ELECTRICAL HAZARDS IN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND EVALUATION OF THE MEASURES
Keywords:Arc flash, Analytical hierarchy process, Electrical installation inspection, Electric shock, Prioritization
Control measures against electrical hazards in industrial facilities are given in the form of inspection checklists in standards and regulations. In these classic checklists, only the precautions against electric shock are checked within the scope of occupational health and safety. Industrial facilities have not only electrical shock hazards but also arc flash hazards. Therefore, checklists must include precautions against arc flash injuries. To design these measures, the magnitude of the arc flash incident energy must first be calculated. In this paper, the incident energy formula has been evaluated. In addition, new control lines have been added to the inspection checklist for precautions against arc flash hazards. Another important issue is the prioritization of the electrical installation checklist lines by calculating their importance weights. In this prioritization, the analytical hierarchy process, one of the multi-criteria decision-making techniques, was used. 23 experienced inspection engineers were interviewed to create a weighted prioritization table for the 33-line checklist. Thus, occupational safety professionals working in industrial facilities will be able to make an action plan for corrective actions using this prioritization table.
(1) S. Dudor, Application and use of inspection checklists for factory and field inspection of electrical equipment, IEEE Copyright Material, Paper No. PCIC-88-32, IEEE, USA (2000).
(2) E. Garnham, Inspection and testing of electrical installations, IEE Conference Publication European Conference on optical communication, ECOC, 8, 287, pp. 87-91, UK (1988).
(3) H. Lovegrove, Inspection, Testing and verification, IEE Conference Publication, 375, pp. 74–79, UK, 1993).
(4) P. Bicheno, Periodic inspection, and the electrical installation cond. The report, IET Wiring Matters Journal, 31–34, UK (2011).
(5) IEE Wiring Regulations, BS 7671 Forms, Form 3 Schedule of Inspections, UK (2001).
(6) G. Alecu, A. Voina, W. Kappel, C. Mateescu, Safety and health legislative requirements regarding workers exposure to risks generated by electromagnetic fields, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.–Électrotechn. et Énerg., 53, Suppl., pp. 7–12, Bucarest (2008).
(7) T. Leuca, M. Arion, About numerical analysis of electromagnetic and thermal field in induction equipment with moving bodies, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.–Électrotechn. et Énerg., 54, 3, pp. 271–279, Bucarest (2009).
(8) Y. Kisa, Evaluation of occupational health and safety conditions in casting workshops with multi-criteria decision-making methods (in Turkish), Labor and social security, general directorate of occupational health and safety expert thesis, Ministry of Occupational Health and Safety, Turkey (2014).
(9) Harker P., Vargas L., Theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process, Management Science Journal, Informs, USA (1987).
(10) F. Partovi, W. Hopton, The analytic hierarchy process as applied to two types of inventory problems, Production and Inventory Management Journal, APICS – The Educational Society for Resource Management, USA (1994).
(11) A. Ozdagoglu, Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP for the multi-criteria decision-making processes with linguistic evaluations, Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Science, 6, 11, pp. 65-85, Turkey (2007).
(12) BEAMA, British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers' Association, The RCD Handbook, Selection Guide and Application, UK (2010).
(13) N. Hadziefendic, N. Kostic, J. Trifunovic, M. Kostic, Detection of poor contacts in low-voltage electrical installations, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, 9, 1, pp. 129–37, IEEE, USA (2019).
(14) L. Taranu, P. Notingher, C. Stancu, Dependence of electrical conductivity of ethylene propylene rubber on electric field and temperature, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.–Électrotechn. et Énerg., 63, 3, pp. 243–248, Bucarest (2018).
(15) D. Christopher, D. Michael, G. Moniz, Handbook for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA 70E 2018, USA (2018).
(16) F. Moisiadis, Case study on the use of scaling methods for prioritizing requirements, INCOSE International Symposium, 9, 1, pp. 1451-57 (1999).
(17) U. Dayanandan, V. Kalimuthu, A fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) based software quality assessment model, maintainability analysis, International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 11, 4, pp. 88–96, Japan (2018).
(18) M. Mastura, S. Sapuan, M. Mansor, A framework for prioritizing customer requirements in product design: incorporation of FAHP with AHP, Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Sciences 9 1655–70, Universiti Malaysia Pahang (2015).
(19) M. Rostami, A. Goudarzi, M. Zaj, Defining balanced scorecard aspects in banking industry using FAHP approach, International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 1, 1, pp. 25–38, USA (2015).
(20) I. Akyurt, N. Kabadayi, Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy gray relational method for cargo aircraft type selection, a case study in a Turkish airline company, 38–55, Journal of Yaşar University, Turkey (2020).
(21) A. Zebar, A. Hamouda, K. Zehar, Impact of the location of fuzzy controlled static var compensator on the power system transient stability improvement in presence of distributed wind generation, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.–Électrotechn. et Énerg., 60, 4, pp. 426–436, Bucarest (2015).
(22) N. Zidane, S. Belaid, A new fuzzy logic solution for energy management of hybrid photovoltaic/battery/hydrogen system, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.–Électrotechn. et Énerg., 65, 1, pp. 21–26, Bucarest (2020).
(23) A. Laib, F. Krim, B. Talbi, H. Feroura, A. Belaout, Hardware implementation of fuzzy maximum power point tracking through sliding mode current control for photovoltaic systems, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.–Électrotechn. et Énerg., 66, 2, pp. 91–96, Bucarest (2021).
(24) F. Gundogdu, C. Kahraman, A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application, Soft Computing 24 4607–4621, Springer-Verlag GmbH, Germany (2020).
(25) K. Kocakaya, T. Engin, M. Tektas, U. Aydin, Aircraft type selection for regional airlines in turkey integration of spherical fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS methods, (in Turkish) Bandirma Onyedieylül University, Intelligent Transportation Systems and Application Journal, 4, 1, pp. 27-58, Bandirma, Balikesir, Turkey (2021).
(26) E. Cakir, Z. Ulukan, Global fuzzy sets reliable analysis Engineering Journal of Science and Design, 9, 1, pp. 230–39 (2021).
(27) M. Canbolat, Software selection with global fuzzy topics method criteria decision making (in Turkish), Doctoral Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey (2019).