10 VI June 2022

https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.44433
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

Factors That Affect Safety of Tower Crane

Installation/Dismantling in Construction Industry
Thanu Lingam C1, Barathkumar R2
1 2
PG Scholar, Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, K S R College of Engineering, Thiruchengodu

Abstract: This paper is to investigate factors that contribute to accidents during tower crane installation/dismantling. Accident
analysis and focus group interviews (FGIs) were conducted with people involved in crane work. Accidents occurring during
installation/dismantling of tower cranes accounted for 68.4% of all fatal accidents.
Accident analysis identified “Not following work procedures” as one of the main causes of these accidents, followed by “unsafe
acts of workers.” The FGIs investigation revealed the following factors that adversely affected the safety of the tower crane
installation/dismantling: competence of the workers; roles of stakeholders such as principal contractors in the tasks;
deterioration of tower crane components; and working conditions for conducting the tasks. These results may provide regulators
as well as practitioners with insights for improving the safety of tower crane installation/dismantling.
Keywords: Installation & Dismantling, Practitioners, Safety, Stakeholders, Tower Cranes

I. INTRODUCTION
Tower cranes are used on construction sites as lifting equipment for their combination of height and lifting capacity. Tower crane
accidents, however, are likely to be fatal because of the weight of the objects and the heights to which they are lifted. United States
labour statistics recorded 632 crane-related construction worker deaths from 611 crane incidents and 17 multiple death incidents
resulting in 38 deaths from 1992 to 2006. A crane safety analysis and recommendation report carried out in Singapore. Indicates that
in 2008, there were 162 crane-related fatalities, injuries and dangerous occurrences, a 27% increase from 128 cases in 2007. While
most of the cases involve less serious non-fatal injuries, crane accidents can ultimately result to huge and severe damage to physical
properties and human lives.
Indoor posit that construction processes in Nigeria are characterized by unsafe practices leading to accident that leaves severe
consequences on both the project and the workers. Accidents in building construction sites, whether minor or fatal could result to
injuries, loss of resources, partial or permanent disability and death in case of fatalities.
In his analysis of types of accident that usually occur in construction sites, injury from the use of equipment ranked first among
nine. Other types of accident examined.
Accidents frequently occur on Building construction sites, these accidents could be in the form of workers falling from heights,
excavation accidents, the risk of falling debris or equipment’s and so forth. Researches have shown that accidents and injuries in
developing countries are generally high when compared to other European countries. Effective safety management is to make the
environment safe, to make the job safe and to make workers safety conscious.
In recent years, many developed countries have considered safety as one of the important management issues of construction
projects, especially, personal safety. He concludes that cranes are machines with high risk and should be operated with safety
management and strong communication between crane operator and signalman. Factors that affect construction site safety due to the
work of tower cranes have attracted only moderate attention; they are commonly addressed indirectly and partially within the
broader treatment of site safety or of crane work in general. Literature addressing crane safety that explicitly suggests tower crane
related risk factors or safety hazards is limited. Hence the need to critically examine safety issues regarding the
installation/dismantling operation of tower cranes.
The objectives of this research are: i. to determine the probability of occurrence and degree of impact of safety risk factors during
installation and dismantling of tower cranes in construction sites. ii.
To evaluate the safety risk factors based on established risk rating scales. Safety risk factors during the operation of tower cranes
were not considered for this study only those associated with the process of installation and dismantling of tower cranes were
considered.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2919
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

II. LITERATURE SURVEY

Idoro, G. I. Health and safety management efforts as correlates of performance in the Nigeria construction industry Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 14, Number 4, pp 277–285, 2008
The consequences of building construction accidents are enormous and cannot be easily quantified, though inevitable but could be
controlled to prevent minor or serious consequences to safety of workers [4]
Idoro, G.I. Effect of Mechanization on Occupational Health and Safety Performance in the Nigerian Construction Industry, Journal
of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 16, Number 2, pp 27-45,
Idoro [10] asserted that although there is no reliable construction accident/incident data in Nigeria. However, a study of 40
contractors in 2006 revealed that accident and injury rates were high in the Nigerian construction industry and the best safety ratios
were 2 accidents per 100 workers and 5 injuries per 100 workers.
Kadiri, Z.O., Nden, T., Avre, G.K., Oladipo, T.O., Edom, A., Samuel, P.O., & Ananso, G.N. Causes and Effects of Accidents on
Construction Sites (A Case Study of Some Selected Construction Firms in Abuja F.C.T Nigeria), IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering, Vol.11, Number 5, pp 66-72, 2014
Kadiri, et. al [11] stated that as the growth of construction industry blossoms in Nigeria, this also causes an increase in competition
of projects to execute between construction firms which are however achieved at the expense of the workers welfare and their safety
Therefore identifying the various causes and effect of accidents on construction sites and proposing ways and means of reducing
these accidents should be acknowledged. Erection/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes is a potentially hazardous process involving
working at heights, awkward postures, lifting and aligning components of significant size and mass and installing temporary support
systems.
Safework. Erection, climbing and dismantling tower cranes. Industry plant consultative committee, New South Wales, Australia,
October 31, 2016
These are all often performed under significant time pressure due to the need for road closures, suitable daylight hours or short
weather windows as the case maybe [12]
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Region 6 News Release: 12-2231- DAL, United States, November 20,
2012
The most dangerous process that can lead to fatalities at construction sites is the installation/dismantling of tower cranes; for
instance, in 2012, the collapse of a tower crane during dismantling at the University of Texas, USA claimed the lives of two workers
[13]
Ting, F. “The promotion strategy of occupational health and safety by government.” Annual meeting of Hong Kong Const
There have been five fatal accidents relating to tower crane use during 2002–2006 in Hong Kong, with three workers being killed in
July 2007 alone. One such accident in July 2007 caused two fatalities and five serious injuries. The accident happened during the
dismantling process, with workers on the tower crane as it crashed down [14]
Zhao, Q. Cause analysis of US crane-related accidents, MSc Dissertation, Graduate School of the University of Florida USA, 2011
Also in a related development, out of the 571 incident cases of crane related accidents that happened from 2000 – 2009 in the U.S as
examined by [15]
Shin, I. J. Factors that affect safety of tower crane installation/dismantling in construction industry, Journal of Safety Science, Vol.
72, Number 2015, pp 379-390, 2015 41 cases which amounted to 7.18% occurred during assembly/disassembly. He further went
ahead to say that 22 cases (23.40%) of the 94 cases that occurred from 2007-2009 resulted directly from the operations of
assembly/disassembly. More recently, is an investigation of tower crane accidents that occurred in Korea from 2001-2011, it was
reported that out of the 38 fatal accident cases involving tower cranes, 68.4% of the accidents resulted from the
installation/dismantling operation [16 ]
Chi, S., Sangwon, H., Dae Y.K., & Yoonjung, S. Accident risk identification and its impact analyses for strategic construction
safety management, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 21, Number 4, pp 524-538, 2015
Chi, et al. [17] opined that, risk identification and cautioning can improve the safety of workplaces. By organizing high recurrence
risk factors to viably control accident occurrence and deal with the probability of lethal injuries on construction sites when an
accident is unavoidable, enables/helps safety managers to comprehend the nature of construction accidents and plan for key risk
mitigation Jannadi, O.A., & Almishari, S. Risk assessment in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 129, Number 5, pp 492–500, 2003 However, [18] having concerted for the fact that assessment of risk is crucial for improving
safety, went ahead to say that precise evaluation is not really necessary and that an estimated predicted level of risks will suffice for
the safety managers to take necessary actions

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2920
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study looks at probability/likelihood of occurrence and impact of safety risk factors with respect to determining their frequency
of occurrence and degree of impact respectively. This requires eliciting knowledge from practitioners who are directly involved in
the process such as safety managers, equipment managers and team leaders of installation and dismantling workers. Hence,
questionnaire survey was adopted. Population size for the research was unknown as no data is available on exact number of these
practitioners. The sample size was determined from a table developed by that the minimum sample size for an unknown population
for 95% confidence interval with 5% error level is approximately 34. A total of 57 questionnaires were generated and distributed in
Chennai, Mumbai, and Delhi using purposive sampling technique. However, only 38(66.7%) questionnaires were analysed using
descriptive statistics and results presented in tables.

A. Respondents Profile
This section presents the personal details of the respondents to include their nature of job, educational qualification and years of
experience as presented in Table 2 indicates that all the categories of respondents are adequately represented having at least ≈ 30%
representation each with safety managers having a higher representation of 36.8% and equipment managers having the least
representation of 28.9%. All the respondents had at least a post-secondary education with 13(34.2%) of them having a bachelors and
6(15.8%) had MSc. Table 4.1 also shows that 34.2% of the respondents had between 0-5 years of experience. A cumulative of
65.8% of the respondents have at least 6years of experience working in tower crane environment and were therefore able to make
correct and valid judgement.
Table 1: Respondents profile
Items Frequency Percentage
(No (%)
Job Description
Safety managers 14 36.8
Equipment managers 11 28.9
Installation and 13 34.2
dismantling workers
Total 38 100
Education qualification
ND 12 31.6
HND 7 18.4
Bachelors 13 34.2
MSc. 6 15.8
Total 38 100
Years of experience
0-5 13 34.2
6-10 20 52.6
11-15 4 10.5
16-20 1 2.6
Total 38 100

B. Probability Of Occurrence For Safety Risk Factor

The probability of occurrence for each safety risk factor were scored by the respondents based on a five-point Likert scale. Mean
values were determined, and standard deviation also determined to help rank the factors that have the same mean value as shown in
Table 1 presents the assessment of the probability of occurrence of each factor which shows that the most probable factor is
“Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts or pins)” with a mean value of 3.63 and the least probable factor is
“Incompatibility of components” with a mean value of 2.16. However, the first six (6) factors as seen in Table 2 had mean values ≥
3.0 which means these factors have a possibility of occurring and may recur occasionally. The factors from 8th position to 21st had
mean values ≥ 2.0 which means these factors are unlikely to recur but, have the possibility of occurring. We can conclusively say
that these results implies that all the identified factors have the possibility of occurring on our construction sites.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2921
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

Researchers that previously looked at safety issues associated with tower crane installation and dismantling concluded that failure to
follow work procedure is the most likely factor that can result to accidents on construction sites as stated by [13, 16]. However, the
results presented in Table 2 proved otherwise by ranking “not following work procedure in manuals” as 12th position with a mean
value of 2.89. This could imply that there have been an increased awareness and recognition of safety issues during installation and
dismantling of tower cranes over the years which has made the users more safety conscious by implementing work procedures as
stated in the manuals.
The most probable factor being “abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins)” has affirmed previous research
finding that maintenance management is a highly affecting factor on safety when using tower cranes as stated by [9]. This implies
that this factor yet plays a great influence on safety during installation and dismantling and/or during operation.
It is also interesting to note that operator proficiency or experience of the tower crane operator which has been widely accepted as
the major safety determinant on site as cited by [1, 9, 22] was ranked 4th with a mean value of 3.18. This implies that although it
remains a probable factor according to this study however, it has a greater influence on safety during the operation of tower crane.
Another likely reason for this factor been ranked 4th could be that operators had gained experience over the years thereby reducing
its influence on safety as tower cranes are now widely used and becoming a culture in every construction environment.
Incompatibility of components ranked the least amongst all other factors assessed which implies that tower crane manufacturers
have continuously improved on the compatibility of their tower crane components. More efforts is still required to completely
eliminate this factor as it is still a probable factor although not recurring frequently.

Table 2: Probability of occurrence

Std.

Rank
S/N Σfx Mea
Safety Risk Factors Frequency Dev
o (Σ n
.
α)

Σ
1 2 3 4 5 f

1 Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, 1 3 13

0 9 9 7 3.63 1.19 1st
or pins). 3 8 8
2 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling. 1 3 12
0 5 9 5 3.37 0.88 2nd
9 8 8
3 Deterioration of tower cranes part (components). 1 1 3 12
3 4 1 3.29 0.98 3rd
1 9 8 5
4 Inexperienced tower crane operators. 1 1 3 12
0 6 3 3.18 1.04 4th
4 5 8 1
5 Lack of workers competence. 1 1 3 11
0 4 7 3.13 1.10 5th
3 4 8 9
6 Trying to finish the work earlier than the time required for 1 3 11
1 9 5 4 3.05 0.96 6th
safe work. 9 8 6
7 Buckling of a telescopic cage. 2 3 11
1 9 3 3 2.95 0.87 7th
2 8 2
8 Frequently omitting required safety procedures or rules for 2 3 11
4 5 8 1 2.92 0.94 8th
various reasons. 0 8 1
9 Failure of working platforms. 1 1 3 11
3 7 3 2.92 1.05 9th
0 5 8 1
10 Falling items. 1 1 3 11 10t
2 4 5 2.92 1.10
3 4 8 1 h
11 Not following work procedures in manuals for the 2 3 11 11t
4 5 7 1 2.89 0.92
installation/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes. 1 8 0 h
12 Contractors do not recognise the need to ensure the safety of 3 1 7 1 0 3 11 2.89 1.03 12t

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2922
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

tower crane installation and dismantling. 3 5 8 0 h

13 Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving the work often due 1 1 3 10 13t
5 3 4 2.74 1.13
to hard working condition. 1 5 8 4 h
14 Insufficient number of workers to perform the work 1 3 10 14t
3 8 8 2 2.71 1.06
correctly and safely. 7 8 3 h
15 Unreasonable sites condition (working space, ground 1 1 3 15t
1 4 1 99 2.61 0.82
conditions and restrictions). 9 3 8 h
16 Time constraints requested from employer/principal 1 3 16t
7 8 3 2 99 2.61 1.05
contractor. 8 8 h
17 Malfunction of a tower crane. 1 3 17t
7 6 4 4 95 2.50 1.22
7 8 h
18 Workers attitude (installation/dismantling workers). 1 1 3 18t
4 3 1 94 2.47 0.89
7 3 8 h
19 Instruction and supervision at construction sites are 1 1 3 19t
10 3 2 89 2.34 1.12
insufficient. 2 1 8 h
20 Overloading with objects exceeding the tower crane load 2 1 3 20t
5 1 0 84 2.21 0.70
limit. 1 1 8 h
21 Incompatibility of components. 1 1 3 21s
12 1 2 82 2.16 1.08
3 0 8 t

C. Degree Of Impact For Safety Risk Factors

The impact of each factor were assessed using a five point Likert scale so as to establish their various levels of severity/degree of
impact if they eventually occur on construction sites. The mean values were then calculated as shown in Table 3. fracture of a wire
rope during dismantling had the highest degree of impact with a mean value of 4.63 which implies that the resultant effect of this
safety risk factor if it occur is fatality, major injury/injuries, permanent impairment, critical process loss and critical property
damage. The factor “workers (erectors, dismantlers) are leaving the work often due to hard working condition” had the lowest
degree of impact with a mean value of 2.34 which therefore implies that it’s resultant effect if it occur can only lead to minor injury.
All the factors however had degree of impact that range from minor injury to fatality as shown in Table 4. There is a need to pay
serious attention on the first six factors as they have mean values ≥ 4.0 which means if they occur, their resultant impact would lead
to fatality on site.
Overloading tower cranes with objects exceeding its load limit is the 20th probable factor to occur on site as seen from Table 3.
However, results for degree of impact in Table 4. Showed that it has a high degree of impact if its accident does happen on site as it
was ranked 3rd position amongst other factors with a mean value of 4.18. The latter is in line with previous findings that exceeding
tower crane load limit results to accident on site that could be very fatal involving multiple injuries in most cases. From a careful
observation of this factor, one would notice a sharp distinction between its probability of occurrence and degree of impact. The
reason for this could be linked to the
previous assertion that there has been a significant improvement in the level of safety awareness on site as a result of continuous
research on safety challenges associated with tower crane working environment thereby, reducing the probability of occurrence
which is a function of the probability of occurrence and the degree of impact. The result of this was then measured against a
standard risk rating developed by [23] so as to come up with their risk levels as shown in Table 4.
Σα (probability risk score), Σβ (degree of impact risk score), ΣRS (combined risk score), N (population), RSIS (relative significance
index score).
From Table 5, fracture of a wire rope during dismantling had the highest RSIS of 15.6 and implies a high risk factor which requires
a high level of control put in place to forestall danger and make the working environment safer. The factors ranked from 2nd to 15th
as shown in Table 5 had RSIS of 13.2 - 9.0 respectively, and as such implies that they are moderate risk factors that is acceptable
but, requires suitable controls to maintain a safe working environment. Those ranked from 16th to 21st had RSIS of 7.9 – 6.4
respectively, which implies low risk factors that are acceptable with no further action required. The factor “workers (erectors,
dismantler) are leaving the work often due to hard working condition” had the lowest RSIS of 6.4 and does not really pose any treat
to safety.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2923
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

This could be attributed to the high rate of unemployment in the country as reported by [24] thereby making the assertion in the
factor false because, those who managed to be gainfully employed instead of leaving would rather do everything possible to keep
their jobs so as to continue sustaining themselves. The fear that losing their job might make them become unemployed for the rest of
their lives makes people.

Table 3: Degree of impact

Mean
Σfx
(Σβ)
S/No Safety Risk Factors Frequency

Σf
1 2 3 4 5

1 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling. 0 0 1 12 25 38 176 4.63

Not following work procedures in manuals for the
2 0 1 8 10 19 38 161 4.24
installation/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes.
3 Overloading with objects exceeding the tower crane load limit. 0 0 6 19 13 38 159 4.18

4 Frequently omitting required safety procedures or rules for various reasons. 0 2 9 10 17 38 156 4.11

5 Lack of workers competence. 0 3 8 12 15 38 153 4.03

Unreasonable sites condition (working space, ground conditions and
6 0 2 10 12 14 38 152 4.00
restrictions).
7 Trying to finish the work earlier than the time required for safe work. 1 1 11 12 13 38 149 3.92

8 Inexperienced tower crane operators. 1 5 6 11 15 38 148 3.89

9 Deterioration of tower cranes part (components). 1 8 8 5 16 38 141 3.71

10 Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins). 1 4 17 2 14 38 138 3.63

11 Malfunction of a tower crane. 1 3 16 8 10 38 137 3.61

12 Incompatibility of components. 1 11 5 9 12 38 134 3.53

13 Buckling of a telescopic cage. 0 8 9 16 5 38 132 3.47

14 Falling items. 1 8 9 18 2 38 126 3.32

Contractors do not recognise the need to ensure the safety of tower crane
15 1 10 13 6 8 38 124 3.26
installation and dismantling.
16 Failure of working platforms. 5 6 7 15 5 38 123 3.24

17 Instruction and supervision at construction sites are insufficient. 5 6 13 10 4 38 116 3.05

18 Insufficient number of workers to perform the work correctly and safely. 5 2 23 7 1 38 111 2.92

19 Time constraints requested from employer/principal contractor. 2 16 10 9 1 38 105 2.76

20 Workers attitude (installation/dismantling workers). 2 17 9 9 1 38 104 2.74

Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving the work often due to hard working
21 6 21 6 2 3 38 89 2.34
condition).

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2924
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

Table 4: Safety risk evaluation

Risk
S/No. Safety Risk Factors Σα Σβ ΣRS N RSIS Rank
Level
1 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling. 128 176 22528 1444 15.6 1st High
2 Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins). 138 138 19044 1444 13.2 2nd Moderate

3 Lack of workers competence. 119 153 18207 1444 12.6 3rd Moderate
4 Inexperienced tower crane operators. 121 148 17908 1444 12.4 4th Moderate
5 Not following work procedures in manuals for the 110 161 17710 1444 12.3 5th Moderate
installation/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes.
6 Deterioration of tower cranes part (components). 125 141 17625 1444 12.2 6th Moderate

7 Frequently omitting required safety procedures or rules for various 111 156 17316 1444 12.0 7th Moderate
reasons.
8 Trying to finish the work earlier than the time required for safe 116 149 17284 1444 12.0 8th Moderate
work.
9 Unreasonable sites condition (working space, ground conditions and 99 152 15048 1444 10.4 9th Moderate
restrictions).
10 Buckling of a telescopic cage. 112 132 14784 1444 10.2 10th Moderate

11 Falling items. 111 126 13986 1444 9.7 11th Moderate

12 Failure of working platforms. 111 123 13653 1444 9.5 12th Moderate

13 Contractors do not recognise the need to ensure the safety of tower 110 124 13640 1444 9.4 13th Moderate
crane installation and dismantling.
14 Overloading with objects exceeding the tower crane load limit. 84 159 13356 1444 9.2 14th Moderate

15 Malfunction of a tower crane. 95 137 13015 1444 9.0 15th Moderate

16 Insufficient number of workers to perform the work correctly and 103 111 11433 1444 7.9 16th Low
safely.
17 Incompatibility of components. 82 134 10988 1444 7.6 17th Low

18 Time constraints requested from employer/principal contractor. 99 105 10395 1444 7.2 18th Low

19 Instruction and supervision at construction sites are insufficient. 89 116 10324 1444 7.1 19th Low

20 Workers attitude (installation/dismantling workers). 94 104 9776 1444 6.8 20th Low

21 Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving the work often due to hard 104 89 9256 1444 6.4 21st Low
working condition).

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2925
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

Stick to the ones they have irrespective of the working condition. It is widely recognised that poor maintenance culture is lacking in
both private and public sectors in Nigeria as stated by [25]. This could therefore be the reason why “fracture of a wire rope during
dismantling” closely followed by “Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts or pins) had high RSIS of 15.6 and
13.2 respectively. Routine maintenance of the tower cranes could help to minimize the risk level.

D. Safety Risk Factors During Installation And Dismantling Of Tower Cranes

Various factors affecting safety during installation and dismantling operation of tower cranes on construction sites are rarely
reported nor documented for use as contractors are simply making maximum profit. Erection, dismantling and operations failure to
follow a list of safety risk factors as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Safety risk factors, [Reference 21]

S/N
Safety risk factors during installation and dismantling
o
1 Insufficient number of workers to perform the work correctly and safely.
2 Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving the work often due to hard working condition).
3 Time constraints requested from employer/principal contractor.
4 Trying to finish the work earlier than the time required for safe work.
5 Frequently omitting required safety procedures or rules for various reasons.
6 Lack of workers competence.
7 Instruction and supervision at construction sites are insufficient.
Contractors do not recognize the need to ensure the safety tower crane
8 installation/dismantling.
9 Unreasonable sites condition (working space, ground conditions and restrictions).
10 Deterioration of tower cranes part (components).
11 Workers attitude (installation/dismantling workers).
12 Overloading with objects exceeding the tower crane load limit.
13 Inexperienced tower crane operators.
Not following work procedures in manuals for the installation/climbing/dismantling of
14 tower cranes.
15 Malfunction of a tower crane.
16 Buckling of a telescopic cage.
17 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling.
18 Failure of working platforms.
19 Incompatibility of components.
20 Falling items.
21 Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins.

IV. CONCLUSION
The study concludes that abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins) was the most probable factor and
fracture of a wire rope during dismantling had the highest degree of impact. In evaluating the safety risk factors, “fracture of a wire
rope during dismantling and abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins) which could both be seen as a
maintenance management issue as looked at by previous research is a highly affecting factor on safety during installation and
dismantling. Adoption of a preventive maintenance strategy or routine check on the tower crane parts and components could help
minimize the probability of occurrence and impact of the safety risk factors on site during installation and dismantling of tower
cranes.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2926
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com

REFERENCES
[1] Beavers, J.E., Moore, J.R., Rinehart, R., and Schriver, W.R. Crane-related fatalities in construction industry, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 132, Number 9, pp 901–910, 2006.
[2] Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS). Crane-Related Occupational Fatalities, United States, Fact Sheet BLS, 2008
[3] Annex, B. Crane safety analysis and recommendation report. Workplace Safety and Health Council, the Ministry of Manpower and the National Crane Safety
Taskforce, Singapore, 2009
[4] Idoro, G. I. Health and safety management efforts as correlates of performance in the Nigeria construction industry, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 14, Number 4, pp 277–285, 2008
[5] Orji, S.E., Enebe, E.C., & Onoh, F.E. Accidents in building construction sites in Nigeria; a case of Enugu state, International journal of innovative research and
development, Vol. 5, Number 4, pp 244-248, 2016
[6] Chen, W.T., Lu, C.S., & Huang, Y. Investigating the safety cognition of Taiwan’s construction personnel, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 19,
Number 4, pp 398-408, 2011
[7] Ali, M.K.A.M., & Muhamad, M.I. Crane Failure and Accident in Construction. Faculty of Civil Engineering, University Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia, 2016
[8] Nunnally, S.W. Managing construction equipment, (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 2000
[9] Shapira, A., & Lyachin, B. Identification and analysis of factors affecting safety on construction sites with tower cranes. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 135, Number 1, pp 24–33, 2009
[10] Idoro, G.I. Effect of Mechanization on Occupational Health and Safety Performance in the Nigerian Construction Industry, Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries, Vol. 16, Number 2, pp 27-45, , 2011
[11] Kadiri, Z.O., Nden, T., Avre, G.K., Oladipo, T.O., Edom, A., Samuel, P.O., & Ananso, G.N. Causes and Effects of Accidents on Construction Sites (A Case
Study of Some Selected Construction Firms in Abuja F.C.T Nigeria), IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Vol.11, Number 5, pp 66-72, 2014.
[12] Safework. Erection, climbing and dismantling tower cranes. Industry plant consultative committee, New South Wales, Australia, October 31, 2016
[13] Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Region 6 News Release: 12-2231- DAL, United States, November 20, 2012
[14] Ting, F. “The promotion strategy of occupational health and safety by government.” Annual meeting of Hong Kong Construction Association Limited, Hong
Kong, 2007
[15] Zhao, Q. Cause analysis of US crane-related accidents, MSc Dissertation, Graduate School of the University of Florida USA, 2011
[16] Shin, I. J. Factors that affect safety of tower crane installation/dismantling in construction industry, Journal of Safety Science, Vol. 72, Number 2015, pp 379-
390, 2015
[17] Chi, S., Sangwon, H., Dae Y.K., & Yoonjung, S. Accident risk identification and its impact analyses for strategic construction safety management, Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 21, Number 4, pp 524-538, 2015
[18] Jannadi, O.A., & Almishari, S. Risk assessment in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129, Number 5, pp 492–500, 2003
[19] Odeyinka, H.A., and Dada J.O. Risk assessment and allocation in budgeting. A paper delivered at the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS)
Workshop at Precious Conference Centre Makurdi, Benue State, July 27-28, 2016.
[20] Salihu, A.A., Aliyu, S.S., & Abubakar, M. An assessment of safety risk factors during installation and dismantling of tower cranes in construction sites, MSc
Dissertation, Building Department, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State, 2018.
[21] Louangrath, P.T.I. Sample Size Determination for Non-Finite Population. International Conference on Discrete Mathematics and Applied Sciences (ICDMAS),
University of Thai Chamber of Commerce Conference Proceedings, Applied Science Section, 2014, Article No. 2.
[22] Shapiro, H., Shapiro, J., & Shapiro, K. Cranes and Derricks, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000.
[23] Construction Plant Hire Association (CPA). The climbing of tower cranes CPA Best practice guide, Published by tower crane interest group (TCIG), London,
United Kingdom, 2011
[24] National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Labour Force Statistics Vol:1 Unemployment and Underemployment Report. Q1 – Q3, 5. Nigeria, 2017
[25] Mbamali, I. The impact of accumulation of deferred maintenance on selected buildings of two federal universities in the northwest zone of Nigeria. Journal of
Environmental Sciences. Vol. 5, Number 1, pp 77-83, 2003

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 2927