Assessing Effectiveness of Technical Measures for Improving Working Conditions of Wheeled Vehicle Operators

  • V. Shkrabak
  • A. KaluginEmail author
  • Y. Averyanov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


The chapter considers the issue of assessing the effectiveness of technical measures aimed at improving the working conditions of wheeled vehicle operators. A problem is caused by a contradiction between the need to assess the effectiveness of technical measures, on the one hand, and the lack of an objective methodology for their assessment which would take into account the operator working conditions, on the other hand. The paper proposes a solution to the existing problem, which is based on an original method for comparative assessment of the effectiveness of technical measures that contribute to the improvement of working conditions for wheeled vehicle operators. The methodology for assessing the effectiveness of technical measures is based on the justified assumption that technical devices do not equally influence the safety level and conditions of wheeled vehicle operators. The proposed methodology was approved based on comparative testing of the existing and newly developed technical devices of wheeled vehicles. We assessed the effectiveness of the proposed technical devices and compared it with that of their analogs. The implementation of the proposed methodology for assessing the effectiveness of technical measures for the improvement of working conditions of wheeled vehicle operators will improve their safety in the operational process.


Wheeled vehicles Operator working conditions Safety Comparison testing Assessment methodology 


  1. 1.
    Bogdanov AV (2010) Increase of safety and improvement of assessment of working conditions of mobile wheel car operators in agrarian industrial production. Dissertation, St. Petersburg-PushkinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gorshkov YuG, Kalugin AA, Bogdanov AV (2011) Assessment of organizational and technical measures for improving the safety of mobile wheeled vehicle operators. J Labor Prot Saf Agric 2:43–45Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mohammadfam I, Kamalinia M, Momeni B, Golmohammadi R, Hamidi Y, Soltanian A (2017) Evaluation of the quality of occupational health and safety management systems based on key performance indicators in certified organizations. J Saf Health Work 8(2):156–161. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anishchenko EB, Trankovskaya LV (2014) Hygienic aspects of the working conditions assessment and state of health of the workers of the railway departmental security forces. Gig Sanit, pp 48–50, PMID: 25051740Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cacciabue PC, Cojazzi G (1994) A human factors method-ology for safety assessment based on the DYLAM approach. J Reliab Eng Syst Saf 45(1–2):127–138. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dame Carol Black (2012) Work, health and wellbeing. J Saf Health Work 3(4):241–242. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kyung-Sun Lee, Myung-Chul Jung (2015) Ergonomic evaluation of biomechanical hand function. J Saf Health Work 6(1):9–17. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meng L, Wolff MB, Mattick KA, DeJoy DM, Wilson MG, LeeM Smith (2017) Strategies for worksite health interventions to employees with elevated risk of chronic diseases. J Saf Health Work 8(2):117–129. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carder M, Hussey L, Money A, Gittins M, McNamee R, Stocks SJ, Sen D, Agius RM (2017) The health and occupation research network: an evolving surveillance system. J Saf Health Work 8(3):231–236. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ya Kim, Park Ju, Park M (2016) Creating a culture of prevention in occupational safety and health practice. J Saf Health Work 7(2):89–96. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Averyanov YI (2006) Improving the safety of the process of harvesting grain crops on the basis of improving the system “Operator-Machine-Environment”. Dissertation, University of St. PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andros VA (1973) Theoretical studies of the effect of hazards on human operator. Znanie, Moscow, p 64Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borisova EV (2013) Material and technical provision and efficiency of agricultural production (on the materials of the Russian Federation). Dissertation, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorshkov YG, Zolotykh SV, Starunova IN, Kalugin AA (2016) Increase in effectiveness and safety of motion of wheeled machines under agricultural conditions: monograph. Printing house “City-Print”, FE Myakotin IV, Chelyabinsk, 484 pGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andros VA (1970) Substantiation of the initial assumptions for the analysis of the causes of industrial injuries. In: Proceedings of VIM, vol 46, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gavrichenko AI, Vasiliev GP (1999) Working conditions and incidence of rural machine operators. J Eng Equip Village 7:21–22Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gavrichenko AI (1998) Labor protection at the present stage. In: State and scientific problems of health hazard and workers’ industrial injuries in the Russian agroindustrial complex: Sat. sci. tr. Eagle: VNIIOT, 1998, pp 11–16Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guideline R 2.2.2006-05 Guide on hygienic assessment of factors of working environment and work load. Criteria and classification of working conditionsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalugin AA, Gorshkov YG, Starunova IN (2013) Expert appraisal is a tool for managing professional risk indices in the Russian agrarian industrial complex. J Nauka 3:74–81Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zio E, Baraldi P, Librizzi M, Podofillini L, Dang VN (2009) A fuzzy set-based approach for modeling dependence among human errors. J Fuzzy Sets Syst 160(13):1947–1964MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Petersburg State Agrarian UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.South Urals Chamber of Commerce and IndustryChelyabinskRussia
  3. 3.South Ural State UniversityChelyabinskRussia

Personalised recommendations