Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
final year project proposal
Citation preview
ERGONOMICS STUDY ON WORKING POSTURE AT MARINE REPAIR COMPANY
SYED MOHD FARID BIN SYED MOHD FUZI
(2009434552)
BACHELOR ENGINEERING (HONS) (MECHANICAL)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA (UITM)
JULY 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah S.W.T., The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful. It is
with the deepest sense of the Al-Mighty Allah that gives me the strength and ability
to complete this project proposal. All good aspirations, devotions and prayers are due
to Allah whose blessing and guidance have helped me throughout the entire project
proposal.
I would like to acknowledge and express my sincere gratitude towards my
supervisor Puan Nursalbiah binti Nasir for her concern, valuable time of
consultation, and advice, guidance patience in supervising my project from the
beginning until the completion of this project proposal. Also, to the other lecturers
that give me guidance and moral support to finish this project proposal.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and all my friends for their supports
especially, my aunt and uncle, Syed Shaharum and Zakila who personally involved
and give me ideas and help me to finish this project proposal. They always give me
moral support and help when needed and their honest comments or advcies on my
project proposal.
2
ABSTRACT
Abrasive Blasting process that is being used at shipyard in marine industries
involved with many hazards and risks. Ergonomics study on the process is very
important to reduce the risks related to the process and could help improve the health
of the workers. This study is focused on identifying problem related to abrasive
blasting process and suggests method or solution to improve working posture and
reduce risks related to the process. The method used to evaluate the risk of the
process is Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). The result from the survey will
be compared with the assessment result using REBA method.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Problem Statement
1.3 Objective
1.4 Scope and Limitation
1.5 Significance of Project
PAGE
i
ii
iii
vi
vii
1
2
2
3
3
4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Abrasive blasting process
2.1.1 Definition of abrasive blasting
2.1.2 Types of abrasive blasting
2.1.2.1 Mechanical blasting
2.1.2.2 Air pressure blasting
2.1.2.2.1 Direct pressure method
2.1.2.2.2 Induction-siphon method
2.1.2.2.3 Induction-gravity method
2.1.2.3 Hydro-blast process
2.1.2.4 Vapor-blast process
2.1.3 Safety and hazard related to abrasive blasting
2.2 Ergonomics in abrasive blasting
2.2.1 Musculoskeletal disorder
2.2.2 OSHA guidelines on ergonomics for shipyard
2.2.3 Shipyard physical load
2.2.4 Working posture-performance relationship
2.2.5 Studies in other industries related to
ergonomics in abrasive blasting in marine
industry
2.3 Ergonomics and improvements
2.4 Analysis method
2.4.1 Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System
(OWAS)
2.4.1.1 Strength of the method
2.4.1.2 Limitations of the method
2.4.2 Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
2.4.2.1 Strength of the method
2.4.2.2 Limitations of the method
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
5
CHAPTER III
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Methodology flow chart
3.2.4 Survey analysis
3.2.3 Survey distribution and job observation
3.2.2 Literature review
3.2.1 Problem identification
3.2.5 Suggestions of intervention
3.2.7 Result
3.2.8 Conclusion
3.3 Research instrument
3.4 Respondent of the study
REBA Employee Assessment Worksheet
16
17
18
18
18
18
18
`19
19
19
24
27
28
6
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Table 2.1:
Table 3.1:
TITLE
Summary of Related Literature Reviews
A set of tools to be used in observation
PAGE
10, 11, 12
20
7
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Figure 2.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
TITLE
Classification of Abrasive Blasting Process
Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting
(page 1)
Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting
(page 2)
Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting
(page 3)
Sample of REBA assessment worksheet
PAGE
5
21
22
23
24
8
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In span of few decades, marine industry has been related closely with oil and
gas industry. The rapid growth of oil and gas industry has influence the expanding of
marine industry. Nowadays, ships and vessels not only used to transport people and
goods to different continent. It is also used as supporting units to oil and gas platform
and widely used to transport oil and gas related product.
Due to nature of work that the ships and vessels had to undergo, maintenance
needs to be done regularly to ensure longer life span of the ships. One of the most
important parts need to be maintained is the hull of the ships that is commonly affect
by the corrosion caused by the sea water.
One of the methods used to prevent corrosion to ship’s hull is by applying
coating to the hull of the ships using paint. However, the coating need to renewed for
certain period of times because sometimes, the coating is damaged by collision and
aging. Before the painting works can be done, the old coating and rust need to be
removed and the surface need to be prepared to ensure the new coating will adhere to
the surface.
Abrasive blasting is a common process that is being used in the shipyard to
prepare the surface for painting works. It is the most economic way to prepare the
surface. However, there is certain hazard related to this process. In United States,
9
NIOSH and OSHA have studied about the process extensively and provided the
standards and guidelines for the process to prevent health problem to the worker. In
Malaysia, DOSH and OSHA also provide the standards and guidelines for the
process in Factories and Machineries Act 1967 and Occupational Safety and Health
Act 1994. However, the studies of ergonomics for abrasive blasting process is still
new in Malaysia.
1.2 Problem statement
Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Malaysia (MMHE) has been using
the abrasive blasting process for surface preparation before the painting works is
done in marine repair. The physical demands of the works tasks require strength and
endurance as well as high level of coordination due to the static and dynamic
standing surface. These workers exposed to many of recognized risk factors for the
development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The risks factors include
high force exertions, static or awkward posture, repetitive motions, noise, vibrations
slip and fall risks and high level of muscular fatigue. However, there is no certain
study about musculoskeletal disorder risks being done at MMHE.
In this study, the musculoskeletal disorder risks in abrasive blasting process
at Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Malaysia (MMHE) will be identified and
suggestions will be made to reduce the risks of musculoskeletal disorder in abrasive
blasting process at MMHE.
1.3 Objective
1. To identify ergonomic problems related to abrasive blasting workers.
2. To suggest suitable solutions to reduce musculoskeletal disorder risks in
abrasive blasting process.
10
1.4 Scope and Limitation
The data measurement will be taken are closely referred to guidelines from
NIOSH, “A Primer based on Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders”. Ten
abrasive blasters from MMHE shipyard will be participated in the survey and
observations.
The observations will be using REBA method developed by Sue Hignett and
Lynn McAtamney.
The suggestions will be made based on guidelines provided by Niosh, A
Primer based on Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders”.
1.5 Significance of the project
The solutions suggested to the process will aids the workers to feel more
comfortable while working, reduce medication cost and reduce safety risks related to
the process.
The solution suggested is not only applicable to marine repair industry but
also applicable to other related field that used abrasive blasting process in their daily
work such as factories and construction fields that used abrasive blasting for surface
finishing. The data and findings for the study also might be used for research related
to the ergonomics field.
11
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Abrasive blasting process
2.1.1 Definition of abrasive blasting
Enviro-Management & Research, Inc. defined abrasive blasting as a process
of cleaning or finishing of materials by forceful direction of an abrasive media
applied either dry or suspended in a liquid medium, against the surface of work
piece. [1]
Dave Hansel defined abrasive blasting in more simple way which is the
process of propelling abrasive particles from a blast machine using the power of
compressed air. He also listed down three fundamental components that constitute
the equipment setup which are, air compressor, blast machine and abrasive. [2]
Austin Blair described abrasive blasting as high velocity bombardment of a
surface by an abrasive media propelled by hydraulic or pneumatic pressure or
centrifugal force. He also divided the process into four categories which are, dry
(pneumatic), wet (hydraulic), airless (centrifugal), and vacuum (a pneumatic blast
nozzle surrounded by a vacuum cleaner brush arrangement for immediate dust
removal). [3]
From these definitions, it can be concluded that abrasive blasting is a process
of surface preparing and surface cleaning and finishing by using abrasive media that
is forced to the work piece by using compressed air.
12
Abrasive blasting
Dry blasting Wet blasting
Air pressure blasting
Mechanical blasting
Direct pressure method
Induction-siphon method
Induction-gravity method
Hydro-blast process
Vapor-blast process
2.1.2 Types of abrasive blasting
Enviro-Management & Research, Inc. has explained the categories of
abrasive blasting which include dry and wet blasting. The categories of the abrasive
blasting can be represented by the figure below.
Figure 2.1: Classification of Abrasive Blasting Process
Generally, dry blasting is a blasting process that is not involved the use of
liquid or water in the abrasive. Vice versa with the wet blasting that mixed the
abrasive with liquid or water that create slurry or only use high pressure liquid for the
abrasive blasting process.
2.1.2.1 Mechanical blasting
The process generally used the cabinet type equipment that have blast wheels
inside the cabinet house and used centrifugal force produced by the blast wheels to
direct the abrasive to the work piece. Different wheels design is available to improve
the efficiency of the operation and the equipment can be geared from low to high
production requirements. The applications of the equipment include, descaling the
cast products, deburring transmission parts, and to clean strip steel and automotive
crankshafts, axle shafts, engine blocks and rear axle housings. [1]
13
2.1.2.2 Air pressure blasting
Air pressure blasting employs the use of compressor that will compress to
apply abrasive to a surface. Typically, the methods used are direct pressure or
induction method.
2.1.2.2.1 Direct pressure method
In this method, the abrasive is contained and fed by pressurized container into
blast hose. The air pressure used commonly 80 to 90 psi. The abrasive will fall from
the pressure vessel through the aperture into the blast hose and will pick up by the
compressed air that conveyed the abrasive to the work piece. Blast machines that
used this method can be used as portable units or can be developed into cabinets or
blast rooms. [1]
2.1.2.2.2 Induction-siphon method
The difference between this method and direct pressure is the design of the
blast gun. The blast gun is connected to a flexible hose that carries the abrasive and a
compressed air pipe. As the compressed air flow through the gun and the abrasive
hose, a partial vacuum condition is created in the hose and abrasive from the abrasive
hose will be drawn a propelled through the nozzle. Usually, it is used in work that
need light abrasive due to the velocity of abrasive leaving the nozzle. The
approximate velocity is 40% of direct pressure method. [1]
14
2.1.2.2.3 Induction-gravity method
The equipment for induction-gravity method is quite similar to induction-
siphon method. The difference is the way of the abrasive is stored. In this method,
the abrasive storage is stored at overhead place. The drawn of abrasive into
compressed air hose caused by the partial vacuum condition and the weight of
gravity. This method usually used in shot peening. [1]
The concept and method used in wet abrasive is quite similar with dry
blasting. Three methods can be used to propel the slurry to the work piece. The
methods are:
1. Design of the nozzle that create siphoning action.
2. Used of compressed air with the help of gravity-fed action.
3. Used of centrifugal pump that can produce required speed of projection for
the slurry.
2.1.2.3 Hydro-blast process
It is a wet blasting process that uses mixture of sand and water that is
propelled by water pressure. [1]
2.1.2.4 Vapor-blast process
In this process, abrasive is suspended in the liquid and projected at high
velocity by compressed air. [1]
2.1.3 Safety and hazard related to abrasive blasting
OSHA under United States Department of Labor has provided the guideline
for employee that is involved in abrasive blasting. There are several hazards that
related to the abrasive blasting including toxic dusts, high noise level and other
safety and health hazards. The details of the guidelines can be referred at [4].
15
2.2 Ergonomics in abrasive blasting
2.2.1 Musculoskeletal disorder
Abrasive blasting in marine industry often related musculoskeletal disorder
due to the nature of the work. Cohen, Gjessing, Fine, Bernard and McGlothlin
defined musculoskeletal disorder in Niosh manual as:
1. Disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, or
spinal discs.
2. Disorders that are not typically the result of any instantaneous or acute event
(such as slip, trip, or fall) but reflect a more gradual or chronic development
(nevertheless, acute events such as slips and trips are very common causes of
musculoskeletal problems such as low back pain).
3. Disorders diagnosed by a medical history, physical examination, or other
medical tests that can range in severity from mild and intermittent to
debilitating and chronic.
4. Disorders with several distinct features (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) as
well as disorders defined primarily by the location of the pain (i.e., low back
pain)
[5]
2.2.2 OSHA guidelines on ergonomics for shipyard
OSHA under U.S. Department of labor has listed down ergonomics-related
risk factors that shipyard employees are most often exposed to. The ergonomics-
related risk factors are force, repetition, awkward and prolonged static body posture,
contact stress, vibration and cold temperatures combined with previous risk factors.
OSHA also provides the guidelines for preventing musculoskeletal disorder in for
shipyard. [6]
16
2.2.3 Shipyard physical load
In a survey conducted by Berna van wendel de Joode, Alex Burdof and
Carolina Verspuy, it is reported that ship maintenance work including abrasive
blasting works have high prevalence of back pain and neck or shoulder pain with
back pain occurrence of 80% and neck or shoulder pain occurrence of 60%. The
result of the workplace survey shows that abrasive blasting works required harmful
posture 1.5 to 2.0 times more often than average. They also compared the physical
load in ship maintenance work with other occupations and guidelines for material
handling. Comparison with other occupations shows that twisted and bent trunk is
more common among traditional fishermen and ship maintenance workers, 8% to
10% and 2% to 3% respectively. Also, the prevalence of required force is the highest
among ship maintenance workers with over 200 N. Comparison with the guidelines
for material handling shows that abrasive blasting works has exceed the
recommended capabilities of most workers with range of 180 to 400 N. In
conclusion, ship maintenance works characterized by frequent extremely awkward
postures and exertion of large forces and the workers are at risk for the development
of musculoskeletal disorders especially the back and the neck or shoulder region. It is
also suggested that ergonomics improvements is warranted because the ship
maintenance work is a strenuous job. [7]
2.2.4 Working posture-performance relationship
Straker, Pollock and Mangharam in their journal mentioned that poor posture
could change the mechanical advantage of muscles requiring a sub-optimal neuro-
muscular utilization, accelerate the onset of muscular fatigue leading to a decrement
in movement co-ordination and lead to discomfort that could act as distractor. All of
this could affect the performance of a worker. They also suggest that small changes
in posture can affect the performance of workers. Therefore, productivity and health
can both be improved with good posture. [8]
Poor working posture is the main cause of musculoskeletal disorders and
could affect the performance of a worker. Cohen, Gjessing, Fine, Bernard and
McGlothlin mentioned that work-related musculoskeletal disorders may cause a great
17
deal of pain and suffering among the workers and productivity, and the quality of the
product may decrease. The quality of work also would be affected.
2.2.5 Studies in other industries related to ergonomics in abrasive blasting in
marine industry
Title/authors Summary Relevancy to topic
Comparing dynamic and
stationary standing
postures in an assembly
line by Venkatesh
Balasubramanian, K.
Adalarasu, Rahul
Regulapati. [9]
- This study evaluated the
efficiency of a dynamic
standing posture over
stationary standing posture
in reducing physical
stress.
- It is found out that
stationary posture fatigues
lower extremity muscles at
a much faster rate than a
dynamic posture during an
hour's job.
- It is also found out that
dynamic standing could
reduced fatigue and risk of
lower extremity disorder
compared to the stationary
standing.
- Most of the abrasive
blasting works in marine
industry involved in
stationary standing
especially when working
on scaffolding.
- It is proven that
stationary standing could
bring bad impact to the
worker lower extremity
muscles.
- The method of dynamic
standing might be able to
apply to improve the
process.
The effect of shoulder
posture on performance,
discomfort and muscle
fatigue whilst working on
a visual display unit by
L.M. Straker, C.M.
Pollock, J.E. Mangharam.
[8]
- The study was conducted
to determine the
relationship between
posture and performance
while working on a VDU.
- The study was made to
investigate the discomfort
in 30˚ flexion posture
compared to 0˚ flexion
- Most of the abrasive
blasting works in marine
industry involved in used
of shoulder at more than
30˚ flexion sometimes
especially when working
at the ship side.
- The poor working
posture in abrasive
18
posture.
- It is found out that the
30˚ flexion posture show
significant discomfort and
fatigue compared to 0˚
flexion posture.
- It is also found out that
performance is also
affected by the discomfort.
blasting might cause
fatigue and discomfort of
shoulder. This might also
impact the performance of
the worker.
Ergonomic interventions
for commercial crab
fishermen by Gary A.
Mirka, Xiaopeng Ning,
Sangeun Jin, Omid
Haddad, Kristen L.
Kucera. [10]
- The study was conducted
to design, develop and
testing of two simple
ergonomic interventions to
reduce exposure to these
risk factors related to
commercial fishing
industry.
- It is found out that with
correct interventions, the
muscle force requirement
and stress could be
reduced significantly.
- The risk related to
abrasive blasting is quite
similar with risk related to
commercial fishing
industry in term of
strength, endurance and
repetition.
- It is proven that poor
posture caused extensive
muscle force requirement
and increase muscle stress.
- It is also proven that with
correct interventions,
muscle force requirement
and muscle stress could be
reduced and lower the risk
related to the abrasive
blasting.
Whole body vibration and
posture risk factors for
- The study was conducted
to investigate the risks
- One of the main risks
related to abrasive blasting
19
low back pain among
forklift truck drivers by J.
Hoy, N. Mubarak, S.
Nelson, M. Sweerts de
Landas, M. Magnusson,
O. Okunribido, M. Pope.
[11]
from whole-body
vibration and posture
demands for low back
pain among forklift truck
drivers.
- It is found out that
vibration acts
associatively with other
factors to precipitate low
back pain.
is vibrations.
- It is proven that vibration
could associate with poor
working posture to cause
musculoskeletal disorder.
Table 2.1: Summary of Related Literature Reviews
2.3 Ergonomics and improvements
Based on the experience in ergonomics fields, Hendrick has listed down
several lessons learned for ergonomics to improve a system. He explained that:
1. The science and practice of ergonomics are same throughout the world.
2. Ergonomics technology can be applied to any system, product or built
environment.
3. Good ergonomics projects typically give a direct cost benefit of from 1 to 2,
to 1 to 10, with a typical payback period of 6 to 24 months.
4. Effective ergonomics programs on large system development projects take
only 1% of the engineering design budget.
5. The earlier ergonomics is applied in design, the cheaper the cost and greater
the benefit.
6. Costs and benefits of ergonomics projects must be measured.
7. Less tangible benefits from ergonomic improvements also can have a
significant economic impact.
8. Employee ergonomics training is important to safety and productivity.
9. OSHA guidelines really do work.
20
10. True macroergonomics interventions typically achieve a 50% - 90%
improvement in one or more work system effectiveness criteria.
It can be concluded that applications of good ergonomics can bring a good
impact on abrasive blasting or other system safety, health, productivity and profit of
a company. Even with the cheapest cost, good ergonomics could bring significant
benefit to company. [12]
Kivi and Mattila in their journal mentioned that the method applied should be
practical and tested to improve the ergonomics at work. It is also suggested that all
level at a company involved in the improvement including management and
employees. It is also proven that the ergonomics in an industry could be improved
using the correct method. [13]
2.4 Analysis method
There are several method can be used to evaluate the working posture of
abrasive blaster. However, there are only two method is considered for the project.
The methods are Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS) and Rapid
Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
2.4.1 Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS)
OWAS was developed by a steel industry company in Finland and used to
describe workloads during the overhauling of iron smelting ovens. The observation
using OWAS has 252 possible combinations resulted from weight of the load (three
categories), back posture (four postures), arms (three postures), and lower extremities
(seven postures). The results is divided into four categories which indicating a need
for ergonomic change. Sampling is carried out using fixed-time intervals and through
"snapshots" observation. The equipment required is a computerized system named
WinOWAS. [14]
2.4.1.1 Strength of the method [14]
21
1. Widely used and documented
2.4.1.2 Limitations of the method [14]
1. Does not separate right and left upper extremities.
2. Assessment of neck and elbows/wrists are missing.
3. Time consuming.
4. Does not consider repetition or duration of the sequential postures.
5. Decisions rules based on frequency distribution are arbitrary.
6. Need a proper observational technique and strategy.
2.4.2 Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
Rapid entire body assessment (REBA) was developed to assess the type of
unpredictable working postures found in health-care and other service industries.
Data are collected about the body posture, forces used, type of movement or action,
repetition, and coupling. A final REBA score is generated to give an indication of the
level of risk and urgency with which action should be taken. In the spectrum of
postural analysis tools, REBA lies between the detailed event-driven systems and
time-driven tools. The initial developement was based on Rapid Upper Limb
Assessment (RULA) and OWAS. Tables in REBA are available to transform the 144
posture combinations into a single score that represents the level of musculoskeletal
risk. These score are then banded into five action levels that advice on the urgency of
avoiding or reducing the risk of the assessed posture. [15]
2.4.2.1 Strength of the method [15]
1. Rapid to use.
2. Computerized registration.
3. Public domain.
2.4.2.2 Limitations of the method [15]
22
1. Not recommended for assessing tasks that are primarily manual material
handling tasks.
2. While considering forces and activity, the REBA method focused primarily
on work postures.
3. This method does not consider the duration of activity, the recovery period or
vibration.
4. This method does not suitable for assessing jobs that involve a number of
different and varying tasks.
5. The method only allows for the separate assessment of right and left hand
sides of the body and there is no method to combine these scores into total
body risk score.
6. The method only allows for looking at either one point of time or at the
'worst' postures observed for a task.
7. The user must use their judgment to decide on or select representative
postures of the task.
8. The cumulative effects of all activities performed during a job or task are not
considered.
9. If the job or task involve unusual, difficult to categorize, or unobservable, the
risk associated with the job or task may not be adequately reflected by the
result of the method.
10. A general risk level is provided but it cannot predict injuries to individual
operators.
11. This method does not account for individual risk factors including gender,
age, or medical history.
23
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The main purpose of the research is to suggest a few ergonomics
interventions in abrasive blasting process in marine industry. Data for this research
were collected through a survey form that is working at MMHE. The results of the
survey would be analyzed and interventions will be made and tested using REBA
method.
24
3.2 Methodology flow chart
25
Problem identification
Literature review
Survey distribution and job observation
Survey and observation analysis
Suggestions for interventions
Result
Discussion
Conclusion
3.2.1 Problem identification
The problem identification was made during my industrial training period at
MMHE. The problem was suggested by my industrial supervisor.
3.2.2 Literature review
Find and study journals, websites and other sources related to the project. The
literature review is important to guide me to achieve objective of my project.
3.2.3 Survey distribution and job observation
Survey is made using survey form that has been developed from NIOSH
guidelines. The information needed is related to musculoskeletal disorder and work
nature. The survey will be distributed among the blaster.
The job observation will be done to analyze the musculoskeletal disorder
risks related to the process. The observation will be done using Rapid Entire Body
Assessment (REBA) method.
3.2.4 Survey analysis
The data obtained from the survey and job observation is interpreted into
graph and tabular form and the result will be analyzed.
3.2.5 Suggestions of intervention
The suggestion will be made based on the analyzed data and guide by the
NIOSH and OSHA guidelines.
3.2.7 Result
26
The result of this project is referring to data obtained from the survey and
observation. Both results from the survey and observation. The comparison will
determine the successful of this project.
3.2.8 Conclusion
The conclusions will be based on the result of the testing. If it failed, the
factors that lead to the failure would be identified.
3.3 Research instrument
The research utilized both quantitative and qualitative research methodology.
The instrument used to collect the data was general ergonomics questionnaire. The
questionnaire is based on NIOSH guidelines. The information needed is divided into
categories. The categories are:
1. Manual material handling and physical energy demand.
2. Other musculoskeletal demands.
3. Environment.
4. General workplace.
5. Tools used.
6. Gloves.
7. Administration.
Based on the information obtained, the data will be used to identify
ergonomics problems that are related to the abrasive blasting. As mentioned in
chapter 2.2.4 in chapter 2, working posture related to musculoskeletal disorder. For
further investigations on working posture that caused musculoskeletal disorder, an
observation will be conducted. The instrument needed for the observation for used in
quantitative measurement is listed in table 3.1.
Equipment Description
27
1. Weight scale The weight scale is used to measure
force or loads required for the task.
2. Camera The camera is used to take "snapshots" of
posture during the work is done.
3. Stopwatch The stopwatch is used to record time
taken for each task to complete.
4. REBA assessment worksheet The REBA assessment worksheet is
developed based on previous REBA
assessment worksheet and will be used
during observation.
Table 3.1: A set of tools to be used in observation
The qualitative data for the research come from survey form includes all
information needed as stated previously. The sample of survey form is listed as
figure 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. The sample of REBA assessment worksheet is labeled as
figure 3.5.
28
Figure 3.2: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 1)
29
Figure 3.3: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 2)
30
Figure 3.4: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 3)
31
Figure 3.5: Sample of REBA assessment worksheet
3.4 Respondent of the study
The respondents of the study would be the abrasive blaster that works in the
MMHE shipyard. A total of ten abrasive blasters would be observed and tested,
while, the others would be asked to fulfill the survey form. The observation and test
would be conducted in real working environment. Respondent personal information
such as name, age and sex is recorded with their permission.
32
REFERENCES
[
1] Enviro-Management & Research, Inc. Abrasive Blasting Operations - Engineering Control and Work Practices Manual. Cincinnati, Ohio : U.S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967.
[2] Hansel, Dave. Metal Finishing. Guidebook-directory. Abrasive Blasting System.
2002, Vol. 100.
[3] Blair, Austin. Abrasive Blasting Respiratory Protective Practices. Seattle,
Washington : U.S Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1974.
[4] Labor, United States Department of. Occupational Safety & Health
Administration. Abrasive Blasting Hazards in Shipyard Environment. [Online] U.S
Department of Labor, December 2006.
http://www.osha.gov/dts/maritime/standards/guidance/shipyard_guidance.html.
[5] Cohen, Alexander L., et al. Elements of Ergonomics Programs : A primer on
Workplace Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders. Cincinnati : U.S. department
of Health and Human Services, 1997.
[6] Administration, Occupational Safety and Health. Guidelines for Shipyards.
s.l. : U.S. Department of Labor, 2008.
[7] Physical load in ship maintenance: Hazard evaluation by means of workplace
survey . Joode, Berna van Wendel de, Burdof, Alex and Verspuy, Carolina. 3,
33
Rotterdam, Netherlands : elsevier Science Ltd, 1997, Vol. 28.
[8] The Effect of Shoulder Posture on Performance, Discomfort and Muscle Fatigue
Whilst Working on a Visual Display Unit . Straker, L.M., Pollock, C.M. and
Mangharam, J.E. Perth : Industrial Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1996, Vol. 20.
[9] Comparing dynamic and stationary standing postures in an assembly line.
Balasubramaniam, Ventakesh, Adalarasu, K. and Regulapati, Rahul. Perth :
Elsevier, 1996, Vol. 20.
[10] Ergonomic interventions for commercial crab fishermen. Mirka, Gary A., et al.
Ames : Elsevier, 2011, Vol. 41.
[11] Whole body vibration and posture risk factors for low back pain among forklift
truck drivers . Hoy, J., et al. Aberdeen : elsevier, 2004, Vol. 284.
[12] Applying Ergonomics to Systems: Some Documented "lessons learned" .
Hendrick, Hal W. California : Elsevier Ltd., 2008, Vol. 39.
[13] Analysis and improvement of work postures in the building industry: application
of the computerised OWAS method . Kivi, P. and M.Mattila. 1, Finland : s.n., 1991,
Vol. 22.
[14] Observing working postures in industry: Examples of OWAS application.
Karhu, Osmo, et al. 12, s.l. : Applied ergonomics, 1981, Vol. 1.
[15] Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Hignett, Sue and McAtamney, Lynn.
Nottingham, UK : Elsevier, 1999, Vol. 31.
34
APPENDICES
Appendix A: REBA Employee Assessment Worksheet
35
