Formalization and Comparative Analysis of Employees Working Conditions at the Crimean Machine-Building Enterprises based on Occupational Safety Management System 2016


Based on the new systematization and formalization of hazards developed within the framework of the regulations on Occupational Safety Management System 2016, many factors are described, the number of which is 28, as well as many parameters (154). The factor parametric basis is built as a set: sets of exposure and susceptibility parameters, sets of parametric criteria for exceeding exposure over susceptibility, and the group of operations based on the signature of the fuzzy sets.  Introduction of this basis is intended for a complete (if possible) and standard description of all the preconditions for the occurrence of incidents in the specific system, calculation of the quantitative measures for their implementation, conducting comparative analysis of working conditions safety of the employees of various enterprises, and ordering of all the identified hazards and quantitative justification of exposure risk ranking. In this case, any adverse outcome of the incident is determined based on the condition of  exposure exceedence (load or dose) over the susceptibility (strength or resistance, effect parameter), and it is simply assumed that the protection monotonously weakens the exposure factor. Linear approximation of the probability measure is used to calculate the quantitative measure of exceedance of the type «fuzzy exposure greater than fuzzy susceptibility». The algorithm for calculating the probability measure of incident preconditions was used in the comparative analysis of working conditions at two enterprises: Krym metal structures group and Krymplast. In this case, the employees of two professions were selected: a welder and a painter. Based on the calculation of the possible measures of the expected adverse outcomes, it was found that based on the working conditions the Krymplast enterprise is significantly more dangerous due to bigger number of occupational diseases preconditions with higher values of possible measures of their manifestation.

  1. About the approval of the Standard regulation on the occupational safety management system: Order of Mintrud of Russia dated August 19, 2016 № 438n. Available at: (accessed: January 10, 2020). (In Russ.).
  2. Ryabinin I.A. Reliability and safety of structurally complex systems. Saint-Petersburg: Politekhnika, 2000. 248 p. (In Russ.).
  3. Pospelov D.A. Situational management: theory and practice. Moscow: Nauka, 1986. 288 p. (In Russ.).
  4. Dyubua D., Prad A. Theory of opportunity. Applications to the presentation of knowledge in the information technique. Moscow: Radio i svyaz, 1990. 288 p. (In Russ.).
  5. Klir Dzh. Systemology. Automation of solving system problems. Moscow: Radio i svyaz, 1990. 544 p. (In Russ.).
  6. Bolotin V.V. Statistical methods in structural mechanics. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. Moscow: Stroyizdat, 1965. 279 p. (In Russ.).
  7. Makhutov N.A., Reznikov D.O., Zatsarinnyy V.V. Specific features of statistical approaches in assessing static strength. Bezopasnost v tekhnosfere = Safety in Technosphere. 2014. Vol. 3. № 2. pp. 33–39. (In Russ.).
  8. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965. Vol. 8. pp. 338–353.
  9. Borisov A.N., Alekseev A.V., Merkureva G.V., Slyadz N.N., Glushkov V.I. Fuzzy information processing in decision making systems. Moscow: Radio i svyaz, 1989. 304 p. (In Russ.).
  10. Esipov Yu.V., Dzhilyadzhi M.S., Cheremisin A.I. Logical and parametric modeling of preconditions and the establishment of measures of certainty of an incident implementation in the system. Bezopasnost v tekhnosfere = Safety in Technosphere. 2017. Vol. 2. № 6. pp. 3–11. (In Russ.).
  11. Esipov Yu.V., Samsonov F.A., Cheremisin A.I. Monitoring and risk assessment of the systems «protection — object — environment»: monograph. Moscow: Izd-vo LKI, 2008. 136 p. (In Russ.).
  12. Esipov Yu.V., Mishenkina Yu.S., Cheremisin A.I. Models and indicators of technosphere safety: monograph. Moscow: Nauchno-izdatelskiy tsentr INFRA-M, 2018. 154 p. (In Russ.).
  13. Faynburg G.Z., Prosvirnin D.G. Problems of automation and digitalization of occupational risk assessment procedures. Bezopasnost i okhrana trudab = Safety and occupational safety. 2019. № 2. pp. 4–10. (In Russ.).
  14. Khoroshun E.G., Samchuk-Khabarova N.Ya., Esipov Yu.V. Development of the Methodology for the Limits of Acceptable Occupational Risk. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2019. № 6. pp. 86–89. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2019-6-86-89
  15. Dzhilyadzhi M.S. Development of the unified hazard assessment method for occupational safety management system based on the example of enterprises of the Republic of Crimea: scientific report. Available at: (accessed: January 10, 2020). (In Russ.).
  16. Buslenko N.P. Complex systems modeling. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. 400 p. (In Russ.).
  17. Gaenko V.P. Modern methods of analysis and safety assessment of complex technical systems. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo NITs BTS, 2004. 212 p. (In Russ.).
  18. Esipov Yu.V. Hazards modeling and establishment of a measure of an incident certainty in the system. Problemy mashinostroeniya i nadezhnosti mashin = Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability. 2003. № 3. pp 112–117. (In Russ.).
DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2020-6-60-66
Year: 2020
Issue num: June
Keywords : occupational safety working conditions logical model occupational safetу management system formalization comparative analysis linguistic model vertex outcome possible measure
  • Dzhilyadzhi M.S.
    Dzhilyadzhi M.S.
    Prorector, Lecturer State Public Educational Institution of Higher Education of the Republic of Crimea «Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov», Simferopol, Russia
  • Esipov Yu.V.
    Esipov Yu.V.
    Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Prof., Don State Technical University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia