ANALYSIS OF AIRPORT TERMINALS IN THE CONTEXT OF FIRE

HAZARDS

SEMINAR REPORT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree

of Bachelor of Technology in Safety & Fire Engineering of the APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological university

Submitted by:

(LEKC19SF037) AJIL FRANCIS

DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND FIRE ENGINEERING

ERANAD KNOWLEDGE CITYTECHNICAL CAMPUS

MANJERI, MALAPPURAM

KERALA

2022

ERANAD KNOWLEDGE CITY TCHNICAL CAMPUS

MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY & FIRE ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this seminar Report titled “ PROCTECTING BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
WORKERS FROM FALL: FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)”
is the bonafide record of the work done by AJIL FRANCIS (LEKC19 SF037) of seventh
semester, Safety & Fire Engineering, Eranad Knowledge City Technical Campus, towards the
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Technology by
the APJ AbdulKalam Technological university

SEMINAR SEMINAR HEAD OF THE

GUIDE COORDINATOR DEPARTMENT
Ms. SUJA MATHEW Ms. VEENA R Mr. RIJUL M
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Assistant Professor

Place: Manjeri

Date: January 2023

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would remember with grateful appreciation, the encouragement and support rendered by
Sreejesh S.R. Chandran, Principal, Eranad Knowledge City Technical Campus, Manjeri.

I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Mr. Rijul M, Professor and Head, Department
of safety and fire Engineering and Ms. SUJA MATHEW Assistant Professor and Seminar
Coordinator, Department of safety and fire Engineering for their valuable advice and
guidance.

I would always oblige for the helping hands of all other staff members of the department
and all our friends and well-wishers, who directly or indirectly contributed in this venture.

Last but not least, I am indebted to God Almighty for being the guiding light throughout
this project and helped us to complete the same within the stipulated time.

AJIL FRANCIS

ii
 ABSTRACT

Falls from bridge decks are a common issue among highway and bridge maintenance workers. These
workers generally rely on existing bridge guardrails for their protection against falls when working on
bridge decks. Unfortunately, a large number of bridge guardrails do not provide the required barrier height
of 107 cm (42 in:) for sufficient protection. To overcome this issue, a few departments of transportation
(DOTs) have recently begun installing Fall Protection Supplementary Devices (FPSDs) on bridge
guardrails—to temporarily increase the overall barrier height during work. However, many manufactured
and marketed FPSDs are not compatible—or do not firmly attach onto every bridge guardrail. Therefore,
workers are often tasked with assessing the compatibility of FPSDs with particular bridge guardrails
before initiating work. Traditionally, this has been performed using an inefficient trial-and-error based
approach—where potential FPSDs are procured, transported, and iteratively tested with a number of
bridge guardrails. Apart from this inefficient testing procedure, current literature does not offer any
guidance on the selection of efficient FPSDs based on the advantages they offer. Therefore, compatible
FPSD systems that are not optimal for work efficiency, productivity, and safety are commonly adopted in
practice. To resolve these challenges, the current research focused on identifying compatible FPSDs—that
offer the most advantages—for 12 bridge guardrails that appear across 11,000 bridges in North Carolina.
The study objectives were accomplished by (1) building virtual prototypes of existing bridge guardrails
and FPSD systems and assessing compatibility in a virtual setting; (2) identifying desirable FPSD
characteristics that can lead to improvements in work-efficiency, productivity, and safety (i.e.,
advantages); and (3) evaluating potential FPSD systems for each guardrail using the structured Choosing
by Advantages (CBA) method—to identify FPSD systems that offer the most important set of advantages.
The study addresses a nationwide safety issue experienced by all transportation agencies in the United
States and beyond. It is expected that the findings will encourage more DOTs to adopt efficient fall
protection measures and systems to protect their workforce.

iii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………….................. 1

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE STUDY…………………………….................. 2

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY………………………………….………… 3
3.1 IDENTIFYING NONCOMPLIANT BRIDGE
GUARDRAILS. …………………………………………………… 4
3.2 BUILDING VIRTUAL PROTOTYPES OF BRIDGE 5
GUARDRAILS AND FPSDS………………………………...…..
3.3 VIRTUAL COMPATIBILITY TESTING…………………….. 6
3.4 IDENTIFYING DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS AND 7
SELECTION CRITERIA…………………………………………..
3.5 CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGES WORKSHOP WITH 10
NCDOT EXPERT PANEL…………………………………………
3.5.1 TASK 1: DESCRIBING AND QUANTIFYING THE
FPSD ATTRIBUTES………………………………………… 10
3.5.2 TASK 2: ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES OF THE
FPSD ALTERNATIVES…………………………………….. 11
3.5.3 TASK 3: DECIDING THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH 11
ADVANTAGE……………………… ………………………

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................14

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION………………………………….….....................15

REFERENCES……………………………………......................16

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Fig 3.1.1 Sample Fall Protection Supplementary Device (FPSD) installed over
bridge guardrail………………………………………………………….. 4

2. Fig 3.2.1 Sample photographs of common bridge guardrails in North Carolina….. 5

3. Fig 3.2.2 Virtual prototypes of bridge guardrails……………………...………… 6

4.Fig 3.3.1 Alternate FPSD installation approaches………………………………….7

5.Fig 3.4.1 Results of validation studies on W-beam guardrail……………………….9

6. Fig 3.5.1 CBA tabular template used for data collection……………………………….……12

7. Fig 3.6.1 Compatibility testing results………………………………….………………….13

v
 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Highway and bridge workers play a crucial role in the construction, maintenance, and the
sustenance of a nation’s infrastructure (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016). In the United States,
these workers maintain, operate, and repair more than four million miles of roads and600,000
bridges that are fundamental to the growth and prosperity of the nation (FHWA 2016). However,
these workers are also exposed to high levels of safety risk that result in an unacceptable number
of injuries. For example, estimates suggests that over 26,000 serious injuries are reported among
highway and bridge workers every year To protect themselves from falls, bridge maintenance
workers generally rely on existing bridge guardrails as a safety barrier while working on the
deck. However, a large number of bridge guardrails—within and outside the United States—do
not provide sufficient protection as required by safety regulations AASHTO (2015). More
specifically, most bridge guardrails do not comply with the minimum barrier height requirement
of 107 cm (42 in:) for sufficient protection as mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (2015) in the United States. Apart from the issue of compatibility, current
literature does not offer any guidance on the selection of suitable FPSDs based on the advantages
they offer. Consequently, FPSDs that are not optimal for work-efficiency, productivity, and
safety are commonly adopted in practice—among the few DOTs that use FPSDs. Such practices
have resulted in higher operating costs, wasted resources, and a larger number of safety incidents.

EKC-TC 1 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering,

North Carolina State Univ., 2501 Stinson Dr., Raleigh, NC 27695 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid .org/0000-0001-8927-2819. Email: cmzuluag@ncsu.edu 2 Assistant
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State
Univ., 2501 Stinson Dr., Raleigh, NC 27695. Email: alex_albert@ncsu.edu 3 Assistant Professor,
Dept. of Construction Engineering and Management, Pontificia Universidad Cat ´olica de Chile,
Santiago 7820436, Chile. Email: parroyo@ing.puc.cl Note. This manuscript was submitted on
October 31, 2017; approved on February 27, 2018; published online on June 8, 2018. Discussion
period open until November 8, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, © ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9364.
(Mohan and Gautam 2002). These injuries cause extensive pain and distress among workers and
their families, and result in annual costs that exceed billions of dollars (Michaels 2015; Mohan
and Gautam 2002). To reduce such incidents, past research has examined injury patterns among
highway and bridge workers (e.g., Debnath et al. 2015; Wong et al. 2011). The findings from
several of these studies suggest that struck-by safety incidents and falls to lower levels are the
most common injury types among highway and bridge workers (Hancher et al. 2007; Mohan and
Zech 2005). Bridge maintenance workers are particularly susceptible to these incidents as they
spend extended periods working in close proximity to traffic and at heights (Lincoln and
Fosbroke 2010; Pegula 2013). To address these issues, a number of studies have focused on
identifying safety interventions to reduce injury rates among these workers. For example, to
prevent struck-by safety incidents, recent research has focused on improving the visibility of
workers in work areas (Arditi et al. 2004; Gambatese and Rajendran 2012), evaluating speed
control measures in work zones (Zhang and Gambatese 2017), and implementing efficient traffic
control procedures in highspeed traffic regions (Li and Bai 2009). However, only a few studies
have focused on examining the issue of falls among bridge workers (e.g., Work Zone Safety
Consortium 2016)—although more than 80% of fall-related fatal incidents occur when work is
performed on bridge decks (Pegula 2013).

EKC-TC 2 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

3.1 IDENTIFYING NONCOMPLIANT BRIDGE GUARDRAILS.

In total, more than 13,000 bridges are maintained, operated, and managed by NCDOT (i.e.,
>26,000 bridge guardrails). The objective of this phase was to identify those bridge guardrails
that are noncompliant with the 107 cm (42 in) barrier height requirement. Therefore, the first
step was to compile a database of all bridge guardrails in the state of North Carolina with a
barrier height that is less than 99 cm (39 in.) [i.e., least acceptable height based on 107 cm (42
in) criteria] where supplementary protection is necessary. To create this database, the
inventory of bridges and bridge guardrails maintained by NCDOT were examined and design
specifications pertaining to the barrier height were extracted for all guardrails. This
information was largely gathered from design drawings maintained by NCDOT. However, in
cases in which the design drawings were not available or maintained over the years since
initial construction, the information was gathered from secondary sources including bridge
inspection and maintenance reports, the AASHTO and FHWA guardrail design databases
(e.g., Task Force 13 bridge railing guide), and through field measurements. Overall, more than
23,000 bridge guardrails were included in the database, suggesting that more than 88% of the
guardrails in the state were noncompliant with the 107 cm (42 in:) barrier height requirement.
To efficiently conduct the compatibility studies in the next two phases, the bridge guardrails
in the database were grouped according to their design type. For example, the Jersey barrier
guardrail, is the most common guardrail within the state. This bridge guardrail is present in
more than 30% of the bridges in North Carolina and offers a barrier height of 81 cm (32 in.)
Similarly, the timber guardrail is the second most common bridge guardrail in the state and is
present in more than 18% of the bridges, and offers a barrier height of approximately 79 cm
(31 in.). Overall, the 12 most common guardrails that accounted for more than 22,000 bridge
guardrails (i.e., 82%) were chosen for further analysis in the current study. The remaining
bridge guardrails were excluded because each of these guardrail types individually accounted
for less than 1% of all the guardrails in the state.

EKC-TC 3 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

Fig 3.1.1 Sample Fall Protection Supplementary

Device (FPSD) installed over bridge guardrail.

EKC-TC 4 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

3.2 BUILDING VIRTUAL PROTOTYPES OF BRIDGE GUARDRAILS AND

FPSDS.

Virtual prototyping is increasingly being adopted for various engineering applications—

particularly for product design and manufacturing (Bordegoni and Rizzi 2011). In
general terms, virtual prototypes are computer generated models of physical objects or
products (e.g., automobile engine) that can be manipulated and tested, in the same
manner, as would be possible in the real world with physical objects (Kong 2010; Wang
2002). Once developed, the virtual prototypes can efficiently be used like physical
prototypes for conducting design feasibility, assembly, and motion studies (Zorriassatine
et al. 2003). For example, virtual prototyping techniques have been used in the
automobile and aerospace industry to efficiently optimize the design of engine
components to enable easy assembly, disassembly, and maintenance (Bidanda and
Bártolo 2008; Lanzotti et al. 2015). In recent years, the construction industry has also
adopted techniques related to virtual prototyping such as Building Information Modeling
(BIM), and Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) to improve productivity, safety, and
quality (Azhar 2011; Bryde et al. 2013; King Chun et al. 2012). In the current study, the
capabilities of virtual prototyping were used to develop virtual models of bridge
guardrails and FPSDs in preparation for the compatibility testing in the next phase. This
approach efficiently transferred the compatibility testing into a virtual environment—
where the risk of falls and struck-by incidents were eliminated. In addition, as discussed
earlier, virtual prototyping reduced common inefficiencies associated with the traditional
testing approach

Fig 3.2.1 Sample photographs of common bridge guardrails in North Carolina

EKC-TC 5 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

Fig 3.2.2 Virtual prototypes of bridge guardrails.

The first step in building the virtual prototypes of the bridge guardrails involved
extracting additional design specifications from the design drawings and other sources
described in Phase I. For example, information pertaining to the guardrail material (e.g.,
timber, steel, or concrete), the structural layout and geometry, and detailed dimensional
properties including the width, thickness, and depth of each guardrail component were
gathered for the 12 bridge guardrails. Using the extracted information, the virtual
prototypes were built using the Autodesk Fusion 360 3D computer-aided design and
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software package. Example virtual prototypes of the bridge
guardrails . The accuracy of the models were validated using field measurements where
representative bridge guardrails were visited, measured, and compared against the model.
Next, a market analysis was conducted to identify FPSDs that are available in the United
States. Using information obtained from manufacturers, product catalogs, and
distributors from across the United States, more than 50 marketed FPSDs were
identified. From this initial set, certain FPSDs were excluded in the current study
because they required making physical alterations and structural changes to the guardrail
for effective attachment—which is not desirable for the preservation of the guardrails
OSHA (2013). Similarly, freestanding FPSDs were excluded because they substantially
reduced available working space. Overall, 23 candidate FPSDs were selected for further
testing. An example virtual prototype of an FPSD is shown in Fig. . Similar to the bridge
guardrails, the accuracy of the models were validated using physical measurements of a
sample of FPSDs that were purchased or owned by NCDOT. In all cases, the accuracy of
the models were within a 2-cm (<1 in:) tolerance.

EKC-TC 6 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

3.3 VIRTUAL COMPATIBILITY TESTING.

After the virtual prototypes were developed, Phase III focused on assessing the
compatibility of the FPSDs with the bridge guardrails. More specifically, the aim of the
compatibility testing was to evaluate if it was possible to securely fasten the FPSDs onto
the bridge guardrails—while increasing the barrier height to exceed the minimum 99 cm
(39 in.)requirement. The compatibility studies were efficiently conducted by bringing the
virtual prototypes of the bridge guardrails and FPSDs is the same virtual space, followed by
efforts to securely fasten the FPSDs onto the guardrails. Similar to the approach adopted in
the physical world, the virtual testing included the adjustment of the movable parts
including clamps, bolts, and pins to attach the FPSDs firmly to the guardrails. In some
cases, it was possible to attach individual FPSDs in more than one configuration. In some
other cases, additional components such as lumber blocks were necessary to firmly secure
the FPSDs . The compatibility studies involved testing each of the 23 FPSDs with the 12
guardrails (i.e., 276 combinations) to identify FPSDs that can be successfully and securely
attached to the guardrails. The results suggested that 11 of the candidate FPSDs were
compatible with all 12 bridge guardrails.

Fig 3.3.1 Alternate FPSD installation approaches

To ensure that the results of the virtual compatibility studies were accurate and valid,
representative FPSDs from the 11 compatible alternatives were physically tested with 4
different guardrail types. An illustrative example comparing the virtual compatibility
studies against the physical testing , the physical tests replicated the findings of the virtual
compatibility studies in all cases. Because NCDOT was interested in the procurement of
FPSDs that can be broadly adopted for the guardrails across the state of North Carolina .

EKC-TC 7 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

3.4 IDENTIFYING DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS AND SELECTION

CRITERIA.

The desirable characteristics were identified in two stages. In the first stage, interviews
were held with 8 bridge workers and 3 supervisors that used FPSDs regularly in the field.
The workers and the supervisors had accumulated over 75 years of experience in
construction and bridge maintenance work. In the second stage, a brainstorming session
was conducted with an expert panel of NCDOT professionals representing the fall
protection committee the safety and risk management unit. In total, the expert panel had
gathered over 200 years of experience in areas including construction, maintenance, and
safety management. After the decision criteria were identified, the expert panel decided that
the associated measures (i.e., attributes) for objectively quantifiable factors (e.g., self-
weight of the FPSD, protrusion into the work area) will be obtained from previously
gathered product specifications, design drawings, physical measurements, or mesurements
of the virtual prototypes. On the other hand, the expert panel decided that the more
subjective and relatively difficult to measures factors (e.g., ease of transportation and
installation and exposure to the unprotected edge) will be quantified using a subjective
scale ranging from 1 to 10 based on input from the expert panel. Using such a subjective
scale is a deviation from the traditional CBA method where measures or attribute
characteristics are generally verbalized prior to assessing the advantages. However, the
diverse nature of the FPSDs, the large number of examined FPSD alternatives, and the
unique challenges associated with the different FPSDs were expected to yield abstract
verbal descriptions (e.g., complex clamping mechanism that is difficult to operate,
operation of multiple clamps and placement of multiple pins during installation, installation
requires physically holding FPSD in place while the pins are inserted simultaneously) that
would not be easy to compare when the relative advantages of candidate FPSDs are to be
assessed. Therefore, the subjective scale, although not customarily used, was preferred for
the current study by the expert panel. When the information was not available in the
product catalogs or brochures, specifications from the manufacturers and the distributors
were requested. The evaluation indicated that all the 11 FPSDs complied with the must

EKC-TC 8 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

factor requirements. Therefore, all the 11 FPSDs were compared based on the want factors
in the next phase using the CBA procedure. virtual prototyping techniques have been used
in the automobile and aerospace industry to efficiently optimize the design of engine

components to enable easy assembly, disassembly, and maintenance (Bidanda and Bártolo
2008; Lanzotti et al. 2015). In recent years, the construction industry has also adopted
techniques related to virtual prototyping such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), and
Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) to improve productivity, safety, and quality (Azhar
2011; Bryde et al. 2013; King Chun et al. 2012). In the current study, the capabilities of
virtual prototyping were used to develop virtual models of bridge guardrails and FPSDs in
preparation for the compatibility testing in the next phase. This approach efficiently
transferred the compatibility testing into a virtual environment—where the risk of falls and
struck-by incidents were eliminated. In addition, as discussed earlier, virtual prototyping
reduced common inefficiencies associated with the traditional testing approach.

Fig 3.4.1 Results of validation studies on W-beam guardrail.

EKC-TC 9 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

3.5 CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGES WORKSHOP WITH NCDOT

EXPERT PANEL

As a first step, this phase focused on identifying the preferred FPSDs for the
Aluminum 1-Bar Metal Guardrail.This particular guardrail was selected because of
its distinctive structural shape that presented unique challenges for the installation of
FPSDs. Therefore, the objective was to compare the 11 FPSD alternatives identified
in Phase III using desirable characteristics (referred to as factors in the CBA
literature) for the Aluminum 1-Bar Metal Guardrail in particular. To capture the data
from the CBA session, the CBA tabular template shown in Fig. 9 was adopted and
presented in one of the walls in the visualization lab (Fig. 8). At this stage, the
template only included the factors and criteria in the left-most column (including the
titles: Attribute and Advantage), and the 11 FPSDs in the top row. The other details
were completed as the session proceeded through the following three tasks.

3.5.1 TASK 1: DESCRIBING AND QUANTIFYING THE FPSD

ATTRIBUTES

In the first task, the expert panel focused on identifying the attributes of each FPSD
alternative using the measures discussed earlier. For factors involving subjective
measures (i.e., ease of transportation and installation and exposure to unprotected
edge), the step-by-step installation videos that were created using the virtual
prototypes were reviewed. In addition, whenever necessary, the virtual prototypes in
the Autodesk Fusion 360 environment wereexamined for particular details.
Subsequently, each member of the expert panel made individual evaluations for the
subjective factors for each FPSD. After the individual evaluations were complete,
the evaluations were shared among the expert panel members, and the panel
collaboratively decided on the final attributes for each FPSDs. When dissenting
evaluations were received from particular members, the rationale behind the
evaluation was presented by the dissenting member, and discussions followed until
consensus was achieved

EKC-TC 10 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

3.5.2 TASK 2: ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES OF THE FPSD

ALTERNATIVES.

As previously mentioned, the strength of CBA over traditional decision-making

methods is the structured approach that is used to compare the advantages or the
beneficial differences between the alternatives (i.e., FPSDs). Therefore, Task 2 focused
on quantifying the relative advantages of the FPSDs. The first step for this task was to
identify the least preferred attribute for each factor. For example, for the ease of
transportation and installation factor that was described using the subjective scale
ranging between 1 and 10, the least-preferred attribute is provided by the FPSD
identified as Alternative 11 (i.e., score of 10). The least preferred attribute for each of
the factors were similarly identified and highlighted in red color Next, the advantage of
each FPSD alternative compared to th least preferred attribute for each factor was used
to decide th advantage. For example, the FPSD labeled as Alternative 1 offers 7-units
advantage (i.e., the difference between the attribute ratings alternate 11 and 1) over the
least-preferred attribute for the ease of transportation and installation factor presents
the advantages of each FPSD for each factor highlighted with a blue background.

3.5.3 TASK 3: DECIDING THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH ADVANTAGE.

As a first step, the largest advantage for each factor was identified and marked using a
green circle . Next, the largest advantages for each factor were compared by the expert
panel members to identify the paramount advantage—or the advantage that offers the
greatest value in their perspective. The experts agreed that the 8-unit easier to transport
and install advantage of Alternative 3 offered the paramount advantage. Accordingly,
the paramount advantage was assigned a relative importance score of 100 in a scale
from 1 to 100 . Subsequently, the expert panel assessed the importance of the
remaining four largest advantages (i.e., those highlighted by the green circles) relative
to the paramount advantage. In the next step, the importance of the smallest advantage
(over the least preferred attribute) for each factor was assessed relative to the
importance of the advantages previously recorded. For example, the FPSD identified
as Alternative 8 was easier to transport and install by 1-unit (i.e., advantage) than
Alternative 11 which was the least preferred attribute. In this case, the expert panel

EKC-TC 11 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

members assigned a relative importance of 10 for this 1-unit advantage. At this stage,
the importance of the largest advantage and the smallest advantage for each of the
factors were available. For example, for the ease of transportation and installation
factor, the largest advantage was assigned an importance of 100 (also identified as the
paramount advantage) and the smallest advantage was assigned an importance of 10
For efficiency.

Fig 3.5.1 CBA tabular template used for data collection.

Finally, the aggregate importance of advantages offered by each FPSD was calculated
as the sum of all the importance of advantages across the factors. In accordance with
the CBA methodology, the alternative that offers the highest aggregate importance of
advantages is the most preferred alternative.

EKC-TC 12 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

3.6 Choosing by Advantages Applied to All Guardrails

The previous phase focused on identifying the preferable FPSD for the Aluminum 1-
Bar Metal Guardrail. The current phase followed a similar approach to identify the
preferred FPSD for all the guard- rails using the CBA tabular method form. Based on
consultation with the expert panel, it was decided that the CBA tabular method used
for the Aluminum 1-Bar Metal Guard- rail will be adjusted as needed to create 11
additional independent CBA tables corresponding to each guardrail. More specifically,
using the completed tabular form shown in Fig. 9, adjustments were made to the
attributes, advantages, and the importance of the advan- tages for each guardrail. This
was an efficient method to gather the large amount of data because certain attributes,
advantages, and their importance remained unchanged irrespective of the guardrail in
consideration (e.g., self-weight)—and the procedure resulted in substantial time
savings. After the necessary changes were incorporated, the expert panel once again
revisited the 12 completed tabular forms(i.e., correspond- ing to each guardrail) for a
final review. In this stage, minor revisions to the importance of advantages were made
by comparing the attrib- utes across the guardrails. This provided an opportunity for
the expert panel to discuss the relative importance of the attributes in light of the
differences in the guardrail types. After the importance of advantages were finalized
and consensus was achieved, the aggregate importance score for each of the FPSDs in
all 12 guard- rails were calculated similar to Phase IV.

Fig 3.6.1 Compatibility testing results.

EKC-TC 13 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The primary objective of the research was to identify compatible FPSDs that offered the most
advantages for use on common bridge guardrails in North Carolina. The study identified 11
FPSD systems that are compatible with over 82% of the guardrails in the state using the
technique of virtual prototyping. Fig. 10 presents eachof the compatible FPSD systems installed
on the Aluminum 1-bar Metal bridge guardrail. Based on the results, NCDOT has decided to
purchase the two top FPSDs to sufficiently protect their workforce during bridge maintenance
operations. Apart from improving safety, NCDOT expects that the selected FPSDs will also lead
to improvements in work-efficiency and productivity. It is important to note the approach
adopted in this article did not consider costs as a decision criteria or factor because of two
primary reasons. First, according to the study objectives, NCDOT was most interested in
identifying FPSD products that will maximize safety, productivity, and work-efficiency. The
decision makers believed that the expected lifecycle benefits outweighed the differences in
purchasing costs by a large margin—given that the cost of the FPSDs roughly ranged between
$120 and $250 (i.e., per post) during the study period. Second, the costs may vary with time,
market conditions, purchase quantity, and negotiated purchase terms. Therefore, the ideal time to
make this comparison is during the time of purchase—in which the advantages (i.e., value) of the
FPSDs can compared against the true cost of purchase. In other words, the decision makers, prior
to making a purchase, can evaluate whether the value-cost tradeoff warrants an investment. The
decision to exclude the costs is in agreement with the general CBA procedure that considers costs
as a constrain rather than a value generating factor (Arroyo et al. 2016b; Suhr 1999). Finally, as
already discussed, most transportation agencies use less efficient fall protection measures (e.g.,
fall arrest system and fall protection plans) to protect their workforce, partly because of the
traditional challenges of performing FPSD compatibility studies. It is expected that the findings
of the current study will encourage more transportation agencies to adopt the more efficient
approach of installing FPSDs to protect their workers.

EKC-TC 14 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

 FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

Falls from bridge decks are a common issue among bridge maintenance workers (Lincoln and
Fosbroke 2010; Pegula 2013). To prevent falls from the deck, bridge maintenance workers
largely rely on existing bridge guardrails as a safety barrier. Unfortunately, a large number of
bridge guardrails do not provide the required barrier height of 107cm (42 in:) for sufficient
protection. A viable solution implemented by a few DOTs, is to temporarily install FPSDs on to
bridge guardrails to increase the overall barrier height while work is being performed. However,
not all FPSDs are compatible with every guardrail. In some other cases, the FPSDs may not
sufficiently increase the barrier height to provide adequate protection. To advance practice, the
current research evaluated the compatibility of FPSDs available in the market with 12 bridge
guardrail types present in 11,000 bridges in North Carolina. The compatibility studies were
efficiently conducted using virtual prototyping techniques. The adopted approach eliminated
several challenges associated with the traditional trial-and-error based testing approach used by
DOTs. After the compatible FPSDs were identified, FPSDs that offer the most advantages were
identified using the CBA decision-making method. The results of the study are expected to yield
benefits that improve safety, productivity, and work-efficiency. The study tackles an important
safety issue experienced by transportation agencies across the United States. Future research
efforts will focus on field-validation efforts that quantify the benefits and challenges of adopting
the recommended FPSDs in practice. Future efforts will also focus on assessing the life-cycle
costs and benefits of particular FPSDs. The proposed research approach can also be applied to
related areas such as the construction and maintenance of high-rise structures—where fall
protection measures are fundamental. For example, the compatibility testing procedure can be
adopted to identify supplementary fall protection measures when existing roof parapets do not
comply with regulatory safety requirements.

EKC-TC 15 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

FALL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY DEVICES (FPSDs)

REFERENCE

• AASHTO. 2015. “2013–2015 policy resolutions.” Accessed October 15,2017.

https://maintenance.transportation.org/resolutions/.
• Arditi, D., M. A. Ayrancioglu, and J. Shi. 2004. “Effectiveness of safety vests in
nighttime highway construction.” J. Transp. Eng. 130 (6): 725–732.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2004)130:6(725).
• Arroyo, P., C. Fuenzalida, A. Albert, and M. R. Hallowell. 2016a. “Collaborating
in decision making of sustainable building design: An experimental study
comparing CBA and WRC methods.” Energy Build. 128: 132–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.079.
• Arroyo, P., I. D. Tommelein, G. Ballard, and P. Rumsey. 2016b. “Choosing by
advantages: A case study for selecting an HVAC system for a net zero energy
museum.” Energy Build. 111: 26–36https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.023.

EKC-TC 16 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

FMECA OF WHEEL HUB MOTOR IN ELECTRIC SCOOTER

EKC-TC 1 Department of Safety and Fire Engineering

17