This study conducts a practical application of shipboard operation human reliability analysis (SOHRA) to a crankshaft overhauling operation of a general cargo ship at dry-docking period. The SOHRA approach includes error producing condition (EPC) and general task type (GTT) parameters to consistently calculate the human error probability (HEP) values of operation steps. In this case, a comprehensive overhauling of main engine was planned at shipyard since the ship has experienced a catastrophic failure. An onboard survey to ship engine room is conducted to monitor the operational conditions. The targeted operation, involves disassembly, maintenance, and reassembly stages, is monitored based on 39 sub-tasks. According to the initial findings, immediate recovery actions are suggested to eliminate critical safety issues in a timely manner. Moreover, an extended discussion through long-term safety recommendations are also provided. The results revealed from case study illustrates that HEP values in maintenance operations are sensitive to ship operating conditions. The proposed approach is found very useful by company executives to support ship technical superintendents in critical operation monitoring. The further study is considered to develop mobile application of SOHRA specific to maintenance operations onboard ships.
RasmussenJ. Human errors. A taxonomy for describing human malfunction in industrial installations. J Occup Accid1982; 4: 311–333.
2.
ReasonJ. Human error. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
3.
ShappellSAWiegmannDA. A human error approach to accident investigation: the taxonomy of unsafe operations. Int J Aviat Psychol1997; 7: 269–291.
4.
RouseWBRouseSH. Analysis and classification of human error. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern1983; SMC-13: 539–549.
5.
PauaA. How the human factor in shipboard marine engineering operations has influenced ship accidents in Mozambique: assessing the reasoning: a proposal towards safeguarding against future casualties. MSc Diss World Marit Univ1999.
6.
LundhMLützhöftMRydstedtL, et al. Working conditions in the engine department - a qualitative study among engine room personnel on board Swedish merchant ships. Appl Ergon2011; 42: 384–390.
7.
IslamRAbbassiRGaraniyaV, et al. Development of a human reliability assessment technique for the maintenance procedures of marine and offshore operations. J Loss Prev Process Ind2017; 50: 416–428.
8.
XiYTYangZLFangQG, et al. A new hybrid approach to human error probability quantification–applications in maritime operations. Ocean Eng2017; 138: 45–54.
9.
IMO (International Maritime Organization). ISM Code: International safety management code and guidelines on implementation of the ISM code. International Maritime Organization2010; 7–13.
10.
TsouMC. Big data analysis of port state control ship detention database. J Mar Eng Technol2019; 18: 113–121.
11.
YuFJHwangSLHuangYH, et al. Application of human error criticality analysis for improving the initiator assembly process. Int J Ind Ergon2000; 26: 87–99.
12.
NanCSansaviniG. Developing an agent-based hierarchical modeling approach to assess human performance of infrastructure systems. Int J Ind Ergon2016; 53: 340–354.
13.
ZhangSHeWChenD, et al. A dynamic human reliability assessment approach for manned submersibles using PMV-CREAM. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2019; 11: 782–795.
14.
ChenDFanYLiW, et al. Human reliability prediction in deep-sea sampling process of the manned submersible. Saf Sci2019; 112: 1–8.
15.
ToriizukaT. Application of performance shaping factor (PSF) for work improvement in industrial plant maintenance tasks. Int J Ind Ergon2001; 28: 225–236.
16.
BayerDAydinOCelikM. An ICOR approach towards ship maintenance software development. Trans R Inst Nav Archit Part A Int J Marit Eng. Epub ahead of print 2018. DOI: 10.3940/rina.ijme.2018.al.444.
17.
TanYTianHJiangR, et al. A comparative investigation of data-driven approaches based on one-class classifiers for condition monitoring of marine machinery system. Ocean Eng2020; 201: 107174.
18.
ZhaoZXiaoBWangN, et al. Selective maintenance optimization for a multi-state system considering human reliability. Symmetry2019; 11: 652.
19.
KimeraDNangoloFN. Maintenance optimization for marine mechanical systems. Proc IME M J Eng Marit Environ2019; 1475090219882601.
20.
KandemirCCelikM. A human reliability assessment of marine auxiliary machinery maintenance operations under ship PMS and maintenance 4.0 concepts. Cogn Technol Work2019; 1–15.
21.
IslamRYuHAbbassiR, et al. Development of a monograph for human error likelihood assessment in marine operations. Saf Sci2017; 91: 33–39.
22.
van WestrenenFBaldaufM. Improving conflicts detection in maritime traffic: Case studies on the effect of traffic complexity on ship collisions. Proc IME M J Eng Marit Environ2020; 234: 209–222.
IslamRKhanFAbbassiR, et al. Human error probability assessment during maintenance activities of marine systems. Saf Health Work2018; 9: 42–52.
25.
AkyuzEAkgunICelikM. A fuzzy failure mode and effects approach to analyse concentrated inspection campaigns on board ships. Marit Pol Manag2016; 43: 887–908.
26.
AkyuzE. A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational causes in cargo ships. Saf Sci. Epub ahead of print February2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016. 09.010.
27.
CelikEAkyuzE. Application of interval type-2 fuzzy sets DEMATEL methods in maritime transportation: the case of ship collision. Trans R Inst Nav Archit Part A Int J Marit Eng2016; 158: 359–371.
28.
AkyuzECelikE. The role of human factor in maritime environment risk assessment: a practical application on Ballast Water Treatment (BWT) system in ship. Hum Ecol Risk Assess2018; 24: 653–666.
29.
CelikMCebiS. Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents. Accid Anal Prev2009; 41: 66–75.
30.
WangWLiuXQinY. A modified HEART method with FANP for human error assessment in high-speed railway dispatching tasks. Int J Ind Ergon2018; 67: 242–258.
31.
IslamRAnantharamanMKhanF, et al. A hybrid human reliability assessment technique for the maintenance operations of marine and offshore systems. Process Saf Progr2020; 39: e12118.
32.
IslamRKhanFAbbassiR, et al. Human error assessment during maintenance operations of marine systems – What are the effective environmental factors?Safety Science2018; 107: 85–98.
33.
WangYDingYChenG, et al. Human reliability analysis and optimization of manufacturing systems through Bayesian networks and human factors experiments: a case study in a flexible intermediate bulk container manufacturing plant. Int J Ind Ergon2019; 72: 241–251.
34.
AbaeiMMAbbassiRGaraniyaV, et al. A dynamic human reliability model for marine and offshore operations in harsh environments. Ocean Eng2019; 173: 90–97.
35.
WilliamsJC. Data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. In: IEEE 4th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, Monterey, CA, USA, 5–9 June 1988, pp. 436–450. IEEE.
36.
AkyuzECelikMCebiS. A phase of comprehensive research to determine marine-specific EPC values in human error assessment and reduction technique. Saf Sci2016; 87: 63–75.
37.
BowoLPFurushoM. Human error assessment and reduction technique for marine accident analysis: the case of ship grounding. Trans Navig2018; 3: 1–7.
38.
AkyuzECelikMAkgunI, et al. Prediction of human error probabilities in a critical marine engineering operation on-board chemical tanker ship: the case of ship bunkering. Saf Sci. Epub ahead of print December2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.002.
39.
CanGFDeliceEK. An advanced human error assessment approach: HEART and AV-DEMATEL. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2020; 30: 29–49.
40.
Kandemir Ç, CelikMAkyuzE, et al. Application of human reliability analysis to repair & maintenance operations on-board ships: the case of HFO purifier overhauling. Appl Ocean Res2019; 88: 317–325.
41.
SaatyTL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
42.
SaatyTL. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci1986; 32: 841–855.
43.
SaatyTL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res1990; 48: 9–26.
44.
VargasLG. Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients. Math Model1982; 3: 69–81.
45.
AkyuzECelikM. A methodological extension to human reliability analysis for cargo tank cleaning operation on board chemical tanker ships. Saf Sci2015; 75: 146–155.
46.
HeXWangYShenZ, et al. A simplified CREAM prospective quantification process and its application. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2008; 93: 298–306.
47.
KirwanBGibsonHKennedyR, et al. Nuclear Action Reliability Assessment (NARA): a data-based HRA tool. In: SpitzerCSchmockerUDangVN (eds) Probabilistic safety assessment and management. London: Springer, 2004, pp. 1206–1211.
48.
KirwanBGibsonH. CARA: a human reliability assessment tool for air traffic safety management — technical basis and preliminary architecture. In: RedmillFAnderson (eds) The safety of systems. London: Springer, 2007, pp. 197–214.
49.
GibsonHWMillsAMSmithS, et al. Railway action reliability assessment, a railway-specific approach to human error quantification. In: ASSC proceedings of the Australian system safety conference, Brisbane, Australia, May 2012, pp. 671–676. Australia: ASSC.
