Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Critical Hazard Factors in the Risk Assessments of Industrial Robots: Causal Analysis and Case Studies

  • Lee, Kangdon (Department of Safety Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Shin, Jaeho (School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Kyungil University) ;
  • Lim, Jae-Yong (Department of Safety Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2021.04.19
  • Accepted : 2021.07.15
  • Published : 2021.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: With the increasing demand for industrial robots and the "noncontact" trend, it is an appropriate point in time to examine whether risk assessments conducted for robot operations are performed effectively to identify and eliminate the risks of injury or harm to operators. This study discusses why robot accidents resulting in harm to operators occur repetitively despite implementing control measures and proposes corrective actions for risk assessments. Methods: This study collected 369 operator-injured robot accidents in Korea over the last decade and reconstructed them into the mechanism of injury, work being undertaken, and bodily location of the injury. Then, through the techniques of Systematic Cause Analysis Technique (SCAT) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA), this study analyzed the root and direct causes of robot accidents that had occurred. Causes identified included physical hazards and complex combinations of hazards, such as psychological, organizational, and systematic errors. The requirements of risk assessments regarding robot operations were examined, and three case studies of robot-involved tasks were investigated. The three assessments presented were: camera module processing, electrical discharge machining, and a panel-flipping robot installation. Results: After conducting RCA and comparing the three assessments, it was found that two-thirds of injury-occurring from robot accidents, causative factors included psychological and personal traits of robot operators. However, there were no evaluations of the identifications of personal aspects in the three assessment cases. Conclusion: Therefore, it was concluded that personal factors of operators, which had been overlooked in risk assessments so far, need to be included in future risk assessments on robot operations.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank three anonymous colleagues for providing constructive feedback on assessment cases and the earlier version of this article. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2021R1F1A1059207).

References

  1. Kye JE, Jeon JW, Kim KH. Industrial robot and specialized service robot. Technol Innovation 2018;418(1):17-27.
  2. MOEL. Annual occupational accidents statistics. Seoul Korea: The ministry of Employment and Labor; 2009~2019.
  3. Yeo HW. The study on prevention measures for industrial accidents concerned with installation of automation equipment (industrial robot). Seoul Korea: KOSHA OSHRI; 2017. p. 84-94.
  4. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). Guidance on risk assessment at work. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1996.
  5. International Standard ISO 12100. Safety of machinery e general principles for design - risk assessment and risk reduction. Geneva: ISO Copyright Office; 2010.
  6. Yoon SY, Son DI. A study on risk assessment of hazardous machines. Seoul Korea: KOSHA OSHRI; 2002. p. 22-36.
  7. Lee YS, Choi JW, Kang MJ, et al. A study on the analysis of effect for the application of risk assessment. Seoul Korea: KOSHA OSHRI; 2007. p. 79-88.
  8. Etherton J. Industrial machine systems risk assessment: a critical review of concepts and methods. Risk Anal 2007;27:71-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00860.x.
  9. Russ K. Risk assessment in the UK health and safety system: theory and practice. Saf Health Work 2010;1(1):11-8. https://doi.org/10.5491/SHAW.2010.1.1.11.
  10. Schaefer K. The perception and measurement of human-robot trust [Dissertation]. Orlando (FL): University of Central Florida at Orlando; 2013.
  11. Franklin CS, Dominguez EG, Fryman JD, et al. Collaborative robotics: new era of humanerobot cooperation in the workplace. J Saf Res 2020;74:153-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.06.013.
  12. Chinniah Y, Paques JJ, Champoux M. Risk assessment and reduction. A machine safety case from Quebec. Prof Saf 2007;52(10):49-56.
  13. Jeon HW, Jung IS, Lee CS. Risk assessment for reducing safety accidents caused by construction machinery. J Kor Soc Saf 2013;28(6):64-72. https://doi.org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2013.28.6.064.
  14. Quinlan M, Bohle P, Lamm F. Managing occupational health and safety: a multidisciplinary approach. 3rd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010. p. 364-90 Chapter 9, Identifying, monitoring and assessing occupational hazards.
  15. Bird FE, Germain GL. Practical loss control leadership. 2nd ed. Loganville (GA): International Loss Control Institute, Inc; 1992. p. 1-22. 1992. Chapter 1, The causes and effects of loss.
  16. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Safety & loss control and the international safety rating system (ISRS); 2020. Retrieved from TopVes: https://www.dnvgl.com/services/isrs-for-the-health-of-your-business-2458.
  17. Reason J. Human error: models and management. West J Emerg Med 2000;172:393-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768.
  18. KOSHA. Guidance of the risk assessment at work. Seoul Korea: Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency; 2019 (Business Management; 322).
  19. International Standard ISO/TR 14121-2. Safety of machinery d risk assessment. Geneva: ISO copyright office; 2012. 2012.
  20. KOSME. Industrial analysis report for manufacturing robots. Seoul Korea: Korea SMEs and Startups Agency; 2019 (Report 2019-2).
  21. Dhillon BS. Robot system reliability and safety: a modern approach. 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2015. p. 97-112 Chapter 6, Robot safety.
  22. Rahimi M. System safety approach to robot safetyIn Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting; 1984 Oct 22-26; Orlando, FL, vol. 28; 1984. p. 102-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128402800201 (2).
  23. Hosseinian SS, Torghabeh ZJ. Major theories of construction accident causation models: a literature review. Int J Adv Eng Technol 2012;4(2):53-66.
  24. Gauthier F, Chinniah Y, Burlet-Vienney D, et al. Risk assessment in safety of machinery: impact of construction flaws in risk estimation parameters. Saf Sci 2018;109:421-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.024.
  25. Malm T, Ahonen T, Valisalo T. Risk assessment of machinery system with respect to safety and cyber-security. Espoo Finland: VTT research institution; 2018 (Research Report-VTT-R-01428-18).
  26. Best practices of risk assessment in manufacturing [Internet]. Seoul Korea: KOSHA; c2014-c2020 [updated 2020 Aug 20; cited 2020 Oct 15]. Available from: http://kras.kosha.or.kr/board/index/7?tabType=M.
  27. KISA. Consulting report of risk assessment in Changwon hospital. Changwon Korea: Korea Industrial Safety Association; 2019.