Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH)

Vol. 39, No. 3, July 2020, pp. 992 – 1000

Copyright© Faculty of Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka,
Print ISSN: 0331-8443, Electronic ISSN: 2467-8821
www.nijotech.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njt.v39i4.4

AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION

AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN CONSTRUCTION SITES

A. A. Salihu1,*, S. S. Aliyu2 and M. Abubakar3

1, 2, 3,
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA, KADUNA STATE, NIGERIA
Email addresses: 1 [email protected], 2 [email protected],
3
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
The construction industry plays a central and significant role in the economy of any nation. One
of the major reasons for ineffective project delivery in the Nigerian construction industry is the
improper assessment of risk factors. The industry however is currently facing a lot of challenges
which include constant increase in the rate of accidents on construction sites which could be due
to ineffective safety management as construction companies are usually interested in
maximizing their profit in order to secure funds for new investments, and cover possible
expenses associated with the occurrence of risk factors during construction. Installation and
dismantling of tower crane had been previously looked at as a general safety issue until, recent
research showed that about 69% of accidents related to tower cranes in Korea from 2001-2011,
occur during installation and dismantling process. In view of this, this paper aimed at evaluating
safety risk factors during installation and dismantling by determining their probability of
occurrence and degree of impact with a view to establishing the most significant ones. This is
why a well-structured questionnaire was designed to collect data with respect to their probability
of occurrence and degree of impact using a 5 point Likert scale. Responses from the administered
questionnaire and interactions were collated, interpreted and analysed using descriptive
statistics (mean) and results presented in tables. Results showed that abrasion (wear and tear
of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins) is the most probable factor with a mean value of 3.63.
Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling had the highest degree of impact with a mean value
of 4.63. The research concluded that fracture of a wire rope during dismantling and abrasion
(wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins) are highly affecting factor on safety
during installation and dismantling. Adoption of a preventive maintenance strategy or routine
check on the tower crane parts and components could help minimize the probability of
occurrence and impact of the safety risk factors on site.

Keywords: Accident, Hazard, Safety risk, Tower crane, Probability, Construction industry.

1. INTRODUCTION deaths from 1992 to 2006 [2]. A crane safety

Tower cranes are used on construction sites as lifting analysis and recommendation report carried out in
equipment for their combination of height and lifting Singapore by [3] indicates that in 2008, there were
capacity. Tower crane accidents, however, are likely 162 crane-related fatalities, injuries and dangerous
to be fatal because of the weight of the objects and occurrences, a 27% increase from 128 cases in
the heights to which they are lifted [1]. United 2007. While most of the cases involve less serious
States labour statistics recorded 632 crane-related non-fatal injuries, crane accidents can ultimately
construction worker deaths from 611 crane incidents result to huge and severe damage to physical
and 17 multiple death incidents resulting in 38 properties and human lives.

* Corresponding author: +234 – 905 – 554 –0012

 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

Idoro [4] posit that construction processes in Nigeria Safety risk factors during the operation of tower
are characterized by unsafe practices leading to cranes were not considered for this study, only those
accident that leaves severe consequences on both associated with the process of installation and
the project and the workers. Accidents in building dismantling of tower cranes were considered.
construction sites, whether minor or fatal could
result to injuries, loss of resources, partial or 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
permanent disability and death in case of fatalities. The consequences of building construction accidents
In his analysis of types of accident that usually occur are enormous and cannot be easily quantified,
in construction sites, injury from the use of though inevitable but could be controlled to prevent
equipment ranked first among nine (9) other types minor or serious consequences to safety of workers
of accident examined. Accidents frequently occur on [4].
building construction sites, these accidents could be Idoro [10] asserted that although there is no reliable
in the form of workers falling from heights, construction accident/incident data in Nigeria.
excavation accidents, the risk of falling debris or However, a study of 40 contractors in 2006 revealed
equipment’s and so forth. Researches have shown that accident and injury rates were high in the
that accidents and injuries in developing countries Nigerian construction industry and the best safety
are generally high when compared to other ratios were 2 accidents per 100 workers and 5
European countries [5]. injuries per 100 workers. Kadiri, et. al [11] stated
Effective safety management is to make the that as the growth of construction industry blossoms
environment safe, to make the job safe and to make in Nigeria, this also causes an increase in competition
workers safety conscious. In recent years, many of projects to execute between construction firms
developed countries have considered safety as one which are however achieved at the expense of the
of the important management issues of construction workers welfare and their safety. Therefore
projects, especially, personal safety [6]. identifying the various causes and effect of accidents
Ali and Muhammad [7] opines that without proper on construction sites and proposing ways and means
safety management of construction machines at of reducing these accidents should be
construction sites, accidents could happen. Cranes acknowledged.
are the machines that contribute to highest fatality Erection/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes is a
rate in the construction industry. He concludes that potentially hazardous process involving working at
cranes are machines with high risk and should be heights, awkward postures, lifting and aligning
operated with safety management and strong components of significant size and mass and
communication between crane operator and installing temporary support systems. These are all
signalman. often performed under significant time pressure due
Factors that affect construction site safety due to the to the need for road closures, suitable daylight hours
work of tower cranes have attracted only moderate or short weather windows as the case maybe [12].
attention; they are commonly addressed indirectly The most dangerous process that can lead to
and partially within the broader treatment of site fatalities at construction sites is the
safety or of crane work in general [8]. Literature installation/dismantling of tower cranes; for
addressing crane safety that explicitly suggests instance, in 2012, the collapse of a tower crane
tower crane related risk factors or safety hazards is during dismantling at the University of Texas, USA
limited [9]. Hence the need to critically examine claimed the lives of two workers [13]. There have
safety issues regarding the installation/dismantling been five fatal accidents relating to tower crane use
operation of tower cranes. during 2002–2006 in Hong Kong, with three workers
The objectives of this research are: being killed in July 2007 alone. One such accident in
i. To determine the probability of occurrence July 2007 caused two fatalities and five serious
and degree of impact of safety risk factors injuries. The accident happened during the
during installation and dismantling of tower dismantling process, with workers on the tower
cranes in construction sites. crane as it crashed down [14]. Also in a related
ii. To evaluate the safety risk factors based on development, out of the 571 incident cases of crane
established risk rating scales. related accidents that happened from 2000 – 2009
in the U.S as examined by [15], 41 cases which
Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 993
 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

amounted to 7.18% occurred during reviewed all risk factors associated with tower crane
assembly/disassembly. He further went ahead to say installation and dismantling process and came up
that 22 cases (23.40%) of the 94 cases that occurred with a list of safety risk factors as shown in Table 1.
from 2007-2009 resulted directly from the operations
of assembly/disassembly. More recently, is an 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
investigation of tower crane accidents that occurred The study looks at probability/likelihood of
in Korea from 2001-2011, it was reported that out of occurrence and impact of safety risk factors with
the 38 fatal accident cases involving tower cranes, respect to determining there frequency of
68.4% of the accidents resulted from the occurrence and degree of impact respectively.
installation/dismantling operation [16]. This requires eliciting knowledge from practitioners
Chi, et al. [17] opined that, risk identification and who are directly involved in the process such as
cautioning can improve the safety of workplaces. By safety managers, equipment managers and team
organizing high recurrence risk factors to viably leaders of installation and dismantling workers.
control accident occurence and deal with the Hence, questionnaire survey was adopted.
probability of lethal injuries on construction sites Population size for the research was unknown as no
when an accident is unavoidable, enables/helps data is available on exact number of these
safety managers to comprehend the nature of practitioners. The sample size was determined from
construction accidents and plan for key risk a table developed by [21] that the minimum sample
mitigation. size for an unknown population for 95% confidence
However, [18] having concerted for the fact that interval with 5% error level is approximately 34. A
assessment of risk is crucial for improving safety, total of 57 questionnaires were generated and
went ahead to say that precise evaluation is not distributed in Kaduna, Abuja and Lagos using
really necessary and that an estimated predicted purposive sampling technique.
level of risks will suffice for the safety managers to
take necessary actions. Table 1: Safety risk factors, Source [20]
Safety risk factors during installation and
S/No.
2.1 Safety Risk Factors during Installation and dismantling
Dismantling of Tower Cranes: Insufficient number of workers to perform the work
1
correctly and safely.
Not much has been done by researchers to clearly Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving the work
identify various factors affecting safety during 2
often due to hard working condition).
installation and dismantling operation of tower Time constraints requested from employer/principal
3
cranes especially in Nigeria where construction site contractor.
Trying to finish the work earlier than the time
safety is very poor and accidents on construction 4
required for safe work.
sites are rarely reported nor documented for use as Frequently omitting required safety procedures or
contractors are simply concerned with making 5
rules for various reasons.
maximum profit [19]. However, according to [13] 6 Lack of workers competence.
accidents may occur during crane erection, Instruction and supervision at construction sites are
7
dismantling and height alteration operations due to insufficient.
Contractors do not recognize the need to ensure
failure to follow the correct procedures specified by 8
the safety tower crane installation/dismantling.
the crane manufacturers, use of incorrect parts, the Unreasonable sites condition (working space,
wrong size or type of bolt, the incorrect assembly or 9
ground conditions and restrictions).
sequence of assembly, or taking apart of 10 Deterioration of tower cranes part (components).
components. Shin [16] also identified some risk 11 Workers attitude (installation/dismantling workers).
factors affecting safety during installation and Overloading with objects exceeding the tower crane
12
dismantling process in construction sites to include load limit.
insufficient numbers of workers to perform the work 13 Inexperienced tower crane operators.
correctly and safely, trying to finish the work earlier Not following work procedures in manuals for the
14
installation/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes.
than the time required for safe work, frequently
15 Malfunction of a tower crane.
omitting required safety procedures or rules for
16 Buckling of a telescopic cage.
various reasons and lack of worker competence.
17 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling.
More recently, is the study by [20] where they
Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 994
 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

Safety risk factors during installation and 4.2 Probability of Occurrence for Safety Risk
S/No.
dismantling Factor
18 Failure of working platforms. The probability of occurrence for each safety risk
19 Incompatibility of components. factor were scored by the respondents based on a
20 Falling items. five point Likert scale. Mean values were determined
Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as and standard deviation also determined to help rank
21
bolts, nuts, or pins.
the factors that have the same mean value as shown
However, only 38(66.7%) questionnaires were
in Table 3.
analysed using descriptive statistics and results
Table 3 presents the assessment of the probability
presented in tables.
of occurrence of each factor which shows that the
most probable factor is “Abrasion (wear and tear of
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
components such as bolts, nuts or pins)” with a
4.1 Respondents Profile:
mean value of 3.63 and the least probable factor is
This section presents the personal details of the
“Incompatibility of components” with a mean value
respondents to include; their nature of job,
of 2.16. However, the first six (6) factors as seen in
educational qualification and years of experience as
Table 3 had mean values ≥ 3.0 which means these
presented in Table 2.
factors have a possibility of occurring and may recur
Table 2 indicates that all the categories of
occasionally. The factors from 8th position to 21st had
respondents are adequately represented having at
mean values ≥ 2.0 which means these factors are
least ≈ 30% representation each with safety
unlikely to recur but, have the possibility of
managers having a higher representation of 36.8%
occurring. We can conclusively say that these results
and equipment managers having the least
implies that all the identified factors have the
representation of 28.9%. All the respondents had at
possibility of occurring on our construction sites.
least a post-secondary education with 13(34.2%) of
Researchers that previously looked at safety issues
them having a bachelors and 6(15.8%) had MSc.
associated with tower crane installation and
Table 4.1 also shows that 34.2% of the respondents
dismantling concluded that failure to follow work
had between 0-5 years of experience. A cumulative
procedure is the most likely factor that can result to
of 65.8% of the respondents have at least 6years of
accidents on construction sites as stated by [13, 16].
experience working in tower crane environment and
However, the results presented in Table 3 proved
were therefore able to make correct and valid
otherwise by ranking “not following work procedure
judgement.
in manuals” as 12th position with a mean value of
2.89. This could imply that there have been an
Table 2: Respondents profile
increased awareness and recognition of safety issues
Items Frequency Percentage
(No (%) during installation and dismantling of tower cranes
Job description over the years which has made the users more safety
Safety managers 14 36.8 conscious by implementing work procedures as
Equipment managers 11 28.9 stated in the manuals.
Installation and dismantling The most probable factor being “abrasion (wear and
13 34.2
workers tear of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins)” has
Total 38 100
affirmed previous research finding that maintenance
Educational qualification
ND 12 31.6 management is a highly affecting factor on safety
HND 7 18.4 when using tower cranes as stated by [9]. This
Bachelors 13 34.2 implies that this factor yet plays a great influence on
MSc. 6 15.8 safety during installation and dismantling and/or
Total 38 100
Years of experience during operation.
0-5 13 34.2 It is also interesting to note that operator proficiency
6-10 20 52.6 or experience of the tower crane operator which has
11-15 4 10.5 been widely accepted as the major safety
16-20 1 2.6 determinant on site as cited by [1, 9, 22] was ranked
Total 38 100
4th with a mean value of 3.18. This implies that
although it remains a probable factor according to
Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 995
 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

this study however, it has a greater influence on components ranked the least amongst all other
safety during the operation of tower crane. Another factors assessed which implies that tower crane
likely reason for this factor been ranked 4th could be manufacturers have continuously improved on the
that operators had gained experience over the years compatibility of their tower crane components. More
thereby reducing its influence on safety as tower efforts is still required to completely eliminate this
cranes are now widely used and becoming a culture factor as it is still a probable factor although not
in every construction environment. Incompatibility of recurring frequently.

Table 3: Probability of occurrence

Frequency ∑fx
S/No. Safety Risk Factors Mean Std. Dev. Rank
1 2 3 4 5 ∑f (∑α)
1 Abrasion (wear and tear of components
such as bolts, nuts, or pins). 0 9 9 7 13 38 138 3.63 1.19 1st

2 2 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling. 0 5 19 9 5 38 128 3.37 0.88 2nd

3 Deterioration of tower cranes part
3 4 11 19 1 38 125 3.29 0.98 3rd
(components).
4 Inexperienced tower crane operators. 0 14 6 15 3 38 121 3.18 1.04 4th
5 Lack of workers competence. 0 13 14 4 7 38 119 3.13 1.10 5th
6 Trying to finish the work earlier than the
time required for safe work. 1 9 19 5 4 38 116 3.05 0.96 6th

7 Buckling of a telescopic cage. 1 9 22 3 3 38 112 2.95 0.87 7th

8 Frequently omitting required safety
4 5 20 8 1 38 111 2.92 0.94 8th
procedures or rules for various reasons.
9 Failure of working platforms. 3 10 15 7 3 38 111 2.92 1.05 9th
10 Falling items. 2 13 14 4 5 38 111 2.92 1.10 10th
11 Not following work procedures in manuals
for the installation/climbing/dismantling of 4 5 21 7 1 38 110 2.89 0.92 11th
tower cranes.
12 Contractors do not recognise the need to
ensure the safety of tower crane
3 13 7 15 0 38 110 2.89 1.03 12th
installation and dismantling.

13 Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving

the work often due to hard working 5 11 15 3 4 38 104 2.74 1.13 13th
condition.
14 Insufficient number of workers to perform
the work correctly and safely. 3 17 8 8 2 38 103 2.71 1.06 14th

15 Unreasonable sites condition (working

space, ground conditions and 1 19 13 4 1 38 99 2.61 0.82 15th
restrictions).
16 Time constraints requested from
employer/principal contractor. 7 8 18 3 2 38 99 2.61 1.05 16th

17 Malfunction of a tower crane. 7 17 6 4 4 38 95 2.50 1.22 17th

18 Workers attitude (installation/dismantling
workers). 4 17 13 3 1 38 94 2.47 0.89 18th

19 Instruction and supervision at construction

sites are insufficient. 10 12 11 3 2 38 89 2.34 1.12 19th

20 Overloading with objects exceeding the

tower crane load limit. 5 21 11 1 0 38 84 2.21 0.70 20th

21 Incompatibility of components. 12 13 10 1 2 38 82 2.16 1.08 21st

1=Rare 2=Unlikely 3=Possible 4=Likely and 5=Almost certain.
Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 996
 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

4.3 Degree of Impact for Safety Risk Factors: which is a function of the probability of occurrence
The impact of each factor were assessed using a and the degree of impact. The result of this was
five point Likert scale so as to establish their various then measured against a standard risk rating
levels of severity/degree of impact if they eventually developed by [23] so as to come up with their risk
occur on construction sites. The mean values were levels as shown in Table 5.
then calculated as shown in Table 4. ∑α (probability risk score), ∑β (degree of impact risk
From Table 4, fracture of a wire rope during score), ∑RS (combined risk score), N (population),
dismantling had the highest degree of impact with RSIS (relative significance index score).
a mean value of 4.63 which implies that the From Table 5, fracture of a wire rope during
resultant effect of this safety risk factor if it occur is dismantling had the highest RSIS of 15.6 and
fatality, major injury/injuries, permanent implies a high risk factor which requires a high level
impairment, critical process loss and critical of control put in place to forestall danger and make
property damage. The factor “workers (erectors, the working environment safer. The factors ranked
dismantlers) are leaving the work often due to hard from 2nd to 15th as shown in Table 5 had RSIS of
working condition” had the lowest degree of impact 13.2 - 9.0 respectively, and as such implies that
with a mean value of 2.34 which therefore implies they are moderate risk factors that is acceptable
that it’s resultant effect if it occur can only lead to but, requires suitable controls to maintain a safe
minor injury. All the factors however had degree of working environment. Those ranked from 16th to
impact that range from minor injury to fatality as 21st had RSIS of 7.9 – 6.4 respectively, which
shown in Table 4. There is a need to pay serious implies low risk factors that are acceptable with no
attention on the first six factors as they have mean further action required. The factor “workers
values ≥ 4.0 which means if they occur, their (erectors, dismantler) are leaving the work often
resultant impact would lead to fatality on site. due to hard working condition” had the lowest RSIS
Overloading tower cranes with objects exceeding its of 6.4 and does not really pose any treat to safety.
load limit is the 20th probable factor to occur on site This could be attributed to the high rate of
as seen from Table 3. However, results for degree unemployment in the country as reported by [24]
of impact in Table 4. showed that it has a high thereby making the assertion in the factor false
degree of impact if its accident does happen on site because, those who managed to be gainfully
as it was ranked 3rd position amongst other factors employed instead of leaving would rather do
with a mean value of 4.18. The latter is in line with everything possible to keep their jobs so as to
previous findings that exceeding tower crane load continue sustaining themselves. The fear that losing
limit results to accident on site that could be very their job might make them become unemployed for
fatal involving multiple injuries in most cases. From the rest of their lives makes people stick to the ones
a careful observation of this factor, one would they have irrespective of the working condition. It
notice a sharp distinction between its probability of is widely recognised that poor maintenance culture
occurrence and degree of impact. The reason for is lacking in both private and public sectors in
this could be linked to the previous assertion that Nigeria as stated by [25]. This could therefore be
there has been a significant improvement in the the reason why “fracture of a wire rope during
level of safety awareness on site as a result of dismantling” closely followed by “Abrasion (wear
continuous research on safety challenges and tear of components such as bolts, nuts or pins)
associated with tower crane working environment had high RSIS of 15.6 and 13.2 respectively.
thereby, reducing the probability of occurrence Routine maintenance of the tower cranes could help
to minimize the risk level.
4.4 Evaluation of Safety Risk Factors
The safety risk factors were evaluated by first
determining their relative significant index score

Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 997

 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

Table 4: Degree of impact

Frequency ∑fx
S/No Safety Risk Factors ∑f Mean
1 2 3 4 5 (∑β)
1 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling. 0 0 1 12 25 38 176 4.63
Not following work procedures in manuals for the
2 0 1 8 10 19 38 161 4.24
installation/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes.
Overloading with objects exceeding the tower crane
3 0 0 6 19 13 38 159 4.18
load limit.
Frequently omitting required safety procedures or
4 0 2 9 10 17 38 156 4.11
rules for various reasons.
5 Lack of workers competence. 0 3 8 12 15 38 153 4.03
Unreasonable sites condition (working space, ground
6 0 2 10 12 14 38 152 4.00
conditions and restrictions).
Trying to finish the work earlier than the time required
7 1 1 11 12 13 38 149 3.92
for safe work.
8 Inexperienced tower crane operators. 1 5 6 11 15 38 148 3.89
9 Deterioration of tower cranes part (components). 1 8 8 5 16 38 141 3.71
Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts,
10 1 4 17 2 14 38 138 3.63
nuts, or pins).
11 Malfunction of a tower crane. 1 3 16 8 10 38 137 3.61
12 Incompatibility of components. 1 11 5 9 12 38 134 3.53
13 Buckling of a telescopic cage. 0 8 9 16 5 38 132 3.47
14 Falling items. 1 8 9 18 2 38 126 3.32
Contractors do not recognise the need to ensure the
15 1 10 13 6 8 38 124 3.26
safety of tower crane installation and dismantling.
16 Failure of working platforms. 5 6 7 15 5 38 123 3.24
Instruction and supervision at construction sites are
17 5 6 13 10 4 38 116 3.05
insufficient.
Insufficient number of workers to perform the work
18 5 2 23 7 1 38 111 2.92
correctly and safely.
Time constraints requested from employer/principal
19 2 16 10 9 1 38 105 2.76
contractor.

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

Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving the work

21 6 21 6 2 3 38 89 2.34
often due to hard working condition).
1=Negligible 2=Minor Injury 3=Major Injury 4=Fatality and 5=Multiple Fatality.

Table 5: Safety risk evaluation

Risk
S/No. Safety Risk Factors ∑α ∑β ∑RS N RSIS Rank
Level
1 Fracture of a wire rope during dismantling. 128 176 22528 1444 15.6 1st High
Abrasion (wear and tear of components such as bolts, nuts,
2 138 138 19044 1444 13.2 2nd Moderate
or pins).
3 Lack of workers competence. 119 153 18207 1444 12.6 3rd Moderate
4 Inexperienced tower crane operators. 121 148 17908 1444 12.4 4th Moderate
Not following work procedures in manuals for the
5 110 161 17710 1444 12.3 5th Moderate
installation/climbing/dismantling of tower cranes.

Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 998

 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

Risk
S/No. Safety Risk Factors ∑α ∑β ∑RS N RSIS Rank
Level
6 Deterioration of tower cranes part (components). 125 141 17625 1444 12.2 6th Moderate
Frequently omitting required safety procedures or rules for
7 111 156 17316 1444 12.0 7th Moderate
various reasons.
Trying to finish the work earlier than the time required for
8 116 149 17284 1444 12.0 8th Moderate
safe work.
Unreasonable sites condition (working space, ground
9 99 152 15048 1444 10.4 9th Moderate
conditions and restrictions).
10 Buckling of a telescopic cage. 112 132 14784 1444 10.2 10th Moderate
11 Falling items. 111 126 13986 1444 9.7 11th Moderate
12 Failure of working platforms. 111 123 13653 1444 9.5 12th Moderate

Contractors do not recognise the need to ensure the safety

13 110 124 13640 1444 9.4 13th Moderate
of tower crane installation and dismantling.

Overloading with objects exceeding the tower crane load

14 84 159 13356 1444 9.2 14th Moderate
limit.
15 Malfunction of a tower crane. 95 137 13015 1444 9.0 15th Moderate
Insufficient number of workers to perform the work correctly
16 103 111 11433 1444 7.9 16th Low
and safely.
17 Incompatibility of components. 82 134 10988 1444 7.6 17th Low
Time constraints requested from employer/principal
18 99 105 10395 1444 7.2 18th Low
contractor.
Instruction and supervision at construction sites are
19 89 116 10324 1444 7.1 19th Low
insufficient.

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

Workers (erector, dismantler) are leaving the work often due

21 104 89 9256 1444 6.4 21st Low
to hard working condition).

5. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH 6. REFERENCES

The study concludes that abrasion (wear and tear [1] Beavers, J.E., Moore, J.R., Rinehart, R., and
of components such as bolts, nuts, or pins) was the Schriver, W.R. Crane-related fatalities in
most probable factor and fracture of a wire rope construction industry, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 132,
during dismantling had the highest degree of
Number 9, pp 901–910, 2006.
impact. In evaluating the safety risk factors,
“fracture of a wire rope during dismantling and [2] Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS). Crane-Related
Occupational Fatalities, United States, Fact
abrasion (wear and tear of components such as
Sheet BLS, 2008.
bolts, nuts, or pins) which could both be seen as a
maintenance management issue as looked at by [3] Annex, B. Crane safety analysis and
previous research is a highly affecting factor on recommendation report. Workplace Safety and
Health Council, the Ministry of Manpower and
safety during installation and dismantling. Adoption
the National Crane Safety Taskforce,
of a preventive maintenance strategy or routine Singapore, 2009.
check on the tower crane parts and components
[4] Idoro, G. I. Health and safety management
could help minimize the probability of occurrence
efforts as correlates of performance in the
and impact of the safety risk factors on site during Nigeria construction industry, Journal of Civil
installation and dismantling of tower cranes. Engineering and Management, Vol. 14,
Number 4, pp 277–285, 2008.

Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 999

 AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY RISK FACTORS DURING INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF TOWER CRANES IN , … A. A. Salihu, et al

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

Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 2020 1000