June 23, 2013
June 23, 2013
June 26, 2013
23.145.1 - 23.145.10
Alternative Approaches to Incorporate Design for Safety into Construction Engineering CurriculaFrom both an ethical and practical viewpoint, civil and construction engineers must designsafety into buildings, facilities, and the associated construction processes. The pre-constructionphases of design clearly involve information processing, and therefore to change how design ispracticed, one must change the knowledge civil and construction engineers use in their designdecisions. The objective of this paper is to review design for safety (DfS) principles andpractices, then identify and evaluate alternative approaches to incorporate DfS intoconstruction engineering curricula. As BS and MS programs in construction engineeringmultiply, the appropriate inclusion of safety topics is an important consideration for theprogram faculty.In this paper, we will touch on both design for safety (facility, operators, maintainers, users,public) and design for construction safety (DfCS), the process of addressing construction sitesafety and health during the design process. Neither DfS nor DfCS is emphasized in any of thesafety engineering, design methods, or senior design project courses offered at U.S. colleges ofengineering. After a discussion of what drives engineering curriculum and course contentchanges, we identify specific options for “Design for Safety” course content. Several textbooks,handbooks, articles, and websites are identified as suitable sources for instructors to familiarizethemselves with government, professional society, and academic information on DfS and DfCS.A mix of “good practice” processes, guidelines, checklists, tools, and case studies are available.Five alternatives to incorporate DfS into construction engineering curricula are identified: A. In all engineering courses, as hazards naturally arise and are noted to the students by the instructor as the subject matter progresses B. In all engineering design courses, only C. In all senior capstone design courses, as a criterion each design team must address in data collection, analysis, creation of alternatives, and evaluation of alternatives D. In a course on safety engineering E. In a course on “design for safety.”These are evaluated and ranked with D being already proven at the author’s institution, andchances of success with B and C judged to be good and excellent, respectively. Alternative A isjudged unlikely to be accepted by all the faculty members, and Alternative E is seen as a futuredevelopment, perhaps as a senior elective or first-year course in a master’s degree.
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2013 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015