• Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    HSE DEMOLITION INCIDENT CASE STUDIES

    Regulator advice focuses on underlying causes of recent demo incidents

    Twelve brief Case Studies on demolition incidents have been released by HSE which are reproduced below.

    The regulator is urging those involved in demolition projects to consider the scenarios and ask themselves if they could mitigate for these “common lapses in judgement or process”. If not, the HSE advice is to review their own processes with a particular focus on thorough planning, management and control of demolition and refurbishment work.

    The HSE initiative is prompted by the raised public profile of the demolition industry “by the recent airing of the Channel 5 documentary – When Demolitions Go Wrong, which has focused on the impact of incidents but not the underlying causes.”

    HSE has looked at the learning points from incidents that have occurred during demolition and significant refurbishment works and has collected the case studies which cover a range of incidents, some of which resulted in death or serious injury and others which could easily have led to single or multiple casualties.

    In all cases, even where there were no casualties, HSE stress that additional commercial costs often exceeded any potential saving resulting from shortcuts.

     

    DEMOLITION CASE STUDIES

     

    • Case Study 1 – Failure to provide sufficient pre-demolition information by client: A contract to demolish high rise residential blocks built of large precast panels used a ground based high reach demolition machine.  The client provided little information on the building structure to the contractor. Structural connection between panels had been poorly designed, poorly built and had deteriorated further during the life of the building.  Lack of adequate information (and lack of adequate survey or assessment prior to work starting) led to a premature collapse of multiple floors across several bays during demolition works. Fortunately, because the high reach machine was large enough, as was the exclusion zone, there were no injuries. However, the project was substantially delayed while the incident was investigated, and remedial action taken.  This type of building often needs panel connections to be stiffened and floors propped to a formal design prior to demolition.
    • Case Study 2 – Contractor competence. Basement extension work poorly designed and executed: A community building used daily by a local playgroup had a new basement dug out by tunnelling underneath the building across the full perimeter.  Support was provided by a couple of Acrows and the sides of the excavation were not shored up while underpinning was carried out in stages.  The contractor believed he was working in solid rock but in reality, it was loose shale.  Emergency works to prop the cavern and save the building made further work extremely difficult.  This caused the contractor to go out of business.  All excavations and especially where they are beneath or close to existing structures need to be meticulously designed and carried out which allows the cost of temporary works to be factored in and understood from an early stage.
    • Case Study 3 – Contractor competence. Approved sequence not followed causing collapse: The method statement for construction of a rear extension called for a new strip concrete foundation along the full length of the existing property to be installed in 1 metre sections, to avoid undermining existing foundations.  The builder decided it would be quicker to dig the full length of the trench in one go.  The existing building collapsed into the excavation injuring several workers.  The method statement should have been followed but other types of foundation could have been considered – including short bored piles or pads and a ground level ring beam.
    • Case Study 4 – Failure to correctly assess existing structure: Demolition workers assessed the form of construction of a single storey, concrete slab roofed building on the hoof and decided that because the soffit was flat and unjointed that the roof must have been cast in-situ and would be reinforced in both directions.  They punched a hole in one wall for plant access and were working inside when several of the precast, reinforced concrete roof planks hinged down killing one of them.  The punched hole had removed its bearing.  The soffit was smooth because it had been plastered with grey gypsum and the roof felting masked the upper surface.  Simple further checks and clues would have revealed the form of construction.  Cast in-situ slabs are not necessarily fully reinforced in both directions and in some cases suspended slabs are not reinforced at all.  Simple equipment is available to check for the presence and direction of steel reinforcement.  Safe intrusive methods of checking are also available – such as core drilling or limited breakout – e.g. from a tower scaffold.  Where possible, machine demolition from the ground and an exclusion zone is preferred and where this isn’t possible designed back-propping could have reduced the risk of wholesale failure.
    • Case Study 5 – Temporary load on existing structure not assessed: Demolition temporary works design considered mobile plant loadings on suspended reinforced concrete floor slabs but did not consider the rubble ramps that the contractor intended to use to allow plant to track down onto each floor in turn.  The contractor didn’t realise the rubble ramp hadn’t been assessed.  The floor became overloaded and collapsed progressively taking out floors below resulting in fatal and major injuries.  Had the task been fully assessed the need for back-propping or floor to floor transfer by crane would have been obvious.
    • Case Study 6 – Failure to consider implications of removing cross walls: A large brick building was being converted into flats. Neither the designer nor the contractor considered the effect of proposed alterations to the existing structure.  All internal walls and floors were removed in one go leaving the brick shell and roof in place.  The internal cross walls and floor joists had been providing support to the external walls which were now too long to resist wind loading without movement.  The building collapsed while the site was closed and before new walls and floors could be installed.  The permanent works designer should have considered the effect of necessary demolition work.  In some cases, designing a phased sequence of installing new walls and floors before removing old ones can be used to ensure stability is maintained throughout the process.  An alternative approach is formal design and early installation of extensive temporary works to provide support.
    • Case Study 7 – Support provided by non-loadbearing elements: All structural works on a masonry building were stopped due to concern about its stability.  The contractor took out some window frames they thought were non-structural.  These were providing sufficient fortuitous support to hold up a gable wall which collapsed causing other parts of the building to collapse.  Several were killed and injured.  Older buildings may need a designed internal and/or external structural scaffold or steel frame to hold them up while structural refurbishment is carried out.
    • Case Study 8 – Load bearing elements removed during soft strip: Timber sheathing panels were removed during soft stripping of a single storey timber frame school building that was being demolished.  The building, including the roof collapsed onto workers who were still inside.  No one had checked or realised that the plywood panels were structural and were bracing the timber frame.  Once they were removed the building was no longer stable.  Fortunately, only minor injuries resulted.  A proper survey of the structure would have identified the form of construction and the lack of separate bracing.
    • Case Study 9 – Agreed sequence not followed causing scaffold collapse: A large sheeted scaffold screen incorporating access platforms was designed and erected to encase a building.  The sheeting prevented dust and debris falling into surrounding public areas while the building was demolished floor by floor by small excavators.  The scaffold was supposed to be dismantled progressively as each floor was demolished.  It was not.  The wind got up and the sail effect overloaded ties into the remains of the building.  These failed and the scaffold collapsed onto a town centre public road.  Fortunately, the Fire Service had been called to reports of the scaffold moving and had been able to evacuate the area so there were no casualties.  Demolition work should have been halted at the right stage until the scaffold contractor had attended to reduce the height of the scaffold.
    • Case Study 10 – Existing structure overloaded by removed materials: A refurbishment contractor created openings in internal walls to a prepared design but stored the bricks on a suspended timber floor for reuse.  The floor became overloaded and collapsed injuring several workers.  In some instances, materials can be stored close to point of use in order to minimise manual handling.  In other situations, this can overload the structure.  A temporary works engineer would have been able to advise on how much load the floor could take and how to place load to minimise risk.
    • Case Study 11 – Designer instructions not clear & contractor too keen: A building contractor was engaged to construct an extension to an occupied old people’s home.  The architect specified that foundations should be dug down to competent ground and then agreed with local Building Control.  The contractor tried to excavate foundation trenches but could not find competent ground, so he excavated an unsupported foundation pit with the intention of using formwork to create the strip foundation.  When he reached 4 metres depth he found competent ground.  His efforts to prop and stabilise a cast iron 250mm diameter live water main that he found at the edge of his excavation were somewhat haphazard but fortunately the main did not fail – if it had the existing building shallow foundations would have been washed out, adding to risk of rapid collapse of the occupied building.  The local water supplier discovered what was going on and the excavation was concrete filled as emergency works.  The architect should have been mindful that the building was occupied and given a clearer specification.  A soil survey could have been commissioned to check conditions which would have suggested a range of alternative foundation options – including bored mini piles or a raft.  Risk to residents, delays and high additional cost could have been avoided.
    • Case Study 12 – Unchecked change to system of work caused collapse: A cinema was being demolished and the workers decided to speed up the job by toppling long span roof trusses to the ground instead of lifting them down as per the method statement.  This caused a section of concrete roof slab to move and topple the upper masonry storey which in turn pushed the perimeter scaffold away from the building, so it overturned and fell across a high street.  Vehicles and members of the public were trapped beneath it. It stopped just short of a supermarket plate glass window completely blocking the road.  By sheer luck no fatalities or major injuries resulted.  The planned and designed sequence of work must always be followed unless changes are fully assessed and agreed by the design team.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    CONSTRUCTION SAFETY NEWS – END OF NEW CONTENT

    The addition of content on this website ceased on 17th April 2020.

    Material posted before this date can be found by clicking on our SEARCH NEWS DATABASE function.

    Posted on 3rd May 2020

    CDM REGULATIONS 2015: GUIDES AND TEMPLATES

    Summary of our advice and tools to aid CDM 2015 compliance

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st April 2020

    HSE WARN OF NEED FOR RPE FACE FIT TEST AND CHECK

    Incorrectly fitted RPE will not protect the wearer from dangers to health

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th April 2020

    CORONA VIRUS: LATEST SITE OPERATING PROCEDURES

    Industry Bodies publish risk management guidance Version 3

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th April 2020

    TOWER CRANE OUT OF SERVICE SAFETY ALERT

    Important advice from Construction Plant-hire Association and HSE

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 30th March 2020

    HSE PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES 2020/21

    Appointed CDM 2015 Principal Designers remain focus of HSE inspections

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 30th March 2020

    COVID-19 ADVICE & GUIDANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION

    BuildUK support industry with advice, guidance and information

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 30th March 2020

    HSE TARGETING WELDING FUME CANCER RISK

    Inspections to enforce improved controls required by new risk evidence

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 24th February 2020

    HSE TO OVERSEE NEW BUILDING SAFETY REGIME

    Government to deliver biggest change in building safety for a generation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st January 2020

    FESTIVE GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 20th December 2019

    SELECTED NEWS POSTED RECENTLY ON TWITTER

    PP Construction Safety logo and link to home page [1]Links to other construction health and safety related news reports

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2019

    HSE LOOK TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR CDM SUPPORT

    Council Inspectors focus on CDM client duties – asbestos, fragility and RCS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th November 2019

    HSE WELDING FUME REVISED GUIDANCE PUBLISHED

    New research evidence on cancer link prompts revision on welding fume

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th November 2019

    STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER

    CROSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th October 2019

    HSE RISK REDUCTION THROUGH DESIGN AWARD

    Regulator seeks to promote hazard avoidance and risk minimisation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th October 2019

    HSE START PROJECT HEALTH RISK INTERVENTIONS

    Regulator set to check health risks assessed and controls in place

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 30th September 2019

    AIF NATIONAL WORKING AT HEIGHT CONFERENCE

    HSE Construction Head to speak at Access Industry Forum conference

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd September 2019

    NEW HSE HAVS CALCULATOR TO HELP CONTROL RISK

    New calculator includes “cautious estimates” for common tools

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd September 2019

    IMPROVING CDM DESIGNER HAZARD AWARENESS

    Research explores power of “multi-media digital tool” for design hazards

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th August 2019

    DEMOLITION FEDERATION ON RECENT INCIDENTS

    NFDC ‘statement of awareness’ follows unplanned collapses

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th August 2019

    RAISING COMPETENCE AND MAKING BUILDINGS SAFER

    Life-safety-critical disciplines urged to act on Interim Report

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th August 2019

    BUILDING WORKS COMPROMISED GAS SAFETY

    Company and director fined after work created risk to residents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th August 2019

    HSE SPEAK AT ACCESS INDUSTRY CONFERENCE 2019

    AIF National Working at Height Conference November 2019

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2019

    STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER

    CROSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019

    CONSIDERING TEMP WORKS IN PERMANENT DESIGN

    Useful overview for civil and structural engineers on contemporary practice

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd July 2019
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data