Quantitative Assessment of the State of Threat of Working on Construction Scaffolding
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Accident Analysis
2.2. Construction Scaffolding Tests
2.3. Quantitative Assessment
- the value of 0.1 means that the probability of a hazard occurring is theoretically possible and equal to 0.000001 (0.0001%);
- the value of 0.2 means that the probability is theoretically possible and equal to 0.00001 (0.001%);
- the value of 0.5 means that the probability is possible and equal to 0.0001 (0.01%);
- the value of 1.0 means that the probability is possible and equal to 0.001 (0.1%);
- the value of 3.0 means that the probability is possible and equal to 0.01 (1%);
- the value of 6.0 means that the probability is possible and equal to 0.1 (10%); and
- the value of 10.0 means that is very possible and equal to 0.5 (50%).
- 0 < Wz < 1.1: there is almost no threat,
- 1.2 < Wz < 2.1: a threat is insignificant,
- 2.1 < Wz < 2.8: a threat exists,
- 2.9 < Wz < 3.1: a threat occurs to a large extent, and
- 3.2 < Wz < 3.5: a threat occurs to a high degree.
3. Results
3.1. Accident Analysis
3.1.1. Scaffolding Type (t)
3.1.2. Type of Conducted Work (r)
3.1.3. Height from which the Injured Person Fell (h)
3.1.4. Time when the Accident Occurred (g)
3.1.5. The Size of the Enterprise Where the Accident Occurred (f)
3.1.6. Age of the Victim (w)
3.1.7. Experience of People Working on Scaffolding (d)
3.1.8. Employment Status (z)
3.2. Construction Scaffolding Tests
3.2.1. Technical Conditions of Scaffolding (s)
3.2.2. Foundations (p)
- the foundation of scaffolding frames on separated sleepers—42 scaffoldings;
- scaffolding frames placed too close or on the edge of the underlay—23 scaffoldings;
- underlays that are more narrow than required—21 scaffoldings;
- a lack of underlays—20 scaffoldings;
- underlays covered with soil or debris—14 scaffoldings;
- cracked underlays—2 scaffoldings; and
- underlays made of unsuitable materials, for example, hollow bricks, bricks, loose boards—10 scaffoldings.
4. Quantitative Assessment of the State of Threat of Working on Scaffolding
- for technical factors (WT):
- o scaffolding type: the scaffolding type that is used during the execution of work and the value of the partial hazard coefficient that corresponds to the indicated type of scaffolding should be selected (Wt);
- o technical condition: the number of damaged, as well as all elements, should be determined in the following order: frames, working platforms, handrails, toe boards, and communication lines—ladders. The value of the partial hazard coefficient (Ws) was determined using formula (2) presented in Section 2. In the case of a lack of the possibility of assessing the technical condition of these items, the following designated values should be used:
- ▪ for scaffolding with an area from 30 to 600 m2: Ws = 0.07,
- ▪ for scaffolding with an area from 600 to 900 m2: Ws = 0.04, and
- ▪ for scaffolding with an area above 900 m2: Ws = 0.03.
- o the number of vertical elements of all frames: pairs of scaffolding foundations and the number of incorrectly placed frames should be specified. The value of the partial hazard coefficient (Wp) should be determined using formula (3) presented in Section 2. In the case of a lack of the possibility of assessing the correctness of foundations, the following designated values should be used:
- ▪ for scaffolding with an area from 30 to 300 m2: Wp = 0.57,
- ▪ for scaffolding with an area from 300 to 900 m2: Wp = 0.50, and
- ▪ for scaffolding with an area above 900 m2: Wp = 0.47.
- for organizational factors (WO):
- o the type of conducted work during which scaffolding will be used and the value of the partial hazard coefficient (Wr) that corresponds to this type of work should be selected;
- o the height at which work will be carried out at a construction site: the appropriate heights at which scaffolding work is planned and the sum of the corresponding values of the partial hazard coefficient (Wh) should be selected;
- o the time when scaffolding work will be carried out: the appropriate time periods in which carrying out work on scaffolding is planned and the summary values of the partial hazard coefficient (Wg) that correlates to these periods should be selected; and
- o enterprise size: the appropriate value of the partial hazard coefficient (Wf) that corresponds to the number of people employed and working on the analyzed scaffolding should be selected;
- for human factors (WH):
- o the age of people employed to work on scaffolding: the values of the partial hazard coefficient (Ww) with regards to the number of employed people within age ranges should be calculated. The value of the partial hazard coefficient (Ww) for individual age ranges should be determined using the following formula:
- n is the analyzed age range (18–19, 20–29, …, >60);
- Uwn is the partial coefficient for the analyzed n-th age range;
- lon is the number of working people from the n-th analyzed age range; and
- ln is the total number of people working on the analyzed scaffolding;
- o work experience of people employed to work on scaffolding: should be calculated similarly to age as the value of the partial hazard coefficient (Wd) with regards to the number of employed people with corresponding professional experience; and
- o employment status: should be calculated in the same way as age—as a partial hazard coefficient (Wz) with regards to the number of employed people possessing an appropriate employment form.
5. Form of Quantitatively Assessing the State of Threat of Working on Construction Scaffolding
- a scaffolding area of approximately 1050 m2, number of modules 17, maximum number of working levels 11, width 4.50 m, and height 24.30 m,
- frame scaffolding,
- as a result of the damage inventory, the following were identified: 1 damaged frame out of 234 of such elements, 3 damaged working platforms out of 204 of such elements, 16 damaged handrails out of 856 of such elements, 1 damaged toe board out of 228 of such elements and no damage in communication elements,
- foundation analysis showed that 3 out of 18 underlays were incorrect—2 underlays were covered, 1 underlay was cracked,
- scaffolding was used next to a newly erected building,
- work carried out along the entire scaffolding height—above 12 m,
- work carried out from 07:00 to 17:00—a 10-hour day shift,
- 15 people working on scaffolding, who are characterized by the following information:
- o all people were employed for a definite period and on a full-time basis,
- o 4 people within the 40–49 age range and with experience ranging from 16 to 20 years,
- o 6 people within the 30–39 age range and with experience ranging from 6 to 10 years,
- o 5 people within the 20–29 age range and with lack of experience.
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hoła, B.; Nowobilski, T.; Szer, I.; Szer, J. Identification of factors affecting the accident rate in the construction industry. Procedia Eng. 2017, 208, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaafar, M.H.; Arifin, K.; Aiyub, K.; Razman, M.R.; Kamaruddin, M.A. Human Element as the Contributing Factor Towards Construction Accidents from the Perspective of Malaysian Residential Construction Industry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 296–308. [Google Scholar]
- Jazayeri, E.; Dadi, G. Construction safety management systems and methods of safety performance measurement: A Review. J. Saf. Eng. 2017, 6, 15–28. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, K.; Rahmandad, H.; Smith-Jackson, T.; Winchester, W. Factors influencing the risk of falls in the construction industry: A review of the evidence. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 397–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, S.; Han, S. Analyses of systems theory for construction accident prevention with specific reference to OSHA accident reports. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 1027–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prabakar, R.; Karthigaipriya, T. Safety management in construction sites–fall from height. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2019, 6, 2650–2654. [Google Scholar]
- Ohdo, K. The effect of fall prevention methods for construction scaffolds in accident prevention In AHFE 2018: Advances in Safety Management and Human Factors; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 306–314. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, L.; Chan, A.H.S. A meta-analysis of the relationship between ageing and occupational safety and health. Saf. Sci. 2019, 112, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, A.P.C.; Wong, F.K.W.; Chan, D.W.M.; Yam, M.C.H.; Kwok, A.W.K.; Lam, E.W.M.; Cheung, E. Work at height fatalities in the repair, maintenance, alteration, and addition works. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minister of Infrastructure Order of 6 February 2003 on Health and Safety at Work during Construction Works (Law Gazette, No. 47, It. 401). 2003. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20030470401 (accessed on 24 June 2020). (In Polish)
- Chi, C.-F.; Lin, S.-Z.; Dewi, R.S. Graphical fault tree analysis for fatal falls in the construction industry. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 72, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio-Romero, J.C.; Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A.L.; Gibb, A. Prevention of falls to a lower level: Evaluation of an occupational health and safety intervention via subsidies for the replacement of scaffolding. Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot. 2015, 22, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szóstak, M. The influence of selected types of works on accident phenomenon in the construction. Mater. Bud. 2018, 1, 109–111. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Guo, B.H.W.; Goh, Y.M.; Scheepbouwer, E.; Zou, Y. An Ontology of Control Measures for Fall from Height in the Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018), Berlin, Germany, 20–25 July 2018; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Antwi-Afari, M.F.; Li, H. Fall risk assessment of construction workers based on biomechanical gait stability parameters using wearable insole pressure system. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2018, 38, 683–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ohdo, K.; Hino, Y.; Takanashi, S.; Takanashi, H.; Toyosawa, Y. Study on fall protection from scaffolds by scaffold sheeting during construction. Procedia Eng. 2011, 14, 2179–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wong, L.; Wang, Y.; Law, T.; Lo, C.T. Association of root causes in fatal fall-from-height construction accidents in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajith, S.; Sivapragasam, C.; Arumugaprabu, V. Analysis on constructional hazards, risk assessment techniques and safety helmets in construction sites. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2019; p. 050013. [Google Scholar]
- Calixto, E. Safety Science: Methods to Prevent Incidents and Worker Health Damage at the Workplace; Bentham Science Publishers: Sharjah, UAE, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Saedpanah, K.; Motamedzade, M.; Salimi, K.; Eskandari, T.; Samaei, S.E. Physical risk factors among construction workers by Workplace Ergonomic Risk Assessment (WERA) Method. Arch. Occup. Health 2018, 2, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
- Burkov, V.; Burkova, I.; Barkhi, R.; Berlinov, M. Qualitative Risk Assessments in Project Management in Construction Industry. In MATEC Web Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 251, p. 06027. [Google Scholar]
- Albrechtsen, E.; Solberg, I.; Svensli, E. The application and benefits of job safety analysis. Saf. Sci. 2019, 113, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, E.L.; Henshaw, J.L. Job Hazard Analysis; US Department of Labor: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
- Rozenfeld, O.; Sacks, R.; Rosenfeld, Y.; Baum, H. Construction job aafety analysis. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, W.; Shuai, J.; Shan, K. The energy source based job safety analysis and application in the project. Saf. Sci. 2017, 93, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunduz, M.; Laitinen, H. Construction safety risk assessment with introduced control levels. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Statistics on Accident at Work (ESAW). Summary Methodology; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Sawicki, M.; Szóstak, M. Analysis of the Dependence between the Number of Accidents at Workplaces that Involve Scaffolding and Changes in Work Efficiency. In MATEC Web Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 174. [Google Scholar]
- Hoła, B.; Nowobilski, T. Classification of economic regions with regards to selected factors characterizing the construction industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoła, B.; Sawicki, M.; Szóstak, M.; Błazik-Borowa, E.; Czarnocki, K.; Szer, J. Research scaffolding at a construction site. Buidler 2016, 20, 80–83. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Robak, A.; Pieńko, M.; Błazik-Borowa, E.; Bęc, J.; Szer, I. Analysis of Exploitation Damages of the Frame Scaffolding. In MATEC Web Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2019; Volume 284, p. 08008. [Google Scholar]
- Pieńko, M.; Robak, A.; Błazik-Borowa, E.; Szer, J. Safety conditions analysis of scaffolding on construction sites. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Civil Environ. Eng. 2018, 12, 93–98. [Google Scholar]
- Hoła, A.; Sawicki, M.; Szóstak, M. Methodology of classifying the causes of occupational accidents involving construction scaffolding using Pareto-Lorenz analysis. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kmiecik, P.; Gnot, D.; Jurkiewicz, R.; Nowika-Słowik, E.; Brajza, M. Rusztowania Robocze i Ochronne; Polish Scientific Publishersd PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2018. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Rubio-Romero, J.C.; Carmen Rubio Gámez, M.; Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A. Analysis of the safety conditions of scaffolding on construction sites. Saf. Sci. 2013, 55, 160–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, D.J.; Sun, Y.M.; Chuang, K.H.; Juang, Y.J.; Chang, F.L. Effect of elevation change on work fatigue and physiological symptoms for high-rise building construction workers. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 833–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grosel, J.; Sawicki, W.; Sawicki, M.; Szóstak, M.; Wójcicki, Z. The Effect of Vibration on the Possibility of a Threat to the Health of Workers on Scaffolding. In MATEC Web Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 196. [Google Scholar]
- Shao, B.; Hu, Z.; Liu, Q.; Chen, S.; He, W. Fatal accident patterns of building construction activities in China. Saf. Sci. 2019, 111, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Central Statistical Office. Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2008–2017; Central Statistical Office: Warsaw, Poland, 2009–2018. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, C.-W.; Leu, S.-S.; Lin, C.-C.; Fan, C. Characteristic analysis of occupational accidents at small construction enterprises. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullock, J. Physiology; Urban and Partner Medical Publishing House: Wroclaw, Poland, 2004. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Traczyk, W.Z.; Trzebski, A. Human Physiology with Elements of Applied and Clinical Physiology; PZWL Medical Publishing House: Warsaw, Poland, 2001. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Szóstak, M. Analysis of occupational accidents in the construction industry with regards to selected time parameters. Open Eng. 2019, 9, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Scaffolding Type | System | Frame | Modular | Tubular | Carriageable | Warsaw | Suspended |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of injured people () | 31 | 64 | 3 | 5 | 24 | 65 | 2 |
Partial hazard coefficient () | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.34 | 0.01 |
Type of Conducted Work | Construction Work | Renovation Work | Scaffolding Assembly | Scaffolding Dismantling | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of victims ()—total | 110 | 83 | 12 | 14 | 219 |
Number of victims ()—fatal | 22 | 15 | 1 | 3 | 41 |
Number of victims ()—severe | 56 | 42 | 6 | 7 | 111 |
Number of victims ()—light | 32 | 26 | 5 | 4 | 67 |
Partial hazard coefficient () | 0.50 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 1.00 |
Height from which the Injured Person Fell | Number of Victims —Total | Number of Victims —Fatal | Number of Victims —Severe | Number of Victims —Light | Partial Hazard Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
less than 1 m | 8 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 0.04 |
1–2 m | 18 | 1 | 11 | 6 | 0.08 |
3–4 m | 80 | 5 | 43 | 32 | 0.37 |
5–6 m | 42 | 5 | 18 | 19 | 0.19 |
7–8 m | 23 | 7 | 13 | 3 | 0.11 |
9–10 m | 15 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0.07 |
11–12 m | 12 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0.05 |
more than 12 m | 21 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 0.10 |
Time when the Accident Occurred | 07:00–07:59 | 08:00–08:59 | 09:00–09:59 | 10:00–10:59 | 11:00–11:59 | 12:00–12:59 | 13:00–13:59 | 14:00–14:59 | 15:00–15:59 | 16:00–16:59 | 17:00–17:59 | 18:00–06:59 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of victims () | 12 | 19 | 26 | 17 | 16 | 18 | 13 | 27 | 19 | 11 | 3 | 4 |
Partial hazard coefficient () | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Enterprise Size (Number of Employees) | Micro-Enterprises (1–9) | Small Enterprises (10–49) | Medium Enterprises (50–249) | Big Enterprises (above 250) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of victims () | 129 | 78 | 10 | 2 |
Partial hazard coefficient () | 0.59 | 0.36 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
Victim’s Age | 18–19 | 20–29 | 30–39 | 40–49 | 50–59 | >60 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of victims () | 3 | 33 | 30 | 35 | 41 | 6 |
Partial hazard coefficient () | 0.02 | 0.22 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.04 |
Work Experience | 1 Year and Less | 2 to 3 Years | 4 to 5 Years | 6 to 10 Years | 11 to 15 Years | 16 to 20 Years | Over 20 Years |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of victims () | 69 | 20 | 10 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Partial hazard coefficient () | 0.59 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Employment Status | Self Employed | Worker Employed for an Indefinite Period | Worker Employed for a Fixed Term | Trainee /s\Student | Specific Work Contract | Contract of Mandate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of victims () | 5 | 42 | 65 | 1 | 12 | 26 |
Partial hazard coefficient () | 0.03 | 0.28 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.17 |
Scaffolding Area (m2) | Average Number of Items/Damaged Items | Partial Hazard Coefficient | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frames | Working Platforms | Handrails | Toe Boards | Vertical Elements/Ladders | All Elements | ||||||||
30–300 | 1.23 | 36.64 | 3.60 | 28.44 | 4.45 | 72.29 | 1.24 | 26.73 | 0.87 | 6.05 | 11.45 | 170.15 | 0.07 |
300–600 | 3,18 | 75.75 | 9.14 | 64.61 | 8.21 | 152.54 | 3.86 | 47.43 | 0.89 | 8.54 | 25.29 | 348.86 | 0.07 |
600–900 | 3.64 | 148.52 | 9.44 | 120.88 | 10.88 | 355.12 | 1.72 | 127.52 | 1.60 | 15.12 | 27.28 | 767.16 | 0.04 |
900–1500 | 8.08 | 229.25 | 11.42 | 197.67 | 12.83 | 657.83 | 6.00 | 213.00 | 1.50 | 20.83 | 39.83 | 1318.58 | 0.03 |
Scaffolding Area (m2) | Average Number of Vertical Elements of All Frames and Foundation pairs | Average Number of Incorrectly Placed Frames and Damaged Underlays | Partial Hazard Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|
30–300 | 6.02 | 3.44 | 0.57 |
300–600 | 11.04 | 5.52 | 0.50 |
600–900 | 12.60 | 6.36 | 0.50 |
900–1500 | 14.00 | 6.56 | 0.47 |
Assessment Form for the State of Threat of Working on Scaffolding | |||
---|---|---|---|
Technical Factors | |||
Scaffolding Type | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | User Selection (Value) | |
System | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
Frame | 0.33 | ||
Modular | 0.02 | ||
Tubular | 0.03 | ||
Carriageable | 0.12 | ||
Warsaw | 0.34 | ||
Suspended | 0.01 | ||
Damage | Number (Value) | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | User Selection (Value) |
The total number of frames | 234 | If it is not possible to assess the technical conditions of the listed elements, use the designated values: - for scaffolding with an area from 30 to 600 m2: = 0.07, - for scaffolding with an area from 600 to 900 m2: = 0.04, - for scaffolding with an area above 900 m2: = 0.03 | 0.01 |
The number of damaged frames | 1 | ||
The total number of working platforms | 204 | ||
The number of damaged working platforms | 3 | ||
The total number of handrails | 856 | ||
The number of damaged handrails | 16 | ||
The total number of toe boards | 228 | ||
The number of damaged toe boards | 1 | ||
The total number of communication segments, ladders | 12 | ||
The number of damaged communication segments, ladders | 0 | ||
Total number of elements | 1534 | 0.01 | |
Total number of all damaged elements | 21 | ||
Foundations | Number (Value) | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | User Selection (Value) |
The number of vertical elements in all frames (foundation pairs) | 18 | If it is not possible to assess the correctness of foundations, use the designated values: - for scaffolding with an area from 30 to 300 m2: , - for scaffolding with an area from 300 to 900 m2: - for scaffolding with an area above 900 m2: | 0.17 |
The number of damaged underlays | 3 | 0.17 | |
Organizational factors | |||
Type of Work Carried Out at a Construction Site | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | User Selection (Value) | |
Construction work | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
Renovation work | 0.38 | ||
Scaffolding assembly | 0.06 | ||
Scaffolding dismantling | 0.06 | ||
Height at Which Work Will be Carried Out on a Construction site | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | User Selection (Value) | |
less than 1 m | 0.04 | 0.04 | 1.00 |
1–2 m | 0.08 | 0.08 | |
3–4 m | 0.37 | 0.37 | |
5–6 m | 0.19 | 0.19 | |
7–8 m | 0.11 | 0.11 | |
9–10 m | 0.07 | 0.07 | |
11–12 m | 0.05 | 0.05 | |
more than 12 m | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
Time When Work Will be Carried on Scaffolding | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | User Selection (Value) | |
07.00–07:59 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.96 |
08:00–08:59 | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
09:00–09:59 | 0.14 | 0.14 | |
10:00–10:59 | 0.09 | 0.09 | |
11:00–11:59 | 0.09 | 0.09 | |
12:00–12:59 | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
13:00–13:59 | 0.07 | 0.07 | |
14:00–14:59 | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
15:00–15:59 | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
16:00–16:59 | 0.06 | 0.06 | |
17:00–17:59 | 0.02 | ||
18:00–06:59 | 0.02 | ||
Enterprise Size—the Number of Persons Employed at Construction Site | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | User Selection (Value) | |
Micro-enterprises (1–9) | 0.59 | 0.36 | 0.36 |
Small enterprises (10–49) | 0.36 | ||
Medium enterprises (50–249) | 0.05 | ||
Big enterprises (above 250) | 0.01 | ||
Human Factors | |||
Age of People Employed to Work on Scaffolding | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | Number of Employees (Value) | User Selection (Value) |
18–19 | 0.02 | 0.22 | |
20–29 | 0.22 | 5 | |
30–39 | 0.20 | 6 | |
40–49 | 0.24 | 4 | |
50–59 | 0.28 | ||
>60 | 0.04 | ||
Total number of employees | 15 | ||
Work Experience of People Employed to Work on Scaffolding | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | Number of Employees (Value) | User Selection (Value) |
1 year and less | 0.59 | 5 | 0.24 |
2 to 3 | 0.17 | ||
4 to 5 | 0.09 | ||
6 to 10 | 0.09 | 6 | |
11 to 15 | 0.02 | ||
16 to 20 | 0.02 | 4 | |
more than 20 years | 0.02 | ||
Total number of employees | 15 | ||
Employment Status (Form of Employment) | Partial Hazard Coefficient () | Number of Employees (Value) | User Selection (Value) |
Self-employed | 0.03 | 0.28 | |
Worker employed for an indefinite period, full-time job | 0.28 | 15 | |
Worker employed on fixed-term, full-time job | 0.43 | ||
Trainee/student | 0.01 | ||
Contract for specific work | 0.08 | ||
Contract of mandate | 0.17 | ||
Total number of employees | 15 | ||
The simplified coefficient for assessing the state of threat of working on scaffolding | 4.07 | ||
The exact coefficient for assessing the state of threat of working on scaffolding | 1.68 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sawicki, M.; Szóstak, M. Quantitative Assessment of the State of Threat of Working on Construction Scaffolding. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5773. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165773
Sawicki M, Szóstak M. Quantitative Assessment of the State of Threat of Working on Construction Scaffolding. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(16):5773. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165773
Chicago/Turabian StyleSawicki, Marek, and Mariusz Szóstak. 2020. "Quantitative Assessment of the State of Threat of Working on Construction Scaffolding" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 16: 5773. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165773