APPRAISAL OF SAFETY PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN

NIGERIA USING MATLAB GRAPHICS USER INTERFACE

*1O. A. Balogun,1K.A. Adebiyi, 1V.A. Alao ,2O. A. Oyelaran, 2O. M. Sanusi ,1E.O. Taiwo
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Nigeria
2
Department of Mechanical& Mechatronics Engineering, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
In this study, manufacturing accident expense model was suggested. The expense of each class of
casualties (Ci) was developed in terms of probability of casualty incident (ρai), degree of casualty (fi),
establishment mean yearly income (γ), establishment most permissible service year (z), human hardship
for the category i (Hi), equipment breakdown (Ebi), Life span of the equipment (L), Operation life of
equipment (T), share rate (t), obtainment expense of machine (N), Equipment hour rate (EHR), machine
end time (θi), profitable implication expense (Eci), Worth of goods destroyed due to casualties category i
(Qi), Overall hour missed (βi) and establishment’s overall hourly expense of output (α). Data were obtained
from four manufacturing industries in Nigeria on accidents incident and expense of result of casualities.
Three classes of causalities were gotten as: deadly, severe and less. The collected data were used to
appraise the model parameters using Matlab Graphic User Interface (GUI) built only for this model. The
unit expense of each class of accidents was appraised to be deadly: $169,770; severe: $58,689.8 and less:
$13,529.

Keywords: Manufacturing, casualty, less, severe and deadly

*Corresponding author: segunmite2011@yahoo.com

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The manufacturing industry is one of the most dangerous branches in light of the frequency of
occupational accidents. Direct and indirect losses generated by major manufacturing accidents reduce
profit and cause management crises (Yaw-Yauanet al. 2011). Such losses significantly
affectmanufacturing stakeholders (business owners, workers, clients and the public). In all manufacturing
industries, engineers are responsible for ensuring and maintaining the safety of workmen, production
equipment and facilities. The effort made by the engineers is to reduce accident rate which is a function of
safety training program. In a manufacturing industry, there are many machines and equipment which have
large numbers of moving parts and other harmful protrusion if proper measures are not taken to safe guard
against them.

Ritcher and Koch (2004) described the ideal safety cultivation as the shared and learned meaning,
experiences and interpretation of work and safety expressed partially symbolically which guide peoples.
Safety cultivation plays a vital role in determining an organization’s achievement or setback. A
development of admiring safety cultivation provided little guidance on how organizations might improve
safety performance. A goal of admiring safety culture is to create an atmosphere in which employees are
aware of the risk in their workplace, continually on guard against them, and avoid taking any unsafe
actions (Ostromet al., 1993).
Manufacturing industry workers are exposed to different types of health hazards peculiar to the nature of
their job, hence there is a need for employer of labour or government to invest on appraisal of safety
practices that are functionally capable of reducing accident rate and likely consequence of exposure to such
hazard. The purpose of emphasis on manufacturing safety program is to reduce accident which would
results in injuries, death and reduced production rate. Since all manufacturing industries are set up with
primary objectives of making profit then safety of its worker should be paramount importance to the
management in order to reduce accidents which can result to low rate of production.

It is on this note that the work is dedicated on appraisal of protection manufacturing industries in Nigeria,
the safety practice or measure involved in training of companies’ personnel to meet up with challenges
presented by various hazards.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Many studies have discussed accident causation theories for various industries and are important for risk
analysis. During the 1930s, (Heinrich 1980)first proposed the Domino Theory and considered five factors
in accident sequences. The accident sequence is that human behavior deficiencies, preceded and influenced
by social and environmental factors, might lead to an unsafe state, accident, and injury. Unsafe states are
described as “unsafe acts and mechanical hazards” that are central in the accident sequence and are key to
removing the effectiveness of preceding factors. (Weaver 1971) used “unsafe act and/or condition” as the
central domino for modifying the domino theory of Heinrich. Unsafe acts and conditions are generally
traceable to poor management policies and decisions, in addition to personal and environmental factors.
(Nishishima 1975)introduced a fishbone model to describe the accident causation process, in which four
related factors generate unsafe states and unsafe behaviors. These factors include human, equipment, work,
and management. (Bellamy, 1989 and Geyer, 1992) proposed a sociotechnical pyramid model of accident
causation, which consists of five causal factors: engineering reliability, operator reliability, communication
and feedback control, organization and management, and psychological climate.

2.1 Concept of Casualty

A casualty is an unaware and undesigned (not purposefully caused) occasion which occurs instantly
thereby causing injury or loss, a reduction in worth of the resources, or an addition in debit. Virtually,
every day and in all human activities, casualities have become a regular feature. It occurs in human
endeavors such as transport, homes and manufacturing organizations among several others. They most
often occur as a result of unsafe conditions of work (Adebiyi et al, 2007). These undesirable events may
lead to human injury, damage to property, and loss of production hours, disease, permanent disability or
death, (Duignan, 2003 and Burns, 2006). The results of causalities, in most conditions, are not borne only
by those directly involved but extended to relatives, friends, employers and government (Adebiyi, 2006).
Despite all established standards and legislations on safety, with sophisticated devices developed and
researches carried out (Adebiyi et al, 2005); yet, a perfectly safe condition for human and property is still
an illusion.

An accident is being defined as ‘injury or damage to lives and properties’ (Stranks, 1998). Hence,
accidents are really bad events that need to be checked by putting them under control through the
application of safety interventions.
2.2 Causes of Industrial Accidents
According to the Encyclopedia of Occupation Health and Safety (Saarietal.,1998), causes of accidents can
be grouped as instant causes like unsafe acts and conditions or as an added causes like safety management
performance, mental and physical condition of worker.

Casualties don’t just occur, they are triggered. 99 percent of the casualty is triggered by either unsafe acts
or unsafe conditions or both (Ridley, 1986). As such, accidents could be prevented. The unsafe act is a
violation of an accepted safe procedure which could permit the occurrence of a casualty. The unsafe
condition is hazardous physical condition or circumstances which could directly permit the incident of
casualty. Most casualty results from a addition of contributing causes and one or more unsafe acts and
condition. Casualty theories and models discussed in the previous section have evolved from merely
blaming workers, conditions, machineries into management. Moreover, in order to effect permanent
improvement, we must deal with the root cause of casualty (Alagbeet al., 2014).

2.3 Monitoring And Review of Safety Performance

Most times danger cannot be removed through design. In these cases, safety guarding in the form of a
physical barrier gives more protection at a relatively low charge. Finding how often a machine or area
must be accessed helps refine the list of possible solutions. It’s also important to make sure the solution
itself doesn’t cause another danger (Aberdeen group, 2010).

It should be shown that means for independent safety review are in place and that an objective internal
self-evaluation programme supported by periodic external reviews conducted by experienced industry
peers is established. It should also be shown that relevant measurable indicators of safety performance are
used to enable senior management to detect and respond in a timely way to any shortcomings and
deterioration in safety. This section should include a description of the way in which the operating
organization wish to find out any improvement of the organization that could yield to the degradation of
safety performance and should justify the appropriateness of the measures planned to prevent such
degradation. (IAEA, Vienna (2001)).

2.4 Safety and Health Program

The purpose of an Occupational Health & Safety (OHS) Program is to prevent injuries and occupational
diseases, and to deal effectively with accidents or incidents that occur. Sometimes, producers invest safety
schedule and technology as an afterthought in reply to a Casualty or new industry standard, instead of in
expectation. In history, the limit to safety technology also added to this reactive approach. The technology
often required machines to come to a full stop and be in a safe state for repair or maintenance. Because end
time reduced profitable productivity, technicians, operators and maintenance personnel often by cut safety
systems and put people and equipment at the chance of injury in the process. Rigorous World safety
standards, technology innovations and thorough risk management techniques now make it possible to
improve on a more proactive approach to safety schedule. While each producer should customize a safety
schedule to its specific needs. (Calvin.E.B, 2007)

2.6 The Role of Safety Culture

Presently, safety Practices has become the main factor in observing the organization’s safety performance.
Safety practices have captivated much concentration because it plays an important role to confirm the
organization’s achievement or loss. The main of safety practices among others is projected at encouraging
the organization towards excellent safety performance. In Malaysia, there are various types of
manufacturing industry. They are ranging from electronics, petrochemicals, automotive, textiles, wood
based, plastics and many others. Different types of industry generate different industrial Casualty, risks
and hazards. As most casualties were caused by unsafe behaviors (Mullen, 2004) at the workplace, it is
important that good attitudes should be possessed by individuals in order to exhibit safety behaviors. In
this case, safety practices provide guidance to the workers in interpreting the meaning of workplace safety.
Organizations with safety practices elevate belongingness, trust and participation. It also emphasized that
the safety practices can be quantized by examining the reciprocal interaction between safety management
systems; people perceptions about safety and people’s actual safety related behavior (Cooper, 2002).
Workers propel through cohesiveness and membership in the organization. They remind each other on the
importance of safety and facilitate interaction through team work. Safety culture also provides shared
values and beliefs that assist workers to realize organizational safety and offerthem with guidance for their
safety practices in the organization. In addition, it emphasizes on Broad participation by employees in the
safety activities and establishes communication.Channels to disseminate safety information. It maintains
an essential focus on the internal Organizational safety standard. In an organization with safety culture,
workplace safety has never been compromised with productivity. Leaders lead the workers by
demonstrating safety is a value to them and to the organization. They assure the workplace is safe for the
workers to perform their duties. Thus, workers will have more confidence to carry out their job and
subsequently improve the productivity. In terms of shaping individual safety behaviors, safetyculture
encourages the exhibition of safety compliance and safety participation behavior. It promotes safety in the
sense of empowerment and self-belongingness. The shared responsibility of safety will further influence
peers and supervisors to participate in safety programs. The adaptability on safety willcertainly lead to
valued outcome such as performing citizenship activities in the workplace (Tsui et al, 1997).

2.7 An Overview on the Need of Ergonomics in Manufacturing Industry

Base on Gary (2004), with his past context based on OSHA as the backdrop, the question was “Why an
industry (such as the furniture manufacturing industry) would be encouraged to develop an ergonomics
guideline without being given an order to do so by OSHA?” The answer to this question is threefold.The
very nature of the product that is manufactured in most furniture manufacturing facilities is challenging to
handle (heavy, bulky, and awkward) and often requires a great deal of manual work (sanding, rubbing,
stapling, and spraying). Identifying the considerable physical needs of many work tasks, most furniture
manufacturing facilities have implemented target ergonomics solutions, and many have fully embraced
ergonomics as an integral component of their operations. Before discussion of the development of a
voluntary ergonomics guideline even began, a number of the furniture companies represented on the
AFMA Safety Committee were able to show significant reductions in workers compensation charge and
improve on productivity with the implementation of ergonomics practices and/or ergonomics scheme, and
were eager for other in the furniture manufacturing industry to experience the same benefits. Second, it
was recognized by most of the individuals on the committee that there would eventually be a federal
ergonomics standard. It was reasoned that if the furniture manufacturing industry were to take proactive
step, their guidelines might be grand-fathered in as an alternative to future rules or regulations. Finally,
there had been a beneficial collaborative industry-research partnership in existence for 8 years prior to
considering the development of this guideline. This relationship had developed to the point that industry
was beginning to adopt some of the ergonomics interventions that had been developed through the
research process and they were beginning to see the potential impact of these interventions in their own
injury prevention experience.Expanding this general concept further, it was felt that the potential sharing
of effective solutions across companies could get net great benefits for all furniture manufacturers in much
the same way that the industry was collectively benefiting from the results of the university-initiated
research. Using a best practice approach to this guideline could provide an excellent vehicle for this
dissemination. This section should demonstrate that human factors engineering and human–machine
interface issues have been adequately taken into deliberation in the modification of the design, so as to
facilitate interaction between the operating human and the equipment. This should be valid for all
operational states and accident conditions and for all plant locations where such interactions are
anticipated. This section should include a description of the principles of human factors engineering used
for taking into account all factors shaping human performance that could have an influence on the
reliability of the operators’ performance (IAEA, VIENNA, (2004)).

3.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT ON EVALUATION COST OF ACCIDENT

When casualty happened, it yields into injury, damage, loss and emotion to the victims of casualty, that is,
the people, equipment, inhabitant, environment, plant and systems (Barber and Donovan, 1998). The
resultant effects of accidents are basis for developing most casualty appraised models. The existing
casualty expense appraising models employ optimistic approach. But the incident of casualty is
probabilistic in nature and also the associated expense. Therefore, in the current model, the probability of
incident of casualties is considered. First, the notations used are defined.

Notations
ρai= probability of casualty incident category i (dimensionless)

Hi= human hardship for the category i ($)

γ = establishment mean yearly income ($ /year)

z = establishment most permissible service year (year)

fi= degree of casualty (Dimensionless)

L = Life span of the equipment (Year)

t = share rate

T= Operation life of equipment

N = obtainment expense of machine ($)

EHR = Equipment hour rate ($/T)

Θi= machine end time i(T)

Qi= Worth of goods destroyed due to casualties category i ($)

Eci = profitable implication expense

βi= Overall hour missed i

α = establishment’s overall hourly expense of output ($/T).

 i = Counter of category of casualties

G = Number of identified category of casualties

1 = Deadly

2 = Severe

3 = less

The unit Expense of Casualties Category i (Ci) may be given as (ref):

Ci = f(ρai,Pc) (1)
Using magnitude consistence,
Ci= ρai*Pc (2)
However,
Pc = f(Hi, Eqi, Eci) (3)
Applying dimensional consistency,
Pc = ρai*(Hi + Eqi + Eci) (4)
But,
Hi = fγz (5)
While,
(1+𝑡)𝐿−𝑇
Eqi = f [ ]N + MHRθ (6)
(1+𝑡)𝐿−𝑇 −1
Also,
Eci = Qi + βiα (7)
Substituting equations 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 in equation 3.2, we have:
(1+𝑡)𝐿−𝑇
Ci=ρai2*[𝑓 [𝛾𝑧 + N [ ] + EHRθ + Qi + 𝛽i𝛼]] (8)
(1+𝑡)𝐿−𝑇 −1

3.1Model Application
The model was applied to estimate the expense of casualties in manufacturing industries. Data was
collected on yearly basis from four (4) manufacturing companies in Nigeria on annual record of casualties
and yearly expenditure on Safety Intervention Scheme (SIS). The data include the casualty’s incident and
other model parameters. As a matter of fact, no single factor can cause a casualty. Casualty incident
involves combination of two or more contributory factors and also the cost of potential consequences.
Thus results of casualties may be categorized into human hardship, property damaged and profitable
implication expense. The appraised model parameters are presented in Table 4.1.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4.1: Manufacturing accidents unit cost estimation model

PARAMETERS COMPANY A COMPANY B COMPANY C COMPANY D TOTAL

ESTIMATES ESTIMATES ESTIMATES ESTIMATES ESTIMATES
Establishment
mean yearly 2880 1920 6920 3600 3830
income ($/year)
establishment most
permissible service 29 27 56 53 41.25
year(year)

Life span of the

equipment (year) 18 22 25 27 23

share rate (%) 10 10 10 10 10

Operation life of 12 16 19 21 17
equipment
obtainment expense
of machine ($) 5000 2460 11000 6740 6300

Equipment hour
rate ($/T) 140 100 160 260 165

establishment’s
overall hourly 1400 1000 1600 2600 1650
expense of output
($/T)

machine end time i

( deadly) 19 13 19 10 15.25

machine end time

i(severe) 9 5 6 5 6.25

machine end time

i(less) 3 3 2 3 2.75

Worth of goods
destroyed due to
casualties category 20600 13000 30400 24000 22000
i (deadly)

Worth of goods
destroyed due to 6600 5000 9600 8000 7300
casualties category
i (severe)

Worth of goods
destroyed due to 4200 3000 7200 4800 4800
casualties category
i (less)

Overall hour
missed i (deadly) 12 11 12 10 11.25
Overall hour
missed i (severe) 6 7 8 9 7.5

Overall hour
missed i (less) 4 2 3 3 3

degree of casualty
(deadly) 0.80 0.74 0.80 0.60 0.735

degree of casualty
(severe) 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.38 0.2425

degree of casualty 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.0225

(less)

probability of
casualty incident 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.2475
category i
(deadly)

probability of
casualty incident 0.32 0.26 0.41 0.30 0.4675
category i
(severe)

probability of
casualty incident 0.54 0.60 0.42 0.50 0.285
category i
(less)
DEADLY 119696 67282 381536 171124 169770
SEVERE 35973.6 23732 88228.4 98405.2 58689.8
LESS 10730.4 7286 22835.6 17330.8 13529

In estimating the manufacturing casualty expense cost, the data on incident of casualties has to evaluate the
probability of each category of casualties as: 0.2625, 0.3225, and 0.415 for deadly, severe and less
casualties respectively (from Table 4.1). This reflects that less casualties has highest probability of
incident, however, the deadly casualties has the highest profitable implication expense that will affect the
productive system of a territory or the ability to buy goods, cost of equipment damages, cost of accidents.
This was incorporated to potential incident of casualties appraised to obtain the manufacturing casualties
expense from overall appraisal as $169,770, $58,689.8 and $13,529for deadly, severe and less casualties,
respectively.
Using the parameters, the expense of each of category of casualties is appraised from the Total appraisal as
shown in the:Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2
Parameters Class of Accident
Fatal ($) Serious ($) Minor ($)
Hi 116121 38312 3554.72
Ebi 6486.75 2765.25 636.75
Eci 47162.5 17612.5 9337.5
Ci 169,770 58,689.8 13,529

The cost of Equipment damages as a result of accident is high in fatal accident which was shown through
the result from the model. The sample of parameters of the unit cost of accidents were collected from four
major companies in Nigeria, which are classified based on Packaging Companies. The average parameters
of the four companies’ data collected by questionnaire were computed in Matlab Graphic User Interface
(GUI) generated for this Appraisal of Safety Practices in Manufacturing Industries in Nigeria.

5.0 CONCLUSION
In this study, the expense appraisal model was formulated and applied to the data obtained from the four
manufacturing industries. Although, the inflationary condition was not put into consideration,
notwithstanding, the application estimated the expenses of deadly, severe and less casualties as
$169,770, $58,689.8 and $13,529 respectively. Based on this, it could be concluded that the deadly
casualties have the highest contribution to adversity, while severe casualties has highest probability
of incident, in manufacturing industry and minor accident has the lowest unit expense of casualty.

REFERENCES
[1] Aberdeen Group (2010). A Risk Management Approach for Improving Safety and Productivity.

[2] Adebiyi, K.A, Charles-Owaba, E.O., Waheed, M.A. (2007) "Safety performance evaluation
models: a review", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 16 Iss: 2, pp.178 – 187.

[3] Adebiyi, K.A. (2006). The development of a manufacturing safety program simulator.Ph D
thesis.Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.

[3] Adebiyi, K.A.; Jekayinfa, S.O.; Charles-Owaba, E.O. (2005). Appraisal of Safety Practices in
Agro-Allied Industries in South-Western Nigeria. Journal of Disaster Prevention and
Management: 14(1): 80-88.

[4] Adebiyi K. A. (2002) “Road Traffic Accident Cost Estimation Model” Research Communications
in Management. 1 (2) pp32 – 35.

[6] Alagbe, J.B., et al. (2014). Prediction of Accidents Rate in Manufacturing Industries using
Artificial Neural Network(ANN).Unpublished B.Tech Project, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, LadokeAkintola University, Ogbomoso, Oyo,State.
[7] Barber D. H. and R. E. Donovan (1998) Industrial Safety Handbook of Industrial Engineering and
Management. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, 110001.

[8] Bellamy, L. J. and Geyer, T. A. W., “Organizational, management and human factors in quantified
risk assessment,” HSE Contract Research Report, No. 33, Health and Safety Executive, London
(1992).

[9] Burns, C.M. (2006). Towards Proactive Monitoring in the in the Petrochemical Industry. Journal
of Safety Science 44:27-36.

[10] Calvin E. B., (2007), “Risk Performance Metrics,” CFMA Building Profits,

[11] Charles-Owaba, O.E. and Adebiyi, K.A. (2001). On the Performance of the FRSC: Oyo State
Sector Command. Nigerian Journal of Engineering Management. 2(3): 50-6.

[12] Cooper, M. D., 2000. Towards a Model of Safety Culture.Safety Science, 36, 111 -136.

[13] Duignan, T. (2003), “Good health and safety is good business”, Engineering Technology.
July/August, pp. 12-13. Encarta, Encarta Encyclopedias.

[14] Gary, A. M., (2004), ‘’Development of an ergonomics guideline for the furniture manufacturing
industry’’. The Ergonomics Laboratory, Department of Industry Engineering, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh.

[15] Heinrich, H. W., Industrial Accident Prevention, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980).

[16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, “IAEA Safety Guide No. NS-G-2.3
Modifications to Nuclear Power Plants,” IAEA, Vienna, 2001.

[17] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, “IAEA Safety Guide No. NS-G-2.3
Modifications to Nuclear Power Plants,” IAEA, Vienna, 2004.

[18] Mullen, J. (2004). Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. Journal
of Safety Research, 35, 275-285. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2004.03.011

[19] Nishishima, S., Textbook for The Group Training Course in IndustrialSafety and Health, Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Tokyo (1989).

[20] Ostrom, Wilhelmsen, &Daplan (1993), Factors contribute to safety culture in Manufacturing
Industry in Malaysia.
https:harms.com/…/factors_contribute_to_safety_culture_in_manufacturing_industry.

[21] Richer and Koch (2004) “Lees’ Loss Prevention in the process Industries” Frank Lees-2012-
Technology & Engineering. https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0123977827.

[22] Ridley, J. (1986) Safety at Work, 2nd Edition. London: Butterworth Ltd.

[23] Saari J et al (1998). Part VIII. Chapter 56.Accident Analysis. In: Encyclopaedia of Occupational
Health and Safety, 4th ed. International Labour Organization, Geneva.
http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/. Accessed 1 Feb 2012.

[24] Stranks, J.(1998), Human Factors and Safety, Pitman London

[25] Tsui AS, Egan TD, and O’Reilly CA, 1992. Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579

[26] Weaver, D., “Symptoms of operational error,” Professional Safety, Vol.104, No. 2, pp. 39-42
(1971).

[27] Yaw-Yauan, Young-Huang Lin, Chen-Chung Lin “An Integrated Quantitative Risk Analysis
Method for Major Construction Accidents using Fuzzy Concepts and Influence Diagram”.
Jmst.ntou.edu.tw/marine/19-4/383-391.pdf.

[28] Zabetakis, M., Accident Prevention, MSHA, Washington, (1975).

APPENDICES
COMPANY A EVALUATION
COMPANY B EVALUATION
COMPANY C EVALUATION
COMPANY D EVALUATION
MEAN OF TOTAL COMPANY A,B,C,D EVALUATION