Volume 8, Issue 4 (Winter 2022)
johe 2022, 8(4): 59-68 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Akhtar T, Yeganeh R, Damiri Z. Identification and assessment of Human Error in Cabin Roofed Crane Using SHERPA and SPAR-H Techniques. johe 2022; 8 (4) : 7
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-679-en.html
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-679-en.html
1- Safety Expert, Technical and Support Services Unit, Hormozgan Steel Company, Bandar Abbas, Iran
2- Department of in Occupational Safety and Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran ,zabiolah.damiri@gmail.com
2- Department of in Occupational Safety and Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran ,
Abstract: (3776 Views)
Introduction: Human errors play a significant role in the occurrence of industrial accidents. This study aims to investigate the human errors in cabin roof crane operators of a metal industry using SHERPA and SPAR-H techniques.
Material and Method: In this research, first, all of the tasks of the tower crane operator were identified and analyzed. Then, adopting SHERPA technique, probable operator errors were identified in each task and the control modes and error probability were determined by and SPAR-H technique.
Results: Analysis of SHERPA worksheets showed that a total of 217 errors were identified, of which 41% were functional, 21% review, 13% recovery, 15% communication and 10% selective. . According to the results of risk assessment, 38% of errors at the level of risk are unacceptable, 26% are undesirable, 14% are acceptable but need to be reconsidered and 22% are acceptable without the need for reconsideration. H The highest probability of error was related to the three sub-tasks of longitudinal motion, transverse motion, and high and low motion (0.3712). The lowest probability of error was below the task of recording shift reports and transmitting information orally and in writing (0.001).
Conclusion: the highest type of error detected is the functional type and the highest probability of error in cargo handling along the route (0.3712) and in this regard to reduce the error, the necessary corrective measures to improve The work process and the reduction of human error were made available to the personnel of the crane unit
Material and Method: In this research, first, all of the tasks of the tower crane operator were identified and analyzed. Then, adopting SHERPA technique, probable operator errors were identified in each task and the control modes and error probability were determined by and SPAR-H technique.
Results: Analysis of SHERPA worksheets showed that a total of 217 errors were identified, of which 41% were functional, 21% review, 13% recovery, 15% communication and 10% selective. . According to the results of risk assessment, 38% of errors at the level of risk are unacceptable, 26% are undesirable, 14% are acceptable but need to be reconsidered and 22% are acceptable without the need for reconsideration. H The highest probability of error was related to the three sub-tasks of longitudinal motion, transverse motion, and high and low motion (0.3712). The lowest probability of error was below the task of recording shift reports and transmitting information orally and in writing (0.001).
Conclusion: the highest type of error detected is the functional type and the highest probability of error in cargo handling along the route (0.3712) and in this regard to reduce the error, the necessary corrective measures to improve The work process and the reduction of human error were made available to the personnel of the crane unit
Article number: 7
Type of Study: Research Article |
Subject:
Safety
References
1. Hollnagel EJC, control. Human reliability analysis. 1993.
2. Mahdavi S, Farsani E, Taajvar AJJHSW. Identification and assessment of human error due to design in petroleum refinery sour water equipment damage by SHERPA. JHSW. 2013;2(4):61-70.
3. Zare A, Yazdani Rad S, Dehghani F, Omidi F, Mohammadfam IJH, Work Sa. Assessment and analysis of studies related human error in Iran: A systematic review. JHSW. 2017;7(3):267-78.
4. Jahangiri M, Hoboubi N, Rostamabadi A, Keshavarzi S, Hosseini AA. Human error analysis in a permit to work system: a case study in a chemical plant. Saf Heal Wo. 2016;7(1):6-11. [DOI]
5. Petersen DC. Human Error Reduction And Safety Management. 1981;2210-2210.
6. Karwowski W. Accident Analysis and “Human Error”. Int Ency Ergon Hu Fac-3. CRC Press; 2006, 1937-40pp.
7. Dhillon BS. Human reliability, error, and human factors in engineering maintenance: with reference to aviation and power generation: CRC Press; 2009.
8. Liu H, Hwang S-L, Liu T-HJSs. Economic assessment of human errors in manufacturing environment. Saf Sci. 2009;47(2):170-82. [DOI]
9. Mandal S, Singh K, Behera R, Sahu S, Raj N, Maiti JJESwA. Human error identification and risk prioritization in overhead crane operations using HTA, SHERPA and fuzzy VIKOR method. Exp Sys Appl. 2015;42(20):7195-206. [DOI]
10. Salmon P, Stanton N, Baber C, Walker G, Green DJHFIDTR. Human factors design and evaluation methods review. 2004. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/368316/1/__soton.ac.uk_ude_personalfiles_users_jr1d11_mydesktop_ePrints_hf-design-methods-review.pdf
11. Mirzaei aliabadi M, Mohammad fam I, Karimi S. Identification and assessment of human errors in blasting operations in Iron Ore Mine using SHERA technique. J Occupa Hyg Eng. 2015;2(1):57-65.
12. Karimi S, Aliabadi MM, Eskandari T, Rostami M, Shendi A, Kolahdouzi M, et al. Evaluation of Human Error in Mining Operations Using a Technique for Human Event Analysis. JOHE. 2018;2018:44-52. [DOI]
13. Stanton N, Salmon PM, Rafferty LA. Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.; 2013. [DOI]
14. Kirwan B. A guide to practical human reliability assessment: CRC press; 1994.
15. Sands G, Fallon EF, van der Putten WJ. The utilisation of probabilistic risk assessment in radiation oncology. Proce Manu. 2015;3:250-7. [DOI]
16. Gertman DI, Blackman HS. Human reliability and safety analysis data handbook: John Wiley & Sons; 1993.
17. Walsh T, Beatty PC. Human factors error and patient monitoring. Phys Measu. 2002;23(3):R111. [DOI]
18. Mahdavi S, Farsani EH, Taajvar A. Identification and assessment of human error due to design in petroleum refinery sour water equipment damage by SHERPA. J Health Saf Work. 2013;2(4):61-70.
19. Tanha F, Mazloumi A, Faraji V, Kazemi Z, Shoghi MJJoH. Evaluation of human errors using standardized plant analysis risk human reliability analysis technique among delivery emergency nurses in a hospital affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences. HOSPITAL. 2015;14(3):57-66.
20. Rasouli kahaki Z, Tahernejad S, Rasekh R, Jahangiri M. Evaluation of Human Reliability by Standardized Plant Analysis Risk HRA (SPAR-H) method in the Dialysis Process in Ibn Sina Hospital, Shiraz. J Ergono. 2019;7(3):44-56. [DOI]
21. Borgheipour H, Monazami Tehrani G, Madadi S, Mohammadfam I. Identification and assessment of human errors among tower crane operators using SHERPA and CREAM techniques. J Heal Saf Wo. 2020;10(1):12-23.
22. Embrey D, editor SHERPA: A systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Proceedings of the international topical meeting on advances in human factors in nuclear power systems; 1986.https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:18074340
23. Tatiya RR. Elements of industrial hazards: health, safety, environment and loss prevention: CRC Press; 2010.
24. Blackman HS, Gertman DI, Boring RL, editors. Human error quantification using performance shaping factors in the SPAR-H method. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting; SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA. 2008; 52(21):77-84. [DOI]
25. Whaley AM, Kelly DL, Boring RL, Galyean WJ. SPAR-H step-by-step guidance. Idaho National Laboratory (INL), 2012.
26. Van De Merwe K, Hogenboom S, Rasmussen M, Laumann K, Gould KJSE, Management. Human-reliability analysis for the petroleum industry: lessons learned from applying SPAR-H. SPE Econo Manag. 2014;6(04):159-64. [DOI]
27. Mortazavi S, Mahdavi S, Asilian H, Arghami S, Gholamnia R. Identification and assessment of human errors in srp unit of control room of tehran oil refinery using heist technique. Ker Univ Med Sci. 2008;12(3):e79969.
28. Eyvazlou M, Dadashpour Ahangar A, Rahimi A, Davarpanah MR, Sayyahi SS, Mohebali MJIjoos, et al. Human reliability assessment in a 99Mo/99mTc generator production facility using the standardized plant analysis risk-human (SPAR-H) technique. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019;25(2):321-30. [DOI]
29. Ghalenoei M, Asilian H, Mortazavi S, Varmazyar S. Human erroranalysis among petrochemical plant control room operators with human errorassessment and reduction technique. Ir Occupa Heal J. 2009;6(2):38-50.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s).
Owned by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences.
Published by UMSHA Press
Journal Tel: +9881 38380090
Publisher Tel: +988138380548
Website: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir
Email: johe[at]umsha.ac.ir
