This study focuses on measuring the influence of critical Human and Organizational Factors (HOFs) on human error occurrence in structural design and construction tasks within the context of the Dutch construction industry. The primary research question addressed in this paper concerns the extent of HOFs’ contribution to human error occurrence. To answer this question, the Classical Model for Structured Expert Judgement (SEJ) is employed, enabling experts to provide their judgments on task Human Error Probability (HEP) influenced by different HOFs, which are subsequently aggregated mathematically. SEJ is chosen as a suitable approach due to the limited availability of applicable data in the construction sector. As a result, the impacts of HOFs are quantified as multipliers, representing the ratio between the observed or evaluated task HEP and its baseline value. These multipliers are then compared with corresponding multipliers from existing Human Reliability Analysis methods and studies. The findings reveal that fitness-for-duty, organizational characteristics and fragmentation exhibit the most pronounced negative effects, whereas complexity, attitude and fitness-for-duty demonstrate the most significant positive impacts on task performance. These results offer valuable insights that can be applied to enhance structural safety assurance practices.

Background: Human errors are widely acknowledged as the primary cause of structural failures in the construction industry. Research has found that such errors arise from the situation created by human factors and organizational factors embedded in the task context. However, these contextual factors have not been adequately addressed in the construction industry. Therefore, this study aims to identify the critical Human and Organizational Factors (HOFs) that influence structural safety in frequently performed tasks in structural design and construction. Methods: Through a comprehensive literature review, a framework consisting of potential critical factors called the HOPE framework, is presented. To identify the most critical HOFs that contribute to human error occurrences, a questionnaire survey to experts in the Dutch construction industry was conducted. Finally, the resulting framework was compared with three actual structural failures for validation. Results: This study shows that the HOFs should be extended with project-related factors (P) and working environment-related factors (E) due to the fact that these task contextual conditions play a significant role in shaping professionals' on-the-job performance. Furthermore, a survey identified 14 HOFs as critical in contributing to an error-prone situation in the structural design and construction tasks. Conclusion: The presented HOPE framework and the identified critical HOFs for structural safety can assist engineers with better hazard identification and quality assurance in practice.

Historical masonry façades are sensitive to various damaging processes. A recent study, looking at the initiation and progression of cracks in masonry, in the range of 0.1 to 5 mm in width and thus corresponding to light damage [1], has allowed for the calibration of finite-element models that include a material model capable of accurately replicating this damage and which is populated with material properties corresponding to existing structures [6]. The models, which also include a soil-structure interaction boundary designed to account for the effect of the soil during earthquake vibrations [7], have been used to determine the fragility of masonry buildings via the proxy of 2D walls [2]. In the study presented herein, the finite element models are employed to replicate the geometry of (historical) masonry facades to determine their sensitivity to light damage as a consequence of the two damaging processes observed to be most common for this type of façade, namely (differential) settlements and (earthquake) vibrations [3]. The masonry façades were first pre-damaged via settlement distortions which generate just-visible cracks in the order of 0.1 mm to 1 mm in width. Then, an acceleration time history corresponding to two different Dutch earthquake events and two recordings of traffic-induced building vibrations [9] were separately applied at the base of the models. In this manner, the effect of existing damage could be assessed in regards to the aggravation generated by vibrations. The settlement part of the study revealed that long façades were more vulnerable to applied soil distortions, for instance. Then, subsequent vibrations further increased damage for intensities measured with a peak ground velocity (PGV) larger than 2 mm/s while the control set of virgin or uncracked façades remained undamaged at this PGV. At 32 mm/s, many pre-damaged façades also exceeded the light damage range. At equal PGV, the traffic vibrations, with a larger number of effective cycles, resulted in increased damage aggravation in comparison to the earthquake recordings.

A broad review of the existing literature concerning Human and Organizational Factors (HOFs) and human errors influencing structural safety is presented in this study. Publications on this research topic were collected from the Scopus database. Two research focal points of this topic, namely modelling and evaluating the human error effects on structural reliability, and identifying causal factors for structural defects and failures, have been recognized and discussed with an in-depth literature review. The review of studies with a model focus summarizes the models and methods that have been developed to evaluate structural reliability considering human error effects. Besides, the review of publications on the factor subject outlines the most acknowledged HOFs that influence structural safety. Moreover, an additional spotlight was given to the studies from the offshore industry for the advanced development in HOFs and contributing the first complete Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) method for structural reliability analysis. In conclusion, this study provides a holistic overview of the knowledge developed in existing research on the topic of HOFs and human error influencing structural safety. Furthermore, current developments and challenges are reflected, and future research directions are explored for academics entering and working in this field. Additionally, the insights into HOFs generated from this review can assist engineers with better hazard identification and quality assurance in practice.

In this paper, we provide an overview of how Safe-by-Design is conceived and applied in practice in a large number of engineering disciplines. We discuss the differences, commonalities, and possibilities for mutual learning found in those practices and identify several ways of putting those disciplinary outlooks in perspective. The considered engineering disciplines in the order of historically grown technologies are construction engineering, chemical engineering, aerospace engineering, urban engineering, software engineering, bio-engineering, nano-engineering, and finally cyber space engineering. Each discipline is briefly introduced, the technology at issue is described, the relevant or dominant hazards are examined, the social challenge(s) are observed, and the relevant developments in the field are described. Within each discipline the risk management strategies, the design principles promoting safety or safety awareness, and associated methods or tools are discussed. Possible dilemmas that the designers in the discipline face are highlighted. Each discipline is concluded by discussing the opportunities and bottlenecks in addressing safety. Commonalities and differences between the engineering disciplines are investigated, specifically on the design strategies for which empirical data have been collected. We argue that Safe-by-Design is best considered as a specific elaboration of Responsible Research and Innovation, with an explicit focus on safety in relation to other important values in engineering such as well-being, sustainability, equity, and affordability. Safe-by-Design provides for an intellectual venue where social science and the humanities (SSH) collaborate on technological developments and innovation by helping to proactively incorporate safety considerations into engineering practices, while navigating between the extremes of technological optimism and disproportionate precaution. As such, Safe-by-Design is also a practical tool for policymakers and risk assessors that helps shape governance arrangements for accommodating and incentivizing safety, while fully acknowledging uncertainty.

In 2011 the city of Enschede was shocked by the collapse of the roof of an extension for the FC Twente stadium. The structure collapsed during construction and two fatalities and nine injuries were recorded. The cantilevering steel roof structure was covered with corrugated steel sheets and stabilized by bracings. Investigation showed that the structure was already loaded with the finishing structure before it was completed and stabilized. Contributing influencing human and organizational factors to the incident were the tight schedule resulting in a flawed construction sequence. Furthermore, there was too little attention to the way of execution during design, unjustified trust between parties resulting in inadequate coordination, checking and allocation of responsibilities.