Skip to main content
Heliyon logoLink to Heliyon
. 2023 Feb 2;9(2):e13389. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13389

Data mining of the essential causes of different types of fatal construction accidents

Aminu Darda'u Rafindadi a,b,, Nasir Shafiq a, Idris Othman a, Ahmad Ibrahim c, MM Aliyu b, Miljan Mikić d, Hamzh Alarifi a
PMCID: PMC9905945  PMID: 36761825

Abstract

Accident analysis is used to discover the causes of workplace injuries and devise methods for preventing them in the future. There has been little discussion in the previous studies of the specific elements contributing to deadly construction accidents. In contrast to previous studies, this study focuses on the causes of fatal construction accidents based on management factors, unsafe site conditions, and workers' unsafe actions. The association rule mining technique identifies the hidden patterns or knowledge between the root causes of fatal construction accidents, and one hundred meaningful association rules were extracted from the two hundred and fifty-three rules generated. It was discovered that many fatal construction accidents were caused by management factors, unsafe site circumstances, and risky worker behaviors. These analyses can be used to demonstrate plausible cause-and-effect correlations, assisting in building a safer working environment in the construction sector. The study findings can be used more efficiently to design effective inspection procedures and occupational safety initiatives. Finally, the proposed method should be tested in a broader range of construction situations and scenarios to ensure that it is as accurate as possible.

Keywords: Data mining, Association rule, Fatal construction accidents, Types of construction accidents, Causes, Construction industry

1. Introduction

Accident analysis is used to discover the causes of workplace injuries and devise methods for preventing them in the future [1]. It is thought that the only way to find any common or unifying factors in accident events is to look at aggregated accident data rather than just one case at a time [2]. Analysts have conventionally used statistical techniques to deduce patterns or information from acquired construction accident data. However, the methods are lengthy and sometimes biased. Construction is a data-heavy field that proliferates how much data it generates and how much data it collects [3]. Data mining methods are becoming more prevalent in the construction industry. Data mining techniques can get helpful information from a lot of data in the construction industry [4]. Data mining is a highly effective technique for discovering hidden knowledge from databases' vast amounts of complex data [5]. Patterns, correlations, linkages, and anomalies all fall under “hidden knowledge” [6]. Association rule mining is the widely used data mining approach in construction and other sectors. Association rules can be used to deduce the linkages and possible correlations between attributes in massive volumes of data [7]. Association rules are determined in the form of Q→R, where Q and R are disjoint item sets, Q is the antecedent, and R is the consequent. An association rule can help identify undiscovered relationships and produce an outcome that can be used for forecasting and decision-making [8].

The association rule mining technique identifies the hidden patterns or knowledge between the root causes of fatal construction accidents in Malaysia. In contrast to previous studies [9,10], this study focuses on specific causes of fatal construction accidents based on management factors, unsafe site conditions, and workers' unsafe actions in a country with different characteristics. There has been little discussion in the previous studies of the specific elements contributing to deadly construction accidents. Management factors, hazardous site conditions, and unsafe actions by workers are primary contributors to 302 fatal construction accidents in Malaysia. There is a dearth of research that adequately investigates the hidden patterns or knowledge of the root causes of fatal construction accidents in Malaysia. It is valid for different construction accidents identified from the historical accident data. Here is the structure of the rest of the paper, which follows. There is a review of the relevant literature in the next section. The methodology employed in the research is then presented herein. The study findings are then presented in the fourth section. Finally, conclusions of the leading research findings and practical implications are presented.

2. Association rule mining in the construction industry and other related fields

Construction accident rates continue to be a source of worry on a global scale. The construction sector has a higher rate of fatal accidents than other industries [11]. Construction accounts for one-third of all workplace deaths, and construction workers are six times likelier to die on the job than in other sectors [12]. The fatality rate for construction workers is three to six times higher than the national average [13]. Not only do construction accidents result in significant financial loss, but they frequently result in severe injury or death [4]. There is a paucity of studies into the root causes and contributing elements of construction site safety violations and accidents [14]. The first step in preventing accidents is to grasp the causal elements that influence their occurrence [15,16]. They tend to occur due to dissimilar factors and one or more management factors, unsafe actions, and conditions [10,[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]].

Cheng et al. [10] used association rule mining to establish cause-effect correlations between occupational accident factors. They discovered that when a particular set of dangers occurs concurrently, a specific set of accidents is more likely to occur. Liao and Perng [9] also used association rule mining to determine occupational injury characteristics in the construction industry. Some patterns of occupational injuries in the construction industry have been discovered, and rain significantly impacts the number of fatalities. Association rule mining has been used to quantify the interdependence of construction flaws resulting in schedule delays, cost overruns, and quality degradation [23]. It was established that the proposed approach could systematically identify and quantify causal relationships between defect causes. Lee et al. [24] built a relational database of garment industry faults and extracted defect patterns using association rule mining. Verma et al. [25] used an association rule mining technique to deduce the cause-and-effect relationships underlying events in a steel mill. It could elicit frequent itemsets and association rules between observed unusual circumstances. Wang et al. [26] found patterns of defects in the transport industry by examining causal linkages between flaws in container cranes. Tong et al. [27] employed association rule mining to evaluate accident investigation records to determine the factors' interrelationships. Zeng et al. [7] also utilized association rule mining to examine mining cities' environmental, economic, and social features and their interrelationships.

The Apriori algorithm, the frequent pattern growth algorithm and the dynamic itemset counting algorithm are the most frequently utilized association rule mining algorithms [28]. Support, confidence, and lift are three critical indications of association rule mining [29]. Support is the percentage of the complete dataset covered by the rule, confidence measures the rule's inference's reliability, and lift measures the rule's antecedent and consequent interdependence. Effective strong regulations must meet three criteria [28]: a minimum level of support, a minimum level of confidence, and a minimum level of lift.

3. Methodology

Data mining techniques include association, correlation, classification, and clustering. This research mainly focuses on association rule mining using an apriori algorithm to determine the affinity between the management factors (MF), unsafe site conditions (USC), and workers' dangerous actions (WUA) of the seven identified types of construction accidents from the department of safety and health (DOSH) accident reports, Malaysia. Association rule mining is a data mining technique that allows the discovery of several rules or combinations of items or frequent itemsets. Association Rule Mining is defined as [30]: “Let I={i1,i2,,in} be a set of n binary attributes called factors. Let C={c1,c2,,cm} be set of the causes of accidents called the database. Each cause in C has a unique identification number and contains a subset of the items in I. A rule is defined as an implication of the form QR where Q,RI, and QR=. The set of items Q and R are called antecedent and consequent on the right-hand-side of the rule, respectively.” An itemset is a collection of items. If an itemset contains k items, it is referred to as a k-itemset. A group of two or more factors is called an itemset. A frequent itemset appears regularly in the dataset. A set of factors is considered regular if it meets a certain minimal level of support and confidence.

Numerous scholars have included quantitative methodologies in the accident investigation process, of which association rule mining is one. The Apriori algorithm is used in this study because it does well with small datasets [31,32]. Small data were the fatal construction accidents sampled from all construction accidents within the specified study period. Any small datasets (e.g., 50) that can give a meaningful pattern are considered adequate to provide reliable results. It was developed by Agrawal [33] and Sriknat [34]. The apriori algorithm is the most often used for mining association rules [30]. The Apriori algorithm divides the rule mining process into two stages [35]. The database is scanned to identify all itemsets with support values greater than or equal to the predetermined minimum. Apriori uses an iterative technique called level-wise search, in which k-itemsets are utilized to explore (k + 1)-itemsets.

The set of common 1-itemsets is discovered by scanning the database for each item and collecting those that satisfy minimal support. F1 represents the resulting set. F1 is then used to locate F2, the set of frequent 2-itemsets, which is then used to locate F3, and so on, until no other frequent k-itemsets can be found. Each Fk requires a complete scan of the database. Second, a rule is made if it meets a certain confidence level. Rule support and confidence are two ways to measure how interesting a rule is. Support of rule QR is ‘s' if s% of the transactions in T contains the set QR. Confidence of the rule QR is ‘c' if c% of the transactions in T that include the set Q also contains the set R. Strong rules are those that fulfill both minimum support and a minimum confidence criterion [30]. Many of the rules found through minimum support and confidence thresholds aren't attractive to the people who use them, even though they help eliminate many of the rules that aren't interesting [36]. A lift can be used to deal with this weakness. Lift is a simple way to measure how well two things are linked. It means that if the lift is less than 1, the occurrence of Q and R are mutually exclusive. However, if it is more than 1, the occurrence of Q indicates that the other occurs. There is no association between Q and R if the calculated lift equals 1 [35]. The second phase is easier to do, but the first step is more challenging [37]. Because the first step determines the overall performance of mining association rules, most studies focus on the first challenge. Apriori algorithm was used to determine the affinity between the 189 identified factors that causes the seven types of construction accidents, with 27 assigned to each. The procedure adopted in this research included five steps and is explained in the following sub-sections.

3.1. Data acquisition

Data were extracted from DOSH accident investigation reports, a critical literature evaluation, and experts' opinions to create an initial database. The fatal accidents in Malaysian construction from 2010 to 2019 were used as data sources. The research was approved by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, informed consent was obtained, and the study complied with all regulations. This study considered a total of 302 fatal construction accidents. There is no benchmark for the minimum dataset for data mining, but experts argue that 50 and above fields could provide an excellent result [38]. Thus, the dataset used in this study is representative. The repercussions of deadly accidents are exhaustively and objectively detailed in accident investigation reports, which increases the reliability of the association rule mining results. An integrative review process was adopted to determine the relevant factors and sub-factors used in this study. The experts' opinions were gathered to assess the relevance of the sub-factors that contributed to the identified construction accident until they all agreed on the chosen sub-factors unanimously. They include a construction manager with ten years of expertise, an academic and project manager with more than fifteen years of experience, and a safety and health officer with more than a century of experience. Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 presented the lists of management factors, unsafe site conditions, and unsafe worker behaviours.

Table 1.

List of management factors (MF).

Label Management factors Types of accident Reference(s) DOSH report Expert(s)
MF1 Employment of unskilled personnel All types [[39], [40], [41], [42]]
MF2 Not identifying, assessing, and controlling risks All types [39,43,44]
MF3 Failure to provide no-smoking signs at appropriate locations on-site Fire and explosion [45]
MF4 Not putting a safety data sheet (SDS) on the product's container with the hazard information Chemical exposure [46,47]
MF5 Financial constraints All types [[39], [40], [41]]
MF6 Inadequate first aid measures All types [39]
MF7 Insufficiency of Skilled Project Managers All types [39]
MF8 Lack of management commitment or negligence on safety All types [10,[40], [41], [42],48]
MF9 Lack of or ill planning All types [40,41,48]
MF10 Top management's safety ignorance All types [39,42]
MF11 Lack of safety management manuals All types [39]
MF12 Lack of safety regulations and enforcement All types [[39], [40], [41],43,44,49,50]
MF13 Lack of safety training system All types [[39], [40], [41],43,44,49,50]
MF14 Lack of strict on-site safety supervision and poor management All types [10,51], [[39], [40], [41],43,44,51]
MF15 Lack of technical guidance in the related field All types [39]
MF16 Inadequate provision of safety equipment All types [40,41,43,44]
MF17 The workers' site supervisors or managers pushed them to speed up work on-site. All types [52]
MF18 Deployment of faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines All types [40,41]
MF19 Management team behavior All types [40,41,43,44]
MF20 Nonchalant attitude by the top management about safety All types [40,41,43,44]
MF21 Lack of standard safety management system to guide supervisors on-site All types [[39], [40], [41], [42]]
MF22 Weak method for quality control All types [40,41,43,44]
MF23 Overload and misaligned assignments All types [[39], [40], [41]]
MFex (FfH) Deployment of substandard scaffolding or ladders Fall from height
MFex (D/A) Failure to provide an appropriate temporary framework for working in water Drowning/asphyxiation

Table 2.

List unsafe site conditions (USC).

Label Unsafe site conditions Type of accident Reference(s) DOSH report Expert(s)
USC1 Scaffolding/work platforms collapsing Fall from height, struck-by, caught-in-between [16,[53], [54], [55]]
USC2 Apparel hazards (e.g., protective clothing, hand cloves) Caught-in-between, electrocution [10,41,56,57]
USC3 Workplace congestedness All types [10,41,56,57]
USC4 Faulty and unsafe electrical equipment or machinery Fire and explosion [58]
USC5 Faulty construction machines or trucks Caught-in-between [58]
USC6 Hoisting or lifting equipment or machine failure Struck-by, caught-in-between [16,53,59]
USC7 Faulty ladders and hoists Fall from height [10,48]
USC8 Poorly constructed makeshift waterwork platforms Drowning/asphyxiation [60]
USC9 Defective tools/equipment/supplies/personal protective equipment All types [10,41,56,57]
USC10 Insufficient illumination during the night shifts All types [61]
USC11 Incorrect labelled or unlabeled containers carrying hazardous chemicals Chemical exposure [62,63]
USC12 Signs for dangerous chemicals that are wrongly labelled or not labelled at all Chemical exposure [47,63]
USC13 Insufficient scaffolding Fall from height [10,44,48]
USC14 Insufficient warning systems All types [10,41,56,57]
USC15 Complex job on faulty scaffolding or ladders at height Fall from height [50,[64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]]
USC16 Used hazardous chemicals not properly disposed Chemical exposure [62,63]
USC17 Lack of or improper on-site storage for flammable liquids or gases Fire and explosion [71]
USC18 Insufficient or poor chemical storage Chemical exposure [71]
USC19 Lack of or improper on-site storage of explosives for blasting Fire and explosion [71]
USC20 Lack of safety net and workers' tool belt while working at height Struck-by [17,71,72]
USC21 Lack of scaffolding toe boards Struck-by [17,71]
USC22 Loud and excessive noise All types [40,41,43,44]
USC23 Poor housekeeping All types [73]
USC24 Poor storage and stalking Struck-by [17,71]
USC25 Presence of combustible dust on-site Fire and explosion [60]
USC26 Presence of electrical hazard on-site Electrocution, Fire and explosion [60]
USC27 Task difficulty or job complexity distracts personnel at heights. Fall from height [74]
USC28 Trench cave-ins during excavation Caught-in-between [16]
USC29 Unguarded edges/holes, slippery surfaces, skylights Fall from height [10,41,44,48,56,57], [43,75,76]
USC30 Unsafe building windows Fall from height [10,48]
USC31 Unsafe environmental conditions All types [73]
USC32 Procedures for work and operation that are unsafe All types [40,41,77]
USCex (CiBA) Too many blind spots on-site Caught-in-between accidents
USCex1(D/A) Accidental slab or cover collapse in a tight space Drowning/asphyxiation
USCex2(D/A) High-tide flow Drowning/asphyxiation
USCex3(D/A) Job difficulty involving water or enclosed area Drowning/asphyxiation
USCex4(D/A) Existence of harmful gases in a confined area Drowning/asphyxiation
USCex5(D/A) Weather conditions while operating in bodies of water Drowning/asphyxiation
USCex1 (ELEC) Defective existing wiring Electrocution
USCex2(ELEC) Loading and unloading construction materials close to live electric wire Electrocution

Table 3.

List of workers' unsafe actions (WUA).

Label Workers' unsafe actions Type of accident Reference(s) DOSH report Expert(s)
WUA1 Boisterous play among the workers All types [57]
WUA2 Carelessness/negligence All types [10,[39], [40], [41],51,57,71,[78], [79], [80]]
WUA3 Non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures Struck-by, caught-in-between [40,57,71]
WUA4 Contravention of norms for safe working procedures All types [10,[39], [40], [41],51,57,71,[78], [79], [80]]
WUA5 PPE not worn or used in the wrong way All types [10,40,41,43,44,48,50,51,81]
WUA6 Repairing machinery or equipment in motion Caught-in-between [57]
WUA7 Mistakes made by workers and the wrong use of controls All types [49]
WUA8 Improper handling of explosives for blasting Fire and explosion [82]
WUA9 Improper handling of hazardous chemicals Chemical exposure [62,63]
WUA10 Personal qualities (such as a worker's safety attitude) All types [43,44,57,71,75,83]
WUA11 Insufficient safety understanding and misjudging dangerous scenarios All types [10,[39], [40], [41], [42],48,49,51,57,71,78,79,[84], [85], [86], [87]]
WUA12 Operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization Struck-by, caught-in-between [40,57]
WUA13 Operating machines at an unacceptable speed Caught-in-between [57]
WUA14 Physical and emotional stress All types [84]
WUA15 Rushing to complete the work All types [51]
WUA16 Using dangerous methods or steps Chemical exposure [62,63]
WUA17 Dangerous behaviour of a third party(s) All types [57]
WUA18 Use of faulty or unsafe electrical equipment or machinery Electrocution, Fire and explosion [40,41]
WUA19 Incorrect or inadequate personal protective equipment use All types [49]
WUA20 Utilization of risky methods or procedures All types [40,41,43,44]
WUA21 Voluntarily doing risky activities All types [75]
WUA22 Work in a hazardous position or posture All types [57]
WUAex(CE) Unauthorized access to hazardous chemicals Chemical exposure
WUAex(F&E) Unauthorized access to explosives for blasting Fire and explosion

3.2. Data preparation

It is the process of transforming raw data into a format that can be analyzed efficiently and adequately.

The dataset contains seven rows and twenty-seven columns (see Table 4). The identified and utilized management factors, unsafe site conditions, and workers' unsafe actions that caused various fatal construction accidents for the algorithm development were based on the DOSH report and experts' opinions. Fall from height (FfH) is the most common fatal construction accident with about 37%, followed by struck-by accident (SbA) with about 31%, and caught-in-between accident (CiBA) with 18%. Others include drowning/asphyxiation (D/A) with about 10%, electrocution (ELEC) with about 3%, chemical exposure (CE) with about 1%, and fire and explosion (F&E) with less than 1%.

Table 4.

Dataset for Apriori Algorithm (AA) development.

Code Management factors (MF) Unsafe site conditions (USC) Workers' unsafe actions (WUA)
FfH MF13 MF5 MF1 MF16 MF21 MFex MF14 MF12 MF2 USC3 USC23 USC15 USC32 USC29 USC9 USC1 USC7 USC13 WUA15 WUA2 WUA10 WUA5 WUA11 WUA20 WUA1 WUA4 WUA19
SbA MF13 MF5 MF1 MF16 MF2 MF18 MF12 MF14 MF21 USC3 USC23 USC1 USC24 USC6 USC9 USC32 USC20 USC21 WUA10 WUA2 WUA14 WUA5 WUA11 WUA20 WUA12 WUA3 WUA19
CiBA MF13 MF5 MF1 MF16 MF2 MF18 MF12 MF14 MF21 USC3 USC23 USC32 USC5 USC6 USC9 USC1 USC28 USCex WUA10 WUA2 WUA13 WUA6 WUA11 WUA20 WUA12 WUA3 WUA19
D/A MF13 MF5 MF1 MF16 MF21 MFex MF14 MF12 MF2 USCex1 USC32 USCex2 USCex3 USC8 USC9 USCex4 USCex5 USC10 WUA21 WUA2 WUA10 WUA5 WUA11 WUA20 WUA4 WUA14 WUA19
ELEC MF13 MF5 MF1 MF16 MF21 MF15 MF14 MF12 MF2 USC3 USC23 USC32 USCex1 USC26 USC9 USCex2 USC14 USC2 WUA10 WUA2 WUA15 WUA5 WUA11 WUA20 WUA4 WUA7 WUA19
CE MF13 MF5 MF1 MF16 MF21 MF4 MF14 MF12 MF2 USC3 USC23 USC32 USC16 USC31 USC9 USC11 USC12 USC18 WUA10 WUA2 WUA15 WUA5 WUA11 WUA20 WUAex WUA9 WUA19
F&E MF13 MF5 MF1 MF16 MF21 MF3 MF14 MF12 MF2 USC3 USC23 USC32 USC25 USC26 USC9 USC4 USC17 USC19 WUA10 WUA2 WUA14 WUA5 WUA11 WUA20 WUAex WUA8 WUA19

Key – FfH = Fall from height, SbA = Struck-by accident, CiBA = Caught-in-between accident, D/A = Drowning/Asphyxiation, ELEC = Electrocution, CE = Chemical exposure, F&E = Fire and explosion.

3.3. Support and confidence threshold setting

Determining support and confidence levels is critical in the association rule mining procedure. When thresholds are set too low, irrelevant rules are generated, whereas no rules are developed when they are set too high [27]. Support threshold filters out the sub-factors that are not frequent in the dataset and is calculated using the formula in equation (1). The minimum support in this research is 2 (28.57%). The criteria for choosing the minimum support of 28.57% for this study is because a minimum of two factors can cause fatal construction accidents based on the abstract from the DOSH report. Confidence is used to confirm the percentage of cases in which the rules generated are valid. Based on the accident report, the likelihood of two factors or more causing fatal construction accidents is greater than 50%. The minimum confidence is set at 60% and is computed using the formula provided in equation (2).

Support(Q)=NumberofaccidentsinwhichfactorQappearsTotalnumberofaccidentoccurred (1)
Confidence(QR)=Support(QUR)Support(Q) (2)

3.4. Frequent items selection

Based on the set minimum support of 2 in this study, only the sub-factors whose count starts from two and above would be considered. The count begins with two until the maximum support of 7 to determine the most frequent sub-factors in the dataset.

3.5. Rules generation

The algorithm extracts rules from the frequent itemsets once all of them have been detected. The most common item sets are then translated into association rules representing how often the antecedent and consequent occur together. Association rules are written in the format: subfactorQsubfactorR. This means you obtain a rule that tells you that if sub-factor Q causes an accident, then sub-factor R is also likely to cause the same thing.

3.6. Lift computation

The last step is to calculate the lift of each rule once all the rules are generated. Lift is a performance statistic for rules that indicates the strength of the relationship between the sub-factors. This means that lift compares an association rule's improvement to the total dataset. It is calculated using the formula given in equation (3). If a rule's lift is 1, the sub-factors are independent. If a rule's lift value is more than 1, it indicates how heavily the left-hand side sub-factor depends on the right-hand side. Any rule with a lift of one may be deleted. Meaningful rules must adhere to the lift >1 standard. But must fulfill the minimum support and confidence threshold.

Lift=P(QR)P(Q)*P(R) (3)

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Results

The study scanned the dataset to identify the count of each sub-factor. Because of the limited number of rows for the dataset, we just skipped to the most frequent n – sub-factor sets, 22. The frequent 22 – sub-factor sets appear twice in the dataset, which is the minimum support for the apriori algorithm development (refer to equation (4)). And nonempty subsets are given in equation (5). Two hundred and fifty-three (253) rules were generated from the 22 – sub-factor sets, and a hundred (100) demonstrate strong relationships among the sub-factors based on the lift of greater than 1. The study considers superficial and deep factors that may contribute to the emergence of scenarios or situations that cause accidents. One of the goals is to increase awareness of the accident causation process, aid in conducting organized accident investigations, and provide advice on effective accident prevention methods (e.g., safety training and job hazard identification). No attempt has been made to identify the association rules between the sub-factors that cause different types of construction accidents. There is still a dearth of detail in accident causation models regarding the factors contributing significantly to construction accidents. Effective mitigation of causal factors involves a greater understanding of the most significant factors, who can reasonably be expected to manage them, and how such control may be accomplished most successfully.

{MF2,MF5,MF12,MF13,MF14,MF16,MF18,MF21,USC1,USC3,USC6,USC9,USC23,USC32,WUA2,WUA3,WUA10,WUA11,WUA12,WUA19,WUA20} (4)

Nonempty subsets are:

{USC9},{USC23},{USC32},{WUA2},{WUA3},{WUA10},{WUA11},{WUA12},{WUA19},{WUA20},
{MF1,MF2},{MF1,MF5},{MF1,MF12},{MF1,MF13},{MF1,MF14},{MF1,MF16},{MF1,MF18},{MF1,MF21},
{MF1,USC1},{MF1,USC3},{MF1,USC6},{MF1,USC9},{MF1,USC23},{MF1,USC32},{MF1,WUA2},
{MF1,WUA3},{MF1,WUA10},{MF1,WUA11},{MF1,WUA12},{MF1,WUA19},{MF1,WUA20}
{MF2,MF5},{MF2,MF12},{MF2,MF13},{MF2,MF14},{MF2,MF16},{MF2,MF18},{MF2,MF21},{MF2,USC1},
{MF2,USC3},{MF2,USC6},{MF2,USC9},{MF2,USC23},{MF2,USC32},{MF2,WUA2},{MF2,WUA3},
{MF2,WUA10},{MF2,WUA11},{MF2,WUA12},{MF2,WUA19},{MF2,WUA20},
{MF5,MF12},{MF5,MF13},{MF5,MF14},{MF5,MF16},{MF5,MF18},{MF5,MF21},{MF5,USC1},
{MF5,USC3},{MF5,USC6},{MF5,USC9},{MF5,USC23},{MF5,USC32},{MF5,WUA2},{MF5,WUA3},
{MF5,WUA10},{MF5,WUA11},{MF5,WUA12},{MF5,WUA19},{MF5,WUA20},
{MF12,MF13},{MF12,MF14},{MF12,MF16},{MF12,MF18},{MF12,MF21},{MF12,USC1},{MF12,USC3},
{MF12,USC6},{MF12,USC9},{MF12,USC23},{MF12,USC32},{MF12,WUA2},{MF12,WUA3},
{MF12,WUA10},{MF12,WUA11},{MF12,WUA12},{MF12,WUA19},{MF12,WUA20},
{MF13,MF14},{MF13,MF16},{MF13,MF18},{MF13,MF21},{MF13,USC1},{MF13,USC3},{MF13,USC6},
{MF13,USC9},{MF13,USC23},{MF13,USC32},{MF13,WUA2},{MF13,WUA3},{MF13,WUA10},
{MF13,WUA11},{MF13,WUA12},{MF13,WUA19},{MF13,WUA20},
{MF14,MF16},{MF14,MF18},{MF14,MF21},{MF14,USC1},{MF14,USC3},{MF14,USC6},{MF14,USC9},
{MF14,USC23},{MF14,USC32},{MF14,WUA2},{MF14,WUA3},{MF14,WUA10},{MF14,WUA11},
{MF14,WUA12},{MF14,WUA19},{MF14,WUA20},
{MF16,MF18},{MF16,MF21},{MF16,USC1},{MF16,USC3},{MF16,USC6},{MF16,USC9},{MF16,USC23},
{MF16,USC32},{MF16,WUA2},{MF16,WUA3},{MF16,WUA10},{MF16,WUA11},{MF16,WUA12},
{MF16,WUA19},{MF16,WUA20},
{MF18,MF21},{MF18,USC1},{MF18,USC3},{MF18,USC6},{MF18,USC9},{MF18,USC23},{MF18,USC32},
{MF18,WUA2},{MF18,WUA3},{MF18,WUA10},{MF18,WUA11},{MF18,WUA12},
{MF18,WUA19},{MF18,WUA20},
{MF21,USC1},{MF21,USC3},{MF21,USC6},{MF21,USC9},{MF21,USC23},{MF21,USC32},{MF21,WUA2},
{MF21,WUA3},{MF21,WUA10},{MF21,WUA11},{MF21,WUA12},{MF21,WUA19},{MF21,WUA20},
{USC1,USC3},{USC1,USC6},{USC1,USC9},{USC1,USC23},{USC1,USC32},{USC1,WUA2},{USC1,WUA3},
{USC1,WUA10},{USC1,WUA11},{USC1,WUA12},{USC1,WUA19},{USC1,WUA20},
{USC3,USC6},{USC3,USC9},{USC3,USC23},{USC3,USC32},{USC3,WUA2},{USC3,WUA3},{USC3,WUA10},
{USC3,WUA11},{USC3,WUA12},{USC3,WUA19},{USC3,WUA20},
{USC6,USC9},{USC6,USC23},{USC6,USC32},{USC6,WUA2},{USC6,WUA3},{USC6,WUA10},{USC6,WUA11},
{USC6,WUA12},{USC6,WUA19},{USC6,WUA20},
{USC9,USC23},{USC9,USC32},{USC9,WUA2},{USC9,WUA3},{USC9,WUA10},{USC9,WUA11},
{USC9,WUA12},{USC9,WUA19},{USC9,WUA20},
{USC23,USC32},{USC23,WUA2},{USC23,WUA3},{USC23,WUA10},{USC23,WUA11},{USC23,WUA12},
{USC23,WUA19},{USC23,WUA20},
{USC32,WUA2},{USC32,WUA3},{USC32,WUA10},{USC32,WUA11},{USC32,WUA12},{USC32,WUA19},
{USC32,WUA20},{WUA2,WUA3},{WUA2,WUA10},{WUA2,WUA11},{WUA2,WUA12},
{WUA2,WUA19},{WUA2,WUA20},
{WUA3,WUA10},{WUA3,WUA11},{WUA3,WUA12},{WUA3,WUA19},{WUA3,WUA20},
{WUA10,WUA11},{WUA10,WUA12},{WUA10,WUA19},{WUA10,WUA20},
{WUA11,WUA12},{WUA11,WUA19},{WUA11,WUA20},
{WUA12,WUA19},{WUA12,WUA20},
{WUA19,WUA20}} (5)

The study findings indicate patterns in the causes of fatal accidents on construction sites. The hundred meaningful rules that were generated are explained as follows. Five one-item rules and ninety-five two-item rules satisfy the minimum support of 28.57%, minimum confidence of 60%, and a lift of more than 1. The occurrence of the antecedent (sub-factor(s)) indicates the likely occurrence of other sub-factors (consequences) from the sub-set that could cause fatal construction accidents (refer to Table 5). For example, rule 8 indicates that 100% of fatal construction accidents may be attributable to management deploying faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18). Deploying defective/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18) could lead to hazardous site conditions and workers' dangerous actions, usually because of limited resources for all seven construction accidents. Most of the management factors depend on the company's finances. Rule 10 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents are likely to occur because of scaffolding/working platforms (USC1). Rule 12 means that 100% of fatal construction accidents result from faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6). A collapse in scaffolding/working platforms (USC1) and faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6) could be due to other unsafe site conditions and workers' unsafe actions, mostly primarily if the faulty ones are provided by the management and construction workers lack the training to erect or dismantle them correctly. Rules 17 and 20 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12).

Table 5.

Association rules with specified antecedent.

Rule ID Antecedent Consequence Support (%) Confidence (%) Lift Remark
8 {MF18} {NMF18} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
10 {USC1} {NUSC1} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
12 {USC6} {NUSC6} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
17 {WUA3} {NWUA3} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
20 {WUA12} {NWUA12} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
29 {MF1,MF18} {N{MF1,MF18}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
31 {MF1,USC1} {N{MF1,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
33 {MF1,USC6} {N{MF1,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
38 {MF1,WUA3} {N{MF1,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
41 {MF1,WUA12} {N{MF1,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
49 {MF2,MF18} {N{MF2,MF18}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
51 {MF2,USC1} {N{MF2,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
53 {MF2,USC6} {N{MF2,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
58 {MF2,WUA3} {N{MF2,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
61 {MF2,WUA12} {N{MF2,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
68 {MF5,MF18} {N{MF5,MF18}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
70 {MF5,USC1} {N{MF5,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
72 {MF5,USC6} {N{MF5,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
77 {MF5,WUA3} {N{MF5,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
80 {MF5,WUA12} {N{MF5,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
86 {MF12,MF18} {N{MF12,MF18}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
88 {MF12,USC1} {N{MF12,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
90 {MF12,USC6} {N{MF12,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
94 {MF12,WUA2} {N{MF12,WUA2}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
98 {MF12,WUA12} {N{MF12,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
103 {MF13,MF18} {N{MF13,MF18}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
105 {MF13,USC1} {N{MF13,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
107 {MF13,USC6} {N{MF13,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
111 {MF13,WUA2} {N{MF13,WUA2}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
115 {MF13,WUA12} {N{MF13,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
119 {MF14,MF18} {N{MF14,MF18}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
121 {MF14,USC1} {N{MF14,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
123 {MF14,USC6} {N{MF14,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
128 {MF14,WUA3} {N{MF14,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
131 {MF14,WUA12} {N{MF14,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
134 {MF16,MF18} {N{MF16,MF18}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
136 {MF16,USC1} {N{MF16,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
138 {MF16,USC6} {N{MF16,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
143 {MF16,WUA3} {N{MF16,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
146 {MF16,WUA12} {N{MF16,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
149 {MF18,MF21} {N{MF18,MF21}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
150 {MF18,USC1} {N{MF18,USC1}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
151 {MF18,USC3} {N{MF18,USC3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
152 {MF18,USC6} {N{MF18,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
153 {MF18,USC9} {N{MF18,USC9}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
154 {MF18,USC23} {N{MF18,USC23}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
155 {MF18,USC32} {N{MF18,USC32}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
156 {MF18,WUA2} {N{MF18,WUA2}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
157 {MF18,WUA3} {N{MF18,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
158 {MF18,WUA10} {N{MF18,WUA10}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
159 {MF18,WUA11} {N{MF18,WUA11}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
160 {MF18,WUA12} {N{MF18,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
161 {MF18,WUA19} {N{MF18,WUA19}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
162 {MF18,WUA20} {N{MF18,WUA20}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
163 {MF21,USC1} {N{MF21,USC1}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
165 {MF21,USC6} {N{MF21,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
169 {MF21,WUA2} {N{MF21,WUA2}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
173 {MF21,WUA12} {N{MF21,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
176 {USC1,USC3} {N{USC1,USC3}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
177 {USC1,USC6} {N{USC1,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
178 {USC1,USC9} {N{USC1,USC9}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
179 {USC1,USC23} {N{USC1,USC23}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
180 {USC1,USC32} {N{USC1,USC32}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
181 {USC1,WUA2} {N{USC1,WUA2}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
182 {USC1,WUA3} {N{USC1,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
183 {USC1,WUA10} {N{USC1,WUA10}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
184 {USC1,WUA11} {N{USC1,WUA11}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
185 {USC1,WUA12} {N{USC1,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
186 {USC1,WUA19} {N{USC1,WUA19}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
187 {USC1,WUA20} {N{USC1,WUA20}} 28.57% 66.67% 2.3 Valid
188 {USC3,USC6} {N{USC3,USC6}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
193 {USC3,WUA3} {N{USC3,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
196 {USC3,WUA12} {N{USC3,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
199 {USC6,USC9} {N{USC6,USC9}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
200 {USC6,USC23} {N{USC6,USC23}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
201 {USC6,USC32} {N{USC6,USC32}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
202 {USC6,WUA2} {N{USC6,WUA2}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
203 {USC6,WUA3} {N{USC6,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
204 {USC6,WUA10} {N{USC6,WUA10}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
205 {USC6,WUA11} {N{USC6,WUA11}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
206 {USC6,WUA12} {N{USC6,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
207 {USC6,WUA19} {N{USC6,WUA19}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
208 {USC6,WUA20} {N{USC6,WUA20}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
212 {USC9,WUA3} {N{USC9,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
215 {USC9,WUA12} {N{USC9,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
220 {USC23,WUA3} {N{USC23,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
223 {USC23,WUA12} {N{USC23,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
227 {USC32,WUA3} {N{USC32,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
230 {USC32,WUA12} {N{USC32,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
233 {WUA2,WUA3} {N{WUA2,WUA3}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
236 {WUA2,WUA12} {N{WUA2,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
239 {WUA3,WUA10} {N{WUA3,WUA10}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
240 {WUA3,WUA11} {N{WUA3,WUA11}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
241 {WUA3,WUA12} {N{WUA3,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
242 {WUA3,WUA19} {N{WUA3,WUA19}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
243 {WUA3,WUA20} {N{WUA3,WUA20}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
245 {WUA10,WUA12} {N{WUA10,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
248 {WUA11,WUA12} {N{WUA11,WUA12}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
251 {WUA12,WUA19} {N{WUA12,WUA19}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid
252 {WUA12,WUA20} {N{WUA12,WUA20}} 28.57% 100% 3.5 Valid

Rules 29, 33, 38, and 41 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents may be attributable to a combination of employment of unskilled personnel (MF1), deployment of faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12). Rule 31 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents are due to the employment of unskilled personnel (MF1) and a collapse in scaffolding/working platforms (USC1). Rules 49, 53, 58, and 61 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents could be attributable to a combination of not identifying, assessing, and controlling risks (MF2), deployment of faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12). Rule 51 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents are due to not identifying, assessing, and controlling risks (MF2) and a collapse in scaffolding/working platforms (USC1). Rules 68, 72, 77, and 80 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents may be attributable to a combination of financial constraints (MF5), deployment of faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12). Rule 70 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents may be due to financial constraints (MF5) and scaffolding/working platforms collapse (USC1).

Rules 86, 90, 94, and 88 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are attributable to a combination of lack of safety regulations and enforcement (MF5), deployment of faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and Operating machines without permission (WUA12). Rule 88 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents are due to a lack of safety regulations and enforcement (MF12) and a collapse in scaffolding/working platforms (USC1). Rules 103, 107, 111, and 115 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are attributable to a combination of lack of safety training (MF13 deployment of faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and Operating machines without permission (WUA12). Rule 105 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents are due to a lack of safety training (MF13) and scaffolding/working platforms collapse (USC1). Rules 119, 123, 128, and 131 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents could be attributable to a combination of lack of strict on-site safety supervision and poor management (MF14), deploying faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12). Rule 121 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents are due to a lack of strict on-site safety supervision and poor management (MF14), and scaffolding/working platforms collapse (USC1). Rules 134, 138, 143, and 146 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are attributable to a combination of inadequate provision of safety equipment (MF16), deployment of faulty/unsafe tools, vehicles, and machines (MF18), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3) and Operating machines without permission (WUA12). Rule 136 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents could be because the required PPE for the job was not provided (MF16) and scaffolding/working platforms collapsed (USC1).

Rules 149–162 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents may be because of a combination of MF18, dangerous working, and lack of stringent operating procedures (MF21), scaffolding/working platforms collapsed (USC1), workplace congestedness (USC3), hoisting or lifting equipment or machine failure (USC6), defective tools/equipment/supplies/personal protective equipment (USC9), poor housekeeping (USC23), and unsafe working and operating procedures (USC32). Other factors include carelessness/negligence (WUA2), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), personal qualities (such as a worker's safety attitude) (WUA10), insufficient safety understanding and misjudging dangerous scenarios (WUA11), operating machines without permission (WUA12), incorrect or inadequate personal protective equipment use (WUA19) and utilization of risky methods or procedures (WUA20). Rule 163 indicates that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents may be due to unsafe working conditions, a lack of stringent operating procedures (MF21), and scaffolding/working platforms collapse (USC1). Rules 165, 169, and 173 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of unsafe working and lack of stringent operating procedures (MF21), faulty hoisting or lifting equipment or machine (USC6), carelessness/negligence (WUA2), and operating machines without permission (WUA12).

Rules 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186, and 187 indicate that 66.67% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of scaffolding/working platforms collapse (USC1), workplace congestedness (USC3), faulty tools/equipment/supplies/PPE (USC9), poor housekeeping (USC23), unsafe working and operating procedures (USC32), carelessness/negligence (WUA2), personal qualities (such as a worker's safety attitude) (WUA10), insufficient safety understanding and misjudging dangerous scenarios (WUA11), incorrect or inadequate personal protective equipment use (WUA19) and utilization of risky methods or procedures (WUA20). Rules 177, 182, and 185 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of scaffolding/working platforms collapse (USC1), hoisting or lifting equipment or machine failure (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), and operating machines without permission (WUA12). Rules 188, 193, and 196 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of workplace congestion (USC3), hoisting or lifting equipment or machine failure (USC6), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), and operating machines without permission (WUA12).

Rules 199–208 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of fixing machines or equipment while in motion (USC6), faulty tools/equipment/supplies/PPE (USC9), poor housekeeping (USC23), unsafe working, and operating procedures (USC32), carelessness/negligence (WUA2), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), personal qualities (such as a worker's safety attitude) (WUA10), insufficient safety understanding and misjudging dangerous scenarios (WUA11), operating machines without permission (WUA12), incorrect or inadequate personal protective equipment use (WUA19) and utilization of risky methods or procedures (WUA20). Rules 212 and 215 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of faulty tools/equipment/supplies/PPE (USC9), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12). Rules 220 and 223 also indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of poor housekeeping (USC23), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12). Rules 227 and 230 also indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of unsafe working and operating procedures (USC32), non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), and using equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12).

Rules 233 and 236 also indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of carelessness/negligence (WUA2) and non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), and operating equipment or machines without qualification or authorization (WUA12).

Rules 239–243 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a combination of non-compliance with hoisting or lifting procedures (WUA3), personal qualities (such as a worker's safety attitude) (WUA10), insufficient safety understanding and misjudging dangerous scenarios (WUA11), operating machines without permission (WUA12), incorrect or inadequate personal protective equipment use (WUA19) and use of hazardous methods or procedure (WUA20). Rule 245 indicates that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to personal qualities (such as a worker's safety attitude) (WUA10) and operating machines without permission (WUA12). Rule 248 indicates that 100% of fatal construction accidents are due to a lack of safety knowledge and misjudgment of potentially hazardous situations (WUA11) and operating machines without permission (WUA12). Rules 251 and 252 indicate that 100% of fatal construction accidents may be attributable to operating equipment or machines without qualification or permission (WUA12), incorrect or inadequate personal protective equipment use (WUA19) and utilization of risky methods or procedures (WUA20). The authors argue that the generated rules could be reliable, considering where the data used in this study was obtained.

  • For every nonempty subset ‘N’ of ‘K’, the association rule is

  • N → (K–N), If support (K)/support (N) ≥ min_confidence

  • Minimum support = 2 (28.57%), minimum confidence = 60%

4.2. Discussion and implications of the results obtained

The mined association rules are concise summaries of the dataset's implicit rules. Eighty-two of the rules generated are 100% valid, and 18 are 66.67% correct. And the lift of those 82 rules is 3.5, and that of the 18 is 2.3. Identifying the primary factors contributing to construction accidents is the first step in minimizing and reducing accidents and their repercussions. This article's analysis demonstrates that management factors, hazardous site conditions, and unsafe worker behavior all influence the occurrence of fatal construction accidents. Most occupational injuries and deaths are avoidable because they are caused by the dangerous acts of the employees, management failures [10], and unsafe acts by workers [88]. This is in line with the primary findings of the research.

In contrast to this study's findings, some researchers found that weather conditions and seasonal variation significantly affect the safety performance of construction sites by altering the work environment and the requirements of the workers [9]. This could be because of the difference in weather conditions. The study has also identified the specific causes and patterns of deadly accidents in the Malaysian construction industry. MF1, MF2, MF5, MF12, MF13, MF14, MF16, MF18, and MF21 are the typical management factors that could influence the occurrence of fatal construction accidents. Workers' dangerous actions are errors that surpass a certain threshold of tolerance, misjudgment of hazardous situations, and intentional violations. The actions depend on the tasks carried out by the construction worker(s) and individual characteristics. WUA2, WUA3, WUA10, WUA11, WUA12, WUA19, and WUA20 are the typical workers' unsafe actions that could influence the occurrence of fatal construction accidents. USC1, USC3, USC6, USC9, USC23, and USC32 are the customary dangerous site conditions that could impact the event of fatal construction accidents based on the generated valid rules.

As a result, attention should be given to the three identified fundamental factors that trigger various construction accidents to mitigate their occurrence on-site. In these circumstances, the primary cause-and-effect relationships are between the sub-factors (i.e., management factors, unsafe site conditions, and workers' unsafe actions).

5. Conclusion

The immediate requirement to transform the causes of accidents into valuable information and knowledge may be addressed by data mining. Association rule mining was employed in this research using an apriori algorithm to determine the affinity between the sub-factors that cause fatal accidents in the Malaysian construction industry. Two hundred and fifty-three (253) rules were generated, and a hundred (100) demonstrate strong relationships among the sub-factors. Association rule mining can help researchers better understand and manage accidents [4]. However, readers should be aware that, while association rule mining can identify previously unknown associations, it can also create many obvious or meaningless rules [9,10]. Our analysis uncovered several unexpected, latent, and previously undiscovered traits and patterns associated with the specific causes of fatal construction accidents based on three fundamental causes. The study concludes that fatal construction accidents are caused by management factors, hazardous site conditions, and workers' risky behaviours, and that the level of safety in the construction industry is strongly dependent on these three crucial aspects [88].

The results can be used to identify the hidden patterns or knowledge, assisting in building a safer working environment in the construction sector. The study findings can be used to design effective inspection procedures and occupational safety initiatives more efficiently. Additionally, the study's findings are expected to serve as a foundation for decision-making on accident prevention and control in Malaysia's construction industry and other countries with similar characteristics. This research also made it possible to better understand the relationship between construction accident causes and lay the theoretical groundwork for further investigation. Finally, the proposed method should be tested in a broader range of construction situations and scenarios to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. This study's findings are based on fatal construction data obtained from the DOSH website. The only data analyzed is from Malaysia, so the conclusions may not apply to other nations, but they can provide indications of different criteria that are standard. Such studies could yield more knowledge if richer data for accidents were collected.

Author contribution statement

Aminu Darda'u Rafindadi, Nasir Shafiq, Idris Othman, Ahmad Ibrahim, M. M. Aliyu, Miljan Mikić and Hamzh Alarifi: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Data availability statement

The datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to express their profound appreciation to Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for the graduate assistantship scheme.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13389.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

Addition and retention of authorship
mmc1.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Harper R.S., Koehn E. Managing industrial construction safety in southeast Texas. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 1998;124:452–457. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chi C.F., Chang T.C., Hung K.H. Significant industry–source of injury–accident type for occupational fatalities in Taiwan. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2004;34:77–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Soibelman L., Kim H. Data preparation process for construction knowledge generation through knowledge discovery in databases. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2002;16:39–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yan H., Yang N., Peng Y., Ren Y. Data mining in the construction industry: present status, opportunities, and future trends. Autom. ConStruct. 2020;119 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hui S.C., Jha G. Data mining for customer service support. Inf. Manag. 2000;38:1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lee J.R., Hsueh S.L., Tseng H.P. Utilizing data mining to discover knowledge in construction enterprise performance records. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2008;14:79–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zeng L., Wang B., Fan L., Wu J. Analyzing sustainability of Chinese mining cities using an association rule mining approach. Resour. 2016;49:394–404. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tsay Y.J., Chiang J.Y. CBAR: an efficient method for mining association rules. KBS. 2005;18:99–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liao C.W., Perng Y.H. Data mining for occupational injuries in the Taiwan construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2008;46:1091–1102. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cheng C.W., Lin C.C., Leu S.S. Use of association rules to explore cause–effect relationships in occupational accidents in the Taiwan construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2010;48:436–444. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rameezdeen R., Pathirage C., Weerasooriya S. Study of construction accidents in Sri Lanka. Built-Environ. Sri Lanka. 2006;4:1. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hide S., Atkinson S., Pavitt T.C., Haslam R., Gibb A.G., Gyi D.E. 2003. Causal Factors in Construction Accidents. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Choi J., Gu B., Chin S., Lee J.S. Machine learning predictive model based on national data for fatal accidents of construction workers. Autom. ConStruct. 2020;110 [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Khosravi Y., Asilian-Mahabadi H., Hajizadeh E., Hassanzadeh-Rangi N., Bastani H., Behzadan A.H. Factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents on construction sites: a review. JOSE. 2014;20:111–125. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2014.11077023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Arquillos A.L., Romero J.C.R., Gibb A. Analysis of construction accidents in Spain, 2003-2008. J. Saf. Res. 2012;43:381–388. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2012.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hinze J., Pedersen C., Fredley J. Identifying root causes of construction injuries. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 1998;124:67–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hamid A.R.A., Abd Majid M.Z., Singh B. Causes of accidents at construction sites. Malays. J. Civ. Eng. 2008;20:2. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lopez M.A.C., Ritzel D.O., Fontaneda I., Alcantara O.J.G. Construction industry accidents in Spain. J. Saf. Res. 2008;39:497–507. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2008.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kines P. Occupational injury risk assessment using injury severity odds ratios: male falls from heights in the Danish construction industry, 1993-1999. HERA. 2001;7:1929–1943. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ali A., Kamaruzzaman S., Sing G. A Study on causes of accident and prevention in Malaysian construction industry. J. Design+ Built. 2010;3:95–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rafindadi A.D., et al. Multi-Criteria comparison of the primary factors of chemical exposure in construction projects. AIP Conf. Proc. 2021;2401 [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rafindadi A.D., Napiah M., Othman I., Mikić M., Al-Ashmori Y.Y. Rate of occurrence of fatal accidents in Malaysian construction industry after BIM implementation. IJEMR. 2020:2250. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lee S., Cha Y., Han S., Hyun C. Application of association rule mining and social network analysis for understanding causality of construction defects. Sustainability. 2019;11:618. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lee C., Choy K.L., Ho G.T., Chin K.S., Law K.M., Tse Y.K. A hybrid OLAP-association rule mining based quality management system for extracting defect patterns in the garment industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013;40:2435–2446. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Verma A., Khan S.D., Maiti J., Krishna O. Identifying patterns of safety related incidents in a steel plant using association rule mining of incident investigation reports. Saf. Sci. 2014;70:89–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wang Z., Hu X., Chen Z. International Conference on Transportation Engineering. 2007. Mining association rules on data of crane health-condition monitoring; pp. 2054–2059. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tong R., Zhao H., Zhang N., Li H., Wang X., Yang H. Modified accident causation model for highway construction accidents (ACM-HC) Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 2020 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Song K., Lee K. Predictability-based collective class association rule mining. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017;79:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhou Y., Li C., Ding L., Sekula P., Love P.E., Zhou C. Combining association rules mining with complex networks to monitor coupled risks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. 2019;186:194–208. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Agrawal R., Srikant R. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. Proc. 20th int. conf. very large data bases, VLDB. 1994;1215:487–499. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Raj S., Ramesh D., Sethi K.K. A Spark-based Apriori algorithm with reduced shuffle overhead. J. Supercomput. 2021;77:133–151. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liu X., Zhao Y., Sun M. An improved apriori algorithm based on an evolution-communication tissue-like P system with promoters and inhibitors. DDNS. 2017;2017 [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jeeva S.C., Rajsingh E.B. Intelligent phishing url detection using association rule mining. HCIS. 2016;6:1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Raj S., Ramesh D., Sreenu M., Sethi K.K. EAFIM: efficient apriori-based frequent itemset mining algorithm on Spark for big transactional data. KAIS. 2020;62:3565–3583. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Han J., Pei J., Kamber M. Elsevier; 2011. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hussein N., Alashqur A., Sowan B. Using the interestingness measure lift to generate association rules. IJACST. 2015;4:156. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Guo Y., Wang M., Li X. Application of an improved Apriori algorithm in a mobile e-commerce recommendation system. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017 [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Keogh E., Kasetty S. On the need for time series data mining benchmarks: a survey and empirical demonstration. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2003;7:349–371. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tam C., Zeng S., Deng Z. Identifying elements of poor construction safety management in China. Saf. Sci. 2004;42:569–586. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ayob A., Shaari A., Zaki M., Munaaim M. Fatal occupational injuries in the Malaysian construction sector–causes and accidental agents. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018;140 [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hamid A., et al. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vol. 220. 2019. Causes of fatal construction accidents in Malaysia. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ahmed S., Sobuz M.H.R., Haque M.I. 4th International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development. ICCESD 2018); 2018. Accidents on construction sites in Bangladesh: a review; pp. 9–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hu K., Rahmandad H., SmithJackson T., Winchester W. Factors influencing the risk of falls in the construction industry: a review of the evidence. Construct. Manag. Econ. 2011;29:397–416. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chi C.F., Chang T.C., Ting H.I. Accident patterns and prevention measures for fatal occupational falls in the construction industry. Appl. Ergon. 2005;36:391–400. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2004.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mosly I. Safety performance in the construction industry of Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2015;4:238–247. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1838774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Isnin Z., Ahmad S.S. Challenges and the way forward for building materials management in building adaptation projects. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012;488:274–278. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Weeks J.L. Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety; 1998. Health and Safety Hazards in the Construction Industry. International Labour Office; pp. 931–9352. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wong L., Wang Y., Law T., Lo C.T. Association of root causes in fatal fall-from-height construction accidents in Hong Kong. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2016;142 [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Huang X., Hinze J. Analysis of construction worker fall accidents. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2003;129:262–271. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chan A.P., et al. Work at height fatalities in the repair, maintenance, alteration, and addition works. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2008;134:527–535. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ling F.Y.Y., Liu M., Woo Y.C. Construction fatalities in Singapore. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006;27:717–726. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.O'Reilly M., Olomolaiye P., Tyler A., Orr T. Issues of health and safety in the Irish construction industry: the frequencies of fatalities in the construction industry tends to be higher than almost any other sector of Irish industry save agriculture. The introduction of domestic legislation and European community legislation has improved the working environment but occupational accidents are still regarded as a major problem. Build. Res. Inf. 1994;22:247–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hinze J., Russell D.B. Analysis of fatalities recorded by OSHA. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 1995;121:209–214. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Rubio-Romero J.C., Rubio M., Garcia-Hernandez C. Analysis of construction equipment safety in temporary work at height. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2013;139:9–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chi S., Han S., Kim D.Y. Relationship between unsafe working conditions and workers' behavior and impact of working conditions on injury severity in US construction industry. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2013;139:826–838. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cheng C.W., Leu S.S., Cheng Y.M., Wu T.C., Lin C.C. Applying data mining techniques to explore factors contributing to occupational injuries in Taiwan's construction industry. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012;48:214–222. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Abdelhamid T.S., Everett J.G. Identifying root causes of construction accidents. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2000;126:52–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hinze J., Olbina S., Orozco J., Beaumont K. Earthmoving equipment fatalities in the construction industry. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. 2017;22 [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Neitzel R.L., Seixas N.S., Ren K.K. A review of crane safety in the construction industry. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2001;16:1106–1117. doi: 10.1080/10473220127411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kay J.A., Mazur D.C. Hidden hazard—identifying, understanding, and preventing combustible dust explosions in forest industry facilities. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2020;56:3337–3349. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Rana S., Goswami P. Hazard associated with construction sites in India and various techniques for preventing accidents due to fall from height. Res. Pract. Fall Inj. Control Workplace. 1996;l:188–191. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Isnin Z., Ahmad S.S., Yahya Z. Lessons learned from exposure to building materials. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013;85:128–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.MacFarlane E., Benke K., Keegel T. 2012. Chemical Exposure and the Provision of Chemical Exposure Control Measures in Australian Workplaces. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Rubio-Romero J.C., Gamez M.C.R., Carrillo-Castrillo J.A. Analysis of the safety conditions of scaffolding on construction sites. Saf. Sci. 2013;55:160–164. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bentley T.A., et al. Investigating risk factors for slips, trips and falls in New Zealand residential construction using incident-centred and incident-independent methods. Ergonomics. 2006;49:62–77. doi: 10.1080/00140130612331392236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Buskin S.E., Paulozzi L.J. Fatal injuries in the construction industry in Washington State. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1987;11:453–460. doi: 10.1002/ajim.4700110408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Faergemann C., Larsen L.B. Non-occupational ladder and scaffold fall injuries. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2000;32:745–750. doi: 10.1016/s0001-4575(99)00124-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Halperin K.M., McCann M. An evaluation of scaffold safety at construction sites. J. Saf. Res. 2004;35:141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Zhang M., Fang D. A cognitive analysis of why Chinese scaffolders do not use safety harnesses in construction. Construct. Manag. Econ. 2013;31:207–222. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Schoenfisch A., Lipscomb H., Cameron W., Adams D., Silverstein B. Rates of and circumstances surrounding work-related falls from height among union drywall carpenters in Washington State, 1989–2008. J. Saf. Res. 2014;51:117–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2014.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hamid A.R.A., Majid M.Z.A., Singh B. Causes of accidents at construction sites. Malays. J. Civ. Eng. 2008;20 [Google Scholar]
  • 72.PLT W.A. Construction safety net. 2021. https://wnragro.com/construction-safety-net/ accessed.
  • 73.Jannadi M.O., Al-Isa H.A. Vol. 40. Professional Safety; 1995. Effective Industrial Housekeeping: the Supervisor's Role; p. 30. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Hsiao H., Simeonov P. Preventing falls from roofs: a critical review. Ergonomics. 2001;44:537–561. doi: 10.1080/00140130110034480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Nadhim E.A., Hon C., Xia B., Stewart I., Fang D. Falls from height in the construction industry: a critical review of the scientific literature. IJERPH. 2016;13:638. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13070638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Cakan H., Kazan E., Usmen M. Investigation of factors contributing to fatal and nonfatal roofer fall accidents. Int. J. Constr. Educ. 2014;10:300–317. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Guo S., He J., Li J., Tang B. Exploring the impact of unsafe behaviors on building construction accidents using a Bayesian network. IJERPH. 2020;17:221. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Ali A., Kamaruzzaman S., Sing G. Editorial Board/Sidang Editor; 2010. A Study on Causes of Accident and Prevention in Malaysian Construction Industry. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Murty O., Chung B., Yin L., Loo T., Nurul I. Pattern of injuries in fatal accidents of construction workers: a retrospective study of 10 years (1996-2005) The Malays. J. Foren. Pathol. Sci. 2006;44 [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Aksorn T., Hadikusumo B. The unsafe acts and the decision-to-err factors of Thai construction workers. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. (JCDC) 2007;12:1–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Lestari R.I., Guo B.H., Goh Y.M. Causes, solutions, and adoption barriers of falls from roofs in the Singapore construction industry. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2019;145 [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Bajpayee T., Rehak T., Mowrey G., Ingram D. Blasting injuries in surface mining with emphasis on flyrock and blast area security. J. Saf. Res. 2004;35:47–57. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Toole T.M. Construction site safety roles. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2002;128:203–210. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Lubega H., Kiggundu B., Tindiwensi D. Proceeding of CSIR Building & Construction Technology, 2nd International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries. 2000. An investigation into the causes of accidents in the construction industry in Uganda. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Aksorn T., Hadikusumo B.H. Critical success factors influencing safety program performance in Thai construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2008;46:709–727. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Jiang Z., Fang D., Zhang M. Understanding the causation of construction workers' unsafe behaviors based on system dynamics modeling. J. Manag. Eng. 2015;31 [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Choudhry R.M., Fang D., Mohamed S. The nature of safety culture: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Saf. Sci. 2007;45:993–1012. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Rafindadi A.D., et al. Analysis of the causes and preventive measures of fatal fall-related accidents in the construction industry. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022;13 [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Addition and retention of authorship
mmc1.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES