Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017)000–000

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017)000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 807–813

International Conference on Industrial Engineering, ICIE 2017

International Conference on Industrial Engineering, ICIE 2017
Errors, Defects and Safety Control at Construction Stage
Errors, Defects and Safety Control at Construction Stage
A.Kh. Baiburin*
A.Kh. Baiburin*
South Ural State University, 76, Lenin Avenue, Chelyabinsk 454080, The Russian Federation
South Ural State University, 76, Lenin Avenue, Chelyabinsk 454080, The Russian Federation

Abstract
Abstract
The analysis of construction work defects is conducted according to reasons, time and place of manifestation, and type of
structures.
The analysisIt isoffound out that work
construction the greatest
defectsnumber of defects
is conducted is observed
according in the combinations
to reasons, time and place of of
different structures.
manifestation, andThe main
type of
reason for critical
structures. defects
It is found out isthat
human errors. According
the greatest number of to the practice
defects of operation
is observed of construction
in the combinations offacilities
differentinstructures.
Russia and abroad,
The main
the actual
reason for probability of anis accident
critical defects with account
human errors. Accordingof human errors exceeds
to the practice the theoretical
of operation probability
of construction by aninorder
facilities Russiaof and
magnitude.
abroad,
Accordingly, an effective
the actual probability of anstrategy forwith
accident building
accountcontrol with an
of human emphasis
errors exceedsonthe
blocking grossprobability
theoretical errors during
by antheorder
process design and
of magnitude.
construction isanproposed.
Accordingly, A probabilistic
effective strategy model
for building of thewith
control hazardous situation
an emphasis development
on blocking gross in caseduring
errors of anythe defects
processand errorsand
design is
proposed.
constructionTheis model allows
proposed. A predicting
probabilistichazards,
modelreducing the probability
of the hazardous of errors
situation and accidents,
development in caseand
of improving
any defectstheandmethods
errors of
is
building
proposed.control.
The model allows predicting hazards, reducing the probability of errors and accidents, and improving the methods of
© 2017 The
building Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
control.
© 2017 The
Peer-review Authors. Published by
under responsibility of Elsevier Ltd. committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering.
the scientific
© 2017 The
Peer-review Authors.
under Published by
responsibility of Elsevier
the B.V.committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering
scientific
Keywords:
Peer-reviewcivil engineering,
under human errors;
responsibility defects; hazardous
of the scientific situations;
committee of theaccident risks; structural
International Conferencesafety.
on Industrial Engineering.
Keywords: civil engineering, human errors; defects; hazardous situations; accident risks; structural safety.

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
According to the State Construction Supervision of the Russian Federation, 80% of projects under construction
areAccording
allowed forto significant and critical Supervision
the State Construction defects in the of construction of load-bearing
the Russian Federation, 80% structures,
of projects which reduce their
under construction
strength
are and for
allowed stability. They and
significant endangered safe working
critical defects in thepractices in 15%
construction of the inspected
of load-bearing buildings.
structures, Costs
which for defect
reduce their
elimination
strength andand reconstruction
stability. reach 5%safe
They endangered of the estimated
working cost of
practices in the
15%construction facilities,
of the inspected and theCosts
buildings. costsforondefect
early
repair of constructed
elimination residentialreach
and reconstruction houses 5%reach up estimated
of the to 3%. Annual losses
cost of as a result of facilities,
the construction defects inandconstruction
the costs are
on more
early
than 2 of
repair billion rubles (according
constructed residential to the prices
houses reachofupthe year Annual
to 3%. 1984). According
losses as a to the latest
result estimates,
of defects 16% of the
in construction arecost of
more
construction
than 2 billionand erection
rubles workstoisthespent
(according onofthe
prices theelimination
year 1984).ofAccording
design and construction
to the defects.16%
latest estimates, On ofaverage,
the costthe
of
construction and erection works is spent on the elimination of design and construction defects. On average, the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-922-231-3827; fax: +7-351-267-9183.

E-mail address:author.
* Corresponding baiburinak@susu.ac.ru
Tel.: +7-922-231-3827; fax: +7-351-267-9183.
E-mail address: baiburinak@susu.ac.ru
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
1877-7058 ©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of the scientific
Published committee
by Elsevier B.V.of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering .
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering .

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.555
808 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 807–813
2 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

construction of more than 700 objects in the territory of the Russian Federation is put on hold annually and about a
third of them - because of accident threat.

2. Construction defect analysis

According to official bulletins (1993-2004), the following averaged distribution of causes of accidents is
observed: defects of construction and erection works - 44%; violation of operation rules - 24%; poor quality of
materials - 15%; excess loads and external impacts - 5%; erroneous design decision making - 4%; other causes - 8%.
Thus, about 60% of accidents are associated with the stage of construction, including critical defects in construction
facilities and materials used. Therefore, strengthening of technical discipline and all types of building control,
particularly input control of material supply and operational control of construction works are the main measures to
reduce the accident rate in construction.
The distribution of defects in construction can be represented by the following statistics [1]. By the reasons of
defect origin: design error - 4%; poor quality of materials and products - 17%; low quality of installation work -
42%; operation deficiency - 18%; combination of reasons - 19%. By the time of defect manifestation: during the
construction - 48%; built, but not commissioned - 20%; during commissioning - 29% (including up to one year -
12%; up to 15 years - 7%, more than 15 years - 10%); after repair - 3%. By type of structures: foundation - 3%;
steel - 6%; wood - 7%; reinforced concrete - 17%; brick - 18%; combinations of different structures - 49%.
As we can see, most of the defects occur at the stage of construction, and half of these defects occur in hard
controllable conjunctions of structures. Therefore one of the conditions of defect-free construction is the design of
technological conjunctions and adherence to the construction principle of V.G. Shukhov in terms of reduction of the
drive stage of loads and, consequently, the number of nodes, links, and joints in the structural system of construction
facility.
These conclusions are supported by the observed frequency of defects during the erection of steel and reinforced
concrete structures (Table 1) [2-4].

Table 1. Frequency of defects during structure erection.

Characteristic defects in the process of structure Frequency in the process of
erection structure erection (%)
steel reinforced-concrete
Nonconformity of conjunctions to the project 19.5 21.7
No anticorrosion protection of nodes 19.7 14.3
Damage of elements 16.2 16.0
Defects of erection welding in nodes 10.4 11.0
Defects of buttress nodes 11.9 7.3
Obliquity and bias of elements 7.5 10.1
No grouting 2.0 12.3
Omitting nodal connection 3.4 2.1
Omitting elements 5.2 0.7
Other defects 4.2 4.5

According to Table 1, the number of defects, summarized according to the conjunctions and the nodes, are 56.5%
for steel structures and 57.7% for reinforced-concrete structures.
Thus, the critical defects accepted during the execution of construction and erection works are responsible for
about 50-60% of accidents in construction. It was found out that about 80% of accidents are caused by gross errors
made by participants of investment and construction process. The greatest amount of errors and defects are
concentrated in the structure conjunctions and nodes.
 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 807–813 809
A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

3. Principals of safety protection at the stage of construction

The construction process is the functioning of technological system consisting of objects, tools, performers and
processes [5]. Failure of a technological system may occur in regard to terms (productivity), costs and quality
parameters of manufactured products [6]. If the increase of terms and costs affects only the cost of construction, the
failure in regard to the production parameters is directly connected with the performance, reliability and safety of the
facility.
To ensure the quality and safety of erected building structures it is necessary to control the process very
accurately by the indicators of absence of defects, accuracy, and stability. Unfortunately, in the construction industry
there is almost no control of the process by these parameters. Special emphasis should be made on ensuring the
spatial stability of structures at each stage of erection. In the construction projects the calculation of structural
elements for construction loads must be accomplished. In addition, the calculation model of structures at the stage of
erection may vary significantly from the design model in the process of operation (due to the erection sequence,
installation of temporary connections, increased compliance of conjunction nodes, time to cure solution and concrete
in seams and joints, etc.). These must be considered during detailed and process design.
The accidents caused by gross human errors (approximately 80% of cases) are considered to be an established
fact. The sources of errors are an insufficient level of professional knowledge, lack of real-life experience, lack of
information, wrong instructions, negligence and irresponsibility. Moreover, it is considered that any errors made by
participants of the construction may not have practical consequences, unless these errors are made by the person
who controls the process [7-9]. Common errors in the construction process are critical defects affecting the ability to
use the products as intended, their reliability and safety. The risk of errors increases, when construction works are
challenging and there are deficiencies in the technical documentation (work execution plan, technological flow
charts, quality monitoring circuit, etc.).
Since human action errors are not taken into account in design standards, the most important means for
combating of errors is a multisample inspection, professional ethics development, documented assignment of
responsibility [10]. The effective control strategy should be focused on the construction elements, processes and
quality parameters, which are crucial for the security. Moreover, it is necessary to document the control instructions
in the form of checklists, operational control diagrams, and the operator shall be personally responsible for the
objectivity of the inspection results. A systematic approach to ensure the quality and safety is realized with the help
of creation of a documented quality management system.
Consequently, it is necessary to consider the safety assurance at the stage of construction from the perspective of
decreasing the probability of errors in the process design, critical defects and control errors, as well as effective
functioning of the construction quality assurance system.

4. Process design errors

Development of detailed work execution plan and technological flow charts decreases the accident risks at the
stage of facility construction and operation. For example, possible erection errors and relevant corrective measures
were considered in the work execution plan developed by the engineer V.G. Shukhov. In this work execution plan
Shukhov developed the telescopic method of erection of hyperboloid sections with the help of five hoisting tackles
to exclude the obliquity. For the telescopic extension of each section the engineer proposed a temporary elastic
reduction of the bottom diameter of the lifted section with the help of screed coats [11]. Due to well-developed work
execution plan the tower erection was carried out easily and cost-effectively.
The impact of drawbacks of the work execution plan on the security of construction works is exemplified by the
accident dated on the 4th of July, 2010 happened during the construction of a monolithic frame building in the city of
Chelyabinsk. In the process of concreting the ceilings the beam deck with fresh concrete mixture collapsed (Fig. 1).
The collapse began from the area where the formwork posts lost their stability because of the load and bent because
of further overload arising from deformations and, eventually, the whole concreted pour collapsed. Two workers
who were trying to establish additional posts under the deformed slab formwork section died.
810 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 807–813
4 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Among accident causes are an insufficient number of formwork posts and connections between the posts, the lack
of work execution plan, and building control deficiencies, the event when the construction manager has not designed
the process scheme of formwork construction indicating the steps of formwork post setting confirmed by
calculation, and the number of vertical cross-bracing between the posts.
A large number of accidents are associated with the errors of the crane work execution plan. For instance, the
crane KB-403.B fell down in Chelyabinsk in 2004. Erroneous binding of the crane to the building and its
specifications did not allow mounting the floor panel with the weight of 6.7 tons at radius 21.5 m, exceeding the
limit by 3.6 m. In the process of erection, with the overload limiter switched off, the wheels broke away and the
crane inclined until the loading touched the building structures. Then, 30-ton counterbalance pulled the crane back,
and when the back wheels hit against the runway, the crane tower had broken and fell down. This accident can serve
as a lesson and shows the necessity to calculate building structures in relation to beyond-design loads in case of
crane fall (calculation for durability).

Fig. 1. Ceiling collapse in the process of concrete casting.

Let us consider another example of errors of work execution plan. During the construction of 16-story monolithic
building with underground parking and 3-story extension, a stationary crane KB-674A with a counterweight on the
boom was applied. Upon completion of the construction, it turned out that it was possible to dismantle the crane
only by moving the boom down to 3-story extension. And to remove the boom the required radius of breakdown
crane turned out to be 35 meters (crane placement on the parking coverage was excluded). At this radius and boom
weight of 15 tons the crane capacity of 300 tons (!) was required. As a result of process design errors there was
nothing for it but to get the boom down on special slips and dismantle it by sections. Thus unforeseen load on
building structures of the extension arose.
In order to avoid errors of process design for ordinary construction works it is necessary to use standard flow
diagrams and charts of operational control with reference to the object. If construction works are difficult and
implemented on unique facilities, then work execution plans, crane work execution plans, flow diagrams and control
charts should be specially expertized or discussed among the members of technical committees. It is also possible to
develop special technical conditions for the erection of a unique structure.

5. Hazardous situation development model in case of defects and errors

Probabilistic model of a hazardous situation in case of defects is based on the following assumptions [7,12,13]:
1. the frequency of structure failure is much higher than the value calculated excluding gross errors;
2. failure is almost always associated with human errors;
3. the most common cause of failure is a few errors at once;
4. errors found in the structures that were not failed.
 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 807–813 811
A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

The actual probability of failure, taking into account human errors, exceeds the theoretical probability by about
40 times according to the estimation by European scientists [7] and by 8 ... 70 times according to the operating
practice of facilities in Russia [14] (Table 2).
Failure criterion of the load-bearing structure involves the fulfillment of the following condition [7]:

nm 3 (1)

where n – number of events associated with unaccounted load deviations, disturbances and structure characteristics;
m – number of human errors in the process of design, building and operation.

Table 2. Accident risk category for buildings and structures.

Category of risk For structures For buildings
one-story multi-story
–6 –5
Theoretical 110 110 110–5
Actual 210–4 810–5…710–4 510–4
Excess 2 over 1 200 8…70 50

The model (1) based on statistics describes the structure failure as event overlapping in the form of random
deviations of material characteristics, load and human errors. Research analysis [2,7,12,15-17] allowed evaluating
the probability of realization of mentioned events for Europe and Russia (Table 3).

Table 3. The probability of errors made by the construction participants

Hazardous situation Probability of event
Hazardous situation Western Europe Russia
А – Architect’s error 0.10 not studied
B – Designer’s error 0.40 0.10...0.15
C – Construction manager’s error 0.50 0.50...0.60
D – Inspector’s error 0.10 not studied
E – Operating error 0.02 0.10...0.15
G – Overload 0.02 0.05...0.10
M – Poor quality of materials 0.02 0.15...0.20

Let us build the model of hazardous situation development in the form of event tree (Fig. 2). Three types of
events are described in the model, which are realizing together with the critical defect. The realization of only one of
the events, mentioned in Table 1, in most cases does not lead to accidental situation. At the same time the final
condition of the structure is usually characterized as a condition of operability to a limited extent or a condition of
operability. The realization of two unacceptable events in the form of critical defect, deviations or errors may lead to
out-of-service (but not hazardous yet) condition of the structure. And finally, combined realization of events, which
fulfills the condition (1), as a rule, leads to an accident.
Account must be taken of the fact that errors made by designers, constructors and operating organizations cannot
carry practical consequences, unless the error is made by an operator who maintains the control. If the probability of
the error made by the operator is equal to 0.1, then the probability of the error realization during design –
V1=0.10.1=0.01, during material production – V2=0.20.1=0.02, during operation – V3=0.150.1=0.015.
The probability of initial event in the form of the defect q0 can be defined according to the data of statistical
control. At the same time the probability under the question would be equal to the proportion of random parameter
values situated out of the interval of regulatory allowance.
6812 A.Kh. Baiburin
A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia
/ Procedia Engineering
Engineering 206000–000
00 (2017) (2017) 807–813

Fig. 2. Hazardous condition development model: Types of conditions according to the GOST classification 27.002 [18]:
ОLE – operable to a limited extent; OS – out-of-service; А – alert; q0, V1, V2, V3 – probabilities of associated events

Under the condition of event independence (errors between them are not related) there are the probabilities of
final condition realization:
Condition of operability to a limited extent:

Pr  OP   1  q0  V1 1  V2  1  V3   1  q0  V2 1  V1  1  V3   1  q0  V3 1  V1 1  V2  
(2)
 q0 1  V1 1  V2  1  V3 

Out-of-service condition:

 q0V1 1  V2  1  V3   q0V2 1  V1  1  V3   q0V3 1  V1 1  V2 

Pr  H (3)

Alert condition:

A q0V1V2 1  V3   q0V1V3 1  V2   q0V2V3 1  V1 

Pr  (4)

Defect criticality increases with increase of the degree of its alarm condition:

DR  Pr  OP   Pr  H   Pr  A (5)

To illustrate the method let us consider the critical defect which includes the reduction of support depth of the
roof beam on a masonry construction. Let us assume that the error made in the project consists of the lack of
reinforced-concrete base plate. Poorly executed masonry or the use of low quality materials may lead to the decrease
in the strength of masonry in the base zone. Operating error is usually associated with moisture and weathering of
masonry or overload. According to the State Construction Supervision of the Russian Federation, 5 out of 31
accidents in 1996 were associated with the violation of the requirements concerning the load distribution in the
intersection of load-bearing structures and masonry constructions.
 A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 206 (2017) 807–813 813
A.Kh. Baiburin / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7

Let the probability of defect of the node resting on masonry q0=0.05 be established by statistical control. Using
the values justified above V1=0.01, V2=0.02, V3=0.015, we shall calculate the probabilities of hazardous situation
development by formulas (2)–(4): in the condition of operability to a limited extent – 0.0893; in the out-of-service
condition – 0.0022; in the alert condition – 3.2110–5.
We shall determine the rating of defect risk by the formula (5) DR = 0.0893+0.0022+3.2110–5=0.0915.
If we accept the level of defectiveness q0=0.01, then the risk rating will decrease up to 0.0533, and the
probability of structure collapse will be up to 6.410–6, which is close to the level of acceptable risk.
Obtained probability of alert condition, which is equal to 3.2110–5, cannot be considered as satisfactory because
the acceptable (normal for Russia) value of the risk is recommended to be 510–6, and nonacceptable value is up to
510–5 [19,20].

6. Conclusion

It has been established that the main cause of critical defects are human errors. The greatest number of defects
has been observed in conjunctions of the structures. The defects lead to the increase of probability of construction
failure. According to the practice of operating facilities in Russia and abroad, the actual probability of failure with
account of human errors is much higher than the theoretical probability. Accordingly, an effective strategy for
building control with an emphasis on blocking gross errors in technological design and construction has been
proposed.
The probabilistic model of hazardous situation development allows considering errors of the participants of the
construction. The model describes the failure of the structure as overlapping events in the form of the defects of
construction and used materials, load variations and human errors. Based on the modeling of a hazardous situation
when there is a critical defect and based on the calculation of its threat rating it has been proposed to establish the
significance of the defects. The model allows predicting hazard, reducing the likelihood of accidents, and improving
methods of building control.

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by Act 211 Government of the Russian Federation, contract № 02.A03.21.0011

References

[1] A.G. Roytman, Deformation and damage to buildings, Stroyizdat, Moscow, 1987.
[2] A.V. Perel'muter, Specific issues of reliability and safety of building structures, АВS Publ., Moscow, 2007.
[3] A.R. Rzhanitsyn, Strength calculation theory of building structures, Stroyizdat, Moscow, 1978.
[4] V. Raizer, Theory reliability of structures, АВS Publ., Moscow, 2010.
[5] GOST 27.004-85, Reliability in technique. Technological systems. Terms and definitions.
[6] GOST 27.202-83, Reliability in technique. Technological systems. Methods of reliability evaluation by parameters of product quality.
[7] G. Augusti, A. Baratta, F. Casciati, Probabilistic Methods in Structural Engineering, Chapman & Hall, London, 1984.
[8] G. Spaete, Die Sicherheid tragender Baukonsruktionen. VEB Verlag fur Bauwesen, Berlin, 1987.
[9] N. Lind, Optimization, cost benefit analysis, specifications, Prob. 3rd Int. Conf. on Applications of statistics in Soil and Structural
Engineering. 3 (1979) 373–384.
[10] N.N. Nikonov, Voluntary Safety, АВS Publ., Moscow, 2010.
[11] V.G. Shukhov, Art structure, World, Moscow, 1995.
[12] N.N. Nikonov, A.P. Melchakov, V.N. Rudin, About constructions safety, Industrial and civic engineering. 3(2013) 49–52, 4(2013) 29–33.
[13] A.P. Melchakov, D.A. Bayburin, E.V. Shukutina, About urban territories safety, Bulletin of the South Ural State University, Construction
engineering and architecture. 14(1) (2014) 14–18.
[14] V.A. Kotlyarevskiy, A.V. Zabegaev, Accidents and catastrophes, АВS Publ., Vol. 5, Moscow, 2001.
[15] A.Kh. Baiburin, Ensuring the quality and safety of constructed public buildings: a scientific publication, ABS Publ., Moscow, 2015.
[16] A.Kh. Baiburin, S.G. Golovnev, Quality and safety of constructional technologies: Monograph, SUSU, Chelyabinsk, 2006.
[17] S.G. Golovnev, Modern Construction Technologies: monograph, South Ural State University Publishing Center, Chelyabinsk, 2010.
[18] GOST 27.002-89, Reliability in technique. General concepts. Terms and definitions.
[19] GOST 31937-2011, Buildings and constructions. Rules of inspection and monitoring of the technical condition.
[20] SP 70.13330.2012, Revised Edition SNiP 3.03.01-87. Bearing and enclosing structures.