Volume 20, Issue 1 (2023)
ioh 2023, 20(1): 27-45 |
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:
Jabbari M, Mosayebi M, Saremi M, Eskandari D, Sepehr P. Evaluation of human error using human error assessment and reduction technique (HEART) based on fuzzy logic (Case study: gas power plant. ioh 2023; 20 (1) :27-45
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3248-en.html
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3248-en.html
Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences , d.eskandari@sbmu.ac.ir
Abstract: (867 Views)
Abstract
Background and aims: In complex systems, human error has always been identified as an effective factor in most accidents. In the power plant industry, various accidents occur due to human error and while affecting the stability of the country's electricity network, it can cause financial and human losses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the human error of the personnel operating a V94.2 gas power plant using the fuzzy HEART technique.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on gas plant operation personnel. In this study, the probability of human error was calculated using fuzzy logic in the HEART technique. Then, the technique was performed in 7 stages. The steps include identifying the system / process, then identifying the existing tasks, assigning the nominal probability of human error, identifying the error-increasing conditions, then estimating the impact ratio, quantifying the human error potential, and in the seventh stage control measures. Finally, the HEART method was improved using fuzzy logic.
Results: In this study, a total of 13 tasks and 119 sub-tasks were obtained. The 24 tasks had a high probability of final human error (HEPF), which is 20% of the total tasks evaluated. The probability of final human error was calculated to be 7.213. Most tasks were in Group D (relatively simple task) general classification of HEART tasks. In more than 98% of the tasks, "insufficient checking" was considered as one of the error-enhancing conditions and had the highest repetition among the error-enhancing conditions. Among all the activities, "Checking the openness of the internal power supply's disconnector" had the highest probability of human error. In 22 tasks out of 24 tasks with a higher probability of human error, training and justification of the operator or shift engineer has been suggested as control solutions.
Conclusion: The results obtained in this study showed that training in performing tasks is necessary to reduce the possibility of human error. Also, for tasks with a high probability of human error, retraining and justification of operators and paying attention to work instructions and using work rotation tools can be considered as the most important measures to prevent human error.
Keywords: Evaluation technique, Human error reduction, Fuzzy logic, HEART, Power plant.
Background and aims: In complex systems, human error has always been identified as an effective factor in most accidents. In the power plant industry, various accidents occur due to human error and while affecting the stability of the country's electricity network, it can cause financial and human losses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the human error of the personnel operating a V94.2 gas power plant using the fuzzy HEART technique.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on gas plant operation personnel. In this study, the probability of human error was calculated using fuzzy logic in the HEART technique. Then, the technique was performed in 7 stages. The steps include identifying the system / process, then identifying the existing tasks, assigning the nominal probability of human error, identifying the error-increasing conditions, then estimating the impact ratio, quantifying the human error potential, and in the seventh stage control measures. Finally, the HEART method was improved using fuzzy logic.
Results: In this study, a total of 13 tasks and 119 sub-tasks were obtained. The 24 tasks had a high probability of final human error (HEPF), which is 20% of the total tasks evaluated. The probability of final human error was calculated to be 7.213. Most tasks were in Group D (relatively simple task) general classification of HEART tasks. In more than 98% of the tasks, "insufficient checking" was considered as one of the error-enhancing conditions and had the highest repetition among the error-enhancing conditions. Among all the activities, "Checking the openness of the internal power supply's disconnector" had the highest probability of human error. In 22 tasks out of 24 tasks with a higher probability of human error, training and justification of the operator or shift engineer has been suggested as control solutions.
Conclusion: The results obtained in this study showed that training in performing tasks is necessary to reduce the possibility of human error. Also, for tasks with a high probability of human error, retraining and justification of operators and paying attention to work instructions and using work rotation tools can be considered as the most important measures to prevent human error.
Keywords: Evaluation technique, Human error reduction, Fuzzy logic, HEART, Power plant.
Keywords: human error safety fuzzy logic HEART
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Safety
Received: 2022/01/27 | Accepted: 2023/04/16 | Published: 2023/03/30
Received: 2022/01/27 | Accepted: 2023/04/16 | Published: 2023/03/30
References
1. Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP. Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design: CRC Press; 2017. [DOI:10.4324/9781351156325]
2. Dhillon BS. Human reliability and error in transportation systems: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
3. Books H. Reducing error and influencing behaviour. HSE; 2009.
4. Kirwan B. A guide to practical human reliability assessment: CRC press; 1994.
5. Khoshakhlagh AH, Ghasemi M, Pourtaghi G. Association between fatigue and occupational physical trauma among male Iranian workers in the copper extraction industry. Trauma monthly. 2017;22(1). [DOI:10.5812/traumamon.29621]
6. Sadeghi A, Jabbari M, Rezaeian M, Alidoosti A, Eskandari D. Fire and explosion risk assessment in a combined cycle power plant. Iran J Chem Chem Eng Research Article Vol. 2020;39(6).
7. Karwowski W, Marras WS. Occupational ergonomics: principles of work design: CRC press; 2003. [DOI:10.1201/9780203010457]
8. Lin Q-L, Wang D-J, Lin W-G, Liu H-C. Human reliability assessment for medical devices based on failure mode and effects analysis and fuzzy linguistic theory. Safety science. 2014;62:248-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.022]
9. Zhou Q, Wong YD, Loh HS, Yuen KF. A fuzzy and Bayesian network CREAM model for human reliability analysis-The case of tanker shipping. Safety science. 2018;105:149-57. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.011]
10. Aju Kumar V, Gandhi M, Gandhi O. Identification and assessment of factors influencing human reliability in maintenance using fuzzy cognitive maps. Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 2015;31(2):169-81. [DOI:10.1002/qre.1569]
11. Kirwan B, Kennedy R, Taylor-Adams S, Lambert B. The validation of three Human Reliability Quantification techniques-THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part II-Results of validation exercise. Applied ergonomics. 1997;28(1):17-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00046-4 [DOI:10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00045-2]
12. Abrishami S, Khakzad N, Hosseini SM, van Gelder P. BN-SLIM: A Bayesian Network methodology for human reliability assessment based on Success Likelihood Index Method (SLIM). Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2020;193:106647. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2019.106647]
13. Alexander TM. A case based human reliability assessment using HFACS for complex space operations. Journal of Space Safety Engineering. 2019;6(1):53-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsse.2019.01.001]
14. Bell J, Holroyd J. Review of human reliability assessment methods. Health & Safety Laboratory. 2009;78.
15. Stanton N, Salmon P, Baber C. Human factors design & evaluation methods review Human error identification techniques "SHERPA". 1ed, Alvington. 2004:140-8.
16. Kirwan B. Validation of human reliability assessment techniques: Part 2-Validation results. Safety Science. 1997;27(1):43-75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00050-7 [DOI:10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00049-0]
17. Kirwan B, Scannali S, Robinson L. A case study of a human reliability assessment for an existing nuclear power plant. Applied ergonomics. 1996;27(5):289-302. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(96)00014-2]
18. Aliabadi M. Identification and Evaluation of Human Errors in Low Voltage Distribution Systems using FUZZY-HEART Technique. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering. 2021:35-42.
19. Aliabadi MM. Human error analysis in furnace start-up operation using HEART under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2021;69:104372. [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104372]
20. Mirzaei Aliabadi M, Mohammadfam I, Salimi K. Identification and evaluation of maintenance error in catalyst replacement using the HEART technique under a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2022;28(2):1291-303. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2021.1890423]
21. Castiglia F, Giardina M. Analysis of operator human errors in hydrogen refuelling stations: Comparison between human rate assessment techniques. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2013;38(2):1166-76. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.092]
22. Castiglia F, Giardina M, Tomarchio E. THERP and HEART integrated methodology for human error assessment. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2015;116:262-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2014.12.012]
23. Li P-c, Chen G-h, Dai L-c, Li Z. Fuzzy logic-based approach for identifying the risk importance of human error. Safety science. 2010;48(7):902-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.03.012]
24. Guidara A. Artificial Intelligence and Fuzzy Logic. Policy Decision Modeling with Fuzzy Logic: Springer; 2021. p. 47-67. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-62628-0_5]
25. Ultsch A. Proof of Pareto's 80/20 law and Precise Limits for ABC-Analysis. Data Bionics Research Group University of Marburg/Lahn, Germany. 2002:1-11.
26. Latorella KA, Prabhu PV. A review of human error in aviation maintenance and inspection. Human Error in Aviation. 2017:521-49. [DOI:10.4324/9781315092898-27]
27. Cacciabue PC. Human error risk management for engineering systems: a methodology for design, safety assessment, accident investigation and training. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2004;83(2):229-40. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2003.09.013]
28. Newman M, Lawson B, Rupert A, McGrath B, editors. The role of perceptual modeling in the understanding of spatial disorientation during flight and ground-based simulator training. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference; 2012. [DOI:10.2514/6.2012-5009]
29. Noroozi A, Khan F, MacKinnon S, Amyotte P, Deacon T. Determination of human error probabilities in maintenance procedures of a pump. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2014;92(2):131-41. [DOI:10.1016/j.psep.2012.11.003]
30. الدینی ن, السادات ز, جعفری, بهنوش, جزایری, امین س. شناسایی و ارزیابی خطای انسانی با استفاده از تکنیک HEARTدر اپراتورهای جرثقیل های سقفی یکی از صنایع فولاد خوزستان. فصلنامه بهداشت کار و ارتقا سلامت. 2020;4(1):58-69.
31. Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, Badihi Y, Biesky MR, Sprung CL, et al. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Critical care medicine. 1995;23(2):294-300. [DOI:10.1097/00003246-199502000-00015]
32. Zimolong B, Duda L. Human error reduction strategies in advanced manufacturing systems. Human-robot interaction, Taylor & Francis, London. 1992:242-65.
33. Amalberti R, Hourlier S. Human error reduction strategies in health care. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. p. 561-77.
34. Kumar AM, Rajakarunakaran S, Prabhu VA. Application of Fuzzy HEART and expert elicitation for quantifying human error probabilities in LPG refuelling station. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2017;48:186-98. [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2017.04.021]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
