Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Human Error Probability Assessment During Maintenance Activities of Marine Systems

  • Islam, Rabiul (National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics (NCMEH), Australian Maritime College (AMC), University of Tasmania) ;
  • Khan, Faisal (National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics (NCMEH), Australian Maritime College (AMC), University of Tasmania) ;
  • Abbassi, Rouzbeh (National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics (NCMEH), Australian Maritime College (AMC), University of Tasmania) ;
  • Garaniya, Vikram (National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics (NCMEH), Australian Maritime College (AMC), University of Tasmania)
  • Received : 2017.04.05
  • Accepted : 2017.06.19
  • Published : 2018.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Maintenance operations on-board ships are highly demanding. Maintenance operations are intensive activities requiring high man-machine interactions in challenging and evolving conditions. The evolving conditions are weather conditions, workplace temperature, ship motion, noise and vibration, and workload and stress. For example, extreme weather condition affects seafarers' performance, increasing the chances of error, and, consequently, can cause injuries or fatalities to personnel. An effective human error probability model is required to better manage maintenance on-board ships. The developed model would assist in developing and maintaining effective risk management protocols. Thus, the objective of this study is to develop a human error probability model considering various internal and external factors affecting seafarers' performance. Methods: The human error probability model is developed using probability theory applied to Bayesian network. The model is tested using the data received through the developed questionnaire survey of >200 experienced seafarers with >5 years of experience. The model developed in this study is used to find out the reliability of human performance on particular maintenance activities. Results: The developed methodology is tested on the maintenance of marine engine's cooling water pump for engine department and anchor windlass for deck department. In the considered case studies, human error probabilities are estimated in various scenarios and the results are compared between the scenarios and the different seafarer categories. The results of the case studies for both departments are also compared. Conclusion: The developed model is effective in assessing human error probabilities. These probabilities would get dynamically updated as and when new information is available on changes in either internal (i.e., training, experience, and fatigue) or external (i.e., environmental and operational conditions such as weather conditions, workplace temperature, ship motion, noise and vibration, and workload and stress) factors.

Keywords

References

  1. Dobie G. Safety and shipping review 2015 [Internet]. Munich (Germany): Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty. 2015 [cited 2016 Nov 24]. Available from: http://www.agcs.allianz.com/assets/PDFs/Reports/Shipping-Review-2015.pdf.
  2. Fotland H. Human error: a fragile chain of contributing elements. In: The International Maritime Human Element Bulletin No. 3, 2004. p. 2-3.
  3. Islam R, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan FI. Determination of human error probabilities for the maintenance operations of marine engines. J Ship Prod Des 2016;32:1-9.
  4. Hystad SW, Eid J. Sleep and fatigue among seafarers: the role of environmental stressors, duration at sea and psychological capital. Saf Health Work 2016;7:363-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2016.05.006
  5. Islam R, Yu H, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan F. Development of a monograph for human error likelihood assessment in marine operations. Saf Sci 2017;91:33-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.008
  6. Dhillon B. Human reliability and error in transportation systems. London (UK): Springer; 2007. p. 91-103.
  7. Khan FI, Amyotte PR, DiMattia DG. HEPI: a new tool for human error probability calculation for offshore operation. Saf Sci 2006;44:313-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.10.008
  8. Deacon T, Amyotte P, Khan F, MacKinnon S. A framework for human error analysis of offshore evacuations. Saf Sci 2013;51:319-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.07.005
  9. Dhillon BS. Human reliability with human factors. Oxford (UK): Pergamon Press; 1986. 239 p.
  10. Noroozi A, Khakzad N, Khan F, MacKinnon S, Abbassi R. The role of human error in risk analysis: application to pre-and post-maintenance procedures of process facilities. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2013;119:251-8.
  11. Abbassi R, Khan F, Garaniya V, Chai S, Chin C, Hossain KA. An integrated method for human error probability assessment during the maintenance of offshore facilities. Process Saf Environ Prot 2015;94:172-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2015.01.010
  12. Hoboubi N, Choobineh A, Ghanavati FK, Keshavarzi S, Hosseini AA. The impact of job stress and job satisfaction on workforce productivity in an Iranian petrochemical industry. Saf Health Work 2017;8:67-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2016.07.002
  13. International Maritime Organization (IMO). Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process [Internet]. London (UK): International Maritime Organization. 2002 [cited 2016 Dec 31]. Available from: http://www.safedor.org/resources/1023-MEPC392.pdf.
  14. Swain AD, Guttmann HE. Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report. Livermore (CA): Sandia National Laboratory; August 12, 1983. Report No.: NUREG/CR-1278.
  15. Kirwan B. A guide to practical human reliability assessment. London (UK): Taylor & Francis; 1994.
  16. Williams J. HEARTda proposed method for assessing and reducing human error. In: 9th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium, 2-4 April. Bradford, UK: University of Bradford; 1986. Report No.: B3/R/1-B3/R/13.
  17. Jae MS, Park CK. A new dynamic HRA method and its application. J Korean Nucl Soc 1995;27:292-300.
  18. Musharraf M, Hassan J, Khan F, Veitch B, MacKinnon S, Imtiaz S. Human reliability assessment during offshore emergency conditions. Saf Sci 2013;59:19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.04.001
  19. Noroozi A, Abbassi R, MacKinnon S, Khan F, Khakzad N. Effects of cold environments on human reliability assessment in offshore oil and gas facilities. Hum Factors Ergon Soc 2014;56:825-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813512328
  20. Heckerman D, Geiger D, Chickering DM. Learning Bayesian networks: the combination of knowledge and statistical data. Mach Learn 1995;20:197-243.
  21. Groth K, Mosleh A. Development and use of a Bayesian network to estimate human error probability [Internet]. Wilmington, NC: American Nuclear Society. 2011 [cited 2016 Dec 15]. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4-46/f40eca9720ab72d5f42bfb3d47497fc5bd6c.pdf.
  22. Mu L, Xiao B, Xue W, Yuan Z. The prediction of human error probability based on Bayesian networks in the process of task [Internet]. Singapore (Singapore): IEEE. 2015 [cited 2016 Dec 15]. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7385625.
  23. Pearl J. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann; 2014.
  24. Abaei MM, Arzaghi E, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Penesis I. Developing a novel risk-based methodology for multi-criteria decision making in marine renewable energy applications. Renew Energy 2017;102:341-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.054
  25. Abbassi R, Bhandari J, Khan F, Garaniya V, Chai S. Developing a quantitative risk-based methodology for maintenance scheduling using Bayesian network. Chem Eng Trans 2016;48:235-40.
  26. Yeo C, Bhandari J, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Chai S, Shomali B. Dynamic risk analysis of offloading process in floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) platform using Bayesian network. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016;41:259-69.
  27. Bhandari J, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan F. Risk analysis of deepwater drilling operations using Bayesian network. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2015;38:11-23.
  28. Bhandari J, Arzaghi E, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan F. Dynamic risk-based maintenance for offshore processing facility. Process Saf Prog 2016;35:399-406. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.11829
  29. Kraaijeveld P, Druzdzel M, Onisko A, Wasyluk H. Genierate: an interactive generator of diagnostic Bayesian network models [Internet]. Monterey (CA): Citeseer. 2005 [cited 2016 Nov 20]. Available from: http://www.pitt.edu/wdruzdzel/psfiles/dx05.pdf.
  30. Colwell J. Modeling ship motion effects on human performance for real time simulation. Naval Eng J 2005;117:77-90.
  31. Matsangas P, McCauley ME, Gehl G, Kiser J, Bandstra A, Blankenship J, Pierce E. Motion-induced interruptions and postural equilibrium in linear lateral accelerations. Ergonomics 2014;57:679-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.897373
  32. Driskell JE, Salas E. Stress and human performance. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbum Associates, Inc; 2013.
  33. Hancock P. The limitation of human performance in extreme heat conditions [Internet]. LosAngeles (CA): Sage Publications. 1981 [cited 2016Dec 10].Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107118138102500119.
  34. Irgens-Hansen K, Gundersen H, Sunde E, Baste V, Harris A, Bratveit M, Moen BE. Noise exposure and cognitive performance: a study on personnel on board Royal Norwegian Navy vessels. Noise Health 2015;17:320-7.
  35. Lundh M, Lutzhoft M, Rydstedt L, Dahlman J. Working conditions in the engine departmentda qualitative study among engine room personnel on board Swedish merchant ships. Appl Ergon 2011;42:384-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.009

Cited by

  1. Risk Analysis of Oilfield Gathering Station vol.38, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.11989
  2. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Using Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human (SPAR-H) and Bayesian Network (BN) for Pipeline Inspection Gauges (PIG) Operation: A Case Study in a Gas Transmission Plan vol.8, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5812/jhealthscope.87148
  3. Climate change and Arctic shipping: A method for assessing the impacts of oil spills in the Arctic vol.77, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.05.009
  4. Process Safety Assessment Considering Multivariate Non-linear Dependence Among Process Variables vol.135, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.12.006
  5. Toward a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Method for Assessing Mishaps in Legacy Systems Using Mishap Reports vol.30, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2020.00772.x
  6. Misoperation monitoring and early warning during startup and shutdown of petrochemical units vol.67, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104265
  7. Dynamic logistics disruption risk model for offshore supply vessel operations in Arctic waters vol.2, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2021.100039
  8. A Human Reliability Analysis to Crankshaft Overhauling in Dry-Docking of a General Cargo Ship vol.235, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090220948338
  9. The Combination of Reliability and Predictive Tools to Determine Ship Engine Performance based on Condition Monitoring vol.698, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/698/1/012015
  10. A probabilistic model to estimate microbiologically influenced corrosion rate vol.148, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.02.006
  11. Electroencephalography (EEG) based cognitive measures for evaluating the effectiveness of operator training vol.150, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.03.050
  12. Identifying the Weaker Function Links in the Hazardous Chemicals Road Transportation System in China vol.18, pp.13, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137039
  13. Towards the Human-Machine Interaction: Strategies, Design, and Human Reliability Assessment of Crews’ Response to Daily Cargo Ship Navigation Tasks vol.13, pp.15, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158173
  14. Availability Analysis of Machining System with Common Cause Failure, Inspection and Imperfect Repair vol.91, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-020-00682-0
  15. Risk assessment of ship anchorage handling operations using the fuzzy bow-tie method vol.236, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109500
  16. A hybrid approach based on the HFACS-FBN for identifying and analysing human factors for fire and explosion accidents in the laboratory vol.75, pp.None, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104675