A Novel Approach Based on Fluid Dynamics for On-Site Safety Assessment

Abstract

Construction safety assessment is a major component of safety management in construction projects. However, thus far, most assessment studies have focused on either cross-sectional or longitudinal performance. This study aims to develop a proactive and preliminary safety assessment method using a fluid dynamics (FD) approach by integrating longitudinal contractor performance with cross-sectional safety conditions. To this end, an FD framework was first developed using three processes: (a) identifying the connections between FD principles and safety analogs, (b) incorporating the Darcy-Weisbach equation into the framework, and (c) modifying FD equations for construction safety assessment. Subsequently, two case studies were investigated, and the results obtained were compared and verified with one existing assessment results. The results indicate that the state of safety at a construction site incorporates both the occurrence of hazards and conservation of energy. Thus, the proposed FD approach can be used to preliminarily assess and predict safety conditions by combining safety-related measures with the dynamic characteristics of construction processes. The approach considers a comprehensive range of indicators and parameters, which enables the comparison of safety performance between projects or assessment periods by independently changing parameters.

References

  1. Alruqi WM, Hallowell MR, Techera U (2018) Safety climate dimensions and their relationship to construction safety performance: A metaanalytic review. Safety Science 109:165–173, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ayhan BU, Tokdemir OB (2020) Accident analysis for construction safety using latent class clustering and artificial neural networks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146(3):14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartha P (2013) Analogy and analogical reasoning. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved June 25, 2013, https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/win2013/entries/abduction/

  4. Christodoulou S (2010) Bid mark-up selection using artificial neural networks and an entropy metric. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 17(4):424–439, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981011056600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chritamara S, Ogunlana SO, Luong Bach N (2001) Investigating the effect of initial scope establishment on the performance of a project through system dynamics modelling. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 8(5–6):381–392, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb021198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooke DL (2010) A system dynamics analysis of the westray mine disaster. System Dynamics Review 19(2):139–166, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Darrigol O, Frisch U (2008) From Newton’s mechanics to Euler’s equations. Physica D Nonlinear Phenomena 237(14):1855–1869, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2007.08.003

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Deng X, Zheng S, Xu P, Zhang X (2017) Study on dissipative structure of China’s building energy service industry system based on brusselator model. Journal of Cleaner Production 150:112–122, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Efthymiou K, Papakostas N, Mourtzis D, Chryssolouris G (2009) Fluid dynamics analogy to manufacturing systems. 42nd CIRP conference on manufacturing systems, Grenoble, France

  10. Emmanuel G, Jean-Pierre C, Franck G (2016) A simplified approach to risk assessment based on system dynamics: An industrial case study. Risk Analysis 36(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12534

  11. Esmaeili B, Hallowell MR, Rajagopalan B (2015) Attribute-based safety risk assessment. II: Predicting safety outcomes using generalized linear models. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 141(8), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000981

  12. Fang DP, Huang XY, Hinze J (2004) Benchmarking studies on construction safety management in China. Journal of Construction Engineering And Management 130(3):424–432, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2004)130:3(424)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feliciani C, Nishinari K (2018) Measurement of congestion and intrinsic risk in pedestrian crowds. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 91:124–155, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.03.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Feng Y, Zhang S, Wu P (2015) Factors influencing workplace accident costs of building projects. Safety Science 72:97–104, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gao T, Wang Q, Huang M, Wang X, Zhang Y (2018) A co-opetitive automated negotiation model for vertical allied enterprises teams and stakeholders. Entropy 20(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/e20040286

  16. Grabowski M, Ayyalasomayajula P, Merrick J, Harrald JR, Roberts K (2007) Leading indicators of safety in virtual organizations. Safety Science 45(10):1013–1043, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gunduz M (2018) Development of a safety performance index assessment tool by using a fuzzy structural equation model for construction sites. Automation in Construction 85:124–134, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guo BHW, Yiu TW (2016) Developing leading indicators to monitor the safety conditions of construction projects. Journal of Management in Engineering 32(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000376

  19. Guo CF, Zhang M, Devahastin S (2020) 3D extrusion-based printability evaluation of selected cereal grains by computational fluid dynamic simulation. Journal of Food Engineering 286:10, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2020.110113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hallowell MR, Bhandari S, Alruqi W (2020) Methods of safety prediction: Analysis and integration of risk assessment, leading indicators, precursor analysis, and safety climate. Construction Management and Economics 38(4):308–321, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1598566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Han SU, Saba F, Lee SH, Mohamed Y, Peña-Mora F (2014) Toward an understanding of the impact of production pressure on safety performance in construction operations. Accident Analysis and Prevention 68(1):106–116, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hinze J, Thurman S, Wehle A (2013) Leading indicators of construction safety performance. Safety Science 51(1):23–28, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hopkins A (2009) Thinking about process safety indicators. Safety Science 47(4):460–465, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hosny O, Nassar K, Esmail Y (2013) Prequalification of Egyptian construction contractors using fuzzy-AHP models. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 20(4):381–405, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-09-2011-0088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hou ZQ, Zeng YM (2016) Research on risk assessment technology of the major hazard in harbor engineering. Procedia Engineering 137: 843–848, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. JGJ59-2011 (2011) Standard for construction safety inspection. Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jones TJ, Watts K, Whytock RC (2018) Using fluid dynamic concepts to estimate species movement rates in terrestrial landscapes. Ecological Indicators 93:344–350, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kachani S, Perakis G (2006) Fluid dynamics models and their applications in transportation and pricing. European Journal of Operational Research 170(2):496–517, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.07.047

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kamardeen I (2009) Strategic safety management information system for building projects in Singapore. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 16(1):8–25, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980910927868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar K, Garg H (2016) TOPSIS method based on the connection number of set pair analysis under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set environment. Computational and Applied Mathematics 37(2): 1319–1329, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-016-0402-0

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Li X, Wang K, Liu L, Xin J, Yang H, Gao C (2011) Application of the entropy weight and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Engineering 26(4):2085–2091, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Li A, Zhao Z (2017) Crane safety assessment method based on entropy and cumulative prospect theory. Entropy 19(1):44, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/e19010044

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lighthill MJ, Whitham GB (1955) On kinematic waves. II. A theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical & Engineering Sciences 229(1178):317–345, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1955.0089

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Lingard H, Hallowell M, Salas R, Pirzadeh P (2017) Leading or lagging? Temporal analysis of safety indicators on a large infrastructure construction project. Safety Science 91:206–220, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Long DN, Dai QT, Chandrawinata MP (2016) Predicting safety risk of working at heights using bayesian networks. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management 142(9):1–16, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001154

    Google Scholar 

  36. López-Alonso M, Ibarrondo-Dávila MP, Rubio-Gáßmez MC, Munoz TG (2013) The impact of health and safety investment on construction company costs. Safety Science 60(12):151–159, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.06.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ma J, Chan CK, Ye Z, Zhu Z (2018) Effects of maximum relaxation in viscoelastic traffic flow modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 113:143–163, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mahmoud S, Zayed T, Fahmy M (2019) Development of sustainability assessment tool for existing buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society 44:99–119, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Manning FST, Richard E (1991) Oilfield processing of petroleum: Natural gas. PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK, USA

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mishra VK, Singh SK, Patel SP, Pandey S, Dwivedi N, Dwivedi S (2015) Applications of fluid mechanics in different engineering fields. Online Journal of Biosciences and Informatics 1(1)

  41. Mohamed S, Chinda T (2011) System dynamics modelling of construction safety culture. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management 18(3):266–281, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981111126179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mohammadi A, Tavakolan M, Khosravi Y (2018) Factors influencing safety performance on construction projects: A review. Safety Science 109:382–397, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nima K, Faisal K, Paul A, Valerio C (2014) Risk management of domino effects considering dynamic consequence analysis. Risk Analysis 34(6):1128–1138, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Peng G (2013) A new lattice model of two-lane traffic flow with the consideration of optimal current difference. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 18(3):559–566, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.07.015

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pereira E, Han S, Abourizk S (2018) Integrating case-based reasoning and simulation modeling for testing strategies to control safety performance. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 32(6), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000792

  46. Qiu G, Song R, He S, Yin W (2018) The pedestrian flow characteristics of Y-shaped channel. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 508:199–212, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rajendran S (2013) Enhancing construction worker safety performance using leading indicators. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 18(1):45–51, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Richards PI (1956) Shock waves on the highway. Operations Research 4:42–51, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.4.1.42

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Robson LS, Ibrahim S, Hogg-Johnson S, Steenstra IA, Van Eerd D, Amick BCI (2017) Developing leading indicators from ohs management audit data: Determining the measurement properties of audit data from the field. Journal of Safety Research 61:93–103, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rubio-Romero JC, Pardo-Ferreira MdC, De la Varga-Salto J, Galindo-Reyes F (2018) Composite leading indicator to assess the resilience engineering in occupational health & safety in municipal solid waste management companies. Safety Science 108:161–172, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Seminara G, Carli B, Forni G, Fuzzi S, Mazzino A, Rinaldo A (2020) Biological fluid dynamics of airborne COVID-19 infection. Rendiconti Lincei-Scienze Fisiche E Naturali 31(3):505–537, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-020-00938-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shea T, De Cieri H, Donohue R, Cooper B, Sheehan C (2016) Leading indicators of occupational health and safety: An employee and workplace level validation study. Safety Science 85: 293–304, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sheehan C, Donohue R, Shea T, Cooper B, Cieri HD (2016) Leading and lagging indicators of occupational health and safety: The moderating role of safety leadership. Accident Analysis & Prevention 92:130–138, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sun Y (2018) Kinetic Monte Carlo simulations of two-dimensional pedestrian flow models. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 505:836–847, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Thurston E, Glendon AI (2018) Association of risk exposure, organizational identification, and empowerment, with safety participation, intention to quit, and absenteeism. Safety Science 105:212–221, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tosin A, Zanella M (2019) Kinetic-controlled hydrodynamics for traffic models with driver-assist vehicles. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 17(2):716–749, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1137/18m1203766

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Versteeg K, Bigelow P, Dale AM, Chaurasia A (2019) Utilizing construction safety leading and lagging indicators to measure project safety performance: A case study. Safety Science 120:411–421, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wang F, Deng FJ, Wang YP (2020) Construction method and application of real-time monitoring and early-warning model for anaerobic reactor leakage. Process Safety Progress 11, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12144

  59. Wiendahl HH, Roth N, Westkämper E (2002) Logistical positioning in a turbulent environment. CIRP Annals — Manufacturing Technology 51(1):383–386, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61542-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Xia N, Zou PXW, Liu X, Wang X, Zhu R (2018) A hybrid BN-HFACS model for predicting safety performance in construction projects. Safety Science 101:332–343, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Yu Y, Darko A, Chan APC, Chen C, Bao F (2018) Evaluation and ranking of risk factors in transnational public-private partnerships projects: Case study based on the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 24(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000448

  62. Zhang X (2011) Social risks for international players in the construction market: A China study. Habitat International 35(3):514–519, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zhao H, Zhang G, Li W, Gu T, Zhou D (2018) Lattice hydrodynamic modeling of traffic flow with consideration of historical current integration effect. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 503:1204–1211, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.08.072

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 51878382) and the Beijing General Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute Co., Ltd. (grant number 20202001333).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pin-Chao Liao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, M., Chong, HY. & Liao, PC. A Novel Approach Based on Fluid Dynamics for On-Site Safety Assessment. KSCE J Civ Eng (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-1027-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fluid dynamics
  • Safety assessment
  • Risk evaluation
  • Management
  • Construction