4.5 Article

Analysis of Residential Framing Accidents, Activities, and Task Demands

Journal

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000119

Keywords

Safety; Residential framing; Errors; Accidents; Accident prevention; High-risk tasks; Task demands

Funding

  1. NSF
  2. CAREER Award [0645139]
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1158572] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Framing contractors have the highest rate of nonfatal incidents among specialty contractors. This case study analyzes 654 safety incidents that occurred over a period of 5(1/2) years in a large residential framing company. Accident analysis and interviews with safety and production experts identify the high-risk tasks, the errors that lead to incidents, and the task factors that increase the likelihood of incidents. The analysis resulted in a framework of five task factors that increase the task demands: (1) working platform constraints; (2) ergonomic postures constraints; (3) material/load handling requirements; (4) tool use/accuracy requirements; and (5) difficulties due to external forces. The combined effect of these factors determines the task difficulty and the likelihood of incidents. The paper discusses safety measures to reduce the task demands of the high-risk tasks, as opposed to measures that reduce exposure or mitigate the consequences. Reducing task demands can reduce the likelihood of accidents while at the same time increasing productivity. For practitioners, the study points to the need to understand the high-risk tasks and reduce task demands in their operations. The framework of the five task demand factors provides the building blocks of task difficulty for framing tasks and provides directions for further research in understanding and mitigating the combined effect of the task demand factors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available