[University]
Introduction – 3
Safety versus Economy – 4
Work Safety Hazards – 6
Accountability of Engineers – 8
Conclusion – 10
References – 12
Introduction
The accountability for the safely of workers during construction has been largely shouldered by contractors that hire the workers involved. However, there is a growing consensus among the public and policy makers that designers should have an increased accountability to a project’s overall safety. It should be noted though, that unless an engineer or architect have been tasked to oversee the project, their role is more on the design process and not on the management of the project. For the same reason, engineers and architects could not be held directly liable to any loss of life during construction as they do not have an active part in the work process. However, there can be implications if designers are fully immune to accountability of a project’s safety. Removing the accountability of designers on work safety during construction could lead to poor engineering practice. In actual practice, engineers and architects does not take into consideration that aspect of project management into their design. As far as the designer is concerned, solving the design problem is of utmost importance while keeping in line with the established structural codes of the country where the structure is being constructed. Also, the check and balance associated with the region’s policy and codes set a delineation line where a designer’s liability ends. For example, once the design has been approved, the designer’s liability is now passed to building inspectors who are responsible for checking and approving the design plan. Subsequently, once the design have been found to pass all the necessary provisions of the structural code, it is already considered safe for public dwelling. However, the design process does not consider how human labor is utilized for the realization of the design. Labor falls under construction management, which is governed and influenced mostly by contractors and their work ethics. If designers are to be held liable to their design plan’s workability, then there must be a serious implication to the design process and the way projects are being managed.
Safety versus Economy
Engineers are constantly faced with a dilemma when creating their designs. In an engineering perspective, a good design is one that uses the least material for economy while addressing the design problem at hand. Most often though, when economical design are sought, the safety of the structure is compromised. The economical aspect of design is also one of the main reasons why engineering structures often fail. Economy, is somehow, directly related with strength. The higher the factor of safety of a design is, the more uneconomical the design will be. On the other hand, the economical the structure is, the lower its factor of safety is. It is also important to note stakeholders motivate engineering design. These stakeholders in design are the clients and the users. Users motivates clients a construction project while it is the clients that have direct contact with the designer. Clients, on the other hand, present the need to the designer in the form of a design problem or a project proposal. The designer then addresses the problem with a design that would satisfy both his client’s objective as well as the needs of the user. However, it is the user that would determine and evaluate the design based on his satisfaction. Apparently, stakeholders have conflicting interests in the design process. A client is inclined to vouch for an economical design while the user is more concerned about increasing the structures’ safety. In every design project, the designer must aim to satisfy both demands. And since it is the client that engineers are directly working for, they have a strong influence on the outcome of the design. In academic institutions, the young engineer is taught to follow the codes in address a design problem. For the engineer, as long as the structure pass the codes’ criteria, the design is already satisfactory. The design process is not an easy task as engineers are constantly challenged to balance the stakeholder’s demands. Design has been defined as “a systematic, intelligent process in which designers generate, evaluate and specify designs for devices, systems or processes whose forms and functions achieve clients’ objectives and users’ needs while satisfying a specified set of constraints”. Over time, the engineering design process has evolved and has taken into account technological advancement, new design concepts, new codes as well as the evolving needs of users and clients. Aside from the direct factors that influence the design process, economic factors have also strongly influenced the modern design process and its outcome. Design is among the primary role of an engineering profession. In fact, the mathematical and scientific background an engineering student undergoes is modeled so that he would be able to create his own design. The design process is a cumbersome and lengthy process as architects and engineers would have to consider several codes and provisions of a country’s acceptable structural standards. In structural engineering, the primary design consideration is the ability of the structure to resist stresses due to various loading conditions. The safety risk associated with working with the design, however simple it may seem, is high during its initial stage. Concrete structures, for example, does not reach their design strength until the concrete has reached its curing period, which is equivalent to 28 days. Before concrete structures reach their design strength, supports must be adequate to hold the forms in place. Most safety issues happen when engineers fail to check the adequacy of supports during the laying down of fresh concrete on their forms. Aside from the safety risk associated with the laying out of support for creating reinforced concrete structures, the structural member, itself, is also at risk of being unable to carry the loads if its design strength is exceeded. Loading failures usually happen when a building’s occupancy is not strictly followed by its tenant or dweller. Structural steel, on the other hand, is easier to handle than concrete structures as far as workability is concerned because of its fabricated nature. However, steel structures can also be subjected to unusual loading conditions due to human error as well as environmental factors. In order to address the variability of loading and to prepare for unusual loading conditions, structural codes provide a factor of safety both for concrete and steel structures. In the United States, several code giving bodies govern the construction of structures. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are among the important code giving bodies in the U.S. for structural construction. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for example, provides load magnifying factors to increase the safety for structural designs. Aside from increasing the structure’s load bearing capacity by multiplying loads with certain factors, structural engineers assume conservative values in their design. For concrete and steel structures, beam and column load bearing capacities are reduced by a certain factor to allow for any uncertainty in the design process. However, the design process does not take into account how workers would conduct themselves during construction. Furthermore, it is beyond the engineer’s capacity to oversee the worker’s safety during construction when he is not compelled by the codes to do so.
Work Safety Hazards
One of the problems faced by a construction management is occupational accidents. These accidents may cause less serious injury that can hamper the operation of the construction in a smaller scale or may at several occasion cause greater damage to property while endangering human lives. Workers in the construction work setting are more prone to accidents during the performance of work related tasks. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Organization (OSHA), “The fatal injury rate for the construction industry is higher than the national average in this category for all industries”. OSHA identifies potential safety hazards in the construction site and primary to these are falling from heights, trench collapse, scaffold collapse, electric shock due to welding or arc blast, failure to use protective equipment and repetitive motion injuries. When analyzed, these potential hazards can be induced both by the working environment of which includes the overall management of the project, and the human factor, which accounts to the errors induced by the workers. On a personal level, the safety of construction workers can be compromised due to several factors such as incompetence and negligence. In a construction setting, the overall project is usually managed by a major contractor with several sub-contractors. The major contractor oversees the work in general; however, it is the sub-contractor that provides the labor force. In most construction projects, the project management does not concern itself with the individual attributes of the workers. Obviously, the major reason behind the impersonal relationship between management and labor is due to the fact that construction workers are only temporary workers and their connection with management only last in relation with the duration of the project. As a result, the construction workforce is among the most diverse and unregulated work force in any industries. Because of the construction worker’s diverse background, incompetence can be a major reason for work place accidents. Unlike engineers, ordinary construction workers rely on skill and experience to get the job done since they have little or no theoretical background. Most often, the lack of theoretical knowledge could result in poor judgment, which can become the cause of major accidents. Negligence is also a major factor that contributes to the occurrence of work place hazards. Failure to wear protective gear is among the common cause of injury in a construction environment.
Accountability of Engineers
Traditionally, engineers that design big structural projects take a passive role in the construction phase of a building. This passive role has been practiced for so long that the accountability of engineers in relation to the human costs of building their projects is difficult to establish. An engineer that is tasked with a building’s design does not take into consideration that workers would be at risk in direct connection to his design. It is quite difficult to establish how a design, however difficult it may seem, would become the main reason why there are workplace accidents. It is quite apparent, as far as workplace safety is concern, that it is the contractor’s responsibility to secure the workplace. As far as design is concerned, the sole responsibility of the engineer is to make sure that his design is in accordance with the codes. However, under ethical considerations, an engineer may be held accountable. According to the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), engineers may be held liable based on its fundamental principles and fundamental canons. Under the fundamental principles of the ASCE code of ethics, engineers must “uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the engineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment”. Also, under the ethical code’s fundamental canons, engineers are expected to “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties”. Another provision of the ASCE that relates to worker’s safety is provided under section three of its code of ethics, which states that “Violations of safety rules or conditions that endanger the welfare of other employees, contractors, clients, or the public shall be reported immediately to the appropriate person or authority”. The ethical provisions of the ASCE are obviously inadequate to enforce work safety as an integral part of design. In fact, it does not state specifically how a design engineer would integrate work safety on his design. Best practices, though, encourage engineers to be more pro-active not only in the design stage but also in the construction stage. According to the Board of Governors of the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), “If we embrace the task of solving the business risk issues associated with building infrastructure, we can bring so much more to the table during project conception, development, design, and construction”. Although the safety of workers is not a primary concern of engineers, a paradigm shift is necessary to break away with a nonchalant attitude towards the human aspect of construction. In order to increase the accountability of engineers, codes must be provided that would include the working issues regarding design. It should be noted though that doing so would entail several implications. First, the design process would take longer than usual. Because of the additional effort and time spent on a plan, engineers will most likely increase their professional fees. Assuming that a new code has been established that would require engineers to include worker safety, additional measures and guidance would be created by policy makers for compliance. On the part of the owners and contractors, compliance for additional policies could complicate the already difficult and cumbersome process of acquiring construction permits. As a result, there is a possibility that construction projects would decline. Most importantly, and perhaps the biggest risk that an increased liability would ensue is the decline of structural and civil engineering as a profession. Civil engineers enjoy a relatively higher freedom from being persecuted due to labor problems. But then, if their liability is increased to include construction work issues, potential engineers might get discouraged from joining the profession. Contrary to the negative implications of increasing an engineer’s accountability, there are also foreseen advantages. One advantage is the improvement of the worker’s safety. Also, increasing an engineer’s accountability to the construction phase of the project would encourage him to practice his profession with care and prudence. This would lead to better engineering designs with higher factor of safety. However, it is possible that a safer design would mean additional cost to the project.
Conclusion
The human cost of building an engineering design creates an ethical dilemma for the construction industry. For the same reason, the engineering profession is placed on the limelight on whether they should be accountable for the safety of the workers in accomplishing their designs. However, engineers would have to balance several factors during the design process that would address the demands of the stakeholders. But since engineering design is a process that involves not only the safety aspect but most significantly, the economic and technical aspect, a conflict of interest occur. A design follows a certain constraint or limiting factor provided by the codes. The engineer, therefore, does not only address the design problem based on the need and objective of the client and its users but would also have to consider certain constraints. In order to be economical, the engineer sets his design in agreement with the code as he is trained to do so. However, the codes do not extensively consider the safety of workers during construction. Best practices suggest that engineers must be proactive from conceptualization of design up to the construction phase of the project. Although engineers are ethically challenged to address the human aspect of construction, he is more compelled to address the needs of his client since they represent the business side of the engineering profession. On the other hand, increasing the accountability of engineers as what is already established would alter the industry as a whole. The task, therefore, to increase the safety of workers in the construction industry should be a cooperative effort between all stakeholders.
References
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2008, January). Ethics Guidelines for Professional Conduct for Civil Engineers. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.asce.org/: http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Ethics_-_New/ethics_guidelines010308v2.pdf
Cesarini, G., Hall, G., & Kupiec, M. (2013, April). Building a Proactive Safety culture in the conStruction induStry. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.acegroup.com/: http://www.acegroup.com/us-en/assets/progress-report-proactive-safety-culture-in-construction.pdf
Cleland, A. (2014). Engineers must be held accountable. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/10075213/Engineers-must-be-held-accountable
Dym, C., & Little, P. (2009). Engineering Design: A Project Based Introduction, 3rd Edition. NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
McCormac, J., & Brown, R. (2014). Design of Reinforced Concrete, 9th Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (n.d.). Worker Safety Series, Construction. Retrieved October 2014, from www.osha.gov: https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3252/3252.html
SEI. (2013, October). A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering and Structural Engineers: A case for change. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.asce.org/: http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/sei/About_SEI/A%20Vision%20for%20the%20Future%20of%20Structural%20Engineering%20Oct%2016%202013(2).pdf
Ullman, D. (2003). The Mechanical Design Process. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
