Volume 5, Issue 1 (Winter 2016)                   J Occup Health Epidemiol 2016, 5(1): 1-9 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Zaranejad A, Ahmadi O, Yahyaei E. Designing a quantitative safety checklist for the construction phase of ongoing projects in petrochemical plants. J Occup Health Epidemiol 2016; 5 (1) :1-9
URL: http://johe.rums.ac.ir/article-1-169-en.html

Related article in
Google Scholar

1- Dept. of Occupational Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2- Dept. of Occupational Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. , o.ahmadi@modares.ac.ir
Article history
Received: 2016/05/16
Accepted: 2016/11/19
ePublished: 2016/12/28
Abstract:   (7194 Views)

Background: One of the challenges in construction is the occurrence of numerous accidents. In this regard, risk assessment can play an important role in reducing accidents. The aim of this study was to prepare comprehensive and quantitative checklists to determine the potential hazards in the construction phase.

Materials and Methods: The present descriptive and analytical study was carried out on petrochemical projects in the south of Iran in 2014. After the inspection of more than 50 construction projects, two types of technical and managerial checklists were designed. The managerial and technical checklists were designed with seven and 32 major subjects, respectively. Finally prepared checklist and ET&BA method were compared in term of their risk identification capability.

Results: The checklist and ET&BA methods, respectively, identified 300, 75, 125, and 48, and 107, 25, 12, and 0 risks related to hardware, design, mismanagement, and human error.

Conclusions: The checklist method can identify and assess human errors, while the ET&BA method cannot. Moreover, this method was more efficient than the ET&BA technique in identification and assessment of hardware-related, design-related, and managerial risks. Moreover, the duration and cost of implementation of checklist method were significantly lower than ET&BA method. This technique can be introduced as a quantitative risk assessment method in construction phases of projects and its weaknesses can be improved by future studies.

Full-Text [PDF 322 kb]   |   Full Text (HTML)   (2022 Downloads)    

1. Haslam RA, Hide SA, Gibb AG, Gyi DE, Pavitt T, Atkinson S, et al. Contributing factors in construction accidents. Appl Ergon 2005; 36(4):401-15.
2. Yng Ling FY, Liu M, Woo YC. Construction fatalities in Singapore. International Journal of Project Management 2009; 27(7):717-26.
3. Dong XS, Choi SD, Borchardt JG, Wang X, Largay JA. Fatal falls from roofs among U.S. construction workers. J Safety Res 2013; 44(1):17-24.
4. Sunindijo RY, Zou PXW. How project manager’s skills may influence the development of safety climate in construction projects. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management 2012; 4(3):286-301.
5. Iran. Department of Labour Inspection, Construction Accident Report in 2011. Tehran: Labour Inspection Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; 2011.
6. Chi N-W, Lin K-Y, El-Gohary N, Hsieh S-H. Evaluating the strength of text classification categories for supporting construction field inspection. Automation in Construction 2016; 64(4):78-88.
7. Arghami S, Abbasi S, Bakhtom Sh, Ziaei M. Comparing of HAZOP and ETBA techniques in safety risk assessment at gasoline refinery industry. African Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences 2014; 6(1):1-5.
8. Dunjó J, Fthenakis V, Vílchez JA, Arnaldos J. Hazard and operability (HAZOP) analysis. A literature review. J Hazard Mater 2010; 173(1-3):19-32.
9. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis DE. A risk-estimation methodological framework using quantitative assessment techniques and real accidents’ data: Application in an aluminum extrusion industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2008; 21(6):596-603.
10. Jou Y-T, Lin CJ, Yenn T-C, Yang Ch-W, Yang L-Ch, Tsai R-Ch. The implementation of a human factors engineering checklist for human–system interfaces upgrade in nuclear power plants. Saf Sci 2009; 47(7):1016-25.
11. Dennerlein JT, Ronk CJ, Perry MJ. Portable ladder assessment tool development and validation–quantifying best practices in the field. Saf Sci 2009; 47(5):636-9.
12. Piniella F, Fernández-Engo MA. Towards system for the management of safety on board artisanal fishing vessels: Proposal for check-lists and their application. Saf Sci 2009; 47(2):265-76.
13. Parker D, Lawrie M, Hudson P. A framework for understanding the development of organisational safety culture. Saf Sci 2006; 44(6):551-62.
14. Wu HCh, Chen HCh, Chen T. Effects of ergonomics-based wafer-handling training on reduction in musculoskeletal disorders among wafer handlers. Int J Ind Ergon 2009; 39(1):127-32.
15. True BA, Cochrane CC, Sleutel MR, Newcomb P, Tullar PE, Sammons Jr JH. Developing and testing a vaginal delivery safety checklist. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2016; 45(2):239-48.
16. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D, Gemeni V. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: On a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2011;24(5):477-523.
17. Roland HE, Moriarty B. System safety engineering and management. 2nd ed. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1990.
18. Vincoli JW. Basic guide to system safety. 2nd ed. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2006.
19. Laing PM, Schmidt PhE. Accident prevention manual for business and industry: engineering and technology. 1st ed. Washington D.C, United States: National Safety Council; 1992.
20. Allen E, Iano J. Fundamentals of building construction: materials and methods. 5th ed. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2008.
21. Department of Defense. Military Standard System Safety Program Requirements. Departments and Agencies of the Department of Defense, United States of America; 1993 Jan. Report No.: MIL-STD-882C.
22. Zarranezhad A, Mortazavi SB, Asilian Mahabadi H, Khavanin A. Identification and safety assessment of the hazardous zones (unwanted energy flows) in an construction project at the national petrochemical company by application of ET& BA method. J Appl Sci 2007; 7(19):2769-75.
23. Santos-Reyes J, Alvarado-Corona R, Olmos-Peña S. Learning from Tabasco’s floods by applying MORT. Saf Sci 2010; 48(10):1351-60.
24. Jamshidi A, Yazdani Chamzini A, Haji Yakhchali S, Khaleghi S. Developing a new fuzzy inference system for pipeline risk assessment. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2013; 26(1):197-208.
25. Tam CM, Tong TKL, Chiu GCW, Fung IWH. Non-structural fuzzy decision support system for evaluation of construction safety management system. International Journal of Project Management 2002; 20(4):303-13.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Occupational Health and Epidemiology

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb