Safety and Security Engineering V 55

Risk assessment: workers operating in

loading/unloading (shipping/receiving) areas
E. Salvador & M. Forte
Axa Matrix Risk Consultants, Italy

Abstract
Loading/unloading areas are essential for many businesses, including production
facilities, logistic centres, product receiving/shipping centres, department stores
etc. These areas can be very dangerous for workers due to the type of operation,
the use of mobile equipment and the frequent interferences between workers and
mobile equipment.
This presentation is a quantitative methodology (isorisk maps) to analyse and
map the risks related to loading/unloading areas with the aim of comparing the
various levels of exposure for workers, considering different technical and
design solutions and with respect to applicable procedures.
This methodology is based on the identification of a risk assessment criteria
(risk grading) from which it is possible to extract quantitative indications of the
vulnerability level (probability), severity (loss potential) for each site and the
impact of single risk factors.
Keywords: risk assessment, vulnerability, severity, loading/unloading areas,
shipping/receiving areas, isorisk maps.

1 Isorisk maps
As already described in Forte and Salvador [1] this methodology for identifying
and representing the risk is based on the evaluation of vulnerability and severity
for each identified scenario. Vulnerability is defined as a measure of the
frequency and probability in normal operative conditions. Severity is defined as
the quantification of loss expectancy in normal operative conditions with
prevention and protection systems.
Using these criteria, it is possible to produce graphs vulnerability–severity
(so-called “isorisk maps”), to graphically represent the exposure to a given peril.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
doi:10.2495/SAFE130061
56 Safety and Security Engineering V

The graph refers to the traditional risk definition: R = S ⋅ V , where S is the

severity, V the vulnerability and R the risk.
As it is not possible to define a “mathematical” value of the frequency, an
alternative value, defined as “vulnerability”, is used. This vulnerability is based
on the evaluation and subsequent elaboration of some typical indicators of the
event frequency.
In the graph, each location (a production facility, a warehouse or any other
type of facility) is represented with a dot whose position is defined by the
vulnerability and severity values (defined in the following paragraphs). Figure 1
is an example.
This methodology will be applied to assess the risk for operators working in
loading/unloading areas.

Figure 1: Isorisk map.

2 Loading/unloading docking bays

This paper refers to loading docks in which the connection between the floor and
the truck is made through electro-hydraulic ramps. This connection must be
correctly positioned to guarantee stability during the passage of mobile
equipment or operators used to load or unload the truck.
Typically, loading docks are at least 1.20 m high and are as long as needed to
cover the front of the service area to protect equipment operations from weather
(as shown in Figure 2).

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Safety and Security Engineering V 57

Figure 2: Loading/unloading docks.

Loading ramps and docking bays have specific characteristics and are
referenced in the Health and Safety rules in work areas (see references).
These work areas are often identified as the most dangerous in many Risk
Assessment documents, and are therefore subject to particular attention by
Prevention and Protection Officers. Evaluations are usually based on qualitative
or semi-quantitative criteria, using a risk matrix where higher values correspond
to higher risks. However, an in-depth analysis of the areas is usually lacking,
thus preventing the identification of the main risk factors on which to intervene
with adequate prevention and protection measures.
Assuming typical work rules are respected, the following methodology
provides a tool to compare different physical and human arrangements to assess
the aspects most affecting a loading/unloading area risk.

3 Methodology to develop a grading system for quantifying

the risk
The creation of an evaluation system (grading) of the risk in loading/unloading
areas (ref. Figure 3) is based on a series of activities, summarised as follows:
- Breakdown of loading and unloading area into macroareas
- Analysis of the main risks present in the macroareas
- “Engineered” analysis of the macroareas and definition of a set of variables
- Definition of algorithms for risk quantification
This grading is based on the definition of a set of variables, each one associated
with two or more “closed” answers corresponding to ratings used by algorithms
for risk quantification.
This data input structure allows the distribution of the grading via a checklist
sent to various locations. Collected information is then converted into numerical
indications through a system of weights and algorithms, guaranteeing the
objectiveness of the analysis.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
58 Safety and Security Engineering V

Figure 3: Analysis methodology.

3.1 Breakdown of loading/unloading areas into macroareas

The analysis of areas used for product loading/unloading operations through

docking bays equipped with motorized ramps identifies six possible macroareas,
each with features allowing the development and the creation of a set of
dedicated variables.
The identified macroareas can be further subdivided into physical areas
(physical aspects) and human element aspects, as shown in Figure 4.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Safety and Security Engineering V 59

Figure 4: Breakdown into macroareas.

Physical elements
1. Service area area in the front of the docking bay, dedicated to
trucks moving
2. Docking Bay area raised with respect to the service area, dedicated
to the ramp and docking facilities and to the mobile or
manual means to manoeuvre goods from the truck.
3. Ramp hooked or telescopic, used to connect the docking bay
and the truck
4. Truck truck must approach the docking bay and be docked
for loading/unloading operations.

Human Element aspects

5. Bay operator responsible for loading and unloading operations from
the truck.
6. Truck operator truck driver (employee of the Customer or third
company).

Each area has been analysed to highlight the variables and the perils affecting the
associated risk.

3.2 Main perils present in the macroareas

Considering the identified macroareas and the kinds of activities present, the
majority of perils can be linked to:
- Fall
Falls are possible from the bay (usually placed at 1,5-2 m higher with
respect to the service area) due to an early departure of the truck or to
inadequate anti-fall protection means on the docking bay.
- Trip/Slippage
Trip peril can be due to the presence of protrusions on the floor (ex. the
ramp is lifted from the bay, or presence of truck guiding tracks in the service

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
60 Safety and Security Engineering V

area); slippage can be due to slippery surfaces (ex. for macroclimatic aspects
not adequately managed).
- Accident
In the service and docking areas, due to the presence of vehicles and
operators in movement.
- Crush/hit
Crushing of a worker by a moving vehicle against a wall or pallet load, or a
hit between the vehicle and a worker operating in the service or docking
areas.

3.3 Analysis of the areas and creation of a set of variables

The analysis then further defines a wide number of variables linked to the
various macroareas. As per the example in Figure 5 below, these variables are
defined for the macroarea: “Service Area”.
A weight is then attributed to each variable, based on a predetermined criteria
for each of the perils it is connected to.

Figure 5: Details of variables for the service area.

The analysis process, then weights each variable as a function of each

connected peril, and the effect in terms of vulnerability and/or severity. This is
outlined in the following table, showing the analysis done for the presence of
lateral demarcation lines of trucks in the service area.

4 Risk quantification
To allow a self-assessment, a set of “closed” answers is assigned to each
question.
The answers are then modified by an algorithm which associates them to a
rating. Together with the previously described weights, this quantifies the
contribution of a single element to the vulnerability and severity.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Safety and Security Engineering V 61

Table 1: Example of a checklist, relative to variable 1.2 of Figure 4.

Area:

1. Service area

Variable:

Truck lateral
1.2
demarcation lines

Type of variable (vulnerability/severity):

This element affects only the vulnerability, as it does not
V represent a physical obstacle to the occurrence of a loss, but
it can decrease its probability.
Weights:
Not applicable in the service area as there is no
Fall 0
height difference: null.
The presence/lack of lateral demarcation lines
Stumble/Slippage 0 does not affect the possibility of
tripping/slippage of the workers: null
The presence of demarcation lines in the service
Accident W3
area helps the drivers while approaching the
truck to the docking bay, decreasing the
possibility (vulnerability) of an accident/hit of
Crush/Hit W4 the workers: weight not null, to be defined
according to the quantification criteria adopted.

To obtain risk indicators useful to compare the areas between the various
locations, these ratings are elaborated to obtain, respectively:

- Vulnerability Vp and severity Sp associated to each peril, irrespective of the

area;
- Vulnerability Va and severity Sa associated to each area, irrespective of the
peril;
- Global vulnerability Vg and severity Sg associated with the
loading/unloading area of the location, considering the contributions of all
the variables in each area and associated with each peril.

The following is a description of the expressions used to evaluate V and S in the

three mentioned cases.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
62 Safety and Security Engineering V

Table 2: Vulnerability and severity parameters.

Parameters V and S, divided per peril (contribution from all the variables)

N N

∑ (rating ) ∑ (rating ⋅ w p, j )
2 2
j ⋅ w p, j j
j =1 j =1
Vp = Sp =
N N
Vp is the vulnerability associated to peril p-nth;

Sp is the severity associated to peril p-nth;

rating j is the rating associated to variable j-nth;

where:
Represents the weight associated to variable j-nth
wp, j connected to peril i-nth (fall, stumble/slippage,
accident, crush/hit).

Parameters V and S divided per area (contribution from all the variables
connected to a specific area)
n n

∑ (rating j ⋅ wi , j ) ∑ (rating ⋅ wi , j )
2 2
4 4 j

∑ j =1

n
∑ j =1

n
Va = i =1
Sa = i =1
4 4

Va is the vulnerability associated to area a;

Sa is the severity associated to area a;

rating j is the rating associated to variable j-nth;

Represents the weight associated to variable j-nth

where: wi , j connected to peril i-nth (fall, stumble/slippage,
accident, crush/hit);

Represents the number of variables influencing the

n area under survey

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Safety and Security Engineering V 63

Table 2: Continued.

Global parameters V and S

4 4

∑Va2 ∑S 2
a
Vg = a =1
Sg = a =1

4 4
Va is the vulnerability associated to area a;
where:
Sa is the severity associated to area a;

4.1 Development of isorisk maps

The resulting grading is used to compare the risk associated with the
loading/unloading areas of the sites under analysis through isorisk maps
(vulnerability–severity graphs).
To better evaluate all the aspects that impact on the risk of these areas, it is
possible to create two maps:
- Isorisk – Peril
In this kind of graph, with coordinates vulnerability–severity, each kind of
peril is represented with a dot, together with the dot representing the
evaluation of the area under survey.
- Isorisk – Areas
Results obtained for the variables are then aggregated to get an evaluation of
vulnerability and severity for each of the six previously mentioned areas.
In this way, each dot represents (in relation to all described perils) the
contribution to global risk of the area.
Besides the dots indicating the risk associated to areas and perils, each graph
contains a rectangle representing the extreme values (in terms of vulnerability
and severity) which can be reached by the global risk of the loading/unloading
area of the site. This reference is useful to evaluate the gap between the risk
value calculated for the single area and the theoretical maximum and minimum
values of the defined grading.
Taking as an example a generic Site whose analysis has given the following
values:
- Vulnerability = 37.75
- Severity = 46.50
it is possible to obtain the representations shown in Figures 5 and 6.
In both graphs, a dot representing the risk value of the site in terms of
vulnerability and severity is indicated. In the Figure 6 graph, the impact of the
single areas on the global risk is shown, while in Figure 7 graph the contribution
to risk given by the various perils is indicated. The combination of the two
representations allows us to analyze in-depth which are the risk factors with a
greater impact on the single perils present in the various areas.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
64 Safety and Security Engineering V

100

Site xxx
90
Fall
80 Stumble / Slippage

Accident
70
Crush / hit
60
Severity

50
37.75; 46.50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vulnerability

Figure 6: Macroareas contribution to risk.

100
Site xxx
90
1. Service area

80 2. Bay

3. Ramp
70
4. truck
60
5. Bay operator
Severity

50 6. Truck operator
37.75; 46.50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vulnerability

Figure 7: Perils contribution to risk.

In the previous figures, the vulnerability and severity evaluations for each site
originate not only from the physical aspects but also from observation, during the
visit, of the application of the procedures (human element) and type of trucks
used.
To compare the various sites without any influence from these variables but
taking into account only the physical elements, it is possible to prepare
simulations for each site assigning the same rating to all the variables relating to

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Safety and Security Engineering V 65

these aspects (the lowest, corresponding to the solution with the smallest impact
on the risk).
This isorisk, shown in Figure 8, is very useful for a Gap Analysis, aimed at
measuring the gap between the risk assessment from the visit and the minimum
risk attributable to each site. This underlines that this assessment tool can be
effectively applied to monitor the risk for this kind of areas and to highlight any
critical point to intervene on.

100

Site 1
90
Site 2
80
Site 3

70

60
Severity

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vulnerability

Figure 8: Benchmarking between a group of sites and gap analysis.

5 Conclusions
The versatility of isorisk methodology allows its use not only for analysing
industrial risk (ex.: fire and machinery breakdown) but also for very specific
applications, as presented in this document, and related to loading/unloading
bays.
When in-depth analysis of the risks and a risk monitoring/control tool is
needed, the use of isorisk graphs (associated with data collection checklists) is a
precise and flexible tool, which can be used to evaluate a variety of problems.
Even if the obtained values are relative and not absolute, the use of the same
system of weights and algorithms produces comparable results. Comparable
results will allow you to compare the exposure levels of various sites.
The above described quantitative-type methodology allows for both a
benchmark (to compare the risk level of various locations) and an analysis per
individual locations to highlight the aspects that produce the risk level.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
66 Safety and Security Engineering V

References
[1] Forte, M., Salvador, E., Risk engineering decision tools for risk manager
support, 4th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC Davos 2012.
[2] Marchet, G., Calabrese A., Design and managements of loading bays in the
distribution sector. PoliScript.
[3] SUVA, Check list – Pedane per raccordo rampe e nicchie di carico. Code
67066.i.
[4] SUVA, Check list – Dock levellers. Code 67065.i.
[5] Taylor B., Confined spaces – Common errors and incorrect interpretations
of OSHA standard.
[6] UNI EN 1398, Dock levellers – Safety requirements.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 134, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)