'Paleontological Institute at The University of Kansas'
Abstract
Every year approximately 120 workers die in work zones, with approximately 60 percent of them as a result of intrusion accidents. Temporary work zones have a critical safety gap due to the expense and time needed to deploy positive protection systems, allowing intrusions to occur more easily. In order to help address this gap, the two safety perimeter systems currently on the market, the Intellicone and the SonoBlaster, were evaluated for their applicability for temporary work zones in Kansas. The SonoBlaster is entirely mechanical, channelizer-mounted and produces an air-horn-like alarm when tipped over. The Intellicone is electronic, with sensors mounted on channelizers, which transmit a warning signal to a site alarm that produces an electronic auditory and visual alarm. Testing was conducted in two phases: closed-course testing and field testing. Closed-course testing evaluated the operational parameters of both systems, especially their alarm sound levels and sound distribution. The Intellicone was found to be relatively quieter, but more consistent in alarm sound level, while the SonoBlaster was found to be relatively louder, but with much greater variation. The activation angles for both systems were also tested, as well as the transmission distance and battery life of the Intellicone system. Field testing was conducted at four active work zones, ranging from local roads to an interstate highway. Both systems were deployed at each location and set off, allowing workers to experience alarm activations as if intrusion accidents had occurred. Following testing at each location, an oral survey was administered to the workers regarding their opinions on each system's effectiveness, suitability, and safety benefits. The majority of workers felt both safety perimeter systems were good and would be useful in helping address safety concerns from intrusion accidents. However, the sound volumes were perceived to be too low, with the Intellicone being too quiet and the SonoBlaster's sound being localized too far from where work was actually occurring in the work zone. Both systems showed great promise, as well as having worker acceptance. There were some minor difficulties: system setup was more difficult for the SonoBlaster, while the Intellicone had a few technical glitches. However, this research demonstrated that such safety perimeter systems have great potential to be successfully deployed to increase worker safety
