Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment With Human Error Analysis Method in Automotive Industry
Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment With Human Error Analysis Method in Automotive Industry
Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment With Human Error Analysis Method in Automotive Industry
ABSTRACT: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) is a safety tool used in most automotive industries to
identify the hazards and assess the risks in the plant. The primary purpose of the HIRA tool is to assess the risks and
prioritize the risks in order to eliminate the hazards in the prioritized order. Human error analysis method (HEA) is one
of most recent and effective human error identification techniques which assesses the human error probability and is
chosen as the tool to integrate with the HIRA method in this paper. The impetus for the thesis stems from the idea that
the HIRA method overlooks one of the root causes of the accidents/incidents in the workplace, which is, the unsafe acts
or human error. Thus, in order to make it more efficient towards the proactive approach of accident prevention in
workplace, HIRA method has to consider human error assessment in the workplace which can be achieved through
Human Error Analysis method (HEA). Also, the integration of HIRA with HEA will result in giving an additional
dimension in prioritizing the hazards identified and assessed and thus, making HIRA, a more effective and proactive
tool for safety supervision in an industry. Myunghwa Automotive India, a leading international automotive
manufacturing corporation, was chosen as a case study for the thesis where the upgraded HIRA was implemented by
which the hazards in the Knuckle Spindle Rough & Finish machining line in the plant were identified and prioritized
for the control measures.
KEYWORDS: HIRA – Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, HEA – Human Error Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
HIRA is the primary tool used in most industries to prevent accidents as a proactive approach of safety system. The
impetus for the paper stems from the idea that the HIRA method overlooks one of the root causes of the
accidents/incidents in the workplace, which is, the unsafe acts or human error.Thus, in order to make it more efficient
towards the proactive approach of prevention of accidents in workplace, HIRA method has to consider the human error
assessment in the workplace which can be achieved through the integration of HIRA with HEA.
The performance of Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) study integrated with ergonomics system was
studied by Azadeh A. et al (2008). HSE at the operational level will strive to eliminate injuries, adverse health effects
and damage to the environment. Effective application of ergonomics in work system design can achieve a balance
between worker characteristics and task demands. This can enhance worker productivity, provide improved worker
safety (physical and mental) and job satisfaction. Several studies have shown positive effects of applying ergonomic
principles to the workplace including machine, job and environmental design. Studies in ergonomics have also
produced data and guidelines for industrial applications. The main concern of work system design in context of
ergonomics is improvement of machines and tools. Lack of utilization of the ergonomic principles could bring
inefficiency to the workplace. Moreover, an ergonomically deficient workplace can cause physical and emotional
stress, low productivity and poor quality of work conditions. It is believed that ergonomic deficiencies in industry are
root cause of workplace health hazards, low levels of safety and reduced workers productivity. By considering health,
safety, environment and ergonomics (HSEE), an organization manages its operations in a manner that places safety and
health first. It encourages employees to adopt a healthy and safe life-style.
Julie bell & Justin Holyard (2009) investigated a total of 35 human reliability analysis methods and have
summarized about the scope, approach, and information on the underlying models of the methods, the advantages and
disadvantages of the methods, the suitability of the methods in their application, a comment on the validity of the
methods and a note of the resources required for the use of the methods.
Mats Eklof et al (2004) highlighted the importance of participative ergonomics in better working environment
and health. This study examined cross-sectional and prospective associations among (1) worker participation (and
empowerment) in efforts to improve the working environment, (2) integration of ergonomics and core organizational
concerns (i.e., work organization, quality, and productivity), and (3) working environment and health indicators. A
sample of 40 groups of white-collar visual display unit users from 11 private and public Swedish organizations was
studied. In conclusion, the results indicated that participation and integration in efforts to improve the working
environment were consistently associated with psychological demands (-), stress (-), and social support (+).
The Probabilistic risk assessment of highway tunnels was studied by Ondrej Nyvlt et al (2011). He studied the
concept of adjusted probabilistic risk assessment into the framework of advanced risk analysis and enables
incorporation into risk management process.
Zhaoyang Tan et al (2014) studied the risk assessment and countermeasures of gas accidents in the sensitive
areas under control during the Olympic Games in Beijing. They came to conclusion that Risk assessment of gas
accident is a dynamic and continuous process, and in accordance with the workflow of risk assessment, timely tracking,
communication and feedback, as well as regular update of the results are needed.
The Integrated risk assessment for LNG terminals was analyzed byAnezirisO.N. et al (2014). He outlined the
major sequence of steps that should be undertaken as follows: hazard identification, accident sequence modeling, data
acquisition and parameter estimation, accident sequence quantification, consequence assessment, and integration of
results where individual risk is assessed for any person who might be near the terminals. Probabilistic methods for risk
assessment have extensively been used in the literature for toxic and flammable substances.
1.Identify Hazards
Identify all potentially hazardous things or situations that may cause harm in consultation with workers. In general,
hazards are likely to be found in the physical work environment, equipment, materials or substances used, work tasks
and how they are performed, work design and management.
2. Assess Risks
Risk assessment involves considering the possible results of someone being exposed to a hazard and the likelihood of
this occurring. A risk assessment assists in determining how severe a risk is, whether existing control measures are
effective, what action should be taken to control a risk, and how urgently action needs to be taken. The process of
assessing the risk is undertaken by reviewing any available information about the hazardand by using personal work
experience about what sort of harm, the hazard could create and how likely this would be to happen. The risks are
assessed by calculating the Risk Priority Number (RPN). The RPN is calculated by multiplying the severity and
likelihood values of the hazard which are referred from the tables 2.1 and 2.2 respectively (NEBOSH, 2011). After
assigning the values of likelihood (P), and severity (S) from the appropriate grids, the Risk Priority Number (RPN) is
calculated with the use of equation 2.1.
Risk Priority Number (RPN) = {Likelihood (P)}* {Severity (S)} [Equation2.1]
3. Controlling Risks
After calculating the RPN value, the requirement of corrective action is assessed by the prioritization grid such as low,
medium, high, and urgent which is given in the table 2.3.
Table 2.1 Severity Rating
NATURE OF SEVERITY VALUE
There is no injury but only property damage (<Rs 5000/-). 1
There is a minor injury, first aid injury like laceration; Property damage > Rs 5000/- but less
2
than Rs 20,000/-).
There is a serious injury, like reportable injury, property damage > Rs 20000/- < 50,000/- 3
There is major injury which may lead to a Permanent Disability or property damage beyond
4
repair.
There is a fatal injury, loss of limb, loss of property and damage to a total plant, equipment or
5
machinery etc.
0.03475 0.0
18 -2 4 -36 72
– 0.0495 421
0.06425 0.0
9 0 0 0 0
– 0.079 716
0.079 – 0.0
4 1 1 4 4
0.09375 864
0.09375 0.1
3 2 4 6 12
– 0.1085 011
0.1085 – 0.1
0 3 9 0 0
0.12325 159
0.12325 0.1 1
1 4 4 16
– 0.138 306 6
» Mean, μ = 0.0566
» Variance, σ = 0.023
The goodness of fit for the fitted data with the normal distribution is tested with the Chi-squared test with the
level of significance, 2.5%. The mean and the variance were found out with the normal distribution method and the
hypothesis was taken as ‘the data fitted using the normal distribution is a good fit’. If the hypothesis is true, then it
signifies that the normal distribution is a good fit to the data’s collected and the mean value calculated is credible.
Null Hypothesis, H0: The data fitted using normal distribution is a good fit.
Alternative Hypothesis, H1: The data fitted using normal distribution is not a good fit.
Step 1: The probability for the limits defined are calculated.
Probability for the limits is calculated by the equation 3.6.
P [a < X < b] = P [{(a – μ) / σ} < Z < {(b – μ) / σ}] [Equation 3.3]
Where, P[X] is the probability distribution, a and b are limits, μ is the mean and σ is the variance. Therefore, the
probability distribution for the value of X within the limits 0.02 to 0.03475 is,
P [0.02 < X < 0.03475] = P [{(0.02 – μ) / σ} < Z < {(0.03475 – μ) / σ}]
7 6
18 11
10 14
9 11
4 6
3 3
0 1
1 0
In order to satisfy this condition, the following function was applied in the table 3.6 to obtain the table 3.7,
» R6 R6 + R7 + R8 + R9
18 11 4.45
10 14 1.42
9 11 0.363
8 10 0.4
1-5
LOW2 (L2) – Measures are required to reduce the HEP to as low as
≥0.0566
reasonably possible.
6-12
MEDIUM2 (M2) – Control Measures required to eliminate hazard and also to
≥0.0566
reduce the HEP to as low as reasonably possible.
17-25 URGENT2 (U2) – Reduce the Risk to Manageable Level – Activity may be
stopped until tolerable level (RPN number less than 12 & HEP less than
≥0.0566
0.0566) is achieved. Also, measures are required to reduce the HEP to as low
as reasonably possible.
All the hazards in the 25T Knuckle machining line in Myunghwa, Singadivakkam were identified by using the
tools, What If analysis and Checklist analysis. The hazards identified are listed in the table 4.1. The hazard identified
for the activity “Loading of component from pallet to conveyor by using Electric hoist” in the first operation “Facing &
Centering” was fall of component. The component is cylinder head which weighs 25 kg. The component is lifted at a
height of 1.8 m from the ground level using an electric hoist and thus, severity of hazard as referred from the table 3.1
is “4” as the fall of the component from the height of 1.8 m is believed to have the potential to cause a major injury to
the employee. The frequency of the hazard happening in plant was found to be once per month, thus from the table 3.2,
the likelihood of the hazard is “4”. Thus, RPN was calculated by multiplying the value of severity and likelihood which
is 16.
Then, the HEP value is calculated for the first operation “Machining of 25Ton Knuckle” through HRA
technique which is explained as follows. The activities involved in the first operation “Facing & Centering” are to
operate a electric hoist to lift a 25 kg component to a height of 1.8 m and aligning the component precisely on the
conveyor, followed by pushing the component along the conveyor to the butting area, auto loading of the component to
the fixture and auto unloading of the component to the conveyor and finally, pushing the component to the turn over
table (TOT). Thus, the first operation is categorized as an action task as it is a task where each activity is done by
following a written procedure and thereby, the NHEP is assigned as 0.001. The eight PSF’s for the activity were assigned
a value accordingly and multiplied to obtain the PSFcomposite value which is 4 [1(Available time) x 2(Stress) x
2(Complexity) x 1(Training) x 1(Procedure) x 1(Ergonomics) x 1(Fitness for duty) x 1(Work process)]. HEP was
calculated by substituting the values of NHEP andPSFcomposite in the equation3.2 as there were only two negative values of
PSF which are stress and complexity in the operation. Thus, the calculated HEP value was found to be 0.004.
Similarly, the RPN and HEP values were found for each of the other 11 operations in the 25Ton Knuckle
machining line of the automotive industry and were tabulated in the table 4.1. While calculating the HEP value, the
operations are considered as a whole and not necessarily divided into separate activities as each operation is performed
by a single worker. The hazards are then prioritized according to the table 3.5, where the hazard in the activity
L1/L2/M1/
Y/ 0- 0- S*P
M2/H1/H2
N 5 5
/U1/U2
V. CONCLUSION
The Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) method was successfully integrated with HEA, and
thus, adding an extra dimension of human error assessment while evaluating the risk of the hazards identified and
thereby, making HIRA, a complete method for proactive approach in accident prevention. The mean value of the
human error probability (HEP) in the HEA method was calculated as 0.0566 for the accidents in an automotive plant
during the period 2011, 2012 and 2013 using normal distribution method. Also, the data fitted with normal distribution
was tested for goodness of fit using chi-squared test with the level of significance 2.5%, thereby, verifying the
credibility of the mean value calculated. The mean value of 0.0566 was kept as a pivot value for the HEP consideration
in the activities while prioritizing the hazards.
Also, the lack of human error consideration in the existing HIRA method was highlighted by the comparison
of the RPN values and HEP values of two activities which showed that although the RPN value which is the only index
on which the existing HIRA was based on for prioritization of the hazards, was same but on the other hand, the two
activities had vast difference in their HEP values. The “tool change” operation was found to be the most prior hazard
as a result of carrying out the integrated method in cylinder head rough machining line, with a priority level of High2
(H2). Further, the control measures for the tool change operation was suggested, which on implementation was
expected to reduce the RPN value from 16 to 4 and the HEP value from 0.07414 to 0.004, thereby, reducing the risk
level of the hazard in the tool change operation to Low1 (L1) which is as low as reasonably practicable level.
The scope for future work includes the suggestion of control measures for the other operations in the cylinder
head rough machining line of the chosen automotive plant, in the order of the prioritization in the proposed method
where the HEP value and RPN values should be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) level.
REFERENCES
1. AnezirisO. N., PapazoglouI. A., KonstantinidouM. and NivolianitouZ (2014), ‘Integrated risk assessment for LNG terminals’, Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 28, pp. 187-204.
2. AzadehA., FamI.M., Khoshnoud M. and Nikafrouz M. (2008), ‘Design and implementation of a fuzzy expert system for performance assessment
of an integrated health, safety, environment (HSE) and ergonomics system: The case of a gas refinery’, Information Sciences, Vol. 178,
pp.4280– 4300.
3. Gokul RajS., and Shivasankaran N. (2014), ‘Hazard identification and risk assessment in deinking plant’, International journal of
research in aeronautical and mechanical engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 202-208.
4.Hunszu Liu, Sheue-Ling Hwang, and Thu-Hua Liu (2009), ‘Economic assessment of human errors in manufacturing environment’, Safety Science,
Vol. 47, pp. 170–182.
5. Julie bell & Justin Holyard(2009), ‘Review of human reliability assessment methods’, Health and safety executive books, rr679 research
report.
6. Mats Eklof, Anders Ingelgard, and Mats Hagberg (2004), ‘Is participative ergonomics associated with better working environment and health? A
study among Swedish white-collar VDU users’, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 34, pp. 355–366.
7.Oh-Jun Kwon, Young-Sun Kim (2013), ‘An analysis of safeness of work environment in Korean manufacturing: The ‘‘safety climate’’
perspective’, Safety Science, Vol. 53, pp. 233–239.
8. Ondrej Nyvlt, Samuel Privara, Lukaš Ferkl (2011), ‘Probabilistic risk assessment of highway tunnels’,Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, Vol.26, pp. 71–82.
9. Russell A. Matthews, Jessica A. Gallus, and Robert A. Henning (2011), ‘Participatory ergonomics: Development of an employee assessment
questionnaire’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, pp. 360–369.
10. Sanna Nenonen(2011), ‘Fatal workplace accidents in outsourced operations in the manufacturing industry’, Safety Science, Vol. 49, pp.
1394–1403.
11. SaravanaKumarM., SenthilKumar P. (2012), ‘Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment in Foundry’, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering, 33–37.
12. Tetsu Moriyama, Hideo Ohtani (2009), ‘Risk assessment tools incorporating human error probabilities in the Japanese small-sized
establishment’, Safety Science, Vol. 47, pp. 1379–1397.
13. Zhaoyang Tan, Jianfeng Li, and Guangyu Hu (2014), ‘Risk assessment and counter measures of gas accidents in the sensitive areas
under control during the Olympic Games in Beijing’, Safety Science, Vol. 62, pp. 187–204.