Job Analysis of Laser Cell Operator

KIN 420: Occupational Biomechanics

Instructor: Dr. Andrew Laing Teaching Assistant: Colin McKinnon

April 4th, 2013 Time: 2:30 pm

Group #5 Brandyn McCarthy (20%), Jake Tennant (20%), Jonathan Park (20%), Inhan Song (20%), Michael Wulff (20%)

Executive Summary Injury risk factors were determined qualitatively and quantitatively of a Laser Cell Operator. 3DSSPP, RULA, NIOSH lifting equation, Energy Expenditure Calculation, and CCOHS hand tool guidelines were used. Recommendations and strategies to implement and minimize injury risk factors were determined. Essential Tasks 1 and 4: Stoop lift, forward reach, energy inefficiency, and tripping hazard were observed risk factors. 3DSSPP found 26%-67% of the female population had strength capabilities at the ankle, knee and hip. Only 60%-70% of the male population had strength capabilities at the ankle and knee. RULA determined the need for “further investigation, and change soon”. NIOSH indicated minimal risk associated. Recommendations involved installations of a steel bin raiser and rotator, to minimize horizontal reach distance and stoop posture. Ramp installation to overcome the step would eliminate the trip hazard and reduce overall required energy expenditure. Essential Tasks 2 and 3: Working at shoulder height was an observed risk factor. 3DSSPP showed 67% of the 50th percentile female population was capable of performing the task. The 50% men all had strength capabilities in the 90th percentile. RULA determined the need for “further investigation, and change soon”. NIOSH indicated minimal risk associated. Recommendations involved job rotation and engineering provision of a ramp to reduce working height, improve upper limb postures, and accommodate greater working population. Essential Task 5: Ulnar deviation was an observed risk factor. RULA determined that “further investigation may be needed”. Grinder dimensions adequately met CCOHS guidelines. Provision of a new grinder with compressible handle material angulated head tool, and trigger relocation may improve performance and minimize injury risk. Board of Directors, Occupational Health and Safety Personnel, and workers are needed in successful implementation of interventions and agreement.

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 Material and Methods ...................................................................................................................3 Results .............................................................................................................................................6 Discussion........................................................................................................................................8 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................12 Implementation Strategy .............................................................................................................15 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................15 References .....................................................................................................................................17 Appendix A - Physical Demands Analysis Summary ...............................................................19 Appendix B - Analysis Before Recommendations ...................................................................28 Appendix B1 – 3DSSPP .............................................................................................................28 Appendix B2 – RULA................................................................................................................30 Appendix B3 – NIOSH Lifting Equation ...................................................................................33 Appendix B4 – Energy Expenditure Calculation .......................................................................34 Appendix C - Analysis After Recommendations ......................................................................35 Appendix C1 - 3DSSPP ............................................................................................................35 Appendix C2 - RULA ...............................................................................................................37 Appendix C3 - NIOSH Lifting Equation ...................................................................................40 Appendix C4 – Energy Expenditure Calculation .......................................................................41 Appendix D - Additional Tables ...................................................................................................4 Appendix E - Additional Figures for Proposed Products ..........................................................4

Introduction With dire implications of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) to the economy, health care, and most importantly the worker, it is imperative that jobs at-risk for WMSD be assessed and analyzed so that interventions can be implemented to minimize the risk of WMSD. We analyzed the tasks performed by the Laser Cell Operator (LCO) within Magna International Formet Industries automotive manufacturing plant in St. Thomas, Ontario. The purpose of the Laser Cell Operator (LCO) is to prepare JK Uppers for further utilization in car frame manufacturing. The task cycle begins with the LCO retrieving two ‘raw’ JK Uppers from the steel bin. The LCO carries the JK Uppers and is required to climb up one 21 cm step to reach the platform of the laser cell machine (LCM). The LCO mounts them into the LCM tooling, where specific cuts are made. The LCO mounts and dismounts the JK Uppers at approximately shoulder height. The LCO climbs down the 21 cm step and carries the fabricated JK uppers back to the workstation bench for grinding purposes. The LCO uses an air-powered grinder to eliminate burrs caused by poor quality cuts from the LCM. The LCO places the finished fabricated JK uppers into their appropriate steel bins. The total cycle time for the task is 2 minutes and 30 seconds and is dictated by the pace of the laser cell machine. Risk factors were analyzed based on the retrieving, placing, mounting, dismounting, and grinding the JK uppers. Essential tasks 1 and 4 (placement and retrieval of the JK Uppers to and from their appropriate steel bin) required extreme postures of the upper limbs and torso (i.e. stoop lifts and forward reaches), which may cause increased load moments on the spine to oppose the stoop posture while placing and retrieving the JK Uppers. As a result, Tichauer’s prerequisites of “Avoid Covert Lifting Tasks” were violated (Tichaeuer, 1976).

1

Essential tasks 2 and 3 (mounting and dismounting the JK Uppers) posed hazardous risks to the LCO because the working height was occurring at approximately shoulder height and forward reach was required to mount and dismount. The implications of the height required to operate the LCM forces extreme shoulder postures, potentially causing accelerated fatigue and increased risk of injury. Tichauer’s prerequisites of “Keep Forward Reaches Short” and “Keep Elbows Down & In” were violated (Tichaeuer, 1976). The LCO must climb the 21 cm step up and down once each cycle. This results in the LCO required to climb up the step approximately 174 times and down the step 174 times throughout their entire shift. This creates a dangerous trip hazard as well as potential for energy inefficiency. Increased energy expenditure involved in repeatedly climbing the step may result in decreasing tissue tolerance, potentially resulting in increased risk of injury. Lastly, the design of the grinder was investigated for essential task 5 (using grinder) because using the grinder may result in excessive biomechanical stressors, such as: vibration produced from the grinder, and exposure to ‘poor’ design of the powered hand tool eliciting increase grip force. This violates “Avoid Compression Ischemia” and “Avoid Stress Concentrations on Small Anatomical Parts” of Tichauer’s prerequisites (Tichaeuer, 1976). These potentially hazardous exposures may cause obstructed blood circulation in the hand, decreased performance, and increased risk of injury (e.g. tenosynovitis) due to muscular fatigue. In addition, the LCO described that the trigger for the grinder is located on the right side of the handle, making it difficult to use for left-handed or ambidextrous workers.

2

Materials and Methods Quantifications of the work environment and machine interface dimensions were directly measured using a measurement tape. Video recording of the entire task was captured. Duration and frequency of essential tasks were observed and recorded with simultaneous video viewing and stopwatch use. The software, assessments, and guidelines used were: 3D Static Strength Prediction Program (3DSSPP), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), Energy Expenditure Calculation, and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) hand tool guidelines. Essential tasks 1 and 4 (placing/retrieving) and 2 and 3 (mount/dismount) were assessed with 3DSSPP, RULA, NIOSH lifting equation, and Energy Expenditure. The LCO alternated between a stoop lift and a one-handed lift with their opposite hand supporting part of their body weight while performing tasks 1 and 4. Thus, an assumption was made that the LCO only performed stoop lifts. In addition, the LCO was assumed to perform tasks 1 and 4 with elbow and wrist joints kept straight. 3DSSPP was used to predict the load moments, static strength requirements, and enabled mannequin simulations of the tasks the LCO performed. By inputting posture data, hand loads and anthropometry, this provided outputs of static strength requirements about the major joints such as: the elbow, shoulder, torso, hip, knee, ankle and the population capable of performing the described job. Furthermore, 3DSSPP enabled us to determine if the recommendations made for the essential tasks improved the percentage of the population capable and reduced the risk of injury. Anthropometrics and static strength data of the 50th percentile male and female were used because we assumed this would represent the majority of the working population within the factory.

3

RULA was used to qualitatively assess the exposure of the LCO to risk factors associated with WMSD of the upper limb. Body posture diagrams and three scoring tables were used to indicate the level of loading experienced and the exposure to risk factors (i.e. number of movements, static muscle work, force and postures) (McAtamney & Corlett, 1993). The final score obtained was used to compare it to the categories outlined in the RULA (Refer to Appendix B2 ) and provided inference to which task required modifications to minimize risk of injury (McAtamney & Corlett, 1993). Body postures were determined by assuming those which qualitatively appeared to pose the highest risk of injury. Because the high risk postures for Tasks 1 & 4 were virtually identical both tasks were assessed with one RULA. The same was done for tasks 2 & 3. Also, both hands shared the work equally so only one RULA was needed for both hands of tasks 1 & 4 and of tasks 2 & 3. NIOSH lifting equation was used to identify any lifting hazards present within each essential task. Direct measurements of several variables (e.g. horizontal distance, frequency of lifting) related to the task were taken at the facility and used to determine multiplier factors (e.g. horizontal multiplier factor). The recommended weight limit (RWL) was calculated and used to determine the lifting index (LI). If the LI was greater than 1, the lifting task was deemed hazardous and the factor contributing the highest risk was identified to guide strategies to reduce the LI to less than 1 and minimize risk of injury. Presence of asymmetry is not definite in all the tasks, and if it was present, it would have been negligible. Therefore, the value of asymmetry is assumed to be 0. Coupling was assumed to be fair because the worker was able to easily grab the JK Uppers, despite the lack of handles. In addition, the maximum horizontal distance for the task performed was assumed to be 63 cm because the horizontal multiplier value becomes 0 after the reach distance exceeds 63 cm, making the RWL value 0 as well. Thus, the horizontal distance

4

that was possible for the LCO to perform the task was assumed to be 63 cm. It is also assumed that the worker/floor surface adhesion provides at least a 0.4 coefficient of static friction between the shoe sole and the working surface (Waters et al., 1993). An Energy Expenditure Calculation was used to determine the physiological effects of the entire job on the LCO, with and without climbing the 21 cm step. The value obtained was compared to published guidelines by researchers in the field. We determined if recommendations to eliminate the step would prove to reduce energy expenditure by the LCO. To evaluate essential task 5, RULA and CCOHS hand tool guidelines regarding different aspects (e.g. handle shape) of hand tool design and considerations for powered hand tools were used. Dimensions (e.g. handle length) of the grinder were obtained from Occupational Health and Safety personnel within Formet Industries. To minimize risk of injury, dimensions of the grinder were compared to guidelines by CCOHS to identify any dimension(s) of the grinder that could benefit from change.

5

Results Essential Tasks 1 and 4 (Retrieving and Loading Steel Bins): 3DSSPP determined the compressive load about the L4/L5 joint for 50th percentile female and male to be 2915N and 2787N, respectively (Refer to Appendix B1). Gender specific strength capability results are presented in Table 1.0.
Table 1.0 - 3DSSPP Results of Strength Capabilities at Major Joints for Tasks 1 and 4

Ankle Female Population Male Population 26% 60%

Knee 38% 70%

Hip 67% 95%

One RULA was performed for essential tasks 1 and 4 because the upper limb postures adopted by the LCO were identical. RULA determined a score of 6 (Refer to Appendix B2). The posture assessed involved 90 degrees trunk flexion. This occurred when the LCO was retrieving and placing JK Uppers inside the partially empty steel bin. NIOSH lifting equation determined the LI values to be 0.26 and 0.68 (Refer to Appendix B3) The Energy Expenditure Calculation showed that in total, the job required 3.68 Kcal/min (Refer to Appendix B4). This value includes climbing up and down one 21cm step each cycle. Essential Tasks 2 and 3 (Loading and Unloading LCM Tooling): 3DSSPP showed that only 67% of the 50th percentile female population could perform the task of loading and unloading the JK Uppers with the required shoulder angle Refer to Appendix B1). The 50% men all had strength capabilities in the 90th percentile.

6

One RULA was performed for essential tasks 2 and 3 because the upper limb postures adopted by the LCO were identical. RULA determined a score of 6 (Refer to Appendix B2). The posture assessed involved the LCO standing upright with 90 degree shoulder flexion. NIOSH lifting equation determined the LI values to be 0.26 and 0.68 (Refer to Appendix B3) Essential Task 5 (Grinding): RULA determined a score of 3 (Refer to Appendix B2). The posture assessed involved the LCO with wrist in ulnar deviation and neck in flexion. The LCO distributed equally the length of time spent performing the task between their left and right hand. Dimensions of the airpowered grinder are presented in Table 2.0. Table 2.0 - Dimensions of Air-powered Grinder Dimensions of Grinder Hand Slightly contoured Pistol grip 140 mm 35 mm Metallic, Fairly Smooth Surface 1 kg, One handle 5 cm 0.5 kg/4.9 N

Characteristic of Hand Tool Tool shape Direction of force is in-line with forearm and wrist (typically horizontal) Handle length Handle diameter (power grip) Material and texture of handles Tool weight (< 1 kg) Power Tool Trigger (Length) Trigger Activation Force

7

Discussion Essential Tasks 1 and 4 (Retrieving and Loading Steel Bins): According to the results from 3DSSPP, for both 50% male and females there needs to be a change to the lower limb postures. The strength capabilities are too low and therefore the balance is unacceptable. Although the compression load is below the NIOSH action limit by 485-613 N, it is still close and decreasing this would be beneficial. As a result, these postures need to be corrected for in order to increase balance and minimize injury risk to the specified joints this posture puts at risk. With a RULA score of 6, a need for “further investigation and change soon” was determined. This indicates that the upper limb and torso postures assessed are quite hazardous and vulnerable to increased risk of injury. NIOSH lifting equation was performed with the horizontal distance limited to 63 cm. LI values were below 1 for tasks 1 and 4, indicating minimal lifting hazards associated with the tasks. However, assuming the horizontal distance to be 63 cm may have resulted in overestimation of the LI value, because distance that one can reach without supporting the upper body weight with one hand is shorter. Tasks 1 and 4 being were completed at a rate of 0.8 lifts/min. LI values may have been overestimated because of the assumption that the LCO only performed stoop lifts throughout the tasks, rather than the observed reality of the alternation between a one-handed lift and stoop lift. According the 1981 NIOSH Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting, it was determined that the maximum aerobic capacity of males is 15 Kcal/min. It was further determined that for occupational tasks over an 8 hour shift shall not exceed 33% of this maximum. Overall, this equates to a maximum energy expenditure of 5 Kcal/min (NIOSH, 1981). Compared to our
8

calculated energy expenditure of 3.68 for the LCO, this job is within the recommended guidelines. In addition, this step poses a safety hazard, as operators may trip and fall, while carrying the sharp JK Uppers. Essential Tasks 2 and 3 (Loading and Unloading LCM Tooling): To begin, 3DSSPP has calculated that the posture in which the shoulder is at during loading and unloading the machine, only 67% of the 50% female working population has the capable strength to accomplish the task. As a result, a recommended change to the working station is needed to decrease this strain placed on the shoulder, enabling more workers to complete the loading and unloading task. RULA results and interpretations were identical for the RULA obtained from tasks 1 and 4. LI values are below 1, indicating that the lifting tasks are safe for the workers to perform. However, our assumptions of making the asymmetry factor to be 0 and the coupling to be fair may have resulted in underestimation of LI values. Essential Task 5 (Grinding): RULA gave us a score of 3, indicating that “further investigation may be needed”. As in the other tasks, this score can be applied to both hands. This posture is a relatively safe one with only minor concerns due to ulnar deviation of the wrist. In comparing the dimensions of the grinder to the recommended guidelines provided by CCOHS, we found that the grinder has met most of the CCOHS guidelines. There were no significant violations of the CCOHS hand tool guidelines and this element of the job poses minimal risks to the LCO using the grinder (Refer to Table 3.0).

9

Table 3.0 - Comparison of Grinder Dimensions to CCOHS Guidelines and Potential Hazards Potential Hazard (Y/N) N

Characteristic of Hand Tool

CCOHS Guideline

Dimensions of Grinder Hand Slightly contoured

Tool shape Direction of force is in-line with forearm and wrist (typically horizontal) Handle length Handle diameter (power grip) Material and texture of handles Tool weight (< 1 kg) Power Tool Trigger (Length) Trigger Activation Force

Slightly contoured

Bent handle

Pistol grip

N

> 100 mm (ideally 115 - 120 mm) 30 - 45 mm Non-slip, nonconductive materials One handle 5 cm N/A

140 mm 35 mm Metallic, Fairly Smooth Surface 1 kg, One handle 5 cm 0.5 kg/4.9 N

N N Y N N N/A

Limitations: 3DSSPP does not use dynamic analysis but it is used for static postures. Therefore, we must assume that the analysis is representative of the dynamic tasks of the job. RULA only takes the weight of an object (due to gravity) into account. Thus, it does not take into consideration the push/pull forces in tasks 2 and 3. Other limitations of RULA include oversimplification of the work requirements and poor sensitivity. NIOSH lifting equation can only be used in situations where the lifting task is done with two hands. Thus, using NIOSH for the one-handed lift portion of tasks 1 and 4 would have not been possible and risky elements within that particular approach
10

of lifting could not have been determined with NIOSH lifting equation. Limitations of Energy Expenditure Calculation is that it provides an indirect measure of energy expenditure (as opposed to laboratory measurements of energy expenditure), resulting in an inaccurate value. CCOHS guidelines provided no recommendations for trigger activation force minimal considerations for an air-powered grinder. Although no recommendation for trigger activation force was specifically provided, the permissible grip force across male and female populations is 90 N (Chaffin, Gunnar, & Bernard, 2006). Thus, we believe it is safe to conclude that the trigger activation force of 0.5 kg (4.9 N) poses minimal risk.

11

Recommendations Essential Tasks 1 and 4 (Retrieving and Loading Steel Bins): Engineering interventions include placing the bins on rotating platforms. These would cost $2,000 - $2,100 each (Southworth Products Corp, 2013). We could use these platforms to rotate the bin 180 degrees. This would reduce the horizontal reach because the worker would only ever have to ever reach halfway across the bin. Platforms can raise the steel bin about 50 cm. This will minimize covert lifting and therefore increase the balance of the worker, increase the worker population able to complete the task (Refer to Figure 1.0) and decrease the compression loads of L4/L5 to 2020 N for males and 1921 N for females (Refer to Appendix C1). The RULA score decreased from 6 to 3 (Refer to Appendix C2). NIOSH LI values for initial posture of task 1 and ending posture of task 4 also decreased from 0.68 to 0.64 (Refer to Appendix C3). Figure 1.0: Lower Limb Strength Capabilities Before and After Recommendations for Retrieving and Placing JK Uppers
100 90 80 Strength Capabilities (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Female Ankle Female Knee Female Hip Male Ankle Male Knee Male Hip Before After

12

In regards to the 21 cm step, a recommendation is to install a ramp at a 10% inclination from horizontal. The ramp would cover 21 cm vertically and span 200 cm horizontally. This results in an overall energy expenditure change from 3.68Kcal/min (with the step) to 3.56Kcal/min (with the ramp) (Refer to Appendix C4). In addition, the ramp reduces the tripping hazard of the 21 cm step. To implement, this would cost approximately $100 - $200 for supplies and labor if the ramp was made on-site. A prefabricated ramp would be around $600. Essential Tasks 2 and 3 (Loading and Unloading Tooling): Optimally we would like to reduce the horizontal reach, which would involve replacing and redesigning the LCM tooling completely. This is not feasible because this would reduce production and require rebuilding the entire machine, making it a very costly solution to the company. An alternative solution would be to build a 20 cm removable platform with a ramp (cost of $100-$200) in front of the tooling in order to decrease the vertical reach and allow for mild forward bend to enable about 81% of the 50% female workers to complete the task (Refer to Figure 2.0 and Appendix C1) (no risk of shear and compression forces). Figure 2.0: Shoulder Strength Capabilities for 50% Female Population During Loading and Unloading Task
100 90 Strength Capabilities (%) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Female Male Before After

13

This recommendation does not change the risk for the 50% male population. After implementation of this recommendation the NIOSH LI value of the ending posture of the task 2 and initial posture of task 3 would decrease from 0.68 to 0.48 (Refer to Appendix C3). The RULA score would decrease from 6 to 3 (Refer to Appendix C2). We also recommend doing job rotation as well so that one person is not completing the task for 8 hours a day. Essential Task 5 (Grinding): Recommendations involve purchasing a new grinder with compressive handle material (e.g. rubber, compressible plastic), rather than metal, to provide more surface friction to the handle for better gripping and comfort (Strasser, 2007). Furthermore, angulation of the tool head axis to be aligned with the index finger may be necessary to help maintain a neutral wrist because the long axis of the hand grip is approximately 78 degrees from horizontal (Strasser, 2007). Lastly, orienting the trigger in the middle and anterior aspect of the handle enables the left-hand dominant workers to use the grinder. Prices of tools that accommodate the needs of a change in trigger and handle material range from 70$ - 155$, with the highest range providing an angulated tool design (Northern Tool + Equipment, n.d.; Snap-On Inc., n.d.). This may help improve performance/productivity, reduce muscular effort, and enhance operator comfort. Postural recommendation would be to “bend” the tool and avoid any wrist deviation, in order to minimize risk of injury (Tichaeuer, 1976).

14

Implementation Strategy Effective means of successfully adapting to the recommendations provided involve implementing engineering interventions of providing a steel bin lifter, rotator, ramps, and new grinder. This would elicit meaningful adoptions by the LCO, due to their enhanced ability to ‘control’ and change their work setting to help minimize their risk of injury and to optimize their productivity, comfort, and efficiency. Stakeholders involved in this project would require the work of Occupational Health and Safety Sector, Engineering department to verify that these interventions are suitable for the work environment. The Board of Directors would be needed to ensure these changes be implemented and permission to be granted for funding. Lastly, the workers that are involved in performing the job would be informed of the upcoming changes and benefits to ensure agreement on these interventions are positive. Conclusion The LCO is required to perform essential tasks that may increase their risk of WMSD. Essential tasks 1 and 4 required the LCO to perform stoop lifts and forward reach. 3DSSPP found L4/L5 joint compressive loads did not exceed the NIOSH action limit but was near it. 3DSSPP determined within the 50th percentile female and male population strength capabilities were: 26% and 60% for the ankle, 38% and 70% for the knee and 67% at the hip (only females). RULA determined a final score of ‘6’, inferring the need for “further investigation, and change soon”. NIOSH lifting equation deemed tasks 1 and 4 to be safe, with LI values of 0.26 and 0.68. Energy expenditure calculation determined to be 3.68 Kcal/min. Recommendations involved engineered installations and provision of a steel bin raiser, rotator, and ramps, in order to minimize horizontal reach distance, stoop posture, tripping hazard, and decrease overall energy expenditure.
15

Essential tasks 2 and 3 required the LCO to work at approximately shoulder height. 3DSSPP found that only 67% of the 50% female working population possessed the necessary strength capabilities at the shoulder to perform the tasks. RULA determined a final score of ‘6’, inferring the need for “further investigation, and change soon”. NIOSH lifting equation deemed the tasks to be safe, with the LI of 0.26 and 0.68. Recommendations involved engineering provision of a ramp and platform to reduce working height and improve upper limb postures to minimize risk of injury and accommodate greater proportion of the working population. Administrative interventions involved job rotation. Essential task 5 resulted in the LCO operating the grinder with an ulnar-deviated wrist. Discomfort with the trigger location for left-handed and ambidextrous operators was noted by the LCO. RULA determined a final score of ‘3’, inferring that “further investigation may be needed”. Grinder dimensions compared to CCOHS guidelines showed that the grinder dimensions adequately met the CCOHS guidelines. Recommendations involved engineering provision of a new grinder (cost of 75-150$) that provided more surface friction for improved gripping, angulated head tool, and accommodating trigger location. Administrative and postural interventions involved educating the need to avoid twist and bending of the wrist and to instead, “bend” the tool. Board of Directors, Occupational Health and Safety Personnel, and workers performing the job are needed in successful implementation of interventions and agreement.

16

References: 3D SSPP. (n.d.). College of Engineering Home | Michigan Engineering. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/ioe/3DSSPP/ Canadian Centre For Occupational Health And Safety (2007). Calculated Recommended Weight Limit. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/niosh/calculating_rwl.html Canadian Centre For Occupational Health And Safety (2007). Assessing Relevant Handling Factors. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/niosh/assessing.html Chaffin, Don B., Gunnar Andersson, and Bernard J. Martin. (2006). Occupational Biomechanics. 4th ed. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Interscience. Hand Tool Ergonomics - Tool Design : OSH Answers. (n.d.). CCOHS: Canada's National Centre for Occupational Health and Safety information. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/ handtools/tooldesign.html McAtamney, L., & Nigel Corlett, E. (1993). RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Applied ergonomics, 24(2), 91-99. Middlesworth, M. (2012). Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA): A Step-by-Step Guide. Ergonomics-Plus. Retrieved March 27, 2013, from www.ergo-plus.com/healthandsafetyblog/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/RULA-A-Step-by-Step-Guide1.pdf Northern Tool + Equipment. (n.d.). Ingersoll Rand Angle Die Grinder — 1/4in., Model# 3101G | Air Grinders| Northern Tool + Equipment.Portable Generators, Pressure Washers, Power Tools, Welders | Northern Tool + Equipment. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200342897_200342897 Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc.. (n.d.). Guidelines To Implementing And Performing Physical Demands Analysis Handbook. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from www.ohcow.on.ca/uploads/Resource/Workbook /pdamanualbook.pdf Huynh, Bich. The Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Retieved March 27, 2012, from www.ergonomics.com.au/niosh.htm

17

Snap-On Inc. (n.d.). Die Grinder, Mini, 115º Angle, 1/4" Quick Change Collet, 20,000 RPM. Snap-on: Hand Tools, Power Tools, Tool Boxes, Automotive Diagnostics and Shop Equipment. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/item.asp?P65=yes&tool=all&item_ID=650251&group_ID=6751 46&store=snapon-store&dir=catalog Southworth Products Corp (2013) PalletPal 360 Spring Level Loader. Retrieved April 1, 2013, from http://www.southworthproducts.com/content42.html Strasser, H. (2007). Assessment Of The Ergonomic Quality Of Hand-Held Tools & Computer (Vol. 1). IOS Press. Tichauer, E. R. (1976). Biomechanics sustains occupational safety and health.Industrial Engineering, 8(2), 46-56. U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services (1994). Application Manual For The Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.humanicses.com/nioshliftingequationocr.pdf U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1981). Work Practices Guide For Manual Lifting. NIOSH, Publication No 81. Waters, T. R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., & Fine, L. J. (1993). Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics, 36(7), 749-776.

18

APPENDIX A – Physical Demands Analysis Summary Employer: Magna International Inc. Job Title: Laser Cell Operator (Line Worker) Date Information was obtained: 02/20/13 Location: Plant: St. Thomas, ON Formet Industries

Work Hours/Shifts: The usual work week is Monday to Friday, 40 hours a week. The Laser Cell Operator rotates between morning or afternoon/evening shifts of 6:00am to 2:30pm or 2:30pm to 11:00pm. There is one 15 minute break and one 25 minute lunch provided for each shift. Job Purpose: Prepare ‘JK Uppers’ for utilization in further car frame manufacturing Essential Functions: 1. Retrieve unfinished JK Upper from ‘raw’ steel bin 2. Mount JK Upper to laser cell machine for fabrication 3. Dismount JK Upper from laser cell machine after fabrication is complete 4. Place fabricated JK Upper into ‘fabricated’ steel bin 5. Grind burs from fabricated parts Non-Essential Functions: 1. Operate pump truck to mobilize steel bin 2. Ensure organized and clean workspace General Observations: The cycle time for the particular task is 2 minutes and 30 seconds in length, and is dictated by the pace of the laser cutting machine. Laser Cell Operator retrieves and mounts two unfinished JK Uppers (4 kg each) into a laser cell machine every cycle, where specific cuts are made to the JK Upper. In order to mount the JK Uppers on the laser cell machine, the operator is required to reach the platform by climbing up one 21cm step with the parts that are to be loaded. Once the laser cell machine has completed its task of specific cuts, the operator checks and removes any remaining debris. The operator then climbs down the platform and to their workstation, where they are required to grind parts of the JK Uppers using an air powered tool to eliminate burs caused by poor quality cuts from the laser cell machine. The operator then places finished JK Uppers into their appropriate parts bin. There is also periodic use of a pump truck to move empty or full parts bins to and from an area that is accessible by a forklift. The work area is well lit and is normally at a comfortable temperature, although during the summer months temperatures may rise to a point where heat reliefs are required. There are a number of personal protective equipment (PPE) items which must be worn to perform the job: ear plugs, a face mask when using the air-powered grinder, kevlar gloves (to protect from cuts), safety glasses, and steel-toed shoes.

19

Table 1A: Manual Material Handling Activities by Task Requirements for Laser Cell Operator.
Manual Material Handling Activities Lifting: Beginning Heights(cm) Ending Heights(cm) Weights (kg) Frequency(#/min) Carrying: Weight (kg) Distance(m) Frequency(#/min) Pushing: Push Heights(cm) Horizontal Force(kg) Frequency(#/min) Pulling: Pull Heights(cm) Horizontal Force(kg) Frequency(#/min) Reaching (4kg): Front Distance(cm) Vertical Height(cm) Reach Direction Frequency(%/shift) Handling: Weight of Object (kg) Grip Force(N) Diameter(cm) Frequency(%/shift) Fingering: Weight of Object(lbs) Pinch Force(kg) Pinch Type Finger Flexion (x) Frequency(%/shift) Essential Task 1 Essential Task 2 Essential Task 3 Essential Task 4 Essential Task 5 Noness. Task 1 Noness. Task 2 (18%/shift) (8.5%/shift) (8.5%/shift) (32%/shift) (20%/shift) 23-40 85 4-8 0.8/min 4-8 9 0.4/min 150 N/A 0.8/min 150 N/A 0.8/min 0-100 23-40 Front 5%/shift 4-8 N/A 7-11 13 50 150 Front 8%/shift 4 N/A 7-11 0.5 50 150 Front 8%/shift 4 N/A 7-11 0.5 0-100 23-40 Front 5%/shift 4-8 N/A 7-11 27 1 N/A 7-11 5 1 0.5 3-Point x 15 1 N/A 0-10 1-2/day 85 150 4 0.8/min 150 85 4 0.8/min 85 23-40 4-8 0.8/min 4-8 14 0.4/min 120 14-18 Occasional 85 14-18 Occasional 85 96 1-4 0.8/min

Noness. = Nonessential

20

Table 2A: Body Posture by Type of Activity. All values are weighted average (in percent) per shift. Activities
Back: Straight/neutral Stoop/flex Twist/side bend Twist and stoop Arms: Below shoulder At/above shoulder Overhead Legs: Sitting Standing still Walking Kneeling Crouching Crawling Lying Climbing Essential Task 1: Essential Task 2: Retrieve JK Uppers Mount JK Uppers (8.5%/shift) (18%/shift) 13% (Occasional) 5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 18% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 7.5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 1% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 1% (Occasional) 7.5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) Essential Task 3: Essential Task 4: Dismount JK Uppers Placing of JK Uppers (8.5%/shift) (32%/shift) 7.5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 1% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 1% (Occasional) 7.5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 8.5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 22% (Occasional) 10% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 32% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 10% (Occasional) 21% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 1% (Occasional) Essential Task 5: Grinding Parts (20%/shift) 20% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 20% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 20% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never)

0% (Never) 0% (Never) 8.5% (Occasional) 8.5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 8.5% (Occasional) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 0% (Never) 1% (Occasional)

**Frequency defined by the Ministry of Labour is 1-33% for Occasional, 34-66% for Frequent, and 67-100% for Constant.

21

Identified Risk Factors/Potential Hazards
The identified hazardous components of the job include: Mounting and dismounting JK Uppers from the laser cell machine because the working height (from our observed worker; may vary depending on worker’s anthropometrics) is taking place at approximately shoulder height, and forward reach is required to mount and dismount. This results in increased load moments occurring about the elbow and shoulder joints. The height required to operate the laser cell machine forces the operator to violate a number of Tichauer’s prerequisites including “Keep Forward Reaches Short” and “Keep Elbows Down & In”. There is also push and pull forces being exerted by the worker to mount and dismount the parts into the laser cell machine. This results in increased muscular demand to oppose the load moments about the shoulder and L5/S1 joint, potentially increasing risk of injury or decreasing performance due to increasing rate of muscular fatigue. Retrieving and placing of JK uppers into their appropriate bins requires the worker to perform stoop lifts and forward reaches. This may cause increased load moment taking place about the L5/S1 joint, produced by the weight of the individual’s upper body segments and the large moment arms, in addition to the weight of the JK Uppers in the worker’s hands. This violates another of Tichauer’s prerequisites being “Avoid Covert Lifting Tasks”. This causes increased muscular force required at the L5/S1 joint to oppose the load moment, increasing fatigue and potentially decreasing performance and/or increasing risk of injury.

22

The pump truck required to manually push and pull metallic part bins to a location that is accessible by a forklift will potentially result in increased extensor/flexor load moment production because of the pulling/pushing of the pump truck handle, located above the L5/S1 joint. This may also increase fatigue and potentially decrease performance and/or increase risk of injury. Using the grinder may result in over gripping due to reduced grip feedback that may result from using the gloves as well as the vibration produced from the grinder, resulting in potential decrease in performance and increased risk of injury due to muscular fatigue. This violates three of Tichauer’s prerequisites including “Consider Negative Effects of Gloves”, “Avoid Compression Ischemia”, and “Avoid Stress Concentrations on Small Anatomical Parts”. Another point made by the worker is that the trigger for the grinder is located on the right side of the handle, making it difficult to use for left-handed or ambidextrous workers. Finally, there is a 21cm step which the worker must go up once and down once each cycle. This results in the worker having to climb up the step 174 times and climb down the step 174 times throughout the entire shift. The worker is usually carrying a mass of approximately 8 kg (two JK Uppers) while going both up and down. This creates a dangerous trip hazard as well as energy inefficiency in contrast to without having to climb this step or having a gradual incline to reach the platform. Increased energy expenditure involved in repeatedly climbing the step may result in decreasing tissue tolerance, potentially resulting in increased risk of injury.

23

Planned Job Analysis Approach
Our initial assessment consists of utilizing the 3D Static Strength Prediction Program (3DSSPP) to predict the load moments and static strength requirements by enabling approximate simulations of the various tasks the laser cell operator performs (e.g. stoop lifts, push, pull). By inputting posture data, hand loads, and anthropometry, this allows us to retrieve outputs of static strength requirements about the major joints such as the elbow, shoulder, torso, and the male and female percentile capable of performing the described job. It also outputs data that analyzes L5/S1 compression and shear forces, and comparisons to NIOSH guidelines that we may utilize. In addition, this program allows us to simulate the impact of any changes and recommendations we make and compare it to current conditions to determine if strength requirements and postural adoptions are required to be more inclusive in design. The push and pull forces required to mount/dismount the parts from the laser cell machine and to move the steel bin with a pump truck will be used to compare and contrast to Snook Tables (Snook & Ciriello, 1991). We aim to determine if the estimated push/pull forces exerted are within the recommended guidelines and what the impact of changing dimensions of the laser cell machine and the posture necessary to perform the pushing and pulling will have. In terms of determining load limits, we plan to use the NIOSH lifting equation. We can use the measurements of where the hands are placed during different tasks to determine the recommended load limit and determine if the current weight of the JK Uppers fall within this limit, or if postures need to be changed to accommodate the part weights. We can also use this tool to evaluate the impact of any recommendations we choose to make.

24

In order to assess the impact of the step, we plan to use an Energy Expenditure. Aside from an obvious trip hazard, we can determine the energy requirements of going up and down the step once each cycle and determine the effect of eliminating the step on the energy requirements. This enables us to compare the outputs we get to industry standard energy expenditures. Finally to evaluate the grinder, we plan to use guidelines provided by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. This organization provides numerous guidelines regarding different aspects (e.g. handle shape, diameter, and weight) of power tools. We can apply our measurements about the grinder to ensure they fall within the recommended guidelines in regards to handle shape, handle diameter, length, and weight of the tool. We can also use these guidelines to recommend any changes with regards to power tool design changes.

25

Figure 1 – Retrieving JK Uppers from Steel Bin

Figure 2 – Steel Bin

Figure 3 – Worker Mounting JK Upper to Laser Cell Machine

Figure 4 – Worker Dismounting JK Upper from Laser Cell Machine

Figure 5 – 21 cm Step

26

Figure 6 – Worker Grinding Ends of JK Upper

Figure 7 – Grinding Tool

Figure 8 – Worker Placing JK Uppers into Steel Bin

Figure 9 – Pump Truck

Figure 10 – JK Uppers

27

Appendix B – Analysis Before Recommendations Appendix B1 – 3DSSPP Figure 1: 3DSSPP 50% Female Retrieving and Placing the JK Uppers (Task 1 and 4)

Figure 2: 3DSSPP 50% Male Retrieving and Placing the JK Uppers (Task 1 and 4)

28

Figure 3: 3DSSPP 50% Female Loading and Unloading JK Uppers (Task 2 and 3)

Figure 4: 3DSSPP 50% Male Loading and Unloading JK Uppers (Task 2 and 3)

29

Appendix B2- RULA Table 1: RULA Score Interpretation RULA Score Significance: 1 – 2: acceptable 3 – 4: further investigation may be needed 5 – 6: investigation and change soon 7: immediate investigation and change

Figure 1: RULA Analysis for Retrieving and Placing JK Uppers (Task 1 and 4)

(Middlesworth, M., 2013)

30

Figure 2: RULA Analysis for Mounting and Dismounting JK Uppers (Task 2 and 3)

(Middlesworth, M., 2013)
31

Figure 3: RULA Analysis for Grinding the JK Uppers (Task 5)

(Middlesworth, M., 2013)

32

Appendix B3- NIOSH Lifting Equation Table 1: NIOSH Lifting Equation Summary Table for Measurements of Retrieving and Placing as well as Mounting and Dismounting JK Uppers.

Table 2: NIOSH Lifting Equation Summary Table for the Results of Retrieving and Placing as well as Mounting and Dismounting JK Uppers.

*RWL = 23kg(HM)(VM)(DM)(FM)(AM)(CM)

*LI = Load / RWL

33

Appendix B4- Energy Expenditure Calculation Figure 1: Sample of Energy Expenditure Calculation with Results

34

Appendix C – Analysis After Recommendations Appendix C1 – 3DSSPP Figure 1: 3DSSPP 50% Female Retrieving and Placing the JK Uppers (Task 1 and 4)

Figure 2: 3DSSPP 50% Male Retrieving and Placing the JK Uppers (Task 1 and 4)

35

Figure 3: 3DSSPP 50% Female Mounting and Dismounting the JK Uppers (Task 2 and 3)

Figure 4: 3DSSPP 50% Male Mounting and Dismounting the JK Uppers (Task 2 and 3)

36

Appendix C2 - RULA Figure 1: RULA for Retrieving and Placing JK Uppers (Task 1&4)

37

Figure 2: RULA for Mounting and Dismounting JK Uppers (Task 2&3)

38

Figure 3: RULA for Mounting and Dismounting JK Uppers (Task 2&3)

39

Appendix C3- NIOSH Lifting Equation Table 1: NIOSH Lifting Equation Summary Table for Proposed Measurements of Recommended Changes.
Task 1 Initial Ending 13 0 23 65 23 65 0.8 0.8 0 Fair 0 Fair Task 2 Initial Ending 0 50 65 130 65 130 0.8 0.8 0 Fair 0 Fair Task 3 Initial Ending 50 0 130 65 130 65 0.8 0.8 0 Fair 0 Fair Task 4 Initial Ending 0 13 65 23 65 23 0.8 0.8 0 Fair 0 Fair

Horizontal Location (cm) Vertical Location (cm) Lift Distance (cm) Lifting Frequency (lift/min) Asymmetric Angle (degree) Coupling

Table 2: NIOSH Lifting Equation Summary Table for the Results After Proposed Recommendations Implemented.
Task 1 Initial Ending 1 1 0.85 0.97 1 0.89 0.79 0.79 1 1 0.95 1 14.67 0.27 15.69 0.26 Task 2 Initial Ending 1 0.5 0.97 0.84 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.79 1 1 1 1 15.69 0.26 6.41 0.62 Task 3 Initial Ending 0.5 1 0.84 0.97 0.84 0.89 0.79 0.79 1 1 1 1 6.41 0.62 15.69 0.26 Task 4 Initial Ending 1 1 0.97 0.85 0.89 1 0.79 0.79 1 1 1 0.95 15.69 0.26 14.67 0.27

HM VM DM FM AM CM RWL (kg)* LI*

*RWL = 23kg(HM)(VM)(DM)(FM)(AM)(CM)

*LI = Load / RWL

40

Appendix C4- Energy Expenditure Calculation Figure 1: Sample of Energy Expenditure Calculation with Results After Recommendations

41

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful