FEATURE MATERIALS HANDLING
Reducing Handling Risks Which is safest: masonry, open panel timber frame built with a forklift or more advanced panelised modern methods of construction (MMC) using a crane? That question is explored in a new study prepared by AIMCH.
A
ccording to the new Health and Safety Risk Profiling of MMC Solutions report from Advanced Industrialised Methods for the Construction of Homes
Innovation Project (AIMCH), panelised timber methods can improve new homes and reduce health and safety hazard exposure on construction sites by 20%.. The study concludes all methods are safe, but have differing health and safety risk profiles, with crane erect panelised methods, providing 20% less exposure to health and safety risks on site. The £6.5 million collaborative R&D AIMCH project seeks to industrialise how homes are constructed by mainstreaming the use of panelised MMC methods. Previously AIMCH research has demonstrated how utilising panelised MMC systems would result in new homes being built faster, cost effectively, to a high quality and with a lower carbon footprint. This latest study strengthens the case for panelised MMC by concluding that housing sites
The first of these, which compared forklift and loose joists (GEN1)
using panelised MMC systems could reduce on-site health and safety risk
against prefabricated floor cassettes and crane (GEN 3), identified a
exposure by 20%.
fundamental health and safety improvement between the two methods:
Increasingly, panelised MMC systems are being used to build new
loose joists rely on more manual labour and material movement on-site and
homes that have progressively more pre-manufactured elements such
the installation of a safety decking system, whereas the use of floor cassettes
as prefabricated floor cassettes, pre-fitted windows, and pre-insulated
dispenses with the need for safety decking and significantly speeds up the
closed walls. These systems require a crane to offload and position the
installation process, removing many of the health and safety exposure risks
components on site.
such as trips and falls, manual handling, material movement associated with
The study, Health and Safety Risk Profiling of MMC Solutions, prepared by
loose joist and flooring installation.
Stewart Milne Group, with support from Limberger Associates, assessed the
When looking at the second category, forklift and site-fitted windows
difference in risk exposure between two timber frame systems: one built on-site
against crane and factory-fitted windows, the latter was found to reduce
using manual assembly techniques with the aid of a forklift (GEN1), also typical
health and safety hazard exposure, especially applicable with manual
of masonry-built home – the other a more advanced MMC system (GEN3), using
handling of heavy components and moving materials, which is a known
higher levels of prefabrication, requiring the use of a crane on site.
contributory factor to musculoskeletal disorders.
Stewart Dalgarno, AIMCH Project Director and Director of Innovation
In both areas the utilisation of GEN 3 systems transfers some of the
& Sustainability at Stewart Milne Group said: “This is the first study we
health and safety risks from the construction site to the MMC factory, where
have undertaken to compare the health and safety risk exposure of both
workplace safety systems are generally better managed. However, a heavier
construction methods and it is gratifying to see that the crane-erect
reliance on the use of cranes introduces an increased risk of a high impact
panelised MMC methods championed by AIMCH reduce safety risks and
safety event occurring, such as floor cassettes breaking their slings and
hazard exposure by 20% on-site, where the injury rate per 100,000 workers is
slipping off the end of the bearing when being placed. This is a risk, albeit
42% higher than in manufacturing, and where 50% of deaths are attributed
low, requires strict safety protocols to be in place.
to falls from height, compared with 16% in manufacturing.”
To ensure that the transfer of risk from the construction site to the
The study undertook two deep dive evaluations of working practices
factory does not lead to an abdication of risk management, the report
and techniques in two areas, floors, and windows, where increasing the
emphasis the important of MMC suppliers investing in safer and more
pre-manufactured value (PMV) is likely to become commonplace. The study
productive factory techniques that eliminate manual working hazards
developed a methodology for assessing risk, aligned with Health & Safety
through mechanical handling, automation, and robotic applications, as well
Executive (HSE) hazard classifications, and consequential risk profiles were
as through standardisation of processes and components.
developed for each. These covered hazards such as falls from height; slips and trips; moving and handling loads; and lifting operations and were used
Full details of the Health and Safety Risk Profiling of MMC Solutions
to compare the effect of on-site working practise differences between GEN1
report, including the risk profiling methodology employed can be
site assembly and GEN 3 prefabricated construction methods.
found at www.aimch.co.uk/outputs
Timber Trader UK Magazine
Summer 2022
22
www.timbermedia.co.uk
@Timber_Media
