Climatic heat stress leads to accidents on construction sites brought about by a range of human factors emanating from heat induced illness, and fatigue leading to impaired capability, physical and mental. It is an occupational characteristic of construction work in many climates and the authors take the approach of re-engineering the whole safety management system rather than focusing on incremental improvement, which is current management practice in the construction industry. From a scientific viewpoint, climatic heat stress is determined by six key factors: (1) air temperature, (2) humidity, (3) radiant heat, and (4) wind speed indicating the environment, (5) metabolic heat generated by physical activities, and (6) “clothing effect” that moderates the heat exchange between the body and the environment. By making use of existing heat stress indices and heat stress management processes, heat stress risk on construction sites can be managed in three ways: (1) control of environmental heat stress exposure through use of an action-triggering threshold system, (2) control of continuous work time (CWT, referred by maximum allowable exposure duration) with mandatory work-rest regimens, and (3) enabling self-paced working through empowerment of employees. Existing heat stress practices and methodologies are critically reviewed and the authors propose a three-level methodology for an action-triggering, localized, simplified threshold system to facilitate effective decisions by frontline supervisors. The authors point out the need for “regional based” heat stress management practices that reflect unique climatic conditions, working practices and acclimatization propensity by local workers indifferent geographic regions. The authors set out the case for regional, rather than international, standards that account for this uniqueness and which are derived from site-based rather than laboratory-based research. 相似文献
Owing to the rapidly increasing importance of pellets as high-quality biomass fuel in Austria and Europe within the last years, many companies, mainly from the wood industry, are thinking of entering this market. The calculation of the production costs before starting a pellet plant is essential for an economic operation. Based on comprehensive investigations within the EU-ALTENER project “An Integrated European Market for Densified Biomass Fuels” calculations of the pellet production costs loco factory for different framework conditions with basic data based on already realised plants as well as a questionnaire survey of pellet producers in Austria, South Tyrol and Sweden have been performed.
The production costs for wood pellets are mainly influenced by the raw material costs and, in the case of using wet raw materials, by the drying costs. Depending on the framework conditions these two parameters can contribute up to one-third of the total pellet production costs. Other important parameters influencing the pellet production costs are the plant utilisation (number of shifts per week) as well as the availability of the plant. For an economic production of wood pellets at least three shifts per day at 5 days per week are necessary. An optimum would be an operation at 7 days per week. A low plant availability also leads to greatly increased pellet production costs. A plant availability of 85–90% should therefore be achieved.
The calculations show that a wood pellet production is possible both in small-scale (production rates of some hundred tonnes per year) as well as in large-scale plants (some ten thousand tonnes per year). However, especially for small-scale units it is very important to take care of the specific framework conditions of the producer, because the risk of a non-economic pellet production is considerably higher than for large-scale systems.
The direct comparison of typical pellet production costs in Austria and Sweden showed the Swedish pellet production costs to be considerably lower due to larger plant capacities, the combination of pellet production and biomass CHP or biomass district heating plants and the implementation of technologies which allow an efficient heat recovery from the dryers. Moreover, another difference between the Austrian and the Swedish framework conditions is the price of electricity, which is much lower in Sweden. 相似文献