International Journal of Injury Control and Safety

Promotion

ISSN: 1745-7300 (Print) 1745-7319 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/nics20

Safety concerns related to modular/prefabricated

building construction

Maryam Mirhadi Fard, Seyyed Amin Terouhid, Charles J. Kibert & Hamed
Hakim

To cite this article: Maryam Mirhadi Fard, Seyyed Amin Terouhid, Charles J. Kibert
& Hamed Hakim (2017) Safety concerns related to modular/prefabricated building
construction, International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 24:1, 10-23, DOI:
10.1080/17457300.2015.1047865

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2015.1047865

Published online: 24 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3691

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 50 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nics20
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2017
Vol. 24, No. 1, 10 23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2015.1047865

Safety concerns related to modular/prefabricated building construction

Maryam Mirhadi Fard, Seyyed Amin Terouhid*, Charles J. Kibert and Hamed Hakim
Rinker School of Construction Managemnet, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
(Received 1 August 2014; accepted 25 March 2015)

The US construction industry annually experiences a relatively high rate of fatalities and injuries; therefore, improving
safety practices should be considered a top priority for this industry. Modular/prefabricated building construction is a
construction strategy that involves manufacturing of the whole building or some of its components off-site. This research
focuses on the safety performance of the modular/prefabricated building construction sector during both manufacturing
and on-site processes. This safety evaluation can serve as the starting point for improving the safety performance of this
sector. Research was conducted based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated accidents. The study
found 125 accidents related to modular/prefabricated building construction. The details of each accident were closely
examined to identify the types of injury and underlying causes. Out of 125 accidents, there were 48 fatalities (38.4%), 63
hospitalized injuries (50.4%), and 14 non-hospitalized injuries (11.2%). It was found that, the most common type of injury
in modular/prefabricated construction was ‘fracture’, and the most common cause of accidents was ‘fall’. The most
frequent cause of cause (underlying and root cause) was ‘unstable structure’. In this research, the accidents were also
examined in terms of corresponding location, occupation, equipment as well as activities during which the accidents
occurred. For improving safety records of the modular/prefabricated construction sector, this study recommends that future
research be conducted on stabilizing structures during their lifting, storing, and permanent installation, securing fall
protection systems during on-site assembly of components while working from heights, and developing training
programmes and standards focused on modular/prefabricated construction.
Keywords: safety performance; modular construction; prefabrication; safety cases

Introduction Modular/prefabricated buildings differ from mobile

The construction industry is one of the most dangerous buildings, such as mobile homes. Mobile buildings usu-
industries in terms of safety. In 2012, the construction ally contain integrated frames and axles for transport,
industry had the highest count of fatal work-related injuries which also function as structural floor support. In contrast,
(see Figure 1) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a). a modular building is similar to on-site stick-built con-
Construction accidents included but were not limited to struction; and when it arrives at its final location, it is
falls from roofs and other structures, falls from scaffolds, hoisted off its conveying trailer and installed on its foun-
electrocution, improperly operated power tools, and work- dation (Becker, Fullen, & Takacs, 2003). Therefore, mod-
ing in close proximity to heavy equipment such as loader, ular/prefabricated building construction involves both off-
cranes, and forklifts. Key factors that cause hazards include site and on-site work.
changing and unfamiliar work environment, exposure to According to Freedonia’s research study (2013), modu-
severe weather conditions, and using unskilled and tempo- lar/prefabricated housing is forecasted to reach 140,000
rary workers. units in 2017 representing 14% annual growth from 2012.
Modular/prefabricated building construction is a con- A survey conducted by McGraw Hill Construction in 2011
struction strategy that involves the manufacturing of buil- reported that increased productivity, improved safety, and
dings or building components, generally taking place at a greater return on investments were propelling this increase.
factory or a specialized facility remote from the building This rapid growth calls for more trained and skilled work-
site (Florida, 2004; Tang & Chamberlain, 2003). This ers who are familiar with proper construction techniques
construction strategy has been practiced in the construc- and related safety risks.
tion industry for decades. Prior to building assembly, the Modular/prefabricated building construction is usually
site and the foundation of the building are usually claimed to have a safer work environment compared to tra-
completed. ditional on-site building construction due to the following

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Ó 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 11

Figure 1. Number and rate of fatal occupational injuries, by industry sector, 2012 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a).

factors (McGraw Hill Construction, 2013; Modular Build- Literature review

ing Institute, 2014; Vanguard Modular Building Systems, The existing literature of construction safety includes only
2014): a few cases addressing safety risks and hazards in the mod-
ular/prefabricated construction sector. In 2003, Becker
 stable work location, where workers are used to et al. (2003) conducted a survey (questionnaires and inter-
their tasks and are familiar with the risks, views) to identify hazards faced by workers specific to
 avoiding work in tight spaces at the site, modular home installation. The study did not cover safety
 performing off-site or on-ground assembly instead issues related to off-site jobs. According to their research,
of working from heights, the major hazards in modular home installation include
 not being exposed to harsh weather, being struck by a tilt-up roof while securing it in place,
 easier ways to monitor unsafe activities, falls from roofs and attic areas, struck by objects during
 less spent time on construction site (30% 50% hoisting and rigging of large items, and falls from ladders.
reduction) According to a survey about safety management in the
 fewer contractors and workers required on site. construction industry conducted by McGraw Hill Con-
struction (2013), 50% of the respondents believed that
Despite the potentials of this construction strategy to prefabrication and modularization have better safety per-
improve safer practices, there are still some safety risks formance compared to traditional construction. Only 4%
involved in off-site and on-site jobs calling for more of the contractors using prefabricated or modularization
preventive actions and developing appropriate safety claimed that this method of construction has negative
procedures. impacts on safety performance. The respondents in the
The main motivation for this study is the rapid growth survey were asked to indicate three parameters impacting
of the modular/prefabricated building construction and the modular/prefabricated safety. The highest percentage
lack of research in the literature addressing safety concerns (78%) of the general contractors responding to the survey
related to this industry. The purpose of this research is to considered ‘complex assembly done at ground level/off-
investigate the type of dangers and safety risks involved in site’ as one of the attributes of prefabrication and modula-
modular/prefabricated building construction during both rization which increases safety performance, while 59%
manufacturing and on-site processes. Traditional buildings of specialty contractors considered this parameter as an
with prefabricated components such as precast components impacting factor. 69% of specialty contractors and 69% of
have also been considered in this study. Results of this general contractors believed that the ‘fewer workers’ on-
study can be useful in developing preventive action plans site working on different aspects of building’ is also a
and creating safer work conditions in this industry. factor in improving modular/prefabricated construction
12 M. Mirhadi Fard et al.

safety. 58% of general contractors and 47% of specialty database was still difficult. The database does not usually
contractors indicated that ‘reduced need to work from separate accident data of traditional building construction
heights’ is another influencing factor on the safety perfor- from the data associated with modular/prefabricated con-
mance of modular/prefabricated construction. struction. It is worth mentioning that, during the searching
Manufacturing improvement concepts, such as lean process, the authors came across several accidents related
manufacturing, may result in a safer work environment. to the modular/prefabricated construction while they were
In their paper, James, Ikuma, Nahmens, and Aghazadeh listed under completely different Standard Industrial Clas-
(2012) showed that after implementing lean approaches in sification (SIC)/North American Industry Classification
a modular homebuilding factory, for some of the stations, System (NAICS) codes.
there was a significant reduction in the worker exposure The OSHA-investigated accidents in the above-men-
to risks. tioned database were closely examined to identify areas in
Among the standards of the Occupational Safety and modular/prefabricated building construction for improv-
Health Administration (OSHA) Code of Federal Regula- ing safety performance. The database allows conducting
tions 29, there are some safety standards related to prefab- computer-based word-specific search in the abstract and
ricated construction such as: part 1926, subpart Q, description sections of the accidents. It also allows to
standard number 1926-704: Requirements for Precast search in SIC/NAICS codes, event dates, and inspection
Concrete and standard number 1926-705: Requirements numbers.
for Lift-Slab Operations (C.F.R. 29, Part 1926). However, This research focuses on the injuries and fatalities
some of the other standards are general safety practices, occurred from 2002 to 2013. The keywords that were
which are also applicable to modular/prefabricated build- used for the purpose of this research included: prefabri-
ing construction. Examples include part 1926 subpart cated, modular, panelized, precut, factory built, tilt-up
M Fall Protection, 1910.23: Guarding Floor and Wall building, and precast. The search was also conducted for
Openings and Holes, and safety standard 1910.213 the SIC code of 2452 (NAICS 321992): Prefabricated
Woodworking Machinery Requirements (C.F.R. 29, Part Wood Buildings.
1926; C.F.R. 29, Part 1910). The result of this search function formed the feed
database for this study including 125 injury cases. Since
personal injuries involved in all the cases, in this paper,
Objectives and methodology the terminology of ‘accident’ is used for them (U.S.
The main objective of this research is to investigate the Department of Labor, 2014).
safety concerns and root causes of work-related injuries in The description of each accident was closely studied
modular/prefabricated building construction. Identifying from the following aspects:
improper safety practices is the key step in improving
safety performance of this sector.  degree and type of the injury,
Injuries and fatalities occurred on US jobsites are  cause and root cause of the injury,
recorded by OSHA. OSHA is a federal agency responsible  fall height and location where fall occurred in the
for the enforcement of safety and health legislation. To accidents involving fall,
achieve the objective of this study, the authors were looking  type of equipment involved in the accident,
for an accident database containing corresponding records,  activity/Activities taking place at the time of the
explanations, and detailed data of the occurred accidents. accident,
OSHA has a programme entitled ‘Injuries, Illnesses,  location of the accident,
and Fatalities’, which provides annual data on the rate and  the year in which the accident happened,
number of work related injuries, illnesses, and fatal inju-  type of occupation involved in the accident,
ries by incident, industry, geography, occupation, and  end-use of the building under construction,
other attributes. The database associated with the pro-
gramme includes only data and it does not provide any An example of OSHA reported accident is as follows
explanations of particular accidents. In addition, the fatal- (U.S. Department of Labor, 2014):
ity data have not separately been provided for each and ‘On September 9, 2009, Employee #1 was exiting a
every industry. For instance, there is no specific fatality modular home on the manufacturer’s lot. She stepped for-
data for pre-manufactured wood building manufacturing ward out of the doorway onto a stepladder, while holding
industry (NAICS 321992). onto the door frame with her left hand. The ladder fell.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, another The ring on Employee #1’s left index finger became
OSHA database, entitled ‘Fatality and Catastrophe Inves- caught on the door striker plate. The flesh was pulled off
tigation Summaries’ was utilized. However, locating pre- of Employee #1’s finger by the ring as she fell. She was
cise and comprehensive data related specifically to the hospitalized for the amputation of her finger to the first
modular/prefabricated building construction sector in that knuckle’.
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 13

fractures. Approximately 19% of the injuries are grouped

under the ‘Other’ category. These injuries were different
from the identified categories. Some of these injuries
include, but are not limited to, animal- and insect-related
accidents and heat stroke. Unknown injuries were also
categorized in this group.
The injury types were also investigated based on the
location of the accidents: on-site and manufacturing plants
(see Figures 4 and 5). Fracture was the most common type
of injury in the on-site accidents. In the accidents at
manufacturing plants, both amputation and fracture were
the most common injury types.
Figure 2. Frequency of the modular/prefabricated accidents by
year.
Accident causes
Results
For the purpose of this research, the reported accidents
After studying the details of each accident in the above-ref-
were carefully categorized and analysed. The causes were
erenced database, the results were analysed and catego-
studied at two levels: ‘cause’ and ‘cause of cause’. This
rized. Out of 125 accidents, there were 48 fatalities
comprehensive analysis helps modular/prefabricated con-
(38.4%), 63 hospitalized injuries (50.4%), and 14 non-hos-
struction contractors in the following ways:
pitalized injuries (11.2%).
Although, the search was conducted for the accidents
 to understand majority of the safety risks involved
occurred from 2002 to 2013, the cases found belong to the
in this industry,
time period between 2003 and 2012. Figure 2 depicts the
 to develop a comprehensive and preventive safety
distribution of the accidents during this time period. As
programme,
illustrated by this figure, 2007 has the highest accident
 to develop alternate designs and technical proce-
rate associated with modular/prefabricated building con-
dures to address safety concerns.
struction (21.6%) compared to the other years.
Figure 6 shows the causes of the reported accidents. As
this figure indicates, 44% of the causes were ‘fall’, and
Injury types 36% were ‘struck by object/equipment (non-vehicle)’. The
The types of injuries occurred are categorized and sum- causes of the accidents were also analysed based on the
marized in Figure 3. More than 43% of the injuries were location of the accidents: manufacturing plant or on-site.

Figure 3. Injury types and their frequencies.

14 M. Mirhadi Fard et al.

Figure 4. On-site injury types and their frequencies.

Figure 5. Injury types and their frequencies at manufacturing plants.

Figure 6. Accidents’ causes and their frequencies.

 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 15

Figure 7. On-site accidents’ causes and their frequencies.

‘Fall’ accounted for 48.1% and ‘struck by object/equipment 27.2% of the accidents. The cause of 24.8% of the acci-
(non-vehicle)’ accounted for 39% of the on-site accidents, dents was ‘unstable structure’. ‘Unsecured object/equip-
whereas ‘struck by object/equipment (non-vehicle)’ ment/tool’ had also a high frequency rate compared to the
accounted for 36.4% and ‘caught in equipment/object/mate- other underlying causes.
rial’ accounted for 22.7% of the accidents occurred at the In the on-site accidents, the highest rate (35.1%) of the
manufacturing plants (see Figures 7 and 8). underlying causes was ‘unstable structure’, whereas, in
As mentioned before, the cause of cause was also ana- manufacturing plants’ accidents, 31.8% of the underlying
lysed to discover the original root causes. Three of the causes was unknown and 22.7% was ‘unsecured object/
reported accidents had two different root causes which equipment/tool’ (see Figures 10 and 11).
have been taken into account in this analysis. As shown in There were 28 accidents (22.4%) involving ‘collapse of
Figure 9, the root cause was not clearly determined for structure’. Seven of these accidents (25%) stated that the

Figure 8. Accidents’ causes and their frequencies at manufacturing plants.

16 M. Mirhadi Fard et al.

Figure 9. Accidents’ cause of cause and their frequencies.

‘collapse of structure’ was due to unstable and loose struc- Fall investigation
ture connections. In six of these accidents, lack or deficient For 23.6% of the fall accidents, the root cause was
bracing was the result of the ‘collapse of structure’ and two unknown. Among the fall accidents with known root
of the accidents involving ‘collapse of structure’ described cause, ‘unstable structure’ was the most common underly-
that the unsupported structure was the cause of collapse. ing cause, and ‘not using personal protective equipment
In 4 of the accidents out of 28 accidents involving (PPE)’ was the second most common one (see Figure 12).
‘collapse of structure’, the collapse occurred during hoist- Since ‘fall’ was very frequent in the accidents refer-
ing process. Three of them stated that hoisting hook was enced above, a more detailed analysis was conducted on
caught in another safety eye and two of the accidents the accidents involving ‘fall’. In 25.5% of these accidents,
stated that the structure or its support was broken and the the fall height was in the range of 1.5 3 m; in 20.0%, the
broken structure or support caused the collapse. fall height was 3 4.6 m; and in 12.7% of the fall

Figure 10. On-site accidents’ cause of cause and their frequencies.

 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 17

Figure 11. Accidents’ cause of cause and their frequencies at manufacturing plants.

accidents, the fall height was not specified (see Figure 13). the result, carpenters also have a high risk of accident
The places, where the fall accidents occurred, were also (12.8%).
analysed. As Figure 14 depicts, approximately 35% of the In the on-site accidents, ‘carpenters’ and ‘construction
falls were from roofs and 25% were from structures other labourer’ were the occupations with the high rates of acci-
than roofs. dents. At manufacturing plants, ‘carpenters’ and
‘assemblers’ were the occupation with high rates.
In 2013, the unionization rate of the construction
Occupations industry was 14.1% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Table 1 shows the types of occupations involved in the 2014b). Although the unionization rate of modular/prefab-
accidents along with their rates. In 35.2% of the accidents, ricated building construction is unknown for the years
the occupation was not reported. In 15.2% of the acci- 2002 2013, 82% of the workers involved in the accidents
dents, a ‘construction labourer’ was involved. Based on were non-union workers and 18% were union workers.

Figure 12. The causes of fall accidents and their frequencies.

18 M. Mirhadi Fard et al.

Figure 13. Heights of falls and their frequencies.

Equipment (Grant & Hinze, 2014). However, this may not be true for
The data were also examined to identify the equipment types modular/prefabricated building construction. In this con-
and their frequencies involved in the accidents. In 27% of struction sector, based on the building’s design, commer-
the accidents, equipment was involved. Figure 15 summa- cial buildings usually have larger and heavier prefabricated
rizes the types and frequency of the equipment involved. components/modular components compared to residential
Forklifts, as heavy equipment, had the highest accident buildings. As a result, hoisting, transportation, and installa-
frequency rates, 23.5% of the accidents involving tion of large prefabricated components in commercial con-
equipment. Saws were the equipment with the second struction may pose additional risks of accidents.
highest accident rate of 20.6%. The types of saws involved In this research, the end-uses of the buildings under
include table saw, circular saw, skill saw, up-cut saw, and construction were also examined to determine the type of
pop saw. building with the highest safety risk. Figure 18 shows the
In the on-site accidents, forklift and in manufacturing distribution of the accidents by end use of the building.
plants’ accidents, saw had the highest accident frequency The highest rate was 31.2%, which was associated with
rates (see Figures 16 and 17). commercial buildings. Because the type of the building
was not identified in 23.2% of the accidents and the por-
tion of residential and commercial buildings in modular/
Type of buildings prefabricated building construction is unknown, making
Safety standards are often stricter in commercial settings. conclusion in this section is premature and needs further
Hazards in residential building may therefore be unique. investigation.

Figure 14. Locations where fall happened from and their frequencies.
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 19

Table 1. Occupation types involved in the accidents and their frequencies.

Occupation Frequency Occupation Frequency

Assemblers 1.6% Miscellaneous hand working occupations 0.8%

Carpenters 12.8% Miscellaneous woodworking machine operators 0.8%
Construction labourers 15.2% Nailing and tacking machine operators 0.8%
Construction trades, not elsewhere classified (N.E.C.) 2.4% Occupation not reported 35.2%
Crane and tower operators 1.6% Plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters 0.8%
Drywall installers 0.8% Production inspectors, checkers, and examiners 0.8%
Electricians 2.4% Roofers 2.4%
Fabricating machine operators 0.8% Structural metal workers 2.4%
Foreman 0.8% Supervisors, carpenters, and related workers 2.4%
Hand moulders and shapers, except jewellers 0.8% Supervisors, food preparation, and service occupation 0.8%
Heating, air conditioning,
and refrigeration mechanics 0.8% Supervisors, mechanics, and repairers 0.8%
Helpers, construction trades 1.6% Supervisors, production occupations 0.8%
Industrial truck and tractor equipment operators 0.8% Truck drivers, heavy 0.8%
Iron worker 1.6% Truck drivers, light 0.8%
Labourers, except construction 2.4% Welders and cutters 2.4%
Machine operators, not specified 0.8%

Out of 125 studied accidents, 18 accidents (14.4%) prefabricated building or components. The manufacturing
were directly related to the modular building. The descrip- process (16.8%) ranked second in terms of safety risk (see
tion section of the remaining accidents did not contain any Figure 19). This result can be considered as evidence that
information indicating that they were related to modular off-site construction is potentially safer than on-site
building; however, they all were related to prefabricated, operations.
precast, and tilt up building/components.

Location
Activity The locations of the accidents were also analysed. Califor-
Based on the analysis, the majority of the accidents nia had the highest accident rate among all 32 states hav-
(57.6%) occurred during installation of modular/ ing reported accidents. Table 2 shows the distribution of

Figure 15. Types of equipment involved in the accidents and their frequencies.
20 M. Mirhadi Fard et al.

Figure 16. Types of equipment involved in the on-site accidents and their frequencies.

Figure 17. Types of equipment involved in the accidents at manufacturing plants and their frequencies.

the accidents by the states where they occurred. Since

there is a lack of statistical data in the modular/prefabri-
cated construction sector, e.g. the status of each state in
this sector in terms of value and labours, the results cannot
be generalized beyond the scope of this study.
Locations of the accidents in terms of them being on-
site or off-site were also examined. Approximately 62%
of the accidents occurred on construction sites and 18%
occurred at manufacturing plants. The location was not
clearly identified for 20% of the accidents.
In general, it can be concluded that on-site working
environments pose greater safety risks than off-site con-
struction operations. Safety can be expected to improve by
fabricating as many components as possible in manufactur-
ing plants.
Figure 18. End-use of buildings involved in the modular/pre-
fabricated accidents and their frequencies.
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 21

Figure 19. Activity performed at the time of accidents.

Discussion and conclusion prefabricated industry with the aim of discovering unsafe
In the construction industry, safety has always been a practices, which need to be addressed to improve safety
challenge for contractors and owners; therefore, improv- performance in this construction sector.
ing safety performance for construction projects should be This research found 125 accidents related to modular/
among the top priorities of construction practitioners. prefabricated building construction from the OSHA data-
Many construction studies have been conducted in recent base entitled ‘Fatality and Catastrophe Investigation Sum-
decades to identify safety risks and improve safety perfor- maries’. The OSHA database had some limitations for the
mance in this industry. purpose of this research. The description section of some
Modular/prefabricated building construction is the off- accident reports did not contain essential pieces of infor-
site fabrication of buildings and building components in mation sought in this study; therefore, assessing all safety
manufacturing plants for the purpose of increasing qual- parameters based on the OSHA database was challenging.
ity, improving safety, reducing construction time, mini- Despite this limitation, all accident reports were studied
mizing waste, and increasing energy efficiency. This in detail to determine associated safety risks. It should be
research targeted safety performance in the modular/ noted that all the results and conclusions are drawn based
on the investigated accidents related to modular/prefabri-
Table 2. States where accidents happened and their cated building construction; therefore, generalization of
frequencies. the results to the whole modular/prefabricated building
construction needs further investigation.
State Frequency of accidents State Frequency of accidents The results indicate that the most common cause of the
AZ 2.4% NE 2.4% accidents was ‘fall’. The second most common cause was
CA 32.0% NH 0.8% ‘struck by object/equipment (non-vehicle)’. In the on-site
CA 3.2% NJ 0.8% job accidents, ‘fall’ and ‘struck by object/equipment (non-
CO 4.0% NV 1.6% vehicle)’ accounted for 87% of the accidents, whereas,
CT 0.8% NY 2.4% among accidents that occurred in manufacturing plants,
FL 3.2% OH 3.2% ‘struck by object/equipment (non-vehicle)’ and ‘caught in
GA 1.6% OK 0.8% equipment/object/material’ accounted for 59% of the acci-
IA 1.6% OR 0.8% dents. ‘Collapse of structure’ was the result of approxi-
IA 0.8% PA 2.4% mately 22% of the accidents. The underlying causes of
IL 4.8% SC 0.8% ‘collapse of structure’ include lack or deficient bracing,
IN 0.8% SD 0.8% unstable structure connection, and unsupported structure.
MA 2.4% TN 0.8% The highest rate of the falls is ‘fall from roof’ (34.5%)
MD 9.6% TX 3.2% followed by ‘fall from structure other than roof’ (25.5%).
MN 1.6% UT 0.8% This research also showed that the majority of the acci-
MO 0.8% VA 2.4% dents occurred during installation processes. Based on the
NC 4.8% WI 1.6% findings, the major hazard in modular/prefabricated build-
ing construction appears to be fall from roofs and other
22 M. Mirhadi Fard et al.

structures and struck by unsecured structures during the The results confirm that typical construction jobs at
on-site installation processes. manufacturing plants are potentially safer than on-site
Support connections in this construction sector require operations, and the majority of the accidents occurred on
special and innovative design and training. Innovative site. Off-site construction can improve safety performance
connection designs should be able to secure structures and in various ways. Construction sites usually have very
prevent them from collapsing during lifting, storing, and dense spaces requiring intensive coordination among dif-
permanent installation. In addition, in several accidents, ferent parties and trades. In addition, since each construc-
falls happened because the fall protection system was con- tion project is a new working and unfamiliar location for
nected to unsecured structures. workers, new safety risks are involved that workers may
It is worth mentioning that approximately 16% of the not have been faced before. However, since in modular/
fall accidents were due to workers not wearing required prefabricated building construction, complex assemblies
fall protection systems; therefore, following basic safety and major jobs are performed on the ground or in the fac-
procedures seems to still be a challenge in the construc- tory, the need to work from heights is significantly
tion industry. reduced. In addition, people working in factories know
According to the appendix E of the OSHA standard most of the safety risks involved due to known and stable
1926-subpart M, if employers are engaged in leading edges work locations.
work or involved in precast concrete and residential con- Despite the potential benefits of modular/prefabricated
struction projects and it can be demonstrated that using building construction in terms of safety, this construction
conventional fall protection systems is infeasible or using strategy can be challenging and risky in some cases, for
them creates more hazards, a fall protection plan should be example, during moving and installation of massive com-
developed specifically for the work underway. Since work- ponents especially in high-rise buildings. Hoisting, mov-
ers in modular/prefabricated construction engage in ing, and installation of heavy and large components in
manufacturing and installation of massive and heavy com- this sector are complicated and dangerous. Therefore,
ponents, a fall protection plan specific to this construction with the expected rapid growth of modular/prefabricated
sector should be developed and followed. building construction market, safety standards and train-
The findings of the research also showed that con- ing programmes should be developed to meet the specific
struction labourers and carpenters are exposed to higher requirements of this sector and to make employees famil-
safety risks compared to other reported occupations. iar with related job hazards.
Among the equipment involved in the accidents, fork-
lifts and saws had the highest frequency rates. A high per-
centage of off-site accidents was due to contact with
Future research
equipment/tool which is the result of unsecured and
unguarded equipment/tool. Appropriate maintenance and In summary, this study has provided a foundation of
upgrading equipment and tool in terms of safety is one of knowledge upon which to base future studies regarding
the key steps for improving safety performance at unsafe practices in modular/prefabricated building con-
manufacturing plants. struction in order to improve the safety performance of
Based on the accidents, working under moving modular/ this construction sector. This study can be a basis for
prefabricated components or around stand-in-place compo- developing pro-active and innovative solutions to address
nents is another hazardous condition. Precise job planning the following problem areas:
to clear the working area around and under moving compo-
nents by non-essential workers is of a great importance. The  implementation of best practices for fall protection
OSHA standard 1926.705(k)(1): Safety Requirements For including secure connection of fall protection sys-
Lift-Slab Operations can be considered as a basic safety tems during on-site assembly of components,
practice for moving modular/prefabricated components.  stabilizing and secure temporary connections of
According to the standard (C.F.R. 29, Part 1926), ‘no modular/prefabricated structures during their
employee, except those essential to the jacking operation, installation,
shall be permitted in the building/structure while any jack-  securing modular/prefabricated loads during trans-
ing operation is taking place unless the building/structure portation, lifting and storing,
has been reinforced sufficiently to ensure its integrity during  securing the working environment around heavy
erection. The phrase “reinforced sufficiently to ensure its and light equipment both on site and in the manu-
integrity” used in this paragraph means that a registered pro- facturing plants,
fessional engineer, independent of the engineer who  guarding structures’ openings and securing the
designed and planned the lifting operation, has determined working environment around them,
from the plans that if there is a loss of support at any jack  developing safety standards and training program
location, that loss will be confined to that location and the directly related to modular/prefabricated building
structure as a whole will remain stable’. construction.
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 23

Disclosure statement accidents to improve site productivity and project ROI. Bed-
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. ford, MA: McGraw Hill Construction.
Modular Building Institute. (2014). Modular construction: A
safe alternative to stick built. Retrieved from http://www.
References modular.org/HtmlPage.
Becker, P.E., Fullen, M.D., & Takacs, B. (2003). Safety hazards aspx?nameDModular_A_Safe_Alternative
to workers in modular home construction. Silver Spring, Tang, T.L.P., & Chamberlain, M. (2003). Effects of rank, tenure,
MD: The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights. length of service, and institution on faculty attitudes toward
Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: research and teaching: The case of regional state universi-
Basic Books. ties. The Journal of Education for Business, 79(2), 103 110.
Freedonia Group, I. (2013). Prefabricated housing: United U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014a). Fatal occupational inju-
States. Cleveland, OH: Freedonia Group. ries in 2012 - chart package. Retrieved from http://www.bls.
Grant, A., & Hinze, J. (2014). Construction worker fatalities gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf
related to trusses: An analysis of the OSHA fatality and cata- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014b). UNION MEMBERS
strophic incident database. Safety Science, 65, 54 62. 2013.
James, J., Ikuma, L.H., Nahmens, I., & Aghazadeh, F. (2012). U.S. Department of Labor. (2014). Fatality and catastrophe
Influence of lean on safety risk exposure in modular home- investigation summaries. Retrieved from https://www.osha.
building. Paper presented at the IIE Annual Conference Pro- gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.html
ceedings. Orlando, FL. Vanguard Modular Building Systems. (2014). Safe construction.
McGraw Hill Construction. (2013). Safety management in the Retrieved from http://www.vanguardmodular.com/safe-
construction industry: Identifying risks and reducing construction