1 /GE /

Ergonomics: Problem Identification

and Financial SupportGE Aviation Services -

StrotherPresented by members of the Strother VPP Ergonomics Team: Jason Hawpe, Mike Kendall, Eli

Coury

2 /GE /

The study of the design and arrangement of equipment so that people will interact with the equipment in healthy, comfortable, and efficient manner.

Ergonomics:What is Ergonomics?

3 /GE /

1. Decrease injury.2. Increase productivity.3. Reduce cost.4. Increase quality.

Ergonomics:How will it help?

4 /GE /

Ergonomics:Getting Started

Team Formation1. Identify Key People

a.Representatives from all areas/departmentsb.No personal agenda’s

2. Set Meeting Times, Agenda, and Location3. Schedule meetings to combine shifts4. Involvement ,Open door policy5. Hourly/Salary team effort

5 /GE /

Ergonomics:

Donald E. Day, M. S.Consultant in Ergonomics and Health Promotion

5840 S. Goldsmith PlaceGreenwood Village, CO 80111(303)773-0261 FAX(303)773-0271e-mail: ergoday@earthlink.netweb site: www.ergonomicsprocess.com

Contractor Providing Training to GE Team

6 /GE /

GE Strother/Winfield Ergonomics

VPP Team Members (alphabetically)

Members Names in Red are Here!

Danny Beard, Engine Mechanic Drew Beard, Process Engineer Eric Befort, Maintenance Mechanic Scott Branine, Supervisor Flo Bruner, Engine Mechanic Mike Evinger, Engine Mechanic

Felicia Hall, Engine Mechanic

Jesse Hollingsworth, Supervisor

Mike Kendall, Engine Mechanic John Klick, Engine Mechanic

, Process Engineer Jason Hawpe, Environmental Health and Safety Specialist

Jamie Brazda, Process Engineer

Eli Courey, Engine Mechanic

Brad Ziegler, Engine Mechanic

Louis Zink, Engine Mechanic

Kirk Lewis, Process Engineer

Dave Coberley, Engine Mechanic

William Pirlot, Engine Mechanic

Brett Brown

Kenny Burg, Machinist

Amber Quint, Process EngineerDanny Herman, MachinistArt Saavedra, Welder

Jake Auguinaga, Maintenance

Bob Thomas, Process Engineer

7 /GE /

Ergonomics:Finding Projects1.Ask Employees2.Housekeeping Audit, look for problems3.Productivity4.Quality Escapes5.Injury Data6.Near Misses7.Damaged equipment

8 /GE /

Ergonomics:Project Identification

1. Collect Data 2. Start a Prioritization list

3. Follow-up

9 /GE /

Ergonomics:Things to look for1.Reach2.Weights3.Work height4.Frequency5.Grips6.Travel distance7.Posture

10 /GE /

Data CollectionHandling Requirements

Weight/Force

Item Dimensions lbs./kg lbf./kg Frequency Duration

Location -

Heights -

Reaches -

Visibility -

Clearances -

Tools (types, handles, etc.) -

Environment -

Lighting (type, amount) -

Temperature / Humidity -

Pacing - Parts or rate per hour or shift -

Complexity / Control Issues (Information transfer, no flexibility in job, etc.) –

Other Issues – vibration, localized pressure, gloves, others – determine magnitude of each factor)

Duration of Job/Task (continuous minutes or hours/shift) Times (X)/shift

Interaction with Other Jobs or Tasks During Day or Job

11 /GE /

How was Job Identified? ___ Known "Problem Job/Operation" ___ Musculoskeletal Disorders

___ Quality Performance Problems ___ Productivity Problems

___ Others (Please Specify – complaints, safety, etc.) _________________________________)

List Body Part & Risk Factors & Extra Effort Associated with the Injury/Illness or Other Ergonomics Problem or Other Problem: 1. neck/shoulders 2. back 3. arms/elbows 4. wrists/hands/fingers 5. legs/ankles/feet 6. others Contributing factors, root cause or reason for the problem: (Why are the above problems present?) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Data Collection

12 /GE /

Body Part Right or Left

Effort Level (a)

Continuous Effort Time (b)

Efforts/ Minute (c)

Priority (d)

Carry Over

Neck/

Shoulders

(Upper Back)

L

R

Back

Arms/Elbows L

R

Wrists/Hands/

Fingers

L

R

Legs/Knees L

R

Ankles/Feet/

Toes

L

R Categories:

(Assume one 3 sec. effort in 5 min.)

Effort Level (a)

1=Light 2=Moderate 3=Heavy

Continuous Effort Time (b)

1=<6 secs 2=6 to 20 secs 3=>20 to <30 secs

Efforts per Minute (c)

1 = <1/min 2 = 1 to 5/min 3 = >5 to <15/min

(d) Priority for Change (Time to recover after 5 min. of continuous work on task): *Moderate = 1 2 3 30 to 90 secs of fatigue accumulation 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 *Usually acceptable for 1 hour 2 3 1 continuously: rotate with lighter 2 3 2 task beyond 2 hours, or modify 3 1 2 to lower priority. High = 2 2 3 90s to 3 minutes of fatigue accumulation ** 3 1 3 **Make job improvements to 3 2 1 lower the priority; not good 3 2 2 job rotation candidates. Very High = 3 2 3 > 3 minutes of fatigue accumulation ** 3 3 1 3 3 2 **Same as High.

Data Collection

13 /GE /

SINGLE TASK NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION - ENGLISH VERSIONJOB TITLE: Engine Mechanic lifting AGB

ANALYST NAME: J.Postelwait/M.Kendall

Model Inputs Multipliers Model Outputs

Horizontal Location (in.) = 20 HM = 0.50 Recommended Weight (min. 10", max. 25") Limit in pounds:

Vertical Location (in.) = 8 VM = 0.84 RWL = 15.8 (min. 0", max. 70")

FIRWL = 15.8 Travel Distance (in.) = 20 DM = 0.91 (min. 10", max. 70") Lifting Index =

(=Load/RWL) Angle of Asymmetry (deg.) = 45 AM = 0.86 (min. 0°, max. 135°) LI = 5.08

Coupling = 2 CM = 0.95 FILI = 5.08 (enter 1=good; 2=fair; 3=poor)

Frequency (lifts/min.) = 0.2 FM = 1.00 (min. 0.2 lifts/min.) Recommendation:

Load (lbs.) = 80 Engineering or Ergonomic Intervention Should Be

Duration (hrs.) = 1 Implemented (enter 1, 2, or 8)

Example of Niosh Lifting Equation

14 /GE /

Effort Continuous Efforts per Department: CF34 Modules Project #:1168-10 Level Effort Time Minute Cell: Disassembly (a) (b) (c) Part: OTL Seal Retainer 1=L 1=<6 s 1 = <1/m 2=M 2=6 - 20 s 2 = 1 - 5/m 3=H 3=>20 - 30 s 3 = >5 - ≤15/m *Effort level so high most individuals could not exert the effort 4=H * 4=>30 s 4=>15/min Effort Contin. Efforts Priority Carry Body Light (or 1) Moderate (or 2) Heavy (or 3) Level Effort per (d) Over Part (a) Time(b) Min(c) Head turned partly Head turned to Same as moderate Neck to side or back side; head fully but with force 1 4 1 VH X or forward slightly back; forward or weight; head about 20 degrees stretched forward Shlders Arms slightly away Arms away from Exerting forces or from sides; arms body, no support; holding weight L3 4 4 VH X (Upper extended with working overhead with arms away from Back) some support body or overhead R3 4 4 VH X Leaning to side or Bending forward no Lifting or exerting Back bending; arching load; lifting mod-hvy force while twisting; back loads near body; high force or load 3 4 4 VH X overhead work while bending Arms away from Rotating arm High forces Arms/ body, no load; light while exerting exerted with L3 4 4 VH X Elbows forces/lifting near moderate force rotation; lifting body with arms extended R3 4 4 VH X Light forces or Grips with wide Pinch grips; weights handled or narrow span strong wrist Hands/ close to body; moderate wrist angles; slippery Fingers/ straight wrists; angles, esp. surfaces L4 4 4 VH X Wrists comfortable flexion; use of power grips gloves with moderate forces R4 4 4 VH X Legs/ Standing, walking Bending forward, Exerting high Knees without bending leaning on table; forces while or leaning; weight weight on one pulling or lifting; L1 1 1 L Ankles/ on both feet side; pivoting crouching while Feet/ while exerting exerting force Toes force R1 1 1 L

RODGERS MUSCULAR FATIGUE ANALYSIS

Example of Rodgers Muscle Fatigue Analysis

15 /GE /

Example of Rodgers Muscle Fatigue Analysis Effort Ratings: (d) Priority for Change Categories: Time to recover after 5 min. of (Psychophysical Scaling, Borg 1998) continuous work on task. (Assume one 3 sec effort in 5 min.) Absolute Maximum (** Anchor) 11 Low = not listed below No action required Extremely Strong (Almost Max) 10 9 *Moderate = 1 2 3 30 to 90 sec. of fatigue accumulation HEAVY 8 1 3 2 or 3 Very Strong 7 2 1 3 6 2 2 2 *Usually acceptable for 1 hour MODERATE Strong/Heavy 5 2 3 1 continuously: rotate with lighter or 2 4 2 3 2 task beyond 2 hours, or modify Moderate 3 3 1 2 to lower priority. 2.5 Weak/Light 2 High= 2 2 3 90s to 3 min. of fatigue accumulation LIGHT 1.5 ** 3 1 3 **Make job improvements to or 1 Very Weak 1 3 2 1 lower the priority; not good Extremely week/Just noticeable 0.5 3 2 2 job rotation candidates. 0.3 Nothing At All 0 Very High= 3 2 3 > 3 min. of fatigue accumulation Category Description: ** 3 3 1 0 - 3 = Light Effort or 1 Effort 3 3 2 **Same as High. 4 - 6 = Moderate Effort or 2 Effort 4 x x 7 – 11 = Heavy Effort or 3 Effort x 4 x **Anchor – So much effort x x 4 you want to “throw up” (Rodgers 1987, 1988, 1992, 2004)

16 /GE /

Example of Rodgers Muscle Fatigue AnalysisTABLE 1: DEFINITIONS OF HEAVY EFFORT IN MANUAL HANDLING TASKS Heavy Effort Condition Values Lifts Below 30" (76 cm), Next to Body >50 # (22.7 kg) Mass Lifts Below 30" (76 cm), Arms Partially Extended >35 # (15.9 kg) Lifts Below 30" (76 cm), Arms Fully Extended >25 # (11.4 kg) Lifts From 30 to 53" (76-135 cm) Next to Body >40 # (18.2 kg) Lifts From 30 to 53" (76-135 cm) Arms Partially Extended >35 # (15.9 kg) Lifts From 30 to 53" (76-135 cm) Arms Fully Extended >20 # (9.1 kg) Lifts Above 53" (135 cm), Next to Body >12 # (5.4 kg) Lifts Above 53" (135 cm), Arms Partially Extended >15 # (6.8 kg) Lifts Above 53" (135 cm), Arms Fully Extended >5 # (2.3 kg) Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 2" (5 cm)Span >60 # (27.3 kg) Force Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, 1 Minute, 2" (5 cm) Span >30 # (13.6 kg) Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 1" (2.5 cm) Span >24 # (10.9 kg) Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 3.5" (8.9 cm) Span >30 # (13.6 kg) Power Grip, Flexed Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 2" (5 cm) Span >25 # (11.4 kg) Power Grip, Flexed Wrist, 1 Minute, 2" (5 cm) Span >15 # (6.8 kg) Power Grip, Wrist Extended or To One Side, < 6 Seconds >45 # (20.4 kg) Power Grip, Wrist Extended or To One Side, 1 Minute >25 # (11.4 kg) Pinch Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds >15 # (6.8 kg) Pinch Grip, Neutral Wrist, 1 Minute > 5 # (2.3 kg) Horizontal Push or Pull, Mid-Chest Height, < 6 Seconds >50 # (22.7 kg) Horizontal Push or Pull, Mid-Chest Height, 1 Minute >25 # (11.4 kg) Horizontal Push, Kneeling, Mid-Chest, < 6 Seconds >40 # (18.2 kg) Horizontal Push, Kneeling, Mid-Chest, 1 Minute >20 # (9.1 kg) Horizontal Push, Sitting, Arms Extended, < 6 Seconds >30 # (13.6 kg) Lateral Push Across Chest, Standing, < 6 Seconds >15 # (6.8 kg)

17 /GE /

20/20 Rule activity

Ergonomics:

18 /GE /

Priority List

19 /GE /

Ergonomics:Project Identification (cont.)

4. Patiencea.Timingb.Start with projects that require

minimal effort with maximum results

c.Don’t Try to Boil the Ocean

20 /GE /

Ergonomics:• Education • How do you get funding?

1. Budget2. Plan3. ROI4. Project Justification

21 /GE /

Ergonomics:Continue Education •Most of our Ergonomics Team training stems from the Original training from outside contractor. Each year we compete as a company in the Ergo cup competition. The categories are:

1. Team-driven Improvements 2. EHS driven Improvements 3. Program Improvement

•We leverage within GE at every opportunity.

22 /GE /

Ergonomics:Continue Education •There is an APP available for Niosh lift equation (htLiftCalc).•Rodgers muscle fatigue downloadable

•We attend VPP Conferences to share best practices with other companies.

http://www.theergonomicscenter.com/graphics/ErgoAnalysis%20Software/Rodgers%20Smart%20Form.xls

23 /GE /

Ergonomics:Continue Education

•Training for Engineering and design personnel at a local level. •Training for Sourcing personnel at a local level.•Basic Ergonomics training to all employees on site annually.

24 /GE /

Ergonomics:Describe and calculate (where possible) the financial “payback” of the project. Use the following equation to calculate the simple ROI.

Cost of Solution

Annual Operational Savings

Injury PreventionSavings+

SimpleROI =

• Injury Prevention Savings calculations should use the following cost per injury or illness value. This value includes both direct and indirect costs. The direct costs were determined using GE US WC data. The indirect costs were calculated using the OSHA recommended multiplier of 1.1. GE Average Cost per Musculoskeletal Injury or Illness = $38,500

• The Cost of the Solution should include the cost of materials & equipment, as well as the costs related to the implementation of the solution.

25 /GE /

GE Strother Ergonomics Projects:

A.Examples of Strother Projects1.LPT Shaft Cleaner2.Hydraulic Lifts3.AGB Transport/Ass’y/Dss’y Fixture

4.CF34 OTL Retainer Removal Tool

5.Fixture Storage Rack

CFM56 Low Pressure Turbine Shaft Cleaning OperationErgo Cup Project Leader: Eric Befort - MaintenanceErgo Cup Project Team Member #1: Steve Holtke - MaintenanceErgo Cup Project Team Member #2: Mike Kendall – Ergo Team Leader Ergo Cup Project Team Member #3: Brad Ziegler – Ergo Team MemberErgo Cup Project Team Member #4: Donnie Welch – Maintenance Supv.Ergo Cup Project Team Member #5: John Postelwait – EHS SpecialistErgo Cup Project Team Member #6: Nick Bowker – Component Repair Team LeaderErgo Cup Project Team Member #6: Bill Hartman – Component Repair Supv.Ergo Cup Project Team Member #7: Tina Lister – Chem Clean Mechanic

The TEAM

27 /GE /

BackgroundThe Problem• Coking, a build up of carbon deposits from overheated oil,

becomes caked on the inside of Low Pressure Turbine Shafts in jet engines. This must be removed for the engine to perform effectively.

• Because of the manual cleaning process, inconsistency in

the quality of cleaning the shafts existed. The performance of this cleaning activity was often very labor intensive, with the operator forced to spend hours running the drill motor to get the shafts clean.

• Often this work had to be repeated because the shafts

were not cleaned sufficiently the first time. This caused severe stress to the person performing cleaning operation.

Injury History (past two years) Two reported first aid cases One OSHA Recordable case

28 /GE /

“Before” Situation:

Bottle brush mounted on air drill used to clean inside diameter of hollow Low Pressure Turbine Shaft. Bottle brush is almost six foot long, and very unwieldy. High torque from air motor caused injuries to employees.

Tina, our model, is about 5’ 4”.

29 /GE /

Background: InjuriesInjury Extract

System Case ID

U.S. OSHA Recordable?

Detailed Body Part(s)

Cause Object

Injury Type

Description Immediate Cause Root Cause Descriptive Root Cause

435 No Left Little Finger drill shaft

Cut/laceration

Ee states he was running an air powered drill with a long brush on it and his glove got caught on shaft when pulling hand out.

Unsafe Act: Improper force / posture / position  

Personal Factor: Human Error  

Ee placed left hand on/near rotating shaft

694 Yes Right Forearm,Right Upper Arm,Right Hand,Right Shoulder,Right Wrist

Air motor and fan shaft

Pain/swelling/musculoskeletal discomfort

Employee was cleaning the inside of a shaft with an airmotor. The shaft was spinning while it was being cleaned and at some point it stopping spinning. The air motor kept going and it caused her hand and arm to rotate toward the outside.

Unsafe Condition: Ergonomically inadequate workstation or rotationUnsafe Act: Wrong/defective item used  

Job Factor: Inadequate engineeringPersonal Factor: Difficult for employee to execute  

Root cause is two fold: First tool design is ergonically inadequate. Second; employee installed a new bristle brush of a greater diameter and bristle stiffness which contributed to the drill brush hanging up in the LPT shaft resulting in the drill torque

Injuries had been reported regarding the use of the old drill motor. One of the two reported within the past two years was severe enough to become a recordable injury.

Analysis tools were then used to evaluate and understand the true scope of the problem……

30 /GE /

BackgroundDefining the Problem Using the “STEPS” Process

31 /GE /

BackgroundDefining the Problem Using the “STEPS” Process

32 /GE /

BackgroundDefining the Problem Using the “STEPS” Process

33 /GE /

Design Phase:

Original Concept Drawing

Maintenance designed this machine in a matter of minutes on some scratch paper.Maintenance then fabricated this new machine in just a few days. It was installed and operational in less than a month.

34 /GE /

“After”: Simplicity

Using original part transfer cart, machine is loaded, start button is pushed and operator “Walks-Off” to do another task while part is being cleaned.

Machine is capable of being run in either automatic or manual mode. Manual mode allows the brush to “dwell” in a heavy coking area inside the shaft if necessary.

35 /GE /

“As-Built” Solution:

Finished Machine

36 /GE /

The project cost less than $5k to implement.Savings projected came to $97K over a one

year period with one injury, less the cost of the machine.

$$$ ACCOUNTANTS TAKE NOTE: $$$This is a R.O.I of about three weeks.

IT HAS PAID FOR ITSELF 10 TIMES AS OF FW35!

Improvement: Return on Investment

Component Repair Solvent Spray Booth Lift Mechanism The Team:Project Leader: Eric Befort – Maintenance Mechanic (Ergo Team Member) Project Team Member #1: John Postelwait – EHS Specialist (Ergo Team Member)Project Team Member #2: Shawn Czaplinski – Engine MechanicProject Team Member #3: Mike Kendall – Engine Mechanic (Ergo Team Leader)Project Team Member #4: Tina Lister – Engine MechanicProject Team Member #5: Kerry Hoskins – Engine Mechanic

                                                     

    

38 /GE /

“Before” Situation:

•Solvent Spray Booth was previously installed as provided by the manufacturer at a fixed height of 33” from the floor to the working height of the booth tabletop.

•The top of the cabinet was at a fixed height of 69”.

•The mechanics load parts into the booth and degrease them with pressurized PD-680 type II solvent contained within an internal pump system in the machine.

39 /GE /

Solution:

“Bottom” Position of Booth “Top” Position of Booth

12” of heightadjustment

Simple,2 buttonControls

40 /GE /

Solution:

Video of Booth in Action Variance in Heightof Affected Employees

The guys in the pictures are 6’3” and 6’4”.The young lady is 5’4”.

41 /GE /

Solution: Details

Installed Hydraulic Lifts to physically raise/lower entire machine. This required that we also install flexible exhaust stack to allow movement of the booth, and also to install flexible conduit and air lines.

FlexibleConnections

42 /GE /

Innovation• The team was faced with ways to make existing

equipment ergonomically usable. • This ergonomic solution was successfully achieved with

minimal modification to existing equipment/process. • This ergonomic improvement now provides employees

a selection of different potential working heights using existing equipment .

• The team has plans to leverage this technology to other process equipment in the shop.• Wet Blast Booths (4 each)• Solvent blast Booths (3 each)• Shot Peen Booths (2 each)

43 /GE /

Cost of Solution

Potential Injury Prevention Savings

ROI =($26.7K)

($3.5K)= 7 Weeks

Average Cost per Musculoskeletal Injury or Illness = $26,700

Business Impact

New equipment modifications to existing equipment makes this workstation more tolerable for all

employees, providing a better work environment.

AGB Transport ContainerProject Leader: Clint Austin, Engine MechanicProject Team Member #1: Eric Befort, Maintenance Project Team Member #2: Kevin Myers, Engine MechanicProject Team Member #3: Danny Beard, Engine MechanicProject Team Member #4: Mike Kendall, Engine MechanicProject Team Member #5: Jeff Tipton, MaintenanceProject Team Member #6: Karl Murphy, Engine MechanicProject Team Member #7: Dale Luce, Engine Mechanic Work Leader

45 /GE /

“Before” Situation:

Mechanics had to manually turn the AGB

to allow tooling attachment & safe

transport.

1 2

3 4

The AGB weighs ~150 lbs.

46 /GE /

“Before” Details• Engine mechanics designed this solution after

suffering injuries. Their feedback drove this ergonomic project.

• Summary of the injuries & illnesses: Experienced multiple first aid injuries including pinched

fingers and strained backs

Job / Task Name Injury History Ergo Risk Factors Employee Perception Overall Ergo Risk Priority

Installing/Removing CFM56/CF34-10 AGB

Moderate: 1 or more ergo (strain / sprain / MSD) first aid cases attributable to task 3

High: Task has multiple ergo risk factors (force, posture, repetition, etc.) affecting multiple body parts 9

High: Most employees rate the task poor 9 HIGH

Ergo Risk Ranking

Risk Factor Evaluation

Risk Factor Evaluation ranked as High

47 /GE /

SINGLE TASK NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION - ENGLISH VERSIONJOB TITLE: Engine Mechanic lifting AGB

ANALYST NAME: J.Postelwait/M.Kendall

Model Inputs Multipliers Model Outputs

Horizontal Location (in.) = 20 HM = 0.50 Recommended Weight (min. 10", max. 25") Limit in pounds:

Vertical Location (in.) = 8 VM = 0.84 RWL = 15.8 (min. 0", max. 70")

FIRWL = 15.8 Travel Distance (in.) = 20 DM = 0.91 (min. 10", max. 70") Lifting Index =

(=Load/RWL) Angle of Asymmetry (deg.) = 45 AM = 0.86 (min. 0°, max. 135°) LI = 5.08

Coupling = 2 CM = 0.95 FILI = 5.08 (enter 1=good; 2=fair; 3=poor)

Frequency (lifts/min.) = 0.2 FM = 1.00 (min. 0.2 lifts/min.) Recommendation:

Load (lbs.) = 80 Engineering or Ergonomic Intervention Should Be

Duration (hrs.) = 1 Implemented (enter 1, 2, or 8)

“Before” Details

NIOSH Lifting Equation Recommended Ergonomic Intervention

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

48 /GE /

New Cart Solution:

• Solution Specifications: Needed cart that was easy to

load/unload and transport Minimized the footprint of the storage Able to load/unload using equipment

already available to the engine mechanics, without manual lifting

Allow for safe transport between areas• Material Requirements: All materials

were locally purchased. Manufactured in-house by our maintenance department from steel tubing, casters, etc.

49 /GE /

Judging Criteria #2: Study & Experimentation

1st PrototypeDifficult to load

2nd PrototypeStill turning part.

Not secured

The 2nd prototype was a modified plastic basket with casters and 3

sides removed to allow employees closer access to the part when

lifting and turning.

Originally, the 1st prototype was a long

wooden box with pallet style feet. It could only be moved with forklifts.

A hydraulic engine lift was already available. Four versions were built, with the fourth being our

ultimate solution.

50 /GE /

Judging Criteria #2: Study & Experimentation

The third prototype looked much like the final product with casters, but was

widened in the final version so it could accommodate gearboxes from multiple

engine models.

3rd PrototypeStrap point in wrong position

The final version also required the hold down

strap location be modified, because the

original location created a trip hazard and an

“ankle-biter”. It is also equipped with a brake.

51 /GE /

Final SolutionTooling Drawing

52 /GE /

Judging Criteria #3: Simplicity• No other fixture or dolly is required to store, or transport

this gearbox. It can all be done using this fixture.• The part is positioned to make it easy to load and unload

with lift devices (hoist or hydraulic lift).• NO MANUAL LIFTING REQUIRED!

The part is now secure, eliminating/mitigating potential for damage to this expensive hardware.

The cart takes up 1/2 the floor space, effectively doubling storage capacity.

All lifting is performed using mechanical assist devices. Ergonomic risk thereby eliminated.

53 /GE /

Final Solution

Click Picture

54 /GE /

Judging Criteria #5: Business Impact

Cost of Solution

Injury PreventionSavingsSimple

ROI=

$420 X 10 ea = $4200

$26,700

• Operational Savings • No danger to the part shifting during transport,

and causing potential damage.• Movement of the AGB throughout the shop was

made easier.• Less floor space required for storage.

=6.36

This is a payback time of 56 days.

CF34 OTL Retainer Removal ToolProject Leader: Louis Zink, Engine MechanicTeam Member #1: J.Postelwait, EHS SpecialistTeam Member #2: Eric Befort, MaintenanceTeam Member #3: John Klick, Engine MechanicTeam Member #4: Mike Evinger, Engine MechanicTeam Member #5: Todd Leftwich, Engine Mechanic

56 /GE /

“Before” Situation:

OTL Seals must be removed. They are hard to remove after having been in the engines for a while.

The parts have a very small edge to catch with the removal tool.

Tool Engagement on Seal edge.

Penny to show scale

OTL Seal

57 /GE /

“Before” Situation:

Video of experienced employee using old tool to remove one seal:Only nine more to go…..

58 /GE /

“Before” Details• Performed Roger’s Muscle Fatigue Analysis of the task.

Ergonomic Risk Factors were rated as “Very High” in 8 out of 10 categories.

• Employees brought this task to the Ergo Team’s attention as a problem they hoped the Team could help address.

• Slide Hammer usage provided potential opportunities for risk of injuries. No documented injuries, but several hazards existed that caused discomfort to employees.

• Existing tool provided to employees was being damaged during use, and was scrapping 100% of the parts being removed.

59 /GE /

Effort Continuous Efforts per Department: CF34 Modules Project #:1168-10 Level Effort Time Minute Cell: Disassembly (a) (b) (c) Part: OTL Seal Retainer 1=L 1=<6 s 1 = <1/m 2=M 2=6 - 20 s 2 = 1 - 5/m 3=H 3=>20 - 30 s 3 = >5 - ≤15/m *Effort level so high most individuals could not exert the effort 4=H * 4=>30 s 4=>15/min Effort Contin. Efforts Priority Carry Body Light (or 1) Moderate (or 2) Heavy (or 3) Level Effort per (d) Over Part (a) Time(b) Min(c) Head turned partly Head turned to Same as moderate Neck to side or back side; head fully but with force 1 4 1 VH X or forward slightly back; forward or weight; head about 20 degrees stretched forward Shlders Arms slightly away Arms away from Exerting forces or from sides; arms body, no support; holding weight L3 4 4 VH X (Upper extended with working overhead with arms away from Back) some support body or overhead R3 4 4 VH X Leaning to side or Bending forward no Lifting or exerting Back bending; arching load; lifting mod-hvy force while twisting; back loads near body; high force or load 3 4 4 VH X overhead work while bending Arms away from Rotating arm High forces Arms/ body, no load; light while exerting exerted with L3 4 4 VH X Elbows forces/lifting near moderate force rotation; lifting body with arms extended R3 4 4 VH X Light forces or Grips with wide Pinch grips; weights handled or narrow span strong wrist Hands/ close to body; moderate wrist angles; slippery Fingers/ straight wrists; angles, esp. surfaces L4 4 4 VH X Wrists comfortable flexion; use of power grips gloves with moderate forces R4 4 4 VH X Legs/ Standing, walking Bending forward, Exerting high Knees without bending leaning on table; forces while or leaning; weight weight on one pulling or lifting; L1 1 1 L Ankles/ on both feet side; pivoting crouching while Feet/ while exerting exerting force Toes force R1 1 1 L

RODGERS MUSCULAR FATIGUE ANALYSIS

CF34 OTL Retainer Removal Tool Rogers Muscle

Fatigue AnalysisTool

Rated “Very High” Priority To Address Ergonomic Issues in 8 of 10 categories Due to Duration and Repetitive Motion Requirements.

Because of this it was decided no more study required.

“JUST FIX IT”

60 /GE /

“After” or “Solution”:

Completed Tool

Finished Tool Drawing

61 /GE /

• Tips are designed to be replaceable when tool gets worn or damaged.

• Replacement of tips is less frequent with the new tool.

• New design provides uniform, controllable pressure when used.

62 /GE /

“After” or “Solution”:

Video of 1st time tool was used

63 /GE /

Solution: Details

• Manufactured “In-House” by Maintenance Personnel using recycled material.

• Easy to use.• Reduced scrap rate by 90%• Replaceable tip makes tool repair fast

if tool is damaged• Reduced “turn time” to perform task

64 /GE /

Innovation The new tool was designed and

proven by employees on site. It was manufactured from recycled

materials provided by Maintenance and Machine Shop.

The concept was completely different from the original tool design.

It not only reduces potential injury but reduces cost.

65 /GE /

Study & Experimentation During the Ergonomics Team meeting where

the process was first explained, solutions were “spit-balled”.

The prototype was first described and designed during this session.

Attendants at the meeting all contributed their ideas, and the first “napkin drawing” was made.

A week later, the prototype was introduced to the shop floor. After a couple of alterations, the final product was completed.

66 /GE /

Simplicity and Ergonomic Risk• The new tool uses less force and is more

controllable than using the old “Slide Hammer” tool.

• This results in a more repeatable/stable process with less scrap and reduction in potential injury.

New Tool “Slide Hammer”

67 /GE /

Effort Continuous Efforts per Department: CF34 Modules Project #:1168-10 Level Effort Time Minute Cell: Disassembly (a) (b) (c) Part: OTL Seal Retainer 1=L 1=<6 s 1 = <1/m 2=M 2=6 - 20 s 2 = 1 - 5/m 3=H 3=>20 - 30 s 3 = >5 - ≤15/m *Effort level so high most individuals could not exert the effort 4=H * 4=>30 s 4=>15/min Effort Contin. Efforts Priority Carry Body Light (or 1) Moderate (or 2) Heavy (or 3) Level Effort per (d) Over Part (a) Time(b) Min(c) Head turned partly Head turned to Same as moderate Neck to side or back side; head fully but with force 1 1 1 L or forward slightly back; forward or weight; head about 20 degrees stretched forward Shlders Arms slightly away Arms away from Exerting forces or from sides; arms body, no support; holding weight L1 1 1 L (Upper extended with working overhead with arms away from Back) some support body or overhead R1 1 1 L Leaning to side or Bending forward no Lifting or exerting Back bending; arching load; lifting mod-hvy force while twisting; back loads near body; high force or load 1 1 1 L overhead work while bending Arms away from Rotating arm High forces Arms/ body, no load; light while exerting exerted with L2 1 2 L Elbows forces/lifting near moderate force rotation; lifting body with arms extended R2 1 2 L Light forces or Grips with wide Pinch grips; weights handled or narrow span strong wrist Hands/ close to body; moderate wrist angles; slippery Fingers/ straight wrists; angles, esp. surfaces L2 1 2 L Wrists comfortable flexion; use of power grips gloves with moderate forces R2 1 2 L Legs/ Standing, walking Bending forward, Exerting high Knees without bending leaning on table; forces while or leaning; weight weight on one pulling or lifting; L1 1 1 L Ankles/ on both feet side; pivoting crouching while Feet/ while exerting exerting force Toes force R1 1 1 L

RODGERS MUSCULAR FATIGUE ANALYSIS

Ergonomic Risk After New Tool Intro

Rogers MuscleFatigue Analysis

Tool

Rated “Low” Priority To Address Ergonomic Issues in all 10 categories after introduction of new tool.

68 /GE /

Business Impact

$200

$371,899 $26,700+SimpleROI =

• Operational Savings: Before this tool was implemented, all parts were scrapped 100%. There are 10 parts per engine @ $723 ea. After the new tool was introduced, less than 10% of parts were scrapped, resulting in savings of $6507 per engine. Average # of engines per year for 2011 & 2012 is 95. More than 60% of engines are disassembled to the level requiring this work performance. This results in annual savings of $371,899

• Injury Prevention Savings: This value includes direct and indirect costs. The direct costs were determined using GE US WC data. The indirect costs were calculated using the OSHA recommended multiplier of 1.1.

Average Cost per Musculoskeletal Injury or Illness = $26,700• Cost of the Solution: This project used recycled materials and

about 4 hours labor for one maintenance employee. = $200

=1993

69 /GE /

Business Impact

1993 Paybacks/Year

24 Hours/day 365 Days/YearXPaybackTime =

• Operational Savings: Annual savings = $371,899

• Injury Prevention Savings: = $26,700

• Cost of the Solution: = $200

= 4.24 Hours

This tool paid for itself in the first 4.24 hours of use!

Swing Arm Storage SystemErgo Cup Project

Primary Contact: Kelvin Sanborn EHS Leader 919-405-3213 Kelvin.Sanborn@GE.com

Aviation

Durham Engine Facility3701 S. Miami BlvdDurham, NC

Example of leveraging from other sites

71 /GE /

“Before” Situation: Photo Storyboard &/or Process Map• Drawers were heavy and difficult

to slide open and closed• 140 lb push/pull (on bottom

drawer)• Storage rack did not provide

good visibility to staged discs.• Ergonomic issues reaching center

of disks to attach lifting fixtures• Grease contamination from

drawer slides got onto parts and people

• Multiple pinch pointsRack stores 6 stages of disks for GE90 low pressure turbine (LPT) assembly

72 /GE /

“After” or “Solution”: Photo Storyboard and/or Process Map• New shelving system utilizes

lightweight arms that allow for easy handling

• Arms pivot outwards for access• 18 lb push/pull fully loaded

73 /GE /

“After” or “Solution”: Photo Storyboard and/or Process Map

Open design of storage rack allows visibility to staged discs

Quickly assess if ready for next operation

74 /GE /

“After” or “Solution”: Photo Storyboard and/or Process Map

Easy access to center for attaching lifting fixtures

75 /GE /

Similar issue redesign tool storage rack Before

76 /GE /

Similar issue redesign tool storage rack After

77 /GE /

Similar issue redesign tool storage rack After

Requires 5 lbs. of push/pull to move shelf.

78 /GE /

ClosingTake the time to use scrap parts or old tooling. Don’t be afraid to dig

through the warehouse of junk to look for things that can be repurposed.

Look for the jobs that are less desirable. Show me a job that no one likes and I will show you a job that has an Ergonomics issue.

Don’t rely on Engineers to design tooling. Some of our best tooling has come from the people that do or have done the job.

Try to spread the wealth. Don’t concentrate in one area. Ergonomics problems are the most visible in the shop. More areas helped equals more concerns submitted.

Spend money to make money. Often the Ergonomics solution also increases productivity, quality, and decreases risk of injury.

Keep trying until there is a good solution that works. Occasionally it takes three or four prototypes to get to a good solution.

Don’t give up, learn from mistakes. Eventually you will find a solution no matter how hard the task.

79 /GE /

Ergonomics:

Questions?