1. Design for Construction Safety Based on a presentation given with Prof
Design for Construction Safety Based on a presentation given with Prof. John Gambatese at Safety in Design and Construction: A Lifecycle Approach Harvard School of Public Health February 23-27, 2009 and a presentation given at the 2009 North American Steel Construction Conference, Phoenix, AZ Mike Toole, PhD, PE Bucknell University
John does 9-24
This presentation introduces the design for construction safety concept and demonstrates why it is important as one piece of a holistic approach to enhancing construction site safety. The presentation was developed by the Design for Construction Safety workgroup within the OSHA Alliance Program Construction Roundtable. The Roundtable is a collection of non-profit professional organizations and individual companies who are participating in the Alliance Program.

2. Overview Concept Motivation Examples
International and U.S. Initiatives
Barriers
Tools
Steel Examples
Trajectories
Moving forward in your organization
The Concept
Research (including your viability slides)
Process
International laws and initiatives (that are not already covered in another session)
National Initiatives
(and perhaps a brief coverage of) Barriers

3. What is Designing for Construction Safety?
The process of addressing construction site safety and health in the design of a project
Designing for safety constructability
Designing for Construction Safety is the process of of addressing construction site safety and maintenance in the design phase of a project. The cusomary role of the design professional is protect the safety of the public and to comply with building codes. Designing for Construction Safety extends this role to include construction site safety.

4. Prevention through Design
“Addressing occupational safety and health needs in the design process to prevent or minimize the work-related hazards and risks associated with the construction, manufacture, use, maintenance, and disposal of facilities, materials, and equipment.”
(NIOSH)

5. What Safety by Design is NOT
Having designers take a role in construction safety DURING construction.
An endorsement of future legislation mandating that designers design for construction safety.
An endorsement of the principle that designers can or should be held partially responsible for construction accidents.

6. Typical Annual Construction Accidents in U.S.
Nearly 200,000 serious injuries
1,000 deaths

7. Benefits of DfCS Reduced site hazards
Fewer injuries and fatalities
Reduced workers compensation premiums
Increased productivity
Fewer delays due to accidents during construction allow continued focus on quality
Encourages designer-constructor collaboration
Designing for construction safety isn’t just the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do.
Perhaps even more compelling than the ethical issues involved is the fact that designing for construction safety results in practical and substantial benefits to all parties involved in a construction project. A project that has been designed for safety is inherently less hazardous than normal projects, which both increases productivity and reduces workers’ compensation premiums. This results in cost savings for both contractors and owners, especially on projects with owner-controlled insurance programs. DfCS projects can often be completed faster because safety-related delays are reduced or eliminated. In short, DfCS results in a host of practical benefits to owners and developers, which is why progressive clients are increasingly seeking design professionals who are experienced in or willing to incorporate DfCS into their projects.
A Northwest US manufacturer recently implemented a process called Life Cycle Safety which incorporated the Design for Construction Safety concept as well as design for safety in operations, maintenance, and re-tooling of a new manufacturing facility. During this project, designers and constructors reported increased involvement in all aspects of the project and this carried-over into productivity, schedule, and sequencing.

8. Hierarchy of Controls Eliminate the hazard (Design for Safety)
Reduce the hazard
Isolate the hazard
Use engineering controls
Use administrative controls
Use PPE

9. Considering Safety During Design Offers the Most Payoff1
High
Conceptual Design
Detailed Engineering
Ability to Influence Safety
Procurement
Construction
Start-up
Low
Project Schedule
1 Szymberski (1987)

10. Accidents Linked to Design1,2
22% of 226 injuries that occurred from in Oregon, WA, and CA
42% of 224 fatalities in U.S. between
In Europe, a 1991 study concluded that 60% of fatal accidents resulted in part from decisions made before site work began
1 Behm, M., “Linking Construction Fatalities to the Design for Construction Safety Concept” (2005)
2 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

11. Ethical Reasons for DfCS
National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics:
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
American Society of Civil Engineers’ Code of Ethics
Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health and welfare of the general public are dependent upon engineering decisions ….

12. DfCS and Sustainability
Environmental Equity
Sustainability
Economic Equity
Social Equity

13. Sustainability’s Social Equity Pillar
Do not our duties include minimizing all risks that we have control over?
Do not we have the same duties for construction workers as for the “public”?
Is it ethical to create designs that are not as safe as they could (practically) be?

14. Issue for Construction Trade contractor involvement
DfCS Process1
Design Kickoff
Design
Internal Review
Issue for Construction
External Review
Trade contractor involvement
Establish design for safety expectations
Include construction and operation perspective
Identify design for safety process and tools
QA/QC
Cross-discipline review
Focused safety review
Owner review
Need to acknowledge John Gambatese publication as source?
This graphic depicts the typical DfCS process. The key component of this process is the incorporation of site safety knowledge into design decisions. Ideally, site safety would be considered throughout the design process. It is recognized, however, that a limited number of progress reviews for safety may be more practical. The required site safety knowledge can be provided by one or more possible sources of such safety constructability expertise, including trade contractors, an in-house employee, or an outside consultant. In the future, perhaps state and federal OSHA employees may provide such expertise.
One question that sometimes is raised is whether the work product of a DfCS project looks different from that on standard projects. For now, the answer is “no.” That is, drawings and technical specifications on DfCS projects will likely at least initially look the same as typical documents, but they will reflect an inherently safer construction process. Eventually, it is hoped that construction documents resulting from a DfCS process will include safety enhancing details and notes that are not currently found on standard plans and specifications.
1 Hecker et al. (2005)

15. Examples: Anchorage Points
Need to replace one photo of anchorage point with cad drawing showing anchorage point locations.
Need to add photo of permanent anchorage point on roof.
Identifying and/or designing needed anchorage points for fall protection systems such as body harnesses and lanyards is an example of how designers can use their understanding of structural engineering principles to make it easier for workers to use fall protections systems efficiently, both during construction and future maintenance. Specifically, designers can:
Design floor perimeter beams and beams above floor openings to support lanyards
Design lanyard connection points along the beams
Note on the contract drawings which beams are designed to support lanyards, how many lanyards, and at what locations along the beams.
The idea of identifying anchorage points on construction drawings is in accordance with Appendix C to Subpart M (Fall Protection) from the federal OSHA standards for Construction:
(h) Tie-off considerations (1) “One of the most important aspects of personal fall protection systems is fully planning the system before it is put into use. Probably the most overlooked component is planning for suitable anchorage points. Such planning should ideally be done before the structure or building is constructed so that anchorage points can be incorporated during construction for use later for window cleaning or other building maintenance. If properly planned, these anchorage points may be used during construction, as well as afterwards.”

16. Examples: Prefabrication
Bridge Trusses
Roof Trusses
PEB
test.jedinstvo.com

17. Examples: Roofs Upper story windows and roof parapets Skylights
The previous examples did not affect the appearance or performance of the completed structure. Another set of potential DfCS decisions do result in a final design that is slightly different than what might have resulted had DfCS not occurred, but only those changes that do not unduly compromise the aesthetics or performance of the completed structure should be pursued.
One example is including a parapet roof that is at 1.0 m (39 in.) high. Such roofs serve eliminate the need for additional guardrails during roofing and rooftop HVAC appliance installation and prevent the need for fall protection during future maintenance.
Another example is designing upper story windows to be at least 1.0 m (39 in.) above the floor level. Having the window sill at this height allows it to function as a guardrail during construction.
Skylights are another example. Specifically, designers can:
Design permanent guardrails to be installed around skylights.
Design domed, rather than flat, skylights with shatterproof glass or strengthening wires.
Design the skylight to be installed on a raised curb.

18. Head Knocker at Catwalk
Examples: Clearances
Fall Hazard at Catwalk
Head Knocker at Catwalk

19. Plan of Record (POR): Trench below sub-fab level
New Fab: Full basement and taller basement

20. DfCS Practices Around the Globe
Designers first required to design for construction safety in the United Kingdom in 1995
Other European nations have similar requirements
Australia also leading in DfCS
Americans generally consider themselves ahead of the rest of the world with regards to managing the safety of workers, but in designing for construction safety, the U.S. is lagging. Australia and several countries in Europe have had DfCS-related laws and/or initiatives for several years. The United Kingdom passed into law the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM), which became effective in Other European countries have since followed with similar regulations. The CDM regulations place requirements for addressing construction worker safety and health on design professionals. The crux of the CDM regulations affecting the design profession is that they place a duty on the designer to ensure that any design avoids unnecessary foreseeable risks to construction workers. Two specific examples from the CDM text are:
Designers shall “ensure that any design…includes among the design considerations adequate regard to the need (i) to avoid foreseeable risks to the healthy and safety of any person at work carrying out construction work….” and
“The design shall include “adequate information about any aspect of the project or structure or materials … which might affect the health and safety of any person at work carrying out construction work….”

21. National Initiatives NIOSH
NORA Construction Sector Council CHPtD Workgroup
Prevention Through Design initiative
Make Green Jobs Safe initiative
OSHA Construction Alliance Roundtable DfCS Workgroup
ASCE-CI PtD Committee (inactive)

22. OSHA Construction Alliance DfCS Workgroup Members
Amer. Society of Civil Engineers-Construction Institute
American Society of Safety Engineers
Independent Electrical Contractors
ADSC: International Association of Foundation Drilling
Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America
Mason Contractors Association of America
National Fire Protection Association
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health
Sealant, Waterproofing and Restoration Institute
Washington Group International
The companies and professional organizations shown here have been involved in the Design for Construction Safety Initiative, including developing this presentation file.

23. Barriers
Like many good ideas, DfCS faces a number of barriers that will likely slow its adoption.
Potential solutions to these barriers involve long-term education and institutional changes.

24. Design for Safety Viability Study1
Review of OSHA Standards for Construction
Identify the OSHA provisions that mention the involvement of a licensed professional engineer.
Identify designs that can be implemented to forego the need to implement temporary, on-site safety measures required by OSHA.
Interviews:
Architects and Engineers (19)
Safety Manager, Construction Attorney, Insurance Risk Manager
1 Prof. John Gambatese, Oregon State University and others, funded by CPWR Small Study No PS

25. Factors Affecting Implementation
Designer knowledge of the concept
Designer acceptance of the concept
Designer education and training
Designer motivation to implement the concept
Ease of implementation of the concept
Availability of implementation tools and resources
Competing design/project objectives
Design criteria/physical characteristics
Impacted by
Implementation of the Design for Safety Concept
Construction worker safety
Other construction characteristics (cost, quality, constructability, etc.)
Completed facility characteristics (design features, operator safety, operability, maintainability, etc.)
Design firm liability, profitability, etc.
Impact on

26. Barrier: Designers' Fear of Liability
Barrier: Fear of undeserved liability for worker safety.
Potential solutions:
Clearly communicate we are NOT suggesting designers should be held responsible for construction accidents.
Develop revised model contract language
Propose legislation to facilitate DfCS without inappropriately shifting liability onto designers.

27. Barrier: Increased Designer Costs Associated with DfCS
Barrier: DfCS processes will increase both direct and overhead costs for designers.
Potential solution:
Educate owners that total project costs and total project life cycle costs will decrease

28. Barrier: Designers' Lack of Safety Expertise
Barrier: Few design professionals possess sufficient expertise in construction safety.
Potential solutions:
Add safety to design professionals’ curricula.
Develop and promote 10-hour and 30-hour OSHA courses for design professionals.
Develop and distribute DfCS tools
The University of Wisconsin at Whitewater has developed a construction safety curriculum.

29. Design for Construction Safety Toolbox
Created by Construction Industry Institute (CII)
Interactive computer program
Used in the design phase to decrease the risk of incidents
Over 400 design suggestions

30. Safety in Design Checklists
Item
Description
1.0
Structural Framing
1.1
Space slab and mat foundation top reinforcing steel at no more than 6 inches on center each way to provide a safe walking surface.
1.2
Design floor perimeter beams and beams above floor openings to support lanyards.
1.3
Design steel columns with holes at 21 and 42 inches above the floor level to support guardrail cables.
2.0
Accessibility
2.1
Provide adequate access to all valves and controls.
2.2
Orient equipment and controls so that they do not obstruct walkways and work areas.
2.3
Locate shutoff valves and switches in sight of the equipment which they control.
2.4
Provide adequate head room for access to equipment, electrical panels, and storage areas.
2.5
Design welded connections such that the weld locations can be safely accessed.

32. Websites

33. Links on www.designforconstructionsafety.org

35. Constructability Tips for Steel Design
Detailing Guide for the Enhancement of Erection Safety published by the National Institute for Steel Detailing and the Steel Erectors Association of America

36. The Erector Friendly Column
Include holes in columns at 21” and 42” for guardrail cables and at higher locations for fall protection tie-offs
Locate column splices and connections at reasonable heights above floor
Provide seats for beam connections

37. Avoid hanging connections
Design connections to bear on columns

38. Column Splice

39. Column Splice 2

40. Avoid awkward and dangerous connection locations

41. Avoid tripping hazards

42. Eliminate sharp corners

43. Provide enough space for making connections

44. Know approximate dimensions of necessary tools to make connections

45. DfCS in Practice: Design Builders
Jacobs
Parsons
Fluor
Bechtel
Photo credit: Washington Group
Martin Jung at Jacobs: Driven by EU operations but now corp. focus for value as part of “Beyond Zero” being marketed. Has Safety in Design intranet, with newsletters, checklists, contacts. He and safety personnel do review at 60% stage. Design engineers receiving 10 hour osha training.
Andy Peters at Parsons: PtD is mostly project based for clients such as DOE and USACE, but trying to make corp. wide. Their CEO challenged them to be the industry safety leader and Andy knows PtD is needed to take them to that level. Will roll out in April. They are seeing PtD required in RFPs, especially in Middle East.
Nancy Kralik at Fluor: Design engineers have been added to HSE groups. PtD being incorporated into checklists and processes, starting with maintainability issues and in fire protection, control systems.
Martin Reifschneider at Bechtel: Bechtel insists on doing nearly all structural steel tasks—design, detailing, sometimes erection—for control, efficiency and safety. Have developed own erection safety guidelines that overlap but exceed NEA/NISD guidelines, such as work platforms. Use of PtD hasn’t spread to other trades yet.

47. Bechtel’s Steel Design Process
Temporary access platforms
Lifting lugs
Shop installed vertical brace ladders
Bolt-on column ladders & work platforms

48. Temporary ladder, platform and safety line

49. Modular Platforms

50. Brace Lifting Clips and Rungs

51. Owners who are moving towards DfCS
Southern Company
Intel
Harvard University
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Southern Co: Developed project/equipment-specific and engineering discipline-specific checklists for maintenance that have grown to include construction safety. Safety and construction personnel required to be involved in several design stages. Engineers being trained in safety.
Intel: Has lifecycle safety checklist for all projects. Willing to make major footprint changes, as we saw by adding new floor.
Ellen Stewart at USACE: Intentions but progress limited by focus on completing revised EM PtD and safety promotion to engineering and construction groups and 3 hours of training. She hopes to add anchorage points design to EM 385, processes.

53. The Future of DfCS Trajectories: projectile analogy
Trajectories in technological innovation (Dosi 1992)
Where is DfCS heading?
Five proposed DfCS trajectories
Implications for professions and individual organizations

54. Five DfCS Trajectories
Increased prefabrication
Increased use of less hazardous materials and systems
Increased application of construction engineering
Increased spatial investigation and consideration
Increased collaboration and integration
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary defines trajectory as “The line or curve described by an object moving through space.” It is a deterministic concept, that is, it presumes the state of an object at any point in time reflects completely a set of antecedent causes. A classical problem in physics is to calculate the trajectory of a moving body, such as a projectile fired from a cannon. If one knows the initial velocity and direction of the projectile and environmental variables such as wind, one can calculate when and where the projectile will land. Social science constructs such as innovation have also been discussed as following trajectories (Dosi 1992, Toole 2001).
The concept of trajectories can also be applied to gain insights into how CHPtD may evolve. Using the analogy of a projectile, if we know the initial direction of the CHPtD projectile (that is, the underlying concept or goal), the initial velocity (the current publication rate and breadth of professional organizations promoting CHPtD), and the environmental conditions (the engineering design task and process, the construction task, and the structure of the EPC industry), we can better predict how CHPtD may evolve as it is diffused within the industry.

55. Increased Prefabrication
Shift site work to safer work site environment
elevation to ground
underground to grade
confined space to open space
Shift site work to factory
Allows use of safer, automated equipment
Provides safer, engineered environment
Prefabrication may reduce the hazard level of a task in two ways. First, prefabrication allows the location of the work to be shifted to a lower hazard environment. One application of this principle is that work can be shifted from a high elevation to the ground, where fall injuries are much less likely. Using roof trusses instead of roof rafters and assembled roof panels, for example, reduce the number of connections that workers must perform while more than 6’ above the adjacent surface. A second application is shifting work from inside an excavation to grade, where there is no risk of soil cave-in. Pre-assembling sections of freshwater, sanitary or steam pipe in a plant or on site, then placing the assembly into the trench using power equipment, for example, reduces the number of connections that must be made inside the trench. A third application is shifting work from inside a confined space to an open space, where there is less risk of hazardous air quality. Pre-assembling water or steam pipe sections, pumps and valves, for example, reduces the number of connections that must be made inside a vault and therefore the number of person-hours spent inside a space where air quality hazards may develop.
The second way that prefabrication may reduce the hazard level of a task is that it allows the work to be shifted from the field to a factory, which allows the use of safer, automated equipment in improved environments. Permanent factory equipment for bending, drilling, cutting, welding, nailing, screwing and bolting is typically safer than portable field equipment that perform these tasks because designs are less constrained by cost and weight and can include improved safeguards. The factory setting facilitates the use of engineered ventilation (for example, consider coatings applied in the field versus paint booths in a factory) and the use of material handling equipment, which reduces air quality hazards and muscoskeletol injuries, respectively.
Bridge segments, structural steel column trees, steel stairs, concrete or wood wall panels, metal and wood joists, HVAC ducting, and plumbing pipe trees are additional common examples of components that can be prefabricated and erected using inherently safer processes and environments.

56. Increased Use of Less Hazardous Materials and Systems
Coatings, sealants, cleaners
Building systems
Steel, concrete, masonry, wood
Photo credit: Washington Group
Engineers and architects typically specify materials based on perceived or experienced performance and cost (or sometimes simply by what text is included in boiler plate technical specifications such as Masterspec), rarely on the inherent safety of the materials for construction or maintenance workers. Progressive owners and designers are becoming increasingly aware that some materials offer essentially similar performance and cost as that of competitive products, yet are considerably less hazardous to install or apply. This is particularly true for coatings, adhesives and cleaners, which are associated with air quality, flammability and skin hazards (Weinstein et al 2005). As information technology makes it easier for designers to obtain information about the inherent hazard level of various building materials, designers will increasingly be expected to apply this information in their design decisions.
Designers may also be expected to consider in their designs the inherent hazard level of various building systems, that is, assembled components or portions of the facility, not individual materials. Safety research will eventually identify the conditions that make concrete, steel, or wood building systems safer than alternative systems, and designers will be expected to consider this criterion along with cost, quality and schedule. Prefabricated, integrated products (i.e., such as wall or roof panels that provide both structural and exterior finish functions) are other examples of building systems that may offer inherently safer installation processes and will therefore need to be considered by designers.

57. Increased Construction Engineering
Soil retention systems
Crane lifts
Temporary loads
Temporary structures
Fall protection anchorage points
Why designers increasingly involved
Growth of design-build
Their understanding of structure and site
Photo credit: Washington Group
There are numerous instances during the construction process when engineering is required to plan or execute the construction task. Soil retention systems, crane lifts and other major material handling tasks, soil bearing analysis for supporting construction equipment, temporary structures, fall protection anchorage points, and temporary load analysis are all examples of construction tasks that require the application of engineering principles because they involve forces and stresses. Traditionally, contractors have been required to provide these construction engineering tasks through in-house employees or consultants and design professionals relied on typical contract clauses that they had no responsibility for construction means, methods or safety.
The industry seems to be changing in the area of construction engineering. It is the authors’ perception that OSHA and progressive owners are realizing that when design engineers perform no engineering related to the construction process, important construction engineering tasks may be performed by unqualified personnel or not performed at all. Many industry professionals have witnessed instances where cave in protection, scaffolding, falsework, or crane picks were planned and/or executed without the engineering expertise needed to ensure a reasonable level of risk. Industry standards that require the involvement of qualified individuals in planning and/or executing engineering-related tasks may be increasingly enforced in the coming decade.
There are several reasons why designers are increasingly likely to be involved in construction engineering on the projects they designed. One reason is that the growth of design-build has led to an increase in construction engineering capability among designers who previously been less involved during the construction stage of their projects. Another reason is that they should be able to perform construction engineering less expensively and more effectively than contractor personnel because they have already have a detailed understanding of the structure and the construction site.

58. Increased Spatial Investigation
Communicating site hazards on project documents
Working distances for each trade
Cranes and powerlines
Excavation dimensions for work within
Steel connections
Raceways and plumbing pipes
Ergonomic issues
Overhead
Awkward angles
The growth of both CHPtD and design-build may elevate the standard of care for designers to include communicating potential site hazards to the constructor on the project drawings or through other project documents. In addition, design engineers may be expected to possess and incorporate into their designs at least a crude understanding of necessary working distances for each of the various construction trades and common tools. Examples include the minimum legal proximity for cranes to powerlines, the minimum trench width necessary to allow efficient pipe placement and connections, the minimum spacing between electrical raceways and adjacent structures to allow safe and efficient installation, and the minimum clearance between steel bolts and adjacent steel members to allow the use of typical positioning and bolting tools or field welding (NISD/SSEA 2001).
Spatial considerations for constructability may also include ergonomic issues. For example, the design of structural steel, plumbing, HVAC and electrical systems will include whether connections requires the worker to work over his or her head or at an awkward angle that is more likely to result in muscoskeletol injuries (NISD/SSEA 2001, Toole et al 2005).

59. Increased Collaboration and Integration
Communication about risks, costs, time, quality….
Between owner, AE/DB, CM/GC, manufacturers and trade contractors
In every phase of project
concept design
detailed design
procurement
construction

60. Factors Affecting Speed Along Trajectories
Enablers
Growth of design-build
Growth of IT (web information, simulation, visualization systems)
Obstacles
Designers’ fear of liability
Designers’ lack of safety expertise
Owners’ facilitation of collaboration

61. Implications
Designers need knowledge of construction safety and construction processes
More safety in architectural and engineering curricula
Engineering licensure requirements
Designers need to become better gatherers and communicators of project safety information
For example: existing site utilities, availability of prefabricated components, likely methods to be used, working clearances.

62. Implications for Education of Design Engineers
Shift in mindset
Holistic view
Exposure to DfCS fundamentals
Training in system-specific DfCS opportunities
Engineering course-specific DfCS modules

63. Implications for Contracting
New contract terms needed
Design-Bid-Build typically hinders collaboration during design
Design-Build, Design-Assist and IPD better facilitate collaboration

64. Implications for Use of Information Technology
IT represents efficient means for providing designers with information needed to perform DfCS
Manufacturers must make DfCS information available
All entities will need IT to facilitate communication, collaboration, integration
Another implication of the growth of CHPtD is that design professionals will need to become better information gatherers and communicators on project-related information that they currently do not sufficiently address. This change matches well with the vision of civil engineers as “master innovators and integrators” in the Vision 2025, which was recently communicated by the American Society of 2025 (ASCE 2007). Project information needs includes site utility data from owners and municipalities, technical data on prefabricated components, and trade-specific safety input from contractors. For example, designers will need to establish procedures for communicating with prefabricators before projects are awarded in order to ensure their designs lend themselves to prefabrication whenever possible. These necessary capabilities point at the need for designers to embrace and invest in innovation, particularly information technologies. Owner clients will need to play a role in facilitating this project collaboration by allowing alternative delivery methods that are more conducive to collaboration than is the traditional design-bid-build method. Contractors on design-bid-build projects are typically not chosen until well after design is completed, which is why the needed communication about hazards between designers and builders cannot occur. Owner clients also need to facilitate collaboration by budgeting for project information technology infrastructures that promote efficient collaboration and integration.

65. Three Steps towards DfCS
Establish an enabling culture
Establish enabling processes
Secure clients who value lifecycle safety
Culture
Processes
Clients

66. Establish a Lifecycle Safety Culture
Instill the right safety values
Secure management commitment
Ensure recognition that designing for construction safety is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do
Professional Codes of Ethics
Payoff data

67. Establish Enabling Processes
Provide designers with safety training
Ensure designer-constructor interaction
Provide designers with DfCS tools

68. Secure Clients who Value Lifecycle Safety
Design-Builders less dependent on clients’ safety values
International clients favorable
Industrial clients favorable
Negotiated projects in other sectors offer opportunity to educate clients

69. Summary DfCS can improve construction site safety
Ethical and practical reasons to perform DfCS
U.S. and international initiatives
Significant barriers being slowly resolved
Tools have been created to facilitate the DfCS process
Great DfCS resource for steel construction
First steps to implementing DfCS

70. Questions for You
Do engineers and detailers have a ethical responsibility to consider erector safety if they are able? 
Are the potential benefits of performing safety by design outweighed by the liability risks? 
Should AISC have a policy regarding safety by design (either for or against)? 
Do most engineers and detailers possess the knowledge needed to perform safety by design?
Should project owners demand safety by design on their projects?

71. Thanks for the Invitation
Questions? Comments?
For more information: