한국융합학회논문지 (Journal of the Korea Convergence Society)

  • 제12권5호
  • /
  • Pages.207-215
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2233-4890(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6353(eISSN)
한국융합학회 (Korea Convergence Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

소규모 사업장의 지게차 작업에 관한 휴먼에러 분석 사례 연구

A Case Study on the Human Error Analysis of Forklift Operations in a Small Enterprise

  • 하규철 (한국교통대학교 공정안전관리학과) ;
  • 박정철 (한국교통대학교 산업경영.안전공학부)
  • Ha, Gyu Cheol (Dept. of Process Safety Management, Korea National University of Transportation) ;
  • Park, Jungchul (School of Industrial Management and Safety Engineering, Korea National University of Transportation)
  • 투고 : 2021.02.17
  • 심사 : 2021.05.20
  • 발행 : 2021.05.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

지게차는 전동 포크를 이용해 화물을 적재하고 운반하는 용도로 사용되는 산업용 장비로, 지게차로 인한 산업재해는 지속적으로 빈발하고 있다. 이러한 재해의 대다수는 작업자의 불안전한 행동에 기인하는 것으로 알려져 있으나, 지게차 작업에 초점을 두고 휴먼에러 관점에서 위험을 분석한 연구는 찾아보기 어렵다. 또한, 작업의 휴먼에러 위험을 파악하고 분석하기 위한 다양한 기법들이 개발되어 왔으나, 기법 간에 효과성이나 장단점을 직접적으로 비교한 연구는 드물다. 본 연구는 대표적인 휴먼에러 분석 기법인 SHERPA와 HE-HAZOP을 이용하여 지게차 작업에서의 불안전한 행동과 관련된 위험 요인을 분석하고 두 기법의 장단점을 비교한다. 지게차 작업 중 '하차작업', '자재이동 및 적재작업', '상차작업'의 3가지 대표적 작업을 대상으로 분석을 수행한 결과, SHERPA에 의해 118건의 에러와 34건의 개선대책이 도출되었으며 HE-HAZOP를 통해 139건의 에러와 54건의 개선대책이 도출되었다. 휴먼에러 위험 분석의 결과를 바탕으로 두 기법을 결과 건수, 접근방법, 원인분석, 위험성 평가, 개선방안 도출 방식 등 다양한 측면에서 비교하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 지게차를 사용하는 사업장에서 휴먼에러와 관련된 재해 위험을 줄이는 데 활용될 수 있다. 대상 작업과 여건에 맞는 휴먼에러 분석 기법을 선정하기 위한 가이드를 제공하기 위해서는 향후 다양한 작업을 대상으로 보다 많은 휴먼에러 분석 기법에 대한 비교 연구가 필요할 것으로 보인다.

A forklift is an industrial vehicle with a power-operated fork for lifting and moving heavy loads over short distances. A significant number of accidents are caused by forklifts every year. Most of them are known to be caused by the unsafe acts of workers. However, only a few studies have focused on the risks of forklift work from the perspective of human error. In addition, various methods have been developed to analyze the risk of human error, while it is hard to find studies that directly compare the effectiveness or strengths/weaknesses of those methods. This study aims to analyze risk factors related to unsafe behavior in forklift operations using two representative human error analysis techniques, i.e., .SHERPA and HE-HAZOP, and compare their advantages and disadvantages. The analysis was performed on three main forklift operations ('unloading from the truck', 'moving and loading into the storage', and 'loading on the truck'). As a result, 118 errors and 34 remedial measures were derived by SHERPA. Through HAZOP, 139 errors and 54 measures were derived. The two techniques were compared in terms of the number of results and the method of deriving errors and remedial measures, cause analysis, and risk assessment. This study might be used to reduce human error related disasters in workplaces using forklifts. In order to provide a guide for choosing an appropriate analysis method, more comparative studies on different techniques involving wide range of tasks are needed in the future.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (2020). Statistics of Construction Machinery 2020.9.30.
  2. KOSHA. (2019). Forklift Work Safety Manual.
  3. KOSHA. (2019). Half reduction in industrial accident deaths - Forklift Work Safety.
  4. Dupont. (2011). Annual Safety Culture Report - The values-based safety process.
  5. T. E. McSween. (2003), The Values-Based Safety Process: Improving Your Safety Culture with Behavior-Based Safety, 2nd ed. Hoboken. New Jersey : Wiley.
  6. H. Kim. (2018). A Study on the Analysis of Causes of Forklift Accident and Improvement Safety. Master thesis. Jeju National University, Jeju.
  7. S. Saric, A. Bab-Hadiashar, R. Hoseinnezhad & I. Hocking. (2013). Analysis of forklift accident trends within Victorian industry (Australia). Safety Science, 60, 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.017
  8. N. A. Stanton, P. M. Salmon, L. A. Rafferty, G. H. Walker, C. Baber & D. P. Jenkins. (2013). Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design. Boca Raton. FL : CRC Press.
  9. KOSHA. (2017). Guide on SHERPA. KOSHA GUIDE X-72-2017.
  10. KOSHA. (2017). Guide on Human Error HAZOP. KOSHA GUIDE X-73-2017.
  11. W. C. Shin, H. S. Rhee & J. H. Park. (2013). Proposed Revision of Standard on Articles for Forklift Trucks in Manufacturing Industries. Journal of the Korean Society of Safety, 28(4), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2013.28.4.033
  12. S. Han. (2012). A Study on Safety Measures through Analyzing the Cause of Accidents in Forklift. Master thesis. Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul.
  13. J. Chae. (2013). A Study on Safety Improvement of Forklift Truck. Journal of the Korean Society of Safety, 28(4), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2013.28.4.091
  14. W. H. Seung. (2019). A Study on the Mapping of Contributing Factors of Forklift Truck Safety System through AcciMap. Master thesis. Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul.
  15. E. Lehtonen, P. Perttula, I. Maasalo, K. Reuna, H. Kannisto, V. Puro & M. Hirvonen. (2020). Learning game for improving forklift drivers' safety awareness. Cognition, Technology & Work, 1-11. DOI : 10.1007/s10111-020-00648-7.
  16. M. Choi, S. Ahn & J. Seo. (2020). VR-Based investigation of forklift operator situation awareness for preventing collision accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 136.
  17. K. N. Solman (2002). Analysis of interaction quality in human-machine systems: applications for forklifts. Applied Ergonomics 33(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(01)00052-7
  18. T. Horberry, T. J. Larsson, I. Johnston & J. Lambert. (2004). Forklift safety, traffic engineering and intelligent transport systems: a case study. Applied Ergonomics, 35(6), 575-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2004.05.004
  19. M. V. Fattor & M. G. A. Vieira. (2019). Application of human HAZOP technique adapted to identify risks in Brazilian waste pickers' cooperatives. Journal of Environmental Management, 246, 247-258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.128
  20. B. Ulutas & N. F. Ozkan. (2019). Assessing occupational risk factors for forklift drivers. Le Travail Humain 82(2), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.822.0129
  21. D. E. Embrey. (1986). SHERPA - A systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. In Paper presented at the National Topical Meeting on Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems.
  22. T. Kletz (2006). Hazop and Hazan, 4th ed. Taylor & Francis.
  23. B. Kirwan & L. K. Ainsworth. (1992). A Guide to Task Analysis. London : Taylor and Francis.
  24. A. Shepherd. (1998). HTA as a framework for task analysis. Ergonomics, 41(11). 1537-1552. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398186063