chair safety in design tool 0976

CHAIRSAFETY IN DESIGN TOOL

WorkCover. Watching out for you.

TOOL 2001WORKCOVER NSW SAFETY IN DESIGN TOOL

Disclaimer

This publication contains information regarding occupational health, safety, injury management or workers compensation. It includes some of your

obligations under the various workers compensation and occupational health and safety legislation that WorkCover NSW administers. To ensure you

comply with your legal obligations you must refer to the appropriate Acts.

This publication may refer to WorkCover NSW administered legislation that has been amended or repealed. When reading this publication you

should always refer to the latest laws. Information on the latest laws can be checked at www.nsw.gov.au or contact (02) 9238 0950 or

1800 463 955 (NSW country only).

© WorkCover NSW

WORKCOVER NEW SOUTH WALES 1 CHAIR SAFETY IN DESIGN TOOL mm

CHAIR (Construction Hazard AssessmentImplication Review) is a tool to assistdesigners, constructors, clients and other keystakeholders to come together to reduceconstruction, maintenance, repair anddemolition safety risks associated withdesign.

CHAIR was developed in support of theConstruction Memorandum of Understanding(MOU). The MOU was signed in 1998between the NSW Government and the ChiefExecutive Officers of the principal contractorsand major industry associations in the NSWconstruction industry.

The signatories to the MOU have worked inpartnership to implement measures toimprove the construction industry’s OHS andinjury management performance.

CHAIR was developed in close consultationwith contractors and design professionals. Itwas prepared by Mr David Franklin and wassponsored by BHP Engineering, Bovis LendLease and Transfield Pty Ltd. The assistanceof Mr Franklin and these organisations isgratefully acknowledged.

The Australian Council of Building DesignProfessions (BDP) and the Royal AustralianInstitute of Architects (RAIA) support the useof CHAIR. The BDP believes that along withthe quality and amenity of the builtenvironment, its safety is also determined atthe design stage. "CHAIR is a tool that willenable better safety awareness and solutionsfor improving safety and construction throughidentifying potential hazards by a coordinatedapproach by all stakeholders.

The RAIA also believes the value of CHAIRarises from its common sense approach andpracticality in drawing key stakeholderstogether to co-operatively plan for safety.

Other products developed under the auspicesof the Construction MOU include:

Subby Pack: OHS Contractor Management ToolHazard Profile: Identification Tool for Metal

RoofingIdentification Tool forElectrical Hazards on-siteIdentification Tool forBricklayingIdentification Tool forFormworkIdentification Tool forAluminium Mobile ScaffoldsIdentification Tool for SteelReinforcement FixingIdentification Tool forConcrete PlacementIdentification Tool forDemolition

Supervisor Manual: OHS Training ToolSafety Meter: Positive Performance

Measurement Tool

Another valuable tool to assist small andmedium-sized businesses to systematicallymanage safety is WorkCover’s WorkplaceSafety Kit.

More information about each of theseproducts can be obtained by contactingWorkCover NSW on 131050 or atwww.workcover.nsw.gov.au.

preamble


1. Introduction 4

2. The Importance of Safe Design 6

3. The CHAIR Process 8

3.1 CHAIR-1 Study: Conceptual Design Review 10

3.2 CHAIR-2 Study: Detailed Design Construction or Demolition Review 12

3.3 CHAIR-3 Study: Detailed Design Maintenance & Repair Review 14

4. CHAIR-1 Example 15

5. CHAIR-3 Example 18

6. Case Studies 19

7. References 26

8. GUIDEWORDS 27CHAIR Introduction 28

CHAIR 1 38Summary of CHAIR-1 Study Guidewords - Generic 39Summary of CHAIR-1 Study Guidewords - Overview 40Sample CHAIR -1 Minute Recording Sheet 41CHAIR-1 Study Guidewords - Generic 42CHAIR-1 Study Guidewords - Overview 53

CHAIR 2 68Summary of CHAIR-2 Study Guidewords 69Sample CHAIR-2 Minute Recording Sheet 70CHAIR-2 Study Guidewords 71

CHAIR 3 77CHAIR-3 Worksheet 78CHAIR-3 Study Guidewords 79

ADDITIONAL CHAIR STUDY GUIDEWORDS 91

table of contents


Consideration of occupational health andsafety (OHS) issues in the design stage of aconstruction project has been identified asessential for improved OHS outcomes. AUnited Kingdom study found that nearly twothirds of the injuries and fatalities onconstruction sites could be traced to designdecisions and lack of planning in this keyelement of a project (Churcher & Alwani Starr,1996).

CHAIR, an acronym for Construction HazardAssessment and Implication Review, is a toolthat has been developed to bring together allthe key stakeholders involved in design tohelp identify and eliminate (or minimise)inherent risks in a structured and systematicway. The name CHAIR was also selectedbecause a function of both a chair and adesign review is to provide an opportunity tosit down, pause and reflect on possibleproblems.

CHAIR provides a rigorous framework for afacilitated discussion that is stimulated byguidewords or prompts. These prompts assistthe key stakeholders to collectively identifyand reduce construction, maintenance repairand demolition safety risks associated with adesign. Those risks are then formally listedfor action by the appropriate stakeholders.

CHAIR recognises that a design involves keyconsiderations such as operability, aestheticsand economics with the elements of safety.It also acknowledges that a design processmay be determined by many differentstakeholders and/or influences. The CHAIRmethodology aims to involve these elementsand influences.

It is intended to be applied to projects wherethe design or construction is unique, unusual,or of sufficient inherent hazard that a formaldetailed assessment is warranted.

The primary aim of a CHAIR is to identify andeliminate or minimise risks in a design assoon as possible in the life of a project.There are three phases of CHAIR:

1. introduction


CHAIR ONE is performed at the conceptualstage of a design, which is the bestopportunity to make fundamental change,even though much of the design is still to bedetermined.

CHAIR TWO focuses on construction anddemolition issues and is performed just priorto construction, when the full detailed designis known.

CHAIR THREE focuses on maintenance andrepair issues and is performed at the sametime as the CHAIR 2 study.

This is illustrated in the following diagram :

For example, a CHAIR study could be usedduring the design stage to improve safetyduring the construction process by:

■ designing multistorey buildings so theexterior wall covering (precast panels etc.)can be installed as soon as the frameworkis in place and most trades begin work onfloor;

■ eliminating the need for installingtemporary barriers by designing higherparapet walls or an integrated guardrailsystem along all roof edges;

■ minimising the use of temporary

scaffolding by designing permanentstairways and walkways to be constructedfirst (Hinze 1996).

By proactively considering construction,maintenance, repair and demolition issues,the CHAIR framework should not only helpreduce the number of construction industryincidents, but also assist in improvingconstructability and reducing the life cyclecosts associated with building and civil designprojects.


The design process involves a range ofparticipants and stakeholders. It includesdesigners, specialist consultants, clients,users, approval authorities and (at times)project managers and constructors. The art ofdesign involves consideration of a range ofissues such as aesthetics, function, safetyand environment. Such considerations canarise due to experience, legislation, codes andstandards, expertise, logic, checklists and anyother means.

Previous experience greatly assists withidentification of safety risks associated with adesign. However, to learn from previousexperience requires an incident to haveoccurred, be adequately documented and theinformation made available to the relevantparties involved in the design process.

Codes and standards tend to address theobvious risks and are less effective inidentifying previously unforeseen hazards.When a design is no longer simple orstraightforward, or involves unique, unusual orpotentially hazardous design, there may notexist sufficient experience or codes ofpractice to adequately consider all safetyissues (Kletz, 1990).

There is a balance of responsibilities betweena designer, a constructor and other relevantstakeholders, such as clients or specialistconsultants. It is important that allparticipants [WC1] highlight unusual safetyrisks associated with a design and requiredconstruction. As outlined by Churcher &Alwani-Starr (1996), those involved in thedesign process should:

■ identify the hazards presented by potentialdesign solutions and consider the risksthese hazards will generate forconstruction workers and others who maybe affected by the construction work (e.g.members of the public);

■ include health and safety considerationsamongst the design options so that theycan avoid the hazards, reduce their impactor introduce control measures to protectthose at risk where it is reasonablypracticable;

■ forewarn the contractor of the residualhazards that have been identified withinthe design and will need to be managedduring the construction work.

Eliminating the hazard is the first risk controlthat should obviously be considered. If thehazard cannot be eliminated (for exampleeliminating risks associated with maintenanceby using aluminium/stainless steel, whichrequires no regular painting), risk can beminimised by using a series of steps known asthe hierarchy of risk control. Including:

■ substituting the system of work or plantwith something safer (e.g. pre-assembledequipment at ground level rather thanheight);

■ modifying the system of work or plant tomake it safer (e.g. ensure attachmentpoints for lifting, window cleaning, safetylines, etc.);

■ isolating the hazard (e.g. introducerestricted areas);

2. the importance of safe design


■ introducing engineering controls (e.g.prevent falls from buildings duringconstruction/maintenance by increasingwall/edge height).

Only when the above risk control options havebeen exhausted should consideration (andmore importantly reliance) be given topersonal protective equipment (e.g. safetyharnesses) or adopting administrative controlssuch as hazard warning signs.

Design is the process of considering options.In developing and understanding theseoptions, there is also the ability to improvesafety and reduce costs. For example, thecosts associated with assembling large scalescaffolding may far exceed the costsassociated with alternate design and/orconstruction materials. Similarly, anemphasis placed on achieving a design thatwould be safe and efficient to erect, ratherthan the traditional approach of minimisingsteel tonnage, did result in lower project costs(Holland & WorkCover, 1997).

Essentially, given the opportunity to considerthe design in a formal and systematic way, asmarter design results - and a smarter designinvariably leads to a safer design.


A CHAIR study is intended to help identifythat a design needs to consider operability,aesthetics, economics, with the elements ofsafety in constructability and maintainabilitythat together form the final design. A CHAIRprovides a structured forum to ensure there is

opportunity to forsee construction,maintenance, repair and demolition safetyissues, so they can be eliminated or modifiedas part of the design process.

The process for CHAIR is as follows:

3. the CHAIR process

1. Assemble a CHAIR study team (include all stakeholders).

2. Define the objectives and the scope of the study.

3. Agree on a set of guidewords / prompts to assist brainstorming process.

4. Partition the design (CHAIR-1, CHAIR-3) or construction process (CHAIR-2) into logical blocks of appropriate size.

5. For each logical block, use various guidewords to assist with theidentification of safety aspects/issues.

6. Discuss associated risks and determine if the safety risk can be eliminated.

7. If the safety risk cannot be eliminated, determine how it might be reduced.

8. Assess whether the proposed risk controls (i.e. expected safeguards, etc.)are appropriate (is the risk as low as reasonably practicable).

9. Document comments, actions and recommendations - determineappropriate method for design issues still to be resolved.

(Based on Wells 1996)


The Facilitator

The success of a CHAIR study is dependenton the ability of a facilitator to select and usethe experience and expertise of the studyteam to critically evaluate the design.Therefore, the selection of a facilitator iscritical.

The facilitator should be sufficiently removedfrom the design process that he or she doesnot take the questions or suggestions comingfrom workshop participants as personalcriticism, nor feel the need to defend thedesign concept. As the whole purpose of aworkshop is to test the design concept from asafety-in-construction standpoint, the role ofthe facilitator is to encourage workshopparticipants to constructively challenge thedesign and explore whether issues have beenoverlooked or sufficiently thought through.

It is recommended that the facilitator shouldhave the following attributes:

■ an understanding of the principles ofsafety in construction;

■ the respect, or potential to quickly gain therespect, of workshop participants;

■ as a minimum, a broad understanding ofthe project;

■ the ability to bring out the views of adiverse range of people participating in theworkshop to constructively challenge thedesign concept;

■ the ability to put forward their own viewsand thus provoke thought, but withoutdominating the workshop;

■ the ability to keep the workshop on trackand moving along (issues that can’t beresolved relatively quickly should be listedfor action outside the workshop).


3.1 CHAIR-1 study: conceptual design review

Introduction

The purpose of the CHAIR-1 study is to reviewthe conceptual design and identify thesignificant construction, maintenance, repairand demolition safety risks associated with aproject. By identifying and understandingthese risks very early in the project phase, riskcontrols can be established to ensure that, ifthese risks cannot be eliminated, they are atleast managed so they are as low as isreasonably practicable.

Organisations typically perform feasibility orconceptual operational design assessmentswhich cover the various function andelements of a design, including safety. Thefocus of these assessments is at afundamental level, where it is still possible toradically change the design concept andsignificantly improve safety and operability.The effectiveness of such studies isdiminished when time is spent on lesssignificant issues, which are moreappropriately addressed as part of detaileddesign.

Those involved in the design process shouldhave an informed view of the overall“constructability” and “maintainability” ofthe design, as not only do they influencesafety, they also influence project andoperability costs. Such influences may notnecessarily be mutually exclusive.

Only what is reasonable to foresee at the timea concept design is reviewed can be expectedfrom any design review. It may be possible forrisks which cannot be foreseen or addressedat the CHAIR-1 stage to be considered at theCHAIR-2 and CHAIR-3 stages.

CHAIR-1 Study Team

A designer should be well informed but is notexpected to know everything, especially withregard to detailed construction techniques.Therefore, the designer, or a single third party,in isolation should not perform a CHAIR-1study. What is required is essentially asystematic and formalised “brainstorming”workshop, which involves the appropriatestakeholders (designers, construction,maintenance, safety representatives, etc.),and is led by a facilitator who is a “thirdparty” to the design (but could belong to oneof the stakeholder organisations).

As the CHAIR-1 study is undertaken at theconceptual stage of the design process, it isdifficult to indicate who should attend aCHAIR-1 meeting. The appropriateparticipants will depend on the type of projectbeing considered. Participants may include:architect, design manager, constructionmanager, safety specialist, client,construction foreperson, project managers,engineers and service consultants. A CHAIR-1 study provides an opportunity for people tocontribute to improving safety using theirspecialised knowledge. By using a diversegroup of people and a systematicmethodology, the chance of overlooking amajor problem is significantly reduced.

CHAIR-1 Guidewords

A CHAIR-1 study is a form of safety analysissimilar to a technique used in thepetrochemical industry called Hazard andOperability (HAZOP) study.

HAZOP has been detailed extensively inliterature, as well as in NSW government


publications (DUAP (1996) and MRD(1997)). One of the main elements of aHAZOP is the use of guidewords, applied tovarious sections of the design, to stimulatediscussion and risk identification. Similarly,the methodology of a CHAIR-1 study is todivide the proposed design into logic blocksand consider the implications of theguidewords for that element.

It is critical that the guidewords provided beused as a prompt to promote discussion ofissues and not as a checklist of issues to beconsidered.

A full list of CHAIR-1 keywords is provided atthe beginning of the Chair 1 section. Thedevelopment of the CHAIR-1 guidewords wasbased on the assumption that the CHAIR-1study would be structured on the design (andnot a proposed construction method) beingdivided into logical blocks.

As occurs in all such methods, there is atendency for the number of guidewords to beincreased, until eventually the method beginsto lose its value (Wells, 1996). Therefore,non-specific guidewords have been selectedto provide prompts to the discussions.

The guidewords have been organised into twotypes: “generic” (applicable in most casesregardless of the type of design to eachelement) and “overview” (used at the end of aCHAIR-1 study to review issues that relate tothe whole design concept).

A CHAIR-1 facilitator should review theapplicability of guidewords (includingadditional words that may be required) as partof the preparation for the CHAIR-1 workshop.If additional guidewords are suggested duringa CHAIR-1 meeting, then they should be used(and recorded).

CHAIR-1 Procedure

There is a tendency with any design to keepalong the same process path as first envisaged

by the designer. The other difficulty is thatthere remains a tendency to use “add-on”safety measures as the first solution. Theobject of a CHAIR-1 study is to promote a fullexchange of ideas in an enthusiasticenvironment.

A CHAIR-1 methodology follows that of mostsafety analysis (Harms-Ringdahl, 1993) inthat:

■ the design is divided into logicalcomponents for analysis;

■ for each component of the design, sourcesof risks or other factors related to the risksof accidents are identified;

■ an assessment is carried out as to theappropriateness of the risk and its controls.

As outlined by Wells (1996), the criticalexamination of a system requires carefulchairing to stop the meeting getting boggeddown or rambling too widely. Given goodguidance and common sense, it is possible toobtain sensible and useful results.

CHAIR-1 Documentation

It is obviously important to document thefindings, attendees, methodology, guidewordsand findings of a CHAIR-1 study. A layout forrecording the minutes of a CHAIR-1 meetingis provided in the Chair 1 section, “Sample -Chair 1- Minute Recording Sheet”. A majorcomponent of an effective CHAIR-1 study isthe recording of the meeting minutes. Theseare best recorded by someone who has a goodunderstanding of the project, to ensurerecords are taken accurately and efficiently.

The minutes typically only recorded thoseidentified risks that require action or followup, or to justify where, after a detaileddecision is made by the CHAIR-1 team, theexisting design element is retained.


Introduction

A CHAIR-2 study is performed as the detaileddesign is approaching completion, but wellbefore commencement of construction. Inmany cases, it may be possible to identify theconstructor who would actually be performingthe work to assist in performing the study.

CHAIR-2 is a specific type of study, in that itis focused on ways in which a design can bemodified to eliminate or reduce constructionand/or demolition hazards. It does notreplace Job Safety Analysis or SafeworkMethod Statements which are performed bythe construction organisation and outline allthe safety controls to be employed to controlthe risk. The primary focus of a CHAIR-2study is to ensure that, from a designperspective, as much as can reasonably beconsidered practical has been contemplatedand incorporated into the design to minimiseconstruction or demolition hazards.

CHAIR-2 Study Team

As with a CHAIR-1 study, a CHAIR-2 study isperformed by a group of people who areinvolved in the design and construction of theproject, the composition of the team beingdependent on the scope and nature of thedesign under examination. The criticalelements being an appropriate CHAIR-2facilitator, appropriate selection of CHAIR-2workshop attendees, application of specificCHAIR-2 guidewords, and clear recording andfollow-up of the minutes from the CHAIR-2meeting.

CHAIR-2 Guidewords

A critical difference between CHAIR-1 andCHAIR-2 studies is that analysis for a CHAIR-2 study is structured towards the proposedconstruction (or demolition) sequence, ratherthan using a logical breakdown of the specificdesign. The reason for this is that at thedetailed design stage, there is lessopportunity to fundamentally change thedesign. However, there would exist thepossibility to modify the design with regard tothe intended construction or demolitionmethod, the details of which would not havebeen available at a CHAIR-1 study stage. Italso provides a different assessmentperspective from a CHAIR-1 study foridentifying safety risks.

Therefore, the guidewords to be used for aCHAIR-2 study are different to reflect the taskoriented approach of the constructionsequence. The aim of a CHAIR-2methodology is to acknowledge that the basicdesign will be built, but also to identify designmodifications that would result in saferconstruction or demolition techniques.

As the number of construction sequences maybe large, the number of guidewords availableis limited to ensure that a CHAIR-2 studydoes not become laborious. A list of theCHAIR 2 guidewords is provided the Chair 2section -”SUMMARY-CHAIR 2-GUIDEWORDS”.

The guidewords have been based on theapproach of Critical Examination of SystemSafety (Wells, 1996) and are applied in the

3.2 CHAIR-2 study: detailed design constructionor demolition review


sequence presented. Thus the first aim is toeliminate or substitute a dangerousconstruction or demolition step or the maincauses of accidents (Davies & Tomasin,1990). In some cases, it might be best tocombine certain construction processes tomake them safer. To avoid is a less stringentaction and means that it may be possible toevade certain conditions or actions deemed tobe undesirable. The final guideword containssome basic suggestions that might promptother construction or demolition safety issues.

CHAIR-2 Procedure

The purpose of the CHAIR-2 study is not toidentify every single construction ordemolition step or risk, for a large proportionof them should be well known to competentconstructors. However, it is likely that therewill exist some risks which would not normallybe expected in the context of the normalconstruction, and these are intended to beidentified and assessed.

It should be noted that as part of the inputprior to a CHAIR-2 meeting, it is expectedthat the design team would providedocumentation, in broad terms, as to how it isexpected the particular design would beconstructed.

A CHAIR-2 methodology involves:

■ the construction sequence divided intodefined logical steps for analysis;

■ each construction step, sources of risks orother factors related to the risks ofaccidents being identified;

■ an assessment carried out as to theappropriateness of the risk and its controlsto improve the design and clarify a preferredconstruction method and sequence.

CHAIR-2 Documentation

As with a CHAIR-1 study, it is important toadequately document the findings, attendees,methodology, guidewords and findings of aCHAIR-2 Study. A layout for recording theminutes of a CHAIR-2 meeting is provided inthe CHAIR-2 section “Sample - Chair 2 -Minute Recording Sheet”.


A CHAIR-3 study is performed as the detaileddesign is approaching completion, but wellbefore construction commences. It isessentially performed at the same time as aCHAIR-2. In some cases, it may be possibleto identify the owner’s maintenance andrepair personnel who could contributeinformation to the study.

Depending on the size and complexity of adesign, a CHAIR-3 could be performed by asingle person or a small team, provided theyhave:

■ a knowledge of hazard identificationtechniques and an understanding of how torate the importance (risk or level of danger)of the problems identified;

■ a thorough knowledge of the current designto the extent of understanding the functionof every plant and equipment item andknowledge of the way/s each item can fail(the failure modes);

■ extensive practical experience.

A CHAIR-3 study is more a document thatdemonstrates the appropriateness ofmaintenance and repair of items and plantand equipment. It would be expected that theformat of the study could be flexible, with anexample format provided in CHAIR-3 section,“Chair-3 Worksheet”.

3.3 CHAIR-3 study: detailed design maintenance& repair review


4.

CH

AIR

-1 E

XAM

PLE

ON

LY

Pro

ject

: O

vert

akin

g La

ne f

or F

ores

t R

idge

Roa

dE

lem

ent:

Com

plet

e sy

stem

Dat

e: 2

9 /

02

/ 0

0

Dra

win

g(s)

: S

chem

atic

FR

-11

1R

evis

ion:

A

No.

Gui

dew

ord

Ris

k Is

sue

Cau

ses

Con

sequ

ence

sS

afeg

uard

sA

ctio

nP

erso

n R

esp.

GE

NE

RIC

1.

Siz

eN

o si

gnif

ican

t ri

sk

iden

tifi

ed

2.1

Hei

ghts

/

Con

stru

ctio

n of

dra

ins

Con

stru

ctio

n /

acce

ssC

onfi

ned

spac

e in

jury

Des

igna

ted

Dra

in d

esig

n sh

ould

avo

id

D.F

.D

epth

sto

dra

in i

s po

ssib

le

conf

ined

w

here

pos

sibl

e th

e ne

ed t

o be

co

nfin

ed s

pace

spac

e cl

asse

d as

a c

onfi

ned

spac

epr

oced

ure

2.2

Hei

ghts

/

Inte

rfer

ence

wit

h P

lant

equ

ipm

ent

in

Inju

ry/f

atal

ity

Saf

e D

esig

ner

to i

ndic

ate

posi

tion

C

.F.

Dep

ths

pow

er l

ines

cont

act

wit

h po

wer

m

anag

emen

t an

d he

ight

of

all

pow

er l

ines

lin

espr

oced

ures

to a

ssis

t w

ith

site

saf

ety

proc

edur

e

3.

Pos

itio

n /

Poo

r vi

sibi

lity

from

Tr

ee t

ype

grow

s an

d In

jury

/fat

alit

y to

roa

d S

tand

ard

Flor

a sp

ecie

s sh

ould

be

B.R

.Lo

cati

onhe

avy

folia

gene

eds

to b

e m

aint

enan

ce w

orke

rP

PE

, sp

ecif

ied

that

will

be

low

in

mai

ntai

ned

barr

iers

, et

c.he

ight

gro

wth

to

avoi

d si

ght

obst

ruct

ions

and

low

m

aint

enan

ce

4.

Poo

r Tr

ippi

ng h

azar

d w

ith

Tree

s cu

t bu

t no

t Tr

ips,

fal

ls d

urin

g N

one

Tree

s to

be

rem

oved

sho

uld

J.R

Erg

onom

ics

cut

tree

sre

mov

edco

nstr

ucti

onbe

dug

out

com

plet

ely

to

avoi

d le

avin

g tr

ip h

azar

ds i

n ro

ad r

eser

ve

5.

Mov

emen

t /

No

sign

ific

ant

risk

D

irec

tion

iden

tifi

ed

6.

Load

/ F

orce

No

sign

ific

ant

risk

id

enti

fied

7.

Ene

rgy

No

sign

ific

ant

risk

id

enti

fied


No.

Gui

dew

ord

Ris

k Is

sue

Cau

ses

Con

sequ

ence

sS

afeg

uard

sA

ctio

nP

erso

n R

esp.

8.

Tim

ing

Hol

iday

Lon

g w

eeke

nd

Con

fusi

on,

heav

y In

jury

to

cons

truc

tion

N

one

Com

men

ce c

onst

ruct

ion

D.F

.pe

riod

gre

atly

im

pact

tr

affi

c fl

ow r

estr

icts

w

orke

r /

mem

ber

of

phas

e da

y af

ter

holid

ay

cons

truc

tion

cons

truc

tion

th

e pu

blic

(rec

omm

enda

tion

to

poss

ibili

ties

cons

truc

tor

from

des

ign

team

)

9.

Egr

ess/

Acc

ess

Insu

ffic

ient

tur

ning

In

suff

icie

nt a

rea

set

Traf

fic

acci

dent

Tr

affi

c E

nsur

e de

sign

has

suf

fici

ent

L.D

.sp

ace

for

cons

truc

tion

as

ide

by d

esig

n fo

r re

sult

ing

in

mar

shal

stu

rnin

g sp

ace

for

cons

truc

tion

eq

uipm

ent

layd

own

and

wor

ker/

publ

ic i

njur

yeq

uipm

ent

equi

pmen

t op

erat

ions

OVE

RVI

EW

10

.E

nvir

onm

enta

l S

tron

g U

V ra

diat

ion

Unp

rote

cted

out

door

Im

pact

to

wor

kers

PP

E,

hats

, Te

mpo

rary

off

ice

site

loc

atio

n C

ondi

tion

sen

viro

nmen

tet

csh

ould

be

plan

ned

so t

hat

som

e su

itab

le s

hade

tre

es a

re

reta

ined

to

prov

ide

UV

prot

ecti

on d

urin

g br

eaks

11

.E

xter

nal

Saf

ety

No

sign

ific

ant

risk

In

terf

aces

iden

tifi

ed

12

.To

xici

tyN

o si

gnif

ican

t ri

sk

iden

tifi

ed

13

.Fi

re/E

xplo

sion

No

sign

ific

ant

risk

id

enti

fied

14

.E

nvir

onm

enta

l N

eed

to m

aint

ain

flor

a W

attl

e an

d ot

her

Res

tric

ted

visi

on

Non

eE

nsur

e fl

ora

spec

ies

low

in

A.P

.Im

pact

alon

g ro

adsi

desp

ecie

s lik

ely

to

resu

lts

heig

ht g

row

th a

nd l

ow i

n cr

eate

a n

eed

for

mai

nten

ance

on-g

oing

mai

nten

ance

15

.U

tilit

ies

and

No

sign

ific

ant

risk

Ser

vice

sid

enti

fied

...

...

...

19

.In

spec

tion

and

N

o si

gnif

ican

t ri

sk

Test

ing

iden

tifi

ed


No.

Gui

dew

ord

Ris

k Is

sue

Cau

ses

Con

sequ

ence

sS

afeg

uard

sA

ctio

nP

erso

n R

esp.

20

.M

aint

enan

ceM

inim

isin

g N

eed

to r

egul

arly

In

jury

- M

aint

enan

ce

PP

EG

uide

post

s, s

igns

and

m

aint

enan

ce

mai

ntai

n eq

uipm

ent

wor

ker

hit

by v

ehic

lem

arki

ngs

are

to b

e se

lect

ed

requ

irem

ents

gen

eral

ly

wit

h co

nsid

erat

ion

of f

utur

e m

eans

min

imis

ing

OH

S r

isks

in

carr

ying

out

O

HS

ris

ksre

pair

s an

d re

plac

emen

t

21

.D

ocum

enta

tion

Fina

l do

cum

enta

tion

D

esig

n sa

fety

act

ion

Des

ign

does

not

N

/AP

rodu

ce c

ompl

eted

aud

it

R.T

.to

con

tain

aud

it o

f no

t ac

ted

upon

achi

eve

safe

ty r

isks

re

port

one

mon

th p

rior

to

com

plet

ed a

ctio

ns i

n le

vels

whi

ch a

re a

s ag

reed

con

stru

ctio

n da

teal

l de

sign

saf

ety

risk

lo

w a

s re

ason

ably

re

port

s pr

acti

cabl

e

22

.Q

ualit

y C

ontr

olN

o si

gnif

ican

t ri

sk

iden

tifi

ed


5.

CH

AIR

-3 E

XAM

PLE

ON

LY

DE

TAIL

ED

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E /

RE

PAIR

SA

FETY

IN

DE

TAIL

ED

DE

SIG

N (

CH

AIR

-3)

STU

DY

Ref

eren

ce:

Sys

tem

:R

OA

DW

AYS

ub-S

yste

m:

Item

/Com

pone

nt:

DR

AIN

Mai

ntai

nabi

lity

Asp

ect

Ass

essm

ent

(Goo

d, F

air,

Poo

r, N

/A)

and

WH

YR

ecom

men

dati

on/C

omm

ent

Who

/Dat

e

PO

STU

RE

/ M

AN

UA

L H

AN

DLI

NG

GO

OD

Dra

in c

over

will

hav

e ha

ndle

s an

d S

atis

fact

ory

—sh

ould

be

light

wei

ght

SIZ

E /

WID

THP

OO

RC

onst

ruct

ion

vehi

cle

may

hav

e lim

ited

W

iden

sho

ulde

r w

idth

to

allo

w

D.F

.sh

ould

er s

pace

to

stop

on

road

for

safe

sto

ppin

g du

ring

m

aint

enan

ce w

ork

AC

CE

SS

/ E

GR

ES

SP

OO

RC

urre

nt d

rain

des

ign

is t

hat

it i

s a

conf

ined

D

rain

des

ign

shou

ld a

void

whe

re

D.F

.sp

ace,

and

tha

t co

nfin

ed s

pace

pro

cedu

res

poss

ible

the

nee

d to

be

clas

sed

need

to

be p

repa

red

as a

con

fine

d sp

ace

HE

IGH

TS /

DR

OP

PE

D O

BJE

CTS

N/A

——

—

WE

IGH

TFA

IRD

rain

cov

er c

ould

be

too

heav

yE

nsur

e dr

ain

cove

r de

sign

P.

B.

such

tha

t it

can

be

easi

ly

lifte

d

DIS

CO

MFO

RT

/ S

TRE

SS

FAIR

Do

not

expe

ct l

ong

term

dra

in m

aint

enan

ceS

atis

fact

ory

—

PE

RS

ON

NE

L P

RO

T. E

QU

IPM

EN

TN

/A—

——

VIS

IBIL

ITY

N/A

——

—

SLI

PS

, TR

IPS

, FA

LLS

N/A

——

—

RO

TATI

NG

/ M

OVI

NG

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

N/A

——

—

IS R

EPA

IR D

IFFE

RE

NT?

NO

——

—

OTH

ER

S T

HAT

MAY

AP

PLY

(lis

t be

low

)

Non

e id

enti

fied


Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd agreed to pilot theresource CHAIR - the Construction HazardAssessment Implication Review when theyrenovated seven of Sydney’s churches. Theirexpectations were far exceeded when theyundertook the process which brought togetherthe key design stakeholders to systematicallyaddress the OHS issues and workshoppedsafety solutions for the contractors carryingout the renovations works, for the end userand in relation to ongoing maintenance.

Kilpatrick Green is a leading multi-disciplinecompany offering a significant range ofservices within the construction andengineering industry. The organisation iscommitted to providing a high standard ofservice delivery in all projects with which it isassociated.

Safety is one of the company’s top priorityareas incorporating consistent safetypromotion, safety induction and training,hazard and risk management, goodcommunication of issues, workplaceinspections, auditing of the safety system andsupport for safety initiatives.

In 1999, Kilpatrick Green was commissionedby the Commonwealth to insulate sevenchurches against aircraft noise, some of thesechurches were heritage listed buildings. Anew safety initiative being piloted at the timewas “CHAIR - the Construction HazardAssessment Implication Review”, amethodology developed to eliminate orminimise potential occupational health andsafety hazards and risks at the conceptualdesign phase.

“We volunteered to pilot CHAIR, but withstringent safety management policy andpractices already in place, expectations of theability of the CHAIR process to raise OHSstandards further weren’t really all that high”,said Charles Diamond, Director of PublicBuildings, who was responsible forimplementing the CHAIR process.

Charles was assisted by the author of CHAIR,Mr David F. Franklin, originally a seniorproject manager with BHP, now CH2MHILL.

The Preparation

Prior to the workshop, Charles familiarisedhimself with the church plans and CHAIRGuidewords, worked out the most effectiveway to implement the process, a method torecord and delegate outcomes was preparedand compiled folders with backgroundinformation for each of the participants. Bothhe and David agreed that the Chair-1 Studyand Chair-2 Study Guidewords were relevantto this project and a method to record anddelegate outcomes was prepared.

To ensure that OHS was addressed for allaspects of the renovations, each of the planswere divided into seven areas: churchoperations, roof, general building works,windows/doors, mechanical services,electrical services and the site.

The Chair Workshop - Keeping Up the Momentum

The key design stakeholders attending theworkshops included the concept designers,architects, mechanical engineer, electrical

6. case study 1kilpatrick green


engineer, structural engineer and projectmanager. Each of the churches also appointedits own representative (in some cases this wasa consultant) to participate in the process.Charles was appointed as the facilitator.

David attended the first workshop, the CHAIR-1 study, and gave his input into how theworkshops should proceed, particularly inrelation to keeping up the momentum.

The Chair Workshops

The first hour was spent on introductions andgiving an overview of the CHAIR process anddocument. The group then generally visitedthe church sites before commencing theCHAIR workshop. One workshop was actuallyheld in the relevant church.

After workshopping OHS issues on threechurches and going through the guidewordsseven times for each, it became evident thatthis would be “too laborious and drawn out”and the process was simplified into threeareas: above the roof, below the roof andunderground. A common set of OHS risks hademerged by about the fourth church.

Solutions

OHS risks and hazards for contractors carryingout the renovations, end user andmaintenance of the facility were addressed,prompted by the Guidewords. Some of thesolutions determined in the workshopsincluded:

■ Construction on renovations to be carriedout around church operating times whenservices were held on Sundays andWednesdays.

■ Two churches had to address public accessand safety as the church was situated in thegrounds of primary schools.

■ Safety harnesses were to be worn bybuilders on roofs until insulation mesh wasput in place - to prevent any falls throughthe ceiling.

■ Overhead wiring was to be assessed toensure the safe use of the cherry picker atall sites.

■ Negotiations with owners were made for theplacement of the main switchboards to thesafest location to optimise a safemaintenance environment.

■ Suitable checks were arranged for anytoxicity problems under floors and dustarising from works.

Approximately thirty similar issues wereidentified.

The process took up to approximately threeand a half hours for each church.

CHAIR-2 study workshops were alsoconducted and OHS issues were addressed bythe CHAIR-2 study Guidewords. The minutesrecorded in the CHAIR-1 workshop were alsoreviewed to ensure that no issues had beenoverlooked. Due to the intensive workundertaken in the first workshop, this processtook only an hour.

Closure

“By eighty percent of the completion ofDocumentation process, all issues in eitherCHAIR 1 or CHAIR 2 were formally closed off.That is, they were either confirmed asincluded in the documents or reasons given asto why not included”, Charles said.

The CHAIR Conclusion

“It was a real benefit having all the keyplayers come together for this process. CHAIRmade you think outside your own square and


everyone could contribute to the outcomesand recommendations. This Process certainlyfar exceeded our expectations. The ownerswere enthusiastic about the process as itincreased their awareness of the issues andgave them confidence that the work on theirchurches were being properly planned andmanaged”.


When John Holland Construction andEngineering Pty Ltd were recently awarded acontract to construct a multimillion dollarconstruction project, they chose to apply theCHAIR principle to identify, eliminate andminimise OH&S hazards in the conceptdesign stage of the project. By undertakingthis systematic process involving all the keystakeholders, they were able to eliminate orminimise potential hazards through improveddesign before construction. The result was anoverall “better” design for contractorsbuilding the project, the end user andmaintenance of the facility.

Introduction

John Holland is one of Australia’s leadingconstruction and engineering organisations.Their field of specialisation ranges frommarine and harbour works, Mininginfrastructure, petrochemical, treatmentplants to sports stadiums, highways, bridges,laboratories, railways and more.

Establishing and maintaining a high standardof occupational health and safety has alwaysbeen a top priority for the company andaccordingly, risk assessments and safetymanagement practices are initiated for allJohn Holland projects.

In one of their more recent projects, thecompany chose to use the “ConstructionHazard Assessment Implication Review(CHAIR)” tool, developed for the ConstructionMOU, to bring together key designstakeholders. The tool was used to facilitatea brainstorming workshop to review theproject conceptual design and identify

potential OHS hazards for the constructionprocess, end users and ongoing maintenanceand repairs.

The facilitator - the key

The company’s Occupational Health, Safetyand Rehabilitation Manager, Sean Welsh wasappointed to co-ordinate the CHAIR principleworkshop. Sean said, “The key to a successfulCHAIR workshop was in the selection of thefacilitator. It is essential that the facilitatorhas a background of building andconstruction and a very thorough knowledgeof OH&S, maintenance and repair issues sothat potential problems can be immediatelyidentified and altered to result in an improveddesign”.

Ross Trethewy, an expert in OHS for Buildingand Construction from the University of NewSouth Wales School of Safety Science, wasselected as the facilitator.

Preparing for the Workshop

Sean and Ross undertook a half daypreparation for the workshop which includedkey design aspects of the project. During thistime they familiarised themselves with theplans, drawings and specifications, selectedthe CHAIR techniques (i.e. a CHAIR 1, 2 or 3)that were relevant to the requirements andcompiled a method of recording and reportingthe workshop outcomes and issues to beresolved.

Both agreed that the most effective way forthem was to address potential OH&S hazardswas to assess one element at a timecontinually posing the question - why?

6. case study 2 john holland


For example, if a door was designed in theplan, the group workshop participants had todecide why it was there, if it was the rightsize/position/height/width, if it opened theright way, in if it was in the right place for it’sintended purpose and so on. If a risk wasidentified, the group then brainstormedsolutions using the theory of the hierarchy of

risk control, but at the same time keeping asclose as possible to the original design aspossible where practicable.

The workshop process analysed elements, i.e.major and minor, using this criteria, one floorlevel at a time.

They devised a minute recording as follows:

No. Hazard Issue/s Causes / Identified Why ? Alternatives / By Who Implications +/- BenefitsHazards (the reason for it Suggestions / Comments ($) Who(position / location being this way) Issues O/M/C/ size / weight etc.)

1.0 Element being Assessed: Production Hall - Artificial and Natural Light

1.1 Maintaining Access required at Lights have to Provide Design Gantry Mounted -/+ Operatorsservice at or > 10m above Gantry independent Engineer Scissor must Maintenanceabove truss Crane access gantry provide accesslevel; falls, falling objects for maintaining to all areas of

Gantry required lights and ceiling the ceiling thatChanging and Access required over at height to gain mounted services. require servicing -servicing light process plant/people appropriate (winch / platform); relocating servicesfittings; clearances for or to achieve this

Interface, disruption, materials handling maybe required.Inspection/Test damage to process in production hall Side mount lights of fire detectors equipment and reflect with Scissor and Crane (monthly Fire detector mirrors; or must comply with

Truss arrangement required at highest AS2550 and point of roof Drop down lights AS1481

Restricted access due structureto truss depth of Scissor / work-approx. 2.5m Truss design light platform mounted

weight, architectural on gantry to gain access

Set position of lights and detectors

Use scaffold

Use Elevated Work Platform

1.2 Cleaning Access at > 12.5m Skylights are fixed; Do not clean Design Obtain -/+ OperatorsSky Lights windows, insects, Engineer appropriate

Falls / falling objects Artificial light is dust; level of weather MaintainersGlass needed Architect seal;

Trusses restrict Reversible windows Insects access and clean from Maintain seal

external roof from for HVAC systemDust Crushing fixed static line;

Access required over Use scissor process plant/people mounted on Gantry

as aboveInterface, disruption, damage to process equipment


The Key Stakeholders

The group attending the workshop comprisedof fourteen people. This included the client,the project manager, the people operating theplant, their safety people, the designers,architects and engineers- structural,mechanical and electrical, the company’sbuilder’s OH&S and Rehabilitation managerand the facilitator.

To prepare, each participant was requested toread through and familiarise themselves withtheir relevant design contributions and theCHAIR Guidewords. These guidewords listpotential hazard risks and hazards at theconstruction phase and for ongoingmaintenance and repairs - a CHAIR 1 & 3.

The Chair Study Workshop

Sean had also identified that there was a needto break down the conception that the CHAIRprocess was not going to change the designbut rather to improve the design.

At the start of the workshop, he used theexample “if the architect has designed arounded roof, then we need to look at all theoptions so we can keep that design but at thesame time ensure that it is workable from anoccupational health and safety point of view.This may mean altering the design of thegutters, or designing out the gutters, so OH&Srisks are eliminated/minimised when it comesto future maintenance and repairs”.

The actual workshop was conducted at theconceptual design stage and took a total often “intensive” hours.

To be effective, it “was important to maintainthe group’s interest and momentum bymoving through the relevant issues and notbecoming enveloped in single side issues.This was why the choice of facilitator was soimportant”.

By going through this process they wereactually able to identify over one hundredhazards ranging from medium to high risk thatcould possibly have been overlooked.

Some of the results included: widening ofcorridors, replacement of standard singledoors with an additional 1/4 door for ease ofaccess with furniture and equipment,repositioning lights so that they could becomemore accessible for maintenance, somewindows were redesigned so that they couldflip over and be maintained and cleaned fromthe inside, the air conditioner was moveddown a level although the duct remained inthe same position, again for easiermaintenance, and an elevated work platformwas included for maintenance repairs.

Often the “Rolls Royce choice” of equipmentwas selected for lifecycle and long term safetyconsiderations. Cost benefits were realisedwhen these ongoing maintenance issues wereaddressed. All the risks and solutions thatwere identified in the workshop were recordedand distributed for to the relevant parties tonominated to action them further.

Other end user related issues also emergedthroughout the process and included theclient’s realisation that there had been noconsideration for rubbish storage anddisposal, another, identified a significantmanual handling hazard associated with theuse of the structure.

The Benefits of Chair

According to Sean “significant benefitsemerged from the process. In particularparticipants were forced to think outside theirown sphere of expertise and how their designdecisions impacted on other stakeholders.Participants were unanimous in their praise ofthe benefits of the process as the day evolved.


It is reassuring that the culture oforganisations is changing. Ten years ago abuilder would erect and then remove ascaffold. Now where appropriate planning hasoccurred in the design stage they are mostlikely to build in permanent access structuresto not only utilize in the construction processbut to provide for safety in maintenance andrepairs. Systematic processes, such asCHAIR, assist in integrating OHS in theplanning and design stages of a project. TheCHAIR study highlighted that benefits can becost effective and may even providesubstantial savings over the life of a projectwhilst at the same time provide for bettersafety for contractors, end users andmaintenance workers through creating a “safeplace of work” rather than being reliant on the“safe person at work”.

It certainly is a value added process for theclient and the builder.”


1. BHP Engineering Pty. Ltd, WorkCoverAuthority of New South Wales, UnisearchLimited, Victorian Institute of OccupationalSafety and Health (1999). “Safety inDesign Project, Teaming Agreement”. 4March 1999.

2. Churcher, D.W., Alwani-Starr, G.M. (1996).“Incorporating construction health andsafety into the design process”.Implementation of Safety and Health onConstruction Sites, Alves, Dias & Coble(eds). ISBN 90 5410 847 9.

3. Davies, V.J., Tomasin, K. (1990).“Construction Safety Handbook”. ThomasTelford, London. ISBN 0 7277 1385 X.

4. Department of Mineral Resources (1997).“Risk Management Handbook for theMining Industry”. MDG 1010. May 1997.

5. Harms-Ringdahl, Lars (1993). “SafetyAnalysis: Principles and Practice inOccupational Safety”. Elsevier AppliedScience. ISBN 1-85166-956-6.

6. Hinze, J, (1996). “Role of Designers inConstruction Worker Safety”. University ofFlorida.

7. Hinze, J, (1997). “The Engineer’s DesignDecisions and Construction Site Safety”.University of Florida.

8. John Holland Construction & EngineeringPty. Ltd & WorkCover New South Wales(1997). “Occupational Health & Safety:Best Practice Study of Erection ofSteelwork at Sydney Showground -

Homebush Bay”. Journal of the AustralianInstitute of Steel Construction, Volume 31,Number 4, December 1997.

9. Kletz (1990). “Critical Aspects of Safetyand Loss Prevention”. Butterworths & Co.

10. NSW Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning (1995). “HAZOP Guidelines”.Hazardous Industry Planning AdvisoryPaper No. 8.

11. Totterdell, J.M. (1996). “Designing forSafety”. Proceedings 2nd InternationalConference on Loss Prevention andSafety, Bahrain, 16-18 October, pp151-161.

12. Trethewy (1998). “Literature Review Part1: Managing Contractor OccupationalHealth and Safety - Towards ‘BestPractice’”. University of New SouthWales, Construction Industry SafeWork2000.

13. Wells, Geoff (1996). “HazardIdentification and Risk Assessment”.Institution of Chemical Engineers. ISBN0 85295 353 4.

14. WorkCover NSW (1998). “Memorandumof Understanding between the NSWGovernment and Signatory ConstructionContractors with the Support ofConstruction Industry Trade Unions &Employer Associations”. October 1998.

7. references


8. th

egu

idew

ords


CHAI

Rin

trodu

ctio

n


CHAI

RPH

ASES

1, 2

& 3

"CO

NS

TRU

CTI

ON

HA

ZAR

D A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T A

ND

IMP

LIC

ATIO

N R

EVI

EW

"

MO

U 2

00

0:

SA

FETY

IN

DE

SIG

N F

RA

ME

WO

RK

FO

RM

AJO

R B

UIL

DIN

G &

CIV

IL P

RO

JEC

TSC

onst

ruct

ion,

Mai

nten

ance

, R

epai

r an

d D

emol

itio

n

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


Wha

t is

a CH

AIR?

■A

C

onst

ruct

ion

Haz

ard

Ass

essm

ent

and

Impl

icat

ion

Rev

iew

is

a de

taile

d an

d sy

stem

atic

exa

min

atio

n of

the

cons

truc

tion

, m

aint

enan

ce,

repa

ir a

nd d

emol

itio

n sa

fety

issu

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

a de

sign

.

■It

con

side

rs h

ow d

esig

n fe

atur

es h

ave

been

inc

orpo

rate

dto

elim

inat

e or

mit

igat

e po

tent

ial

cons

truc

tion

haz

ards

.

■th

e as

sess

men

t as

sum

es

a ce

rtai

n le

vel

of

safe

tym

anag

emen

t to

exi

st a

t th

e co

nstr

ucti

on s

ite

- it

is

asu

pple

men

t to

, an

d no

t a

repl

acem

ent

of,

site

spe

cifi

cco

nstr

ucti

on s

afet

y re

view

s.

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


CHAI

R-1

STU

DYC

HA

IR-1

is a

con

cept

ual

desi

gn r

evie

w t

hat

exam

ines

the

vari

ous

elem

ents

of

a de

sign

usi

ng

two

type

s of

gui

dew

ords

:

■G

ener

ic(a

pplic

able

to

ea

ch

elem

ent

in

mos

t ca

ses

rega

rdle

ss o

f th

e ty

pe o

f de

sign

) an

d

■O

verv

iew

(use

d w

hen

cons

ider

ing

issu

es t

hat

rela

te t

oth

e w

hole

pro

cess

)

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


CHAI

R-2

STU

DYC

HA

IR-2

is a

con

stru

ctio

n or

dem

olit

ion

revi

ew p

erfo

rmed

whe

n th

e de

taile

d de

sign

is

esse

ntia

lly c

ompl

ete

but

befo

re t

he c

omm

ence

men

t of

cons

truc

tion

.

A s

et o

f gu

idew

ords

(w

ith

sub-

prom

pts)

are

use

d to

ass

ess

the

prop

osed

mai

n co

nstr

ucti

on s

teps

(ra

ther

tha

n th

e de

sign

ele

men

ts).

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


CHAI

R-3

STU

DYC

HA

IR-3

is a

mai

nten

ance

and

rep

air

revi

ew p

erfo

rmed

whe

n th

e de

taile

d de

sign

is

esse

ntia

lly c

ompl

ete.

A s

et o

f gu

idew

ords

are

app

lied

to e

ach

elem

ent

of t

hepr

opos

ed d

esig

n to

ens

ure

that

m

aint

enan

ce a

nd r

epai

r is

sues

hav

e be

en t

horo

ughl

yco

nsid

ered

.

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


Why

do

a CH

AIR?

■A

SM

AR

TER

DE

SIG

N I

S A

LSO

A S

AFE

R D

ES

IGN

■im

prov

ed "

cons

truc

tabi

lity"

■le

ss r

e-w

ork

duri

ng c

onst

ruct

ion

■im

prov

ed "

mai

ntai

nabi

lity"

■be

tter

und

erst

andi

ng o

f th

e de

sign

by

clie

nt,

desi

gner

and

cons

truc

tor

and

owne

r

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


How

are

CH

AIR’

s pe

rform

ed?

■B

y sy

stem

atic

ally

con

side

ring

in

turn

eac

h el

emen

t of

desi

gn (

CH

AIR

-1, C

HA

IR-3

) or

eac

h st

ep o

f th

e pr

opos

edco

nstr

ucti

on t

ask

(CH

AIR

-2)

■B

y us

ing

a se

ries

of

diff

eren

t C

HA

IR-1

, C

HA

IR-2

and

CH

AIR

-3 g

uide

wor

ds to

prom

pt d

iscu

ssio

ns b

y th

e C

HA

IRst

udy

team

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


Use

of G

uide

word

sFo

r ea

ch e

lem

ent

of t

he d

esig

n, e

ach

guid

ewor

d is

syst

emat

ical

ly c

onsi

dere

d an

d th

e fo

llow

ing

ques

tion

ssh

ould

be

aske

d:

■(H

ow)

can

it h

appe

n?

■If

so,

how

?

■S

o w

hat?

■W

hat

do w

e ne

ed t

o do

?

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


CHAI

R St

udy

Rule

s■

allo

w e

ach

pers

on t

o be

hea

rd (

resp

ect

the

indi

vidu

al)

■fo

cus

only

on

the

desi

gn c

ompo

nent

at

hand

■no

"w

itch

hun

ts"

or "

barr

ow p

ushi

ng"

■if

iss

ue c

anno

t be

res

olve

d in

5 m

inut

es,

docu

men

t an

das

sign

to

som

eone

for

fol

low

-up

afte

r th

e m

eeti

ng

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N


Sum

mar

y of

CH

AIR

-1 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

- G

ener

ic

Sum

mar

y of

CH

AIR

-1 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

- O

verv

iew

Sam

ple

CH

AIR

-1 M

inut

e R

ecor

ding

She

et

CH

AIR

-1 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

- G

ener

ic

CH

AIR

-1 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

- O

verv

iew

CHAI

R1


SU

MM

AR

Y -

CH

AIR

1 -

STU

DY

GU

IDE

WO

RD

S -

GE

NE

RIC

CA

RD

NU

MB

ER

GU

IDE

WO

RD

SU

B-P

RO

MP

TSC

AR

D N

UM

BE

RG

UID

EW

OR

DS

UB

-PR

OM

PTS

Cha

ir 1

. G

ener

ic 2

SIZ

ETo

o la

rge

Cha

ir 1

. G

ener

ic 7

LOA

D /

FO

RC

EH

igh

/ E

xces

sTo

o sm

all

Low

in

suff

icie

ntTo

o lo

ngA

ddit

iona

l lo

ads

Too

shor

t(c

onst

ruct

ion)

To

o w

ide

Dyn

amic

sTo

o na

rrow

Tem

pora

ry W

eakn

ess

Cha

ir 1

. G

ener

ic 3

HE

IGH

TS /

DE

PTH

SW

orki

ng a

t he

ight

sC

hair

1.

Gen

eric

8E

NE

RG

YLo

w /

hig

h en

ergy

Falls

/ s

truc

k by

fal

ling

Tens

ion

/ co

mpr

essi

onob

ject

sP

oten

tial

/ k

inet

icS

caff

oldi

ng (

shap

e,

Iner

tia

/ m

omen

tsp

ace

to f

it)

Con

fine

d sp

ace

Acc

ess

/ eg

ress

Cha

ir 1

. G

ener

ic 4

PO

SIT

ION

/ L

OC

ATIO

NTo

o hi

ghC

hair

1.

Gen

eric

9TI

MIN

GTo

o la

te,

too

earl

yTo

o lo

wTo

o sh

ort,

too

lon

gTo

o fa

rIn

corr

ect

sequ

ence

Mis

alig

ned

Ext

ende

d de

lays

Wro

ng p

osit

ion

Cha

ir 1

. G

ener

ic 5

PO

OR

ER

GO

NO

MIC

SP

ostu

re /

man

ual

Cha

ir 1

. G

ener

ic 1

0E

GR

ES

S /

AC

CE

SS

No.

of

exit

poi

nts

hand

ling

Em

erge

ncy

egre

ss,

size

RS

I /

disc

omfo

rt /

O

bstr

ucti

ons,

lig

htin

gfa

tigu

e /

stre

ss

Ent

ry /

exi

t po

ints

Eff

ect

on P

PE

Ext

erna

l Im

pact

sVi

sibi

lity

(lig

htin

g M

aint

enan

cesl

ight

lines

)P

eopl

e an

d E

quip

men

tS

lips,

tri

ps,

falls

Mov

emen

ts

Cha

ir 1

. G

ener

ic 6

MO

VEM

EN

T /

Sta

bilit

yC

hair

1.

Gen

eric

11

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E /

P

ostu

re /

Man

ual

DIR

EC

TIO

NC

ompr

essi

onR

EPA

IRH

andl

ing

Phy

sica

l da

mag

eS

ize

/ W

idth

Vibr

atio

nA

cces

s /

Egr

ess

Fric

tion

/ s

lipH

eigh

ts /

Dro

pped

R

otat

ion

Obj

ects

Wei

ght

Upw

ards

/ D

ownw

ards

Dis

com

fort

/ S

tres

s /

PP

ER

ever

seVi

sibi

lity

/ S

lips

/ Tr

ips

Exp

ansi

on /

Ten

sion

Rot

atin

g E

quip

men

tR

ollo

ver

Oth

er


SU

MM

AR

Y -

CH

AIR

1 -

STU

DY

GU

IDE

WO

RD

S -

OVE

RVI

EW

CA

RD

NU

MB

ER

GU

IDE

WO

RD

SU

B-P

RO

MP

TSC

AR

D N

UM

BE

RG

UID

EW

OR

DS

UB

-PR

OM

PTS

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

2E

NVI

RO

NM

EN

TAL

Ext

rem

e W

eath

erC

hair

1.

Ove

rvie

w 9

SA

FETY

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

Per

sonn

el P

rote

ctio

nC

ON

DIT

ION

STe

mpe

ratu

reS

afet

y S

how

ers

Gro

und

Bar

rier

s /

Gua

rds

Noi

seW

ater

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

3E

XTE

RN

AL

SA

FETY

M

embe

rs o

f th

e pu

blic

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

10

NAT

UR

AL

HA

ZAR

DS

Ear

thqu

ake

INTE

RFA

CE

STr

affi

cFl

oodi

ngA

djac

ent

Pro

pert

yTh

unde

rsto

rm (

light

ning

P

ower

/ s

ervi

ces

prot

ecti

on)

Ext

erna

l fi

re /

pla

nsH

igh

Win

dsD

ay /

nig

ht /

wee

kend

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

4TO

XIC

ITY

Lead

/ A

sbes

tos

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

11

INS

PE

CTI

ON

/

Elim

inat

ing

Han

dlin

gTE

STI

NG

Isol

atio

nP

reca

utio

nsA

cces

sVe

ntila

tion

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

5FI

RE

/ E

XPLO

SIO

NP

reve

ntio

n /

dete

ctio

nC

hair

1.

Ove

rvie

w 1

2D

EM

OLI

TIO

NE

ase

Fire

pro

tect

ion

Issu

esE

mer

genc

y pr

oced

ures

Doc

umen

tati

on

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

6E

NVI

RO

NM

EN

TAL

Vapo

ur /

dus

tC

hair

1.

Ove

rvie

w 1

3D

OC

UM

EN

TATI

ON

Ope

rati

ons

IMPA

CT

Eff

luen

t /

Noi

seM

aint

enan

ceS

eepa

ge /

Was

teIn

spec

tion

/Te

stin

gS

eque

nce

Em

erge

ncy

Rec

ords

/ R

epor

ts

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

7U

TILI

TIE

S &

SE

RVI

CE

SLi

ghti

ngC

hair

1.

Ove

rvie

w 1

4Q

UA

LITY

CO

NTR

OL

Insp

ecti

on /

Tes

ting

Air

/ W

ater

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ceFu

el /

Ele

ctri

city

Oxy

gen

/ W

ater

Cha

ir 1

. O

verv

iew

8C

OM

MIS

SIO

N /

Req

uire

men

tsC

hair

1.

Ove

rvie

w 1

5C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

Seq

uenc

eS

TAR

TUP

/ S

HU

TDO

WN

Seq

uenc

eE

QU

IPM

EN

TTi

min

g, A

cces

s


SA

MP

LE -

CH

AIR

-1 -

MIN

UTE

RE

CO

RD

ING

SH

EE

T

Pro

ject

:D

esig

n E

lem

ent:

Dat

e:

Dra

win

g(s)

/Ref

eren

ce(s

):R

evis

ion:

No.

Gui

dew

ord

Ris

k Is

sue(

s)C

ause

sC

onse

quen

ces

Saf

egua

rds

Act

ion(

s)R

es.

Per

son

& D

ate

Due


CHAI

R-1

STU

DY G

UID

EWOR

DSG

ener

ic

"Gen

eric

"gu

idew

ords

sho

uld

appl

y to

mos

t de

sign

s be

ing

cons

ider

ed –

the

y re

pres

ent

the

core

gui

dew

ords

for

the

CH

AIR

-1 s

tudy

fra

mew

ork.

The

guid

ewor

ds a

re a

pplie

d to

the

ind

ivid

ual

elem

ents

of

the

desi

gn,

the

focu

s be

ing

on h

ow t

he g

uide

wor

d m

ayap

ply

to t

he e

lem

ent

duri

ng t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

proc

ess.

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 1


SIZE

■TO

O L

AR

GE

■TO

O S

MA

LL

■TO

O L

ON

G

■TO

O W

IDE

■TO

O S

HO

RT

■TO

O N

AR

RO

W

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 2


HEI

GHTS

/ DE

PTH

S■

WO

RK

ING

AT

HE

IGH

TS

■FA

LLS

/ S

TRU

CK

BY

FALL

ING

OB

JEC

TS

■S

CA

FFO

LDIN

G (

SH

AP

E,

SPA

CE

TO

FIT

, et

c.)

■C

ON

FIN

ED

SPA

CE

■A

CC

ES

S/E

GR

ES

S

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 3


POSI

TION

/ LO

CATI

ON■

TOO

HIG

H

■TO

O L

OW

■TO

O F

AR

■M

ISA

LIG

NE

D

■W

RO

NG

PO

SIT

ION

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 4


POOR

ERG

ONOM

ICS

■P

ostu

re /

man

ual

hand

ling

inju

ries

■R

epet

itiv

e S

trai

n In

jury

/ d

isco

mfo

rt /

fat

igue

/st

ress

■E

ffec

t of

Per

sona

l P

rote

ctiv

e E

quip

men

t

■Vi

sibi

lity

(lig

htin

g, s

ight

lines

, bl

ind

spot

s)

■S

lips,

tri

ps,

falls

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 5


MOV

EMEN

T / D

IREC

TION

■S

TAB

ILIT

Y C

OM

PR

ES

SIO

N

■U

PW

AR

DS

■P

HYS

ICA

L D

AM

AG

E■

DO

WN

WA

RD

S

■VI

BR

ATIO

N■

RE

VER

SE

■FR

ICTI

ON

/ S

LIP

■E

XPA

NS

ION

/ T

EN

SIO

N

■R

OTA

TIO

N■

RO

LL O

VER

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 6


LOAD

/ FO

RCE

■H

IGH

/ E

XCE

SS

■LO

W /

IN

SU

FFIC

IEN

T

■A

DD

ITIO

NA

L LO

AD

S D

UR

ING

CO

NS

TRU

CTI

ON

,C

OM

MIS

SIO

NIN

G,

DE

MO

LITI

ON

■D

YNA

MIC

S

■TE

MP

OR

AR

Y W

EA

KN

ES

S (

insu

ffic

ient

pro

ppin

g)

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 7


ENER

GY■

LOW

/ H

IGH

EN

ER

GY

■TE

NS

ION

/ C

OM

PR

ES

SIO

N

■P

OTE

NTI

AL

/ K

INE

TIC

■IN

ER

TIA

/ M

OM

EN

T

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 8


TIM

ING

■TO

O L

ATE

, TO

O E

AR

LY

■TO

O S

HO

RT,

TO

O L

ON

G

■IN

CO

RR

EC

T S

EQ

UE

NC

E

■E

XTE

ND

ED

DE

LAYS

(e

.g.

capp

ing

part

ial

desi

gns)

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 9


EGRE

SS /

ACCE

SS■

NO

. O

F E

XIT

PO

INTS

■E

NTR

Y/E

XIT

PO

INTS

■E

ME

RG

EN

CY

EG

RE

SS

- LO

CAT

ION

■S

IZE

- W

IDTH

, H

EIG

HT,

-

AR

RA

NG

EM

EN

TLE

NG

TH

■O

BS

TRU

CTI

ON

S■

EXT

ER

NA

L IM

PAC

TS

■LI

GH

TIN

G■

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E

■P

EO

PLE

AN

D E

QU

IPM

EN

T M

OVE

ME

NTS

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 1

0


MAI

NTE

NAN

CE /

REPA

IR■

PO

STU

RE

/ M

AN

UA

L ■

DIS

CO

MFO

RT

/ S

TRE

SS

/

HA

ND

LIN

GP

PE

(P

rote

ctiv

e E

quip

men

t)

■S

IZE

/ W

IDTH

■VI

SIB

ILIT

Y /

SLI

PS

/ T

RIP

S

■A

CC

ES

S /

EG

RE

SS

■R

OTA

TIN

G E

QU

IPM

EN

TH

EIG

HTS

/

■D

RO

PP

ED

OB

JEC

TS■

OTH

ER

?

■W

EIG

HT

CH

AIR

1.

GE

NE

RIC

. 1

1


CHAI

R-1

STU

DY G

UID

EWOR

DSO

verv

iew

The

purp

ose

of t

he "

Ove

rvie

w"

guid

ewor

ds i

s to

con

side

rth

e pr

opos

ed d

esig

n as

a w

hole

and

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

ther

e ar

e an

y pa

rtic

ular

iss

ues

that

nee

d to

be

addr

esse

d.

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 1


ENVI

RON

MEN

TAL

CON

DITI

ONS

■E

XTR

EM

E W

EAT

HE

R (

Win

d, R

ain,

Hai

l, Li

ght)

■TE

MP

ER

ATU

RE

(H

ot,

Col

d, H

eat,

Fir

e)

■G

RO

UN

D (

GE

OTE

CH

pro

pert

ies,

con

tam

inat

ion,

etc

.)

■N

OIS

E

■W

ATE

R

■??

?

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 2


EXTE

RNAL

SAF

ETY

INTE

RFAC

ES■

ME

MB

ER

S O

F TH

E P

UB

LIC

■TR

AFF

IC

■A

DJA

CE

NT

PR

OP

ER

TY /

BU

ILD

ING

S

■P

OW

ER

/ S

ER

VIC

ES

LO

CAT

ION

S

■E

XTE

RN

AL

FIR

E /

EM

ER

GE

NC

Y P

LAN

S

■D

AY /

NIG

HT,

WE

EK

DAY

/ W

EE

KE

ND

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 3


TOXI

CITY

■LE

AD

/ A

SB

ES

TOS

■H

AN

DLI

NG

PR

OC

ED

UR

ES

■P

RE

CA

UTI

ON

S

■VE

NTI

LATI

ON

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 4


FIRE

/ EX

PLOS

ION

■P

RE

VEN

TIO

N S

YSTE

MS

■D

ETE

CTI

ON

SYS

TEM

S

■FI

RE

PR

OTE

CTI

ON

■E

ME

RG

EN

CY

ISO

LATI

ON

SYS

TEM

S

■IN

ER

T AT

MO

SP

HE

RE

■E

ME

RG

EN

CY

PR

OC

ED

UR

ES

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 5


ENVI

RON

MEN

TAL

IMPA

CT■

VAP

OU

R E

MIS

SIO

NS

■D

US

T E

MIS

SIO

NS

■E

FFLU

EN

T

■N

OIS

E

■G

RO

UN

D S

EE

PAG

E

■W

AS

TE M

INIM

ISAT

ION

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 6


UTI

LITI

ES A

ND

SERV

ICES

■LI

GH

TIN

G

■A

IR /

WAT

ER

■O

XYG

EN

■W

ATE

R

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 7


COM

MIS

SION

ING

/ST

ARTU

P / S

HU

TDOW

N■

RE

QU

IRE

ME

NTS

■S

EQ

UE

NC

E

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 8


SAFE

TY E

QUIP

MEN

T■

PE

RS

ON

NE

L P

RO

TEC

TIO

N

■S

AFE

TY S

HO

WE

RS

■B

AR

RIE

RS

/GU

AR

DS

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 9


NAT

URA

L H

AZAR

DS■

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

■FL

OO

DIN

G

■TH

UN

DE

RS

TOR

M (

LIG

HTN

ING

PR

OTE

CTI

ON

)

■H

IGH

WIN

DS

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 1

0


INSP

ECTI

ON A

ND

TEST

ING

■E

LIM

INAT

ING

■IS

OLA

TIO

N

■A

CC

ES

S

■IN

SP

EC

TIO

N A

ND

TE

STI

NG

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 1

1


DEM

OLIT

ION

■E

AS

E

■IS

SU

ES

■D

OC

UM

EN

TATI

ON

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 1

2


DOCU

MEN

TATI

ON■

OP

ER

ATIO

NS

■M

AIN

TEN

AN

CE

■IN

SP

EC

TIO

N A

ND

TE

STI

NG

■S

EQ

UE

NC

E

■E

ME

RG

EN

CY

■S

AFE

TY R

ISK

RE

CO

RD

S /

RE

PO

RTS

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 1

3


QUAL

ITY

CON

TROL

■IN

SP

EC

TIO

N A

ND

TE

STI

NG

■Q

UA

LITY

AS

SU

RA

NC

E

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 1

4


CON

STRU

CTIO

NEQ

UIP

MEN

T■

SE

QU

EN

CE

■TI

MIN

G,

AC

CE

SS

CH

AIR

1.

OVE

RVI

EW

. 1

5


Sum

mar

y of

CH

AIR

-2 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

Sam

ple

CH

AIR

-2 M

inut

e R

ecor

ding

She

et

CH

AIR

-2 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

CHAI

R2


SA

MP

LE -

CH

AIR

-2 -

STU

DY

GU

IDE

WO

RD

S

Con

stru

ctio

n B

ased

Gui

dew

ords

Car

d N

umbe

rG

uidw

ord

Sub

-Pro

mpt

sC

ard

Num

ber

Gui

dwor

dS

ub-P

rom

pts

CH

AIR

2.2

ELI

MIN

ATE

Falls

(of

peo

ple)

CH

AIR

2.5

AVO

IDC

onst

ruct

ion/

Lift

ing

Falli

ng m

ater

ial

/ ob

ject

sS

eque

nce

Ste

ppin

g on

or

stri

king

Tim

ing

/ Lo

cati

ons

agai

nst

obje

cts

Tem

pora

ry I

nsta

bilit

yC

augh

t or

tra

pped

Acc

ess

/ E

gres

sLi

ftin

g an

d ca

rryi

ng -

D

elay

s /

Con

fine

d S

pace

over

exe

rtio

nE

rect

ion

/ D

ism

antl

ing

Asp

hyxi

atio

n /

drow

ning

Hea

t /

Col

d /

Noi

seM

achi

nery

Ele

ctri

city

Tran

spor

t /

mob

ile p

lant

Toxi

city

, Fi

res

and

Exp

losi

ons

CH

AIR

2.3

SU

BS

TITU

TEFa

lls (

of p

eopl

e)C

HA

IR 2

.6O

THE

R I

SS

UE

S?

Mod

ific

atio

nFa

lling

mat

eria

l /

obje

cts

Isol

atio

n /

engi

neer

ing

Ste

ppin

g on

or

stri

king

co

ntro

lsag

ains

t ob

ject

sP

erso

nnel

Pro

tect

ive

Cau

ght

or t

rapp

edE

quip

men

tLi

ftin

g an

d ca

rryi

ng -

A

lter

/ r

earr

ange

over

exe

rtio

nIn

crea

se /

red

uce

Asp

hyxi

atio

n /

drow

ning

Sim

plif

y /I

mpr

ove

Mac

hine

ryE

lect

rici

tyTr

ansp

ort

/ m

obile

pla

ntTo

xici

ty,

Fire

s an

d E

xplo

sion

s

CH

AIR

2.4

CO

MB

INE

Con

stru

ctio

n /

Lift

ing

Seq

uenc

eTi

min

gLo

cati

ons


SA

MP

LE -

CH

AIR

-2 -

MIN

UTE

RE

CO

RD

ING

SH

EE

T

Pro

ject

:C

onst

ruct

ion

Ste

p:D

ate:

D

raw

ing(

s)/R

efer

ence

(s):

Rev

isio

n:

No.

Gui

dew

ord

Ris

k Is

sue(

s)C

ause

sC

onse

quen

ces

Saf

egua

rds

Act

ion(

s)R

es.

Per

son

& D

ate

Due


CHAI

R-2

STU

DY G

UID

EWOR

DSTh

e pu

rpos

e of

the

CH

AIR

-2 g

uide

wor

ds i

s to

sti

mul

ate

disc

ussi

on o

n im

prov

ing

the

prop

osed

con

stru

ctio

n m

etho

dby

mak

ing

mod

ific

atio

ns t

o th

e de

sign

.

CH

AIR

2.1


CH

AIR

2.2

ELIM

INAT

E■

Falls

(of

peo

ple)

■A

sphy

xiat

ion

/ dr

owni

ng

■Fa

lling

mat

eria

l /

obje

cts

■M

achi

nery

■S

tepp

ing

on o

r■

Ele

ctri

city

stri

king

aga

inst

obj

ects

■C

augh

t or

tra

pped

■Tr

ansp

ort

/ m

obile

equi

pmen

t

■Li

ftin

g an

d ca

rryi

ng -

■To

xici

ty,

Fire

s an

d E

xplo

sion

s ov

er e

xert

ion


CH

AIR

2.3

SUBS

TITU

TE■

Falls

(of

peo

ple)

■A

sphy

xiat

ion

/ dr

owni

ng

■Fa

lling

mat

eria

l /

obje

cts

■M

achi

nery

■S

tepp

ing

on o

r■

Ele

ctri

city

stri

king

aga

inst

obj

ects

■C

augh

t or

tra

pped

■Tr

ansp

ort

/ m

obile

equi

pmen

t

■Li

ftin

g an

d ca

rryi

ng -

■To

xici

ty,

Fire

s an

d E

xplo

sion

s ov

er e

xert

ion


CH

AIR

2.4

COM

BIN

E■

Con

stru

ctio

n /

Lift

ing

Seq

uenc

e

■Ti

min

g

■Lo

cati

ons


CH

AIR

2.5

AVOI

D■

Con

stru

ctio

n /

Lift

ing

Seq

uenc

e

■Ti

min

g /

Loca

tion

s

■Te

mpo

rary

Ins

tabi

lity

■A

cces

s /

Egr

ess

■D

elay

s /

Con

fine

d S

pace

■E

rect

ion

/ D

ism

antl

ing

■H

eat

/ C

old

/ N

oise


OTH

ER IS

SUES

?■

Mod

ific

atio

n

■Is

olat

ion

■E

ngin

eeri

ng C

ontr

ols

■P

erso

nnel

Pro

tect

ive

Equ

ipm

ent

■A

lter

/ r

earr

ange

■In

crea

se /

red

uce

■S

impl

ify

■Im

prov

e

CH

AIR

2.6


Sum

mar

y of

CH

AIR

-3 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

CH

AIR

-3 W

orks

heet

CH

AIR

-3 S

tudy

Gui

dew

ords

CHAI

R3


CH

AIR

-3 W

OR

KS

HE

ET

DE

TAIL

ED

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E /

RE

PAIR

SA

FETY

IN

DE

TAIL

ED

DE

SIG

N (

CH

AIR

-3)

STU

DY

Ref

eren

ce:

Sys

tem

:S

ub-S

yste

m:

Item

/Com

pone

nt:

Mai

ntai

nabi

lity

Asp

ect

Ass

essm

ent

(Goo

d, F

air,

Poo

r, N

/A)

and

WH

YR

ecom

men

dati

on/C

omm

ent

Who

/Dat

e

PO

STU

RE

/ M

AN

UA

L H

AN

DLI

NG

AC

CE

SS

/ E

GR

ES

S

HE

IGH

TS /

DR

OP

PE

D O

BJE

CTS

WE

IGH

T

DIS

CO

MFO

RT

/ S

TRE

SS

PE

RS

ON

NE

L P

RO

T. E

QU

IPM

EN

T

VIS

IBIL

ITY

SLI

PS

, TR

IPS

, FA

LLS

RO

TATI

NG

/ M

OVI

NG

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

IS R

EPA

IR D

IFFE

RE

NT?

OTH

ER

S T

HAT

MAY

AP

PLY

(lis

t be

low

)


CHAI

R-3

STU

DY G

UID

EWOR

DSTh

e pu

rpos

e of

the

CH

AIR

-3 g

uide

wor

ds i

s to

sti

mul

ate

disc

ussi

on o

n im

prov

ing

the

mai

nten

ance

and

rep

air

of t

hepr

opos

ed d

esig

n w

hen

it i

s in

its

ope

rati

ng p

hase

.

CH

AIR

3.1


POST

URE

/ M

ANU

ALH

ANDL

ING

CH

AIR

3.2


ACCE

SS /

EGRE

SS

CH

AIR

3.3


HEI

GHTS

/ DR

OPPE

DOB

JECT

S

CH

AIR

3.4


WEI

GHT

CH

AIR

3.5


DISC

OMFO

RT /

STRE

SS

CH

AIR

3.6


PERS

ONN

ELPR

OTEC

TION

EQU

IPM

ENT

CH

AIR

3.7


VISI

BILI

TY

CH

AIR

3.8


SLIP

S, T

RIPS

, FAL

LS

CH

AIR

3.9


ROTA

TIN

G / M

OVIN

GEQ

UIP

MEN

T

CH

AIR

3.1

0


IS R

EPAI

R DI

FFER

ENT?

CH

AIR

3.1

1


OTH

ER IS

SUES

TH

ATM

AY A

PPLY

?

CH

AIR

3.1

2


addi

tiona

lCH

AIR

stud

y gu

idew

ords


CHAI

R ST

UDY

GU

IDEW

ORDS

Add

itio

nal

The

purp

ose

of t

he "

Add

itio

nal"

gui

dew

ords

sec

tion

is

toem

phas

ise

that

oth

er i

ssue

s m

ay e

xist

tha

t ne

ed t

o be

cons

ider

ed,

and

the

CH

AIR

fac

ilita

tor

shou

ld c

onsi

der

ifth

ese

are

best

cov

ered

wit

h ad

diti

onal

gui

dew

ords

pri

or t

oth

e w

orks

hop.

How

ever

, to

o m

any

guid

ewor

ds m

ay d

evol

ve t

hepr

oces

s in

to a

lab

orio

us c

heck

list

exer

cise

, w

hich

can

rest

rict

the

"br

ains

torm

ing

proc

ess"

.

AD

DIT

ION

AL


■■

■■

(bla

nk c

ard

for

addi

tion

al C

HA

IR s

tudy

wor

ksho

p)


WorkCover OfficesFor all occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation information, call the WorkCover

Information Line – 13 10 50 from anywhere in New South Wales.

HEAD OFFICE

Office Hours 8:30am – 5:00pm

Monday to Friday

92–100 Donnison Street

GOSFORD 2250

Phone (02) 4321 5000

Fax (02) 4325 4145

Postal Address

WorkCover NSW Locked Bag 2906

Lisarow NSW 2252

WorkCover Assistance Service


Monday to Friday

92–100 Donnison Street

GOSFORD 2250

Phone 13 10 50

LABORATORIES

Thornleigh

5A Pioneer Avenue

THORNLEIGH 2120

Phone (02) 9484 6655

Fax (02) 9980 6849

Email [email protected]

Londonderry

TestSafe Australia

Ground Floor 919 Londonderry Road

LONDONDERRY 2753

Phone (02) 4724 4900

Fax (02) 4724 4999

Email [email protected]

REGIONAL and LOCAL OFFICES


Monday to Friday

REGIONAL OFFICES

Newcastle

956 Hunter Street

NEWCASTLE WEST 2302

Phone (02) 4921 2900

Fax (02) 4921 2929

Wollongong

106 Market Street

WOLLONGONG 2500

Phone (02) 4222 7333

Fax (02) 4226 9087

LOCAL OFFICES

Albury

463 Kiewa Street

ALBURY 2640

Phone (02) 6021 5911

Fax (02) 6041 2580

Batemans Bay

Shop 6, Fenning Place

12 Orient Street

BATEMANS BAY 2536

Phone (02) 4472 5544

Fax (02) 4472 5060

Blacktown

125 Main Street

BLACKTOWN 2148

Phone (02) 9671 8701

Fax (02) 9831 8246

Dubbo

Suite 3, 157 Brisbane Street

DUBBO 2830

Phone (02) 6884 2799

Fax (02) 6884 2808

Goulburn

21–23 Clifford Street

GOULBURN 2580

Phone (02) 4822 1243

Fax (02) 4822 1242

Grafton

NSW Government Offices

49–51 Victoria Street

GRAFTON 2460

Phone (02) 6641 5111

Fax (02) 6641 5100

Griffith

NSW Government Offices

104–110 Banna Avenue

GRIFFITH 2680

Phone (02) 6964 2027

Fax (02) 6964 1738

Hurstville

Level 4, 4-8 Woodville Street

HURSTVILLE 2220

Phone (02) 9598 3366

Fax (02) 9585 0261

Lindfield

345 Pacific Hwy

LINDFIELD 2070

Phone (02) 9936 3000

Fax (02) 9936 3030

Lismore

Suite 4, Level 4

Manchester Unity Building

29 Molesworth Street

LISMORE 2480

Phone (02) 6622 0088

Fax (02) 6622 0090

Liverpool

Suite 4, Ground Floor

157–161 George Street

LIVERPOOL 2170

Phone (02) 9827 8600

Fax (02) 9827 8690

Narrabri

Level 1, 55 Maitland Street

NARRABRI 2390

Phone (02) 6792 4643

Fax (02) 6792 3532

Newcastle

956 Hunter Street

NEWCASTLE WEST 2302

Phone (02) 4921 2900

Fax (02) 4921 2929

Orange

74 McNamara Street

ORANGE 2800

Phone (02) 6361 7070

Fax (02) 6362 8820

Parramatta

Level 4, 128 Marsden Street

PARRAMATTA 2150

Phone (02) 9841 8550

Fax (02) 9841 8490

Port Macquarie

Shops 1 & 2,

Raine & Horne House

145 Horton Street

PORT MACQUARIE 2444

Phone (02) 6584 1188

Fax (02) 6584 1788

Shellharbour

134–134A Lamerton House

Shellharbour Square

BLACKBUTT 2529

Phone (02) 4297 3796

Fax (02) 4296 8914

Tamworth

Shop 20, 341 Peel Street

TAMWORTH 2340

Phone (02) 6766 2490

Fax (02) 6766 4972

Lake Macquarie

Shop 2, 33 The Boulevarde

TORONTO 2283

Phone (02) 4959 6366

Fax (02) 4950 5587

Tweed Heads

Suite 5, 1 Sands Street

TWEED HEADS 2485

Phone (07) 5536 3262

Fax (07) 5536 4389

Wagga Wagga

Level 2, 76 Morgan Street

WAGGA WAGGA 2650

Phone (02) 6937 3600

Fax (02) 6937 3616

Wollongong

106 Market Street

WOLLONGONG 2500

Phone (02) 4222 7333

Fax (02) 4226 9087

Catalogue No. 976 WorkCover Publications Hotline 1300 799 003

WorkCover NSW 92-100 Donnison Street Gosford NSW 2250

Locked Bag 2906 Lisarow NSW 2252 WorkCover Assistance Service 13 10 50

Website www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

ISBN 1 876995 27 0 ©Copyright WorkCover NSW 2001. Production and printing by Salmat – 02 9743 8777

chair safety in design tool 0976

Documents