4.7 Article

Identification of critical causes of construction accidents in China using a model based on system thinking and case analysis

Journal

SAFETY SCIENCE
Volume 121, Issue -, Pages 606-618

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.038

Keywords

Construction; Safety management; Accident; Causes; System thinking

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51308240]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0805500]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hundreds of accidents occur each year in the construction industry and result in large numbers of injuries, deaths, and loss of property. Although construction safety management aims for zero accidents, this is difficult to achieve because of multiple factors influencing the occurrence of accidents. To clarify the framework for construction accident prevention, this study uses accident causation theory and the system thinking method to build a construction accident causation system (CACS) model and identify critical accident causes. Construction accident causes are considered as a whole system and then decomposed into 6 subsystems, 16 factors, and 39 subfactors. The investigation reports of 571 construction accidents in China are collected, and a grey relational analysis (GRA) of accident causes is conducted. Based on these results, the 39 subfactors are classified into 3 severity levels: critical, important, and ordinary. A case study is then conducted with respect to the particularly serious collapse accident that occurred during the Fengcheng Power Plant project. The occurrence process, major reasons for the accident, and related management defects are investigated and causes are identified. The results about accident cause identification of the case study are found to be consistent with the GRA of 571 accidents. Finally, recommendations for construction safety management and accident prevention in practice are proposed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available