Construction H & S in Tertiary Education_Professor Smallwood Presentation at SAIOSH CPD Workshop 21 July 2016

© 2014 : Prof JJ Smallwood
1
PROF JOHN SMALLWOOD
DEPT. OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
SOUTH AFRICA
COUNCIL FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATION OF CONSTRUCTION HEALTH AND SAFETY (H&S)
INTO TERTIARY BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION
WORKSHOP, PORT ELIZABETH, 19 SEPTEMBER 2014

© 2014 : Prof JJ Smallwood© 2014 : Prof JJ Smallwood
2
Introduction (1)
 According to the Construction Industry Development (cidb)
(2009), during visits to 1 415 construction sites by Department
of Labour (DoL) inspectors:
 1 388 notices were issued:
 86 (6%) improvement notices
 1 015 (73%) contravention notices
 287 (21%) prohibition notices
 Furthermore, 52.5% of contractors were non-compliant
 The disabling injury frequency rate (DIIR) is a rate, per
200 000 hours worked, of disabling injuries due to all causes
i.e. per 100 workers x 2 000 hrs / yr:
 0.98 (cidb, 2009)
 Fatality rate per 100 000 workers: 25.5 (cidb, 2009)

3
Introduction (2)
Construction H&S occurs in a macro environment:
Figure 1: Construction H&S – the macro environment (Smallwood, 1995)

4
Introduction (3)
 151 / 450 (33.6%) cases of death and disabling of construction
workers in the USA, the hazard that contributed to the incident
could have been eliminated or reduced if design-for-H&S
measures had been implemented (Behm, 2006)

5
Injaka Bridge collapse (1)
Injaka Bridge collapse, Mpumalanga, July, 1998 (Travers, 1998)

Department of Labour (2002):
 Causes:
 The slide path was not under the webs
 The placing of the sliding pads between the deck and temporary
bearings was not as specified
 Insufficient reinforcement in the deck section, especially the bottom
slab
 The failure to fully appreciate the implications of the early cracks
 The acceptance and approval of a launching nose which was
substantially less stiff than that prescribed in the project specification
 The deviation from the project specification regarding the automatic
pier deflection monitoring at pier 2
 The deviation from the project specification regarding the height
tolerances of the temporary bearings on pier 3
 The use of design and construction personnel, at decision-making
level, without appropriate qualification and experience in incremental
launched bridges

 No independent design reviews were conducted of either the
temporary or permanent works
 Contributory causes:
 The lack of experience on the part of design personnel in
incremental launching techniques resulted in poor
communications between the parties to clarify understandings
and interpretations regarding the slide path position
 The lack of clear instructions in the project specification and
clear indications on the consulting engineers design drawings
as to the position of the sliding path, resulted in incorrect
interpretations being made

H&S is a profit centre not a ‘cost’
 Based upon the value of construction work completed in the
year 2002, namely R 56 343m (South African Reserve Bank,
2003) the total COA could have been between 4.3%
(R 2 401.2m / R 56 343m), and 5.4% (R 3 041.5m / R 56 343m)
(Smallwood, 2004a; cidb, 2009)
 Cost of prevention is:
 Between 0.5% and 3% of project costs (Smallwood, 2004a)
 1.6% of tender cost estimate and 1% of project cost (Smallwood,
2011a)

9
Importance of the project parameters
Parameter
Architects Arch. Tech’s Mean
Mean
Score
Rank Mean
Score
Rank Mean
Score
Rank
Project quality 4.74 1 4.59 1 4.67 1
End-user ergonomics 4.29 3 4.46 3 4.38 2
Environment 4.25 4 4.49 2 4.37 3=
Project cost 4.38 2 4.35 5 4.37 3=
Project time 4.20 5 4.38 4 4.29 5
Project health and safety (H&S) 3.94 6 4.19 6 4.07 6
Construction ergonomics 3.58 4 3.92 7 3.75 7
Table 1: Importance of project parameters to Architectural practices and Architectural Technologists
(MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2009a).

10
Designing and safety (1)
Natural-light openings, Port Elizabeth (Smallwood)

11
Designing and safety (2)
‘Open’ precast concrete cladding, Port Elizabeth (Smallwood)

12
Designing for safety
‘Balustrade’ precast concrete cladding, Cape Town (Smallwood)

13
Designing for ergonomics and H&S (1)
Precast concrete stair flights, Port Elizabeth (Smallwood)

14
Designing for ergonomics and H&S (2)
Precast concrete stair flights, Port Elizabeth (Smallwood)

15
Designing and ergonomics and OH
‘Bush-hammered’ concrete, Port Elizabeth (Smallwood)

16
Designing for ergonomics and OH
Thermal Lance, Mount Road Police Station, Port Elizabeth (Smallwood, 1987)

17
Designing and ergonomics
Face brick lining to semi-circular RC soffit, Sandton (Smallwood)

18
Integration of design and construction (1)
 Two issues - influence of design on construction H&S, and
the type of procurement system
 Design influences construction directly and indirectly:
 Directly, through design, choice of structural frame, details, method
of fixing, constructability, and specification of materials and finishes
 Indirectly, through choice of procurement system and conditions of
contract, procurement, decision regarding project duration, and
reference to H&S on various occasions
 Certain procurement systems such as design-build promote
the integration of design and construction
 Optimum integration engenders and enhances H&S as it
facilitates contractor contributions to the design process
 Designing for H&S is one of sixteen design for
constructability principles – contractors can contribute

19
Figure 2: Elevation of masonry Bridge over the Tweed at Coldstream, 1866 (Irwin and Sibbald, 1983)

20
Figure 3: Centering for masonry Bridge over the Tweed at Coldstream, 1866 (Irwin and Sibbald, 1983)

21
Bloukrans Bridge (p. 11, Concrete Beton, 1983)

22
Bloukrans Bridge (Inside Front, Concrete Beton, 1983)

23
Bloukrans bridge project (Steele, 1983):
 “…notable for the close cooperation and team effort which
were achieved by the consultant and contractor, and
encouragement given by the client.”
 “… consulting engineers had clearly indicated in their
design how the task should be tackled and worked closely
with the contractors in converting the drawings they had
supplied to reality…”

24
Construction Regulations (1)
 Definition of ‘designer’ – a competent person who:
 prepares a design
 checks and approves a design
 arranges for a person at work under his / her control to prepare a
design including an employee of that person
 designs temporary work including its components
 An architect or engineer contributing to, or having overall
responsibility for a design
 Building services engineer designing details for fixed plant
 Surveyor specifying articles or drawing up specifications
 Contractor carrying out design work as part of a design and
build project
 Interior designer, shop-fitter, or landscape architect

25
Relative to Structures 6 (1) designers of a structure must:
 (a) ensure that the H&S standards incorporated into the
regulations are complied with in the design
 (b) take the H&S specification into consideration
 (c) include in a report to the client before tender stage:
 all relevant H&S information about the design that may affect the
pricing of the work
 the geotechnical-science aspects
 the loading that the structure is designed to withstand
 (d) inform the client of any known or anticipated dangers or
hazards relating to the construction work, and make available
all relevant information required for the safe execution of the
work upon being designed or when the design is changed
 (e) modify the design or make use of substitute materials
where the design necessitates the use of dangerous
procedures or materials hazardous to H&S

26
 (f) consider hazards relating to subsequent maintenance of
the structure and make provision in the design for that work
to be performed to minimize the risk
 (g) when mandated by the client conduct inspections to
ensure conformance of construction to design. If not
mandated then the client’s agent is responsible
 (h) when mandated by the client stop construction work not in
accordance with the design’s H&S aspects. If not mandated
then the client’s agent is responsible
 (i) when mandated by the client, during his / her final
inspection of the structure include the H&S aspects of the
structure, declare the structure safe for use and issue a
completion certificate

27
Clients required to, among other:
 5 (1) (a) Prepare a baseline risk assessment (BRA)
 5 (1) (b) Prepare an H&S specification based on the BRA
 5 (1) (c) Provide the designer with the H&S specification
 5 (1) (d) Ensure that the designer takes the H&S specification
into account during design
 5 (1) (e) Ensure that the designer carries out the duties in
Regulation 6 ‘Duties of designers’
 5 (1) (f) Include the H&S specification (revised after the
designers’ reports?) in the tender documents
 5 (1) (g) Ensure that potential PCs have made provision for the
cost of H&S in their tenders
 5 (1) (h) Ensure that the PC to be appointed has the necessary
competencies and resources

28
Influence of designers (1)
 Directly:
 Concept design
 General design
 Choice of structural frame
 Details
 Provision for services (construction ergonomics)
 Specification of materials, finishes and processes
 Consideration of H&S:
 During design coordination
 During constructability reviews
 Reference to H&S:
 During pre-tender site visit
 Upon site handover
 During site visits / inspections
 During site visits / meetings

29
 Indirectly:
 Selection of / advice regarding type of procurement system
 Selection of / advice regarding preparation of contract
documentation
 Decision regarding / advice with respect to project duration
 Status of design upon commencement of construction (contractor
pre-planning)
 H&S prequalification of contractors
 Site location e.g. exposure to elements, power lines etc.
 Site coverage e.g. availability for storage
Influence of designers (2)

30
General design (1)
 Shape of structure i.e. irregular plan shape
 Pitch of roof i.e. high pitch
 Over sailing sections (access to soffit / working overhead)
 External work and finishes (elevated work to facades)
 Position of ablutions relative to municipal services (depth of
excavations)
 Pre-fabrication, pre-assembly and pre-casting:
 Reduces elevated in-situ work
 Reduces manual handling
 Engenders mechanisation

31
General design (2)
Bahia Temple, Delhi, India (Smallwood, 2005)

General design (3)
Bahia Temple, Delhi, India (The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahia’is of India, 2002)

General design (4)

General design (5)

General design (6)

General design (7)

General design (8)

General design (9)

39
General design (10)
Investec Office Complex scaffolding collapse, Sandton, August, 1997 (Prinsloo, 1997)

40
General design (11)
Precast wall panels, Dublin (Smallwood, 2004)

41
General design (12)
Precast floor panels, Dublin (Smallwood, 2004)

42
Choice of structural frame (1)
 Load bearing masonry:
 Mass of materials
 Manual handling / Bending and twisting
 On-site storage (housekeeping!)
 Timber frame:
 Pre-fabrication
 Light weight
 Less on-site storage = enhanced housekeeping
 Less manual handling
 Engenders mechanisation

43
 Structural steel:
 Less on-site storage = enhanced housekeeping
 Pre-assembly
 Less manual handling
 Very challenging elevated work
 Reinforced concrete:
 On-site storage (housekeeping!)
 Manual handling / Bending and twisting / Use of body force
 Challenging elevated work
Choice of structural frame (2)

44
Details (1)
 Affect constructability
 Affect work method
 Affect work postures
 Affect required plant and equipment
 May require access

45
Details (2)
Externally installed full fenestration, Dublin (Smallwood, 2004)

46
Details (3)
Externally installed full fenestration, Dublin (Smallwood, 2004)

47
Provision for services (1)
 Affects construction ergonomics:
 No. of services e.g. in ceiling
 Layering (horizontal plane)
 Space for working and fixing e.g. in vertical ducts
 Method of fixing
 Therefore, optimum:
 Coordination
 Layering
 Sectional area (vertical ducts)

48
Congested ceiling space, Cape Town (Smallwood, 2004)

49
Congested ceiling space, Cape Town (Smallwood, 2004)

50
Position of fittings (1)
Porte Cochere, Nelspruit Airport (Smallwood, 2004)

51
Position of fittings (2)
Light fittings, Porte Cochere, Nelspruit Airport (Smallwood, 2004)

52
Materials (1)
May be / have:
 Heavy - mass per unit / m / m2 / m3
 Rough surface
 Sharp edges
 Toxic
 Large e.g. ceiling / drywall panels and glass shop fronts

53
Materials (2)
‘Melting’ mastic asphalt, Canal Walk, Cape Town (Smallwood, 2000)

54
Impact of design(ers) (1)
Occasion
Response (%)
II RankDon’t
know
Never Rarely
Some-
times
Often Always
Site inspections/ discussions 0.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.64 1
Site meetings 0.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.56 2
Site handover 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.50 3
Preparing project documentation 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.24 4
Pre-tender meeting 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.19 5
Working drawings 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.18 6
Evaluating tenders 2.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.13 7
Detailed design 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.12 8
Pre-qualifying contractors 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.08 9
Constructability reviews 4.1 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 2.05 10
Design coordination meetings 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 1.90 11
Client meetings 2.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 1.88 12
Concept (design) 1.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 1.82 13
Deliberating project duration 4.2 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 1.77 14
Table 2: Frequency at which Architectural practices consider / refer to H&S on various occasions (II: 0 - 4)
(Smallwood, 2000).

55
Occasion
Response (%)
II RankDon’t
know
Never Rarely
Some-
times
Often Always
Site meetings 0.0 0.0 2.1 12.4 35.1 50.5 3.34 1
Site inspections / discussions 0.0 1.0 1.0 13.4 41.2 43.3 3.25 2
Site handover 1.0 1.0 6.3 12.5 28.1 51.0 3.20 3
Preparing project documentation 0.0 1.0 4.1 18.6 33.0 43.3 3.13 4
Detailed design 0.0 2.1 13.5 24.0 31.3 29.2 2.72 5
Working drawings 1.0 1.0 18.6 22.7 33.0 23.7 2.58 6
Pre-tender meeting 1.0 4.2 20.8 18.8 30.2 25.0 2.49 7
Constructability reviews 2.1 2.1 17.5 24.7 37.1 16.5 2.44 8
Concept (design) 0.0 4.1 14.4 35.1 28.9 17.5 2.41 9
Client meetings 0.0 4.1 12.4 41.2 32.0 10.3 2.32 10
Design coordination meetings 0.0 3.1 17.5 41.2 25.8 12.4 2.27 11
Evaluating tenders 0.0 9.4 29.2 22.9 25.0 13.5 2.04 12
Deliberating project duration 4.1 9.3 25.8 29.9 26.8 4.1 1.82 13
Pre-qualifying contractors 3.2 13.7 28.4 20.0 26.3 8.4 1.81 14
Table 3: Frequency at which Engineering practices consider / refer to H&S on various occasions (II: 0 - 4)
(Smallwood, 2004b).

56
Aspect
Response (%)
II RankDon’t
know
Never Rarely
Some-
times
Often Always
Specification 2.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.54 1
Method of fixing 1.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.53 2
Position of components 4.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.40 3
Edge of materials 4.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.36 4
Content of materials 2.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.34 5
Details 3.1 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.31 6
Finishes 4.1 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.28 7
Type of structural frame 4.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.26 8
Plan layout 5.1 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.22 9
Texture of materials 3.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.15 10
Design (general) 1.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.07 11
Schedule 6.2 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.03 12
Surface area of materials 6.1 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.03 13
Elevations 5.1 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 1.98 14
Site location 3.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 1.90 15
Mass of materials 5.1 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 1.87 16
Table 4: Frequency of which Architectural practices consider / refer to H&S relative to various design related
aspects (II: 0 - 4) (Smallwood, 2000).

57
Aspect
Response (%)
II RankDon’t
know
Never Rarely
Some-
times
Often Always
Specification 1.0 3.1 8.2 8.2 35.1 44.3 3.07 1
Method of fixing 3.1 3.1 6.2 14.4 34.0 39.2 2.94 2
Design (general) 1.0 0.0 10.4 21.9 38.5 28.1 2.82 3
Details 1.0 4.2 14.6 19.8 33.3 27.1 2.63 4
Type of structural frame 10.4 8.3 8.3 15.6 19.8 37.5 2.49 5
Position of components 5.2 7.2 13.4 18.6 36.1 19.6 2.37 6
Content of material 5.2 7.2 9.3 32.0 25.8 20.6 2.33 7
Plan layout 6.2 7.2 11.3 22.7 35.1 17.5 2.32 8
Site location 4.1 9.3 17.5 18.6 27.8 22.7 2.29 9
Schedule 4.1 10.3 13.4 28.9 28.9 14.4 2.15 10
Elevations 7.2 9.3 18.6 19.6 28.9 16.5 2.10 11
Mass of materials 8.3 7.3 18.8 24.0 24.0 17.7 2.09 12
Edge of materials 8.2 8.2 15.5 32.0 22.7 13.4 2.01 13
Finishes 4.1 11.3 18.6 33.0 23.7 9.3 1.93 14
Surface area of materials 8.3 12.5 22.9 29.2 16.7 10.4 1.73 15
Texture of materials 9.3 11.3 25.8 29.9 14.4 9.3 1.66 16
Table 5: Frequency of which Engineering practices consider / refer to H&S relative to various design related
aspects (II: 0 - 4) (Smallwood, 2004b).

58
Table 6: Frequency at which Architectural practices and Architectural Technologists consider / refer to
construction ergonomics on various occasions (MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2009a).
Occasion (Stream)
Mean
Score
Rank
Mean
Score
Rank
Mean
Score
Rank
Detailed design (Upstream) 3.83 1 3.30 2= 3.57 1
Working drawings (Upstream) 3.65 2 3.32 1 3.49 2
Concept (design) (Upstream) 3.61 3 3.30 2= 3.46 3
Preparing project documentation 3.46 4 2.81 5 3.14 4
Site inspections/discussions 3.38 5 2.84 4 3.11 5
Site meetings 3.35 6 2.73 6 3.04 6
Design coordination meetings 3.32 7 2.65 7 2.99 7
Client meetings 2.97 9 2.54 8 2.76 8
Constructability reviews 3.06 8 2.41 9 2.74 9
Site handover 2.80 10 2.16 10 2.48 10
Deliberating project duration 2.76 11 1.86 12= 2.31 11
Pre-qualifying contractors 2.51 13 1.97 11 2.24 12
Pre-tender meeting 2.57 12 1.78 14 2.18 13=
Evaluating tenders 2.50 14 1.86 12= 2.18 13=

59
Table 7: Frequency at which Architectural practices and Architectural Technologists consider / refer to
construction ergonomics relative to various design related aspects (MS: 1.00 – 5.00)
(Smallwood, 2009a).
Aspect
Mean
Score
Rank
Mean
Score
Rank
Mean
Score
Rank
Plan layout 3.81 1 3.38 1= 3.60 1
Design (general) 3.75 3 3.38 1= 3.57 2
Details 3.78 2 2.97 6 3.38 3
Method of fixing 3.67 4 3.03 4 3.35 4
Specification 3.63 5 3.00 5 3.32 5
Position of components 3.38 7 2.97 7 3.18 6
Elevations 3.18 10 3.16 3 3.17 7
Finishes 3.50 6 2.65 11 3.08 8
Type of structural frame 3.17 11 2.92 9 3.05 9
Site location 2.96 14 2.95 8 2.96 10
Schedule 3.04 12 2.81 10 2.93 11=
Edge of materials 3.24 8 2.62 12 2.93 11=
Texture of materials 3.21 9 2.38 15 2.80 13
Content of material 3.01 13 2.54 13 2.78 14
Surface area of materials 2.79 15 2.41 14 2.60 15
Mass of materials 2.54 16 2.35 16 2.45 16

60
Table 8: Extent to which various design related aspects impact on construction ergonomics according to
Architectural practices and Architectural Technologists (MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2009a).
Aspect
Mean
Score
Rank
Mean
Score
Rank
Mean
Score
Rank
Design (general) 3.83 1 4.08 2 3.96 1
Details 3.72 2 4.05 4 3.89 2
Plan layout 3.57 4 4.08 3 3.83 3
Position of components 3.50 5 4.03 5 3.77 4
Method of fixing 3.58 3 3.83 9 3.71 5
Site location 3.23 9 4.11 1 3.67 6=
Finishes 3.47 6= 3.86 8 3.67 6=
Edge of materials 3.26 8 3.94 6 3.60 8
Specification 3.47 6= 3.70 11 3.59 9
Type of structural frame 3.15 10 3.89 7 3.52 10
Elevations 3.06 13 3.81 10 3.44 11
Texture of materials 3.11 11 3.56 14 3.34 12
Schedule 3.02 14 3.60 13 3.31 13=
Mass of materials 2.97 15 3.65 12 3.31 13=
Content of material 3.08 12 3.44 16 3.26 15
Surface area of materials 2.73 16 3.46 15 3.10 16

Knowledge of mass and density of materials
Table 9: Summary of architectural designers’ and architectural technologists’ response and
responses within a 10% range of the actual mass or density (Smallwood, 2011b)
Material Response (%) No response (%) Within 10% range (%)
Solid clay brick 82.1 17.9 23.4
Two-cell concrete block 83.3 16.7 1.5
Precast concrete kerb 83.3 16.7 9.2
Double Roman concrete roof tile 83.3 16.7 10.8
m2 glass 5 mm thick 76.9 23.1 3.4
Concrete 73.1 26.9 19.6
Marble 66.7 33.3 17.3
Sandstone 66.7 33.3 5.8
Steel 64.1 35.9 8.2
Mean 75.5 24.5 11.0

Role and knowledge of mass and density of materials
Table 10: Frequency at which practices consider the mass and density of materials when designing
and specifying (MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2011b)
Response (%)
MS
Unsure
Never……………...…………………..…Always
1 2 3 4 5
4.0 24.0 32.0 22.7 9.3 8.0 2.43
Response (%)
MS
Unsure
Limited……………………..…………Extensive
1 2 3 4 5
4.1 44.6 29.7 14.9 4.1 2.7 1.86
Table 12: Respondents’ rating of their knowledge of the mass and density of materials
(MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2011b)
.
Response (%)
MS
Unsure
Minor….. ……………………………..…Major
1 2 3 4 5
13.5 8.1 4.1 18.9 32.4 23.0 3.67
Table 11: Potential of the consideration of the mass and density of materials to contribute to an
improvement in construction ergonomics (MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2011b)

Landscape architecture and landscape construction
H&S (1)
Table 14: Extent to which landscape construction H&S should be addressed in landscape
architecture programmes according to landscape architects (Smallwood, 2010a)
.
Response (%)
MS
Unsure
Minor….. ……………………………..…Major
1 2 3 4 5
27.8 22.2 27.8 11.1 11.1 0.0 2.15
Table 13: Extent to which tertiary landscape architecture education addresses landscape
construction H&S according to landscape architects (MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2010a)
Addressing of construction H&S Yes (%)
Unsure 9.5
Not at all 0.0
Included in a range of subjects 23.8
Included in the subject ‘design’ 23.8
A subject ‘construction H&S’ 42.9

Landscape architecture and landscape construction
H&S (2)
Table 15: Landscape architects’ sources of knowledge of landscape construction H&S (Smallwood,
2010a)
Source Yes (%)
Experience 95.2
Magazine articles 38.1
Tertiary education 23.8
Workshops 19.0
Postgraduate qualifications 14.3
Practice notes 14.3
CPD Seminars 9.5
Conference papers 4.8
Journal papers 4.8
Other: OH&S Act 4.8

Interior design and construction H&S (1)
Table 17: Extent to which construction H&S should be addressed in interior design
programmes according to interior designers (Smallwood, 2009b)
.
Response (%)
MS
Unsure
Minor….. ……………………………..…………..Major
1 2 3 4 5
50.0 10.0 30.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 2.00
Table 16: Extent to which tertiary interior design education addresses construction H&S according
to interior designers (MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2009b)
Addressing of construction H&S Yes (%)
Unsure 18.2
Not at all 0.0
Included in a range of subjects 18.2
Included in the subject ‘design’ 0.0
A subject ‘construction H&S’ 63.6

Interior design and construction H&S (2)
Table 18: Interior designers’ sources of knowledge of construction H&S (Smallwood, 2009b)
Means Yes (%)
Experience 45.5
Magazine articles 27.3
Other: OH&S Act 27.3
Journal papers 18.2
Workshops 9.1
Conference papers 0.0
CPD Seminars 0.0
Postgraduate qualifications 0.0
Practice notes 0.0
Tertiary education 0.0

67
Built environment construction H&S education
Table 19 : The importance of the inclusion of construction H&S in the tertiary education
programmes of built environment disciplines according to architectural academics
(MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2014)
Discipline
Response (%)
MS Rank
Unsure
Hardly…………….………………….……. Very
1 2 3 4 5
Construction management 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.00 1
Civil engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 4.75 2
Electrical engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 4.50 3
Mechanical engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 4.25 4
Project management 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 4.25 5
Landscape architecture 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 3.40 6
Architecture 0.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 3.33 7
Quantity surveying 0.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 25.0 3.25 8
Interior design 0.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2.60 9

68
Architectural construction H&S education (1)
Table 20: Extent to which construction H&S is addressed / included in architectural programmes /
curricula (Smallwood, 2014).
Response (%)
Unsure Yes No
0.0 66.7 33.3
Form
Response (%)
Unsure Yes No
Separate subject 0.0 0.0 100.0
Issue in design project briefs 0.0 66.7 33.3
Criterion for assessment in design project
assessments
0.0 33.3 66.7
Component of a subject 0.0 33.3 66.7
Module in various subjects 0.0 33.3 66.7
On an ad-hoc basis 0.0 33.3 66.7
Table 21: Form in which construction H&S is addressed / included in architectural programmes /
curricula (Smallwood, 2014).

69
Table 22: The importance of the inclusion of subject areas relative to construction H&S in an architectural
programme according to architectural academics (MS: 1.00 – 5.00) (Smallwood, 2014)
Subject area
Response (%)
MS Rank
Unsure
Hardly………….…………….……………Very
1 2 3 4 5
Occupational health 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 4.17 1
Occupational safety 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 4.17 2
OH&S Act & Regulations 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 4.00 3
H&S plans 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 4.00 4
H&S specifications 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 16.7 33.3 3.83 5
Role of project managers in construction H&S 0.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 3.83 6
Role of construction H&S in project
performance
0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 83.3 0.0 3.67 7
Role of designers in construction H&S 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 33.3 3.67 8
Specifying for construction H&S 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 3.50 9
Need for construction H&S 16.7 0.0 16.7 16.7 50.0 0.0 3.40 10
Designing for construction H&S 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 3.40 11
Hazard identification and risk assessment 0.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 3.33 12
Designing for construction ergonomics 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 66.7 0.0 3.17 13
Role of quantity surveyors in construction H&S 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 3.00 14
Detailing for construction H&S 0.0 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.83 15
Role of clients in construction H&S 0.0 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 2.67 16
Environment and construction H&S 0.0 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 2.67 17
Economics of construction H&S 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 16.7 16.7 2.50 18
Influence of procurement on construction H&S 16.7 33.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 2.20 19

70
Table 23: The extent to which actions / activities / aspects impact on construction H&S according
to architectural academics (MS: 0.00 – 5.00 i.e. midpoint is 2.50) (Smallwood, 2014)
Action / Activity / Aspect
Response (%)
MS RankUnsure Does
not
Minor …………………………………Major
1 2 3 4 5
H&S pre-qualification of
contractors
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 4.33 1
Site handover 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 4.00 2
Site inspections / discussions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 3.83 3
Detailed design 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 3.67 4
Constructability reviews 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 50.0 0.0 3.60 5
Design 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 16.7 16.7 3.50 6
Project duration 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 3.33 7
Pre-tender meeting 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 0.0 3.20 8
Evaluation of tenders 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 0.0 3.20 9
Site meetings 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 3.00 10
Design coordination meetings 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 33.3 0.0 2.83 11
Working drawings 16.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 16.7 0.0 2.80 12
Project documentation 16.7 0.0 16.7 16.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 2.40 13
Client brief 0.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 0.0 16.7 2.33 14

71
Table 24: The extent to which design related aspects impact on construction H&S according to
architectural academics (MS: 0.00 – 5.00 i.e. midpoint is 2.50) (Smallwood, 2014)
Aspect
Response (%)
MS RankUnsure Does
not
Minor …………………………………Major
1 2 3 4 5
Method of fixing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 4.17 1
Mass of materials 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 16.7 4.00 2
Edge of materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 16.7 16.7 3.50 3
Type of structural frame 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 3.50 4
Specification 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 3.50 5
Site location 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 33.3 16.7 3.33 6
Content of material 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 16.7 3.33 7
Design (general) 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 50.0 0.0 3.17 8
Surface area of materials 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 3.17 9
Texture of materials 0.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 50.0 0.0 3.00 10
Position of components 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 3.00 11
Details 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 0.0 2.83 12
Plan layout 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 2.67 13
Finishes 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 2.67 14
Elevations 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 0.0 2.50 15
Schedule 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 2.33 16

72
A model for designers
SACAP architectural
work stages (1 – 6)
ApplicationoftheNBR(PartsA–X)
Design opportunity window:
Design options
Design selection
H&S reviews
Sign-off or revisit 1
H&S checklists
H&S data records
Variation orders (VOs)
The Goldswain
Core Model
Core ModelDesign knowledge window:
Construction processes
Construction programming
Contextual H&S
Causes of Accidents
Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessments (HIRAs)
Project type and complexity
Design recommendations
Lifecycles of buildings
Figure 4: The Goldswain Core Model (Goldswain, 2014).

73
Construction management H&S education (1)
Table 4A: The importance of the inclusion of subject areas relative to construction H&S in a construction
management programme according to GC National H&S Competition winners (MS: 1.00 – 5.00)
(Smallwood, 2010b)
Subject area
Response (%)
MS Rank
Unsure
Hardly………….…………….……………Very
1 2 3 4 5
Management of subcontractors 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 4.89 1
Role of construction management 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 4.89 2
Worker participation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 4.89 3
OH&S Act & Regulations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 4.89 4
H&S / Productivity / Quality 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 4.78 5
H&S pre-planning 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 4.78 6
H&S programs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 4.78 7
Safety 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 4.78 8
H&S education & training 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 4.67 9
Role of project managers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 4.67 10
H&S plans 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 77.8 4.67 11
Health & hygiene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 4.56 12

74
Construction management H&S education (1)
Table 4B: The importance of the inclusion of subject areas relative to construction H&S in a construction
management programme according to GC National H&S Competition winners (MS: 1.00 – 5.00)
(Smallwood, 2010b)
Subject area
Response (%)
MS Rank
Unsure
Hardly………….…………….……………Very
1 2 3 4 5
Role of clients 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 4.56 13
Role of designers 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 4.56 14
H&S culture e.g. values, vision, goals, &
mission
0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 4.50 15
Economics of H&S 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 22.2 55.6 4.33 16
Role of the media & awareness 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 22.2 55.6 4.33 17
Environment 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 4.33 18
Measurement & statistics 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 4.33 19
Role of the unions 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 22.2 55.6 4.22 20
COID Act (workers’ compensation) 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 11.1 66.7 4.22 21
Ergonomics 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 22.2 44.4 4.11 22
Influence of procurement 0.0 0.0 11.1 22.2 33.3 33.3 3.89 23
Role of quantity surveyors 11.1 0.0 11.1 33.3 11.1 33.3 3.33 24

75
The role of cost engineers / quantity surveyors
 Cost Engineers / Quantity Surveyors:
 May practice as project managers (if registered as Pr CPMs)
 Prepare project estimates
 May advise regarding the type of procurement system
 May advise regarding project duration
 Often prepare contract documentation
 Often compile bills of quantities / schedule of rates
 Assess pre-qualification and tender submissions
 The cost of accidents contributes to the cost of construction
 Construction Regulations include “surveyor specifying
articles or drawing up specifications” under definition of
designer

76
A holistic perspective cost engineers / QSs
 A client needs to be able to make a scientific assessment of
the PC’s provision for H&S
 The client’s H&S specification and designer report should
provide a reference
 The H&S plan should provide a reference:
 However, H&S plan to be applied from date of commencement
[Regulation 7(1) (a) i.e. not necessarily available at tender / bid stage
 The requirement on the client to ensure that the PC has made
adequate provision for H&S amplifies the need for a pre-tender H&S
plan (not required by the Regulations)
 Each project is unique despite many common activities
 A provisional sum would not do justice
 PCs and contractors have varying levels of expertise
 Emerging contractors should be guided

77
H&S Preliminaries items (1)
Can facilitate adequate provision for H&S by PCs in terms
of Regulation 5 (1) (g) through inclusion of, among other, an
‘H&S’ section in the Preliminaries:
 H&S plan
 H&S file
 Risk assessment
 SWPs and method statements
 Design of temporary works
 Design of permanent structures
 Engineering design and / or certification
 Medicals
 Biological monitoring
 Environmental measurement
 Education and training

78
 Full-time or part-time Construction H&S Officer
[Regulation 8 (5)], or management of H&S as a whole
(preferably not)
 H&S Representatives
 Meetings
 General administration
 Hoarding and / or public walkways
 Catch platforms
 Facilities related requirements – Regulation 30:
 WCs – for each gender, and 1 for every 30 workers
 WHBs (not required)
 Showers – 1 for every 15
 Changing facilities – for each gender
 Sheltered eating areas
 Living accommodation – for workers far removed from their homes

79
 Guarding and barricading
 Storage
 Storage for flammable goods – Regulation 25 (a)
 Temporary electrical installations
 Scaffolding
 Special scaffolding
 Suspended scaffolding
 Access
 Signage
 Housekeeping
 Personal protective equipment
 Fire precautions
 First aid
 Transport of workers

80
 Inspections
 Maintenance
 Emergency plan
Other provisions such as material and personnel hoists, and
mobile and tower cranes can be addressed in the traditional
manner

81
References (1)
 Behm, M. 2006. An Analysis of Construction Accidents from a
Design Perspective. Silver Spring: The Center to Protect
Workers’ Rights.
 Construction Industry Development Board (cidb). 2009.
Construction Health & Safety Status & Recommendations.
Pretoria: cidb.
 Department of Labour. 2002. Section 32 Investigation Report
into the Injaka Bridge Collapse of 6 July 1998. Pretoria.
 Goldswain, C. 2014. Architectural Design Interventions
Toward Improvement of Construction Health, Safety, and
Ergonomics in South Africa. Unpublished PhD (Construction
Management) Thesis. Port Elizabeth: NMMU.
 Irwin, A.W. and Sibbald, W.I. 1983. Falsework A Handbook of
Design and Practice. London: Granada Technical Books.
 Prinsloo, K. 1997. Beeld, 27 August, p.3.

82
References (2)
 Republic of South Africa. 2014. No. R. 84 Occupational Health
and Safety Act, 1993 Construction Regulations 2014.
Government Gazette No. 37305. Pretoria.
 Smallwood, J.J. 1995. The Influence of management on the
occurrence of loss causative incidents in the South African
construction industry. Unpublished MSc (Constr Man)
Dissertation, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2000. A study of the relationship between
occupational health and safety, labour productivity and
quality in the South African construction industry.
Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Port Elizabeth, Port
Elizabeth.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2004a. Optimum cost: The role of health and
safety (H&S). In: Verster JJP, ed. Proceedings International
Cost Engineering Council 4th World Congress, Cape Town,
April 2004. International Cost Engineering Council, 2004: CD-
Rom Smallwood-J- Optimum Cost-Health & Safety.pdf

83
References (3)
 Smallwood, J.J. 2004b. The influence of engineering designers
on health and safety during construction. Journal of the South
African Institution of Civil Engineering, 46 (1), 2–8.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2009a. Architects and Architectural
Technologists: Their Influence on Construction Ergonomics,
ergonomicsSA, 21(2), 41-64.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2009b. Interior Designers and Construction
Health and Safety. Unpublished research findings.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2010a. Landscape Architects and Landscape
Construction Health and Safety (H&S). Unpublished research
findings.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2010b. Construction Management Health and
Safety (H&S) Course Content: Towards the Optimum. In:
Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress, Salford
Quays, 14-17 May, 2010.

84
References (4)
 Smallwood, J.J. 2011a. Financial Provision for Health and
Safety (H&S) in Construction. In: Proceedings of the CIB W099
Conference, Washington D.C., 24-26 August,
F:datapapers45.pdf.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2011b. Mass and density of construction
materials: designers’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices,
ergonomicsSA, 23(1), 28-41.
 Smallwood, J.J. 2014. The need for the inclusion of
Construction health and safety (H&S) in architectural
education. Unpublished paper presented at the: architecture
Otherware XXV International Union of Architects Congress,
Durban, 4-9 August.
 South African Reserve Bank. 2003. Quarterly Bulletin.
Pretoria: South African Reserve Bank.
 Steele, D. 1983. Bloukrans Bridge. Concrete Beton, Nr 30 1983
06, 10-11.


85
References (5)
 The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahia’is of India. 2002.
The Dawning Place of the Remembrance of God. New Delhi:
Thomson Press.
 Travers, R. 1998. Lowvelder, 10 July, p. 1.

Construction H & S in Tertiary Education_Professor Smallwood Presentation at SAIOSH CPD Workshop 21 July 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Construction H & S in Tertiary Education_Professor Smallwood Presentation at SAIOSH CPD Workshop 21 July 2016

Similar to Construction H & S in Tertiary Education_Professor Smallwood Presentation at SAIOSH CPD Workshop 21 July 2016 (20)

Construction H & S in Tertiary Education_Professor Smallwood Presentation at SAIOSH CPD Workshop 21 July 2016