobe lights to reduce the number of people
being run over in reverse (struck by), to better notify people behind them
because the horns used are sometimes ignored or drowned out by
construction noise.

Suggestions for Future Research

* Have members of a team of researchers independently review the same accident
reports, where each researcher will read and categorize each abstract. The results
will then be compared and discussed. This will help increase the accuracy of
properly categorizing the information contained in each abstract. Additionally, it
would help reduce low reading understanding/retention attributed to reading vast
amounts of fatality cases.

* Expand the research categories. Future research could include the same results
portion but have the "Fatalities by Month" to be divided by the actual amount of
work done by month over the time period. This process would be repeated for the
amount work is being performed by time of day, by the hours of usage for each
piece of equipment, and by age distribution of construction workers in a given time
period.

* Create a causal model to establish relationships. This research focused on
correlations. Establishing a causal model would yield more definitive conclusions.














APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF EQUIPMENT

Aerial Lift a power-driven hydraulic lift or boom with a bucket at the end used to

perform work in hard to reach places. This term includes sky lifts and bucket trucks for

the purposes in this paper. The assumption in this study was that the person in the bucket

is not the operator, just a task-related co-worker.

Backhoe a power-driven tracked or wheeled excavator with a large hinged bucket at the

end of a jointed arm on the front and a smaller bucket at the rear.

Bobcat a power-driven tracked or wheeled front-end loader used to handle/move

materials in smaller sized operations.

Boom Truck a power-driven wheeled crane, hydraulic or telescoping in nature.

Crane Boom the lattice portion of a crane. In this study it refers to the part of the crane

responsible for the accident.

Crane a power-driven tracked, wheeled, or tower machine used in hoisting heavy loads

to and from locations on a construction site. For this study, cranes include crawlers, tower

cranes, latticework booms, and hydraulic booms.

Compactors power-driven devices used to which reduces the volume of waste material

by subjection it to pressure (weight).

Rollers power-driven machine with a large steel roller used for compaction via vertical

weight. For this study, rollers will be classified as a compactor.









Concrete Pump Truck a power-driven vehicle that delivers concrete via a hydraulic arm

used in areas that are inaccessible to a crane and bucket or that are too congested for

buggies operating on runways.

Dump Truck wheeled vehicle with a large hydraulic bed used for hauling and depositing

material.

Dozer A tractor or other prime mover equipped with a blade attached by arms or brackets

to its front end; used in pushing or piling earth or rock.

Excavator Any of a number of power-driven machines used to dig, move, and transport

earth or other materials.

Forklift A power-operated vehicle having heavy steel prongs which can be moved in

position under a load on pallets, and then raised.

Front end loader A bucket and lift-arm assembly designed for use on the front of a

tractor; hydraulic cylinders, which raise and lower the lift arms, tip the bucket so that it

may be dumped in the elevated position.

Loader a power-driven machine equipped with a front-mounted bucket and lift arms for

pushing and raising a load of earth or other construction materials.

Grader a power-driven machine used for leveling and crowning, mixing and spreading,

ditching, but not for heavy excavation.

Motor Grader a power-driven dirt-moving machine for leveling and planning the

surface to fine tolerances by means of a blade set and held at a precise slope and

elevation.

Milling Machine a machine consisting of a rotating mandrel carrying a milling cutter,

and a movable table, operated by a feed screw, to which is bolted the object to be milled.









Paving Machine a power-driven, prefabricated unit used for surfacing the ground.

Scissor Lift a mechanized platform machine used for lifting and position of the operator

so work can be performed. It was assumed that the operators are in ones in the elevated

platforms.

Scraper a self-propelled machine capable of digging, loading, hauling, dumping, and

spreading materials; used to move earth by stripping or collection a layer with a cutting

blade while moving forward, pushing the earth into a bowl, and then unloading it.

Tractor a powerful engine-driven vehicle, on wheels or on tracks, used for pushing or

pulling attachments or tools.

Trailer a device usually attached to a large truck used to tow rigged down materials.

Truck a power-driven vehicle with a cab and a bed in the back usually driven by

construction workers because of their ability to load items. This study excludes 18-

wheelers or any large commercial truck.









LIST OF REFERENCES

Benjamin, N.; Day, D. (1989) "Construction Equipment Guide." Second Edition. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken.

Construction Industry. "Roller Compactor Safety Manual for Operating and Maintenance
Personnel" Construction Industry Manufacturers Association (1978) Chicago.

Construction Industry Institute. "Design for Construction Safety Toolbox."
http://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/more/ir 101 _2_more.cfm. (Retrieved
2006). New York.

Harris, Cyril M. (1975). "Dictionary of Architecture and Construction" McGraw-Hill
Book Company.

Hinze, J., Bren, D. (1996). "Analysis of Fatalities and Injuries Due to Powerline
Contacts." J. Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. 122 No.2

Hinze, J., Haas, J., Gambatese, J. (1997). "Tool to design for construction worker safety"
J. Construction. Architectural Eng. Vol. 3 p.32-41

Hinze, J., Huang, X., Terry, L. (2005). "The Nature of Struck-by Accidents" J.
Construction. Eng. Manage. Vol. 131

McVittie D. "Fatalities and Serious Injuries." Occupational Medicine: State of the Art
Reviews. Vol. 10. No. 2. April 1995.

Occupation Safety and Health Administration. "Integrated Management Information
System." (1990-2004).

Thomson, Bernadine I. "Investigation of Equipment Related Injuries and Fatalities in
Construction." (Masters of Science in Civil Engineering, University of Washington,
1996), 3-15.

United States Census Bureau. "Value of Construction Put into Place Statistics."
http://www.census.gov/const/C30/oldtc.html (Retrieved Feb 2006).

United States. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Construction Industry
Facts." (Retrieved Feb 2006).

United States. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). (1990). "Analysis of construction fatalities- The OSHA database 1985-1989,"
Washington, D.C.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jonathan Bedford was born in 1982 in Quito, Ecuador to two loving parents,

Anthony and Martha Bedford. He has since moved around the world, living in Brazil, El

Salvador, and Miami, Florida. Throughout all of his travels, he was been steadfast with

his academic studies.

Jonathan graduated from Miami Palmetto Senior High in 2001 in the top 10% of

his class while passing ten of his advanced placement classes, allowing him to enter the

University of Florida with a sophomore standing. Jonathan was able to complete his

bachelor's of science in finance from the Warrington College of Business with a 3.45

GPA in just three years.

Jonathan decided to go straight through and pursue his masters of science in

building construction from the University of Florida's Rinker School of Building

Construction and expects to graduate in the fall of 2006.

PAGE 1

ANALYSIS OF HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RELATED FATALITIES By JONATHAN M BEDFORD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 By Jonathan Bedford

PAGE 3

To my family who have supported me throughout my schooling with their love.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Jimmie Hinze for his guidance, support, and time throughout this whole process. In addition, I would like to thank all my friends and family who have supported me th roughout my pursuits at the University of Florida.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Overview of the Construction Industry........................................................................1 The Importance of Safety.............................................................................................1 Changing Perceptions...................................................................................................2 Purpose........................................................................................................................ .3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 3 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................8 Introduction...................................................................................................................8 Obtaining the Data........................................................................................................8 Filtering Relevant Information.....................................................................................9 Discussion of the Categories......................................................................................10 Equipment Type..................................................................................................10 Nature of Accident..............................................................................................11 Task Type............................................................................................................11 Operator Error.....................................................................................................12 Victim Type.........................................................................................................13 General Exclusions and Special Cases................................................................13 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................14 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................15 General Observations..................................................................................................15 Results by Date...........................................................................................................15 Results by Victim Gender...........................................................................................16

PAGE 6

vi Results by Victim Age................................................................................................17 Results by Nature of Accident....................................................................................17 Results by Task Type..................................................................................................17 Results by Operator Error...........................................................................................18 Results by Victim Type..............................................................................................19 Results by Equipment Type........................................................................................19 Further Investigations.................................................................................................20 Further Investigations: Cr anes and Crane Booms...............................................20 Further Investigations: Lifting Equipment..........................................................21 Further Investigations: Excavating Equipment...................................................23 Loaders.........................................................................................................23 Excavator and Backhoes..............................................................................23 Further Investigations : Hauling Equipment........................................................24 Dump Trucks................................................................................................24 Trucks...........................................................................................................25 Further Investigations: Earthm oving and Compaction Equipment.....................25 Compactor....................................................................................................25 Dozers...........................................................................................................26 5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................42 Limitations of the Data...............................................................................................42 Limitations of the Research........................................................................................42 Conclusions.................................................................................................................43 6 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................45 Reinforcing pre-exiting ideas..............................................................................45 New Ideas............................................................................................................45 Suggestions for future research...........................................................................46 GLOSSARY OF EQUIPMENT........................................................................................47 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................50 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................51

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1 Accidents by year of occurrence, volum e of construction, and frequency to volume ratio.......................................................................................................................... .31 4-2 Accidents by gender....................................................................................................31 4-3 Nature of accident........................................................................................................32 4-4 Accidents by task type.................................................................................................33 4-5 Frequency Table of Accide nt by Type of Equipment.................................................34 4-6 Crane accidents by nature of accidents........................................................................34 4-7 Crane accidents by victim position..............................................................................35 4-8 Crane boom accidents by nature of accident...............................................................35 4-9 Crane boom by victim position...................................................................................35 4-10 Crane boom by task type...........................................................................................35 4-11 Boom truck accidents by nature of accident..............................................................35 4-12 Boom truck accidents by task type............................................................................35 4-13 Forklift accidents by nature of accident....................................................................36 4-14 Forklift accidents by task type...................................................................................36 4-15 Forklift accidents by victim position.........................................................................36 4-16 Aerial lift accident s by nature of accident.................................................................36 4-17 Aerial lift accidents by task type...............................................................................36 4-18 Aerial lift accident s by victim position......................................................................37 4-19 Scissor lift accidents by task type..............................................................................37

PAGE 8

viii 4-20 Scissor lift accidents by nature of accident...............................................................37 4-21 Scissor lift accidents by victim position....................................................................37 4-22 Excavator accidents by task type...............................................................................37 4-23 Excavator accidents by victim position.....................................................................37 4-24 Backhoe accidents by task type.................................................................................38 4-25 Backhoe accidents by nature of accident...................................................................38 4-26 Backhoe accidents by victim position.......................................................................38 4-27 Trailer accidents by nature of accident......................................................................38 4-28 Trailer accidents by victim position..........................................................................38 4-29 Trailer accidents by task type....................................................................................38 4-30 Dump truck accidents by task type............................................................................39 4-31 Dump truck accidents by nature of accident.............................................................39 4-32 Dump truck accidents by victim position..................................................................39 4-33 Truck accidents by task type.....................................................................................39 4-34 Truck accidents by nature of accident.......................................................................39 4-35 Truck accidents by victim position............................................................................39 4-36 Compactor and roller accidents by task type.............................................................40 4-37 Compactor and roller accid ents by nature of accident..............................................40 4-38 Compactor and roller accid ents by victim position...................................................40 4-39 Dozer accidents by task type.....................................................................................40 4-40 Dozer accidents by nature of accident.......................................................................40 4-41 Dozer accidents by victim position...........................................................................41 4-42 Dozer accidents by age (banded)...............................................................................41

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4-1 Distribution of accident s by year of occurrence..........................................................26 4-2 Distribution of accidents by month.............................................................................27 4-3 Occurrence of accident by time of day........................................................................27 4-4 Fatality count by age....................................................................................................28 4-5 Frequency of operator error.........................................................................................28 4-6 Frequency by victim type............................................................................................29 4-7 Frequency of accidents by heavy equipment type.......................................................30

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Building Construction ANALYSIS OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT RELATED FATALITIES IN CONSTRUCTION By Jonathan M. Bedford December 2006 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Cochair: Ian Flood Major Department: Building Cons truction Much can be learned by analyzing Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fatality investigation reports for info rmation that identifies issues or conditions that may link types of injuries to specific related factors. This can be done by careful analysis of OSHA injury/fat ality investigation reports th at are publicly available. Information on causal or related factors may be useful in preventing future injuries and fatalities. A study was conducted on those serious in juries and fatalities in which heavy equipment was involved in the incident. Observable injury and heavy equipment relationships may serve as important findings in formulating safer jobsite activities and maybe even safer, better heavy equipment de signs. Other possible implications are that these findings could help construction comp anies pinpoint where, when, and how most equipment-related injuries are likely to occur. Thus, these companies could commit extra

PAGE 11

xi effort in making dangerous activities safer a nd thereby improving their safety records and also reducing their insurance premiums. In terms of data collection and analysis, th e two primary topics of interest were the types of injuries and types of heavy equipm ent. The types of accidents were initially examined by the part of the body affected in the accidents. The types of heavy equipment involved with these injuries were subdivided by type and by the functionality of the particular pieces of equipment. In an industry where deadlines are vital, reducing injuries could reduce downtime and keep worker productivity high. So, a be tter understanding of OSHA recordable injuries with an emphasis on heavy equipment could help the industry reduce injuries by correcting unsafe practices. The most evident conclusion was that fa talities involving heavy equipment in construction continue to be a major problem. This analysis identif ied when, where, and how fatal accidents occurred, not whether OS HA regulations were followed. Overall, there is still many areas were better desi gn, planning, and communication could be used to reduce future accidents. Pertaining to al l pieces of heavy c onstruction equipment, inexperienced or unqualified operators we re responsible for many accidents. Misjudgments of the work area, improper equipment operation, and improper equipment maintenance were common reason for operator error. The recommendations were to continue to reinforce ideas like operators wearing seat belts, having proper licensing and safety certification requirements. New ideas recommended were to have OSHA adopt the cate gories used in this research, to have a greater emphasis on design for safety, and ha ving great owner involvement in safety.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview of the Construction Industry There are several reasons why it is important to pa y close attention to the construction industry from a m acroeconomic perspective. C onstruction is the only goodsproducing sector; specifically roads, bridges, and buildin gs, in which employment is projected to grow in the next ten years (US Dept. Labor Stats Feb 2006). It is an industry-wide goal to make jobsites safer to reduce worker injuries. Construction employs approximately 6.9 million individuals annually. About 80% of the construction firms have fewer than 10 employees, only 1% employ 100 or more and 0.1% of the construction firms employ ove r 500 individuals. From June 2003 to June 2004 the construction industry added 193,000 employees nearly one out of seven new non-farming jobs. Within the next 10 years. 58.4% of the newly crea ted jobs in the U.S. will be construction related (U.S. Dept. Labor Stats Feb 2006). The construction industry is the second largest employer in the U. S., next to the U.S. government, including employees in the armed forces. It was estimated that the value added to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2005 was $1,050.5 bill ion and the construction industry was a key contributor (U.S. De pt. Labor Stats Feb 2006). The Importance of Safety Why be safe? Accidents hurt, cost m oney, and can be avoided (CIMA 1978). The Occupational Safety and Health Administra tion has released national data that, of the 4.3 million nonfatal occupational injuries a nd illnesses in 2004, 4.0 million were work

PAGE 13

2 related injuries. Of these 4.0 million injuries, 1.3 million or 32% occurred in the goods producing industry, while 2.7 million or 68% occurred in the service industry. In terms of the c onstruction industry: The incidence rate of injuries and illn esses in this industry sector declined significantly in 2004 to 6.4 cas es per 100 full-time workers, down from 6.8 cases a year earlier. The rates fo r cases involving days away fr om work, job transfer, or [work] restriction, cases with days away from work, cases with job transfer or restriction, and injury cases also declined sign ificantly in 2004. These declines were driven by changes among specialty trades contractors (NAICS 238), whose total recordable case inciden ce rate declined from 7.3 to 6.8 cases per 100 full-time workers in 2004. (Specialty trades contract ors are defined as those establishments whose primary activity is performing sp ecific functions invo lved in building construction, such as masonry, roofing, electrical, plumbing, and painting). The rates for cases involving days away from work, job transfer, or [work] restriction and for [other] injury cases also declined significantly. As with construction as a whole, the number of cases for specialty trades contractors remained relatively unchanged. Specialt y trades contractors accounted for a majority of employment (64%) and cases (67%) in the construction sector (OSHA Feb 2006). Changing Perceptions Industry perceptions, along with federal a nd state regulations, a bout accidents have been changing over recent decad es. In earlier decades, acci dents were perceived as a normal occurrence, almost unavoidable. However, due to better research in the area of construction safety, higher costs incurred by lost-time and workers compensation, and an increased effort on education safety thr oughout the industry, per ceptions on accidents have changed. Now, many believe that accid ents are preventable through education, better job-site layout, increased activity plan ning, and safer equipment designs. In order to create a safer jobsite, c onstruction managers must util ize not only state and federal safety requirements and safety guides from equipment manufacturers, but also an

PAGE 14

3 effective, company specific safety program to educate the workforce so that they can protect themselves. Purpose The purpose of this research is to anal yze data about heavy-machinery-related injuries and fatalities in construction and to ev aluate them by type of equipment used in a given activity and other contributing factor s. Specifically, the focus is on larger mechanized equipment, excluding hand tools, scaffolding, floor and wall openings and all types of formwork paneling. Furthermore, th e goal is to achieve a better understanding about where, when, and how the injuries are occurring, what pieces of equipment need to be used more safely and to aid in designing safer construction sites, activities, and pieces of equipment. In summary, this research aims to identify information related to accident causation involving heavy equipment, from whic h means can be devised to reduce safety hazards; thus, making the construction industry safer for workers.

PAGE 15

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The United States federal government has passed several important construction safety laws, including the Williams-Steiger Act of 1970 that changed construction in the US forever. The Williams-Steiger Act, pre dominantly known as the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct), created an agen cy responsible for the development of a comprehensive set of standards to apply to all industries. Spec ifically, as they pertain to construction, these standards were prescriptive guidelines to follow when performing specific construction activities. These st andards also included having workplace and jobsite inspections and the law established penalties for safety violations, which are enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Listed below are other avai lable standards for constr uction safety (Thomas 1996): 1. OSHA 29 CFR 1926 (described above) 2. US Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual, 1992 3. US Bureau of Reclamation Cons truction Safety Standards, 1987 4. US Department of Energy Construction Pr ojects Safety and Health Management Order 5480.9 5. The American National Standards Institute of Basic Elements of an Employer Program to Provide a Safe and Health ful Work Environment (ANSI A10.33), 1991 6. American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations-Safety and Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects (ANSI A10.33), 1992 7. The Associated General Contractors Manual of Accident Prevention in Construction, 1992

PAGE 16

5 8. The International Labor Orga nization Code of Practice, Safety and Health In Construction, 1992 9. The Council of the European Commun ities Directive 92/57/EEC, Implementation of Minimum Safety a nd Health Requirements at Temporary Mobile Construction Sites, 1992. The construction industry researcher, D.J. McVittie, conducted a study on the major problems in construction, and he identifi ed strategies to redu ce the incidences of Fatalities and Serious In juries in the industry. The research compared the distribution of fatal and serious accidents occurring in construction in Ontario from 1981 to 1992 a nd the United States from 1984 to 1989. The database for Ontario was based on 146 fa talities and 359,765 nonfatal injuries for the respective periods. The research included all workplace trades and categorized the accidents by accident types: falls, electr ocution, contact with equipment, caught in/between, struck by and cave-ins. The study by McVittie found that struc k-by or caught in/between categories were the most prevalent fatal accidents involving equipment. These accounted for about 58% of all construction inju ries from 1981-1992 but the study did not discriminate between occupation, trade, proj ect type, or activity. Furthermore, McVittie found that 68% of the struck by and caught in/betw een categories involved the reversing dump trucks. Other findings include d housekeeping problems that we re the culprit in 25% of the serious-injury accidents, followed by materi al handling, direct in stallation ac tivities, and on site transit activities. Subseque ntly, McVittie recommended better site management, training, improved practices, and ch anges in materials, tools, or equipment (Thomson 1996).

PAGE 17

6 A study administered by Jimmie Hinze et al. (2005) further expanded on The Nature of Struck-by Accidents. OSHA classifi es types of constructi on injury into five categories. These include: falls from a higher elevation, electr ical shocks, caught in/between, struck-by, and others. Their resear ch examined causal relationships that exist in struck-by accidents to hopefully prevent new a ccidents. In data collected from 1985 to 1990, struck-by injuries accounted for approximate ly 22% of the fatalities investigated by OSHA. Furthermore, struck-by injuries include some cave-in accidents, or being struck by materials or equipment. In order to k eep track of all recordable injuries, OSHA developed the Integrated Management Info rmation System, or IMIS, database which includes an abstract that accomp anies the category and date of the injury. A review of information contained in the abstracts provide d the basis for the most of the findings. What was discovered from that research was that the main factors associated with the more frequent incidents of struck-by injuries and fatalities were: the employees were typically in their thirties; construction work involved wood assemblies, block walls, soil/rock, and steel/rebar/pipe; and most c onstruction work involved trucks, private vehicles, or cranes. In a ddition, the human factors were those involving misjudgment, insufficient/lack of protective work clothi ng or equipment, and insufficient/lack of engineering controls; and environmental fact ors involving overhead/falling object action. Many of the struck-by injuries and fatalities were the dir ect result of the failure to comply with OSHA regulations. The researcher s concluded that more effort is needed in the field of education for crane operators and rigging safety, especially in highway construction (Hinze et al. 2005).

PAGE 18

7 Bernadine I. Thomson (1996) found that 70-90% of the accident s identified could have been prevented if established sta ndards were adhered to (Thomson 1996). A 1997 study by Jimmie Hinze, et al., conc luded that while construction worker safety continues to be a major industry goa l, and while improvements have been made over the decades, designers have not contri buted appreciably to these improvements. Reasons given include that they did not have sufficient training in c onstruction site safety and also that they assume that they limit th eir liability exposure by not addressing safety in their designs. Furthermore, a study wa s carried out by the Construction Industry Institute (CII 2006) to identify practices that can be implemen ted in a project's design to minimize or eliminate construction site hazards. The major focus of that research was to develop a computer program, entitled "Design for Construction Safety Toolbox," to give designers a tool to help them to identify pr oject-specific hazards and to implement their ideas in a project's design. Basically, the program offers a link between the design and construction phases of a project to improve construction worker safety. This program would thus serve to reduce th e gap that exists between designers and constructors. In conclusion, the information availabl e on fatalities from heavy construction equipment has been minimal. The federal government has tried to manage safety in construction by developing guidelines in th e form of OSHA standards. However, research on the causal information of why fa talities with heavy construction equipment occur has only begun.

PAGE 19

8 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding of heavy construction equipmentrelated injuries and fatalities by analyzing the data available from 1996 to 2004.This methodology was piloted by Bernadine I. Thomsons 1996 thesis, in which the same IMIS database that was used for this study, was used to analyze incidents but for years previous to this analysis. Obtaining the Data The data were provided by the Occupati onal Safety and Health Administration IMIS which contains an offi cial record of OSHA inspecti ons related to injuries, along with an abstract on causation and ot her observations made during the OSHA investigation of each accident. Information was also provided on the age of the worker (victim), position/title of the worker, comp any involved, date of accident, time of the accident, region in the country, task involved, type of injury, viol ations and penalties incurred, and whether the accident involved human error. Data from OSHA were provided in two por tions, the first included investigation information from 1996-2001 and the second portion was from 2001-2004. Both portions had been sent via email attachments to Jimmie Hinze of the University of Florida, Rinker School of Building Construction in Excel form atted spreadsheets. While OSHA data like this are publicly available on th e Internet, this information was different as it was more extensive. For example, the Internet data canno t be retrieved directly in MS Excel format.

PAGE 20

9 Thus, the data received via email were more us eful. Also, the intern et database is not updated frequently and does not contain much of the information that was used for this study. Filtering Relevant Information Filtering the relevant data from the available data was the most challenging activity to perform. The goal of filtering the data was to extract pertinent information that could then be analyzed to observe possible trends in heavy construction equipment accidents. Since there was a plethora of fields to help manipulate these data, the first important item was to sort the data by readi ng each individual abstract. Specifically, the cases of interest were selected from the 6,216 cases initially provided. Note that accidents not involving heavy construction equipment were not being considered in this research. Accidents of interest were those involvi ng a piece of heavy equipment during the performance of a construction activity. Vehicl e traffic accidents occurring after work were not examined. An effective method used to group common pieces of heavy construction equipment was to sort by alphabetical orde r of their included IMIS title. Next, extraneous cases were deleted. For example, cases that did not mention a piece of equipment (such as heart attacks, drowning, falls from ladders, chemical poisoning, and burns) were excluded from further evaluati on. Next, each pertinent accident case was further sorted, by manually inputting th e data, into the following categories: Heavy machinery type Type of accident Task being performed Severity of injury Nature of accident Victim age

PAGE 21

10 Victim gender Victim position Time of day of accident Date of accident Note that most of the information to identify these categories was only available by extracting it from the abstracts provided in th e incident cases. Even so, not all of the abstracts were consistent in the amount of de tail and general information that would serve this analysis. Also, included in the appendix is a glossary to help clarify terms used throughout this research. Each subcategory was designated by numerical values so that later analysis could be performed. Again, the emphasis was on the heavy construction equipment mentioned, but only when the equipment was directly involved in the accident occurrence. To reiterate, the key was to carefully read each investigati on report abstract in order to extract the information needed for each category. Discussion of the Categories Clarity of the results received from the i nvestigation reports was a significant factor in this investigation. The following sectio ns will further describe the boundaries and assumptions made for each main category analyzed. Equipment Type The type of heavy equipment included in this research was determined by information provided in the data. In all, twen ty three different types of heavy equipment were examined. Since this research was to observe trends invol ving equipment, little could be concluded when a part icular type of equipment was involved in only one or two accidents. See the glossary, in Appendix A for further definitions on equipment types.

PAGE 22

11 Nature of Accident The Nature of Accident categ ory pertains to the most basic action that directly caused the fatality in each accident. For exam ple, a worker who lost his/her balance on an aerial lift and fell 30 feet and was fatally inju red would be classified as a fall. Listed below are the ten identified sub-cate gories for Nature of Accident Caught in/between: rollover & run-offs (including equipment that tipped over) Caught in/between: component & object Struck by: equipment Struck by material: horizontal motion, cave in Struck by material: vertical motion (dropped) Struck by: detached equipment parts Electrocution from power line Burns and explosions Fall Health reasons Task Type Task type described the precise activity be ing performed at the time of the accident. If insufficient information was provided in the abstract, then the general activity was used to categorize the accident. For example, if an abstract desc ribed that an excavator tipped over and fatally injured the operator, then the task given would be Excavating, Drilling, Trench, Backfilling since there was no specific activity. However, if that same abstract described that while turning on the excavator to movie it towards a new area of work in the morning, the excavator tipped over and crushed the operator, it would be more appropriately categorized as mobilizing since no activity was being performed. This category included twenty thre e tasks commonly performed during an accident. 1. Clearing & earthmoving 2. Hoisting 3. Excavating, drilling, trench, backfilling,

PAGE 23

12 4. Grading and compacting 5. Loading, unloading, dumping 6. Moving items (usually items lifted) 7. Demobilizing and dismantling 8. Mobilizing and positioning 9. Pouring concrete 10. Transporting items 11. Painting 12. Installing and repairing ( not repairing equipment) 13. Demolishing 14. Pile driving 15. Work zone activities (most pertaining to road work) 16. Servicing equipment (includes repairing) 17. Pipe laying 18. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing work 19. Metal work: welding and bolting 20. Cleaning 21. Lowboy loading equipment 22. Lowboy unloading equipment 23. Hauling Operator Error There were three types of operator error included, mainly not evident from the description, operator at e rror, and operator not at error. The purpose of this coding was to assess misjudgment on the part of the ope rator. However, many times there was insufficient information or lack of evidence to determine this. Also, sometimes the cause was equipment failure, not operato r error, but that was not acc ounted for in this study. If equipment was not in working order, it did no t necessarily mean that it was the operators fault, since the company could also be to blame.

PAGE 24

13 Victim Type The positions or trades of the victims in the accidents were also examined in this research. This information could be helpful in identifying the parties who are most at risk when performing specific tasks and/or when wo rking with certain types of equipment. There were seven identified sub-cate gories or trades for victim type. Operator Rigger and connector Spotter and flagger Same task co-worker Non-task co-worker Civilian Manager and owner Same task co-worker means that the vict im was working on the same task as the operator. Note that it was assumed there wa s a non-task (not rela ted to the equipment task) co-worker/ victim if this informati on was left unclear by th e description of the incident. Also, overlaps coul d occur; for example, when the operator was also the manager/superintendent. The owner under M anager and Owner is literally any owner with vested interests in that construction project where the accident t ook place. Finally, the connector under Rigger and Connector is a worker who receives material from a crane, such as an I-beam, and literally connects two pi eces of steel (or metal) General Exclusions and Special Cases Some types of equipment were specifically excluded from the data. For example, power tools were not consider ed to be heavy construction equipment. Other exclusions consisted of the following: Any traffic vehicles hitting people. This may include semi-trailers hitting a road work employee picking up cones.

PAGE 25

14 All other accidents: falls, el ectrocutions, and health ailm ents that did not directly involve a piece of heavy equipment. Data Analysis All of the analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS 12.0 for Windows and are presented in tabular a nd graphical format. Microsoft Excels spreadsheets contained all information provi ded by the IMIS reports. Then, Excels functions were used to the sort, group, and numerically label each case by all the categories. Again, cases that were not releva nt were deleted. Ne xt, the numeric coding that represented each accident case was plugged into SPSS, a program specifically used to interpret data, to create statistical output s such as descriptive statistics (mean, median, and mode) and frequencies ( both tabular and graphical). SPSS proved effective in extracting the freque ncy distributions of variables and the computation of the mean, median, mode, number of population, range, variance, and standard deviation to characterize the accident causation factors and related variables. These statistical functions were tools used to find out what types of heavy construction equipment was most prevalent in accidents, the exact number of those accidents, the distribution of fatalities among all types heavy equipment, and whether there was any statistical significance between th e type of heavy equipment and any of the above fields used to filter the data sets.

PAGE 26

15 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS General Observations Of the 6,216 cases analyzed, there were a total of 1,396 cases that involved heavy construction equipment. Moreover, all of th e cases studied included at least one fatality per incident report. Thus, this study analy zed only heavy equipmen t incidents resulting in fatalities. Note that some assumptions were made when the categories were derived, as discussed in the methodology. It is ev ident that OSHA does not investigate all construction fatalities; however, that is the ma ndate that every fatality be investigated. For example, construction worker deaths number about 1,200 to 1,300 per year, but the OSHA database includes only about 700 per year. Several generalities were observed in th e data analysis. First, many equipmentrelated accidents occurred on highway/heavy construction projects, as opposed to residential construction projects Residential construction in cluded accidents that did not include heavy equipment, such as falls from ladders. Results by Date Of the 1,396 fatality cases, it is observe d that 2002 had the greatest number of accidents involving heavy equipment with 207 cases or 14.8%. The second most frequent number of equipment-related fata lities occurred in 2 001 with 179 cases or 12.8%. Note that 2004, which appears to be an ou tlier for the data set, included only data from the first four months of the year. Th ere were fluctuations in the frequency of fatalities from year to year (see Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1).

PAGE 27

16 In order to a have level discussion, a rati o was used that divided the frequency of fatalities by year, by the volume of construc tion in current dolla rs (2006). The purpose was that it showed that the highest freque ncy of fatalities when adjusted to the construction dollar volume was in 1996. When examined by month of occurrence the data showed that the greatest frequency of accidents occurred in Octobe r with 146 accidents, followed by July with 140 accidents, and then May with 135 accidents (see Figure 4-2). It could be speculated that the summer months repres ent the time when the most wo rk is being done. The peak occurrence of fatalities in October has b een noted in other studies, also without explanation (Hinze & Bren, 1996). It was attemp ted to compare these findings to volume of construction by month from 1996 thru 2004, but it was not available. When time of day of accident was examined, a morning peak was observed between 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Accidents then decreased around lunch time (noon) and peaked shortly after lunch (1 p.m. to 2 p.m.), after which accidents tailed off downward throughout the end of the day (see Figure 4-3). Results by Victim Gender Part of identifying what occurred in a heavy equipment accident is to know who was involved. Gender was a field already pr ovided in IMIS investigation reports. However, since only 908 cases mentioned gende r, this category was incomplete with 488 missing. About 3% of the cases involved female s being fatally injured; with 97% being male-related accidents (see Table 4-2). While few females were involved in accidents, no significance can be drawn from it la rgely because few women work in the construction industry.

PAGE 28

17 Results by Victim Age Capturing each victims age was helpful in understanding the age profile of who was getting fatally injured. As with th e gender category, the IMIS information was incomplete and provided the victims age in 908 reports. It was observed that workers from the age of 21 to about 40 years old were in the greatest danger of being involved in a fatal accident (see the Figure 4-4). The ag e group with the most fatalities was 31 to 40 years. The victim ages ranged from 16 to 80, with a mean of 39 (see Figure 4-4). Note that this distribution may or may not reflect the distribution of the ages of workers in the construction i ndustry and that it is not a re flection of the age group which is at a greatest risk. There was no info rmation available that enabled a comparison between actual fatalities by age from 1996 to 2004 and the age distribution for construction workers from that same time period. Results by Nature of Accident The nature of the accident category attempted to identity the physical manner in which victims were fatally wounded. Struc k-by: Equipment was the most frequent Nature of Accident involving 27.5% of all th e accidents, specifical ly 384 occurrences. Several workers were run over by equipment, especially when operating in reverse. Additionally, Caught-in/be tween: Rollover & Run-offs were noted with 221 occurrences. This was followed by Caught-i n/between: Component & Object with 193 occurrences and Electrocution from Power line with 169 occurrences (see Table 4-3). Results by Task Type The data revealed that there were many diffe rent tasks that were being performed at the time when heavy equipment accidents occurred. However, there were certain task types that were mentioned more than others.

PAGE 29

18 The frequency of occurrence by task was dominated by Mobilizing and Positioning, Hoisting, and Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling (see Table 4-4). Struck-by accidents were most common during mobilization of the heavy equipment. Also, cranes often had material s dropped or strike an employee during a hoisting activity. Excavating, Drilling, Tr enching, Backfilling was a common activity that utilized heavy equipment for a large pa rt of the work. Moreover, working in the confinement of trenches often led to load s being dropped, equipment striking employees, and equipment rollovers. Note that many of the task ty pes involving Installing and Positioning could overlap with other options so discretion was used in assigning the task. The most diverse array of task types obs erved was from aerial lifts which included Moving Items, Mobilizing and Positioning, Painting, Installing and Repairing, Demolition, Servicing Equipment, Mec hanical, Electrical & Plumbing Work, Metal Work: Welding and Bolting, and Cleaning. Results by Operator Error The assessment of operator error could help assign causation to heavy equipment accidents. This category was the most subjec tive assessment made. The abstracts were never consistent with the discussion of each accident, and it was often impossible to assign blame to a particular individual. Fo r example, for some accidents there were no witnesses. The assumption was that if it wa s not clearly described, then blame for the accident was not assigned. If it was obvious, th en the designation of operator error or operator not at fault was give n. Other issues encountered were that sometimes it was impossible to tell whether the company policies or the supervisor was at fault for a hazard that led to an accident. An example of this lack of clarity was observed in this excerpt:

PAGE 30

19 On April 4, 2002, at approximately 8:40 am an employee preparing the upper area of a steel caisson for welding was struck several times by a track mounted drill rig, which had been operating within several feet of the worker and had no swing radius guard (OSHA 1990-2006). A majority (61%) of the occurrences were deemed Not Evident, followed by (28%) that were not caused by ope rator error (see Figure 4-5). Results by Victim Type Victim type is important to identity becau se this investigatio n will help pinpoint who is exposed to being fatally injured. This category was broken up into seven subcategories. However, data analyzed showed that there was a hea vy concentration with same task co-workers with 487 occurrences or 34.9% of the total population. The next largest was 367 cases involving the operator, followed by nontask co-workers with 307 cases. The two sub-categories rarely mentioned were civ ilians and manager/owner (see Figure 4-6). Results by Equipment Type The purpose of this section is to highlight the types of accidents involving specific types of equipment. General comments a bout all the equipment types will be given followed by a further investigation of all the pi eces of equipment with a fatality count of forty or more occurrences. In terms of hea vy equipment, the larger pieces of equipment used in road construction tende d to rollover on a sloped grade. Most accidents involved cranes with 169 accidents, backhoes with 143, and aerial lifts with 140. It is worth mentioning that dump trucks, forklifts and trucks were all involved with over 100 accidents. The least amount of accidents was observed with paving machines and milling/post hole digging machines, with four each (see Figure 4-4-7 and Table 4-5).

PAGE 31

20 Information was not available that would have allowed to compare equipment type fatality frequencies by the actually equipment usage in hours from 1996 to 2004. The intent was to expose which equipment had th e most accidents by usage of equipment. Further Investigations In order to have a more focused discussi on, tables were developed to highlight the most frequent accident occurrences for select ed categories An Other subcategory was created to combine all the less frequent o ccurrences, thus, it presented a clearer representation of the in dept h investigation. Refer to the Methodology chapter under the Discussion of Categories subheading fo r a complete listing of accident types included in Other. Further Investigations: Cranes and Crane Booms The most frequent occurring acciden t with cranes was a result of improper/defective rigging resul ting in struck by accidents when material were dropped (see Table 4-6). The second most frequent cause was crane contacts with power lines, however operator error was difficult to assi gn. The reason for that was because one does not always know if the opera tor was aware of everything ( obstructions, etc.) or if the operator solely followed directions from a signal person. An example of Other for Nature of Accidents was caught in/b etween fatalities (see Table 4-6). The task most involved in crane acci dents was hoisting materials with an occurrence level of 211 or 71.6%. The same task co-workers and non-task coworkers were the two most frequent type s of victims (see Table 4-7). Examples of victim classified as Other include operator, rigger and connector, spotter and flagger, civilian, and manager and owner (see Table 4-7).

PAGE 32

21 In some cases, the booms broke, leading to loads being dropp ed. Another common reason for workers being crushed was when a crane boom would fall during dismantlement. A total of 52.8% of all the crane boom accidents were caused by detached equipment parts that struck employ ees (see Table 4-8) and the same task coworker was the most frequent victim (s ee Table 4-9). The tasks involved included hoisting with 41.5%, followed by demobilization and dismantling with 30.2% (see Table 4-10). Examples of Other for Nature of Accident include caught in/betweens, struck by equipment, fall, etc (see Table 4-8). Exam ples of Other for Victim Position include rigger and connector, spotter a nd flagger, civilian, and manager and owner (see Table 49). Examples of Other for Task Type include everything from moving items to cleaning (see Table 4-10). Boom trucks were involved in 47 accident s over the period of time investigated. Upon a further investigation, it was found that the most common victims with this piece of equipment were those invol ved with hoisting with 21 o ccurrences or 44.7% of all accidents by task (see Table 4-12). Electrocutions were the most common Nature of Accident (see Table 4-11). Examples of O ther for Nature of Accident were falls and struck by accidents involving boom trucks (s ee Table 4-11). Examples of Other for Task Type are a number of items including paint, transporting items, metal work, and cleaning (see Table 4-12). Further Investigations: Lifting Equipment Rollovers were the most frequent Nature of Accident among fo rklifts (36%) where the operator would generally become fatally pinned. Falls from forklifts, with 18.9%, occurred when workers fell from forklift pallets used as work platforms (see Table 4-13). Moving, and lifting items was the most frequent task type (see Table 4-14). The operator

PAGE 33

22 was the most frequent victim with 35.1%, fo llowed closely by same task co-worker (see Table 4-15). Examples of O ther for Nature of Accident include health reasons, caught in/between: component & object, struck by: de tached equipment parts, etc, (see Table 413). Examples of Other for Task Types that were not usually associated with a forklift included painting and cleaning (see Table 4-14 ). An example of Other for Victim Position is spotter and fl agger (see Table 4-15). Aerial Lifts were involved in 140 accide nts from 1996 to 2004. Electrocution from contact with powerlines, and falls, accounted for 68.6% of all the accidents (see Table 416). The top two types of ta sks involved in aerial lift accidents were mobilizing and positioning with 33.6%, followed by mechanical electrical and plumbing work with 31.4% (see Table 4-17). Finally, the same ta sk co-worker was overwhelmingly the most common victim with 89.3% (see Table 4-18). Examples of Other for Nature of Accident were caught in/between: rollovers (see Table 4-16), while painting might have been an example of a Task Type (see Tabl e 4-17), and non-task co-worker could have been the Victim Type (see Table 4-18). Scissor lifts were involved in 40 accidents in this investigat ion and the tables highlight the most frequent occurrences in each category. Mobilizing and positioning was the prime ta sk at the time of accidents occurrence with 47.5% (see Table 4-19). The most common Nature of Accident included falls with 57.5% of the cases (see Table 4-20). The operator suffere d the largest proportion of those accidents (see Table 4-21). Examples of Other for Task Type include painting (see Table 4-19); for Nature of Accident it was electrocution from powerline (see Table 4-20); and for Victim Position it was manager and owner (see Table 4-21).

PAGE 34

23 Further Investigations: Excavating Equipment Loaders Though loaders were only involved in 31 accidents, several accidents occurred when operators left the cab without putting th e equipment in neutral and/or without the brake being properly set. C onsequently, the operator would step out of the cab and be crushed by the loader. Also, employees riding in buckets got flung out and were subsequently run over duri ng transport/relocation. Excavator and Backhoes The trend observed with excavators and backhoes was that many accidents occurred in trenches where heavy construction equipment would experience a rollover, pinning the operator. Th e other common situation was that the bucket struck a co-worker often in the trench (see Tabl e 4-22). The most common vi ctim in excavator accidents were operators and same task co-workers (see Table 4-23). Other for Task Type included clearing and earthmoving, and demolis hing and dismantling (see Table 4-22). Other for Victim Position included nontask co-workers (see Table 4-23). Backhoes were involved in 143 acciden ts between 1996 and 2004. Backhoes were disproportionately involved in accidents involving excavat ing, drilling, trenching, and backfilling (see Table 4-24). Note that some backhoes were used as a hoisting device and would hit power lines, thus elec trocuting workers. Additiona lly, vibrations from pieces of heavy equipment were repeatedly menti oned as a contributing factor in a trench collapse. This was especially true if the trench was not properl y secured as per OSHA regulations. Struck by equipment was the most prevalent Nature of Accident with 30.1% (see Table 4-25). The most common victim s were the operator (34.3%) and same task co-workers (30.8%) (see Table 426). Examples of Other of Task Type included pipe

PAGE 35

24 laying, loading, unloading, dumping, and inst alling & repairing (see Table 4-24). An example of Other for Nature of Accident included struck by material: vertical motion (see Table 4-25), while an example for Vict im Position was non-task co-worker (see Table 4-26). Further Investigations: Hauling Equipment In terms of vehicles that transport equipment and materials, trailers, dump trucks, and trucks were often involved. With trailers, lowboy rigging was often not done properly for safe hauling. Thus, during th e loading and off-loading procedure the equipment would rollover and pin the operator or the rigger. Additionally, when a piece of equipment rolled off a trailer and killed the operator, it was considered an accident involving of that particular piece of equipment and not of the trailer si nce it did not inflict the fatal blow. However, the most common Na ture of Accident was caught in/between a component and an object with 21.2% of the total occurrenc es (see Table 4-27). Same task co-workers were the most common vic tim (see Table 4-28). Fi nally, transporting items was the most common task (see Table 429). An example of Other for Nature of Accident included caught in/between: rollover & runoffs (see Table 4-27), an example of Victim Position was rigger & c onnector (see Table 4-28) and an example of Task Type was mobilizing & positioning (see Table 4-29). Dump Trucks Note that with dump trucks and regular trucks, most of the accidents involved reversing, basically mobilizing to haul a load (see Table 4-30). Specifically, most dump truck accidents involved struck-by accidents during hauling or mobilizing/positioning. Non-task co-workers were the most common victim with 55 accidents (See Table 4-32). Also, in falls from trucks most victims where employees in the truck bed, and the

PAGE 36

25 operators were deemed to be at fault for being responsible for the unsafe hazard. An Example of Other for Task was demob ilizing & dismantling (see Table 4-30), an example for Nature of Accident was struck by : material (see Table 4-31), and an example of Victim Position was ope rator (see Table 4-32). Trucks Trucks were involved in 108 accidents in th is investigation. Most truck accidents involved mobilizing and positioning with 36 occurrences, followed by work zone activities with 23 occurrences (see Table 4-33 ). Additionally, non-task co-workers were the most common victims, which seems to sugge st that they were struck by trucks when the drivers were not aware of their surroundi ng areas (see Table 4-35). An example of Other for Truck accidents by Task Type was transporti ng items (see Table 4-33), an example for Nature of Accident was caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs (see Table 4-34), and an example of Victim Position was manager & owner (see Table 4-35). Further Investigations: Earthmovi ng and Compaction Equipment Compactor Compactors were involved in 52 accidents, with the majority being concentrated between grading and compaction, with 36 occu rrences, and serving equipment, with 6 occurrences (see Table 4-36).Clearly, the majority was concentrated in grading and compaction with 69.2%. Caught in/between: ro llover and run-offs accounted for half of the total Nature of Accidents (see Table 4-37). Operators were most frequently fatally injured as a consequence of this type of heavy equipment accident (see Table 4-38). An example of Other for Task Type lowboy lo ading or unloading of equipment (see Table 4-36), an example for Nature of Accident was Struck by: Material (s ee Table 4-37), and an example for Victim Position was nontask co-worker (s ee Table 4-38).

PAGE 37

26 Dozers Dozers were involved in 55 accidents during the period studied in this investigation. There were various tasks that involved dozer accident s, led by clearing and earthmoving with 13 occurrences (see Table 439). In terms of Nature of Accident, struck by equipment was most prevalent (see Table 4-40). The most frequent victim was the operator with 54.5% of the to tal accidents (see Table 4-41). Finally, there was a large concentration of victims be tween the ages of 21-30 and 31-40, though there were 16 accidents missing information on victim age (see Table 4-42). An example of Other for dozer by Ta sk Type was lowboy loading equipment (see Table 4-39), an example for Nature of Accident was caught in/between component & object (see Table 4-40), and an example of Victim Position was spotter & flagger (see Table 4-41) 165 162 157 177 150 179 207 155 44 0 50 100 150 200 250 199619971998199920002001200220032004 4-1 Distribution of accidents by year of occurrence

PAGE 38

27 96 76 114 111 135 124 140 137 133 146 99 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160J an uar y Febru ar y M arc h A pr i l M a y J un e J ul y A ug us t S ep t e m ber O c t o ber N o v em be r D e c em be rMonthCount 4-2 Distribution of accidents by month < = 6 0 0 6 0 1 7 0 0 7 0 1 8 0 0 8 0 1 9 0 0 9 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 4 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 5 0 0 1 5 01 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 1 1 7 0 0 1 7 0 1 1 8 0 0 1 8 0 1 1 9 0 0 1 9 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 2 4 0 0 Time of Day (Military Time) 0 50 100 150Count 4-3 Occurrence of accident by time of day

PAGE 39

28 42 230 240 212 135 45 4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 16-2021-3031-4041-5051-6061-7071-80 Age of Worker (Banded)Count 4-4 Fatality count by age Operator ErrorNot Evident 61%Yes 11% No 28% 4-5 Frequency of operator error

PAGE 40

29 487 367 307 128 62 42 3 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Same Task Co-worker OperatorNon Task Co-worker Spotter & Flagger Rigger & Connector Manager & Owner CivilianVictim Position Count 4-6 Frequency by victim type

PAGE 41

30 4 4 14 15 19 24 26 26 28 31 33 40 47 52 52 53 55 70 108 111 132 140 143 169 050100150200Pavine Machine Milling/Post Hole Digging Motor Grader Truck Mounted Drill Rigger Scraper Bobcat Concrete Pump/Delivery.. Tractor Grader Loader Front-end Loader Scissor Lift Truck/Boom Crane Trailer Compactor & Roller Crane Boom Dozer Excavator Truck Forklift Dump Truck Aerial Lift Backhoe CraneEquipm ent Typ e Count 4-7 Frequency of accidents by heavy equipment type

PAGE 42

31 4-1 Accidents by year of occurrence, volum e of construction, and frequency to volume ratio Year Accident Frequency Percent Volume of Construction in Current Dollars (in Millions of $) Ratio (Freq./$ Volume) 1996 165 11.8$615,9000.000268 1997 162 11.6$653,4290.000248 1998 157 11.2$705,6850.000222 1999 177 12.7$766,0620.000231 2000 150 10.7$828,7680.000181 2001 179 12.8$852,5530.000210 2002 207 14.8$860,9230.000240 2003 155 11.1Not Available Not Available 2004 44 3.2Not Available Not Available Total 1396 100 4-2 Accidents by gender Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Male 881 63.1 63.1 Female 27 1.9 65.0 Total 908 65.0 65.0 Missing 488 35.0 100.0 Total 1396 100.0 100.0

PAGE 43

32 4-3 Nature of accident Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Struck by: Equipment 384 27.5 27.5 Caught in/between: Rollover & Runoffs 221 15.8 43.3 Caught in/between: Component & Object 193 13.8 57.1 Electrocution from Powerline 169 12.1 69.2 Fall 160 11.5 80.7 Struck by Material: Dropped 106 7.6 88.3 Struck by: Detached Equipment Parts 81 5.8 94.1 Struck by Material: Horizontal Motion; Cave-in 65 4.7 98.8 Burns & Explosions 13 .9 99.7 Health Reasons 4 .3 100.0 Total 1396 100.0

PAGE 44

33 4-4 Accidents by task type Task Type Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Mobilizing & Positioning 262 18.8 18.8 Hoisting 176 12.6 31.4 Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling 127 9.1 40.5 Moving, Lifting Items 107 7.7 48.2 Servicing Equipment 98 7.0 55.2 Grading & Compaction 83 5.9 61.1 Loading, Depositing, Dumping 70 5.0 66.1 Work Zone Activities 67 4.8 70.9 Hauling 66 4.7 75.6 Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing Work 61 4.4 80.0 Demobilization & Dismantling 52 3.7 83.7 Installing & Repairing 50 3.6 87.3 Clearing & Earthmoving 39 2.8 90.1 Pouring Concrete 21 1.5 91.6 Pipe Laying 21 1.5 93.1 Welding & Bolding 18 1.3 94.4 Transporting Items 18 1.3 95.7 Lowboy Loading Equipment 15 1.1 96.8 Painting 14 1.0 97.8 Cleaning 12 .9 98.7 Demolition 11 .8 99.5 Pile Driving 4 .25 99.8 Lowboy Un-loading Equipment 4 .25 100.0 Total 1396 100.0

PAGE 45

34 4-5 Frequency table of accident by type of equipment Type of Equipment Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Crane 169 12.1 12.1 Backhoe 143 10.2 22.3 Aerial Lift 140 10.0 32.3 Dump Truck 132 9.5 41.8 Forklift 111 8.0 49.8 Truck 108 7.7 57.5 Excavator 70 5.0 62.5 Dozer 55 3.9 66.4 Crane Boom 53 3.8 70.2 Trailer 52 3.7 73.9 Compactor & Roller 52 3.7 77.6 Boom Trucks 47 3.4 81.0 Scissor Lift 40 2.9 83.9 Front-end Loader 33 2.4 86.3 Loader 31 2.2 88.5 Grader 28 2.0 90.5 Tractor 26 1.9 92.4 Concrete Pump/Delivery Truck 26 1.9 94.3 Bobcat 24 1.7 96.0 Scraper 19 1.4 97.4 Truck Mounted Drill Rigger 15 1.1 98.5 Motor Grader 14 1.0 99.5 Milling/Post Hole Digging Machine 4 .25 99.75 Paving Machine 4 .25 100 Total 1396 100.0 4-6 Crane accidents by nature of accidents Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Struck by Material: Dropped 47 27.8 Electrocution from Powerline 38 22.5 Fall 27 16.0 Struck by: Horizontal Motion; Cave in 18 10.7 Other 39 23.0 Total 169 100.0

PAGE 46

35 4-7 Crane accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Same Task Co-worker 54 32.0 Non-task Co-worker 39 23.1 Other 76 44.9 Total 169 100 4-8 Crane boom accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Struck by: Detached Equipment Parts 28 52.8 Electrocution from Powerline 8 15.1 Other 17 32.0 Total 53 100.0 4-9 Crane boom by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Same Task Co-worker 21 39.6 Non-task Co-worker 15 28.3 Operator 9 17.0 Other 8 15.1 Total 53 100.0 4-10 Crane boom by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Hoisting 22 41.5 Demobilization & Dismantling 16 30.2 Other 15 28.3 Total 53 100.0 4-11 Boom truck accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Electrocution from Powerline 28 59.6 Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 6 12.8 Other 13 27.6 Total 47 100.0 4-12 Boom truck accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Hoisting 21 44.7 Mobilizing & Positioning 5 10.6 Other 21 44.7 Total 47 55.3

PAGE 47

36 4-13 Forklift accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 40 36.0 Fall 21 18.9 Struck by: Equipment 16 14.4 Struck by Material: Dropped 16 14.4 Other 18 16.3 Total 111 100.0 4-14 Forklift accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Moving, Lifting Items 61 55.0 Mobilizing & Positioning 26 23.4 Other 24 21.6 Total 111 100.0 4-15 Forklift accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Operator 39 35.1 Same Task Co-worker 35 31.5 Non-task Co-worker 23 20.7 Other 14 12.7 Total 111 100.0 4-16 Aerial lift accident s by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Electrocution from Powerline 50 35.7 Fall 46 32.9 Other 44 31.4 Total 140 100.0 4-17 Aerial lift accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Mobilizing & Positioning 47 33.6 Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing Work 44 31.4 Other 49 35.0 Total 140 100.0

PAGE 48

37 4-18 Aerial lift accide nts by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Same Task Co-worker 125 89.3 Other 15 10.7 Total 140 100.0 4-19 Scissor lift accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Mobilizing & Positioning 19 47.5 Installing & Repairing 7 17.5 Metal Work: Welding & Bolting 5 12.5 Other 9 22.5 Total 40 100.0 4-20 Scissor lift accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Fall 23 57.5 Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 9 22.5 Other 8 20.0 Total 40 100.0 4-21 Scissor lift acciden ts by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Operator 23 57.5 Same Task Co-worker 13 32.5 Other 4 10.0 Total 40 100.0 4-22 Excavator accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling 34 48.6 Other 36 51.4 Total 70 100.0 4-23 Excavator accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Operator 24 34.3 Same Task Co-worker 20 28.6 Other 26 37.1 Total 70 100.0

PAGE 49

38 4-24 Backhoe accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Excavating, Drilling, Trenching, Backfilling 62 43.4 Moving, Lifting Items 15 10.5 Mobilizing & Positioning 19 13.3 Other 47 32.8 Total 143 100.0 4-25 Backhoe accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Struck by: Equipment 43 30.1 Caught in/between: Component & Object 29 20.3 Other 71 49.6 Total 143 100.0 4-26 Backhoe accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Operator 49 34.3 Same Task Co-worker 44 30.8 Other 50 34.9 Total 143 100.0 4-27 Trailer accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Struck by: Equipment 18 34.6 Caught in/between: Component & Object 11 21.2 Struck by Material: Dropped 6 11.5 Other 17 32.7 Total 52 100.0 4-28 Trailer accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Same Task Co-worker 18 34.6 Non-task Co-worker 13 25.0 Other 21 40.4 Total 52 100.0 4-29 Trailer accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Transporting Items 12 23.1 Loading, Depositing, Dumping 9 17.3 Other 31 59.6 Total 52 100.0

PAGE 50

39 4-30 Dump truck accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Hauling 37 28.0 Mobilizing & Positioning 30 22.7 Work Zone Activities 21 15.9 Loading, Depositing, Dumping 20 15.2 Servicing Equipment 18 13.6 Other 6 4.6 Total 132 100.0 4-31 Dump truck accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Struck by: Equipment 88 66.7 Caught in/between: Component & Object 25 18.9 Other 19 14.4 Total 132 100.0 4-32 Dump truck accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Non-task Co-worker 55 41.7 Same Task Co-worker 31 23.5 Other 46 34.8 Total 132 100.0 4-33 Truck accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Mobilizing & Positioning 36 33.3 Work Zone Activities 23 21.3 Other 49 45.4 Total 108 100.0 4-34 Truck accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Struck by: Equipment 66 61.1 Other 42 38.9 Total 108 100.0 4-35 Truck accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Non-task Co-worker 47 43.5 Same Task Co-worker 31 28.7 Other 30 27.8 Total 108 100.0

PAGE 51

40 4-36 Compactor and roller accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Grading & Compaction 36 69.2 Servicing Equipment 6 11.5 Other 10 19.3 Total 52 100.0 4-37 Compactor and roller accid ents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 26 50.0 Struck by: Equipment 15 28.8 Other 11 21.2 Total 52 100.0 4-38 Compactor and roller acc idents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Operator 33 63.5 Other 19 36.5 Total 52 100.0 4-39 Dozer accidents by task type Type of Task Frequency Percent Clearing & Earthmoving 13 23.6 Grading & Compaction 9 16.4 Mobilizing & Positioning 9 16.4 Demobilizing & Dismantling 7 12.7 Other 17 30.9 Total 55 100.0 4-40 Dozer accidents by nature of accident Type of Nature of Accident Frequency Percent Struck by: Equipment 26 47.3 Caught in/between: Rollover & Run-offs 18 32.7 Other 11 20.0 Total 55 100.0

PAGE 52

41 4-41 Dozer accidents by victim position Type of Victim Position Frequency Percent Operator 30 54.5 Non-task Co-worker 14 25.5 Other 11 20 Total 55 100.0 4-42 Dozer accidents by age (banded) Type of Age (Banded) Frequency Percent 21 30 15 27.3 31 40 10 18.2 Missing 16 29.1 Other 14 25.4 Total 55 100.0

PAGE 53

42 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Limitations of the Data The level of detail varies in each ab stract recorded, thus, there were many inconsistencies observed in the descriptions of over 6,200 accident abst racts. The length of each abstract could vary from one se ntence to one page. Another challenge encountered was the vagueness of some of th e abstracts. At points it was difficult to assess the operator error, victim type, and task being performed during the accident, and even the equipment involved. Additionall y, common construction jargon describing a piece of equipment by its manufacturer instea d of its actual model name made labeling difficult. For example, CAT was used for Caterpillar, which makes several different types of heavy equipment. So, when labels we re too vague to disti nguish exactly the type of equipment, the accident was not consider ed in this research, e.g. employee was run over by CAT heavy equipment. Limitations of the Research The first limitation of the research was th at it only accounted fo r one casualty per accident and only one piece of heavy equipment. Second, some overgeneralizations occurred when subcategor ies under Nature of Accide nt and Task Type were combined to limit the total number of s ub-categories. For example, Excavating, Backfilling, Trenching were all combined even though they are not the same task.

PAGE 54

43 Another case was Mobilizing and Positioni ng. Mobilizing entails transporting a piece of equipment to a work site, while pos itioning is physically moving the piece of equipment into a precise position so that it allows a worker to perform the task. Conclusions Pertaining to all pieces of heavy cons truction equipment, inexperienced or unqualified operators were responsible for ma ny accidents. Misjudgment of the work area, improper equipment operation, and im proper equipment maintenance were common types of operator errors. In terms of the frequency by year, there was no clear trend of the accidents from 1996 to 2004. Frequency by month seemed to denote that a greater concentration of accidents occurred in the warmer months, fr om May to October. This timing could simply reflect the increased construction ac tivity in the summer months. Accidents by victims age peaked between 31 to 40 years. The pieces of heavy equipment most involved in fatal accidents were cranes, backhoes, forklifts, aerial lifts, and dump tr uck. They were involved in approximately 49.8% of the total accidents The most prevalent Nature of Accide nt was struck by equipment with 27.5%, followed by caught in/between, then electrocutions, a nd falls. These results generally re-affirm McVitties research findings that struck-by or caught in/between categories were the most prevalent. Howeve r, this studys cate gory breakdowns are not exactly the same as McVitties in terms of the designations of sub-categories. The only two task types that capture over 10% of the total population were Mobilizing and Positioning and Hoisting which could i ndicate that those activities should be performed with more caution. Operator Error was the category that was least

PAGE 55

44 defined. In 61% of the cases, it was not evident if it was operator error because of the way the abstract was written. Victim by ge nder showed that 97% of the victims were men. Victim by position showed that same ta sk co-workers were most often involved, followed by the operator, and the non-task co-worker. All together, they accounted for 83.2% of the victims. The most evident conclusion is that fatalities involving heavy equipment in construction continue to be a major problem that needs to keep being addressed in the industry. This analysis identified when, wh ere, and how fatal acc idents occurred, not whether OSHA regulations were followed. Howe ver, lack of OSHA compliance appeared to be a contributing factor, according to the OSHA investigation reports. Overall, there are still many areas where better design, pl anning, and communication could be used to reduce future accidents. It was clear while read ing each investigation report that most of fatal accidents could have been prevented by applying simple safety measures. Finally, it is this researchers belief that only with greater awareness about accidents involving heavy equipment in construction, can future fa talities be avoided. St udies like this one should help accomplish this objective.

PAGE 56

45 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS There are three main recommendations from this study of fatalities involving heavy equipment in construction. The first recomm endation is to reinforce common practices used in the construction industry. Secondly, new ideas could be adopted by the construction industry. Lastly, suggestions are offered for future research. Reinforcing Pre-Exiting Ideas Seat belts should always be worn by opera tors. Operators had a tendency of being pinned by the equipment that they fell out of during a rollover. For example, The excavator was equipped with a rollover prot ective structure (ROPS) and a seat belt. The deceased was not wearing the seat belt But the operator continued by jumping out of the cab instead of just trusting the piece of equipment. Design for safety. Efforts to design for sa fety involve the entir e project team. In other words, the owner, arch itect, engineers, and contra ctor should take an active role in safety during the pr oject design. Whenever possibl e safety should be a topic at official Owner-Architect-Contract or meetings during the design phase. Be aware of work surroundings. Several of the struck by equipment accidents resulted from co-workers being run-over dur ing reversing. This is an example of an accident that can easily be avoided. Follow proper equipment certif ication requirements and ma intenance guidelines. A number of accidents involved workers being pinned by pieces of the equipment during maintenance or servicing. Proper operator licensing and sa fety training certification requirements. This is to ensure that the best operator is employed during construction. Compliance with OSHAs established safe ty and maintenance standards. See appendix C. New Ideas Suggest that OSHA adopt the categories and subcategories (found in this research) when filling out the initial incident report. These include Date, Time of Day, Task

PAGE 57

46 Type, Equipment Type, Operator Error, Na ture Of Accident, and Victim Position. That would greatly redu ce the time involved in a ssessing the abstracts. Greater owner involvement with safety. Own er participation in safety will filter down to the contractor and th e subcontractors. This leads to safer sites that get completed on time and within budget. Als o, the contractor pays less insurance on the job by having less recordable incidents. Design for Safety. By using the findings of this analysis, designers/engineers can get a better idea of what products, need to be designed safer for specific activities. Some ideas include: o Use sensors to tell operators that eq uipment is out of balance to avoid rollover accidents. o Use video cameras or at least strobe lights to reduce the number of people being run over in reverse (struck by), to better notify people behind them because the horns used are some times ignored or drowned out by construction noise. Suggestions for Future Research Have members of a team of researchers independently review the same accident reports, where each researcher will read a nd categorize each abstract. The results will then be compared and discussed. This will help increase the accuracy of properly categorizing the information contai ned in each abstract. Additionally, it would help reduce low reading understanding /retention attributed to reading vast amounts of fatality cases. Expand the research categories. Future re search could include the same results portion but have the Fataliti es by Month to be divide d by the actual amount of work done by month over the time period. This process would be repeated for the amount work is being performed by time of day, by the hours of usage for each piece of equipment, and by age distribution of construction workers in a given time period. Create a causal model to establish rela tionships. This research focused on correlations. Establishing a causal model would yield more definitive conclusions.

PAGE 58

47 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF EQUIPMENT Aerial Lift a power-driven hydraulic lift or boom w ith a bucket at the end used to perform work in hard to reach places. This term includes sky lifts and bucket trucks for the purposes in this paper. The assumption in this study was that the person in the bucket is not the operator, just a task-related co-worker. Backhoe a power-driven tracked or wheeled excava tor with a large hi nged bucket at the end of a jointed arm on the front a nd a smaller bucket at the rear. Bobcat a power-driven tracked or wheeled fr ont-end loader used to handle/move materials in smaller sized operations. Boom Truck a power-driven wheeled crane, hydrau lic or telescoping in nature. Crane Boom the lattice portion of a crane. In this study it refers to the part of the crane responsible for the accident. Crane a power-driven tracked, wheeled, or tower machine used in hoisting heavy loads to and from locations on a construction site. For this study, cranes in clude crawlers, tower cranes, latticework booms, and hydraulic booms. Compactors power-driven devices used to which re duces the volume of waste material by subjection it to pressure (weight). Rollers power-driven machine with a large steel roller used for compaction via vertical weight. For this study, rollers will be classified as a compactor.

PAGE 59

48 Concrete Pump Truck a power-driven vehicle that deli vers concrete via a hydraulic arm used in areas that ar e inaccessible to a crane and bucke t or that are too congested for buggies operating on runways. Dump Truck wheeled vehicle with a large hydraulic bed used for hauling and depositing material. Dozer A tractor or other prime mover equipped w ith a blade attached by arms or brackets to its front end; used in pus hing or piling earth or rock. Excavator Any of a number of power-driven machin es used to dig, move, and transport earth or other materials. Forklift A power-operated vehicle having heavy steel prongs which can be moved in position under a load on pa llets, and then raised. Front end loader A bucket and lift-arm assembly designed for use on the front of a tractor; hydraulic cylinders, which raise and lo wer the lift arms, tip the bucket so that it may be dumped in the elevated position. Loader a power-driven machine equipped with a front-mounted bucket and lift arms for pushing and raising a load of earth or other construction materials. Grader a power-driven machine used for leve ling and crowning, mixing and spreading, ditching, but not for heavy excavation. Motor Grader a power-driven dirt-moving machin e for leveling and planning the surface to fine tolerances by means of a bl ade set and held at a precise slope and elevation. Milling Machine a machine consisting of a rotating mandrel carrying a milling cutter, and a movable table, operated by a feed screw, to which is bolted the object to be milled.

PAGE 60

49 Paving Machine a power-driven, prefabricated unit used for surfacing the ground. Scissor Lift a mechanized platform machine used for lifting and position of the operator so work can be performed. It was assumed that the operators are in ones in the elevated platforms. Scraper a self-propelled machine capable of digging, loading, hauling, dumping, and spreading materials; used to move earth by st ripping or collection a layer with a cutting blade while moving forward, pushing the earth into a bow l, and then unloading it. Tractor a powerful engine-driven vehicle, on wh eels or on tracks, used for pushing or pulling attachments or tools. Trailer a device usually attached to a large truc k used to tow rigged down materials. Truck a power-driven vehicle with a cab and a bed in the back usually driven by construction workers because of their abil ity to load items. This study excludes 18wheelers or any large commercial truck.

PAGE 61

50 LIST OF REFERENCES Benjamin, N.; Day, D. (1989) Construction Equipment Guide. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken. Construction Industry. Roller Compactor Sa fety Manual for Operating and Maintenance Personnel Construction Industry Manuf acturers Association (1978) Chicago. Construction Industry Institute. Design for Construction Safety Toolbox . http://www.construction-institute.org/script content/more/ir101_2_more.cfm. (Retrieved 2006). New York. Harris, Cyril M. (1975). Dictionary of Architecture and Construction McGraw-Hill Book Company Hinze, J., Bren, D. (1996). Analysis of Fatalities and Injuries Due to Powerline Contacts. J. Construction Engineering and Management Vol. 122 No.2 Hinze, J., Haas, J., Gambatese, J. (1997). T ool to design for construction worker safety J. Construction. Architectural Eng. Vol. 3 p.32-41 Hinze, J., Huang, X., Terry, L. (2005). T he Nature of Struck-by Accidents J. Construction. Eng. Manage. Vol. 131 McVittie D. Fatalities and Serious Injuries. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. Vol. 10. No. 2. April 1995. Occupation Safety and Health Administra tion. Integrated Management Information System. (1990-2004). Thomson, Bernadine I. Investig ation of Equipment Related In juries and Fatalities in Construction. (Masters of Science in Ci vil Engineering, University of Washington, 1996), 3-15. United States Census Bureau. Value of Construction Put into Place Statistics. http://www.census.gov/const/C30/oldt c.html (Retrieved Feb 2006). United States. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Construction Industry Facts. (Retrieved Feb 2006). United States. Department of Labor. Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (1990). Analysis of construction fatalitiesThe OSHA database 1985-1989, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 62

51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jonathan Bedford was born in 1982 in Qu ito, Ecuador to two loving parents, Anthony and Martha Bedford. He has since moved around the world, living in Brazil, El Salvador, and Miami, Florida. Throughout all of his travels, he was been steadfast with his academic studies. Jonathan graduated from Miami Palmetto Senior High in 2001 in the top 10% of his class while passing ten of his advanced placement classes, allowing him to enter the University of Florida with a sophomore stan ding. Jonathan was able to complete his bachelors of science in finance from th e Warrington College of Business with a 3.45 GPA in just three years. Jonathan decided to go straight throu gh and pursue his masters of science in building construction from the University of Floridas Rinker School of Building Construction and expects to graduate in the fall of 2006.