Research-based findings show that 64% of all incidents are primarily due to human error. This method refers to the Inherent Security Tool (1ST), which uses the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) theory to calculate the index; range of Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number (TFN) ranges to identify the fuzzy evaluation vector. The tool can be simplified as a human operation with the Fuzzy Inherent Safety Tool or HuP-FiST.
This tool aims to support decision making and control human error in order to improve human performance at work. The application of pairwise comparison matrix and TFN can be used to show human errors and mitigate the final results of HF. Therefore, to identify and reduce human error efficiently, a simple, sensitive and cost-optimal approach is needed.
This approach is carried out to ensure that the danger of human error can be eliminated or minimized physically or mentally (Kariuki, 2007). This is based on several studies of previous incidents that show the contribution of common human errors.
Physical Condition
LI Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
- Process HazardAnalysis (PHA)
- Inherent Safety Principles and Guidewords
- Integrated Inherent Safety Index (I2SI)
- Inherent Safety Index (ISI)
- Fuzzy Set Theory
Inherent safety, originally proposed by Kletz (1978), uses the concept of eliminating or reducing hazard and is different from other categories. There are many tools that can be used to improve safety, but the most preferred and feasible method is the inherent safety approach that incorporates costs in time, capital and expenses. Inherent safety is a safety concept that focuses on eliminating or reducing hazards associated with a set of conditions (Kletz, 2009).
Khan and Amyotte (2005) developed an Integrated Inherent Safety Index (I2SI) to consider the process life cycle through economic evaluation and potential hazard identification. The I2SI consists of two sub-indices; hazard index and inherent safety potential, which consider hazard potential, inherent safety potential and add control requirements. The Chemical ISI describes the effect of the selection of feedstocks and other chemicals on the inherent safety of the process, taking into account the heat of reaction, flammability, explosiveness, toxicity, corrosivity and incompatibility of the chemicals.
Fuzzy set theory is a modified method to improve sensitivity in the ranges selected for each selected index (Gentile, 2001). The fuzzy approach overcomes the problems inherent in the indexing process approach and is a simple methodology for inherent security assessment (Gentile, 2001).
Linguistic Variables
Therefore, a language variable is needed to overcome the situation where language variables provide a value in natural language words or sentences. 9 Absolutely more important. Evidence favoring one over the other is of the highest possible validity.
Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP)
Use geometric mean technique to define the fuzzy geometric mean and lastly the fiizzy weight ofeach factor
It was developed as a tool for identifying, assessing and mitigating risk and risk due to human error. The result of this methodology provides the highest human factor risk which will then be assessed using HuP-FiST. The index (for example refer to Table 4) will be used by the decision group to respond to the hierarchy evaluation index constructed in Table 5.
The operator is well trained and there is evidence of a training manual and training programmes, but there is no evidence of feedback after training has been carried out. Operators and staff are trained, but in some cases they do not understand safety on critical components. To get a different and broad view of the issues, an honest and reliable evaluation group should be considered.
A decision group with different knowledge and expertise is formed, which consists of management, professionals, workers, technicians, security, etc. (Chen, 2009). The decision group will define the case study and compare the given HF element in the hierarchy evaluation index constructed in Table 5. Each member of the decision group must give his judgment based on his expertise and knowledge of HF listed.
They should use an "X" on the evaluation table by referring to the criteria in Appendix A and the evaluation value of the trapezoidal fuzzy number (TFN) in Table 6. By evaluating the framework, the index of each HF can be obtained for the next step of HuP -FiST methodology. Typically, a 9-point scale (Saaty, 1990b) is used for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) to represent the pairwise comparison.
In the HuP-FiST, TFN is used for the pairwise comparison because of its efficiency and sensitivity. Based on the TFN value determined by the decision group, the local weight of each HF is calculated. According to the decision group relative importance scale, the linguistic scale will be converted into TFN (refer Table 7).
Converting the element ofpair-wise comparison matrix by using geometric mean method (Chen, 2009)
Convert the TFN into matching crisp value using defuzzification method following below equation (Lin, 2006)
- Establish the Decision Group
- Collect Data through Questionnaire
- Calculate the Weight ofEvaluation Level
- CheckConsistency Ratio (CR)
- Calculate Fuzzy Evaluating Vector
- Step 4: Compare risk against acceptance criteria and apply Inherent Safety
To obtain fuzzy evaluation vector for the final result of the HF evaluation, weight wj and fuzzy evaluation matrix, Uj will be used. 2 Fully applied IS or simplified design to a large extent and the main risk is reduced. 9 IS may be applicable or not significant to simplify the design and the hazard may be eliminated/moderately reduced.
10 IS may or may not apply significantly to simplify the design and hazard may be reduced/no significant hazard reduction. The case study illustrates a coal mine in Shandong (Zheng, 2012) to represent the safety evaluation and early warning rating of the hot and humid environments. Therefore, it is chosen to validate the use of the proposed FAHP for HuP-FiST methodology presented above.
The main coal seams of the coal mine are 800-1000 m below ground level and some of the coal seams are even more than 1000 m below ground level. Thus, the fuzzy evaluation matrix, \J can be obtained and the fuzzy evaluation vector, Z can be calculated (equation 14). Mitigation measures can be taken to reduce/eliminate the risk of nature of work (Cll), work intensity (CI2) and physical condition (C34) based on the Intrinsic Security (IS) guidance in Tables 9 and 10.
This can be done by limiting the number of working hours up to 10 hours/day during a 40 hour work/week for lmg/m3 time weighted average (TWA) concentration exposure. Based on Table 18, it can be seen that the HuP-FiST method is more sensitive and reliable compared to Zheng's Method (2012) and Traditional Method (2009). This is because HuP-FiST used fuzzy vector as the final result to identify the rating, where Zheng's and Traditional method only used fuzzy matrix.
This shows that HuP-FiST is more specific in terms of factor assessment which will then be used for the evaluation of inherent safety. Based on Figure 5, it can be concluded that the main and main CI (work) is the lowest value compared to the factors C2 (environment) and C3 (employee). Although C34 is among the poor sub-factors, it can be concluded that the sub-factors C31, C32 and C33 receive a good to moderate rating (see Table 18).
HuP-FiST approach using broad human factors (HF) compared with Zheng's main and sub-factors and traditional ones, which are limited to only a few factors. The HuP-FiST hierarchy evaluation index, carried out by decision group, is carried out based on a specific and precise index.
HuP-FiST hierarchy evaluation index done by decision group is conducted based on specific and precise index. The index constructed at the index criteria and
Referring to the above discussion, mitigation measures should be implemented to lower the risk due to these factors (see Table 17).
TFN used as evaluation quantitative calculation instead of crisp number. This is because TFN shows precise and sensitive value compared to crisp number as
The TFN value for linguistic variable is simple and easy to understand compared
Zheng's and Traditional end their proposed method to the fizzy evaluation matrix where the result is not exactly which linguistic variable HF relies on. As for the HuP-FiST approach, the fizzy evaluation vector gives specific result of the linguistic variable HF to be improved by the user. Finally, it is easy where it can be calculated using Excel spreadsheet which involves common and understandable mathematical operations.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Display ( ndmg loi utniinK jnd displays clear and easy to be read and differentiate. Adequate separation line for the
Coding for controls and displays clear and easy to read and differentiate and sufficient separation. Coding for controls and displays available, clear and easy to read, but difficult to distinguish (similar coding) and sufficient separation line for tolerance. Good facility is considered good Workplace Design (WD), which includes good access and control and instrumentation is marked correctly and clearly.
Good accessibility and procedures available at the workplace are understandable, periodically inspected and clearly marked valves, fittings and small equipment. Convenient accessibility and procedures available in workplace design are understandable, but labeling of valves, fittings, and small equipment is not clear.
