Volume 6, Issue 1 (2018)
Health Educ Health Promot 2018, 6(1): 17-21 |
Back to browse issues page
1- Occupational Health Department, Public Health School, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
2- Occupational Health Department, Public Health School, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran, sabzevar
3- Occupational Health Department, Public Health School, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran , faezehabasi72@yahoo.com
2- Occupational Health Department, Public Health School, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran, sabzevar
3- Occupational Health Department, Public Health School, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran , faezehabasi72@yahoo.com
Abstract: (7084 Views)
Aims: Since the occurrence of hazards in the steel industry has often been multiple and complex, the aim of this study was to identify the risk assessment in this industry in order to study the roots and realities of the risks and the causes of their occurrence, as well as to find solutions to reduce these risks.
Instruments & Methods: This descriptive-analytical research was conducted in the cement industry in Khorasan Razavi in 2017. FMEA and AHP methods were used to determine the most important safety hazards. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) was obtained from the multiplication of 3 factors including severity, probability of occurrence, and probability of discovery. Risk tolerance was used for the acceptable and unacceptable risks in the FMEA method.
Findings: The fluctuation of the flange and its breakage due to excessive water pressure in the furnace and lack of lighting for installation of the equipment in the furnace had a high risk. In the AHP method, the risk of breaking the flange was due to excessive water pressure in the furnace and lack of lighting to install the equipment in the furnace, which had a higher weight than the other hazards.
Conclusion: Although in the developing countries, the use of risk analysis methods with a preventive approach is not common, these problems have been resolved by communicating with the industry by recent studies.
It also emphasizes the use of decision-making methods to minimize the impact of judgments on risk assessment.
Instruments & Methods: This descriptive-analytical research was conducted in the cement industry in Khorasan Razavi in 2017. FMEA and AHP methods were used to determine the most important safety hazards. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) was obtained from the multiplication of 3 factors including severity, probability of occurrence, and probability of discovery. Risk tolerance was used for the acceptable and unacceptable risks in the FMEA method.
Findings: The fluctuation of the flange and its breakage due to excessive water pressure in the furnace and lack of lighting for installation of the equipment in the furnace had a high risk. In the AHP method, the risk of breaking the flange was due to excessive water pressure in the furnace and lack of lighting to install the equipment in the furnace, which had a higher weight than the other hazards.
Conclusion: Although in the developing countries, the use of risk analysis methods with a preventive approach is not common, these problems have been resolved by communicating with the industry by recent studies.
It also emphasizes the use of decision-making methods to minimize the impact of judgments on risk assessment.
Article Type: Original Article |
Subject:
Health Communication
Received: 2017/08/30 | Accepted: 2017/12/1 | Published: 2018/02/1
Received: 2017/08/30 | Accepted: 2017/12/1 | Published: 2018/02/1
References
1. Hola B. General model of accident rate growth in the construction industry. J Civil Eng Manag. 2007;13:255-64. [Link]
2. Kawakami T. Human ergology that promotes participatory approach to improving safety, health and working conditions at grassroots workplaces: Achievements and actions. J Hum Ergol. 2011;40:95-100. [Link]
3. Khan FI, Abbasi SA. TORAP- a new tool for conducting rapid risk-assessments in petroleum refineries and petrochemical industries. Appl Energy. 2000;65(1-4):187-210. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00078-1]
4. Rezvani Z, Gholami M. Identifying analysis of occupational hazards in a milk company. First National Conference on Safety Engineering and Management HSE. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology; 2005. [Persian] [Link]
5. Chi CF, Yang ChCh, Chen ZhL. In-depth accident analysis of electrical fatalities in the construction industry. Inte J of Ind Ergon. 2009;39(4):635-44. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.12.003]
6. Asadi A. The investigation hazards make accidents in an oil refining company. First Symposium of Occupational Health and Safety in Oil Refining Companies. Tehran: Oil Refining Compani; 2004. [Persian] [Link]
7. Liu HT, Tsai YL. Fuzzy risk assessment approach for occupational hazards in the construction industry. Saf Scie. 2012,50(4):1067-78. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.021]
8. Crossly B, Williams R. Environmental assessment: Marine fuel storage/distribution and biodiesel production facility, Kooragang Island/prepared by Umwelt (Australia). Toronto, N.S.W.: Umwelt (Australia) Pty. Limited, 2008. [Link]
9. Ebrahimzadeh M, Halvani GH, Mortazavi M, Soltani R. Assessment of potential hazards by failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA) method in Shiraz oil refinery. Occup Med Q J. 2011;3(2):16-23. [Link]
10. Oldenhof MT, Van Leeuwen JF, Nauta MJ, De Kaste D, Odekerken-Rombouts Y, Vredenbregt MJ. Consistency of FMEA used in the validation of analytical procedures. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2011;54(3):592-5. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jpba.2010.09.024]
11. Xiao N, Huang HZ, Li Y, He L, Jin T. Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Eng Fai Ana. 2011;18(4):1162-70. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.02.004]
12. Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P. Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modeling. Inte J of Qual Reliab Manag. 2005;22(9):986-1004. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/02656710510625248]
13. Ale BJM, Bellamy LJ, Baksteen H, Damen M, Goossens LHJ, Hale AR, et al. Accidents in the construction industry in the Netherlands: An analysis of accident reports using storybuilder. Reliab Eng Sys Saf. 2008;93(10):1523-33. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2007.09.004]
14. Vidal LA, Marle F, Bocquet JC. Using a delphi process and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(5):5388-405. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.016]
15. Nouri J, Omidvari M, Tehrani MS. Risk assessment and crisis management in gas stations. Int J Environ Res. 2010;4(1):143-52 [Link]
16. Alimohammadi I, Adl J. The comparison of safety level in kilns in two gypsum production factories by failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Iran Occup Health J. 2008;1&2(5);77-83. [Link]
17. Guimaraes ACF, Lapa CMF. Fuzzy inference to risk assessment on nuclear engineering systems. Appl Soft Comput. 2007;7(1):17-28. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.asoc.2005.06.002]
18. Kerketta S, Dash PK, Narayan, LT. Work zone noise levels at Aarti steel plant, Orissa and its attenuation in far field. J Environ Biol. 2009;30(5 Suppl):903-8. [Link]
19. Jozi SA, Ka'bZadeh Sh, Irankhahi M. Safety, health and environmental risk assessment and management of Ahwaz pipe manufacturing company via "William Fine" method. J Ilam Med Sci. 2010;18(1):1-8. [Persian] [Link]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |