Lydia Frenzel Conference Series - Advisory Counciladvisorycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ac10056.pdf · Source: Puget Sound Study “Clean Alternatives to Sandblasting”

Thank you for downloading this file. If you would like further information on water jetting visit the Lydia Frenzel Conference Series. The Advisory Council is a nonprofit, privately funded membership organization that provides a forum for dialogue (want to make it where the whole population can understand) and the dissemination of information pertaining to the economic and social effects (what about emotional that is an effect too) of technological development throughout the world.

The Council solicits and makes available pertinent information from both private and public sources, seeks expression of points of view from all who may wish to contribute, advances consensus opinions and selected issues of standards and standards organizations, develops networking to match speaking and information resources with the needs and demands of the community, and promotes specific seminars and symposia.

A Primary Mission of the Council is to promote effective means of surface preparation in the maintenance industry using water and water/abrasive blasting techniques.

This mission is viewed as important because the conservation of resources, particularly the public infrastructure, has a significant and long lasting economic impact on the well-being of every citizen (and every citizen’s future and well being).

The Advisory Council is a sponsor of the Lydia Frenzel Conference Series.

http://www.lydiafrenzel.com

http://www.advisorycouncil.org

Ultra-High Pressure Water BlastingOptimization of the Surface Preparation Process ThroughProcess Reengineering, Ergonomics, and Environmental

Improvements

Presented byLisa Sovilla, Atlantic Marine, Inc.

January 19, 2001

Maritech ASE Program

Atlantic

Maritech-ASE: UHP Blasting Project January 19, 2001

TEAM MEMBERS

•Atlantic Marine Holding Company - (Prime Contractor) Willcontribute shipyard resources and shipyard facility.

•Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation - (Team Partner) Willcontribute shipyard resources and shipyard facility.

•Munro & Associates, Inc - (Team Partner) Will contributeErgonomics and Design for Manufacturing Expertise.

•Dana M. Austin Environmental Consulting, Inc - (TeamPartner) National Environmental consulting practicespecializing in Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry.

The project team will strive to achieve a 50%reduction in total life cycle costs associated withthe UHP Water Blasting Process throughindustrial engineering methods, ergonomicanalysis, and environmental engineering efforts.


Project Objective

• Worker fatigue induced by activities involving prolonged andrepetitive use of heavy tools and equipment

•Discharge of water (process and storm water) contaminated withheavy metals into adjacent waterways and onto adjacent propertyvia storm drains and into the ground water by percolation.

•Emissions of particulate matter from dry abrasive blasting.

•Increasing life cycle cost associated with the surface preparationprocess.


Challenges that are being addressed by project


UHP Water Blasting:Barriers to Productivity

=+•HP Water Blasting Equip

•UHP Water Blasting Equip

•Robotic Self Contained Equipment

•Low Maintenance UHP Pumps

•Manual Self Contained

Equipment

•Current average productivity rates 40 - 60 sqft/mhr


John, Insert ManualWater BlastingPictures

Technology Application Opportunities•High fatigue factor associated with blasting guns

•Material Replacement Costs are High

•Lack of process controls in place

•Need for effective collection system to eliminate heavy metals

•Need to minimize the amount of waste water produced.


John, Insert Hydro-cat Pictures

Technology Application Opportunities•High Setup Costs

•Cannot be used for blasting over un-even trim.

•Requires motorized rigging apparatus.

•Process produces various types of waste products.

• Workers must be trained to operate machine via remote control.

Maritech-ASE: UHP Blasting Project Dec 15, 2000

Task 2: Establish baseline metrics for current UHP Water BlastingProcess

IE studies were completed on current processes; Current materialcosts were determined;industry surveys were performed to obtainbaseline metrics; metrics validated for fatigue factor inherent incurrent process; current environmental containment processes weredocumented and measured.

Technical Strategy

Water Blasting ProjectWater Blasting Project

Delay24%

Personal24%

Major Movement

11%Set-up

4%

Fatigue13%

Nozzle On24%

Total hrs studied: 53 hrs - 5 minutes

Water Blasting ProjectWater Blasting Project

Other12%

Salinity Test1%

Equip Prob29%

Idle16%

Wait42%

Total hrs studied: 13 hrs - 39minutes

Delay

AccomplishmentsUltra-High Pressure Water Blasting

•Established Baseline Metrics for UHP Water Blasting Process

>Total Life Cycle Cost of UHP Blasting = $5.08 / sqft

Includes:

•Labor Cost (71-100 sqft / manday)

•Material Cost

•Containment/Disposal Cost

•Utility Cost (water, electricity)

•Maintenance Cost

•Equipment Depreciation Cost

Industry Productivity RatesIndustry Productivity RatesSource: Puget Sound Study “Clean Alternatives to Sandblasting” 12/95

Project Metrics

Blast Rate (sqft/man-day)

Blast Material Cost ($/sqft)

Containment Cost ($/sqft)

Disposal Cost ($/sqft)

Total Cost ($/sqft)

Dry Abrasive

226 sqft/man-day

$0.44 / sqft

$11.04 / sqft

$3.14 /sqft

$17.15 / sqft

UHP Blasting

71 sqft/man-day

$0 / sqft

$0 / sqft

$0.78 / sqft

$8.02 / sqft


Task 3: Perform Benchmarking Studies

Benchmarking studies were performed for environmental materialsand containment equipment, as well as Water Blasting materials,consumables, and equipment.

Industry Survey was sent to 374 US shipyards.

Technical Strategy


Industry Benchmarking Results (Preliminary)

•18 shipyards responded to survey (374 surveys mailed)

•38% of responses indicated that they use UHP Water-blasting for surface preparation

•The respondents indicated that most UHPWJ is performed in-house, rather than sub-contracted.

•Average production rate reported for manual blasting to bare metal was less than 50 sq ft per man-hour.

•Average production rate reported for closed cycle UHPWJ to bare metal was 200 - 300 sq ft per man-hour.

•The size and composition of blasting crew varied significantly.

Industry’s Cost Perception

Ultra-High Pressure Water Blasting

•Total Life Cycle Cost of UHP Blasting = $1.63 / sqft

Includes:

•Labor Cost ($.95/sqft)

•Material Cost ($.26/sqft)

•Other ($.42/sqft)*

* Other includes Overhead Costs, Clean-up & Disposal, Depreciation, and Maintenance Costs)

UHP Demonstration at SP-3 Meeting in Seattle

Jet Edge Hydro-Crawler

•Magnetic traction

•Fully contained

Hammlemann Robot 322

•Fully Contained Deck Blaster

•Can articulate to blast flat bottoms

UHP Demonstration at SP-3 Meeting (Seattle)

Flow Hydrocat

• Cable supported

• Fully contained

Aqua-Dyne Aqua-Scrubber

•Boom-lift actuated

• Requires dock containment


Task 4: Provide Ergonomic Solutions to decrease the fatigue factor

Identify ergonomic risk factors associated with the uhp water blastingprocess; Implement ergonomic interventions and establishevaluation metrics to measure the impact of the interventions on thefatigue factor.

Technical Strategy


Ergonomic Issues withManual Equipment

•Prolonged Static Postures

•Prolonged Awkward Postures

•Prolonged Static Forces



•The equipment is typically supported by the operator with one arm extended for control of the blasting end.

•Operators are required to support the full weight of the equipment and hoses using their arms.



•The equipment must be fairly mobile for use in different positions - and is inherently unstable.


Ergonomic Issues withWork Environment

•The water-blasting which remains to be done after automatic methods is, by definition, difficult to access and non consistent.

•Much of the difficult to reach work is in the overhead.

•Operators using the water-blasting equipment are wearing protective gear which is typically hot and confining.


General Solutions to reduce stress factor

•Use a support for the forward part of the water-blasting gun instead of asking the operator to reach out and support the equipment all day.

•Provide equipment which supports the operator working overhead rather than asking the operator to support themselves and the equipment overhead.

•Provide the operator with lightweight supports which may be worn on their bodies.

•Let the tool reach the work - not the operator.

•Provide the operator with methods to reach difficult access points.


Specific Ergonomic Solutions:Turret mount for barrel support

Oar locktype feature

Low frictionstrip for sliding

Eye bolts forattachingextruded

aluminumsection to railand retaining

slider

Slider for lateraladjustment


Specific Ergonomic Solutions:Turret mount for barrel support

Features

•Guns must be able to be quickly removed from the turret.

•Guns might also be balanced around the turret mount so minimal force is needed to aim the gun.

•Dual triggers should be employed for safety.

•Turrets should be mobile but also able to be locked down.

•Turrets should allow for the gun to have some fore-aft movement as well as side-to-side translation/rotation

•Turrets should not require more than a few seconds to adjust to a new position.


Specific Ergonomic Solutions:Safety Harness Equipped with

Gun Supports

•Support the weight of guns and hoses on their torso instead of their arms.


Specific Ergonomic Solutions:Safety Harness Equipped with

Gun Supports

Velcro type - Dual-lock for support straps

•Supports should be located at hip and shoulder,.

•Supports should be adjustable.

•Supports should be removable for operator preference.


Specific Ergonomic Solutions:Underside Reclining Support

Casters should belocated in (3) spots

and lockable forstability

Inclinable/Reclinableto multiple positions

Quick releasefor adjustment

(like weightbench)


Injuries & Hazards of the High Pressure WB Industry

Source: Eugenia Cheng, M.D.M.P.H.

Perceptions on Types of Injuries:

•Hearing Damage

•Physical Impact of loose uncontrolled equipment

•Needless injection / bruise-type injury

•Lacerating injury

•Penetrating injury / punctures




Perceptions on Locations of Injuries:

•Foot (most common)

•Hand (2nd most common)

•Legs

•Front Torso

•Head




Perceptions on Frequency of Injuries:

•Currently no accurate system of estimating number of water-jetting injuries

•Majority of Water-jet companies are small “mom and pop” operations with undocumented workers.




Perceptions on Complications of Injuries:

•Infection

•Amputation

•Edema

•Soft tissue destruction including blood vessels, nerves, muscles, organs

•Functional disability

•Death




Perceptions on Risk Factors for Injuries:

•Workers risk taking behavior and shortcuts to procedures

•Lack of adherence to safe work practices

•Worker fatigue

•More risk performing Water-jet cleaning (vs cutting)

•Working in confined spaces (poor visibility)

•More risk performing abrasive water-jetting vs pure Water-jet

•Shot-gunning with short gun length




Perceptions on Current Safety Practices:

•Great deal of training being done for workers

•Need development of better engineering controls

•Personal protective equipment cannot protect worker from serious injuries.




Perceptions on Current Management of Injuries:

•Need more physician awareness on treating Water-jet injuries.

•Lack of major medical facilities outside of metropolitan areas where most water-jetting is done.

•Lack of physician knowledge of seriousness of Water-jet injuries.

•Current pocket card with water-jetting information is not comprehensible to physicians.

•Need physician-friendly card with hotline or Web site for more information.


Task 5: Perform Root Cause Analysis on all the non-value addedactivities

Document all non-value added activities associated with uhp waterblasting process; Perform root cause analysis; Identify solutions tostreamline process;

Technical Strategy


Root Cause Analysis (In progress)

Facility Related

•Lack of dedicated 90psi air line.

•Occurrence of electrical outages.

•Could not drive high reaches over uneven dock floor.

•Inadequate lighting at night.

Maritech-ASE: UHP Blasting Project Dec 15, 2000

Process / People Issues

•Obstructions / Interferences did not provide clear path to work site.

•Previous work shift left equipment at another work site.

•Previous work shift did not refuel at the end of shift.

• Held to Light flash rush Visual Standard (HB 2.5 L) which only allowed a 72hr coating time.

•Lack of available certified crane operators.

•Inexperienced operators.

•Breaks and lunch were not staggered to allow high utilization rate ofequipment.

•No formal work instructions provided.

•Metrics have not been established for hydro-blasting productivity.

Root Cause Analysis (in progress)


Equipment/Other Issues

•Pressure spikes at gun.

•400 ft of hose exposed (and damaged) by rugged workenvironment.

•Lack of available spare parts on-site for pumps.

•Operators exposed to prolonged static forces.

•Orifice tips are not being replaced consistently.

•Vision obstructed in the bilge keel area.

•Daily deck cleaning required.

Root Cause Analysis (in progress)

““ElectroElectro--PulsePulse” Water Treatment System” Water Treatment System

•For treatment of process and storm-water contaminated by the UHP blasting process.

•Intended to remove “heavy metals” which remain after tiered filtration.

•After passing through Electro-pulse cell, particles are naturally coerced into forming larger particles which will drop out of solution.

•Designed and manufactured by “OilTrap Inc”

•Intended to be placed adjacent to (& feed from) current storm-water collection tanks.

•Preliminary testing of ADD storm-water treated by this system indicates “Electro-pulse” system will produce out-falls which meet drinking water quality standards.

““ElectroElectro--PulsePulse” Water Treatment System” Water Treatment System

•Systems can be designed to meet specific environmental guidelineas well as being sized to meet the needs of various sized facilities.

•System cost = $62,000 and an additional $20,000 to support/contain.

•Expected savings will be based upon current treatment costs, but could exceed $200,000 this year alone!


Continuous Improvement Initiatives Implemented (to date)

•Installed UHP Hard Piping

•Installed road access for High Reaches

•Installed attenuators at pumps

•Assigned dock floor “traffic” coordinator

• Developed improved work breakdown structure

•Improved planning and scheduling

1st Implementation - Oct 00

UHP Hard Piping installed in Dock Wingwall:

UHP HardUHP Hard--PipingPiping

with 3/8” with 3/8” diameter diameter stainless stainless UHP UHP tubingtubing


Continuous Improvement Initiatives Implemented (to date)

•Achieved 31% reduction in total life cycle costs

•Eliminated interferences

•Increased training efforts

•Increased productivity by 49%

•Increased cycle time by 18%


Task 7: Test existing and emerging technologies that reduce therisk of storm water contamination

Identify potential solutions to test that will minimize the release ofheavy metal contaminants into the environment; Test and evaluatethe environmental solutions according to their ability to minimize therelease of heavy metal contaminants.

Technical Strategy


Potential Environmental Solutions

•Develop specifications and solicit manufacturer to build prototype for a deck sweeper capable of picking up and filtering paint slurry.

•Design a low-cost alternative for capturing water at the water-blast head.

•Evaluate UHP Treatment Technologies that will result in wastewater that is acceptably clean for its designated discharge.

•Implement UHP Treatment System at shipyard.

•Design, develop a cost benefit analysis and build specifications for a complete dry dock water collection system using state of the arttechnology.

Maritech-ASE: Proposed UHP Blasting Project Feb 23, 2000

Task 8: Perform shipyard trials of the recommended improvements

Implement recommended ergonomic, process, material, andenvironmental improvements; Perform IE analysis to measure theimpact of solutions on fatigue factor, safety performance,productivity, and overall cost of process; Implement recommendedenvironmental improvements and measure impact on levels of stormwater contamination.

Technical Strategy

Jan 19, 2001


Task 9: Demonstrate final results to industry.

Prepare report of final project results; Provide shipyarddemonstration of project results;

Technical Strategy


Key Deliverables

•Project Management Plan

•Report of Baseline Metrics for current process

•Report of Benchmarking Studies

•Report of ergonomic interventions and test evaluations

•Report of root cause analysis and recommended new process

•Evaluation results of materials and equipment tested

•Evaluation results of environmental products and equipment tested

•Report and video documenting the Total Turnkey UHP Water Blasting System (includes Procedures, System Components, Shipyard Trials Results, Final Report)


Next Quarter

•Present Project Status at SP3 / SP1 Meeting in San Diego (Feb, 2001)

•Implement Ergonomic Interventions

•Test Environmental Solutions

•Complete Root Cause Analysis

Documents

Lydia Frenzel Conference Series - Advisory Counciladvisorycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ac10056.pdf · Source: Puget Sound Study “Clean Alternatives to Sandblasting”