Tests were conducted on air tools used in vehicle rework bays to measure hand-arm vibration levels. Vibration readings were taken from tools like sanders and grinders while operators repaired panels. One sander exceeded the exposure limit for safe daily use. Additional testing found that high readings on that sander were due to vibrations from the panel overhanging the work table, not issues with the tool itself. Modifying tables to prevent panel overhang resolved the problem and confirmed all tools were then safe to use for full shifts.
Tests were conducted on air tools used in vehicle rework bays to measure hand-arm vibration levels. Vibration readings were taken from tools like sanders and grinders while operators repaired panels. One sander exceeded the exposure limit for safe daily use. Additional testing found that high readings on that sander were due to vibrations from the panel overhanging the work table, not issues with the tool itself. Modifying tables to prevent panel overhang resolved the problem and confirmed all tools were then safe to use for full shifts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Tests were conducted on air tools used in vehicle rework bays to measure hand-arm vibration levels. Vibration readings were taken from tools like sanders and grinders while operators repaired panels. One sander exceeded the exposure limit for safe daily use. Additional testing found that high readings on that sander were due to vibrations from the panel overhanging the work table, not issues with the tool itself. Modifying tables to prevent panel overhang resolved the problem and confirmed all tools were then safe to use for full shifts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
To ensure air tools in rework bays were safe from Hand-
Arm vibration, tests were completed on the equipment and readings were taken to see how long the equipment could be used for before and risk was potentially being placed on operators. All equipment was tested using a Larson Davies HVM100 vibration meter. The equipment was tested using normal working conditions to get the highest possible accuracy. The sensors were attached to the equipments handles where the vibrations were being transferred from machine to man. The operator would then rework the panel, and average reading from X,Y and Z axis were taken over the course of working on this panel. I then did this for a couple of panels per machine to get and overall average of readings.
The HSE Hand-Arm Vibration have created a spreadsheet,
that will follow later in the report, that calculates ELV – exposure limit value, and how long it takes for the operator to exceed this recommended value. This will then give an accurate timescale that the machine can be used for safely, without putting the operator at risk to Hand- Arm Vibration.
The experiment was controlled by using the same air
pressure, and same material. This was so that the material was the same thickness and resistance to re- work. The item that was being re-worked was a Land Rover Defender Fender (Tools 01-03), and Agco Hoods (Tools 04-05). I also took readings for how long the panel took to be re-worked, to calculate how long the operator was being exposed to possible damage on a daily shift.
Hand-Arm Vibration Testing ca2 06/04/2011
Below is a table showing how long the panels were being re-worked for each (average).
Tool Number Average Time Used (mins)
01 5 02 5 03 5 04 3 05 3
Tools 01-04 we small orbital sanders – air powered, Tool
05 was a 6 inch air grinder. Below is a table showing the Vibration Magnitude in m/s².
Also attached is the results from the HSE calculator,
showing if any of our staff are potentially at risk from the equipment they are using. They show that all equipment tested is safe to use for our current shift system (minus breaks), except Tool 4. The reason for this being a risk therefore had to be tested. The possible reasons were that the panels were being reworked in a different area and on different tables. Also the panels were different panels. To test if it was the conditions that created the variance in readings, or if it was the tool itself I took the tool and swapped it for one that was reworking the defender fenders, and took a tool from their and tested it on the Agco hoods. This would prove that it was the conditions that were causing such a low Time.
Hand-Arm Vibration Testing ca2 06/04/2011
If it was the conditions that were the problem then the table could be changed. If it was the tool proving to be the problem then that would have to be changed.
From the re-test I can conclude that the mini orbital
sander was safe to use when used on a fender on the larger re-work tables, and the orbital that was safe to use on the fenders originally was now high when reworking Agco hoods. This was found by testing Tool 04 on a Land Rover Defender fender on the Defender rework tables, and Tool 03 in the lower rework cell. This proved that it wasn’t the Tool that was the problem, but the conditions that the tool was being used in.
To rectify this problem, we will modify the table in the
lower rework bays when using larger panels so there is no panel overhanging the edges of the table, to reduce the amount of vibration given off. This now means that all of the tools measured in the re- work area are safe to use for a shift of 8 hours (minus breaks).