Hazard Identification and Process Risk Assessment at the Building Stone Processing Company through Combination of EFMEA & William Fine Methods

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

Sarkheil Hamid; Talaeian Mohammad; Abbaszadeh Gorani Azadeh; Sadeghy Nejad Ali

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering Year:2024 | Volume:58 | Issue:2 Page(s): 229-241

Download Full-Text

View:

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

Hazard Identification and Process Risk Assessment at the Building Stone Processing Company through Combination of EFMEA & William Fine Methods

Author(s)

Sarkheil Hamid | Talaeian Mohammad | Abbaszadeh Gorani Azadeh | Sadeghy Nejad Ali | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

risk assessment

EFMEA

William Fine method

TOPSIS

Building Stone Processing

Abstract

In this research, the levels of safety, health, and environmental risks in a Building Stone Processing company (BSPC) have been identified using the integrated approach of EFMEA (Environmental Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) and William Fine method, along with the TOPSIS technique for prioritizing organizational safety layers, examining potential incidents, and enhancing organizational efficiency. To achieve this, data and risk assessment information were first collected and evaluated, and then, with the formation of an expert task force, brainstorming sessions were held to identify and analyze environmental risks in the production process using the EFMEA technique. Additionally, with the assistance of the William Fine method, safety and health risks in the production process were identified and examined. In the next step, the costs of corrective actions were calculated, and the results obtained from the tables of both EFMEA and William Fine techniques were combined, and decisions were made regarding risks with high and very high levels. Subsequently, using TOPSIS, protective layers were prioritized based on two criteria: cost and time. Following the risk assessment using the EFMEA method, 4 risks were classified as high-risk, 9 risks as medium-risk, and 2 risks as low-risk. Subsequently, employing the William Fine technique, a total of 41 hazards were evaluated across 5 worksheets. 5% of the hazards were categorized as very high-risk, 19% as high-risk, 27% as medium-risk, and 49% of the evaluated hazards were classified as low-risk. Ultimately, the results obtained from the integration of the William Fine and EFMEA techniques categorized 2 risks as very high-risk, 12 risks as high-risk, 20 risks as medium-risk, and 22 risks as low-risk. Furthermore, working at heights was selected as one of the risks with high risk, and protective layers and control measures were proposed and examined. The use of helmets, shoes, harnesses, and the establishment of a safety platform, considering both time and cost criteria, is the first priority for controlling risks in working at heights activity.

Multimedia

No record.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

Related Journal Papers

No record.

Related Seminar Papers

No record.

Related Plans